Speaker A
In other words, we are thereby cementing the degradation, this systemic, planetary degradation of Russian civilization.
Discussion on Russia's civilizational crisis, the Abrahamic matrix, and the challenges of generational power transition.
Key Takeaways
- Russia is trapped in foreign metaphysical matrices that hinder its civilizational development.
- The crisis of political heirs threatens the continuity and stability of Russian statehood.
- Overcoming the Abrahamic matrix and the inheritance crisis are interconnected challenges.
- The Soviet attempt to create a new civilizational metaphysics failed, contributing to current decline.
- A new ideological and metaphysical framework is essential for Russia’s future survival and growth.
What the video covers
- The video explores the systemic degradation of Russian civilization linked to metaphysical and cultural matrices foreign to Russia.
- It discusses the crisis of political heirs in Russia, highlighting the problematic inheritance of power and lack of capable successors.
- The concept of the 'Abrahamic matrix' is analyzed as a limiting metaphysical framework that Russia is trapped within.
- The Soviet metaphysical matrix is described as an attempt to break free from religious-mystical hierarchies but ultimately failed.
- The degradation of Russian statehood is tied to the failure to develop an original metaphysical and civilizational ideology.
- The generational transition in power is seen as a major crisis due to the incompetence and moral decay of the younger elites.
- The discussion touches on the broader global context, including the influence of Western civilization and technological challenges.
- The video calls for a new guiding star or plan for Russia’s future to preserve the federation and its civilization.
- The conversation critiques both the current ruling class and the ideological frameworks that limit Russia’s development.
- It emphasizes the need to understand the hierarchy of religious, mystical, and scientific worldviews to move forward.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Overview of Russian Civilizational Degradation
- 04:00Crisis of Political Heirs and Power Inheritance
- 08:24Character and Failings of the Younger Generation
- 12:46Metaphysical Matrices and the Abrahamic Matrix Explained
- 30:43Impact of Religious and Scientific Worldviews on Russia
- 36:18Challenges of Ideological and Civilizational Identity
- 43:03Technological and Global Context of the Abrahamic Matrix
- 50:00Conclusion: Need for a New Civilizational Framework for Russia
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Greetings to you, dear friends. So, today we have our long-promised conversation with Vladimir Anatolyevich Lepekhin. Remember, we talked about how, strictly speaking, we might break through to philosophical freedom in the Russian, so to speak, Russian civilization, where we should go, and
Speaker A
that we are captives of the so-called Abrahamic matrix. What exactly is it? Why is it dangerous? And especially since now, in general, it makes sense to talk about two topics at once, because it's not just a general crisis
Speaker A
of where to go next that has emerged as a result of this inglorious war. Well, all the hopes of the so-called creators of this so-called independent Russia in 1991, they have all crumbled, haven't they? The war didn't go the way they
Speaker A
wanted. They wanted to win, but they just couldn't. Beyond this crisis of purpose. Where should we move now?
Speaker A
Where should we go? Well, we didn't fit into the Western world in any way. And, uh, we also failed to become an independent pole of the world. So what now? Right. And meanwhile, those currently in power are entering, well,
Speaker A
a period of "racing on gun carriages," figuratively speaking, if you translate it to Soviet realities; they are already in their 70s, in their eighth decade. And a transition to a new generation must take place. But they hold power by inheritance, and who are
Speaker A
their offspring? It's an even sadder sight, with some exceptions, of course. They haven't served in the army, haven't done hard labor, and haven't created anything with their own hands or brains. Some of them mix cocaine with whiskey. I know one such offspring
Speaker A
, yes, he was appointed a minister, and his mistress actually ran the entire ministry, while he, so to speak, ran along the lines, you know, doing lines, and pouring drinks. Then he went somewhere else, I believe, for a
Speaker A
promotion, and the mistress became the minister. And so on. One could describe this golden youth for a long time. Well, they are, of course, already relatively old too, sometimes in their 40s. Well, they are already in their
Speaker A
fifth decade of life. Right. But nevertheless, the transition from this older generation to the younger one will also be a crisis. A very big crisis. Because of what is in the heads of this young generation. It’s not just that they are incapable of
Speaker A
anything; they have a complete mess in there, total darkness from our point of view. Right. Well, it will be a process. Remember how the Brezhnev-era old guard left, and then the Gorbachev crowd came in, and remember how
Speaker A
everything shook, it shook really hard. Well, we decided to talk to Vladimir Anatolyevich about this topic, because where do we go from here? And into what matrix? What will be our guiding star?
Speaker A
What will be the plan for the further, so to speak, future of Russia, if it, of course, exists? We really need to preserve the Russian Federation, otherwise, we won't be able to pick up the pieces later. But before we
Speaker A
continue, I urge you to, so to speak, leave likes and approvals, because they help us a lot right now, especially now. And subscribe to the RoTV channels, the link is in the description. Well, anyway, eyes on the screen. And we have
Speaker A
Vladimir Anatolyevich Lipekhin on the line. Vladimir Anatolyevich, good to see you. Yes, likewise, I am glad to see you too.
Speaker A
Well then, today we have our long-promised conversation about the biblical matrix, what it is. Right. But I think there is another topic that I advise, or rather recommend starting with, especially since they are related. You did a very good piece on the fact
Speaker A
that we are now entering a crisis of the so-called heirs. No matter how decomposed the system might be, power is now being passed down through inheritance. This is a sort of autocratic power, a kind of feudalism.
Speaker A
And these figures are even worse. They are even scarier than, as they say, their fathers. And their fathers are already in their seventies. That much is clear. It's underway. Right. And here arises the problem of this crisis.
Speaker A
I still think, from my point of view, that exiting the biblical matrix and overcoming this crisis are, in general, very similar tasks; they are closely linked. Or am I wrong, Vladimir Anatolyevich?
Speaker A
Well, Maxim, you are absolutely right. Only I wouldn't call it the biblical matrix. It's about the fact that we are held captive by a whole hierarchy of matrices alien to us, to which Russia historically submitted, and consequently began to function
Speaker A
specifically within these external matrices that are foreign to Russian civilization. And to this day, we are digging, yes, splashing around inside these matrices, not even understanding that, relatively speaking, we are producing nothing of our own in the realm of metaphysics. Right. So, we are
Speaker A
talking about metaphysical matrices. Metaphysics is everything that is connected to, that is a product of human thinking, human thought activity.
Speaker A
Right. And the history of man, of humanity, spans thousands of years. And that is why different matrices were formed. And a hierarchy of these matrices has formed, where, for example, the Orthodox matrix, well, more or less defined within the borders of our
Speaker A
territory, our civilization, it is only at the fifth level. And therefore it cannot be, well, a national ideology might be there somehow, or the core of this national ideology, well, for a country that is essentially tenth-rate.
Speaker A
But as for civilization-building or, let's say, Russia as a power that aspires to be, for example, a subject of international relations, yes, that is, one of the main global subjects.
Speaker A
But for this, we need to rise to a higher level in our metaphysics. And how to do this if we do not understand, first of all, what the hierarchy is, of the religious-mystical vision that dominates today, yes, in the sphere of,
Speaker A
well, thought and worldview, and what the hierarchy is, for example, of the scientific vision, about which no one understands anything at all? These are serious things. Therefore, well, I have started making publications with certain graphics, showing and drawing
Speaker A
this very hierarchy. Right. And in this sense, just last time I said that I am ready to share this. Right. And it is clear that these heirs, yes, or the next generation, at least those seventy or eighty-year-olds who are governing
Speaker A
today, they came into contact with the Soviet metaphysical matrix. And what was the Soviet matrix? It was an attempt to break out of the hierarchy of the religious-mystical vision, right? That is, to acquire its own civilizational metaphysics. It is
Speaker A
another matter that there were mistakes, it didn't work out, and so on, but anti-Sovietism and everything connected with it is, in fact, murder. Murder, let's say, of the civilizational superstructure, because we are degrading, falling exactly to this
Speaker A
fifth, sixth level, and not even in a scientific sense, I don't know, let's say, as Kant said, at the level of the religion of reason, but at the level of these status-based religious-mystical matrices, from which we won't be able
Speaker A
to jump out for decades, or hundreds of years, I don't know. That is, we are thereby cementing the degradation, this systemic, planetary degradation of Russian civilization. Right. And therefore these eighty-year-olds, they touched it, at least, yes. And they
Speaker A
have some positive motivations, some. At least, for example, such a motivation that is connected with the desire to preserve themselves as masters of this territory. I mean, not just hangers-on and parasites, but even the masters themselves; they are heirs
Speaker A
who haven't lifted a finger, not even to organize any systematic malice, they're just nobody. Absolute nobodies.
Speaker A
That’s why, under them, the drain will happen quite naturally. A drain of our civilization. So much so that it will happen without anyone even noticing. Russian statehood will simply spread across Eurasia, and the Russian people will cease
Speaker A
unified entity. That’s all there is to it. Understood. Maxim. Yes, I understand, Vladimir Anatolyevich.
Speaker A
Well, I think, and I truly hope, that these heirs will simply lose their grip on the levers of power very quickly.
Speaker A
There is a philosopher, Sergei Chernyshov, whom you know well. Back in 2002, he wrote two books.
Speaker A
Right. In one of them, he expressed the idea that more intelligent external elites take power, property, and everything else away from an incompetent, talentless elite. When the late Sergei Kugushev and I were writing the Third Project, my co-author said: "
Speaker A
We Russians have always tried to wear someone else's clothes." We shouldn't be the Third Rome, but the first Kitezh . Meaning we should have our own, so to speak, you know......create our own matrix. Exactly. But let's try, Vladimir Anatolyevich, for the sake of
Speaker A
our viewers who may not be as well-versed, to break down what a religious matrix is and why it is dangerous. Is that possible to do?
Speaker A
Let's take a look, sure. Maxim, we understand perfectly well that this problem is linked to the so-called fundamental question of philosophy, which everyone has forgotten and just repeats like a mantra: what is primary, the material or the ideal? Well, in
Speaker A
essence, that's it. But if we take a broad and objective look at it again, we are talking about two types of worldviews, two ways of perceiving the world, and not just two basic types, but about the unity and struggle, if
Speaker A
you will, of these two types. For example, in Soviet times, they began to replace religiosity with atheism. Or, let's say, a secular, new secular ideological religion. Naturally, the emphasis was placed on science. And that produced a very serious positive
Speaker A
result, including for industrialization , for the development of an outstanding power, and so on and so forth. Now we are seeing the opposite process. That is, in principle, science is being curtailed; nobody needs it. Accordingly , atheism is being vilified, and,
Speaker A
let’s say, the Darwinian concept of evolution is considered, well, like heretical negative, yes, meaning a critical attitude toward it. Well, that's it. Everyone talks about the Creator without understanding what is being discussed and so on, and so on. I will just remind you that the
Speaker A
first person who decided to, uh, seriously describe and explain clearly this relationship between these two types of thinking, two types of vision, was Immanuel Kant, who, it is clear, could not, for example, speak directly about science being superior to
Speaker A
religion, especially since this contradiction had existed for millennia before him. And it is clear that those who used these scientific categories too strongly, like Galileo Galilei or someone else, Giordano Bruno or others, well, it is clear that many of them
Speaker A
were persecuted and ended badly, and so on. Therefore, Kant could not write directly about this confrontation, but nonetheless, he provided a formula.
Speaker A
This formula consists of the following: there is a religion of status and there is a religion of reason. These are two different things. He wrote in plain text that the religion of status is everything concerning the church. And
Speaker A
this is actually, well, let's say, a disservice to God, or the Creator, yes. Meaning, in the sense that all these various church rituals and such are ultimately tied to hypocrisy, where this human weakness manifests itself in this, and so on, and so on. There is a
Speaker A
religion of reason. Yes. And, actually, from his point of view, God is reason itself. And it is clear that this reason, on the one hand, is certain objective laws that exist but are refracted through human behavior.
Speaker A
Meaning, well, a most important thing that still defines all these humanitarian disputes regarding what to believe in, what ideologies to create, and so on, and so on. So, meaning, it is very interesting to trace all this: how, for example, Hegel, who, it is
Speaker A
clear, was younger than Kant, did not quite accept this but formulated an alternative in the sense that God is not reason from his point of view, not morality, but spirit, a certain spirit.
Speaker A
What actually appealed to the Marxists later on, yes, was that they leaned on Hegel, and didn't really lean on Kant, because Kant moralized. That is, he spoke about reason, moral reason. And why would leftists or Marxists even need to rely heavily on all sorts of
Speaker A
moral, ethical imperatives and so on and so forth? Well, it doesn't matter. Here we have reached the 21st century, skipping over even such a fork in the road, for example, where this contradiction between subjectivism and objectivism, yes, materialism, became
Speaker A
extremely stark. I mean the beginning of the last century, on the eve of the 1917 revolution, because after 1905, for example, yes, a large part of the social democrats turned away from materialism. And in Europe, the subjectivist movement became
Speaker A
fashionable, an explanation that, well, relatively speaking, there are no objective laws, and we should just do what seems right to us. This prompted Lenin. Another outstanding figure in this sense, yes, underrated in this regard, prompted Lenin to go to London,
Speaker A
where he spent six months and wrote his famous book, "Materialism and Empirio-criticism"—precisely on this fundamental question of philosophy, yes —where he simply demolished all these subjectivists who were fashionable in Europe, and thereby steered international social democracy toward practice on a scientific basis, yes,
Speaker A
meaning how to carry out a socialist revolution and so on and so forth. Well , it doesn't matter. But now we are at a similar fork in the road. I am observing, well, I just don't see any serious intellectuals, unfortunately,
Speaker A
who would develop the humanities, and develop them outside of clichés, outside of grants, with a Russian national interest, with a civilizational interest, I would say, yes, with a civilizational scope. But on the other hand, this religious-mystical vision, which I will
Speaker A
speak about now, is just moving full steam ahead. It would take too long to talk about science, yes, the state of our humanities in general. But I will say a few words about these matrices of a religious-mystical vision so that our
Speaker A
viewers might reflect and have reasons and questions to ask us. Well, let's start with the fact that this very religious-mystical vision, yes, well, it is clearly a certain methodology that permeates all planetary metaphysics. And, moreover, since man, so to speak, appeared on Earth not with
Speaker A
reason, yes, but initially with instincts, with feelings, with emotions , and so on and so forth, well, he solidified this in various religious doctrines. And it is clear that everything he saw was not in any way verified, explained, or analyzed.
