Vladislav karabanov. forbidden history of Russia

03.08.2020

Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer

One of the books of the notorious A.T. Fomenko begins with parting words: "This book will not require the reader to have any special knowledge." It would be more correct, however, to say it differently: "this book will require the reader to lack any special knowledge", since if he reads Fomenka's opuses, he risks becoming a real torture. This applies to all freak scriptures ...

There was a request from the public make out in more detail the pseudo-historical opus of a politician / journalist, nationalist and editor of the portal ARI.ru Vladislav Karabanova under the trivial title "Forbidden History of Russia", to which I. The ARI.ru portal is generally just some kind of a preserve of historical freewheeling. I open it now and there on the front page there is a thrash opus "Who Created the First Atomic Bomb", which proves that the Nazis created it and even tested it in 1944 (!!!), and the USSR simply used their developments.

Well, public requests are sacred for me, so I spent a little time for public benefit. Moreover, the Karabanov opus is interesting for two things:

1) Behind the trivial for the writings of freaks the name (pseudoscientific works called "forbidden / secret, etc. history of Russia" is a dime a dozen, you will not surprise anyone) there is a very nontrivial idea: a citizen proves that russians come from Goths ... Yes, the Goths who lived at the beginning of our era. in the Northern Black Sea region, according to Karabanov and contrary to all scientific data, in a significant part they remained there after the Hunnic invasion and simply switched to the Slavic language, at the same time changing the name from "Goths" to "Rus" (the latter is either Gothic or borrowed from the Iranians ). It seems that no freak had invented such a thing before Karabanov, I, in any case, have never met such a thing. The paradox of the situation is that this "Pan-Germanism" is being served under a "patriotic" sauce - they say, the Russians should be proud that they are not some lousy Slavs, but actually glorious Germans!

if we put the question differently, whose heirs are the Russian people, whose land, whose history, whose glory we inherit - the answer is unequivocal, we are the heirs of RUSSIA, and through them, the heirs of GLORIOUS READY. And we have no other options

2) From a methodological, so to speak, point of view, it is simply an ideal object for a model analysis of pseudo-historical writings, since it contains the whole set of "cockroaches" characteristic of the thinking of historical freaks.

So let's get started. "The Forbidden History of Russia" (recommended to read, all the necessary quotes did not fit into my post)

As one of my classmates used to say, "it's hard to debate with delirium and prove his delusion precisely because it is delusional." Science operates with rational arguments, delirium by its nature is irrational, therefore, to refute it scientifically, the so-called. based on rational arguments is not so easy, because it exists in a fundamentally different coordinate system.

Ignorance lies at the heart of historical fricism. But not simple ignorance, but militant ignorance, claiming to replace scientific knowledge and therefore aggressively disposed towards it. Frick, as a rule, is a complete or almost complete layman in the topic he undertakes to write about (this distinguishes him from an amateur who is oriented towards science, tries to expand his knowledge and popularize scientific data).

Frick is usually corny not familiar with most of the scientific papers on the topic he writes about. And out of his ignorance and unwillingness to eliminate this ignorance, he makes global conclusions of a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity: historians are hiding the truth, scoundrels! That, that he is simply extremely poorly acquainted with their work does not occur to him... So is our today's hero. His opus is neither more nor less conceived

as an attempt to answer the question why they hide our true history from us

This, however, is the standard beginning of any pseudo-historical essay: open any "work" by Fomenka, Chudinov, Rezun, Asov, Solonin and further down the list and see for yourself.

Further, Karabanov describes a terrible conspiracy of historians who hide from the Russian people the holy truth about its origin (again, open the initial pages of any book of Asov-Fomenka and find five differences):

A short historical excursion into the field of historical truth should enable the reader to understand how far from the truth is what they give us as the history of the Russian people. In fact, the truth may shock the reader at first, as it was a shock for me, it differs so much from the official version, that is, lies ... academicians and the authorities in Russia, well, do not like the truth very much. Fortunately, there are interested ARI readers who need this truth.... This is the situation in which the Russian people find themselves today. His story, the story of his origin is invented or distorted so much that his consciousness cannot focus, because in his unconscious and superconscious, he does not find confirmation of this story ...Before we give our answer and start talking about history, we need to say a few words about historians. In fact, the public has a deep misconception about the essence of historical science and the results of its research. History is usually an order. History in Russia is no exception and was also written to order, and despite the fact that the political regime here was always extremely centralized, it ordered an ideological construct, which is history. And for the sake of ideological reasons, the order was for an extremely monolithic history, not allowing deviations. And the people - Russia spoiled the harmonious and necessary picture for someone. Only in a small period at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century, when some freedoms appeared in tsarist Russia, were there real attempts to understand the issue. And almost figured it out. But, firstly, no one really needed the truth then, and secondly, the Bolshevik coup broke out. In the Soviet period, there was nothing to say about objective coverage of history, it could not exist in principle. What do we want from hired workers who write to order under the watchful eye of the party? Moreover, we are talking about the forms of cultural oppression, which was the Bolshevik regime. And pretty much the tsarist regime too.Therefore, it is not surprising that the pile-up of lies that we face when looking into the story that was presented to us, and which is not true either by its facts or conclusions. In view of the fact that there are too many blockages and lies, and other lies were built on these lies and inventions, its offshoots, so as not to tire the reader, the author will focus more on really important facts.

And then a striking phrase, saying that citizen Karabanov is not familiar with anything thoroughly, not only with serious works on the history of Russia, but even with school textbooks (I am already silent about university ones):

It turned out somehow strange that according to historical science, we more or less know the history of our people since the 15th century

Karabanov, if you personally, due to a lack of education, "more or less know the history of your people since the 15th century", you should not attribute this to historical science.

