For the issue is sufficiently important and it touches on the "jogging for power" (to use Thomas Payne's expression) over the (new) political orientation and destiny (or end) of Russia. At present, this important issue is played out in the form of wooing or demonizing the legend of Igor Strelkov. On this score, Saker too cast his dice and came out as a self-confessed disciple of "popular monarchism," to which he seems to be now assimilating Strelkov himself, whom he liked to project into his class of people painted as hysterics and alike. So, suddenly, Saker is claiming Strelkov to be much on the same side as he is (despite Strelkov's and Saker's radically different view on the Minsk Deal or on what Russia ought to have done, etc.). Putting this aside (for now), what, however, came out of this is something very good and interesting for, despite rather transparent veiling and misdirection, Saker's political orientation has become better decipherable, which should certainly be viewed as being of a service to the public.
In particular, Saker says that "popular monarchists" (such as an Solonevich, along with Lev Tikhomirov and Ivan Ilyin) were not only his "maîtres à penser for decades," but that he has also been "very close ALL [his] life" to them--regardless of the would-be "dramatic change of heart" which would have made him change his service to the Empire to blogging against it. He also asserts that he "believe[s] that Strelkov very much shares these views."
So, Saker claims that Solonevich's, Ilyin's and Tkhimorov's monarchism is rather democratic (it "opposes monarchy to aristocracy and not to democracy"), that such monarchism is thus rather anti-aristocratic ("[it] "sees the Russian aristocracy, especially the court, as the most dangerous foe of the Russian people"). In fact, Saker goes so far as to even claim that such (actually right-wing) monarchism is "a democratic ideology." To present such monarchism as democratic is analogous to claiming that the Minsk Deal is what saved Novorossiya through Russia's brilliant diplomacy--in both cases, one flips the meaning and what the case is about.
But even this flip is not enough. Saker goes further and claims that this monarchism is "almost as class-oriented as Marxism." Such monarchism is thus not only supposedly democratic, but also almost as good or bad as Marxism--except for being better.
However, this monarchism "reject[s] the notion of universal values." Do I need to remind you which ideology and political movement expressly rejects universalism of values and rights and what one preaches (and hence also universal equality)?
So Saker claims Strelkov for the political position which he promotes, and he identifies it with some kind of "monarchism"--for the lack of a better or less veiled term. Then we are assured that it is quite democratic, almost Marxist even, but somehow really not universal. But that's still not enough. Saker also tries to make such monarchism look even libertarian! He says: "[Popular monarchism] has a strong libertarian streak as it sees government bureaucracies as one of the most inept, corrupt and useless parts of society." Alright, bureaucracies or state apparatus is apparently useless when you can have a monarch who can rule as a Czar or Leader.
Since I don't intend to do everything by myself, I would limit myself here to this: Saker's claim that Ilyin's or Tkhimorov's or Solonevich's monarchism is democratic is a lie. And I trust that Saker knows his sources for his claim to be false. Equally to claim that such monarchism is "almost Marxist" is false too. Thirdly, the same can be said about his claim that such monarchism is strongly libertarian.
But what is especially important and valuable is that Saker told us or, at least, indicated to us that there is, indeed, a political trend, perhaps, a project at work, which tries to sell some sort of "monarchism" as the best and ideal new course for Russia. And, even more importantly, Saker also gave out further leads as to what this "monarchism" and its ideas are. Here, instead of taking anyone's words for granted, one only needs to do what good students of anything or anyone need to do--to follow the lead wherever it is making its way, that is, to go to the sources and read and see for oneself what Saker actually means as opposed to what he merely says. And the leads are: 1) Ivan A. Ilyin, 2) Ivan Solonevich, 3) Lev Tikhomirov.
Michael Green: "Based on Strelkov's own statements in the interview, he doesn't seem overly thrilled with Popular Monarchism, which is very different from what the Saker suggests. I ... What exactly am I missing here?"