Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром

Collapse of Three Worlds or Dmitry Medvedev Again as Conservative Revolutionary

Collapse of Three Worlds or Dmitry Medvedev Again as Conservative Revolutionary
Eugeny Ihlov 10.02.2009

The first time I had to write about Dmitry Medvedev's performances as about symptoms of inevitable reinforcement with fascines of Putin's mode on September, 3rd. Then my publicistic muse was inspired by the following performance of "guarantor": "On the night of August, 8th, 2008 they made a choice in Tbilisi. Saakashvili chose genocide for solving of the political problems. He with own hand crossed out all hopes of peace existence of the Ossets, Abkhazians and Georgians in one state" (August, 26th signing the decree about recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia).

I considered the thesis as a sign of recognition of the nation as integral carrier of certain ethical properties, in the given case - impossibility of peace existence of one ethnos with others. It means adherence of ideology of the right radicalism (in other words of "conservative revolution") - last stage of evolution in direction to reinforcement with fascines.

Unfortunately, life added new argument. Acting on February, 2nd in the Kremlin on celebration of a new head of the Russian Orthodox Church, more precisely, on "reception on behalf of the President of Russia in honour of bishops - participants of Church Council" the guarantor of constitutional laws and freedom of the secular multinational democratic state said literally the following: "in essence of all our achievements and victories, representations about confident development of the state in the future moral force of the Russian nation, belief in ideals of good, love and justice lies. Russian Orthodox Church is a source of this force throughout many centuries. There's no doubt henceforth it will be the same". At that these words were stressed on the presidential site as the main. Thus, he exposed a number of propaganda myths.

The first "myth". Consists in that someone who doesn't belong to the Russian Orthodox Church could belong to the Russian nation, to be more precise - the one who doesn't draw "moral senses" upon it (dwellers, non-Christians, non-Orthodox, atheists - sorry, Stanislav Markelov - shouldn't worry).

The second "myth". The Russian nation can have other source of moral force, rather than the Russian Orthodox Church.

The third "myth". That there was such community - the Soviet people. There was centuries-old Russian nation (drawing upon ROC). Other nations were temporarily attached to it (not drawing upon ROC moral forces). Then those nations deserted. By the way, at the same time the third president of Russia answered a question about the reasons of "the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the XX century" (in the version of the second president of Russia it's disintegration of the USSR). There is the Russian nation gaining victories and achievements on the basis of orthodox moral force and there are other nations gaining no victories because of absence of ROC, i.e. the source of moral force.

From editorial board: The questions given by Eugeny Ihlov, unfortunately, concern not only and exclusively to last board but also to all previous including Boris Yeltsin's epoch, not mentioning Vladimir Putin's time which, by the way, doesn't end with approach of Dmitry Medvedev's board.

Yeltsin's epoch began as negation of all-union start-up in favour of the Russian Federation - i.e. still federation but already exclusively the Russian one. However, in the Russian Federation it was masked more or less by international rhetoric whereas universally all "democracies" on the post-Soviet territory from more or less European ones in Baltic to absolutely non-European in the Central Asia were created as national and nationalist - all the rest were offered "suitcase-station-Russia". As a result no non-European Post-Soviet state came near to the democratic standards accepted in the countries where word "democratic" was written without inverted commas. While quite European-like Baltic republics also didn't do without apartheid and political reprisals. But by the end of Yeltsin's epoch frankly not politically correct formulas like "skibby", "colored", Ukrainian and so forth entered life of the RF.

Vladimir Putin came as strong leader and de facto abolished federation. Even "presidents" of subjects of "federation" are being appointed now in the Kremlin. All 8 years of Putin's board there was war on Caucasus in which course the Russian society was definitively disaccustomed to tolerance and at the same time pupated in own borders, not claiming for anything. It is possible to say that Putin buried the Soviet union in souls of the Russian homagers. The Russian Orthodox Church appeared to be the only structure uniting the post-Soviet territory.

Dmitry Medvedev continued Putin's business for the first time in history of the CIS having carried out successful war against former union republic. The death of patriarch Alex II opened possibility for liquidation of ROC as "all-union" church and reduction of its initial territory to the limits of borders of the Russian Federation. ROC had chance to elect Kiev metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) as patriarch by that keeping polycentrality of the Russian Orthodox Church, staying of the Russian Church over the state but they failed to avoid temptation and quite "Kremlin elder" Cyril became the patriarch. No presidents except the Russian one were present on enthronement.


All conclusions made by Eugeny Ihlov become simply inevitable judging from it - if ROC is purely the church of the Russian Federation, then the ones not belonging to "the state" faith automatically if not got defeated in their rights then become not quite reliable. The Russian Federation in general has a problem with sources of moral force, that's why such source as ROC - for luck. The Soviet people announced to be simply "a history error", temporal insanity of primordially orthodox people-icon-bearer and tsar-adorer.

Owing to it the charge of the present mode in fascist tendencies is a flattery not deserved by it - it is necessary to construct minimum bourgeois state at first before fascism. We observe neofeudalism at its finest with such archaic form of power as principate. All "fascist" features of this mode - in essence pure аntiquity, feudal orders in epoch of computers and weapon of mass defeat. Hence pre-Pertine division on orthodox and non-Orthodox, Russian and foreigners, ours and not ours.


It's ok, having such temps to the next board we with Eugeny Ihlov, if we will live up to it, will begin arguing already about advantages of freeborn in comparison with libertines and also whether orthodox emperor should be the head of church or only its father and benefactor.

Аnatoly Baranov

Читайте также:
In other::