Philosopher: “Stalin — the gravedigger of the revolution. And Trump…”

“The incredible level of aggressiveness of the Atlantic civilization gets (literally) a blessing from ideology, but rather of quasireligious, humanism, and the inside seems to be their representatives revolution. They hope that this will be a permanent revolution. Here’s how, in short, spread this infection. The only cure (they already know it and fear) is the counter-revolution,” says a reactionary counter-revolutionary philosopher jiří Galek. According to him, the Stalinist Soviet ideology was a mixture of old Marxism, tsarist autocracy and Soviet patriotism.

Parlamentní listy: lately a lot of talk about what actually the classical division between right and left blurred, and conservative writer Vlastimil Podracky believes that the division is “patriots and globalists”, the defenders of the people and families and their destroyers. If we turn to the example of France, there is marine Le Pen is generally left in the economy, however, defends the interests of the family. The party of the Kaczynski also illiberal in the economy. Trump supports protectionism. But there are those parties who claim the right accessories such as TOP 09 and the ODS, and take orders from Washington and Brussels. “Right,” Merkel invites refugees, and “left” Zeman supports the “right” trump. “Left” fico criticizes Islam and so on…

Jiří Galek: If I’m not mistaken, in one of my previous conversations with you, I unequivocally denied the relevance of the separation of political parties on the right and the left. On the other hand, I’m not sure what there is exactly to positively determine the boundary line between the formative forces. I prefer to talk about the systemic and anti-systemic parties, that is shared by the negative principle. Either way, the definition of political events and positions as right or left has lost its informative value.

To the camp of “the system” or regime include not only convinced the globalists and the anti-system camp — not only one of the patriots. The second camp in particular are in disarray, as is usual in the case of the emerging opposition. I think at the moment, in this camp three distinct main flow.

Three currents?

I’ll try to characterize them. First, there is reasonable criticism of the system, initially the liberals, who, however, themselves usually called conservatives. Their goal is a return to some ideal of democracy. They are against the oligarchic character of the modern political system, are often patriots that oppose the European Union and seeking its roots in British thinkers of the 17th and 19th centuries. We call them “bracketry”.

The second form for those whom previously we would call the left. Their criticism is directed, first and foremost, on the economic side of the system. As for politics, they seek to broaden and deepen democracy in the name of equality. They represent the transition from the old system and felt very disoriented. They will have to decide what to do in the future. We have not so many and mostly they are more in southern Europe. And while I believe belonging to the left a legacy feature, please allow me this small inconsistency: temporarily call these people “left”.

The most important third stream. It is the most radical, and I hope it will take the lead. It would seem logical to speak of him as a conservative, but modern conservatives, rather, is liberal, so anti-system radicals we say about the traditionalists.

— “We must not forget that trump has announced a program to limit international trade in favour of restrictive measures and wants to protect the American market and American jobs… we are Talking about the need to protect, above all, private businesses and employers that need to protect jobs for local workers that have to deal with the uncontrolled outflow of capital, which weakens the national economy, the purchasing power of the population and reduces the welfare that we need to protect some industries from competition of other economic powers and multinational companies…, Globalization ends and abroad talking about this for several months now. Markets try to protect themselves, and the United States and Europe can’t react to it,” — wrote in December, the Chairman of the party ODS Petr Fiala. What do you think about his words?

— The globalized economy is undoubtedly one of the main evils of the modern world. “Bracketry”, which include Mr. trump, you know that it is an evil that must be fought. I personally know people like that in our country, but Mr. trump has the advantage consisting in the fact that it might have something to do in his post. News to me that the party ODS emerged from the swamp and is going to go to the other side.

— Is protectionism not a part of conservatism? Conservatism wants to protect values such as nation, family, religion, order, and so on. And does the recall of this list of the economy does not violate logic? That is, no matter whether cost-liberalism against the logic of conservatism?

— We come to why I operate the term conservatism very carefully. Conservatives, especially the Anglo-Saxons, bound and tied “values” conservatism, mainly with the support of the free market. “Bracketry” also want to restrict the market. The traditionalists, to which I referred and myself, reject as a free market and a socialist, egalitarian regulation of the market. Still vividly ideological cliché that there is no third way, which would be an alternative to the free market and state planning. It is not — there is always a third, and sometimes fourth way. Only in the past bipolar world we could live in the illusion that there is no third way, though, and were made persuasive attempts for him to go.

It’s time to turn to some of the works are often forgotten truly conservative thinkers. First of all, I would have said younger contemporary of Hegel, who was once the most authoritative opponent of Adam Smith. He lived not so long ago in Central Europe. Although originally he was from Berlin, his whole life (50 years), he lived mainly in Vienna.

— What do you think, will come the death of the West, or there is still a chance for its revival? Perhaps the first signs is the success of those parties and politicians, about which we already spoke?

— We again everything incline to the West. A great philosopher Oswald Spengler in his work “decline of Europe”, 1918, writes that the so-called Western civilization is inevitably the last stage of its existence, which, among other things, the Board is economically strong entities and a General ideological sterility. Spengler was the first to note that history does not constitute one single current, and that every civilization has its own story that ever ends. I prefer to talk about the Atlantic civilization education, which is really nearing the end of its existence. Its beginning dates back to around the mid-18th century, and the “low start” was put together with the American and French revolution on both sides of the Atlantic. A successful idea that education was the humanism, which in the past 250 years took on different forms. From the beginning he manifestirutaya as the struggle for human rights.

In this form he was sharply criticized Edmund Burke in his “Reflections on the French revolution”. Today humanism has many faces, most ugly of which is multiculturalism. You may want to ask whether there is some acceptable alternative to a military-political or economic disaster of this civilization education. The output is not in revival, and in the voluntary replacement of the humanistic system to the new system. The easiest way is a new spread of Christianity. Here it is God himself commanded! Spengler and other authors of the concept of the so-called conservative revolution after the First world war in Germany, a lot was expected in this respect from Russian Christianity. In this sense, we, too, still derive from the ideas of F. M. Dostoevsky. Patriotism is only a Supplement, albeit a necessary.

— How are you referring to trump, Le Pen, Hofer’s, and “company”. And can they even estimate, putting the number one in terms of a “permanent things” of eternal value (natural order), that is, the concept which entered the classic conservative Russell kirk?

They are anti-systemic. However, politicians should be evaluated according to their policy when they are in power. Election and opposition rhetoric only outlines the future policy, but it is not enough. Yet Mr. trump gave the most complete picture. As I said, I attribute it to the “braxiatel”. Two other persons acting as the traditionalists. Note the incorrect assessment of Ms. Le Pen as a left politician in matters of the economy. This is exactly the bug that we talked about. Traditionalism refers to the “third” economic path that people don’t understand and confuse with socialism.

Mr. Hofer attracted me by its Central orientation. The States of Central and South-Eastern Europe have historical background to cooperate closely in the traditionalist spirit, and to serve, therefore, as an example for a much more decadent areas in the West. I think that gradually it is a new pan-European cooperation will cover all continental Europe, as once imagined Charles de Gaulle — from the Urals to the Atlantic.

I can not make comments about your “permanent things”. We come to another important ideological issue. Continental Europe must be liberated not only from ideological tutelage from the “angloamericans”. Yes, nearly a century ago, Wilhelm von Humboldt realized that the people Express their view of the world in language. When Europe’s lingua Franca was Latin, the situation was different. He no longer was the mother tongue of any nation. And English, which now has penetrated into all spheres of life, is the mother tongue of the most powerful country in the world. Together with the language to us in the head and penetrates the mindset of Anglo-Saxons, and it has on European Nations destructive influence.

— Recently had an interesting exchange of views among Catholic priests Acermodem a Sladek and MEP from the party KDU-ČSL, Pavel Freedom. What do you think about the relationship of Freedom to LIH (banned in Russia — approx. ed.) and to Assad, and how it characterizes the Christian Democrats?

— Yes, I read it. I don’t quite agree with what the father said Sladek in an interview with his historical remarks. But as for Syria, I fully share his opinion. The position of Mr. Freedom, discriminating against Assad to the peasants, and his attitude towards Syrians in General, curious. As the basis of the victims. Civil war against the Syrian government continues for a long time, so the number of casualties on both sides could be really big, while on account of nowhere emerged the “Islamic state” actually maybe there are not so many. The Christian Democrats, as you know, sucking up to Brussels. And I’m not surprised that their representatives defend the interests of the globalists. About the situation inside the party I don’t judge because you don’t know it.

— How neo-Marxism “infected” nominally right-wing parties?

— Some time ago I made some comments about the term neo-Marxism. I prefer more specific designations. If by this term you mean the Frankfurt school, it brought great ideological damage with unpredictable consequences all over the world and most of the harm inflicted on Germany after the war. It perfectly describes the American Jewish thinker, Paul Gottfried. Did his job and the American Trotskyites in the movement of neo-conservatism, as well as different ideologies of the 60-ies throughout Europe.

Let’s ask this question: why the original ideology of the left has managed to influence almost all political parties, including the right? In the Atlantic civilization of the ideology of humanism had gradually suppressed all the right-wing current that originated with her and was mostly a reaction to this ideology. Over time, have crystallized two forms of the political life of the Atlantic civilization, which complement and influence each other, and the result is mutually converging. One form — the modern right wing, and the second — modern left. The first makes liberal emphasis on free markets and gained an advantage in economic matters. The second is based on socialism and holds primacy in the area of values and morals. Initially, the liberals relied on British utilitarianism and formally recognized Christianity. This relationship gradually slable, and today it has left almost no traces. This allows the modern left is to strengthen its ideological aggressiveness.

The original revolutionary experienced a Renaissance with the 60-ies of the reigns of the Atlantic civilization area. In the mid 90-ies, after the collapse of bipolarity, the two streams almost merged, while preserving the appearance of a democratic choice still portrayed the rivalry, which, however, is actually limited to the struggle for economic position. The movement for permanent revolution, as we know from history the example of the Jacobin dictatorship and Trotskyism, finds a new incarnation. The incredible level of aggressiveness of the Atlantic civilization gets (literally) a blessing from ideology, but rather of quasireligious, humanism, and the inside seems to be their representatives revolution. They hope that this will be a permanent revolution. Here’s how, in short, spread this infection. The only cure (they already know it and fear) is the counter-revolution.

— This year marks the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. What you have to say about that?

— The Bolshevik revolution continued the humanist ideas of socialism and communism as well as a modern revolution continues the humanism of the hippie and student movements of the 60’s, Gramsci, Marcuse, Adorno and so on. Today the revolution of 1917 and interesting for education. Like everyone else, she promised a lot, and millions of people believed her, perhaps more than any other. In addition, this revolution has completely failed, which is not true of French. The consequences of the Bolshevik revolution, long lasting and tangible still, so we should wait to give it a grade. But you can say today that the era of the Communist ideology as one of the clearest manifestations of humanism is over.

— Vaclav Klaus said that the Bolshevik revolution was the first color revolution, because just as the other color revolutions, its implementation helped the money of the West…

— This is just a humorous anachronistic exaggeration. Look at a historical phenomenon from the perspective of modern world. Let’s not forget that intervention in the Affairs of another state through financial or other assistance to the forces that intend to destabilize the state, old as international politics. Those who a hundred years ago financed the Bolsheviks, did not realize that the product of the planned destabilization of Russia, will be a successful revolution. But modern “sponsors” invest in what politicians and media want to see the revolution, but really about any revolution out of the question. Not just in the history it happened that influential people wanted her to do, but then it turned out that it was all illusion.

— Since we touched on the subject of anniversaries, let us remember that the Charter 77. Whether thematically this anniversary with the already mentioned us?

— Yes, of course, it is linked to previous themes — for three reasons. First, the historical context in which was born the Charter 77, without the Bolshevik revolution unimaginable.

Second, if there is some credible analogy between the recent color revolutions and events in the past, this analogy with the Charter and other similar phenomena. We are talking about foreign support forces that can destabilize the internal political arena, while “sponsors”, in contrast to 1917 in Russia, a clear understanding of what is coming. In the end, the revolution of 1989 is still called the revolution. I was an active participant in events and never knew of this designation.

The third point is most important. In the summer of 1975 at a conference in Helsinki to the West managed to put the Eastern bloc in the bad position. Given the fact that the Communist ideology was happening right from the humanistic ideology of human rights and even proud of it, representatives of the Eastern bloc could not reject the obligation to respect human rights. And although they immediately began to emphasize that their understanding of human rights is somewhat different: it is more humanistic, it is not too helpful.

In 1977 I was an adult and was interested in international politics. Being anti-Communist, I was happy with this situation. However, I naively believed that the whole human rights is only a trap to defeat the Bolsheviks. Of course, not all, but many actually believe it. Among the signatories of the Charter there were a few of my friends, whom I respected. What about human rights they said it was clear. But, unfortunately, they turned into ideological weapons after the November coup. Then I again naively believed that extolled the humanistic revolution will result in a counter-revolution with a nationalist slant. I keep waiting, waiting…

— How would you comment on the very simplistic idea that Stalin, and we have, for example, Husak during the normalization, in fact, moved away from Marxism? So, Stalin banned abortion and sought to somehow resurrect his family in spite of Lenin and Trotsky free love. In addition, Stalin, gander fought for his own, albeit distorted, version of patriotism and the practice was “more right” and “more natural” than the neo-Marxists in the West who destroyed and are destroying families and Nations as a basic natural science education. Wasn’t really Communist regimes in Europe, rather a certain distorted form of the sort of national socialism (not Nazism), who defended some core values? Not whether Stalin was a kind of analogy of Napoleon, who, based on the French revolution, yet eliminated the worst excesses of the Jacobin?

Here let’s pause and with a cool head analyze one by one. First, the Napoleon. He loudly declared itself in Paris only a year and three months after the fall of the Jacobin dictatorship, however, the analogy of Napoleon — Stalin is obvious, and the Trotskyists believed Stalin a kind of Soviet Napoleon, the gravedigger of the Bolshevik revolution. Edmund Burke in 1790, believed that revolution in France will result in a military dictatorship. Since then, overall, it is clear that the army plays in the later stages of the revolution a decisive role. Revolutionary tensions cannot escalate indefinitely, and then the army’s role is key. This is confirmed by the fact that all important revolutions occurred in countries with the status of power.

By the way, remember the Nazi revolution 1933 — 1934 years, and the night of the long knives. German feature was the fact that the original gravedigger of the revolution was its führer, which gave preference to non-revolutionary army before the revolutionary SA. In the Soviet Union army, as in France 125 years ago, was revolutionary and was headed by Trotsky. So Stalin liquidated like Trotsky, and the initial command of the army to move from the revolution to achieve the sovereign status of the USSR.

So we went over to Stalin. He sought strategic advancement of their country. However, the position he has legitimized the Bolshevik revolution, so the new Stalinist Soviet ideology was a mixture of old Marxism, tsarist autocracy and Soviet patriotism. Let’s not forget that Trotsky and other revolutionaries wanted to make Russia more Western. Their permanent revolution was to turn Russia into the Atlantic civilization education. Stalin decided to interfere, and therefore created the ideological mix. Marxism it meant the continuity of the revolution, the autocracy — with Russian history, and patriotism was a kind of connecting link. Two non-Marxist components led unwittingly (!) to the preservation of certain traditional values such as family, homeland. Yes, the homeland but not the people, because the USSR was a multinational. Nationalism was allowed only Russian.

But the main enemy of the Marxism left Christianity. Meanwhile, the Western Marxists, which were far from political practice, quietly continued their revolutionary and anti-traditionalist thinking. After the Second world war formed the Eastern bloc, which also was dominated by Soviet ideology. It formed almost all that has been said about its purely Soviet version, but nationalism is even more persecuted. Let’s say there were only nationalism, directed against potential enemies. All according to the formula of “proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism.”

In the end I would say that your first thought is really very simplified. Should more boldly formulate problems, not to remain in the grip of formulas and cliches that are imposed on us by the propaganda of mainstream.

Jiří Galek (born in 1952 in Prague) studied philosophy, bohemistik and classical Greek language at the philosophical faculty of Charles University. Because of its origin could not even dream about academic career. Worked in different professions. First of all, earned language skills. Taught and translated, participated, for example, in the translation of Comenius “General advice about the correction of human Affairs,” from Latin into Czech. After November 1989 he went into politics. From February 1990 to March 1993 worked in the Coordination centre OF the Ministry of foreign Affairs and of culture (in the post of Deputy Minister). In the same period was a Board member of the Civic democratic Alliance (ODA), where he stayed until 2001. Since 1994 worked in the industry. First the Manager, and since the late 90s, the entrepreneur. In recent years, he plunged back into the initially selected profession, translates and sometimes lectures. Is one of the founders of Akce D. O. S. T. jiří Galek a practicing Evangelical. 31 years old is married and has two adult children.