Author: Alexander Dugin
Translator: Jafe Arnold
Chapter 1 of Mysteries of Eurasia (Moscow, Arktogeya: 1999)
The country within
“Land-masses hold symbolic meanings which are as much linked with cultural stereotypes as with real-life experiences. Europe holds different meanings for the European who lives there, for the American who originated from it, for the African who is freeing himself from its influence, for the Pacific islander, and so on. Stereotypes of the continents have not remained purely and simply products of cultures born of more or less accurate knowledge, more or less lively feelings and more or less clear awareness. They have sunk into the unconscious with so strong an emotional charge as will emerge in dreams or in spontaneous reactions, often linked with unconscious racism. At this point a continent will no longer represent one of the Earth’s five land-masses, but will symbolize a world of images, emotions and desires. For example, Dr Verne has clearly shown in the analysis of one of his patients’ dreams that she did not regard Asia as a memory of, goal of, or desire for intercontinental travel, but as a symbol of ‘the return to something holy, to the world of the absolute, the mystery of out of the body experience, the way towards the oneness which bears the message of the true and real’. Asia had become an inner continent, like Africa, Oceania, or Europe. These continents and what they symbolize will differ from person to person. This inner dimension may fasten upon any place, be it town or locality; what is important is to know what it means to each individual, what images, feelings, emotions, and prejudices it carries, since these comprise the subjective truth of the symbol. Geography generates as much geosociology and geoculture as it does geopolitics.” [English translation from Chevalier, John; Gheerbrant, Alain; Buchanan-Brown, John (trans.), The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols, Penguin Books, 1996, p. 233]
Such is the content of the article “Continent” from the French Dictionary of Symbols by Jean Chevalier and Alain Gheerbrant. We have allowed ourselves to give such a long quotation in full since it immediately defines the plane upon which our study will unfold. Often amidst a rise of national feeling and even racism, and in flashes of patriotism among different peoples, irrational elements stand out on the surface which, at first glance, can not be explained by logical reasoning or an analysis of egoistic motives behind such an ideological complex. The awakening of national, racial, or continental memory often occurs without any external reason. Deep archetypes of the unconscious simply and suddenly burst and, like a chain reaction, awaken the whole complex of a collective worldview which seemed to be long gone. Examples of this include the stability of Celtic-Irish, Jewish, Korean, African, and Japanese nationalisms which live and grow despite all the social and historical preconditions which objectively contribute to their extinction.
In principle, this is exactly the same case with the “enigma of Russian patriotism.” Mystical Russia, the “White India” of Klyuev, the “Holy Rus” which Yesenin set above Paradise and which Tyutchev equated to a religious principle in which one has to believe – imagine how absurd “Holy Australia” or “Faith in the Czech Republic” would sound! – is undoubtedly a deep reality of national psychology, an “Internal Continent” synthesizing in itself the worldview of a giant nation. The memory of “Continent Russia” may lurk and sleep at the bottom of consciousness for many long years, but sooner or later it will come to life and, when the time of Awakening arrives, it will become a storm, a vortex, a scream.
However, the psychological reality of “Inner Russia,” in order to be effective and specific, should have an archetypal structure entirely corresponding with objective historical processes and geographical areas. In this way, it is not a mere passive reflection of the external, but a paradigm which forms and structures the surrounding temporal and spatial space. In this regard, the famous historian of religions, Mircea Eliade, keenly observed: “Nature is something determined by culture (culturalmente condizionata); some of the ‘laws of nature’ vary depending on what the peoples of this or that culture understand by ‘nature.’” 
What is the archetypal structure of “Inner Russia?” On what is the concept of “Holy Rus” based? What are the origins of the complex of the imperial God-bearing people?
