Detupatka Poklonskaya. Exclusive Bullet is a fool, Poklonskaya is too: social networks ridiculed the mistake of the Crimean “nyash-myash”

Russian “deputy” of the State Duma Natalya Poklonskaya, on the air of Vesti FM radio, attributed the phrase “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served” by Alexander Chatsky - the hero of the comedy “Woe from Wit” - Alexander Griboedov to commander Alexander Suvorov. Writer Marina Yudenich drew attention to this on her Facebook. Following Yudenich, the topic around the quote attributed to the wrong person began to be discussed by other bloggers.

Russian sociologist Igor Eidman imagined what happened in a slightly different light: “The Feast of the Spirit continues. This radio dialogue is known to everyone. Polonskaya: Our great commander Suvorov said: “I want to serve, but it’s sickening to serve.” Presenter: “I’d be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served.” “Not Lermontov’s Chatsky by chance?" Poklonskaya: "apparently, both of them - Chatsky and Suvorov said this." And here is a new radio broadcast with the participation of Polonskaya. Intellectual show "PirDukha".

Host: “Our talk show features the best minds of Russia, high intellectuals, powerful scholars. Today our guest is a prominent lawyer, politician, deputy and, I’m not afraid of this word, a genius of thought, Natalya Poklonskaya. Hello, Natalya! According to Russian tradition "Intellectual conversation goes well with vodka and a snack."
Poklonskaya: “Hello. I’m coming to you directly according to Field Marshal Kutuzov’s recipe: from the ship to the ball. Thank you for the treat, but, as our great commander liked to say, I don’t eat after the first glass.”

Sorry, but it wasn’t Kutuzov who said that. “I don’t eat after the first puck,” that’s what our great hockey player Dostoevsky liked to say. As you know, he could outdrink an entire team of Canadian professionals.
- Apparently, they both said so. Sometimes they would drink together and talk and talk... In general, today I would like to remember the two most terrible villains of Russian history.

Ivan the Terrible and Stalin?

Screams, swearing, sounds of breaking dishes, breaking furniture, falling bodies. After some time, the presenter, who had not yet recovered from the fight, reads out the announcement in a broken voice: “Dear listeners of our intellectual show, we apologize for the minor technical problems. Our program will soon resume airing. The Feast of the Duha in Russia continues!”

“Vanguyu: the next “great Tsar of Russia” will be the offspring of the biker “Surgeon” and Natalia Poklonskaya. They will conceive a child in an Orthodox church to a remix of “God Save the Tsar” and “the anthem of the USSR”, they will name him Stalin II and he will have 666 signs all over body!" predicts the blogger Dmitry Zolotukhin.

Journalist Yuri Romanenko drew attention to the fact that there is too much information noise around Poklonskaya: “Guys, you are happy that Poklonskaya blurted out something about Suvorov. Why be happy? We already knew that she was stupid. The Sharikovs are stupid definition, even if it is a chick with big eyes and elastic breasts of the third size. This is a tool. Such a tool was needed, they used it, they will remove it tomorrow. Another one will appear the day after tomorrow. With Russia everything has been clear for a long time. Modern Russia has made its civilizational choice. They have it there choice, Ivan the Terrible and other murderers are in favor. I am more worried when our minister at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers does not know that the Zhytomyr region borders on another state. And he is sincerely surprised when he finds out the opposite. This is a disaster. Because so far we have such quality authorities, then the Russian Sharikovs have a chance to carry out the war here. The Sharikovs there are better than the Sharikovs here. Although... maybe that’s why you’re happy?”

People's Deputy Borislav Bereza meanwhile he is indignant: " The tape discusses some of Poklonskaya’s latest v***s. What's the point of discussing this animal? Are there any other problems? The only information I'm interested in about this sh*** is her confession. But not her appearance at the brothel, but at the law enforcement agencies of Ukraine. That's it, let's go."

