понедельник, 28 сентября 2009 г.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="452" caption="Castle of Hohenzollern"]Castle of Hohenzollern[/caption] At the foot of the ancestral seat of the dynasty of kings and emperors of the Hohenzollern the German Monarchist Society (DMG) will organize already the second time it's scientific monarchy forum (www.monarchieforum.org). The focal point here will be the "Christian Conservatism during the Empire". New registrations from inland and abroad arrive on a daily basis. The Symposium will be at the weekend of 23rd to 25th of October. The following lectures are on the agenda: According to the main topic Lord Henning von Normann, speaker of the DMG, will start with considerations on "conservatism". Mr. Professor Dr. Julius H. Schoeps (University of Potsdam) will focus on "prussian virtues", Mr. Günther Marklein (Chair of the Bismarckbund) asks the question, "What History can tell us" and Mr. Andreas Haas (Kaisertreue Jugend) will talk about "Perceptions on conservatism from the Russia of today". A visitation of the Castle of Hohenzollern is planned just as a church service and sufficient time for an exchange of ideas between young and old, between scientists of different faculties and monarchists from various countries. Forhand this symposium will not be about reintroduction of Monarchy, but to reconsider the advantages or disadvantages of the monarchist idea through lectures and arguments on a scientific standard. Sure enough the intend of the German Monarchist Society, which is compounded with "Union of upright Monarchists" (BaM) and Emperorloyal Youth (KJ), is to find means to reintroduce a parliamentary monarchy. Amongst them are such symposias, where friends of the monarchist idea from inland and abroad can foster contacts. The numberous registrations particularly of young people to this event comments Henning von Normann, speaker of the DMG, as follows: "I can't share the impression, that we can't build on our youth for the future. The youth knows very well to differentiate between good and evul. One can trust the youth as they know how to deal with history and our responsibility for history very well. In particular they understand to deal with important and indispensable values carefully and in a thoughtful manner. It makes me pround and happy to work - particularly in the view of the 3rd Monarchy Forum in 2010 in Berlin - with the youth, since I know that our future lays in the hands of those, whose work is guided by reason and heart."

пятница, 25 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto in English

Dear friends! Your are welcome to get full text of the National Manifesto FREE using the following link.
manif-eng.pdf

среда, 23 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto. On History of Political Teachings and Economic Practices. The History of Societies is the History of Struggle

After the national forces had been forced out of politics, time came for the Iron Law of Oligarchy formulated by Robert Michels in early 20th century. Any type of social organization – a party or industrial corporation or public organization – irrespective of its initial democracy or autocracy level, will inevitably degenerate into the power of the few, i.e. oligarchy. And the balance of productive forces and industrial relations has nothing to do with the problem. The only force opposing the oligarchy is the Nation with all of its historical traditions – the faith of the ancestors, historical experience, government and public self-expression skills. Discarding nations in favor of various international federations – industrial and political – the industrial capital was predictably falling into submission. Only the Nation and the Tradition are able to return the leadership to entrepreneurs, make the economy’s real sector the guarantor of speedy economic development and prosperity of the peoples.
Long past are the days when the service class replaced the meek aristocracy in administration and became the support base of the ruling dynasties. Grasping the lower government levels, service class representatives of various social origins evolved from the state support base into a parasitical group steadily separating their interests from those of the nation and the state, and social layers from each other. In absence of a mechanism for the elite change, the same Iron Law of Oligarchy worked. Aristocracy degenerated into stagnant regimes headed by the oligarchy, which countered any kind of progress.
Time is also gone for government officials to serve the interests of the capital, posing as executive committees protecting the economic interests of the bourgeoisie. The merger of the political power, speculators and moneylenders, who have built their international structures, made the formation of global oligarchy unavoidable. The officialdom transformed into local bureaucracies and joined the oligarchs’ service. The industrial capital lost its leadership, after which began deindustrialization of national economies in leading countries, and decomposition of national sovereignties. Bureaucracy gave rise to monopoly that is killing business and industrial development. As a result, the nation is getting enslaved by moribund government officials, moneylenders and speculators. And then the question of the nation’s survival comes to the agenda – either nation or oligarchy.
The entire history of mankind or History of Societies is by no means the history of the class struggle but the history of the struggle between nations and populaces, on the one hand, and oligarchy with its subservient bureaucracy, on the other. On one side, we see the drive to spiritual advancement, sovereign culture and civilization, and on the other – profiteering at any cost. Mammoth-size governments rise to defend the interests of moneylenders who wander all over the world in search of new territories to enslave and rob their populaces. International bureaucracy serves the freedom of global speculation, slaughtering world economies for profits the oligarchy would obtain via cheap labor emerging in the third world countries.

понедельник, 21 сентября 2009 г.

