I have found myself included in a New Right mailing list which contains much interesting material ... such as this Moscow News interview of the great Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn.

One has the impression that the general population in Russia has caught the West’s disease of advanced liberalism (“total liberalism” the Moscow Times calls it) with such swiftness that large parts of the country’s elite have been left behind ... and are morally and politically resisting.  I hope that is true.

All the interview is worth reading.  But the sections which particularly caught my attention are these:-

MN:  It would be natural to assume that, at the very least, you would include a demographic project among these priorities - something that you have called “saving the nation.” What short-, medium- and long-term actions need to be taken as Russia, the Russian nation in particular, is literally dying out?

AS: Indeed, “saving the nation” - numerically, physically, and morally - is the utmost task for the state. (Consider the 25 million compatriots who were cut off from Russia as a result of the crazy conspiracy in the Belovezhskaya Forest: Our law-makers were in a state of chaos, hysterically and irresponsibly going from one extreme to another and contradicting themselves.) All measures to raise living standards - housing, diet, healthcare, education, morality, etc. - are in effect designed to save the nation. This is an overriding priority.

MN: Clearly, our society is in a moral crisis that manifests itself either in the absence of any moral principles or in the existence of opposing moral principles at the same time. Can Russia escape this collision? What is the state supposed to do in this situation - impose a particular set of moral values? What values?

AS: In their actions, state authorities must stay within the bounds of morality even more responsibly than ordinary citizens. They should set an example, but not forcibly impose any rules. I believe that the only way out is through the conscious, voluntary self-constraint and self-denial of people, especially those shaping public opinion.

MN: More and more political figures in Russia are casting themselves as conservatives (or liberal conservatives) even though they have a rather vague idea of what this means and are obviously unable to formulate their position clearly. You are evidently not a liberal and certainly not a socialist. Therefore you are a conservative. What, in your opinion, is modern (I repeat, modern) Russian conservatism?

AS:  Xenophobia has never been an inherent quality of the Russian people: Otherwise the great empire, comprised of 120 nationalities and ethnic groups, would not have survived. As for the term “fascism,” it is being used loosely and irresponsibly as a convenient swearword which hinders the rise of Russian identity and Russian national awareness. But German Nazism was based on German national self-glorification (long before Hitler): The same cannot be said about the humiliated and dying Russian nation.

Suppressing ethnic Russians for the benefit of other ethnic groups was one of Lenin’s central, obsessive ideas: He firmly pursued it in the form of “Leninist nationalities policy.” It was continued under Stalin despite his hypocritical statements later. (As for our present Constitution, the word “Russians” is not there at all!) Over the years, therefore a feeling of bitterness and resentment has built up in the Russian consciousness.

MN: Do you anticipate the Islamization of day-to-day life or of political processes in Russia? If so, do you find this prospect encouraging or frightening?

AS: The policy of Russia’s ruling authorities today - one of peaceful and respectful coexistence with Islam - is certainly correct. Yet with the ongoing physical demise of the Russian people there is of course a danger that Russian culture could be replaced by other (including Chinese) cultures and religions throughout Russia. This is lamentable, but this is what is happening.

MN:  Do you agree with the view that the world is rapidly moving toward neo-authoritarianism (probably as a reaction to total liberalism)?

AS: “Total liberalism,” as you have aptly put it, has certainly had its day in the world and is now more or less a spent force. It will be replaced by some other forms of public and state consciousness, but I would not dare predict their essence or the forms that they will actually assume.

Oh, that we should have a few grand old men of letters to speak of such things.