"There is no way to give Poklonskaya the floor. Otherwise, the Duma will soon abandon her and she will return to Crimea. She is happy to serve, but “she is sick,” as “our dear and great Russian poet and commander Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov said.” By the way, it’s good that she wasn’t at the opening of the monument to “Vladimir the Great” in Moscow. Suddenly she would say that this is a monument to the Great Vladimir. Which is Lenin... What if she really believes that Krupsky baptized Rus'? That’s how he decided to cure the childhood disease of leftism in communism, so he immediately baptized,” jokes the blogger Elizaveta Bogutskaya

Deputy Chairman of the Donetsk Regional Military-Civil AdministrationIgor Stokoz decided to stand up for the unfortunate connoisseur of history and literature: “Why did everyone attack Poklonskaya? It’s a big deal, just think, Chatsky slept with Kshesinskaya. Ty, doesn’t he see the difference between Pushkin, Lermontov and Griboyedov? So they all wrote in Russian, and that’s enough. But she knows who Alexander Suvorov is. Apparently, she’s read “Icebreaker” and “Aquarium.” And then, we also have governors who don’t know all the letters.” from his post.

There are some madams who seem to be smart and clever, but... So Poklonskaya, in her cult of Nikolashka, crossed the pillars of Hercules.

She seems to be a lawyer by training, but... She doesn’t know such a thing as a “change in the situation” and takes legitimism to the point of absurdity. I can recommend that, since she is such a legitimist, she should take off her jacket with “every zigzag and no gap” and, wearing an embroidered shirt, appear at the GPU, where she is expected to be charged with treason and violation of oath and official duty. And since the dissolution of the USSR was infinitely far from compliance with Soviet legislation, I remain its citizen. And Poklonskaya too.

But he's enough for her. Let's talk about Nikolashka.

So, the fact of Nikolashka’s abdication was never questioned. There is some generally consistent evidence confirming both the fact itself and its relative voluntariness. The text of the renunciation manifesto is known, identical in most publications, and there is no point in doubting its authenticity.

The renunciation was published in most newspapers, and all the then legitimists stuck their tongues in and did not buzz. The most they could do was to send some papers about this to the relevant department of the Senate, where the officials were very surprised, but did not raise an eyebrow.

Further, in palace clerical practice, any royal not even a signature - a mark - was immediately covered with a special varnish for preservation. So the pencil signature is completely valid.

But from a purely legal point of view, a number of points arouse my keenest interest.

Firstly, abdication for Alexei. On the one hand, the autocrat is free to resolve any issue in any way. On the other hand, the issue with Alexei’s rights is not clearly and directly resolved in the manifesto, and at the traditional age of the tsar’s majority (15 years old, 1919), Alexei could present a very specific claim to Uncle Misha or Uncle Nika (“Nicholas the Third”, EHPOCH) - “ Dad, now Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich, signed it, ask him, but no one deprived me of the rights to the Tsar’s hat.”

Secondly, one place in the manifesto - “I command brother Mikhail to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on the principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath.” I remind you that this is the manifesto of the autocrat, albeit the last, and not a political testament. This is a legally binding act. Nikolashka obliged his brother to rule, if not constitutionally, then extremely close to it.

Mikhail fulfilled this order in an original way, and this is third. When the conspirators came to him, he signed a generally unintelligible document, in which he immediately stopped a whole series of dynastic politicking. In addition, the subsequent formation of the “provisional government” turned out to be contrary to this manifesto. Which, characteristically, is the last political and legal act of the Russian Empire. We read:

“I made a firm decision in that case to accept the Supreme power, if such is the will of our great people, who must, by popular vote, through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, establish a form of government and new fundamental laws of the Russian State.

Therefore, calling on God’s blessing, I ask all citizens of the Russian State to submit to the Provisional Government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma and was invested with full power, until such time as convening is possible. the shortest possible time on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage, the Constituent Assembly, with its decision on the form of government, will express the will of the people."

Let me remind you that this is also not a will, not a private letter, but the only act of the “acting tsar”, which was Mikhail all night.
That is, without violating the will of the previous monarch, our “acting” demanded that since the “representatives of the people” want power and want to hide behind his name, then, firstly, let them themselves bear responsibility for this, and secondly, do not put him on the throne by a bunch of crooks and conspirators (which is what Kerensky and his company were , who brought Rodzianka with them for the sake of respectability), but they will carry out this decision, as well as the very question of the existence of a monarchy in the country, through the most representative talking shop possible, and until then he washes his hands. With Soviet money, “such issues cannot be resolved at the drop of a hat, we need to call a plenum and bring it to the congress, come back this week with a project and we’ll discuss it.” The pro-Entente bourgeoisie (“war until the last Russian soldier has a victorious end and fulfillment of the enemy’s obligations”) sucked it off. The potential “Nicholas the Third” turned out to be a vile, shameful usurper and reactionary. After all, His Majesty’s court was almost like the Central Committee, and the courtiers were just those guys. Even the great princes, who, in theory, do not need this.

In addition, Mikhail, either by mistake or out of indifference, pointed to “the government at the initiative of the State Duma.” The problem was that the Duma had been closed for a week, and had never met before the act of its liquidation on October 6 (19), 1917, twenty days before the revolution, and Mikhail, having washed his hands of it, did not bother with this point, although he could have “point second" to lift the ban on Duma meetings and oblige it to form a government. Duma Chairman Rodzianko served as “acting president” for a couple of days, and then the need for him disappeared, and he was finally pushed out (although formally he was an “under-president” right up to the same act).

The first composition of the “provisional government” was formed by a murky body with the infuriating name “a committee of members of the State Duma for relations with persons and institutions” (that’s not all, in each document this “institution” was called a little differently). This very committee of members for relations, formed during the days of unrest under the still-active monarch, revealed to the world immediately after the abdication the government of Prince Lvov and the Minister of Justice Kerensky. Then there were about six more “temporary” compositions, among which is the Lenin Council of People’s Commissars in the period from November 7, 1917 to January 18, 1918. That is, the legitimacy of the “temporary” ministers of Prince Lvov and Lenin’s “temporary” people’s commissars is approximately the same. Lenin at least bothered to drag himself through the Second Congress of Soviets.

Natalya Poklonskaya is a famous woman, but stubborn. I endured for a long time, waiting for her to come to her senses, but apparently in vain.

Natalya stuck to the director of the film Matilda like a bath leaf to the ass.

The newly minted detupatta does not maintain contact not only with a sense of style, but also with a sense of reality.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in the adequacy of a woman who wears a coat that resembles a synthetic Taiwanese plaid from the market.

The one that sparks fly when touched. An eternal gift from colleagues, damn it.

Natasha dilutes her electrifying “leopard”, which, however, is more similar to the color of a hyena, with her grandmother’s “flowered” scarf.

Photo: Animal Encyclopedia

No, but what? Like flora. And how would - what's her name? -- fauna. The nails again match the scarf, as was customary about 50 years ago. Little red ones.

No, I understand everything: Natasha developed as a person in Ukraine. They have their own rollicking style, balls and embroidered shirts. But still, a woman crawling out of her house to Moscow in 2017 in this form raises questions about her adequacy.

Got lost. Lost in geography and time. Doesn't fumble. No matter how much he fumbles about where she is, what she is wearing, when she is.

That’s probably why he does things I don’t understand.

Not so long ago, for example, Poklonskaya’s bust was lost in myrrh. No, not her own: Natalya almost doesn’t have it. Purely nominal breasts to hang orders issued for unknown reasons.

Photo: Bloknot.ru

Poklonskaya put on a blouse made from curtains, some kind of crazy caftan and went in the guise of a clean granny to smooth the bust of the Tsar. And this bust gave her myrrh, which Natalya immediately informed the whole world about.

Photo: Bloknot.ru

That’s when I realized: Poklonskaya fit perfectly into the State Fool of the Russian Federation.

And then Natasha pulled out a new trick - she latched onto the movie. The tsar, it turns out, was not exactly a saint in the film - even, scary to think, he copulated outside of a church marriage!

Natalya, as a prosecutor, could not bear this and ordered an examination of the film.

She didn’t like how the movie portrayed the image of Tsar Nicholas II, whose bust streamed myrrh. I didn’t like it so much that all of Natasha’s religious feelings were offended.

The examination was carried out by 4 comrades - all professors and academicians.

The examination ruled: the film truly offends the feelings of believers, and its public demonstration is unacceptable.

Laughing? Do not hurry. Not so simple.

Jokes aside, but now the filmmakers will have to answer under Articles 148 and 282 of the Criminal Code, since Poklonskaya sent the results of the examination to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation.

I have read the contents of the document.

Even for me, who has seen a lot of bureaucratic nonsense, the hairs on the back of my neck began to stand up. This is pure idiocy. Absurd. It's kind of crazy.

Here, for example, is an excerpt from the conclusion:

“The negative image of the character “Nicholas II” is strengthened by attributing to him a choice in favor of the disgusting, completely ugly (from the point of view of classical European and, in particular, Russian ideas about female beauty) in appearance and other physical characteristics of Matilda Kshesinskaya (famous photographs of her clearly show: protruding crooked teeth, an elongated face shape that makes her look similar to a mouse or rat, an awkward figure) in contrast with Alexandra Fedorovna, who objectively has bright classical European beauty.” .

So here it is - what the dog rummaged through. The teeth stick out crookedly. Saint Nicholas, according to experts, could not have copulated with a mouse or a rat.

In general, according to the law, this is called eugenics. The Nazis also measured teeth and skulls. Based on the measurements, they concluded: a purebred Aryan cannot fuck this woman!

Photo: Komlo Media

In a country that suffered from fascism like no other, is such an “expert” opinion acceptable today? Is it true?

Photo: Social networks

If so, then Hitler and his accomplices would approve. However, let’s look at the faces of the “experts” themselves.

Photo: Social networks

What do you think? What thoughts come to your mind when looking at these faces “from the point of view of classical European and, in particular, Russian ideas about... beauty”?

Or maybe we can compare Natasha herself with Matilda Kseshinskaya?

Photo: Social networks

Who do you think is more like “a mouse or a rat”?

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Still, they can hang a “criminal” case against filmmakers for no reason, simply because a woman wrapped in a Chinese synthetic blanket won’t calm down.

By the way, in my opinion, Nicholas II was the worst emperor in the history of Russia. Fucked up the empire, renounced the power given by G-d. But even he probably does a somersault in his coffin when Poklonskaya, in the company of “experts,” measures the skull of his mistress, ballerina Matilda Kseshinskaya.

What do you think should be banned: the film “Matilda” or the parliamentary activities of Natalia Poklonskaya? Why?

Russian “deputy” of the State Duma Natalya Poklonskaya, on the air of Vesti FM radio, attributed the phrase “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served” by Alexander Chatsky, the hero of the comedy “Woe from Wit” - Alexander Griboedov, to the commander Alexander Suvorov. Writer Marina Yudenich drew attention to this on her Facebook. Following Yudenich, the topic around the quote attributed to the wrong person began to be discussed by other bloggers. MIGnews.com.ua has collected the best, in our opinion, publications.

Russian sociologist Igor Eidman imagined what happened in a slightly different light: “The Feast of the Spirit continues. This radio dialogue is known to everyone. Polonskaya: Our great commander Suvorov said: “I want to serve, but serving is sickening.” Presenter: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” “Isn’t Chatsky at Lermontov’s by any chance?” Poklonskaya: “apparently, both of them, Chatsky and Suvorov, said this.” And here is a new radio broadcast with the participation of Polonskaya. Intellectual show "PirDukha".

Host: “Our talk show features the best minds in Russia, high intellectuals, powerful scholars. Today our guest is a prominent lawyer, politician, deputy and, dare I say it, a genius of thought, Natalya Poklonskaya. Hello, Natalia! According to Russian tradition, an intellectual conversation goes well with vodka and a snack.”
Poklonskaya: “Hello. I’m coming to you directly according to Field Marshal Kutuzov’s prescription: from the ship to the ball. Thank you for the treat, but, as our great commander liked to say, I don’t eat after the first glass.”

- Sorry, but it wasn’t Kutuzov who said that. “I don’t eat after the first puck,” that’s what our great hockey player Dostoevsky liked to say. As you know, he could outdrink an entire team of Canadian professionals.
“Apparently they both said so.” Sometimes they would drink together and talk and talk... In general, today I would like to remember the two most terrible villains of Russian history.

- Ivan the Terrible and Stalin?

- Well, what are you - they were saints. I want to remember the villains Zoshchenko and Akhmetova.
- Akhmatov?
- No to Akhmetov. That’s what my teacher, an outstanding intellectual of our time, pro-FFesor Yanukovych, called her. And he won't lie. So, as you know, it was Zoshchenko (Ukrainian) and Akhmetova (Crimean Tatar) who killed our good Tsar Nicholas 2 and his family in Crimea. Akhmetova was a sniper, and Zoshchenko finished off with control shots. Stalin later punished them for this.
- Tell me, our other great commander Anton Chekhov was right: “it’s hard in training, easy in battle.”
- (overturning the second glass) Chekhov, as you know, was not a commander, but a Ukrainian poet. ProFFesor Yanukovych himself spoke about this. But I don’t want to know what Ukrainian nationalist poets said. Quickly stop Bandera propaganda. Otherwise, I will ask the relevant authorities to check your program as anti-Russian.
- Sorry, but Chekhov was still a commander. Everyone knows: he, together with Zhukov and Nikolai 2, took Berlin.
- Chekhov - Ukrainian nationalist
- Commander.
- Nationalist. Screams, swearing, sounds of breaking dishes, breaking furniture, falling bodies. After some time, the presenter, who had not yet recovered from the fight, read out the announcement in a broken voice: “Dear listeners of our intellectual show, we apologize for the minor technical problems. Our program will soon resume airing. The Feast of the Spirit in Russia continues!”

“Vanguyu: the next “great tsar of Russia” will be the offspring of the biker “Surgeon” and Natalia Poklonskaya. They will conceive a child in an Orthodox church to a remix of “God Save the Tsar” and “Anthem of the USSR”, they will name him Stalin II and he will have 666 signs all over his body!” the blogger predicts. Dmitry Zolotukhin.

Journalist Yuri Romanenko drew attention to the fact that there is too much information noise around Poklonskaya: “Guys, you are glad that Poklonskaya blurted out something about Suvorov. Why be happy? We already knew that she was stupid. Sharikovs are stupid by definition, even if they are a chick with big eyes and elastic breasts of the third size. This is a tool. We needed such a tool, we used it, it will be removed tomorrow. Another one will appear the day after tomorrow. Everything has been clear with Russia for a long time. Modern Russia has made its civilizational choice. They have Ivan the Terrible and other murderers in favor in this choice. I am more concerned when our minister at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers does not know that the Zhytomyr region borders on another state. And he is sincerely surprised when he finds out otherwise. This is a problem. Because as long as we have this quality of power, the Russian Sharikovs have a chance to carry out the war here. The Sharikovs there are better than the Sharikovs here. Although... maybe that’s why you’re happy?”

People's Deputy Borislav Bereza Meanwhile, he is indignant: “The tape is discussing some kind of Poklonskaya’s next c***. What's the point of discussing this animal? Are there any other problems? The only information I'm interested in about this bitch is her confession. But not her appearance at the brothel, but at the law enforcement agencies of Ukraine. That's it, let's go."

“You can’t give Poklonskaya your word. Otherwise, the Duma will soon abandon her and she will return to Crimea. She is happy to serve, but “she is sickened,” as “our dear and great Russian poet and commander Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov said.” By the way, it’s good that she wasn’t at the opening of the monument to “Vladimir the Great” in Moscow. Suddenly she would say that this is a monument to the Great Vladimir. Which is Lenin... What if she really believes that Krupsky baptized Rus'? That’s how he decided to cure the childhood disease of leftism in communism, so he immediately baptized,” jokes the blogger Elizaveta Bogutskaya

Deputy Chairman of the Donetsk Regional Military-Civil Administration Igor Stokoz decided to stand up for the would-be expert on history and literature: “Why did everyone attack Poklonskaya? It’s a big deal, just think, Chatsky slept with Kshesinskaya. Ty, doesn’t he see the difference between Pushkin, Lermontov and Griboyedov? So they wrote everything in Russian, and that’s enough. But he knows who Alexander Suvorov is. Apparently I also read “Icebreaker” and “Aquarium”. And then, we also have governors who don’t know all the letters.”