Nikolai Karpitsky. The Uprising of the Archaic: Why Do People Choose Dictatorship

Source: PostPravda.info 14.05.2025.
URL: https://postpravda.info/en/stories/freedom-of-speech-en/the-uprising-of-the-archaic/

Thanks to information technologies, a global space of communication has emerged. The world is now in a transitional state on the path toward a new information society, in which conflicts over territorial control should lose their significance. It is precisely during this transitional period that an uprising of archaic thinking against modernity has begun.

The war against Ukraine constitutes a second front in a broader war against modern civilization. The first front was opened by international terrorism, beginning with the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. This war confronts us with a fundamental question: Why do so many people choose evil? Is it a coincidence that the establishment of dictatorship in Russia, the rise of international terrorism, and the transformation of the internet into an element of everyday life are all occurring within the same historical period?

What Caused the Uprising of the Archaic?

All transitional historical periods are accompanied by social upheaval. This occurs because many people fail to adapt to change and instead struggle to restore archaic forms of life. One example that directly concerns me is the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which led to the establishment of a totalitarian regime with imperial ambitions. It concerns me personally because, just last night, not far from where I am, Geran drones – developed using Iranian technology – once again struck nearby.

Today, it is not a single region but the entire world that finds itself in a transitional state; consequently, there is a danger that local wars may escalate into a Third World War.

The transition to an information society is associated with the emergence of a global space of communication in which state borders and language differences have ceased to be barriers to interaction. The human psychotype itself is changing. Modern children are rarely alone – they are in constant contact with one another. No one yet knows how this will transform human nature. Some people use the opportunities provided by information technologies for self-development and creativity, while others retreat into informational bubbles of like-minded individuals, where absurd and dangerous myths are born.

Characteristics of Archaic and Modern Consciousness

The uprising of the archaic encompasses both archaic dictatorships and modern democracies. A defining feature of modern civilization is the priority of the individual over society as a whole. Modern society differs from archaic society in that human rights form the foundation of the legal system, and respect for personal self-identification lies at the heart of morality. A moral attitude toward a person is determined by their individuality, not by nationality, social status, or membership in a particular community.

A hallmark of an archaic worldview is the priority of the collective over the individual. This is expressed in the denial of the right to self-identification: a person is not entitled to independently determine their religious, national, social, or gender identity – these are instead decided by the collective, clan, estate, society, or the state. Even the choice of whom to love in a patriarchal society was determined not by the individual, but by their parents.

Let us imagine the patriarchal life of a village. For centuries, almost nothing changed there: invasions, changes of power, and revolutions passed it by. Yet there is no hiding from the ubiquitous internet, and through it the wider world penetrates this closed environment – bringing with it attitudes toward tradition, religion, upbringing, and sexuality that are alien and unacceptable to it. To the horror of the elders, their children adopt these foreign norms. The most common reaction is denial – a refusal to acknowledge the changes. Yet there are always those who join radical or terrorist movements, believing that the modern world embodies evil and that any crimes committed against it are justified. This is how ISIS, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and similar organizations emerged, in which good is declared evil and evil is declared good.

The Right to Self-Identification

A person has the right to self-identification, including identification grounded in archaic values. Archaic consciousness is neither good nor bad – it is natural. What becomes unnatural is its distortion when it collides with modernity, giving rise to hatred and a perception of the surrounding world as evil. Islamic extremism is no longer archaic; it has nothing in common with traditional Islam. It is a new phenomenon that emerged from the conflict between the archaic and the modern.

However, it would be a serious mistake to divide people rigidly into “archaic” and “modern.” The same individual may be guided by archaic values in some areas of life while being entirely modern in others. Thus, Elon Musk, while modern in scientific and technological terms, has revealed himself to be markedly archaic in aspects of his personal life – specifically, in his inability to accept his child’s gender identity, which has influenced his political views.

Nevertheless, I do not mean to suggest that modern views are inherently “better” than archaic ones. I am generally opposed to such hierarchical evaluations. Both archaic and modern beliefs deserve equal respect. The only unacceptable beliefs are those that lead to harm being inflicted on others. That is why the defining feature of a modern state is a legal system that protects the rights and identity of every individual – including the right to uphold both archaic and modern values.

Fear of Modernity and the Denial of Reality

The conflict between the archaic and the modern continually arises and is resolved with each generational change. This is a natural condition of human history. The problem lies not in the conflict itself, but in the fact that fear of modernity can give rise to new phenomena that transform archaic consciousness into a dangerous form. This fear is reborn as hatred and leads to situations in which conservative people, who previously lived by traditional values, suddenly begin to support evil.

One of the conditions for such a transformation is a defensive psychological reaction – the denial of reality. There is a specific term for this phenomenon: denialism.

Denialism is a worldview based on the irrational rejection of reality, especially when it contradicts a person’s beliefs. It includes the denial of empirically verifiable facts about which there is broad consensus within the scientific community. Examples of denialism include the denial of viruses that cause AIDS and COVID-19, various conspiracy theories, Fomenko’s “New Chronology,” the anti-vaccination movement, the Flat Earth theory, and similar beliefs. Under stable social conditions, adherents of such views are perceived as marginal, but during transitional periods their influence increases sharply.

Why Do Conservative Believers Support Cynical Populists?

One of the most paradoxical phenomena accompanying the uprising of the archaic is the alliance between cynics, the ochlos, and conservatives oriented toward traditional moral values.

The term ochlos is used here to denote poorly educated people focused on immediate self-interest and unconcerned with questions of morality or politics. Until recently, they had little influence on political life; however, once they entered the global space of communication, they instinctively began to support populists, perceiving cynicism and egoism as social norms. This has led to a situation in which provocative behavior – lying, sexual scandals, and public outrage – which once could have destroyed a political career, has now become a key factor in the success of cynical populists.

Why, then, are such politicians supported by representatives of the conservative intelligentsia and religious communities? Moreover, they often justify this support by appealing to moral values. This phenomenon is most vividly expressed in religious circles. Political populists present themselves as defenders of conservative morality – and, in essence, as protectors against change itself. Many believers see such leaders as the last barrier to the moral degradation of society and therefore forgive them personal moral failings and even criminal behavior.

However, not all defenders of public morality possess a personal ethical position formed through inner self-determination. In a religious context, such a position is shaped through personal communion with God. At the same time, religion also confers its authority upon the moral system prevailing in society at a given historical moment. Thus, if in the Middle Ages the dissection of corpses was considered immoral, Christian morality condemned it; today it does not, because society’s attitude toward this practice has changed.

Since patriarchal morality predominated in archaic societies, it is precisely this moral framework that believers who have not developed an inner ethical position of their own often set in opposition to modernity. It is within this milieu that support for cynical politicians emerges – politicians who are perceived as defenders of public morality.

At What Point Does the Position of Conservative Believers Transform into a Rejection of the Modern World?

In 2014, all attempts at dialogue between conservative evangelical Christians in Russia and Ukraine collapsed, even though prior to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine they had been friends and perceived no significant differences between themselves. Russian Christian leaders explained their support for Putin by appealing to conservative values; however, the very fact that they positioned themselves in opposition to their Ukrainian co-believers indicates the loss of a shared religious and moral foundation. Put simply, their religious conservatism was transformed into Russian fascism, also known as rashism.

At the same time, many Ukrainian evangelical Christians supported – and continue to support – Donald Trump, which has drawn criticism from other co-believers. However, within the Ukrainian evangelical community this did not result in a schism, because their conservative consciousness did not undergo the same transformation that occurred among their Russian counterparts.

A similar pattern can be observed in other religious traditions. In 2011, I was one of the organizers of an interfaith dialogue in Tomsk that brought together representatives of nearly all confessions. The goal was to encourage participants to listen to perspectives different from their own and to refrain from imposing their views. This task was handled particularly well by a Krishna devotee, whom participants trusted, sensing her sincerity and openness to dialogue. At one point, she remarked that she wanted a safe world for her children, and that such a world was possible only if there were a shared moral understanding common to all confessions.

However, when Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, she morally supported Putin’s position and the actions of the Russian army and categorically refused dialogue with Ukrainians – even with Ukrainian co-believers. This led to a rupture in the interfaith dialogue and to its effective transformation into a closed sect.

I recall that in the prewar period, when we communicated quite well, she would sometimes speak out against vaccinations and sometimes against democracy, calling it “demon crazy” (that is, the rule of crazy demons). I regarded this as mere eccentricity and did not attach much importance to it. As it turned out, her moral position was merely a reaction to fear of modernity – a kind of psychological defense mechanism. With the start of the full-scale invasion, another defense mechanism was activated: blind faith in a leader. I observed similar “eccentricities” among other participants in the interfaith dialogue who now refuse to communicate with their Ukrainian co-believers. This was not simply eccentricity, but a form of denial of reality which, under the conditions of a necro-imperial dictatorship, transformed into a worldview so far removed from their religion that they lost the capacity for dialogue even with fellow believers.

What Do Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, and Xi Jinping Have in Common?

In the politics – and even in the political rhetoric – of these three leaders, the concept of human rights is virtually absent. Yet it was precisely an orientation toward the value of the individual and the protection of human rights that enabled the West to prevail over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. All three leaders operate within the conceptual framework of archaic imperialism.

The United States and India are the world’s largest democracies, and the resurgence of the archaic in these societies will likely continue until a new generation comes of age. China, however, thanks to Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, transformed from a totalitarian empire into an archaic empire. For this reason, it remains unclear how long China can remain in this intermediate state and in which direction it will ultimately move – toward democracy or back toward totalitarianism.

Trump, Modi, and Xi Jinping understand one another well and believe that they understand Putin – but they are mistaken. Although Putin draws on archaic elements, he has come to preside over an entirely new political system: necro-imperialism.

What Is Necro-Imperialism?

The goal of archaic imperialism is prosperity for oneself at the expense of others. For this reason, warring empires could negotiate peace once they recognized that continued war was no longer profitable. The goal of totalitarian imperialism, by contrast, is power in the service of an idea, even if that pursuit ultimately harms the empire itself. Peace with such regimes can be achieved only when their ideology and power are fundamentally threatened.

The goal of necro-imperialism is to make the world “simpler” through death and destruction. Any peace agreements with such a system are meaningless. Necro-imperialism can be stopped only by force. This is precisely what Western leaders failed to understand when they attempted to integrate Russia into the international economic and political system. As a result, they were unprepared for open confrontation with a necro-imperial regime whose consolidation they themselves had helped to enable.