Aleksandr Soljenitsin

Aleksandr Soljenitsin

Aleksandr Soljenitsin 1918 yil 11 dekabrda Kislovodskiyda tug'ilgan. Rostov universitetining matematika fakultetida o'qigan va Moskva davlat universitetining adabiyot bo'yicha sirtqi kursini tamomlagan.

Ikkinchi Jahon urushi paytida Soljenitsin Qizil Armiya safiga qo'shildi va artilleriya kapitani darajasiga ko'tarildi va jasorat uchun mukofotlandi. 1945 yilda Germaniya frontida xizmat qilayotganda, u do'stiga yozgan maktubida Iosif Stalinni tanqid qilgani uchun hibsga olingan.

Soljenitsin aybdor deb topilib, Qozog'istondagi Sovet mehnat lageriga yuborildi. Uning birinchi romani, Ivan Denisovich hayotining bir kuniMehnat lagerida qurilgan, dastlab taqiqlangan, lekin Nikita Xrushchevning aralashuvidan so'ng, u 1962 yilda nashr etilgan.

Uning keyingi romani, Birinchi doira (1968), Sovet tadqiqot markazida ishlashga majbur bo'lgan bir guruh olimlarning hayoti tasvirlangan va Saraton kasalxonasi (1968), saraton kasalligiga chalingan tajribasiga asoslanib, Nikita Xrushchev hokimiyatdan ketganidan keyin ham taqiqlangan. 1969 yilda Soljenitsin Sovet Yozuvchilar uyushmasidan chiqarildi va Moskvadan deportatsiya qilindi.

1970 yilda unga adabiyot bo'yicha Nobel mukofoti berildi, lekin uni Stokgolmda yig'ishga ruxsat berilmadi. Soljenitsin yozishni davom ettirdi va o'z romani, 1914 yil avgust (1971) Birinchi jahon urushi paytida Sovet Ittifoqida taqiqlangan, lekin chet elda nashr etilgan. Buning ortidan uning xotiralari, Gulag arxipelagi (1973). Bu uning hibsga olinishiga olib keldi va vatanga xiyonatda ayblanib, fuqaroligidan mahrum qilindi va Sovet Ittifoqidan deportatsiya qilindi.

1974 yilda adabiyot bo'yicha Nobel mukofotiga sazovor bo'lgan Soljenitsin AQShning Vermont shtatiga ko'chib o'tdi. U yozishni davom ettirdi va Tsyurixdagi Lenin 1975 yilda nashr etilgan. Buning ortidan ikkita badiiy adabiyot, Eman va Buzoq(1980) va O'lim xavfi (1983) va roman, 1916 yil noyabr (1993).

1994 yilda Mixail Gorbachyov Soljenitsinning fuqaroligini tikladi va vatanga xiyonat ayblovi bekor qilindi. O'sha yili u Sovet Ittifoqiga qaytib keldi va u erda bolsheviklardan oldingi avtokratik hukumatni qaytarishga chaqirdi.

Aleksandr Soljenitsin 2008 yil 3 avgustda 89 yoshida Moskva yaqinida yurak etishmovchiligidan vafot etdi.

Operatsiyadan so'ng, men lager kasalxonasining jarrohlik bo'limida yotaman. Qimirlay olmayman. Men isitaman va isitaman, lekin shunga qaramay, mening fikrlarim deleriyga aylanmaydi va men yotog'im yonida o'tirgan va kechqurun men bilan gaplashayotgan doktor Boris Nikolaevich Kornfelddan minnatdorman. Chiroq o'chirildi, shuning uchun u ko'zlarimga zarar bermaydi. Palatada boshqa hech kim yo'q.

U menga yahudiylikdan nasroniylikka o'tishi haqidagi uzoq hikoyani aytib beradi. Men yangi imonlilarning ishonchiga, so'zlarining jo'shqinligiga hayronman.

Biz bir -birimizni juda yaxshi bilamiz va u mening davolanishimga javobgar emas edi, lekin bu erda u bilan his -tuyg'ularini baham ko'radigan hech kim yo'q edi. U muloyim va odobli odam edi. Men undan yomon narsani ko'rmadim va u haqida yomon narsa bilmasdim. Ammo men qo'riqchi bo'ldim, chunki Kornfeld endi ikki oydan beri tashqariga chiqmasdan, shifoxona kazarmasida yashar edi. U bu erda, ish joyida o'zini yopib qo'ydi va umuman lager bo'ylab yurishdan qochdi.

Bu uning tomog'ini kesishdan qo'rqishini anglatardi. Bizning lagerimizda axlat kaptarlarining tomog'ini kesish oxirgi paytlarda modaga aylangan edi. Bu ta'sir ko'rsatadi. Ammo kim kafolat bera oladi, faqat bo'g'ozlar bo'g'zini kesib tashlaydilar? Achchiq -achchiq g'azabni bartaraf etish uchun mahbuslardan birining tomog'i kesilgan edi. Shuning uchun Kornfeldning kasalxonada o'zini qamashi uning axlat kaptar ekanligini isbotlamadi.

Allaqachon kech. Butun kasalxona uxlab yotibdi. Kornfeld o'z hikoyasini tugatadi:

"Umuman olganda, bilasizmi, men ishonamanki, er yuzidagi bu hayotda bizga munosib bo'lmagan jazo yo'q. Yuzaki ravishda biz ayblagan narsaga hech qanday aloqasi yo'q, lekin Agar siz o'z hayotingizni ingichka tishli taroq bilan o'tkazib, chuqur o'ylab ko'rsangiz, siz har doim bu zarbani olgan jinoyatingizni ovlay olasiz. "

Men uning yuzini ko'ra olmayapman. Deraza orqali faqat tashqi perimetr chiroqlarining tarqoq akslari keladi. Yo'lakning eshigi sariq elektr nurida yaltiraydi. Ammo uning ovozida shunday sirli bilim borki, men qaltirayapman.

Bu Boris Kornfeldning oxirgi so'zlari edi. U shovqinsiz yaqin atrofdagi palatalardan biriga kirdi va uxlab qoldi. Hamma uxlab qoldi. U bilan gaplashadigan hech kim yo'q edi. Men o'zim uyquga ketdim.

Meni ertalab yo'lakda yugurib oyoq osti qilib uyg'otishdi; buyurtmachilar Kornfeldning jasadini operatsiya xonasiga olib ketishgan. U uyqu paytida bosh suyagiga gipsli bolg'acha bilan sakkiz marta zarba bergan. U hushiga kelmay operatsiya stolida vafot etdi.

Menga qamoqdagi yillarimni, eng og'ir yukini sindirib tashlagan umrimni, odamning yovuzlikka aylanishi va qanday yaxshi bo'lishini aytib berish kerak edi. Yoshlikdagi muvaffaqiyatlar sarosimasida men o'zimni beg'ubor deb hisoblardim, shuning uchun men shafqatsiz edim. Hokimiyat surfitida men qotil va zolim edim. Eng yomon paytlarimda men yaxshilik qilayotganimga amin bo'ldim va tizimli dalillar bilan yaxshi ta'minlandim. Qachonki men chirigan qamoq somoniga yotqizilganimda, ichimda yaxshilikning birinchi qo'zg'olonini his qildim. Asta -sekin menga ma'lum bo'ldiki, yaxshilik va yomonlikni ajratuvchi chiziq na davlatlar, na sinflar, na siyosiy partiyalar o'rtasida, balki har bir inson qalbi orqali va butun inson qalbi orqali o'tadi. Bu chiziq siljiydi. Bizning ichimizda u yillar bilan tebranadi. Hatto yovuzlik hukm surgan qalblarda ham yaxshilikning kichik boshi saqlanib qoladi; va hatto eng yaxshi qalblarda ham yovuzlikning kichik burchagi qoladi.


Aleksandr Soljenitsin, antisemitmi?

Antisemitizm itining sevimli madaniy belgisi bo'lganlikda ayblanib, bahslar avj olmoqda. Yo'q, Mel Gibson emas: Bu bahs markazida turgan odam - rus yozuvchisi Aleksandr Soljenitsin.

"Gulag arxipelagi" muallifi Soljenitsin bir paytlar Sovet davlatiga ma'naviy qarshilik ko'rsatishning ramzi bo'lgan. U, ehtimol, kommunizm va G'arb ziyolilari orasida ma'naviy obro'sini yo'qotgani uchun boshqa odamlarga qaraganda ko'proq hurmatga loyiqdir.

1974 yilda Sovet Ittifoqidan surgun qilingan Soljenitsin 20 yildan so'ng Rossiyaga qaytib kelganidan so'ng, rus millatchiligi va G'arbga o'xshagan demokratiyaga antipatiyasi bilan ba'zi muxlislarni chetlab o'tdi. Shunday bo'lsa-da, u keksa ziyolilar va G'arbning ko'plab anti-kommunistlari orasida o'zining alohida maqomini saqlab qoladi.

Antisemitizm ayblovlari Soljenitsin uchun yangilik emas. Tanqidchilar uzoq vaqtdan beri Gulag arxipelagidagi yahudiylarning mehnat lagerlari komendantlarining familiyalarini tanlab sanab o'tadigan qismlarga ishora qilishgan. 1972 yilda ingliz tilida nashr etilgan Soljenitsin va 1914 yil avgustdagi tarixiy roman, Rossiyaning va 146 -yillardagi islohotlar bosh vaziri Pyotr Stolipinning qotili Dmitriy Bogrovning yahudiyligini ta'kidlaydi.

Soljenitsin aytganidek, u buni xuddi shunday aytgandi, lekin 1914 yil avgust tarixni sezilarli darajada bezatdi: Bogrov uchinchi avlodni qabul qilgan oiladan yaxshi singib ketgan inqilobchi bo'lsa-da, Soljenitsin uni yahudiy ismi Mordko bilan egarlab qo'ydi. Mordokay) va rus davlatini yahudiylarga yordam berish uchun buzishga urinishning uydirma maqsadi.

