Being a foreigner, I often think that, nevertheless, perhaps, I overcome a certain line when I write something. There is a line between what people can say about the country in which they were born and raised, and what the teapots can say about it. I think I have overcome this barrier several times already, and the following article (or articles; I have no idea how long I will write) is probably another step across this line. Recently, I increasingly want to talk about the new ideology of Russia.
Should a foreigner write about ideology for the country to which he came? No, it should not. But, as they say in America, “fuck it” (I’ll do it anyway, in this context). I just see that I have something to say. The more open and honest I am with you, the better, so I'm going to put all my thoughts on what a new Russian ideology / national idea could be. Even ONF demands from the society opinions on the new national idea, and ideology is actively discussed in the media.
In addition, although many Russian thinkers are radically changing my outlook, I noticed that they do not do very well with the detailed elaboration of ideas and thoughts, and besides, they do not know how to popularize them at all. (This program is an excellent example: there are several people deeply respected by me in the studio, but practically no specific idea was expressed). Remember, I'm from the States! We created Model-T, McDonald's and Twitter; we can both reduce and present everything to the masses, so I feel
I warn you: this is NOT the ideology itself, but only considerations on the topic. By the way, one of the key factors of ideology is that it should be reduced to a multitude of short slogans that are easily remembered by a simple man in the street. It is very important that the busy Oleg Ordnevich, who can be found on the street, understand these slogans and put them into practice. And yes ... please do not forget that I interpret many Russian expressions much narrower than the root ones do.
In addition, the word "cult", which will often appear in the text, is a metaphor. I would never support the creation of a cult in the direct sense of the word, as revolutionary France did.
New ideology №1 - Russia is sacred (developing the cult of Russia)
Although the computer tells me that the expression “God is in heaven, on earth is Russia” is popular in Serbia, I heard it from many Russians. And it should be the key idea for a new ideology. Instead of trying to explain myself why I think so, I will give the floor to Dostoevsky, he will do better:
“Without a higher idea, neither man nor nation can exist. And the highest idea on earth is only one, and that is the idea of the immortality of the human soul, for all the other "higher" ideas of life that a person can live with come only from one. "
Dostoevsky is absolutely right. Belief in a higher power, in something more significant than our frailty, is necessary to create a strong society. As I already wrote before, the modern cult of the one-man, which is so actively inspired by liberal propaganda, was and is extremely destructive for Russia. The idea that you can build a community of individual farmers who live only for themselves, like the little gods in their own little worlds, is insane and should be thrown into the trash.
God exists or not, religion exists. And our task is to make people relate to Russia in the same spirit as to God. Now I will explain what I mean. If the Orthodox see a completely neglected church in his district, he does not lose faith in God, he believes that this particular place is not worthy of the Lord. At the same time, when today we see the ugly buildings from the 90's, we say: “Russia to **”, and not “these buildings disgrace the greatness of Russia” or “are not good enough for great Russia” (and should be rebuilt ).
When an imam or a priest behaves in an inappropriate way and a scandal erupts, believers are not disappointed in the greatness of the Lord. They only say: “these people are not real Christians / Muslims”. But today, for some reason, the dregs of the government manage to blacken and defame Russia itself.
We need to bring Russia closer to this infallible standard, to return her sacredness. Dostoevsky was also right in speaking of the need for a higher power and the idea of the immortality of the soul. Well, isn't Russia the ultimate power? If we recognize that Russia is much bigger than ourselves (and I say this to every foreigner I meet), then the idea that each of us is the master of our own micro universe, where we can do anything, will go away. Is not Russia immortal? It may seem strange to you, but I like to realize myself as part of Russia, where my Slavic ancestors have lived since the beginning of time, where I live, and where my descendants will fight for a better future for their descendants. In a certain sense, Russia can give a sense of immortality, because each of us can become a small part of a great, never-ending stories. Russia also imposes on us the burden of the past. So much had to shed blood, die and suffer for Russia, that we are all born with a debt to it. Very much in the spirit of the Christian faith, which says that the death of Christ on the cross for the sins of mankind has imposed on each of us a great duty that will be difficult to repay, but we need to try to do it.
Not everyone in Russia believes in God, I myself am very skeptical about the possibility of the existence of God, however, both Russian atheist communists and Orthodox nationalists, being patriots, realize that Russia itself is a supreme force and should be considered sacred. It follows that if there is something sacred, then there is blasphemy. And now I think it is important to talk about it.
Certain people will try to parasitize the sanctity of Russia, some others will say that this is heresy or will scream that Russia has bad roads. There is a big risk of misunderstanding, which will result in the idea of "ethnic" holiness. It should be clear that only immortal Russia together with the land and the people are sacred as a single whole. But let me draw your attention: the mortal members of a famous party with a bear on the logo are not sacred, like their projects. I am afraid that among us there will be those who do not understand this obvious nuance.
Add: we must remember the difference between criticism (we need to expand the road network in the country) and insult (to hell with it! Stupid drunks can't even make a damn good road).
New ideology №2 - not for export
Former ideologies and religions have always declared themselves the only correct, the only possible way. And it provided an excuse for those believers and ideologized people who walked the globe and killed anyone they want to “help them.” “It doesn’t matter how many people die as long as we carry them democracy / our god / capitalism / whatever; this is done in the name of greater good ”- such words have been spoken too often throughout history.
This phenomenon is called "universalism", and it should not be present in the new Russian ideology. The key difference between the new ideology / national idea / political theory being created today and those that have sunk into the past is its internal orientation: it should work only for Russia / Eurasia. One of the components of the discussion about the multipolarity of the world is the popular thesis, which says that different civilizations should choose their own path of development, and not be at all integrated into Western liberalism under the gun of "Tomahawk." In short, any idea that is born in the depths of the Eurasian Union is only suitable for him and will never work anywhere else, and besides, it will cause hatred for those who try to impose it by force.
New ideology №3 - rejection of liberalism and how to fill the void. "Freedom to do"
Liberalism - as the idea of a society built around the individual and his rights, an individual freed from all frameworks, including traditions, religion and even gender - must be discarded because he is completely alien to Russia and has shown himself to be extremely destructive to her society.
“Liberty” (freedom from) —this independence from any framework on which a liberal utopia is based — is interpreted by many people smarter than me as something detrimental to Russia. Alexander Dugin explains that Russians understand freedom as “freedom FOR” or “freedom to DO”.
We see around us that when we remove all bans and give the Russian people the opportunity to create a society of individualists, nothing happens. It may seem that in the West such tactics would work, but in Russia there is definitely no. For Russians, liberal freedom becomes freedom from heritage and purpose, and on such a basis a welfare society is not built - on the contrary, it fades and dies away because of the meaninglessness of existence.
The idea that individualists, living and working only for their own sake, can somehow create a strong society, is insane; its time is up.
But the idea of “freedom for” and “freedom to do” sounds interesting, but how does it work?
The government, instead of simply “being close”, creating a favorable environment for the economic prosperity of individuals, must and simply must create goals for society, and it has the rights and means to achieve these goals; in response, the masses should be able to support or reject these macro-tasks through a referendum.
You see, the people, the masses, will just bear (and have more than once borne) the burden of translating the ideas of their leaders into life, so they should be able to take part in creating such an idea.
If Russia is to create a large-scale or even a grand project that will be moved by the government, then such a project should have a confirmation stamp from the people in order to gain legitimacy. When it is known that 80% of the population voted and chose from three to five public goals for a certain time (a person cannot pay attention to many issues at once; therefore, there should be only a few basic public goals at a time to choose), then the people implementing the project will motivated to a large extent and, moreover, to feel its legitimacy. One of the omissions of the Soviet era was the practice of dictation by the party of its “five-year plans” without receiving intelligible feedback or approval from the bottom.
(And again: I just want to state my thoughts on ideology, a detailed study of how “freedom to do” could work in practice is very laborious. But personally, I agree to work).
Liberalism empowers only the individual, and at least from the end of 70, American corporations as well. If we take away all rights from corporations and give them to society, the game will go differently. In liberalism, no one can say no to McDonald's opening a restaurant to squeeze out local businessmen. All of them have the right to private property and can open their restaurants if they have enough money. But if society had rights, people would simply say: “we don’t want your nasty food and your presence in our country”. There are conditions when individual rights must be omitted, since they are used to assert all sorts of absurdities, exploitation and the strongest inequality.
Liberalism is not only a systemic or structural problem in Russia, but also a social one. If Putin had dressed in a simple shirt and went to work, he would have been ridiculed, moreover, both at home and abroad. It is very important to note: Russian traditions are understood as absurd in Russia! How can you talk about a great nation when your own culture is regarded as backward and worthless? Look at the Russian television and media that are well funded by the government - there is nothing Russian in them, they are a pathetic copy of the miserable modern Western “media”; they push a destructive virus of liberalism into society: consumerism, arrogance, pride, self-love.
New ideology №4 - rejection of the West (and a little bit of approval)
"We are called to create our own and, in our own way, Russian in Russian."
When I was at Seliger this summer, I saw images of successful people who had visited the forum before. Each "successful" guest in the photo was wearing a jacket and tie and worked in something like an office. It seemed to me very offensive. Why on earth at the forum about Russia we have to evaluate the success according to the western criteria of “jacket / tie, big heads at the office” ?! Why is a woman with four children not considered successful? Why is a plumber who works well and honestly treats his clients is not considered successful? Yes, all because Russia has not yet abandoned the West and its values.
To protect your eyes from reading a few pages of my ardent indignation about this, I can only say that since Peter the Great told the Russians that they are lagging behind the Europeans, Russia has never been able to get rid of the prejudice that Western Europe is for it universal benchmark. A new national idea should reject Western culture to the same extent that Peter implanted it. Rejection should go beyond rhetoric, clear all areas of society — from the government itself, right down to the food we eat. Ilina's statement above is the DIRECT GUIDE TO ACTION.
We will never be smart with someone else's mind and glorious with someone else's glory ...
I have spoken an infinite number of times both in Russian and in English, that as long as Russia tries to copy the West, the copy turns out to be shitty. Karamzin's statement brilliantly reveals my thesis. If we look at Russia as if through the eyes of people who hate it both in their gut and mind, how can we see something good in it? The status of the West as an example to follow has lost its reputation and should be forgotten.
Recently, I was on a television program where, at the very end, an educated Russian man who showed himself to be a patriot throughout the program, exclaimed: “Oh, if we lived in a NORMAL country!”. This Russian self-humiliation sits very deeply and amazes even patriots. This infection should be removed.
“What is good for a Russian is death for a German” (and sometimes vice versa!)
This adage is incredibly important. Why? Because Russian patriots are inclined to regard the West as one big gay parade of pedophiles and soulless consumers, pathetic pigs. I have said for years that Russians need to regain pride, and in this proverb we can see a way: to magnify what Russia has and what Europe does not have. Russia is something natural and primeval, while the West is completely false and plastic; the sincerity of the smile of a Russian face is better than a hundred fake Western smiles. We also clearly see from the experience of the 90s that unrestrained liberalism and Western tendencies do not work in Russia and are much more destructive for it than even vodka.
This thought (the Russians are following the difficult path, because they themselves are harder) should spread through the Internet and grow into a powerful current. If it seems impossible to drop and forget hundreds of years of worshiping the West in one generation, then at least we can look at examples of other cultures.
Arabs use Nokia cell phones, ride BMWs, but they can wear ethnic clothes, and these Western devices and cars do not make them less Arabs or Muslims. Let's take a closer look: our neighbors friends Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan may wear Russian-European costumes with a hat or a cap without the slightest embarrassment. Why Russians can not have an iPhone, but it does not feel lower than the West?
I want to be brief, but add again. At the deepest cultural level, from television and the manner of dressing and up to how we write SMS messages - everywhere there must be a strong rejection of the West and that vile part of the Russian elite that bows to the West and declares that there is no other way than the western sample for Russia. This denial is the key maxim and perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT of the new national idea.
It will be impossible to ward off the West without a powerful cultural campaign, on the scale as huge and even more effective than Soviet propaganda in the Stalin period. Changing (or healing) the mentality of the people is a difficult thing, but paradoxically, barely noticeable, it happens all the time. It will not be possible to break the dominance of Western culture without proposing an alternative; one cannot simply forbid anything Western without offering anything in return. In fact, the prohibition of something does not work, but the proposed alternative works. Rejection of the status quo, boring liberal pop culture requires an explosion of new ideas and new alternatives in the media with the involvement of other people who complete the job.
If we say no to the MTV culture, which, like a virus, has hit Russia, such a step will create a vacuum that will be filled with new ideas. Rejecting the West as a national idea means that we will have to create a new generation of films, TV shows, books, video games and all forms of entertainment. Damn, why not invent a "Russian football"?
Some say that Russia does not have its own ideas, and therefore we cannot abandon the West. But I think that the lack of ideas takes place for the very reason that we have not abandoned the West. You can’t think of anything new when you just follow the western path, your media is filled with those who follow the western pattern. This cultural rejection of the West and the absolute, full recognition of Eurasia not as the West or the East, but as a special, unique community should be part of a national idea.
“Hold the horses!” (“Hold your horses!”)
Famous American saying
Famous American saying
But to deny every little thing that comes from liberalism or the West would be foolish. There are things worth saving. In the “pre-liberalism” world, you could be accused of crimes according to rumors and gossip of your neighbors, which you haven’t even seen, or you could have been killed by the will of a king who was born to become a king, and never worked in his life, until you unbend in the field until death. Liberalism arose for a certain reason, and to discard all its aspects would mean throwing out useful moments, such as a fair and independent court. Cultural rejection should be strong, but certain legal elements and rights can be allowed, for example, the right to remain silent (enshrined in the fifth article of the US Constitution). If you give up this right, then the government will have the opportunity (in theory) to torture before receiving the desired words from the victim. Do not go this route.
New Ideology №5 - the creation of the cult of masculinity, femininity and hero
Fighters are not born. There is a predisposition in the character, but I think that they still become fighters.
In Russia, and especially on the RuNet, we can observe the shock and horror that people experience in relation to asexual and transgender European Union, where young children hold artificial penises in some sex education classes, where the highest court in Sweden defended the right of an elderly person men masturbate in public. And all this awakens in many people pride in their lives “from the opposite” - simply because we don’t have that. I think in this sense, many feel a real superiority over Europe (for the first time since the collapse of the Union).
The more Russia rejects that which belongs to Sodom, the better it will be for her. Russia should not just say “Fuu, this is bad” about Europe, but strengthen the focus on gender roles. We can be proud of the fact that we do not live in asexual Europe, but in Russia there are many problems of gender.
I spoke with many people, and came to the conclusion that we, men living in Russia, have lost a substantial share of character. How many divorces are due to the fact that the husband simply sits at home and is hacked into computer games, or even got married just for the sake of his wife’s apartment, and so on. I think in the modern world, although we have gender differences in Russia, the roles should be more strictly and clearly defined. Patience to weak men in the state are not engaged.
Since Europe sees the future as transgender, we must revive the cult of masculinity and femininity in Russia, we need a future with clear sexual roles, which, however, will fit into the modern situation. We cannot hope for the emergence of new Russian heroes while we are playing only computer games (although it is so cool to play them) or as if little children demand a car with heated seats, because our buns can die. We also have no right to expect strong families, while men are lazy and do what they like or behave in accordance with the worst stereotypes.
Despite the fact that we all think about freedom, people need structure and strict roles of the sexes. We need to get them back, but only in the spirit of the 21 century. Someone reading these lines will certainly say that they have a secret thirst to enslave women, although in fact the opposite is true. Women in the Western world have been inspired for a long time that they should not rely on men, become men themselves. So, on the whole, women there have to work all their life, not having the support from a man, and at the same time also having children. And we still wonder why such a low birth rate in Europe! This essence of feminism does not give a woman a choice, but takes away from her the opportunity to be a mother, to show the ultimate form of femininity.
On the topic of feminism: why do feminists in the west not protect the rights of women to become mothers? Why is it absurd if a girl wants to become a professional mother and wife? Why is it bad and impossible, and why in the new national idea we should not allow women the freedom to be professional moms?
I apologize if this seems pretentious, but I believe that my thesis on strengthening gender will lead to a bright future and should be part of a national idea.
Finally, it is obvious that heroism is an important component of Russia, and heroic figures with their words and deeds, as an example to us, should also become part of a new national idea.
Synopsis of the national idea
1. Russia is sacred;
2. Replacing “freedom from” with “freedom for”;
3. The Russian national idea is not for export;
4. The government must engage in great missions approved or chosen by the people;
5. Total rejection of the West, creating a vacuum of ideas and cultures, which should be filled with new ideas or elements of cultures;
6. Respect and promotion of the forces of Russia and Russians in comparison with the weak, fragile, genderless population of the EU;
7. Creating a cult of courage, femininity and hero, which gives a new image of those who we are and who we can become, and a motive for why to do it.