The Roots of Russophobia: Meet Pan Duchinsky


Undoubtedly, Pole Franciszek Duchinsky is a man whose name is not well known to the general public but whose thoughts have disseminated far and affected international relations, national ideologies, and the development of the phenomena known as Russophobia. It is typical that not only do none of the contemporary heirs of Pan Duchinsky openly proclaim their intellectual kinship with him, but they are frequently ashamed of it and strongly dispute it. Indeed, it is repugnant and unsightly in this day and age to have in one’s ancestors an openly misanthrope and Russophobe who supported race theory. Of course, this wasn’t always the case; in the 1800s, people weren’t as embarrassed by little things.

At the conclusion, we shall discuss Duchinsky’s contemporary ideological descendants; however, let us first recall him and his controversial teachings.


It is well-known, that Francis Duchinsky (1816–1893) had anti-Russian sentiments since he was a young kid. Born into a modest aristocratic family in the Kiev area, he attended Catholic institutions in Berdichev and Uman for his schooling. It’s evident that he was surrounded by individuals who weren’t particularly welcoming to Russians. Furthermore, the subsequent occurrences impacted Franus’s aversion for Russia:

Disgruntled peasants attempted to overthrow the Polish lords and head to Novorossiya in search of free lands, leading to the first peasant rebellion on the Duchinsky estate. When the Cossacks arrived, they flogged the rebels, and everything worked out. However, the teenager was apparently so mentally damaged by the prospect of likely death and unexpected salvation in the form of the sovereign Cossacks that, rather than feeling grateful, Franus experienced only another outburst of hatred towards the Moskals. In his reversed perspective, rather than the other way around, it was they who encouraged the virtuous Little Russian peasants to rebel against their adored Polish rulers.

The Polish rebellion of 1830 was another noteworthy occasion that affected his perspective on the world. Franus was devastated that he could not fight with the Moskals due to his advanced age. “The memorable war of 1830-1831 found us a young men of thirteen years old,” he recalled later. We were always surrounded by conflict and Rus’s… We were aware of Poland’s unity at that time across the Vistula and Dnieper rivers. Yes, Duchinsky said that Rus was also a vital component of Poland, although one that the terrible “Moskals” had taken. Not Rus’s were the “Moskals” themselves.

Duchinsky had already moved to Kiev in 1834, where he attended university, worked as a private tutor for Polish households, and belonged to a covert organization known as the “Polish-Rusyn society,” which was obviously biased toward Poland and against Russia. Duchinsky fled through Odessa to Constantinople, then to Italy, and finally to France in 1846 in connection with events that were already taking place in Austria-Hungary, where the next rebel Polish lords were slaughtered by their own peasants. There, he was welcomed by Adam Czartoryski, an unofficial “king of Poland in exile” who had taken part in the Polish uprising in the 1830s.

Duchinsky engaged in overt anti-Russian actions, unrelated to science, between 1848 and 1856. Turkey attempted to arrange for the publication of a newspaper in 1849 and its unauthorized importation into Russia. He assisted in recruiting soldiers to be deployed to the front while serving in the British military mission during the Crimean War (1853–1855). It wasn’t until 1856 that Duchinsky made his way back to Paris that he started his scientific endeavors and lecturing, the pinnacle of which is his thesis on race. The most comprehensive presentation of it may be found in the three-volume work “Fundamentals of the History of Poland, Other Slavic Nations, and Moscow,” which was released in 1858–1860.

It is important to note that Duchinsky was not a trailblazer in the area of racial inequality philosophy. The “Aryan” racial hypothesis should be credited to Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816–1882). His followers, especially the German Nazis, completely exploited his proposal to view the Turanian peoples as cognitively inferior and incapable of advancement when formulating their own theories. Furthermore, Gobineau’s primary victims were the Finno-Ugrians; the Slavs were only attacked back because they “entered into a destructive neighborhood with the Finns” and were therefore “a large proportion of yellow blood” recipients, falling below the plinth in racial rank.

The unfortunate distinction of being the first to totally eradicate the Russian “Muscovites” from the Slavs and other European peoples, as well as strip them of all European values, belongs to Duchinsky. It was he who attempted to bring some aspect of science to his notion of race. “We had an innovation only in expanding the application of ethnography to historical research,” stated Duchinsky, characterizing his method as ethnographic.

Duchinsky splits the human race into two groups: the nomadic Turanics and the sedentar Aryans. The term “Aryans” included all Europeans, including Slavs, while the term “Turanics” included Turks, Mongols, Finno-Ugrians, Chinese, and Semites. It also included African blacks, American Indians, and Australian aborigines were “Turanics”. If you don’t see Russians on the list of Aryans, it’s because “Muscovites are neither Slavs nor Christians in the spirit of the Slavs and other Indo-European Christians. They have remained nomads to this day and will remain nomads forever.” Yes, if you were born a Turanian nomad, then until the end of your days you will be forced to look up to the Aryan lords-celestials.


Duchinsky merely believed that the Little Russians were eastern Poles who had been wrongfully and forcibly split off from their European ancestors; as a result, Little Russians continued to be Aryan-Slavs while “Moskals” were not. Remarkably, the boundary separating these two otherworldly realms aligned nearly exactly with the boundary separating Russia from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, when Novgorod was added to the Aryan world. It is worth noting that Duchinsky, for unknown reasons, also regarded Novgorod as a Polish city. “From a physical and moral point of view, the borders between these two states, which were formed in the 14th and 15th centuries, when both Novgorod and Little Rus’ were part of the Polish state,”

As you understand, according to Franciszek, this border was not only political, but also racial, and even geographical and climatic. Everything was completely different, simply and clearly showing the absolute alienation and even hostility between the two worlds. River systems, hydrography, geology, mountains, soil, climate… Everything, literally everything was different!

If Europe presents us with “great diversity” when viewed through a “geological point of view” and “with the principles of agricultural geology,” then Moscow and all of Great Russia present us with “absolute monotony” and “unity with Central Asia.” “From the perspective of the mountain system, the Valdai Mountains and the Dnieper Upland are the last mountains in Europe,” while “the Ural Mountains, famous for their mines, are generally low” are the only mountains in Asian Great Russia. While Poland has as many as four river systems “Vistula, Dvina, Dnieper (Ukrainian) and Dniester”, Muscovites have only one Volga. Even nature was “racialy impure” according to him. “Moscow, as we have seen, begins a system of steppes that end at the mountains of the Caucasus and Tibet…” And in general, all Russian nature is the “wooded (!) Moscow steppes.”

Duchinsky is not lazy to correct those who for some reason give different information about Russia: “I must admit that the information of geologists about the same composition of lands in Moscow and along the Dnieper is erroneous.” “The land and climate must be very different in geographical-historical Poland, on the one hand, and in Moscow, on the other, this can be seen in the botany of the two countries.” Do you see? The land and climate simply had to correspond to Duchinsky’s views! Well, he finishes off the skeptics with a bright, irrefutable argument: “poplars don’t grow in Moscow… Poplar trees, growing wildly, without special care, end on the eastern and northern borders of Little and White Rus’.” And the oaks! After all, Muscovites “by the power of imagination are forced to imagine scenes of the crowning of ancient knights with oak leaves, because they themselves do not have oak trees.” As they say, what more proof do you need?

Actually, the picture painted by Mr. Duchinsky could not but lead to logical conclusions: “Moscow forms a close unity with Central Asia from the point of view of its dry steppes” and “never will the land of Poland cease to belong to the European system, and the land of Moscow to the Asian system” .

And there is no doubt that territories that are so opposite in geographical and climatic terms could not but give rise to peoples who are also complete antipodes to each other. If Duchinsky attributes all the positive qualities to the Aryan-Europeans, then the Turanian-Muscovites only get all the negative ones. Europe is civilization, Asia is barbarism. Europeans are free, Turanians are born slaves. European Christians against Satanist Muscovites, the high morality of the former against the complete immorality of the latter. The Aryans are intellectual individualists, but the Turanics are uh… stupid bolshevik collectivists…


In short, the entire standard European set of binary oppositions about good and evil. “Muscovites are not Slavs, neither by origin, nor by the spirit and nature of their enlightenment.” And “Muscovites, the closest neighbors of the Novgorodians and Little Russians in all the main properties of the peoples of the Ural race, are closer to the distant inhabitants of Central Asia right up to the Chinese mountains than to those very close western neighbors, that is, to the Novgorodians and Little Russians”

The description of the life of Muscovites matches the oak-chestnut conclusions of Pan Duchinsky: “Here, in Moscow, even now the life of cattle breeding and trading dominates” … “In Moscow, the attire of the inhabitants is Turkish-Persian, the way of life, the arrangement of houses, even many household items – everything is Turkish-Persian, the ranking of Moscow officials into 14 classes is Chinese”… “In Moscow you can count at least ten million Muscovites descended from Jews, taking as a basis the calculation of the lands that were inhabited by Ural Jews.”

Well, how can we not fuel European Russophobia with European anti-Semitism by introducing some Ural Jews to the Muscovites, because “Jews historically made up a significant part of the Muscovites”! Well, Tatars, Mongols, Turks too! “The current state of the pastoral trading civilization of the powerful Moscow people comes from the influence of the Mongols…” “Muscovites are Finns, Turks, Tatars, because in essence they are not only in spirit and nature of enlightenment, which everyone knows, but also in origin, which is less known.”

It would seem, what a mess! Finns, Turks, Tatars! But this is all because Muscovites had many names. “The Ural peoples who lived in Moscow were called Moskals or Masks, Masyks, Moksels, and this name has existed there since the 6th century AD.” But these are not yet our most ancient names, because “the name of Muscovites as Turks is the most ancient and national for all branches of the Ural race, and especially for Muscovites. The same name for Muscovites is the name Chud, Scythians in the meaning of monsters (monstrów) and in the meaning of nomads.” “Europeans called the Finns or Chud Turks, evidence of which is contained in the Scandinavian sagas,” and “To this day, the southern part of Finland is called Turku.”

It goes without saying that the Christians from the Muscovites are not real, because only “the Jewish and Muslim religions are extremely consistent with the primordial civilization of pastoral peoples.” Accordingly, Muscovites “even under the heirs of Vladimir the Great in the Grand Duchy of Suzdal were pagans, Muslims and Jews.” “Muscovites were Muslims and Jews before they were forced to accept Christianity. Now they consider themselves Christians, but the mental rights of race and former religious mores are still intact in their lives. Muscovites understand the rule of Shaitan, the Antichrist, better than of Christ.” And very briefly, in the form of a motto – “All Muscovites worship evil, the devil.”

It’s funny, but according to Duchinsky, even Moscow religious sects “differ in character from European sects in that the latter strive to gain personal freedom of a person and are mistaken by excess along this path, while Moscow sects strive to weaken personal freedom of a person and are mistaken in extremes even on this direction.” A complete opposite in everything, even seemingly in ordinary human feelings. “Neither Jews nor Muscovites have a strong longing for their native land. Everyone knows this about Jews. But they usually don’t know that this is one of the foundations of the history of Muscovites.” “The place of the fatherland in the European sense of the word is replaced among the Muscovites, as well as among all cattle-breeding and trading peoples, by the Tsar”! Doesn’t remind you of anything?

But what about the language? The language of Muscovites is Slavic! But no! After all, Pan Duchinsky “was the first to prove by examples that the Muscovite language, which is Slavic when we consider it from the point of view of syntax and vocabulary, if we study it from the point of view of the spirit and character of enlightenment that it represents, is Finnish.”

Slavic is not our native language. We were simply forced to leave “our national languages ​​- Finnish, Turkish and Tatar, and adopt the Slavic language.” And this, according to Duchinsky, can be proven very simply. Firstly, look for yourself, real Slavs have many different languages ​​(Polish, Czech, Serbian, etc.), but Muscovites have only one. And secondly, “the language of 38 million Muscovites has no dialects”! Amazing, right?

