Staunton,November 5 – Since the time of the Mongol conquest, when the Horde gave toMoscow the task of doing “the dirty work” of the occupation by the Mongols ofRussian lands, the rulers in that city have continued to treat the rest of theterritory and population as any other occupying force would, according toAleksey Shiropayev.
Ifthat origin as reified by Ivan the Terrible, the true “founding father ofRussia” is not recognized and if the way in which the Bolsheviks onlyintensified that pattern of colonial rule, the Russian regionalist says, thereis no hope for understanding the situation of Russia today or why such a regimecan rot but not reform (afterempire.info/2018/10/30/occupant/).
“Moscowseized and occupied Rus,” Shiropayev argues, and that is “the starting pointfor an understanding of the origin of the Russian state and the term ‘Russia.’”Ivan the Terrible was a true follower of the policy of an occupier. Indeed, onecan say that that is “’the secret’ of that ruler.”
Ivan’sera, the analyst continues, was “the era of the final and one can sayBolshevik-style suppression of Rus by Russia.”The ruler’s oprichniks weresimply a new variant of the khan’s baskakson the Russian land; and the tsar himself was typologically a khan.” Assuch, the former were nothing so much as “a band of occupiers” headed by “anoccupier tsar.”
“Thisbecame the genetic code of Russian statehood,” Shiropayev says, something sodeeply rooted that that it continues to give that arrangement is “occupationand repressive character.”
TheBolsheviks only reinforced this pattern, he continues. The internationalcomposition of that party’s ranks initially perfectly corresponded to Ivan’s oprichniks which were also “international”and not Russian in their composition.Stalin’s parallels with Ivan are even more obvious, although their most profoundaspect is often overlooked.
Andthat is the desire to shut Russia off from influence coming in from theWest.To that end, “Stalin and companyopenly reproduced, true, in much greater size, the genocidal-repressive methodsof Ivan the Terrible and his grandson, Ivan III. There was a multitude ofexamples” to emulate.
“Whatmore is there to say?” Shiropayev asks rhetorically. “We live in a stateestablished by Ivan the Terrible. The appearance of Vladimir Sorokin’s book, The Day of the Oprichnik, is extremelynoteworthy – the intuition of a real writer is always unerring.” And Ivan’ssystem lives on in today’s special services and the interior ministry as anyonecan testify.
Accordingto the analyst, “the ‘organs’ in their attitude toward the people retranslatethe position of the state as a whole. And this occupier-state cannot bechanged. It can rot, it can fall apart, it can go insane, and it can even mimicsomething else, but it cannot become otherwise, free and open.” Its geneticcode is just too deeply embedded for that.