Stalin - Blog Posts
Idk why this comment was so funny to me
1945: The village of Uskut, Crimea after Stalin's deportation of the entire native population of the Crimean Tatars from the 18th-20th of May 1944.
russian colonisers had yet to move into the houses.
With The Blood of The Martyrs Our Flag is Red
Собачье сердце и верное перо М. Булгакова, на службе у товарища И. Сталина.
The “dog’s” heart and pen of M. Bulgakov in the service of Comrade Stalin.
Посмотрела недавно"Собачье сердце" Альберто Латтуады. Задумалась. Саму книгу читала давно. Принято считать, что Булгаков высмеивает советского человека. Критикует советский строй. Но я лично прониклась к Шарикову большой симпатией. Как филолог могу заявить. Если Вы хотите понять что действительно хотел сказать автор, и какую мысль он зашифровал в своей книге, почитайте критику и хрестоматию. Все что там написано - кристаллическая ложь. И диаметральная противоположность тому, что вложено в произведение на самом деле. Это и с фильмами работает. То есть - хочешь понять вложенный посыл, читаешь критику и принимаешь противоположное ей мнение. Я уже писала о том, что вся литература, как и "важнейшее из искусств" это обман и манипуляция сознанием масс. Это всегда - попытка вложить в головы людей - люцефирианскую философию успешности. При чем так было и сто, и двести лет назад. Вы даже не представляете, какими схемами манипуляций владеет, управляющая нами власть. Но вернемся к Булгакову. Михаил Афанасьевич испытывал огромное уважение и пиетет к личности Сталина. Между ними даже как-то состоялся телефонный разговор. "Вождь" САМ звонил Мастеру. А некоторые его пьесы посещал по несколько раз. Булгаков хорошо ставился. И ни разу не был арестован. Хотя прости господи "критики" и находят в его произведениях, антисоветчину. Но "критики" находят. А Сталин и НКВД нет. Кому верить? Ужели чекисты себе враги? Ну, конечно же, нет. Итак, Булгаков с большим интересом и уважением относился к личности Сталина, раз. Отцом писателя был не просто священник, а известнейший философ-богослов. И человеком МА был воцерковлённым, два. А теперь посмотрим на профессора Преображенского. Он занимается довольно отвратительной с точки зрения морали деятельностью. Возвращает потенцию, пожилым развратникам обоего пола. Что довольно таки - фу. Ну, и, в конце концов, совершает совсем уж кощунственное деяние, а именно превращает собаку в человека. С точки зрения православной церкви - это апофеоз греха. За которым должно следовать немедленное отлучение. Сам Профессор ведет себя довольно резко. Не проявляя к своему творению ни малейших чувств, даже не пытаясь заниматься его воспитанием, он требует от бывшей собаки абсолютной человечности. Что довольно жестоко. Одним словом читатель на бессознательном уровне полностью принимает сторону Шарикова. И при этом даже не отдает себе в этом отчет. Сознательно мы вроде бы его критикуем. Но внутри... И таким образом Булгаков снимает с нас критическое восприятие с некоторых представителей советского строя. С того человека которого формировала эта система. Вызывая в нас большую лояльность и к социализму, и к Сталину, и к таким вот "Шариковым". На уровне сознания мы, как бы, против. Внешне нам говорят, мол, Шариков это ата та!! А внутри в обход критическому мышлению, мы полностью за. Мог ли быть Сталин против такого писателя? Конечно же, нет! Что думаете? Верите хрестоматиям?
Iss recently watched “Heart of a Dog” by Alberto Lattuada. I thought about it. I read the book itself a long time ago. It is generally accepted that Bulgakov ridicules the Soviet man. Criticizes the Soviet system. But I personally developed a great sympathy for Sharikov. As a philologist I can say this. If you want to understand what the author really wanted to say and what thought he encoded in his book, read criticism and anthology. Everything that is written there is a crystalline lie. And the diametric opposite of what is actually put into the work. This works with films too. That is, if you want to understand the underlying message, you read the criticism and accept the opposite opinion. I have already written that all literature, like “the most important of the arts,” is deception and manipulation of the consciousness of the masses. This is always an attempt to put the Lucefirian philosophy of success into people's heads. Moreover, this was the case a hundred and two hundred years ago. You can’t even imagine what kind of manipulation schemes the government that controls us has. But let's return to Bulgakov. Mikhail Afanasyevich had great respect and reverence for Stalin’s personality. There was even a telephone conversation between them. Stalin attended some of Bulgakov's plays several times. Bulgakov was often staged. And he was never arrested. But “critics” find anti-Sovietism in his works. But the “critics” find it. But Stalin and the NKVD do not. Who to believe? Are the security officers really their own enemies? Well, of course not. So, Bulgakov treated Stalin’s personality with great interest and respect. The writer’s father was not just a priest, but a famous philosopher-theologian. Now let's look at Professor Preobrazhensky. He is engaged in some rather morally repugnant activities. Returns potency to elderly libertines of both sexes. And he even commits a completely blasphemous act, namely, he turns a dog into a human. From the point of view of the Orthodox Church, this is the apotheosis of sin. Which should be followed by immediate excommunication. The Professor himself behaves quite harshly. Without showing the slightest feelings for his creation, without even trying to educate him, he demands absolute humanity from the former dog. Which is pretty cruel. The reader, on an unconscious level, completely takes Sharikov’s side. And at the same time he doesn’t even realize it. Consciously, we seem to criticize him. But inside… And thus Bulgakov removes our critical perception of some representatives of the Soviet system. Arousing in us great loyalty to socialism, and to Stalin, and to such “Sharikovs”. At the level of consciousness, we are, as it were, against it. Outwardly they tell us that Sharikov is terrible!! And internally, bypassing critical thinking, we are all for it. Could Stalin be against such a writer? Of course not! What do you think??
Stalin in Ottoman Anatolia: his Spiritual, Religious and Historical Quests
The Mithraic Trajectory of an Unknown Transcendentalist
Сталин в Османской Анатолии: его духовные, религиозные и исторические искания
Митраистская траектория неизвестного трансценденталиста
Table of Contents
I. The erroneous perception of Stalin among most people today
II. The erroneous perception of WW II by average people today
III. The true Yalta Conference
IV. The Big Game never ended
V. Good intentions and evil purposes
VI. Roosevelt & Stalin: like Abraham Lincoln & Alexander II
VII. The real, hidden Stalin: an experienced mystic
VIII. A Turkish ambassador speaks about Stalin living in Artvin and Istanbul
IX. Stalin in Ottoman Anatolia: 1911-1912
X. Turkish statesman Rıza Nur noted that Stalin understood Turkish
XI. Stalin's cultural background: distorted & unknown to most
XII. The Mithraic Iranian cultural heritage of Georgia & Stalin
XIII. The long, heavy shadow of the Sassanids
XIV. An indelible stamp on Islam: the Iranian Intermezzo
XV. The intertwined Islamic & Christian cultural heritage of Georgia, and Shota Rustaveli
XVI. Rustaveli's Russian translations and Stalin's pseudonyms
XVII. Archaeological excavations and Orientalist discoveries prior to Stalin's sojourn in Anatolia
XVIII. Stalin's textual sources of information about Mithra and the Mithraic mysteries
XIX. Spirituality, Religion, Eschatology, Soteriology, the Extinction of the Mankind, and Stalin
XX. Major themes of Stalin's spiritual quest in Anatolia – 1. Tauroctony and Crucifixion
XXI. Major themes of Stalin's spiritual quest in Anatolia – 2. Mithraic Trinity, Christian Trinity, Spirituality and Stalin
XXII. Major themes of Stalin's spiritual quest in Anatolia – 3. Solar nature of Mithraism / Immaculate birth from the rock
XXIII. How Stalin's Mithraic meditations in Anatolia formed his decision-making
1. Pontus' King Mithridates VI's wars with Rome
2. Cilicia's Mithraic Pirates in fight with Rome, the desecration of Greece, and Stalin
3. Did Stalin travel to visit the world's greatest Mithraic monument at Nemrut Dagh?
4. Stalin's Mithraic meditations and anti-sacerdotal stance
5. The Mithraic version of the Assyrian-Babylonian Gilgamesh: Verethragna, and his association with Heracles in Nemrut Dagh
6. Mithraic Anatolian Imperial Spirituality vs. Nordic Mythology: Stalin vs. Hitler
XXIV. Rome, New Rome, the Third Rome, and Stalin
XXV. Mithraism, Christianity, Stalin and the Antichrist
The idea that most of the people around the world have about Stalin is entirely false. This is due to the fact that atheists, materialists, Marxists-Leninists, liberal socialists, socialist-democrats, evolutionists and all the trash of Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi Khazarian pseudo-intellectuals and bogus-academics have first perceived, then interpreted, and last analyzed/presented Stalin and his historical role through the most erroneous, Trotskyist misunderstanding/distortion of the Georgian-origin Soviet statesman. But Stalin was an unconditional transcendentalist and a remarkable mystic.
Mithraic Tauroctony from a Mithraeum in Syria (currently in the Israel museum in Jerusalem): a mythical-religious topic early conceived by evil forces as purely eschatological symbolism
Human sacrifice: dead bodies wait for cremation in Dresden after the bombardment of the 'Allied' forces.
I. The erroneous perception of Stalin among most people today
According to this irrelevant story, Stalin (1878-1953) was a resolute materialist, a convinced Darwinist, a devoted Marxist-Leninist, and a heartless dictator who decimated entire nations, before purging the old guard of Communist-Bolshevik partisans, relocating populations, and sending millions to jail. There is only little truth in all this. In fact, Stalin was as realist as Kemal Ataturk; he therefore had to appear to others in the way he did in order to succeed Lenin and eliminate Trotsky. Many may agree with the last sentence, stating that this is part of the well-known History.
But there is also the 'Other History'; the one that is unknown, because it did not happen. This is, in other words, the negative reflection of the reality. All the same, because this 'other' or 'unknown' History did not happen, this does not mean that it was not attempted. And indeed many secret and known organizations and 'societies' tried to prepare several developments which finally did not occur. It is essential for a true Historian to know well these failed attempts; in fact, he only then understands History as the Absolute Sphere that contains the outcome of all the desires, feelings, thoughts and attempts of the humans.
---------------------
Continue reading the remaining 25700 words of the 30200-word article here:
Read and download the entire book in PDF here:
The Falsification of Photographs in Stalin’s Russia
Zelensky ’s defaced photograph comes from a photographic album in possession of artist Alexander Rodchenko, who defaced the photo in 1937 in order to avoid arrest and possible imprisonment.
Isaak Abramovich Zelensky (1890–1938)
photo source
it does not happen legally in America and plenty of other healthier countries, and I thought you pro choice types would support lives sacrificed for the greater good 👀 also you're quick to judge a conservative nation which really conservatism just means reserved; but want to ignore that Hitler was a communist which is an extreme way of socialism yay Bernie. pretty sure AMERICAN traditions are far different than Iran's.
Darling, I dont think Hitler was a communist. He was as Authoritarian as one, but had completely different ideas on how the market should be run. In fact, he felt threatened by communists and they were the first people he sent to camps and killed. I sure hope you made a typo and you meant Stalin, so that is what I will assume. Bernie believes in a more socialized society, not a communist one. He is a less extreme Stalin/communist, but if you use that argument Trump is just a less extreme Hitler/nazi. It goes both ways.