Associated with the life and death of the great Russians. This includes the death of the son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Dimitri, and the execution of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II, and the poisoning of I.V. Stalin. At the same time, the substitution of Peter I - is it a fiction or a historical fact, has been repeatedly discussed by historians and has three different options.
The main versions of the substitution of Peter I
The least conspiratorial hypothesis that Tsar Peter I was replaced by a double was put forward by V. Kukovenko, co-founder of the historical society of the city of Mozhaisk, and I. Danilov, head of the Philosophical Assault project. According to them, during the second amusing "Semenovsky" campaign in 1691, the young tsar was mortally wounded during a horse attack or a skirmish. A similar accident has happened before. A year earlier, during an exercise, a grenade exploded in the hands of a soldier, burning the face of Peter I himself and his ally, General Patrick Gordon. Peter's associates, led by the boyar Fyodor Romodanovsky, previously noted an undoubted resemblance to the king of the Dutch shipbuilder Yaan Mush, a Saardam carpenter who arrived in Russia to build a funny fleet. F. Romodanovsky and the commander of the opposing amusing army "Generalissimo" I. Buturlin, saving themselves from the death penalty, and their relatives from repression, replaced Peter I with a Dutch master who was 4 ... 5 years younger than the tsar.
The most convincing and substantiated is the hypothesis proposed by the "subverters" of the modern view of historical science and the developers of the "New Chronology" Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.T. Fomenko and associate professor of Moscow State University G.V. Nosovsky. They were the first to note that the official date of Peter's birth did not correspond to the day of his angel. If the king, indeed, was born on May 30, 1672, then he should have been named Isakiy. It was in honor of this name, the real name of the person who replaced the king, that the main church cathedral of the Russian Empire was named. At the same time, the fact that Russia, starting from 1698 - the year of the return of Peter I from the Great Embassy - was ruled by an impostor, was hinted in a veiled form by the historian P. Milyukov, who wrote an article about the first Russian Emperor for the encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
The following facts support this hypothesis:
- the tsar sent his wife, tsarina Evdokia, who gave birth to his son Alexei, to a monastery during his travels in Europe before returning to Russia;
- before the entry of Peter I into Moscow, the remnants of the streltsy army were destroyed, and the streltsy died near Moscow during the battle with an unknown army, under the command of the boyar Shein, about whom no more historical records have been preserved;
- before entering Moscow, the Russian autocrat secretly meets with the Polish king and pays him a “contribution” (according to other sources, a “subsidy”) of 1.5 million gold efimki, which was equal to the annual income of the Muscovite state;
- returning to Moscow, Peter unsuccessfully tried to find Sophia Paleolog's library, the location of which was known only to persons of royal blood and which Princess Sophia repeatedly visited;
- shaving of beards, Western European dancing and entertainment, and the introduction of Western customs began only after the return of the sovereign from the Grand Embassy.
There are two versions of the substitution of Peter I with a double during a trip to Western Europe:
- St. Petersburg mathematician Sergei Albertovich Sall believes that the double of the Tsar of Muscovy was a prominent freemason and relative of William of Orange, the first king of England and Scotland and the only representative on the British throne from the Nassau-Oran dynasty;
- according to the historian Yevgeny Trofimovich Bayda, the double was either a Swede or a Dane named Isaac (hence St. Isaac's Cathedral) and professed the Lutheran religion.
However, to check the versions about whether the substitution of Peter was a fiction or a historical fact, this event can be resolved quite simply. To do this, it is necessary to take, during the next, planned restoration of the tomb of Peter in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, a particle of genetic material, and it will immediately become clear, substitutions, as well as theories about who was the father of the first Russian Emperor - Tsar Alexei Fedorovich or Patriarch Nikon, about whose connections with Peter's mother, Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, were slandered by contemporaries.
The rumor that the true tsar was replaced, that the tsar was sitting in a “glass pillar” in Stockholm (Stekoln), and some “German” came instead of him, spread among the Old Believers in connection with the drastic changes, reforms that began upon his return Peter from abroad. The meaning of these rumors boiled down to the idea of "the coming of the Antichrist into the world" and the inevitable end of the world. And the False Peter allegedly became such an antichrist, who began to destroy the ancient "Holy Rus'". I emphasize that for the Old Believers Patriarch Nikon was the Antichrist. In fact, there was no physical substitution - Peter, as he was Peter, remained the same. This is evidenced by his correspondence, handwriting analysis, way of thinking, and so on. But he changed his policy. The Streltsy uprising of 1698 prompted him to do away with the old order of things. He decided to start reforms that - in his opinion - were supposed to transform Russia into a European state.
