He appeared on TV screens and announced that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. A red flag was lowered from the basement of the Kremlin Palace. One of the largest world powers has disappeared from the world map.

There is an opinion that the Soviet Union died as a result of the crisis, which it faced by the mid-1980s.

“In specialized literature and in political journalism,” writes Vadim Andreevich Medvedev, a former member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, “the point of view is still presented, according to which economic difficulties were the decisive factor that prompted the country's leadership to begin perestroika. They say that by the beginning of the 1980s the Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse.

No one denies that since the end of the 1950s our country began to lose its former pace of development, that crisis tendencies were emerging in it, that it needed changes. However, so far there is no convincing evidence that by the beginning of perestroika the USSR was experiencing an economic crisis, and even more so that it had a deadly, irreversible character.

In this regard, attention is drawn to the fact that V.A. Medvedev, who was one of the "architects" of perestroika, categorically rejects claims that it was generated by the crisis of the Soviet economy. And here is the testimony of assistant M.S. Gorbachev - Georgy Khosroevich Shakhnazarov. Shortly before his death, he said that although by the mid-80s Soviet society was pregnant with perestroika, it would be “naive” to imagine that “radical changes in our country are so ripe that the country, like a woman at the end of the ninth month of pregnancy, should have by all means be resolved by them.

Based on this metaphor, it turns out that the "birth" was premature, and their stimulation was artificial.

This is also recognized by M.S. Gorbachev.

One of his articles says: “Perestroika was brought to life more by a premonition of an impending crisis in the country,” “than by a clear understanding of the causes and extent of the “imminent catastrophe.”

Answering the question in a conversation with the writer V. Erofeev: what would happen if, having come to power, he did not start changes, Mikhail Sergeevich said that he would “reign” for another fifteen years. The same thought was reflected in his book "December - 91" and in an interview with the magazine "Profile".

Thus, he actually admitted that by 1985 the situation in the country was not catastrophic and that it began to acquire a similar character during the years of perestroika.

Some authors argue that the country was led to a catastrophe by the inept policy of reformers who wanted to bring healthy forces to life, paralyze the process of folding the crisis of the Soviet system and modernize society, but opened up space for the forces of destruction.

“The tragic finale of perestroika,” writes B. Kuvaldin, “was largely predetermined by the impossibility, inability or unwillingness to at least somehow divide the overwhelming “super task” into separate program blocks, try to line up their sequence, avoid “running ahead”, without trying to solve everything and immediately."

“The beginning of a total “cold war” against the Soviet Union, approved and blessed by the Roman pontiff,” writes I.Ya. Froyanov - can and should be considered as a modern version of the crusade against Russia. Here lies a line in the history of our country: from that moment on, the changes taking place in the USSR are largely due to external influence, which becomes dominant, while the internal factor recedes into the background. With the advent of Gorbachev and his like-minded people like Yakovlev and Shevardnadze, the Soviet Union embarked on the path of a controlled catastrophe from the outside.

Who is right?

To answer the question of why the Soviet Union disappeared from the world map, it is first necessary to establish how this happened.

A lot has been written about perestroika and the collapse of the USSR, which became its finale, both here and abroad. At the same time, we have to state that the true history of perestroika has not yet been restored. And it's not easy to do so.

A modern researcher has access to a very limited range of archival documents of those years, and the published materials are not only subject to biased selection, but are often published with serious cuts. As for the memories, most of the participants in those events believe that the "time of revelations" "has not come yet." “If I wrote the whole truth in my memoirs,” A.A. Gromyko, the world would turn upside down.

But it's not only that. Even behind the scenes, politicians are usually guided by the principle: think one thing, say another, do a third. In a number of interviews, the closest associate of M.S. Gorbachev, Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev openly admitted that they, the reformers, had to "lie and be hypocritical."

Therefore, researchers experience a lack of information on some issues and an abundance of disinformation on others.

But there was no mean
From the poem "Contemporaries" (part 1 "Anniversaries and triumphs", N. A. Nekrasova (1821-1877):
I took the book, having risen from sleep,
And I read in it:
"There were worse times
But there was no meanness."
The poet puts the last words in quotation marks not by chance, since in fact this is a quote from the story “Happy People”, written by the now little-known Russian writer Nadezhda Dmitrevna Khvoshchinskaya (1825-1889). In the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski (1874, No. 4), he was published under the pseudonym V. Kpecmobsky".
One of the heroes of this story laments the loss of former ideals and civic feelings by his contemporaries: “The devil knows what is being done of us. We are grieved with envy, we console ourselves with hatred, we become smaller - at least look at us through a microscope! We feel that we are falling, and we laugh at ourselves ... Huh? is it true? there were worse times - there were no meaner times!
Thus, N. D. Khvoshchinskaya entered the history of Russian literature and language, albeit with one, but a winged line immortalized by the poet.
It is allegorical about the time for which crisis phenomena in public life, the decline of morality and mores are typical.
Compiled by Vadim Serov.

There have been worse times...

Yeah! Winged stupidity!
A perfect example of pseudo-deep thinking.
What is Nekrasov's verse and Khvoshchinskaya's story about?
About the fact that, de, times were worse, but they were not so vile.
That is mean times - this is not the worst!!!
What does worse-better mean?

Let's say, for example, the reign of Ivan the Terrible in Russia, an executioner and a sadist.
Those must have been bad times. Oprichnina, denunciations, arbitrary scum in relation to honest Russian people? So they were "worse", but not "mean"?
They were the worst, because they were vile!

The Red Terror of the Bolsheviks. Isn't it a mean time? Not very bad? (By the way, bad for WHOM? For the scum who, using rrrrrrrrevolutionary demagogy, robbed, raped, killed the "bourgeois" to their heart's content? And anyone could be written as a "bourgeois". Whose apartment liked, whose money liked, whose wife or daughter liked. ..)
For them, scum, it was very good times!

Stalin's rule.
Terror in relation to millions and on the bones of innocent victims, a whole class of vultures-appointees have eaten their fill. After all, "cadres decide everything!" So Stalin planted vile and absolutely immoral little people at all levels of power.
These times are not vile, and therefore not bad?? They were mean and very bad!

The times of the French Revolution - the picture is similar - to cut off the heads of the "aristocrats" and seize their property, rape their wives and daughters, incite each other in the "elite of the Rulers". Didn't Robespierre send his mistress Charlotte Corday to be slaughtered in Marat's bath? Marat, of course, was told that, de, he would send him a charming girl "with experience and ready for anything." Wasn't he, Robespierre, sent Danton to the guillotine on false charges? All this is the elimination of rivals by the “incorruptible Robespierre”.
Bad times?
Yes!
But honest, not mean?
Of course not! There was also plenty of meanness at that time - just read historical books!
Total:
The phrase above is stupid and meaningless, but its stupidity is masked by a false opposition of two interrelated phenomena in public life: The meanness of many people and the terror based on it: robberies, murders, violence!

“EVERYTHING should be beautiful in a person ...”
The famous stupidity of Chekhov, replicated millionfold by servile fools.
An example of the same pseudo-profoundness.
But here at least everything is simple.
Let's take the very spokesman of this idea, a kind of beautiful-hearted Danko - Anton Pavlovich.
If you call, then be yourself a living example of this “beautiful”.
So the bloody expectoration of Chekhov, a tuberculosis patient, with rotten, decomposed blood, dead pieces of his alveoli - was it truly wonderful?
And, excuse me, his, and all other animals' urine and excrement, are also beautiful?
(For dung flies, beetles and worms - YES!!! Beautiful! But Chekhov addressed his call, let's assume, NOT TO THEM !!!)
And all other secretions of human and animal organisms for some reason do not really fit under "beauty".
What about thoughts, deeds and speech?
Dirty thoughts and disgusting swearing are they beautiful? But EVERYWHERE!!!
They will object to me: Like, Chekhov did not state the facts. And he called!
You can call for altruism and internationalism, and for anything.
You can call on all people to become all-powerful and all-wise gods!
But there must be at least a drop of sober common sense in the call. What Chekhov does not have!

He also called for "Squeezing a slave out of himself drop by drop." A wonderful call. And did he squeeze something out of himself?
Read his creations and you will see: Our hero himself is a fetid slave in spirit and in thought. And no heavy-duty presses will help here!
This, in general, is very convenient - to call OTHERS!
But not yourself!

Another pearl, and also an appeal, and also Chekhov, and also reproduced in millions of copies by voluntary lackeys.
“Write, de, it is necessary so that the words are cramped, and the thoughts are spacious!”
Since both the physical and “spiritual” volume of any literary work is LIMITED, the meaning of the statement is as follows:
There should be a lot of words and they are crowded on the pages of the opus, squeezed like herring in a barrel!
“The novel requires chatter; make it clear."
In a letter to A.A. Delvig:
“Now I am writing a new poem, in which I talk utterly” (November 16, 1823)
A.S. Pushkin

On the other hand, there are so few thoughts that they float freely in the rarefied THOUGHTERNESS atmosphere of the opus.
Chekhov wrote this pseudo-profound thought a long time ago, about a hundred years ago. And for a whole CENTURY, masses of fools repeat this stupidity importantly and instructively, without even bothering to understand its meaninglessness!
Moral: The more stupid and thoughtless the phrase, with the greater aplomb and importance it is pronounced, so that millions of slaves will pick it up and smash it to all corners of the world!

You may not be a Jew, but you must be a liberal

Holocaust survivor Bella Altura from Florida believes that "leftist Jews" seriously harm the interests of both the United States and Israel.

“Basically,” she wrote on the New York Post’s editorial mail site last Friday, “simply voting for one party is dishonest and unwise. It only allows others to decide who is for whom. The right to vote is the greatest gift, but also the responsibility of deciding that the candidate we vote for honors the Constitution so that we, the people, preserve our precious freedoms. The stupidity in which the United States, Israel and the whole world are mired is caused by those who vote not for candidates, but for the party.

A similar opinion is shared by another Post reader - Steve Hytner from Long Island. “When asked why American Jews support their anti-Israel president over Israel’s security, there are several answers,” he wrote. “This is the general tendency of the urban population towards liberalism.”
Heitner's second answer is that among Jewish immigrants from Europe, socialism as a means of redistributing wealth was the main political philosophy, and when they arrived in the United States, it became "appetizing bait for groups at the bottom rung of the social ladder." As American Jews drifted further from their religion, Steve Heitner continues, they began to sympathize with the humiliated and offended more than their fellow believers, losing faith in the Jewish state. He considers Barack Obama "obviously the most leftist and most anti-Israeli president of the United States", but in this case the point is not in Obama, but in the fact that his support for the Palestinians coincides with the opinions of a significant part of the Jews, that peace in Israel is hindered not by the Palestinian genocide, but by the right wing of Israeli leaders."
Bella Altura, Steven Hytner and others wrote in the New York Post in connection with columnist Jonah Goldberg's earlier article there, "Why Does a Jew Mean a Democrat?". Prior to Goldberg, Congressman Steve King, an Iowa Republican, asked a similar question in an interview with the Boston Herald Radio station. “I don’t understand,” King said, “how American Jews can be Democrats in the first place, and Jews in the second, supporting Israel only in step with the policies of their president.” King is depressing that our Jewish Democrats value Barack Hussein Obama more than the interests of the Jewish state.
The past week, Jonah Goldberg noted, was full of events that pushed this issue into the background. A German suicide pilot crashed a plane with 150 people on board in the French Alps. Republican Senator Ted Cruz became the first official candidate for the White House in 2016. Allegedly captured by the Afghan Taliban, our sergeant Bowie Bergdahl, whom Obama called a hero and exchanged for five Taliban leaders, was recognized as a deserter. In Iraq, our military supported the Iranians in battles with Sunni jihadists, and in Yemen they supported the Saudi military in battles with Shiite jihadists, who are supported by Iran ...
There was something to talk about, and they forgot about the Jewish Democrats, but Steve King reminded them of them, which caused more indignation than enthusiasm. National Jewish Democratic Council chairman Greg Rosenbaum was "shocked and horrified" by King's words about "Jews second" and that Democrats are anti-Semites. This dangerous "hashtag" (as the label or symbol is now called) Rosenbaum explained as "a thick mixture of sincerity and opportunism."
Liberal writer Paul Waldman called King's words in Boston "oddly almost reassuring" because they show "how rare anti-Semitism has become in America." In Waldman's opinion, "the American Jew is more pressured by a kind of conservative philosemitism than by outright anti-Semitism."
Jonah Goldberg finds this an interesting conclusion, since both our extreme right and almost all leftists constantly reproach American Jews with "double loyalty" to their country and their historical homeland. But Steve King, as a passionate defender of Israel in Congress, goes further, arguing that American Jews are not Jewish enough. A synonymous inaccuracy should be noted here, since “being a Jew” and “supporting Israel”, and even more so supporting Obama, are not the same thing. Hence the disputes and turmoil in the circles of our Jewish community, as well as among our conservatives. The non-Jews on the right support Israel as much as the Jews on the left oppose it. As the Russian poet Nikolai Nekrasov predicted, you may not be a Jew, but you must be a liberal.
Jonah Goldberg sees this not as a historical accident, but as a consequence of the fact that American Jews have become "disproportionately liberal" as they are treated. There are several reasons for this, and some of them were cited by readers of the New York Post, responding to an article by Goldberg, who gives his own examples.
In late July 1943, Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt supported the plan of the World Jewish Congress to save 70,000 Romanian Jews and pressured the Treasury Department to obtain the necessary license.
A few days later, the FDR met with a member of the Polish Resistance, Jan Karski, who asked him for help to the dying Jews of the ghetto and heard an indifferent phrase: “Tell your people that we will win this war.” A few weeks later, Roosevelt refused to warn Germany's European allies about the inadmissibility of the extermination of Jews in their territories. In October 1943, Roosevelt refused to meet representatives of hundreds of Orthodox rabbis protesting the Holocaust, but in November he told the State Department that he intended to help Jews more. In January 1944, the FDR approved the creation of the Refugee Council, which saved 200,000 Jews.
We can recall the Democratic President Truman, who recognized the State of Israel, and the "historical necessity" for the Jews to receive the protection of the central government. One can recall the anti-Semitic sentiments in the Republican Party from the 1920s to the 1960s, during the period of Jewish immigration from Europe, where socialism was held in high esteem among intellectuals, and enlightened Jews departed in droves from religion.
Political scientist Kenneth Wald, author of Religion and Politics in the United States, disagrees with all but the last of these arguments for American Jewish liberalism. The main reason, he believes, is the desire of US Jews to clearly separate religion from politics. The fact that most Jews support the Democrats, Wald explains, is Republican sympathy for Protestant Christians, although Evangelical Protestants are pro-Israel and are not anti-Semitic, but philo-Semitic.
Jonah Goldberg has written that he considers Kenneth Wald "empirically right," although he does not dig into the deep root of Jewish liberalism. Goldberg sees one of the reasons in the vitality of ideological and party guidelines, which, “like religion, are passed from parents to children, from generation to generation,” but they are also not static.
“Though Steve King could have put it better,” Jonah Goldberg concluded Why Does a Jew Mean a Democrat? in the New York Post, he was absolutely right that—now or in the future—support (by American Jews) for the Left and their support for Israel must clash."
In light of this conflict, Goldberg's article, or rather, the words of Republican Congressman Steve King, provoked the expected reaction. Democratic Congressman Steve Israel tweeted that he didn't need his colleague King's questions about his religion or his politics, and demanded that Steve King apologize and be excommunicated from the Republican Party.
Nekrasov was right: you may not be a Jew, but you must be a liberal. http://evreimir.com/98811/%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BC-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0% B5%D1%88%D1%8C-%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%BD% D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%B1/

