Speech on the occasion of the presentation of the anthology “Eurasian destiny”
First of all, I would like to thank Ms. Mariana Heroiu, director of the publishing house Mica Valahie, for the publication of this book in the translation of Iurie Roşca, he did a great job of my friend Constantin Parvulesco, Who kindly participates in our evening, and sincere, heartfelt gratitude to you for the fact that you have come. I see many friends, familiar faces, and new faces in the room, which I hope will also become friends. And I sincerely thank Mr. Dan Zamfirescu, a famous person, that he too came to listen and participate in our evening.
I would like to make today’s speech in two parts. First, I would like to dwell on the dialogue between Russia and Romania, and then, perhaps, give such a general overview of the situation in the world as it is seen from Russia, as Eurasians see it. First of all, I want to say that when it comes to the dialogue between the two countries or two peoples, one must always keep in mind the following. There are at least three levels on which we can talk about dialogue or conflict.
The first level is our ideal ideas about ourselves. There is an ideal Russia, heavenly Russia, eternal Russia. This is our deep identity. This is what we would like to be. These are the ones that we ourselves have disappeared. This is our deep Russia. It is not always on the surface. But it makes us Russians Russians. Thanks to my teachers, philosophers who had a great influence on me, such as Lucian Blaga, Mircea Eliade, Nae Ionescu, Ioan Petru Culianu (and I could also list Romanian authors Because they exerted a profound influence on me) … Therefore, it is thanks to these philosophers that I know that there is the same heavenly and eternal Romania, the one that represents your eternal identity: this is Holy Romania. Romanian Romanian, and, at the level of these two instances There is one dialogue, it’s about cultural horizons, as Blagoda said, it’s about the Salmoxis tradition, as Eliade said, it’s about post-Byzantineism and the Byzantine Orthodox initiative, as Jorka (Nicolae Iorga) said. People at the time when you were Thracians, and we were Scythians, at the level of Turan, ancient Eurasia, a dialogue between holy Russia and holy Romania, between deep Russia and deep Romania, between eternal Russia and eternal Romania. And this is one level of dialogue.
There is a second level, completely different. This is a historical relationship. In some cases we were on the same side of the barricades, in other cases – on different sides. We made many mistakes, we Russians committed many injustices against Romania, we preferred a real policy instead of an ideal policy. And this is a completely different level. Here we have accumulated a lot of complaints, we have many misunderstandings and many unsolved problems. And they, too, must be examined and considered. But these two levels should in no case be confused. Moreover, a deep level of dialogue will help to resolve historical injustices. It is like a light that sanctifies darkness or gray, or shadows, or twilight.
And there is a third level. This is our current state of affairs. Romania is a country of NATO and the European Union, as a man with a flag reminds us. Russia is also in a situation quite ambiguous. And with all the support (of course, I’m a Russian patriot and support Putin), but we have so many aspects that we Russians hate in our modern society, which you can not imagine. And we have every reason to hate modern aspects of Russia, because we love it. We criticize it, because it hurts us from what it turned into. Being a Russian patriot does not mean approving everything that happens to our homeland. It means – to love your eternal Motherland, your holy Russia and try to make it an appropriate ideal, and not justify corruption, degeneration, degeneration, which, alas, in our society, alas, is still enough. I think that the situation is the same in Romania. But it’s your business, to see, criticize, resent and correct the situation in which your society is located.
And now pay attention, three levels. If we are dishonest, if we are employed, if we simply work out someone’s grants or are propagandists hired for money, then we will oppose, for example, Great Romania, the ideal Romania, Romania of the spirit to the dark sides of modern Russia (the third level) . And we will bring the most negative aspects from history. Here is the tradition of coverage of Russia in the Romanian media.
Let’s imagine Putin’s propagandist. The ideal image of Russia is taken, the most negative aspects of modern Romania are taken, historical examples are chosen arbitrarily, in favor of the Russians and against the Romanians, and a symmetrical, absolutely false model emerges, from which it follows that we Russians are good fellows, and all the rest are not good fellows. It’s at this level that everything goes on. It’s false, it’s dishonest and it’s mean. This does not bring us anywhere near. This is a change in all those proportions with which we must really, delicately work. In my opinion, if we put all the proportions in this way, the dialogue of spirit – at the level of the spirit, the conversation of history – at the level of history, the criticism of our societies in their current situation – at the level of criticism, we, by changing the geometry of the dialogue, Our relations. Because there will be a completely different model. We go from a plane understanding to a stereometric understanding. And already this one, what are the contradictions will make logical or secondary aspects.
