Forum

I'll try to answer briefly: 1. It's obvious that Yura is encountering these kinds of ideas, concepts, and thoughts for the first time, which is probably why he sincerely believes that Khomyakov's formulations are original and therefore valuable. I'm going to disappoint him: among the roughly fifty theses of this "personality" that I skimmed through, I didn't see a single one that could be considered original (except for a few insignificant ones). This is enough for me to stop studying it, because something worthwhile cannot be a mere compilation, even if it's well done. In general, I already pointed this out to you, but you're starting again about "Khomyakov's original ideas." Here are a few examples:

To figure out for yourself who and what is "us" and who and what is "them."

However, according to sociological surveys, most modern Americans think that in World War II, the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany. And the USA and England fought against this coalition.

In conclusion, when discussing the scientific aspects of our book, let us note that the author is a staunch opponent of the current trend of denying a number of basic scientific doctrines. Behind the guise of this kind of scientific modernism, the same irrationalism that we hate is actually being promoted.

However, nowadays, we often see a new synthesis of propaganda, religion, and entertainment. The Western Church, for example, is becoming increasingly theatrical. And in the 20th century, theater became either a tool of crude propaganda, as in totalitarian regimes, or a tool for lowering the intellectual level through delusional modernism and even more delusional postmodernism.

In terms of the history and ecology of their development, people who have not progressed beyond the Eastern Mediterranean are in an intermediate position between black and white people. Again, this should not be understood in a simplistic way, as some kind of mixture of white and black. There was simply a mode of formation of the white race. And as a result, the white man was formed. And there was a mode of formation of the black race. And as a result, the black man was formed.

And so on.

That is, the radical nationalism that Khomyakov preaches is not a marginal trend, but the most fashionable one. That is, with a good probability, someone will seize upon it in one form or another. Perhaps not Khomyakov himself, but someone else, but this will not change anything. And he will definitely have arguments to draw on (or independently come up with the same things), because he has gathered many different ones, and many of them may be useful.

Marginality does not exclude trendiness, and vice versa. But nationalism certainly does not claim to be original or new, in any form or under any guise. Moreover, anyone interested in history will recognize that nationalistic ideas usually appear during times of crisis and decline, like miasmas on the body of a seriously ill person, and not during periods of prosperity. That is, in a sense, these words are synonyms: nationalism, crisis, decline. By the way, I don't know of any state that, during its period of power, was based on national ideas. The fact that this is becoming a trend in the modern world (I wouldn't assert this, but there are prerequisites) is only a symptom of the decay and decline of the current world order. What will replace it is more in the realm of science fiction; at least, I won't even try to predict it. What is primarily associated with nationalism for me is African tribal wars, UNA-UPA, and Nazism. The nail in the coffin of nationalism: if Nazism had not been based on a national idea, then, according to many people who are authoritative for me, it would have had a very high chance of winning World War II. (I just found a schizophrenic point of view of Khomyakov himself. It turns out that Hitler was not prevented from winning by nationalism, but by SOCIALISM, many emojis). Now, about something more serious. About those who, adjusting their pince-nez, were surprised by the capture of the Winter Palace. Even if we assume that the worst-case scenario awaits the Earth – wars, catastrophes, terror, degeneration, the triumph of nationalism – what will Khomyakov's knowledge, as well as similar literature, give people? The ability to organize resistance? To blend in with nationalists in time? Or the answer to the question of what to do? Personally, this will definitely not help me acquire anything. P.S. Imagine that you and I decided to study some topic in your field of expertise. C++ 10.36 Vista. I think that in this case, even if you were just skimming through it, you would still be incomparably more competent than me, trying to study unfamiliar territory.