Fear the Danes who bring gifts
Fear the Danes who bring gifts

Video: Fear the Danes who bring gifts

Video: Fear the Danes who bring gifts
Video: The Soviet Biological Weapons Program 2023, November

You can have a master, you can have a king

but most of all be afraid of the "master".

(Ancient Turanian proverb)

Christianity very early declared itself a "universal" religion. Claiming to subjugate the peoples of all countries to its influence, it made open claims to world power. Early Christian writers tried to substantiate these claims, using the texts of the Gospel (for example: the Gospel of Matthew, 28, 19), which put forward the idea of the world mission of the apostles, the Christian teaching covering the entire “orbis terrarum” (earthly circle).

Bishop Zeno of Verona (circa 360) revealed the “meaning” of Christianization: “The greatest glory of Christian virtue is to trample nature in oneself”. This gloomy look spread over the whole Christian world a melancholy that, in fact, turns the whole earth into a vale of suffering. Pious Christians considered themselves unworthy to have the sun shine for them, every pleasure seemed to them a step closer to hell, and all torment seemed to them a step closer to heaven.

The reference to the "will of God", the threat of cruel torture and punishment not only in earthly life, but also in "eternal life", and the promise of heavenly bliss for obedience became the most important means that helped the conquerors break the resistance of the masses, in all parts of Europe trying to resist the new oppression, violence and robbery. Only the church could accomplish this task, and no other could do it better in those conditions than the Christian church. She developed a comprehensive teaching on hell and heaven, on retribution and retribution; she managed to connect a person's life and his social behavior with invisible and strong threads with fantastic images of "eternal life", with the fate of his "soul".

In this Christianity gained its strength and that is why it became a "world" religion. This role of the church was well understood by Napoleon when he said that its strength lies in the fact that "it was able to transfer the social issue from earth to heaven." But even Charlemagne saw in the church primarily a social and political instrument. The Church was prepared for this task not only by her “teaching”, not only by her system of “persuasion”. For 7 - 8 centuries, she was able to develop a fairly effective system of coercion. And this increased the importance of the church in the eyes of the ruling class, in the eyes of the rulers themselves.

The ancient idea that every temple is the property of the deity to whom it is dedicated is transferred by Ambrose of Milan (333-397) entirely to the Christian church. The clergy substantiated their claims to the great land wealth that the Christian church has possessed since it became a dominant and militant church.

The secular power of the pope was also based on these riches. Starting with Pope Gregory I (590-604), the Roman bishops direct their main attention to consolidating and expanding their land holdings (patrimonias), which already then covered vast lands not only in Italy itself, but also in Sicily, Corsica, Dalmatia, Illyria, Gaul and North Africa. In the Byzantine concept of power, the emperor was the viceroy of Christ, and thus the head of the entire Christian church (including the Roman diocese).

In the West, at this time, the concept of the universal power of the Roman bishop was vigorously developed. Even at the end of the 5th century. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) declared that "the greatness of popes is higher than that of sovereigns, since the popes consecrate sovereigns, but they themselves cannot be sanctified by them." The idea of two chapters of the Christian world or of two swords - spiritual and secular, is attributed to the same Gelasius, which justified the recognition of the subordination of each Christian simultaneously and equally to the pope and the emperor.

Of particular importance in raising the power of the popes was one of the most shameful documents in the history of the papacy - "False Decretals", falsified precisely at this time (mid-9th century) and so skillfully that for a number of centuries they were considered authentic, until in the 16th v. were not definitively exposed as forgeries. The most famous forgery of the Middle Ages is "The Gift of Constantine", a forged letter of the 8th century (this copy of the letter was printed in Rome at the beginning of the 15th century).

The pseudo-Sidorian decrees ascribed to the popes the highest judicial and legislative power in the church, the right to appoint, remove and judge bishops, etc., were taken as the basis of ecclesiastical law. They were often used in the Middle Ages by the papacy in the struggle for supremacy over the secular sovereigns of Western Europe and Latin America. They allowed the appointment and overthrow of monarchs in the newly conquered lands.

Latin was a privilege, or rather a monopoly, of the papal authority over writing. Nobles (not to mention commoners) by and large remained ignorant of literacy. Even the many emperors who ruled the Holy Roman Empire were unable to write their name. The notations presented them with documents composed on their behalf, and the monarchs put a “finishing touch” on them, “finishing” what the scribe had begun. In this case, even the original documents, certified by the hand of the emperor, could contain not at all what he wanted, being a fake, equipped with a royal facsimile.

In their internal church affairs, the clergy also often resorted to "holy lies." In the Middle Ages, more than two hundred papal decrees cruised, allegedly belonging to the 1st and 2nd centuries of the new era. From them one could glean information about the Christian sacraments, about the Eucharist, about the liturgy. Of them … But they are all false. The names of not only secular but also ecclesiastical rulers were woven into the web of lies.

Why were donations, edicts, surrenders forged? Most often, researchers see "insidious intent." With a stroke of a sharpened pen, the scribes granted privileges to the monasteries. Skillfully cut lines took away pasture and arable land. Neither bishops, nor archbishops, nor even popes could resist this temptation - all of them were ready to support their claims with the power of the letters inscribed. Typically, Mark Blok wrote, “people of impeccable piety, and often virtue, did not disdain to use their hands to such fakes. Apparently, this did not in the least offend the generally accepted morality. " The parchments with the royal seal helped the clerics to gain the upper hand over the secular feudal lords who contested their possessions, and even protected them from the emperor. The letters were guarded reliably, but was it worth believing those letters?

The very crowning and anointing to power, which was performed by the Pope, was understood not as an act of his, the papal will, but as a technical fulfillment of the will of God - the anointing was viewed as a sacred act, "from God" emanating. Naturally, under these conditions, the authority of the papal power grew, and the political positions of the papacy were strengthened. Throughout Europe, the foundations of a new social system were established, the system of feudal exploitation, feudal domination and subordination, vassal-senior and immunity rights and orders. The growth and strengthening of these new relationships demanded the most authoritative sanction, demanded "divine consecration."

European enlighteners of the 18th century in his critical work left no stone unturned from the old political doctrine of absolutism. In their struggle to free minds from the dilapidated traditions of the feudal order, the enlighteners opposed them with the unshakable rights of human nature and the freedom of human reason. The ultimate goal of the public union, they proclaimed the good of man, the supreme law of the state - the happiness of the people. At the same time, words were heard about the socialization of the earth, as it was before Christianization. In response, only to the desire of the people to own the land, in the middle of the 19th century, Pope Pius IX accepts "Silabus" and the church is guided by it in its teachings and sermons, condemning any progressive thought such as: advanced science, freedom of conscience, democracy, communism and socialism. The secular authorities recognize the dominant so-called "Metternich doctrine", which revived armed intervention in the main method of suppressing anti-monarchist movements (struggle for independence, revolutions).

During the autocratic monarchy, princes, kings, tsars, emperors were really the real heads of state. All power belonged to them, regardless of the will of the people, and every other subordinate power in the country received powers from them, was appointed by them. But already in a representative or constitutional monarchy, the monarch, strictly speaking, ceased to be the head of state everywhere. Indeed, in such a monarchy, the head of state still has some government powers according to his own right, as well as the rights of the supreme power. Further, some government functions are still carried out by officials acting under his authority. But at the same time, other government powers are already exercised by the people's representation, that is, the elected people of the people who receive their power, not from the king-tsar, but from the people. As can be seen from this, already in a representative monarchy, the head of state became clothed in faces: on the one hand, he is still a king - a tsar, on the other, partly a people.

As you know, two bears cannot live in the same den. Hence the inevitable struggle between peoples and monarchs and in representative monarchies. Where it ended, it always ended with the victory of the people, that is, with the destruction of the monarchy. But the habit of seeing a face at the top of the state pyramid was so firmly rooted in the masses of the population that a new head of state was created everywhere in the person of the president. And not only in those republics, like the French, where there was previously a monarchy, but also in the American ones, where there was no monarchy. In all republics, the people, as it were, do not notice that the head of state is him, and creates an elective, directly or indirectly, office of the head of state, called the president.

The history of the emergence of the executive power in the person of the president originated in the Catholic colonies of America. Presidencies (Presidio lat.), The so-called fortified colonies in South America under the auspices of the Catholic Church, which was led by the president. This word was also joined by the local name of the area as: the Tubac Presidium, the Frontera Presidency, the Conchos Presidency in Mexico, and in other states of the South. Amer. Presidency, one of 3 administrative territorial units into which the English possessions in the East Indies were previously divided. The main goal of the colonial authorities is to obtain "legal" access to land ownership. Here it is necessary to recall the epigraph - “most of all, be afraid of the“master”. For the right to dispose of land and water, as a natural gift, belongs only to the people, and it cannot be "artificially appointed" rulers transferred to someone.

One French scientist Batby once remarked that the constitutional king is only the hereditary president, and the president is the constitutional king for a time. This is especially true when applied to the English king, who, as you know, "reigns but does not rule." All the fullness of the supreme power belongs to him only in the interval between the dismissal of one cabinet of ministers and the formation of another. With the existence of a cabinet, the king, as they say in England, "cannot be wrong" or "the king cannot do evil." Why? Yes, because the British head of the executive branch cannot issue a single order without the signature of the head of the cabinet - the first minister - a signature that means the joint responsibility of the entire cabinet for the king's actions before the Chamber of Deputies and voters. And, since the English king cannot also be right and do good without the same signature of the first minister, then the uselessness of such a head of state is already evident.

Even more interesting is the fact that the president is elected by both chambers, and therefore actually depends on them. “If,” according to Thiers, “the constitutional king reigns but does not rule; . Since we take into account the mass of evil that the monarchy brought to France even in modern times, it is understandable why the French so deprived their head of the executive branch of the rights. At the same time, its weakness and its further infringement in practice again speaks of the uselessness of the presidency in a representative republic.

Modern conditions of land tenure have arisen from the pursuit of profit, self-interest and the darkest motives of human nature. The Church skillfully used the foundations of the Christian doctrine - the idea of universal sinfulness and the idea of atonement - to create an effective system of influencing the masses of oppressed people. "Psychic terror" became the main instrument of church influence and gave the church the opportunity in a short time to occupy that exclusive place that belonged to it in the feudal system of the Middle Ages. She speaks of the transitory nature of earthly goods, but she herself, with great zeal, accumulates those treasures that rust and moth eats away.

She preaches that faith has nothing to do with sensual benefits - a teaching that is extremely beneficial for the well-fed and rich. She does not have the courage to come to the root of evil, put her hand on the mammon - modern conditions of production; she has become a pillar of capital, which in turn pays her the same …

Finally, what is democracy? This is democracy, the rule of the people themselves. The head of state in it can only be the entire people - directly and through representative institutions - again collective. And if you delete from the life of presidents, then the highest representatives of power, but not the heads of state, will be two persons: the chairman of the legislative chamber and the chairman of the council of ministers - the first among equal small mirrors reflecting the multi-headed head of state better than one person - always reminding of past.

Comrades, in blind indignation

Are you ready to see all evil in God, -

Do not mix the Lord with the priest, We have completely different roads!

This institute was not created by me

Spiritual gendarmerie and investigation, And those who claim this are lying

Godless, disgusting and low!

I have nothing to do with it. You don't have to believe them

As if they were doing my will, When they tell you by my name

Obediently bear disenfranchised slaves!

I created the world and populated it

Meaning - equality and brotherhood, And I did not put anyone as king for you, All this is nonsense of adherents of parasitism!

And in the same way, the church is not mine

Establishment is their evil venture, I never recognized her

My temple is the whole world, from edge to edge!

Icons, relics, sticheries, psalms …

These are all just instruments of torture

To bachelor inquiring minds

And knock out profits from the faithful herds.

Saints - too … They say that I

This wild custom has been carried out, Do not believe this ridiculous fiction, Distributed by the priestly clique!

I'm on the sidelines: I don't need it, How the regiments of gendarmes in robes are not needed

That hundreds of years in a torn country

They extinguished the spirit, crushing the consciousness of the masses!

Serving evil despots with all my soul, You were strictly obeyed

And three times a day, trembling for his ration, They crucified God in their cathedrals!

Comrades, in blind indignation

Are you ready to see all evil in God …

Do not confuse the Lord with the priest:

They have completely different roads!"

From the walls of the Kazan Cathedral in Petrograd, in 1917, this record was copied by Vasily Knyazev.