EMRO about Russian nationalism and national movement I.I. Strelkova
Record of the conversation of the ROVS Chairman I. B. Ivanova with Gleb Khodkevich, editor of the magazine PereklichkaGleb Chodkiewicz: We decided to devote today's conversation to the organization of the patriotic community. The topic is very painful, since in the past since the beginning of the Russian Time of Troubles, many attempts have been made to rally the patriots of Russia into a single organization - and all these attempts have failed. Why it happens? What are the main problems facing the Russian patriotic community on the path to unity? What is the future of patriots of Russia? One way or another, many are trying to find answers to these questions, but this does not prevent Russian patriots from stepping on the old rake again and again ...
Igor Borisovich, your book on the All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People (VSHSON) and stories Russian national movement in 1960-e-1980-s. The topic touched in it aroused great interest. How do you think how relevant is this topic today?
Ib Ivanov: The book "Russian Underground" - both of its publications - was published in small editions, but judging by the incoming responses, it was keenly interested by professional historians and ordinary readers.
The fact is that today many people, including those who have a good education and are interested in history, know almost nothing about the history of the Russian national movement. Some generally believe that the Russian movement is a phenomenon characteristic only of our days, and Russian nationalism appeared somewhere in the beginning of 1990's.
In fact, our national movement has a long history. But if about the Slavophiles of the XIX century and the Union of the Russian People of the beginning of the XX-th heard almost everything, then about the later stages, few people know today. But the Russian national movement also existed during the Civil War - represented by the White movement, which was organized precisely in opposition to international, Russophobic Bolshevism. After the end of 1917-1922 armed struggle, it existed in the White emigration, right up to its physical end at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. In the USSR, representatives of this movement were thrown into prisons and concentration camps, and operated in the deep underground. In the 1960-1970-s, the Russian national movement was ideally headed by such “bison” as Igor Vyacheslavovich Ogurtsov and Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn. In 1980, “Memory” and “Russian Banner” appeared ... I tried to tell about all this in the monograph “Russian Underground”, relying on little-known materials, testimonies of participants, as well as documents not previously entered into scientific circulation.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: Why is it so important today to know the history of the Russian national movement, including the period of the 1960-1980-s of the last century?
Ib Ivanov: Because now Russia is once again facing the choice of its path, in one of its key points, and not knowing history, it is impossible to move forward in the right direction. In this sense, the experience of VSHSON is invaluable, it must be studied by all patriots. Otherwise, instead of the present National movement, the Russians will, to the delight of the enemies, create stillborn pseudo-patriotic simulacra or sects that lead away, which, unfortunately, often happens.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: That is, today we are dealing with a distorted historical perception of the concept of Russian patriotism. The history of the Russian national movement in the twentieth century is a blank spot for the overwhelming majority of our citizens. We monitored the reaction of people on the web to your book - and their main question was: “What is VSHSON in general?”
Ib Ivanov: VSHSON - the brightest page of the Russian national movement in the Khrushchev and Brezhnev era. And the fact that even those who consider themselves Russian patriots have not heard about this organization today is explicable. After all, Yuri Andropov, who at one time headed the KGB of the USSR, considered Russian nationalism - “Russianists” - the main danger for the totalitarian communist system. By the personal order of Andropov, all information about the VSKhSON was classified. In the Soviet Union it was even forbidden to mention the existence of this organization.
There is, unfortunately, another reason why the Russians today know almost nothing about the history of their national movement — the low educational and cultural level of today's youth. Solzhenitsyn at one time lamented the fact that there was no intelligentsia in the USSR, but only Soviet educators. Today, the situation is even worse - in the Russian Federation, the very educated people are gradually disappearing: the purchased, forced diplomas of the current “bachelors” and “specialists” quite often cover up the inconsistency of semi-educated people who are narrow in horizons; modern higher education, unfortunately, is not worth much.
I happened to work a lot and communicate with representatives of the Russian White emigration - now, alas, already gone to a better world. Some of them proudly called themselves Russian nationalists. It was a real Russian intelligentsia, received a brilliant upbringing, extremely well-read, imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, love of national Russian culture and Historical Russia. Real Russian people. These were all the old officers of the EMRO. They not only knew how to hold weaponbut also perfectly understood the most complex issues of Russian history, the vicissitudes of politics ...
I was also impressed by the communication with representatives of the national movement 1960-1970-s, “Russianists”, such as the writer Leonid Borodin, orientalists Mikhail Sado, Igor Klochkov, the Africanist Vyacheslav Platonov and others. Not to mention the brilliant Russian thinker and the true national hero - Igor Ogurtsov!
I do not want to offend anyone, but against the background of this brilliant pleiad of the Russian movement of the recent past - real fighters and intellectuals - the current so-called “nationalists” are, as it were, softer to say, people of a fundamentally different format. All these skinheads, zigzuyuschy Natsik, neo-pagans decorated with curls, European nationalists, hit by Stalinism in the head of national-Bolsheviks, operettochnye ryazhennye in black uniforms or uniforms "a la White Guard" (simulacra created for every taste and color!) level parodies of the Russian national movement.
I will give an example. Can you imagine that at the beginning of the twentieth century, with its highest level of educated segments of society and the centuries-old spiritual experience of the people, a neo-pagan subculture that is being actively implanted today in the Russian Federation and Ukraine could arise and develop in Russia?
Gleb Chodkiewicz: This, of course, is difficult to imagine. In the Russian Empire, built on the Christian tradition, it was impossible.
Ib Ivanov: And I can not imagine. Because the most "dark" Russian peasant in tsarist Russia would turn away from paganism with disgust as if it was a foul story. But some of the current Russians - and this, do not forget, the children of atheists, grandchildren and great-grandsons of God-fighting people - easily swallow the primitive hook of the neo-pagan subculture, because behind their shoulders, like their parents-materialists, there is no longer a real spiritual experience. Seventy-four years of the Bolshevik sovereignty were not in vain - the ruin remained in their heads.
It is not by chance that I speak of neo-paganism as a subculture, and not as a religion. Because, seriously, this movement cannot be called religion. There are punks, emo, goths, there are neo-pagans ... The difference is that neo-paganism is not just a subculture, but another western Russophobic project, wrapped in a pseudo-historical wrapper and purposefully "sharpened" for the destruction of Christian foundations in Russia.
The national policy of the Soviet-democratic model carried out in the Russian Federation, which is not supported by the majority of the population, clearly goes to the detriment of Russia, and in combination with a low level of education, upbringing, culture, lack of knowledge of its own history, and, of course, conscious influence from the anti-Russian forces - this gives rise to in modern Russia, the most perverted forms of pseudo-nationalism.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: 28 May, the notorious "January 25 Committee" announced its reformatting into the All-Russian National Movement under the direction of Igor Strelkov (OND, or ORND). In this regard, the readers of Roll Call ask what your opinion is about this movement?
Ib Ivanov: The EMRO, from the very beginning of these initiatives, was not supported by K-25 for principled ideological reasons. And for the same reasons, does not participate in OND.
Yes, this movement has a bright leader, but in addition to the leader, any political organization should have the appropriate team and its unifying idea. Moreover, such an idea for which it would be worth fighting, and such a team on which you can rely. And with this, the former “Committee 25 January” - big problems. I'll try to explain.
Initially, K-25 included two ideologically multidirectional groups. These are, firstly, the Western democrats under the umbrella of "European Russian nationalism." Secondly, the Stalinists. True, the head of the National Bolsheviks Limonov quickly left the ranks of the Committee, but there were other leftists in it, for whom 1917 year - the year of our national catastrophe and the beginning of the genocide of the Russian people - is the greatest holiday. A small group of neo-pagans subsequently joined these two main groups.
It is clear that with such a composition, nothing in the traditional sense of the Russian national can obviously turn out. Indeed, throughout its history, the national Russian movement was forced to death to fight on two fronts. On the one hand - against Western liberalism, on the other - against communism (by the way, also brought to Russia from the West). And the All-Russian National Movement is in fact an association, under the “national” sign, of representatives of two old anti-national movements — Western liberals and communists. You need to call things by their proper names. Presence I.I. Strelkova at the head of this association does not change the situation.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: When the “25 January Committee” was still being created, a startling statement was made that allegedly “red and white are united under its roof”. For us it is clear that such a union is impossible in principle, and the very idea of a “red-white” union is absurd and provocative. But those who promote this idea-refer to the Militia of New Russia, where, allegedly, for the first time, people of very different political views were able to unite.
Ib Ivanov: White did not enter K-25. And they could not enter without changing their ideological principles. Because the contract between whites and reds in the name of the defense of the Fatherland is as absurd as the contract between the priest and the devil in the name of the defense of the Church. We talked about this at the beginning of 2016, when Gennady Zyuganov came up with the provocative idea of concluding an agreement between red and white. I believe that we then gave a very clear answer to this question and to repeat unnecessarily.
As for the comparison with Novorossia, it is not correct. Sadly, this page, which is heroic for Russian volunteering, is already becoming an object for manipulation.
I would like to remind you that the Militia of the 2014 year clearly positioned its non-partisan character. I emphasize - not the all-party, namely, the non-partisan, that is, truly national Russian. That is why it took place. And here, if the Militia, God forbid, depended on parties and political organizations, there would be no Novorossia at all. So everyone would remain sitting on the sofas, biting into each other ...
The militias did not enter into any political agreements between themselves and, moreover, did not give out their ideological views anywhere. They went to the Militia not to engage in politics, but to physically protect the Russian people. Therefore, in politics, it will not work "as in the Militia." Protecting people, helping civilians suffering from war, wounded or captured - is one thing. In such cases, party tickets no one asks anyone: this is a military, Christian, and just a human duty. It is quite another thing - the conclusion of political unions. Moreover, the unions with the bearers of the criminal communist ideology or outright enemies of Russia from the “liberal opposition”.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: The All-Russian National Movement published its declaration, which, in my opinion, contains a number of correct provisions, but much in it seems unacceptable for Russian patriots. What is your impression of this document?
Ib Ivanov: Indeed, the OND declaration contains quite a few important points, the need to translate them into reality leaves no doubt. For example, conducting a competent migration policy or changing a clearly defective Soviet territorial system. Some of the provisions of the declaration are borrowed from the VSHSON Program, such as declaring a policy of returning property taken away from the people and creating a middle class. And so on.
But it is impossible to identify the OND declaration and the traditional course of the Russian national movement. The OND Declaration is a paper-based compromise between the Reds and the Liberals. Everything else follows directly from this.
Take, for example, the aforementioned OND thesis already mentioned: “We’ll return the property illegally alienated during the privatization of 90's to the citizens of Russia.” Did the people have property before 1990's? Did not have! Because the property was not taken away from him at all in the nineties, according to neobolshevitsky propagandists, it was taken away after the 1917 year. They took away everything, including the land, including the most laboring groups of the population - millions of peasants and Cossacks. So the very topical issue of restitution in Russia is much more complicated.
It is clear that such distortions in the OND declaration are a concession to the K-25 communist wing. But on the whole - it is difficult not to notice this - the liberal-democratic values were laid down in the ideological basis of the movement led by Strelkov. Those "human rights" ...
Gleb Chodkiewicz: Speaking of Bolshevism and liberalism. The head of the OND “state structure” declaration states the preservation of the principles of fiscal federalism, equality of regions, etc. But this, in fact, is also the legacy of 1917 of the year, when a federalist device was artificially imposed on our country. Under its cover today, preparations are being made for the dismemberment of Russia along internal regional borders with the support of local separatist elites.
Ib Ivanov: Yes, and specific examples can be continued. For example, a purely democratic demand to ensure access to political power and the media to all political forces. We must not forget that there is a war going on - and not only informational - and among the political forces there are clearly anti-Russian ones. And if the authorities really want to defend the country, they are obliged to take tough measures to protect its security. In particular, including directly denying access to political power and the media all the destructive forces.
Or another popular slogan in the liberal-democratic environment: “end the blocking of websites on the Internet.” What does it mean? Tomorrow someone, having seized power, will give everyone the freedom to work on the Web, including ukronatsistam, satanists, wahhabis, sodomites and other extremists and perverts?
The leader of the movement, Igor Strelkov, undoubtedly understands such things. I remember that in the summer of 2014, at the initiative of the Political Department of the Militia, in one fell swoop, twenty local television channels were discontinued in Donetsk at once. This was done because they allowed Russophobic propaganda and, to a greater or lesser extent, engaged in subversive informational work in the capital of the DPR. It was impossible not to pay attention to this, and twenty television channels are not some sites. What kind of abolition of censorship in general can be talked about, in conditions when the “two-tongues” have actually announced the campaign against Russia again? Censorship must firmly prevent the spread of enemy propaganda.
In general, the declaration we are considering is “sharpened” under one of the factions of the former K-25 - Western liberals who advocate European-style “nationalism” - with democracy, reference points to the “first world countries”, as they call them, and, of course, without all Christianity. As far as I know, work is currently underway on introducing curtsies in the declaration towards the communist wing of the UPM.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: Does this mean that people and organizations that express a commitment to a liberal democratic or communist project should be considered as being behind the patriotic community?
Ib Ivanov: Actually, they have always been behind the national movement. Liberal democracy and communism are born in the West as early as the 18th and 19th centuries and have twin brothers who hate each other, whose services the enemies of Russia used more than once to weaken and disintegrate it. And they still use it - alternately or in tandem.
When the Liberal Democrats today advocate “Russian European nationalism,” modern “European monarchism,” and so on, the key word is “European.” And behind the bright and for someone attractive sign of “Europeanism” there is something completely different from what many expect to see. Do not forget that Europe today is subject to the United States. In practice, “Europeanization” will mean for Russia - the end of any hope for state sovereignty, the rejection of any influence on the territories that were part of the Empire and the USSR, the rejection of natural monopolies, the expansion of regional powers, etc. In other words, the “Europeanism” promoted by the liberals — for Russia — is DEATH.
And it doesn’t matter at all what kind of wrapper the liberals are wrapping Europeanism - “national”, “social”, etc. In 2014, the Orthodox-Slavic civilization began to finish off with the “European choice” of Ukraine. By the way, some of the founders and activists of K-25 - OND in 2014, very actively supported the Kiev Maidan and the Ukrainian "nationalists".
Therefore, for the Russian movement, liberals, even with the prefix "national", are not easy, as you put it, "overboard." They are on the other side of the barricade. For patriots, political union with them is as absurd as the “red and white union”. Such political ecumenism, based on the principles of the “Overton windows”, can only lead to a blurring of traditional patriotic principles and the subsequent replacement of the system of Russian patriotic coordinates with a destructive ideology of a politically omnivorous tolerant general human.
Please note - in the program document of the movement, which positions itself all-Russian and national, there is not a word about Christianity, about Faith and Orthodoxy. But even Dostoevsky argued that a person is as Russian as he is Orthodox, without a faith, a Russian is a rubbish, not a person. Remember the basic principles of VSHSON?
Gleb Chodkiewicz: Yes, the Christianization of culture, the Christianization of politics, the Christianization of the social sphere.
Ib Ivanov: And also the Christianization of the economy - which is very important. That Christianization has always been the basis of the Russian national movement. And the UNM, judging by the declaration published by 28 in May, proposes to create an all-Russian movement, completely devoid of the basis of Russianness. But after all, from the "generalities" without Russianness - not far from the common people. By the way, it is very significant that the ignoring of Christianity is one of those points on which all the “factions” of the UPM came together - both the Communists, and the Democrats, and the Gentiles.
In general, the UPM is now an organization built on ideas and principles that are directly opposed to those that the Russian national movement has traditionally defended, including in Novorossia. After all, the Militia 2014 of the year, unexpectedly for everyone, and became such a natural embodiment of the Russian spirit - a truly Russian national movement. At that time, they spoke about “Europeanism” only from the opposite side of our trenches, but every militiaman knew and believed the words of the Order of the Commander, who announced the Militia “The Orthodox Army that proudly serves Christ and his people, and not the golden calf.” Raising such a banner, it was impossible to move away from it.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: But after all, if we add a section on attitudes towards Orthodoxy to the declaration of the UNM, this will not change anything. Because it is not enough just to say about Orthodoxy and its place in the Russian state. The Russian National Movement has always put Christian values at its core. And based on Christian values, OND will destroy its own - the liberal-communist one.
Every state must have a goal of existence. In my opinion, in the program of the Russian national movement the first line should state the purpose of Russia's existence as the Third Rome - a state that performs the function of Restraining from evil at all levels of our life: social, spiritual, informational, cultural, scientific and political. Moreover, performing the function of Restraining as in its own territory, but also offering this civilizational alternative to the whole world.
If not, then the house is being built without a cornerstone in the foundation - in fact, on sand. On such sand, the Westernizers in the XIX century, and the socialists in the late XIX - early XX centuries, and the communists in the last century tried to build their theories ...
Ib Ivanov: Generally, declaring such things as “freedoms” and “human rights”, we must remember that it was under these slogans that the Russian Empire was destroyed and thrown into the abyss of civil war in the 1917 year; in 1991, the USSR was dismembered under these slogans. Whenever somewhere shouting about freedoms and protecting human rights, the mechanism of disintegration, distemper and war is triggered. About “rights and freedoms”, about “down with censorship,” Russia heard in 1917, in 2014, Ukraine heard. On the Independence, too, they shouted about social justice and the fight against the oligarchs ...
Yes, the regime of Yanukovych was thoroughly corrupt, unfair, and demanded reform. And what replaced it as a result of a coup d'état - the new February revolution? Even more anti-people, a hundred times worse, bloody regime. And already under the direct control of the West. It threatens the Russian Federation. In the Russian Federation today, too, there is a socially unfair regime that is not viable from a historical perspective and requires urgent radical reform. But at the same time with severe internal problems, the external threat has become extremely acute: the West is in a hurry to demolish a geopolitical rival - Russia, and with it the entire Orthodox-Slavic civilization.
If these plans of the notorious world behind the scenes succeed, then a miracle, alas, will not happen: the current regime will be replaced by an unfair and noble knight on a white horse. A further prospect is only the Russian equivalent of some puppet Poroshenko with a civil war, the final dismemberment of Russia and the redistribution of historic Russian territories with Western management. The scenario of 1917, 1991 and 2014 will be repeated once again, but with even greater sacrifices.
It is important to understand that in this struggle liberalism and communism are not allies of National Russia, but precisely those tried and tested mechanisms with the help of which it will be carried out (ordinary militants, as usual, will use blindly). For the West, no matter which of these two projects will bring Russia to collapse, the variant of their union is also quite suitable. World backstage will applaud standing and the final victory of liberal democracy in Russia, and the victory of communism. The only option that doesn’t suit the world behind the scenes — and the West is now most worried about it — is Russia’s return to the natural historical path that the Russian Empire had before 1917.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: With questions of the past and present, we figured out. But the question of the future of Russian patriots and the whole patriotic community remains unresolved. Criticism alone, as well as endless software projectors, cannot solve this issue. What, for example, can the Russian All-Military Union offer itself in this regard?
Ib Ivanov: The idea. The very same, historically justified, national idea, for which it is worth fighting. The EMRO for the 92 year of its existence, for natural reasons, could not, of course, save its regiments and divisions, from the mere names of which the enemies of Russia once trembled. But the strength and importance of the ROVS is not at all in the military component (although in Novorossia, a small group of Union officers and local volunteers who joined the ROVS, fought extremely well). We have preserved what can be more important now than regiments and divisions - the Idea of Russian Statehood, based on traditional basic principles, and direct historical continuity from the Russian Imperial Army and the White movement.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: Here, probably, it will not be superfluous to remind you about which basic principles you are talking about?
Ib Ivanov: For these 92, the All-Military Union has already said everything that is needed. The fundamental ideological attitudes of the national movement are perfectly formulated in the works of one of the ideologists of the ROVS, the Russian philosopher, Professor Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin. He who has ears, let him hear.
As for the mentioned principles, 20 February 2016, they were once again clearly named in a brief, but with a very specific content of the document under the heading: "The oldest national organization of Russia on the basic traditionally-patriotic principles". Today it is the most up-to-date program document not only for ROVS, but, probably, for all Russian patriots. Because only on this basis - the basis of traditional patriotic values - can a genuine Russian National Movement be built. And only on this basis is the revival of the Russian State possible.
Gleb Chodkiewicz: How do you think, who among today's politicians could unite around them all truly patriotic forces?
Ib Ivanov: I am not a soothsayer, and it is not given to me to know in advance who of the political figures, whether acting or still in the shadows, is destined to raise Russia from its knees, restore its sovereignty and return the country to the rank of a Single, Great, Free Power. But I firmly know WHAT this leader will be.
The real unifier of the people will be the one who will help him return to the natural historical path. Who will reject all alien scum in the form of communism, democracy, Nazism and other alien false doctrines, and instead of all this, return to Russians their traditional basic patriotic values - those values that allowed Great Russia to survive and develop successfully, growing with lands, wealth and people more than 1000 years .
This is the leader of all Russian people, for whom the concepts of Faith and Fatherland, without any superficial adjectives, is not an empty sound — they will fully support both their experience and their bayonets and their hearts, and the Russian Spring has shown that such people in Russia are very lot.
- Chairman of EMRO Captain I.B. Ivanov; G.S. Chodkiewicz
- http://pereklichka.livejournal.com/768372.html
Information