Keyin Soljenitsin Rossiyadagi yahudiylarning asosiy tarixini yozayotgani haqidagi xabar keldi. "Dvesti let vmeste" ning birinchi jildi, 1795 yildan 1916 yilgacha bo'lgan davrni o'z ichiga oladi, 2001 yilda, ikkinchi jildi 2003 yildan keyin paydo bo'ladi. Soljenitsinning so'zlariga ko'ra, asar rus tili haqida xolis va muvozanatli ma'lumot berishga mo'ljallangan edi. Yahudiy munosabatlari: & quot; Men har ikki tomonga - ruslar va yahudiylarga - sabr -toqatli tushunish va gunohning o'z ulushini tan olishlarini so'rayman. & Quot; Bu sharh o'z -o'zidan shubhali bo'lib tuyuladi. tizimli zulm va zo'ravonlik qurbonlari bo'lgan. O'zaro aybdorlik haqida gapirish, qora tanlilarning Jim Krou uchun o'z ayblarini qabul qilishlarini so'rashga o'xshaydi.

Soljenitsin yahudiylar va gunohning 146 -ulushini nimada ko'radi? Asosan, ular 19 -asr oxiri - 20 -asr boshlarida inqilobiy faoliyatda, keyin esa Sovet hukumatida qatnashdilar. U Rossiyadagi kommunizm yahudiylarning fitnasi natijasidir, degan da'volarni rad etadi, lekin yahudiylar terrorchilik davlatini yaratishda "rus xalqiga sezgir bo'lmagan va Rossiya tarixidan uzilgan" nomutanosib rol o'ynagan "deb da'vo qiladi.

Faqat "mutanosib bo'lmagan" so'zining ma'nosi nima? Yahudiylar sotsialistik inqilobchilar orasida juda ko'p edi, lekin tarixchi Richard Pipes "Yangi respublika" da ta'kidlaganidek, ular rus kapitalistlari orasida ham ko'p edi. Quvurlar aytadiki, inqilobchilar safida ruslar ustunlik qilgan. "Mark Deychning uch qismli" Moskovskiy komsomolets "gazetasida o'tgan yilning sentyabr oyida rus tilidagi 300 ta asosiy o'yinchi orasida 43 yahudiy borligi qayd etilgan. 1917 yildagi siyosiy sahna - va ulardan atigi 16 tasi bolsheviklar edi.

Soljenitsinning ta'kidlashicha, "Rossiya aholisi, umuman olganda, yangi (inqilobiy) terrorni yahudiy terrori sifatida qabul qilgan" va agar tasdiqlanmasa, hech bo'lmaganda bu idrokni oqlashga intiladi. Deitch Soljenitsin va 146 -chi odamlarning tahlilini hisobga oladi. Tarixchi Lev Krichevskiyning 146 -sonli bayonotidan iqtibos keltirganidan so'ng, 1918 yilda, Qizil terror paytida, etnik ozchiliklar Chekaning markaziy xodimlarining 50 foizini tashkil qilgan [maxfiy politsiya], - deydi Soljenitsin. ozchiliklar.

Ammo u Krichevskiy va 146 -sonlarning haqiqiy ma'lumotlarini e'tiborsiz qoldiradi, bu yahudiylarning Cheka xodimlarining 4 foizidan kamini tashkil qilganini va 8 foiz rahbarlik lavozimlarini egallaganligini ko'rsatadi. Boshqa hollarda, Soljenitsin aniq raqamlarga qarshi emas: u, masalan, "inqilobni bostirish bo'limi" da Cheka 12 tergovchisining oltitasi yahudiy bo'lganini ta'kidlaydi.


Savollar va muhokama nuqtalari

Kitob yozilayotganda, bu jarayonda ishtirok etayotganlardan bolalarga ushbu tarjimai holni o'qib, nimani o'rganishni xohlashlarini aniqlash talab qilindi. Quyida kitobni o'qish paytida istalgan vaqtda o'rganish mumkin bo'lgan keng mavzular keltirilgan. Ularni o'quvchilar o'qishni boshlashidan oldin, nimalarga e'tibor berish kerakligi haqida ko'rsatma sifatida tanishtirish mumkin. Ba'zilar ma'lum boblarga qarz berishadi va ularning hammasi kitobni tugatgandan so'ng munozarani olib borishda foydali bo'ladi.

1. Qalam qilichdan kuchliroq, tsivilizatsiyadagi eng katta yutuqlardan biri yozish san'ati ixtiro qilingandan keyin paydo bo'lgan. So'zlar bizni kultirishi yoki yig'latishi, ko'ngil ochishi, xabardor qilishi yoki ogohlantirishi mumkin. Qanday qilib Soljenitsin o'z yozuvidan foydalanib o'zgarishlarni yaratdi? Qalam qilichdan foydalanishni rag'batlantira oladimi? Pul qilich yoki qalamdan kuchliroqmi?

2. Zamonaviy dunyoda qanday qilib passivlik bilan emas, yovuzlikka qanday faol qarshilik ko'rsatish mumkin? Bizning jamiyatda/mamlakatda nima bo'layotgani haqida qayg'urish etarlimi yoki siz dunyoning boshqa burchaklaridagi odamlarga yordam berishga harakat qilishingiz kerakmi?

3. Soljenitsin hayotining chidamliligi kalit edi. U Gulag, surgun va saraton kabi dahshatli sharoitlardan omon qolgan, boshqalari esa bunday qilmagan. Bardoshli odamlarning quyidagi xususiyatlaridan foydalanib, Soljenitsin qanday qiyinchiliklarga duch kelganini va qanday qilib omad qozonganini muhokama qiling. Bu ro'yxatda uning tirik qolishiga olib kelgan boshqa xususiyatlar bormi?
- Moslashuvchan- qiyinchiliklarga dosh bera oladi
- Salbiy tajribalardan ijobiy saboq oling
- Harakat qiling- ular muammoni hal qilish ustida ishlaydilar
- Oila, do'stlar va tarafdorlar bilan aloqada bo'ling
- Jurnalga yozish, rasm chizish, meditatsiya qilish, yaqin do'stingiz bilan gaplashish orqali stress va stressni engillashtiradigan joylarga ega bo'ling.
- Doimiy jismoniy mashqlar qilish, muvozanatli ovqatlanish, etarlicha uxlash kabi yaxshi odatlarga ega bo'ling
- O'zingga ishon
- Kulgu
- Ijobiy nuqtai nazarga ega bo'ling

4. Soljenitsin g'arbiy madaniyatning pul va moddiy ne'matlar qiymatiga, hayotning ichki qiymatiga bo'lgan e'tiborining ortib borayotganidan xavotirda edi. Inson hayotining nimasi uni qadrli qiladi? Bu boshqa hayot turlariga qaraganda qimmatroqmi?


Ajralish chuqurligicha qolmoqda

Soljenitsin bu dunyoning bo'linishi haqida shunday dedi: "Haqiqat shundaki, bo'linish yanada chuqurroq va begonalashadi, bu yoriqlar bir qarashda ko'rilgandan ko'ra ko'proq". Ular Xitoy, Hindiston, musulmon dunyosi va dunyoning ko'plab madaniyatlari kabi turli madaniyatlar o'rtasidagi farqlarni o'z ichiga olgan.

Biroq, o'sha paytda, G'arbning bir qancha olimlari "yaqinlashish" bo'ladi, deb taxmin qilishgan, unda barcha madaniyatlar G'arbning turmush tarzini qabul qiladi, bu esa, bugungi kunda ham Birlashgan Millatlar Tashkilotining byurokratiyasi G'arbni doimiy ravishda o'zboshimchalik qilmoqchi bo'lgani kabi davom etmoqda. rivojlanayotgan mamlakatlarda jinsiy axloq. Bundan tashqari, G'arb va Sovet Ittifoqi o'rtasida yaqinlashuv bo'ladi degan fikr paydo bo'ldi.

Bu turdagi utopik qarashlar o'zgarmaydi, garchi hozirgi nom "konvergentsiya" dan "globallashuv" ga o'zgarganga o'xshaydi. Uning himoyachilari, ehtimol, 1978 yildagiga qaraganda, hatto Evropa Ittifoqi haqida orzu qilgan paytlarida ham, "Evropa Qo'shma Shtatlari" deb atashganidan ko'ra mustahkamroqdir.

Bugungi kunda ko'pgina Evropa rahbarlari o'jarlik bilan o'zlashtira olmaydigan yoki xohlamaydigan aholining nazoratsiz immigratsiyasi kabi siyosatni rag'batlantirishda davom etmoqda. Ular, ehtimol, Soljenitsin "tinchlantiruvchi konvergentsiya nazariyasi" ga yopishib oladilar, bu nazariya "bu olamlar umuman bir -biriga nisbatan rivojlanmayotgani va hech kim zo'ravonliksiz boshqasiga aylantirilmasligi" ni nazarda tutadi.


Aleksandr Soljenitsin va#039s Rossiyadagi yahudiylarning tanqidiy tarixi - Ron Unzdan qisqacha sharh

"Ko'p inqilobiy davrda yuqori rahbariyatning yahudiylik tarkibi hisobga olingan holda," antisemitizm "(Rossiyada) katta jinoyat deb topilgani ajablanarli emas."

Bu xabar birinchi bo'lib Russia Insider -da paydo bo'lgan

Bu Ron Unzning "Yahudiy dinining g'ayrioddiyligi" deb nomlangan, biz tavsiya qilgan ancha uzun maqolasidan parcha.

Biz uni bu erda takrorlaymiz, chunki XX asrda G'arbda Rossiya haqida o'rgatilgan narsalarning ko'pini yo'q qiladigan bu muhim kitob haqida juda kam yozilgan.

Nobel mukofoti laureati Aleksandr Soljenitsin umrim davomida, umuman olganda, bizning davrimizning eng buyuk rus adabiy arbobi sifatida tan olingan va uning barcha asarlarini, shu jumladan Birinchi doira, Saraton kasalligi bo'limi, va Gulag arxipelagiMen, albatta, bu fikrga qo'shildim va Maykl Skammelning ming sahifali ajoyib biografiyasini o'zlashtirdim.

Garchi rusning o'zi bo'lsa-da, uning eng yaqin do'stlarining ko'pi yahudiy edi, lekin 1980-90-yillarda uning antisemitizmi haqidagi pichirlashuvlar tarqala boshladi, ehtimol u ba'zida yahudiylarning bolsheviklarni moliyalashtirishda ham, boshqarishda ham muhim rolini ko'rsatgani uchun. Inqilob, keyin NKVD xodimlari va Gulag mehnat lagerlarini boshqarish.

Bu "iqtibos" haqiqiy bo'lishi ehtimoldan yiroq emas, aksincha uni yaratgan memerning fikrini aks ettiradi.

U hayotining oxirida yahudiylar va ruslar o'rtasidagi chalkash munosabatlarning ikki jildli tarixini sarlavha ostida yozdi. Ikki yuz yil birgava bu asar tez orada rus, frantsuz va nemis tillarida paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa -da, qariyb yigirma yil o'tgach, hech qachon inglizcha tarjimaga ruxsat berilmagan. Uning adabiy yulduzi ham o'sha paytdan beri Amerikada ancha susayganga o'xshaydi va men uning gazetalarida shu kunlarda uning ismini kamdan -kam uchrataman.

Uning yakuniy ishining asosiy bo'limlarining Samizdat versiyalari osongina Internetda joylashishi mumkin va bir necha yil oldin Amazon vaqtincha 750 sahifali qog'oz nusxasini sotdi, men buyurtma berdim va ozgina.

Hamma narsa juda zararsiz va haqiqatdek tuyuldi va menda hech qanday yangilik yo'q edi, lekin yahudiylarning kommunizmdagi o'ta og'ir roli haqidagi hujjatlar amerikalik tomoshabinlar uchun noo'rin deb topilgan, xuddi yahudiylar va slavyan dehqonlari o'rtasidagi o'ta ekspluatatsion munosabatlar haqida. chorvadorlar tez-tez yumshatmoqchi bo'lgan likyorlik va pul qarziga asoslangan inqilobiy davr.

Qachonki, hukmron elita nazorat qilayotgan aholi bilan aloqasi cheklangan bo'lsa, xayrixohlik kamdan -kam uchraydi va bu elita shafqatsiz ekspluatatsion xatti -harakatlarga ega bo'lsa, bu muammolar yanada kuchayadi. Bolshevik inqilobidan keyin juda ko'p ruslar azob chekishdi va vafot etishdi va o'sha davrda yuqori rahbariyatning yahudiylar tarkibidan iborat bo'lganini hisobga olsak, "antisemitizm" ning asosiy jinoyat sifatida e'tirof etilishi ajablanarli emas. Ehtimol, Kevin MakDonald "dushman elita" atamasini yaratgan va mamlakat shunday nazorat ostida qolganda, uning baxtsiz oqibatlarini muhokama qilgan bo'lishi mumkin.

1991 yilda Sovet Ittifoqi parchalanib ketganidan so'ng, tez orada qayta tug'ilgan Rossiya deyarli butunlay yahudiy bo'lgan kichik bir guruh oligarxlar hukmronligi ostida qoldi va ko'p o'tmay umumiy rus aholisi uchun umumiy baxtsizlik va qashshoqlik boshlandi. Ammo Vladimir Putin ismli haqiqiy rus o'z nazoratini qo'lga kiritgach, bu tendentsiyalar o'zgardi va o'sha paytdan boshlab ruslar hayoti ancha yaxshilandi.

Amerikaning matbuot organlari yahudiy oligarxiyasi hukmronligi davrida Rossiyaga nisbatan juda do'stona munosabatda bo'lishgan, Putin esa Gitlerdan buyon dunyoning etakchilaridan ko'ra shafqatsizroq tarzda matbuotda jinni bo'lishgan.

Darhaqiqat, bizning ommaviy axborot vositalari mutaxassislari Putinni "yangi Gitler" deb atashadi va menimcha, bu o'xshashlik asosli bo'lishi mumkin, lekin ular xohlagan tarzda emas.

Bu xabar birinchi bo'lib Russia Insider -da paydo bo'lgan

Har kim bu kontentdagi matnni (lekin tasvirlar yoki videolarni emas) har qanday muhitda yoki formatda qayta nashr etish, o'zgartirish va qayta qurish huquqiga ega bo'lgan holda, hatto tijoriy jihatdan ham, qayta nashr etish, nusxalash va qayta tarqatish huquqiga ega. backlink va kredit Rossiya Insider. Xabar berish shart emas Rossiya Insider. Creative Commons litsenziyalangan

Bizning sharh qoidalarimiz: Siz F so'zidan boshqa deyarli hamma narsani aytishingiz mumkin. Agar siz haqoratli, odobsiz yoki pullik troll bo'lsangiz, biz sizni taqiqlaymiz. Muharrir Charlz Bausmanning to'liq bayonoti.


Gulag | 1945-1952 yillar

1945 yil, fevral
Bir kishilik kamerada o'tkazilgan.

1945 yil, 9 may
Uning kamerasida eshitilgan qirq qurolli salomga ko'ra, u urush tugaganini taxmin qiladi.

1945 yil, 7 iyul
Mehnat lagerida 8 yilga hukm qilingan.

1945 yil, avgust
Krasnaya Presniyadagi tranzit qamoqxonasiga o'tkazildi. Loy karer smenasi ustasi, trolleybus tashuvchi, loy qazuvchi bo'lib ishlaydi.

1945 yil 9 sentyabr
Moskvaga, Bolshaya Kalugadagi qurilish lageriga, 30 yoshga ko'chdi.

1946 yil, bahor
Lager detektivi Soljenitsinni "Shamollar" kod nomi ostida yollashga harakat qilmoqda. Soljenitsin jazoni yengillashtirish bo'yicha harakatlarni boshladi.

1946 yil, may
U duradgorlik brigadasida parket shogirdi sifatida tayinlangan.

1946 yil, 27 sentyabr
Aviatsiya sharashkasida ishlash uchun Yaroslavl viloyati Ribinsk maxsus qamoqxonasiga o'tkazildi. Sharashkalar Gulag tizimiga kiruvchi maxfiy tadqiqot va ishlab chiqarish laboratoriyalari edi. Qamoqxonaga yuborilgan olimlar va tadqiqotchilar ushbu muassasalarda hukumat uchun tadqiqot olib borishga majbur bo'lishadi.

1946 yil, 6 noyabr
"Butyrskaya qamoqxonasi xotiralari" she'rini (og'zaki, xotirada) yozgan.

1947 yil, 21 fevral
Ribinskdan Moskvaga ko'chirildi ("Uchinchi Butyrka").

1947 yil, iyun
SSSR Bosh prokuroriga o'z ishini qayta ko'rib chiqish to'g'risida so'rov yuboradi.

1947 yil, yoz
Moskvadagi sharashkaga (Marfino) o'tkazildi va kutubxonachi etib tayinlandi.

1950 yil, kuz
Intizomiy kazarmani qurishda g'isht teruvchi bo'lib she'rlar yozgan.

1950-1951 yillar, qish
Zek (mahbus) ning bir kuni haqidagi hikoya g'oyasi paydo bo'ladi.

1951 yil, yoz
Mashinasozlik ustasi bo'ladi.

1952 yil, 29 yanvar
Qorin bo'shlig'idagi o'simtaning keskin o'sishi tufayli tibbiy bo'limga yuborildi va lager kasalxonasiga o'tkazildi.

1952 yil, 12 fevral
Jarroh mahbus K.F.Donis Soljenitsinga operatsiya qilib, xavfli o'smani olib tashladi.

1952 yil, 26 fevral
Kasalxonadan chiqarilib, quyish sexida yordamchi bo'ladi.


Aleksandr Soljenitsin: Xristian bo'lishga jasorat

Dunyoviy fundamentalizmning kuchi tobora kuchayib borayotgan va diniy erkinlikka putur yetgandek tuyulgan bu qorong'u kunlarda, nasroniylarning tushkunlikka tushishi oson. Radikal relyativizm bulutlari ob'ektiv haqiqatning nurini berkitgandek tuyuladi va kelajakni umid bilan yoritishga yordam beradigan kumush astarni farqlash qiyin bo'lishi mumkin.

Bunday zulmatli paytlarda shahidlarning misoli ruhlantiradi. Masih va Uning cherkovi uchun o'z hayotini biznikidan ko'ra yomonroq vaqtlarda qurbon qilganlar - bu nurli chiroqlar, qonni suvga cho'mdirish bilan zulmatni yo'q qilishadi. "Bunday qurbonliklar uchun, - deydi qirol Lir, yaqinda shahid bo'lgan qizi Kordeliyaga, - xudolar tutatqi tutatadilar".

Aytishlaricha, shahidlarning qoni cherkov urug'idir va agar shunday bo'lsa, o'tgan asrda undan oldingi qonli asrlarga qaraganda ko'proq qonli urug 'ekilgan. Evropada, Xitoyda, Kambodjada va boshqa joylarda milliy va xalqaro sotsializmning qon to'kilgan qurbongohlarida o'n millionlab odamlar o'ldirilgan. Bugun dunyoning ko'p joylarida "reproduktiv huquqlar" nomi bilan millionlab millionlar ona qornida so'yilmoqda.

Bunday baquvvat davrda Aleksandr Soljenitsinning ulkan siymosi jasorat kolusi sifatida namoyon bo'ladi. 1918 yilda Rossiyada tug'ilgan, dunyoviy fundamentalistlar bolshevik inqilobidan keyin hokimiyatga kelganidan bir necha oy o'tgach, Soljenitsinning davlat ta'lim tizimi miyasini yuvdi, unga sotsializm adolatli va din xalq dushmani ekanligini o'rgatdi. Maktabdagi ko'plab do'stlari singari u o'zini zeitgeistga qul qilib, ateist bo'lib, kommunistik partiyaga qo'shildi.

Ikkinchi Jahon urushi paytida Sharqiy frontda Sovet armiyasida xizmat qilib, u sovuq qonli qotillik va Qizil Armiya nemislardan "qasos" olgani uchun ayollar va bolalarning zo'rlanishiga guvoh bo'lgan. U hafsalasi pir bo'lib, Sovet rahbari Iosif Stalinni tanqid qilishda beparvolik qildi va siyosiy dissident sifatida sakkiz yilga qamaldi.

U qamoqda bo'lganida, sovet tuzumining dahshatlarini ochishga qaror qildi. Ozod qilinganidan ko'p o'tmay, Qozog'istonga majburiy surgun qilinganida, uning o'sish bosqichida malign saraton tashxisi qo'yilgan va yashashi kutilmagan. Yaqinlashib kelayotgan o'lim oldida u nasroniylikni qabul qildi va mo''jizaviy tiklanish deb o'yladi.

1960 -yillar davomida Soljenitsin Sovet Ittifoqining dunyoviy zulmini fosh qilgan uchta romanini nashr etdi va 1970 yilda adabiyot bo'yicha Nobel mukofotiga sazovor bo'ldi. 1973 yilda o'zining asosiy asari nashr etilgach, Gulag arxipelagi, an fosh qilish Sovet qamoqxona tizimidagi siyosiy muxoliflarga nisbatan munosabati, u hibsga olingan va Sovet Ittifoqidan quvilgan, shundan keyin Shveytsariya va AQShda surgun hayotida yashagan. U nihoyat 1994 yilda, Sovet tuzumi qulaganidan keyin Rossiyaga qaytdi.

1978 yilda Soljenitsin Garvard universitetida o'zining mashhur chiqishida G'arbning sekulyarizmi va hedonizmini tanqid qilib, katta tortishuvlarga sabab bo'ldi. Ozod G'arb deb atalgan davlatlarni ma'naviy bankrotlikda ayblab, u "inson huquqlarini emas, balki insoniy majburiyatlar kabi himoya qilish vaqti" kelganini da'vat etdi.

Mas'uliyat o'rniga huquqlarga urg'u berish "inson tanazzulining tubsiz tubiga" va "yoshlarga nisbatan axloqiy zo'ravonlik, masalan, pornografiya, jinoyat va dahshatga to'la kinofilmlar" ga olib keldi. Zamonaviy xafagarchilikning asosi "ratsionalistik gumanizm yoki gumanistik avtonomiya" ning zamonaviy falsafasi bo'lib, u "insonning o'zidan yuqori hokimiyatdan avtonomiyasi" ni e'lon qildi. Bunday qarashni "antropotsentrizm" deb ham atash mumkin, bunda odam hamma narsaning markazi sifatida qaraladi. "

Oxir oqibat, G'arbni asta -sekin zaharlayotgan kasallikka Soljenitsin yopishtirgan yorliqlar beriladimi yoki biz unga dunyoviy fundamentalizm nomini berishni afzal ko'ramiz. Boshqa har qanday nomdagi kasallik xuddi o'lik bo'ladi.

Bundan tashqari, bu kasallik nafaqat halokatli, balki o'z-o'zini yo'q qiladigan kasallikdir. Uning uzoq muddatli kelajagi yo'q. Garchi dunyoviy fundamentalist "progressivlar" kelajakdagi "oltin asrga" ishonishlari mumkin bo'lsa -da, bunday asr yo'q. Ular xabar beradigan kelajak - bu faqat qorong'i va qorong'i bulutlarni yig'ishdir. Bu taqdir "mag'rurlik" ni e'lon qilganlar uchun shunday bo'lgan. Kelajakda ular yiqilishidan boshqa narsani kutishmaydi.

Masihiyga kelsak, uning umidsizlik g'ururiga tushib qolishidan boshqa qo'rqadigan hech narsasi yo'q. Agar u tushkunlikka tushishdan qochsa va kamtarligini saqlasa, uning mevasi bo'lgan umid sovg'asini oladi. Umid bor joyda Yo'l, Haqiqat va Hayot bor.

Dunyoviy fundamentalizmning so'nggi namoyon bo'lishining qulashini kutar ekanmiz, o'lim madaniyati parazit ekanligini unutmasligimiz kerak. U hayot bermaydi, faqat uni buzadi yoki buzadi. Barcha muvaffaqiyatli parazitlar singari, u oziqlanadigan uy egasi madaniyatini o'ldirganda ham o'zini o'ldiradi. Bu nafaqat o'lik, balki o'z joniga qasd qilishdir. Bu barqaror emas. U yashay olmaydi.

Shuni unutmaylikki, Gitlerning ming yillik Reyx haqidagi va'dasi atigi o'n ikki yil davom etdi. Xuddi shunday, Marksning so'zlariga ko'ra, tarixning oxirida ochiladigan kommunistik inqilobning o'zi tarixning vayron qilingan qoldig'idir. Soljenitsin Sovet qamoqxonalaridagi ko'p millionli odamlardan biri bo'lib qolganida, u sovet tuzumidan uzoq umr ko'rishini va uning jasorati bu tizimning qulashida muhim rol o'ynashini bilmas edi.

Biz boshlagan zulmatli osmon tasviriga qaytsak, biz bulutlar va ularning soyalari o'tkinchi ekanligini eslatib o'tishimiz kerak. Yomonlik nihilistikdir, bu oxir -oqibat hech narsa emasligini aytishning yana bir usuli. Bu faqat yorug'likni vaqtincha blokirovka qilishdir. Har doim kamtar Samsil Gamgi e'lon qilganidek: "Hamma soyadan avval Quyosh keladi". Uzuklar hukmdori. Hatto shu qora kunlarda ham, Soljenitsin eslatganidek, har bir bulutning kumush qoplamasi bor.

Imaginative Conservative madaniyat va siyosatni muhokama qilishda minnatdorchilik tamoyilini qo'llaydi - biz muloqotga oddiy fuqarolik bilan emas, ulug'vorlik bilan yondashamiz. Siz bizga zamonaviy munozaralar tobora kuchayib borayotgan maydonda tetiklantiruvchi voha bo'lib qolishga yordam berasizmi? Iltimos, o'ylab ko'ring hozir xayriya qilish .

Evstafiev yuklagan taniqli rasm, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported litsenziyasi ostida, Wikimedia Commons ruxsati bilan taqdim etilgan.

Barcha sharhlar moderativ bo'lib, suhbatga sodda, aniq va konstruktiv bo'lishi kerak. Insho uchun tanqidiy fikrlar ma'qullanishi mumkin, lekin muallifning adominem tanqidini o'z ichiga olgan sharhlar e'lon qilinmaydi. Shuningdek, veb -havolalar yoki blokirovkalarni o'z ichiga olgan sharhlar ma'qullanishi dargumon. Shuni yodda tutingki, insholar mualliflarning fikrlarini ifodalaydi va The Imaginative Conservative yoki uning muharriri yoki noshirining qarashlarini aks ettirmaydi.


Aleksandr Soljenitsin va Rossiyadagi yahudiylarning tanqidiy tarixi

Bu biz tavsiya qilgan Ron Unzning "Yahudiy dinining g'ayrioddiyligi" nomli ancha uzunroq maqolasidan parcha. Biz uni bu erda takrorlaymiz, chunki XX asrda G'arbda Rossiya haqida o'rgatilgan narsalarning ko'pini yo'q qiladigan bu muhim kitob haqida juda kam yozilgan.

” … (inqilobiy) davrning eng yuqori rahbariyatining yahudiylar tarkibidan iborat bo'lganini hisobga olsak, "antisemitizm" (Rossiyada) katta jinoyat deb topilgani ajablanarli emas. "

Umuman olganda, Nobel mukofoti laureati Aleksandr Soljenitsin bizning davrimizning eng buyuk rus adabiy arbobi sifatida tan olingan va uning barcha asarlarini, shu jumladan "Birinchi davr", "Saraton kasalxonasi" va "Gulag arxipelagi" ni o'qib chiqqach, men, albatta, bunga qo'shilaman. da'vo va Maykl Skammelning minglab sahifali tarjimai holini g'ayrat bilan o'zlashtirdi.

Garchi rusning o'zi bo'lsa-da, uning eng yaqin do'stlarining ko'pi yahudiy edi, lekin 1980-90-yillarda uning antisemitizmi haqidagi pichirlashuvlar tarqala boshladi, ehtimol u ba'zida yahudiylarning bolsheviklarni moliyalashtirishda ham, boshqarishda ham muhim rolini ko'rsatgan. Inqilob, keyin NKVD xodimlari va Gulag mehnat lagerlarini boshqarish.

Bu ‘quote ’ ning haqiqiy bo'lishi ehtimoldan yiroq emas, aksincha uni yaratgan memerning fikrini aks ettiradi, bu qarash munosib:

"Siz tushunishingiz kerak, Rossiyani egallagan etakchi bolsheviklar ruslar emas edi. Ular ruslardan nafratlanishdi. Ular nasroniylarni yomon ko'rishardi. Etnik adovat tufayli ular millionlab ruslarni insoniy pushaymon qilmasdan qiynoqqa solishdi va so'yishdi.

"Buni ortiqcha baholab bo'lmaydi. Bolshevizm insoniyatning eng buyuk qirg'inini sodir etdi. Dunyoning ko'p qismi bu ulkan jinoyatga befarq va beparvo munosabatda bo'lgani, jahon ommaviy axborot vositalari jinoyatchilar qo'lida ekanligidan dalolatdir ”.

U umrining oxirida yahudiylar va ruslar o'rtasidagi "Ikki yuz yil birga" sarlavhasi ostida ikki jildli katta tarixni yozdi va bu asar tez orada rus, frantsuz va nemis tillarida paydo bo'lgan bo'lsa-da, deyarli yigirma yil o'tgach, ingliz tili yo'q edi. tarjimaga ruxsat berilgan. Uning adabiy yulduzi ham o'sha paytdan beri Amerikada ancha susayganga o'xshaydi va men uning gazetalarida shu kunlarda uning ismini kamdan -kam uchrataman.

Uning yakuniy ishining asosiy bo'limlarining Samizdat versiyalari osongina Internetda joylashishi mumkin va bir necha yil oldin Amazon vaqtincha 750 sahifali qog'oz nusxasini sotdi, men buyurtma berdim va ozgina.

Hamma narsa juda zararsiz va haqiqatdek tuyuldi va menda hech qanday yangilik yo'q edi, lekin yahudiylarning kommunizmdagi o'ta og'ir roli haqidagi hujjatlar amerikalik tomoshabinlar uchun noo'rin deb topilgan, xuddi yahudiylar va slavyan dehqonlar o'rtasidagi o'ta ekspluatatsion munosabatlar. chorvadorlar ko'pincha yumshatishga intilgan likyorlik va pul qarziga asoslangan inqilobiy davrlar.

Qachonki, hukmron elita nazorat qilayotgan aholi bilan aloqasi cheklangan bo'lsa, xayrixohlik kam uchraydi va bu elita shafqatsiz ekspluatatsion xatti -harakatlarga ega bo'lsa, bu muammolar yanada kuchayadi. Bolshevik inqilobidan keyin juda ko'p ruslar azob chekishdi va vafot etishdi va o'sha davrda yahudiylarning eng yuqori rahbariyati tarkibi hisobga olinsa, "antisemitizm" ning asosiy jinoyat sifatida e'tirof etilishi ajablanarli emas. Kevin MakDonald, ehtimol, "dushman elita" atamasini yaratgan va mamlakat shunday nazorat ostida qolganda, uning baxtsiz oqibatlarini muhokama qilgan bo'lishi mumkin.

1991 yilda Sovet Ittifoqi parchalanib ketganidan so'ng, tez orada qayta tug'ilgan Rossiya deyarli butunlay yahudiy bo'lgan kichik bir guruh oligarxlar hukmronligi ostida qoldi va ko'p o'tmay umumiy rus aholisi uchun umumiy baxtsizlik va qashshoqlik boshlandi. Ammo Vladimir Putin ismli haqiqiy rus o'z nazoratini qo'lga kiritgach, bu tendentsiyalar o'zgardi va o'sha paytdan boshlab ruslar hayoti ancha yaxshilandi.

America’s media organs were overwhelmingly friendly toward Russia when it was under Jewish Oligarchic rule, while Putin has been demonized in the press more ferociously than any world leader since Hitler.

Indeed, our media pundits regularly identify Putin as “the new Hitler” and I actually think the analogy might be a reasonable one, but just not in the way they intend.


MOST BANNED BOOK IN THE WORLD: 200 Years Together Russian-Jewish History – Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn [English Translation Version]

The True Democracy Party is Proud to Present ‘The Most Banned Book In The World’.

1 Website and 1 Webpage have been pulled down since we began trying to bring this book forward.

This book is so Feared by World Zionist Jewry, that they have refused to translate it into English to this very day, the World Over.

This shows you how much of the World Media that ‘They’ control.

It’s been translated into German and French only, from the original Russian.

A group of Professors and Translators, so fed up with this Ultra World Censorship of an Acclaimed near masterpiece, and trying to keep information away from American’s, have begun Translating it on their own at their own expense, and are making it ‘Freely Available’ to all.

The result is a almost complete Translation, which can be viewed for free, as long as the various websites are up.

Most of the sites that ‘claim’ to have this book, Don’t. They just lure you in to give you their version of what Alex has to say.
We don’t believe you need their help or Propaganda.

We hope you enjoy a little unedited and uncensored truth.

Two Hundred Years Together was written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the famous Russian dissident who won a Nobel Prize for Literature. It is about the time of the Russians and the Jews inside the empire. He wrote in Russian of course but various publishers decided they were not going to put out an English version because they were Jews or frightened of them.

The together of the title refers to Russians and Jews. The first volume was Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916. The second was called The Jews in the Soviet Union. So it is clear enough why the Jews were never going to like what he had to say.

Alex knew them close up and personal. Alex tells the truth about Jews so they hate him and his book. Oddly it has been put out in German and French. One might think the Germans would not be allowed access to the truth about the shysters marketing the Holocaust® story. Perhaps they have been brain washed into acceptance. A little of the background is at May Regulations.

The Wikipedia’s article at Two Hundred Years Together – Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia is an example of their worst kind of work. The use of words like allege, claim, admit and purports indicate the use of Words as Propaganda Tools. The Wiki was set up by Jews with an agenda. Naturally they do not link to Professor MacDonald as a source. Truth and agenda are out of synch again. But read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.

More chapters are being translated as a private venture and being published on line.

The Barnes Review Of 200 Years Together
QUOTE
This issue, TBR is proud to bring you something we know you have never seen in the English language. It is an overview and critical review of one of the most important books compiled in the 20th century. The book being reviewed herein was written by the 1970 recipient of the Nobel prize in literature and one of the most highly respected writers and philosophers of the age—Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. How could such a book escape publication in the United States? For that matter, why has no one ever translated the book into English? The title should help us understand why this book has been banned and suppressed since the day it was completed. The title of the volume we are reviewing is, simply, The Jews in the Soviet Union. This volume is part two of Solzhenitsyn’s massive two-book series 200Years Together.

Pressure from extremely powerful Zionist sources, as you have already figured out by the title, has kept this valuable work from reaching readers in the West. And the reason for that will become obvious once you dive into this issue of TBR. It details, with great precision, the Jewish involvement in the creation of Bolshevism and communism and the willing participation of Jews in perpetrating the worst mass murders of the 20th century—crimes which dwarf claims about the so-called “holocaust.” The number of innocent Christian Russians who died at the hands of the Soviets is mind-boggling. Solzhenitsyn himself estimated the toll at 60million. Many Jews, it must be added, were also crushed under the Soviet steamroller in later years, after Josef Stalin began to diminish their involvement in political and military affairs.

The truth contained within Solzhenitsyn’s The Jews in the Soviet Union might never have reached the Western world at all had not German historian Udo Walendy brought it some much-deserved attention. Over his career, as TBR readers know, this brave historian has published extremely honest and forthright discussions of World War II. For doing so he has twice been imprisoned in Germany. Think about this courageous man and the price he has paid for the truth as you read this special issue. Please note: This detailed review by Walendy is not a fawning endorsement of every word of Solzhenitsyn. Instead, Walendy takes the author to task where he feels he has fallen short of Revisionist standards.

In addition to Walendy, we thank nationalists Roy Armstrong and John Nugent for translating Walendy’s German review into English, and the many TBR staffers and volunteers who contributed so heavily to this issue. We think it is so important, we humbly suggest you buy extra copies to give to libraries and friends. Please see the ad on page 65 for more information. And while you’re at it, please renew your subscription to TBR. We can honestly say, TBR brings you a magazine unlike any other in the world today. Please see the full color ADVANCE RENEW insert found between pages 24 and 25 of this issue. There you will find a really special offer you’ll want to take advantage of. And don’t miss the special message to all readers
UNQUOTE
Can you afford not to read this one?

The Barnes Review Special On 200 Years Together
QUOTE
The present discussion is concerned with the second volume of Solzhenitsyn’s two volume work. Together they are called Two Hundred Years Together. In Romanized Russian, this is Dvyesti lyet vmestye.

The first volume was Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916 and ran to 512 pages, published in 2001. In 2002 the second volume appeared, a 600-page-long investigation called The Jews in the Soviet Union.
UNQUOTE
Alexandr is not beating about the bush with his titles. You can see why the Jews were never going to like him – or for that matter the truth

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Interviewed
QUOTE
Chukovskay: Am I right to understand that in the first chapters of Book 2, devoted to the Revolution, you disclose the Russian noms de guerre of Jewish revolutionaries and count their number in the supreme Revolutionary bodies so as to show in the closing chapters, when talking about the need for nationwide repentance, that Jews have cause not only to resent Soviet power, but also to repent?

Solzhenitsyn: That’s right, both.
UNQUOTE
He reads as an honest man who is not hated by all Jews. The corollary is that some are honest.

Currently translated parts are:

Chapter 4. In the Age of Reforms

Chapter 5. After the Murder of Alexander II

Chapter 13. The February Revolution

Chapter 16. During the Civil War

Chapter 17. Emigration between the two World Wars

Chapter 18. During the 1920s

Chapter 20. In the camps of GULag

Chapter 21. During the war with Germany

Chapter 22. From the End of the War to Stalin’s Death

Chapter 23. Before the Six-Day War

Chapter 24. Breaking Away From the Bolshevism

Chapter 25. Accusing Russia

Chapter 26. The Exodus Begins

Chapter 27. About the Assimilation. Author’s afterword

Any of the Websites below have the Above Chapter [ LINKS ]

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together: Russo-Jewish History, Vol. 1: 1795-1916.

Chapter 1, To End of 18th Century, first installment (see contents).

[G13] In this book the presence of the Jews in Russia prior to 1772 will not be discussed in detail. However, for a few pages we want to remember the older epochs.

One could begin, that the paths of Russians and Jews first crossed in the wars between the Kiev Rus and the Khazars– but that isn’t completely right, since only the upper class of the Khazars were of Hebraic descent, the tribe itself being a branch of the Turks that had accepted the Jewish faith.

If one follows the presentation of J. D. Bruzkus, respected Jewish author of the mid 20th century, a certain part of the Jews from Persia moved across the Derbent Pass to the lower Volga where Atil [west coast of Caspian on Volga delta], the capital city of the Khazarian Khanate rose up starting 724 AD. The tribal princes of the Turkish Khazars, at the time still idol-worshippers, did not want to accept either the Muslim faith – lest they should be subordinated to the caliph of Baghdad – nor to Christianity – lest they come under vassalage to the Byzantine emperor and so the clan went over to the Jewish faith in 732. But there was also a Jewish colony in the Bosporan Kingdom [on the Taman Peninsula at east end of the Crimea, separating the Black Sea from the Sea of Azov] to which Hadrian had Jewish captives brought in 137, after the victory over Bar-Kokhba. Later a Jewish settlement sustained itself without break under the Goths and Huns in the Crimea especially Kaffa (Feodosia) remained Jewish. In 933 Prince Igor [912-945, Grand Prince of Kiev, successor of Oleg, regent after death of Riurik founder of the Kiev Kingdom in 862] temporarily possessed Kerch, and his son Sviatoslav [Grand Prince 960-972] [G14] wrested the Don region from the Khazars. The Kiev Rus already ruled the entire Volga region including Atil in 909, and Russian ships appeared at Samander [south of Atil on the west coast of the Caspian]. Descendents of the Khazars were the Kumyks in the Caucasus. In the Crimea, on the other hand, they combined with the Polovtsy [nomadic Turkish branch from central Asia, in the northern Black Sea area and the Caucasus since the 10th century called Cuman by western historians see second map, below] to form the Crimean Tatars. (But the Karaim [a jewish sect that does not follow the Talmud] and Jewish residents of the Crimean did not go over to the Muslim Faith.) The Khazars were finally conquered [much later] by Tamerlane [or Timur, the 14th century conqueror].

A few researchers however hypothesize (exact proof is absent) that the Hebrews had wandered to some extent through the south Russian region in west and northwest direction. Thus the Orientalist and Semitist Abraham Harkavy for example writes that the Jewish congregation in the future Russia “emerged from Jews that came from the Black Sea coast and from the Caucasus, where their ancestors had lived since the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity.” J. D. Bruzkus also leans to this perspective. (Another opinion suggests it is the remnant of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.) This migration presumably ended after the conquest of Tmutarakans [eastern shore of the Kerch straits, overlooking the eastern end of the Crimean Peninsula the eastern flank of the old Bosporan Kingdom] (1097) by the Polovtsy. According to Harkavy’s opinion the vernacular of these Jews at least since the ninth century was Slavic, and only in the 17th century, when the Ukrainian Jews fled from the pogroms of Chmelnitzki [Bogdan Chmelnitzki, Ukrainian Cossack, 1593-1657, led the successful Cossack rebellion against Poland with help from the Crimean Tatars], did Yiddish become the language of Jews in Poland.

[G15] In various manners the Jews also came to Kiev and settled there. Already under Igor, the lower part of the city was called “Kosary” in 933 Igor brought Jews that had been taken captive in Kerch. Then in 965 Jews taken captive in the Crimea were brought there in 969 Kosaren from Atil and Samander, in 989 from Cherson and in 1017 from Tmutarakan. In Kiev western Jews also emerged.: in connection with the caravan traffic from west to east, and starting at the end of the eleventh century, maybe on account of the persecution in Europe during the first Crusade.

Later researchers confirm likewise that in the 11th century, the “Jewish element” in Kiev is to be derived from the Khazars. Still earlier, at the turn of the 10th century the presence of a “khazar force and a khazar garrison,” was chronicled in Kiev. And already “in the first half of the 11th century the jewish-khazar element in Kiev played “a significant roll.” In the 9th and 10th century, Kiev was multinational and tolerant.

At the end of the 10th century, in the time when Prince Vladimir [Vladimir I. Svyatoslavich 980-1015, the Saint, Grand Prince of Kiev] was choosing a new faith for the Russians, there were not a few Jews in Kiev, and among them were found educated men that suggested taking on the Jewish faith. The choice fell out otherwise than it had 250 hears earlier in the Khazar Kingdom. Karamsin [1766-1826, Russian historian] relates it like this: “After he (Vladimir) had listened to the Jews, he asked where their homeland was. ‘In Jerusalem,’ answered the delegates, ‘but God has chased us in his anger and sent us into a foreign land.’ ‘And you, whom God has punished, dare to teach others?’ said Vladimir. ‘We do not want to lose our fatherland like you have.’” After the Christianization of the Rus, according to Bruzkus, a portion of the Khazar Jews in Kiev also went over to Christianity and afterwards in Novgorod perhaps one of them – Luka Zhidyata – was even one of the first bishops and spiritual writers.

Christianity and Judaism being side-by-side in Kiev inevitably led to the learned zealously contrasting them. From that emerged the work significant to Russian literature, “Sermon on Law and Grace” ([by Hilarion, first Russian Metropolitan] middle 11th century), which contributed to the settling of a Christian consciousness for the Russians that lasted for centuries. [G16] “The polemic here is as fresh and lively as in the letters of the apostles.” In any case, it was the first century of Christianity in Russia. For the Russian neophytes of that time, the Jews were interesting, especially in connection to their religious presentation, and even in Kiev there were opportunities for contact with them. The interest was greater than later in the 18th century, when they again were physically close.

Then, for more than a century, the Jews took part in the expanded commerce of Kiev. “In the new city wall (completed in 1037) there was the Jews’ Gate, which closed in the Jewish quarter.” The Kiev Jews were not subjected to any limitations, and the princes did not handle themselves hostilely, but rather indeed vouchsafed to them protection, especially Sviatopolk Iziaslavich [Prince of Novgorod 1078-1087, Grand Prince of Kiev 1093-1113], since the trade and enterprising spirit of the Jews brought the princes financial advantage.

In 1113, Vladimir (later called “Monomakh”), out of qualms of conscience, even after the death of Sviatopolk, hesitated to ascend the Kiev Throne prior to one of the Svyatoslavich’s, and “exploiting the anarchy, rioters plundered the house of the regimental commander Putiata and all Jews that had stood under the special protection of the greedy Sviatopolk in the capital city. … One reason for the Kiev revolt was apparently the usury of the Jews: probably, exploiting the shortage of money of the time, they enslaved the debtors with exorbitant interest.” (For example there are indications in the “Statute” of Vladimir Monomakh that Kiev money-lenders received interest up to 50% per annum.) Karamsin therein appeals to the Chronicles and an extrapolation by Basil Tatistcheff [1686-1750 student of Peter the Great, first Russian historian]. In Tatistcheff we find moreover: “Afterwards they clubbed down many Jews and plundered their houses, because they had brought about many sicknesses to Christians and commerce with them had brought about great damage. Many of them, who had gathered in their synagogue seeking protection, defended themselves, as well as they could, and redeemed time until Vladimir would arrive.” But when he had come, “the Kievites pleaded with him for retribution toward the [G17] Jews, because they had taken all the trades from Christians and under Sviatopolk had had much freedom and power…. They had also brought many over to their faith.”

According to M. N. Pokrovski, the Kiev Pogrom of 1113 had social and not national character. (However the leaning of this “class-conscious” historian toward social interpretations is well-known.)

After he ascended to the Kiev throne, Vladimir answered the complainants, “Since many [Jews] everywhere have received access to the various princely courts and have migrated there, it is not appropriate for me, without the advice of the princes, and moreover contrary to right, to permit killing and plundering them. Hence I will without delay call the princes to assemble, to give counsel.” In the Council a law limiting the interest was established, which Vladimir attached to Yaroslav’s “Statute.” Karamsin reports, appealing to Tatistcheff, that Vladimir “banned all Jews” upon the conclusion of the Council, “and from that time forth there were none left in our fatherland.” But at the same time he qualifies: “in the Chronicles in contrast it says that in 1124 the Jews in Kiev died [in a great fire] consequently, they had not been banned.” (Bruzkus explains, that it “was a whole Quarter in the best part of the city… at the Jew’s Gate next to the Golden Gate.”)

At least one Jew enjoyed the trust of Andrei Bogoliubskii [or Andrey Bogolyubsky] in Vladimir. “Among the confidants of Andrei was a certain Ephraim Moisich, whose patronymic Moisich or Moisievich indicates his jewish derivation,” and who according to the words of the Chronicle was among the instigators of the treason by which Andrei was murdered. However there is also a notation that says that under Andrei Bogoliubskii “many Bulgarians and Jews from the Volga territory came and had themselves baptized” and that after the murder of Andrei his son Georgi fled to a jewish Prince in Dagestan.

In any case the information on the Jews in the time of the Suzdal Rus is scanty, as their numbers were obviously small.

[G18] The “Jewish Encyclopedia” notes that in the Russian heroic songs (Bylinen) the “Jewish Czar” – e.g. the warrior Shidowin in the old Bylina about Ilya and Dobrin’a – is “a favorite general moniker for an enemy of the Christian faith.” At the same time it could also be a trace of memories of the struggle against the Khazars. Here, the religious basis of this hostility and exclusion is made clear. On this basis, the Jews were not permitted to settle in the Muscovy Rus.

