Western media about 1917 - for us trying to rewrite Russian history
11/7/2017 - 11:46
Western media about 1917 - they are trying to rewrite Russian history for us | Russian Spring
The Financial Times, created for Western bankers and businessmen, is outraged by the fact that Russia does not seem to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the October Socialist Revolution at the proper level.
And as a sensation presents the fact that Vladimir Putin will not attend the procession of November 7, organized by the Communist Party. So I want to ask: does he really have to?
After all, no one is surprised that British Prime Minister Theresa May does not go to the actions organized by the Labor Party, no matter how significant a reason for this action was not elected.
Throughout the past year, the Western press, with undisguised pleasure, relished the fact that in Russia, they say, "there is no unanimity" about the events of 1917, and the state allegedly "can not decide how to treat this anniversary."
The British Labor Party newspaper The Guardian even wrote last year that "the Russians are tormented over how to celebrate the revolutions of 1917". The nights do not sleep, they "suffer", finding out "this is a tragedy or a triumph."
Read also: The solemn march on Red Square - DIRECT TRANSFERS. See and comment on the "Russian Spring"
It is not clear: the "absence of a state narrative" on this issue is it bad? Is this not evidence of the absence of the "only correct ideological line", to which the same Western newspapers have long urged Russia?
Is it any surprise that there are differences in the assessments of events and historical figures of the period of the war of the North and the South, which recently manifested itself in the American "war of monuments"?
And imagine what indignation there would have been caused by the state's attempt to plant that same "only correct view" on the events of the past days.
Unfortunately, it turned out that in the West now more books about our revolution have come out much more than we have. And one-sided and superficial, which are more a set of ideological cliches and myths, which are presented for facts.
The statement that the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the revolution is "banned" in Russia (as another economics and financiers publication, The Economist magazine claims) is a blatant distortion of reality.
Yes, I am now talking about the very issue of the magazine, whose cover "The Tsar was born" was recently actively discussed in social networks. The publication was not too lazy to devote several pages to the anniversary of the Russian revolution, trying to draw the analogy of those events with the present ones. And in the end, "convincingly proves" that the current president of Russia has become ... "king."
The "evidence" is simple: the fact is that as early as December 1999, Vladimir Putin, as prime minister, wrote an article entitled "Russia at the Turn of the Millennium", in which he talked about strengthening the state and statehood. The English-language magazine was not even too lazy to write the word gosudarstvo, explaining to its audience that it originated from the word gosudar: "An old word that means a monarch or master."
And on this basis, The Economist "authoritatively" writes: "The modern state is a collection of laws and formal rules. Gosudarstvo is the continuation of the tsar as the main source of order and power. "
Read also: "Putin's officials are fleeing, bombers are preparing to bomb the Moscow Ring Road, Volgograd is captured by revolutionaries" (VIDEO A.Sharia)
And how to you such "proof" of transition of Russia to a monarchy? It turns out that the word "state" has been used by us! We used to not use it before, go. And our liberals and democrats, who are against the "monarchy", probably speak instead of this word only ... By the way, how do they say something? A country? Yes, there is not like, for "country" there is another word in English.
Yes, and Putin himself uses it at least. In the same article, for example, he wrote: "Russia has been and will continue to be a great country." But you understand, no one explains to the English-speaking reader that the word state in Russian has always been translated and translated only as a "state". One must somehow find in this "monarchist" tendencies in Russia, otherwise the cover will disappear.
In order to declare some "monarchist" tendencies in the society, the Western media are ready to go for any distortion. So, the French agency AFP, referring to the days of sociological research VTsIOM, said that 28% support the establishment of a monarchy in the country.
If you look at the data of the survey itself, you will see that the situation is somewhat different: "When answering a direct question about which form of government is more suitable for the Russian state today, only 8% call a monarchy in which power is inherited, whereas 88 % - the republic. " And the number of supporters of the republic has even increased by 6% since 2013. But why should the Western reader get into such details, right?
And only one Western newspaper (The Sunday Express) wrote in a direct text that there is nothing to celebrate on November 7. The English farmer John Lewis-Stempel, who became famous for his farm books and boasted that his ancestors lived for 700 years in the west of England, suddenly appeared in this newspaper as a historian who discovered among his relatives Russian immigrants. Well, accordingly, he got the right to talk about our history.
True, he is sure that in November 1917 the Bolsheviks "replaced the Romanovs with the red kings of communism." That is, the farmer-historian decided to make a sort of "montage", having missed the same period from February to October, when Russia was plunged into a liberal social experiment, frankly, unsuccessful.
And then, after all, then it would be necessary to make the analogies between the Kerensky losers, incapable of governing the gosudarstvo, and the current Russian liberals uncomfortable for the West. The goal of all these articles on the "birth of the tsar" and the anniversary of the revolution is quite different, as you understand.
Why is the West so pathetic and climbing into someone else's history, the West has no history of its own and envies Russia ???