The Highland County Homeless Shelter is open 365 days a year. We can offer assistance & support for up to 28 men, women, and children, for a maximum of 90 days. We provide beds, food, and shelter, along with access to essential programs & services that enable homeless individuals to rebuild their confidence, and their lives. We are happy to serve Highland County & surrounding area's, and we are proud to serve those less fortunate.


text:
Fatou Diome (* 1968 auf Niodior) ist eine senegalesische und französische Schriftstellerin.

Leben
Fatou Diome wurde im Süden des Senegal auf der kleinen Insel Niodior im Saloum Delta geboren. Ihre unverheiratete Mutter gab sie zu ihren Großeltern, die sie aufzogen und auch beschützten, da ihre Umwelt und selbst ihre Familie sie ablehnte.

Entgegen dem, was die regionalen Traditionen vorschreiben, interessierte sie sich für die Schule, wo sie Französisch lernte. Die kleine Fatou musste zunächst heimlich in die Schule gehen, bis ihr Grundschullehrer ihre Großmutter überzeugen konnte, sie offiziell in der Schule anzumelden. Sie interessierte sich insbesondere für frankophone Literatur.

Mit 13 Jahren verließ sie ihr Dorf, um ihre Bildung in anderen Orten im Senegal zu vervollständigen. Ihren Unterhalt finanzierte sie durch eigene Arbeit. Sie besuchte das Gymnasium (Lycee) in Mbour, arbeitete als Kindermädchen im englischsprachigen Gambia und studierte schließlich in der Hauptstadt Dakar.

Mit 22 Jahren heiratete sie einen Franzosen und folgte ihm nach Frankreich. Von der Familie ihres Gatten nicht akzeptiert, ließ sie sich nach zwei Jahren scheiden. Um ihre universitäre Ausbildung finanzieren zu können, arbeitete sie über sechs Jahre lang als Putzfrau. Auch als sie eine gering bezahlte Stelle als Lehrbeauftragte bekam, musste sie weiter zusätzliches Geld verdienen.

Im Jahre 1994 ließ sie sich in Straßburg nieder. Nach ihrem literaturwissenschaftlichen Studium an der Universität Straßburg schrieb sie eine Doktorarbeit zum Thema Die Reise, der Austausch und die Bildung im literarischen und filmischen Werk von Sembène Ousmane. Sie unterrichtete an der Universität Marc Bloch (heute  Universität Straßburg) und an der Pädagogischen Hochschule in Karlsruhe.

Nach einer ersten Veröffentlichung, einer Sammlung von Erzählungen im Jahre 2001, erlebte Fatou Diome als Autorin einen Erfolg mit ihrem Debütroman Le Ventre de l'Atlantique (2003; Deutsch "Der Bauch des Ozeans"). Frankreich und Afrika und ihr Verhältnis zueinander bilden den Rahmen ihrer Erzählungen und ihres Romans. Sie beschreibt die  Integrationsschwierigkeiten nach der Ankunft in Frankreich, immer wieder durchsetzt von den Erinnerungen an die Kindheit in Senegal.

Bibliographie
 La Préférence Nationale, Erzählungen, 2001 (dt. Eingeborne zuerst!, übersetzt von András Dörner, sujet Verlag, Bremen 2012)
 Le Ventre de l'Atlantique, Roman, 2003 (dt. Der Bauch des Ozeans, übersetzt von Brigitte Große, Diogenes Verlag, Zürich 2004; Taschenbuch 2006, ISBN 3-257-23521-6)
 Les Loups de l'Atlantique, Novelle, 2002 (Die Wölfe des Atlantik)
 Kétala, Roman, 2006 (dt. Ketala, übersetzt von Brigitte Große, Diogenes Verlag, Zürich 2007)
 in der Sammlung: Étonnants Voyageurs. Nouvelles Voix d'Afrique (Verwunderliche Reisende. Neue Stimmen Afrikas)
 Inassouvies, nos vies, Roman, 2008, Editions Flammarion
 Celles qui attendent, Roman, 2010, Editions Flammarion
 Impossible de grandir, Roman, 2013, Éditions Flammarion
 Mauve, Erzählung, 2010, Éditions Flammarion
 Marianne porte plainte !, Essay, 2017, Éditions Flammarion
 Les Veilleurs de Sangomar, Roman, 2018, Albin Michel
 De quoi aimer vivre, Roman, 2021, Albin Michel
 Marianne face aux faussaires, Essay, 2022, Albin Michel

Auszeichnungen
 Jugendbuchpreis der Jury der jungen Leser 2005 für Der Bauch des Ozeans
 LiBeraturpreis 2005 für Der Bauch des Ozeans

Weblinks

 Vorstellung von Fatou Diome auf der Seite des Internationalen Literaturfestivals Berlin
 Fatou Diome über die Geschichte der Kolonisierung (Le Monde)
 « Fatou Diome. "Je suis là pour gâcher le sommeil des puissants" » (L'Humanité)
 « Fatou Diome : "Je veux que mon histoire soit un socle depuis lequel bondir vers l'avenir." » (France Inter)

Einzelnachweise

Autor
Literatur (Senegal)
Senegalese
Geboren 1968
Frau

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Brackets set for CIAA Tournament
The race for the final trophy to be held in Charlotte begins this week
Courtesy: The CIAA
CHARLOTTE, NC – The Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA) announces the brackets for its 2020 Women's and Men's Basketball Tournament. The single-elimination tournament will be held in two venues again this year: Bojangles' Coliseum February 25-26 and Spectrum Center February 27-29. Championship games will tip-off at 1:00 p.m. for the women followed by the men at 4:30 p.m. on Saturday, February 29.
Virginia Union solidified the women's Northern Division title and the top seed in the division with a win over Virginia State on Saturday and finished the regular season with a 13-2 conference record.
By virtue of a coin toss, Lincoln (PA) receives the no. 2 seed in the North ahead of Bowie State, who will be the no. 3 seed, after both teams finished with a 12-3 record in league play. As a reminder, the conference's tiebreaker record is as follows: divisional record, head-to-head competition, head-to-head point differential, and a coin toss.
Elizabeth City State will be the no. 4 seed followed by Virginia State as the no. 5 seed in the division.
In the women's Southern Division, Fayetteville State University clinched the title and the top seed with a 15-2 conference record. Johnson C. Smith University finishes in the no. 2 spot at 12-5 while Winston-Salem State University comes in as the no.3 seed with an 8-9 record in conference play.
Rounding out the rest of the seeds in the division are Livingstone at no. 4 and Saint Augustine's at no. 5 followed by Shaw and Claflin at no. 6 and no. 7, respectively.
The Women's Tournament will tip-off Tuesday, February 25 at 10:00 a.m. with Elizabeth City State vs. Saint Augustine's. Other women's contests on Tuesday include: 12:10 p.m. Bowie State vs. Shaw, 2:20 p.m. Livingstone vs. Virginia State, and 4:30 p.m. Winston-Salem State vs. Claflin. In the quarterfinals, Fayetteville State will await the winner between Elizabeth City State and Saint Augustine's for a 2:20 p.m. tipoff on Wednesday while Virginia Union will await the winner of Livingstone and Virginia State for their 4:30 p.m. contest. On Thursday, Lincoln (PA) will play the winner of Winston-Salem State and Claflin while the winner between Bowie State and Shaw will advance to face Johnson C. Smith at 3 p.m.
The men's Northern Division was clinched by Virginia State, who finished with a 12-3 conference record. The Trojans are followed by no. 2 Virginia Union and no. 3 Bowie State who close out the regular season at 11-4 and 8-7, respectively. Lincoln (PA) comes in at no. 4 with a 5-10 record in league play followed by Elizabeth City State as the fifth seed with a 4-11 record.
In the Southern Division, Johnson C. Smith and Winston-Salem State share the division title with identical conference records of 13-4 but the Golden Bulls receive the top seed by virtue of the divisional record tiebreaker. Coming in with a 10-7 record is the three seed Fayetteville State followed by no. 4 Claflin, who sport a 9-8 record in league play. Despite their matching 5-12 records, Saint Augustine's gets the nod over Livingstone for the fifth seed based on the divisional record tiebreaker. Shaw is the no. 7 seed in the division with a record of 2-15 in conference play.
The Men's Tournament will tip-off Tuesday at 6:40 p.m. with Lincoln vs. Saint Augustine's followed by Claflin vs. Elizabeth City State at 8:50 p.m. Men's quarterfinal action will begin on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. with Fayetteville State taking on Shaw followed by Bowie State vs. Livingstone at 12:10 p.m. Virginia State will play the winner of Claflin and Elizabeth City State at 6:40 p.m. on Wednesday and Johnson C. Smith will face the winner of Lincoln vs. Saint Augustine's at 8:50 p.m. The quarterfinals continue on Thursday as Virginia Union takes on the Fayetteville State/Shaw winner at 7 p.m. while Winston-Salem State takes on the winner of Bowie State and Livingstone at 9 p.m.
The 2019 #CIAAFB Southern Division Champions @FSUBroncos are here to wish the #CIAA a great #CIAATourney75. Get your tickets today to join us February 25 – 29! 👉🏾 https://t.co/Iqi14mfCrE. #RoadToCharlotte #LiveTheLegacy #CIAATourney75 pic.twitter.com/qGt5uisORJ
— CIAA (@CIAAForLife) February 23, 2020
All games will be broadcast on the CIAA Sports Network (https://theciaasn.com/) with the final eight games also being shown on Aspire TV.
The men's bracket can be found here and the women's bracket can be seen by clicking here.
Related Items:basketball, CIAA, featured

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The design of the homepage was a fun challenge to get right, especially for all the different languages.
When we started the project there were only 3 languages: English, Spanish and Traditional Chinese. Later on this was expanded on by adding Vietnamese and Tagalog.
The site uses what we like to call double top navigation of which one contains a mega menu. In between the navigation menus there is a News Ticker, that can be clicked away by the visitor.
Throughout the site the pages use different full width header images. It has become a large website with more than 200 pages per language, which is excluding all other custom content.
A year later the client wanted a special map showing all clinics in San Francisco. Although a year earlier we already built something similar for the Healthy San Francisco project, we decided to do it differently this time.
The end result is a very sleek map which can be filtered on postal code as well as on clinic name.


