On the slave psychology of Russians. Why Russians are “hereditary slaves

An old joker, an old one... And it looks like it should be distributed to the shisha and to those who think so. And tse patriots that they consider such a point of view the lot of "libra hamsters" and that our state is exemplary.
Let's start with the fact that the slave mentality is not about Russians. There were no less riots in Rus' than there were civil wars in ancient Rome. And this is a lot. Our mentality is more likely not state, but strangely selfish. Our history knows many examples when selfishness and the desire to extract the maximum benefit led us to a complete pzdtsu, but sometimes they united us rather well. You don't have to look far for examples. At one time, before subjugation by the horde, the principalities lost to the Mongols with a sevenfold numerical superiority, stupidly because they did not want to work together, and then someone generally wanted to ruin the neighbor who would get the most in the battle. As a result, the reconnaissance of the Mongols defeated a considerable part of the forces of the principalities, and then you yourself know what we were doing for 4 centuries in a row ... we were tributaries and slaves.

And so the whole story. The adoption of Christianity is a good thing, so Vladimir was baptized? Yes figs there. He simply realized that it would be more difficult to continue to control different cities with different higher gods than to force everyone to believe in one and remove at least the religious aspect of civil strife.

The tricks of Ivan the Terrible, whose power was supported by his guardsmen, future nobles who were given power. And believe me, he could choose random people and all of them, almost without exception, on the order to do all sorts of garbage, would specify the reward, perhaps.

And even then, from principalities to kings, nepotism and corruption flourished. Russia has never been united. It's all fake! In every period of history, someone who was not given power immediately became a little king and wanted to spit on everyone until the king saw pain. And the vaunted supposedly unity manifested itself only at the moments “we are all a skiff if we don’t start moving our asses,” unfortunately a small percentage of the people had the concept of honor and loyalty. Everyone has always been for themselves, and not for society.

And regarding the boasting, with some cadres, with two revolutions in the 20th century ... People, in England and in Europe in general, this was already mainstream by the 18th century, given how many republics in Italy and Germany were ground down by history. Yes, and add that the first revolution was based on two things. Soldiers tired of the war and who could easily be manipulated, and on drunkards, lazy people and the poor who were promised mountains of gold that they would be allowed to take away from those who earned them with their own hands (oh shock, but during the revolution, mostly wealthy peasants received in the face and for robbery that after the abolition of serfdom, they got on their feet with their own forces and almost gave birth to the middle class, and not once to the nobles)

Let's add the point that in terms of historical development we are really lagging behind. When the slavery of their fellow citizens and brothers in faith in Europe was abandoned, fully establishing some of the rights of people, albeit nominal ones. We only introduced slavery and wildly strengthened it. Neighbors send the church away from power. In Russia, its current is being brought closer. Etc. we are like a student who always skips classes, and then hastily writes off all the notes, making a lot of mistakes and poorly absorbing the material.

Not to say that our people are bad. Our people are good and quite freedom-loving. It's just that the negative qualities that I cited above are found in 90% of people who get the helm of our statehood. That's all unlucky. We are quite capable of adequate criticism and rebellion, especially when we are educated and savvy. But all the time, those who are worthy of leading the people forward are grinded by geeks who are more comfortable with what we have now. The fact that now everything is very fun is explained by the fact that many smart and reasonable people who stood on the squares in 90-91 were crushed by the hardships of the 90s, and someone generally fell down realizing that they were again trying to fuck him.

And here lies the main disadvantage of our people and many others. We have not departed from the concept of one for all. People are simply afraid of taking responsibility for their lives. They are so afraid that they are ready to die just not to be responsible. They are afraid to face problems and understand that they need to be solved without the guidance of the all-knowing and all-seeing eye, which can then be blamed for the failure and quietly hate, but feel sorry for themselves.

There is hope that young people now understand that they are individuals and that they should work, and they and leaders, and responsibility should be mutual, and not one way. And not so that the leaders believe that the people will work everything out, but the people believe that the leaders somehow themselves, and it’s better for them not to get involved, they will expose the guilty, and as a result, no one, with the exception of a few, does not want to work normally.

A killer article written about Russians, about Russians and for Russians. But I'm afraid that in Russia itself, no one needs it. Read, the article is similar to a scientific work, only a lot of emotions.

I will not comment. Let me just say that the article largely coincides with my own opinion. To my great dismay, I note. When I left, things weren't so busy.

hybrid people

... It amazes me now, how I could consider these people as my own before. The indifference, shamelessness, unscrupulousness of Russians is striking. No matter how much blood is shed, no matter how many crimes the Kremlin commits on their behalf and through the hands of their fellow citizens, the people of Russia do not care at all. They are not “deceived” at all, they just don’t want to know anything, and if they suddenly find out about what is happening, then the reaction is the same - “everything is right ... it’s necessary ... the interests of Russia ... There is simply nothing to talk with them, it’s pointless. There is a microscopic group of normal people left, they are not just in the minority, they are an endangered species.
I. Simochkin, civil activist

Today, when the Russian opposition is engaged in all kinds of mouse fuss like dachas and feeling the pockets of the Navka-Peskov couple (who in the country of thieves will surprise you with theft?); as clowns, he participates in Putin's circus show called "Elections", there is a more relevant topic, which should first of all occupy the minds of sane Russians and real oppositionists. This is not Ukraine, not Syria, and not even the rapid decline in the standard of living in Russia, but the state in which Russian society is now. Because under the “patriotic” bleating of quilted jackets and with the tacit consent of the rest, the country is being plundered, and the Kremlin continues to add to the list of its bloody crimes. The Russian people actually became an accomplice in these crimes. But the main thing is that sooner or later this regime will come to an end, and then, perhaps, conditions will appear for building a new country, democratic and free. And who will build this country? A microscopic group of remaining normal people? Endangered? And for whom anyway?

“Our Russia is a cold ocean of indifference with rare burning lights of conscience. It was and is,” wrote Alexey Melnikov. Beautifully said, all right. The reality, unfortunately, is much sadder. If without euphemisms and prettiness, then

Russia today is more reminiscent of a madhouse, in which psychos of all stripes, following the example of the most inadequate of them, immediately stopped pretending to be recovering and began to engage in all sorts of self-mutilation to spite the staff (the civilized world). Bursting with insane laughter, they gladly demonstrate their ulcers and injuries to everyone. The staff is trying to calm down, to reason with the sick, but where is it? The madmen continue to hoot, make faces and show the figs to the "enemies".

I look at my compatriots around me and try to understand who these people are? At times, they seem to be quite normal. But as soon as the conversation starts about Russian problems or about some other country, even if not about politics or economics, but about culture or history, then they start talking such Vatnikov nonsense! From my relatives, for example, I learned that Putin is a great politician because he founded the G20, Obama started the Iraq war, there is some kind of fake democracy in the USA, and Ukrainians are bad, because “what are they?” (no other arguments were found).

