This article describes and conceptualizes European Nazism as an unfinished phenomenon. It asserts that Nazism will persist as long as the concept of the global West exists. The author points out that Russian society still has not developed a coherent and systematic concept of fascism. From the author’s perspective, Nazism does not represent an «affective» reaction to the culture of modernity, as theorists of the Frankfurt School argued, but rather constitutes the most radical and overt manifestation of modernity itself. According to the author, fascism is the generative ideology of the European modernist enlightenment project. He considers it necessary to reject the myth of Nazism as an allegedly unforeseen historical «breakdown» of Western democracy. A contemporary concept of Nazism must be resistant to the narratives and discourses of liberalism in order to avoid falling victim to false constructs aimed at rehabilitating the core Nazi myths, which have merely undergone superficial lexical and stylistic revision. The author argues that the taboo surrounding the West’s responsibility for fascism and colonialism must be lifted. This vector of re-evaluation is, in his view, essential for returning humanity to a Biblical value system.

The book «Unfinished Nazism» presents the progression of Nazism and associated racism within a historical framework. Aleksandr Shchipkov compares early colonialist manifestations of Nazism with classical Hitlerite Nazism and contemporary Atlanticist Nazism. The author regards the British model of the phenomenon as fundamental, highlighting various aspects of «Protestant ethics» and Puritan religiosity as influential factors in its development. Nazism and racism are depicted not merely as political ideologies, but as integral components of Modern European culture. Positioned not in the rearguard, but at the vanguard of the development of modernist capitalist society, they are shielded by the «protective belt» of liberal ideologemes. The author underscores that Nazism, racism, and neoliberalism share common axiological foundations, rooted in myths of superiority and technocratic dehumanization of individuals. Their dominance within the global ideological context forecloses independent developmental prospects for many peoples.

This article explores the prospects for theory and practice of the modern human rights protection. The author believes the human rights institutions to be currently in crisis mode because of their inability to overcome their dependence on the liberal doctrine of rights and freedoms being innate. This doctrine was imposed on the society as the only valid ideology that does not need any scientific verification or moral mediation and basically is a quasi-religious phenomenon. It was this very ideological and political dependence that caused the human rights movement to clash with the civil society and principles of democracy (as stated by the author) as well as split the human rights defenders into fundamentalists and postmodernists. Today, the human rights protection is the enforcing branch of government and a political subsystem, as it legitimizes and delegitimizes political subjects. The human rights institutions can retain their role in society by overcoming their dependence on liberal and other ideologies, abandoning the obsolete enlightenment concept of innate rights and acknowledging the priority of morality in the society.

The article views the problem of Marxist heritage from the standpoint of social Christianity. The author urges to overcome the stereotype of considering Marxism as a conceptual and ideological antithesis to liberalism. The author considers it practicable and imperative that Marxism should be viewed as a socio-philosophical trend that had arisen within the framework of secularised Protestantism or cultural Protestantism. It can be considered more moderate than secular Protestant fundamentalism, whose political and economic ideology is based on liberalism. Having emerged in the cultural and intellectual field of the European Reformation and as its partial negation, Marxism can be described as a critical commentary on it. The goal of Marxism is to combine biblical (Abrahamic) values with the protestant values of Progress understood in a utilitarian way, thereby rejecting historical religions. According to the author, the Marxism programme was afflicted by internal contradictions and was therefore doomed to failure. The author goes on to declare the historical inevitability of the collapse of liberal capitalism and to justify his position from the standpoint of social Christianity.

Intercultural and intercivilizational relations have always provoked discussion. Claims to the knowledge of the universal laws of society development and the exact location of the ‘right side of history’ are bound to generate a counter reaction in the face of demands for cultural and historical pluralism and respect for the right to individually interpret the historical process and the ways of progress. The two points of view seem to balance each other.

Not being positioned as a specifically Catholic document, it is instead written in the style of global documents, is addressed to all mankind and holds discourse from the so-called non-confessional, universal positions. The Encyclical addresses the subjects of migration, economic injustice, international political instability and the increasing global intolerance.

The year 2019 witnessed a historical stage that can be defined as the rehabilitation of ideology. The need for an open discussion of Russian ideology was clearly expressed in the presidential address to the Federal Assembly in January 2020. The taboo on discussing state ideology has been lifted, which means that the elites are ready to express themselves directly in a forthright conversation with the people.

Our whole country seems to be discussing bills on ‘family and domestic violence’ prevention. As of now, there are two projects, created by the State Duma deputies and Federation Council members, circulating on the internet. I am sure they will come out with more. Both projects reveal the same conceptual character, and both aim to make the family and family relations subject to legal regulation at the legislative level, that is, to allow third parties to interfere in the relationship of husband and wife. These bills have come to be called ‘family dissolution law’ or ‘Pavlik Morozov law’.