The history of the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. The historical context of the emergence of the triad "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality", its interpretation and meaning

As you know, in the Russian Empire, the famous triad of Count Uvarov was used as an ideology: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”, the whole thing was called the “theory of official nationality”.

It is quite obvious that in practice this ideological construction constantly failed, because in fact it increasingly depends on the political and economic system, and not on someone else's ideas, opinions, or even the laws of the state.

It is possible to use the most "democratic" constitution, but at the same time to maintain a completely barbaric order in practice (for example, in many undeveloped countries this happens). Approximately this is how the triad itself corresponded to modernity, which was used to a greater extent from the 30s of the 19th century until the liquidation of the autocracy.

It is worth noting that the slogan "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" is the antithesis of the famous slogan of the Great French Revolution, which changed not only social order, but also the humanities (a sober view of the development of history appeared, which was reflected in the emergence of a historical school of the restoration period, and then a number of sciences that study society). By the way, the slogan of the Great French Revolution is “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”.

Those. The crisis of the autocracy, of course, appeared long before the well-known events, and the ideology of political reaction acted, probably, throughout the entire period of autocracy, when it was necessary to support the unjust and backward system with the help of an apparatus of violence, and to consolidate it with ideological superstructures like the church.

And it is not for nothing that Orthodoxy is mentioned in the triad, since monarchs hoped for Orthodoxy, even such as Peter I and Catherine II, despite personal neglect. They all believed that there is an ideology of the elite, and there is an ideology "for the masses", who were in a semi-slave position.

And in this case, I would like to demonstrate how the main ideological workers of the state, who worked more actively with the population than others, are actually agonizing over their obvious collapse. But to the last (that is, until the February revolution) they defend the autocratic system.

In this case, excerpts from Orthodox publications from the beginning of the 20th century before the 1917 revolution will be given.

Unrest, as is known, began long before the revolution of 1905, and therefore the question of maintaining autocratic power became open. In particular, in the highest circles there was talk of a constitutional monarchy. Pops reaction:

“We believe that our divinely crowned king is a reflection of divine providence on earth... The autocratic kingdom on earth is a snapshot of God’s sovereignty” (Pilot, 1903, No. 24).

The picture is better than you can say. Probably, in this way they refute the words of Engels that:

“Every religion is nothing more than a fantastic reflection in the minds of people of those external forces that dominate them in their daily life, a reflection in which earthly forces take the form of unearthly ones” (Engels. Anti-Dühring).

“The image of the earthly king in our state is taken from the image of the heavenly king, so that whoever opposes the power of the king and the power of the rulers appointed from him, he opposes God’s establishment” (Faith and Reason, 1905, No. 2)

Apparently, Grozny, i.e. the first official autocrat, before entering this rank, consulted with the deity for a long time in order to accurately imagine how everything is arranged in heaven. And therefore it is not surprising that during this period there was no education, no medicine, no science, and heretics, as you know, were burned at the stake, according to the cathedral code. In general, they lived like in a fairy tale - they didn’t grieve, they sold people, were baptized and prayed.

However, after the events of 1905 (Bloody Sunday), of course, such arguments hardly worked.

Churchmen constantly had to reaffirm their allegiance, since after 1905 some laws that punished the conversion from Orthodoxy to another cult were repealed. And therefore, the authorities probably expected that the priests might rebel, and it was precisely because of this that it was necessary to write that they were still for the autocrat (after all, Orthodoxy remained the state religion, and the priests received money from the government):

“Our liturgical sermon was all the time elevating autocracy to an absolute... Shepherds and archpastors were the guardians of autocracy almost to the same extent as Orthodoxy” (Church Bulletin, 1906, No. 2).

In fact, to a greater extent, since the autocratic power in Russia constantly adjusted the church to suit its needs. For example, what is worth only the church reform of Peter the Great, and in fact the priests put up with it.

Even in the most difficult and critical periods, when the autocratic power nevertheless made concessions (for example, the manifesto of October 17, 1905), the priests continued their line. And not because they stood for consistent autocracy, but because the authorities themselves were dissatisfied with the fact that they had to make concessions, but still managed to maintain autocracy:

"The tsarist autocracy must be preserved in complete inviolability and unlimitedness" (Faith and Church, 1906, No. 3).
It is quite obvious that if the authorities themselves welcomed the reforms that were implemented (obviously inconsistent), then the priests would welcome them, and not criticize them.

During the reaction period, i.e. after the revolutionary events of 1905-07, the priests continued their propaganda. This time they tried to drive away the last participants from the revolution. It is quite obvious that during this period there was a clear decline among the revolutionaries:

“We, by our disobedience to the royal power, by our disrespect for it, rebel against the institution of the divine, anger God and violate his holy will” (Sermons, 1908, May).

It is important to say that this is an attempt at manipulation, since saying “We” is not entirely correct, because it is not a revolutionary who speaks, but a pop. Moreover, it is unlikely that any of the revolutionaries would listen to such nonsense. The point is not only in the people, but also in the authorities, and in the ruling class, which the priests did not want to admit for the entire period. By the way, they modestly hush up their role.

On the enemies of the people:

"Who dares to talk about limiting it (autocracy), that is our enemy and traitor" (Church Gazette, 1911, No. 5)

And at that time, even government officials spoke about the restriction, realizing the benefits of this for themselves personally.

Another funny "discovery":

“The idea of ​​democracy, or people’s rule, as hypocritically absurd, invented to give the upper classes to imperceptibly hold the people in their hands, is alien to the soul of the Russian people” (Voice of the Church, 1912, No. 10).
It is noteworthy that the Russian people in this regard still remains, as they say, with a nose. However, changing the nature of power is progress. The Russian Empire is predominantly a traditional/undeveloped society. The need for industrialization was long overdue, and in this regard, there was such a backwardness that was very expensive, because, as you know, everything had to be created not for many years, as in developed countries, but abruptly in order to catch up with the level of development of the most developed countries.

The cunning of the priests in this case consisted in the understanding that the transition from one model to another simply promises a clear decrease in the role of religion in the life of society, following the example of just the same developed countries, where in some cases there was already a secular state (for example, France, the USA) .

Thoughts on the constitution:

“Any idea of ​​some kind of constitution, of some kind of agreement between the king and the people is blasphemy, an unforgivable insult not only to the king, but also to God” (Voice of the Church, 1912).

The bottom line is that autocracy is "natural" and also fixed "in heaven." It's just absurd to develop. Better to freeze the historical process and continue to live in an underdeveloped state, along with priests and landowners.

During the war, propaganda also did not differ in particular originality:

“A single, firm, autocratic power can prevent and pacify the passions of the people. We need a powerful, strong power of the monarch, appointed by God himself and strong by his power, able to restrain and tame the outbursts of human passions and establish obedience in the state. (Kronstadt shepherd, 1914, No. 41 - 42).

The firm government was unable to confirm any of the above in practice. It was possible to enter the war, enlist the support of some Western powers too, but it did not work out. The war showed the true face of autocratic power, when in fact people had no food, no weapons, no normal command, adequate to modern standards at that historical moment. Therefore, the desertion was simply phenomenal. Those. if in the first month of the war there was a certain “patriotism of the masses”, then it quickly evaporated, and remained only among the priests, officials, landowners and, by the way, the bourgeoisie too. Apparently, the war is one of the main factors why the bourgeoisie as a whole was defeated and ceased to be a force of progress in the course of revolutionary events, turning into a reactionary force.

The war "brought to the handle" everything. All that “power” of the economy that was associated with the opening of markets (i.e. when they say that there was a sharp growth only in the Russian Empire, this is a clear lie, there was a sharp growth in all developed countries at once), immediately disappeared, infrastructure collapsed. And discontent grew in society, and now simple shots into the crowd did not every time help to “calm it down”. The crowd grew, and the broadest masses joined it, eventually both soldiers and policemen. It was not about "showing revolutionism" or adherence to a particular political ideology. Here the most important factor is survival, and the objective factor is development. The force that contributes to the development of the mode of production in a particular situation wins. Naturally, in such a situation, various kinds of ideas: religion, philosophy, law, constitution, and so on. and so on. are of no particular importance. You can hide behind them from time to time, but this will not change anything in fact.

Marx wrote in the Critique of Political Economy:

“Just as it is impossible to judge an individual person on the basis of what he thinks of himself, in the same way it is impossible to judge such an era of revolution by its consciousness. On the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between social productive forces and production relations. Not a single social formation perishes before all the productive forces have developed, for which it gives enough space, and new, higher production relations never appear before the material conditions for their existence have matured in the bowels of the oldest society.

And here, apparently, the last praise of the royal power in that period:

“Royal power is God-given power” (Church Bulletin, 1917, No. 7 - 8)

After the coup, the churchmen immediately realized that:

“The coup that took place was a work of God’s great mercy to our fatherland”

And at church councils it was indicated that churchmen should:

“openly and directly condemn the doctrine of the allegedly “divine” origin of the tsarist autocracy in Russia, which, on behalf of the church, has been publicly taught for centuries, in sermons from the church pulpit, officially prescribed and by all means approved by the bearers of royal power as divinely revealed” (Theological Bulletin, 1917, No. 6--7).

So, in fact, the well-known triad "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" disappeared. The churchmen proved, firstly, that they do not particularly influence the historical process, they cannot “pacify” people in case of unrest, and in general they are not even distinguished by devotion to what is called “divine will”. The autocracy, which they served for several hundred years, they betrayed instantly, and then they said that the provisional government "

The existence of autocratic power requires several conditions. Often repeating the same words, we get used to them and stop delving into their meaning. The often-remembered words of Count Uvarov: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” have turned into a kind of saying, and yet the combination of these words is not accidental. These three concepts are linked together, and autocracy cannot be conceived without Orthodoxy and nationality. If we take sole power, we will see how diverse it can be. If Orthodoxy is excluded from this triad, then we will no longer receive autocracy. Why?

