In 2001, Dugin thanked Putin’s rabbi Berel Lazar for his 'full assistance and support' to the Eurasian movement
Constituent Congress of OPOD "EURASIA"
21.04.2001
transcript
Vladislav Evgenyevich Revsky: Political movement "Eurasia". It promises to be a: Eurasian, because the Eurasian idea is an integral part of Russian history. This explains all its geographical, cultural, civilizational and economic features; b: centrist, that is, capable of consolidating similar socio-political structures around itself on the basis of a common Eurasian idea, and in: state, since its very appearance is caused by the need to resoluously support the state course of the President of Russia V.V. Putin. In one of his last articles, Vladimir Vladimirovich called Russia a Eurasian country, before which new eastern prospects are opening up, so the task of our movement is to make it possible to implement this thesis. The idea of creating such a movement has long been in the forefront of the far minds of the fatherland. In accordance with the federal law on public associations in order to create the all-Russian political public movement "Eurasia" on the initiative from below, more than fifty branches of the movement "Eurasia" have already been established in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, so we have every reason to start our work.
49 delegates representing 48 regions of the country, that is, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, arrived at the founding congress. Registration continues, so we will get more accurate information in the report of the mandate commission. Thus, there is a quorum for the opening of the congress. There is a proposal to declare the founding congress of the All-Russian political public movement "Eurasia" open. Who is for this proposal - please vote. Who is against it? Who abstained? Accepted.
Dear participants and delegates of the congress! Let me declare our congress open. (Applause. The anthem of Russia is playing.) Please sit down.
We continue our work. Dear participants of our forum! We need to elect the working bodies of the congress. The proposals of the organizing committee have been distributed to you and, I will not repeat myself on the secretariat, the mandate commission, the editorial and counting commission, but with your permission, I will announce the updated composition of the commission.
1. Father Vsevolod, Deputy Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church.
2. Sheikh Ul-Islam Tolgat Tajutddin, Supreme Mufti of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims.
3. Chairman of the Coordination Council of Spiritual Administrations of Muslims of the North Caucasus Mufti of Ingushetia Sheikh Mahomet Aldobagachiev.
4. Representative of the Buddhist traditional sankhia of Russia Sanzhai Lama.
5. Varaksin Alexander Ivanovich, deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, chairman of the Sverdlovsk regional branch of the All-Russian political public movement "Eurasia".
6. Yuri Ivanovich Bokan, Doctor of Philosophy.
7. Stanislav Mikhailovich Grankin, Vice President of the Regional Public Fund for the Promotion of Peace and Cooperation in the Caucasus "Unity".
8. Alexander Gelevich Dugin, Head of the Geopolitical Expertise Section of the Expert Advisory Council on National Security under the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly and the Russian Federation, President of the International Non-Profit Foundation "Center for Geopolitical Expertise".
9. Sergey Alekseevich Posokhov, Assistant to the President of the Republic of Belarus.
10. Andrey Viktorovich Ezerov, secretary of Metropolitan Alympiy.
11. Zhidilyaev Vyacheslav Alekseevich, chairman of the "Democratic Party of Russia".
12. Pavel Vladimirovich Klachkov, head of the Eurasian Initiative Center, assistant to the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.
13. Nikolai Pavlovich Klokotov, teacher of the General Staff Academy, Lieutenant General.
14. Yuri Mikhailovich Osipov, professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
15. Mikhail Zinovievich Yuriev, Vice-Speaker of the State Duma 1995-2000
16. Pashchenko Vitaly Yakovlevich, Chairman of the Socio-Political Center of Moscow State University.
17. Executive Secretary of the Department of Religious Educations Shlyonov Valery Lvovich.
18. Yuri Anatolyevich Prokofiev, director of TV-inform, winner of the State Prize of the Russian Federation.
19. Vladislav Evgenyevich Revsky, chairman of the board of the regional public organization of veterans of special services and law enforcement agencies of the club "Honor and Dignity", member of the Union of Writers of Russia.
20. Petr Evgenyevich Suslov, President of the Regional Public Foundation for the Promotion of Peace and Cooperation in the Caucasus "Unity".
21. Andrey Valentinovich Tatyanchikov, chairman of the Tatar regional branch of the Eurasia movement.
22. Tokaev Enver Saidovich, head of the laboratory of the Moscow State University of Applied Technology, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, academician, laureate of the State Prize of the USSR, laureate of the State Prize of the Russian Federation.
23. Farid-Salman Khaidarov, mufti of the regional spiritual administration of Muslims of Tatarstan, assistant to the Supreme Mufti of Russia for information interaction.
24. Alexander Kirillovich Fefilov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Candidate of Technical Sciences.
If there are no changes and additions, I put them to the vote. Who is "for", please vote. Who is against, who abstained? Accepted. I ask the members of the elected presidium to take their seats in the presidium, and I ask the members of the mandate commission to gather in the lobby where the registration for work took place.
We also need to approve the agenda of the congress while they are sitting down
our delegates and guests of the founding congress. The following issues are on the agenda of the congress (they are in the working materials, but I will repeat):
1. Creation of the all-Russian political public movement "Eurasia" and its main ideological aspects. The speaker is Alexander Gelevich Dugin, Candidate of Philosophy.
2. Adoption of the charter of the Eurasia movement.
3. Elections of the political council, the leader of the movement, also the chairman of the political council under the charter, and his deputy.
4. Election of the control and audit commission.
5. Organizational issues.
6. Adoption of a resolution on the results of the constituent congress.
Who is in favor of approving the agenda of the congress, please vote. Who abstained? Unanimously. For the normal operation of our congress, we also need the rules of the congress. It is available in working documents. The main report is up to 25 minutes, speeches - up to 5 minutes, voting on all issues - open, and we take a break every 1.5 hours of work. Who is for this work schedule, please vote. Who is against it? Who abstained? Accepted. We are proceeding to the implementation of the approved agenda. Alexander Gelevich Dugin, Candidate of Philosophy, gives the floor on the first issue of the creation of the all-Russian political public movement "Eurasia" and its main ideological aspects.
While the speaker is coming out, I have a proposal: submit questions to the speaker to the presidium in writing. No objections? Is there a need to put it to a vote? No? Accepted. A word to the speaker.
Dear colleagues! Dear friends! Very respected people gathered here today. Due to certain objective reasons, the Organizing Committee of the "Eurasia" movement was unable to personally talk to each of the participants and offer personal entry into our socio-political movement, the goals and meaning of which I will now indicate. But, nevertheless, I ask you and offer to those who share our ideas, those who agree with our goals, in addition to those people who have already given their consent, from the many respected and famous personalities who are in this hall, our doors are open, and we will be very happy to have each of you present and participate in our movement. Once again, I apologize that due to organizational problems we could not properly address everyone. Thank you for gathering here.
I will outline the basic principles of what this movement is and what we are striving for. The first section of my report is called "Eurasianism as a worldview". What is "Eurasian Philosophy"? Eurasian philosophy is a philosophy that expresses the constants of Russian history. In our national history there were different periods, often opposite to each other in ideological orientation, in terms of the level of statehood, in the place that our people, our state occupied in the context of other peoples and states, but nevertheless, throughout the entire period from Kievan Rus to the current democratic Russia, going through difficult times of decline and ups, incredible ups, when the power of our state, our people extended almost half the world, we, nevertheless, retained some constant values, otherwise there would be no continuity, there would be no concept of "Russian state", otherwise there would be no unity of some cultural general type. So, the philosophy of Eurasianism covers this vector in the most general way, constantly unchanged, developing, but preserving the inner essence. The main principle of Eurasian philosophy is the blossoming complexity. Never in Russian history, in the history of our statehood have we known a mono-ethnic state, a state that would be based solely on the domination of a homogeneous ethnic group. From the very beginning of the emergence of Slavic statehood, we see that different tribes are uniting, mostly Slavic, but also Finno-Ugric. Later, the heyday of Russia came at the moment when the most powerful Genghis Khan, Tatar impulse joined this complex and self-cultural ensemble of Russia. This is the basis of the philosophy of Eurasianism, that Russians are not, say, an ethnic and racial community that has some kind of, so to speak, monopoly on statehood. We also exist thanks to the alliance, thanks to the infusion of a powerful Turkic factor into our common state historical construction. And Eurasian philosophers were the first to note this, assessing the Turkic factor extremely positively.
Eurasianism exists in our world today in a difficult international situation and, nevertheless, the exact analogue of multipolarity, the principle of which is recorded in the doctrine of national security of the Russian Federation, is the Eurasian principle of blooming complexity. It was the variety of poles, the variety of constituent elements, each of which did not lose its uniqueness, that made the meaning of the Eurasian Russian state. And in the same way, this principle, which respects the multipolar, diverse, multi-colored world, is defended by today's Russia in the international situation. In this sense, we can say that the concept of our national security already includes the fundamental principle of Eurasianism.
The ideology of Eurasianism has a long history. This is a long-suffering worldview. For the first time its foundations were formulated by the great Russian thinkers Prince Nikolai Trubetskoy, Peter Savitsky, Nikolai Alekseev, the son of our greatest scientist George Vernadsky, Ilyin, Suvchinsky, Yakov Brombeg, Efros, Korsavin and other best people of Russia. They developed the basics of Eurasian worldview. Until the end, of course, the ideology of Eurasianism at that time - in the 10th, 20th, 30s - was not required. This is understandable, since Marxism won in Russia. But what is the assessment of the Soviet period? Among the Eurasians, it was sharply different from both supporters of Marxism and its fierce opponents. Historical Eurasians considered the Soviet Union as a kind of extreme, heretical, if you like, kind of Eurasianism, as a left-wing extreme Eurasianism, filled with numerous contradictory elements, which, by and large, from the point of view of the Eurasians, restrained the full evolution of the Soviet state, the Russian state in the twentieth century. If we consider Eurasianism as a language, the Eurasians considered the Soviet period a dialect of this language, one of the varieties of this language, a contradictory variety, and, therefore, doomed, from their point of view, sooner or later, to collapse. Alas, this happened, but not when the Eurasians believed, in the 30s and 40s, since the mobilization of our people and our patriotic national instinct during the Second World War largely prolonged the existence of the Soviet period, mobilizing and opening the way out to the national patriotic elements, but still, sooner or later, it happened and happened in strict accordance with the predictions, with the prophecies of the Eurasians. At the same time, the Eurasians did not say a definitive "no" to the Soviet idea, did not say a definitive "no" to the Soviet state.
They saw in it both positive, creative aspects, saw the correspondence of the implementation of Russia's national interests and the ideocratic system, incorrect, but ideocratic. It was half good because of the ideocracy, half bad because it was Marxist. But Eurasianism has always claimed that Russia has its own way. This path does not coincide with the main path of Western civilization. This is one of the most important and most important theses of the Eurasian worldview. Russia and the West are different civilizations, different civilization models, different value systems. Russia and the West have completely different paths. It was not invented yesterday and not today, it is not a myth of the Cold War, bilateral, of the twentieth century; we see the origins of the demarcation in Christian civilization almost in the 1st century, and in 1054, when Latin fell away from the Orthodox Church, it had already acquired almost theological justification through a great schism. Accordingly, the contradictions between the East and the West have been laid for a very, long time. The entire world history of the last millennium showed the opposite of both the Orthodox Eurasian eastern world and Western civilization. This confrontation has not disappeared anywhere, the Eurasians believed, and it cannot disappear anywhere, since even modern, partly secular, secular forms of our social regimes of the Russian, eastern, wider and western, stem from different roots. These different roots, even at the level of secularization of embing, give completely different forms. In this sense, the Eurasians came close to the formula of the basic law of geopolitics, which states that between Eurasia and Atlantism, between the Eurasian metacivilization, the core of which is our Russia, and the Western Atlantic community lies an irremovable civilizational contradiction, which cannot end with any positive synthesis or alliance. Either us or them. In this respect, Eurasian philosophy and its current continuation were absolutely defined and strictly. There can be no merger with the Western world, let's say, fruitful for our civilization, for our state, for the Russian and other peoples inhabiting Russia. Actually, we faced this even today, when the West turned to us with its rather evil face from such a benevolent provider of humanitarian aid, ignoring our interests in Eastern Europe, pursuing its own, not taking into account our interests policy in the Caucasus, practically carrying out activities that cannot be called anything other than cold aggression against modern, democratic, I emphasize, Russia. And in this respect, the Eurasians were absolutely right: no change in our political system, no adaptation of our ideology to the universal one, although it is not a universal ideology, it is only a Western ideology, and more specifically, American ideology, will not save us, Russians, representatives of the Russian state, the Russian state from pressure from the West. And we see full confirmation of this rightness of the Eurasians in Zbignev Brzezinski's book "The Great Chessboard", where he unambiguously makes it clear that Russia, good for an American, is a non-existent Russia. This is a dismembered Russia, this is an oppressed Russia, divided into several sectors, developed by nearby states. In fact, the victory in the Cold War of the United States of America logically means that Russia is what is taken, as it were, by the contribution, lands and territories obtained as if by the right of the winner and in this sense no illusions should be built here. We have known the West throughout its history. Behind his humanistic and civilizational rhetoric was always rigidity, colonization, his own interests, conquest and control over other peoples. All these aspects, and also the crisis of our national idea, currently makes Eurasianism a very important strategic, philosophical and, I would say, socio-political in many ways a tool and element of our domestic and foreign policy. But we were talking now about the origins of Eurasian philosophy.
I want to emphasize that interest in Eurasianism was awakened with a new force in the 80s. It was associated with the growing popularity of the works of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev, who was called the last Eurasian of the old galaxy. But in parallel with the interest in archival Eurasianism, in the founding fathers of Eurasianism, a new wave of creativity in this direction arises, and I am very glad that today in this hall there is one of the founders of this neo-Eurasian line in science, respected Professor Panarin. With people like Panarin, our group, people from various institutes, from Moscow State University, from other higher educational institutions in Russia, began to forge the ideology and philosophy of neo-Eurasianism, a new chord, a new appeal to this philosophy, filled with a lot of creative intuition.
Neo-Eurasianism emerged in the mid-80s. At that moment, it turned out that the prophecies and predictions of the old Eurasian school were completely coming true. Soviet ideology could not cope with the challenge of the time. Being one or another staple of our socio-political space, Marxism, however, could not give adequate answers to the challenges of the time at all. Due to the fact that such important aspects for human life as spirituality as faith, as interest and respect for the national factor were brought to the liking of orthodoxy, we were faced with a colossal tragedy of our people, with the collapse of the great Eurasian state, and the first Eurasians in the mid-80s hoped that this could be avoided, and even then the Eurasian idea suggested a way out, how, without giving up our positions in the world, without following the lead of the West, to preserve our power, save our state and escape from those limiting, negative, hyper-ideological, de factosectarian aspects of Marxist philosophy, which restrained our development and did not allow our state to exist adequately in the modern world. But, alas! In fact, unfortunately, at that moment these ideas were not in demand. The opposite direction won.
In neo-Eurasiasm, a huge, significant contribution was also made by the school I represent, the school of Russian geopolitics, which coincides with Eurasianism in its methodology, in its main value and methodological guidelines. Eurasianism was seriously enriched by traditionalist philosophy, the history of religion, this level of the founding fathers of Eurasianism was developed rather fragmentarily, at the present stage neo-Eurasian philosophy is a slender historical and religious apparatus that allows us to perfectly understand and realize the subtlest changes in the religious life of different communities, different states and peoples. This historical and religious component was actively developed and, as it were, redesigned in neo-Eurasianism. We have given the neo-European idea a powerful geopolitical apparatus, in particular, I am the author of the textbook "Fundamentals of Geopolitics", which is largely accepted as a textbook in many educational institutions, where, if you like, a scientific geopolitical interpretation of Eurasianism is given. And yet the founding fathers of Eurasianism were largely driven by emotions, good wishes, some intuitions; at the level of geopolitics, all this acquires a scientific character and the opposition to which, the founding fathers of Eurasianism said, also acquires the character of a kind of strategic imperative. This is the law from which we are not free. The scientific presentation of Eurasian geopolitics has changed the very status of the Eurasian worldview, now it is not just a philosophical idea, it is also a tool for strategic planning, an economic approach to various issues, since the Eurasian index began to acquire a scientific and methodological character.
In principle, almost all spheres of our domestic and foreign policy activity can be indexed to one degree or another from the point of view of the division of the non-Eurasian and Atlanticist nature of a particular large-scale project action. Accordingly, economic models were developed. Neo-Eurasianism turned to the so-called heterodox economic tradition, which was the third way between classical liberalism and Marxism. This third way can be called unorthodox liberalism, or unorthodox socialism, almost all the same, since it is believed that this school of the third way in economics includes a wide variety of multidimensional models for solving an economic problem. When we first turn to the founding fathers of this heterodox school, to Friedrich Liszt, to Sismandia, even to Kiynz, and apply the theoretical recipes of these economists to the Russian situation, we instantly get just a perfect coincidence. It is tragic that this third way in the economy has not replaced Marxism. And we moved from one orthodoxy, destructive for Russia, to another orthodoxy, no less destructive, instead of turning to this third way of the economy, which required the subordination of purely economic reforms to state, national and geopolitical interests. To the same extent, this happened in parallel with how Eurasian ideas of philosophy and politics were not demanded during the perestroika and the first stage of reforms.
Now a few words about the political fate of Eurasianism in this last decade. This is a very important point, as it explains to a large extent the evolution of our political position, social political position, and explains the action, the action that is happening today in this hall. So, unfortunately, I emphasize once again that since the late 80s, with the collapse of the Soviet system, Atlanticist, pro-American values have prevailed in our society. If Marxism was a dialect of Eurasianism, then Atlanticism is the complete antithesis of Eurasianism. And since our state in its constants and depth is based on Eurasian values, then, of course, these liberal-democratic reforms, this unilateral extreme, extremist Westernism, could not lead to anything good, as it was obvious to us from the very beginning. In this respect, it was following our philosophy, our view, our value system that we were forced to be in political opposition. The opposition is not just state. Eurasians have always and traditionally supported the state principle, sought to strengthen national security, the strategic power of the state, were apologists and champions of social, national and religious harmony. But the transition period that existed in recent decades was built both in foreign policy and in domestic policy in such a way as not to establish state institutions, not to make our state, our people stronger, more prosperous, richer, more free, but practically vice versa. Everything that was done in an Atlanticist key was done consciously, or by someone unconsciously, but against Russia, against all the peoples inhabiting the Russian Federation. The state was destroyed, an unfinished and inconsistent, insmart, fragmented economic reform was carried out, and thanks to this, we practically rolled into the abyss.
At that moment, Eurasian ideas, representatives of the Eurasian worldview were in solidarity with the patriotic flank in our society, which loudly warned about the fatality of this course. Moreover, I emphasize that Eurasianism itself was not and is neither right-wing, nor left-wing, nor liberal, nor socialist. If Eurasians see elements of protection of the statehood of Eurasian values in the right or in the left, in people of national orientation or economically right, and also in people of socialist orientation, Eurasians logically support them, based on their internal worldview, from their basic values. And in this sense, it is not surprising that the domination of Atlanticism led and was accompanied by the marginalization of Eurasian ideas.
Most Eurasian scientific centers, most Eurasian publications, publications, conferences, as well as Eurasian analysis in current political and economic events, of course, could not make their way to the forefront of our political and cultural life during this period. Eurasianism in the period of Atlanticist value, practically the ideological occupation of Russia, which, thank God, now I will explain, ends, and, one might say, ended, was put, well, as if in the rank of politically correct teachings, since the statement about the originality of the Russian way, the idea of Russia
as a special civilization, not Eastern and not Western, having its own interests in domestic and foreign policy, having the right and duty to determine its own projects on a global, planetary scale - such ideas, which make up the essence and core of Eurasianism, were certainly considered something unacceptable in the broad political picture, in a politically correct space, which was organized and modulated according to Atlanticist patterns.
After the publication of my great work "The Great War of the Continents", where I first proposed in 1991 to introduce this index of division into Eurasians and Atlanists, rigidly, as a methodological model in journalism, in politics, in economics, in socio-political aspects, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Kozyrev said: "So what? According to the Duga classification, I am an Atlanticist. And I'm proud of it." Such statements within the framework of, let's say, a really Atlanticist power, within the framework of the United States of America, if some state official or just a politician would say that he is Eurasian, immediately such a person would be simply interned, since this is a violation of all the norms of America's strategic interests. America builds its strategic model as a confrontation and blocking of the Eurasian civilization and strategic space. We have an incredible thing: the Minister of Foreign Affairs declares, in fact about his Atlanticism, that the interests of the American state and the Western Atlantic bloc of NATO are more important for him, the Russian man and the Russian statesman, than the interests of his own people. It was, of course, a peak and a triumph. Naturally, it's not only Kozyrev, but, there, Borovoy, Novodvorskaya...
What can I say, most of our domestic media, implicitly, implicitly proceeded from such representations. NTV has just finished, NTV held on to these positions until the last, it was the position of Mr. Kiselev, Mr. Gusinsky regarding the fact that there are only one world interests - these are American ones, there is only one model of socio-political structure - this is the structure of the United States of America and their analogues, and there are only one strategic interests - these are the interests of the Western world. Those who oppose them wherever they are from the point of view of these people, well, barbarians, there, morons and so on. And, of course, that we want in such a situation, with such a colossal, absolutely dramatic, catastrophic bias, the Eurasian idea could calmly pour out on television screens, could get wide publicity in the press, parliamentary hearings could be arranged and the beginning of adequate Eurasian education, education, teaching of geopolitics - of course, not.
We have been struggling with this state of affairs for these ten years, fighting radically, fighting by any means, but what did we fight for? I want to emphasize: we fought for our state, for the revival of Russia, for peace between peoples, for an active, meaningful, not intrimental interfaith dialogue. I want to emphasize that Eurasianism pays special attention to the history of religion, special attention is paid to understanding confessional problems. Among Eurasians and neo-Eurasians, there are especially serious and deep connists of the main classical traditional religions, while Orthodoxy, first of all, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism. From our point of view, these subtle and often neglected in economic and socio-political aspects of matter, as matter of religion, matter of spirit, matter of metaphysics are of great, and maybe decisive importance for people's lives. And in this respect, the religious factor is not some prejudice that has been preserved since ancient times, it is an active position and despite the forms of direct destruction, direct aggression against faith and religion, which we have witnessed for many decades, could not burn the truth of faith from the hearts of Eurasian people. And this is equally important for Orthodox, for us, for Muslims, for Jews, for Buddhists. Without this religious, spiritual revival, without affirming the ideal of Eurasian piety, despite the fact that each religion of our traditional religions sees a person differently and gives him several different commandments, the essence is the same: people must be pure, whole, pious, put the ideal, put the true and spiritual above the material, above the concrete, above the selfish. No one has the right to condemn his brother for his transgressions, this is the pre-regative of God, but nevertheless, to prevent the collapse of morals, not to allow society, especially young people, and in principle, all generations to decompose and dissolve in the world abandoned by God. This is one of the most important imperatives of Eurasianism. And in this respect, there is no fundamental difference between different confessions and religions in supporting a normal state, a normal society.
Unfortunately, we were given by historical conditions in the need to oppose the Atlanticist leadership and the Atlanticist government. But the situation began to change seriously since the mid-90s. Our Russian leadership after turning into Atlanticism understood, gradually began to understand, let's say, that this direction is murderous for the country, that despite our steps towards the West, NATO does not stop expanding to the east, does not stop destroying, brutally destroying our Serbian brothers, that the West perceived our benevolent attitude towards it as a sign of our weakness, proving that no humanitarian rhetoric means anything to these people, they understand the law of force. They take into account the strong, they despise, humiliate and torture the weak. And so, faced with this directly, seeing the inconsistency of the Atlanticist reforms, and the fatality, and suicide of this course, events began to change. At first, the most outspoken Atlanticists were removed from power, in particular, the same Mr. Kozyrev, whose decision to resign, among us, took place not without the influence of this phrase; at the same time, a slow, painful process of the exit of the Russian government, Russian society, Russian business and the Russian media, the Russian scientific community from this atlatic impasse began. And in the last years of Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin's reign, we have seen convulsive, extremely clumsy, I would say, extremely inadequate, but nevertheless attempts to somehow find a different course, to slow down the fall into the abyss, to offer something else, something more corresponding to the interests of our state.
But, apparently, ideological and personal aspects did not allow and were an obstacle to the final turn taking place under the former president. Even in my personal destiny over the years, just from 1997-98, there are quite indicative changes. I have moved from tough patriotic opposition, I am moving more and more to more cooperation with the authorities. In 1998, I became an adviser to the Chairman of the State Duma and covered and considered the evolution of our leadership. At that time, I already recognized the positive and Eurasian features in this, at the same time convinced of the inability of the patriotic opposition, the so-called, despite the enormous support of its course and its slogans by the majority of the population, the inability to implement and implement its plans, the inability to organize, the inability to act constructively, constructively, to propose positive projects and implement them in practice. Gradually, alas, this opposition degenerated into empty shouts, into opposition to the government and the president at any cost and instead of creation, in fact, there was a certain increase in that structure, a transitional structure, incapacitated, non-independent.
But a real step and a milestone in the history of the neo-Eurasian worldview in Russia was the arrival, the election of President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Here those trends, Eurasian tendencies, which desperately and without any attention knocked on the door of the Russian authorities, almost, well, just like a magic wand, received sanction and development. And during the year of President Putin's stay in power, we see that the green light was given to those Eurasian initiatives that have been accumulating all these years, starting with the creation of the Eurasian Economic Community, which was proclaimed last year and the decision on which was signed by the heads of the five countries of the Customs Union. The process of unification of Russia with Belarus was intensified, which, by the way, was initiated under Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin by Dmitry Borisovich Rurikov, who is a member of the central council of our movement, our close and close and close-minded like-minded person. Now he holds the position of Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Uzbekistan. In fact, Eurasian trends were promoted and approved by the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, and also when Putin came to power, this initiative received its support in the Kremlin.
Gradually it became obvious that the current leadership of the country is unequivocally, albeit, let's say, not abruptly, without jerks, well, it should be, prudent and responsible politicians, moving to Eurasian positions. The last point of confirmation, say, of our assessment of the evolution of Russian power in a Eurasian key was the program statement of Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in Brunei at the Congress of Heads of State of the Pacific Region. In his exclusive interview for the presidential website "Strana RU" Internet, Vladimir Vladimirovich made a clear, unambiguous statement: "Russia is a Eurasian country". For those people who understand the meaning of what follows, this is not just a geographical or accidental statement of the president, this is a program expressed in a single phrase: "Russia is a Eurasian country". And we, specialists and experts of Eurasianism, we, the developers of the neo-Eurasian project, we understand perfectly well what follows from this. In fact, even if the president has no continuation, I gave a detailed comment on the Internet, which was called: "Russia is a Eurasian country, which means..." and then 30 signs of what follows and what it means are listed, and gradually, step by step, let it be slower than we would like, but these steps are being taken; in fact, we see that the course is on statehood, on strengthening the statehood of Russia, on the stabilization of the vertical of power, on the harmonious solution of interfaith and interethnic issues, for the improvement of the Russian economy, on the transition to the regime of autonomous economic policy, when we refuse loans from the International Monetary Fund, and now the only thing that binds us is the obligations to which self-respecting states, even if these obligations are made unfairly, incorrectly by the previous generation of politicians and economists, heads of economic departments, are responsible, nevertheless, we see that the course is taken unambiguously. And at this moment we realized the need for a final and full, total transition to the positions of political centrism. Not centrism because it corresponds to the course, but because this course, the course of the current government, the course of the current center in its main parameters corresponds to the system of views that we have suffered and endured.
When they say that, well, someone supports the president with such reservations, with such reservations, in fact, it's kind of clear that these reservations are worth it. We support the president totally, radically, so we define our position as a radical center. If, from the point of view of our analysis, there are certain, well, let's say, not corresponding to the strict Eurasian view, moments, we believe that in this case they should not be criticized, but should be corrected on the example of experience, on the example of real action.
Of course, now the centrist flank is represented quite diversely in the party-political aspect: now four pro-presidential factions have united. We are extremely positive about this process. This is very good, and the more centrist parties there are in the State Duma, the more support the President of the Russian Federation, the better. But it has happened in our last historical period that these parties are largely designed and created for conjunctural reasons. They represent a kind of permanent political class, ready to support and implement ideas practically well, if not any government. There is no full-fledged, democratically party society in Russia, and from the point of view of Eurasian ideology, it cannot develop, since we have another country, parties, full-fledged parties - reflect the experience of Western humanity and the logic of their history, our parties, as a rule, are rudiments or some such quasi-party organizations. And in this regard, the conjunctural party center, which supports the president and to which we are extremely positive, nevertheless causes us concern, since the same center supported - simply, practically, the same people, or a significant percentage of them - the most incredible and most anti-state, anti-Eurasian trends. This shows what, by and large, alas, he can, as it were, achieve, what it is fraught with.
Consequently, such a center is a center, if you like, conformist. Our center and our Eurasian positions, our radical support for the president is precisely centrism according to the Eurasian conviction. We support the president constructively, we support him as a Eurasian leader and we strive not just to state this, but to delegate the colossal developments of Eurasian philosophy, Eurasian strategy, Eurasian methodological apparatus, including scientific to the current leadership, we are ready to cooperate with him in the closest way and in any form in order to help this fateful phenomenon and event, which are Vladimir Putin's Eurasian reforms. We don't just say "yes", but we know what, in fact, we need to do in this vein.
And now I come to the reason why, in fact, we have gathered here. As a result of such an analysis, consistent analysis, we have come to the conclusion that a new type of movement is needed, a movement that does not set itself the task of throwing itself into the electoral party election race, does not set itself the task of creating another political clan, in which another nest of corruption, conjuncture, clanism and so on has settled. We are making a movement that is not yet in the Russian Federation, a movement based on a worldview approach. This is a worldview, Eurasian movement, and if we determine its goals and objectives, they are as follows: our goal is not to come to power and not to fight for power, our goal is to fight for influence on power. These are different forms. The party model assumes a kind of blackmail of the authorities, that is, parties can leave the meeting of the State Duma, may present an ultimatum, may reject, not adopt a certain law. This is a form of bargaining, or trade. It seems to us that this democratic form, inherent in Western institutions, in Russian conditions generates only clanism, corruption and, by and large, it would be better if the parliament was, as if non-partisan and pro-presidential, in general, in fact, without special divisions into parties, to which, thank God, in my opinion, everything is now going, that is, simply as a form of some administrative, how to speak, additionally another department of the presidential administration, only brought into such a legislative form. And in this respect, we believe that truly effective complicity in power and influence on power should take place by other standards. We must put forward well-founded Eurasian projects, we must offer these projects to the leadership, we must demonstrate how they work in the most specific directions.
There are several topics that can be mastered exclusively by Eurasian philosophy applied to the current socio-political aspects. First of all, these are interethnic, interfaith conflicts. When it comes to interfaith conflicts, there is usually such a moment: either we are talking about a quiet and peaceful coexistence of people who are cool to their own faith, and therefore indifferent to the religion of others. Such people are conjunctural, let's say, interfaith pacefists. They are usually present at various round tables to pacify interreligious conflicts. Although it's in itself, it may be good, but, alas, it usually doesn't do much. They are opposed in the confessional sphere by the so-called fanatics or radicals, who call for tough opposition to the interfaith one. This is even scarier, certainly even worse, because it deals an irreparable blow to our people, because it divides among themselves those forces that should together, jointly, in the name of common piety and faith, each of his own, revolt against modern, cultural, immoral, pseudo-ethical models dictated by the West. So, Eurasianism offers a different option here.
We offer the unification of deep, active, believing people, fundamentally believers, if you like, fundamentalists, everyone in their own environment, everyone in their religion and it is the union, say, of positively creative, Eurasian-minded fundamentalists, both in Russia and more broadly, in the CIS countries, in the world. It should be a new model of interfaith dialogue based on understanding the depths of one's own tradition and understanding the depths of the traditions of another people. In this sense, we kind of unite the poles. We call on people who deeply and vividly experience the uniqueness of their own faith, we call them not to merge, in no way, everyone defends their worldviews and their own tradition, but to deep mutual understanding and strategic alliance of traditions. This Eurasian methodology can, as time now shows, be extremely effective in a number of cases. And when representatives of confessions actually see that the Eurasian model in no way infringes on the dignity of any church, no religion, helps to solve specific interfaith problems, without extinguishing the fire of faith, but, on the contrary, to ignite it, this is certainly a colossal tool, including in social and political normalization. The problem in the North Caucasus is particularly acute. Now the situations are brewing, and quite tense, in Tatarstan, in the Islamic regions. From our point of view, for the organic entry of the existence, as it has been for centuries, of the Islamic tradition and the Muslim world with the Russians, in the Russian state, not just as allies, but as full-fledged, full-fledged participants of our common state, our common power, the Eurasian project here is an ideal formula. Certain models of this project are now being worked out by us in a specific policy to regulate and normalize the situation in the Caucasus region. Similarly, interethnic conflicts are resolved on the Eurasian platform. And there is no opposition between nationalism and internationalism. The founding father of Eurasianism, Prince Trubetskoy, also spoke about pan-Eurasian nationalism, when the self-affirmation of each people and each nation in Russia is supported by the center, is not opposed to the affirmation of other peoples. This positive, creative, harmonious, symphonic, if you use such a church-Slavic word, the Eurasian principle of unification, it gives an opportunity to solve national problems. Those who believe that everything has been solved with national problems in Russia are deeply mistaken. The analysis shows that colossal sources and centers of conflict are maturing and not without the influence of our geopolitical opponents - Atlanticists. Moreover, recently there was open information about the presence of CIA employees in the Chechen opposition, according to our operational data, according to our analysis, this is not only now discovered, it was from the very beginning of the Chechen conflict, and if it were not for the actions of agents of influence who have nothing to do with either the Chechens, Muslims, or, of course, with Russians, if it were not for these extraneous factors, including economic, political, strategic, cultural and simply agent, then this bloody conflict would not have happened. Again, we see a third force everywhere, this Atlanticist factor, which is the source of our main troubles.
So here's what I want to say. Thanks to these conclusions and having agreed on our main positions with the representative of state structures, appealing to the support of those people in the regions who supported us and who, as if a long time ago or now recently joined the pan-Asian movement, which in fact has existed almost since the end of the 80s, now only acquiring the design, it was decided to create such a movement, to hold a constituent congress. Delegates from 50 regions came to us, our friends, our like-minded people came to us. It is also gratifying that our movement includes a sufficient number of representatives of business, the financial elite. Responsible and forward-looking people from this field have long understood that short-term profit-making models, the purely speculative nature of the economy will never provide stability and confident prosperity, as well as genuine business security. In the muddy water of chaos and economic decay, depression, only the lowest farmers can fish. Today, many entrepreneurs and bankers are aware of the importance of long-term and medium-term planning, understand the importance and vital necessity of complicity in socio-political processes. Not all, as it turns out, Russian businessmen and even oligarchs work in a compromiser way, striving at all costs to bring their fortune to the ovshor zones. The number of those who realize the inextricable connection of their business with the fate of the country, with the strategic course of Russia, is constantly growing. This is how the backbone of Eurasian entrepreneurship, the Eurasian financial system, is gradually forming. Obviously, the place of such people is in our ranks. Eurasianism involves long-term planning and invites people involved in large-scale economic projects, not only to support our movement, but also to participate, to determine the strategic interests of our state in the economic sphere. Here you can not only strengthen business security, but also participate in strategic planning. Participation in the "Eurasia" movement is especially pleasing now. Support was expressed by representatives of the resource-mining industry, transport systems, military-industrial complex. Of course, the well-being, revival, stability and prosperity of our economy depend, of course, on the success of the Eurasian course of the Russian leadership.
