The Legacy of Genghis Khan is inseparable from Russia. Russia wants to or not, it always remains the guardian of this heritage, and all its historical destiny that is defined. Even during the anti-national monarchy, when both the government and educated society sought to ensure that Russia was a European power, and in every way ashamed to admit natural connection between Russia and Asia, even Russia the force of circumstances was forced to continue the historic cause of the state association of Eurasia — the case of Genghis Khan : incorporation of the Crimea, the Caucasus, the Transcaspian region, Turkestan, the consolidation of the Russian Eastern Siberia — these were all steps on the same path collection of disparate parts of the Eurasian ulus Chingiskhanovoy Empire and the colonization of the steppe and plowing, turning it from encampments in the cornfield was fixing the Eurasian transition state from hand to hand turans Russian. And despite the fact that the government, trying to imitate "the great European powers," was ready to carry everywhere forced assimilation and cultural depersonalize the newly attached area (as do the original Europeans in their colonies), Russian folk element, felt instinctively real challenge Russia , acquired in relation to the indigenous population tactics fraternization, readily borrowed from the conquered various aspects of their life, in the newly-regions themselves worked out special mixed household types, which over time could serve as the basis for an entire rainbow of Eurasian cultures, one species, pan-Eurasian: only prevented Russian aspiration of the upper (as an educated society and government) have certainly European culture.
The same process is instinctive and spontaneous folding Russia for its natural and historical way there now. Despite the fact that the communist authorities face turned to the West, to the proletariat "civilized" countries, and passionately wants only to this particular European and American proletariat is recognized by his communist power, Russia has the force of circumstances, more and more have to deal with Asia and in its internal construction exercise that fraternization tribes of Eurasia, which is an inevitable consequence of the historical mission of Russia — State obedinitelnitsy Eurasia, successor and heir to Genghis Khan. Involvement of different tribes of Eurasia to the overall nation-building, connecting them all in one family, will force each of them to look at the Russian statehood as their own, their own.
Deep plowing of the social body of the nation, has raised up those layers that were previously at the bottom, brings the possibility of creating a new culture or a whole rainbow of cultures related to each other on the basis of national life and national outlook, the previously existing only as an object of ethnographic study: only interferes again persistent desire to have the leaders of the cultural life in Russia is not his own, a kind of Eurasian culture and European culture, maybe not entirely similar to the modern culture of the peoples of Western Europe, but still appropriate dreams and theories of European sociologists and journalists and, therefore, imbued with the same spirit of European civilization.
In short, in spite of the bitter struggle that the ruling circles (no matter what before — monarchist, now — communist) are already more than two years against the natural essence of Russia-Eurasia, the Russia-Eurasia all the time does not stop spontaneously strive to be itself and start again completely on his natural historical way too after a prolonged diversion emulate Western European models and doctrines.
It is necessary that this natural and instinctive desire to finally become conscious.
The future Russia-Eurasia must consciously reject the spirit of European civilization and build their own state and its culture on a completely different, non-European basis.
Of course, it is impossible to predict what will this state and this culture. But the legacy of Genghis Khan, once seized upon by the pre-Petrine Moscow is inescapable in Russia, defining not only its past but also its future, making it possible to some extent and prediction. In international relations the future Russia, the conscious keeper of Genghis Khan's legacy, will not seek to become a European power, but on the contrary, will do its utmost to distance themselves from Europe and European civilization. Bearing in mind the lessons of the past, it will follow the development of the European financial technology, to absorb from this technique is that it needs, but in every way to protect yourself from the assimilation of European ideas, a European outlook and spirit of European culture.
It would not interfere in European affairs, will not take the side of one or the other of the contending parties in European countries or ideologies will not consider his sincere ally none of the European social groups.
In particular, fighting the international capital as one of the factors of European civilization, it will not assume its full ally of the European proletariat, given that, although this, too, is struggling proletariat against capital, but the fighting is only half, only to have succumbed to international capital it a part of the profits of which he is making, exploiting the "uncivilized" country, whereas the total destruction of international capital and the termination of the exploitative ruling over the "uncivilized" or "semi-civilized" countries, ie exactly what should be the goal of Russia to the European proletariat is unprofitable and is not acceptable, it is the same as for the European bourgeoisie. On the contrary, in their relations to the countries and peoples of non-European civilizations future Russia should be guided by a sense of solidarity, seeing them as natural allies are equally interested in overcoming the imperialism of European civilization. Russia should beware of any attempt to annex a country that is not in the geographical limits of Eurasia, remembering that this accession is just hurt the cause of Genghis Khan. But at the same time with these neevraziyskimi purely Asian countries and Russia should support cultural communication, and the busiest commercial relations, and moreover, more sagacity of their experience, must organize them into combat against European civilization, to warn them against the penetration of the spirit to them Europeanism in all its manifestations and to help them create and develop their own national culture.
In domestic life the future Russia should firmly remember the past.
This is not to recover the past. The past can not be restored is not necessary. But the well-known principles on which to build a life in the past, under Genghis Khan in the pre-Petrine Muscovy can be supplied in a foundation and future construction. Chief among these principles: the intimate connection between the private life, statehood and religion. Godless and antireligious statehood is specifically European invention which is in close dependence on the whole spirit of European civilization.
However, the Europeans are very proud of this invention, and consider it a sign of progress. But as regard the Europeans in general, all products of their culture, they argue simplistic: all invented by Europeans, and in accordance with the general spirit of their culture, "good and" progressive ", and all that non-Europeans invented — is good only insofar as it seems to or that European invention. If the reason objectively, without succumbing to self-glorification of Europeans, from the fact that the anti-religious statehood invented by Europeans alone and no one other non-European nation has never existed, we can only conclude that such statehood is unnatural and ugly that it is contrary to the normal human nature, and that if the European nature it is not contrary, it is only because the very nature of this European abnormal, degenerated. A healthy person is always religious. And is not true that if "religion — private matter": in fact, religion has always been, is and will be a matter not only of a private individual, but also the people. The peoples of Eurasia has always been religious.
If individual members sometimes fall away from their religion, only disfigures under the influence of European civilization and European ideas. Find their true face and become myself Russia-Eurasia can only returning to religion and strengthening a religious element. This does not mean that it was necessary to create again the external alliance between the public authorities and the official church that existed in Russia before the revolution. Even just the opposite — the alliance, okazenivshy Orthodoxy, deprived of the ability of Russian church and sought to turn it into an instrument of state police power, above all against the spirit of a truly religious state.
Neither the union, which reduces essentially to the subordination of the state church organization and the imposition of government censorship on the free expression of religious spirit, no matter what that may be known to other manifestations of the religious spirit, no matter what that may be known to others in the practice of European nations form relations between the state and religion (separation of church and state, the subordination of the state church organization, the contract with the state of the international church organization) do not correspond to the principal link between statehood and religion, which is the basis of all genuine Eurasian nation-building. For all of these forms are imbued with the spirit of European civilization, the spirit of ugly just on religious. All these forms of the relationship between church and state suggest an idea of the church and the state as two different organizations with different personnel. Meanwhile, business and church and state are made up of human beings, and, moreover, of the same people. The people in the church and the people in the state are not two different beings, one being. In one and the same person there is the will and conscience: this is — no different creatures and different properties, different abilities of the same substance, in normal, reasonable and a good man between conscience and will not have the disorder, but there is a certain consistency: the same thing should be between statehood and religion. Treasury religious conscience similar submission to the will, the struggle against religion is similar to the state will struggle with his conscience, but the subordination of the state church organization is not the same submission to the will of the beginning of the beginning of conscience, because in this case the state and the church organization are thought of as two different entities, so that a submission to the will of one being conscience (and hence will) other.
The problem of relations between state and religion in Russia-Eurasia is a major problem, because, as I said, Russia-Eurasia only can be by itself, when it is religious. The solution to this problem lies not in the law, and in everyday life. When Genghis Khan was not breech of religion, there was no submission to the government of any religious organization, however statehood Genghis Khan was deeply religious. Similarly, in the pre-Petrine faith was not breech and the government has not been subordinated to the authority of the church, and yet old Muscovite state was religious.
The issue and Genghis Khan, and in pre-Petrine Russia lay not in the field of policy and legislation, and in the life and psychology. Each warrior Genghis Khan was subject not only to his chief (and through him — his boss, and so on up to the Supreme Khan), but above all the highest religious principle, and knew that the same supreme religious principle, and subject to his boss, and the boss this head, etc., up to the Genghis Khan. In this case, the subordination of religious principle and a warrior, and the chief, and Genghis Khan was not only a formal, not only in connection with the service, but also out of service, in the everyday life. And the life of external nature, and destiny of man, and human life conceived as a natural, heavenly supreme being preloaded for things, and statehood was represented as part of the natural system.
The same attitude was observed in pre-Petrine Russia, despite the fact that between her and the nomadic state of Genghis Khan was a huge difference. And if Russia-Eurasia wants to be herself again, not an ugly display of European civilization, she has to re-create the same state of affairs. Let this new position will be quite unlike any externally to pre-Petrine Russia, nor in the realm of Genghis Khan — the principle of construction should be the same. For this is the true principle of every genuinely Eurasian state.
So, the way to truly own way, to finding his true face for Russia-Eurasia is ordained of her past. And yet this is not the way back, and the way forward to a truly new way to unprecedented. It is necessary to create an entirely new culture, their own, unlike the European civilization.
Nikolai Troubetzkoy from the book: A look at Russian history not from the West and from the East
Russia as a unique civilization and culture
"Human Values" — the banner of cultural genocide