Alexander Dugin

Foreword to Foundations of Geopolitics

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

Foreword to Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (Arktogeya, Moscow: 2000) 

osnovygeopolitiki_0

Foreword

The history and fate of geopolitics as a science is paradoxical. On the one hand, the concept itself seems to have become customary and is actively used in modern politics. Geopolitical journals and institutes have multiplied, the texts of the founders of this discipline are being published, conferences and symposia are being organized, and geopolitical committees and commissions have been created.

Yet nevertheless, to this day geopolitics has still been unable to enter the category of conventionally recognized sciences. The first geopolitical works of the German Ratzel, the Swede Kjellen, and especially the Englishman Mackinder have been met with hostility by the scientific community. Classical science, fully inheriting the hyper-critical spirit of early positivism, has considered geopolitics to be an “over-generalization,” and consequently it is believed to be little more than a variety of “charlatanism.”

In a sense, the sad fate of geopolitics as a science has been associated with the political side of the problem. The opinion has been approved that the war crimes of the Third Reich’s expansion, the war, deportations, etc. were to a significant extent theoretically prepared by German geopoliticians who allegedly supplied Hitler’s regime with a pseudo-scientific basis (first and foremost, this refers to Karl Haushofer, the German geopolitician who at one time was quite close to the Fuhrer).

However, German geopolitics, on a theoretical level, is essentially no different from Anglo-Saxon geopolitics (Mackinder, Mahan, Spykman), French geopolitics (Vidal de La Blanche), or Russian “military geography” (Milyutin, Snesarev), etc. The difference lies not in the specific views of Haushofer, which were entirely logical and adequate for the discipline, but in the methods by which a number of his geopolitical positions were realized. Moreover, the specific foreign policies of Germany in the ’30’s and ’40’s in their most repulsive manifestations were diametrically opposed to the ideas of Haushofer himself. Instead of a “continental bloc” along the axis of Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo, there was the attack on the USSR; instead of an organic understanding of the doctrine of Lebensraum, or “living space” (in the spirit of Schmitt’s theory of “people’s rights”), there was vulgar nationalism and imperialism, etc. It should be noted that Haushofer’s school and his journal Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik were never official elements of the Nazi system. As with many intellectual groups of the so called “conservative revolutionaries” in the Third Reich, their ambiguous existence was simply tolerated, and this tolerance varied depending on political conditions at a given moment.

However, the main reason for the historical suppression of geopolitics is the fact that it too openly reveals the fundamental mechanisms of international politics which various regimes often prefer to hide behind vague rhetoric or abstract ideological schemes. In this sense, it is possible to cite the parallel with Marxism (at least in its, scientific, analytical aspect). Karl Marx more than cogently revealed the mechanics of relations of production and their connections with historical formations, just as geopolitics exposes the historical demagogy of foreign policy discourse and shows the real deep levers which influence international, inter-state, and inter-ethnic relations. But if Marxism is a global revision of classical economic history, then geopolitics is a revision of the history of international relations. The latter explains the ambivalent attitude of society towards geopolitical scholars. The scientific community stubbornly refuses to tolerate them in their midst and harshly criticizes them, often without even noticing that, on the contrary, authorities use geopolitical calculations to formulate international strategy. Such, for example, was the case with one of the first geopoliticians, the true founding father of the discipline, Sir Halford Mackinder. His ideas were not accepted in academic circles, but he himself directly participated in the formulation of English policies for the first half of the 20th century, laying the theoretical basis for the international strategy of England which was passed on to the US in the middle of the century and developed by Mackinder’s American (or, more broadly, Atlanticist) followers.

In our opinion, the parallel with Marxism is a successful one. A method may be adapted and utilized by different poles. The Marxist analysis is important for both the representatives of Capital and fighters for the emancipation of Labor. Geopolitics is important for both the representatives of large states (empires), as it instructs them how to best preserve territorial domination and carry out expansion, and their opponents for whom geopolitics presents the conceptual principles of the revolutionary theory of “national liberation.” For example, the Treaty of Versailles was the work of the hands of Mackinder’s geopolitical school which expressed the interests of the West and aimed at weakening the states of Central Europe and the suppression of Germany. The German student of Mackinder, Karl Haushofer, proceeding from the same assumptions, developed a directly opposing theory of “European liberation” which was a total negation of the logic of Versailles and which formed the basis of the nascent ideology of National-Socialism.

These considerations show that even though it has not been accepted into the commonwealth of classical sciences, geopolitics is extremely effective in practice and its value is superior in some aspects to many conventional disciplines.

Be that is at may, today geopolitics exists and little by little it is gaining official recognition and the corresponding status. However, not everything is going smoothly in this process. Very often we are faced with a confusion of the concept of “geopolitics,” whose increasing use is becoming common place among non-professionals. The focus is shifted from the complete and global picture, developed by the founding fathers, to limited regional points of geo-economic schemes. The original postulates of geopolitical dualism, competing strategies, civilizational differentiation, etc. are either ignored, hushed, or denied. It is difficult to imagine something similar in any other science. What would happen to classical physics if, operating with the concepts of “mass”, “energy”, “acceleration”, etc., scientists started to implicitly, gradually deny the law of gravity, forget about it, and simply recognize that Newton was “a mythological figure never having existed in reality” or a “dark religious fanatic?” But it is precisely this, mutatis mutandis, which is happening with geopolitics in our time.

The purpose of this book is to present the basics of geopolitics objectively and impartially beyond preconceived notions, ideological sympathies and antipathies. No matter how we treat this science, we can only have a definite opinion of it upon being acquainted with its principals, history, and methodology.

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

 

Revealing Traditionalism

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold 

The preface to the second edition of Puti Absoliuta [The Ways of the Absolute] published in Absoliutnaia Rodina [Absolute Homeland] (Moscow: Arktogeia, 1999/2000). 

 

The Ways of the Absolute was written in 1989. Its main task was presenting the foundations of Traditionalism, exhibiting how Tradition understands the most important metaphysical problems, and on what philosophical principles the sacred worldview is built. We considered the present work to be a kind of introduction to Traditionalism, as transmitting into the Russian context the main lines of such eminent modern Traditionalists as René Guénon (the founding father of this tendency), Julius Evola, etc. We pursued an altogether definite purpose, and it predetermined the topics selected, the methods of presentation, and the emphases. It was extremely important for us to at once put Traditionalist through in its proper context, and show its radical non-conformism, its rigid alternity to academic, “humanitarian” and profane philosophical trends in modern culture. Traditionalism is not a history of religions, not a philosophy, not a structural sociological analysis. It is more of an ideology or meta-ideology that is totalitarian to a considerable extent and places rather harsh demands before those who accept and profess it. Either man breaks with the totality of the worldview cliches of modernity diffused throughout his environment, completely revises his views and positions, investigates the profane genesis and then rejects them all at once in order to accept the norms of Tradition with perfect confidence and strict conviction, or he will remain essentially outside of it, outside the sacred fence, in the Eleusinian swamps of the modern world in which there is no fundamental difference between highbrow professors, philosophers, and the obedient, absolutely unreflective mass of laymen, including even those intellectuals who for “academic” reasons are interested in various “extravagant” subjects, such as theology, rituals, symbolism, traditional societies, etc.

The ambition to emphasize this aspect of Traditionalism with maximal clarity determined the structure of The Ways of the Absolute.

In the preface to the first edition of The Ways of the Absolute, we wrote the following on this matter: “‘Total Traditionalism’ arose in 20th century Europe as a special ideology standing for a complete and uncompromising return to the values of traditional, sacred civilization whose absolute negation is the modern materialist and secularized civilization – the “modern world” as such. Unlike those people who naturally belong to Tradition, the Traditionalists of the West found themselves surrounded by anti-tradition, and in order to affirm their position, they had to first and foremost reveal the elements and principles of Tradition, and declare them openly – something which would be superfluous in sacred societies and impossible in totalitarian, atheistic societies (such as communist ones, for example).”

Russian readers’ first acquaintance with the ideas of Traditionalism has, in our opinion, been quite adequate. We have succeeded in anticipating the opportunity to usurp this topic from irresponsible profane and neo-spiritualist circles.

Since the first edition of The Ways of the Absolute, the first Russian translations of the classics of Traditionalism have appeared and this trend will clearly continue. Readers can gradually, sufficiently familiarize themselves with the wholeness of the Traditionalist worldview, and then arises the new task of adequate applying such to our own tradition, to explaining what aspects of it are applicable to our reality to a full extent, and which aspects are subject to certain adjustment.

Ten years ago, the preface said: “The ideas of Guénon, whose works have hitherto been completely unknown to Russian readers, compose the foundations of this book. We have deemed it possible to avoid direct quotations of his works and chosen to freely present how we have grasped his ideas and how we have subsequently applied them in the sphere of traditional metaphysical doctrines and symbols. The present work contains a presentation of Guénon’s basic principles and concepts, whereas a detailed account of the divergences between such and our views on certain points of metaphysics would make sense only after the publication of Guénon’s main works in Russian. No matter what, it is Guénon who was and remains our spiritual guide and teacher.”

Today it can be said that this indeed happened, and in parallel to Russians’ fuller acquaintance with Guénon’s work, those aspects which were lost in the overall context of presenting the foundations of Traditionalism in The Ways of the Absolute have come to stand out. In our opinion, the gap that separates orthodox “Guenonism”, or literal adherence to Guénon’s thought in all major and minor issues, from the slightly different version of understanding metaphysical questions to which we ourselves adhere, is evermore clear. Before Guenon’s worldview became known to us in its general contours, it was premature to insist on the quality and essence of this gap, and by and large meaningless insofar as such would resemble a comparison between two unknown values. With the development of one of these values, the more prominent became the second, closely related to the first.

In The Ways of the Absolute, we based ourselves on a particular metaphysical tradition whose main lines were developed in a very closed and discrete intellectual milieu associated with such thinkers at Geydar Dzhemal, Yuri Mamleev, and Evgeniy Golovin. Having inherited from them a taste for paradoxical pivot in metaphysical intuition, we tried to combine this with orthodox Traditionalism, subjecting the latter to corrections arising out of the spirit of the above-mentioned school. The result was this book.

Intensive development of certain ideas has led the author to a whole series of new metaphysical conclusions which have been expressed in our other works, first and foremost in The Metaphysics of the Gospel.

We have decided to introduce some minor edits (mostly in the citations) in the text of this second edition of The Ways of the Absolute, since some suspicions have gradually been reborn as convictions, and certain arguments in orthodox Guénonist terms are so inadequate that we have resolved to withdraw them from the text or, in the very least, substantially correct them. Nevertheless, it is extremely important to consider the chronology of the writing and first edition of this book, as such was the first step in what was a kind of “revelation of Traditionalism.” 

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

The Balkans and the Middle East: A Possible Synthesis

Author: Leonid Savin

Copy edited by Jafe Arnold 

Talk delivered at the conference “The Balkans and the Middle East: Interconnections and Interactions”, in Belgrade, Serbia, March 24, 2016. 

 

Understanding current market conditions and the interests of various competitors is not sufficient to adequately comprehend ongoing geopolitical processes. This is especially true for the Middle East and the Balkans. A deep analysis and deconstruction of existing regional systems are needed to identify elements of interdependence and develop possible responses to all sorts of challenges.

What unites and what divides the Middle East and the Balkans? Not only is there a longstanding conflict between Christian and Muslim actors on the one hand, but, on the other, there is also a syncretic coexistence of Islam and Christianity developed within the framework of the mutual influence of the various peoples’ cultures. This is not only a matter of proximity or distance. One can look at these regions from different angles depending on the chosen vantage point.

In the opinion of the author, serious attention needs to be paid to two things. Firstly, there is the system of external influences which the two regions were established under and continue to be affected by. The second factor is the common historical and political heritage which, when appealed to, offers solutions for modern issues.

In discussing the impact of these factors, it is necessary to begin with the process of political imagination that British strategists employed when establishing the project of the Middle East and which they have imposed on the rest of the world. This theory and its practical implementation is known as “Orientalism” which Edward Said describes in detail in his second book. The British Empire justified its control of the region under the pretext of transferring Western concepts of political control to other countries’ peoples as the only correct and acceptable way. Thus began the expansionist policy of the West. Ralph Peters quite reasonably noticed that when the United States pursues its foreign policy objectives, it first sends hamburgers from McDonalds and Hollywood cinematic productions to other countries. Only then, if necessary, do bullets and bombs become the tools.

In any geopolitical confrontation, the most serious consideration should be given to the self-consciousness of nations and their elites. This quite ordinary remark demonstrates how political geography dominates other ideas. Is this region, the Middle East, understood by the nations of the Gulf and the Red Sea themselves as the “East?” Why have the rich countries of the Persian Gulf not faced the process of decolonization as happened in India?

Although Islamic law and a special hierarchy of power predominated in the region, this did not prevent most Arab countries from being integrated into the overall global system arranged according to Britain, or rather the ideas of Scottish liberalism.

Another explicit element of Westernism can be found in the complex science of geopolitics. The classical authors of geopolitics insisted that there exists the World-Island with Heartland in the center and the “inner crescent” outlining the borders, known as Rimland, which includes the Balkans and the Middle East. The World-Island as a whole is surrounded by the outer crescent.

Nicolas Spykman, in reviewing Halford Mackinder’s main positions, believed that Rimland is more important than Heartland given its ambivalent nature: this coastal zone faces the Eurasian continent, but is equally open to the inner seas.

Zbigniew Brzezinski continued this line by demonizing the region under consideration, turning it into the Eurasian arc of instability beginning in the Balkans and ending in the mountains of China. In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski also discusses the Islamic factor which is directly connected to the problems of this arc, seeing as how part of the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia up to the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region are populated by Muslim nations.

Is there any trace of Samuel Huntington and his concept of the clash of civilizations evident here? If yes, then in this case, the types of civilizations introduced by him bear a clearly religious connotation. Thus, the Westphalian model, based on the separation of secular and religious power, is a farce. Therefore, the results of the Enlightenment should be questioned and revised.

Meanwhile, one of the world’s conventional theories of international relations, realism, is also a product of the early Italian Enlightenment. The founding father of this theory and the notion of “national interest” is considered to be Niccolo Machiavelli who promoted these ideas in his book The Prince. But are these views authentic? Machiavelli derived many theses from the works of the Byzantine work Strategikon whose author is known as Maurice or pseudo-Maurice. It is unimportant whether this work belonged to Emperor Maurice or to one of his generals. What is important is that this interesting Byzantine theory of realism guided the world’s leading power. The Byzantine Empire once covered considerable area and pursued quite successful policies. Moreover, Byzantium’s confrontation with wars, religious conflicts, internal contradictions, and the Great Migration can be compared to the current crisis, especially the immigration crisis, in Europe.

The Byzantine heritage can seriously help one to find an appropriate policy in solving many existing problems and challenges. This is not only reducible to the Christian Neoplatonic School which developed metaphysical doctrines far surpassing issues of administration and management. It is also unavoidable to view Islamic philosophy in isolation from the Byzantine Empire. Although mystical Islam and its legal schools have experienced serious changes, a number of recognized Muslim scholars, such as Ibn al-Arabi, have utilized and developed many Neoplatonic ideas. Ibn al-Arabi’s doctrine of the Unity of Being (wadat al-wujūd) was addressed not only to mystics, but also to Muslim jurists and theologians, i.e., those who in fact worked on public policy issues and international relations.

Those who, regardless of Christian or Muslim origin, master working with apophatic theology, the attributes, names, and characteristics of God, and the timeless processes of theophany and the phenomenon of pre-eternity will ultimately be better equipped to understand the interests and needs of the other side than those who receive a secular education at Oxford or Harvard according to the Anglo-Saxon templates of the liberal tradition that is essentially anti-religious.

Hegel and the Platonic Leap Down

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold 

Geopolitica.ru 

 

On November 14th, 1831 the greatest romantic philosopher in the world history of thought, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), died. Heidegger, along with Nietzsche, believed Hegel to be the one who completed the history of the philosophy of the Western Logos and the pinnacle of the history of philosophy and philosophy in general. If Plato was the philosopher of the beginning, then Hegel and Nietzsche were the philosophers of the end. In this sense, Hegel was the summative philosopher.

Everything is the otherness of the Other

Hegel’s political philosophy is very complex. It is based on his overall philosophical picture. As we have seen, every philosophy always has the possibility of eliciting a political dimension. Like Plato, Hegel in his philosophy of right makes this gesture, takes his whole philosophy and applies it to politics, i.e., he explicitly locates the place of political philosophy in the context of his philosophy as a whole. Through philosophy, he explains political philosophy, simultaneously clarifying politics through its metaphysical dimension.

In this respect, Hegel is a classical philosopher who implicitly includes political philosophy. In this sense, Heidegger was absolutely right when he said that if we understood The Phenomenology of the Spirit, then we could deduce everything else from it. As for reading, two fundamental works of Hegel’s are habitually suggested: The Phenomenology of the Spirit and Philosophy of Right.

Hegel’s basic idea is that there exists the primordial Subjective Spirit, the “spirit for itself” (German: der subjektive Geist). This point coincides with the theological thesis on God’s existence – the Subjective Spirit is God for Himself. In order to employ itself for the Other, this Subjective Spirit projects itself in the Objective Spirit (German: der objektive Geist) in which it becomes nature and matter, i.e., the subject projects itself in the object.

Note the fundamental difference here with the Cartesian topology which predetermined the structure of modernity. For Descartes, there is a dualism between subject and object, whereas Hegel tries to remove this dualism and overcome Kant’s epistemological pessimism through distinguishing matter or the object from the Spirit. In fact, this is nothing more than a development of the Kantian model of the absolute “I am,” but taken in a dynamic, dialectical model. If Fichte was a reaction to Kant, then Hegel is a reaction to Fichte, but in constant dialogue with Kant and Cartesianism.

