Igor Vyalov. Igor Vyalov Laplanders or Sami

Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

Fictional peoples of Russia- fictitious, officially not recognized “peoples” (fictitious self-names) of Russia.

• In the Saratov region, a citizen identified himself as a Polovtsian and demanded from Russia restitution in the form of the Polovtsian steppes or compensation for them in the form of a three-room apartment.
• In Rostov-on-Don there is a cultural and political society “Scythian National Congress”, whose members recognize themselves as Scythians and declare to recreate Great Scythia as a virtual state); the head of the society stated that “in the last 100 years this is the first census that allows the Scythians to be included.”
• In Tatarstan, census takers recorded Incas speaking the Mohican language.
• A well-known political figure, deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation V.V. Semago publicly claimed that he was a Pecheneg.
• In the FIDO ZX.SPECTRUM echo conference on September 5, 2002, all subscribers were asked to enter the nationality “Spectrumist” in their ballots.
• In Soviet times and several years later, before the introduction of passports of the Russian Federation, a joke was popular among residents of the Udmurt Republic when residents of other regions were shown a passport page indicating the nationality of its owner as confirmation of his belonging to a little-known people buzzing. Since passports issued in the autonomous republics were bilingual, there were two such pages - Russian and Udmurt. If the owner of the passport was Russian, his nationality on the Udmurt-language page was indicated in translation into the Udmurt language as “ӟuch”, which is what the joke was based on: the object of the joke did not pay attention to the fact that the text of the page, typed in small letters, was Udmurt-language, and I saw only the nationality “zuch” written in large letters by hand in Cyrillic (the Udmurt “ӟuch” is pronounced differently, but not only the object of the joke, but usually the jokers themselves did not know the correct pronunciation, since the Udmurt language in the Udmurt Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was almost unknown to non-Udmurts).

Fictional peoples in other countries

see also

Write a review about the article "Fictional peoples in Russia"

Notes

Links

• lenta.ru/articles/2003/11/03/census/
• news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/press/newsid_2334000/2334545.stm
• riw.ru/russia4165.html
• www.newsru.com/russia/15oct2002/polovets.html
• demoscope.ru/weekly/2002/083/perepis03.php
• demoscope.ru/weekly/2002/085/perepis07.php

An excerpt characterizing fictional peoples in Russia

They say there are no bad nations, only bad people. This is politically correct, but hardly true. We claim that every nation has its own character, we call this its mentality. And this is not an unfounded statement. You cannot confuse a German with a Chinese, not only because of their skin color and eye shape. After all, it is also difficult to confuse an Englishman with a Frenchman or a Spaniard with an Italian. Today, when people talk about the people, they most often mean the political nation (citizens of the state). And, although the term people has other meanings, we will also use it in the sense of a political nation.

But if every nation has its own character, then someone’s character may turn out to be bad. It should even turn out to be. Because all people are brothers. Genetics have proven that all modern humanity descended from one forefather and one forefather. This means that all nations are brothers. But not all people are good, there are also bad ones. It is reasonable to assume that if people, each with their own character and connected by a common origin, are divided into good and bad, then the peoples consisting of these people, each with their own character and connected by a common origin, should also be not only good, but also bad.

In the same way, it would be reasonable to assume that the character of a people, like the character of a person, is formed during childhood, when the personality is formed (the personality of a person or the personality of a people). This means that the conditions for the formation of personality, which often determine how a person will grow up, determine what kind of people will be.

Let's check.

Modern nations are formed in approximately the same way. They incorporate into their composition not only closely related tribes and individuals, but also completely different ethnic inclusions, which, by the will of fate, turned out to be permanently residing in the territory that a given people considers theirs.

The experiment on the formation of the people of the United States is distinguished by its absolute purity. People from different European states (not being a single people) arrived to the area populated by Indian tribes (who had not yet merged into a single people or peoples). After about 250 years, after the beginning of the colonization of North America, the people of the United States entered the arena of history.

What immediately catches your eye?

