History is a discipline that studies peoples and human life.However, people cannot directly explore and explain in detail through language—it is impossible to describe not only the life of human beings, but also the life of a nation. Previous historians often used a simple method to describe and explore the seemingly elusive national life.They always interpreted the biographical activities of the rulers of a nation; this activity, they thought, mirrored that of the nation as a whole. As for how a few individual people make the people of all nationalities act according to their will?And what governed their own will?To these questions, historians answer in this way: Historians' answer to the first question is-to recognize the will of God and make all nations obey the will of a person they have chosen; the answer to the second question is —Acknowledge again that God, who directs the will of the elect to the appointed end.

In this way, the above-mentioned problems are solved by believing in God's direct intervention in the affairs of the world. The new science of history theoretically negates both of these principles. It seems that since the modern view of history has denied the belief of the ancients that human beings obey God and that he guides all nations towards a predetermined goal, what it studies should no longer be the superficial phenomenon of political power, but the formation of political power. the reason.However, this step was not achieved.Although it denies the views of previous historians in theory, it still follows them in practice.

What modern historiography raises are not some heroes with extraordinary talents and superhuman talents who lead all living beings, but some leaders of all kinds from emperors to journalists to replace the predecessors who have God-endowed power and directly execute God. people of will.Instead of the purpose of the Jewish, Greek, Roman and other nations that catered to the gods (ancient historians believed that this is the purpose of human activities), modern historians also propose-their purpose is for the welfare of the French, Germans, and British people, Adopt the most abstract concept: for the well-being of the civilization of all mankind, and all mankind here generally refers to the various ethnic groups that only occupy a small area in the northwest corner of the continent.

Although modern historiography has denied the beliefs of the ancients, it has not replaced them with new viewpoints. Moreover, due to the trend of the times, its logic forces those historians who deny the tsar’s divine right and the ancients’ concept of destiny to admit by different routes: 1. The masses are led by individuals; two, all nations and all mankind are running towards a known goal. Although these modern historians from Kebbon to Pauker seem to have their own differences and their viewpoints seem to be novel, they still basically cannot avoid those two old principles in all their writings.

First of all, what the historian records is the activities of individual figures he considers to lead mankind (some people think that emperors and generals are such figures; others think that in addition to emperors and generals, there are also orators, scholars, reformers philosophers and poets).Secondly, the goals that historians believe that human beings want to achieve: some people think that this goal is the magnificence and prosperity of Rome, Spain, and France, while others think that this goal is the freedom, equality and people in a small corner of the world called Europe A certain civilization known.

In 1789, riots broke out in Paris, which continued to expand and spread, and formed a national movement from west to east.This movement has repeatedly advanced eastward and clashed with the countermovement from east to west; in 1812, the movement moved eastward to its terminal point - Moscow, followed by a movement from east to west, with Its curious reciprocity, like the first movement, drew to its side the peoples of Central Europe.This reverse movement, too, reached its western terminus, Paris, and subsided. In the intervening twenty years, vast tracts of farmland have been laid waste, cottages have been burned, businesses have changed their course of conduct; millions have become impoverished, prospered, emigrated, and millions of Christians who preach love to the world are killing each other .

What is the point of all this?Why did this happen?What compelled these people to burn down their houses and kill their own kind?What is the cause of these events?What forces make people do this?Well, when people come into contact with the sports relics and legends of that vanished period, they always have to ask some unexpected, naive and natural and human questions. To answer these questions we turn to the science of history, which is the science by which peoples and all mankind gain insight into themselves. If historiography still insists on the old-fashioned point of view, it will say that it was the gods who rewarded or punished his people who gave Napoleon the power and directed his will to carry out the will of his god.This answer can be said to be complete and clear. People may or may not believe that Napoleon was endowed with the role of a god, but in the eyes of those who believe, the entire history of that period is understandable, and it is impossible There is no contradiction at all.

Modern historical science, however, cannot answer the question in this way.Science does not recognize the ancients' view that God is directly involved in everything in the world, so it should give another answer. Modern historical science answers these questions by saying: Do you want to know the meaning of this movement?why it happenedWhat forces caused these events?Please listen: "Louis XIV was a very proud man. He had such lovers, he had such ministers, and he governed France poorly. Louis's heirs were also cowardly and incompetent, and they governed France very badly." And these heirs had such favorites and such mistresses. At the same time, some people also wrote some books at this time. At the end of the eighteenth century, some twenty people gathered in Paris and began to talk about the equality and peace that everyone should enjoy. The subject of liberty. So people killed each other all over France, and these people killed the king and many others. At the same time, a genius appeared in France, Napoleon. Wherever he went, he was invincible, that is to say , he slaughtered a lot of people because he was a genius. Then he went to kill the Africans under some pretext. He did it so cunningly and schemingly against the Africans that, when he came back to France, he was able to order everyone Surrender to him. So everyone was awed. After Napoleon became emperor, he went to massacre Italians, Austrians and Prussians. There, he massacred many people. At that time, Russia also had an emperor named Alexander. He was determined to restore The order of Europe was thus at war with Napoleon. But in 1807, he suddenly made peace with Napoleon, and in 1811 they turned against each other again, and many people were killed by them again. Napoleon marched into Russia with an army of 600,000, and captured Moscow; but then he fled Moscow suddenly, when the Emperor Alexander, advised by Stein and others, united the armed forces of Europe against the forces that would destroy the peace of Europe. All Napoleon's allies at once became his enemies; this coalition immediately attacked the army Napoleon had just raised. The Allies defeated Napoleon, entered Paris, forced Napoleon to abdicate, and exiled him to Elba Although he was recognized as a lawless brigand five years ago and a year after his exile, his title of emperor was not revoked at that time, and he was still tried to show him respect. Afterwards, Louis XVIII came to the throne, but this time Man has always been the butt of ridicule by the French and the Allies. Napoleon bid farewell to the Old Guard with tears and was exiled after his abdication. Then the shrewd state dignitaries and diplomats (especially Talleyrand, who preempted the others) to the first place, and thus to enlarge the frontiers of France.) A speech in Vienna caused both joy and sorrow. Suddenly, the diplomat and the monarch were almost at odds again, and just when they were about to resort to force again and kill each other, Napoleon returned to France with a battalion, but the French, who hated him, immediately surrendered to him. The monarchs of the allies were very angry at this, so they fought the French again. The genius Napoleon was defeated and sent to St. Helena Taking the island, people suddenly admitted that Napoleon was indeed a robber. It was this exile who said goodbye to his beloved people and his beloved France, and died slowly on the rocks of an isolated island, leaving his magnificent achievements to future generations. European reaction The power has risen again, and the monarchs of various countries have once again oppressed the people.

Gentlemen, don't take this as a satire - a caricature of history.On the contrary, it is the most gentle expression of the contradictory and irrelevant statements made by all historians, from the memoirs, the special histories of countries to the compilers of the new general history of culture of the era. The reason why these answers are absurd is that modern history is like a deaf man answering questions that no one has asked him. If it is said that the purpose of history is to record the activities of human beings and nations, then the first question (if you do not answer this question, the rest will be incomprehensible) is: what forces move the activities of nations?Regarding this question, modern history either deliberately says that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was arrogant and self-willed, or else just cites which authors wrote which books.

Although all these statements are likely to be true, and people are willing to agree with them, still, after all, the answer is not the question.All this may be very interesting if we admit that theocracy governs the nation by itself, always by means of Napoleons, Louises, and writers, though all this may be very interesting, but, We do not recognize this theocracy, and therefore, before speaking of Napoleons, Louises, and writers, it is necessary to explain the relation of these persons to the activities of nations. If, instead of theocracy, there is another power, then it is necessary to explain what kind of new power it is, because that is the whole purpose of historical research.

Historians seem to regard this power as self-evident and well-known.Yet anyone who reads history, wholeheartedly willing to admit that this force is known, can't help but wonder why historians have given this new force a well-known There are different opinions, can't agree?