Thus, Hegel argues that there exists the Subjective Spirit which reveals itself through the Objective Spirit via dialectical alienation. The Thesis is the Subjective Spirit and the Antithesis is the Objective Spirit, or nature. Therefore, nature is not nature since, according to Hegel, nothing is identical to itself, but everything is an otherness of the Other, hence the term “dialectic.”

The cycle of departure and return: the Absolute Spirit

In other words, there is the Subjective Spirit as such which projects itself as the Antithesis. And thus begins history. For Hegel, the philosophy of history is of fundamental significance because history is nothing other than the process of unfolding of the Objective Spirit which acquires at the new stage its spiritual component lying at its essence. But the first act of the Objective Spirit is to hide its spiritual character, to impersonate matter or nature, and then throughout history this otherness of the Subjective Spirit returns, by man and human history, to its essence.

But then this is a new essence; this is no longer the Subjective Spirit (the “spirit for itself”) nor a “spirit for another”, but a “spirit in itself.” In other words, the spirit returns to itself through its own alienation. Thus arises the cycle of departure and return, the latter of which was more important for Hegel than the departure. The latter creates the preconditions for the return, and the return, passing the entire cycle, returns to the Subjective Spirit itself, becoming the third spirit – the Absolute Spirit (German: der absolute Geist). That is, first there is the Subjective Spirit, then the Objective Spirit, and then the Absolute Spirit.

The Absolute Spirit, according to Hegel, unfolds over the course of human history and draws towards the end of history. The meaning of history is the Spirit’s realization of itself through matter. First the Spirit has itself, but is not self-aware, then it begins to realize itself, but does not have itself. Nature in and of itself harbors the preconditions of history because it is an element of history. Hence the history of religion, the history of societies, and as a result of the Spirit’s unfolding through history, it reaches its climax in the end of history, when the Spirit is fully conscious of and has itself. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Thus, history is finished.

This is a general picture of Hegel’s philosophy, which has many nuances and complexities. Thus, according to Hegel, history moves positively, but this is a different positivism than that in the philosophy of the Great Mother. The titanic beginning implies that in the beginning there was lesser and then greater. In his reading of Hegel, Marx removed the Subjective Spirit and said that there is self-perfecting nature. Thus, he restored the philosophy of the Great Mother according to which everything grows out of matter and nature.

But Hegel is not Marx. In Hegel, this growth, this process, this movement from the bottom upwards is based on the fact that in the beginning there was a leap downwards.  First the Spirit leaps and falls into nature, and therefore nature begins to grow, and nature is not so much other as it is the otherness of the Spirit. The Antithesis to the Spirit is not simply its opposite – for it itself is also such in removed form. The concept of “removal” in Hegel is very important, as the Antithesis does not destroy the Thesis, but removes it, absorbs it, and then demonstrates through the Synthesis.

Therefore, the Thesis is not absolute, and the Antithesis is not absolute. All of them are dialectically dependent. Only their Synthesis is absolute through which occurs the removal of the Thesis and the Antithesis. In this sense, the Hegelian understanding of history as the unfolding of the Spirit happens through phases: there is the (prehistoric) Subjective Spirit, the Objective Spirit, which manifests itself through history, and finally the Absolute Spirit, which manifests itself through the higher tension of history, through the creation of some kind of cultural and socio-political peak, the pyramid of the Spirit, which finally became the Absolute.

Hegel and the idea of the German state

Where does political philosophy figure here? Clearly, in some sense history becomes political. Hence why in Hegel there is the concept of the evolution of political systems, models, and regimes as moments of becoming of the Absolute Spirit. Politics is the crystallization of the Synthesis. Political history is the movement of the Spirit to becoming Absolute. Politics is the history of the absolutization of the Spirit.

Hegel establishes a hierarchy between different political forms. On the one hand, this is an evolutionary hierarchy since each regime is better than the previous. But, unlike Marx’s ideas, this evolution is at the same time not only a reflection of the Antithesis, and it is not the development of matter or nature. This is the distinguishing of the Spirit which was originally inherent in matter and nature. As follows, there is no materialism here. We are dealing with a complex scheme which combines the Platonic option (in the beginning there was Spirit, not matter) and the evolutionary model (in which we begin to consider history from the Antithesis, which is reminiscent of the idea of the Great Mother). Marx amputated the Platonic part, hence his reinterpretation of Hegel in an exclusively materialist sense.  But Hegel is more complex.

Another important point in Hegel is how he defines the political end of history, the peak of the becoming of political history and the expression of the Absolute Spirit. Here Hegel says something interesting about Prussia and the German state. The Germans did not have a state, so historically there was no such expression. Thus, the Germans absorb the logic of world movement, and the Prussian-German state is the expression of the Absolute Spirit. All of history is thus a prelude to the formation of Germany in the 19th century. Hegel said that great peoples are those who have either a great state or great philosophy. He said that the Russians have a great state, while in the 19th century the Germans had no state whatsoever. As follows, the Germans must have great philosophy – and then a great state.

The most striking is that Hegel formulated the philosophy of a great German state before Germany appeared. He forged this theory while he himself lived in a fragmented Germany of principalities that was anything but a powerful and strong state. Hegel assembled Germany, endowed it with an intellectual mission, and created, along with Fichte and Schelling, the idealist, romantic concept of German statehood as an expression of the Spirit becoming Absolute. The peak and the end of history, according to Hegel, is therefore the German state.

Moreover, Hegel thought that the most optimal political system is an enlightened monarchy  dominated by political Hegelian philosophers, the bearers of the Synthesis of the whole world Spirit who recognize the logic of world history. Hegel considered himself to be a prophet of philosophy, humanity, and Germany, and in some sense he was a mystic. Methodologically, Hegel’s philosophy was absolutely rational, but it was irrational in its premises. He substantiated the idea that civil society, the French Revolution, and the Enlightenment epoch were another, dialectical moment in the formation of enlightened monarchy. Civil society is that out of which monarchy grows, and which monarchy abolishes. Thus, Hegel was a mystical monarchist who considered the logic of history to be the path of different political forms towards Russian monarchy.

It is no surprise that this idea was taken by the Italian fascists, especially in the theory of the Italian state of Giovanni Gentile, who was a Hegelian. Paradoxically, neither fascism not Nazism can be seen as representative of classical nationalism. In these two worldviews, there were certain elements that do not lend themselves to being considered as classical or even radical forms of European bourgeois nationalism, because in this case the addition of the Hegelian instance in the form of the Subjective Spirit, and all of the metaphysics of history which Gentile laid in the foundations of the theory of Italian fascism were simply Hegelianism applied to Italy.

Despite the fact that he is considered a classic of political philosophy, Hegel is a rather complex, compound case. His political philosophy does not mirror the ideology of the Third Way, and Marxist theory was built on metaphysically truncated Hegelianism. In other words, “left” Hegelianism became the basis of the Second Political Theory, and “right” Hegelianism influenced some of the peculiarities of the Third Political Theory. Moreover, the Hegelian idea of the end of history was taken up and applied to the liberal model by his student, Alexandre Kojève [1], his follower Francis Fukuyama, and other philosophers. Marx applied the “end of history” to communism, Gentile to the state, and some Hegelian philosophers to the triumph of liberal world order. Therefore, the latter said, civil society is not a prolegomena to monarchy (as Hegel himself believed), but the peak of the development of human civilization.

This ideas was taken as a premise by Francis Fukuyama, who employed the term “end of history.” This term was of fundamental importance to Hegel insofar as it marked the final moment of the Spirit’s achievement of its absolute phase through history, the dialectical moment of the Spirit’s return to itself, in itself, and for itself – the Synthesis.

Thus, we can find in Hegelianism all three of the classical ideologies of modernity, but this does not mean that Hegelianism can be qualified from the point of view of any one of them. Hegel is broader than all the political theories of modernity, and therefore does not lapse into them. As follows, in Hegelianism there is that which was pilfered in fragments by the three political ideologies of modernity, as well as that which was not taken, such as the idea of the primordial Subjective Spirit which precedes any downward movement. This element of the primordial Platonic leap, Neoplatonism, which then transitions into more or less progressive-evolutionary topologies, allows us to refrain from classifying Hegel as one of the philosophers or political philosophers of modernity, because, as we have seen, the paradigm of modernity does not presume any prior matter component.

A non-liberal, non-Marxist, and non-fascist reading of Hegel allows us to reveal his components for an alternative to modernity and integrate him into the Fourth Political Theory. Through this operation, we move Hegel from the epoch of modernity in which he lived and thought into another context. This is another Hegel, another political philosophy of Hegel in which the focus is on the Platonic leap downwards. This part of his philosophy did not, and indeed could not receive political embodiment in the framework of the paradigm of modernity. Nevertheless, it can find expression in the context of the Fourth Political Theory.

 

Footnotes:

[1] The Russian philosopher Aleksandr Kozhevnikov changed his name to Alexandre Kojève after emigrating. 

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

We and the Millennium

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

The introduction to Russkaiia Veshch [“Russian Thing”] Vol. I (Moscow: Arktogeia, 2001). 

 

Along the roads of lies

We have been very cruelly deceived for a very long time. We are deceived in everything. We have been cheated big time. And this did not just start yesterday…

The world, the reality, the country, and the humanity which scholarly, cultural, and political authorities describe did not and does not exist. All things in our apocalyptic world have been tampered with, as if we look at everything though a hypnotic haze arranged by malicious conspirators and skillfully hypnotic rascals in service of the Prince of this World.

We have just crossed the threshold of the millennium, but we think about toothpaste and phone bills. It is rather sad that we, through the fog of indifference, feel that the Homeland, Russia, is somewhere near, that the thick broth of our national surrounding is poured around us…but what Homeland? Where is the Homeland? Where is she from and where is she going? In what time does she live? We don’t even think about this. Indeed, we cannot even think properly. After all, all the systems of coordinates have been shot down, the structures of contemplating the world have been twisted, and croaking pinko priests spoil the endeavor with the scraps of narcissistic maxims and completely spoiled morals.

Russia is not only losing its place in history. She is also losing consciousness of history. Russia is not only lost in space. It is losing awareness of space.

In the face of the millennium, we are naked with gaping mouths, glazed-over eyes, and a stupid purse in our hands. The soul of Russians is in a cast…

The Black and Golden Millennium

The unidirectional time which irreversibly flows from the past to the future that we were taught for so many years by the preachers of “progress” cannot be found in nature. Time has a special quality associated in complex ways with eternity and it can flow in both directions. This is a basic religious fact: the prophets see what there is, what was, and what will be. All three modalities of sacred history coexist and are present in being. For ordinary people, they open sequentially and unfold in a certain order. But exceptional personalities can have quite different relations with the mysterious elements of time. These exceptional people perceive eternity as a fact, as a reality of experience. The rest must believe in eternity, believe in the eternal essence of being that which was, is, and will be. Those who claim that what exists is only an ephemeral instance, only a fleeting moment “here and now”, and that the rest is just the imagination – these people are puppets of the Antichrist. Their place is in the brutal fires of hell.

In what chapter of sacred time does Russia breathe today? In what historical period are we living?

The answer is disappointing. (Or is everything more subtle?). We live totally close to the end.

We are approaching the end following the natural roads of degradation. Progress doesn’t exist. Only regress exists. We have moved further away from the primordial, deified world. Technological prostheses struggle to make up for the lost spiritual essence, but they cannot. Rather, they only exacerbate the fall and bring nearer the final catastrophe. Technological development is evil and the external expression of active spiritual decline.

The resources of the golden age were exhausted long ago. The silver age is far behind us. The bronze age of heroes ended. And even the iron age of dark industry is closed. The millennium is painted black. Finis Mundi. Black Millennium.

This is a general diagnosis of humanity, but it concerns us first and foremost. Why?

Because we were the last chosen ones, and our gold, salvational world mission ended only yesterday…Or maybe it hasn’t even ended…

The sacred civilizations of the ancient world gradually went down the path of global degradation from the gold age to Babylonian dust and the sands of oblivion measured by threads of thousands of years. At the edge of the abyss, peering into the abyss of hell, ancient humanity was supported by the gracious sacrifice of the Son. Before the final chord, when the spiral of regression approached the final line, the Son of God revealed the true path to the last children of the last century.

Orthodoxy appeared as a New History in an incredible, salvational perspective which reflected all the preceding epochs. In two thousands Christian years, we relived at an accelerated pace the endless centuries of past epochs stretching back many thousands of years, plus blissful eons when no one considered years or centuries…and once again from the golden age to the iron age. The golden age of Constantine and the Ecumenical Councils. The Silver age of Byzantium. The bronze age of Moscow the Third Rome. And the iron age of modern, total apostasy. The last point was the Russian schism. Then the darkness enveloped everything. Babylon is here.

Russia lived through the silver age of Orthodoxy on the periphery, although sunnily and with dignity, promising with Metropolitan Hilarion a great future. In the bronze age of Orthodoxy, Moscow became the central subject. Muscovite Rus, the country, and its people, that is, we (or “not only us?” or “only not us”?) had been destined to this end for centuries. Outside of Rus, there was no salvation, the spiritual energy of ages was drawn to us, and the rays of eternity shined upon the Homeland. And eternity, just as with the ancients, the prophets, the patriarchs, and the saints, sowed us into the god-bearing people. Russians entered the holiest of times, the heart of which, where there is simply no time.

But Muscovite Rus fell and the iron Antichrist came for real and to stay, now already everywhere.

We slowly slipped (in the Romanov way with Frenchmen at the head) into historical nothing. The place of the amputated dimension ached. The Old Believers, Russian sects, and charming strangers of all kinds howled out of insane, bronze pain. The soul of Russians ached as voluntary bodies crackle in fire, and the citizens of Secret Russia, full of and frantic with the highest hope and with the passports of the celestial chancellery, fell into a maelstrom. The iron age was agony – this was the last Russian testament from Habakkuk to Stalin. 

In October, great suffering came from under the bushel and drowned our vast lands in blood. The Reds. It was much worse and much better at the same time. The deep spirit was unleashed. How it rushed about and swung its poisonous tail – morally judging this is not up to us. Those who know the essence of the point of such prefer not to open their mouths. There are things which are so deep that they are beyond moral evaluation. If you dip your finger into it, you will never be the same.

The Reds attempted to construct an optimistic fortress out of emptiness and longing and transform the pain and misery of the iron age into the triumph of sunny creation. In their own way, they interpreted the mystery of the cross of Nika.

Perhaps we will never truly understand the Soviet stage in the sacred history of mankind. On the one hand, its scribes spread nonsense about progress, reductionism, banality, atheism, the myth of apes, amoebae, bacteria, and plans, nonsense about the equality of people, contempt for the past, historicist ephemerality, etc. But through the grimaces of Soviet idiocy amazing features of another thought stood out and expressed themselves, let themselves be known, haunted from underneath the layers of frozen silence and constantly shaking, sliding, and flowing into a stupor.

This was the difficult, daunting thought of the End. But also of the Beginning. The thought of pain and sorrow, the impossible joy and inevitable anguish.

The Reds wanted to shoot and hug at the same time. They strove to be external just as much as they were internal. They were just as childish as they wanted to appear wise and old.

The Soviet eon was the last chord of the iron age.

Here is the subtlety: we were the last subjects of the bronze stage in the sacred history of Christianity. In a certain and often paradoxical sense, we remained true to this mission in the next, iron age. Our iron age was exemplary. We opposed the vulgarities of liberal degeneracy with the bloody drama of Bolshevism. The Twelve poem. We opposed the rest of humanity’s quiet slip out of reality with the paradoxes of merciful genocide and the machine-gun rattle of the solar Chevengur.

But now this is in the past. Although it all still exists here and now. These are our bodies born from the loins of the natural born killers of October, the bright paladins of pain. These are our streets, our missiles, our hair, the trajectory of our thoughts and carnal inclinations. The holiness of bronze Muscovite Rus and the rebellion of the red dragon out from underneath the lower boundaries of banality soaked the seed from which we, the Russian people of the millennium, hatched. There is no escape!

But now? Let them tell us what is now! Is it really just the end? Oblivion? Are we to be led into the leaded, empty labyrinths of the world market and planetary management?

Not. Not only. We have just misunderstood the End.

The end, the Eschaton, is total restoration. For us Orthodox, there is even something more, much, much more than total restoration. It is Marriage – Marriage beyond. Promised, continually delayed, exhausted, wounded, worn out and bruised by others, we are tired of waiting. Our Marriage. A wedding without measure. The groom is Fire. “Fire, reload.”

Now it will be resolved – which virgins are to sleep, and which are to stay vigil. Some will light a candle, others will snore in slumber.

The five maidens of Rus. Five, regenerated, inner feelings. Five organs of our national perception sharpened by extreme pain, suffering, and compassion, burn marks, shopping fairs, and the NKVD.

On the verge of the Great Midnight. On the edge of the millennium. Rus. Half asleep, half awake. (Where will you find yourself?)

So that it will finally happen! So that it will finally burst! So that the guts of the heavens will be ripped out! So that the winepress of wrath will be clamped on the bastard generation X of the apocalypse! So that we and they will be devoured! Everyone! Some will emerge from the other side. Some will drown. It doesn’t matter! Burning! Burning! Like Elijah – some will have a chariot, some a brake…Burn, sure, clearly burn [Gori, yasno, yasno gori]…

The terrible angels are so close, so close. Their group has already arrived, now they’re getting out of black, chrome cars…

Forward – the End, but what can be sweeter and more bitter than this meeting…

“Wann endet die Zeit? Gott weiss es. Gott alein weiss es” (“When will time end? God knows. God alone knows”).

The North-East

Now about space. Where does the Homeland lie? Where is Russia’s place?

Each point in space is different from another. Their order, their content, their meaning were predefined ages ago. In being, nothing is equal to itself or something else. Reality is open to the rays of the spirit which is present everywhere and fills everything. And this light dimension gives each point a sacred quality. Tout se tient. There is nothing coincidental. 

Space lives by its pulse. Each point of space has its own laws and regulations, constants and processes. Modern physics is a dead science. It just doesn’t know this. Physics is from the iron age, physics is of the spiritual Antichrist. It (like the rest of purely modern science) deals with the dead, quantitative world which doesn’t exist. It aids the murder of living, sacred being, asserting sinister, primitive fables about its nature. Not man, but space descended from the apes. People are from Light. Oh, what kind of ape can that be?!

The Russian space comes from the bear, the boar, and the apple. This is how the lands of the North-East of Eurasia were called in sacred geography. The land of the boar, and later of the bear. Varahi. Or the “apple country” – Jambudvipa. Paradise exists in the East among some people, in the North for others. The Nordic, Eurasian paradise. Hence the magic apples of Hesperides, the Tree of Knowledge or the rejuvenating apples of the Scandinavian myths. Hence the special, piercing metaphysical taste of the Russian Antonovka. In lost Russian fables, the apple in magical regions of the North aids good lads and beautiful maiden.

World history, in its spacial-symbolic sense, went from North to South and from East to West. It departed from its origins. It went “from”, but not “to”. It squandered eternity, extending along the plane of time. The life-giving, heavenly quality was squandered as dark mechanisms of quantity were appealed to, until quality finally disappeared among the rippling mass of capital. Is it a coincidence that the current hegemonic rulers and financial and material bosses huddled together in the West? Did they entrench themselves there?

No. This is the law of space. Capital wins where the sun dies. These reptiles even have the Sochi climate at our attitude, while in our country, beaches are covered in snow. Our space is not valuable in a touristic sense and is not attractive for capital simply because this is the space of paradise, and someone drove them so out long ago, that even their memory has been erased. They built the city on the hill, exterminated the the red-skinned savages, opened saloons and taverns, began to trade, imported black living goods, multiplied, and leased out and respected human rights.

Rus, albeit iron and falling, albeit Babylon, is a thousand times closer to heaven than non-Rus – even today with its scorched face, ink-smeared cheeks, tattered strands, insolent, unkept look and breasts seized by criminals.

We know “the place of the skull, where Adam was ” [byst mesto lobnoe]…We are being brought to sacrificial slaughter as a burnt offering to the “new world order,” but this is redemptive suffering.

Fighting the West, we are battling against our own death.

We are the heavenly hail of Eurasia, the witness to the apocalypse, the one denouncing the fortress of apostasy infatuated with its impunity of the humanitarian Antichrist.

On the threshold of the millennium, Russia stretches out over the coordinates of the lost paradise. It is closed to us, but there are cracks through which the Russian heart’s fire scorches and flashes.

The heavenly Jerusalem – this is our Russia. It merges with the bear-shaped contours of our expanses as the fabric of history is being thinned down to cigarette paper. And the towers of twelve edges coincide with the distant outposts of our border guards abandoned at the last frontiers, staring into the night of unintelligible and aggressive peoples scattering around and harboring a sheep’s hatred.

The government of the New Jerusalem. The parliament of the righteous shining forth like a sun. The Ministry of Internal Affairs of punishing angelic hordes. The Archangel Michael on a stallion in apples.

By staying in place, we end up ahead of all…

Being true to the earth, being true to our land. There is none other like it.

On the threshold of the Millennium, on the brink of death and resurrection, death and rebirth. On the verge of the eternal question of eternity, being, and oblivion.

Senseless and merciless.

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

Christian Metaphysics: The Essence of the Problem

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

Introduction/chapter 1 of Metafizika Blagoi Vesti [The Metaphysics of the Gospel] (1994) in Absoliutnaia Rodina [Absolute Homeland] (Moscow: Arktogeia, 1999). 

Christianity is that tradition whose metaphysical dimension has been studied least of all. This is quite a paradox since one would think that such a deep study of Christianity, the religion of the West, would attract all those interested in metaphysics and who, following Guénon, are trying to make sense of the most profound aspects of Tradition. Nevertheless, the disputes surrounding Christianity in Traditionalist circles are, as a rule, limited to fairly secondary, practical issues regarding the virtual initiation of the sacraments, the absence of an idea of cyclical time, etc. In all of this, one can see a tacit consensus among Traditionalists that Christianity is nothing more than a reduced, incomplete tradition whose esotericism has been practically lost, and whose metaphysical content cannot be detached from the dense veil of exoteric scholastic theology and the hazy subjective intuitions of mystics. All attempts to identify any consistency between the basic principles of Christianity and the conceptual categories of other, more metaphysically developed traditions (primarily Hinduism) have yielded rather poor results and have been based on strained interpretations and biased urges to arrive at any cost at conclusions which match Guénon’s own ideas (this is clearest of all in the book by Abbot Henri Stéphane, Introduction à l’ésotérisme chrétien [1]). 

These circumstances, however, can be explained quite simply. The problem is that the Guénonian approach has spread only in narrow circles of the intellectual elite of the West, where by Christianity is usually understood, in the best case, Catholicism. But the specificity of Catholicism is such that, from the moment that the Western Church fell away from the Eastern Church, Catholicism built its dogmatic and intellectual foundation on a conscious rejection of the metaphysical content of Christianity. All the scholastic constructs were essentially an ambition to develop a slender theological doctrine while completely ignoring the ontological and metaphysical elements which were in fact present in the Christian tradition before the schism and preserved even afterwards. Of course, they survived exclusively in the Eastern Church, i.e., in the bosom of Orthodoxy. But Catholics, and even the most profound among them, seem to be unaware of this.

Orthodoxy, for its part, despite having preserved ontological and metaphysical wholeness, from a certain time onward could no longer assert its metaphysical content (i.e., actual Christian metaphysics) in clear categories. Shortly after the “Palamite disputes” when Orthodox esotericism experienced its last dazzling rise in history, this line was somewhat marginalized and “frozen”, as priority was given to the exoteric sides of the Church. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many Russian theologians and even secular philosophers, intuitively surmising the special metaphysical nature of Orthodoxy, attempted to formulate certain principles for reviving the forgotten dimension of this tradition. However, most of these attempts did not yield serious results since none of them were familiar with the works of Guénon. Hence why only now, in our opinion, is it possible to acquire adequate knowledge of the most important proportions of the structure of fully-fledged metaphysics.

It can be said that although Western Traditionalists had the intellectual apparatus developed by Guénon, they did not have an adequate object for applying such, since Catholicism fundamentally prohibits one from going from the exoteric to the esoteric and metaphysical levels and, moreover, places insurmountable obstacles along the way. The Orthodox had and have a fully-fledged object, the Orthodox Christian Church Tradition and a full, irreducible dogma, but they have hitherto lacked an adequate metaphysical apparatus. Thus, for two opposite reasons, both in West and East the most widespread, well known, familiar, and close tradition – Christianity – has remained the most unknown, mysterious, and closed, all the while as Traditionalists rather well mastered Islamic metaphysics, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and even some archaic cults. The distant and exotic paradoxically became dearer to modern scholars nominally belonging to Christian civilization than “their own,” the familiar and close.

Be that as it may, Russians’ first acquaintance with the ideas of Guénon [2] now allows us to chart our way out of this impasse and to try to compare the overall metaphysical picture with the dogma of Orthodox Christianity. One should not be mistaken as to the simplicity of such a study. The near complete absence of references to Orthodoxy among Traditionalist authorities makes this task extremely difficult and risky. Nevertheless, without claiming final truth on this matter and all the while leaving the way open for alternative pursuits, we will try in this work to understand the metaphysical nature of Orthodoxy and, as follows, arrive at a formulation and recognition of the essence of Christian metaphysics.

 

Footnotes: 

[1] abbe Henri Stéphane, Introduction à l’ésotérisme chrétien, Paris, 1979.

[2] At the present moment, the following books of R. Guénon have been published in Russian: The Crisis of the Modern World (Moscow, 1992), The King of the World in the journal Voprosy filosofii from 1993; The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times (Moscow, 1994), Fundamental Symbols of the Sacred Science (Moscow, 1996), and articles in the journal Milyi Angel No. 1, in the journals Voprosy filosofii, Literaturnoe obozrenie,  and Volshebnaia Gora (chapters from the books An Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines, Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power, and The Symbolism of the Cross, etc.)

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission.

Herman Wirth and the Sacred Proto-Language of Humanity: In Search of the Holy Grail of Meanings – Part 1

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold 

From “Lecture 4” in Filosofiia traditsionalizma (Moscow, Arktogaia, 2002), originally delivered as a lecture at New University in 1998. 

 

The existence of a single proto-language derives from the very logic of Tradition – attempts at reconstruction

The existence of a single proto-language of humanity derives from the very logic of Traditionalism. If there is a single Primordial Tradition, then the language of this Tradition must have a particular expression. This is obvious to any conscientious reader of Guénon and his followers. In addition, intuition suggests that the languages which modern humanity speaks harbor some strange commonality. When we engage in strict linguistic analysis, this commonality continues to elude us, but some kind of inner conviction does not allow us to cease searching.

Attempts at reconstructing this most ancient language have been constantly undertaken. There are many models of a proto-language which try to reduce existing linguistic and symbolic systems. There is the theory (developed in the Middle Ages) that Ancient Hebrew was the primordial language, and Kabbalistic schools existed which seriously attempted to deduce all other languages (including sacred and non-sacred ones, i.e., historical languages) out of Ancient Hebrew. We also have the “Egyptian theory” put forth in the 20th century by Schwaller de Lubicz and Les Veilleurs. Similar theses had been expressed before by numerous European mystics, such as Heinrich Khunrath, “Egyptian masonry”, etc. All of them tried to restore the proto-language and proto-symbolism on the basis of the Egyptian tradition. There is the famous book by the abbot Johannes Trithemius, Steganographia, which compiled mystical signs as symbols of an angelic language. Trithemius’ disciple, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, produced a whole series of angelic alphabets in his works. Also available are the reconstructions of circular “Atlantic” signs by Paul Le Cour, who published the journal Atlantis. There are also Guido von List’s runic tables which were also claimed to offer an interpretation of all languages through the Ancient Germanic and modern German languages. Baron von Sebottendorf explored the magic of the Arabic language and wrote an interesting pamphlet on the rituals of old Turkish masonry.  The idea that all languages descend from Ancient Hebrew was also promoted by Fabre d’Olivet. There are also the only recently published commentaries by young Guénon on Saint Yves d’Alveydre’s Archeometry. The latter was an attempt at creating a universal alphabet that could explain the origin of all languages, traditions, and religious models. Saint Yves d’Alveydre spoke of the existence of a first, primordial language of Vattan in the underground country of Agharta.

There also exists the Brahmanic art of Nirukta (a theologized form of folk etymology), and the cabale phonétique was appealed to by Fulcanelli and the mysterious Grace d’Orsay, one of those astonishing authors who necessitates a separate, detailed discussion.

From the point of view of Tradition, everything necessarily converges to a single formula, a single model. If the world ends (and the end of the world, from the standpoint of Traditionalism, arises out of the infiniteness of its Principle), then finite knowledge about this world should exist. This means that it is possible to know everything all together at once (or almost at once) and forever, to know to the point that nothing in manifested reality is left out of sight. In some sense, absolute knowledge is therefore knowledge of absolute language. The search for such a single, absolute model was particularly actively pursued in the Middle Ages when the holistic approach to reality was widespread among mystics despite the creationist dogmas of official religion. People all at once engaged in mineralogy, theology, medicine, treated peoples and animals, and wrote treatises full of practical advice on smallpox, the names of angels, and the structure of grindstones. All of this comprised a search for integral knowledge, a single formula, a unified model.

The Bible also teaches of a common language of humanity, claiming that one language existed up until the Babylonian dispersion. Christianity also knows of the return to the proto-language, as when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and they spoke in all existing languages at once. The Holy Spirit gave them the special blessing of knowing the original proto-language.

The search for the proto-language in modern linguistics

The idea of reconstructing the proto-language has always excited the minds of the most different people. Many have tried to express their specific views on this matter, but few have managed to forge more or less reliable systems. In fact, such quests have been undertaken by profane Western science as well. Besides the classical line of linguistics which is restricted to the study of language in already existing, historical forms, there also exists in modern linguistics another trend (whose founder was the Italian scholar Trombetti) which proceeds from the assumption of the existence of a single proto-language. Trombetti proved this on the level of positivist facts and believed that the proto-language could be restored. For this he was earnestly criticized. Trombetti’s line was continued by Bopp, the Russian scholar Potebnja, the Soviet linguist and academician Marr (who was harshly criticized by another great linguist, Joseph Stalin) and particularly by the outstanding Serbian scholar Illich-Svitych. The latter founded the Nostratic concept which accounted for the criticisms of Trombetti and Bopp’s models. Illich-Svitych therein developed the thesis that languages are reducible to four or six roots. He distinguished the Eurasian group (including Semitic, Hamitic, Indo-European, and Kartvelian languages), the languages of the North American Indians, and the Sino-Tibetan and Paleo-African groups as the four main meta-clusters. Curiously enough, these four groups correspond to the four corners of the world. The far from mystical Illich-Svitych arrived at these conclusions on the basis of an entirely scientific approach, the path of classical, conventional linguistic analysis. This theory was very popular among Soviet linguistics, but remained unknown in the West. This line has since been discontinued, just as science has frozen altogether. This is a pity, as developing this line could have yielded colossal results. It is one of the most promising trends in linguistics.

Individual (unsuccessful) attempts at constructing a proto-language

In the early 1980’s, I myself actively tried to arrive at this language in imitating the (as a rule, unsuccessful) endeavors of predecessors. After all, the necessity of a proto-language’s existence follows from the Guénonian vision of the Primordial Tradition! Admittedly, I made little progress. I know several languages, including several ancient ones (on a rudimentary level). I tried to somehow systematize the roots and phonetic constructs which seemed to me to be similar. In fact, the Russian scholar Potebnja subjected the Russian language to a similar procedure. To this day, I have a mountain of materials devoted to these experiences. There one can find attempts at reconstructing the proto-language through both mystical alphabets and wholly scholarly linguistic theories. All of this was extremely interesting, took up a lot of my time, but the result was, frankly speaking, pathetic. The ends did not meet. One needs to know much more than I did. Some of the models which I tried to use (including those traceable back to Agrippa Nettesheim [2]) did not stand the test of reliable scientific data.

The revelation of Herman Wirth

And then, suddenly everything changed. I encountered the works of a man who is practically unknown – Herman Wirth. No one knows him in our country, nor do the Traditionalists of the West know him. He is the “great unknown”, le grand inconnu. His works were taken from Berlin by the Soviet Army and for years lay in a storage room where they ended up wet and covered with mold. Nobody had touched them since 1945. I tried unsuccessfully to find Wirth’s works in the libraries of several European capitals. Only once, in the Alain de Benoist’s underground library bunker did I see one of Herman Wirth’s books on a shelf. The owner, however, had paid no special attention to it, which is no surprise, as there was such a volume of books that their owner simply had not yet made his way to Wirth.

I spent two years studying Wirth. For two years I was glued to his works, trying to understand at least something. His works are huge volumes including maps. The text is not structured, everything begins in the middle and stops mid-sentence. I think no one really read it. To do so, one would have to be a fanatic. Interestingly enough, Julius Evola, who is extremely popular among European Traditionalists, called Wirth one of his three main teachers (alongside Guénon and Guido de Giorgio) in his autobiographical work, The Path of Cinnabar. But even after the publication of this book, still no one paid attention to Wirth. Such a strange author. As Guénon wrote, “certain things protect themselves.” There are some items that are laying in the middle of the room in plain sight, but we are incapable of finding them. Modern occultists have even evoked the notion of “black holes” existing everywhere. In fact, everything is more complex and subtle. 

As was Herman Wirth. Guénon devoted a very important review to him. Nevertheless, Wirth is unknown, and this despite the fact that even the most insignificant authors mentioned by Guénon or Evola have been devoted in the very least separate studies by Western Traditionalists. But no one in these circles has heard of Wirth. 

“We are in search of the stone with runic or prerunic inscriptions”

What comprises Wirth’s ideas, his message? Wirth deciphered the very proto-language which we have been talking about. He did this in a reliable manner without occultist exaggerations and positivist skepticism. No more nor less. His work is maximally close to this language. No one has done more reliable metaphysical, historical, linguistic, or conceptual (if you will) studies of the language of the Primordial Tradition. In my opinion, Wirth did not know Guénon, and I found no citations of him in his works. He read Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the famous Hindu Traditionalist, and cited him. However, Wirth himself was not a Traditionalist. Rather, he was an idealist, a scrupulous scholar and a German patriot. The fact that he did not share the numerous prejudices of occultists who hurry to discredit serious research, only enhances the significance of his works. Looking at Wirth through the eyes of Guénon, we see all that Guénon did not say, but which undoubtedly follows from what he did. Wirth adds an essential part to Guénon’s Traditionalism [5]. Even Evola did not add anything in particular to Guénon. Evola was original, daring, and active, but this rather aesthetic and existential component brought to Traditionalism in fact contains little substance.

What Wirth brought is a startling revelation – sudden, extremely complex, and demanding tremendous attention. This figure so much changed the picture of modern Traditionalism that ignoring him is simply impossible. It is intriguing that although we live on the outskirts of the Traditionalist world, in the bear corner, we are one of the first to approach such important things. In his time, the mysterious author Otto Rahn wrote a book entitled The Crusade against the Grail [6] and advanced the following hypothesis: perhaps the Grail was not a chalic, but a stone with certain prerunic inscriptions that are a universal key to all religious models, and all knowledge in general. Guénon himself wrote (if I’m not mistaken, in The King of the World [7]) that there indeed exists a view that the Grail is simultaneously a chalice, a book, and a stone. When Guénon studied the Canterbury megaliths, he said that it is possible that the Grail ought to be understood as a concrete object covered in signs, and that these signs probably represent primordial hieroglyphs. In some sense, Herman Wirth’s reconstruction reveals something very similar. In the volumes of research of this German scholar, there is something of a Holy Grail, a Holy Grail of meanings. 

Arctida – the cradle of humanity

As a kind of prelude to studying the primordial language, Herman Wirth presents an historical-geographical reconstruction of the first ages of mankind. As a positivist scholar, he draws out a long table of monkeys with different species of animals and geological shifts, but we can disregard this. The most interesting begins at 20,000 B.C. Here Wirth switches over to serious, correct language. He adheres to the ideas of the geologist Wegener.

The modern contours of continents emerged only recently. Continents are not dormant and are not constant masses. They slide along the shelf, and thus the look of the earth was once completely different. There once existed two continents: a Northern one, Arctogaia (Arctida) and a Southern one, Gondwana.  Wegener’s chronology, which Wirth partially appropriates, is based on the positivist methods of calculating time and transposing modern physical processes onto ancient times, a method which is rather incorrect. Guénon himself has written much [9] about shifts in the cosmic environment in correlation to the unfolding of the cyclical process. But this is not the point.

Wirth argues that Arctida was the cradle of mankind. This is the starting point in Wirth’s model. He claims that man originated at the North Pole, i.e., humanity is essentially a polar phenomenon. Hence Nordism as a method, as a vision of the particularities of the primordial language, primordial knowledge, and primordial religion. This is not the North Pole as an abstract concept (such as the mountain Meru), but a real pole where the continent of Arcotgaia lay and on which lived amazing people – the Hyperboreans. Contemplating the surrounding world, they developed the proto-language which lies at the heart of the complex of ideas which we have now, many thousands of years later.

This model of Wirth’s perfectly corresponds with Guénon’s holistic views on humanity’s polar origins and the primordial Golden Age. Thus, Wirth’s formally positivist research led him to the Nordic theory of man’s origin which is classic for Traditionalism. But if Guénon limits himself to merely asserting this as fact, then Wirth draws conclusions therein of enormous importance. He reasons that we cannot decipher ancient languages and ancient culture, cannot piece together an adequate view of ancient peoples, nor can we find some, so to say, “antediluvian” remnants simply because we do not accept the notion of the northern origin of humanity, do not take into account the fact that the climate in this northern, polar continent was no harsher than the south of modern France. The North Pole was the point from which the rays of civilization spread South.

Affirming this concept, Wirth with ease explains the hang-ups of paleo-anthropology and ancient history. He explains why there are no remains of Nordic man: firstly, because burial forms for Nordic people were different (as was the very quality of their lives), and the lands which they inhabited either shifted or sank. Wirth conducted very interesting research on the shallows of Dogger between Holland and England, where he sought the remains of Arctida which, from his point of view, existed as centers of civilization up to historical times. These explorations yielded colossal results, most of which are, alas, beyond our scope.

The first hieroglyph – the Nordic Year

Now about the primordial language. In Wirth’s view, the main key to understanding this language, and all existing languages and traditions, is the year. The year and man, the year and God, the year and nature, the year and time, the year and space are, in Wirth’s view, synonymous concepts. Man is the embodiment of condensed time. Time in and of itself is a divine manifestation.

The northern, polar cycle is the highest knowledge and, as follows, everything else is to be explained through the calendar. Special attention should be paid to the natural features of the North Pole. We know that a day there lasts not 24 hours, but six months, as does a night. For example, such a notion as the “midnight sun”, which is addressed in many of the Dionysian mysteries and is a generally important element in multiple sacred theories, acquires an entirely natural sense in Arctida – natural-magical meaning. This is the sun that shines at midnight at the North Pole during the summer solstice. Indeed, there is sun, and there is midnight. The memory of this midnight sun, like the memory of the primordial homeland of our ancestors, has been preserved in traditional models and been passed down from generation to generation in the form of legends and stories.

There is a fundamental difference between the daily and yearly cycles. We, living south of the polar latitude (22 degrees North), imagine the year as divided into days. But the man of polar origin saw the year differently. The day of the gods was equal to a year of people, which means that the difference between the divine and human was erased. There was no difference to be distinguished between the created and uncreated; there was no difference between subject and object or divine and natural revelation. Nature was a fact of the Divine, and the Divine was an inner dimension of nature. There existed a kind of “polar-paradisal worldview” in which the spirit was to be found at both the center and the periphery.

Wirth employed the structure of the polar year, or the year as a set of natural phenomenon characteristic of the northern, polar regions, as a universal instrument for interpreting all other elements. The first people were not comical, semi-finished products from classical evolutionary textbooks, and they did not see the world as primitive and flat. This was something completely different. The most diverse concepts, objects, creatures, situations, scenarios, and rituals boil down to a single paradigm. For Wirth, such a method of explaining everything through the paradigm of the year – the polar year – was the starting point of his ambitious studies.

The first calendar model

This is the basic model of the annual polar cycle. It might seem that there is nothing special here. The only particularity is that the South is identified strictly with winter, the East with spring, the North with summer, and fall with the West. In the annual circle, the sun goes in a different direction than in the daily one.

p04
Figure 1: “N – summer, E – spring, S – Winter, W – autumn”;  Figure 2: “N – day, E – morning, S – night, W – evening”

In this, in Wirth’s view, is contained great historical and historic-gnoseological drama.

Ancient humanity, according to Wirth and Tilak, moved south for a number of reasons. For example, in the Bundahishn (the sacred Zoroastrian book), it is said that “the red serpent of Ahriman sent cold to the blessed country of the Aryans and the city of Vara where the primordial white people lived, and they were forced to leave their homes.” So what happened then?

The polar cycles’ yearly phenomenon stop below the 22 degrees northern latitude. Man no longer plainly sees evidence of the primordial calendar-topographical model and does not understand the direct meaning of what was so obvious before. He loses the key to interpreting certain signs and schemes in which movement towards summer and movement upwards mean movement northwards.

Everything is inverted in the ordinary daily cycle, and all the phenomena that lie at the heart of the primordial language and the primordial proto-religion are obscured. Accordingly, mythological elements, and language itself, are now interpreted differently. There is an overlap between at least two cycles. In one – the annual, global, Nordic cycle – movement is counter-clockwise, whereas in the other – the daily one – movement is clockwise. It is by virtue of this that these two sacred paradigms (the daily and yearly) change places and (pay attention to how serious this is!) there is a transition from God to man and from the day of gods to the day of people.

As follows, the symbolic details of the primordial code, the primordial language and paradigm of religious knowledge change places. We lose the key to understanding them. This, according to Herman Wirth, is the Babylonian dispersal of languages. We lost the ciphers of the Nordic worldview, and the miasma of the southern seas begin to penetrate our consciousness. We increasingly become mere people to the point that we reach today’s dismal, critical state. There is probably no lower.

Also important is the hieroglyph of the Celtic cross, the circle with four orientations, which is the first calendar.

p05
Figure 3: “N – summer, E – spring, S – Winter, W – autumn”

 

The very notion of a calendar is a very sacred thing. A calendar is a visual model which condenses and clearly displays two concepts: time and space. In a calendar, time is displayed synchronously and simultaneously. What man is given in progressive development is given in a calendar, and only in a calendar, as a possibility of simultaneous setting. Thus, contemplating over the Nordic calendar, meditating on it is one of the most direct ways of making contact with Eternity. When man looks at the calendar, he grasps all time together as his internal quality, and the nature of perceiving the most simple objects changes. He sees a circle, how time turns into space, and how space, thanks to time, acquires orientation. This is very important, because space itself has no orientation without such a calendar; it is insufficient. The cross which establishes these orientations can thus be depicted anywhere.

Thanks to this calendric perception of the world, what happens in this space undergoes some kind of relativization. In the first lecture, we spoke of the transition from qualitative (sacred) space to quantitative (non-sacred, profane) space. Sacred space, furnished with qualitatively meaningful orientations, arises out of the most complex Nordic operation of bringing time into space (“spatializing time”, so to speak).

The main compass of these sacred, qualitative orientations is the calendar.

The point of the North is one, the South point is another, the point of East the third, and the point of the West the fourth. Each of these points of space corresponds to a certain, strictly fixed sign. If we impose the circle of time onto this space, then it shows all possible mutations of space as if grasping the eternal movement of the four directions in one fixed picture.

Interestingly enough, the problem of squaring the circle and perpetuum mobile (“perpetual motor”) which recently completely puzzled the best men of science, is in fact a distant echo of this Nordic knowledge expressed in this simple figure.

Today football fans wear the Celtic cross on their scarves without knowing what colossal meaning this symbol has. It is also depicted on targets for shooting. In the 1960’s, the Belgian Jean Thiriart made the Celtic cross the emblem of his Young Europe (his pan-European national movement) which was later adopted by football fans and skinheads, since which he has been constantly present in their symbols.

Take another look at the Celtic cross.

The sequence is built into the cycle. The line becomes the circle. Eternal movement is provided by the representation of all time at once. It cannot end and cannot be stopped. It cannot disappear. It is some kind of absolute paradigm, the essence of being, expressed graphically.

Such was Herman Wirth’s first step towards revealing the structure of the proto-language.

Already at this stage we can arrive at numerous conclusions of incredible value. Can every situation, every event, and every mythological tale or everyday scenario be dissected using this model?

How do we act, how do we live? Under the sign of the North? Or under the sign of the West? Under the sign of the East? Or under the sign of the South? Along the downward arc or the rising one? Towards what are things gravitating? Towards the sky and summer or towards winter and earth?

Upon applying this paradigm to the most complex cults and theological constructions, we will always find whole layers of meanings, the existence of which we knew nothing of before. Even if Wirth had stopped here, this alone would have already been very serious and very much, as we would be given a clue. But he went further…

Part two coming soon…

Footnotes:

[1] R.Guénon, “Le Roi du Monde”, Paris, 1993, “Le Regne de la Quantite et les Signes des Temps”, Paris, 1995, “Formes traditionnelles et cycles cosmiques”, Paris, 1995.

[2] H.C.Agrippa, “La philosophie occulte”, Paris, 1981.

[3] J.Evola, “Il camino del cinabro”, Milano, 1972

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

Horizon of the Ideal Empire

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

Geopolitica.ru 

Sometimes one hears the reproach from critics that the Fourth Political Theory offers no positive image of the future, instead operating with what seem to many to be “abstractions.” I would like to respond to this criticism and outline how I see the future.

What follows below is, of course, no more than a scientific metaphor. Nevertheless, here is how society and the world should be after the victory of, or even in the course of the struggle for the Fourth Political Theory.

Society should be structured in the form of a hierarchy based on an eidetic-existential principle, i.e., the degree of intensity to which one lives eidetic being should be at the heart of the hierarchical criterion. This concerns none other than the different floors or degrees of the existence of Angels. The dogma should be accepted that people do not live, but rather an Angel lives through us. The brighter and more intensely it lives through us, the higher the hierarchical level of he through whom the Angel lives and, as follows, the lesser the individual element of he through which it lives. The Angel and ego are present in a person in inverse proportion: the greater the Angel, the lesser the ego. The more modest and ascetic a person is and the less individual he is, the higher the rank he occupies in the true hierarchy. In the highest of people, there should be nothing individual, egoistic, and material. Their wealth should be reduced to a minimum, minimized. Here monasticism is an anthropological model. Authority, hierarchical level, and power increase proportionally with the abolition of the individual element and the the glow emanating from ascetic effort. A good ruler is he who does not want to have anything for himself. Instead, he has everything, but taken in aggregation and eidetically, maximally enriching the inner aspect of existence. Something similar was embodied in the Middle Ages in the theory of the “second body of the king.” [1]

People, intimately knowing Stalin, will testify to his extreme simplicity in being. For example, they will tell of how he, at the zenith of his power, preferred to sleep on a cot. Another communist ruler of imperial scale, Mao Zedong, tried to never touch money, which he hated physically. The very thought of money or touching it caused him physical pain. These are signs that an angelic presence is close. These are also the marks of a good leader. Any draw towards materiality would naturally cause pain for and draw disgust from the higher figures of the Platonopolis built along existential principles. For this reason, in many religions, priests and rulers were forbidden from engaging in physical labor and sometimes from even touching material objects in their natural form, i.e., before they were worked upon in the sacred ways. This prohibition of physical labor has persisted up to the present day in Orthodoxy in respect to priests.

And so, at the head stands the philosopher king, who accordingly represents a being in which there is no individuality. The philosopher king, a philosophical tsar, does not essentially differ from the embodiment of this personal Angel. He is a form as such. In fact, if we look at the monarchical, imperial idea, we see echoes of this theory, in which the king was the metonymic pole of the whole society, whole culture, and whole people. The king is an Angel, the whole people. He is a true person, who is superior to both the individual and the collective or society. Hence the sacralization of kings up to the point of deifying them in Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Ancient Iran, etc.

The fact that any person is a potential king is brought to mind in Orthodoxy by the wedding ceremony, when the bride and groom hold the imperial crown. In his nature, man is homo regius. He is just as much a king and an Angel as he is human.

The state should be ruled by the philosopher king, who is absolutely transparent, devoid of any individual properties. His individual element should be so miniscule that it would be desirable to hide everything reminiscent of it, including his body, his image, etc. It would be better if no one saw the philosopher king as something external. All should recognize him as an internal ruler, as the “guest within.”

The philosopher king must be hidden. Moreover, his existence must be so intense that it transcends the limits of existence. He will act in not-acting (the Taoist ideal of the perfect ruler is he who accomplishes non-acting, or Wu-Wei). Considering his deep and profound connection to the apophatic, he will not exist in existing or, on the contrary, he will exist in not existing. The philosopher king is as if he was not, and he is not as he is. He should be easy, transparent, always open to the abyss represented by him in the Platonopolis of the Fourth Political Theory. Perhaps he will communicate with his subjects from behind a curtain, from the depths of a cave, or even through an oracle. He should not not speak nor be silent, but instead only give signs, if that is how we should paraphrase what Heraclitus said in fragment 93 of the Delphic Pythia: – ὁ ἄναξ οὗ τὸ μαντεῖόν ἐστι τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς, οὔτε λέγει οὔτε κρύπτει ἂλλὰ σημαίνει. For Heraclitus it is important that οὔτε λέγει οὔτε κρύπτει ἂλλὰ σημαίνει, or “neither utters nor hides his meaning, but shows it by a sign.” Meaning is located between words and silence. The philosopher king operates with sign-meanings, in semi-silence, in the light regal whisper from which meaning is transmitted as directly as the spirit blows.

The philosopher king stands at the center of the Platonopolis. He is the Platonopolis. In him, as if in a sacred place, occurs the epiphany of man.

Furthermore, the philosopher king will be surrounded by other philosophers, by sacred priests that live an angelic being. These can be monks, ascetics, contemplators, dreamers, mathematicians, or people immersed in the contemplation of the absolute useless which no one needs. Aristotle said that there is useful knowledge (φρόνησις) which multiplies with years and is maximal in reasonable old age, and there is the useless (σοφία) which is accessible immediately, regardless of age, and is not incremental or declining – it does not serve something else, but is self-sufficient and self-worthy. For Aristotle, useless knowledge, wisdom, or σοφία was the highest and most aristocratic. The rulers of the Platonopolis should be Sophist personalities.

Philosophers will fly and skate on dolphins, who will also be philosophers.

Above all will soar the Great Raven.

Below are the berserkers, the warrior barons. They are the Guardians, the “guardians of being” (Heidegger). Warriors will be extremely frightening, terrifying to the point that no one will want to fight them. In the army will serve battle Dragons and aggressive fighting cocks.

Who is lower? Artisans? We propose not to discern such a caste at all. The third caste is that of Poets and Farmers.

Production is poetry. Artocracy (Wagner’s principle). People should eat artistic products.

Art is the most rough shell of an idea, its materialization, its plasmation. In our policy, any object should be first and foremost beautiful. Non-beautiful objects will be subject to destruction.

The economy will be abolished and economists dismissed.

Private property will also be abolished. The sun will work. Earth and time will belong to the eidos. there will be no banks, no large estates. Rilke and Heidegger spoke of such as “transferring the weights from the Merchant’s hands to the hands of the Angel.”

There will be cars, but only very, very beautiful ones.

The art of dance will be one of the most important arts. Dance will become a political duty. All will dance in circles, and tango, twist, and bossa nova will be promoted and made mandatory. Everyone should be able to dance. Officials, like in China, will need to compose poetry in addition to painting.

The attitude towards farmers will be sacred. All life will be adapted to suit the farmers. Everything for the farmers. The population will be pastoralists and cultivators. Farm labor, grain, grapes, baking, loaves, and bulls, cows, sheep, and goats will be raised to the status of state ideology. Seeing an ear of grain or a donkey, not to mention a farmer or shepherd, all citizens of Platonopolis will welcome them with singing. At the head of humanity will be Bread and Wine. Talking bulls with the Moon between their horns will serve Bread and Wine to weary travelers.

All around will be gardens and forests and wild animals along with domestic ones. The wolves will master crafts and help men repair carts and sing songs.

Farmers will have huge beards which will be twined with ripe ears. As the most intelligent of forest brothers, bears will also work the fields. Pigs will feed themselves or elect a pig-in-command.

Women will be provided with earthenware pots with fresh milk and huge, extremely beautiful hats.

This is the vertical of society.

Now for the horizontal.

It will be a huge Empire. The richness of the landscape and the diversity of the polities will be intrinsic to the state. The Empire principle must be rehabilitated. Besides the trifunctional system (philosophers, warriors, and farmers), the Empire can include enclaves of a variety of creatures from Amazons to two-headed, bird-legged, and headless beings, gypsies, Evenki, etc. There could even be a mermaid republic or Veche forest gatherings governed by an assembly of Domoviye and Leshie. We can also imagine a congress of Angels or Tatar Kurultai.

A plurality of types of political and anthropological creativity should be encouraged.

TV and the press will be cancelled, as they are always spouting some kind of meaningless nonsense.

Clothing will have its own meaning. The body is the wrapper of the eidos, and the clothes are the wrapping of the body. Everyone will have different clothes, but all colorful and astonishingly beautiful, so that people pay attention to them. People will notice clothes and judge by clothes. There will be an absolute cult of clothing. People will spend most of their time getting dressed and changing.

Food will be the most ecologically pure, and distributed freely, as a gift. There will be an exceptional lot of sausage, cheese, and hazelnuts in the Empire.

As for gender, women will be esteemed in the Empire, since they are more interesting than men (and more beautiful). Men will not be upset by this given that envy will be abolished by decree (The first decree will be abolishing envy, jealousy, and property; envy will be published with three shots of ivy for an envious look and six for a jealous word).

Women will love the Empire and cherish it every morning in greeting the sun.

Morality will change. The word “evil” will be excluded from the lexicon along with all bad expressions. Instead of them will be introduced the gradual concept of “less good.” A less good person stole a bun at the market. He deserves less love and less respect than the one who asked for a bun and was given one. With a gentle smile.

Everyone will smile and laugh at funerals, for since this world is so beautiful, what about the next…And then death will be comprehended as a return to the eidos (επιστροφή).

There will be no law. He who is smart, bold, and beautiful, is right.

Education will combine high metaphysics, theology, Angelology, and Heidegerrianism for the smallest and Kyoto School.  Everyone will be taught such.

Warriors will additionally be taught gymnastics and figure skating.

Poets will be taught different languages, from 10 to 15 each.

Farmers will have nothing to be taught besides bossa nova and tango. They are already so wise in their sacred labor.

It is approximately such a society that we propose to build as the goal of the Fourth Political Theory.

 

[1] Kantorovich, E. Dva tela korolia. Issledovanie po srednevokovoy politicheskoi teologii. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Instituta Gaidara, 2013. 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

Post-Anthropology

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold 

 

Human Society after the Crisis: Hell on Earth Through the Lens of Depth Sociology

 

Depth sociology 

A concrete (phenomenal) society always consists of two parts – the aboveground and underground. The aboveground part is what we normally term “society”, meaning a sphere of rational activity where logos (λόγος) prevails. This is the domain of the “diurnal”. The underground part is the dark, underwater island of the collective unconscious, the region of the social night (the “nocturne”), where myth (μύθος) rules.

For some time, progressivist science believed that these two parts were situated in diachronic order. In ancient times (and among “primitive” peoples, the unfortunate “residue” of ancient times), myth was predominant. But the progress of civilization gradually supplanted the mythological order and replaced it with an order based on logos. The community, or Gemeinschaft, is superseded by society, or Gesellschaft (F. Tönnies). But this optimistic exaltation did not last long. Whereas blind faith in purported progress reigned almost unquestionably in 18th-19th century Western Europe, the subconscious, where the eternal and unchanging laws of myth predominate, was discovered by the beginning of the 20th century. 

Jung’s works developed Freud’s theory and established a new topology of human psychology. Freud had already shown that in addition to the “I” (the “ego”), an invisible and repressed “It” (German “es”, Latin “id”) actively operates within man. Jung demonstrated that the foundation of this “It” is rooted in a special reality common to all people. The collective unconscious is one for all.

Jung’s follower, the French sociologist G. Durand, relying on the Jungean theory of the collective unconscious and its archetypes, complemented the psychoanalytic topology with a sociological one, thus laying the foundations for a “depth sociology” or “sociology of the imagination.” Thus, the second, underground part of society, at the heart of which lies myth, was discovered, studied, and imparted with description.

Ordinary sociologists such as Weber, Sombart, Durkheim, Moss, Sorokin and so on, more often described aboveground, diurnal society and its properties, i.e., the social logos. Depth sociologists, on the other hand, such as G. Durand or M. Maffessoli, engaged in the exploration of social myths, elaborating a kind of sociology of myth.

The study of the interconnectedness between the two main levels of this topology, i.e., between logos and myth, buried the concept of rationality and the notion of “progress” at the very first stage. According to G. Durand, it turns out that the latter are nothing other than a rationalization of the myth of Prometheus. The next step was the discovery that Logos itself, as the axial destiny of Western European culture (from Plato through Descartes to positivism) was but a special edition of myth (an “ascendental myth” in G. Bachelard’s theory or the “diurnal regime”, “le diurne” in Durand’s theory). This is the discovery of deep sociology (the sociology of the imagination) based on the structuralism of C. Levi-Strauss, the history of religion (H. Corbin, M. Eliade), psychoanalysis (C.G. Jung), reflexology (M.Bekhterev), modern physics and mathematics (R.Tohm, V.Pauli etc.). This opened a completely different view of the essence, content, meaning, nature and quality of social processes. Classical sociology, which had detected numerous failures of logos in society (for example, the principle of “heterotelie” – a sociological law that states that social processes almost always attain goals other than those they set to begin with, thus overturning the cause-and-effect logic in which the founding fathers of sociology – the positivists Kant and Durkheim – so firmly believed) came through deep sociology to form a consistent and semantically complete system. The enormous methodological and documentary material accumulated by the classical sociologists thus started to be interpreted in an entirely new way.

Thus, by the end of the 20th century, a “two-level sociology” was established in which research on the social logos was paralleled by studies of the “social underground”  (“social dungeon”) and “social myth.” In other words, the “social unconscious” was discovered.

Social logos

By his profession, a sociologist is called to look beyond “public opinion”, “common ideas”, and “common sense”, i.e., those beliefs and ideas that circulate among the masses in their “majority” and constitute the framework of “conventional wisdom”. “Public opinion” never reflects the whole picture. Its natural place is situated in the space between scientific truth and that which is a pure chimera, or nothing. Even Plato, in his The Republic, defined “opinion” (δόξα) as showing us something while at the same time hiding something else from us, in all cases revealing to us not that which lies on the surface of conveying, but somewhere else, thus always deceiving us. More straightforward American experts on financial speculation and stock markets have formulated the same law in rougher terms: “the majority is always wrong”.

In analyzing “opinion”, sociologists derive from such the half-manifested and half-hidden truth, and thus explain the mechanism and, in turn, semantic structure of lies (silence, euphemisms, projections, transposition, and other rhetorical tropes). It is thus the sum of extracted scientific truths, clarifications, and etiologies of misconceptions and lies – the content of the social logos – that constitutes the object of classical sociology.

The pessimism of the classical sociologists: Logos on the brink of catastrophe

The majority of the classical sociologists’ major reconstructions (“grand theories”) were marked by the disturbing nature of social processes in the 20th century. The very idea of “progress”, which has become something taken for granted in “public opinion”, was at a certain moment recognized to be a euphemism designed to brighten up premonitions of impending disaster.

Most sociologists, and Pitirim Sorokin in particular, unanimously emphasized the hedonistic, material, sensual, and sensate nature of modern Western civilization, and this quality affected the “social logos” all the more profoundly over the course of the 20th century. Material values, entailing an “obsession with economics”, the search for egoistic, material freedom and pleasure, came to the forefront and undermined, eroded the structure of society’s rational organization. Almost all sociologists predicted in one way or another that the social logos of the West and all of world civilization having come under decisive Western influence, threatens disaster.

This feeling especially intensified in the postmodern era, when many began to speak of the “society of the spectacle” (G. Debord), the “order of simulacra” (J. Baudrillard), or the “end of history” (F. Fukuyama). Indeed, Fukuyama spoke of a “society of gaps”, increasing “fragmentation of social ties”, etc. The social logos had disintegrated in front of our very own eyes, transforming into something else ascertained only with great difficulty and demanding new sociological methods for understanding and explaining it.

Some, such as Castells, have timidly suggested that logos does not die, but moves on to a new form of existence as a network. But this did not and does not sound very convincing. In any case, starting at the end of the 20th century, classical society stood at the threshold of, as the optimists say, a fundamental, qualitative metamorphosis or, as the pessimists (such as Spengler) suspected, collapse.

The social moment through the eyes of depth sociologists: Slipping into the night 

Even more alerted by the exhaustion of modernity are depth sociologists, who have in principle believed that reassessing logos in view of myth amounts to a disaster, which by definition and from the very onset is fraught with collapse and colossal inflation of the logos. Being no opponents of logos, they merely point out that the gigantic endeavor of reassessing one half of society (the diurnal half) is fraught with the possibility of rapid regression and falling into the opposite extreme, the regions of the unconscious, with no easing up or intermediate stages. They rightly considered the European totalitarianisms of the 20th century to be such a rapid drop towards myth, i..e, the Nazi regime (with its “Myth of the 20th Century” which, admittedly, is rather a pale and pitiful parody of myth itself) and the USSR with its chiliastic attempt at building a “paradise on earth” (the diachronic-trinitarian myth of Joachim de Flora skipped over by Hegel, and specifically Russian, cultic messianism).

But the inflation of logos did not cease with the victory over fascism or following the end of communism. In the 1990’s arose the temporary illusion that the social logos had at last found its final incarnation in the liberal-democratic American paradigm (hence globalism and the “end of history”) which would last forever (as the American neocons tried to inaugurate with the “Project for a New American Century” and theories of “benevolent hegemony” and “benevolent empire”). In the 2000’s, all of this became increasingly doubtful. When the financial crisis of 2008 hit and the black Democrat Barack Obama came to power in the US, it became clear that the preceding round was not the establishment of a “new world order”, but the final agony of the Western-centric logos.

From the standpoint of depth sociologists, the point at hand was the collision of two myths that had acted for three centuries in the “dungeon” of Western European societies (and those that came under their influence).

The modern era and the Enlightenment reflected the rise of the myth of Prometheus, who inspired both the rationalists and romantics, the people of day and the poets of night. The titan, trickster, deceiver of the gods (night), Prometheus, acting as Faust and Lucifer, brings people fire and knowledge (day). Schelling, Hugo, Hegel, Marx, and both liberals and socialists were inspired by the myth of Prometheus. Even in fascism, through the Nietzschean lens of the “Superman” and Wagnerianism, Prometheus found peculiar expression.

But with the end of the 19th century, Prometheus began to give way to the myth of Dionysus. Emanating from decadent salons, he penetrated culture and subsequently became the main myth of people engaged in media (and, as a rule, dropouts, drunks, perverts and drug addicts, as Durand aptly noted), cinema, and later television, intellectuals, and artists – typical people of  the night in practically all societies. Gradually imbued with the individualist-hedonistic style of “journalists”, inveterate skeptics, and the opponents of all rational organization (enemies of the social logos), society became a society of entertainment and enjoyment, the “society of the spectacle.”

Dionysus displaced Prometheus, the end of the whose myth is described in Andre Gide’s splendid, ironic book, Prometheus Ill-Bound. But Dionysus himself gradually lost his appeal, momentum, and energy as the decadent perversions of the elite, bearing something stylistically attractive, turned into the disgusting rot of the decaying masses sliding into the night. Plebeian gay parades turned the refined atmosphere of Oscar Wilde’s salons, the solar insanity of Arthur Rambo, and the poetic gesture of Kuzmin’s Apollon into plebeian kitsch (yet another instance of the significance of the expression “don’t throw pearls before swine”). The myth of Dionysus in turn reached the point of saturation and became one of the sources of freshness of the stagnant, stymphalian swamp.

The cycle of Western culture has come to an end. Postmodernity with its epiphenomena is a convincing illustration of this.

At any rate, depth sociologists are awaiting a new myth (perhaps they hope that this will be the balanced and integrative myth of Hermes – such as the Eranos group which included Jung, Eliade, Bachelard, Corbin, Dumezil, Scholem, and Durand), but they clearly understand that the European logos is about to finally slip off into the night. Frankly speaking, it seems to me rather doubtful that these wonderful people, these neo-Hermeticists, will manage to stop that which is falling, much less shift this fall…

Jung’s topology

The preceding observations were necessary in order to arrive at the main topic, i.e., our attempt at conceiving what awaits humanity once postmodernity finally comes into its own and the social logos finally perishes into the night of the myth. In other words, we are interested in reconstructing the picture of the impending sociological dimension taking into account those structural, semantic meanings which we (or not) must survive (or not). On the basis of a sociological reconstruction of classical and non-classical theories, we can construct different models of the future, basing ourselves on the psychoanalytical topology of Jung, who preoccupied himself with the fate of man and attempted to as impartially as possible describe the fullness of the human factor in its various dimensions at different stages. Before “painting” the “sociology of the Apocalypse” with “Jung’s paint”, let us recall the main parameters of his topology.

According to Jung, a human being is a complex system consisting of several poles, the main of which are “ego”, “persona”, “anima/animus”, “shadow”, and Selbst (“self”). Let us add Freud’s “superego” for the sake of completeness.

My “I” and my mask

Man is considered to be a rational individual who calls himself “I”. In psychoanalysis, this function is denoted by the Latin term “ego”, whose properties are intellect, capacity for mental operations, the possession of logical structures (or “proto-logical” ones like among so-called primitive tribes” and “savages”), capacity for self-reflection and clear separation of oneself (“ego”) from the outside world, “others”, and “the other.”

The generalized social logos is the collective projection of the “ego”, what Freud called the “superego” or “super-I.” The “ego” always correlates to the “superego”, which thus gives rise to a system of social norms and determines a large part of the being of “I.”

In regards to other social “I” and the aggregate social logos (superego), the ego acts as the persona, personality, or mask. A gap exists between the ego and personality which consists of the “ego” having another dimension, reversed into itself, which distinguishes it from the personality or “persona” through a fully exhaustive socio-logical function. The ego has a psyche, while a persona does not (such is carefully hidden and ignored). The psyche of the ego makes itself known only when a persona begins to behave or feel inappropriately within society or in the face of the superego given as a standard in morality and the rules of thinking (a mental disorder).

“I” usually appears to be alone as a result of the reflection of the logos on the physical separateness of the human body. But this is not necessary, Jung emphasizes. The deformation of logical structures, a lowering of mental level (abaissement du niveau mental) or simply dreaming can easily blur the singularity of “I”, its identity, and scatter into various fractions the “alter-ego.” In some instances of psychosis, this manifests itself through voices, through sight, or even through visions of one’s self. In some cases, several “egos” can form a fairly stable form of identity (such as in Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde).

Jung’s “I” is not a constant once and for all, but is plural. Sometimes Jung speaks of the ego as one part of a complex psyche alongside other “complexes.”

The realm of the collective unconscious and Selbst

Within the “ego” begins the space of the psyche containing different layers, some close to the “ego” (such as memory, subjective assessment of actions, and “invasion” from below) and those further away from it, such as the unconscious.

Freud called the unconscious “es” or “id.” He himself restricted the unconscious to individual feelings and instincts formed as a rule during infancy and even in the prenatal period. In Jung’s famous dream of 1909 in which he travelled across the Atlantic by ship with his teacher, he saw that in the unconscious there is an even deeper level which ceases to be individual, and becomes collective. The realm of the collective unconscious is the center of Jung’s conceptualized topology.

The collective unconscious, according to Jung, is all the same for everyone and is inhabited by eternal myths and archetypes. This collective unconscious is explained by stable plots of certain dreams (great dreams), myths, stories, fairy tales, religious visions, and artistic works. The properly perceived, integrated, embraced, accepted, and sacredly exalted collective unconscious directed above to the light at the surface is what Jung terms Selbst or “self.”

Animus/anima and the dark double

Furthermore, between the ego and collective unconscious exist two of the main intermediate instances: the animus/anima (the soul that Jung divides by gender) and the “shadow” (umbra, die Schatten).

Animus/anima (like Balzac’s Seraphitus and Seraphita) is an image of the collective unconscious as it appears in pure form in the male or female ego.  Over the course of his research (including clinical studies), Jung noted that men steadily imagine the “unconscious” (“es” and “id”) as feminine (hence “anima”, the feminine soul), while women imagine such to be the male (hence “animus”, the masculine soul). In Russian, it would be tempting to use the cognate words dusha (“soul”) and dukh (“spirit”), but they have a steadily different meaning (although one could ask: do either of them have any meaning at all today?).

There is also the “shadow” representing the dark twin of the ego which consists of negative products of the dialogue between the ego and the collective unconscious. All that the diurnal mind represses, rules out, represses, pushes out, censors, and does not cognize in the impulses rising from the unconscious depths, makes up the “shadow”, shaping its structure and a kind of “anti-persona” (symmetrically opposite to a persona). The devil is the generalized form of the shadow.

Individuation as the realization of Selbst

Of great importance in Jung’s works is the subject of “individuation.” Individuation is the harmonious, balanced, incremental and measured transfer of the collective unconscious’ structures to the level of the logos. A correctly oriented human life is the realization of Selbst, i.e., individuation. Only in this case, the ego serves the purpose of letting what lies on the level of the myth out into the realm of logos.

Jung clarified the relationship between given instances in his topology, supplied nuances, explained details, and solved the puzzles of their dialectical relations. He delineated the dialectic of this structure in his patients and in works of art, religious doctrines, philosophical theories, famous biographies, and in the prejudices of average citizens. Practically all of his creative work was devoted to this end.

