Dozens of books and hundreds of articles have been written about Pushkin. But no one says a word about his unshakable Great Russian imperial convictions. There are also striking predictions about the fate of Russia after the collapse of the empire: it will “lose Donetsk coal
THE TRUTH ABOUT PUSHKIN
Ivan LEPESHEV, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Grodno
Especially for the “Analytical newspaper “Secret Research”
On June 6 this year, almost all Belarusian republican newspapers did not fail to celebrate the 210th anniversary of the birth of A.S. with separate articles. Pushkin. And in 1997, by Presidential Decree No. 502, 1999 was declared the year of Pushkin in our country. It is clear that in other republics of the past Soviet Union(except for the Russian Federation) there were no such decrees and could not be. Immediately, long before the anniversary, they began to hold holiday events. For example, the Academy of Sciences established scientific conference dedicated to Pushkin. Appropriate laudatory articles were published on the pages of newspapers and magazines. As if at the request of the workers, various proposals were made. Thus, corresponding member of the Petrovsky Academy of Sciences and Arts Albert Bagdasarov on the pages of the Nastanitskaya Gazeta (October 22, 1998) proposed naming one of the universities after Pushkin. And after some time, Brest State University began to bear this name. And in Minsk they erected a monument to Pushkin. Why is Pushkin so dear to us, Belarusians? Do we know everything about him? Were we told about everything related to his work at school and reported on radio, television, in books, newspapers, magazines?
I will introduce readers to unconventional thoughts about the poet’s views reflected in his works, and I will touch on something that many of those who studied Pushkin in middle or high school were unlikely to think about.
And in the boundless expanses of the former Union, they began to study Pushkin’s work from the first grade (in our republic, with the so-called bilingualism, it’s the same now). We read, or even learned by heart, his poetic tales (by the way, interesting and created at a high artistic level), then we went through large works of art(“Dubrovsky”, “The Captain’s Daughter”), the tragedy “Boris Godunov” and the novel in verse “Eugene Onegin”. In each class, the only thing that was repeated was: Pushkin, Pushkin... And also numerous operas, ballets, films made based on his works. Moreover, the names of streets in cities (including Belarusian ones), institutions named after him. In Grodno, for example, a street, a cinema, and a library are named after Pushkin. Willingly or unwittingly, a kind of cult of Pushkin was created.
If today you ask a schoolchild or an adult what Russian writers he knows, the first answer you will hear is: “Pushkin.” His surname, one might say, entered everyday life and turned from his own into a common noun. Perhaps everyone has heard, or even said: “And who will do it for you - Pushkin?!” A ticket inspector on a bus might say to a hare: “Will Pushkin buy a ticket for you?” And this is reflected in literature. In I. Ptashnikov’s novel “Revenge,” a character says: “If you don’t want to, Pushkin won’t do it for you.” In A. Dudarev’s play “Break” we read: “Well, why are you shining in your eyes? - You talking to me? “No, to Pushkin.” Or in L. Kolodezhny’s story “Under the Cold Sky”: “What do you allow yourself? - I? “Not Pushkin.”
Undoubtedly, Pushkin - great poet Russian people. During his lifetime, he was already recognized by his contemporaries as the author of numerous masterpieces of art. This is the creator of the Russian literary language and the initiator of new, realistic literature, a great reformer. Pushkin is for Russian culture, language and literature the same as, say, T. Shevchenko is for Ukrainian, and Y. Kupala is for Belarusian.
Without sparing epithets and metaphors, Pushkin is called an “eternally living phenomenon”, “an unquenchable light of spirituality”, “the living soul of the people”... They also write about his worldwide fame. But this is unlikely to be the case. He is well known in the CIS countries, but in foreign countries, let’s be sincere, very few people know and read him. Among the Russian writers there, the most popular are L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky and A. Solzhenitsyn. As evidenced in the “Belarusian Soviet Encyclopedia”, L. Tolstoy, according to UNESCO information, occupies one of the first places among writers in the number of languages of the world into which his works have been translated. Another comparison: full meeting works of Pushkin (L., 1979) is 10 volumes, and of Tolstoy - 90 volumes. But nevertheless, in the same encyclopedia, L. Tolstoy is given 2 pages, and Pushkin - 4, Pushkin’s portrait takes up a whole page (intaglio insert), and Tolstoy’s photograph is passport size (three by four). Almost the same page-by-page ratio is in the recently published 18-volume “Belarusian Encyclopedia”: Tolstoy is allocated 3 columns, Pushkin - 6. The same cult of Pushkin is still in effect.
One of the characters in V. Bykov’s story “Obelisk” says that now “any student or even a high school student, just start a conversation with him about Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, he will immediately blurt out all their errors, mistakes and limitations.” In textbooks on Russian literature for secondary and high school Leo Tolstoy is described as a writer whose entire work is “in screaming contradictions.” On the one hand, he is a brilliant artist and thinker, a “lump,” a “seasoned little man,” and on the other hand, a “landowner, a fool for Christ,” a “hysterical wimp,” who says: “I don’t eat meat anymore and now eat rice cutlets.” " Various errors and misconceptions are also found in the works of Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Yesenin and others. And only Pushkin seems to enjoy the immunity of inviolability and shines like the sun. Meanwhile, in his work there are many real errors that people try not to notice or bashfully avoid. Or maybe for those who write about Pushkin, these are not errors at all, but ideology.
Dozens of books and hundreds of articles have been written about Pushkin. But no one says a word about his unshakable Great Russian imperial convictions.
The only exception is one work. Its author G.P. Fedotov (1886-1951) - an outstanding Russian historian and cultural philosopher. In 1925, he emigrated from the Soviet Union, taught in Paris, and then in the USA. In 1947, he published an essay “The Fate of Empires” in a foreign Russian edition, reprinted not so long ago by the Moscow magazine “Znamya” (1992, No. 3-4). The author characterizes the empire as a state that has expanded beyond national and ethnic boundaries and convincingly substantiates the inevitability of the collapse of the USSR - the last world empire. There are also such striking predictions about the fate of Russia after the collapse of the empire: it “will lose Donetsk coal, Baku oil... Great Russia, and with the addition of Belarus (probably) and Siberia (for a long time) still represents a huge body, with a huge population...” . The author calls Pushkin “the last singer of the Empire,” who sincerely believed that soon all the peoples of Russia, including those recently captured (“the Finn, and the now wild Tungus, and the Kalmyk, a friend of the steppes”), “will read Pushkin in Russian ( this is how “Monument” was understood), and all ethnographic survivals will become the property of museums and special magazines.”
In the already quoted poem “Monument” there are the poet’s words that in his “cruel age he glorified Freedom.” But what kind of freedom? Freedom for whom? The poet does not even want to know that a nation cannot be free if it enslaves other nations. But during Pushkin’s lifetime, Finland, Bessarabia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and many peoples of the Caucasus were conquered.
The poet had no doubt at all that the Russians were fulfilling a great mission, civilizing the natives - captured “wild” or “semi-wild” peoples. He was well acquainted with P. Pestel and shared the views expressed on the pages of Russian Pravda that the Russification of all foreign tribes would contribute to “raising Russia to the highest degree of prosperity, greatness and power” and that “in the entire expanse of the Russian state” should to be “only one language is Russian.”
Pushkin also has statements about language. Let us think about how he, with a chauvinistic preaching of his national exclusivity, speaks about the incomparable greatness of the Russian language. He, they say, “as a material of literature, has an undeniable superiority over all European ones.” Of course, every gypsy praises his mare. But is it really possible to humiliate other languages and unreasonably exalt your own? Neither Goethe, nor Byron, nor any other writer would dare say such a thing. All developed literary languages equally rich and equally equal, and there is not and cannot be an “equal” among them. Our writer, journalist, teacher completely agrees with Franciszek Bogushevich, who wrote that the Belarusian language is “the same human and gentlemanly language as French, or German, or any other.”
Yes, however, such excessive, but purposeful glorification of the “great, powerful, truthful and free Russian language” did not begin with Pushkin. One of his predecessors, Lomonosov, spoke out, it seems, no worse: “Charles the Fifth, the Roman Emperor, used to say that it is decent to speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with the enemy, Italian with the female sex. But if he Russian language was skillful, then, of course, he would have added to this that it is decent for them to speak with all of them, for he would have found in him the splendor of Spanish, the liveliness of French, the strength of German, the tenderness of Italian, and, moreover, the rich and powerful brevity of the Greek and Latin languages in images.” .