Public consciousness, bizarre waves of memory actualize various plots in forms and images far from data that historical science can verify and critically comprehend. This is part of what is known as Public History. And we should not react to the actualization of an image or phenomenon in the same way as, for example, we react to a new scientific book. We can criticize the public perception and recall of history, but only from the standpoint of Public History. A literary work based on history remains a literary work, and a rumor remains a rumor. The discussion about whether Salieri poisoned Mozart, whether Boris Godunov killed Tsarevich Dmitry, whether Peter I was replaced - these are questions indicating the popularity of the theme or hero, and not about the existing discussion of specialists on this issue. Historians have no discussion about the substitution of Peter. He was not replaced. That this question has come up again is evidence of a play with the theme, evidence of the popularity of the image of Peter and the interest in his actions.
And who did the analysis of the handwriting of Peter I and the "way of thinking" and where can you read about it? And then you know, Nicholas II "renounced", and Count Frederiks "assured" the renunciation, so much so that on three originals the assurance is written over a pencil and matches up to a millimeter and nothing, this does not bother any of the historians.
Answer
The way of thinking remained the same - Golikov has it in 15 volumes, and Ustryalov has it in 8 volumes. The Antichrist was called not only because of the reference of books and signification, but because on the banner of the Preobrazhensky regiment, as well as on the fields of Ilyinsky-Chernigov Mother of God was the image of the iconography of the Virgin "Clothed in the Sun" from Revelation ch 12. Since the Mother of God of Azov also ascends in its iconography to the Image from Revelation. This was most likely ideologically conceived during the war with the Turks, although it may have arisen even after the trial of the archers. In principle, he administered almost divine justice - but the Old Believers were sure that it could not be bloody. a common mistake of all dictators.
Answer
You're sorry, but that's what gave 5 minutes of searching. "Ivan Ivanovich Golikov. He was sentenced to" deprivation of honor ", confiscation of property and exile to Siberia. However, at the request and on the occasion of the opening of the monument to Peter I, he was amnestied with a ban on doing business. According to legend, he, kneeling before the Bronze Horseman, vowed to himself to write the history of Peter the Great.
He lived in Moscow, with his daughter Blankennagel Pelageya Ivanovna in the village of Anashkin. Having moved to Moscow, he spent the rest of his life working on fulfilling his promise. He was greatly assisted by I. I. Neplyuev, P. I. Rychkov, I. I. Shuvalov, Krekshin, Count A. R. Vorontsov, Princess E. R. Dashkova, especially G. F. Miller and H. H. Bantysh-Kamensky. Golikov used folk legends, materials from Moscow book dealers and various archives, including the archive of the Academy of Sciences and the archive of the Foreign Collegium (not earlier than 1789).
From the point of view of a modern person, such a source cannot be trusted, it is obvious that the pardoned, in fact, a fraudster, and pardoned by those who later "helped" him work on his work, simply had no options to write something different from the general line of the party . Judging by such an "assistant" as Miller, this is most likely, in general, a nominal author, in fact, an avatar of Miller or another professional historian.
I decided not to look for Ustryalov.
Answer
Comment
Baida Evgeny Trofimovich
Last year (written in 2003) the 330th anniversary of the birth of Tsar Peter I was celebrated. Now these days grandiose festivities begin on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St. Petersburg. The international, “international” (approx. These are two words of different meanings), political and even state significance of this celebration, it seems, will far exceed the recent celebration of the 850th anniversary of the founding of Moscow. Busts of Peter the Great now adorn the offices of many statesmen. In honor of Peter the Great, awards and prizes are established. Ships are named after him. And there is every reason to believe that the honoring of Peter the Great will only grow with time.
Why so?
Who was Peter I or Peter the Great for Russia really? Good or evil? What threatens us with his current exaltation?
One can count isolated attempts to understand the consequences of Peter's reforms for Russia. Before the revolution, all historians and writers only exalted Peter the Great and his transformations, turning him into almost the main and only founder of the Russian state. The first attempt to understand the true merits of Peter the Great was made by the historian M.N. Pokrovsky (1868 - 1932), when immediately after the revolution, any criticism of tsars and emperors, and especially Russian history, was a good deed. But times soon changed and his critical analysis of the Petrine reforms was recognized as erroneous for reasons of "simplification, sociological vulgarization and national nihilism" (TSB 1975, vol. 20, p. 493). The era of Stalin's reforms had come, and support was needed in the past. Peter became Great again for a short time. The second critical period of rethinking the acts of Peter the Great came in the 90s of the last century, when again, until what time was it allowed to criticize everything and everyone. One of the first publications with a critical assessment of the deeds of Peter was published in 1995 in the literary almanac "Realist". Publicist and critic Anatoly Lanshchikov in the article "Moscow - the Third Rome, the Russian Empire and Russian laziness" showed all the perniciousness and sad consequences of the time of Peter the Great for the economy and development of Russia.
Historians hardly touch on this topic. Even domestic church historians try to avoid this topic. The outstanding historian of the church, Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), who wrote a 12-volume history of the Russian Church, reached only 1666 and did not have time to cover this period. Metropolitan of St. Petersburg John (Snychev), in one of his books, promised to tell the whole truth about Peter, but also did not have time, he died in 1995. In the 9-volume History of the Russian Church, published on the basis of the books of Metropolitan Macarius, the period of the The Orthodox Church in the synodal period of 1700 - 1917 (8 volumes, parts 1 and 2) is presented from the point of view of the foreign historian I.K. Smolich. And I must say, it leaves a sad and depressing impression, both from the acts and statements of Peter himself, and from the consequences of his reforms for the Russian Orthodox Church. Peter's church reforms were supposed to essentially destroy the Russian Orthodox Church, but she stood firm and the gates of hell did not overcome her.
Books by A.M. Burovsky published in 2000 - 2001. "The Failed Empire" (books 1 and 2) are the last revelatory publications about Peter the Great and the events that followed his death.
There is another revelatory book by Boris Bashilov, Robespierre on the Throne, about Peter the Great and his consequences of his reforms, but unfortunately it was published in a very small edition and is available only on the Internet on the Russian Sky website.
I will not mention other modern publications about Peter the Great, which have the opposite interpretation and glorify his reforms and himself as the most brilliant and greatest reformer of Russia. Soon, after reading this and the above materials, you yourself will be able to assess his deeds. And we, on the basis of well-known and accessible materials - books, encyclopedias, will try to figure out who and what Peter really was, what were his merits or crimes. Historical archives were not used in this analysis.
I will say right away that this analysis is based on the version that there were two Peters: Tsar Peter I and Emperor Peter the Great, two different people. The latter was an alien impostor. And there is also a virtual artistic depiction of Peter the Great. And then the whole story of Peter and his reforms is perceived in a completely different way.
Past and modern historians and researchers of Peter I and Peter the Great, criticizing or praising his deeds and believing that this is one person, are always forced to explain the contradictory and mutually exclusive actions and traits of their character. Moreover, it turns out that those who praise Peter do not want to see his crimes, and those who criticize do not want to notice good deeds and good intentions.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in the memoirs of Peter I and Peter the Great, by accident or intentionally, the dates of certain events, as a rule, of a domestic nature, are sometimes mixed up. Therefore, what Peter I said or how he acted is often attributed to the emperor "Peter the Great" and vice versa. This is very confusing in determining their character traits and the true motives of certain actions.
What is said above is just food for thought. I do not want to immediately impose my interpretation of these events. Maybe you yourself will find the truth. I am sure there is a lot of evidence of the imposture of "Peter the Great". This site will be updated and in future releases we will try to answer the following questions:
Who was and where did the impostor come from?
What is the true role of Peter's entourage in these events?
Why did the impostor manage to gain a foothold on the throne?
Why was the secret kept after his death?
Why was the secret kept by all subsequent emperors?
Why was the secret kept after the revolution?
Why is the secret of the imposture of "Peter the Great" preserved now?
What could be the consequences of exposing the imposture of "Peter the Great" or keeping it a secret for our time and the future?
The goal that I set is to return the good name of Tsar Peter I, who was killed in the Paris Bastille in 1703, and for us to learn a lesson from these events in order to protect us from such mistakes and then his death in French casemates and all those trials that have already endured by our country and our people will not be in vain
Generalized evidence of the imposture of the emperor "Peter the Great"
1
The coincidence in time of the substitution of Tsar Peter I (August 1698) and the appearance of a prisoner in the "Iron Mask" in the Bastille in Paris (September 1698). In the lists of prisoners of the Bastille, he was listed under the name Magchiel, which may be a distorted record of Mikhailov, the name under which Tsar Peter traveled abroad. His appearance coincided with the appointment of a new commandant of the Bastille Saint-Mars. He was tall, carried himself with dignity, and always wore a velvet mask on his face. The prisoner was respectfully treated and kept well. He died in 1703. After his death, the room where he was kept was carefully searched, and all traces of his stay were destroyed.
2
The Orthodox Tsar, who preferred traditional Russian clothes, left for the Great Embassy. There are two portraits of the king made during the journey, in which he was depicted in a Russian caftan, and even during his stay and work at the shipyard. A Latin man returned from the embassy, wearing only European clothes and never again wearing not only his old Russian clothes, but even royal attire. There is reason to believe that Tsar Peter I and the “imposter” differed in body structure: Tsar Peter was shorter and denser than the “imposter”, the size of the boots was different, while the “imposter”, with a height of more than 2 meters, had a clothing size that corresponded to the modern size 44 !!!
Wax painted statue of C. Rastrelli
and the freak of M. Shemyakin is not a fruit of the creative imagination of sculptors,
and the true appearance of "Peter the Great" and his "reforms"
3
In the portraits of Peter I (Godfried Kneller), made during the Great Embassy, Peter's hair is curly, short, in a bracket, not on the shoulders, as "Peter the Great" later wore, a mustache that is slightly breaking through, a wart on the right side of the nose. With a wart, it is generally not clear, since it is not on the lifetime portraits of "Peter the Great", so it is important to find out when it was and when it was not. The age of "Peter the Great", which is confirmed by lifetime portraits dating back to 1698-1700, is at least 10 years older than Tsar Peter!!!
4
The impostor did not know the location of the library of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, although this secret was passed on to all the kings, and even Tsar Peter's sister Tsarevna Sophia knew and visited this place. It is known that "Peter the Great" tried to find the library immediately after returning from the "Great Embassy" and even carried out excavations in the Kremlin for this.
5
After returning from the Great Embassy, “Peter the Great” hid surrounded by conspirators, did not appear in front of the people and did not even visit his closest relatives until the bloody executions of the archers were carried out, and the bloody “initiation” of the new close associates of the impostor had not passed (Surikov’s picture is not corresponds to historical reality). The suppression of the "streltsy revolt" provoked by Romodanovsky and officials was, in fact, a coup d'état, the purpose of which was primarily to destroy the old armed forces that could oppose the impostor and create a new Russian army under the command of foreign officers. Secondly, it became a bloody "baptism" of the new nobility - the "new Russians", who for the first time in Russia played the role of executioners.
6
In memory of the suppression of the "streltsy rebellion", a medal for the destruction of archers was knocked out, on which Samson was depicted standing over a defeated serpent. All inscriptions are in Latin only. It is known that Samson was from Dan's family, from where, according to the prophecies, the Antichrist should come. It is also noteworthy that "Peter the Great", unlike Tsar Peter I, wore long hair, which is a sign of origin from Dan's family. Later, on the occasion of the victory in the Battle of Poltava, a medal with the image of Samson was also knocked out. Even earlier, a medal was struck on the occasion of the “Great Embassy”, which depicts a horseman slaying a snake (George the Victorious? A strange symbol on the occasion of the trip. In the Masonic lodges of the Scottish rite, one of the symbols is a rider on horseback slaying a snake).
Medal in memory of the suppression of the Streltsy rebellion
Medal in memory of the Great Embassy
Medal for the capture of Azov
7
The people, at that time, spoke directly about the substitution of the king abroad, but these rumors and attempts to clarify this were cruelly suppressed and called a conspiracy or rebellion. It was to prevent such rumors that the Secret Decree was formed.
8
A change in attitude towards his wife, with whom he lived in harmony for eight years. For the environment of the "king" and historians, the true reason for Peter's cooling towards his wife after returning from abroad is unknown. There are only versions that the tsarina allegedly participated in a conspiracy against her husband, which, generally speaking, is incredible (encouraged the archers to speak out against her husband’s beloved tsar?) and another, that Peter was carried away by Anna Mons (see below). After his return, the “king” did not meet with his wife, Empress Evdokia, and she was immediately sent to a monastery. In exile, Queen Evdokia is in strict isolation, she is even forbidden to talk to anyone. And if this is violated, then the culprit was severely punished (Stepan Glebov, impaled, guarding the queen)
9
The abolition of the Patriarchate in Rus' and the subordination of the management of the church to secular power through the Synod, the device of an amusing Council at the choice of the Patriarch.
10
An attempt to "Protestantize" the Orthodox Church. The subordination of the management of the Orthodox Church to a native of the Vatican, to whom he entrusts the reformation of the Church. He tries to oblige the priests to convey what they say in confession if the penitent speaks of plots against the king or other crimes.
11
The introduction of tobacco smoking in Rus', which is considered the greatest sin in Orthodoxy.
Encouragement and inculcation of drunkenness.
12
Debauchery. The strange behavior of the "king" after his return from abroad is noted. So he always took a soldier to bed with him at night. Later, after the appearance of Catherine, he simultaneously kept concubines. Similar depravity was in the royal palace only under the false Dmitry impostors.
13
The murder of Tsarevich Alexei, although in the Orthodox traditions for disobedience, from the point of view of his father, he could only be sent to the monastery, as Tsarevich Alexei asked for.
14
The destruction of Russian folk traditions, the fight against them. Establishing the superiority of Latin Western culture over traditional Russian.
15
The first reform of the Russian language, which returned the inscription of letters to the ancient Aryan alphabetic symbolism.
16
The transfer of the capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg to the very outskirts of the Russian Empire, while in the traditions of all states it was the placement of the capital in the center of the state. Perhaps St. Petersburg was conceived by him or his advisers as the capital of a future united Europe, in which Russia was supposed to be a colony?
17
The division of the Russian people into nobles and serfs by birth, the introduction of serfdom, in its meaning, corresponding to the creation of a slave-owning state with slaves from its people, in contrast to the ancient states that made slaves only prisoners of war.
18
The weakening and even freezing of the development of the Russian economy due to the tightening of serfdom, the hard labor industry of serf factory workers, the cessation of the development of the regions of the Northern Urals, Arkhangelsk, Eastern Siberia, for almost 150 years until the abolition of serfdom in 1861.
19
Tsar Peter visited Arkhangelsk and the Solovetsky Monastery, where he personally made a wooden cross in memory of salvation in a storm. He liked it there. "Peter the Great" consigned Arkhangelsk to oblivion.
20
Subordination of the foreign policy of the Russian state to the interests of Western European states.
21
Creation of a bureaucratic machine of government.
22
Establishing the power and control of foreigners in the army, government, science, their privileges over the Russians, giving them titles of nobility, lands and serfs.
23
The organization of Masonic lodges (1700) even earlier than in Europe (1721.), which practically seized power in Russian society to this day.
25
Construction of a new capital of the Venetian (Jewish) model on the bones of Russian Orthodox people. The place for construction was chosen extremely inconvenient in the swamps.
*****
Relations with Anna Mons, who in fact has always been Lefort's mistress, are invented (intentionally?) by rumor. Although the king gave royal gifts to her family for some kind of service. The proof of this is that upon returning from abroad and sending his wife into exile, Anna Mons does not enjoy his attention, and after the sudden death of the young Lefort, Anna Mons is completely under house arrest. Since 1703, Catherine has been living with the "king".
*****
There is an assumption that the death of P. Gordon and the “friend” of Peter the young Lefort, upon returning from the Great Embassy, which occurred almost simultaneously in 1699, happened because “Peter the Great” or his secret patrons wanted to get rid of the guardianship of those who contributed his penetration on the Moscow throne.
In March 1697, Peter 1 went on a one and a half year trip abroad to study various sciences and wrote tender letters from there to his beloved wife and missed everything Russian. But he returned from there a completely different person!
He even lost a relative upon his return to Russia!
He suddenly calls the Russian population animals, and, without even seeing his family, orders to imprison his wife and sisters in a monastery, and in fact in prison.
It destroys its own Moscow archery army, in which, by the way, persistent rumors were already crawling that the tsar had been replaced ...
Even before Peter's arrival, his mentors and friends die under mysterious circumstances.
Then Peter will order to kill his son Alexei! For what? So that no one exposes the substitution?
Fragment from the book: "Return of Paradise to Earth" Part II, § 11. Satanic coup in Russia, series "In Search of the Secret", V.A. Shemshuk:
The most effective way to manage us is to replace the leader.
I never thought that I would have to write on this topic, so I did not specifically try to remember all the sources of information that I came across as a collector of rare books. Passion for rare books, as my practice has shown, is far from a safe occupation, my library was robbed four times. After the fourth time, I no longer kept books with me, but tried to better remember what I managed to read.
Meeting with people of the old Orthodox faith, from whom it was possible to learn something, penetrating into special stores under various pretexts, I received more and more evidence of a satanic coup committed in Russia. Let me state the essence here without special references to sources, because naming books means signing their death sentence.
In his work “Antichrist”, he noted a complete change in the appearance, character and psyche of Tsar Peter I after his return from the “German lands”, where he went for two weeks, and returned two years later. The Russian embassy that accompanied the tsar consisted of 20 people, and was headed by A.D. Menshikov. After returning to Russia, this embassy consisted of only the Dutch (including the notorious Lefort), only Menshikov remained the only one from the old composition.
This "embassy" brought a completely different tsar, who spoke Russian poorly, did not recognize his friends and relatives, which immediately betrayed a substitution: This forced Tsarina Sophia, the sister of the real Tsar Peter I, to raise archers against the impostor.
As you know, the Streltsy rebellion was brutally suppressed, Sophia was hanged on the Spassky Gates of the Kremlin, the impostor exiled the wife of Peter 1 to a monastery, where she never reached, and called his own from Holland.
“His” brother Ivan V and “his” little children Alexander, Natalya and Lavrenty False Peter immediately killed, although the official story tells us about this in a completely different way. And he executed the youngest son Alexei as soon as he tried to free his real father from the Bastille.
Peter the impostor did such transformations with Russia that we are still echoing around. He began to act like an ordinary conqueror:
defeated the Russian self-government - "zemstvo" and replaced it with the bureaucratic apparatus of foreigners who brought theft and drunkenness to Russia and vigorously planted it here;
transferred the peasants to the property of the nobles, which turned them into slaves (to whiten the image of the impostor, this “event” falls on Ivan IV);
defeated the merchants and began to plant industrialists, which led to the destruction of the former universality of people;
defeated the clergy - the carriers of Russian culture and destroyed Orthodoxy, bringing it closer to Catholicism, which inevitably gave rise to atheism;
introduced smoking, drinking alcohol and coffee;
destroyed the ancient Russian calendar, rejuvenating our civilization by 5503 years;
ordered all Russian chronicles to be brought to Petersburg, and then, like Filaret, he ordered them to be burned. He called on the German "professors"; write a completely different Russian history;
under the guise of a struggle with the old faith, he destroyed all the elders who lived for more than three hundred years;
he forbade the cultivation of amaranth and the use of amaranth bread, which was the main food of the Russian people, thereby destroying longevity on Earth, which still remained in Russia at that time;
abolished natural measures: a sazhen, a finger, an elbow, an inch, which were present in clothes, utensils and architecture, making them fixed in the Western manner. This led to the destruction of ancient Russian architecture and art, to the disappearance of the beauty of everyday life. As a result, people ceased to be beautiful, since divine and vital proportions disappeared in their structure;
replaced the Russian title system with the European one, which turned the peasants into an estate. Although the "peasant" is a title, higher than the king, about which there is more than one evidence;
destroyed the Russian script, which consisted of 151 characters, and introduced 43 characters of the script of Cyril and Methodius;
disarmed the Russian army, exterminating the archers as a caste with their miraculous abilities and magical weapons, and introduced primitive firearms and stabbing weapons in a European manner, dressing the army first in French and then in German uniforms, although the Russian military uniform was itself a weapon. Among the people, the new regiments were called "amusing".
But his main crime is the destruction of Russian education (image + sculpture), the essence of which was to create three subtle bodies in a person, which he does not receive from birth, and if they are not formed, then the consciousness will not have a connection with the consciousnesses of past lives. If in Russian educational institutions a generalist was made from a person who could, starting from bast shoes and ending with a spaceship, do everything himself, then Peter introduced a specialization that made him dependent on others.
Before Peter the Pretender, people in Russia did not know what wine was, he ordered barrels of wine to be rolled out onto the square and the townspeople to drink for free. This was done to ward off the memory of a past life. During the period of Peter, the persecution of babies who were born, remembering their past lives and able to speak, continued.
Their persecution began with John IV. The mass destruction of infants with past life memories cast a curse on all incarnations of such children. It is no coincidence that today, when a talking child is born, he lives no more than two hours (but there are still rare exceptions).
After all these deeds, the invaders themselves did not dare to call Peter the Great for a long time.
And only in the 19th century, when the horrors of Peter the Great had already been forgotten, did a version arose about Peter the innovator, who did so much useful for Russia, even brought potatoes and tomatoes from Europe, allegedly brought there from America. Solanaceae (potatoes, tomatoes) were widely represented in Europe even before Peter. Their endemic and very ancient presence on this continent is confirmed by a large species diversity, which took more than one thousand years.
On the contrary, it is known that it was during the time of Peter that a campaign was launched against witchcraft, in other words, food culture (today the word "witchcraft" is used in a sharply negative sense). Before Peter there were 108 types of nuts, 108 types of vegetables, 108 types of fruits, 108 types of berries, 108 types of root nodules, 108 types of cereals, 108 spices and 108 types of fruits, corresponding to 108 - Russian gods.
After Peter, there were units of sacred species used for food, which a person can see for himself. In Europe, this was done even earlier. Cereals, fruits and root nodules were especially destroyed, since they were associated with the reincarnation of a person.
The only thing that Peter the Pretender did was allow the cultivation of potatoes (potatoes, like tobacco (!) Belong to the nightshade family. Tops, eyes and green potatoes are poisonous. Green potatoes contain very strong poisons, solanines, which are especially dangerous for the health of children.), sweet potato and earthen pear, which are poorly eaten today.
The destruction of sacred plants consumed at a certain time led to the loss of complex divine reactions of the body (remember the Russian proverb “every vegetable has its own time”).
Moreover, the mixing of food caused putrefactive processes in the body, and now people exude stench instead of fragrance. Plants - adoptogens - almost disappeared, only weakly active ones remained: the "root of life", lemongrass, zamaniha, golden root. They contributed to the adaptation of a person to difficult conditions and kept a person young and healthy. There are absolutely no plants-metamorphizers left that contribute to various metamorphoses of the body and appearance, for 20 years it was found in the mountains of Tibet "The Sacred Coil", and even that has disappeared today.
The campaign to impoverish our diet continues and at present, Kalega and sorghum have almost disappeared from consumption, it is forbidden to grow poppies.
From many sacred gifts, only the names remain, which are given to us today as synonyms for famous fruits. For example: pruhva, kaliva, bukhma, landushka, which are passed off as swede, or armud, kvit, pigwa, gutey, gun - disappeared gifts that are passed off as quince. Kukish and dulya in the 19th century denoted a pear, although these were completely different gifts, today these words are used to call the image of a fig (also, by the way, a gift). A fist with an inserted thumb, used to denote the mudra of the heart, today it is used as a negative sign. Dulya, figs and figs were no longer grown, because they were sacred plants among the Khazars and Varangians.
Already recently, proska has been called “millet”, barley - barley, and millet and barley cereals have disappeared forever from the humankind of agriculture.
What happened to the real Peter I?
He was captured by the Jesuits and placed in a Swedish fortress. He managed to convey the letter to Charles XII, King of Sweden, and he rescued him from captivity.
Together they organized a campaign against the impostor, but the entire Jesuit-Masonic fraternity of Europe, called to fight, together with the Russian troops (whose relatives were taken hostage in case the troops decide to go over to the side of Charles), won at Poltava.
The real Russian Tsar Peter I was again captured and placed away from Russia - in the Bastille, where he later died. An iron mask was put on his face, which caused a lot of talk in France and Europe. The Swedish king Charles XII fled to Turkey, from where he tried again to organize a campaign against the impostor.
It would seem, kill the real Peter, and there would be no trouble. But the fact of the matter is, the invaders of the Earth needed a conflict, and without a living king behind bars, neither the Russian-Swedish war nor the Russian-Turkish war would have succeeded, which in fact were civil wars that led to the formation of two new states : Turkey and Sweden, and then a few more.
But the real intrigue was not only in the creation of new states. In the 18th century, all of Russia knew and talked about the fact that Peter I was not a real tsar, but an impostor.
And against this background, the “great Russian historians” who arrived from the German lands: Miller, Bayer, Schlozer and Kuhn, who completely distorted the history of Russia, no longer presented any particular difficulty in declaring all the Dmitriev tsars False Dmitrys and impostors who did not have the right to the throne, and who did not managed to groan, they changed the royal surname to - Rurik.
The genius of Satanism is Roman law, which is the basis of the constitutions of modern states. It was created contrary to all ancient canons and ideas about a society based on self-government (self-government + autocracy).
For the first time, judicial power was transferred from the hands of the priests to the hands of people who did not have a spiritual dignity, i.e. the power of the best was replaced by the power of anyone.