Autocracy is unlimited, neither legally, nor in general by any earthly power. It is limited in the moral, or rather, religious sense. But not just religion gives sanction to the emperor or king for power, but the autocrat has a living connection with God. The king must do the will of God, and almost always the adoption of this or that decision depends on him. If he turns to God, then his path must be true, woe to the people when temptation befalls him. The success of his reign depends on a living and genuine connection with God. A living connection with God is possible only with true theology, which is possible only in the Orthodox faith and the personal aspiration to God of the tsar himself. If the place of Orthodoxy is replaced by another “simply religion”, then there can be no question of any conversion to God, and we get an absolute monarchy, limited not by faith, but by the whim of the monarch himself, or his people or other earthly factors. Ways of "development" of this form of power - democracy or dictatorship. Unfortunately, such a philosopher and admirer of the monarchy as Ilyin demands from religion only a sanction that would establish the throne in the eyes of the people. That is why his ideal is the first Russian emperor Peter, he is also the first planter of absolutism in the Russian statehood. God has no formalities and He cannot support that human undertaking that uses His name as a slogan written but never prayerfully spoken. Therefore, this idea of ​​the structure of the monarchy cannot be true. Such theories are born not on the denial of God, but on his separation from life and transfer to the infinite far from the sphere of consideration, in fact, on the mental death of the Source of all life. God participates everywhere and always as a living force, including in public life. And, undoubtedly, if you choose between a pious king and an active one, then you should choose the first one. Of course, piety necessarily requires diligent fulfillment of one's duties before God.

The disruption of the connection between God and the monarch cannot but affect the relationship between the monarch and the people. Therefore, returning to the absolute monarchy, we point out that its entire existence will proceed in imposing the will of the monarch on the people and defending its unlimited power, since the will of God in this case is present as an abstraction. Of course, in the end it is not possible to defend it, and the monarchy either falls, having gone through chaos, turns into a dictatorship, or evolves into a constitutional monarchy, that is, democracy with a historical screen of monarchy.

More subtle and delicate is the connection between autocracy and nationality. It is impossible not to mention the Slavophiles here. It is especially necessary to note the small but very significant work of D.A. Khomyakov, son of the famous Slavophile. He gives an excellent justification for the need for a living connection between the monarch and the people. After the coming of the Savior, the Church arises, the people of God, in which there is "neither Greek nor Jew." But those who believe that the concept of people and nationality are dying out altogether are deeply mistaken. The existence of these concepts is connected with our dual position in the modern era. On the one hand, we belong (should belong) as Christians to the Kingdom of Heaven, on the other hand, we are still going through the earthly field, in which belonging to the Kingdom of Heaven requires reinforcement by faith and deeds. Outwardly, after the coming of Christ, there is no earthly "revolution" and the order of things has been preserved since the time of Adam. People are born, live and die, and this does not contradict the already come Kingdom of Heaven. Peoples also exist and operate, each of which can be considered as a single entity in the spiritual and physical sense. One: bodily - by origin, spiritually - by faith, mentally - by language, and, finally, by will, by submission to a single leader or monarch. This order is preserved because human history has not yet ended, which means that new people receive life from their ancestors and become successors of the family. By kinship, they inherit not only appearance, but also character traits, even righteousness. It is no coincidence that the genealogy of the Savior is given in the Gospel. In Christian nations, all this must take place under the sign of faith, the Kingdom of Heaven. But while a person lives on earth, he must listen to his parents. The Christian people, like any other people, are united together and, of course, it must also have a head - a king who, by his kinship, is connected with the people. But the people as a whole has its own spirit, so we can talk about the characteristic features of an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Russian. For example, these characteristic features are expressed in language. Knowledge of the language does not mean only memorizing words, but also the ability to think “in German”. Anyone who translates from Russian into a foreign language in his mind cannot say that he fully knows the language. Although knowledge of the language does not determine the belonging of a person to a people, but the language is a feature of this people, an expression of its spirit, which is emphasized in the Slavic language in the name of both concepts by the same word.

In a word, the people are a reality not only in the physical, but also in the spiritual sense. The tsar may be 90% a foreigner, but in spirit he is a Russian tsar. Unlike absolute monarchies, the tsar should not and cannot rule over his people, if only because he is one with them. The king should not force his own people to fulfill his will, but he himself should be the spokesman for the will of the people. The Orthodox people freely submit their will to the will of God, which they can know and which is in the Orthodox realm. This is its difference from the peoples professing Catholicism or Protestantism, who have lost their living faith, and, consequently, their living connection with God. And this "meeting of the will of God and the will of the people" should take place in the person of the monarch, which is one of the reasons for likening an Orthodox autocrat to Christ. Of course, here, too, the will of the people must submit to the will of God. But unlike absolutism, the monarch forms a single whole with his people and knows the will of the people in himself and checks it for compliance with the will of God. Mortification of the people's will or a complete rejection of it deprives the people of real life, weakening its strength, turning it into an empty concept or a dummy. Such a state cannot live long. At the same time, attention to the voice of the people, an act of humility of the Sovereign, for according to the well-known saying, "the voice of the people is the voice of God." Although not always. Thus, through the Orthodox faith, the real is realized. the living connection of the autocrat with God, and through the monarch the connection of the people with God. In the face of the monarch, there is, as it were, a combination of the new and the old. Connection from Adam of the existing order and the New Testament revealed by the Second Adam. And one cannot agree with the opinion that it is enough for the tsar to be Orthodox, and the sphere of his activity, the activity of the state, is located outside of faith and piety. Or rather, somewhere near or in the neighborhood with church life.

YES. Khomyakov writes that in the subordination of the people to their monarch, there is a renunciation of power, of the earthly, the burden of managing which the tsar takes upon himself, and the people receive a greater opportunity for striving for the spiritual. This is the difference from the Western peoples, who have long been mired in materialism. The fact is that individual power is a limitation of the power of others, or rather, a renunciation of the power of other members of society. Otherwise, it is a refusal to manifest one's will in this space. Therefore, in the Orthodox people, earthly power is individual, church power is conciliar, for the people cannot be indifferent to the affairs of faith, which is its highest value, and this means an active manifestation of individual will or freedom, “for it is impossible to imagine a believer, freed from the obligation to stand for the faith." With Catholics, things are different, the main value has long been in wealth, and to miss power means to miss wealth, so you cannot deprive yourself of power. The spiritual world, however, can be easily given over to the management of one person, because it is no longer interesting to a Western person. This is how democracy and papism are born in the West. This is the justification for the appearance of conciliar and individual power in Khomyakov Jr.

Look at what colossal spiritual and physical forces modern peoples expend to ensure the administration of the state. For months, election campaigns have been going on, causing passions, distracting people from true spiritual values ​​and even simply from useful creative activity. But modern people need it to worship their democratic deity. This deity is in the false freedom of man, in the rebellion of man against God. Having submitted to material values, forgetting the spiritual, which inevitably leads to the goal of possessing benefits for each individual, these peoples had to inevitably step onto the second rung of the ladder, bringing them closer to the idol of Mammon. Just as the passion of acquisitiveness has over it the passion of lust for power, which arises after a quick saturation with material things, so in the whole “get rich” people there arises a desire for power, and everyone wants to get a piece of this power for themselves. Therefore, probably, many Russian people, with a strange and inconsistent punctuality, go to the ballot boxes every election and throw papers at them, although for the most part they are sure of the futility of this activity. For it is clear even to a child that nowhere and never does anyone give up power so easily. But they cannot get rid of this specter of participation in the administration of the state. It's like a game where everyone is allowed to play king.

If autocracy arises against the background of the renunciation of power, then democracy arises on the basis of love of power. In autocracy, the people renounce power in order to live a spiritual life, and the monarch accepts power as a burden. But it is precisely in the person of the monarch that the whole people reigns, constituting a single whole, having, as it were, a single will. In a democracy, people fight for power and perceive it as a blessing, and having achieved it, it is clear how they will use it .. That is, here it is the other way around: it seems that everyone has power, but in reality it is in the hands of a handful, sometimes unknown people. In the monarchy, therefore, there is a supreme renunciation of the world through the renunciation of power. After all, whoever wants to achieve something in this world must gain power through money, abilities, and then just power, as a state category.

Returning to the relationship between the monarch and the people, it should be noted that this interaction should be based on love. This is not just brotherly love, without which it is impossible to imagine Christianity. Here love is special when the eyes of thousands, tens of thousands, millions are directed at one.

But what do we get when we consider the triad "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality"? mononational state? But after all, in history different Christian peoples existed together under one scepter. And, of course, in Orthodoxy the spiritual is placed above the national. In addition, the Orthodox state takes under its protection every Orthodox person. But let us imagine a state consisting of several peoples equal in number and strength. Naturally, there can be only one king, which means that one of the peoples will always be in a privileged position. For, of course, the king achieves a more complete unity with his people, to whom he belongs by flesh and blood. And those who believe that the imperial idea in the sense of the union of several Orthodox peoples is more in line with Christianity are mistaken. Such a state is doomed to weakness and ultimately collapse. An example is Byzantium, which did not have a people on which state power could rely besides Christians, members of the church, who, uniting on this basis, just go beyond the sphere of state control. And such disharmony cannot be recognized by Christianity.