Lines from Pushkin’s poem “He Lived Among Us” are often quoted, which speaks “about the times to come, when peoples, having forgotten their strife, will unite into a great family.” But, of course, this means a family with an older brother at the head, under the auspices of the Russians. In the apologetic-imperial poem “To the Slanderers of Russia”, although the author asks questions, they are rhetorical and do not require an answer: “Will the Slavic streams merge into the Russian sea? Will it run out? That's the question." Oh, how today many of the “Slavic cathedrals” dream of the confluence of Slavic streams in the Russian sea and persistently hammer into our heads the invented thousand-year common history, culture, language of Russians and Belarusians, impose on us a foreign language, foreign history, foreign heroes, replace the former internationalism is interslavism.
Pushkin with ambition draws a great-power image of his vast country-empire, stretching “from Perm to Taurida, from the Finnish rocks to fiery Colchis, from the shocked Kremlin to the walls of motionless China.” The Caucasian mountain masses that have not yet been captured are “a nest of robber tribes, a fence of Circassian freedom.” In the poem “Prisoner of the Caucasus” we see the glorification of the conqueror: “I will sing of you, hero, O Kotlyarevsky, scourge of the Caucasus! Wherever you rushed like a thunderstorm, your move, like a black infection, destroyed and destroyed the tribes...” And threats: “Everything is subject to the Russian sword,” “Our double-headed eagle has risen to the indignant Caucasus.” And again: “Hold your snowy head, humble yourself, Caucasus: Ermolov is coming!” By the way, the last lines about Ermolov touched upon V. Mayakovsky, who for some time was a supporter of the call to “throw Pushkin off the ship of modernity” and in this regard noted (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 12, 1958, p. 435): “How Should we convey to the Caucasus such lines that praised the Russian general, the enslaver of Georgia, in the name of the existence of a single, indivisible Russia? Or take, for example, Pushkin’s “Mazepa” - where they take Mazepa by the mustache.”
In the poem “The Bronze Horseman”, “the last singer of the Empire” justifies the tsar’s aggressive policy. On the newly conquered lands of the Gulf of Finland, Peter the Great stands and thinks: “From here we will threaten the Swede, here the city will be founded in spite of our arrogant neighbor. Here we are destined by nature to open a window to Europe, to stand with our feet by the sea.” The line “cut a window to Europe” later became catchphrase, began to be used with the meaning “to establish business and cultural ties with European countries” - contrary to its real meaning, associated with aggression (“we will threaten the Swede”, “to stand with a firm foot at the sea”).
By the way, this expression is satirically reinterpreted in Y. Kupala’s play “Tuteishya”. An Eastern scientist asks Yanka Zdolnik if the Belarusians are planning to acquire the sea for themselves, “to open a window somewhere - to Europe or Asia.” Yanka replies: “Even without the sea, sir, we have plenty of places to drown ourselves, as soon as the infection blows through the eastern or western windows.” Next, the “scientists” write that Belarusians do not think and do not want to think about expanding their borders, about the Dardanelles, the Indian Seas and any windows. Here this expression returns to its original, in the popular understanding, meaning associated with the seizure of foreign lands. It is precisely the same understanding of the expression that is reflected in the famous humoresque about Tsar Peter the Great and Prince Menshikov. The Tsar says: “Here we are destined by nature to cut a window into Europe! Or maybe we’ll also cut through to Asia!” And the prince: “There are not enough curtains for two windows!” (We know from history, however, that enough was enough...).
The previously mentioned popular representative of the Decembrist movement P. Pestel strongly advocated that Belarusians and Little Russians (Ukrainians) “be considered genuine Russians and not be separated from these latter by any names.” Pushkin shared these same thoughts. About Belarusians he wrote: “People who have been dear to us since ancient times.” “Well, what can you do, Pushkin was a sovereign, an imperialist,” - this is how S. Bookchin comments on these Pushkin words (Svoboda. 10/14/1997). This same Pushkin definition of Belarusians was subsequently repeatedly used by supporters of “Western Russianism” with their fantastic concept of three tribes of a single Russian people - Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians.
Pushkin’s attitude towards Ukrainians is clearly revealed when reading the poem “Poltava”. Mazepa, this, as Professor V. Antonovich wrote, “a very sincere and ardent patriot of Ukraine, who always cared about the complete independence of his region,” is shown in the poem as a “traitor to the Russian Tsar,” “a villain,” “Judas.” With conviction, Pushkin writes that “Mazepa has been forgotten for a long time; Only in the triumphant shrine once a year does the cathedral thunder about him with anathema until now, threatening.” But today in Ukraine no one considers Mazepa a traitor; they pay tribute to him - in monuments, in street names, in images on hryvnias, etc.
“RELAX YOUR RIGHT HAND...”
In many other works of Pushkin, not mentioned above, one can see with the naked eye the same inviolability of his imperial convictions, unacceptable for a person with a non-Soviet mindset. Let's not forget that our life path The poet graduated with the court rank of “Chamber Junker of His Imperial Majesty,” granted to him by the Tsar back in 1833. It seems that after Pushkin none of the writers had court titles.
Monographs, articles, and textbooks claim that Pushkin’s work “helps strengthen friendship between the peoples of our great country.” And when reading the writer’s works, you come across his arrogant, disdainful attitude towards the Tatars, Bashkirs, Circassians, etc.
Through the mouth of his positive hero from the story “The Captain’s Daughter,” the writer says that the huge and rich Orenburg province, recently annexed to the empire, “was inhabited by many semi-wild peoples” and that their “every minute indignation,” “frivolity and cruelty required continuous supervision from the government to keep them in subordination."
And today in our schools, in the 4th grade, “The Tale of the Dead Princess and the Seven Knights” is studied. It is included in a textbook prepared by Belarusian authors (T. Mushinskaya and others) and published in Minsk. Before the text of the work it is said that in Pushkin’s fairy tales it is not only the plot that attracts attention, but above all the “moral content”. Let us remember what the “moral content” is here.
A young, beautiful princess, condemned to death by the evil queen-stepmother, is miraculously saved. After wandering for a long time in the forest, she enters the tower. The owners of the house were not there, but the princess realized that “good people live here.” After some time they appear - “seven heroes, seven ruddy mustaches.” They behave in a highly intelligent, gentlemanly manner and command respect from the reader. But let's see what they do. The poet, as if in passing, talks about them permanent occupation: “Before the morning dawn, brothers as a friendly family go out for a walk, to shoot gray ducks, to amuse their right hand, to rush to the field, or to cut off the head from the broad shoulders of a Tatar, or to drive a Pyatigorsk Circassian out of the forest.”
A chill creeps down my spine from these lines, from this fun right hand. These “good people” have a good job. And the “moral content” of the fairy tale is also, to say the least, “pretty.” The cut off “head from the broad shoulders” of the Tatar, the murdered Sorochin and Circassian do not fit into this morality.
Maybe in the textbook under the text of the fairy tale there is some condemnation of robbery? No. There are only questions for students: “Which of the characters did you like the most? Who made you feel differently? Which ones exactly? How did the heroes treat the princess? Why?" That's all. Comments, as they say, are unnecessary.
In the poem “Poltava”, although it is said that “Ukraine was silently worried, a spark had ignited in it for a long time,” the poet was always on the side of Tsar Peter the Great. And he doesn’t even condemn him for such a wild act. Once, long before the Battle of Poltava, Hetman of Ukraine Mazepa feasted with the Tsar at his headquarters and “said a bold word.” The stern king, in front of numerous guests, threateningly grabbed Mazepa by the gray mustache. Moving forward to the present time, it is not difficult to imagine what the worldwide resonance and corresponding reaction would be if, say, Yeltsin or Putin grabbed a governor or, God forbid, his neighbor-president by the mustache in front of people.
