Mr Gerasimov real story. Georgy Gerasimov - the real story of Russia and civilization

G.M. Gerasimov - around and around

(to "Applied Philosophy" and "Reconstruction of World History")

While reading these works, I had the feeling that a lonely, serious logician had succumbed to the temptation to cheat in exchange for entering the club of "new chronologists" Nosovsky and Fomenko, from the side of the kitchen, bypassing the front door. First, about the chronologists. The reduction of history to the 13th century inclusive (solid "darkness") seems to me very successful, conclusive and undeniable. Is it possible to add that in this very continuous "darkness" of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries, the East lived such a rich life, developed scientific and technological progress in such a way that it cannot be attributed to Europe, sitting on branches. Therefore, it is better to keep silent about the continuous "darkness". By the end of the 13th century, the Europeans began to slowly get off the branches, encouraged by Persia, Greater Armenia and the city of Byzantium in the east and Aragon in the west. Therefore, it was possible to start European history, just like a racing car starts - from a standstill in 10 seconds 300 km / h. Or even faster, because I don't follow Formula 1. Just without linking this breakthrough with Persia, Armenia, Byzantium and Aragon. Say, themselves with a mustache. But the most, in my opinion, slippery part of the works of Nosovsky and Fomenko (I put Nosovsky ahead because it is in the books, although "according to science" they should be swapped) is the interpretation of the events of history as they "see" it, how she appears to them. And here, of course, Nosovsky is in the first place. Or I'm wrong? The inconsistency of "interpretations" about the fact that the Russians conquered the whole world, except for Australia, is so great that I do not want to spoil my mood here, I have said enough about this in my other works. The main thing is that our brainless rulers like it, which is why these books can be found everywhere, and even a whole clan has formed of the "Fomenkovites", approximately like the "youth movement" of the corrupt "Ours", or whatever they are called. I met the name of Gerasimov by accident. One reader in her post right in my face ranked me among the "followers" of this logic, they say, "Are you a follower of Gerasimov?" True, I did not forget to put a question mark at the end, for which I am very grateful to her. Of course, I immediately began to read the mentioned works on the Internet, and, I confess, I immediately got bored. The work begins with the same words of propaganda that I have just mentioned. Say, Rus'-Horde... and so on... to Australia. But from childhood and youth I got used not to quit even the most difficult, vile work, a little more than 15 years - this is confirmed in the coal mine. And - a strange thing, the closer to the middle - the more I liked the author, and by the end I even almost fell in love with him. Only the reason for "almost fell in love" is also "philosophical", since the word is now poking around where the dog does not stick its nose. For example, the "philosophy" of eating at the beginning of all sorts of rubbish like semolina or corn flakes, so that a piece of cake at the end seems sweeter. Or pushing a tiny piece of lard with your nose to the opposite end of a huge piece of bread, so that later you can wrap the lard in a piece of paper "for next time." In the middle of the articles under consideration, I understood this "philosophy" and understood that this is not a philosophy, but a method of propaganda: to say the most unpleasant thing first, so that the rest, against this background, seems almost tasty. I even wanted to start criticizing these two works from the end, agreeing less and less with the author, to the point of scolding Rus'-Horde. But then you would not understand the basis, the author's skeleton of research, on which he gradually hangs the meat. Therefore, we will still have to start with Applied Philosophy, releasing the first part from it, in which the author, like small children, explains what philosophy is.

"The Beginning of Civilization (Economic Model)"

The author's man, like all other authors, began his life on Earth with "natural" hunting, fishing and gathering, then moved on to farming and cattle breeding, and even to the exchange of products of his labor. Because of the "density of the population" markets automatically turned out "in convenient places", that is, "near the border of landscape zones", which immediately coincided with "rivers and reservoirs" for "convenience of transportation". Then artisans formed near the markets, that is, there was a "division of labor" and with it - "complication of social relations". Naturally, "cities grew out of the markets." The townspeople created services of janitors, orderlies, firefighters, policemen. And they began to collect taxes to feed them. In general, it turned out "urban democracy". Then "a class of professional traders appeared", and from nomads, since why would they hang around the steppes without "additional" business. The profession turned out to be so successful that some of the nomads abandoned their herds altogether, devoting themselves entirely to trade. But since there are not too many deserts on Earth, the nomads immediately retrained as rivermen and sailors, just like the Chukchi would breed elephants instead of catching walruses. Judging by this chain of the author, cities and everything else connected with them should have arisen all over the Earth at the same time according to the density of the primitive population, that is, almost evenly (excluding mountains and deserts), although far from each other. For even today, with us six billion, the gaps between cities are still too great, especially in Russia, where wealth is endless. However, the author of this conclusion does not want to, he began to look for "the most probable place on the planet" in order to fix the first city, and in it - "the primary statehood of the city level." The current Astrakhan turned out to be such a city, earlier it had half a dozen names. Of course, he is trying to prove that there is no better place on Earth, but this is such nonsense that you should criticize it yourself. This will be especially successful for those who are already accustomed to foreign tourism. Astrakhan, as a "landscape zone" will take their last place on Earth. But this is not the main thing. The main thing is that it was the "Astrakhan experience" that the whole Earth perceived. And just to enable the Russians to conquer the whole world, as required by the "theory" of Nosovsky-Fomenko. Since the scientific order is understandable by itself, I won’t even consider it, you just need to familiarize yourself with my works at http://www.borsin1.narod.ru so that I don’t waste unnecessary words, including criticism of the “origin of man from Japanese water monkey. Since the first cities, according to the author, did not do anything else at first, except for sewing clothes. In addition, if there is already an order, then criticism of subsuming "applied" philosophy under it is not my business, but satirists' business. Moreover, the author himself, having just called Astrakhan the first city, clarifies after a few pages: “And the very first places of trading and handicraft technologies on the planet appear in the Urals, and therefore it becomes clear why the first statehood arises on the Volga, and not on the Don or the Dnieper. Not only is jumping from Astrakhan to the Urals funny, it also winds its tracks. He thinks that you do not know that Arkaim (which he hints at) lies in the upper reaches of the Ural (Yaik) River and has nothing to do with the Volga basin. But he, on the instructions of the "philosophy" of Nosovsky-Fomenko, needs to somehow get closer to Moscow, so that she, the "third Rome", begins to "attach" the Apennines with the Pyrenees, building Constantinople along the way. From the "independence" of Ukraine, so that the spirit no longer exists, to forget about the Prophetic Oleg and the shield on the gates of Constantinople, and even about the path from the Varangians to the Greeks. Although another connoisseur of Russian origin "from the Persians", Ms. Galkina (see "The main conclusion from my works") just produces Russians from the Don, or rather from the Seversky Donets, which is about the same thing, since the Ukrainians there too "nothing to do". And I exclaim: how quickly paper history is changing, after all, only a few years have passed since the "independence" of Ukraine. A hefty as a boar "philosophy" already lies on the bookshelves and hangs out on the Web. This is where I end my “applied” philosophy, since the author himself writes: “The science of history arises not just like that, but as a result of an order”, and I turn to “Reconstruction of World History”. But I'll start it from the end, with Appendix 4 to "Reconstruction ...".

" Socio-economic formation"

The author takes the bull right by the horns: "There were only two formations in history: bourgeois, market, democratic and feudal, totalitarian, paramilitary". And this is just a brilliance. You just need to know that these two formations are now in fashion, something like orange men's shirts or trousers twice as long as usual, see, for example, the works of Kirdina S.G. and Bessonova O.E. "They also invented two long theories about this. Although they were invented so long ago that even Marx and Engels (European and Asian formations) were not the first in this matter, but licked it from the American Lewis Henry Morgan. Or rather, Marx outlined Morgan's book and died. Engels finalized this summary and published his book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". Only there were five formations, and now they have been combined into two so as not to be confused. I also have two of them, they are called democracy and cannibalism. And here the features went further. The author " bourgeois formation arises naturally on the terms of voluntariness, personal benefit and is organized in such a way that it puts the interests of individuals first, makes sure that generalized taxes on them are minimal. The system turns out to be fragmented, individualistic, but extremely economical in civilian life, not allowing inefficient use of resources, flexible, able to quickly adapt to changing conditions. Flexibility is provided by two sets of mechanisms. The first is connected with private property and the almost unlimited right of the owner to dispose of his property. The second set of mechanisms is connected with ensuring the real seniority of the whole society over any part of it, including the executive branch. "This formation arises for me artificially, from the true Deuteronomy of Moses. But this is a long time to explain, moreover, I have already explained it twenty times, so - tired, look at my work yourself (http://www.borsin1.narod.ru). But the most interesting thing is that the author has a bourgeois formation, "in order to minimize losses in the event of war, it is reorganized into totalitarian , and the executive power acquires special rights, begins to command society. The individual becomes a cog in the system, who is not left with an independent choice, everything is decided by the system for him. This implies the maximum leveling of individual human qualities, everyone should be the same, uniform. This is the standard paramilitary approach. The system turns out to be rigid, incapable of reconfiguration, collective, since its strength is precisely in the well-functioning of the entire mechanism and the relationships in it, cheaper and more efficient when it does the job that it is once set up to do. In a totalitarian system, legislation is a set of instructions for a "cog" located in its node of the social machine, and the elements of its freedom are its weakness. "So, I think, they fought, but not forever, after all, peace comes. The author admonishes:" After the end of the military threat, any society seeks to return to a democratic state with cheaper, controlled power and maximum freedom for the individual. The element that allows this to be done is the natural aspiration of people, supplemented by the culture of democracy. However, a state that has been under totalitarian conditions for more than the active life of one generation (~ 60 years) loses the culture of democracy, and society freezes in this state. "But the most important thing is that, according to Gerasimov," any real society has a set of features as the first formations, and the second. "In short, if we remove the graces, then the formation is only one, dangling like a pendulum from one extreme to another. Moreover, the author does not directly speak about the same primacy of the totalitarian formation, but makes us quietly suspect it, for example , like this: “the desire to usurp power is natural.” And I want to add that mom and dad and, by analogy, the leader, the prince and the pope will “teach” their natural or formal children with a belt until they get back. Based on this fact, even Gerasimov will have to admit that the right of mom-dad is primary and spontaneous, and its source is both strength and an inexplicable desire to continue their race through strict care for children. Only the right of the mother is still more primary, because the fathers at first are unknown. The right of all the others listed is derived from the right of mom-dad, just like monkeys adopting human habits. And even in people who adopt social structures from ants and bees. At the same time, it should be taken into account that mom and dad do not write in advance and do not even tell their children their laws, but simply take the belt in their hands when they consider it necessary. And the children themselves, taught by the bitter experience of communicating with their parents, develop these rules-laws in their heads, gradually making adjustments not only to their various deeds, but also to the mood of their parents, because they can receive both a kiss and a kiss for the same act. - belt. Then this incredibly complex legal structure is memorized by children and passed on to their children. Leaders, princes, emperors and popes were also children, receiving kisses and belts almost equally, so they are also not alien to the "legal structure" I have presented. And since there is personal strength, a frightened squad, or even a whole army with the police, then how can they not be used for a "holy" cause. Moreover, the named hierarchs also live in their "children". And their "care" is about the same as about their own cowshed, so that they do not rest. But since the popes of Rome do not have children or they are hidden away with different and distant mothers, then the care of the barn is less, it’s not a pity and it’s in the fire. That's all it is" feudal, a totalitarian, paramilitary formation "which the author so clearly painted, and its basis is an extravagant legal structure, which is "scientifically" called civil law. You can’t imagine a more natural and primary formation. But that’s why the author didn’t sharpen us on its undoubted primacy, spontaneity and universality of this mother-dad formation? bourgeoiswow, market, democratic formation put like a cart before the horse. To run to new scientific achievements ahead of the steam locomotive's smoke. So that Newton's binomial is obtained from the theory of relativity, and not vice versa. And this, you know, is ugly, so as not to speak stronger words. How the Jews in Medina came up with private law, absolutely necessary for profitable trade, I won’t repeat here, you know, I’m tired. Look better at the site http://www.borsin1.narod.ru. In the meantime, I will move on to statehood, having previously announced that bourgeoisand I, a market, democratic formation just comes from private law, in which dad and mom are equal with their children. And, of course, from the true Deuteronomy of Moses, from whose Decalogue Moses threw out every single moral commandment, replacing them with a court independent of Yahweh. So, I will tell you only the beginning of Gerasimov's thought: "Statehood arises spontaneously." Everything else is nonsense, since the beginning is nonsense. And, perhaps, I will end here, because for profitable trade, with which civilization began, the state, like sand in a bearing, like a stick in a wheel, instantly wedges. And this can be seen even in the last and the century before last. (Details - in the same place).

"Science or Detective Investigation? (Appendix 3)"

This section of the author is just brilliant, and I'm not joking at all. A series of completely idiotic historical and official paradoxes, revealed by the author, is not only brilliantly presented as a plot, but also masterfully arranged logically, so that all the nonsense of history is at a glance. I read all this several times, touched and laughing to tears, then I stopped, took a breath and thought a little. Basically about the beginning, not where about the jury, but a little further, where "we will take into consideration one global idea of ​​the New Chronology about the falsification of history during the Reformation "(I singled out the Reformation for a reason). The fact is that the falsification of history should be considered not from the Reformation, but from the "Renaissance", from the formation of Catholicism during the time of Cosimo de Medici (1389 - 1464) and his immediate descendants, up to the "Malleus "(published four times more often than the Bible) and the beginning of Luther's activities. Then it will be clear why "Spain lost in France" (see ibid.). For the same reason, "Spain suffered in England." And about the confusion of relations in Holland ( more correctly, Holland, from the Gauls) with Spain about PortoGallia, I send it there, because here Spain “lost.” Only we must keep in mind not Spain, generally speaking, but Catholicism itself, which rolled from the north of Europe to its native land, Spain and Italy. Then the "most illogical and incomprehensible behavior" of both Spain and all of Western Europe will be understandable (See http://www.borsin1.narod.ru/p133.htm and http://www.borsin1.narod. ru/p134.htm) As for "holy" Russia during the time of Ivan IV the Terrible, the "old dynasty" is the descendants of Ivan Kalita and Dmitry Donskoy, the Don Cossack robbers (Podonsk Horde), who conquered the "white-eyed Chud" north of Oka, future Muscovy. And the "new dynasty" - the descendants of the Volga Cossacks-robbers (Zadonskaya Horde), a prominent representative of which was Vasily Shuisky. So they fought among themselves for the opportunity to sell the "white-eyed monster" on the market in the Cafe. But while they were fighting, the demand for slaves fell, and Alexei Mikhailovich (from the “Volga”) had to introduce serfdom. Further, the author is surprised aloud: “But the most incomprehensible thing is happening in the center of Europe. While passions boil to the west and east and blood flows like a river, heresy everywhere wins peacefully and calmly, no one seems to oppose this. religion into another, and at the same time there are no dissatisfied, defeated, losers. Then, after taking a breath, he adds from the scoundrel Gumilyov: “It’s just that the Czechs and the surrounding Germans have accumulated too much energy - passionarity, and they started to fight. ". And then he corrects the favorite of the general and brainless public: "But the picture immediately becomes logical and understandable, assuming that the winners corrected history and the Hussite wars are shifted in time." They say there were wars here and they were sent into the depths of past centuries. Although all this is easier than a steamed turnip. When Cosimo Medici, having hired the crusaders for indulgences, took and gave Constantinople to the Turks in exchange for "Greek manuscripts", the "ancient Greeks" of Moses' training from all over the Mediterranean poured into the expanses of Northern Europe, and they went there along the Danube, just in Central Europe. Further - in the mentioned place, in particular in the article "How the cause of Moses almost perished."

"Religion (Annex 2)"

I would not dwell on the author's idea of ​​religion if I myself had not dealt with this issue myself. According to Gerasimov, "the pra-religions of the pre-state stage of history stem from phallic and Bacchic cults," allegedly arising from the desire of savages to have good harvests of wheat and the offspring of sheep. In these cults, he sees the "practical benefit of the savages." I also see a "practical benefit", but not for society, but for individual dexterous people who make it up. (Details there). The "holidays" of love (in the common people's svalny sin) did not originate from the spontaneous desire of savages for the fertility of the fields, but from their division into female and male clans. But that's not all. Priests and shamans became a consequence of the author’s desire for the fertility of the earth, but for me, on the contrary, religion was a derivative of these clever people who turned magic and animism (primitive sciences) into religions. However, I was talking, look where I pointed. And then the author's connection of religion with cities is a very long topic. Further, the author gradually begins to talk. Here is how he does it: “When I spoke about the primary spontaneous emergence of religion with magic, I considered the practical use of it as an indispensable condition. Moreover, these primary types of religion must be stable, i.e. reproduced over time even at low population density, lack of professional ministers, temples, etc. Such forms of religion can be called magic. I will not comment on this illogicality, try it yourself. Or read my work. In the meantime, I'll move on to the "relationship of life and death." The author writes: "They all develop the idea of ​​life in another form after physical death." Everything except Judaism. But the thought about Judaism does not develop, although it is precisely on this, in particular, that I conclude that all religions were invented by the Jews, approximately like Marx - communism, in order to more conveniently manage drugged peoples. But he, after all, cannot be developed, since he puts Russians in the place of the Jews. On the other hand, his conclusion about the seniority of Islam in comparison with Christianity is brilliant, although this is visible to the naked eye. Further, the author just as brilliantly proved that "the unnaturalness of contractual relations with God is obvious", but did not indicate that only Jews are able to negotiate with God. I think for the same reason, for the sake of the "primacy" of the Russians. Although he did not clearly indicate this, since it would be quite embarrassing.

" Ancient Greece (Appendix 1)"

This section of the author is very short, and I will not expand. Suffice it to say that, in his opinion, this island state, because of its too noticeable well-being, was created by sea robbers, because in Greece there are no fertile fields, and pastures are scarce. Here prosperity came out of robbery: "Therefore, it remains to be assumed that piracy in general was the basis of the economy of Ancient Greece." Then he became thoughtful: "But piracy, like other forms of robbery, is just a tax on some kind of economy." Further, hinting at wealthy Persia and Alexander the Great, he continues: "The true powerful economic, and therefore cultural, center is somewhere near" Greece, however, he did not specify: where exactly? And I understand it. After all, in another place he will directly declare that Tsargrad-Constantinople was founded by the Russians, but how can they, such strong Greeks, rob? This, of course, is a little ugly, but God bless him. Let's consider better the monumental art "plundered" by the Greek robbers. Do you imagine even today's robbers interested in pure art, and not its price? Can you imagine how and where to bring in so many sculptures? Why do robbers need "Greek theaters" in the rocks, although they are courts, therefore, all the more so, stealing them and taking them to their islands is stupid, like stealing prisons. And in general, where did the "Greeks" steal the Parthenon? But this is not even the most important thing. What the hell, every single historian rested on Ancient Greece, as if it were lying like a log on the road from home to the subway. After all, the Balkans, Libya, Tunisia, and so on along the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea are no different. And in Tunisia or Libya (I have already forgotten where I described it, look for yourself in the indicated place) there is still an exact "copy" of the Colosseum, only much older than the Roman one. So, the Roman Colosseum is a child. What, the whole Mediterranean consisted of some robbers? So who did they rob then? Not a Martian! In general, run to my site, everything is explained there.

" 2. The origin of man"

I myself do not know the origin of man, no matter how I struggled with this issue (see for yourself on the mentioned site). Therefore, I will skip the first stage of transformation into a human of Japanese naked (hairless) water monkeys. I'll go straight to "rapid population growth in the ecological niche." But this is already completely unobvious. For not such a good "niche" in China and India to concentrate half of the population of the Earth there. Moreover, the author himself insists that in Europe, especially around Astrakhan, "niche" is better. Then why are our dense forests still as empty as the tundra? With the fact that a man is a "super predator" I also do not agree, because even the length of his intestines says that he is a gatherer like a pig. And the fact that the South of Europe is the most fertile place on Earth for the emergence of man, let travel companies illustrate. In my non-professional opinion, the most fertile place in terms of climate is Florida-California, and in terms of the abundance of protein food - Australia. I'm all about the fact that the author did not have to write this title at all.

"3. Human society"

It is clear to the fool that, since man descended from naked monkeys, his main difference from animals is in clothes. This is where the author begins, gradually moving on to hunting and fishing, as if bears do not do this everywhere. However, bears do not migrate, but a person immediately urgently needed it. And if he migrates, then he needs new technologies, because you won’t breed hippos in the Arctic. In general: hunting - migration (as opposed to bears) - domestication of the subject of hunting. As if the author does not know that "domesticated" reindeer are absolutely no different from wild reindeer. And the herds of sheep in the steppes of Kazakhstan are indistinguishable from wild sheep in the same place, only they were seized a long time ago, especially since the shepherd does not drive the sheep around the 7-year circle, but the sheep themselves choose this path. So that the grass grows, mercilessly trampled by them on very poor soils. So all this "new technological breakthrough" is sucked from a thoughtful finger. As for real domestication, the first step is to move to a strictly settled way of life, which the Kazakhs, who have not entered the university, still oppose. As well as the Yakuts, whose children from the first to the tenth grade were not driven into a boarding school with steam heating. So both agriculture and domestic animal husbandry were invented by women (see my works). I will skip the resettlement of people around the planet from the city of Astrakhan for obvious reasons. You can also go so far as to refute the madman's opinion that he is Napoleon. It would be better if I refute the author's assertion with an irrefutable example that the resettlement of the Russian great-human from Astrakhan occurred due to the resulting tightness. The same is still visible without glasses in the Astrakhan region. Perhaps I would not have refuted this thought of the author, if he had not had the need to create statehood, both in Astrakhan and in the boundless steppes of Kazakhstan, from this very tightness, called "population density critical for survival". What these steppes still do not have, not counting the cities built under Soviet rule. Something bored me. For the author "in the steppe regions (including the Black Sea steppes) has a relatively high population density." Whereas even on a modern map it is clear that there is not a soul there. Therefore, there is no "sedentary animal husbandry" that supposedly arose there. Then it goes something like the propagandist Engels, but I already wrote an article about this.

"4. Emergence of statehood"

No, no, it did not originate on the banks of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, but all in the same place - in Astrakhan. Although not much in the Southern Urals, which the Russians learned about not before Suvorov's victory over Pugachev. But that's not the point. And the fact that statehood is a consequence of cities, all the same Astrakhan. Although I proved a long time ago that not a single fool of the natives would ever think of building a city, since this is not life, but a quick death. Cities were required for a completely different reason, exclusively for a trading tribe from Yemen, but I have already described this so many times that I am silent. Moreover, - about the "Evolution of statehood" and in general about the evolution of the "created" world according to Gerasimov.

On the whole, Gerasimov's "philosophy" reminds me very well of such thin books written by various journalists to explain the most diverse and most complex truths for complete fools, called popular science. Everything is so simplified there, and the author himself understands so little about it, that reading these books is a real pleasure before going to bed. You fall asleep instantly. Like good pills. And, it seems, there is nothing more to say about this "philosophy". 6

Gerasimov Georgy Mikhailovich, born in 1957. Russian. In 1974 he graduated from high school with a gold medal in Saratov. In the senior classes I participated in Olympiads in physics, mathematics, chemistry. Won in the city and in the region, winner of the All-Union Olympiads

Olympiad tasks in mathematics and physics, as a rule, require non-standard thinking, the ability to independently come up with new methods of solutions and proofs

In 1974 he entered and in 1980 graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology with honors. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology prepares physicists for research fellows

At the institute, a passion for social sciences began. He carefully proved the inadequacy (non-strictness and inconsistency) of Marxism, both philosophy and political economy. Had problems with Chekists

As a student, he began to build his own version of historical materialism. In particular, then he took up the solution of the theoretical problem of how civilization should have arisen and developed on planet Earth. The resulting solutions were in serious conflict with the TI, so I abandoned this task, deciding that I was not taking into account something significant. At that time I could not even think that TI could be fake

Passion for philosophy led to Eastern systems. This has remained to this day. In particular, some scientific regalia, fame, fame and even money, in excess of some minimum necessary in life, do not interest me at all

Since 1980, an engineer, and since January 1984, a senior researcher at VNIIFTRI - All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Physical, Technical and Radio Engineering Measurements. It was the head metrological center of the USSR

To illustrate, I will tell you what metrology is.. It is the science of measuring the highest precision. What is the main problem here? - The fact that it is very difficult to make a device of the highest accuracy, not so much technically as in principle

How is any measuring device made, for example, a ruler? - A metal (or other) strip is taken and a scale is applied to it, which is taken from a more accurate measuring device. That, in turn, is calibrated using an even more accurate instrument. And how to make the most accurate measuring device that has nothing to calibrate?

It must be done and the accuracy justified, theoretically taking into account all possible sources of errors and correctly determining their level. Theoretical calculations and evidence are recognized as true and "materialize", skillfully performed they become a guide to practical actions not only for those who have done them, but also for a wide range of users

Participated in several interesting projects. In 1991, he had enough material for a doctoral dissertation and several Ph.D. It was irrelevant to defend, since everything collapsed (besides, the passion for Eastern philosophies affected)

In 1992 he left the institute due to the collapse of science. He created several of his own completely diverse firms. After the default, I was forced to start curtailing them. The last one closed in 2003. Since 2004 I have been working as a process engineer at a refrigeration plant

In 1999 I read one of Fomenko's books for the first time. This one book and my own developments of twenty years ago on the theory of the origin of civilization turned out to be enough to come to the final conclusion about the falsity of TI. He proposed his own approaches to this topic, published them in 2000 in the book "Applied Philosophy"

The mathematically rigorous solution in this work can be considered the “origin of statehood”. After that, three more fundamental problems were solved. In June 2003 - "on the transition from the animal to the human state." In May 2004, he built a "theory of calendars in civilization". In December 2004, it was possible to discover and formulate the "law of the reproduction of the Grand Dukes." These mathematically rigorous solutions turned out to be enough to create an already accurate historical concept.

After 2000, assistants began to appear for me. Since June 2004, there have already been two assistants. One of them A.M. Trukhin, whose role in the further writing of the book is no less than mine. Now there are four permanent assistants and about a dozen more supporters who provide assistance from time to time. In 2006, the book "A New Short Course in the History of Russia and Civilization" was published. It published preliminary results

From the concept to the completed enough history built, a lot of painstaking work with historical events. The task is to select, sift, fit into the concept, correcting and refining the details. In December 2007 book "

G.M. Gerasimov

Real story

Russia and Ukraine

Gerasimov G.M.

The real history of Russia and Ukraine.
This is the author's second book in the real world history series. Many general questions are not considered here in as much detail as in the first book of the series "The Real History of Russia and Civilization", but at the same time completely enough to preserve the rigor of the evidence.

The book contains comprehensive data showing the anti-scientific nature of official history, as well as a new historical concept of the development of civilization with proof of the uniqueness of the proposed historical scenario.

The work includes original theories of the origin of man and the emergence of statehood. It fundamentally solves the problem of calendars in civilization and the real dating of historical events. On the basis of these decisions, although briefly, but in sufficient volume to understand the historical process, the history of Russia and Ukraine is reconstructed.

Gerasimov G.M. 2009.

Story Item 11

I. Theoretical history 38

I.1 Emergence of States 40

I.2 From animal to human 45

I.3 Emergence of the market 53

I.4 Emergence of artisans 55

I.5 Diffusion and development of technologies 58

I.6 The emergence of agriculture 61

I.7 The evolution of statehood 65

I.8 Human settlement 70

II. State Stage 73

II.1 Measurement of time 74

II.2 Key dates of our chronology 84

II.3 Calendar technologies 91

II.4 Calendar history of civilization 103

II.5 Single calendar decision 111

II.6 Reproduction of the Grand Dukes 116

III. Civilization history 131

III.1 Neanderthal 132

III.2 Cro-Magnon 141

III.3 From Adam to the Battle of Kulikovo 151

III.4 Ivan III 166

III.5 The Great Migration 171

III.6 Patriarchate 183

III.7 Great Troubles 188

III.8 Armed Forces of the Empire 192

IV. New story 209

IV.1 Constantine and Peter 209

IV.2 Ivan V 218

IV.3 Tatar-Mongols 231

IV.4 Organization of power in antiquity 237

IV.5 Struggle for Democracy 248

IV.6 Turning point in the war between Rome and Byzantium 260

IV.7 Feudal Reform 273

IV.8 Russian Empire 279

IV.9 Country of Cossacks 293

IV.10 Voltaire 301

IV.11 The collapse of the Roman Empire 321

IV.12 Domestic policy 338

IV.13 The world after the Napoleonic wars 354

IV.14 After the Crimean War 365

V. A Little Bit of Everything 396

V.1 Religion 399

V.2 Esoteric History 417

V.3 Numbers 443

V.4 Ancient Inventions 449

V.5 Beginning of metrology 461

V.6 A bit about music and literature 478

V.7 Written monuments of history 492

V.8 Tales for adults 500

V.9 About some historical riddles 518

VI. Conclusion 542

VII. FROM history to politics 546

VIII. the main results of the work. 569

VIII.1 Reconstructed history briefly 570

Author's preface to the Ukrainian edition

Naturally, it was the same in the past. The political situation and the tasks arising from it are changing, the methods of solving these tasks remain the same. However, if today, with the developed mass media, a lot of printed publications on historical topics, when history is studied starting from school, it is usually impossible to completely reshape official history in favor of politics, then in the past the conditions for this were much better. Before the first official history was written and published, before it was taught in schools, the possibilities for changing history were vastly different. And this, of course, was used in politics.

Almost all of the official world history before the nineteenth century was invented, and it was not invented in trifles, not in particulars, but globally, in essence. Ukrainian history in this sense is not much different from the history of other European states, perhaps in greater modesty. Kievan Rus is only about a thousand years old, and many states of Western Europe are more than two thousand years old.

The entire official history of Ukraine before the Kyuchuk-Kaynadzhir peace treaty (actually 1783), according to which these territories were annexed to the Russian Empire, has a very distant relation to reality. This ancient history was composed by Karamzin and was published for the first time in 1818. Accordingly, "from scratch" Karamzin could do anything. One of the main tasks of the history commissioned by Karamzin was to ensure the integrity of the Russian Empire in the future. And the basis of this was to be the unity of the three Russian peoples - Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians.

However, in one aspect, ancient Ukrainian history is fundamentally different from the history of Western European states. The official story is completely made up in both cases. But, if the West (as well as the East and the South, by the way) had no real history at all, then Ukraine had a real ancient history and it was very honorable.

Starting from the sixteenth century, the Cossacks (they moved beyond the thresholds in 1778, after which they began to be called Cossacks, and before that their headquarters was in Poltava, and they were called Poles or Polovtsy) ensured world order, controlled imperial power, suppressed all possible unrest, in including the Great Troubles of the seventeenth century. This continued until the beginning of the eighteenth century. The Cossack horde (order - order) still managed to suppress the turmoil started by Peter I on their own. Peter I in 1711 was captured by them near Poltava. After lengthy negotiations, he was released under the obligation not to violate the world order in the future, and honestly fulfilled his promise.

However, a few years after the death of Peter I, a new, more carefully prepared turmoil, the Crusades, was started by his younger brother (known in official history as Menshikov). He captured all of Central and Western Europe, establishing the Roman Empire there.

The Cossacks' own forces were no longer enough to suppress this confusion. They began to mobilize into the horde (in 1737) from the eastern territories, not covered by unrest. This large horde was called the Tatar. Cossacks trained this numerous army of unfired recruits. They also occupied in this horde all the officer positions from the centurion and above. It is not surprising that "Batu" (father) commanded this horde.

The Tatar horde swept through all the territories engulfed in unrest, restoring the former world order there. First of all, the unrest was suppressed in Muscovy, then throughout Europe. For several decades, the horde controlled the situation around the world, collecting taxes (tribute) from their military opponents.

But in the second half of the eighteenth century, in connection with the advent of field artillery and the creation of a square infantry formation, the light cavalry of the Tatars and Cossacks began to lose military clashes everywhere to large infantry detachments, even despite their numerical superiority. In the course of hostilities, a turning point began, culminating in the complete defeat of the horde in 1783 (the Battle of Cahul). And at the same time, the new world order won a final victory over the old one. The United World Empire ceased to exist. The Tatar Horde and the Zaporozhian Sich were disbanded. The Cossack foreman was equated with the Russian nobility, received the same rights and privileges.

There was nothing surprising in this. Firstly, the long war between Muscovy and the Horde took place within the framework of a single World Empire and was a struggle between the old and the new order. At that time, there were no nations, no territorial claims, no irreconcilable hatred that gave rise to a war of annihilation. Secondly, culturally, the peoples differed slightly. The Cossacks themselves left Muscovy. In the middle of the sixteenth century, the first world emperor Ivan III formed cavalry units from his most devoted supporters, which he placed around Poltava. It was the first aristocracy in civilization that supported the world order established by Ivan III and collected taxes around the world.

So all the real aristocracy of the world comes from Muscovy. In the West, these are the descendants of the crusaders who invaded Europe with Menshikov, and the Cossack elders who came with the Horde to suppress the unrest. In the East, these are the descendants of the Cossack foreman, who recruited for the Horde. Numerous bloody ancient wars in the East are duplicates of the mobilization carried out by the Cossacks.

And after the collapse of the world empire, the Cossack atamans seized power in those territories where they collected recruits and taxes to the world treasury. This is how most of the "ancient" dynasties of the East arose: the Great Moghuls in India, Qinn in China, the Manchus in Korea, the Tokugawa in Japan, etc. Therefore, strange as it may seem, and inexplicable in official history, the emperors and aristocrats of the East belong to the European type, which is clearly seen from the surviving photographs of the early twentieth century.

The first parliaments mentioned in official history (in Sweden, Portugal, England) are duplicates from the relations brought to Europe by the Cossacks. The first "parliament" in England (under King Edward) was the Cossack circle. A double from it is the legendary round table of King Arthur. Such a parliament was "unicameral" and "aristocratic". Only Cossacks, the foremen of the Tatar horde, were allowed on it. Naturally, Tatars and natives were not invited there.

Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and many other sea and river centers originally emerged as Cossack naval bases. The Scandinavian and Danish (Dan) Vikings, who raided the whole of Europe, are a double from the Cossack detachments that collected taxes (tribute) to the world treasury. The Scandinavians and Danes themselves never fought. These are purely peaceful peoples, incapable of military service. All the Great Geographical Discoveries (from TI) were actually made by "Ukrainian" Cossacks, the best sailors of their time.

Other Cossacks: Don, Ural, Yaik, Siberian, Kuban, etc. appeared in the last quarter of the eighteenth century in the territories that had just been annexed to Muscovy. For example, during the "rebellion" of Razin in 1775 (1670), or rather those military events that served as a prototype for him, there were no Don Cossacks at all.

Such a story looks unusual, although some elements of official history are visible in it. Even more unusual is the rate of development of civilization, when less than five centuries have passed from the emergence of the first statehood to the present day, despite the fact that the official history familiar to everyone allocates more than one thousand years to this process.

However, before the question of the inadequacy of official history was generally raised, we all simply trustingly listened to the tales of professional historians about ancient Egypt, Babylon, India, China, Greece, Rome. But after an alternative history was created, a natural question naturally arises for supporters of official history: what actually prevented civilizations from arising in the middle uninhabited strip (according to their version) in several centuries according to the proposed alternative scenario? Ancient states in other territories, if they existed, could not slow down this process in any way, but would only contribute to its acceleration as a result of trade and the exchange of technologies.

The supporters of official history have no answer to this and many other questions. In order to introduce the unprepared reader into the subject, the proposed book begins with a critique of official history. However, its main task is not to prove the inadequacy of official history, which is no longer difficult today, but to restore real history and prove that civilization developed in this way. How convincingly the author managed to do this is up to the reader.
G.M. Gerasimov.

As a student, he began to build his own version of historical materialism. In particular, then he took up the solution of the theoretical problem of how civilization should have arisen and developed on planet Earth. The resulting solutions were in serious conflict with the TI, so I abandoned this task, deciding that I was not taking into account something significant. At that time, I could not even think that TI could be fake.

Georgy Mikhailovich Gerasimov(1957, Russia) - one of the epigones of the "New Chronology", the author of the book "The Real History of Russia and Civilization", known for his theory of the origin of man from the water monkey, in the revision of "traditional history" has already reached the middle of the XIX century.

Biography

• In 1974 he graduated from high school with a gold medal in Saratov. In the senior classes I participated in Olympiads in physics, mathematics, chemistry. He won in the city and in the region, the winner of the All-Union Olympiads.
• In 1974 he entered and in 1980 graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology with honors. The Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology trains physicists for scientific research. At the institute, a passion for social sciences began.
• Since 1980, an engineer, and since January 1984, a senior researcher at VNIIFTRI - the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Physical, Technical and Radio Engineering Measurements.
• In 1991, he had enough material for a doctoral dissertation and several Ph.D.

It was irrelevant to defend, since everything collapsed (besides, the passion for Eastern philosophies affected).

• In 1992 he left the institute due to the collapse of science. He created several of his own completely diverse firms. After the default, I was forced to start curtailing them. The last one closed in 2003.
• Since 2004 I have been working as a process engineer at a refrigeration plant.
• In 1999, for the first time, I read one of Fomenko's books:

This one book and my own developments of twenty years ago on the theory of the origin of civilization turned out to be enough to come to the final conclusion about the falsity of TI. He proposed his own approaches to this topic, published them in 2000 in the book Applied Philosophy. The mathematically rigorous solution in this work can be considered the “origin of statehood”. After that, three more fundamental problems were solved.

• In June 2003 - "on the transition from the animal to the human state."
• In May 2004 - built a "theory of calendars in civilization."
• In December 2004, it was possible to discover and formulate the "law of the reproduction of the Grand Dukes." These mathematically rigorous solutions turned out to be enough to create an already accurate historical concept.
• After 2000, the author began to have assistants.

Since June 2004, there have already been two assistants. One of them is A. M. Trukhin, whose role in the further writing of the book is no less than mine. Now there are four permanent assistants and about a dozen more supporters who provide assistance from time to time.

• In 2006, the book "A New Short Course in the History of Russia and Civilization" was published. It published preliminary results. From the concept to the completed enough history built, a lot of painstaking work with historical events. The task is to select, sift, fit into the concept, correcting and refining the details.
• In December 2007, the book "The Real History of Russia and Civilization" was essentially completed.

Books

• Gerasimov G. M. The real history of Russia and civilization (htm), (word)

The book is not easy to understand, requires work on it, repeated reading. Certain points become clear only after reading the whole book.

SOCIAL CONDITIONS

History emerges in the late eighteenth - early nineteenth century, during the formation of the institution of multipolar politics in the world and serves as a source of information, firstly, in terms of the historical validity of certain claims in international disputes, and secondly, in terms of the existence of historical precedents.

Thus, in terms of the nature of the tasks, the topics, and, consequently, the methods of work, history was originally an element of the public institution of international law.

Tasks were set for it based solely on pragmatic considerations, as happens in politics to this day. There was no question of any scientific objectivity or simple human honesty. Information management is becoming one of the most important methods of struggle in politics. History falls into the zone of this struggle.

Soon politics poses another challenge. History turns out to be the pivot on which the self-consciousness of the nation is formed, one of the essential elements of the stability of the state in the international arena.

To influence the mass consciousness, it needs the authority of science, which delivers reliable knowledge. And this, if possible, is ensured by the respectful attitude of the authorities with decent funding, academic status, development and implementation of methods that claim to be scientific objectivity.

From the sphere where clever lawyers work, history passes into another area, on the authority of which all other sciences work, which are respected in an educated environment. Nevertheless, despite the appearance of scientificity and claims to be academic, history does not become a real science. Why?

Objectively, the real story is still not in demand. There is only one customer, this is power. And this customer uses history in two forms, in international relations and in the manipulation of people's consciousness.

In the first part, if we talk about quite old times, which, due to the past time, are no longer able to really influence international relations, everything has long been established. There is no pragmatic interest in the topic. In addition, the topic is complicated in that some kind of revision here may encounter opposition from all other political parties, and dangerous, because it is not clear in advance what will emerge there, more pluses or minuses. So from the point of view of the customer it would be better not to touch it.

In the second part, the real story is all the more in demand. There should not be a vacuum in terms of national self-consciousness, this is a destructive factor on a national scale. But what this vacuum is filled with, real history or myth, the authorities are already completely indifferent, as long as the official history copes with its task. And since what is there, in real history, is not yet known, then a beautiful, ideologically sustained myth is even somewhat preferable.

As a result, having emerged as a pseudoscience, history remains such in the future. All history to this day is a solid collection of myths. Historical myths are constantly being created, from the moment of this or that event to the time when it has not yet been completely forgotten, and its results can be at least somewhat relevant.

The purpose of creating a myth is to satisfy the customer as much as possible. There is only one limitation - not to be exposed. Therefore, the myth should follow logically from the previous story, the previous set of myths.

The problem is that the creator of the myth does not know what is false in the previous story and what is not. Therefore, any historian, the creator of a myth, will not only stand up for his own myth, but he will do everything not to touch the previous myths. Their exposure may "suspend" his myth, make it illogical or even unreal. Power in this is a complete assistant to him, since all this is done in her interests.

Thus, the primary history is created by the efforts of a small layer of privileged historians close to the authorities. Their efforts and merits are paid especially.

But besides this stratum of the elect, there is a more numerous stratum of ordinary historians, in their social status, as it were, workers of science. They must complete the rough, not so confidential work for the elite, work on the study of already declassified sections of history, thus providing the science of history with an appropriate scientific image in the eyes of the rest of society, and at the same time not accidentally reveal what is still in the interests of authorities would be desirable to keep secret.

The first part is implemented simply and naturally. Mass science-history is being formed as a scientific system. But to ensure the second part, this system is given special qualities, its own corporate norms and rules are created, and its own specific culture is being formed.

Its characteristic features come from a system of relations similar to that which operates in highly classified areas. An employee of one department does not know anything about the work of the neighboring one. If suddenly he has a professional need to learn something about a neighboring site, then he will be given exactly as much information as he needs, not a drop more. Accordingly, he is forced to rely entirely on the results of his neighbors' work, being unable to objectively assess their correctness. Hence the narrow specialization with the lack of the necessary outlook, increased dogmatism with a clearly overestimated opinion of specialists in any field and the corresponding corporate ethics that prohibits intruding into someone else's line of work, poor command of logic, and a significant set of taboo topics.

How is such a distortion of the scientific system realized in practice? - A set of techniques develops in a "natural" way in the process of solving practical problems.

Firstly, the science of history comes under much closer scrutiny by officials than other sciences. The very state structure of science-history is controlled by officials from science, it is closely monitored by various bureaucratic political departments such as censorship, political police, officials of the state apparatus. And any official, even if he does not receive direct instructions from the authorities, as a rule, is extremely sensitive to its interests and prefers to overdo it in this field than to show "carelessness".

Secondly, affects the natural monopoly of the customer and the contractor. The customer - the government quite consciously fights for its monopoly right to control the minds of its subjects. In this regard, it is important not to conflict with similar services in other countries. That's why the global historical picture cannot be touched. This topic is prohibited. As a result, history remains at the level of applied science.

The monopoly of the performer with a single system of financing, a single system of career growth and a single system of training leads to the emergence of many unspoken rules and regulations that are no less rigid than official ones.

In general, monopoly, the lack of fair competition, leads to the decay of any social system. In the science of history, all this is additionally aggravated by its specificity. The monopoly of the performer is exacerbated by the monopoly of the customer, and especially by the fact that an excessive number of officials manage the scientific structure, transferring their bureaucratic mentality into the structure itself and crowding out the creative principle from there.

Moreover, in the natural sciences, periods of political upheaval, such as wars or an arms race, force personnel changes, raising real scientific personnel to the top in order to keep up with the enemy in development. It heals scientific systems. In the science of history, political upheavals, on the contrary, lead to an increase in myth-making, a decrease in political freedoms, an increase in prohibitions and, consequently, the promotion of bearers of bureaucratic rather than scientific mentality. So the decay is only getting worse.

This practice has been invariably in effect for many decades in any state, regardless of the political course, social system, or any social upheavals. In such circumstances, there is no time for striving for the truth. This is especially true for Russia, where submission to the system was not only a matter of well-being, but often of survival.

As a result of this practice over many generations, a systemic crisis arose in the science of history, deeply embracing its organization, including the system of training and selection of personnel. This has led to the fact that the level of culture of historians fundamentally does not meet the requirements of science and the personnel reproduced by this system from generation to generation, due to natural continuity, are unable not only to bring the science of history out of the crisis, but even simply to adequately assess current situation.

The official science-history has become helpless in scientific terms. It has no scientific culture, no intellect. Yes, and the very concept of science to this social system has to be applied purely conditionally according to tradition, so as not to introduce terminological confusion.

I.3 ON THE WAY OUT OF THE CRISIS

However, in the last decade, as a result of the development of new information technologies, the monopoly in science-history, despite all the opposition of professionals, has been overcome. A large number of amateurs rushed to the scientific and historical area. This contingent is not professionally trained, but among them there is some, albeit still insignificant, percentage of representatives of the physical and mathematical sciences, with a full-fledged scientific culture.

The lack of professional historical knowledge in this environment among individual amateurs is compensated by the possibility of a quick exchange of information and prompt discussion based on new information technologies. So there is a natural synthesis of scientific culture with the necessary information, first of all, experimental data.

This process is gradually covering the entire civilized world, but first of all it is taking place in Russia. What is its uniqueness in this case?

Firstly, in Russia during the last century, the change of power was repeatedly accompanied by a conflict between new and old politics. Thus, the current government’s desire to defend the Russian politics of the past has been weakened, the prohibitions on analyzing the past have been lifted, and there is even, although the politicians themselves do not fully realize this, an objective need for a new political and national doctrine, naturally rooted in the national past.

Secondly, the crisis in Russia, the collapse of the natural sciences led to the lack of demand for science. This social potential is forced to look for a sphere of application, at least at the amateur level.

Third, and this may be the most important, definite legacy of the communist past. It was in the communist system that the study of social phenomena was given the status of a science. Due to the politicization of the direction, a significant inflection was observed here, emasculating all scientific character. However, himself approach to social phenomena as an objective process that can be investigated and scientifically explained, quite correct and, as this publication will show, can be very productive.

To scientifically explain means to build a model and mechanism of the phenomena being studied. The same is true in the social sciences. A historical model is a description of how events took place, indicating specific persons or entire social groups who had the necessary powers, who performed actions that were significant for history. The mechanism is the motives in all their interrelationships, the motives of those who performed actions essential for history.

The aggravation of the crisis in the science of history, associated with the elimination of the monopoly of professional historians, has led to the fact that today there is no longer a shortage of qualified criticism of official history. The inadequacy of the latter is obvious to everyone who is not too lazy to delve into the problems. This is denied only by those who have this or that mercantile interest in the official history, or not logical.

However, from criticizing official history to creating a true version of history, there is a whole abyss. Why?

Because the vast majority of people are able to reason only at a specific level. The standard scheme is as follows. There is some small specific topic that is not very well laid out in TI. More precisely, the way it is laid is clearly contrary to common sense and irritates a normal-minded person. This topic is discussed, the issue of the inadequacy of TI is sharpened, some local considerations can even be expressed about how it should be in history in reality. At this point, the discussion naturally ends. There is nowhere to go, wall. From one fact, and even ambiguous conclusions from it, "you can't cook porridge."

To get a constructive solution, you need to be able to fit a huge amount of data into the system. The smallest percentage of amateur historians among those who today reject official history can undertake such systemic tasks. But even among these few authors who were not afraid to take on work of this level, almost none of them is capable of thinking systematically. Based on historical data, which are normally included in the TI, and those that are not in the best way, they are trying to create historical systems.

However, the system turns out to be colossal, which no system thinker is able to cover with his own eyes.

Therefore, it is necessary to create not a system, but a methodology for its creation, using which, the system would have been rebuilt by hundreds of application workers who do not have systems thinking. Nothing worthwhile can come out without a technique. Therefore, attempts by the first critics of traditional history to offer something alternative have so far ended in nothing. Everything that was in this area was significantly inferior in quality to the official version. So among professional historians, some have even gone over to the position that the official version is the best possible.

Why can't critics of official history create anything constructive, what are they doing wrong?

First, let's figure out what needs to be done. The technique is obvious, and nothing else can be invented in principle. It is necessary to propose a historical concept, and then gradually, step by step, fill it with specific historical content, relying on sources, using an inductive, systematic method.

The second part of the work is long and laborious, but it is trivial, routine. With it, in particular, professional historians will cope quite professionally. Their applied scientific culture is sufficient for this. This is exactly what they are trained for the most part. The first part is not trivial - the creation of a correct historical concept.

All authors of new versions of history are relatively skilled or quite amateurish, but they do the same, even if they do not realize it. Each of them consciously or subconsciously creates a historical concept, and then tries to build a version of history based on it. Since they are not professionally trained, and besides, they want to solve the problem quickly, with a swoop, without a proper understanding of the complexity of the problem, then even the second part of some of them manages to perform unimportantly. In terms of creating a historical concept, there have not yet been any worthy results at all.

What is the difficulty of creating a historical concept? - The historical concept from the deepest antiquity to the present will contain many facts, not one dozen, if not hundreds. The authors of new versions of history do not see any other selection options than intuitive. Those. the historical concept is created by them intuitively. Each of the entire set of historical sources intuitively selects a certain set and forms a concept based on it.

Even if in some cases it was possible to hit the mark on the basis of intuitive selection, in all cases this is in principle impossible due to the abundance of options. In addition, during the falsification of history, a thorough “cleansing” of documents took place, so that there are few sources left to put together the correct concept on their basis. The probability of guessing them from the entire abundance of materials is low.

In addition, intuition is informal knowledge, in most cases subconscious. And the official version of history is very thoroughly embedded in our subconscious with all human culture, making it difficult to make the right choice. So the task of creating a historical concept by intuitive methods seems fundamentally unsolvable.

I.4 NEW CONCEPT

It is impossible to completely abandon intuition in the creative process, however, it is desirable to make a choice from a variety of possible intuitive options consciously, without fortune-telling. We will try to develop a technique of this kind further, creating a concept of the history of civilization.

Initially, we have two points at our disposal. One of them is modernity. Naturally, some of the modern structure of the world is unknown. However, this information is not needed for the task at hand. Enough well-known data published in the open press.

Another point is a deep antiquity, when the human ancestor was something close to modern anthropoid primates. This point is no longer so obvious, but if we discard anti-scientific versions with the divine origin of man or options for alien interference in the course of civilization, then it turns out to be the only possible one.

The task is to find the function of the development of civilization, moving from one point to another, from antiquity to the present. You can offer an unlimited number of solutions. Among them will be the version of the official history and all alternative versions. For a qualified choice, intermediate points are needed.

Supporters of the official version and new researchers extract additional points from the sources. However, they cannot provide proof of the correct choice of these points. Everyone makes his choice intuitively, and everyone's intuition is personal, resulting from his individual life experience. More objective methods of selection are needed.

It turns out that some data essential for the concept can be obtained theoretically. It is possible to find theoretical solutions and prove their uniqueness for two phase transitions: 1. emergence of statehood; 2. transition from the animal state to the human. The proposed solutions are basically economic. Starting from the economy, the social mechanisms that led to the considered phase transitions were analyzed.

The arguments are close to those developed in Marxism. However, Marxism was created with a conscious or subconscious intention to justify the revolutionary transformation of the world, respectively, its conclusions artificially, without due rigor in evidence, fit into this direction. Politicization did not allow the doctrine to be scientifically objective. There were no presets here. The issue was dealt with honestly. And the conclusions turned out to be objective.

These two new points made it possible to unequivocally determine the place of origin of the first civilization and the scheme of its development to the level of a world empire. As a result of the fact that it was possible to establish the place of the origin of civilization and the primary scheme of its development up to statehood, a basis appeared on which it became possible to rely on without guesswork. It wasn't much yet, but it was already something compared to all the other researchers who could only guess.

It was no longer possible to move on without sources at all, but the presence of a reliable basis made it possible to select materials more consciously. Naturally, we had to make assumptions, but almost immediately we managed to figure out the lunar and solar calendars in civilization. We got the third strict point of the next, now technological, phase transition.

Why is she strict? “Because it has been verified by astronomy. The probability of an accidental coincidence of dates from the official history that are significant for the calendar scheme is so small that their accidental coincidence can be completely excluded.

An additional third point is a kind of revolution in theory in terms of creating a historical concept. If the first two additional points required a very good understanding of the economy, respectively, for the majority who do not understand the economy at the proper level, their rigor was doubtful, then the reliability of the third point is easily verified by anyone.

Moreover, the correctness of this conceptual point was unambiguously confirmed by the correctness of the two previous points. She, in particular, unequivocally confirmed the place of origin of the first civilization. The proof of this is the date of birth of Ivan IV from the official history. It is this date that is the key to the third point. And this, in turn, proves that Ivan IV was a world emperor. During his reign, there was the first transition from the lunar calendar to the solar one.

The three additional points received, together with the first two, were actually enough to build a historical concept. The technological (calendar) conceptual point provided the main method of falsifying history. Years of the lunar calendar in TI were passed off as solar years. The story stretched out twelve times. Knowledge of this mechanism made it possible to establish the real dates of many events, to correctly arrange them in time.

The historical concept was built according to five available points by interpolation. Interpolation is about filling gaps between points in a plausible way.

How rigorous is the proposed interpolation solution? - Firstly, Economics has always been the basis in historical constructions. Secondly, the solution was sought based on the continuity of the cultural and technological, political logic of events and other data, which, as a rule, are taken into account when restoring events, for example, in criminal cases.

Sources in all these constructions played a secondary role, at the level of clues, allowing you to establish specific participants in the events or their exact time. From the logic of events, as a rule, it was possible to establish the exact place of certain events. If the same conclusion was confirmed by the sources, then the issue could be considered unambiguously closed.

Approximately the same, but still relatively smaller, role was played by linguistic considerations. Linguistics could be used as clues to one idea or another, or indirect confirmation of an already fully analyzed issue.