“There were worse times, but there were no meaner ones ...”

It just doesn't fit in my head! But this is happening in Europe these days. A Belgian insurance company, whose name has not been made public, has refused to provide its services and take out an insurance policy for a Jewish kindergarten.

The insurers justified their refusal by saying that it was too risky for their business in the face of growing anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish institutions across Europe. And the Jewish kindergarten is a potential target for possible terrorist attacks...
Insurers are accustomed to counting money and will not insure to their own detriment.
The Director General of the Jewish organizations of the European Union, Rabbi Menachem Margolin, called this decision “shameful” and once again called on the authorities of European countries to provide reliable protection for Jewish institutions: “It is a shame that we have come to this. At first they do not take sufficient measures to protect Jewish institutions in Europe, despite our repeated warnings. And now insurance companies are using the security situation as an excuse to avoid insuring kindergartens. This is a surreal and cynical reality… European countries must provide security measures that will meet the requirements of insurance companies and come up with an alternative insurance plan, taking into account institutions that are under threat due to anti-Semitism.”

He said something, but who will hear him? Although, I remember, the leaders of many European countries were very outraged by Netanyahu's words after another terrorist attack against Jews in Europe. And Netanyahu just said that “Israel is a home for every Jew” and that “Jews deserve protection in any country in the world, but we say to the Jews, our brothers and sisters: “Israel is your home.”
Netanyahu was immediately accused of “using the situation for election purposes”, and officials of European countries of all ranks and calibers vied with each other to sing that “the place of European Jews is Europe”, they say, Europe is not the same without them ...
It can be seen. Alas…

Elena SULTANOVA http://evreimir.com/98803/%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D1%85%D1%83%D0%B6% D0%B5-%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B5 -%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9/

"The punishment for civil passivity is the power of villains" (Plato)

“Enemies are not counted, enemies are beaten and beaten to death” (A. V. Suvorov)

When some event, especially of a military nature, is repeated with steady constancy, especially in different parts of the globe, the thought involuntarily arises that these processes are controlled by the same people, with the same goal. Unleash a conflict and destroy as many of the indigenous people as possible.

The second war in Chechnya, Russian troops near Bamut press the entrenched "Wahhabis". The military unit of Russia includes two regiments of Cossacks, recruited mainly from the local population, Terek, Kuban and Don Cossacks, who know the area and know how to fight in these conditions. It would seem that the “Wahhabis” came to an end, but suddenly, by order from Moscow, the offensive of the Cossacks was stopped. Moreover, there is enough time for the “Wahhabis” to rearm and replenish the combat-ready staff. Fights begin again, and as soon as the situation around the “Wahhabis” escalated, again the “stop” command from the Kremlin. So four times. Four times they support the slaughter that takes the lives of two kindred peoples, which the Zionist geeks, on command from Washington, destroyed, doing their usual business. We know that the unexpectedly wealthy Berezovsky took an active part in supporting these events.

Yugoslavia. 19 united NATO countries approached the borders of Yugoslavia; marking time and are afraid to cross the border. The Yugoslav army was the third most powerful in the world. The country was headed by a cowardly and narrow-minded leader - S. Milosevic. With competent and tactically correct actions, the Yugoslav army could crush the enemy army to smithereens within its borders, as well as sink ships and aircraft carriers that approached from the sea. But that did not happen. The government of Yugoslavia turned to Russia for help, but the eternally drunk B. Yeltsin entrusted almost all the negotiations to the Jew A. Kozyrev, who, with the help of his friends from the United States, surrendered Yugoslavia. So the meanness of our Minister of Foreign Affairs and the representative of the Soviet government, on the one hand, and the mental and physical weakness of S. Milosevic, on the other hand, ruined the great Yugoslavia, which was created by the intelligent and talented Broz Tito.

Ukraine, Novorossiya. Three times the troops of free Novorossiya could defeat a crazed enemy. Events developed rapidly. The army, consisting of Ukrainian shantrapa, was plundered, the militias went to Mariupol. It was difficult to overestimate the importance of the capture of Mariupol, because there was a direct road from Mariupol to the Crimea on the ground. The militias understood this, but the enemies realized in time. They forced Putin to offer a truce. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the act of Putin, who, as our press wrote, "it dawned on him on the plane," and he practically insisted on the so-called truce. That is, he made a maneuver that the Americans love so much. The offensive of the militia was stopped, and Mariupol was literally stuffed with Ukrainian fascists armed to the teeth. It dawned on the Washington masters of Ukraine that Odessa would follow Mariupol, and there Kyiv would get its own. And Washington realized that there was a chance to set up a thresher to destroy the Russian people, and now our government had to figure out what was better: to build a tunnel under the Kerch Strait or a bridge. We decided to build a bridge. For our liberoids, this is not so bad, on the one hand, you can steal several billion rubles, or even dollars, on the other hand, it has become possible for Washington to provide assistance at the local level. I have a question for readers: why do we have the Federation Council? I think that none of you will really answer, because it is this organization that arranges stops and a truce where this cannot be done. Today this is their main function. So, for example, from the very beginning of the events of Novorossia, when Colonel Streltsov came there, and 50 volunteers with him, it was clear that the south-east of Ukraine should be taken beyond Crimea, which then no one needed. The Kievan-Jewish shantyrap was entrenched in power, in Kyiv. At the same time, approximately 150-thousandth grouping of our troops, approximately well prepared and equipped at the present level, marched along the borders of Ukraine and the Baltic states. I would like to remind you that the infantry in this group of troops is motorized, more than a hundred helicopters covered from the air, support aviation was ahead, also about 100-150 aircraft. As one of the leading military commentators of the West said: "such a grouping of troops can go through all of Europe like butter, back and forth, and meet no resistance." Western television showed the procession of our group of troops, Obama literally fell into a panic. Gathered his generals, military commentators and showed them the film. Addressing his flock, he declared: “And these are rusty tanks? And you are saying that helicopters will fall after 100 meters, how will they rise into the air, and air support? There were modern planes. The Washington Trouble has moved to the West. The President of Lithuania announced to the whole world that "Putin will soon capture us." In English, German, Austrian and Italian newspapers of various kinds, commentators started talking about the fact that the Russian army should enter the south-east of Ukraine, judging by the situation and from statistical considerations. And that would be right. All subsequent events have confirmed the logic of these arguments. It turns out that in our Federation Council and the State Duma there was the biggest commotion. Putin was accused of starting a war and banned the entry of troops into southern and eastern Ukraine. However, later they softened the wording that V.V. Putin himself asked to cancel the decision to send troops to Ukraine. It was from that moment that the tragedy began, which continues to this day in the form of the consistent destruction of Russian patriots in Novorossia and Ukraine. Of course, one cannot fail to recall the incompetently injured volunteers who traveled from all over Russia to Novorossia. Not only did these people initially buy weapons and uniforms with their own money. They were deliberately, by agreement with the enemy, substituted under the act of shelling. So, for example, I once wrote, eyewitness reports: “We were brought to the forest, 800 people, placed somehow and haphazardly. The officer told us that we should stay here and wait for orders. Literally immediately after his departure, shelling of our group began. Naturally, we couldn’t answer, in a week there were 400 of us left, the provisions were over.” Here it is appropriate to recall a manual for military censors, which began with Henry Kissinger's statement: "Russia does not need to be conquered, we will destroy it from the inside." What we have seen over the past 25 years.

It was necessary to capture Mariupol, which means a free path across the land to the Crimea, the whole and not destroyed infrastructure of Donetsk and Lugansk. Surely, they would take Odessa. It would be possible to save industry, people, the lives of tens of thousands of volunteers. That is, it was possible to create a powerful military-industrial fist that would easily crush the Jewish-American-Kyiv authorities. But that did not happen. The Zionist circles of our government, as well as the representatives of Russia in Ukraine - Zurabov, Surkov, were put into play. There were local traitors in Donetsk in the person of Khodorkovsky, and I will not be mistaken if I add here the representative of Lugansk, Igor Plotnitsky. It was at the suggestion of these individuals that prominent and talented leaders of the popular uprising were destroyed: Bednov, Pavlov (Motorola), Givi, Pavel Leonidovich Dremov,
Ischenko only a few dozen people. This human meat grinder of the Russian people was organized and is still supported by the Zionist freaks. I want to say that we have no luck with foreign ministers. Foreign Minister Shevernadze was no better (I once wrote about his affairs). He handed over a strategic map of important objects of national importance of our state to a representative of the US Department. He distinguished himself in giving away the expanses of the sea, and also moved the border of the water space of the Bering Strait, which was unfavorable to the interests of our state. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, after Gromyko, is notable for its enviable constancy in making rather strange decisions in critical situations. For example, in Aleppo. Apparently, in order to put pressure on our Minister Lavrov, together with Kerry, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier arrived, and in Aleppo, at a favorable moment for the troops of Bashar al-Assad, the fighting was once again stopped, and the ISIS and their friends were given the opportunity to survive and rearm. The plebeian behavior of representatives of our government, when negotiating with arrogant and not very smart representatives of Western countries, often causes a feeling of indignation and resentment. The shooting of our medical workers during artillery shelling by gangs in Aleppo, as well as in other cases of vile behavior of representatives of Western power circles towards our citizens and the military, causes a feeling of indignation and the question: why do our authorities value our lives and our human resources so cheaply? dignity? And why are they not punishing enemies who allow themselves to commit criminal acts against us, as representatives of the security forces of America and Israel do. The same Steinmeier tried at one time in Ukraine to lay a wreath at the House of Culture in Odessa, where citizens killed by Ukrainian fascists died. Steinmeier did not succeed in his idea, and he had to quickly retreat when he realized that the fascist thugs would not stand on ceremony with him. But in Aleppo, together with Kerry, he managed to get another so-called “truce” from our minister, which cannot be called anything other than a betrayal of the interests of the defenders of Aleppo. If we recall the work and behavior of our former Minister of Foreign Affairs Gromyko, when he was in the United States, the visitors from the American side were afraid of Gromyko. They rarely succeeded in obtaining any concessions from our representation. In this regard, I can’t help but recall the behavior of another of our prime ministers, when he, at a meeting with Obama (for some reason, they were shown in a car in the back seat), responded to all of Obama’s proposals and requests, without listening to the end and not understanding what speech, answered: “Yes, of course! ". And later I managed to watch the meeting between Putin and Obama. Obama had an angry and strained expression on his face, while Putin had a tense and not very friendly face, and their conversation was tough and uncompromising. Of course, about our representatives of power, as well as representatives of the people - deputies, you can compose jokes, and write humoresques, at best, and at worst - to deal with them, as, in their time, they did with the population of Russia after the capture government representatives of the Jewish class.

Why do we have such a situation in our country? I would like to acquaint our reader with the history of this issue.

Today's overall geostrategic picture looks pretty simple. The "Western elite", the international financial mafia, is conditionally represented as two parts. One part (conditional Rothschilds) advocates the regionalization of world politics, the creation of several centers of influence of approximately equal geopolitical power, and “plans to leave the place of a single financial regulator and exchange center for itself. At the same time, world currencies will be pegged to gold. The second part (conditional Rockefellers) advocates a tough upholding of US hegemony and the monopoly of the dollar as world money, even by directly destroying potential competitors, independent centers of power and replacing the "White Horse of the Apocalypse" with the "White Dragon". All other centers of regional power are planned on the basis of full vassalage, including the so-called Vatican and ZAO ROC - one of the sects of Judaism, and by no means the Orthodox religion.

Both halves of the financial mafia clan, in order to fulfill their pathological passion, have one World Jewish Congress (WJC), one World Zionist Organization (WZO) and one political program - to seize power over the whole World, based on the teachings of Ta-Nakh, Talmud, Tanya , Kabbalah, etc. And no division of "elites"! “Without me, the Zionists would not have advanced a single step, but even without the Zionists, my work would have stood still,” Rothschild said.

Omnipotence means, in fact, power not over countries or even over regions. This is the power over civilizations, the core of which is religion.

This is power over the soul of mankind, the highest form of power, which should belong only to the Almighty.The Judeo-Zionist claim to this power is nothing butchallenge to God.But before God, everyone is equal.

In June 1962, the American magazine Reader's Digest published the following curious text: “On January 13, 1953, Judeo-Zionism was suddenly dealt the most terrible blow. Newspaper headlines screamed that nine eminent doctors (most of them Jews) confessed to poisoning their patients in the Kremlin on behalf of the American-Jewish Distribution Committee, working for worldwide Jewish power."

This is how Deripaska, out of his stupidity or subject to hutspe, announced to the whole world that it is necessary to clean up the generals of the Russian army, and to buy talented people immediately and permanently, or, if the deal did not take place, to destroy them! And this is Judeo-Zionist terrorism!!!

According to the laws of the universe: the force of action - there is a force of opposition. It may turn out to be not entirely adequate - “Two Eyes for an Eye” (moral damage!).

Zealots of Khazaria, AIPAC, WJC, WZO, various kinds of Masonic orders, and MI6, Mossad, CIA, who are in the service of the Fintern, understand that to conquer the Russian Empire - 1/6 of the Earth - with the "Russian spirit" in a direct clash since the destruction no one succeeded in the Khazar Khaganate. Neither the revolution - the replacement of the imperial form with the republic, nor the civil, but in fact, world - war, nor the WWII did not fully achieve their goals.

Apparently, the example of the "omnipotence" of the former Cheka and the NKVD turned out to be preferable after the Second World War the rate of the Fintern, was made by the KGB, especially to the foreign intelligence service (itself can come on the hook). Withdraw the KGB from subordination to the Government, take control of the cadres of the Government, the ruling party and the media and carry out any reforms: state forms, economic, social, national - belittling the state-forming nation, the Russians. The SVR, nuclear energy, and the EP-party of power to this day are not released from the claws of the Judeo-Zionists. Any attempt to create a Russian national orientation in any area has been nipped in the bud since the time of the Cheka.

Indeed, the belligerence and militarism of the bearers of the spirit of Dan, who are in power in the United States and in Israel and rely on the escalation of the war, knows no bounds, as well as their cunning. These characteristics of the Danites are also confirmed in the commentary to the Explanatory Bible: “The tribe of Dan will defeat its enemies not so much in open struggle, but by secret ambushes and cunning in general, properties that distinguish snakes in the animal kingdom: Dan will be a snake and
asp (Gen. 49:17).” Crush the idea of ​​a tsar-empire, so that the people find themselves “without a tsar in their heads”, without a state, where the root is “sovereign*”. So that he becomes absolutely manageable, succumbs to colonization, allows himself to be taken into slavery by the “world rulers of darkness” from the tribe of Dan” (“Invisible Khazaria”, Ryazan, 2008).

An Israeli historian, Solomon Lurie, spoke out: “... The time will come when we will be well recognized everywhere, and no matter how hard we try to invent ways to shift our blame onto others, I’m afraid that, by sowing the wind, we, in the end, did not reap the whirlwind ".

In August 1897, in Basel, at the first congress of the World Zionist Organization (WZO), a project for the creation of Israel was announced. To establish such a center, all Israelis were taxed. The largest "donor" was supposed to be the Russian diaspora.

In order to increase the flow of funds from Russia to the WSO fund, Witte transferred to Theodor Herzl the “drinking monopoly”, as well as the shares of Gunzburg Horace, who owned the richest gold mines in Bodaibo and Yakutia and who, in order to revolt the working people in Russia and thereby bring the revolutionary situation closer in the country, arranged on the orders of Yakov Shif, the Lena execution, which we are still being hammered into as one of the manifestations of the unheard-of cruelty of tsarist despotism.

All purchases of shares by the Zionists were immediately stopped by the Minister of the Interior VK Pleve. Plehve's written reply to Mr. Herzl says: “If we really proceed from the fact that, since Zionism aims to create an independent state in Palestine, the Russian government could treat it positively. But since ZIONISM began to deviate from its direct goal and STARTED TO PROMOTE JEWISH UNITY IN RUSSIA ITSELF, then the Government cannot tolerate such a direction, because IT WILL LEAD TO THE GROUPS OF PEOPLE ALIEN AND HOSTILE TO PATRIOTIC FEELINGS TO APPEAR IN THE COUNTRY, ON WHICH EVERY STATE IS FOUNDED! If Zionism returns to its former program, they practically reduce the number of the Jewish population of Russia, in this case the Government is even ready to give subsidies to emigration societies ... ".

This turn of the case did not suit the Zionists. They needed, first of all, money, sympathy from the whole world and anger at Russia. For this, it became necessary to use the repeatedly tested and most reliable means - Jewish pogroms. But while Plehve held the post of Minister of the Interior, they were impossible in Russia. It only remained to eliminate Plehve, which the Socialist-Revolutionary Sozonov Meiloh Samuilovich did: on July 15, 1904, he shot Vyacheslav Konstantinovich.

After the murder of V.K. Plehve swept through the Russian Empire waves of Jewish pogroms. During the investigation, it turned out that the organizer of the pogroms in Kursk, Nizhny Novgorod, Tver, Balashov (1905), Odessa, Simferopol, Rostov-on-Don, Yaroslavl, Chelyabinsk, Tomsk (1906), and then in Kyiv, Belaya Tserkov, Berdichev, Minsk , Migilev, Gomel, Bialystok and other cities was the same head of the police department Lopukhin, married to a Jew, a freemason. The immediate thugs of the Jews were mainly members of the Union of Michael the Archangel, who supposedly worked under the Russian patriots, who, through Count Witte, financed the Jewish Colonial Fund, a subsidiary of the WZO.

And the murder of Plehve, and the murder of Stolypin, and the Lena execution, and the Jewish pogroms - all again, links in one chain - the acts of the Judeo-Zionist structures!

American-Jewish banker Yakov Shif often boasted that the collapse of the Russian Empire was his doing. The easiest, it turned out, was to draw Russia into the war with Japan and ensure its defeat. But it cost much more to be involved in the First World War, or rather, his second defeat. Finintern financed both opposing sides.

In the first, post-revolutionary years, Russia experienced such plunder, before which all, taken together, the robberies of the armies of Alexander the Great, Tamerlane and Napoleon Bonaparte faded. From the side of the banker Yakov Shif, this entire campaign to send looted valuables from Russia to America was led by the Jew Sol Bernato, who maintained constant contacts with A.V. Lunacharsky and M.I. Gubelman - Cohen-Yaroslavsky. And how much did the Hummer take out?

(To be continued….)

On January 15, 2017, in the same place, a meeting of the ARSD and patriots will be held. At the meeting, we will continue discussing the situation on the resignation of the government and the prime minister and other vital issues.

A.I. SUKHANOV

Dear readers, support the newspaper! Our newspaper in your hands, all you need to do is click on the Vkontakte button, which is located above this inscription. You can repost any number of our articles. Help the newspaper and we will write even more, more interesting and active!

There were worse times, but there were no meaner

In 1929, 30 Days magazine published a chapter not included in the text of The Twelve Chairs. The chapter was called "The past of the registrar of the registry office." Here it was told how in 1913 the district marshal of the nobility Ippolit Matveyevich Vorobyaninov appeared at the Salve café, leading two completely naked ladies by the arms.

This event, which agitated the advanced circles of Stargorod society, ended in the same way as all similar events ended: twenty-five rubles in a fine and an article in the local liberal newspaper Obshchestvennaya Mysl under the careless heading "Adventures of the leader." (…)

The article, which mentioned the initials of Ippolit Matveyevich, ended with the inevitable: "There were worse times, but there were no meaner ones."

And for sure: this is one of the most hackneyed phrases of pre-revolutionary journalism.

The famous Nekrasov couplet appeared in the introduction to the first part of his poem "Contemporaries" (1875):

I took the book, having risen from sleep,

And I read in it:

"There were worse times

But there was no meanness!”

I threw the book away.

Are we with you

Such a century sons

O friend, my reader?

As you can see, the couplet is quoted here.

The fact is that Nekrasov translated into verse a fragment from the story of N. D. Khvoshchinskaya-Zayonchkovskaya “Happy People”. The story appeared a year earlier in the Sovremennik magazine under the pseudonym V. Krestovsky. One of the characters, brought up on the ideals of the "epoch of great reforms" of the 1860s, remarks:

"The devil knows what's going on with us." We are grieved with envy, we console ourselves with hatred, we become smaller - at least look at us through a microscope! We feel that we are falling, and we laugh at ourselves ... Huh? is it true? there were worse times - there was no meaner!

Khvoshchinskaya heard this complaint from the critic Stepan Semyonovich Dudyshkin in April 1866, shortly after Dmitry Karakozov's assassination attempt on Alexander II and the "tightening the screws" that began in connection with this. Talking with Khvoshchinskaya's husband, Dudyshkin said:

- ... I saw [times] and harder than the present, but it was not meaner.

Nekrasov's maxim has been criticized more than once. In the book Fundamentals of Populism (vol. 2, 1893), Iosif Ivanovich Kablitz wrote: “... The usual idealization of the past is the opinion of contemporaries about this past. It is known that the expression: “There were worse times, but there were no meaner ones” - it was a favorite of the people of the sixties.

In 1889, 18-year-old Bunin briefly settled with his brother in Kharkov. According to the biography of the writer, written by his wife, the local radical youth interested him, but they were alien to him in terms of culture. “He was touched by their language, (…) pale, ugly, mottled with foreign words and (…) repeating the same phrases, for example: “the darker the night, the brighter the stars” or “there were worse times, but there were no meaner ones” , "the third is not given" ... and so on.

In Soviet times, Nekrasov's couplet could only be quoted in a purely historical context. But now it is no less popular than in the days of Ippolit Matveyevich's youth.