Unfortunately, there are still significant not only inveterate liberals, but many ordinary people There is a common opinion about our not yet sufficiently "European." Implying that we — the boondocks of Europe, wild and unenlightened, which should not be to surrender to the education of "the civilized world". This obsessive desire to squeeze "in Europe", even with complete loss of identity, based on the belief that there is only one civilization — European — and only one value — European — that, therefore, the universal.
This look is ready to accept Russia only to the extent that it is ready to dissolve in Europe, for Europe and for him there is all of humanity, and the rejection of "Europeanness" is equivalent to a denial of the status of the human race. This much wrote our brilliant thinkers: NY Danilevsky, NS Troubetzkoy, PN Sawicki, etc. But in this article I want to focus on what Europe. Because I believe that we need to once and for all get rid of the error of equating civilizational the concept of "European" to moral assessment of the "good and proper." The reason for this is often a Geographic definition of Europe, stretching to the Urals. The mixture of these three conceptual levels leads to confusion and reminds literally walk in broad daylight.
So what is Europe?
In ancient Greece, Europe was first called all the known land to the west of the Aegean Sea, contrasting it with Asia, which lies to the east (and to this day the peninsula, which is now located in Turkey, called Asia Minor). Since the geographic knowledge at the beginning were very limited, the Aegean Sea was seen as the boundary between the parts of the world: Asia, the sun rose in Europe — was setting. Hence, the etymology of the word "Europe" — the country sunset. Over time, when the earth had mastered the Black Sea basin, the border of Europe was "pushed" to the Don (Tanais on old maps). Why the Don? It's very simple: the ancient Greeks did not penetrate further, and land to the east of them lay already abroad of the "civilized world." At the same time, and there was a belief by barbarians who live to the east of Europe. Barbarians called the foreign-language ethnic groups who speak unintelligible languages. (Until now, live in the Russian language similar words meaning incomprehensible speech: "coo" — when the lovers speak only their language they understand, "grumble" — mumble something unintelligible, "varnyakat" — a rough colloquial word for a nasty question. )
It is then the word "barbarian" was a sign of savagery, cruelty, brutality and vandalism. By the way, the word "vandal" and "barbarian" have become synonymous with the very reason that the tribes of the Vandals took an active part in devastating decomposed and no longer able to resist Rome (IV-V cent.). These events subsequently strengthened the notion that the eastern tribes (the barbarian, by definition) are necessarily bad. They say that Europe has always suffered from the attacks of the Asian barbarians plundering "civilized Europeans." So, in the ancient border of Europe was "pushed" to the Don, for the Greek settlements spread it to this extent.
But ancient civilization went into oblivion, and later Western European, emerging around the IX century (converge on this major thinkers: Spengler, Toynbee, and others L.Gumilev, and Samuel Huntington wrote about it right), Russian land himself related never considered. On the contrary, on the European side of Russia has always believed the threat of Poland, the Teutonic Order, Sweden, the Catholic papacy through the expansion of Rzeczpospolita. The threat precisely because it comes from a completely alien to our civilization. While the Russian people easily penetrated further and further to the east, revealing the original, but similar in cultural code ethnic groups are almost always exclusively peaceful pouring into the Russian state, relations with Europe have always been extremely tense.
(About the millennial struggle of our ancestors against the temptation of the "European choice" I tried to explain in my article
Obviously, the reason for this systemic conflict — belonging to a very special Russian civilization, which more accurately called yet not Russian, and Eurasian (mindful of its multi-ethnic structure) or the Russian-Eurasian (Russian recognizing core). Anticipating possible comments about blurring the concept of "Eurasian", I note that we are talking only about the "inner Eurasia" from the rest of Asia, bounded on the south chain of mountains — from the Caucasus through the Kopet Dag, Pamir, Tien Shan, Altai, Sayan and on to the hills of Manchuria. This northern part of Eurasia for millennia has detected a common destiny in its quest for unity (Power Hun, Turk Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union). For the time being, and we had no idea to call himself Europe, denying its special civilizational identity, and Europe — Europe consider us, recognizing alien to the spirit and culture of their peers.
But everything changed Peter. Obsessed with the idea of making Russian Europeans, imitating them in all, Peter "suffered" a geographical border of Europe to the Urals, which from the beginning of XVIII century (from Tatishcheva) and now there is. And in all the textbooks and reference books, and she writes: the eastern border of Europe is held in the Ural mountains. We also agree with this reason, delighting himself with the thought that we, too, de Europa. But does anyone seriously believes the Kalmyks, Chechens or Nogai Europeans? Of course not. Must be clearly understood: Europe — is not so much a geographical as civilization. And deep down we know it is not spreading Geographic concept of Europe on our ethnic groups belonging to the Russian and Eurasian civilization. But then the question arises edge: where lies the boundary of Europe?
In my view, an exhaustive answer to this is given by Samuel Huntington in his "Clash of Civilizations." Understanding the fundamental nature of the issue, he writes clearly and succinctly: "The most obvious answer, which is difficult to argue against, gives us a line of great historical section, which has existed for centuries, the line that separates the Western Christian nations of the Muslim and Orthodox peoples. This line was determined in the days of the Roman empire in the fourth century and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire in the tenth. It was about the same place, and now, over 500 years old. Beginning in the north, it runs along the borders of today's Russia to Finland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), on western Belarus, in Ukraine, separating the Uniate west from the Orthodox East, through Romania, between Transylvania, Hungary's population, Catholics, and the rest of the country, then the former Yugoslavia, the border separating Slovenia and Croatia from the other republics. In the Balkans this line coincides with the historic boundary between the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. This — the cultural border of Europe …Europe ends where Western Christianity ends and Islam and Orthodoxy begin ".
In fact, so says almost every European, Russian people are not recognizing his equal. Let's ask ourselves: we are losing anything from it? The most amazing thing is that absolutely nothing! We need to understand the strangeness of our European civilization, and to return to his home, ie their culture, rather than trying to become the poor relations in this "common European home" (and I want to say — the public, given the corruption, which has degenerated into Europe). Enough to entertain the "universal" illusions and fall into sin of self-abasement, fixing moral superiority over civilizational the concept of "Europe". Russian civilization was, is and will be different from the Western one. But this is our homeland, and we have to keep him faithful.
It's time to recover from the disease of Eurocentrism!
See also: AG Dugin: Theory of a multipolar world