From the editorial office. On May 13, 80 years old Yulia Anatolyevich Khalfin, a literature teacher with almost half a century of experience. His teacher’s path in Moscow began in the ninth special school. Among her graduates -humanities are Vladimir Kantor, Nina Braginskaya, Tatyana Venediktova, Mark Freudkin.

One of the areas of activity of the Skimen publishing house, which I head, is the publication of the works of domestic and foreign classics of conservative thought. The first two books published in the framework of this project - the Nation and the Empire in the Russian thought of the beginning of the twentieth century ”and the“ years of decisions ”by O. Spengler - aroused reader interest, in several periodic publications, reviews were published.

I read the text of Paul Gottfried on RJ, in which he outlined certain trends in the development of the post -war left Western thought. Moreover, for some reason, he attributed all this to Marxism, although he himself admitted that this has long been not Marxism, but with Marxism, this is all associated only by the ideological origin of the main “blacksmiths” . And such a "porridge" is everywhere there ... However, according to the results of reading, I wanted to cross out one non -triviality.

The visit of the recently, the visit of the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to Japan was initially submitted as emphasized by the non-political: it was supposed to talk only about cooperation in the field of economics, and all the attempts of the Japanese side at least in some form raise the question of the territorial affiliation of the southern smoking (in Japanese terminology-“northern territories”) were rejected from the threshold.

First of all, I want to express the gratitude of the editors of the RG and personally to Mikhail Diunov for turning to the topic of young conservatism so close to me. The article “Lad treaty. Its history, its meaning ” is quite solid and well reflects the milestones of the early stage of development of this political direction. But I completely do not share the funeral attitude of the publication. The memorial tone that turns the research text of Diunov into a lifetime epitaph in us, now alive.

The main thing that surprises in a walking discussion is the lack of a tendency to distinguish between entities. Firstly, Schmitt, Junger, Freyer go through a comma with a genon or evolo. Why on earth? Between “radical conservatism” and “traditionalism” there is very little in common. “Radical conservatism” is a serious phenomenon of modern philosophy. “Integral traditionalism” is an esoteric Gonevo.

It is clear that both performances of academic luminaries ( Rutkevich and Filippov ) on the issue of “Schmitt and K” on the RG choose an article by anashvili, not only because the commeolfo is so, but also because it is more convenient.