Philosophical Sobor “The Great Russian Rectification of Names”

Session 10 “Russian Theology of War”

I will try to touch upon some conceptual points that were not visible during Vladlen Tatarsky’s (Maxim Fomin’s) lifetime. It often happens that such things become a kind of “parting gift” and only become visible after the death of a person. It’s very interesting to me that we are discussing Vladlen in the context of the Great Russian Rectification of Names, as he was the living embodiment of that concept for me. He spoke in simple, easy to understand Russian, which did not need to be rectified, and he refused to enter the field of liberal hostile discourse. This is an interesting phenomenon: his speech, which was addressed to young people and was understandable to them, did not contain reflections on gender, the individual, and other concepts which, in our opinion, must be revised. This is necessary for us to think authentically and not in the format of those philosophical concepts that are accepted in the West and that have brought us to the problematic, acute point in which we have been for a long time and which opened up like a boil at the beginning of the special military operation.

The Great Russian Rectification of format or genre, of which Maxim Fomin was the petrel, is the second concept I’d like to discuss. Recently, in a dialog with someone, I came to the conclusion that the language of tradition, the format of transmitting the fundamentals of traditional society, must necessarily be changed. For example, a person can be a believer and a philosopher, and they can gratefully accept what they has inherited from their ancestors. But unless they are open to society, they cannot share this knowledge. This is especially true for various technological tools. Nowadays, in order to be understood by young people, to convey a philosophical concept or a religious point of view, it’s very effective to use TikTok, the social media. It’s very important to speak to young people in their own language, and we often fail to do that. We don’t think about it and we don’t use it. We have problems on the information front, e.g., the gap between the understanding of the meaning of war by the older and younger generations. In my opinion, this is a purely technical problem, and perhaps a linguistic one. We don’t use popular means of delivering ideas. Therefore, for me, Vladlen is a kind of embodiment of the concept of archeofuturism – preservation of traditional values backbone and a modern form for integration of these values into society. Vladlen was one of the breakout stars of the format. He could simply pick up his phone and record a video on Telegram in a simple, clear, compelling and authentic way. More value was seen in his videos than in the official briefings of the Ministry of Defense. This was an authentic Russian experience. For me, Vladlen is a reflection of the Russian way of being – a little wild, not afraid of war and thirsty for it, but fair at the same time. He was in search of a language with which he could describe everything, and in the words of Aleksandr Dugin, Vladlen was not afraid to be wrong. We still have to learn all of these things.

Returning to the theme of archeofuturism, it should be noted that Vladlen was on the one hand a warrior, a man who sacrificed himself, and on the other hand – he used the cutting-edge technology, i.e., operated UAVs and promoted the idea of massively introducing this technology in the army. This is the archetype of the warrior who keeps up with the times. This is of high importance. On the one hand, Vladlen was expressing Russian meanings extremely clearly and concisely, and on the other hand, he was looking for a form of delivery that was relevant to the current moment. Since I’m a person who comes from the field of media, this is very important to me. What matters is that he was, not that he seemed to be. He was a man of the people, living with them through thick and thin. He had a tremendous amount of credibility and people identified with him. This is what distinguishes him from the official speakers. They try to connect with the people, but they are not authentic to them.

Vladlen was not someone who would come to the front to take a photo in the third front-line and say “I’m with you!” in order to score political points. No, he embodied what it means to be Russian. He has lived an incredible life of adventure – the hero’s way. A kind of a Jünger type, in my opinion. But at the same time, he was Russian.

Now a huge part of the information front has bared, and this gap urgently needs to be covered: new projects need to be made, more effective than the previous ones.  We should learn from Vladlen. I find myself thinking that every time I address an audience, I will mentally address Vladlen as a mirror of that audience, a mirror of the Russian World, its critic and censor.  “Do you get it what I was trying to say? Doesn’t that sound too complicated, too dull? Have you lived it?” – these are the questions I’ll hear in my head. I think everyone needs such an internal censor. Especially when you work with the kind of audience Vladlen worked with.

Translated by Daria Seregina