God is not an object of worship,
but the pinnacle of understanding.
Those who seek Him in words become slaves.
Those who seek Him in knowledge become Creators.
Some dream of salvation, others of silence in their heads. The first receive religion, the second religion in convenient packaging: ready-made answers, sanctioned emotions, and a strict taboo on thought. Thinking is dangerous, understanding is harmful, doubting is criminal. Better to be like a dried roach: no pain, no anxiety, no doubts — pure, spiritually purified emptiness. Yet alas, civilizations are not eternal. Along with them collapse the formats of faith, their priests, and even the configurations of "eternal truths" are collapsing. Those who yesterday called themselves “servants of God” today suddenly turn into clients of spiritual markets. And everything would be fine, if not for one thing: DEATH HAS NOT BEEN CANCELED.
This is what we will talk about. About Manifestation as a civilizational disease. About Faith, which has been nurtured by dogma and tamed by statutes. About Knowledge, which is forbidden for our own good. And — about the final question that remains standing when all dogmas collapse: can death be conquered?
In the conditions of modernity, which is increasingly losing its connection with genuine thinking, people, like trained creatures, continue to accept FOREIGN IDEAS as their own. Political and informational “talking heads” diligently hammer into the public consciousness that the value orientations of the individual are SOMETHING INNATE and self-evident. Yet in reality, they are formed and controlled, often from the outside, and NOT by the individual HIMSELF. Strangely enough, it is precisely those who proclaim values to be universal and international who turn out to be the only ones who truly believe in them. For the rest of society, these “values” are alien, UNFELT, unexperienced. Their introduction is an act of external violence, not internal evolution. When an individual’s judgments DO NOT COINCIDE with the so-called “socially significant” criteria, this is declared to be his personal problem. The individual is taken out of the equation — treated as an error. But what if such “errors” are the overwhelming majority? Who, then, is truly in the minority — the individual or the system? Hence arises the fundamental question from which it is worth beginning: does God exist, and how should one relate to this?
What is God, if not the Creator of Reality? What gives the Creator the right to create? Knowledge. Only knowledge. Not faith, not belonging to a cult, rather knowledge and the ability to act upon it. Therefore, if a human being is capable of comprehending the structure of the world and, on that basis, changing it, he potentially becomes God. And as an ancient text says: “For in the day that you eat from the tree of knowledge, your eyes will be opened, and you will be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). That is why I deeply want there to be a choice before the one who reads this text: to remain led, or to begin to understand.
The creation of something new is not the addition of a façade to a decrepit structure. One cannot plant a new tree in the place of the old without uprooting its roots. One cannot build a house without clearing away the rubble. Likewise, one cannot create a new humanity without dismantling the old forms of life, thought, and power. The truly new is possible only when the old is destroyed to its very foundation. Any “upgrade” is nothing more than a refresh of the icons on the screen, behind which the same operating system continues to run.
For capitalism to arise, the feudal order first had to be dismantled. As long as coats of arms, titles, estates, and princes remained, the new world COULD NOT EXIST. The construction of any new formation begins with the dismantling of the previous system — not its façades, but its load-bearing nodes. Similarly, to begin moving toward a society oriented not toward consumption rather toward overcoming death, it is necessary to destroy the CONSUMER CIVILIZATION, built upon the pyramidal principle of power, accumulation, and control. And the starting point is not slogans or rituals, rather an engineering analysis of the structure: what is the foundation, what are the load-bearing beams, and what is merely decorative charm? The foundation of civilization is ITS WORLDVIEW. The beams are the notions of good and evil, norms, taboos, and the system of values. Only upon this are social institutions, legal frameworks, and economic codes constructed. It is this inner core that determines stability, not parliamentary speeches or media shows. When one looks only at the façade, it seems everything is holding together: laws, budgets, institutions — all apparently functioning. However, in reality, the structure may have long been rotten, like late feudalism before its collapse — or, conversely, modest outwardly but filled with colossal potential, like a new system that has not yet declared itself publicly, yet is already maturing within the space. As long as the foundation is intact, one can break external elements and the building will still stand. However, once the foundation is undermined, everything else collapses under its own weight. This is the very dismantling we are now undertaking.
A civilization can be destroyed physically — by annihilating its carriers and material infrastructure. However, this is an archaic method, demanding immense resources and total superiority. There is a way far more elegant — and far more terrifying: to break its WORLDVIEW FOUNDATION. Once the core disappears, everything resting upon it vanishes as well. The beams are left without support, collapsing under the weight of their own decorativeness. The more complex a civilization is, the higher its superstructure, the heavier its façade, and the faster it falls with even the slightest loss of its point of support. A traditional civilization is like a glass paradox — the so-called Batavian tear (or Prince Rupert’s drop).1 Outwardly, it is strong: it can withstand pressure, break metal. However, once the thin tail is snapped, the entire structure shatters into dust. So it is with civilization: its strength lies not in cannons and taxes, rather in the invisible — IN THE METAPHYSICAL CORE. Damage that, and everything collapses. Not from above, rather from within. Not noisily, rather irreversibly. For Christian civilization, this “tail” was the Bible, as the BEARER OF REVELATION, the source of absolute truth. Everything proclaimed in it had the status of UNQUESTIONABLE KNOWLEDGE from God Himself. Thus, to criticize this knowledge was not merely to dispute a theory — it was to rebel against the sacred order. Yet the moment came when the sacred collided with facts. The Church declared that the Sun revolved around the Earth — and declared this not as a hypothesis, rather as a dogma, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Then one day, an elderly scientist named Galileo improved the telescope and invited people to look — not at theology, but through the lens. It turned out that the truth revealed through observation did not coincide with the truth proclaimed in God’s name. And at that moment, THE WORLDVIEW CRACKED. Destruction became only a matter of time. One error shattered trust in the entire structure. If “divine truth” could turn out to be false — then all other claims stood in question. From that moment, THE SKELETON OF CIVILIZATION was left without a foundation. An avalanche-like collapse of meanings began. No laws, armies, factories, or rituals could hold together the disintegrating edifice. What gunpowder and cannons could not do was accomplished by simple information. Galileo proved a far more powerful destroyer than the fiercest warlords. And it was not only Christian structures that fell this way. A similar worldview catastrophe befell the Aztec civilization. Their cosmology was simple: the Sun rises because it is fed with blood. Every day. Otherwise, it would not rise. Within this worldview, human sacrifice was NOT A CRIME, it was good. It was the highest act of care for the world. One died — millions were saved. The same logic guided the Jewish high priest when speaking of Jesus: “It is better for you that one man dies for the people than that the whole nation perishes” (John 11:50).
When Cortés2 arrived, he did not immediately draw his sword. He began by testing their faith in practice. He simply forbade sacrifices. And the next morning, the Sun rose. This caused shock. Some thought he must have secretly made a sacrifice himself. Yet the next day the same thing happened. And again. Gradually, a creaking began in the minds of the natives: what if we have been wrong all this time? And then THE WORLDVIEW SHIFTED. Not at the level of slogans — at the level of the foundation. If sacrifices do not affect the sunrise, then the entire system of sacrifice is false. And therefore, the power of the priests is false. And therefore, their laws, rituals, fears, and rites are false. The entire civilization, built on the sacred dependence of the world on blood, LOST ITS MEANING. It is precisely this — the moment of losing meaning — that marks the beginning of a civilization’s true death. Not the destruction of walls, rather the destruction of the reason those walls were raised. Yet even after it became obvious that the sunrise was independent of bloody offerings, common folk STILL CONTINUED for a long time to believe in the old ways. For them, the fact that the Sun kept rising was “proof” that the rituals were being upheld. It is always so: fundamental worldview shifts begin at the top, with the intellectual layer — and only later, with a generational delay, reach the broader masses.
The South American civilization collapsed like a house without a foundation. With a two-million-strong army, a developed economy, and a stable culture, it could not have been defeated by force. Imperfect weapons were offset by resilience — including resilience to pain — and by a unique, non-European attitude toward death. For them, death was not a tragedy. The empire HAS LOST ITS FOUNDATION. And so, it lost. Cortés could not conquer the Aztecs with cannons. The main weapon was smallpox — a biological catastrophe that arrived with the Europeans. Yet even that was NOT DECISIVE. The primary factor in their defeat was the FRACTURE OF THEIR WORLDVIEW. When the worldview that explained their sacrifices, authority, social order, and ontology disappeared, everything else began collapsing on its own. The same is true for any religious construct. Temples arise from faith — not the other way around. And to destroy a religion, YOU DO NOT NEED to demolish its temples. You need to destroy the information that gave birth to those temples. Then they themselves will become empty shells. This is why the idea of “converting people to faith” by building temples in Moscow in 2011 seems not merely naive — it is ONTOLOGICALLY WRONG. Stone cannot give birth to Spirit. Even if it is consecrated.
So, it is with the CONSUMER CIVILIZATION — it cannot be destroyed by “debunking” its worldview, because… it has no worldview. This is its greatest strength — and its greatest weakness. It parasitizes on the ruins of the previous world order, hiding behind the rhetoric of “human rights,” “freedom,” and “humanism,” yet possessing no ontological framework. Therefore, its weak point is NOT DOGMA, rather meaninglessness. To destroy it, one must not smash its façade — advertising, banks, technologies, corporations. One must understand WHAT it rests upon. 
And destroy that. And it rests upon substitution. If previously worldview shaped values, and values shaped norms and rules, now it is the other way around. The rules exist. The norms exist. However, the values as ontological pillars — do not. They have been replaced with EMPTY SLOGANS.
Humanism proclaimed man as the “supreme value.” Yet there CAN only be one supreme value. Everything else is secondary. If in religion the supreme value is God, then man is His creation. If in humanism the supreme value is man, then God becomes HIS CREATION. And then He loses the status of God. It turns out that humanism does not deny God — it quietly lowers him in status. And this is his main substitution. In reality, this is not “tolerant coexistence of views,” rather an ONTOLOGICAL SUBSTITUTION of the source of authority. From now on, the will of God NO LONGER FORMS the law — the law forms the will of “man.” And who is this man? And in what state are his mind, his body, his conscience? There are no answers.
Humanism as a “faith in man” is NOT CAPABLE of giving birth to a civilization. It can only parasitize on the remnants of the old one. This is exactly what is happening. All the values declared “universal human values” are, in reality, extracted from Christianity, severed from their source, and presented AS INNATE. However, without a foundation, they crumble into a heap. And that is exactly what has happened.
When a person truly believed in God, he lived for the salvation of the soul, for the bliss of eternity. When faith disappeared, the meaning of fasting, prayer, temples, ascetic feats, loyalty, and sacrifice disappeared with it. The new faith in “man” is merely DECORATIVE RHETORIC accompanying the old rituals. Now everything is reduced to something simple: it is enough to say “I believe in God,” and you are already “a believer.” But what kind of God is this? This is a pocket god, a provider of household services. Give me money, a husband, a flight without delays, health, an apartment. In return — I’ll light a candle or tell acquaintances that You Such a god is not Lord. THIS IS A VALET. He does not command, he fulfills. 
And it is not frightening if He does not — people simply begin to grumble: “Where is God looking?!” This is precisely what the new form of mass faith looks like — domestic, functional, superstitious. Thus arises a new model of faith — humanistic, unstructured, domestic, contractual. If in the religious paradigm man served God, fulfilling His will, in the humanistic one God is turned into SERVICE STAFF. He no longer commands, no longer demands sacrifices, no longer calls to feats; HE IS A FULFILLER of petty wishes like good weather, a smooth flight, or a job promotion. Faith BECOMES A DEAL: if You do this for me — I will do this for You. “Dear God, if I find a job — I will acknowledge You and even light a candle.” In this world, a religious God is impossible in principle. Because ontologically He is no longer the Master — He is the valet. “Thank God” is no longer a hymn or a prayer. It is RITUAL GRATITUDE for a job well done. And if the job fails — people say, “Where is God looking?!” The logic of relationships here is not sacred rather market-based. This is what we see in today’s reality. And the place of this “little god” is even lower than that of a house spirit. A house spirit is left offerings — food, milk, a small coin. And the pocket god is left nothing. Only the word: “I believe.” He lives in the corner of the heart, does not disturb, demands nothing, does not intrude into reality. This is a notebook-god. A god for notes. A background god.
Humanism, unlike religion, CANNOT give birth to a system of good and evil. It is not an independent worldview rather a RESIDUAL SHELL, obtained through an amputation performed on Christianity. God was extracted from it — yet certain phrases, feelings, and outward forms were left behind. It is like a tree whose trunk has been cut down, and for a long-time people admired the leaves — until they noticed that the leaves began to fall, the branches to wither, and the soil beneath their feet to crack.
The idea of humanism was never whole. It NEVER ANSWERED the question “what is the world?”, never established the coordinates of the ONTOLOGICAL SPACE in which good, evil, truth, and man have justified places. Humanism did not say, “God does not exist.” It said, “man is the supreme value,” seemingly agreeing with everyone, yet in fact overturning the hierarchy of ranks. Yet there can be only one supreme value. If that value becomes man, God is automatically downgraded to a secondary object. In this system God is not the Creator, not the Judge, not the Source of being. He is one of many CONVENIENT ELEMENTS that can be activated or deactivated at will. And since He no longer DEMANDS anything, He becomes harmless — and therefore meaningless. What does man do in such a system? He says, “I believe” — and faith ends there. He does not seek to understand God’s will, does not watch over inner transformation, does not build the Temple — neither outer nor inner. He is not a follower; he is a CONSUMER OF BLESSING. Such trivialization of the divine is NOT AN ACCIDENT. It is the logical consequence of rejecting the foundation. Humanism never attempted to build a new ontology. It simply declared the OLD ONE FALSE and assumed that the scale of good and evil could now be “invented” anew. But out of what? If the foundation is gone — on, what do you ground morality? Those who realize this find themselves at an impasse. They begin to discard the old edifice as “construction debris.” And the DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE FOUNDATION begins, where every element — norm, law, taboo — ends up suspended in midair. The old rulers destroyed the Church yet retained Christian norms. The new rulers (today) destroy the norms, but CANNOT create their own. As a result, EVERYTHING COLLAPSES.
A state without bonds is not a state. It is chaos, veiled by the façade of law. And when the authorities, having renounced the previous worldview, failed to offer a new one, they were forced to return to the old. Just as they returned to temples. Just as they returned to symbols. Not because they believe — rather because THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.
When it became clear that their own value platform could not be derived from nothing, the new power— HAVING NO ideological basis — was forced to turn to the old one. Yet how could they explain to the people that the Christian God was no longer “in favor,” yet His norms remained the standard? The solution proved elegant: separate the norm from the Source. Claim that good and evil are not Christian categories, rather they are INNATE QUALITIES of man, like an instinct or reflex. That people are born with these norms, like with a heartbeat. Therefore, they require neither comprehension, nor a source, nor justification. Thus, concepts born from religion were rebranded as “UNIVERSAL HUMAN VALUES,” supposedly without religious origin. No one explained where they came from, why they are what they are, or why precisely these. Yet they declared with aplomb that FOLLOWING THEM is the duty of a true human being. In this way, taboos, norms, and dogmas derived from the old religious world order were merely repainted by humanism in a secular tone. That said, if they truly WERE INSTINCTS, why then must they be imposed, taught, regulated, and punished when violated? No one forces a person to breathe or fear pain. Therefore, this is not about instincts rather about culturally implanted patterns. And patterns, unlike instincts, can break. They can be replaced, destroyed, reformatted — and this is precisely what the new era is doing: erasing some and introducing others. Yet the old order does not surrender without a fight. It has ITS OWN INSTITUTION — the Church. And the Church has ITS OWN TECHNOLOGY: restraining the people by keeping them in ignorance.
Religious authority has long understood the danger of knowledge. Pope Gregory VII forbade reading the Bible without a guide. The explanation was elegant: DANGEROUS FOR THE SOUL. Yet in fact, it is dangerous not for the soul, rather for the Church. Because reading leads to thought, and thought leads to doubt. And one who doubts is no longer a slave — he is on his way to becoming a human being.
The true “good believer” is the one who DOES NOT THINK. He must not analyze, compare, or ask questions. He must know through which shoulder the candle is passed, when the fasts begin, and how to kiss the icon. That is enough. And most importantly, he must be certain: all authority is from God. Everything else is not merely unnecessary — IT IS HARMFUL. One step toward freedom of thought — and horror before blasphemy “How dare you contemplate a dogma?!” — this is not rhetoric, rather it is an instinct to protect the construct. Faith stands upon the simple — upon the Akulins, the rote memorizers, those who believe not because they understood, but because they were taught.
The Western Church forbade translating Scripture into the language of the people. Latin was armor, a protective film between content and consciousness. Only sermons were in the native tongue — an explanation of how one ought to understand the incomprehensible. The Eastern Church followed the same path, only with a different rhetoric: Church Slavonic supposedly “reaches the heart better.” The main thing was that it not reach the mind. The logic of this policy is simple: if a person understands, he STOPS BELIEVING. Therefore, he must be fed BEAUTIFUL PARABLES, filled with emotion, yet devoid of analysis. Such a person does not seek meaning — he feels peace from the ritual. He does not hear paradoxes and contradictions — he hears the music of the liturgy. He does not seek the truth — he CLEANSES THE SOUL, like a basket from dirt. This is, perhaps, the ultimate formula of all systems of spiritual containment: “Truth is revealed not through understanding, rather through faith.” In this, perhaps, lies the highest formula of theological cargo cult, still applied today. If the cargo worshippers in their bamboo headsets had been able to compose such parables, they would have lasted longer. But they had no mental masters of emotion. Here — they did. And STILL DO.
The call to “be as children” is a fine formula for BLIND FAITH, but not for a reader of the Bible. Childlike trust is not what withstands confrontation with theological contradictions. One who opens the text of Scripture with an open mind and without the blind directive to “just believe” will soon ENCOUNTER INCONSISTENCIES. 
And if he has the courage to think, he will cease to be a “simple believer.” This is precisely why the Church has always strived for a rigid, unbending structure. The idea was simple: concrete does not crack. However, it does crack. Scientific facts accumulated over recent centuries have struck the top of this tower, and today all that remains is a PILE OF DEBRIS — stone-hard, reinforced concrete, yet no longer a tower. It cannot be persuaded; it does not respond to reason. Yet neither can it remain the heart of a living building. It fades away — as the cult of Aphrodite faded, as current constructs will fade if they lose their foundation. The religious ideal is Akulina3 — she who does not know, does not wish to know, and is afraid to think. She who clings to a collection of ready-made phrases — quotes, tales, pious sayings. She who always hides behind authority, like behind the back of a priest.
It is not in the Church’s interest for people to know THEIR OWN HISTORY. It cultivates rote recitation, NOT KNOWLEDGE. Education in seminaries is dragon-lore, disconnected from life. It is either a formal retelling of who said what to whom in the fourth century, or a set of “ribbons” placed atop core truths that are never touched. Surprisingly, intellectually developed believers often turn out to be the worst guardians of truth. Upon hearing inconvenient facts, they protest: “How dare you tell this to simple people?” They defend not truth rather the “social technology of containment.” What matters to them is that a person “lives by the commandments,” not that he seeks their foundation. What matters is that he does not read books, does not cross-check information, does not step outside ritual. However, in that case, religion is not a striving for truth, it is rather a SYSTEM OF SUPPRESSING reflection. It is anti-science. It is ANTI-FREEDOM. This is why, in response to Christ’s words (“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness”), they wave their hand: “We have our own righteousness.” After that, there is nothing left to discuss.
A civilization founded on faith collapses when that faith is lost — like a building without a foundation. However, for an individual, the loss of illusion is not a tragedy. It is an opportunity. If the Papuans discover that their straw airplanes will not summon the cargo gods — what harm is there in that for them? For the priests — yes, harm. For the people — benefit. Less empty ritual, more life. Today, when culture, economy, and science have advanced, why cling to straw? Yet everything repeats. An anthropologists’ anecdote captures this better than any treatise: A scholar arrived in a remote tribe, learned the language, and gained their trust. He was invited to a sacred ceremony. Around the fire stood the natives. The priest shouted: “The square of the hypotenuse is equal to…” And the entire circle responded: “…the sum of the squares of the legs!” No one understood what it meant. Yet they firmly believed that THESE WORDS WERE SACRED. The Pythagorean theorem as a holy incantation — this is the metaphor of religious faith taken to absurdity. The less understandable — the more sacred. If it were understandable, it would mean “human.” And the incomprehensible — that means “divine.” Hence the immortal: Credo, quia absurdum est — I believe because it is absurd. (Tertullian).
A person without a HIGHER PURPOSE needs chains. Not because he loves to suffer, but because otherwise he DOES NOT KNOW where to go. Some demand military discipline — to be marched, commanded, ordered. Others demand freedom — but only within the limits permitted by the majority, that is… in other chains. Both want the same thing — TO BE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, not to be extra, not to find themselves outside the herd. This is not theory — these are facts obtained in psychological experiments. When the last child in a group is given an unpleasant candy, and the others are previously instructed to praise its taste — he praises it too. He does not want truth; he wants SOCIAL UNITY. The one who speaks as things are — is rare. Usually an outcast. Usually the creator of the new — and for this he suffers. The system knows this and exploits it.
The Church built a PERFECT SYSTEM of intrusion into consciousness. Every step of a Christian must remind him whose slave he is. The system of rituals, holidays, and prayers accompanying birth, marriage, and death is TOTAL ENGINEERING of the spirit. Not a single day can pass without participation in ritual. You rise — pray. You eat — bless. You work — cross yourself. You live — remember who allowed you to be. Even eight hours a day of prayer is not the limit. On Mount Athos, the service lasts twenty-five hours — a full day and then an extra hour. FOR GOD? No — for the reinforcement of indoctrination. This is not service. This is a technique of penetrating the subconscious. The goal of ritual is not God. The goal is TO BREAK FREEDOM. Immersed in the church atmosphere from birth, a person grows up with the conviction: HE IS A SLAVE. Not a thinker. Not a seeker. Not a creator. A slave. THOUGHT IS DANGEROUS. History is unnecessary. The main thing is — light the candle, keep the fast, go to church, believe the right things. And the believer agrees. He has accepted that thinking is not his business. Everything has already been decided. Everything has been thought out for him. “How wonderful,” the good believers rejoice, “that everything has been worked out for us. Otherwise, we would have to… and we ourselves are so foolish…” Here it is — THE ANATOMY OF SUBMISSION. Not of fear. Not of hatred. Simply… agreement. Agreement not to be oneself. Agreement not to understand. Agreement to die while alive. A person deprived of inner supports is always offered external crutches: faith without understanding, discipline without purpose, morality without metaphysics. His life passes in a mode of passive obedience — not even to God, rather to instruction. He does not seek meaning; he avoids it like fire: for what if meaning leads to freedom, and then he would have to think…
Today’s civilization has grown tired of truly dying — now it does so slowly, comfortably, and to music. Without outbursts. Without questions. To the steady rhythm of commandments that no one remembers verbatim anymore, yet everyone somehow considers obligatory. As if “everything has been thought out for us.” And for those still hoping to survive this spectacle — perhaps it is worth starting with something simple: to reclaim the right to doubt. To know. To that very STRANGE RIGHT — to be alive, and not merely approved. And if you do prefer the quiet, untroubled confidence in a pre-chewed truth, then… “How good it is,” said the dried roach, “that this procedure has been done to me! Now I won’t have any extra thoughts, any extra feelings, any extra conscience — none of that will be there! Everything unnecessary has been aired out, cleaned out, and dried out of me, and I will follow my line slowly and quietly.” (M. Saltykov-Shchedrin)
***
We live in an era when the last supports of the old world are collapsing. The mechanisms of faith that for centuries ensured controllability can no longer bear the weight of reality. The Church lost its power not because it was disproven, but because it DID NOT ANSWER. To the question, no longer even formulated in words — why does man live? — it offers a candle, communion, a ban on doubt. Yet the question remains, and IT CALLS. And no one else CAN close it off with mumbling about a “special path to salvation.” Value is no longer defined by habit. Faith no longer lives in quotation. Ritual no longer holds power if there is no living question inside. And this means — within appears the possibility of true transformation. The world where man is God’s slave is degenerating. In its place must arise a world where MAN IS A CO-CREATOR, bearer of the design, continuer of the creative line of the universe. And thus, faith changes its nature. It is no longer blind — it is burning, moving, knowing. It thirsts for understanding, does not fear rupture, DOES NOT FEAR death, because it looks through it. True faith is not repetition; it is a creation. Not submission, it is movement through the unknown. Not "I believe, because it is absurd," rather "I know, because I can become." Faith is the first step toward the new nature of man, and knowledge is the path upon which that faith ceases to be blind and becomes light. And light, united with will, for the first time in all so-called history known to us, opens the door that for centuries was sealed by dogmas: the Door to Victory over death.
1 Batavian tears, or Prince Rupert’s drops — solidified drops of tempered glass possessing extremely high internal mechanical stresses.
2 Fernando Cortés de Monroy , better known as Hernán Cortés, was a Spanish conquistador who conquered Mexico and destroyed the Aztec statehood. Thanks to him, vanilla and chocolate began to be consumed in Europe starting in the 1520s.
3 In the novel Oblomov by I. A. Goncharov, Akulina is a serf peasant woman and a servant of one of the main heroines of the novel, Agafya Pshenitsyna.