Union [Theme] Page 2

I am not saying that families are disappearing, I am saying that the role and significance of marriage has radically changed. In developed countries with a high level of income of the population, the family has finally lost its main and only function - a means of survival, and now it is only a spiritual union of a man and a woman, based on nothing but mutual sympathy. This is not a family in the classical sense, where you “pledge to love until the grave,” where “the wife follows her husband, no matter what happens,” where you must “honor, respect and forgive” not because you want to be with a person, but because you are a member married to him. There is nothing like this anymore. Not to love because you are married, but to be married because you love. The modern family is based on fundamentally different prerequisites ...

His grandfather was one of the repressed Cossacks, apparently, he harbored anger. Much, apparently, hammered into the head of his grandson: here it is necessary to destroy the Soviet Union, to destroy it.

Though the vow was not uttered.

Stalin, as a person who spoke from a state position, understood that a country like Russia could not be held without a thousand-year history. What did you decide to rely on after Stalin? Khrushchev is a return to Leninism in its most refined form. An attempt to enter the greater historical Russia was completely failed. In my opinion, from that moment on, the Soviet Union was sentenced.

What is required of Russia? They let it slip out. Give back Abkhazia. Give Ossetia. Which, by the way, are independent. Leave Crimea. Leave Donbass. Respect human rights. It reminds me very much of how the Soviet Union was destroyed. Where does this lead? The task is not to stop at the modern borders of Russia, the task is to destroy Russia. Because they understand that the process of first reducing the role of the Soviet Union abroad, and then distributing the republics of the Soviet Union, they believe, has ended early. At the same time, they do not recognize the right of nations to self-determination, even to the point of secession, there is no need to ask them about Kosovo, about the tragedy of Serbia, they do not understand at all what this is about. There is no need to talk to them about people's interests at all. It doesn't exist for them. If we are not talking about their people. It must be understood that they do not see that the most divided people now are the Russian people. It doesn't exist for them at all. You will see that they will soon start telling that there is no Russian people.

And the second point I would like to say. It would be extremely dangerous in this situation, especially considering that, unfortunately, geopolitical hooligans - marginalized, like Poland and the Baltic limitrophes, and Romania, by the way, have acquired too much influence on Western institutions, to try to go on the defensive. This is how the Soviet Union was lost. When, in the mid-80s, we started leaving everywhere. Of course, we need to create opportunities for pressure on their interests, safe for ourselves, but sensitive for the West. Without bringing it to the level of a conventional war, but not excluding the support of those forces that oppose American domination.

Many in our elite continue to live with the illusions of the 90s that someone will conquer us, someone will send a temporary administration here, and they will be taken as carriers of patrons. It will not happen. The Americans clearly understand that they will not be able to control Eurasia. They stake on randomness. And the chaos in Eurasia is an invitation from China. China will be forced to intervene for security reasons.

We must tell the truth, the Soviet people won, equipped with the ideology in which they believed. Let me remind you that during the First World War, Turkestan refused to fight for the Russian Empire. In the Second World War, these same Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz fought to death. Second point. The Second World War, as time goes on, presents an increasingly complex picture. This war consists of a series of wars. Unlike the First World War, which all took place on the territory of Europe. These wars were different in substance. There was a war between Japan and China. There was a Japanese war against America and Great Britain. And it was a colonial, imperialist war. There was a war that was called strange, which turned into a war in which not only France was defeated. This war was attended by France, Great Britain, Belgium, which had an army of 500 thousand people, Holland. These countries lost the war in 40 days. This war was for domination in Europe. Hitler created the European Union, an empire. An empire is always created by blood. Hitler created the third Reich. And this enormous force fell upon the Soviet Union. And at that moment they were immeasurably stronger.

If we mentally translate the word democracy into another phrase, namely, a package of measures to destroy the state, then we will immediately call a spade a spade, and everything will become clear to us. They didn't build democracy in the '90s. And there was no such goal. The goal was to destroy the Soviet Union.

The main thing is one thing. The Soviet Union was the only power, the hypostasis of the Russian Empire, which was in second place in terms of economy. And on a full scale, it was a superpower. But every time Russia, hated by the West, does not have the second place in the world, but has the 7th, the Crimean scenario arises. In which any association of Western countries and any powerful coalition causes Russia a lot of problems. Of course, nuclear weapons dramatically alleviate the situation, but they are no less ... Hence, the question is that the great achievement of Bolshevism was that at the cost of this very democracy, i.e., chatter, it managed to bring the country from 7th place to second. And win the war.

- His Serene Highness the Bishop of L'Aquila.

10. Fall in love, and only then will you receive the right to ruthlessness.

Marriage is truly an outlandish concept. Perhaps there are not enough magazines on the whole planet for me to understand it. The psychiatrist explained. I'm even more confused. Marriage is a "love union" meaning that two people who love each other stay together forever. But, in my opinion, this suggests that love is a rather weak connecting factor and it needs to be strengthened by marriage. In addition, the union can be broken with the help of the so-called divorce, from which it follows - as far as I can tell - that from a logical point of view there is no sense in marriage. More like self-deception.

When they begin to shout: "Stop feeding the Caucasus," wait, tomorrow the call will inevitably follow: "Stop feeding Siberia, the Far East, the Urals, the Volga region, the Moscow region." It was according to such recipes that those who led to the collapse of the Soviet Union acted.