Thought about nationalism: family matters

In the national world, the main thing is what? - Family. Yes, yes, family, it is not just the first cell from which any national world consists, but also an image of the universe, a model, what this world strives for, a kind of normal standard of any social education. They say that in any world, family is the most important thing, because people always wish each other health and family happiness. Only it is doubtful. When you look at the liberal world, the first cell and model is the independent individual. And independent from the family when it interferes with his (her) freedom. And in any case, the family is important to him (her), very important, but as one of the achievements, a very important figure of success in life, since he (she) managed to find love and family happiness. In socialism, in general, the main thing is the collective, the ensemble of which it is. What about family? - What's family? The collective is the real, genuine family of a socialist person, and an ordinary family is a voluntary relationship between two members of the collective (or collectives), as well as those people who depend on them - there are all sorts of children there, and the elderly, when there are some.

It turns out that the ontology of all three worlds is different, and it does not allow one to move from one to another through reforms or a revolution. No, changing milestones is not enough; a revolution is seriously needed here. In the nineties, we decided to embrace liberalism at once, easily, only we rebounded just as easily, because the liberals turned out to be socialist, who broke away from the previous collectives and created collectives of liberals who undertook to teach us all. Teach the right way of life, so that they work for a piece of bread and are listened to and obeyed, so that in a couple of generations they become worthy of living and working in the civilized world. Only we care about their civilized world, when we were going to live in communism a long time ago. No, our backs are to them and our faces are to the bosses from the past, from our acquaintances, who are all scoundrels, of course, but their own scoundrels, understandable: if anything happens, they will kill anyone you want. Or they will brag. We live with them now, but where?

Certainly not in liberalism, when the independence of the individual from society and the state is not ensured by anything: neither law nor property. The freedom of the individual still lies in his inconspicuousness. The current leaders assure us that we live in a national state. And what else should they say when socialism seems to have ended, but liberalism has not happened? Only since it is national, then what nation is this state? In the national world, a nation will not be born on paper from grammar exercises with the word “Russia”. The German state is the state of the Germans and for the Germans, first of all, the Japanese state is for the Japanese, the Finnish state is for the Finns. All the other residents, until they became Germanized, Japaneseized, or abandoned, were only guests. They may be protected by law, but they are guests. They came to their national world and state through revolutions and wars, in which they huddled together and stuck together into their national families. Our former ones moved along the same path: Armenians and Georgians, Moldovans and Kyrgyz, Azerbaijanis and Tajiks... This path cost them dearly, and it is not a fact that they have already passed the point of no return and left the main troubles in the past. However, Russia is not that: at first it is simply a shrunken Union, where national worlds, as in the Union, began to form in places where non-Russian peoples live, and in opposition, in hostility to everything “Russian”, not as alien to the national, but, on the contrary, as a non-national existence, where the opposition “us - alien”, “us - them” is marked, first of all, not by national characteristics; such “Russianness”, which corrodes the internal unity of national worlds and dissolves them in its universality, since in it the national self is only “one of” and is not at all the main one. They, non-Russian peoples, are trying to build their own national home inside Russia, where they are the masters, and all other “Russians” are always just guests. And the Russians (especially those without quotes) again, as they once did in the Union, sensed that if Russia is the common home of all Russian peoples, then they alone, it turns out, do not have their own home in Russia. There are many more Russians in Russia than all other peoples, but there is no home of their own, Russian. It’s kind of a shame, especially when you look at it nationally. When this house is drawn along the borders of different Tatars, Bashkirs, Evenks, Nenets, Altaians..., then it’s not a world at all, but a patchwork quilt with holes - no one can laugh! And it’s a pity to give half the country to them. They have their own national houses with countless riches. Our wealth, if you look at it nationally, through Russian eyes, without quotes. Since Russians are the main nation, then the state should be Russian, unambiguously, and everyone else should sit in tents and auls and get out of there with state permission. Then it will be a national Russian world and a real national state.

Question:

- So can it be?

- Why not? Only this world will become from St. Petersburg and Smolensk to the Volga, and along the Mother Volga everywhere “Chechnya” from Ufa to Nalchik itself.

– Where is Russia then?

– Russia beyond the Volga: there are plenty of places for all the “Russians”, for whom the main thing is that there are good people around them, and what national roots they have, what kind of family they have is their own business. Yes, yes, it will be there... if it works out.