I do not like The Last of Us. I spent a lot of time playing this game and I can say with full responsibility that it is miraculously good. I readily recognize all its many merits, I understand what determines the high ratings from the press and enthusiastic reviews from fans. But I don't love her.
Perhaps it's all due to high expectations. If I hadn't known that this was a universally recognized game of the year and an almost unanimous "ten out of ten", I probably would have been much more warm to it. But I was hoping to see an unconditional masterpiece - and my impression was spoiled by blunders, which are unforgivable for a “masterpiece”.
These are not some large and clearly visible errors - these are small flaws in the details. They are easy to forgive and even easier to ignore altogether. This is why they often go unnoticed. But for some - like me - they can ruin the whole game.
To hell with objectivity and fair assessments. You already know what's good about The Last of Us, and if you don't know, you can find out from. And here we have a note of concentrated irritation - about what is bad in The Last of Us. About those seemingly forgivable things that make me dislike The Last of Us.
About the importance of boxes
Back in the prologue of The Last of Us, I was introduced to two unpleasant facts that instantly ruined my mood. The first one is that Joel can't climb over boxes. Well, he can’t and he can’t, to hell with him - Geralt also can’t do anything against boxes or fences, and the game doesn’t get any worse for it. But! Joel can still climb over some boxes. Through special, story-based boxes that are no different from the others - except in that you can climb over them.
The claim is quite funny and looks far-fetched - guess what, we’re not playing Uncharted or Prince of Persia, what difference does it make what you can climb over and what you can’t? And, of course, the problem really isn't the boxes - the problem is that they destroy the picture of the world and interfere with trust.
 |
 |
| What can you climb over here, and what can’t you climb over? It is impossible to determine by appearance. | |
From the very first frames of the prologue, I was captivated by the game. I felt Joel's every move on the screen and seemed to be able to even guess what he was thinking about right now. It wasn’t him, but me, sneaking through the rubbish-strewn yard, trying not to catch the eye of the bandits. The road to my goal was blocked by a bunch of boxes - and Joel, not very deftly, but confidently, pulled himself up on his hands and climbed over them. I looked around the second part of the yard and approached the second pile of boxes.
And the obsession dissipated. All my senses screamed at me that the smuggler should do the same thing he did a couple of seconds ago - grab on, pull himself up and climb in order to inspect the road further... But the invisible director had long ago decided that at this stage of this level Joel would silently walk into the passage between the boxes - straight towards the waiting enemies. A stupid and illogical decision that I never expected from my hero.
There are a lot of broken windows around. But give Joel exactly one thing, specific and necessary.
If Joel had climbed over the “story” container, even in a scripted cutscene, I would have realized that this was a common game convention and would not have paid attention to it. But the game gave me the false impression that I did it, that I could do it. If the plot box had been different from the non-plot box at least in color, I would have decided that these were the rules of the game and put the awkward moment out of my head. But no, the hero refused to climb for no apparent reason. It became somehow uncomfortable. “Something is wrong here.”
Director's vision
The unfortunate box was only the first manifestation of a general problem. The Last of Us perfectly combines story with gameplay and gives the player the opportunity to feel like a part of the story - as long as the player's vision matches the director's. If you just don’t understand the intended role, blunders will come out, which at first cause bewilderment, and then a sigh and the phrase: “They didn’t guess right again.”
 |
 |
| If you run into the military, you can get punched in the teeth and even get shot. But by “push” in the game we only mean “to push forward, trying to push them away.” | |
When Ellie first sees fireflies, she stops and begins to watch them. At this point, the unsuspecting Joel usually runs calmly forward. The authors correctly foresaw the player’s natural reaction - to notice that Ellie is not nearby, turn around, go back and, as a result, see a girl enthusiastically looking at insects. It's right, it's natural, it's realistic - Joel did it, almost any of us would do it.
But what they didn’t foresee was that Joel might not be touched and might not want to engage in a short conversation with Ellie on the topic “Have you never seen fireflies?” I didn’t want to - I turned around and ran on. Ellie shouted after me, and the smuggler answered her as he ran. It looked incredibly stupid.
Somewhere at this stage, I realized that if the characters decided to talk, it was better to sit and listen until they finished speaking. You never know what script will run later.
Sometimes it gets really sad. One day, according to the director’s idea, the hero had to sneak along the wall and eavesdrop on a conversation between two soldiers - the usual “There’s no one here, let’s get out of here.” I slightly lost control, and my Joel walked not along the wall, but away from it. He hid behind a cinder block lying near the road, waited for half an hour until the soldiers left, then got involved in a shootout, died... And then the second time he caught the ill-fated script and found out that the shootout could have easily been avoided.
Terms and Conditions
All these are really small things - after all, where are there such blunders? But one little thing is enough to blur the overall picture - and, detail by detail, every time there was something that did not allow me to believe in what was happening and to be imbued with the story. And not fifteen minutes passed without some little thing floating into my field of vision and making me wince.
 |
 |
| The further the infection goes, and the more “fungal” in the infected person, the stronger and faster it becomes - although logically it should be the other way around. | |
Moreover, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, the ill-fated invulnerable and invisible partners, who calmly walk through traps and gallop past the most wary enemies (they were scolded for this almost everywhere), did not bother me at all. Yes, damn it, this is a gaming convention, and there really is no escape from it. Ellie, whom we hypothetically need to protect, is in fact much safer than we are, but personally I can’t imagine how to get rid of this - if my partners really needed to be looked after, I would hang myself in the first half hour of the game.
What irritates much more are the balance conventions, because it was quite possible to avoid them. Why is the sharpened half of a scissor only enough for one or two enemies? Why does a machete break so quickly, as if it were plywood and not steel? If a hatchet turns into rubbish in half a dozen blows, what, excuse me, could they cut down? Were there really no more logical and plausible ways to limit the hero’s “terminator” behavior?
A lot of life from nothing
It’s not that these conventions are unpleasant in themselves - they just don’t add any authenticity to the local world. And there’s not much of it anyway.
The story here is strong with living characters, sincere emotions and true relationships, but otherwise it is the most ordinary post-apocalypse. Yes, well made and beautifully staged, but nothing stands out - because it relies on the same cliches as every other post-apocalypse before it. Many facts are taken for granted simply because “it’s like that everywhere.”
“Claws one way, pliers the other.” Steel pipes shatter like glass pipes without surviving even ten blows.
For example, residents of quarantine zones live in crumbling high-rise buildings, obey the army, do community service and receive food stamps... At first glance, it seems that this works great. But where does the food the soldiers are given come from? The agriculture shown in the game, as expected, works to zero - people feed themselves. Where then do the “extra” rations come from for - let's call a spade a spade - parasites from the city? From the secret bins of the homeland? They stocked up well so that they could not produce anything for twenty years.
Joel is killing a lot of time trying to find at least a working battery for the car - and this is logical. But at the same time, the army is driving around with all its might in trucks and SUVs - where from? Why haven't these trucks and SUVs become what any vehicle without proper maintenance becomes in twenty years? Why hasn’t the fuel run out yet, why haven’t the last parts gone to the landfill? There is no industry and there is no prospect of it, there is nowhere to pump oil from, nowhere to repair machinery.
Either the infected manage to survive for a long time without food and water, or they constantly replenish their ranks at the expense of the survivors. In this case, everything is not so bad for the latter - they manage to reproduce themselves and keep the “mushrooms” from dying out.
Actually, this problem is common to all post-apocalypses - the thirteenth shelter would also hardly have survived to see the adventures of the chosen one - so TLoU can really be called one of the most thoughtful post-apocalypses in the world... But the victory is technical. Simply because “everywhere it’s even worse.” The recognized masterpiece went through the same set of rake as its predecessors. It's damn sad.
* * *
It's for these reasons that I'm annoyed by TLoU's massive praise for its "carefully crafted world" and "perfect combination of story and gameplay." In a carefully designed world, there is no question of “How can this even work?” With an ideal combination of plot and gameplay, the first of them cannot grab the second by the scruff of the neck and put it in the right place whenever it pleases.
This is a good game. No, really, this is a great game that fully deserves its high ratings and “Game of the Year”. But, contrary to popular belief, it does not make the impossible possible, does not break insurmountable barriers, does not open new horizons for video games. Naughty Dog just did it better then, which has already been tried a thousand times before. There is nothing supernatural about this. And it seems to me that The Last of Us is not being praised for what it should be praised for.
Illustrations for the article are taken from
I am a long-time opponent of Vanyuta, dating back to the days of the old Komon. Our opinions very often do not coincide and therefore we often argue to the point of cursing. But I never troll him, I just express my point of view, different from his. Now I’ll just tell you what I disagree with Ivan after reading his article about trends.
So, I'll start in order)))
Ivan's opinion:“Very often I encounter on forums an inadequate understanding of what a trend is. Most often they write something like this - you see (in hindsight) how the tops are getting higher and the retracements are getting higher - they say, this is a trend. The wind blows because the trees sway."
My opinion: The first definition of the trend was given by Charles Dow, 150 years ago. With an upward trend, each subsequent peak is higher than the previous one and each subsequent decline is also higher than the previous one. With a downward trend, the situation is the opposite: each subsequent peak is lower than the previous one and each subsequent decline is lower than the previous one. In a flat (sideways) market, each subsequent peak (and decline) is approximately at the same level as the previous ones. And this definition still works and no one has yet refuted it. Therefore, what is the inadequate understanding here? I don't understand)))
Ivan's opinion: Many experienced trend followers will disagree with me - but they also do not understand what a trend is.
In my opinion, an upward trend is, first of all, an independent movement, that is, a movement that has its own causality.
My opinion: Why think for others? Who understands or doesn’t understand what? Personally, I think that no one will even argue with this, that a trend is independent movement, which has its own causality. Without causality, even a pimple on the ass does not appear. And even Wikipedia will confirm that a trend is a tendency, a movement. So there is nothing unusual in this statement, but at the same time, it is not a definition of a trend.
Ivan's opinion: The rebound is only caused by the past decline and can easily be completed, unlike the trend.
That is why the rebound of our market to the second peak at 2300 on the Moscow Exchange index is not a trend. This means all the woeful advice that the first buyout will be on the trend, and that you shouldn’t short against the trend - all this advice is in the firebox.
My opinion: First, let's return to the original sources, namely, to the quotes of the same Charles Dow. Dow also identified three categories of trends: primary, secondary and minor. He considered the most important to be the primary trend, which lasts more than a year. The secondary trend is corrective in relation to the main one and usually lasts from a month to three. Such pullbacks account for approximately one to two-thirds of the distance prices traveled during the major trend. Minor or short-term trends last no more than a month and represent short-term fluctuations within an intermediate trend.
Ivan calls the rebound to the second peak at 2300 non-trend. And what, exactly, is it non-trend??? According to the Dow Theory, these are just small short-term fluctuations within an intermediate trend. And if you look at the monthly MICEX chart, everything again fits perfectly into the Dow theory.
From 2011 to 2014 there was a sideways movement, and since 2014 there has been an upward movement that lasts more than a year (primary trend), during which there were corrections, the last of which was from 2293 to 1774, and now the trend is continuing with an update of the previous high. Please note that local minima were not updated even once during this period of time! So think for yourself: is it worth throwing into the fire the advice not to short against the trend? Here’s my personal opinion – it’s not worth it.
Ivan's opinion: There is no upward trend in our index. In separate papers - yes. Not in the index. There is no upward trend in oil.
My opinion: Well, according to the index, I showed you the trend in the previous picture. And here is the oil chart:
Brent 
Prices have been rising for several years now, starting in 2016 (primary trend). There were corrections over several months (secondary trend). So again, everything fits into the Dow theory of trends. And if someone in oil and in the index did not see a trend, then this is his problem. Like in the famous movie:
Do you see the gopher?
So, there is a beginning of a trend, an end and its middle.
Van, no one argues with this! But the fact is that on the same American “hoarse” there is the beginning of a trend, but there is still no end!!! And when will you and Vasya understand this? The market has no idea about your wishes, about the fact that you are dreaming of a correction in order to close unprofitable shorts at least to zero. The market continues to grow and rewrite new historical highs. When will this trend end? Only God knows. But certainly not for you))) Although if the correction begins in the near future, then you will be in the forefront, shouting louder than anyone that you warned us.
So, my opinion is that the midpoint should be calculated exactly when the trend actually ends. And this will be clearly visible. Until this moment, any wishes and dreams have absolutely no value.
Ivan's opinion: 1. A correction is needed to kill this year’s growth, and almost immediately - at the end of January - in February.
My opinion: I am “FOR” with both hands a healthy correction in the roar. But killing the growth of this year, starting from 2110, and even immediately, is already from the realm of fantasy, just another wishlist-dreams that we have been reading for several months.
Ivan's opinion: 2. There will be an April-May correction towards 2470-2500, this is -15% of the current highs.
My opinion: To be honest, I have never encountered a “correction” towards historical highs))) Well, if only a “correction”? In general, there is probably no experienced trader who does not know the saying “Sell In May And Go Away”, so every season everyone tries to trade the ups before May in order to sell on the highs there. Therefore, again, there is logic in Vanya’s phrase, but there is no value. The same goes for the third statement. Nobody knows what will happen in the fall, so anything is possible. So, with the prefix “perhaps”, you can say whatever you want. Something will come true.
Ivan's opinion: And do you know how a trader differs from would-be investors, including pro-investment traders? He sees where the highway will be laid. And they will continue to collect pieces of growth at half the depot until they are washed away into the depths of the universal method basin.
My opinion: To be honest, I still don’t understand which category belongs to Vasya, who is shorting the “hoarse”, and Vanya, who is shorting Tatka and Sber? Didn't they see this highway? After all, they were even told many times, guys, there’s no need to shorten this! Don't!!! It's not time yet! Wait!
Well, the conclusions from all this...
Ivan: I recorded a two-hour webinar about trends, how and when a trend begins and ends, what to look for, what to take into account.
Buy it when you're ready
My opinion: I’m probably not yet mature enough to pay money for all sorts of nonsense that has no value. The Internet is full of real useful information, starting with the basics laid down 150 years ago, and which are still working! Just re-read the works of Charles Dow and you will understand that the price takes into account EVERYTHING!!! A trend continues until it gives clear signals that it has changed.
This text is an invitation to look at yoga together from an unusual, unfashionable point of view, and to see that it can be different. This is my personal story and the conclusions I drew from it.
What yoga is not
Today, yoga is often a wild mix of esotericism, when rituals and passes result in miracles, and fitness. The student does not ask the teacher: “Where are we going? What will they encounter on this path?”, the teacher does not talk about it, they do rituals and passes and receive magical unity with the Universe.
It is believed that the obligatory result of practice will be a healthy and slender body.
Yoga is neither magical passes nor fitness. This is a method, a technology described in the works of great practitioners. Their understanding is greatly complicated by the fact that many fundamental treatises on yoga are written in the language of images. You need to be able to read them, and in order to be able to do so, you need to study and seriously work hard, often teachers are not ready for this.
Where does yoga lead?
Editorial opinion may not reflect the views of the author.
In case of health problems, do not self-medicate, consult your doctor.
Do you like our texts? Join us on social networks to stay up to date with all the latest and most interesting things!
An unexpected video for me, however, like almost any video and information from Sergei Nikolaevich Lazarev, whom I really discovered for myself this summer, although I knew about him back in the early 90s.
Why is life sometimes unfair to decent and kind people? How to properly care for others? Under what conditions is the road to hell paved with good intentions? How to behave so as not to die while helping others? How is it that evil people sometimes live better than good people? Why doesn't society support good people?
Many were in Moscow, at VDNKh, taking pictures at the famous “Friendship of Peoples” fountain. Let us remind you what this composition looks like: a round pool, along the outer perimeter there are girls representing Agriculture from each union republic. In the center rises a large bowl, surrounded by three main crops. Bottom row - sunflower, middle - wheat, top - hemp!
How so? Why did Comrade Stalin give such a significant place to “hashish weed” in such a sacred monument? Very simple. Because hemp has always been the number one agricultural crop in Rus'!
I would like to propose the topic of gluten-free nutrition as one of the most important components proper nutrition in general and a factor that dramatically prolongs active life in particular.The bottom line comes down to this.
Four types of cereals: wheat, rye, barley and oats contain varying amounts of a component such as gluten or gluten. “It is a mixture consisting of amino acids, glycopeptides, acidic peptides, dialyzable and non-dialyzable peptides and enzymes with different properties that are determined by both the main protein chain and the attached side chains of non-protein conjugates, and therefore different in physical and physicochemical properties. Perhaps that is why it is not surprising that his identification has not yet been carried out” / see. monograph ed. Lessof, translation into Russian, publishing house "Medicine" Moscow, 1986 "Clinical reactions to food" /.
This monograph contains a lot of interesting things, and upon thoughtful reading, even unexpected things for anyone interested not only in nutrition tactics, but also in strategy!
I learned that allergies are also a consequence of hypoxia during childbirth, caused by the so-called “obstetrics”. Did you know about this?
Excerpt from scientific article Lavrentyev Alexander Vadimovich, (allergist - immunologist, pulmonologist, pediatrician, Candidate of Medical Sciences). "...factors affecting the supply of oxygen to fetal tissues are also reflected in the timing of maturation and the characteristics of the formation of the child’s immune response after birth, which, of course, matters. So in mothers of children with allergic pathology compared to the control group (healthy children) Late toxicosis, threats of termination of pregnancy in the second or third trimester were more common, and the number of women who suffered from acute respiratory viral infections in the second half of pregnancy was also noticeably higher. high frequency premature birth, as well as hypoxia during childbirth."
I came across an unusual article on the dental website stom33.ru. Its unusualness is that, along with a set of articles and notes in the usual vein about brushing teeth, caries, problems with bite, odor, etc., it presents a point of view that is different from the traditional view. Firstly, it mentions a raw food diet as one of the facts of strong teeth of ancient people (proof of archaeological scientists), and secondly, the idea is clearly conveyed that dental health is only a reflection of the health of internal organs (gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, liver, pancreas) and that it is pointless to try to keep teeth healthy by regularly healing if the functional systems are not in order. By the way, the idea that everything in the body is interconnected and one organ cannot be sick, but you need to look at everything holistically, comes from ancient healers, and is also fully supported by naturopathy. By the way, if one of the dentists had told me about this relationship at the time when I was actively filling my teeth and asking every doctor about the reasons for their destruction already at the age of 20, I would have thought about it, but, alas... And, thirdly, the relationship between rickets, caries and bone problems in general is shown. Plus some more revelations about the inadequacy of regular cleansing to achieve oral health, as well as about the self-healing of teeth and what kind of calcium teeth actually need.The continuation, announced at the end of the post a few days ago, was unexpected. I found the original source and it surprised me:
Modern research suggests that an adult needs only 23-25 g of protein per day. To replenish the used reserve, you need 700 g of protein per month (!). However, typical modern man consumes huge amounts of protein without even realizing it! For example, for breakfast the average person eats scrambled eggs (porridge with milk, sandwiches with butter and cheese), for lunch - something meat or fish, and in between - milk, cottage cheese, yoghurt, and often in the evening there is also something on the menu - it's high in protein. As a result, a person’s protein consumption turns out to be several times more than required, forcing the body to waste precious Life energy, which could be used for cleansing (i.e. self-medication). Excess protein most often leads to digestive problems, because the body is not able to digest such an amount; As a result, rotted remains interfere with the functioning of the intestines, put a heavy load on the kidneys, strain the pancreas, force the liver to work with triple load, contribute to the emergence of many inflammatory diseases, including chronic diseases, as well as the development of metabolic diseases (diabetes, obesity).
However, proteins (proteins), according to many modern researchers, are not a primarily important component of food. All its components are equally necessary and important: vitamins, microelements, carbohydrates, fatty acids, enzymes, fiber, water, etc.
(Translation of materials from the site
http://www. notmilk. com/52reasons. txt
)
Below is insignificant partscientifically based materials on the dangers of dairy foods, collected and systematized on the website http://www. notmilk. com.Visit it if you still think that dairy products give you health.
1. ALLERGY
"Indeed, a variety of diseases are associated with cow's milk and dairy products, including: poor digestion, low hemoglobin, diabetes in children, heart disease, atherosclerosis, arthritis, kidney stones, mood swings, depression, irritability, allergies..." Townsend Medical Letter, May 1995
" Formula infants are allergic to cow's milk proteins. Approximately 50-70% of infants experience rashes or other signs of skin disease, 50-60% experience signs of gastritis, and 20-30% have respiratory problems. Recommended therapy is avoidance cow's milk." Pediatric-Allergy-Immunology, August 1994, 5 (5 Suppl.)
2. BREAST CANCER
"Human insulin-like growth factor hormone (IGF-I) and blood IGF-I are identical. Both contain 70 amino acids in an identical sequence." Magazine "SCIENCE", edition 249. August 24, 1990.
“The IGF-I hormone increases the risk of changes in the genetic apparatus of an RNA cell and its degeneration into cancer by 10 times. The IGF-I hormone appears to be a critical component of cell proliferation (their degeneration into cancer cells).X.S. Li, Exp-Cell-Res,March 1994, 211 (1)
3. CROHN'S DISEASE
"Mucobacterium paratuberculosis is able to survive pasteurization of milk" Journal of Applied Microbiology Environment: 64 (3), March 1998.
"RNA genes from mucobacterium paratuberculosis (bacteria not killed by pasteurization) were found in 100% of patients with Crohn's disease" D. Mishina, Hearings National Academy US Science:93: September 1996
4. DIABETES
“The slogan of the National Dairy Committee - “Milk gives health” - does not correspond to the truth. Scientific America, October 1992
"These new studies, and more than 20 previously conducted and well-documented ones, lead researchers to believe there is a very strong link between milk and diabetes in children." Journal of Diabetes Treatment; 1994, 17 (12)
5. INFECTIOUS EAR DISEASES
"Milk allergies are common among children... They are a leading cause of chronic ear infections. This 'plague' affects about 40% of all children under 6 years of age." Julian Whitaker, M.D., "Health and Healing," October 1998, Volume 8, Number 10
"Cow's milk has become a point of contention among doctors and nutritionists. There was a time when milk was considered a highly desirable food product, but research has forced us to rethink this recommendation... the dairy diet contributes to an increase in the number of diseases, including chronic ear diseases..." Benjamin Spock, M.D., "Child Welfare," 7th Edition
that man is the only mammal (meaning his biological body with its metabolic biochemical processes similar to those of other higher mammals) that consumes milk throughout its life, and not only during the period when the mother is breastfeeding her infant, as is the case, without exception , in all mammal species in nature? Also, humans are the only species in nature that uses the milk of other animal species for their nutrition! Isn't this weird and normal? This is a fact - there is an important reason to think about changing your life for the better.
Isn’t this fact already sufficient to understand that by going against nature, which is always unnatural, we deprive ourselves and our children (forced through force, and then out of habit or addiction, to consume milk or dairy products) of health, dooming on the natural consequences of such actions - illness? Or is nature more stupid than us, and our self-esteem is higher than the truth (the laws of nature) and honest and objective scientific knowledge, and simply common sense?
I believe that you would be curious to know what diseases are a direct consequence of consuming animal milk and dairy “products”, what are their causes and biological processes that lead to certain diseases? Let's look at some of them, as well as characteristic prejudices about the benefits (safety), or even the supposed need for consumption of dairy products, especially by children. For those who want to see and analyze statistics, receive strictly scientific comments and exact figures, be sure to watch the lecture of the respected professor Walter Weiss. For this person, conscience and truth are higher than the fear of reprisals from globalizers, and a “profitable” lie for selling one’s conscience and honor is unthinkable. There are still such people.
Milk consumption is artificial and is a vicious and deadly industry.
All the information below is for normal, sensible people. So, let's begin:
- CALCIUM in milk. Species nutrition. Liver. Who is the person in the food chain biosphere.
Of course it is true, there is no doubt. Then, according to this logic, which is what doctors tell us in unison, we need to drink a lot of cow’s (goat’s...) milk, and also eat cottage cheese and cheese in order to get the calcium we need so much for our body, right? Then why do cows, which give so much milk containing a large number of calcium, in order to get it themselves, they do not drink milk, sucking it from other cows, or bears, or moose. Well, don’t be surprised by this formulation of the question, because we humans manage and are not horrified to drink the milk of another species of animal. So I pose a question that, sometimes after living for 70 years, a person has never thought about, but which has an unambiguous and simple answer. Yes, we also drink milk that is foreign to us all our lives. We learned to drink. We believe that this is natural. Not a single species, not a single individual of mammals on our planet does this. And adult animals and even teenagers, in the natural world, never consume milk (even of their own species, not to mention the milk of other species) for food. So, adult cows do not drink milk. But nevertheless, cows, like any other animal, do not lack calcium, and their bones are strong and full of milk. Maybe there is another way to get the calcium the body needs so much? Of course there is, everything is in nature and everything is very simple and logical. Cows, goats and other animals that humans have tamed and began to strain their milk, intended by nature for feeding their young, for food, consume only grass for food and drink only water, and this is enough for them to synthesize this same milk inside your body, feed your cubs with milk, and even “pour” ten times more to a person. A wild buffalo produces only 4-6 liters of milk per day, and this is enough for her calf to grow and develop properly. Cows produce a much larger (sometimes 10-20 times) amount of milk only because for hundreds (or thousands, if you want to believe so) of years, people have artificially stimulated the formation of excess milk by manipulating the udder and cycles and carried out appropriate selection. And where does calcium come from in milk, as well as other microelements, because cows eat grass, but do not eat dairy products themselves. After all, the answer is obvious. Calcium enters the cow's body with the very green grass that they eat, enters in huge quantities, is absorbed and passes into milk in water-dissolved form. Moreover, no matter how many liters of milk a cow gives per day, the calcium content in it will be the same, provided that fresh green grass is eaten, since green plants contain tens of times more calcium than will later be in the milk of this cow and in the structure her body. For example, in sesame seeds or barley sprouts, there is 10 or more times more calcium than in cow's milk of the same mass. And for us people, isn’t it enough to consume vegetables and greens in food in order to get any necessary amount of calcium and so that women have a lot of their milk? Yes, more than enough. Can we get calcium from cows' milk? No, he can't. Why? More on this below. Please use common sense, and not the desire to justify the consumption of milk at any cost and say nonsense like -
“Well, then there are cows, they are herbivores, and then there is a person. People are omnivores, or even smarter, predators!” Or, “a person is not an animal, they say, the laws are different, etc.” Or remember the Indian Vedas, you don’t need to say anything about goodness (this will be the second part of my article) and please don’t say stupid things you heard from doctors, like “ On the contrary, milk is indispensable for older people. Especially for women: due to a decrease in hormonal levels(very clear and comprehensive formulation) Calcium gradually begins to be washed out of the body and bones weaken. Hence the threat of osteoporosis and severe fractures. Traditional medicine recommends chewing chalk in such cases.(idiots - the calcium there is inorganic) , that is, calcium in its pure form; meanwhile, in milk it is contained in a bound form and, therefore, is absorbed much better", or give "irrefutable" arguments and state the ultimate truth like “Discussions about the dangers of milk, firstly, are unscientific(this is because some Vasya wrote that it was supposedly anti-scientific, like, he himself is a fool, of course, without evidence, and signed it - Academician Pupkin.) , secondly, are ahistorical. After all, we all grew up with it.” How do you like it? Well, it’s just heartbreaking and arch scientifically - an ironclad argument - they grew up on milk. And some, then, grew up on vodka - after all, some drink all their lives and “nothing.” Nothing good. We survived - we survived. But just how they grew up and what kind of illness then... are all sick - or is this the norm of life now? Leave all this for now, put what you have learned and what you want aside.
I ask you to reason and think. So, I’m stating a fact - all biological metabolic processes (nutrition and cell division, DNA and RNA replication, the functioning of the immune system, accumulation of toxins, protein biosynthesis..) in cows, in humans, and in all other higher animals proceed similarly, according to some laws of nature (I’m not talking now about the peculiarities of the digestive system of cows and people, there is a difference that is determined by their goals and objectives - their type of nutrition, etc.), but, speaking about the milk of humans and other mammals, there is a fundamental difference in its chemical composition, caused by a different biology, the program of our species and the difference in the ontogenesis of the child and the calf, as well as in the information matrix ( wave genetics is studying similar issues). But this difference is of fundamental and exceptional importance, because It was not for nothing that nature gave each species the opportunity to feed its young with its own, and only its own, milk. For example, there is less protein in human breast milk than in any other milk of other mammals, because Unlike the cubs of any animals, the child does not need to grow so quickly physically, does not need to stand on his feet on the day of his birth (children do not need and do not experience rapid muscle growth), etc., but the child needs a lot of non-oxidized fats for brain growth and development. Yes, and the proteins are different between us and cows. Moreover, goats and cows are different. The biochemistry of milk in humans and other animals is completely different. I am not talking now about the genetic program and information that should be transmitted through milk only from one’s mother to her child (generic information with its own characteristics) and the consequences of consuming foreign milk in this aspect. This is a separate but very deep topic. Here we consider mainly pure biology and biochemistry. What happens to the human body, which, due to its ignorance and thoughtless copying of the bad examples of its loved ones, believing that this is how it should be, begins to introduce into the diet or continues to consume the milk of another type of animal, I will write below.
Let's get back to calcium. After all, many sincerely believe that calcium drunk with cow's milk will be absorbed and benefit them.
Many fruits, and especially the green parts of plants, contain more calcium than the milk of cows, goats, etc. But unlike the calcium contained in animal milk, a child (no longer an infant - who should receive all nutrients only with full-fledged milk his mother, and then switches to specific complementary foods and then to specific nutrition) will actually receive the calcium he needs from plant foods for his development. But what if a child consumes animal milk and does not receive calcium? No, of course not, that’s why there are so many problems with musculoskeletal system and other body systems modern people(especially since the 50s of the last century) - from scoliosis and arthritis to type 1 diabetes, cellulite, fibroids... I want to emphasize that calcium is not washed out of the body over the years, its deficiency is caused by the constant consumption of certain foods, such as sugar , milk and dairy products, flour and cereal products. These products contain a lot of calcium, but it is inorganic (because calcium is inorganic, dead and not available for absorption and use in cellular biochemistry; it is formed when any product containing calcium is cooked above plus 65 degrees, transforming from organic) and is not compatible with the human body. Such calcium does not dissolve, but accumulates in the form of calcareous plaques that clog blood vessels (especially together with oxidized cholesterol and toxins of decaying proteins, interesting and stable compounds are formed), and the treatment of many diseases is precisely associated with the removal of inorganic calcium from the body. And some people chew chalk. But the point is not only the impossibility of assimilation and use of inorganic calcium for the needs of the body, because many drink fresh (live) milk, and not just pasteurized (dead) milk. It would seem - well, organic calcium, found in a natural water-dissolved form, in whole milk, is useful and will definitely be absorbed by the human body and will benefit it, right? It seems so. But no, not like that!
By the way, to keep your hair and nails strong, you need to eat enough silicon. Green peppers contain a lot of silicon - drink fresh juice from green peppers, or mixed with carrots. Up to 500 ml per day.
Yes, unpasteurized, whole milk contains organic calcium, but that’s not the only problem, there’s another problem. And this is why you will always be calcium deficient if you consume animal milk.
The fact is that in the milk of cows, in addition to calcium, there is also a milk protein - casein, it is a strong oxidizing agent (since in the human body, even in infants, there are no enzymes that disassemble this protein from cow's milk), like any animal Protein, for the human body, is an antigen, and in general an excess of nitrogenous compounds, which are poisons, oxidize the pH environment of the stomach. And casein strongly acidifies the stomach environment. As a result, in order to bring homeostasis (constancy of the internal environment) into balance (in the human body all environments are alkaline and only in people who eat animal corpses and dairy “products”, the pH of the stomach has increased acidity, which is not characteristic of our species), in this case acid-base balance, the body is forced to neutralize excess acid in the stomach with a large amount of alkali, in this case taken, first of all, from the milk itself. Those. calcium. And nature always follows the simplest and most logical path - it’s easier to take it from the product itself. Moreover, this amount of calcium contained in the milk drunk is not enough to completely neutralize the increased acidity, because casein (more on this below) is a “long-lasting” protein, cannot be easily digested and absorbed, and then calcium is taken from other foods eaten (and it’s good if they are present in the diet - living green plant food), or calcium is taken from the body itself, destroying it bone tissue, which is what happens in 95% of the population. Often, such mothers who feed their infants with their milk have their teeth, skeleton, nails, hair destroyed - only because they, having succumbed to the recommendations and even demands of doctors who do not understand biochemistry and natural logic, drink and eat milk, cottage cheese, etc. etc., during this period (pregnancy and breastfeeding) they consume dairy and meat products that are not characteristic of the human diet, which is what they say, incl. and these facts. In order for calcium to be absorbed almost 100 percent, it is necessary that the product that contains calcium also contains magnesium. The milk of cows and goats contains very little magnesium, no more than is needed to absorb 25 percent of the calcium drunk in the milk. Also, the calcium itself in milk is not enough to neutralize the oxidation of gastric juice from the strong oxidizing effect of the milk protein casein. You need 3-4 times more. Now, if casein were broken down into amino acids, if we humans synthesized the enzyme renin in our stomachs, then we would be able to obtain calcium from milk, however, then we would have to synthesize calf renin, and when we drank goat milk, then goat milk. But this does not and cannot exist in nature, because... Even in calves, from a certain age, renin in their stomachs ceases to be synthesized and then they stop sucking their mother’s milk, since they can no longer fully absorb it, and then the calves switch to a specific diet - they begin to eat grass. And the man (even though he has a stake on his head) continues to lap up the milk of cows, from a mug, of course, from the udder, not romantically, it must be “cultural.” Of course, there is not enough calcium, and first of all, the unfortunate mother. After all, all the necessary nutrients and building substances are transferred to the child (fetus), through the placenta, even to the detriment of the mother’s body, as nature provides for the preservation of the species (everything the fetus needs at any cost). This is the truth - this is nature, these are its laws. And what do doctors advise if there is a lack of calcium: eat sprouted grains of oats or barley, cabbage or green salad, dill, drink turnip leaf juice? And a person will receive calcium from green plant foods in excess, and from a small volume. No, they advise drinking even more milk and eating more cottage cheese. And the joints are already crunching, the kidneys are suffering (I won’t go into detail about the kidneys in this article). What about the liver?
Liver, is the largest gland, it is it that must carry out the synthesis of many proteins that are so necessary for our body, for example, hemoglobin, glycogen, various enzymes, must neutralize toxic substances that enter it with the blood from the gastrointestinal tract (and from there this comes !), it is involved in lymph formation, thus playing a huge role in metabolism. It would be necessary to tell more about the liver so that it would be clear how those people who thoughtlessly eat the meat and milk of animals mock their liver and what such mockery always and inevitably leads to. A question of safety margin and time. And why are they doing this? For the sake of benefit, as they think, i.e. essential amino acids. So you will understand that this is nonsense. For the sake of supposedly taste, stop eating and soon you will feel a natural and natural disgust, even from the smell of fried and boiled corpses. Listen carefully. The liver is the most important organ for protein synthesis. It produces all the blood albumin, the bulk of coagulation factors, protein complexes (glycoproteins, lipoproteins), etc. The most intense breakdown of proteins also occurs in the liver. It is involved in the metabolism of amino acids, the synthesis of glutamine and creatine; almost exclusively in P. the formation of urea occurs. P. plays a significant role in lipid metabolism. Basically, triglycerides, phospholipids and bile acids are synthesized in it, a significant part of endogenous cholesterol is formed here, triglycerides are oxidized and acetone bodies are formed; The bile secreted by P. is important for the breakdown and absorption of fats in the intestine. P. actively participates in the interstitial metabolism of carbohydrates: the formation of sugar, the oxidation of glucose, and the synthesis and breakdown of glycogen occur in it. P. is one of the most important glycogen depots in the body. P.'s participation in pigment metabolism is the formation of bilirubin, its capture from the blood, conjugation and excretion into bile. P. participates in metabolism biologically active substances- hormones, biogenic amines, vitamins. P.'s excretory function ensures the release of more than 40 compounds from the body with bile, both synthesized by P. itself and captured by it from the blood. Unlike the kidneys, it also excretes substances with high molecular weight and insoluble in water. Substances excreted by P. in bile include bile acids, cholesterol, phospholipids, bilirubin, many proteins, copper, etc. P.’s barrier function is to protect the body from the damaging effects of foreign agents (mainly proteins) and metabolic products, maintaining homeostasis. The barrier function is carried out due to the protective and neutralizing effect of the liver. P.'s neutralizing effect ensures the chemical transformation of toxic products, both coming from the outside and those formed during interstitial metabolism. As a result of metabolic transformations in P. (oxidation, reduction, hydrolysis, conjugation with glucuronic acid or other compounds), the toxicity of these products decreases and (or) their water solubility increases, which makes it possible to isolate them from the body.
Do you understand what this means and why I couldn’t help but dwell on liver functions? After all, by eating foreign proteins - antigens with animal corpses and dairy “products”, we bombard the liver with undigested protein poisons and toxins, which it must somehow partially neutralize and transmit through the blood to the kidneys, lymph... This also means that our body is capable of synthesizes itself, if there is no excessive load on our endocrine glands. The body is completely self-sufficient. We do not need proteins from outside - from food in general, with the exception of the transition period to specific nutrition in complex patients.. From amino acids that are synthesized in the large intestine from plant fiber by a certain group of symbiotic bacteria, through the blood, the liver synthesizes our body the required amount of various proteins . This is where proteins come from. Those. from greens, vegetables and fruits. You don't even need nuts. By the way, for two years I specifically did not eat any proteins, neither from nuts nor from grains, only protein-free plant foods. Not only did he not die, but on the contrary, he acquired a lot of useful things. And the proteins were synthesized! But this example, for truth, understanding the laws of nature, has no significance, like thousands of other examples, because The truth does not need proof, but the lie does! But everything was turned upside down for us. Let them prove the harmlessness, not to mention the benefits, of consuming animal proteins - they can’t do that, not on any point. They can only at the level of emotions and references to their ancestors, they say, they always ate, they can shake their fat with anger and regalia. And you are still looking for how many proteins are in this or that product. It doesn't matter how much. There are tribes in the Amazon who never eat protein at all, but they give birth at 100 - 120 years old and feed their children, as expected, with their milk. They consume only 5-6 types of foods, of which one is Sweet Potatoes (sweet potatoes are carbohydrates), which makes up 96 percent of their total food. And at the exit from the digestive system, they have 10 times more proteins than at the entrance. These studies were conducted by an American doctor. Yes, you understand that these people eat specific food, they are vegetarians - raw foodists. Here are the squirrels, here is science with sick and pot-bellied doctors and academicians with triple chins, foaming at the mouth in defense of their glass of milk and piece of meat and imposing it on others. Later I will post a program on the Blog (from one talk show) with such smart people - oh, how interesting it will be. Switch to live food, the intestines and liver will be cleansed, the lymph and skin will be cleansed, acne, folds and fat will disappear. Strength and energy appear. You will be healthy and happy. And this is natural.
I got distracted from Calcium, but I’m sure it was not in vain. Let's move on again to calcium in cow's milk.
And if pasteurized milk is consumed after boiling, then organic calcium turns into an inorganic form and this structure of calcium cannot be absorbed at all, just like any mineral in an inorganic form. Remember, when cleaning or cooking foods, organic water-soluble and absorbable calcium is converted into a substance insoluble in water - inorganic calcium, which cannot be absorbed by the human body or any higher animal in general, it accumulates in the body and leads to many diseases (from arthritis to stones and sand in the kidneys, liver and varicose veins). Remember what happens to minerals when water is boiled in a kettle (if the water is not distilled) - they precipitate - i.e. become insoluble - inorganic - slag. Do you think that if you cook and fry food, boil milk and whatever, then your body will feel like magic, not like a teapot? It will be the same as in a teapot. The minerals will become dead - slag.
And only plants, in the process of photosynthesis, will again be able to from inorganic minerals entering through root system together with water, build and accumulate organic living minerals, as well as synthesize primary organic biomass (complex fats, proteins, carbohydrates, fatty acids..), which will feed all animals, i.e. consumers (In ecology - consumers of primary organic matter of different orders in a single food chain and network of the Earth's biosphere - the largest ecosystem on our planet).
One of the motivating moments that I began to nurse Kolya from the first months, using mainly reusable diapers, was the understanding of how huge a number of disposable diapers are left after each baby. Everything would be fine, but each such diaper completely decomposes within 500 (!) years. At the same time, I was haunted by the thought that I, like any woman, was also not far behind with my pads and, if possible, it would be great to have an environmentally friendly alternative in this matter, but I had never seen anything on this topic before. And then it was found the other day.
“Almost every woman on the planet is now forced to use hygiene products that take several hundred years to decompose and are still not very convenient, and, apparently, very toxic. Did you know that there is a convenient and environmentally friendly alternative: from those whoever tried it, few would not call this alternative ideal.
The main reason why every girl does not know about this product is that selling this product is extremely unprofitable: one munkap, otherwise a menstrual cup, will last for 10-15-20 years... A munkap is a small flexible cap made of surgical grade silicone with " leg", which instantly acquires body temperature, is completely imperceptible and prevents contact of secretions with air - due to which:
1) protects against leakage much more reliably than a tampon
2) since there is no contact of the secretions with oxygen, they have no odor.
Your own feeling during critical days becomes very pure and light; most of those who try it change their overall attitude towards these days: they become, if not a holiday, then at least a quiet joy. The negativity from memories of the need to always keep special tools at hand and the general feeling of using them can probably only be understood in comparison with what the majority do not yet know and have never known...
“Nowadays they talk a lot about the unfavorable environmental situation and believe that it is precisely this that is to blame for the fact that people have become sick more often and more severely. At the same time, no one pays attention to endoecology. What it is? And this is the most main factor, which determines whether a person is sick or healthy, this is the state of the internal environment of our body. It is determined by what kind of life we lead, what we eat, what water we drink, how we breathe, and so on. It follows that a person himself, without the help of doctors, can shape his endoecological state, and therefore manage his health.
Ecology as a science about the surrounding world is a more capacious concept that includes everything that is commonly called the Universe. Everything in it should be in harmony. The reason for the discord with the world around us lies within us, so recovery at all levels must begin with ourselves...
...the level of slagging in the body, determined by the condition of the liver, in children under 5 years of age should be within 2-3%, in children from 5 to 12 years old - within 5-6%, in adults - within 8-12%. When examining patients, it is discovered that the average level of slagging in children is 25-30%, and in adults it reaches 45-60%. This means that if the liver is delivered through connective tissues liquid, then it is cleared by the liver by only 40-55% in adults and 70-75% in children. Thus, our cells have to live and work in unbearable conditions. They are literally suffocating from toxic products. And until a person restores and cleanses his internal, endoecological environment, he cannot be completely cured of any disease. That's why the cornerstone of my wellness system is internal cleansing of the body.
The following signs indicate that the body is polluted:
- disruption of the gastrointestinal tract (constipation, diarrhea, foul-smelling stool, dysbacteriosis, gallstones, kidney stones);
- metabolic disorders (arthritis, arthrosis, osteochondrosis, osteoporosis);
- various skin and allergic manifestations (all kinds of rashes, eczema, psoriasis, lichen, papillomas, warts, furunculosis, urticaria);
- increased fatigue;
- memory impairment, etc.
I repeat once again: if you do not improve the functioning of the gastrointestinal tract and liver as the main detoxification organ, and if you do not cleanse the connective tissue structures, you cannot cure a person.
...In order not to bring slagging in your body to the maximum level, you must first of all pay serious attention to nutrition. Many people do not believe that only by switching to proper (meaning separate) nutrition can one get rid of diseases that are beyond the power of the strongest chemotherapy drugs..."
Usually my friends read my articles before I publish them. And this article was no exception. However, I did not expect the reaction it caused. Indignation was caused by what I wrote about the rise of fascism in Ukraine and called the nationalists (Banderaites) fascists. They began to convince me that nationalists and Banderaites should not be called fascists. It turns out these are just people who have an “alternative opinion.” I didn't change anything. Let this be my alternative opinion.IN last years More and more often it seems to me that I live in parallel world. Especially when I observe the events taking place today in the territory former USSR. If someone had told me about the events of today in the 80s of the last century, I would have decided that he was crazy.
It was difficult for Soviet people then to imagine the collapse of the USSR and all subsequent events: the war in Chechnya, terrorist explosions of residential buildings and metro stations, dispersal of demonstrations by security forces using batons, etc. The most difficult thing for us would be to imagine the collapse of the consciousness of peoples Soviet Union. Looking through documentary footage from the times of the USSR, I catch myself thinking that all citizens of the USSR died.
However, the Soviet people did not die. They live in former Soviet republics, today called independent states. They live an ordinary human life. But something happened to them, if they take what is happening today for granted, as normal reality.
And this collapse of human consciousness is more terrible today than the borders and customs that lie between us. It is terrible because it gives rise to misunderstanding, suspicion, and, worst of all, hatred between Soviet people. It generates hatred between us, and most importantly, between our children. And if our ancestors fought together against the enemy in the past. Today's events taking place in our countries give every reason to talk about a possible military confrontation between our peoples.
And the events in Ukraine clearly show the depth of this collapse. This is not only an increase in hatred of the Soviet past, but also an increase in the hatred of part of the Ukrainian population towards Russia and Russian people (this is especially felt in the center of Ukraine). I am not speaking for its western territories, since the rampant nationalism (or rather fascism) that is observed there speaks for itself.
It is difficult to say how much of their hatred is real, or whether it is the result of a well-fueled and skillfully imitated acting. If this is the result of paid acting, then all questions disappear. But if hatred of everything Soviet (Russian) is sincere, then this is very surprising. Since most nationalists are those who were older and lived in Soviet time(and often lived quite well), and many were members of the CPSU (such as the late Vyacheslav Chernovol, Levko Lukyanenko, Viktor Yushchenko, etc.). The hatred of young people is generally brought up from hearsay and is therefore doubly surprising, since it is difficult to fiercely hate the Soviet regime with such force if you did not live under it.
However, if young people can still be understood. For twenty-two years they grew up and were educated in the modern information field. A certain modern information field that my friends constantly tell me about when I advise them to throw the TV out of the house and not watch anything that is shown on this very TV today. So with young people everything is clear. They grew up under the influence of the information field created by today's bourgeois government.
The government that, after the collapse of the USSR, received access to all material sources and benefits created over seventy years Soviet power and the Soviet people. The power that today continues to individually manage and own the country’s wealth. The government, which naturally does not need a return to the USSR.
But it is difficult to understand representatives of the older generation who lived in the USSR. Difficult to understand Soviet people who have ceased to reason independently. Their words and judgments are sometimes a direct reflection of the opinions of the TV. And that’s why their words sometimes sound so incredible that you never cease to be surprised by them. Let me give you just a few incredible examples.
The first incident happened to a friend of mine in 2003, when a conflict arose between Russia and Ukraine over Tuzla. A friend of mine has many relatives in Russia. So her aunt called her from Moscow with the words: “Olya, why aren’t you giving our Tuzla back?” Moreover, it should first be said that my aunt called extremely rarely. And then suddenly there was a call to Olya with complaints about Tuzla. It’s okay that resolving issues about Tuzla is not included in the range of issues that Olya can solve in her position. This did not bother my aunt.
The second incident happened to me in 2006, when another gas conflict broke out between Russia and Ukraine. Then, on January 1, 2006, Gazprom stopped supplying natural gas to Ukraine, however, continuing to export gas through Ukrainian territory. Immediately, accusations were made that Ukraine had “begun unauthorized withdrawal of gas” intended for European consumers. Then a friend of mine who lives in Nefteyugansk called me with the words: “Well, how do you like it there without our gas?” To be honest, I was somewhat taken aback by this question. I laughed and said: “You know US is the same without YOUR gas. We will adapt to this too. But YOU, even if we pay three times more for it, you still won’t get any more and you won’t live better.”
The cliches of information propaganda are firmly embedded in human consciousness. And a person cannot refuse them. To all reasoned objections, a person stubbornly defends them. For example, many residents of Ukraine sincerely talk about the Russian (Soviet) “occupation” of Ukraine. My objections: “What kind of occupation can we talk about if after Stalin’s death all the general secretaries of the USSR were Ukrainians? Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev." This is not an argument. Why did the “occupiers” build schools, kindergartens and hospitals in the “occupied” territories (even in the most remote villages). The “occupiers” built, and today’s “democratically elected”, “people’s”, “independent” government is closing schools, kindergartens and hospitals. More precisely, it does not close, but optimizes (the meaning is the same, the words are just different).
And the most important thing is that every year the cliches that destroy our consciousness become an axiom that does not require proof. Russia empire. Ukraine is stealing gas. Russia wants to take us into slavery again. The Russians don’t respect us, but if we go to Europe, they will begin to reckon with us. Ukrainians oppress and hate Russians in Ukraine. Russians call Ukrainian language canine.
From year to year our children are raised on these phrases. Mutual grievances and accusations are growing from year to year. From year to year, suspicion between us is growing. From year to year hatred grows, threatening to turn into enmity.
We allow our consciousness to be manipulated. We discard the past and evaluate the present biasedly. Everyone has their own, really. However, as one Soviet song says: “There is a bright truth. There is a dark truth. There is for a moment. And for the times. Sometimes it’s kind. It can be hard. And there is always only one truth.”
And the truth is that only together Soviet peoples were strength. It is impossible for us to share the past. It is impossible to separate our mistakes and achievements. It is impossible to separate our suffering and our needs. It is impossible to separate our sorrows and our joys. It is impossible to separate our defeats and our VICTORY. We had everything in common. We would not have achieved anything if we had not always been TOGETHER. Only thanks to our friendship, our respect and trust, we were able to achieve incredible heights in science, sports, education, manufacturing, and space.
And we must always remember this. Ordinary working people have nothing to divide and no need to fear each other. Enmity and hatred have no place in the hearts of honest people. Fear, hatred and enmity live in dishonest hearts. In the hearts of those who rob us today. Suspicion and hostility are inherent in thieves and traitors who sell and betray our countries to the world bourgeoisie.
Citizens of the USSR, do not succumb to today's bourgeois propaganda of our countries. Do not allow mistrust, hostility and hatred to be sowed between our peoples. Do not allow us to sow hatred between our children, neither by deed, nor by word, nor by thought.