It is amazing that such ignorance is demonstrated by those who have higher education, who have academic degrees. Who regularly visits Europe and the USA, and not only in the resorts of Turkey. And even those who plan to leave forever and live outside their homeland!

Simochkin is absolutely right. It is useless to prove something, to give counterarguments. All facts, figures, reasonable arguments get stuck in cotton wool, with which, apparently, the heads of most Russians are stuffed. Dissent, the ability to think critically and realistically assess reality causes irritation and aggression.

There is no doubt that today we are witnessing a progressive mental and, worst of all, moral degradation of the Russian population. Complete inability and unwillingness to think and analyze independently.

Growing atrophy of human qualities such as dignity, shame, conscience, mercy. The cult of aggression and cruelty. “Paroxysms of anger and delight experienced by the public about the fact that someone is being bombed, someone is being killed…” One can speak with a high degree of certainty about the moral mutation that has occurred for the majority of Russians.

Who are they, my today's compatriots? Language does not turn to call them fellow citizens. Because people who have lost almost all constitutional rights, indifferently or enthusiastically accepting that the masters of the country are depriving them of food, affordable and high-quality medicine, good roads, everything that makes up a decent life; decide for them what to eat, watch, read, where to go, they are not citizens.

Seeing Russians at jingoistic pro-government rallies, plastered on all sides with St. George symbols, I cannot help feeling that these are not civilized people, but savages from an unknown Mumba-Yumba tribe participating in pagan rites. If we continue to draw parallels, then today in Russia there are almost all the attributes of savage life: the Leader, the Most Holy Shaman of All Rus', the worship of a mummified idol, sacred sacrifices, ritual dances in rags, primitive views on the world order, systemic backwardness, the desire for isolation from the civilized world. Moreover, Putin's Russia is by no means a peaceful community of people, but an aggressive tribe of war, regularly raiding its neighbors, engaging in territorial robberies, constantly conflicting or provoking armed clashes with other peoples.

But, once again, making sure how indifferently and humbly the Russians accept how the authorities, with their idiotic laws and regulations, reduce the quality of their life and infringe on their rights; with what readiness the population of Russia is led to any lies of the Kremlin and responds with popular support for Putin's adventures in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and now Syria,

it seems to me that most of my compatriots are not even a tribe of savages, but a herd of stupid animals.

This indifferent herd wanders, from time to time joyfully running and darting in response to the blows of the whip, and does not want to notice that the shepherd is not chasing them to a pasture with juicy herbs and a clear stream, but to a slaughterhouse. Many Russians, apparently, feel quite comfortable in the role of either donkeys or sheep, since they have long forgotten about self-esteem, conscience and other qualities that distinguish a person from animals.

I cannot fail to mention here the surprisingly topical film "Reed Paradise" (1989), just about human dignity and sheep people. Remind me of the plot. The film is set in an underground labor camp. All sorts of rabble (lumpen) work there, as well as the unemployed who fell for the bait of experienced recruiters. From morning to evening, under the scorching sun, the so-called "sheep" work hard at harvesting reeds for gruel, a portion of water and cigarettes, live in bestial conditions and are beaten by guards ("shepherds") for "lack of zeal". The protagonist of the picture, refusing the opportunity to become a "shepherd", throughout the film makes an escape after escape, trying to prove that he is not a "sheep". At some point, a situation arises when several dozen "rams" are left unattended by the "shepherds", with weapons. But instead of running away, they decide to tie up the rebels and return to the camp with them, counting on the encouragement of the camp authorities. "Sheep" make a choice in favor of penal servitude, because behind the thorn - although a bestial life, but guaranteed gruel and smoke, and at large - it is still unknown what.

Unfortunately, many who wrote reviews of Kamyshov Rai saw the relevance of the picture only in the fact that illegal labor enterprises still exist in Russia. And this is clear evidence that our country is seriously ill. Because the meaning of the film, of course, is deeper. It is about spiritual freedom and personal slavery. In the underground camp, it is easy to see the features of the current Russian society, its sort of mini-model, the relationship between the authoritarian government and the people (“shepherds” - “sheep”). Russian modern "sheep", as well as camp slaves, are afraid of life in conditions of democracy and freedom. They choose a not very well-fed life, humiliation and lack of rights, hiding behind Vatnikov's "otherwise it will be even worse" and "who needs us there." You might think that a country like Russia needs them. Judging by the social policy pursued by the Kremlin, our "Syra-Pyra", like the owner of the camp, apparently imagines himself a "social orderly", who rids the country of "extra" people and human garbage. Why not? In the end, Putin's organized crime group, which is now in power, does not need so many "rams" to maintain, relatively speaking, a gas pipe and a nuclear suitcase.

So who, in the end, was brought up by “Our free Fatherland, fraternal peoples, the age-old union”? Aggressive savages, obedient rams, or even some kind of amorphous slurry, obediently flowing where the wind blows? Neither one nor the other.

Most likely, some ugly hybrid, which, unfortunately, took far from the best from other "species" and today represents a dangerous explosive mixture for the civilized world.

Dangerous because the national idea to which the hybrid people turned out to be receptive was not the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants and the prosperity of the nation, not the protection of freedoms or, for example, the establishment of peace and good neighborly relations with neighboring states, but the utopian revival of the collapsed empire, collecting lands and fighting the fictional enemies of Russia (including almost all civilized countries now). It turned out that “after more than a decade and a half spent with the current president, only hatred can unite the Russian people. The object of which is anyone who points the finger of the boss. ”(I. Milshtein)

I absolutely do not share the opinion of those naive optimists who believe that all this is the result of a TV zombie, one has only to turn off the TV, and tomorrow we will wake up in a new country among some other people. Alas, people will remain the same. Maybe they will say something else, but rather repeat the mantras of the new “guru” like parrots, but this will not change the essence.

Because today's Russians are not a product of propaganda, or rather, not so much propaganda as many years of humiliation by a low quality of life and lack of rights. As a result, we see that centuries have passed, the twenty-first century is in the yard, and in Russia serfs and serfs have not disappeared anywhere.

Slave psychology and the habit of living in unacceptable conditions for a civilized country are firmly rooted among the inhabitants. Broken roads, collapsed facades of houses, dirt on the streets, shabby state clinics, hospitals and other social institutions against the backdrop of shining splendor of buildings of pension funds, law enforcement agencies and authorities - all this has become natural and organic for the residents of the "Empire", and not crap, repaired is perceived with surprise, sometimes causing vague anxiety and discomfort. Moreover, it is so strong that some “citizens” are trying to bring what they see in line with the situation familiar to the eye. Recall a familiar situation. You move into a new house (sometimes lucky). Very little time will pass, and your clean entrance will change beyond recognition: the elevator and mailboxes scratched and covered with all sorts of obscenities, spitting on loose railings, the ceiling covered in black spots from cigarette butts ... Or remember Russians relaxing in nature among heaps of garbage. Some of the more affluent people come in jeeps and, apparently, after watching TV shows about a beautiful life, even with picnic baskets. But it would never occur to them to clean up the territory around! People who are accustomed to living, excuse me, in shit, do not see anything unnatural in resting in the garbage. And the outhouses still existing in Russia?!

In this state of affairs, one can be sure that there is no bottom to the decline in the living needs of Russians. Even if tomorrow the government transfers the population to hay and mixed fodder, they will still praise Putin, blame the enemies led by Obama for everything, and consider themselves a great God-chosen nation that has the right to impose on everyone their “leather, homespun, horse-drawn values ​​of the “Russian world”.

« Greatness in slavery - this paradox is unique to Russia. Sovereign ambitions enthusiastically accepted by the state-controlled crowd is a collective megalomania. ... This is a rampage of megalomaniac slaves who have been allowed by the master state to realize their satanic hatred towards free people. (A.Dovlatov ).

So the opposition today has a lot of things to do, and they are more important than the search for what was acquired by overwork from the Twelve Friends of Putin cooperative. Putin's regime is dying, it can collapse at any moment. Society must be ready for this. A clear and concrete program of action is needed to change the existing order. Offer the Russians a real alternative to the development of the country in the interests of society, the right guidelines, a kind of beacons. Just let it be a sincere desire to improve people's lives, and not another attempt under populist slogans to join the thieves' feeder. And then you will be supported.

The opposition also has a lot of educational work to do to overcome the Russians' sovereign ambitions and swagger because of the largest territory. They will have to act as a kind of missionaries and somehow convey to 85-90% that:

• the times of empires and raids on neighbors are over, the country is strong not with territories and resources, but with their competent management in the interests of all its citizens;
• Russia has long been no longer a world leader, but an ordinary resource-based state, of which there are many;
• Russians are no worse, but no better than other nations;
• there is no God's choice, and a special path of development is the path of backward African countries;
• there are no enemies surrounding Russia, but there is a myth invented by thieves in power to fool the masses and divert attention from their criminal scams;
• the wars Putin wages are for your money; no need to be surprised that you are living worse and worse: with your jingoistic howls and silence, you yourself agreed to this;
• xenophobia, nationalism, chauvinism are not only bad, but also dangerous, primarily for the Russians themselves, since they are manifestations of the fascist ideology, strongly imposed by the Kremlin...

To the Russians, I want to say: “Wake up from your pseudo-patriotic, militaristic frenzy!” We still have a choice - to become a free, prosperous country over time, or either to join the list of the poorest countries in the world, or to be plunged into the Great War, where there will be no winners. Finally unstick from your zombie boxes and take a sober, only necessarily sober look at what is happening. Stop blaming mythical enemies for your troubles and sort out the problems of other countries. If you are true patriots, take care of the affairs of your fatherland! Otherwise, as V. Shenderovich wrote, "it did not work out to live like a human being - at least we will serve, once again, as a terrible example for humanity."

“The world is as it is ... and let people live terribly in Russia! People live terribly in North Korea, although they certainly need to be saved. People live terribly in Africa. What can you do here? In the end, it's their business. So the Russians will be a living example of a terrible life. ... It’s just that the Russians should know that this is their choice” M. Maly).

By God, it does not cause irritation when you hear nonsense from fools or scoundrels. For a fool, it is, one might say, a calling to speak nonsense; for a bastard who works in the field of propaganda, it is a profession. Everything here is organic.

It causes some irritation when seemingly smart and decent people say nonsense. And one of these very common and rooted nonsense is about the almost natural servility of the Russian people, who, de, are only capable of either licking the hard hand of their despotic master, or, not finding it, fall into the animal rampage of a senseless and merciless rebellion .

I heard this hundreds of times, about the “feminine” nature of the Russian nation, masochistic love for the whip and almost genetically determined cringing before any tyranny (and the more ferocious, the lower the bow).

That was said by many people who fell into despondency, close to despair. “Look at these people! He probably has slavery in his blood for a long time. Whoever tried to get rid of it - everyone broke off. They themselves want to be slaves. No pride, no dignity, no honor ... no appearance, no wool - only meanness. And the readiness to squeal with delight, to be happy as hell for royal handouts. You will never do anything worthwhile with these people.”

I objected: “What you have described, this servility, servility, servility, certainly takes place. It would be foolish to deny. But these are all phenomena not of the Russian, but of the Muscovite mentality. Caused not at all by “genetics”, but by the socio-political characteristics of Muscovy.”

They also objected to me: “It is, of course, wonderful, to believe in it, but after all, Muscovy did not just arise and prevail. Especially not just like that - it revives this particular mentality over and over again, after each of its crashes. So maybe it should be recognized that it is this slave mentality that is primary, and the socio-political organization is secondary, only stems from it?

He shrugged his shoulders: “But the fact that Muscovy is collapsing over and over again, and each time as if for no particular reason, doesn’t suggest that it is still an alien phenomenon here?”

You can also understand when foreigners talk about the innate slavery of Russians. Especially from countries that were once subjugated by the Russian Empire, and now are very proud that they have gained freedom. Although even in this case one has to be a little upset: “My friend, I do not intend to be offended for the entire Russian people, because I am not used to thinking too collectively. But I hope you also understand that in every nation there are different people?

However, they say (both foreigners and our skeptics) that although there are a certain number of freedom-loving and strong people among Russians, the majority are bent slaves. For - such is the burden of history, under which they, in fact, bend. Five hundred years of despotism and servility - and the degeneration of the individual as an inevitable result.

You know, I would venture to assert that almost any nation can be made into a herd of bent slaves and sycophant serfs, and not in five hundred years, but within one generation. It is only necessary to create the appropriate socio-political conditions.

Don't believe? And look, say, at the Chechens. Okay, let the Russians be eternal and finished slaves, victims of the Oprichnina and serfdom, whose resistance is broken and their dignity is trampled. But Chechens, Vainakhs? Historically, their mentality could be associated with anything, but not with slavish obedience and reverence for power. Rather, it would be more appropriate to say that they are too obstinate, too proud to accept at least some power over themselves. And it seemed that rebelliousness was almost an innate feature of the Vainakh consciousness.

And now? Here are all these numerous cases when someone dared to say at least a word of criticism against Ramzan Kadyrov, the most harmless, and then the “slanderer-slanderer” is scolded at a local meeting, convicting him of an insufficiently enthusiastic way of thinking, he repents, apologizes, explains that almost Iblis beguiled him and put such irreverent words into his unworthy lips.