Actually, linguistics and folk etymology play an important role in the “scientific” research of Pan Duchinsky. The Finns turn out to be a Turkic people thanks to the city of Turku in southern Finland. The name “Scythians”, which sounds like “skity” in Polish, comes from the word “to wander” (scytowie). The words “Mordva”, “merd” and “smerd” have the same root, and therefore mean the same thing. Slavs are the inhabitants of the place of Slav. And the Poles are both farmers and knights, and the very first and legitimate name of all Slavs…


And of course, all the “scientific” works of Pan Duchinsky are permeated with conspiracy theories, belief in a conspiracy theory, directed, naturally, against Poland with the aim of robbing it, dismembering it, depriving it of rights to its rightful lands and slaves. And the most important way to do all this is to falsify history. It is known that three states took part in the division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but in distorting history “the St. Petersburg government did the most harm to us.”

It was Moscow, represented by the House of Romanov, “and after it the Goldstein-Gottorpov,” that deliberately hid the true facts and carried out a large-scale campaign to falsify history in order to justify its historical and dynastic rights to Rus’, which it did not have and could not have. Although Duchinsky remembers the German historians Müller and Schlozer, as well as their historical commission, he still places all the blame for the falsification on Catherine II. It was she who was the author of the policy of targeted falsifications. But “for the Muscovites of the times of Catherine II, the idea that they began their history in Novgorod, on the Dnieper, on the Dniester, that they were Slavs, was completely new and alien to their conscience.” Wow, where do Muscovites get their conscience?

In fact, according to Duchinsky, the origins of Russian statehood are not Novgorod and Rus’ at all, but something else. “The first historically well-known Turkish state or khanate arose in northern Moscow, which was a bogeyman for Europe and Asia in the 6th–9th centuries. This was actually the first Turkic-Muscovite state.” Yes, yes, Moscow, this is Tartary, the Horde, Mongolia, Turkey, all combined! We are the very first Turanians, the most terrible and all the horrors in the universe came from us! “In the following centuries, the inhabitants of Moscow created four kingdoms, or khanates, across the Oka River: Kazan, Astrakhan, Nogai and Crimea.”

But Catherine misrepresented and falsified everything! It was she who ordered that Muscovites be considered Slavs, Russians and Europeans. “Catherine II… in order to decisively control the thoughts of her subjects, decreed by formal decree that Muscovites are Europeans.” The Empress, according to Duchinsky, generally turned out to be prolific in decrees. Among them there is a decree “who are ordered to consider the Roxolans as the fathers of the Rusyns.” And also a decree in which she ordered to call all Muscovites Russians, and which “became a law for all Europeans, and even more so for all Muscovites! Hence, every Muscovite recognizes himself as a Russian, and is called a Russian and a Slav, if he is literate.” And only Nicholas I renamed the Russians Russians. Of course, by a special decree, which no one saw, like the previous ones, but which everyone was obliged to follow. There is, as usual, zero evidence. What about science in general?

It is quite obvious that there is no smell of science or scientific methods in Duchinsky’s works, and he did not possess them. He was not even able to distinguish sources from historiography, therefore he did not see any difference between historical documents and the historical works of other authors. Duchinsky made references to the opinion of historians and even gave an aura of some kind of scientific character. But nevertheless, the author’s texts and conclusions themselves were shamelessly distorted and interpreted exclusively in the direction desired by the Polish Russophobe. And the presence of references to Russian scientists should have given the reader the impression that the Russians themselves know everything that Duchinsky tells them. A fairly common technique that the followers of Pan Franus use to this day.

The main technique designed to give the work the appearance of science can be considered a set of high-profile scientific terms and phrases, such as “principles of agricultural geology” and “conclusions of studies of the most serious historical criticism.” In fact, no research, no analysis was carried out, and all the characteristics attributed to Russians and Russia were dictated solely by the scheme of their absolute opposition to Europe.

Actually, the fact that Duchinsky’s works were not scientific, but purely political anti-Russian, was clear even then, in the 19th century. Only those who benefited from it and who wanted to find at least some justification for their already existing Russophobia could consider his work to be science. They also gained popularity in France, which experienced a number of conflicts with Russia. And what is characteristic is that this lasted only until the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. As soon as politics forced France to move closer to Russia, Duchinsky’s works were immediately pushed into the far corner, and he himself had to temporarily move to Switzerland. Well, the first who began to use the ironic term “dukhinchiki” were precisely Polish historians, who were well aware of all the ethical and scientific dubiousness of the work of the eminent Russophobe.