Earlier this year Home Depot confirmed that 56 million cards had been compromised in one of the biggest retail security breaches in history. Now we know that much like the Target hack—which was traced to a heating company—Home Depot was infiltrated by custom malware and passwords stolen from a third party vendor.
An article in the Wall Street Journal has lots of new information about the hack, including the fact that the attackers made entry by stealing a vendor's username and password to get into Home Depot's payment system. In addition, we now know 53 million email addresses were stolen. Before all we knew was that 56 million had been exposed.
The weak point was a Windows vulnerability that allowed hackers to access the Home Depot system through a vendor's connection and start collecting proprietary sales information. Turns out Home Depot's system was a little too exposed to vendors who didn't have as much security as maybe they should have.
Microsoft did issue a fix for the bug in Windows, but it came too late; by then the hackers were already able to move freely through the system. The attack focused specifically on the self-service checkout systems, about 7,500 of which are found in stores nationwide. For about five months the hackers collected data undetected, mostly because the malware was written to erase itself without a trace.


Florida : the good place for golf fans !
In terms of Golf, Florida is the one with more than 1000 courses. Golf lovers will be satisfied while taking a holiday in this beautiful place. Moreover, the time of a weekend will not allow to visit or even play in these beautiful grounds to try to compete with other pros from other continents. In Florida, there are countries with each of the best golf courses. In relation to this, let us show you the best golf course for golf experts.
Doral Golf Courses: a course linked to the PGA Tour, it offers a score comparison to all international players like Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Greg Norman. The hole number 18, one par 4, is one of the most beautiful holes from all over the world and this includes the existence of a fountain. That's why it's hard to compete with the experts.
Key West Golf Club: With a beautiful setting and a warm atmosphere, it allows everyone to play with a feeling of travel through time for a few minutes.
PGA Golf Club: This 54-hole course is in the high level because it is part of the PGA Village. The three courses were designed by the hands of two most desired architects. This may be one of the reasons for the large number of great players who go to this place.
Ocean Links Course: play near the ocean. Everything is suitable for golf as the environment adorned with water features and old oaks. The fairways are still difficult, which allows a challenge for the amateurs.
You might be golf expert in your terrain; however, in order to measure your skills, playing in other places with more challenges and difficulties is important. Playing in the Conservatory Course for example, is a great privilege, given the reputation of this place as being one of the most extraordinary courses in Florida.
Besides, having a hole number 8, and a by 3 where the green is just near a small island: it's a unique experience! Let's not forget the Burnt Pine of Destin, in North West Florida, with its 13 holes located near the beaches. At the same time, you can enjoy the sun in scenic venue. And the Bay Point of Panama City Beach, this golf spot offers quite a few unique challenges in a fun atmosphere. You want to try all famous golf courses? Why not visit the famous cities of Europe? Learn about what you must do and see apart from golf https://www.opodo-travel-guide.com/.
It is true that for golf enthusiasts, participating in major tournaments is an exciting moment, just like playing in new and unknown terrain. In order to remove all obstacles from your way, it is crucial that you reach the top of your organizations. In this case, it is important that you use prepare all your trips in advance through an online travel agency.
Opodo is the best in this field thanks to its years of experience and its various collaborations around the world. With Opodo, you can book a golf venue ahead of time and even find a nearby accommodation to facilitate your trips at the cheapest price.