This is really some fucked up. Something between the Union of Soviet Writers in the seventies and North Korea. And it is clear that not everyone among Chechens is happy with this state of affairs, but they prefer to keep silent about it. And what comes out, what sounds in full force and without embarrassment, is such servility, from which even the majority of Muscovite tyrants would blush.

And this is all - arranged by Ramzan Kadyrov? So he broke the previously adamant Vainakh spirit on his knee, because he is such a grandiose charismatic figure?

Well, he's not a complete nerd, of course. But he is far from a master of some subtle political games. His cunning is purely oriental, very infantile cunning. And in terms of leadership charisma, he is up to the same Dzhokhar Dudayev - a hundred miles in the mountains. And as for brutality, to readiness to physically destroy opponents - well, not in Chechnya, this could impress someone. Yes, there were scumbags and much worse.

Nevertheless, a completely undisguised cult of his personality has been established, and the people give the impression of being completely crushed and slavishly submissive.

How did it happen? The answer is very simple. In three words, control over the economy.

Yes, when the Vainakhs were “pacified” during the Second Chechen War, the Kremlin managed to win over to its side many influential people who were separatists in the First, and now were not enthusiastic about the growing Wahhabi influence. Among them was Akhmat Kadyrov, who did not have significant military forces, but had authority as the supreme mufti. Precisely because there were no "bayonets and sabers" behind him, they decided to move him to the presidency. At the same time, for a counterbalance, purely military forces were also supported, such as the Gudermes detachment of the Yamadayevs, who also went over to the side of the federals and formally included in the structure of the GRU as the Vostok battalion.

Ramzan Kadyrov, one might say, became the leader by inheritance, after the death of his father in a terrorist attack. And what he really did quite effectively after gaining presidential power was the concentration in his hands of control over financial flows from Russia (and there were practically no other sources for the Chechen economy). Well, he really skillfully lured militants to him, both from other "loyalists" and from insurgents, guaranteeing an amnesty and a somewhat privileged position not only in Chechnya, but also in Russia.

So gradually Ramzan subjugated the entire republic under him, offering the Kremlin an unspoken (unofficial, at least) agreement: for this, just pay money and do not interfere with me doing business. ”

And although the way he dealt with the Yamadayevs and a number of other Chechen former field commanders, now “loyalists”, did not please everyone in the Russian leadership, they decided to turn a blind eye to any of his pranks, if only to provide the appearance of victory over Chechen separatism. Moreover, they put up with his monopoly control over financial flows from Russia, when he squeezed out of the government people who were originally appointed to still restrain his appetites.

Well, when someone gets monopoly control over the economy (and the more primitive it is, the fewer sources of income - the easier it is to arrange it) - it’s not a matter of centuries, but a matter of a few years, so that the nation, previously famous for its audacity and desperation, acquires a completely kneeling and sycophantic look (at least outwardly).

For it is good, of course, to be proud and reckless at the age of seventeen, when there is nobody and nothing to lose and everything is all the same. It is somewhat more difficult when you have a family, children, grandchildren, and they need to be fed somehow. And around the neighbors who have the same thing. And now you allow yourself to somehow speak respectfully enough about the guy who controls all financial flows - so he doesn’t even have to threaten you with the horrors of cellars in Tsentoroi. It is enough for him to hint that subsidies for your village can be reviewed. And when it lives only thanks to these subsidies, like the whole republic, then your neighbors will quite voluntarily devour you with shit at a general meeting.

Which, of course, looks completely disgusting from the outside and raises questions: “How can people be so servile? How many centuries of oppression did they have to endure for their consciousness to be so deformed that there would be no dignity left in it?”

Not at all. And no harassment. Ten years of feeding from the hand of the giver, in the absence of other sources, and the matter is ready. And during this time, young people are already growing up, for whom this usurper ruler is really a king and a god. Because they understand that in order to live well, you need to praise him well, and this is almost the only thing they learn. But he will not be - what for, no one will need his "clientella" and "clack".

And in order to usurp control over a primitive economy with very limited sources of income, one does not really need to perform any feats of reason and will. It is required - in order to avoid this, the temptation to rake up everything that is possible under you, and to strangle everything that you cannot rake up.

Actually, here Kadyrov took an example from Putin, who did about the same thing on a somewhat larger, all-Russian scale. He crushed the export of hydrocarbons (Lukoil was terrified and tamed, Yukos was torn apart) - and this gave the ruling clan an overwhelming purely financial superiority over any possible competitor within the country.

But for this, by God, it is not required to be Julius Caesar. In history, such things were done by guys much simpler. As soon as they put their paws on the streams of dough, naturally, they soon turned out to be equal-divine (and irreplaceable) guarantors of stability and people's happiness. And the proud kvirites, it seemed, were ready to pray to their "pharaoh", enduring any humiliation from him. Then, however, they did not always even bother to bury them in the ground, sometimes they threw a simply punctured corpse into the Tiber. But during their lifetime, they were surrounded by universal, as it were, completely sincere, ecstatic reverence.

Therefore, all this reasoning about the genetic propensity of nations to slavery or freedom-loving is bullshit. Let someone gain monopoly control over the economy, and the vast majority of people in any nation will very soon kowtow to him, begging for handouts.

A somewhat different matter is socio-political culture. It can grow to an understanding of why it is impossible to allow, first of all, the concentration of economic power in one hand, why an opposition is needed, behind which there is a financial resource comparable to that of the government - or it can remain in the naive belief that let our glorious father-leader shock these world-eaters -money bags to feed us, his beloved children.

In the second case, it turns out too late that if the ruling guy rakes up someone else's property under himself, takes control of the sources of income, then what he is least interested in is the development of the economy, the emergence of new sources of income. For in this he rightly sees a threat to his sole power.

Well, Muscovy is understandable that historically developed as a military camp that required unity of command (or rather, it was very convenient for the rulers to rub the population that there was such a requirement and there were no other ways of development). This happened for a number of reasons, including geographical ones, but among them one can hardly take seriously any kind of genetic propensity for Russians to slavery.

No, practice shows that any nation, if it allows a certain ruling clan to usurp power over the economy (in the name of stability and the common good, of course), turns into a herd of slaves in a matter of years. Because people need something to eat, to feed their families. And when you can get food only from the king, you have to bow down before him lower and lower. And in any society, there are really few people who can effectively resist this order of things.

On the other hand, when they are sought out (as a rule, unexpectedly), it does not matter at all how many other people there prayed to the king and idolized him. Or rather, the day after tomorrow - it turns out to be difficult to find at least someone who would confess the sincerity of their loyal feelings for the former tsar.