Roman law is presented to us as the "crown" of human achievement, in reality it is the pinnacle of disorder and irresponsibility. State laws under Roman law are based on prohibitions and punishments, i.e. on negative emotions, which, as you know, can only destroy. This leads to a general lack of interest in the implementation of laws and to opposition of officials to the people. Even in the circus, work with animals is based not only on a stick, but also on a carrot, but a person on our planet is rated lower than animals by conquerors.
Let us recall how the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea wrote about the Slavs: "They had all the laws in their heads." Relations in ancient society were regulated by the principles of horse, from where the words “canon” (ancient - konon), “from time immemorial”, “chambers” (i.e., by horse) have come down to us.
Guided by the principles of the horse, a person avoided mistakes and could incarnate again in this life. The principle is always above the law, because it contains more possibilities than the law, just as a sentence contains more information than one word.
The very word "law" means "beyond the horse." If a society lives according to the principles of the horse, and not according to the laws, it is more vital. Commandments contain more than a horse, and therefore surpass it, just as a story contains more than a sentence. The commandments can improve human organization and thinking, which in turn can improve the principles of the horse.
In contrast to Roman law, the Russian state was built not on prohibitive laws, but on the conscience of citizens, which strikes a balance between encouragement and prohibition.
As the remarkable Russian thinker I.L. Solonevich, who knew from his own experience the charms of Western democracy, in addition to the long-lived Russian monarchy, based on popular representation (zemstvo), merchants and clergy (meaning pre-Petrine times), democracy and dictatorship were invented, replacing each other in 20-30 years.
However, let us give him the floor himself: “Professor Whipper is not entirely right when he writes that the modern humanities are only “theological scholasticism and nothing more”; it is something much worse: it is deceit. This is a whole collection of deceptive travel signals, beckoning us to the mass graves of famine and executions, typhus and wars, internal ruin and external destruction. The “science” of Diderot, Rousseau, D’Alembert and others has already completed its cycle: there was famine, there was terror, there were wars, and there was the external defeat of France in 1814, in 1871, in 1940.
The king (!) prepared food for himself. When buying a boat, he bargained with the owner for a long time until they agreed on 40 guilders and one (!) mug of beer, which they drank in a local tavern. two to one glass of beer?
In the works of the vice-president of the Russian Philosophical Society N.A. Chaldymov "Anthropological catastrophe" and Ph.D.
Immediately upon the return of the king, all the "daily" records of Peter's childhood and youth disappeared from the court archives, in which any step of the king was noted: receptions of ambassadors, visits to churches, attendance at celebrations. It is unlikely that such a loss of the most important state documents was accidental. After all, there were letters and decrees of the young sovereign - and many of them were written with his own hand, that is, they could serve as samples of handwriting.
The new tsar, after his arrival, suddenly "forgot" the Russian language - he spoke it poorly, and depicted Russian words in Latin letters. For several years he did not write letters on his own, but only dictated them.
He suddenly awakened a desire to change the history, not only of the palace, but of the entire state. He ordered that old handwritten books be removed from all monasteries and brought to Moscow, allegedly for making copies. Failure to comply with the order threatened the death penalty (!). the books were burned, no copies were taken from them. After that, Peir invited German (!) Scientists to write the history of the Russian (!) State. The tradition continued under Anna Ioannovna and under Catherine the Great. The history of Russia has been rewritten! And now the faithful Millerites, foaming at the mouth, are writhing, bringing us heresy that the Scythians came from Iran, about some kind of Tatar, and even the Mongol yoke and other callings of the Varangians, because, they say, the Russians have no "order", they are on their own they cannot govern the state, and "therefore they need a firm German hand" ("mein kampf"! - that's where Hitler got his crazy ideas from!)
Having returned from Europe, the tsar in every possible way avoided any meetings with close relatives - he did not even attend their weddings or funerals, during such events he tried to leave Moscow. Was this a manifestation of constant exposure?
A curious picture is given by the surviving records of the Preobrazhensky Order, the predecessor of the Secret Chancellery, their Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. More than 90% of the state criminals of that time were not conspirators, traitors or rebels, but those who spoke about the substitution of the king! Or did not inform, listening to such speeches.
It was they who represented the greatest danger and were persecuted and executed with particular cruelty.
An interesting detail: most punishments for speeches about an impostor fall precisely in the first years after the Great Embassy - that is, when the fear of a possible false king was especially strong.
According to the article by V. Svetlanin, "Secrets
20th century", №28 2015
