Eurasism in social sphere means the priority of the public principle above the individual, subordination of economic patterns to strategic, social problems. The whole economic history of Eurasia proves that the development of economic mechanisms here happens according to an alternative logic than the liberal-capitalist, individualist patterns of personal benefit which evolved in the West on the basis of Protestant ethics. The liberal logic of management is alien to Eurasia, and despite enormous efforts there is no way to break this deep-rooted feature of our people. The collective, communitarian principle of governing the economy, the contribution of the criterion of “equity” in the distribution process – all this represent a steady feature of our economic history. Eurasism insists on a positive account and evaluation of this circumstance, and on this basis gives preference to socially-oriented economic patterns.
Eurasism implies a positive re-evaluation of the archaic, of the ancient. It fervently refers to the past, to the world of Tradition. The development of cultural process is seen by Eurasism in a new reference to the archaic, to the insertion of original cultural motives in the fabric of modern forms. The priority in this area is given back to national motives, to the sources of national creativity, to the continuation and revival of traditions.
The largest landmass in the world, the Eurasian continent, connects East and West via communication, transportation, and trade routes. More importantly, Eurasia has long been considered the geopolitical heartland of the world, one necessary for any future world power. Due to its historical sense of identity, vast amounts of resources, capable population, and location in the heart of Eurasia, Mother Russia is the nation most likely to take its rightful seat at the head of a new Eurasian power structure destined to offset American influence in the world and help derail the New World Order by creating a multipolar world. The Eurasian idea will likely become the official post-Soviet national ideology of Russia and a banner under which the oppressed peoples of the world can fight.
The Eurasian idea is not a new one, even though it might currently be relevant more than ever before. Russia’s Eurasian movement traces its roots back to the 18th century in the historical conflict between pro-Western “reformers,” who wished to modernize Russia by adopting Western political solutions to solve Russian problems, and Slavophiles, who saw Russia as a unique nation set apart from both the West and East, which must find its own path. The question of whether Russia is part of Europe, Asia, or something unique has had a tremendous influence on the Russian national mindset. The Slavophiles did not look kindly on Western materialism and considered the Enlightenment a source of moral decay that was destroying traditional Russian values.
In planetary history, two opposing and constantly competing approaches to the mastery of the Earth’s space, the “land” and “sea” approaches, have existed. Depending on which orientation (“land” or “sea”) this or that state, people, or nation belongs to, their historical consciousness, their foreign and domestic policies, their psychology, and their worldview accord with entirely separate rules. Given this peculiarity, it is fully possible to speak of a “land”, “continental,” or even “steppe” (“steppe” is land in its pure, ideal form) worldview, and a “sea”, “island”, “oceanic” or “aquatic” one (let us note in passing that we can find the first hints at such an approach in the works of the Russian Slavophiles, such as Khomyakov and Kireevsky).
In the ancient history of “sea” power, Phoenicia (Carthage) became the historic symbol of “sea civilization” as a whole. The land empire opposing Carthage was Rome. The Punic Wars are the clearest example of the confrontation between “sea civilization” and “land civilization.” In modern history, England became the “island” and “sea” pole, the “mistress of the seas” followed by the giant island-continent America.
The ancient civilizations feared and did not understand the tribesman of Turan. They built the Great Wall and waged punitive campaigns to protect themselves, and despised and hated him, but with surprising frequency he reminded them of their own ideals. Fierce, indomitable Turan: ruthless, high-cheeked, blue-eyed, blond and high-spirited.
Turan – Hyperborean in the broadest sense – was the source of the blood royal. Most of the imperial and royal lines in history came into the civilized zone from the North. Chinese dynasties were for the most part Turanian in origin: Hun, Toba, Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol, and finally Manchu. Alexander the Great himself was the son of a king of the northern barbarians—Philip of Macedon.
The future of Russia depends on our will, our determination, our mind. Thus I want to remark that the frontal strategies - opposition, nostalgia, restoration - on which many have counted since the end of the 1980s have finally collapsed. The gravity of the situation was never acknowledged to its full extent. We have wasted our forces in idle clashes and internal contentions. We realized that it is necessary to go by a different way. The present Russian authorities are found in the status of hostages – hostages to the foreign and domestic policy. Before the people and history they are obliged to fight for the Russian future, but just this is what the winners – the US, the globalists – will try not to allow at any cost. This is the tragedy of the authorities, the personal tragedy of President Putin. Neither the condition of our society, nor the subjective qualities of the President are those needed to begin today the revolt against the winner, the exit towards a new historical trajectory. To this purpose there are neither material, nor spiritual resources. Therefore it is a very hard road we have to follow.