Gm Gerasimov real story. The real history of Russia and civilization through the eyes of historian G. Gerasimov. G.M. Gerasimov

format.doc, 666 pages, with illustrations, archive size - 3.4 MB

The book provides comprehensive data showing the anti-scientific nature of official history, and also proposes a new historical concept of the development of civilization with proof of the uniqueness of the 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, a brief but fairly complete history of civilization is built from the Neanderthal to the second half of the nineteenth century.

The restored history, along with the facts of deliberate distortion of official history, made it possible to identify the motives, mechanisms and main stages of its falsification.

“The falsity of official ancient history today is no longer in doubt among those who are not too lazy to delve into it. It is defended either by dogmatists who do not have the necessary culture of thinking, or by those who have one or another mercantile interest in this area.

Unlike any normal science, official history does not bother itself with answers to the questions “how” and “why”. She is not able to give even the slightest satisfactory answer to dozens of the most natural questions.

Why do England and Japan drive on the left?

Why do Jews have a maternal line? And this is despite their ancient history, described in the Bible, where several thousand years ago there was a patriarchal structure and there was no place for the maternal family.

Who are the Basques, when and where did they come to Spain?

Who were the Janissaries, and from whom were they recruited?

How were the Egyptian pyramids built?

Why is there no data in historical chronicles about natural disasters in the area of 1260, although studies of snow layers in Antarctica and Greenland clearly indicate a cataclysm on a planetary scale at this time?

How was tin, the second main component of bronze besides copper, mined in the Bronze Age? There is a lot of copper in the world, and the technology for its production is simple. There is much less tin in the world, the deposits are poorer. And tin itself is always present in nature in the form of alloys with other metals, so purifying tin from impurities is a serious technical problem.

What did the Scandinavians make sails from in ancient times? Flax does not grow in Scandinavia, and cotton, of course, does not grow either. They generally do not have their own resources for the emergence of navigation. And according to TI (traditional history), the Scandinavians for centuries were the best sailors in the world, terrifying all of Europe with their raids all the way to Greece.

The Moscow Kremlin was built in the sixteenth century from white stone. This can only be explained by the fact that at that time the technology for building with bricks did not yet exist in Muscovy, since the cost of construction with stone mined in quarries is many times higher than with brick. Obviously, it is impossible to keep these construction technologies secret, since everything is in plain sight. Were there ancient brick buildings in Western Europe at that time (cathedrals in Paris, Cologne, etc.), attributed according to TI to even earlier centuries?

How did the United States manage for an entire century without its own currency? The first dollars were issued in the sixties of the nineteenth century, and the independence of the United States, according to TI, was achieved in the second half of the eighteenth.

Why is the spring equinox not on March 21st in 1582? This is shown by modern astronomical calculations. At the same time, the Gregorian calendar, according to TI, was introduced in 1582 so that the spring equinox in 1582 would fall on March 21, as was the case in 325 during the first Ecumenical Council, where this equinox was specially measured.

How was the spring equinox determined at the first Ecumenical Council? And what kind of equinox was it if there were no clocks to compare the length of day and night?

Why were all the articles on philosophy in the Brockhaus and Efron encyclopedia ordered from the Russian philosopher Solovyov, and F. Nietzsche (according to TI) could not even sell his publications in Germany with a circulation of only 40 copies? This is despite the fact that, according to TI, the German philosophical school was leading in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. How could it exist without an appropriate environment?

Why is an Orthodox church service held without musical accompaniment, although the influence of sacred music on listeners is enormous?

Why are there no Arabic numerals on the coins of Peter I? Why were the windows in the palace in Kolomenskoye, the main country residence of the Russian tsars, up to and including Peter I, made of mica? And this despite the fact that Peter I, according to TI, actively introduced everything new, sent people to study abroad, and purchased wonders. Under Catherine II, the palace was demolished due to its dilapidation, but before that it was described in detail.

How did Menshikov's children become princes of the Holy Roman Empire? This fact is stated in an article written in the nineteenth century by the official genealogist of the Romanov dynasty, E.P. Karnovich.

How were crusader castles in the Middle East defended in the Middle Ages when most of them did not even have internal water sources? Tourist guides themselves sometimes tell this to overly inquisitive tourists, but they are in no hurry to make a “scientific noise” - “cutting the branch on which they themselves are sitting.” The tourism business dictates its own rules.

Why did Paul I appoint his second son, Konstantin Pavlovich, as crown prince, although he himself introduced the law on inheritance of power by primogeniture?

Who organized the coup with the assassination of Paul I? The simplest analysis shows that Alexander I has nothing to do with it. And there are no other figures interested in the coup in TI.

Why did Catherine II give Holstein up? In TI there is a fairy tale that the throne was simply handed over to the younger branch of the same dynasty to which Peter III belonged. It is not clear why they did this, and why after this Holstein did not remain part of the Russian Empire, like, for example, Poland or Finland.

Why did Catherine II liquidate the Zaporozhye Sich, and why after that some of the Cossacks went beyond the Danube, into the territory of Turkey, thus defecting to the side of the enemy of Russia?

And the list of such relatively simple and natural questions to which official history is not able to give intelligible answers can go on and on. In particular, many of them will be found later in the text of the book.

But if you approach the criticism of official history more systematically, from the standpoint of one science or another, then it completely falls apart. Let's start with the economy.

How did slavery arise in ancient times? After all, the most difficult thing is not to defeat someone in a war, but to organize the labor of the conquered on new terms for them. The work of a slave is ineffective, and its organization also requires a well-paid staff of guards and supervisors, since the work is dangerous. Therefore, slavery becomes economically justified only where the effectiveness of work is easy to evaluate, escape is practically impossible under natural conditions, and the guard staff as a result of this can be relatively small. In a quarry or on a galley. But entrusting a slave who was previously free to graze cattle or work in the field, when all his thoughts are only about how to escape, will not work.

It would seem that slavery in America refutes this statement. However, American slavery became economically possible for two reasons. Firstly, the blacks had nowhere to run, their home was overseas, and throughout America “it was already written on him” that he was a slave, if without a master, then he was a runaway. Secondly, even in their homeland in Africa, slaves sold to America were not free. They were slaves from birth. Therefore, they simply could not imagine any other existence. It was natural for them. For the same reason, these slaves were very cheap.

Accordingly, no one caught them or forcibly enslaved them. Such work is also not economically justified; it is too dangerous and troublesome to catch free people who can fend for themselves. The cost of such slaves would be very high, and the selling price would be much lower than, say, exotic African animals. So this business would not be profitable. In this case, the price for slaves in America after delivery across the ocean, taking into account the high mortality rate along the way, and the serious risk of such a business, outlawed by many countries, remained quite acceptable. This means that this product was very cheap in Africa.

So slavery of antiquity was invented already in the second half of the nineteenth century. Civilization had to arise based only on free, more efficient labor. In ancient times, for a low level of development of productive forces, this was especially true.

Or another economically inexplicable “phenomenon of antiquity” in TI. European history begins with the Balkans. The culture of the entire civilization comes from Ancient Greece. How did Greek civilization arise, what were the economic grounds for this?

– There are no intersecting trade routes in the Greek zone. Conditions for agriculture are relatively modest. By the way, in the Balkans, just to the north, conditions for agriculture are noticeably better. There are practically no mineral resources in Greece. So crafts never flourished here. You can engage in fishing, but the conditions for this are no better than in neighboring territories. So there are no economic grounds for the emergence of a center of world civilization in Greece.

How then did the ancient Greek settlements and “states” arise? - These are pirate bases. Goethe in Faust openly calls the Greeks pirates. The fact that the “Greek states” arose as pirate bases on the sea routes to Constantinople was understood in the first half of the nineteenth century, but today’s dogmatic historians, after the official history has changed somewhat, find it difficult to understand that there are no other economic grounds for the emergence of these states That is why these “states” arose on the rocky islands, and not to the north, where the most favorable conditions for agriculture are.

But piracy, like any other type of robbery, is not creative; it can only exist when there is someone nearby to rob. In general, it can be conditionally considered a generalized tax on the economy. But whose? “And this means that there was an economic center nearby, the economy of which was so powerful that it allowed a whole group of small Greek “states” to exist by “biting off” a relatively small “part of taxes.” Such a center, which arose at the intersection of trade routes connecting the Black Sea basin with the Mediterranean, was Constantinople. And after Constantinople, pirate bases arose in the Aegean Sea.

By the way, Constantinople was not the first center from which civilization developed on the planet. It arose at the intersection of trade routes connecting vast, already quite developed territories, capable of providing a variety of goods for trade. Civilization originated somewhere else, and Greece has absolutely nothing to do with it.

There are three conquests in official history, when nomadic pastoralists conquered much more developed and civilized states. The Arabs conquered vast territories in Arabia and northern Africa and invaded the Iberian Peninsula. The Mongols conquered China, Central Asia, and Rus'. The Turks conquered Byzantium.

Moreover, a very large clan begins to experience economic difficulties, since a large herd will quickly eat up food in one place and transitions will become more frequent, leaving less time for free range of animals. It is economically beneficial for such a large family to split into parts. So centrifugal phenomena in the economy of nomads will overpower any tendencies towards unification.

Even the unification of clans that has occurred for one reason or another cannot be strong and durable. How can such an organization defeat centralized states? So all these great conquests are inventions of historical theorists who did not understand the laws of economics.

From an economic point of view, other fundamental absurdities can be found in official history. For example, it is easy to show that centers of civilization cannot arise as independent centers: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, India, China. The very first center that emerges will be much faster in development than the surrounding uncivilized areas. Therefore, it will quickly expand to the size of a world empire. And only then at the next stage of development (cultural, technical, political) fragmentation occurs. “Feudal fragmentation” in the Middle Ages, as a general natural phenomenon, is a myth invented in the second half of the nineteenth century. There have never been independent principalities on Russian territory. And the current states in Europe also arose completely differently from how official history portrays it.

Or another “amazing fact” from official history. Russia (or before that Muscovy) in the Middle Ages lagged behind European states in literature, science, painting, music, and printing for centuries. But each cultural aspect listed does not exist on its own, isolated from others. It is part of a general cultural complex, in particular the set of technologies existing at that time. It turns out that Russia is qualitatively behind Europe in terms of technology, but at the same time it not only trades, but also successfully fights on equal terms. And the latter, with such a colossal lag, is impossible in principle.

And if so, then according to market standards, technology should come next (masters should arrive) in order to produce expensive goods on site. So the technical lag is possible by years, at most by one generation (~ two decades), but not by many centuries. Something in the official history is not right in this part. Civilization cannot exist contrary to the laws of economics.

So economic analysis leaves no stone unturned in ancient official history. Approximately the same result is obtained when analyzing official history from a biological point of view.

Let's start with the fact that professional historians dealing with the origins of man believe in some postulates generally accepted among them as if they were religious dogma and categorically do not want to take into account the obvious data of human physiology, from which there is no escape.

This set of data almost unequivocally indicates that the biological evolution of our recent ancestor took place in close contact with an aquatic environment. And the presence of a layer of subcutaneous fat in humans, the only primate, also indicates that this stage of evolution did not take place in the equatorial regions of the planet, but where, at least in winter, it is cool.

Official history completely ignores these data and the conclusions that follow from them, although it cannot intelligibly explain such features of human physiology..."

G.M. Gerasimov

Real history of Russia

and civilization

Moscow 2008

Gerasimov G.M.

The real history of Russia and civilization.

^ The restored history, along with the facts of deliberate distortion of official history, made it possible to identify the motives, mechanisms and main stages of its falsification.

Gerasimov G.M. 2007.

I. basics of scientific history 34

I.1 Scientific knowledge 36

I.2 Official history 40

I.3 On the way out of the crisis 50

I.4 New concept 54

^ II. Theoretical history 62

II.1 The emergence of states 62

II.2 From animal to man 66

II.3 Emergence of the market 71

II.4 The emergence of artisans 73

II.5 Technology diffusion and development 75

II.6 Origin of Neanderthal 77

II.7 Origin of the Cro-Magnon man 86

II.8 The emergence of agriculture 94

II.9 Evolution of statehood 97

II.10 Human settlement 101

II.11 The emergence of races 104

II.12 Conclusions 111

^ III. State stage 113

III.1 Time measurement 113

III.2 Key dates of our chronology 123

III.3 Calendar technologies 132

III.4 Republican calendar 146

III.5 History of our chronology 157

III.6 Calendar hybrids in history 163

III.7 The only calendar solution 169

III.8 Reproduction of the Grand Dukes 173

III.9 Calendar scales 185

III.10 The Most Ancient Law 193

III.11 From Adam to the Empire 198

^ IV. history of mankind 210

IV.1 Before the first statehood 210

IV.2 Battle of Kulikovo, emergence of an empire 211

IV.3 Great Migration 215

IV.4 Patriarchy 222

IV.5 Great Troubles 225

IV.6 Armed forces of the empire 229

IV.7 The beginning of politics 239

IV.8 Ivan V 245

IV.9 Tatar-Mongols 255

IV.10 Organization of power in ancient times 260

IV.11 The struggle for democracy 268

IV.12 Turning point in the war between Rome and Byzantium 277

IV.13 Feudal reform 286

IV.14 Russian Empire 290

IV.15 Country of the Cossacks 303

IV.16 Voltaire 309

IV.17 Collapse of the Roman Empire 324

IV.18 The world after the Napoleonic wars 336

IV.19 After the Crimean War 348

IV.20 Official history 356

IV.21 Great Britain and backward Russia 375

^ V. Consciousness, culture, technology 399

V.1 Development of consciousness 401

V.2 The emergence of languages 409

V.3 Inventions of antiquity 424

V.4 Beginning of metrology 439

V.5 Religion 451

V.6 Shipbuilding 476

V.7 Glass 486

V.8 Printing 489

V.9 Painting 492

V.10 A little about music and literature 515

V.11 Science of winning 526

V.12 Something about fashion 531

V.13 About geography 535

V.14 A little about philosophy 537

V.15 Esoteric history 541

V.16 Written historical monuments 561

V.17 About some historical mysteries 573

^VI. Conclusion 590

Applications 594

New Moon 622

Numerology Basics 626

A.S. Bondarenko. English language and thieves' jargon 628

FOREWORD BY THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK

The falsity of official ancient history today is no longer in doubt among those who are not too lazy to delve into it. It is defended either by dogmatists who do not have the necessary culture of thinking, or by those who have one or another mercantile interest in this area.

Why do England and Japan drive on the left?

Who are the Basques, when and where did they come to Spain?

Who were the Janissaries, and from whom were they recruited?

How were the Egyptian pyramids built?

The Moscow Kremlin was built in the sixteenth century from white stone. This can only be explained by the fact that at that time the technology for building with bricks did not yet exist in Muscovy, since the cost of construction with stone mined in quarries is many times higher than with brick. Obviously, it is impossible to keep these construction technologies secret, since everything is in plain sight. Were there any ancient brick buildings in Western Europe at that time (cathedrals in Paris, Cologne, etc.), attributed according to TI to even earlier centuries?

How was the spring equinox determined at the first Ecumenical Council? And what kind of equinox was it if there were no clocks to compare the length of day and night?

Why is an Orthodox church service held without musical accompaniment, although the influence of sacred music on listeners is enormous?

Why did Paul I appoint his second son, Konstantin Pavlovich, as crown prince, although he himself introduced the law on inheritance of power by primogeniture?

Who organized the coup with the assassination of Paul I? The simplest analysis shows that Alexander I has nothing to do with it. And there are no other figures interested in the coup in TI.

Why did Catherine II liquidate the Zaporozhye Sich, and why after that some of the Cossacks went beyond the Danube, into the territory of Turkey, thus defecting to the side of the enemy of Russia?

But if you approach the criticism of official history more systematically, from the standpoint of one science or another, then it completely falls apart. Let's start with the economy.

However, the simplest economic analysis shows that nomadic pastoralists have no economic incentive to unite into a single centralized state. Nomads live in births. There is nothing economically connecting them, since the economy is almost entirely subsistence. And each clan does not need neighbors, they interfere by eating neighboring pastures. Moreover, a very large clan begins to experience economic difficulties, since a large herd will quickly eat up food in one place and transitions will become more frequent, leaving less time for free range of animals. It is economically beneficial for such a large family to split into parts. So centrifugal phenomena in the economy of nomads will overpower any tendencies towards unification. Even the unification of clans that has occurred for one reason or another cannot be strong and durable. How can such an organization defeat centralized states? So all these great conquests are inventions of historical theorists who did not understand the laws of economics.

And the corresponding culture develops not on its own, but in accordance with emerging needs in market conditions. For books, paintings, sculptures, etc. There is demand in Europe, but why isn’t it in Russia? And if there is also demand, then goods must first come to the market from the places where they are. And they will cost significantly more than where they were produced. And if so, then according to market standards, technology should come next (masters should arrive) in order to produce expensive goods on site. So the technical lag is possible by years, at most by one generation (~ two decades), but not by many centuries. Something in the official history is not right in this part. Civilization cannot exist contrary to the laws of economics.

So economic analysis leaves no stone unturned in ancient official history. Approximately the same result is obtained when analyzing official history from a biological point of view.

The human pupil or the structure of the human nasopharynx turns out to be closest to the aquatic inhabitants of the planet like the seal. Man is actually the only primate for whom the aquatic environment is comfortable. Rudimentary membranes have been preserved between the human fingers. The hair covering almost the entire body has disappeared, turning into a rudimentary state. The nose is elongated and the nostrils are directed downward, so as not to choke when diving. This set of data almost unequivocally indicates that the biological evolution of our recent ancestor took place in close contact with an aquatic environment. And the presence of a layer of subcutaneous fat in humans, the only primate, also indicates that this stage of evolution did not take place in the equatorial regions of the planet, but where, at least in winter, it is cool.

Official history completely ignores these data and the conclusions that follow from them, although it cannot intelligibly explain such features of human physiology.

All academic schemes of human evolution cannot clearly answer the simplest and most natural questions. Where, when and how did evolution take place and the species of modern man was formed? How did man become a predator? How did he switch to walking upright? How did the transition from the animal state of consciousness to the human one take place? Where is the line that separates man from animal? How did the human ancestor survive in the wild before learning how to make human tools? Etc.

All academic theories unequivocally insist on the African origin of man. However, conducted by S.N. A thorough systemic ecological analysis, taking into account environmental conditions, predators dangerous to humans, and food competitors, clearly shows that an animal with human physiology had no chance of surviving in Africa. The species took shape elsewhere.

In order for these theories to somehow make ends meet, the origin of man has to be pushed back into the past by millions of years. This opens up unlimited possibilities for flights of fancy and all sorts of unverifiable assumptions. But such an extension of human history gives rise to a series of new insoluble problems. For example, the question arises of how people settled across different continents. It comes to the point that theories are even being seriously considered in which the human species arose not in one, but in different places on the planet, independently. From the point of view of biology, genetics and evolutionary theory, this is complete nonsense.

Or another academic curiosity. The lengthening of human history and, at the same time, the presence of archaeological data that Neanderthal was not only in Europe, but also in America, forces us to conclude that the human ancestor repeatedly penetrated from Eurasia to America through the Bering Strait (or isthmus) and settled throughout America .

There is not the slightest reason for such migration, even if we assume that the climate on the planet was significantly different from the modern one. And here the options are seriously considered that such migration happened more than once, at different levels of development of the human ancestor, in particular, even before the domestication of various animal species.

All these conclusions and arguments relate to the distant past and are of a purely theoretical nature, often uninteresting or not entirely understandable to the average reader. But there are also topics that are closer and understandable to everyone, for example, about human growth. It would seem that everything is simple and clear here, there are no problems. Nevertheless, this topic itself is prohibited from research in official history and archeology! Why? – Yes, because one “suspends” the entire official history.

It turns out that the species of modern humans is still very young, and continues to change, in particular, to grow rapidly. Almost everyone is able to notice this fact in their surroundings throughout their lives. But this is not some temporary random phenomenon (one can recall today the already hushed conversations about acceleration), but a constant monotonous process that is easily established based on the results of a medical examination of army conscripts. These data began to be recorded in the second half of the nineteenth century, and show that the human species is growing on average by 12–15 percent per century. But the appearance of man grew even before that. This can be seen in preserved clothing, furniture, weapons, armor, and human remains. Everyone can easily verify this by visiting, for example, the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. The remains of its saints are from the late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries.

Catherine II, a very large lady for her time, had a height of 135 cm, and G. Potemkin, according to the testimony of contemporaries, a giant, had a height of 146 cm. The height is easily calculated from their surviving clothes, although there are other reasons for such statements.

Charles V, a large man for his time, was already considered very small in the time of Catherine II, so the name dwarf became a common noun, and later served as the prototype for Pushkin’s “dwarf with a beard” in the poem Ruslan and Lyudmila. So if the growth rate of the human species was constant for some time, and archaeological data clearly indicate this, then in the sixteenth century the average height of people was less than a meter. What kind of multi-thousand-year history of mankind can we talk about in this case? And the athleticism of ancient Greece and Rome, after clarifying the issue of human growth in general, becomes anecdotal. Naturally, the question immediately arises about the origin of “antique sculptures,” most of which are kept in museums in England and France.

Linguistics is an applied scientific discipline. Something in it lends itself to objective analysis, independent of other sciences, but in many ways linguists are forced to follow official history. If, say, historians claim that such and such a state existed before or that such and such a language spread there as a result of military conquest, then linguists are obliged to follow the historians, putting their theories into the mainstream of official history. Linguists are not able to challenge “historical realities”.

However, in some cases this leads to obvious absurdity or to the fact that some objective data have to be ignored.

For example, it is clear to anyone who has delved even a little into linguistic issues that writing without vowels must precede writing in which sounds are divided into vowel and consonant parts. From here, in particular, it should follow that the Arabic language, which appeared according to TI on the political scene in the seventh century, is clearly older than the Latin language, which dates back according to TI to the eighth century BC.

Of course, with a lot of cunning, you can try to somehow interpret this “not entirely logical fact” within the framework of the official historical concept. But here are the results of research by Arabist N.N. Vashkevich, according to which a significant part of the vocabulary of almost all languages (including those that are older than Arabic according to TI) comes from Arabic, can only be ignored.

We also have to ignore another fact: the presence of idioms in almost all languages. What is an idiom? – This is a stable, well-known expression, which for some reason is not given the meaning that follows from the words of its components. For example, the expression “the hour is not even,” meaning the fear that something unpleasant will happen, does not in any way correspond to the meaning of its constituent words, the hour and the even.

In any language, if it has been in use for a long time, there must be a certain number of idioms. There are more than a thousand of them in Russian, and many of them have translations in Arabic. Once upon a time they were widely used and understood by everyone. Then the Arabic words were forgotten, being replaced by new ones, but the usual colloquial phrase with its usual meaning remained. A little later, either jokingly or seriously, the words that had already become incomprehensible were replaced with some familiar ones, although with a completely different meaning. So, for example, as a result of replacing the ancient judge - kazi (same root: decree, punishment, execution) with the usual goat, the idiom “retired goat drummer” was obtained, meaning a completely worthless person.

Already in our time, very funny, but at the same time quite effective methods for learning English and Japanese have appeared. It turns out that for some reason these languages are close to the Russian criminal jargon - hair dryer. Linguistic teachers naturally do not understand the nature of such a coincidence, since there is no explanation for it in official history, but they use it.

And everything is explained very simply. In Arabic, “ing” means criminal, criminal (hence the Mexican gringo or Scandinavian Vikings). Accordingly, England is the land of criminals, hard labor, and Japan is the same, but only in an obscene form. Back in the first half of the nineteenth century, they were international hard labor, which were specially taken to the edges of the Old World, away from civilization, to remote islands from which it is difficult to escape.

By the way, martial arts come from here, boxing in England and karate in Japan. This is professional training for security guards. This is also where left-hand traffic occurs. It was more convenient for a guard with a long whip in his right hand (most people are right-handed) to stay to the right of the escorted column, pressing it to the left side of the road.

But let's return to linguistics. The basis of almost all languages comes from Russian and Arabic. The older the language, the more Arabisms it contains; the younger it is, the more Russianisms it contains. So the research of A.S. Bondarenko showed that the English language is very young and almost all comes from the Russian feni (criminal thieves' jargon).

What about ancient languages? – The Greek language is relatively ancient, which is why it contains a large number of Arabisms. But there is also a noticeable number of Russianisms. Some of them are very revealing. For example, they explained to the wild Greeks in Russian: “Behold the moon.” And they literally began to call her Selena.

Yiddish is a variant of German, and became an independent language with its own written language in the mid-nineteenth century. Hebrew, and this is also well known to specialists, was developed by an amateur linguist from Belarus in the twentieth century and introduced into use in Israel to consolidate the Jewish nation.

For example, the name Naina, innocent in Hebrew, was actually invented by Pushkin, who lived before the emergence of Jewish languages. In the poem Ruslan and Lyudmila, its meaning is clearly visible from the plot, which comes from the German “nein” - no.

As a curiosity, here is a fun fact. What language was the Bible written in? – For someone who is not in the know, a “natural” answer is asked, which is in some version of Hebrew. And from what language was it translated into Russian? – Arbitrariness is already possible here. It could have been from Hebrew, it could have been from Greek, but it is possible that a complete translation was made from one of the Western European languages.

In order to get answers to all these questions, it is enough to consider just one biblical name - Nebuchadnezzar. Just one more word, you'll break your tongue, and it makes no sense. Meanwhile, it turned out that this was deliberately distorted so that it would be impossible to get to the bottom of its origin, from English - “Nebuchadnezzar”. And this “English” biblical name turns out to be quite easy to read in Russian, since even the cases are preserved, “the king of heaven.” King, son of heaven. It turns out that the Bible was translated into English from Russian!

Looking ahead, we will immediately answer that the Old Testament was written in Russia by order of Catherine II. After the Crimean War (1853 - 1856), Russia was forcibly handed a specially made Russian translation from English, in which much was changed. The censorship police made sure (under the same enslaving agreement) that all previous Russian copies were collected and destroyed. Something was preserved only by some Old Believers who did not fulfill this order.

The Latin language is dual in nature. First, the small, most primitive part of the language used in the past in the vicinity of Rome is derived from Arabic. And the bulk of Latin is an artificial language, created mainly in the second half of the nineteenth century during the falsification of history.

Let us give one very illustrative example. What is a "quote"? – The official origin of the word is from the Latin “citatum” - to indicate. But a quotation is not a link, not an index, but a verbatim text reproduced. So there is an external similarity, but the semantic one is far from complete. At the same time, it is quite obvious that “quote” is the Russian “read” pronounced with a foreign accent. And the meaning is complete correspondence. But according to official history, the ancient Latin language could not have borrowings from Russian. Therefore, in official linguistics, instead of a natural and logical explanation, a clumsy but ideologically correct explanation is given.

There are quite a few examples similar to the previous one. Let's add two more that look almost anecdotal.

Where does the name Constantine come from, meaning constant in Latin and Greek (in mathematics, constant is constant)? – From horse station, abbreviated as constance (feminine version of the name) or, in other words, inn (hence the meaning permanent) yard, the place where the horses stood, i.e. rested and ate. Emperor Constantine, who founded Constantinople, lived long before the organization of such horse stations - pits - began, but stories were written and names invented later.

The version of the official history, according to which the name of the city of Khabarovsk comes from the name of the pioneer Khabarov, who founded it, normally passes among the Russian-speaking population who do not know Turkic languages. And for example, for the Kazakhs, who call television news “khabar,” this fairy tale looks approximately the same as if Novgorod was founded by a pioneer named Novgorodov, and the city received its name in his honor.

Archeology is an applied science, which is actually a branch of history. Archaeologists can describe and classify their finds only within the framework of established ideas and stereotypes of official history. There are simply no other ways for others to understand. Therefore, they are obliged to work within the framework of terminology generally accepted in their environment and the official historical concept.

In addition, archaeological finds have their own specifics. They are usually very informative in small things, but, as a rule, completely silent on conceptual issues. Therefore, they can easily be integrated into any version of history, including the official one. However, there are still problems with interpreting the results obtained within the framework of official history. Above we have already seen one of these problems with human growth. Let's give a few more.

Many examples of ancient Russian weapons and armor, stored in various museums, with Arabic inscriptions. Russian archives contain a huge array of ancient documents in Arabic, probably the largest in the world. Thousands of manuscripts.

Of course, to be completely precise, the language in which the inscriptions on ancient artifacts were made is noticeably different from modern versions of Arabic. And Arabists cannot read everything. This ancient language is probably closest to the language today called Old Persian. In particular, the oldest surviving text of the Koran is not written in Arabic, but in ancient Persian. However, in terms of its style, this ancient language is a variant of the Arabic script, and accordingly, we will conditionally call it Arabic, leaving the linguistic subtleties for professional linguists.

To date, 121 (!) treasures of “Arab” coins have been discovered on the territory of Russia and Ukraine. Treasures vary in weight and number of coins, from small to tens of thousands. The average treasures are Volokolamsk (1.3 thousand), Tver (3 thousand), three treasures on the territory of Kyiv (about 10 thousand). A large treasure is in the Murom lands (11 thousand, 42 kg). The largest - Velikie Luki - is 2.5 times larger than Murom (more than 100 kg). And the distribution area is wide, and not just trade routes, as can be seen from the map provided.

According to TI, there were almost no contacts between Russians and Arabs. There is nothing to explain such penetration of Arab objects into Russia within the framework of official history. So we got another set of data that undermines the official story.

In general, the prevalence of the Arabic language over a fairly vast territory in TI is explained by the Arab conquests. However, according to the testimony of the British, who tried to organize Arab uprisings on the territory of the Turkish Empire during the First World War, the Arabs were completely unsuitable for military service. They did not even have the rudiments of a corresponding culture.

So the whole official history is a set of inexplicable oddities, illogicalities and contradictions with other sciences and common sense. What do professional historians think about this? - Nothing intelligible.

In any real science, where the researcher strives for real knowledge and is aimed at finding the truth, a set of data that does not fit into the generally accepted theory is precisely what arouses the greatest interest. A huge number of researchers flock there. This is an area of future scientific breakthrough, an opportunity to discover and explore new things, interesting work, and finally, a certain social success if a noteworthy scientific result is obtained.

In the official science of history, everything is just the opposite. Data that does not fit into the mainstream of official history is suppressed, publications are prohibited, topics are closed for research so as not to attract attention to them. As a result, professional historians stay away from them, or, if the situation still obliges them to “research,” they produce false results that correspond to the official concept. The main thing is that the façade of the official history looks beautiful, but what’s inside...

If it happens that, for one reason or another, a specialist with a real scientific culture, in particular with good physical and mathematical training, delves into the historical field, a conflict with official history immediately begins. Thus, Academician N. Morozov declared the complete inadequacy of official history in the first half of the twentieth century, Professor M. Postnikov in the middle, and Academician A. Fomenko at the end of the twentieth century. And each of them gave good criticism of the official history.

For example, A.T. Fomenko, who was engaged in astronomical calculations, showed that not a single “evidence” in ancient sources (before the tenth century) about certain celestial phenomena, such as a solar eclipse or a certain arrangement of planets (horoscope), corresponds to reality. To understand the nature of this, he was forced to delve into historical topics, and came to the conclusion that all history up to the tenth century, together with the celestial phenomena accompanying it, was fictitious. Those who invented it probably could not imagine that the time would come when celestial mechanics would turn out to be sufficiently accurately calculated, and their historical “data” could be double-checked.

And after Fomenko’s publications, many became interested in history. A huge number of amateurs have taken up independent research. And among them there is a certain percentage with good physical and mathematical training and a real scientific culture. As a result, today there is no longer a shortage of the most diverse criticism of official history, and not just trifles, but serious ones, proving its complete inconsistency. Much of the criticism cited above has long been published. And professional historians do not try to somehow explain the dubious moments in official history, realizing the complete futility of this.

Thus, it can be stated quite unequivocally that the official science of history is not a social scientific system. It is not aimed at searching for truth; it lacks a real scientific culture. And all its scientific attributes and regalia are nothing more than a props, the nature of which and the role of the state in this have yet to be sorted out. This is exactly what we will do next.

The closest thing the official science of history is to the legal system. In both, the task is to reconstruct past events. In the legal system, such a task constantly arises when considering criminal cases. The methods used for this in the official science of history are practically the same as in the investigation of criminal crimes. Examination of finds and traces left behind, collection of testimony, screening out unreliable data. Next in the legal system the task is to convince the court of the version being built. In the official science of history, by and large, the task is the same, to convince those who will use this history of the fidelity of the reconstructed history, relying on its data, which mainly concerns modern professional historians.

And the main argument, considered the most convincing, both in the legal field and in history, is a lot of testimony. Unlike real science, where one proof is enough (the Pythagorean Theorem does not need a hundred proofs, one is enough), in the legal sphere and the official science of history, they strive to have as much evidence as possible to be convincing.

In principle, the tasks and methods of the scientific system and the legal system largely coincide. Just like the scientific system, the legal system tries to establish the truth. However, these systems are still not identical, and therefore the results they produce may differ. What is their difference?

– Firstly, the goal of science is truth. The purpose of law is to convince a judge or jury of something. And how this will be achieved is no longer so important. Secondly, scientific research is not limited by time; it can remain in the state of version for as long as desired. Legal research must deliver its final verdict within a limited period of time, which is why its methods contain an element of chance or fortune-telling. Truth is not an end in itself.

This is the fundamental difference between the legal system and the scientific one. The scientific system is always aimed at the truth, while the legal system has a methodological basis for the right to make mistakes.

By the way, all of the above makes it possible to classify official history as pseudoscience. What distinguishes pseudoscience from science is the object of the work. Science works with the essence - content, pseudoscience with form - external manifestations, for example, names. It's the same here. Science needs the essence, official science-history needs recognition.

However, let's face it, sometimes mistakes happen in the legal system. In general, she still tries to establish the truth, and in most cases she succeeds. Why, when assessing the official history of antiquity, are we forced to talk not about individual errors and inaccuracies, but about its complete inadequacy? Why is it that in the official science of history, if it turns out to be a legal system, there are not minor errors, but at the conceptual level?

– The reason for this is purely social. Many years of experience in the legal system show that errors occur quite often. She is especially prone to mistakes when faced with an interested party with significant resources. Against such resources as money, power, power capabilities, the methods of the legal system already work poorly; against all of them taken together, legal methods are powerless. If the state begins to act against the methods of the legal system, then we can forget about establishing the truth. This is what happened with the official science of history, the customer for which has always been the government.

In particular, this is why in the official science of history, methods that provide rigorous evidence have not been fundamentally developed. They are dangerous for false official history. For the same reason, the culture instilled in professional historians in educational institutions is far from scientific. This is all part of a social complex to perpetuate false history.

The story arose in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, during the collapse of the world empire. Initially, it served as a source of information regarding the existence of historical precedents and the validity of certain claims in international disputes. Its tasks were set based solely on pragmatic considerations, as happens in politics to this day. There could be no talk of any scientific objectivity or simple human honesty. Moreover, science (and scientific culture) arose much later. Moreover, at this time history was a completely closed area, to which a very narrow circle of people was allowed.

Soon (after the Napoleonic wars) politics posed another challenge. History turned out to be the core on which the self-awareness of a nation is formed, one of the essential elements of the state’s stability in the international arena. History has become part of ideology. And to influence consciousness, a beautiful, ideologically consistent myth is preferable to the naked truth, which is not always beautiful. Only from this time on did official history become available to the masses. History has never been a science. From its inception to the present day, it has been a political technology. Accordingly, its academic status is just a means for a more convincing influence on mass consciousness.

In the nineteenth century, many historians were aware that history is not a science, but a political technology, but they carried out government orders in compliance with the rules on non-disclosure of official information. So nineteenth-century historians, who are officially considered scientists, were in fact political strategists.

Today the situation has changed. The bulk of modern historians are not aware that official history is pure political technology. They are specially instilled with such a culture and given such an education that they are unable to figure it out, even if they are allowed into the archives. They, in principle, do not understand what real science is and how it should be organized, they are completely confident in the truly scientific nature of official history and are ready to defend the honor of their uniform with foam at the mouth, defending TI. This use of the bulk of professional historians in the dark is also part of modern political technologies. Times change, and with them the tasks and political techniques change.

As a result, the official history of antiquity is almost a complete fiction, a myth. This is most clearly shown for those who have not yet delved into the historical topic in V. Lopatin’s book “The Scaliger Matrix”. Lopatin managed to guess the principle by which a significant part of the official history was invented. Ancient history was created by duplicating later history. The core of a particular historical episode was shifted into the past by a certain number of years, and then literary processed so that in the new episode it would be difficult to recognize the original prototype.

Georgy Mikhailovich Gerasimov

Directions
Sciences
Date of birth	1957 (1957 )
Place of birth
Citizenship	Russia
Website
FreakRank

As a student, he began to build his own version of historical materialism. In particular, he then 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 something important into account. At that time I could not even think about the fact that the TI could be fake.

Georgy Mikhailovich Gerasimov(1957, Russia) - one of the epigones of the “New Chronology”, author of the book “The Real History of Russia and Civilization”, known for his theory of the origin of man from the aquatic monkey, in the revision of “traditional history” has already reached the mid-19th century.

Biography

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

It was irrelevant to defend ourselves, since everything was collapsing (and besides, the passion for Eastern philosophies was taking its toll).

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

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

In June 2003 - “about the transition from the animal state to the human state.”
In May 2004, he created the “theory of calendars in civilization.”
In December 2004, it was possible to discover and formulate the “law of reproduction of Grand Dukes.” These mathematically rigorous solutions turned out to be enough to create an 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 construction of a fairly complete story, there is a lot of and painstaking work with historical events. The task is to select, sift out, fit into the concept, adjusting and clarifying the details.
In December 2007, the book “The Real History of Russia and Civilization” was fundamentally completed.

Books

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

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

G.M. Gerasimov

True story

Russia and Ukraine

Gerasimov G.M.

The real story of Russia and Ukraine.
This is the author's second book in the real world history series. Many general issues are discussed here not in as much detail as in the first book of the series “The Real History of Russia and Civilization,” but at the same time it is sufficiently complete to maintain the rigor of the evidence.

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, albeit briefly, but in a volume sufficient to understand the historical process, the history of Russia and Ukraine was reconstructed.

Gerasimov G.M. 2009.

History Item 11

I. Theoretical history 38

I.1 The emergence of states 40

I.2 From animal to man 45

I.3 Emergence of the market 53

I.4 The emergence of artisans 55

I.5 Technology diffusion and development 58

I.6 The emergence of agriculture 61

I.7 Evolution of statehood 65

I.8 Human settlement 70

II. State Stage 73

II.1 Time measurement 74

II.2 Key dates of our chronology 84

II.3 Calendar technologies 91

II.4 Calendar history of civilization 103

II.5 The only calendar solution 111

II.6 Reproduction of the Grand Dukes 116

III. history of Civilization 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 Patriarchy 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 ancient times 237

IV.5 The 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 the Cossacks 293

IV.10 Voltaire 301

IV.11 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 Inventions of antiquity 449

V.5 Beginning of metrology 461

V.6 A little about music and literature 478

V.7 Written historical monuments 492

V.8 Fairy tales for adults 500

V.9 About some historical mysteries 518

VI. Conclusion 542

VII. FROM history to politics 546

VIII. main results of the work. 569

VIII.1 Reconstructed history briefly 570

Author's preface to the Ukrainian edition

History is politics facing the past. At least that's how it's used today. Past history is being revised to suit current political objectives. Even if some fragments of history turn out to be difficult to change due to their unambiguity and wide popularity, then it is almost always possible to reconsider the motives of the participants in certain events, “discover” classified documents, “reveal” previously unknown facts, so that a new interpretation of already known events will give them a completely different color. Such techniques are the norm in politics.

Naturally, the same thing happened in the past. The political situation and the problems arising from it change, but the methods for solving these problems remain the same. However, if today, with developed media, a multitude of printed publications on historical topics, when history is studied starting from school, it is usually impossible to completely reshape official history for the sake of politics, then in the past the conditions for this were significantly better. Before the first official history was written and published, before it began to be taught in educational institutions, the possibilities for changing history were significantly different. And this, naturally, was used in politics.

Almost all of the official world history before the nineteenth century was invented, and it was invented not in detail, not in particulars, but globally, in essence. Ukrainian history in this sense is not much different from the history of other European states, except 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 Kuchuk-Kaynajir Peace Treaty (actually 1783), according to which these territories were annexed to the Russian Empire, has a very distant relationship to reality. This ancient story was composed by Karamzin and was published for the first time in 1818. Accordingly, “from scratch” Karamzin could create anything. One of the main tasks of history ordered by Karamzin was to ensure the integrity of the Russian Empire in the future. And the basis for this should have been 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 fictitious in both cases. But, if the West (as, indeed, both the East and the South) had no real history at all, then Ukraine had a real ancient history and a very honorable one.

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

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

The Cossacks’ own forces were no longer enough to suppress this turmoil. They began mobilizing into the horde (in 1737) from the eastern territories that were not affected by the turmoil. This large horde was called Tatar. This large army of unfired recruits was trained by the Cossacks. They occupied all officer positions in this horde from centurion and above. It is not surprising that the commander of this horde was “Batu” (father).

The Tatar horde swept through all the territories engulfed in turmoil, 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 its 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. During the military operations, a turning point began, ending with the complete defeat of the horde in 1783 (Battle of Cahul). And at the same time, the new world order won a final victory over the old one. The One World Empire ceased to exist. The Tatar Horde and the Zaporozhye Sich were disbanded. The Cossack elders were equated to the Russian nobility and received the same rights and privileges.

This was not surprising. Firstly, the long war between Muscovy and the Horde took place within the framework of a single World Empire and represented a struggle between the old and new orders. At this time there were no nations, no territorial claims, no irreconcilable hatred that gave rise to a war of destruction. Secondly, culturally the peoples differed only 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, which supported the world order established by Ivan III and collected taxes throughout 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 quell the unrest. In the East, these are the descendants of the Cossack foreman who recruited recruits 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 for the world treasury. This is how most of the “ancient” dynasties of the East arose: the Great Mughals in India, the Qing 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, as can be clearly seen from the surviving photographs of the early twentieth century.

The first parliaments mentioned in official history (in Sweden, Portugal, England) are duplicates of the relations brought to Europe by the Cossacks. The first “parliament” in England (under King Edward) was the Cossack circle. A duplicate of it is the legendary round table of King Arthur. Such a parliament was “unicameral” and “aristocratic”. Only Cossacks, the elders of the Tatar horde, were allowed to enter it. Tatars and aborigines, naturally, were not invited there.

Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and many other sea and river centers initially emerged as Cossack naval bases. The Scandinavian and Danish (Danish) Vikings, who carried out raids throughout 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 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 Razin’s “uprising” in 1775 (1670), or rather those military events that served as a prototype for it, there were no Don Cossacks at all.

This story looks unusual, although it contains some elements of the official story. The speed of development of civilization looks even more unusual 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, devotes more than one thousand years to this process.

However, before the question of the inadequacy of official history was even 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 has been created, a natural question arises for the supporters of official history: what actually prevented a civilization from arising in the middle, previously uninhabited zone (according to their version) over 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 help accelerate it as a result of trade and exchange of technology.

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

G.M. Gerasimov about his book “The Real History of Russia and Civilization”

The falsity of official ancient history today is no longer in doubt among those who are not too lazy to delve into it. There are dozens of the most natural questions to which she is not able to give even the slightest satisfactory answer.

Why do England and Japan drive on the left?
Why do Jews have a maternal line?
How were the Egyptian pyramids built?
How was tin, the second main component of bronze besides copper, mined in the Bronze Age?
What did the Scandinavians make sails from in ancient times?
How did the United States manage for an entire century without its own currency?
Why is the spring equinox not on March 21st in 1582?
Why were all the articles on philosophy in the Brockhaus and Efron encyclopedia ordered from the Russian philosopher Solovyov, and F. Nietzsche could not even sell his publications in Germany in a circulation of only 40 copies?
How was the spring equinox determined at the First Ecumenical Council?
Why is an Orthodox church service held without musical accompaniment?
Why are there no Arabic numerals on the coins of Peter I?
How did Menshikov's children become princes of the Holy Roman Empire? Etc.

Official history does not bother itself at all, as any normal science should, with answers to questions "How" And "Why". Accordingly, it is defended today either by dogmatists who do not have the necessary culture of thinking, or by those who have one or another mercantile interest in this area.

The crisis smoldered faintly for almost a century, but only in the last ten years has it intensified and come out into the open. When can we expect its final resolution?

A somewhat similar situation was in physics at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when the study of the microworld began, and theoretical work reached the level of analysis of relativistic effects. In physics, it took several decades to bring order to the theory and philosophical understanding of the results.

And this is in science, which is qualitatively superior in general culture to all other disciplines, where, unlike history, theory is comprehensively tested by experiment. So, based on analogies, taking into account the conservatism of historians and the lack of modern scientific culture among them, the crisis could drag on for centuries.

In physics, scientists have encountered effects that have no analogues even remotely in everyday life, completely turning the picture of the world upside down, such as the curvature of space and time or the ability of microparticles to freely penetrate through any obstacles.

It would seem that scientific problems in history cannot be comparable in complexity to problems in physics. After all, the history of society should be natural at the level of common sense and everyday experience. However, it turns out that dealing with the curvature of cultural time and space is much more difficult than physical one. What's the problem?

There is not just one problem, there is a whole social complex of them. Firstly, the very task of restoring true events when someone is interested in hiding them is, in most cases, very difficult. If this were not so, and the past was easily restored, then there would be practically no criminal offenses. And they, as the previous experience of mankind shows, are still ineradicable.

Secondly, often decisive information for reconstructing events in criminal cases is provided by an analysis of the motives of all participants, and with a global distortion of the past, not only the true events, but also the real motives are erased.

If we add to this that history was distorted not just once, but as a result of a whole series of successive changes over the course of a century, then several layers of real pictures of the past, events and motives for distorting history are lost. The task of restoring the past becomes impossible to even begin to approach. There's basically nothing to grab onto.

Practically there are no sources to rely on. Evental and dynastic history were rewritten. The history of religion is virtually all fictional. Cultural history changed to confirm dynastic, religious and event history. The history of science and technology was falsified in the last place already in the second half of the nineteenth century, so that it corresponded to the rest of history.

Thirdly, the distortion of history was always done by order of the authorities, who determined what and how to distort, financed this work, and ensured the participation in this work of all possible assistants, both in the public service and “independent”. Therefore, falsifications were done carefully.

The bulk of historical traces that do not fit into official history were destroyed by falsifiers and created fakes for more than a century. As a result, today there are practically no historical materials necessary to create a true historical version.

And all the remaining historical traces, such as archaeological finds, weapons, jewelry, coins, birch bark letters, clay tablets, etc., are very informative in detail, but completely uninformative on conceptual issues. They can be naturally and logically arranged into a variety of historical versions.

A fragment of a relief map of the Earth, made using technology unknown to us more than 100,000 years ago.

Fourthly, exactly power is the customer for fundamental science, which includes history. And whoever pays calls the tune. The authorities decide what kind of “science-history” should be, what kind of personnel and culture there will be, what kind of moral environment, right down to the question of what can be researched and what cannot. As a result, the official “science of history” is structured in such a way that it is, in principle, unable to go against the customer, and will do everything to disrupt the work of restoring real history. And to successfully overcome the crisis it is necessary:

1. Create a basic historical concept.

2. Fill it with specifics based on the historical traces left behind, resulting in building a real history of civilization.

3. Show technically how falsification was carried out at each stage.

4. Find the motive for falsification at each historical stage, which was precisely what was hidden.

5. Convince professional historians, the very ones who should oppose this work, of the fidelity of the new version.

In connection with the last point, in particular, it is necessary to recognize complete incompetence in the science of history at the conceptual level of modern historians, and no one likes to admit their mistakes at this level. So this work will be hampered not only by historians dedicated to the essence of the problem, who, by the way, are practically gone due to the duration and multi-stage falsification, but all of them "professional caste".

Therefore, the fulfillment of the fifth point is generally possible only as a result of the natural succession of two generations of historians. There is no longer such shame in admitting the mistakes of predecessors. By the way, after the creation of the scientific concept, this is exactly how long it took in chemistry to move from the pseudoscientific alchemical stage to the scientific one.

How long does it take to complete the first four theoretical points? The falsifiers were sure that they were fundamentally impossible to implement. The falsification was done in such a way that it was impossible to break through even one stage. And there were at least three such stages.

First started in 1776, second– in 1814, third- in 1856. Therefore, many attempts to build an alternative historical concept were unsuccessful due to the virtually complete absence of reliable historical materials at the conceptual level. There was basically nothing to rely on. And without this, the following points turned out to be impossible.

The author of this publication, due to a combination of circumstances, managed to fulfill all the theoretical points. Based on the geography and distribution of natural and climatic zones, an economic model of the emergence of civilization on planet Earth was built and its uniqueness was strictly proven. In particular, a set of natural conditions and landscapes necessary for this was found.

This made it possible to unambiguously link the place of origin of man and the first civilization to the territory of Russia. As a result, there was a reliable basis on which to build a basic historical concept. The development of the concept led to three conclusions proven with mathematical rigor:

- Firstly, the only possible variant of human origin has been found;

– secondly, it was possible to restore the ancient law of reproduction of royal dynasties and the management scheme in the Roman Empire and Byzantium;

– thirdly, the problem of calendars was completely solved. It is shown when and what calendars, lunar or solar, were used in civilization.

This ultimately provided the motives and the main method of the first falsification. Further reconstruction of history led to the second stage of falsification, and then to the third. When moving from antiquity, the state of civilization on the eve of falsification and motives are visible. The task becomes much simpler than when moving from the present to the past.

In conclusion, I would like to note the following. Typically, a scientific theory, especially one that seriously changes the way we perceive the world, goes through several stages. First the polemical stage. Then follows the stage of philosophical understanding of the results obtained.

At the third stage, when the correctness of the theory is no longer in doubt and its place is determined, the results are presented in the mode of a textbook, so as to make them extremely accessible to the student. “The Real Story...”, despite the fact that it contains several new theories that overturn generally accepted ideas, is closest to the publications of the third stage. The previous ones were covered in previous publications of the author.

In this regard, a recommendation on how to read and perceive the proposed book for those who are encountering the problem raised for the first time. The author's attitude toward the claim that official history is completely false, before he delved into the topic himself, was the same as that of the vast majority today. History was perceived like other sciences, in which there could still be unsolved problems, certain inaccuracies, but complete falsity at the level of common sense seemed completely impossible.

Preface by A.M. Trukhin, first of all, is aimed at introducing the unprepared reader to the topic as quickly as possible. It should change the reader's attitude towards the official history on which the bulk of our culture relies. Human consciousness does not allow one to operate with it in this way. There must be foundations in the mind that can be trusted. The history of civilization is one of them. Therefore, to begin with, the reader touching on this topic for the first time should at least get the feeling from the introduction that in the official science of history it is not the same as in other sciences. There are problems there on a qualitatively different level.

You don’t have to immediately agree with this or completely dismiss it. This must be taken into account, as well as the fact that today many thousands of people of different levels of education, who have more or less delved into the topic, are convinced of inadequacy of official history.

Humanity is not yet able to build such a pyramid on its own.

First part The book is devoted to methodology, and it explains in sufficient detail the social and methodological features of the science of history that could lead to such anomalies. An educated and thoughtful reader, even without previously being familiar with the topic, should perceive this part of the book quite positively. It does not yet imply the level of distortions in history, but the reader is psychologically prepared for the fact that these distortions can be very serious.

Second part The book is a theoretical solution to the problem of how civilization should have arisen and developed on planet Earth. This decision is strict. However, a very small percentage of readers can feel the rigor of this decision, since the resulting solution lies in an area that is not yet sufficiently formalized. Therefore, the reader who is not convinced of the rigor and uniqueness of the solution obtained is again invited to simply take it into account as one of the possible options.

Third part key books. It contains the main evidentiary part of the proposed concept. Based on the solution obtained in the second part, the problem of calendars and dating of events is analyzed. The proof of the uniqueness of the proposed solution is given with mathematical rigor in a formalized domain. To understand it, a secondary education and a desire to honestly understand the topic are enough.

It is clear that even after evidence of this level, it will be psychologically very difficult for most readers to abandon attitudes in their consciousness that have been formed since childhood, for a long time and in many ways. However, here everyone has to independently make a choice about what determines his personal consciousness, public suggestion, hypnosis or the power of his own intellect, what history of civilization he will choose, scientific, consistent with other sciences and logic, or anti-scientific, but comprehensively penetrated into human culture .

IN fourth part a version of the story is proposed, created on the basis of a new proven concept. Some minor inaccuracies cannot be ruled out here, but their likelihood is very low. A story built on the basis of a new concept is, on the whole, much more logical and natural than the traditional one from the point of view of economics and human psychology.

Fifth part dedicated to human culture in the broadest sense of the word. It shows the good compatibility of our today's culture with the new history created and certain contradictions with the official one. However, criticism of official history occupies an insignificant place in the proposed work. This topic is expertly covered in some works of other authors, in particular, in the appendices an abstract is given by A.M. Trukhin books by V. Lopatin "Scaliger Matrix". This critical work alone kills traditional history outright. The purpose of the book offered to the reader is to provide constructive information that did not yet exist before this publication.

The last two applications overturn the linguistic concept of civilization. They were made on the basis of a conceptual forecast, and fully confirmed the proposed version of history. Russian is the main language of civilization. All other languages are its aberration. At the level of word roots, the whole world still speaks Russian.

G.M. Gerasimov

1. Basics of scientific history

There is considerable disagreement among those who study history today. Some argue that history was globally falsified, others, mostly professional historians, deny this possibility in principle.

This book is devoted to the substantiation of the first opinion, so let us dwell in a little more detail on the arguments of the opposite side. What can opponents of global falsification bring to support their position, other than emotional polemical “arguments”, such as accusing opponents of “persecution delusions” or adherence to “conspiracy theories”? At first glance, the set of arguments seems impressive.

1. Official world history is a colossal system, coordinated in time and space, between different countries and regions.

2. This entire system is well confirmed by historical sources, cultural and architectural monuments, etc.

3. Data from many applied sciences: archaeology, ethnography, linguistics, etc. confirm world history.

4. Only facts confirmed by several independent sources are taken into account.

From the editor

Some of the main events of the real past of our civilization can be found out and viewed on the “Food of Ra” website. You need to read from the very first section...

FOREWORD BY THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK

Biography

Books

Author's preface to the Ukrainian edition

Read also