Book: The people's monarchy

Reaction and revolution are essentially the same: the one and the other thrown back, sometimes completely discarded, as finally threw the French people of the French revolution. And the reaction, and revolution is, first of all, violence directed against organic growth. It is quite natural that methods of violence remain the same: the Transfiguration of the order and of the OGPU, possessional peasants and the concentration camps, those thieves, whom Peter had ordered to gather more to be oarsmen for the galleys, and the Soviet law on August 8, 1931, verbovka slaves to the concentration of construction projects; atheists of comrade Yaroslavsky, and septenary Synod Peter Ladoga canal Peter (the only finished out of six launched) and the white sea-Baltic canal by Stalin, the Stalinist hlebservice, and 126 Peter's regiments, the table of ranks of Peter the owner and party of Stalin, - hunger, poverty, tyranny and robbery from top to bottom. The same, according to Marx, "unbreakable" Russia - "invincible" with Peter and under Stalin that the monstrous victims of mediocrity pays genius and cowardice of leaders.

Solovyov - kit our historiography, which blamed all the other historians, compared Petrovsky fracture "storm, cleaning the air", a musty, de, the atmosphere of Moscow Russia was replaced by a refreshing air of St. Petersburg. Refreshment? This Osterman and Biron, Munnich and singed - refreshing? The regicide, are replaced by usurpation, and usurpation is replaced by the regicides, is also "refreshing"? Refreshment is complete enslavement of the peasant masses and converting it into two-legged cattle? Refreshment is the transformation of the service layer of the soldiers in the parasitic caste of slave owners? Solovyov writes: "Conversion successful made Patrami Great, but the trouble is, if they accepted the Second Alexandra"... But why the trouble? The result of Peter's "transformations" the vast majority of the population was deprived of all human rights. The reform of Alexander II it is these rights are still received. After Peter, Russia experienced nearly a century a public house. After Alexander the Second we experienced its Golden age in culture and the economy. So why the trouble? The answer to this question you will not find any Pushkin or Tolstoy, nor Solovyov, and it was the first people in my layer.

All Russian historiography written by nobles. I really don't want to argue that Solovyov Kliuchevskoi or deliberately distorted reality in the name consciously witnesses the caste interests. All this is made easier. Man is born in this situation. She is close to him and Mila. It is his own. <...> Could not Thick not to understand that Karataev is nonsense, how could not it seems understand, in the Pugachev rebellion that's that, and the meaning was all the same; the meaning of this was forced to admit and Klyuchevsky, Tikhomirov and, even ice Rinks. But for Pushkin it was just a "meaningless rebellion." "Senseless and merciless" - and nothing more.

Now it is possible to state with absolute obviousness: when Russia had bad, even Stalin seized not for Hegel and Marx, and for the Church, for Holy Russia, and even the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky. So they were taken.

Orthodox tolerance as Russian tolerance, occurs, it may be, simply because of the great optimism: truth takes her - and why rush it true? The future still belongs to friendship and love - why rush them with anger and hatred? We are still stronger than others - why cultivate a sense of envy? After all, our strength is the strength of the father, the creating and storing, and not the power of a robber, robbing and raping. The whole point of existence of the Russian people, the whole "gladsome Light" of Orthodoxy would have died if we at least once, the only time in our history, would be on the way to Germany and say to yourself and the world; we are a superior race - wear to the feet of our all sausage and all the beer in the world...

... every literature, especially great literature, is always a distorting mirror of life. She is interested in the conflict and only conflict. <...> If there is no conflict - that literature is, in fact, there is nothing to tell.

We passed the little noticed is the fact that the whole German concept of conquest of the East was entirely written off from the works of Russian masters of doom. The basic idea parteigenosse Alfred Rosenberg almost literally written off from the party of comrade Maxim Gorky. Dostoevsky was sucked to the bone. Gold placers of Tolstoi nepreryvnosti was designed to the last grain of sand. And then - it turned out - uniform nonsense. "Sad cockroach pilgrimage, which we call Russian history" (the wording Gorky), some strange way while that ended in Berlin and on the Elbe. "Love for suffering", opened in the Russian soul of Dostoevsky, as some are unable to get along with the regime occupying Singlerow. Karataev took the Dubya and Oblomov passed two thousand miles to the East and then nearly three thousand miles to the West.

Despite all the mistakes, falls and accidents, going through our tragic history, a people could find a way out of seemingly hopeless situations does, getting to his feet after the gravest of mistakes and defeats, properly set your goals and find the right ways to achieve them.

Russia created the kings and not the kings of Russia. For a thousand years, we were successful monarchs, and was unsuccessful, but the country grew and spread in all of them. Here is an example: while quite decent at that time the government of Alexander I of Russia coped with all of Europe in about six months. While exceptional in its mediocrity the government of Peter I, Sweden took 21 years. Absolutely without a government in the time of Troubles the poles were liquidated in approximately six years. Therefore, not denying the enormous role of the government - we must still say that this is the value of the derivative and secondary. Decides country. The government helps (Alexander I), spoils (Peter I) or nonexistent (time of Troubles), but decides not to it: the people decide. However, the people decide not as a physical mass. Not as two hundred million people - five pounds on average - a total of about a billion pounds live weight, and the sum of individuals, United not only by common history and geography, but by common known psychological traits.

Boy and girl kissing under the moonlight or no light of the moon, is not going to put the future of humanity future of the proletariat or future home future soldiers. They operate under the influence of the same instinct that compels salmon to rise to the upper reaches of the Amur river, and there to die, giving his life to the continuation of the fish kind. <...> People build a family, obeying the oldest and most powerful of instincts. But in exactly the same way, purely by instinct, people build their own state. If the person does not work, or works badly, the sexual instinct he's under no circumstances the family will not create. If the sexual instinct is in order, the family will be created even in the most improbable circumstances. <...> If the people are not acts of state instinct, then under any geographical, climatic and other conditions the people of the state not create. If people have the instinct of the state, the state will be created in defiance of geography, contrary to the climate and, if you want, even in spite of the history. Thus was created the Russian state.

From the point of view of materialism in General, and of Marxism in particular, do not understand neither the difference in the lives of individuals or the difference in the fates of individual Nations. <...> Why Muslim culture of the Arabs gave a number of prominent scientists and philosophers? Why the Ottoman Empire in the centuries of its greatest military and economic power did not give anything? Why these have failed all attempts of Germanism to build an Empire? And why Russia, for all its technological backwardness and "geographical disadvantage" built the greatest in the history of the world state? About all this we don't know anything. And the answer would be an honest answer.

In the world there are smart people and there are stupid people. Fool, once a fool, will blame everyone but himself: all are guilty, all have failed, cheated, robbed, raped. It will be a stupid reaction to a stupid situation: for all cannot be changed. But you can try to consider all and next time try a fool not to go.

The king's word was the word - balanced, thoughtful and decisive. Who will be reasonable to take seriously the press conference, at which presidents and Ministers, generals and diplomats are such nonsense that it becomes uncomfortable for humanity.

It can be argued that in a properly designed monarchic state of public opinion is infinitely more weight than usually constructed in the Republic: it is not falsified by any "dark forces". And if you take the classic example of a true classic of the monarchy of Russia, the huge role of public opinion is absolutely undeniable. The Church, the boyar Duma, Churches, territorial self-government, all-Russian congresses of cities - all this was, of course, the "public opinion", does not take that Moscow kings had no chance.