The Depth of the Deception

I do what I do not just to rehabilitate the lies told about my Scottish and Scandinavian ancestors, but also to shed light on the tiny Russian part of me.

This goes much deeper than we know. And a few yt videos about old buildings and old books will NEVER correct the falsifying of OUR history if people don’t understand the immensity of the fakery and just how long it has been going on.

Here is a Russian perspective. My thanks to Sergy Glazyev.


Sergei Yuryevich Glazyev
History as a corrupt wench of the elites

The crisis in social science is caused by the addiction of scientists to maliciously created myths.

newspaper MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COURIERPublished in the all-Russian weekly newspaper
in issue No. 49 (862) for December 22, 2020

As we found out in previous articles of the “historical cycle”, a real breakthrough in social science is possible only on the basis of an interdisciplinary approach that integrates scientific knowledge in the field of economics, sociology, psychology and, of course, history. Without a reliable historical basis, social science cannot find a solid ground for the construction of reliable theoretical constructions.

Unfortunately, the leaders of Russian history institutes are trying to manage our past on the basis of myths fabricated more than two hundred years ago by engaged German specialists, proceeding from the political goals of the then pro-Western leadership of the country. Let’s say frankly that the meaning of this mythology was to substantiate the inability of the people of Russia to build independent states. This idea has not become a thing of the past and is still manifested in the claims of the Russophobic American agents for ruling Russia, in the teachings from Washington, categorical assessments from European capitals, in the genocide of the Russian population of Ukraine.

For political reasons

Official historical mythology continues to program our public conscience for a sense of helplessness and external dependence.

Already before our eyes, over the years that have passed since the collapse of the USSR, history has been substantially rewritten. And in all the former Soviet republics in different ways. A group of Russian and Ukrainian historians created many years ago was unable to prevent the monstrous distortions of history, including modern history, contained in the official Ukrainian history textbooks.

When “official historians” complain that the use of mathematical methods for analyzing Fomenko’s historical data can throw Russian historical science on the sidelines of the world, the question arises – what kind of world historical science are they talking about? About the one that their Ukrainian colleagues are writing with Soros’s money? Or about the one that is portrayed in Washington, attributing to the United States the victory over Nazi Germany and belittling the role of the USSR in the defeat of Nazism? Or maybe about the Chinese one, in which, apart from the Celestial Empire, there is nothing worthy of attention?

I do not think that the use of mathematical methods can discredit any science. On the contrary, mathematics is known to be the language of any scientific discipline that claims to be accurate. We know academic historians who wrote one thing in Soviet times, but now teach something completely different, who change their positions depending on the source of funding, who, to please the security forces, fabricated materials for convictions of innocent citizens. And who falsify and destroy the primary sources, continuing the approaches begun two hundred years ago. When the same Fomenko came to St. Petersburg a few years ago to get acquainted with old books in the academic storehouse, a fire broke out there, after which the books indicated in the catalog were not found.

There is neither time nor desire to look for skeletons in the closets of the leaders of our historical science. If they mastered the language of mathematics, then history could lay claim to exact knowledge. In any case, rejecting the help offered by mathematicians and hinting at their ignorance of arithmetic, as fellow historians do, is a clear sign of sectarianism incompatible with real science.

As we have invented, so we live

For the transfer of social sciences to general scientific methods of cognition, it is extremely important to demythologize history, to reveal in it the really operating laws of human development. Without this, neither scientific forecasting of socio-economic processes, nor their rational management in the interests of the whole society is inconceivable. It is also impossible to prevent crisis processes and catastrophes in which mankind periodically falls due to unknown patterns of socio-economic development.

The scale of myth-making in the social sciences is convincingly evidenced by the current state of public consciousness in the post-Soviet space. It is a bizarre jumble of old and new myths in which people finally lose the coordinate system for assessing current events and correctly understanding their interests. This has an extremely negative effect on the state of the intellectual potential of the nation, which is losing its historical footing. A society consisting of Ivan, who does not remember kinship, is incapable of creative mass creativity that underlies the modern development of the economy; it becomes a victim of the predatory oligarchy and the social Darwinists that reflect its interests.

The first layer of ideas about our history was formed in the Russian Empire on the basis of Varangian mythology, composed by specially invited German specialists in the fabrication of historical documents. They were given the exclusive right to process written documents and ancient books that were forcibly withdrawn from private property. As a result of systematic work to falsify the history of pre-Roman Russia, all primary sources of chronicles, as well as documents on the state structure, decisions and personal appointments were destroyed. The place of the primary sources was taken by a variety of lists, including those deliberately falsified for the sake of the official interpretation of the history of the ruling elite of that time.

The second historical layer in our public consciousness was formed by Soviet historians after the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty. The Russian empire was presented as a prison of peoples that the Soviet government freed from the exploitation of class enemies. Also, by decrees of the Soviet government, national republics were created with the titular nationalities nominated by it. Most of them acquired national statehood solely thanks to the political decisions of Lenin and Stalin, who, on the one hand, feared the emergence of Great Russian chauvinism in response to the genocide of the spiritual elite of the Russian people, and on the other, formed a repressive apparatus of national minorities. So instead of running de-communization campaigns and blaming Moscow for all their problems, the national authorities of a number of former union republics should have glorified the leaders of communist Russia as the founders of their statehood. This, however, does not happen, because it does not fit into the mythology they need to justify their claims to power.

A new historical layer in the public consciousness is being formed, on the one hand, by the ruling elite of the newly emerging states, which gives historians a political order to fabricate historical myths about their ancient statehood, on the other hand, the neighbors who have long since gained independence helpfully offer their historical myths. This is how the Polish roots of the Belarusian statehood or the Turkish roots of the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus appear. And all of them are dominated by the Russophobic tradition of Western European historiography, ready to accept and scientifically formalize with its authority any accusations and claims against historical Russia, which, instead of an objective contribution to the economic and cultural development of the respective peoples,

The winner writes the story

The collapse of the Soviet empire, which took place before our very eyes, clearly demonstrates the logic of falsifying history. Each time after the collapse of the imperial state, history is rewritten by a new government in order to denigrate the previous one, up to the complete destruction of information about its achievements and fabrication of unreal repulsive images. Thus, a myth is created that legitimizes the power of the new political elite and justifies all the crimes it has committed in the fight against the past statehood and the part of society that supported it.

The collapse of the Russian and Soviet empires happened relatively recently, and their achievements and state of affairs are recorded in a huge number of sources. Therefore, in relation to these last two empires, falsification is carried out mainly through false interpretations. And with regard to their predecessors – the Horde and Byzantine empires – there are practically no primary sources left and not only assessments of certain events, but also the facts and dates pertaining to them, can be falsified.

It has already been mentioned above that the official historical science ignores the facts that do not fit into the established paradigm, as well as the deliberate destruction of artifacts that contradict the official historical doctrine. The activity of German experts, led by Miller, in fabricating Norman theory testifies to the fact that the paradigm prevailing in European historical science was fabricated in a similar way. Its characteristic Russophobia gives rise to parallels with the current historical myth-making in the newly independent states. If, in order to substantiate claims to independence, the ideologists of the Ukrainian state needed to mold from Russia the image of an enemy who enslaved the “ancient Ukrainians”, then it is logical to assume that

As George Orwell rightly noted in 1949, who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present, controls the past. Today we see in practice how this happens. The modern historical stratum is artificially formed in the public consciousness by professional falsifiers and propagandists serving the interests of forces interested in the exploitation of the post-Soviet space. This is done in full accordance with the well-known geopolitical principle “Divide and Conquer”, which has always been used by international capital to undermine great empires in order to appropriate the wealth accumulated in them. Forming and pitting large social groups of the imperial society against each other, the agents of international capital undermine the imperial institutions of state power, replacing them with controlled colonial administrations. Through the radicalization of religious, ethnic, property and other social contradictions, mutual hostility is aroused among various social groups, which, in their struggle with each other, destroy the imperial integrity and form their quasi-statehood under the control of external sponsors. This is how the British colonialists acted in Asia, ruining India and China, the same American agents of influence are doing in the post-Soviet republics, having already siphoned out more than two trillion dollars of capital accumulated during the Soviet period. who, in a struggle with each other, destroy the imperial integrity and form their quasi-statehood under the control of external sponsors. This is how the British colonialists acted in Asia, ruining India and China, the same American agents of influence are doing in the post-Soviet republics, having already siphoned out more than two trillion dollars of capital accumulated during the Soviet period. who, in a struggle with each other, destroy the imperial integrity and form their quasi-statehood under the control of external sponsors. This is how the British colonialists acted in Asia, ruining India and China, the same American agents of influence are doing in the post-Soviet republics, having already siphoned out more than two trillion dollars of capital accumulated during the Soviet period.

Nazis in law

The situation in Ukraine is a striking example of modern manipulation of public consciousness on the basis of fabricating historical myths with the aim of splitting society on ethnic grounds. Created on the basis of the artificial unification of Little Russia, Novorossia, part of the lands of the Don and Galicia troops, the Ukrainian SSR acquired its quasi-state status exclusively thanks to the Bolsheviks. After the collapse of the USSR, within which Ukraine became the most developed part of the Soviet state, for a quarter of a century of work on “nation-building”, American agents of influence managed to raise a generation of Ukrainian Nazis on historical myths. Raised on hatred of everything Russian, it became an instrument of the occupation of Ukrainian territory by American special services and its clearing of the local population for external needs. Modeled on the countries of Eastern Europe, a decommunization campaign was carried out in Ukraine, accompanied by the destruction of monuments from the Soviet era, including the founding father of Ukrainian statehood, Lenin. Hitler’s collaborators who served the fascist invaders in 1941-1944 were raised on the shield. The criminals against humanity, including the then inhabiting the territory of Ukraine, are declared heroes and mythological founders of the Ukrainian statehood.

The historical myth-making taking place in today’s Ukraine a couple of decades ago seemed like hallucinations of half-educated half-educated with hatred of Russia. But the introduction of ridiculous myths about the alleged history of the Ukrainian state into mass education, including the myth of the Holodomor, composed by famous writers from the MI6 British intelligence service, has borne fruit. A generation of professional pseudo-historians who grew up on these tales appeared, and many real historians, under pain of repression, are forced to sing along with this historical nonsense under the threat of administrative pressure, blackmail of neo-Nazis and political repression.

According to the precepts of the inquisitors

The Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR and the Russian Empire in the legal and historical sense. This, however, is not enough for the formation of a creative historical self-consciousness of the people of Russia. It remains split, which cannot but have a negative effect on Russian society, in which the embers of the civil war will never die out. The absence of state ideology proclaimed by the Constitution does not allow one to give a moral assessment of the current socio-economic policy as incompatible with the values ​​of truth and justice traditional for the Russian society. Russian citizens live in different ideological galaxies scattering from each other, which cannot but erode the social and psychological foundation of Russian statehood.

Building bridges between social groups with different worldviews requires a general understanding of Russian history. It cannot hold on to myths and falsifications, even if they are overgrown with centuries-old moss. Judging by the accusatory pathos of my fellow historians, the scientific revolution in the social sciences will be long and bloody. On the intellectual battlefields, not only different methodologies collide, but also political, economic, national, social interests. Sometimes these clashes resemble the persecution of scientists by the papal inquisition with the destruction of those who disagree with the dominant ideology. Although the adherents of the dominant ideology no longer burn dissident scientists at the stake, the latter are expelled from academic institutions, anathematized, refusing to publish, and even declared insane.

For many years, social science has been marking time, representing a set of scientific disciplines that are little related to each other, dealing with the justification of the existing order of things. Let not the apologists defending the interests of those in power or the honor of the uniform be worried. As scientists striving for objective knowledge, we are interested in the patterns of development of society – not the distribution of power and wealth here and now, but long-term trends in the reproduction and change of historically existing socio-economic systems. Since society is a living organism, the main subject of social science should be the study of the laws of its development and, accordingly, the mechanisms of its complication and maintaining integrity and stability in the process of increasing the diversity of economic activity and its results. The central issue of social sciences should be the study of the relationship of technological, institutional and ideological changes, which form the laws of long-term socio-economic development. I call on my colleagues in the social sciences to unite efforts in this direction in order to develop an interdisciplinary theory of human development.

I sincerely thank the editor-in-chief of “VPK” for the opportunity to raise this issue in the context of developing a national ideology for modern Russia.

Sergei Glazyev ,
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Leave a Reply