However, there is every reason to believe that Duchinsky himself was well aware of the real value of his work for science. It was not for nothing that he often spoke of them as his armies, which he sent to war with enemies. In fact, he waged an ideological war against Russia, where he did not shy away from any methods, even the dirtiest ones, in the form of lies, manipulation and attempts to falsify history, everything he accused Russia of.

The systematic and consistent opposition of Russians to the entire “civilized West” served only to isolate Russia from Europe politically, as well as ideologically to substantiate the necessity and inevitability of Europe’s eternal struggle against Russia. And the negative image of the aggressive Asian and oppressive Horde, formed in Europe within the framework of traditional Orientalism centuries before Duchinsky, was perfectly suited for these purposes. He just connected this Horde with Russia, and gave it a convincing scientific appearance. It is clear that it is convincing only for those who want to be convinced.

And it cannot be said that he did not achieve his goal. Although the French shelved his ideas, as events show, they are always ready to get them out of there, dust them off and put them to work. There were other contemporaries of Duchinsky who welcomed his ideas with a bang, even recognizing his dubiousness from a historical point of view. Perhaps the most famous spirit was such a famous Slavophobe as Karl Marx. In 1865, in a letter to Engels, he wrote the following: “Lapinsky’s dogma, that the Great Russians are not Slavs, is defended by Mr. Duchinsky (from Kiev, professor in Paris) in the most serious manner from linguistic, historical, ethnographic, etc. points of view; he claims that real Muscovites, i.e. inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Moscow, mostly Mongols or Finns, etc., as well as the parts of Russia located further to the east and its southeastern parts… The conclusions that Duchinsky comes to: the name Rus was usurped by the Muscovites. They are not Slavs and do not belong to the Indo-Germanic race at all, they are intrus [aliens] who need to be driven away again across the Dnieper, etc… I would like Duchinsky to be right, and that at least this view would become dominant among Slavs.” It is not surprising that Marx, who received his knowledge about Russia from sources similar to Duchinsky, characterized its history with the devastating phrase “The cradle of Muscovy was the bloody swamp of Mongol slavery.”

Well, it would be foolish to hope that the Russophobic and racist ideas of Pan Duchinsky will remain in the 19th century, when they were given the first fair assessment. Pan Franus has been resting in the Paris cemetery for a century and a half, but his work still lives on! His Duchinsky heirs, although they do not advertise their ideological kinship with their Polish relative, nevertheless promote his theses. And the first ones worth mentioning are, of course, the Svidomo Ukrainian nationalists, who not only adopted Duchinsky’s ideas, but also made them the basis of Ukrainianism, Ukrainian integral nationalism.

The Ukrainian-Canadian historian Ivan Lysyak-Rudnitsky explained the reason for this phenomenon as follows: “The separatist trend among Ukrainians encountered great intellectual difficulties: it went against the established point of view about the close kinship of Russians and Ukrainians, rooted in the common heritage of Ancient Rus’ and supported by a common Orthodox faith. Duchinsky’s theory offered ways to overcome these intellectual difficulties. This explains its appeal to those Ukrainians who were looking for arguments to justify their separate national identity.”

To put it simply, Ukrainians needed a reason to hate Russians, and Duchinsky gave them one. It is clear that Ukrainian Russophobes do not like to remember their close relationship with their Polish predecessor, not at all because of his open racism, like they are not keen on being considered as “lost Poles”. Also, the fact he considered Cossacks, whom svidomites love so much, as Turanics, wouldn’t find compassion in their souls. However, as far as Russia and Russians are concerned, they use it to the fullest, not at all embarrassed by their outright chauvinism and hatred.