In fact, it is very difficult to find people who are engaged in researching, protecting or reviving the inner, deep identity of the people. I’m currently working on a series of books called Noomachia. There will be eighteen volumes in it, God will give (now twelve have appeared), and in each of these volumes I will explore civilization or people. Some aspects of the identity of civilizations are represented only by fragments. Among the Eastern European peoples, the most profound, most detailed description of these identities is about the Romanian identity, about Romanian philosophy. In the part devoted to Romania, I thought only as if the whole volume of such a single Romania did not come out.
The entire circle of Romanian intellectuals gathered around the magazine Zalmoxis, the theology of Staniloae (Dumitru Stăniloae), the group of intellectuals that gathered around the “Rugul Aprins”, the grandeur and depth of intellectualism that Set themselves a late Eliade and Couliano, they produce such a grand impression that nothing like this is not found in any of the Eastern European countries.
Moreover, I must admit that “Noomachia”, the work that I am currently engaged in is a continuation of the work that was interrupted by the premature death of Ioan P. Couliano. Before he was killed in the US, he developed a model of noology, what he called mindgames, in which he set the task – he, the Romanian, and in this, in my opinion, the entire Romanian spirit, the entire Romanian philosophy! He set the task to study the sacred ideas of the East and the West, continuing the line of Eliade, and to build on their basis a certain conceptual dictionary of civilizations. Thus, some basic plots, paradigms will explain to us the culture of the most diverse peoples, religions, and societies. Part of this line was continued by Mr. Badescu (Ilie Bădescu) in his “Nologia”.
But I want to emphasize: what I do in philosophy is the continuation of the Romanian philosophical tradition. Vasile Lovinescu (Vasile Lovinescu) did some of this. Eternal inspiration for me remains my friend Jean Parvulesko (Jean Parvulesco). Many things I owe to Michel Vâlsan. In general, where not to look – some Romanians. And what I owe to Lucian Blaga – it’s hard to describe. It seems to me that here every line, every page of it you read, it seems that the inner fire starts to rise.
And so, in order to conduct a dialogue on behalf of deep Romania, we need such Romanians. These people, these representatives of a truly Romanian identity, Romanian Romanians, non-European Romanians, Romanians in spirit, Rumanians in culture, roots, Romanian genius, they should conduct this dialogue with the same deep Russia. Diplomats are talking among themselves, more or less. Historians are not very, because often our historians are not exactly our historians. This is problem. Well, the propagandists, they have to pay about it – they wrote, say, how the Russians want to invade Romania or what the Romanians want to add to Moldova.
Approximately the same nonsense on both sides. This can be attributed to pure fake news. And the most important thing, and on this I end this part (then I’ll move a little to political), I wanted to say that when I come to Romania, I meet with my Romanian friends, for me the most important thing is to see the traces of this Romanian Dazain. That is what Romanian is doing – Romanian. And often I see, by the way, this Romanianness in ordinary people can be more than in urban, educated people. Or even in a miorical landscape, as Blagda said, either in the ancient capital of Targovishte, or in monasteries, or at the burial site of Ivan Kulygin, who was one of the inspirers of Rugul Aprins, that Russian elder from Optina. And this spiritual, deep Romania, here it is more interesting to me most of all. And with each of my visits to Romania, I open up its new sides. During my previous visit, Dan Zamfirescu gave me many orientations of my work. I studied certain elements on Athos, in texts, in conversations. And every time this is a really enriching experience, which really contributes to the rapprochement and mutual understanding of our great nations. It seems to me that if the people measure the number of their intellectuals and the quality of these intellectuals, then a small Romania would outweigh almost all. That’s why I’m really glad whenever I’m in your open, so friendly, so deep, so right and real country.
