An Introduction to the Following Comments
If the doctrine of western civilization has led its native nations to where they are now, then of what use is it to follow in their footsteps? Or better yet, if there was a time in their history to emulate, how did things go so terribly wrong from then to now? It is in these questions that I ask to what end our future will be the same should the adoption of western values occur. With the iron fist of communism now decades in the past and an ever-thickening western influence in politics and economics, we must look at this decision now before even that has been taken from us.
When making such monumental decisions the propaganda must be cut from the truth. It is important for one to understand that there are two separate threads in this situation which move together but are distinctly separate in character. They are in essence what is advocated by the powers of the western world, and what happens within their countries. With this, saying that the decline of order in civil societies of the Anglophone world has been accelerating would be an understatement.
Neither rationality nor even the pursuit of prestige in the form of greatness seems to draw the desire from its population. Maybe that in itself was a great fiction marketed as reality. Decades of flailing consumerism and disregard for the reality of life will tend to leave their mark. What has replaced the archetype of the medieval knight of old is little more than a sniveling coward who has little mind for glory or duty. A sense of self-hatred permeates every level of culture and institutions. For I know because they have been in the background to every part of my life. The western man that the world once knew has been reduced to a shell of its former self, and all under the watchful gaze of a system held in such high regard.
Freedom, justice, independent thought, all of these bear little resemblance to a modern age that must deny them at every turn to keep the lie of sustainability going. Looking from the inside, it is hard to believe the fabled works of the renaissance and times of industrial revolution mark as to what Western civilization means today, because while those thoughts have not withered away, their cultural inheritors have morphed into something far more dystopian. To say a modern society’s values are based off these old ideas is a romanticized illusion only if one believes they still hold the position of leader instead of emeritus.
A vision for a better society comes with the exaltation of another nation that can be looked up to. Whether it be the Russian aristocracy starting with Peter the Great or others, one of the most common choices to emulate is the Western world. In tinges I can even see this seeping into our own cultural movement as well in the form of how we present our situation to others. But is this really the ideal place to ground ourselves in? Will this lead to the greatest success while staying in line with the soul of our nation? It is this issue that the following pages and chapters will attempt to answer.
When reading arguments against the westernization of one’s culture, the most often move is to plead towards tradition, of which we personally have little that remains. Though the argument is strong in effect, it is dogmatic in nature and lacks logical authority required to fit any reasonable standard. Such an appeal is and forever will be innately attractive to many, but there must be more than just that. If not for the sake of coherence, at least due to the effect on the population.
There is little thinking to be had to follow the connection of doing traditions for the sake of them since nothing new must be thought up. A population that has their identity based on this underlying substructure alone will be dull and drunk on its relaxing effects. Why would they not be? Only prescribing the medicine of the old makes sure all of the answers are already found. However, when something truly new grips the scene they are unprepared to adapt to what must be done.
The “why” must therefore be explained so that a level of true understanding is reached even if it innately agreed with. Like a believer in Orthodoxy, there is a great difference between a peasant who believes because they were told from birth, and a priest who has read hundreds of hours of scripture. An emotional connection is not on the same level as an intellectual one hardened by study.
It is in this thought that I do not take lightly in saying that western consumerist culture in its current form only helps to destroy the fabric of meaningful society. This statement may sound hyperbolic, but the conclusion is sincere. The process in which this is done is through the influence of three main sections of a nation. At the bedrock the economy, then the culture, and finally civil religion. None of the three are fully separated from each other in real life, but the differing influence on each of them is nevertheless vital to understand.
Before we can start the definition of what western culture in the context of this writing must be defined. It is not the works of Mozart nor Opera, neither the writing of Socrates nor fairy tales of Hans Christian Anderson, but put simply, their cultural successors in the current neo-liberal global system and the society it has produced following the aftermath of the second world war. Of course, encapsulated within these ideas from the enlightenment or older times have not simply vanished, but it is the wish of current hegemonic leaders for them to die. A topic which will be focused more in-depth later on.
What is actually being advocated for however, is an unfocused blob of radical individualism mixed in with a globalized consumerist economy.
But this definition itself is not so completely defining or actually answers why. There are a number of cases outside of this approximation in the realm of politics that obviously do not fit. Things like the silence on Saudi Arabia’s archaic governance or the invasion of Afghanistan only after the Taliban’s halt of poppy production paint a picture that looks more similar to the empires of old. Yet, things such as Wokeism which has pervaded the highest levels of institutions would in theory would be directly opposed to such things pay it no mind. To write what is really “The West” with its different factions and interests inside it in short detail is hard if not almost impossible. It would be more like describing each influential figure and their strategic interests than any philosophical debate. One thing is for certain however, they are all agreement that they should be the ones who decide the fate of the plebians.
Look forward to these next pages as not a description of the future that we should desire, but a critique of another’s way of life and the way they advocate to others. This book is neither claimed to be unbiased in character nor does it try to be, for what I value is the lens which all of these topics are seen through. What is wished to have happen when reading is the illumination of the dire straits that those who wish to mold us into the frankenstein situation of their own culture and those who have adopted it are in. With that in mind, the following writing will now speak for itself.
A Corrupted Economy
The greatest influence of Western society is in neither pop culture nor governance, but the economic system. It is through this avenue that all aspects of life are able to be affected. This is not only because an economy is the primary factor in national stability and by extension funding, to which its proper maintenance provides its leaders legitimacy, but it can also be said that freer trade brings greater ability for foreign influence. Those at the top of Western societies know this point very well, and have time and again used it to fit their varied interests. Whether it be hundreds of years ago in the times of the Qing Dynasty or mineral rich African countries, the pattern remains the same.
Before going further however another definition must be made clear. Capitalism as an idea in the abstract sense can be applied to the scenarios in which I will be referring to, but when using this word its intention is not meant to think of its basic principles. While a discussion can be had on that topic, the purpose of this chapter is the process of transferring citizen invested state power to private power and its later consequences. This system has many names ranging from a free-market economy to corporate capitalism, but perhaps the best descriptor is the term global market capitalism. While its official definition is almost always purely related to the “freedom” of markets, there is much more than just that.
It is a system based on transnational flow of capital unbeholden to the wills of the state that it enters or leaves. The only thing that matters is continued growth of enterprise, or at least the appearance of it. This in practice results in both the delegitimization of national government because of its inability to control its own economy even in the event of growth, and the consolidation of wealth within the hands of a small group of people that form a quasi-senate with the ability to influence internal affairs.
It is this dynamic which Western institutions advocate under the name of economic liberalization and privatization with the promise of greater prosperity. From a pure number’s perspective, they are often right, but the question of who this newfound wealth is going to, and what freedom of choice is lost remains a central question.
Once the shift to this economic model has occurred within a country looking to gain favor with the international community (the West), they are in effect beholden to the will of the companies and countries that invest in them and promise this economic growth. They have transferred the power of the state into the hands not just private power, but foreign private power that cares little for the state’s outcome. Should a central government actually take policies to manage its own economy again even moderately, capital flight will commence swiftly, and the hammer of protectionism and anti-democratic tendencies will be thrown upon them. More often than not a western backed coup will also take place in the hopes of achieving some semblance of normalcy again. Unless a country has the resources of somewhere like China or Japan with a large population and military capability, there is little means to realistically alter this deal.
All of this is not even mentioning another issue that stems from the fact that a system which functions solely out the interests of a small group with no allegiances is that it oftentimes also goes up against the direct interests of a nation. A decent example to get the picture across would be in the sale of vital antibiotics. For the sake of this instance let us imagine a shrewd businessman has a collection of factories that produce rare antibiotics to treat life-threatening conditions. Along with this, he hires foreign workers at cheaper wages as well as selling the products once available to a neighboring country for a better profit margin than if he sold them to his own.
Under the theory of global capitalism and the free-market economy this is a perfectly fine or even exemplary example of what should happen. Of course, when the yearly GDP numbers come in his hired workers and profit will show up as a positive on the balance sheet for the nation. A complete success in all ways an IMF worker would probably say, but is it really the case?
What looks like economic growth and prosperity that has been promised by these international agencies and western institutions is in all actuality a negative for the for the vast majority of local citizens. Not only do local workers get their wages driven down by cheap foreign talent (along with their ethnic displacement in their own society), but the state also loses the capacity for self-reliance and protection from the disease that could have come from access to internal production. If the company is “based” in some place like the Canary Islands, they even lose out on the majority of taxes as well. At no point does anyone but the foreign workers and owner benefit from this arrangement. The middle and lower classes either stagnate or fall into destitution, while the upper-class steps into the first world with towering buildings and expensive malls overlooking the poor. They do this all while claiming things are better than they were before.
When shifting again to an even deeper internal example, one can look no further than the hollowing out of middle America under the guise of free-market principles as proof of the universal prosperity lie in global capitalism. It is one of the most glaring examples of the betrayal by the upper echelon of a society against its middle class in the name of further profits and raised GDP. Starting in the 1980s, hundreds of companies focused on industry services such as factories along the coast of the Great Lakes began to pack up shop and leave abroad as cost savings measures. There are many reasons why this occurred, but the most important of them all was the wave of neo-conservatism that swept the country with Ronald Reagan’s election to the presidency in 1980. Or rather, what was behind it.
Under his guidance the rebranded policy of “Reaganomics” began to take shape. In reality this lacked little new ideas in the realm of the economy, simply being a rebranding of the decades old pro-corporate positions that were never about the prosperity of the many, but of a small elite class of investors and shareholders. This is to say that the fable of desiring a free market was in itself an illusion because it always has been. Cutting taxes where it helps those in power and raise them to drum out competing business, remove tariffs where it benefits friends but raise them to stifle foreign competition, all these processes have in common a desire to win so great as to be okay with corruption.
“Free trade” in the sense of open competition has never been the desire, but the appearance of it is the key. It is used as a boogeyman to point to when a controversial cost saving opportunity arises. Using this method completely ignores the reality that most big business industries are now heavily subsidized from agriculture to technology by the government, but this fact is almost never discussed for obvious reasons. Furthermore, the deindustrialization of the Rust belt was not an effort to produce free trade and help elevate the level quality in the market, but a quick cash grab in making an already profitable business more so while cheapening a highly paid labor pool. The Japanese products which were their main alternative were not being bought due to their cheapness but their higher quality.
This went for steel, cars, and anything else they produced. Do people buy Toyota’s or Hyundai’s because they are just so cheap compared to American cards, or because they are much safer and reliable? Moving a factory to some pre-industrial area of Inner Mongolia with no experience in high level manufacturing seems to not be the most sensible choice for outdoing a competitor, but a race to the bottom.
To understand one instance of this scenario is to understand them all. Each and every point of globalist outsourcing in the name of “free trade” is at its core a mask for the desire to create more bottom-line profit without thinking of what the effects to others it will have. The system itself is so corrupt, that even if a company stands on any morals at all, the inevitable race to the bottom will tend to cancel them out because they are unable to compete with the others profit margins.
For a society such as ours, being stuck in the trap of fake free-market hell will not only erode internal industry through the inevitable inability to stop such forces from leaving, but make sure that wealth inequality will continue to grow through the consolidation of an oligarch class. This is by no means acceptable for those that wish society to remain reasonably fair, so the question then becomes what or if another system is possible.
Both communism and welfare state apparatuses have either led to the destruction of economies (think of the USSR and its struggling economy in the 1970s and beyond) or the needed reliance (whether real or not) on foreign migrants for continued growth when native birth levels decline to keep the services going. Though one could argue that the welfare state model is really just a toned-down version of global capitalism with some added health perks in many cases. Both of these are generally stable in the short term with big expansions of industry, but that is not necessarily the goal. It is instead looking for the foundational economic system of a nation that is able to sustain itself in the long term regardless of economic boom or bust.
One such example that is often brought up to me and stated by Researchers and anti-capitalist activists alike is the nation of China. Holding them as a beacon of Communist power ignores obvious facts that contradict the official narrative. Since the official reforms of the 1980s and beyond, the Chinese state can hardly be described as a Communist state. A better classification would be that of an authoritarian government in control of a protectionist economy. There is state control in most major corporations like Huawei, but it’s hard to believe a classical Marxist would ever describe this level of controlled enterprise as anything more than nationalist capitalism.
Even still there are a number of issues that arise from their current situation with the reality of how China’s current state has been formed. The first is a historical misjudgment that the original boom of economic growth was done under the commitment of Deng Xiaoping and his reforms. While this had contributed to the eventual rise as being one of the “Asian Tigers”, much of the original wealth generation had actually been taking place under the nose of authorities. One of these sources came from the supposed collectivized farms in the countryside. By 1972, almost a decade before the reforms, almost 60% of those who were technically in the collectives had already left (though the government still officially denies this). Wide swaths of land in rural provinces were already owned and housed by individual families and even things such as underground factories were created and running. However, this mass scale of production was not counted in GDP figures because it was held inside the black market.
The reforms of the CCP allowed this activity to become legitimate, but it was not the reason for the original growth. While still impressive in its own right, this does not make the case for competency in the central government as once thought. Instead, it merely showed that those at the top knew enough to not completely screw it up as their predecessor in Mao had. And with the general malaise that came out of the cultural revolution, few had the will to go on playing the charade any longer.
Another obvious fact that needs to be laid out is that much of the growth within the last few decades is just purely fraudulent. In this statement I do not necessarily mean inflated revenue or stock price (though often as well) but the lie of an entire company as a whole. Though the minor details for every case are slightly different it usually follows a general path. Some company from central China that is purportedly making billions mining minerals and is on US stock exchanges will fall on its head overnight and disappear. In the end, western investors are left with a hole in their pocket as a small group of scammers run off with the money.
Whether it be Lantern Mining and New Zealand investors losing nearly 800k USD or Luckin Coffee fabricating 310 million USD in sales for 2019 alone, they all share similar characteristics in the disregard of legitimacy for a quick buck and the lack of consumer protection laws. To not believe these underhanded tactics happen even within China’s own population is incredibly naïve. This is in part for the creation of the complete surveillance state that is coming into effect. On one level of course it is about population control, but one has to question what’s wrong if the majority (53%) are in favor of the widespread measures they have taken in the hope that it eliminates some of these problems. From even a moralistic perspective it baffles the mind how this could be considered a place to emulate in almost any way.
Perhaps a better question to ask is what ways a nation can move forward without falling into the false dichotomy of either unrestricted global capitalism or totalitarian control. This is especially challenging for a nation insignificant in power and resources such as ourselves, being only a few hundred thousand to a million at most. On top of this, the land of Carpathian Rus’ though beautiful, lacks any great natural resources like the oilfields of Baku or natural gas in Russia to provide a reliable safety net to test ideas out. If Carpathian Rus’ is to become prosperous, it will be done only through human ingenuity.
Another connected question is deciding on whether to attempt to form a more equitable project inside the system or without it. To this the answer of attempting to move the needle while within the group seems obvious to my eyes. Putting aside the likely discontent from our citizens due to being in an unsavory economic position, becoming an international pariah in the likes of Venezuela would only do us harm without any actual reward or safety. Whether involving protectionist policies will do enough to stave off the worst effects of this world order is unknown, but it may be the best chance we get.
To get to this point though many more steps must be completed before it. Chief among them is even acknowledging the issue at hand. For this there are inklings of sight regarding the topic, but like most Rusyn things it lags far behind where it should. It is only when the westernizing influence on economics is perceived as a problem will there be any true step towards a real solution. For now, all this is little more than a fairy tale for a people who lack the will and ability to govern themselves.
Loss of Sincerity
An understated development of neoliberal capitalism, and by extension westernization, is the growing dysfunction of the worker and employer relationship. It hits not just at the very inner workings of how we communicate to each other outside of the home but also creates an environment designed for the complete subservience of a society to the corporation. While there have been other methods in the realm of laws and corruption, this has been primarily done through the avenue of communication. In the past fifty years a new type of speech pattern and attitude has grown out of this cutthroat environment and spread like wildfire. It can be known as the corporatist mindset and its speech subsidiary corporate jargon. These cultural artifacts transform sentences into either propagandized lies or nonsense so removed from reality that even the ones who say it have little understanding of what leaves their mouth. Likewise, they also create an environment where deception to get the most out of someone is a primary objective. The two have the same end result in mind, yet are separate in character and approach. One is the will behind the action, and the other to conceal intention. Because of this they must be viewed separately before being tied together again.
An adult in the West who has not cowered under a rock for their entire life has undoubtedly seen the display of empty slogans or word salads in videos or manager talks in the workplace. Perhaps on occasion one finds themselves doing such a thing almost automatically as if on autopilot. It can be infuriating to the mind because it seems as though this way of speaking or writing lacks any meaning or is even malevolently fake. This is the first mistake in understanding what purpose is behind this type of rhetoric.
Making little communicable sense when using this pattern of speaking is not an actual problem in the sense one usually thinks. The intention of such speech within the corporate environment is not to better understand one another (two-way communication), but instead act as an indoctrination technique, signifier, or a way to obscure “truth” in the sense of personal accountability depending on the entity using it. The corporation is the worst offender of this entire ecosystem as it holds the institutional power, for which all underlings must comply. And while corporate jargon is sometimes used in the context of the corporation in speeches and press releases to hide accountability to the outside world, its major purpose has been in propagandizing the relationship between worker and employee within its own doors.
This can be seen in recent years within many corporation’s propaganda campaign towards their workers framed in the thought of family. Things such as foosball and ping pong tables, “inspirational” morning meetings, colorful offices similar to a child’s room, and videos exalting the works of the employees while also doubling as an attempt to make the company look as friendly as possible are not made out of a desire to improve the employee’s mood just for the sake of it. Instead, it is used to lull the worker into a type of fantasy state where there are so many mixed signals and half-truths that they are so confused they begin to take some of these messages to heart. Where they believe these places have their best interests in mind even though they refuse to pay a decent wage, and that Jennifer, their so called “work spouse” is just as important the one at home.
Looking at the purpose of these practices requires understanding a basic question. Do you work harder for something that sees you as a simple cog in a machine or for your family? Such a question now re-enters the topic of the corporatist mindset. That is, instead of actually putting in the work required to manage a legitimate connection, the cheaper and more disposable route is to create an illusion of its existence which can be ended shortly without warning because it was never there to begin with. All of the added productivity benefits without any of the negatives for the entity. Of course, the worker who gets fired after they spent an extra three hundred hours on some meaningless project rather than connecting with their community or family is just an afterthought in this case.
This indoctrination is of the most dangerous variety because it not only removes the freedom of a worker’s outward actions, but also takes away the agency of their own thoughts. It is not just forcing a person to do what you say for the chance to get a paycheck and stay above water, but to also agree that this is a gracious thing for you to be doing. Combined with the lost time that could be spent on improving their neighborhood, talking with family, or exploring different passions, the results are a personal travesty on a mass scale.
While being quite Orwellian in nature, this unbridled desire for maximum profit at the lowest possible cost is understandable in the apparatus of western style capitalism. But why do the workers play along? To that an answer can be formed in the format of a question. What other choices do they have? Most know when starting out in the workforce that their employer does not care about them in the slightest and the words which echo into their ears a worth less than the air it took to say them. But washing away its veneer and risking the chance at a livelihood seems like a worse alternative. And for most this is the correct assumption because it is not the place in itself. To stand up is like a nail to be hammered down because it is not the people but system as a whole that enforces it.
By not following the same manner of talking and buying into the system one will not only be frowned upon by the institution in which he works, but also be unable to move up the corporate ladder. This is because on an internal level the process of using this speech is a signifier to the subservience of the system. It is a statement of “I know the game and will play by its rules in the hope I will be rewarded”. In other words, you get to at least have a chance to win. In time many even buy into it what they are saying or hearing because the issue of separating thought from action is nearly impossible to overcome. After months and years of spouting the same ridiculous lines about family and corporate values, only the strongest minds can stop it from becoming internalized.
So instead of truly fixing the situation to allow the essence of truth into their environment (for which they have no power to do) or leaving the game altogether and losing out on the chance of success, a lie is maintained in its place. Of course, not all people are so upstanding and there are some who use such speech to their advantage one way or another.
Those that do use these speech patterns and accompanying attitude for personal gain are known implicitly and often reviled by their peers yet still move up the corporate ladder because they have understood how to win. It is a system where those few that can either distance themselves or simply not care of others have the upper hand. Though the ones that think are this archetype vs actually being it is a much larger list.
The main benefiters of this western styled corporate system are apparent. Given the situation as just described, it is obviously not the majority of workers. It is as one may guess the small elite at the top which benefit the most. A group marred in hyper-individualism and displaying a false image of itself. Better yet, there are some who even argue this is the only way to compete in the “global economy”. This is false of course like all the other arguments from the chapter before in setting up a false dichotomy of complete neoliberal hell versus some other type of underworld, but it strikes at the heart of a philosophical position that every country must decide on.
Is the loss of sincerity and the dysfunction between employer and employee really worth it in achieving a westernized lifestyle? Moving aside the ability to succeed in a way different from them, I would argue there is something intrinsically important in the spiritual essence of a people. The heart and truth of a nation should not be something that can be bought or sold, but kept locked away from prying eyes.
Having a home where people feel respected and not lied to must be the root of any societal goal. Because without a true family to be with, of what use is a gold-plated house in the first place? The choice of refusing to adopt these dystopian principles does not mean we will fail to succeed as a nation to lift ourselves out of destitution. For which we undoubtedly are compared with those around us. There is always another path, and saying no to the current corporate model only means we will find another way. A better way. It may not be the same promised land as theirs, but it will be the one right for us.
The State and Its Citizens
While the state and people are not usually tied together into the same meaning, they can share in common interests if run properly. Or one could say, this is the case if the state is run in the way it should be. By this, I mean in calling to a western originated idea in the thought of a state being of the people and for the people. If a state claims in representing an ethnic group or confederation, then its interests should therefore be based on that and not the power of its leaders.
To have any other motive is to disregard the foundational principle of the nation-state in the first place. Note that this does not have to be inherently democratic in principle, but is often taken as such. As long as the state still moves for the interests of its citizens then that principle is still being followed.
It can of course be seen time and again in nation-states that do not perform to the greater needs of their society. However, these are cases of dysfunction and corruption akin to merchant or tributary empires of old, not something that is working properly within the philosophical idea of what we think a country should be today. They are in the most fundamental sense illegitimate to their own people, even if internationally recognized. To act as though this is the fundamental relationship between government and people is to give up before even trying.
Likewise, a nationalist government that works to exclude its minorities can be rendered illegitimate to them under the same principle. Whether it be the Kosovars and the Serbian state or Russian populated Crimea and Ukraine, the point still remains the same regardless of external factors. The EU may have helped the Kosovars, but if they truly wanted to leave then that does not make their desire any less legitimate than before. Everything else is just the unfortunate reality of geopolitics which almost necessitates an angry minority grouping with an opposing faction.
To even take a different example, if one asked South Ossetians if they wanted to leave Georgia the overwhelming vote would have been yes. Russian annexation does not suddenly make what these villages thought less valid. They may have played on the anger between the two ethnic groups to gain geopolitical position, but to ignore the reason for that original spark is to be foolish. There is plenty of blame in that situation to go around.
Returning to the central idea of the relationship between state and people, if a majority population is pushed too far and abused too much, they will rebel against the state given the right situation. When and why is dependent on the culture of the people affected, but there is a breaking point no matter the population. We can see this time and again throughout history. Whether it be the French Revolution, Boxer Rebellion in China, or a host of others, each with their own specific moment of riot. The key then here for those in charge of setting up government is not to instill a sense of this ability, but of both crafting a proper level which if crossed people will be so enraged as to fight back, and making a system where the ability to get to that point is severely limited.
Doing this requires the creation of a structure where those within power do not necessarily need to base their actions on pure nationalistic love for their fellow citizen. Like all states in history, eventually a small power group with their own interests in mind will work its way to the top. The effects of the Pareto principle alone by its nature virtually guarantee this occurring to some degree. Thinking the right leader at the right time will always be there can be labelled as almost the definition of naïve foolishness.
Knowing the desire for greed and power will always be there, the mission cannot be to create something that has eradicated these qualities. Attempting that would truly be a naïve and foolish waste of time. Instead, a better thought would be in the concept of molding a system in which first, these people benefit more from doing the right decision for those they are leading rather than betraying them, and second, the consequences in not doing are severe.
Putting in the average forms of western democracy seem as they stand currently as insufficient to combat this problem. Even with all of these so-called checks and balances in place, leaders in countries such as Canada and the United States have still effectively sold their people out for their own interests in the policies such as mass immigration, corporatism capitalism, and misguided foreign policy resulting in thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars spent.
So, if pure republicanism has shown all of these qualities, then what could be a solution? The answer requires a system that has the ability to hear the people’s voice, while also having those in charge able to both ignore it when they are wrong and take responsibility for when they themselves have failed. The need for democratic principles and the ability to not be corrupted by the irrational mob. A solution lies in the form of constitutional monarchism.
Monarchy and Constitutional Limits
The most central question in any debate on governance is of stability, because without it there is little capability to achieve anything else of societal substance. Like humans and water, if someone’s basic needs are not met then how can they focus on anything other than survival? Societies follow this very same principle, just in larger structures. Furthermore, neither the heritage of a people nor its future can be best guarded against disintegration without a reliable state. It is through the institutions of higher governance that these things are compelled to be kept alive as public support waxes and wanes. This is especially true in the case of peoples with weak national identities such as ourselves. It helps to reinforce the notion that identity is tied with the polity, which then leads one to grasp their ethnic group’s history in state history over individuals or events. Without such a rigid foundation a language or culture may survive, but it will be at an inherent disadvantage from those around it due to the lack of institutional power.
Clear examples of this lay within poor ethnic minorities of greater states. If neither the language, culture, nor identity of the nation one lives in is the same as their own, then it is not only not a positive, but a disadvantage due to the lack of prestige and limited use. Because of reasonable desire for prosperity and acceptance in society, this process wittles down a population until only a group of stubborn older people remain that wish to pass it on. Once this has occurred like in several populations of American Indians in North America where the only way to succeed is in abandoning the reservation and its culture, there is little chance of recovering.
Even cases of ruling minorities have the tendency to fall this way and assimilate as well. Some good studies can be seen in the disappearance of the Manchu language even though they had been rulers of the Qing dynasty for hundreds of years, along with the eventual Persianization of the Turko-Mongols that ruled Iran. Rusyns fall much more into the vein of an American Indian tribe due to the lack of any national political power, so discussion on ruling class minorities need not apply to the point of these writings.
One thing that can be acknowledged is that policy and procedure do take precedence. If the laws are written and spoken in a certain language, then the institutions that surround them will therefore build themselves to work in the same. This high-level mainstream adoption also promotes its status as a whole. The “language of the intellectual class” one could call it. Literature and film in it will then be promoted over others, reinforcing the aspect of the greater culture. Eventually these thoughts also trickle down to the school system and into the minds of schoolchildren if done correctly. This entrenchment at the end can be viewed as the ultimate goal of such policies if the government’s mission is to increase national cohesion.
To refer back to a greater point as it has many a time come up before when referring to this subject, why is stability the most important trait over freedom? Of what use is a government that is stable but totalitarian? Given our history of oppression and removal of certain freedoms it is no surprise this question continues to surface. But while this is an undoubtedly important thing to wonder, it is putting the cart before the horse.
If a society is not stable, how can liberty and rights be ensured in an institutional manner? What I am referring to here is not what culture should be as in the process of what we should value, but state policy. These two threads can, and should garner much different approaches depending on the situation. It is in fact by necessity of this relationship that it must be lowered to a secondary step in national interest because it is not an actual foundation that can be built on. A people may have an excess of freedom, but if a collapse of institutions is imminent and with it threat from an outside force, then it is ultimately pointless. It is reasonable and even righteous for the average person to put one over the other, but that does not mean an institution should think the same way.
This is not to say a complete and total focus on stability is necessarily optimal all the time. There can be plenty of isolated cases in which going against the grain was likely a good decision. Abolition of slavery in the Deep South was argued as an action that could implode a society altogether. Reality after the American civil war proved that claim to be correct in many ways. The environment that was built around this economic model was destroyed, and only whimpers of a famed greater past like the era of Jim Crow remained. But can any rational person or institution seriously claim on moral or political grounds that this was a bad practice to end? Perhaps in the manner of which it was done (to which I would say there were very few other options), but the underlying desire to end the enslavement of others needed to occur from not just a moralistic standpoint, but political one as well.