In Europe, in addition to the Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Lusatians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bulgarians, Macedonians), there live two more large groups of related peoples. One of them is Germanic (English, Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders). The other is the Romanesque group (French, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Romanians, Moldovans). But no one has heard of any English statesman or writer fighting for the unification of all German peoples into one union. Moreover, England and Germany, both in the first and second world wars, were not allies, but opponents. Likewise, the French have never sought and do not seek to unite with the Spaniards, Italians and other Romance peoples. But where the theories of Pan-Slavism are in vogue, statesmen only dream of a union, federation or confederation, there the master of belles-lettres thinks about the time when “Slavic streams will merge into the Russian sea.” (Russians are not Slavs, but only Slavic-speaking Finno-Ugrians and Turks; the basis of Russia’s great power is not the idea of Pan-Slavism, but the idea of the Great Horde, hiding behind Pan-Slavism. - Ed.)
About ten years ago, the Neman magazine published the memoirs of Ivan Nosovich (1788-1877), a famous lexicographer and folklorist, author of the first Dictionary Belarusian language", "Collection of Belarusian proverbs", and a number of other significant works. There is such an episode in these “Memories of My Life”.
In 1839, Nosovich, teaching Russian literature at the Sventyansky School, was once very shocked. All the students in his class categorically refused to memorize Pushkin’s poem “To the Slanderers of Russia.” This was repeated for three days in a row. Finally, the teacher realized what was going on. “Tell me honestly, do these poems contradict your patriotism? Is not it? - Yes, Mister Teacher! - everyone shouted.”
This is what the students were like back then! “Not like the current tribe,” as Lermontov wrote on another occasion.
A quarter of a century later, Muravyov-Hangman, the merciless strangler of Kalinovsky’s rebels, said: “What the Russian bayonet could not do, the Russian school will complete.” He, as stated in “Essays on the History of Belarus,” almost entirely replaced local teachers and officials with immigrants from the central Russian provinces, attracting them with increased salaries and the prospect of a quick career.
This upbringing lasted for many, many decades. And as a result of this, almost every schoolchild or student today memorizes everything they say and accepts everything printed or shown on TV at face value. Whatever is offered, he eats.
To be continued
Tags: Russia, Society, Pushkin
Project 4.1 is a secret medical study by the United States government on the Marshall Islanders who were exposed to radiation following the March 1, 1954 Bikini Atoll nuclear test. Americans did not expect such an effect from radioactive contamination: miscarriages and stillbirths among women doubled in the first five years after the tests, and many of those who survived soon developed cancer.
The US Department of Energy commented on the experiments: “...Research on the effects of radiation on people could be carried out in parallel with the treatment of radiation victims.” And further: “...The population of the Marshall Islands was used in the experiment as guinea pigs.”
Let's learn more about those events
More than 65 years ago, the United States began nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Castle Bravo was an American test of a thermonuclear explosive device on March 1, 1954 at Bikini Atoll (Republic of the Marshall Islands, associated with the United States). The first of a series of seven Operation Castle challenges.
During this test, a two-stage charge was detonated, in which lithium deuteride was used as thermonuclear fuel. The energy released during the explosion reached 15 megatons, making Castle Bravo the most powerful of all US nuclear tests. The explosion led to severe radiation contamination of the environment, which caused concern throughout the world and led to a serious revision of existing views on nuclear weapons.
For many decades this topic was a kind of taboo for Western world, especially for the United States, which tested the “devilish”, as the islanders themselves called it, weapons under the good intentions “in the name of peace and security on Earth.” However, in 2006, during international events dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the sad date, a decision was made at the UN level to officially investigate all the circumstances and consequences of American tests for the aborigines and the environment.
During this time, several dozen expeditions of scientists, as well as activists, members of non-governmental environmental organizations and human rights activists, were sent to the Marshall Islands. UN officials also took part in the study of the problem. The summary, conclusions and recommendations will be presented to the Human Rights Council at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva by Special Rapporteur Calin Gergescu.
As you know, the Americans tested the first atomic bomb in the atmosphere on July 16, 1945 - on their own territory, near the town of Alamogordo, New Mexico. Then - on the residents of Japan: the nuclear apocalypse of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been celebrated annually since August 1945. After this, the US authorities decided to test new weapons away from their own territory. The choice fell on the sparsely populated Marshall Islands, lost in the Pacific Ocean, which immediately after World War II were under UN control, and after the explosions of two American atomic bombs on Bikini Island in 1946, custody of them was transferred to the United States. The White House has made significant commitments to “protect the islanders from the loss of their lands and resources” and “protect the health of the residents of the Trustee Territory.”
How exactly the Americans “protected” the people and their lands entrusted to them became obvious from official documents declassified in 1994, as well as recently. It turned out that this “guardianship” is leading to an international tribunal. “Between 1946 and 1948,” the author of the book “Danger” told me nuclear war: Report on Rongelep Atoll" by anthropologist Barbara Johnston, - United States tested 66 nuclear bombs on or near the Bikini and Enivitok atolls, atomizing the islands from the inside and, as declassified documents show, affecting the local population."
The total explosive power in the Marshall Islands was 93 times higher than all American atmospheric nuclear tests in the Nevada desert. It is equivalent to more than 7,000 bombs dropped by the United States on Hiroshima, Japan.
In March 1954, a secret test codenamed "Bravo" was carried out on Bikini, the results of which stunned even the military. The island was practically destroyed by a hydrogen bomb, which was a thousand times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. “On the eve of this test,” environmental activists Jane Goodall and Rick Esselta told reporters, “weather conditions deteriorated, and on the morning of the test, the wind blew directly onto American warships and several inhabited islands, including Rongilep and Utrik. However, despite the fact that this wind direction posed a danger to the people living on these islands, the bomb was detonated. Huge clouds of sand and white ash settled on several atolls, affecting people, including a small number of Americans there.”
In total, declassified US materials estimate that the nuclear tests released about 6.3 billion curies of radioactive iodine-131 into the atmosphere over the Marshall Islands. This is 42 times more than the 150 million curies released in the Nevada test and 150 times more than the 40 million curies released after the accident. Chernobyl nuclear power plant. (Emissions from Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant currently range from 2.4 to 24 million curies, experts estimate, and they're still on the rise.)
However, as documents show, not only the local population suffered due to secret nuclear weapons tests. The Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryu Maru (“Lucky Dragon”) was also targeted near Bravo Island in 1954. All 23 crew members received severe radiation exposure. One of them, Kuboyama Aikishi, died a few weeks later. (The Americans handed over antibiotics to the Japanese to treat the crew injured by radiation.) At the same time, the islanders were not warned about testing, they were not taken to a safe place at least for this time. They, unknowingly, experienced the virtually fatal health effects of nuclear explosions.
As Barbara Johnston says, the unsuspecting irradiated aborigines from the island of Rongelep were resettled after the tests and became subjects for top-secret American research into the effects of radiation on human health (“Project 4.1”). Even then, the consequences of radiation penetrating the human body were identified and documented, but these people never received any treatment. Also, the results of the movement and accumulation of radioisotopes in the marine and terrestrial environments of Rongelep and other northern atolls were not made public at that time.
In 1957, irradiated natives, as reported in a recently presented to the U.S. public documentary film“Nuclear savagery. The islands of the secret project 4.1" (by Adam Horowitz) were returned with great fanfare to their homeland, where new homes were built for them in the affected area. This, as the creators of the film exposing the US authorities note, was a planned experiment. (In the USSR, something similar happened in 1986 after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant - then, also at the instigation of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, houses for displaced people were built in the affected areas.) American medical scientists observed the irradiated population of people in natural, so to speak, conditions of acquired radioactivity. All this was run by officials from the Department of Defense and the US Commission on atomic energy.
Doctors landed on the islands every year to examine the deteriorating health of the local population using x-rays, blood tests and other methods. The results were carefully documented and kept in military and medical annals under the heading “Top Secret”.
People on the islands of Rongilep and Utrik suffered skin burns and hair loss. But then a press report from the US Atomic Energy Commission said that several Americans and Marshallese “received a small dose of radiation. But no burns were observed. Everything went fine." A closed report from the authorities indicated that 18 islands and atolls could be contaminated with radionuclide fallout as a result of tests within the framework of Project Bravo. A few years later, a report by the US Department of Energy noted that in addition to the 18 mentioned, other islands were also contaminated, five of them inhabited.
In 1955 (at the height of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands), on the initiative of a group of famous nuclear physicists, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation was established. There was a wave of protests in the United States itself. More than two thousand American scientists in 1957 demanded that the authorities immediately stop nuclear weapons testing. About ten thousand researchers from more than four dozen countries sent a letter of protest to the UN Secretary General.
However, in response to the legitimate demand of the Marshall Islanders to stop nuclear testing and destruction of the islands, Great Britain, France and Belgium proposed an agreed draft resolution, which cynically stated that the United States had the right to conduct nuclear tests in the Trust Territory “in the interests of general peace and security.”
However, nothing strange. By that time, both Great Britain and France were already conducting their own nuclear tests, and a US ban on such tests would automatically put an end to their own nuclear developments. Therefore, despite the protests of the world community, the United States continued nuclear explosions in the Pacific Ocean.
The Soviet Union, which tested its own atomic bomb in August 1949, also took part in the campaign against nuclear testing in the Pacific. In 1956, the USSR declared a moratorium on testing, apparently believing that the still few nuclear countries would follow its example. But instead of sitting down at the negotiating table and resolving the issue of ending the tests or at least a temporary moratorium on them, the United States and Great Britain carried out 30 new explosions, including in the Marshall Islands. Last " nuclear mushroom" blocked out the sun above them in 1958.
The first thyroid tumors appeared in Rongelep residents in 1963, 9 years after testing one of the most powerful hydrogen bombs. Due to nuclear testing, about a thousand residents of the Marshall Islands, according to independent international experts, died from cancer and other diseases. Only 1,865 people were officially recognized by US authorities as victims of American nuclear tests. They were paid compensation in the amount of more than $80 million. More than 5 thousand islanders never received any compensation, since American authorities did not consider them victims of a nuclear strike or radioactive contamination. Now, apparently, this injustice will be corrected.
But tests with horrific consequences for humans and the environment could well not have happened. And in general, all world history could have gone differently if the UN had accepted the “International Convention on the Prohibition of the Production and Use of Weapons Based on the Use of Atomic Energy for the Purposes of Mass Destruction” proposed by the USSR in June 1946 (even before the start of the first nuclear test in the Marshall Islands). But this document remained a draft. Neither the United States nor its allies were prepared for such a turn of events. They rushed their other development - an unprecedented race of new weapons - nuclear - began. And some islands and their inhabitants (not Americans, moreover) were of no importance to the authorities of the emerging superpower.
Only five years later, in July 1963, after grueling negotiations between the USSR and the USA and Great Britain, the unprecedented “Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water” was signed. According to Russian experts published in the Atomic Energy Bulletin, by this time about 520 atmospheric nuclear tests had already been carried out on the planet. The USA and USSR each detonated more than 210 atomic and hydrogen bombs, Great Britain - 21, France - 50 and China - 23. France continued atmospheric testing until 1974, and China until 1980.
In 1994, a 1953 Prospectus Bravo was discovered that included a reference to Project 4.1, and it was clearly written before the impact occurred. The US government responded that someone simply went back to the list of projects and inserted project 4.1 there; thus, according to the US government, all actions in the Marshall Islands were not intentional.
First Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Konstantin Sivkov told Top Secret that relations between Russia and NATO no longer have a chance of stabilization: “There can be no talk about improving relations with NATO; a further increase in conflict in various forms is predicted.
In the near future, the United States is preparing a strike against Russia. but this will not be a classic military conflict. They plan to inflict it with the help of soft power, with the help of organizing a revolution, similar to the one that recently took place in Ukraine. To do this, it is necessary to create an appropriate foreign policy environment.
The main goal of the Americans is to undermine the economy with the help of various sanctions, then expose Russia as an aggressor, provoking various demonstrations of belligerence.
NATO is the most important instrument in the current situation, so the demonstrative escalation of tension will certainly continue.”
Intellectual entertainment. Interesting illusions, logic games and riddles.
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF OPTICAL RIDDLES
ILLUSIONS AND INTELLECTUAL ENTERTAINMENT Should you trust everything you see? Is it possible to see something that no one has seen? Is it true that stationary objects can move? Why do adults and children see the same object differently? On this site you will find answers to these and many other questions.
Log-in.ru is a world of unusual and intellectual entertainment. Interesting optical illusions, optical illusions, logic flash games.
Magazine Secret of the Company: July 2-8, 2007
Main themes:
When suppliers threatened the business
Thoughtfulness of the company structure, brilliant managers and a product in demand - all this comes to naught when the supplier of raw materials or components “cuts off the oxygen.”
Gamma radiation
The owner of the Gamma paint factory, Alexander Ermakov, planned to become a monopolist. The tiny children's stationery market has never seen such passions: on the way to his dream, Ermakov tries everything - from absorption to dumping.
Panel calculation
S.Holding is the first and so far the only construction company that has decided to trade as a franchise. According to Sekret Firmy calculations, an unusual strategy could increase construction volumes by 60 times. But developers are in no hurry to sign up as franchisees.
Percentage from wheels
The pioneers of the car lending market are giving way to new aggressive players. Automakers are also queuing up for clients: Toyota Bank received a banking license last week.
Golden thought
"IN mining industry The basic rule is not to disclose geological information.” It is believed that data about the mine is comparable in value to the value of the mine itself
Interception management
Text: Oksana Tsarevskaya
To get other people's clients, companies go to any lengths. "Secret of the Company" researched and systematized the most creative methods of interception.
Shooting the dead
Marketers are not omnipotent. And if the market signs the death warrant for a brand, the company can only bury the brand with minimal ritual costs.
Fluid moment
HR managers, like medieval alchemists, are unsuccessfully trying to calculate best level staff turnover. "Secret of the Company" recalculated all the universal formulas - and rejected them.
Principles of Andrey Okhlopkov
The chairman of the board of directors of the Soyuz-Victan vodka company has two mobile phones - one for Russia, the other for Ukraine. This is his business in miniature: out of 11.3 million dal of vodka produced by the company in 2006, 3 million dal were produced and sold in Russia. The phones ring almost non-stop, and this is also a pattern: Okhlopkov is unable to move away from the operational management of a holding company with an annual turnover of 0 million.
Previous numbers:
Exclusive for infanata.org
Latest AGSI number +
All this is, of course, sad, but books in electronic form are already being sold by Amazon and Apple. In Russia I used to see printed magazines on the Subscribe.ru service, but now I can’t find them. Language can also be an obstacle here. English is still more popular and the standard of living of its citizens is higher.
As for leaking to the network, for some reason this does not interfere with music sales on iTunes, or rather it interferes, but apparently not enough
As an option, paid access to a closed website where all issues of the newspaper are available. But they will be pulled out of there if desired. Or creating a secure program, and there are already some that haven’t been hacked, that would allow you to read issues while connected to the Internet. This is all lyrics, but it shows that there are always options; whether they are justified is another matter.
Sooner or later, almost all information will go to the network, books, magazines, newspapers, movies. Maybe you and I, as you yourself Vadim predicted on the topic:
Municipal educational institution main comprehensive school With. Smyshlyaevka
Project topic. art magazine “In secret around the world”
Leading pedagogical idea. Currently, there are a lot of children's magazines published, different in content, subject matter, etc. Unfortunately, from the results of a survey conducted at school it turned out that:
1) many families in rural areas cannot afford to subscribe to a children's magazine;
2) within our school, students’ reading range is reduced mainly to reading works according to the program;
3) the older students get, the less they read.
Therefore, the main purpose of publishing the children's magazine “In Secret to the Whole World” is to promote reading and develop reader interest.
“In secret around the world” is the first magazine in our school, whose content is aimed at a children's audience and an audience for adults. The magazine is interesting because it is “handmade,” that is, it consists of materials selected by the children themselves. The first issue was signed for publication on February 17, 2013. It contains an interview with the school director and interviews with the children. The magazine has pages for the philosophy of the soul, fairy tales for the little ones, rebuses, puzzles, etc. The texts are accompanied by colorful photographs and drawings. selected 3rd grade students.
We tried to make the magazine attractive not only in terms of content, but also in design: I want to believe. that our readers will enjoy the convenient format of the publication, and bright illustrations and photographs, most of which were made by the hands of our third-graders.
Electronic journals online at Top-Journals.com
If you are interested in reading magazines not only in paper form, but also in electronic form, then you have come to the right place. We tried to collect your favorite magazines from Russia and abroad in one place, providing you with pleasant reading without going to print shops. Here you can download magazines from Yandex disk for free without registration in PDF format or read magazines online for free from ISSUU and Yandex disk.
Our magazine catalog is updated daily with fresh issues and carefully preserves a rich archive of magazines on various topics. Download magazines 2016 and read magazines online 2016
Men's and women's magazines, family and children's magazines, about fashion and cinema, music and esotericism, about sports, magazines on knitting and sewing, about computer games, about hunting and fishing, about science and technology, about ships and yachts, about weapons, about cars, about space and aviation, about business and politics, about health, art, about sports, about animals and plants, culinary and historical, about interior design, about science fiction, about mobile technology and computers, about electronics, about travel, about construction , about photography and design, about celebrities, magazines for mothers and children, about gardening, humorous and on the topic of society, this is not a complete list of topics presented on our website.
Magazines house, online magazine Burda, knitting fashion magazine, Verena, Cosmopolitan, Lisa, Maxim, men's health russia, caravan, why, closed school, behind the wheel, 1000 tips, bravo, glamour, oops, interior, secret, lose weight, 1000 tips, playboy 2016, girl and many others are waiting to meet their readers. With us it is convenient to read magazines online and download magazines
The site presents only free magazines, which means online electronic magazines can be read or downloaded absolutely free from the file hosting sites People and Yandex.disk without SMS and speed limits and without previewing advertisements.
Sources: studopedia.ru, log-in.ru, forum.secret-r.net, nsportal.ru, www.top-journals.com
NON-ORTHODOX BELARUS
Artem DENIKIN
"Analytical newspaper "Secret Research"
The story of howIn the 19th century, tsarism forcibly imposed its state religion on the Belarusians.
Someone Orthodox comes in,
Says: Now I'm in charge!
Joseph Brodsky
ONE OPEN CHURCH – REPLACING THE EFFORTS OF THREE REGIMENTS
Colonizing Lithuania-Belarus in the 19th century, tsarism implanted an autocratic religion here. By a decree of the tsar in 1839, Lithuanian Belarusians were forbidden to pray to God in their own language, the Bible in Belarusian language was subject to burning, our Uniate faith was abolished, and the Moscow religion was implanted in its place.
The Moscow Orthodox faith is the Nestorian religion of the Horde, in which power was deified. This faith was widespread in the East, and it was adopted from the Tatars by the Suzdal princes (Alexander Nevsky was related to Batu’s son Sartak, an Orthodox Christian of the Nestorian persuasion). The rest of Rus' did not recognize this Orthodox heresy, so Ivan the Terrible destroyed everything Orthodox clergy Novgorod, Pskov, Tver and Polotsk - bloodily capturing these cities.
Since then, the Moscow religion (autocephalous at that time for 141 years from 1448 to 1589, which is a record - for example, the Romanian Church waited for recognition of autocephaly for 30 years, Eladian - 27) was somewhat modernized - in 1589 Boris Godunov bargained with the Greeks for its new name " Russian Orthodox Church,” but its essence remained the same in the 19th century. The autocratic religion was used by tsarism as the main tool for consolidating the occupied territories under its rule - through the Russification of the peoples of Russia. Thus, hundreds of Finno-Ugric and Tatar peoples of the former Horde were assimilated into the “Great Russian people”.
Contrary to the statements of tsarism, the Lithuanian Belarusians NEVER shared the same faith with the Muscovites - if only for the reason that the Moscow autocephalous faith meant an automatic oath to the Moscow ruler. Residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Belarus, naturally, could not be subjects of a foreign feudal lord. Since 1596, the Orthodox Litvins (ROC of Kyiv, not the ROC of Moscow) became Uniates, and the Muscovites abandoned the Union precisely because of the Nestorian essence of their faith, in which the Tsar of Muscovy was considered the “Tsar of God”, and his subjects were called “Krestians” (peasants).
At the time of the division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Belarus there were 38% Catholics, 39% Uniates, 10% Jews and only about 6% Orthodox (Atlas “History of Belarus. XVI-XVIII centuries”. Publishing center of BSU, 2005) - but even these 6 % were not Orthodox of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow, but Orthodox of a completely different Russian Orthodox Church of Kyiv, where the Russian feudal lord was not deified and where believers did not swear allegiance to him.
Before this, tsarism had already twice tried to bloodily impose its faith in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: during the 17-year occupation of Polotsk by Ivan IV and during the war of 1654-1667, during which Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich exterminated half of our population for religious reasons, and in the eastern regions ON – 80%.
The goals of the third attempt of tsarism to impose its faith on us in the 19th century were:
Elimination of everything Belarusian (Lithuanian) national: language, culture, historical memory, mentality;
The fight against the European essence of Lithuanians-Belarusians, against the 400-year-old traditions of Magdeburg law in our Fatherland - that is, with complete municipal and district (povet) self-government, which included the election of all three branches of government - all this was replaced by the notorious “vertical of power” of tsarism;
Instilling in the Litvins (Belarusians) a deification of power (the king) that is naturally alien to them; instilling in them a Nestorian sacred attitude towards the State;
Instilling in the Litvins (Belarusians) the Nestorian mentality by replacing their history with the history of Muscovy with its pantheon of Nestorian saints, starting with Alexander Nevsky (consecrated by Ivan IV in 1547, simultaneously with the proclamation of himself as tsar);
Suppression of the national liberation struggle of Lithuanians-Belarusians against Russian occupation;
The speedy assimilation of the Litvins (Belarusians) into the Great Russian nation - with the subsequent assimilation of the Poles into it (in 1864, the tsarism banned the name “Belarus” introduced in 1840 for Lithuania and instead introduced the “North-Western Territory”, and in 1888 year banned the name “Poland”, introducing “Privislensky Krai” instead).
According to the Russian authorities, one Nestorian Orthodox Church of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow, opened here, will bring more harm to the national liberation movement of Belarusians than three Russian regiments.
RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE
One of the main figures in the spread of Orthodoxy of the Russian Orthodox Church in Belarus - Metropolitan of Lithuania Joseph Semashko - in his complete despair letter to Moscow Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “they will denigrate my name and begin to persecute him with slander even beyond the grave.”
And indeed, this liquidator of the Lithuanian (Belarusian) Uniate Church, bribed by tsarism, was despised by all his contemporaries. The brother of the Governor-General of the North-Western Territory D. Bibikov I. Bibikov publicly called Semashko “a simple but cunning priest who has personal views in all his actions.” And the head of the Poltava Orthodox diocese, Bishop Gideon, called Semashko “Judas the traitor.”
Metropolitan Semashko of Lithuania himself constantly complained that Lithuanians-Belarusians were openly hostile to the introduction of Orthodoxy in Lithuania-Belarus. He characterized the capital of the region (Vilnia) as a city “seething with hateful fanaticism against the Orthodox, lying outside the circle of the Orthodox population.”
The population clearly saw that the actions of the administration of the North-Western Territory in planting the autocratic Orthodox religion here were purely colonial predatory and very far from religious goals. The tsarist administration encountered the most problems in planting Orthodoxy on the territory of the Lithuanian Orthodox Diocese, which then covered the entire Central and Western parts of the present Republic of Belarus (these lands were historical Lithuania and were not yet called “Belarus”). As Semashko himself admitted in private correspondence, there were one and a half million Catholics here, and seven hundred thousand “reunited” Orthodox Christians did not even make up half of the Catholic majority, and besides, all this “reunited” flock were yesterday’s Uniates who lived “primarily under the prolonged influence of heterodoxy.” and foreignness." Here Semashko lied - in the words “under the longest”: in fact, it should have been written “always”, since never before had the indigenous population of the Republic of Belarus been with the peoples of the Horde-Muscovy either as fellow Nestorians, or as fellow citizens of the same state.
The very word “reunited flock” is already false, since never before has the flock of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Belarus sworn allegiance to the Moscow satraps as god-kings of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow. You can only “reunite” with something you were once a part of. But the Litvins (Belarusians) were never part of the Horde and its Moscow Ulus (the so-called “Holy Rus'” there) and never professed the autocratic faith of the Horde-Muscovy. Unlike Moscow, in our churches images of the kings of the Horde, and then the kings of Moscow Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov were not placed as equals to Jesus and the apostles - which is pure Nestorianism.
The greatest dissatisfaction among our ex-Uniate flock, “reunited” with the religion of our eastern neighbor, was caused by the decision of the Holy Synod in 1859 to send priests from the Great Russian provinces to us “in the form of MISSIONARIES to strengthen those affiliated with the Eastern Church in Orthodoxy.”
The very word “missionaries” in the decision of the Synod shows that we are talking about instilling not Orthodoxy at all, but some new religion of the Nestorian sense, which is absolutely unknown to the indigenous population of the region.
Local ex-Uniate priests - respected by their fellow flock for their honesty and education - were replaced by thousands of bearded Finnish and Tatar Muscovite-speaking crooks from the Great Russian hinterland. All those sent did not know the Lithuanian (Belarusian) language of the Lithuanian Orthodox diocese, and amazed the flock with their lack of culture, ignorance and immoral behavior.
This decision of the highest church authorities of Russia was called harmful and extremely erroneous even by “Judas the traitor” Metropolitan Joseph Semashko, who as best he could restrained these processes only until 1863, when, on the initiative of the hangman M.N. Muravyov began a period of mass migration of Russian priests to Belarus, which the hangman of Belarusians renamed the North-Western Territory.
In the middle of the second half of the 19th century, the occupational essence of Moscow Orthodoxy imposed on Belarusians did not raise any doubts. The flock is Belarusian - but almost all the priests in all churches are strangers sent by the tsarism. The picture is completed by the fact that by the middle of the second half of the 19th century, not a single bishop of ethnic Belarusians or local natives remained in Belarus.
Well-known professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy M.O. Koyalovich, a native of the Grodno province, wrote about a congress of Orthodox priests in Belarus, where the deputies were divided into two parts, calling each other “Katsap Muscovites” and “Uniate Poles.” This fight among the “reunited” shows all the initial rottenness of this “reunion”.
At the same time, the Belarusian “reunified” flock began to convert to Catholicism en masse. For example, in 1859, in the Lithuanian Orthodox diocese in the parish of the village of Klescheli, “up to 300 people were seduced into Latinism,” and in the village of Klyanitsy, residents “resisted the religious procession according to the rite of the Orthodox Church.” P. Batyushkov mentions 100 Orthodox parishioners of the town of Porozovo in the Grodno province who converted to the Latin rite in 1858, and there in 1871 491 people already expressed a desire to convert to Catholicism. They showed firmness, and the special commission created by tsarism to examine the case could not change anything and recognized 464 of them as Catholics, leaving them without punishment.
Here it is necessary to explain that Tsarist Russia the transition from Orthodoxy to another faith was a criminal offense and was punishable by prison/exile and confiscation of property. This is understandable: tsarism saw heterodoxy as a refusal of the oath to the Tsar, that is, a rebellion against autocracy.
Historian Andrei Pyatchits wrote in the essay “The “Triumph” of Orthodoxy in Belarus: the imperial version”:
“During meetings of Smolensk Bishop Joseph with residents of the southern parishes of the Vilna province (now the northern part of the Grodno region) in 1871, the bishop demanded - “some with tears, some with fury” - to transfer them to the Latin rite. In this region, there were often cases when Orthodox priests [Orthodox themselves] were not allowed into the huts, they scared children with them, calling them “bears” and “an evil bearded scarecrow.” When they saw an Orthodox priest [on business from Russia], the children hid or ran away screaming.”
HOW THE VILLAGE OF KURODICHI BECAME THE VILLAGE OF KAZAN
As you know, our Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a religiously tolerant state. IN Russian Empire everything was the other way around. There, religion was part of the state, an important element in the assimilation of non-Russian peoples and the consolidation of colonial power over them. According to demographers, of the current Russian ethnic group of 150 million people, about 100 million are non-Russians, assimilated since 1650. Russification occurred automatically - when a person accepted the faith of the Russian Orthodox Church, he was given a Russian name and surname, and during divine services the Russian language was used - and the person gradually switched to it. This person was now considered a “Russian” (as they find in the Russian Federation today – also automatically an “Eastern Slav”).
According to Russian laws of the 19th century, “both those born in the Orthodox faith and those who converted to it from other faiths are prohibited from deviating from it and accepting another faith, even a Christian one.”
The words “Orthodox faith” here look simply ridiculous, since Orthodoxy has many canons, and, for example, in Ethiopian Orthodoxy (which is three times older than Moscow) they make the sign of the cross with two crossed fingers and circumcise boys. Therefore, the words “Orthodox faith” here means only the Russian state faith.
The transition to the Muscovite faith in the Russian Empire was not only encouraged, but was set as the main goal of the colonial administration (including here in Lithuania-Belarus). And the opposite was considered a STATE CRIME and was strictly punishable by prison, exile, and deprivation of property. One of the forms of religious genocide of Russia against our people was numerous court cases of “seduction” (paragraphs 36-39 in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, providing for punishments for “distraction and deviation from the faith”).
In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in the Laws of Poland and the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) there have never been and could not be such cannibalistic laws. But that’s why Russian priests and historians came up with a crazy fable about some kind of “oppression of Orthodox Christians by Catholics and Uniates” - because not only were they actively engaged in religious genocide, but it was generally spelled out in Russian laws.
According to these laws, for “seduction” from Orthodoxy to some other faith, the culprit was condemned “to be deprived of all special rights and advantages, personally and by status assigned, and to be exiled to live in Siberia or to be sent to government prison departments.”
If someone dared “in sermons or writings” to talk about a person’s freedom to choose his faith (except for the freedom to convert to the Moscow faith) - this was punished the first time with prison for a term of 8 to 16 months, the second time with imprisonment in a fortress for a term from two years and eight months to 4 years and deprivation of some rights, the third time - deprivation of all rights and lifelong exile to Siberia.
If one of the parents is of the Moscow faith, and the other is different, then the children must be only of the Moscow faith. Both parents who violated this law were punished with imprisonment for up to one and a half years, and their children were taken away from them and given to “Orthodox guardians.”
Priests of “foreign confessions” (although Uniates and Catholics were in no way “foreign” in our country, and this Moscow faith itself was foreign) for contacts with the Orthodox population were punishable by defrocking and prison for a term of one to three years. Etc.
The most widespread court cases of “seduction” began in the middle of the 19th century. At the same time, the funny thing is that almost always the REAL SEDITION of the Catholic flock on the part of Russian officials followed first, and attempts by Catholics to be indignant at this seduction were punished as “seduction.” That is, the very Laws of the Russian Empire were initially - and used - as RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE, as RELIGIOUS GENOCIDE.
Here's a typical example. An absolutely common story for that time is about how the Roman Catholics “seduced” from Orthodoxy were united in the state estate of Kurodich, Minsk province.
The peasants of this village near Minsk have been Catholics throughout their entire history (they were baptized into Catholicism from the pagan faith in the early Grand Duchy of Lithuania). But in October 1861, the village was visited by the head of the gendarme department (a Great Russian sent from Russia), who told them that the priests were deceiving them and that 100 years ago they were of the Moscow Orthodox faith.
The villagers believed this nonsense, and on October 25, 1864, 270 Catholic villagers converted to Moscow Orthodoxy in the presence of 5 officials: the Rechitsa judicial investigator, the local bailiff and Orthodox priests of the closest parishes.
It seems that “everything is fine,” but the military authorities of the Mozyr and Rechitsa districts reported in their report to the head of the “vertical of power” in the province, hangman M.N. Muravyov that the peasants, who allegedly “voluntarily wished to convert to Orthodoxy,” set a condition: to send their representatives to the Mozyr dean, priest Alexander Kershansky, for advice and to find out whether their ancestors, according to the officials, were really Orthodox 100 years ago.
Kershansky, in his response, documented that the residents of the village of Kurodichi, Minsk province, had never been Orthodox before - neither 100 years ago, nor ever. That is, this is an invention of Russian officials to force Belarusian Catholics to change their religion. He advised the peasants to “go into the forest” if the coercion continued, and at the same time filed a complaint to the governor-general of the region about the illegality of the actions of military and civilian officials in the village of Kurodici.
The hangman, Infantry General Muravyov, responded immediately:
1) punish priest Kershansky with a fine of 200 silver rubles, transfer him to another parish, “establish strict police supervision over him”;
2) “close and completely abolish the Roman Catholic church located in Kurodichi,” “convert it to an Orthodox parish church, using 1,500 silver rubles from an additional 10 percent tax for the ... province to establish it”;
3) “transfer the lands, lands and buildings belonging to the church to the jurisdiction of the Orthodox clergy”;
4) “rename the village of Kurodich to Kazanskoye.”
It is according to this scheme that Orthodoxy was implanted in our country by the regime of the hangman Muravyov. First, on his instructions, the head of the gendarmerie came to the village chosen by Muravyov - and there, having gathered the villagers, he lied to them that supposedly “100 years ago your ancestors were Orthodox” - and precisely Orthodox of the Moscow faith. Then paragraphs 36-39 in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire came into play: opposition to this seduction was punished in every possible way, local priests were expelled or punished with a prison term. Temples were selected from the churches of the Moscow faith, and all lands and buildings were also selected. Muravyov often renamed the very names of our villages in order to eradicate Belarusianity and introduce here the realities of the Horde-Muscovy.
Why did he rename the village of Kurodich to Kazanskoye? What kind of “Tatarstan” was this hangman creating near Minsk? This alone shows that we are not talking about some “issues of religion,” but about pure COLONIALISM, about the destruction of our Belarusianness and the imposition of the realities of the Horde-Russia. This was Muravyov’s war not with our religion at all - BUT A WAR WITH US AS A NATION.
HERITAGEXIX CENTURY
If you look at it objectively, then the change from Uniatism and Catholicism to the Moscow imperial faith is not a question of Christianity, since supposedly we are all equally Christians. And the only question is the Russian great power, which forbade Belarusians to turn to God in their language (as well as Ukrainians). But really, God doesn’t understand Belarusian language and only understands Russian speech? Why then did He create the Belarusians themselves?
However, in the Belarusian Orthodox Church today they follow the traditions of the hangman Muravyov, ignoring the Belarusian language as the language of the population of our country. Muravyov, let’s say, wanted to Russify us. But what do priests want today, who do not communicate with the people in the language of the people, although by definition the Church should supposedly be the guardian national traditions people?
And what is Christian about this Moscow faith anyway? What is the teaching of Jesus in the renaming of the village of Kurodich to the village of Kazanskoye? In honor of Ivan the Terrible’s capture of Kazan and gaining power over the Kazan Horde?
How can we compare the Commandments of God “Do not kill” and “Do not steal” with the fact that the Russian Empire spent almost its entire existence fighting wars and seizing foreign lands, suppressing uprisings there and assimilating the population there into “Russians”, and the religion of Moscow was the mental justification for this incorporation and colonization of lands?
One Russian observer wrote: “Having elevated the bloody Nicholas II to sainthood during Perestroika, many Russian Russian Orthodox Churches have regained their true God - they pray not to Jesus Christ, but to their great power; it is their only and true God.”
However, nowhere in the Bible is Moscow mentioned, nor Great Russia, nor the Russian Orthodox Church, nor Nicholas II - as mediators of faith in God. I won’t argue, since they see this for themselves as the essence of “Christianity” - let them believe in it. But what does this have to do with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Belarus? Yes, none. Only as a legacy of 19th century colonialism
Vadim DERUZHINSKY"Analytical newspaper "Secret Research"
ABOUT LITHUANIA
..................................continuation.............. ....................
EVOLUTION OF TERMS
The whole whirlwind with terms began in 1795, when Russia annexed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland - the confederation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The first step of Catherine II (along with the abolition of Magdeburg Law, which all our cities had in the 4th century) was the abolition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and subsequently its statutes. And most importantly, the complete abolition of the term “Lithuania”, because “the oblivion of this word marks the complete victory of Russia over its main eternal enemy” (words of Catherine II). The paradox is that with the seizure of power over the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the prohibition of the very term “Lithuania”, Russian monarchs continued to bear the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania, and the last such Grand Duke of Lithuania (that is, Belarusian) was the murdered Nicholas II. Grand Duke There was Lithuanian - in the person of the Russian monarch, but the term Lithuania itself was banned. I draw attention to this because some believe that since 1795 Belarus ceased to be called Lithuania, but Zhmud and Aukstaitija (two parts of the current Republic of Lietuwa) allegedly continued to be called Lithuania. This is wrong. For some time, a small part of Belarus retained an element of the name “Lithuania,” but this was precisely a Belarusian ethnic territory, and not the territory of Zhmudi or Aukštaitija (Lietuvá) within the Russian Empire. Lithuania was banned almost completely - except for the Lithuanian-Vilna province that existed until 1840, the evolution of which shows the desire of tsarism to gradually eliminate all memory of Lithuania: in 1797, the entire huge Lithuania was reduced to the Lithuanian province from the merger of Vilna and Slonim, then the term Lithuania was left only for Vilna province, and since 1840 the element “Lithuania” has been completely expelled from its name. Moreover, the Lithuanian-Vilna province (the only one that retained the term “Lithuania” until 1840) was part of the “Western Region” - that is, in Belarus, and not in the area of residence of the Eastern Balts in Tsarist Russia. (By the way, about Vilna. On what basis did Stalin give this Belarusian capital, whose population was 80% Belarusians, to Lietuwa? And why, for example, did Stalin not transfer the Pskov region to Estonia, which was part of the USSR? After all, this is the same thing! However, Stalin’s calculation was that the amputation of the historical capital of the Belarusians would deal a monstrous blow to their national self-identification.) And for the first time this term was brought back to life after the collapse of Tsarist Russia by Zhmud nationalists in Kovno in 1918. The undignified name “Republic of Zhmud” did not suit them, so they decided that it would be better to be called the “Republic of Lietuwa”, since Zhmud was a peripheral province of Lithuania and had some, albeit extremely distant, relation to Lithuania. A fact is a fact: in Tsarist Russia from 1795 to 1917, not a single province bore the name “Lithuania” (except for the quickly abolished Lithuanian province of Vilna and Slonim). The Zhmuds and Aukstaites were called whatever they wanted, but not Lithuania, and instead of our original name Lithuania, tsarism introduced the terms “Western Region” and the like. For a very long time, the ideologists of tsarism toiled, looking for a suitable name for our people instead of the name “Litvina”. As the encyclopedia “Belarus” (Minsk, 1995) writes, in the tsar’s decrees we were officially called “Western Russians”, then “Orthodox Russians”, then “Little Russians”. Then, by the middle of the 19th century, St. Petersburg political scientists of tsarism proposed the terms “Belarus” and “Belarusians.” These new terms began to be actively introduced by the authorities, but here’s the incident - the Belarusian national liberation uprising of 1863-64 happened here, when our people began to demand independence from Russia. The uprising was brutally suppressed by the Tsarist Governor-General Muravyov, who, for the sake of the complete abolition of our national identity, even banned these terms invented in Russia for us - “Belarus” and “Belarusians”. From now on, the very mention of the word “Belarus” was followed by repression. However, our people fought with Russia in this uprising not at all with these tsarist terms (tsarism and prohibited ones). Belarusians in 1863-64. continued to call themselves Lithuanians and Lithuania, just look at the names of the bodies that led the Belarusian uprising: the Lithuanian Provincial Committee and then the Executive Department of Lithuania - bodies of state power in the territory of present-day Belarus liberated from tsarism. It is impossible to dispute: in 1864, Belarusians still called themselves Litvins and Lithuania. The terms “Lithuania” and “Belarus” remained banned after this uprising until 1905, when tsarism was forced to relax the regime, allowing the sprouts of Civil Society, which automatically meant the sprouts of national consciousness in this “prison of nations” (definition of Marx and Lenin) . Russian liberal ideologists did not allow the return of the “Western Russians” to their self-name “Litvins” and “Lithuania” in 1905 (for even Russian liberalism always remained at its basis still imperial liberalism - just like the legendary Decembrists of 1825 unanimously rejected the