Now we are changing the register, colleagues. I want to say two words about more mundane things. About how in Russia, like us, Russian intellectuals understand the situation in the modern world. And in this case it can be said that approximately, of course, with certain changes, I imagine that our president sees this picture. And American President Donald Trump. At this time, you can honestly say. In many aspects, their vision of the world now coincides. And it differs from the European Union. But not from European Europeans. From European elites is different, but from European peoples there. So, there is globalism, globalization. It is a project for the destruction of all collective identities. The globalist project means the loss of collective identities – attention! – all forms of collective identities, all. This means the loss of a religious collective identity, that is, it is the end of religions. Everyone on an individual level can believe in anything, but the Church in our Orthodox understanding will not be a collective phenomenon. Therefore, this means the end of Orthodoxy. It seems that we are talking about something secondary, but this is not so. Then follows the rejection of the national collective identity. Then globalization assumes the loss of gender identity, because both gender identity, male and female identity becomes optional. That is, a person is free to choose his gender depending on his desire. Hence the gay marriage. But human identity also refers to our collective identity. Consequently, this state should be overcome by applying biotechnological engineering. So we come to transhumanism. If we see just a single person who says, “I do not want to become a robot or gay tomorrow,” we can say to him: “You are not yet sufficiently developed and progressive, colleague. Watch more movies, go more courses, and you will realize that you do not have the alternative, that it is humane. “We must overcome all boundaries, destroy all forms of collective identity.
Therefore, if it is only individuals who will not agree with globalization, their protests, their outrage can be ignored. But in the world there are such institutions as democracy, and in some cases people, when they explain all this, like this, calmly, and simply ask the question “Do you want this?” … If such institutions and people were asked, the phenomenon of Vladimir Putin appears Or Donald Trump. I’m not saying whether they are good or bad. I just know that Putin supports us because he says this trend, this trend is “No!”. He says: “Not now”, for example, or “Not in Russia”, “Not today” and this is enough for the overwhelming majority of people to be for it. The most striking thing is that we’ve only recently seen the same trick in America. Anglo-Saxon Donald Trump came, called globalization a swamp and asked the Americans who agree with him to raise their hand. And this man became president. What does it mean? This means that the American people do not agree with such an agenda. He simply also said: “Not here and not now.” I do not exclude that Donald Trump joked. Maybe he was not going to do anything about it. But I’m interested in the American people, who listened and reacted to the meaning of what Donald Trump had said, and what the representatives of globalization called them “deplorables”. And these “deplorables”, the American people, are American Americans. The second half is just people who are on the other side of the barricades, on the side of globalization.
And then the following situation arises. Against this background of fundamental choice, political and geopolitical events are taking place in the world. Because, in fact, we see that these two trends are of much greater significance than for whom you are, for Russians or for Americans, for Hungarians or for Romanians, for Chinese or for Hindus there. This is much more serious. Globalization – everywhere, in any country and in any country, you can say to it: “Yes” and you can say “No”. As long as there is democracy, you and we decide. If we do not have democracy, then I’m afraid that others will decide for us. Therefore, democracy is for us the last opportunity to express what we think. It does not matter what we think, but what we think. Here’s how it is seen, approximately, Trump and Putin. That is, in this there is some idea of the existence of sovereign states or peoples, collective identities, traditional families, religious societies. You can call it either conservatism or even populism. And there is globalism, which has a completely different discourse, because it is built on a completely different geometry. And this explains at least the behavior of one fairly large player on a geopolitical board. This is Putin’s Russia in her most, if you like, intellectual dimension. There are a lot of other dimensions that I do not even want to talk about.
In this book, which Yuri not only translated, but also compiled, and edited, consistently and in detail, on three levels, this is the duality, the couple that I mentioned. The ideology of liberalism and globalism is described and its alternatives, communism and fascism, are criticized. Therefore this book is anticommunist and anti-fascist. But it is primarily anti-liberal. Accordingly, from here – the Fourth Political Theory. It is an invitation to be opponents of liberalism, not being either communists or fascists. Accordingly, outside these three political theories – liberalism, communism and fascism – it is proposed to seek a new way out. And this is where the question arises: where can we find this Fourth Political Theory? In this book there is no definitive answer. It’s just an invitation to an intellectual effort. I express my approximate intuitions about what could become the subject of this Fourth Political Theory, how it could be built in theory. And I come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, such a universal theory can hardly be created now. Romanians, French, Hungarians, Serbs, Russians, Americans, Iranians, Africans themselves must seek a model appropriate to their cultures and their civilizations. Because all these three political theories are universalistic, they are all European, they are all racist. And, accordingly, they are acceptable, well, maybe for a European person, but not exactly everywhere. In Eastern Europe everything was more complicated. And beyond Europe, other approaches are absolutely necessary.
And from here – the second part of this book. This is the Theory of the Multipolar World. Multipolar. Do not bipolar, please note, multi-polar. And when we say “multipolar”, it means more than three. There are as many poles as there are civilizations. Thus, the alternative to the current unipolar, global world should not be a return to bipolarity. We must recognize the plurality of cultures. We must end with the implicit racism that the European New Times carried within us. This racism was explicit in nationalism and in national socialism, this racism had a class character in communist theory, but the origins of this racism is the liberal ideology of the 18th and 19th centuries. When the peoples, because they were less developed than the British, imposed colonial domination. And here the idea of Lucian Blagi about cultural horizons, that the landscape forms the unconscious of the people, his ingenious penetration into the mioric landscape as an explanation or key to the Romanian identity can become the basis of a new anthropology and a new geopolitics based on multipolarity, on a radical refusal to affirm The primacy of certain peoples or cultures over others, as it were not expressed: either in the biological affirmation of the superiority of one color of skin over another, or the comparison of technological or economical settings. Because when we apply to the company, for example, such a parameter as the economy, which we have strongly developed, we find ourselves in the position of racists.
Note the magnificent film of Werner Herzog’s “Where the Green Ants Dream”. In this film it shows that Avstraliyskie Aborigeny not only can not be Western European competitors, in this case, the Anglo-Saxon civilization, they do not want to move in this direction. And here is “do not want” – it just is a fundamental aspect of a multi-polar world. See. For example, the Europeans want the European Union. It is the perfect choice. Great. But this – the choice of the Europeans. And if someone prefers another option, we can either recognize another choice … That’s Russian, for example, do not want European values, the European Union does not want sex is optional, do not want to further clearing of collective identities. It would seem, leave us alone. Somehow there is something wrong. But it does not happen. And the whole machine of the West, liberalism, globalism attacks and falls on us, because we not only want, but also to defend their right to be different. That is, approximately, is the second part of the book, which categorically rejects the imperialist and colonial past of Russia. Because, in fact, in many historical periods, we have acted not as would have to act in accordance with this multi-polar theory. We impose their truth, we refused to hear other people, and we were wrong. And many nations we repaid entirely appropriate. If we deny the subjectivity of someone, you are sure to find someone who is and we foreclose subjectivity. Consequently, this is the second principle, referred to in this book.
So in the end explains Eurasianism, which describes a model of a multipolar world based on the principles of the Fourth Political Theory. I am absolutely convinced that this book could be made significant criticism. You probably know, from the point of view of science, falsification principle: only the statement of a scientific, that can be criticized. If any statement can not be criticized, it is not at all saying, as nonsense. I think this book will cause a large extent, agreement or disagreement, criticism, perhaps a flurry of critical campaigns or silence. But in principle it is not so important.
I’m just very happy to be on the beautiful Romanian language in which wrote thinkers and philosophers, whom I admire, published my own texts, which modestly trying to develop and apply some ideas (perhaps at a more modest level), which are largely I borrowed from my Romanian teachers. And then – at the books and ideas of their own destiny. This does not depend on the fate of even, perhaps, neither the publisher nor the translator, even more so – from the author. Because ideas belong to those who understand them. There are no ideas of the author. If you understand them – they’re yours. Therefore, this book will have its own fate, like all creatures. Works that are included in this volume are the most widely transferable my books. They have almost all the European languages, in many eastern languages. But if it is fair to say that their publication in the Romanian language made me a special joy and sincere delight.
Here there is my friend, the son of Zhana Parvulesko, and this brilliant Romanians I am very much indebted.
Bucharest, April 5, 2017
(Speech on the occasion of the presentation of the anthology “Eurasian destiny”)