The south was comparably poor, unindustrialized with a large population of possible insurgents within their borders, and would have without a doubt been a pariah due to being one of the last slave countries in the modern world. Change needed to happen to be able to have a chance in fixing these deep-seated issues. The results of those who later took power do not change this fact.
* * *
It is in this thought of change from the current system that we arrive at attempting to answer what system of governance is the best for us. A democratic monarchy is by my thoughts, the best response to the question. This is the case for two central reasons. The first being that unlike a republican state where the actions of one president do not reap its eventual outcome until two more have taken office, in an even unjust system a monarch actually has to bear the burden with the results of their actions. There is no hiding behind past leaders and very rarely a parliament (the case of the second often only used when a monarch is not permitted to take action). This necessitates long term strategy spanning sometimes decades that is not seen at the level of a pure republic, where every four or five years where one agenda crumbles another takes its place. Which in a narrow definitional sense is not just unstable, but also allows more chances for things to go wrong in the changing of power between sides. To not have to deal with this creates an environment that allows for greater highs in success with competency, though admittedly greater failure with the reverse.
Using propaganda to mask unpopular actions from a ruling monarch is of course still effective, but the game being played is somewhat different from that of an elected president. It is instead not a fight of what can be thrown on to their successor or rivaling party, but of how the public will actually perceive one’s actions in the short and long term. The question of legacy is tied in with this too and is of much greater importance for a monarch because it will not only affect them, but their blood related descendants who also eventually take the throne. People who share a much greater connection than some other party official.
This also has a chilling effect regarding political extremism if the ruler is not totally idiotic. Without the constant need to bombast individuals’ lives with covert advertisements and propaganda in the hopes of increasing polling numbers or public approval for certain decisions in the hope of being reelected in two years, its place in commoners’ public lives becomes much less apparent. The role of the leader is already cemented and established, manufacturing consent to fulfill the “voice of the people” is not needed to the same extent. A brutish sense of control of the thoughts of a population will forever remain, but this is inherent to any institution given the need to buy in to it for the structure to work. It is also much more apparent to the average person what is happening given the knowledge that they know something is not being done for the campaign trail.
True danger lies in convincing a public that not only are they agreeing with whatever crusade the elite wish to go on, but that it was their desire by democratic consensus as the necessary thing to do. This compels the physical action of the individual to comply, but also removes their intellectual agency as well by subverting the mind. It is with this sleight of hand that a population over time and instances of the tactic being used begin to lose control over their own intellectual reality, instead bending to the will of democratically elected elite who have the means of to change it.
A prudent subject to ask now would be, if all these things are so positive, then why a democratic monarchy instead of an absolute one? Giving an answer falls into two separate statements once again. To give the public a voice in political affairs will without any doubt invite the stated above problems. However, there must be a level of compromise with this danger that a society is willing to take, and having citizens be able to have a say or be elected in local councils or provincial Duma’s are reasonable requests given their relatively minor damage in the case of being corrupted compared to a national leader.
The second is very easy to state given the historical context of absolute monarchism. For any nation it is an almost certainty that eventually someone will rise to power with the worst intentions in mind. Horrible rulers will horde money, betray compatriots, blind the public by an unnecessary level of propaganda, get into wars where millions of lives are lost, and a host of other miserable actions. This, it could be argued, is a fact given the alure of power and who seeks it. If one is to work forward from the preposition that the ascension of a tyrant is inevitable or at least extremely likely, instead focusing one’s entire energy on stopping it from ever occurring, a better strategy would instead be to ask what tools should be in place to limit this from it going too far.
A totalitarian system can do this, but it stands to reason that one with democratic principle in place has a better chance of doing so given the greater ability for the general public to interfere. To make this change from trying to stop it from ever happening to being able to survive it is a gentle nudge in direction, but important because through this change the main focus is building institutions which can even survive a horrible leader, rather than acting within a system built on the framework of a ruler who wishes to stay in a narrow domain. Like one can see in the Russian or French revolutions, these systems were not built to withstand horrid or incompetent monarchs because their entire system was built around their competency. This led to not just their own destruction, but the legitimacy of the throne, system, and nation which took decades to build back up.
Aligned with this thought, democratic codes and laws should also rise for another reason. Having a constitution that limits that power of the monarch not only stifles the actions of the tyrannical but ensures freedom of the common man in a way that emotions from a person cannot. Without this enshrinement on paper, there is no true rights or responsibilities of rulers to their citizens in the eyes of the law using the strictest of senses. When thinking about it realistically, only the trust of one’s word can be used. To have it laid out legal code is much like safety guidelines, they go largely unnoticed until something happens in which they prove to be needed, and those that hadn’t followed it will pay the price. It is then when you will be undoubtedly grateful that they were there, even if they were a complaint or afterthought in the past.
None of this is worth anything however without its enshrinement in civil society. Otherwise known as the actual “use” of what has been written. A true law (not just the primitive use of power) cannot be enforced without the alignment of three separate areas. The commonfolk who give legitimacy, enforcers who enact upon that legitimacy, and court system which reinforces the original intent of the law. Without all of these three, a rotten discourse of malcontent will brew and ruin the other two. If the courts do not withhold the original intent and standard of the law to even the most powerful of individuals, the legitimacy from the public will be revoked and the enforcers who used to be looked upon as guardians of order are now looked at as the arm of a tyrannical system. This is undoubtedly in part why for many corrupt societies the police and other enforcement bodies are viewed in a negative light. It is not necessarily the police themselves, but they are instead the symbol of a corrupt system that deflects responsibility to those who really should be looked at. They are in multiple facets the public face of those who run society.
Moving on from the minute and into a wider view, it can be asserted that combining these two parts of constitutional democracy and hereditary rule provide not only incentives to plan for the long term in the realm of politics and ability for decisive action (thus ensuring greater levels of national potential), but also allow enough inside discourse and individual freedom to create a system that cannot so easily be upset. A combination of the highest high and lowest low of monarchy meeting the “meh” of the bureaucracy as it were. Neither true republicanism nor absolute monarchism allow for this mesh of positive traits. Therefore, being inherently obsolete options, should be laid to rest in favor of their combined power.
Pro-Democracy in Foreign Policy
In contrast to the previous chapter, it is a given in the West that the best form of governance runs something along the lines of a republic. In this sense not a direct democracy, but elected officials that act on the supposed will of the people. This is held as true for not only their own countries, but of the entire world as well regardless of history or culture. To claim this can work for every nation it is applied to is one of the most dubious of suggestions. In a broad sense wanting the ability for every citizenry to have individual liberties and rights to the level of their own seems like a noble act, yet the idea still leaves a bitter taste in many who have been formerly propagandized by it.
The reason for this is not necessarily in the abstract concept itself, but from what one could say its true purpose and the way it is enforced by major powers. Beneath the surface of calls for democracy has often laid a much more sinister goal.