desire of the same liberals of Belarus and Ukraine to create their own sovereign states outside of Russia). But the development of national self-awareness in the plane of the tsarist terms “Belarusians” and “Belarus” was allowed, because this was a compromise that left the ideological influence of Russia over the Lithuanians. Having achieved at least this, the Belarusian-Litvinians are actively taking up the task of returning to the people at least some of the national qualities that were stifled in the “prison of nations.” In 1910, the famous “Short History of Belarus” by V.U. was published in the capital of Belarus, Vilna. Lastovsky. Lastovsky’s concept that Lithuanians are Balts and Belarusians are Slavs is only a forced compromise with tsarism, for Lastovsky himself emphasizes in the book that Lithuanians (Litvins) are the name of our Slavic people for almost the entire millennium. That is, the Lithuanians-Litvins are not Balts at all, but Slavs. But under pressure from Russia, it is necessary to introduce this artificial concept, devoid of scientificity and historicity, the very introduction of which at every step now requires routine clarification from any Belarusian historian - that we are not talking about the eastern Balts of Lietuva, but about us, the Slavic people, who were previously called Litvins . Lastovsky’s position is clear: it doesn’t matter how he wrote, under what name (“Lithuania” or the new “Belarus”) the right to our national self-identification is returned to us - this national self-identification itself is important. But this was unimportant in that acute period when the question of the existence of our people (by any name) was at stake, which the neighbors did not want to recognize and wanted to divide among themselves. Including the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between the RSFSR and Germany, it was stipulated that there was no Belarus and the Belarusian people, and the population of this territory was divided between Germany (moving into the provinces of Prussia), Russia (all of Eastern Belarus) and Ukraine (all of Polesie). It is clear that our people were deeply outraged by this behind-the-scenes agreement between Lenin and Germany, where our people AS A PEOPLE IN GENERAL were liquidated. This was the reason for the proclamation of the Belarusian People's Republic - as a response to Lenin's desire to eliminate us as a people. Since the fact that the Belarusians acquired their statehood during the creation of the BPR, all further disputes about the name of the people have become unnecessary - although the villagers continued to call themselves “Litvins” until the mid-twentieth century. But at the same time, another question arose: what historical content do Belarusians have? What do you mean by Belarusians? As the great Russian historian Soloviev wrote centuries ago (whose words, to his misfortune, were quoted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, for which he received the nickname “Russophobe” in the USSR), “scratch a Russian and he will turn out to be a Tatar.” It’s exactly the same with us: “scratch a Belarusian and there will be Litvin in him.”
MYTH ABOUT SIMILARITY
Russians often say in TV programs that, they say, “Belarusians and Russians are almost the same people, they are very similar, their languages are almost the same, their culture is identical.” Even Putin recently stated this, firmly believing it. But is it? The illusion of “the similarity of Belarusians to Russians” is created by the fact that Belarusians are the only people of the ex-USSR who, since 1991, have not yet regained their national self-identification and mentally continue to remain “ Soviet people" And since everything national is still rejected by Belarusians, being replaced by an absolutely faceless and meaningless “Soviet” (these are historical national State symbols Belarusians, the national name of the parliament, the national currency is the Belarusian thaler, the very history of Belarus as the heir of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, etc., similar to what has long been introduced in all other CIS countries, including Russia itself), then here is the illusion: Putin believes that he is talking about the Belarusian people and their national content, but in fact speaks about the “Soviet people” of the USSR, and not about the Belarusians. And almost no one in Russia knows about Belarusians and their national content. For in Belarus, the stage of national self-identification has not yet been passed, which has been passed in all other CIS countries, including even countries Central Asia. By the way, about Asia: it is puzzling that even the new Asian republics of the CIS, which did not have any statehood, have tenge, manat and others as their currency instead of the ruble, when we are the only ones in the CIS who abandoned our national currency for some unknown reason, although there was one: it was created by the chancellor ON Sapieha, minting our national state currency - the ON thaler (Poland minted zloty). This Belarusian thaler was minted by Belarusian cities, and not at all by the Russian ruble, which then did not exist as a currency even in Russia, but was imposed on us and Poland only in 1795. Why does tenge have the right to exist, but our thaler does not? Kazakhs can, but Belarusians don’t. Obviously, the point here is that the Kazakhs with their tenge are just Asia, and the Belarusians with their thaler are already Europe. Which is what scares some people. Let's compare Belarusians and Russians. Approximately 70% of the Belarusian ethnic group consists of Slavicized Western Balts (Prussians, Dainovs, Yatvingians, etc.). That is, Belarusians are Slavicized Western Balts, Indo-Europeans. And the Russian ethnos is approximately 80-90% composed of Slavicized Tatars (Turks) and Finns (Merya, Mordovians, Murom, Perm, etc.), who are not Indo-Europeans. That is, ethnically and anthropologically these are completely different peoples and even different races. Belarusians are Indo-Europeans, Russians are 80-90% not, as Russian scientists themselves write. And absolutely different languages. Only a deeply ignorant person who understands nothing about Slavic languages can say that “the Belarusian and Russian languages are very similar.” The Russian language consists of 60-70% Tatar (Turkic) vocabulary - which is completely absent in Belarusian. The lexical overlap between the Belarusian and Russian languages is only about 30%, while the lexical overlap between the Belarusian language and Ukrainian and Polish is more than 80%. A Belarusian without a translator understands Ukrainian and Polish, but a Russian without a translator does not understand the Belarusian language (or, indeed, any Slavic language in general). Moreover, a Belarusian without a translator understands all other Slavic languages. The culture is completely different. For Belarusians it is Slavic-Baltic, for Russians it is Finnish-Turkic. Religion is also different: Belarusians are Uniates (“recorded” into the Moscow religion only in 1839 by decree of the Tsar, but in the conditions of an independent state this foreign church will quickly lose its position in Belarus - as alien, not being the custodian of Belarusian traditions and history of Belarus, as preaching not in Belarusian, but in foreign language). Finally, Belarusians and Russians have completely different histories. Before their capture by Russia in 1795, the Belarusians were a purely European people, for 400 years they lived with the freedoms of Magdeburg Law, which all cities of Belarus possessed, had complete self-government and election of all branches of government, and the peasants of Belarus until 1795 were not enslaved in serfdom. Belarusians were part of Russia for only a paltry period by historical standards - only 122 years, while in a common state with the Poles it was three times longer. The mentality is also different: Russians have an imperial mentality (originating in the Horde and Muscovy), while Belarusians have a European and Balto-Slavic mentality, identical not at all to the Russian mentality, but to the Slovak, Czech, Polish. So what does this have in common? It’s just that Russians have a lot in common with the Soviet mentality, because it was formed artificially on the basis of the imperial Russian mentality. But its bearer is not a Belarusian - its bearer is homo sovieticus, that is, a person of a completely different nationality and a resident of a completely different country - not Belarus, but the already deceased USSR. It seems that erroneous judgments about Belarusians exist only because Russians do not see any manifestations of national self-identification of Belarusians AT ALL. They are invisible for the reason that they were brutally suppressed in Tsarist Russia and the USSR, where they tried to remake the European people of Belarus into something Asian. And although 15 years have passed since 1991, Belarusians are just beginning to identify themselves nationally; slowly but inevitably the suffering people are returning historical memory, the people are returning their prohibited national identity.
SO WHO ARE WE?
The narrow scope of a newspaper publication does not allow us to reveal the topic in detail - a lot related to the issue was left outside the article - perhaps in other publications I will have the opportunity to cite many facts and materials that were “left out” here. For example, the topic of a separate large publication is a detailed analysis of how the term “Belarusians” arose in the 19th century and how it evolved over the course of the century, reflected in the realities of political and public life. However, we can draw some conclusions. Belarusians and Litvinians are ethnically the same. Rusyns is the name of the Litvins (Belarusians) who professed the Uniate faith of the Russian Orthodox Church of Kyiv. Litvins (Belarusians) who professed Catholicism were called Poles. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a country, the historical and political heir of which is our current Belarus, which has its own statehood back in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Everything is extremely simple.