But it is better, of course, when a preventive understanding is established, at least among the elites, of the inadmissibility of the concentration of power over the economy in the hands of the government. This avoids such consequences as, say, in modern Libya. After all, everyone there loved Gadaffi for a very long time and very passionately, then it turned out that not everyone and not very much, but the reformatting of the political structure faces some difficulties. Of course, it would have been better if Gadaffi, to begin with, had not been allowed to acquire the power that he had. Including - and it would be better for him. You see, he would die in his own bed.

As for the "common people" - well, it is extremely rare that they are so conscious that they are also wary of allowing such a goat as the government into the financial garden. Here you really need to have a Swiss socio-political culture in order to deny the government the right to bully living allowances and pensions.

The majority of "ordinary people" of any nation, even quite developed European ones, tend to look at the government as a "guarantor of a fair distribution of material wealth." If their point of view can be pushed into power, a fair distribution will come. Namely: for slaves - a bowl of stew, only so that they do not stretch their legs. Well, a chocolate bar on top - only to those slaves who will especially succeed in glorifying their beloved government. Any creative intelligentsia there.

The main thing is that all the voters, in any country, who seriously dream about how to give the government more control over the economy, and then expect to somehow control it themselves, are not just potential slaves, but idiot slaves. Who do not understand that once the government is in the position of a monopoly benefactor, becomes the only (or at least the dominant) source of wealth, it will not have to fucking fight for the sympathy of the electorate. It will simply buy everyone it needs for "chocolate for the soup."

As for the Russian people specifically, maybe I am overly optimistic, but I hope that after the collapse of the next imperial project (in a rather farcical form), Muscovy will be completely buried (as a concept of a political structure), and the surviving people (and their will be many) will finally return to the "Novgorod" paradigm of public-private relations. To such an extent that even the domestic intelligentsia will finally stop groveling before the “throne”, begging for handouts, and will think about some more decent ways to ensure their well-being.

Who really turns out to be an immanent slave - well, his business, his choice. I personally do not intend to somehow correct and treat its nature. For what? I'm for giving everyone the opportunity to be themselves, and not forcing them to pretend that they are something else. After all, we have to pay significant reparations, and it will be logical if we pay those slaves who enjoyed their servility. Maybe there are buyers who will also be able to enjoy it.

The long-held thesis about the “slave psychology” allegedly inherent in the Russian people, in fact, does not withstand any criticism, and the historical prerequisites for the emergence of this thesis are exactly the opposite - for many thousands of years no one has ever been able to enslave the Russian people ( the Russian soul does not accept slavery with all its fibers), therefore, any government in Russia has to artificially support this thesis, actively developing, retaining and maintaining at a high level certain methods of manipulating people's consciousness.

However, the society itself helps the authorities to support this thesis. After all, the paradox of such an unprecedented love of freedom of the Russian people leads to the fact that any encroachment on the restriction of their freedoms causes a completely inadequate backlash - the people plunge into apathy and unrestrained drunkenness, and poets and writers burst into such masterpieces as, for example, Pushkin - “Why are the herds gifts freedom?", Lermontov - "The country of masters, the country of slaves", Chernyshevsky - "A miserable nation of slaves. From top to bottom, all slaves.

Public thought begins to oscillate in unison, and the vast majority of people are mentally controlled beings. And now the information space in which these people live has already been formed in an appropriate way, and the authorities begin to control not only the consciousness, but also the behavior of these people, who have accepted the thesis described above as the truth. That is why those who want to control the masses and force them to follow their plans, first of all, seek to seize control of the media, where lies and double standards prevail.

Of course, the most persistent and intellectually strong part of the people is able to break out of the false information space, but the authorities have always sought to either destroy such people or isolate the rest from their influence. Of course, there is a certain risk in this for those in power, since such a policy leads to the degradation of the nation and a decrease in the efficiency of its use, but as old Marx used to say, “with 300% profit, there is no such crime that he would not risk, at least under fear of the gallows, ”and then at least the grass does not grow!

If there was slavery, it was only mental

And let's think about where slavery could come from in Rus', if throughout history it was actually absent. Actually, we never had slaves. We did not bring them into the country, we did not turn prisoners into slaves, we did not conquer other countries and peoples for this purpose (and even freed many from slavery). We actually never even had colonies, and each “occupied” region continued to live by its own “rules”.

Well, yes, we often complain about the "ugly serfdom", which allegedly turned the Russian people into slaves forever. Under socialism, for example, from childhood they fooled their heads with this “serfdom” (although the real state of affairs with freedoms then was no better than “before the revolution”), and until now, some democrats, if I may say so, spread deliberately false information about serfdom, as main source of Russian slavery. And, meanwhile, serfdom in Russia did not exist for so long - in its most ugly, bogey form, it took shape only from 1718-1724. (and, in fact, Peter I, who brought it from the West, became the main apologist for “ugly serfdom”, and already in 1861 it was liquidated and since then 150 years have passed since the liberation of the peasantry!

By the way, the official date of the chronology of the enslavement of peasants in Russia, -, - allegedly calculated from the introduction of a restriction on the right of peasants to transfer from one landowner to another on St. George's Day, is unlawful, since St. George's Day was simply the day the peasant paid taxes to the state (and when he still had pay, if not after the harvest?), after which the peasant could move on all four sides -. Interestingly, historians began to consider the legalization of serfdom by the introduction of St. George's Day with the light hand of Tatishchev, who pulled such an interpretation by the ears only because it really officially limited the rights of peasants to freedom of movement (although this was more like the introduction of the institution of propiska / registration, than slavery). That is, a relatively small restriction of freedoms by Russian intellectuals was immediately called "slavery".

For comparison, in many European countries that went through serfdom, the latter existed much longer and was much more widespread. So, for example, in the same Germany, serfdom had already developed by the 15th century, and was abolished at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, that is, it existed at least twice as long as in Russia.

Well, in the most democratic now the United States, there was in general slavery in kind, which lasted longer than serfdom in Russia and was abolished later.

Moreover, we especially note that the Russian landowners never had even half of all the peasants in private ownership! Most of the peasants were in fact personally free and belonged either to the category state, or to the category specific peasants. The state peasants are a large estate formed from all sorts of kulaks-odnodvortsev and other economic peasants who lived on state lands and paid only taxes in favor of the state, but they were always considered personally free. In 1886, they received the right to full ownership of the land for a ransom. And specific peasants are, in principle, a formally dependent estate, but it belonged to the imperial family, which means it was also in state administration. They lived on the so-called specific lands and paid taxes mainly in the form of dues. In 1863 (a little later than the peasant reform of 1861) they also received their land as property, and formal personal freedom was given to them for the obligatory redemption of part of the specific land.

Moreover, on b O serfdom has never existed in most of the territory of Russia: in all Siberian, Asian and Far Eastern provinces and regions, in the Cossack regions, in the North Caucasus, in the Caucasus itself, in Transcaucasia, in Finland and Alaska. And, by the way, the Russian authorities had a big problem with the so-called "fugitive" peasants, who, refusing to obey the landowners, poured from their native places to territories free from serfdom. And there were always a lot of such freedom-loving citizens, which forced the authorities in the XVI-XVII centuries. to increase the terms of the search for runaway peasants, first to 5, and then to 15 years, which is also indirect evidence of the freedom-loving Russians.

In this sense, the position of some peasants is interesting, who, perhaps, perceived power through the prism of its official “media coverage”, that is, they formed their beliefs and positioning in society in accordance with the official doctrine, but they were quite satisfied with their serfdom, since they could not imagine a different life and could not imagine how it was possible to exist in a different way. And no intellectuals, writers and poets could convince them that they were slaves (would feel hurt, they would run away). Indeed, by and large, the homeland for a person is the place where, where he can live according to his understanding of justice and according to the laws that correspond to his values. Well, these were the people and such was their understanding of “freedom”, but to deduce from this fact the generalized thesis of the “slave psychology” inherent in the entire Russian people is at least strange. Therefore, for example, in Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'”, the poet’s accusations are valid only for the village headman Gleb, who withheld news of emancipation from his peasants and thus left eight thousand people in bondage against their will. But after all, from this fact alone, the poet draws conclusions about the entire Russian mentality, which is fundamentally wrong. Thus, in fact, the only "accusation" that can be brought against the Russians - not actual, but mental slavery - turns out to be "fabricated".

And in the end, all states are mental-slave-owning structures that force people living on the territory of these states to give away a significant part of the product of their labor with the help of mind manipulation and the mental-slave-owning economic model of society. The manipulation of consciousness replaces the natural concepts and beliefs of a person in such a way that, in fact, being completely dependent on the state, he considers himself a free person, despite his subordinate-limited position in reality. And how this is achieved is the tenth thing: whether it is the introduction of some socio-economic ideologies, based on nationalism, patriotism, religious unity, or with the help of external threats - military, economic, etc.

Absence of sacred power and divine submission

In Russia, neither power nor religion, unlike the vast majority of other countries, has actually never been sacralized. There was a free system of relations in Kievan Rus, and in Novgorod, and in other parts of the future Russia, at least before the imperial ambitions and the building of the imperial "vertical". In wartime, the prince was called to command, and in peacetime, the "vertical" was dismissed and the rule of the people's assembly. This free dynamic system was called the Russian "catholicity" - the ability to gather in a moment of danger and disperse when the danger has passed, so as not to liken one's life to prison and barracks, not to look for artificial "enemies" and not to provoke a new war to increase FSV (Feeling of Self-Importance) .

The theme of the sacredness of spiritual and secular authorities constantly pops up with us, and not only in religious discussions (religious obscurantists and monarchists have been more than enough lately), but at the same time, for some reason, everyone forgets about the historical features of our Orthodoxy. Indeed, unlike Western Europe, where the Church was formed even before modern states appeared there and had a significant influence on secular power (that is, the wild barbarians received the Church as a ready-made institution, not only ideological, but also economic) - in our country the state, already in principle formed, itself established the Church and voluntarily transferred to it part of the functions and property. Therefore, our Orthodox Church has always been more closely connected with the state than the Western one, but the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was more pragmatic. Perhaps because of this pragmatism at the top, our authorities have never been able to sacralize power in the eyes of the people, although such attempts, as in any state, have been constantly made throughout history. However, the formal acceptance of "God's anointed ones" did not result in our actual worship of them as "God's vicars on earth." With religion, by the way, the same parsley - infallible clergymen in Russian Orthodoxy, in contrast to the same Catholicism, have never been, are not, and will not be ...

“They answered him: we are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to anyone. How do you say, "you will be made free"? Jesus answered them: ... everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. (John 8:33-34)

Let's start with the fact that in the primary sources of Christianity, the attitude to power was initially skeptical, which, in fact, is narrated in the Bible when describing the calling of the first king Saul.

It says, for example, that the prophet Samuel wisely ruled the Jewish people in the name of God as the supreme judge until his advanced years, but his sons were already mired in corruption. Then the Jewish people, not trusting the church authority and rejecting God as their direct Ruler and Tsar, asked the aged prophet to appoint a secular king over him (as among the godless barbarian peoples), fearing that after the death of the prophet the former lawlessness and anarchy would not be restored.

Samuel turned to the Lord for advice and the Lord ordered to appoint such a king, noting that by doing so the Jews rejected the divine authority. Moreover, the Lord ordered to immediately warn the stupid Jews that the secular king would exploit them mercilessly, take away their donkeys, slaves, the best fields and gardens, and so on, and even tax them at 10%. He will draft his sons into the army, and put his daughters in the kitchen to feed himself and his clerks. In general, the Lord strictly warned the Jews that they should not expect anything good from the king and then they would not think of crying to the Lord so that he would free them from this king - the Lord immediately indicated his negative position on this issue

That is, in this sense, in the Bible, the attitude towards royal power is by no means sacred, and although the king is “anointed to the kingdom” there, he is not the image of God and arbitrarily changes (Saul, say, was soon replaced by David, who was also, in turn, “anointed ", but not sacralized).

And the sacralization of secular power, in fact, comes from Rome. When Christianity became acceptable to the elite of the Roman Empire, it adopted part of the Greco-Roman culture and spoke the language of philosophers, or rather Platonists. That is, the biblical texts began to be altered and interpreted in accordance with the Neoplatonic concept, and it was according to it, and not according to the Bible of Emperor Constantine, who proclaimed Christianity a state cult, that they began to consider the reflection (earthly image) of God, and the Holy Roman Empire as a reflection of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

In this sense, it is interesting to see how the interpretation of biblical texts in Rus' changed, since we also made attempts to sacralize secular power almost in full accordance with the Roman concept (for there is nothing new under the moon).

Take, for example, the Old Church Slavonic " There is no power if not from God: the essence of power from God is (Rom. 13:1).

The literal translation would be: There is no power, if not from God: the true authorities from God are established to be ". That is, if power is not from God, then it is not power, but an illusion thereof.

But in the modern translation of the Holy Scriptures from the Church Slavonic language (including the Synodal one), the following edition is proposed: “ Let every soul be submissive to the highest authorities, for there is no authority except from God: the existing authorities are established by God (Rom. 13:1).

