Русский публицист

English articles

What are my beliefs

What are my beliefs, I will briefly describe in this article. I thought that it would be too inconvenient for readers to reveal them gradually in my articles, especially since I do not always have time for articles. Usually, when asked about my beliefs, I always answer that I am right. This is because it takes too long to explain and justify your beliefs to each person. If I described this to every inhabitant of, for example, Voronezh, and more than a million people live in Voronezh, then it would take me 180 minutes for each (approximate time of writing this article), that is, for all — 180 million hours, more than 20,500 years . And the one who asked would be waiting for my answer. Therefore, this article is needed so that both I and the questioner do not waste time. In addition, the concept of “right” is relative. For someone, the right is a fascist, for someone it is a capitalist, for someone it is a conservative. That is, the answer does not bring clarity, it only narrows the «circle of search».

I tried to cover all the necessary questions, but if I missed something, then I think that the answers to these questions will be enough to create an approximate image of my beliefs. Something I could not write in more detail or write at all because of the excessively voluminous size of the answer, please forgive me.

Am I a National Socialist?

Oddly enough, this statement is one of the most frequent. “You are a Nazi,” accusatory people write to me who did not like my beliefs, in connection with which they decided to give me a portion of insults. Basically, this is how old people write, who see everything within the framework of three beliefs: National Socialism, Communism, Liberalism. Such is the primitive system of political views. The funny thing is that they usually cannot name their beliefs, limiting themselves to the answer that they are adherents of the ideas of a certain gentleman.

I will disappoint you, I am not a National Socialist. I’m a Christian. Of course, I favor politics, except for its savage form — parliamentarism, in which the whole point lies in the division of seats in parliament and primitive polemics, as today in the Russian state and in many other countries, but it should not be higher than faith for me. Indeed, some of my ideas may be close to the ideas of the National Socialists, conservatives, monarchists and others, but I do not classify myself within the framework of politics. You can do it the way you want, it’s up to you.

Once I was an atheist, then I became a Rodnover, now I have completed my religious journey by becoming a Christian. I am neutral towards other religions, realizing that they are heresy. However, they are just as interesting to me, and sometimes I can set aside time to study another religion. I consider atheism either a manifestation of youthful maximalism, an attempt to stand out by condemning something especially revered in society, as it most often happens, or the prevailing circumstances, in connection with which a person made the wrong choice in favor of atheism.

I would like to say that I do not like the fact that because of the hatred of the Third Reich, just a raised hand can be perceived negatively. This is because narrow-minded people see in this only the so-called «ridge». Although, I remind you that this gesture was used before the Third Reich. For example, the same Roman salute used to salute another officer. Or the American Bellamy salute, which was used in the late 19th century as an accompaniment to the pledge of allegiance to the US flag. The National Socialists and Fascists did not invent this gesture, on the contrary, they used it to emphasize the connection with the past traditions of the «ancestors» of their countries. Moreover, one cannot claim the right to a gesture, this is nonsense. The right hand raised up throughout the existence of mankind meant an expression of respect for something, support for any ideas. For Christians, a raised hand meant the elevation of the spiritual world above the material. Please do not confuse with a raised hand at chest level, this gesture means repentance. This gesture is also mentioned in the Bible: “But Abraham said to the king of Sodom: I lift up my hand to the Lord God Most High, the Lord of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:22), “And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the earth raised his hand towards heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in it, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, that time would be no more” (Revelation John 10:5- 6). The raised right hand is on one of the icons depicting the holy emperor Constantine, where the cross is depicted in the form of stars. Close to the same meaning is conveyed on the icon «Ustyug Annunciation».

Why do I call myself right?

I call myself right-wing because all right-wing people share the same beliefs to some extent. Besides, thanks to just one or two words, I can generally describe my views. For people familiar with the political beliefs square, I use the phrase «upper right» to even more accurately describe the views close to me. I can’t be left. Firstly, our beliefs are too different, secondly, their ideas do not work in general, and thirdly, almost all leftists are atheists. In short: this phrase is the best option in terms of wasting time and conveying meaning.

Am I an anti-Semite?

I see no reason to hate any language group. But erroneously, only Jews are understood as Semites. I had an article about why someone may not like Jews, I call the Jews themselves either Jews or Jews, I don’t really care about their name. The word «Jew» is not an insult, nor is my use of the word an attempt to insult them. That article, all the more, is not such, it is written rather in a historical vein. Among all the peoples that exist, there is not one that I sincerely hate. Not only the representatives of the Jewish people had sinful deeds behind their backs, I understand this. And if I write about someone’s shortcomings or negative deeds that they have committed, it is not out of hatred towards them, but in order to show that they are not ideal. With the Jews themselves, or people who are only partially Jewish, I calmly communicate, without demonstrative contempt or something like that, because this will not work.

How do I feel about migrants?

I have a negative attitude to the very phenomenon of migration. In any case, this is a person who does not the best deed. If he emigrates to another country forever, then he is a kind of deserter. If he works in another country, then he is a parasite. This applies to people of all nationalities. As people, I treat them differently. In general, it doesn’t matter, except for the above points. I am wary of migrants who have been flocking to Russia en masse throughout the reign of Putin and Medvedev, because I know that in case something happens, they will be saved by the diasporas, which unties their hands. Moreover, the countries of Central Asia are not a deposit of valuable specialists. I believe that such free migration should not exist at all, entry into the country should be open to either tourists or extremely valuable personnel. And then, it is better to nurture these extremely valuable personnel at home than to take someone else’s.

My attitude towards militarism

I fully touched on this issue in the article «Милитаризм или пацифизм«. In short, I support militarism rather than pacifism, since pacifism is suicidal, especially in wartime. But I do not consider wars themselves to be a positive phenomenon; if possible, they should be avoided, and not risk people in vain. But if there is no way out, then you can not give up positions.

Patriarchy or matriarchy?

Of course, patriarchy. Society should be managed by a man, a woman can only contribute to this. The best leaders in the history of countries are men. Moreover, women are more susceptible to external influence, such is their peculiarity. Even now, when looking at men’s and feminist movements, it is clear that men’s movements are more legitimate.

My attitude towards LGBT and homosexuality

What are my beliefs about LGBT people and what are my beliefs about homosexuality? Naturally negative. Homosexuality is a deviation, not something positive, therefore it cannot be treated positively, this is absurd. I have sympathy for LGBT people, because they are on the wrong side. If they are propagandists of LGBT ideas, then I have a negative attitude towards them. The promotion of LGBT people must be fought, because it will not bring anything good either to heterosexuals or to the representatives of the LGBT movement themselves.

Socialism or capitalism?

What are my beliefs about the preferred economic system? Like any reasonable person, I choose socialism. Only not the one under communism, which does not work, but right-wing socialism. I do not consider capitalism to be right, the capitalists are pseudo-right. If capitalism were ideal, it would not turn over the centuries into a kind of mixed economy, as it is happening now. Right socialism solves all the problems of capitalism and left socialism. I don’t like capitalist monopolies, because usually they always put profit first. If the state monopoly does everything for the benefit of the state, then it is irrational to be against such a monopoly. As for the issue of competition between businesses, there is no need for it if the monopoly is state-owned. The creation of many small and medium-sized businesses is unlikely to bring more benefits than the same small and medium-sized businesses, but united in one monopoly, that is, centralized. Competition brings us not development, but enmity between businesses, respectively, and spending money on writing lies and searching for compromising information on each other, and not only. Lack of competition deprives individuality, clothes will be from only one brand? Then why are franchises successful under capitalism? Moreover, one monopoly can produce clothes under different names and logos. What difference does it make how many companies will produce clothes, if there is still a variety, especially since a growing business that has money can afford to produce a quality product. And under capitalism, he will try to get the maximum benefit by deliberately producing low-quality goods. Therefore, now, for example, many phones have a very weak battery, which does not allow the phone to work for a long time. After all, thanks to this, the capitalists will be able to sell an additional power unit for this phone.

Why nationalism?

Nationalism is a person’s love for his nation in any case, internationalism is either harm to himself for the sake of other nations, as we have now in the Russian Federation, when Putin does not mind spending money on educating Tajiks, and there are fewer and fewer budget places for Russian students ; or harm to all nations living in one state, to please the government of this state and its desires, as was the case in the USSR. Under nationalism, the desires and opinions of the indigenous nation will be taken into account first of all, and not the desires of residents of other countries and migrants who are in the territory of a foreign country only for personal gain. But this does not cancel fraternization with other peoples and cooperation, there is no talk of any total enmity with everyone, as the opponents of nationalism could once again say, only lying about it.

Assimilation or multiculturalism?

Naturally, assimilation. Multiculturalism is often an attempt to accommodate completely different people in the same house. All these tales of diversity as a benefit and other nonsense will always turn into conflicts because of differences. People will never stop uniting according to the principle of nationality, only if they have not lost their national self-consciousness. If it is lost, then such a nation will soon cease to exist. Therefore, it is wiser not to allow multiculturalism. In the case of the Russian Federation, it is possible to create national republics if there are none, and the nation itself does not have its own state. Multiculturalism will be beneficial only to the government: migrants will vote for the one who allowed them to come and improve their situation, and when necessary, it will be possible to set the indigenous population against them so that they do not resent the behavior of the government.

Why am I against federalism?

The division into regions, cities, and so on are part of the state hierarchy, they don’t really affect anything. But when, in fact, the state is not a single state, but a union of states, then this formation cannot be considered a single state. Such an entity is nothing more than a union. And any union can break up. Why is there a union, if even in a single state there is such a thing as separatism? Such a division divides not only the state, but also people in its different parts. It can even come to real hatred between people of the same nation who live in different parts of a federal state. Ukraine is a good example. The Bolsheviks told the Russian inhabitants of the south-west of the former Russia that they were a separate nation, gave them a small semblance of culture, their own dialect of the Russian language, as a result, NATO was able to continue their work and even set «Ukrainians» against other Russians.

Democracy or authoritarianism?

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are bad only when the ruler himself is bad. Democracy is always bad. More often than not, democracy is just a mask that politicians on the left put on when they play freedom, but in reality they have selective democracy — they accept the left to participate in the game, while they prohibit the right. I will never believe that the majority can always make the best choice. Moreover, democracy focuses not on the quality of choice, but on the principle of “freedom”. It turns out something like: «Yes, we made a terrible choice, but democratic.»

Why am I a racist?

I do not believe in the equality of races, as well as in the equality of absolutely all people, because this is complete absurdity. They did not go through similar paths of development in order to be equal, similar paths are not possible. From the point of view of law and other nonsense, of course, they may be equal, but from the point of view of history, biology and other areas, they are not. I devoted the article “All races are equal?” to this topic, and the article “Racism as a doctrine of the difference between races” to racism itself. Naturally, inequality is not a justification for hatred or even love for other races, this is a difference, not a reason. If you have any personal scores with representatives of other races or you like their culture, then it is, in any case, your business to hate them or love them, but this must be justified. Racism is about the difference between races, not about hatred of other races, it is just a lie of the communists and other leftists. This word in a negative context was one of the first to be used by the communist Trotsky to discredit his opponents, giving it this very context.

Why am I against globalism?

If we talk about the problem of hatred of other races, then globalism has noticeably bypassed racism in this regard. Globalism erases these very features between races, turning them into an amorphous mass of capitalist patterns. Globalism makes countries dependent on other countries. Such dependence will force you to submit to someone else’s will, because the country will de facto become a vassal without its own production. Countries are overgrown with megacities of the same appearance, like anthills, everything becomes aimed at maximizing profit. National architecture is forgotten or eroded as much as possible for the sake of the opportunity to populate the largest possible number of people, using the smallest possible area. In completely different countries, the same manufacturers operate, nothing interesting. The concept of a nation is replaced by the term «citizen», a person no longer needs to remember his roots, he only needs to bring maximum benefit to the state.

«Progress» or tradition?

In such matters, progress most often means the rejection of traditions and morality, the preference for degradation and licentiousness. Traditions cannot harm science and development in any way, on the contrary, they will only give benefits. Sex change, teaching about gender and other nonsense do not bring any development, they just waste time and divert attention from really important problems.

What are my goals?

I talked about what my beliefs are in general, I will summarize by talking about my goals. My main goal is to promote and propagate my ideas to other people, because I think they are really true and useful. It is clear that in parallel I write criticism of opposing ideas, because I consider them wrong and harmful.