Thread by @kamilkazani on Thread Reader App

Kamil Galeev

Jun 4 • 53 tweets • 17 min read

The Magic Worlds of Dmitry Galkovsky

In 2000-2010s Galkovsky reformed the Russian nationalist discourse. He provided it with the new language, the new conceptual framework, the new set of assumptions, the new established facts. He taught young Russian nationalists how to think🧵

Galkovsky graduated from the Moscow State University in 1986 with a degree in philosophy. He became a writer but had little success back then. His novel-treatise "The Infinite Deadlock" was rejected so many times that he gave up. He didn't rise to prominence till the internet era

It was the internet that changed everything. Galkovsky experimented with the internet & social media. In 1998-2004 he published a lot on his website (samisdat.com). He became well-known but his success was limited. He hadn't created his General Theory of Everything yet

In 2003 Galkovsky switched to livejournal (ЖЖ) galkovsky.livejournal.com. It was the Golden Age of ЖЖ when it turned into the main Russian platform for literally anything intellectual. That was his main tool for reshaping the Russian nationalist discourse and the way of thinking

https://galkovsky.livejournal.com

Galkovsky's role is poorly understood abroad but is a common knowledge among the Russian nationalists. Kholmogorov lamented that "all young Russian nationalists are Galkovsky's fans" which makes him feel sick. That might be an exaggeration. But he had a good reason to think so

When I say that Galkovsky reshaped the Russian nationalist discourse, I don't mean the people in power. I don't picture him in a role of "Putin's secret adviser" that so many morons ascribe to Dugin. I imply that he influenced the youngsters teaching them what and *how* to think

People think with words. If you want to change the way people think about things, you *must* be giving those things new names. If you want to be a law giver, you must also be a a name giver. And Galkovsky is probably the most productive and successful name-giver in modern Russia

Let's consider one of Galkovsky's key concepts: the Cryptocolony. In 1917 Russia lost its independence and became the Cryptocolony. Stalin, Brezhnev, Putin, they were all British puppets appointed by and directed from London. Neither of their policies were or are independent

How did it happen? Well, in 1917 the Russian Empire was close to winning the WWI and getting the immense territorial gains. It would fulfil it's ancient dream of capturing the Istanbul, establishing dominance in Balkans and in Slavic Central Europe. The West wouldn't allow that

In 1917 the UK, Germany and France assisted a faction of the dissatisfied military and politicians in organising a coup d'etat, the February Revolution. As a result Russia stopped being a functional state and turned into a battlefield of political forces, spiralling into chaos

In March-November 1917 various groups struggled for power, all of them infiltrated or controlled by the Western agents. Eventually it were the Bolsheviks who took over. While most socialist forces were simply the British agents, Bolsheviks represented the Anglo-German cooperation

Within the Bolshevik Party there was a German/Austrian faction (Trotsky) and the British faction (Stalin). Vladimir Lenin who represented the Anglo-German cooperation presided over all of them

With the defeat of Central Powers, the German faction of Trotsky lost the ground beneath its legs. Stalin got a massive help from the UK, while Trotsky didn't get help from anywhere. That explains Trotsky's (German) defeat and Stalin's (British) rise to power over Russia

In Galkovsky's interpretation, the Great Purge of 1937-1938 was simply the British agents (Stalin) exterminating the remnants of German and Austrian factions. The Anglo-German struggle was a real driving force, while the massive civilian casualties were just collateral losses

After 1937-1938, when the British agent Stalin exterminated all the German/Austrian agents, the USSR becomes fully a British cryptocolony. In the WWII it fought for the British interests against Hitler. After WWII - in the Cold War against the Unites States

Galkovsky argues that while officially the UK and the US are allies in reality they are the most bitter enemies as the only two superpowers in the world. The UK only seems to be weaker, but that's an illusion because Russia, China and others are secretly British cryptocolonies

I discussed just one Galkovsky's concepts, the cryptocolony. That's however is only one element of his theory. He argues that the entire world history had been forged. For example, Middle Ages didn't happen in reality. That's all total fake

According to Galkovsky, the history of Antiquity is real. Ancient Greece and Rome were very real and their histories are quite accurate. Early Modern Period, starting from 1648, and what happened later is real, too. But the narrative of everything that happened in between is BS

According to Galkovsky, Antiquity ended somewhere around the 1400s. Whatever happened before is real. Then it somehow transformed to the modern Europe, after 1648. Whatever happened after is real. But the interval 1400-1648 is covered with the fog of war and artificially extended

According to Galkovsky, we don't and can't have any accurate information about the dark interval of circa 1400-1648. We can only reconstruct some details. For example, it is clear that the Protestantism is a much older form of Christianity than the Catholicism

According to Galkovsky, any religious or political movement in its beginnings is very decentralised and heterogenous. It is more of an ecosystem of informal clubs and associations. That's for example how the Bolshevik leadership looked in 1895

And that's how they looked 50 years later. The ecosystem of informal clubs transformed into a uniform, centralised and hierarchical Church, whose beliefs and practices had little to do with those of original founders. And of course it faked its history

According to Galkovsky, same thing happened with Christianity. Initially it was a primitive soup of heterogenous "Protestant" movements. But then the Catholic Church became the most successful and took over, defeating almost everyone else. It were the Cathoics who were reformers

That's how Galkovsky reconstructs the religious map of Europe in the early 16th c. The Catholicism already took over the previously Protestant Spain, Portugal, Italy and Provence and is ready to start its victorious march northward

In Galkovsky's opinion the difference between the Presbyterianism, the Anglicanism and the Gallicanism is the result of Catholic advance rather than of the Protestant Reformation. Scotland lied the furthest from the Mediterranean, so it was Catholicism's the least of them three

England is closer to the Catholic centres of power. That's why Anglicanism looks more Catholic, it had more of the Spanish influence. Finally, France is the closest of all. So its original religion, the Calvinism, had been almost totally extirpated

Galkovsky's takes "The US and the UK are the worst enemies", "Protestantism is much older than Catholicism" may look like an empty contrarianism. Not quite. There is a system behind them

Galkovsky formulated his General Theory in 10 theses which I screenshoted here. Discussing them all would be too long, so I'll concentrate on the thesis number one:

1. "When population can grow exponentially, it must grow exponentially"

What does it mean in practice?

It means that you can reconstruct the entire demographic history of humanity using extrapolations. Which Galkovsky does

Galkovsky's logic:

In 1800 the population of Britain was 8 million. We take the population growth speed and extrapolate it back in time.

1700 - 4 million
1600 - 2 million
1500 - 1 million

"In 1500 it was the North America, being colonised by settlers from Flanders and Italy"

That's how Galkovsky reconstructs the world history. He's taking the population figures and the population growth rate from the recent history and extrapolates it back in time. For example, this political map of Europe in 1648 is fake. Too much space claimed by organised states

This is Galkovsky's reconstruction of the European political map of 1648. Only the coloured space is claimed by organised states, why the white space hardly had any significant settled population at all

Using extrapolations of the population figures, Galkovsky reconstructs the map of civilised world around the y. 1500. The colored vs white border is the frontier of European colonisation. And it is looks very similar to the map of the late Roman world (around 1400s)

Now you can ask, why should we even know about this madness? For several reasons. First, for many Russian nationalists this isn'tt madness but rather the true & verified facts. Sputnik and Pogrom, the most influential Russian nationalist media was fully based on Galkovsky's ideas

For you Galkovsky may be a madman. But for the Russian nationalist community he is *the* factchecker providing them with only correct information about, well, everything. Consider this Strelkov's post where quotes the Golden Calf book

"The twelve chairs" and the "Golden calf" books may easily be two most important Russian books of fiction of the 20th c. They are believed to be written by Ilf and Petrov. Srelkov however causally mentions (as a well-known fact) that it is Bulgakov who actually wrote them. Why?

Because Galkovsky said so. In his livejournal he argued that it was the great Russian writer Bulgakov who really wrote those brilliant works of fiction. Both for Strelkov and for his Russian nationalist audience this is the established fact, verified by the authority of Galkovsky

Second, because it shows that the Western academia and media systematically misrepresent the Russian internal discourse and the internal debates. They for example, greatly exaggerate the importance of Dugin, that supposed almighty mystic sage.

Why? Let's have a look. Galkovsky is ugly, Dugin has a beard

0:1

Dugin talks on a number of European languages (= can give interviews). Galkovsky doesn't know any except for the Russian. One of his lovehaters trolled him by sending him questions in English during one of his streams. You can see a visible confusion

0:2

Finally and most importantly, Dugin is so popular in the West because he fits into the Western *preconceptions* about Russia. Westerners easily believe that Russia is secretly run by Ra, Ra... sorry, Dugin because he fits into their Orientalist paradigm. Galkovsky doesn't

0:3

Western view of Russia is deeply Orientalist. They already have a preconception of Russia being a spiritual, mystic, irrational culture. Everything that fits into this view (= Dugin) will be embraced. You must play a crazy occultist to be noticed. NB: Don't forget to grow a beard

I grew up in Russia and lived there for the most of my life. I would argue that those preconceptions are simply wrong. There's nothing especially spiritual or traditional about Russia. It's extremely individualist and pragmatic culture that doesn't care about "traditional values"

I would argue that Galkovsky is not only more intellectually influential than Dugin within Russia but is also more representative of the Russian intellectual culture and the line of reasoning in general. There's nothing mystic or irrational abut his way of thinking

Galkovsky's reasoning made so much impact within Russia because it resonates well with its typical style of argumentation. Which is not so much about the magical or religious insights as some imagine, but much more about the rigorous and irrefutable logic of linear extrapolation

"The official narrative is fake, cuz I had a magic insight" - doesn't work well in Russia

"The official narrative is fake, cuz I made a linear extrapolation. Here is a graph" - that can work out perfectly well

Last but not least, Galkovsky made so much impact not because his Theory is so perfect, but rather because it is so bold. He at least made an attempt to create the General Theory of Everything, which resonates perfectly with the Russian intellectual culture

If Westerners desire to see the crazy & very powerful Russian occultists and project their desire on whoever they can (like Dugin), what Russian public consciousness desires is a rational & logical General Theory of Everything that will give them the key to understanding reality

Consider that Marx was very surprised by the quick and immediate success of his writings in Russia. The first edition of Das Kapital in German could not be solved for years while in Russia it was all bought in a few weeks. Marx was puzzled

Marx was puzzled that Russians whom he had bashed for so many years became his patrons. Well they were always enamoured by the fashionable ideas of the West, decided Marx

That wasn't very fair. Russians were enamoured not so much by the fashionable as by the All-explaining ideas

Galkovsky became so important not because his ideas were especially bright or his logic especially rigorous, but rather because he satisfied the pre-existing Russia demand for a logical and rational General Theory of Everything. That exists irrespectively of Galkovsky

Much of my contempt towards the Russian Studies industry is motivated by their bias when representing the Russian culture. They don't just misrepresent it, they carefully select for representation whatever is relatable to sweet themselves (= not truly specific for Russia)

Since researchers and media focus on everything relatable (= not truly specific for Russia), everything unrelatable (= truly specific for Russia) remains beyond the scope of their research. In their pursuit of relatability they miss out everything authentically Russian. End of 🧵

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh