Narochnitskaia is equally hostile to Protestantism. She contends that Anglo-Saxon Calvinism has traditionally been indifferent to other nations, regarding them solely as a source of profit. She also alleges that Calvinists were involved in South Africa’s apartheid, British colonialism and the oppression of native Americans in the USA, each of which was rooted in the religious principles of Protestantism (2003, pp. 67–70). She sees US domination of global politics as a hallmark of Calvinist philosophy; this eventually evolved into messianic neo-liberalism, which aimed at restructuring the world into a single atheistic country (2003, pp. 80–3).
Narochnitskaia’s philosophy, like Dugin’s, includes elements of anti-globalist conspiracy theory, with the building of the New World Order the ultimate goal of the conspirators. Influenced, perhaps, by her father’s work, Narochnitskaia adapts Soviet anti-Western propaganda to current conspiracy thinking. For example, she divides the world into ordinary people and the small but powerful group of Western countries that calls itself the ‘world community’ (mirovoe soobshchestvo), whose elites, whom she calls the ‘world elite’ (mirovaia elita), are supposedly bent on controlling the world (Narochnitskaia, 2001).
This discursive division is used to stress two important ideas which are central to her work. Firstly, it accentuates the ultimate threat of US domination over Russia, and the possible consequences if Russia falls under the influence of the West. Secondly, loyalty to the USA and the Westernized ‘world elite’ helps Narochnitskaia identify an internal group of conspirators within Russia.
In her speeches Narochnitskaia has described pro-Western liberals as a group of internal conspirators who have nothing in common with the Russian nation and who are doing untold harm to Russia’s memory of its great past (Narochnitskaia.ru, 2007a). She compares the intellectual and political elites of the present day with those of the past and praises Soviet intellectuals and Russian immigrants who fled from Russia after the revolution in 1917 but remained patriots (Narochnitskaia.ru, 2008). In this way, she promotes a national cohesion of different social and political groups, despite the differences in their political views. Even the nineteenth-century debate between Westernizers and Slavophiles is presented as a dispute between two equally patriotic groups of intellectuals who emphasized Russia’s unique position in the world (Narochnitskaia.ru, 2007c). In contrast to the political and intellectual elites of the past, current pro-Western liberal elites are described as people who neither love their own country, nor comprehend the intellectual legacy of European intellectual thought. As Narochnitskaia puts it, they hate the Russian people and Orthodoxy, and the only thing that they hold sacred is the bank accounts they have in the West (Narochnitskaia.ru, 2007d). This derogatory description is usually applied to people who oppose the Kremlin and is used to delegitimize any statements critical of Putin’s policies.
Narochnitskaia claims that the fact that the liberal opposition in Russia is Western-oriented is used by conspirators from the West to undermine Russia’s greatness from within. Referring to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Narochnitskaia claims that under the influence of external forces, ‘liberals threw away and trampled upon three hundred years of Russian history’ (Narochnitskaia.ru, 2007b). She sees critical remarks about the Soviet past, and in particular attempts on the part of some Russian (and Western) historians to downplay Russia’s role in the Second World War, as an act of conspiracy that seeks to delegitimize the Soviet Union’s post-1945 territorial possessions. She fears that this could lead to Russia’s expulsion from international organizations and the loss of its post-war territorial possessions on the Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Pacific Ocean; this, in turn, would diminish Russia’s status as a great global power (Narochnitskaia.ru, 2009).
It can be argued that Narochnitskaia’s ideas have had a significant influence on the politics of nation-building in Russia. It is not possible to trace any direct connection between them and the Kremlin’s official nation-building policies, but her access to the presidential administration and the fact that she has held leading positions in major Kremlin-sponsored think tanks puts her in a very strong position. For instance, Narochnitskaia’s approach to Russian history stresses that all periods and events have been important for the nation: ‘We should not omit a single page from the history of the Fatherland, even those which we do not want to repeat’ (Krotkov, 2007). When Putin suggested that a single history textbook be adopted by all schools in 2013, he argued, in similar vein, that it should show respect for all ‘the pages of Russian history’ (Putin, 2013).
Narochnitskaia’s views crucially influenced the First World War commemoration held at the end of the 2000s. In her speeches and interviews, she praised the heroism of the Russian soldiers who had saved Europe, complaining that their deeds had been either forgotten or obscured both by Bolshevik propaganda and the West. She argued that Russian action in the First World War must be returned to its place in the pantheon of heroic deeds: this would link contemporary Russia with the glory of Imperial times. She insisted that subversive forces within the country and abroad were intent on destroying people’s understanding of the war as this would undermine Russia by depriving Russians of their patriotism and their trust in the Fatherland (Pleshakova and Narochnitskaia, 2009). As Vera Tolz has noted (2014), Narochnitskaia has been at the centre of commemorative events devoted to the First World War since 2009, and has attracted much attention on the part of leading politicians. In 2013, at a meeting of the Russian Military-Historical Society, Putin agreed to the creation of a monument commemorating the First World War. This led to a fully-fledged state-sponsored campaign to commemorate Russia’s role in the war. The main narratives articulated by its participants were based on concepts outlined by Narochnitskaia in the preceding years (Radio Ekho Moskvy, 2013).
Narochnitskaia’s access to the media and her academic status have allowed her to play the role of prominent spokesperson for Russian patriotic groups and to defend Russian political interests in debates with the opposition. Her case demonstrates how anti-Western conspiracy theories become an instrument of national reconciliation because they shift the blame for the breakdown of the Soviet Union from Russians themselves onto conspiring foreign enemies. This is a trick that is widely used by the Kremlin, as we shall see later.
Maksim Shevchenko: