The morality of Russian women is discussed. The decline of morality is a fatal degradation for Russians

Some men have an incredibly serious and even over-exaggerated attitude towards the virginity of their chosen one.
Well, for such men there is the following therapeutic metaphor: “It doesn’t matter how many came before you. What matters is whether you can make sure that there is no one after you.”
However, let's listen to what everyone thinks:

The question is not for virgins, are you embarrassed to look into a guy’s eyes, knowing that you had other people’s dicks in you before?

This is how the opinions of the girls participating in the survey were divided:
Open voting.
Yes, but nothing can be done – 21.2% (96 people)
No, I’m slutty – 55.8% (253 people)
When - 23% (104 people)

Netizens commented on this survey as follows:

My husband even knows my ex-man.

Any woman would like to regain her virginity, but, alas, it’s not fate.

I think if you treat virginity so reverently, it’s a pathology. It happened to me too. A sexologist resolved this issue. Now I am a happy wife and mother of two children.

Does your husband consider himself a man? Or is he pleased that his wife took other members before him?

So as not to be a whore, obviously. Doesn't apply to those girls who are still with the one who broke their virginity.

Well, that’s how my ex-husband is the father of my daughter, they are obliged to know and respect each other.

Everything is correct, I think. Ex-husband must know who his daughter lives with! These are normal relationships between people.

A normal man marries a virgin or someone who was a virgin before him, and then he took a used one, and even with a trailer, is this a man in your opinion? A real man does not marry used trash, especially with back-eaters, it is beneath his dignity. Only virgins deserve a real man.

Virginity is a trump card at all times!

She may still remain celibate for the rest of her life. Thank heavens that I’m not with my first man, it’s better to lose my virginity than to live my whole life with a person who is mediocre in sex and not know the differences.

You should only lose your virginity to the person you will be with for the rest of your life, otherwise you will become a whore. These are obvious things that need to be drilled into the heads of all women from childhood. Lost your virginity - you are already a pariah, the last class.

But my man and I don’t have to remember our exes. And the guy, apparently, is so creepy that his girls can only yearn for the dicks of their ex-boyfriends.

Maybe you like the taste of cum on his young lips. But I'm ashamed to admit it. So he asks. Looking for someone who is not ashamed.

You envy virgins, obviously. The loss of virginity for a woman is the loss of her only value.

Isn’t he ashamed to look into my honest eyes, knowing that his penis has been in someone’s pussies (and more than one), or even asses? Oh, I forgot about the mouth. Now they stick the penis wherever possible.

Don’t be jealous, I calmly hang out with schoolgirls and don’t know grief, while the weaklings are content with the shabby carcasses of non-virgins.

Well, according to the internet, these days “virgins” aren’t such virgins! They do random things and hide behind a film! Russian virgins are virgins only in one place. Does not it confuse you?

Only a boy who is insecure about himself can be adamant in his choice (they say, his wife should be virgin), he can fall in love with a whore, and an adequate man will not deny this. If he is categorical in his choice, this only speaks of his complexes (either a micro-member, some kind of defects, or chicks abandoned). Many things come to mind.

So a man who has had many women is a handsome man! And if many have had a woman, then she is a shabby sperm receptacle.

Sub-men only succumb to emotions that include love, a normal man controls himself and naturally marries a virgin.

I wouldn't want my virginity back. What for is she needed and I don’t treat her in any special way. This is rather the trump card of dumb chickens. Or guys who are idiots. My opinion - you can call me a whore, but I don’t care and everything is fine in my life!

How it hits you to realize that you are no match for 16-year-old virgin girls! Sex with a virgin is the best thing that can happen.

It bombs women like hell. The main thing is that they actually understand that women’s main trump cards are virginity and youth. Well, they are no match for the young cuties, so they get mad. Girls themselves love those who are in demand, no one loves virgins, but men love virgins, this has always been and will be so.

It’s clear that time can’t be turned back and that they can only be of interest to second-rate peasants who don’t need much. And a virgin girl can lay claim to an alpha male and will receive the honor of loving and respecting him.

Second-rate men sticking their genitals into innocent 16-year-old girls is just some kind of horror.

Offended, of course, your youth is long gone, your virginity has been wasted in vain, all that remains is to envy the young cuties and grow old.

A man should be like expensive cognac, with a lot of aging, and he should be with one, and if he is with many, then it’s no longer cognac, but draft beer - have you heard that? I don’t know how it is for anyone, but I hate to hear when my man had a lot of women, and how he had them and in what holes. Rude, but true.

If men love virgins, then with whom do they lose their virginity? Don't tell me, I don't think I want to know anymore.

Even the women themselves write about men, they say, ugh, a virgin. Have you ever seen men write about girls: “ugh, virgin”? On the contrary, virgins can claim everything!

Why ugh? I got my husband intact. Such cuteness. There was such absurdity and innocence. It is necessary that all men marry intact. So cute!

My youth didn’t get me anywhere, I’m smarter, more beautiful, more experienced now. Regarding virginity - yes, the first man loves me very much all my life, but I met my fate much later. I don't regret anything, by the way.

I would be ashamed to start a relationship with a man who had many women. Not only is he a completely unreliable person, you obviously can’t start a family with him, but he’s probably also rotten from venereal diseases.

The guy didn’t get a virgin and he’s tearing up and throwing around? Relax dude, everything in this world comes to balance. So soon there won’t be any pure and immaculate people left, because there’s no point in spoiling them. Every innocent girl is spoiled by some freak like you.

No, because my husband is the first and last man in every sense. I don’t regret anything that I kept it for him.

You know, kitten, when I slept with my “first”, I thought that he was “the one” and “for life”. After a while, he turned out to be an ordinary goat. I was “little green”, stupid, and could not face the truth with my “rosy glasses”. No one is immune from this “goatery”. So girls do not always lose their “preciousness” just because of their natural lust. There is no need to go to such extremes. Not everyone is lucky enough to “give” it to their “one”. You guys, don't put your finger in your mouth either. For most of you it's like a "trophy". Make fools of yourself and then show off to your friends. And then after a while, when you grow up, you shout that there are whores everywhere. You can count the good guys on your fingers. Just like those girls who were lucky enough to give themselves to “the one.” Typically, a girl's virginity is taken by some freak like you.

More beautiful for whom? Well, think for yourself, no matter how hard you try to put on makeup, a young 16-17 year old female will still be preferable to any man, since the main value of a woman is chastity and youth, let’s face it.

I won’t even look at non-virgins, I respect myself. Only a young virgin can count on my favor.

How do you know if she's a natural virgin? The hymen can now be easily restored. Pretend to be a sheep for a while. That's all. The guy will fall for the virgin. A friend of mine married a rich man. She returned the virginity and pretended to be.

The best age is not youth, not 17 years old with hormones and stupid thoughts, best age- this is when a woman is smart and experienced, and with elastic skin without wrinkles, blossoming, so to speak. Time is inexorable, everyone gets old, the main thing is not that at all.

Is it okay that the female body develops until the age of 25-27? 30 years - the heyday female beauty.

Is it easy for you to look virgins in the eyes, knowing that different holes have been riding on you before? Does an innocent maiden feel normal taking a dirty dick inside her?

This is how a woman is required to have a young body and intactness; a girl is made by nature to give birth. Men are always attracted to young girls, at any age, as is nature. Women age early, a few more or less look at 30, the woman’s age is very short, even with 99% of those who look normal at 30 - wash off the makeup, and there will be horror.

All questions about biology and human physiology, but the luminaries of these sciences voice precisely such figures. Factors that influence negatively cannot be excluded, but old age in a woman begins only with the onset of menopause.

If it believes that girls grow old at 30, then it probably communicates with some heroin addicts who at 30 look 60. Personally, I don’t even have to wear much makeup. Well, the hymen as the main value - no comment at all!

I haven't read everything. But excuse me, I have never seen even a shadow of embarrassment in the eyes of men whose members were in other people’s vaginas before me. I think I shouldn’t be embarrassed either.

Why can’t you come to terms with the fact that any self-respecting man will choose a young virgin of about 16 years old, and not a woman of about 25 years old, battered by life? Are innocent girls better than you? By the time you turn 18, you lose all value.

It’s a shame for them, everyone wants to be in demand, to consider themselves queens. But in reality, no one needs pieces of an aging body anymore. Prostitutes, not worth a penny.

Why put up with the fact that some men are not confident in themselves? So I don’t care at all.

When will all the sexists get together and go to Mars and have each other in different places? Oh, it probably bothers them because the living person with the highest IQ is a woman.

What does confidence have to do with it anyway? It’s just inherent in nature that real men always like young females, and not those who are over 25 years old. Who else has retained morality and ethics along with a young body.

It seems that everything is not working there, or there is a problem with the size, so he wants to get involved with someone who has something to compare with. Thank God that when I was 16 years old, I didn’t come across something like that that would consider me a “fresh carcass” and would not deprive me of my virginity. My father would have broken his neck. And I studied calmly and walked with my friends.

Primitive males like young females. Moreover, the younger the female, the more primitive the male. The instinct of reproduction is inherent in nature, that is, all sorts of fiction about virginity have nothing to do with nature. And the topic of morality arises not from your own highly moral concepts, but because of an inferiority complex.

When I am 40 years old, I will also continue to love young 17-year-old boys. It's nature, yeah. Men love young people over the years. Grannies too. And I will rip their whole hair, it’s so cute.

Only second-rate men can be content with females that they have already used before; real males choose the best. All men love young virgins, is it so difficult to accept it? This is nature. Old age for a man and a woman are different things. If 40 summer man can easily start a relationship at 16 summer girl, then hardly anyone will look at a 40-year-old woman.

What kind of nonsense are you talking about, I’m 17 years old now, I don’t feel much happiness from this, all living things someday grow old and die, alas, no one will need you in a few years either, except your loved ones. You say this as if this is a sentence, God created us this way, in general - rejoice that you were born healthy and are still living today. These are the foundations of morality with which you are so fussed.

What do males and females have to do with it then? You were just talking about nature. Just in nature, males love experienced females who are strong and have already given birth to healthy offspring. This is the key to procreation. From the point of view of nature and the male, a strong, healthy female who has given birth is the ideal, and the best. And a young female, there is a high probability that she will not be able to bear and give birth, or even die in childbirth. That's why she's at the lowest level. So how can you explain your attraction to virgins? They were talking about nature. Now which option will you choose?

What it is pure creatures and no one had “tried” them before me. Everyone else can be safely compared to whores, as I already wrote.

That is, you think that since you have a virgin, it means that you didn’t give it to the ass or mouth, and didn’t engage in petting? Or is only vaginal penetration important, and everything else doesn’t count and the girl is an innocent soul? In societies where the importance of virginity is high, girls have fun this way until their husband solemnly displays the sheet after the wedding night. IN Muslim countries, For example.

These are the same whores, we are talking about self-respecting girls who lose their virginity only with a person with whom they will be with until the grave. Another woman is slutty.

Question for non-virgins - “Aren’t you ashamed to look into the eyes of a girl whose penis has been in other vaginas?”

Everyone knows very well that nature actively ages women after the end of their prime fertile age. Female body, like the psyche, are tailored to the incubator, to the main function of the female sex. Of course, women themselves love popular guys, but guys love exclusively virgins.
I think the guy serious problems with the psyche. This clearly requires consultation with a psychologist.

This is already known, any man is attracted to young people, this is nature, a young female is more suitable for reproduction, it’s just that not everyone gets young ones, that’s all.

Clever man will choose a mature, wise and experienced woman, in every sense. An intelligent man knows that a person's morality is not located in the area of ​​his genitals.

You are trying to impose this pity by saying that only youth has value. To rise on par with the young is to fall several steps in development.

So you indulge in self-consolation, inventing some stages of development for yourself. A woman at 16 and at 30 years old is no different in intelligence, only accumulated experience and negativity, that’s all, well, except for wrinkles, the end of fertile age, shabby body, worn-out eyes, and so on.

In your fictional world, women are all the same, only some have virginity, others are whores. I haven’t fallen out of reality yet. I don’t need to invent anything for myself. Morality is not a virgin between the legs and 16 years. Is not nothing. Well, you won't understand this.

Women do not become smarter with age, this is the privilege of men, and not all men become smarter, and women certainly do not. Simply a dissolute woman learns to hide her debauchery through primitive trials. That's all.

No self-respecting woman would take a dick that was everywhere. When you meet at least one of these, you will understand. I feel sorry for you, it seems you are surrounded only by women of questionable behavior and scum men who have these women.

Why should I not feel sorry for those women whose youth is long behind them? I sincerely feel sorry for you that I am not a person, or something, emotions are not alien to me. You have not been a virgin for a long time, and you envy the untouched. That's why I feel sorry for you.

I would be ashamed to look a man in the eyes if I am 30 years old and a virgin. But until the age of 18, it is better not to do this, but to study and study. And don’t think about stupid young walking members who don’t care about you.
- What’s shameful about this, we don’t live in the 16th century? And why should we be ashamed, but the men are not ashamed that before us they had 200 whores of not very good quality?

Why does the truth bother you so much? No matter how much you yell, a man who has many women will remain a handsome man in society, a Casanova, and a woman who gives to more than one man will be a whore, it always has been and will be so. More than one man - you are cheap prostitutes. Deal with it. Men are getting wiser, Soviet matriarchy is subsiding, we are returning to normality, we are slowly putting women in their place, everything will be fine!

How I remember my first time! Ugh! I loved my first one, but after this nightmare my libido for him disappeared! I found someone else, so I remember with relief that I don’t have to go through this again and am happy about the upcoming sex.

The scoop was also built by men. How so? Why suddenly matriarchy?

In any case, complexes. A virgin a priori gives confidence that he will not be compared with anyone, that he is at least the best for her in sex, even if in reality he is no good and is not able to satisfy a woman. And a woman who knows what an orgasm is will have nothing in common with such “men.” Hence his obsession with deflowering.

Men are insignificant now, they used to be the main ones, now a woman can dress herself, put on shoes, feed herself and support her child. What's the point of a guy, especially if he works for pennies? Why the hell does someone like that need to wash his socks, so you’ve been a nobody for a long time and no one can call you. And all that remains for you is to bow before any pussy, either only your dignity was there, or the whole city was there.

Thus, they assert themselves at the expense of the weak and inexperienced. This is also when older guys teach those who are younger, because they don’t play with their peers. By the way, two Muslim women studied with me at the university. She worked as exotic strippers in a private club. They didn't have sex, but they sucked normally like that. And in general, there are enough girls who have tried blowjobs before sex. What I mean is that perhaps you not only had a lot of virgins, but also sucked more than one dick..

It’s easy to dominate any woman, that’s the nature of women, you want someone who will tell you what to do. Therefore, the spiritual chastity of the female is important so that it does not arise and does not interfere with the man being a king. A real man is a selfish, lazy ruler.

Question for virgins, are you embarrassed to look into a girl’s eyes, knowing that you haven’t had sex before and you don’t know what it’s like to cum inside your fist?

Even flirting with more than one man is considered naughty and slutty, once you get into the details.

Men have wanted to tie women to themselves all their lives and to please themselves! And chastity belts and the harsh laws of Shiriah and so on. But women's nature cannot be changed! You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear!

Hello, judging by the survey, you are a representative of a company that provides gigolo prostitutes for a long period of time under certain conditions? I'm a wealthy virgin, where can I see all your boys and what is their face value?

There has always been debauchery. And in ancient times, girls were deprived of their virginity at a very young age, and they did not get by with just one partner at all. If we go back to the roots, then along with virgin virgins, sodomy is the norm and pedophilia is the norm. But then the question arises: are we not ashamed? If sex before marriage is a sin, then let’s turn, apparently, to the Bible. And it says that all people are taken, which means that someone else’s member is not a stranger, but a native one. Why then be ashamed? We continue to have sex. The problem of morality has been removed.

Are you embarrassed to look into a girl’s eyes, knowing that before her you were in other people’s pussies?

The golden rule of morality is not to get into someone else's bed or into other people's panties. I think you understand me.

What do you think?

Corrupt women and you will destroy the Nation...

The virgin purity of a girl is the health of the People... The daughter of a prostitute will be a prostitute... The son of a prostitute also does not have the correct energy spectrum. But he cannot make up for it with anything and commits suicide. In addition to semen from sexual partners, a woman takes and transmits various diseases that burn her from the inside, pre-age her and kill her...

This information is intended only for those girls and boys, young parents who want to have full-fledged and healthy children, who want their Family to last for a long time, all their descendants to be happy in family life, and in old age to be looked after by their children without taking away their pension. drugs. Homosexuals, lesbians and prostitutes, please do not read this material, because they have already erased from Life not only themselves, but also all their children, if they happen to have them, and have also erased them from life, i.e. They have already made all their grandchildren and great-grandchildren physical deformities. If someone thinks that for them children are not the main thing in life, that “free” women and men should live without family worries and worries, then they don’t have to read this material either.

Aggression of Dark Forces

Most main idea, which we want to convey to the reader, is that direct aggression is currently being carried out on Earth Dark Forces. All efforts of Aliens on Earth are aimed at the destruction of genetically healthy and morally pure White People. The simplest and most effective way to destroy the White Race is to force them to refuse modern descendants Slavs and Aryans from the commandments of the Gods and Ancestors, from observing the laws on the purity of the Family and Blood (Laws of RITA). In this regard, the Aliens have come very far. Blind adherence to all kinds of “freedoms” of speech, press, “human rights”, “universal human values” and other fashionable phrases, alien to the Slavic-Aryan peoples, led to modern people through egocentrism, permissiveness, sexual promiscuity and perversion to their degradation and degeneration. What actually happened in the game of “freedom”, in one of the so-called “freest” states, with the health of the nation, with the morality of the people, can be seen from the following examples.

The media often cite examples of a well-fed and prosperous life in America. They use a certain “American way” of life as an example. Many young people strive for America, considering it almost an earthly Paradise. Is this so? America provides the clearest example of the depravity of morals, where up to 30% of the population are homosexuals and lesbians. It is for them that the American “paradise” was created.

Immorality in the USA

The consequences of freedom (of morals, speech) and respect for human rights turned out to be dramatic for the United States: there are 55 million drug addicts in America alone. The picture of decline is complemented by another figure: for various reasons, half of the working-age population here does not work. But what is especially impressive is the intellectual decline: half of the adult population in the United States is unable to even write a letter. 44 million American adults are unable to calculate how much money is spent on purchases at the supermarket, compare differences in food costs, or obtain information from text placed on back side a simple form. Today in America, according to the world-famous Dr. Kinsey, 37 million (!) Americans need psychiatric help. More than half of all hospital beds in the United States are occupied by the mentally ill.

Against the background of such a large-scale decline in the morality and health of the nation in the United States, a “demand” for virgins appeared, perceived as defensive reaction society towards degeneration, which is approaching Americans with terrifying speed. According to the Americans, this is the first step towards restoring the genetic health of the nation. It was predetermined by the increasing number of degenerate surprises that Nature presented to the Americans on their anti-natural path. The weakening of morals to the level at which girls who have worked up before marriage subsequently produce drug addicts, perverts, the disabled, and the mentally ill, threatens Americans (like many other nations) not only with complete degradation, but also, according to the Laws of Nature, with complete self-destruction of the “free” itself. nation in the world.

Consequences of immorality

Evidence of the degeneration of a nation in case of non-compliance with morality and the laws of Nature was given back in the 19th century by the world’s famous scientist Lombroso, who examined the genealogical “books” of many famous and ordinary people. He proved: positive characteristics parents (especially intellectual and spiritual data) are inherited to a much lesser extent than negative ones. Moreover, the latter are transmitted, including diseases, in progressive forms. As for alcohol, Lombroso gives a typical example: “... from one drunkard ancestor Max Uke, over the course of seventy-five years, two hundred thieves and murderers, two hundred and eighty unfortunate people who suffered from blindness, idiocy, consumption, ninety prostitutes and three hundred children who died prematurely... "

Lombroso gives many examples of the complete disappearance of noble families in just two centuries. Thus, out of 487 families classified as the Berne bourgeoisie, only 168 remained. At the same time, those families whose members married noble heiresses who had more than enough time for entertainment, including sexual ones, were mostly subject to disappearance. And such examples confirming the connection different forms promiscuity with the birth of inferior offspring, a huge number.

America, having despised moral and Natural Laws, received phenomena of degeneration on an alarming scale. That is why the demand for virgins was born here, because the time has come to save the nation. But population degeneration affected not only America. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the world's population was 20% white. And today it is only 6.8% of the 6 billion population. The clearest example disappearance of the White race on Earth. The terrible phenomena of degeneration have already made themselves felt in Russia during the heyday of “democracy”, or rather, permissiveness. If three years ago there were only 30 thousand drug addicts in Russia, today there are already 5 million. The clan of thieves, rapists, and perverts is growing alarmingly quickly, whose unfavorable heredity is rapidly increasing it.

The Cause of the Degeneration of the White Race

The reason for the degeneration and terrifying degradation of the White Race lies on the surface public life. Violation of RITA Laws, i.e. Heavenly Laws on the Purity of Family and Blood. Actually, “RITA” is a Rune denoting the Code of Laws on the Purity of Family and Blood. The Slavs and Aryans themselves called this Code the Heavenly Laws. All Slavic-Aryan Clans have lived according to the RITA Laws since ancient times. People who violated the RITA Laws were declared outside the Community and relegated to the caste of untouchables (outcasts). They were driven out of the Communities. This is where, for example, the word gypsies came from - “tse ganims”, “tsegane”. What is the reason for such a harsh attitude of the Slavs towards their relatives who violated the RITA Laws? And what are these RITA Laws?

In reality, the RITA Laws, as such, are in the form of a complete written set of some rules, norms, etc. does not exist. But the Laws, both orally and in writing, were transmitted in the Clans of the Slavs and Aryans from generation to generation in the form of commandments of the Gods, moral rules and requirements emanating from parents when raising children, norms of behavior for community members, rules for conducting rituals, ceremonies, holidays, etc. P. All RITA Laws are based on the laws of God, Nature and the laws of heredity, which no one can cancel. The purpose of the RITA laws is to give the people of the Clans of the Great Race knowledge to preserve and increase the Clans on Earth, to follow the laws of Nature, and not contradict them, not violate them, thereby, with the help of knowledge, protect their Clans from degradation of the Moral, Spiritual, Mental and Physical .

Following the Laws of RITA means that everything that God and Nature created in man is all natural, everything is harmonious for existence in the world of Revealing. And any deviation in anything from the Laws of RITA will inevitably, sooner or later, lead to the deterioration of the Family and even its degeneration, be it incest or short haircut at the girl's. There are also Tribal laws that give Rasichs knowledge about a person’s life from birth to death in the Tribunal and in the Community, with relatives and strangers. Ancestral laws and the RITA Laws are interconnected and help a person live correctly throughout his life.

Historical examples

Let's consider historical examples. Our Ancestors and the ancestors of other peoples knew and used these laws in their lives. In the Slavic-Aryan Vedas and in any religious teaching of the world, be it the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, there is a mention of such a phenomenon as the transfer of heredity. This is what the Slavic-Aryan Vedas say: “Do not allow Foreigners to your daughters, for they will seduce your daughters, and corrupt their pure Souls, and destroy the Blood of the Great Race, for the first man with his daughter leaves images of the Spirit and Blood... Foreign images of Blood the Light Spirit is expelled from the children of men, and the mixing of Blood leads to destruction and this Race, degenerating, perishes, not having healthy offspring, for there will be no one inner strength, which kills all illnesses and diseases...” (Santiya of the Vedas of Perun. First Circle. Santiya 8, shlokas 11-12). According to this Sacred text The first man in a girl’s life leaves his Image inside the woman - this psychological and often physical portrait of the child she will give birth to. And the health and usefulness of future children depends only on this first man.

The Bible, chapter 38, v. 8-9 of the Book of Genesis, also talks about the Jews’ knowledge of the genetic law of transmission of the Image of the Spirit and Blood. Those. From the above examples it follows that even in very distant times this phenomenon was known to many peoples on Earth. In the Middle Ages, feudal lords introduced the rule of “the right of the first wedding night.” A girl to be married off before her first wedding night brought to the feudal lord, who deprived her of her virginity, thereby transferring to her his Image of the Spirit and Blood, making her future children similar to himself. But what was known even to the biblical Onan about the transfer of the Image of the first man is not known now to many scientists, not to mention ordinary people.

Telegony

Now the Greek name is used to denote the Laws of RITA - telegony (telelegy). For some people whose brains are not filled with so-called “universal human values,” telegony is a figurative and the only designation for the phenomenon of transmission of heredity from generation to generation.

The phenomenon of telegony was again discovered in the 19th century in England by Charles Darwin's friend Lord Marton, who, influenced by his friend's ideas, decided to study biology. He crossed a purebred English mare with a zebra stallion. There were no offspring, but then, after some time, when he crossed her with an English stallion, the mare gave birth to an “English” foal, but with obvious traces of stripes on the rump, like a zebra. Lord Marton called this phenomenon telegony.

One of the first researchers of telegony were Charles Darwin's contemporaries, Professors Flint and Ladentek. They conducted many experiments on birds and animals. Professor Ladentek described telegony in detail in the Book “The Individual, Evolution, Heredity and Neo-Darwinists” (M., 1899). The 24th chapter of this work is called: “Telegony or the appearance of the first male.” Until the 1960s, scientists from different countries conducted many studies in which it was found that the telegony effect also applies to people.

According to the phenomenon of telegony, the first man in the life of a virgin leaves his Image of Spirit and Blood. All subsequent men give the woman only seed, but she gives birth to the children of the first man who gave her the Image of the Spirit and Blood on long years. Moreover, it turned out that they are inherited not only external signs the first sexual partner, but - in certain cases - also his illnesses, in particular, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illnesses, blood diseases, etc. As soon as this became scientifically established, all research and publications on the problem of telegony were classified, and in everyday life and means mass media Telegony began to be called “pseudoscience.”

Contemporary proof of the phenomenon of the “first male” is the broadcast of the television program “My Family” in 2000, which was watched with tender sympathy by all of Russia. We were told how a Slavic woman initially lived with a black man, and then married a Slavic man and gave birth to his first child, who had black skin. Television presented this to us as a miracle. In fact, according to Slavic laws, that woman committed a crime.

Interracial "marriages"

RITA laws prohibit interracial “marriages” Slavic peoples with Negroid, Mongoloid, Semitic, etc. peoples. The ancestors understand perfectly well that the mixing of Blood with the above-mentioned peoples necessarily leads to degradation, diseases (AIDS), and degeneration of the entire branch of the mixed Family. The reason is a decrease in the body's resistance to various diseases and a decrease in immunity.

Among the Slavs, new Family unions were created only between representatives of Various Slavic Clans. Marriages between Kinsmen were prohibited and unnatural. Therefore, Christianization was not only informational sabotage in Ancient Rus', but also a genetic experiment. Mixed marriages were sanctified by the Christian Church. Responsibility for deformed children and incest was shifted to Christ. Catholics are allowed, for example, marriages between first cousins. The Christian Church in Rus' allows marriages between second and fourth cousins. “Old Believers” allow marriages between seven cousins. Judaism allows marriage between relatives. The Old Believers, following the Laws of RITA, prohibit any kindred marriages, as this ultimately leads to the degeneration of the Family. From childhood, the Slavs had in their minds that the Will of the Gods could not be violated; the bride was taken only from another Family, another Vesi (region). Each Family was unique in its own way. Neighboring Clans lived in friendship, since marriage within one Clans is impossible. When enemies attacked, no one left their neighbors in trouble, for where would a son get a bride if the neighboring Family was destroyed by foreigners?

Healthy heredity was preserved by our Ancestors due to the fact that one of the most important conditions for its creation is the virgin purity of the bride, as well as the understanding that you will not get good offspring from a wandering girl. The fallen girl was considered spoiled, unworthy of marriage.

Take care of honor from a young age

Since ancient times in Rus' it has been said: “Take care of Honor from a young age.” On Slavic lands the concept of a virgin was the concept of the Image of Purity and purity. The groom’s parents had the first question for the girl’s parents: “Is your girl clean?” Not in the sense of whether she washed herself in the bathhouse. The groom's parents were interested in whether the girl was a virgin, whether she carried the image of another man, whether anyone in their family had serious illnesses? They learned all this so that full-fledged offspring would be born into their Family. In America, before marriage, the bride and groom are required to donate blood to check the compatibility of their blood, to check for the presence of unhealthy heredity and AIDS. But medicine is powerless in the face of the RITA Laws and the consequences of their violations.

Nowadays, propaganda of debauchery among youth is increasing day by day. IN modern schools High school virgins are looked at by their ultra-modern classmates as “black sheep”, they laugh at them, calling them fools and other bad words. Schoolgirls free from morality boast among themselves about who has changed partners and how many, who has “slept” with which of their peers. Unfortunately, they do not know the Laws of RITA, and these Laws state that “a man gives a woman the Gift of Motherhood.” Ignorant youth do not yet think about children, so young men do not perceive their sexual partners as the mother of their children. And when a child is born unwanted by a young man, the mother of the child is not endowed with the Gift of Motherhood. She does not feel the need for maternal care, love, affection for the child. Therefore, now some young mothers leave their children directly in maternity hospitals. The young woman's soul becomes empty. A young woman begins to drink, use drugs, and leave home for a “walk” in search of adventure and a casual partner. In the old days, such a girl was called “walking”.

But how does virgin purity affect the health of generations? Our ancestors knew the answer to this question; they had before their eyes examples of bad offspring being born from a wandering woman. Therefore, a morally fallen girl was considered spoiled, unworthy of marriage.

This is one of the most provocative and difficult chapters in my book to accept. But I am not afraid of accusations of chauvinism and misogyny, because I have long been known as such, I will risk encroaching on the myth of “ moral purity women” and I will express my thought directly and unambiguously: “morality, as a personality characteristic, generally speaking, is not characteristic of a woman.” I am well aware that this chapter will make most women furious and hysterical.

I am not saying that every woman is immoral in her behavior, but I am saying that the very concept of morality is most often incomprehensible to her.

There are “moral” men, and there are immoral ones. And the woman does not understand the formulation of this problem AT ALL. She is excluded from this plane, she is OUTSIDE. Well, like a cat.

There are no moral or immoral women. Women exist OUTSIDE of morality, they are not subject to it.

What does the concept of morality primarily mean? The presence of conscience, firm concepts of good and evil, an internal desire for truth and justice, concern for the public good - categories whose super value is unconditionally accepted by a moral person.

We call the formalization of these qualities at the level of social, interpersonal connections and public attitudes morality.

Good and evil. For a woman, these categories are flattened to personal acceptance or rejection. By goodness, she often means restraint, non-aggression, ostentatious disposition, smiling, and helpfulness. In general, good is what is pleasant and beneficial. First of all, to the woman herself. Good “simply” does not exist for a woman.

Evil in her concept is the antipode of the above. So, a woman says: “You are evil” when she did not get what she wanted from a man; “I’m kind,” she thinks while lisping with the cat.

As for good and evil in general, you are unlikely to meet a woman who seriously comprehends these categories abstracted from a specific situation.

Simply put, well, she won’t rack her brains about whether her action is moral or not. But here are the questions she will definitely ask herself:

- is this beneficial for me?
- What will happen to me for this, won’t I lose, won’t I be punished?
- how will this affect the relationships of other people towards me, especially those on whom I depend or need?

The very system of coordinates “moral-immoral” lies OUTSIDE the understanding and worldview of a woman, is perceived by a woman as something abstruse, artificial, superfluous.

But a woman knows how to PRESENT morality. Which, more often than not, she does, but only as long as it benefits her. A woman is a chameleon, she masterfully mimics when she is interested in it.

What could this benefit be?

Attracting a potential man, formally complying with his intuitive concept of what a woman should be
- a certain social status, ostentatious decency, “decency”
- direct self-interest
- the possibility of manipulation using categories, the meaning of which a woman does not accept

A woman KNOWS the rules of morality and ethics in relationships with people (they are voiced when raising a girl), but does not understand their meaning, essence and significance. Morality for a woman is the necessary “coloring” of the chameleon in CERTAIN CASES, a kind of formal ritual, the implementation of which she takes upon herself as necessary. But as soon as this attire ceases to be beneficial, the woman simply does what she needs.

Modern life, almost completely freed from the pressure on women of moral laws, confirms the COMPLETE ABSENCE of an internal moral core in women, as a structure underlying personality. Speaking about this, I do not blame women for this at all, they are who they are. But men should always remember this feature of women.

I go even further: and argue that morality INTERFERES with the main natural program of a woman, i.e., receiving and subordinating the resources of a man. It is for this reason that it is not reliably instilled in her: no matter what educational measures were taken in a woman’s childhood, if the game of morality is not beneficial to her, then the woman will not think about this topic. If there is no external moral influence from the level of society, family, laws, church, then we have a female who goes headlong to achieve her goals.

“Men came up with morality and also this... expediency - women would never have come up with this,” she says loudly, knowing that I am rushing after her.”

Zakhar Prilepin "Shadow of a cloud on the other shore"

It was men who nurtured the institution of moral laws of society. Of course, this does not mean that all men are highly moral. But most often they accept these laws for consideration, a certain moral choice- between “right” and “wrong”. But women don’t ask these questions AT ALL.

An exaggerated example to reinforce: almost all men know what an honest word is and most of them keep it or try to do so. They know the price this word and experience remorse and shame when they fail to keep their promises. For women, the vast majority of them, a promise means absolutely NOTHING. These are just words that were “thrown in” when needed, and forgotten when not needed. Note that we are not talking about suppressing conscience! Just honesty and sticking to your guns honestly actually mean NOTHING to women. These are ephemeral, abstract concepts.

Nowadays it is often repeated that a woman is a social being, actually meaning by this the sociability of women and the ability to establish and build relationships with people. But these relationships usually do not rise above the level of mother, girlfriends, lover, husband, work colleagues, in other words, the “inner circle”, people in the woman’s sphere of direct interest. Morality in the female understanding, or rather its visual picture, the external side, serves precisely these relationships.

Conversely, male morality arose at the dawn of history as a means of universal intra- and intercommunity communication, serving the needs of the emerging diversified social production. To put it simply, people needed universal intangible values ​​and general norms, rules of behavior accepted by the majority of people to facilitate production and trade relations, laws to approve the trustful coordination of joint actions. To kill a fellow tribesman for no reason is evil, to deceive a partner in a primitive business is evil, to take away someone else’s property or wife is evil. It was then that such concepts as reputation and business ethics arose.

It was then that religion arose as an institution for maintaining morality, while the formidable super-hierarch gods were accepted and revered as the main measure of people’s actions, their correctness or incorrectness.

Judeo-Christian civilization erected a pedestal for altruism and established service to the public interest as one of the highest virtues.

The progress of the human race was colossal: men, who came out of the caves and received moral standards that were universal for all, were able to create a prototype of separate (diversified) social production and trade, albeit still in the form of natural exchange of goods!

So-and-so was engaged in the manufacture of arrowheads and exchanged them for bread baked by so-and-so; one community or clan exchanged the fish they caught for skins obtained by their neighbors. Honesty in such transactions and the cooperation of men in “slaughtering the mammoth” formed the basis of the emerging moral norms. Man realized public (clan, clan, community) interest and developed laws to protect it, which became beneficial for everyone to observe together.

The first inter-clan and inter-community military alliances appeared. Societies grew larger, adopting universal norms of behavior.

