A New Political Lexicon - the Language of Strength

As the showdown with the West draws ever closer, it’s amusing to read the hot takes of the old-time political commentators in Russia. Mostly, they just criticize the West (poorly, even though there is a plethora of material to work with) but they struggle to forward a positive vision of what Russia stands for.

I’ll give you a concrete example.

In Crimea, a wounded Russian soldier was on medical leave when he got jumped by a group of Crimean Tatars who side with, well, Turkey first, but then Ukraine second and are vehemently anti-Russian. As an aside, Crimean Tatars were deported to Siberia by Stalin for switching sides during WWII and then allowed to return to Crimea by that drunk peasant Krushchev. After Crimea was annexed, the Crimean Tatars went on a campaign of sabotage until someone put an end to that.

Anyways, this little incident got picked up by the Telegram boomers who started saber-rattling at the Tatar gopniks who jumped a wounded vet and who, allegedly, started yelling “Slava Ukraina” or something to that effect. These born-again patriots hurled insults at the Tatars like “animals, pond scum” and so on. But, then the old programming kicked in and they started lecturing the commenter plebians about the evils of nationalism and racism and urged them not to attack these Tatars on the basis of their culture or ethnicity.

They got pelted by their own audience with virtual tomatoes and had to fall back on bans and threats to get their own unruly readers into line. Amusing.

But this is indicative of a larger problem in Russian society. People do not have the words to express their newly-awakened feelings of patriotism and nationalism. Instead, they have old indoctrination still rattling around in their heads and a tired old political lexicon that struggles to adapt itself to the times.

So, in the case of old Sovoks, everything has to be explained in terms of the struggle for socialism and the lot of the proletariat. What this war in Ukraine has to do with the proletariat or socialism is anyone’s guess. But, because these people are self-styled socialist ideologues, they have to somehow use the political lexicon of socialism to justify their defense of their own country - Russia. These people get into debates with socialists from other countries wherein they go back and forth fighting over which side is the one advancing socialist principles the most and is therefore, by extension, the good guy in the conflict.

This is incredibly myopic.

It’s like Libertarians in the US constantly using the language of personal liberties to justify their opposition to the brutal occupation government in Washington. They have nothing to say about tech monopolies silencing dissidents and the degradation of public moral virtue because their lexicon does not include words and concepts with which to analyze these problems. Furthermore, they always ask themselves: “is ____ in accordance with Libertarian principles”, much the same way that the sovoks in Russia ask themselves: "is _____ in keeping with Socialist doctrine”?

Few have the courage to move past ideology and simple ask: “does _____ make my people and my country stronger”?

What principles are at stake right now in Ukraine? On one level, this is a showdown between an Authoritarian system and the Global Liberal Oligarchy as both Biden and Putin have confirmed. And yet, despite the fact that the two leaders of the warring power blocs have spoken openly and plainly about the reason for this showdown, this information hasn’t trickled down and settled in the minds of the punditry or the people who foolishly listen to them. On another level, this is an attempt by Russia to return her historic lands and reunify the Eastern Slavs. Once again - try justifying this by using the ideological prism of Liberalism, Libertarianism, Socialism or whatever. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to do so because this effort by Russia isn’t really in keeping with any of the principles of the reigning ideological dogmas.

For me, of course, the only justification that Russia needs to do anything at all is proof that the action in question is good for Russians and for Russia.

Everything will be Russia

But the older caste of political commentators is much too clever for something that simple and straightforward, unfortunately. As a result, Russian political discourse languishes in ideological battles between dinosaurs still loyal to a collapsed system and people infected with the ideology of their mortal enemies. As a result, you will have people from the MFA make the rounds of the evening political talk shows to point out that the US, UK and Ukraine aren’t acting in accordance with the principles that they purport to uphold and cherish. The hoary heads of the learned sovok elders kip in agreement as they point out one hypocrisy of the West after another.

And that’s all very well and good, but it’s also exactly what the conservatives in the US have done since the 60s. Always going with the rhetorical approach of saying, “well the Libs say they believe this, but they do this, isn’t that curious?” Despite all their finger-pointing and a-ha! ing the march of Liberalism has progressed at a frightening pace. The conservatives never had the courage to launch more than a timid attack on Liberals from time to time instead of going for the jugular and totally constructing a new way of thinking and talking about politics.

All this is to say that Russia sorely needs a new political lexicon - one based entirely on different principles.

The simplest and purest principle is the affirmation of strength. People need to stop being afraid of thinking in terms of strength or of unabashedly declaring that they want their country and their people to be strong first and foremost. That strength leads to justice and true freedom. That the wicked hide behind sanctimonious preaching. And if liberal values or egalitarian values or economic values or technocratic values or whatever have to be tread upon to make the country stronger, well then so be it.

An action, any action, is only moral or immoral based on the principles with which the people evaluate it on. Something might not be considered moral when evaluated on Christian principles, but it would be when evaluated by Islamic principles, for example. It is the same with the various secular religions that we have adopted in the last 200 years. Furthermore, if something is considered “immoral” based on the tenets of Socialism, but is necessary for the welfare of the people and the nation, then Socialism must be jettisoned or reformed at least because no religion, secular or otherwise, has the right to demand that the people sacrifice their strength or their security to uphold it’s utopian principles.

We need a powerful, life-affirming way of making sense of the current situation unfolding in the world and, truth be told, we do have one already.

In that sense, we should see ourselves as rebels who have stormed the ideological armory, handing out rifles and ammo to the peasants for the next stage of the rebellion. We’re telling people that they no longer need to be constrained by the ideological thought-prison of their enemies, which was created to keep them confused and complacent. We’re giving them weapons with which to cut through the bullshit of the priests of the various utopian dogmas by declaring one’s allegiance to primordial truth instead.

Just repeat after me: “I don’t care about the sacred tenants of the Global Warming cult/Liberalism cult/SJWism cult/Communism cult/Vegan cult/Economics cult, I only care about myself, my people and my nation being strong. The pursuit of strength is both moral and good. I reject your utopian moral principles and your false authority because I have something far older and far more powerful to fall back on.”

The language of strength has not yet been elucidated by thinking minds. As a result, regular people do not have the words they need to express their nascent feelings of patriotism and love for their own country. They feel guilty being proud and cheering for their own people because our political lexicon looks down on self-affirming thoughts and concepts.

Maybe we should change that.