The number of Indians among the American people is vanishingly small. They were mostly physically destroyed by white colonists, and partly settled on reservations, which makes it difficult for them to mix with the descendants of the colonists and actually excludes the Indian community from the people of the United States. Only a few Indians were incorporated into the people. That is, people from traditional societies, which were Indian tribes, turned out to be not complementary to emigrants from Europe and their descendants. But why? After all, emigrants ultimately also come from traditional societies.

No. Immigrants to the United States are not people from traditional societies, but outcasts from those societies. Latin America was purposefully populated by the Spanish and Portuguese governments, which recruited colonists from different walks of life (nobles, warriors, peasants, urban plebs, merchants). Everyone went overseas to get theirs. Someone planned to earn money and return, someone to live a new life in a new land, but no one was going to break with the society of their homeland. And in Latin America there was, albeit not a painless, mixing of Indians (by the way, in these places they had already created civilization and statehood, that is, they began to take shape into political nations before the arrival of the Europeans) and emigrants, which created new political nations, new peoples.

Criminals, representatives of persecuted religious groups, people dissatisfied with their place in European society and society itself and dreaming of creating new relationships for themselves fled to North America. Even from the second half of the 20th century to this day, when people began to emigrate to the United States for a higher quality of life, emigrants abandoned their former people, their homeland, and their traditions. They betrayed the soul, exchanging it for material wealth. The people of the United States were made up of egoists and antisocial elements who opposed themselves to the society of their homeland and wanted to create a new society for themselves.

Therefore, the colonists were not able to coexist with the Indians - they had just rejected the values ​​​​of traditional society, which the Indians defended as the basis of their lives. And in today’s USA, atomization prevails (with external regulation). And today Americans hate traditional societies and seek to destroy them. Without hiding this hatred, but trying to find some rational explanation for it, they declare traditional societies an obstacle to progress. And in today's United States the primacy of material success over spiritual perfection is affirmed. And the price of material success for an American cannot be too high, and the means of achieving it are always justified by the goal - any are available.

Having formatted North America for themselves, the American people began to format the rest of the world for themselves. In order to understand what fate awaits other (non-American) peoples, it is enough to recall the fate of the Indians, 99% destroyed and 1% driven into reservations. The proportion will be approximately the same.

But we also have a closer example of the creation of political nations. Moreover, this is an example demonstrating that diametrically opposite results can be obtained not just from the same root, but from the same people.

Russia is full of people who had the entry Ukrainian in their Soviet passports, but who consider themselves Russian. Similarly, in Ukraine, many Russian people consider themselves Ukrainians. The Russian people were formed by including all the peoples in the space occupied by the Russian state. And to this day, whether we are talking about traditional Russians or politically correctly calling them Russians, we mean that the Georgian Stalin was Russian and the leader of the Russian state (then called the USSR) without ceasing to be a Georgian. And the German Catherine became the great Russian empress, without ceasing to be German. And Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu is Russian and the Minister of Defense of Russia, but at the same time he is Tuvan. And Russia has been standing on this opportunity to become Russian, while remaining itself, for centuries and is winning with it.

Russia does not eliminate the redundant (Indians), but incorporates them, changing and enriching itself with new traditions, skills, knowledge, and historical experience. That’s why Russians find a way out of the most hopeless situations, because they have the thousand-year-old wisdom of hundreds of nations behind them.

They are trying to create a political nation next to Russia in Ukraine. And it seems to be on the same grounds - the incorporation into this nation of all ethnic groups living within the Ukrainian borders. There is only one difference - the requirement that is put forward to Russians living in Ukraine, in order to become Ukrainian, “kill the Russian in yourself.” That is, if Russian identity is built on the basis of absorbing something foreign and turning it into one’s own, then Ukrainian identity is built on the basis of destroying even closely related things, perceived as alien and dangerous.

And don’t think that if the Ukrainian project survives, after “kill the Russian in you”, “kill the Hungarian in you”, “kill the Jew, Greek, Armenian in you” will not follow.