Of course, I am exaggerating greatly for the sake of clarity, I am not a historian, I do not indicate exactly when, where and how this happened, it is important for me to convey the essence, the principle itself: the institution of moral values ​​should have appeared for the purposes of the public good, peaceful coexistence, industrial progress and family protection and private property.

Then the people came out of the caves... but the women did NOT come out of the caves. Their sphere of competence remained the home, family life, the birth and upbringing of offspring.

Social communications? Husband, children, neighbors in the "wigwams". The means of these communications are the ability to understand the internal state of other people, psychological adjustment, cunning, manipulation, intrigue.

They, women, are the main one life task So what remained was the search, attraction and attachment of a strong and preying male, redistribution of resources within the family in favor of themselves and offspring, exchanging “love” and care for the man’s home for them. Men developed and complicated universal moral norms, being their creators, bearers and guardians, overthrowers, but for women, in essence, nothing has changed: the tasks are the same. Moreover, the morality inculcated by men came into conflict with the main biological task of women.

If you look at the history of Mankind and women from this angle, it will become absolutely clear that the formation and strengthening of civilizations was accompanied by the mandatory suppression and curbing of harmful and destructive female instincts. A woman, her very inner essence, contradicts moral norms, in particular, the Judeo-Christian Civilization. Our ancestors understood this very well and did not allow women to participate in the priesthood and judicial functions. What a pity that this wisdom, developed and carried through centuries and millennia of Human History, is so frivolously trampled upon!

"How so?" - the reader will ask me, “After all, we have been taught to perceive a woman as a standard of moral purity.”

Yes, a woman may well behave in accordance with moral principles, just as a cat does not always steal sour cream. Especially when I'm full.

Men themselves, alas, tend to invent a certain “moral purity” of a woman. And this, among other things, lies our craving for harmony: we try to endow a creature of angelic appearance with those personality traits that, according to our inner conviction, should be inherent in it. We subconsciously strive for perfection and completeness and speculatively “finish” a woman. At the same time, the possibility of objective perception and analysis of a woman’s qualities is blocked by sensuality and romanticization.

Most often, the painful, in our time almost inevitable, resolution of the conflict between reality and the fictional morality of a woman leads a man into a state of shock.

King Shlomo (Solomon) wrote:

" I found one righteous man among a thousand, but among a thousand women I did not find one."

(Ecclesiastes 7:1-29)

One way or another, even the smartest representatives of modern times guessed about the pressing animal essence of a woman, although they did not dare to announce their discovery loudly and decisively.

Andrei Prozorov, the hero of the play “Three Sisters” by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, admits with sadness:

“A wife is a wife. She is honest, decent, well, kind, but at the same time there is something in her that reduces her to a small, blind, sort of rough animal. In any case, she is not human."

Anton Pavlovich himself, in one of his letters to his friend and publisher Alexei Suvorin, writes:

“Women are most unsympathetic because of their injustice and the fact that justice, it seems, is not organically characteristic of them. Humanity instinctively kept them away from social activities; God willing, it will reach this point with its mind. In a peasant family, the man is smart, reasonable, fair, and God-fearing, but the woman—God forbid!”

Cesare Lombroso in his book " The woman is a criminal and a prostitute" to explain the immoral and criminal behavior of women prefers to talk about “moral insanity” as a kind of personality defect, illness, thus asserting in it exceptions to the rule. Poor Mr. Lombroso! In his naivety of his still romantic age, he assumed the immorality of women as isolated deviations from the norm, he conducted an outstanding study of the varieties of such deviations for his time, but he did not have the courage to suggest the simple idea that women are not characterized by morality as such.

To justify Lombroso, I admit that he did not demand so much from female morality, defining the “normal female type”, based on two qualities: maternal feeling and modesty.

It is precisely in the absence of an internal moral core in women that lies the answer to those numerous cases of shock among men.

I am certainly not a model of morality, although I have aspirations for this. And I will say with all frankness that such concepts as “honesty”, “passionarity”, “altruism”, “truth”, “friendship”, “mutual assistance”, “decency” are not an empty phrase for me, but the subject of my thoughts and constant internal work. So among women, their absolute majority, the very formulation of this task is absent - don’t get me wrong: it DOESN’T CONCERN or INTEREST them.

The story “I went on vacation” from the women's forum.

I returned from vacation three weeks ago. My friend and I were in Turkey in the city of Kemer. I heard so many stories about fiery and hot nights in this beautiful country, but I went with full confidence that this would not affect me, since I was married. I was happy for my friend that she could have a blast here!! We lay by the sea for two days and on the third day we decided to go shopping in the city. And there I met him!! Modest and speaks Russian very well. At first he gave me his business card like come again, but we chatted and chatted and in the end he said give me your phone number to the disco, let's go to the disco in the evening.) and I gave it!! And in general, away we go!! Dates, night walks, night cafes with Turkish cuisine and a lot of sex!!! Upon arrival home, we correspond every day, either just SMS or Facebook, we don’t see each other on Skype due to the time difference and it works up to 24 hours. I came home myself, but my soul remained there!! I dream about Türkiye almost every night! My husband knows almost everything, but his behavior simply amazed me, he didn’t do anything, didn’t yell... asked if I was divorcing him for now?? She said no and calmed down!! Indifference? And having arrived in my native Murmansk, I decided to go and live in Turkey!! Well, I don’t want to live in Russia and freeze my butt! My Turkish boy doesn’t know that I’m going to move, he only knows that I’m coming in September for three weeks, and I’m just going to resolve the issue with a residence permit, I want to open my own business there, Turkish is not a problem! Very scary!!! But there is only one life!! And no matter how my relationship with the Turkish guy turns out, I want to go to Turkey!! Sea Sun!!!

I read 700+ comments from women. The ladies wrote so much: ridicule, wishes of happiness, calls to come to their senses and accusations of stupidity.

But I did not find a single, I emphasize: NOT A SINGLE comment assessing her actions in the context of morality and decency.

NOT ONE comment condemning meanness towards the husband, and, possibly, children.

And NOT ONE woman condemned the whore and called the abomination an abomination.

Why was morality wrongly attributed to women? If you answer in one word - yes, they were punished more strictly. From childhood, a woman was given quite strict limits on behavior approved by her parents, society, and husband.

Strict parental upbringing, subsequent marriage with clearly defined responsibilities, the concept of which was instilled in childhood and supported by society and the church, strictly regulated a woman’s life. And society harshly punished draft dodgers; just remember Anna Karenina.

Just a hundred years ago, a woman who entered into an illicit premarital relationship, which became the property of society, was with a high probability simply deprived of her chances of a decent marriage.

Adultery was condemned and punished quite significantly even a hundred years ago. I'm not talking about ancient times, when cheaters were simply thrown off a cliff onto rocks.

One way or another, patriarchal civilization had no illusions about a woman’s own inner virtue and relied on strict guidelines and regulation of her behavior.

Nowadays, most of the restraining factors have collapsed and we have what we have.

Most women, wittingly or unwittingly, try to replace true moral principles and impose their understanding of good and bad on a man. Some of these typical womanish dogmas have already become firmly ingrained into the social fabric of consciousness. This womanish pseudo-morality, an exaggerated set of dogmas beneficial to women, is drilled into men from childhood. And this happens most often due to either the complete absence of paternal upbringing, or its weakening, the total feminization of educational practices. As a result of this, a man grows up, deprived of independence of moral thinking and understanding of true moral values, male destiny and goals, capable of operating only in the limited space of tendentious womanish imperatives. Such a man is a ready object for manipulation and female domination. At ABF this type of man was called “ALEN”.

Feminists are very fond of calling past centuries “female slavery,” but it is enough to look at the women of our time to understand: our ancestors were absolutely right when they applied strict regulations on female behavior.

Do you, reader, personally know many women who would be tormented by remorse? Not by their ostentatious declaration, not by regret for the loss of a man, not by annoyance for missed material benefits and a damaged reputation, but by conscience.

Please note that the degradation of moral concepts and institutions of society is closely correlated with the process of matriarchal decay. A decent, normal person is now considered not to be the owner of strong moral principles, a developed mind, an honest, fair, sincere, seeking, kind person, but the owner of a thick purse, a consumer person, one whose motives are based on the desire to acquire and spend as much as possible . It was these traits that began to dominate in determining a person’s status in society and his position in the “table of ranks.” It is based on a woman’s worldview, pseudo-morality, which consists in the motto “take as much as possible and give nothing in return.” Matriarchal degradation is not only widespread chaos among women, but also an extremely dangerous loss moral guidelines society.

Never be deceived by the mystical decency of a woman, do not rely on her morality in exactly the same way as you do not rely on the decency of your neighbor’s cat or the monkey at the zoo. Know how to separate the window dressing of “demo mode” from a woman’s true motives. Think with your UPPER head and judge ONLY by your actions. Don’t invent your own fairy tale about “a woman’s decency” - it never existed and does not exist.

D. Seleznev, 2012

Leaving aside social questions, let's move on to existential questions. Dostoevsky considered Tatyana Larina to be the moral ideal of the Russian person (in the same sense, we can probably talk about Liza Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, and if we turn to Soviet literature, then, for example, Polina Vikhrova from “Russian Forest” by Leonid Leonov, about the heroes “ village prose" etc.). Are these thoughts relevant for us now? In whom today do we find moral ideal of the Russian people and is it even correct to talk about such a concept in our time?

Yana SAFRONOVA:

In F. M. Dostoevsky’s “Pushkin Speech,” two thoughts on which its rhetoric is based are completely obvious. The first is about the comprehensive talent of Pushkin, which united many national literatures and cultures, and the second is about the moral ideal of the Russian person, Tatyana Larina. One of the questions proposed for discussion at the seminar on criticism of the Council of Young Writers and the Sota Club is as follows: “Dostoevsky considered Tatyana Larina to be the moral ideal of the Russian person (in the same sense, we can probably talk about Liza Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, and if we turn to Soviet literature, then, for example, Polina Vikhrova from “Russian Forest” by Leonid Leonov, about the heroes of village prose, etc.). Are these thoughts relevant for us now? In whom do we find the moral ideal of the Russian people today, and is it even correct to talk about such a concept in our time?” - I would like to speculate on this topic.

The question formulated by the Council of Young Writers lists classical female literary images perceived by the reader over the centuries as morally integral, in a sense, perfect individuals. All the more paradoxically, the statements of former school friends in our favorite literature classes five years ago resonate in my memory. Of the above heroines, modern schoolchildren have the opportunity to “get acquainted” with only two: Tatyana Larina and Natasha Rostova. Their opinions about both heroines are quite unambiguous, the interpretations correspond to the general cultural background - young people saw Tatyana Larina as an “amorphous” and “surrendered” young lady, Natasha Rostova as a “frivolous incubator.” And the more relevant the designated topic becomes: it is appropriate and correct to talk about the moral ideal in any era, because even if an established norm is interpreted in this way, then the need to set the right emphasis is obvious.

It is quite difficult to reproach Tatyana Larina for passivity, because throughout the entire novel she shows incredible fortitude. Dostoevsky speaks about this overcoming of oneself: “A Russian woman will boldly follow what she believes in, and she has proven it. But she “was given to someone else and will be faithful to him forever.” To whom and what is she loyal? What are these responsibilities? This old general, whom she cannot love, because she loves Onegin, but whom she married only because her “mother begged her with tears of enchantment,” and in her offended, wounded soul there was then only despair and no hope, no clearance? Yes, faithful to this general, her husband, to an honest man, who loves her, respects her and is proud of her. Even though her mother “begged” her, it was she, and no one else, who gave her consent; she, after all, she herself swore to him to be his honest wife. She may have married him out of desperation, but now he is her husband, and her betrayal will cover him with shame, shame and kill him. Can a person base his happiness on the misfortune of another? Tatyana Larina took on the most terrible battle and came out of it as an absolute winner - this is why Dostoevsky gives her the highest place on the pedestal: Tatyana conquered her feeling, she, relying on morality, “broke herself.”

But two centuries have passed. And as if the need to overcome passions for the sake of duty and honor had lost its relevance, strong women with the problems arising from this power. The change in vector could not but be reflected in the literature. More and more often on the pages you can find women struggling (sometimes against windmills), outwardly indifferent, seemingly reinforced concrete. They, unlike Tatyana Larina, are often selfish and see love only as a source, and the power of their nature is determined not by a moral category, but by the ability to make strong-willed decisions in everyday matters.

You can be especially surprised to meet them on the pages of works written in last years and dedicated to the times of the Soviet Union. Two bestsellers, “The Abode” by Zakhar Prilepin and “Zuleikha Opens Her Eyes” by Guzel Yakhina, which will be discussed below, belong to the category of premium prose; at one time they occupied the highest places in sales ratings. These two novels are often compared on thematic grounds, but what I find especially interesting is the widespread belief that the main success of both works is the correct distribution of gender roles in them. And indeed, this aspect is important; through it we can trace the emerging trend of dominance of the female image in all respects. It is worth noting that this trend does not exhaust all modern Russian literature, but in prose that is heavy in circulation (and therefore readable), it is perceptible.

Noteworthy, for example, is the image of Galina Kucherenko in Zakhar Prilepin’s novel “The Abode”. Galina Kucherenko warden at Solovetsky camps, part-time - at the beginning of the novel the mistress of commandant Fyodor Eichmanis, then - the lover of the main character Artyom Goryainov. And if Dostoevsky wrote regarding Tatyana: “Perhaps Pushkin would have done even better if he had named his poem after Tatyana, and not Onegin, for she is undoubtedly the main character of the poem,” then in the case of Galina we can talk about shifting the emotional emphasis of the text , because she dominates the space of the novel, suppressing Artyom with her energy. Galina's tragedy can be compared with Tatiana's situation: Galina loves Eichmanis selflessly, but he is moderately indifferent to her. And then Galina decides to take a risky step, but she does not do it out of good intentions; the relationship with Artyom for her is just revenge on another man: “Yes, I am taking revenge. I wanted to take revenge - and not with a security officer, not with a guard, but with this one. Which even more so is spinning before his eyes.” Galina, unlike Tatyana, obeys her sensual impulses and does not think about Eichmanis or Artyom.

We can observe similar behavior in the novel “Zuleikha Opens Her Eyes” by Guzeli Yakhina. Zuleikha lives in an otherwise dark village with her cruel husband Murtaza. A cruel patriarchy reigns in her family. Comes scary time dispossession, which also affects Zuleikha’s family. For disobedience to orders, a GPU employee and future escort of the dispossessed Ignatov kills Murtaza in front of his wife. After a certain number of years of exile, having gone through fire and water together with her husband’s murderer, Zuleikha finds her feminine happiness in him. Submissive at the beginning of the novel, she will even begin to lead an artel of hunters, although this kind of activity is completely out of character. Throughout the entire text, Zuleikha submits to circumstances and shows herself as a soft woman and in critical situations useless.

A woman here is characterized by external manifestations, which, by the way, are not motivated by anything. Zuleikha does not say to her husband’s killer, Ignatov: “But I was given to another; I will be faithful to him forever,” she makes a choice exactly opposite to Tatyana’s choice. Literally: he betrays the memory of his breadwinner, his legal husband, and builds a relationship not with anyone, but with his murderer. I don’t know if this was done for artistic sharpness and brightness, but the moral ideal turns into an anti-ideal, the moral choice is clearly wrong, victory over oneself is a loss to oneself, and the author’s conclusion should be ambiguous, but no, this is a happy reunion: “She and Ignatov see each other and stop<…>and she will feel that the pain that filled the world did not go away, but allowed her to exhale.” Bright positive color.

Perhaps, it is precisely in relation to Tatyana and Zuleikha that a conversation about the pettiness of the decision is appropriate. Women are aware that the main value in life is the satisfaction of their desire, no matter what kind: revenge in the first case or sexual desire in the second. The moral integrity of the individual fades into the background; in contrast to Tatyana, the main thing for these women is the situation itself, and not its consequences. Minute results. Galina and Zuleikha are Tatyana’s version, who chose Onegin at the end of the novel. “No, there are deep and strong souls who cannot consciously give up their shrine to shame, even out of infinite compassion. No, Tatyana could not follow Onegin” - Tatyana could not, but for the given type of modern literary heroine this is the only way out, for her strength is to follow Onegin no matter what, literally, no matter what.

So to the question, in whom do we find the ideal of the Russian people now, I will answer - all in the same Tatyana Larina, Liza Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, Polina Vikhrova, girls of this type, such a degree of perfection - the concept of morality has not been lost over the centuries, not has changed, this category is unvariable. It’s just that today’s “fashionable” heroines, strong in relation to the powerlessness of the century, shine brighter, they are more convenient for writers, they are easier to convey - they are not as subtle as Tatyana. “But the manner of looking down made it so that Onegin did not even recognize Tatyana at all when he met her for the first time, in the wilderness, in the modest image of a pure, innocent girl, who was so shy before him the first time. He was unable to distinguish completeness and perfection in the poor girl and, indeed, perhaps mistook her for a “moral embryo.” This is her embryo, this is after her letter to Onegin! If there is anyone who is a moral embryo in the poem, it is, of course, himself, Onegin, and this is indisputable” - and so modern reader(and the writer) seems to me like Onegin: when the new Tatiana appears to him in literature, he may simply not see her. The task of criticism at this stage is to correctly place the emphasis, not to pass off anti-heroines as strong Russian women, to be able to convey that strength lies in morality, and not in overcoming it.

Andrey GALAMAGA:

RUSSIAN NOVEL FROM “EUGENE ONEGIN” TO “DOCTOR ZHIVAGO” IN THE LIGHT OF DOSTOEVSKY’S PUSHKIN SPEECH

At the beginning, we will give a few well-known, but necessary for further understanding, quotes.

First let's turn to V.G. Belinsky.

In article nine of the work “Works of Alexander Pushkin,” the critic notes: “Great is Pushkin’s feat that he was the first to poetically reproduce Russian society of that time and in the person of Onegin and Lensky showed his main, that is, male side; but perhaps the greater feat of our poet is that he was the first to poetically reproduce, in the person of Tatyana, a Russian woman.”

The accents have already been placed here. Onegin and Lensky are the male, and therefore the main side of society. Tatyana is assigned a obviously secondary, service role; its purpose is to highlight the images of the main characters in the novel.

Belinsky builds an even more clear gender hierarchy, dear to his heart, in an article for the “Petersburg collection published by N. Nekrasov”: “One might notice, and not without reason, that Varenka’s face<Доброселовой>somehow not entirely definite and final; but, apparently, such is the lot of Russian women that Russian poetry does not get along with them, and that’s all! We don’t know who is to blame here, whether Russian women or Russian poetry; but we know that only Pushkin managed, in the person of Tatyana, to capture several features of a Russian woman, and even then (emphasis added - A.G.) he needed to make her a society lady in order to impart certainty and originality to her character.”

This clause – “yes and even that” – involuntarily makes us recall the brilliant maxim of Gogol’s character: “All are sellers of Christ. There's only one there honest man: prosecutor; and even that one, to tell the truth, is a pig.”

The apotheosis of a derogatory attitude towards the female image, undoubtedly, can be the sentence passed by a frantic critic to the hapless Eugene: “Yes, it’s a criminal offense to not put a price on the love of a moral embryo!..”

And only in “A Look at Russian Literature of 1847” Belinsky suddenly softens his discriminatory views: “The women of Mr. Goncharov are living creatures, true to reality. This is news in our literature."

Really? Is this really news?

Now is the time to turn to F.M.’s “Pushkin Speech.” Dostoevsky, in which the writer was able, in our opinion, to comprehend the gender issue in Russian literature much more impartially.

First, let us remember what characteristics Dostoevsky gives to Pushkin’s “male” heroes.

“In Aleko, Pushkin had already found and brilliantly noted that unfortunate wanderer in his native land, that historical Russian sufferer...” Here it is, the appearance in our literature of a “proud man” who won the hearts of young ladies and literary critics: “All this, of course, is fantastic, but the “proud man” is real and aptly captured. For the first time he was captured from us by Pushkin.”

However, the romantic, in his own way even grotesque Aleko is just a prototype of a genuine, realistic hero: “This is expressed even more clearly in Eugene Onegin, a poem no longer fantastic, but tangibly real.”

It turns out that the realistic hero experiences exactly the same problems as his romantic predecessor: “In the wilderness, in the heart of his homeland,<Онегин>Of course not at home, he is not at home. He doesn’t know what to do here, and he feels like he’s visiting himself.”

Who is resisting this universal despondency? Here’s who: “Tatiana is not like that: she is a solid type, standing firmly on her own ground. She is deeper than Onegin and, of course, smarter than him. She already senses with her noble instinct where and what the truth is, which is expressed in the ending of the poem. Perhaps Pushkin would have done even better if he had named his poem after Tatyana, and not Onegin, for she is undoubtedly the main character of the poem.”

Having read the novel, it is not difficult to note that Tatyana’s female pride is a hundred times stronger than the male pride of Onegin, who, not by chance, received a merciless characterization from our heroine: “Isn’t he a parody?”

But let's move on. Turning to the most iconic, key works of Russian literature forces us to draw a paradoxical conclusion. The main characteristic property of the Russian novel is that a woman is always in the center. And it is the woman who is the main character. Either Russian writers are more lenient towards women, more merciful and tender. Perhaps it’s male curiosity, since the vast majority of Russian novelists belong to the stronger sex. Revealing character, creating an image of a woman is much more interesting than writing out the same eternal moral wanderer again.

So, without going into unnecessary details, we will try to list, undoubtedly, the most outstanding examples of the Russian novel in order to make sure that our thesis is not unreasonable.

Let's make a reservation right away. At N.V. Gogol in his great “Dead Souls” does not have a single “positive” female image, and this is a fact. But Gogol’s work, as is known, is not a novel, but a poem; and therefore does not relate to the subject of our consideration.

But now we open “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov. Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin is a typical “ extra person"(according to Turgenev's apt words). Even at events in which he takes an active part, he looks as if from the outside. So, is this character boring? It wouldn't be boring. Extremely boring. (Sorry for the hidden quote from Venedikt Erofeev). Whether it’s Bela’s business, Princess Mary. Their images are painted brightly and prominently. Why, even Vera is more interesting than Pechorin.

Let us return, following Belinsky, to “Poor People” by F.M. Dostoevsky. Who is the main character? Is it really Makar Devushkin, this sluggish, weak-willed guy? Of course not. A true hero The novel is, of course, Varenka Dobroselova. You will envy her long-suffering, with which she gives Makar Devushkin a chance to take the situation into his own hands. But at the decisive moment, it is she who takes on the burden of making a decision, leaving our poor sufferer with nothing.

And here is I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov is a pathetic poser, and that’s why he’s ridiculous. It seems to me that the key moment of the novel, revealing the true essence of Bazarov, should be the following episode.

“Sometimes Bazarov went to the village and, teasing as usual, entered into a conversation with some peasant...

-What were you talking about? - another middle-aged and gloomy-looking man asked him from a distance, from the threshold of his hut, who was present during his conversation with Bazarov. - About arrears - what?

- What about arrears, my brother! - answered the first man, and in his voice there was no longer a trace of patriarchal melodiousness, but, on the contrary, some kind of careless severity was heard - so, he was chattering something; I wanted to scratch my tongue. It is known, master; does he really understand?

- Where to understand! - answered the other man, and, shaking their hats and pulling down their sashes, they both began to talk about their affairs and needs. Alas! shrugging his shoulder contemptuously, knowing how to talk to the peasants, Bazarov (as he boasted in a dispute with Pavel Petrovich), this self-confident Bazarov did not even suspect that in their eyes he was, after all, something of a fool..."

Your will, but in this way, the author cannot characterize the hero whom he considers the main one. Not far from him were all the Kirsanovs - Nikolai Petrovich, Pavel Petrovich, Arkady Nikolaevich. Against their background, Anna Sergeevna Odintsova is a brilliant image, revealed in full; with all the contradictions that only further emphasize the depth of the image created by the writer.

L.N. Tolstoy. "Anna Karenina" - rare case an adequate title for the novel. Everything is quite clear here. Alexey Kirillovich Vronsky, if judged strictly, is a complete nonentity in comparison with Anna.

But even “Resurrection,” although the novel is far-fetched and schematic, ranks the heroes. Dmitry Ivanovich Nekhlyudov, a prisoner of conscience, internally squealing with happiness, having found freedom from his stupid, self-imposed obligations. But Katyusha Maslova, for all the caricature of her image, commits actions; which, unlike the male character, reveals her personality.

One more caveat. “War and Peace” is an epic novel, that is, essentially a poem, and, therefore, also goes beyond the scope of our consideration.

Let's turn to I.A. Goncharov. "Oblomov." Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Andrey Ivanovich Stolts. Both characters are rectilinear, like axes in a plane coordinate system. On this battlefield, Olga Sergeevna Ilyinskaya is incomparably more textured and multifaceted.

And here is N.S. Leskov. "Nowhere." You read and get confused male characters. And soon after reading it you completely forget. But Lisa and Jenny are remembered forever. The same is true in the novel “On Knives.” Of all the heroes, only Larisa and Glafira remain with the reader.

It is worth noting separately. A.N. Ostrovsky created a gallery of characters of Russian women, about whom volumes have been written. And despite the fact that Ostrovsky is not a prose writer, but a playwright, his attitude towards female characters can serve, albeit indirectly, as the clearest confirmation of the tradition on which all the most outstanding works of Russian classics are based.

Could be an exception to the rule “The Life of Arsenyev” by I.A. Bunina. There is a clear attempt to reverse the trend here. But with regret, or without it at all, it must be admitted that the attempt to make Alexei Aleksandrovich Arsenyev the true protagonist, and to relegate Lika Obolenskaya to the background, ended in complete failure...

Disclaimer number three. Sholokhov. " Quiet Don" Once again an epic novel, which we omit from our analysis.

No matter how you feel about the novel by V.V. Nabokov's "Lolita", but here too female character, as reflected in the name, is central. Humbert Humbert is just another sufferer, albeit with a Freudian twist.

M.A. Bulgakov. "Master and Margarita". For all the absurdities of the novel, it also fits perfectly into our concept. Both the Master and Ivan Ponyrev-Bezdomny are completely primitive in comparison with Margarita Nikolaevna.

Finally, B.L. Parsnip. "Doctor Zhivago". Yuri Andreevich Zhivago. This restless, always searching and always finding nothing character has always irritated me. I even had to say that the poems appended to the novel could not have been written by Yuri Zhivago. With the exception of perhaps the most popular, pop and parody “A candle was burning on the table...” Pasha (Pavel Pavlovich) Antipov also left not far from Yuri. And again, once again we discover that female images– Tonya Gromeko and Lara Guichard are like shining stars against the backdrop of lifeless planets.

I would like to take this opportunity to express one more thought regarding Doctor Zhivago. In this novel, Pasternak acted as a kind of anti-Gogol.

Let us recall the very beginning of “Dead Souls”: “Entry<Чичикова>made absolutely no noise in the city and was not accompanied by anything special; only two Russian men, standing at the door of the tavern opposite the hotel, made some comments, which, however, related more to the carriage than to those sitting in it. “Look,” one said to the other, “that’s a wheel!” What do you think, if that wheel happened, would it get to Moscow or not?” “It will get there,” answered the other. “But I don’t think he’ll get to Kazan?” “He won’t make it to Kazan,” answered another. That was the end of the conversation. Moreover, when the chaise pulled up to the hotel, he met a young man in white rosin trousers, very narrow and short, in a tailcoat with attempts at fashion, from under which a shirtfront was visible, fastened with a Tula pin with a bronze pistol. The young man turned back, looked at the carriage, held his cap with his hand, which was almost blown off by the wind, and went his way.”

And after such an extremely detailed description, both the men and the young man will disappear, never to appear on the pages of the poem again.

For Pasternak it’s exactly the opposite. The most small detail will definitely play a role later. Perhaps this introduces artificiality into the novel. But at the same time, originality and, I would say, even uniqueness.

Finally, advice to young talents who are planning to write a work that could someday claim the title of the great Russian novel. From the first lines, identify the main character - a man in an eternal and, as it later turns out, fruitless search for the meaning of existence. Then gradually introduce a heroine, against whose background the hero will fade away step by step until he completely fades and becomes completely “superfluous.” That's it, according to Turgenev.

The decayed and distorted West with all its might is also pulling us down into the abyss of animal life and lower astral habits and interests. If we do not understand the destructiveness of this, we will also turn into simple, intelligent animals...

Every adult free man chooses his own path. A child comes into this world clean, with eyes wide open. He cannot yet choose his own path; he is not yet familiar with our world. We show him this path: mom, dad, society. What a way do we show our children?

Corruption and corruption of minor children, discrimination against the institution of family is the fundamental policy of our state. Silencing this policy, while exposing the existing crazy picture without (with) limits, is dooming the people to blind, desperate extinction. And our people need to know this course of the state, because... this knowledge will provide guidelines and will be able to mobilize people to fight for their property - children. And while propaganda of debauchery flows in a continuous stream, no one will be able to prove otherwise. Because the state pursues either a policy of corruption or a policy of preventing corruption. There cannot be a third.

Virginity, morality, purity of children are core values, which are treasured by every state thinking about the future. And only a crazy state will destroy these values ​​and allow this to happen to its children. Or a state ruled by enemies of its own people.

Why do people allow themselves to be treated this way? A people who have always been invincible to their enemies? And the trail of glory of the victories of our ancestors still saves the lives of sailors. Somali pirates, upon seeing the USSR flag, often refuse to seize the ship, realizing that the ship is guarded by the Russians. And it doesn’t matter how many Russians there are. They know one thing: Russians don't give up, they will fight until their last breath. So what happened to our people? Why do we live under the influence of a sleeping pill, why have we allowed ourselves to be blinded, covering this blindness with a deadly stereotype: “We have no right to prevent others from doing what they want”?

We are deceived by the stereotype of mirage freedom.

And it never ceases to amaze people’s reaction to the important information that those who have already understood where their “legs grow” are trying to convey to them. Basically, initially the information is not perceived and is rejected with the conviction: “This cannot be!” People don't believe, or rather, I would even say, don't want to believe their own eyes. Because any such information received makes you think. And almost everyone understands that this is true. And people who allow themselves not just to listen, but hear, begin to respond to this information with actions. And this is already work, and this hearing can radically change your life. And it won't be easy. That's why units allow themselves exactly hear.

After all, we quite often hear the phrase: “It’s best not to know this, but to just live. It’s easier this way.” I've heard this myself more than once. Yes, I agree it’s easier this way. But then, when warnings about certain events turn into statements of facts, few people think that everything could have been prevented by showing minimal courage and making a decision hear. But even more shocking is the reluctance to see obvious And flagrant.

No one is surprised by the rapidly increasing number of teenagers drinking alcohol on every corner, smoking on an already uncontrollable scale and swearing without hesitation. No one is surprised that the age of these same teenagers, who lead early, often ugly sex life. Society is getting used to this. This becomes the norm of our life. This is taken for granted.

Sometimes someone can become indignant at the blatant depravity of youth, throwing out a few condemning words, and things do not go further than this indignation. And only after seeing how corruption touches them own children, some parents often begin to sound the alarm. But many parents simply don’t notice this. I would even say - don't want to notice. I witnessed a conversation two six year old children in kindergarten. I will describe this case:

A boy sits on a bench and a girl comes up to him, sits down next to him, and, like a real adult coquette, hugs him by the shoulders, saying languidly seductive in a voice:

- I want sex with you.

The boy moves away from her, tries to escape from her embrace and says in a far from childish voice:

- I don't want sex with you.

The girl repeated this phrase three times, approaching from different directions, she simply circled around him. And the boy also repeated his phrase three times. At the same time, he did not look like a wary child who did not understand what they wanted from him. Apparently, he had some of his own associations with this word.

Why has our society come to the point where such talk six year olds began to be accepted calmly? Some parents even find such conversations quite funny. They rejoice at how grown-up their children are. Tell me, how can zombie parents raise free children? Who can they educate? The same zombies as themselves! They instill in their children the information that they themselves are bombarded with every day.

Our children are massively influenced by cartoons that put non-childish images in their heads, and films with sex scenes, which influence and form sexually active children at a young age. I will give the result of one psychological study.

Most girls are six years old already view themselves as sexual objects. An experiment was conducted using paper dolls. This made it possible to find out the attitude of girls 6-9 years old to the issue of sexuality. So, two dolls were dressed in sexy attractive ways, and the rest were in loose clothes. Participants in the experiment had to choose a doll that looked like themselves, a doll that they would like to be like, and a doll associated with popular girl At school. Of the 60 participants, 68% chose a sexy doll when asked how they themselves wanted to look. 72% admitted: this doll is more popular. According to the head of the study, in the child's mind, sexuality was closely linked to popularity.

The subconscious of our children is being zombified by debauchery at an ever younger age.

Walking with my child on the playground, I have repeatedly heard many mothers say that they will adapt their children to new conditions using very original methods. They themselves plan to give alcohol to drink, they themselves plan to treat their children to their first cigarette, and they themselves will tell their children, as early as possible, how to use contraceptives. They are guided by the statement: “Let him be like everyone else, I don’t want my son (my daughter) to stand out in any way. I will help my child to be as everybody to make it easier for him." This is theirs main mistake.

Based on the results of many studies, it becomes clear that children whose parents themselves offered to try the “taste” of modern life are many times more vulnerable to promoted molestation. The state creates only appearance of care about the future of the nation, about the morality of children. There is an open supposed “propaganda” of morality and a hidden, sinister propaganda of depravity. This is the genocide of our people, invisible to the majority of the population.

AND one more fact, confirming the policy of corruption of children by the state, or more precisely, by those who are hiding behind it. in autumn small town in the Kyiv region visited a mobile children's Luna Park, as usual, located in the city park. Passing by, I was shocked by the following picture. Most of the attractions featured aggressive pictures of boys and girls, and half-naked girls. Moreover, these girls had certain intimate parts of their bodies openly visible. Some song was playing English language, while the number of words "sex" In this song, to some extent, even me was zombified. I just couldn't get this song out of my head for a while.

Now think about it. Who looked at these pictures and listened to the music? Little children under 5 years old! No one paid attention to the pictures, no one looked closely at them, except these little children. They looked wide with open eyes at the images and bounced in their strollers. But we know how music and illustrated material influence the formation of children’s horizons and their knowledge of the world, and how dangerous is this for them?. Where did the city authorities look when giving permission to place such an amusement park? After all, children are the most defenseless against information; it easily enters their subconscious, shaping their worldview. And then after 10 years, parents will have difficulty recognizing their children when their children begin to practically apply all the acquired skills in their lives.

We also know how filled the Internet is with erotic content, and how accessible the Internet is to children now. The period of formation of sexuality is childhood and adolescence. Considering the easy availability of such information and the unformed children's psyche, think how much we can destroy sexuality and cripple children for the rest of their lives.

Is our society is deteriorating at a rapid rate. Each generation is more degraded than the previous one, and this acceleration is increasing at an unimaginable rate. We must think not only about ourselves, about our soul, but also about other people, about our Motherland, about our people. AND our debt– to save the nation from destruction, from extinction, to protect our property, our children. This is the duty to the Motherland, to our ancestors who shed blood for our land, for us, for our lives. Thanks to their feat, we live. And this is also our duty to future generations, who will either hate us, dying out like the last goyim, or will be proud of us.

By allowing our children to be destroyed, we we destroy life itself, we are destroying ourselves, our Motherland. If our children do not exist, there will be neither us nor the memory of us as a people. And the descendants of those whom we allow ourselves to destroy now will despise our distorted descendants, ridiculing and spitting on them as descendants of the “great Rus”.