The British Crown Against Rus – Part I

Author: Vladimir Karpets

Translator: Yulian Orlov

Zavtra no. 35 (928), 31 August, 2011

In the spring of this year (on 29 April to be precise), a very important, or rather seminal event took place. We are speaking of the marriage of the oldest son of the Heir to the British Throne, Prince William, and Kate Middleton. It is self-evident that a joyous occasion in the ruling house of any monarchical state should also be a joyous occasion for that state’s subjects, especially for its subjects. This time, however, the world media depicted the event in an entirely different way. The marriage, religious ceremony, and state festivities were broadcast 24/7 by all world electronic media (including the Russian media), thereby actually violating the sovereignty of the countries that were watching the event. It was as if they were showing us not merely one ruling house, but a dynasty that rules the entire world, and the wedding of the future world ruler. On the very next day, reports about a potential invitation for the brother of Prince William, Prince Harry, to take the Russian throne started to quickly spread in the press and on the Internet…

It is accepted to think (and this thought has almost become a saying) that the “British crown reigns, but does not rule”. There could not be a bigger misconception. The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, and although all fundamental political questions are decided on the basis of case law and simply centuries-old traditions, the British monarch’s political role remains the most important of all. The monarch has the right to veto Parliamentary decisions (it is this very right that characterises the British state as monarchical) and can dismiss the prime minister and any member of cabinet at any moment. Yes, these prerogatives have not been used for more than two centuries and are (to use a phrase) ‘in a state of slumber’, but this is only thanks to the stability that has been reached over the course of many centuries. All British international legal acts are signed with the name of the King (or Queen) and he (or she) is the head of the fully independent Anglican Church. Disturbances and conflicts in the Royal House are capable of shaking the nation to its foundations. The famous tragic scandal of princess Diana has clearly shown this. Let us try to (albeit mentally) “pull” the Royal House out of the composition of the British state and society, and we will see that everything collapses.

Apart from this, the British Royal House of Windsor, being one of the ‘supporting walls’ of the global world government, is at the very centre of organisations like the Bilderberg Club, the Trilateral Commission, the US Federal Reserve System, the World Bank, etc. and is entirely capable of becoming the (purely external) foundation of the future “World Government”, which will also without any doubt employ traditional coverings. An irreversible movement in this direction was begun in 1694, with the signing of a charter by the “Protestant king” William of Orange that resulted in the creation of the Bank of England and the entire central banking system that began acting under the BoE’s guidance. Initially through the East and West-Indian Companies and later through the “Venetian-Amsterdam system” that was created long before it (or to be more precise, simultaneously and in parallel), the Bank of England become the core of what we today call the “Financial International”. The expression “the British Crown” relates above all else to London City, which includes the Royal Family. It is only in this sense that we can call the British monarchy “limited”.

It is precisely England that is showing the vitality and absolute contemporaneity of the monarchical form of government. All the more dangerous is the expansion of the “British Crown” to Russia, which has been found itself in a political and governmental-legal dead-end for many years. After all, it was England (today together with the US) that was for many centuries and still is today our main geopolitical opponent. What is more, England is our main civilisational competitor. We do not simply have different, but opposite meta-historical ‘ingresses and egresses’.

The confrontation between “Behemoth” and “Leviathan” (Third Book of Esdras), “Land” and “Sea” (C. Schmitt), “Eurasianism” and “Atlanticism” (A. G. Dugin) etc., of which the clearest manifestation today is the confrontation of the “two imperial projects” (the Russian and “North-Atlantic” or “Anglo-American”) has its roots in the most ancient ontology of world history. In the beginning of the 1930’s, René Guénon published two short, but truly revolutionary articles: “Atlantis and Hyperborea” and “The Place of the Atlantic Tradition in the Manvantara”. According to Guénon, a tradition separated itself from the Primordial Tradition (which he called “polar” or “Hyperborean”), a so to speak secondary, “Atlantic” tradition. “This question,” – Guénon noted, – seems to be linked to that of the inclination of the terrestrial axis, which, according to certain traditional ideas, would not have existed from the beginning, but was a consequence of what in Western language is called the ‘Fall of Man’ ‘[1].

The “Primordial Tradition” has “polar” origins. “It is only in a latter epoch that the seat of the primordial tradition, transferred to other regions, was able to become either Western or Eastern – Western for certain periods and Eastern for others; and in any case, the last transferral was surely to the East and already completed long before the times called ‘historic’ (the only times accessible to the investigations of ‘profane’ history)” [2] — as is noted by Guénon. What is more: “The very position of the Atlantean center on the East-West axis indicates its subordination with respect to the Hyperborean center… The starting-point that one can call normal, as being in direct conformity with primordial tradition, is the winter solstice; the fact of starting the year at one of the equinoxes indicates the attachment to a secondary tradition, such as the Atlantean tradition. Since this last, on the other hand, is located in a region that corresponds to evening in the diurnal cycle, it must be regarded as belonging to one of the last divisions of the cycle of present terrestrial humanity and therefore as relatively recent… Besides, one must never lose sight of the fact that, according to the analogy that exists between a principal cycle and the secondary cycles into which it is subdivided, all considerations of this order are always susceptible of applications at different degrees…” [3].