text:
Drop restraint
The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne did not save the empire. On the contrary! It opened the way for the fall of monarchies in Europe and the arrival of Nazism. Power seized demons totalitarian regimes.
On the eve of the abdication. Painting by artist V.R. Alekseeva
On March 14, 1917, the royal train stopped at Dno station. There was only a few hours to Petrograd. Messages from the capital were becoming more alarming. What was going on there exactly was not completely clear. It looks like a rebellion. Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko argued that the capital of the empire had come out of obedience, and demanded the abdication of Nicholas II as the only means to calm the rebellion.
Table in the king's train. Here everything happened - now you can't cut it with an ax
However, a hastily assembled military expedition of General Ivanov was moving to Petrograd. Still could be fixed. If you show perseverance and hardness. It was the most critical moment in the life of the king and the whole country. The war with the Germans was in full swing. A big offensive of all fronts is planned for April, from the Baltic to the Black Sea. To change power in such conditions is meaningless, death is like. The worst madness can not even be imagined. However, this is exactly what the liberals from the Duma demanded. Go away, Your Majesty, and everything will be fine! Without you.
Nicholas II and Tsarevich Alexei. The choice of privacy was a mistake
But the worst thing was that the front commanders and the chief of the General Staff, General Alekseev, were ready to renounce the tsar. Almost all of them were in a conspiracy inspired by Russian masons, who officially took the form of bourgeois-democratic parties. Their leaders — Milyukov, Rodzianko, Guchkov — planned to take advantage of a little mess in Petrograd, and, removing the tsar, introduce a constitutional monarchy — the so-called "responsible ministry," that is, the Cabinet appointed by the Duma.
AT THE BOTTOM. It was really the bottom. Not just a station with that name. But the bottom in every sense. The station, too, was in turmoil. The soldiers of the local garrison were overwhelmed and outraged. However, General Ivanov, armed, according to his contemporaries, "just with a beard", jumped out of the car and with a loud shout: "On your knees!" Pacified the rebels. In the same way Petrograd could be pacified. There would be a desire. Tsar's train moved to Pskov. It seemed the damn place had passed. But this was not the case.
General Alekseev. Pretend the king
Telegrams from the front commanders killed in the emperor the will to resist. They fell in the middle of the day on March 15 one by one. The commander of the Caucasian front, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich - the Tsar's uncle: "Adjutant General Alekseev informs me of the unprecedented fateful situation and asks me to support his opinion that the victorious end of the war, so necessary for the good and future of Russia and the salvation of the dynasty, causes the adoption of supermeasure. I, as a faithful, consider it my duty to take the oath and the spirit of the oath, it is imperative for my knees to pray to your Imperial Majesty to save Russia and your Heir, knowing your sense of holy love for Russia and for him. When you sign yourself with the sign of the cross, give him your heritage. There is no other way out. "
Commander of the South-Western Front, General Brusilov: "I ask you to report to the Emperor my most gracious request, based on my love and devotion to the Motherland and the royal throne, that at this moment the only outcome that can save the situation and give an opportunity to continue to fight the external enemy, without what Russia is lost is to abandon the throne. "
Approximately the same content was sent by telegrams by the commander of the Romanian front, General Sakharov and the Western - General Evert. The commander of the Northern front, General Ruzsky, who was in Pskov next to the king, expressed the same opinion to the emperor personally. What was Nicholas II to do?
The king does not just hold the scepter and the orb in his hands. He is holding the world from the coming of the Antichrist
In Orthodoxy, the king is "holding". His mission is to keep the people entrusted to him by God from the extreme manifestations of the satanic principle. The king does not just hold the scepter and the orb in his hands. He is holding the world from the coming of the Antichrist.
This concept was born at the dawn of Christianity - in the days of the Roman Empire. It was expressed by the fathers of the church. The Antichrist will not come into the world as long as there is a truly Christian Orthodox Tsar. With his power, he smoothes and balances the sinful promptings of people seeking to rise above others. After all, everyone secretly wants to be above all.
Until the middle of the 15th century, the emperor of the Romais, the people that today's historians call the Byzantines, served as a deterrent (in Greek, "catechon"). After the separation of the churches, he alone retained the spirit of the original Christianity. The West could not forgive this to the emperors of Byzantium. Time after time the Catholics stabbed the Orthodox in the back. In 1204, the Crusaders went to Jerusalem, and got ... to Constantinople. And two hundred years later, when the Turks moved to Constantinople, the Pope of Rome set a renunciation of Orthodoxy as the only condition for helping the Byzantines.
And the emperor of Byzantium renounced! In 1439, John VIII Palaeologus accepted the papal ultimatum in exchange for a promise of military assistance. The Council of Florence proclaimed the reunification of the churches. Byzantium became Catholic. Moreover, even Russia should have become a Catholic! The protege of pro-Western circles, Metropolitan Isidore, a Bulgarian by birth, violating the promise given to the Moscow Grand Duke, also put his signature on the resolution of the Council in Florence.
According to political calculations, everything went right. Dad even fulfilled his promise and organized a new crusade against the Turks. But the army gathered from all over Europe, led by the Polish king Vladislav, suffered a crushing defeat near Varna in 1444. And in less than a decade — in 1453 — Constantinople fell. The god of the Orthodox did not accept help in exchange for renunciation of the faith! Politics was defeated by Providence.
Byzantium did not die as an Orthodox state. In the Cathedral of St. Sophia on the eve of the fall of the city a Catholic Mass was served. At the same time a famous phrase was born among the Orthodox Greeks: "Better the Turks than the Pope!"
And Russia, who overthrew the traitor Isidore, withstood. In spite of everything. And the function of the restraint passed to the Third Rome. "Take a look around yourself," the elder Filofey of Pskov wrote to Father Ivan the Terrible, Vassily II, "you are no great prince! You are the only Orthodox king! "
"THE VIEWS ARE THE VEHICLE OF YOURSELF!" But it was so! By the beginning of the XVI century, when these words were written, Russia remained the only Orthodox "kingdom". All other Orthodox states - Bulgaria, Serbia, Wallachia - were conquered by the Turks. And in general they stood near Vienna. The Byzantine shield, which had covered the West from hordes from the East for a thousand years, now lay in the mud. Hagia Sophia became a mosque. And the same mosque could be St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.
To repel the Turks, Catholics had to give up pressure on Orthodoxy. Only by entering into an alliance with Russia in 1686, did Austria manage to stop the Ottomans as a result of century-long wars. But now, 15 March 1917, the Christian world was again in the depths of discord. World War was in full swing. The Austrian empire became an ally of Turkey and the enemy of Orthodoxy. And the Orthodox Tsar in Pskov faced a difficult choice: to renounce him and become just a man or continue to carry the heavy cross of the restraint. Did he remember the words of the Pskov elder, transmitted to his distant predecessor from the same place? Probably not.
Nicholas II allowed himself for a moment to forget about the duties of the anointed of God. He succumbed to the entreaties of General Alekseev and his ilk, instead of saying: "You can kill me, gentlemen, but I am your emperor, and I will not deny, and let my blood be on you!"
This is exactly how the great-great-grandfather of the last king, the Emperor Paul, acted. On the eleventh of March, 1801, locked up by conspirators in the Mikhailovsky Castle, he chose to die, but did not put his signature on the text of the abdication. It is unlikely that Nicholas II would repeat his fate if he chose the same decision. The weak-willed Evert, Brusilov, Alekseev, the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich did not at all resemble the violent Guards noblemen who had killed Paul I by the blow of a snuff box. It is impossible even to imagine the same General Ruzsky in such a role - in just a year he will kill himself as a hostage to a gang of Bolsheviks. And do not even try to resist.
If 15 in March, Nicholas II simply dismissed him from his post and appointed another commander of the Northern Front, the revolution would have been suppressed. If, in the same way, the king resigned the rebellious generals and appointed others instead, he would have won the war in the summer of 1917. The simple "easy" decision to leave himself turned out to be the most difficult and difficult - it was he who eventually led Nicholas II to the Yekaterinburg basement, under Yurovsky's bullets.
Renunciation caused chaos. Now everyone thought of the king himself. "The great country," wrote the historian Anton Kersnovsky, "took control of people who had no idea about the structure of the state mechanism. The passengers took control of the locomotive according to the self-instruction manual, and began by destroying all the brakes ... The Provisional Government abolished the entire Russian administration with one stroke of the pen. All governors and vice-governors were expelled. All political exiles and criminal convicts were returned, and the police and the gendarmes corps were abolished. All defeatist emigrants, agents of the enemy, were called to Russia, and counterintelligence was abolished ... "War to the bitter end" was proclaimed and discipline in the army was destroyed "...
The renunciation of Nicholas II, at first glance, looked like a great triumph for Germany, Turkey, and Austria-Hungary. Exactly a year later, the German troops were already under the very Pskov, in which the Russian tsar "handed over the guard". But it was worth the fall of the monarchy in Russia, as the crowns of Germany and Austria collapsed after it. The German general staff sent Lenin to Petrograd, as it turned out, to his doom. For there was no restraining. Not only in Russia. Not all over the world. The night of Nazism has covered Europe!
FROM BOHROV TO HOLOCAUST. Lit fireboxes concentration camps. How much loosened the monarchy in Russia! How many have invested over the decades in the revolution! And as a result, what happened? Hitler and the Holocaust. Here it is - the mystical connection between the Jewish terrorist Mordechai Bogrov, who shot Stolypin, the prime minister of the Orthodox Tsar, - and his nameless fellow tribe who burned in the Dachau furnace. Cause and investigation. Bogrov's shot helpfully opened ... the door of the gas chamber and the door of the crematorium cleared the way for Hitler. The bullets of Yurovsky and his henchmen, who stopped the earthly life of the Orthodox emperor and his family members in Yekaterinburg, is the first gust of Providence wind that will drive the ice ax into Trotsky's iron head.
The abdication of Nicholas II will open the gates of the Kremlin to the red Tsar, Stalin, who will put an end to the Leninist Guard. The Masonic impudence of the Chief of the General Staff Alekseev, who demanded the sovereign to repudiate in February, would lead him to the shameful death of a fugitive in a denikin army, and not to the glory of the victor in the Second World War, as Russia was called in World War II. Unfinished due to a treacherous stab in the back Second World War will turn into 1941 in the Great Patriotic. Sons who left the front in 1917 will pay for the sins of their fathers. Nothing will be left without punishment.
This tragedy, which happened on 15 March 1917, was prophesied by Nikolai Gogol. "So merged and became one and one with the subordinate ruler, that we all now see a general misfortune — whether the sovereign will forget his subject and abandon him, or the subject will forget his sovereign and abandon him." All the troubles that happened to us in the 20th century and continue to this day have one reason - the mutual renunciation of the king and the people.
The Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom, who was one of the first who formulated the Orthodox doctrine of restraint at the end of the 4th century, believed that this concept has two interpretations. On the one hand, the one holding is the Orthodox Tsar. But on the other hand, it is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which can be selected only because of the impoverishment of love for each other. How many we see outstanding scoundrels, ascending to the very top with a sly thought to deceive both people and God, and then sliding into the dirt from which they came out. When there is no king on the throne, holding is the king in the head.
Oles Elder
http://www.buzina.org
A revolution without heroesThe first blockade of Petrograd
FC SKIF 21 March 2013 08: 08
Facts emerged that the abdication was a FAKE. The signature of the tsar and the fact that the epoch-making "squiggle" was made with a pencil, and all the rest - exclusively with a pen, raises doubts.
Sirocco 21 March 2013 08: 18
However, this does not relieve him of responsibility for the country. He reminds me of Gorbachev's MS. The same reformer.
Yes, I agree. He turned out to be an indecisive person, he very much trusted the wrong people (Rasputin, wife). At a critical moment in history, the "man with iron eggs" should be the ruler. The most interesting thing is that we ALWAYS have a "critical moment".
Perch_xnumx 21 March 2013 08: 51
Everything was predetermined. Why? Yes, because Russia is an Orthodox believing country left from faith and God. And she came to debauchery, fornication, houses of tolerance, witchcraft, spiritualism, unbelief, godlessness, false teachers, false prophets and anti-Christ, revolutionaries, terrorists, etc.
Orik 21 March 2013 09: 40
I would like to add, for admonition, the excellent article "The Feat of Confession of the Passion-Suffering Tsar Nicholas II in His Denial of the Throne" http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/60110.htm
Many with "iron eggs" and without a tsar in their heads are not in the house, that by the time of the abdication of the sovereign, all of Russia, and not just the general's elite, had rotted. All the people fell away. Yes, there is more demand from the higher ones, but in the 17th all estates departed from the king and God. Read Mikhail Babkin "THE RELIGION OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE OVERCOMING OF THE MONARCHY (BEGINNING XX CENTURY - END 1917)" and this spiritual class! From the elite for the Tsar during the abdication of Count Keller and Khan of Nakhichevan. It is also difficult to talk about the middle class, the merchants financed the revolution (for example, Savva Morozov), the bourgeoisie, who does not know the commoner of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the workers cut off from their roots and the basis of the revolution, who remains the peasants ?! Yes, they endured a lot and the injustice of the tax since the 18th century (when the tax was removed from the nobles), and not the justice of the redemption payments for the land, but unfortunately selfishness (yes, instilled by the elite) seized them too. If they were not tempted to support the Tsar (as the largest group in the state), there would be no revolution, but they could not stand this test of the Lord (and for Christians it is more important than above) and left the sovereign too. For a more complete "portrait" I advise the books by S. Nilus in 6 volumes, Met. John (Snychev) "Russian Symphony" and "Life and Work of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow" (in 3 parts), Vol. Zhevakhov "Memories", "History of Russia. Textbook for teachers." http://rusrand.ru/public/public_592.html
radio operator 21 March 2013 10: 40
Quote: Orik
Many with "iron eggs" and without a tsar in their heads are not in the house, that by the time of the abdication of the sovereign, all of Russia, and not just the general's elite, had rotted. All the people fell away. Yes, there is more demand from the higher ones, but in the 17th all estates departed from the king and God.
And later, L. Trotsky said: "If, after the revolution, the Russian people put forward the slogan" For Faith and Fatherland "and followed it, we would be dared." So, based on the words of Trotsky, people lacked faith - neither generals nor ordinary peasants.
Barsanuphius of Optina said that the revolution came out of the walls of the seminary. True, he wrote about the events of 1905, but applicable, with good reason, to 1917. And A.I. Osipov writes that the atmosphere of the whole 19th century was the same as now.
EXPLOIT OF THE CONFESSION OF THE KING-PASSENGER NICHOLAS II
You know, Alexander, in hindsight it is possible to declare both a patient and a martyr.
This does not change the essence. Nicholas 2 was an ordinary, normal person. All his life in the first place he had a family, love for Alice, Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt, and from his youth, mutual love, children. This is quite natural and normal from the point of view of the ordinary a person, but not the head of state. The head of state should have in the first place a country, not a family, not relatives and material wealth. From this point of view, the ideal type of leader of the state, like Stalin.
Dear Nicholas, the Emperor was indeed a very gentle and delicate person, strikingly different from his father Alexander III, but he was not a weak-willed fool, as liberals and other enemies of the Russian people like to paint him. He loved our Motherland and carried out his ministry with full responsibility. He even tried to restore the patriarchate, leave the throne, take monasticism and become the first patriarch after a 200-year hiatus (read Babkina). For him, a kind, gentle and honest person, it was painful to see the simmering passions among the nobility and people. A martyr and passion-bearer, this is a spiritual assessment, not a worldly one, and only from a spiritual point of view can one assess his feat. The closest example is Jesus Christ, who, having performed, over several years of his earthly ministry, numerous miracles and benefits for the Jewish people, was rejected by the elders and the people, condemned and crucified. Think, could not the almighty God call, as it is written in the Gospel, 12 legions of angels? I could, but did not call. Why? Because the one who loves his people does not manipulate them (like Putin and Edros), does not deceive, but wants to get the free choice of the people, their free will, similar to the end of the turmoil in Russia in 1613. You can't make love, understand. And it was not in vain that such a Tsar was on the throne. As it is written in the article to which I refer (read for broadening your horizons, like other books, this was not taught in the Soviet school), St. Nicholas was figuratively the "son" that the Lord sent to the Russian people, he could not be formidable! God wanted his people to repent, and the people to kill the kind and gentle anointed one who was called to lead the people to repentance by his example. Love cannot be forced! God wants love for him not by compulsion, but as the free choice of a free person. Repentance was the only way out. Moreover, this is not the first example in Russian history; there is another last representative of the ruling dynasty of St. Fedor I Ioannovich. In my opinion, both of these sovereigns were sent by God to the Russian people as a moral authority in a time of spiritual fall, as a spiritual beacon, as an example of meek service. Unfortunately, in both cases, the people did not heed, the turmoil became only a logical continuation for the betrayal of the people.
In our assessment of Stalin, we are very much alike, in my opinion he became the grace of God to the Russian people, like Moses removing him from the Egyptian captivity (Trotsky and K). There were no options without a thunder because corrupted during the years of the revolution and fratricidal war, the deserted people had to be mobilized as soon as possible to create a strong state. And in the Stalin system, there is so much from the Orthodox worldview, from the prohibition of abortion to the Stalinist justice and cult.
BUT I repeat once again that these are assessments from a spiritual point of view. With a rational, yes, a weak manager and everything fell apart, but the theory of management is not fully applicable to the Russian state. We are Rome the third, and there will be no fourth. The "retainer" is taken away and you and I live in today's bestiality and chaos, when pi..s demand their rights. Think this is a spiritual problem!
The emperor was indeed a very gentle and delicate man, very different from his father Alexander III,
Alexander 3 is closer to the ideal of a leader.
St. Nicholas was figuratively that "son" whom the Lord sent to the Russian people, he could not be formidable! God wanted his people to repent, and the people to kill the kind and gentle anointed one who was called to lead the people to repentance by his example
And what was the Russian people supposed to repent of?
He is more sinful than all other nations.
Why is there a one-goal game?
Why is the punishment of the Romanov dynasty for their sins not considered?
In our assessment of Stalin, we are very much alike, in my opinion he became the grace of God to the Russian people,
There would be no 1917, there would be no Lenin, there would be no Stalin. Everything is interconnected.
And in conclusion, the question is: what social system is the fairest Romanov capitalism or Leninist-Stalinist socialism?
You have a certain stereotype in your mind and you live for it; I cannot change it, so the answers to your questions are useless. We speak different languages. To the last parable, not Christian:
"A university professor came to the master Nan Ying (Meiji era 1868 - 1912) with a request to tell him about Zen. The master began to pour tea. Pouring a full cup for the guest, he continued pouring on. The professor looked at the tea overflowing for a while. and then he said:
- The cup is full, is no longer included!
"Like this cup, you are filled with your opinions and judgments," replied Nan Yi, "can I show you Zen if you have not emptied your cup?"
alexandr00070 22 March 2013 22: 08
can I show you Zen if you haven't emptied your cup? "
someone has zen over the edge
Ascetic 21 March 2013 20: 51
The "retainer" is taken away and you and I live in today's bestiality and chaos, when pi..s demand their rights. Think this is a spiritual problem!
The spiritual should not be isolated from the MINISTRY to material society. This is the king's trouble. one-way skew
What do you order to consider the "great reforms" of Tsar Nicholas II? Witte's idea of the golden ruble, which put Russia in economic dependence on world capital? Or maybe the establishment of the State Duma, wrested from the Tsar by the revolution and then become a hotbed of revolution? Or, perhaps, the Stolypin agrarian reform, which destroyed the community, which the modern monarchists considered P.A. Stolypin to be almost an anti-state crime of Stolypin, which prepared the social ground for the revolution? And entry into a war unnecessary for Russia? What about Tsushima?
And so everywhere anti-state anti-Russian policy is thrown everywhere, so when the trouble came, ALL LAYERS OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIETY turned away from the Tsar, unable with a firm hand to rely on the Orthodox people and not at the prompt of freemasons and little wife (than Gorbachev and Raisa) to keep the country from collapse in view of his own pernicious reforms. A direct analogy with Gorbi, only he did it consciously, and Nikolai .. I don't know what to say, you must go deep into your spiritual world so as not to see all this.
Therefore, he was in tragic loneliness.
Grishka100watt 21 March 2013 23: 48
sadly, but it is.
St. Nicholas was figuratively that "son" whom the Lord sent to the Russian people, he could not be formidable! God wanted his people to repent, and the people to kill the kind and gentle anointed one who was called to lead the people to repentance by his example. Love cannot be forced! God wants love for him not by compulsion, but as the free choice of a free person. Repentance was the only way out.
That is, in your opinion, the king-rag was called according to God's providence. ............. I haven't heard such insanity for a long time, 160 years of serf slavery, 50 years as this slavery was abolished, financial crisis, Russian-Japanese war, the First World War, one revolution, another (they call one saint Vladimir Krasno Solnyshko, another Nikolai the Bloody) his mismanagement caused so much misfortune, so much human blood was shed and it turned out that this was done by God so that the people would repent (where the Russian people had done so much so that so many sins were blotted out). They killed the good king, and that's after of the foregoing, he is kind, repentance should have been with the people oppressed to the baseboard, or the tsar should have repented before the people, over the years of torment, and be engaged in improving the life of the people. Remember how many times Ivan the Terrible left the reign, but the people went and called him back, and here no one stood up - that says a lot. REALLY NIKOLAI THE SECOND IS THE GORBACH OF OUR TIME. You again translate everything into religious dregs, but everything just Stalin defended Russia from the Leninists, Yeltsin from the Gorbachevites, Putin from the Yeltsinists
Mikhail3 21 March 2013 14: 51
We read it. "I read the old economic dictionary ..." It was. Only now ... if you talk for half an hour with the workers of some kind of serious business, and you can already get an idea of what their chapter is. People have everything. There is always everything - and holiness and feat and cowardice, and rage and weakness and gaiety and melancholy. And what is shown by their leader.
If the leader commands how long it takes, his features become visible, as if they appear on paper. And if the leader does not command or orders weakly, is it not enough? Then rubbish starts to climb out of people. Going up is hard, down is easier. It's hard to do good and less profitable, bad is easy and at first very profitable ....
The Romanovs, led by the last tsar, bear full responsibility, first of all, for this - for the roll of filth on Russian society. It was their main duty, duty, honor ... and they rotted ahead of everyone and were terribly happy about it. Traitors ...
Selevc 21 March 2013 21: 44
Mikhail3 - very good and I think the most balanced words !!! Keep raising !!!
Nikolai the 2nd can be opposed to his anti-hero - Peter the 1st ... One started beautifully but squandered everything and lost the trust of all, and the other started out of dirt and defeat and lifted his country and people to previously unheard-of heights !!!
One depended on the venal environment, was henpecked and dependent on the opinion of the crowd - and the other was to give a damn about the opinion of his wife, he personally sent the traitors to the rack and did not give a damn about the opinion of the crowd !!!
Both kings and the results of the reign of both are evident !!!
Quote: Perch_1
Everything was predetermined. Why? Yes, because Russia is an Orthodox believing country left from faith and God.
yes, in my opinion, Nikolai was the most devout of the last Romanovs, just instead of praying for the country, it was necessary to govern it, and he is no business executive. Apparently I forgot what the ancestors taught "Trust in God, but don't make a mistake yourself." It's a pity for Stolypin, but the Zionists clearly calculated each blow
Quote: FC Skif
The most interesting thing is that we ALWAYS have a "critical moment".
This is our national feature. And as always for the mistakes of those in power, the common people are cruelly paying the price (((
Trapperxnumx 21 March 2013 08: 35
Quote: Sirocco
He was not just a reformer. He was a conservative. He was kind. Too much. Instead of driving all the "revolutionary trash" behind a thorn with machine guns (as the Bolsheviks did later), he forgave them all the time ...
SASCHAmIXEEW 21 March 2013 12: 06
A hunchbacked traitor from the beginning, he walked towards this purposefully and was led by Andropov! And Nikolai is a victim of circumstances!
I do not think that he was an outright traitor like Gorbachev.
Just weak, could not get away from getting involved in the First World War. He scored cretites from the French - so he had to give Russian blood.
But weakness probably does not diminish his sin.
ia-ai00 22 March 2013 01: 41
An equal sign between Nicholas II and Gorbochev cannot be put. If Nicholas II was a mediocre tsar, for example, participation in World War I, or at least the tragedy on the Khadynskoye field, which claimed 1360 human lives, but at the same time did not prevent Nicholas II from celebrating the coronation, then the gorbochev is a TRAITOR to Russia! And if, in my opinion, Nicholas, after renouncing power with his family, should have simply been left alone, even under house arrest for 10 years, then this g.a.d. is a grudge, one should be called to account, and tried for High treason. It was not for nothing that this "servant" of the peoples of the USSR was awarded the Nobel Prize - he completed the TASK.
Sasha 19871987 21 March 2013 08: 34
Nicholas the second was weak-minded, it ruined him ....
And the weak-willed is not incompetent? Weak - that's putting it mildly! You read the literature about "Nikolashka" and you may also have the feeling that he had "not all houses" at all!
Facts appeared that renunciation was FALSE.
What is the difference now?
Fake ...... Not Fake .......
What to call some Kirilych to the kingdom?
There are enough of their parasites ........
In general, life is a harsh thing, they came through blood, through blood they left.
Mystery ...... Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, wedding to the kingdom of the first Romanov ..... Ipatiev House, shooting of the last ....... I think in vain they in 1613 hanged a 4-year-old boy at the gates.
God does not forgive such fun ......
avt 21 March 2013 09: 52
Mystery ...... Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, wedding to the kingdom of the first Romanov ..... Ipatiev House, shooting of the last .....
No mysticism, just knowledge of history and the administration of a prescribed ritual.
Quote: avt
Well, about the rituals of the Romanovs were also masters.
Kostroma was the estate of Godunov, and in the Ipatiev Monastery the family tomb of Godunov.
So the wedding to the kingdom of the first Romanov in Kostroma, and even in the Ipatiev Monastery, also looks like a ritual.
The following fact attracts attention. On the eve of the murder, a man with the appearance of a rabbi "with a beard as black as pitch" arrived from Moscow to the place of execution from Moscow in a separate train, which consisted of one carriage. The representative of which center was this person, who came to ascertain and accept the perfect, and did he not leave inscriptions on the walls of the room where the murder took place? [2]
The first of the inscriptions reads: "Belshazzar was killed that night by his servants" (a saying from the poem of Heine).
At some distance from it, on the wall-paper, some signs were written with the same ink and the same thick lines.
The full disclosure of the secret meaning of the inscription is expressed as follows: "Here, by order of the dark forces, the king was sacrificed to destroy the state. All nations are notified of this."
R. Wilton "The Last Days of the Romanovs"
The ritual murder of the Tsar - the Anointed of God and his Family was committed by those behind-the-scenes forces that, even in Gospel times, consciously chose their own path: "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27,25).
These are the ones about whom the Lord said: "Your father is the devil; and you want to fulfill the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and father of lies. " (John 8.44).
There is no doubt that the inscriptions left at the place of the murder were made by those who understood the ritual meaning of this action in the Jewish meaning. One of the inscriptions, in German, is a paraphrase of Heine's poem about the murder of the last Babylonian king, Belshazzar, because he defiled the Jewish sacred vessels with his lips (Dan. 5). Do undeciphered digital designations have a similar meaning? Enel's careful and balanced interpretation of the meaning of the third, kabbalistic inscription, made with the same ink in letters from three languages, is quite plausible: "Here, by order of secret forces, the Tsar was sacrificed to destroy the State. All nations are notified of this "[152]. There is a similar inscription left by Jews at the site of a political assassination in Palestine in 1942 [153]; Jews have long accepted the inscription "the guilt of a criminal" at the place of execution - it was made in three languages and on the cross of the crucified Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:37; Luke 23:38: John 19: 19-22).