пятница, 18 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto. On History of Political Teachings and Economic Practices. The Nation against Totalitarian Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy has always wished to obtain a lifetime right for the leading role in the state, attempting to become independent from the will of a monarch, aristocracy or people. It is this craving that has been pushing the bureaucracy to make use of flaws and deficiencies in the government structure for embedding their power. Every now and then, palace plots have been spilling over into the streets of capitals where agitated people were trying to find justice. The fruits have been inevitably snatched by the ruling clans, whereas the crowd was silenced by sops like temporary liberalization of the regime, insignificant reforms and attractive slogans. As a result, the bureaucracy has been growing in number and gaining strength, creating mechanisms for capturing the nation’s property and limitless enrichment. The bureaucratic control over the government, national property and state budget applied highly sophisticated ways to humiliate the populace.
Popular resistance could rest only on top aristocracy – the clergy and the military that make the support base for the state and the monarch striving to hand over a prosperous country to his heir. This is why bureaucracy becomes a secret ally for the revolutionary terrorist forces. Whereas the revolutionaries made a stake on assassinating the monarch and publicly discrediting the aristocracy, the bureaucracy was working covertly, trying to steal the populace from the aristocracy by weaving plots in the ruling circles, carrying the management complexities to an absurdity, misinforming everyone, driving reforms into a dead-end, etc. Political theories presenting this process as the class struggle only played into the bureaucracy’s hand. Their utopianism was enchanting the educated population groups and confusing the mind of masses, providing the bureaucracy with a prospect for omnipotence unchained from any tradition.
The revolutionary enthusiasm of liberalism was supported by the wish to remove the aristocracy with its ethics of serving its people and the Sovereign. Using the interests of the industrialists (or bourgeoisie, as it was called in the 20th century), the bureaucracy was rushing to power in order to restructure all relationships within the society, and to justify the morality of unrestrained profiteering and misappropriating the fruits of the industrial revolution. This drive was accompanied by institutionalizing political nations. Many bourgeois revolutions were of a national character, bringing liberation from other states. Actually, the commons failed to realize their mission of the national leader and were unable to combine the Tradition with Modernization. As a result, the power was seized by moneylenders and speculators. Part of them was trading in money; others were reselling finished goods and raw materials. And some found it appropriate to trade in human beings. At that, the humanistic values of the Enlightenment turned into a dogma, for which sake the impoverished groups and colonized territories were stifled by steel and blood.
Revolutions had been always opposed by certain defensive ideas, later either forgotten or used partially to fit the current political situation. Thanks to the traditionalist philosophers, liberal ideas did not become indisputable. Joseph de Maistre pointed out that universal society laws do not exist; in absence of canonized ancestors, the spirit of freedom brings chaos; and only the national intellect, which suppresses the individual dogmas, may bring the people happiness and wealth. Edmund Burke believed that an individual is born in the presence of the Tradition, state and the unfeasibility of adding private egotisms. Adam Muller and later Hegel insisted that the nation is the basis for any individual and any state. Fichte, Schelling and many other thinkers regarded the nation as an organic substance and the state – as a means for development of the nation. For conservative thinkers, monarchy is almost always the best form of government. Hegel wrote: “Personality of a state is real only in the form of a person – a monarch.” In the 20th century both German and Russian philosophies advanced the ideas of conservatism but did not find enough supporters to stop the wars and revolutions.
Liberals are trying to appropriate institutionalization of the Western industrial society by having invented the myth of the free market economy. In fact, as Max Weber has shown, the successful economic practice had religious roots, i.e. the Protestant ethics born in the peoples’ uprising against the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, at a later stage of the Reformation period the Western society discarded the Tradition, and the newborn bureaucracy imposed its will on the nations.
European states also attempted to disconnect from the bureaucracies and liberate the nations before World War II. However, the revolutionary and military adventurism, inspired by oligarchic agents, substituted the national idea with Nazism. The liberal or leftist bureaucracy was replaced not by national government institutions but by totalitarian bureaucracy or particracy that destroyed any kind of self-government and elementary liberties, although they make the only proper conditions for a nation to develop. The adventurism of Hitler and other leaders of aggressive regimes, as well as the ploys of global oligarchy, brought the world to the war that prevented the nations from overpowering the total bureaucratization. Oligarchs were interested in the fight between Germany and the Soviet Union, since they saw in these regimes something that hampered their global dominance. And they did not wish the sovereign states to independently overcome totalitarian trends. Western bureaucracy found an ally in the totalitarian bureaucracies, which were craving for a war to subjugate the populace. Charismatic leaders of the 20th century relied on bureaucracy and tried to override it. But the nature of a national leader is the opposite of the bureaucrat’s nature. With time, leader left the arena, whereas bureaucracy invariably restored and strengthened its positions.
The victory of liberal regimes and the riches obtained by the oligarchies during World War II and the postwar reconstruction have set mankind on the wrong track. Suppressing national self-consciousness where a drive to the sovereignty emerged, the oligarchy has equaled nationalism to Nazism. The liberal West and its bureaucracy began dictating conditions to the countries where national identity was just arising. The West gave up its civilizing mission in colonies and switched over to neocolonialism. As a result, the peoples with non-existent or vanished historical experience lost their guidelines, allowed the cruelest tyrannies to materialize and sank in bloody civil wars for many years. Nevertheless, places intact from the reach of liberal oligarchy witnessed emergence of civilizations bearing the Tradition.
Liberalism offers no privileges to the industrial capital, whose role in the society suggests domination over financial and trading capital. With the help of liberal dogmas power has come into the hands of transnational oligarchy juggling with fictitious values. The business circles, which lost the Tradition, have turned into the oligarchy’s henchmen and accomplices to a global swindle.

