Articles on our site regularly appear on historical topics that always attract a lot of site visitors and cause heated discussions.
Often they occur along a long-established dividing line, on one side of which are adherents of academic science, on the other - supporters of unofficial views on certain events or historical science as a whole.
At the same time, the last and still not the trump card of the first group of opponents always remains the authority of the official historical science. Like: it is said by the venerable scientist, and who are you and from what edge? But how firm is this authority?
Based on the fact that the site has repeatedly stated (and no one has ever fundamentally rejected) that official academic history was constantly rewritten in the interests of winners or paying for historical research of interested sections of society, it can be extremely reliably stated that this discipline does not have one of the necessary properties science, namely, objectivity.
And if history is hundreds or thousands of percent rewritten and biased, then the questions arise: can it be called science? And does historical science exist at all?
Questions, it must be admitted, are truly archival, as one of the founders of Marxist-Leninist philosophy used to say.
But if modern official history is not science, then what is it?
Based on the functions that it performs today, it can be concluded with sufficient certainty that the world historical academic structure that has emerged today is just a tool in the hands of forces aspiring to world domination. Those avoiding publicity forces, which have long been called the world backstage.
Many will argue that this is an established institution that has centuries of prestige, and therefore, rejecting it means breaking the foundations of society, which will lead to savagery.
However, let us recall the recent naive, but firm faith of our people in the “free press” and “independent media” 25 years ago. Now seriously talking about such things can or a hopeless idiot, or a complete villain. Vera has evaporated, but the world has not collapsed. Just people began to live in the real world, and not in the mythical.
But does not the official historical science (SPE) perform the same functions for misleading people as the “independent media” and with their help, by the way?
A goal that the SPE does not state, but consistently pursues in its activities - and this we systematically notice - to ensure the moral and psychological superiority of the Western Judeo-Christian and Anglo-Semitic civilization over all other civilizations, instilling the latter with its inferiority in relation to its own history, distorting it or even simply striking out.
To be objective, it should be recognized that the SPE does not at all strive to acquire new historical knowledge and share it with society, but, on the contrary, in every way hinders this production and hides the accumulated knowledge from peoples. Of course, part of the truth SPE is forced to issue, but continuously mixes it with various falsifications. At the same time, from life experience we know that in order to more effectively push a lie into the consciousness of people, it is skillfully mixed with the truth. But incomplete truth or interspersed with false information remains a lie.
Hence, we can state that, in general, the entire modern SPE is a blatant and shameless lie, composed by a narrow circle of trusted handshake officials from science: starting with the Egyptian pyramids, which allegedly built slaves with copper chisels, and ending with twin towers, allegedly destroyed by the Al kaidskimi aircraft.
Of course it's not news. Even Churchill, whom I do not like very much for his zealous service to the bloodiest in the world history of the British monarchy, let it slip in his time; "History is a lie that historians have agreed upon." And he was special, close to reliable information.
Therefore, I clarify once again that the modern SPE has not so much research as protective (covering real knowledge from the broad masses of the people) functions.
Got in this respect and Russian history, perhaps even more than others.
Therefore, it is logical to see whether historical science exists (in the first place - most interesting for us - in Russia) on the other side of the barricades - among history researchers who do not belong to the SPE. And here we will see that despite the many beginners who do not have a sufficient level of qualification, devotees and, regardless of possible specially sent cossacks in order to defame these researchers (possible candidates - Fomenko and Nosovsky), we must admit that it is here and only here that to be and, most importantly, there are real Historical Scientists.
Of course, finding out the true story is hard work. But the one who attracts it has the ability to do it.
Anyone who does not find it hard to read the works on the most ancient history of Yu.D.Petukhov (History of the Rus, Normans of the North of Russia, the Paths of the Gods ...), early medievalism of L.Porozorov (Svyatoslav Khorobre, Caucasian Russia, ...) the Middle Ages and further VE Shambarov (Tsar of the Terrible Rus, Holy Russia against barbarous Europe ...), the newest and earlier Vadim Kozhinov (History of Russia and the Russian word, Russia the 20th century, Truth of Stalinist repressions ...), historical linguistics of L.N. Ryzhkov (On the antiquities of the Russian language).
I am sure that the names of many more real historians will be announced, but the one who masters even this proposed minimum will never fall blind victim of official historical science, which, like the “independent media”, contains the same owner.
And maybe it will contribute to this undeservedly protracted informational and ideological war with the now clearly vile civilization of the West.