Translated from the Ukrainian using Google API.

Original Source: Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/

TXT version of Webarchive

Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do … Ukrainian pages Home ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ history of the national movement of Ukraine ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Links ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRegions Reviews Forum ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Bellua sine capite "Beast without a head", - that's how Kyiv voivode Adam Kysil once dubbed the Cossack nation, hitting the very core of the Ukrainian problem. Each nation has its own pain: the French - ostracism, the Muscovites - sociability and lack of culture, the Germans - particularism. Our pain was her - "headless". - a word that so well captured the striking disproportion between the mobile, brave as a beast, the genius of the nation and its chaotic brain, between the mass and its intelligentsia, or as they say now, the "aristocracy". "Lack of leadership", "undefined ideal", "political immaturity" - these are the names of the disease discovered almost three hundred years ago by one of the people who most caused Ukraine to become a "nation without a head". Xia Kyselev's diagnosis comes to mind especially now, during the crisis of our nationalism and the crisis of the democracy on which this nationalism wanted to rely. I am talking here about the crisis of great Ukrainian nationalism, but, of course, this matter also affects Galicians to the same extent. Because, contrary to, perhaps, communis opinio doctorum, the permanent appeasement of the national aspirations of Galicia, Bukovyna and Subcarpathian Ukraine is impossible without solving the case of Kyiv. History is being proven, and the example of those outstanding Galicians, starting from Sahaidachny and ending with the workers of 1917-1921, who moved the center of their activity to greater Ukraine, aware of the fact that they are serving their closest relatives as well ... So, the crisis of Ukrainian nationalism and democracy... That modern democracy is going through difficult times all over the world is evidenced by a number of facts, such as the victory of the "national bloc" in the French elections, and the conservatives in the English ones, the defeat of Wilson** and his politicians in the United States, the great blows suffered by democracy in Russia (Bolshevism!) and in Italy (fascism!), the strengthening of conservative groups in Bavaria, Prussia and Austria and Hungary, where they even managed to seize power (Seipel***, Horti*** !). All these are signs of some serious illness, which the "great principles of 1789" are passing everywhere, where they were applied until recently over all. Hetmanship, an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt at "hortism", and "Otamanship", an unsuccessful attempt at Napoleonism in our country, showed that the reaction against democracy began in Ukraine. As a legacy of these two attempts, we have left the struggle of two ideologies (the third one, I leave the Ukrainian-Soviet one aside here), each of which claims a leading role in Ukrainian nationalism. Speaking vulgarly, they can be called right-wing and left-wing. The first is nationalists and "flour workers" of various colors, the second includes almost all the rest of our "parties", socialist and non-socialist, which create one so-called democratic camp. For both currents, it is now time to sum up the general results of their efforts, the time to "reassess values". This reassessment is not yet very productive, and the fact that everyone speaks in causa sua hides from them the real reason for their current impotence. The reason lies in the fact that neither monarchism nor democracy is adapted to the critical moments, to which ours also belongs, since 1914. The lack of understanding of this fact by our activists, both right and left, led to the failure of the first attempts at national consolidation after the war. Elsewhere, in the most important parts of the Entente (apart from Italy), this consolidation has so far followed a legal path, in the direction of conservative democracy. But the example of these countries is not a miracle for us, what they experienced. As for the regions of the vanquished and some of the destroyed victors, whose situation is to some extent analogous to ours, then the process of strengthening the shaky state authority followed a completely different path there. The most interesting - in Russia and Italy. The first - out of all the vanquished, suffered the most as a result of the war, the second - the most affected by it among the winners 1: both were visited by a great economic crisis, both were undermined by the revolution, which was successful in March 17 in Russia, failed in 20 in Italy, during the unsuccessful occupation and workers factories and workshops, so in a situation similar to ours. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 1/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite What forms did the authoritarian movement take here? The shock that was supposed to shake the shaky state machine? These forms, very similar to each other, were very interesting. Both Bolshevism and fascism were, first of all, anti-democratic movements. Such was Bolshevism, which began with the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly elected by the entire nation, and ended with the dictatorship of a small, albeit well-organized party. Fascism is like that: the first thing its leader said was to give himself authority until 1924, independent of the mood of the chamber and its trust, and in his eyes, the parliament is "a toy for the people." Both Bolshevism and fascism were, in their beginnings, anti-democratic, but popular movements. Lenin floated uphill on the crest of the revolutionary wave as the chosen one of the masses. Mussolini entered Rome almost against the will of the king, who came to his senses at the last moment. He entered the conquered city not like Denikin at the head of a wordless, forcibly drawn-up army, but at the head of tens of thousands of volunteers who did not become republicans only because the king became a fascist. This was, therefore, a revolutionary movement of the masses, albeit anti-democratic in its ideology. Thirdly, both movements were the movements of an initiative minority that imposed its will on the compatriots. The fascists did not negotiate with the leaders of the political parties in the parliament, they tried only to get the army and the masses. Similarly, the Bolsheviks. Before the October coup, which gave them power, they did not seek an understanding with either the Cadets, the ESERs, or the Mensheviks, they did not make any coalitions: they did not look for a middle line to unite different groups on it. They did it differently. They decided that their plan of action (immediate peace and the wild usurpation of the embassy) most closely corresponded to the wishes of the masses, and they began to translate their program into life, even when the Zaks came to power, not caring much whether this program was shared by Milyukov, Kerensky, or Rubanovich. There were rumors that by attracting weak and indecisive elements to yourself, you weaken yourself; that great things can be accomplished only with selected party members, ready for anything, certain of victory. The facts proved them right. In front of the reckless will of these people, who knew how to go to the defined goal without going through the means, all opposition fell silent, all resistance arose. With their insane courage and willingness to put everything on the line, they killed those who did not know that it was a risk and who immediately understood that what was required of them was not conversation, but obedience. I am not promoting either fascism or Bolshevism here: I don't know how one ended - I don't know that the other ended in complete bankruptcy, obviously. But I am not talking about their internal politics here, only about the methods of seizing the state apparatus and tightening it (the same task is before us!), and in this regard both fascism and Bolshevism still remain classic examples of how things should be done. The fourth sign of these movements is their uncompromisingness, irreconcilability. This is the secret of their success. Because in the revolutionary times the masses long for an absolute idea, a clear object of their aroused hatred, a legend about the nearness of the final catastrophe of this sinful world, the prospect of an inevitable, final battle. Only such legends support the indomitable mass energy that rushes to the top, ignite the imagination of every rank of the crowd, and not corrected by experience and reason, halved by the water of self-interest, the idea of ​​democratic justice for all. Those whom Marat mockingly called des hommes raisonnés, neutralists who occupy the golden mean between the right and the left, could not attract the masses to themselves, just as the "neutral" part of a magnet does not disturb and attract iron bars. Only his extreme ends do this... Massa understands only absolute, simple and extreme calls and only those who call them follow. That is why she followed Lenin, not Kerensky, Mussolini, not Fakta**** and Giolitti**, those who showed them: one was a mirage of a socialist paradise, the other was a ghost of ancient Rome. Therefore, the reason for the success of both movements were: their nationalism, their ability to violate the deepest instincts of the masses, their intransigence, militancy. As for the anti-democratic nature of their program (anti-parliamentarism) and tactics (not a coalition, but a coup d'Etat), they did not in the least harm their success, and upon closer examination, they may have helped; after all, their opponents ended up not on the wagon, but under the wagon, past the democratic nature of their program and tactics... The above will suffice to point out the main reasons for the defeat of our nationalism, in both its forms . Our democracy went bankrupt because it was... too democratic and not enough... revolutionary. True, democratic Ukrainianism was a people's movement, the masses carried it on their shoulders. But it was powerless to disturb and stir up the people's element to the bottom; it is powerless to give it a bright goal-legend, not darkened by greedy compromises, equal in its grandeur to the legend of the world revolution, which Moscow brought to us on the bayonets of its mercenaries. Our democracy did not give the masses the image of the "last battle", which - like Shevchenko's immortal poem - would flash with the purple, blood and gold of the fires, fascinating the imagination, rousing the soul to great deeds and sacrifices. She didn't have enough ideas, and those she had were kept in faded yellow-blue tones, indistinct and pale, like the speech of an official speaker at an annual holiday, capable of evoking the admiration of a philistine moved to tears, but not the gloomy enthusiasm of the heroes of "Haydamaks", not the enthusiasm of one who plays va banque. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 2/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite Supporters of Moscow found and threw their slogan to the masses. "Death to the bourgeois!" - such was the brutal formula that gave the awakened instincts of the rebellious crowd a terrible disruptive force. What could democratic Ukrainianism oppose to this formula? Also "Death to the Bourgeois"? It tried to do this, but, coming from the bourgeoisie, from the peasantry, it could not give the slogan the absolute meaning that the ideologues of the Moscow working class had. Secondly, this cry still contradicted "democratic principles". And our democracy respected them above all else. In addition to the fact that it was possible to destroy all the "bourgeois", when some of them were such sincere narodovs, they published "Kievskaya Starina" and wrote Ukrainian brochures about "cattle raids", which created everything that modern Ukrainian Robespiers lived by. are you - They, being the last ones, could have thrown out the banner of the fight against the "community", as they finally did, encouraged to do so by the masses, unfortunately a little zu spat... But they could not take the initiative to fight against communism themselves and conduct it consistently: that was the faith of the Russian "fraternal" proletariat, that meant making a "counter-revolution"! They could finally give the people a brilliant legend of the struggle for national liberation, which could really tear the broad strata apart. But how? Openly shout: "Away with Moscow!", "Away with foreigners!" - it was carried away by obvious "chauvinism"! Mobilizing the masses against Moscow meant breaking the "united revolutionary front" under Kerensky and breaking the "solidarity of the international proletariat" under Lenin! And in the end, the leaders of Ukrainian democracy, educated at "Grom. Dumtsa", "New Rada" and "Ukr. Life", knew that "democracy is peace!" - that democracy is pacifist, that it is always against "reaction"! How could she fan the flames of war against "revolutionary" Moscow?! They put forward (they were forced to do so) the cry of independence, but attached real "buts" to it, which darkened the brightness of the ..., - no matter how much this will lead to a conflict with Moscow democracy. .. slogan and its recruiting power. "Independence, but Independence, but..." not separating from the rest of Russia! The Ukrainian people must become masters of their land, but... Bessarabia and Crimea can go wherever they want, and the Jews - to create a state within a state! Away with foreigners, but - except France, when it helps us against the Soviets, or with the exception of Russia, when it helps us against France"... Ideas for which it was really not worth living or dying for, even if it was for Ukraine. the masses followed democracy, if they were guided not by a lantern in the hands of blind leaders, but by that clear star that was visible to these masses... Moscow proclaimed the freedom of nations "up to the point of separation" from Russia, but at the same time appointed herself the advocate of the revolutionary cause everywhere, even in foreign countries states Thus, she introduced nonsense into the attitudes of Little Russian politicians, and earned for herself the title of interfering in the internal affairs of "independent" nations and canceling this independence when the "interests of the proletariat" demanded it. Ukrainian democracy, on the contrary, granted real rights to its regions, and lost sovereignty even over its own Ukraine. The French and Moscow revolutions destroyed their Vendees and Toulons with fire and sword, the Ukrainian revolution created its own. The Soviets went to their goal, breaking all democratic principles, in the name of which they allegedly overthrew the provisional government, dispersed the Constituent Assembly, brought war instead of peace, and overthrew the democratic Center. Radu and U.N.R.... Just like once revolutionary France, which made the people's representative a toy of a few tyrants, which flooded half of Europe with its armies - and introduced the cult of a new goddess - "Saint Guillotine". The bloody phantom dedicated both Maximyanov Robespere and Vladimir Lenin, a mad utopia, which was destined in both cases to be adjusted in both cases, but without which no revolution, a noise, nodis, is novag. revolution in danger, to open such a nagger on strangers, which Paris opened, sending the "Austrian" Maria Antonet to the sack, motivating xenophobic intensities W is much more late, in unfavorable circumstances, having broken with the proletarian revolution and the Kremlin. Our democracy could create a cult of a great legend, which alone could be opposed to the ideals of the social revolution, to heat up to whiteness that national "chauvinism", which alone could unite the masses and compete with the intransigence of Soviet ideology, initiate it as a convention. "the politics of the impossible, the theory of ferocious madness, the cult of blind courage" (A. Toequeville. Melanges)... This would be a counter-action equivalent to the action of the Soviets. But democratic Kyiv could not do this without destroying the democratic foundations of the finality of the agreement with the "brotherly people". He failed the first fire test because he looked too often at the dead "democratic foundations" and paid too little attention to the only saving revolutionary act. Ukrainian democracy was about loyalty to dogma, not about upheaval, not about revolting the masses with a brilliant delusion of utopia; about a compromise, not about an absolute idea. The Soviets did the opposite and therefore won for once. They won this time also due to the fact that official Ukrainians sang not only about democracy in the program, but also in tactics. The masses did not follow Ukrainian democracy (as it was desired) not only because it did not have a clear program, but also because it did not have a clearly expressed will to translate even this vague program into life. At critical moments, the nation, like a panic-stricken crowd, follows those who show it the way, whose voice does not tremble, whose eyes do not run to the sides in search of help; for the one who knows the way out and has the courage to lead or drive others to it. What does it mean to "lead the masses"? Marshal Foch******** says that this means "to convey to the performers the idea that animates the direction" (la pensee gui anime ladirection). He also answers the question - who can "lead the masses"? - so: "Higher individuality, greedy https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 3/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/ 23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite accountability" (nature superieure, avide de la responsabilite). Our democracy did not show these main prerequisites for mastering the crowd. As already mentioned, it lacked a clear idea that it could convey to the masses. Secondly, it was not at all "hungry for responsibility" On the contrary, everything wanted to throw it over: one party against the other, and all together against the "people." "All power to the Soviets!", "all power to the fascists!" - this was clear to everyone: one party, with a striking, clearly defined face, sought full power for itself not in the name of the principle of people's justice, only in the name of the principle - sic volo, sic iubeo! - There was an energy that the masses longed for, who wanted to be led by a strong and sure hand. Our democracy did not show this energy. She always wanted to share her power with someone, but she did not know with whom. "All power to the Soviets!" - this obviously did not suit her. "Constituent assembly"? - also not, because the anachronism of this slogan became obvious to everyone in those days. So, instead of the initiative minority, they invented the middle again - the "labor congress"; neither a "bourgeois" parliament, nor a "proletarian soviet", "like something, like a night", neither God's candle, nor the devil's poker, an ingenious formula that pushed the bourgeoisie away and did not unite the working class. The masses not only did not feel a clear will to lead them on the mountain, but they also could not clearly imagine what the government would look like. At a time when it was necessary to agitate and command, when everything around was burning and drunken, mad people were looking for help, our democracy issued a summons calling for a meeting on the "current situation". She wanted above all to respect "democratic principles" and that is why she agreed with those who trampled on those principles... In contrast to the great movements mentioned above, the Ukrainian national movement of 1917-21 was not so much a people's revolutionary movement as a democratic one; either an agreement or an uncompromising malgre lui, with an instinct for power, poisoned in the very bud by various "principles" and opportunism. This is where all our failures come from. Our right falls into the other extreme. There is a lot of healthy in it, and in any orderly society it would undoubtedly be a state-building factor (as a good opposition - our democracy), but not in a revolutionary society. When democracy, even if one-sided (only in the social sphere), although often densely only in theory, still recognized that the masses are everything; that it should play a role in historical movements, our monarchists resolutely and fundamentally deny. They do not recognize mass even its destructive function. For them, almost any revolutionary movement of the masses is "banditry" from which (by nature) nothing creative can come out. According to our monarchists, our peasant is the embodiment of conservatism: the conservative monarchical system alone corresponds, they say, to his psychology. Whether it is so or not - this is not considered here, but the monarchists think that their guesses are correct even for the moment we are experiencing, and here they actually fall into the error mentioned above; because the monarchy is just as poorly adapted to the revolutionary era as democracy. Monarchists think that the Ukrainian state will not rise without the monarchy as an organizing unit. Without the monarchy and its support, and "without morally healthy and capable of public work remnants of both the Muscovized and the Sovietized Ukrainian nobility" ("Hlibor. Ukr." Collections II, III, IV st. 14, 18). This, in my opinion, is the main mistake of our monarchists. Because it was precisely the "noble" regime of the tsarist regime against which our peasant revolution began, long before the Moscow revolution, in 1902. Because the Little Russian nobility", although as a deserved one for Ukrainian culture (see the interesting and meaningful article by D. Doroshenko "Notes on the history of 1918 in Ukraine in Khlybor. Ukraine, collections V and VI, Vienna, 1921), however, recalling some episodes (Mukhanivshchyna!), he did not find himself at the height of the moment and, as a stratum, could not stand at the head of the national revolution, as his ancestors once did. Our "nobility" did not find in itself the wild energy of the "Rusychs" - the people of Khmelnytskyi, who were not afraid of the "Zaporozhian scum", who knew how to defend themselves from him and lead him as it should. The blood of the Nemyrychis, Vyhovskys, Krychevskys and Meshcherskys no longer flowed in the veins of their descendants, exhausted by the long period of personal happiness of the "Old World landlords"; these descendants, as a class, in the persons of their "leaders" and "countrymen" could at best play the role of valuable cultural workers or even the liberal front, but not the role of leaders of a revolted nation. They were only the "leading class", but in order to become a commanding class, they lacked wealth... Analogies between the 17th and 20th centuries cannot be translated into everything. In the 20th century, a revolution took place in Ukraine, ordinary, bourgeois, but still a revolution, and it is usually organized by those who came out of it, and not by those against whom it was directed. Monarchists themselves are sometimes recognized. They themselves see the tragedy of Ukraine in the fact that "it is not ruled by those who, owning the means of production and having their own power, could rule if they only wanted to and knew how to rule"... In the further explanation, the author finds such a will in the "nobility" (in my opinion, it is wrong to understand the intense will to power by "willingness", but as for the ability, he himself thinks that it must be acquired just now ( Khlib. Ukr. collection. V and VI st. 73)... Isn't it too late Because this skill is nothing but the ability to master the revolutionary element, and how will the monarchists do it when they do not even allow the thought that something new, something positive could be born from the revolution. For them, the masses throwing the plow for self-immolation were an anarchist factor. And this was the main mistake of the rightists, who did not understand that under certain conditions, "banditry" could become an organizing factor. This will happen when you manage to master it, manage to provide it with a guiding idea, coordinate its chaotic efforts, and direct the revolutionary avalanche to one goal. Cossack movements were once also ordinary "banditry", unsystematic and idealless plundering of coastal cities. Subjected to a general plan and one idea (under Mazepa, and later under Catherine II), the very "bandit movements" resulted in a far-reaching political action: https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http: //www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 4/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite conquest of Crimea and control of the Black Sea coast. Yermak's marauding Siberian campaign, caught in the convenient hands of Tsar Ivan, marked the beginning of the Russian empire in Asia. What was the whole chouanerie (peasant uprising of the Vendée during the first republic and consulate)? In its forms, the same jacqueria as our Makhnivshchyna. But a few brave aristocrats, who attached the Bourbon white lily to its flag, turned the jacquerie into a conscious political movement. Without Collins and de Valera, the Irish uprising would not have differed much from our "Otomanship", without the Khmelnytsky Cossacks, the Cossack nation would have truly remained a "headless beast". Great potential possibilities of "bandit" movements are also recognized by our right, but only in the past. They recognize that the task of Ukrainian politics in the 17th century. it was, as Betlend-Gabor said, to make it so that "all the ignorant (Cossacks) learned to listen to better people and recognized firm laws and principles in war and peace"; they admit that without Khmel, the entire Cossack nation would have remained an anarchist "crowd and pack"; they quote with recognition the same Bethlen, who still calls the Cossacks "brave knights" and praises them for their "courageous decision to achieve freedom or perish" (V. Lipinskyi "Ukraine at a turning point", Vienna, 1920, pp. 150 -151), so they recognize a certain positive value according to the "bandit" element, but unfortunately - not according to the modern one! That our monarchists do not want to recognize a certain positive role for the negative revolutionary factor and do not try, similarly to Hops, to master the revolutionary element and lead it under oneself - that is the reason for the failure of their action. In this, we must also look for the reasons for the unviability of the entire monarchical concept, because what should the monarchy be based on, when the main support of this monarchy - according to the rightists - does not have the capabilities necessary for any ruling class? Older ways of exercising power, which want to apply rights, have survived. It is no longer possible to appeal to the right of rulers to command, or to the duty of subordinates to listen. You cannot appeal to the pre-revolutionary psychology of the masses, it is deranged. During the revolution, contact between the mass of citizens and the authorities was established in a different way. Here obedience is based on the mass's enthusiasm for an idea which (it believes) the government is carrying out; and the strength of the latter [is based] not on tradition, but on the tireless energy of the rulers, who, certain of the people's sympathy, are slowly restoring the shaken state apparatus on the old foundations of reckless obedience. Our rightists do not want to understand this, and the great leaders of the revolution, all Cromwells, Napoleons, Mussolini, Kemals, Monks, Lenins, Khmelnytskyi and Collins, understood this very well... It can be said that none of these leaders , even if it were Napoleon himself, did not organize any power; that he picked her up lying on the street, thrown there by a tired and exhausted nation. So, why can't we, Ukrainian monarchists, wait until the nation, weakened by differences, sends its Hostomysl to us with a request: "Come and own us"! But the matter is not so simple. First of all, it is not true that Napoleon "picked up" the abandoned power. The "picking up" of this power was not so easy when the future emperor fell down from his horse on the 18th of Brumaire. In addition, one cannot talk about the fatigue of the nation, which for another fifteen years went around the whole of Europe from Illyria to Holland, from Spain to Moscow, under the imperial eagles. No, the nation followed its savior not out of fatigue, only because he recognized its revolution and organized it; because Dei gratia did not allow the losers to turn; because he created a brilliant Napoleonic legend for the nation, broke it in a great revolutionary upheaval. And indeed, the wars he waged, due to the fact that they confirmed the existence of a new bourgeois France in the midst of feudal Europe, were a revolutionary act, just as he himself was a revolutionary, because if it had not been so, the royalists would not have sent Cadudal to kill him, and he would not have shot him. he would be the Duke of Engin, thus documenting his kinship with the element that sent the second Bourbon, the sixteenth Louis, to the chaffot. This kinship with the revolutionary element, this courage, passion, energy, brutality, freshness and cynicism of the chosen natures that Napoleon and Khmelnytsky had; everything that perfectly existed alongside a sense of order and a statesman's instinct, and with which they mastered the reveling crowd - this is what our "leaders of the nobility" do not have, and this is their powerlessness. They are right about only one thing. A moment may come when the nation, exhausted by unequal competition, will bow its knees to the one who wants to rule it. But this would not bode well for us rightists! Somewhere, in such cases, a force could be found in the midst of the nation itself that would take over power. In the specific circumstances of Ukrainian life, this force will rather come from outside. Even the restoration of Louis XVIII and Franz Joseph in Hungary in 1849 did not do without the help of the allies in one case, without Moscow's in the other case. In our case, this help would not be only transitional, and in our case, someone else's help would lead to what it led to under Catherine II in Poland, under Bohdan's successors in the hetmanship... No - speculation on the decline of revolutionary energy will not lead to anything. Ukrainian statehood will not be possible without "Makhnivshchyna" and "Zelenivshchyna" just as Khmelnytskyi's statehood was not possible without Huna, Ostryanytsa and Kryvonos, without that wild "pack" that had to be mastered, without bellua sine capite, which needed only a head , Our democrats were afraid to finally let this "beast" off the chain, playing only on its social, and not (also) national instincts, and in that they thought that the whole thing was to let this beast lead them. This was pure and simple fraud, which could not lead to anything. The monarchists again thought that the "beast" should stop being itself, become a vegetarian; or, like wild animals, to go to the Colosseum even when her jailers needed it, when they let her out of the cage. But for that she was needed first https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 5/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23 , 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite drive there This was not an occupation for monarchists. They recognized the importance of the "initiative minority", but the Dei gratia minority, which is psychologically far from the mass, and has too many accounts with it, to push it to order with some brilliant delusion, and then bring it under the iron law of order... History knows no other method. Whoever wants to enter which horse must ride with it for a while. In such regions as Ukraine, affected by a major economic crisis and revolution, it is possible to seize power only by the methods I indicated above, revolutionary methods. That is why our nationalism should have taken a different path a long time ago, and not the one pointed out to it by the democrats and the right. Both of them were too big legalists for this tumultuous period that we are passing through: some of them clung to their formulas even in our days of huge changes - they looked for models in regimes that already existed once, somewhere; others did the same, not allowing anything from their Dei gratia... This new path can only be the path of healthy, revolutionary nationalism, which does not count with any formulas, with nobody's rights. Nationalism, that it gives the appearance and ideology of social movements to national movements, and the goals and scope of national movements to social movements. In short, we need neither national monarchism nor socialist revolution, only national revolution. This formula excludes the anarchistic nature of democracy and the counter-revolutionary nature of monarchism, which are unsuitable for moments of crisis. Ukraine is going through a protracted political and economic crisis. The Soviet regime is not worthy of evolution, it can only rot. A whole series of foreign interventions in recent years, uprisings, the introduction of the NEP, friction in the ruling Communist Party, in the military, the incessant conflict between the government and the countryside - these are the signs of the crisis that will most likely lead to the catastrophe of the Russian government in Ukraine. Then we will once again be face to face with a mass movement (we don't know under what conditions) in the Krai, because neither about mental depression nor about the moral demobilization of the Ukrainian countryside - even after the Russian data, it is impossible to talk. Because the revolution against the tsarist-landlord system is over in our country; socialist - has no basis, and the conflict between the village and the city and Ukraine and Moscow continues - a new explosion in the Krai, when it comes, must have a distinctly nationalist character. Our democrats and monarchists are not allowed to be the leaders of this movement either with their ideology or their psychology. Both currents ruling in us cannot develop the banner of this consistent nationalism. In this regard, both of them are agreeable. Both put class above the nation and are ready to seek help from Moscow. Some are against "reaction", others are against "revolution". The left still cannot get rid of phrases about "fraternal Russian people", about "solidarity of the working classes of all nations". That's right. In her opinion, "a close alliance with Moscow" is a task that "stands before us again today" (Khlibor. Ukraine, collections II, III, IV, art. 33 and 167), because even now there are "common interests of Russia and Ukraine" (ibid.), and the Muscovites are "our own brothers, in blood, spirit and culture" (sis!), are a "fraternal nation" (ibid., see collections V and VI, p. 63) . It is obvious that people with such a psychology cannot become spokespersons for national liberation in our time... Not a single revolution has ever taken place where great love for one's cause and great hatred for the force that had to be defeated did not go hand in hand in hand. Whoever extinguishes this hatred simultaneously extinguishes love for the cause. (The fundamental aversion of our left and right to "inciting national hatred" best testifies to how their whole psychology is adapted to the old, pre-revolutionary times. In those times, for an action against the enemy, it was only necessary to give an order from the mountain about mobilization : the army had only to obey orders, and it did not need to have any special hatred against the enemy. In revolutionary moments, when orders are not obeyed, other incentives are needed for the masses to rebel) . And this is not chauvinism at all, just a healthy emotional feeling of every individual or group unit that respects itself and strives to live. Because chauvinism is an exaggerated concept of one's own race and a mockingly contemptuous attitude towards someone else's. Hatred of a foreign nation does not have these elements, so it has nothing to do with chauvinism. It is only the ultimate prerequisite for success in the national struggle. What would we say about Garibaldi, Masaryk and Bratiana, about Korfantoy - if they, as our democrats and monarchists do, called the people to the liberation struggle, and at the same time convinced of their love and loyalty to the Austrian, Hungarian or German people, and about the end of a "close alliance" with them?! Probably, both German monarchies would still exist if they had such cultured, non-chauvinistic opponents... "Internationalism - as Mussolini beautifully noted in one of his speeches, is something like love: the need for it is satisfied by two, otherwise it is fruitless onanism" (Benito Mussolini "Discorsi politici" Milano, 1921, p. 24). Actually, our democratic and right-wing... internationalists are engaged in this fruitless occupation. Driven by their love for "fraternal nations", they must seek to satisfy their indivisible passion - les charmes de la solitude... Only new people can become leaders of the national movement. It is ridiculous to say that in order to overcome our nationalism, only a "revision of the program" is needed. Like, find a new recipe and everything will be fine. This recipe has changed enough already. Socialists became Denikinites, Bolshevik pogroms - "Smenovehovs", independents - "federalists", democrats https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 6 /7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite supporters of the "Soviet system", etc. Who and what gained from this? What changed from the fact that they changed their "programs"? Nothing, because what we need are not programs, but characters. And where did they come from among the intelligentsia that stood at the forefront of the movement? - All of them were brought up in the concepts of approx. memories of the "New Rada", when it became clear that liberation will not be brought by struggle, but by "progress" and "knowledge", not by "an eye for an eye", but by "humanitarianism": not revolution, but evolution. These were the people whom the Bolsheviks now call "soft-bodied"; who knew only one reaction to all their patience, to the entire oppression of the nation: fruitless pity and sentimental sympathy, but never active revenge (the poems of some of our poets about the famine in Ukraine, which appeared in in the daily press: images of misery, crying over it and - not a word of protest against that regime, which is the sole cause of hunger!); who believed that major world problems can be solved by "convincing" the enemy; these were those "neither cold nor hot", about whom St. Writings that were too "cultural" to admit that even violence is sometimes moral. Those who grew up on disputes with the Valuyiv decree, on the defense of national rights with arguments from the "famous teacher of Ushinsk", on the propaganda of "Sausage and a glass" and Cossack masquerades, on the poetry of "cherry orchards" , on the social morality of "Uncle Tom's House" and "Die Waffer" Baroness Suttner. These were those who, after the outbreak of the World War, declared their loyalty to the tsar, who - like the leaders of sovereign Ukraine once upon a time - tearfully uttered words of repentance before the German and Bolshevik tribunals. How could they create a spark of protest in the masses that they themselves did not have? Programs... The program was for all these philistines from democracy - "nonsense", it was not the programs that attracted them, but actually the whole mental composition of the small-town pater familias, which was the same for all of them, regardless of party affiliation, which attracted them more than party members the friars shared, which was so far from the gloomy pathos of the great era in which they had to work, and from the enthusiasm of the masses who had to link their fate with them ... From that element, at the head of which they suddenly became - brave, xenophobic, wild and uncompromising and merciless. Could the masses - for a long time - recognize them as their leaders, see in their ideas, which were not fully agreed upon, the brilliant extravaganza of the "last battle" that supports the unceasing will to fight, in their ranks - the unbending will the crowd obey? The crisis of our nationalism is not that the nation is "not matured", not in the defects of the "program", only in the lack of people. Our tragedy was that at the head of the revolted mass were workers with a purely peace-minded mentality, consumed by doubts about the vitality of the nation, incapable of taking risks or of broad gestures, endowed with all the vices and virtues of a convinced philistine and none of those, which are distinguished by those who lead the masses. I am not talking here about the lower strata, nor about some recesses, which we also had; I'm talking about the general tone of our ruling "aristocracy". And among it, it is really difficult to find at least a few striking individuals, or a few original figures, who could, in this respect, be placed, for example, on the same board with such, as if carved from marble, figures like Dzerzhinsky and Lenin, not to mention others The debate about "programs", "coalitions", "concentrations", "orientations" conducted by these people will not lead to anything. These are living corpses that forgot to die. their ghosts should not interfere with the struggle of the living. they can no longer invent ideas for which people would kill other people. Not to create around yourself that exceptional intensity of will that attracts a crowd. The countries need not them, but their "slogans" and "parties", nor their "principles". He needs new characters who know what they want and who would have none of that sentimental-pacifist international-slave mentality of "former people". When they appear in our country (according to Zbruch, there are already quite a few of them), then the "beast of the revolution" is waiting not only for its head, but also for its muzzle. If not, we will be forced to acknowledge the right of the blessed memory of the Kyiv voivode, Mr. Adam Kisel, and stage a new Pereyaslavshchyna with all that follows it. Ukrainian Pages, http:// www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. PING Banner Network SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 7/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… также страницу Dmytro Dontsov Bellua sine capite "Beast without a head", - that's how Kyiv voivode Adam Kysil once dubbed the Cossack nation, hitting the very core of the Ukrainian problem. Each nation has its own pain: the French are ostracized, the Muscovites are condescending and uncivilized, the Germans particularism. Our pain was her - "headless". - a word that so well captured the striking disproportion between the mobile, brave as a beast, the genius of the nation and its chaotic brain, between the mass and its intelligentsia, or as they say now, the "aristocracy". "Lack of leadership", "undefined ideal", "political immaturity" - these are the names of the disease discovered almost three hundred years ago by one of the people who most caused Ukraine to become a "nation without a head". Xia Kyselev's diagnosis comes to mind especially now, during the crisis of our nationalism and the crisis of the democracy on which this nationalism wanted to rely. I am talking here about the crisis of great Ukrainian nationalism, but, of course, this matter also affects Galicians to the same extent. Because, contrary to, perhaps, communis opinio doctorum, the permanent appeasement of the national aspirations of Galicia, Bukovyna and Subcarpathian Ukraine is impossible without solving the case of Kyiv. The story is being proved, and the example of those outstanding Galicians, starting with Sahaidachny, and ending with the workers of 1917-1921, who shifted the center of their activity to greater Ukraine, aware of the fact that they are also serving their closest relatives... crisis So. of Ukrainian nationalism and democracy... That modern democracy is going through difficult times all over the world is evidenced by a number of facts, such as the victory of the "national bloc" in the French elections, and the conservatives in the English elections, the defeat of Wilson** and his politicians in the United States, great the blows suffered by democracy in Russia (Bolshevism!) and in Italy (fascism!), the strengthening of conservative groups in Bavaria, Prussia and Austria and Hungary, where they even managed to seize power (Seipel***, Horti****! ). All these are signs of some serious illness, which the "great principles of 1789" are passing through everywhere, where until recently they were put above all else. Hetmanship, an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt at "hortism", and "Otamanship", an unsuccessful attempt at Napoleonism in our country, showed that the reaction against democracy began in Ukraine. As a legacy of these two attempts, we have left the struggle of two ideologies (the third, I leave the Ukrainian-Soviet one aside here), each of which claims a leading role in Ukrainian nationalism. Speaking vulgarly, they can be called right-wing and left-wing. The first is nationalists and "flour workers" of various colors, the second includes almost all the rest of our "parties", socialist and non-socialist, which create one so-called democratic camp. For both currents, it is now time to sum up the general results of their efforts, the time to "reassess values". This reassessment is not yet very productive, and the fact that everyone speaks in causa sua hides from them the real reason for their current impotence. The reason lies in the fact that neither monarchism nor democracy is adapted to the critical moments, to which ours also belongs, since 1914. The lack of understanding of this fact by our activists, both right and left, led to the failure of the first attempts at national consolidation after the war. Elsewhere, in the most important parts of the Entente (apart from Italy), this consolidation has so far followed a legal path, in the direction of conservative democracy. But the example of these countries is not a miracle for us, what they experienced. As for the regions of the vanquished and some of the destroyed victors, whose situation is to some extent analogous to ours, then the process of strengthening the shaky state authority followed a completely different path there. The most interesting in Russia and Italy. The first - out of all the vanquished, suffered the most as a result of the war, the second - the most affected by it among the winners 1: both were visited by a great economic crisis, both were undermined by the revolution, which was successful in March 17 in Russia, failed in 20 in Italy, during the unsuccessful occupation i workers factories and workshops, so in a situation similar to ours. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 1/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite What forms adopted an authoritarian attitude here? The shock that was supposed to shake the shaky state machine? These forms, very similar to each other, were very interesting. Both Bolshevism and fascism were, first of all, anti-democratic movements. Such was Bolshevism, which began with the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly elected by the entire nation, and ended with the dictatorship of a small, albeit well-organized party. Fascism is like that: the first thing its leader said was to give himself authority until 1924, independent of the mood of the chamber and its trust, and in his eyes, the parliament is "a toy for the people." Both Bolshevism and fascism were, in their beginnings, anti-democratic, but popular movements. Lenin floated uphill on the crest of the revolutionary wave as the chosen one of the masses. Mussolini entered Rome almost against the will of the king, who came to his senses at the last moment. He entered the conquered city not like Denikin at the head of a wordless, forcibly drawn-up army, but at the head of tens of thousands of volunteers who did not become republicans only because the king became a fascist. This was, therefore, a revolutionary movement of the masses, albeit anti-democratic in its ideology. Thirdly, both movements were the movements of an initiative minority that imposed its will on the compatriots. The fascists did not negotiate with the leaders of the political parties in the parliament, they tried only to get the army and the masses. Similarly, the Bolsheviks. Before the October coup, which gave them power, they did not seek an understanding with either the Cadets, the ESRs, or the Mensheviks, they did not make any coalitions: they did not look for a middle line to unite different groups on it. They did it differently. They decided that their plan of action (immediate peace and the wild usurpation of the embassy) most closely corresponded to the wishes of the masses, and they began to translate their program into life, even when the zaks came to power, not caring much whether this program was shared by Milyukov, Kerensky, or Rubanovich. There were rumors that by attracting weak and indecisive elements to yourself, you weaken yourself; that great things can be accomplished only with selected party members, ready for anything, certain of victory. The facts proved them right. In front of the reckless will of these people, who knew how to go to the defined goal without going through the means, all opposition fell silent, all resistance arose. With their insane courage and willingness to put everything on the line, they killed those who did not know that it was a risk and who immediately understood that what was required of them was not conversation, but obedience. I am not promoting either fascism or Bolshevism here: what will end up with one - I don't know that the other ended up with complete bankruptcy, obviously. But I am not talking about their internal politics here, only about the methods of seizing the state apparatus and tightening it (the same task is before us!), and in this regard both fascism and Bolshevism still remain classic examples of how it should be done. The fourth sign of these movements is their uncompromisingness, irreconcilability. This is the secret of their success. Because in revolutionary times, the masses long for an absolute idea, a clear object of their aroused hatred, a legend about the nearness of the final catastrophe of this sinful world, the prospect of an inevitable, final battle. Only such legends support the indomitable mass energy that rushes to the top, ignite the imagination of every rank of the crowd, and not corrected by experience and reason, halved by the water of self-interest, the idea of ​​democratic justice for all. Those whom Marat mockingly called des hommes raisonnables, neutralists who occupy the golden mean between the right and the left, could not attract the masses to themselves, just as the "neutral" part of a magnet does not disturb and attract iron bars. Only its extreme ends do this... The mass understands only absolute, simple and extreme cries and follows only those who shout them. That is why she followed Lenin, not Kerensky, Mussolini, not Fakta***** and Giolitti**, those who showed them: one was a mirage of a socialist paradise, the other was a ghost of ancient Rome. So, the reason for the success of both movements were: their nationalism, their ability to violate the deepest instincts of the masses, their intransigence, militancy. As for the anti-democratic nature of their program (anti-parliamentarism) and tactics (not a coalition, but a coup d'Etat), they did not in the least harm their success, but upon closer examination, they may have helped; after all, their opponents ended up not on the wagon, but under the wagon, past the democratic nature of their program and tactics... What has been said is to indicate the main reasons for the defeat of our nationalism, in both its forms. Our democracy went bankrupt because it was... too democratic and not enough... revolutionary. True, democratic Ukrainianism was a people's movement, the masses carried it on their shoulders. But it was powerless to disturb and stir up the people's element to the bottom; it is powerless to give it a bright goal-legend, not darkened by greedy compromises, equal in its grandeur to the legend of the world revolution, which Moscow brought to us on the bayonets of its mercenaries. Our democracy did not give the masses the image of the "last battle", which - like Shevchenko's immortal poem - would flash with the purple, blood and gold of the fires, fascinating the imagination, rousing the soul to great deeds and sacrifices. She didn't have enough ideas, and those she had were kept in faded yellow-blue tones, indistinct and pale, like the speech of an official speaker at an annual holiday, capable of evoking the admiration of a philistine moved to tears, but not the gloomy enthusiasm of the heroes of "Haydamaki" , not the enthusiasm of one who plays va banque. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 2/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite Moscow supporters found and threw their slogan into the masses. "Death to the bourgeois!" - such was the brutal formula that gave the awakened instincts of the rebellious crowd a terrible disruptive force. What could democratic Ukrainianism oppose to this formula? Also "Death to the Bourgeois"? It tried to do this, but, coming from the bourgeoisie, from the peasantry, it could not give the seven slogans the absolute meaning that the ideologues of the Moscow working class. Secondly, this cry still contradicted "democratic principles". And our democracy respected them above all else. In addition to the fact that it was possible to destroy all the "bourgeois", when some of them were such sincere narodovs, they published "Kievskaya Starina" and wrote Ukrainian brochures about "cattle raids", which created everything that modern Ukrainian Robespiers lived by. are you - They, being the last ones, could throw out the banner of the fight against the "community", as they finally did, encouraged to do so by the masses, unfortunately a little late... But they themselves could not take the initiative to fight against communism and conduct it consistently : that was the faith of the Russian "fraternal" proletariat, that meant making a "counter-revolution"! They could finally give the people a brilliant legend of the struggle for national liberation, which could really tear the broad strata apart. But how? Openly shout: "Away with Moscow!", "Away with foreigners!" - it was carried away by obvious "chauvinism"! Mobilizing the masses against Moscow meant breaking the "united revolutionary front" under Kerensky and breaking the "solidarity of the international proletariat" under Lenin! And in the end, the leaders of Ukrainian democracy, educated at "Grom. Dumtsa", "New Rada" and "Ukr. Life", knew that "democracy is peace!" - that democracy is pacifist, that it is always against "reaction" "! How could she fan the flames of war against "revolutionary" Moscow?! They put forward (they were forced to do so) the cry of independence, but attached real "buts" to it, which darkened the brightness of the slogan and its recruiting power. "Independence, but - ... no matter how much this will lead to a conflict with Moscow democracy... Independence, but..." not separating from the rest of Russia! The Ukrainian people must become masters of their land, but... Bessarabia and Crimea can go wherever they want, and the Jews can create a state within a state! Away with foreigners, but with the exception of France, when it helps us against the Soviets, or with the exception of Russia, when it helps us against France"... Ideas for which it was really not worth living or dying for, even if it was for the Ukrainian . the masses followed democracy, if they were not guided by a lantern in the hands of blind guides, but by that clear star that was visible to these masses... Moscow proclaimed the freedom of the nations "up to the point of secession" from Russia, but at the same time appointed itself the advocate of the revolutionary cause everywhere, even in foreign states. By doing so, she introduced confusion into the attitudes of Little Russian politicians, and earned for herself the title of interfering in the internal affairs of "independent" nations and canceling this independence when the "interests of the proletariat" demanded it. Ukrainian democracy, on the contrary, granted real rights to its borders, and - executed sovereignty even over Ukraine itself. The French and Moscow revolutions destroyed their Vendées and Toulons with fire and sword, the Ukrainian revolution created its own. The Soviets went to their goal, breaking all democratic principles, in the name of which they allegedly overthrew the provisional government, dispersed the Constituent Assembly , brought war instead of peace, overthrew the democratic Center. Radu and U.N.R.... Just like once revolutionary France, which made the people's representative a plaything of a few tyrants, which flooded half of Europe with its armies - and introduced the cult of a new goddess - "Saint Guillotine". The bloody phantom dedicated both Maximyanov Robespere and Vladimir Lenin, a mad utopia, which was destined in both cases to be adjusted in both cases, but without which no revolution, a noise, nodis, is novag. revolution in danger , to open such a nagger on strangers, which Paris opened, sending the "Austrian" Maria Antonet to the sacket, motivating xenophobic intensities W is much more late , in unfavorable circumstances, having broken with the proletarian revolution and the Kremlin. Our democracy could create the cult of a great legend, which alone could be opposed to the ideals of the social revolution, to heat up to whiteness that national "chauvinism", which alone could unite the masses and compete with the intransigence of Soviet ideology, initiate it as a convention. "the politics of the impossible, the theory of ferocious madness, the cult of blind courage" (A. Toequeville. Melanges)... This would be a counter-action equivalent to the action of the Soviets. But democratic Kyiv could not do this without destroying the democratic foundations of the finality of agreement with the "brotherly people". He failed the first fire test because he looked too often at the dead "democratic foundations" and paid too little attention to the only saving revolutionary act. Ukrainian democracy was about loyalty to dogma, not about upheaval, not about revolting the masses with a brilliant delusion of utopia; about a compromise, not about an absolute idea. The Soviets did the opposite and therefore won for once. They won this time also due to the fact that official Ukrainians sang not only about democracy in the program, but also in tactics. The masses did not follow Ukrainian democracy (as it was desired) not only because it did not have a clear program, but also because it did not have a clearly expressed will to translate even this vague program into life. At critical moments, the nation, like a panic-stricken crowd, follows those who show it the way, whose voice does not tremble, whose eyes do not run to the sides in search of help; for the one who knows the way out and has the courage to lead or drive others to it. What does it mean to "lead the masses"? Marshal Foch******** says that this means "to convey to the performers the idea that animates the direction" (la pensee gui anime ladirection). He also answers the question - who can "lead the masses"? - so: "Higher individuality, greedy 50 PM Bellua sine capite of responsibility" (nature superieure, avide de la responsabilite). Our democracy did not find these main prerequisites for the mastery of the crowd. As already mentioned, she lacked above all a clear idea that she could convey to the masses. Secondly, she was not "responsible" at all. On the contrary, everything wanted to throw her over: one party to another, and all together to the "narid". "All power to the Soviets!", "All power to the fascists!" - this was clear to everyone: one party, with a striking, clearly defined face, sought full power for itself, not in the name of the principle of people's justice, but only in the name of the principle - sic volo, sic iubeo! - There was an energy that the masses longed for, who wanted to be led by a strong and certain hand. Our democracy did not show this energy. She always wanted to share her power with someone, but she did not know with whom. "All power to the Soviets!" - this obviously did not suit her. "Constituent Assembly"? - also no, because the anachronism of this slogan became obvious to everyone in those days. So, instead of the initiative minority, they invented the middle again - the "labor congress"; neither a "bourgeois" parliament, nor a "proletarian soviet", "like something, like a night", neither God's candle, nor the devil's poker, an ingenious formula that pushed the bourgeoisie away and did not unite the workers. The masses not only did not feel the clear will to lead them on the mountain, but and they could not clearly imagine what the government would look like. At a time when it was necessary to agitate and command, when everything around was burning and drunken, mad people were looking for help, our democracy issued a summons calling for a meeting on the "current situation". She wanted above all to respect "democratic principles" and that is why she agreed with those who trampled on those principles... In contrast to the great movements mentioned above, the Ukrainian national movement of 1917-21 was not so much a people's revolutionary movement as a democratic one; either an agreement or an uncompromising malgre lui, with the instinct of power, poisoned in the very bud by various "principles" and opportunism. This is where all our failures come from. Our right falls into the other extreme. There is a lot of healthy in it, and in any orderly society it would undoubtedly be a state-building factor (as a good opposition - our democracy), but not in a revolutionary society. When democracy, even if one-sided (only in the social sphere), although often densely only in theory, still recognized that the masses are everything; that it should play a role in historical movements, our monarchists resolutely and fundamentally deny. They do not recognize mass even its destructive function. For them, almost any revolutionary movement of the masses is "banditry" from which (by nature) nothing creative can come out. According to our monarchists, our peasant is the embodiment of conservatism: the conservative monarchical system alone corresponds, they say, to his psychology. Whether it is so or not - this is not considered here, but the monarchists think that their guesses are correct even for the moment we are experiencing, and here they actually fall into the error mentioned above; because the monarchy is just as poorly adapted to the revolutionary era as democracy. Monarchists think that the Ukrainian state will not rise without the monarchy as an organizing unit. Without the monarchy and its support, and "without morally healthy and capable of public work remnants of both the Muscovized and the Sovietized Ukrainian nobility" ("Hlibor. Ukr." Collections II, III, IV st. 14, 18). This, in my opinion, is the main mistake of our monarchists. Because it was precisely the "noble" regime of the tsarist regime against which our peasant revolution began, long before the Moscow revolution, in 1902. Because the Little Russian nobility", although as a deserved one for Ukrainian culture (see the interesting and meaningful article by D. Doroshenko "Notes on the history of 1918 in Ukraine in Khlybor. Ukraine, collections V and VI, Vienna, 1921), after all, remembering some episodes (Mukhanivshchyna!), it did not find itself at the height of the moment and, as a class, could not stand at the head of the national revolution, as its ancestors once did. Our "nobility" did not find in itself the wild energy of the "Russians" - The people of Khmelnytskyi, who were not afraid of the "Zaporozhian scum", who knew how to defend themselves from him and lead him as it should be. The blood of the Nemyrychis, Vyhovskys, Krychevskys and Meshcherskys no longer flowed in the veins of their descendants, exhausted by a long period of personal happiness of the "Old World landlords" ; these descendants, as a class, in the persons of their "leaders" and "countrymen" could at best play the role of valuable cultural workers or even of the liberal front, but not the role of leaders of a revolted nation. They were only the "leading estate", but to become the commanding class, they lacked wealth... Analogies between the 17th and 20th centuries cannot be translated into everything. In the 20th century, a revolution took place in Ukraine, ordinary, bourgeois, but still a revolution, and it is usually organized by those who came out of it, and not by those against whom it was directed. Monarchists themselves are sometimes recognized. They themselves see the tragedy of Ukraine in the fact that "it is not ruled by those who, owning the means of production and having their own power, could rule if they only wanted to and knew how to rule"... In the further explanation, the author finds such a will in the "nobility" ( in my opinion, it is wrong to understand the intense will to power by "will", but as for the skill, he himself thinks that it must be acquired just now (Khlib. Ukr. collection. V and VI st. 73)... Isn't it too late Because this skill is nothing more than the ability to master the revolutionary element, and how will the monarchists do when they do not even allow the thought that something new, something positive could be born from the revolution. For them, the masses throwing the plow for self-immolation were an anarchist factor. And this was the main mistake of the rightists, who did not understand that under certain conditions, "banditry" could become an organizing factor. This will happen when you manage to master it, manage to provide it with a guiding idea, coordinate its chaotic efforts, and direct the revolutionary avalanche to one goal. Cossack movements were once also ordinary "banditry", unsystematic and idealess plundering of coastal cities. Subjected to a general plan and one idea (under Mazepa, and later under Catherine II), the very "bandit movements" resulted in a far-reaching political action: https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor .com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 4/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite conquest of Crimea and control of the Black Sea coast. Yermak's marauding Siberian campaign, caught in the convenient hands of Tsar Ivan, marked the beginning of the Russian empire in Asia. What was the whole chouanerie (peasant uprising of the Vendée during the first republic and consulate)? In its forms, the same jacqueria as our Makhnivshchyna. But a few brave aristocrats, who pinned the Bourbon white lily to its flag, turned the jacquerie into a conscious political movement. Without Collins and de Valera, the Irish uprising would not have differed much from our "otomanship", without the Khmelnytsky Cossacks, the Cossack nation would have truly remained a "headless beast". Great potential possibilities of "bandit" movements are also recognized by our right, but only in the past. They recognize that the task of Ukrainian politics in the 17th century. it was, as Betlend-Gabor said, to do so "so that all the ignorant (Cossacks) would learn to listen to better people and recognize firm laws and principles in war and peace"; they admit that without Khmel, the entire Cossack nation would have remained an anarchist "crowd and pack"; they quote with recognition the same Bethlen, who still calls the Cossacks "brave knights" and praises them for their "courageous decision to achieve freedom or perish" (V. Lipinskyi "Ukraine at a turning point", Vienna, 1920, pp. 150-151), so they recognize a certain positive value according to the "bandit" element, but unfortunately - not according to the modern one! The fact that our monarchists do not want to recognize a certain positive role for the negative revolutionary factor and do not try, like Khmel, to master the revolutionary element and lead it under themselves - this is the reason for the failure of their action. In this, we must also look for the reasons for the unviability of the entire monarchical concept, because what should the monarchy be based on, when the main support of this monarchy - according to the rightists - does not have the capabilities necessary for any ruling class? Older ways of exercising power, which want to apply rights, have survived. It is no longer possible to appeal to the right of rulers to command, nor to the duty of subordinates to listen. You cannot appeal to the pre-revolutionary psychology of the masses, it is deranged. During the revolution, contact between the mass of citizens and the authorities is established in a different way. Here obedience is based on the enthusiasm of the masses for an idea which (they believe) the government is carrying out; and the strength of the latter [is based] not on tradition, but on the tireless energy of the rulers, who, certain of the people's sympathy, are slowly restoring the shaken state apparatus on the old foundations of reckless obedience. Our rights do not want to understand this, and the great leaders of the revolution, all of them Cromwells, Napoleons, Mussolini, Kemals, Monks, Lenins, Khmelnytskyi and Collins, understood this very well... It can be said that none of these leaders, even if they were the same Napoleon did not organize any power; that he picked her up lying on the street, thrown there by a tired and exhausted nation. So, why couldn't we, Ukrainian monarchists, wait until the nation, weakened by differences, sends its Hostomysl to us with a request: "Come and own us"! But the matter is not so simple. First of all, it is not true that Napoleon "picked up" the abandoned power. The "picking up" of this power did not go so easily when the future emperor fell down from his horse on the 18th of Brumaire. In addition, one cannot talk about the fatigue of the nation, which for another fifteen years went around the whole of Europe from Illyria to Holland, from Spain to Moscow, under the imperial eagles. No, the nation followed its savior not out of fatigue, only because he recognized its revolution and organized it; because Dei gratia did not allow the losers to turn; because he created a brilliant Napoleonic legend for the nation, broke it in a great revolutionary upheaval. And indeed, the wars he waged, due to the fact that they confirmed the existence of a new bourgeois France in the midst of feudal Europe, were a revolutionary act, just as he himself was a revolutionary, because if this had not been the case, the royalists would not have sent Cadudal to kill him, and he would not have shot him. he would be the Duke of Engin, thus documenting his kinship with the element that sent the second Bourbon, the sixteenth Louis, to the chaffot. This kinship with the revolutionary element, this courage, passion, energy, brutality, freshness and cynicism of the chosen natures that Napoleon and Khmelnytsky had; everything that perfectly existed alongside a sense of order and a statesman's instinct, and with which they mastered the reveling crowd - this is what our "leaders of the nobility" do not have, and this is their powerlessness. They are right about only one thing. A moment may come when the nation, exhausted by unequal competition, will bow its knees to the one who wants to rule it. But this would not bode well for our rightists! Somewhere, in such cases, a force could be found in the middle of the nation itself that would take over power. In the specific circumstances of Ukrainian life, this force will rather come from outside. Even the restoration of Louis XVIII and Franz Joseph in Hungary in 1849 did not do without the help of the allies in one case, without Moscow's in the other case. In our case, this help would not be only transitional, and in our case, someone else's help would lead to what it led to under Catherine II in Poland, under Bohdan's successors in the hetmanship... No - speculation on the decline of revolutionary energy will not lead to anything. Ukrainian statehood will not be possible without "Makhnivshchyna" and "Zelenivshchyna" in the same way that Khmelnytskyi's statehood was not possible without Huna, Ostryanytsia and Kryvonos, without that wild "pack" that had to be mastered, without bellua sine capite, which only needed a head, Our the democrats were afraid to finally let this "beast" off the chain, playing only on its social, and not (also) national instincts, and in that they thought that the whole thing was to let this beast lead them. This was pure et simle fraud, which could not lead to anything. The monarchists again thought that the "beast" should stop being itself, become a vegetarian; or, like wild animals, to go to the Colosseum even when her jailers needed it, when they let her out of the cage. But for that she was needed first https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 5/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite drive there. This was not an occupation for monarchists. They recognized the importance of the "initiative minority", but the Dei gratia minority, which is psychologically far from the mass, and has too many accounts with it to push it to order with some brilliant delusion, and then bring it under the iron law of order... History knows no other method . Whoever wants to enter which horse must ride with it for a while. In such regions as Ukraine, affected by a major economic crisis and revolution, it is possible to seize power only by the methods I indicated above, revolutionary methods. That is why our nationalism should have taken a different path a long time ago, and not the one pointed out to it by the democrats and the right. Both of them were too big legalists for this tumultuous period that we are passing through: some of them clung to their formulas even in our days of huge changes - they looked for models in regimes that already existed once, somewhere; others did the same, not allowing anything from their Dei gratia... This new path can only be the path of healthy, revolutionary nationalism, which does not count with any formulas, with nobody's rights. Nationalism, which gives the appearance and ideology of social movements to national movements, and the aims and scope of national movements to social movements. In short, we need neither national monarchism nor socialist revolution, only national revolution. This formula excludes the anarchistic nature of democracy and the counter-revolutionary nature of monarchism, which are unsuitable for moments of crisis. Ukraine is going through a protracted political and economic crisis. The Soviet regime is not worthy of evolution, it can only rot. A whole series of foreign interventions in recent years, uprisings, the introduction of the NEP, friction in the ruling Communist Party, in the military, the never-ending conflict between the government and the countryside - these are the signs of the crisis that will most likely lead to the catastrophe of the Russian government in Ukraine. Then we will once again be face to face with a mass movement (we don't know under what conditions) in the Krai, because neither about mental depression nor about the moral demobilization of the Ukrainian countryside - even after the Russian data, it is impossible to talk. Because the revolution against the tsarist-landlord system is over in our country; socialist - has no basis, and the conflict between the village and the city and Ukraine and Moscow continues - a new explosion in the Krai, when it comes, must have a distinctly nationalist character. Our democrats and monarchists, neither with their ideology nor with their psychology, are willing to be the leaders of this movement. Both currents ruling in us cannot develop the banner of this consistent nationalism. In this regard, both of them are agreeable. Both put class above nation and are ready to seek help from Moscow. Some are against "reaction", others are against "revolution". The left still cannot get rid of phrases about "fraternal Russian people", about "solidarity of the working classes of all nations". So is the right. In her opinion, "a close alliance with Moscow" is a task that "stands before us again today" (Khlibor. Ukraine, collections II, III, IV, art. 33 and 167), because even now there are "common interests of Russia and Ukraine" (ibid.), and the Muscovites are "our own brothers, in blood, spirit and culture" (sis!), are a "fraternal nation" (ibid., see collections V and VI, p. 63). It is obvious that people with such a psychology cannot become spokesmen for national liberation in our time... No revolution has ever taken place where great love for one's cause and great hatred for the force that had to be defeated did not go hand in hand. Whoever extinguishes this hatred simultaneously extinguishes love for the cause. (The fundamental aversion of our left and right to "inciting national hatred" best testifies to how their whole psychology is adapted to the old, pre-revolutionary times. In those times, for an action against the enemy, it was only necessary to give an order from the mountain about mobilization : the army had only to obey orders, and it was not necessary to have any special hatred against the enemy. In revolutionary moments, when orders are not obeyed, other incentives are needed for the masses to rebel). And this is not chauvinism at all, just a healthy emotional feeling of every individual or group unit that respects itself and strives to live. Because chauvinism is an exaggerated concept of one's own race and a mockingly contemptuous attitude towards someone else's. Hatred of a foreign nation does not have these elements, so it has nothing to do with chauvinism. It is only the ultimate prerequisite for success in the national struggle. What would we say about Garibaldi, Masaryk and Bratiana, about Korfantoy - if they, as our democrats and monarchists do, called the people to the liberation struggle, and at the same time convinced of their love and loyalty to the Austrian, Hungarian or German people, and about the end of a "close alliance" with them?! Probably, both German monarchies would still exist if they had such cultural, non-chauvinistic opponents... "Internationalism - as Mussolini beautifully noted in one speech, is something like love: the need for it is satisfied by two, otherwise it is fruitless onanism" (Benito Mussolini " Discorsi politici" Milan, 1921 p. 24). Actually, our democratic and right... internationalists are engaged in this fruitless occupation. Driven by their love for "fraternal nations", they must seek to satisfy their indivisible passion - les charmes de la solitude... Only new people can become leaders of the national movement. It is ridiculous to say that in order to overcome our nationalism, only a "revision of the program" is needed. Like, find a new recipe and everything will be fine. This recipe has changed enough already. Socialists became Denikinites, Bolshevik pogroms - "Smenovehovs", independentists - "federalists", democrats https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 6 /7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite by supporters of the "Soviet system", etc. Who and what gained from this? What changed from the fact that they changed their "programs"? Nothing, because what we need are not programs, but characters. And where did they come from among the intelligentsia that stood at the forefront of the movement? - All of them were brought up in the concepts of approx. the memory of the "New Rada", when it became clear that liberation will be brought not by struggle, but by "progress" and "knowledge", not by "an eye for an eye", but by "humanitarianism": not revolution, but evolution. These were the people whom the Bolsheviks now call "soft-bodied"; who knew only one reaction to all their patience, to the entire oppression of the nation: fruitless pity and sentimental sympathy, but never active revenge (the poems of some of our poets about the famine in Ukraine, which appeared in in the daily press: images of misery, crying over it and - not a word of protest against that regime, which is the sole cause of hunger!); who believed that major world problems can be solved by "convincing" the enemy; these were those "neither cold nor hot", about whom St. Writings that were too "cultural" to admit that even violence is sometimes moral. Those who grew up on disputes with the Valuyiv decree, on the defense of national rights with arguments from the "famous teacher of Ushinsk", on the propaganda of "Sausage and a glass" and Cossack masquerades, on the poetry of "cherry orchards", on the social morality of "Uncle Tom's House" and " Die Waffer" by Baroness Suttner. These were those who, after the outbreak of the World War, declared their loyalty to the tsar, who - like the former leaders of sovereign Ukraine - tearfully uttered words of repentance before the German and Bolshevik tribunals. How could they create a spark of protest in the masses that they themselves did not have? Programs... The program was for all these philistines from democracy - "nonsense", it was not the programs that attracted them, but actually the whole mental composition of the small-town pater familias, which was the same for all of them, regardless of party affiliation, which attracted them more than party members the friars shared, which was so far from the gloomy pathos of the great era in which they had to work, and from the enthusiasm of the masses who had to link their fate with them... From that element, at the head of which they suddenly became - brave, xenophobic, wild and uncompromising and merciless. Could the masses - for a long time - recognize them as their leaders, see in their ideas, which were not fully agreed upon, the brilliant extravaganza of the "last battle", which supports the unceasing will to fight, in their ranks - the unbending will to which the crowd obeys? The crisis of our nationalism is not that the nation is "not matured", not in the defects of the "program", only in the lack of people. Our tragedy was that at the head of the revolted mass were workers with a purely peace-minded mentality, consumed by doubts about the vitality of the nation, incapable of taking risks or of broad gestures, endowed with all the vices and virtues of a convinced philistine and none of those , which are distinguished by those who lead the masses. I am not talking here about the lower strata, nor about some recesses, which we also had; I'm talking about the general tone of our ruling "aristocracy". And among it, it is really difficult to find at least a few striking individuals, or a few original figures, who could be placed, for example, on the same board with such, as if carved from marble, figures like Dzerzhinsky and Lenin, not to mention others. The argument about "programs", "coalitions", "concentrations", "orientations" conducted by these people will not lead to anything. These are living corpses that forgot to die. their ghosts should not interfere with the struggle of the living. they can no longer invent ideas for which people would kill other people. Not to create around yourself that exceptional intensity of will that attracts a crowd. The countries need not them, but their "slogans" and "parties", nor their "principles". He needs new characters who know what they want and who would have none of that sentimental-pacifist international-slave mentality of "former people". When they appear in our country (according to Zbruch, there are already quite a few of them), then the "beast of the revolution" is waiting not only for its head, but also for its muzzle. If not, we will be forced to acknowledge the right of the blessed memory of the Kyiv voivode, Mr. Adam Kisel, and again stage a new Pereyaslavshchyna with all that follows it. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html PING Banner Network 7/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Wayback Machine The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060116142609/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/donzo… of the German Security Service for No. 12 of July 4, 1941: Dmytro Dontsov is assumed to be a possible president..." [37] D. Dontsov Nationalism THE BLACK STUDENT FROM TAVRIA FOREWORD TO THE THIRD EDITION INSTEAD OF THE FOREWORD PART ONE UKRAINIAN PROVENCALITY PART TWO CURRENT NATIONALISM PART THREE UKRAINIAN IDEA NOTES TO THE TEXT Philosophical foundations of "Nationalism ” Dontsova He really had claims on undeniable ideological leadership in the Ukrainian nationalist movement, although he did not participate in its practical day-to-day activities. Already after the Second World War, Dmytro Dontsov publishes an article in which he illuminates his view on the ideological genesis of nationalism. "In "Independent Ukraine" we see a new slogan of independence (who didn't wave that slogan until later?), but also a new worldview, a new psychology, thoroughly active and nationalist. The fate of the RUP [38] was the first stage on the crossroads of Ukrainian nationalism. This first attempt to activate Ukrainian nationalist thought was trampled by government nationalism. The second attempt - the Lviv "Zagrava" and the Party of the National Revolution attached to it (1923-1924) was quickly eliminated by the same Zagravas, who en masse went under the banner of UNDO39 in order to dissolve politically and ideologically there. "Vistnikvstvo" after the first war, in connection with which, but completely separately from it, a nationalist organization appeared, remained isolated. Fragmentation began in the organization, similar to the fragmentation in the RUP in 1903-04, nationalist thought began to be polluted by the addition of Dragomanov and Hrushev regions (Onatskyi, Marganets); the organization of "creative nationalism" (FNE [40] - Paliiva-Ivaneika) appeared, which had nothing to do with nationalism; with the outbreak of the war there was a split in the organization, finally after the 2nd war, in emigration, under the influence of the victory of the USSR and the contact of Galicians with the Bolshivized elements of Kyiv Ukraine, there was an attempt to completely erase the nationalist idea and replace it with national socialism, or a vague faceless "democracy ". [41] He considers his "evangelists" as a separate political current, although in reality it was not such, since the "evangelists" themselves mostly belonged to the OUN, or were in one way or another connected with it. There were also those who were not involved in political activities at all. Remarks about the "democratization" of the OUN during the war, when the nationalists from Galicia faced the problem of the deployment of a nationwide armed struggle, also attract attention. The Organization can raise a whole nation to fight, but the whole nation cannot become a member of the Organization. Stepan Bandera understood this contradiction, but Dmytro Dontsov did not come to terms with the current propaganda of the OUN in the "native lands", not distinguishing it from the ideological platform of Ukrainian nationalism. Until his death on March 30, 1973, Dontsov remained uncomfortable and irreconcilable. His figure is indeed full of contradictions, and it is long overdue to give it a true light, determining its proper place in the history of Ukrainian aesthetic and socio-political thought of the 20th century. This need is expressed by many researchers, such as, for example, Olena Bachynska: "Over the past 70 years, this name has endured extremely opposite evaluations: from direct insult to great respect. A "bourgeois nationalist" was tried and persecuted for remembering his ideas without an appendix. However, all those who neglected his name wanted to forget the ideas https://web.archive.org/web/20060116142609/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor /donzow_nationalism.htm 1/1 11/28/23, 3:50 PM web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html The Wayback Machine - https:// web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Украинские страницы история национального движимость Украины The cowardice of some, the stupidity of others and the insignificance of others will surely lead the world to an unprecedented catastrophe. When the body does not fight the disease, it eats it up; when nations are unwilling to fight evil, evil attacks them. And when the devil's kingdom falls due to this catastrophe, when life will have to be rebuilt on the ruins, we will face the task of what content to put into the framework of our statehood? What should the new Ukraine be like? What truth should she bear? This question should be asked now. Even in exile - as was the case during the years of war in Ukraine itself - this question must be answered; especially when encountering Ukrainians from the eastern regions. The nationalists, who in 1941 saw for the first time the Ukraine that was under Russia, too soon fell under the influence not of the Ukrainian reality, but of the one created in Ukraine by Moscow. The Ukrainian reality, broken in the years of uprisings and war, slandered by the Bundyuchny zayman, broken, wounded, remained in the souls of millions who did not accept the Moscow "truth" in their hearts. But on the surface there was actually this "truth" of Moscow, which - willingly or unwillingly - was recognized by the terrorist elements or perekinchiki. This fact confused some Western nationalists, who unwittingly fell under the influence of this foreign truth, passed off as their own. What is strange? When even Yu. Lypa ("Destiny of the Nation") considered collective farms to be manifestations of the ancient Ukrainian mentality! It so happened that the same collective farms, that is, the "ideal" of the new lordship, and Bolshevik atheism (in the form of some religious indifference), and the spirit of materialism, and the ideas of all kinds of "unions," and many other things, invaded, as if elements of Ukrainian mentalities - in some nationalist statements and publications. The arguments were as follows: the Bolsheviks shaped the brain of the nation in their own way for thirty years, it is now impossible to approach the "Orientals" with completely foreign ideas, they must be gradually prepared for them, it is impossible to put forward a program that would sharply oppose Bolshevism to the very opposite; not everything can be nurtured in the current reality in Ukraine, etc. Is this "LINE" correct? We have two terrible examples in history, when the power of order in Ukraine fell under the influence of someone else's reality in Ukraine, neglecting the true reality hidden in the souls of the people - and fatally atoned for it. The last example is the Germans in Ukraine in 1941-44. The Bolshevik-Moscow reality of that time was swept off the surface by the war, waveringly existed only due to inertia. And the Germans accepted it as the real reality, neglecting the second, violent and strong one, which wanted to explode, brazenly breaking through the upper shell, breaking the bonds of a foreign, disgusting reality. Ukrainian soldiers threw down their weapons en masse, not wanting to defend a foreign empire, waiting for the declaration of political independence of their country. But the Germans bet on "one indivisible". Peasants spontaneously rushed to divide state farms and collective farms, or were just waiting for permission to start it. But it was more profitable for the Germans (they thought) to leave that lordship. A broad insurgent action began in Ukraine, the Germans turned it against themselves. A mass return to the church and religion began, but the Germans barely tolerated it, ignoring the factor of enormous weight, which could play a very important role in the fight against godless Moscow. Instead of placing a bet on invisible to them, but actually existing in the people's soul, the own truth of the country they came to, the Germans placed a bet on the self-evident reality, on the reality planted by a foreigner, and dug their own grave in Ukraine. The Ukrainian element turned both against them and against the old enemy. The second example, more remote, is the example of our demo-socialist intelligentsia, which after the fall of the tsar in 1917, fate put the helm in Ukraine. The element of national explosion with unprecedented force in that memorable year. It was aggressive and militant in terms of tactics, independent in terms of impulses, the purpose of the movement, unrestrained and hostile to the Zayds and the empire. This was revealed at various congresses - peasant, military, etc., it was revealed later in the so-called "Otamania", which should not be underestimated and which, according to the testimony of the Moscow-Bolshevik historians themselves, was a formidable independent force in Ukraine, which overwhelmed even Bolshevik expansion into (then communist) Hungary and the Balkans. Instead of formalizing that element organizationally and ideologically, our intelligentsia, under the strong influence of Russian political categories, began to pour cold water on the red-hot iron of popular anger. It turned out that the empire should not be demolished, but supported even with weapons and the blood of Ukrainian soldiers. It turned out that there was no need to separate from the empire either. It was not necessary to win Ukraine's freedom by military force, everything could be settled peacefully in the St. Petersburg offices. The socialist leaders convinced the people that "fanatic exclusivity" should be avoided, that one should not give in to the feeling of hatred towards the peasants; taught that "there can be no question of a national difference between Ukraine and Russia"; that it is necessary to reject the "demagogic slogan of independence"; that the revolution cannot be demanded "in an exciting, spontaneous way"; they never thought, "what's wrong with us will have to earn their rights." https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html 1/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM web. archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html Democrats and socialists - according to their own accounts - "believed immediately, without hesitation" in the pure heart of Russian democracy, thought that the revolution could be to do "in an organized way, without excluding fratricidal differences between the Ukrainian and Russian democracies, without explosions, without "chauvinism", "militarism", and "fanaticism". Leaders of the two most influential parties in Ukraine at the time, social. democrats and social revolutionaries, already in the early 1929s, admitted: "we were not conciliators (accommodators) in essence, and our softness helped to create objective conditions for conciliation." They admitted that "we, Ukrainian social democrats, emptied Marxism", believed only "in the objective course of events, accepted from Marxism only what that course of events could give us regardless of our will". They themselves appointed themselves as believing only in the "mechanical development of social relations, not having a burning, courageous desire" to destroy the world hostile to them. Therefore, others did not believe that they were coming to Ukraine to destroy it and conquer it. It is obvious that with such a psyche, "emptied of all masculine instincts, of all ardent aspirations to realize one's goal or ideal, with petty-bourgeois aversion to struggle, with fear of detaching from the imperial apron of "Mother Russia", these leaders could not accept the one they of the long-forgotten, national truth that erupted in Ukraine at that time with a raging fire. They wanted to put out that fire, but the enemy with whom they sought "agreements" did not follow it, but simply jumped down their throats. It was necessary to defend life. And then it just started the intelligentsia to organize a struggle for independence, even yesterday considering that independence as unnecessary and harmful, just like that struggle. Obviously, the results could not be brilliant, because the moment had passed when it was necessary to forge the iron while it was hot. The national element slipped out of socialist hands - democratic departure. Something similar to Fedkovych's lung happened to that intelligentsia: "The poor lung fell by Dovbushev's grave and complained that he had no fate. There was a rumble and rustling in the grave, and a voice was heard from it: "Fate, boy? You will be king! And the world will worship you, like the sun in a ray." And he fell to his knees in fear, pleading: "Father, I don't want to! I won't be a king! I didn't pretend to be an executioner" - "Then you will be Dovbush" rang out from under the grave, so that the mountains were terrified. - "Me, Dovbushem?! Never in the world," - replied the thigh. - "So you will be my kobzar!" - shouted in the third from the pit, like thunder. The revolution tore the lid off the home of Ukraine, from it "thumped and rattled" and suddenly resurrected our ancient historical truth, the truth of a people independent and free from no one. The intelligentsia was frightened by the voice of this truth. Even the Dovbush insurgent element was frightened, because to be a ruler or a warrior - it meant, in the thoughts of a peaceful lung, to be an executioner, or as they say now, a "predator"! Then fate left the last possibility - to be a mourner over a grave, a lyre, to whom passers-by throw something into a propped cap. Events did force that intelligentsia, she was most inclined to play tricks, to play the role of a ruler and lead the Dovbushs into battle, but she had neither the heart of a ruler nor a Dovbush heart. She could not courageously, without greedy "buts", lead a great explosion of the national spirit both programmatically and organizationally. The brain of that intelligentsia was too crossed someone else's truth, the truth of degenerate Moscow liberalism, which was taken for granted, neglecting the ancient wisdom of its own country. Now, if not exactly this, then something similar may happen again. Both in 1917 and 1941, the one who wanted to win the game in Ukraine lost because he was too "compromising" with the surface reality created there by someone else's hand, and neglected the half-forgotten, swept off the surface by someone else's hand, the age-old traditional Ukrainian the truth They lost the game because they were afraid to oppose the existing Moscow truth to a completely separate, completely opposite ancient truth of our land, the Germans were afraid to put the Ukrainians in such a way. the case against Russia, as delivered the Italian case against Austria in his time Napoleon I, and then his late Louis-Napoleon. Even then, the Ukrainian demo-socialist leadership appealed to Ukrainian "chauvinism", "militarism" and "fanaticism", as the best moment was missed. So that this does not happen again! That is why we must now proclaim our ancient truth to everyone, without entering into any compromises with the Bolshevik "achievements", and extract from the ground the traditions of the old and eternal Ukraine, the traditions of our eternal city on the Dnieper, hidden there. For which Ukraine? For a Ukraine free from the embrace of the Moscow octopus, free from all Moscow, Ukraine on the ruins of the ugly empire and the Zakhlanii people. For Ukraine, freed from the scourge of totalitarianism, Soviet and socialist, which is now paving its triumphal path to the whole world. For a Ukraine free from the tyrant state, free from the collective farm lordship. Not for a pacifist Ukraine that puts peace in slavery above all else, but for a Ukraine in which the old warlike spirit of a nation that would put its truth and God's justice above life and well-being would live on. And most importantly, on the flag of that Ukraine, for which we must fight, which we must explain to everyone, should not be a petty idea of ​​the passing time - socialism or another "cracy", but our ancient idea, the idea of ​​our nation - the idea of ​​Christian culture. The idea of ​​an active, believing, militant Christianity and its defenders, who in the coming great crisis will clearly stand on the side of the Christian idea against all the overt and secret forces that have vowed to drown the idea of ​​Christ in the mire of materialism and introduce slavery and darkness into the world. With Christ against the devil and his servants, no matter what nation they belong to! There is no compromise with the kingdom of evil and its ideas, because the devil will not be driven out by Beelzebub, and not neutral agreeable people will follow the new world after the flood. Only a sharp, vivid idea, completely opposite to Bolshevism, can unite the nation. Not for the Ukraine of this or that "cracy", not for Ukraine, the filth of this or that "chosen nation" that, under the cloak of some "progressive" idea, will besiege our land with the locusts of its adherents. Only for the Ukraine of the ancient princely Kyiv. Ukraine of Khmelnytskyi and Mazepa, Polubotka and Shevchenko. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM web.archive.org/web/ 20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html None other than Shevchenko wrote that "when we mock the holy traditions of antiquity, what will become of us? Some Frenchman or lame German will emerge, and from type, or so to speak, there will be no memory of the national face. And in my opinion, a nation without its own, only characteristic features inherent to it, is simply like some jelly, and a very tasteless jelly at that"... So wrote Shevchenko, and it is clear that he meant not the traditions of the Moscow koshara, but the great traditions of our Cossack past - a free, militant and heroic nation and a free man in it. One of Stalin's loyalists once wrote that the USSR is not only five letters, but five fiery signs", and that for these signs of the devil, he is ready to take a gun at any minute and go to kill. This fanaticism of the devil's servants must be opposed by an even greater fanaticism, an even greater combative spirit of the soldiers of Christ, the defenders of the faith, the nation against the barbarians from the East. Now, when stupidity, meanness and cowardice seem to embrace the state over the whole world, the task of Ukraine is a hundred times more difficult than ever before. It must be fulfilled or perish, because having tasted freedom, it will not return to slavery. At the head of this struggle should be appropriate people - not drugged by poison from the east, only believers in the mission of Ukraine, whose greatness of character would be equal to the greatness of the age we live in. The process of maturation asserted in this article the Ukrainian camp press in Germany confirms the emigration of the new "Moscophiles". In the "Ukrainian Tribune" we read (2.12.48) that the current Ukrainian youth under the Soviets in the last ten years before the war went through the process of the decline of national consciousness and the growth of Soviet patriotism. On the other hand, the article claims that the meeting with the "Orientalists" led "to a huge change in the ideological positions of our nationalists"... This is what I only stated: this Muscophilic spirit with which Moscow, in the form of Soviet patriotism, infected our young generation, some Western nationalists adopted the Ukrainian spirit and changed their ideological positions. This is the new "modern Muscophilism", with which we must wage the same relentless struggle as with the Muscophilism nurtured in our intelligentsia by the tsar from the middle of the 19th century until the First World War. March 1949 Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM WHAT IS THE POWER OF ORGANIZATION The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160130/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Dmitry Dontsov's page WHAT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE ORGANIZATION? The essence of the entire political crisis of our days is the crisis of the leading class. Compare the figures of the former leaders and the current ones! Pitt, Cavour, Joseph Chamberlain, Metternich, or Clemenceau represented a completely different temperament, morality, and spiritual strength, and Errio, Blum, Schumann, Lasky, and hundreds of others who can be seen in the headlines today. When we take Ukraine, the leading figures of the time of Khmelnytskyi, Mazepa, or Polubotko will appear to us as unattainable giants, compared to those small figures who led Ukraine during the Great Revolution and, in most cases, are leading it now. The new leading class in the countries of Europe, which the events pushed to the top after the first war, was characterized primarily by a lack of vision, a far-reaching idea. And that just in the day that sought fundamental, courageous decisions, a clear and bright idea. All this was opposed by the new "elite" - the slogan of "ant's work", ordinary Latina, replacing political wisdom with its surrogate - coolness. Their tactics were the tactics of postponing fundamental decisions "for tomorrow", avoiding inevitable conflicts, blindfolding the future, fearing a broad gesture. This was the tactic of the "maloros" who was, as they say, "albeit stupid and cunning" (I would say: though cunning, but stupid). It was the policy of "the malice of the day", the flattery of the masses, the policy of demagogic pacifism, which turned a blind eye to inevitable confrontations; the same kind of socialism that wanted to build its utopia at least at the cost of defeating or enslaving its nation. The consequences of the rule of such "elites" were catastrophic - both in Europe and in our country. In our country, it led to the promotion of pacifism - on the eve and during the protracted armed confrontation with the Muscovite region, to the suppression of national heroism branded as "chauvinism" and to the overshadowing of the bright idea of ​​independence by the promotion of the indissolubility of coexistence with the "Russian people, brothers in blood and spirit", to moral and intellectual disarmament of the nation and - finally - to the loss of the struggle that began in 1917 and which the elite, against their own will and convictions, was forced to lead - having neither passion, nor desire, nor ideas for it. Thirty years have passed since those tragic times, but the general type of "national leaders" of that time has remained the same. They ridicule a big bright idea as "narrow doctrinaire", heroism - as "adventurism" (if not "banditry"), and the worst kind of complacency is praised as political "realism". To beg small and quiet Ukraine from the powerful of this world, or to screw it out - was their slogan... The psyche of this enlightened elite was once very well outlined by Yu. Lypa, even before he himself succumbed to it. In one old poem, he wrote about "beggars on the road begging for alms": "I will lead the nation to the crossroads, I will sway over it, I will play on the lyre. Maybe other peoples with their power will be surprised by such a fervent faith. They will say: - that is a polite child, good , Sings songs, does not rebel, Will not be restrained to do something evil. /23, 3:50 PM WHAT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE ORGANIZATION? It falls to praise these children and statehood to give. - Let hope shine for us, Even if without a date. It is not necessary, by God, it is not necessary For it to rebel, to kill! ...Oh , it's hard, brother, to take the Sword! How to make a war like this without a fire! How to make a nation carefully, quietly, Feed it with books in a cozy chicken coop And bring it into the world ready, without a fight, Having outwitted everyone? No, don't quarrel. Don't get angry savagery, stomping and scrounging with foreign agents. No, make everyone president." Such was the "belief" of this "elite"! We had plenty of such an elite in 1917-1920 in Ukraine, in particular in 1922-1939 in Galicia. It is full of it even now: those Mohicans of the socialist Vinnytsia region and Galician "Undivism", both in Europe and in America and Canada. These are those "beggars" for "almsgiving" who build their "unions not with an eye on Ukrainian heroic forces, but with contempt for those forces and hope for the favor of "other nations with their own power". They are not - as before war - they want to throw out from society all non-beggar elements who believe in the idea and are ready to fight for it. But the most terrible disease of that "elite" is not even the "ideology" of roadside beggars, but its very composition, selection, education. Mind, heart, the morals of the former European (however, our Old Kyiv and Cossack) elite were formed in special institutions, in Eton, Oxford, in the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. The spirit and ethics of the current "elite" are not formed anywhere. The moral qualities or character of its members - the modern "elite" doesn't give a damn. All this stands for her loyalty to the party cabal. It was not the noble and wise who reached her, but the cool, "flexible-necked" unprincipled people. The interests of the party cabal were placed above the interests of the party. That was enough " the "elite" of the Pharisees, intriguers, or "activists" who considered the party bribe or the people's money to be their own pocket; full of those "cunning and stupid" Little Russians from the breed of "realists" and political patchwork... Thus, the "elite" was harmful to its own people, but not terrible to the enemy. Those of its members who were not witty could easily be deceived. It was easy to intimidate those who were naturally cowardly. It was easy to buy those that were stolen. And that procedure was facilitated by the fact that such an "elite" did not know the principles of internal discipline and did not know the punishment for crimes and "mistakes", although hundreds and thousands of people who naively believed in that "elite" fell victim to those "mistakes". It all has to end! "Beggars by the road" or those whom Shevchenko called "informers and Pharisees" dare not lead the nation. The basis for the creation of the elite should be - as in the old days - requirements of a moral nature. Honest, wise, brave, noble and characteristic people can only lead the nation to victory, not to shame and decay. Konstantin Ostrozky also wrote: "It is worthy to be created by the worthy, and by the honest, it is usually accomplished through worthy people - worthy things are done." The good of these "honest", "worthy and dignified" is the secret of the strength of any organization. SEPTEMBER 1948 https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160130/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_vchim.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM WHAT IS THE STRENGTH OF ORGANIZATION Украинские Страницы , http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160130/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_vchim.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Dmitriy Dontsova V. LENIN Each of the great people had their predecessors who heralded their near arrival. Lenin also had his forerunner. He was Dostoevsky. True, he hated Lenin without even knowing him, but he knew that he would come, and very soon. Because he was actually thinking about Lenin and no one else when he promised to tell us in "Demons" about "that vile slave, that smelly and licentious lackey, who is the first to climb the ladder with scissors in his hands and tear the divine face of the great ideal in him "I equality, envy and... digestion." In these few words - the whole essence of Leninism. With its official program - "equality", with its driving force "envy", with its true goal - the appeasement of the lowest instincts of the crowd ("digestion"), with its psychology of a rebellious slave. And it is no coincidence that one of the official poets, who was commissioned to write an ode to the death of the Bolshevik pope, called him "the leader of the insurgent slaves." This revolt of the slaves was born from "resentment", from pessimism, despair, from a feeling of envy, physical and spiritual cripples, which are thrown out by the thousands by our social system. This was the rebellion of those whom Nietzsche called ehrgeizige schwitzende Plebejer, who wanted to put everything into action so that their values ​​were a mountain. Their philosophy began with "mercy" to all victims, from the identification of the criminal with the "unfortunate", and ended with: - "I also respect crooks" by Luka Horkivskyi; on: "it's a shame to beat the good" of L. Andreev, or "it's a shame to break moral principles and not have syphilis" (Vynnychenko), when the masses bathe in the depths of debauchery, - and finally on the work of Yesenin, for whom "the best supporters of Bolshevik poetry were prostitutes and bandits"...* (footnote See Nov. Rus. Book, Part 5, 1922, Berlin). Everything that was considered strong, majestic and beautiful until now should be put into action. Everything that is still worthless and despised should be elevated to the meaning of new moral values. To mix everything poetic with the swamp and to poeticize prostitution and banditry, this is the goal of the Bolsheviks. "Confession of a hooligan" became their gospel, "the country of the ungodly" (the names of Yesenin's poems) - the promised land. The only thing that was missing was the theory. They needed someone to justify their instincts; it was necessary to find that scapegoat who could be blamed for all their wrongs, it was necessary - finally - to find that Evil, in comparison with which their world was Good. Actually, this theory was given by Lenin. He called all peasants "bourgeoisie", including working people, when they had only clean hands and did not know shameful swear words. He called everyone on the dole - the "proletariat", including professional idlers, convicts and prostitutes, the whole of Bakuninsk "a great common people's idleness". He called their struggle a "social revolution", and the "country of the poor" - the kingdom of freedom and justice. Such was Lenin's theory, and he who wants to apply European socialist categories to it will never understand the Bolshevik revolution. In the head of this fanatic, who was born somewhere in the Simbirsk region, in close proximity to the former Khanate of Kazan, on the border with Asia, the categories of Marxism took on a completely different appearance than in the head of his European "colleagues". There was as great a difference between them as between Louis XIV and Peter I, as between Cardinal Richelieu and Grishka Rasputin, as between the monarchy of Nicholas II and his cousin George V, between Cromwell and Stenka Razin. The basis of all his works was Dostoevsky's "equality". What was Russian-Leninist equality? In order not to be accused of "chauvinism", I will answer D. Merezhkovsky: this Bolshevik equality is "the will to simplify, the metaphysical will to wildness", to equalize everything. This is how L. Tolstoy taught, this is how V. Lenin taught. "Here is a stone lying on top of another stone, wildly - this is good; but here is a stone laid on top of another stone - this is not so good; and here is a stone with a stone molded together with iron or cement - this is completely bad: something is being built here: it is the same as - a palace , a barracks, a prison, a customs house, a den, a whorehouse, an academy; all that is built is evil, or https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/ donzow_doncle7.html 1/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN at least a very dubious good." The first Tolstoy's and Lenin's thought on the appearance of everything that even slightly rises above the general level is to "simplify it, lower it, smooth it out, break it down, destroy it so that not a single stone remains and everything is again - wild, simple, flat, smooth, clean." ** (Collection "Kingdom of the Antichrist", Munich, 1922, st. 1923.) Hence Lenin's intransigence, his uncompromisingness, or, as it was said in Bolshevik circles, "hard rock". The one who strives to level everything to the ground cannot negotiate with anyone who still rises - wealth or talent above the dream ideal of equality. "We thought Russia was a home, writes M-kyi, no, a tent! The nomad set up the tent and folded it again and went further into the steppe. The bare, flat steppe is the homeland of the Scythians-nomads. What does not turn black, does not loom in the steppe, does not rise even a little speck, - everything will be leveled, lowered, burned, trampled by the Scythian horde. The will to breadth, equal, naked, to physical flatness, to metaphysical equality - this is the old Scythian will - the same in Arakcheev, Bakunin, Pugachev, Razin, Lenin, Tolstoy. They leveled, ironed out Russia - they will iron out Europe - they will iron out the whole world." This is what Lenin's "equality" is! What rises above the horror? - Church towers? - "Down with" the church! Monuments thing? Pull them off the pedestal! Palaces? - destroy them! Boundary pillars? - cut down! Hierarchy, cancel? - terminations violate equality, "doloy" terminations: epaulettes are torn off for elders, furs for "bourgeois", "khokhlams" are trimmed with herrings, like the beards of boyars two hundred years ago. The intelligentsia rises above the crowd - "down with" the intelligentsia! Everything is one size fits all, everything is on the same hoof! ***(Lenin's organic inability to respect other people's personal or collective rights is best characterized by his attitude to the "right to self-determination" of Ukraine. In his letter to the workers and peasants of Ukraine on the occasion of the victory over Denikin from December 1919, we read that our national cause , this is "the question of whether Ukraine should be a separate and independent Ukrainian socialist Soviet federal republic, or whether Ukraine should merge with Russia into a single Soviet republic." Russia, or to leave Ukraine as an independent and independent republic, and in the latter case - what kind of federal connection will be established between Ukraine and Russia." In other words: the independence of Ukraine without a federal connection with Russia was for him something that does not exist in nature. To understand this view, one must know how Lenin understood the idea of ​​national self-determination. Even more than 20 years ago, he wrote: "But the unconditional recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not at all oblige us to support every desire for national self-determination. Soc. D-ia, as the party of the proletariat, sets as its positive and main task the self-determination not of peoples and nations, but of the proletariat in each nationality. We must subordinate the demand for national self-determination to the interests of the sei (class) struggle itself. In fact, our attitude to the national question differs from the bourgeois-democratic one" (Iskra, ch. 44, 1903). Lenin remained faithful to his ideas until the end. That is why Prof. S. Dnistrianskyi is not right (" New State", Prague, 23), when he says that "the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions adopted the idea of ​​self-determination of peoples" (Article 8). In contrast to the Ukrainian revolution, the Russian revolution - as can be seen from Lenin's comments - did not adopt this slogan, even if in a declarative form). He called all enemies of his nullifying ideal forces "bourgeoisie" or "bourgeois superstitions". Such "superstition" is the state, which in the communist system is condemned to die. The "superstition" was the entire "bourgeois" economy. The factory as well could do without a patron, like a state without a king. What he liked most about Marx's theory of value was that it dealt only with the categories of quantity and time, ignoring quality. He was most interested in the fact that Marx recognized only material numbers, and not intellectual differences; mass, not a wire; physical, not conditional work - as factors in the creation of value. Freedom of private initiative? - but this will lead to the exaltation of the most capable over multi-headed mediocrity. Therefore, private initiative and private property are also declared bourgeois superstitions. Long live the "community" and the "black redistribution". And, Lenin was also a Darwinist, but in the Kazan-Russian way: for him, the struggle for life was not about the survival of the fittest, but about their extermination. "Prejudice" was also "bourgeois philosophy". Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Mach, Poincaré - for Lenin, they are only good servants of the bourgeoisie, their doctrines do not make sense. They are invented only to keep the proletariat in slavery. Kant's Ding in sich, something that is beyond our cognitive abilities, is an absurdity for Lenin. For him, it does not matter whether metaphysics is possible or not, only whether it will harm the "interests of the proletariat." For the ideologist of Bolshevism, Kantianism is something like a "bourgeois center", that is, like "cadets" or something. Scientific intelligence prof. Lenin qualifies Khvolson against Haeckl as a "black-and-white pamphlet." Even epistemology was evaluated by him as a measure of his leveling ideal. He never liked philosophy, nor philosophers, as people who rise above the crowd with their intellect and dominate it ideologically; which with their markings only confuse things, laid out with exhaustive clarity in Marx's "Capital". That is why, when in his mature age, forced by the attacks of his opponents, he took up this accursed science, he did it only to excommunicate almost all the "inquisitive" from St. proletarian church. At seven https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 2/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN barbarians had something from that caliph who ordered to burn the library of Alexandria, saying: when it contains what is in the Koran - it is superfluous, when there is something else - it is unnecessary. Any hierarchy - spiritual, economic, political, must be abolished in the name of this amazing theory of "equality", which its creator wanted to call it the European name of socialism for some reason. "In the name of equality and envy"... Envy was the second member of Lenin's formula, the driving force of the movement. And indeed, what is particularly impressive in the ideology of Leninism is a kind of suffocating air of low revenge and Schadenfreude of the loser, which the theory is imbued with. Nothing free and majestic: no genius wit, no free movement of a man who takes what is rightfully his. The general tone of Bolshevism is the tone of Smerdyakov, who "washes himself" over his "master". This Lyokai "Ozorskaya" tone can also be heard in Bolshevik poetry, in all these Klyuyevs and Yesenins, who make a revolution "to the accordion of a foamy foamy clique": who "pull out the tongue of the bourgeois world with a comet", who "spit from their mouths the body of Christ" and "God's they pull out their beards": not the uprising of a free man who was offended in his right, aware of his dignity, but a drunken riot of a ruffian. The same trait can be seen in the massacre with which Robespierre dealt with his opponents in 1793 in Paris and Lenin in Russia: there the trial of the king, here - the strangulation of him like a rat. There - a guillotine in the square, here - a bullet in the back of the head in a dark cellar, there - in public with the applause of the crowd, here under the roar of a heavy truck, so that no one heard. Not in the name of perceived right, which is not ashamed of daylight, only "in the name of envy", which takes revenge for its worthlessness, does not believe in tomorrow and tries to erase the traces of blood on its hands. Like all those revolutionaries whom Lenin resisted, with "traces of isolated courage and anemia" - as one historian of the Russian revolution characterizes them - Lenin, also thrown out of society, felt nothing but vengeful hatred and envious malice towards it. In him there was neither the idealism of Fourier, nor the sense of high mission of Robespierre or Danton, nothing but the cult of malice and envy, these true springs of Leninism. "Everywhere and in everything - writes Tun - they defended the opposite past: you are deceivers, we will be cynics. You are the most polite towards those higher than you, - we will be rude to everyone. You hang around without respect, we will step on your feet without apologizing." This courageous desire of a loser to "salt" someone "to cause damage" to someone higher than himself, to bathe him in his swamp, - only this aspiration, devoid of any other higher ethical motives, but conceived in the grandiose scope of a great revolution - these were the driving forces that caused to the life of the Bolshevik Faust, and which he could not get rid of even later. Next to this "equality" is the second feature of Lenin's genius, which so distinguishes him from the great revolutionaries of the West, and the Russian revolution from the English, American, French or Italian revolution. "And digestion," concludes Dostoevsky. In the last moment there is also one of the essential differences between the Leninist and French revolutions. The ideological predecessors of 1789, Biffon, Voltaire, Motesquier, believed that man is basically uncorrupted, good and wise. It can be animated by great foundations, and revolutionaries must appeal to them. Lenin proceeded from a completely opposite premise. If Burtsev is to be believed, a well-known Bolshevik, member of the Duma (and a provocateur at the same time) - Malinovsky revealed to Leninov something from his past, which did not lack pages of a purely criminal nature. Lenin interrupted him, saying that "for the Bolsheviks, such things have no importance." As he himself admitted, he gathered "all sorts of rubbish" into his entourage, if only she swore by Marx's "Capital" and knew how to "work". Lenin also "picked" his agents abroad on the same basis. He appealed not to the best, but only to the most primitive, to the worst sides of man, forming his army of revolution, playing on satisfying his most primitive needs. To the question of which is higher: buckwheat porridge or the Sistine Madonna, Pisarev answered that it is porridge. Tolstoy agreed with him, Lenin agreed with Tolstoy. For him, the material benefit of the masses was above all absolute values, above all principles - axioms. Families, homeland, religion, personal honor - whoever takes them for God is dangerous to the masses, because he puts something above them and their primitive desires. And every religion, that is including the Bolshevik one, forbids building "another idol besides me". Lenin also forbade it. Because the destructive work of Bolshevism could continue only as long as the masses did not know any other moral commandment, except "rob, rob"; as long as the interests of "digestion" were at the forefront of their minds. For that, God became his painting, communion - breakfast, love - sensual desire, sexual appetite, the national flag - a rag, a sense of dignity - banditry. All moral principles were rejected, only panus and coitus remained. The rest of the idols are dragged into the swamp: in the name of equality, envy and digestion. He differed from Dostoevsky's "lykay" in only one respect: he was a politician in the full sense of the word. He had the interests of the masses above all else, but he firmly knew that a rebellion would not be enough to satisfy these interests if he did not have a clear political goal. "Loot the loot" - this was the first point of his program, but the second was: seizing the political helm in the state. In this way, he differed from numerous kings of the jacqueries (and - let's add by ear - from many Ukrainian social reformers). For them, economic reform (whoever implemented it) was everything. Lenin - tried "by any means and absolutely nothing" to prevent the idea from arising (in the masses) that the most important thing is "economic reform" and not the seizure of political power ("What are they doing?"). With his ability to combine social and political goals into one, to embrace the various revolutionary energies of the people with one political opinion - he was truly incomparable. But besides that, the material well-being of the masses, in the most vulgar sense of the word, was also his ideal, before which all others perished and disappeared. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 3/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN The French Revolution rejected the Catholic God , but introduced the cult of the "Supreme Being" (his priest was Max Robespierre), Lenin - he made God into one of the characters of the puppet theater, and his place was not replaced by anything. In 1848, when an angry crowd of proletarians broke into the Tuileries, they did not move any of the palace jewels, even if one of those brilliant objects would have provided bread for a lifetime to each of the workers. No imagination can imagine such a scene in Lenin's revolution. During the September mass murders of aristocrats in Paris, their jewels were deposited in the committee: no one dared to combine the duties of executioner and thief. In Lenin's revolution, the latter was the motive of the former. In order to better see the death of the "tyrants", the Parisian revolutionaries gave the front seats to their "ladies". The Russian revolution destroyed the word "lady", replacing it with "comrade", something close to a professional revolutionary and a professional prostitute in Yesenin's opinion. Almost every great man had his God, his moral axiom, which stood above the mass, above the earthly needs of the individual. Cromwell and Gustavus Adolphus - their Bible, Socrates - their "daimon", Wallenstein and Napoleon their destiny, their "star". For Lenin, buckwheat dominated all appointments, demons, gods. He knew only his Marx, who reduced the whole problem of the revival of bad humanity to the meaning of a purely acorn, and socialism - to the meaning of the problem of the largest number... "The leader of the rebelling slave", that's how he was, and that's how he went down to earth. They tell me: this is a caricature of grandfather Lenin! Caricature of the October Revolution! It led to the downfall of the rotten regime, to the appropriation of peasants, etc.! No, the tsar was overthrown by the March Revolution, and the appropriation of the peasants came without Lenin's will. Dostoevsky gave a good definition of the Bolshevik rebellion, and I only substituted valid real values ​​in its algebraic form. But how could this "rebellion of slaves" succeed even for a short time? - Very easy. He succeeded precisely because the noble aristocracy, the ruling class, had lost the instinct of domination, and the bourgeoisie, the greenhouse plant of the government, had not yet acquired this instinct. Gogol also complained about the "endless disputes" accepted in Russia; to the fact that there were no generally accepted axioms. His observations have remained true to this day. In the psychology of the Russian bourgeoisie, it was not only "shameful to be good", but also rich! And Proudhon's view, "property is theft" was widespread not only among the proletariat. What is surprising, then, that Lenin's experience could succeed? The revolution wins mainly because of the weakness of resistance. And this weakness was seen by the same author of "Demons" when he wrote: "Everyone will fall long ago and everyone knows for a long time that there is nothing to hold on to. That is why I am convinced of the success of this mysterious propaganda, that Russia is now the main place where everything what you want can happen without the slightest resistance." But how could he go to order over the revolution, over the March revolution, which overthrew the tsar and established the republic? - Actually, this is where the semi-barbaric Russian element came to his aid. As for her, Herzen also predicted that the Russian revolution would not stop halfway. D. Merezhkovsky also wrote about this in 1907: "When all the historical forms of our state and church life will be rejected, then such a void will open in the political and religious consciousness of the people that will not be filled by any existing forms of European statehood... What next? Leap into the unknown, fly with your heels to the mountain. The Russian revolution is as absolute as autocracy. Its conscious, empirical continuation is socialism, its unconscious-mystical extension is anarchy"... Therefore, not the bourgeoisie, not socialism, but anarchy is destined to win the upper hand in the Russian revolution. It is not surprising that her prophet triumphed both over the rotten Tsar and over the political hysteric Kerensky. Lenin was the one who (he alone!) among uncertain opponents and undecided friends understood what the chained beast wanted and broke out to be its leash. He gave his rebels a clear theory and a simple goal, his simple, unshakable and complete opinion, with the red-hot iron of his words he drew in the minds of the "Spartans" such a seductive and bloody scene of a terrible judgment for them, his scattered hatreds - focused on one point, their dark instincts advanced noble goals, popularized the methods of achieving them, finally gave the entire Bolshevik movement that gloomy, purely religious pathos, without which neither this nor any other social movement has ever won. In seven respects he was truly great and only the envious can deny his genius in seven respects. We will learn to see this genius even more when we consider that he had to complete his work almost by himself. Because history put him in a truly tragic position: he took over power at a time when the ruling clique had already rotted, and like a ripe vegetable fell under the knife of the revolution, but he had to stand at the head of the strata, which, although alone capable of revolution, were not yet matured to replace the old aristocracy sent to the shafot. Life soon forced Lenin to the conviction that Trotsky also came to (in his last book - "Questions of the Bat"): that the Russian "proletariat is very poor in history and tradition", that it is "lowly literate and poorly cultured". He knew how to destroy the old, but not to build something new. And least of all the utopia that Lenin dreamed of. Every utopia has its own dictator and pope. Lenin became - in one person the dictator and the pope of Bolshevism. The anarchy that Bolshevism had disentangled with its slogans could only be crushed by the hand of a dictator, and Lenin did not retreat before the last consequences of his "theory". Like any fanatic (and he certainly was), he was ready https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 4/6 11/28/ 23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN cast his faith on mistrust. He always had an aversion to the "sweet socialism" of the Mensheviks. V. Chernov in "The Will of Russia" quotes one of his sayings: "Man's birth is connected with the act that makes a woman a tortured, tortured, maddened with pain, bloody piece of meat. This must be remembered when thinking about old - pregnant with a new system - society". And Lenin remembered millet! True, he often confused a surgeon's lancet with a butcher's knife, but these were already nuances that were difficult to understand for the straightforward logic of the creator of Bolshevism. And it must be admitted that precisely with this courage to put an entire nation on the operating table, with the courage to take responsibility for everything, and also with an unbridled lust for power and domination, he defeated all his opponents: Cadets, Mensheviks, socialist revolutionaries and - Ukrainians who did not manage to turn their idea into something equivalent to Bolshevism: neither by its brightness, nor by its exclusivity, nor by its absoluteness. He was a typical dictator, a "man of purpose". And that's a long time ago. In seven respects, he was a typical intellectual who rebuilds the world according to a scheme invented in his office. Intellectual Procrustes. He long ago called those politicians who were skeptical about the possibility of "pulling the movement (of the masses) from the path defined by encirclement" as "fools" (Iskra, part 12, 1901). Even in his first writings (especially in "What to do?"), he always defended the idea that nature errs, that it needs "experienced helmsmen", that "a dozen intelligent people are worth more than a hundred fools". This last statement - he writes, addressing his opponents - "I will defend him, no matter how much you harass me in the crowd for my "anti-democracy". Even more, this Marxist insists that in revolutionary work "the energy is not only of a circle, but even of an individual units can do wonders. Social democracy arose "independently of the spontaneous growth of the labor movement" only "as a result of the development of thought in the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." Therefore, the only way out for the proletariat is to submit to the creative socialist intelligentsia, because "the spontaneous development of the labor movement leads rather to its submission to bourgeois ideology", to pure, apolitical trade unionism. He was - like Dostoevsky's reformer - "convinced that our people will now accept everything that we point out to them, that is, in essence, what we command them. Our common men have remained completely landlords in relation to their people, even "At the 2nd congress of the RSDLP, he strongly spoke out for strict centralism in the party, for a "state of siege" against dissidents: "We need external carnality, because we do not have internal carnality." The former dictator of Russia transferred these principles from the party to the entire nation. Thus, from the deification of the mass, he came to the apotheosis of the unit, a hero that Carlyle could have envied him, and to the glorification of that intelligence ordonnatrice, which was praised by the "papist", "monarchist" and "reactionary" - Joseph de Metre. Only that he understood the role of this "commanding intelligentsia" in his own, Russian way. And that's why - as the Russians themselves claim - "in no country has there ever been such a number of spies and even such a number of executioners (as in Russia). These two positions are two whales on which the Russian state dictatorship rests" ("Kingdom of the Antichrist", Art. D. Filosofov) The reader may ask: how can such contradictions exist in the soul of one and the same person: a demophile and a dictator, striving to make the whole of humanity happy, all the oppressed - with cynical contempt for the crowd? - These are the secrets of the psyche of a person born in Europe, but only a few layers away from Asia, the secrets of Russian culture, where every patriot was a "landlord" at heart. L. Trotsky rightly said that "Lenin's internationalism needs no recommendation, but at the same time Lenin himself is deeply national" (Bolshevik, January 26, 1924). As Shigalov in "Devils" he could say about himself: "I got confused in my own data, my findings are completely contradictory to the assumptions from which I came out. Starting from unlimited freedom, I end up with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that contrary to my resolution of the social formula there can be no other." Did he at least achieve his goal with this heroic means? - It was successful, but not his, but the goal for which history chose this person. Ex nixilo nixil, the Romans said. He thought that he would be able to make ex nihilo nihilism with the meager material of the Russian revolution: to jump into his "kingdom of freedom" in one fell swoop. But the seventh genius of destruction lacked a positive concept. After all, this is a typical Russian trait. Turgenev also spoke about her in "Fathers and Children", comparing Moskal to those Russian painters who "regarded Raphael as almost a fool, because, they say, he was an authority, and they themselves were powerless and barren to the point of disgust, and in their imaginations further" Girls near the well "doesn't reach, no matter what"! The same thing happened to Lenin: he also considered all Raphaels to be fools. Not to mention the "bourgeoisie", even all European leaders of the proletariat were "social traitors" and "social idiots" for him. He destroyed all the authorities, but when the time of "creation" came, everything ended with useless plagiarism: a Feldfebli state in the spirit of Nicholas I, an agrarian reform in the spirit of P. Stolypin, and a caricature of capitalism - the NEP. It ended - in his own words, "the adaptation of the great revolutionary science to the ruling bourgeoisie." ("State and Revolution"). Other strata, not the schwitzende Plebejer, whose ideologist was Lenin, used the revolution for themselves, which they also did, although they did not lead in it. This was mainly the peasantry. Together with him, all those values ​​that were cursed by the Kremlin syllabus came out victorious: the principles of social hierarchy, personal initiative, religion, national feeling, to which Lenin himself had to appeal. "Envy" - died out after saturation, "equality" - seemed unattainable, the interests of "digestion" - gave way to the highest absolute ideal values ​​so despised by him. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 5/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN The sovereignty of the number - seemed inapplicable even in the land of "unlimited opportunities". It was replaced by old laws: historical burden and selection. Objectively, history chose Lenin to fulfill two tasks. The first was: the elimination of the bankrupt caste that ruled Russia, and which had already killed the instinct of domination, not being able to fulfill elementary tasks: neither to keep the peace nor to wage war. The second such task was to turn Russia away from the European path on which Peter I introduced it, and which in its logical consequences should have led to the collapse of the empire. * (In his "Critical Observations on the National Question" (Prosveshcheniye, ch. 10-12, 1913) Lenin wrote: "The national cause is ahead, the proletarian one is later, say bourgeois nationalists and Mr. Yurkevich, Dontsov, etc. p. The proletarian cause is ahead of everything, we say, because it ensures not only the permanent and fundamental interests of labor and the interests of mankind, but also the interests of democracy, and without democracy neither an autonomous nor an independent Ukraine is possible." These words raise the question of whether Lenin's the dictatorship, as well as the October Revolution in general, were not a tumultuous attempt to contain the collapse of the empire, to which the democratization of Russia that had begun would lead with iron extremity?) To destroy the tsars and save the empire from disintegration, such were the tasks of the waves of Russian politics. And therefore, against his will, mocking the bourgeois revolutionaries who were limited only to political-peasant revolutions, Lenin became the leader of this particular revolution, because the socialist revolution did not succeed. And therefore, laughing at the "elements", appealing to the "conscious proletariat", taking his theory from the West (from Marx) and dreaming of a world revolution - he ended up organizing a Eurasian rebellion against Europe. He succeeded in his first business. The second is still not resolved. The Russian "troika", which Gogol mentioned, is rushing, although not with such fury, further in its unforgiving run, trampling tribes and nations along the way. And although other peoples deviate in front of "the troika, which rushes to the broken neck, but this may not be out of respect for her, but simply out of horror... Or maybe out of disgust for her." And the time is not far off when these peoples "will stop deviating, but will become a solid wall in front of a flying dream and will themselves stop the mad rush of our debauchery in order to save themselves, culture and civilization." It seems that the time prophesied by Dostoevsky is already approaching, and that the days of the Comintern are already numbered. The state created by Lenin, instead of fanning the world fire, must prevent the favors of the Western banker and the Ukrainian "curcula". Speaking about his task, Napoleon said: "An unknown force drives me to some unknown goal. Until it is reached, I remain steadfast and untouchable. But as soon as it no longer needs me, a fly will appear to knock me over." The same can be said about Lenin. As long as the forces of the old tsarist-noble aristocracy lived and were active, while the empire of the tsars was torn apart, the Kremlin paralytic lived and did his thing. When this danger passed for the moment, nature did not want to leave him alive, even half-mad. In his interesting book about the Pope, the Catholic writer I have already mentioned says: "It has long been noted that revolutions are usually started by sane people and end by madmen." Lenin did not want to cede this "end" to someone else, and therefore he had to personally prove the truth of the rule just mentioned. The curse of our history is that we could not oppose the seventh collection of unquenchable fanaticism, unyielding energy and a purely pontifical sense of our own infallibility - we could not oppose anything equivalent. But history will record in its annals someday that when Lenin died in Moscow, Ukraine was the grave of Leninism. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html PING Banner Network 6/6 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Dmitriy Dontsov TO THE OLD GODS They are resurrected only where there are graves (Nur wo die Graber sind, gibt es Auferstehungen) F. Nietzsche The moral crisis of our intelligentsia will be the bane of the day for Ukrainian public life for a long time. Looking for its reasons is not the topic of this article. Here, on the occasion of the student congress, I would like to draw the attention of the growing generation to a single thing that, in my opinion, is now needed by those young people who have the opportunity to learn. To warn her not to follow in the footsteps of the previous, mentally ill and soul-sick generation, which, having grown up in the dark dungeon of slavery, tries in vain to recognize the true path with blinded eyes. At first, it was seen in a possible understanding, some with "happy Austria", others with Russian statehood, then in a united revolutionary front, finally in a world revolution, that is, concepts that, under the guise of universalism, took as their national ideal - the ideal of a foreign people. Some limited the flight of their imaginations to Xiang on one side, Zbruch on the other. Others - with a wide range of opinions - did not want to leave even a scrap of our land outside the borders of... Russia. Our intelligentsia bowed down to these foreign or false gods, and in their name destroyed each other, like the Roman gladiators, and how the same gladiators, even after receiving the death sentence, did not forget to send to their master: "Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant", as this was done by our pilgrims to Moscow, or those who paid their "gold" to the capital of Vistula - even in Riga. People of this generation moved apathetically through the historical arena, "bez pragnen jutra, bez wspomnien wczora", as one Polish poet said. And most importantly, without "memories of yesterday", without those memories of the deeds of parents that rejuvenate the soul like old wine, without a moral connection with them, without traditions. This is what I want to draw attention to. No nation that wants to live on traditions dares to forget. Especially the one that is reborn to a new life. Because Nietzsche truly said that resurrection is only possible where there are graves; that you can breathe a living soul only into an already ready, albeit waveringly frozen organism, that only the one who had yesterday has tomorrow; that only a nation with tradition can rise. Elsewhere, that tradition was respected. In England, she was in all public and social life. The memories of "old England" and the "glorious revolution" of 1688 live with all Britons, and one of the most important arguments with which the English working class fought the doctrine of Bolshevism was that this doctrine "did not correspond to the traditions" of their country. Republican France continues more than one work of its kings, and among the defenders of the idea of ​​traditionalism there are such names as Tain, Balzac, Bourget, Vaugiet, Morras. New Poland again vacillates between the old traditions of 1613 and 1667. And even in Russia, this typically traditionless (because uncultured) country, the current order, hostile to democracy and Europe, is a traditional continuation of the old one, and Lenin's statist ideology with its bureaucracy and connection of personal and social initiative, - useless plagiarism of the tsar and its apologists - Leontiyev, Danilevsky, Tyutchev, Ukhtomsky. By studying these authors, by studying the policy of the tsar, we will understand Bolshevism rather than flipping the cards of the "Communist Manifesto", just as a Frenchman who studied the era of Richelieu will better understand the task of his country's national policy than the one read by the debilitating pacifist sermons of Jaures; just as an Englishman would sooner understand the tasks of the continental politics of his island by reviewing the history of Cromwell or the Pitts than by delving into the works of Wales, Bellamy, and other utopian maniacs. Similarly, when we want to orientate ourselves in the goals of Polish politics, we prefer to read the monuments of the 17th-18th centuries as modern journalism, approx. Prof. Baudouin de Courtenay. A nation is something more than those who want to make its history today. This is a great community of those who live and those who lived. The latter are far more numerous than the former and not all are more stupid than them. They did not disappear forever from our lives. Coming from the historical arena, they bequeathed to their children and grandchildren their views, ideas and goals, which are usually not realized by one generation. Fighting and dying for the national ideal, as they understood it, they, the dead, left to their descendants a large number of dreams, impulses, competitions, memories of glory and dooms of revenge, a huge force of the once active national energy, which could only be felt, but stubbornly pushed forward to realization the national goal, a whole symphony of ideas in which the sensitive ear will find its meaning; a number of detached hints from which a thinking politician will derive the ideal of the nation, like a mathematician from signs incomprehensible to a layman - the solution to the problem is clear to all. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 1/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS Based on specific facts, and above all from the unchanging geographical circumstances, daily interests of the nation, these great dead, although intuitively, often accurately guessed the essence of the national ideal, weaving a thread of tradition: anti-Turkish among the Balkan Slavs, anti-Russian or anti-German among the Poles, anti-European among the Muscovites. To catch this thread of tradition that our ancestors began to weave, to assimilate their experience, condensed in traditions and customs, and on this basis to find the formula of the national ideal - this is the task that fate set before our intelligentsia five years ago, but to solve we are still waiting for this task; because it is difficult to find another country where the nation is more attached to its tradition, and the intelligentsia is less. The latter probably had no more respect for these traditions than for the Holy Sepulcher, which was guarded by the Sultan's soldiers. We did not write about national holidays in any other way than as a reference, and the prevailing socialist doctrine considered any argumentation from history to be an evil tone. What could be common, it seemed to them, between St. Volodymyr and - insurance of workers against accidents? Between the "Word about Igor's regiment" and the socialization of land? Between Gonta and - "cultural and national autonomy"? Between the blue and yellow flag - and "the first of May"? Such doubts crept into the timid soul of the Ukrainian intellectual, and since he respected Shevchenko after all, he began, upon coming to power, to resolve the quadrature of the circle, that is, to catch what could not be caught. It had to come out, it means a fiasco or a farce. Because when the Directory, to which we owe the Bolshevik declaration, began its era with a national prayer on Sophia Square, it was a farce, it was Offenbachism. When the hetman, paying tribute to the times, called his first prime minister "chief of ministers", this was also a caricature, only in the other direction. It was a caricature to sing "She's not dead yet" and wave a red handkerchief, just as it was a farce to call the regiments in which "Soviet deputies" were introduced by the names of the old hetmans. And to blame the "socialization" of the land on a peasant who buried a caught horse thief alive in the ground for violating his private property was something more: it was already driven away by the psychology of Gogol's Popryshchyn, when he began to date his notes on March 35. There was less of this farce in Galicia, where the "shadows of forgotten ancestors" still hovered over the living, but its tradition was one-sided, glorifying Khmelnytskyi not only for how he began, but also for how he ended; that she only knew about his campaign against Lviv and the alliance with the tsar, but did not want to know about his later agreement with Sweden - this prelude to the Mazepy region, which, unfortunately, due to the death of the old hetman, did not reach the end. The end of the seventh confusion of concepts is not foreseen yet, and the reason for it lies precisely in the fact that even on the political stage there must be harmony between the text and the music. Our ancestors observed this harmony. When Ivan Mazepa generously endowed our churches, it was not a lie, just like his call to fight for "our Ukraine of Little Russia". But the Directory of St. Sofia is a fake. To liberate one's homeland with "International" on one's lips is a lie. To make the great singer Zaliznyak a communist is profanation, and to match Shevchenko's Haydamaks with the melody of the workers' Marseillaise is simply cacophony. While composing it, we forgot that every great historical action must have an ideology that follows from its very essence. That is why our intelligentsia could not create this ideology, which sought its beginnings not where they were: not in the national tradition inscribed in us. The Czechs were leading their new liberation movement from Žižka and Hus. The Poles from 1832 and 1863, the French could only develop admirable zeal in the last war because each of them could not get over the disgrace from 1871, dreaming of revenge. The story goes that during the Franco-Prussian war, when the dynasty had already fallen, Thiers was not surprised when asked who the Germans were still fighting, and Bismarck answered: "With Louis XIV." - He knew that republican and tsarist France both lived by the traditions of this king, as well as the fact that they had to be destroyed when Germany wanted to emerge victorious in the war. In England, the mobilization of 1914 succeeded so brilliantly because everyone there knew what it was about; the traditions of the struggle against Holland, Spain and Napoleon suited each Briton, and he had to do in view of the excessive growth of the new rival Germany. Actually, thanks to the power of its tradition, England could be certain, as in the time of Nelson, that at the right time everyone fulfills his duty. Why could the United States put an end to Wilson's hospitality in Europe so soon? Only thanks to entrenched traditions, which in the form of the Monroe doctrine sat firmly in every Yankee, not allowing him to sacrifice the interests of the land to the whims of a cabinet scientist. In Lviv, I repeat, even though it is a one-sided tradition, the statue of Y. Sobinsky on the Hetman ramparts is still alive there, and it is the same living history as Louis XIV was for Bismarck. But in Greater Ukraine, almost no one thought that the heroes who fell under the Circles, laid down their heads in the struggle against Peter I and Catherine II... They wanted to replace these dictates of the past with abstract "universal human ideas" and thus destroyed the nation. Because when we argue our right to the land not by the fact that our parents sat on it, but only by the right of "who works on it" (a significant socialist slogan!), then we open the way to it for the rights of the nation. Because when we argue for the right to "own house" not by the fact that we got it from our parents, but by the right of our contemporaries to "self-determination", then we will hardly be able to unlock other people's claims to the northern Chernihiv Oblast or to the Kholm Oblast. Because if we want to bring the rules of politics for the nation into harmony only with abstract ideas of justice ("do not kill" and other principles of international pacifism), then instead of a nation we will have a sectarian community that does not care where it lives, that is not tied to any territory and which, like the German colonists-Mennonites, whose faith does not allow them to use weapons, feels equally good both at home and on Ukrainian walls that are foreign to her. Such sectarians, for whom their own law was higher than the laws of their grandfathers, are on the best way to betray their nation, as did the French Huguenots who fought against their country in the ranks of the Protestant armies, or our "internationalists". On the contrary, the nation can hold its own only then, when it draws the rules of its life not from sectarian commandments, but from concepts and ideas that arose in the endless struggle of generations for the preservation of the ancestral land and family. Only where this last commandment is placed above all other principles of "law" and "justice" will a nation rise. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 2/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS A nation is what opposes itself geographically, historically and politically to its neighbors. And that is why these latter actually tried to destroy in us the notion of our geographical isolation (Little Russia, Lesser Poland), memories of our own historical past, of our own political contests narrated by our grandfathers. Because when we are deprived of this, when the knots that bind us to the past are tied, the differences between us and our neighbors are erased; when our territory is their territory, our history is their history, we descend to the role of American immigrants, people with a tradition forgotten across the ocean, people from whom equal "citizens" of a new, acquired homeland can rise, but never a nation with its own political contests ; a "national minority" similar to the Jewish one may rise up, which differs from the ruling people only in faith, language and customs, but not a nation aware of its petty state-political struggles. Because in order to ensure the forces of rights (faith, etc.), the nation does not need no own territory, nor a state - does not need to be a nation. What's more! Unable to do without traditions, nations that destroy their own assimilate others. This is actually the case with American immigrants, loyal citizens of the United States. This is also the case with other "internationalists" who become loyal citizens of Russia. When the Russians take the families of those shot in Ukrainian towns to Siberia, so that the memory of the execution does not reach their descendants, when they systematically starve and depopulate Zaporizhzhia, the strongest center of protest against foreign power, they know what they are doing. They also know what they are doing when they begin to derive the nation's right to life from the principles of abstract justice, which can (unlike age-old traditions!) be "interpreted" one way today, another way tomorrow. In the same way, when on this side of Zbruch they try to drive a wedge between the nation and its intelligentsia, they do it only in order to take away from the masses the memory of their past, the memory that lives in the educated stratum of the nation and on which it can alone grasp its rights nation. Our friends understand the meaning of tradition better than we do, leaving us to believe in "universal" ideas of "eternal justice." And even when our fighters for the nation discover universal human principles and are guided only by the interests of the nation, it is no better when they rely only on the power of their own dialectic, neglecting the dialectic of our ancestors, who, I repeat, were not all stupider than us. The same thing happens to them then, as to the Protestants who comment on St. Scripture is as one wants, and they do not accept it (like Catholics!) as a tradition handed down, preserved and interpreted by the Church. As a result - there is one strong community of believers, here - as many heads, as many minds. How much of this political Protestantism has developed among us due to ignorance and neglect of our own tradition! We didn't care for her either now or before. Did we have historians who were engaged in this? Did the Kostomars, the sworn defender of the fatal Pereyaslav error, cherish those traditions? Or Kulish, this deep, underappreciated, but deranged mind who, although he had a statesman's instinct, did not believe in the strength of his own people and wrote brilliant novels to prove that Ukraine was not mature enough to live independently? Or maybe the last, most well-known of our living historians, who saw our national traditions not in the princes and not in those masses who are now fighting for independence, but only in the "Tatar" and "Moscow people" who destroyed our state in the XIII and XX centuries? What tradition could they bring up in us? And those who could do this, revealing to us the national ideals of the people, like Lazarevsky, Yefrimenkova, Lypinsky (I am not talking about his political works), who among our intelligentsia read them? Bismarck destroyed the "sun king" of the French, because he was a whole political program for France, and what was Mazepa for us? Dead name! In pre-revolutionary times, Ukrainian patriots gathered for Shevchenko's illegal commemoration, but did any circle go around mourning the sad memory of the day of the Poltava pogrom? Even when the Russians, like Bismarck Thiera, tried to convince us that by closing "Prosvit" they were fighting Mazepinism (which was the holy truth), our intelligentsia protested against the "unworthy slanders." Our aversion to the traditions promoted by the masses was so great that we could not even use the heroic struggle of the Kholm Uniates against Orthodoxy, so that the Poles took away one of the bright sides of our history. The Muscovites took away the tradition of the Pochaiv Mother of God, about which our nation created wonderful legends, making it a tool of their agitation in Galicia. Everything that smacked of national tradition, all large, mass urges to independence, were tainted in us as "Polonophilism" (Mazepinshchyna!), as "bourgeois riots" (anti-Bolshevik uprising), all attempts to create a national ideology were tainted as chauvinism. Any desire to close the chasm between the two remnants of the nation and to create a true, based on the traditions of the Sobornytsk ideology, which does not know concessions in either direction - was destroyed, and is still being destroyed, by the criminal hand of foreign mercenaries. Under the poisonous breath of our public opinion, only currents and moods of sentimental Ukrainophilism, impotent opposition, "self-sacrifice of Little Russianness" and Sanozbruchan particularism could flourish. And even now, when, fortunately, the threads of the interrupted tradition are re-imposed in constant competitions, they want to re-thread it in our country, causing the so-called Kriegshetzer's and singing an old song about brotherly nations. Yes, and they, opponents of our tradition, also tear up old graves, but not for what Jesus opened the window of Lazarus's house, only like hyenas, to destroy what still spares time. Under such circumstances, where was our intelligentsia to look for memories that would serve as a guide in its struggle? What could be used to warm hearts falling from despair? Where was the enthusiasm with which the fighters of Verdun, or the German volunteers, laid down their lives on the altar of their native land? A handful of dedicated madmen, whose names will be pronounced with their heads uncovered, were also found in us, but what can we say about the mass of the intelligentsia, which still vacillates between the Zaporozhian herring and Marx's "Capital", between the native land and the "socialist fatherland", between Kyiv and Moscow, between "Deal" and "Prykarpatska Ruse"? She, this mass, has not yet found her God, and I want to warn the younger generation against her unbelief. Let it, taking from its exhausted hands the flag of the struggle for the liberation of the nation, respect more, get to know this nation more, believe in it more. Let him call on the shadows of his great ancestors "for advice", as Shevchenko did in a moment of inspiration, let him delve into their history, let him try to grasp from their deeds an idea that may have been half-consciously enlightened by them, such as the idea of ​​state control of the Black Sea coast and Crimea, which probably appeared to the Cossacks when they sacked the coastal Turkish towns, or as the idea of ​​a great rampart from the Baltic to the mouth of the Dnieper, which appeared https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor /donzow_dostaryh.html 3/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS Khmelevi, who made a pact with Charles X, or Mazepi, imposed it with Carpus XII. Let our youth study the "tales of the bygone years", and maybe they will understand more clearly what an absurdity for our nation, what a denial of its most vital interests, are attempts to give our politics only a national or social, and not a state character. Maybe sooner will get an answer to the damned question - where to go. Reviewing the old history, she would have seen that the idea of ​​Ukrainian independence existed in the political consciousness of almost all European states, that active involvement in the Ukrainian cause emphasized its connection with one of the most important ideas of European politicians, the ideology of political balance. She would have learned that the political goals of our closest neighbors, including their expansion into Ukraine, were dictated by their strategic and geographical position, and not by the form of government. She would see that nations rise up and live not by pacifism, but by war, that the nation's will to live mocks itself due to the lack of "natural boundaries" and the so-called "historical limitations." If this generation of ours had rummaged through the old tomes more, it would have spared itself many unnecessary humiliations in front of its neighbors and a childish belief in the constant change of the regime and the puritanical shyness of entering into an alliance with "Entente imperialism" or with "Prussian reaction" and suddenly, as if in a handkerchief, tossing from one orientation to another, would save the endless swaying between enthusiasm and prostration, between the great and the ridiculous, between heroism and excess. I'm talking about history. It is no less worth delving into ethnographic and sociological research on our people in order to understand its soul, to better guess the lines of our internal and external policy. The Muscovites had their own genius that, illuminating the soul of a Russian peasant as if with X-ray rays, revealed his worldview to us. This was Hleb Uspensky. We have not yet waited for someone who would introduce us to the secrets of peasant philosophy. Brilliant tests by Stefanyk, a few hints by Cheremshina, Kotsyubynskyi and Franko, that's all. But even more so, we have raw material in various ethnographic collections and in the mouths of the people, who in these terrible four years enriched their life experience and philosophy with more than one new wisdom, laconicism of form and precision of expression, and most importantly, the maxim that it will get ahead of the by more than one party wisdom of our intelligentsia. If the latter wanted to learn more about the village and its social and political ideals from the first sources, and not from the works of Bakunin and Marx, she would have saved herself not one lick, not one or two compromises and would not need to mourn now, crushing the trouble with a mine , the ruin of their demagogic endeavors, as the French Jacobins mourned her on the 18th of Brumaire. What is said here about history and folk philosophy can also be said about national culture and the Church. If we really knew about the traditions of our Church, one of our most prominent socialist politicians would not have expressed his surprise "that red Moscow can tolerate (sic!) the head of the Church such a monarchist as Patriarch Tikhon" (see "Thunder. V." ch. 89), because our free Church has never known such slavish dependence on the state, which the mentioned socialist praises... because we did not have such slavish concepts about the relationship of the Church to the state... With this wavering, we must to finish everything, we have to choose: either "Saint Sophia", or "religion is an opium for the people", or our native land, or - the proletariat that "does not know the homeland"; or one's own state, or - a "socialist fatherland" that does not destroy borders; or Mazepa or Kochubei; or Khmelnytskyi or Kysil; or "society" or nationalism; or renunciation of an independent political idea, or own statehood; or Dragomanov, or national independence; or endless looking back at the principles of "humanity" and "justice", or reckless march forward; or as if it is internationalism, which is only a cover for someone else's nationalism, hostile to us in essence and form, or our own national ideology. The nation, its past and present in the manifestation of its will, thoughts and feelings must become the subject of research of the growing generation, when it wants to feel and understand the collective ideal of the nation, when it wants to reach the end of the road, on which the previous generations have stepped, lighting the way for us. Let at least that part of the youth, to whom whimsical fate allows, take up this difficult, this burdensome work of studying the national tradition, the thread of which a bunch of irresponsible maniacs who do not see Kyiv beyond Lviv, or those who are hypnotized like a dreamer, want to interrupt in vain place, brilliant Moscow baths. Let him learn to dig up great graves of treasures, more clearly set goals and methods of their realization than in the penny pamphlets of the March egalitarians. Maybe then we will finally stop being a headless nation. Maybe then the gap between the national ideal and the people who have to implement it will disappear. Maybe then the titanic efforts of the people will cease to be a powerless struggle and will acquire their clear form and purpose. Maybe then that disproportion between the genius of the nation and its brain, which has always been the bane of our history, will finally disappear. And one should not be afraid to bear the slander of reaction. Because only the new is lasting, which is firmly rooted in the old. It was not the new that Robespierre or Babeuf wanted to introduce with their utopias that won out of the French Revolution, but the old that was transferred to Napoleon's new code. This seems to me to be the task of our younger intelligentsia abroad. It is easier for her to do this, because she met her destiny in the chaos of struggle, and not in submission; because in her memory there are no memories of dozens of years of shame, which bind the soul and character. Everyone who believes in the resurrection of the nation should undertake this work, because, I repeat, the national ideal is cultivated by a number of generations; because even the latest efforts are only a synthesis of the previous ones; because, not paying attention to the signposts set by our ancestors, we will lose our way, as it really happened; for a nation that does not have and does not honor yesterday will never have tomorrow. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 4/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS For "they rise only there , where there are graves" and where old gods are revered... Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/ История национального духий Украины 1800-1920ые годы. SpyLOG PING Banner Network https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 5/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS DMYTRA DONTSOVA The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Смотрите также страницу Дмитрия Донцов YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV Dmytro Dontsov is a native of the Ukrainian South, more precisely Priozivya, where, as Oles Gonchar writes, every spring "over the open steppes... frightening black storms swept" and where "all over the steppe from Nogaysk to Kakhovka, they were met with flags. Crowded peasant processions, going out in clouds of dust against the elements, fell on their knees, begged for it to subside." But at the same time, "probably, nowhere were there such beautiful mirages as in the south, in the waterless steppe. Like pure, tireless dreams, they flowed for whole days, never approaching, never separating... Luxurious silver rivers across dry peasant roads" ("Tavria "). Such was the region where Dmytro Dontsov was born and grew up, although his family was not traced back to Tavria. The Donts family came from that part of the former Slobozhanshchyna, which belonged to the Voronezh province. The population of Slobozhanshchyna, from which, after the liquidation of the Cossack orders, was first formed into Slobidsko-Ukrainian, and later, by division, Kharkiv province was created, adding the northern districts to Voronezhshchyna, this population was the descendants of people from Right Bank Ukraine. It settled there, fleeing from Polish oppression and persecution in connection with the failed uprising of the Huns and Ostryanin, and then during the so-called ruins. In the 17th century Slobozhanshchyna (mainly the territory of the current Kharkiv, Sumy and southern districts of Kursk and Voronezh regions) belonged to the Moscow state and was not inhabited. Ukrainian fugitives, Cossacks and peasants, settling in the 17th-18th centuries. in Slobozhanshchyna, established Cossack orders there, organized their own regiments and followed Cossack customs. Among the organizers of Ukrainian settlements in Slobozhanshchyna, the Dontsi Cossack family was well-known. With the liquidation of the Hetmanship and Cossack liberties, the Moscow government also abolished the Cossack order in Slobid Ukraine, turning it into a province organized like other Moscow provinces. The former Cossack foreman received Russian nobility. Descendants of the Donts Cossack family also became such nobles, changing their surname to Dontsov. Whether Dmytro Dontsov's family originates from those Dontsivs is difficult to establish today (Dontsov himself was not sure of this), but there are reasons to assume that the Dontsov family originates from those actually Ukrainian settlers in Slobozhanshchyna from the 17th century. Commenting on the accusation that he is of Russian origin, Dontsov says the following about his family in one of his letters: "Why do Visti call me a Russian? Let me call myself. This is what Lypinsky wrote that I am Russian, because "I was born in region, which the Russians call Novorossia"... Besides, Dragoman-ov, Petr-ov, Fitil-ov, Vetukhov, these are not Russians. It's all stupidity and the malice of those good-hearted people... When Zinchenko tells that her parents come from from the same village as my father, so this must be a mistake. My father (who died in https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 1/ 8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV 1894) came not from the village, but from the city, and not from Poltava Oblast (like Zinchenko), but from Slobid Ukraine (Ukrainian part of Voronezh Oblast ).Reading D. Bagaliya's "History of Slobozhanshchyna", I found out that many people emigrated from there to our Tavria at one time and that we had many names that are often found in Slobozhanshchyna (Kharkiv region and Ukrainian Voronezh region, Podonia). In general, this name is very common in Ukraine, I have not come across it in the Moscow Region. I read in Bagaliya that the first colonizer of Slobozhanshchyna (which was a state-Moscow territory during the Hetmanship) was Colonel Fedir Donets (from the Right Bank) and that in the 18th century his descendants - when all the Cossacks applied for the recognition of their Russian (Russian) nobility - he changed his surname to Dontsov and also to Zakharzhevsky (this was to prove his ancient, still from Poland, nobility). Whether my father came from those Dontsovs, I don’t know, in any case, it was an indication for me how the Dontsovs turned into the Dontsovs..." The Dontsovs moved to Tavria in the middle of the 19th century, wanting to take advantage of the favorable colonization conditions there. The Dontsovs bought near 1,500 acres of land, beautiful for grain farming, but Dmytro Dontsov's father did not want to engage in farming, but settled in Melitopol, a small county town at the time, located above the Molochnaya River, not far from the shores of the Oziv Sea, organizing his own commercial enterprise for the sale of agricultural machinery there . In Melitopol, the Dontsovs had several larger residential houses that they rented out. Ivan Dontsov turned out to be a good entrepreneur, became well-known in Melitopol, for a while he was even the town foreman. The Tavria Governorate, created in 1802, was an important area of ​​trade and grain Although the settlement of Tavria began relatively late, it has its own interesting history that dates back to the Neolithic. The so-called Stone Tomb, which was a place of religious rites, is still preserved near Melitopol, and the Melitopol Mound from the 4th century. to n. e. belongs to the early Scythian state during its heyday; its center was in the Crimea. At the time of Greek colonization, this space, together with the Crimea and the Black Sea, was under Greek rule. In the following centuries, this was the path by which the great migration of peoples took place; later it was a "buffer strip" between the Princely State of Kyiv and the nomadic Asian hordes. When the Tatars gained a foothold in the Crimea, then the so-called Muravskyi Shlach, one of the main routes of the Tatar campaigns to Ukraine and the Moscow lands, ran from the Crimea to the north, along the Molochnaya River. Settlement of Prioziv began after the destruction of the Tatar threat, when the Crimea came under the rule of Russia. This happened just at the end of the 18th century, and already in 1815 the foundations of Melitopol were laid. The tsarist regime contributed to the colonization of Priozivya. Thousands of acres of land were distributed to Russian landowners, who began to settle their possessions with serfs from other Ukrainian regions. Foreign colonization was also allowed, thanks to which Bulgarians, Serbs, Moldovans, Georgians, and somewhat later - Germans and Italians settled there. Russian colonies were also organized then. This mixed colonization with the advantage, however, of the Ukrainian element, affected the uniqueness of Tavria, where different cultures collided, as if restoring the tradition of centuries past. In particular, after the end of the Crimean War, a kind of march of Ukrainian peasants "to Tavria by will" began, and then tens of thousands of our peasants left their homes, went to Crimea and Tavria and settled there. Then many residents of the former Slobozhanshchyna arrived there, among them the Dontsov family. Immigrants from Russian lands created colonies separate from those from Ukraine and did not mix with the Ukrainian population. Telling about his young years in Melitopol, D. Dontsov, among other things, mentioned that there were such Russian colonies in the vicinity of Melitopol, but the Ukrainian population did not have any social contact with them. Despite the low level of national consciousness of the Ukrainian population (they still considered themselves "Little Russians"), the feeling of difference from the Russians (or, as they were commonly called, "Katsaps") was very clear. Even at school, according to Dontsov, Ukrainian students did not want to be friends with "catsaps", they created their own circles, for fun https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/ donzow_bio.html 2/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM DMYTRA DONTSOV'S YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS sang Ukrainian songs. All this took place at a time when Russian was the spoken language among the Ukrainians themselves, that is, the language of the same "katsaps". According to statistics from 1895, there were about 70 percent Ukrainians in Melitopol and Tavria, while the rest of the population consisted of a wide variety of ethnic groups that settled there during the 19th century. As Dontsov recalls, the "Mediterranean atmosphere" prevailed, which, of course, had its influence on the spiritual formation of young Dontsov. Dmytro Dontsov was born in Melitopol on August 17, 1883. In addition to him, there were two brothers and two sisters in the family. The living conditions of the Donts family were good. The Dontsovs had large profits from the estates they rented out and from the trade enterprise, which was successfully developing. In the Dontsov family, according to the custom of the time, Russian was spoken, although the family also knew Ukrainian. Dontsov mentions, for example, that his mother arranged so-called readings for children and guests, and her favorite author was Oleksa Storozhenko. The house had its own library, which, in addition to Russian authors and some Ukrainian ones, also had translations of works by Western European authors. The family visited the Ukrainian theater (tours of Ukrainian theater troupes that also visited Melitopol) and were keenly interested in cultural life. Dontsov's parents died at an early age, when he was only eleven years old. The father died in 1894 at the age of 54, and the mother, who was only 39 years old, the following year. After the death of his parents, his mother's relatives took care of him, his sisters and brothers. Dmytro Dontsov received primary and secondary education in Melitopol, graduating from the so-called real school, which prepared candidates for higher technical schools. His brothers also graduated from this school and later continued their studies at technical institutes, and after completing their studies worked as professional engineers. Young Dontsov was not interested in technical disciplines and planned to enter the university. For this, he had to supplement his secondary education in a classical gymnasium and pass additional exams, because a real school did not give the right to enter a university. Dontsov left Melitopol in 1900 and moved to Tsarskoe Selo near St. Petersburg, where he completed his secondary education. After passing the exams, he enrolled in the law faculty of St. Petersburg University, which he graduated in 1907. Dontsov's stay at the studios in St. Petersburg for seven years had a great impact on his spiritual and worldview development. At that time, St. Petersburg was not only the political center of the Tsarist Russian Empire, but also a place where there was a strong and active Ukrainian center and where Ukrainian cultural and even political life could develop more freely than in Ukraine. Ukrainian students were especially active in St. Petersburg. They had their own Community there, within which they conducted vigorous work in various areas of Ukrainian life. Ukrainian students did not stay away from political issues either. After starting his studies at St. Petersburg University, Dontsov did not limit himself to the disciplines defined by the program. He became involved in the activities of the student community and took a comprehensive interest in its life, persistently studied social and political problems, studied philosophical works, got acquainted with the works of Russian and foreign authors. Dontsov devoted a lot of time to the study of the Ukrainian past, Ukrainian history and Ukrainian literature. Among other things, Dontsov writes about this in his diary, recalling that in St. Petersburg he "admired for the first time Konyskyi, "Kyivska Starina", Umanets (the author of the monograph on Mazepa) and, above all, Lesya Ukrainka." Alexander Lototsky in "Pages of the Past" writes about his acquaintance with Dontsov in St. Petersburg, recalling that Dontsov could always be found in the St. Petersburg public library, covered with books and notes. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 3/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV "IN Petersburg student community," he writes, "Dmytro Iv. Dontsov got an ideological cross. As a student, he was impressive with extraordinary hard work. He could often be found in the public library, - there he collected stocks of that knowledge, which later became the basis of his distinctly national worldview. In numerous in abstracts at student assemblies even then he expressed slogans that he later developed in his printed works. At a turning point in the creation of a national worldview in the minds of Ukrainian students, when ruthless criticism of "Ukrainian culture" and "Ukrainophilism" directed young Ukrainian forces to the Russian revolutionary camp, the vivid national opinion of the future popular publicist prevailed even at that time in the areas where the alternative - Ukrainianism or Russianness - was weighed. D. Dontsov's significant role in deepening the national moment in the ideological worldview of the students was indisputable even in the early days of the existence of the Ukrainian community, in which he was one of the more active members, and later, when the student body listened to his voice in completely original magazine articles and brochures and invited him to cooperate in its organ - "Ukrainian Student". Dmytro Doroshenko gives a similar description in his memoirs about the Ukrainian Student Community in St. Petersburg. "Back in the spring of 1903," he writes, "I noticed in the reading room of the university library a student I didn't know who was constantly reading publications of the Shevchenko Scientific Society and Ukrainian scientific books from Galicia in general, that they could be obtained from the library only with a special by the recommendation of one of the professors. It was Dontsov. But I did not know him then." Dmytro Dontsov belonged to the Ukrainian Student Community at a time when such famous Ukrainian figures as: brothers S. and M. Mazurenka, D. Doroshenko, sculptor M. Havrylko, M. Stasyuk, O. Nazaryev, artist Yu. Mogalevskyi were members of the Ukrainian Student Community , Valentina Yanovska-Radzimovska, V. Sadovskyi, L. Matsievich, P. Krat. "Being in a foreign land," Dontsov recalled later, "caused a mad nostalgia that encouraged the Ukrainian colony on the Neva to join national organizations. V. V. Radzimovska... belonged, like me, to the Ukrainian Student Community, which met at the Polytechnic Institute outside the city. There were also the stairs of the RUP-ists. The legal "club" where our students met every week was also in the "Andriiiv school" on Vasilivsky Island. Dontsov was not a member of the RUP, because he became active in Ukrainian political life just at the time when the RUP adopted a socialist platform and changed its name to USDRP. Having become a member of the USDRP, Dontsov joined the revolutionary activities of the party in St. Petersburg in 1905-7. The St. Petersburg group of the USDRP included the entire student body, and senior citizens included L. Bych, D. Lavrentiev, L. Matsiyevnch, A. Shablenko, K. Arabazhyn. The revolution of 1905 shook the entire Russian Empire. The Ukrainian community in St. Petersburg also felt it. For Dontsov, the year 1905 is of special importance, because this year marks his first public speech at a political event in St. Petersburg and his first arrest. Dontsov wrote about this first political speech and its consequences: "Together with senior Ukrainians on the Neva (O. Lototsky, Lavrentiev, L. Bych, later the head of the Kuban Regional Government in 1918), they organized in the fall of 1905, in the assembly hall of the University , the first Ukrainian political event with a desire for independence! of Ukraine. For this event, as one of the speakers, I was arrested and transported to the Lukiyaniv prison in Kyiv, where they had to "sewn" me to the trial of the Kyiv RUP-ists." The police took Dontsov to Kyiv because, during a search, literature of the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party was found in his possession. This case, however, ended without major complications, because due to the general amnesty, Dontsov was released from prison without a trial. Forced stay in https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 4/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOVA in Kyiv and acquaintance with the Kyiv active of the USDRP, pushed Dontsov to become more active in the ranks of this organization. After his release from prison in November 1905, Dontsov left for St. Petersburg, but already in January 1906 he returned to Kyiv, where he became a member of the Kyiv group of the USDRP, which at that time included such figures as: Mykola Porsh, Simon Petlyura, Andriy Zhuk , Valentin Sadovskyi. USDRP started publishing its newspaper "Slovo" edited by S. Petliura and M. Porsh. In this newspaper, Dontsov began to publish his first political articles. At the same time, he took part in work among Kyiv workers, organizing cells of the USDRP and spreading socialist ideas among our workers. Recalling the assignment of the Kyiv Party Committee of the USDLP to conduct campaign work among the workers, Dontsov says that he could not successfully complete this task because this form of activity did not suit him. The Committee took this into account and instructed it to prepare informational material about the USDRP and the socialist movement in the form of small brochures. These brochures were prepared by Dontsov, but due to the arrest of members of the Kyiv Committee in 1906, and Dontsov himself in 1907, they were not printed and were wasted. One of its leading members, V. Sadovskyi, who moved there from St. Petersburg, wrote in more detail about the situation in Kyiv at that time and about the USDRP. "At the time when I arrived in Kyiv," writes V. Sadovskyi, "the evolution of the transformation of the party from a group with a vague socialist-revolutionary outlook into an organization based on orthodox Marxism was ending in RUP circles. The source of this Marxism in we were primarily Russian social-democratic publications, and of the two factions that divided the Russian Social Democratic Party not long before, the Bolsheviks had greater sympathy among us, and Lenin's works were especially popular." The level of national consciousness "was not ... high. Undoubtedly, the majority of the pas was brought up by reading general economic and socialist literature, and not by reading Ukrainian studies. Even the knowledge of Ukrainian speech was not at the proper height; some spoke in jargon that had little in common with the literary language. However, it seems to me that all the people who belonged to our group were united by a distinct Ukrainian patriotism." Socialism was a fashion and a means, as Sadovsky notes; he adds that "now, when I recall the names of all those who passed through The RUP and later, through the USDRP, found themselves so far from both socialism and the labor movement, the conclusion is drawn that in our submission to the slogans of Marxist orthodoxy at that time, there was to some extent a moment of using the political conjuncture." To people who considered socialism as a means , V. Sadovsky also included D. Dontsov. V. Sadovsky says that Dontsov, "being a student of St. Petersburg University, could not take part in the student life of Kyiv", but still "actively worked from party among the workers". One can agree with V. Sadovskyi's statement about Dontsov's "conjunctural" perception of socialism and a number of our other figures (e.g., D. Doroshenko, O. Skoropys-Yoltukhovskyi). All of them joined the socialist movement, because this the movement, according to Doptsov, "put before our eyes the banner of the struggle against tsarism, it was the only truly revolutionary movement at that time."10) They were not socialists in the full sense of the word, although they stood on socialist positions for many years and spread socialist ideas and in the name of these ideas they risked their will and life. D. Dontsov, as a leading member of the USDRP, soon made a name for himself as a popular socialist publicist, and when the newspaper "Nasha Duma" began to be published by the Ukrainian faction in the Second State Duma in St. Petersburg, he became one of its editors. While in St. Petersburg again, Dontsov continued his active activities in the student community. He also took an active part in the work of the local group of the USDRP, which, according to him, "at that time — March, 1907 — . ..was enough https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 5/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS DMYTRA DONTSOVA numerous, there was almost no higher scientific institution, both male and female, where we did not have our members." But young Dontsov was not only interested in the aspect of the fight against the Tsar. Even then, he considered this struggle as a struggle for the national liberation of the Ukrainian people from Russian dependence! At that time, when practically the entire Ukrainian socialist active got acquainted with socialism from Russian publications and in a Russian interpretation, Dontsov studied the Western classics of socialism and tried to interpret them from the point of view of Ukrainian interests first. The consequence of this was the later unusually interesting studio of Mr. Dontsov. "Engels, Marx and Lassalle on "unhistorical nations". The different understanding of Marxism and socialism in general soon became the cause of the conflict between Dontsov and other members of the USDRP, who could not understand the need and expediency of sharply emphasizing the national moment in the socialist movement and Dontsov's negative instruction towards Russian For Dontsov, again, this national moment was fundamental, and he did not see any political expediency in the fact that Ukrainian socialists and the USDRP consider themselves a constituent part of the all-Russian socialist movement and sail in the all-Russian revolutionary, whether socialist or democratic, fairway . Dontsov's interest in the issue of Ukrainian-Russian relations was not a one-off. He often mentioned that back in Melitopol he was looking for an answer to the question of why Ukrainians and Russians, schoolmates in a real school, avoided each other and why "we sang in class Russian songs without any feeling or pleasantness, and during the breaks between lectures the walls of the school shook from the singing of Ukrainian folk songs, which no one taught us and which we still knew and admired." A fragment of the event remained alive in Doshchev's memory, which, as he insisted, definitely had an impact on his views, or rather on their later development, regarding the understanding of Ukrainian-Russian relations. On the occasion of Melitopol's 80th anniversary, the city administration issued a special commemorative publication, in which, among other things, it was emphasized that Melitopol is on the path followed by "disasters for the Great Russian and Little Russian peoples." While reading this publication, "I realized, and it became quite clear to me, that we are talking about two different peoples, and not about one people with the Little Russian ending," D. Dontsov recalled. Already in St. Petersburg, Doptsov got acquainted with Mykola Mikhnovsky's brochure "Independent Ukraine", which, as he later claimed, "made an indelible impression on me, still a young student." In particular, Dontsov highly appreciated the fact that M. Mikhnovsky correctly raised the issue of Ukrainian-Russian relations. "Taking part in the Ukrainian revolutionary movement before my first emigration (1908), I understood and learned from M. Mikhnovsky to understand this movement as anti-Russian in general, not only anti-regime." This statement of Dontsov is of particular importance, because it clearly indicates the spiritual process that took place in him during his ideological and organizational connection with the socialist movement. Carefully studying the past of Ukraine, in particular Ukrainian-Russian relations during the Hetman period and Russia's policy towards Ukraine after the liquidation of the Hetmanship, Dontsov came to the conclusion already in his student years that there are no real prerequisites for a joint path between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples and that the Russian people will always try to keep Ukraine depending on yourself. The future of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people will be decided not in cooperation with Russia, but in the struggle against it. Having come to such conclusions in his views on the path of development of Ukrainian-Russian relations in the future, Dontsov began to popularize these conclusions in his articles and public speeches. Dontsov was fascinated by the dynamics and program of specific revolutionary activity in the fight against tsarism, which was proposed by the socialist movement, but, as he says, "even then, I could not agree with the international tendencies of this movement, which in Russia are identified with Russophilism. I accepted the platform of struggle against Tsardom, but immediately and always at the same time I raised the national question. Against this background, my conflict and break with the socialist movement and my withdrawal from the USDRP soon came to a head." https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 6/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV An interesting light the problem of the formation of Dontsov's national worldview is addressed by the observations of D. Doroshenko and O. Lototskyi in their memoirs about the Ukrainian Student Community in St. Petersburg. D. Doroshenko recalls that in 1904 he was elected head of the Community, which at that time already stood on socialist positions. Dontsov was not yet a member of the Society, but only a candidate for membership, that is, he passed the inspection, which was final due to the conspiratorial nature of the Society's activities. Dontsov's membership was positively resolved, but at the same time, as Doroshenko writes, a new problem emerged, because the Community, with the transition to socialist positions, began to move away from the idea of ​​Ukrainian independence, and against this, opposition formed among the members. This opposition was headed by O. Nazariev, M. Shemet, M. Stasyuk and D. Dontsov. "The opposition had, so to speak, a national background: it did not want to unite with the All-Russian Social Democracy, seeing in this first of all the weakening of the national moment in the Ukrainian movement. I recognized in my heart that they were right," writes Doroshenko, "but I appealed to their sense of public discipline and proved the danger of some sort of division or split. As I recall, a split did not occur, and our oppositionists did not leave the Community, although within the Community they created, so to speak, a national faction." Again, O. Lototskyi writes in his memoirs that "there was a current in the Community that disregarded the national moment. At one time there actually existed in the Community a national faction, to which D. Dontsov, D. Doroshenko, Nataliya Shcherban, O. Nazariyev, M. Stasiuk". Dontsov's activities in St. Petersburg and Kyiv soon attracted the attention of the Russian police, and in 1907, when Dontsov was in Kyiv, he was arrested a second time. All the other members of the Kyiv Committee of the USDRP were in prison at the time, and they, like Dontsov, were to be tried. Dontsov was threatened with four years of hard labor, and then exile. With the help of his brother and sister and the help of Valentina Yanovska-Radzimovska, his friend from his student years in St. Petersburg, Dontsov was released on bail after an eight-month stay in the Lukiyaniv prison. Taking advantage of this release, he immediately left Kyiv and traveled abroad illegally. For Dontsov, this was an unusually happy arrangement of relations, because he fell seriously ill in prison and could hardly survive hard labor. Having illegally crossed the Russian-Austrian border, Dontsov arrived in Lviv on April 12, 1908 (the very day when M. Sichnsky assassinated the governor of Pototsky). During 1908-9, he was treated in the Tatra Mountains (Zakopane), where, among other things, he got to know V. Lipinsky better. There, he met the outstanding Polish philosopher and publicist S. Bzozovsky from the generation of the so-called Young Poland, whose work should have had, as some suggest, a significant influence on Dontsov. After finishing treatment, Dontsov moved to Vienna, where he enrolled in law studies at the University of Vienna. Dontsov continued his studies in Vienna until 1911. In Vienna, Dontsov met a student, Maria Bachynska, whom he married in 1912. Dontsov had just finished his studies in 1917 in Lviv, having received a doctor of law degree from Lviv University. Despite studying in Vienna and Lviv, Dontsov continued his journalistic work, contributing to Galician socialist newspapers, to "Ukrainskaya zhizna" in Moscow (editor S. Petlyur) and to "Literary and Scientific Herald" in Kyiv (editor M. Hrushevskyi). When the social-democratic organ "Dzvin" was founded in Kyiv in 1913, Dontsov became a permanent employee of this magazine as well. In 1909 and 1913, Dontsov gave speeches at student congresses in Lviv. At the 1st student congress, he read an essay on the topic "School and Religion", and at the 2nd congress, he read a paper on "The Modern Political Situation of the Nation and Our Tasks." Both these reports appeared as separate pamphlets. Dontsov's other work "Modern Muscovite" appeared as a separate edition at that time. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 7/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV Having settled in Lviv, Dontsov worked as part of the editorial staff of the social-democratic magazine "Our Voice" together with L. Yurkevich (Rybalka) and V. Levinsky. Dontsov's journalistic work, in particular his three mentioned publications, earned him the reputation and name of a leading Ukrainian publicist among Ukrainian society and among foreign experts on Eastern European issues, as well as among Russian circles. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html PING Banner Network 8/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM THE FLOCK SPIRIT AND THE SPIRIT GUIDELINES The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… также страницу Dmitriy Dontsov THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP A hundred years will pass and some Ukrainian sociologist will look with surprise at one pathological phenomenon in our public life, namely the stupid association. Union as an end in itself! So that there is no leadership of one camp, although this happens everywhere, even in Great Britain, where the nation is led by a single party, and never by an association. This aversion to leadership goes so far in us that all groups willingly push it on the shoulders of the so-called "people", the nation will decide, the nation will tell us... Who will tell? Wired!? A good idea of ​​what a leader is... A nation, a mass - knows, although not always - what it does not want. He rarely knows what he wants. When a revolution broke out in the tsarist empire in 1917, the nation knew what it did not want. But he didn't know what to want, so that what he didn't want didn't happen. This should be told to him by a guide, who will lead him on a good path, if the guide is good, or on a misleading one - if the guide is evil. The nation in 1917 did not want war, did not want a weak tsar, nor the noble caste, nor the army, nor the police. But he did not know what should be given instead. The leading group that forced him to do this were the Bolsheviks, who explained that instead of the police, we need a militia, instead of the tsarist army, we need a red army, instead of a war, we need an "indecent measure", instead of a tsar, we need Lenin, and instead of a bankrupt nobility, as a ruling caste - "people's commissars". The Moscow people, undisciplined, uncultured, wild in their thirst for revenge and eager for welfare and profit, believed the Bolsheviks' delusional recipe and followed them. Let's see what happened. But it is about something else: the fact that the nation does not formulate the positive goals of the revolution, it is done for it by this or that party or group, which the more active part of the people will follow and the passive - the more passive. In the struggle between several contenders for national leadership in Russia, the Leninists won, defeating not only the tsarist forces, but also the liberals, "Essers" and other leftists. It was the same during the French Revolution of 1789-1804, when in the civil war and in the bloody struggle of various revolutionary national groups, the Jacobins (Robespierre, Marat, Saint-Just) won for a long time, until they were swept away by Bonaparte's army. This was the case during Cromwell's revolution, when the helm of the state ship was not taken by the entire crew, but by a minority - the "captain and officers". This was during the uprising of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi. The great hetman never made any alliances, he raised the flag of rebellion himself with the Zaporizhzhya Army, and it was no secret to anyone that he and the people of Khmelnytskyi - in case of victory - would be the leading caste that would rule the liberated Ukraine and unite the nation. It was no different, for example, in Poland between the two wars. Pilsudchiks, who took over the state helm, were far from having a nation, a region behind them. When the Polish legionnaires appeared in Warsaw liberated from the Muscovites in 1915, there were cases when they were thrown from the trams... And one legionnaire-poet wrote with chagrin in one newspaper: And when to Warsaw, to Warsaw itself, Dotarc vsrud The bug helped us roll, the crowd welcomed us - it was always interesting, the depression of the heart was crushed on the cobblestones! This same mob later handed power in the region into the hands of pilsudchiks. And this is how it always happens: one or another active minority formulates the tasks of the nation and the day, and leads the nation. Why does this happen? The well-known historian Hippolyte Ten explains this phenomenon using the example of the French Revolution. He characterizes the average French people of that time as follows: "To avoid isolation, to join the largest community, to always create a mass, some kind of larger body, to always follow the impulses from above, which gather scattered units together - this is the instinct of the herd." And he, in fact, infected the French masses. In the decisive moments of the revolution, this mass quietly obeyed the Jacobin terrorists: "the habit of obeying and a certain mildness of character, cultivated by the administration of the monarchy and ancient civilization, destroyed in man the ability to foresee danger, the military instinct, the ability to rely only on oneself, the will, to help each other , save yourself. Therefore, if the revolution turned such a nation into a state of primitive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 1/5 11/28/ 23, 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP disordered relationships, domesticated animals were devoured by predators." And further: "The French need to feel united, they need to touch each other; swagger, no rules, no methods, rebellion in words and not a single soul that would not tremble before the corporal"... And from this it follows that they "having a need , to be ruled by them, as rams need a shepherd and a watchdog, accepting or putting them down, even if the shepherd is a butcher, and the watchdog is a wolf." These words of Teng probably did not apply only to the French. Maybe he expressed his opinion too drastically, but nevertheless it is fundamentally correct. The vast majority of the masses are busy with their everyday affairs, the struggle for dry bread and need protection, peace, and well-being. And those who lead it and protect it from wolves - shepherds and guard dogs - are an active minority, people of a different breed, molded from different clay. The mass needs to be led, and it will follow the one who has the leadership instinct in his blood, the team, who has the courage to point the way and take responsibility for its correctness, who affirms his idea without compromise, and formulates it clearly, clearly and unambiguously: who has an emphatic yes and an emphatic no! Who knows what he loves and what he hates, who firmly knows where a friend is and where an enemy; who is ready to fight and fight for his own, firmly believes in his idea and that only he or they (this group) are called to lead the nation. Only this impresses the masses. That is why Ten says that the masses will rather follow such a shepherd who is a butcher, and such a dog who is a wolf, than a lead which consists of sheep, has the psyche of the mass and has not escaped the inherent herd instinct of the mass. In a nation where such a separate, self-aware leadership group has not emerged, where a stupid association reigns, in such a nation the indivisible instinct of the herd reigns. Such a nation does not act as an independent factor, does not play a separate role in the event arena. Where such a leading group has crystallized, it has a chance to lead the masses, to unite the nation. Where there is no such group, there may be unification of groups, parties, and cliques, but there will never be unification of the nation. Because it will not impress anyone, not even its own. Some of our politicians approach the issue of unification as if there was a disagreement about agreeing between the long-suffering and the recalcitrant. The differences between those worthy persons are obviously not such that they cannot be reconciled over a glass. It seems so easy for "cultured people" to get together, to "listen calmly to different opinions", so easy to do "free exchange of ideas", which is "a guarantee of a healthy, correct development of the team". Why fight? And then "the group becomes incapable of critical thinking", then a "pathological complex of intolerance" prevails in it, etc., etc. self-excluding ideas! In times when each nation split into different camps and when within each community there is a struggle for - "either master or perish!" My opponents do not like "abstract theories", they prefer real facts and the practice of life. Fine! Let's take the real facts, and those confirmed not by me, but by them themselves, those supposedly practical, in love with all kinds of associations, countrymen. They preach the unification of all people of one blood. This is a theory, but what does it mean in practice? None of them feel able to be Cromwellians, and therefore - a union! And then everyone is attracted to such an association. Those who in their declarations refused to mention the armed struggle against Russia in even one sentence... Those who, in interviews with foreigners, called the UPA "a minor phenomenon that is not worth paying attention to" are attracted. It attracts those who called the Ukrainian partisans - "Banderiv SS". Those who, in 1939, offered their "loyal cooperation" to the Bolsheviks in order to build not a fantastically romantic, but a "modern, real Ukraine" under the leadership of Stalin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs... Everyone is attracted! It attracts those who admire world federations and put forward "maximum relative independence" as a slogan, because there can be no absolute independence... It attracts those who ridicule Ukrainian "fascists" and denounce them in front of their "dear comrades" Moscow socialists and others. It's like that in politics: unite everyone. And there is also a "united front" in literature. MUR creates "great literature" from all but "narrow nationalists". The Shveiks hang out, and the pro-independence newspapers kindly welcomed Sherekh's pupils, one of whom was recently written about as having once been a Vlasov native, an employee of Hitler's newspapers, then a Banderite, then a Bagrianite, and then became a Hetman and a neo-Catholic. The second was also at first an employee of the Bolshevik "New Ways" in Lviv, then the Parisian "Ukrainian Word", then the Hetman's "Nation on the March", then - laureate of the Ukrainian Catholic Union, literary editor of the "Ukrainian Tribuna", and finally ended up in the Bolshevik "Hromadskii Golos" ". Such sheiks created the "united front" of the Association in Literature (MUR), smeared the nationalist idea ("Zauzka" was for them!), detested the "man of the liberation movement", spat on the poets of "Visnyk" and this magazine, and all with almost complete indifference the so-called citizenship, because it also stood for unification. And how was it possible to get rid of such valuable persons in it together with their protector? Even supporters of the armed struggle against Russia believe that those who wage that struggle have no right to represent the nation. There must be "all-national leadership". Because while he is gone, many of the opportunistically minded intellectuals will stand aside from this struggle... And although it was clear that the intelligentsia does not want to "join the revolutionary struggle" simply because of "ordinary petty-bourgeois life and political opportunism"; although it was clear that the opportunistic intelligentsia was competing with the UPA with "false demagogic arguments", nevertheless, it turns out, it was necessary to finally create a "general national leadership" through armed struggle, to which it was necessary to attract those opportunists who opposed the armed movement and also "lying, demagogic arguments"... https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 2/5 11/28/23 , 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP When in Galicia in 1939 they wanted to create an association, when it was necessary to involve opportunistic parties in the leadership of the revolutionary struggle, it was not possible to create a general leadership composed of representatives of various organized political parties simply because that such parties did not exist at all. A significant part of the former prominent Ukrainian political figures found themselves in the UCC camp and waged a fierce struggle, both against the UPA and against the idea of ​​a revolutionary struggle for the Ukrainian state in general. But even those units that "took a neutral or favorable position towards the UPA" were difficult to attract. And the opportunist camp, when calmer times came, came to the light of day again, advertising itself as the "brain of the people", as "the only, orthodox democrats". They got out in order to capitalize on the rebel movement in Ukraine, armed to their hearts. It would seem that the politicians of this camp should be kept as far as possible from the revolutionary camp and movement? It turns out not! That one or another "general-national association" should be formed with them, one should consolidate with the representatives of those "non-existent parties". This phenomenon is definitely pathological! Argumentation does not play a role here, it is only so, among others, because one must have some kind of argumentation! In reality, the bare herd instinct speaks here. Because it is difficult to prove that the union of revolutionaries with perekinchiks, with candidates for Vlasov or "loyal collaborators" of Bolshevism, with the main enemies of the revolutionary action, with former or future quislings, can benefit the liberation movement. The consolidators advise the various parties to come together, each to give up a little of its truth, to take a little of the truth of the other party, and the true path will be found. There will be nothing more to argue about, the "brothers of the same blood" will come together... True, the consolidators admit that "during the 30s, only the nationalists waged a ceaseless war with all the horsemen and, above all, they continue to wage it." But still the cry of the day is "agreement and unification of blood brothers" of all parties that have never fought with the horseman and are not fighting. True, the more intelligent of the united people already understand that not everything is in order with those "single brothers", that among them there are also non-noble brothers who "deliberately sell their unfortunate homeland for a treat", they are simply traitors and should not be consolidated with them. .. Many of these? I think that it is a lot. Our age - as usual in similar eras - throws up both heroes and scoundrels. And it is not only our time. I. Franko also noticed that everything is not in order with those "single brothers". Among those "blood brothers" he found how many people with a "lack of true character", people "sentimental, without heart and willpower", how many "all kinds of renegades and werewolves"! How many "slaves with cockades on their foreheads", "footmen in gold ornaments", how many "swineherds" in spirit, how many "slanderers and Pharisees" did Shevchenko find among his compatriots! How many among his compatriots did Gogol find "worthless Little Russians" who "flood St. Petersburg with informers." Our terrible age, I repeat, splashed the surface of life, next to individuals of great heroism and dedication, and this noise. There are these types in our political environment. There are them in emigrant parties and in all kinds of institutions. And should they be attracted to the "national association"? And to involve those "blood brothers" in the national representation so that there would be more, that there would be everyone?! The conflict between the revolutionary-independence camp and those "countrymen" (Shevchenko's expression) is not, as emotional patriots think, about different views on the liberation cause, but about something completely different. It is about the conflict of people of different character, different spirit, different breed. And such conflicts are smoothed out not by discussions, but by struggle. What will help to take those "compatriots" to the national leadership? Self-employed people cannot find a common language with them, nor can they harness themselves to a joint action. They are quislings by nature. Sometimes toothy quislings, but only quislings. They do not believe in their nation and its truth, they are only servants of every occupier, and they strongly (verbally) speak only against such a pawn who does not want to talk to them, does not want to give them "even half a soul". There is a breed of people who were, for example, "nationalists" under Hitler, and when Roosevelt won, they discovered a "democratic" heart, and even a socialist one. These are people with the mentality of those figures of the First World War who, under the Central Rada's socialist orthodoxy, thought to buy favors from the masters of the situation. People are the psyches of Vinnichenko and Hrushevskyi. No matter what they call themselves, no matter how they conform to the idea of ​​nationalism they betrayed, - by nature, by temperament - they are a breed of toughs who have no faith in their own strength or in the truth of their people, and who - "from tactical reviews "- are always ready to throw themselves under someone else's flag; who with their "diplomacy" might be in place of the directors of the provincial "Prosvita" or cooperatives, but who, climbing into the arena of politics, lose the cause for which they undertake. Join them? This means compromising the national idea in front of foreigners, weakening its prestige and attractive force among the general population. With them, it is possible - under favorable circumstances - to create from Ukraine a colony or a protectorate of some international mafia, whose favors they preemptively beg, but never - national Ukraine, in which its own truth and strength would triumph - won't be won with quislings. A big mistake is made by those who think that the cause of independence and national revolution will benefit from a union of independentist national groups with the camp of coolies. It is naive to fool yourself with the hope that together with them you can find your great national truth. Some imagine this matter very simply. He thinks that "community truth" can arise when each individual and each party "renounces a part of their small truth in favor of a big, general one"... But where is this big general truth? Where are its carriers? When different groups and parties gather together with their "small truths", when they renounce some of those truths, then who will give them the great truth, for what benefit do they renounce their little truths, when none of the groups carries that great truth? https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 3/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP Some think that one should not be "too strongly" attached to one's truth, that one should not warm it with the heat of one's heart, but approach the matter with a "cold mind". The whole trouble is that, according to those agreeable people, "our perception of the world is not cold, we warm it with our heart's blood", and, in fact, this is dangerous, because "being in the shackles of the heart, it is difficult for us to rise to grasp the essence existence, as it is demanded of us by a cold mind"... And a "cold mind" knows that "truth is not absolute, but divisible"... Therefore, let everyone shed something from his truth and Ukraine will be "saved", find your truth! ("Ukr. Sam.", June 29, c. year). If you think like that, it means that the Lord sent us his prophets and soothsayers in vain. Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka, Olena Teliga preached our great truth with a fiery heart and burning love, not with a "cold mind". Absolute indivisible truth! No, our whole misfortune lies precisely in the fact that there are few among us who have a burning heart, few people who would hold on to our great truth, considering it absolute. The trouble is that we have few people with unconditional faith, which does not weaken, but strengthens the mind. The problem is that the so-called people with a "cold mind" are people without faith, without love. These people are eternally shaky, having neither a clear yes nor a clear no. These are the lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, whom world history throws into the dustbin... No, not with those people of small, divisive truths, nor with those people without a heart and without faith, who are always ready to "lower the price" of their small truth , - the great truth will never be found, nor will one go with them on the great path of liberation. The truth is usually carried by a single, at first small, community. Whether good or bad, the process does not change. A small group of apostles carried a great truth. Cromwell's "roundheads" carried their truth. The people of Khmelnytskyi carried their truth. The Jacobins carried their "truth" of the devil, followed by the Bolsheviks. A small group - "superstitious", "intolerant", "fanatic", etc., as they are called, are those people who are unable to either believe, love or hate. Need to tell one truth once and for all: thirty years of Bolshevism in Ukraine, and before that about 120 years of tsarism, counting from the complete abolition of autonomy in 1783 on the Left Bank and the annexation of the Right Bank in 1795, created in Ukraine the type of "despicable Maloros", in Halychyna - a type of "Rutenets" - krutiya, which is still not without a trace. The type of new Ukrainian, in whom the ancient Cossack soul was reborn, the type evoked from the past by the genius of Shevchenko and the ranks of a new generation of independents and fighters, people of a new spirit - in a large minority on our land. When men of this spirit join together for their great cause, they must know that they are a minority. They must know that they are not on the road with people with the mentality of "Yarema - the son of a brat", who even with the wings that grow behind his shoulders, sweeps away the light of a foreign master. This minority must bring our great truth to the masses, in general, and that minority will unite the nation around that truth. And never - the common truths of long-sufferings and perepenkos. I have been developing these ideas for a long time. And in front of me, M. Mikhnovsky wrote in "Independent Ukraine" - which is worth remembering - that we are not on the road with those "one-blood countrymen" who "cultivated a whole cult of loyalty", who distinguished themselves by unheard of "servility and lack of ideas", who "made the Ukrainian movement as something ridiculous, something shameful". Michnovsky called for separation from the so-called Ukrainianophiles: "they have no place with us." This slogan even today refers to those "people with a broken heart", or simply indifferent to the cause of liberation. In one municipal resolution from 1950, it was stated that the reasons for the failure of consolidation measures were "incorrect political concept, in hidden tendencies, principles and methods, and in the character of its organizers." It seems to me that the reason for the failure was only this last - the luck of the consolidators! There is no consolidation with people of that temperament... The whole world is divided into different camps, between which an open or covert public war is being waged. On the one hand, communism, its socialist "enemies" are friends, hidden international mafias that quietly help communism and Russia and destroy the spirit of nationalism, the idea of ​​freedom of peoples and people in the West. It is a world that, because of Moscow's intransigence, must restrain its advance, even though it does not want it at all. The second camp is the world of Christian civilization, the world of its own national truth, a world that still cherishes the ideas of nation and freedom written everywhere. The people of this camp are in the minority and among us. Our quislings have found a new master in those mafias, to whom they bow, and tomorrow they may sell Ukraine to him. And therefore they themselves are powerless, but hearing the support of the entire "progressive world", they are irreconcilable and will be irreconcilable to nationalism and to our own national truth. Nothing ever comes out of consolidations with them. This always happens when big truths collide on a narrow bridge, or the truth meets a big lie. The Quislings and their colleagues would not have quarreled if they had someone else's executive power behind them. For the lack of examples and emigration, when they turn to foreign pilates with denunciations, in order to throw unworthy "anarchists" out of the hall with the help of the police, or from the country to which the quislings have "accredited" themselves. In the times we are going through, the country will be led by those who will liberate it from the hostages. It was no different in 1648 in Ukraine. It would be no different if Orlyk had succeeded in campaigning in Ukraine in 1711. It is a great nonsense to think that the "legal representation of the nation" - in the region or in exile - when the region is under a hostage, can lead an insurgent movement against the occupier. Is it that the government and the army, in the battles with the occupier, are forced to leave the capital and continue the struggle on the outskirts as it was in 1917-19. And outside of such cases - whether the UNDO conducted a revolutionary action against the occupier in Galicia, according to the Treaty of Versailles, Ukrainian "serious representation" or OUN? Was "Kolo Polske" in Vienna or St. Petersburg directing Pidlsudskyi's armed action? "The legal representation of the nation in the occupied territory, of course, conducts a policy of compromise against the "ally", and is often its tool of compromise. Therefore, there is nothing to think https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www. ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 4/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP to those who direct the armed struggle of the nation, to dry their heads by molding associations and creating "national representation". such an emigrant "representation" must be waved and do its own thing. The true representation of the nation will emerge from the environment that will expel the occupier from Ukraine. And only the foreigner will be counted with that environment. But this environment must not have foreign slogans on the flag, not falsified as it were "positions of the liberation movement", which are not such and which the country will not accept, but the slogans of its national truth. Those who are solemnly convinced that they are bringing our great truth to Ukraine, people of faith and rank, people of character and courage, people who are irreconcilable to the enemy and to the bad in their own ranks, people who will be able to break out of the quisling mire and unite in a common spirit among themselves - they will only impress foreigners, they will only become an attractive, ideological and organizational center, which will later pull with them - through the heads of quislings and coolies - a nation united around our national truth. If this group does not exist, we will continue to boil in the cloaca of the association, and this will be a sign that in our groups the instinct of the herd, which does not know how to find its shepherds or its watchdogs, will continue to prevail. Attacking herds are either torn apart by wolves, or taken to protect other people's dogs... General De Gaulle could have saved France in 1944, when he would have taken the power in his hands, which was lying on the street. Instead, he began to spin the chain of unification with all "brothers of the same blood (and not even of the same blood!)", including communists and supporters of "modern France", who hated the real, traditional national France to the core, preferred it or Moscow or one or another international mafia. Came to my senses too late, when the only opportunity was lost... A terrible warning for us! AUGUST 1952 Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html PING Banner Network 5/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Dmitry Dontsova THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS (in anticipation of World War II) "The next war that will break out in Europe will not be a war of armies, but a war of ideologies." From the speech of George Canning in the English House of Commons, December 12, 1826. What the English tribune predicted became the sign under which our reality lives. Current statesmen can warn against the war of worldviews, but in vain, because this war has already come. It can be compared with the religious wars of the Middle Ages, about which a neutral Swiss wrote back in 1936: "The air over Europe is heavy and smells of iron. Time and time again we hear about a "religious war". When I first heard this word, I was struck by a mocking the tone with which it was uttered... Should fascism, Bolshevism, ridiculous ideologies have led to a religious war? And in the 20th century? No! We have become skeptics. Religion no longer plays a role in us. We always thought that moral suppression would follow , that the kingdom of reason will reign in the world. But after 1918, peace came, and instead of relaxation, we had to live through such a day of endurance of our tension as never before. Each unit became a battlefield of different ideologies, opposing each other "ersatz-religions". Not one would prefer to remain outside the battlefield, outside. But is there such an "outside" at all? Would you like to remain unaffected? But does it depend on you? Because to live in the age of religious wars, to live in a certain faith, means as much as you can and to wish to die for this belief. Those who remain on the sidelines and who are not captivated by this great life force, which forces us to put life itself on the map - therefore, do not understand "ideology", he will deny them explosive power... Nevertheless life enters the rabid phase predicted by Nietzsche. Religious wars! Myths, worldviews, ideologies, principles, secularized gods, thirst for blood - this is our age. The era of the Crusades, without flags with crosses embroidered on them." That's what the Swiss said. And that's really what this era is like, which has come to Ukraine since 1917. This is the "madness" that visited Spain in 1936, "madness" , which ceases to be so when it takes on a mass character, when it becomes the "madness of the whole people", the "madness" that Unamuno so sought to "instill in his people". And indeed, we see the same fanaticism in every country of our continent, the same division into enemy camps, the same murders and terrorist acts: Henry IV and Coligny were killed by devout Catholics, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg - future nationalists. Once Luther burned papal bulls, and now they burn Marxist bulls. Once Bartholomew's Night was done by Catherine de' Medici, now at night in Kiev, Kharkov, Odesa, the Bolsheviks do. De Guise's "Legistes" (confederates), who rebelled against Henry III, were ready to submit France to Philip II of Spain in the name of the common faith. Now the "Legistes" from the "popular front "are ready to sell France to communist Russia, also in the name of a common faith. Sixtus blessed the Spanish "invincible armada", which set out to crush the pride of the heretical Queen Elizabeth, and the Hutenot Cologny formed a coalition of states with France at the head to deliver a fatal blow to Roman Catholic Spain . Once upon a time, Protestants sought legalization of their Church in Catholic countries - now communists seek legalization of their party in bourgeois countries. In 1936, the Bolshevik naval fleet appeared in Barcelona to help their "co-religionists", and 300 years ago, the English fleet appeared near La Rochelle, besieged by the Catholic troops of France, to help their Huguenot co-religionists. As then, as now, the verbal struggle of the "clerks" is full of unheard-of sharpness. Back then they talked about "rabies theologorum", but can't we talk about the same thing now? Just then, as now, it was about more important things than this or that form of government. Monarchists were Catholics once, Protestants the second, or vice versa. Italian fascists were monarchists, and German fascists were republicans. And just as then, as now, "confessional" solidarity crossed all political boundaries. At that time, the French Huguenots enlisted in the service of the Elector of Brandenburg or the King of England to fight against their own motherland, France, sowed riots in their own country from abroad, engaged in espionage to the detriment of their native land. And the current Western communists serve Moscow against the interests of their countries. The Jesuits of that time said that for the Englishhttps://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html 1/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM RELIGIOUS DAY WAR Catholics would rather become vassals of the French king than "servants of the devil", and today's communists would rather be vassals of "righteous Moscow" than see their countries in the arms of "fascism". And just as there was no shortage of "crazy theologians" then, there was also no shortage of so-called "real politicians", as these people were contemptuously called, who were going to feed fire with water, one faith with another. Probably, when we talk about the struggle of two "religions", we have in mind only their purely religious spirit of faith in their cause and dedication to it. The above-mentioned "ersatz religions" often do not have their own concepts of God, the afterlife, the immortality of the soul, etc., which religion has. But they exist as wars between them, and they have their idols. The decline of parliamentary democracy was a symptom of the coming religious war. Prerequisites in the system of modern Europe, which allowed to reconcile the growing contradictions, slowly collapsed in all countries. Democracy and parliamentarism, the rule of a variable majority, the free play of forces, the system built on these adjectives collapsed in almost all Western states. Instead of being areas of agreement, parliaments have become an instrument of violence of adherents of one "religion" against adherents of another. When one common belief reigns in society, belief in the same social ideals, in the same moral, religious, political and national principles, a lot can be achieved through compromise, because the dispute is then only about methods, details and ways to consolidate the same foundations. In such cases, the minority obeys the majority, and the majority does not terrorize the minority. But how can one group submit to another when they are divided, for example, not by the question of the dependence or independence of the Church from the state, but by something else: should priests conduct the Divine Service or hang on lampposts? How can one group submit to another, allow itself to be outvoted, when it comes to how long the working day should last, and who - the manufacturer, the working masses or the Communist Party - should be the owner of all the factories? How can one group submit to another when they are divided not by this or that project of agrarian reform, but by a question of a different nature: should the peasant remain the master of his land, or should he subjugate the mastery of the new master - the socialist state? How can one group submit to another when it is not concerned with more or less number of parliamentary mandates, but only with becoming a separate whole, independent of the second group? When there is such a divergence of concepts in society, when there are no values ​​that can be reduced to a common denominator, when not a single issue can be discussed on a common platform, then war comes to the place of compromise, then "leagues" are created, then the age of myths begins , self-denying worldviews and principles that exclude each other, ideologies that bring destruction to opponents, the age of "secularized gods who thirst for blood." In such an age, the spiritual unity of society must be attracted by other means - as it was in the era of Luther and Vyshensky, Cromwell and Loyola, in the era of religious wars. In such an epoch, a new fanatical minority appears in order to stamp the seal of its new faith on the future ages, which would once again unite the dispersed and anarchized society. Supporters of the dying "religion" of socialism with its sub-sects - atheistic "democracy", liberalism and freemasonry - try to hold back the march of a new worldview - nationalism, presenting it in a false light. Supporters of the dying "religion" of atheistic socialism and "democracy" insist that this is not a dispute between two faiths at all, that it is an old dispute between reaction and freedom, the ruling clique and the people. In every socialist or "democratic" newspaper, you will read that just as "tsars and popes" once opposed the people and their freedom, so now "generals and capitalists" oppose them. And actually, nothing else causes such frenzy among those left-wing "progressives" as the fact that the mass is rising against them, the same mass over whose soul, it seemed to them, they have taken a monopoly for all time. One of the proofs that this is actually true and not otherwise can be, for example, the speech of Stalin's favorite, Dimitrov, at one of the congresses of the Comintern: "Fascism," he said, "must be beaten with the help of the masses, which it has driven in our mass organizations. We must break into this stronghold, with the walls of which fascism thought to protect its regime... We must change the methods of our work, we must conveniently use fascist demagoguery, speak to the masses in a language they understand, put forward slogans that are accessible to them... " So, the struggle for the masses? So the generals themselves are not in the "fascism" camp? So, these masses unite the "fascists" not by the right of legal order, as the kings once did, but by "demagogy", that is, active propaganda among them, an appeal to their idealism and sacrifice? In the past, the court, the aristocracy, were the enemies of the left. Now this enemy has become the mass, the army, inspired by idealism, the spirit of dedication and faith. It is not about the struggle of a handful of reactionaries with the people, but about the struggle of two "religions", each of which wants to become the religion of the masses. No, the revolution based on law, the revolution of the masses against the "religion" of Marx is not "generals and capitalists", as our radicals repeatedly and stupidly repeat! To fight the current right wing, it is not enough to hang a general or dethrone a king. And the methods of fighting the new "religion" of nationalism are not those used by the reaction. That country fought socialism with exceptional laws and the police, and the masses did not take part in that struggle. Now nationalism is fighting the "religion" of Marx and Lenin in a different way, with the help of uprisings. And the uprising is not the methods of "reaction", not the methods of "tsars and priests", "generals and capitalists". These are centers of young movements - revolutionary and mass. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html 2/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE DAY OF RELIGIOUS WARS Against the mysticism of the creator of the "Communist Manifesto", against the mysticism of Lenin, Trotsky, Thorez, Blum, Litvinov, Drahomanov - a new mysticism of nationalism is rising. This is the mysticism that excites the masses, snatches them from the hands of false prophets; mysticism, which inspires a new mass movement, which both with its influences (mass), and methods of struggle (broad propaganda and organization of the masses), and zeal, and fanaticism - has nothing in common with the "reaction" that they want to see with this movement beat his enemies with blindness. The leftists criticize the new faith, in addition to "reactionaryness", and the fact that this new faith is based on violence and dictatorship, and they say that their socialist faith is based on a humane faith in freedom and progress... Who does not give up on the worthless delusion of the left Gorlais, he can allow himself to be taken by their Tromtadra phraseology. After all, how! And we, thanks to nationalism, are passing a new era of the "dark" Middle Ages! - they lament. The times of venedettes, condottiere, physical coercion and violence of various unprecedented groups are coming! One nation against another no longer knows ethical principles or restraints! "Neighbors" are in the foundations of the belief of nationalism - only people of the same race, members of one's own people! The ugly scourge of xenophobia is spreading, the strong do not respect the weak, the natives rule over the Zayds only thanks to statistical superiority, they establish the difference between a Hellene and a barbarian! Why divide people by their tribal affiliation? Why establish separate homelands, when the homeland of a gradual person should be the whole world? Why forget the brotherhood of nations? Isn't it time to come to our senses from the miasma of nationalism? Get rid of his ethical numbness, animalistic tribal instinct? Isn't it time to attract general tolerance? Can we really endure the turn of the times of Philip of Spain, who could not sleep as long as at least one of his subjects did not recognize his religion? Isn't it time to put an end to the soulless idolatry of one's own random anthropological community, the nation? This could be read, for example, in the Zionist Lviv Chwili ("The Turn of Humanism", September 12, 1936), and, I repeat, unfamiliar with the arcana of leftist delusion, was ready to let himself be convinced, listening to this rush of empty phrases... But who will look deeper into things, he will immediately notice the falsity of such "humanism". The new humanists are the twins of the old ones, from the time of the religious wars of the Middle Ages. Then Calvin rebelled against the Catholic Church for the sake of freedom, in order to burn in the name of the same freedom, insidiously luring to him, the Spanish monk Servetus. In the same way, then, in the name of freedom of thought, the Lutherans rebelled against the dictates of Rome, in order to later - at the synod in Dortrecht (1636) - establish one infallible dogma of Protestantism. Even now, when the realists, radicals, Bolsheviks and other "democrats" call for the old "humanism", condemning the "new Middle Ages" and opposing their cult of freedom and tolerance to nationalist "violence", they speak only the souls of the Pharisees. They are protesting against Philip of Spain, who could not sleep until at least one of his subjects belonged to his faith?... But then why are the same hypocrites marching under the red flags of the communist Philip, who also cannot sleep when he knows that even one of his subjects does not belong to his faith and does not want to "fall down and worship" him? Why then is the humane heart of the Pharisees silent? Are "humanists" breathing fire on the tribal exclusivity of nationalism? But that "exclusivity" is limited to its people. It has nothing in common with the exclusivity of militant Russian messianism, which, in the name of its tribal "superiority", throws itself by force on the "leader of the weak" and the "assistant of the backward" peoples... Why is this insolent tribal exclusivity not raised against the voice of the Pharisee of "humanism"? Why then, when the armed missionaries of that militant Russian nationalism put a noose around the necksa of the Spanish people, were they applauded by our radical idiots? Where was their "humanism", where was the Dragomanian statement that "clean work requires clean hands", when they consider the dirty work of Marxism to be clean and theirs? Why do those "humanists" want us to consider not only people of our own tribe as our neighbors, but they themselves do not want to recognize the Palestinian Arabs as our neighbors? How dare those "humanists" appeal to equality and blame the "lawlessness of groups" on nationalism, when they themselves catch the careless word that the Spanish communists (the Spanish "proletariat") "desire for themselves primacy" among the people, that is, precisely the dictatorship of the group over the entire nation? - as Mr. Jerzy Boreisha writes in the Bolshevizing Warsaw magazine "Wiadomosti Literackie" (October 11, 1936). All the talk about the virtues of "humanism", all the complaints about "violent" nationalism - all this is nothing more than a mask, which will be removed at the time when the "last and decisive battle" will come, when "we will be the judges", as sung in "The International ". Then these "humanists" will show the idiots who believed in their loud humanistic phrases, what the scourge is for! Under that view, nationalism is irresistibly more noble than its "humane" opponents from the camp of radicals, socialists and "democrats", because it openly says that Marxism is an evil that must be destroyed with a sword! The communist press is poison, it is a scum that must be burned with an iron! "Democracy" is an outdated slogan behind which a cabal of gesheftyars hides, it will promote communism! We dare not fight the gangrene brought by internationalism with gloves on! We must throw out the hirelings of the International from the backs of national life!... That's what nationalism says, and it's honest. Opponents of nationalism want to grind it to dust, they are supporters of violence and terror, they seek the dictatorship of their clique, even if not of their own people, over the nation without and against its will, they try to impose foreign ideals on the nation - but they wrap themselves in a toga of political innocence. , nobility and humanity! This is their delusion and cowardice, the cowardice of ideology before the onslaught of a new faith that will become dominant tomorrow. Neither reaction and freedom, nor violence and humanism are what separates the two "ersatz religions" that are waging a life-and-death war with each other. Nor the fact that "generals and capitalists" are on one side, and "the people" are on the other, because the masses of that people are clearly https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com /ukrstor/donzow_war.html 3/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE DAY OF RELIGIOUS WARS are turning away from Marxism. What then separates these two camps? Actually, the dogmas of their faith! Opponents will say yes, so does fascism have ideals that are the same for all movements that march under its banner? So, it turns out that fascism is also an international movement? So, nationalism is a movement based on a single model? No! The nationalist movement is a European movement, but not an internationalist one. The ideas of 1789 remain in many countries of our continent, in many of them anarchism prevails in its various forms - socialism, communism, radicalism. What is surprising when the reaction of healthy peoples against a common danger shows some common features? Protestantism was also directed against the same enemy, and because of this it took the form of a pan-European, but not an internationalist movement. Luther and Zwingli were at war with each other, and German Protestant pastors with Dutch ones. Cardinal Richelieu supported Protestant Germany in the war with the Catholic Habsburgs. In our time, there is also not always an agreement between the "ersatz religions" of nationalism, as it should be if they had an internationalist character. There is no law of international solidarity of fascist movements. One fascism can even aspire to a protectorate over others, like France over the Catholic and Sweden over the Lutheran German princes during the 30-year war, because not all European conflicts are exhausted by the war of "ersatz-religions" among themselves, but within each nation this war is a fact of great weight and, as such, a universal fact. Nationalism is a rebellion against personal and collective egoism. Rebellion against the ideology that puts the interests of the class above the nation, the national minority of the country above the autochthons, the interests of labor unions uniting two or three million, above the interests of a nation of 40 or 50 million, even above the interests of the state. Nationalism is a rebellion against the ideology of socialization and dispersal of society; rebellion in the name of old and eternal truths - work, discipline, law, the cult of ancestors, one's own blood and one's own land and its traditions, the Church, rebellion in the name of the principle of organization against the principle of disorganization... As such a nationalist movement, it is natural, has many common features - in Finland and in Ukraine, in Belgium and in Italy, in Hungary and in Germany, in Spain, in France and in Austria... But this is not an internationalist movement. On the contrary, - its goal is to strengthen the nation against all international hawkish ideas (socialist or simply imperialist, in equal measure) - against Marxism, against the "brotherhood of nations", against "humanism", against the solidarity of the "international proletariat", which breaks the solidarity of the nation, against the "Union of Nations", against the II or III International, against the "People's Front", against the UN and other organizations that want to destroy both the sovereignty of nations and the idea of ​​patriotism. The poison of internationalist faith is spreading even in our lands. In Ukraine, its representatives are Bolsheviks, socialists and radicals or national minorities. We have to fight with the poison of this monster until it breathes its last, because in our country, as elsewhere, its supporters fight with falsehood, slander and intimidation. They openly admit that if they had to hang their vaunted democracy on a peg for the introduction of socialism, it would have been done. Denouncing the holy democracy becomes a crime only for a fascist, but they say - "if someone proved to us" that democracy will not lead them to their goal, then they would renounce it and choose other means. What are the others? Obviously - terror, violence and dictatorship. "If someone would prove to us"... As for violence in particular, the same Pharisees write that violence is only violence when it is carried out by fascists. And if they are used by the People's Front, it is "popular anger", just so you know! That's what they think, and they would act accordingly if they came to power in Kyiv. These are their children, associates and collaborators of the radical "Hromad. Golos" in Lviv, who wrote that they would renounce even their native language for the sake of socialism, if a "decree from Moscow" proved to them that it was necessary... This is the pope of socialist revolutionaries, persona gratissima in radicals, prof. Hrushevsky, taught that we must bow our heads to Moscow Bolshevism, even if its policy "climbed sideways" for us, and cost Ukraine a sea of ​​blood. They are of the opinion that Bolshevism in Ukraine has done "a lot of positive things" over the past decade and a half ("Trud. Ukraine", ch. 8-9-10). Vinnichenko's letters to Stalin can be compared to Bakunin's letters to Tsar Nicholas I, full of hypocrisy and self-deprecation (ibid., ch. 5-6). They are the ones who happily quote, as a "bitter truth", the "paradoxical phrase" of the Ukrainian clerical Sovietophile O. Nazaruk: "our nationalists carry out more destructive work among the Ukrainian people than the communists" (ibid., ch. 8-9-10) . It was they who praised the policy of Bolshevism in Spain, so that you often cannot distinguish the articles on Spanish topics of the "Ukrainian" "Hromad. Golos" from the Moscow "Izvestia" or the Polish "Robotnik". During the civil war in Spain, in a conversation with the correspondent of the Jewish "Chwili" (January 19), our "friend" Antonov-Ovseenko, the former Bolshevik governor-general of Madrid, stated that "on some fronts, and especially in Aragon, the state of affairs was reminiscent of the struggle in Ukraine in 1918. Now it is possible to notice strong organizational work everywhere... We know what their "organizational work" means in the jargon of communism! And this "organizational work" - such as in Ukraine in 1918 - is applauded by radicals and socialists! Do you think that they would not applaud her if Mr. Antonov appeared in Ukraine again? Times, however, have changed, the new year 1917 or 1918 in Greater Ukraine would be under a different sign - under the sign of an inexorable struggle between two "religions", Bolshevik and nationalist. In such a struggle, socialists and radicals will always side with Bolshevism, against their worst enemy - "fascists", by which they understand all non-socialists! Nationalism, as we have just quoted, is for them a worse enemy than communism, that communism which, after all, "did a lot of positive things" in Ukraine and which should not be messed with, even if it "climbed sideways" at us... If only the events of 1917-20 were repeated in Ukraine, then our socialists would gladly invite there https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html 4/5 11 /28/23, 3:50 PM THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS gangs of international "volunteers" with Soviet tanks, for God's sake, socialism is better than "fascist Ukraine"... And the fact that Moscow will lead the whole event does not harm them in any way. To think that an agreement can be reached between the two "religions" is a futile hope. New "religions" will win, whose adherents will show a greater spirit of consecration. Don't be kind! These latter already feel that their kingdom will soon end. We can apply to them the harsh words of the new "heretic" Charles Gide, that "in no other country is the spirit less free, more broken, more intimidated and terrorized", like the USSR. That no one has "never had foreheads so tilted" as among the Russian followers of Marx. And tilted foreheads were not created to create history, only to serve Cheops... So, the new faith will win , hostile to the pharaoh's servants, which will not allow either the adherents of Marx or any humanists to be misled. Luther reproached Melanchthon that in his "Apology" he makes too many concessions to his opponents and that he is indifferent to his faith, and quotes the words of the Holy Scriptures: Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord indifferently, who would stop His sword" (Jeremiah 48, 10). Under the sign of the relentless war of "religions" and the elimination of all "indifferent" aside, a new era begins. Woe to the blind who do not see this sign! January 1937 Ukrainskie Stranitsy, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the National Movement of Ukraine 1800-1920s SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor /donzow_war.html PING Banner Network 5/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM CALL OF THE DAY The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com: 80/ukrstor/do... Украинские Страницы история национального дужници Украины Главная Движения Регионы Вопросы Деятели Sсылки Отзывый форум Смотрите также страницу Дмитрия Донцова CALL OF THE DAY CALL OF THE DAY... A call to greet the arrival of the new Doba, which is replacing anarchy and the schedule of the modern era. When was the last one born, and who were its prophets? It was born in 1789, with the explosion of the "great" French revolution, and its prophets were the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Jew Karl-Mordecai Marx and the Muscovite Volodymyr Ulyanov-Lenin. On the ruins of the so-called feudal Europe, a new leading class, a new "elite" built its throne and its idols. Starting with the slogan of "democracy", the followers of these prophets quickly began to rally under the slogan of internationalism, socialism, and later - communism. In Russia, these adepts promised freedom to the "working people", the destruction of "lords, bourgeois and priests" and the transfer of all ownership of land and factories to that "people" under the slogan "proletarians of all countries unite." Instead of God, they put idols, two degenerates - Marx and Lenin - as political and spiritual leaders. All this was a diabolical lie, because soon - the structure of these prophets of the USSR turned into a slave-owning pan-dom empire of the conquering Moscow "herrenfolk" led by those "demonized" Dostoevsky, who planned to rule the world in the name of "envy and gluttony". From them began the era of "religious wars" of those obsessed, inspired by unshakable faith in their "mission", in their idols, and strong will, freedom fighters, in order to win, opposed them with the "militant philosophy" of life, which Ortega and Gasset spoke about . In our European West, and the national "elite", which Edmund Borke characterized as "economists, sophists and coolies", and which marched under the banner of "progress, peace and democracy", Rousseau's atheism quickly began to lean towards an alliance with socialism and communism, and religion and patriotism slowly receded into the corner like old "superstition". And then the secret mafia began to gain great influence among that "elite", which stubbornly inclined its societies to "coexistence and peace", and even to "friendship" with the anti-Christian communist Moscow, with the USSR. It began with the Yalta-Nuremberg alliance with the support of the Bolshevik "republicans" against national and patriotic Spain, with the support of the communists against "fascist" Portugal, national Greece, Rhodesia, and also with the active hostility of the "progressive", "democratic" and Muscophile mafia to of national, anti-communist Ukraine and its Christian parish of Kyiv. At the same time, this mafia clearly showed its guidance to the United Nations Organization, out of which it would like to make the embryo of a supranational "World Government", for itself or in alliance with the USSR. These plans of the mafia can be seen from its intention to open the door of the Western countries as wide as possible for the infiltration of Bolshevik germs, which is already being loudly discussed in the European and American press. It is said that the communist threat is not only outside the borders of America, but in the middle of it, that communist agents "invaded all areas of political and social activity, in youth organizations, in radio, in television, in film productions, in the Church, in schools , in educational and cultural organizations, in the press" of not one of the modern "democracies" (Edward Hoover, head of FBI). It is said that "we are all retreating before communism, approaching catastrophe ... In the next five years, decisive events will take place that will determine centuries in advance whether humanity will live a free life or be in slavery to communism ... We have turned our backs to the abyss ... We dare not make any more mistakes!" (Senator Thomas Dodd). We see, therefore, that when in the USSR the era of the prophets Marx and Lenin ends in political, economic and moral decay and anarchy, the bankruptcy of the communist "elite" - chaos, then a similar danger threatens the West, which seeks to master the pro-Soviet, "progressive", "democratic" mafia. As a result of its action, in many countries in the West there is also a paralysis of all disciplinary power, all spiritual ideals, all missionary ideas, and this leads to impunity for crimes, to the freedom of propaganda of pornography, debauchery in speech, writing, theaters, literature, art, in fashion, leads to the gradual elimination of religion, to "dialogues" with the servants and agents of the antichrist, to the mockery of patriotism, heroism, to the cult of fun, benefits, pleasure, money, to the cult of the "little man" with his purely physical instincts, to the confusion of ideas Good and Evil, Truth and lies, beauty and ugliness, to the moral and doctrinal laxity and inability to resist the onslaught of communism and the Western mafia supporting it. What is happening in the West is what, as we read in the American press, predicted one hundred and thirty years ago in his prophetic vision by Abraham Lincoln (see US News and Worlds Report), predicting unpunished explosions of the "mobocratic spirit" ("golot spirit"), dangerous for nations and states... He predicted the tragic end of the age that began almost 200 years before our days. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html 1/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE CALL OF THE DAY This danger that was addressed A. Lincoln, T. Dodd, Ortega-y-Gasset, and we have Shevchenko, this "highest spire" of the age started by Rousseau and ended by Marx and Lenin, the age of materialism, Moscow and the mafia, is the age of the "three M ", which Lviv's "Vistnyk" urged to fight even before the Second World War. It has already reached the "highest spire", which is the "beginning of the decline", and is entering the phase of that Armageddon, which the poets of the herald's Quadriga saw with prophetic eyes, when "the daily clamor will be interrupted by the trumpet of the Archangel", when "the terrible judgment will rise with the white sun". when we will hear "the whirlwind, the fire of God's hands", when "the spines of Europe will shake again", when the servants of the devil will bring not only Ukraine, but the whole of Europe, maybe the whole world, to bend their devilish faith and the uncompromising spirit of everyone to their power, Dostoevsky's "possessed" forces. But this age will only then be the "beginning of the downfall" of that infernal power, only then will we see "how in the storm, in the lightning, in the thunder the dragon lay victorious" - when in this age of "religious wars", the war of ideas, people will come our sides, obsessed with that "militans philosophy", which, quoting Ortega, I mention in this book; obsessed with an unshakable faith in their Truth, and a fighting spirit; who will exceed belief in their lies of dark forces and their pathos of robbers. When new people will breathe into the hearts of the fighters "the fiery drink with which the past lived and strengthened", when - in the words of O. Teliga, they will start "swinging the calling bell, making fire from flints", when the new fighters will hear this bell, the call of a new era. This cry of the coming Age of those poets who "swinged the call bell" and "made fire from the flints" of our souls - those countrymen who still bend their flexible necks before the idols of Marx, Lenin, Khrushchev, Gretsky or Kaganovich; who are still in contact, as with "brothers", with those who consider Shvartsbardt, Stashynskyi or Bazhan to be their heroes; who openly admit that it is necessary to negotiate with traitors or make a deal even with the devil; those who mix Truth with lies, Good with Evil, will not hear the calling bell of the Day; who label loyalty to their Truth as harmful "dogmatism"; as "emotionality" - burning with fiery pathos of one's great idea; as "adventurism" - struggle with violence. Those of Doba will not hear that voice, because they are those whom Skovoroda called "bats", who do not distinguish "between the right and the left path", who "are neither male nor female, neither warm nor cold, nor an animal , no bird". These are those who are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, whom the Lord will "throw out of His mouth" in the decisive hour, as it says in the Gospel. The clarion call of Doba will be heard by people of a different, non-plebeian, blood, those whom Shevchenko summoned from the graves, those "holy knights" who came to his hut in sleepless nights, who will come "to tear the porphyry and crush the throne" of a foreign despot in Ukraine; those new Mazepyns, whose arrival he announced in his "Dream", on the day expected by him, when "a new fire will blow from the Cold Yar" of Ukraine; when it will come to the final struggle between the Ivans who will "torture the executioners" with the executioners and those who will "help the executioners" ... I. Franko rang his call to these people, renouncing the stray fires of socialism, materialism and dragomanism, all of his contemporaries Dathans and Avyrons, calling to the rank of "servants of Navin". To these people, L. Ukrainka rang her call bell, in all her dramas and poems, calling out of oblivion "heroic youth", with the "fiery wine" of faith and zeal in their hearts. The poet saw everything "a battle, only the last battle, not for life but for death." She saw "in a dream a holy structure or a dungeon", and "a towering organ stood there, like a rock", which "should make a powerful and majestic sound". That everywhere "should resound and overturn the world order, a terrible movement will arise everywhere and strong structures will fall with thunder, great will be the horror, great and the liberation! Then the universal shackles will fall and the Truth will bloom with the laurel of the forehead, and the evil, hidden for ages, will perish." People with a "bold hand" should break that bell. And he ends: - "no, the noise is terrible, I have to extract it"! And those knights, whom she called to be ready for the call of the day, she finally summoned - together with other poets of the herald's Quadriga by Olena Teliga, contrasting them with the living corpses of "parthas of life", like Shevchenko's Cossacks - "shashes" that "gnaw and smolder" a healthy body nation Like Skovoroda, who contrasted his science about the power of the Spirit with various "dark, lame and weak" materialists, or Shevchenko with his Cossack Prometheus - "blind, crooked and hunchbacked" lyremen..." Ukraine, which will rise in the fire and storm of the new Age, is and there will be a Ukraine of those people who will hear its clarion call, an ancient, traditional, historical Ukraine with the spirit, mission and mystique of old Kyiv, not a socialist, communist, or "mobocratic" Ukraine, not a Ukraine of "contemporary fires" of the devil, not a Ukraine " agricultural" - and Ukraine is Cossack. With the new "elite", which we read in the drama "The Mercy of God" or in "Letters of the Cossacks to the Slaves" - will defend the "Greek-Cossian race" from savage hordes, will introduce "order" instead of anarchy, because no one the other will not do it, because when the "Cossacks impoverish", then without them all the material well-being of the Greek people, all the "gold" will turn into "swamp", and the nation into "useless master clay". "To rock this calling bell" of the new era is task of our age! I wanted to give these few words instead of a preface to this collection of my already printed articles. I reveal here only the essence of the testaments of our prophets and prophetesses named above, which are invisible to the "blind, crooked and hunchbacked" in soul and spirit. I also think that these articles in the collection are not outdated, just as those authors I quote - such as A. Lincoln, such as Ortega-y-Gasset, such as George Canning - who preached the coming of "religious wars" and the need for those fighting for Truth, - to have your "militant philosophy" of life, or, as Lesya Ukrainka wrote, - to have an unshakable idea, - for its victory, "the fighting spirit of the first apostles. Finally - last but not least, the Spirit in the hearts, about which L A Ukrainian woman in one of her poems ("And you once fought") - the Spirit that in the past gave the nation victory over the neighboring "inferior jackals"; the Spirit of Truth mentioned by Shevchenko, which gives the soul wings, zeal, wisdom, mystical power and faith to complete great deeds. The spirit that inspired princely and Cossack Kyiv, aware of its great historical mission. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html 2/ 3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM CALL OF THE DAY Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920ye gody. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:49 PM FIRE SPARK OF THE GREAT The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Dmitry Dontsova THE FIRE OF THE GREAT SPARK How long will Ukraine be punished and tormented? This question resounds again and again from newspaper articles, from the yearning cries of sensitive poets, in prose... Materialists will look for answers to this question in the statements of the Kremlin "collective" tsars, in the "meetings" of the so-called red Boyar Duma. "international constellation". I think that only based on the acceptance of the primacy of the spiritual factor, it is possible to shed light on this question - how long will it last in Ukraine? The first to be punished were those who, in the USSR, raised a sharp saber or a sharp word against a recruit. Then came the punishment for those who served the zainants, which caused among them and their friends to be shocked: "For what? What for them?!" But it did not end there. It was the turn of millions of those in Ukraine who "sat in wait", the mass of "neutral" and "loyal" ones. This completely confused everyone, who still have no idea why even those who are "silent because they are prosperous" are being tortured. King Philip of Macedon gave a witty answer to a similar question - to the Hellenic democrats even before our era. When he conquered one Greek city-state after another, and everywhere he had his 5th column in them, like now Moscow (Manuilsky, Zatonsky, Kotsyubynsky, Lyubchenko, Dimitrov, Pauker and Nagy). And when it was their turn to go "under the wall" as well, when they begged and asked the Philippians: for what? Is this the way to thank them for their service to the Macedonians? they answered: - if you betrayed your own country today, tomorrow you can betray Philip too, that's why he doesn't believe you either... It's very simple and very clear! Philip of Moscow thinks so too. Therefore, whether now or on Thursday, it is the turn to punish even the servants of Moscow, the second category that goes under the knife of the executioners. Because what falls under the first category, the one that stands up, that "Aidans tear", does not require a closer explanation. This is clear to everyone. But what should the third category, the entire people, those millions of innocent victims who agreed with the occupier and "work honestly" for him be punished for? - This is why sensitive poets and novelists are not worthy to cry. Philip, the Macedonian king, also answered this question. When some of those innocent Greeks asked why he was persecuting them: - Philip knows, his servants said to the Greeks, how much harm, how much evil he has done to the Greeks, and therefore he thinks that they all hate him with all their hearts, looking for what he needs repay those wrongs (quoting from memory)... That's why the king, just in case, destroyed a lot of these innocents... For the same reasons, Moscow also conducts its genocide in Ukraine. As we can see, some people naively think that, as they say, no matter how many "shitheads" and stupid "romantics" did not rebel against Moscow, there would be no repression against the broad sections of the people, nor against the servants and lackeys of the hired hand, who "save , that they can"... These thoughts are naive! Because Philip, Macedonian and Moscow, have their own logic: simple, clear and merciless! The case with the third category of tortured is the most interesting. Why are they, that mass, exterminated even when apparently there is not even one "Cossack out of a million swineherds" left in it? When everything seems to be turned into a submissive crowd? Is it really all? In 1871, Louis-Napoleon's France was defeated by the Germans. The emperor was taken prisoner, the victorious Prussian army pushed an avalanche on Paris. At this time, the confused Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of France, Thiers, asked Bismarck: The imperialist government of Napoleon III is gone, who is Prussia fighting against? - With Louis XIV there was an answer. Prussia was at war, it seemed to her, with the immortal spirit of old history; warlike, heroic France of Louis XIV, Vauban, Turin - with the spirit that, Bismarck thought, was always ready to flare up again and which flared up once again in 1917 in the person of J. Clemenceau. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html 1/3 11/28/23, 3:49 PM FIRE SPARK OF THE GREAT Like Hohenzollern Prussia, though France then lay broken at her feet, still at war with Louis XIV, and so did Russia, even at the beginning of the present century, it still destroyed "Mazepinism" in us, the heroic spirit of old Ukraine, the spirit of Mazepa and Polobotk. It is known that in Polobotkov, Peter I was afraid to find a "second Mazepa", that is why he opposed his election as hetman. It is also known that under Nicholas II the entire national movement in Ukraine at that time was "tainted" by the name of "Mazepinism". Although it was represented then by such figures as M. Hrushevskyi, Vynnychenko, or Ukrainian "radicals", the spirits of Mazepyn's Ukraine are just as alien as Thier and his comrades were in 1871 - the spirits of old, heroic France. Probably, the Russians - white and red - did not think that Mazepa would emerge from Hrushevskyi and Vinnichenko, they knew their value as politicians. But they were afraid that Mazepyn residents (in spirit) could be found among those millions in Ukraine. And they were not mistaken! The proof is the spontaneous explosion of the Ukrainian element in 1917-21, with completely unknown names before that, Yu. and V. Tyutyunniki, Bezruchko, Bolbochan, Omelyanovych-Pavlenko, leaders of the anti-Bolshevik uprisings, etc. None other than Vynnychennko wrote in 1920 that "it was necessary to notice all the time during the entire Ukrainian revolution that it was they, those who could not even speak Ukrainian properly, they were the most extreme, fiery, unexampled nationalists." - by Mazepyns. Why was this so? Probably because, although they were not affected by the enlightened propaganda of patriotism of the demo-socialist parties in Ukraine, precisely because of that, they were not affected by the anemic, anti-military, anti-state and pacifist Moscow-phileism of those parties. But those "unparalleled", through Shevchenko, maybe Rudanskyi, through historical legends, songs, sayings, traditions of the Cossacks, through local legends - albeit semi-Russified (Ukrainian "Irish"). were saturated with the spirit of our historical antiquity. There was Shevchenko's "fire maskra of the great", which was "smoldering" in the ashes of the fire, unexpectedly exploding with a new fire. How, where were those sparks to look for? That is why the Moscow Philippis decided to scatter all the ashes and flood them with water - but then one or two sparks that were still smoldering in the fire pit would be extinguished. Hence the mass extermination of Ukrainians by starvation, concentration camps, death camps, terror, mass evictions, Moscow's entire policy of genocide in Ukraine. This idea was borrowed by the Moscow Bolsheviks from the Judean king Herod: "Herod was very angry and sent to slaughter all the children from the age of two years and under"... Because "it was written through the prophets" that there should rise a leader who would liberate the people from the power Herod ... Maybe the Herods in the Kremlin also know that the one who will slay the Moscow dragon must come from Ukraine? In any case, the policy of mass extermination in Ukraine - not only of the enemies of Moscow, but also of those "neutrals" can be very well explained by the anxiety of Herod of Moscow (the king Herod was alarmed and all of Jerusalem was behind him") that in the conflagration in which he turned Ukraine, here and there are smoldering invisible "sparks of the great fire", which will suffocate the barbarian empire. Therefore, it is necessary to strike blindly, up, down, to the right and to the left, without discrimination - active and submissive, rebels and neutral - everyone! and the hand of the executioner crush then those who were appointed to bring Ukraine out of darkness and captivity? the same resistance of Ukraine that - in 1941, when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers refused to defend the Moscow horde - this is like 1917, there was a sudden outbreak of sparks neglected by the executioners! What does it ignite them, in our souls, in the souls of this or that Ukrainian? It happens in different ways... A notebook of Shevchenko's forbidden poems in some village peasant... Museum of our antiquity... Zankivetska's speech... - in the old days. Or a complete suggestion and unopened charm of Repin's painting - "The Hetman", resting his hand on a cannon, (under which in Tiktor's "History" for some reason there is the inscription "Zaporozhsky Ataman")... Or the gallop of the Haydamaki division along the Zhytomyr highway to Kyiv, in the days of the battles of 1919-1920 y., with what fire of something unstoppable and majestic (something like "Cossack Glory" by Mukhin), a resurrected specter of the old, heroic Ukraine ignited the soul of a little girl, Lena Teliga, for the rest of her life. a spark even from the works of the enemies, which appeared here with such force that "das Boes will6 das Gute scbafft" (Goethe)... I know that not one "Little Russian" was made Ukrainian by Pushkin's "Poltava", but not one "Russian" " or a Galician Muscovite was converted to Ukrainian by Sienkevych's novel "Fire and Sword": let them have a minus sign, like a "wild element", ancient Ukraine appeared in those works, but - contrary to their intentions, full of invincible strength, desperate impulse and of a mysterious charm... In one of the newer Soviet histories of Russian literature, it is openly expressed - in general in the USSR, A. Pushkin is highly respected - a reprimand is expressed, how could he oppose Petrov - the "Great" - the "changer" Mazepa, as an equal ruler and an equal the enemy... The spirit of Mazepinism, the spirit that still roams Ukraine - this is where those "sparks of the great fire" fly to the impressionable souls that Herod of Moscow is trying to kill. But that fire can be lit only in the souls that are able to ignite, in the dry, fiery, burning souls of ascetics and heroes, not in the tears-soaked souls of "footmen", "slaves" and "Pharisees" according to Shevchenko's expression. When the number of the latter will decrease, and the number of the first, not "neutral", not Herod's minions, will increase, then only Herod's policy in Ukraine will become powerless. And his kingdom will end. With the blessing of Ukraine (or its https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:49 PM FIRE SPARK OF THE GREAT a curse - Shveyk thinks) - is the legacy of the former greatness of old Kyiv. Either it will be restored to its former glory, or Ukraine will be erased from the map of Europe. This will be decided, as always in history, not by one or another visible constellations of the material world, but by the presence and power of that spark, invisible under the ashes of the external world, which, igniting a great fire in the hearts of millions, will burn to the ground, even if one does not know how strong the kingdom is. violence and evil. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY AND SOCIALIST EXAM CASTERS The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... также страницу Dmitry Dontsov HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES Neither the democratic nor the Bolshevik Russian revolution wanted the division of the empire. She sought to consolidate it - with new methods and dexterity of a new, morally not yet exhausted caste, with new mysticism. That is why the Bolsheviks respect Pushkin, the hero of the Peter Empire, the one who, from the tumultuous era, When Russia was young, Struggled in the struggle, Married with Peter's genius, From that era extracted its pathos for posterity. And for the Bolsheviks - who pump up the soul of the Moscow people, exhausted by five years, with his pathos. Russia, which is already hatching from the red communist egg, lives with this pathos. In Pushkin, there was neither Gogol's skepticism, nor Lermontov's demonism, nor Dostoevsky's Satanism, nor Chaadaev's radical denial of Russia. In it there was a reckless "hosanna" of the empire, he praised the "Neva state stream", "the city of Petrov", which will stand "unscathed like Russia", he threatened the "arrogant neighbor". In his poems, the image of tsarist Russia and the one who turned Russia upside down with an iron hand shone "magnificently, proudly" for him. He proclaimed that from the cold Finnish rocks to the fiery Kalchida, from the shaken Kremlin to the walls of unmoved China, there was one "Russian land". He tarnished the "slanderers", all those who did not bow in the dust before Moscow. He prepared a common grave for those impudents in the plains of Russia - "among other people's graves." He regretted why Mazepa didn't end his life "on the brink", for him Europe and America were "dead bodies" compared to the "magnificent" imperial Russia. In his poems, the "heavy-bellowing gallop" of the imperial centaur, which trampled tribes and peoples under its feet, rang out. The heroes of Bolshevism only imitate it. Blok's "state step" is borrowed from Pushkin, and his "Scythians" is a parody of "Slanderers of Russia". And in the "casion" ideology of Stalin's or later Russia, the "Soviet family" from the White Sea to the Black Sea with one Russian people was translated from it. The Bolshevik "wall" for traitors is the same one glorified by Pushkin, the "fear" for Mazepa! Soviet "bandits" are his "traitors"! All that was left for the enemies of Moscow was to brandish the "arrogant neighbor" boastfully. The Leninists also borrowed the entire clumsy sham of imperial patriotism from the Mykolaiv chamberlain Pushkin! https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 1/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAM AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES The Russian Revolution is not renounced antiquity and gave the composition of the old bebekhs - the idea of ​​the Petersburg tsar. She only "enriched" that idea by moving the capital back to Moscow, "enriched" the practice of Ivan IV, with his communist party, whose "chekists" led by Malyuta Skuratov wore a dog's head and a broom by the saddle: signs of canine loyalty and relentless "cleansing" ... The "iron march of the labor battalions" of the first years of the revolution quickly turned into a heavy, elephant-like, methodical and deadly march of the old Moscow "companions of the Russian land". In this form, the Russian revolution fell on Ukraine and marked its tasks and methods precisely in this form. What did the Ukrainian revolution oppose to them, these "dog-heads"? A new question immediately arises - what should be understood by the "Ukrainian revolution"? The Moscow revolution was not Kerensky, who tried to connect it to himself with "pleasant conversations", like Kotlyarevsky's coachman "Boykuyu Natalka". The Russian revolution was Lenin, Yevgenia Bosch, Krylenko, the rebellious "sailors". Likewise, the French revolution was embodied not by the Marquis Chanteclair Lafayette, nor the red Count Mirabeau, but by Marat and Robespierre. On the one hand - Russia, shocked by the lost war, the apostasy and rebellion of the "outskirts", which it considered its eternal subjects, went mad with rage. And against it - the outstretched palm of the consent of our Marats... Could their "reason" have realized that the new Russia would squeeze this palm the way the fireplace commander squeezed Don Juan's palm... Even then, faith in the Russian commander's palm was not justified. If only because, not only in 1917, but in 1948, there were those who saw the naivety of those delusions... As Bakunin approached Lelevel, the emissaries of liberal Russia then, by the way, also approached Mickiewicz with an outstretched hand. But he answered them differently. He answered with many facts about the exile of his compatriots, about Siberia and the arresting "companies", about executions, corporal punishment, about how the tsar mocked your "Slavic brothers"... "And what did you do then?" he asked he. - Did they raise a brotherly voice? Did they point out to the king that this is revenge, inhuman injustice? No! You were both his tool and assistant! Get away from me, royal hirelings! First wash the stains of Abel's blood on your hands, and then just as Slavs, come for advice to a free Slav"... When Mickiewicz threw such words in the face of Russian liberal democracy, why didn't our Marathas do the same in 1917 or 1918? Has democracy not yet shown its teeth? She showed, and how, even before the First World War (Struve, Milyukov and others) and with the explosion of the revolution. In one magazine, we read memoirs about the shot Bolshevik Hryhoriy Pyatakov, who was well known to us. "On the first day of mass terror (in Kyiv), 20,000 Ukrainians fell victim to Pyatakov. Among the victims were prominent Ukrainian socialist revolutionaries who believed in Bolshevik independent Ukraine and stayed in the city to join the Bolsheviks." Why after such facts - and how many were there then! - not only then, but also now, in emigration, representatives of those parties, which also fell en masse victims of the Pyatakovs, - still talked with Stalin (like Vynnychenko) or with Rakovsky (like M. Hrushevskyi), or now admit, that there was "still a lot of positive" in the work of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine ("Labor Ukraine" by the Shapovalovs in Prague)? Why do they write that "Moscow Bolshevism contributed to an unprecedented extent to the spread of class consciousness among the working class of Russia and outside it, and that this is its great historical merit"? Why do they write that "talks about the "foreignness" and occupation" character of the Soviet government in Ukraine should be abandoned?" That this government, therefore, is our own? Why didn't they call on the Bolsheviks first of all to "wash the stain of Avelyan's blood off their hands", and then to start a conversation about the "common goals" of those who "love freedom"? Why did Cain M. Hrushevskyi casually shake that bloodied hand? Why did the idea of ​​patriotism, the idea of ​​"our homeland", "Cossack homeland", so loud and hot in Wieliczka, die in souls of those people? Why did the spirit of modern combiners and lackeys emerge in its place? Hatred of violence was also the engine of every revolution. Why did revolutionary socialists carefully avoid "tones of hatred of foreign people" in their propaganda? The answers to these questions would lead us into a circle of riddles of a purely pathological nature. But I am not talking about answers here, only about affirming the fact that people with such a soul could not want, could not fan the fire that started in Ukraine with the fall of the tsar... Millions of scattered energies, hidden desires, lurking hatred, justified by centuries oppression, although not clearly realized, with great positive ideals that animated that mass - they were waiting for a magnet that would gather them together to throw a rapid avalanche on the head of the broken empire. They were waiting for a cry similar to that "Wake up Flanders!" to spread throughout Ukraine. There was no such call. He was nominated later, thrust upon the socialist leaders by the nation itself, partly against their will and desire, when the moment for the best mobilization of those sentiments was already lost. The leaders of the Russian revolution did otherwise against us! It doesn't matter under which label - but always, in the first years after the October tragedy, they baked the xenophobia of their masses to whiteness. They fueled their hatred not for capitalist, but for Europe in general. They called for the defense of the country, but against whom? Against foreigners! What they were called https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 2/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAM AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES by "sharks of imperialism", it didn't matter, it was "faison de parle". Here it was simply an intensive preaching of hostility to foreigners as such, a mobilization of the xenophobic instincts of the masses, which had been abandoned under the tsar. "From the time - writes Carlisle - when the whole of Europe trembled as if in a handkerchief, warmed by the words of Peter of Amiens; when it set out to liberate the Holy Sepulchre, - never did the flame of such ardent faith flare up in it as during the French Revolution. Since Protestantism fell silent, since Luther's voice was not heard, nor Žižka's tambourine, since no one called to defend God's Truth against the lies of Lucifer, - the flame of such faith did not rage among the nations... The explosion of that feeling was a true miracle. A miracle that is still terrifying remembers the world". Macaulay reproached Pitt that he did not understand the real essence of the French Revolution, that he had to fight not a state, but a "new sect" (a new tribe, a new breed of people), full of fanatical enthusiasm, boundless pride, wild zeal and an audacious desire to renew world" (probably "in his own way"). The people who inspired millions with this faith symbolized that revolution. The symbol of the Flemish revolution of the 16th century (against Spain) was not Panza-Holdzak in literature, but Uhlenspiegel, the same one who along and across with the cry "Wake up, Flanders!" He who promised the weary a kingdom of utopia on earth no sooner, until in Flanders gardens, on every branch, one Spaniard will hang"... These people were the leaders of the revolution. They embodied and shaped her passion and pathos, the whole world of her thoughts. Many things must be distinguished. And the Sanculots, the Parisian gangs who ran to capture the Bastille or fight the horsemen on the border - and the author of "Marseillaise", who gave those gangs an idea. And Rousseau, who gave direction and meaning to their uncontrollable impulse, and Marat, who channeled the unconscious hatred of the Parisian streets into a system of terror, inspired the gust of struggle for a "just cause." It is necessary to distinguish the "mischievousness" of a drunken sailor, stolen watches and murders of everyone who wore a "hat" from those who gave that "mischievousness" an ideological example and the seal of a great spirit with the slogans "death to the bourgeois" and "robbing, looting", from those who gave the desire of the northern wanderers to feed on the labor and wealth of "blessed Malarassia" an "ideological" basis for fighting the "counter-revolution", "traitors" and "slanderers of Russia"... The mass - and those who formed its unclear instincts, its subconscious, disordered, chaotic impulses into impetuous, incendiary cries... Without such formalization - ideological and emotional - there is no dynamics of the movement, no success... The great tragedy of the Ukrainian revolution was in the one who formalized all these impulses and instincts in our country , - revolutions against the Bolshevik horde. This revolution - I'm talking about the elements - was a surprise, a miracle for many. The transformation of the cherry paradise into Dante's hell, and the two-legged steppe "oxen" into formidable Yarem - this was the terrible frenzy for Kossak-Schutska, Aihorn, and Lenin. In that hell there was a huge untapped power of youth and a desire to repay the borrowers - national power. There were also herrings and slinkies (instead of the red Phrygian "pantless"-sanculots), there was the romance of the old Cossack times, like the princely romance in the Khmelnytskyi revolution. The memories of the bright past were obscured, and like a raging bull, Ukraine rushed across the bloody arena, torn and wounded, looking for someone to attack... The revolution in Ukraine was waiting for a slogan, a goal. She was waiting for someone to take her to task, so that these slogans, accumulated in the ages of contempt, would pour out in one bright cry, like that "Wake up, Flanders", like the beginning of the anthem of the "Marseille" volunteers or like Shevchenko's "Testament". This element of ours, which broke the shores in March 1917, was not formless, it had its own firm commandments, which were not carved in tablets. Now she wanted to excommunicate them with spears in the annals of history, according to the old ancestral custom. One of those commandments was to respect property. Such an honor that "they fired enemy bullets and cannons" across the border, like those Stefanykov peasants. It was such an honor that the one who reached out for their welfare, the horse thief, was "not let out alive" and "rushed on him like hungry wolves" (as in Stefanyk's story "The Thief"). Such was their eternal truth, their heroic code of morality, which was the contagion and heroic code of the Vendée! The Bolsheviks also felt this harsh truth of our peasant's life on their backs. The socialist "Marats" of our revolution, who wanted to lead it, had to give that truth all the noble colors of an ideal, the great truth of the land, and mobilize popular enthusiasm in its name. And not only against Ekaterina's "baistryuks", but also against the outdated Bolshevized "bosyatstv". Not only against those who interpreted the right of private property only to their benefit, but also against those who did exactly that with the right of socialism. Our peasant said - "another's house is worse than execution", "although it is not beautiful, but proper", "best man is not best man, but don't get into the garden", "matchmaker is not matchmaker, but don't touch mine". There was so much possessive instinct in this mentality, so much hostility even to the "best man" or "matchmaker" or "companion" when he came uninvited to share things other than his own, so much hatred for the basket ideal of socialism! It was necessary to fan that gnawing instinct into the fire of revolution, to give it bright formulas, to make it the engine of an imposing explosion. But the Ukrainian revolution had other leaders, their souls were carved by other carvers; not those that shaped the soul of the peasant. His proprietary https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 3/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES instinct - was a superstition for our socialists! A higher, gradual form of land ownership - this was a collective for our "Marats"! In their program - like the Bolsheviks - they had "socialization" or "nationalization" of the land... Do they appear to the uncle to be serfs? Uncle is a reactionary! Clinging to one's own, one's own, is "bourgeoisie"! And to kill a person for stealing speechless cattle; it's the devil knows what! It's a lack of humanity and education! And Vendée is a symbol of the counter-revolution! And "we" for "progress" ! It doesn't matter who gives it to us and from where. This was the answer of the socialist "Marats". It was not a voice that came from the hearts of the masses, it was not the voice of their instinct. Those words spoke the wisdom of someone else. What is strange about the fact that when the subconscious element that came out of the shores did not find an appropriate expression in the conscious will of the leaders? That the will of the leaders was only a crooked mirror of the hidden desires of the element? True, later I had to start my defense not only against the "masters" but also against the "matchmakers" " and "godfathers" from the North. However, the impudent creation of a new front only confused the masses, who had been drawn in the other direction until now. The other side - the one that attacked us from the North, like the Persians once attacked Hellas - knew no "gardens ", neither "Khrushchevs", nor "Nightingales". But she knew the right of naked power deeply rooted in her. And besides, she knew something else, not she, but those who led her. The Kirilenko women knew how to give the selfish, wolfish appetite of their masses the appearance of a struggle for the great "universal" idea, for socialism. There was no contradiction between the "appetites" of the masses and the ideas of the leaders. From the idea of ​​socialism, they made a condenser of the beastly hunger of their masses. This word gave the ordinary greediness of the northern race of barbarians a dynamic force of dispersal, justifying it "morally" in their hearts. Whoever joined the Communist Party bought absolution for all yesterday's and tomorrow's sins, which the socialist Zayda committed or thought of committing in "blessed Little Russia", absolution from "public opinion", from "bright ideas of progress and justice!". This idea, which the Moscow wordsmiths conveniently instilled in the disorderly movement of their masses in the South, this idea of ​​Bolshevism justified them not only in their own eyes, but even in the eyes of "cultural" European snobs. How many Istratians, Jews, Errios, Toms of Maniv looked at the Egyptian works in Ukraine and at the Bolshevik pharaohs, like a calf at a new gate. Or like Voltaire on "Semiramis of the North" - Catherine II. To unmask this deception, to call white - white, black - black, to unmask the great lie of our time - foreign socialism, to find a rallying cry for the masses so that they rush like "hungry wolves" at the attacker, armed with no matter how "good" they are, in fact, with false slogans - this was a task beyond the strength and brains of our socialist leaders. Their soul was divided in the same way as their feelings. Neither did they love their own, nor did they hate someone else's. How could they mobilize our essentially xenophobic, private property element to fight against Northern socialism, when their teacher Proudhon said that "private property is theft"? Poisoned by other people's wisdom, they were deaf to the voice of their people's instinct, to their truth... That is why the unformed idea languished, and the unswayed dynamism slowed down. And not only in this shade! In addition to socialism, a second idea emerged from the North, dressed in the fresh clothes of the revolution - the idea of ​​one "people-Messiah"; "from the cold Finnish rocks to the fiery Colchis". The vanguard of this idea were the sons of the "chosen people", bearded "lapotniks" or those whom Klen called "hunchbacked" Messiahs, who had in their blood an atavistic malice towards everything that had even the slightest stamp of "Mazepinism", Khmelnytskyi or Haidamachchyna. The position of our masses towards the representatives of that force, as well as towards the idea of ​​socialism, is well known. We must admit that in relation to the "truth" of the Lenins, Trotskys and their clique, the instinct of our Hrytsy and Yarem was on a more certain path than the mind of the "gradual intelligentsia". To give power or influence to that Zaid clique in Ukraine (people's wisdom has heard it) would mean giving it a whip in its hands and reproaching us. They, those Zayds, understood freedom for themselves in Ukraine as the forced eviction of our peasants from it, as the creation of hell for the disenfranchised majority and paradise for the privileged foreign minority on our black soil. The peasant's mistrust of the rapist, this complex of feelings of self-superiority simmering in the national soul, the revolution had to invest in a bright program to create a movement similar - mutatis mutandis - to Khmelnytskyi. But the leader of our revolution did not create this program, because then what would happen to the progress and brotherhood of nations?! Thus, the germ of a great political movement against the rule of foreigners hostile to Ukraine, which - like the struggle against socialism was pregnant with our revolution - did not see the light of day... Our political midwives preferred to kill it. But he was born, born a monster, so that later - for the sins of these midwives - our nation, ridiculed and exterminated by humane socialists, would atone for it, so that the socialist "hahol" scratched the back of its head at the wrong time, believing in Marx and Lenin, so that in vain, in a pig's voice, he recalled folk wisdom: "if he were from heaven, you don't have to believe a foreigner"... Our socialist leaders of the revolution remained neutral in matters of religion and the Church. Could they become Peters of Amiens in Ukraine? Could Saint Sophia be freed from the hands of mistrustful people who were considered brothers in socialism? In all issues - social, in the issue of "minorities" - the Ukrainian revolution had to face the Russian one. Protests against the warring Synodal Orthodoxy and against the warring Communism were supposed to take the form of a struggle in the name of one's religion. Like in Ireland, where a similar kind of religious war was caused by Cromwell's anti-Catholic revolution, or like before the First World War in Spain, where Franco's nationalists fought against Azani republicans with the honor of the Holy Virgin on their chests. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 4/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES But the appropriate moment did not find new Ivan Vyshenskyi (with few exceptions) here. Neither the voice of Orthodox Luther nor the tambourines of Orthodox Žižka could be heard. They probably forgot that maybe that is why Kyiv adopted the Greek faith, that among all the apostles who came to convert us, only the Greeks "blasphemed all laws, but praised their own", only Greeks to the point of denying someone else, to the point of "blaspheming" him, were devoted to their faith... Why did the Moscow church authorities under Peter I, when they broke the Ukrainian Church, not hesitate to declare "heretical" all our oldest church customs, up to and including the recitation of liturgical books and the act of baptism? And why, when we had to finish the unfinished business, when we had to break once and for all with the Church the foreign Caesar-papism of the Kremlin, why did we capitulate before the Synod? Before Antony? Before the canons, from which the Synod did nothing? Why was such a language not heard in Ukraine then? Why were there so few of us - ministers of the Church who would oppose godless or synodal Moscow as the Spanish did against the godless French and their Emperor Napoleon, considering this struggle "a good deed, thanks to which one can liberate the native land from the oppression of a foreign conqueror"? Why was such a language tainted with anti-Christian chauvinism? Why was the banner of the anti-synodal revolution not raised in language that would burn hearts? This happened for the same reason that we did not unfurl the banner of the struggle for our own state against socialism, against the Moscow horde and its allies. And when they launched it, they were forced by circumstances and the pressure of the elements, late, without formulating a clear task, without burning new slogans with an iron in their souls... The program of the socialist "native Marats" did not draw its ideals from the impulses of its Earth, from its hidden aspirations , nor from its traditions shrouded in the haze of oblivion. They got their "Faith" elsewhere. And with the Marxes, with the Darwins, with the Lyassals, it was difficult to defend the cross or the trident" against the Soviet five-pointed star. The socialism that was hostile to us, which came not only from Marx, but also from Plekhanov and Lenin, was taboo for our revolutionary leaders as well, like the socialism of Trotsky and Radek, who set their sights on the Bolshevik revolution. The Russian people themselves were even more hostile to us. Our historical experience was spoken a thousand times by the mouths of the masses: "Moscovites are like thralls, and he watches everything like hell," "Moscow tears does not believe"... But still, each generation sent new beggars and mourners to Moscow. Of all the ideas of the "Spring of Nations" of 1848, our socialist intelligentsia, drunk with Dragoman's "fraternal love", absorbed only the irresistible desire to kiss the neighbors... . When some preferred "socialist brothers", others "bread-making brothers", these were nuances. Their mental guidance remained the same even when this "brother" was called Cain. "Nations are restored only in struggle" - sounded a courageous sermon Mazzini "Souls wasted in long captivity are restored only in hatred," he also wrote during the "Spring of Nations" in 1848. But - this sermon was not for fraternal lovers who smeared themselves with drunken kisses. I would have listened to her, I would have pressed for her, as the earth thirsted for rain, the elements stirred up by the revolution in Ukraine, but this sermon did not sound in time... "Our dear, our beloved!" - the former poet Tychyna shouted to the readers in his article about Pushkin. "Native, our beloved!" - shouted the smaller Tychinyats to Stalin. And this is how our compatriots used to shout to Tolstoy, Plekhanov, Milyukov, Lenin, Shalyapin or Pavlova. And in one article of the Kyiv "Rada" from 1914 - even to the double-headed eagle of the Russian Empire. But how could it be otherwise? Shortly before the revolution, the socialist "Ukrainian Khata" of Shapovaliv fought "the philistine opinion that the weakest elements change the nationality." On the contrary - the strongest! "Ukrainian Khata" advocated the "right" of each unit to freely abandon its nation and adopt another nationality, "where its forces can be applied with the greatest benefit"... "Ukrainian Khata" was indignant that "a wild and senseless word" is being thrown at such a person. renegade"! This right (the right of renegadeness!) wrote the organ of M. Shapoval "must be recognized by every Ukrainian now". He does not dare "his nation to despotically declare to him - you are ours and... you must remain ours until the end"! Because that would be " the grossest and most terrible selfishness of the nation as a whole." On the contrary, nations are simply interested in "the way for the individual to be opened as soon as possible to free exit from one nation and to free transition to another." This is required by "reason, morality, ethics and tolerance" ... The socialist concept of "freedom", Russian literature, political and non-political, various organizations and parties, bourgeois and socialist, produced a whole series of perekinchiks in Ukraine. When the socialists justified them, how could they rebel against that sun, against the very source of that energy that raised renegades - against Russia, its people, its culture, its democracy, its political mission, against the genius of the Russian people? And from the Shapovals, editors before 1917, after 1917 "leaders of the nation" came out. A great chasm separated such a mentality of our intelligentsia at that time from the mentality of the people, from the mentality of Shevchenko, who condemned to eternal torment the soul of a girl who "fed everyone, who, albeit unconsciously, "watered the Tsar of Moscow's horse"... Or from such a mentality that justified renegade, could the hatred that erupted against Spain be born from the Flemings? From the French of the Great War to the Teutons? From the Irish to the English? Could people of this mentality - and from them our later socialist leaders were recruited - become the accumulator of that popular anger that grew in 1917. To Ukraine from the seeds of Mazepa, Orlyk, Polubotko and Kalnyshevsky? Was it possible to mobilize the desire for a historical reckoning with "Peter's creation" with such a mentality? Could the Ukrainian Roger de Lille appear among those people with his hymn calling for "impure" blood "Have enemies grow our furrows"? The historical moment was full of tragedy - and how difficult! - dilemma: us or them? And how could the people who justified the free transition from "we" to "them" pose that dilemma, I'm not saying to decide, but at least put it in her entire stature? Who justified national renegade in the name of "reason and tolerance"? Yes, another huge collection of energy of the nation, which the revolution was preparing to shake up, - remained unused, then belatedly and by an unsuccessful hand... "Socialist brothers" and "bread-making brothers", "Slavic brothers", and sometimes - renegade Is there opposition against the brothers? Was it possible to doubt their likability? When the ambassador of Mardonius, the general of the Persian king, promised peace to the Greeks so that they would become his allies, the Spartans advised: "if you are wise, do not follow the advice of Mardonius, because you know that you cannot trust the barbarians and that there is not even a grain of truth in their words." ... The Athenian answered in the same way - "we cannot turn Greece into slavery. Even if we wanted to, we could not do it for various reasons. The first and most important are the statues of our gods, burned by barbarians and buried under the ruins of temples. This makes us sooner take revenge on the perpetrators of this disaster than conclude an alliance between them." This is how the Greeks, who considered their enemies to be barbarians, who knew that a barbarian who would enter a country and become its master, would never honor its gods or its temples, could look at Mardonius's proposals in this way. That's why their response was a call to the barn. But could the leaders of our Hellas, who in the depths of their souls considered the enemies from the north to be brothers, not barbarians, throw such a call to all corners of the country? Who believed that the barbarians would respect our faith, our language and customs in the name of the common "great truth" - socialism? Power, power and once again power - that's what the Moscow Mardonii came to us with! We traded - for temples, for gods... We were finally convinced of a terrible mistake, but the time when it could be avoided, when it was possible to mobilize the psyche of the masses against the barbarians in advance, has passed. The fire that began, here and there, to lick the fortress of the Moscow Mardonians in Ukraine, was not fueled and kerosene... Much wiser was our old historical wisdom, completely destroyed by dragomanism! Princes Vyacheslav and Yuriy answered the opponents who invaded their land and offered peace - "if you tell us to make peace, then don't stand on our land"... He knew whose power was the truth. He knew that the barbarian's truth was different. "What is true on this side of the Pyrenees is a lie on that side..." - said Pascal, as if anticipating the times of General Frank and Blum. But such simple wisdom could not be possessed by the leaders of our revolution, who were brought up in the ideal of a common truth for all, the "truth" of Marx, and in respect for barbarians, respect and tolerance for renegades. Because this was the mentality of almost our entire left intelligentsia before 1917. The revolution did not find an adequate expression in our leading stratum. She was alien to the formidable pathos of that revolution, alien uncompromisingness, the not clearly realized wisdom of the old Vyacheslavs, which was smoldering in Ukraine like a "spark in the ashes", waiting only for a slogan, for refreshment, for coloring with moments of modernity. I waited in vain... In vain, because our Marathas were deeply backward people. In 1917, they thought and felt with the thoughts and feelings of 1848. 1848th year! "Spring of Nations"! Brotherhood of humans against tyrants! The age of great upheavals, overturned thrones, great enthusiasm, the liberation of "unhistorical nations"" and - the age of boundless naivety! In 1847, at the Paris November parade commemorating the Polish uprising of 1832 (where the Pole Dvernytskyi presided) in 1847, Mykhailo Bakunin, a Russian anarchist, held out palm to the Polish revolutionaries: "We are children of the same tribe, our fate is indivisible and our cause must be common"... The "great day of the agreement of two brotherly peoples" must come... In Brussels, at a similar event, the Pole Lelievel thanked Bakunin: "let's topple the first tyrant," he said, "that oppresses us (the king), and the tyranny that enslaves us, let us raise the cause of the people, awaken their democratic spirit, and then everything will settle down according to the common will of... both peoples. So! There is no division between those Poles and Russians who love freedom! Brothers rush to the rescue of brothers... Comrade Bakunin, give us a fraternal palm, let's embrace heartily!" And the Polish legionnaires in Rome laid down their creed in 1848, which, among other things, read: "We extend our hand to the Slavs... To Israel, the elder brother (?), fraternal respect and help on the way to his eternal and temporal good . Equal in all rights"... And at one of these festivals in Paris in 1848, the German Everbeck shouted: "German https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 6/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM EXAMINATION OF HISTORY AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES democracy gives a hand to Polish democracy... The dispute about borders will disappear when the matter is entertained from the point of view of brotherhood and mutual concessions." Here are excerpts to give an idea of ​​the air that the naïve sentimentalists of 1848 breathed and that their belated epigones breathed from the time of the 1917 revolution in Ukraine. How much naivety is hidden in that deluge of sonorous and fruitless phrases! How much unjustified ridiculous faith! How heavy was the hangover after that banquet in the minds of its organizers! But the heads of our socialist leaders, who lived and acted not in 1848, but much later, despite thousands of dispelled delusions, were still full of those phrases. Therefore, at the time of the explosion of 1917, at first they only did what they did, that they "extended brotherly hands" to Russian democracy, "warmly embraced it", "in the name of common truth" rejoiced in the "great day of agreement", not forgetting (just a few years before the disgraceful way of 1926 on the rue Racine in Paris) and "elder brother - Israel". Because "there is no division between freedom-loving Ukrainians and Russians"... They lulled themselves, and what was worse, their people with impossible delusions, when events suddenly awakened the stolen Ukraine "on fire". Whoever read "The Renaissance of the Nation" by Vinnychenko, this incomparable document of Manila's magnanimity and democratic cretinism, has a good idea of ​​this helpless, enamored-enthusiastic, outrageous mentality of the Marats of that time... With what gullible and amorous eyes they looked at the "upset behold" revolutionary Russia, with a red horseman on his back, preparing for a new Poltava raid. On the one hand - Russia, shocked by the lost war, the apostasy and rebellion of the "outskirts", which it considered its eternal subjects, went mad with rage. And against it - the outstretched palm of the consent of our Marats... Could their "reason" have realized that the new Russia would squeeze this palm in the same way as "the fireplace commander squeezed the palm of Don Juan... Even then, faith in the palm of the Russian commander was not justified. If only because, not only in 1917, but also in 1948, there were those who saw the naivety of those delusions... Like Bakunin to Lelevel, the emissaries of liberal Russia at that time, by the way, also approached Mickiewicz with an outstretched hand. But he answered them differently. He answered with many facts about the exile of his compatriots, about Siberia and the arresting "companies", about harsh, corporal punishments, about how the tsar mocked your "Slavic brothers"... "And what about you then did - he asked, - Did they raise a fraternal voice? Did they point out to the king that this is revenge, inhuman injustice? No! You were his tool and helper! Get away from me, royal mercenaries! First wash off the stains of Abel's blood on your hands, and then, as Slavs, come for advice to a free Slav"... When Mickiewicz already threw such words in the face of Russian liberal democracy, why didn't our Marathas do the same in 1917 or 1918? But democracy has not yet shown its teeth? It showed, and how, even before the First World War (Struve, Milyukov and others) and with the outbreak of the revolution. In one magazine we read the memoirs of the shot Bolshevik Hryhoriy Pyatakov, who well gave us signs. "During the first day of mass terror (in Kyiv), 20,000 Ukrainians fell victim to Pyatakov. Among the victims were prominent Ukrainian socialist revolutionaries who believed in Bolshevik independent Ukraine and stayed in the city to join the Bolsheviks." Why after such facts - and how many were there then - not only then, but also now, in exile, of those parties, which also fell en masse victims of the Pyatakovs, still talked with Stalin (like Vynychenko) or Rakovsky (like M. Hrushevskyi), or now admit that there was "still a lot of positive" in the work of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine " ("Labor Ukraine" by the Shapovalovs in Prague)? Why do they write that "Moscow Bolshevism caused an unprecedented degree of spread of class consciousness among the working class of Russia and outside it and that this is its great historical merit"? Why do they write that "conversations about" "Alienity" and "occupational" nature of Soviet power in Ukraine must be left behind? That this power, therefore, is our native? Why didn't they call the Bolsheviks first to "wash off the stain of Abel's blood on their hands", and then start talking about the "common goals" of those who "love freedom"? Why did M. Hrushevskyi casually shake the bloody hand of Cain? Why did the idea of ​​patriotism, the idea of ​​"our fatherland", "Cossack fatherland", so loud and hot in Wieliczka, die in the souls of those people? Why did the spirit of modern combiners and lackeys emerge in its place? Hatred of violence was also the engine of every revolution. Why did the revolutionary socialists carefully avoid "tones of hatred towards a foreign people" in their propaganda? The answers to these questions would lead us into a circle of mysteries of a purely pathological nature. But I am not talking about answers here, only about affirming the fact that people with such a soul could not want, could not fan the fire that started in Ukraine with the fall of the tsar... Millions of scattered energies, hidden desires, lurking hatred, justified by centuries oppression, although not clearly realized, with great positive ideals that animated that mass - they were waiting for a magnet that would gather them together to throw a rapid avalanche on the head of the broken empire. They were waiting for a cry similar to https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 7/10 11/28/23 to spread throughout Ukraine. 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAM AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES "Wake up, Flanders!" There was no such call. He was nominated later, thrust upon the socialist leaders by the nation itself, partly against their will and desire, when the moment for the best mobilization of those sentiments was already lost. The leaders of the Russian revolution did otherwise against us! It doesn't matter under which label - but always, in the first years after the October tragedy, they baked the xenophobia of their masses to whiteness. They fueled their hatred not for capitalist, but for Europe in general. They clamored for the defense of the country, but against whom? Against foreigners! It didn't matter that they were called "sharks of the Imperialis", it was a "faison de parle". Here it was simply an intensive preaching of hostility to foreigners as such, a mobilization of the xenophobic instincts of the masses alienated from the tsar. The sharks of red imperialism came at us from the North, even though they were called the Ants or Pyatakovs. But why did we, even in the midst of the struggle with Russia, get tarnished xenophobia as a crime? Why wasn't there a slogan of fighting foreigners, regardless of their class affiliation? Why - after so many experiences - even now anyone who wants to face the truth of life and confront the mentality of the Bolsheviks with such an inexorable idea as the only way to break the will of the Bolsheviks - why are such people despised, likening them to their own insignificance? As, for example, in one article, Lesya Ukrainka was made an opponent of all fanaticism "and an apostle of the ultimate need for brotherhood with other peoples." But this pathological mentality explains why our Marathas, endowed with it, failed to oppose the fanaticism of the Pyatakovs with their own, why the great subcutaneous explosive forces of the nation remained unused. These Marathas put the issue of revolution in a completely different plane. There are bad and good foreign socialists, there are bad and good Trotskyists, there is bad and good Moscow democracy. That's why you should always stretch out your hand - they taught - and open your mouth for a kiss just in case. It is impossible to know before we miss the opportunity of the "great day of agreement"?... With rare exceptions, the socialist leaders who led our revolution never put the issue of the revolution (if only out of compulsion) in the plane of inevitable struggle and inevitable test of strength, for "or we , or they". Why did Engels openly proclaim that nothing great in history has ever happened without the use of force? Why did he openly talk about "hevalt" and its laws? Why did Lassalle speak unequivocally about this? Why does this ancient wisdom echo in the "Aeneid"? Because there is always such a law that "the wolf strangles the humble sheep when it comes to the fold", that "the ferret dries the chickens' heads, without a cry it sucks out the brains"... Why does this strict law of life ring in "The Teachings of Monomachus", which tells in an epic tone , something like "God help us and the Holy Mother of God, and Izbysha nine hundred Polovtsians"?... His strength is justified, and God blesses it. Why does this motif of eternal struggle, as the only thing that justifies life (not to mention Shevchenko), ring in Stefanyk's mind, that "as long as we bury those laughing eyes (of those who died in the war), that will be our limit"? This is not the limit set by the common interpretation of Marx or Lenin on the "great day of agreement". Why was language not used in our country against Bolshevism, for example, a cultured Frenchman: "I have great respect for life, even against earthworms and creatures that I despise. Respect for life! Respect for life ceases to work where there are nobodies who want to despise the lives of others. For these in vain I also propose extermination. Can't the victims of predatory beasts use bombs, machine guns against them? Who are you to endure all this? Kill as you are killed... Exterminate the worthless scum who treat you like dogs. Show that the worthless pride of violence can also be achieved by our revenge, when you decide on violence. Whoever lived from contempt for others, from violence and insults..., it is necessary that he also fall a victim of violence, contempt and contempt." Do you think that this was said by some hardened "fascist"? No, these are the words of Andre Suarez, who hated Hitler, and did not call Goering anything other than "gorilla"... But such is the soul of the Frenchman, which awakened in him during Joan of Arc, later in 1793, and during the war of 1914 - 1918, the symbol of which was Clemenceau. Even now, the Marathas of our revolution consider it a crime to awaken such a soul in us. Why did words similar to those of Suarez fly away from the hard faces of our "elite" like peas from a wall? Why don't we put forward our great truth against the lies of Engels, Lenin and Pyatakov? Why do we still contrast the religion of the bare power of the North with the preaching of the great spirits of 1848 or their imitators from our revolution? Why in 1917, when the life of an entire nation was at stake, when it was necessary to oppose one to another, when it was necessary to appeal to all forces in order to oppose it to the force of a barbarian who was going to Ukraine, why at such a moment there was talk of understanding "fraternal nations" " and about hugs? Why was it preached that life is not a jungle, that one nation will always be fair to another ("socialist brothers", "bread-making brothers"), that force is never an ordering element - but it should be "consent and culture" ?.. The Marathas of the revolution of 1917, like our socialists in general, were born with the souls of felagians, with souls that did not allow our felagists to unfurl the flag that the masses unconsciously longed for in the troubled times of 1917... Their flag could not rally around itself mass. He was neither anti-socialist, nor anti-Moscow, nor anti-imperial, nor did he put forward the struggle as the ultimate principle of life. The age set forth the task of building its own world of news in place of the old and fallen world. The socialist Marathas did not find a slogan in the name of which one could to successfully unite the nation. Their half-hearted ideas were not the dynamite that the revolution needed. They preached not a new world, but patching up the old. Not every Zayda was an enemy, only "the master". Not every Russian church is hostile to us, but the one that is not respects our language... Not all Russian parties are hostile to us, but only some. Not every empire is hostile to us, only centralist ones. We will let something go, they will let something go - and "somehow it will be"! https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 8/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES Socialist Marathas, who had to lead the revolution, had a panic fear of the phrase. We would be in favor of "kindergarten", but we are not bourgeois! We would be for the Church, but we are not clerics! We would be against the Trotskys, but we are not anti-Semites! Why didn't they oppose - as Carlyle wrote - God's Truth, their truth - to the lies of the devil, the lies of foreigners? Why didn't they create a new breed of people (as they once did in France), full of - as Macaulay wrote - "fanatic enthusiasm, wild zeal and a daring desire to renew the world" or resurrect the ancient, heroic Ukraine? They loved nothing passionately, nor did they hate anything. They were in many respects alien to the instincts of the masses. And it is no wonder that they hesitated to bring this instinct to the surface, because they were afraid that later they would not give him advice. We in 1917, like the British in 1789, faced a terrible enemy, an invading revolution; we also had to oppose the force - the force in love with its ideal, uncompromising against everything that the new red rider on the back of Peter's horse was carrying to Ukraine... Such a force excited in Ukraine could lead to a completely different mass that eagerly sought it, ready for dedication and enthusiasm. Limanovsky very rightly wrote that "in all battles for freedom, and even in religious wars, we always see the greatest fervor, the greatest sacrifice and dedication in the first minutes. Wasting the first minutes of enthusiasm is a terrible crime against the nation. The material was excellent. Only it is needed It was necessary to "dig up the grave", which Shevchenko wrote about, with the buried treasures of the princely and Cossack days, when we knew what a nation was, what was our own and what was a stranger, that there was glory and adventure, reward and punishment; when we realized what mercy is, but we also knew what merciless power is... The material was there, it was worthy of our Žižeks, de Kosters, Rouget de Lilles, Cromwells, Khmelnytskyi... We had to want what subconsciously the masses aspired - to turn the hostile world upside down and know that this can be done only by force... The spiritual guidance of the socialist leaders of our revolution was not prepared for this... This is precisely why our revolution lacked style. When we want to look for the style of the French revolution , then we will unfold the decrees of the convention, the proclamations of Bonaparte, the speeches of Saint Just and the pamphlets of Marat... In which decrees, in which letters and pamphlets and in which speeches of our then elite will we look for the true style of our revolution? We will not find that style there. And to find it, we have to remember Kruty and Bazar, winter campaigns, rebel chieftains, Solovki, Cheka prisons. We must turn to the great, many-headed Anonymous with Shevchenko, with herrings and herrings, who filled the army with himself, to the great Anonymous, before whose memory everyone in these years will stand with reverence... To find the style of our revolution, we must look for it in the ranks of the masses, not in the farewell statements, which did not give an adequate organizing formula and slogans to those ranks. In the revolution coming at us from Moscow, the slogans of its utopia aroused horror, the methods - indignation or disgust, the humor - froze the blood... And our left "elite" of that time opposed the "Solar Machine" (Vynnychenko) as a utopia. "Sunny clarinets" (Tychyny) - as a method and sunny or "Cherry smiles" (O. Vyshny) as humor. Now these spitters of our true traditions are howling with redoubled force, clinging to fashionable stickers and trying to bring bankrupt slogans to the nation again under this false flag. They say that the world will soon come to its senses, and the Bolshevik interlude will end. Times will come again when disputes between peoples will be settled by mutual understanding... Evolution? National Bolshevism, or better - Bolshevized nationalism? It will be something more terrible than Tsarat and his black hundred. This will be a wild reaction of the beaten, outraged in their dreams of dominating the world, frightened by the loss of the "outskirts", of the Russian people... Then we will soon understand what the struggle for life and death means and what the wolfish appetite of the exterminator people is. I do not think that imperialist Russia can be destroyed so easily, but it will be destroyed. Only not sooner, until we understand that the implementation of this gigantic task requires other people, people of a different breed... People who will turn not to the painted ones, but to the true ones, filled with "native" stupidity, the traditions of the nation, who will find its true spirit, appeal to the instincts of a strong and young people. To that spirit that burned with fire in his historical ranks, in the writings of Monomakh or Velichka, Shevchenko, Rudansky, Storozhenko, Franko, Stefanyk, Lesya Ukrainka, our modern poetry, "Herald Quadriga". We will turn to the soul of a nation bewitched and put to sleep by healers, which, like a hungry wolf, seeks to free itself from an undigested grave, from a cage where it was locked by drug addiction and Ruthenism. To the national soul, which, almost without anyone's guidance, flared up with such a wonderful fire in 1917, ripping out respect, and sometimes a cry of rage and horror from those who gloated over her body. A new tribe, truly native to our national element, must rise. As big as her. To record the new year 1917 in history with different letters. Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of national movement https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html PING Banner Network 9/ 10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 10/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM SIMON PETLIURA The Wayback Machine - https https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172507/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Of all the ideas hostile to it, Russia hated none as much as the Ukrainian one. With laughter, slander and prison, she defeated her before the great war; with their white and red armies - during the revolution; schedule and provocation - to exile, to end with individual terror, which fell as a victim on the Parisian pavement b. the head of the Directory and Chief Ataman of the troops of the Ukrainian People's Republic, Simon Petliura. The fact that the hired killer is a Jew does not change anything in this tragic fact: this was not revenge for invented and fabricated wrongs of the stronger against the weaker, this was the repression of the winners, who were happy so far. This is happening in Cheka's cellars and under the wall, here - in broad daylight, on the street, in the hope of impunity among the "public opinion" of distant France, anarchized, disorientated and dominated by the Jewish press. There - Yevgeny Borshch, Dzerzhynsky and Trotsky, here "proletarian" Schwarzbart, a canonized avenger for the tolerance of the ruling party in Ukraine with Moscow, Israel. The staging is different abroad and in the country, but the essence is the same. The unanimous praises that the Bolshevik and Jewish press shower the murderer with, the buckets of scum they pour over the Ukrainian army, the nation and its struggle for liberation, and the arrests are emphasized - the haste with which the Schwartzbartovs offered their servants - Hr. Rakovsky and Blum, a Bolshevik agent in the French Parliament. But why did they choose Petliura as their victim in the first place? It is not difficult to answer this! There are moments in the life of a nation that it remembers like an adult man's first love, like a soldier's first battle baptism; moments when one thinks of conquering the whole world, when in a great strain of will the nation becomes aware of itself and of the vital energy that stirs in it. France experienced such a moment under Joan of Arc, America - during the struggle for independence, when a spark of national consciousness ignited with the impact of enemy forces, inspired with a great idea scattered and dormant wills, united them around a common core, created a nation... Such a moment experienced Ukraine in 1917-1921, and in these years Simon Petliura put himself at the head of the movement. This is how everything is said, this is how the will of this man in the Ukrainian liberation struggle is outlined, this is also the solution to the tragic event in the Latin Quarter. Let's not compare him to Khmelnytskyi, Mazepa, or Orlyk. It is impossible to compare the burden of crippled modernity with the shriveled and colorful Ukrainianism of those times, and it is impossible to compare the figures of the last Ukrainian revolution, who were brought up in the narrowly provincial Russian language, with the "shadows of forgotten ancestors" who were educated in Western Europe in its old and strong culture. But - the person I'm talking about here is the only one who managed to occupy a position in our stormy times, similar to the position of those back then. The fact that he did not have a wide scope in his plans, impressive power in execution - this does not reduce the fact that he was a head taller than his colleagues. The latter intertwined their love for the cause with petty ambition and shallow intrigue, he - despite all his faults - was fanatically attached only to the cause. This fanaticism also spread to the masses, who created a hero out of him, and a legend out of his name, that Shloma Schwartzbart wanted to kill her on Boulevard Saint-Michel... Among the cunning Panks, penitent lawyers with pretensions to their native Kavours, traveling salesmen who respected themselves for the Orlyks, being ordinary crows, among infatuated and self-honest political chameleons, unrecognized candidates for Mussolini with the soul of an "old-fashioned unterzer" and virtuous pipers with mustaches in the role of prime minister, not to mention a whole bunch of scammers who sucked to the UNR - among his entire environment, he was the only one who looked not at trifles, but at the essence, at the ghost that possessed him inseparably and in whose name he took the lead in his hands. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172507/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_petlra.html 1/2 11/28/23, 3:50 PM SIMON PETLURA From this moment on, his tragedy. A few cases put him on the pedestal, on which Lenin, Horta, Mussolini, Primo de Rivera, Pangalos stood, or at least demanded from him that he create for himself the pedestal of one of the Cromwells, with whom all sanctity ends. But the fatal thing about him was that he neither looked at sanctity as sanctity, nor to himself as a dictator. He did not see what he stood for or was supposed to stand for, nor what his fanciful story had set him above. He had to withstand the pressure of two elements: one, among which he grew up and which imprinted his seal on his soul, - his closest environment, - and the second - the material that was to give shape to his idea. The first element was Ukrainian intellectual patriotism, the second was the Ukrainian nation. The first - he had to overcome himself, the second - to attack himself. The task was extremely difficult, and for the very attempt to climb it, it is worth paying attention to this person. His attempt failed. This is not the place to discuss in detail why. Complaining about "circumstances" and "enemies" will be useless. First of all, we need to look at the reasons for failure, which were in the souls of the most effective people of the great drama and which they could not overcome within themselves. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172507/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_petlra.html PING Banner Network 2/2 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY ONE ON NEED The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Смотрите также страницу Dmitry Dontsov THE ONLY THING YOU NEED The topic of the nation's "highest ideal" and the roads leading to it are as well-worn as any other. I want to approach her from the side from which we do not like to approach her. This new point should be learned especially by the youth, whose first call - even in non-political organizations (such as in the strata) - is "loyalty to one's country". The statist idea is now on everyone's lips. Even among those who put her under the wall in Kyiv, or among those who offer their services to fight her. But even from honest supporters of that idea, young people hear more than once: "Let's respect our passion and dedication - but don't break the windows and sit down with a book!" And then the litany: "Study, sober up, pray, and the rest is anarchy".. I don't know any more delusional science! Because there is one thing, one "something", without which no education will help; no amount of awareness will save, neither fervor nor dedication... This "something", this most important force, is character. There is no concept more elusive than the concept of "character"; with him, as with the soul: who will say what the soul is? But in the same way - as each of us will distinguish the dead from the living, and the one who has a character from the one who replaces him with a phrase. The motors of history, which move and topple nations, are units, which are followed by the mass. In peaceful times, and in critical times, in monarchies and in republics. And the miraculous power that lifts those units uphill, giving them power over numbers, is their strength of character. Commanding over others is not always the most intelligent, not always the most forthcoming, but still - the most stubborn, the one who shows the strongest character. Stubbornness, moral defiance, all the traits that make up the concept of "character" are irrevocable from anyone who seeks to lead others in the name of some cause. Moses, Mahomet, Alexander, Temerlian, Attila, Caesar, Richelieu, Pete, Bismarck, Cromwell, Napoleon - all were distinguished by extraordinary strength of character. Ambition, even genius, is nothing without character. Ambition can go astray, reason can get confused in doubts, only unbreakable character, like faith, remains. What is it in character? This is, first of all, endurance. When Clemenceau was informed one summer day in 1918 that Germany was asking about the terms of capitulation, full of emotion, the old tiger said: "Forty years I have waited for this day!" It was endurance! Because he not only waited, he actively worked for almost half a century to hasten this time to take revenge on the despised France: exposing himself to the nickname of "English seller", (because he knew that without England, France would not win), to endless fights with opponents who - like a pack of dogs surrounded him - for whom the idea of ​​revenge was a festive cockade, suspended on a holiday and thrown on the pavement after the holiday, and not, as for him, the first and last love. And he endured all this in the tone of a "dangerous madman" (as his opponents called him), without changing milestones after one or two failures (as is done in our country), without inventing - to calm his conscience - theories about "failure to complete the task", about "adverse circumstances" etc. And when the windows of Parisian buildings were already rattling from the roar of "rude Bertha", when the government fled to Bordeaux and panic was ready to spill over from the rear to the front, then his time had come. Then the eyes of France turned to the "dangerous madman" who, since 1871, had endured in one idea, in one faith, in one passion!, against which Futor teutonicus finally crashed. What is strength of character? This is the certainty of oneself, the certainty of the chosen line, of thoughts. This ability to find your goal blindly, without allowing yourself to be sidetracked by swamp fires, is knowing what you want and wanting it very much. It is to be able to say "yes" or "no" at a decisive moment to stand on one or the other side of the barricade. It is to be able to choose, and not to die of doubt, like the donkey of the Buridans, who died, swaying between troughs with hay and oats, as we are between socialism and capitalism, between the republic and the monarchy, between sovitophilism and independence, principledness and capitulation. Confidence is David's boldness before https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 1/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY , WHAT IS NEEDED by Goliath, the Dutch - before Spain in the 14th century, the Irish before Albion. Self-confidence is being able to put your head in the mouth of a living lion, and not pull the tail of a dead one. Because it is not heroic to crawl in front of some force when it is lying down, adjusting your "programs" and "tactics" accordingly... When you want to know what self-certainty is, get acquainted with the history of the discovery of the planet Neptune. Until 1846, no one suspected its existence. But the English astronomer John Adams, observing deviations in the movement of Uranus, came to the conclusion that their cause is some unknown planet. He was not listened to, but, certain of his idea, he did not allow himself to be confused, even though the facts observed so far were against him. Finally, based on Adams' calculations, a new planet and its name in the universe were found. With his idea, he lied to "facts", not "facts" - his ideas... How often "real politicians" discourage the search for unknown stars only because their blinded vision does not see them; only because they don't like to chase after new ones; who believe in "facts" established by others, and not a dream born in their own soul. That's what self-confidence is. What is strength of character? This is fidelity to belief, it is fidelity to an idea. It is a willingness to go with her to glory and to death, as the Germans say, to connect with her auf Gedeib und Verderb. This is the willingness to treat the enemy of one's business as one's personal enemy. This means making a dogma of faith out of your convictions... Loyalty to an idea is not an uncharacteristic leap from right to left and vice versa, under the guise of "ideological search"; this is not a discussion about whether a nation has the right to live or not, whether the wolf is in the grandmother's coat or the grandmother; it is not restraining oneself from reacting, to disdain the idea under shame, that this would be "out of time" or that "we don't yet know what will come of it." ? When I reflect on this philosophy of "it is possible to know", on the disputes with the Ephialtes, I am reminded of episodes from the Egyptian campaign of Bonaparte. He took with him scientists who dug up the treasures of the pharaohs and donkeys that carried those treasures and ammunition. When the Bedouins attacked the French division, it lined up in a square, and then the command sounded: "Donkeys and scientists to the middle!". So as not to interfere with those who are fighting... Only leaders who did not tolerate scholarly disputants in their ranks at a critical moment left a mark in history, not characterless skeptics who, in decisive moments, allowed themselves to be defeated by every intellectual argument: who rushed from from one thought to the opposite, as if from "stage" to "stage", like that multi-hopeful poet who proclaimed: A stage is not scary and greedy When there are still other stages behind it. Travel while there are stages! ...A stage is never scary, when it is not the last. Poets from literature and politics, when they go on a campaign, only to be locked in the middle together with their pegasus at a decisive moment. The aggrandizement of permanent betrayal does not dare to go unpunished... About Clemenceau, Lloyd George wrote recently: "Clemenceau's hatred of Germany was certain of such concentration and wild zeal that I have not seen even in the worst English Germanophobes. In those, hostility towards Germany still seemed a little calculated and theatrical, Clemenceau's hatred was in his blood. He was one terrible volcano of personal, national and religious hatred." This is the feeling of hostility towards another idea, which is only the flip side of blind attachment to one's own. This is, among other things, the loyalty that is demanded of a plastun towards his country, superiors and relatives, which requires him to turn without intention against anyone who speaks ill of them. This dedication is one of the main strengths of character. Whoever serves his team without it is building a house on sand. This is a passion for adventure, the unknown, the new; attraction to uncertain paths. This is the force that drove the English Puritans across the ocean, to the fabulous America, at their own risk and fear. This is the power that pulsed in the hearts of the Californian gold seekers, that flowed to their ranks. Livingston and Lindbergh. This is the search for new lands, new sights, new achievements; it is affection in the atmosphere of conflicts and overcome obstacles of people who are lured by the brilliant mirage of the desert, who are not satisfied with the gray world of everyday life, who are oppressed by the happiness of a dog on a chain: These are the driving forces of life and the main signs of great characters. If Clemenceau or Foch had lost in 1918, they would surely have gone down in history as incalculable adventurers. At the cradle of every great nation there always stood some "dangerous madman". What is strength of character? https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 2/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY THING YOU NEED Is never don't fail. "Only the one who doesn't want to start anew will fall," says one English literary writer. "When you sometimes slip, nothing hurts"; get back on your feet and start again... But always start over and never recognize yourself as buried... Such a leader should be." Such were the Hungarians who "started over" after Vilyagoshch, such was Orlyk who "started over" after Poltavi... What is strength of character? This is the cult of success: "The great gentlemen, says Spengler, the heads of the English parties, as long as they managed affairs, allowed themselves to be guided by the same principles as the conquerors and rebels of all times... The catechism of success is not to believe in different Ho, is not to complain: "Without him, there would be neither churches, nor English colonies, nor great American fortunes, nor victorious upheavals..., nor happy nations." Ah, how is it possible without natural boundaries, without "union"! Ah, the facts are against us! Ah, shouldn't we turn before the start, because the goal is so far away, it is so difficult to run." Because what lesser difficulties lay before those of whom Spengler spoke? But certain of its superiority and mission to civilize the colored peoples, the English nation ruled in distant Africa, in India, in Egypt, even though it was a distant goal, even though geographical "facts" did not lead it to that at all, even though it would have been more likely if the flag of Albion, distant from them by tens of thousands of miles, had not fluttered over those lands, but, for example, Turkey or Russia, which were almost adjacent to those countries of wonders, only that they did not have that firm character, did not profess that "catechism of success", did not have the "self-confidence" of the British race. "May mine be above" - ​​this is the principle of great characters , when behind it lies not a petty ambition, but a great ambition, not rashness, hysteria and disappointment, but stubborn work... Do you know, for example, that Plato worked on his dialogues for eighteen years? Copernicus on his "Revolutiones" - thirty six? Luther on the commentary on "Genesis" - ten? Why does it take one copyist sixty years to copy Goethe's works? That the genius of Napoleon consisted in the ability to sleep five hours a day, in the minute restudying of the enumerated daily reports, in the ability to perform the work of the last soldier, in memory of which, did not forget the last stupid cannon in a distant garrison, which was not in report, but what was always in his head? The cult of success is the cult of great ambition and hard work, not small ambitions, not caring about Sshein instead of Sein, which is not so common in our country - a cult of facades, not of sorrow, instead of internal culture, about an official distinction affixed from the outside ("editor"); "people with higher education", "member of the academy", "ambassador", etc.). The cult of success is not a wave of enthusiasm with a transition to instant despair of people who wanted to study Shakespeare in a year, and build their "own house" in two. The cult of success is a sign that we don't have, it's a desire to get back on your feet after every fall, to try again, because whoever is afraid of failure and disappointment has already lost his life stake, be it a unit or a nation. It is a sense of honor. In the Plast Ruler it says: "When the Plastun under the word of honor says "it is so", then it is so! This means that if you are a communist (see nationalist), then you should not write under your name in a communist newspaper, but under the disguise of the nationalist one. It means having a sense of responsibility and saying what you do, and doing what you say. It means interpreting among yourself "none", because none are all, neither warm nor cold, eternally ready to turn away from one another to others. This means that when you say that something is true in your opinion, it must be true. What is strength of character? It is always being ready to do one's duty. What does it mean to be ready? Here is an example. Before during the war, the first lord of the British admiralty was Winston Churchill. In the time of undisturbed peace, long before 1914, Churchill was preparing for it. In the war room of the admiralty, Pin had a huge map on which the location of the main units of the German fleet was noted every day. And Churchill liked to jump on his subordinates officers with an unexpected question: "What should be done when the war with Germany breaks out tonight?". It is not surprising that when this war did break out, Great Britain was the least surprised by it. The mobilization of the naval reserves, charged by Churchill on August 1, 1914, without Cabinet authorization, allowed Great Britain to act now to break off diplomatic communications with her entire naval force in full combat readiness. What does it mean to be ready to fulfill one's duty? Read about the missionary activity of the Jesuits to establish the Order. Pope Gregory XIII gave them the church of Santo Stefano Rotondo, and the Jesuits decorated it with magnificent frescoes representing terrible scenes of torture of martyrs for their faith. And Cardinal Paeoti wrote: that one should not be afraid to depict the suffering of Christians in their horror... In this way, the church wants not only to magnify the courage of the martyrs, but also to set fire to the souls of its "sons". Tim in this way, the church taught its missionaries to always be ready for martyrdom for the idea, formed heroic souls. In the overseas territories, the Jesuits were "always ready" and felt like "soldiers" of a great army going to fight and die, subordinate to their "general" who did not dare to desert. When the missionaries fell victim to the Calvanists in Brazil, they were prepared for it, and Peter Godoy, before the massacre, encouraged them with the words: "Do not betray the flag!" https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 3/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY THING NEEDED To raise and to maintain readiness for the worst in times of peace - this is what it means to "be ready" to fulfill one's duty. Without it, no religion, no unit, no nation is worth it. What is strength of character? It means taking care of the business, not yourself. For this, to give mat, and not to execute the least "boys". When Lord Kitchener was informed that a transport of dynamite sent to detonate a mountain had blown up along with the trespasser who was driving it, Kitchener asked: "So how much more material do you need?" He reacted differently than our press reacted to the red terror in Zbruch until recently; for whom even a protest against terror was madness, because so many houses will go up in smoke, so many new victims..." Humanity, said Einsiedel, costs nothing", but frees us from all heavy obligations of thought and action. Humanity is an excuse for laziness of thought, for lack of character. Because I know - not a single state has been built by it so far." What is strength of character? It is the conscience of self-control. Whoever once read about trap ships during a great war knows what it means to rule over oneself. Whoever has read about the exploits of the "Fanborough", a warship hidden under a merchant flag, the task of which was to place its sides against the torpedoes of German "U-bots", in order to save them and sink them with hidden guns... He knows how much inhuman-winter blood it is necessary to have , so that with a destroyed engine, broken masts, half-broken bail - to wait idly for the approach of the enemy, waiting for him, or for death, when one minute of denervation costs life... To rule over oneself is not like a barbarian who was laughed at by Demosthenes, who is in a fight only grabs the hit place, unable "to read a threatening blow from the enemy's eyes, unable to cover himself in advance from an attack"... This is with winter blood - to be able to navigate where the nearest blow will come from, this is to be able to anticipate the enemy's thrusts and prevent them, like the Japanese on the night of the opening of the war in the Port Arthur raid, like Nelson near Copenhagen. And all of them, especially the English, were able to do this because they trained in strength of character from an early age, learned to calculate the foresight of their actions, the strength of their movements and precision - primarily in sports and competition. What is strength of character? It is, finally, to be able to look at life as a game; not to be rudely comforted by a win, and rudely oppressed by a loss, always to meet every danger with a laugh... An example of this courageous attitude to the will of fate is humbled, but strong in spirit, Germany. Recently in Stockholm, the ceremony of awarding the Nobel Prize to the last laureate, the German writer Thomas Manov, took place. In his report, Mann thanked for celebrating not his own, but the genius of the German people in his person. His silent heroism, which does not complain and does not ask for favors, is symbolized by Man in the figure of St. Sebastian, a young man tied to a pillar, pierced with spears and swords, and smiling. "Germany," Mann said, "through its post-war poetry... preserved its honor: politically, because it did not sink into the anarchy of patience, because it preserved its state, and spiritually, because it managed to combine the Eastern principle of patience with the Western principle of form, finding in the very pain - beauty! Beauty, I will say, mocking the futile efforts of the enemy, the beauty of affirming life, regardless of anything, the beauty of elevating an idea above animal pain, the beauty of faithfulness to one's God to the end - there is a guarantee of resurrection... Not only of individuals, but also of nations . What is the strength of character? This is the admonition of the soul, sung in one strong poem by Rudyard Kipling, which I, not a poet, render in prose: "When you can see the ruined work of your whole life, and without words begin to build it anew. Or in one blow - to execute a hundred won games. Without a single violation and without a single sigh... When you can be a lover without going crazy with love. When you can be strong without ceasing to be gentle... When you can love all your friends as brothers, but without any of them being everything to you. When you know how to entertain, observe and learn. Never becoming a skeptic or a destroyer. To dream, but not letting your dream become your master... When you get to be strict, never falling into a rage. When you know how to be brave, but never reckless. When you know how to be kind, when you know how to be wise. Not being a moralizer, nor a pedant. If you know how to keep your courage and not lose your head when everyone else around you is wasting it. Then princes, gods, happiness and victory will forever be your faithful slaves. Then you will become a man..." And a nation is made of people, not of rags or stuffed animals. He who does not educate a man, does not educate a people. Kipling's works, says the French critic Brion, helped more in attracting hunters to the British army in India than the promises of the verbon corporals. For not corporals, not external compulsion, not mus, forged the English nation, only the Kiplings, who instilled in the youth a taste for adventure, a life full of dangers on far roads, over far seas. Who nurtured the character of a Briton, created Great Britain. Who will show strength of character in the small, will show it in the big as well. Enduring in everyday life, will be enduring when fate puts him in Clemenceau's position... He who knows how to "be ready" in everyday life, will be so also when he becomes Churchill. He who stands his ground in small matters is not afraid of obstacles in big ones, like Luther, who was ready to go to a dispute with opponents, even though those disputes rarely ended in his time, even if, he said, there were so many thousands of arrows at him there hell, how many tiles were there on the roofs in Worms... Only a nation of people with great characters can firmly follow their life path. Characterless society, even under favorable circumstances, even with the help of others, does not create anything. It will always veer from delight to despair, waste its head on the first failures, overestimate the power of the obstacle, and not trust its own, no matter how "conscious" it is of its "ideal"... Washington, O. Connell did not have their "consciousness" at first: both were patriots of the metropolis for a long time. But their character, perseverance to follow the once chosen path to the farthest consequences, a sense of honor, stubbornness, helped them to complete their work (which they did not even think about at first) in a position in which the characterless "conscious" immediately of their "ideal" https://web .archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 4/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY THING NEEDED try to outwit him, beg him, charm him , or beg in order to betray in the end... Consciousness alone will not help, nor passion alone. Great things stand in the world with firm characters, because this world is not soft either. We often talk about "harmony" in education: they say that it is necessary to "harmoniously develop all manners - not only character, but also consciousness, willpower, knowledge, etc. But to say this means to say too much and nothing: (who embraces too much , does not compress much). Because to say that it is necessary to develop all the abilities of the soul is a program for us, for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, it is a generalization. We, on the other hand, need to pay attention to what is needed in this historical moment. And this , certainly, is above all the education of strong characters. The mind can direct our energy, but not create it. Life is dynamic. We make it expedient by giving the ideal direction to its energies, but energy itself is irrational and there is no knowledge to call it to life. When you are too driven in one direction, only a sudden and strong turn in the other direction will put you on the right path, not the search for "harmony"... When I think about this topic, I especially remember "Plast". Because are all the components of the concept listed here " character", are they not nurtured by "Plast" - loyalty to the idea and the country, endurance, self-certainty, internal discipline, the ability to be always ready, a sense of honor, the catechism of success, fondness for the open spaces, seeking adventure and laughing in the face of danger? This is the guidance of the soul, without which there are no great characters, no great communities, no great plans. In fact, this mental toughness is nurtured by physical exercises and education rather than by a book. From the beginning of the 19th century, Thomas Arnold, a pioneer of the sports movement and physical culture, lived and worked in England. At first he was beaten and drunk, children were taken from colleges where they did not study, only played sports. But the movement started by him quickly spread in England and on the continent, and one Frenchman wrote about Arnold that he had a huge influence on the height and strength... of the Englishman's character? - no, of the British Empire. He who tempers the body tempers the soul, and moral temper and character are the foundation of a strong nation. Pascal wrote: "Practice first, and faith will come by itself", and Gnat of Loyola considered external exercises a means to excite the corresponding feelings... There is an anecdote about the famous journalist Girardin, who was visited by a political opponent who came with the intention of bringing the case to a match But Girardin, after killing his second opponent Karel, decided not to fight again. Seeing the irritation of the guest, he refused to speak to him until he sat down in the advantageous armchair offered to him. When this happened, the conversation took a gentle course and ended well. Was it possible to get lost in a soft armchair? It would be too great a contrast between the state of mind and the situation, unfavorable for the detection of violent feelings! Such a contrast is contrary to human character... And I brought up this anecdote in order to arouse reflection: is the fact that we have so far accustomed young people too much to soft armchairs, to warm positions and a profitable life, to m "a strong indoor upbringing, unfavorable for revealing strong feelings, and I'm just saying - for the formation of strong characters? Wouldn't "Plast" rather educate these characters (with proper guidance), which pulls the youth out of the stuffy rest, which steels the vision, strengthens the muscles, and hardens the will. They will say, isn't there something contemptuous for the soul in this, to cause a desired state of the soul by purely mechanical artificial means? No! Because there is a deeper meaning in such upbringing. It indicates that the new attitude of the soul cannot be read only from books, that in order to learn the ideas of a new moral character, one must live by them, with the whole being, have them in every fiber of the body and blood. Only then will they not be a foreign body that falls out at the first shock, but an organic part of our "I". But isn't this a utopia? - to instill this moral heart in our nation? We are so gentle, so sensitive, so poor... Didn't we recently read in one emigrant magazine that it claims the exclusive right to defend our idea; complaints that are spreading, they say that we have the opinion "as if history is made by strong individuals who know how to want strongly, and what they want, they implement without looking back at the methods of implementation... The fallacy of these people is present... Of the two, the strongest is that knows how to do things in his own way, without violence. The best wishes fulfilled by violence are evil"... I mentioned these words not to argue, but to show how many of these "armchair" people there are among us, who nothing will ever teach these warmongers, brought up in the offices of the royal chancelleries, these "case" people with the psyche of the eternal "esef" (safandula), neither warm nor hot, wandering spirits of an age sunk into obscurity. To show how hard it will be to fight against lost characterlessness. But not hopeless! Some skills can be replaced by others, sometimes during only one generation. Why shouldn't this be possible among humans when it is possible in nature? It is a well-known fact, for example, that there are parrots in New Zealand, which have turned from vegetarians to consumers of lamb fat since sheep were brought to Australia from Europe. Experiments are known, when a pigeon raised from an early age in the company of a crow became a carnivore. Where physiological reasons do not stand in the way, such metamorphoses can be completed by conscious human will. Experience shows that some birds are born with a ready feeling of enmity towards the guarantor (homo sapiens), who exterminates their kind, that this enmity is instilled in them just by upbringing, by relatives who pass on to the young the experience accumulated over millions of years, the experience of countless generations of distant ancestors, convey emotions, the instinct of creatures - wild and free, proud of even a golden bone. Long centuries have destroyed more than one healthy instinct in us, made us former steppe pirates - caged crickets, who roar and moan and sob over their talentless fate, and, like a tone, armchair esef over what is necessary in life https://web.archive .org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 5/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM ALL YOU NEED is to be able to want. Long years were made from the former predatory Varyazhchyna - herbivores who forgot even the instinct of elementary self-protection, from steppe torpans - circus horses, ridden by clowns. And just recently we started thinking again about the times when it was different; about a day of carefree zeal, sarcastic humor and tempers that broke and did not bend; about the day when the virtue of a dog in a budha had not yet become generally accepted virtues; when others dominated those that I embraced as an elephant "character". When people were firm in their measurements, firm in their thoughts, firm in their actions, firm in their faith, in their feelings, in their actions. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html PING Banner Network 6/6 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/don... Dmitry Dontsova CHURCH AND NATIONALISM The nationalism of the 19th century, which emerged from the principles of 1789, was clearly anti-church, or as we used to say, "anti-clerical". He was like that in France, where in the last decade of the last century (under Waldeck and Combe) there was an open conflict between the government and the church; he was like that in the Apennines, where after the occupation of Rome by the king (1870), the pope broke off communication with the Representative of liberated Italy: he was like that in the Czech Republic and partly in Poland, where the entire left wing of the PPS waged war against "clericalism." Our nationalism was clearly hostile to the church. age: Drahomanov there, Franko and Pavlyk - here. Just like the church before him. I do not want to say that the church turned away from serving the national ideal. While before the revolution this could be said about the Ukrainian clergy, it was not the case about the Galician or Bukovyna clergy. But the main representatives of our nationalism in those days were treated negatively by the church. Was it a seizure or some deeper reasons and can they be eliminated? - I think that life itself begins to answer the question. And it's not just us. In the same France, the same Italy, a different wind begins to blow after the war, there are "apologies" with the Vatican, the latter's respect even in non-Catholic regions is obviously growing, which even its enemies cannot deny. In the Dnieper region and Volyn, the church becomes the last refuge of national energy that cannot develop elsewhere. In Galicia, some nationalist trends are openly reaching out to the church (as they want to see it), breaking with the "principled anti-clericalism" of the radicals and socialists. So it seems that life itself is slowly charting the path on which the hitherto hostile forces - the church and nationalism - should enter. In order to make sure whether this path can really lead to something, one must ask oneself: where is the reason for this convergence of both forces? - I do not want to talk here either about the all-powerful circumstances that act in the mentioned direction, or about the increase in the religiosity of the masses in connection with the war, I want to draw attention to something else here: to a more important reason. It is a slow approximation of the worldview of modern nationalism to the theological worldview of the church. This may sound a little paradoxical and will cause a smile from arrogant ignoramuses, but if it were not there, I could not be so sure of the correctness of less developed thoughts... What were the ideological foundations of Ukrainian nationalism, min. age, the grounds that are still repenting among our communists, radicals and other "progressives" who, with the clarity of a vulgarizer, will solve all the world's problems for you in five minutes? These grounds were: materialism, rationalism and socialism. The spiritual development of the past decades was under their sign, and almost all outstanding minds of the Ukrainian renaissance came under their influence. These grounds were definitely rejected by the church, and therefore it was impossible to dream about its understanding with Ukrainian nationalism, while it held the three above-mentioned principles in great esteem. But our time actually brought the slow decline of the idols worshiped by Pavlyk, Drahomaniv and Franko. Their worldview is replaced by a new one, extremely close to the worldview of the church, although the official leaders of our nationalism do not have the slightest idea about this. Until now, Ukrainian national thought has developed under the strong influence of rationalism. Originating from Descartes and the philosophers of the 18th century, this idea preached the omnipotence of the mind. She taught that only reason should decide what is good and what is evil: that there is no authority over it, and that all life's evil comes only from a lack of education. Following this doctrine, our nationalism asserted that the reason for the situation in which the nation found itself is backwardness, "unreasonableness" of socio-political governments or "uninformed" representatives of the ruling class or the people about the "true tendencies" of the Ukrainian liberation movement. In the course of this movement for life, they tried to justify it with logic and "prove" it with reason: that it lies in the interests of "progress" or "economic development", or by calling on the "laws of pedagogy" or biology, which requires heterogeneity and fragmentation of parts... It is not surprising that such nationalism had to rise against the church, which was based on unprovable, absolute truths that even "contradicted logic". It is not surprising that that nationalism, which thought that "human happiness and will" could only be given by "powerful reason without faith in the foundations" (Franco), had to openly declare against the church, to declare that it was fighting "not for churches, fields, or God ". It is clear that such a relationship with the church could count only on reciprocity on the part of the latter. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html 1/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM Our time has become a time of disaster for rationalism. "In the political world, reckless national dogmatism has taken its place. The idea of ​​the nation has taken away the axiomatic character of the idea, which finds its justification in itself, which is based not on reason, but on faith. Through the mouth of its greatest apostle, M. Bares, the newest nationalism dethroned lintelligence, and instead placed affect as the greatest explosive force in the history of humanity (1). The latest nationalism began to look for its God not in an ideal combined by the mind, only in its own desire, in its own faith; not in arguments, only in contra spem spero The old nationalism thought that "in the realm of dreams, apparitions, illusions and delusions" faith blooms only the poet's paradise, but faith cannot be the engine of the nation, because "those phantoms are their own phantoms" and "not worth the pain, blood and suffering" . The aim of the newer nationalism was actually to hunt for a brilliant "delusion", for the "illusion" of liberation, for the "ghost" of freedom, no matter how absurd they may seem to a cold mind. Philosophical doctrines did not know a universal universally binding truth. Our old nationalism did not know it either, but the new one found this truth. Even sooner - the church found her. With this evolution from reason to affect, to feeling, from logic to faith, from rationalism to dogmatism, in all its rebellion against the all-powerful mind, modern nationalism came much closer to the theological worldview of the church, which in the Syllabus of 1864 resolutely rejects the idea that "human reason is the lone arbiter of true and false." Nationalism came even closer to the worldview of the church due to the fact that it broke with the prevailing materialism. The latter made an idol of humanity - from humanity. He knew only the universal egoism of the masses, which does not tolerate any absolute above itself. The only reality here was matter, the material well-being of the greatest number of people. This was the source of the conflict with the church. In the name of its foundations, social materialism rejected war as an uncivilized act and as a "mass face", the ministers of the church - blessed - the soldiers who went to this "mass face"... In its adoration of the primitive needs of the masses, materialism rejected as a luxury thing , and the intelligentsia as darmoids (L. Tolstoy), the church owed more than one of its triumphs to art and placed faith-based intellect over matter, over numbers. For materialism, the greatest misfortune was the current patience of the "working people", the church knew the highest values ​​of both patience and life, preaching that "man shall not live by bread alone..." It is natural that our national thought, imbued with materialism, saw in science "retrogradation" of the church, ignoring social issues and pandering to the powerful. The Church did not find in its hostile doctrine anything other than the untangling of the lowest instincts of the crowd, and Bolshevism partly justified this view. New nationalism brought changes here as well. He also came to the conviction that the nation "does not live by bread alone", but only by those "delusions" that he rejected earlier. The greatness of the native land, the dream of "revenge", of "glory", national honor, the happiness of future generations, which "will come through our bones" - all these "abstract" ideas for a materialist, the new nationalism put above the happiness of all, over material well-being and peace of the existing generation, demanding for the absolute of the nation a complete dedication. Dreaming only of serving the seventh absolute, of getting closer to him (as faithful to his Savior), the modern nationalist, like the medieval fidei defensor, did not consider either the number of existences that had to be dedicated to the triumph of his idea, or the moral ruin, or material environment, as he did not pay attention to this in 1914. The well-known French nationalist S. Morras says that the interests of "those countrymen who will live" (des nationaux a vivre) should be placed above the interests of the "living" (des nationaux vivants), good of "eternal France" (France eternelle) over the good of "all the French of this age" (lensemble des Francias d`une epoque (2). This was a purely theological spirit! Because the ideal of the church is also "eternal", it is also "abstract" for of every materialist, also - whole in the future, also the value in himself, which requires reckless devotion, also puts something, some "mana" above the "happiness of all" and their material well-being. For the ideal of the church, no sacrifice is too great. Compared to it - the temporary goods of this world are nothing. In the name of this absolute, you can burn Sodom and Gomorrah, sinners together with the righteous, send famine, flood, fire and sword on humanity, raise brother against brother, just as typical representatives of militant nationalism did ten years ago and ... the theological outlook of Clemenceau and Kaiser. And then, when we remember that modern nationalism "raises the importance of qualitative civilization over quantitative (using the terminology of H. Ferrer), that it rebukes the "cowardice in front of the crowd" characteristic of democracy, disowns socialism and subordinates "rank to thought, and hand to head" and takes care only about "humanity", which is only a metaphysical hallucination" (3) - then the striking approach of modern nationalism to the worldview of the church will become even clearer. Its enemies rightly consider the main features of the new nationalism to be the militant spirit ("militant nationalism"), the spirit of "intolerance" and "violence", its uncompromising "fanaticism". But precisely these features give it a theological character. Bares preached "bare force" (la force toute nue), "legality and morality of the iron method." He claimed that "in history there have been salvations of violence" (de bonnes violences) and that "it is better to bleed a sick person than to let him perish (4). "But the big organization that we are talking about here does not say to tear out the eye that tempts us and burn the barren fig tree? Is it not threatening to punish the wicked who will "fall like stalks under the reaper's sickle" to be thrown into the fire, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth?" (5) Doesn't he say that "from the time of John the Baptist until this day, the kingdom of heaven is won by force, and he who has won takes it by force"? (6). The essence of new nationalism is war, and one of its prominent representatives says that "war is of divine origin" (7). But "the essence of Christianity is war, separation and painful separation. The goal of Christianity is indeed peace, but evil and sin have spread in us and around us, so that peace can be established, war is the ultimate" (8). Aren't these statements, isn't the commandment of the church "to be peacemakers and harmonize our will and aspirations with the will of our neighbors, no matter how much they conflict with the will of God" - "not closer to the warring nationalism of our days than to the peacemaking (at any cost) humanity of the old nationalism? https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html 2/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM Modern nationalism is "intolerant" and "fanatic" because he believes too much in his truth. And this reflects the worldview of that great organization that teaches that "he who is not with me is against me": which calls its enemies "snakes and vipers", and does not extend a hand to them in the name of "international solidarity": which requires self-denial, which consists "in a certain kind of hatred of the father, brothers-in-law, and even oneself", which requires "to treat them as if they were enemies, when they act against God's will." Is this worldview not the worldview of modern nationalism? And is Shevchenko's bloody fantasy (a random figure in our 19th century!) about the sun, which will "rise and burn the defiled earth" - closer to those "nationalists" who sang his "cherry orchard" than to the strict image of measuring the last punishment, which we see in the painting by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel? Modern nationalism holds high the banner of traditionalism, and this is its attachment to the land of the fathers, to their faith, customs, to the family and race, and distinguishes it from the third idol, which - despite rationalism and materialism - the old nationalism worshiped, from socialism. But this traditionalism unites modern nationalism with the church. The fact on which Bares builds his nationalism is "the earth and the dead" (la terre et les morts). Modern nationalism owes its strongest emotional impulses to ancestor cults. But this very cult of ancestors stood near the cradle of every religion, and even now the commemoration of the dead plays a huge role in the Christian cult. Here nationalism has assimilated the Catholic soul form with all its needs and movements of the senses. Nur wo die Graber sind gibt es Auferstehungen, these words of Nietzsche will be understood equally by a believing Catholic and a believing nationalist. Am I correctly conveying the essence of modern nationalism here? - I think so. At least his tendency. This tendency is also noticeable in our country, although the official leaders of the nation still try to leave it with an ideology that no longer corresponds to its essence... With more right, they can ask me if I explain the worldview of the church in a one-sided way." Probably, you can prove everything with quotes. Probably, Catholic science is full of "paradoxes" and quasi-contradictions: principles proclaimed at the same time: faith and reason, authority and freedom, gentleness and violence. But it seems to me that a careful researcher of the doctrine of Catholicism will come to the conviction that solving on its own way, its own "paradoxes", this doctrine still adheres to the principles that I presented above: placing faith above reason, the principle of authority above the principle of number (socialism), the "eternal" above the temporary, the moral above the material. Whatever they say, but it is certain that "as long as the world" or some region... will rest on principles different from divine, until for this world, for this region... the supernatural religion of Catholicism will not bring peace, but a sword", and "in the defense of its rights it will show the church is what the world calls non-union". They can tell me that this spirit does not blow in the daily life of the church. What else! But if this is so, then it must be different. Secondly, this is not quite so. We know the facts when the church accepted challenges thrown at it, such as during the struggle with the congregations in France, we read in the "Syllabus" the proud words: "actual injustice, crowned with success, has no sanctity of right"; we, like the whole world, read about Cardinal Mercier's astonishing hiding, finally: we see the struggle, Ukrainian. churches against Bolshevism. And this concealment, this activism does not in the least contradict the doctrine of Catholicism, which is already in humility to give one's own, but not to "God", whom it has no right to command or trade. As we can see, this practice does not contradict the theory, and secondly, it is really applied. And actually this last fact is the ultimate prerequisite for agreeing with the church of modern nationalism. I know that the church cannot and does not dare to lower itself to the role of a political party. She defends another cause. But isn't a campaign against the nation also a campaign against it? Take, for example, Bolshevism (other examples could be taken). Does his campaign against his family, against attachment to his ancestors, to his native land, to the beliefs and language of his parents, not also entail a campaign against his parents' faith? And is the destruction of the latter, as well as the destruction of the authority of the family, really indifferent to the church? Does that not destroy its foundations? Further, does the church care about the moral degradation (for "mammon", or as we used to say "for the delicacy of the unfortunate"), which occurs in the less resistant among the people with each oppression? Christianity is universal, it has its own goal and does not take part in the petty quarrels of this world, but didn't its founder thunder against his "Pharisees and scribes" who spread infection and rot in the nation? Isn't it about something more than the "temporary good" that exists for a Catholic - in comparison with his truth - national "holy things"? On the other hand: a campaign against the church is equally a campaign against the nation. With our so weak centers of crystallization of the nation; the church plays a big role in us. The reduction of its influence and authority, the reduction of its state of possession weakens the attractive force of one of those centers that transforms a scattered tribe into a conscious nation. For that understanding with the church is no less necessary for modern nationalism than for the church to preserve the repulsive power of the nation, understanding with nationalism. The church, by its very essence, is an unequal society consisting of two categories of persons, shepherds and "flock", this "flock" largely preserves its spiritual (and national!) unity only because of the uninterrupted work of "shepherds". But even the hierarchy of "shepherds" will not last long, when it passively watches how the "flock" disperses or realizes itself. Modern nationalism, as I indicated above, in its entire psychology has come much closer to the theological worldview of the church. Is the church aware of this vulnerability? If so, then she should not take an example from St. Kasyan and be afraid, going to work to the "herd", to soil their robes. She must understand that this is about the "temporary" as well as the "eternal", where there can be no retreat. Even opponents of the church will learn that when "Catholicism regained extraordinary power during the 19th century", gaining influence even in educated circles, it was solely because it "did not want to renounce anything" (11). https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html 3/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM Once, in their " Arabesques", in the article about "The Middle Ages" M. Gogol wrote: "If the all-powerful power (the papacy) did not seize everything in its hands, did not move and rule the nations according to its desire, - Europe would crumble... It would did not come out of the chaos, would not have merged with the iron power of euthusiasm into one wall, which frightened the eastern conquerors with its strength" - I am far from thinking of attributing to the Catholic Church such a task as it had in the Middle Ages (especially since I am talking about both churches on these lands). But one of the factors that keeps not Europe, but the nation from "falling apart" is the church. And she must remember this, having found in herself the ancient "iron strength of enthusiasm". When the church realizes this, when it finds the temperament of the prelates of the Middle Ages and their faith, when, giving Caesar's things to Caesar, it will not retreat a step, defending "God"; when at the same time our nationalism finally defeats all the remnants of "anti-clericalism", then they will surely shake hands over the heads of the belated disciples of our "encyclopedists", who ape the doctrines, ape in us in the past age from the even older French "Voltarianism". Then the ecclesia militans and nationalism will find each other again, as it was three hundred years ago. I limit myself to these few and not fully developed attentions. A thoughtful reader will be able to deduce from them all the thoughts that I put into them. 1924 year. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html PING Banner Network 4/4 11/28/23, 3:50 PM DMYTRO DONTSOV. THE WAY OF LIFE The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180946/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Смотрите также страницу Dmytro Dontsov YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV Dmytro Dontsov was born on August 17 (29), 1883 in the city of Melitopol in Southern Ukraine in an old Cossack family that came from Slobozhanshchyna. In the family circle, he receives the initial "Ukrainian education". After graduating from the Melitopol real school and gymnasium in 1900, he began to study law at St. Petersburg University, finishing his studies in Vienna. After completing his studies, he moved to Kyiv, where he joined the Ukrainian political movement - he became a member of the USDRP, for which he was imprisoned by the Russian authorities in 1907. Freed on family bail in 1908, Dontsov left the Russian Empire and went to Austria-Hungary, where he studied law in Vienna. Taking an active part in the political life of Galicia in 1913, at the second Ukrainian student congress in Lviv, with his speech "The current political situation of the nation and our tasks", for the second time in this century after Michnovsky, he proclaimed the doctrine of independence, which caused his departure from the socialist movement. With the beginning of the First World War, Dmytro Dontsov was the head of the independentist Union for the Liberation of Ukraine, later in 1914-16. manages the Ukrainian Press Bureau in Berlin, and in 1916 he moves to Switzerland, where he heads and publishes the press bulletin "Bureau of the Peoples of Russia". In 1917, he obtained the degree of doctor of jurisprudence in Lviv. In March 1918, he returned to Kyiv, where he became one of the leading figures of the most nationalist at that time the Party of the Breadwinners-Democrats. Immediately after the establishment of the Hetmanate, he works as the head of the Ukrainian Telegraph Agency. In January 1919, he went to Vienna. During 1919-21 holds the position of head of the press office at the Ukrainian embassy in Berlin. Since 1922, he has been living in Lviv, where he edits publications such as "Zagrava", "Literary and Scientific Bulletin", "Visnyk". In the interwar period, he became a well-known ideologist and universally recognized nationalist theoretician, published a number of works, including "Nationalism", "Poet of the Ukrainian Risorgimento: Lesya Ukrainka", "Politics https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180946/http://www .ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_terminl.html 1/2 11/28/23, 3:50 PM DMYTRO DONTSOV. LIFE'S WAY principled and opportunistic", "Where to look for our historical traditions", "Foundations of our politics", etc. After the beginning of World War II, Dmytro Dontsov was interned by the Polish authorities in camps, and after the "fraternal reunification" of the 39th, he was forced to emigrate. Lives in Bucharest (where he edits the magazine "Batava"), Berlin, Krakow, Prague. In the winter of 1943-44, he left Ukraine forever. The capitulation of Germany finds Dontsov in Prague. He goes to the American occupation zone, and at the end of 1945 he reaches Paris. Dontsov's position was extremely difficult and dangerous, because Moscow included him in the lists of "international war criminals", and therefore in the second half of 1946, with the help of the Ukrainian Bureau in London, he moved to Great Britain, where he edited the newspaper "Ukrainian Klych". Soon he receives permission to leave for the ZDA and leaves Europe. In 1947, he settled in Canada, where he lived until his death. There he publishes a number of works, in particular "The Cross and the Sword", "Cardinal Mercier", "The Invisible Tablets of Kobzar", "The Spirit of Our Antiquity", as well as articles in such publications as "The Way of Victory", "The Way of Liberation", "Homin of Ukraine" and others. In 1949-52 Dmytro Dontsov works as a teacher of Ukrainian literature at the University of Montreal. He spent the last years of his life on an improvised "farm" in the Lawrence Mountains near Montreal. On March 30, 1973, Dmytro Dontsov passed away. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180946/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_terminl.html PING Banner Network 2/2 11/28/23, 3:51 PM Dontsov, Dmitry The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/doncov.html Dontsov, Dmitry Home About the project Movements Regions Questions People Links Feedback Home >>> People > >> Dontsov, Dmitry Dontsov, Dmitry (18) Works (2) Dontsov, Dmitry D. Dontsov, The Great Banquet 19Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html D. Dontsov, Youth and student years of Dmitry Dontsova 30Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html D. Dontsov, Church and Nationalism 21Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html D. Dontsov, V. Lenin 37Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html D. Dontsov, The Great Spark of Fire 12Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html D. Dontsov, To the Old Gods 26Kb URL http ://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html D. Dontsov, The Spirit of the Flock and the Spirit of Providence 26Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html D. Dontsov, Ideologists of Nudity https:// web.archive.org/web/20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com/doncov.html 23Kb 1/3 11/28/23, 3:51 PM Dontsov, Dmitry URL http://www.ukrstor.com /ukrstor/donzow_holota.html D. Dontsov, Examining history and socialist castrates 55Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html D. Dontsov, The only thing that is needed 30Kb URL http://www. ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html D. Dontsov, Call of the day 13Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html D. Dontsov, Bellua sine capite 47Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com /ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html D. Dontsov, Nationalism 567Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nationalism.htm D. Dontsov, Simon Petliura 7Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/ donzow_petlra.html D. Dontsov, Biography 5Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_terminl.html D. Dontsov, What is the strength of organization 10Kb SEPTEMBER 1948 URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_vchim .html D. Dontsov, The Age of Religious Wars 26Kb January 1937 URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html D. Dontsov, For Which Ukraine? 16Kb March 1949 URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html Works of D. Dontsov - Foundations of our politics. 4150Kb Vienna 1921 URL ftp://mnibguest:nopass@ftp.servage.net/mnib116-DonzowPidstawyNasoiPolitiki.djvu D. Dontsov - Die ukrainische Staatsidee und der Krieg gegen Russland 1340Kb Berlin, 1915 https://web.archive.org/web /20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com/doncov.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:51 PM Dontsov, Dmitry URL ftp://mnibguest:nopass@ftp.servage.net/mnib130-DonzowDieUkrStaatsIdeeKriegGegRussland .djvu Konez Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years bigmir SpyLOG TOP100 https://web.archive.org/web/20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com /doncov.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:48 PM THE BIG BANQUET The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com: 80/ukrstor/don… Украинские страницы история национального дужику Украины Главная Движения Регионы Вопросы Деятели Sсылки Отзывый Форум Смотрите также страницу Дмитрия Донцов THE GREAT BANQUET "... say to every bird of the sky and beast of prey: come together and come to my sacrifice that I will prepare for you, to a great feast ... You will eat flesh and drink blood ... And all nations will see my punishing judgment." (Ezekiel XXXIX, 17 and 21) All nations saw His "punitive judgment". Ukraine also saw it, almost blinded by that vision. It was the hour that Krasinsky saw in his imagination, when the Husband replies to Pankrat: "Progress, the happiness of the human race! And I once believed... It happened! A hundred years ago, two hundred, a love affair could still be... but now I know: now we have to make faces at each other, because now they only care about changing tribes" (Nieboska Komedija). So! For those who go with a five-pointed star, it is about a change of tribe, not about "progress" and "happiness of humanity", not about "amicable agreement". And where there is a "change of tribe", there are no agreed interpretations, there is only a big feast: fate, hell, a deadly struggle between two forces - us or them. You don't have to be a poet to see that the times we read about in the Bible are not only in the past. We live in such times, we are all invited to the Great Banquet, at which, instead of wine, blood is spilled, and the fallen drunks are not resurrected. As two and a half thousand years ago, "will not spare and will not have mercy" Fate is our terrible time: "and people, even if they shout to my ears with a thunderous voice, I will not listen to them" - those who have no idea what will happen when whole nations surrender. corpses before their idols," then the punishing hand of justice will lay them down. For "breaking loyalty" to their Truth; that "they burned incense to other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers knew." Not only in the distant days of the prophets, but also in our day, only those who have "diamond-like, harder than stone" foreheads, and even harder hearts, will escape from hell. These "stone" hearts were nurtured by the new Middle Ages. It created cruel and - beautiful, terrible and - strong, fear and sacrificial patience - and faith, which Europe had not known for hundreds of years. Pierre Dominique writes in La Republique about the fighters of the Spanish Civil War (1934-1936): "It is clear that these are not people like you or me, they are believers, ready to become martyrs tomorrow... People who discover to us all the treasures of courage, and in whose heart dwells the spirit of consecration. I see the faith of these men, do you not feel that they are just fading in their faith?" ... "We are you, with a different meaning," as M. Khvylovy addressed the "counter-revolutionaries" in one poem... And those "counter-revolutionaries" are those who were not afraid of hell, who did not lose faith; these are those whose foreheads turned out to be harder than a diamond, who came - at God's command - to punish the idolatrous tribe. In which, in each of them, the voice of the prophet thunders: "Go to your countrymen and speak to them, and say to them: thus says the Lord God, whether they will listen or not." It will be all the worse for them when they will not be ... In one English monthly we read: "Miracles can be achieved with the overcivilized and exhausted humanity of modern Europe, when you give it a lofty goal. The encouragement of material well-being will not move the best hearts. But a religious call, giving people a higher, impersonal goal, elevates humanity above the bazaar with its affairs, above personal benefits"... It was a force that surprised Moscow in Spain, surprised in Ukraine as well, when "the serene cherry paradise and peasant good-naturedness", as Brazhnev writes, appeared brazenly a masquerade of Soviet events, when "a hand grenade hid under the skirt of a Ukrainian beauty" and "behind the peasant hospitality there was a desire for revenge and started fires" ... Yes, we are experiencing the renaissance of the Middle Ages, with its horrors, but also with its virtues, with its boundless faith, with his spirit of self-consecration, which creates not only martyrs, but also apostles of new religions. The wave of the Middle Ages floods the world, and in it the strong grow stronger and the weak break... Corpses in front of their idols, whom they did not have the faith to revive. Tottering https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html 1/4 11/28/23, 3:48 PM GREAT BANQUET these idols in the Soviet Union, because the era of the Middle Ages has returned to it as well. Haven't the processes of new "witches" ("counter-revolutionaries"), who out of malice "destroy crops" or "take milk from cows" been taking place in it for several years? "I do not know the sins I have committed, I do not know the sins I have committed, I do not know the forbidden vegetable from which I ate, I do not know Forgive me my sins, O God, whom I do not know..." This is how they once prayed in the Middle Ages . And doesn't this psalm resemble the repentance and plea of ​​those who sinned against the mysterious, unknown "general line" of the all-powerful "leader"? The deadly struggle of two forces in the primeval forest, where an enemy lurked behind every bush, who "will not spare, will not have mercy, will not listen" ... So - the new Middle Ages! In its initial dispersal, Bolshevism was proud of the camp of its opponents and, like Pancrates, mocked this camp: "Well, show us the peruns sent to your defense and the regiments of angels sent from heaven!" And suddenly, over the Dnieper, over the Danube, in the Alcazar, these plumes thundered, "regiments of angels" appeared. And their power began to break the power of the Pancrates. The death which these latter pursued upon their adversaries, at last met those who did not flinch, drove it back: against those who had sent it into the world. Against the indifference of some, this "gloomy fury" and "medieval severity", "ecstasy", "consecration" of the times when Gothic cathedrals were demolished in Europe, "brutality that surprised Moscow itself" stood up... But next to them, we also see and others, pickled from the 19th century by the demo-socialist Halyavskyi and Pererepenko, who "happily" slept through the thunders of 1812 and 1848, pretending that they did not exist. These are those whose fat souls and clumsy brains, like those of a steppe ox, did not accept the world as it is; who in the apocalyptic times still operated with the phraseology of 1848, when fools and fools, when tomorrow's enemies stretched out "brotherly hands", when it was only necessary to "awaken the democratic spirit in the peoples" so that everything between them would settle down as best as possible; when there was to be no division "between those who love liberty." And don't the Bolsheviks love freedom? And is "brutality" a democratic weapon? This is "Beskid" from Przemyśl, although it believes that "hatred of communists" is "undoubtedly a welcome phenomenon, but - "one should seriously think about what this disorganized self-defense of the Ukrainian village against Bolshevik provocations can lead to"... This "Nova Zorya" mourns the same grief... This is the highly cultured and ethical "Woman" (ch. 17) who must express her "caution about the method of fighting communism", emphasize the importance of "ethical requirements" in the fight against cannibals and warn the general public , lest, God forbid, he dares to "come down to their level in the struggle with those dark types" ... This is the radical-socialist "Public Voice" that defends public morality against the "barbarities of fascism" ... This is one high dignitary of the Church warns in the Jewish press in front of chauvinism and asks not to judge the poor local members of the CPSU (in Galicia) who (after all, life is so difficult) had to grasp even such a razor as Bolshevism... These are the Halyavskys - red, semi-red and pink - acting in defense culture in front of the preaching of violence, they are the ones who use the remnants of their strength to move up the broken tablets of the wisdom of Drahomanov, Hrushevsky, and Vinnichenko with their commandment: "bow down to your enemy in the lowest place and kill in your heart anger against him"!.. These are the worshipers of Bolshevik "achievements", this is the socialist Chwila (12. IX) suddenly remembered the principle of humanism - that the strong must respect the rights of the weak and defenseless; that it would be good to reforge swords into ploughshares; that it is time to turn from the path of violence to the path of great ideals of humanity, tolerance and brotherhood of peoples... Nasz Przeglad (5. XI) attacked the requisites of the Middle Ages, the "vendettas", the "condottiers", lamenting the fact that relations of the people to the people "know no ethical currents", to "xenophobia", recalling that "it's time to wake up from national psychosis"; that "the miasma of nationalism kills the soul"; that this cannot happen in the "time of radium, the theory of spectacle and psychoanalysis" (long live Einstein and Freud!); that the "development of moral culture" should "degrade units that worship the principle of physical violence"; that no extreme regime will survive anyway; that, they say, Bolshevism is also making concessions, then "wouldn't it be better to come to an understanding on the basis of ripe and necessary reforms" instead of declaring a crusade against communism? And "mnogaya sloves glagolakhu", ridiculous and delusional to the point of cynicism. I'm not talking about the Halyavskys here - they are the last Mohicans, over whom history moves to the agenda, whatever the forces behind them: it's not important who to be with, what's important is who to be. But where do these calls for humanity and understanding come from, from those from whom we have not heard this for a long time? Where did the brazen mobilization of Seneca, Pliny, Grill-parzer, and the fathers of the Christian Church in one of the journals cited above come from to prove that nationalists must become lambs in the face of threatening communism? Before this game, we must warn our general public. Because when socialists and radicals "taint" nationalist "rape", and the red inquisition in Spain - winter, sophisticated, bestial - that spares neither the temples of God, nor women, nor children, was called the righteous "anger of the people", https: //web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html 2/4 11/28/23, 3:48 PM THE GREAT BANQUET their calls for humanity are lies! When the socialists and "democrats" of the figures of this inquisition, led by Caballero, who was not trusted by any parliament and who ruled together with the Soviets and with the Moscow ambassador in Madrid, Rosenberg, - when they were presented to us as "fighters for freedom and democracy" , - that's a lie! It is also a lie when the "government" Spanish departments, which, as can be seen in the illustrations, have the hammer and sickle on their flags as fighters for freedom and democracy. Because "hammer and sickle" has nothing to do with democracy or freedom. But behind these lies of the radical socialists lies something more formidable: the desire to pull out our teeth so that their cause, the cause of the "people's front" directed by Moscow, will triumph. For when Nasz Przeglad i Chwila say that the age of violence must end, while at the same time bemoaning the fate of the "poor exile" Trotsky and mocking the recently ousted British High Commissioner in Palestine, General Wolfhop, for being a "pacifist" who "will not to look at blood" and not be able to drown the Arab resistance in it - then we do not believe in this humanism! Because when someone contains a pamphlet - against all those who use violence, starting with Philip of Spain and ending with Hitler, but does not even mention the Bolshevik regime - then we do not believe in this humanism! Because when someone mentions the "auto-da-fe" of the 16th century and says nothing about the "auto-da-fe" of the 20th, even in our Dnipro region, we don't believe in that humanism! Because when in the magazine those who glorified Schwartzbardt brazenly talked about the "moral degradation of units that worship the principle of physical violence" - we do not believe in their humanism! As long as it seemed to them that the scales on which the fate of our continent was weighed tilted in their favor; while various "birds of the sky and beasts of prey" devoured Ukraine, the "humanists" remained silent. Even brazenly, when they saw that the cry of those predators "Long live death!" turned against them themselves, - Viva la muerta!, (with the Bolsheviks in the Bolshevik way), - they remembered Seneca, and the fathers of the Church, and tolerance, and humanity ... They do this with one goal - to pull out our teeth! To prevent the end of communism and the forces of the devil! No, we will not pull out our teeth! We will not allow ourselves to be recruited by this "humanism" either, because the one who proclaims it is covering up his devilish goal with it. No, defenders who save the monstrosity of communism and Moscow will not convince us. It is precisely those values ​​that have been prescribed by the "Pshegliondas" and our socialists that we must raise high like flags: "high chauvinistic tension" (such as it lives in the "Pshegliondas" themselves), "the psychosis of fanaticism" (it would not sit on our backs Bolshevism, if we had it earlier!), finally, "adoration of that fitful own anthropological mashup, pulled by the thorn of one language." This is not "parishionism"! This is the patriotism of a nation that will not allow itself to be tamed! We have had enough of "progress", "brotherhood of peoples", "universal life" and other false slogans with which more than one person in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Lviv broke their heads, turning them into donkeys in advance... It is about saving our national team, not about "advances" and "fraternities". It is about strengthening its repulsive power, not about allowing the Pharisees to further distribute that power from humanity and "universal happiness" ... Times respect such nonsense. The forerunner of Bolshevism, the poet Holz-Miller, threw his defiant "I believe" in the face of the enemy: We are, you will win in battle, We are enemies, and in the time of destruction, you do not expect compassion from us, We do not accept mercy from you . A beacon of the future, this dilemma has blazed a giant torch in our time. The same opinion was expressed in modern language by the former Spanish ambassador in Berlin, Luis Arquisten: "The historical dilemma is nationalism or socialism. And in the war between them, force will decide", primarily moral force, moral courage. General Franco thought the same way, and the heroic defenders of the Alcazar, who were blown up by red gangs, also thought the same way. That's what those who were shot near the Bazaar thought. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html 3/4 11/28/23, 3:48 PM THE GREAT BANQUET Even elsewhere they are beginning to think so : "One must be strong. One must be resolute. There is no more room for tricksters, nor for the meek, nor for the meek. There is only a camp of husbands and a camp of slaves." People from the "slave camp" must be pushed aside. The Middle Ages - the one that preceded the present - in which Dante's wonderful work appeared, threw to hell those who "lived selfishly, neither enemies of God, nor faithful to Him"; those who "neither heaven wanted them, nor hell accepted them"; "those despicable hundreds, who were renounced equally by God and the devil, meager souls who lived without shame and without honor." Those from the "slave camp", those "little souls", those "warm tricksters" who, in the face of a terrible uncompromising reality, only know that (according to Drahomanov) they invite us to go "under a more humane banner than the banner of religious and national fanaticism "; who, in the face of the red hell, only know how to remember the nationalists - "not to transfer relations between people into the plane of brute force"; those who want to cheat the resolution of a big problem, instead of cutting it; those who curse anyone who offers this dissection as the only solution; those in whose gelatinous souls all human feelings of resentment, human dignity or protest have died; those whose ears are open to the whispers of wordsmiths who want to take the sting out of us - they are all destined for one fate: to be butchers at the great feast of history. The stupidity of these "little souls" does not dare to drag the whole nation or even a part of it. The great feast is still going on. We are breathing in the hot air of the new Middle Ages, in which only "hard-hearted" or "evil" people mean anything, like our ancestors from Kozelets, nicknamed by the Tatars "the evil city" for not allowing themselves to take "the flattering words of the wicked." People of ardent faith and stone heart! Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html PING Banner Network 4/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM IDEOLOGISTS OF HOLOTA The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Украинские страницы история национального двігу Украины Dontsov IDEOLOGISTS OF THE GOLOTS The Ukrainian narodniks of the time of Kulish and Drahomanov made a god, an idol, out of the common people. Franko reproached Drahomanov that "society - in his understanding - was characteristically only a productive, working, in our region, boyish mass", all other strata ("white-collar workers") - were either demanding or unnecessary; criticized that the people of Dragoman cherished "faith in some mystical will of the people, in their innate ability to grasp some of their own "truth", as soon as the depraved intelligentsia does not prevent it"; it was only necessary to "overthrow the current state and social order, hand over its heritage to the hands of the mass of the people and leave it to their will to build a new order." The idolatry of the common people led our narodniks to the point of complete abdication from the tasks of what is called leading the nation. Provid did not dare to "throw" his ideas to the people; when "the people" stood for independence, it was possible to be independent. And when not? It is difficult, above all, the principle of the majority! In everything, one had to ask - how the "people" think. And in the meantime, the concept of "nation" has undergone a huge evolution since those times, but little noticeable to narodniks. What do I mean by that? What is the huge difference between, say, the peasant people of Kvitka, Myrny or Cheremshina, with their firm morals, customs, and religiosity, and the "people" of the present Megapolises, who do not believe in God or the devil; which fills the deafening and demoralizing cinema "shows" or sports arenas and enjoys reading "comics" with criminology and sexuality. There is an even greater difference between this Kvitchyna people and, say, those dockers in Le Havre or Cherbourg who refuse to unload ammunition and weapons for the army of their homeland, France, in order to facilitate its annexation by a foreign rapist... Meanwhile, many "patriots" make idols for themselves precisely from that "sovereign nation", from those dockers or from the atheist crowd of modern metropolises, thirsty only for "bread and spectacles". Is this normal and how did it happen? This process is best seen through the magnifying glass of literature. In ancient literature, in Ukraine, as well as in Europe in general, and in art as well, the following were the objects of adoration: Deity, Virgin Mary, saints, heroes, people of high spirit and character. When it came to a person as a hero, he was primarily interested in God's spirit, what lifted him up. Then it changed. The literature was filled with "poor man", "humiliated and insulted", they began to write about the suffering of the oppressed people - and it was good. But at the same time, attention was not paid to moral suffering, to the lowering of human dignity, to the divine "I" in man, as to physical suffering, to carnal pain. And secondly, this stage in literature was only a step in the development, a stage by which it was not the people, but the nakedness that came to be exalted. It started with the main philosopher of modern nudity - Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A person, he taught, has no original sin and comes into the world innocent, but when he later deteriorates, it is not he who is to blame, but the bad system of the community, which needs to be changed, not the person. What makes a difference: when an aristocrat was a scoundrel, a thief, or a murderer, then he was personally guilty and responsible and had to go to the guillotine, as Rousseau's adepts quite faithfully emphasized the master's science. If the poor man was a criminal or a thief, then he was not guilty, he was a "victim of circumstances", environment, needs, burdened by parental inheritance, etc., and the jury had to acquit him. Although wealth and power can equally demoralize, like poverty and slavery. The next step in this philosophy was very easy: when the derailed individual from the "people" was not guilty, then others were also innocent. And they had to be sympathized with as victims of an unjust system. It was necessary to forgive them, and - it was necessary to adore them, put them on a pedestal. Nudity under the guise of "the people" crept there - first in literature. First, these magnifiers of nudity appeared in literature - Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and many Western writers, such as Zola, Proust, Marguerite, Collette, and now Sartre. Nudity had to be loved and pitied, and when, for example, robbed or molested, and when she herself molested, like Raskolnikov from "Crime and Punishment", or like the prostitute Sonichka from the same. To resemble in everything - how to the ideal, to the peasant, Moscow - was the idea of ​​Count Leo Tolstoy. When Prince Pierre Bezukhov from "War and Peace" looked at the "bare feet of a peasant" near him, "at big, dirty toes, a smile of cheerful satisfaction appeared on his face"... You can sympathize with a poor, unwashed peasant, but be satisfied with his dirt?! This meant not only sympathizing with the grief of the victim, but raising him on a pedestal with all his flaws and defects! We can see a similar scene in "Resurrection" by the same author, where he blurs with pleasure when, on Easter, Katyusha is baptized with a beggar with traces of a terrible disease on his pale face. Masarykh, who met Tolstoy, wrote that https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html 1/4 11/28/23, 3 :49 PM IDEOLOGISTS OF BADNESS "Tolstoy saw a certain merit in dirt", Tolstoy said that Christianity should be overgrown and that an overgrown person is dearer to him than a physically clean one. From here there was only one step - to the adoration of Gorky bastards and Bolshevik hooligans. Adoration of nudity! We have started this process as well. Obviously, no one will judge Franko that he was a worshiper of nudity. "Producer, worker", "husband", "stone mason" - these types of him were certainly not types of the nakedness, only of the people. But even in that nation, he had already observed other types of people with a "slave heart" and "slave brain", devoid of an ideal, types of fruitless rebellion, in which "low malice" and "slave anger" spoke instead of noble anger. And the poet's ardent love for his people - led him to very strange testimonies. He confesses that he loves his people: "not only for your good character, but also for your mistakes and malice, even though I cry over them; for that stubbornness of yours, for that pride of spirit that, having gone down your stupid path, even God do not listen; for the deceitfulness of your tongue, for a wide conscience that clings to earthly good like clinging roots, for the shamelessness of your daughters, for their ardent love, and for your language and customs, for your laughter and breathing"... This already means to love someone not for his good traits, which are distinguished by our people, but also for the traits of nakedness, for impiety, for lying, for lack of conscience, for slavery of the spirit, attachment to matter and its benefits, finally for debauchery... Franko to he did not return to that topic again, and it remained an episode in his work, which was balanced by his rather cruel whipping of his people for the "lack of character and renegadeness" of some of its members. But - it was still a step on which, scrambling, others went. The adoration of intellectual nudity began in our country with Vinnichenko, with Mykh. Rudnytskyi, then some post-Soviet Ukrainian authors were engaged in it. And as far as emigration - we found theorists of nudity as such, its ideologues. These ideologues mainly include Shevchuk-Sherekh, Divnych, Potoroka, Fedenko, and Samchuk. Although the latter only often, being rather an ideologue of our "my-house-on-the-edge" peasant. He even asks, "what did the bravura uprisings help (the rebels)? Can they boast of greater consequences, even for such Czechs?" - but he also says: "fight and compete for things that do not exist and are unreal. Be romantics and heroes. Unfortunately, I do not belong to such people", my hut from the edge... In it, the turn begins, if not to adoration, then to justification, to the recognition of the reason for being for a person from nakedness. When he is told that "good and evil, warm and cold, wise and unwise cannot be combined," he replies that "these things live in pairs in ourselves, in our souls, and that is precisely why we can be what we are - by people." Here there is already an admission - on equal rights in literature and in public life, both the unwise and the indifferent (neither warm nor winter) and - even evil... This is the formation of a veil for nudity, and the points are put by Sherekh- Shevchuk. He already maliciously rejects all "romanticism" and "heroism", leaves no place for them in the realm of the "little man", that is, the average person. This last should set the tone for our entire life! We must accept a person as he is - both in jacks and in downs, we must rely in social construction not only on the positive layers of the nation, but also on the negative, up to "the deepest", whatever they may be; we must take a person "in the whole breadth of his spiritual and physical existence " - both the noble and the vile, "to draw strength even from the abomination of life", because "and from dung grow wonderful flowers". Only when a person combines these good and "disgusting" or "pure" elements "she will be a "whole person", a whole, not one-sided man. Franko looked at it differently. He knew that the only person who still "has not lost his sense", who is "still beckoned by battle" and "hope is still medicine" - only that whole man! Those who no longer have that, who plunged into their "bad days, swampy days", he - with all his "versatility" ceases to be a "whole man", becomes his caricature. But this "versatile person" is a model of nudity ideologists. She should be a bearer of history, a hero of our time. A person should be taken "as he is", and not "made" out of him! Do not improve, do not discipline! Such a person is enthroned everywhere. First of all - in ethics. Free road to the instincts of the crowd - bread, pleasure, spectacles. Away with everything that can be a scourge for those instincts, away with asceticism, self-control, over your whims! Away with human will, because when this will forbids you to "draw strength from the abomination of life", from manure - then it will be "totalitarian violence"! Ethics should be relative, in the pleasure of "free" nudity. No dogmas! No axioms of behavior, because it will be "medieval violence", "inquisition"! The literature of nudity instructs Tolstoy and the French Bolshevisans, but mainly dwells on the "little person" with her petty troubles and her joys - mostly alcove or culinary. One "mason" describes for whole pages, in his novel, how the cows and pigs on the farm "did their daily work... eats... Everything eats...", and right there is a detailed menu of the pig kitchen... People they also eat, the young woman eats, the hero Peter eats, "his eyes are closed, like a sweet cat, and his thick mouth glistens", he does not eat - he "celebrates". Next, we see how Suprun's mouth "opens and closes wide" when eating, how the hostess "pours tea is an unheard of pleasure", we read descriptions of knishes, butter, etc. endlessly...("Ost" - U. Samchuk) . This is what kind of literature is to the taste of the "little person". What is surprising, that for authors with alcove and culinary, stomach "problems", Malanyuk and Olzhych are twisted souls, fictionists, far from "real life"? Golot creativity spread in the cinema as well. And there the main character is a "little man", often a gangster. Chaplin goes to the role of not a "little", but a vile person, a criminal ("Mr. Bideau"). Nothing is great in the cinema, heroics are also not tolerated - except for small exceptions: when kings and rulers are brought out, they are always either "in slippers", or as fools or https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http: //www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html 2/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM IDEOLOGISTS HOLOTA tyrants; priests - either as inquisitors, or as comic figures, to whom true "heroes" - small people - give a kick in the back... So that the nudity in the hall would laugh and know that the hero of our days is not "lords, kings and popes" , and channel. They are guided by the same idea in politics. They discovered that our national worldview is the "philosophy of the heart" (Chizhevskii) and "eternal peasantry", and having proclaimed this, they entrust not the people of the heart and not the peasant, but nudity, as the ideal of a political leader. In politics, nudity - without an ideal except "prosperity", does not tolerate "chauvinists", because "chauvinist" is Taras Bulba, who kills Andrii, and this is already "intolerance"! Is Andrei a renegade? But renegades have the right to live! The leading leader of our nudity, Drahomanov, wrote that "the word renegade is wild nonsense. Do not dare your nation despotically declare to him - you are ours... and you must remain ours until the end"! Golot's ideal of freedom is "the right of free movement from nation to nation" (M. Shapoval). True, how profitable is it? Everyone has the right to join the rider's "nation" (and the army) when he thinks it's more profitable... And whole young generations of socialists were raised on Nikita Shapoval! And he was never accused of "demoralizing the youth". Golota in politics is engaged in "reconciliation of contradictions", stands outside the conflict, which he organically does not tolerate. It is basically neutral - "outside the battle". Can't stand nationalism, because it doesn't allow you to love the enemy, which is unpleasant for the Shveiks. He does not tolerate nudity and clearly hostile instruction against communists (because "these are our misguided or evil brothers"). Talk about a clear conflict with the enemy, and the Golot "insect" will boil in the cauldron: We just need peace! Only evil people enter the fight, We have a good, sincere soul"... That's how the poet O. Babii mocks them. The tactics of political nakedness? - This is from Rudansky's "Science": when you shake off the possibles of this world, "My dear son, forgive yourself like a rower, the back will not curve from an incline. For that, the master will step and look, ...on the humble And will accept you as the chosen one" - in honor of the Quislings. All the ideologues of nudity - Sherek-Shevchuk, Samchuk, Fedenko, Divnych, Kurdydyk, and Kotorovich, because everything else is "dangerous illusions" that "distract from real work", and Shveiks - "can boast of better results"... in the hallways of "brothers" from one or another International. The term "Shveik", "Shveikianism" - not my invention; I use it because they (Sherekh and Samchuk) used this term to define tactics, which are opposed to "mystics of struggle", "romantics", etc. It is difficult to invent a better definition than this self-definition. They do not tolerate bent-back tactics, obviously, people of discipline, people of will, those who do not know that in order to lead a community - you need to be people of "special character", you need to curb relaxing tendencies, strengthen your spirit, have faith... These are "orders"! And for ideologues, all kinds of trouble "elites", "orders", etc. are "false" theories and fabrications. Meanwhile, these are neither false theories nor any theories at all, only the reality And in old Rome, and in ancient Hellas, and in the Hetmanate, and in England until recently - the ruling verst was actually an "order", a "caste", access to which was allowed after extensive and diligent training of the mind and character, with a special selection those who were not carried away by Shveikov's wisdom and characterlessness were accepted. On the contrary, they had to be people of character, faith and virtue. In order to fulfill his great task, which is before him, the leading stratum of the nation should not lie in front of this or that force like a rowdy, but break it! The leading stratum - as Shevchenko taught, as Franko taught, as all our history and not ours teaches - should consist of individuals of a separate breed, higher in spirit, when the community should not perish under a foreign pharaoh. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html 3/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM IDEOLOGISTS OF HOLOTA Holota, at least its heralds, the most uncertain of their positions, they themselves express doubt - (or put it in the mouth of the enemy) - is their science not a manifestation of life's weariness, not an escape from the heroic into the arms of gray peace? Isn't this the negation of everything great? No, this is something worse! In our national aspect, it is the same as in the whole world - it is the enthronement of the whole life of nudity as representatives of the people, discovered by the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset. The representatives of the nakedness, remaining with a naked soul, with a "slave heart", with a "slave brain", with the soul of the profiteering and stupid Shveik, want to rule the nation, create "great literature", a code of conduct, dictate politics! But this is nonsense - unacceptable nonsense. Shveiks say that the "philosophy of the heart", that "peasant Ukraine", that the patriarchal world of gentle and humane Greeks, or simply holotchiks, are our traditions. No, not ours, but the traditions of the Shelmenks. M. Hrushevskyi chastised our princes as "restless mutineers and zabiyaks" ("predators" - in today's terms), for not caring about the "wealth, life and blood" of the common man, a stench. That is the source of our different traditions. Some - the prince, his wife - cared about faith, culture, the state, and order in it; accordingly, they also had the psyche of heroes and ascetics. The others - stinkers - cared only about "wealth, life and blood", spat on the rest, that's why they became "Tatar people", who were promised all this while deceiving them, and now they are Bolshevik servants, supporters of "real (Moscow) Ukraine" and "tolerance" to the "stray brothers" who bent their backs in front of the rider... Two traditions! The tradition of the Smerdys is the tradition of the Shveiks, the tradition of princely Kyiv, the Cossacks, Shevchenko is the tradition of a free nation, free-spirited people, people who do not think that people with the ideal of the Czechs and Benes dare to be in the company of a free or free person fighting nations Not all strata of the nation consist of the naked, nor all of them peaceful Greeks, of working people. From the same Rudansky, the father teaches his son to follow the mother's science - to bow down to force: "You be damned, dear son, How you bend your back like that, How you lie down on a row!" The father knows that the "spine will shrivel" because of that, the person will become a channeler, that he will be idealized by shrieks. And the "conductors" with a broken spine did not seem to want anything else, but for someone to harness them to their cart. Panas Myrnyi, in one novel, describes how the Hetmanship, the Cossacks ended, and how the free people were turned into slaves by the zainets. It brings out exactly those two castes, two strata. One - former Zaporozhians, steppe people, of "restless nature" who "fired with hatred for everything that oppressed"; who were "fierce as dust, brave as a hungry wolf", who did not want peace with the wicked, because "if you don't put them down, they will put you down." And the second - those who reconciled, they are called "submissive oxen"... The 19th century brought the idealization of those submissive oxen (Kvitka, Kulish, Nechuy). Now a step has been taken further, idealization is no longer of Kvitchyna peasants, but of his henchmen, nakedness. The ideologues of this nakedness elevate the concept of the people to the concept of noise. They cynically demand that that noise with all its holotic signs be loved and put on the throne. When the world enters such a stage, when the intoxicated masses, like the Jews behind the Datans and Avirons, are ready to really build themselves Baals and pray to them, then - they must find the Batavs of the Levites, the Batavs of Navin, they must find Shevchenko's "fools", even a handful of "Cossacks out of a million" swineherds", which would stop this orgy of cowardice, plebeianism and betrayal. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine, 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html PING Banner Network 4/4

Translated from the Ukrainian using Google API.

Original Source: Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/

TXT version of Webarchive

Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do … Ukrainian pages Home ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ history of the national movement of Ukraine ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Links ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRegions Reviews Forum ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Bellua sine capite "Beast without a head", - that's how Kyiv voivode Adam Kysil once dubbed the Cossack nation, hitting the very core of the Ukrainian problem. Each nation has its own pain: the French - ostracism, the Muscovites - sociability and lack of culture, the Germans - particularism. Our pain was her - "headless". - a word that so well captured the striking disproportion between the mobile, brave as a beast, the genius of the nation and its chaotic brain, between the mass and its intelligentsia, or as they say now, the "aristocracy". "Lack of leadership", "undefined ideal", "political immaturity" - these are the names of the disease discovered almost three hundred years ago by one of the people who most caused Ukraine to become a "nation without a head". Xia Kyselev's diagnosis comes to mind especially now, during the crisis of our nationalism and the crisis of the democracy on which this nationalism wanted to rely. I am talking here about the crisis of great Ukrainian nationalism, but, of course, this matter also affects Galicians to the same extent. Because, contrary to, perhaps, communis opinio doctorum, the permanent appeasement of the national aspirations of Galicia, Bukovyna and Subcarpathian Ukraine is impossible without solving the case of Kyiv. History is being proven, and the example of those outstanding Galicians, starting from Sahaidachny and ending with the workers of 1917-1921, who moved the center of their activity to greater Ukraine, aware of the fact that they are serving their closest relatives as well ... So, the crisis of Ukrainian nationalism and democracy... That modern democracy is going through difficult times all over the world is evidenced by a number of facts, such as the victory of the "national bloc" in the French elections, and the conservatives in the English ones, the defeat of Wilson** and his politicians in the United States, the great blows suffered by democracy in Russia (Bolshevism!) and in Italy (fascism!), the strengthening of conservative groups in Bavaria, Prussia and Austria and Hungary, where they even managed to seize power (Seipel***, Horti*** !). All these are signs of some serious illness, which the "great principles of 1789" are passing everywhere, where they were applied until recently over all. Hetmanship, an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt at "hortism", and "Otamanship", an unsuccessful attempt at Napoleonism in our country, showed that the reaction against democracy began in Ukraine. As a legacy of these two attempts, we have left the struggle of two ideologies (the third one, I leave the Ukrainian-Soviet one aside here), each of which claims a leading role in Ukrainian nationalism. Speaking vulgarly, they can be called right-wing and left-wing. The first is nationalists and "flour workers" of various colors, the second includes almost all the rest of our "parties", socialist and non-socialist, which create one so-called democratic camp. For both currents, it is now time to sum up the general results of their efforts, the time to "reassess values". This reassessment is not yet very productive, and the fact that everyone speaks in causa sua hides from them the real reason for their current impotence. The reason lies in the fact that neither monarchism nor democracy is adapted to the critical moments, to which ours also belongs, since 1914. The lack of understanding of this fact by our activists, both right and left, led to the failure of the first attempts at national consolidation after the war. Elsewhere, in the most important parts of the Entente (apart from Italy), this consolidation has so far followed a legal path, in the direction of conservative democracy. But the example of these countries is not a miracle for us, what they experienced. As for the regions of the vanquished and some of the destroyed victors, whose situation is to some extent analogous to ours, then the process of strengthening the shaky state authority followed a completely different path there. The most interesting - in Russia and Italy. The first - out of all the vanquished, suffered the most as a result of the war, the second - the most affected by it among the winners 1: both were visited by a great economic crisis, both were undermined by the revolution, which was successful in March 17 in Russia, failed in 20 in Italy, during the unsuccessful occupation and workers factories and workshops, so in a situation similar to ours. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 1/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite What forms did the authoritarian movement take here? The shock that was supposed to shake the shaky state machine? These forms, very similar to each other, were very interesting. Both Bolshevism and fascism were, first of all, anti-democratic movements. Such was Bolshevism, which began with the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly elected by the entire nation, and ended with the dictatorship of a small, albeit well-organized party. Fascism is like that: the first thing its leader said was to give himself authority until 1924, independent of the mood of the chamber and its trust, and in his eyes, the parliament is "a toy for the people." Both Bolshevism and fascism were, in their beginnings, anti-democratic, but popular movements. Lenin floated uphill on the crest of the revolutionary wave as the chosen one of the masses. Mussolini entered Rome almost against the will of the king, who came to his senses at the last moment. He entered the conquered city not like Denikin at the head of a wordless, forcibly drawn-up army, but at the head of tens of thousands of volunteers who did not become republicans only because the king became a fascist. This was, therefore, a revolutionary movement of the masses, albeit anti-democratic in its ideology. Thirdly, both movements were the movements of an initiative minority that imposed its will on the compatriots. The fascists did not negotiate with the leaders of the political parties in the parliament, they tried only to get the army and the masses. Similarly, the Bolsheviks. Before the October coup, which gave them power, they did not seek an understanding with either the Cadets, the ESERs, or the Mensheviks, they did not make any coalitions: they did not look for a middle line to unite different groups on it. They did it differently. They decided that their plan of action (immediate peace and the wild usurpation of the embassy) most closely corresponded to the wishes of the masses, and they began to translate their program into life, even when the Zaks came to power, not caring much whether this program was shared by Milyukov, Kerensky, or Rubanovich. There were rumors that by attracting weak and indecisive elements to yourself, you weaken yourself; that great things can be accomplished only with selected party members, ready for anything, certain of victory. The facts proved them right. In front of the reckless will of these people, who knew how to go to the defined goal without going through the means, all opposition fell silent, all resistance arose. With their insane courage and willingness to put everything on the line, they killed those who did not know that it was a risk and who immediately understood that what was required of them was not conversation, but obedience. I am not promoting either fascism or Bolshevism here: I don't know how one ended - I don't know that the other ended in complete bankruptcy, obviously. But I am not talking about their internal politics here, only about the methods of seizing the state apparatus and tightening it (the same task is before us!), and in this regard both fascism and Bolshevism still remain classic examples of how things should be done. The fourth sign of these movements is their uncompromisingness, irreconcilability. This is the secret of their success. Because in the revolutionary times the masses long for an absolute idea, a clear object of their aroused hatred, a legend about the nearness of the final catastrophe of this sinful world, the prospect of an inevitable, final battle. Only such legends support the indomitable mass energy that rushes to the top, ignite the imagination of every rank of the crowd, and not corrected by experience and reason, halved by the water of self-interest, the idea of ​​democratic justice for all. Those whom Marat mockingly called des hommes raisonnés, neutralists who occupy the golden mean between the right and the left, could not attract the masses to themselves, just as the "neutral" part of a magnet does not disturb and attract iron bars. Only his extreme ends do this... Massa understands only absolute, simple and extreme calls and only those who call them follow. That is why she followed Lenin, not Kerensky, Mussolini, not Fakta**** and Giolitti**, those who showed them: one was a mirage of a socialist paradise, the other was a ghost of ancient Rome. Therefore, the reason for the success of both movements were: their nationalism, their ability to violate the deepest instincts of the masses, their intransigence, militancy. As for the anti-democratic nature of their program (anti-parliamentarism) and tactics (not a coalition, but a coup d'Etat), they did not in the least harm their success, and upon closer examination, they may have helped; after all, their opponents ended up not on the wagon, but under the wagon, past the democratic nature of their program and tactics... The above will suffice to point out the main reasons for the defeat of our nationalism, in both its forms . Our democracy went bankrupt because it was... too democratic and not enough... revolutionary. True, democratic Ukrainianism was a people's movement, the masses carried it on their shoulders. But it was powerless to disturb and stir up the people's element to the bottom; it is powerless to give it a bright goal-legend, not darkened by greedy compromises, equal in its grandeur to the legend of the world revolution, which Moscow brought to us on the bayonets of its mercenaries. Our democracy did not give the masses the image of the "last battle", which - like Shevchenko's immortal poem - would flash with the purple, blood and gold of the fires, fascinating the imagination, rousing the soul to great deeds and sacrifices. She didn't have enough ideas, and those she had were kept in faded yellow-blue tones, indistinct and pale, like the speech of an official speaker at an annual holiday, capable of evoking the admiration of a philistine moved to tears, but not the gloomy enthusiasm of the heroes of "Haydamaks", not the enthusiasm of one who plays va banque. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 2/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite Supporters of Moscow found and threw their slogan to the masses. "Death to the bourgeois!" - such was the brutal formula that gave the awakened instincts of the rebellious crowd a terrible disruptive force. What could democratic Ukrainianism oppose to this formula? Also "Death to the Bourgeois"? It tried to do this, but, coming from the bourgeoisie, from the peasantry, it could not give the slogan the absolute meaning that the ideologues of the Moscow working class had. Secondly, this cry still contradicted "democratic principles". And our democracy respected them above all else. In addition to the fact that it was possible to destroy all the "bourgeois", when some of them were such sincere narodovs, they published "Kievskaya Starina" and wrote Ukrainian brochures about "cattle raids", which created everything that modern Ukrainian Robespiers lived by. are you - They, being the last ones, could have thrown out the banner of the fight against the "community", as they finally did, encouraged to do so by the masses, unfortunately a little zu spat... But they could not take the initiative to fight against communism themselves and conduct it consistently: that was the faith of the Russian "fraternal" proletariat, that meant making a "counter-revolution"! They could finally give the people a brilliant legend of the struggle for national liberation, which could really tear the broad strata apart. But how? Openly shout: "Away with Moscow!", "Away with foreigners!" - it was carried away by obvious "chauvinism"! Mobilizing the masses against Moscow meant breaking the "united revolutionary front" under Kerensky and breaking the "solidarity of the international proletariat" under Lenin! And in the end, the leaders of Ukrainian democracy, educated at "Grom. Dumtsa", "New Rada" and "Ukr. Life", knew that "democracy is peace!" - that democracy is pacifist, that it is always against "reaction"! How could she fan the flames of war against "revolutionary" Moscow?! They put forward (they were forced to do so) the cry of independence, but attached real "buts" to it, which darkened the brightness of the ..., - no matter how much this will lead to a conflict with Moscow democracy. .. slogan and its recruiting power. "Independence, but Independence, but..." not separating from the rest of Russia! The Ukrainian people must become masters of their land, but... Bessarabia and Crimea can go wherever they want, and the Jews - to create a state within a state! Away with foreigners, but - except France, when it helps us against the Soviets, or with the exception of Russia, when it helps us against France"... Ideas for which it was really not worth living or dying for, even if it was for Ukraine. the masses followed democracy, if they were guided not by a lantern in the hands of blind leaders, but by that clear star that was visible to these masses... Moscow proclaimed the freedom of nations "up to the point of separation" from Russia, but at the same time appointed herself the advocate of the revolutionary cause everywhere, even in foreign countries states Thus, she introduced nonsense into the attitudes of Little Russian politicians, and earned for herself the title of interfering in the internal affairs of "independent" nations and canceling this independence when the "interests of the proletariat" demanded it. Ukrainian democracy, on the contrary, granted real rights to its regions, and lost sovereignty even over its own Ukraine. The French and Moscow revolutions destroyed their Vendees and Toulons with fire and sword, the Ukrainian revolution created its own. The Soviets went to their goal, breaking all democratic principles, in the name of which they allegedly overthrew the provisional government, dispersed the Constituent Assembly, brought war instead of peace, and overthrew the democratic Center. Radu and U.N.R.... Just like once revolutionary France, which made the people's representative a toy of a few tyrants, which flooded half of Europe with its armies - and introduced the cult of a new goddess - "Saint Guillotine". The bloody phantom dedicated both Maximyanov Robespere and Vladimir Lenin, a mad utopia, which was destined in both cases to be adjusted in both cases, but without which no revolution, a noise, nodis, is novag. revolution in danger, to open such a nagger on strangers, which Paris opened, sending the "Austrian" Maria Antonet to the sack, motivating xenophobic intensities W is much more late, in unfavorable circumstances, having broken with the proletarian revolution and the Kremlin. Our democracy could create a cult of a great legend, which alone could be opposed to the ideals of the social revolution, to heat up to whiteness that national "chauvinism", which alone could unite the masses and compete with the intransigence of Soviet ideology, initiate it as a convention. "the politics of the impossible, the theory of ferocious madness, the cult of blind courage" (A. Toequeville. Melanges)... This would be a counter-action equivalent to the action of the Soviets. But democratic Kyiv could not do this without destroying the democratic foundations of the finality of the agreement with the "brotherly people". He failed the first fire test because he looked too often at the dead "democratic foundations" and paid too little attention to the only saving revolutionary act. Ukrainian democracy was about loyalty to dogma, not about upheaval, not about revolting the masses with a brilliant delusion of utopia; about a compromise, not about an absolute idea. The Soviets did the opposite and therefore won for once. They won this time also due to the fact that official Ukrainians sang not only about democracy in the program, but also in tactics. The masses did not follow Ukrainian democracy (as it was desired) not only because it did not have a clear program, but also because it did not have a clearly expressed will to translate even this vague program into life. At critical moments, the nation, like a panic-stricken crowd, follows those who show it the way, whose voice does not tremble, whose eyes do not run to the sides in search of help; for the one who knows the way out and has the courage to lead or drive others to it. What does it mean to "lead the masses"? Marshal Foch******** says that this means "to convey to the performers the idea that animates the direction" (la pensee gui anime ladirection). He also answers the question - who can "lead the masses"? - so: "Higher individuality, greedy https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 3/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/ 23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite accountability" (nature superieure, avide de la responsabilite). Our democracy did not show these main prerequisites for mastering the crowd. As already mentioned, it lacked a clear idea that it could convey to the masses. Secondly, it was not at all "hungry for responsibility" On the contrary, everything wanted to throw it over: one party against the other, and all together against the "people." "All power to the Soviets!", "all power to the fascists!" - this was clear to everyone: one party, with a striking, clearly defined face, sought full power for itself not in the name of the principle of people's justice, only in the name of the principle - sic volo, sic iubeo! - There was an energy that the masses longed for, who wanted to be led by a strong and sure hand. Our democracy did not show this energy. She always wanted to share her power with someone, but she did not know with whom. "All power to the Soviets!" - this obviously did not suit her. "Constituent assembly"? - also not, because the anachronism of this slogan became obvious to everyone in those days. So, instead of the initiative minority, they invented the middle again - the "labor congress"; neither a "bourgeois" parliament, nor a "proletarian soviet", "like something, like a night", neither God's candle, nor the devil's poker, an ingenious formula that pushed the bourgeoisie away and did not unite the working class. The masses not only did not feel a clear will to lead them on the mountain, but they also could not clearly imagine what the government would look like. At a time when it was necessary to agitate and command, when everything around was burning and drunken, mad people were looking for help, our democracy issued a summons calling for a meeting on the "current situation". She wanted above all to respect "democratic principles" and that is why she agreed with those who trampled on those principles... In contrast to the great movements mentioned above, the Ukrainian national movement of 1917-21 was not so much a people's revolutionary movement as a democratic one; either an agreement or an uncompromising malgre lui, with an instinct for power, poisoned in the very bud by various "principles" and opportunism. This is where all our failures come from. Our right falls into the other extreme. There is a lot of healthy in it, and in any orderly society it would undoubtedly be a state-building factor (as a good opposition - our democracy), but not in a revolutionary society. When democracy, even if one-sided (only in the social sphere), although often densely only in theory, still recognized that the masses are everything; that it should play a role in historical movements, our monarchists resolutely and fundamentally deny. They do not recognize mass even its destructive function. For them, almost any revolutionary movement of the masses is "banditry" from which (by nature) nothing creative can come out. According to our monarchists, our peasant is the embodiment of conservatism: the conservative monarchical system alone corresponds, they say, to his psychology. Whether it is so or not - this is not considered here, but the monarchists think that their guesses are correct even for the moment we are experiencing, and here they actually fall into the error mentioned above; because the monarchy is just as poorly adapted to the revolutionary era as democracy. Monarchists think that the Ukrainian state will not rise without the monarchy as an organizing unit. Without the monarchy and its support, and "without morally healthy and capable of public work remnants of both the Muscovized and the Sovietized Ukrainian nobility" ("Hlibor. Ukr." Collections II, III, IV st. 14, 18). This, in my opinion, is the main mistake of our monarchists. Because it was precisely the "noble" regime of the tsarist regime against which our peasant revolution began, long before the Moscow revolution, in 1902. Because the Little Russian nobility", although as a deserved one for Ukrainian culture (see the interesting and meaningful article by D. Doroshenko "Notes on the history of 1918 in Ukraine in Khlybor. Ukraine, collections V and VI, Vienna, 1921), however, recalling some episodes (Mukhanivshchyna!), he did not find himself at the height of the moment and, as a stratum, could not stand at the head of the national revolution, as his ancestors once did. Our "nobility" did not find in itself the wild energy of the "Rusychs" - the people of Khmelnytskyi, who were not afraid of the "Zaporozhian scum", who knew how to defend themselves from him and lead him as it should. The blood of the Nemyrychis, Vyhovskys, Krychevskys and Meshcherskys no longer flowed in the veins of their descendants, exhausted by the long period of personal happiness of the "Old World landlords"; these descendants, as a class, in the persons of their "leaders" and "countrymen" could at best play the role of valuable cultural workers or even the liberal front, but not the role of leaders of a revolted nation. They were only the "leading class", but in order to become a commanding class, they lacked wealth... Analogies between the 17th and 20th centuries cannot be translated into everything. In the 20th century, a revolution took place in Ukraine, ordinary, bourgeois, but still a revolution, and it is usually organized by those who came out of it, and not by those against whom it was directed. Monarchists themselves are sometimes recognized. They themselves see the tragedy of Ukraine in the fact that "it is not ruled by those who, owning the means of production and having their own power, could rule if they only wanted to and knew how to rule"... In the further explanation, the author finds such a will in the "nobility" (in my opinion, it is wrong to understand the intense will to power by "willingness", but as for the ability, he himself thinks that it must be acquired just now ( Khlib. Ukr. collection. V and VI st. 73)... Isn't it too late Because this skill is nothing but the ability to master the revolutionary element, and how will the monarchists do it when they do not even allow the thought that something new, something positive could be born from the revolution. For them, the masses throwing the plow for self-immolation were an anarchist factor. And this was the main mistake of the rightists, who did not understand that under certain conditions, "banditry" could become an organizing factor. This will happen when you manage to master it, manage to provide it with a guiding idea, coordinate its chaotic efforts, and direct the revolutionary avalanche to one goal. Cossack movements were once also ordinary "banditry", unsystematic and idealless plundering of coastal cities. Subjected to a general plan and one idea (under Mazepa, and later under Catherine II), the very "bandit movements" resulted in a far-reaching political action: https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http: //www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 4/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite conquest of Crimea and control of the Black Sea coast. Yermak's marauding Siberian campaign, caught in the convenient hands of Tsar Ivan, marked the beginning of the Russian empire in Asia. What was the whole chouanerie (peasant uprising of the Vendée during the first republic and consulate)? In its forms, the same jacqueria as our Makhnivshchyna. But a few brave aristocrats, who attached the Bourbon white lily to its flag, turned the jacquerie into a conscious political movement. Without Collins and de Valera, the Irish uprising would not have differed much from our "Otomanship", without the Khmelnytsky Cossacks, the Cossack nation would have truly remained a "headless beast". Great potential possibilities of "bandit" movements are also recognized by our right, but only in the past. They recognize that the task of Ukrainian politics in the 17th century. it was, as Betlend-Gabor said, to make it so that "all the ignorant (Cossacks) learned to listen to better people and recognized firm laws and principles in war and peace"; they admit that without Khmel, the entire Cossack nation would have remained an anarchist "crowd and pack"; they quote with recognition the same Bethlen, who still calls the Cossacks "brave knights" and praises them for their "courageous decision to achieve freedom or perish" (V. Lipinskyi "Ukraine at a turning point", Vienna, 1920, pp. 150 -151), so they recognize a certain positive value according to the "bandit" element, but unfortunately - not according to the modern one! That our monarchists do not want to recognize a certain positive role for the negative revolutionary factor and do not try, similarly to Hops, to master the revolutionary element and lead it under oneself - that is the reason for the failure of their action. In this, we must also look for the reasons for the unviability of the entire monarchical concept, because what should the monarchy be based on, when the main support of this monarchy - according to the rightists - does not have the capabilities necessary for any ruling class? Older ways of exercising power, which want to apply rights, have survived. It is no longer possible to appeal to the right of rulers to command, or to the duty of subordinates to listen. You cannot appeal to the pre-revolutionary psychology of the masses, it is deranged. During the revolution, contact between the mass of citizens and the authorities was established in a different way. Here obedience is based on the mass's enthusiasm for an idea which (it believes) the government is carrying out; and the strength of the latter [is based] not on tradition, but on the tireless energy of the rulers, who, certain of the people's sympathy, are slowly restoring the shaken state apparatus on the old foundations of reckless obedience. Our rightists do not want to understand this, and the great leaders of the revolution, all Cromwells, Napoleons, Mussolini, Kemals, Monks, Lenins, Khmelnytskyi and Collins, understood this very well... It can be said that none of these leaders , even if it were Napoleon himself, did not organize any power; that he picked her up lying on the street, thrown there by a tired and exhausted nation. So, why can't we, Ukrainian monarchists, wait until the nation, weakened by differences, sends its Hostomysl to us with a request: "Come and own us"! But the matter is not so simple. First of all, it is not true that Napoleon "picked up" the abandoned power. The "picking up" of this power was not so easy when the future emperor fell down from his horse on the 18th of Brumaire. In addition, one cannot talk about the fatigue of the nation, which for another fifteen years went around the whole of Europe from Illyria to Holland, from Spain to Moscow, under the imperial eagles. No, the nation followed its savior not out of fatigue, only because he recognized its revolution and organized it; because Dei gratia did not allow the losers to turn; because he created a brilliant Napoleonic legend for the nation, broke it in a great revolutionary upheaval. And indeed, the wars he waged, due to the fact that they confirmed the existence of a new bourgeois France in the midst of feudal Europe, were a revolutionary act, just as he himself was a revolutionary, because if it had not been so, the royalists would not have sent Cadudal to kill him, and he would not have shot him. he would be the Duke of Engin, thus documenting his kinship with the element that sent the second Bourbon, the sixteenth Louis, to the chaffot. This kinship with the revolutionary element, this courage, passion, energy, brutality, freshness and cynicism of the chosen natures that Napoleon and Khmelnytsky had; everything that perfectly existed alongside a sense of order and a statesman's instinct, and with which they mastered the reveling crowd - this is what our "leaders of the nobility" do not have, and this is their powerlessness. They are right about only one thing. A moment may come when the nation, exhausted by unequal competition, will bow its knees to the one who wants to rule it. But this would not bode well for us rightists! Somewhere, in such cases, a force could be found in the midst of the nation itself that would take over power. In the specific circumstances of Ukrainian life, this force will rather come from outside. Even the restoration of Louis XVIII and Franz Joseph in Hungary in 1849 did not do without the help of the allies in one case, without Moscow's in the other case. In our case, this help would not be only transitional, and in our case, someone else's help would lead to what it led to under Catherine II in Poland, under Bohdan's successors in the hetmanship... No - speculation on the decline of revolutionary energy will not lead to anything. Ukrainian statehood will not be possible without "Makhnivshchyna" and "Zelenivshchyna" just as Khmelnytskyi's statehood was not possible without Huna, Ostryanytsa and Kryvonos, without that wild "pack" that had to be mastered, without bellua sine capite, which needed only a head , Our democrats were afraid to finally let this "beast" off the chain, playing only on its social, and not (also) national instincts, and in that they thought that the whole thing was to let this beast lead them. This was pure and simple fraud, which could not lead to anything. The monarchists again thought that the "beast" should stop being itself, become a vegetarian; or, like wild animals, to go to the Colosseum even when her jailers needed it, when they let her out of the cage. But for that she was needed first https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 5/7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23 , 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite drive there This was not an occupation for monarchists. They recognized the importance of the "initiative minority", but the Dei gratia minority, which is psychologically far from the mass, and has too many accounts with it, to push it to order with some brilliant delusion, and then bring it under the iron law of order... History knows no other method. Whoever wants to enter which horse must ride with it for a while. In such regions as Ukraine, affected by a major economic crisis and revolution, it is possible to seize power only by the methods I indicated above, revolutionary methods. That is why our nationalism should have taken a different path a long time ago, and not the one pointed out to it by the democrats and the right. Both of them were too big legalists for this tumultuous period that we are passing through: some of them clung to their formulas even in our days of huge changes - they looked for models in regimes that already existed once, somewhere; others did the same, not allowing anything from their Dei gratia... This new path can only be the path of healthy, revolutionary nationalism, which does not count with any formulas, with nobody's rights. Nationalism, that it gives the appearance and ideology of social movements to national movements, and the goals and scope of national movements to social movements. In short, we need neither national monarchism nor socialist revolution, only national revolution. This formula excludes the anarchistic nature of democracy and the counter-revolutionary nature of monarchism, which are unsuitable for moments of crisis. Ukraine is going through a protracted political and economic crisis. The Soviet regime is not worthy of evolution, it can only rot. A whole series of foreign interventions in recent years, uprisings, the introduction of the NEP, friction in the ruling Communist Party, in the military, the incessant conflict between the government and the countryside - these are the signs of the crisis that will most likely lead to the catastrophe of the Russian government in Ukraine. Then we will once again be face to face with a mass movement (we don't know under what conditions) in the Krai, because neither about mental depression nor about the moral demobilization of the Ukrainian countryside - even after the Russian data, it is impossible to talk. Because the revolution against the tsarist-landlord system is over in our country; socialist - has no basis, and the conflict between the village and the city and Ukraine and Moscow continues - a new explosion in the Krai, when it comes, must have a distinctly nationalist character. Our democrats and monarchists are not allowed to be the leaders of this movement either with their ideology or their psychology. Both currents ruling in us cannot develop the banner of this consistent nationalism. In this regard, both of them are agreeable. Both put class above the nation and are ready to seek help from Moscow. Some are against "reaction", others are against "revolution". The left still cannot get rid of phrases about "fraternal Russian people", about "solidarity of the working classes of all nations". That's right. In her opinion, "a close alliance with Moscow" is a task that "stands before us again today" (Khlibor. Ukraine, collections II, III, IV, art. 33 and 167), because even now there are "common interests of Russia and Ukraine" (ibid.), and the Muscovites are "our own brothers, in blood, spirit and culture" (sis!), are a "fraternal nation" (ibid., see collections V and VI, p. 63) . It is obvious that people with such a psychology cannot become spokespersons for national liberation in our time... Not a single revolution has ever taken place where great love for one's cause and great hatred for the force that had to be defeated did not go hand in hand in hand. Whoever extinguishes this hatred simultaneously extinguishes love for the cause. (The fundamental aversion of our left and right to "inciting national hatred" best testifies to how their whole psychology is adapted to the old, pre-revolutionary times. In those times, for an action against the enemy, it was only necessary to give an order from the mountain about mobilization : the army had only to obey orders, and it did not need to have any special hatred against the enemy. In revolutionary moments, when orders are not obeyed, other incentives are needed for the masses to rebel) . And this is not chauvinism at all, just a healthy emotional feeling of every individual or group unit that respects itself and strives to live. Because chauvinism is an exaggerated concept of one's own race and a mockingly contemptuous attitude towards someone else's. Hatred of a foreign nation does not have these elements, so it has nothing to do with chauvinism. It is only the ultimate prerequisite for success in the national struggle. What would we say about Garibaldi, Masaryk and Bratiana, about Korfantoy - if they, as our democrats and monarchists do, called the people to the liberation struggle, and at the same time convinced of their love and loyalty to the Austrian, Hungarian or German people, and about the end of a "close alliance" with them?! Probably, both German monarchies would still exist if they had such cultured, non-chauvinistic opponents... "Internationalism - as Mussolini beautifully noted in one of his speeches, is something like love: the need for it is satisfied by two, otherwise it is fruitless onanism" (Benito Mussolini "Discorsi politici" Milano, 1921, p. 24). Actually, our democratic and right-wing... internationalists are engaged in this fruitless occupation. Driven by their love for "fraternal nations", they must seek to satisfy their indivisible passion - les charmes de la solitude... Only new people can become leaders of the national movement. It is ridiculous to say that in order to overcome our nationalism, only a "revision of the program" is needed. Like, find a new recipe and everything will be fine. This recipe has changed enough already. Socialists became Denikinites, Bolshevik pogroms - "Smenovehovs", independents - "federalists", democrats https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 6 /7 Machine Translated by Google 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite supporters of the "Soviet system", etc. Who and what gained from this? What changed from the fact that they changed their "programs"? Nothing, because what we need are not programs, but characters. And where did they come from among the intelligentsia that stood at the forefront of the movement? - All of them were brought up in the concepts of approx. memories of the "New Rada", when it became clear that liberation will not be brought by struggle, but by "progress" and "knowledge", not by "an eye for an eye", but by "humanitarianism": not revolution, but evolution. These were the people whom the Bolsheviks now call "soft-bodied"; who knew only one reaction to all their patience, to the entire oppression of the nation: fruitless pity and sentimental sympathy, but never active revenge (the poems of some of our poets about the famine in Ukraine, which appeared in in the daily press: images of misery, crying over it and - not a word of protest against that regime, which is the sole cause of hunger!); who believed that major world problems can be solved by "convincing" the enemy; these were those "neither cold nor hot", about whom St. Writings that were too "cultural" to admit that even violence is sometimes moral. Those who grew up on disputes with the Valuyiv decree, on the defense of national rights with arguments from the "famous teacher of Ushinsk", on the propaganda of "Sausage and a glass" and Cossack masquerades, on the poetry of "cherry orchards" , on the social morality of "Uncle Tom's House" and "Die Waffer" Baroness Suttner. These were those who, after the outbreak of the World War, declared their loyalty to the tsar, who - like the leaders of sovereign Ukraine once upon a time - tearfully uttered words of repentance before the German and Bolshevik tribunals. How could they create a spark of protest in the masses that they themselves did not have? Programs... The program was for all these philistines from democracy - "nonsense", it was not the programs that attracted them, but actually the whole mental composition of the small-town pater familias, which was the same for all of them, regardless of party affiliation, which attracted them more than party members the friars shared, which was so far from the gloomy pathos of the great era in which they had to work, and from the enthusiasm of the masses who had to link their fate with them ... From that element, at the head of which they suddenly became - brave, xenophobic, wild and uncompromising and merciless. Could the masses - for a long time - recognize them as their leaders, see in their ideas, which were not fully agreed upon, the brilliant extravaganza of the "last battle" that supports the unceasing will to fight, in their ranks - the unbending will the crowd obey? The crisis of our nationalism is not that the nation is "not matured", not in the defects of the "program", only in the lack of people. Our tragedy was that at the head of the revolted mass were workers with a purely peace-minded mentality, consumed by doubts about the vitality of the nation, incapable of taking risks or of broad gestures, endowed with all the vices and virtues of a convinced philistine and none of those, which are distinguished by those who lead the masses. I am not talking here about the lower strata, nor about some recesses, which we also had; I'm talking about the general tone of our ruling "aristocracy". And among it, it is really difficult to find at least a few striking individuals, or a few original figures, who could, in this respect, be placed, for example, on the same board with such, as if carved from marble, figures like Dzerzhinsky and Lenin, not to mention others The debate about "programs", "coalitions", "concentrations", "orientations" conducted by these people will not lead to anything. These are living corpses that forgot to die. their ghosts should not interfere with the struggle of the living. they can no longer invent ideas for which people would kill other people. Not to create around yourself that exceptional intensity of will that attracts a crowd. The countries need not them, but their "slogans" and "parties", nor their "principles". He needs new characters who know what they want and who would have none of that sentimental-pacifist international-slave mentality of "former people". When they appear in our country (according to Zbruch, there are already quite a few of them), then the "beast of the revolution" is waiting not only for its head, but also for its muzzle. If not, we will be forced to acknowledge the right of the blessed memory of the Kyiv voivode, Mr. Adam Kisel, and stage a new Pereyaslavshchyna with all that follows it. Ukrainian Pages, http:// www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. PING Banner Network SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 7/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… также страницу Dmytro Dontsov Bellua sine capite "Beast without a head", - that's how Kyiv voivode Adam Kysil once dubbed the Cossack nation, hitting the very core of the Ukrainian problem. Each nation has its own pain: the French are ostracized, the Muscovites are condescending and uncivilized, the Germans particularism. Our pain was her - "headless". - a word that so well captured the striking disproportion between the mobile, brave as a beast, the genius of the nation and its chaotic brain, between the mass and its intelligentsia, or as they say now, the "aristocracy". "Lack of leadership", "undefined ideal", "political immaturity" - these are the names of the disease discovered almost three hundred years ago by one of the people who most caused Ukraine to become a "nation without a head". Xia Kyselev's diagnosis comes to mind especially now, during the crisis of our nationalism and the crisis of the democracy on which this nationalism wanted to rely. I am talking here about the crisis of great Ukrainian nationalism, but, of course, this matter also affects Galicians to the same extent. Because, contrary to, perhaps, communis opinio doctorum, the permanent appeasement of the national aspirations of Galicia, Bukovyna and Subcarpathian Ukraine is impossible without solving the case of Kyiv. The story is being proved, and the example of those outstanding Galicians, starting with Sahaidachny, and ending with the workers of 1917-1921, who shifted the center of their activity to greater Ukraine, aware of the fact that they are also serving their closest relatives... crisis So. of Ukrainian nationalism and democracy... That modern democracy is going through difficult times all over the world is evidenced by a number of facts, such as the victory of the "national bloc" in the French elections, and the conservatives in the English elections, the defeat of Wilson** and his politicians in the United States, great the blows suffered by democracy in Russia (Bolshevism!) and in Italy (fascism!), the strengthening of conservative groups in Bavaria, Prussia and Austria and Hungary, where they even managed to seize power (Seipel***, Horti****! ). All these are signs of some serious illness, which the "great principles of 1789" are passing through everywhere, where until recently they were put above all else. Hetmanship, an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt at "hortism", and "Otamanship", an unsuccessful attempt at Napoleonism in our country, showed that the reaction against democracy began in Ukraine. As a legacy of these two attempts, we have left the struggle of two ideologies (the third, I leave the Ukrainian-Soviet one aside here), each of which claims a leading role in Ukrainian nationalism. Speaking vulgarly, they can be called right-wing and left-wing. The first is nationalists and "flour workers" of various colors, the second includes almost all the rest of our "parties", socialist and non-socialist, which create one so-called democratic camp. For both currents, it is now time to sum up the general results of their efforts, the time to "reassess values". This reassessment is not yet very productive, and the fact that everyone speaks in causa sua hides from them the real reason for their current impotence. The reason lies in the fact that neither monarchism nor democracy is adapted to the critical moments, to which ours also belongs, since 1914. The lack of understanding of this fact by our activists, both right and left, led to the failure of the first attempts at national consolidation after the war. Elsewhere, in the most important parts of the Entente (apart from Italy), this consolidation has so far followed a legal path, in the direction of conservative democracy. But the example of these countries is not a miracle for us, what they experienced. As for the regions of the vanquished and some of the destroyed victors, whose situation is to some extent analogous to ours, then the process of strengthening the shaky state authority followed a completely different path there. The most interesting in Russia and Italy. The first - out of all the vanquished, suffered the most as a result of the war, the second - the most affected by it among the winners 1: both were visited by a great economic crisis, both were undermined by the revolution, which was successful in March 17 in Russia, failed in 20 in Italy, during the unsuccessful occupation i workers factories and workshops, so in a situation similar to ours. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 1/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite What forms adopted an authoritarian attitude here? The shock that was supposed to shake the shaky state machine? These forms, very similar to each other, were very interesting. Both Bolshevism and fascism were, first of all, anti-democratic movements. Such was Bolshevism, which began with the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly elected by the entire nation, and ended with the dictatorship of a small, albeit well-organized party. Fascism is like that: the first thing its leader said was to give himself authority until 1924, independent of the mood of the chamber and its trust, and in his eyes, the parliament is "a toy for the people." Both Bolshevism and fascism were, in their beginnings, anti-democratic, but popular movements. Lenin floated uphill on the crest of the revolutionary wave as the chosen one of the masses. Mussolini entered Rome almost against the will of the king, who came to his senses at the last moment. He entered the conquered city not like Denikin at the head of a wordless, forcibly drawn-up army, but at the head of tens of thousands of volunteers who did not become republicans only because the king became a fascist. This was, therefore, a revolutionary movement of the masses, albeit anti-democratic in its ideology. Thirdly, both movements were the movements of an initiative minority that imposed its will on the compatriots. The fascists did not negotiate with the leaders of the political parties in the parliament, they tried only to get the army and the masses. Similarly, the Bolsheviks. Before the October coup, which gave them power, they did not seek an understanding with either the Cadets, the ESRs, or the Mensheviks, they did not make any coalitions: they did not look for a middle line to unite different groups on it. They did it differently. They decided that their plan of action (immediate peace and the wild usurpation of the embassy) most closely corresponded to the wishes of the masses, and they began to translate their program into life, even when the zaks came to power, not caring much whether this program was shared by Milyukov, Kerensky, or Rubanovich. There were rumors that by attracting weak and indecisive elements to yourself, you weaken yourself; that great things can be accomplished only with selected party members, ready for anything, certain of victory. The facts proved them right. In front of the reckless will of these people, who knew how to go to the defined goal without going through the means, all opposition fell silent, all resistance arose. With their insane courage and willingness to put everything on the line, they killed those who did not know that it was a risk and who immediately understood that what was required of them was not conversation, but obedience. I am not promoting either fascism or Bolshevism here: what will end up with one - I don't know that the other ended up with complete bankruptcy, obviously. But I am not talking about their internal politics here, only about the methods of seizing the state apparatus and tightening it (the same task is before us!), and in this regard both fascism and Bolshevism still remain classic examples of how it should be done. The fourth sign of these movements is their uncompromisingness, irreconcilability. This is the secret of their success. Because in revolutionary times, the masses long for an absolute idea, a clear object of their aroused hatred, a legend about the nearness of the final catastrophe of this sinful world, the prospect of an inevitable, final battle. Only such legends support the indomitable mass energy that rushes to the top, ignite the imagination of every rank of the crowd, and not corrected by experience and reason, halved by the water of self-interest, the idea of ​​democratic justice for all. Those whom Marat mockingly called des hommes raisonnables, neutralists who occupy the golden mean between the right and the left, could not attract the masses to themselves, just as the "neutral" part of a magnet does not disturb and attract iron bars. Only its extreme ends do this... The mass understands only absolute, simple and extreme cries and follows only those who shout them. That is why she followed Lenin, not Kerensky, Mussolini, not Fakta***** and Giolitti**, those who showed them: one was a mirage of a socialist paradise, the other was a ghost of ancient Rome. So, the reason for the success of both movements were: their nationalism, their ability to violate the deepest instincts of the masses, their intransigence, militancy. As for the anti-democratic nature of their program (anti-parliamentarism) and tactics (not a coalition, but a coup d'Etat), they did not in the least harm their success, but upon closer examination, they may have helped; after all, their opponents ended up not on the wagon, but under the wagon, past the democratic nature of their program and tactics... What has been said is to indicate the main reasons for the defeat of our nationalism, in both its forms. Our democracy went bankrupt because it was... too democratic and not enough... revolutionary. True, democratic Ukrainianism was a people's movement, the masses carried it on their shoulders. But it was powerless to disturb and stir up the people's element to the bottom; it is powerless to give it a bright goal-legend, not darkened by greedy compromises, equal in its grandeur to the legend of the world revolution, which Moscow brought to us on the bayonets of its mercenaries. Our democracy did not give the masses the image of the "last battle", which - like Shevchenko's immortal poem - would flash with the purple, blood and gold of the fires, fascinating the imagination, rousing the soul to great deeds and sacrifices. She didn't have enough ideas, and those she had were kept in faded yellow-blue tones, indistinct and pale, like the speech of an official speaker at an annual holiday, capable of evoking the admiration of a philistine moved to tears, but not the gloomy enthusiasm of the heroes of "Haydamaki" , not the enthusiasm of one who plays va banque. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 2/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite Moscow supporters found and threw their slogan into the masses. "Death to the bourgeois!" - such was the brutal formula that gave the awakened instincts of the rebellious crowd a terrible disruptive force. What could democratic Ukrainianism oppose to this formula? Also "Death to the Bourgeois"? It tried to do this, but, coming from the bourgeoisie, from the peasantry, it could not give the seven slogans the absolute meaning that the ideologues of the Moscow working class. Secondly, this cry still contradicted "democratic principles". And our democracy respected them above all else. In addition to the fact that it was possible to destroy all the "bourgeois", when some of them were such sincere narodovs, they published "Kievskaya Starina" and wrote Ukrainian brochures about "cattle raids", which created everything that modern Ukrainian Robespiers lived by. are you - They, being the last ones, could throw out the banner of the fight against the "community", as they finally did, encouraged to do so by the masses, unfortunately a little late... But they themselves could not take the initiative to fight against communism and conduct it consistently : that was the faith of the Russian "fraternal" proletariat, that meant making a "counter-revolution"! They could finally give the people a brilliant legend of the struggle for national liberation, which could really tear the broad strata apart. But how? Openly shout: "Away with Moscow!", "Away with foreigners!" - it was carried away by obvious "chauvinism"! Mobilizing the masses against Moscow meant breaking the "united revolutionary front" under Kerensky and breaking the "solidarity of the international proletariat" under Lenin! And in the end, the leaders of Ukrainian democracy, educated at "Grom. Dumtsa", "New Rada" and "Ukr. Life", knew that "democracy is peace!" - that democracy is pacifist, that it is always against "reaction" "! How could she fan the flames of war against "revolutionary" Moscow?! They put forward (they were forced to do so) the cry of independence, but attached real "buts" to it, which darkened the brightness of the slogan and its recruiting power. "Independence, but - ... no matter how much this will lead to a conflict with Moscow democracy... Independence, but..." not separating from the rest of Russia! The Ukrainian people must become masters of their land, but... Bessarabia and Crimea can go wherever they want, and the Jews can create a state within a state! Away with foreigners, but with the exception of France, when it helps us against the Soviets, or with the exception of Russia, when it helps us against France"... Ideas for which it was really not worth living or dying for, even if it was for the Ukrainian . the masses followed democracy, if they were not guided by a lantern in the hands of blind guides, but by that clear star that was visible to these masses... Moscow proclaimed the freedom of the nations "up to the point of secession" from Russia, but at the same time appointed itself the advocate of the revolutionary cause everywhere, even in foreign states. By doing so, she introduced confusion into the attitudes of Little Russian politicians, and earned for herself the title of interfering in the internal affairs of "independent" nations and canceling this independence when the "interests of the proletariat" demanded it. Ukrainian democracy, on the contrary, granted real rights to its borders, and - executed sovereignty even over Ukraine itself. The French and Moscow revolutions destroyed their Vendées and Toulons with fire and sword, the Ukrainian revolution created its own. The Soviets went to their goal, breaking all democratic principles, in the name of which they allegedly overthrew the provisional government, dispersed the Constituent Assembly , brought war instead of peace, overthrew the democratic Center. Radu and U.N.R.... Just like once revolutionary France, which made the people's representative a plaything of a few tyrants, which flooded half of Europe with its armies - and introduced the cult of a new goddess - "Saint Guillotine". The bloody phantom dedicated both Maximyanov Robespere and Vladimir Lenin, a mad utopia, which was destined in both cases to be adjusted in both cases, but without which no revolution, a noise, nodis, is novag. revolution in danger , to open such a nagger on strangers, which Paris opened, sending the "Austrian" Maria Antonet to the sacket, motivating xenophobic intensities W is much more late , in unfavorable circumstances, having broken with the proletarian revolution and the Kremlin. Our democracy could create the cult of a great legend, which alone could be opposed to the ideals of the social revolution, to heat up to whiteness that national "chauvinism", which alone could unite the masses and compete with the intransigence of Soviet ideology, initiate it as a convention. "the politics of the impossible, the theory of ferocious madness, the cult of blind courage" (A. Toequeville. Melanges)... This would be a counter-action equivalent to the action of the Soviets. But democratic Kyiv could not do this without destroying the democratic foundations of the finality of agreement with the "brotherly people". He failed the first fire test because he looked too often at the dead "democratic foundations" and paid too little attention to the only saving revolutionary act. Ukrainian democracy was about loyalty to dogma, not about upheaval, not about revolting the masses with a brilliant delusion of utopia; about a compromise, not about an absolute idea. The Soviets did the opposite and therefore won for once. They won this time also due to the fact that official Ukrainians sang not only about democracy in the program, but also in tactics. The masses did not follow Ukrainian democracy (as it was desired) not only because it did not have a clear program, but also because it did not have a clearly expressed will to translate even this vague program into life. At critical moments, the nation, like a panic-stricken crowd, follows those who show it the way, whose voice does not tremble, whose eyes do not run to the sides in search of help; for the one who knows the way out and has the courage to lead or drive others to it. What does it mean to "lead the masses"? Marshal Foch******** says that this means "to convey to the performers the idea that animates the direction" (la pensee gui anime ladirection). He also answers the question - who can "lead the masses"? - so: "Higher individuality, greedy 50 PM Bellua sine capite of responsibility" (nature superieure, avide de la responsabilite). Our democracy did not find these main prerequisites for the mastery of the crowd. As already mentioned, she lacked above all a clear idea that she could convey to the masses. Secondly, she was not "responsible" at all. On the contrary, everything wanted to throw her over: one party to another, and all together to the "narid". "All power to the Soviets!", "All power to the fascists!" - this was clear to everyone: one party, with a striking, clearly defined face, sought full power for itself, not in the name of the principle of people's justice, but only in the name of the principle - sic volo, sic iubeo! - There was an energy that the masses longed for, who wanted to be led by a strong and certain hand. Our democracy did not show this energy. She always wanted to share her power with someone, but she did not know with whom. "All power to the Soviets!" - this obviously did not suit her. "Constituent Assembly"? - also no, because the anachronism of this slogan became obvious to everyone in those days. So, instead of the initiative minority, they invented the middle again - the "labor congress"; neither a "bourgeois" parliament, nor a "proletarian soviet", "like something, like a night", neither God's candle, nor the devil's poker, an ingenious formula that pushed the bourgeoisie away and did not unite the workers. The masses not only did not feel the clear will to lead them on the mountain, but and they could not clearly imagine what the government would look like. At a time when it was necessary to agitate and command, when everything around was burning and drunken, mad people were looking for help, our democracy issued a summons calling for a meeting on the "current situation". She wanted above all to respect "democratic principles" and that is why she agreed with those who trampled on those principles... In contrast to the great movements mentioned above, the Ukrainian national movement of 1917-21 was not so much a people's revolutionary movement as a democratic one; either an agreement or an uncompromising malgre lui, with the instinct of power, poisoned in the very bud by various "principles" and opportunism. This is where all our failures come from. Our right falls into the other extreme. There is a lot of healthy in it, and in any orderly society it would undoubtedly be a state-building factor (as a good opposition - our democracy), but not in a revolutionary society. When democracy, even if one-sided (only in the social sphere), although often densely only in theory, still recognized that the masses are everything; that it should play a role in historical movements, our monarchists resolutely and fundamentally deny. They do not recognize mass even its destructive function. For them, almost any revolutionary movement of the masses is "banditry" from which (by nature) nothing creative can come out. According to our monarchists, our peasant is the embodiment of conservatism: the conservative monarchical system alone corresponds, they say, to his psychology. Whether it is so or not - this is not considered here, but the monarchists think that their guesses are correct even for the moment we are experiencing, and here they actually fall into the error mentioned above; because the monarchy is just as poorly adapted to the revolutionary era as democracy. Monarchists think that the Ukrainian state will not rise without the monarchy as an organizing unit. Without the monarchy and its support, and "without morally healthy and capable of public work remnants of both the Muscovized and the Sovietized Ukrainian nobility" ("Hlibor. Ukr." Collections II, III, IV st. 14, 18). This, in my opinion, is the main mistake of our monarchists. Because it was precisely the "noble" regime of the tsarist regime against which our peasant revolution began, long before the Moscow revolution, in 1902. Because the Little Russian nobility", although as a deserved one for Ukrainian culture (see the interesting and meaningful article by D. Doroshenko "Notes on the history of 1918 in Ukraine in Khlybor. Ukraine, collections V and VI, Vienna, 1921), after all, remembering some episodes (Mukhanivshchyna!), it did not find itself at the height of the moment and, as a class, could not stand at the head of the national revolution, as its ancestors once did. Our "nobility" did not find in itself the wild energy of the "Russians" - The people of Khmelnytskyi, who were not afraid of the "Zaporozhian scum", who knew how to defend themselves from him and lead him as it should be. The blood of the Nemyrychis, Vyhovskys, Krychevskys and Meshcherskys no longer flowed in the veins of their descendants, exhausted by a long period of personal happiness of the "Old World landlords" ; these descendants, as a class, in the persons of their "leaders" and "countrymen" could at best play the role of valuable cultural workers or even of the liberal front, but not the role of leaders of a revolted nation. They were only the "leading estate", but to become the commanding class, they lacked wealth... Analogies between the 17th and 20th centuries cannot be translated into everything. In the 20th century, a revolution took place in Ukraine, ordinary, bourgeois, but still a revolution, and it is usually organized by those who came out of it, and not by those against whom it was directed. Monarchists themselves are sometimes recognized. They themselves see the tragedy of Ukraine in the fact that "it is not ruled by those who, owning the means of production and having their own power, could rule if they only wanted to and knew how to rule"... In the further explanation, the author finds such a will in the "nobility" ( in my opinion, it is wrong to understand the intense will to power by "will", but as for the skill, he himself thinks that it must be acquired just now (Khlib. Ukr. collection. V and VI st. 73)... Isn't it too late Because this skill is nothing more than the ability to master the revolutionary element, and how will the monarchists do when they do not even allow the thought that something new, something positive could be born from the revolution. For them, the masses throwing the plow for self-immolation were an anarchist factor. And this was the main mistake of the rightists, who did not understand that under certain conditions, "banditry" could become an organizing factor. This will happen when you manage to master it, manage to provide it with a guiding idea, coordinate its chaotic efforts, and direct the revolutionary avalanche to one goal. Cossack movements were once also ordinary "banditry", unsystematic and idealess plundering of coastal cities. Subjected to a general plan and one idea (under Mazepa, and later under Catherine II), the very "bandit movements" resulted in a far-reaching political action: https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor .com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 4/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite conquest of Crimea and control of the Black Sea coast. Yermak's marauding Siberian campaign, caught in the convenient hands of Tsar Ivan, marked the beginning of the Russian empire in Asia. What was the whole chouanerie (peasant uprising of the Vendée during the first republic and consulate)? In its forms, the same jacqueria as our Makhnivshchyna. But a few brave aristocrats, who pinned the Bourbon white lily to its flag, turned the jacquerie into a conscious political movement. Without Collins and de Valera, the Irish uprising would not have differed much from our "otomanship", without the Khmelnytsky Cossacks, the Cossack nation would have truly remained a "headless beast". Great potential possibilities of "bandit" movements are also recognized by our right, but only in the past. They recognize that the task of Ukrainian politics in the 17th century. it was, as Betlend-Gabor said, to do so "so that all the ignorant (Cossacks) would learn to listen to better people and recognize firm laws and principles in war and peace"; they admit that without Khmel, the entire Cossack nation would have remained an anarchist "crowd and pack"; they quote with recognition the same Bethlen, who still calls the Cossacks "brave knights" and praises them for their "courageous decision to achieve freedom or perish" (V. Lipinskyi "Ukraine at a turning point", Vienna, 1920, pp. 150-151), so they recognize a certain positive value according to the "bandit" element, but unfortunately - not according to the modern one! The fact that our monarchists do not want to recognize a certain positive role for the negative revolutionary factor and do not try, like Khmel, to master the revolutionary element and lead it under themselves - this is the reason for the failure of their action. In this, we must also look for the reasons for the unviability of the entire monarchical concept, because what should the monarchy be based on, when the main support of this monarchy - according to the rightists - does not have the capabilities necessary for any ruling class? Older ways of exercising power, which want to apply rights, have survived. It is no longer possible to appeal to the right of rulers to command, nor to the duty of subordinates to listen. You cannot appeal to the pre-revolutionary psychology of the masses, it is deranged. During the revolution, contact between the mass of citizens and the authorities is established in a different way. Here obedience is based on the enthusiasm of the masses for an idea which (they believe) the government is carrying out; and the strength of the latter [is based] not on tradition, but on the tireless energy of the rulers, who, certain of the people's sympathy, are slowly restoring the shaken state apparatus on the old foundations of reckless obedience. Our rights do not want to understand this, and the great leaders of the revolution, all of them Cromwells, Napoleons, Mussolini, Kemals, Monks, Lenins, Khmelnytskyi and Collins, understood this very well... It can be said that none of these leaders, even if they were the same Napoleon did not organize any power; that he picked her up lying on the street, thrown there by a tired and exhausted nation. So, why couldn't we, Ukrainian monarchists, wait until the nation, weakened by differences, sends its Hostomysl to us with a request: "Come and own us"! But the matter is not so simple. First of all, it is not true that Napoleon "picked up" the abandoned power. The "picking up" of this power did not go so easily when the future emperor fell down from his horse on the 18th of Brumaire. In addition, one cannot talk about the fatigue of the nation, which for another fifteen years went around the whole of Europe from Illyria to Holland, from Spain to Moscow, under the imperial eagles. No, the nation followed its savior not out of fatigue, only because he recognized its revolution and organized it; because Dei gratia did not allow the losers to turn; because he created a brilliant Napoleonic legend for the nation, broke it in a great revolutionary upheaval. And indeed, the wars he waged, due to the fact that they confirmed the existence of a new bourgeois France in the midst of feudal Europe, were a revolutionary act, just as he himself was a revolutionary, because if this had not been the case, the royalists would not have sent Cadudal to kill him, and he would not have shot him. he would be the Duke of Engin, thus documenting his kinship with the element that sent the second Bourbon, the sixteenth Louis, to the chaffot. This kinship with the revolutionary element, this courage, passion, energy, brutality, freshness and cynicism of the chosen natures that Napoleon and Khmelnytsky had; everything that perfectly existed alongside a sense of order and a statesman's instinct, and with which they mastered the reveling crowd - this is what our "leaders of the nobility" do not have, and this is their powerlessness. They are right about only one thing. A moment may come when the nation, exhausted by unequal competition, will bow its knees to the one who wants to rule it. But this would not bode well for our rightists! Somewhere, in such cases, a force could be found in the middle of the nation itself that would take over power. In the specific circumstances of Ukrainian life, this force will rather come from outside. Even the restoration of Louis XVIII and Franz Joseph in Hungary in 1849 did not do without the help of the allies in one case, without Moscow's in the other case. In our case, this help would not be only transitional, and in our case, someone else's help would lead to what it led to under Catherine II in Poland, under Bohdan's successors in the hetmanship... No - speculation on the decline of revolutionary energy will not lead to anything. Ukrainian statehood will not be possible without "Makhnivshchyna" and "Zelenivshchyna" in the same way that Khmelnytskyi's statehood was not possible without Huna, Ostryanytsia and Kryvonos, without that wild "pack" that had to be mastered, without bellua sine capite, which only needed a head, Our the democrats were afraid to finally let this "beast" off the chain, playing only on its social, and not (also) national instincts, and in that they thought that the whole thing was to let this beast lead them. This was pure et simle fraud, which could not lead to anything. The monarchists again thought that the "beast" should stop being itself, become a vegetarian; or, like wild animals, to go to the Colosseum even when her jailers needed it, when they let her out of the cage. But for that she was needed first https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 5/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite drive there. This was not an occupation for monarchists. They recognized the importance of the "initiative minority", but the Dei gratia minority, which is psychologically far from the mass, and has too many accounts with it to push it to order with some brilliant delusion, and then bring it under the iron law of order... History knows no other method . Whoever wants to enter which horse must ride with it for a while. In such regions as Ukraine, affected by a major economic crisis and revolution, it is possible to seize power only by the methods I indicated above, revolutionary methods. That is why our nationalism should have taken a different path a long time ago, and not the one pointed out to it by the democrats and the right. Both of them were too big legalists for this tumultuous period that we are passing through: some of them clung to their formulas even in our days of huge changes - they looked for models in regimes that already existed once, somewhere; others did the same, not allowing anything from their Dei gratia... This new path can only be the path of healthy, revolutionary nationalism, which does not count with any formulas, with nobody's rights. Nationalism, which gives the appearance and ideology of social movements to national movements, and the aims and scope of national movements to social movements. In short, we need neither national monarchism nor socialist revolution, only national revolution. This formula excludes the anarchistic nature of democracy and the counter-revolutionary nature of monarchism, which are unsuitable for moments of crisis. Ukraine is going through a protracted political and economic crisis. The Soviet regime is not worthy of evolution, it can only rot. A whole series of foreign interventions in recent years, uprisings, the introduction of the NEP, friction in the ruling Communist Party, in the military, the never-ending conflict between the government and the countryside - these are the signs of the crisis that will most likely lead to the catastrophe of the Russian government in Ukraine. Then we will once again be face to face with a mass movement (we don't know under what conditions) in the Krai, because neither about mental depression nor about the moral demobilization of the Ukrainian countryside - even after the Russian data, it is impossible to talk. Because the revolution against the tsarist-landlord system is over in our country; socialist - has no basis, and the conflict between the village and the city and Ukraine and Moscow continues - a new explosion in the Krai, when it comes, must have a distinctly nationalist character. Our democrats and monarchists, neither with their ideology nor with their psychology, are willing to be the leaders of this movement. Both currents ruling in us cannot develop the banner of this consistent nationalism. In this regard, both of them are agreeable. Both put class above nation and are ready to seek help from Moscow. Some are against "reaction", others are against "revolution". The left still cannot get rid of phrases about "fraternal Russian people", about "solidarity of the working classes of all nations". So is the right. In her opinion, "a close alliance with Moscow" is a task that "stands before us again today" (Khlibor. Ukraine, collections II, III, IV, art. 33 and 167), because even now there are "common interests of Russia and Ukraine" (ibid.), and the Muscovites are "our own brothers, in blood, spirit and culture" (sis!), are a "fraternal nation" (ibid., see collections V and VI, p. 63). It is obvious that people with such a psychology cannot become spokesmen for national liberation in our time... No revolution has ever taken place where great love for one's cause and great hatred for the force that had to be defeated did not go hand in hand. Whoever extinguishes this hatred simultaneously extinguishes love for the cause. (The fundamental aversion of our left and right to "inciting national hatred" best testifies to how their whole psychology is adapted to the old, pre-revolutionary times. In those times, for an action against the enemy, it was only necessary to give an order from the mountain about mobilization : the army had only to obey orders, and it was not necessary to have any special hatred against the enemy. In revolutionary moments, when orders are not obeyed, other incentives are needed for the masses to rebel). And this is not chauvinism at all, just a healthy emotional feeling of every individual or group unit that respects itself and strives to live. Because chauvinism is an exaggerated concept of one's own race and a mockingly contemptuous attitude towards someone else's. Hatred of a foreign nation does not have these elements, so it has nothing to do with chauvinism. It is only the ultimate prerequisite for success in the national struggle. What would we say about Garibaldi, Masaryk and Bratiana, about Korfantoy - if they, as our democrats and monarchists do, called the people to the liberation struggle, and at the same time convinced of their love and loyalty to the Austrian, Hungarian or German people, and about the end of a "close alliance" with them?! Probably, both German monarchies would still exist if they had such cultural, non-chauvinistic opponents... "Internationalism - as Mussolini beautifully noted in one speech, is something like love: the need for it is satisfied by two, otherwise it is fruitless onanism" (Benito Mussolini " Discorsi politici" Milan, 1921 p. 24). Actually, our democratic and right... internationalists are engaged in this fruitless occupation. Driven by their love for "fraternal nations", they must seek to satisfy their indivisible passion - les charmes de la solitude... Only new people can become leaders of the national movement. It is ridiculous to say that in order to overcome our nationalism, only a "revision of the program" is needed. Like, find a new recipe and everything will be fine. This recipe has changed enough already. Socialists became Denikinites, Bolshevik pogroms - "Smenovehovs", independentists - "federalists", democrats https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html 6 /7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Bellua sine capite by supporters of the "Soviet system", etc. Who and what gained from this? What changed from the fact that they changed their "programs"? Nothing, because what we need are not programs, but characters. And where did they come from among the intelligentsia that stood at the forefront of the movement? - All of them were brought up in the concepts of approx. the memory of the "New Rada", when it became clear that liberation will be brought not by struggle, but by "progress" and "knowledge", not by "an eye for an eye", but by "humanitarianism": not revolution, but evolution. These were the people whom the Bolsheviks now call "soft-bodied"; who knew only one reaction to all their patience, to the entire oppression of the nation: fruitless pity and sentimental sympathy, but never active revenge (the poems of some of our poets about the famine in Ukraine, which appeared in in the daily press: images of misery, crying over it and - not a word of protest against that regime, which is the sole cause of hunger!); who believed that major world problems can be solved by "convincing" the enemy; these were those "neither cold nor hot", about whom St. Writings that were too "cultural" to admit that even violence is sometimes moral. Those who grew up on disputes with the Valuyiv decree, on the defense of national rights with arguments from the "famous teacher of Ushinsk", on the propaganda of "Sausage and a glass" and Cossack masquerades, on the poetry of "cherry orchards", on the social morality of "Uncle Tom's House" and " Die Waffer" by Baroness Suttner. These were those who, after the outbreak of the World War, declared their loyalty to the tsar, who - like the former leaders of sovereign Ukraine - tearfully uttered words of repentance before the German and Bolshevik tribunals. How could they create a spark of protest in the masses that they themselves did not have? Programs... The program was for all these philistines from democracy - "nonsense", it was not the programs that attracted them, but actually the whole mental composition of the small-town pater familias, which was the same for all of them, regardless of party affiliation, which attracted them more than party members the friars shared, which was so far from the gloomy pathos of the great era in which they had to work, and from the enthusiasm of the masses who had to link their fate with them... From that element, at the head of which they suddenly became - brave, xenophobic, wild and uncompromising and merciless. Could the masses - for a long time - recognize them as their leaders, see in their ideas, which were not fully agreed upon, the brilliant extravaganza of the "last battle", which supports the unceasing will to fight, in their ranks - the unbending will to which the crowd obeys? The crisis of our nationalism is not that the nation is "not matured", not in the defects of the "program", only in the lack of people. Our tragedy was that at the head of the revolted mass were workers with a purely peace-minded mentality, consumed by doubts about the vitality of the nation, incapable of taking risks or of broad gestures, endowed with all the vices and virtues of a convinced philistine and none of those , which are distinguished by those who lead the masses. I am not talking here about the lower strata, nor about some recesses, which we also had; I'm talking about the general tone of our ruling "aristocracy". And among it, it is really difficult to find at least a few striking individuals, or a few original figures, who could be placed, for example, on the same board with such, as if carved from marble, figures like Dzerzhinsky and Lenin, not to mention others. The argument about "programs", "coalitions", "concentrations", "orientations" conducted by these people will not lead to anything. These are living corpses that forgot to die. their ghosts should not interfere with the struggle of the living. they can no longer invent ideas for which people would kill other people. Not to create around yourself that exceptional intensity of will that attracts a crowd. The countries need not them, but their "slogans" and "parties", nor their "principles". He needs new characters who know what they want and who would have none of that sentimental-pacifist international-slave mentality of "former people". When they appear in our country (according to Zbruch, there are already quite a few of them), then the "beast of the revolution" is waiting not only for its head, but also for its muzzle. If not, we will be forced to acknowledge the right of the blessed memory of the Kyiv voivode, Mr. Adam Kisel, and again stage a new Pereyaslavshchyna with all that follows it. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180923/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html PING Banner Network 7/7 11/28/23, 3:50 PM Wayback Machine The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060116142609/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/donzo… of the German Security Service for No. 12 of July 4, 1941: Dmytro Dontsov is assumed to be a possible president..." [37] D. Dontsov Nationalism THE BLACK STUDENT FROM TAVRIA FOREWORD TO THE THIRD EDITION INSTEAD OF THE FOREWORD PART ONE UKRAINIAN PROVENCALITY PART TWO CURRENT NATIONALISM PART THREE UKRAINIAN IDEA NOTES TO THE TEXT Philosophical foundations of "Nationalism ” Dontsova He really had claims on undeniable ideological leadership in the Ukrainian nationalist movement, although he did not participate in its practical day-to-day activities. Already after the Second World War, Dmytro Dontsov publishes an article in which he illuminates his view on the ideological genesis of nationalism. "In "Independent Ukraine" we see a new slogan of independence (who didn't wave that slogan until later?), but also a new worldview, a new psychology, thoroughly active and nationalist. The fate of the RUP [38] was the first stage on the crossroads of Ukrainian nationalism. This first attempt to activate Ukrainian nationalist thought was trampled by government nationalism. The second attempt - the Lviv "Zagrava" and the Party of the National Revolution attached to it (1923-1924) was quickly eliminated by the same Zagravas, who en masse went under the banner of UNDO39 in order to dissolve politically and ideologically there. "Vistnikvstvo" after the first war, in connection with which, but completely separately from it, a nationalist organization appeared, remained isolated. Fragmentation began in the organization, similar to the fragmentation in the RUP in 1903-04, nationalist thought began to be polluted by the addition of Dragomanov and Hrushev regions (Onatskyi, Marganets); the organization of "creative nationalism" (FNE [40] - Paliiva-Ivaneika) appeared, which had nothing to do with nationalism; with the outbreak of the war there was a split in the organization, finally after the 2nd war, in emigration, under the influence of the victory of the USSR and the contact of Galicians with the Bolshivized elements of Kyiv Ukraine, there was an attempt to completely erase the nationalist idea and replace it with national socialism, or a vague faceless "democracy ". [41] He considers his "evangelists" as a separate political current, although in reality it was not such, since the "evangelists" themselves mostly belonged to the OUN, or were in one way or another connected with it. There were also those who were not involved in political activities at all. Remarks about the "democratization" of the OUN during the war, when the nationalists from Galicia faced the problem of the deployment of a nationwide armed struggle, also attract attention. The Organization can raise a whole nation to fight, but the whole nation cannot become a member of the Organization. Stepan Bandera understood this contradiction, but Dmytro Dontsov did not come to terms with the current propaganda of the OUN in the "native lands", not distinguishing it from the ideological platform of Ukrainian nationalism. Until his death on March 30, 1973, Dontsov remained uncomfortable and irreconcilable. His figure is indeed full of contradictions, and it is long overdue to give it a true light, determining its proper place in the history of Ukrainian aesthetic and socio-political thought of the 20th century. This need is expressed by many researchers, such as, for example, Olena Bachynska: "Over the past 70 years, this name has endured extremely opposite evaluations: from direct insult to great respect. A "bourgeois nationalist" was tried and persecuted for remembering his ideas without an appendix. However, all those who neglected his name wanted to forget the ideas https://web.archive.org/web/20060116142609/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor /donzow_nationalism.htm 1/1 11/28/23, 3:50 PM web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html The Wayback Machine - https:// web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Украинские страницы история национального движимость Украины The cowardice of some, the stupidity of others and the insignificance of others will surely lead the world to an unprecedented catastrophe. When the body does not fight the disease, it eats it up; when nations are unwilling to fight evil, evil attacks them. And when the devil's kingdom falls due to this catastrophe, when life will have to be rebuilt on the ruins, we will face the task of what content to put into the framework of our statehood? What should the new Ukraine be like? What truth should she bear? This question should be asked now. Even in exile - as was the case during the years of war in Ukraine itself - this question must be answered; especially when encountering Ukrainians from the eastern regions. The nationalists, who in 1941 saw for the first time the Ukraine that was under Russia, too soon fell under the influence not of the Ukrainian reality, but of the one created in Ukraine by Moscow. The Ukrainian reality, broken in the years of uprisings and war, slandered by the Bundyuchny zayman, broken, wounded, remained in the souls of millions who did not accept the Moscow "truth" in their hearts. But on the surface there was actually this "truth" of Moscow, which - willingly or unwillingly - was recognized by the terrorist elements or perekinchiki. This fact confused some Western nationalists, who unwittingly fell under the influence of this foreign truth, passed off as their own. What is strange? When even Yu. Lypa ("Destiny of the Nation") considered collective farms to be manifestations of the ancient Ukrainian mentality! It so happened that the same collective farms, that is, the "ideal" of the new lordship, and Bolshevik atheism (in the form of some religious indifference), and the spirit of materialism, and the ideas of all kinds of "unions," and many other things, invaded, as if elements of Ukrainian mentalities - in some nationalist statements and publications. The arguments were as follows: the Bolsheviks shaped the brain of the nation in their own way for thirty years, it is now impossible to approach the "Orientals" with completely foreign ideas, they must be gradually prepared for them, it is impossible to put forward a program that would sharply oppose Bolshevism to the very opposite; not everything can be nurtured in the current reality in Ukraine, etc. Is this "LINE" correct? We have two terrible examples in history, when the power of order in Ukraine fell under the influence of someone else's reality in Ukraine, neglecting the true reality hidden in the souls of the people - and fatally atoned for it. The last example is the Germans in Ukraine in 1941-44. The Bolshevik-Moscow reality of that time was swept off the surface by the war, waveringly existed only due to inertia. And the Germans accepted it as the real reality, neglecting the second, violent and strong one, which wanted to explode, brazenly breaking through the upper shell, breaking the bonds of a foreign, disgusting reality. Ukrainian soldiers threw down their weapons en masse, not wanting to defend a foreign empire, waiting for the declaration of political independence of their country. But the Germans bet on "one indivisible". Peasants spontaneously rushed to divide state farms and collective farms, or were just waiting for permission to start it. But it was more profitable for the Germans (they thought) to leave that lordship. A broad insurgent action began in Ukraine, the Germans turned it against themselves. A mass return to the church and religion began, but the Germans barely tolerated it, ignoring the factor of enormous weight, which could play a very important role in the fight against godless Moscow. Instead of placing a bet on invisible to them, but actually existing in the people's soul, the own truth of the country they came to, the Germans placed a bet on the self-evident reality, on the reality planted by a foreigner, and dug their own grave in Ukraine. The Ukrainian element turned both against them and against the old enemy. The second example, more remote, is the example of our demo-socialist intelligentsia, which after the fall of the tsar in 1917, fate put the helm in Ukraine. The element of national explosion with unprecedented force in that memorable year. It was aggressive and militant in terms of tactics, independent in terms of impulses, the purpose of the movement, unrestrained and hostile to the Zayds and the empire. This was revealed at various congresses - peasant, military, etc., it was revealed later in the so-called "Otamania", which should not be underestimated and which, according to the testimony of the Moscow-Bolshevik historians themselves, was a formidable independent force in Ukraine, which overwhelmed even Bolshevik expansion into (then communist) Hungary and the Balkans. Instead of formalizing that element organizationally and ideologically, our intelligentsia, under the strong influence of Russian political categories, began to pour cold water on the red-hot iron of popular anger. It turned out that the empire should not be demolished, but supported even with weapons and the blood of Ukrainian soldiers. It turned out that there was no need to separate from the empire either. It was not necessary to win Ukraine's freedom by military force, everything could be settled peacefully in the St. Petersburg offices. The socialist leaders convinced the people that "fanatic exclusivity" should be avoided, that one should not give in to the feeling of hatred towards the peasants; taught that "there can be no question of a national difference between Ukraine and Russia"; that it is necessary to reject the "demagogic slogan of independence"; that the revolution cannot be demanded "in an exciting, spontaneous way"; they never thought, "what's wrong with us will have to earn their rights." https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html 1/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM web. archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html Democrats and socialists - according to their own accounts - "believed immediately, without hesitation" in the pure heart of Russian democracy, thought that the revolution could be to do "in an organized way, without excluding fratricidal differences between the Ukrainian and Russian democracies, without explosions, without "chauvinism", "militarism", and "fanaticism". Leaders of the two most influential parties in Ukraine at the time, social. democrats and social revolutionaries, already in the early 1929s, admitted: "we were not conciliators (accommodators) in essence, and our softness helped to create objective conditions for conciliation." They admitted that "we, Ukrainian social democrats, emptied Marxism", believed only "in the objective course of events, accepted from Marxism only what that course of events could give us regardless of our will". They themselves appointed themselves as believing only in the "mechanical development of social relations, not having a burning, courageous desire" to destroy the world hostile to them. Therefore, others did not believe that they were coming to Ukraine to destroy it and conquer it. It is obvious that with such a psyche, "emptied of all masculine instincts, of all ardent aspirations to realize one's goal or ideal, with petty-bourgeois aversion to struggle, with fear of detaching from the imperial apron of "Mother Russia", these leaders could not accept the one they of the long-forgotten, national truth that erupted in Ukraine at that time with a raging fire. They wanted to put out that fire, but the enemy with whom they sought "agreements" did not follow it, but simply jumped down their throats. It was necessary to defend life. And then it just started the intelligentsia to organize a struggle for independence, even yesterday considering that independence as unnecessary and harmful, just like that struggle. Obviously, the results could not be brilliant, because the moment had passed when it was necessary to forge the iron while it was hot. The national element slipped out of socialist hands - democratic departure. Something similar to Fedkovych's lung happened to that intelligentsia: "The poor lung fell by Dovbushev's grave and complained that he had no fate. There was a rumble and rustling in the grave, and a voice was heard from it: "Fate, boy? You will be king! And the world will worship you, like the sun in a ray." And he fell to his knees in fear, pleading: "Father, I don't want to! I won't be a king! I didn't pretend to be an executioner" - "Then you will be Dovbush" rang out from under the grave, so that the mountains were terrified. - "Me, Dovbushem?! Never in the world," - replied the thigh. - "So you will be my kobzar!" - shouted in the third from the pit, like thunder. The revolution tore the lid off the home of Ukraine, from it "thumped and rattled" and suddenly resurrected our ancient historical truth, the truth of a people independent and free from no one. The intelligentsia was frightened by the voice of this truth. Even the Dovbush insurgent element was frightened, because to be a ruler or a warrior - it meant, in the thoughts of a peaceful lung, to be an executioner, or as they say now, a "predator"! Then fate left the last possibility - to be a mourner over a grave, a lyre, to whom passers-by throw something into a propped cap. Events did force that intelligentsia, she was most inclined to play tricks, to play the role of a ruler and lead the Dovbushs into battle, but she had neither the heart of a ruler nor a Dovbush heart. She could not courageously, without greedy "buts", lead a great explosion of the national spirit both programmatically and organizationally. The brain of that intelligentsia was too crossed someone else's truth, the truth of degenerate Moscow liberalism, which was taken for granted, neglecting the ancient wisdom of its own country. Now, if not exactly this, then something similar may happen again. Both in 1917 and 1941, the one who wanted to win the game in Ukraine lost because he was too "compromising" with the surface reality created there by someone else's hand, and neglected the half-forgotten, swept off the surface by someone else's hand, the age-old traditional Ukrainian the truth They lost the game because they were afraid to oppose the existing Moscow truth to a completely separate, completely opposite ancient truth of our land, the Germans were afraid to put the Ukrainians in such a way. the case against Russia, as delivered the Italian case against Austria in his time Napoleon I, and then his late Louis-Napoleon. Even then, the Ukrainian demo-socialist leadership appealed to Ukrainian "chauvinism", "militarism" and "fanaticism", as the best moment was missed. So that this does not happen again! That is why we must now proclaim our ancient truth to everyone, without entering into any compromises with the Bolshevik "achievements", and extract from the ground the traditions of the old and eternal Ukraine, the traditions of our eternal city on the Dnieper, hidden there. For which Ukraine? For a Ukraine free from the embrace of the Moscow octopus, free from all Moscow, Ukraine on the ruins of the ugly empire and the Zakhlanii people. For Ukraine, freed from the scourge of totalitarianism, Soviet and socialist, which is now paving its triumphal path to the whole world. For a Ukraine free from the tyrant state, free from the collective farm lordship. Not for a pacifist Ukraine that puts peace in slavery above all else, but for a Ukraine in which the old warlike spirit of a nation that would put its truth and God's justice above life and well-being would live on. And most importantly, on the flag of that Ukraine, for which we must fight, which we must explain to everyone, should not be a petty idea of ​​the passing time - socialism or another "cracy", but our ancient idea, the idea of ​​our nation - the idea of ​​Christian culture. The idea of ​​an active, believing, militant Christianity and its defenders, who in the coming great crisis will clearly stand on the side of the Christian idea against all the overt and secret forces that have vowed to drown the idea of ​​Christ in the mire of materialism and introduce slavery and darkness into the world. With Christ against the devil and his servants, no matter what nation they belong to! There is no compromise with the kingdom of evil and its ideas, because the devil will not be driven out by Beelzebub, and not neutral agreeable people will follow the new world after the flood. Only a sharp, vivid idea, completely opposite to Bolshevism, can unite the nation. Not for the Ukraine of this or that "cracy", not for Ukraine, the filth of this or that "chosen nation" that, under the cloak of some "progressive" idea, will besiege our land with the locusts of its adherents. Only for the Ukraine of the ancient princely Kyiv. Ukraine of Khmelnytskyi and Mazepa, Polubotka and Shevchenko. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM web.archive.org/web/ 20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html None other than Shevchenko wrote that "when we mock the holy traditions of antiquity, what will become of us? Some Frenchman or lame German will emerge, and from type, or so to speak, there will be no memory of the national face. And in my opinion, a nation without its own, only characteristic features inherent to it, is simply like some jelly, and a very tasteless jelly at that"... So wrote Shevchenko, and it is clear that he meant not the traditions of the Moscow koshara, but the great traditions of our Cossack past - a free, militant and heroic nation and a free man in it. One of Stalin's loyalists once wrote that the USSR is not only five letters, but five fiery signs", and that for these signs of the devil, he is ready to take a gun at any minute and go to kill. This fanaticism of the devil's servants must be opposed by an even greater fanaticism, an even greater combative spirit of the soldiers of Christ, the defenders of the faith, the nation against the barbarians from the East. Now, when stupidity, meanness and cowardice seem to embrace the state over the whole world, the task of Ukraine is a hundred times more difficult than ever before. It must be fulfilled or perish, because having tasted freedom, it will not return to slavery. At the head of this struggle should be appropriate people - not drugged by poison from the east, only believers in the mission of Ukraine, whose greatness of character would be equal to the greatness of the age we live in. The process of maturation asserted in this article the Ukrainian camp press in Germany confirms the emigration of the new "Moscophiles". In the "Ukrainian Tribune" we read (2.12.48) that the current Ukrainian youth under the Soviets in the last ten years before the war went through the process of the decline of national consciousness and the growth of Soviet patriotism. On the other hand, the article claims that the meeting with the "Orientalists" led "to a huge change in the ideological positions of our nationalists"... This is what I only stated: this Muscophilic spirit with which Moscow, in the form of Soviet patriotism, infected our young generation, some Western nationalists adopted the Ukrainian spirit and changed their ideological positions. This is the new "modern Muscophilism", with which we must wage the same relentless struggle as with the Muscophilism nurtured in our intelligentsia by the tsar from the middle of the 19th century until the First World War. March 1949 Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180404/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM WHAT IS THE POWER OF ORGANIZATION The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160130/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Dmitry Dontsov's page WHAT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE ORGANIZATION? The essence of the entire political crisis of our days is the crisis of the leading class. Compare the figures of the former leaders and the current ones! Pitt, Cavour, Joseph Chamberlain, Metternich, or Clemenceau represented a completely different temperament, morality, and spiritual strength, and Errio, Blum, Schumann, Lasky, and hundreds of others who can be seen in the headlines today. When we take Ukraine, the leading figures of the time of Khmelnytskyi, Mazepa, or Polubotko will appear to us as unattainable giants, compared to those small figures who led Ukraine during the Great Revolution and, in most cases, are leading it now. The new leading class in the countries of Europe, which the events pushed to the top after the first war, was characterized primarily by a lack of vision, a far-reaching idea. And that just in the day that sought fundamental, courageous decisions, a clear and bright idea. All this was opposed by the new "elite" - the slogan of "ant's work", ordinary Latina, replacing political wisdom with its surrogate - coolness. Their tactics were the tactics of postponing fundamental decisions "for tomorrow", avoiding inevitable conflicts, blindfolding the future, fearing a broad gesture. This was the tactic of the "maloros" who was, as they say, "albeit stupid and cunning" (I would say: though cunning, but stupid). It was the policy of "the malice of the day", the flattery of the masses, the policy of demagogic pacifism, which turned a blind eye to inevitable confrontations; the same kind of socialism that wanted to build its utopia at least at the cost of defeating or enslaving its nation. The consequences of the rule of such "elites" were catastrophic - both in Europe and in our country. In our country, it led to the promotion of pacifism - on the eve and during the protracted armed confrontation with the Muscovite region, to the suppression of national heroism branded as "chauvinism" and to the overshadowing of the bright idea of ​​independence by the promotion of the indissolubility of coexistence with the "Russian people, brothers in blood and spirit", to moral and intellectual disarmament of the nation and - finally - to the loss of the struggle that began in 1917 and which the elite, against their own will and convictions, was forced to lead - having neither passion, nor desire, nor ideas for it. Thirty years have passed since those tragic times, but the general type of "national leaders" of that time has remained the same. They ridicule a big bright idea as "narrow doctrinaire", heroism - as "adventurism" (if not "banditry"), and the worst kind of complacency is praised as political "realism". To beg small and quiet Ukraine from the powerful of this world, or to screw it out - was their slogan... The psyche of this enlightened elite was once very well outlined by Yu. Lypa, even before he himself succumbed to it. In one old poem, he wrote about "beggars on the road begging for alms": "I will lead the nation to the crossroads, I will sway over it, I will play on the lyre. Maybe other peoples with their power will be surprised by such a fervent faith. They will say: - that is a polite child, good , Sings songs, does not rebel, Will not be restrained to do something evil. /23, 3:50 PM WHAT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE ORGANIZATION? It falls to praise these children and statehood to give. - Let hope shine for us, Even if without a date. It is not necessary, by God, it is not necessary For it to rebel, to kill! ...Oh , it's hard, brother, to take the Sword! How to make a war like this without a fire! How to make a nation carefully, quietly, Feed it with books in a cozy chicken coop And bring it into the world ready, without a fight, Having outwitted everyone? No, don't quarrel. Don't get angry savagery, stomping and scrounging with foreign agents. No, make everyone president." Such was the "belief" of this "elite"! We had plenty of such an elite in 1917-1920 in Ukraine, in particular in 1922-1939 in Galicia. It is full of it even now: those Mohicans of the socialist Vinnytsia region and Galician "Undivism", both in Europe and in America and Canada. These are those "beggars" for "almsgiving" who build their "unions not with an eye on Ukrainian heroic forces, but with contempt for those forces and hope for the favor of "other nations with their own power". They are not - as before war - they want to throw out from society all non-beggar elements who believe in the idea and are ready to fight for it. But the most terrible disease of that "elite" is not even the "ideology" of roadside beggars, but its very composition, selection, education. Mind, heart, the morals of the former European (however, our Old Kyiv and Cossack) elite were formed in special institutions, in Eton, Oxford, in the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. The spirit and ethics of the current "elite" are not formed anywhere. The moral qualities or character of its members - the modern "elite" doesn't give a damn. All this stands for her loyalty to the party cabal. It was not the noble and wise who reached her, but the cool, "flexible-necked" unprincipled people. The interests of the party cabal were placed above the interests of the party. That was enough " the "elite" of the Pharisees, intriguers, or "activists" who considered the party bribe or the people's money to be their own pocket; full of those "cunning and stupid" Little Russians from the breed of "realists" and political patchwork... Thus, the "elite" was harmful to its own people, but not terrible to the enemy. Those of its members who were not witty could easily be deceived. It was easy to intimidate those who were naturally cowardly. It was easy to buy those that were stolen. And that procedure was facilitated by the fact that such an "elite" did not know the principles of internal discipline and did not know the punishment for crimes and "mistakes", although hundreds and thousands of people who naively believed in that "elite" fell victim to those "mistakes". It all has to end! "Beggars by the road" or those whom Shevchenko called "informers and Pharisees" dare not lead the nation. The basis for the creation of the elite should be - as in the old days - requirements of a moral nature. Honest, wise, brave, noble and characteristic people can only lead the nation to victory, not to shame and decay. Konstantin Ostrozky also wrote: "It is worthy to be created by the worthy, and by the honest, it is usually accomplished through worthy people - worthy things are done." The good of these "honest", "worthy and dignified" is the secret of the strength of any organization. SEPTEMBER 1948 https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160130/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_vchim.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM WHAT IS THE STRENGTH OF ORGANIZATION Украинские Страницы , http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160130/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_vchim.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Dmitriy Dontsova V. LENIN Each of the great people had their predecessors who heralded their near arrival. Lenin also had his forerunner. He was Dostoevsky. True, he hated Lenin without even knowing him, but he knew that he would come, and very soon. Because he was actually thinking about Lenin and no one else when he promised to tell us in "Demons" about "that vile slave, that smelly and licentious lackey, who is the first to climb the ladder with scissors in his hands and tear the divine face of the great ideal in him "I equality, envy and... digestion." In these few words - the whole essence of Leninism. With its official program - "equality", with its driving force "envy", with its true goal - the appeasement of the lowest instincts of the crowd ("digestion"), with its psychology of a rebellious slave. And it is no coincidence that one of the official poets, who was commissioned to write an ode to the death of the Bolshevik pope, called him "the leader of the insurgent slaves." This revolt of the slaves was born from "resentment", from pessimism, despair, from a feeling of envy, physical and spiritual cripples, which are thrown out by the thousands by our social system. This was the rebellion of those whom Nietzsche called ehrgeizige schwitzende Plebejer, who wanted to put everything into action so that their values ​​were a mountain. Their philosophy began with "mercy" to all victims, from the identification of the criminal with the "unfortunate", and ended with: - "I also respect crooks" by Luka Horkivskyi; on: "it's a shame to beat the good" of L. Andreev, or "it's a shame to break moral principles and not have syphilis" (Vynnychenko), when the masses bathe in the depths of debauchery, - and finally on the work of Yesenin, for whom "the best supporters of Bolshevik poetry were prostitutes and bandits"...* (footnote See Nov. Rus. Book, Part 5, 1922, Berlin). Everything that was considered strong, majestic and beautiful until now should be put into action. Everything that is still worthless and despised should be elevated to the meaning of new moral values. To mix everything poetic with the swamp and to poeticize prostitution and banditry, this is the goal of the Bolsheviks. "Confession of a hooligan" became their gospel, "the country of the ungodly" (the names of Yesenin's poems) - the promised land. The only thing that was missing was the theory. They needed someone to justify their instincts; it was necessary to find that scapegoat who could be blamed for all their wrongs, it was necessary - finally - to find that Evil, in comparison with which their world was Good. Actually, this theory was given by Lenin. He called all peasants "bourgeoisie", including working people, when they had only clean hands and did not know shameful swear words. He called everyone on the dole - the "proletariat", including professional idlers, convicts and prostitutes, the whole of Bakuninsk "a great common people's idleness". He called their struggle a "social revolution", and the "country of the poor" - the kingdom of freedom and justice. Such was Lenin's theory, and he who wants to apply European socialist categories to it will never understand the Bolshevik revolution. In the head of this fanatic, who was born somewhere in the Simbirsk region, in close proximity to the former Khanate of Kazan, on the border with Asia, the categories of Marxism took on a completely different appearance than in the head of his European "colleagues". There was as great a difference between them as between Louis XIV and Peter I, as between Cardinal Richelieu and Grishka Rasputin, as between the monarchy of Nicholas II and his cousin George V, between Cromwell and Stenka Razin. The basis of all his works was Dostoevsky's "equality". What was Russian-Leninist equality? In order not to be accused of "chauvinism", I will answer D. Merezhkovsky: this Bolshevik equality is "the will to simplify, the metaphysical will to wildness", to equalize everything. This is how L. Tolstoy taught, this is how V. Lenin taught. "Here is a stone lying on top of another stone, wildly - this is good; but here is a stone laid on top of another stone - this is not so good; and here is a stone with a stone molded together with iron or cement - this is completely bad: something is being built here: it is the same as - a palace , a barracks, a prison, a customs house, a den, a whorehouse, an academy; all that is built is evil, or https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/ donzow_doncle7.html 1/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN at least a very dubious good." The first Tolstoy's and Lenin's thought on the appearance of everything that even slightly rises above the general level is to "simplify it, lower it, smooth it out, break it down, destroy it so that not a single stone remains and everything is again - wild, simple, flat, smooth, clean." ** (Collection "Kingdom of the Antichrist", Munich, 1922, st. 1923.) Hence Lenin's intransigence, his uncompromisingness, or, as it was said in Bolshevik circles, "hard rock". The one who strives to level everything to the ground cannot negotiate with anyone who still rises - wealth or talent above the dream ideal of equality. "We thought Russia was a home, writes M-kyi, no, a tent! The nomad set up the tent and folded it again and went further into the steppe. The bare, flat steppe is the homeland of the Scythians-nomads. What does not turn black, does not loom in the steppe, does not rise even a little speck, - everything will be leveled, lowered, burned, trampled by the Scythian horde. The will to breadth, equal, naked, to physical flatness, to metaphysical equality - this is the old Scythian will - the same in Arakcheev, Bakunin, Pugachev, Razin, Lenin, Tolstoy. They leveled, ironed out Russia - they will iron out Europe - they will iron out the whole world." This is what Lenin's "equality" is! What rises above the horror? - Church towers? - "Down with" the church! Monuments thing? Pull them off the pedestal! Palaces? - destroy them! Boundary pillars? - cut down! Hierarchy, cancel? - terminations violate equality, "doloy" terminations: epaulettes are torn off for elders, furs for "bourgeois", "khokhlams" are trimmed with herrings, like the beards of boyars two hundred years ago. The intelligentsia rises above the crowd - "down with" the intelligentsia! Everything is one size fits all, everything is on the same hoof! ***(Lenin's organic inability to respect other people's personal or collective rights is best characterized by his attitude to the "right to self-determination" of Ukraine. In his letter to the workers and peasants of Ukraine on the occasion of the victory over Denikin from December 1919, we read that our national cause , this is "the question of whether Ukraine should be a separate and independent Ukrainian socialist Soviet federal republic, or whether Ukraine should merge with Russia into a single Soviet republic." Russia, or to leave Ukraine as an independent and independent republic, and in the latter case - what kind of federal connection will be established between Ukraine and Russia." In other words: the independence of Ukraine without a federal connection with Russia was for him something that does not exist in nature. To understand this view, one must know how Lenin understood the idea of ​​national self-determination. Even more than 20 years ago, he wrote: "But the unconditional recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not at all oblige us to support every desire for national self-determination. Soc. D-ia, as the party of the proletariat, sets as its positive and main task the self-determination not of peoples and nations, but of the proletariat in each nationality. We must subordinate the demand for national self-determination to the interests of the sei (class) struggle itself. In fact, our attitude to the national question differs from the bourgeois-democratic one" (Iskra, ch. 44, 1903). Lenin remained faithful to his ideas until the end. That is why Prof. S. Dnistrianskyi is not right (" New State", Prague, 23), when he says that "the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions adopted the idea of ​​self-determination of peoples" (Article 8). In contrast to the Ukrainian revolution, the Russian revolution - as can be seen from Lenin's comments - did not adopt this slogan, even if in a declarative form). He called all enemies of his nullifying ideal forces "bourgeoisie" or "bourgeois superstitions". Such "superstition" is the state, which in the communist system is condemned to die. The "superstition" was the entire "bourgeois" economy. The factory as well could do without a patron, like a state without a king. What he liked most about Marx's theory of value was that it dealt only with the categories of quantity and time, ignoring quality. He was most interested in the fact that Marx recognized only material numbers, and not intellectual differences; mass, not a wire; physical, not conditional work - as factors in the creation of value. Freedom of private initiative? - but this will lead to the exaltation of the most capable over multi-headed mediocrity. Therefore, private initiative and private property are also declared bourgeois superstitions. Long live the "community" and the "black redistribution". And, Lenin was also a Darwinist, but in the Kazan-Russian way: for him, the struggle for life was not about the survival of the fittest, but about their extermination. "Prejudice" was also "bourgeois philosophy". Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Mach, Poincaré - for Lenin, they are only good servants of the bourgeoisie, their doctrines do not make sense. They are invented only to keep the proletariat in slavery. Kant's Ding in sich, something that is beyond our cognitive abilities, is an absurdity for Lenin. For him, it does not matter whether metaphysics is possible or not, only whether it will harm the "interests of the proletariat." For the ideologist of Bolshevism, Kantianism is something like a "bourgeois center", that is, like "cadets" or something. Scientific intelligence prof. Lenin qualifies Khvolson against Haeckl as a "black-and-white pamphlet." Even epistemology was evaluated by him as a measure of his leveling ideal. He never liked philosophy, nor philosophers, as people who rise above the crowd with their intellect and dominate it ideologically; which with their markings only confuse things, laid out with exhaustive clarity in Marx's "Capital". That is why, when in his mature age, forced by the attacks of his opponents, he took up this accursed science, he did it only to excommunicate almost all the "inquisitive" from St. proletarian church. At seven https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 2/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN barbarians had something from that caliph who ordered to burn the library of Alexandria, saying: when it contains what is in the Koran - it is superfluous, when there is something else - it is unnecessary. Any hierarchy - spiritual, economic, political, must be abolished in the name of this amazing theory of "equality", which its creator wanted to call it the European name of socialism for some reason. "In the name of equality and envy"... Envy was the second member of Lenin's formula, the driving force of the movement. And indeed, what is particularly impressive in the ideology of Leninism is a kind of suffocating air of low revenge and Schadenfreude of the loser, which the theory is imbued with. Nothing free and majestic: no genius wit, no free movement of a man who takes what is rightfully his. The general tone of Bolshevism is the tone of Smerdyakov, who "washes himself" over his "master". This Lyokai "Ozorskaya" tone can also be heard in Bolshevik poetry, in all these Klyuyevs and Yesenins, who make a revolution "to the accordion of a foamy foamy clique": who "pull out the tongue of the bourgeois world with a comet", who "spit from their mouths the body of Christ" and "God's they pull out their beards": not the uprising of a free man who was offended in his right, aware of his dignity, but a drunken riot of a ruffian. The same trait can be seen in the massacre with which Robespierre dealt with his opponents in 1793 in Paris and Lenin in Russia: there the trial of the king, here - the strangulation of him like a rat. There - a guillotine in the square, here - a bullet in the back of the head in a dark cellar, there - in public with the applause of the crowd, here under the roar of a heavy truck, so that no one heard. Not in the name of perceived right, which is not ashamed of daylight, only "in the name of envy", which takes revenge for its worthlessness, does not believe in tomorrow and tries to erase the traces of blood on its hands. Like all those revolutionaries whom Lenin resisted, with "traces of isolated courage and anemia" - as one historian of the Russian revolution characterizes them - Lenin, also thrown out of society, felt nothing but vengeful hatred and envious malice towards it. In him there was neither the idealism of Fourier, nor the sense of high mission of Robespierre or Danton, nothing but the cult of malice and envy, these true springs of Leninism. "Everywhere and in everything - writes Tun - they defended the opposite past: you are deceivers, we will be cynics. You are the most polite towards those higher than you, - we will be rude to everyone. You hang around without respect, we will step on your feet without apologizing." This courageous desire of a loser to "salt" someone "to cause damage" to someone higher than himself, to bathe him in his swamp, - only this aspiration, devoid of any other higher ethical motives, but conceived in the grandiose scope of a great revolution - these were the driving forces that caused to the life of the Bolshevik Faust, and which he could not get rid of even later. Next to this "equality" is the second feature of Lenin's genius, which so distinguishes him from the great revolutionaries of the West, and the Russian revolution from the English, American, French or Italian revolution. "And digestion," concludes Dostoevsky. In the last moment there is also one of the essential differences between the Leninist and French revolutions. The ideological predecessors of 1789, Biffon, Voltaire, Motesquier, believed that man is basically uncorrupted, good and wise. It can be animated by great foundations, and revolutionaries must appeal to them. Lenin proceeded from a completely opposite premise. If Burtsev is to be believed, a well-known Bolshevik, member of the Duma (and a provocateur at the same time) - Malinovsky revealed to Leninov something from his past, which did not lack pages of a purely criminal nature. Lenin interrupted him, saying that "for the Bolsheviks, such things have no importance." As he himself admitted, he gathered "all sorts of rubbish" into his entourage, if only she swore by Marx's "Capital" and knew how to "work". Lenin also "picked" his agents abroad on the same basis. He appealed not to the best, but only to the most primitive, to the worst sides of man, forming his army of revolution, playing on satisfying his most primitive needs. To the question of which is higher: buckwheat porridge or the Sistine Madonna, Pisarev answered that it is porridge. Tolstoy agreed with him, Lenin agreed with Tolstoy. For him, the material benefit of the masses was above all absolute values, above all principles - axioms. Families, homeland, religion, personal honor - whoever takes them for God is dangerous to the masses, because he puts something above them and their primitive desires. And every religion, that is including the Bolshevik one, forbids building "another idol besides me". Lenin also forbade it. Because the destructive work of Bolshevism could continue only as long as the masses did not know any other moral commandment, except "rob, rob"; as long as the interests of "digestion" were at the forefront of their minds. For that, God became his painting, communion - breakfast, love - sensual desire, sexual appetite, the national flag - a rag, a sense of dignity - banditry. All moral principles were rejected, only panus and coitus remained. The rest of the idols are dragged into the swamp: in the name of equality, envy and digestion. He differed from Dostoevsky's "lykay" in only one respect: he was a politician in the full sense of the word. He had the interests of the masses above all else, but he firmly knew that a rebellion would not be enough to satisfy these interests if he did not have a clear political goal. "Loot the loot" - this was the first point of his program, but the second was: seizing the political helm in the state. In this way, he differed from numerous kings of the jacqueries (and - let's add by ear - from many Ukrainian social reformers). For them, economic reform (whoever implemented it) was everything. Lenin - tried "by any means and absolutely nothing" to prevent the idea from arising (in the masses) that the most important thing is "economic reform" and not the seizure of political power ("What are they doing?"). With his ability to combine social and political goals into one, to embrace the various revolutionary energies of the people with one political opinion - he was truly incomparable. But besides that, the material well-being of the masses, in the most vulgar sense of the word, was also his ideal, before which all others perished and disappeared. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 3/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN The French Revolution rejected the Catholic God , but introduced the cult of the "Supreme Being" (his priest was Max Robespierre), Lenin - he made God into one of the characters of the puppet theater, and his place was not replaced by anything. In 1848, when an angry crowd of proletarians broke into the Tuileries, they did not move any of the palace jewels, even if one of those brilliant objects would have provided bread for a lifetime to each of the workers. No imagination can imagine such a scene in Lenin's revolution. During the September mass murders of aristocrats in Paris, their jewels were deposited in the committee: no one dared to combine the duties of executioner and thief. In Lenin's revolution, the latter was the motive of the former. In order to better see the death of the "tyrants", the Parisian revolutionaries gave the front seats to their "ladies". The Russian revolution destroyed the word "lady", replacing it with "comrade", something close to a professional revolutionary and a professional prostitute in Yesenin's opinion. Almost every great man had his God, his moral axiom, which stood above the mass, above the earthly needs of the individual. Cromwell and Gustavus Adolphus - their Bible, Socrates - their "daimon", Wallenstein and Napoleon their destiny, their "star". For Lenin, buckwheat dominated all appointments, demons, gods. He knew only his Marx, who reduced the whole problem of the revival of bad humanity to the meaning of a purely acorn, and socialism - to the meaning of the problem of the largest number... "The leader of the rebelling slave", that's how he was, and that's how he went down to earth. They tell me: this is a caricature of grandfather Lenin! Caricature of the October Revolution! It led to the downfall of the rotten regime, to the appropriation of peasants, etc.! No, the tsar was overthrown by the March Revolution, and the appropriation of the peasants came without Lenin's will. Dostoevsky gave a good definition of the Bolshevik rebellion, and I only substituted valid real values ​​in its algebraic form. But how could this "rebellion of slaves" succeed even for a short time? - Very easy. He succeeded precisely because the noble aristocracy, the ruling class, had lost the instinct of domination, and the bourgeoisie, the greenhouse plant of the government, had not yet acquired this instinct. Gogol also complained about the "endless disputes" accepted in Russia; to the fact that there were no generally accepted axioms. His observations have remained true to this day. In the psychology of the Russian bourgeoisie, it was not only "shameful to be good", but also rich! And Proudhon's view, "property is theft" was widespread not only among the proletariat. What is surprising, then, that Lenin's experience could succeed? The revolution wins mainly because of the weakness of resistance. And this weakness was seen by the same author of "Demons" when he wrote: "Everyone will fall long ago and everyone knows for a long time that there is nothing to hold on to. That is why I am convinced of the success of this mysterious propaganda, that Russia is now the main place where everything what you want can happen without the slightest resistance." But how could he go to order over the revolution, over the March revolution, which overthrew the tsar and established the republic? - Actually, this is where the semi-barbaric Russian element came to his aid. As for her, Herzen also predicted that the Russian revolution would not stop halfway. D. Merezhkovsky also wrote about this in 1907: "When all the historical forms of our state and church life will be rejected, then such a void will open in the political and religious consciousness of the people that will not be filled by any existing forms of European statehood... What next? Leap into the unknown, fly with your heels to the mountain. The Russian revolution is as absolute as autocracy. Its conscious, empirical continuation is socialism, its unconscious-mystical extension is anarchy"... Therefore, not the bourgeoisie, not socialism, but anarchy is destined to win the upper hand in the Russian revolution. It is not surprising that her prophet triumphed both over the rotten Tsar and over the political hysteric Kerensky. Lenin was the one who (he alone!) among uncertain opponents and undecided friends understood what the chained beast wanted and broke out to be its leash. He gave his rebels a clear theory and a simple goal, his simple, unshakable and complete opinion, with the red-hot iron of his words he drew in the minds of the "Spartans" such a seductive and bloody scene of a terrible judgment for them, his scattered hatreds - focused on one point, their dark instincts advanced noble goals, popularized the methods of achieving them, finally gave the entire Bolshevik movement that gloomy, purely religious pathos, without which neither this nor any other social movement has ever won. In seven respects he was truly great and only the envious can deny his genius in seven respects. We will learn to see this genius even more when we consider that he had to complete his work almost by himself. Because history put him in a truly tragic position: he took over power at a time when the ruling clique had already rotted, and like a ripe vegetable fell under the knife of the revolution, but he had to stand at the head of the strata, which, although alone capable of revolution, were not yet matured to replace the old aristocracy sent to the shafot. Life soon forced Lenin to the conviction that Trotsky also came to (in his last book - "Questions of the Bat"): that the Russian "proletariat is very poor in history and tradition", that it is "lowly literate and poorly cultured". He knew how to destroy the old, but not to build something new. And least of all the utopia that Lenin dreamed of. Every utopia has its own dictator and pope. Lenin became - in one person the dictator and the pope of Bolshevism. The anarchy that Bolshevism had disentangled with its slogans could only be crushed by the hand of a dictator, and Lenin did not retreat before the last consequences of his "theory". Like any fanatic (and he certainly was), he was ready https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 4/6 11/28/ 23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN cast his faith on mistrust. He always had an aversion to the "sweet socialism" of the Mensheviks. V. Chernov in "The Will of Russia" quotes one of his sayings: "Man's birth is connected with the act that makes a woman a tortured, tortured, maddened with pain, bloody piece of meat. This must be remembered when thinking about old - pregnant with a new system - society". And Lenin remembered millet! True, he often confused a surgeon's lancet with a butcher's knife, but these were already nuances that were difficult to understand for the straightforward logic of the creator of Bolshevism. And it must be admitted that precisely with this courage to put an entire nation on the operating table, with the courage to take responsibility for everything, and also with an unbridled lust for power and domination, he defeated all his opponents: Cadets, Mensheviks, socialist revolutionaries and - Ukrainians who did not manage to turn their idea into something equivalent to Bolshevism: neither by its brightness, nor by its exclusivity, nor by its absoluteness. He was a typical dictator, a "man of purpose". And that's a long time ago. In seven respects, he was a typical intellectual who rebuilds the world according to a scheme invented in his office. Intellectual Procrustes. He long ago called those politicians who were skeptical about the possibility of "pulling the movement (of the masses) from the path defined by encirclement" as "fools" (Iskra, part 12, 1901). Even in his first writings (especially in "What to do?"), he always defended the idea that nature errs, that it needs "experienced helmsmen", that "a dozen intelligent people are worth more than a hundred fools". This last statement - he writes, addressing his opponents - "I will defend him, no matter how much you harass me in the crowd for my "anti-democracy". Even more, this Marxist insists that in revolutionary work "the energy is not only of a circle, but even of an individual units can do wonders. Social democracy arose "independently of the spontaneous growth of the labor movement" only "as a result of the development of thought in the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." Therefore, the only way out for the proletariat is to submit to the creative socialist intelligentsia, because "the spontaneous development of the labor movement leads rather to its submission to bourgeois ideology", to pure, apolitical trade unionism. He was - like Dostoevsky's reformer - "convinced that our people will now accept everything that we point out to them, that is, in essence, what we command them. Our common men have remained completely landlords in relation to their people, even "At the 2nd congress of the RSDLP, he strongly spoke out for strict centralism in the party, for a "state of siege" against dissidents: "We need external carnality, because we do not have internal carnality." The former dictator of Russia transferred these principles from the party to the entire nation. Thus, from the deification of the mass, he came to the apotheosis of the unit, a hero that Carlyle could have envied him, and to the glorification of that intelligence ordonnatrice, which was praised by the "papist", "monarchist" and "reactionary" - Joseph de Metre. Only that he understood the role of this "commanding intelligentsia" in his own, Russian way. And that's why - as the Russians themselves claim - "in no country has there ever been such a number of spies and even such a number of executioners (as in Russia). These two positions are two whales on which the Russian state dictatorship rests" ("Kingdom of the Antichrist", Art. D. Filosofov) The reader may ask: how can such contradictions exist in the soul of one and the same person: a demophile and a dictator, striving to make the whole of humanity happy, all the oppressed - with cynical contempt for the crowd? - These are the secrets of the psyche of a person born in Europe, but only a few layers away from Asia, the secrets of Russian culture, where every patriot was a "landlord" at heart. L. Trotsky rightly said that "Lenin's internationalism needs no recommendation, but at the same time Lenin himself is deeply national" (Bolshevik, January 26, 1924). As Shigalov in "Devils" he could say about himself: "I got confused in my own data, my findings are completely contradictory to the assumptions from which I came out. Starting from unlimited freedom, I end up with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that contrary to my resolution of the social formula there can be no other." Did he at least achieve his goal with this heroic means? - It was successful, but not his, but the goal for which history chose this person. Ex nixilo nixil, the Romans said. He thought that he would be able to make ex nihilo nihilism with the meager material of the Russian revolution: to jump into his "kingdom of freedom" in one fell swoop. But the seventh genius of destruction lacked a positive concept. After all, this is a typical Russian trait. Turgenev also spoke about her in "Fathers and Children", comparing Moskal to those Russian painters who "regarded Raphael as almost a fool, because, they say, he was an authority, and they themselves were powerless and barren to the point of disgust, and in their imaginations further" Girls near the well "doesn't reach, no matter what"! The same thing happened to Lenin: he also considered all Raphaels to be fools. Not to mention the "bourgeoisie", even all European leaders of the proletariat were "social traitors" and "social idiots" for him. He destroyed all the authorities, but when the time of "creation" came, everything ended with useless plagiarism: a Feldfebli state in the spirit of Nicholas I, an agrarian reform in the spirit of P. Stolypin, and a caricature of capitalism - the NEP. It ended - in his own words, "the adaptation of the great revolutionary science to the ruling bourgeoisie." ("State and Revolution"). Other strata, not the schwitzende Plebejer, whose ideologist was Lenin, used the revolution for themselves, which they also did, although they did not lead in it. This was mainly the peasantry. Together with him, all those values ​​that were cursed by the Kremlin syllabus came out victorious: the principles of social hierarchy, personal initiative, religion, national feeling, to which Lenin himself had to appeal. "Envy" - died out after saturation, "equality" - seemed unattainable, the interests of "digestion" - gave way to the highest absolute ideal values ​​so despised by him. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html 5/6 11/28/23, 3:51 PM V. LENIN The sovereignty of the number - seemed inapplicable even in the land of "unlimited opportunities". It was replaced by old laws: historical burden and selection. Objectively, history chose Lenin to fulfill two tasks. The first was: the elimination of the bankrupt caste that ruled Russia, and which had already killed the instinct of domination, not being able to fulfill elementary tasks: neither to keep the peace nor to wage war. The second such task was to turn Russia away from the European path on which Peter I introduced it, and which in its logical consequences should have led to the collapse of the empire. * (In his "Critical Observations on the National Question" (Prosveshcheniye, ch. 10-12, 1913) Lenin wrote: "The national cause is ahead, the proletarian one is later, say bourgeois nationalists and Mr. Yurkevich, Dontsov, etc. p. The proletarian cause is ahead of everything, we say, because it ensures not only the permanent and fundamental interests of labor and the interests of mankind, but also the interests of democracy, and without democracy neither an autonomous nor an independent Ukraine is possible." These words raise the question of whether Lenin's the dictatorship, as well as the October Revolution in general, were not a tumultuous attempt to contain the collapse of the empire, to which the democratization of Russia that had begun would lead with iron extremity?) To destroy the tsars and save the empire from disintegration, such were the tasks of the waves of Russian politics. And therefore, against his will, mocking the bourgeois revolutionaries who were limited only to political-peasant revolutions, Lenin became the leader of this particular revolution, because the socialist revolution did not succeed. And therefore, laughing at the "elements", appealing to the "conscious proletariat", taking his theory from the West (from Marx) and dreaming of a world revolution - he ended up organizing a Eurasian rebellion against Europe. He succeeded in his first business. The second is still not resolved. The Russian "troika", which Gogol mentioned, is rushing, although not with such fury, further in its unforgiving run, trampling tribes and nations along the way. And although other peoples deviate in front of "the troika, which rushes to the broken neck, but this may not be out of respect for her, but simply out of horror... Or maybe out of disgust for her." And the time is not far off when these peoples "will stop deviating, but will become a solid wall in front of a flying dream and will themselves stop the mad rush of our debauchery in order to save themselves, culture and civilization." It seems that the time prophesied by Dostoevsky is already approaching, and that the days of the Comintern are already numbered. The state created by Lenin, instead of fanning the world fire, must prevent the favors of the Western banker and the Ukrainian "curcula". Speaking about his task, Napoleon said: "An unknown force drives me to some unknown goal. Until it is reached, I remain steadfast and untouchable. But as soon as it no longer needs me, a fly will appear to knock me over." The same can be said about Lenin. As long as the forces of the old tsarist-noble aristocracy lived and were active, while the empire of the tsars was torn apart, the Kremlin paralytic lived and did his thing. When this danger passed for the moment, nature did not want to leave him alive, even half-mad. In his interesting book about the Pope, the Catholic writer I have already mentioned says: "It has long been noted that revolutions are usually started by sane people and end by madmen." Lenin did not want to cede this "end" to someone else, and therefore he had to personally prove the truth of the rule just mentioned. The curse of our history is that we could not oppose the seventh collection of unquenchable fanaticism, unyielding energy and a purely pontifical sense of our own infallibility - we could not oppose anything equivalent. But history will record in its annals someday that when Lenin died in Moscow, Ukraine was the grave of Leninism. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118152503/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html PING Banner Network 6/6 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Dmitriy Dontsov TO THE OLD GODS They are resurrected only where there are graves (Nur wo die Graber sind, gibt es Auferstehungen) F. Nietzsche The moral crisis of our intelligentsia will be the bane of the day for Ukrainian public life for a long time. Looking for its reasons is not the topic of this article. Here, on the occasion of the student congress, I would like to draw the attention of the growing generation to a single thing that, in my opinion, is now needed by those young people who have the opportunity to learn. To warn her not to follow in the footsteps of the previous, mentally ill and soul-sick generation, which, having grown up in the dark dungeon of slavery, tries in vain to recognize the true path with blinded eyes. At first, it was seen in a possible understanding, some with "happy Austria", others with Russian statehood, then in a united revolutionary front, finally in a world revolution, that is, concepts that, under the guise of universalism, took as their national ideal - the ideal of a foreign people. Some limited the flight of their imaginations to Xiang on one side, Zbruch on the other. Others - with a wide range of opinions - did not want to leave even a scrap of our land outside the borders of... Russia. Our intelligentsia bowed down to these foreign or false gods, and in their name destroyed each other, like the Roman gladiators, and how the same gladiators, even after receiving the death sentence, did not forget to send to their master: "Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant", as this was done by our pilgrims to Moscow, or those who paid their "gold" to the capital of Vistula - even in Riga. People of this generation moved apathetically through the historical arena, "bez pragnen jutra, bez wspomnien wczora", as one Polish poet said. And most importantly, without "memories of yesterday", without those memories of the deeds of parents that rejuvenate the soul like old wine, without a moral connection with them, without traditions. This is what I want to draw attention to. No nation that wants to live on traditions dares to forget. Especially the one that is reborn to a new life. Because Nietzsche truly said that resurrection is only possible where there are graves; that you can breathe a living soul only into an already ready, albeit waveringly frozen organism, that only the one who had yesterday has tomorrow; that only a nation with tradition can rise. Elsewhere, that tradition was respected. In England, she was in all public and social life. The memories of "old England" and the "glorious revolution" of 1688 live with all Britons, and one of the most important arguments with which the English working class fought the doctrine of Bolshevism was that this doctrine "did not correspond to the traditions" of their country. Republican France continues more than one work of its kings, and among the defenders of the idea of ​​traditionalism there are such names as Tain, Balzac, Bourget, Vaugiet, Morras. New Poland again vacillates between the old traditions of 1613 and 1667. And even in Russia, this typically traditionless (because uncultured) country, the current order, hostile to democracy and Europe, is a traditional continuation of the old one, and Lenin's statist ideology with its bureaucracy and connection of personal and social initiative, - useless plagiarism of the tsar and its apologists - Leontiyev, Danilevsky, Tyutchev, Ukhtomsky. By studying these authors, by studying the policy of the tsar, we will understand Bolshevism rather than flipping the cards of the "Communist Manifesto", just as a Frenchman who studied the era of Richelieu will better understand the task of his country's national policy than the one read by the debilitating pacifist sermons of Jaures; just as an Englishman would sooner understand the tasks of the continental politics of his island by reviewing the history of Cromwell or the Pitts than by delving into the works of Wales, Bellamy, and other utopian maniacs. Similarly, when we want to orientate ourselves in the goals of Polish politics, we prefer to read the monuments of the 17th-18th centuries as modern journalism, approx. Prof. Baudouin de Courtenay. A nation is something more than those who want to make its history today. This is a great community of those who live and those who lived. The latter are far more numerous than the former and not all are more stupid than them. They did not disappear forever from our lives. Coming from the historical arena, they bequeathed to their children and grandchildren their views, ideas and goals, which are usually not realized by one generation. Fighting and dying for the national ideal, as they understood it, they, the dead, left to their descendants a large number of dreams, impulses, competitions, memories of glory and dooms of revenge, a huge force of the once active national energy, which could only be felt, but stubbornly pushed forward to realization the national goal, a whole symphony of ideas in which the sensitive ear will find its meaning; a number of detached hints from which a thinking politician will derive the ideal of the nation, like a mathematician from signs incomprehensible to a layman - the solution to the problem is clear to all. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 1/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS Based on specific facts, and above all from the unchanging geographical circumstances, daily interests of the nation, these great dead, although intuitively, often accurately guessed the essence of the national ideal, weaving a thread of tradition: anti-Turkish among the Balkan Slavs, anti-Russian or anti-German among the Poles, anti-European among the Muscovites. To catch this thread of tradition that our ancestors began to weave, to assimilate their experience, condensed in traditions and customs, and on this basis to find the formula of the national ideal - this is the task that fate set before our intelligentsia five years ago, but to solve we are still waiting for this task; because it is difficult to find another country where the nation is more attached to its tradition, and the intelligentsia is less. The latter probably had no more respect for these traditions than for the Holy Sepulcher, which was guarded by the Sultan's soldiers. We did not write about national holidays in any other way than as a reference, and the prevailing socialist doctrine considered any argumentation from history to be an evil tone. What could be common, it seemed to them, between St. Volodymyr and - insurance of workers against accidents? Between the "Word about Igor's regiment" and the socialization of land? Between Gonta and - "cultural and national autonomy"? Between the blue and yellow flag - and "the first of May"? Such doubts crept into the timid soul of the Ukrainian intellectual, and since he respected Shevchenko after all, he began, upon coming to power, to resolve the quadrature of the circle, that is, to catch what could not be caught. It had to come out, it means a fiasco or a farce. Because when the Directory, to which we owe the Bolshevik declaration, began its era with a national prayer on Sophia Square, it was a farce, it was Offenbachism. When the hetman, paying tribute to the times, called his first prime minister "chief of ministers", this was also a caricature, only in the other direction. It was a caricature to sing "She's not dead yet" and wave a red handkerchief, just as it was a farce to call the regiments in which "Soviet deputies" were introduced by the names of the old hetmans. And to blame the "socialization" of the land on a peasant who buried a caught horse thief alive in the ground for violating his private property was something more: it was already driven away by the psychology of Gogol's Popryshchyn, when he began to date his notes on March 35. There was less of this farce in Galicia, where the "shadows of forgotten ancestors" still hovered over the living, but its tradition was one-sided, glorifying Khmelnytskyi not only for how he began, but also for how he ended; that she only knew about his campaign against Lviv and the alliance with the tsar, but did not want to know about his later agreement with Sweden - this prelude to the Mazepy region, which, unfortunately, due to the death of the old hetman, did not reach the end. The end of the seventh confusion of concepts is not foreseen yet, and the reason for it lies precisely in the fact that even on the political stage there must be harmony between the text and the music. Our ancestors observed this harmony. When Ivan Mazepa generously endowed our churches, it was not a lie, just like his call to fight for "our Ukraine of Little Russia". But the Directory of St. Sofia is a fake. To liberate one's homeland with "International" on one's lips is a lie. To make the great singer Zaliznyak a communist is profanation, and to match Shevchenko's Haydamaks with the melody of the workers' Marseillaise is simply cacophony. While composing it, we forgot that every great historical action must have an ideology that follows from its very essence. That is why our intelligentsia could not create this ideology, which sought its beginnings not where they were: not in the national tradition inscribed in us. The Czechs were leading their new liberation movement from Žižka and Hus. The Poles from 1832 and 1863, the French could only develop admirable zeal in the last war because each of them could not get over the disgrace from 1871, dreaming of revenge. The story goes that during the Franco-Prussian war, when the dynasty had already fallen, Thiers was not surprised when asked who the Germans were still fighting, and Bismarck answered: "With Louis XIV." - He knew that republican and tsarist France both lived by the traditions of this king, as well as the fact that they had to be destroyed when Germany wanted to emerge victorious in the war. In England, the mobilization of 1914 succeeded so brilliantly because everyone there knew what it was about; the traditions of the struggle against Holland, Spain and Napoleon suited each Briton, and he had to do in view of the excessive growth of the new rival Germany. Actually, thanks to the power of its tradition, England could be certain, as in the time of Nelson, that at the right time everyone fulfills his duty. Why could the United States put an end to Wilson's hospitality in Europe so soon? Only thanks to entrenched traditions, which in the form of the Monroe doctrine sat firmly in every Yankee, not allowing him to sacrifice the interests of the land to the whims of a cabinet scientist. In Lviv, I repeat, even though it is a one-sided tradition, the statue of Y. Sobinsky on the Hetman ramparts is still alive there, and it is the same living history as Louis XIV was for Bismarck. But in Greater Ukraine, almost no one thought that the heroes who fell under the Circles, laid down their heads in the struggle against Peter I and Catherine II... They wanted to replace these dictates of the past with abstract "universal human ideas" and thus destroyed the nation. Because when we argue our right to the land not by the fact that our parents sat on it, but only by the right of "who works on it" (a significant socialist slogan!), then we open the way to it for the rights of the nation. Because when we argue for the right to "own house" not by the fact that we got it from our parents, but by the right of our contemporaries to "self-determination", then we will hardly be able to unlock other people's claims to the northern Chernihiv Oblast or to the Kholm Oblast. Because if we want to bring the rules of politics for the nation into harmony only with abstract ideas of justice ("do not kill" and other principles of international pacifism), then instead of a nation we will have a sectarian community that does not care where it lives, that is not tied to any territory and which, like the German colonists-Mennonites, whose faith does not allow them to use weapons, feels equally good both at home and on Ukrainian walls that are foreign to her. Such sectarians, for whom their own law was higher than the laws of their grandfathers, are on the best way to betray their nation, as did the French Huguenots who fought against their country in the ranks of the Protestant armies, or our "internationalists". On the contrary, the nation can hold its own only then, when it draws the rules of its life not from sectarian commandments, but from concepts and ideas that arose in the endless struggle of generations for the preservation of the ancestral land and family. Only where this last commandment is placed above all other principles of "law" and "justice" will a nation rise. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 2/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS A nation is what opposes itself geographically, historically and politically to its neighbors. And that is why these latter actually tried to destroy in us the notion of our geographical isolation (Little Russia, Lesser Poland), memories of our own historical past, of our own political contests narrated by our grandfathers. Because when we are deprived of this, when the knots that bind us to the past are tied, the differences between us and our neighbors are erased; when our territory is their territory, our history is their history, we descend to the role of American immigrants, people with a tradition forgotten across the ocean, people from whom equal "citizens" of a new, acquired homeland can rise, but never a nation with its own political contests ; a "national minority" similar to the Jewish one may rise up, which differs from the ruling people only in faith, language and customs, but not a nation aware of its petty state-political struggles. Because in order to ensure the forces of rights (faith, etc.), the nation does not need no own territory, nor a state - does not need to be a nation. What's more! Unable to do without traditions, nations that destroy their own assimilate others. This is actually the case with American immigrants, loyal citizens of the United States. This is also the case with other "internationalists" who become loyal citizens of Russia. When the Russians take the families of those shot in Ukrainian towns to Siberia, so that the memory of the execution does not reach their descendants, when they systematically starve and depopulate Zaporizhzhia, the strongest center of protest against foreign power, they know what they are doing. They also know what they are doing when they begin to derive the nation's right to life from the principles of abstract justice, which can (unlike age-old traditions!) be "interpreted" one way today, another way tomorrow. In the same way, when on this side of Zbruch they try to drive a wedge between the nation and its intelligentsia, they do it only in order to take away from the masses the memory of their past, the memory that lives in the educated stratum of the nation and on which it can alone grasp its rights nation. Our friends understand the meaning of tradition better than we do, leaving us to believe in "universal" ideas of "eternal justice." And even when our fighters for the nation discover universal human principles and are guided only by the interests of the nation, it is no better when they rely only on the power of their own dialectic, neglecting the dialectic of our ancestors, who, I repeat, were not all stupider than us. The same thing happens to them then, as to the Protestants who comment on St. Scripture is as one wants, and they do not accept it (like Catholics!) as a tradition handed down, preserved and interpreted by the Church. As a result - there is one strong community of believers, here - as many heads, as many minds. How much of this political Protestantism has developed among us due to ignorance and neglect of our own tradition! We didn't care for her either now or before. Did we have historians who were engaged in this? Did the Kostomars, the sworn defender of the fatal Pereyaslav error, cherish those traditions? Or Kulish, this deep, underappreciated, but deranged mind who, although he had a statesman's instinct, did not believe in the strength of his own people and wrote brilliant novels to prove that Ukraine was not mature enough to live independently? Or maybe the last, most well-known of our living historians, who saw our national traditions not in the princes and not in those masses who are now fighting for independence, but only in the "Tatar" and "Moscow people" who destroyed our state in the XIII and XX centuries? What tradition could they bring up in us? And those who could do this, revealing to us the national ideals of the people, like Lazarevsky, Yefrimenkova, Lypinsky (I am not talking about his political works), who among our intelligentsia read them? Bismarck destroyed the "sun king" of the French, because he was a whole political program for France, and what was Mazepa for us? Dead name! In pre-revolutionary times, Ukrainian patriots gathered for Shevchenko's illegal commemoration, but did any circle go around mourning the sad memory of the day of the Poltava pogrom? Even when the Russians, like Bismarck Thiera, tried to convince us that by closing "Prosvit" they were fighting Mazepinism (which was the holy truth), our intelligentsia protested against the "unworthy slanders." Our aversion to the traditions promoted by the masses was so great that we could not even use the heroic struggle of the Kholm Uniates against Orthodoxy, so that the Poles took away one of the bright sides of our history. The Muscovites took away the tradition of the Pochaiv Mother of God, about which our nation created wonderful legends, making it a tool of their agitation in Galicia. Everything that smacked of national tradition, all large, mass urges to independence, were tainted in us as "Polonophilism" (Mazepinshchyna!), as "bourgeois riots" (anti-Bolshevik uprising), all attempts to create a national ideology were tainted as chauvinism. Any desire to close the chasm between the two remnants of the nation and to create a true, based on the traditions of the Sobornytsk ideology, which does not know concessions in either direction - was destroyed, and is still being destroyed, by the criminal hand of foreign mercenaries. Under the poisonous breath of our public opinion, only currents and moods of sentimental Ukrainophilism, impotent opposition, "self-sacrifice of Little Russianness" and Sanozbruchan particularism could flourish. And even now, when, fortunately, the threads of the interrupted tradition are re-imposed in constant competitions, they want to re-thread it in our country, causing the so-called Kriegshetzer's and singing an old song about brotherly nations. Yes, and they, opponents of our tradition, also tear up old graves, but not for what Jesus opened the window of Lazarus's house, only like hyenas, to destroy what still spares time. Under such circumstances, where was our intelligentsia to look for memories that would serve as a guide in its struggle? What could be used to warm hearts falling from despair? Where was the enthusiasm with which the fighters of Verdun, or the German volunteers, laid down their lives on the altar of their native land? A handful of dedicated madmen, whose names will be pronounced with their heads uncovered, were also found in us, but what can we say about the mass of the intelligentsia, which still vacillates between the Zaporozhian herring and Marx's "Capital", between the native land and the "socialist fatherland", between Kyiv and Moscow, between "Deal" and "Prykarpatska Ruse"? She, this mass, has not yet found her God, and I want to warn the younger generation against her unbelief. Let it, taking from its exhausted hands the flag of the struggle for the liberation of the nation, respect more, get to know this nation more, believe in it more. Let him call on the shadows of his great ancestors "for advice", as Shevchenko did in a moment of inspiration, let him delve into their history, let him try to grasp from their deeds an idea that may have been half-consciously enlightened by them, such as the idea of ​​state control of the Black Sea coast and Crimea, which probably appeared to the Cossacks when they sacked the coastal Turkish towns, or as the idea of ​​a great rampart from the Baltic to the mouth of the Dnieper, which appeared https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor /donzow_dostaryh.html 3/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS Khmelevi, who made a pact with Charles X, or Mazepi, imposed it with Carpus XII. Let our youth study the "tales of the bygone years", and maybe they will understand more clearly what an absurdity for our nation, what a denial of its most vital interests, are attempts to give our politics only a national or social, and not a state character. Maybe sooner will get an answer to the damned question - where to go. Reviewing the old history, she would have seen that the idea of ​​Ukrainian independence existed in the political consciousness of almost all European states, that active involvement in the Ukrainian cause emphasized its connection with one of the most important ideas of European politicians, the ideology of political balance. She would have learned that the political goals of our closest neighbors, including their expansion into Ukraine, were dictated by their strategic and geographical position, and not by the form of government. She would see that nations rise up and live not by pacifism, but by war, that the nation's will to live mocks itself due to the lack of "natural boundaries" and the so-called "historical limitations." If this generation of ours had rummaged through the old tomes more, it would have spared itself many unnecessary humiliations in front of its neighbors and a childish belief in the constant change of the regime and the puritanical shyness of entering into an alliance with "Entente imperialism" or with "Prussian reaction" and suddenly, as if in a handkerchief, tossing from one orientation to another, would save the endless swaying between enthusiasm and prostration, between the great and the ridiculous, between heroism and excess. I'm talking about history. It is no less worth delving into ethnographic and sociological research on our people in order to understand its soul, to better guess the lines of our internal and external policy. The Muscovites had their own genius that, illuminating the soul of a Russian peasant as if with X-ray rays, revealed his worldview to us. This was Hleb Uspensky. We have not yet waited for someone who would introduce us to the secrets of peasant philosophy. Brilliant tests by Stefanyk, a few hints by Cheremshina, Kotsyubynskyi and Franko, that's all. But even more so, we have raw material in various ethnographic collections and in the mouths of the people, who in these terrible four years enriched their life experience and philosophy with more than one new wisdom, laconicism of form and precision of expression, and most importantly, the maxim that it will get ahead of the by more than one party wisdom of our intelligentsia. If the latter wanted to learn more about the village and its social and political ideals from the first sources, and not from the works of Bakunin and Marx, she would have saved herself not one lick, not one or two compromises and would not need to mourn now, crushing the trouble with a mine , the ruin of their demagogic endeavors, as the French Jacobins mourned her on the 18th of Brumaire. What is said here about history and folk philosophy can also be said about national culture and the Church. If we really knew about the traditions of our Church, one of our most prominent socialist politicians would not have expressed his surprise "that red Moscow can tolerate (sic!) the head of the Church such a monarchist as Patriarch Tikhon" (see "Thunder. V." ch. 89), because our free Church has never known such slavish dependence on the state, which the mentioned socialist praises... because we did not have such slavish concepts about the relationship of the Church to the state... With this wavering, we must to finish everything, we have to choose: either "Saint Sophia", or "religion is an opium for the people", or our native land, or - the proletariat that "does not know the homeland"; or one's own state, or - a "socialist fatherland" that does not destroy borders; or Mazepa or Kochubei; or Khmelnytskyi or Kysil; or "society" or nationalism; or renunciation of an independent political idea, or own statehood; or Dragomanov, or national independence; or endless looking back at the principles of "humanity" and "justice", or reckless march forward; or as if it is internationalism, which is only a cover for someone else's nationalism, hostile to us in essence and form, or our own national ideology. The nation, its past and present in the manifestation of its will, thoughts and feelings must become the subject of research of the growing generation, when it wants to feel and understand the collective ideal of the nation, when it wants to reach the end of the road, on which the previous generations have stepped, lighting the way for us. Let at least that part of the youth, to whom whimsical fate allows, take up this difficult, this burdensome work of studying the national tradition, the thread of which a bunch of irresponsible maniacs who do not see Kyiv beyond Lviv, or those who are hypnotized like a dreamer, want to interrupt in vain place, brilliant Moscow baths. Let him learn to dig up great graves of treasures, more clearly set goals and methods of their realization than in the penny pamphlets of the March egalitarians. Maybe then we will finally stop being a headless nation. Maybe then the gap between the national ideal and the people who have to implement it will disappear. Maybe then the titanic efforts of the people will cease to be a powerless struggle and will acquire their clear form and purpose. Maybe then that disproportion between the genius of the nation and its brain, which has always been the bane of our history, will finally disappear. And one should not be afraid to bear the slander of reaction. Because only the new is lasting, which is firmly rooted in the old. It was not the new that Robespierre or Babeuf wanted to introduce with their utopias that won out of the French Revolution, but the old that was transferred to Napoleon's new code. This seems to me to be the task of our younger intelligentsia abroad. It is easier for her to do this, because she met her destiny in the chaos of struggle, and not in submission; because in her memory there are no memories of dozens of years of shame, which bind the soul and character. Everyone who believes in the resurrection of the nation should undertake this work, because, I repeat, the national ideal is cultivated by a number of generations; because even the latest efforts are only a synthesis of the previous ones; because, not paying attention to the signposts set by our ancestors, we will lose our way, as it really happened; for a nation that does not have and does not honor yesterday will never have tomorrow. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 4/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM TO THE OLD GODS For "they rise only there , where there are graves" and where old gods are revered... Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/ История национального духий Украины 1800-1920ые годы. SpyLOG PING Banner Network https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143611/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html 5/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS DMYTRA DONTSOVA The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Смотрите также страницу Дмитрия Донцов YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV Dmytro Dontsov is a native of the Ukrainian South, more precisely Priozivya, where, as Oles Gonchar writes, every spring "over the open steppes... frightening black storms swept" and where "all over the steppe from Nogaysk to Kakhovka, they were met with flags. Crowded peasant processions, going out in clouds of dust against the elements, fell on their knees, begged for it to subside." But at the same time, "probably, nowhere were there such beautiful mirages as in the south, in the waterless steppe. Like pure, tireless dreams, they flowed for whole days, never approaching, never separating... Luxurious silver rivers across dry peasant roads" ("Tavria "). Such was the region where Dmytro Dontsov was born and grew up, although his family was not traced back to Tavria. The Donts family came from that part of the former Slobozhanshchyna, which belonged to the Voronezh province. The population of Slobozhanshchyna, from which, after the liquidation of the Cossack orders, was first formed into Slobidsko-Ukrainian, and later, by division, Kharkiv province was created, adding the northern districts to Voronezhshchyna, this population was the descendants of people from Right Bank Ukraine. It settled there, fleeing from Polish oppression and persecution in connection with the failed uprising of the Huns and Ostryanin, and then during the so-called ruins. In the 17th century Slobozhanshchyna (mainly the territory of the current Kharkiv, Sumy and southern districts of Kursk and Voronezh regions) belonged to the Moscow state and was not inhabited. Ukrainian fugitives, Cossacks and peasants, settling in the 17th-18th centuries. in Slobozhanshchyna, established Cossack orders there, organized their own regiments and followed Cossack customs. Among the organizers of Ukrainian settlements in Slobozhanshchyna, the Dontsi Cossack family was well-known. With the liquidation of the Hetmanship and Cossack liberties, the Moscow government also abolished the Cossack order in Slobid Ukraine, turning it into a province organized like other Moscow provinces. The former Cossack foreman received Russian nobility. Descendants of the Donts Cossack family also became such nobles, changing their surname to Dontsov. Whether Dmytro Dontsov's family originates from those Dontsivs is difficult to establish today (Dontsov himself was not sure of this), but there are reasons to assume that the Dontsov family originates from those actually Ukrainian settlers in Slobozhanshchyna from the 17th century. Commenting on the accusation that he is of Russian origin, Dontsov says the following about his family in one of his letters: "Why do Visti call me a Russian? Let me call myself. This is what Lypinsky wrote that I am Russian, because "I was born in region, which the Russians call Novorossia"... Besides, Dragoman-ov, Petr-ov, Fitil-ov, Vetukhov, these are not Russians. It's all stupidity and the malice of those good-hearted people... When Zinchenko tells that her parents come from from the same village as my father, so this must be a mistake. My father (who died in https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 1/ 8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV 1894) came not from the village, but from the city, and not from Poltava Oblast (like Zinchenko), but from Slobid Ukraine (Ukrainian part of Voronezh Oblast ).Reading D. Bagaliya's "History of Slobozhanshchyna", I found out that many people emigrated from there to our Tavria at one time and that we had many names that are often found in Slobozhanshchyna (Kharkiv region and Ukrainian Voronezh region, Podonia). In general, this name is very common in Ukraine, I have not come across it in the Moscow Region. I read in Bagaliya that the first colonizer of Slobozhanshchyna (which was a state-Moscow territory during the Hetmanship) was Colonel Fedir Donets (from the Right Bank) and that in the 18th century his descendants - when all the Cossacks applied for the recognition of their Russian (Russian) nobility - he changed his surname to Dontsov and also to Zakharzhevsky (this was to prove his ancient, still from Poland, nobility). Whether my father came from those Dontsovs, I don’t know, in any case, it was an indication for me how the Dontsovs turned into the Dontsovs..." The Dontsovs moved to Tavria in the middle of the 19th century, wanting to take advantage of the favorable colonization conditions there. The Dontsovs bought near 1,500 acres of land, beautiful for grain farming, but Dmytro Dontsov's father did not want to engage in farming, but settled in Melitopol, a small county town at the time, located above the Molochnaya River, not far from the shores of the Oziv Sea, organizing his own commercial enterprise for the sale of agricultural machinery there . In Melitopol, the Dontsovs had several larger residential houses that they rented out. Ivan Dontsov turned out to be a good entrepreneur, became well-known in Melitopol, for a while he was even the town foreman. The Tavria Governorate, created in 1802, was an important area of ​​trade and grain Although the settlement of Tavria began relatively late, it has its own interesting history that dates back to the Neolithic. The so-called Stone Tomb, which was a place of religious rites, is still preserved near Melitopol, and the Melitopol Mound from the 4th century. to n. e. belongs to the early Scythian state during its heyday; its center was in the Crimea. At the time of Greek colonization, this space, together with the Crimea and the Black Sea, was under Greek rule. In the following centuries, this was the path by which the great migration of peoples took place; later it was a "buffer strip" between the Princely State of Kyiv and the nomadic Asian hordes. When the Tatars gained a foothold in the Crimea, then the so-called Muravskyi Shlach, one of the main routes of the Tatar campaigns to Ukraine and the Moscow lands, ran from the Crimea to the north, along the Molochnaya River. Settlement of Prioziv began after the destruction of the Tatar threat, when the Crimea came under the rule of Russia. This happened just at the end of the 18th century, and already in 1815 the foundations of Melitopol were laid. The tsarist regime contributed to the colonization of Priozivya. Thousands of acres of land were distributed to Russian landowners, who began to settle their possessions with serfs from other Ukrainian regions. Foreign colonization was also allowed, thanks to which Bulgarians, Serbs, Moldovans, Georgians, and somewhat later - Germans and Italians settled there. Russian colonies were also organized then. This mixed colonization with the advantage, however, of the Ukrainian element, affected the uniqueness of Tavria, where different cultures collided, as if restoring the tradition of centuries past. In particular, after the end of the Crimean War, a kind of march of Ukrainian peasants "to Tavria by will" began, and then tens of thousands of our peasants left their homes, went to Crimea and Tavria and settled there. Then many residents of the former Slobozhanshchyna arrived there, among them the Dontsov family. Immigrants from Russian lands created colonies separate from those from Ukraine and did not mix with the Ukrainian population. Telling about his young years in Melitopol, D. Dontsov, among other things, mentioned that there were such Russian colonies in the vicinity of Melitopol, but the Ukrainian population did not have any social contact with them. Despite the low level of national consciousness of the Ukrainian population (they still considered themselves "Little Russians"), the feeling of difference from the Russians (or, as they were commonly called, "Katsaps") was very clear. Even at school, according to Dontsov, Ukrainian students did not want to be friends with "catsaps", they created their own circles, for fun https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/ donzow_bio.html 2/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM DMYTRA DONTSOV'S YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS sang Ukrainian songs. All this took place at a time when Russian was the spoken language among the Ukrainians themselves, that is, the language of the same "katsaps". According to statistics from 1895, there were about 70 percent Ukrainians in Melitopol and Tavria, while the rest of the population consisted of a wide variety of ethnic groups that settled there during the 19th century. As Dontsov recalls, the "Mediterranean atmosphere" prevailed, which, of course, had its influence on the spiritual formation of young Dontsov. Dmytro Dontsov was born in Melitopol on August 17, 1883. In addition to him, there were two brothers and two sisters in the family. The living conditions of the Donts family were good. The Dontsovs had large profits from the estates they rented out and from the trade enterprise, which was successfully developing. In the Dontsov family, according to the custom of the time, Russian was spoken, although the family also knew Ukrainian. Dontsov mentions, for example, that his mother arranged so-called readings for children and guests, and her favorite author was Oleksa Storozhenko. The house had its own library, which, in addition to Russian authors and some Ukrainian ones, also had translations of works by Western European authors. The family visited the Ukrainian theater (tours of Ukrainian theater troupes that also visited Melitopol) and were keenly interested in cultural life. Dontsov's parents died at an early age, when he was only eleven years old. The father died in 1894 at the age of 54, and the mother, who was only 39 years old, the following year. After the death of his parents, his mother's relatives took care of him, his sisters and brothers. Dmytro Dontsov received primary and secondary education in Melitopol, graduating from the so-called real school, which prepared candidates for higher technical schools. His brothers also graduated from this school and later continued their studies at technical institutes, and after completing their studies worked as professional engineers. Young Dontsov was not interested in technical disciplines and planned to enter the university. For this, he had to supplement his secondary education in a classical gymnasium and pass additional exams, because a real school did not give the right to enter a university. Dontsov left Melitopol in 1900 and moved to Tsarskoe Selo near St. Petersburg, where he completed his secondary education. After passing the exams, he enrolled in the law faculty of St. Petersburg University, which he graduated in 1907. Dontsov's stay at the studios in St. Petersburg for seven years had a great impact on his spiritual and worldview development. At that time, St. Petersburg was not only the political center of the Tsarist Russian Empire, but also a place where there was a strong and active Ukrainian center and where Ukrainian cultural and even political life could develop more freely than in Ukraine. Ukrainian students were especially active in St. Petersburg. They had their own Community there, within which they conducted vigorous work in various areas of Ukrainian life. Ukrainian students did not stay away from political issues either. After starting his studies at St. Petersburg University, Dontsov did not limit himself to the disciplines defined by the program. He became involved in the activities of the student community and took a comprehensive interest in its life, persistently studied social and political problems, studied philosophical works, got acquainted with the works of Russian and foreign authors. Dontsov devoted a lot of time to the study of the Ukrainian past, Ukrainian history and Ukrainian literature. Among other things, Dontsov writes about this in his diary, recalling that in St. Petersburg he "admired for the first time Konyskyi, "Kyivska Starina", Umanets (the author of the monograph on Mazepa) and, above all, Lesya Ukrainka." Alexander Lototsky in "Pages of the Past" writes about his acquaintance with Dontsov in St. Petersburg, recalling that Dontsov could always be found in the St. Petersburg public library, covered with books and notes. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 3/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV "IN Petersburg student community," he writes, "Dmytro Iv. Dontsov got an ideological cross. As a student, he was impressive with extraordinary hard work. He could often be found in the public library, - there he collected stocks of that knowledge, which later became the basis of his distinctly national worldview. In numerous in abstracts at student assemblies even then he expressed slogans that he later developed in his printed works. At a turning point in the creation of a national worldview in the minds of Ukrainian students, when ruthless criticism of "Ukrainian culture" and "Ukrainophilism" directed young Ukrainian forces to the Russian revolutionary camp, the vivid national opinion of the future popular publicist prevailed even at that time in the areas where the alternative - Ukrainianism or Russianness - was weighed. D. Dontsov's significant role in deepening the national moment in the ideological worldview of the students was indisputable even in the early days of the existence of the Ukrainian community, in which he was one of the more active members, and later, when the student body listened to his voice in completely original magazine articles and brochures and invited him to cooperate in its organ - "Ukrainian Student". Dmytro Doroshenko gives a similar description in his memoirs about the Ukrainian Student Community in St. Petersburg. "Back in the spring of 1903," he writes, "I noticed in the reading room of the university library a student I didn't know who was constantly reading publications of the Shevchenko Scientific Society and Ukrainian scientific books from Galicia in general, that they could be obtained from the library only with a special by the recommendation of one of the professors. It was Dontsov. But I did not know him then." Dmytro Dontsov belonged to the Ukrainian Student Community at a time when such famous Ukrainian figures as: brothers S. and M. Mazurenka, D. Doroshenko, sculptor M. Havrylko, M. Stasyuk, O. Nazaryev, artist Yu. Mogalevskyi were members of the Ukrainian Student Community , Valentina Yanovska-Radzimovska, V. Sadovskyi, L. Matsievich, P. Krat. "Being in a foreign land," Dontsov recalled later, "caused a mad nostalgia that encouraged the Ukrainian colony on the Neva to join national organizations. V. V. Radzimovska... belonged, like me, to the Ukrainian Student Community, which met at the Polytechnic Institute outside the city. There were also the stairs of the RUP-ists. The legal "club" where our students met every week was also in the "Andriiiv school" on Vasilivsky Island. Dontsov was not a member of the RUP, because he became active in Ukrainian political life just at the time when the RUP adopted a socialist platform and changed its name to USDRP. Having become a member of the USDRP, Dontsov joined the revolutionary activities of the party in St. Petersburg in 1905-7. The St. Petersburg group of the USDRP included the entire student body, and senior citizens included L. Bych, D. Lavrentiev, L. Matsiyevnch, A. Shablenko, K. Arabazhyn. The revolution of 1905 shook the entire Russian Empire. The Ukrainian community in St. Petersburg also felt it. For Dontsov, the year 1905 is of special importance, because this year marks his first public speech at a political event in St. Petersburg and his first arrest. Dontsov wrote about this first political speech and its consequences: "Together with senior Ukrainians on the Neva (O. Lototsky, Lavrentiev, L. Bych, later the head of the Kuban Regional Government in 1918), they organized in the fall of 1905, in the assembly hall of the University , the first Ukrainian political event with a desire for independence! of Ukraine. For this event, as one of the speakers, I was arrested and transported to the Lukiyaniv prison in Kyiv, where they had to "sewn" me to the trial of the Kyiv RUP-ists." The police took Dontsov to Kyiv because, during a search, literature of the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party was found in his possession. This case, however, ended without major complications, because due to the general amnesty, Dontsov was released from prison without a trial. Forced stay in https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 4/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOVA in Kyiv and acquaintance with the Kyiv active of the USDRP, pushed Dontsov to become more active in the ranks of this organization. After his release from prison in November 1905, Dontsov left for St. Petersburg, but already in January 1906 he returned to Kyiv, where he became a member of the Kyiv group of the USDRP, which at that time included such figures as: Mykola Porsh, Simon Petlyura, Andriy Zhuk , Valentin Sadovskyi. USDRP started publishing its newspaper "Slovo" edited by S. Petliura and M. Porsh. In this newspaper, Dontsov began to publish his first political articles. At the same time, he took part in work among Kyiv workers, organizing cells of the USDRP and spreading socialist ideas among our workers. Recalling the assignment of the Kyiv Party Committee of the USDLP to conduct campaign work among the workers, Dontsov says that he could not successfully complete this task because this form of activity did not suit him. The Committee took this into account and instructed it to prepare informational material about the USDRP and the socialist movement in the form of small brochures. These brochures were prepared by Dontsov, but due to the arrest of members of the Kyiv Committee in 1906, and Dontsov himself in 1907, they were not printed and were wasted. One of its leading members, V. Sadovskyi, who moved there from St. Petersburg, wrote in more detail about the situation in Kyiv at that time and about the USDRP. "At the time when I arrived in Kyiv," writes V. Sadovskyi, "the evolution of the transformation of the party from a group with a vague socialist-revolutionary outlook into an organization based on orthodox Marxism was ending in RUP circles. The source of this Marxism in we were primarily Russian social-democratic publications, and of the two factions that divided the Russian Social Democratic Party not long before, the Bolsheviks had greater sympathy among us, and Lenin's works were especially popular." The level of national consciousness "was not ... high. Undoubtedly, the majority of the pas was brought up by reading general economic and socialist literature, and not by reading Ukrainian studies. Even the knowledge of Ukrainian speech was not at the proper height; some spoke in jargon that had little in common with the literary language. However, it seems to me that all the people who belonged to our group were united by a distinct Ukrainian patriotism." Socialism was a fashion and a means, as Sadovsky notes; he adds that "now, when I recall the names of all those who passed through The RUP and later, through the USDRP, found themselves so far from both socialism and the labor movement, the conclusion is drawn that in our submission to the slogans of Marxist orthodoxy at that time, there was to some extent a moment of using the political conjuncture." To people who considered socialism as a means , V. Sadovsky also included D. Dontsov. V. Sadovsky says that Dontsov, "being a student of St. Petersburg University, could not take part in the student life of Kyiv", but still "actively worked from party among the workers". One can agree with V. Sadovskyi's statement about Dontsov's "conjunctural" perception of socialism and a number of our other figures (e.g., D. Doroshenko, O. Skoropys-Yoltukhovskyi). All of them joined the socialist movement, because this the movement, according to Doptsov, "put before our eyes the banner of the struggle against tsarism, it was the only truly revolutionary movement at that time."10) They were not socialists in the full sense of the word, although they stood on socialist positions for many years and spread socialist ideas and in the name of these ideas they risked their will and life. D. Dontsov, as a leading member of the USDRP, soon made a name for himself as a popular socialist publicist, and when the newspaper "Nasha Duma" began to be published by the Ukrainian faction in the Second State Duma in St. Petersburg, he became one of its editors. While in St. Petersburg again, Dontsov continued his active activities in the student community. He also took an active part in the work of the local group of the USDRP, which, according to him, "at that time — March, 1907 — . ..was enough https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 5/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS DMYTRA DONTSOVA numerous, there was almost no higher scientific institution, both male and female, where we did not have our members." But young Dontsov was not only interested in the aspect of the fight against the Tsar. Even then, he considered this struggle as a struggle for the national liberation of the Ukrainian people from Russian dependence! At that time, when practically the entire Ukrainian socialist active got acquainted with socialism from Russian publications and in a Russian interpretation, Dontsov studied the Western classics of socialism and tried to interpret them from the point of view of Ukrainian interests first. The consequence of this was the later unusually interesting studio of Mr. Dontsov. "Engels, Marx and Lassalle on "unhistorical nations". The different understanding of Marxism and socialism in general soon became the cause of the conflict between Dontsov and other members of the USDRP, who could not understand the need and expediency of sharply emphasizing the national moment in the socialist movement and Dontsov's negative instruction towards Russian For Dontsov, again, this national moment was fundamental, and he did not see any political expediency in the fact that Ukrainian socialists and the USDRP consider themselves a constituent part of the all-Russian socialist movement and sail in the all-Russian revolutionary, whether socialist or democratic, fairway . Dontsov's interest in the issue of Ukrainian-Russian relations was not a one-off. He often mentioned that back in Melitopol he was looking for an answer to the question of why Ukrainians and Russians, schoolmates in a real school, avoided each other and why "we sang in class Russian songs without any feeling or pleasantness, and during the breaks between lectures the walls of the school shook from the singing of Ukrainian folk songs, which no one taught us and which we still knew and admired." A fragment of the event remained alive in Doshchev's memory, which, as he insisted, definitely had an impact on his views, or rather on their later development, regarding the understanding of Ukrainian-Russian relations. On the occasion of Melitopol's 80th anniversary, the city administration issued a special commemorative publication, in which, among other things, it was emphasized that Melitopol is on the path followed by "disasters for the Great Russian and Little Russian peoples." While reading this publication, "I realized, and it became quite clear to me, that we are talking about two different peoples, and not about one people with the Little Russian ending," D. Dontsov recalled. Already in St. Petersburg, Doptsov got acquainted with Mykola Mikhnovsky's brochure "Independent Ukraine", which, as he later claimed, "made an indelible impression on me, still a young student." In particular, Dontsov highly appreciated the fact that M. Mikhnovsky correctly raised the issue of Ukrainian-Russian relations. "Taking part in the Ukrainian revolutionary movement before my first emigration (1908), I understood and learned from M. Mikhnovsky to understand this movement as anti-Russian in general, not only anti-regime." This statement of Dontsov is of particular importance, because it clearly indicates the spiritual process that took place in him during his ideological and organizational connection with the socialist movement. Carefully studying the past of Ukraine, in particular Ukrainian-Russian relations during the Hetman period and Russia's policy towards Ukraine after the liquidation of the Hetmanship, Dontsov came to the conclusion already in his student years that there are no real prerequisites for a joint path between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples and that the Russian people will always try to keep Ukraine depending on yourself. The future of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people will be decided not in cooperation with Russia, but in the struggle against it. Having come to such conclusions in his views on the path of development of Ukrainian-Russian relations in the future, Dontsov began to popularize these conclusions in his articles and public speeches. Dontsov was fascinated by the dynamics and program of specific revolutionary activity in the fight against tsarism, which was proposed by the socialist movement, but, as he says, "even then, I could not agree with the international tendencies of this movement, which in Russia are identified with Russophilism. I accepted the platform of struggle against Tsardom, but immediately and always at the same time I raised the national question. Against this background, my conflict and break with the socialist movement and my withdrawal from the USDRP soon came to a head." https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 6/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV An interesting light the problem of the formation of Dontsov's national worldview is addressed by the observations of D. Doroshenko and O. Lototskyi in their memoirs about the Ukrainian Student Community in St. Petersburg. D. Doroshenko recalls that in 1904 he was elected head of the Community, which at that time already stood on socialist positions. Dontsov was not yet a member of the Society, but only a candidate for membership, that is, he passed the inspection, which was final due to the conspiratorial nature of the Society's activities. Dontsov's membership was positively resolved, but at the same time, as Doroshenko writes, a new problem emerged, because the Community, with the transition to socialist positions, began to move away from the idea of ​​Ukrainian independence, and against this, opposition formed among the members. This opposition was headed by O. Nazariev, M. Shemet, M. Stasyuk and D. Dontsov. "The opposition had, so to speak, a national background: it did not want to unite with the All-Russian Social Democracy, seeing in this first of all the weakening of the national moment in the Ukrainian movement. I recognized in my heart that they were right," writes Doroshenko, "but I appealed to their sense of public discipline and proved the danger of some sort of division or split. As I recall, a split did not occur, and our oppositionists did not leave the Community, although within the Community they created, so to speak, a national faction." Again, O. Lototskyi writes in his memoirs that "there was a current in the Community that disregarded the national moment. At one time there actually existed in the Community a national faction, to which D. Dontsov, D. Doroshenko, Nataliya Shcherban, O. Nazariyev, M. Stasiuk". Dontsov's activities in St. Petersburg and Kyiv soon attracted the attention of the Russian police, and in 1907, when Dontsov was in Kyiv, he was arrested a second time. All the other members of the Kyiv Committee of the USDRP were in prison at the time, and they, like Dontsov, were to be tried. Dontsov was threatened with four years of hard labor, and then exile. With the help of his brother and sister and the help of Valentina Yanovska-Radzimovska, his friend from his student years in St. Petersburg, Dontsov was released on bail after an eight-month stay in the Lukiyaniv prison. Taking advantage of this release, he immediately left Kyiv and traveled abroad illegally. For Dontsov, this was an unusually happy arrangement of relations, because he fell seriously ill in prison and could hardly survive hard labor. Having illegally crossed the Russian-Austrian border, Dontsov arrived in Lviv on April 12, 1908 (the very day when M. Sichnsky assassinated the governor of Pototsky). During 1908-9, he was treated in the Tatra Mountains (Zakopane), where, among other things, he got to know V. Lipinsky better. There, he met the outstanding Polish philosopher and publicist S. Bzozovsky from the generation of the so-called Young Poland, whose work should have had, as some suggest, a significant influence on Dontsov. After finishing treatment, Dontsov moved to Vienna, where he enrolled in law studies at the University of Vienna. Dontsov continued his studies in Vienna until 1911. In Vienna, Dontsov met a student, Maria Bachynska, whom he married in 1912. Dontsov had just finished his studies in 1917 in Lviv, having received a doctor of law degree from Lviv University. Despite studying in Vienna and Lviv, Dontsov continued his journalistic work, contributing to Galician socialist newspapers, to "Ukrainskaya zhizna" in Moscow (editor S. Petlyur) and to "Literary and Scientific Herald" in Kyiv (editor M. Hrushevskyi). When the social-democratic organ "Dzvin" was founded in Kyiv in 1913, Dontsov became a permanent employee of this magazine as well. In 1909 and 1913, Dontsov gave speeches at student congresses in Lviv. At the 1st student congress, he read an essay on the topic "School and Religion", and at the 2nd congress, he read a paper on "The Modern Political Situation of the Nation and Our Tasks." Both these reports appeared as separate pamphlets. Dontsov's other work "Modern Muscovite" appeared as a separate edition at that time. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html 7/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV Having settled in Lviv, Dontsov worked as part of the editorial staff of the social-democratic magazine "Our Voice" together with L. Yurkevich (Rybalka) and V. Levinsky. Dontsov's journalistic work, in particular his three mentioned publications, earned him the reputation and name of a leading Ukrainian publicist among Ukrainian society and among foreign experts on Eastern European issues, as well as among Russian circles. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143444/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html PING Banner Network 8/8 11/28/23, 3:49 PM THE FLOCK SPIRIT AND THE SPIRIT GUIDELINES The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… также страницу Dmitriy Dontsov THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP A hundred years will pass and some Ukrainian sociologist will look with surprise at one pathological phenomenon in our public life, namely the stupid association. Union as an end in itself! So that there is no leadership of one camp, although this happens everywhere, even in Great Britain, where the nation is led by a single party, and never by an association. This aversion to leadership goes so far in us that all groups willingly push it on the shoulders of the so-called "people", the nation will decide, the nation will tell us... Who will tell? Wired!? A good idea of ​​what a leader is... A nation, a mass - knows, although not always - what it does not want. He rarely knows what he wants. When a revolution broke out in the tsarist empire in 1917, the nation knew what it did not want. But he didn't know what to want, so that what he didn't want didn't happen. This should be told to him by a guide, who will lead him on a good path, if the guide is good, or on a misleading one - if the guide is evil. The nation in 1917 did not want war, did not want a weak tsar, nor the noble caste, nor the army, nor the police. But he did not know what should be given instead. The leading group that forced him to do this were the Bolsheviks, who explained that instead of the police, we need a militia, instead of the tsarist army, we need a red army, instead of a war, we need an "indecent measure", instead of a tsar, we need Lenin, and instead of a bankrupt nobility, as a ruling caste - "people's commissars". The Moscow people, undisciplined, uncultured, wild in their thirst for revenge and eager for welfare and profit, believed the Bolsheviks' delusional recipe and followed them. Let's see what happened. But it is about something else: the fact that the nation does not formulate the positive goals of the revolution, it is done for it by this or that party or group, which the more active part of the people will follow and the passive - the more passive. In the struggle between several contenders for national leadership in Russia, the Leninists won, defeating not only the tsarist forces, but also the liberals, "Essers" and other leftists. It was the same during the French Revolution of 1789-1804, when in the civil war and in the bloody struggle of various revolutionary national groups, the Jacobins (Robespierre, Marat, Saint-Just) won for a long time, until they were swept away by Bonaparte's army. This was the case during Cromwell's revolution, when the helm of the state ship was not taken by the entire crew, but by a minority - the "captain and officers". This was during the uprising of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi. The great hetman never made any alliances, he raised the flag of rebellion himself with the Zaporizhzhya Army, and it was no secret to anyone that he and the people of Khmelnytskyi - in case of victory - would be the leading caste that would rule the liberated Ukraine and unite the nation. It was no different, for example, in Poland between the two wars. Pilsudchiks, who took over the state helm, were far from having a nation, a region behind them. When the Polish legionnaires appeared in Warsaw liberated from the Muscovites in 1915, there were cases when they were thrown from the trams... And one legionnaire-poet wrote with chagrin in one newspaper: And when to Warsaw, to Warsaw itself, Dotarc vsrud The bug helped us roll, the crowd welcomed us - it was always interesting, the depression of the heart was crushed on the cobblestones! This same mob later handed power in the region into the hands of pilsudchiks. And this is how it always happens: one or another active minority formulates the tasks of the nation and the day, and leads the nation. Why does this happen? The well-known historian Hippolyte Ten explains this phenomenon using the example of the French Revolution. He characterizes the average French people of that time as follows: "To avoid isolation, to join the largest community, to always create a mass, some kind of larger body, to always follow the impulses from above, which gather scattered units together - this is the instinct of the herd." And he, in fact, infected the French masses. In the decisive moments of the revolution, this mass quietly obeyed the Jacobin terrorists: "the habit of obeying and a certain mildness of character, cultivated by the administration of the monarchy and ancient civilization, destroyed in man the ability to foresee danger, the military instinct, the ability to rely only on oneself, the will, to help each other , save yourself. Therefore, if the revolution turned such a nation into a state of primitive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 1/5 11/28/ 23, 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP disordered relationships, domesticated animals were devoured by predators." And further: "The French need to feel united, they need to touch each other; swagger, no rules, no methods, rebellion in words and not a single soul that would not tremble before the corporal"... And from this it follows that they "having a need , to be ruled by them, as rams need a shepherd and a watchdog, accepting or putting them down, even if the shepherd is a butcher, and the watchdog is a wolf." These words of Teng probably did not apply only to the French. Maybe he expressed his opinion too drastically, but nevertheless it is fundamentally correct. The vast majority of the masses are busy with their everyday affairs, the struggle for dry bread and need protection, peace, and well-being. And those who lead it and protect it from wolves - shepherds and guard dogs - are an active minority, people of a different breed, molded from different clay. The mass needs to be led, and it will follow the one who has the leadership instinct in his blood, the team, who has the courage to point the way and take responsibility for its correctness, who affirms his idea without compromise, and formulates it clearly, clearly and unambiguously: who has an emphatic yes and an emphatic no! Who knows what he loves and what he hates, who firmly knows where a friend is and where an enemy; who is ready to fight and fight for his own, firmly believes in his idea and that only he or they (this group) are called to lead the nation. Only this impresses the masses. That is why Ten says that the masses will rather follow such a shepherd who is a butcher, and such a dog who is a wolf, than a lead which consists of sheep, has the psyche of the mass and has not escaped the inherent herd instinct of the mass. In a nation where such a separate, self-aware leadership group has not emerged, where a stupid association reigns, in such a nation the indivisible instinct of the herd reigns. Such a nation does not act as an independent factor, does not play a separate role in the event arena. Where such a leading group has crystallized, it has a chance to lead the masses, to unite the nation. Where there is no such group, there may be unification of groups, parties, and cliques, but there will never be unification of the nation. Because it will not impress anyone, not even its own. Some of our politicians approach the issue of unification as if there was a disagreement about agreeing between the long-suffering and the recalcitrant. The differences between those worthy persons are obviously not such that they cannot be reconciled over a glass. It seems so easy for "cultured people" to get together, to "listen calmly to different opinions", so easy to do "free exchange of ideas", which is "a guarantee of a healthy, correct development of the team". Why fight? And then "the group becomes incapable of critical thinking", then a "pathological complex of intolerance" prevails in it, etc., etc. self-excluding ideas! In times when each nation split into different camps and when within each community there is a struggle for - "either master or perish!" My opponents do not like "abstract theories", they prefer real facts and the practice of life. Fine! Let's take the real facts, and those confirmed not by me, but by them themselves, those supposedly practical, in love with all kinds of associations, countrymen. They preach the unification of all people of one blood. This is a theory, but what does it mean in practice? None of them feel able to be Cromwellians, and therefore - a union! And then everyone is attracted to such an association. Those who in their declarations refused to mention the armed struggle against Russia in even one sentence... Those who, in interviews with foreigners, called the UPA "a minor phenomenon that is not worth paying attention to" are attracted. It attracts those who called the Ukrainian partisans - "Banderiv SS". Those who, in 1939, offered their "loyal cooperation" to the Bolsheviks in order to build not a fantastically romantic, but a "modern, real Ukraine" under the leadership of Stalin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs... Everyone is attracted! It attracts those who admire world federations and put forward "maximum relative independence" as a slogan, because there can be no absolute independence... It attracts those who ridicule Ukrainian "fascists" and denounce them in front of their "dear comrades" Moscow socialists and others. It's like that in politics: unite everyone. And there is also a "united front" in literature. MUR creates "great literature" from all but "narrow nationalists". The Shveiks hang out, and the pro-independence newspapers kindly welcomed Sherekh's pupils, one of whom was recently written about as having once been a Vlasov native, an employee of Hitler's newspapers, then a Banderite, then a Bagrianite, and then became a Hetman and a neo-Catholic. The second was also at first an employee of the Bolshevik "New Ways" in Lviv, then the Parisian "Ukrainian Word", then the Hetman's "Nation on the March", then - laureate of the Ukrainian Catholic Union, literary editor of the "Ukrainian Tribuna", and finally ended up in the Bolshevik "Hromadskii Golos" ". Such sheiks created the "united front" of the Association in Literature (MUR), smeared the nationalist idea ("Zauzka" was for them!), detested the "man of the liberation movement", spat on the poets of "Visnyk" and this magazine, and all with almost complete indifference the so-called citizenship, because it also stood for unification. And how was it possible to get rid of such valuable persons in it together with their protector? Even supporters of the armed struggle against Russia believe that those who wage that struggle have no right to represent the nation. There must be "all-national leadership". Because while he is gone, many of the opportunistically minded intellectuals will stand aside from this struggle... And although it was clear that the intelligentsia does not want to "join the revolutionary struggle" simply because of "ordinary petty-bourgeois life and political opportunism"; although it was clear that the opportunistic intelligentsia was competing with the UPA with "false demagogic arguments", nevertheless, it turns out, it was necessary to finally create a "general national leadership" through armed struggle, to which it was necessary to attract those opportunists who opposed the armed movement and also "lying, demagogic arguments"... https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 2/5 11/28/23 , 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP When in Galicia in 1939 they wanted to create an association, when it was necessary to involve opportunistic parties in the leadership of the revolutionary struggle, it was not possible to create a general leadership composed of representatives of various organized political parties simply because that such parties did not exist at all. A significant part of the former prominent Ukrainian political figures found themselves in the UCC camp and waged a fierce struggle, both against the UPA and against the idea of ​​a revolutionary struggle for the Ukrainian state in general. But even those units that "took a neutral or favorable position towards the UPA" were difficult to attract. And the opportunist camp, when calmer times came, came to the light of day again, advertising itself as the "brain of the people", as "the only, orthodox democrats". They got out in order to capitalize on the rebel movement in Ukraine, armed to their hearts. It would seem that the politicians of this camp should be kept as far as possible from the revolutionary camp and movement? It turns out not! That one or another "general-national association" should be formed with them, one should consolidate with the representatives of those "non-existent parties". This phenomenon is definitely pathological! Argumentation does not play a role here, it is only so, among others, because one must have some kind of argumentation! In reality, the bare herd instinct speaks here. Because it is difficult to prove that the union of revolutionaries with perekinchiks, with candidates for Vlasov or "loyal collaborators" of Bolshevism, with the main enemies of the revolutionary action, with former or future quislings, can benefit the liberation movement. The consolidators advise the various parties to come together, each to give up a little of its truth, to take a little of the truth of the other party, and the true path will be found. There will be nothing more to argue about, the "brothers of the same blood" will come together... True, the consolidators admit that "during the 30s, only the nationalists waged a ceaseless war with all the horsemen and, above all, they continue to wage it." But still the cry of the day is "agreement and unification of blood brothers" of all parties that have never fought with the horseman and are not fighting. True, the more intelligent of the united people already understand that not everything is in order with those "single brothers", that among them there are also non-noble brothers who "deliberately sell their unfortunate homeland for a treat", they are simply traitors and should not be consolidated with them. .. Many of these? I think that it is a lot. Our age - as usual in similar eras - throws up both heroes and scoundrels. And it is not only our time. I. Franko also noticed that everything is not in order with those "single brothers". Among those "blood brothers" he found how many people with a "lack of true character", people "sentimental, without heart and willpower", how many "all kinds of renegades and werewolves"! How many "slaves with cockades on their foreheads", "footmen in gold ornaments", how many "swineherds" in spirit, how many "slanderers and Pharisees" did Shevchenko find among his compatriots! How many among his compatriots did Gogol find "worthless Little Russians" who "flood St. Petersburg with informers." Our terrible age, I repeat, splashed the surface of life, next to individuals of great heroism and dedication, and this noise. There are these types in our political environment. There are them in emigrant parties and in all kinds of institutions. And should they be attracted to the "national association"? And to involve those "blood brothers" in the national representation so that there would be more, that there would be everyone?! The conflict between the revolutionary-independence camp and those "countrymen" (Shevchenko's expression) is not, as emotional patriots think, about different views on the liberation cause, but about something completely different. It is about the conflict of people of different character, different spirit, different breed. And such conflicts are smoothed out not by discussions, but by struggle. What will help to take those "compatriots" to the national leadership? Self-employed people cannot find a common language with them, nor can they harness themselves to a joint action. They are quislings by nature. Sometimes toothy quislings, but only quislings. They do not believe in their nation and its truth, they are only servants of every occupier, and they strongly (verbally) speak only against such a pawn who does not want to talk to them, does not want to give them "even half a soul". There is a breed of people who were, for example, "nationalists" under Hitler, and when Roosevelt won, they discovered a "democratic" heart, and even a socialist one. These are people with the mentality of those figures of the First World War who, under the Central Rada's socialist orthodoxy, thought to buy favors from the masters of the situation. People are the psyches of Vinnichenko and Hrushevskyi. No matter what they call themselves, no matter how they conform to the idea of ​​nationalism they betrayed, - by nature, by temperament - they are a breed of toughs who have no faith in their own strength or in the truth of their people, and who - "from tactical reviews "- are always ready to throw themselves under someone else's flag; who with their "diplomacy" might be in place of the directors of the provincial "Prosvita" or cooperatives, but who, climbing into the arena of politics, lose the cause for which they undertake. Join them? This means compromising the national idea in front of foreigners, weakening its prestige and attractive force among the general population. With them, it is possible - under favorable circumstances - to create from Ukraine a colony or a protectorate of some international mafia, whose favors they preemptively beg, but never - national Ukraine, in which its own truth and strength would triumph - won't be won with quislings. A big mistake is made by those who think that the cause of independence and national revolution will benefit from a union of independentist national groups with the camp of coolies. It is naive to fool yourself with the hope that together with them you can find your great national truth. Some imagine this matter very simply. He thinks that "community truth" can arise when each individual and each party "renounces a part of their small truth in favor of a big, general one"... But where is this big general truth? Where are its carriers? When different groups and parties gather together with their "small truths", when they renounce some of those truths, then who will give them the great truth, for what benefit do they renounce their little truths, when none of the groups carries that great truth? https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 3/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP Some think that one should not be "too strongly" attached to one's truth, that one should not warm it with the heat of one's heart, but approach the matter with a "cold mind". The whole trouble is that, according to those agreeable people, "our perception of the world is not cold, we warm it with our heart's blood", and, in fact, this is dangerous, because "being in the shackles of the heart, it is difficult for us to rise to grasp the essence existence, as it is demanded of us by a cold mind"... And a "cold mind" knows that "truth is not absolute, but divisible"... Therefore, let everyone shed something from his truth and Ukraine will be "saved", find your truth! ("Ukr. Sam.", June 29, c. year). If you think like that, it means that the Lord sent us his prophets and soothsayers in vain. Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka, Olena Teliga preached our great truth with a fiery heart and burning love, not with a "cold mind". Absolute indivisible truth! No, our whole misfortune lies precisely in the fact that there are few among us who have a burning heart, few people who would hold on to our great truth, considering it absolute. The trouble is that we have few people with unconditional faith, which does not weaken, but strengthens the mind. The problem is that the so-called people with a "cold mind" are people without faith, without love. These people are eternally shaky, having neither a clear yes nor a clear no. These are the lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, whom world history throws into the dustbin... No, not with those people of small, divisive truths, nor with those people without a heart and without faith, who are always ready to "lower the price" of their small truth , - the great truth will never be found, nor will one go with them on the great path of liberation. The truth is usually carried by a single, at first small, community. Whether good or bad, the process does not change. A small group of apostles carried a great truth. Cromwell's "roundheads" carried their truth. The people of Khmelnytskyi carried their truth. The Jacobins carried their "truth" of the devil, followed by the Bolsheviks. A small group - "superstitious", "intolerant", "fanatic", etc., as they are called, are those people who are unable to either believe, love or hate. Need to tell one truth once and for all: thirty years of Bolshevism in Ukraine, and before that about 120 years of tsarism, counting from the complete abolition of autonomy in 1783 on the Left Bank and the annexation of the Right Bank in 1795, created in Ukraine the type of "despicable Maloros", in Halychyna - a type of "Rutenets" - krutiya, which is still not without a trace. The type of new Ukrainian, in whom the ancient Cossack soul was reborn, the type evoked from the past by the genius of Shevchenko and the ranks of a new generation of independents and fighters, people of a new spirit - in a large minority on our land. When men of this spirit join together for their great cause, they must know that they are a minority. They must know that they are not on the road with people with the mentality of "Yarema - the son of a brat", who even with the wings that grow behind his shoulders, sweeps away the light of a foreign master. This minority must bring our great truth to the masses, in general, and that minority will unite the nation around that truth. And never - the common truths of long-sufferings and perepenkos. I have been developing these ideas for a long time. And in front of me, M. Mikhnovsky wrote in "Independent Ukraine" - which is worth remembering - that we are not on the road with those "one-blood countrymen" who "cultivated a whole cult of loyalty", who distinguished themselves by unheard of "servility and lack of ideas", who "made the Ukrainian movement as something ridiculous, something shameful". Michnovsky called for separation from the so-called Ukrainianophiles: "they have no place with us." This slogan even today refers to those "people with a broken heart", or simply indifferent to the cause of liberation. In one municipal resolution from 1950, it was stated that the reasons for the failure of consolidation measures were "incorrect political concept, in hidden tendencies, principles and methods, and in the character of its organizers." It seems to me that the reason for the failure was only this last - the luck of the consolidators! There is no consolidation with people of that temperament... The whole world is divided into different camps, between which an open or covert public war is being waged. On the one hand, communism, its socialist "enemies" are friends, hidden international mafias that quietly help communism and Russia and destroy the spirit of nationalism, the idea of ​​freedom of peoples and people in the West. It is a world that, because of Moscow's intransigence, must restrain its advance, even though it does not want it at all. The second camp is the world of Christian civilization, the world of its own national truth, a world that still cherishes the ideas of nation and freedom written everywhere. The people of this camp are in the minority and among us. Our quislings have found a new master in those mafias, to whom they bow, and tomorrow they may sell Ukraine to him. And therefore they themselves are powerless, but hearing the support of the entire "progressive world", they are irreconcilable and will be irreconcilable to nationalism and to our own national truth. Nothing ever comes out of consolidations with them. This always happens when big truths collide on a narrow bridge, or the truth meets a big lie. The Quislings and their colleagues would not have quarreled if they had someone else's executive power behind them. For the lack of examples and emigration, when they turn to foreign pilates with denunciations, in order to throw unworthy "anarchists" out of the hall with the help of the police, or from the country to which the quislings have "accredited" themselves. In the times we are going through, the country will be led by those who will liberate it from the hostages. It was no different in 1648 in Ukraine. It would be no different if Orlyk had succeeded in campaigning in Ukraine in 1711. It is a great nonsense to think that the "legal representation of the nation" - in the region or in exile - when the region is under a hostage, can lead an insurgent movement against the occupier. Is it that the government and the army, in the battles with the occupier, are forced to leave the capital and continue the struggle on the outskirts as it was in 1917-19. And outside of such cases - whether the UNDO conducted a revolutionary action against the occupier in Galicia, according to the Treaty of Versailles, Ukrainian "serious representation" or OUN? Was "Kolo Polske" in Vienna or St. Petersburg directing Pidlsudskyi's armed action? "The legal representation of the nation in the occupied territory, of course, conducts a policy of compromise against the "ally", and is often its tool of compromise. Therefore, there is nothing to think https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www. ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html 4/5 11/28/23, 3:49 PM THE SPIRIT OF THE FLOCK AND THE SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP to those who direct the armed struggle of the nation, to dry their heads by molding associations and creating "national representation". such an emigrant "representation" must be waved and do its own thing. The true representation of the nation will emerge from the environment that will expel the occupier from Ukraine. And only the foreigner will be counted with that environment. But this environment must not have foreign slogans on the flag, not falsified as it were "positions of the liberation movement", which are not such and which the country will not accept, but the slogans of its national truth. Those who are solemnly convinced that they are bringing our great truth to Ukraine, people of faith and rank, people of character and courage, people who are irreconcilable to the enemy and to the bad in their own ranks, people who will be able to break out of the quisling mire and unite in a common spirit among themselves - they will only impress foreigners, they will only become an attractive, ideological and organizational center, which will later pull with them - through the heads of quislings and coolies - a nation united around our national truth. If this group does not exist, we will continue to boil in the cloaca of the association, and this will be a sign that in our groups the instinct of the herd, which does not know how to find its shepherds or its watchdogs, will continue to prevail. Attacking herds are either torn apart by wolves, or taken to protect other people's dogs... General De Gaulle could have saved France in 1944, when he would have taken the power in his hands, which was lying on the street. Instead, he began to spin the chain of unification with all "brothers of the same blood (and not even of the same blood!)", including communists and supporters of "modern France", who hated the real, traditional national France to the core, preferred it or Moscow or one or another international mafia. Came to my senses too late, when the only opportunity was lost... A terrible warning for us! AUGUST 1952 Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143341/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html PING Banner Network 5/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Dmitry Dontsova THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS (in anticipation of World War II) "The next war that will break out in Europe will not be a war of armies, but a war of ideologies." From the speech of George Canning in the English House of Commons, December 12, 1826. What the English tribune predicted became the sign under which our reality lives. Current statesmen can warn against the war of worldviews, but in vain, because this war has already come. It can be compared with the religious wars of the Middle Ages, about which a neutral Swiss wrote back in 1936: "The air over Europe is heavy and smells of iron. Time and time again we hear about a "religious war". When I first heard this word, I was struck by a mocking the tone with which it was uttered... Should fascism, Bolshevism, ridiculous ideologies have led to a religious war? And in the 20th century? No! We have become skeptics. Religion no longer plays a role in us. We always thought that moral suppression would follow , that the kingdom of reason will reign in the world. But after 1918, peace came, and instead of relaxation, we had to live through such a day of endurance of our tension as never before. Each unit became a battlefield of different ideologies, opposing each other "ersatz-religions". Not one would prefer to remain outside the battlefield, outside. But is there such an "outside" at all? Would you like to remain unaffected? But does it depend on you? Because to live in the age of religious wars, to live in a certain faith, means as much as you can and to wish to die for this belief. Those who remain on the sidelines and who are not captivated by this great life force, which forces us to put life itself on the map - therefore, do not understand "ideology", he will deny them explosive power... Nevertheless life enters the rabid phase predicted by Nietzsche. Religious wars! Myths, worldviews, ideologies, principles, secularized gods, thirst for blood - this is our age. The era of the Crusades, without flags with crosses embroidered on them." That's what the Swiss said. And that's really what this era is like, which has come to Ukraine since 1917. This is the "madness" that visited Spain in 1936, "madness" , which ceases to be so when it takes on a mass character, when it becomes the "madness of the whole people", the "madness" that Unamuno so sought to "instill in his people". And indeed, we see the same fanaticism in every country of our continent, the same division into enemy camps, the same murders and terrorist acts: Henry IV and Coligny were killed by devout Catholics, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg - future nationalists. Once Luther burned papal bulls, and now they burn Marxist bulls. Once Bartholomew's Night was done by Catherine de' Medici, now at night in Kiev, Kharkov, Odesa, the Bolsheviks do. De Guise's "Legistes" (confederates), who rebelled against Henry III, were ready to submit France to Philip II of Spain in the name of the common faith. Now the "Legistes" from the "popular front "are ready to sell France to communist Russia, also in the name of a common faith. Sixtus blessed the Spanish "invincible armada", which set out to crush the pride of the heretical Queen Elizabeth, and the Hutenot Cologny formed a coalition of states with France at the head to deliver a fatal blow to Roman Catholic Spain . Once upon a time, Protestants sought legalization of their Church in Catholic countries - now communists seek legalization of their party in bourgeois countries. In 1936, the Bolshevik naval fleet appeared in Barcelona to help their "co-religionists", and 300 years ago, the English fleet appeared near La Rochelle, besieged by the Catholic troops of France, to help their Huguenot co-religionists. As then, as now, the verbal struggle of the "clerks" is full of unheard-of sharpness. Back then they talked about "rabies theologorum", but can't we talk about the same thing now? Just then, as now, it was about more important things than this or that form of government. Monarchists were Catholics once, Protestants the second, or vice versa. Italian fascists were monarchists, and German fascists were republicans. And just as then, as now, "confessional" solidarity crossed all political boundaries. At that time, the French Huguenots enlisted in the service of the Elector of Brandenburg or the King of England to fight against their own motherland, France, sowed riots in their own country from abroad, engaged in espionage to the detriment of their native land. And the current Western communists serve Moscow against the interests of their countries. The Jesuits of that time said that for the Englishhttps://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html 1/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM RELIGIOUS DAY WAR Catholics would rather become vassals of the French king than "servants of the devil", and today's communists would rather be vassals of "righteous Moscow" than see their countries in the arms of "fascism". And just as there was no shortage of "crazy theologians" then, there was also no shortage of so-called "real politicians", as these people were contemptuously called, who were going to feed fire with water, one faith with another. Probably, when we talk about the struggle of two "religions", we have in mind only their purely religious spirit of faith in their cause and dedication to it. The above-mentioned "ersatz religions" often do not have their own concepts of God, the afterlife, the immortality of the soul, etc., which religion has. But they exist as wars between them, and they have their idols. The decline of parliamentary democracy was a symptom of the coming religious war. Prerequisites in the system of modern Europe, which allowed to reconcile the growing contradictions, slowly collapsed in all countries. Democracy and parliamentarism, the rule of a variable majority, the free play of forces, the system built on these adjectives collapsed in almost all Western states. Instead of being areas of agreement, parliaments have become an instrument of violence of adherents of one "religion" against adherents of another. When one common belief reigns in society, belief in the same social ideals, in the same moral, religious, political and national principles, a lot can be achieved through compromise, because the dispute is then only about methods, details and ways to consolidate the same foundations. In such cases, the minority obeys the majority, and the majority does not terrorize the minority. But how can one group submit to another when they are divided, for example, not by the question of the dependence or independence of the Church from the state, but by something else: should priests conduct the Divine Service or hang on lampposts? How can one group submit to another, allow itself to be outvoted, when it comes to how long the working day should last, and who - the manufacturer, the working masses or the Communist Party - should be the owner of all the factories? How can one group submit to another when they are divided not by this or that project of agrarian reform, but by a question of a different nature: should the peasant remain the master of his land, or should he subjugate the mastery of the new master - the socialist state? How can one group submit to another when it is not concerned with more or less number of parliamentary mandates, but only with becoming a separate whole, independent of the second group? When there is such a divergence of concepts in society, when there are no values ​​that can be reduced to a common denominator, when not a single issue can be discussed on a common platform, then war comes to the place of compromise, then "leagues" are created, then the age of myths begins , self-denying worldviews and principles that exclude each other, ideologies that bring destruction to opponents, the age of "secularized gods who thirst for blood." In such an age, the spiritual unity of society must be attracted by other means - as it was in the era of Luther and Vyshensky, Cromwell and Loyola, in the era of religious wars. In such an epoch, a new fanatical minority appears in order to stamp the seal of its new faith on the future ages, which would once again unite the dispersed and anarchized society. Supporters of the dying "religion" of socialism with its sub-sects - atheistic "democracy", liberalism and freemasonry - try to hold back the march of a new worldview - nationalism, presenting it in a false light. Supporters of the dying "religion" of atheistic socialism and "democracy" insist that this is not a dispute between two faiths at all, that it is an old dispute between reaction and freedom, the ruling clique and the people. In every socialist or "democratic" newspaper, you will read that just as "tsars and popes" once opposed the people and their freedom, so now "generals and capitalists" oppose them. And actually, nothing else causes such frenzy among those left-wing "progressives" as the fact that the mass is rising against them, the same mass over whose soul, it seemed to them, they have taken a monopoly for all time. One of the proofs that this is actually true and not otherwise can be, for example, the speech of Stalin's favorite, Dimitrov, at one of the congresses of the Comintern: "Fascism," he said, "must be beaten with the help of the masses, which it has driven in our mass organizations. We must break into this stronghold, with the walls of which fascism thought to protect its regime... We must change the methods of our work, we must conveniently use fascist demagoguery, speak to the masses in a language they understand, put forward slogans that are accessible to them... " So, the struggle for the masses? So the generals themselves are not in the "fascism" camp? So, these masses unite the "fascists" not by the right of legal order, as the kings once did, but by "demagogy", that is, active propaganda among them, an appeal to their idealism and sacrifice? In the past, the court, the aristocracy, were the enemies of the left. Now this enemy has become the mass, the army, inspired by idealism, the spirit of dedication and faith. It is not about the struggle of a handful of reactionaries with the people, but about the struggle of two "religions", each of which wants to become the religion of the masses. No, the revolution based on law, the revolution of the masses against the "religion" of Marx is not "generals and capitalists", as our radicals repeatedly and stupidly repeat! To fight the current right wing, it is not enough to hang a general or dethrone a king. And the methods of fighting the new "religion" of nationalism are not those used by the reaction. That country fought socialism with exceptional laws and the police, and the masses did not take part in that struggle. Now nationalism is fighting the "religion" of Marx and Lenin in a different way, with the help of uprisings. And the uprising is not the methods of "reaction", not the methods of "tsars and priests", "generals and capitalists". These are centers of young movements - revolutionary and mass. https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html 2/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE DAY OF RELIGIOUS WARS Against the mysticism of the creator of the "Communist Manifesto", against the mysticism of Lenin, Trotsky, Thorez, Blum, Litvinov, Drahomanov - a new mysticism of nationalism is rising. This is the mysticism that excites the masses, snatches them from the hands of false prophets; mysticism, which inspires a new mass movement, which both with its influences (mass), and methods of struggle (broad propaganda and organization of the masses), and zeal, and fanaticism - has nothing in common with the "reaction" that they want to see with this movement beat his enemies with blindness. The leftists criticize the new faith, in addition to "reactionaryness", and the fact that this new faith is based on violence and dictatorship, and they say that their socialist faith is based on a humane faith in freedom and progress... Who does not give up on the worthless delusion of the left Gorlais, he can allow himself to be taken by their Tromtadra phraseology. After all, how! And we, thanks to nationalism, are passing a new era of the "dark" Middle Ages! - they lament. The times of venedettes, condottiere, physical coercion and violence of various unprecedented groups are coming! One nation against another no longer knows ethical principles or restraints! "Neighbors" are in the foundations of the belief of nationalism - only people of the same race, members of one's own people! The ugly scourge of xenophobia is spreading, the strong do not respect the weak, the natives rule over the Zayds only thanks to statistical superiority, they establish the difference between a Hellene and a barbarian! Why divide people by their tribal affiliation? Why establish separate homelands, when the homeland of a gradual person should be the whole world? Why forget the brotherhood of nations? Isn't it time to come to our senses from the miasma of nationalism? Get rid of his ethical numbness, animalistic tribal instinct? Isn't it time to attract general tolerance? Can we really endure the turn of the times of Philip of Spain, who could not sleep as long as at least one of his subjects did not recognize his religion? Isn't it time to put an end to the soulless idolatry of one's own random anthropological community, the nation? This could be read, for example, in the Zionist Lviv Chwili ("The Turn of Humanism", September 12, 1936), and, I repeat, unfamiliar with the arcana of leftist delusion, was ready to let himself be convinced, listening to this rush of empty phrases... But who will look deeper into things, he will immediately notice the falsity of such "humanism". The new humanists are the twins of the old ones, from the time of the religious wars of the Middle Ages. Then Calvin rebelled against the Catholic Church for the sake of freedom, in order to burn in the name of the same freedom, insidiously luring to him, the Spanish monk Servetus. In the same way, then, in the name of freedom of thought, the Lutherans rebelled against the dictates of Rome, in order to later - at the synod in Dortrecht (1636) - establish one infallible dogma of Protestantism. Even now, when the realists, radicals, Bolsheviks and other "democrats" call for the old "humanism", condemning the "new Middle Ages" and opposing their cult of freedom and tolerance to nationalist "violence", they speak only the souls of the Pharisees. They are protesting against Philip of Spain, who could not sleep until at least one of his subjects belonged to his faith?... But then why are the same hypocrites marching under the red flags of the communist Philip, who also cannot sleep when he knows that even one of his subjects does not belong to his faith and does not want to "fall down and worship" him? Why then is the humane heart of the Pharisees silent? Are "humanists" breathing fire on the tribal exclusivity of nationalism? But that "exclusivity" is limited to its people. It has nothing in common with the exclusivity of militant Russian messianism, which, in the name of its tribal "superiority", throws itself by force on the "leader of the weak" and the "assistant of the backward" peoples... Why is this insolent tribal exclusivity not raised against the voice of the Pharisee of "humanism"? Why then, when the armed missionaries of that militant Russian nationalism put a noose around the necksa of the Spanish people, were they applauded by our radical idiots? Where was their "humanism", where was the Dragomanian statement that "clean work requires clean hands", when they consider the dirty work of Marxism to be clean and theirs? Why do those "humanists" want us to consider not only people of our own tribe as our neighbors, but they themselves do not want to recognize the Palestinian Arabs as our neighbors? How dare those "humanists" appeal to equality and blame the "lawlessness of groups" on nationalism, when they themselves catch the careless word that the Spanish communists (the Spanish "proletariat") "desire for themselves primacy" among the people, that is, precisely the dictatorship of the group over the entire nation? - as Mr. Jerzy Boreisha writes in the Bolshevizing Warsaw magazine "Wiadomosti Literackie" (October 11, 1936). All the talk about the virtues of "humanism", all the complaints about "violent" nationalism - all this is nothing more than a mask, which will be removed at the time when the "last and decisive battle" will come, when "we will be the judges", as sung in "The International ". Then these "humanists" will show the idiots who believed in their loud humanistic phrases, what the scourge is for! Under that view, nationalism is irresistibly more noble than its "humane" opponents from the camp of radicals, socialists and "democrats", because it openly says that Marxism is an evil that must be destroyed with a sword! The communist press is poison, it is a scum that must be burned with an iron! "Democracy" is an outdated slogan behind which a cabal of gesheftyars hides, it will promote communism! We dare not fight the gangrene brought by internationalism with gloves on! We must throw out the hirelings of the International from the backs of national life!... That's what nationalism says, and it's honest. Opponents of nationalism want to grind it to dust, they are supporters of violence and terror, they seek the dictatorship of their clique, even if not of their own people, over the nation without and against its will, they try to impose foreign ideals on the nation - but they wrap themselves in a toga of political innocence. , nobility and humanity! This is their delusion and cowardice, the cowardice of ideology before the onslaught of a new faith that will become dominant tomorrow. Neither reaction and freedom, nor violence and humanism are what separates the two "ersatz religions" that are waging a life-and-death war with each other. Nor the fact that "generals and capitalists" are on one side, and "the people" are on the other, because the masses of that people are clearly https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com /ukrstor/donzow_war.html 3/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE DAY OF RELIGIOUS WARS are turning away from Marxism. What then separates these two camps? Actually, the dogmas of their faith! Opponents will say yes, so does fascism have ideals that are the same for all movements that march under its banner? So, it turns out that fascism is also an international movement? So, nationalism is a movement based on a single model? No! The nationalist movement is a European movement, but not an internationalist one. The ideas of 1789 remain in many countries of our continent, in many of them anarchism prevails in its various forms - socialism, communism, radicalism. What is surprising when the reaction of healthy peoples against a common danger shows some common features? Protestantism was also directed against the same enemy, and because of this it took the form of a pan-European, but not an internationalist movement. Luther and Zwingli were at war with each other, and German Protestant pastors with Dutch ones. Cardinal Richelieu supported Protestant Germany in the war with the Catholic Habsburgs. In our time, there is also not always an agreement between the "ersatz religions" of nationalism, as it should be if they had an internationalist character. There is no law of international solidarity of fascist movements. One fascism can even aspire to a protectorate over others, like France over the Catholic and Sweden over the Lutheran German princes during the 30-year war, because not all European conflicts are exhausted by the war of "ersatz-religions" among themselves, but within each nation this war is a fact of great weight and, as such, a universal fact. Nationalism is a rebellion against personal and collective egoism. Rebellion against the ideology that puts the interests of the class above the nation, the national minority of the country above the autochthons, the interests of labor unions uniting two or three million, above the interests of a nation of 40 or 50 million, even above the interests of the state. Nationalism is a rebellion against the ideology of socialization and dispersal of society; rebellion in the name of old and eternal truths - work, discipline, law, the cult of ancestors, one's own blood and one's own land and its traditions, the Church, rebellion in the name of the principle of organization against the principle of disorganization... As such a nationalist movement, it is natural, has many common features - in Finland and in Ukraine, in Belgium and in Italy, in Hungary and in Germany, in Spain, in France and in Austria... But this is not an internationalist movement. On the contrary, - its goal is to strengthen the nation against all international hawkish ideas (socialist or simply imperialist, in equal measure) - against Marxism, against the "brotherhood of nations", against "humanism", against the solidarity of the "international proletariat", which breaks the solidarity of the nation, against the "Union of Nations", against the II or III International, against the "People's Front", against the UN and other organizations that want to destroy both the sovereignty of nations and the idea of ​​patriotism. The poison of internationalist faith is spreading even in our lands. In Ukraine, its representatives are Bolsheviks, socialists and radicals or national minorities. We have to fight with the poison of this monster until it breathes its last, because in our country, as elsewhere, its supporters fight with falsehood, slander and intimidation. They openly admit that if they had to hang their vaunted democracy on a peg for the introduction of socialism, it would have been done. Denouncing the holy democracy becomes a crime only for a fascist, but they say - "if someone proved to us" that democracy will not lead them to their goal, then they would renounce it and choose other means. What are the others? Obviously - terror, violence and dictatorship. "If someone would prove to us"... As for violence in particular, the same Pharisees write that violence is only violence when it is carried out by fascists. And if they are used by the People's Front, it is "popular anger", just so you know! That's what they think, and they would act accordingly if they came to power in Kyiv. These are their children, associates and collaborators of the radical "Hromad. Golos" in Lviv, who wrote that they would renounce even their native language for the sake of socialism, if a "decree from Moscow" proved to them that it was necessary... This is the pope of socialist revolutionaries, persona gratissima in radicals, prof. Hrushevsky, taught that we must bow our heads to Moscow Bolshevism, even if its policy "climbed sideways" for us, and cost Ukraine a sea of ​​blood. They are of the opinion that Bolshevism in Ukraine has done "a lot of positive things" over the past decade and a half ("Trud. Ukraine", ch. 8-9-10). Vinnichenko's letters to Stalin can be compared to Bakunin's letters to Tsar Nicholas I, full of hypocrisy and self-deprecation (ibid., ch. 5-6). They are the ones who happily quote, as a "bitter truth", the "paradoxical phrase" of the Ukrainian clerical Sovietophile O. Nazaruk: "our nationalists carry out more destructive work among the Ukrainian people than the communists" (ibid., ch. 8-9-10) . It was they who praised the policy of Bolshevism in Spain, so that you often cannot distinguish the articles on Spanish topics of the "Ukrainian" "Hromad. Golos" from the Moscow "Izvestia" or the Polish "Robotnik". During the civil war in Spain, in a conversation with the correspondent of the Jewish "Chwili" (January 19), our "friend" Antonov-Ovseenko, the former Bolshevik governor-general of Madrid, stated that "on some fronts, and especially in Aragon, the state of affairs was reminiscent of the struggle in Ukraine in 1918. Now it is possible to notice strong organizational work everywhere... We know what their "organizational work" means in the jargon of communism! And this "organizational work" - such as in Ukraine in 1918 - is applauded by radicals and socialists! Do you think that they would not applaud her if Mr. Antonov appeared in Ukraine again? Times, however, have changed, the new year 1917 or 1918 in Greater Ukraine would be under a different sign - under the sign of an inexorable struggle between two "religions", Bolshevik and nationalist. In such a struggle, socialists and radicals will always side with Bolshevism, against their worst enemy - "fascists", by which they understand all non-socialists! Nationalism, as we have just quoted, is for them a worse enemy than communism, that communism which, after all, "did a lot of positive things" in Ukraine and which should not be messed with, even if it "climbed sideways" at us... If only the events of 1917-20 were repeated in Ukraine, then our socialists would gladly invite there https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html 4/5 11 /28/23, 3:50 PM THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS gangs of international "volunteers" with Soviet tanks, for God's sake, socialism is better than "fascist Ukraine"... And the fact that Moscow will lead the whole event does not harm them in any way. To think that an agreement can be reached between the two "religions" is a futile hope. New "religions" will win, whose adherents will show a greater spirit of consecration. Don't be kind! These latter already feel that their kingdom will soon end. We can apply to them the harsh words of the new "heretic" Charles Gide, that "in no other country is the spirit less free, more broken, more intimidated and terrorized", like the USSR. That no one has "never had foreheads so tilted" as among the Russian followers of Marx. And tilted foreheads were not created to create history, only to serve Cheops... So, the new faith will win , hostile to the pharaoh's servants, which will not allow either the adherents of Marx or any humanists to be misled. Luther reproached Melanchthon that in his "Apology" he makes too many concessions to his opponents and that he is indifferent to his faith, and quotes the words of the Holy Scriptures: Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord indifferently, who would stop His sword" (Jeremiah 48, 10). Under the sign of the relentless war of "religions" and the elimination of all "indifferent" aside, a new era begins. Woe to the blind who do not see this sign! January 1937 Ukrainskie Stranitsy, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the National Movement of Ukraine 1800-1920s SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060205143417/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor /donzow_war.html PING Banner Network 5/5 11/28/23, 3:50 PM CALL OF THE DAY The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com: 80/ukrstor/do... Украинские Страницы история национального дужници Украины Главная Движения Регионы Вопросы Деятели Sсылки Отзывый форум Смотрите также страницу Дмитрия Донцова CALL OF THE DAY CALL OF THE DAY... A call to greet the arrival of the new Doba, which is replacing anarchy and the schedule of the modern era. When was the last one born, and who were its prophets? It was born in 1789, with the explosion of the "great" French revolution, and its prophets were the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Jew Karl-Mordecai Marx and the Muscovite Volodymyr Ulyanov-Lenin. On the ruins of the so-called feudal Europe, a new leading class, a new "elite" built its throne and its idols. Starting with the slogan of "democracy", the followers of these prophets quickly began to rally under the slogan of internationalism, socialism, and later - communism. In Russia, these adepts promised freedom to the "working people", the destruction of "lords, bourgeois and priests" and the transfer of all ownership of land and factories to that "people" under the slogan "proletarians of all countries unite." Instead of God, they put idols, two degenerates - Marx and Lenin - as political and spiritual leaders. All this was a diabolical lie, because soon - the structure of these prophets of the USSR turned into a slave-owning pan-dom empire of the conquering Moscow "herrenfolk" led by those "demonized" Dostoevsky, who planned to rule the world in the name of "envy and gluttony". From them began the era of "religious wars" of those obsessed, inspired by unshakable faith in their "mission", in their idols, and strong will, freedom fighters, in order to win, opposed them with the "militant philosophy" of life, which Ortega and Gasset spoke about . In our European West, and the national "elite", which Edmund Borke characterized as "economists, sophists and coolies", and which marched under the banner of "progress, peace and democracy", Rousseau's atheism quickly began to lean towards an alliance with socialism and communism, and religion and patriotism slowly receded into the corner like old "superstition". And then the secret mafia began to gain great influence among that "elite", which stubbornly inclined its societies to "coexistence and peace", and even to "friendship" with the anti-Christian communist Moscow, with the USSR. It began with the Yalta-Nuremberg alliance with the support of the Bolshevik "republicans" against national and patriotic Spain, with the support of the communists against "fascist" Portugal, national Greece, Rhodesia, and also with the active hostility of the "progressive", "democratic" and Muscophile mafia to of national, anti-communist Ukraine and its Christian parish of Kyiv. At the same time, this mafia clearly showed its guidance to the United Nations Organization, out of which it would like to make the embryo of a supranational "World Government", for itself or in alliance with the USSR. These plans of the mafia can be seen from its intention to open the door of the Western countries as wide as possible for the infiltration of Bolshevik germs, which is already being loudly discussed in the European and American press. It is said that the communist threat is not only outside the borders of America, but in the middle of it, that communist agents "invaded all areas of political and social activity, in youth organizations, in radio, in television, in film productions, in the Church, in schools , in educational and cultural organizations, in the press" of not one of the modern "democracies" (Edward Hoover, head of FBI). It is said that "we are all retreating before communism, approaching catastrophe ... In the next five years, decisive events will take place that will determine centuries in advance whether humanity will live a free life or be in slavery to communism ... We have turned our backs to the abyss ... We dare not make any more mistakes!" (Senator Thomas Dodd). We see, therefore, that when in the USSR the era of the prophets Marx and Lenin ends in political, economic and moral decay and anarchy, the bankruptcy of the communist "elite" - chaos, then a similar danger threatens the West, which seeks to master the pro-Soviet, "progressive", "democratic" mafia. As a result of its action, in many countries in the West there is also a paralysis of all disciplinary power, all spiritual ideals, all missionary ideas, and this leads to impunity for crimes, to the freedom of propaganda of pornography, debauchery in speech, writing, theaters, literature, art, in fashion, leads to the gradual elimination of religion, to "dialogues" with the servants and agents of the antichrist, to the mockery of patriotism, heroism, to the cult of fun, benefits, pleasure, money, to the cult of the "little man" with his purely physical instincts, to the confusion of ideas Good and Evil, Truth and lies, beauty and ugliness, to the moral and doctrinal laxity and inability to resist the onslaught of communism and the Western mafia supporting it. What is happening in the West is what, as we read in the American press, predicted one hundred and thirty years ago in his prophetic vision by Abraham Lincoln (see US News and Worlds Report), predicting unpunished explosions of the "mobocratic spirit" ("golot spirit"), dangerous for nations and states... He predicted the tragic end of the age that began almost 200 years before our days. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html 1/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE CALL OF THE DAY This danger that was addressed A. Lincoln, T. Dodd, Ortega-y-Gasset, and we have Shevchenko, this "highest spire" of the age started by Rousseau and ended by Marx and Lenin, the age of materialism, Moscow and the mafia, is the age of the "three M ", which Lviv's "Vistnyk" urged to fight even before the Second World War. It has already reached the "highest spire", which is the "beginning of the decline", and is entering the phase of that Armageddon, which the poets of the herald's Quadriga saw with prophetic eyes, when "the daily clamor will be interrupted by the trumpet of the Archangel", when "the terrible judgment will rise with the white sun". when we will hear "the whirlwind, the fire of God's hands", when "the spines of Europe will shake again", when the servants of the devil will bring not only Ukraine, but the whole of Europe, maybe the whole world, to bend their devilish faith and the uncompromising spirit of everyone to their power, Dostoevsky's "possessed" forces. But this age will only then be the "beginning of the downfall" of that infernal power, only then will we see "how in the storm, in the lightning, in the thunder the dragon lay victorious" - when in this age of "religious wars", the war of ideas, people will come our sides, obsessed with that "militans philosophy", which, quoting Ortega, I mention in this book; obsessed with an unshakable faith in their Truth, and a fighting spirit; who will exceed belief in their lies of dark forces and their pathos of robbers. When new people will breathe into the hearts of the fighters "the fiery drink with which the past lived and strengthened", when - in the words of O. Teliga, they will start "swinging the calling bell, making fire from flints", when the new fighters will hear this bell, the call of a new era. This cry of the coming Age of those poets who "swinged the call bell" and "made fire from the flints" of our souls - those countrymen who still bend their flexible necks before the idols of Marx, Lenin, Khrushchev, Gretsky or Kaganovich; who are still in contact, as with "brothers", with those who consider Shvartsbardt, Stashynskyi or Bazhan to be their heroes; who openly admit that it is necessary to negotiate with traitors or make a deal even with the devil; those who mix Truth with lies, Good with Evil, will not hear the calling bell of the Day; who label loyalty to their Truth as harmful "dogmatism"; as "emotionality" - burning with fiery pathos of one's great idea; as "adventurism" - struggle with violence. Those of Doba will not hear that voice, because they are those whom Skovoroda called "bats", who do not distinguish "between the right and the left path", who "are neither male nor female, neither warm nor cold, nor an animal , no bird". These are those who are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, whom the Lord will "throw out of His mouth" in the decisive hour, as it says in the Gospel. The clarion call of Doba will be heard by people of a different, non-plebeian, blood, those whom Shevchenko summoned from the graves, those "holy knights" who came to his hut in sleepless nights, who will come "to tear the porphyry and crush the throne" of a foreign despot in Ukraine; those new Mazepyns, whose arrival he announced in his "Dream", on the day expected by him, when "a new fire will blow from the Cold Yar" of Ukraine; when it will come to the final struggle between the Ivans who will "torture the executioners" with the executioners and those who will "help the executioners" ... I. Franko rang his call to these people, renouncing the stray fires of socialism, materialism and dragomanism, all of his contemporaries Dathans and Avyrons, calling to the rank of "servants of Navin". To these people, L. Ukrainka rang her call bell, in all her dramas and poems, calling out of oblivion "heroic youth", with the "fiery wine" of faith and zeal in their hearts. The poet saw everything "a battle, only the last battle, not for life but for death." She saw "in a dream a holy structure or a dungeon", and "a towering organ stood there, like a rock", which "should make a powerful and majestic sound". That everywhere "should resound and overturn the world order, a terrible movement will arise everywhere and strong structures will fall with thunder, great will be the horror, great and the liberation! Then the universal shackles will fall and the Truth will bloom with the laurel of the forehead, and the evil, hidden for ages, will perish." People with a "bold hand" should break that bell. And he ends: - "no, the noise is terrible, I have to extract it"! And those knights, whom she called to be ready for the call of the day, she finally summoned - together with other poets of the herald's Quadriga by Olena Teliga, contrasting them with the living corpses of "parthas of life", like Shevchenko's Cossacks - "shashes" that "gnaw and smolder" a healthy body nation Like Skovoroda, who contrasted his science about the power of the Spirit with various "dark, lame and weak" materialists, or Shevchenko with his Cossack Prometheus - "blind, crooked and hunchbacked" lyremen..." Ukraine, which will rise in the fire and storm of the new Age, is and there will be a Ukraine of those people who will hear its clarion call, an ancient, traditional, historical Ukraine with the spirit, mission and mystique of old Kyiv, not a socialist, communist, or "mobocratic" Ukraine, not a Ukraine of "contemporary fires" of the devil, not a Ukraine " agricultural" - and Ukraine is Cossack. With the new "elite", which we read in the drama "The Mercy of God" or in "Letters of the Cossacks to the Slaves" - will defend the "Greek-Cossian race" from savage hordes, will introduce "order" instead of anarchy, because no one the other will not do it, because when the "Cossacks impoverish", then without them all the material well-being of the Greek people, all the "gold" will turn into "swamp", and the nation into "useless master clay". "To rock this calling bell" of the new era is task of our age! I wanted to give these few words instead of a preface to this collection of my already printed articles. I reveal here only the essence of the testaments of our prophets and prophetesses named above, which are invisible to the "blind, crooked and hunchbacked" in soul and spirit. I also think that these articles in the collection are not outdated, just as those authors I quote - such as A. Lincoln, such as Ortega-y-Gasset, such as George Canning - who preached the coming of "religious wars" and the need for those fighting for Truth, - to have your "militant philosophy" of life, or, as Lesya Ukrainka wrote, - to have an unshakable idea, - for its victory, "the fighting spirit of the first apostles. Finally - last but not least, the Spirit in the hearts, about which L A Ukrainian woman in one of her poems ("And you once fought") - the Spirit that in the past gave the nation victory over the neighboring "inferior jackals"; the Spirit of Truth mentioned by Shevchenko, which gives the soul wings, zeal, wisdom, mystical power and faith to complete great deeds. The spirit that inspired princely and Cossack Kyiv, aware of its great historical mission. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html 2/ 3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM CALL OF THE DAY Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920ye gody. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118175453/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:49 PM FIRE SPARK OF THE GREAT The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Dmitry Dontsova THE FIRE OF THE GREAT SPARK How long will Ukraine be punished and tormented? This question resounds again and again from newspaper articles, from the yearning cries of sensitive poets, in prose... Materialists will look for answers to this question in the statements of the Kremlin "collective" tsars, in the "meetings" of the so-called red Boyar Duma. "international constellation". I think that only based on the acceptance of the primacy of the spiritual factor, it is possible to shed light on this question - how long will it last in Ukraine? The first to be punished were those who, in the USSR, raised a sharp saber or a sharp word against a recruit. Then came the punishment for those who served the zainants, which caused among them and their friends to be shocked: "For what? What for them?!" But it did not end there. It was the turn of millions of those in Ukraine who "sat in wait", the mass of "neutral" and "loyal" ones. This completely confused everyone, who still have no idea why even those who are "silent because they are prosperous" are being tortured. King Philip of Macedon gave a witty answer to a similar question - to the Hellenic democrats even before our era. When he conquered one Greek city-state after another, and everywhere he had his 5th column in them, like now Moscow (Manuilsky, Zatonsky, Kotsyubynsky, Lyubchenko, Dimitrov, Pauker and Nagy). And when it was their turn to go "under the wall" as well, when they begged and asked the Philippians: for what? Is this the way to thank them for their service to the Macedonians? they answered: - if you betrayed your own country today, tomorrow you can betray Philip too, that's why he doesn't believe you either... It's very simple and very clear! Philip of Moscow thinks so too. Therefore, whether now or on Thursday, it is the turn to punish even the servants of Moscow, the second category that goes under the knife of the executioners. Because what falls under the first category, the one that stands up, that "Aidans tear", does not require a closer explanation. This is clear to everyone. But what should the third category, the entire people, those millions of innocent victims who agreed with the occupier and "work honestly" for him be punished for? - This is why sensitive poets and novelists are not worthy to cry. Philip, the Macedonian king, also answered this question. When some of those innocent Greeks asked why he was persecuting them: - Philip knows, his servants said to the Greeks, how much harm, how much evil he has done to the Greeks, and therefore he thinks that they all hate him with all their hearts, looking for what he needs repay those wrongs (quoting from memory)... That's why the king, just in case, destroyed a lot of these innocents... For the same reasons, Moscow also conducts its genocide in Ukraine. As we can see, some people naively think that, as they say, no matter how many "shitheads" and stupid "romantics" did not rebel against Moscow, there would be no repression against the broad sections of the people, nor against the servants and lackeys of the hired hand, who "save , that they can"... These thoughts are naive! Because Philip, Macedonian and Moscow, have their own logic: simple, clear and merciless! The case with the third category of tortured is the most interesting. Why are they, that mass, exterminated even when apparently there is not even one "Cossack out of a million swineherds" left in it? When everything seems to be turned into a submissive crowd? Is it really all? In 1871, Louis-Napoleon's France was defeated by the Germans. The emperor was taken prisoner, the victorious Prussian army pushed an avalanche on Paris. At this time, the confused Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of France, Thiers, asked Bismarck: The imperialist government of Napoleon III is gone, who is Prussia fighting against? - With Louis XIV there was an answer. Prussia was at war, it seemed to her, with the immortal spirit of old history; warlike, heroic France of Louis XIV, Vauban, Turin - with the spirit that, Bismarck thought, was always ready to flare up again and which flared up once again in 1917 in the person of J. Clemenceau. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html 1/3 11/28/23, 3:49 PM FIRE SPARK OF THE GREAT Like Hohenzollern Prussia, though France then lay broken at her feet, still at war with Louis XIV, and so did Russia, even at the beginning of the present century, it still destroyed "Mazepinism" in us, the heroic spirit of old Ukraine, the spirit of Mazepa and Polobotk. It is known that in Polobotkov, Peter I was afraid to find a "second Mazepa", that is why he opposed his election as hetman. It is also known that under Nicholas II the entire national movement in Ukraine at that time was "tainted" by the name of "Mazepinism". Although it was represented then by such figures as M. Hrushevskyi, Vynnychenko, or Ukrainian "radicals", the spirits of Mazepyn's Ukraine are just as alien as Thier and his comrades were in 1871 - the spirits of old, heroic France. Probably, the Russians - white and red - did not think that Mazepa would emerge from Hrushevskyi and Vinnichenko, they knew their value as politicians. But they were afraid that Mazepyn residents (in spirit) could be found among those millions in Ukraine. And they were not mistaken! The proof is the spontaneous explosion of the Ukrainian element in 1917-21, with completely unknown names before that, Yu. and V. Tyutyunniki, Bezruchko, Bolbochan, Omelyanovych-Pavlenko, leaders of the anti-Bolshevik uprisings, etc. None other than Vynnychennko wrote in 1920 that "it was necessary to notice all the time during the entire Ukrainian revolution that it was they, those who could not even speak Ukrainian properly, they were the most extreme, fiery, unexampled nationalists." - by Mazepyns. Why was this so? Probably because, although they were not affected by the enlightened propaganda of patriotism of the demo-socialist parties in Ukraine, precisely because of that, they were not affected by the anemic, anti-military, anti-state and pacifist Moscow-phileism of those parties. But those "unparalleled", through Shevchenko, maybe Rudanskyi, through historical legends, songs, sayings, traditions of the Cossacks, through local legends - albeit semi-Russified (Ukrainian "Irish"). were saturated with the spirit of our historical antiquity. There was Shevchenko's "fire maskra of the great", which was "smoldering" in the ashes of the fire, unexpectedly exploding with a new fire. How, where were those sparks to look for? That is why the Moscow Philippis decided to scatter all the ashes and flood them with water - but then one or two sparks that were still smoldering in the fire pit would be extinguished. Hence the mass extermination of Ukrainians by starvation, concentration camps, death camps, terror, mass evictions, Moscow's entire policy of genocide in Ukraine. This idea was borrowed by the Moscow Bolsheviks from the Judean king Herod: "Herod was very angry and sent to slaughter all the children from the age of two years and under"... Because "it was written through the prophets" that there should rise a leader who would liberate the people from the power Herod ... Maybe the Herods in the Kremlin also know that the one who will slay the Moscow dragon must come from Ukraine? In any case, the policy of mass extermination in Ukraine - not only of the enemies of Moscow, but also of those "neutrals" can be very well explained by the anxiety of Herod of Moscow (the king Herod was alarmed and all of Jerusalem was behind him") that in the conflagration in which he turned Ukraine, here and there are smoldering invisible "sparks of the great fire", which will suffocate the barbarian empire. Therefore, it is necessary to strike blindly, up, down, to the right and to the left, without discrimination - active and submissive, rebels and neutral - everyone! and the hand of the executioner crush then those who were appointed to bring Ukraine out of darkness and captivity? the same resistance of Ukraine that - in 1941, when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers refused to defend the Moscow horde - this is like 1917, there was a sudden outbreak of sparks neglected by the executioners! What does it ignite them, in our souls, in the souls of this or that Ukrainian? It happens in different ways... A notebook of Shevchenko's forbidden poems in some village peasant... Museum of our antiquity... Zankivetska's speech... - in the old days. Or a complete suggestion and unopened charm of Repin's painting - "The Hetman", resting his hand on a cannon, (under which in Tiktor's "History" for some reason there is the inscription "Zaporozhsky Ataman")... Or the gallop of the Haydamaki division along the Zhytomyr highway to Kyiv, in the days of the battles of 1919-1920 y., with what fire of something unstoppable and majestic (something like "Cossack Glory" by Mukhin), a resurrected specter of the old, heroic Ukraine ignited the soul of a little girl, Lena Teliga, for the rest of her life. a spark even from the works of the enemies, which appeared here with such force that "das Boes will6 das Gute scbafft" (Goethe)... I know that not one "Little Russian" was made Ukrainian by Pushkin's "Poltava", but not one "Russian" " or a Galician Muscovite was converted to Ukrainian by Sienkevych's novel "Fire and Sword": let them have a minus sign, like a "wild element", ancient Ukraine appeared in those works, but - contrary to their intentions, full of invincible strength, desperate impulse and of a mysterious charm... In one of the newer Soviet histories of Russian literature, it is openly expressed - in general in the USSR, A. Pushkin is highly respected - a reprimand is expressed, how could he oppose Petrov - the "Great" - the "changer" Mazepa, as an equal ruler and an equal the enemy... The spirit of Mazepinism, the spirit that still roams Ukraine - this is where those "sparks of the great fire" fly to the impressionable souls that Herod of Moscow is trying to kill. But that fire can be lit only in the souls that are able to ignite, in the dry, fiery, burning souls of ascetics and heroes, not in the tears-soaked souls of "footmen", "slaves" and "Pharisees" according to Shevchenko's expression. When the number of the latter will decrease, and the number of the first, not "neutral", not Herod's minions, will increase, then only Herod's policy in Ukraine will become powerless. And his kingdom will end. With the blessing of Ukraine (or its https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:49 PM FIRE SPARK OF THE GREAT a curse - Shveyk thinks) - is the legacy of the former greatness of old Kyiv. Either it will be restored to its former glory, or Ukraine will be erased from the map of Europe. This will be decided, as always in history, not by one or another visible constellations of the material world, but by the presence and power of that spark, invisible under the ashes of the external world, which, igniting a great fire in the hearts of millions, will burn to the ground, even if one does not know how strong the kingdom is. violence and evil. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172052/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY AND SOCIALIST EXAM CASTERS The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... также страницу Dmitry Dontsov HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES Neither the democratic nor the Bolshevik Russian revolution wanted the division of the empire. She sought to consolidate it - with new methods and dexterity of a new, morally not yet exhausted caste, with new mysticism. That is why the Bolsheviks respect Pushkin, the hero of the Peter Empire, the one who, from the tumultuous era, When Russia was young, Struggled in the struggle, Married with Peter's genius, From that era extracted its pathos for posterity. And for the Bolsheviks - who pump up the soul of the Moscow people, exhausted by five years, with his pathos. Russia, which is already hatching from the red communist egg, lives with this pathos. In Pushkin, there was neither Gogol's skepticism, nor Lermontov's demonism, nor Dostoevsky's Satanism, nor Chaadaev's radical denial of Russia. In it there was a reckless "hosanna" of the empire, he praised the "Neva state stream", "the city of Petrov", which will stand "unscathed like Russia", he threatened the "arrogant neighbor". In his poems, the image of tsarist Russia and the one who turned Russia upside down with an iron hand shone "magnificently, proudly" for him. He proclaimed that from the cold Finnish rocks to the fiery Kalchida, from the shaken Kremlin to the walls of unmoved China, there was one "Russian land". He tarnished the "slanderers", all those who did not bow in the dust before Moscow. He prepared a common grave for those impudents in the plains of Russia - "among other people's graves." He regretted why Mazepa didn't end his life "on the brink", for him Europe and America were "dead bodies" compared to the "magnificent" imperial Russia. In his poems, the "heavy-bellowing gallop" of the imperial centaur, which trampled tribes and peoples under its feet, rang out. The heroes of Bolshevism only imitate it. Blok's "state step" is borrowed from Pushkin, and his "Scythians" is a parody of "Slanderers of Russia". And in the "casion" ideology of Stalin's or later Russia, the "Soviet family" from the White Sea to the Black Sea with one Russian people was translated from it. The Bolshevik "wall" for traitors is the same one glorified by Pushkin, the "fear" for Mazepa! Soviet "bandits" are his "traitors"! All that was left for the enemies of Moscow was to brandish the "arrogant neighbor" boastfully. The Leninists also borrowed the entire clumsy sham of imperial patriotism from the Mykolaiv chamberlain Pushkin! https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 1/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAM AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES The Russian Revolution is not renounced antiquity and gave the composition of the old bebekhs - the idea of ​​the Petersburg tsar. She only "enriched" that idea by moving the capital back to Moscow, "enriched" the practice of Ivan IV, with his communist party, whose "chekists" led by Malyuta Skuratov wore a dog's head and a broom by the saddle: signs of canine loyalty and relentless "cleansing" ... The "iron march of the labor battalions" of the first years of the revolution quickly turned into a heavy, elephant-like, methodical and deadly march of the old Moscow "companions of the Russian land". In this form, the Russian revolution fell on Ukraine and marked its tasks and methods precisely in this form. What did the Ukrainian revolution oppose to them, these "dog-heads"? A new question immediately arises - what should be understood by the "Ukrainian revolution"? The Moscow revolution was not Kerensky, who tried to connect it to himself with "pleasant conversations", like Kotlyarevsky's coachman "Boykuyu Natalka". The Russian revolution was Lenin, Yevgenia Bosch, Krylenko, the rebellious "sailors". Likewise, the French revolution was embodied not by the Marquis Chanteclair Lafayette, nor the red Count Mirabeau, but by Marat and Robespierre. On the one hand - Russia, shocked by the lost war, the apostasy and rebellion of the "outskirts", which it considered its eternal subjects, went mad with rage. And against it - the outstretched palm of the consent of our Marats... Could their "reason" have realized that the new Russia would squeeze this palm the way the fireplace commander squeezed Don Juan's palm... Even then, faith in the Russian commander's palm was not justified. If only because, not only in 1917, but in 1948, there were those who saw the naivety of those delusions... As Bakunin approached Lelevel, the emissaries of liberal Russia then, by the way, also approached Mickiewicz with an outstretched hand. But he answered them differently. He answered with many facts about the exile of his compatriots, about Siberia and the arresting "companies", about executions, corporal punishment, about how the tsar mocked your "Slavic brothers"... "And what did you do then?" he asked he. - Did they raise a brotherly voice? Did they point out to the king that this is revenge, inhuman injustice? No! You were both his tool and assistant! Get away from me, royal hirelings! First wash the stains of Abel's blood on your hands, and then just as Slavs, come for advice to a free Slav"... When Mickiewicz threw such words in the face of Russian liberal democracy, why didn't our Marathas do the same in 1917 or 1918? Has democracy not yet shown its teeth? She showed, and how, even before the First World War (Struve, Milyukov and others) and with the explosion of the revolution. In one magazine, we read memoirs about the shot Bolshevik Hryhoriy Pyatakov, who was well known to us. "On the first day of mass terror (in Kyiv), 20,000 Ukrainians fell victim to Pyatakov. Among the victims were prominent Ukrainian socialist revolutionaries who believed in Bolshevik independent Ukraine and stayed in the city to join the Bolsheviks." Why after such facts - and how many were there then! - not only then, but also now, in emigration, representatives of those parties, which also fell en masse victims of the Pyatakovs, - still talked with Stalin (like Vynnychenko) or with Rakovsky (like M. Hrushevskyi), or now admit, that there was "still a lot of positive" in the work of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine ("Labor Ukraine" by the Shapovalovs in Prague)? Why do they write that "Moscow Bolshevism contributed to an unprecedented extent to the spread of class consciousness among the working class of Russia and outside it, and that this is its great historical merit"? Why do they write that "talks about the "foreignness" and occupation" character of the Soviet government in Ukraine should be abandoned?" That this government, therefore, is our own? Why didn't they call on the Bolsheviks first of all to "wash the stain of Avelyan's blood off their hands", and then to start a conversation about the "common goals" of those who "love freedom"? Why did Cain M. Hrushevskyi casually shake that bloodied hand? Why did the idea of ​​patriotism, the idea of ​​"our homeland", "Cossack homeland", so loud and hot in Wieliczka, die in souls of those people? Why did the spirit of modern combiners and lackeys emerge in its place? Hatred of violence was also the engine of every revolution. Why did revolutionary socialists carefully avoid "tones of hatred of foreign people" in their propaganda? The answers to these questions would lead us into a circle of riddles of a purely pathological nature. But I am not talking about answers here, only about affirming the fact that people with such a soul could not want, could not fan the fire that started in Ukraine with the fall of the tsar... Millions of scattered energies, hidden desires, lurking hatred, justified by centuries oppression, although not clearly realized, with great positive ideals that animated that mass - they were waiting for a magnet that would gather them together to throw a rapid avalanche on the head of the broken empire. They were waiting for a cry similar to that "Wake up Flanders!" to spread throughout Ukraine. There was no such call. He was nominated later, thrust upon the socialist leaders by the nation itself, partly against their will and desire, when the moment for the best mobilization of those sentiments was already lost. The leaders of the Russian revolution did otherwise against us! It doesn't matter under which label - but always, in the first years after the October tragedy, they baked the xenophobia of their masses to whiteness. They fueled their hatred not for capitalist, but for Europe in general. They called for the defense of the country, but against whom? Against foreigners! What they were called https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 2/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAM AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES by "sharks of imperialism", it didn't matter, it was "faison de parle". Here it was simply an intensive preaching of hostility to foreigners as such, a mobilization of the xenophobic instincts of the masses, which had been abandoned under the tsar. "From the time - writes Carlisle - when the whole of Europe trembled as if in a handkerchief, warmed by the words of Peter of Amiens; when it set out to liberate the Holy Sepulchre, - never did the flame of such ardent faith flare up in it as during the French Revolution. Since Protestantism fell silent, since Luther's voice was not heard, nor Žižka's tambourine, since no one called to defend God's Truth against the lies of Lucifer, - the flame of such faith did not rage among the nations... The explosion of that feeling was a true miracle. A miracle that is still terrifying remembers the world". Macaulay reproached Pitt that he did not understand the real essence of the French Revolution, that he had to fight not a state, but a "new sect" (a new tribe, a new breed of people), full of fanatical enthusiasm, boundless pride, wild zeal and an audacious desire to renew world" (probably "in his own way"). The people who inspired millions with this faith symbolized that revolution. The symbol of the Flemish revolution of the 16th century (against Spain) was not Panza-Holdzak in literature, but Uhlenspiegel, the same one who along and across with the cry "Wake up, Flanders!" He who promised the weary a kingdom of utopia on earth no sooner, until in Flanders gardens, on every branch, one Spaniard will hang"... These people were the leaders of the revolution. They embodied and shaped her passion and pathos, the whole world of her thoughts. Many things must be distinguished. And the Sanculots, the Parisian gangs who ran to capture the Bastille or fight the horsemen on the border - and the author of "Marseillaise", who gave those gangs an idea. And Rousseau, who gave direction and meaning to their uncontrollable impulse, and Marat, who channeled the unconscious hatred of the Parisian streets into a system of terror, inspired the gust of struggle for a "just cause." It is necessary to distinguish the "mischievousness" of a drunken sailor, stolen watches and murders of everyone who wore a "hat" from those who gave that "mischievousness" an ideological example and the seal of a great spirit with the slogans "death to the bourgeois" and "robbing, looting", from those who gave the desire of the northern wanderers to feed on the labor and wealth of "blessed Malarassia" an "ideological" basis for fighting the "counter-revolution", "traitors" and "slanderers of Russia"... The mass - and those who formed its unclear instincts, its subconscious, disordered, chaotic impulses into impetuous, incendiary cries... Without such formalization - ideological and emotional - there is no dynamics of the movement, no success... The great tragedy of the Ukrainian revolution was in the one who formalized all these impulses and instincts in our country , - revolutions against the Bolshevik horde. This revolution - I'm talking about the elements - was a surprise, a miracle for many. The transformation of the cherry paradise into Dante's hell, and the two-legged steppe "oxen" into formidable Yarem - this was the terrible frenzy for Kossak-Schutska, Aihorn, and Lenin. In that hell there was a huge untapped power of youth and a desire to repay the borrowers - national power. There were also herrings and slinkies (instead of the red Phrygian "pantless"-sanculots), there was the romance of the old Cossack times, like the princely romance in the Khmelnytskyi revolution. The memories of the bright past were obscured, and like a raging bull, Ukraine rushed across the bloody arena, torn and wounded, looking for someone to attack... The revolution in Ukraine was waiting for a slogan, a goal. She was waiting for someone to take her to task, so that these slogans, accumulated in the ages of contempt, would pour out in one bright cry, like that "Wake up, Flanders", like the beginning of the anthem of the "Marseille" volunteers or like Shevchenko's "Testament". This element of ours, which broke the shores in March 1917, was not formless, it had its own firm commandments, which were not carved in tablets. Now she wanted to excommunicate them with spears in the annals of history, according to the old ancestral custom. One of those commandments was to respect property. Such an honor that "they fired enemy bullets and cannons" across the border, like those Stefanykov peasants. It was such an honor that the one who reached out for their welfare, the horse thief, was "not let out alive" and "rushed on him like hungry wolves" (as in Stefanyk's story "The Thief"). Such was their eternal truth, their heroic code of morality, which was the contagion and heroic code of the Vendée! The Bolsheviks also felt this harsh truth of our peasant's life on their backs. The socialist "Marats" of our revolution, who wanted to lead it, had to give that truth all the noble colors of an ideal, the great truth of the land, and mobilize popular enthusiasm in its name. And not only against Ekaterina's "baistryuks", but also against the outdated Bolshevized "bosyatstv". Not only against those who interpreted the right of private property only to their benefit, but also against those who did exactly that with the right of socialism. Our peasant said - "another's house is worse than execution", "although it is not beautiful, but proper", "best man is not best man, but don't get into the garden", "matchmaker is not matchmaker, but don't touch mine". There was so much possessive instinct in this mentality, so much hostility even to the "best man" or "matchmaker" or "companion" when he came uninvited to share things other than his own, so much hatred for the basket ideal of socialism! It was necessary to fan that gnawing instinct into the fire of revolution, to give it bright formulas, to make it the engine of an imposing explosion. But the Ukrainian revolution had other leaders, their souls were carved by other carvers; not those that shaped the soul of the peasant. His proprietary https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 3/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES instinct - was a superstition for our socialists! A higher, gradual form of land ownership - this was a collective for our "Marats"! In their program - like the Bolsheviks - they had "socialization" or "nationalization" of the land... Do they appear to the uncle to be serfs? Uncle is a reactionary! Clinging to one's own, one's own, is "bourgeoisie"! And to kill a person for stealing speechless cattle; it's the devil knows what! It's a lack of humanity and education! And Vendée is a symbol of the counter-revolution! And "we" for "progress" ! It doesn't matter who gives it to us and from where. This was the answer of the socialist "Marats". It was not a voice that came from the hearts of the masses, it was not the voice of their instinct. Those words spoke the wisdom of someone else. What is strange about the fact that when the subconscious element that came out of the shores did not find an appropriate expression in the conscious will of the leaders? That the will of the leaders was only a crooked mirror of the hidden desires of the element? True, later I had to start my defense not only against the "masters" but also against the "matchmakers" " and "godfathers" from the North. However, the impudent creation of a new front only confused the masses, who had been drawn in the other direction until now. The other side - the one that attacked us from the North, like the Persians once attacked Hellas - knew no "gardens ", neither "Khrushchevs", nor "Nightingales". But she knew the right of naked power deeply rooted in her. And besides, she knew something else, not she, but those who led her. The Kirilenko women knew how to give the selfish, wolfish appetite of their masses the appearance of a struggle for the great "universal" idea, for socialism. There was no contradiction between the "appetites" of the masses and the ideas of the leaders. From the idea of ​​socialism, they made a condenser of the beastly hunger of their masses. This word gave the ordinary greediness of the northern race of barbarians a dynamic force of dispersal, justifying it "morally" in their hearts. Whoever joined the Communist Party bought absolution for all yesterday's and tomorrow's sins, which the socialist Zayda committed or thought of committing in "blessed Little Russia", absolution from "public opinion", from "bright ideas of progress and justice!". This idea, which the Moscow wordsmiths conveniently instilled in the disorderly movement of their masses in the South, this idea of ​​Bolshevism justified them not only in their own eyes, but even in the eyes of "cultural" European snobs. How many Istratians, Jews, Errios, Toms of Maniv looked at the Egyptian works in Ukraine and at the Bolshevik pharaohs, like a calf at a new gate. Or like Voltaire on "Semiramis of the North" - Catherine II. To unmask this deception, to call white - white, black - black, to unmask the great lie of our time - foreign socialism, to find a rallying cry for the masses so that they rush like "hungry wolves" at the attacker, armed with no matter how "good" they are, in fact, with false slogans - this was a task beyond the strength and brains of our socialist leaders. Their soul was divided in the same way as their feelings. Neither did they love their own, nor did they hate someone else's. How could they mobilize our essentially xenophobic, private property element to fight against Northern socialism, when their teacher Proudhon said that "private property is theft"? Poisoned by other people's wisdom, they were deaf to the voice of their people's instinct, to their truth... That is why the unformed idea languished, and the unswayed dynamism slowed down. And not only in this shade! In addition to socialism, a second idea emerged from the North, dressed in the fresh clothes of the revolution - the idea of ​​one "people-Messiah"; "from the cold Finnish rocks to the fiery Colchis". The vanguard of this idea were the sons of the "chosen people", bearded "lapotniks" or those whom Klen called "hunchbacked" Messiahs, who had in their blood an atavistic malice towards everything that had even the slightest stamp of "Mazepinism", Khmelnytskyi or Haidamachchyna. The position of our masses towards the representatives of that force, as well as towards the idea of ​​socialism, is well known. We must admit that in relation to the "truth" of the Lenins, Trotskys and their clique, the instinct of our Hrytsy and Yarem was on a more certain path than the mind of the "gradual intelligentsia". To give power or influence to that Zaid clique in Ukraine (people's wisdom has heard it) would mean giving it a whip in its hands and reproaching us. They, those Zayds, understood freedom for themselves in Ukraine as the forced eviction of our peasants from it, as the creation of hell for the disenfranchised majority and paradise for the privileged foreign minority on our black soil. The peasant's mistrust of the rapist, this complex of feelings of self-superiority simmering in the national soul, the revolution had to invest in a bright program to create a movement similar - mutatis mutandis - to Khmelnytskyi. But the leader of our revolution did not create this program, because then what would happen to the progress and brotherhood of nations?! Thus, the germ of a great political movement against the rule of foreigners hostile to Ukraine, which - like the struggle against socialism was pregnant with our revolution - did not see the light of day... Our political midwives preferred to kill it. But he was born, born a monster, so that later - for the sins of these midwives - our nation, ridiculed and exterminated by humane socialists, would atone for it, so that the socialist "hahol" scratched the back of its head at the wrong time, believing in Marx and Lenin, so that in vain, in a pig's voice, he recalled folk wisdom: "if he were from heaven, you don't have to believe a foreigner"... Our socialist leaders of the revolution remained neutral in matters of religion and the Church. Could they become Peters of Amiens in Ukraine? Could Saint Sophia be freed from the hands of mistrustful people who were considered brothers in socialism? In all issues - social, in the issue of "minorities" - the Ukrainian revolution had to face the Russian one. Protests against the warring Synodal Orthodoxy and against the warring Communism were supposed to take the form of a struggle in the name of one's religion. Like in Ireland, where a similar kind of religious war was caused by Cromwell's anti-Catholic revolution, or like before the First World War in Spain, where Franco's nationalists fought against Azani republicans with the honor of the Holy Virgin on their chests. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 4/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES But the appropriate moment did not find new Ivan Vyshenskyi (with few exceptions) here. Neither the voice of Orthodox Luther nor the tambourines of Orthodox Žižka could be heard. They probably forgot that maybe that is why Kyiv adopted the Greek faith, that among all the apostles who came to convert us, only the Greeks "blasphemed all laws, but praised their own", only Greeks to the point of denying someone else, to the point of "blaspheming" him, were devoted to their faith... Why did the Moscow church authorities under Peter I, when they broke the Ukrainian Church, not hesitate to declare "heretical" all our oldest church customs, up to and including the recitation of liturgical books and the act of baptism? And why, when we had to finish the unfinished business, when we had to break once and for all with the Church the foreign Caesar-papism of the Kremlin, why did we capitulate before the Synod? Before Antony? Before the canons, from which the Synod did nothing? Why was such a language not heard in Ukraine then? Why were there so few of us - ministers of the Church who would oppose godless or synodal Moscow as the Spanish did against the godless French and their Emperor Napoleon, considering this struggle "a good deed, thanks to which one can liberate the native land from the oppression of a foreign conqueror"? Why was such a language tainted with anti-Christian chauvinism? Why was the banner of the anti-synodal revolution not raised in language that would burn hearts? This happened for the same reason that we did not unfurl the banner of the struggle for our own state against socialism, against the Moscow horde and its allies. And when they launched it, they were forced by circumstances and the pressure of the elements, late, without formulating a clear task, without burning new slogans with an iron in their souls... The program of the socialist "native Marats" did not draw its ideals from the impulses of its Earth, from its hidden aspirations , nor from its traditions shrouded in the haze of oblivion. They got their "Faith" elsewhere. And with the Marxes, with the Darwins, with the Lyassals, it was difficult to defend the cross or the trident" against the Soviet five-pointed star. The socialism that was hostile to us, which came not only from Marx, but also from Plekhanov and Lenin, was taboo for our revolutionary leaders as well, like the socialism of Trotsky and Radek, who set their sights on the Bolshevik revolution. The Russian people themselves were even more hostile to us. Our historical experience was spoken a thousand times by the mouths of the masses: "Moscovites are like thralls, and he watches everything like hell," "Moscow tears does not believe"... But still, each generation sent new beggars and mourners to Moscow. Of all the ideas of the "Spring of Nations" of 1848, our socialist intelligentsia, drunk with Dragoman's "fraternal love", absorbed only the irresistible desire to kiss the neighbors... . When some preferred "socialist brothers", others "bread-making brothers", these were nuances. Their mental guidance remained the same even when this "brother" was called Cain. "Nations are restored only in struggle" - sounded a courageous sermon Mazzini "Souls wasted in long captivity are restored only in hatred," he also wrote during the "Spring of Nations" in 1848. But - this sermon was not for fraternal lovers who smeared themselves with drunken kisses. I would have listened to her, I would have pressed for her, as the earth thirsted for rain, the elements stirred up by the revolution in Ukraine, but this sermon did not sound in time... "Our dear, our beloved!" - the former poet Tychyna shouted to the readers in his article about Pushkin. "Native, our beloved!" - shouted the smaller Tychinyats to Stalin. And this is how our compatriots used to shout to Tolstoy, Plekhanov, Milyukov, Lenin, Shalyapin or Pavlova. And in one article of the Kyiv "Rada" from 1914 - even to the double-headed eagle of the Russian Empire. But how could it be otherwise? Shortly before the revolution, the socialist "Ukrainian Khata" of Shapovaliv fought "the philistine opinion that the weakest elements change the nationality." On the contrary - the strongest! "Ukrainian Khata" advocated the "right" of each unit to freely abandon its nation and adopt another nationality, "where its forces can be applied with the greatest benefit"... "Ukrainian Khata" was indignant that "a wild and senseless word" is being thrown at such a person. renegade"! This right (the right of renegadeness!) wrote the organ of M. Shapoval "must be recognized by every Ukrainian now". He does not dare "his nation to despotically declare to him - you are ours and... you must remain ours until the end"! Because that would be " the grossest and most terrible selfishness of the nation as a whole." On the contrary, nations are simply interested in "the way for the individual to be opened as soon as possible to free exit from one nation and to free transition to another." This is required by "reason, morality, ethics and tolerance" ... The socialist concept of "freedom", Russian literature, political and non-political, various organizations and parties, bourgeois and socialist, produced a whole series of perekinchiks in Ukraine. When the socialists justified them, how could they rebel against that sun, against the very source of that energy that raised renegades - against Russia, its people, its culture, its democracy, its political mission, against the genius of the Russian people? And from the Shapovals, editors before 1917, after 1917 "leaders of the nation" came out. A great chasm separated such a mentality of our intelligentsia at that time from the mentality of the people, from the mentality of Shevchenko, who condemned to eternal torment the soul of a girl who "fed everyone, who, albeit unconsciously, "watered the Tsar of Moscow's horse"... Or from such a mentality that justified renegade, could the hatred that erupted against Spain be born from the Flemings? From the French of the Great War to the Teutons? From the Irish to the English? Could people of this mentality - and from them our later socialist leaders were recruited - become the accumulator of that popular anger that grew in 1917. To Ukraine from the seeds of Mazepa, Orlyk, Polubotko and Kalnyshevsky? Was it possible to mobilize the desire for a historical reckoning with "Peter's creation" with such a mentality? Could the Ukrainian Roger de Lille appear among those people with his hymn calling for "impure" blood "Have enemies grow our furrows"? The historical moment was full of tragedy - and how difficult! - dilemma: us or them? And how could the people who justified the free transition from "we" to "them" pose that dilemma, I'm not saying to decide, but at least put it in her entire stature? Who justified national renegade in the name of "reason and tolerance"? Yes, another huge collection of energy of the nation, which the revolution was preparing to shake up, - remained unused, then belatedly and by an unsuccessful hand... "Socialist brothers" and "bread-making brothers", "Slavic brothers", and sometimes - renegade Is there opposition against the brothers? Was it possible to doubt their likability? When the ambassador of Mardonius, the general of the Persian king, promised peace to the Greeks so that they would become his allies, the Spartans advised: "if you are wise, do not follow the advice of Mardonius, because you know that you cannot trust the barbarians and that there is not even a grain of truth in their words." ... The Athenian answered in the same way - "we cannot turn Greece into slavery. Even if we wanted to, we could not do it for various reasons. The first and most important are the statues of our gods, burned by barbarians and buried under the ruins of temples. This makes us sooner take revenge on the perpetrators of this disaster than conclude an alliance between them." This is how the Greeks, who considered their enemies to be barbarians, who knew that a barbarian who would enter a country and become its master, would never honor its gods or its temples, could look at Mardonius's proposals in this way. That's why their response was a call to the barn. But could the leaders of our Hellas, who in the depths of their souls considered the enemies from the north to be brothers, not barbarians, throw such a call to all corners of the country? Who believed that the barbarians would respect our faith, our language and customs in the name of the common "great truth" - socialism? Power, power and once again power - that's what the Moscow Mardonii came to us with! We traded - for temples, for gods... We were finally convinced of a terrible mistake, but the time when it could be avoided, when it was possible to mobilize the psyche of the masses against the barbarians in advance, has passed. The fire that began, here and there, to lick the fortress of the Moscow Mardonians in Ukraine, was not fueled and kerosene... Much wiser was our old historical wisdom, completely destroyed by dragomanism! Princes Vyacheslav and Yuriy answered the opponents who invaded their land and offered peace - "if you tell us to make peace, then don't stand on our land"... He knew whose power was the truth. He knew that the barbarian's truth was different. "What is true on this side of the Pyrenees is a lie on that side..." - said Pascal, as if anticipating the times of General Frank and Blum. But such simple wisdom could not be possessed by the leaders of our revolution, who were brought up in the ideal of a common truth for all, the "truth" of Marx, and in respect for barbarians, respect and tolerance for renegades. Because this was the mentality of almost our entire left intelligentsia before 1917. The revolution did not find an adequate expression in our leading stratum. She was alien to the formidable pathos of that revolution, alien uncompromisingness, the not clearly realized wisdom of the old Vyacheslavs, which was smoldering in Ukraine like a "spark in the ashes", waiting only for a slogan, for refreshment, for coloring with moments of modernity. I waited in vain... In vain, because our Marathas were deeply backward people. In 1917, they thought and felt with the thoughts and feelings of 1848. 1848th year! "Spring of Nations"! Brotherhood of humans against tyrants! The age of great upheavals, overturned thrones, great enthusiasm, the liberation of "unhistorical nations"" and - the age of boundless naivety! In 1847, at the Paris November parade commemorating the Polish uprising of 1832 (where the Pole Dvernytskyi presided) in 1847, Mykhailo Bakunin, a Russian anarchist, held out palm to the Polish revolutionaries: "We are children of the same tribe, our fate is indivisible and our cause must be common"... The "great day of the agreement of two brotherly peoples" must come... In Brussels, at a similar event, the Pole Lelievel thanked Bakunin: "let's topple the first tyrant," he said, "that oppresses us (the king), and the tyranny that enslaves us, let us raise the cause of the people, awaken their democratic spirit, and then everything will settle down according to the common will of... both peoples. So! There is no division between those Poles and Russians who love freedom! Brothers rush to the rescue of brothers... Comrade Bakunin, give us a fraternal palm, let's embrace heartily!" And the Polish legionnaires in Rome laid down their creed in 1848, which, among other things, read: "We extend our hand to the Slavs... To Israel, the elder brother (?), fraternal respect and help on the way to his eternal and temporal good . Equal in all rights"... And at one of these festivals in Paris in 1848, the German Everbeck shouted: "German https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 6/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM EXAMINATION OF HISTORY AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES democracy gives a hand to Polish democracy... The dispute about borders will disappear when the matter is entertained from the point of view of brotherhood and mutual concessions." Here are excerpts to give an idea of ​​the air that the naïve sentimentalists of 1848 breathed and that their belated epigones breathed from the time of the 1917 revolution in Ukraine. How much naivety is hidden in that deluge of sonorous and fruitless phrases! How much unjustified ridiculous faith! How heavy was the hangover after that banquet in the minds of its organizers! But the heads of our socialist leaders, who lived and acted not in 1848, but much later, despite thousands of dispelled delusions, were still full of those phrases. Therefore, at the time of the explosion of 1917, at first they only did what they did, that they "extended brotherly hands" to Russian democracy, "warmly embraced it", "in the name of common truth" rejoiced in the "great day of agreement", not forgetting (just a few years before the disgraceful way of 1926 on the rue Racine in Paris) and "elder brother - Israel". Because "there is no division between freedom-loving Ukrainians and Russians"... They lulled themselves, and what was worse, their people with impossible delusions, when events suddenly awakened the stolen Ukraine "on fire". Whoever read "The Renaissance of the Nation" by Vinnychenko, this incomparable document of Manila's magnanimity and democratic cretinism, has a good idea of ​​this helpless, enamored-enthusiastic, outrageous mentality of the Marats of that time... With what gullible and amorous eyes they looked at the "upset behold" revolutionary Russia, with a red horseman on his back, preparing for a new Poltava raid. On the one hand - Russia, shocked by the lost war, the apostasy and rebellion of the "outskirts", which it considered its eternal subjects, went mad with rage. And against it - the outstretched palm of the consent of our Marats... Could their "reason" have realized that the new Russia would squeeze this palm in the same way as "the fireplace commander squeezed the palm of Don Juan... Even then, faith in the palm of the Russian commander was not justified. If only because, not only in 1917, but also in 1948, there were those who saw the naivety of those delusions... Like Bakunin to Lelevel, the emissaries of liberal Russia at that time, by the way, also approached Mickiewicz with an outstretched hand. But he answered them differently. He answered with many facts about the exile of his compatriots, about Siberia and the arresting "companies", about harsh, corporal punishments, about how the tsar mocked your "Slavic brothers"... "And what about you then did - he asked, - Did they raise a fraternal voice? Did they point out to the king that this is revenge, inhuman injustice? No! You were his tool and helper! Get away from me, royal mercenaries! First wash off the stains of Abel's blood on your hands, and then, as Slavs, come for advice to a free Slav"... When Mickiewicz already threw such words in the face of Russian liberal democracy, why didn't our Marathas do the same in 1917 or 1918? But democracy has not yet shown its teeth? It showed, and how, even before the First World War (Struve, Milyukov and others) and with the outbreak of the revolution. In one magazine we read the memoirs of the shot Bolshevik Hryhoriy Pyatakov, who well gave us signs. "During the first day of mass terror (in Kyiv), 20,000 Ukrainians fell victim to Pyatakov. Among the victims were prominent Ukrainian socialist revolutionaries who believed in Bolshevik independent Ukraine and stayed in the city to join the Bolsheviks." Why after such facts - and how many were there then - not only then, but also now, in exile, of those parties, which also fell en masse victims of the Pyatakovs, still talked with Stalin (like Vynychenko) or Rakovsky (like M. Hrushevskyi), or now admit that there was "still a lot of positive" in the work of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine " ("Labor Ukraine" by the Shapovalovs in Prague)? Why do they write that "Moscow Bolshevism caused an unprecedented degree of spread of class consciousness among the working class of Russia and outside it and that this is its great historical merit"? Why do they write that "conversations about" "Alienity" and "occupational" nature of Soviet power in Ukraine must be left behind? That this power, therefore, is our native? Why didn't they call the Bolsheviks first to "wash off the stain of Abel's blood on their hands", and then start talking about the "common goals" of those who "love freedom"? Why did M. Hrushevskyi casually shake the bloody hand of Cain? Why did the idea of ​​patriotism, the idea of ​​"our fatherland", "Cossack fatherland", so loud and hot in Wieliczka, die in the souls of those people? Why did the spirit of modern combiners and lackeys emerge in its place? Hatred of violence was also the engine of every revolution. Why did the revolutionary socialists carefully avoid "tones of hatred towards a foreign people" in their propaganda? The answers to these questions would lead us into a circle of mysteries of a purely pathological nature. But I am not talking about answers here, only about affirming the fact that people with such a soul could not want, could not fan the fire that started in Ukraine with the fall of the tsar... Millions of scattered energies, hidden desires, lurking hatred, justified by centuries oppression, although not clearly realized, with great positive ideals that animated that mass - they were waiting for a magnet that would gather them together to throw a rapid avalanche on the head of the broken empire. They were waiting for a cry similar to https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 7/10 11/28/23 to spread throughout Ukraine. 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAM AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES "Wake up, Flanders!" There was no such call. He was nominated later, thrust upon the socialist leaders by the nation itself, partly against their will and desire, when the moment for the best mobilization of those sentiments was already lost. The leaders of the Russian revolution did otherwise against us! It doesn't matter under which label - but always, in the first years after the October tragedy, they baked the xenophobia of their masses to whiteness. They fueled their hatred not for capitalist, but for Europe in general. They clamored for the defense of the country, but against whom? Against foreigners! It didn't matter that they were called "sharks of the Imperialis", it was a "faison de parle". Here it was simply an intensive preaching of hostility to foreigners as such, a mobilization of the xenophobic instincts of the masses alienated from the tsar. The sharks of red imperialism came at us from the North, even though they were called the Ants or Pyatakovs. But why did we, even in the midst of the struggle with Russia, get tarnished xenophobia as a crime? Why wasn't there a slogan of fighting foreigners, regardless of their class affiliation? Why - after so many experiences - even now anyone who wants to face the truth of life and confront the mentality of the Bolsheviks with such an inexorable idea as the only way to break the will of the Bolsheviks - why are such people despised, likening them to their own insignificance? As, for example, in one article, Lesya Ukrainka was made an opponent of all fanaticism "and an apostle of the ultimate need for brotherhood with other peoples." But this pathological mentality explains why our Marathas, endowed with it, failed to oppose the fanaticism of the Pyatakovs with their own, why the great subcutaneous explosive forces of the nation remained unused. These Marathas put the issue of revolution in a completely different plane. There are bad and good foreign socialists, there are bad and good Trotskyists, there is bad and good Moscow democracy. That's why you should always stretch out your hand - they taught - and open your mouth for a kiss just in case. It is impossible to know before we miss the opportunity of the "great day of agreement"?... With rare exceptions, the socialist leaders who led our revolution never put the issue of the revolution (if only out of compulsion) in the plane of inevitable struggle and inevitable test of strength, for "or we , or they". Why did Engels openly proclaim that nothing great in history has ever happened without the use of force? Why did he openly talk about "hevalt" and its laws? Why did Lassalle speak unequivocally about this? Why does this ancient wisdom echo in the "Aeneid"? Because there is always such a law that "the wolf strangles the humble sheep when it comes to the fold", that "the ferret dries the chickens' heads, without a cry it sucks out the brains"... Why does this strict law of life ring in "The Teachings of Monomachus", which tells in an epic tone , something like "God help us and the Holy Mother of God, and Izbysha nine hundred Polovtsians"?... His strength is justified, and God blesses it. Why does this motif of eternal struggle, as the only thing that justifies life (not to mention Shevchenko), ring in Stefanyk's mind, that "as long as we bury those laughing eyes (of those who died in the war), that will be our limit"? This is not the limit set by the common interpretation of Marx or Lenin on the "great day of agreement". Why was language not used in our country against Bolshevism, for example, a cultured Frenchman: "I have great respect for life, even against earthworms and creatures that I despise. Respect for life! Respect for life ceases to work where there are nobodies who want to despise the lives of others. For these in vain I also propose extermination. Can't the victims of predatory beasts use bombs, machine guns against them? Who are you to endure all this? Kill as you are killed... Exterminate the worthless scum who treat you like dogs. Show that the worthless pride of violence can also be achieved by our revenge, when you decide on violence. Whoever lived from contempt for others, from violence and insults..., it is necessary that he also fall a victim of violence, contempt and contempt." Do you think that this was said by some hardened "fascist"? No, these are the words of Andre Suarez, who hated Hitler, and did not call Goering anything other than "gorilla"... But such is the soul of the Frenchman, which awakened in him during Joan of Arc, later in 1793, and during the war of 1914 - 1918, the symbol of which was Clemenceau. Even now, the Marathas of our revolution consider it a crime to awaken such a soul in us. Why did words similar to those of Suarez fly away from the hard faces of our "elite" like peas from a wall? Why don't we put forward our great truth against the lies of Engels, Lenin and Pyatakov? Why do we still contrast the religion of the bare power of the North with the preaching of the great spirits of 1848 or their imitators from our revolution? Why in 1917, when the life of an entire nation was at stake, when it was necessary to oppose one to another, when it was necessary to appeal to all forces in order to oppose it to the force of a barbarian who was going to Ukraine, why at such a moment there was talk of understanding "fraternal nations" " and about hugs? Why was it preached that life is not a jungle, that one nation will always be fair to another ("socialist brothers", "bread-making brothers"), that force is never an ordering element - but it should be "consent and culture" ?.. The Marathas of the revolution of 1917, like our socialists in general, were born with the souls of felagians, with souls that did not allow our felagists to unfurl the flag that the masses unconsciously longed for in the troubled times of 1917... Their flag could not rally around itself mass. He was neither anti-socialist, nor anti-Moscow, nor anti-imperial, nor did he put forward the struggle as the ultimate principle of life. The age set forth the task of building its own world of news in place of the old and fallen world. The socialist Marathas did not find a slogan in the name of which one could to successfully unite the nation. Their half-hearted ideas were not the dynamite that the revolution needed. They preached not a new world, but patching up the old. Not every Zayda was an enemy, only "the master". Not every Russian church is hostile to us, but the one that is not respects our language... Not all Russian parties are hostile to us, but only some. Not every empire is hostile to us, only centralist ones. We will let something go, they will let something go - and "somehow it will be"! https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 8/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES Socialist Marathas, who had to lead the revolution, had a panic fear of the phrase. We would be in favor of "kindergarten", but we are not bourgeois! We would be for the Church, but we are not clerics! We would be against the Trotskys, but we are not anti-Semites! Why didn't they oppose - as Carlyle wrote - God's Truth, their truth - to the lies of the devil, the lies of foreigners? Why didn't they create a new breed of people (as they once did in France), full of - as Macaulay wrote - "fanatic enthusiasm, wild zeal and a daring desire to renew the world" or resurrect the ancient, heroic Ukraine? They loved nothing passionately, nor did they hate anything. They were in many respects alien to the instincts of the masses. And it is no wonder that they hesitated to bring this instinct to the surface, because they were afraid that later they would not give him advice. We in 1917, like the British in 1789, faced a terrible enemy, an invading revolution; we also had to oppose the force - the force in love with its ideal, uncompromising against everything that the new red rider on the back of Peter's horse was carrying to Ukraine... Such a force excited in Ukraine could lead to a completely different mass that eagerly sought it, ready for dedication and enthusiasm. Limanovsky very rightly wrote that "in all battles for freedom, and even in religious wars, we always see the greatest fervor, the greatest sacrifice and dedication in the first minutes. Wasting the first minutes of enthusiasm is a terrible crime against the nation. The material was excellent. Only it is needed It was necessary to "dig up the grave", which Shevchenko wrote about, with the buried treasures of the princely and Cossack days, when we knew what a nation was, what was our own and what was a stranger, that there was glory and adventure, reward and punishment; when we realized what mercy is, but we also knew what merciless power is... The material was there, it was worthy of our Žižeks, de Kosters, Rouget de Lilles, Cromwells, Khmelnytskyi... We had to want what subconsciously the masses aspired - to turn the hostile world upside down and know that this can be done only by force... The spiritual guidance of the socialist leaders of our revolution was not prepared for this... This is precisely why our revolution lacked style. When we want to look for the style of the French revolution , then we will unfold the decrees of the convention, the proclamations of Bonaparte, the speeches of Saint Just and the pamphlets of Marat... In which decrees, in which letters and pamphlets and in which speeches of our then elite will we look for the true style of our revolution? We will not find that style there. And to find it, we have to remember Kruty and Bazar, winter campaigns, rebel chieftains, Solovki, Cheka prisons. We must turn to the great, many-headed Anonymous with Shevchenko, with herrings and herrings, who filled the army with himself, to the great Anonymous, before whose memory everyone in these years will stand with reverence... To find the style of our revolution, we must look for it in the ranks of the masses, not in the farewell statements, which did not give an adequate organizing formula and slogans to those ranks. In the revolution coming at us from Moscow, the slogans of its utopia aroused horror, the methods - indignation or disgust, the humor - froze the blood... And our left "elite" of that time opposed the "Solar Machine" (Vynnychenko) as a utopia. "Sunny clarinets" (Tychyny) - as a method and sunny or "Cherry smiles" (O. Vyshny) as humor. Now these spitters of our true traditions are howling with redoubled force, clinging to fashionable stickers and trying to bring bankrupt slogans to the nation again under this false flag. They say that the world will soon come to its senses, and the Bolshevik interlude will end. Times will come again when disputes between peoples will be settled by mutual understanding... Evolution? National Bolshevism, or better - Bolshevized nationalism? It will be something more terrible than Tsarat and his black hundred. This will be a wild reaction of the beaten, outraged in their dreams of dominating the world, frightened by the loss of the "outskirts", of the Russian people... Then we will soon understand what the struggle for life and death means and what the wolfish appetite of the exterminator people is. I do not think that imperialist Russia can be destroyed so easily, but it will be destroyed. Only not sooner, until we understand that the implementation of this gigantic task requires other people, people of a different breed... People who will turn not to the painted ones, but to the true ones, filled with "native" stupidity, the traditions of the nation, who will find its true spirit, appeal to the instincts of a strong and young people. To that spirit that burned with fire in his historical ranks, in the writings of Monomakh or Velichka, Shevchenko, Rudansky, Storozhenko, Franko, Stefanyk, Lesya Ukrainka, our modern poetry, "Herald Quadriga". We will turn to the soul of a nation bewitched and put to sleep by healers, which, like a hungry wolf, seeks to free itself from an undigested grave, from a cage where it was locked by drug addiction and Ruthenism. To the national soul, which, almost without anyone's guidance, flared up with such a wonderful fire in 1917, ripping out respect, and sometimes a cry of rage and horror from those who gloated over her body. A new tribe, truly native to our national element, must rise. As big as her. To record the new year 1917 in history with different letters. Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of national movement https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html PING Banner Network 9/ 10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM HISTORY EXAMINATION AND SOCIALIST CASTRATES of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118171224/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html 10/10 11/28/23, 3:50 PM SIMON PETLIURA The Wayback Machine - https https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172507/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Of all the ideas hostile to it, Russia hated none as much as the Ukrainian one. With laughter, slander and prison, she defeated her before the great war; with their white and red armies - during the revolution; schedule and provocation - to exile, to end with individual terror, which fell as a victim on the Parisian pavement b. the head of the Directory and Chief Ataman of the troops of the Ukrainian People's Republic, Simon Petliura. The fact that the hired killer is a Jew does not change anything in this tragic fact: this was not revenge for invented and fabricated wrongs of the stronger against the weaker, this was the repression of the winners, who were happy so far. This is happening in Cheka's cellars and under the wall, here - in broad daylight, on the street, in the hope of impunity among the "public opinion" of distant France, anarchized, disorientated and dominated by the Jewish press. There - Yevgeny Borshch, Dzerzhynsky and Trotsky, here "proletarian" Schwarzbart, a canonized avenger for the tolerance of the ruling party in Ukraine with Moscow, Israel. The staging is different abroad and in the country, but the essence is the same. The unanimous praises that the Bolshevik and Jewish press shower the murderer with, the buckets of scum they pour over the Ukrainian army, the nation and its struggle for liberation, and the arrests are emphasized - the haste with which the Schwartzbartovs offered their servants - Hr. Rakovsky and Blum, a Bolshevik agent in the French Parliament. But why did they choose Petliura as their victim in the first place? It is not difficult to answer this! There are moments in the life of a nation that it remembers like an adult man's first love, like a soldier's first battle baptism; moments when one thinks of conquering the whole world, when in a great strain of will the nation becomes aware of itself and of the vital energy that stirs in it. France experienced such a moment under Joan of Arc, America - during the struggle for independence, when a spark of national consciousness ignited with the impact of enemy forces, inspired with a great idea scattered and dormant wills, united them around a common core, created a nation... Such a moment experienced Ukraine in 1917-1921, and in these years Simon Petliura put himself at the head of the movement. This is how everything is said, this is how the will of this man in the Ukrainian liberation struggle is outlined, this is also the solution to the tragic event in the Latin Quarter. Let's not compare him to Khmelnytskyi, Mazepa, or Orlyk. It is impossible to compare the burden of crippled modernity with the shriveled and colorful Ukrainianism of those times, and it is impossible to compare the figures of the last Ukrainian revolution, who were brought up in the narrowly provincial Russian language, with the "shadows of forgotten ancestors" who were educated in Western Europe in its old and strong culture. But - the person I'm talking about here is the only one who managed to occupy a position in our stormy times, similar to the position of those back then. The fact that he did not have a wide scope in his plans, impressive power in execution - this does not reduce the fact that he was a head taller than his colleagues. The latter intertwined their love for the cause with petty ambition and shallow intrigue, he - despite all his faults - was fanatically attached only to the cause. This fanaticism also spread to the masses, who created a hero out of him, and a legend out of his name, that Shloma Schwartzbart wanted to kill her on Boulevard Saint-Michel... Among the cunning Panks, penitent lawyers with pretensions to their native Kavours, traveling salesmen who respected themselves for the Orlyks, being ordinary crows, among infatuated and self-honest political chameleons, unrecognized candidates for Mussolini with the soul of an "old-fashioned unterzer" and virtuous pipers with mustaches in the role of prime minister, not to mention a whole bunch of scammers who sucked to the UNR - among his entire environment, he was the only one who looked not at trifles, but at the essence, at the ghost that possessed him inseparably and in whose name he took the lead in his hands. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172507/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_petlra.html 1/2 11/28/23, 3:50 PM SIMON PETLURA From this moment on, his tragedy. A few cases put him on the pedestal, on which Lenin, Horta, Mussolini, Primo de Rivera, Pangalos stood, or at least demanded from him that he create for himself the pedestal of one of the Cromwells, with whom all sanctity ends. But the fatal thing about him was that he neither looked at sanctity as sanctity, nor to himself as a dictator. He did not see what he stood for or was supposed to stand for, nor what his fanciful story had set him above. He had to withstand the pressure of two elements: one, among which he grew up and which imprinted his seal on his soul, - his closest environment, - and the second - the material that was to give shape to his idea. The first element was Ukrainian intellectual patriotism, the second was the Ukrainian nation. The first - he had to overcome himself, the second - to attack himself. The task was extremely difficult, and for the very attempt to climb it, it is worth paying attention to this person. His attempt failed. This is not the place to discuss in detail why. Complaining about "circumstances" and "enemies" will be useless. First of all, we need to look at the reasons for failure, which were in the souls of the most effective people of the great drama and which they could not overcome within themselves. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118172507/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_petlra.html PING Banner Network 2/2 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY ONE ON NEED The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do... Смотрите также страницу Dmitry Dontsov THE ONLY THING YOU NEED The topic of the nation's "highest ideal" and the roads leading to it are as well-worn as any other. I want to approach her from the side from which we do not like to approach her. This new point should be learned especially by the youth, whose first call - even in non-political organizations (such as in the strata) - is "loyalty to one's country". The statist idea is now on everyone's lips. Even among those who put her under the wall in Kyiv, or among those who offer their services to fight her. But even from honest supporters of that idea, young people hear more than once: "Let's respect our passion and dedication - but don't break the windows and sit down with a book!" And then the litany: "Study, sober up, pray, and the rest is anarchy".. I don't know any more delusional science! Because there is one thing, one "something", without which no education will help; no amount of awareness will save, neither fervor nor dedication... This "something", this most important force, is character. There is no concept more elusive than the concept of "character"; with him, as with the soul: who will say what the soul is? But in the same way - as each of us will distinguish the dead from the living, and the one who has a character from the one who replaces him with a phrase. The motors of history, which move and topple nations, are units, which are followed by the mass. In peaceful times, and in critical times, in monarchies and in republics. And the miraculous power that lifts those units uphill, giving them power over numbers, is their strength of character. Commanding over others is not always the most intelligent, not always the most forthcoming, but still - the most stubborn, the one who shows the strongest character. Stubbornness, moral defiance, all the traits that make up the concept of "character" are irrevocable from anyone who seeks to lead others in the name of some cause. Moses, Mahomet, Alexander, Temerlian, Attila, Caesar, Richelieu, Pete, Bismarck, Cromwell, Napoleon - all were distinguished by extraordinary strength of character. Ambition, even genius, is nothing without character. Ambition can go astray, reason can get confused in doubts, only unbreakable character, like faith, remains. What is it in character? This is, first of all, endurance. When Clemenceau was informed one summer day in 1918 that Germany was asking about the terms of capitulation, full of emotion, the old tiger said: "Forty years I have waited for this day!" It was endurance! Because he not only waited, he actively worked for almost half a century to hasten this time to take revenge on the despised France: exposing himself to the nickname of "English seller", (because he knew that without England, France would not win), to endless fights with opponents who - like a pack of dogs surrounded him - for whom the idea of ​​revenge was a festive cockade, suspended on a holiday and thrown on the pavement after the holiday, and not, as for him, the first and last love. And he endured all this in the tone of a "dangerous madman" (as his opponents called him), without changing milestones after one or two failures (as is done in our country), without inventing - to calm his conscience - theories about "failure to complete the task", about "adverse circumstances" etc. And when the windows of Parisian buildings were already rattling from the roar of "rude Bertha", when the government fled to Bordeaux and panic was ready to spill over from the rear to the front, then his time had come. Then the eyes of France turned to the "dangerous madman" who, since 1871, had endured in one idea, in one faith, in one passion!, against which Futor teutonicus finally crashed. What is strength of character? This is the certainty of oneself, the certainty of the chosen line, of thoughts. This ability to find your goal blindly, without allowing yourself to be sidetracked by swamp fires, is knowing what you want and wanting it very much. It is to be able to say "yes" or "no" at a decisive moment to stand on one or the other side of the barricade. It is to be able to choose, and not to die of doubt, like the donkey of the Buridans, who died, swaying between troughs with hay and oats, as we are between socialism and capitalism, between the republic and the monarchy, between sovitophilism and independence, principledness and capitulation. Confidence is David's boldness before https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 1/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY , WHAT IS NEEDED by Goliath, the Dutch - before Spain in the 14th century, the Irish before Albion. Self-confidence is being able to put your head in the mouth of a living lion, and not pull the tail of a dead one. Because it is not heroic to crawl in front of some force when it is lying down, adjusting your "programs" and "tactics" accordingly... When you want to know what self-certainty is, get acquainted with the history of the discovery of the planet Neptune. Until 1846, no one suspected its existence. But the English astronomer John Adams, observing deviations in the movement of Uranus, came to the conclusion that their cause is some unknown planet. He was not listened to, but, certain of his idea, he did not allow himself to be confused, even though the facts observed so far were against him. Finally, based on Adams' calculations, a new planet and its name in the universe were found. With his idea, he lied to "facts", not "facts" - his ideas... How often "real politicians" discourage the search for unknown stars only because their blinded vision does not see them; only because they don't like to chase after new ones; who believe in "facts" established by others, and not a dream born in their own soul. That's what self-confidence is. What is strength of character? This is fidelity to belief, it is fidelity to an idea. It is a willingness to go with her to glory and to death, as the Germans say, to connect with her auf Gedeib und Verderb. This is the willingness to treat the enemy of one's business as one's personal enemy. This means making a dogma of faith out of your convictions... Loyalty to an idea is not an uncharacteristic leap from right to left and vice versa, under the guise of "ideological search"; this is not a discussion about whether a nation has the right to live or not, whether the wolf is in the grandmother's coat or the grandmother; it is not restraining oneself from reacting, to disdain the idea under shame, that this would be "out of time" or that "we don't yet know what will come of it." ? When I reflect on this philosophy of "it is possible to know", on the disputes with the Ephialtes, I am reminded of episodes from the Egyptian campaign of Bonaparte. He took with him scientists who dug up the treasures of the pharaohs and donkeys that carried those treasures and ammunition. When the Bedouins attacked the French division, it lined up in a square, and then the command sounded: "Donkeys and scientists to the middle!". So as not to interfere with those who are fighting... Only leaders who did not tolerate scholarly disputants in their ranks at a critical moment left a mark in history, not characterless skeptics who, in decisive moments, allowed themselves to be defeated by every intellectual argument: who rushed from from one thought to the opposite, as if from "stage" to "stage", like that multi-hopeful poet who proclaimed: A stage is not scary and greedy When there are still other stages behind it. Travel while there are stages! ...A stage is never scary, when it is not the last. Poets from literature and politics, when they go on a campaign, only to be locked in the middle together with their pegasus at a decisive moment. The aggrandizement of permanent betrayal does not dare to go unpunished... About Clemenceau, Lloyd George wrote recently: "Clemenceau's hatred of Germany was certain of such concentration and wild zeal that I have not seen even in the worst English Germanophobes. In those, hostility towards Germany still seemed a little calculated and theatrical, Clemenceau's hatred was in his blood. He was one terrible volcano of personal, national and religious hatred." This is the feeling of hostility towards another idea, which is only the flip side of blind attachment to one's own. This is, among other things, the loyalty that is demanded of a plastun towards his country, superiors and relatives, which requires him to turn without intention against anyone who speaks ill of them. This dedication is one of the main strengths of character. Whoever serves his team without it is building a house on sand. This is a passion for adventure, the unknown, the new; attraction to uncertain paths. This is the force that drove the English Puritans across the ocean, to the fabulous America, at their own risk and fear. This is the power that pulsed in the hearts of the Californian gold seekers, that flowed to their ranks. Livingston and Lindbergh. This is the search for new lands, new sights, new achievements; it is affection in the atmosphere of conflicts and overcome obstacles of people who are lured by the brilliant mirage of the desert, who are not satisfied with the gray world of everyday life, who are oppressed by the happiness of a dog on a chain: These are the driving forces of life and the main signs of great characters. If Clemenceau or Foch had lost in 1918, they would surely have gone down in history as incalculable adventurers. At the cradle of every great nation there always stood some "dangerous madman". What is strength of character? https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 2/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY THING YOU NEED Is never don't fail. "Only the one who doesn't want to start anew will fall," says one English literary writer. "When you sometimes slip, nothing hurts"; get back on your feet and start again... But always start over and never recognize yourself as buried... Such a leader should be." Such were the Hungarians who "started over" after Vilyagoshch, such was Orlyk who "started over" after Poltavi... What is strength of character? This is the cult of success: "The great gentlemen, says Spengler, the heads of the English parties, as long as they managed affairs, allowed themselves to be guided by the same principles as the conquerors and rebels of all times... The catechism of success is not to believe in different Ho, is not to complain: "Without him, there would be neither churches, nor English colonies, nor great American fortunes, nor victorious upheavals..., nor happy nations." Ah, how is it possible without natural boundaries, without "union"! Ah, the facts are against us! Ah, shouldn't we turn before the start, because the goal is so far away, it is so difficult to run." Because what lesser difficulties lay before those of whom Spengler spoke? But certain of its superiority and mission to civilize the colored peoples, the English nation ruled in distant Africa, in India, in Egypt, even though it was a distant goal, even though geographical "facts" did not lead it to that at all, even though it would have been more likely if the flag of Albion, distant from them by tens of thousands of miles, had not fluttered over those lands, but, for example, Turkey or Russia, which were almost adjacent to those countries of wonders, only that they did not have that firm character, did not profess that "catechism of success", did not have the "self-confidence" of the British race. "May mine be above" - ​​this is the principle of great characters , when behind it lies not a petty ambition, but a great ambition, not rashness, hysteria and disappointment, but stubborn work... Do you know, for example, that Plato worked on his dialogues for eighteen years? Copernicus on his "Revolutiones" - thirty six? Luther on the commentary on "Genesis" - ten? Why does it take one copyist sixty years to copy Goethe's works? That the genius of Napoleon consisted in the ability to sleep five hours a day, in the minute restudying of the enumerated daily reports, in the ability to perform the work of the last soldier, in memory of which, did not forget the last stupid cannon in a distant garrison, which was not in report, but what was always in his head? The cult of success is the cult of great ambition and hard work, not small ambitions, not caring about Sshein instead of Sein, which is not so common in our country - a cult of facades, not of sorrow, instead of internal culture, about an official distinction affixed from the outside ("editor"); "people with higher education", "member of the academy", "ambassador", etc.). The cult of success is not a wave of enthusiasm with a transition to instant despair of people who wanted to study Shakespeare in a year, and build their "own house" in two. The cult of success is a sign that we don't have, it's a desire to get back on your feet after every fall, to try again, because whoever is afraid of failure and disappointment has already lost his life stake, be it a unit or a nation. It is a sense of honor. In the Plast Ruler it says: "When the Plastun under the word of honor says "it is so", then it is so! This means that if you are a communist (see nationalist), then you should not write under your name in a communist newspaper, but under the disguise of the nationalist one. It means having a sense of responsibility and saying what you do, and doing what you say. It means interpreting among yourself "none", because none are all, neither warm nor cold, eternally ready to turn away from one another to others. This means that when you say that something is true in your opinion, it must be true. What is strength of character? It is always being ready to do one's duty. What does it mean to be ready? Here is an example. Before during the war, the first lord of the British admiralty was Winston Churchill. In the time of undisturbed peace, long before 1914, Churchill was preparing for it. In the war room of the admiralty, Pin had a huge map on which the location of the main units of the German fleet was noted every day. And Churchill liked to jump on his subordinates officers with an unexpected question: "What should be done when the war with Germany breaks out tonight?". It is not surprising that when this war did break out, Great Britain was the least surprised by it. The mobilization of the naval reserves, charged by Churchill on August 1, 1914, without Cabinet authorization, allowed Great Britain to act now to break off diplomatic communications with her entire naval force in full combat readiness. What does it mean to be ready to fulfill one's duty? Read about the missionary activity of the Jesuits to establish the Order. Pope Gregory XIII gave them the church of Santo Stefano Rotondo, and the Jesuits decorated it with magnificent frescoes representing terrible scenes of torture of martyrs for their faith. And Cardinal Paeoti wrote: that one should not be afraid to depict the suffering of Christians in their horror... In this way, the church wants not only to magnify the courage of the martyrs, but also to set fire to the souls of its "sons". Tim in this way, the church taught its missionaries to always be ready for martyrdom for the idea, formed heroic souls. In the overseas territories, the Jesuits were "always ready" and felt like "soldiers" of a great army going to fight and die, subordinate to their "general" who did not dare to desert. When the missionaries fell victim to the Calvanists in Brazil, they were prepared for it, and Peter Godoy, before the massacre, encouraged them with the words: "Do not betray the flag!" https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 3/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY THING NEEDED To raise and to maintain readiness for the worst in times of peace - this is what it means to "be ready" to fulfill one's duty. Without it, no religion, no unit, no nation is worth it. What is strength of character? It means taking care of the business, not yourself. For this, to give mat, and not to execute the least "boys". When Lord Kitchener was informed that a transport of dynamite sent to detonate a mountain had blown up along with the trespasser who was driving it, Kitchener asked: "So how much more material do you need?" He reacted differently than our press reacted to the red terror in Zbruch until recently; for whom even a protest against terror was madness, because so many houses will go up in smoke, so many new victims..." Humanity, said Einsiedel, costs nothing", but frees us from all heavy obligations of thought and action. Humanity is an excuse for laziness of thought, for lack of character. Because I know - not a single state has been built by it so far." What is strength of character? It is the conscience of self-control. Whoever once read about trap ships during a great war knows what it means to rule over oneself. Whoever has read about the exploits of the "Fanborough", a warship hidden under a merchant flag, the task of which was to place its sides against the torpedoes of German "U-bots", in order to save them and sink them with hidden guns... He knows how much inhuman-winter blood it is necessary to have , so that with a destroyed engine, broken masts, half-broken bail - to wait idly for the approach of the enemy, waiting for him, or for death, when one minute of denervation costs life... To rule over oneself is not like a barbarian who was laughed at by Demosthenes, who is in a fight only grabs the hit place, unable "to read a threatening blow from the enemy's eyes, unable to cover himself in advance from an attack"... This is with winter blood - to be able to navigate where the nearest blow will come from, this is to be able to anticipate the enemy's thrusts and prevent them, like the Japanese on the night of the opening of the war in the Port Arthur raid, like Nelson near Copenhagen. And all of them, especially the English, were able to do this because they trained in strength of character from an early age, learned to calculate the foresight of their actions, the strength of their movements and precision - primarily in sports and competition. What is strength of character? It is, finally, to be able to look at life as a game; not to be rudely comforted by a win, and rudely oppressed by a loss, always to meet every danger with a laugh... An example of this courageous attitude to the will of fate is humbled, but strong in spirit, Germany. Recently in Stockholm, the ceremony of awarding the Nobel Prize to the last laureate, the German writer Thomas Manov, took place. In his report, Mann thanked for celebrating not his own, but the genius of the German people in his person. His silent heroism, which does not complain and does not ask for favors, is symbolized by Man in the figure of St. Sebastian, a young man tied to a pillar, pierced with spears and swords, and smiling. "Germany," Mann said, "through its post-war poetry... preserved its honor: politically, because it did not sink into the anarchy of patience, because it preserved its state, and spiritually, because it managed to combine the Eastern principle of patience with the Western principle of form, finding in the very pain - beauty! Beauty, I will say, mocking the futile efforts of the enemy, the beauty of affirming life, regardless of anything, the beauty of elevating an idea above animal pain, the beauty of faithfulness to one's God to the end - there is a guarantee of resurrection... Not only of individuals, but also of nations . What is the strength of character? This is the admonition of the soul, sung in one strong poem by Rudyard Kipling, which I, not a poet, render in prose: "When you can see the ruined work of your whole life, and without words begin to build it anew. Or in one blow - to execute a hundred won games. Without a single violation and without a single sigh... When you can be a lover without going crazy with love. When you can be strong without ceasing to be gentle... When you can love all your friends as brothers, but without any of them being everything to you. When you know how to entertain, observe and learn. Never becoming a skeptic or a destroyer. To dream, but not letting your dream become your master... When you get to be strict, never falling into a rage. When you know how to be brave, but never reckless. When you know how to be kind, when you know how to be wise. Not being a moralizer, nor a pedant. If you know how to keep your courage and not lose your head when everyone else around you is wasting it. Then princes, gods, happiness and victory will forever be your faithful slaves. Then you will become a man..." And a nation is made of people, not of rags or stuffed animals. He who does not educate a man, does not educate a people. Kipling's works, says the French critic Brion, helped more in attracting hunters to the British army in India than the promises of the verbon corporals. For not corporals, not external compulsion, not mus, forged the English nation, only the Kiplings, who instilled in the youth a taste for adventure, a life full of dangers on far roads, over far seas. Who nurtured the character of a Briton, created Great Britain. Who will show strength of character in the small, will show it in the big as well. Enduring in everyday life, will be enduring when fate puts him in Clemenceau's position... He who knows how to "be ready" in everyday life, will be so also when he becomes Churchill. He who stands his ground in small matters is not afraid of obstacles in big ones, like Luther, who was ready to go to a dispute with opponents, even though those disputes rarely ended in his time, even if, he said, there were so many thousands of arrows at him there hell, how many tiles were there on the roofs in Worms... Only a nation of people with great characters can firmly follow their life path. Characterless society, even under favorable circumstances, even with the help of others, does not create anything. It will always veer from delight to despair, waste its head on the first failures, overestimate the power of the obstacle, and not trust its own, no matter how "conscious" it is of its "ideal"... Washington, O. Connell did not have their "consciousness" at first: both were patriots of the metropolis for a long time. But their character, perseverance to follow the once chosen path to the farthest consequences, a sense of honor, stubbornness, helped them to complete their work (which they did not even think about at first) in a position in which the characterless "conscious" immediately of their "ideal" https://web .archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 4/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM THE ONLY THING NEEDED try to outwit him, beg him, charm him , or beg in order to betray in the end... Consciousness alone will not help, nor passion alone. Great things stand in the world with firm characters, because this world is not soft either. We often talk about "harmony" in education: they say that it is necessary to "harmoniously develop all manners - not only character, but also consciousness, willpower, knowledge, etc. But to say this means to say too much and nothing: (who embraces too much , does not compress much). Because to say that it is necessary to develop all the abilities of the soul is a program for us, for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, it is a generalization. We, on the other hand, need to pay attention to what is needed in this historical moment. And this , certainly, is above all the education of strong characters. The mind can direct our energy, but not create it. Life is dynamic. We make it expedient by giving the ideal direction to its energies, but energy itself is irrational and there is no knowledge to call it to life. When you are too driven in one direction, only a sudden and strong turn in the other direction will put you on the right path, not the search for "harmony"... When I think about this topic, I especially remember "Plast". Because are all the components of the concept listed here " character", are they not nurtured by "Plast" - loyalty to the idea and the country, endurance, self-certainty, internal discipline, the ability to be always ready, a sense of honor, the catechism of success, fondness for the open spaces, seeking adventure and laughing in the face of danger? This is the guidance of the soul, without which there are no great characters, no great communities, no great plans. In fact, this mental toughness is nurtured by physical exercises and education rather than by a book. From the beginning of the 19th century, Thomas Arnold, a pioneer of the sports movement and physical culture, lived and worked in England. At first he was beaten and drunk, children were taken from colleges where they did not study, only played sports. But the movement started by him quickly spread in England and on the continent, and one Frenchman wrote about Arnold that he had a huge influence on the height and strength... of the Englishman's character? - no, of the British Empire. He who tempers the body tempers the soul, and moral temper and character are the foundation of a strong nation. Pascal wrote: "Practice first, and faith will come by itself", and Gnat of Loyola considered external exercises a means to excite the corresponding feelings... There is an anecdote about the famous journalist Girardin, who was visited by a political opponent who came with the intention of bringing the case to a match But Girardin, after killing his second opponent Karel, decided not to fight again. Seeing the irritation of the guest, he refused to speak to him until he sat down in the advantageous armchair offered to him. When this happened, the conversation took a gentle course and ended well. Was it possible to get lost in a soft armchair? It would be too great a contrast between the state of mind and the situation, unfavorable for the detection of violent feelings! Such a contrast is contrary to human character... And I brought up this anecdote in order to arouse reflection: is the fact that we have so far accustomed young people too much to soft armchairs, to warm positions and a profitable life, to m "a strong indoor upbringing, unfavorable for revealing strong feelings, and I'm just saying - for the formation of strong characters? Wouldn't "Plast" rather educate these characters (with proper guidance), which pulls the youth out of the stuffy rest, which steels the vision, strengthens the muscles, and hardens the will. They will say, isn't there something contemptuous for the soul in this, to cause a desired state of the soul by purely mechanical artificial means? No! Because there is a deeper meaning in such upbringing. It indicates that the new attitude of the soul cannot be read only from books, that in order to learn the ideas of a new moral character, one must live by them, with the whole being, have them in every fiber of the body and blood. Only then will they not be a foreign body that falls out at the first shock, but an organic part of our "I". But isn't this a utopia? - to instill this moral heart in our nation? We are so gentle, so sensitive, so poor... Didn't we recently read in one emigrant magazine that it claims the exclusive right to defend our idea; complaints that are spreading, they say that we have the opinion "as if history is made by strong individuals who know how to want strongly, and what they want, they implement without looking back at the methods of implementation... The fallacy of these people is present... Of the two, the strongest is that knows how to do things in his own way, without violence. The best wishes fulfilled by violence are evil"... I mentioned these words not to argue, but to show how many of these "armchair" people there are among us, who nothing will ever teach these warmongers, brought up in the offices of the royal chancelleries, these "case" people with the psyche of the eternal "esef" (safandula), neither warm nor hot, wandering spirits of an age sunk into obscurity. To show how hard it will be to fight against lost characterlessness. But not hopeless! Some skills can be replaced by others, sometimes during only one generation. Why shouldn't this be possible among humans when it is possible in nature? It is a well-known fact, for example, that there are parrots in New Zealand, which have turned from vegetarians to consumers of lamb fat since sheep were brought to Australia from Europe. Experiments are known, when a pigeon raised from an early age in the company of a crow became a carnivore. Where physiological reasons do not stand in the way, such metamorphoses can be completed by conscious human will. Experience shows that some birds are born with a ready feeling of enmity towards the guarantor (homo sapiens), who exterminates their kind, that this enmity is instilled in them just by upbringing, by relatives who pass on to the young the experience accumulated over millions of years, the experience of countless generations of distant ancestors, convey emotions, the instinct of creatures - wild and free, proud of even a golden bone. Long centuries have destroyed more than one healthy instinct in us, made us former steppe pirates - caged crickets, who roar and moan and sob over their talentless fate, and, like a tone, armchair esef over what is necessary in life https://web.archive .org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html 5/6 11/28/23, 3:50 PM ALL YOU NEED is to be able to want. Long years were made from the former predatory Varyazhchyna - herbivores who forgot even the instinct of elementary self-protection, from steppe torpans - circus horses, ridden by clowns. And just recently we started thinking again about the times when it was different; about a day of carefree zeal, sarcastic humor and tempers that broke and did not bend; about the day when the virtue of a dog in a budha had not yet become generally accepted virtues; when others dominated those that I embraced as an elephant "character". When people were firm in their measurements, firm in their thoughts, firm in their actions, firm in their faith, in their feelings, in their actions. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118154339/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html PING Banner Network 6/6 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/don... Dmitry Dontsova CHURCH AND NATIONALISM The nationalism of the 19th century, which emerged from the principles of 1789, was clearly anti-church, or as we used to say, "anti-clerical". He was like that in France, where in the last decade of the last century (under Waldeck and Combe) there was an open conflict between the government and the church; he was like that in the Apennines, where after the occupation of Rome by the king (1870), the pope broke off communication with the Representative of liberated Italy: he was like that in the Czech Republic and partly in Poland, where the entire left wing of the PPS waged war against "clericalism." Our nationalism was clearly hostile to the church. age: Drahomanov there, Franko and Pavlyk - here. Just like the church before him. I do not want to say that the church turned away from serving the national ideal. While before the revolution this could be said about the Ukrainian clergy, it was not the case about the Galician or Bukovyna clergy. But the main representatives of our nationalism in those days were treated negatively by the church. Was it a seizure or some deeper reasons and can they be eliminated? - I think that life itself begins to answer the question. And it's not just us. In the same France, the same Italy, a different wind begins to blow after the war, there are "apologies" with the Vatican, the latter's respect even in non-Catholic regions is obviously growing, which even its enemies cannot deny. In the Dnieper region and Volyn, the church becomes the last refuge of national energy that cannot develop elsewhere. In Galicia, some nationalist trends are openly reaching out to the church (as they want to see it), breaking with the "principled anti-clericalism" of the radicals and socialists. So it seems that life itself is slowly charting the path on which the hitherto hostile forces - the church and nationalism - should enter. In order to make sure whether this path can really lead to something, one must ask oneself: where is the reason for this convergence of both forces? - I do not want to talk here either about the all-powerful circumstances that act in the mentioned direction, or about the increase in the religiosity of the masses in connection with the war, I want to draw attention to something else here: to a more important reason. It is a slow approximation of the worldview of modern nationalism to the theological worldview of the church. This may sound a little paradoxical and will cause a smile from arrogant ignoramuses, but if it were not there, I could not be so sure of the correctness of less developed thoughts... What were the ideological foundations of Ukrainian nationalism, min. age, the grounds that are still repenting among our communists, radicals and other "progressives" who, with the clarity of a vulgarizer, will solve all the world's problems for you in five minutes? These grounds were: materialism, rationalism and socialism. The spiritual development of the past decades was under their sign, and almost all outstanding minds of the Ukrainian renaissance came under their influence. These grounds were definitely rejected by the church, and therefore it was impossible to dream about its understanding with Ukrainian nationalism, while it held the three above-mentioned principles in great esteem. But our time actually brought the slow decline of the idols worshiped by Pavlyk, Drahomaniv and Franko. Their worldview is replaced by a new one, extremely close to the worldview of the church, although the official leaders of our nationalism do not have the slightest idea about this. Until now, Ukrainian national thought has developed under the strong influence of rationalism. Originating from Descartes and the philosophers of the 18th century, this idea preached the omnipotence of the mind. She taught that only reason should decide what is good and what is evil: that there is no authority over it, and that all life's evil comes only from a lack of education. Following this doctrine, our nationalism asserted that the reason for the situation in which the nation found itself is backwardness, "unreasonableness" of socio-political governments or "uninformed" representatives of the ruling class or the people about the "true tendencies" of the Ukrainian liberation movement. In the course of this movement for life, they tried to justify it with logic and "prove" it with reason: that it lies in the interests of "progress" or "economic development", or by calling on the "laws of pedagogy" or biology, which requires heterogeneity and fragmentation of parts... It is not surprising that such nationalism had to rise against the church, which was based on unprovable, absolute truths that even "contradicted logic". It is not surprising that that nationalism, which thought that "human happiness and will" could only be given by "powerful reason without faith in the foundations" (Franco), had to openly declare against the church, to declare that it was fighting "not for churches, fields, or God ". It is clear that such a relationship with the church could count only on reciprocity on the part of the latter. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html 1/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM Our time has become a time of disaster for rationalism. "In the political world, reckless national dogmatism has taken its place. The idea of ​​the nation has taken away the axiomatic character of the idea, which finds its justification in itself, which is based not on reason, but on faith. Through the mouth of its greatest apostle, M. Bares, the newest nationalism dethroned lintelligence, and instead placed affect as the greatest explosive force in the history of humanity (1). The latest nationalism began to look for its God not in an ideal combined by the mind, only in its own desire, in its own faith; not in arguments, only in contra spem spero The old nationalism thought that "in the realm of dreams, apparitions, illusions and delusions" faith blooms only the poet's paradise, but faith cannot be the engine of the nation, because "those phantoms are their own phantoms" and "not worth the pain, blood and suffering" . The aim of the newer nationalism was actually to hunt for a brilliant "delusion", for the "illusion" of liberation, for the "ghost" of freedom, no matter how absurd they may seem to a cold mind. Philosophical doctrines did not know a universal universally binding truth. Our old nationalism did not know it either, but the new one found this truth. Even sooner - the church found her. With this evolution from reason to affect, to feeling, from logic to faith, from rationalism to dogmatism, in all its rebellion against the all-powerful mind, modern nationalism came much closer to the theological worldview of the church, which in the Syllabus of 1864 resolutely rejects the idea that "human reason is the lone arbiter of true and false." Nationalism came even closer to the worldview of the church due to the fact that it broke with the prevailing materialism. The latter made an idol of humanity - from humanity. He knew only the universal egoism of the masses, which does not tolerate any absolute above itself. The only reality here was matter, the material well-being of the greatest number of people. This was the source of the conflict with the church. In the name of its foundations, social materialism rejected war as an uncivilized act and as a "mass face", the ministers of the church - blessed - the soldiers who went to this "mass face"... In its adoration of the primitive needs of the masses, materialism rejected as a luxury thing , and the intelligentsia as darmoids (L. Tolstoy), the church owed more than one of its triumphs to art and placed faith-based intellect over matter, over numbers. For materialism, the greatest misfortune was the current patience of the "working people", the church knew the highest values ​​of both patience and life, preaching that "man shall not live by bread alone..." It is natural that our national thought, imbued with materialism, saw in science "retrogradation" of the church, ignoring social issues and pandering to the powerful. The Church did not find in its hostile doctrine anything other than the untangling of the lowest instincts of the crowd, and Bolshevism partly justified this view. New nationalism brought changes here as well. He also came to the conviction that the nation "does not live by bread alone", but only by those "delusions" that he rejected earlier. The greatness of the native land, the dream of "revenge", of "glory", national honor, the happiness of future generations, which "will come through our bones" - all these "abstract" ideas for a materialist, the new nationalism put above the happiness of all, over material well-being and peace of the existing generation, demanding for the absolute of the nation a complete dedication. Dreaming only of serving the seventh absolute, of getting closer to him (as faithful to his Savior), the modern nationalist, like the medieval fidei defensor, did not consider either the number of existences that had to be dedicated to the triumph of his idea, or the moral ruin, or material environment, as he did not pay attention to this in 1914. The well-known French nationalist S. Morras says that the interests of "those countrymen who will live" (des nationaux a vivre) should be placed above the interests of the "living" (des nationaux vivants), good of "eternal France" (France eternelle) over the good of "all the French of this age" (lensemble des Francias d`une epoque (2). This was a purely theological spirit! Because the ideal of the church is also "eternal", it is also "abstract" for of every materialist, also - whole in the future, also the value in himself, which requires reckless devotion, also puts something, some "mana" above the "happiness of all" and their material well-being. For the ideal of the church, no sacrifice is too great. Compared to it - the temporary goods of this world are nothing. In the name of this absolute, you can burn Sodom and Gomorrah, sinners together with the righteous, send famine, flood, fire and sword on humanity, raise brother against brother, just as typical representatives of militant nationalism did ten years ago and ... the theological outlook of Clemenceau and Kaiser. And then, when we remember that modern nationalism "raises the importance of qualitative civilization over quantitative (using the terminology of H. Ferrer), that it rebukes the "cowardice in front of the crowd" characteristic of democracy, disowns socialism and subordinates "rank to thought, and hand to head" and takes care only about "humanity", which is only a metaphysical hallucination" (3) - then the striking approach of modern nationalism to the worldview of the church will become even clearer. Its enemies rightly consider the main features of the new nationalism to be the militant spirit ("militant nationalism"), the spirit of "intolerance" and "violence", its uncompromising "fanaticism". But precisely these features give it a theological character. Bares preached "bare force" (la force toute nue), "legality and morality of the iron method." He claimed that "in history there have been salvations of violence" (de bonnes violences) and that "it is better to bleed a sick person than to let him perish (4). "But the big organization that we are talking about here does not say to tear out the eye that tempts us and burn the barren fig tree? Is it not threatening to punish the wicked who will "fall like stalks under the reaper's sickle" to be thrown into the fire, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth?" (5) Doesn't he say that "from the time of John the Baptist until this day, the kingdom of heaven is won by force, and he who has won takes it by force"? (6). The essence of new nationalism is war, and one of its prominent representatives says that "war is of divine origin" (7). But "the essence of Christianity is war, separation and painful separation. The goal of Christianity is indeed peace, but evil and sin have spread in us and around us, so that peace can be established, war is the ultimate" (8). Aren't these statements, isn't the commandment of the church "to be peacemakers and harmonize our will and aspirations with the will of our neighbors, no matter how much they conflict with the will of God" - "not closer to the warring nationalism of our days than to the peacemaking (at any cost) humanity of the old nationalism? https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html 2/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM Modern nationalism is "intolerant" and "fanatic" because he believes too much in his truth. And this reflects the worldview of that great organization that teaches that "he who is not with me is against me": which calls its enemies "snakes and vipers", and does not extend a hand to them in the name of "international solidarity": which requires self-denial, which consists "in a certain kind of hatred of the father, brothers-in-law, and even oneself", which requires "to treat them as if they were enemies, when they act against God's will." Is this worldview not the worldview of modern nationalism? And is Shevchenko's bloody fantasy (a random figure in our 19th century!) about the sun, which will "rise and burn the defiled earth" - closer to those "nationalists" who sang his "cherry orchard" than to the strict image of measuring the last punishment, which we see in the painting by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel? Modern nationalism holds high the banner of traditionalism, and this is its attachment to the land of the fathers, to their faith, customs, to the family and race, and distinguishes it from the third idol, which - despite rationalism and materialism - the old nationalism worshiped, from socialism. But this traditionalism unites modern nationalism with the church. The fact on which Bares builds his nationalism is "the earth and the dead" (la terre et les morts). Modern nationalism owes its strongest emotional impulses to ancestor cults. But this very cult of ancestors stood near the cradle of every religion, and even now the commemoration of the dead plays a huge role in the Christian cult. Here nationalism has assimilated the Catholic soul form with all its needs and movements of the senses. Nur wo die Graber sind gibt es Auferstehungen, these words of Nietzsche will be understood equally by a believing Catholic and a believing nationalist. Am I correctly conveying the essence of modern nationalism here? - I think so. At least his tendency. This tendency is also noticeable in our country, although the official leaders of the nation still try to leave it with an ideology that no longer corresponds to its essence... With more right, they can ask me if I explain the worldview of the church in a one-sided way." Probably, you can prove everything with quotes. Probably, Catholic science is full of "paradoxes" and quasi-contradictions: principles proclaimed at the same time: faith and reason, authority and freedom, gentleness and violence. But it seems to me that a careful researcher of the doctrine of Catholicism will come to the conviction that solving on its own way, its own "paradoxes", this doctrine still adheres to the principles that I presented above: placing faith above reason, the principle of authority above the principle of number (socialism), the "eternal" above the temporary, the moral above the material. Whatever they say, but it is certain that "as long as the world" or some region... will rest on principles different from divine, until for this world, for this region... the supernatural religion of Catholicism will not bring peace, but a sword", and "in the defense of its rights it will show the church is what the world calls non-union". They can tell me that this spirit does not blow in the daily life of the church. What else! But if this is so, then it must be different. Secondly, this is not quite so. We know the facts when the church accepted challenges thrown at it, such as during the struggle with the congregations in France, we read in the "Syllabus" the proud words: "actual injustice, crowned with success, has no sanctity of right"; we, like the whole world, read about Cardinal Mercier's astonishing hiding, finally: we see the struggle, Ukrainian. churches against Bolshevism. And this concealment, this activism does not in the least contradict the doctrine of Catholicism, which is already in humility to give one's own, but not to "God", whom it has no right to command or trade. As we can see, this practice does not contradict the theory, and secondly, it is really applied. And actually this last fact is the ultimate prerequisite for agreeing with the church of modern nationalism. I know that the church cannot and does not dare to lower itself to the role of a political party. She defends another cause. But isn't a campaign against the nation also a campaign against it? Take, for example, Bolshevism (other examples could be taken). Does his campaign against his family, against attachment to his ancestors, to his native land, to the beliefs and language of his parents, not also entail a campaign against his parents' faith? And is the destruction of the latter, as well as the destruction of the authority of the family, really indifferent to the church? Does that not destroy its foundations? Further, does the church care about the moral degradation (for "mammon", or as we used to say "for the delicacy of the unfortunate"), which occurs in the less resistant among the people with each oppression? Christianity is universal, it has its own goal and does not take part in the petty quarrels of this world, but didn't its founder thunder against his "Pharisees and scribes" who spread infection and rot in the nation? Isn't it about something more than the "temporary good" that exists for a Catholic - in comparison with his truth - national "holy things"? On the other hand: a campaign against the church is equally a campaign against the nation. With our so weak centers of crystallization of the nation; the church plays a big role in us. The reduction of its influence and authority, the reduction of its state of possession weakens the attractive force of one of those centers that transforms a scattered tribe into a conscious nation. For that understanding with the church is no less necessary for modern nationalism than for the church to preserve the repulsive power of the nation, understanding with nationalism. The church, by its very essence, is an unequal society consisting of two categories of persons, shepherds and "flock", this "flock" largely preserves its spiritual (and national!) unity only because of the uninterrupted work of "shepherds". But even the hierarchy of "shepherds" will not last long, when it passively watches how the "flock" disperses or realizes itself. Modern nationalism, as I indicated above, in its entire psychology has come much closer to the theological worldview of the church. Is the church aware of this vulnerability? If so, then she should not take an example from St. Kasyan and be afraid, going to work to the "herd", to soil their robes. She must understand that this is about the "temporary" as well as the "eternal", where there can be no retreat. Even opponents of the church will learn that when "Catholicism regained extraordinary power during the 19th century", gaining influence even in educated circles, it was solely because it "did not want to renounce anything" (11). https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html 3/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM CHURCH and NATIONALISM Once, in their " Arabesques", in the article about "The Middle Ages" M. Gogol wrote: "If the all-powerful power (the papacy) did not seize everything in its hands, did not move and rule the nations according to its desire, - Europe would crumble... It would did not come out of the chaos, would not have merged with the iron power of euthusiasm into one wall, which frightened the eastern conquerors with its strength" - I am far from thinking of attributing to the Catholic Church such a task as it had in the Middle Ages (especially since I am talking about both churches on these lands). But one of the factors that keeps not Europe, but the nation from "falling apart" is the church. And she must remember this, having found in herself the ancient "iron strength of enthusiasm". When the church realizes this, when it finds the temperament of the prelates of the Middle Ages and their faith, when, giving Caesar's things to Caesar, it will not retreat a step, defending "God"; when at the same time our nationalism finally defeats all the remnants of "anti-clericalism", then they will surely shake hands over the heads of the belated disciples of our "encyclopedists", who ape the doctrines, ape in us in the past age from the even older French "Voltarianism". Then the ecclesia militans and nationalism will find each other again, as it was three hundred years ago. I limit myself to these few and not fully developed attentions. A thoughtful reader will be able to deduce from them all the thoughts that I put into them. 1924 year. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118161106/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html PING Banner Network 4/4 11/28/23, 3:50 PM DMYTRO DONTSOV. THE WAY OF LIFE The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180946/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Смотрите также страницу Dmytro Dontsov YOUNG AND STUDENT YEARS OF DMYTRA DONTSOV Dmytro Dontsov was born on August 17 (29), 1883 in the city of Melitopol in Southern Ukraine in an old Cossack family that came from Slobozhanshchyna. In the family circle, he receives the initial "Ukrainian education". After graduating from the Melitopol real school and gymnasium in 1900, he began to study law at St. Petersburg University, finishing his studies in Vienna. After completing his studies, he moved to Kyiv, where he joined the Ukrainian political movement - he became a member of the USDRP, for which he was imprisoned by the Russian authorities in 1907. Freed on family bail in 1908, Dontsov left the Russian Empire and went to Austria-Hungary, where he studied law in Vienna. Taking an active part in the political life of Galicia in 1913, at the second Ukrainian student congress in Lviv, with his speech "The current political situation of the nation and our tasks", for the second time in this century after Michnovsky, he proclaimed the doctrine of independence, which caused his departure from the socialist movement. With the beginning of the First World War, Dmytro Dontsov was the head of the independentist Union for the Liberation of Ukraine, later in 1914-16. manages the Ukrainian Press Bureau in Berlin, and in 1916 he moves to Switzerland, where he heads and publishes the press bulletin "Bureau of the Peoples of Russia". In 1917, he obtained the degree of doctor of jurisprudence in Lviv. In March 1918, he returned to Kyiv, where he became one of the leading figures of the most nationalist at that time the Party of the Breadwinners-Democrats. Immediately after the establishment of the Hetmanate, he works as the head of the Ukrainian Telegraph Agency. In January 1919, he went to Vienna. During 1919-21 holds the position of head of the press office at the Ukrainian embassy in Berlin. Since 1922, he has been living in Lviv, where he edits publications such as "Zagrava", "Literary and Scientific Bulletin", "Visnyk". In the interwar period, he became a well-known ideologist and universally recognized nationalist theoretician, published a number of works, including "Nationalism", "Poet of the Ukrainian Risorgimento: Lesya Ukrainka", "Politics https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180946/http://www .ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_terminl.html 1/2 11/28/23, 3:50 PM DMYTRO DONTSOV. LIFE'S WAY principled and opportunistic", "Where to look for our historical traditions", "Foundations of our politics", etc. After the beginning of World War II, Dmytro Dontsov was interned by the Polish authorities in camps, and after the "fraternal reunification" of the 39th, he was forced to emigrate. Lives in Bucharest (where he edits the magazine "Batava"), Berlin, Krakow, Prague. In the winter of 1943-44, he left Ukraine forever. The capitulation of Germany finds Dontsov in Prague. He goes to the American occupation zone, and at the end of 1945 he reaches Paris. Dontsov's position was extremely difficult and dangerous, because Moscow included him in the lists of "international war criminals", and therefore in the second half of 1946, with the help of the Ukrainian Bureau in London, he moved to Great Britain, where he edited the newspaper "Ukrainian Klych". Soon he receives permission to leave for the ZDA and leaves Europe. In 1947, he settled in Canada, where he lived until his death. There he publishes a number of works, in particular "The Cross and the Sword", "Cardinal Mercier", "The Invisible Tablets of Kobzar", "The Spirit of Our Antiquity", as well as articles in such publications as "The Way of Victory", "The Way of Liberation", "Homin of Ukraine" and others. In 1949-52 Dmytro Dontsov works as a teacher of Ukrainian literature at the University of Montreal. He spent the last years of his life on an improvised "farm" in the Lawrence Mountains near Montreal. On March 30, 1973, Dmytro Dontsov passed away. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118180946/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_terminl.html PING Banner Network 2/2 11/28/23, 3:51 PM Dontsov, Dmitry The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/doncov.html Dontsov, Dmitry Home About the project Movements Regions Questions People Links Feedback Home >>> People > >> Dontsov, Dmitry Dontsov, Dmitry (18) Works (2) Dontsov, Dmitry D. Dontsov, The Great Banquet 19Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html D. Dontsov, Youth and student years of Dmitry Dontsova 30Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_bio.html D. Dontsov, Church and Nationalism 21Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_cerkva.html D. Dontsov, V. Lenin 37Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncle7.html D. Dontsov, The Great Spark of Fire 12Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_doncv.html D. Dontsov, To the Old Gods 26Kb URL http ://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_dostaryh.html D. Dontsov, The Spirit of the Flock and the Spirit of Providence 26Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_duh.html D. Dontsov, Ideologists of Nudity https:// web.archive.org/web/20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com/doncov.html 23Kb 1/3 11/28/23, 3:51 PM Dontsov, Dmitry URL http://www.ukrstor.com /ukrstor/donzow_holota.html D. Dontsov, Examining history and socialist castrates 55Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_ispyt.html D. Dontsov, The only thing that is needed 30Kb URL http://www. ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_jedyne.html D. Dontsov, Call of the day 13Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_klych.html D. Dontsov, Bellua sine capite 47Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com /ukrstor/donzow_nac5-07.html D. Dontsov, Nationalism 567Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_nationalism.htm D. Dontsov, Simon Petliura 7Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/ donzow_petlra.html D. Dontsov, Biography 5Kb URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_terminl.html D. Dontsov, What is the strength of organization 10Kb SEPTEMBER 1948 URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_vchim .html D. Dontsov, The Age of Religious Wars 26Kb January 1937 URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_war.html D. Dontsov, For Which Ukraine? 16Kb March 1949 URL http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_zajaku.html Works of D. Dontsov - Foundations of our politics. 4150Kb Vienna 1921 URL ftp://mnibguest:nopass@ftp.servage.net/mnib116-DonzowPidstawyNasoiPolitiki.djvu D. Dontsov - Die ukrainische Staatsidee und der Krieg gegen Russland 1340Kb Berlin, 1915 https://web.archive.org/web /20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com/doncov.html 2/3 11/28/23, 3:51 PM Dontsov, Dmitry URL ftp://mnibguest:nopass@ftp.servage.net/mnib130-DonzowDieUkrStaatsIdeeKriegGegRussland .djvu Konez Украинские Страницы, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years bigmir SpyLOG TOP100 https://web.archive.org/web/20060206112819/http://www.ukrstor.com /doncov.html PING Banner Network 3/3 11/28/23, 3:48 PM THE BIG BANQUET The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com: 80/ukrstor/don… Украинские страницы история национального дужику Украины Главная Движения Регионы Вопросы Деятели Sсылки Отзывый Форум Смотрите также страницу Дмитрия Донцов THE GREAT BANQUET "... say to every bird of the sky and beast of prey: come together and come to my sacrifice that I will prepare for you, to a great feast ... You will eat flesh and drink blood ... And all nations will see my punishing judgment." (Ezekiel XXXIX, 17 and 21) All nations saw His "punitive judgment". Ukraine also saw it, almost blinded by that vision. It was the hour that Krasinsky saw in his imagination, when the Husband replies to Pankrat: "Progress, the happiness of the human race! And I once believed... It happened! A hundred years ago, two hundred, a love affair could still be... but now I know: now we have to make faces at each other, because now they only care about changing tribes" (Nieboska Komedija). So! For those who go with a five-pointed star, it is about a change of tribe, not about "progress" and "happiness of humanity", not about "amicable agreement". And where there is a "change of tribe", there are no agreed interpretations, there is only a big feast: fate, hell, a deadly struggle between two forces - us or them. You don't have to be a poet to see that the times we read about in the Bible are not only in the past. We live in such times, we are all invited to the Great Banquet, at which, instead of wine, blood is spilled, and the fallen drunks are not resurrected. As two and a half thousand years ago, "will not spare and will not have mercy" Fate is our terrible time: "and people, even if they shout to my ears with a thunderous voice, I will not listen to them" - those who have no idea what will happen when whole nations surrender. corpses before their idols," then the punishing hand of justice will lay them down. For "breaking loyalty" to their Truth; that "they burned incense to other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers knew." Not only in the distant days of the prophets, but also in our day, only those who have "diamond-like, harder than stone" foreheads, and even harder hearts, will escape from hell. These "stone" hearts were nurtured by the new Middle Ages. It created cruel and - beautiful, terrible and - strong, fear and sacrificial patience - and faith, which Europe had not known for hundreds of years. Pierre Dominique writes in La Republique about the fighters of the Spanish Civil War (1934-1936): "It is clear that these are not people like you or me, they are believers, ready to become martyrs tomorrow... People who discover to us all the treasures of courage, and in whose heart dwells the spirit of consecration. I see the faith of these men, do you not feel that they are just fading in their faith?" ... "We are you, with a different meaning," as M. Khvylovy addressed the "counter-revolutionaries" in one poem... And those "counter-revolutionaries" are those who were not afraid of hell, who did not lose faith; these are those whose foreheads turned out to be harder than a diamond, who came - at God's command - to punish the idolatrous tribe. In which, in each of them, the voice of the prophet thunders: "Go to your countrymen and speak to them, and say to them: thus says the Lord God, whether they will listen or not." It will be all the worse for them when they will not be ... In one English monthly we read: "Miracles can be achieved with the overcivilized and exhausted humanity of modern Europe, when you give it a lofty goal. The encouragement of material well-being will not move the best hearts. But a religious call, giving people a higher, impersonal goal, elevates humanity above the bazaar with its affairs, above personal benefits"... It was a force that surprised Moscow in Spain, surprised in Ukraine as well, when "the serene cherry paradise and peasant good-naturedness", as Brazhnev writes, appeared brazenly a masquerade of Soviet events, when "a hand grenade hid under the skirt of a Ukrainian beauty" and "behind the peasant hospitality there was a desire for revenge and started fires" ... Yes, we are experiencing the renaissance of the Middle Ages, with its horrors, but also with its virtues, with its boundless faith, with his spirit of self-consecration, which creates not only martyrs, but also apostles of new religions. The wave of the Middle Ages floods the world, and in it the strong grow stronger and the weak break... Corpses in front of their idols, whom they did not have the faith to revive. Tottering https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html 1/4 11/28/23, 3:48 PM GREAT BANQUET these idols in the Soviet Union, because the era of the Middle Ages has returned to it as well. Haven't the processes of new "witches" ("counter-revolutionaries"), who out of malice "destroy crops" or "take milk from cows" been taking place in it for several years? "I do not know the sins I have committed, I do not know the sins I have committed, I do not know the forbidden vegetable from which I ate, I do not know Forgive me my sins, O God, whom I do not know..." This is how they once prayed in the Middle Ages . And doesn't this psalm resemble the repentance and plea of ​​those who sinned against the mysterious, unknown "general line" of the all-powerful "leader"? The deadly struggle of two forces in the primeval forest, where an enemy lurked behind every bush, who "will not spare, will not have mercy, will not listen" ... So - the new Middle Ages! In its initial dispersal, Bolshevism was proud of the camp of its opponents and, like Pancrates, mocked this camp: "Well, show us the peruns sent to your defense and the regiments of angels sent from heaven!" And suddenly, over the Dnieper, over the Danube, in the Alcazar, these plumes thundered, "regiments of angels" appeared. And their power began to break the power of the Pancrates. The death which these latter pursued upon their adversaries, at last met those who did not flinch, drove it back: against those who had sent it into the world. Against the indifference of some, this "gloomy fury" and "medieval severity", "ecstasy", "consecration" of the times when Gothic cathedrals were demolished in Europe, "brutality that surprised Moscow itself" stood up... But next to them, we also see and others, pickled from the 19th century by the demo-socialist Halyavskyi and Pererepenko, who "happily" slept through the thunders of 1812 and 1848, pretending that they did not exist. These are those whose fat souls and clumsy brains, like those of a steppe ox, did not accept the world as it is; who in the apocalyptic times still operated with the phraseology of 1848, when fools and fools, when tomorrow's enemies stretched out "brotherly hands", when it was only necessary to "awaken the democratic spirit in the peoples" so that everything between them would settle down as best as possible; when there was to be no division "between those who love liberty." And don't the Bolsheviks love freedom? And is "brutality" a democratic weapon? This is "Beskid" from Przemyśl, although it believes that "hatred of communists" is "undoubtedly a welcome phenomenon, but - "one should seriously think about what this disorganized self-defense of the Ukrainian village against Bolshevik provocations can lead to"... This "Nova Zorya" mourns the same grief... This is the highly cultured and ethical "Woman" (ch. 17) who must express her "caution about the method of fighting communism", emphasize the importance of "ethical requirements" in the fight against cannibals and warn the general public , lest, God forbid, he dares to "come down to their level in the struggle with those dark types" ... This is the radical-socialist "Public Voice" that defends public morality against the "barbarities of fascism" ... This is one high dignitary of the Church warns in the Jewish press in front of chauvinism and asks not to judge the poor local members of the CPSU (in Galicia) who (after all, life is so difficult) had to grasp even such a razor as Bolshevism... These are the Halyavskys - red, semi-red and pink - acting in defense culture in front of the preaching of violence, they are the ones who use the remnants of their strength to move up the broken tablets of the wisdom of Drahomanov, Hrushevsky, and Vinnichenko with their commandment: "bow down to your enemy in the lowest place and kill in your heart anger against him"!.. These are the worshipers of Bolshevik "achievements", this is the socialist Chwila (12. IX) suddenly remembered the principle of humanism - that the strong must respect the rights of the weak and defenseless; that it would be good to reforge swords into ploughshares; that it is time to turn from the path of violence to the path of great ideals of humanity, tolerance and brotherhood of peoples... Nasz Przeglad (5. XI) attacked the requisites of the Middle Ages, the "vendettas", the "condottiers", lamenting the fact that relations of the people to the people "know no ethical currents", to "xenophobia", recalling that "it's time to wake up from national psychosis"; that "the miasma of nationalism kills the soul"; that this cannot happen in the "time of radium, the theory of spectacle and psychoanalysis" (long live Einstein and Freud!); that the "development of moral culture" should "degrade units that worship the principle of physical violence"; that no extreme regime will survive anyway; that, they say, Bolshevism is also making concessions, then "wouldn't it be better to come to an understanding on the basis of ripe and necessary reforms" instead of declaring a crusade against communism? And "mnogaya sloves glagolakhu", ridiculous and delusional to the point of cynicism. I'm not talking about the Halyavskys here - they are the last Mohicans, over whom history moves to the agenda, whatever the forces behind them: it's not important who to be with, what's important is who to be. But where do these calls for humanity and understanding come from, from those from whom we have not heard this for a long time? Where did the brazen mobilization of Seneca, Pliny, Grill-parzer, and the fathers of the Christian Church in one of the journals cited above come from to prove that nationalists must become lambs in the face of threatening communism? Before this game, we must warn our general public. Because when socialists and radicals "taint" nationalist "rape", and the red inquisition in Spain - winter, sophisticated, bestial - that spares neither the temples of God, nor women, nor children, was called the righteous "anger of the people", https: //web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html 2/4 11/28/23, 3:48 PM THE GREAT BANQUET their calls for humanity are lies! When the socialists and "democrats" of the figures of this inquisition, led by Caballero, who was not trusted by any parliament and who ruled together with the Soviets and with the Moscow ambassador in Madrid, Rosenberg, - when they were presented to us as "fighters for freedom and democracy" , - that's a lie! It is also a lie when the "government" Spanish departments, which, as can be seen in the illustrations, have the hammer and sickle on their flags as fighters for freedom and democracy. Because "hammer and sickle" has nothing to do with democracy or freedom. But behind these lies of the radical socialists lies something more formidable: the desire to pull out our teeth so that their cause, the cause of the "people's front" directed by Moscow, will triumph. For when Nasz Przeglad i Chwila say that the age of violence must end, while at the same time bemoaning the fate of the "poor exile" Trotsky and mocking the recently ousted British High Commissioner in Palestine, General Wolfhop, for being a "pacifist" who "will not to look at blood" and not be able to drown the Arab resistance in it - then we do not believe in this humanism! Because when someone contains a pamphlet - against all those who use violence, starting with Philip of Spain and ending with Hitler, but does not even mention the Bolshevik regime - then we do not believe in this humanism! Because when someone mentions the "auto-da-fe" of the 16th century and says nothing about the "auto-da-fe" of the 20th, even in our Dnipro region, we don't believe in that humanism! Because when in the magazine those who glorified Schwartzbardt brazenly talked about the "moral degradation of units that worship the principle of physical violence" - we do not believe in their humanism! As long as it seemed to them that the scales on which the fate of our continent was weighed tilted in their favor; while various "birds of the sky and beasts of prey" devoured Ukraine, the "humanists" remained silent. Even brazenly, when they saw that the cry of those predators "Long live death!" turned against them themselves, - Viva la muerta!, (with the Bolsheviks in the Bolshevik way), - they remembered Seneca, and the fathers of the Church, and tolerance, and humanity ... They do this with one goal - to pull out our teeth! To prevent the end of communism and the forces of the devil! No, we will not pull out our teeth! We will not allow ourselves to be recruited by this "humanism" either, because the one who proclaims it is covering up his devilish goal with it. No, defenders who save the monstrosity of communism and Moscow will not convince us. It is precisely those values ​​that have been prescribed by the "Pshegliondas" and our socialists that we must raise high like flags: "high chauvinistic tension" (such as it lives in the "Pshegliondas" themselves), "the psychosis of fanaticism" (it would not sit on our backs Bolshevism, if we had it earlier!), finally, "adoration of that fitful own anthropological mashup, pulled by the thorn of one language." This is not "parishionism"! This is the patriotism of a nation that will not allow itself to be tamed! We have had enough of "progress", "brotherhood of peoples", "universal life" and other false slogans with which more than one person in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Lviv broke their heads, turning them into donkeys in advance... It is about saving our national team, not about "advances" and "fraternities". It is about strengthening its repulsive power, not about allowing the Pharisees to further distribute that power from humanity and "universal happiness" ... Times respect such nonsense. The forerunner of Bolshevism, the poet Holz-Miller, threw his defiant "I believe" in the face of the enemy: We are, you will win in battle, We are enemies, and in the time of destruction, you do not expect compassion from us, We do not accept mercy from you . A beacon of the future, this dilemma has blazed a giant torch in our time. The same opinion was expressed in modern language by the former Spanish ambassador in Berlin, Luis Arquisten: "The historical dilemma is nationalism or socialism. And in the war between them, force will decide", primarily moral force, moral courage. General Franco thought the same way, and the heroic defenders of the Alcazar, who were blown up by red gangs, also thought the same way. That's what those who were shot near the Bazaar thought. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html 3/4 11/28/23, 3:48 PM THE GREAT BANQUET Even elsewhere they are beginning to think so : "One must be strong. One must be resolute. There is no more room for tricksters, nor for the meek, nor for the meek. There is only a camp of husbands and a camp of slaves." People from the "slave camp" must be pushed aside. The Middle Ages - the one that preceded the present - in which Dante's wonderful work appeared, threw to hell those who "lived selfishly, neither enemies of God, nor faithful to Him"; those who "neither heaven wanted them, nor hell accepted them"; "those despicable hundreds, who were renounced equally by God and the devil, meager souls who lived without shame and without honor." Those from the "slave camp", those "little souls", those "warm tricksters" who, in the face of a terrible uncompromising reality, only know that (according to Drahomanov) they invite us to go "under a more humane banner than the banner of religious and national fanaticism "; who, in the face of the red hell, only know how to remember the nationalists - "not to transfer relations between people into the plane of brute force"; those who want to cheat the resolution of a big problem, instead of cutting it; those who curse anyone who offers this dissection as the only solution; those in whose gelatinous souls all human feelings of resentment, human dignity or protest have died; those whose ears are open to the whispers of wordsmiths who want to take the sting out of us - they are all destined for one fate: to be butchers at the great feast of history. The stupidity of these "little souls" does not dare to drag the whole nation or even a part of it. The great feast is still going on. We are breathing in the hot air of the new Middle Ages, in which only "hard-hearted" or "evil" people mean anything, like our ancestors from Kozelets, nicknamed by the Tatars "the evil city" for not allowing themselves to take "the flattering words of the wicked." People of ardent faith and stone heart! Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118162119/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_benket.html PING Banner Network 4/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM IDEOLOGISTS OF HOLOTA The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com:80/ukrstor/do… Украинские страницы история национального двігу Украины Dontsov IDEOLOGISTS OF THE GOLOTS The Ukrainian narodniks of the time of Kulish and Drahomanov made a god, an idol, out of the common people. Franko reproached Drahomanov that "society - in his understanding - was characteristically only a productive, working, in our region, boyish mass", all other strata ("white-collar workers") - were either demanding or unnecessary; criticized that the people of Dragoman cherished "faith in some mystical will of the people, in their innate ability to grasp some of their own "truth", as soon as the depraved intelligentsia does not prevent it"; it was only necessary to "overthrow the current state and social order, hand over its heritage to the hands of the mass of the people and leave it to their will to build a new order." The idolatry of the common people led our narodniks to the point of complete abdication from the tasks of what is called leading the nation. Provid did not dare to "throw" his ideas to the people; when "the people" stood for independence, it was possible to be independent. And when not? It is difficult, above all, the principle of the majority! In everything, one had to ask - how the "people" think. And in the meantime, the concept of "nation" has undergone a huge evolution since those times, but little noticeable to narodniks. What do I mean by that? What is the huge difference between, say, the peasant people of Kvitka, Myrny or Cheremshina, with their firm morals, customs, and religiosity, and the "people" of the present Megapolises, who do not believe in God or the devil; which fills the deafening and demoralizing cinema "shows" or sports arenas and enjoys reading "comics" with criminology and sexuality. There is an even greater difference between this Kvitchyna people and, say, those dockers in Le Havre or Cherbourg who refuse to unload ammunition and weapons for the army of their homeland, France, in order to facilitate its annexation by a foreign rapist... Meanwhile, many "patriots" make idols for themselves precisely from that "sovereign nation", from those dockers or from the atheist crowd of modern metropolises, thirsty only for "bread and spectacles". Is this normal and how did it happen? This process is best seen through the magnifying glass of literature. In ancient literature, in Ukraine, as well as in Europe in general, and in art as well, the following were the objects of adoration: Deity, Virgin Mary, saints, heroes, people of high spirit and character. When it came to a person as a hero, he was primarily interested in God's spirit, what lifted him up. Then it changed. The literature was filled with "poor man", "humiliated and insulted", they began to write about the suffering of the oppressed people - and it was good. But at the same time, attention was not paid to moral suffering, to the lowering of human dignity, to the divine "I" in man, as to physical suffering, to carnal pain. And secondly, this stage in literature was only a step in the development, a stage by which it was not the people, but the nakedness that came to be exalted. It started with the main philosopher of modern nudity - Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A person, he taught, has no original sin and comes into the world innocent, but when he later deteriorates, it is not he who is to blame, but the bad system of the community, which needs to be changed, not the person. What makes a difference: when an aristocrat was a scoundrel, a thief, or a murderer, then he was personally guilty and responsible and had to go to the guillotine, as Rousseau's adepts quite faithfully emphasized the master's science. If the poor man was a criminal or a thief, then he was not guilty, he was a "victim of circumstances", environment, needs, burdened by parental inheritance, etc., and the jury had to acquit him. Although wealth and power can equally demoralize, like poverty and slavery. The next step in this philosophy was very easy: when the derailed individual from the "people" was not guilty, then others were also innocent. And they had to be sympathized with as victims of an unjust system. It was necessary to forgive them, and - it was necessary to adore them, put them on a pedestal. Nudity under the guise of "the people" crept there - first in literature. First, these magnifiers of nudity appeared in literature - Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and many Western writers, such as Zola, Proust, Marguerite, Collette, and now Sartre. Nudity had to be loved and pitied, and when, for example, robbed or molested, and when she herself molested, like Raskolnikov from "Crime and Punishment", or like the prostitute Sonichka from the same. To resemble in everything - how to the ideal, to the peasant, Moscow - was the idea of ​​Count Leo Tolstoy. When Prince Pierre Bezukhov from "War and Peace" looked at the "bare feet of a peasant" near him, "at big, dirty toes, a smile of cheerful satisfaction appeared on his face"... You can sympathize with a poor, unwashed peasant, but be satisfied with his dirt?! This meant not only sympathizing with the grief of the victim, but raising him on a pedestal with all his flaws and defects! We can see a similar scene in "Resurrection" by the same author, where he blurs with pleasure when, on Easter, Katyusha is baptized with a beggar with traces of a terrible disease on his pale face. Masarykh, who met Tolstoy, wrote that https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html 1/4 11/28/23, 3 :49 PM IDEOLOGISTS OF BADNESS "Tolstoy saw a certain merit in dirt", Tolstoy said that Christianity should be overgrown and that an overgrown person is dearer to him than a physically clean one. From here there was only one step - to the adoration of Gorky bastards and Bolshevik hooligans. Adoration of nudity! We have started this process as well. Obviously, no one will judge Franko that he was a worshiper of nudity. "Producer, worker", "husband", "stone mason" - these types of him were certainly not types of the nakedness, only of the people. But even in that nation, he had already observed other types of people with a "slave heart" and "slave brain", devoid of an ideal, types of fruitless rebellion, in which "low malice" and "slave anger" spoke instead of noble anger. And the poet's ardent love for his people - led him to very strange testimonies. He confesses that he loves his people: "not only for your good character, but also for your mistakes and malice, even though I cry over them; for that stubbornness of yours, for that pride of spirit that, having gone down your stupid path, even God do not listen; for the deceitfulness of your tongue, for a wide conscience that clings to earthly good like clinging roots, for the shamelessness of your daughters, for their ardent love, and for your language and customs, for your laughter and breathing"... This already means to love someone not for his good traits, which are distinguished by our people, but also for the traits of nakedness, for impiety, for lying, for lack of conscience, for slavery of the spirit, attachment to matter and its benefits, finally for debauchery... Franko to he did not return to that topic again, and it remained an episode in his work, which was balanced by his rather cruel whipping of his people for the "lack of character and renegadeness" of some of its members. But - it was still a step on which, scrambling, others went. The adoration of intellectual nudity began in our country with Vinnichenko, with Mykh. Rudnytskyi, then some post-Soviet Ukrainian authors were engaged in it. And as far as emigration - we found theorists of nudity as such, its ideologues. These ideologues mainly include Shevchuk-Sherekh, Divnych, Potoroka, Fedenko, and Samchuk. Although the latter only often, being rather an ideologue of our "my-house-on-the-edge" peasant. He even asks, "what did the bravura uprisings help (the rebels)? Can they boast of greater consequences, even for such Czechs?" - but he also says: "fight and compete for things that do not exist and are unreal. Be romantics and heroes. Unfortunately, I do not belong to such people", my hut from the edge... In it, the turn begins, if not to adoration, then to justification, to the recognition of the reason for being for a person from nakedness. When he is told that "good and evil, warm and cold, wise and unwise cannot be combined," he replies that "these things live in pairs in ourselves, in our souls, and that is precisely why we can be what we are - by people." Here there is already an admission - on equal rights in literature and in public life, both the unwise and the indifferent (neither warm nor winter) and - even evil... This is the formation of a veil for nudity, and the points are put by Sherekh- Shevchuk. He already maliciously rejects all "romanticism" and "heroism", leaves no place for them in the realm of the "little man", that is, the average person. This last should set the tone for our entire life! We must accept a person as he is - both in jacks and in downs, we must rely in social construction not only on the positive layers of the nation, but also on the negative, up to "the deepest", whatever they may be; we must take a person "in the whole breadth of his spiritual and physical existence " - both the noble and the vile, "to draw strength even from the abomination of life", because "and from dung grow wonderful flowers". Only when a person combines these good and "disgusting" or "pure" elements "she will be a "whole person", a whole, not one-sided man. Franko looked at it differently. He knew that the only person who still "has not lost his sense", who is "still beckoned by battle" and "hope is still medicine" - only that whole man! Those who no longer have that, who plunged into their "bad days, swampy days", he - with all his "versatility" ceases to be a "whole man", becomes his caricature. But this "versatile person" is a model of nudity ideologists. She should be a bearer of history, a hero of our time. A person should be taken "as he is", and not "made" out of him! Do not improve, do not discipline! Such a person is enthroned everywhere. First of all - in ethics. Free road to the instincts of the crowd - bread, pleasure, spectacles. Away with everything that can be a scourge for those instincts, away with asceticism, self-control, over your whims! Away with human will, because when this will forbids you to "draw strength from the abomination of life", from manure - then it will be "totalitarian violence"! Ethics should be relative, in the pleasure of "free" nudity. No dogmas! No axioms of behavior, because it will be "medieval violence", "inquisition"! The literature of nudity instructs Tolstoy and the French Bolshevisans, but mainly dwells on the "little person" with her petty troubles and her joys - mostly alcove or culinary. One "mason" describes for whole pages, in his novel, how the cows and pigs on the farm "did their daily work... eats... Everything eats...", and right there is a detailed menu of the pig kitchen... People they also eat, the young woman eats, the hero Peter eats, "his eyes are closed, like a sweet cat, and his thick mouth glistens", he does not eat - he "celebrates". Next, we see how Suprun's mouth "opens and closes wide" when eating, how the hostess "pours tea is an unheard of pleasure", we read descriptions of knishes, butter, etc. endlessly...("Ost" - U. Samchuk) . This is what kind of literature is to the taste of the "little person". What is surprising, that for authors with alcove and culinary, stomach "problems", Malanyuk and Olzhych are twisted souls, fictionists, far from "real life"? Golot creativity spread in the cinema as well. And there the main character is a "little man", often a gangster. Chaplin goes to the role of not a "little", but a vile person, a criminal ("Mr. Bideau"). Nothing is great in the cinema, heroics are also not tolerated - except for small exceptions: when kings and rulers are brought out, they are always either "in slippers", or as fools or https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http: //www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html 2/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM IDEOLOGISTS HOLOTA tyrants; priests - either as inquisitors, or as comic figures, to whom true "heroes" - small people - give a kick in the back... So that the nudity in the hall would laugh and know that the hero of our days is not "lords, kings and popes" , and channel. They are guided by the same idea in politics. They discovered that our national worldview is the "philosophy of the heart" (Chizhevskii) and "eternal peasantry", and having proclaimed this, they entrust not the people of the heart and not the peasant, but nudity, as the ideal of a political leader. In politics, nudity - without an ideal except "prosperity", does not tolerate "chauvinists", because "chauvinist" is Taras Bulba, who kills Andrii, and this is already "intolerance"! Is Andrei a renegade? But renegades have the right to live! The leading leader of our nudity, Drahomanov, wrote that "the word renegade is wild nonsense. Do not dare your nation despotically declare to him - you are ours... and you must remain ours until the end"! Golot's ideal of freedom is "the right of free movement from nation to nation" (M. Shapoval). True, how profitable is it? Everyone has the right to join the rider's "nation" (and the army) when he thinks it's more profitable... And whole young generations of socialists were raised on Nikita Shapoval! And he was never accused of "demoralizing the youth". Golota in politics is engaged in "reconciliation of contradictions", stands outside the conflict, which he organically does not tolerate. It is basically neutral - "outside the battle". Can't stand nationalism, because it doesn't allow you to love the enemy, which is unpleasant for the Shveiks. He does not tolerate nudity and clearly hostile instruction against communists (because "these are our misguided or evil brothers"). Talk about a clear conflict with the enemy, and the Golot "insect" will boil in the cauldron: We just need peace! Only evil people enter the fight, We have a good, sincere soul"... That's how the poet O. Babii mocks them. The tactics of political nakedness? - This is from Rudansky's "Science": when you shake off the possibles of this world, "My dear son, forgive yourself like a rower, the back will not curve from an incline. For that, the master will step and look, ...on the humble And will accept you as the chosen one" - in honor of the Quislings. All the ideologues of nudity - Sherek-Shevchuk, Samchuk, Fedenko, Divnych, Kurdydyk, and Kotorovich, because everything else is "dangerous illusions" that "distract from real work", and Shveiks - "can boast of better results"... in the hallways of "brothers" from one or another International. The term "Shveik", "Shveikianism" - not my invention; I use it because they (Sherekh and Samchuk) used this term to define tactics, which are opposed to "mystics of struggle", "romantics", etc. It is difficult to invent a better definition than this self-definition. They do not tolerate bent-back tactics, obviously, people of discipline, people of will, those who do not know that in order to lead a community - you need to be people of "special character", you need to curb relaxing tendencies, strengthen your spirit, have faith... These are "orders"! And for ideologues, all kinds of trouble "elites", "orders", etc. are "false" theories and fabrications. Meanwhile, these are neither false theories nor any theories at all, only the reality And in old Rome, and in ancient Hellas, and in the Hetmanate, and in England until recently - the ruling verst was actually an "order", a "caste", access to which was allowed after extensive and diligent training of the mind and character, with a special selection those who were not carried away by Shveikov's wisdom and characterlessness were accepted. On the contrary, they had to be people of character, faith and virtue. In order to fulfill his great task, which is before him, the leading stratum of the nation should not lie in front of this or that force like a rowdy, but break it! The leading stratum - as Shevchenko taught, as Franko taught, as all our history and not ours teaches - should consist of individuals of a separate breed, higher in spirit, when the community should not perish under a foreign pharaoh. https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html 3/4 11/28/23, 3:49 PM IDEOLOGISTS OF HOLOTA Holota, at least its heralds, the most uncertain of their positions, they themselves express doubt - (or put it in the mouth of the enemy) - is their science not a manifestation of life's weariness, not an escape from the heroic into the arms of gray peace? Isn't this the negation of everything great? No, this is something worse! In our national aspect, it is the same as in the whole world - it is the enthronement of the whole life of nudity as representatives of the people, discovered by the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset. The representatives of the nakedness, remaining with a naked soul, with a "slave heart", with a "slave brain", with the soul of the profiteering and stupid Shveik, want to rule the nation, create "great literature", a code of conduct, dictate politics! But this is nonsense - unacceptable nonsense. Shveiks say that the "philosophy of the heart", that "peasant Ukraine", that the patriarchal world of gentle and humane Greeks, or simply holotchiks, are our traditions. No, not ours, but the traditions of the Shelmenks. M. Hrushevskyi chastised our princes as "restless mutineers and zabiyaks" ("predators" - in today's terms), for not caring about the "wealth, life and blood" of the common man, a stench. That is the source of our different traditions. Some - the prince, his wife - cared about faith, culture, the state, and order in it; accordingly, they also had the psyche of heroes and ascetics. The others - stinkers - cared only about "wealth, life and blood", spat on the rest, that's why they became "Tatar people", who were promised all this while deceiving them, and now they are Bolshevik servants, supporters of "real (Moscow) Ukraine" and "tolerance" to the "stray brothers" who bent their backs in front of the rider... Two traditions! The tradition of the Smerdys is the tradition of the Shveiks, the tradition of princely Kyiv, the Cossacks, Shevchenko is the tradition of a free nation, free-spirited people, people who do not think that people with the ideal of the Czechs and Benes dare to be in the company of a free or free person fighting nations Not all strata of the nation consist of the naked, nor all of them peaceful Greeks, of working people. From the same Rudansky, the father teaches his son to follow the mother's science - to bow down to force: "You be damned, dear son, How you bend your back like that, How you lie down on a row!" The father knows that the "spine will shrivel" because of that, the person will become a channeler, that he will be idealized by shrieks. And the "conductors" with a broken spine did not seem to want anything else, but for someone to harness them to their cart. Panas Myrnyi, in one novel, describes how the Hetmanship, the Cossacks ended, and how the free people were turned into slaves by the zainets. It brings out exactly those two castes, two strata. One - former Zaporozhians, steppe people, of "restless nature" who "fired with hatred for everything that oppressed"; who were "fierce as dust, brave as a hungry wolf", who did not want peace with the wicked, because "if you don't put them down, they will put you down." And the second - those who reconciled, they are called "submissive oxen"... The 19th century brought the idealization of those submissive oxen (Kvitka, Kulish, Nechuy). Now a step has been taken further, idealization is no longer of Kvitchyna peasants, but of his henchmen, nakedness. The ideologues of this nakedness elevate the concept of the people to the concept of noise. They cynically demand that that noise with all its holotic signs be loved and put on the throne. When the world enters such a stage, when the intoxicated masses, like the Jews behind the Datans and Avirons, are ready to really build themselves Baals and pray to them, then - they must find the Batavs of the Levites, the Batavs of Navin, they must find Shevchenko's "fools", even a handful of "Cossacks out of a million" swineherds", which would stop this orgy of cowardice, plebeianism and betrayal. Ukrainian Pages, http://www.ukrstor.com/ History of the national movement of Ukraine, 1800-1920 years. SpyLOG https://web.archive.org/web/20060118160415/http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/donzow_holota.html PING Banner Network 4/4