вторник, 15 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto. On History of Political Teachings and Economic Practices. The Confluence of the Opposites

Mutation of the liberal thought in the 20th century has resulted in rapprochement between liberalism and socialism and adoption of some of its ideas. Liberal socialism, whose embryo emerged before World War II, went into full blossom by late 20th century and absorbed both concepts. Having lost its pathetic defense of individual freedom, liberalism took a socialist tint to stake on numerous social programs. Socialism became the paramount principle of freedom, in fact, liberalism in action tasked to emancipate proletariat and supply a kind of averaged freedom to the majority. By acknowledging the importance of certain socialist principles, liberalism has become even more sophisticated in its lies about the essence of society and individual. After the collapse of the socialist system, liberalism inherited from the defeated enemy not only material resources but also ideology, which it has adapted to the needs of the global oligarchy. Democratic fictions have been enriched by the fictions about social equality and social partnership. The institutes of democratic and liberal socialism are on the payroll of the oligarchs who choose to control all ideas and social trends, buying leaders, ideologues and thinkers to castrate the public thought in its every manifestation.
Differing in declared aims and values, liberalism and socialism unite in the drive to demolish states and nations, to bring them into a single society with universal values common to everyone. To this end, they have to negate national and civilizational dissimilarities rating them vestiges of the past. And any kind of human versatility is described as a harmful factor subject to elimination. The two seemingly conflicting ideologies have a common basis, i.e. antagonism to the religious and philosophical ideology that reflects national consciousness.
Just like socialism, liberalism cripples the human mind. Whereas socialism creates an individual whose integrity is fully dependent on the collective and the political dogma, liberalism sees the ideal in an individual with split consciousness, a multicultural individual lacking permanent links with any human community. Liberalism and socialism disconnect a person from family, nation and morality. For a liberal, family is something temporary, nation is something you can easily give up, and morality is a chimera. In the socialist version, family is of minor importance, nation is a transient notion, and morality is nonexistent beyond the party dogma.
Just like socialism, liberalism is devious. Universal values only make another propaganda scam. Freedom for all turns out to be freedom for a limited circle of subjects who have monopolized the right to move around their capital. The oligarchs need globalization to make sure that their proven model becomes universal and spreads over the world. The oligarchic capital must never face resistance to its atrocious plans. Hence, any state defending its interests and trying to practice independent policies shall be declared a foe, an Evil Empire or a terrorists’ accomplice. Oligarchy is hostile to everything related to free existence of nations, i.e. everything that retains a traditional way of life, allegiance to the historical path and unyielding moral imperatives.

понедельник, 14 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto. On History of Political Teachings and Economic Practices. The Failure of Justice

Freedom turned to be more bloodthirsty than the Tradition, giving rise to ideas focused on Justice. Growing opposition to flagging ideas of liberals who eulogize individual success and carpet-baggers stepping over losers’ heads has brought about demands for collective freedom, i.e. liberation from the shackles of the state and the nation. Public solidarity integral to the Tradition and the State has been replaced by class solidarity on the basis of a common socio-economic status. Whereas the Enlightenment was denying Tradition, the socialist teachings came to reject the bourgeois order generated by the Enlightenment. However, the denial had no room for the Tradition or conventional morality. Plato was quite accurate to describe the relationship between the liberal oligarchy and those whom the Marxists later named proletariat: “The riches have corrupted the soul of humans by luxury, while poverty fed them misery and drove to shamelessness."
Marxism offers socialist ideas in their extreme, as its negation of the bourgeoisie’s leading role is supplemented by forecasting inevitable and natural replacement of socio-economic formations. From the primitive communal formation mankind develops into slavery, then into feudalism replaced by capitalism, after which arrives the era of socialist revolutions and construction of communism. Transition to the new formation is preceded by emergence of the progressive social class with a mission to overcome the previously accumulated contradictions between productive forces and industrial relations. The formation change means discarding previous relations that hinder the development of productive forces and establishes a new type of relationship.
This historiosophic structure contained an intrinsic flaw – the belief in possible construction of an earthly ideal society, which needs neither state, nor social hierarchy, nor nation. In this sense, Marxism was radically casting away the Tradition and even insisted that the break is a principal law of the historic process.
Marxism maintained that the next in turn change of formation is just round the corner as the gravedigger of capitalism emerged, i.e. the working class with its proletarian internationalism. Since capitalism failed to provide the hired workers even with slave-like existence, the proletariat had nothing to lose but its chains. By crushing existing relationships via a revolution, the proletariat was to destroy private property and eventually eliminate the state. At that, the reactionary nations were to perish in the worldwide proletarian revolution. Class solidarity made peoples irrelevant for implementation of the favorite Marxist theories. Internationalism became a key dogma of the Marxists. The theory of the withering state has brought socialists and liberals in the same boat, as internationalism and free world markets share the common ideas of globalism.
The Marxists’ propaganda ploy was in the material lure for the masses. They have been told that as soon they reject their state and faith, and exterminate the exploiter class, they would obtain a prosperous life and may work not more than they wish. Initially compensation was meant for labor, and under communism everyone would obtain the goodies according to needs. The criteria for compensated labor and reasonable needs never took shape. In fact, nobody was going to develop them, since Marxism was offering a fairy tale about miraculously obtained riches and idleness, about an earthly paradise for spongers. The same decoy infected not only workers but also intellectuals in a society, which was only going to become a nation and complete the development of its tradition. Instead, the society was offered dreams of Justice and Freedom.
The material lures disconnected the people by setting the class interests against each other and driving the class relationship to hatred and enmity. The battle has brought rejection of responsibility to the reigning dynasties and the honor of aristocracy. However, the bloody fight for the radiant future has brought victory not to revolutionary workers or counterrevolutionary capitalists and landowners but to bureaucrats who quietly took over the power.
Based of insufficient empirical substance, the ideas of Marxism proved applicable only for a very short historical period. They failed to make a theory, but rather turned into propaganda confusing peoples in search for knowledge. Revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries launched by the communist parties (starting from the Paris Commune) refuted themselves, validating the bankruptcy of Marxism. Marxism seems to retain significance just for criticism of capitalist bottlenecks and a methodology for analysis of primitive economic relations. It has reduced the viability of the world civilizations but has failed to prove false both the humanistic illusions of the Enlightenment and the fundamental values of the Tradition.
Mankind watched socialism to tread on the Tradition and exterminate the social layers basking in liberal and socialist myths. The victim count of the developed socialism has significantly exceeded that of the bourgeois revolutions. Socialism has undermined the vital forces of many nations. Finally, the socialist system collapsed, unable to step over the Marxist dogmas and face modern challenges. Scientific communism, Marxist philosophy and historical materialism – all of these proved unscientific and unpractical.
Hired workers have failed to either form a progressive class creating more efficient production relations or build a kind of unity. The world wars gave shown that it is the peoples and states but not classes that remain the subjects of history. In countries where socialism won and Marxist dogmas made a new religion, the working class brought power to the bureaucracy, the party nomenclature, tasked just to hinder the nations’ spiritual and political advancement.

воскресенье, 13 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto. On History of Political Teachings and Economic Practices. Evolution of Freedom

We know liberalism by its slogans of today but similar catchphrases do come up from ancient times. In those days some scholars regarded democratic states as a realization of the idea of freedom from any kind of regulation, including family and morality, while others saw chaos, confusion and inanity. Slaves made the portion of population deprived of any sort of morals and covered by only most primitive legal norms. If the role of slavery was minor, there emerged regimes that could now be called totalitarian. If Plato generated his theory of an ideal state proceeding in greater part from the experience of Sparta, for many of his contemporaries and later thinkers the experience was unacceptable since it was suppressing individual freedom. Until now Plato is seen as a totalitarian philosopher for his ideas that integrated the Tradition and experience of his epoch.
In antic times Aristotle analytically singled out oligarchic states founded on the rule of the few who govern in their private interests and place their riches above aristocracy, military courage, wisdom and civilian bravery. In oligarchies, the power of the money overwhelmed the power of Tradition, which illustrated not the struggle between democratic and undemocratic parties but a more profound ideological confrontation between the cult of money and the cult of heroes, ascetics, men of wisdom and hard workers. According to Plato and Aristotle, an ideal state should exclude both oligarchy and democracy. Plato rated democrats as libertines, misers, smart alecks and profligates, slaves of their whims who live to satisfy their vile desires. But he also regarded oligarchy as the worst form of rule, giving preference to aristocracy and monarchy. Aristotle wrote that democracies in most cases degenerated into oligarchies and then into tyrannies, which he clearly saw in his native Athens. He believed that appropriate forms of state were the monarchy and aristocracy, as well as mixed patterns combining different government systems. The most viable regimes combined elements of the monarchy, aristocracy and democracy (politia). It was a major theoretical discovery of ancient philosophers that the modern leaders have discarded preferring the rule of money or tyranny.
The Middle Ages were restoring the rule of the Tradition after the shattering collapse of the Antiquity that came after the citizens had nothing to defend and nothing to struggle for, when the material interest consolidated the parasitical classes and destroyed the spiritual unity and the statehood foundations of Rome and later Byzantium. Afterward Russia took over the mission of the spiritual center of Christianity and opposed the cult of money. But the material interest kept corrupting people, placing material values above spiritual.
Ancient traditionalist thinkers put public welfare above individual Freedom. Modern times have brought about the notion of freedom that allegedly makes the sole craving of the society and the entire societal development process leads to expansion of freedoms. The Renaissance brought together the notions of freedom and individual, in which freedom could be supposedly fully realized. Any sociality emerging before the individual makes his choice was considered false. As a result, the history became a burden and deserved disgrace. Humanists dreamt of times when the last king could be strangled by the intestines of the last priest. The idea of Progress was opposed to the Tradition. The state was regarded just as a giant Leviathan whose power was inevitable just because people innately dream to take life from each other.
The French Revolution has shown that the idée fixe, turned into ideology by propaganda, in practice boils down to a sheer inferno filled with terror and violence. Immense human victims of liberal (bourgeois) revolutions many times surpassed all casualties of monarchic and aristocratic states based on the Tradition. The Hymn to Reason voiced by the enlighteners sank in the roar of wars and screams of executed victims. The Social Compact that they viewed as the foundation of a happy society, as well as the natural law never materialized. Liberalism only gave a new impetus to greediness, having liberated it from condemnation of traditional morality. Intellect and reason triumphed only in areas where private interest reigned to create discrimination, live at others’ expense, cheat and enslave people.
Normally, liberals display great respect to Marxist methodology and borrow many of its elements. Political economy of socialism and liberalism share some sources, i.e. the idea of an international market. Socialists need it to seize power by proletarian parties, and liberals – by parties of transnational corporations. The praise of Marx and Engels to the bourgeoisie’s progressive mission has become a part of the liberal theoretical dogma – the oligarchs’ propaganda tool in the second half of the 20th century. The conclusion concerning worthlessness and even disutility of the state has also traveled from Marxism to modern liberal teachings.

пятница, 11 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto. On History of Political Teachings and Economic Practices. Possessing the Future

Forecasting the future is a primary task of the human intellect attempting to comprehend the laws of nature and society. In order to plan their lives, people have always desired to know the future, withdrawing it from the logic of history and everyday experiences. The more fundamental is the forecast, the deeper it tracks the coming events and the more successful are those who obtain a profound understanding of current events, causes of human behavior, the spirit of the epoch and patterns of historical processes.
Theories of social development have always tended to set forth a certain concept, which, similar to classical physics, becomes a set of unquestionable ultimate truths not subject to revision except for some exotic cases.
The future is logically derived on the basis of universal principles and laws. A huge array of historical events is compressed into several brief formulas taken up by politicians and public associations. Further compression of the theory by political practitioners drives out rationality, preserving only adherence to the current situation, an appeal to emotions and intended impression. For cynics of every epoch (beginning from ancient Cynics), theory remnants of the serve just one purpose – to make a lure by which the politicians are trying to attract the public expecting miraculously prompt enrichment, and slander to attack the opponents. As far as the scholarly truth is concerned, it is usually sidestepped to serve the interests of various groups and clans. The scientific and systematic grounds are pushed aside when the propaganda machine is called to implant ideas to somebody’s benefit.
The open confrontation of liberal and socialist ideas in the 20th century has generated an illusion that there is no alternative ideology to seriously compete with these two approaches. Tradition and nationalism seemed to have sunk in the past, with only two global systems, capitalism and socialism, struggling to establish their versions of the future. Everything else was described as dark medievalism and vestiges of the past epochs. Even nations and states, which emerged in those epochs, were presented as pieces on the chessboard where the grand confrontation should shape the world.
The grandmasters of the new age believed that all prior games were worthless, as they lacked mastery, system or academic approach. In fact, the confrontation of the systems resulted in the neglect of their fundamentals – the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and works by the founding fathers of liberalism, on the one side, and the leftist idea of the kingdom of liberty for the workers who have overcome alienation from the means of production, on the other. Even the very social architecture of nations and states, where those ideas had been nurtured and gained popularity, was found archaic.

вторник, 8 сентября 2009 г.

Interview of Grand Duchess given during the visit to Belarus

Interview with the Head of the House of Romanoff in the Newspaper “The People’s Will [Narodnaia Volia]” (Republic of Belarus)
In the pages below, we present in its entirety the interview of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, given to the newspaper “The People’s Will [Narodnaia Volia]” (Republic of Belarus), and the version of the interview that was printed in the newspaper. As a whole, the interview reflects the responses given by Her Imperial Highness. Unfortunately, printed immediately after the interview was material of a defamatory nature, and, in addition, some parts of the statements made by Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna were omitted.
Interview with the Head of the House of Romanoff in the Newspaper “The People’s Will [Narodnaia Volia]” (Republic of Belarus)
The director of your Chancellery, Alexander Zakatov, said the following in an interview: “The first official visit of the Grand Duchess is taking place in Belarus—this is proof of the role Belarus and its leadership is playing in the unification process.” What unification process was he speaking about?
He was not speaking about any sort of concrete political unification, but precisely about a “unification process”—that is, about the on-going cooperation between Russia and Belarus in the spiritual, cultural, and economic spheres. This process has historical roots. I highly value the steps taken by the Belorussian and Russian authorities to further mutual cooperation, and I consider this to be an excellent example for neighboring countries and would like as much as I can to express support for all these measures that bring people together. The director of my Chancellery expressed precisely the long-held position of the House of Romanoff, of which I am the head. We recognize and respect the constitutions and laws of the independent states that formed after the fall of the USSR, we recognize and respect the system of international agreements that regulate the diplomatic relationship between them. In this way, we cannot be but very pleased with any step taken to strengthen and defend the common interests of these nations. Indeed, the entire world is moving toward integration. Governments are firmly preserving their sovereignty, but at the same time easing restrictions on trade across borders, creating common currencies, and establishing new international regulatory bodies. And what do we do at the end of the twentieth century but begin to erect not only new international borders, but also other, concocted barriers of various sorts. I am certain that this a temporary phase. The sooner we get past our differences—most of which are not as big as they might appear on first glance—the better it will be for everyone.
In June 2009, Grand Duchess Maria Romanoff appealed through her Chancellery to the Russian government to grant (that is, restore) to her an official status in Russia, analogous to the status enjoyed by the Russian Orthodox Church. What movement has there been in fulfilling this request?
Let me begin by pointing out that I have never made any requests of any kind to the Russian government, either directly myself or through my Chancellery. The Russian Imperial House exists on the basis of law. In this way, it is analogous with the Church, which exists eternally (even in the conditions of exile and non-recognition by the State), based on the Divine teachings and canon law. One must not, however, forget that we are speaking about analogies. The Church and the dynasty are, of course, different institutions, although they do share many of the same goals and objectives. In contemporary secular and democratic states, it is always possible to find legal mechanisms to show respect for the traditional institutions which are vital to a true civil society. The similarity of the situation between the Church and dynasty amounts to the following: if contemporary governments, while entirely secular, nonetheless recognize the special status of traditional religions, then, by analogy, though democratic, they may similarly facilitate legally the principles of cooperation with the former royal and imperial dynasties that once reigned in those states. If the Russian government will grant the Russian Imperial House the legal status of a historical institution, as has happened in one form or another in most countries—Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Albania, Hungary, France, Portugal, Italy and others—it will allow us to serve our homeland far more effectively. There are no political or financial risks posed to the government in recognizing the status of the Imperial House. Naturally, we are not seeking the return of any property, nor are we counting on public support for our household. The only things that we cherish now are our good name—the besmirching of which I, as head of the dynasty, must never allow to happen—our dignity, and the idea of service to the country, which God has appointed us to fulfill.
Your Imperial Highness, could you comment on the views expressed by some Belarusian historians and politicians regarding your visit to Belarus. For example, Prof. Anatoly Gritskevich stated that the Romanoff dynasty played the role of a colonizer in the territory of modern Belarus, and that, consequently, “when Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna arrives in Gomel, it will simply be, for her, a visit to her former territories of the Empire.”
When I am in Belarus, I truly feel as though I am in my homeland. And I in no way shy away from stating this, nor do I hide it. The House of Romanoff has throughout its history sought to unify, and it did not participate in any of the episodes that have divided the country: not in the civil war, not in the events of 1991. For me, all parts of the former Russian Empire are our homeland and form a part of a single historical and cultural space. All the peoples of the former Empire remain brothers. At present, many of these “brothers” have moved on to “have their own families,” to have their own life as independent states. But one can never forget the spiritual and familial kinship and common historical fate shared by us all. My mission as Head of the Imperial Family is to remind all the peoples of the former Russian Empire of their common roots and to promote mutual understanding, friendship, and cooperation between them—not “in terms of Empire,” but in terms of the spiritual and material interests of every ethnic group and every individual person.
The First Deputy Chairman of the BNF Party (Belorussian People's Front), Vintsuk Viachorka, stated that the Romanoffs "have waged war on Belarus, bloody war." He also believes that if the Romanoffs are the successors to the Russian monarchy, then they should be allowed to cross the border into Belarus "only after having first publically apologized to the people of Belarus for their aggressive wars of conquest, for 145 years of colonial enslavement, for genocide, and for the suppression of the Belorussian language."
It is sad when objectivity and historical truth are sacrificed to short-term political interests and populism. The return of White Russia into the united All-Russian state during the reign of Catherine the Great had nothing whatsoever to do with "colonialization." This was the unification of the Slavic peoples and the liberation of the majority of Belorussians from nationalist and religious oppression they suffered under the Rzeczpospolita. There were, of course, those who opposed this unification. But these were mostly members of the gentry, and not at all the common people. Kosciuszko, Kalinowsky, and other leaders of the opposition to unification all belonged to the ancient nobility who, for complex historical reasons, had adopted pro-Polish and anti-Russian attitudes. When my royal ancestors are accused of having "the blood of Belorussian patriots" on their hands, that is, putting it charitably, a gross distortion. Kosciuszko led an armed insurrection against Russian military forces and was eventually captured, but he was always treated as an honorable foe, without any insult to his honor. Paul I freed him, and personally received, and then returned, his sword to him. In 1815, when the Kingdom of Poland was established as a constituent part of the Russian Empire, Alexander I offered a high post to Kosciuszko. Kosciuszko refused because of a disagreement on the proposed boundaries of the Polish kingdom, but to the end of his days he maintained his respect for Russia's emperors. And he died of natural causes in Switzerland. Kalinowsky was, it is true, executed. But one cannot forget that his hands were responsible for the spilling of blood. He was convicted according to the laws of the land at the time, as someone who organized an uprising and strove to destroy the unity of the state. His acts would still, even now, be considered criminal acts in every part of the world. Today, we might very much regret that the punishment was so severe. Be that as it may, we share far more that is positive, than negative, in our common history. Let us forget neither the bad nor the good that has been in the past. But any impartial person knows that the word "genocide" of the Belorussian people is a good example of "the more monstrous the lie, the easier it is to believe it." And those who allege that the Russian Empire suppressed the Belorussian language should go to the National Library in Minsk and see the exhibit of pre-revolutionary publications. On display there are countless books and brochures in the Belorussian language, all published before the revolution…To be sure, there were tensions. And these sorts of problems, disputes, and tensions did exist, exist today, and will, alas, will continue to exist. But the basis of modern relations must always be that which unites, not that which divides.
After the murder of Nicholas II in 1918, the Romanoffs were divided by fierce dynastic disputes. The dispute is carried on now by two lines of pretenders to the throne, both of which are rather distant relatives to each other: the descendants of Alexander II, to which you belong, and the descendants of Nicholas I. Would you explain to us "mere mortals" why the descendants of the Romanoffs have not to this day been able to find agreement with each other?
Your question contains a number of inaccuracies that hinder a proper understanding of the situation. First, Alexander II, from whom our line descends, was the eldest son of Nicholas I. Therefore, we are also descendants of Nicholas I, as are the representatives of the junior lines of the dynasty. Second, there are no, nor can there be, any disagreements on what the law of succession says. The law indicates always the one and only person who is, at any given moment, the rightful head of the dynasty. It was God's will that Tsesarevich Nicholas, the eldest son of Alexander II, died during the lifetime of his father, having never married. Therefore, after the murder in 1881 of Alexander II at the hands of terrorists, Alexander II's second son, Alexander III, followed him on the throne. In 1894, he died and the throne passed to his son Nicholas II. After the executions of 1918 by the Bolsheviks of Nicholas II, his son Tsesarevich Aleksei Nikolaevich, and the emperor's brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich—that is, all male descendants of Alexander III—the right to the throne passed to the descendants of the third son of Alexander II, Grand Duke Vladimir. Grand Duke Vladimir had died before the revolution, so in 1918 the right to the headship of the dynasty fell to his eldest son, Kirill, my grandfather and the first cousin of Nicholas II. After the death of Kirill Vladimirovich, his son, Grand Duke Vladimir, my father, became head of the dynasty. Since all members of the dynasty who survived the revolution married morganatically, at the moment my father died in 1992, there were no male relatives who had dynastic rights. Therefore, in accord with Article 30 of the Fundamental Laws, the headship of the dynasty moved to the female line. In this way, I became the head of the House of Romanoff. I enjoy very warm and affectionate relations with my relatives, and I am always very glad when they work for the good of the country, and I am always ready to collaborate with them toward this end. If some of them challenge my rights and present themselves as "pretenders to the throne," these are trivialities with which I do not concern myself. I am not a "pretender to the throne," but rather the legitimate heiress, by right of inheritance, to the headship of the Imperial House of Romanoff. This is a position that one cannot appropriate nor refuse. My duty is to preserve our spiritual and moral values and ideals, our traditions, and to pass them on to the next generation. I am convinced that everyone, regardless of their origins, social class, and beliefs, should strive to live so that neither their ancestors nor the descendants should ever be ashamed of them. If we would remember this, there would be far less fighting, disputes, and conflicts in the world.

Grand Duchess Maria Romanoff: "When I am in Belarus, I truly feel as though I am in my homeland." Rebus of History. August 4, 2009, No. 1, 19-120, by Olga Prudnikova
As is well known, the Head of the Imperial House of Romanoff, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, has spent several days in Belarus. Despite her full schedule, "The People's Will" was able to meet and interview the heiress of this famous family. She commented on the controversial remarks of Belorussian politicians and historians, and also spoke of the daily lives of members of the Imperial Family.
Your Imperial Highness, you have called this visit to Belarus your "first official visit to that part of the former Russian Empire which now exists as an independent state." Why have there been two different characterizations of the status of your visit, some saying it is official, others saying that it is the visit of a private citizen?
My visit came about through the invitation of the Administration of the Gomel' District. In this sense, it is official. Some assign to this expression "official visit" the meaning of "state visit," but no one [in my party] has said this and no one pretends that that is what it is.
I've never been to Belarus before, although I have wanted to come here for a long time. Many friends of our family come from Belarus, and they have told me many interesting things about your country.
It is very important to the Imperial House to support good relations between all peoples. Despite the fact that we today live in different states, we belong to a single cultural space. As Head of the House of Romanoff, I consider it my duty to support and foster these connections, and to help restore them wherever they have been broken or lost. This is one of the main areas of activity for the Imperial House of Romanoff. At all times, not only during this trip (smiles)! This is not something I thought up just the other day: I have always striven to do all I can so that we do not forget our common roots and our history. It's very much like what happens in a family—with parents, brothers, and sisters. At first, everyone lives under the same roof, but with time they have come to live apart, with the children starting their own families. So it has been with our countries: each of us has created his own family, but we should not forget our familial connections.
Having now visited Gomel', Brest, and Minsk, can you say that what your acquaintances have told you about Belarus is true?
There were even acquaintances who were surprised that I should want to come, saying that things are not so good here. But I have come, and I can now say how well the people live here, that much of the negative that is said about your country is utterly false. I am very pleased to see for myself that Belarus is, indeed, improving. In many areas, the level of things is even higher than in Russia. This is likely because one can change things more and faster when the country is smaller. And, of course, one senses the presence of a serious chief who is commanding "Forward march!"…Of course, there is nowhere on this earth a perfect paradise. And I am not saying that everyone here has it entirely good. There are problems, as there are in any country.
Your visit is perceived differently in Belarus. For example, the historian, Dr. Anatolii Gritskevich stated that the Romanoff dynasty played the role of colonizers in the territory of Belarus, and, consequently, "when Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna comes to Gomel', it will be, for her, a visit to the former territory of the empire.
In Belarus, I do, it is true, feel as if I am in my homeland. And I do not in the slightest shy away from saying this nor hide this. The House of Romanoff has throughout its history sought to unify, and it did not participate in any of the episodes that have divided the country: not in the civil war, not in the events of 1991. For me, all parts of the former Russian Empire are our homeland
The First Deputy Chairman of the BNF Party (Belorussian People's Front), Vintsuk Viachorka, stated that the Romanoffs "have waged war on Belarus, bloody war." He also believes that if the Romanoffs are the successors to the Russian monarchy, then they should be allowed to cross the border into Belarus "only after having first publically apologized to the people of Belarus for their aggressive wars of conquest, for 145 years of colonial enslavement, for genocide, and for the suppression of the Belorussian language."
It is sad when objectivity and historical truth are sacrificed to short-term political interests and populism. The return of White Russia into the united All-Russian state during the reign of Catherine the Great had nothing whatsoever to do with "colonialization." This was the unification of the Slavic peoples and the liberation of the majority of Belorussians from nationalist and religious oppression they suffered under the Rzeczpospolita. There were, of course, those who opposed this unification. But these were mostly members of the gentry, and not at all the common people. Kosciuszko, Kalinowsky, and other leaders of the opposition to unification all belonged to the ancient nobility who, for complex historical reasons, had adopted pro-Polish and anti-Russian attitudes. When my royal ancestors are accused of having "the blood of Belorussian patriots" on their hands, that is, putting it charitably, a gross distortion. Kosciuszko led an armed insurrection against Russian military forces and was eventually captured, but he was always treated as an honorable foe, without any insult to his honor. Paul I freed him, and personally received, and then returned, his sword to him. In 1815, when the Kingdom of Poland was established as a constituent part of the Russian Empire, Alexander I offered a high post to Kosciuszko. Kosciuszko refused because of a disagreement on the proposed boundaries of the Polish kingdom, but to the end of his days he maintained his respect for the Russian emperors. And he died of natural causes in Switzerland. Kalinowsky was, it is true, executed. But one cannot forget that his hands were responsible for the spilling of blood. He was convicted according to the laws of the land at the time, as someone who organized an uprising and strove to destroy the unity of the state. His acts are still, even now, considered criminal acts in every part of the world. Today, we might very much regret that the punishment was so severe. Be that as it may, we share far more that is positive, than negative, in our common history. Let us forget neither the bad nor the good that has been in the past.
Tell us, please, how different the lives of members of the Imperial House are from those of ordinary people.
I don't even know (laughs)… And what do you see when you look at me? In my opinion, I look like everyone else. I believe that everyone living in the twenty-first century should be a person of the twenty-first century. Of course, my education from a very early age was given a lot of attention—I learned that one must have self control, to look proper, to behave appropriately. And most importantly, I have learned always to be at the disposal of my people. In every other way, I believe I was surrounded by entirely normal circumstances.
See on line at: http://www.nv-online.info/index.php?c=ar&i=15555

среда, 2 сентября 2009 г.

National Manifesto. The Nations and Oligarchy. The Alternative

Events of the 20th century have pushed the mankind to give up the illusions, which had been enchanting it during the past three hundred years. Enlightenment, capitalism, socialism, liberalism and other phantoms have scattered into ashes. The period is over, having raised problems of a different time for the human communities. There are irreconcilable differences between oligarchs and bureaucrats, on the one side, with their greed, self-interest and vanity, the drive to global dominance, and peoples and nations with their objects of worship, commandments, legacies and vital interests, on the other. This is a world-wide conflict in which nations face an all-out information war unleashed by the oligarchy under the banner of globalism. The only way out for the nations is to fight back.
Some nations are on the way to realize the malignancy of the current system and try to step aside from the oligarchic globalism. They develop a real economy for the population to advance material and spiritual culture and to convey it to the future generations. In other nations only minor groups of businessmen and intellectuals have seen the light, pondering over the causes of enormous hurdles rising to block organization of the simplest economic institutions. These are just the sprouts of the new, the harbingers of a massive liberation process. A test of strength is underway, as well as a search for a basis in political and religious concepts and for novel managerial decisions. It is becoming more and more obvious that banknotes become harder and sometimes impossible to convert into functional products. It is only paper or electronic records! If someone has learned to manipulate them to his advantage, it does not mean that this process, containing nothing but speculation, would last forever. Sooner or later a new economic and social model, alternative to the oligarchic pattern, will be successfully presented to the mankind and demonstrate its vitality. Then it will be taken up by the nations that retain the will for freedom and sovereignty.
In the beginning struggle, where the strategic heights are human consciousness, feelings and moods, it is the national ideology that will make the most effective and crushing weapon. It should emancipate the nations – their labor and capital, honor and dignity, creativity and spirit.
This Manifesto is aimed to equip national patriots with understanding of the present and with the tools to defeat the oligarchy.

National Manifesto. The Nations and Oligarchy. Illusions and Surrogates

The circle of those who have access to immense resources – in fact everything created or discovered by the mankind on the Earth – has closed. Capitals are augmented by lending and speculation in goods and resources. This circle run has consolidated the global oligarchs that either themselves or via their agents in seemingly democratic countries move alongside with their capitals, converting power into money and buying power.
Fake democratic procedures are imposed on nations, whereas behind the curtains of the political stage, actually a road show, there mushrooms the oligarchic rule that entirely ignores the nation’s opinion. The illusions of the free market and democracy are meant to institute legal forms for plundering national property and enslaving the producers, who are forced to transmit the entire surplus product to lenders, middlemen and speculators. The oligarchs see the economy’s real sector as something foreign they have to put up with for some time. But on any occasion pinpointed laws are enacted to deprive the modern serfs of everything they have managed to accumulate or earn.
While hating the victim, the robber would publicly shed affectionate tears to enlighten the public around TVs, ready for regular brainwashing and unable to distinguish the truth form lies, on how hard he tries for the common good. Availability of production capacity, national independence and sovereignty turn to be of less value than promotional surrogates – affluence of goods in shops, an illusion of democratic policy by the ruling party, material signs of growing individual well-being… All these exist in the leading countries and may tumble down at once, as it already happened in the history of the world, so that the pillion drivers could curse their enemies and restart their game.