In conclusion of my report, I would like to express my gratitude to my associates who made considerable efforts to ensure that our founding congress took place. Most of all, the chairman of our organizing committee of the "Eurasia" movement was done by the chairman of our Eurasia movement, the president of the "Unity" Foundation, a sincere patriot of Russia, who proved loyalty to the state quite in difficult situations, in Afghanistan, Angola, Chechnya. This is a great organizer and without his most active moral and physical participation, I would probably not have decided on such a responsible step as the creation of an independent socio-political movement. A huge, invaluable contribution was also made by the members of the Unity Foundation, for which I sincerely thank them. I am grateful to the administration of the President of the Russian Federation, the Moscow Patriarchate and personally to Metropolitan Kirill, the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Russian Federation, and, of course, to the respected Talgat-Hazrat Tujutdin, the Federation of Jewish Organizations of Russia and personally to Chief Rabbi Berl Lazar for the full assistance and support provided by all of them in the creation of "Eurasia". I am very glad that the Plenipotentiary Representative of Sanzhai-Lama of the Buddhist Community of Russia also arrived at our founding congress. I am pleased that representatives of so many regions of Russia, Russians and Tatars, Orthodox and Jews, youth and military, entrepreneurs and people's deputies of various levels, honored workers of science, culture, artists and scientists are present at the congress. Eurasia is multidimensional and multi-colored, our movement also assumes to be very complex and colorful, if you like. This is our wealth. Eurasia is the work of all of us, so different, so dissimilar, but united by a higher spirit and faith in our Fatherland, love for it, devotion to it. Everything else depends on you and me now. And earlier attempts were made to do something decent, animate, truly valuable and alive in Russian socio-political life. And every time, alas, it didn't live up to expectations. I consider it a matter of honor for myself and for all of us to break this pattern at least once on the symbolic threshold of millennia, we must found and carest something really worthwhile. And from now on, we hope to share the hardships and victories in the revival of the great Eurasia, our common homeland, our ideal, together with you. What can I wish for? In a kind and difficult way, friends, and no matter how our difficult life turns, I believe, I firmly believe that the rays of the unearthly truth will illuminate our land and bring all soldiers goodness, justice and light to the long-awaited, so desired victory. Eurasia first, the rest later.
The report is finished, so, agreed, we transfer the questions to the rapporteur to the presidium in writing. Answers at the end of the congress.
Dear participants of the congress! Before proceeding with the discussion of our report, there is a proposal to give the floor to the welcomers. Constituent Congress of the All-Russian Political Public Movement "Eurasia". The floor is given to Father Vsevolod. Deputy Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church. Prepare for Father John's secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your speech and for the invitation to this congress. Many of the ideas that were expressed in the report of Alexander Gelevich and in the documents distributed at this congress are close to the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Indeed, today the country is going through a period of rather painful and dangerous ideological crossroads. After the collapse of the ideology imposed on us in the Soviet period, and after many realized its spiritual bankruptcy, the ideology that was tried to be established in the 90s, the resulting vacuum is a real threat to the present and future of the country. Those forces that have failed to fill this vacuum over the past few decades may now be interested in ensuring that this vacuum is maintained and that none of the forces capable of occupying it have such an opportunity. It seems that we should be quite clear that the preservation of this vacuum is harmful, and we need to join forces so that the country acquires its worldview and that it can build its present and build its future on some solid spiritual, moral, intellectual basis without breaking with its own past.
We have something to say to the world around us, and I am deeply convinced of this. Our civilization has answers to the challenges of globalization, to the challenges of the so-called postmodern society, we should not despair, we should in no case go on the defensive, allow ourselves to be pushed to the marginal of European, Eurasian and world processes, we must remember that, I may be now a sharp thing enough and say, maybe I will say a brave thing, but this is something that we obviously have to realize. There are a majority of us in the world, people who do not base their life values, their lifestyle, their way of thinking on the values of Western secular liberal humanism, in the world the majority and we must behave like a majority, we must try to reasonably, authoritatively and strongly oppose the idea of universality of a certain set of values that are interpreted as universal, in fact are the values of the minority of the population of the planet, are a pseudo-universal standard, are those values that are shared by people who today have the most money, the most power and the most social influence, but still - people who do not make up the majority of the earth's population and we need to remember this and to act appropriate images.
We should, as it seems, not be afraid of the challenge of globalization, economic, cultural, informational, it carries both certain dangers and new opportunities for Russia, for dialogue of interaction of the unity of traditional cultures, primarily Orthodox and Eastern Christian culture, and Islamic culture. We can and must take advantage of the new opportunities that globalization opens up, we must obviously be aware that the so-called postmodern society cannot be built on the values of modernism, on those values that are shared today by the avant-garde, the so-called part of Western society, we must offer our own values to the globalizing world, we must respond to those challenges of the new economic and political reality that many in the world today mark, and we have these answers, and we must try to make them known to the world.
What was said today about the importance of interreligious dialogue and interaction is very important, but it is possible to update this dialogue and the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church is very clearly aware of this. It is no coincidence that our church became the initiator, one of the initiators of the creation of the interreligious council of Russia and the holding of an interreligious peacekeeping forum. For our church, this dialogue is not a protocol function, it is not a task to tick another mark in the reports, it is an urgent necessity, which is dictated by the growth of interethnic and interfaith conflicts, and at the same time by those very important, truly unique opportunities that our religious traditional communities have, if we can jointly influence the processes taking place in the country, in Europe, in Eurasia and in the world. Our dialogue needs to be updated, strengthened and, obviously, it is increasingly necessary to build it not on the basis of Western models of interreligious dialogue, that is, ultimately, on the basis of the statement that the only thing that unites us is the Western humanistic standard, we need to build this dialogue on the basis of our own spiritual traditions, on the basis of a decisive refusal to level or ignore our differences, but on the basis of a common will to interact for the benefit of society, for the benefit of people. The Church is ready to interact for such good with any public organizations, with any political movements. As you know, the church is open to interaction with every political force that shows interest in interaction with the church and is ready to interact with it in certain matters aimed at the benefit of society, people, country. But once again I would like to say very clearly, emphasize, in my opinion, there have already been several puzzled questions on this topic. The Church does not bless political organizations, it does not delegate clergy to the governing bodies of political organizations, it does not allow the participation of clergy in organizations of this kind, and I participate here, and other clergymen of our church participate here only as observers. The participation of the church through the delegation of clergy in the activities of a political organization is impossible, and it is very clearly stated in the decision of one of the bishops' councils that there can be no blessing on the activities of political organizations, and if it was given by someone earlier, it is considered not to be former. And it is very important that the political figures and representatives of the media present here clearly remember this position of the church, which was officially expressed by our bishops' councils. At the same time, with the refusal of political support, from the allocation of a particular political organization from their general series, the church is ready to interact with each of them, including with the new movement "Eurasia", which today proclaims goals so close to the church, expresses the ideas very actively shared by the language of the clergy, and in this regard, I would like to once again emphasize our full readiness to interact in matters useful for Russia, for our people, for each of us. Thank You.
The floor is given to the executive secretary of the Department of Religious Education and Catachization Valery Lvovich Shlenov. I apologize, get ready for Tolgata Tajutdin.
I send greetings to you from Abbot John Ekonomtsev, who could not attend due to a number of circumstances. Here he sent his greeting, I will count it first, and then I will say a few additional words.
"Dear participants and guests of the congress of the Eurasian movement! Please welcome our heartfelt congratulations on the occasion of a significant event - the opening of the congress of your movement. The Eurasian movement, by its very name, undertakes a great historical task: to unite East and West not as a conglomerate of scattered and warring national states, but as the deepest spiritual unity of a power capable of recreating and embodying the centuries-old historical community of cultures and destinies of peoples. Only Russia, which in its geopolitical position connects the two continents, and is endowed with the conciliatory love given to it by God, with sympathy and compassion for the near and far, can become the basis of the upcoming Eurasian synthesis, which should determine the fate of mankind in the third millennium. The Russian Orthodox Church has always been at the foundation of Russian statehood, with its free principles and constant testimony to the immutable truth and love of Christ. It is significant that both the Muslim faith and other traditional confessions of the peoples living in the Russian Empire were distinguished by amazing peacefulness and tolerance for people of other cultures. We hope that the now revived Eurasian movement will be able to become an important factor in the formation of a renewed Russian statehood, unthinkable without its traditional foundations, that it will be able to rally the healthy forces of different peoples who are aware of the indivisibility of their destiny in the face of danger and disappearance in the mixing cauldron of depersonalizing and devastating globalism. The light of eternal truth will help to overcome the darkness, to cope with the obsession of time, which dictates the ascent further and further down, into the abyss of hopelessness. I wish the opening congress of the Eurasian movement to pass in the spirit of peace, harmony. I wish you fruitful work, help and support from God. Abbot John Ekonomiv, Chairman of the Department of Religious Education and Catechization of the Russian Orthodox Church, Rector of the Russian Orthodox University named after St. John the Theologian."
I would like to say just a few words. We should think a little more important, maybe. I once loved to remember, and now even this is significant, because exactly a century ago the then chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, when he received people who came to him to organize philosophical religious meetings, and someone began to say exalting words about Russia, he said: "Russia, but what Russia, and we can say that Eurasia without God is an icy desert where a dashing man walks." And over the last century, we have largely been convinced of the justice of this, we have our own foundations, our own foundation, and, by the way, the basis in many ways. At one time, more than 25 years ago, when I was studying a book about Amir Timur, which, however, did not see the light of time, I saw that a person who goes deep enough can not notice, feel, feel the community of the spiritual space behind all of us. In addition, the current civilization, which claims to be the only and unique, deified time, itself was captured by time, by time as a deified force with its idols of evolution, idols of the market, idols of relativity of everything in the world, especially what is convenient not to notice and pass by something. And only turning to what does not come to eternity can all of us, this is our common task, because Islam has always had an aspiration to eternity, to immutability, to the truth, to which they do not come, because time itself should put it in the appropriate place, not make a god out of it, as Western civilization did, itself increasingly mired in this impasse. And it seems that our common task here is to turn somewhere, because we are on these paths, on the paths of Western civilization, doomed. We have nowhere to go out. We will go lower and lower, and only if we turn to our own, to our basis, which is both different and united in something in our country, ...(end of the tape)...eternity can finally bring us all out of the dead end. It is not for nothing that any vacation in worship ends: "And now, and forever, and forever".
Host: Thank you. (Applause). Sheikh-ul Islam Talgat-Tajutdin, Supreme Mufti of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims, has the floor.
In the name of the all-merciful and merciful creator. Dear compatriots, dear presidium, I cordially greet you on behalf of the Muslims of Russia, peace, goodness of the Almighty and his help to you in this great cause. Maybe it seemed surprising to someone that Muslims are represented here, and moreover a considerable part of the clergy, and we may have come early, only because of the first rows, in another one and a half, two hours, but why did we come here and why are we here, with you. Yes, because this is what we see on the walls - "Russia is a Eurasian country", thank God, our president clearly and clearly says this, but it's true, who can say what's wrong? No continent on the globe is as connected as Europe and Asia. Even America, North and South with one isthmus. And now they want to unite the free zone, more than thirty states with a full economic zone. Africa is also a small isthmus... And the Almighty has tied us up, completely. Both Europe and Asia. And the peoples who live here. They didn't live, they live. It was in America that Indians used to live. And Tatars, Bashkirs, Muslims, and Buddhists lived here even when there was no Russia, Tatarstan, and Bashkortastan. And God grant that both our children and our grandchildren will always live. That's why we are here, together with you at this congress. And we consider this movement to be our movement. Not just by the fabrication of scientists, philosophers, because everything that is written in the program, the vast majority, we heard it from our fathers, from mothers, from grandmothers, from grandfathers. It was passed on to us by our ancestors. We were united by one - one fatherland. And we tirelessly repeat: "Yes, our homeland, our homeland is holy Russia" Maybe someone doesn't even like it.