Each national-state project carries some kind of idea that one would not mind making global. The Chinese project, the American project, the Russian project and even, no matter how funny it sounds, the Ukrainian project are projects for the whole world. The Ukrainian project is dying in its cradle. The American one is still successful. They are different, these projects, but they have one common generic feature. They are based on "kill the other". Such projects do not survive. In the end, within their framework, those doomed to destruction turn out to be several orders of magnitude greater than those who are promised prosperity. The main thing is that having started with the thesis kill, they can no longer stop and continue to kill even when there are no others left. The snake begins to eat itself.

And that is why the Russian project was revived under the most unfavorable conditions, in the most critical situations. Its reserves are inexhaustible. The potential reserve of the Russian project is all of humanity. Anyone can become Russian without losing their other identity.

This, in fact, distinguishes good nations (creative nations) from bad ones (killer and robber nations).

Rostislav Ishchenko

If you carefully watched the video, you may be interested in specific examples of erasing history. We won’t go far, let’s take the closest example, traces of which can still be found: the Republic of Tatarstan, the Tatars.

The history of the Mongol-Tatar yoke was created in order to prove that the ancient Slavs were wild tribes, barbarians, and the management of foreigners was a good thing, bringing prosperity and culture to the barbarians. One problem - where did these hordes of Mongol-Tatars go? They couldn’t have been slave owners of the ancient Rus, being located thousands of kilometers from the territory where the Rus settled.

In Soviet school (I don’t know how it is now) they explained to us: they settled along the Volga, assimilated, these are the Tatars of the Autonomous Republic of Tatarstan...
The problem is that even at the time of the Jewish-Bolshevik coup, the Tatars did not exist, either in Tatarstan or in Crimea. Or rather, they were people, but they identified themselves differently. “Worse than a Tatar” is just worse than a Gentile.
The Tatars and Bashkirs of Tatarstan and Bashkiria are Slavs: Bulgars (Bulgars), Crimean Tatars - Turkic tribes, on the basis of which a new nationality was formed - the Turks.
Some historians agreed with this statement, but believe that the settlement of these tribes went south, towards the Balkans. I think it’s exactly the opposite, otherwise you can get to the Etruscans. This is what explains the adoption of Islam and some genetic dilution among the Turkic peoples.

The entire policy of “indigenization” by the Jewish Bolsheviks was aimed at splitting the Slavic people, with the justification of “Great Russian chauvinism.” Suffice it to say that the term itself appeared at the end of the 19th century in a “revolutionary” environment in opposition to internationalism (globalism), but it began to be widely used only at the instigation of Lenin (Blank).

Lenin (Blank, Jew) proclaimed the slogan: “Fight against great-power chauvinism!” Zinoviev (Evsei Aronovich Radomyslsky, a Jew) called for “cutting off the head of our Russian chauvinism”, “burning with a hot iron wherever there is even a hint of great-power chauvinism...”.

Bukharin (Moisha Dolgolevsky, Jew) at the XII Congress of the RCP(b) explained to his compatriots: “ We as a former great power nation<…>must put themselves at a disadvantage<…>Only with such a policy, when we artificially place ourselves in a position lower than others, only at this price will we be able to buy the trust of previously oppressed nations».

Great power was especially felt during the creation of national local government bodies. People's Commissar of Agriculture Yakovlev (Yakov Arkadyevich Epshtein, Jew) complained that “ vile great-power Russian chauvinism penetrates through the apparatus».
In all the speeches of Stalin (Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, a Mountain Jew) on the national question at the party congresses from the 10th to the 16th, it was declared the main danger to the state. Stalin declared: " A decisive struggle against the remnants of Great Russian chauvinism is the first immediate task of our party.»

You don’t even have to say: “A Jew is not a Jew,” another thing is that Great Russian chauvinism was “erased out” by leaders who were not Russians, even though they spoke like Bukharin.” We, as a former great power nation..."

Therefore, even the struggle of the Bulgars, for their right to be called not Tatars, but to remember their Slavic roots, takes on the shade of a struggle against Great Russian chauvinism!!! What kind of chauvinism can there be in the relations of a ONE people, divided, “indigenized” by the Judeo-Bolsheviks, so that we forget who we really are. We are still disentangling the result of their labors and whether it will be possible to unite again, unless only on the awareness of the true UNITED history.

The President of the Bulgarian National Congress G. Khalil (Tatarstan) wrote in 2000: We are Bulgarians.

"We were taught that the great Lenin returned statehood to the Tatars: he created the Tatar Republic for them. My heart was filled with a feeling of gratitude to Lenin, the defender of oppressed peoples. Everything was simple and clear. It is so clear that no one could even think that this was a shameless lie. I didn't think so either. But one day my grandfather told me: “Son, we are not Tatars.”

At the time of the creation of the Tatar Republic, there were no people calling themselves Tatar on the lands of the Kazan province. This is evidenced by the academic work “History of Kazan” (Kazan, 1988): “The inhabitants of Kazan and its region themselves, right up to the October Revolution, did not stop calling themselves Bulgars.”

There was a tradition of Russian rulers to call all Muslim peoples of Russia Tatars. However, none of these peoples called themselves Tatars. The great Russian historian Karamzin N.M. wrote in the 19th century: “None of the current Tatar peoples call themselves Tatars, but each is called by the special name of their land.” ("History of the Russian State", St. Petersburg, 1818, vol. 3, p. 172). It is clear that this was a common nickname for Muslims during the “prison of nations”, as, for example, we remember, the name “Soviet people” was the common name of all the peoples of the USSR.

Why did Lenin call our republic Tatar, without legal grounds?

When the opportunity arose for the peoples of Russia to create their own national-state formations, they all named them after their indigenous population. For example: Belarusian Republic, Chuvash Republic, etc. Naturally, the Bulgarians wanted to create a Bulgarian Republic. This is precisely what the “Council of Volga Bulgarian Muslims” advocated, representing the national liberation movement of the Bulgarian people in 1862-1923 under the leadership of the glorious Vaisov dynasty (Vaisov movement).

M. Vakhitov, the head of the “Muslim Socialist Committee” (here we see that even the Bolsheviks called the Volga Bulgarians Muslims, not Tatars), was also inclined to create a Bulgarian Soviet Republic. However, among the Bulgarian people a part of the intelligentsia formed who felt that it was necessary, in spite of the Russians, to be called Tatars. At the same time, they acted treacherously towards their native people, but believed that in return they were giving them the greatness of Genghis Khan, which supposedly automatically overshadows them as soon as they call themselves Tatars. For example, one of them, the proletarian writer G. Ibragimov (one of the new avenues in Kazan is named after him) wrote: “We are not only Turks, but also Mongols. We are people; we are Mongols; we are Turks; we are Tatars. Our emerging culture will Tatar culture." These words reveal the dull malice of Tatarism and ignorance of historical Truth in favor of its manic ambitions. And at the same time, indisputable evidence of the fact that at the beginning of the twentieth century there were no Tatar people yet. It was only generated artificially, as in a test tube.

And this despite the fact that the actual state of affairs with the nickname Tatar was such that the people did not accept it and considered it a dirty word. Ibragimov G. himself testifies to this, saying that if you call one of the Muslims a Tatar, he rushes at you with his fists, saying: why are you insulting me?

What a scoundrel you have to be to then impose on your native people the hated nickname of Tatars!

Ibragimov G., Sultangaleev M. (the square near the NCC is named after him) and several other similar traitors, at Stalin’s orders, organized a letter on behalf of the communists of the Kazan province with a request to name the republic Tatar. The rest was a matter of technique: ensuring the satisfaction of this request was not difficult for Stalin.

The rumor about the Bolsheviks’ desire to form a republic called “Tatar” on the lands of Volga Bulgaria aroused the indignation of the people. The peasants raised a big uprising in February 1920 in order to prevent the soul of the people from being desecrated by the godless nickname of the Tatars. The uprising quickly gained strength under the slogan of the revival of the Bulgarian state and soon covered Menzelinsky, Ufa, Belebeevsky, Birsky, Chistopol and Bugulma districts, and the number of rebels reached 40 thousand people. The “Fork Uprising” raged for about two months, but in March 1920 it was brutally suppressed by units of the Red Army, who did not even stop at shelling villages. Then, in order to finally pacify the Bulgarians, to finally suppress the will of the people, the Bolsheviks organized a severe famine in 1921, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of people again died.

The universal human practice is such that the name of the people determines the name of the state entity. Here the opposite happened: they called the republic Tatar in order to impose the nickname Tatars on the Bulgarians.

This cannot be a mistake due to ignorance; Lenin knew that we were Bulgarians. This means that this is a deliberate, malicious act. What evil intent did the Bolsheviks have in artificially creating a Tatar republic?
Today it is no secret that the Bolsheviks were the successors of the worst traditions of imperial policy on the national question, namely: Great Russian chauvinism. Its properties, such as feelings of hostility and anger of a person towards a person on a national basis, were fertile ground for the formation of class hatred in a person. All that remained was to preserve and deepen them. For this purpose, peoples were divided into good and bad, older and younger. In order to historically justify this policy, the history of all the peoples of Russia was distorted. First of all, the history of the Russian and Bulgarian peoples. The Bolsheviks needed the second-class Tatar people as a historical scarecrow, to whip up a psychosis of hostility and hatred among the people, and the Tatarists also needed the Tatar people, but only as a first-class, the greatest, who could revive the Golden Horde and put the Russians in their place. To achieve these “great” goals, it was also necessary to cultivate mutual anger and hostility between the two largest peoples of Russia. Therefore, the interests of the Bolsheviks and Tatars coincided, and therefore the Bolsheviks, using their power, supported the Tatars and created the Tatar people.

Universal wisdom calls on everyone to “know the Truth” and “love your neighbor,” but the RCP(b) did the opposite: it materialized lies in the form of the TASSR and created the Tatar people from the Bulgarians, as the living embodiment of the “historical image of the enemy.” In a word, she created an artificial source of hatred and anger between people.

The political calculations of the communist government of Russia also included the intention to divide the Bulgarian people into its component parts and remove from the agenda the issue of creating a large Bulgarian republic. As a result of the implementation of Stalin's plan to create the Bashkir and Tatar Soviet republics, the Volga-Bulgarian people were divided into two parts.

It is obvious that the Bolsheviks called the republic Tatar to please their anti-human political calculations, in the name of the eternal triumph of evil and violence.

Taking into account the will of the people under the dictatorship of the Communist Party was out of the question. The name of the republic was determined against the will of the people, by a crude decree from above.

After the formation of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, all Bulgarians were officially called “Tatars”, Bulgarian culture - “Tatar culture”, and the Bulgarian language - “Tatar language”.

But even in conditions of brutal repression, the Bulgarians continued to call themselves Bulgarians. For example, the famous Russian historian M.G. Khudyakov. in 1922 he testified: “The mass of modern Kazan Muslims even now do not consider themselves Tatars, but call themselves Bulgarians.” / M. Khudyakov, Muslim culture in the Middle Volga region. Kazan, 1922.” p.15./.

Even in the USSR population census in 1926, about 1.5 million people called themselves Bulgarians.

There have been many attempts to revive the Truth. I'll just say one thing.

In April 1946, a scientific session at the USSR Academy of Sciences was held in Moscow, dedicated to the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Kazan Tatars. Outstanding scientists-historians, archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists and other specialists took part in its work, including such well-known ones as Tikhomirov M.N., Grekov B.D., Dmitriev N.K., Yakubovsky A.Yu. One of the main speakers is the historian and archaeologist Smirnov A.P., who devoted his entire life to the study of Volga Bulgaria, touching on the ethnic self-awareness of the people, he emphasized that the “Tatars” from time immemorial have called themselves Bulgarians." The outstanding Turkologist Yakubovsky A.Yu. noted that " the population of the Tatar Republic, occupying the territory of the former Bulgarian state, did not leave here, was not exterminated by anyone and lives to this day"; "we can indeed say with confidence that the ethnic composition of the Tatars or the Tatar Autonomous Republic is made up of ancient Bulgarians...” The main conclusion of the scientific forum stated by Academician B.D. Grekov: modern Tatars, by their origin, have nothing to do with the Mongols, the Tatars are direct descendants of the Bulgarians, the ethnonym Tatars in relation to them is a historical mistake.

Many people remember that we are Bulgarians, not Tatars. As academician A.G. Karimullin writes in the book “Tatars: Ethnicity and Ethnonym”, he “always looked for contacts with people of the older generation and became convinced that in their memory the origin of modern Tatars is associated with the Bulgars - Turks and these people speak with resentment about the discrepancy between the name of a people and its origin.”

And today people remember their real name and want it back. This is confirmed by official confessions. For example, the magazine “Izvestia of the CPSU Central Committee” (No. 10, 1989) published a list of requests regularly repeated in the mail of the CPSU Central Committee on issues of interethnic relations, where we read: “In many letters from different regions of the country, the Kazan Tatars ask to be called “Bulgarians” or "Bulgars".
This is the irony of history: the CPSU, the communists, almost 70 years later, unwittingly admitted that in 1920 they committed a crime against the Volga Bulgarians, forcibly imposing on them the nickname Tatars as a self-name."

Conclusions:

What the Judeo-Bolsheviks achieved with their policy of creating “Tatars”:

1. They cultivated hatred towards those who remained Russian through the introduction of the concept of “Great Russian chauvinism”, because non-Russian government was perceived as Russian, because Moscow, since in Moscow, it means the Russian Tsar (I think that’s why Lenin moved the capital to Moscow).
Reshaping the self-identification of peoples (including the Ukrainization and Belarusianization of the population) is perceived as the action of the “damned Muscovites.”

2. They “found” confirmation of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, in the form of the descendants of the “conquerors,” appointing them as the Bulgars. They substantiated the slave roots of the Russians, and therefore the need for strict management, incl. and foreigners.

4. They split the united Russian field.

5. They justified the content of the “Workers’ International”, including to their own detriment (see the entire history of the USSR), imposing a feeling of guilt for Great Russian chauvinism....

6. Moreover, they went on to justify that there are no Russians at all, and never existed....they were invented by Stalin!!! This is something that went completely from the ass to the head.

“Harvard historian David Brandenberger argues that the Russian people were invented by Stalin. Mass secondary education, literacy and a systematic cultural policy regarding the past appeared in Russia only in the 30s of the 20th century. The historical narrative presented to the people at this moment was completely controlled by the chief scientist. As a result, who the Russians were and why they lived in the world, the overwhelming majority of the population of the USSR learned from Soviet history textbooks and the film “Alexander Nevsky”. In short, to be Russian today means to be a Stalinist.”.

How can one not remember the slogans that have appeared recently: To be a patriot means to be a Stalinist.... To whom and why to split Russian society, try to guess for yourself....

I’m sure you’ll continue the list of goodies yourself.

In order to prove that the Russians are a second-class nation, I will need a roll of garbage bags. Like this:

As you can see, it does not tear through the holes. A year ago they were better - they had a blast.

Let's figure it out. The film is cut through two interlocking parts. The principle of perforation is used very widely. Tin can key, roll-up cap, pop-off lids and stoppers, etc. In any case, there will be two parts that cut the material:

These two edge parts have the highest hardness and precision. They must pick up millions of pieces of products. And they will be dumb. The hardened edge is called a "press edge". It is difficult to make, you have to heat it with HDTV, and for this you need to make a fantastic inductor that follows the contour, nitriding, etc... The most complex cuttings are produced by Germany, Switzerland and Japan.

If the edging is long and folded, the price of the molds is therefore five times higher than the price of the installation itself. The packaging may be more expensive than the contents.

And it will still get dull. We'll have to change it. But if we change the shape not after 2 million products, but after 6, we will reduce the price of the product by half or three times.

Got it? The lid does not fold, the tongue does not come off - they are making money on you. The 6th million has arrived.

Our Duma does not know about the press cant. When he finds out, he will pass a law on “ultimate blunting.” Without the law, the Russians will make 6.8 million. Without blinking an eye. When will he accept? When some dad can’t open a bottle of “mole”, he will cut off the child protection, like all Russian dads. A two year old will open it and drink. He was burned through, dad hanged himself, mom was in a madhouse. Then they will accept it.

But in the West there is no law. And the bag tears through the holes. The lid comes off. Two million - changed forms.

You don’t understand why we have such frequent disasters? If you don't tell the Russians, they will go out into the Volga with their portholes open, drawing water. If a cow falls into a tank of potassium cyanide, it will be made into sausage. If the permissible content of potassium cyanide is not specified in the standards, they will do it.

Let's imagine two organisms. One is ordinary. The other one is like he has everything “over his head.” He must remember to inhale and exhale. Push blood through the veins. He must remember how to move his feet.

These are Russians.

This organism is second-rate. Doomed.

As I board the tram, I hear “To avoid possible injury, please hold on to the handrails.” Thank you, but I thought the handrails were for drying clothes. There should be a sign in front of the stairs that reads: “Remember to alternately lift your legs onto the steps.” Not ordered? Let's come up and don't lift our leg. Bam - nose. Let it be worse for them.

Why are bureaucrats swelling? Is there half the country in Moscow? There are no nerve fibers, the “body” that is controlled is mysterious. Whether Russia exists at all is unclear inside the Ring. Her head was fantastically swollen - she could do everything just by imagining what was there and how to walk with it.

Here, "Krymnash". Well, he gave me thousands of marked rubles. It is allowed for vodka, for sausage, for democracy - or for Crimea. How many rubles will be in Crimea in 2013? Say?

This is 100% miasm of the Kremlin. One man. Not a single dog remembered “whose Crimea” it was.

The horror is that all Russians are like this. Every single one. When Navalny says “I won’t give it up,” I’m shocked. “I’ll give it up”, not “I’ll give it up”? Shut up, Lyosha! Don't replace the people with yourself. The people want to die of hunger, but provide for Crimea. The people want dachas and Cyprus means without Crimea. Yurochka, Shender, when you say “democracy must be fostered among the people,” I would like to ask “how”? Should I put it in a corner or with a belt? This people is a thousand years old. He doesn't need democracy, so go through the woods. You, Yur, are the people who need to be educated so that you don’t give priceless instructions to the people.

Nobody asked what he needed. I don't have the slightest idea. What I want myself, the authorities have no idea and did not intend to. We just have to shout our thoughts into our ears. Everyone is yelling. Dugin screams his paranoia into Putin’s ear. Girkin - his. Paranoids are the most powerful weapon. Girkin came running, thinking he was starting a holy war. But this is his personal miasma, internal to the head - who needs a war in 2014? Contact with reality is a break in the pattern. And Dugin is from Saturn.

Who did Putin's angry speeches fall on? To the most harmless US President of the 44! The miasma in the Kremlin gives rise to a miasma in which the picture of the world has nothing in common with reality, and even Obama grows fur and teeth! Listening to what he said, is saying and will say is as pointless as listening to the babble of a cocaine addict. The Kremlin’s organs that perceive reality have atrophied. As unnecessary. He lives in his fantasies.

I affirmed, I affirm, and I will affirm that not a single Russian, including me , does not know how to manage. In management, the main thing is not the genius of the leader, but the quality of feedback. You can sell a hundred brilliant designers just to know exactly what consumers want.

No feedback? This is your ancient second-rate nation. Why it hasn’t become extinct yet, the devil only knows.

This post is not about democracy. An ancient pharaoh can look for what the people need, and a democratic chancellor will instill in him deadly Nietzscheanism..

“Change Putin...” They will announce on the box who is next - and everyone, spraying saliva, will rush to discuss. What luck we had. Or misfortune.

You know, this doesn't suit me.

When he shoots himself and the Duma collectively takes poison, it will mean that the Russians are reinstalling the system. They change their 286th Windows, which is no longer used anywhere. That they are tired of being a second-class nation. And to die out - the only one on the planet.