adopts that model.” All those who oppose—or even criticize—rnthe globalist trinity (liberalism, democratism, consumerism)rnare de facto agents of the Evil One.rnRussian nationalism, then, is something of an impedimentrnto the globalist project, as the Russian right has so long maintained.rnSuch a gigantic chunk of the earth’s surface, such an influentialrnnation, could not be left out of the Grand Design.rnAny assertion of Russian uniqueness, of a distinctly Russianrnmission, of a right to a “third way” between communism andrn”democratic capitalism,” is therefore xenophobic, racist, obscurantist,rnetc., etc. So much then for the alleged uniqueness ofrnRussian messianism, for the supposedly pronounced dogmatismrnof Orthodoxy, for the special Russian hatred of all thingsrnforeign—for what thing that is particular and distinct is not foreignrnto the globalist?—or for the assumed particulariy aggressivernquality of Russian imperialism. For that matter, so muchrnfor the uniqueness of Russophobia (and I do not mean to sayrnthat it does not have its own peculiar features or special significancernfor the Russians themselves), for it is but one manifestationrnof the real phobia that grips the globalist mind, the fearrnand hatred of all things that are distinct, organic, and particular.rnIn the mind of the globalist exponent of “democratic capitalism,”rnit is not merely nation-states that are obsolete, but thernnations, tribes, elans, and in some cases even the familiesrnthrough which most of us make sense of the wodd that are alsorndoomed to be tossed on the oft-mentioned dustbin of history.rnOne Russian nationalist has observed and commented atrnsome length on the bizarre behavior of those afflictedrnwith the spiritual disease known to us as “consumerism.” AleksandrrnRutskoi, the former Russian vice president, has lamentedrnhis countrymen’s headlong rush to join the blocks-long linernsnaking its way past the statue of Russia’s greatest man of lettersrnto Moscow’s Pushkin Square McDonald’s. The line, he noted,rn”probably perplexes Aleksandr Sergeyevich [Pushkin], frozenrnon his pedestal” across the street. There were times, after all,rnwhen Pushkin’s compatriots “formed similar massive crowds torncatch a glimpse of the miraculous Iverskaya icon of the HolyrnMother,” or had waited outside the Pushkin Museum to viewrntreasured works of art. Unchecked “Westernization” (onernwinces at the notion that the Golden Arches are the primernsymbol of what many now call the “West”) may be in its ownrnway just as bad as communism. What “hurts me” the most,rnRutskoi confessed, was the unexamined fascination of many ofrnhis countrymen with the trinkets of consumerism. This wasrn”not like waiting for food,” it was “like waiting for Holy Communion.”rnRussia’s spiritual decline is, for him, “more terrifyingrnthan the feebleness of our semi-ruined economy.” Thernprophets of Russian revival—he singled out Solzhenitsyn—rncould “hardly be heard in today’s babble of voices.” Whateverrnhis faults—and there is more than a grain of truth in the chargernthat his particular brand of Russian nationalism tends towardrnstatism—who among us can deny the insight of Rutskoi’s remarks?rnIt might interest Russian nationalists to know that even somernglobalist ideologues have expressed doubts about the results ofrnthe destruction of organic societies that is a doctrinal necessityrnof the globalist faith. Fukuyama himself is troubled by thernprospect of a wodd of Nietzschean “last men.” Mr. Fukuyamarncalls the “last man” a “human being who is content with himself,rnand with a life of endless material accumulation, a beingrnwithout striving, sacrifice, risk, or ideals.” The problem of thern”last man” is, according to Fukuyama, “the deepest problem ofrnliberal democracy,” which is in danger of leaving its citizensrnwith “stunted souls.” The “last man” with his “stunted soul” is,rnin fact, the enlightened consumer that Fukuyama’s followersrnhave tried to sell to us as the model citizen of their brave newrnwodd. The only wodd in which “freedom” can really exist inrntheir eyes is a wodd without culture, without art, without truernspiritualitv, and without the passionate attachments of realrnpeople to their own nation, country, family, or neighborhood.rnA friend of mine, upon observing the frenzied reaction of arncrowd of Russian youths to a Michael Jackson concert inrnMoscow, once quipped, “No wonder they [in this case, the Russianrnnationalists] hate us.” No wonder, indeed. The eccentricrnMr. Jackson, “Western” fast-food outlets, and trashy films andrntelevision shows, among other things, are nowadays treated asrnsigns of progress by many (but not all) neo-Westernizers. Howrnfar we have come from Chaadaev, whose Western model wasrnGreco-Romanized Christendom!rnOn the subject of historv and Russia’s place in it, PeterrnChaadaev not only influenced the budding Westernizer intellectualrncurrent in Russia, but the conservative Slavophiles asrnwell. As the eminent Polish scholar of the Westernizer-rnSlavophile controversy, Andrzej Walicki, has noted, Chaadaevrnwas “horrified” by the July Revolution in France, somethingrnthat undermined, for a time at least, his faith in Europe. Walickirnrelates that Chaadaev, after discussing the events with futurernmembers of the Slavophile current, particularly IvanrnKireevsky, began to see Russia “as a force reserved by Providencernfor a special mission and therefore kept apart from therngreat family of nations that had participated in history.” Russiarncould borrow from Europe, but learn from, and avoid, Europe’srnmistakes. The end of history would be foreshadowed byrnRussia’s answering “the most important questions facingrnhumanity.”rnChaadaev’s theme was later taken up by the Slavophiles.rnThe West had taken many “wrong turns,” but Russia, whichrnhad avoided them by remaining true to the purity of Orthodoxy,rnwould one day, after borrowing carefully from among thernWest’s undoubted achievements, create a new synthesis thatrnwould shine as an example to the world. The Slavophile end ofrnhistory would be the reunification of Christendom as the West,rnin turn, learned from Russia. Russians, therefore, are, as Dostoycvskyrnlater maintained, “drawn toward brotherhood.” Forrnthe Slavophiles, Russia was destined to be the carrier of a messagernof reconciliation to suffering humanity, but a carrier thatrnshould, indeed must, respect the distinctiveness of the world’srnpeoples. If the classical Slavophiles’ philosophy of history wasrndistorted by many of their epigones—emerging as either imperialisticrnPan-Slavism later in the 19th century or an HegelianizedrnMarxism for communists of the “National Bolshevik” persuasionrnin the 20th—we can at least recognize that theirrnmessianic tendencies were surely not unique in the annals ofrnhuman history, or that the unity they envisioned was a unity ofrndistinct nations, each a unique facet of God’s design. The Russiansrnare hardly demons, but flawed human beings who sufferrnfrom the same fallen condition as the rest of humanity. If therndecline of civilizations can be measured in stages of culturalrndecay, then the decline from the Cross as unifying symbol tornthat of the Golden Arches has indeed been a precipitous one.rnIf imperialism must be our destiny, then we should find morernheroic banners to march under.rn24/CHRONICLESrnrnrn