Although the word “to carry” is closer in meaning to be translated as “not to eat”, and not as “no” (in the Church Slavonic dictionary it has two meanings, but the latter violates the grammatical and logical structure of the apostolic teachings); the word “if” is translated as “if”, not “which” (can be compared with the original Greek “ου γαρ εστιν εξουσια ει μη απο θεου” or the Old English translation of the King James Bible, where the corresponding phrase also means “if not”, but at all not "which"); and the word “existing” is translated as “real” or “true”, and not at all as “existing” (an example is “existing truth”). That is, the meaning of the message is completely changed in the direction of the sacralization of power.

Returning to the adoption of Christianity by Russia, it should be noted that in the Byzantine Empire, with the sacralization of secular power, everything was a little more complicated, that is, there the secular power was not as absolutely sacralized as in Rome, and several interpretations were allowed: one point of view was that " the priesthood is higher than the kingdom”; the other is about the "symphony" (agreement; Greek - συμφωνiα) of the named ministries with each other in a single church-state body (similar to the "union" of soul and body in one organism); the third - that both of these institutions (within the framework of their "symphony") are "equal gifts of God"; the fourth - that the kings have all the hierarchical rights, with the exception of the priesthood, that the basileus (Greek βασιλεvς) are the supreme arbiters of church affairs and the heads of the Christian world. And the prevalence of any of these views (as later in Rus') depended on the personalities of the tsars and patriarchs, as well as on the historical and political situation. For example, at the time of the steadfastness of the Byzantine Empire, the first, second and fourth points of view sounded from authoritative church leaders (holy fathers), during the period of the Muslim conquest of the East - rather the second and third, and at the decline of the empire and after its fall - almost exclusively the fourth" .

And with Russia it is even more difficult, since the adopted Orthodoxy in our country was in complete submission to the Byzantine one, that is, even if the Byzantine Patriarch were the vicar of God on Earth, and Vasilevs was his reflection in earthly power, then Russian priests and princes of this status would still would not have (and the Byzantine spiritual and secular authorities were no closer to the Russian people than the Lord in heaven). That is, we did not have a tradition of giving sacredness to direct secular power when we adopted Christianity.

After the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, Nikon tried to change the situation by declaring Rus' the third Rome, but at the same time he pulled the “blanket” over himself. That is, during the period of the so-called "split" between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, a struggle broke out over which of them is really the vicar of God on earth.

And Nikon made an attempt to establish a theocratic monarchy in Russia. He argued, for example, that the Patriarch is the sun, and the Tsar is the moon, that is, it is the Patriarch who is the main vicar of God, and the role of the king is nothing more than a manager under him (a kind of executive director).

Alexei Mikhailovich, of course, ran, called the police, resisted and convened a council, where a discussion broke out about what a tsar is. And it seems that they decided that the tsar is the “vicar of God”, that is, it is the tsar who is the vicar of Christ, but this was not officially recorded and for a long time, in fact, only the Patriarch was the sacred ruler in Rus' (although Nikon himself ended badly because of this) .

And the beginning of the complete desacralization of not only secular, but also church authorities was laid by Emperor Peter I, who abolished the patriarchate altogether, because he remembered what the claims of Patriarch Nikon had turned into and with what difficulty they were liquidated by the secular authorities.

Moreover, with his modernization reforms, Emperor Peter I brought to Russia much of what was at that time in the West, including secular Protestant elements to justify power. But this essentially destroyed the old formal Third Roman (Nikon) model, in which the Muscovite kingdom was interpreted as an image of the Kingdom of Heaven. And the elements of theocracy with the sacralization of secular power (or in a narrower sense - Caesaropapism), as in such Protestant countries as Great Britain, Norway, Sweden or Denmark, where the monarch is the head of the church, Peter I actually did not establish. And although in the period 1721-1917 in Russia there was a situation close to a "weak" theocracy of the Protestant type, where the Holy Synod - the collective body of the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, which replaced the patriarch - was subordinate to the emperor, who was represented in it by a secular official - the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, and the Synod issued resolutions “by decree of His Imperial Majesty” and since 1797 in Russian law the emperor was even called the “head of the church” and until 1902 was considered the “extreme judge” of the spiritual board / Synod, and both of these names in the Orthodox tradition are usually applied only to Jesus Christ - in reality, all this was accompanied by numerous reservations and actually did not work.

On the contrary, Peter introduced an instance that was completely secular in its origin - the bureaucratic state, which wedged itself into the old theocratic system and, in essence, began to break it. That is, it is from this period that not only the actual, but also the formal desacralization of tsarist power begins, which, although it ended only in 1917, was essentially never interrupted (the same Decembrists, for example, without hesitation based their claims on the aforementioned biblical texts " anointing of Saul", but in their original interpretation, which denies the sacralization of secular power).

And, finally, returning to the Russian people, we note that in Russia, everywhere and at all times, the authorities, to put it mildly, were disliked. In ancient Rome, with its sacred power, they were proud of it, the Americans, with their absolutely desacralized democracy, honor and adore the history of their power, the Germans value their “ordnung” (order), but the Russians traditionally shy away from their power. Perhaps there was not a single tsar, president or general secretary in Russia, about whom after death they would not start talking nasty things (even if they were afraid to say bad things about him during his lifetime). That is, power in Russia was never recognized, but simply tolerated like a boil on the ass.

But perhaps this is because the Russian people, even in the presence of external attributes of slavery, have always had a very strong opposition to internal slavery, which is much more difficult to force ...

Thus, the Russian people have never had voluntary submission to anyone, and slavery is always only voluntary (or deceitfully voluntary).