Sociology of the imagination

Applying Jung’s topology to society (with certain adjustments) yields depth sociology or the sociology of the imagination as developed mainly by R. Bastide and G. Durand. The social logos (Durkheim’s “public consciousness”) is the generalized ego (superego). At the other extreme is the collective unconscious (or social unconscious). Between them is the human ego facing society through its personality (persona) and facing the collective unconscious (the nighttime realm of myths) through its psyche and its figures (the anima, animus, and shadow).

Between the collective consciousness and collective unconscious exists a dynamic insofar as they resonate in certain issues and are homologous, while in some cases enter into discord and conflict. This is due to social kinetics (including mobility) and the deep content of social processes. The individual or human is a point in this complex two-stage dialectic of night and day, or diurne and nocturne.

Pitirim Sorokin’s tripartite model of social topology, which distinguishes between three types of societies and social structures (the ideational, idealistic, and sensual) on the grounds of a purely heuristic approach, is given firm ground in Durand’s three archetypal structures – the “heroic”, “cyclical”, and “mystical”, which are a direct mythological homologue to Sorokin’s sociological constructs. Durand’s school, the Center for Research on the Imaginary, has in the 50 years of its existence produced an enormous amount of hermeneutic work on “mytho-analyzing” sociological systems and the “mytho-criticism” of literary works or historical records.

Dreaming the world

Now on to the economic crisis. Above we said that it is highly probable that the current financial crisis is an expression of a much deeper process, i.e., the decline of the social logos blurred or saturated with sensual moments (a la Sorokin) or the Dionysian myth which has been overtaken by the osculating masses (a la Durand). In Jung’s system, this process can be seen as the “lowering of the mental level” (abaissement du niveau mental). Let us assume that the logical structures of the ego and superego were to crumble at a critical threshold – and this is highly likely if we take into account observations on Russian society, which has rapidly degraded in the intellectual and moral sense, as well as processes taking place in Western culture and politics. In this case, we should expect humanity to plunge head first into the night regime.

In Jungian topology, this means that we have descended into the collective unconscious. This is not simply nihilism. The very concept of nothing, or nihil, belongs to the order of logical structures capable of abstractly representing pure negativity in contrast to pure presence. But insofar as logic is eroded, the crystal-clear nothingness of logical nihilism appears to us not as empty, but filled with elusive meanings, inconsistent pictures, and cacophonesque sounds arranged disharmoniously. The nihilism of night is full of sounds, colors, and shapes, but only from the standpoint of the day. This is nothingness.

We will begin to see the critical points enumerated below in darkness. After all, there are always objects that are darker than others. It is at this point that we have arrived at the Jungian version of post-crisis futurology.

The social logos has fallen. Despite having successfully defeated all of its logical and ideological competitors (theocracy, monarchy, fascism, and communism), liberalism has not coped with the burden of the social logos, i.e., it is incapable of defending the order of the day all on its own against the night closing in on it from all sides and from within. The last such attempt was the American neocons’ imperial adventure. Meanwhile, the previous logoi are left hopelessly repudiated and distraught.

The diurnal character of liberalism is relative. Perhaps it won precisely because it offered the softest of all orders, the most unobtrusive logos, the most compromising and tolerant instrument of daytime repression of the nocturnal unconscious. But now it has perforce been left one-on-one in the face of chaos – the very same chaos which it relied upon earlier.

If the current economic crisis (for liberal civilization, economics is a substitute for order and logos) turns out to be the last, then a fundamental “lowering of the mental level of humanity” will take place. The world will be plunged into a dream.

Just what kind of dream will this be?

Post-anthropology’s new actors

The scrapping of the “ego” and “superego”, their overturning into the dark haze of psychosis, leads to the emergence of new actors in the forefront. These actors will be neither classes (as in communism) nor races (as in National-Socialism) nor even the individual (as in liberalism) – all of these social ideologies were founded on specific logical systems and, parallel to such, on rather distinguishable nocturnally structured myths. These actors will be the shapes of the unconscious left over from the epoch of the luminous domination of logos. This will be a post-logos order that will lead to the introduction of post-anthropology.

The main figures in the relationship between the ego and the unconscious will acquire autonomy and become the ego’s substitute. Humanity will hear “voices.”

The fact that modern man’s ego will become dynamic, plural, game-like, and random can already be seen everywhere – in the constant changing of professions, moving (the new nomadism), changing genders, nick-names, the appearance of doubles and clones (first in literature, films, and computer games, but tomorrow in practice). Such will become commonplace as life acquires more of an ironic, game-like nature. The cycle will shrink as families, partners, friends, countries, and occupations are changed with kaleidoscopic speed. People will change their gender all the more often, and sex-change operations will come to be more than a one time affair – one is a woman, has enough, becomes a man, then a woman again, and so on. But after a certain point – we will hardly notice it – the notion of individual identity itself will dissolve and the principle of freedom will corrode the “totalitarian shackles” of individuality. In the human atom separate components will be “discovered” – electrons, protons, quarks which will demand for themselves “new freedoms” (as the Belgian writer Jean Ray anticipated in his The Hand of Götz von Berlichingen.

And it is at this moment that we will face a series of very interesting phenomena and advents which will define the panorama of the post-anthropological landscape.

The coming of the shadow

The “shadow” will be one of the main actors of the “Jungian Apocalypse.” Fantasies of living shadows (in Anderson’s works and popular folklore) are a famous tale repeatedly surfacing in literature, theater, and opera. “Shadow” is a synonym for the devil, and we can say that this image coincides with the wide and varying descriptions of the Antichrist or the “coming of Satan.” Jung’s perspective differs from religious, theological views on this subject in that he examines the figure of the devil – in the spirit of Origen Adamantius’ “Apocatastasis” – as relatively negative. According to Jung, in the “shadow-devil” accumulates all that has been discarded by the ego over the course of unsuccessful individuation, i.e., over the course of the translation of the collective unconscious and its archetypes in the sphere of the logos. Thus, the devil is not independent or primordial, but merely symbolizes the totality of human failures and the results of friction with the “sueprego” which is in turn associated not so much with individual errors as with dissonance and the conflict of the social logos (including religious and moral aspects) with the mythological complex lying beneath the foundations of society. The shadow is failed Selbst. After all, the devil was once an angel of light who fell…

The shadow which will reveal itself in the near future should not necessarily be regarded as only the “devil” of the Christian religion. In social and psychoanalytic terms, this will simply be a ”residue”, some kind of surrogate of a disappearing “I”, and in the face of the undifferentiated collective unconscious, this figure will seem like “salvational straw” which, as it pertains to its identification, will be higher than the mythological chaos swimming down below. Therefore, for post-humanity the “shadow”, as an image preserved from the lost “ego”, will present itself as a kind of temptation. The shadow will not act as an enemy of humanity (especially since man will by this time give way to post-man). Rather, it will act as an enemy of the undifferentiated abyss of indistinguishable dreams.

What will this “shadow” be in its coming? This is difficult to imagine since the social landscape will change significantly. The collapse of the logos will not cancel science, or more precisely technology, hence the dissolution of the individual might very well be combined with the continuation of technological progress by inertia. Therefore, the shadow will come in the entourage of machines and devices. But it will not be a singular human being or group of beings. It will be something resembling a cloud, fog, a thinking nebula which can assume various identities, names, and types. These images will be somewhat vague, as if covered in fog. The shadow will hardly appear in the form of monsters, but rather in the form of memories and languid and dense dreams.

This is one pole.

Operation Alraune

Another figure of the Jungian Apocalypse will be the disincarnate female anima. This will not be a human female, but femininity in its collective, apparitional aspect.

Here it is worth dwelling on the idea of the anima in Jung’s works in more detail. Jung’s anima is not an image of a woman based on animal instinct or lustful observation of the female sex, and not even on genetic memory as Freudism and materialist psychology present such. It is the creation of a purely male ego which, through the anima, structures both itself and relations with the internal other (which is the same), proceeding to project this relation outwards on the other and itself now within the framework of form – this is woman in a social-gender sense.

The male ego does not know anything about the female ego, and does not want nor can it know nothing about it. It merely projects a living image, in which it is appealed to by the collective unconscious (“es”), onto the surrounding socio-biological matter. The internal anima and external woman are for the male ego (logos) strictly one and the same. The anima is primary and that which does not coincide with anime in a woman is either not noticed, rejected, censored, or hated by the male ego. All of this has been tracked by psychoanalysts in millions of examples.

If the male anima is drawn to the figure of the Melusine (the water-inhabiting fairy-fish-woman with a tail and no genitals), then a mismatch in external women in relation to this standard will be presented as their fault, and not as the fault of the image (in which, in fact, there is nothing pathological – after all, such is harmoniously and tightly woven into the sacred lexicon of great dreams).

Parallel research has been conducted by Levi-Strauss in studying the structure of kinship. In the myths of many American tribes as well as other peoples of Africa and Melanesia or, more broadly, the whole world, the theme of a “proper scale of marriage” is recurrent. In order to show what is correct, a myth shows what is incorrect. There are countless, stable motifs concerning marriage with animals (Masha and the bear  etc.), spirits, demons and angels (the Book of Enoch), objects, monsters, and so on. These are too distant of relationships, which means that the ego swung too far across the horizons of the unconscious and, as a rule, legends warn that nothing good comes out of this.

Too close of a kinship is represented by incest, a taboo which rests at the heart of all known social structures with only the rarest exceptions (such as Zoroastrianism which legalized and even proscribed incest; and in the practice of Jewish Sabbatist sects in Turkey – see M. Maffesoli). In relation to the anima, this means that the ego has come too close to the collective unconscious, which is fraught with dissolution or could in place of such introduce its own “egotistical” projections leading to sterility or the generation of monsters, i.e., to flowing into the realm of the shadow. The shadow is the totality of those taboos which man has been tempted to violate.

Herein arises a question: From where does the male ego come? Different sociologists, philosophers, and psychologists have offered different answers. The Marxist sociologist Bourdieu, for example, believes that gender is a purely social phenomenon, i.e., the ego is endowed with a male quality exclusively by society – the dictatorship of the “superego” – and in practice through education and the structuring of family relations. According to Bourdieu, if a boy is raised and treated as a girl, he will be a girl, and his ego and persona will be fully-fledged feminine in personality. On this is based contemporary “gender tolerance” and the Western interpretation of human rights, in which man (as the classic of liberalism, Locke, affirmed) is a tabula rasa upon which society writes all that it pleases. Marx also thought so.

In any case, it can be assumed that it is not the gender of a soul (anima-animus) that depends on whether the ego is male or female, but on the contrary – a soul’s gender via a converse logic determines the gender identity of the ego. Anima leads to the ego being masculine in order to make the process of individuation harmonious, i.e., its coming out into the light of the logos. Conversely, the animus extrapolates itself in the region of the logical through the feminine ego in order to exercise the whole, same individuation. Let us note that all of these considerations apply only to Jung’s theory, according to which a soul has a gender.

At any rate, comprehending the particular autonomy of the soul imbued with gender allows us to visualize the figure of Anima who will probably meet us over the course of the global financial crisis. This femininity “without women” or “apart from women” might very well appear through a series of archetypes which will either diachronically or synchronously manifest themselves in the form of giant female figures, dark, ugly and old women, fairies, Undine, nymphs, and salamanders, or in the form of female elements directly such as water and earth. The plastic fantasy of the decaying social logos yields technical or virtual forms. However, it is unimportant whether these figures of Anima will appear by means of malfunction in the process of cloning or as a result of the development of the visual illusions of the totalitarian screen. Most important in this is not the technology of the phenomenon of Anima, but its philosophical meaning. The social logos has in the last millennium been predominantly masculine. In decomposing, it will spill out the final female fantasy just as, according to legend, the seed dropped by the hanged man yields the mandragora or Alraune (see the wonderful novel by Hanns Heinz Ewers, Alraune).

When we think of femininity without women, we want to emphasize just how the anima is associated with the male ego, and this means that the post-anthropological pole of anima will likely be tied to disappearing men and their sinking “I” rather than women who, from the logical point of view, will be relegated to a specific existential niche. We shall now consider just what kind of niche this will be.

Animus

If anima is the product of the pure male ego, then animus is the product of the purely female. The man who constitutes the woman’s dream, i.e., the male form of “es”, has never existed and does not exist. This is not the male ego, but something quite different altogether. Prince charming, the noble knight, the hero – the woman gives birth to and populates culture with them. Woman created man. In the literal sense, she gave birth to him. Figuratively, she invented him. Man was thought up by woman in three forms – as the baby, the hero, and the wise old teacher. These are the three instances of the unconscious. Puer ludens, homunculus, Lilliputian, the playing and laughing child – these are intimations of the unconscious which the female ego is capable of embracing, understanding, and encompassing. The heroic husband is the unconscious in the form with which existential battle can be waged to stake their existence (since real men who would deserve this simply do not exist). Finally, the elderly teacher is the unconscious in the form of death which captures the dynamic of the female ego and freezes it into the ice of eternity. Such men live only in the psyche of the woman and from there appear in works of art. Talented feminized artists read the thin folds of women’s dreams and bring them into culture. And only from there, as patterns, do they assume their male ego, entirely different in structure and style, conforming to social norms, the dictatorship of the “superego” and maintain the status of persona. 

The weakening of the pressure of culture leads to men turning into what we see around us today from which the female ego recoils in disgust. These are today’s snotty, screaming babies, swine, filthy (in the best case), cowardly, and greedy men, and the old and rude who have accumulated over their whole lifetime only strife and bad habits. The social projections of the female spirit earlier weaved together images of heroic men and imposed such as the standard. When this work was weakened in a segment of the social logos for which female personalities were responsible in the era of patriarchy, then everything collapsed. Only strange and untidy beings of non-traditional orientations remain – freaks and geeks. Patriarchy was a product of the extrapolation of the female fantasy.

So who will Animus be without men?

This will be the figure of the final release of female energy, the solar hero, the “superman” – innocent like a child, cruel as a man, and wise as an elder. Feminine dialogue with the unconscious will yield the final volley of erotic energy in a flying, golden figure. It will be ephemeral and quickly dissolve since, given the absence of social order (on the surface of which the leftover residue will swim in the likes of traffic police, who will easily survive the disappearance of sense and logic in things), Animus will have nothing through which to secure its will to power. This will be the flash of the absolute dawn of metaphysical “fascism” which will show itself on the horizon only to melt away into the impending night in a flash.

However, who knows, perhaps even the momentary contemplation of the birth and disappearance of Animus will be a spectacle which, in an illusory manner, will satisfy great female expectations.

The Radical Subject

Yet another figure will have its place in the post-crisis (anti)utopia. This time, this personage is not from the arsenal of Jungian topology, but from the post-philosophical intuitions of “new metaphysics.” This is the Radical Subject described schematically in my books The Philosophy of TraditionalismPost-Philosophy, and The Radical Subject and its Double. While not being a Jungian figure, it can nevertheless be described in the terms of the “Jungian Apocalypse.”

The Radical Subject is the realization of the outburst of the collective unconscious’ archetypes into the light of day along a model differing from that of the social and cultural logos which dominated in the cycle of known human civilization. The Radical Subject is the alternative logos (or more precisely, the logos in potentiality bearing a number of logoi) which shares with the hitherto known logos its diurnal nature, but which belongs to the collective unconscious and mythological foundation of society (culture, civilization) in a different fashion. Compared to this, the genesis of the former (old) logos out of mythos was questionable in the very beginning, if not fatally wrong.

From the philosophical point of view, the theory closest to this model is Heidegger’s “Ereignis” which he developed from 1936 to 1944.

The Radical Subject is capable of individuation under any circumstances insofar as it operates with logos not as an actuality, but with logos as a potentiality, i.e., in the sphere which lies between the collective unconscious (mythos) and its concentration in the actuality of the logos – before this concentration becomes irreversible.

This is the dissolved logos, the proto-logos. The Radical Subject is the realization of Selbst in its unconditional form free of all circumstances, and the psyche does not participate in such realization since we are dealing (according to Jung and Otto) with the numinous horizons of the spirit in pure form beyond psychic waters, a kind of “dry path.”

The final composition

The writer Mamleev once wrote in the title of one of his stories: “We are ready for the Second Coming.” That is right.

What will be the combination of the poles of post-anthropology?

Theoretically, and following formal symmetries, there will be four dynamic post-identities that are relatively autonomous – the shadow, anima, animus, and the Radical Subject. It can be assumed that the “shadow-devil” will try to expand its field to the maximally available extent, i.e., against the anima, animus, and Radical Subject.

Just how the re-doubling of the Radical Subject will happen, i.e., the establishment of its diabolical simulacrum – I’ve tried to describe this in my book The Radical Subject and its Double in which with “double” we have in mind strictly that which Jung refers to as the “shadow”, only in the apocalyptic and sociological perspective which we are now examining – the shadow of the macrocosm, not micro-psychology. To summarize this book in a single phrase: distinguishing the Radical Subject from its double will be difficult, and in this lies the metaphysical nerve of the whole drama of the world (the world was created in the light of the telos of this final discernment).

The valence of the relationship between the shadow and Radical Subject will, among other things, lend the shadow a metaphysical value, and out of this inertial residue of the scattering logos will turn it into a “socially” significant figure. Here, incidentally, is quite pertinent the theological model of understanding the devil who, unlike Jung’s psychological pragmatism (and his reliance on the Gnostics) forms in relation to this character the proper proportions of reaction, fight, and flight (if at such a point anyone is still “making up their mind”, then by now their mind is not simply “not theirs”, but disappears altogether like smoke).

The golden Animus, taking off from the periphery of the female horizon in the glow of absolute (never former) fascism, will probably have no relation whatsoever to Anima or the shadow. To the shadow it is inaccessible for in it the female ego is liberated from itself, its own sin, its own shadow. The female ego is the shadow. But what, then, is the male ego? Perhaps just a misunderstanding? How the Radical Subject relates to the disincarnate Animus is not clear yet. And will it ever have any meaning for it?…

Now the shadow is definitely trying to seize the liquid Anima, include it in its structure, perhaps by the inertia of memory. As modern physics knows, even material substances have memory. The shadow will see the post-anthropological symmetry with its female ego disappearing into nowhere.

Yet another, fifth, element will be the background, which can only be described as the “return of the ancient gods” (Heidegger’s formula), the rise of the collective unconscious or hell in its etymological form, as the invisible (Hades) becomes visible (idea, form). In the absence of a repressing logos, all myths will rise up together without any diachronical control or any order (Ordnung). Christian consciousness can also safely relate to this as religion demands. In a moral, strictly religious sense, temptation should have no power or force over saved man if evil does not in one moment assume ambiguous features that form a spiritual and moral choice – for the discernment of spirits is a truly heroic challenge and great feat – and not taking itself for granted as socio-cultural banality. When evil comes in the guise of evil, it is not so difficult to reject. When it comes forth as something incomprehensible and overwhelming all at once, then taking a strict position is much more difficult. Everything spins and falls out of place, and it is impossible to distinguish one thing from the other. This is vigorous and effective evil.

Will this happen?

It necessarily will, since, on the one hand, such a scenario has in general terms been written down in the sacred texts of humanity, while on the other hand, modern sociology, cultural studies, philosophy, and analytical psychology have in their own languages and terminologies come to a more or less similar view. It certainly will, and precisely as it has been described. The question is when exactly?

Every failure in the history of civilization, every great war, natural disaster, bloody revolution, and mad cycle of cultural, political, social, economic, and technological development can potentially mean the collapse of the social logos, which has clearly and sufficiently long since achieved its saturation and passed through the main stages of its journey. The social logos has already “born, married, and died.” This had become obvious by the time of Nietzsche. Heidegger, Spengler, and in a wider sense most of Germany’s conservative revolutionaries in the 1920’s and ’30’s were living exclusively with the feeling of this end.

The Russian Revolution rode this very same wave, at least as poets, philosophers, and the artists of the Silver Age understood it (and they were the only ones to understand it correctly). The proposal that the proletariat recognize itself as a class identity (especially in the 1920’s), A. Planatov’s literature, and Klyuev, Blok, and Mayakovsky’s poetry had already anticipated the post-anthropological movement of disembodied, de-humanized energies. Blok’s Rus-Sofia is Anima. Klyuev described in detail the geography of the collective unconscious with the thoroughness of a German zoologist or surveyor. Mayakovsky created a poetic ontology of class beings. Platonov explained how being lives and works through the luminous communes, as his heroes eat the earth (like the character Chevengur who calls himself “God”), transform into Dostoevsky, and ravishly and voluptuously harm the reality of Rosa Luxemburg and the world revolution.

If we peer deeper into history, then what Rus lived through in the age of the schism and Europe during the Reformation can very well be attributed to the same category. The world ended, the social logos cracked and toppled, and out from underneath the rubble crawled the giant figures of the untamed subconscious.

There have been no few repetitions of the current crisis, and humanity is culturally ready for such. The swindling which we call “modernity” with its chimeras and emptiness will sooner or later end. Thus, everything will happen, happen soon, and happen precisely so. Sure, we have not described how, because we see everything as open and are preparing to participate.

And still there is the likelihood that this bursting bubble is not the last (or the next to last). Heidegger metaphysically pondered: “We live close to the point of midnight – no, it seems not yet – always the eternal ‘not yet’”…

But no matter how frustrated expectations for a quick outcome might be, this does not mean that there will never be an end. It might be delayed, but look around. Everything bears its signs. Perhaps it will be postponed once again, will blow over, and the scum will once again rejoice and stir, feeling that this time it is “still not yet…” We could allow for this, but then again, maybe it won’t be postponed. Even if it were, one must live – already today – as if it will not be postponed. And when we will truly live, fixed on the post-anthropological outcome, living within it itself and perhaps anticipating its events, then everything will happen .

It will, it necessarily will. 

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

The Fourth Political Theory and the Problem of the Devil

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold 

Geopolitica.ru/en 

Clarifying the nature of 4PT

The Fourth Political Theory (4PT) is a conceptual matrix which describes the possibility of an alternative to the political tendency that became dominant in the epoch of modernity.

The three main political ideologies of the epoch of modernity, which include liberalism (the first political theory), communism (the second political theory), and nationalism (the third political theory) in effect exhausted and embodied different aspects of the modern paradigm of political philosophy.

These political concepts clashed with one another in the 20th century and determined the structure of the world wars, the Cold War, alliances, unions, etc. If the First World War was a clash between a number of major national European powers, then the Second World War exhibited a conflict between all three ideological forces: liberals in the face of the West (the US and England), communists in the face of the USSR, and Nazis/fascists in the face of Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, and other closely-related movements.

Accordingly, after the third political theory (fascism and National Socialism) suffered defeat, two political theories remained – the first and the second – and confronted each other in the Cold War until the first political theory (liberalism) beat the second (communism) in 1989 and particularly in 1991.

Three versions of modernity

The entire history of modernity passed under the sign of these three political theories which embodied the very matrix, the very paradigm of modern political philosophy. All of them were built according to the logic of the political philosophy of the Mother – all of them were materialistic, evolutionist, progressivist, and all of them considered the structure of the earth to be from the bottom up, not the top down, i.e., built on the foundations of an immanent materialist doctrine.

As follows, the order of these theories’ appearance and the order of their disappearance (or marginalization) also reflected a certain logic insofar as the battle between these three political theories was a fight over which of them was most consistent with the paradigm of modernity.

These three versions of modernity fought amongst each other over the most important conclusion. At stake was discovering which of these ideologies embodied the essence of modernity. Communism claimed this and believed that it would come after the liberals; liberalism itself claimed this, believing itself to be an expression of modernity as such, while – this is an important point – nationalism (fascism, National Socialism) also claimed this and considered itself a revolutionary doctrine reflecting the spirit of modernity, albeit in a different context, in different proportions, and with different guiding values than liberalism and communism.

The liberals’ victory: the first became last

At any rate, all three of these ideologies fought so that one of them could embody the spirit of modernity. Each of these ideologies believed that it was modernity. After the defeat of Nazism, two ideologies, liberalism and communism, were left vying for the right to embody modernity, but after 1989-1991 it turned out that only one ideology had won this lengthy struggle – liberalism.

In other words, only one of the paradigm of modernity’s three ideologies was genuinely paradigmatic. Tied to this is the process of globalization and the universalization of liberal ideology which has become the only global ideology today, having won according to the “results” of history.

Herein is also revealed the connection to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion of the end of history. The “end of history” meant the victory of liberalism not as one of three ideologies, but as the ideology of modernity overall.

The atoms attack

Capitalism (liberalism) considered itself to be the embodiment of modernity from the very beginning, but this was not obvious to everyone besides liberalism’s proponents themselves. This claim was challenged by both communists and fascists, and in principle was not even entirely clear for several centuries. There was always the possibility of a different pivot in history, and communism seriously claimed that it was the epitome of modernity as the “end of history” as opposed to liberalism.

Only at the end of the 20th century was the unconditional matrix of world political history decided as the spirit of modernity won in the form of liberalism. Liberalism defended its right to be not only one ideology, but the Ideology with a capital letter. Thus, it is the first and last political theory of modernity. It was with the victory of liberalism that we reached the political philosophy of post-modernity. After all, it is the domination of the individual as an atom that allows for the transition to the subatomic level.

Modernity, having won in the face of liberalism, transitioned into post-modernity as the next, post-liberal stage. But this was possible only thanks to all forms of collective identity – those predominate in the second political theory (communism) and the third political theory (Nazism) – being abolished.

Liberals assert the individual to be the last atomic and credible ontological form of being. The individual as an atom became the anthropological foundation upon which liberalism was built. Yet only after the victory of this ideology and the triumph of the individual – expressed in the ideologies of civil society, human rights, globalization, the global liberal capitalist market (the transition from global politics to global economics entailing the end of history, as Fukuyama wrote) – only at this moment did the door to post-modernity really open.

Once the atom is affirmed as the main point of being, then all further movement turns towards the subatomic level. The phenomenology of political post-philosophy, or the political philosophy of post-modernity, is linked to this.

Thus, without the victory of liberalism, the victory of post-modernism would have been impossible. Political post-modernity is based on the accomplished absolute of liberal ideology, the first political theory which completely defeated the second and third.

It is in this approximate context that global society now finds itself. Global society is not yet a reality, but a project, that of the “global West.” When we speak of the West, we understand it not as the geographical West but, for example, as including even Japan and China’s Pacific coast where Western models in economics, culture, and society are predominant as well as some countries in the Pacific region which are following the Western path of development. In other words, the West is a global concept. Of course, the West has not fully penetrated the flesh and blood of all of the societies, peoples, and civilizations of the earth, but it is nonetheless in the process of penetrating them. The West is the process of globalization, post-modernization, and the expansion of Euro-American/Euro-Atlantic culture across the entire planet.

Today’s agenda for global processes in politics accordingly entails the domination and affirmation of the victory of liberalism on a global scale, the liquidation of nation-states (what we are seeing in Europe), and the destruction of all forms of collective identity (such as nation, religion, gender).

The transition from modernity to post-modernity: the highway

The question arises: is there any alternative to this process? Let us recall that the global political process today itself represents a transition from the political philosophy of modernity (in the form of victorious liberal ideology) to post-modernity. This is the agenda of Western society today.

To what extent is this agenda universal? This question is very complicated. The West thinks of itself as global (globalization is, after all, the spread of the West’s “stain” to all space). Therefore,  the question at hand is the extent to which we are a modern society and are undergoing modernization and Westernization and to what extent we are part of the European world or Euro-Atlantic civilization. All other nations too, after all, practically silently accept the imperative of modernization and recognize the West as global destiny, even as the fate of non-Western peoples and societies. If we unreservedly recognize the West as universal, then we are left with accepting the first political theory and its scale which, in the current moment, means recognizing the transition from political modernity to political post-modernity as fate, and through this lens assessing the processes occurring in our society.

In this case, we acquire a normative model for comparing and assessing everything that is happening in Russia on the basis of how much everything resembles the West, according to which the more homosexuals we have in government, the more Western, modernized, and progressive of a country we are. The more tolerance and purely individual and even post-individual identities we have in society, the more elements we have tying us closer to the West and making us part of this universal process.

At the heart of the matter, the proposal to modernize Russian society means the final entrenchment of liberalism in our society and the transition to post-modernity. The universalism of the West and the ideological process prevailing therein (the triumph of the first political theory and the transition to the post-atomic society of post-modernity) are thereby tacitly recognized as an axiom and dogma.

The West acts globally and, as follows, all societies (even non-Western ones) are under its influence. This vector is embedded in the global agenda. Insofar as we are part of a global world, it is also on the agenda of Russian politics (as well as Chinese, Indian, and Islamic politics, the latest manifestations of modernization and democratization of which we have seen and are still observing in the violence of Wahhabis in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc.). The civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine are in fact forms of such modernization featuring death as a means of modernizing, especially since the political philosophy of post-modernity is openly nihilistic and dissipative. In essence, it is a philosophy of death. The philosophy of civil society, brought to its logical conclusion with the absence of the state, order, vertical authority, and any other common elements and values, leads to human loneliness reaching such an extent that nothing besides the death of one’s self or a loved one can entertain human beings.

The dispute over rate and trajectory

As a matter of course, there are people in the world who, looking at what is happening before them, feel some kind of, to put it mildly, uneasiness. The Fourth Political Theory is based on the observation that “something not right” is happening in a global sense – something wrong with the very foundation of the society in which we live today.

4PT begins with a distancing from the self-evident processes unfolding on a global scale. 4PT is a result of disagreement with the course of change and the internal evolution of these political paradigms. The 4PT’s first move is radically rejecting liberalism and its post-modern, somehow already post-liberal subatomic version which has become today’s political mainstream.

But this rejection is coupled in 4PT with a clear understanding of that fact that both communism and fascism today are, firstly, incorporated into liberalism in a withdrawn form and, secondly, are no longer real alternatives for two fundamental reasons:

1.     The second and third political theories historically lost to liberalism (on the level of political philosophy they were less consistent with the pure paradigm of the political philosophy of modernity than liberalism);

2.     The second and third political theories were products of the political philosophy of modernity, which means that even if they had won, they would still ultimately express the matrix of the political philosophy of the Mother.

In fact, if communism would have claimed victory over liberalism and therein demonstrated that it is the communist paradigm that is the most modern and therefore only through communism can post-modernity be entered, then it would have led to approximately the same paradigmatic results which we face now. Even if fascism had won on a global scale, sooner or later, insofar as it is also an ideology of modernity, it would have led to the same consequences which lie at the heart of the common materialist approach.

Racism and the West

One of the characteristic attributes of National Socialist ideology was racism.Yet racism was originally part of the early liberal worldview characteristic of the epoch of Anglo-Saxon colonial conquest. In fact, racism in its cultural (not biological) form has won on a global scale today as the West has imposed its own criteria on the whole world, declaring its values to be universal and demanding that its interests be recognized as universal.

In the context of the domination of liberalism, however, Atlanticist, pro-American fascism is only a secondary, sub-liberal element. Imagine, relatively speaking, that if Hitler had won the proportion would only be different – racism would be the dominant element and liberalism latent or sub-fascist.

In short, hypothetically speaking, if other political ideologies had won the battle for the essence of modernity, then they would have nonetheless expressed the same paradigm that liberalism does today.

“No” to post-modernity

4PT proceeds from encouraging humans, groups, peoples, civilizations, and religions to say “no” to post-modernity whose matrix is liberalism. The question therein arises: if you are not a liberal, then who are you? A communist? Or perhaps an adherent of the third political theory?

In other words, critical distance in relation to the basic “trend” of today on the level of political philosophy naturally brings us to the second and third political theories or to their mix – National Bolshevism. All of this would indeed be in opposition to liberalism, but nevertheless within the framework set by modernity. 

Thus, our opposition to liberalism once again inevitably ends up appealing to peripheral forms of modernity. In this case, we merely declare that we do not like the essence of modernity in its pure form (liberalism) and stand in opposition to modernity from its periphery. This is conservatism. It offers only to “slow down” modernity while still moving in the same trajectory towards the same goal, only significantly slower. And here is what we get: once we stand at a distance from the dominant “trend”, the political philosophy of post-modernity, as only the result of the global rule of the first political theory (liberalism), then we are but “modernist conservatives.”

Even within liberal circles, there are vanguard-minded liberals who rejoice at the transition to post-modernity like those who say: “Perhaps not so fast, not so quickly, shall we slow down?” Consequently, all three political ideologies of modernity in view of the “vision of the future”, the face of post-modernity, can stand on conservative positions. Communism and fascism are themselves conservative in view of liberalism in any form. Liberal conservatism exists to the extent to which liberals fear the ultimate expression of their own ideological platform.

Nevertheless, today humanity is moving, “drifting” towards post-modernity. There are those who understand that this is not only too fast of a current, but that this current is not flowing “there”, but in a bad direction. The “river” should flow back. This is the point of 4PT.

The murderous mother

The essence of 4PT lies in that it rejects not only one of the political ideologies of the epoch of modernity, but all of them. The three political theories exhausted the spectrum of what modernity has to offer. 4PT tells them “no” and is discontent with the flow of the river in the direction of the political philosophy of the Mother.

4PT is a theory of global, absolute, and radical Revolution aimed not only against the domination of the West in particular, against the current state of European civilization, the hegemony of the United States of America, or liberalism, but against modernity itself, against the political paradigm of the Logos of the Great Mother, against the metaphysics in which the world is viewed from the bottom up.

Here is where the political philosophy of the Father (or political Platonism) and the political philosophy of the Son (political Aristotelianism) acquire enormous importance. We went through the epoch of modernity over the course of which the Father was killed and the Son was castrated. The victory of modernity and the transition to post-modernity has been described in myth has the double gesture of the Great Mother, a point which has been deliberated in the traditions of different peoples. Mother Earth kills her Father/Husband, i.e., the figure who is the fundamental axis of the vertical topology of the political philosophy of Platonism, and she castrates her Beloved Son, i.e., denies the Aristotelian model its “unmoved mover” of the spiritual (eidetic) component.

This is materialism. In order to attain the domination of living matter from the bottom up, it is necessary to uproot two possible alternatives – the political philosophies of the Father and the Son. Both are incompatible with the political philosophy of the Mother.

Modernity is none other than the political philosophy of the Mother, materialism, living matter, or ὕλη.

Accordingly, all the foundational ideological and political-philosophical processes of the modern era are realized in the framework of this political philosophy of the Mother. According to the results of the political-ideological history of the modern era, liberalism turned out to be closest of all to the matriarchal view of the world, and political post-modernity even more sharply generates liberalism’s initially feminoid structure, since it is through it that the very matrix of modernity as the political philosophy of the Mother most fully and clearly exudes.

Stone or bird?

4PT presents itself as an appeal not to variations or combinations of the political philosophy of modernity, but to radical paradigm change. This change can be described negatively as a rejection of the political philosophy of the Mother in its metaphysical basis, i.e., simply as the liquidation of modernity altogether. The beginning of modernity already bears the meaning, content, and logic of its end.

Such a beginning of the modern era could not have led to anything other than contemporary liberal hegemony. In order to really part ways with this path today, we need to move in the opposite direction. But this does not mean that all that is necessary is to simply “not move” in the direction of modernization. After all, we are talking about setting a radically different goal – moving in a different direction, not forward, but backwards. The sky is behind us. We are descending from the political philosophy of the Father through the political philosophy of the Son to the political philosophy of the Earth.

Going right or left is a matter of choice when standing on a horizontal plane. But if we are a stone that is thrown, then we are falling, and our time is a time of fall, descent, Untergang. And if we are birds, then we have the chance to discover that falling from the nest is not the fall of a stone, but the fall of a chick who learns to fly through such a harsh experience.

It is at this point that a radical change in consciousness takes place. This is the beginning of 4PT. As long as the chick, thrown out of the nest, does not fly, then he does not know whether he is a stone or a bird. He who is used to falling is incapable of moving backwards along the only possible gravitational trajectory (movement in the direction of the abyss is not movement on a plane, but falling).

As follows, only “winged creatures” can accept 4PT. Here we can recall Plato’s teaching on what a human is. For this Greek philosopher, man is a winged creature who finds himself within his body as a result of the fall, due to a certain catastrophe. Man’s task is to cultivate his wings to learn to fly and so that death becomes a celebration of birth/resurrection just as death for a butterfly is the end of existence as a caterpillar. It is better still to “die while alive” and take off vertically – back towards our heavenly home. This is the point of 4PT.

4PT means striving to radically extend the logic of world history in the opposite direction. Insofar as this history is one of falling (moving from top to bottom, from the Logos of the Father to that of the Son and then to the Logos of the Mother), 4PT is a fundamental mission. It is not conservatism! In order to return “back”, we need to go up, where the machine of modernity cannot go. 

Modernity is akin to a hearse descending down from a mountain. A hearse does not fly. In order to genuinely change the situation, it is necessary to principally reconsider our approach to all those things which are absolutely evident under the domination of the political philosophy of the Mother.

The devil as a metaphor, and not only…

There are no alternatives within the political philosophy of the Mother. Thus, the first political theory (liberalism) and its sub-ideological forms in the dissipative program of modernity are fate. This is not an accident, deviation, or dead end. It is fate. We have come here, and were called here. The greatest cunning of the devil is to get us to deny God. People think that there is no God, which means that there is not devil, to which the devil responds: “Right, there is no me.” This is his second trick. But who, in this case, inspires all of this in us? The devil himself.

At the end of the process of secular modernity – tempered, consistent, and coherent satanism – the devil appears again, only this time without God.

At first modernity was the shadow of God, but then it became neither God nor his shadow. Then there was no God and only shadow. Correspondingly, the discovery of the devil, his incarnation, and his manifestation constitute the essence of the final phase of the political philosophy of modernity’s transition to the political philosophy of post-modernity. The devil (the Antichrist) becomes apparent, reveals himself. From the point of view of political philosophy, we can examine this as a metaphor (the Antichrist as a political-philosophical figure). From the religious point of view, this may very well be interpreted literally.

Turning away from the fully revealed devil of post-modernity, 4PT proposes to take the flight/transition to those paradigms which were discarded, liquidated at the first stage of modernity.

In other words, we need not “slow down”, but move in a different direction altogether. 4PT starts with man disagreeing with, denying, and rejecting the present program of evolution of political history, and makes a cold and in-depth semantic analysis of all the previous semantic points of political history.

Without this analysis, everything would remain on the level of emotions, reactive patterns, and appeals to the peripheral forms of modernity or its previous stages which have by and large been inscribed in the “global trend of conservatism.”

And here is the most interesting part: 4PT is counter-conservative. Conservatism, after all, is but the aspiration to move in the same direction at a reduced speed. 4PT proposes neither acceleration nor braking, for it does not think in these terms. 4PT insists that the whole path from the very beginning to the very end has led and is not leading there…

Refusing the Mother’s hypnosis

A radical break with the hypnosis of the political philosophy of the Mother is the first fundamental gesture of 4PT. Further, we know that the political philosophies of the Father and Son exist. This is not a convention. In history, they boast a number of examples of effective realization. This is not an abstract dream or daydream. These political systems have existed throughout human history and partially retained their influence to this day in the contemporary world.

When we reject the political philosophy of the Mother, we do not fall into nothingness and chaos. We still have two very effective political-philosophical models. If we did not know the political philosophy of the Father and the political philosophy of the Son, then flowing along this “river” might not be so repulsive and, perhaps, we might agree to it given the absence of the very capacity to choose another direction – there is nothing out of the horror.

If not modernity, then nothing – thus the proponents of modernity and post-modernity want to tell us. But fortunately we know that there is the paradigm of the Father and the Son. This is the second, positive, and creative half of 4PT’s program.

The most important point is that 4PT is based on the fact that the choice of paradigm is not within the three political ideologies (the Logos of the Great Mother), but within the three Logoi of the political philosophies of the Father (Platonism), the Son (Aristotelianism), and the Mother (materialism). This is a free choice in which modernity is nothing more than one option, and far from all.

The political philosophies of the Father and the Son (or their alliance) are objects of free choice. This is a task, not a given. It appears that we ended up in modernity because we forgot that the political philosophy of the Father and the political philosophy of the Son need to be constantly affirmed anew with each new generation and new person. We took them for something guaranteed, something taken for granted.

As soon as even a vertically-oriented political system becomes inertia or something ready-made and given, then it begins to fall, to collapse. If instead of as a free establishment we take the monarchical, imperial, traditional, and caste vertical to be a fact, something given, and once we no longer re-affirm such at each stage, then sooner or later we will fall into the dustbin of modernity and its last logical accord – the political philosophy of the Mother.

The black double

Thus, the essence of the political-philosophical dignity of man as a species is opened in 4PT – the dignity of the humanity that is now moving, whether faster or slower, in the direction of modernization, Westernization, and progress as if nothing is happening. This is the black double of mankind – the humanity which, by choosing freedom, chooses non-freedom, and while having the right to dignity, flight, and heroism, throws itself into slavery, misery, and in the service of matter.

Returning to the political philosophy of the Father or the Son is more difficult today than ever. But it is now that this choice carries all the fullness of its primordial, patriarchal, heroic meaning. Man differs from his black double in that he is a philosophical being capable of free choice. He has been given the freedom to choose his own political philosophy on a paradigmatic level (not on the basis of what the “menu” offers).

We can say that 4PT is an invitation to restore/reconstruct the political philosophy of the Father and the political philosophy of the Son. We know that these alternatives exist and we can freely choose them, thus destroying the hypnosis of the matrix of the three modern ideologies, the hypnosis of the matrix of the political philosophy of the Mother. We can choose an alternative political philosophy beyond what we are offered as exhaustive and complete. If such is really anything complete, then it is but the complete assortment of the devil’s temptations.

 

© Jafe Arnold – All Rights Reserved. No reproduction without expressed permission. 

Russia and Multipolarity

Author: Leonid Savin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

 

Many ascribe the first steps in developing a strategy for multipolarity in international relations to Russia as well. Indeed, this claim has some merit. In Moscow on April 23rd, 1997, Russia and China signed the “Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order”, and on May 15th the declaration was registered in the UN.1 The document asserted that the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China will strive to promote the development of a multipolar world and new international order. The text also remarked that international relations had undergone profound changes at the end of the 20th century and affirmed a diversity of political, economic, and cultural paths of development for all countries and an increasing role for forces advocating peace and broad international cooperation. Furthermore, the document reads: “A growing number of countries are beginning to recognize the need for mutual respect, equality and mutual advantage – but not for hegemony and power politics – and for dialogue and cooperation – but not for confrontation and conflict. The establishment of a peaceful, stable, just and rational new international political and economic order is becoming a pressing need of the times and an imperative of historical development.

In addition, the declaration voiced the notion that every state has a right to, proceeding on the basis of its unique circumstances, independently and autonomously choose its own path of development without interference from other states. In the words of the statement: “Differences in their social systems, ideologies and value systems must not become an obstacle to the development of normal relations between States.” At the same time, it was emphasized that China and Russia are switching to a new form of mutual relations and that such is not directed against any other countries.

Hopes then arose that the UN would play an important role in establishing a new international order, and developing countries and the Non-Aligned Movement were named as important forces contributing to the formation of a multipolar world. The Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the International Order of the 21st Century, which was signed in Moscow on July 1st, 2005 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and PRC President Xu Jintao, logically continued this line.2 This declaration was a response to the US invasion of Iraq, a reaction to this challenge which was intended to strengthen efforts to organize a new international order. One part in the new declaration read:

The main trend of the world today is not towards a “clash of civilizations”; rather, it underscores the imperative of engaging in global cooperation. The diversity of civilizations in the world and the diversification of development models should be respected and safeguarded. Differences in the historical backgrounds, cultural traditions, social and political systems, value concepts, and development paths of countries should not become an excuse for interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Different civilizations should conduct dialogue, exchange experiences, draw on each other’s experiences, learn from each other’s strong points to make up for their own shortcomings, and seek common progress on the basis of mutual respect and tolerance. Cultural exchanges should be increased in order to establish relations of friendship and trust among countries.

Russia and China drew attention to the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the intensification of cooperation between BRIC countries and later BRICS, which is seen as an attempt at establishing individual rules for the game at least in each country’s zone of strategic interests.

In the sphere of its own strategic interests, as proclaimed by President Medvedev following Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia in August 2008, Russia uses the Eurasian Economic Community as an economic integration instrument and military cooperation within the CSTO. Directly introduced into Russia’s foreign policy doctrine in 2000 was the provision that “Russia will seek the creation of a multipolar system of international relations which genuinely reflects the diversity of the modern world with its diversity of interests.”3

It should be noted, however, that Russian politicians, diplomats, and scholars’ understanding of the need to develop a theory of multipolarity has its roots in a crisis situation. First, there was the collapse of the Soviet Union which was accompanied by ethnic conflicts. A similar collapse occurred in Yugoslavia and led to several foreign interventions and the transformation of the regional political map. NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia and the Albanian proclamation of Kosovo were a painful blow not only to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which at the time consisted of Serbia and Montenegro, but to the European geopolitical system as a whole. In addition, the collapse of Marxist doctrine and the negative experience of IMF and World Bank reforms in Russia led to an understanding of the need to develop a distinct foreign and domestic policy. Although the inertia of the Soviet era made itself felt, certain attempts were made at rethinking Russia’s role and place in the global political system.

September 11th, 2001 also affected perceptions of the global system in a new vein. It is no coincidence that in an article from September 2003, a Russian advocate of multipolarity and political heavyweight who served as prime minister in 1999, Yevgeny Primakov, noted that “what followed the events of September 11 showed more clearly than ever the confrontation between two trends. On the one hand, there was the preservation of the world order, save for some modernization, founded on such a mechanism for multilateral actions as the United Nations. On the other, there was ‘unilateralism’, or the bet that decisions that are vitally important for humanity can be taken by one country, the United States, on the grounds of Washington’s subjective perception of international reality.”4 Primakov pointed out that the EU was becoming a center of power comparable in its capacity to the US, while China, Russia, India, and Japan were also in no hurry to trail behind the wake of events set by Washington. Also highlighted in this regard is the UN’s role in the formation of multipolarity. Previously, Primakov had observed that “the uneven development of states will manifest itself primarily in antagonistic forms…historically, no dominant power can establish a unipolar world order.”5

Here it is important to note that Yevgeny Primakov had at the time already condemned the US leadership, pointing instead to rapidly expanding opportunities for other countries and alliances. “The fall of the USSR as a counterbalance to America does not give reason to believe that the US is an undisputed winner and, accordingly, that the world should be unipolar with only one center in Washington. This contradicts the very course of global development. For instance, China and India’s respective GDP’s are larger than that of the US. US leadership in scientific and technological progress as one of the main conditions of the unipolar world is also being actively contested today.”6 This is confirmed by statistical data: “By 2011 four major centers of scientific progress had formed – the USA (31% of global spending on scientific research in terms of purchasing power parity), the European Union (24%), China (14%), and Japan (11%).”7

Primakov argued against liberals and globalists, affirming that:

The transition to a multipolar system is a process, not a single change with a finished character. Therefore, great importance is attached to various trends, sometimes contradictory ones, manifesting themselves over the course of this transition. Some of them have their source in the unequal development of states and the successes or failures of integration associations. The fluctuating ratio between, relatively speaking, the course towards restarting relations and the inertial line of states’ conduct inherited from the Cold War and ingrained during the period of outright confrontation, is directly impacted. This relation between two tendencies manifests itself in the political, military, and economic fields as well. Therefore, the correct conclusion that a multipolar world order does not in itself in the conditions of globalization lead to conflict situations, or military clashes, does not exclude the altogether complex environment in which the process of the transition to such a system takes place.8

Being a supporter of the creation of the Russia-India-China triangle that could balance out the aggressive behavior of the US and other challenges, Primakov is rightfully considered to be one of the first Russian practicians of multipolarity.

Thanks to his official position and numerous foreign contacts, Russia’s position vis-a-vis the future world order was successfully conveyed to the widest range of decision-makers possible and consolidated in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.9

Alexander Dugin’s doctrine of neo-Eurasianism was another ideological and intellectual platform which gave impetus to the development of multipolarity. The program of Eurasianist ideology asserts:

At the level of a planetary trend, Eurasianism is a global, revolutionary, civilizational concept which, in gradually refining itself, is to become a new ideological platform for mutual understanding and cooperation for a wide conglomerate of different forces, states, peoples, cultures, and confessions which reject Atlanticist globalization…Eurasianism is the sum of all the natural and artificial, objective and subjective obstacles along the path to unipolar globalization, at once elevated from the level of simple negation to being a positive project, a creative alternative.10

Although classical Eurasianism was concerned solely with the fate of Russia which it characterized as “Eurasia” by virtue of its uniqueness, vast territory, and central situation between “classical” Europe and Asia, Alexander Dugin’s concept has supplemented this ideology with new methodologies and scholarly concepts. Thus, Eurasianism has acquired a global dimension and moved beyond the borders of the Eurasian continent. In this new understanding, “Eurasianism is a philosophy of multipolar globalization designed to unite all the societies and peoples of the earth in the construction of a unique and authentic world, every component of which would be organically derived from historical traditions and local cultures.11

Rather close to this formula is the opinion of another Russian scholar, Boris Martynov, who noted that newly emergent multipolarity cannot be of any other dimension than civilizational. Martynov emphasizes:

Inter-civilizational communication is already a reality of the modern world in which different economic and financial institutions, non-state structures, and religious, business, and public associations and, finally, individuals as representatives of their civilizational archetypes are increasingly active apart from states and alongside their lasting multi-profile and multilevel international contacts of various kinds…In addition, the advantage of a system of multipolar world order in view of the unipolar and bipolar ones lies in that it must be based on law to function. The correctness of this observation is obvious in the case of the unipolar world which operates on the basis of the ‘understandings’ of the main player in the global system. This is true for bipolarity as well, where each of the two ‘equally-responsible’ subjects strive to ensure themselves a ‘free hand’ in their zones of influence regardless of international law. However, law is needed for interaction between several major players wielding approximately comparable might and influence in order to guarantee a reasonable modus vivendi between them. This is especially true for such a complex system as civilizational multipolarity.12

However, far from all Russian scholars and diplomats have assigned a positive nature to emerging multipolarity. For example, the director of the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute for US and Canadian Studies, S.N. Rogov, has claimed that “the new polycentric system lacks common ‘rules of the game’, norms, and institutions which could effectively regulate interaction between centers of power, including both cooperation and rivalry.” Thus, in this view, the trend towards multipolarity generates “instability and unpredictability as to the evolution of the modern system of international relations and threatens to send the situation spinning out of control.”13 This claim is clearly based on the mondialist paradigm which insists on a strictly limited ideological standard.

Nonetheless, Russian efforts seem to generally be strong attempts at re-building a world order which respects all nations, states, peoples, and cultural-religious traditions.

____________
 

1 Russian-Chinese Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order, adopted in Moscow on 23 April 1997. Letter dated 15 May 1997 from the Permanent Representatives of China and the Russian Federation to the United Nations  addressed to the Secretary-General, Distr. GENERAL A/52/153, S/1997/384, 20 May 1997

3 Концепция внешней политики Российской Федерации. Москва. 28 июня 2000 г. // Системная история международных отношений в четырех томах 1918–2003 / Под редакцией А.Д. Богатурова. Т. 4. Документы. М., 2004. С. 538-539.

4 Евгений Примаков, Мир без сверхдержав, 2 сентября 2003 http://www.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_1560

5 Примаков Е. М. Мир после 11 сентября. М., 2002. С. 155.

6 Александр Бондарь. Евгений Примаков: «Мир будет многополярным», Столетие, 28.03.2008http://www.stoletie.ru/ekskliuziv/evgeni_primakov_mir_budet_mnogopolyarnim.htm

7 Никонов Я. И. Компаративный анализ подходов к организации финансирования стратегии инновационного развития национальных экономик за рубежом // Вестник Томского государственного университета. № 392, 2015. С. 145.

8 Примаков Е. М. Мысли вслух. — М.: Российская газета, 2011. С. 159–160.

9 Е.М. Примаков. Вызовы и альтернативы многополярного мира: роль России. М.: Издательство Московского университета, 2014.

10 Дугин А. Г. Евразийская миссия. Международное евразийское движение, М., 2005. С. 11.

11 Ibid, 33.

12 Мартынов, Борис. Многополярный или многоцивилизационный мир?// Международные процессы. Том 7. Номер 3 (21). Сентябрь–декабрь 2009. http://www.intertrends.ru/twenty-first.htm

13 Рогов С.М, Россия и США: Уроки истории и выводы на будущее // Россия и Америка в XXI веке, № 1, 2006 http://www.rusus.ru/?act=read&id=15