In the Jewish tradition, the main sacrifices are performed by burning. The organizers of the murder also decided to burn the royal family, although there was no practical need for this (so that the whites would not find the remains, it was easier to take them away from the city and hide them separately in different places: deep in the ground, in a bog, etc.). According to the "Jewish Encyclopedia", in the Jewish sacrifice only the killing of the victim "can be performed by any Israelite, for the rest of the actions a priest is indispensable" [154]. Did a certain "Jew with a pitch-black beard", whom eyewitnesses saw in those days in the area of destruction of bodies together with the Red Army men who had arrived from Moscow, have anything to do with this?
It is difficult to ignore the three boxes mentioned, which Goloshchekin took to Sverdlov. Published a lot of evidence [156] about the head of the Sovereign and other family members brought to Moscow: from the testimony of P.Z. Ermakova [157], who participated in the destruction of bodies, until a recent report on the discovered inventory of things stored in the Lenin's room in the Kremlin, which mentions "a can with the alcoholized head of Nicholas II" [158].
Goga 21 March 2013 09: 38
FC Skif - A colleague, fake or not, in general, is not so important, because all his subsequent behavior shows a complete lack of will and responsibility to the country and people. he himself bred these village masons - Rasputin and his wife had a personnel department - appointed ministers, added generals to posts. And Rasputin's secretary was not an unknown Simanovich, so he really steered frames, which is why such a Masonic dominance would be surprised.
The fact that all these Jewish developments led to the Holocaust for the Jewish elite does not matter much (they don't even consider their common people), even at the height of the extermination of Jews by the Nazis, the Jewish financial elite did not stop working closely with Hitler.
No, well, do not repeat nonsense. The document about "abdication" was exhibited in Pushkinskoye together with telegrams from the commanders of the fronts that merged Nikolashka. Everything is simpler and meaner. The Rodzianki and other subsequent mourners across Russia in emigration arranged a banal palace coup. They lured the Tsar out of the headquarters. - "Although Nikolashka is an alcoholic, to the Chief of the General Staff. This is practically a cry for help. Maybe someone thinks that Nikolka did not know how to write manifestos ??? This was later on in the printing house. And there was also a second letter where he disavowed Alekseev First, according to the recollections of the same Alekseev, he simply put it in his pocket. The noblemen forgot the old folk truth - they don't change horses on the crossing! So they fell under the "Proletarian ax". Well, then everything is like in a fairy tale - a lesson for good fellows.
The renunciation was written in pencil, without a signature, and, most importantly, only 15-20% of the graphologists' confidence that this was written by the hand of the Russian monarch.
However, that is, that is. History cannot be returned, and Nicholas II was canonized as a new martyr, although millions of people shared the same fate with him.
Quote: radio operator
Renunciation was written in pencil, without a signature and, most importantly,
No, I thought so myself, there are specific inks, eventually fade and look like a pencil. And at the exhibition his census questionnaire was also, well, where did he write that the owner of the Russian Land and his native language is German.
Shkodnik65 21 March 2013 14: 35
Quote Radio operator:
Nicholas II was canonized as a new martyr, although millions of people shared the same fate with him.
Nicholas II was conized as a stronghold, and thousands of people with him.
Rave. Was he, the traitor, killed right after renunciation ?! How much more then dangled, like a bloom in an ice hole ... He ruined the country, ruined his family ... As soon as he said a word about a false abdication - Alexeyev would be pulled up at the nearest bitch. There were enough people. Only he betrayed them all, deprived the Russian people of the main thing - the fulcrum. We found someone to announce to the saints ...
speedy 21 March 2013 18: 58
Quite right - after all, it was not an hour or a day that he was "harassed" when he realized that the train had been seized by the conspirators and there was no communication, the sovereign went to the trick - he sent a telegram to Alekseev's headquarters that he was required to renounce - it was a hidden call for help to the faithful troops. Instead of help, he received telegrams demanding the renunciation of the commanders of the fronts and armies. Then the signature appeared with a PENCIL, and in the diary there was an entry "treason, cowardice and deceit are everywhere."
Frankly, I do not understand the actions of Nicholas 2. All the same, he was weak as a master AT HOME his. I will call a spade a spade. Rag. He was busy with family, children, but not the state. He had a power crisis when he couldn't and didn't want to rule the country and he let it go. It's my opinion. Nicholas II allowed himself for a moment to forget about the duties of the anointed of God. He succumbed to the entreaties of General Alekseev and his ilk, instead of saying: "You can kill me, gentlemen, but I am your emperor, and I will not deny, and let my blood be on you!" That's it he forgot about everything. Most importantly, he forgot about his people. One of his predecessors answered his son that power should be in his fist and expressed himself firmly.
Bigriver 21 March 2013 08: 41
... Nicholas II allowed himself for a moment to forget about the duties of the anointed of God. He succumbed to persuasion ...
This moment is the logical result of all his mediocre rule.
It was necessary to think about Russia before. Much earlier!
Able to succumb - will succumb.
Here I am about the same.
Frankly, I do not understand the actions of Nicholas 2. All the same, he was weak as the owner of his HOUSE. I will call a spade a spade. Rag. He was busy with family, children, but not the state. He had a power crisis when he couldn't and didn't want to rule the country and he let it go.
And I'll say sorry - you yap. And who are you that you have made outstanding and heroic for the country. Show your deeds and I will say who you are. You pokryshkin, leather jacket, queens, kurchatov .......
Start with yourself !!! I do not agree - mind. Mind - offer. Suggest - do it. So, If you are not yap, then please your exploits in the studio.))) You apparently inattentively read the comment.IT'S MY OPINION, but not AN EXPLOIT, and continue to read carefully, please !!!
Start with yourself !!! I do not agree - mind. Mind - offer. Suggest - do it. So, If you are not yapping, then please your exploits in the studio.))) You apparently inattentively read the commentary. THIS IS MY OPINION, NOT AN ACKNOWLEDGE, continue to read carefully, please !!!
You will occupy an official position in the fatherland, we will look at your ministry and exploits, just do not forget to show up so that we can evaluate you from the outside, how you care about your country and serve your country. So far, in general, neither the end nor the edge is visible, the Suvorovs are not visible - although there are a lot of siloviks flashing here, if everyone will work not for money but for conscience, and not to hide the Stalin's archives more deeply, then the homeland will be useless and useful.
You somehow spatially write, but God be with him, I asked for your exploits in the studio. Or are you the one who called me?
I asked the first one. Frets. You will answer I will answer. I didn't start to blame the king, but if you find yourself in a situation or similar to that of the king, especially when there are nests of foxes and deceivers around you, then let's see what you are capable of.
Quote Sirocco:
Frankly, I do not understand the actions of Nicholas 2.
There is a well-known expression: "Everyone imagines himself a strategist seeing the battle from the outside." But what courage one must have, as a KING, to abdicate the throne. But he was offered to run for the cordon. But he remained in Russia, with his people, to certain death. One would like to compare with the current politicians.
strannik595 21 March 2013 15: 49
Tsarevo's heart in the hand of God ................ do not judge the Tsar, join the feat of Jacob Yurovsky, it's always easier to judge from the side, anyone imagines himself D. Artagnan and Solomon in one person
Quote: strannik595
anyone imagines himself D.Artagnan and Solomon in one person
a nightmare that's under his nose
explorer 22 March 2013 06: 51
And what is courage?
This is stupidity (if not more), an escape from responsibility (the family man and whom did he save from his family?) - this is an analogue of the stupidity of the commander of a large military unit, who instead of controlling him personally goes on the attack - gets a bullet in the forehead - well, glory to the hero ... total connection is defeated.
Was mammoth 21 March 2013 08: 19
"Elderberry in the garden ....". Apparently, nightmares tormented the author before writing such an opus. Everything is mixed in one heap.
dmb 21 March 2013 15: 27
Well, thank God. And then I really thought that I got to a meeting of the Supreme Monarchical Council, where Mr. Buzina, as a whole, boringly once again told us the history of Russia, such as Buzina himself sees it. At the same time, giving characteristics to political and military leaders according to his "elder" habit, he proceeds from the principle: "I think so." Considering that "the head is a dark subject and cannot be studied" (and the Elder's head in particular ", society is hardly given to know what these thoughts are based on. Sometimes it seems to me that ignorance multiplied by arrogance. (Well, the time is now). in particular, it would be curious to know where in Orthodoxy it is said that the tsar keeps the world from the coming of the antichrist. (I remind you that the tsar had to exist long before Christianity in general and Orthodoxy in particular). No less curious is the conclusion about the weakness of Brusilov, Evert , Alekseev and Uncle Nikolasha., That is, practically all the commanders of the fronts. And how would Mr. Buzina expect to achieve victory in WWI, for which he so stands up. With weak-willed, then. In an excerpt about Bogrov, Hitler, ice ax and ovens the author has surpassed himself; whether the second bottle of vodka was drunk already without a snack, or spring, you know, an aggravation.
opkozak 21 March 2013 16: 52
Quote: dmb
In the passage about Bogrov, Hitler, the ice ax and stoves, the author surpassed himself; whether the second bottle of the vodka was drunk without a snack, or spring, you know, an aggravation.
Elderberry thrower. Not a dreamer, but a thrower - rushing from one extreme to another. At first he was a pro-Yushchenko and an orange revolutionary, and now ...
nokki 21 March 2013 08: 20
"... On the one hand, the one who holds back is an Orthodox tsar. But on the other hand, it is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which can be taken away only because of the impoverishment of love for each other. How many outstanding rogues we see ascending to the very top with a crafty thought to deceive and people, and God, and then rolling down into the mud from which they came out. When there is no king on the throne, the one who holds is the king in the head ... "
Remarkably true conclusion! When lawlessness is happening all around, the main thing is not to lose the Spark of God in your soul - CONSCIENCE, not to fall into the abyss of total condemnation and despondency with a mixture of hatred, literally, for everyone!
Black 21 March 2013 08: 54
When there is no king on the throne, the one holding is the king in the head ... "
Quote: nokki
When lawlessness is happening all around, the main thing is not to lose the spark of God in the soul
"Sparks" are extinguished instantly if there is no Fire.
As soon as strong power disappears, human society instantly slides into the level of consciousness of the herd. Alas.
The man who was called to maintain this fire - the Russian Tsar - was slandered, betrayed, killed and not understood by the leading layer of his people.
He was betrayed by everyone !!!! - close circle, generals, high clergy. The tsar did not renounce the people — this is the people, first of all in the person of the leading stratum, betrayed his most Orthodox Sovereign, having violated during the days of Great Lent both his Orthodox duty of obedience, the state oath, and the oath of 1613.
We here at the forum talk a lot about the role of "liberalism". Nikolai understood this and fought against liberalism to the end. But the "genie" of liberalism launched by Peter, Freemasonry, anti-Christian Judaism, shattered society, overthrew the monarchy and plunged Europe into the abyss of the XNUMXth century Armageddon.
Good article. But here many will not understand. Unfortunately...
Urrry 21 March 2013 08: 29
All such rulers - Nicholas II, Gorbachev, Medvedev - usually have one thing in common: they are under the influence of their "second halves", their wives ... this unites them all - hence their common style of government, leading to destruction: irresponsibility and ill-considered decisions, chaos in the management of the country, spontaneity of measures, attempts to neglect the "logic of circumstances" ... and a natural result :(
Don't lump them together. There may be many questions to Nicholas 2, but he NEVER allowed himself to betray his Motherland. And he refused to flee to England when offered. And look at Gorby. One of his "anniversary" in Gondon (oh, in Logdon that is) is worth a lot.
Quote: Trapper7
And how about:
1907 - the signing of the [[English-Russian agreement 1907 | the Russian-English agreement] on the Entente.
- An agreement with their geopolitical adversary, those who helped Japan fight with Russia for another two years, etc.
quote = Trapper7] Don't pile them up. There may be many questions to Nicholas 2, but he NEVER allowed himself to betray his Motherland. And he refused to flee to England when offered. And look at Gorby. One of his "anniversary" in Gondon (oh, in Logdon that is) is worth a lot. [/ Quote]
Signing [English-Russian agreement 1907 | on the Entente.
- An agreement with their geopolitical adversary, those who two years ago helped Japan fight against Russia, etc.
Quote: explorer
Immediately after the signing of the said Agreement, the revolution subsided. As if on command. It's even strange ... Probably, the "revolutionaries" have run out of pounds sterling for Swiss rifles ...
If the signing of the agreement was forced (and therefore actually imposed from outside by force), then following it in 14 was a double crime on the part of Nikolai.
predator.3 21 March 2013 08: 33
Nicholas himself was to blame, there was no sticking around in the headquarters, but being in the capital and managing the empire, otherwise he took refuge in Mogilev, leaving the board to his German wife and Grishka Rasputin!
bairat 21 March 2013 09: 33
These are all consequences. The main mistake is that it allowed itself and the country to be drawn into the world war of 1914, all our troubles of the 20th century went from this.
igordok 21 March 2013 19: 32
Quote: bairat
These are all consequences. The main mistake is that it allowed itself and the country to be drawn into a world war
The main mistake is that it allowed itself and the country to be drawn into a world war on the side of the Entente. Why quarreled with Germany?
Avenger711 21 March 2013 08: 38
Another Orthodox little libel, full of shameless lies and myths. Immediately minus and five minutes of hatred.
Quote: Avenger711
five minutes of hatred.
Hatred is not an argument in argument. Hatred is unproductive. Hatred incinerates not only enemies, but also its carrier! Power is in the truth! Read carefully the Sermon on the Mount of Christ, and you will understand a lot!
Power is in the truth
What is the truth?
Everyone has his own? Who is stronger and right? Who has more money? Who has more power?
Beautiful words rush well ......
But the sense of this is not enough ....
wax 22 March 2013 01: 12
Namely, power is in truth. But there is no truth in the article, for it is mixed with lies and primeval delusions.
pa_nik 21 March 2013 09: 01
Probably...
However, this does not relieve him of responsibility for the country. He reminds me of Gorbachev's MS.
Yes, he did not want to do anything ... including the country and the people. Try looking for information about Nicholas II on the Web. You will not find anything about that: what a cool engineer, artist, or anyone else ... He just lived .. however, like many of us
Like now just lives royal family in england. Such are just Mary. I hope Andrey that many of us present here, not only live, but work, for the good of our beloved and our country.
Quote: Chen
But what about "Time of Troubles"? But what about Minin and Pozharsky? Faith strengthens a person and gives him strength to fight for Truth and Justice! The spark will not go out if a person sincerely believes in Christian ideals and in his own life, by his example proves their universal significance!
But what about "Time of Troubles"? But what about Minin and Pozharsky?
Stalin became Minin and Pozharsky.
Faith strengthens a person and gives him strength to fight for Truth and Justice! The spark will not go out if a person
Are you about INDIVIDUAL? All right.
Are you talking about society? There are other laws. I repeat, people without a guide turns into a crowd. And there is no "spark", there is a leader and all the rest. The Leader has a moral, good, and if he is a God, then the crowd is at the shaboosh.
But what about Minin and Pozharsky? Faith strengthens a person and gives him strength to fight for Truth and Justice!
and confused, they defeated the Poles, but as always the authorities raped the heroes, Pozharsky became the king, or Minin, no king appointed the youngest son of the patriarch and the Romanov trouble began for three hundred years
amp 21 March 2013 09: 21
Nikolai was one of the most mediocre Russian tsars.
Masons plotted? And who is to blame? Who lit these masons in Russia? Who drove the country into a debt hole? The Russian Empire at the end of the war was completely bankrupt, and after a victory for any, it would have turned into a French semi-colony. Nicholas was a few idiots. The first revolution taught him nothing.
Quote: amp
Masons plotted? And who is to blame? Who lit these masons in Russia? Who drove the country into a debt hole?
but weren't the kings a masson, google under Alexander 1 the dawn of massonism began in Russia, etc.
Begemot 21 March 2013 09: 29
Milyukov, Rodzianko, Guchkov - impostors without any moral principles, dullness, imagining itself to be the arbiter of fate. Adventurers and tyrants who did not shun any vileness for enrichment. How much in common between the tsar's Duma and the current State Duma. The same thousands of laws per year that it is impossible to execute, and if you execute, everything stops and collapses, the same booth at meetings, the same undisguised lobbyism of individual oligarchs in matters of budget distribution, corruption and unceremonious rejection of the interests of the country's population, and even countries. Parliament for Russia is evil. I will never believe that a deputy will express my interests, the interests of my relatives, acquaintances, friends and just strangers. He will represent the interests of the one who pays him. Nicholas II made many tragic mistakes, but the most important is the Decree of the 6 of August 1905 of the year "The Establishment of the State Duma" and "The Regulation on the Elections to the State Duma". From this began a series of continuous tragedies in the history of the country.
djon3volta 21 March 2013 09: 30
The Russian and English monarchy fought quietly for 300 years. England back then felt the power of Russia in the 17-18 centuries, well there weren't any articles here, is it really difficult to understand that England has always been and will be our enemy? They needed to tear Russia apart , so they came up with all sorts of revolutions, Lenins, etc. spies. And still England hates Russia, it's not for nothing that all sorts of Berezovsky run there and they do not give them away.
I repeat once again, all this with envy, England understands perfectly well that they have only a dull rainy piece of land, and Russia has 1/6 of the land and a huge number of minerals. All this is ordinary envy, just at the political level.
Fox 21 March 2013 09: 34
another whimper-whimper about good Nikolashka ... everything around is conveyed, and he is d artanyan ... in A. Bushkov's book "The Red Monarch" this prototype of Yeltsin and his entourage is normally shown. There is only (for some) one bad thing, bukaff a lot.
optimist 21 March 2013 09: 37
Another opus on the theme "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland". As the people say: if my grandmother had x ..., she would be a grandfather. The fall of tsarism and the collapse of the empire is a natural process. Just at that time, the existing socio-economic system outlived its usefulness, and the unnecessary war for Russia served as a catalyst. Historical parallels are very clearly traced: God forbid now there is a war (in the sense of a serious, and not a "Georgian walk in 2008), the situation will repeat itself again and some new" Lenin "will get out on an" armored car ".
ultra 21 March 2013 10: 44
Quote: optimist
Another opus on the theme "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland". As the people say: if my grandmother had x ..., she would be a grandfather. The fall of tsarism and the collapse of the empire is a natural process. Just at that time, the existing socio-economic system outlived itself,
Just like from the Soviet history textbook! But I didn't put anything in the article, an oversimplified assessment of the events of those days!
The fact of the matter is that it is easy to complicate, but it is difficult to simplify ... Reread the fable of grandfather Krylov "Kunstkamera". The problem of the bulk of the population of our country is that they do not notice the "elephant".
Plusanul replica. very accurate.
V. Yan has a good episode in "Genghis Khan": Sabudai's intelligence service captured the first Russians and is trying to interrogate them. Pointing to the dog, Sabudai asked what it was. The first prisoner replied that it was a kabyzdoh, the second was a void, the third was that it was a dog's muzzle. Having listened to them, Sabudai thought: all the Uruses are confusion, any Mongol would say that this is nohoy, and everyone would understand him.
Alex65 21 March 2013 09: 55
There is no document in the archives called "Renunciation". There is a typewritten text entitled "To the Chief of the General Staff". It was allegedly signed by the king, although Nikolai never used pencils. The text itself on the sheet resembles a telegram, not a renunciation, it happened on March 02, ,,, and order No. 1 on the collapse of the army was issued by impostors on March 01, 1917 ,,, / according to the old style /
,,, an application for work and dismissal is accepted only in written form, and here the abdication ,,, on a typewriter
Nikolai 2 lacked rigidity and endurance, ruined by his excessive softness
user 21 March 2013 11: 05
The man was out of place.
And when the family was shot, she had to say thanks to PAPA and HUSBAND for that.
maxvet 21 March 2013 11: 43
Nicholas abdicated for a reason, but in favor of his younger brother, okay Rodzianko and Milyukov and the entire army generals turned away from the tsar, but why did the Cossacks abandon him? Russian machine gun battalion "
Read his diaries from the Russo-Japanese War, that his autocrat was interested in what he lived with?
apro 21 March 2013 12: 46
Too much betrayal, too many enemies, the Tsar's displacement was conceived and carried out by our allies brilliantly and impeccably quick recognition of the provisional with Kerensky confirmation of this. In general, the nobles squandered all these holitsins and Obolensky duty did not fulfill their holy duty of protecting the Tsar and Motherland.
user 16 July 2013 12: 23
Apr 2 (RU) March 21, 2013 12:46
I think it is the KING that betrayed the empire and the subjects when he signed his abdication is not important in whose favor.
Slug in one word
Khamsin 21 March 2013 12: 48
I believe Nicholas 2 betrayed the empire because of his weakness as a leader. And reckoning him as a saint is a mistake. He may have suffered martyrdom with his family, but because of his actions, millions have accepted death. The empire fell from the stupidity of Nicholas 2, whatever he wrote in his diaries, whatever he lived ... It was necessary to make clear decisions, even if cruel
In my opinion, not saints, but martyrs, and, it seems, as a symbol of all those killed in the civil war. I agree with the children, but he and Alex, in my opinion, were ranked there in vain, they are one of the main culprits of what happened
Quote: Hamsin
With a backward mind, we are all, as they say ... And why do you think Stalin was so tough already? Because he saw the inside of the revolution. And I couldn't allow such a thing. Everything is here, absolutely ALL are shouting - go away and everything will work out, you alone are bothering us. What would you do in his place, seeing that no one supports you?
And again, personally, my opinion is, instead of Nikolai 2, IS Stalin is king, then .... But unfortunately history does not know the subjunctive mood, and in the West they are now equalizing Stalin with Hitler because they were afraid of Stalin to convulsions, and now they are acting out
Trapper 7 and you did not think about why at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas EVERYTHING supported him and at the end of the reign of NOBODY?
shurup 21 March 2013 14: 30
The abdication of Gorbachev, and then Yeltsin did not save the empire.
On the contrary! It paved the way for the degeneration of democracies in Europe and the advent of radical Islamism.
The construction of a mosque is also planned on the territory of the Kremlin.
And what about Putin? Putin and his interim government wash five times a day, facing the ... ceiling and prepare for the Olympics.
Just documents.
But actually, if Nicholas II was at least a little patriot of his country, he could at least end the war first and then abdicate ... Or at least promise to abdicate to the people but after the war ... He is one of the main the culprits of Russia's entry into the world war ... And if millions of people died on the fronts, it was not clear that the state was on the edge of the abyss, especially to those who run this state? !!!
No - the tsar's abdication became the crown of his mediocre rule - the culmination of his insolvency as a tsar, as a leader and as a military leader and even just as a Russian person !!!
Azzzwer 21 March 2013 21: 32
Author Oles Buzina
but I thought that Ukraine is a separate state
Comrade1945 21 March 2013 22: 07
Gentlemen, good health to all.
As for Nicholas II ... Ask any school teacher (I'm not talking about historians) what he / she thinks about this ruler, how he characterizes him in terms of managing our Russian State. So the answer you will receive, in the vast majority of cases, is concrete and direct as a cane: Nicholas II was a disgusting ruler, a worthless reformer and generally a weak-minded person, which for the Tsar, excuse me, is unforgivable at all.
So all the talk about "oh, if only, and what would be," I consider absolutely useless, because this monarch would not have kept power in any case (no one knows how it could turn out).
By Senka and hat.
Good luck to everyone.
tomket 21 March 2013 23: 07
The situation that developed by 1917 cannot be called a mutual "scammer". In prayers for health, the church STEPS to mention the tsar and his family, the tsar then renounces, in fact, sends the church away, the military who took the oath to the tsar themselves are the reason for his abdication, since they, not Lenin, dissuaded him from abdicating. And the tsar, accepting the renunciation, essentially throws this very army to the mercy. The Cossacks are the king's support, in general they look at all this with their fingers, they would be home on the Don. Well, as a result, everyone paid for their mutual betrayal. The tsar was shot, the conspiratorial generals either died or were shot, the church was destroyed, the army devoured itself in the civil war. The Cossacks, the support of the tsar, without the tsar became useless to anyone, and the same was destroyed as an estate. Lenin and the Bolsheviks look against the background of all this as an instrument of retribution for the lie, betrayal and renunciation of the church by the people and the army.
First, the tsar for himself "replaced" the church with Rasputin's sermons, and in response, the church stopped mentioning the tsar and his family with his wife, who fiercely hated Russia and its people.
studentmati 21 March 2013 23: 56
"The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne did not save the empire. On the contrary! It opened the way for the fall of monarchies in Europe and the arrival of Nazism. Power was seized by the demons of totalitarian regimes."
Or maybe everything was inche? Aging monarchies simply could not keep power among the young Nazis? Everything has its time. If the ancestor failed to raise his outburst, then he gives way to him with all the ensuing consequences .... Dialectics ....
in fact, there was a change in the signboards of these empires and the principle of the inheritance of power. The Russian empire reincarnated in the USSR and amazingly fast, Germany lagged a bit, but then unwound the expansion flywheel so that they couldn't stop half the world, the Ottoman empire also got a second chance, but didn't use it could.
Is something similar happening today? USA, European Union, Islamic world, Russia ....?
something is clearly happening, one place on the map is not enough (Turkey), others need to write off debts (America) and unfortunately many stories of small victorious wars do not teach anything, the fact that Libya got away with the European Union does not mean that the wick to the barrel of gunpowder under them ass put out.
I think so 22 March 2013 00: 08
Nicholas is the weakest and most stupid king in history, well, also a bloody one (from stupidity). And the fact that the country threw him only for the benefit ... In recent history, its analogue - Gorbachev, who also foolishly plunged the country into the abyss of yet another chaos ...
By the way, analogies are appropriate, and here and there the people and society were struggling with liberal freedoms, which led to the self-destruction of these very societies. Interestingly, well, some kind of siminarist-suffragette got the right to shout "Tsar-bloodsucker!" and threaten her fist in the direction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. And in the morning her sailors pinned her like a counter with bayonets, and who got better from this?
Weakness, as a phenomenon, that in the body, that in politics, by definition, the process is growing, everything has its time ....
darkman70 22 March 2013 01: 37
The revolution would still have been, regardless of Nikolai's personality. It just would have happened either later or earlier. Do not forget that at the same time there were revolutions in many other European countries (and there was no Nicholas there) and if the wave of revolutions in Europe in 1848 swept Russia, then in 1917 it was the strongest. Revolutions do not happen just like that, it is a natural result of the socio-economic development of society, as Lenin put it "when the lower classes no longer want, but the upper classes can no longer," in other words, when the power hangs an anchor on the neck of progress and does not allow society to develop further .. And sooner or later people throw off this anchor. Autocracy by the beginning of the 20th century has outlived its usefulness.
The article did not like, written in the spirit of primitive bourgeois idealism. Materialism is much more accurate in evaluating historical events.
It was necessary to renounce three years before the year, and not when the piece of paper on the abdication became a fact by a simple squiggle.
The German General Staff sent Lenin to Petrograd
If on March 15, Nicholas II simply dismissed him and appointed another commander of the Northern Front, the revolution would be suppressed. If, in the same way, the king had dismissed the rebellious generals and appointed others in their place, he would have won the war already in the summer of 1917.
FROM BOGROV TO THE HOLOCAUST. The furnaces of concentration camps were lit.
Schizophrenia is of interest in itself as a disease, but its mental products are not of interest as sources of knowledge of reality.
Tsarist Russia has been a country of absolute monarchy for hundreds of years - that is, a country where much depended on the personal will of the tsar - vivid examples are Peter the 1st, Catherine the 2nd, Nikolai the 1st ... But by the beginning of the 20th century, absolute monarchy was like the system of power has completely degenerated in Russia, and other institutions of power such as parliament (the State Duma) were too weak and unpopular ... Therefore, a complete decomposition of the authorities and their inability to restore order in the country turned out to be the source of all the reasons for the 1917 revolution and its consequences. ..


Spillages and leakage can be expensive and dangerous. Why not protect your tank with a bund alarm?
The Probe can be easily adjusted to suit your tank, any fluid entering the bund will activate the sounder. A test button is incorporated to enable the user to test the battery.


Our Abstract Panels are original watercolor art pieces that are inspired from contemporary fashion. Our vision for how you can use them is to mix and match, combine or use separately or as individual art panels, configured vertically, horizontally, flipped or reversed — however you like. The design is up to you. You can even use them large scale to wrap your room in art — Casart. You become the artist. Let your creativity inspire. We can reverse the artwork and customize the colors to beautifully suit your décor. See some room concepts below for ideas as to how you can customize your Casart. Please see full product details below.
Thanks to EZ Decorator for allowing us to be able to visualize the multiple ways Casart Abstract Panels can look in a room setting. Great ideas are just below.
Our Abstract Panels are original watercolor art pieces that are inspired from contemporary fashion.
Our vision for how you can use them is to mix and match, combine or use separately or as individual art panels, configured vertically, horizontally, flipped or reversed — however you like. The design is up to you. You can even use them large scale to wrap your room in art — Casart. You become the artist. Let your creativity inspire. We can reverse the artwork and customize the colors to beautifully suit your décor. See some room concepts in the thumbnails above for ideas as to how you can customize your Casart. You can also read this, How Abstract Can Your Life Get? blog post for further inspiration.


This chapter in Rick Perlstein's chronicle of the modern conservative movement picks up where Nixonland left off, after the infamous Watergate break-in but before the Nixon administration's crimes were revealed publicly. While Perlstein continues that story, through Congressional investigation and Nixon's eventual resignation, The Invisible Bridge isn't really about Nixon. Rather, it's about the transition in conservative leadership from Nixon to future President Ronald Reagan.
When I read Nixonland a few years ago, I thought it was probably one of the most interesting non-fiction books I'd ever read. Perlstein's narrative tells the parallel stories of Nixon's rise to power and the nation's ever-growing cultural divide in a way that makes his point clear: these two stories are one story. Nixon was adept at using social change for his own purposes, and he contributed in large part to our perception of the 1960's to this day. (This, pretty much.) Reading Nixonland as a young gun who never lived through that decade, I figure it's the closest I can get to understanding the feel of the era without having been there. Perlstein's writing has this visceral quality that can take you back in time without making it seem like you're travelling to a completely foreign land. His Nixon-era America is striking and familiar at the same time.
Perlstein paints an amazing portrait of Nixon, as well. Even through all the sliminess, Nixon comes across as a great intellect and a strong-willed leader. While he might not exactly be persevering- more than once, he quits politics after losing an election- he's a man of energy and passion. These attractive qualities helped him to inspire the kind of loyalty that led his underlings to carry out undemocratic and criminal acts, and to subsequently go to jail for them. We tend to remember the Richard Nixon who looked sweaty and unshaven on TV, who seemed out of touch with his era, and who seemed to disdain American democracy, but Perlstein makes Nixon into a very impressive figure.
This leads me to the first difference I noticed between Nixonland and The Invisible Bridge: Perlstein's utter contempt for Ronald Reagan. Reading Nixonland, you can tell that he has a grudging sort of respect for Richard Nixon, both as a man and as a leader. He respects Reagan as neither. As a Democrat myself, I'm sympathetic to the idea that Reagan was not the superhero that he's made out to be in the media, and that his brand of conservatism has darker foundations than we typically like to think about, but even I found myself wondering whether he's being given a fair shake in this book. Perlstein's Reagan is a born charlatan, lying to himself and to others because a better story was always more true than the facts could ever be.
I do think that character matters in politics, but it doesn't seem accurate to try to paint a picture of Reagan, or anyone for that matter, using cherry-picked examples from every stage of his life. I don't mean to imply that Perlstein uses anything out of context, since he's generally very careful to provide as much context as possible, but I think he might be conveniently leaving a few things out. For example, I think it's highly suspect that Perlstein's Reagan never acts altruistically. Are we expected to believe that Reagan's never done anything with pure motives? Do anecdotes from his youth really reveal anything about his character? Does tweaking a story for different audiences make him a pathological liar? According to Perlstein, yes, yes, and yes.
See what I mean? It's easy to start with some facts, mix in some commentary, and produce an anecdote presenting opinion as absolute truth. Were those things going on this past summer? Well, yea. Are the issues related? Some of them, sure. Does it really represent our time period? Maybe, maybe not. If you're reading a passage like that fifty years from now, who are you to say? Nothing in that passage is inaccurate.
This writing style a bit sketchy to begin with, but Perlstein goes back to this particular well constantly. And maybe it's because I wasn't on board from the start, but these passages just got more and more tedious. Hell, one of his sky-is-falling incidents had to do with bees in a baseball dugout. Another related to Doc Ellis getting ejected from a game after trying to bean every batter he faced. I don't know about you, but I usually don't use the MLB as a marker for American political culture. Perlstein's repeated use of this style seems intended to mask the absence of a real immersive experience.
As a follow-up to Nixonland, I was personally disappointed with The Invisible Bridge. Nixonland portrayed a perfect alignment between a man and his time period, as well as between the author and his subject matter. Not only does Perlstein know his stuff, but his portrayal of America in the 50's and 60's feels effortless. Everything seemed so real and tangible, almost as if I was actually watching a documentary, or even living the experience. The Invisible Bridge shattered that illusion for me. Instead of easily immersing readers in the subject matter, Perlstein felt like a museum tour guide who really wanted to convince me that his perspective on the exhibit was all-important. So sure, he knows what he's talking about, and he's probably right, but it really detracts from the experience a bit.
Compared with Nixonland, The Invisible Bridge feels like a step backward for Perlstein. The split focus on his two major subjects- Nixon and Reagan- doesn't help, nor does Perlstein's obvious contempt for the latter. The half of the book concerned with Reagan seemed like a chore compared to everything that came before it, which was generally fantastic.
As is traditional in my household, a vast majority of Christmas presents exchanged this year were books. While I'm not a huge reader, I just finished my last semester at college, meaning I suddenly have the blessing (read: burden) of having way too much free time. I also have the burden of desperately seeking employment. Together, this adds up to the perfect time for me to receive Sheryl Sandberg's new book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.
Though Sandburg claims it is none of these, Lean In can certainly be classified as a combination of a self-help book, a feminist manifesto and an autobiography. I say self-help because it has already helped me. Throughout the book, she mentions a poster at the Facebook headquarters reading "What would you do if you weren't afraid?" which I find extremely inspirational. There are so many things that I want to do, but my fears hold me back every day. I've always assumed that it is because I'm shy and a little awkward that I'm afraid to move far away from home, raise my hand in the classroom, or apply to jobs for which I am not 100% qualified. In reading Lean In, I've realized that this is not just a product of me being shy, but is at least partly a product of me being a woman. Re-reading that sentence just made me feel a little brainwashed. Okay, so maybe I'm a little too willing to attribute my excessive anxiety about work and school to my gender, but it really is deeper than that. Sandburg points to multiple studies that show women are less likely to speak up in meetings, raise their hands in the classroom or negotiate for higher pay. I had never realized before that other people shared these apprehensions, and that the most apprehensive were usually women.
I definitely consider myself a feminist. This seems to be kind of a dirty word for a lot of women; they don't want to be associated with those man-hating, bra-burning, no-nonsense lesbians. But for me, feminism is about being judged on my character and merits rather than my gender. In fact, I rarely have conscious thoughts about my gender, and I don't tend to identify with other women simply because of our shared woman-hood. I see people as people, myself included. That is all that Sandberg is asking for in this book. She wants to point out that both men and women must take responsibility for breaking down social expectations based on gender. Women must stop criticizing other women for their career and parental choices, and men must stop encouraging "macho" stereotypes that reinforce the idea that males have no responsibility helping out at home. The assumption is that no woman can "have it all", which causes a lot of women to leave the workforce even before they have a family, and Sandberg encourages women to fight that instinct, because it is very possible to have a successful career and happy, healthy children. Based on Sandberg's desire to even out the playing field for men and women, I would absolutely include this in the "feminist" category. No, she doesn't want to bring men down. And no, she's not even blaming men. But that's not what feminism is about. Sandberg looks forward to a time when being a female does not define one's success, and hopes that "in the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders." She hopes that gender is taken out of the equation when skills and achievements are what really matter.
Most importantly, Sandberg admits that even she has doubts about her choices. After her first child was born she promised to take full advantage of maternity leave, and then was back on her work email within about a week. She worries that she doesn't see her children enough and shared an anecdote about the pain she felt the first time her child cried for the babysitter instead of mommy. She acknowledges that not everybody has the luxury of being able to afford childcare or being able to take time off. She doesn't claim to have all the answers. Rather, she hopes that readers of Lean In will feel comfortable making choices, and give other women the opportunity to make their own choices without judgment.
I avoided reading any criticisms of this book until just now, because I didn't want anything to affect my raw opinion of Sheryl Sandberg or her book, and I'm glad I did. There has been some feminist backlash, accusing Sandberg of representing corporate America and ignoring the needs of women. She expects women to work hard to enhance their careers without any suggestions towards affordable childcare or equal pay rates. My main criticism is that Sandberg's gender is the only thing not marketable about her; she is white, conventionally attractive, heterosexual, healthy, married, well-educated, thin, cis-gendered, etc. It would be refreshing to see this kind of success story from a woman who did not have everything else going for her.
That being said, Lean In has sparked a good discussion, which is all that I can hope for right now. Maybe she's not the most likeable woman and her fight is limited to cookie-cutter businesswomen, and she definitely does not have all the answers. But nobody is perfect and it is a start, and as a young woman about to enter the workforce I definitely appreciate the solidarity demonstrated in this book. I have the privilege of thinking about my future and getting excited for opportunities that I can't yet imagine. I know that other women are afraid to raise their hands, and I can consciously fight that by raising my own.
All in all, I'd recommend Lean In to anyone (man or woman) that feels overwhelmed when thinking about the future. Especially young people on the brink of a new career, this book will encourage you to put yourself out there and fight for the job that you want. Just remember that Sandberg is not evil and she is just trying to take action in the only way she knows how, which is by showing other women that rising up the corporate ladder is possible. And really, who can fault her for that?