Timofei Sergeitsev — Today, it's more than clear that the entire Western Discourse on the events in Ukraine and Russia's role in these events is a lie.
At least, this is obvious for us.
What should we do in this regard, and what does it mean?
A natural reaction is to try to convince the West: you are making a mistake, you are wrong; or at least to convince the West's target audience — the world, or at least Ukraine.
However, even people in the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics, unless they belong to the self-defense forces, have been repeating the same phrase, when interviewed by reporters: why is our government bombing us? Why isn't our government leaving us alone? We just want to live in peace! In other words, in the minds of local people "our government" is still in Kiev, or perhaps so far in Kiev. Maybe, but the fact is that people in Ukraine's southeast do not understand what is happening, even though they have been affected by these events.
Should we challenge the lie?
Any dispute implies the existence of an arbitration court and a court in general. Entering the dispute, we acknowledge that we are a side in it. In other words, we ourselves question the rightness of what we are doing or not doing. Do we gain or lose, as a result? Does the side, which lies knowingly, gain or lose when allowing its position to be questioned, thus making it potentially legitimate?
And who are the judges?
Any court is power. Its goal is to ensure jurisdiction over the conflict and prevent anybody else from interfering in it. The evidence (any evidence, including forensic) has no validity of itself. It becomes valid only when considered and approved by the court. The court, judges and the jury, adjudicate based on their convictions. So, who is going to judge us? And what if the judges and the opposite side hold the same beliefs?
Logical arguments are not working either
Logic, as a concept created by Aristotle after Socrates and Plato, only applied to statements of truth. False statements are outside the logic's realm.
Logic claims that based on false statements one can make any conclusion.
The lie, however, has a developed structure of its own. Sophists taught it to anyone interested and made a good living out of it, but they were opposed by Socrates.
Finally, who should we argue with?
In contrast to Ancient Greece, the modern lie has no author. The invention of propaganda in the 20th century as a modern form of lie (sophism) is based on taking the author out or killing him in a sense. In fact, it is precisely this "symbolic" killing that justifies and allows quite real physical killing of those who say the "wrong" things. If God is dead, as Nietzsche said, then why would the author of lies survive? But it doesn't end there. "The desert is expanding," continued Nietzsche. It is filling with author-less text, whose philosophic justification has been provided by postmodernism. Text generates text. Naturally, such text is not intended for understanding, as the one who wants say something does not exist.
The absence of an author doesn't mean that nobody is pretending to be one
For "softness", the modern propaganda always presents a false author — the spokesperson. This is how propaganda evolves into PR — its most recent incarnation. We can ridicule Jennifer Psaki as much as we want, but the fact is that she is doing what she is supposed to do. This is the negative aspect.
On the positive side, a billionaire heading a political party can post a text in his personal blog (Nota Bene), which was written by a ghost writer, hired by the billionaire's manager, based on a special editorial assignment. Alternatively, as an economic guru, the billionaire can publish under his name an economic text, written by someone else. And so on.
If truth emerges from the clash of opinions, it is only when both sides seek the truth
Clearly, this is not the case. So what should we do? What should we do about Ukraine?
Heidegger believed that a thinker should not engage in arguments, as when he does so he begins to think for the sake of the argument. We should analyze our own position, question, expand, and deepen it.
Not engaging in arguments is not the same as not speaking
First.
As we (and everyone else) are being flagrantly lied to about things that we know for sure, perhaps we should recall what we were told (and we believed) about everything else, things that we barely knew or didn't know at all? Things, for the sake of which we launched perestroika, disbanded the Soviet Union, gave up our sovereignty, and destroyed our economy and education? Of course, we should not be seeking a return to the past, which is impossible in any event. However, the old propaganda is still working today. It is, in fact, the present (and the future), and not the past. When we say that we lost the Cold War, it precisely and only means that we lost the ideology war.
Second.
Our ideology collapsed. The Communist religion no longer exists and thanks God for that. There is, however, a real socialism, which is advancing across the globe, and we know more about it than anybody else. However, it is impossible to use this knowledge within the framework of the Democratic religion. This doesn't mean that we should argue with this religion (speaking of arguments once again). Arguing with a religion is impossible by definition, and we are not arguing. We are just saying that democracy is a wonderful concept, but we intend to interpret and build it as we see fit. This has been known as "sovereign democracy," a concept invented by Vladislav Surkov some time ago. While a good evasion tactics, it works only temporarily, and we are running out of time.
Third.
As arguing with us on conceptual issues makes no sense, propaganda (which is Western propaganda for the absence of any other) inevitably turns to less refined tactics — a direct distortion of facts. More precisely, when the veil of the ideological dispute is removed, it turns out that distortion has always been there and is, in fact, the crux of the matter. We should not seek to create an ideology as the basis of our sovereignty, since there is hardly anything more unstable than ideology. On the contrary, we should get rid of ideology and propaganda in general (Western in this case). Sovereignty is rooted in history and grows out of history. We should know it. The second factor, on which sovereignty is based, is the laws, which govern the life of large communities. And we should know them, as well. That's all.
So, what should we do about Ukraine?
We should start with an adequate assessment of the current situation, given that all the facts are available and we know them (including at the cost of our reporters' lives).
Why are we constantly calling this fascism? It is clearly wrong, and allows others to call us fascists in response.
Fascism is a phenomenon specific to a certain historical period, whereas mass killing of people has occurred throughout history. There are plenty of other analogies.
Fascism was sovereign and highly developed, while in Ukraine we are dealing with incompetent stooges.
Fascists were indeed different from those they killed, while in Ukraine people who are killing each other have no essential differences.
Sociologically, however, the existence of differences is not required. This fact was demonstrated by Jonathan Swift — wars can be waged over the issue of which side the egg should be broken from. This is quite logical as struggle for power takes place only in homogeneous groups, as power is only important in such groups.
However, power can also stay out of the conflict
There is a well-known (and very politically incorrect) sociological experiment when two groups of volunteers are divided into prisoners and guards. First, everybody is giggling, winking, and having fun. The next stage is — ok, let's play a little, and then within a couple of days we have the first casualties. Do you think the guards are in control? No, they are controlled. Those in power are the organizers of the experiment. There are numerous reports you can read about the experiment and you can also watch a movie (German, by the way) called the Experiment.
So what are people in Ukraine dealing with?
Of course, there are fascism fans in the National Guard and its clones, just as there are football fans or fans of Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring (the Right Sector membership is even more diverse). This doesn't mean, however, that Donetsk and Lugansk are being shelled by tiffozi or elves, although by them as well.
The people in Ukraine and we, too, are dealing not with fascism, but with a Universal Managed Democracy (UMD). Any group of people, which can be distinguished by any criteria (the fact that an egg has two sides is a reality) is convinced by the UMD that it can do whatever it wants. By law, of course, but the law can swiftly collapse, while the principle will remain. Those importing and practicing the UMD know quite well how it works. We all must die for UMD, and they will remain.
When we speak of fascism in Ukraine, we hope to stigmatize the enemy. In reality, however, we are avoiding to tell the truth, preferring to discuss only mercenaries.
Timofei Sergeitsev, philosopher, methodologist, and a member of the Zinoviev Club at Rossiya Segodnya