Speaker A
People were simply forced to explain all this somehow, and they explained it through religious doctrines. So, if at the highest philosophical level there are a bunch of such directions, the vector of a religious-mystical vision is currently dominant, and it is all
Speaker A
firmly established. Well, for example, take Wikipedia, right, any topic that concerns, well, the universe. From what perspective, this universe, from what perspective is it explained on Wikipedia?
Speaker A
Hmm, who, who explained the universe? You can find the Big Bang theory there. There. But I haven't specifically looked into this, Anatolyevich, right? Or, for example, the simplest thing, there is history, right, meaning the chronology of history, which—we
Speaker A
cannot say by what percentage—but is obviously falsified, right, obviously man-made, meaning in the interests of very specific groups, right. One needs to understand in whose interests history was formed—for example, Russian history, right, where absolutely nothing is known before the
Speaker A
15th century and there are almost no sources. So, or, for example, the Bible , right, as we know, it is composed of a bunch of sacred texts. When this Bible was being unified and a base text was being created, a huge number of
Speaker A
sacred texts that didn't fit into the general concept were cut out. The question arises: who guided this process, and with what logic, right?
Speaker A
And today we open, well, any article related to metaphysics, right, on Wikipedia. Then follows a collection of all sorts of nonsense, you know, with esotericism, with astral matters, with occultism, and so on and so forth. It is completely unclear where it came
Speaker A
from. That is, more precisely, it is clear, but it is unclear to the reader.
Speaker A
He repeats it, he, you know, replicates it, and so on, and so on. He tells us all sorts of fairy tales about these seven subtle planes that exist, which no one can explain in terms of objective reality. And so on, and so on
Speaker A
. So, in the end, right, as a result of the human brain's work at this level— at the level of instincts and all sorts of notions connected more with emotions than with research—these global religious doctrines appeared. This is
Speaker A
already the second level of specific, you know, matrices, planetary matrices. Well, in particular, for example, the Abrahamic concept, well, it is clear that it is not the only one on the planet. There is also Hinduism, which is no less rich, and perhaps even
Speaker A
richer in terms of its worldview. There is Confucianism. Well, one could try to compare them somehow. So, this is the second level of matrices. Let us note that within the framework of the global matrix of religious-mystical vision, which we...
Speaker A
there is the Abrahamic, yes, the Abrahamic is separated. There are a few of them. Next, we, let's say, cut away what we don't need.
Speaker A
We take the Abrahamic foundation. Second level. It is clear that our civilization, we will get to it now, operates within the framework of the Abrahamic concept. Yes, Russia does not have its own concept. Then we begin to break down, classify, and look at what
Speaker A
the Abrahamic matrix is. And we see that such religious doctrines as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have formed within the Abrahamic matrix.
Speaker A
Accordingly, this matrix that steers us shrinks even further. We understand that we operate within the framework of the Christian matrix. This is level number three. It is not our matrix.
Speaker A
Well, meaning it is not the Russian civilizational, not the Russian matrix. It was passed down to us, well, in the form in which it was received, one way or another, perhaps with some inclusions, but nevertheless, it operates and defines our way of life,
Speaker A
the life activity of an entire civilization, right? So, then we take this Christian matrix, look at it, do the same, classify it, separate the unnecessary, separate Islam and Judaism . So, it appears, or rather, from the Christian matrix we separate Catholics
Speaker A
and Protestants, and we take for ourselves the Orthodox one, the Orthodox matrix, which we inherited from Byzantium, from the Slavs, say, also not ours, also imported. There are quite a few Orthodox sub-matrices. So, we descend to the fifth level. That is,
Speaker A
one of the Orthodox matrices is the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. So, we understand that yes, this is already a kind of basic thing, a fifth-level matrix operating on our territory, that is, in the space of Russian statehood, but not the only
Speaker A
one, because there is the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, there is the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church. It is clear that there is a version of Islam operating here, Buddhism, and so on and so forth.
Speaker A
But nevertheless, the foundation is, well, Orthodox. So, well, to what extent it...Yes. And it is clear that there are all sorts of Rodnovery, pagan , and other things. And there is also a question regarding them: to what extent
Speaker A
do they influence Russian civilization, and what should be done with them? So, therefore, any of these assertions by shortsighted people, when they say: "We don't need to invent anything, let's just adopt the Orthodox ideology," locks Russia at this very fifth level,
Speaker A
right? So, within the framework of foreign codes, actually brought in from the outside, yes, from an Abrahamic concept, which does not envision Russia gaining sovereignty in the broadest sense. Because gaining sovereignty begins with gaining it in our minds, in
Speaker A
our worldview, and in forming some kind of civilizational concept of our own, yes, one that corresponds to our objective foundations, meaning civilizational ones—they are connected to what was brought to us.
Speaker A
Brought in on bayonets, brought in, you know, through deceit and so on and so forth by all sorts of missionaries and conquerors. There. So, therefore, if we turn, let's say, to a neighboring hierarchy, namely the scientific one, it is clear that the formation of, for
Speaker A
example, a national civilizational ideology must stem from such global tasks, yes, including the task that Russia must become a planetary subject as a civilization. For this, it must have everything of its own. Well, like basic things, including its own
Speaker A
metaphysics. So, well, it's clear that nobody understands such things. This is , well, a conversation for a few people who are working on this. There. But without this, without this, no new generation will accomplish anything.
Speaker A
This generation that we are talking about, they will replace their fathers, and they will fail at everything. But, uh, there's no doubt about that, but the question arises: who will come to replace them and with what?
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Who will come to replace them and with what? Well, actually, the Bolsheviks achieved success precisely because they arrived with a completely new concept that allowed the Russian civilization to turn inside out, that is, to crawl out of the old skin of this, you know,
Speaker A
tsarism, all of this, you know, hardcore, you know, status religion, yes, which leaned so heavily on the state that it simply violated its own people. So they proposed a new version.
Speaker A
A version, undoubtedly, planetary. This is the juiciest part, yes, a new, uh, new economic formation, a new ideology, you know, with an emphasis on the future, on development, well, and so on , and so on. There. Well, the theory
Speaker A
fell short, it's clear. So, well, for ourselves, we can draw a conclusion about what the mistakes were, what the shortcomings were. And it is clear that one must, as it were, transcend these mistakes and shortcomings in a philosophical sense, and move on, yes,
Speaker A
move on again with a concept of the future. A serious one, which is being freed, is being released, must be freed from all these matrices that still, to this day, drive us under the floorboards.
Speaker A
Well, yes. So what is an Abrahamic, yes, an Abrahamic, for example, approach, or concept? Well, it's clear that it's connected to promoting all these prophecies ahead of it, that the Antichrist is here now, and now artificial intelligence—it's all
Speaker A
clear who will get it, how it will be governed, and how it will rule the world, and so on and so forth. Where is Russia’s place in this at all? Where is the place for the God-bearing people here? There is no place at all. There.
Speaker A
And so, some comrades sitting there, lacking any education, keep inventing things. Meaning, how to fit into this world? Again, it’s Abrahamic, again, pro-Western, and so on, and so on. To crawl under the Vatican, to crawl under the Illuminati, and so on.
Speaker A
Hmm. Well, it's full of dead ends. Vladimir Anatolyevich, let's try, before we go further, to return a bit to the Abrahamic matrix and show what it is, and try to discuss once more why it is detrimental to the Rus, to the Russians
Speaker A
. Well, there are several layers, perhaps, because, on one hand, there is a structure that contradicts itself.
Speaker A
That is, on one hand, there is constant talk about the Creator, about God, but on the other hand, we see that the Abrahamic matrix implies the existence of several different deities. Right.
Speaker A
You can talk all you want about God being one and so on, but Jews have their own, Muslims have their own, and accordingly, the Orthodox have their own, and there are plenty of contradictions embedded in the interpretations. But that is not the
Speaker A
point. The point is that the Abrahamic matrix is, clearly, built upon a certain moral principle, right? And what does this moral principle consist of, or let's say, what is the core, the nucleus of this moral principle? It is
Speaker A
the division of all of society. Well, first and foremost, I will say the main thing: the division of all society, of all humanity, into the chosen and the rest. And so, this means God gave it, this is how the Creator arranged it.
Speaker A
This means society must be caste-based. The chosen have a right to everything, while everyone else has a right to nothing. Yes, and it's clear how it's interpreted in Abrahamic religion, meaning those very chosen people who, well, are permitted and even receive
Speaker A
support from the Creator to have everything, to be the owners of everything, right? And it's clear that all these laws of concentration of power and concentration of capital are formed in this sense, where specific chosen ones dominate, or should
Speaker A
dominate, and their number must be minimal. And, accordingly, they must rule the world, as, in fact, they have been ruling for the last thousand years . Right. But more rigidly, more rationally, based on artificial intelligence, and so on and so forth.
Speaker A
All these, you know, the lower castes, they shouldn't own anything; they simply have no right to. And therefore, all measures of containment, punishment, exploitation, and even destruction, which we see now, and so on, must be applied to them. This is
Speaker A
what this matrix consists of, the Abrahamic one, well, it’s like a basic thing. Right. And that is why, wherever we look—at the war in Iran, the military conflict in Ukraine, the civilizational conflict, or what is happening in general in the West, in
Speaker A
Europe, and in the United States— everywhere we see that, uh, the people are being driven into a corner, right?
Speaker A
This is nothing new, it has always been this way. And the people tried to oppose something. Well, meaning those who belong to the chosen ones. They tried to oppose it with some revolutions, some Paris communes, and so on and so forth. Right. Well, we
Speaker A
have now reached a situation where this is hardly possible—any communes, or the creation of self-governing communities—the world is becoming increasingly harsh toward those who ask questions. Right. And everyone is starting to bring up Orwell, Huxley, and other utopians again, to check or
Speaker A
compare their thoughts with what we are observing today. This is the foundation , so to speak. Therefore, it is clear that one can dig into sacred texts and look at how something was recorded in the Old Testament, how it was carried
Speaker A
over into the New Testament or, uh, invented in this New Testament. And what kind of moral principles are there , what kind of, I don't know, behavioral stereotypes and so on, that we are guided by today. Meaning everyone who is somehow under this
Speaker A
matrix, but those are just details. Maxim, yes, understood. And if we look at the next, since the Orthodoxy that we have today in the form of, well, the dominant Russian Orthodox Church, the state one, let's try to look at its
Speaker A
features. And what is the danger? No, but I see for myself what this is— retrogradism, a desire, mm, to freeze everything, to return to the past, in the extreme, some even want to abandon technology, return to the division into
Speaker A
masters and, accordingly, serfs or, let’s say, subjects, to fix this state, never daring to criticize the authorities: all authority is from God, and so on and so forth. All of this is very, very unattractive. Although I do know Orthodox Christians of a
Speaker A
completely different caliber who live differently. But I am talking about a certain dominant trend, although this is, so to speak, my own raw perception.
Speaker A
And how do you define this dominant Orthodox institution and its dangers for the Russians, for our civilization?
Speaker A
Well, I personally wouldn’t speak about the Church as a whole as, you know, bearing some kind of dangers or anything of the sort. After all, it is a complex phenomenon and a fairly complicated mechanism. On one hand, it
Speaker A
is a religious doctrine, yes, which the Russian Orthodox Church is armed with. On the other hand, it is an ideological institution, which is exactly what it has turned into in our country. And on the third hand, it is a most important
Speaker A
element of our civilizational culture. Right. Another thing is that, for instance, if we talk about the negatives, unfortunately, the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church takes such a militant stance toward other civilizational alternatives. Well, primarily toward, you know, other versions of Orthodoxy
Speaker A
and various kinds of Old Believers. Right. Although these are also elements of Russian civilizational culture. And a consensus needs to be found in this case. Right. So, the biggest problem lies in the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has leaned too heavily
Speaker A
toward the state. A state that, in reality, well, lacks the moral right to exist in our country, for various reasons. That is, in essence, we have a situation of power usurpation, yes, by certain interest groups, which we discussed last time, how they emerged
Speaker A
from the Soviet Union, these criminal-nomenklatura groups, yes, how they seized power and so on and so forth. And it is clear that in order to promote this very anti-Sovietism and their own corporate interests, they use such a simple method as turning the
Speaker A
Russian Orthodox Church into an ideological institution. I mean, there are no other institutions, right, and one would have to invent them, but here is the Church, and it’s clear where the funding for Spas and all those TV channels comes from, as well as those
Speaker A
smear films and so on, those anti-Soviet ones. And for all that, it does not mean that all the priests there or the entire system shares these same views. There are quite a lot of different people there, and a great
Speaker A
many—I personally know 20 metropolitans, all intellectuals, all wonderful people, with the exception of maybe one. Well, so, but in general, a situation has developed where, instead of taking a popular stance, a pro-people stance—that is, the position of those people who come to
Speaker A
church, the position of the flock and so on—unfortunately, the administrative hierarchy in this church takes a pro-government stance, a pro-government one. And, accordingly, there's that historical bias, you know, one that doesn't tolerate any alternatives, which, as I already said,
Speaker A
is a negative thing. Yeah. But otherwise, if you treat it as an element of national culture—which is how I personally treat it. For example, let's say a religious procession is being held. It happened recently, right , they showed tens of thousands of
Speaker A
people there. Well, it's clear the numbers are exaggerated, the claim that there were hundreds of thousands, but many did come, very many.
Speaker A
Yeah. Well, there were a lot of people. I myself would have gladly walked there . Why? Because it’s pleasant to walk alongside Russian people. You know, alongside one's own. But precisely as a culture, because, for instance, in this
Speaker A
sense, Orthodoxy and this institution have a lot of highly meaningful things. I’ve studied icon painting, for example, and I don't know, church architecture, and so on. That is very appealing. And so, only in this way, in principle, in such a form, undoubtedly,
Speaker A
when we talk about the key pillars of Russian civilization, we must certainly talk about or prioritize Orthodox culture or the Orthodox Church as our unique phenomenon, almost on par with such a phenomenon as the Russian language. That is why I am not a
Speaker A
proponent of any divisions at all, you know, between Soviet people and Orthodox believers, or vice versa. I am always pushing to integrate people, right. And my concept of a solidary society assumes that the Orthodox should find common ground with their
Speaker A
own people, who are diverse, yes, diverse. There are Rodnovers, Muslims, and most importantly, a huge number of Soviet people. Well, and Soviet people should also change in the sense of moving away from militant atheism toward understanding the general role
Speaker A
of religion, these hierarchies, these various worldviews, and the role that Orthodox culture actually plays.
Speaker A
Historically, of course, one must understand that Rus ', as a future great state, took shape at the end of the 10th century. Mainly thanks to figures such as Metropolitan Alexius, the confessor of Dmitry Donskoy, and, accordingly, Sergius of Radonezh. Right
Speaker A
. And just at the time when the Horde began to collapse, it began to collapse precisely on the grounds that the Genghisids had essentially proclaimed religious tolerance. There were Kipchaks and various other elements there, so, well, no particular
Speaker A
attention was paid to this. But when Khan Uzbek came, he, accordingly, slaughtered the Genghisids, and, naturally, the Arab version of Islam came to the Horde. With all that, it is clear that the inhabitants of the Horde , firstly, did not know Arabic and
Speaker A
could not read sacred texts in the Arabic language. Right. And, in general , it was actually a foreign version for them. Arab Islam. They began to fall apart. Meanwhile, in Rus', the population was already more or less literate, literate through sacred texts
Speaker A
. The sacred texts were written in Cyrillic, and it was understandable to everyone. Unification began. And on the basis of this ideological unity, the socio-economic rise of Russia began, which eventually emerged from under the Horde. That is why this role belongs
Speaker A
precisely to the Orthodox Church. Another matter is that the Russian Orthodox Church of the 15th century was probably very different from the version of the Russian Orthodox Church that was imposed in the second half of the 16th century. Well, that is a task
Speaker A
for historians, please. This needs to be investigated, but in a way where we are interested in knowing our history, and not in order to throw stones at each other and try to prove our point of view at any cost. Russia has a very
Speaker A
rich history. Everything is important from the point of view of civilizational development. All those nuances that were there, starting even from pre-historical times. Vladimir Anatolyevich, I also ask you not to perceive me as a militant atheist who calls for tearing down all the churches
Speaker A
. I see wonderful people who believe sincerely. They fight, they create, they are my close friends. Right. And this is truly a part of the culture.
Speaker A
There is a famous joke: "What kind of atheists are you? Muslim or Orthodox?"" We are Orthodox. Atheists." That is, we actually carry this culture, and without the magnificent churches of Novgorod and, so to speak, Vladimir, we are truly unimaginable. Right. But I
Speaker A
specifically want to clarify what Vladimir Anatolyevich is talking about. The 15th century is a schism, it is not Christianity, it is, accordingly, the correction of church books. Unification , a very painful schism, effectively a civil war, non-canonical Orthodoxy—
Speaker A
that is, all in all, truly a unique song. Well, here is what is interesting . Thus, it turns out that now we are rudderless and adrift, without a compass, and, so to speak, we don't even have self-awareness. The fact that
Speaker A
these elves in the United States—Musk , Thiel, Karp—are creating [this] is an Abrahamic matrix. These are the same "chosen ones." The full armor of artificial intelligence, which is acquiring immortality. This is a most serious challenge with robot armies.
Speaker A
Karp, for instance, has a program for a technological republic, a quite rigid one at that. And we, it turns out, are in the transition from an old generation to a new, decomposed one, which is not mentally independent at
Speaker A
all. Yes. And furthermore, we are deprived of our own worldview, our own matrix. But how to approach the creation of our own matrix? Let's try.
Speaker A
I see it purely in terms of imagery. I might lack purely philosophical knowledge, but I do see this civilization of radiant starship pilots . I can picture it. Let's look—let's try: where, strictly speaking, should we start? With literary texts? Or with
Speaker A
collective thinking, uh, communities of such Russian intellectuals who can combine these things? Hmm, uh, Maxim, yes, one can start from different sides here, because from any side, uh, there is, so to speak, a path . Well, regarding the image, if we talk
Speaker A
about images, the thing is that back in the Soviet Union, these images were already developed and recorded, not only in the works of the Strugatskys and Efremov, but also in many other science fiction writers of all kinds.
Speaker A
But there is a complaint regarding these images. It is a beautiful image. I mean, Earthlings fly to some planet, start acting as observers, progressors, and start promoting their way of life.
Speaker A
It is implied that communism exists on Earth, a wonderful one, fair and so on and so forth. This is why I never got hooked on our science fiction works, on our science fiction, because it never seemed like "science" to me. Yes. It
Speaker A
felt more like utopias, simply utopias, because nowhere in any work was it explained how universal communism suddenly emerged on planet Earth. And what exactly these special relationships consist of, the Earthlings 'relationships with each other, so that they could offer
Speaker A
something to aliens, in Arkanar or somewhere else. So, there is no technology, there is no path. It wasn't spelled out either in Soviet times, or in any other theories, and so on and so forth. Well, therefore the image is
Speaker A
understandable to us. But the movement toward the realization, if you will, of the image of the future, that is the most difficult part. Why? Because I’ll say it again, since we are captives of all these various matrices, and we are not allowed to develop
Speaker A
technologies at all. We don't even have any concept of what that is. Well, I mean Russians, including Soviet people, who were used to things being handed to them. I mean, it’s clear, self-sacrifice was demanded of them.
Speaker A
Self-sacrifice, and so on, yes, understood, labor and so on and so forth, but the Party thought for them, and it was generally impermissible to deal with serious political and economic issues. I have just been asked by the Federal People’s Council for a
Speaker A
Solidarity Society to prepare a concept , well, for review, of a solidarity state. So, in the process of working, I decided to refresh my memory a bit and looked at Lenin’s work, "The State and Revolution." Uh-huh.
Speaker A
It’s clear that the very first thesis of the Communist Party Manifesto, the most important one, concerned the destruction of the bourgeois state. And further on, it’s clear there were long discussions, right up until the end of the 19th century. Engels was
Speaker A
already leading those discussions. So, what should the new state be like? Well , they sort of decided for themselves that it should simply be a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and that's it. And so Lenin, in that work "
Speaker A
The State and Revolution," has an entire chapter, well, like an economic justification, something like that, of the socialist state. Well, basically, about the economy. There isn't a single word about the economy in that section.
Speaker A
The man didn't understand the economy at all. Although he wrote a serious work, clearly, "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism," but nevertheless in application to the concept of the state. Before that, I looked at the works of all the
Speaker A
so-called intellectuals of that time, including Bukharin, who was a proponent of the NEP. Not a word about the economy, he didn't understand anything about it. So, and what have they come up with so far in over 4 years of the
Speaker A
special military operation? When it was necessary, clearly, from the very first day of the SMO, in fact, even before the SMO, 10 years prior, to realize that Russia’s main strategic weapon, especially under conditions of economic sanctions as they began to be announced
Speaker A
, is a sovereign national model of the economy. So, they still haven't come up with anything. In twenty-three, they proclaimed the development of the real sector, and now they’re talking about the interest rate coming down—yes, they seem to have broken Nabullina’s
Speaker A
arm, and so on. So, how are we supposed to revive the economy then? Oh, I see.
Speaker A
Since the interest rate is lower, it means, uh, it’ll be like, yes, uh, we need to, well, we need to let inflation run a bit looser. In other words, that the growing expenditures of Russians are the engine of the economy is pure
Speaker A
nonsense. They’re just idiots. I mean , it’s clear that for spending to grow, wages must rise. Of course, and so on, and so forth. I mean, well, people shouldn't be restricting themselves in their purchases, like the process that's underway now, including
Speaker A
for groceries—that's the economy. How do they even expect these expenditures to grow? Car purchases are down, apartment purchases are down, land purchases are down, and so on, and so forth. Well, it doesn't matter. In short, we can approach this from the
Speaker A
perspective of political economy. In any case, one of the most important intellectual tasks is the concept of a national economic model. I can talk about this endlessly, yes, in detail.
Speaker A
What is required? What is a solidarity economy, for example, yes? Or an economy of, let's say, a new socialism.
Speaker A
What is that? It’s a bit of a game of terms here. In reality, we are talking about a post-capitalist model, because within the capitalist framework, yes, there is no future for Russia. Just as within the framework of foreign
Speaker A
matrices, there is nothing for us. No cultural sovereignty, no ideological sovereignty, and so on.
Speaker A
Well, Vladimir Anatolyevich, some people should be told that the model following capitalism, and the fact that we have no future in the capitalist one , doesn't mean we must return to total state control, like in the Soviet Union
Speaker A
model. And that eventually led to its own collapse. Of course, of course, Maxim, I already said that there were mistakes, shortcomings, and so on. I understand, here we always have to...
Speaker A
The devil is in some of the details. Right. And some of our people are enlightened supporters of the Soviet Union who also see its shortcomings.
Speaker A
But then there are those dogmatic idiots who just want to reproduce what was there—take everything, redistribute it, nationalize everything —that is, start the same old tune that led to the collapse. But we’ve digressed a bit; yes, now I understand
Speaker A
that you are trying to conduct this work within the framework of exactly this solidarity model. This is the system that will emerge after capitalism. What you call solidarism.
Speaker A
Me, with the neuroworld, with neuros, well, accordingly, with my own comrades . There. But, so to speak, I understand that But you believe that creating a model, a new model of the national economy, a model of this future, will
Speaker A
it act as a detonator, a fuse, that will force everything else to develop? Do you think everything else? Did I understand you correctly?
Speaker A
No, well, not exactly. Uh, not a fuse, no. A foundation. The fact is that we started our conversation today by comparing the scientific matrix with this religious-mystical one, that is, the objectivist and the subjectivist.
Speaker A
The fact is that there is an overflow of subjectivism in Russia; a bunch of concepts that start with moralizing, yes, and with moralizing preachiness.
Speaker A
And it revolves around, you know, traditional values and whatnot, not understanding at all that traditional values, specifically the traditional ones, are just some made-up values, like those written in the president's decree, values pulled out of thin air, right? But the real traditional Russian
Speaker A
civilizational values are based on objective foundations. There. And therefore, in order to, say, move a new system of power, and that is a key factor, yes, it is necessary to create a new subjectivity. There. Meaning, to form a new state, which is privatized
Speaker A
—it doesn't exist in Russia right now —a new political system, and so on, and so forth. But underneath all this, from the point of view of understanding , of disciplining, let's say, and systematizing all actions, any actions in the sphere of politics, culture, and
Speaker A
so on, there must be an understanding of an economic concept. This is how it actually was with socialism. It is clear that nothing was developed in Marxism. Neither what political system there should be, nor, you know, what kind of society, how it should develop,
Speaker A
nor the state, nor property, how it should be—nothing was there. But there was an idea there, yes. Like, now the working class will come to power and that's it. And everything was built on that. Precisely because there was an
Speaker A
opportunity to develop the theory, but they didn't do it, and instead went straight into dogmatism. That is, first the inner-party struggle, then dogmatism on that basis; so now we see the past, or let's say, we can take past experience into account regarding
Speaker A
what not to do. And you were right to say that, moreover, this applies to both the left and right Trotskyists; they are all, both the one and the other. So, the left-wing Trotskyists are all these dogmatists, you know,
Speaker A
allegedly on the left, while the right-wing Trotskyists are nationalists who are also controlled from abroad.
Speaker A
That's a separate topic, I might add. Well, I mean, obviously, the current bunch of senile people who suggest nuking everyone and so on, and who support, you know, monarchism, a caste-based society, and so forth. What are they united in? They are actually
Speaker A
united. Meaning, they agree that we need to take that rigid administrative line from the Soviet Union.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. The first group believes it supposedly serves the interests of the workers— though in reality it doesn't, it only serves the interests of the bureaucracy . And the second group believes that this people, who have become too unruly
Speaker A
, need to be put in their place, and that a strong authority will once again ensure development and so on. There.
Speaker A
And that is why these left and right-wing versions are formed. Well, it's clear that the liberals will still be pulling the strings behind all of this, but it's profitable for them, too . It wasn't by accident that Chubais
Speaker A
declared the need to form a liberal empire 35 years ago. Yes, yes, yes. Yes. Well, that wasn't 35 years ago, it was 2001 or 2002. Well it was 25, yes. So that is precisely why, yes, this must be avoided. And the
Speaker A
point is, how can the energy of the masses be released, and, well, used in a good sense, as a driver of economic development. Energy of the masses means everything must become pro-people, but not in the blunt sense of opening all
Speaker A
the floodgates and letting anarchy run wild. No, for that, a complex, non-primitive political system must be created. In a country like ours, there cannot be a primitive political system.
Speaker A
For instance, there are a bunch of nationalists who, relying on certain pre-revolutionary works, claim that political parties aren't needed, that they should all be disbanded, and so on . And instead, hold direct elections, set up a Veche, and all sorts of
Speaker A
nonsense like that. They don't understand that it's a complex country with a complex economy and a difficult international position. Therefore, you always have to look at what is optimal —for example, direct elections for local government, but as you move up to
Speaker A
legislative assemblies, you introduce an electoral college, and use electronic voting, keeping some ballots secret and others open. We need to create complex systems to utilize all the optimal possibilities. The same goes for the economy. Means of production, clearly, there is partial
Speaker A
state ownership, yes, again, how to control it, what state corporations have what status, what state banks are, as opposed to private banks, and in the service sector, private ownership is clear. But what, for example, is public ownership, nobody knows at all. And
Speaker A
that is the key question. Notice that everyone everywhere is currently screaming about investment funds at work, scooping up—well, global, that is, Western ones—scooping everything up for themselves, right? Meaning the air, the water, fresh water, and so on and so forth. In Russia, oligarchs are
Speaker A
scooping everything up for themselves. Well, the alternative to this is public ownership, the theory or concept of which has been developed in detail. But there is nowhere to talk about it. I suggested to the Moscow Economic Forum that they dedicate at least a session
Speaker A
to this issue. No, everything must be within the strict limits of the established guidelines. " Vladimir Anatolyevich, we will mark this topic for the future." Since everyone loves this word, or rather, this phrase, "public ownership"—it is not state ownership—
Speaker A
to explain what it is, but not within the framework of the current broadcast. I want to remind you that in the Soviet Union, intellectual inquiry was indeed suppressed. The working class never ruled here. And even in the dictatorship, it was still a
Speaker A
dictatorship of the party apparatus, the nomenclature, a kind of priesthood. Until the very end of the Soviet Union, democracy did not develop in the Soviet Union. We did not have the power of the Soviets; we had the power of the
Speaker A
nomenclature. Our power was, in general , not Soviet at all. When I am scolded for being anti-Soviet, I always say that the CPSU was the main anti-Soviet force, since the Soviets were turned into props. There. But nevertheless, but nevertheless let's try to ensure
Speaker A
our viewer does not have a sense of hopelessness. Still, I understand, we need to start not with some manifesto of the Communist Party or, shall we say , a Solidarist Party, not with a manifesto of the future, but with some
Speaker A
analogue to Marx’s Capital. Now we need to clarify what it is we actually want. Where are we calling people to?
Speaker A
Perhaps, that would be a starting step, because at some grassroots level, a fusion of sorts has long existed among sensible people. They see values in Orthodoxy, and the Soviet project, and, furthermore, in the liberal project— I’m not afraid to use that word—
Speaker A
which also has quite a few valuable things. Of course, of course. There. And all of this, somehow, still lacks its own language. They cannot express it. Is it really necessary to start with "Capital ," or are these different times?
Speaker A
Actually, no, I have a different point of view. Every era has its own method, its own way, because, well, take the first half of the 19th century, or the mid-19th century, when several circumstances came together quite favorably: Marx didn't really have to
Speaker A
work, right, he could sit day and night writing his "Capital," while his wife took care of the children. Accordingly, there was Engels, who sponsored this same Marx. And there was the Jewish community, which raised Marx to unprecedented heights, raised his "
Speaker A
Capital," yes, to unprecedented heights . And there was an explosive situation in Europe, yes, where exactly that " Capital" was needed. So, today, no book will play any role, at least not quickly. This means it requires all sorts of intermediate links. I call
Speaker A
this a discursive method, so to speak. Yes. And besides, the post-Soviet population will never accept an authority that appears out of some crack, with some capital, or social concept, or anything else. They are used to having some kind of leader
Speaker A
appear out of nowhere. They are ready to follow a leader, and a leader is a loudmouth, a Zhvanetsky, a Prigozhin, and so on and so forth. That is what they are waiting for. Well, the masses, the Russian, post-Soviet ones. Yes. So,
Speaker A
it is clear that serious educational work is needed, a union of a number of intellectuals, yes, and this technology of unification is also very complex.
Speaker A
Yes. Well, we'll discuss it sometime. Yes, I am certainly thinking in that direction as well. Perhaps it's not a book, but a body of texts, films, and clips, perhaps we are doomed, this is our future, what we are condemned to—
Speaker A
that we must fade away, die out, that we must be divided. Yes. And by all concepts, by all analytical definitions , even by the Abrahamic matrix, we have no hope. But where are we calling them to? How can we jump out of this
Speaker A
situation? Our people, the Russian people, in their nature, only accept high-status speeches on faith and look in that direction at all. That is, when someone appears from a crack, from a marginal space, they do not recognize them.
Speaker A
Yes. But that is the point: within the status-driven environment, among the elite, this new knowledge cannot appear . By definition, it cannot appear there . So, there are a lot of dead ends here that need to be resolved.
Speaker A
But there is, once again, I repeat, it is judgment-worthy, yes, Vladimir Anatolyevich, well, it is clear now, we have basically said the main things, expressed the essentials, because it is very difficult to talk about the civilization of the future in
Speaker A
one broadcast. Well, of course. Right. But there are two circumstances. Well, the first one, of course, is depressing for us. Uh, it is that this new generation that is coming up, it is very rec—it uncritically accepts Western matrices, Western ideas,
Speaker A
concepts that come from the Abrahamic matrix. I look at Gref, but Gref is, of course, an older person, yet he is my age. Gref does not critically perceive what is written about the future. He simply retells futurology from the
Speaker A
likes of Schwab, for example. Right. But the younger ones, many of them are also inclined that way. And on the other hand, there is a group that thinks: "What happens next? Well, if Vladimir Vladimirovich leaves, how will things go?" Well, all former hopes,
Speaker A
projects, and plans have turned to dust . Right. The concept of patriotic socialism is degenerating. Yes, you know this, too. They tried to show it, so to speak, just a little bit at the edge, but I think nothing is known
Speaker A
there yet. And to try to take advantage of this confusion, to try to find such a group that is looking for paths into the future, based on the fact that all other plans have, so to speak, collapsed. It is difficult, dangerous,
Speaker A
but nevertheless, I think it is worth a try. Right. That is what comes to my mind for today, what can be done while, as they say, the post-Soviet Russian Federation ship is still staying afloat , yes, so to speak, before the water in
Speaker A
the hold has even reached the hatches. Damn, how do you look at this? You are, after all, a more experienced person regarding Maxim, I believe you are a great optimist. A great optimist. You believe in such mechanisms, which I have
Speaker A
actually gone through and know that they do not work. Meaning, forming a group is, well, an almost impossible thing. 500 attempts to form some groups , yes, run into the very second meeting , there, the second gathering, yes, in
Speaker A
that there always appears some provocateur, some people appear who do not intend to support anyone's point of view at all, because they are promoting some home-grown, you know, overgrown trash, and so on and so forth, or some kind of idealism. All these options
Speaker A
don't work. So, I'll say it again: this , er, well, is only possible based on, er, technology—a certain unique, exclusive technology—to start moving forward gradually, where each step brings additional results, yes, provides new resources to take the next
Speaker A
step. This, well, each time it requires , for example, from the organizers of this process, yes, from the participants, the coordination of this very step. So. Er, I can simply, based on experience, tell you how it goes, meaning, we seem to have reached an
Speaker A
agreement, a step is taken, and then at the very next meeting, someone is sure to take a step in the opposite direction. Without fail. So, meaning, and they start pushing something else, something diametrically opposed. So.
Speaker A
That is, the, er, situation, this post-Soviet one, has reached almost complete absurdity. Not just from the elite's perspective. How it, meaning, exists, what the motivations are there.
Speaker A
So. And when you say that they don't understand something, Gref and so on and so forth. Well, I know, for example , a ruling group of young people, a ruling group already, yes, but figuratively speaking, there are several leading oligarchs, and they
Speaker A
have children who have long been integrated into the decision-making system. So, meaning, they are just preparing for the fact that tomorrow they will start running things there, well, obviously, to the full extent.
Speaker A
Meaning, I worked with this team, yes, tried to reason with them a little bit regarding civilizational development, sovereignty, and so on. These people don't need anything. They are sitting on coke, sitting on billions. Yes, they know that their parents are the masters
Speaker A
of this country. Tomorrow they will become the masters. They, their priorities are all linked to foreign countries, because obviously, they spend half their time somewhere in the Maldives, or anywhere else, in remote mode. So. Meaning, therefore, there is
Speaker A
no need to understand anything at all, there is simply no motive. When you come and start telling them, for example, well, visioning things, some political-economic or philosophical arguments, they will absolutely look at you like you're a loser. Why? Because
Speaker A
they control all the Russian media, yes , the key ones, all the ideological processes, yes, and they control them in such a way that, well, in the harsh version, they look at those performers like they are suckers, like they are
Speaker A
slaves. That is why there is no point even hoping that you will manage to hook any of these elite people and, I don't know, get them on board and so on and so forth. Well, sometimes certain figures pop up, like Rybakov, who start
Speaker A
spouting off about something. I mean, what are you even getting involved for? If you're a businessman or a billionaire, just stick to your money.
Speaker A
But no, he goes everywhere, trying to push some knowledge he doesn't actually possess, telling everyone how the world works. It's just a caricature.
Speaker A
And I don't even know this guy. Once again, who are we talking about? There's this guy Rybakov from Technonicol, he’s got this obnoxious force, he’s maybe somewhere around 80th place on the list or...
Speaker A
Right, he appeals to those kids, they’re the ones who listen to him because he’s a billionaire, so they think they should heed him; he’s almost like a peer, at least in their crowd, in that circle. So, what, are
Speaker A
they supposed to listen to PhDs instead ? We have PhDs everywhere, but honestly , you can't even look at them without tears in your eyes. I can tell you about when we met before the elections in Sergey Mikhailovich Mironov's office
Speaker A
. He asked us to share our thoughts on how he should run his campaign and so on. Originally, we agreed on a small group of about four people to talk, but suddenly three doctors walk in, one was even an academician,
Speaker A
and they completely ruined everything because they started spewing such boring nonsense, talking about their own monographs that no one was interested in. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that trait of our intelligentsia.
Speaker A
They don't understand what election strategy is. They have absolutely no clue. Well, no complaints about them, that's fine. They are who they are. But Mironov should understand, he's supposed to be a politician, yet he sat there and listened to them. I went
Speaker A
after those academicians, but he tried to hold me back, saying there’s no need, let them talk. The result is well known. They asked him not to run a campaign, saying they’d just draw him 5%. But in the end, the party didn't
Speaker A
get 5%, yet they still threw in some votes for them on the last day. Well.
Speaker A
A promise was made to Mikhailovich. Well, nonetheless, I still think it’s worth a try. I have experience working in a team on the "Russian Doctrine" after all. That was in 2005, when people gathered—Orthodox believers, non-believers, even Rodnovers, and even
Speaker A
Kostya Krylov, who is actually a metroist—and we tried to create something substantial. By the way, something did work out; of course, not perfectly, but we didn't fight, we didn't go for each other's throats, and we managed to work together. Perhaps
Speaker A
such a moment is approaching now, uh, when it's worth a try, but this... Well, it is worth a try, of course, of course, yes, I agree.
Speaker A
Let's not take this to the broadcast just yet, we need to think about it separately. Because, well, we don't have that many smart people, unfortunately, people with unconventional thinking. In any case, the moment of truth is approaching. I
Speaker A
read your excellent, also excellent note, that now there will be another round of seat swapping. Mishustin to Rosatom, Sobyanin to Prime Minister.
Speaker A
A merry-go-round or what? And they are all running around chairs at the bottom of the...Exactly around the chairs. Yes , exactly. Like in a game, right?
Speaker A
Meaning, as it was under Gorbachev, a narrow circle of limited people. Right. I think it is too early for us, so to speak, to lose heart, to fall into total despair, because...
Speaker A
losing heart is not necessary, it's a sin. Why? A deadly sin, yes. Now, well, we need to assess the situation soberly, yes. Assess the situation soberly.
Speaker A
Right. Well, it's just that there is such a difficult war now, which has clearly reached a dead end, and there will be great unrest and confusion among them. Let's not reveal and gift certain things to our enemies, so to
Speaker A
speak; some things probably shouldn't be discussed in an open broadcast yet. Right. But nevertheless, it is worth a try. And, uh, I think that one day we will talk about this very important concept of public ownership, which, as
Speaker A
it turned out, did not exist in the Soviet Union either. It was state ownership itself.
Speaker A
Yes. Right. Well, Vladimir Anatolyevich, thank you very much. I wish you, so to speak, strength and health. You will still be very useful to us, so to speak. As one of the very prominent intellectuals.
Speaker A
Right. And yes, Maxim, thank you to you. Yes, we continue to work, my friends. So to speak, I once again recommend everyone to check out Vladimir Lepekhin's Telegram channel. The link is in the description. And until we meet again,
Speaker A
dear friends. Hey
Topics:Russian civilizationAbrahamic matrixcrisis of heirsmetaphysical matrixRussian statehoodgenerational transitionSoviet metaphysicsRussian politicscivilizational crisisphilosophical freedom