It’s usage in modern international affairs has been a primary tool in crushing would be opposing states or to gain something that is needed under a disguise. The two main culprits of this act in the Anglosphere are the United States and the United Kingdom. It does not take much to realize after looking at the recent fallout from the last 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan that if justifications for invading were not complete lies in the hope to achieve some other hidden interests, then it was a level of sheer incompetency unmatched in modern history. Not an ounce of non-propagandized thought went into understanding either countries internal ethnic or political landscape, and it shows in the results. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that two countries based on tribal and ethnic lines would not do well in a quasi-democratic system. Instead of realizing this, a great façade of western democracy and expansion of civil liberties was displayed to the public, while at the same time things turning into complete disaster for anyone but the elite.
Now in the aftermath of both wars not only is interethnic conflict in Iraq greater than it was before, but the Taliban have at least for now completely taken control of the entire country of Afghanistan with the acceptance of its once longtime enemies in the Northern Alliance. It may be easy on the surface to claim that this was just a failure instead of evil intent, but when pulling behind the veil different motives may reveal themselves. One of these is the CIA’s dealings with the global drug trade. Like the Contras in Central America and the crack epidemic in the 1980s, the organization has long been purported to make a wealth of money from the export of heroin in Afghanistan to European lands. Where this money goes after that is anyone’s guess and the agency has had little accountability since its creation. To say this had little effect on staying in the country for twenty years is in the opinion of this author, doubtful.
Though one agency should not, and probably doesn’t lead the agenda for an entire nation, the circumstances around this conflict are particularly strange. Since at least the Afghan war against the USSR starting in 1979, the CIA along with the ISI in Pakistan began funding Islamic extremist groups to fight against the Soviets. Vast amounts of wealth for the agency were thought to be made throughout the period of the 80s and 90s up until the year 2000 with its invested relationship.
This year is important because it was in June that Mullah Mohammed Omar, the then leader of the Taliban, declared a ban on all heroin production. This led to a drop in production of an astonishing 99% within months. Only a little more than a year later the US invaded Afghanistan after they had been in control for over 4 years, and since then production has been growing ever since.
This does not necessarily mean correlation equals causation, but it is suspicious nonetheless. And with so many other conflicts started in the name of democracy and rights such as America’s numerous coups in Haiti, weird anomalies like the above example reveal themselves with the slightest of research. In the 1990-91 general election in Haiti, the wealthy Washington favored candidate in Marc Bazin lost overwhelmingly to a populist named Jean-Bertrand Aristide. This was at the time by all national researchers a complete shock. Yet somehow, only eight months later in 1991 he was forced into exile by coup and over the process of three years the new military government eradicated much of the remaining populist movement by way of mass murder.
Many leaders of such massacres of those who opposed the government had been on the CIA payroll, such as Emmanuel Constant, a leader of a Haitian death squad named FRAPH who later went to prison in 2008 not for his serious crimes in murdering people, but from mortgage fraud while working at a brokerage in the US. After the laughably named “Operation Uphold Democracy” by US forces, like Constant none of those responsible really paid a price. The de facto leader of the military government in Raoul Cédras had been given 1 million dollars and three properties to resign from his post left for Panama, Colonel Michel François (who had been trained at Fort Bragg) eventually landed in Honduras, with many others following a similar path. It is with occurrences like these that souring on so-called Pro-democracy in foreign policy is easy to happen for anyone paying attention.
Having this frame of mind also puts the events of the Euromaidan in a much more cynical light. By all reasonable definitions what had happened was a coup of a legitimate government, and yet it was portrayed as an act of freedom in the western world. Combined with the appearance of important public officials like John McCain actually in Ukraine (imagine the blowback if the reverse happened in Dmitry Medvedev arriving in Mexico City) and the support of Neo-Nazi paramilitary groups in the east, the mind inevitably wanders to much less favorable conclusions.
With this background in mind, it is important to realize the precarious position we are in to be astroturfed by these very same people. Rusyns do not even have a government or intelligence agency that can at the very least put on a show against such interference. Except for the ability to speak to each other there are few options available. If the takeover of public opinion and political sovereignty can be done in Ukraine, it can be done to us too given the right circumstances.
It is gravely worrying in terms of intellectual sovereignty and our future if the spotlight of international affairs begin to shine down on Carpathian Rus’. The key here is to stay under the radar in building up a national identity until it is too strong to overcome. Because make no mistake, these governments do not have our best interest in mind, yet they portray this to be the case. A supposed desire to make sure our rights are kept, promoting free and fair elections, all of these are mere mockery compared to their real form. This above even our current trouble with the Ukrainians is the single gravest threat that lies ahead because it is from the most powerful of people in the world. The depressing reality of the situation is that our only real hope of not succumbing to it is that they ignore us entirely. How likely that will happen is anyone’s guess.
Wokeism, or American Imperialism?
An inarguable part of the rapid acceptance of modern western influence is the allowance of American civil religion to creep into cultural life. By this I mean not just the standard spiel of democracy and the end of history so commonly stated, but of attitudes that manifest from American culture. With Washington’s desire to export these same values to the rest of the world under the threat of becoming an outcast, calling it cultural imperialism does not seem to be an inaccurate description. Expecting the likes of the Taliban to be “inclusive” as US officials did after the fall of the Afghan government may warrant including the moniker of delusional as well. There are many other overarching terms, but one of the most common to describe this bundle of American imperialism infused with horrible ideas is Wokeism.
When one hears a term like Wokeism, oftentimes they think of the abandonment of the western enlightenment and regression back to the importance of the group identity above all else. Identity politics, hundreds of pronouns, the list of other inane ideas could go on for days. In essence, the continuity of it supposedly revolves around what my people have done or have happen to them and how this can be rectified. But what if this is merely a façade for the complete opposite? While the rhetoric of a movement means much, the intention behind it matters even more.
This is to say, Wokeism is not a collectivist ideology veered away from the standard course of western thought with the goal of superseding it, but instead an acceptance of the system itself and desire for individual gain within. They are in fact, tied together by the same foundation and root of individualism so present in western consumerist societies. When using this name “Wokeism”, it is even impossible to refer to one singular definition because it depends entirely on each individual person’s stance.
Zooming out to a broad level, there is at least one unified characteristic that all have in common. They were all born out of discontent with one’s position in the modern world. While many intellectuals in the mainstream such as Jordan Peterson will label this wave of so-called political radicalism as post-Modernity or something like it, meaning a bastardization of historical western culture separated from its roots, this drastically misrepresents the true nature of what is taking place. Some of the most popular ideas may have originated out of Parisian intellectual circles from the 1970s, but in the hands of common folk have taken a life of its own. He and others are also missing that the very culture they praise so highly and wish to seep into groups such as ours was what led to its very creation. The current situation has been quite literally manufactured in a western cultural environment.
Even defining all these different versions of Wokeism using political terminology in a traditional sense is tenuous at best. In fact, most so-called activism movements that hit the mainstream zeitgeist of American life and the rest of the Anglosphere lack almost any concise ideological grounding at all. This, however, does not actually matter because it is not the point of them. Just as in the case of corporate jargon, they do not serve the purpose of two-way communication in the standard sense. It is instead a tool to gain power and status rather than the desire of creating anything of worth for those after. It is in this way a type of civil religion focused on cultural masochism that sacrifices any true vision of the future except for what is best for the individual. A place where tradition and truth have already lost all meaning, and where rational thinking is discarded for a desire to make any belief into reality if it results in benefit. This incredible lack of desire for truth may be one of the only few main differences between old western society and new.