In short, historians hide the truth... And now Karabanov will tell us about it. But stop. What specifically are historians hiding the truth? It turns out that they hide the fact of living in the II-IV centuries. AD the East German people are ready in Ukraine and southern Russia (and in the Crimea and later):

When historians shrug their shoulders about the fact that it is not known what was there in Eastern Europe on the territory that later became Kievan Rus (historians know this, unknown to Karabanov and people like him - sverc), as if assuming that it was a wild, sparsely populated land , they are at least cunning or just lying. The entire territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea already from the end of the 2nd century AD was an integral part of the settlement of the Gothic tribes, and from the 4th century there was a powerful state known as the state of Germanarich

Here you can only shrug your hands. There are many historical and philological studies about the Goths, incl. and monographic, easily accessible to the Russian reader. Both written by domestic authors (I.S.Pioro, V.P. Budanova, M.B. Shchukin, N.A. Ganina, etc.), and translated works of Western scientists (H. Wolfram, P. Skardigli and etc.). Unfortunately, practically all of them are unknown to Karabanov. As well as the fact that in any serious work on the origin and early history of the Slavs, the speech about the Goths and Slavic-Gothic relations certainly comes into play (B.A. Rybakov, V.V.Sedov, V.D. Baran, D.N. Kozak , B.V. Magomedov, R.V. Terpilovsky, A.M. Oblomsky, etc.). Mr. Karabanov, if you read these lines, do you know at least one of the listed names? The presence of the Goths at the beginning of our era. in the Black Sea region is said in any normal university and even school history textbooks. Maybe it was with the latter that Karabanov should have started his acquaintance with the history of Russia?

Naturally, not everything in the history of the Goths and Slavic-Gothic relations is clear to specialists, many points cause controversy: what specific territories were occupied by the Goths, when they appeared in the Black Sea region, what archaeological monuments are associated with them (an ongoing discussion about the relationship between the Goths and Chernyakhov culture), etc. .d. But this situation is caused by the objective state of the sources, their lack. For the history of the early Middle Ages, this is a common thing. Karabanov does not understand such things and does not recognize: everything is clear to him and for him any "ambiguity" in history can have only one explanation: a conspiracy of historians (oh, those insidious historians!):

Historical science, as it were, conducts discussions. As they began to conduct at the beginning of the 18th century, they continue

Another one characteristic historical freaks. Since they do not know a thing about what they write about, and do not know 90 or more percent of scientific papers on a relevant topic, if they are lucky enough to read at least one such work, they immediately raise it to the rank of the Bible, without even thinking that there are other books and other opinions in science. Karabanov just read the book of the famous St. Petersburg archaeologist Mark Borisovich Shchukin "The Gothic Way" (the book is really very good, everyone who is interested in history is ready to read it) and considered the venerable archaeologist his ally (as we remember, he, like all self-taught geniuses, to everything I made it myself, and only then I got acquainted with some works, in which I found confirmation of my conclusions).

For this I would be ready to give him a standing ovation (I found the strength and at least one book on the topic, but I read it, well done), but I will not do this, because Karabanov read Shchukin's book, but ... I did not understand what I had read. Almost the main pathos of Shchukin's book consists in the proof that the Goths, after the Hunnic invasion, practically in their entirety left the southern Russian steppes and forest-steppes and went to the west and their culture (Shchukin believes that the Chernyakhov culture was basically Gothic) is in no way connected with subsequent cultures that existed in this territory, with which the population of Kievan Rus is associated with its origin. Those. The Goths cannot be the ancestors of the Russians - archaeologically they are not recorded in the Black Sea region after the 4th-5th centuries. (the exception is Crimea). In general, as they say, we look at the book, and we see ... what we like.

So, archaeologically Goths trace in the south of Russia and Ukraine later than the 5th century. anywhere other than Crimea is impossible. At this time, the territories of the former Chernyakhov culture were occupied by the Slavs (in the north) and the Turks (in the south).

I am not going to analyze all further Karabanov writings, I will dwell on only two points. Firstly, it is interesting how the citizen explains the transition of the Germans-Goths to the Slavic language. Very simple:

At the end of the 10th century, in 988, as a result of the treaty between the Kiev prince and Byzantium, Kievan Rus officially adopted Byzantine Christianity. Clergymen from Bulgaria poured into rich Russia, who carried books, written and linguistic culture based on the Church Slavonic language, that is, in the Bulgarian language. Intellectual activity, which is concentrated in monasteries, correspondence, everything is conducted in Bulgarian. As a result, Church Slavonic, in fact Bulgarian, becomes the administrative language. Without participation in church rituals, that is, without knowledge of the Bulgarian language, access to positions is excluded. The Slavic language is already used by a third of the population of Kievan Rus - Slavs by origin, and was already partly the language of communication. Under such administrative conditions, the Gothic language of Rus is rapidly falling out of use (especially since, due to fears of turning to Arianism, the Gothic alphabet and language are prohibited by the Byzantine Church). By the end of the 11th century, the population completely switches to a language with a Slavic base.

The fact that, say, Germany, because the divine service was conducted in Latin and almost all bookishness was in Latin, by no means began to speak Latin, does not bother Karabanova. As well as the Czech Republic, Poland and a certain number of countries. By the way: why exactly " by the end of the 11th century, the population completely switches to a language with a Slavic base". Let Karabanov show at least one test of the 11th century in German.

Secondly, Karabanov cites several words "which have been preserved in the Russian language from the Gothic base." However, at the same time, he does not know (or is silent) that these words do not represent "the preserved Gothic basis of the Russian language" (a basis of about 20 words is good!), But all-Slavic borrowings from East Germanic languages \u200b\u200b(not only Gothic).

By the way, according to the calculations of the famous Soviet linguist Fedot Petrovich Filin (Karabanov, of course, does not know who he is, but from the word "Soviet", obviously, he will decide that someone is terrible), the Proto-Slavic language included at least 10 thousand lexical units. What are about 20 Germanic loanwords in terms of 10 thousand own words of the Proto-Slavic language?

And does Karabanov know what the number of Baltizes, Iranians, Turkisms, Polonisms, Frenchisms, etc. is. In russian language? So we can safely assert the origin of the Russians even from the Poles, even from the Turks, even from the French. Before our eyes, over the past 20 years, a lot of English words have been borrowed into the Russian language. Are the Russians descended from the British?

So ... I hope I have complied with the public request.

And for those who are really interested in the question of the origin of the Slavs in general and the Russians in particular, I recommend starting your acquaintance with it with two monographs by the outstanding Slavist academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

This material was conceived as an attempt to answer the question of why our true history is hidden from us. A short historical excursion into the field of historical truth should enable the reader to understand how far from the truth is what they give us as the history of the Russian people.

In fact, the truth may at first shock the reader, as it was a shock for me, so much different from the official version, that is, a lie. I came to many conclusions on my own, but then it turned out that, fortunately, there are already works of several modern historians of the last decade who seriously studied the issue.

Only, unfortunately, they, their works, are not known to the general reader - academicians and the authorities in Russia, well, they really do not like the truth. Fortunately, there are interested ARI readers who need this truth. And today the day has come when we need it in order to answer - Who are we? Who are our ancestors? Where is Heavenly Iriy, in which we must draw strength? V. Karabanov, ARI

FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF RUSSIA

To understand why we need historical truth,

you need to understand why the ruling regimes in Russia-Russia

a historical lie was needed.

History and psychology

Russia is degrading before our eyes. The huge Russian people are the backbone of the state, which decided the fate of the world and Europe, under the control of crooks and scoundrels who hate the Russian people. Moreover, the Russian people, who gave the name to the state located on its territory, is not the owner of the state, is not the manager of this state and does not receive any dividends from this, even moral ones. We are a people defeated in our own land.

The Russian national consciousness is at a loss, the realities of this world are falling on the Russian people, and they cannot even stand up, group themselves in order to maintain balance. Other peoples are pushing the Russians, but they convulsively gasp for air and retreat, retreat. Even when there is nowhere to retreat. We are crowded on our land, and there is no longer a corner in the country of Russia, a country created by the efforts of the Russian people, in which we can breathe freely. The Russian people are so rapidly losing their inner sense of the right to their land that the question arises of the presence of some kind of distortion in self-consciousness, the presence of some kind of defective code in historical self-knowledge, which does not allow relying on it.

Therefore, perhaps, in search of solutions, you need to turn to psychology and history.

Forbidden history Rus Russian Information Agency - read

Therefore, it is not surprising that the pile-up of lies that we face when looking into the story that was presented to us, and which is not true either by its facts or conclusions.

In view of the fact that there are too many blockages and lies, and other lies were built on these lies and inventions, its offshoots, so as not to tire the reader, the author will focus more on really important facts.

Vladislav Karabanov

This Russia is virtually completely banned in "scientific circles". "Professional historians" don't believe in it. Its existence is denied by "serious scientists". Its traces are diligently ignored by doctors of sciences and academicians, accustomed to close their eyes to everything that does not fit into the Procrustean bed of scientific officialdom, and to hush up inconvenient facts that do not fit into "generally accepted" concepts, although from year to year there are more and more such facts.

This sensational book breaks the conspiracy of silence, overturning all the usual ideas about the past and irrefutably proving that Russian history is not 1200-1500 years old, as textbooks lie, but ten times more! Contrary to unspoken censorship and "professional" taboos, based not on the retelling of mossy "scientific" myths, but on the latest data from archeology, climatology and even genetics, this study offers a new, revolutionary view of the origins of Ancient Rus and the deepest roots of the Russian people, unravels the main secrets of our past and exposes the poverty of the historical officialdom!

those who speak do not speak, those who speak do not know. Lao Tzu

The sage is right. Since I am not silent, therefore, I belong to the latter. But maybe my speeches will help someone KNOW?

Humanity has eternal questions like Shakespeare's "to be or not to be" or the Russian "who is to blame" and "what to do."

Two of them: "Who are we?" and "Where are we from?"

Humanity has answered these two questions many times, and different people have different answers. Someone's ancestors were blinded from clay, someone was hatched out of an egg ... Someone's ancestor Adam was pushed out to Earth from Paradise for excessive curiosity and violation of the Creator's prohibitions. Then Mr. Darwin seemed to logically explained that this very Paradise was on a palm tree, and the exile was, rather, a voluntary slide down. It is not known what Darwinian Adam disliked on the tree, but he began to invent all sorts of reasonable devices in order to get what he could only recently take with his bare hands, he is doing this to this day (invents).

True, the overwhelming majority of the world's population still prefers to believe that it was not without God's intention that their ancestors were created. It is somehow more pleasant than recognizing oneself as relatives (even very distant ones) of zoo pets.

There is one more question that at times torments the Russian soul, eager for philosophizing: "How did we come to this life?"

These favorite Russian questions "Who are we?", "Where are we from?" and "How did you come to this life?" and the book is dedicated.

This is just ONE VERSION, by no means the ultimate truth, rather, a way to push readers to "dig" into more scientific literature.

It was written by a NON-specialist for Nonspecialists and, perhaps, will cause a lot of criticism from historians, archaeologists, linguists and others like them ... The main thing is to attract the attention of those who are not interested in history outside the school textbook, so that there is a desire to learn more, read many wonderful articles and books, discover many great sites. If at least one of the readers has such a desire, the work has been done for a reason.

Please do not take the information given here as strictly scientific, they are far from all that. This is the author's point of view on the development of civilization within a single region of the planet. The volume of the book is not large, it is simply impossible to report all the information collected, and it is not necessary, it is better to interest them so that they can look for themselves.

This is a book of DOUBTS, there will be no ultimate truths, rather, information for thought.

Don't you like this perspective? Do you want to understand everything and expect clear accents from me, they say, all these scientists are lying, it was not so, but so? In vain you hope, I will disappoint. If I had known, this investigation would not have happened. It is for the distrustful, who care why they think so and not otherwise, and what obvious inconsistencies and gaps in our knowledge can mean.

The surprise prompted me to think about why such an interest and such a heated discussion was aroused by the publication of translations of the Veles book.

Why is it so controversial?
Why are there simply no indifferent people, she is either completely rejected, or raised on the shield?
What did Velesov's book tell the world?

In the wonderful city of Veliky Novgorod, there is a wonderful monument. The ingenious creation of the genius Mikeshin only has a non-genius name: "The Millennium of Russia". How much has already been written about the absurdity of this name! The monument was erected in 1862 to commemorate the millennium of the arrival of the Varangians to Russia. Russia, as you know, began after the Time of Troubles with the Romanovs, and before that it was Russia and Muscovy. What millennium of Russia can we talk about?

And when did this very Russia begin?

Remember the name of the most famous ancient Russian chronicle: "... where the Russian Land came from ...". This creation of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor gave an unambiguous answer: the Russian Land "began" just over a thousand years ago with the arrival of Varangian squads to Ladoga under the leadership of the king (prince) Rurik. Like this! The Russians lived in a "beastly manner", and then the intelligent Varangians came and put things in order, that is, the aborigines were driven from birches and fir trees (there were no palm trees) and organized into the state ...

One of its remarkable figures, Karamzin, "helped" the development of historical science in Russia a lot. He wrote a phrase from the History of the Russian State, literally destroying millennia of the history of the Rus: "This great part of Europe and Asia, now called Russia, was inhabited from time immemorial in its temperate climates, but by wild peoples, immersed in the depths of ignorance, no own historical monuments "(emphasis added. - N. P.).

This phrase was gladly adopted by hundreds of foreign scientists who spoiled the paper in the field of Russian history, and went for a walk around the world: the ancestors of the Russians vegetated in complete ignorance until the very appearance of the Vikings. So what can you expect from offspring?

Dear compatriots, are you satisfied with this version of your own history? Personally, I have never been satisfied. Already at school I tried to understand why she was so ... dotted? A boy from the Teshik-Tash cave, the state of Urartu, then immediately the meadows with their settlements and ... the collection of tribute by the Kiev prince. And between them?

The two thousandth years are not the sixties, they added something to the textbooks, but still negligible. We study the myths of Ancient Greece, the exploits of Hercules, of which, by the way, there is essentially only one feat - the Cleaning of the Augean stables, and the rest is primitive robbery with aggravating circumstances, we study in detail and remember the deeds of Roman emperors and generals, gasp from the size and antiquity of the Egyptian pyramids ...

And we know almost nothing about our own people of the same time.
Here the dog of interest in the Veles book is buried! It tells about the Russians before the arrival of the Vikings! And most importantly, it tells how successful our ancestors were, how widely they spread their influence, how far they were ahead of many other peoples in development.
Or you are quite satisfied with the option of eliminating illiteracy and neo

organization in Mother Russia by the forces of the Greeks and the Varangian landing? Then don't waste your time, read something else. If you are not satisfied, then we take a historical shovel in our hands - and into the depths ...
Something in the text will be repeated more than once, not at all out of a desire to increase the volume of the manuscript, but from the understanding that most do not study each line sequentially, rather, we have a habit of starting reading from where the eye lies. But in order not to force readers, whose eyes lie somewhere in the middle of the book, to flip through it to the beginning, it will be necessary from time to time to remind the main milestones and facts.

And Velesov's book is rather an occasion to talk about the most ancient history of the Rus, about the place of their appearance not just on the historical, but on the prehistoric scene. Veles's book (truthfully or not) told us a lot, but it didn't tell us much more. And this unsaid can be much more interesting than what it contains ... Now there is indisputable scientific data, including archaeological data, capable of overturning all the established theories about the cradle of human civilization. This will also be discussed.

What kind of Velesov book is mentioned?
For those who did not have the luck to get acquainted with the works of Mr. Asov, I will briefly explain. Whoever knows everything about Velesov's book without me can skip a couple of paragraphs.
From numerous explanations, it follows that in the fall of 1919, while retreating as part of the Markov division of the Volunteer Army in the estate of the Zadonsky-Zakharzhevsky near the Great Burluk, Colonel Ali Arturovich Isenbek found a bunch of strange wooden planks on the floor in the destroyed library. He ordered the orderly to grab a bag of planks with him and took him first to Turkey, then to Paris, and then to Brussels, where the planks fell into the hands of an amateur historian and philologist Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov.

Isenbeck was addicted to the aristocratic pampering of cocaine

ohm, and when it became too expensive, he began to knock out a wedge with a wedge, simply changing the drug to alcohol. Therefore, the artist (and Isenbek had an artistic education) had some oddities, he did not allow the tablets to be taken out of his apartment, however, allowing Mirolyubov to copy the badges from them in his presence. The titanic work lasted for 15 years! But in 1941 Mirolyubov was forced to leave Brussels, and Isenbeck's body could not bear the abuse of his owner and ceased to be the receptacle of his soul. The boards disappeared without a trace, perhaps they simply fell into the fireplace of a neighbor who had a key to the apartment, although the Veles book apologists like a different version - they ended up in the Annenerbe storehouses, and then into the clutches of Russian intelligence and are now kept in the KGB hiding places. And now some world secret organization with all its might resists their publication. So be it.

What he was able to copy, Mirolyubov published in the Russian-language small-circulation magazine "Firebird" in San Francisco in 1953. Two years later, the publication caught the eye of another Russian immigrant - Australian S. Ya. Paramonov (Lesnoy). Since that time, active promotion of the text began. His translators claim that the tablets contained the text of the oldest book of the 9th century (it ends with the arrival of Rurik) on the history of our ancestors.

There are many doubts about the authenticity. For some reason, far from poor Isenbek did not consider it necessary to simply photograph the plates. The only photograph available raised more questions than answers. The excuses that Mirolyubov was as poor as a church mouse, and therefore could not do it himself, and that "special equipment is needed" do not stand up to criticism. For 15 years, it was possible to take away from the drunken Isenbek one by one every six months, photograph and return. There is an incredible amount of confusion in the copied text.

Most likely, Mirolyubov fell into the hands of the most ancient text, which he simply could not cope with, disassembling a toy like a child in order to understand what was inside, and how the child could not put it back together. Modern translators have tried to do this, but they have met with quite serious criticism from scientists, and the language is de wrong, and the material on the tablets too, and the very history of this book has too many stretches.

I checked - everything about Ali Arturovich Isenbek is true, except perhaps that he became a colonel in 1920. In the history of the appearance of the book in the estate of the Zadonskys, there are too many exaggerations and assumptions, very different "possibly", but even this is forgivable.

Velesov's book is not the only (and far from the most successful) publication on the ancient history of the Rus, it was just very successfully promoted and presented scandalously. Who do we sympathize most with? Those who are offended. Mirolyubov's work was "offended" by not immediately recognizing it as a masterpiece, and therefore he earned the favor of readers. But everything that Velesov's book tells the readers of Velesov's very vaguely and confusingly (and even much more) is in a much more specific form in the mass of scientific works. Scientific works are hard to read. Is the book easy for Velesov? Also not, but there were many "interpreters" who decipher the text presented by Mirolyubov in their own way. And nothing that is far too far-fetched, and there is one answer to any questions - the accusation of incompetence.

At the same time, a huge number of serious works are somehow forgotten, telling about the same and even more ancient times, no less patriotic and, most importantly, documentary. Are the Russes the Aryans? Where did they come to their Green Land? How many millennia does the history of the Rus counts? According to Nestor, the fingers of one hand will be too many. If the Veles book, then you will have to involve the hands of a neighbor. But in reality?

According to the assertion of the remarkable Russianist Y.D. Petukhov, it is 50,000 years old. Genetics "give" a little less. Almost the same, 48,000 years, have been archaeologists on the territory of the Russian Plain. And myths and legends repeat about hundreds of thousands of years ... So why do we know only a boy from a cave, antes, glades, and also the Varangians who brought order to the Russian Land?

Let's try to understand what was happening on Mother Earth many millennia ago, where people could live at that time and what kind of people they are ...

Recently, programs, interviews and articles have begun to appear more and more often, in which even the little that is reliably known about "Doryurik's" Russia, ie. Ancient Russia, primordial. Everyday life, language (the origin of words), and the meaning and meaning of archaeological finds are exposed to hayan. Most of the artifacts obtained during archaeological excavations are attributed to some mythical tribes of the Finno-Ugric, which (allegedly) inhabited more than 90% of the territory of Russia, although, as you know, these peoples appeared in small numbers only in the fifth-sixth centuries of our era, did not know weaving , neither metallurgy nor agriculture, they were engaged in primitive fishing and hunting, they did not cook hot food, they did not build houses, they had no concept of personal hygiene. But the academy science is constantly telling us that our ancient ancestors, supposedly they took over something from them, and words, and terms, and concepts, and the very tools of labor and decorations, in short - everything that we have, we adopted, according to their version. The same picture is observed by the Turkic-speaking peoples who began to populate the Great Steppe even later, displacing the Scythians-Skolots from their historical lands. The issue of borrowings is similar to the Finno-Ugric one: we have adopted everything from the Turkic peoples. And it doesn't matter what was previously written that we took over from the Finno-Ugric people, we allegedly took over from the Turks as well (the second time it turns out). Further, it is even more interesting: no less authoritative academics claim that all this was taken over from the Arabs.

And, mind you, not a single "scientist" will refute a "colleague in the shop", he will simply pretend that he did not notice the publication, but on occasion he will cite exactly the source that will be beneficial to him in a particular situation. If the situation changes, quotes from another colleague will follow, but as a result, the speaker "scientific" husband will once again prove to the world that "we are g @ clear." True, he is including g @ vno, but he will feel pink and fluffy. In the pocket then full-weight rubles and bucks ring!

I, as a taxpayer, want to know the truth, and first of all, what do the "scientists" from the history of men do on a salary, and the real, not rigged historical truth, a systematic analysis of archaeological research by region, and by specific excavations. And not like (for example): "In the excavation of the burial ground, N-th number of skeletons were found, according to anthropological measurements referring to Caucasians, but ... the bronze bells found in the graves indicate that farmers lived here 2000 years ago, representatives of the Ugric tribes "!!! Ugorskikh, Karl!

I need the truth, like many who are interested in the history of their state, make a full comparative analysis, determine the exact age of the finds (the benefit of the technique today allows this to be done), determine the DNA of the remains, and ONLY AFTER THIS DO CONCLUSIONS!

I attach a video to the topic, I will immediately make a reservation that the video is certainly not ideal, but at least the questions posed to us will be relevant for a long time until we get to the bottom of the truth:

"It is customary to start Russian history from the moment of baptism, this tradition was laid by our first historians - Tatishchev and Karamzin, who considered the history of our country, primarily as the history of the state. Prince Vladimir baptized Russia and from that moment the clock began to tick russian history, but there were still centuries before

Original taken from geogen_mir в FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF RUSSIA. Why is the history of Russia the greatest mystery on Earth?

This material was conceived as an attempt to answer the question of why our true history is being hidden from us. A short historical excursion into the field of historical truth should enable the reader to understand how far from the truth is what they give us as the history of the Russian people. In fact, the truth may shock the reader at first, as it was a shock for me, so much different from the official version, that is, a lie. I came to many conclusions on my own, but then it turned out that, fortunately, there are already works by several modern historians of the last decade who seriously studied the issue. Only, unfortunately, they, their works, are not known to the general reader - academicians and the authorities in Russia, well, they really do not like the truth. Fortunately, there are interested ARI readers who need this truth. And today has come the day when we need her in order to answer -
Who are we?
Who are our ancestors?
Where is the Heavenly Iriy, in which we must draw strength?

V. Karabanov, ARI. 09/01/2013 05:23

FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF RUSSIA

Vladislav Karabanov

To understand why we need historical truth,

you need to understand why the ruling regimes in Russia-Russia

a historical lie was needed.

History and psychology

The Russian national consciousness is in confusion, the realities of this world are falling on the Russian people, and they cannot even stand up, group themselves together to maintain balance. Other peoples are pushing the Russians, but they convulsively gasp for air and retreat, retreat. Even when there is nowhere to retreat. We are crowded on our land, and there is no longer a corner in the country of Russia, a country created by the efforts of the Russian people, in which we can breathe freely. The Russian people are so rapidly losing their inner sense of the right to their land that the question arises of the presence of some kind of distortion in self-consciousness, the presence of some kind of defective code in historical self-knowledge that does not allow relying on it.

Therefore, perhaps, in search of solutions, one should turn to psychology and history.

National identity is, on the one hand, an unconscious involvement in an ethnos, to its egregor filled with the energy of hundreds of generations, on the other hand, it is the reinforcement of unconscious sensations with information, knowledge of its history, the origins of its origin. In order to gain stability in their consciousness, people need information about their roots, about their past. Who are we and where are we from?
Each ethnic group must have it. Among peoples in antiquity, information was recorded by folk epics and legends, among modern peoples, who are usually called civilized, epic information is supplemented by modern data and is offered in the form of scientific works and research. This information layer, which reinforces unconscious sensations, is for modern man a necessary and even obligatory part of self-awareness, ensuring its stability and mental balance.

But what will happen if the people are not told who he is and where he is from, or they tell a lie, they invent an artificial story for him? Such people endure stress, because their consciousness, based on information received in the real world, does not find confirmation and support in the ancestral memory, in the codes of the unconscious and images of the superconscious. A people, like a person, seeks support for their inner self in the cultural tradition, which is history. And if he does not find it, it leads to disorganization of consciousness. Consciousness ceases to be integral and disintegrates into fragments.

This is the situation in which the Russian people find themselves today. His story, the story of his origin is invented or distorted so much that his consciousness cannot focus, because in his unconscious and superconscious, he does not find confirmation of this story. It is as if a white boy were shown photographs, as it were, of his ancestors, where only black Africans were depicted.
Or, conversely, an Indian raised in a white family was shown as a cowboy's grandfather. He is shown to relatives, none of whom he resembles, whose way of thinking is alien to him - he does not understand their actions, views, thoughts, music. Other people. The human psyche cannot stand such things. The same story with the Russian people. On the one hand, the story is absolutely not contested by anyone, on the other hand, the person feels that this does not fit his codes. The puzzles don't match. Hence the decay of consciousness.

Man is a creature that carries complex codes inherited from ancestors and, if he realizes his origin, then he gains access to his subconscious and thus is in harmony. In the depths of the subconscious, each person has layers associated with the superconsciousness, the soul, which can either be used when a consciousness with correct information helps a person to find wholeness, or are blocked by false information, and then a person cannot use his inner potential, which oppresses him. Hence, the phenomenon of cultural development is so important, or if it is based on lies, then this is a form of oppression.

Therefore, it makes sense to look closely at our history. The one that tells about our roots.

It somehow turned out strangely that according to historical science, we more or less know the history of our people since the 15th century. From the 9th century, that is, from Rurik, we have it in a semi-legendary version, supported by some historical evidence and documents ... But as for Rurik himself, the legendary rusthat came with him, historical science gives us more conjectures and interpretations than real historical evidence. That this is speculation is evidenced by the heated debate around this issue.

What is this rus, which came and gave the name to the huge people and state, which began to be called Rus? Where did the Russian land come from? Historical science, as it were, conducts discussions. As they began to conduct at the beginning of the 18th century, they continue. But as a result, they come to the strange conclusion that this does not matter, for those who were called rus "Did not have a significant impact" on the formation of the Russian people. It is in this way that historical science in Russia has rounded up the question. So - they gave the name to the people, but who, what and why - does not matter.

Really never find an answer to researchers. Is there really no traces of the people, there is no information in the ecumene, where are the roots of the mysterious Russia, which laid the foundation for our people? So Russia appeared out of nowhere, gave a name to our people and disappeared into nowhere? Or were you looking badly?

Before we give our answer and start talking about history, we need to say a few words about historians. In fact, the public has a deep misconception about the essence of historical science and the results of its research. History is usually an order. History in Russia is no exception and was also written to order, and despite the fact that the political regime here was always extremely centralized, it ordered an ideological construct, which is history. And for the sake of ideological considerations, the order was for an extremely monolithic history, not allowing deviations.

And the people - russpoiled a slender and needed picture. Only in a small period at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century, when some freedoms appeared in tsarist Russia, there were real attempts to understand the issue. And almost figured it out. But, firstly, no one really needed the truth then, and secondly, the Bolshevik coup broke out. In the Soviet period, there is nothing to say about objective coverage of history, it could not exist in principle. What do we want from hired workers who write to order under the watchful eye of the party? Moreover, we are talking about the forms of cultural oppression, which was the Bolshevik regime. And pretty much the tsarist regime too.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the pile-up of lies that we face when looking into the story that was presented to us, and which is not true either by its facts or conclusions. In view of the fact that there are too many blockages and lies, and other lies were built on these lies and inventions, its offshoots, so as not to tire the reader, the author will focus more on really important facts.

The past out of nowhere

If we read the history of Russia, written in the Romanov era, in the Soviet era and accepted in modern historiography, we will find that the versions of the origin of Russia, the people who gave this name to the huge country and people, are vague and unconvincing. For almost 300 years, when it is possible to count down attempts to understand the history, there are only a few established versions. 1) Rurik, the Norman king, who came to the local tribes with a small retinue, 2) He came out of the Baltic Slavs, either encouraged, or Vagrs 3) Local, Slavic prince 3) The story with Rurik was invented by the chronicler

The versions widespread among the Russian national intelligentsia are also based on the same ideas. But recently, the idea that Rurik is a prince from the West Slavic tribe Vagrs, who came from Pomerania, has become especially popular.

The main source for the construction of all versions is the "Tale of Bygone Years" (hereinafter PVL). A few stingy lines have spawned countless interpretations that revolve around several of the above versions. And all known historical data are completely ignored.

Interestingly, it somehow turns out that the whole history of Russia begins in 862. From the year that is indicated in "PVL" and begins with the vocation of Rurik. But what happened before is practically not considered at all, and as if nobody is interested. In this form, history looks only as the emergence of a certain state formation, and we are not interested in the history of administrative structures, but in the history of the people.

But what came before that? 862 looks almost like the beginning of history. And before that, a failure, almost emptiness, with the exception of a few short legends of two or three phrases.

In general, the history of the Russian people that we are offered is a history that has no beginning. From what we know, one gets the impression that the semi-mythical narrative began somewhere in the middle and from a half-word.

Ask anyone, even a certified historian-specialist in Ancient Russia, even a layman, what concerns the origin of the Russian people and its history before 862, all this is in the field of assumptions. The only thing that is proposed as an axiom is that the Russian people descended from the Slavs. Some, as it were, nationally minded representatives of the Russian people, in general, ethnically identify themselves as Slavs, although the Slavs are still more a linguistic community than an ethnic one. This is completely absurd.

For example, it will look ridiculous if people who speak some of the Romance languages \u200b\u200b- Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian (and its dialect, Moldavian), abandon the ethnonym and begin to call themselves “novels”. Identify yourself as one people. By the way, the Gypsies call themselves that - Romals, but they hardly consider themselves and the French tribesmen. The peoples of the Romance language group are, after all, different ethnic groups, with different fates and having different origins. Historically, it so happened that they speak languages \u200b\u200bthat have absorbed the basics of Roman Latin, but ethnically, genetically, historically and spiritually, these are different peoples.