Russians are slave people! The whole history of this people confirms its slavish nature. Scandinavians, Khazars, Tatars, tsars-emperors Romanovs, German princesses, Judeo-Bolsheviks, and again the heirs of the Khazars - all these are the masters of the Russian people, silent, weak-willed and slavish in nature. Such is the myth. popular myth. A myth that is hammered into our heads. You Russians are slaves. You are not worthy of freedom, you are not able to live independently.
And we do believe. We agree! With what do we agree with our slave nature?
Here, take a bite!
The Russian people are a freedom-loving people! The entire history of the Russian people is the history of the struggle for freedom from foreign and state oppression. From time immemorial, Russian people have been fighting for their freedom.
So why are we silent about this and agree with the peacekeepers who show us “our” place at the slop bucket. We are ready to believe in the 300-year-old Basurman yoke, we are ready to believe in good kings and empresses at whose feet our ancestors allegedly lay.
Everything is correct. After all, the more we believe in the slavish nature of our ancestors, the more we ourselves become slaves. But why fight for freedom, why fight for our national state, if we are by nature slaves, if our ancestors are serfs, relying only on the master.
And the bar is already rushing from different parts of the world, there are nominal bars, those whose ancestors fled in the 17th year “to drink our money to Paris”, there is a novobar. Some demand that the Russian lands be returned to them, they say, for which they were taken away, they demand that a Jewish boy be seated on the throne. Others acquire estates, play kings, buy titles. Monarchists, man. Although most of the nouveau riches are nouveau riches, so if only to grab money, buy a Chelsea, and then burn Rus' with a blue flame. And they all squeal with one voice: "Russian slaves by nature, they can't do without a master."
Yep, right now!
Obrov was beaten, the Khazars were defeated. The Normans, who had been sitting in Novgorod for some time, were expelled. Where is the slavish essence of our ancestors who expelled and destroyed those who tried to throw their yoke around the Russian neck.
Tatars. Oh yes, three centuries of obedience and slavery. The Russian serfs bowed their heads before the Mongols, and waited for three centuries until the yoke itself perished. Yes, that's just the Russophobes are silent about the Ushkuyniki ruining the Horde lands. Throughout the second half of the 14th century, young lads sacked the Horde cities, and in 1374 they ravaged the capital of the Horde - Saray. And in the 75th, having plundered the Horde lands out of habit, they again looked into the khan's capital.
This is how the "slaves" mutilated their "masters", in total in the period from 1360 to 1375 there were 8 raids on the Horde, for a raid once every two years. What kind of yoke can we talk about here?
Russophobes are also silent about the Russian uprising in 1262.
In 1262, in Russian cities (Rostov, Vladimir, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, Pereslavl, Utyug and other cities), an uprising broke out against the occupation administration, which was of an organized nature and took place with the participation of the princes. The Russians did not like such a vertical of power. Chronicle reports contain discrepancies, but nowhere is it said about retribution from the Horde, the punitive troops did not reach in order to restore "constitutional order". Official historians are also silent about the defeat of the Horde army by Prince Vasily Georgievich on the Holy Lake, in the lands of Kostroma. But the legend about this battle has been preserved, and its place has been established by archaeologists. They just keep silent about it, because all this does not fit into the theory of the slave soul of the Russian people. A slave cannot go against a master.
And how many small local uprisings of Russian people against the Horde, maybe not as large-scale as the uprising of 1262. But no, they are stubbornly silent, and continue to hang the myth of the three-hundred-year-old Tatar yoke and the obedience of Russians to the Mongols.

What's next? Time of tyrants of monarchs - emperors.
And again the Russian people are rebelling, fighting for their freedom. Fleeing from the hated power. The colonization of Siberia, the Far East, Alaska completely - all this is the result of precisely the love of freedom, the search for one's land, one's freemen. Only after the free people was the state machine. The same Yermak and his comrades, free blood was, for which he was wanted by the royal authorities, who wanted to impale Timofeevich. But no, the will turned out to be stronger and it was the free people who gave Siberia to Russia.
And the Cossack freemen? These are now the Cossacks of "special blood", and then the fugitives from all over Rus' went to the Don, and to Zaporozhye. And they fought not only with the Turks, but also did not give peace to the Russian tsars.
But what about the uprisings of Bulavin, Razin, Pugachev, which engulfed almost the entire state, forget? Or, again, this does not fit into the myth of the slavish essence of the Rus. How many more less significant speeches of the peasants were against injustice, against the imperial order.
Serfdom. Horrified how long they could not cancel it. Russians are slaves who endured for a long time. But gentlemen Russophobes forget that in the empire the flight of peasants was very severely punished, which means that they did not measure their fate. And in the most progressive Europe, serfdom was put an end to only with the campaigns of the "Antichrist" Napoleon. In general, it's funny, Bonaparte gave them freedom, and they are antichrists for it. Well, not about that tale. They also forget that in 1812 a peasant delegation was sent to Napoleon with a request to abolish serfdom, they say, then the people will follow him. But Napoleon was afraid to do this. Why? Probably, he was afraid that if the Romanovs were thrown along with the free peasants, he would not be in Moscow either. I think Napoleon did not believe in the slavish essence of the Russian peasant and did the right thing. So he got the "club of the people's war."
Again, by the way, if you read the memoirs or notes of overseas travelers, where they compare the life and being of Russian and Western peasants. Sometimes the latter cause only pity.

In the end, you can talk long and hard about the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy, about the fact that the Jews threw the king off the throne. Yes, not without it. But 1917 is both a merit and a victory for the Russian people in the struggle for their freedom from Romanov-Holstein, or Holstein-Romanov rule. Yes, this victory, used by the Judeo-Bolsheviks, turned into a tragedy for the Russian people. But in 1917, the Russians were not fighting for the Bolsheviks, but this was a continuation of the centuries-old desire for freedom and the struggle for a nation-state. The Bolsheviks, it is worth giving them their due, understood what the people needed and very well used slogans understandable and close to the common man for their own purposes.
Yes, after that there was a tragedy, a civil war and repressions. But the people were not silent, as the democratic-liberals are now trying to present. All the 20s were a series of anti-Bolshevik uprisings, and they rebelled under the same slogans as in 1917. Here is a classic example of the Tambov or Antonov uprising. And how many were there?

Therefore, the Judeo-Bolsheviks unleashed terror against the Russian people, because, unlike us, they did not believe the myths about Russian slaves. They knew that the Russian people are freedom-loving people. So they undermined the foundations of the Russian people, cut out the main, active part of it.

Interestingly, when the war began in 1941, in many areas after the flight of the Red administration, the first thing that the peasants did was dispersed the collective farms, symbols of Bolshevik power in the countryside. And the Germans were greeted as liberators, this is also a fact, whatever it may be.

Russophobes are also silent about the uprising in Krasnodar in 1961. Why can a Russian man raise his hand to power. But even in the 70s in the USSR there were performances, consciously or exclusively on a subconscious level, Russians were drawn to freedom, they did not want to put up with the hateful power.

The whole history of the Russian people is the history of the struggle for their survival, it is the history of the struggle for their freedom. The fight against external enemies who tried to put their paw on Russian soil and with government officials who wanted to deprive the Rus of their will.
Today, little has changed. Today the whole picture is the same. Russophobes, fed by the occupying power, scream about the slavish Russian soul, about the impossibility for them, the Russians, to create their own independent national state.
Today, the descendants of the Khazars, who have taken the place of the Romanov-Holstein, elderly general secretaries from the Politburo, are doing everything so that the Russians do not have the spirit to Volya. Entrance goes all: propaganda in the print media and on TV; myth-making, pay attention to how the neo-Normanists raised their heads; abortion propaganda; alcohol; drugs…..etc. the list could go on for a very long time.
Today it depends only on us whether the Russian people will live. Today it depends only on us whether our people will be free. Today it depends only on us: whether the Russians will have their own national state, whether Rus' will live!
All in our hands! Our ancestors were once not slaves and throughout their history they fought against regimes that tried to deprive them of their will.
So let's not disgrace the memory of our ancestors!