Non-american america

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Almost no one doubts that the generally accepted version of the history of the world does not correspond to reality. Believers remained no more than a tiny fraction of a percent, corresponding to natural error. However, many have already realized that the matter is much more serious. History is not just distorted, it is almost completely rewritten. And many facts indicate that the main line of destruction of knowledge about true events and the structure of the world is the first half of the nineteenth century.

Everything that we know about the Napoleonic Wars is the very stone with which the entrance to the repository of knowledge was sealed. A huge number of documents that have survived since that time, with all indisputability, indicates that they were created maliciously, in accordance with a single plan, the purpose of which was to replace the worldview of all residents of developed countries of that time, already during the change of two generations. So, at the beginning of the twentieth century, there was no one left who could refute all the lies that have become an inseparable part of the consciousness of all members of society.

Today, the massive falsifications of history writers of the first half of the nineteenth century, like an awl in a sack, have become apparent to the majority. Anyone who possesses at least some signs of reason has already become convinced that the Patriotic War of 1812 was anything but what is written about it in all textbooks in all countries of the world. Does this mean that there was no war at all? Of course no. There was a war, and with a high degree of certainty we can now speak of it as a civil war.

Moreover, no French empire existed at that time, just as there were no other fictitious empires on the territory of Europe. The lands of the Franks and Gauls belonged to the Russian Empire, and the colonel of the Russian artillery Napoleon Bonaparte worked there as governor-general.

It would seem that this portrait alone could have been enough to quickly figure out what really was the essence of the events of that time. Moreover, not only in Europe and Russia. But few people are capable of admitting the very idea that the scale of falsification, even theoretically, can turn out to be so colossal. Meanwhile, it is enough to put together just a few well-known facts to be convinced of the following:

- Napoleon was a regular soldier of the Russian army, and at the time of the beginning of the "Eastern campaign", he had the rank of colonel from artillery. In his Paris, he had the right to be called at least Generalissimo, but for Emperor Alexander I he was just a colonel.

- The "conquerors" did not even think to storm the capital of the country, which they supposedly came to conquer - St. Petersburg. They went to Moscow, with the aim of going further to the Volga.

- The expeditionary corps from Europe was only a support for the army headed by M. I. Kutuzov.

- The defeat of Moscow was enough for the last fragments of Great Tartary to capitulate throughout the territory, except for Turkestan.

- The Russian army did not "drive the invaders to their lair in Paris", but returned to Europe together with Napoleon's troops to repel the stab in the back, which Britain cunningly inflicted, taking advantage of the fact that the main forces of the empire were diverted to the war blazing in the east.

All the Russian nobility spoke and thought in the language of the "aggressor", that is, in French. And this is a fact. Is it possible that after the end of the Great Patriotic War in the USSR, everyone spoke German? In a nightmare, you will not dream of this. And after a similar event at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia almost made French the state language. And in my opinion, the reason for this is clear and logical: - we did not fight with France.

It is also a fact that the Russians in Paris were not conquerors. Rather, helpers and patrons. And the Parisians for a long time were grateful to the Russian soldier in the same way as the Bulgarians thanked us for their help in winning their independence from the Ottomans. I can't even imagine that these phenomena have different reasons. Everything indicates that the French treated us as allies, as the younger brother treats the elder. Otherwise, why did they build the Alexander III bridge across the Seine in Paris in 1896?

A natural question arises about what Suvorov actually did in the Apennines and Switzerland. No one doubts the fact that the troops under the command of A. V. Suvorov was beaten there by the French, but even the most eminent historians begin to stutter and hum when trying to answer a simple question about how he got there at all!

At first glance, my version will seem crazy, but I will remind you of the story of the exposure of the construction of the Alexandria Stop in St. Petersburg. The array of documents and evidence confirming the version that the column was carved into the Karelian rocks is murderously reliable. But despite this, now we know for sure that this entire colossal layer of "documents" is nothing but superbly executed fakes, and the column was not cut down, but cast from geopolymer concrete.

And what prevents us from assuming that those who falsified the history of St. Petersburg did not have such a resource for falsifying information about the Napoleonic wars of the late eighteenth century? After all, if we assume that the troops under the command of Suvorov did not fight against Napoleon, but rather helped him in his wars with England and her allies in Europe, then everything falls into place, and there is no need to search for illogical explanations of the essence of the most ordinary, natural events.

I understand all the weaknesses of my version, it generally could not have been brought up to the reader's judgment, if not for one surprising circumstance: this version removes many questions regarding the events that took place in another part of the world, namely in North America.

Who can convince us now that if the history of the Old World was completely written by storytellers a la Herodotus and a la Voltaire, it was not created in the same way for America? Let's figure it out.

Today, in the minds of the vast majority of the population, the question does not arise about who exactly were the ancestors of modern Americans. If you ask a random passer-by on the street about who inhabited North America in the nineteenth century, he will not hesitate to report: - "British, Irish and Scots, who else!" Someone will remember the Spaniards, but I am sure that almost no one knows one curious fact that makes you look at the usual state of affairs in a completely different way.

The fact is that in 1840, when the draft law on a single state language in the United States was adopted, a vote was held on the results of which, the English language received only one vote more than the votes were cast for the German language. Thanks to a miracle, Americans today speak English, not German. This became known thanks to the testimony of the Frenchman Franz Leuer. True, critics immediately declared this message a lie. The question is, what was the interest of the Frenchman in this?

And here, it's time to ask the "100% Yankees" what the place names of their "pro-British" Motherland mean. And it will soon become clear that the English language has the most tangible relation to the emergence of place names in North America. The overwhelming majority of US toponyms have no etymology in English, but they are perfectly understandable to the French. Take a look at the North American settlement map in the eighteenth century:

You can see for yourself that America is just a branch of France, where all toponyms, hydronyms and even the names of "star fortresses" are indicated in French. And here is another curious map:

It shows the territories that were part of the state of French Louisiana. How many contemporaries who are not interested in the history of North America have heard of such a country? But she did exist. It had its own banner, coat of arms and anthem.

Looking at these maps, you involuntarily ask yourself a natural question about who owned the territories marked in gray? Indians? To naked savages confronting a regular army armed not only with muskets, but also with artillery?

A little help from Wikipedia:

Now let's remember where we started. My version of a single empire, of which France was a part, explains, if not everything, then a lot. The key to understanding the essence of the processes that took place simultaneously in different parts of the world as a single process, and not isolated events, can be the following thesis:

The Russian Empire is the only empire in the northern hemisphere, the successor to Great Tartary. She faced in the struggle for the division of the world with the newly emerged British Empire. Just as in the Old World London and St. Petersburg were racing with each other to colonize the former lands of Tartary, so they competed in the division of North America. Where the Russian Empire, thanks to the bridgehead prepared earlier by the French, confidently won, spreading to the "wild west", seeking to seize territories that remained scattered colonies left without the care of Great Tartary.

But then something went wrong. And then the version of the "stab in the back" in 1812 no longer seems so wild. "Patriotic War of 1812" and "Second War of Independence of the United States" occurred at the same time, and are not separate events, but a war between the Russian and British empires in two theaters of military operations. In both cases, the main striking force of Russia was the French. In Europe they were commanded by Napoleon, and in America by James Madison. In Europe it began on June 12, 1812, and in America on June 18, 1812.

And the fact that the Napoleonic army and the army of Madison are two parts of a single army can be easily convinced by studying the history of the military uniform of various armies of the early nineteenth century. Only you need to study not from modern albums, but from engravings of the nineteenth century. True, there is one significant detail that prevents this activity: there are practically no such images in open sources, and those that exist are protected by the copyright holder. Buying a single postcard featuring Madison army soldiers will cost you an average of 170 euros.

Nevertheless, even what is available is quite enough to make an educated assumption about the existence at that time of a single army, which was equipped according to the same standard. The soldiers of France, Russia, Prussia and the United States in battle would simply kill each other, because they were all dressed the same.

Now you understand that it is no coincidence that it was in 1814 that the anthem of the United States, which today is a symbol of the statehood of this country, is a song set to the melody of a Russian Cossack song. What words were sung to this melody in Russia in 1812, no one knows for certain now. But we are all familiar with her from childhood in the version that we got from Alexander Ammosov, who put his poems "Khasbulat the daring" on an old motive in 1858.

And the ceremony of celebrating Independence Day, which Americans celebrate on July 4, is seen in a completely new way, without changing anything significant in the ritual for more than one hundred and fifty years. Few people know, but on this day, at the finale of the celebrations, to the sound of fireworks, "independent" Americans sing in Russian:

The question is: - who are they celebrating independence from? Who fought with whom? For what? And who won that war?

Maybe my version will allow you to open another mystery of history? If we are on the right track, then it is logical to assume that such an irreplaceable, in the best sense of the word, commander like Alexander Suvorov could not just retire. He performed the most difficult tasks for the Empress and the Emperor that no one else could successfully solve except him. And if he put things in order in Europe, defeated the Don and Astrakhan "branches" of Tartary, then can it be assumed that his talents would not have tried to use the monarchs in order to complete in America what he successfully started in Asia and Europe?

But there is indirect evidence that this is exactly what happened. A number of researchers, using the achievements of modern physiognomy, argue that the Benjamin Franklin depicted on a hundred dollar bill looks exactly as the decrepit Generalissimo, Count of the Holy Roman Empire Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov, should have looked in old age. Compare yourself one of the last lifetime portraits of Suvorov, by an unknown artist, with a portrait of Benjamin Franklin:

And the official history also pushes to certain conclusions not in its favor. According to the academic version, at the end of his life, just when the first wars for American independence began, he found himself in "disgrace", from which he died in speed. In fact, there are historians who are convinced that Suvorov was not in disgrace, but was sent to North America and ended his career as Governor-General of Washington, commander-in-chief of the US Army, successfully fighting against the British army in the former American Great Tartary.

The version is attractive but unlikely. However, it would be extremely unwise to write it off. Moreover, there are other indirect evidences that allow drawing conclusions in favor of this version. This is information about the role of the Russian Empire in the wars for the independence of the United States. Let me remind you that there were several of them, and they began in 1765. Suvorov's "disgrace" began in 1799, and further nothing is known for certain about his fate. It may well be that his last war was precisely the War of Independence for the United States, and his ashes now rest under a stone slab with a false name in Pennsylvania.

But let's leave idle reflections. There are also more weighty arguments in favor of the sounded version. Suppose Russia and the United States had nothing in common in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. But then what was the Russian fleet and the regular ground forces of the Russian Empire doing in America? Indeed, despite the fact that Russia was officially a member of the League of Neutrality, whose members refused to assist George III in suppressing the “revolt in the colonies of the New World,” a huge number (according to some sources, up to 30,000 “vacationers”) fought under the banner of the United States against Britain!

And then … And then stunning versions follow! It turns out that if the Russian Empire and the United States are two parts of a single whole, then there was no sale of Alaska, the Aleutian and Hawaiian archipelagoes, the transfer of the state of Washington, Colorado, California and the colonies in Chile and on the Hudson Bay coast to a “foreign” country. Simply - simply these territories became part of the "branch" of Russia in the New World - the United States, in the same way as Crimea later became part of Ukraine.

You can refute this version as much as you like, operating with "scientific" historical data, but they do not explain the above facts in any way, in addition to which you can apply such trifles as traditional American shoes with the "native British" name "kosaki".

No, this is not Cowboyville. This is Chelyabinsk. And all the decorations used by Hollywood "masters" when shooting Westerns fully correspond to the architecture of Siberian cities of that time. But that's not all. American cities of the nineteenth century practically did not differ from the "ancient centers of civilization" of the Old World. For example, Chicago:

But that's not all. It turns out that most of the modern cities in America will be built on the site of the "antediluvian" cities. For new settlements, surveying is not even required. It was made a long time ago before the settlement of America by those who are called "Yankees". Take a look at the city built in Florida. This is a "tracing paper" from a settlement that existed long before the "discovery of America."

And it turns out that most of the "modern" megalopolises of America already existed at a time when in the "Wild West" a certain White Earp fought for justice in the countryside among cows and "cow herders." Funny? Not at all. Especially in the light of the discoveries of Igor Alpatov, who discovered millions of tons of fragments of ancient structures, from which the Yankees built their own jetties. This can be compared to using a smartphone as a weapon to throw at crows:

The entire east coast of the United States is protected from ocean waves, built from the fragments of "antique" blocks, slabs and columns, on which there are bas-reliefs depicting not at all Indian gods, but those characters that resemble ours, Slavic ones.

Someone may suspect me of trying to impose chauvinistic views about the primogeniture of the Russians, about their superiority over other peoples, but I will hasten to put an end to such accusations in the bud. The main idea of this article is that the generally accepted version of the history of the New World is completely untrue, and attempts to reconstruct it give the result that exists, and nothing can be done about it.

Most likely, the modern Russian language is closest to our common proto-language, which was spoken by all representatives of the white race who lived not only in Eurasia, but also in America. That is why there are so many geographical names on the North American continent, which are most logically interpreted precisely with the help of the Russian language and the languages of the peoples of Siberia. How else to explain the existence of the indigenous people of North America who call themselves Iakuty? Do you know what language the representatives of the Delaware people speak?

Pundits claim that the Indians communicate in the Munsi language. However, they are disingenuous, because in English this word is spelled "munsi", and pronounced like "mansi". And the people with the same name live, as everyone knows, in western Siberia and in the northern Urals.

Next, you can speculate about the meaning of the names of some American states. If the origin of the name of the state of Washington does not raise any questions, then it makes sense to try to decipher a number of other names. For example, one of the tributaries of the Mississippi is called the Missouri, and one of the states is also called. Americans sincerely believe that this is an Indian word, and with a high degree of probability it comes from an old word in the language of the Miami Indians, which could mean "dugout boat." But … What do you mean with "high probability"? Nothing that the Miami Indians lived thousands of miles from Missouri?

Now look what is revealed. On the banks of the Dnieper there is a village called Mishurin Rog. An ancient village, older than many Ukrainian cities. And before it was called "Missouri", or simply Missouri. The fact is not proving anything, it's clear, but let's move on!

State of Arizona. No one knows for certain where this name came from. There are many versions, but all of them do not arouse much confidence, including the version about the "Aryan zone". But the connection with the ethnonym "Aryans" does not seem so incredible. And if we assume that this toponym was born from the merger of two linguistic traditions, Russian and European, then everything is easily explained. The endings "son", "sen", "san", etc. are identical to the ending of Russian surnames in "ov" and "ev" (Andreev, Petrov). As Andreev is the son of Andrey, so Anderson is the son of Anders (son means literally: son). Then the word Arizona may well mean "son of Arius."

Names such as Kansas and Arkansas, in my opinion, also have nothing to do with the American Indians. Danzas is a typical French surname and Kansas could very well be a French word.

Georgia, this is understandable without explanation, - George. Country Mountain, Zhora, Yuri, Egor. However, this does not prove anything. Jora (George, Jorge), one of the most common names in the world.

Illinois sounds just like "Ilyin's nose", and Indiana is a derivative of the outdated Russian word "inde", meaning "somewhere out there, far away)." For some reason, California is interpreted from Spanish, although every slightest literate person will translate this word as "The Light of Kali", or "Kali, bringing the light." Kentucky is attributed to the language of the Iroquois, but it is noteworthy that this word is deciphered in all versions using concepts such as "keys", "sources." And in the Caucasus, Essentuki, is that not the same?

Colorado, like California, is translated from Spanish. But any native speaker of the Slavic language family hears in this word two words that are native to his ear: "colo" and "glad (ost)". And Connecticut is attributed to a word from the Mohican language, and again with a high degree of "probability", but in Russian the word "kut" has a very definite meaning, and is often found among toponyms. Ust-Kut, or Irkutsk, for example. It is possible to continue such an analysis for a long time, but it is a thankless task, because it is impossible to prove that such words as "Nevada" or "Nebraska" are not exclusively indigenous and autochthonous.

And there is no special need for this, because geneticists have put their weighty word in this matter. The fact that the indigenous peoples of America are from Siberia (read from Tartary) is a fact that is not disputed by science and is considered proven. And if so, then we cannot discount the versions that I have just voiced. To assert that the American Indians are Siberians, and at the same time to reject the likelihood of the origin of American place names from the languages of the peoples inhabiting the territory of modern Russia, is the height of obscurantism.

If Yakuts live in Yakutia, and Yakuts live in America, then why should the names be Spanish? And then, the toponyms "India" and "Indiana" existed on the territory of Tartary long before the "discovery of America." Take a look at a fragment of this map of Siberia, presumably the sixteenth century:

And for no one has long been a secret that many tribes of "American natives" were white-skinned, fair-haired, and had all the characteristic features of the appearance typical of the Slavs. Photos of the late nineteenth century, which capture the "savages", is irrefutable proof of this. Old engravings have also survived, which stubbornly testify that for the "Indians", the European appearance was typical. Moreover, even for the peoples who lived in the extreme north of America, beyond the Arctic Circle:

Now about how the tartars ended up in America. In the nineteenth century in Russia, books were popular, with various versions of the presentation of history, written specifically for people without a high level of education. In one of these popular textbooks, I came across a statement that the Canaanites and Phoenicians sailed to America on ships after their armies were defeated by the troops of Joshua. And when did this happen, according to traditional chronology? The answer is: - thirteenth century BC.

But we are not particularly interested in this. The main thing here is that it was not just anyone who was called the Canaanites, namely the Russians. I am not trying to prove that the Russians discovered America, following the example of the Swedes and the Chinese, who naively believe that if it was their ancestors who first landed on the shores of the New World, then they are better than other peoples. The bottom line is that our ancestors didn't discover anything. They have always lived throughout the entire northern hemisphere.

And in order to visit relatives in the city of Tagil (there is one in the state of Florida), or in Moscow (for example, in the state of Idaho, but in fact there are dozens of cities named Moscow in America), our ancestors did not even need to buy tickets for an ocean ship …And not at all because there was no strait between Chukotka and Alaska, but because in order to travel from Asia to America, it was enough to have a small boat. And you need to be an impassable dumbass to sail across the Atlantic Ocean in order to "discover America."

Why does everyone ignore this seemingly obvious fact? Well, normal people do not climb into the chimney when the doors to the house are wide open. Kill me, but I will never understand why everyone believes that the brave Europeans, who were the first to "land" before America, were the first to "land" there. For this we only needed to cross that “river”, and could it really be otherwise?

No and no again. On the map of Urbano Monte it is perfectly visible that the road from Russia to America was trodden long ago. Moreover, judging by the designations, there were almost more cities in America than in Europe, and all mountains and rivers are correctly plotted, and even the administrative division into provinces is indicated.

And all these facts rather confirm my "ridiculous" version, rather than refute. North America was no worse developed than Europe at the time of its "discovery". And maybe better. Tales about "savages" - nomads, with bows and arrows, are very reminiscent of tales about "Mongol-Tatars" - nomads with bows and arrows. The myths about the "conquest" of Siberia are identical to the myths about the "discovery" of America. One style, one handwriting. Only conquerors destroy history in this way.

And our task, our duty to our descendants, is also to remember what happened, so that this scenario could not be allowed in the future.