For many controversies of our day, that which can be clearly seen by someone’s eyes cannot truly be spoken out loud in Anglosphere societies. Whether it be the admittance of the complete failure to hold corporations at all accountable for anything or the insanity of critical race theory, the problem remains the same. It is a collective schizophrenia where what someone knows is reality is up against society’s acceptable answer. Though this is not something new nor uncommon, since it exists within every society to some degree, the level at which it’s accepted is. We can look at our own history to find credible examples.
No greater of which comes to mind than of the Soviet Union. The famous “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay.” phrase from disgruntled factory workers is more than just a statement of the inefficiency of the Soviet economy. Below the surface, it is a window into the realization that nothing was true in its outward appearance, and instead of shattering the false reality, the individual understood they had neither the power nor resources to do anything about it.
This notion of the inability to make actual changes runs often in these Wokeist groups of activists. If not actually stating it themselves it can be seen through their demands. Instead of attempting to completely reconfigure a supposed unjust system in the same vein as Marxism of the past, the most common request is for equality of those within power so that they too have some on their side. It is not clerks nor electricians who need to be equalized, but places administration roles and government offices. Removing all else, power is the fundamental focus. This sleight of hand does not mean revolution, but instead the desire to be where the people they despise reside.
Where ideological reasons regarding the collective drove society’s acceptable answer within the Soviet Union, this new iteration is instead the worshipping of hyper-individualism born out of the world that global capitalism has not just helped create, but continues to push forward. The desire and belief of the individual now supersede that of any grand ideological narrative or desire for the greater good of a nation. At its root, it is still dogmatic, but this does not automatically guarantee the existence of a coherent ideology. Time and again this view of the individual’s belief and own needs as the most important creeps in through almost any example that can be chosen.
To hit a current cultural topic, let us entertain the idea of gender theory. In the past what constituted what gender someone was, and from which pronouns they would be addressed by came from the basic eye test backed up by real scientific proof. Much like defining what a chair is, there will always be edge cases of what is one or not, but the vast majority fall within the spectrum so it provides a useful barometer. Now the idea is being pushed that what someone believes themselves to be is the real truth. Or to put plainly, there is no objective truth to be found. As if somehow delusions are not an illness but of deeper meaning that only they can unlock in a way that science is unable.
With this change in conception there is also the breakdown of any rules or requirements to prove the truth of what they claim. It, therefore, does not matter how an individual appears, acts, or is actually biologically situated. A person in front of you could have a penis, beard, and have fathered five children, but if they claim they are a woman then this is somehow now what is supposed to matter. Instead of one superseding ideological narrative above everything else, what is created is a wide array of individual narratives that oftentimes conflict with each other. Again, it must be remembered that coherency is not the point, but instead validation.
We may ask though, how does this situation truly have any relation to traditional western culture? Does it not work directly against the status quo? That would be correct in one sense because it is true that these often eye-rolling ideas such as gender theory and others grouped under a rather vague name of “Political Correctness” or “Wokeism” go against the perceptions of the average American. Where you are wrong is that it is in fact not inherently antagonist towards the elite and thought leaders of today. These movements actually align so nicely with ideas of the current system that they are not shunned by them but easily co-opted to destroy any potential elements of dissent. It is only through the modern priestly class that it has been allowed to get this far.
We must also ask ourselves if these ideas are so groundbreaking and against the status quo, why are they supported or given lip service to by every major institution in the first world? Just this year the CIA, the epitome of neoliberal imperialism, published a string of ads fully embracing intersectionality. As if to say, “we’ll still go bomb some innocent people in the middle east, but a woman will do it this time.”. These by definition cannot be radical anymore because they are institutional whether one will admit it or not. They are part of this civilization and were born out of the institutions of old. Though not exact, a clear lineage is forever tied and should not be forgotten.
It is with this that one must come to the realization that westernizing their society will come along with the probable introduction of Wokeism. You cannot so easily pick some characteristics while leaving others like toppings on a pizza. The only way this has been stopped where global capitalism has been accepted in places like China, whereas stated earlier, has a totalitarian grip and surveillance state that attempts to eradicate any shred of real cultural expression. And just like their economic system, I do not think any sane person would agree if they were putting the goals of the nation first. On some level it truly is a dichotomy of totalitarianism vs. westernization when dealing with the current system. There must be other ways in dealing with this issue without going so backward one way or the other, however, to say what that is still escapes me.
What can be stated, is that in a time where our traditional roots are not even fully grounded, supplanting them for Western Wokeism could be one of the most detrimental things possible. Now is not the time for us to embrace the demented individual, but to raise a society up from the ground of despair. These principles will not only go against that goal, but corrupt the desire for legitimate change as well. And yet, it is just one of the many unenviable issues that strike at the crown jewel of something so many people wish to copy. If this imperialism has led so many other stronger nations down their current path, then there is little doubt it inevitably lead us to a similar position if we allow it to happen. For this alone, a line must be drawn.
Misrepresentation of Russia and Slavia
Though there is not any specific article or book which has stated this openly, through individual discourse I have time and again seen my position towards Russia and Eastern Slavic culture misunderstood. Because of the obvious association with the overarching theme of this new work, I find it fit to address it here. These misinterpretations (mainly from Our Vision) usually follow along the lines of being claimed as Russophile or dare one say separatist, instead of the lukewarm belief of possible cooperation in the domain of political strategy. Conflating these two things deny the extreme complexity of our situation. It is also within this thought that one cannot confuse political realism with ideological desire. At the level of underlying meaning there is a difference between a phrase such as “Rusyns and Russians are brothers and must be united in sovereignty” and “Should things go wrong and our people are pressed into catastrophe, an old acquaintance may be useful.”
One structure’s its argument on shared nationalist angst and the other focuses on the reality of what is happening on the ground. There are indeed plenty of legitimate things to critique the Russian state and its culture for. Among these historical grievances, the direst is the allowance of Ukrainian imperialism regarding the territory of Subcarpathian Rus’. Had Russia been given the chance to rule over our lands only twenty years earlier, the modern Rusyn movement would have been much different if not non-existent. The luck of avoiding Korenizatsiya and the Holodomor cannot be understated.
Though a note must be made in the difference of character between a nationalist Russia as Simeon Pyzh would call it, and one gripped by communism. Before the Bolsheviks it would be accurate to say that the former Russian Empire was more interested in the Russification of South-Western Rus. However, with the formation of a Marxist state the question of ethnic identity was a less important part of the national agenda. Had the monarchy reformed or even an authoritarian faux republic taken control instead, it’s unlikely that Moscow would have rolled over so easily on the issue as it did. Though on the other end, it may have also swung over in the form of continued Russification. This will never be known so there is not much point in speculation.
Another point can again be struck against Russia due to their use of fools in the likes of Petr Getsko to stir up trouble at the expense of its once loyal allies. This declaration of independence in the mid-2000s simultaneously embarrassed Rusyns in front of an international audience while further alienating them from the rest of Ukraine for little more than cheap news in return. If this is their current best methods of subversion, then things in the FSB have taken a turn for the worst since fall of the Berlin wall. Which just goes more to the point to show that they are not actually serious about the issue at all given the results of Crimea and Donbass as counter examples.