We can find traces of this ancient tradition in the linguistic archetypes that date back to the formation of Indo-European unity and which, with remarkable resistance, are preserved in toponymy, myths, legends, and even in the typical associations of symbols and words. In addition, this entire complex of purely religious symbolism is closely linked with this ancient tradition. Otherwise, the baptism of Rus could not have happened so harmoniously and easily. The totality of Christian doctrine, in its ritualistic and symbolic paradigm, is consistent with the logic of older cults which were not abolished but transformed by Christianity into a new synthetic unity. The cycle of Russian lives and the specifics of Russian Orthodoxy give us thousands of pieces of evidence of this. One canonical example of this is the summer festival of the prophet Elijah, who became the Orthodox expression of the old Aryan “god” of thunder, sky, and light, Il (from the same root of the ancient Russian word for “sun,” which in old Aryan means “good light”).
Let us consider some aspects of the archetypal combinations which define the logic of the Russian national mentality. We will start with the concept of “Holy Rus.”
It is curious to note that, apparently, long before the arrival of the Slavs to the territory of Russia, the region of the southern Russian steppes from the Black Sea to the south of the Urals was named by the Aryans inhabiting it “Dwelling of the Gods – Great Sweden” or “Cold Sweden,” and only much later did this shift with the Germanic tribes to Scandinavia, which became “Dwelling of people – Little Sweden.” The sacred rivers of the ancient Aryans flowed into this “Great Sweden”: the Don (Tanaksvil or Vanaksvil – “the branch of the river where the Vanir live”) and the Dnieper (Danapru or, in Greek, Borisfen). The very Russian word for Sweden, Shvetsiya (Swedish – Suetia) most likely meant “bright, white, luminous.” And this Indo-European root szet is possibly, and quite logically, etymologically similar to the Russian word for holy, svyaty. In addition, the Hindu tradition to this day still remembers sweta dvipa, the “White Island or Continent” lying to the North of India.
In most cases, sweta dvipa meant the symbolic island of Varaha, the place where the Hindus’ ancestors originally resided located at the North Pole. By analogy, it is appropriate to transfer this name to the territory of the temporary settlement of the Aryans before their migration to India. That the ancestors of the Hindus – the carriers of the Vedantic tradition in its earliest form – lived for a certain period of time on the territory of what is now southern Russia is confirmed by modern archaeological excavations. Therefore, the light, white holy country was associated in ancient times with the Russian lands which could take deep root in the consciousness of people such as the Aryans, contact among whom was maintained even after their linguistic and traditional unity was destroyed, as well as other indigenous paleo-Asiatic peoples who more than once have demonstrated the unique capacity to save for entire millennia the mythological complexes which they received from the Indo-Europeans.
The second component of the combination of “Holy Rus” is the very name “Rus.” One of the most likely and acceptable etymological interpretations of this word is the Aryan root ros (compared with German rot, Latin russus, French rouge, English red, and Sanskrit rohita) which means red, ginger, or pink. It is entirely unimportant if Russia was named after a Slavic or Scandinavian tribe. The main thing is that, on a subconscious level, red is closely associated with Russia and was one of the favorite colors of Russian princes, and the very Russian word krasny, besides denoting the color red, in the ancient Slavic language meant “beautiful”, “distinguished,” etc. It is also curious that another Russian word for designating the color red is chermny, which is etymologically close to the word cherny for black. In ancient Indian, the root krisna also means “black” and “beautiful.” It cannot be ruled out that this etymological connection was somehow imprinted in language associations and in half-effaced semantic structures of linguistic thinking giving the meaning of the word red a kind of semi-conscious connection with the word black (i.e., “distinguished,” “clearly defined,” etc.).
If we combine these two lines, then we see that the concept of “Holy Rus” might be translated into the colorful symbolic dyad: “white – red” or even “light – dark.” And, not incidentally, the combination of “white-red” was one of the most common among Russian princely heraldry, national costumes, ornaments, paintings, etc.