Today, the projection of Hyperborea is the north-eastern region of Eurasia, i.e. Russia. 

In his studies of the primordial tradition of the Aryans, the German scholar Herman Wirth (1885–1981) noted, that the “Atlantic-Nordic race” (the famous tribes of the Tuatha de Danann from Irish myth) are also secondary in relation to another, more ancient and sacred “Arctic-Nordic” race. According to Wirth, the break between the Nordics of the ancient Arctic and the Atlanto-Nordics took place in prehistoric times, more than two million years ago. We will neither confirm nor challenge this chronology: it is dubious, but in this case something else is more important for us.

According to Wirth, the initial faith of man was the solar, polar monotheism of the Saviour-God, who was seen as the extemporal figure of the Son of God who had entered time to die and be resurrected within it. For Wirth, the saviour is a polar Edenic archetype crucified to the arctic cross who resurrects himself once a year, an archetype of the Eternal Return that nullifies linear time and which arrived from the pre-historical Hyperborea. He speaks of a “proto-Christianity”, and it is easy for us to see that precisely such a metaphysics that re-emerges in the foundations of full-grown Orthodoxy, the (Universal) Councils and the Second and Third Rome. Operating from this conception, it is easy for us to understand the pre- and meta-historical role of the British Isles that Wirth himself also wrote about: that of an un- and anti-Rome.

According to the ideas of Aryan antiquity, the Royal Line is a Solar dynasty or surya-vamsa – edin. It was thought that the founder of the line, Vivasvan or Vayvasvata Manu was alive (or, to be precise, has been alive) from the very creation of the world (this is the origin of the Laws of Manu). The unity of the Royal Line is linked to the metahisorical figure of its “founder”. As was (and still is) ascribed to Manu, the kings of the Solar dynasty inherit his title on the basis of primogeniture. Only the oldest offspring of the king could succeed him. Later, already after Jesus Christ, this principle received the name ‘Salic law’ (‘solar’ or ‘salt’ law) after the name of the monarchs that inherited it, the Salic Franks. This is the principle of the continental dynasties that include the Iranian royal houses (the Kayanians and Achaemenids), the dynasties of the ‘Trojan root’ (which apart from the Merovingians include the Roman Julii and the Rurikovichi; apart from the author of these lines and who had earlier brought up this question, a growing number of contemporary scholars emphasise the relation between the three latter groups) as well as (apparently) the Chingisids (this we can conclude from the “Secret History of the Mongols”). 

It is important to know, that the very word “tsar” is descended from the Sumerian ‘sar’, which can be read as sur (incidentally, this is the origin of the Anglo-French sur) or, when using an ancient reverse reading, as ras, ros, or rus, which also means ‘race’ and ‘dew’. Surya or Syria is the blood of tsars, ruda, rus’ or sunlight. Even in the beginning of the twentieth century, people said the following when they saw the dawn: “I’ll go and watch the Rus’”. Therefore, “Rus’’ initially meant ‘kings’: a plural that simultaneously had a female gender (as in ‘elen’’ or ‘kamen’’ [4]). ‘Russian’ meant ‘royal’.

The Bible also mentions a priest-King, the ‘King of Salem’, Melchizedek (ancient Hebrew ‘melkhi-tsedek’, i. e. ‘sacred king’) ‘without a genealogy’, i.e. a primordial king. He is the predecessor of Abraham and does not truly have a relation to the haberim Melchizedek or the Aryan Manu: these are the very same meta-historical figure. “In a true image of the political composition of a traditional society,” – A. G. Dugin writes in his Philosophy of Politics, – “a sacred leader or emperor occupies the top of the hierarchy. This figure unites within itself two functions: a priestly function, which is related to knowledge, and a royal function, that is the function of rule, of administration… According to obscure legends, the disappearance of this caste was linked to some kind of cyclic catastrophe. After it, the highest power was split into two branches [5].” We are speaking here about kings (and the warrior, kshatriyatic varna that is linked to them) and priests (the clergy). Further, the north-eastern (continental, ‘hyperborean’) tradition emphasises the mission of the kings, whereas the Western tradition emphasises that of the clergy.


Translator’s notes:

[1]: All quotations by Guénon have been extracted from the translation of Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles by Henry D. Fohr (Sophia Perennis; Hillsdale NY: 2004). This first quote can be found in Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles: p. 16.

[2]: Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles: p. 16.

[3]: Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles: p.24-25.

[4]: Words meaning respectively “deer” and “stone”.

[5]: Dugin A. G. Philosophy of Politics. Moscow, 2004, p. 96.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s