"Nationalism in Europe is entirely different from 'nationalism' in Russia"
“Nationalism in Europe and nationalism in Russia are two completely different things”
In official Russian media an absolutely incorrect assessment of the success of the National Front party in France is being voiced. Marine Le Pen is the leader of pro-Russian forces in Europe and her success is a success of Russian foreign policy. Instead of a positive reaction to its victory, we hear the broken record of “xenophobia”, “anti-Semitism” and other, long-irrelevant nonsense. The National Front is a skilled, European-format party which is saving Europe from civilizational catastrophe. Only goner liberals, for whom an ideal Europe is a drain tank for decomposition, defects, and senseless human waste, can oppose this.
Here is a fragment of the interview between Valery Korovin and the French documentary film director, Jean-Michel Carre, who has won many international awards and competitions.
Jean-Michel Carre: In Russia, Ukrainians are accused of neo-Nazism and fascism. Yet Eurasianists are close to many European figures such as Alain Soral, Marin Le Pen, and Gabor Vona, who Europeans themselves see as associated with the extreme right, that is, ideologically close to these ideologies [which Ukraine is accused of]. Is there not some kind of contradiction here?
Valery Korovin: Nationalism in Europe is an attempt to defend the nation-state and particularly the influence of the nation state on society, which is threatened by the erosion of the liberal nation, that is, the only form of European state which exists today. Liberalism is attempting to eliminate the political nation as a barrier to endless, unfettered greed. Free trade and attempts to achieve maximum economic wealth are the foundations of liberal ideology, but the nation constantly mobilizes society for historical purposes. While liberalism proclaims “Cash in! Live in pleasure!”, and this is the goal, the meaning, the nation sets before itself historic goals: it rapes society to a certain extent, leaves it to mobilize itself, gather itself, and doesn’t let itself decompose, turn into mere biomass, and it leaves it to move towards historical achievements. that is, the nation gives all that is happening, the state, and society a historical meaning.
Today’s Europe is decomposed by liberalism to such an extent that it becomes easy prey for any one who claims Europe. It has no historical purpose and meaning, and the peoples of Europe have lost their identity and enclosed themselves in political nations, only for these nations to be destroyed and dissolved into a single melting pot that makes Europe absolutely malleable and manageable. Who has done this? Those who reign over Europe today.
America has forced Europe down, deprived it of all types of identity, including gender identity. A person has ceased to be a person, a man has ceased to be a man, and a woman has ceased to be a woman. This is the last step. Next, man will turn into a worm because he has no longer had any spirit since the Middle Ages. He has no soul since “God is dead in Europe.. All that remains is a body. All degrees of freedom are limited for the contemporary European resident by his physicality. He is free to do whatever he wants with his body...you can even change your gender. No one will stop you. but that’s all that you can do. Nothing more. You have nothing. You are nothing. You are not even a father or a mother. You are simply parent #1, person #7835, and you have a tattoo on you forehead, the seal of the Antichrist - get out of here you sexless, worthless creature. You are nothing but a peace of biomass, a senseless piece of shit.
Europe has turned into a nonentity. And the political nation - this is the last straw that one can still grab on to in Europe before it finally falls into the abyss of neo-liberal, American gutters. It comes to restoring at least a perception of European nations in order to regain at least some identity. Belonging to a political nation - “I am French” - is at least some kind of identity. Now I am nothing. Here people in hijabs with a completely different identity walk around, but they are also, if you can believe it, Frenchmen. They have a French passport, a Schengen visa, and they are “Frenchmen.” Then the Frenchman looks at such a Frenchman and thinks “then who am I?” They respond to him: “You are nothing. Get out of here, you pig” So, the nation for such a “French nobody” is something that at least returns some meaning, some kind of shred of identity, some kind of goal, a minimum pride, self-respect, and content. It is what makes the Frenchman a Frenchman, a person, that links him with a centuries-old history of the French political nation, its victories and defeats, its glories and difficult times, its revolutions, and its ideas of honor, courage, faith and, in the end, that which no one remembers anymore. That is, the nation is an attempt of the Frenchman to become a man, become a Frenchman. Therefore, nationalism is a salvation for Europe from its current, decomposed state.
As soon as someone in Europe brings forth such arguments, then he hears in response: “Fascist!” “Nazi!”, “Hitler!” What does Hitler have anything to do with this? What is the logic of those who denounce Marine Le Pen or Alain Soral, or the nationalist Hungarian party Jobbik or, for example, Gabor Von, or other nationalist structures of Europe. They are nationalists. But...Hitler was also a “nationalist.” And Hitler burned the Jews. That’s bad, therefore “they’re all bad.” There is no connection here. Any nationalist who is a supporter of a political nation, political identity, the connection of generations, and history...becomes bad only because Hitler burned the Jews. This is pure distortion, a ploy which liberals have caught Europe with in order to destroy, decompose, and completely subdue it. This fiction of the “threat of nationalism” in Europe posed by political nations is supported by the Americans in order to keep Europe in check.
The situation with nationalism in Russia is completely different. If in Europe nationalism is an opportunity to have some kind of identity, then in Russia all kinds of identity are represented and harmoniously coexist as ethnic groups, peoples, and elements of the political nation in large industrial centers. And when somebody in Russia declares that they want to construct a civil political nation on the entire space of the Russian state, then he challenges this variety of identities which are a given unlike Europe, where there is no identity. And if in Europe nationalism is the revival of identity, then in Russia the proclamation of nationalism threatens fragmentation, the erosion of identity, and the path to collapse.
If Russians in Russia argue that we must build a Russian political nation, then they challenge the other identities, and there are a lot of them. The Great Russian civil political identity dissolves all in a milting pot of a civil political nation together with the Russian people. The response to this becomes the proclamation of other political nations, including a “Russian” one. And if Russians declare in response to the threat of dissolution that they want a Russian political nation of their own, then they set an example for the Tatars. Then the Tatars declare: “And then we will create a Tatar nation.” And the Bashkirs says” And we’ll create a Bashkir nation.” And the Yakuts will say what the Chechens says: “we are creating a Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.” All of this segments, and divides Russia as a single state. That is, nationalism in Russia, where identities are represented in their entirety, is a threat to the very existence of the state.
Nationalism in Europe is completely different. It is a possibility of attaining historical meaning and identity. Therefore, nationalism is foreign and bad for Russia, as it is for Ukraine, because it [Ukraine] is part of greater Russia, the polyethnic space, and it is not homogenous, not unified, and not politicized, and therefore it can not be unitary. It is an ordinary polyethnic space like all the rest of Russia. But for Europe, this means salvation from destruction. These are entirely different things opposing each other.
From this follows the American approach to nationalism as an approach to a phenomenon. For Europe, nationalism is not allowed. The Americans forbid nationalism in Europe, obstructing it. Anyone who talks about the revival of the role of the political nation is discredited and ridiculed. He is defamed, he is an outlaw, and he is supposed to be fought, suppressed. This is quite another thing in Russia, where the Americans shake up nationalism. They create Russian nationalist organizations like skinheads on the blueprint of British youth movements. They shake up Chechen and Tatar nationalism. In Russia, America, on the contrary, provokes nationalism. It would seem that it is the same Americans who are defaming nationalists in Europe.
Hence the Eurasian approach to nationalism as opposed to the American one. Eurasianists support nationalists in Europe as people who are fighting for identity, fighting against American hegemony, and calling for a strategic alliance with Russia. At the same time, Eurasianists fight against all forms of small nationalism in Russia, considering this a destructive and disruptive phenomenon. The nationalists of Europe are in favor of an alliance with Russia against America, and they are in solidarity with the Eurasianists in Russia. This is the Eurasian approach to nationalism.