Khvarenah – Royal happiness
One of the most significant aspects of “Inner Russia” was the sacred mission of the Russian monarch. Holy Rus always had its sacred center. Just as it had a capital (first Kiev, then Moscow), it also had a living and personal pole of national sanctity: the Tsar, the Anointed by God. Interestingly enough, some of the Turkic peoples preserved the tradition of venerating the Russian monarch up until the 18th century. For example, the Buryats believed Catherine to be the incarnation (embodiment) of the White Tara, one of the greatest Bohisattvas of Lamaism. Such a universal importance of the monarchy within the framework of the empire once again shows that Russia never recognized itself as something purely ethnic. By contrast, she is a reality of a higher level, a reality of the geosacred Tradition in which different peoples had their proper place. Therefore, the Russian White Tsar was simultaneously the Tsar of all ethni inhabiting the Empire.
The Russian monarchical tradition began, as is known, with the calling of Rurik from the Varangians to kingship over a group of Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes. In the later period, descending from the first prince – Rurik – was the spiritual and genealogical justification of royal authority, its legitimacy and sacred legality. This tradition was so persistent and deep, so self-evident and absolute in Russians’ understanding, that it simply could not have been inconsistent with the indigenous archetypes of ancient forms of consciousness which, although they moved into the sphere of the unconscious, nevertheless did not lose their efficiency and validity. In our opinion, the calling of Rurik from among the Varangians was seen as a great, nationwide mystery embodying in itself the script of the supernatural origin of royal power which is characteristic for all ancient, traditional dynasties.
Let us try to clarify the sacred underpinnings of the mystery which confirmed the sacred-dynastic center in the space of “Inner Russia.” First of all, we can refer to Zoroastrianism, in which the mystical side of royal power was elaborated in detail and which had a significant impact on the structure of the consciousness of peoples who inhabited the ancient Russian lands. Zoroastrians claimed that the Tsar has a special, more than merely given, right to rule. This sanction was embodied in the possession of a light-bringing force – Khvarenah. Khvarenah (or farn) is a condensed light energy which makes a person equal to god. The symbol of Khvarenah was traditionally believed to be the falcon Vargan and sometimes the ram. On the other hand, Khvarenah was identified with the element of fire, which only naturally strives upwards towards heaven. Every Iranian king had his own personal fire symbolizing the possession of Khvarenah.
If we return to Rurik, called from among the Varangians to kingship, we see that, etymologically, the entire complex of Zoroastrian ideas (and apparently, some common Aryan ones) is embodied in him. Rurik, in Scandinavian, means “falcon,” that is, the predominant symbol of Khvarenah. In addition, the word rurik is startlingly close to the old Church Slavonic rarog, i.e., “fire” or “spirit of fire” (in fact, the old Church Slavonic rarog also meant “falcon”). With the baptism of Rus, Tsar Rurik also became anointed by God, endowed with the power of Christ, and referred to as the “Lamb.” Thus, the idea of a Christian monarch was the spiritual development and sacred confirmation of the ancient monarchical tradition perceiving the calling of Rurik as a nationwide acquisition of heavenly blessing, or Khvarenah. So in this case, as in many others, Christianity did not abolish, but instead exalted and confirmed the ancient, pre-Christian faith.
Now about the Varangians. Without entering into debate about the ethnic belonging of this tribe (which is unimportant for us), we will try to identify the symbolic meaning of this term. Zoroastrianism once gave us some keys, so we once again turn to it. The word Varangian, in terms of sound and possibly also in terms of origin, is close to the name of the Zoroastrian god Varhorn (or Verethragna). Varhorn is one of the seven supreme “gods” of Mazdaism, the “god” of victory. But it is this “god” who was considered the fundamental carrier and bearer of Khvarenah, and was traditionally combined with the falcon Vargan (compare: vargan, varingr, i.e., varyag which is Russian for viking or Varangian, as his constant companion or even his incarnation. Thus, the Varangians, in addition to their historical specificity, could represent some kind of symbolic meaning embodying full Khvarenah, royal happiness, one precious part of which – Rurik-Falcon – descended, like manna, on the grace-hungry tribes. But the mythological, etymological chain doest not end here. The word varyag is also quite comparable with the Sanskrit root svar, or “sky,” “sunlight,” (in fact, it is very close to the Persian hvar from which Khvarenah is derived). It is possible that the Russian word for north, sever, is also related to svar, as the North was considered to be of a “heavenly, divine orientation” among the ancient Aryan peoples. Therefore, the correlation between the Varangians and the North and sky perfectly matches the same, mysterious logic of the calling of the first Tsar.