Another thing is the Russian state, which was based on the Russian people and in fact was the state of the Orthodox Russian people, while other Orthodox and non-Orthodox peoples were under the protection of the Russian state. The Russian people constituted the “base” of the kingdom, the tsar relied on him and he was his tsar for the most part, other Orthodox could enter the fence he created. Understanding that such an opinion of the Slavophiles cannot now please the numerous enemies of the Russian people, declaring absurd equality not even in the legal sense, but in the essential sense of all peoples, while dragging through the back door the exclusivity of their people. It cannot please those who manipulate the now fashionable concept of phyletism (by the way, an unfortunate word. In the translation from the Greek “racism”), which arose on a rather special occasion in church history, and became a convenient tool for papists from different geographical points, for the time being hidden behind the pious words of "obedience", "humility", as well as canonicity and church unity. By the way, for some reason they forget that the council of 1872 was rejected by the church fullness, which did not see such a teaching, but saw behind it, alas, the struggle for power encountered in church history and most likely not “phyletism”, but elementary nationalism, but on the other hand. “As if considering these measures insufficient (excommunication and deprivation of the priesthood of two metropolitans and a bishop of Bulgarian nationality), the Patriarch of Constantinople constituted on September 16, 1872 the Local Council (“Great Local Synod”), which condemned “phyletism”, that is, tribal division in Orthodoxy, proclaimed hostile to the "One Catholic and Apostolic Church" supporters of phyletism and declared the Bulgarian Church schismatic. The Orthodox Plenitude did not accept these bans from Constantinople. Patriarch Kirill II of Jerusalem categorically refused to recognize the Council's decisions as just. Bishops of the Church of Antioch (of Arab nationality) declared the signature of their Patriarch under the acts of the Council “the expression of his personal opinion, and not the opinion of the entire Church of Antioch”1

Of course, fans of imperial state building also oppose such an understanding. Let's go back to Byzantium. Moreover, the imperial idea “is the idea of ​​Rome, not even the imperial, but the Roman Republic. The empire did not create this idea, but only produced a concentration of power in one person. That is, the imperial Roman idea is born from the republican idea of ​​subordinating the individual to the state. Only after some evolution the state is concentrated in one person. As a result, Byzantium inherited the idea of ​​the emperor as a "perpetuated dictator"3. That is, the connection with the people is weakened all the time by this idea breaking out. In addition, in Byzantium, the emperor, having many peoples under his control, relies on the outlying regions, that is, not on the main people, if there is one. And on other peoples in order to keep them in the composition of their state. The imperial idea greatly weakened Byzantium. In fact, it was a semi-republican government, when any capable military leader could seize power. The endless succession of imperial dynasties of different nationalities is one of the main reasons for its fall. And the change of dynasties occurred due to the fact that one of the main tasks of the empire was to keep the outskirts, why the emphasis was placed on the peoples inhabiting them, and not on the main people. “Imperatorship is not autocracy, but its false likeness. It is the fruit of a republic, it has grown on republican soil and is an expression of a republicanism that has despaired of its existence, but has not renounced it in essence.

Now let's look at the Russian monarchy. Undoubtedly, it always relies on one Orthodox people - the Russians. Other Orthodox peoples that are and are not even included in the Russian kingdom are under its protection: Georgian, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc. The Byzantine kingdom falls, but its place is taken by the Russian kingdom, more perfect in its organization. Truly, the Russian people can be called God's chosen people, because the ideal of the Orthodox monarchy was realized in it, it became possible for many years of peaceful existence of the Orthodox Church, which received the opportunity to feed its children and was deprived of the need to think about earthly things, for this was taken over by her ktitor - the king. It is in Russia that the ideal is realized: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. Unlike Byzantium, the Orthodox monarchy relies not just on Christians, as in Byzantium, but on a single Russian people, which has absorbed a number of other small peoples. This is where his life force came into play, for he expands and strengthens, not destroying the neighboring peoples, but absorbing them into himself. The Russian people, under the control of the tsar, could live freely and save themselves, not burdening themselves with earthly thoughts about governance, fulfilling the tsar's will and supporting the tsar in everything.

It should be noted that speaking of the embodiment in the Russian people of the ideal of an autocratic kingdom, we do not mean those distortions and violations that took place. It was about the fact that, by the will of God, the ideal of the Orthodox monarchy was embodied in the Russian people, which, in the aspect of the relationship between autocracy and the people, is “the active self-consciousness of the people, concentrated in one person”4.

Thus, the Orthodox monarchy, as it were, constitutes a triad: God, autocrat, people. The monarch does not blindly impose his will, but seeks to know the will of God. “Christianity introduced the idea of ​​“the king is God's servant...”. On the other hand, he expresses the will of the people - by gathering the people together in his person and subordinating the will of the people to the will of God. The people become, as it were, a single person, united with the Lord, but not the man of Hobbes, who gave all power to the dictator, who still has the basis of his power in the people themselves, because he does not have God standing over him. “At the same time, the individual was freed from “complete subordination to the state”, for there cannot be two “complete subordinations”, and by submitting entirely to God, a Christian could thereby only conditionally submit to the state”5

The will of the state already exists in the person of the Monarch himself, who is the representative of that inner content of the nation from which his will flows, every time the people are able to think over its content, and in what act it should be expressed in relation to this or that current issue. This representation of the only real people's will, that is, the will of the people's spirit, so to speak, belongs to the monarch. That is, unlike the absolute (Western) model of the monarchy, the unity of the monarch and the people is necessary. This unity is expressed primarily in the love of the monarch for his people, and back of the people for their monarch. There were plenty of examples of this love in Russian history. Until the 20th century, the people were ready to die for their monarch, but insufficient attention to the enemies of the kingdom and Orthodoxy led to the fact that these external enemies, having gradually become internal, with their propaganda, deprived the people of this love to a large extent. Plus bureaucracy (Peter's creation) - one of the worst enemies of the monarchy, as well as Western products of unbelief - liberalism and humanism, filed under the beautiful label of enlightenment. And although the listed heads of the hydra were periodically cut off, but over time it moved and moved forward, gradually reaching the very foot of the throne.

How senseless the statements of those who accuse Tsar Nicholas II of abdicating the throne sound. If the people in blindness do not want to have a monarch, then how can they remain on the throne? This is possible only in the case of a temporary clouding of the people's mind, a rebellion, in short. But what happened in February was prepared for at least a hundred years. Let only a handful act actively, but a handful of closest associates. Power hung in a vacuum. If we consider the state as a macroman, a conciliar man, then how could he live without vital organs? Let these be small, but vital organs, to kill a person it is enough to cut an artery. If a person has only a small part of the brain affected, then he can either die or become an inferior person. In this case, unlike the biological one, this choice was real, and the person decided to die. Or was it necessary for the king to recognize power not as a burden, not as obedience to God, but as a means for a comfortable life and satisfaction of the passion of lust for power? And to force in many ways the already disbelieving people to submit to themselves? But to recognize this means to renounce autocracy, it means to become a Western autocrat. Although the people were deprived of their heads, actually killed, but the absence of any movement, even convulsions, in a dismembered body does not mean that this body was already spiritually dead in advance? Therefore, there were no Minins, no Pozharskys, no Susanins. The monarchy has already ceased to be in the eyes of the people that ideal, without which life, both state and personal, could not be conceived.

It is impossible to substantiate logically, but it is intuitively clear that voluntary renunciation, that is, renunciation without physical struggle, is a guarantee of the return of the monarchy to Russia. And in the Russian people, which is not an imaginary size, certain features are laid down. This is not only Orthodoxy, but also a certain craving for a monarchical manifestation, which lives among the people even after the revolution and all the time, to one degree or another, breaks out.

It is interesting to trace this latent existence of some features of the monarchy in Russia during the period of partial return to national goals. We said that the Russian people can be considered God's chosen people in the sense that they were entrusted with the embodiment of the ideal of a monarchical system. Naturally, these essential features cannot be erased from history and the national spirit by an evil, imagining itself omnipotent, but still human hand. Note that in a monarchical state, moral values ​​(or rather, religious) values ​​prevail over legal legality. Many, who really wanted the destruction of the Soviet state and who wanted the destruction of Russia, considered the use of morality as an integral part of state ideology to be one of the main obstacles to moving towards Western “values”. Remember the struggle for a "lawful" state, where law is balls in the hands of a clever juggler. Let us recall how moral values ​​got into the state ideology of power, which began its journey by fighting marriage and the family, morality and shame. When a person is visited by an illness, he strains all his physical strength to fight it, he thinks about his life, and sometimes even turns to God. Everything superficial in these minutes fades into the background. It was the same with Russia at the time of the Nazi invasion. It became obvious that one must either die or be reborn in order to gain a strong organism. Therefore, Stalin hangs portraits of Suvorov and Kutuzov on the walls of his office these days. When the danger passed, although there was a significant rollback, it became obvious that it was impossible to exist without relying on the people's spirit at all, and moral values ​​arose that, under the gnashing of teeth of our enemies, for a long time kept the body of our decapitated people, as if in a frozen form. By the way, then sympathy is shown for Peter I, who under the Bolsheviks was as hated as any tsar (let us recall, for example, the book of Vasilevsky-Nebukva, The Romanovs, full of hatred for all tsars). He begins to like his imperial idea, in which the suppression of the individual is manifested, which is not at all alien to the post-Bolshevik state. In addition, the imperial idea involves the search for a genius for the role of emperor, which is one of the reasons for the collapse of Byzantium, which is also characteristic of the Soviet state. “Now the historic hour has struck. But it wasn't revenge. Archers were the personification of the old, Byzantine Russia. And Peter cut off the heads of not only archers. He chopped off the heads of the past, which interfered with his new affairs, hindered the rapprochement of Russia with Europe .... Here, Russian history for the first time received a hard, burning blow with a whip, which necessarily touched it forward from the age-old Eastern slumber, accelerating its maturation and movement towards the advanced achievements of Western thought, science, crafts”7 Thus, in the Soviet state after its strengthening, the triad Orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality appears, but in a distorted, caricatured form. The Marxist-Leninist utopia, for which formally there is neither a Russian nor a Jew, a proletarian emperor who is not subject to re-election, and in extreme cases only to overthrow, the Soviet people, who replaced the Russian people, and around him the national outskirts and national minorities, which some bloom while the Russian is dying, turned into a fantastic Soviet. Why is this being said? Moreover, it is impossible to build a house without taking into account the features of the old foundation.

Another feature that will seem less significant is the reality of popular representation. Remember how they laughed at the milkmaids who came to party congresses and sessions of the Supreme Council? What are they supposed to do there. Politicians must be professionals, - this line from a rock song of a foreign composition was hammered into our heads by the new Russian (or "old American") "Beatles-agitators". Of course, the “small people” who were dragged by the scruff of the neck from behind the wings onto the stage by the hand of Shafarevich laughed the most. It’s good that they came, it’s bad that they really didn’t participate in anything. Speaking about popular representation in a monarchical state, L. Tikhomirov writes: “All representatives must belong to that class, to that social group that send them to express their interests and thoughts before the supreme power and in the tasks of state administration. It is necessary that they personally and directly belong to the cause that they represent, they must be personally and directly connected with precisely the social stratum whose thought is expressed. Without this, the representation will become false, and will pass into the hands of political parties, which, instead of national representation, will give the state political professionals”8. Which is what we got. And in a monarchical state, no one would, it turns out, laugh at milkmaids ... For a true monarch would be interested in knowing the real situation of this or that layer and would be ready to listen to his advice. Therefore, the meetings of the last tsar with representatives of the people were so memorable, albeit short-lived but engraved in the memory of their participants. The monarchy had room to grow, but would the politicians of that time give the opportunity?

What happens? It cannot be said that the Soviet state was not an ugly entity. But, trying at some point to become national rails, it unwittingly picked up some monarchical features. Hence the fear of the current and past defenders of "democracy" who even gave rise to legends that Stalin wanted to become the Russian Tsar, that there were no significant differences between him and Hitler, and so on. Hence the fierce struggle against morality, people's representatives and other positive or even not the worst features of the Soviet system. This is their eternal fear of the Russian people, which can again give rise to the monarchy. But, it should be noted that so far they have managed to make changes for the worse.

What's next? Further, not being able to eliminate the entire Russian people overnight, it is necessary, in addition to desperate efforts in planting debauchery, sects, drug addiction and other charms of the Western world, to try to lead them as far as possible from the right path. In the meantime, we will have to use his values, but, of course, not the values ​​themselves, but their brilliant fakes that attract a not very attentive and thoughtful viewer. Here we see the revival of Orthodoxy and even some participation in this state, but most often only in the form of restoration of churches, and the use of Orthodox and national symbols, but in a distorted form, and even the monarchy in a constitutional or absolute version. The need for counterfeits stems from the weakness of counterfeiters who cannot mint their own coin, copiers who can copy but not create anything real and viable. But, the further they try to lead us into the forest, the more firewood, according to the Russian proverb. The closer we are by the providence of God to the goal. Who could have imagined ten years ago that the authorities would be "search" for the Russian idea or declare that patriotism is not so bad. But the closer we are to the goal, the more sophisticated and dangerous their scenery is. At the end, there will be the most decisive choice, and the “guides” who led us will grab the handles of the knives hidden under the cloaks ...

Undoubtedly, a pseudo-imperial idea will also be thrown at us. Why "false"? For seven years of separation and reign of national regimes, active work was carried out in the former republics of the USSR to humiliate, destroy and deport the Russian population. Some are so active that the Russian population flees without even being able to sell a house or apartment. Therefore, it becomes completely incomprehensible what connects us, besides the buried proletarian internationalism, with most of the former republics. Or some other kind of internationalism? It is absolutely incomprehensible what connects us with the helpless Islamic republics. But the idea of ​​an imaginary union opens the door for them to invade the heart of Russia with all the ensuing consequences. If the authorities focus on the Slavic, Orthodox republics, which are based on the Russian people, named differently, then the authorities will be face to face with their enemy - the Russian people. It will be necessary to recognize Orthodoxy as the state religion, and then the people will inevitably demand a tsar. There will be a danger of creating a strong state according to the formula "Orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality", where the presence of a large people will ensure a strong alliance between the people and the autocrat. Therefore, in this situation, we need to adhere to defensive tactics with a gradual retreat to previously prepared positions. You have to learn to retreat wisely. And not just waving a verbal saber. They cannot be allowed to create a state with such prerequisites. Therefore, it is better to return to the pseudo-imperial idea of ​​many peoples, when many peoples will "hang on the neck" of the Russian, and the representatives of power will be 90% of these peoples. Work, work, Ivans... We already know this. By the way, this is a typical fate of empires, in which reliance is inevitably placed on the outskirts so that these very “valuable” peoples do not fall off the empire. Since now nothing but history connects us with these peoples, they should be subordinated to Russia through foreign policy and foreign economics, which will be easily achieved in the conditions of their inability to exist. And of course, only those that are the sphere of our interest. The Russian people, rapidly declining in numbers, should, on the contrary, concentrate on the main territory of Russia and achieve their own power, not a pseudo-monarchy, but autocracy. Of course, this will require great sacrifice and effort. There is another danger as well. Humiliating the Russian people for many years, its enemies themselves can use the results of their own labor for its imaginary revival, creating a chimera of fascism. With the help of the media and word of mouth, this chimera can only last long enough to take action and thus do much evil. I call this form of government a chimera, because nationalism is alien to the Russian people, who have preserved their Orthodox roots, albeit already aged, without escapes. This constitutes the strong side of the Russian people and makes them inconvenient to govern. For the first time in post-revolutionary history, a real opportunity arose to rely not on some “Soviet people” and not on a people that has not yet been invented, but on the Russian people, whose heart is given to the autocracy, even if they have not learned to look into their own hearts. It seems that the world rulers realized that they overdid it in hatred of Russia and created one national state, and now they rushed to correct their mistakes. Therefore, probably, millions of Azerbaijanis were sent to Russia. The Chinese, the Vietnamese, everyone who can dilute the Russian people even a little is imported. Orthodoxy is being fought with sectarian inoculations. Note that any small step to limit this "lawlessness" immediately causes hysteria in Washington. They are afraid that they will not have to deal with a real Russian tsar. But, unfortunately, the ROC, weakened by long-term dependence on godless authorities, is not up to the mark. Let us note that without Orthodoxy there can be no nationality, understood in the state sense, as the possibility of uniting with the authorities. That is, without Orthodoxy, it is impossible not formally, but the actual inclusion of the people in the state body, the body, as we called it here, of the macroman. A people unenlightened by Orthodoxy cannot be completely united and, moreover, cannot have an autocrat, for it is not clear on what his power will be based, except on some kind of deception.

Let's sum up some results. The triad "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" implies the unification of God, the autocrat and the people. Through the monarch, in fact, the unification of the people with God takes place. The monarch, on the one hand, represents the will of the people, and, on the other hand, the will of God is revealed to him. In it there is a union of these two wills and the subordination of the people's will to the will of God. This is a special likeness of the autocrat to Christ. Many modern Christians, alas, combined with the world, and blinded by liberalism, very often inappropriately recall the words from the epistle to the Colossians: “Where there is no Greek, no Jew ...”, trying to prove that nationalities are abolished by this, deliberately forgetting the following the words "... neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but all and in all Christ" (Col. 3, 11). That is, it is not about the abolition of nationality, but about the absence of all these divisions in the next century. Let us also recall other words: “All of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer a Jew, nor a Gentile; there is no slave nor free; there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). According to the logic of these people, there should no longer be either men or women. It is absurd to assert that He Himself was born of a woman, and in everything was a man, except for sin, who opened the way for us to the Kingdom of Heaven, bearing all the burden of human existence, who did not violate either the Law of Moses or natural law, did not abolish the punishment imposed on man after the fall, but who bears it, being innocent, suddenly turns out to be an earthly super-revolutionary, not only crushing states, but even peoples themselves. Let us recall the attention given to the peoples in the Old Testament. How many predictions about the fate of different nations. How many promises, punishments and miracles are sent specifically to the nations. And all this is invalidated? And how can the concept of a people be abolished without abolishing the law according to which people are still born from their fathers and mothers, contacting them according to the law of birth. “But such is the law laid down by man after the fall: he is destined to live and act under the conditions of limitation by various corruptions of his basic nature; and those appear first of all in the personal idiocy of individuals, which, as individuals unite in families, in societies, turn into familial, social and tribal idiocy. Just as man can no longer be “absolute man,” as Adam was before the fall, so there can be no “all-human” society, for the same reason. Who does not want to become like Christ and be a man, to honor his parents, to fulfill the laws and traditions of his people, who does not want to bear the entire burden of human existence, as He did, can he be called a Christian? If people, both before the birth of Christ and after, were born and died, making their choice, combining with Christ, or moving away from Him, then why were those united into peoples as a single whole, like macro-humans, could not choose or reject Christ. As they say, facts are stubborn things, and when we look at human history, that is exactly what we find. Thus, by the will of God, and after the Coming of Christ, the order of things is preserved from the time of Adam. People are born, live and die, just as peoples exist as a single whole in the spiritual and physical sense .. Physically by origin, spiritually by faith, by language, and finally, by will, by submission to one leader or monarch. “Whenever the tongues of the merger descended, the Most High tongues separated, when the fiery tongues were distributed, the whole call was united, and according to we glorify the All-Holy Spirit.” The kontakion of the feast of the Holy Trinity, as well as possible, reveals the fusion of languages. The meaning is a voluntary connection of all people, but the connection is only in the Holy Spirit, any other connection that breaks all the old partitions will not be from God. So there is only one “cosmopolitanism” of the Holy Spirit from God. Pentecost is a prototype of the general rebirth of mankind, the head of which is Christ in the next century. In this union, in the final rebirth of human nature and its deification, all barriers will be destroyed.

Thus, in earthly life it will not be possible to create a strong and viable union of peoples, except for the rallying of Orthodox Christians around a strong and large people. This is convincingly evident from the history of Byzantium, which did not have such a people and had no concept of a people at all, whose place was occupied by the concept of Christians. And in difficult moments of history, the realities of belonging to one or another people, not canceled by anyone, had a detrimental effect on the history of Byzantium, which ultimately led it to collapse, opening the way for the Third and most powerful Rome, which almost at its sunset did not illuminate with its rays and the Second and almost restored the Cross over Hagia Sophia. Being indestructible outwardly due to the perfection of its structure, it could only be undermined from the inside, which was done by the bearers of the secret of lawlessness, who spent two hundred years on this painstaking work. Unlike many Orthodox, these miners, miners, perfectly understood who the detainer was and what he was detaining.

Mr. Ulyanov-Lenin wrote in his Socialism and Religion that it was necessary to put an end to the situation “when the church was serf dependent on the state, and Russian citizens were serf dependent on the state church, when medieval inquisitorial laws existed and were applied. ... persecuting for faith or for unbelief, raping a person's conscience ... "10 . “Whatever happens, they look to Petersburg in anticipation of a messiah who will free them from all evils; and if they call Constantinople their Constantinople, their royal city, then they do this both in the hope of the appearance of an Orthodox tsar from the north, who will enter this city and restore the true faith, and in memory of another Orthodox tsar who owned Constantinople before the Turkish conquest of the country." Although, surprisingly, many Orthodox even now do not want to accept the words of St. John Chrysostom, finding in the patristic literature other explanations for the concept of "holding".

Let's go back to today. Each link of the triad can be forged by modern masters. Instead of Orthodoxy, another religion can be palmed off: Catholicism in an explicit form, of the Eastern rite, or emerging in the form of a church with an earthly head. More crude fakes are possible. Instead of a monarchy, a religious-historical show, where we are assigned the role of Tolkienists, and they are the control panel. Instead of nationalism - nationalism of a rude sort or the transformation of the people into an American-like rabble. Of course, this is what they want, and, of course, they will not succeed in this, because not only those living today are with us, but also those who have already departed to God, and not just our ancestors, but thousands and thousands of prayer books to God. Will they forget us in their prayers, and will the Lord not hear them? Unfortunately, only about us it can be said that we are not at the height of the situation. And not only in its lukewarmness, in its sinfulness. But due to some kind of nationwide obscuration, some kind of lack of wisdom. Just as Orthodoxy is sometimes not preached, but discredited by its ministers, so the idea of ​​a monarchy is sometimes distorted and presented in a stereotyped form by Russian patriots. The ideal of a certain tyrant is often put forward, who will turn heads to the right and left to all those who disagree and have little faith. Hence the excessive idealization of one of the best tsars - Ivan the Terrible. No one denies the positive aspects of his reign. And, even more, some truly royal features inherent in him. But excessive idealization gives rise to an unformulated doctrine of royal infallibility, even a kind of royal Nietzscheanism, which consists in the fact that spiritual laws and even moral norms do not apply to the king. But what about the union of the king and the people, based on love? On what, then, is subordination to the king based, only on the fact that a legally justified, legitimate king? Or on the fact that the king is driven by God, His providence? No, of course, we are closer to the image of King David, meek, but obedient to God, therefore, by the will of God, sometimes he punishes with a firm hand. Weak, but in whose weakness the power of God is made perfect. Not a mistaken genius, but a prayer book firmly at the helm. Khomyakov A.S. highlights 13 years of great victories and great happiness in the reign of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, saying that "it was a time of good advice"12. The following is said about his son Fyodor Ivanovich: “All historians agree that the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich was a very happy time for Russia, but everything is attributed to the wisdom of Godunov .... if a truth-loving sovereign seeks good advice, good advice always comes to his calling. If a Christian sovereign respects human dignity - his throne is surrounded by people who value human dignity above all else. The mind of many, awakened by the complacency of one, does what the wisdom of one person could not do, and the prescriptions of the government, warmed by love for the people, are fulfilled not by fear, but by the warm love of the people. Love alone builds and strengthens the kingdom. The union of the tsar and the people is most of all expressed in this “good advice”, which comes from the bowels of the people but is pronounced by its best representatives. Perhaps this "good advice", which is an expression of the love of its people for the monarch and perceived by the monarch, can be taken as an indicator of the conformity of this or that monarchy to its ideal. How can one not recall with bitterness the words of another meek king: "All around is treason, cowardice and deceit." When can a monarchy be erected again? When the Russian people can again give birth to “good advice”, that is, when they return to God, at least in part, repent of treason, cowardice and deceit. And then what seems impossible to us will again become a reality, erected from the ashes by Him Who makes everything possible.

1.K.E. Skurat. History of the Local Orthodox Churches. Vol. 1, p. 263.

2.Tikhomirov L.A. Monarchic statehood p.171

4.D.A. Khomyakov Orthodoxy Autocracy, Nationality. Montreal, 1982, p.152.

5. Tikhomirov, Ibid p.171.

6.Tikhomirov p. 578.

7. Valery Osipov. I'm looking for childhood. Favorites. Moscow worker 1989. Page, p. 445

8. Tikhomirov p. 580

9. D.A. Khomyakov. Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality. Montreal, 1982, p.35.

10. V.I. Lenin. Full Sobr. Works, v.12, p. 144

11. K. Marx and F. Engels. British Politics, vol.9, 8-10

12. A.S. Khomyakov. Thirteen years of the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich. About old and new. Articles and essays. Moscow. Sovremennik, 1988, p.388

13. A.S. Khomyakov. Tsar Theodore Ioannovich. There. pp 394-395

Editorial : The 155th anniversary of the death of the outstanding Russian statesman, Minister of Public Education, President of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov, passed almost unnoticed. Unfortunately, we have to explain that the day of memory of prominent figures of the 19th century should be celebrated by adding not 12 days to the date of death according to the Julian calendar (such was the discrepancy between the Julian and Gregorian calendar in the 19th century), as we do it all the time next, and 13 days. We proceed from the fact that Count S.S. Uvarov died on the day of the remembrance of the Pror. God-seer Moses; ssmch. Babyla, ep. Great Antioch, and with him three youths: Urvan, Pridian, Eppolonia and their mother Christodula, and therefore it is necessary to celebrate the day of his memory on the day when the Holy Church honors the memory of these saints, not paying attention to the discrepancy between the calendars. We have been following this principle for a long time, meeting an increasing understanding of church people.

The RNL celebrated Count Uvarov's Memorial Day with two publications - articles by Archpriest Gennady Belovolov and Associate Professor of St. Petersburg University, Deacon Vladimir Vasilik. Today we offer the reader two texts by Count Sergei Semenovich himself, who gained fame, first of all, by the formulation of the Russian triad "Orthodoxy-Autocracy-Nationality". This is what this post is about. Title provided by the editor.

Letter to Nicholas I (1)

Sovereign,

From the very moment that Your Imperial Majesty determined for me an important and difficult field of activity (2), I feel a keen need to resort to His August person in order to open my heart to the monarch, to cast down at His feet the confession of faith, the presentation of my rules, which, at least it will show Your Majesty how I appreciate the scope of those new duties that His Highest will has placed on me. I dare to call His attention to these lines, sketched out with boundless power of attorney, and implore Him to inform me whether I have understood His intentions and whether I am able to comply with them.

You know, Sovereign, that twenty years ago I was already in a position, if not quite similar, then at least similar to that which I was recently granted. Ten or twelve years of my life, when I was young and full of strength, were given to the Ministry of Public Education (3). Without reverting to the special circumstances that made me henceforth devote myself both to another branch of the public service and to the solitary pursuits in which my last years partly passed, I will confine myself to remarking only that the time has passed since I honored a career in the field of public education, irrevocably closed to itself, was full of events of great importance, which had an exceptionally detrimental effect on the development of education in our country. These events were unfavorable not only for us, but to the same or even greater extent for all the countries of Europe: this is a moral contagion, the fruits of which have already been felt by everyone and still continue to feel. The general excitement of the minds is its most characteristic sign; all the guarantees of the status quo have been shown to be untenable, everything that we considered to have been achieved is again called into question, society, which, as it believed, had the right to hope for progress, is shaken in its political, moral and religious foundations, and the very social order is daily before the question of life and death.

Without going too far, it is enough to cast a glance into the past to be imbued with the present state of affairs in Europe and its relation to the universal civilization, which has become the center without which modern society, as it is, cannot exist and which at the same time contains in itself the germ of universal destruction.

The July Revolution (4), which destroyed so many phenomena, put an end to Europe, at least for half a century, with all ideas of social progress and political improvement. It shocked those who most firmly believed in the future of nations, led them into innumerable delusions, made them doubt themselves. After 1830, there is not a thinking person who has not at least once asked himself with surprise, what is this civilization?

An accomplice to the course of events, she did not even serve as a weak barrier to him; and now she has turned into a ghost, reduced to this woeful question, each of us, both as a private person and as a member of society, has already dethroned her from the throne in the depths of our souls. Whoever has tried to weigh what civilization gives and what it takes away from man and society, the sacrifices it requires and the advantages it guarantees, the relationship of enlightenment to private good and public prosperity. Did not recently one of the creators of the July Revolution, M. Guizot,5 a man endowed with conscience and talent, proclaim from the rostrum: "Society has no more political, moral and religious convictions"? - and this cry of despair, involuntarily escaping from all the well-meaning people of Europe, whatever their views, is the only creed that still unites them in the present conditions.

Let's hurry to say right away: Russia has so far avoided such humiliation. She still keeps in her breast religious convictions, political convictions, moral convictions - the only guarantee of her bliss, the remains of her nationality, the precious and last remains of her political future. The business of the Government is to gather them into one whole, to make of them the anchor that will allow Russia to weather the storm. But these parts are dispersed by premature and superficial civilization, dreamy systems, reckless enterprises, they are disunited, not united into a single whole, lacking a center, and moreover, for thirty years they have been forced to resist people and events; how to reconcile them with the present disposition of minds, how to combine them into a system that would include the benefits of the present order, the hopes of the future and the traditions of the past? - how to start making education moral, religious and classical at the same time? - how to keep pace with Europe and not move away from our own place? What kind of art must be possessed in order to take from enlightenment only what is necessary for the existence of a great state and resolutely reject everything that carries the seeds of disorder and upheaval? Here is the task in its entirety, a vitally important question, which the very state of affairs demands of us, and from which we have no possibility of avoiding it. If it were only a question of discovering the principles that maintain order and constitute the special property of our state (and each state is based on its own principles), it would be enough to place on the facade of the state building of Russia the following three maxims, prompted by the very nature of things and with which Minds darkened by false ideas and deplorable prejudices would argue in vain: in order for Russia to grow stronger, for it to prosper, for it to live, we are left with three great state principles, namely:

1. National religion.

2 Autocracy.

3 Nationality.

Without a popular religion, a people, like a private person, is doomed to death, to deprive him of his faith means to pluck out his heart, his blood, his insides, it means to place him on the lowest level of the moral and physical order, it means to betray him. Even popular pride rebels against such a thought; a man devoted to his fatherland will agree just as little to the loss of one of the dogmas of the ruling Church as to the theft of one pearl from the crown of Monomakh.

The power of autocratic power is a necessary condition for the existence of the Empire in its present form. Let the political dreamers (I'm not talking about the sworn enemies of order), bewildered by false concepts, invent an ideal state of affairs for themselves, amazed at appearances, inflamed by theories, animated by words, we can answer them that they do not know the country, are mistaken about its position , her needs, her desires; we will tell them that with this insane predilection for European institutions, we have already destroyed the institutions that we had at our disposal, that this administrative Saint-Simonism has already created endless confusion, shaken confidence and disturbed the natural relations between the various estates in their development. By accepting the chimeras of limiting the power of the monarch, equality of rights of all classes, national representation in the European manner, a pseudo-constitutional form of government, the colossus will not last two weeks, moreover, it will collapse before these false transformations are completed. This important truth is more or less obvious to the majority of the nation, it alone is able to unite the minds most opposed to each other and the most dissimilar in degree of enlightenment. The study of the state must be deeply imbued with it, or, rather, no one can study his fatherland without acquiring this clear and sincere conviction. The same truth should be guided in public education, not in the form of words of praise to the government, which does not need them, but as a conclusion of reason, as an indisputable fact, as a political dogma that ensures the peace of the state and is the ancestral property of everyone and everyone.

Next to this conservative beginning there is another, equally important and closely related to the first - this is Nationality. In order for one to retain its full power, the other must retain its entire integrity; whatever the collisions that they had to endure, both of them live a common life and can still enter into an alliance and win together. The question of nationality is more complex than that of autocratic power, but it rests on just as reliable foundations. The main difficulty that he concludes is in the agreement of ancient and new concepts, but nationality does not consist in moving backward, not even in immobility; the composition of the state can and should develop like the human body: as a person ages, the face of a person changes, retaining only the main features. It is not a question of resisting the natural course of things, but only of not sticking someone else's and artificial mask on one's face, of preserving inviolable the sanctuary of our popular concepts, drawing from it, placing these concepts on the highest level among the beginnings of our state and, in particular, our public education. Between the old prejudices, which do not recognize anything that did not exist at least half a century ago, and the new prejudices, which pitilessly destroy everything they replace, and violently attack the remains of the past, lies a vast field - there lies solid ground. , a reliable support, a foundation that cannot let us down.

Thus, it is precisely in the sphere of public education that we must first of all revive faith in monarchical and popular principles, but revive it without upheavals, without haste, without violence. Enough ruins already surround us - capable of destroying what we have erected?

Asserting that these three great levers of religion, autocracy and nationality still constitute the cherished heritage of our fatherland, which several years of special studies have allowed me to get to know more closely, I consider myself entitled to add that an insane predilection for innovations without a bridle and a reasonable plan, for rash destruction is in Russia, belonging to an extremely small circle of people serves as a symbol of faith for a school so weak that it not only does not increase the number of its adherents, but even loses some of them daily. It can be argued that in Russia there is no doctrine less popular, because there is no system that would offend so many concepts, would be hostile to so many interests, would be more fruitless and more surrounded by mistrust.

Consigning all of myself, Sovereign, to the will of Your Imperial Majesty, I consider my real duty fulfilled both in relation to my fatherland and in relation to the August Person of the Monarch, to whom, I may say, I am bound by bonds of reverent affection and deep reverence independent of His high purpose. I will not renew, Sovereign, assurances of my fidelity, zeal and devotion; not hiding from myself the numerous difficulties of the field destined for me, I find in myself all the more determination to apply all my strength to justify in your own eyes the choice that Your Imperial Majesty deigned to make. Either the Ministry of Public Education is nothing, or it is the soul of the administrative corps. The happiest days in my life will be the days when I see this task solved for the glory of Your Imperial Majesty, for the benefit of the fatherland, for the pleasure of all people devoted to the monarchy, imbued with the same feeling of affection and reverence for the throne, equally ready to serve it with the same ardor. and the number of which is not as limited as it is claimed to be.

You command me, Sovereign, to close the gap with myself (there is no exaggeration in this word, for never before have conservative ideas been attacked so cruelly and defended so weakly). Your Majesty can be sure that I will stand there to the last.

At the same time, I dare to hope that you will deign to take into account the circumstances in which the Ministry of Public Education was again opened to me; the state of institutions, the state of minds, and, in particular, the generation that today is emerging from our bad schools and whose moral neglect we may have to admit, we must reproach ourselves, a generation lost, if not hostile, a generation of low beliefs, deprived of enlightenment, grown old before it had time to enter into life, dried up by ignorance and fashionable sophisms, the future of which will not bring good to the fatherland. In this state of affairs, I dare to hope that Your Majesty will deign to assume the role of my guide and show me the path that He considers necessary for me to follow; on the other hand, I dare to hope that if, after the example of so many others, I am surpassed by the power of things, find myself unable to cope with it, bow before the magnitude of events and under the weight of my mission, if my successes do not meet my opinion and Your Majesty's expectations whose confidence can only be justified by success, in which case I dare to hope that He will deign to allow me to confess my weakness and impotence with the same sincerity and self-forgetfulness that guide my conduct and guide my pen today. Then I will allow myself to ask His Highest Justice for permission to retire with honor again and take with me the conviction that, to the best of my ability, I have paid my tribute of devotion to the maintenance of order and the glory of the reign of Your Imperial Majesty.

NOTES

1. A draft autograph of a letter (in French) by S.S. Uvarov to Nicholas I, stored in the Department of Written Sources of the State Historical Museum (OPI GIM), dates from March 1832 and is thus the first of all known cases of Uvarov using the formula “Orthodoxy . Autocracy. Nationality". Being then a comrade (deputy) of the Minister of Public Education, the author of the letter addresses the emperor with a statement of his plans for the transformation - through the activities of the Ministry of Public Education - of the intellectual and moral state of Russian society in order to form a solid spiritual foundation for the future great and independent development of the Russian Empire. The most significant fragments of the memorandum were later included almost unchanged in the official documents of the ministry headed by Uvarov - the report "On some general principles that can serve as a guide in the management of the Ministry of Public Education" (1833) and the report "A Decade of Activities of the Ministry of Public Education" (1843). The text of the document was prepared for publication by A. Zorin (with the participation of A. Chenle) and under the title "Letter to Nicholas I" was first published in 1997 in the journal "New Literary Review", N 26. Here it is published according to this edition: Uvarov S. WITH. Letter to Nicholas I // New Literary Review. M., 1997. N 26. S. 96-100.

2. Uvarov speaks of his appointment at the beginning of 1832 as Deputy Minister, and since 1833 as Minister of Public Education.

3. This refers to the period of service of S.S. Uvarov in the Ministry of Public Education as a trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district.

4. We are talking about the revolution in France on July 26-29, 1830, which overthrew the restoration regime of the Bourbon dynasty and established a bourgeois monarchy headed by Louis Philippe.

5. Francois Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787-1874), French statesman, historian, publicist. One of the founders of the theory of class struggle within the so-called. "bourgeois historiography of the Restoration period". Ideologist and prominent figure of the July Revolution, member of the Cabinet of Ministers of several French governments after 1830.

Notes by D.V. Ermashov

About some general principles that can serve as a guide in the management of the Ministry of Public Education

Upon my accession, from Your Highest Imperial Majesty's command, to the post of Minister of Public Education, I used, so to speak, the capital place, the slogan of my government, the following expressions: "People's education should be carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality."

Along with this, I consider myself obliged to present to Your Majesty a brief but sincere report in my concepts about the important beginning that I accept as a guide:

In the midst of the general decline of religious and civil institutions in Europe, despite the widespread spread of destructive principles, Russia fortunately retained a hitherto lukewarm faith in certain religious, moral, and political concepts that belong exclusively to her. In these concepts, in these sacred remnants of her nationality, lies the whole guarantee of her future lot. It belongs to the government, of course, and especially to the Ministry Highestly entrusted to me, to gather them into one whole and bind them together as the anchor of our salvation, but these beginnings, scattered by premature and superficial enlightenment, dreamy, unsuccessful experiments, these beginnings are without unanimity, without a common center, and by which during the last 30 years there has been a continuous struggle, long and stubborn, how to reconcile them with the present disposition of minds? Will we succeed in including them in a system of general education that would combine the benefits of our time with the traditions of the past and the hopes of the future? How can we establish a popular education in our country, corresponding to our order of things and not alien to the European spirit? By what rule should we act in relation to European enlightenment, to European ideas, without which we can no longer do without, but which, unless they are skillfully curbed, threaten us with inevitable death? Whose hand, both strong and experienced, can keep the aspirations of minds within the boundaries of order and silence and throw away everything that could disturb the general order?

Here the State task, which we are forced to solve without delay, the task on which the fate of the Fatherland depends, is presented in its entirety - a task so difficult that one simple presentation of it astonishes every sane person.

Delving deeper into the consideration of the subject and seeking those principles that constitute the property of Russia (and every land, every nation has such a Palladium), it becomes clear that such principles, without which Russia can prosper, grow stronger, live - we have three main ones:

1) Orthodox Faith.

2) Autocracy.

3) Nationality.

Without love for the Faith of the ancestors, the people, like a private person, must perish; to weaken the Faith in them is the same as to deprive them of blood and tear out their hearts. This would prepare them for the lowest degree in moral and political destiny. That would be treason in a broader sense. One popular pride is enough to feel indignation at such a thought. A person devoted to the Sovereign and the Fatherland will agree as little to the loss of one of the dogmas of our Church as to the theft of one pearl from the crown of Monomakh.

Autocracy is the main condition for the political existence of Russia in its present form. Let the dreamers deceive themselves and see in vague terms some order of things according to their theories, their prejudices; you can assure them that they do not melt Russia, do not know her situation, her needs, her desires. We can tell them that from this ridiculous predilection for European forms we harm our own institutions; that the passion for innovation upsets the natural intercourse of all members of the State among themselves and hinders the peaceful, gradual development of its forces. The Russian Colossus rests on autocracy as on a cornerstone; the hand that touches the foot shakes the entire composition of the State. This truth is felt by an innumerable majority among Russians; they feel it in full, although they are placed among themselves at different degrees and differ in enlightenment and in the way of thinking, and in their attitudes towards the Government. This truth must be present and developed in public education. The government, of course, does not need words of praise for itself, but can it not worry that the saving conviction that Russia lives and is protected by the saving spirit of autocracy, strong, philanthropic, enlightened, turns into an indisputable fact that should inspire everyone and everyone, in the days of calm, as in moments of storm?

Along with these two national principles, there is a third, no less important, no less strong: Narodnost. In order for the Throne and the Church to remain in their power, the feeling of the Nationality that binds them must also be supported. The question of Nationality does not have the unity that the question of Autocracy represents; but both flow from the same source and copulate on every page of the History of the Russian people. With regard to the People, the whole difficulty lies in the agreement of ancient and new concepts; but Folkiness is not about going back or stopping; it does not require immobility in ideas. The composition of the state, like the human body, changes its appearance with age: the features change with age, but the physiognomy should not change. It would be foolish to oppose this periodic course of things; it is enough if we do not voluntarily hide our face under an artificial and not akin to us mask; if we keep inviolable the sanctuary of our popular ideas; if we take them as the main thought of the Government, especially in regard to Public Education. Between the decrepit prejudices, admiring only what we have had for half a century, and the newest prejudices, which mercilessly strive to destroy the existing, in the midst of these two extremes, there is a vast field on which the building of our well-being can be firmly and unharmedly strengthened.

Time, circumstances, love for the Fatherland, devotion to the Monarch, everything should assure us that it is time for us, especially with regard to public education, to turn to the spirit of Monarchist institutions and look in them for that strength, that unity, that strength, of which we too often thought to discover in dreamy ghosts equally alien and useless to us, following which it would not be difficult to finally lose all the remnants of the Nationality, without reaching the imaginary goal of European education.

Many other subjects belong to the composition of the general system of Public Education, such as: the direction given to Domestic Literature, periodicals, theatrical works; the influence of foreign books; patronage of the arts; but an analysis of all the forces of the individual parts would entail a rather extensive exposition and could easily turn this short note into a lengthy book.

Of course, the adoption of such a system would require more than the life and strength of one or a few people. Not to the one who sows these seeds, it is determined by Providence to reap the fruits of these; but what does the life and strength of one mean when it comes to the good of all? Two or three generations quickly disappear from the face of the earth, but the States are long-lived as long as they retain the sacred spark of Faith, Love and Hope.

Is it possible for us, in the midst of the storm that is troubling Europe, in the midst of the rapid fall of all the pillars of Civil Society, in the midst of the sad phenomena that surround us on all sides, to strengthen our dear Fatherland with weak hands on the right anchor, on the firm foundations of a salvific principle? The mind, frightened at the sight of the common calamities of the peoples, at the sight of the fragments of the past falling around us, and not seeing the future through the gloomy veil of events, involuntarily indulges in despondency and wavers in its conclusions. But if our Fatherland - as we Russians cannot doubt it - protected by Providence, which granted us, in the person of a generous, enlightened, truly Russian Monarch, a guarantee of the unharmed strength of the State, must withstand the gusts of a storm that threatens us every minute, then the education of present and future generations in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality is undoubtedly one of the best hopes and the main needs of the time, and together one of the most difficult assignments, with which the power of attorney of the Monarch could honor a loyal subject, who comprehends the importance of it, and the price of every moment and the disproportion of his forces, and his responsibility to God, Sovereign and Fatherland.

Question 18

Strengthening of the reaction under Nicholas I. Tsar's office. Third branch.
Upon accession to the throne and after the reprisal against the Decembrists, the new Emperor Nicholas I published the Manifesto (July 1826); in which the ways of development of the Russian statehood were outlined and a number of ideas of which were definitely borrowed from the programs and projects of the Decembrists themselves and formulated under the influence of P.M. Karamzin (his note "On Ancient and New Russia" was presented to Alexander I in 1811).
The urgent problems of state reorganization were set out in a special note: it is necessary to grant “clear laws”, formulate a system of speedy legal proceedings, strengthen the financial position of the nobility, develop trade and industry on the basis of stable legislation, improve the position of farmers, abolish trade people, develop the fleet and maritime trade, etc. The Decembrist demands pointed out to the emperor the most obvious and urgent needs in the state, Karamzin's conservative ideas - the most acceptable ways to solve them.

The ideological substantiation of the "theory of official nationality", which was proclaimed in 1832 by its author - the then newly appointed Deputy Minister (that is, his deputy) of Public Education, Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov (1786-1855). Being a staunch reactionary, he took it upon himself to ideologically ensure the reign of Nicholas I, eradicating the Decembrist legacy.

In December 1832, after his revision of Moscow University, S. S. Uvarov submitted a report to the emperor in which he wrote that in order to protect students from revolutionary ideas, it is necessary, “gradually capturing the minds of youth, to bring it almost insensibly to the point where should merge, to solve one of the most difficult tasks of the time (the struggle against democratic ideas. - Comp.), Education, correct, thorough, necessary in our century, with deep conviction and warm faith in the truly Russian protective principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, constituting the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of our fatherland.

In 1833, Emperor Nicholas I appointed S. S. Uvarov Minister of Public Education. And the new minister, notifying by circular letter of his assumption of office, in the same letter stated: “Our common duty is to ensure that public education is carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality” (Lemke M. Nikolaev gendarmes and literature 1862- 1865 St. Petersburg, 1908).

Later, describing his activities for 10 years as a minister in a report entitled "Decade of the Ministry of Public Education. 1833-1843", published in 1864, the Earl wrote in its introduction:

“In the midst of the rapid decline of religious and civil institutions in Europe, with the widespread spread of destructive concepts, in view of the sad phenomena that surrounded us on all sides, it was necessary to strengthen the Fatherland on solid foundations on which the prosperity, strength and life of the people are based, to find the beginnings that make up distinctive character of Russia and its exclusive [...]. The Russian, devoted to the Fatherland, will agree just as little to the loss of one of the dogmas of our Orthodoxy as to the theft of one pearl from the crown of Monomakhov. Autocracy is the main condition for the political existence of Russia. The Russian colossus rests on it, as on the cornerstone of its greatness [...]. Along with these two national ones, there is a third one, no less important, no less strong - Nationality. The question of nationality does not have the same unity as the previous one, but both stem from the same source and are connected on every page of the history of the Russian kingdom. With regard to Folkness, the whole difficulty lay in the agreement of ancient and new concepts, but Folkiness does not force one to go back or stop, it does not require immobility in ideas. The composition of the state, like the human body, changes its appearance with age, the features change with age, but the physiognomy should not change. It would be inappropriate to oppose the periodic course of things, it is enough if we keep inviolable the sanctuary of our popular ideas, if we take them as the main idea of ​​the government, especially in relation to public education.

These are the main principles that should be included in the system of public education, so that it combines the benefits of our time with the traditions of the past and with the hopes of the future, so that public education would correspond to our order of things and not be alien to the European spirit.

The phrase is a symbol of an official, lowered "from above", born in the bureaucratic office of a speculative ideological doctrine that claims to be a nationwide character, the title of some kind of "Russian" or "nationwide idea" (iron.).

The foreign policy of Nicholas I was determined by two main directions: European - the fight against the revolutionary movement in Europe, support for feudal monarchies and the existing balance of political forces; Eastern - the spread of Russia's political influence in the regions of the Middle East and the Balkans, establishing control over the Black Sea straits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles) .In the Middle East, Russia's interests collided with those of France, England, Austria and Germany. All these powers entered into a struggle for the division of spheres of influence in the territories belonging to the weakened Turkey (Ottoman Empire). The resulting knot of international problems was called the Eastern Question. It went through three main stages in its development. The first covers the 20s. 19th century The second - the period after the conclusion of the Uskar-Iskelesi peace of 1833. The third - the Crimean War of 1853 - 1856.

In 1821, an uprising against the Turkish yoke began in Greece. In 1827, Russia, England and France gave Turkey an ultimatum to grant autonomy to Greece. Having been refused, the allied squadron defeated the Turkish fleet in Navarino Bay (Greece).

The continuation of these events was the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829, which ended with the signing of the Adrianople peace treaty, according to which Greece received autonomy. Russia acquired a number of new territories on the coast of the Caucasus, in Transcaucasia, the mouth of the Danube with islands. The Black Sea straits were opened for Russian and foreign merchant ships.

In 1833, Russia provided Turkey with assistance to suppress the uprising in Egypt. After that, the Uskar-Iskelesi treaty was signed. He confirmed the terms of the peace of Adrianople. In addition, Russia undertook to provide Turkey with military assistance, and Turkey closed the straits at the request of Russia for the passage of foreign military ships. In fact, the straits were under Russian control. Russian influence in the Middle East has become dominant. However, in 1841, Nicholas himself terminated this agreement, seeking to improve relations with England and some other countries. Under the London Convention of 1841, the straits were declared closed to warships of all countries, including Russia.

No matter how bitter it is to realize, but it was Russia that provoked the beginning of the Crimean War.
The political instability that developed in Turkey by the middle of the 19th century inspired Nicholas the First that the moment had come for Turkey to be expelled from its Balkan possessions.
Russia in 1853 sent troops to Moldavia and Wallachia, which was followed by an ultimatum from Turkey, which was rejected by Russia.
On October 4, 1853, Turkey declared war on Russia. After some time, France, Great Britain and the Kingdom of Sardinia joined the war on the side of Turkey.
As long as the Russian army had to fight only with Turkish troops, military luck favored Russia.
Since the allied landing in the Crimea, luck has left the Russians.
That technical lagging behind Russia, which was leveled in the battles against the Turks, played a cruel joke in the battles against the Anglo-French troops.
The Russian army had almost no rifled weapons, while more than half of the British were armed with rifled fittings that fired at 880-1000 paces (Russian smoothbore guns fired at 200-300 paces).
There was an unprecedented situation when the range of fire of the Russian field artillery was lower than the range of fire of the attacking infantry. Russian artillerymen died from the fire of the attackers, often without having time to fire a single shot from the guns.
In the war at sea, this war performed the funeral march for the sailing fleet.
The fighting in the Baltic, the White Sea and the Far East was
sabotage raids and did not have a significant impact on the course of the war.
For the first time, the French used armored floating artillery batteries, which acted so successfully that they served as a prototype for the emergence of a new class of ships - battleships.
If in the battles of the Russian and Turkish armies there were elements of unjustified cruelty on both sides, then in the battles of the Russian army against the Anglo-French expeditionary force, the rules of war were strictly observed, which was noted by the participants who fought against each other.
With the fall of Sevastopol, the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion.
On March 18, 1856, the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty put an end to this unsuccessful war for Russia.
Under the terms of the peace treaty, Russia and Turkey lost the right to keep military fleets in the Black Sea. The Black Sea was declared free for merchant shipping. Russia lost control over the mouth of the Danube, The freedom of navigation along the Danube was declared.
Russia lost its protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia.

The meaning of these three sacred words of our motto seems obvious to many, but, as we see in practice, their essence is far from obvious to everyone, especially in our crafty and spiritually illiterate time. Let me explain these interrelated concepts dear to us.

1. Orthodoxy. It is not "one of the many traditional" religions to which we must be faithful for the utilitarian purposes of preventing crime, or merely to be faithful to the tradition of our ancestors. Orthodoxy is accurate knowledge about the structure of the world, about the meaning of history and its driving forces, without which even the daily news bulletin will be incomprehensible, not to mention the development of the right strategy.

After all, if there is a God, and we, the Black Hundreds, cannot doubt this starting point of all our thinking and self-consciousness! - then, when creating the world, God had a plan for its proper arrangement. Having rebelled against God, the creatures created free - first a part of the angels who became demons, then under their influence and a part of people - began to oppose this due plan in their pride. Demons led by Satan, out of envy, began to oppose God for power over the earthly world. To do this, Satan stole from God his people chosen for the Old Testament prophecy (John 8:19,44) and, having seduced this people with the national pride of earthly domination, made them Satan's chosen "satanic assembly" (Rev. 2:9), the engine of the "mystery of lawlessness "(2 Thessalonians 2:7), that is, their instrument of struggle for world power. And in order to achieve it, he must first of all destroy Orthodoxy as an exact knowledge of the meaning and purpose of the world.

The whole drama of history - from its beginning described in the Old Testament to its current final stage of building a global concentration camp, the kingdom of Antichrist - is a struggle between the restraining forces of God and the subversive forces of Satan, which by the end of history will achieve temporary success in a spiritually weakened humanity. But they are opposed by the forces holding back (according to the Apostle Paul, 2 Thess. 2:7) the world from the realization of this scenario, and here we move on to the second concept in our sacred triad.

2. Autocracy. By the will of God, the mission of keeping the world from rampant forces of evil was entrusted to the universal state structure, uniting many peoples under one imperial autocratic power, serving the law of God. Universal means foreseen as a matter of course for all peoples, even if not all of them will enter it, due to their selfish folly. Empire means a structure and territory controlled by this single legal authority. Autocracy means power, firstly, keeping peoples from the rival power of the forces of evil, and secondly, independent, autocratic power, independent of anyone's political or financial influences, from the selfish desires of the aristocracy or the restless manipulated masses of the people, and dependent only from God and having a corresponding initiation through the sacrament of the Church.

The Russian Orthodox autocratic monarchy (Third Rome) was created as the successor of the universal Eastern Roman Empire (Second Rome) on the high model of the inseparable inseparable union of the Divine and the human in the incarnated Son of God - Jesus Christ: this is an inseparable inseparable symphony (consonance) of spiritual power (of the Church ) and the power of the state (the Sovereign) in leading the people through their earthly life into the eternal life of the Kingdom of Heaven. No other state system on earth sets itself such a lofty goal, surpassing the utilitarian earthly standards of usefulness.

This is what the Orthodox monarchy means, which our people lost in 1917, because our leading stratum ceased to understand its meaning and wanted to live according to the Western apostate model of the power of money, and allowed the Satanic people to make a revolution that continues to this day.

3. Nationality. In the language of modern political science - the nation. This is a value of a lower order than the first two, and to erect it in the place of God or to put its will in the place of the supreme state power is a sin before God. Moreover, the so-called "will of the people" in the so-called "democracy" is a deceitful manipulation of the masses, purposefully duped, for the "free" legalization of the power of money, which is controlled by the satanic chosen people. Such is the basic law of democracy, no matter how pompous constitutions it may be dressed up.

And it was precisely the Russian people, by the will of God, who fell to the greatest extent to embody the Law of God in their statehood and create the strongest holding universal Empire at its last historical stage - the Third Rome. This was achieved due to the fact that the Russian people united Orthodoxy and the nation in their culture and history - in the same inseparable, inseparable way as in their statehood. Thus, our nationality (nation), having placed itself at the service of God's plan, sanctified its nationality, nationality, placing at the basis of our national values ​​not tribal egoism, but universal responsibility before God. That's what the word Russian means.

Thus, a Russian person only by blood, who does not supplement his origin by serving this lofty goal of God's Plan, is not yet completely Russian. This is still only a biological vessel that needs to be filled with Russian content. And the one who has among his ancestors immigrants from other peoples, but inextricably and faithfully connected his fate with the culture, religion and holding goal of the Russian people, he became its integral member. These are, for example: Aksakov (a third of the noble families in Russia had Tatar roots), Bagration, Dal, Diterikhs, Nilus and many many others.

So, the triad of our main values ​​and our motto: "For the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland" is not "archaic", but the basis of our national self-consciousness, our ideology and strategy, all the more important in the current time of troubles. These ideals given to us by God are necessary for us now as true guidelines by which we determine the right direction of our activity, regardless of whether we can achieve the ideal of Orthodox monarchical statehood in our days. The path to its restoration is, of course, incredibly difficult, but the main thing for us should not be when, how and on what scale this ideal is achievable or not, but whether it is true or not. If it is true as God's Plan for the Russian people (Russian idea), then there is simply no other way for the life of our people. All others will be the way to death.

The current time of troubles has brought our people very close to the death threshold, given those powerful satanic forces that are actively operating from the outside and from the inside to destroy both the souls and the bodies of the Russian people. These forces brought their non-Russian henchmen to power in our Fatherland, who, even being often Russian by blood, recognized the Satanic people and their global empire of the United States (a prototype of the kingdom of Antichrist) as their masters and allies and are ready to "mutually and effectively" build their personal well-being in the service of this anti-Russian force, exploiting the Russian people to wear and tear and suppressing the forces of their resistance.

The Union of the Russian People was recreated in 2005 precisely for the organization of this Russian resistance. In fact, the restoration of historical Russian statehood is now possible only in the form of a "revolution", as Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Klykov put it in his last testament interview. By this word, he, of course, understood not street barricade battles, but a radical change in the existing state system and its ideology, a return to the Orthodox autocratic monarchy - through the self-organization of the Russian people at all social levels. In fact, on the scale of the 20th century, this process is a counter-revolution, as one of the most worthy leaders of the RNC, board member A.S. Turik [since May 2007 chairman of the Union].

Let us, following the Law of God as the basis of our national self-consciousness and the great plan of God for the Russian people as our task, live according to it, in spite of everything and without counting God's terms. Because, I repeat the obvious, there is simply no other way of salvation: they all lead to death.