Nikolay Starikov: there was never totalitarianism in Russia

The historian and the writer, the commercial director of the First channel in St. Petersburg Nikolay Starikov is confident that the main threat of Russia is liberals. They taught not to love the country, corrupted the minds by “pseudo-heroes” and imparted “a complex of civilization inferiority”.

About the love for the country

There are things which are natural for the person as the love to the mother, love to the Homeland. These are things of the same order, it inherent in the person initially. It is impossible to teach him to love the Homeland, but he can be taught not to love it. It can be brought down from that way on which it is intended on the birth. Here it can be done. The liberal promotion is engaged not only in Russia, but also worldwide as a matter of fact. The person is inspired the disrespect for history, the person is said that our history is a chain of continuous mistakes, crimes, misunderstanding, that Russia only did that was at war, seized other countries. To put it briefly, form a negative image of the country.

Thus it is possible to say the lies, slander, pull out only the negative moments, to distort the facts and to tell bad only about one person, without telling something about the others — there will be an impression that only this person, only this country are bad.

What occurs actually on the world scene? Russia is unique state and civilization formation. And there were difficult periods in our history and in the history of other states there were periods not less difficult, not less bloody. But we are told only negative and only about us. And about all the others — positive therefore there is an impression that when Ivan the Terrible brought an order to the country, so the democracy reigned in all other states and there were “free elections”. There was nothing similar. There were massacres of St. Bartholomew. Huguenots cut Catholics and destroyed the Indians in hundred thousand. And the slave trade prospered when the people were caught in Africa. Behind these “free” caravans of democratic British slave traders floated the packs of sharks who waited when the next died slave will be thrown out for a board. All this was.

Work on formation of the negative relation to our country is purposefully conducted, simply it is imperceptible. And it is the main task to stop this work, to force out liberal ideology on boondocks of public opinion.

In Vladimir Solovyev's philosophy there is a division into maternal love — unconditional, absolute and fatherly — which is based on successes, achievements of the child. How do you think, the love for the country is the love of the father or mother?

I don't agree with it. I’m as the father of two daughters can't tell that I love them in a different way, less than my wife, their mother loves. The homeland should be loved unconditionally because it is given you from above. You were born in this country, you grew in this country, both the country and your parents made a maximum in order that you became the worthy, clever, beautiful, well-mannered person. To expose any conditions of the love is that egoism to which we are pushed by liberalism.

It is necessary to love the homeland simply that it is and to be proud for that centuries-old history of victories, fulfilments which were. It is necessary to fight for that today's reality, especially tomorrow, gave to us a new reason for pride further. But if in the country something is not so, it is an occasion to change a situation, instead of an occasion to say that the new Homeland is necessary to me.

What Russia can be proud today

That for decades of liberal promotion we could keep the main difference from the West — the aspiration to justice, humanity and that love for the country which so carefully tried and try to be etched.

We have a great country, we have a great future. Those geopolitical defeats which we experienced are temporary. But they risk to become constants if we does nothing. We see that Russia of 2000 year and Russia of 2013year have absolutely different weight on the international scene. Today's international issues aren't resolved without us. It means that we move in the correct direction. As for internal problems, it is natural they are much and remained. But it is the problems a little of other level, than what faced the majority of our population in the mid-nineties.

Material prosperity in many respects increased therefore there are problems of a spiritual order in the forefront today. Patriotism, about which very few people spoke in the 90th years. The question was one earlier— what to prepare for the children for a breakfast tomorrow? Today this question still faces our many compatriots and they need to be helped. But more people reflect on problems of a spiritual choice. It is the evidence of that we move in the correct direction.

Where the citizen of Russia wouldn't be engaged in business, he has to understand that Russia is his Homeland...

Certainly, it is necessary to support the domestic producer. Especially in those areas where the foreign product is absolutely not best of all. For example, what the New Zealand butter is better than Vologda? Vologda is better and it is our. In such situation, it seems to me, the patriot is simply obliged to choose the Russian product. But in the sphere, for example, samples of domestic automotive equipment don't hold out the automobile production to the best international standards therefore everyone can make an own choice.

As for business abroad, it is the special case. It is possible to do business anywhere. It is important to love the country, it is important that children studied in our country, as a last resort, abroad, but it is obligatory that come back to apply the received knowledge in the homeland. As for my children, they studied, study and will study only in Russia. It seems to me, it is correct. But I can't tell that any of today's young people didn't study abroad. Here everyone resolves an issue for himself. Do business where you want, but you have to pay taxes and understand that Russia is your Homeland and a place of life of your children, instead of simply a certain range for earning money.

United history textbook

There is and there was a united textbook of history in the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, in the today's USA and Western Europe. It can be in different covers, with different names and under surnames of different authors, but, actually, it is identical.

In the USA there is no alternative point of view on the occurred events of history. Nobody in the USA acts from a position that the drop of two nuclear bombs to Japan was the war crime and wasn't caused by any military need. Such point of view somewhere, maybe, in the Internet is present, but you won't find this point of view in textbook. On the contrary, in tens textbooks you will read that it was necessary to lower victims, to accelerate process of delivery of Japan and so on. But it is the lie.

About our heroes

My favourite sport is hockey therefore I watched the movie about Kharlamov, naturally. Magnificent movie! But didn't see “Gagarin” yet.

We were always told that the bed scenes, corpses and blood are inserted into movies because without it nobody would watch: it is boring and uninteresting to people. The last successes of our cinema completely disprove this false thesis. There is no any corpse in the movie about Kharlamov. No frank bed scenes are present there too. And, nevertheless, the movie is pleasant to all, the movie caused enthusiastic responses.

Their heroes can be only negative. Who are the heroes of the American fighters? It is whether the invented characters possessing supernatural abilities who protect people from someone. In America all heroes are invented. Who are else heroes? Robbers of banks, murderers, prostitutes - you won't find any normal person in heroes. Well, as a last resort, it is the police officer who breaks the law.

Watch the western series which were so smoothly pumped over in domestic series: nobody works there. They are engaged in nothing day and night: sit at restaurants, go by expensive cars, but don't work. Respectively, a certain matrix of behaviour is created and projected what to work is indecent, but thus it is necessary to have that degree of prosperity which appears only after long persistent work. The gap is created — nobody wants to work, but wants to have everything.

I think that it is necessary to make use of the best international experience. In particular, in France a certain percent of movies has to be of local production. But here two processes have to be in parallel there.

Firstly, the movies of high quality have to be shot in order to show. Because the today's young viewer can’t be only satisfied with movies of the Soviet period. It is necessary to create the new heroes, new movies. And to force out the western movies gradually by any smooth measures. Including, maybe with the help of such as in France. We don't see already the western series now on leading TV channels— there are only domestic series. But there is a question of quality of these series.

There are no simply modern good Russian movies
I agree that during 20 years there wasn't offered something that would be possible to be proud. As the most interesting movies till Kharlamov and Gagarin anew retold to us the stories and the movies shot in the Soviet Union — that is old stories in a new way, thus wasn't created something new. Absence, this vacuum of positive ideas, of heroes is felt. Having felt it, now the cinematographers began to shoot absolutely correct movies.

About nostalgia on the great Union

We live nostalgia on greatness which was in the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. For this reason the patriotic range can conditionally be divided into two most parts — these are great patriots of the Soviet Union and great patriots of the Russian Empire.

These two patriotic ranges also have to unite as a result in order that artificially broken off continuity of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union again to connect and move further.

In the West Orwell's novel anti-Utopia “1984” is already realized

No, this is the certain enlightenment. Simply once we were told that Orwell wrote about the Soviet Union. Actually, Orwell wrote about the West. The well-known slogan “War is the World” — it is that we see now, for example, in the Middle East when we are told about democracy in the world, thus bomb Libya and are going to bomb Syria.

Another thing is that also our writers of the Soviet period wrote the books about the western civilization too - I mean brothers Strugatsky. One of episodes of the movie “Inhabited Island” tells that there are certain radiators which certain ideas, moods broadcast to the population. When they are switched off, the people change. And so it is today's western mass media which create certain moods practically at all Western world.

But it was a naked truth. Take the posters of the Soviet period — there it is spoken about fight of the Arab people for independence. As though today: absolutely actual. It says to us that nothing changes in policy. And the West, without having ideological opposition of the Soviet Union, without having any armed force which would be equal to it today, openly starts modelling an own platform, destroying all dissent and actually turning into a totalitarian democratic regime. Because, it is funny to speak today about pluralism in the West.

And in Russia the democracy is just in that sense in which the democrats understand it. They can state the point of view, we watch them on TV, we hear by radio — all this is present. Here the liberal ideology really is present along with ideology of patriotism. And, unfortunately, this liberal ideology while dominates.

The West will begin to resemble the world described by Orwell even more strongly

Certainly because if they followed a certain way, it is very difficult to curtail from it. Otherwise they should recognize that throughout centuries they said lies to the own people and then all will fail.

We had never totalitarianism

We had a certain social system, exactly the same as a social system in the West. It had features, but a question of predominating of certain ideologies, a certain ideological line decided in the same way as in the West. No difference existed.

And the conversations on that here pressed, smothered, poisoned, and there everything blossomed, completely scattered if you look at the today's West. If there everything was so free and democratic why is there only one point of view?

Why there was a sharp turning of the alternative points of view, dismantle of this beautiful facade after crash of the Soviet Union and we see today only one point of view which all the time is imposed? About what pluralism is it possible to speak when there is only one, well two now, reserve currencies? What is democracy here? What is multi opposition here?”