The invasion of the Tatars portended the end of the lively commerce of the Kiev Rus, and many Jews apparently went to Poland. (Also the jewish colonization into Volhynia and Galicia continued, where they had scarcely suffered from the Tatar invasion.) The Encyclopedia explains: “During the invasion of the Tatars (1239) which destroyed Kiev, the Jews also suffered, but in the second half of the 13th century they were invited by the Grand Princes to resettle in Kiev, which found itself under the domination of the Tatars. On account of the special rights, which were also granted the Jews in other possessions of the Tatars, envy was stirred up in the town residents against the Kiev Jews.” Similar happened not only in Kiev, but also in the cities of North Russia, which “under the Tatar rule, were accessible for many [Moslem? see note 1] merchants from Khoresm or Khiva, who were long since experienced in trade and the tricks of profit-seeking. These people bought from the Tatars the principality’s right to levy Tribute, they demanded excessive interest from poor people and, in case of their failure to pay, declared the debtors to be their slaves, and took away their freedom. The residents of Vladimir, Suzdal, and Rostov finally lost their patience and rose up together at the pealing of the Bells against these usurers a few were killed and the rest chased off.” A punitive expedition of the Khan against the mutineers was threatened, which however was hindered via the mediation of Alexander Nevsky. “In the documents of the 15th century, Kievite [G19] jewish tax-leasers are mentioned, who possessed a significant fortune.”

Note 1. The word “Moslem” is in the German but not French translation. I am researching the Russian original.

5 Comments to Two Hundred Years Together: From the Beginnings in Khazaria

We have all heard of the Khazars, and how the majority of Ashkenazi jews probably descend from them, but it is fascinating to see that history given a time and place, and fleshed out.
Harkavy’s thesis that the caspian jews were from the ten lost tribes or the remnant of the not-lost two tribes seems either implausible or self-defeating to me. (1) Why would those people have lost their collective memory of who they were? If it is claimed that they did remember, then why did they not write it down (genealogies, etc.)? (2) On the other hand, if they were descended from exiled Israel, but lost all continuity with the same, in what sense should they be regarded as jews? That is racism in the only form that the term makes any sense, but which still celebrates an absurdity: namely, thinking that mere blood, without any inherited culture, character, or accomplishment, grants one solidarity.

It is also interesting to see how in relatively recent history (yes I know, I must be weird to think of 1000 AD as “recent”) we can observe the formation of brand-new ethnic groups from a combination of migration and marriage, the turkish Cuman tribe for example becoming the partially european yet distinct tribe of Crimean Tatars.

In this regard, it is also fascinating to see that the majority of modern-day jews are essentially a branch of the Turks.

Comment by Tim H — December 12, 2007 @ 7:03 pm

Wrong, Tim. The majority of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry comes from the Israelites. See the evidence for yourself at http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html and in Chapter 10 of “The Jews of Khazaria”, Second Edition, published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2006.
Comment by Kevin Brook — December 20, 2007 @ 11:59 pm

Kevin — I’m certainly no expert in genetics and so will quickly get out of my depth here. However, as with any layman in connection with any science, we can certainly challenge the logic.
At your link, he concludes that “the main ethnic element of … most modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite,” but supports this with “the Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.” However, earlier he stated that “the Y-DNA haplogroups J and E … are typical of the Middle East” but not limited to Israel. So the logic seems to be:

All jews are (haplogroups J and E)
All (haplogroups J and E) are middle eastern

the latter including “Kurdish, Armenian, Palestinian Arab, Lebanese, Syrian, and Anatolian Turkish peoples”

From this we could conclude the family heritage with middle eastern peoples, not Israel simply.

And if Turks are lumped in with that group, as he does, there is no contradiction to my assertion. Indeed, coming full circle in that way shows the absurdity of the “rebuttal.”

The “middle east” is taken to include Armenians, Arabs, and Turks, and this itself shows the difficulty of these studies using samples after the mixing has occurred. Unless they can get enough DNA from the ancients, there is a great deal of assumption that must be mixed in, it seems to me. This is similar to the claim a while ago that some Negroes were descended from Thomas Jefferson. You can go up the chain, with 1/2 admixing at every step, then you have to go back down the chain, with 1/2 mixing at every step. And the DNA at each of the “1/2 admixing” steps, if it were avaialable at all, is also the result of such a series of 1/2 admixtures. I’m skeptical.

Later, your author identifies Khazars as Europeans, which is absurd.

Comment by TJH — December 21, 2007 @ 9:20 am

A correspondent has pointed out that in the passage near the end of this section,
“under the Tatar rule, were accessible for many Moslem merchants from Khoresm or Khiva, who were long since experienced in trade and the tricks of profit-seeking.”

the word “Moslem” is not in the French version. It does not appear to be in the Russian either, though I am struggling to get every word in the Russian. When I succeed, I will make a final correction. Until then, I have added a footnote.

Comment by TJH — March 31, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

I can confirm that the explicit word “Moslem” does not appear in the original. However, I think a Russian reader would infer that the merchants were in fact Moslem. The groups mentioned still exist today, though there are very few Besermyan left. They were either part of, or paid tribute to, the Khanate of Kazan. The Khoresm live in an area that was once in the Islamic Khanate of Khiva. Solzhenitsyn was quoting an official Russian history by N.M. Karamzin.


Voices from the Gulag

A brief history of the Russian labor camps known as Gulags interspersed with the pieces of actual memoirs from survivors as well as excerpts from some of the more prominent works of literature about the Gulags written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn giving chilling descriptions from both the inside looking out and the outside looking in.


Alexander Solzhenitsyn


Remembering Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Ours is an age of politicization. No matter the problem, real or imagined, proposed solutions are always couched in the language of politics. No subject can be discussed without constant reference to its political ramifications. Whatever position a political leader may adopt with respect to a current &ldquoissue,&rdquo it must be judged not by its relevance to governance, but by its impact on upcoming elections. Everything, in short, is viewed through the prism of politics. Politics has come to occupy the center of the lives of many, if not most, Americans it is the search engine for meaning in a secular world.

In his famous commencement address delivered at Harvard University in 1978, the Russian dissident writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn attempted to awaken his listeners to their condition: &ldquoWe have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.&rdquo

Solzhenitsyn was born Dec. 11, 1918 in Kislovodsk, a spa city in the North Caucasus region of Russia. The Bolsheviks had seized power a year earlier, but a civil war of annihilation raged until 1921 before the &ldquoReds&rdquo achieved final victory. As a result, Solzhenitsyn was to live under Communist rule for more than 50 years. His was a miraculously long and eventful life. He survived combat in World War II, cancer, and eight years in what he called the Gulag Archipelago, the universe of Soviet forced labor camps.

The 1962 publication of Solzhenitsyn&rsquos novel about the gulags, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, turned Solzhenitsyn from an obscure former zek (labor camp prisoner) into an international celebrity. In the years following, he was praised in the West as a political critic of the Soviet regime and therefore a friend of liberal democracy, a writer following in the footsteps of 19th-century Westernizers such as Ivan Turgenev and Aleksandr Herzen. Although he was an enemy of Stalinism, the novel is not primarily about politics but about the soul&rsquos search for God. &ldquoBe glad you&rsquore in prison,&rdquo young Alyoshka the Baptist tells Ivan. &ldquoHere you have time to think about your soul.&rdquo

The diplomat and historian George Kennan once observed that Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany were aberrations that stood outside of traditional systems of politics. On Sept. 5, 1973, Solzhenitsyn forwarded a private letter to Soviet leaders in which he made it clear that he did not consider authoritarianism in itself to be intolerable, but rather &ldquothe ideological lies that are daily foisted upon us.&rdquo This was a way of saying that the Bolshevik Revolution did something far worse than establish a tyrannical regime. Like the Nazi regime which followed more than a decade later, it sought to destroy the souls of those whom it subjugated.

Solzhenitsyn agreed with the exiled legal and religious philosopher Ivan Ilyin&rsquos characterization of the revolutionary upheaval: &ldquoThe political and economic reasons leading to this catastrophe are unquestionable, but its essence is deeper than politics and economics it is spiritual.&rdquo In a postscript to a 1975 samizdat essay entitled &ldquoAs Breathing and Consciousness Return,&rdquo Solzhenitsyn again made it clear that his concerns were fundamentally religious and moral&mdashthe state structure was of secondary significance:

That this is so, Christ himself teaches us. &lsquoRender unto Caesar what is Caesar&rsquos&rsquo&mdashnot because every Caesar deserves it, but because Caesar&rsquos concern is not with the most important thing in our lives.

Early in his monumental history of the labor camp system, The Gulag Archipelago (1973), Solzhenitsyn states, &ldquoLet the reader who expects this book to be a political exposé slam its covers shut right now.&rdquo In a section entitled &ldquoThe Soul and Barbed Wire,&rdquo he writes of the ascent of his own soul that had begun with his renunciation of survival &ldquoat any price.&rdquo That renunciation freed him to examine his conscience, to reflect upon his own weaknesses rather than those of others: &ldquoReconsider all your previous life. Remember everything you did that was bad and shameful.&rdquo

Suddenly, Solzhenitsyn became aware that he had never forgiven anyone for anything, that he had judged others without mercy. As a result of this self-scrutiny he perceived a profound irony: &ldquoI nourished my soul there, and I say without hesitation: Bless you, prison, for having been in my life!&rdquo

Solzhenitsyn recognized that the problems confronting Russians, indeed all men, were fundamentally spiritual, not political, in nature. No political system, therefore, could provide a solution to them, and that included democracy, which Solzhenitsyn, citing Joseph Schumpeter, referred to as &ldquoa surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion.&rdquo

History knew of few democracies, he wrote. People had lived for centuries without them and were not always worse off for it. Russia herself had long existed under authoritarian rule and her people died without feeling that their lives had been wasted. If such systems had functioned for centuries, Solzhenitsyn thought it was fair to conclude that they could offer people a tolerable life.

In his Harvard address, Solzhenitsyn informed his audience with regret that, having lived in the West for four years, he could not recommend it as a model for a post-Communist Russia. He did not cite theoretical opposition to democratic political systems as his reason, however. He reflected that, &ldquoThrough deep suffering, people in our country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive.&rdquo

A political system should not, Solzhenitsyn argued, be measured by its military power or the size of its economy, but by the sum of the spiritual progress of individuals under its authority. In America he witnessed little spiritual progress but much evidence of decadence, including crime, pornography, intolerably vulgar music, and the identification of happiness as the ultimate goal in life. America suffered from the &ldquoforfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk,&rdquo he wrote. &ldquoA person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.&rdquo This problem has, of course, grown much more severe since the creation of the internet.

It isn&rsquot necessary to read Solzhenitsyn for very long before one becomes aware of his sympathy for authoritarian governments of a non-despotic and nonideological character. In the &ldquoAuthor&rsquos Note&rdquo to The Red Wheel (1971), his novelized four-volume history of the Russian Revolution, he informs his readers that the fictional Olda Andozerskaya (modeled after Alya, his second wife) is, &ldquoamong other things, a vehicle for the [favorable] views on monarchy of Professor Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin.&rdquo More importantly, there was no figure in The Red Wheel, or in Russian history, whom he admired more than Pyotr Stolypin, prime minister of Russia from 1906 to 1911 and an authoritarian but liberal reformer who sought to transform peasants living in communes into smallholders. In Solzhenitsyn&rsquos view, his assassination removed the one man who might have spared Russia war and revolution.

Solzhenitsyn was not alone in his admiration for Stolypin he was later joined by Vladimir Putin, who chose the martyred leader as a role model. Putin was the driving force behind the erection in Moscow of a monument in his honor. Although the Russian president operates within a democratic framework, his personal style is authoritarian. On succeeding the alcoholic and incompetent Boris Yeltsin, a darling of the West, Putin presided over rapid economic growth, reined in the power of the so-called &ldquooligarchs,&rdquo worked to restore Russian culture, and defended the moral teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church. Putin visited Solzhenitsyn&rsquos suburban Moscow home on two occasions and earned the writer&rsquos praise. &ldquoPutin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people,&rdquo Solzhenitsyn told Der Spiegel just a year before his death in 2008. &ldquoAnd he started to do what was possible&mdasha slow and gradual restoration.&rdquo

Although generally critical of the Western world, Solzhenitsyn expressed respect for Spain&rsquos caudillo, General Francisco Franco, who &ldquowith firm tactics&rdquo had managed to keep his country Christian &ldquoagainst all history&rsquos laws of decline.&rdquo After making a visit to Spain in 1976, just a year after Franco&rsquos death, Solzhenitsyn reported that Spaniards could travel abroad freely, read newspapers from around the world, and criticize public policy, as indeed they had done, with some limitations, since the pluralistic reforms of the 1950s. &ldquoIf [Russians] had such conditions,&rdquo he said, &ldquowe would be thunderstruck, we would say this was unprecedented freedom.&rdquo Franco&rsquos Spain was in his estimation superior to the secular West and to the one democratic &ldquoexperiment&rdquo in Russian history.

As he was conducting research for the third novel in The Red Wheel cycle at the Hoover Institution and elsewhere, Solzhenitsyn, to his surprise, arrived at a highly critical view of Russia&rsquos Provisional Government that had come to power in the wake of the February Revolution of 1917, which he had once viewed with favor. For most Western historians, that revolution was a glorious, if short-lived, event in Russia&rsquos history&mdashthe fall of the autocracy and the establishment of a liberal-democratic government. Solzhenitsyn viewed it as an anarchic catastrophe that paved the way for the Bolshevik coup d&rsquoétat. His unsparing account of the first days of revolutionary turmoil has a contemporary ring.

As he writes in the series&rsquo third book, March 1917, on the first day of that doomed revolution, a &ldquocraze began of smashing shop windows and ravaging, even looting shops.&rdquo On the third day, &ldquoThe crowd started throwing empty bottles at the police.&rdquo Later that month the mob chased down and attacked police officers without mercy, shouting:

&lsquoBeat them, grind them to sausage&hellipwith whatever&rsquos handy&mdashsticks, rifle butts, bayonets, stones, boots to the ear, heads on the pavement, break their bones, stomp them, trample them&hellip. We don&rsquot want to live with police anymore. We want to live in total freedom!&rsquo

Later still, &ldquoEach inhabitant of the capital&hellipwas left to fend for himself. Released criminals and the urban rabble were doing as they pleased.&rdquo Functional democracy, Solzhenitsyn observed, demands a high level of political discipline. &ldquoBut this is precisely what we lacked in 1917, and one fears that there is even less of it today.&rdquo

As a political realist, however, Solzhenitsyn recognized that democracy was likely to be Russia&rsquos future. He had read Tocqueville who believed, with regret, that democracy was the West&rsquos destiny. &ldquoThe whole flow of modern history,&rdquo the Russian wrote, &ldquowill unquestionably predispose us to choose democracy.&rdquo Yet democracy had been elevated &ldquofrom a particular state structure into a sort of universal principle of human existence, almost a cult.&rdquo

For Solzhenitsyn, democracy was far from being a universal principle. Like Tocqueville, he looked for ways to mitigate its likely excesses. &ldquoWe choose [democracy] in full awareness of its faults and with the intention of seeking ways to overcome them.&rdquo He did develop a sympathy for democracy at the local level, what he called &ldquothe democracy of small areas,&rdquo in part because he remembered the zemstva, those promising organs of rural self-government established in 1864 during the age of the Great Reforms under Tsar Alexander II, which had been replaced by the Bolsheviks with Soviet collectives.

Solzhenitsyn also recalled with pleasure the time he witnessed an election in the Swiss canton of Appenzell. Officials there spoke of individual freedoms linked to self-limitation, which Solzhenitsyn regarded as essential to responsible political and personal conduct. Freedom, in his view, had less to do with an external lack of restraint than with internal self-control. Based upon his experience in the gulag, he knew that &ldquowe can firmly assert our inner freedom even in an environment that is externally unfree.&rdquo

On the other hand, after his years in the West, Solzhenitsyn concluded that &ldquothe notion of freedom has been diverted to unbridled passion, in other words, in the direction of the forces of evil (so that nobody&rsquos &lsquofreedom&rsquo would be limited!).&rdquo

Appenzell&rsquos direct elections also received Solzhenitsyn&rsquos approval. The Swiss citizens of that canton knew those whom they voted for and did not need a Ph.D. in political science to arrive at reasoned judgments concerning local housing, hospitals, and schools. To vote responsibly for national leaders whom they could not know or for proposed bills about which they were not competent to judge was, however, a different matter.

Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky had once pronounced universal and equal suffrage &ldquothe most absurd invention of the nineteenth century,&rdquo but Solzhenitsyn said only that it was permissible to have doubts about its alleged merits. Universal suffrage seemed to him to clash with obvious inequalities of talent, varying contributions to society, and differing levels of maturity. He therefore favored indirect and unequal (or restricted) voting, like what America&rsquos Founding Fathers had thought to establish.

Unfortunately for America, the Founders&rsquo representative government soon fell victim to the inexorable march toward mass democracy, especially with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, which transferred the election of senators by state legislatures directly to the people. Once established as a civil religion, democracy possessed the power, as American historian Walter McDougall has pointed out, &ldquoto conflate the sacred and secular.&rdquo Religion and leftist politics became, for all practical purposes, one and the same.

There are endless examples of this conflating of sacred and secular. The most recent is the cult that has grown up around an American black man, George Floyd, who achieved the status of saint and martyr because he died (of a heart attack according to the autopsy report) after a physical confrontation with Minneapolis police. To be sure, he was little helped by the methamphetamine and fentanyl in his system or by the irresponsible method of restraint applied by an officer. At one of several memorial services celebrating his life&mdasha life marked by a lengthy criminal record&mdashhe was pictured with angel wings and a halo.

Concurrently, thousands of white Americans attended cultish services of repentance for their own and the nation&rsquos alleged sin of &ldquosystemic racism.&rdquo Around the nation others, white and black, &ldquotook the knee&rdquo with heads bowed in support of &ldquoBlack Lives Matter,&rdquo the religio-revolutionary movement to which all are now obliged to pay public obeisance.

Media figures do their part by their insistent demands for ever more public demonstrations of national contrition and atonement&mdashfor the removal or destruction of all monuments or names honoring Confederate leaders who stand accused of the &ldquooriginal sin&rdquo of slavery, and for extensive &ldquoreparations.&rdquo In this way, we are led to understand, white Americans may purchase redemption. However, even that reckoning is unlikely to pay off the alleged debt.

On Jan. 28, 1919, just weeks after Solzhenitsyn&rsquos birth and while the Russian Civil War entered its decisive year, Max Weber delivered a lecture in Munich entitled &ldquoPolitik als Beruf&rdquo (Politics as a Calling). The great sociologist had learned Russian at the time of the abortive Revolution of 1905 and had followed events avidly in several Russian newspapers. He intended to write a book about Leo Tolstoy and was profoundly impressed by Dostoevsky. Moreover, he was well acquainted with Russian emigrés who attended the Sunday discussions at his home.

Another regular attendee at those gatherings was the Hungarian critic and philosopher Georg Lukács, who had joined the Hungarian Communist Party only weeks earlier. Luk va aacutecs va rsquos kutilmagan konvertatsiyasini hisobga olgan holda, Veber Myunxenlik auditoriyasiga: "O'zini va boshqalarni qalbini qutqarishni istagan odam, uni siyosat va hellip orqali izlamasligi kerak", deb aytdi. Viber shunday xulosaga keldi: din sifatida siyosat muqarrar ravishda zo'ravonlikka olib keladi.

Shaxsiy najot, Soljenitsin yaxshi tushunganidek, ko'proq an'anaviy yo'llar bilan to'g'ri izlandi, bu 1919 yildagi kabi bugungi kunda ham to'g'ri.


Videoni tomosha qiling: Alexander Rybak - Magic Official Music Video