Timofei Sergeitsev - It is both short-sighted and incorrect when people refer to what's happening in Ukraine fascism or — less frequently though more accurately — Nazism. Modest Kolerov, who published what is, in my opinion, the most accurate account of events in Ukraine, calls the phenomenon "hostile ethnocracy." I'm convinced that we are dealing not with the fallout but the intended goal of universal controlled democracy (UCD). How is this possible? Well, the Weimar Republic did end in Nazism, after all.
Let's start with Nazism. Nazism makes a claim for the superiority of a particular race (i.e., a broad collection of genes) in a civilizational, cultural and military — in a word, political — sense. Superiority spells power, and when it's genetically defined, it's insurmountable. If you remove the specific 20th century political context of Aryans and Jews from the equation, what's left is good old racism. Where did it come from?
The idea of universal superiority as a form of power is a product of European civilization. Its goal was to conquer the world, and it has achieved it. Today's West is a totality, and we are an internal and integral part of it. Its fixed assets include science and technology, the Christian faith and empire building. However, neither Rome (Empire), nor Byzantium (Christianity + Empire) created racism, though they both strived to achieve superiority. What happened in the New Age?
The first plan for conquering the New World was developed by the civilization that effectively discovered it — Spain. With all the majesty of Madrid and its grand goals of creating a new Catholic world, in contrast to the decaying Catholicism of Germany, France and the Netherlands during the Reformation, the Spanish were anti-racist in their aspirations. Catholic proselytism was built on the thesis of Apostle Paul: There is neither Greek, nor Jew, nor Roman.
Leaving aside all the criticisms we may have of Spain, the plan was put into action. The result was the emergence of new Catholic nations, where the locals were not exterminated (at least, not like in the US), and black slaves (which were mainly in Portuguese areas) mixed with the indigenous population after winning their fight for freedom. The English colonies that laid the foundation for the United States were different in that they carried the spirit of the New Age and science. For all their ostentatious piety (mostly sectarian), the English gentlemen were men of science, economy and industry. Unlike a bishop or a cardinal, these gentlemen could not relate to savages. Science had freed them from this state of being. Thus, the idea of making superiority insurmountable — and even justified by science — was born.
Racism is an ideology of ontologically insurmountable superiority. Of course, genes cannot predetermine this superiority. It is not objective reality. But it is meant to be perceived as such, primarily by the subjects. To achieve that, insurmountable superiority must be acted out by a special institution. In the US, it was black slavery. The United States was a pioneer in that regard. Greek and Roman slavery was not racist: A slave was someone who lost a war, someone who got scared. Slavery in Greece and Rome was a pragmatic foundation of democracy and the economy. The United States made it an institution for reproducing racist ideology.
The subject created by the New Age (explained by Descartes) is self-evident and inherently self-actualized. He considers himself God. For actual self-affirmation, he needs mortal beings whose fate he would decide. He finds them in political practice. The US political nation identifies itself with this subject more than any other nation. All other nations must become mortal beings. This is the metaphysical foundation for the ideology of racism which was born at the same time as science and the New Age. However, the institution of slavery is no longer enough to reproduce racism today. Not because it's impossible, but because slavery is merely an external and temporary borrowing that no longer satisfies the global challenges facing racism.
Today, we are witnesses to the creation of an impressive ladder of global statuses; and nations are invited to find their respective places in the "international division of labor." For this purpose, the "nations" must be more compact, more ethnically homogenous and incapable of political self-determination. The issue is no longer about politically incorrect "genetic inferiority," which is a false concept as anyone can see. Today, the issue is about cultural and civilizational inferiority, a "lag" in historical development that is "measured in centuries." We must believe in our own inferiority, prove it to ourselves, and repent for it at the level of self-awareness. The Russians have engaged in this for the past 30 years, since day one of perestroika. We are tired already.
Here's an actual protocol of the Latvian community's internal self-awareness:
"The Russians deserve blood vengeance (literally), and the number of their generations (sic) that must suffer is certainly more than one; all Russians are responsible for Russia and the Russian state, because all of them and all of that is one literally."
This is not even about the law of talion (an eye for an eye). How far back in history does this manifestation of consciousness go? Clearly, it's some pre-state line of reasoning, as the first historical state (long before the Greeks and Plato) provided the practical distinction between the individual, society and the nation. However, a tribal society fully equates individual with tribe, individual with family, and tribe with family. How is that possible today?
Of course, the new "Indians" or "Negros" no longer have anything in common with natural black people or Indians. These communities have purely artificial origins. They are the result of a policy of organized degradation of societies that used to have a political organization but are gradually losing it under external pressure. To this end, it's imperative to:
remove all substance from education (to make it "practical ")
eliminate true historical memory (for the sake of ethnic prejudice),
destroy local economies (for the sake of "economy," "openness" and "competition"),
provide a tempting inferiority complex that removes historical responsibility: not just a "black and white" one, but one that runs the gamut of racist self-awareness. "Yes, many are above us, but we are above many, too."
Modern racism is for everyone.
The new "untouchables" — the terrorists — are at the bottom of the food chain. "They are not human any longer. Be careful not to become one of them." In fact, the "untouchables" constitute the overwhelming majority.
How are Latvians going to take revenge?
Of course, they are not going to do so themselves. This is what the United States and NATO are for. The degradants are expecting these organizations to take revenge, not provide "protection" or anything else. Natural, real Indians would've died fighting the pale faces. Artificial, degraded communities must remain in a state of conflict. They will find "support", no question about it. In exchange, they will serve as a demonstration of the insurmountable supremacy of the "superior race," which sits at the top of the pyramid.
Artificially degraded communities must destroy historical, politically viable communities that exist in the form of individual states. Such as the Russian political community. Or Iranian. Or Turkish. Or Thai. These new artificially created barbarians are declared carriers of the "rights" to any demands (even though they don't abide by any law themselves). New formal stereotypical "democracies" are established for them. The primary process underlying their activities is creating an anti-civilizational chaos, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine. The latter two are still fighting for life.
Throughout history, true democracy has always been based on the idea of the "chosen ones" (chosen by no one other than themselves) sharing power among themselves (here, too, there's a certain ratio of plebeians to patricians). And they really choose, but exclusively from themselves and from this select group.
Inasmuch as universal democracy is real, it is to the same degree controllable, which is to the say that the "unchosen" can be controlled. The circle of the "chosen" exists by necessity, although it's not formalized. You can be a plebeian, just please don't be a barbarian, even if they vote. After all, a monkey or even an octopus can be taught to vote. And be perfectly good at controlling this kind of voting.
True democracy puts power in the hands of a small group (patricians) provided that this group of people never encroaches on the specific, selfish, visceral interests of a wider group (plebeians), which still constitute a small minority. The remaining majority of the population (on the planet — UCD is a fundamentally global order) remain outside this successful coexistence. The justification is simple: "They" haven't yet mastered democracy. Instead of democracy, "they" should make do with democratization. See the difference? How long will it last? If the "lag" is big enough, it could last hundreds of years. But no one can last long (especially not that long) in such conditions. Modern racism can separate out the truly "chosen" on a global scale.
The gentlemen who developed racism as the ideological foundation for their power understood better than the Germans themselves that Nazism was a phenomenon of a specific historical period —a fleeting, limited racist project. That's why they dared to manipulate and guide Hitler. And not without success, it should be noted. However, this version of racism is hopelessly outdated, although the German Nazis did begin to develop a scale for measuring the "degree" of superiority or inferiority of different peoples.
Today, the entirely formal, meaningless and ahistorical construct of democracy has been stretched to include every man and woman on Earth, and is structured in its political manifestation exclusively by the modern Anglo-Saxon (US, UK) form of fully differentiated racism based on intentionally holding back and degrading different peoples.
It's time to move beyond the expression "double standards," which automatically implies that the standard expresses the law and legal equality. There is indeed a single standard, but it's a racist one: to each their own.
Timofei Sergeitsev is a philosopher, methodologist, member of Rossiya Segodnya's Zinoviev Club