It is possible to go still further. Varharn is the Persian equivalent of the Sanskrit word vritra-han, i.e. “Slayer of Vritra,” the epithet of the Heavenly Tsar, the “god” Indra. Indra is the Hindu archetype of all kings who dwells and is found, according to traditional Hindu cosmography, in the sky – svar. The very name “Indians” and “Hindi” is most likely the theophoric (god-bearing) name of the “people of Indra,” and therefore a god-bearing people. The Varangians, for their part as one of the Indo-European tribes could have essentially been the theophoric people of Vargan or Vergarn-Veretragna, i.e., essencially the same as Indra, the “Slayer of Vritra.” And it cannot be excluded that the distant echoes of such mythological matches, living in the depths of the national unconscious, gave rise to the concept of Russia as the “White India” among poets of a folk-mystical orientation, such as Klyuev and Yesenin. The Russian monarchical emblem, the Byzantine, two-headed eagle, can also be compared to Falcon-Rurik, the carrier of the magical power of Khvarenah. Another curious detail: Moscow, the capital of the Russian state and the seat of the Russian Tsar, has as its emblem St. George slaying a serpent (the emblem of Prince Yuri Dolgoruky). Varharn (the god of Khvarenah) is first and foremost the god of victory (St. George is also the victory-bearer). In addition, the word Varharn-Veretragna, as we said above, means “Snake Slayer,” the “Slayer of Vritra,” and St. George is usually depicted as killing the Serpent. It is also characteristic that Iranian mythology contains a number of tales which tell of the struggle of the solar hero (Kersaspa, Traeton, etc.) against the Serpent or the Dragon, the conflict of which is over the right to possess the mystical power of Khvarenah, a right for which the opponents challenge each other. Thus, the combination of these symbols in the coat of arms of the capital – the residence of the Tsar – along with the eagle as the symbol of Russia in general yield the paradigm of the ancient structure of the monarchical mystery.
A traditional symbol of royal authority and the state is also the orb surmounted by a cross, a sign of the earth in ancient astrological texts. The state of the Russian Tsar, naturally, is identified with the Russian land. And here once again we are talking about “Inner Russia,” which we spoke about in the beginning. It is especially important that in the national sacred tradition it is precisely the Tsar, the Anointed by God, the messenger of heaven, and the bearer of supernatural fire, who protects and keeps in his hands a gigantic land (hence the title “autocrat” from the seven secret saints of the Christian tradition on whom the whole weight of the world rests).
All of Russian history is permeated with the deepest understanding of the sacred role of the Tsar. This understanding contributed to a much more religious relationship between the Orthodox and the monarch than that seen between the Catholics and their kings. Moreover the Orthodox idea of the Tsar sharply differs on a theological level from the corresponding Catholic concept. In Russia, there was never a division between purely spiritual life, subordinated to the spiritual hierarchy, and purely secular life, subordinated to kings, as in the case of the Catholic West. In the idea of Holy Russia and Tsarist Russia, all levels of the sacred way of life are combined. The Church, as the spirit of Russia, did not set itself above the Tsar, but recognized his supernatural and legal authority, and gave blessing to his power, without which the state would have lost its sacred pole.
Thus, the “inner continent,” Russia, had its “inner center,” the sacred monarch. Their merging (their symbolic hierosgamos) accounts for the specific Russian fate and the deep dimension of Russian history.
The mystery of the pole
Now we would like to mention a study of the French Traditionalist Gaston Georgel dedicated to historical cycles and the logic of the cultural development of ancient civilizations, which bears direct relevance to our topic. George’s book under consideration is called “Rhythms in History.” In this extremely interesting work, there is a small section in which the patterns of the movement of the centers of this or that ancient civilization around the Eurasian continent are considered. Without delving into the essence of the author’s interpretation of certain patterns, we will simply provide the facts which are given and which have direct relevance to “Inner Russia.” Studying the geographical location of the centers of ancient civilization, Georgel noted one astonishing peculiarity. Starting with Elam (around 4,000 B.C.) and finishing in our times, we can observe a shift of certain cultures from East to West. Georgel tries to connect the ancient center of Elamite civilization, located not far from the town of Kelat, and the ancient Sumerian city of Ur, Greek Athens, and French Paris with a single line. The result exceeded all expectations.
The arc connecting these centers turns out to divide them almost exactly into sectors of 30 degrees. According to the author’s remarks, at exactly 30 degrees along the eclipse the point of vernal equinox moves over a period of time equal to 2,160 years, that is, the time separating the epochs of these cultures is 4,000 years up to Elam, 2,000 up to Ur, a bit more than 2,000 years ago to Athens and, finally, the contemporary “capital of Europe”, Paris. The arch extending over the East at 30 degrees leads to the location of the capital of Tibet, Lhasa, and the same arc of the same curvature, merely belonging to a circle of a larger radius, connects Jerusalem and Rome. But where does the center of this circle reside? Here once again is a strange thing: it lies at the intersection of the Meridian at 60 degrees east of the Arctic circle, i.e., on the territory of Russia north of the Ural mountains (we notice that Moscow is located near to the radius which connects Athens with the center of the circle). It is with this, in fact, that Georgel ends his account.
We can go one step further and point to even more bizarre patterns. It is generally known that the line of the North Pole is the projection of the circle of the celestial sphere, along which the North Pole of the World shifts (due to a phenomenon termed in astronomy the precession of equinoxes) around the pole of the eclipse. But if the celestial sphere is stationary, then the globe rotates in space relative to it, or more precisely, relative to the eclipse plane which is identical to the plane of the orbital rotation of the earth at 23.5 degrees. This shift of 23.5 degrees is fixated on the line of the Arctic circle. If we compare the point of the north pole of the earth with the current north star – Alpha Ursae Minoris – then the center of the eclipse, and hence the true pole of the sky (the most immobile of all, as the earth’s axis makes a circle around it over a vast period of time – 25,960 years), will be projected on the line of the Arctic circle. But how can we determine which exact point?
Here the first globes of the era of the Renaissance come to help, on which at the same angle of 23.5 degrees a projection of the eclipse inclined towards the earth’s equator and marking respectively the northern Tropic of Cancer and the southern Tropic of Capricorn was marked. What is important is on what meridian the projection of the sign of Capricorn is placed, which then allows one to logically determine the order of the projection of constellations on a globe, as well as find in the Arctic circle the point corresponding to the center of the eclipse. All old maps and globes answer this question unambiguously. On the basis of late medieval and Renaissance geographical knowledge, the sign of Capricorn, the southernmost point of the eclipse, is projected on the meridian which passes through the Ural mountains (the Ripheans, as the Greeks called them), the symbolic border between Europe and Asia. On this very meridian, 60 degrees east longitude, Gaston Georgel conducted his study of the geography of ancient civilizations! This means that the pole of the eclipse, the true celestial pole whose projection on the globe corresponds to the pole of the circle around which the center of civilizations, shifts over thousands of years.
If today we are now capable of making similarly logical inferences on the basis of an elementary knowledge of astronomy and geography, then why should it be excluded that the ancients, holding such knowledge (this is proved by a swathe of modern research on the ancient observatories of Chinese, Sumerian, Celtic, and other traditions), and not being burdened by technocratic and agnostic prejudices, were perfectly well aware of the correlations between the earth and the sky and built on these correspondences their sacred geography and the logic of their sacred history? But it is most likely that the completeness of this synthetic knowledge gradually left for the regions of mental archetypes, fairy tales, fables, and legends, manifesting itself most openly in especially rotary periods in the history of mankind.
Russians and Hyperboreans
The empirical discovery of the hypothetical pole of civilizations by this French Traditionalist might possibly help explain not only a number of enigmatic facts of humanity’s past, but also give the keys to understanding one of the most strange secrets of our time, the understanding of the secret of “Russian patriotism”, which in no way can be reduced to the banal nationalism of a particular ethnic group. “Russian patriotism,” in its deepest dimension, is universal and “all-human” has F.M. Dostoevsky said as he was connected with the “inner continent,” with the central continent located in the vicinity of the fixed point of the “wheel of life,” the circle of the wandering human soul. And maybe it is appropriate that the closest to the point of this northern center was the city of Inta, which is so similar to the name of the Peruvian sun god Inti and the Aryan Indra. Moreover, if we project celestial constellations on land on the basis of the above-mentioned correlations, then our center, as well as the center of the eclipse, falls on the constellation of the Dragon, the eternal enemy of Indra and the “sun gods” of victory.
Interestingly enough, the abode of Indra in Hinduism is considered in various accounts to be in the northeast and the name of his elephant, Airavata, coincides with the Jain name of the northernmost countries on earth. But this country, as we have already said, was also called Varakhi, the “land of the Wild Boar,” which corresponds exactly with the Greek root bor, i.e., north, or the country of Hyperborea (“lying in the far north”), the home of the sun of Apollo, who is also a “Dragon slayer.” And it is no accident that, according to Ancient Greek sources, the Hyperboreans sent symbolic gifts of wheat to Delphi via the Scythian and more northern Russian lands. It is curious that the word varakhi reminds us also of varyagi, i.e., the legendary people who gave the Russians a sacred monarch.
In legends of the Hyperboreans, the “herbal” nature of their gifts, such as ears of wheat, is always emphasized. The ancient tradition believed that tillage was the most important ancient occupation of people, prior to breeding. In this, the metaphysical view of the ancients reflects a fundamental peace and fixation (the sedentariness of farmers) which is put above dynamism and variability (nomadism and pastoralism). Moreover, the most characteristic occupation of Russians has always been tilling. In this regard, the following fact is interesting. One of the old names for the Slavs was vene or Venety, as was one of the names of one of the Slavic tribes. And to this time, the Estonians and Finns still call Russians vene. In all of this it is impossible not to notice the obvious parallels with the Vanir of the Nordic sagas. The Vanir are a group of gods engaged in agriculture (in contrast to the nomads and pastoralists of the Aesir), who embody features of sacred peace-loving and inhabited, according to the ancient sagas, the lower reaches of the Dnieper and the Don. Here it is appropriate to recall that one of the favorite and most frequent Russian names is Ivan. Although it is derived from the Hebrew name John, it can be assumed that the self-designation of Slavs survived in a Christian form. Moreover, there exists a strange symbolic coincidence between the gospels’ story about the head of John the Baptist and the ancient Germanic myths of the Vanir and the head of the giant Mimir, which the Vanir cut off and sent to the Aesir. This same story of beheading is central in the life of John the Baptist. And, just as Odin, the leader of the Aesir, enlivens the head of Mimir, which foretells him of the beginning of the Final Judgement (Ragnarokr), so do the Christian parables tell us of the miraculous finding of the talking head of John the Baptist. Here it should be added that the warning of the Final Judgement from the head of Mimir is a direct parallel to the eschatological warning of the prophet John about the coming of the Messiah.
In our opinion, all of this can be explained by one primordial mythological complex which was rooted in the Indo-European peoples in primordial times. Historical outbreaks of this complex are always correlated with certain cyclical patterns and certain territories. The “inner continents” and their mythologies could slip across the planet together with their tribes, their bearers. They could be clearly fixed at certain places of the earth. They could be transferred from people to people. And finally, they could be integrated into different religious structures, forming the archetypal unity of traditions. For us, the main thing in all of this is identifying the specific logic of the archetypal tradition and its spiritual and symbolic content. The ethni which in this or that period became bearers of this Tradition soak in it, turning into theophoric (god-bearing) or idea-bearing ethni, are the earthly body of some kind of heavenly entity, a living idea, or an archangel.
Whatever fleeting historical reasons for the sacred relationship to these lands, whatever the peoples who inhabit them, “Inner Russia” in its deepest dimension was equated with “Paradise,” with the territories of the Golden Age, and, moreover, the symbolism of Hyperborea, varaha, and the Vanir-Ivan tillers, etc., and has been constantly associated in the most different traditions with precisely that ancient homeland where free, immortal ancestors dwelled. To speak of a “national identity” of Paradise is quite ridiculous. Therefore, any upsurge of the unconscious archetypes of “mystical patriotism” in the Russian people has never compared to any usual, small nationalism. The Russians themselves call “Russians” all of those who are in solidarity with them in their deep intuition of the sacrality of the lands upon which they live. This fundamentally distinguishes them from other peoples and, in particular, from other Slavs, who are much more soberly and rationally conscious of national boundaries. Although something of the sort has always been characteristic for truly imperial peoples, in Russia this was and is revealed in a special form with a special force.
Let us draw a few conclusions:
The self-consciousness of peoples and nations traditionally inhabiting the territory of Russia is fundamentally connected with the specific, sacred geography of this territory.
In the complex of sacred geography, the lands of Russia occupy a central place in accordance with the ancient logic of astronomical and astrological correlations.
The consciousness of the uniqueness of Russia from the perspective of sacred geography largely determines the mystery of “Russian patriotism.”
“Russian patriotism” is imbued with a cosmic fate and is not only a fact of history. He who lives and learns Russia lives and learns the secret bequeathed to distant generations of ancestors who fought under the banner of Alexander the Great, galloped across the steppe among Tatar cavalry, worshipped the the Son of God in Byzantium, lit the sacred fires on the altars of Ahura-Mazda, listened to the teachings of the druids under the oaks of Europe, beheld in spiritual ecstasy the eternal dance of Shiva-Nataraja, built the ziggurats of Assyria, destroyed Carthage, and sailed the seas in boats with the curved neck of the Hyperborean Swan at the nose, always remembering the Heart of the World, the “golden heart of Russia” (Nikolai Gumilev) and “Mystical Russia.”
We are approaching an important spiritual milestone. Global forces are stretched to the limit, and in many ways the fate of our country today determines the fate of the planet. Therefore, it is important to break through to the depths of the sacrality of Russia and its prehistoric roots in order to understand its strange and sorrowful path, and muster strength for the revival of this Holy Country and the rebirth of Continent Russia together with its secret, permafrost-covered center.
 Mircea Eliade, L’épreuve de labyrinthe. Paris, 1985.
 See Dugin’s Metafizika Blagoi Vesti, Chapter 36.
 From a theological point of view, there exists a huge difference between Tsar, King, and Prince. The Tsar is the Emperor, the Basileus, the head of the church-going Orthodox Empire who unites under his reign a number of countries, kingdoms, and principalities. The principle of the Emperor-Tsar is associated not only with temporal power but also with the mystery of “Katehon,” “he who maintains,” while royal dignity belongs to an ontologically different, lower, secular and administrative level.
 Gaston Georgel, Les rythmes dans l’Histoire. Belfort, 1937.
© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission.