As The Old Proverb Says: "well-fed Horses

To His And Everybody Else's Way Of Thinking, You Should Build A House With Your Own Hands Before You Start Talking About Being An Engineer.

Religion Itself Cannot But Be Dynamic Which Is Why "return" Is An Incorrect Term. A Return To The Forms Of Religion Which Perhaps Existed A Couple Of Centuries Ago Is Absolutely Impossible. On The Contrary, In Order To Combat Modern Materialistic Mores, As Religion Must, To Fight Nihilism And Egotism, Religion Must Also Develop, Must Be Flexible In Its Forms, And It Must Have A Correlation With The Cultural Forms Of The Epoch.

I Am A Convinced And Consistent Critic Of Party-parliamentarism. I Am For Non-partisan Elections Of True People's Representatives Who Are Accountable To Their Regions And Districts; And Who In Case Of Unsatisfactory Work Can Be Recalled. I Do Understand And Respect The Formation Of Groups On Economical, Cooperative, Territorial, Educational, Professional And Industrial Principles, But I See Nothing Organic In Political Parties. Politically Motivated Ties Can Be Unstable And Quite Often They Have Selfish Ulterior Motives.

When The Whole Discussion Of "developing A National Idea" Hastily Began In Post-soviet Russia, I Tried To Pour Cold Water On It With The Objection That, After All The Devastating Losses We Had Experienced, It Would Be Quite Sufficient To Have Just One Task: The Preservation Of A Dying People.

The Term "national Idea" Is An Unclear One. One Might Think Of It As A Widely Shared Understanding Among A People As To The Desired Way Of Life In Their Country, An Idea That Holds Sway Over The Population. A Unifying Concept Like That Can Be Useful, But Should Never Be Created Artificially Or Imposed Top-down By The Powers-that-be.