Forum

2 Oelm Searching for flaws boosts one's ego. Searching for constructive ideas develops one's mind. When I read texts like this, I don't pay attention to the flaws at all. The value isn't in them, but in the idea that the author is trying to express. When I grasp the idea, then I start to justify it, perhaps in a completely different way than the author. And this justification becomes my personal creativity and my opinion. And the author is often forgotten after that, especially if they really provided a poor justification. So, the idea here is interesting. Both for personal use and for expansion outwards. An important point is that there is a clear shortage of ideology in the world right now. The Soviet idea died 20 years ago, the last European one died 65 years ago, and the American one is dying now. What remains are the Chinese and Muslim ideas. Both of them, of course, are not suitable for white people. Therefore, there is an active search for this very ideology right now. Everything that even remotely resembles it is being tested. It is difficult to say what they will ultimately latch onto; it could be something very simple and primitive, made on the fly, as long as it excites the crowd. It is clear that Comrade Khomyakov's work cannot be compared to Marx's "Capital," either in size or in scientific rigor. But in the absence of anything better, people will eat what they can find. After all, not all Bolsheviks read "Capital," and the thinking of many did not extend beyond "beat the landowners and capitalists." But Khomyakov's work analyzes things much more deeply. In addition, let's look at what is happening in developed countries. And what is happening there is this: there is a wave of resentment against immigrants. Gypsies are being expelled from France and they are targeting Arabs, in Germany they are targeting Turks, in England they are targeting everyone, and everywhere leading politicians are talking about the failure of multiculturalism. And in Russia, the slogans on Manezhnaya Square, I think everyone knows what was being said. That is, the radical nationalism that Khomyakov preaches is not a marginal trend, but the most fashionable one. That is, there is a good chance that someone, somewhere, will adopt it in one form or another. Perhaps not Khomyakov himself, but someone else; the essence of it will not change. And he will definitely have arguments to draw on (or independently come up with the same thing), because he has dug up many different ones, and many of them may be useful. And those who skim through and read phrases like "And so the ENTIRE monograph" will, as usual, just shrug it off and then be surprised, looking through their pince-nez, and wonder: what is this drunken rabble doing in the Winter Palace?