Even more troubling from a cultural perspective is the degradation of its society in the wider scope. Russia is invariably a place that lacks free institutions and forces one to play underhanded tactics to get anywhere important. This could probably be said for any place at some level, but the stench of it reeks more here. To qualify this with tirade of facts and studies is not even truly needed to describe something so inherent to the culture. All one needs to do is ask any Russian with any semblance of awareness or power. A reading from The Rage Against God though now somewhat dated, feels appropriate here to describe what kind of fallout these fellow Rus have had to deal with. The times of the Soviet Union and the following era of the Oligarchs are for the most part a thing of the past, but the dust still floats on top of everything like radioactive decay from Chernobyl.
It is with all this in mind that it becomes apparent that the Russian Federation is not a state to emulate in action or political governance. It may even be inaccurate to say that there ever was a time in its history to do so. This is especially true given the widely different character in environment and temperament for which Rusyns find themselves in. In the end even if one does put Moscow on a pedestal for political gain, there is no clear case for how being so blindly loyal would help the situation in Carpathian Rus’ except for ending up as another Abkhazia.
If there is one quality though that can be commended, it is their spirit to survive. The Russian soul may not be appealing in outwardly appearance, but there is something there of special quality. It is a hardened edge for which us as Central European cousins should take lessons on and apply with our own characteristics.
However, the overall picture of the surrounding area no doubt leaves Rusyns in a depressing state of cultural schizophrenia. Wherein other descendants of the Rus’ are complete basket cases of post-Soviet society, and the nations of the west look forward to self-immolation through mass-immigration and the breakdown of truth. Even the Visegrad group for all its well looking actions also shares in the plight the former communist aura that is hidden by a seemingly nationalist agenda. As most autocratic countries have throughout history to mask their flaws and cool unrest. Therefore, when writing on intellectual sovereignty my meaning is truly the desire for independent thought not just from the West, but also East as well.
An argument can be made that an unrefined intellectual stance of Rusyns may be one of the best positions. We have no ingrained history of governance which influences how we perceive ourselves. Our identity truly is one of folk and clan rather than state. This means actually moving forward into that domain would be incredibly difficult, but it also is an opportunity to not follow the same path as others. To make something new is petrifying, but is there really any other good choice?
In these words, the wish is to leave you with the thought of not having to look up to something else. We do not need it to succeed, especially a vision encapsulated in 20th-century thinking of who to grovel to more as was so often done in the past (albeit for credible reasons). The choice is not either or as many would like to believe, and continuing that process means self-actualization and sovereignty is unable to be completely formed.
A Final Word
When someone is of a young age, they often have a romantic gaze to which everything is seen through its filter. It’s as if nothing is so horrible as it should be and things lukewarm in feeling burn to the touch. To grow older is to see the abyss which truly lurks behind it. Giving such a forceful description and critique of an ideology so ingrained in one’s mind from childhood as has been done in this book provides no satisfaction. It is, to write openly, an acknowledgement to the incompetency of man to break free from his animalistic chains and see reality for what it is.
I remember once long ago the feeling of hope in the continued capitalist secularization of society. To be free from the last meaningless traditions of pre-modernity and live in a place where only pure rationality and desire for fortune ruled felt akin to wanting the gates of paradise to open. Once the barriers of the old were broken down a new era of serenity would begin. That day never came, and it will never arrive. For the average man will always be so bound by the desire to have faith in something greater than himself that it can be taken advantage of. The ease to which religious devotion is given to whatever the elites of western society desire so readily pervades the feeble minds of the general population. How foolish so many of us who had grown in it had been.
Adopting a different way to think and act is often not realized at the moment of decision. A string of deliberate or unknowing choices that erode the foundation of the old. This will come to our doorstep just as it did to mine whether it is wanted or not. It is the way cultures evolve or regress and is everchanging like the new generation that takes the previous one’s place. Even sacred traditions of the past morph over time and take on a new form, the important piece is deciding into what. One can only hope to have the forward thinking to know what can and cannot survive. The wisdom to change what can be changed and to give up on what cannot.
My purpose in these writings is not to advocate for Rusyns to continue to act as they always have. Doing so would admit the hopelessness of changing our situation for the better. What is to be said though is what ways the evolution of Western life has failed. Furthermore, to make one realize a dream given by outsiders is never what it appears to be.
The influence of Westernization is not an inevitable conclusion stretching on into the future as many would claim, but something that can be chosen. It may end in disaster, but there is always another choice to be had. With this thought, it provides great discomfort to see the increasingly clear influence that new Western thought and politics has had. The alure that is dangled by governments and organizations like the EU seems as if it is almost too strong to resist. On one end the obvious benefits are truly fantastic at a glance. At no point in our history have we had such protections and liberties then when being within the sovereignty of western nations. But one mustn’t also be blinded to the reality that this global liberalization can and will bring extreme consequences.
Ethnic displacement, destruction of local industry under the guise of global capitalism, abandonment of sincerity, and many more characteristics will inevitably cross over in some way. They may not be as strong or apparent, but is will not be hard to find if one looks deeply enough. A European country may have better work rights, or another has staved off Wokeism better than the rest, but has the average Westerners life gotten better in the last twenty years or worse? To think Europeans are immune to the problems of the Anglophone world and American imperialism is to ignore the glaring warning signals that have been blasting in your face. They may be slower in showing themselves, but rest assured they are coming.
In writing this, one also has to question that if countries with institutions are being corrupted by Western principles or used as pawns in American style imperialism, then of what hope do we have? We are not the exception, but a small people with no real power. Even more, Rusyns are not yet strong willed nor have a record of fighting back. It is as if we are sheep ready to be slaughtered by a pack of wolves.
But as our complicated situation entails, another question emerges from that statement. Why is western liberal ideology so appealing? It cannot be just pure propaganda to the need for religiosity alone which has made it so popular. There must be something deeper that it touches. For some, the allure is held with the naivety of its principles, and in regard to imperial politics, the quest for power. In the most primeval form however, the crowning jewel that sits upon it all is the freeing from restraint. The breaking of responsibility placed onto the individual by the church, community, and nation. Like candy the feeling is so sweet that is lures one to eat more and more until a point where a story about how healthy it is to eat is conjured up.
Life does not work that way nor is a human made to. Being able to live a life that is fulfilling is not through the gorging on sweets and trinkets, but the long nights of labor to help another. Happiness is not and should never be a goal because it is not a state of mind, but an emotion that moves regardless of one wanting it to. Herein lies the eternal issue. How does one stop from eating too much candy? It is a question that only has two real answers, moderation, and absolute isolation. Even with everything laid out on the table, what direction to choose is one fraught with struggle because after removing the waste one can see that there are beautiful concepts to be taken from western culture.
Yet, there is something so deeply wrong with the societies they come from that it makes one question their legitimacy from the mere association. The path forward to the light is so murky that this time more than many others feels dangerous for a nation that does not have a confident and powerful soul. To form one that does not contain the decaying shards of modernity is a task that requires one to stare into the abyss of human degeneration. An act that no man can leave from without suffering its scar.