The same applies to the community of Slavic peoples. These are peoples who speak similar languages, but the destinies of these peoples and their origins are different. We will not detail here, it is enough to point out the history of the Bulgarians in whose ethnogenesis the main role was played not only and maybe not so much by the Slavs as by the nomadic Bulgarians and local Thracians. Or Serbs, like Croats, take their name from the descendants of the Aryan-speaking Sarmatians. (Here, and further, I will use the term Aryan-speaking, instead of the term Iranian-speaking used by modern historians, which I consider to be false. The fact is that the use of the word Iranian immediately creates a false association with modern Iran, in general , today, quite an oriental people. However, historically, the very word Iran, Iranian, is a distortion of the original designation of the country Arian, Aryan. That is, if we talk about antiquity, we should use the concept not Iranian, but Aryan)... The ethnonyms themselves are presumably the essence of the names of the Sarmatian tribes "sorboi" and "khoruv", from which were the hired leaders and squads of the Slavic tribes. The Sarmatians, who came from the Caucasus and the Volga region, mixed with the Slavs in the region of the Elbe River and then descended to the Balkans and there they already assimilated the local Illyrians.

Now with regard to Russian history proper. This story, as I have already indicated, begins as if from the middle. In fact, from the 9-10th century A.D. And before that, in the established tradition, it was a dark time. What did our ancestors do and where were they, and what did they call themselves in the era of Ancient Greece and Rome, in the ancient period and during the period of the Huns and the great migration of peoples? That is, what they did, what they called and where they lived directly in the previous millennium is somehow inelegantly silent.

Where, in the end, did they come from? Why does our people occupy a huge area of \u200b\u200bEastern Europe, by what right? When did you come here? In response, silence.

Many of our compatriots are somehow used to the fact that nothing is said about this period. In the notion prevailing among the Russian national intelligentsia of the previous period, it does not seem to exist. Russia flows immediately from almost Ice age... The idea of \u200b\u200bthe history of one's own people is vague and vaguely mythological. In the reasoning of many, there is only the “arctic ancestral home”, Hyperborea, and the like of the matter of the prehistoric or antediluvian period.
Then, more or less, a theory about the era of the Vedas was developed, which can be attributed to a period of several millennia BC. But in fact, to our history, the transition to real events, we do not see in these theories. And then, somehow at once, bypassing a couple of millennia, practically out of nowhere, Russia appears in 862, the time of Rurik. The author in no way wants to enter into polemics on this issue and even somewhat divides theories according to the prehistoric period. But in any case, Hyperborea can be attributed to the era of 7-8 millennia ago, the era of the Vedas can be attributed to the times of the 2nd millennium BC, and maybe even earlier.

But as for the next 3 millennia, times that directly rest against the era of the creation of the historical Russian state, the time of the beginning of a new era and the time preceding the new era, practically nothing is reported about this part of the history of our people, or false information is reported. Meanwhile, this knowledge provides the keys to understanding our history and the history of our origin, respectively, our self-consciousness.

Slavs or Russians?

A common and uncontested place in the Russian historical tradition is the approach that Russians are a primordially Slavic people. And, in general, almost 100% equals Russian and Slavic. This does not mean a modern linguistic community, but, as it were, the historical origin of the Russian people from ancient tribes identified as Slavs. Is it really?

Interestingly, even the ancient chronicles do not give us grounds to draw such conclusions - to deduce the origin of the Russian people from the Slavic tribes.

Let us cite the well-known words of the Russian primary chronicle under the year 862:

“Deciding to ourselves: let's look for a prince who would volodol“ by us and judge by right. ”Idosh across the sea to the Varangians to Russia; the situation is afraid of the call of Varangian Rus, as all friends are called His own, friends are Urman, Anglyane, friends , taco and s. Resha Rus Chyud, Slovenia and Krivichi: "all our land is great and abundant," but there is no outfit in it: let you go to reign and govern us. " And when three brothers were chosen from their generation, they girdled all Russia by themselves, and came; the oldest Rurik Sede in Novyegrad; and the other is Sineus on Beleozero, and the third is Izbor'ste Truvor. From those nicknamed the Russian land of Novugorodtsi: they are people Nougorodtsy from the Varazhsk clan, first of all, there is no Slovenia.

It is difficult to learn something new, but in these chronicles, in different versions, one important fact can be traced - rus named as a kind of tribe, people. But then no one considers anything. Where then did this Rus disappear? And where did you come from?

The established historical tradition, both pre-revolutionary and Soviet, assumes by default that Slavic tribes lived in the Dnieper region and they are the beginning of the Russian people. However, what do we find here? From historical information and from the same PVL, we know that the Slavs came to these places almost in the 8-9 centuries, not earlier.

The first completely indistinct legend about the very foundation of Kiev. According to this legend, it was founded by the mythical Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv, \u200b\u200bwith his sister Lybid. According to the version given by the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, Kiy lived on the Dnieper mountains with his younger brothers Shchek, Khoriv and his sister Lybed, built a city on the high right bank of the Dnieper, named after his elder brother Kiev.

The chronicler immediately reports, although he considers it implausible, the second legend that Kiy was a carrier on the Dnieper. So!!! Cue is named the founder of the town of Kievets on the Danube !? These are the times.

“Some, unknowingly, say that Kiy was a carrier; There was, then, at Kiev a ferry from the other side of the Dnieper, which is why they said: "For the ferry to Kiev." If Kiy had been a carrier, he would not have gone to Constantinople; and this Kiy reigned in his family, and when he went to the king, they say that he was rewarded with great honors from the king, to whom he came. When he was returning, he came to the Danube, and chose a place, and cut down a small town, and wanted to sit in it with his kin, but those living around him would not give him; this is how the inhabitants of the Danube city still call the ancient settlement - Kievets. Kiy, returning to his city of Kiev, died there; and his brothers Shchek and Horeb and their sister Lybid immediately died. " PVL.

Where is this place, Kievets on the Danube?

For example, in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron about Kievets it is written - “The town, which, according to Nestor's story, was built by Kiy on the Danube and still existed in his time. I. Liprandi, in his "Discourse on the ancient cities of Keve and Kievets" ("Son of the Fatherland", 1831, vol. XXI), brings K. closer to the fortified city of Keve, which is narrated by the Hungarian chronicler Anonymous Notary and who was located near Orsov, apparently, in the place where the Serbian city of Kladova is now (among the Bulgarians Gladov, among the Turks Fetislam). The same author draws attention to the fact that, according to Nestor, Kiy built K. on the way to the Danube, therefore, maybe not on the Danube itself, and points to the villages of Kiovo and Kovilovo, located 30 versts from the mouth of Timok. "

If you look at where the present Kiev is and where the above Kladov is with the nearby Kiovo at the mouth of the Timok, then the distance between them is as much as 1 thousand 300 kilometers in a straight line, which is quite far even in our times, especially so. And what, it would seem, is common between these places. We are clearly talking about some kind of innuendo, substitution.

Moreover, the most interesting thing is that Kievets really was on the Danube. Most likely, we are dealing with a traditional history, when settlers, moving to a new place, transferred their legends there. In this case, Slavic settlers brought these legends from the Danube. As you know, they came to the Dnieper from Pannonia, pressed in the 8-9 century by the Avars and ancestors of the Magyars.

Therefore, the chronicler writes: "When the Slavic people, as we said, lived on the Danube, they came from the Scythians, that is, from the Khazars, the so-called Bulgarians, and settled along the Danube, and were settlers in the land of the Slavs." PVL.

In reality, this story with Kiy and the glades reflects even ancient attempts not so much to tell as to distort real facts and events.

“After the destruction of the pillar and after the division of the peoples, the sons of Shem took the eastern countries, and the sons of Ham took the southern countries, while Japheth took the west and the northern countries. From the same 70 and 2 languages \u200b\u200bcame the Slavic people, from the tribe of Japheth - the so-called noriks, who are the Slavs.

After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where now the land is Hungarian and Bulgarian. From those Slavs, the Slavs dispersed throughout the land and were nicknamed by their names from the places where they sat. " PVL

Clearly and not ambiguously, the chronicler says that the Slavs lived in other territories than the lands of Kievan Rus, and are an alien people here. And if we consider the historical retrospective of the lands of Russia, it is clear that they were by no means a desert, and life was in full swing here since ancient times.

And there, in the "Tale of Bygone Years," the chronicle brings to the reader information about the settlement of the Slavs even more clearly. We are talking about moving from west to east.

After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where now the land is Hungarian and Bulgarian (more often they indicate the provinces of Rezia and Norik). From those Slavs, the Slavs dispersed throughout the land and were nicknamed by their names from the places where they sat. So some, having arrived, sat down on the river by the name of Morava and were nicknamed Morava, while others called themselves Czechs. And here are the same Slavs: White Croats, and Serbs, and Horutans. When the Volokhs attacked the Danube Slavs, and settled among them, and oppressed them, these Slavs came and sat on the Vistula and were called Lyakhs, and from those Poles went the Poles, other Poles - Lutichi, some - Mazovians, others - Pomorians

Likewise, these Slavs came and sat down the Dnieper and called themselves glades, and others - Drevlyans, because they sat in the forests, while others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and called themselves Dregovichi, others sat down the Dvina and called themselves Polotsk, along the river flowing into the Dvina , called Polota, from her and named Polotsk. The same Slavs, who sat near Lake Ilmenya, called themselves by their name - the Slavs, and built a city and named it Novgorod. Others sat along the Desna, and along the Seim, and along the Sule, and called themselves northerners. And so the Slavic people dispersed, and after their name and the letter was called Slavic. " (PVLIpatiev list)

The ancient chronicler, it was Nestor or someone else, needed to depict history, but from this story we learn only that not very long ago the Slavic families moved to the east and northeast.

However, for some reason we do not find a word about the people of Russia from the chronicler of the PVL.

And we are interested in this rus - people who are with a small letter and Russia, a country that is with a capital. Where did they come from. To be honest, PVL, for the purpose of finding out the true state of affairs, is not suitable. We find there only isolated references, of which only one is clear, that rus there was and it was the people, and not some separate Scandinavian squads.

It must be said here that neither the Norman version of the origin rus neither West Slavic is satisfactory. Hence, there are so many disputes between the supporters of these versions, because there is nothing to choose between them. None of the second version allows us to understand the history of the origin of our people. But rather confusing. The question is, is there really no answer? Can't you figure it out? I hasten to reassure the reader. There is an answer. In fact, in general terms it is already known, and it is quite possible to form a picture, but history is a political and ideological tool, especially in a country like Russia.
Ideology here has always played a decisive role in the life of the country, and history is the basis of ideology. And if the historical truth contradicted the ideological content, then it was not the ideology that was changed, the history was adjusted. That is why the traditional history of Russia-Russia is in many ways presented as a set of false statements and omissions. This silence and lies have become a tradition in the study of history. And this bad tradition begins with the same PVL.

It seems to the author that there is no need to slowly lead the reader to true conclusions regarding the past. rus-Rus-Russia, consistently exposing the lies of various historical versions. Of course, I would like to build a story, creating an intrigue, gradually leading the reader to the correct conclusion, but in this case it will not work. The fact is that avoiding historical truth was the main goal of most historians, and the heaps of untruths are such that hundreds of volumes would have to be written, refuting one nonsense after another.

Therefore, here I will take a different path, outlining our real history, along the way explaining the reasons for the silence and lies that determined the various "traditional versions." It must be understood that, with the exception of a short period at the end of the era of the Romanov empire and our present day, historians could not be free from ideological pressure. Much is explained, on the one hand, by a political order, and on the other hand, by the readiness to fulfill this order. In some periods it was fear of reprisals, in some a desire not to notice the obvious truth in the name of some political hobbies. As we delve into the past and reveal the historical truth, I will try to give my explanations

The extent of the lie and the tradition of deviating from the truth were such that for many readers the truth about the origin of the ancestors will be a shock. But the evidence is so indisputable and unambiguous that only a stubborn dumbass or pathological liar will dispute a perfectly clear truth.

Even at the end of the 19th century, it was clearly possible to state that the origin and history of the people of Russia, the state of Russia, that is, the past of the ancestors of the Russian people, is not any mystery, but in general terms it is known. And building a historical chain of times is not difficult to understand who we are and where we are from. Another question is that this was contrary to political principles. Why, I will touch on this below. Therefore, our history has not found its true reflection. But sooner or later, the truth must be presented.