How to build a historical version according to the created concept has already been discussed above. This is a long, painstaking work with sources. It is difficult to add something qualitatively new in this part of the methodology. It is only necessary to understand that within the framework of a new historical concept, already known facts may look unusual, completely different.

A typical example of this is the Prut campaign of Peter I. The same military campaign with approximately the same military outcome as in traditional history, but in completely different political conditions, at a different level of technical and social development. In addition, the concept already contained calendar scales and a methodology for falsifying history based on them. As a result of this, it was possible not only to correct and clarify in detail the history of a particular event, but also to reach the ancient "Law of the reproduction of the Grand Dukes" - the sixth conceptual point.

The merit of this conceptual point is that, like "calendars", it stands up to independent scrutiny. It does not need to be confirmed by sources, except for a table of dates of births and coronations in Russia in the eighteenth century from TI.

And the presence of the sixth conceptual point made it possible to return to earlier events, the Great Troubles and the time before Ivan IV. As a result, the events of the Great Troubles were completely disassembled, all ambiguities were eliminated. This is a typical example of a systemic history building method.

What sources are used in constructing an alternative version of history? - We proceed from the fact that when constructing traditional history, a huge number of applied historians fairly honestly and skillfully performed their work, inscribing its results into the traditional historical concept. It is the results of their work that are used in most cases. You can extract them from traditional history. These data are supplemented to the maximum with data rejected by TI because of the contradiction of the concept. So the constructed version of the story will take into account the available experimental material as much as possible.

Stretching the time scale twelve times forced the falsifiers to replicate historical characters. Based on this fact, as well as the "Law of the reproduction of the Grand Dukes", it was possible to analyze the personality of Alexander Menshikov. This figure turned out to be the key to the reconstruction of the entire historical period of the eighteenth century.

The second figure, commensurate in its significance for world history with Menshikov, was the personality of Voltaire. Her analysis began with a simple question, why did Catherine II appreciate Voltaire, why were the powers that be considered with a “far from practical politics” philosopher-humanist. In TI, this question hangs unanswered in the air, but in the new version with a different historical picture, its role in world history comes through clearly.

In general, the reconstruction of world history largely coincided with the restoration of certain biographical details of five people, as a result of whose life and work the modern face of civilization arose. These are Ivan III, Boris Godunov, Ivan V, Voltaire and Potemkin. All of them are of royal origin, but did not have rights to the throne. The last four were the younger brothers of the legitimate heirs, and Ivan III was the older brother, but not entirely legitimate.

In TI next to some of them were their relatives, who overshadowed the real creators of world history. The first such shifter is a pair of Ivan IV and Simeon Bekbulatovich. In TI, Ivan the Terrible, smart, strong-willed, unusually purposeful and cruel, is subordinate to a stupid weak-willed Tatar who is afraid and obeys Ivan, even when he, as it were, puts him above himself. In fact, Ivan IV was a good-natured holy fool, incapable of state activity, and all politics was carried out by his uncle, who did not have a formal right to the kingdom, called in TI first Simeon Bekbulatovich, and then Boris Godunov.

The second changeling is a pair of Peter I and Ivan V. In Russian traditional history, there is no other figure of the reformer tsar commensurate with Peter I. With him, his brother, weak in mind and health, Ivan V, who soon dies. In fact, Peter I was of very limited abilities, and his role in Russian and world history is much more modest. And the main creator of world history was his younger brother, in traditional Russian history captured in two images, the feeble-minded brother of Peter I and the royal batman Menshikov, who comes from grooms, but for some reason replaced Peter in the kingdom during his absence. In fact, there are much more historical duplicates from the younger brother of Peter I. He is the main prototype of Alexander Nevsky, Elder Philaret and faithful associate of Peter I, Prince Caesar Romodanovsky (Caesar of Rome and Denmark). And that's not counting the fact that he is the main prototype of almost all the key historical figures in Western Europe, including: Romulus - the founder of Rome, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Charles V, Frederick Barbarossa, Otto I, Pope Paul III.

The third changeling, although perhaps not so bright, is Catherine II and Potemkin. The role of Catherine in Russian and world history is almost not distorted. The first female politician in world history was indeed an outstanding personality, as far as it was generally possible for a woman in that era. The role of Potemkin, according to the TI of Catherine's favorite, an intriguer and a relatively talented reformer of the Russian army, is significantly underestimated. In reality, he ruled Russia, expanded its borders many times over, reformed the state, having done almost everything that is referred to in TI for a time from Alexei Mikhailovich to the end of the eighteenth century, and at the same time held in his hands the threads of control of the whole world. It was his unexpected death that led to the fact that Paris became a source of world unrest. There was no other figure capable of quickly replacing Potemkin.

An additional characteristic feature of all these shifters was the fact that in TI their participants are tied exclusively to the history of eternally backward Russia, whose role in world politics is therefore relatively small. So it wasn't easy to sort it all out.

In the process of reconstructing a distorted history, moving from the present to the past, the researcher repeatedly stumbles upon an insurmountable wall. At any point where history has been distorted, there is an end state, but no previous state, and no motives. Both the one and the other just hid, and at the same time the very point of a possible distortion of history was hidden. With a functional approach, when the whole history is considered as a continuous function, the approach to any point of possible distortion of history is carried out both from the past and from the future, and along with this, the motives for any political actions, including the falsification of history, become visible.

After the creation of a version of history, the bulk of the logical conclusions were confirmed by many historical sources.

When you get acquainted with the proposed version of the story, there is a feeling of some simplicity of its creation. The majority of readers familiar with the work of new students of history, out of habit, perceive it in the same way as just one of the possible new lightweight, intuitive versions. This feeling is wrong. It arises precisely as a result of the fact that the version is carefully systemically verified. Many fundamental moments in the development of a historical plot had to be reached as a result of a huge number of logical iterations, rewriting a historical episode or even a series of them over and over again.

It is possible that some minor inaccuracies or even insignificant errors remained in the proposed alternative version. This is quite natural, since history is created in an interpolation way. The lack of historical materials on a particular episode forces us to make a logical, plausible version. The appearance of specific historical materials concerning him makes it possible to clarify the details omitted before, or even to correct the episode itself in some way. This is a permanent scientific process.

What distinguishes a true historical concept from a false one is that none of these revealed facts can shake it. Real historical materials cannot be in irreducible contradiction with the real version of history. The emergence of new facts is not a reason for panic or denial of the concept, but the direction of scientific development.

A characteristic example of this type was the work of S.N. Golovko and O.A. Rakshina. S.N. Golovko purely theoretically investigated the origin of man within the framework of the already proposed concept and unambiguously proved that the transition to the aquatic lifestyle of the human ancestor took place in the Sea of ​​Azov. In particular, bipedalism, which in all theories of the origin of a person tied to TI, raises more perplexing questions, since there is no benefit from it, has become completely natural in its historical scheme.

O.A. Rakshin tried to deal with the growth of a person. The topic, in which no difficulties and tricks were expected, quite unexpectedly turned out to be very interesting, and besides, it was classified in the official history, since one is ruining it. It turned out that the species of a person quite recently was much shorter in stature. From this study, in particular, it became clear that the final stage of human evolution could also begin from a medium-sized primate that lives in Europe.

As a result, minor changes had to be made to the chapter "The Origin of the Neanderthal" in the already completed book. Qualitatively, nothing has changed in the concept. The scheme of human evolution has become more concrete. The supposed territory in which evolutionary processes took place has shrunk and become more definite. And the whole scheme was compressed in time.

The lack of specifics, this or that uncertainty, always leads to stretching the time of the process, just in case. A specific decision allows a more specific assessment of the present time. This kind of difference is especially evident when comparing the concept of TI with the historical concept that is being built here. General unskilled "reasoning" requires millions of years for the origin of man and the development of civilization. A careful concrete solution reduces this time by a thousand times.