The works of the Ukrainian ideologist Dmitry Dontsov, the founder of the modern version of the theory of Ukrainian integral nationalism regarding relations between Ukrainians and Great Russians, directly follow the direction of Duchinsky’s thought. And almost all the main theses of the Pole contrasting European Ukraine with Asian Muscovy can be found in numerous publications, videos and social networks.

Of course, Franciszek’s teaching was adapted by the Ukrainians for themselves, expanded, supplemented and brought at least to the geographical and climatic reality as they imagine it. The Svidomo dukhins no longer contrast Ukrainian nature with the “wooded steppes of Moscow”; their place has been taken by the famous “Moscow swamps where toads croak.” But the meaning of such binary oppositions has been completely preserved. This is the same opposition of bad to good, where Muscovites still get the role of world evil, which must be mercilessly fought.

And so, when you open the book of the Ukrainian spiritualist Vladimir Belinsky, “The Country of Moksel, or the Discovery of Great Russia,” you will find about the Moksha-Muscovites, who are not Slavs, and about the stolen name of Rus’, and about the history falsified by Catherine II with “three Germans who wrote the history of Russia ”, and about the decrees on renaming Muscovites into Russians… And of course, about the Horde Muscovy, opposed to the enlightened West, of which Ukraine is a part… It’s just like carrion blows from the Paris cemetery. But Ukrainians like it, and the Russophobe Belinsky was awarded the state prize for this book. Ivan Franko.

Academician Pyotr Tolochko described Belinsky’s waste paper as follows: “There is no point in analyzing the provisions of V. Bilinsky’s book, since science, as they say, did not spend the night in it. Essentially, the author presented his own emotions, which were extremely tendentious and offensive. And not only in relation to the Russian people, but also to our common East Slavic historical memory. Not being a historian, the author has neither the relevant knowledge nor the ability to analyze systems. He does not understand what sources are and what is a research point of view. His method of work is akin to card cheating, when individual phrases are taken out of context and presented as the general position of this or that historian. By the way, here too all his knowledge is limited to three or four Russian historians of the 19th century. The “laureate” does not cite archaeological sources, without which it is impossible to imagine an objective picture of the ancient Russian world. Definitely, and doesn’t know them. Otherwise, I would not argue that culturally and historically there is nothing in common between Southern Russia and the Suzdal-Zalessky region.” Well, Duchinsky’s style is quite recognizable in Belinsky’s book. The diligent student imitated his teacher. But Pyotr Tolochko was nevertheless charged with treason, although not for this assessment of the dukhinchik, but for his general position towards Ukrainian Russophobia, and spent the last year of his life under house arrest…

It is clear that the list of Ukrainian dukhins is not limited to Belinsky alone. Their name is Legion. But we will move on to the next heirs of the Polish grandfather, who are no longer so obvious. And these are the so-called Eurasians, whose main ideologist was Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy.

The ideas of Eurasianism are strikingly similar to the “Turanian” concept of Duchinsky. Although they do not carry such overt Russophobia, they nevertheless attribute a special Turanian influence to Russian civilization. The source of Eurasian political and cultural unity is considered not to be Rus’ at all, but the empire of Genghis Khan. And Trubetskoy himself argued that the “conjugation of the Eastern Slavs with Turanianism” is generally “the basic fact of Russian history,” and directly called Russia the heir of the Horde. Isn’t this what old Duchinsky instilled in his readers, and with very specific goals? And weren’t these goals pursued by the Eurasians themselves, erasing Russia from the history of Rus’ and Europe?

Is it any wonder that Ukrainians are so willing to borrow the historical fakes of Eurasians (for example, about the twinning of Alexander Nevsky and Sartak), and Russian Eurasians, without any embarrassment, replicate the obvious fakes of Svidomo nationalists.


Well, I would like to start the story about another ideological heir of Duchinsky, but masquerading as patriotism, with a little history. Several years ago, a group of history enthusiasts compiled a list of the most common Ukrainian historical fakes about Russia. There are a hundred such fakes in total on the list. So, if we isolate the fundamental and most widespread fakes from this list, they will surprisingly coincide with what is being spread by a group of “Neochronologists” led by the notorious Fomenko, who is known for turning the world history, including the Russian one, upside down. It is not only , but about his version of Russian history, in which the chief chronologist consistently pursues the line begun by Duchinsky and continued by Svidomo nationalists and Eurasians. It is not surprising that the opposition of Russia to Europe has been preserved from its predecessors. Yes, yes, Russia, according to Fomenko and Co., is the same Horde-Tartaria, the Turanian Empire that Pan Franus told Europeans about!


It is clear that the idea of ​​this Tartaria, prepared for the domestic market, is presented with a positive assessment. Like, a grandiose and great state inhabited by Russians back in the days when the Ukrainians didn’t even dig up the sea! But the general meaning remains exactly the same as one hundred and fifty years ago – Russia is a civilization separate from Europe and historically opposed to it. In fact, the Neochronologists are presenting us with exactly the same Russophobic and anti-Russian candy, but in a bright patriotic wrapper. Here we are already stubborn, but good, and the whole West is a fiend of evil.

Moreover, Fomenko’s version has the same zero relation to historical reality as the versions of his predecessor in the person of Duchinsky and his Ukrainian colleague Belinsky had. His works can be given exactly the same assessment that experts have already given to the last two – “science didn’t spend the night there”! Exactly the same confusion with sources and historiography, between which Fomenko does not see the difference, the same tendentious selections of facts while completely ignoring the entire complex of knowledge, the same manipulations with quotes from real experts, the same linguistic fretting, and of course the holy belief in conspiracy theories, only on a grandiose global scale.

According to the apt assessment of the historian G.A. Eliseev, “now the world of folk history has grown and taken on its own separate life. It has its own authorities, heroes and geniuses. Some authors respectfully quote others, references to some folk historical works migrate to others … The world of monsters lives to the fullest, parodying the life of serious science.” Therefore, it is not surprising that arguments that are mostly false, i.e. fakes, are often common to all alternativeists.

And therefore, Ukrainian and Russian dukhins jointly talk about the fact that the Romanovs falsified history, that the chronicles are fake, that Russian people everywhere spoke Arabic and wore turbans, that the khans founded Moscow… Remember any event, character or phenomenon significant for the history of Russia! There is not a single one of them against which the Dukhins would not launch their joint attacks. Novgorod? They’re beating! According to the dukhins, he either wasn’t there or he was in another place. Baptism and the Orthodox Church? They’re beating! Either they didn’t baptize, or they baptized in the wrong way, or even into Islam, and not into Christianity. Alexander Nevskiy? Son of Batu, brother of Sartak! Battle of Kulikovo? It wasn’t and isn’t there! And at the end, in loud chorus – Muscovy, Horde-Tartaria, Zalessky Ulus!

Guys, who do you think benefits from making sure that the Russians themselves agree with the idea of ​​Duchinsky-Belinsky-Trubetskoy-Fomenko and voluntarily accept the alien name of the Horde-Tartaria? Moreover, the meaning that Russians will attach to this term does not play any role here. Let it even be super positive. And so it is clear that the Horde was not at all that world evil and a branch of hell on earth, as is traditionally believed in Europe since the Middle Ages. But they already have a tradition! The West already has its own philistine, extremely negative opinion about the Horde and will never change it. And as a result, he will only receive what the Russophobe Duchinsky so craved – the Russians themselves admit that they are exactly as he described them! And such monsters, of course, must be fought against, using all available methods and regardless of prejudices in the form of humanism!

So, the pseudoscientific teaching of Fomenko and Co. about Russia is still the same Russophobic poison of Duchinsky. It is in the same way based on the existential opposition of everything Russian to everything Western, deliberately snatches our history from the world context and is aimed at denying Russian historical memory, Russian forms of ethnocultural community and religious traditions. Well, the fact that this poison is wrapped in a beautiful patriotic wrapper and directed directly into the body of Russian society makes it even more deadly for Russia than the teachings of other foreign dukhins.

So, be careful. Do not believe liers, even if they skillfully imitate patriots and sing beautiful tales about the great past. The history of Russia does not need artificial supports in the form of the Horde-Tartaria chimera, as we already have a good example of a neighboring country where the ideas of the old man from the Paris cemetery have won.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply