Russian? March!

If there is no water in the tap, then someone must be to blame, says modern folklore. If there is water in the tap, and even at the required temperature, then the population’s requirements for its quality usually increase. For example, I would like the liquid to smell not like bleach, but like roses. Likewise, the growth of demands on power against the backdrop of the socio-economic situation is invariably increasing. The Tocqueville effect is from theoretical political science, and nothing can be done about it. At the same time, the enemies responsible for the fact that the water in the tap does not meet the needs of the Russian people remain the same. The remedy for these enemies, and indeed for any kind of trouble, was found a long time ago. When something doesn't suit more than one person, do you need to gather everyone and go for it? protest march.

We are talking about an action in anticipation of which law enforcement officers in almost all major cities of the country are thrilled: “Russian March”. It seems that he plans to unite everyone under his banner: from State Duma deputies from the “People’s Will” faction and the “Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers” to, God forgive me, pagans who are confident that the true Russian deity is called Perun.

There is clearly something wrong with ideology here. We can remind banner bearers who call themselves Orthodox that Christianity, from the very beginning acting as a revelation of God and representing an absolute religion, claimed to spread throughout the world (Matthew 28.19). It is for this reason that the Roman Empire, having understood and accepted many pagan beliefs different from the dominant cult, resisted the spread of Christianity to the last. After all, Christianity, from the point of view of its followers, expresses the absolute truth and, as a result, excludes all other religions and cults.

Even the living classic of Russian nationalism, Gennady Shimanov, in an article on Russian national ideology, says that “joint meetings of Orthodox Christians, pagans and atheists with the aim of creating a common national ideology are doomed to failure.” He quite rightly asserts that “national ideology is like a plant growing from one grain, and not from different grains. It is the sum of ideas growing from one main idea, from one worldview.”

The organizers of the “Russian March” gather Christians, atheist communists, and pagans into one column and call on them to “first defeat the main enemy, who wants to destroy our common Motherland, and only then start a dispute between the Slavs.” And all the organizers of the action are trying to unite all the oppositionists who have nothing in common with each other, except perhaps a rabid hatred of the current government.

The goal, strictly speaking, is understandable if you know the state of the modern pseudo-Orthodox nationalist movement in Russia. Those who wish can take two different newspapers of the corresponding focus and read them “diagonally”. In addition to the inevitable cries about the “Zionist-Judeo-Masonic-Fascist conspiracy,” you can find a lot of publications there devoted to the successful search for various provocateurs and mercenaries in one’s own environment.

In short, three paradigms of thinking and action oppose each other. On the one hand, these are “respectable nationalists” who call for “singling out from all ethnic groups living in the state those who created and maintain the existence of the state.” On the other hand, modern nationalists constantly accuse each other of provoking a mass crime, “a Russian revolt, in order to then brutally suppress it, destroying the best people of Russia.” There are also centrists who proclaim themselves to be the successors of the pre-revolutionary “Black Hundreds”. Despite the fact that the ideas of nationalism at the everyday level find mass support among the population, anyone who wants to use it for their political purposes must first unite these “sworn friends.”

“All questions to Yandex, all answers to Rusmarsh.org - such self-made advertising can be seen in the Moscow metro. Oddly enough, but having thoroughly studied the official website of March, I still did not find the answer to one of the main questions - what is the purpose of the action? When the miners are knocking their helmets on the Gorbaty Bridge - this is understandable. People are demanding wages. Even if we take into account that the competitors of their mining company paid them twice as much for coming to Moscow.

But where did the “Russians” march and why, what do they demand? In an appeal to Moscow Mayor Luzhkov, “People's Will” deputies claim that the purpose of the action is “to remind of the importance of caring for Russian history, to honor the memory of all those who fought against the foreign occupation of our country.” A visitor to one nationalist forum defined the purpose of the event much more briefly and more clearly for the common people, although less censoriously: “The goal of the “Russian March” is not to kneel before someone, but to put the Enemies of the Russian People in cancer.” It seems that by “enemies of the Russian people” such an average nationalist understands all those who are against the “Russian March”. And lately it has been mainly official representatives of state power who have been speaking out against the “Russian March”. Is the circle closed?

The result of this, albeit superficial, analysis of the ideology of the “Russian March” leads us to a simple and natural conclusion: the march is a purely political technology action. Some force, perhaps external to the “grassroots” nationalist movement, needs to bring together all the disparate groups of this kind. Like a good detective story, I want to ask the question: who benefits from this?

Well, let's look at the consequences of holding a mass rally with slogans that can be called nationalistic. As part of the organizing committee of the March we see State Duma deputy Dmitry Rogozin, the former leader of Rodina. This party, with its electoral success, proved its political liquidity even without hints of nationalism. Dmitry Olegovich was squeezed out of the leading position in Rodina. After this, the party he once headed merged with the united left “A Just Russia”, which, under the leadership of the Speaker of the Federation Council of Russia Mironov, aspires to become the second ruling party. At the same time, Rogozin remains a member of Rodina, and many of his party comrades remain personally loyal only to him. Therefore, the Moscow young “Rodina” people announced that on the eve of the march an alternative mass action “Against leftist madness and right-wing imbecility”, while their comrades from St. Petersburg announced their full participation in the “Russian March” itself. So, the attitude of the “Rodintsy” towards the march is already creating a real split in the ranks of this proto-party and problems in party building for A Just Russia.

However, the author of these lines is far from thinking that the whole story with the “Russian March” was started only to put a spoke in the wheels of the “current left.” Let's take a broader look at the situation around the stock. The only force that openly and honestly intends to oppose this event is, it seems, the “democratic” opposition. An action in memory of human rights activist Nikolai Girenko, “March Against Hatred,” has already taken place in St. Petersburg. In Moscow everything will be tougher. On the way to those marching on Bolotnaya Square, the leader of the Union of Right Forces, Nikita Belykh, and his comrades in the right opposition will hold an anti-fascist rally. They say that the participation of Boris Nemtsov, who together with Dmitry Rogozin several years ago welcomed the victory of the “Orange Revolution” on the Maidan, is expected. Will old friends really meet not only at the Democratic Alternative debate, but also in a street clash?

It is interesting that anti-fascist democrats, when announcing their action, actively use the significant events of recent months. For example, in her comments, the leader of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Lyudmila Alekseeva, notes that the recently murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya was included in the list of “enemies of the Russian people” posted on LiveJournal and accompanied by the slogan “It is not consistency that is important, it is the fact of liquidation that is important.” By the way, Alekseeva stated that this list was compiled and posted on the official website of one of the organizers of the “Russian March”, State Duma deputy Nikolai Kuryanovich, the third person in the LDPR.

Here it is appropriate to remember that the propaganda of a number of “right” and “left” opposition parties and movements is called the LDPR party, receiving direct instructions from the Kremlin. And one more thing: if you look at the official website of many march participants, for example, the “Russian Order” movement, you can find out that Russian nationalists, in order to achieve their goals and “establish Russian Order in Russia, are ready to cooperate with all sympathizing individuals and organizations, including and with government ones."

As a result, if the authorities use force to oppose the Russian March, they will receive a massacre in the center of several large cities and corresponding coverage of the “suffocation of rights and freedoms” in the opposition press. And if the “March” takes place without any special incidents, then the authorities will be accused of sympathizing with nationalists. A win-win?

Many political scientists are studying the manifestations of the so-called anti-Russian project, or simply put, a system of measures taken by the geopolitical competitors of the Russian state in order to leave our country on the sidelines in the modern world. Recently, these experts are increasingly saying that the “anti-Russian project” has changed the main direction of its activities. Foreign-supported organizations that propagate the values ​​of so-called American democracy in Russia are being phased out everywhere. They are being replaced by projects to develop the “national self-awareness” of Russians.

At the same time, the ethnically Russian target of the new generation of humanitarian programs is being told that her self-development and creative growth are hampered by numerous nationalities and nations that must be “let go” as unnecessary ballast for Russians. Upon reasonable reflection on this topic, you come to the conclusion that these slogans will only lead to the continued fragmentation of the state. And the transformation of Russia into Muscovy within the borders, perhaps, of only the Garden Ring. Are Russian national patriots really marching towards this goal?