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) 



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. 


Time, History, and Katechon: Part I

Author: Vladimir Karpets
Translator: Yulian Orlov

Source: (8/11/2006)

Introduction by will begin publishing selected lectures by V. I Karpets on the history of political theories that were read by mister Karpets in one of Moscow’s universities. The lectures will be published on the basis of transcriptions and will thus reflect the peculiarities of conversational speech.

The subject of this course on the history of political and legal theories is the study of the doctrinal foundations of state and law in their historical development. Here we ask ourselves the following question: does this historical development exist at all, or are we faced with a kind of conditionality which, strictly speaking, is not all that important? In relation to this, some authors, particularly Aleksandr Dugin in his “Philosophy of Politics”, identify three fundamental historical paradigms. However, what is a paradigm? This is a word that we will encounter often and which actually forms the foundation of our course. This term was first used by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato and was employed to designate the invisible yet true reality that lies behind phenomena. The original Greek word is παραδειγμα. ‘Para’ is that which is located behind, beyond. For example, if someone wants to say that some kind of knowledge is beyond science, they call it ‘parascience’. As a rule, this last word is used by us in a negative sense (for example, to designate some kind of parapsychology or something else of that kind), while the word paradigm is used neither in a negative nor positive context, but rather in a totally neutral one; that is to say, a paradigm is that which lies behind phenomena. I repeat that this term was first introduced by Plato, and I will ask you to fix your attention on this, as we will return to Plato many times. Thus, we first meet Plato here, and it is probably telling that it is precisely he who is the first figure we encounter.

Thus, it is as if there exist three fundamental paradigms. The first is the traditionalist paradigm. It operates based on the idea that history is absolute degradation. In other words, history and, correspondingly, time have a negative character. Once, at a certain (and this is already a weighty question in and of itself) fixed or unfixed historical moment, absolute unity, absolute harmony existed; some traditions called it the golden age, others the heaven on earth or paradise; what is more, the most radical traditions place this state entirely beyond time. Further, an event occurs, as a result of which the intrusion of a negative moment, a defacement, corruption, degeneration is completed (this is called primordial sin in the Christian tradition), as a result of which the flow of historical time begins. Properly speaking, this is the beginning of history. In this paradigm, history begins with sin and corruption; consequently, the path of history is a descending one, a path of degradation. All of history is degradation. On the one hand, such a pattern first appears in the Indian tradition, which speaks of manvantaras, that is to say cycles of the expansion and contraction of the universe; within each manvantara there exist yugas, that is to say eras, and in this case we find ourselves at the end of the last yuga, after which everything must collapse and a new manvantara will begin; only spermatic logoi will be left and nothing else. All of this will repeat in the next manvantara.

In the Greek tradition, such a conception of history was first articulated by Hesiod, who identified a Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, and a final Iron Age. If we take the viewpoint of the Greek tradition, we also find ourselves at the end of the last age, the Age of Iron. Although history recurs endlessly, there is only degradation and degeneration until the final turn. Strictly speaking, there is no hope. Correspondingly, the development of state and law is a continuous degeneration from those higher forms, forms which best safeguarded their ties to that state which is beyond time and is, properly speaking, called the tradition, or, as one of the most famous representatives of the traditionalist approach, the French thinker René Guénon called it, the integral tradition. This is the traditionalist approach towards time. The second approach is radically opposed to it. This approach can be provisionally called the progressive view. The progressive approach is actually the one we encounter the most in the modern world. However, we must remember that it is only around 300 or 400 years old. That is to say, it is a very great innovation. It properly appears in the era of the so-called Enlightenment; first of all, this is the French Enlightenment of the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century; it had its strongest manifestation in the era of the so-called French Revolution, which is often called ‘the Great’ in the modern world, but which in a Traditionalist point of view appears as something entirely contrary. We are speaking here, of course, of the bourgeois revolution of 1789-1793. It was followed by another bourgeois revolution: the American Revolution.

The progressive approach was concretely formed in the era of the French and American bourgeois revolutions. Although the preconditions for it did exist earlier (including in ancient times), and we find the roots of this approach in ancient Israel, Greece, and Rome. Nonetheless, this approach was solidified in a finished and coherent form only in the 18th century. It was purely optimistic. History was seen as a movement from something highly negative towards some kind of bright perspectives that will happen somewhere in the future. A development of the progressive paradigm of history was the so-called formational approach, which became most widely spread in the 20th century. It is known, for example, that it was Marxist theory that first advanced the concept of formations (although we will further say that Marx is also not such a simple figure, although his apologists and critics would like to believe the contrary to be true). But this we will save for later: we will say that we are speaking of the kind of Marxism which we learnt about in all our school textbooks and for the time being limit ourselves to this variant. According to it, history is seen as a gradual improvement, as a progressive change of societal and economic formations from less to more perfect forms. Correspondingly, the primordial form of society transitions to a slave-owning form, the slave-owning form to a feudal form, the feudal form to a capitalist form, and the capitalist form to, well, the highest stage of socialism which is communism or vice versa, that is to say that socialism is the first stage of communism, but these are specific details. What is more, the history of all humanity in general independently of concrete civilisations is seen in this vein.

Modern liberal philosophy emerges from the very same principle. This is why in our days all Marxists have changed into liberals with such ease [1]. This is important to understand. We often hear today that communism forms one bloc and liberalism another. What is more, it is often said that Russia and, let’s say, China are communism, and that liberalism is everything that lies to the West of Russia, including the Ukraine. Actually, there is no opposition between communism and liberalism. There are only some disagreements between the communist and liberal parties in a certain period of Russia’s development; to be precise, in the 90’s. Now, by the way, there are less and less of these disagreements, and the communists and liberals practically form a unified oppositional bloc in modern Russia that actually opposes the historical Russia. However, these are questions of modern politics. We will not speak of them here. Paradigmatically speaking, the communist and liberal approaches are not different from each other at all. There is a very simple reason for this: because both of them assume a change of societal-economic formations; furthermore, these formations develop into better forms. The only difference is that Marxists call this better form communism and liberal post-history, as was done by, for example, Francis Fukuyama, an American of Japanese extraction whose book is called just that: “The End of History”. Or the famous Karl Popper or, for example, a very influential ideologue of modern globalism like World Bank president and simultaneously undoubted intellectual and erudite man Jacques Attali, who speaks of a “society of new nomads”.

In this case, that which communists call the ideal society in the face of communism is what those people [liberals – transl.] call the end of history, the post-industrial society, the open society, the global society, the society of nomads (the most original definition) and so on. Actually, the essence of these concepts is one and the same: development from the lower to the higher. Correspondingly, in the progressive paradigm the state is the absolute apparatus of violence (of which there should be less and less) and which should eventually make way for something new. In the communist perspective, this is societal self-rule, as is described by Lenin in his book “The State and Revolution”. In the liberal perspective, this is the open society, which in actual fact is not truly ruled by the state, but by transnational corporations (TNCs). In any case, there becomes less and less state as such in the liberal paradigm; however, (if we speak of the liberal paradigm), there are more and more rights. In the communist paradigm, the law dies off together with the state. However, these are actually but details.

Incidentally, when Stalin said in the ’30s that the path towards communism lied not through the dying off of the state but through its strengthening, he actually very decisively broke with both the liberal and communist paradigms and practically set out on a traditionalist path. We will speak of this repeatedly.

Finally, we come to the third paradigm of the development of history. It is a very interesting one. It has not always been examined and has often been ignored. Actually, it is implied in history ‘by itself’ as it were. In his “Philosophy of Politics”, Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin named this paradigm ‘permanentism’. This is a term he himself created, but it fairly accurately represents the essence of the matter. What does it mean? It means that nothing changes. As everything once was, so is it and shall it be. There exists a kind of reality that lies beyond (properly speaking there where paradigms are born), and there exists our manifested world in which essentially nothing changes. To what kind of philosophical teaching is this most of all related. To a teaching which we shall speak the most of in relation to the Middle Ages, although it was born in very deep antiquity. It is called hermeticism. This teaching is linked to the semi-legendary Hermes Trismegistus or Hermias the Thrice Greatest, a figure that is sometimes identified with the Egyptian Thoth, and is sometimes even seen as some kind of pre-Christian proto-image of the Christian Trinity. By the way, in ancient churches (including the Cathedral of the Annunciation in Moscow), the image of Hermes Trismegistus was placed in the number of the so-called external wise men, alongside that of Plato. In other words, Christianity (full-fledged, medieval Christianity) rejected neither the teachings of Plato nor those of Hermes Trismegistus.

Hermeticism was generally known in history mainly for its relationship with medieval alchemy; however, this is but one of its manifestations, and, generally speaking, hermeticism is a fairly universal philosophical apparatus that can also be applied to the historical process. For example, it is written in the semi-legendary Emerald Tablet (which is attributed to Hermes Trismegistus) that: “As above, so below. This is the Miracle of the One”. In other words, essentially nothing changes, all is one. What was in the beginning will be in the end. By the way, it is precisely to this paradigm that the so-called civilisational approach that we often speak is related. It is precisely the civilisational approach that we juxtapose with the formational approach, both in its liberal and Marxist forms.

The civilisational approach was developed in special detail in the 19th and 20th centuries by Oswald Spengler, N. Ya. Danilevsky [2], Toynbee, our Eurasianists etc. In a certain sense, elements of the civilizational approach can even be found with Marx, as strange as this may seem. To be more precise, he thought that his formational approach could basically not be applied to Russia at all. We are wont to forget this, but Marx thought that his theory had no bearing on Russia at all, for Russia was a totally different civilisation. Marx’s hanger-on Friedrich Engels said that not one revolution in Europe and in the entire world could not be victorious while the Russian state still existed. That is to say, the founders of Marxism saw Russia as the main obstacle to their own theory and praxis. The Soviet Union (which was not Marxist at all) was a traditional Russian state (of the Muscovite or even the Horde type) that was lightly covered in a Marxist costume. Not to mention the fact that the main work of such a highly influential American political scientist as Samuel Huntington (who, needless to say, serves the interests of his own country, just as Popper did) is called “Clash of Civilizations”. Therefore, we can find the civilisational approach to history not just in the East, but in the West as well. It is self-evident that emphases are generally rearranged. But this is not very important for us. What is the conclusion that we come to if we operate under the auspices of a permanentist or civilisational plan? We conclude that nothing changes. If, therefore, shall we say that, in the case of the West and Western civilisation, something like the Habeas Corpus Act [3] and the droit de seigneur [4] have the same meaning-giving fact as the modern Western society with its financial nomads. In other words, these are singular individuals. This is what the individual is (‘unable to be divided further’, ‘in-dividual’), that is to say, we are dealing with a kind of atoms, an atomic society.

By the way, the theory of the atomic society in its most rudimentary form appears very far back with Democritus. In this sense, even the ancient Greek polis with its democracy and, let’s say, medieval Europe with its Habeas Corpus and the modern Western society of nomads headed by TNCs are manifestations of one order. Nothing changes. Everything is the same: as above, so below, precisely as Hermes Trismegistus said. We can also say the same in relation to, for example, Russia. Properly speaking, although they might have been ideologically different, the Muscovite ‘draught’ government [5] and the Soviet Union were nonetheless barely any different on a structural level. As far as Russia in its present broken, crushed, and scattered condition is concerned, then we see a very clear resemblance to the era of princely strife as well as to an even earlier era. It is interesting to note, that everything even repeats on a terminological level. For example, the word “наезд” [“raid”, “incursion” – transl.] can be found in old Russian sources with the very same meaning it has today. China is another example. The emperor was an ‘unmoved mover’ in the ancient Chinese state, and the leaders of modern China are in an equal state of non-doing. In the memoirs of Mao Zedong’s personal doctor (now living in Canada), we find that he lived in a palace and changed his concubines after every lunar phase. Or take Deng Xiaoping, a man who did not fulfil any duties in his state yet was nonetheless the unmoved mover of the reforms that lifted China to the second place in the world economy and that will soon bring it to the first place. In this case, the Chinese leadership is no different from the Medieval or even ancient Chinese emperors. That is to say, civilisation remains the same: as above, so below.

Essentially, time does not exist for the permanentist approach. However, we also cannot absolutise permanentism and, consequently, hermeticism. Here is why. If in the traditionalist and progressive approaches history changes into something else in some way or another, the permanentist approach, for all its attractiveness, [implies] a transformation into malevolent infinity. This is something like the struldbruggs, the so-called immortals who want to die but can’t from the second part of Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”. Sadly, the permanentist approach (which as a scientific apparatus teaches us more than any other, especially when compared to the progressive approach) suffers from this fateful flaw. It houses a struldbrugg.

We will now continue. Why am I sketching out some of these historical paradigms for you at all? Well, in a certain sense, this course will differ quite strongly from what is written in your textbooks on the history of political and legal theories. We will basically attempt to refuse a chronological approach, and we will transition more and more to paradigmatic approaches. Therefore, if we, for example, discuss the Middle Ages, we will each time speak of the relationship between that period and, say, the 20th century. What is more, our course will have a far more paradigmatic than a chronological character, although elements of the chronological approach will undoubtedly remain.

Thus, what is history? To a great extent, history has a conditional character. This is the root of the appearance of all kinds of new chronologies, each of which in a certain sense describes a certain reality; however, these chronologies nonetheless hold more answers than questions. To be more precise, the answers that the creators of these new chronologies propose are, truthfully speaking, nonsense. It is as if they say that the official chronology that is now in existence should be replaced by a new one that they apparently developed by counting stars or something and which, if it is applied, would clarify everything. This is nonsense. However, the questions they raise are very interesting. In particularly, they objectively raised the question of historical cycles, cycles which so happen to entirely correspond with the permanentist approach. Why is it, for example, that the civilisation of Ancient Egypt (which they discuss a lot) typologically almost coincides with different eras in the history of the Ryurikovich dynasty? They think that this is because both civilisations are one and the same. Although the first part is true, they are not one and the same. These are totally different eras and totally different cultures; however, the very same paradigms manifest themselves within them. In other words, history is ontophany, that is to say, the manifestation, the revelation of being, which, naturally, reveals itself in a singular fashion. To come up with a new chronology for this is totally unnecessary, but it is necessary to understand, that as above, so below. This is the Miracle of the One. Thus, history (any history) does not demand answers from us, but questions. The ability to correctly pose a question means that you will receive an answer.

Generally speaking, from the perspective of the Christian worldview, the entry of Christ the Saviour, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, already marked the end of history. Why? Because the main event for which humanity existed, i.e. the Incarnation (later followed by the Resurrection of the Saviour) has taken place. Therefore, history as such, that is to say, as something detached and developing according to its own laws, could (from the Christian point of view) only exist in the unredeemed world, both equally in the pagan, manifestations sphere (this is the East and Hellenism) as well as the Judaic, Old Testament world. We really cannot examine concrete questions of a historical-religious (and actually theological) nature, but at certain points we will have to stop and examine them within the boundaries of our questions. Still, what type of worldview does Christianity belong to when considered within the framework of the duality that we discussed earlier? In other words, what actually is Christianity: a manifestationalist or a creationist worldview? Does it belong to the Eastern or Indo-European tradition, or does it nevertheless belong to the Judaic or (to use a now fashionable word) ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition?

On the one hand, Christianity recognises the Old Testeament with all consequences that entails, including the idea of the creation of the world from nothing. On the other hand, the question of the relationship between God and man is radically inconsistent with Old Testament Judaic [theses]. As Saint Athanasius the Great said, “[The Son of] God became man so that man might become God” [6]. This is impossible for something that has been created from nothing. The two fundamental ideas that lie at the foundation of Christianity absolutely do not correspond to the idea of a faceless, single God who is infinitely removed from man and creates an alien, lifeless world; these two ideas are the Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Saviour, the latter of which is even more unthinkable in the creationist consciousness. Finally, the third element that directly point to Christianity as a third way is the very idea of the Trinity, which has absolutely no resemblance neither to the ancient-Indian worldview with its metaphysics of principles, nor to Old Testament creationism.

So, what are we looking at here? In other words, within Christianity we see not just a manifestationalist picture, but a kind of supermanifestationalism, as not one of the Hellene or Aryan traditions go so far in their view of man as an element of the divine as to say that God Himself becomes man. What is more, he does not just become man, but also walks an earthly path, dies, and is resurrected. If we remember the manifestationalist (the Indian and Zoroastrian) worldview, we will necessarily remember that kings are generally speaking direct, including in a physical sense, descendants of the gods. Every man as such is god, and every man is god to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore, the divine is everywhere. As the modern Mari pagans say (who, in contrast to our ‘neopagans’ from the Literature Institute have kept their authentic tradition) “the forest is holy, the brook is holy, the raven is holy, the tree is holy” [7].

In the creationist worldview, everything is entirely reversed. Man is separated from the divine beginning by an utterly impenetrable wall. They [he and God – transl.] are entirely different things and there can be no contact at all between them. Within Christianity, we see an absolutely manifestationalist worldview, or even more: a supermanifestationalist worldview.

How can this be squared with the acceptance of the Old Testament? Here, a paradox rears its head. Within the Church and also within the world to the degree that it becomes part of the Church and becomes Christianised, the laws of manifestationalism and of the non-alien world reign, including, naturally, a most important political idea: the idea of the sacred kingdom. Simultaneously, in and over the non-Christian world (i.e. the world that is in sin, as the world was before the coming of Christ), Old Testament law holds sway, that is to say, creationist law. Thus, by simultaneously accepting creationism for the non-Christian world (the world without Christ) and manifestationalism (including the idea of the sacred kingdom) within the Church and the world (to the degree that the world is the Church), Christianity presents us with a third path, which is neither Hellenic manifestationalism nor Judaic creationism. I can recommend Dugin’s book “Metaphysics of the Gospel” on this subject. This is actually the source of the famous Christian postulate that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” [8]. “There is neither Jew nor Greek” does not relate to the ethnic affiliation of man (as modern liberal theology very frequently states, including many who call themselves Orthodox). It is related to man’s metaphysical status. “There is neither Jew nor Greek” means neither manifestationalism nor creationism, neither the dissolving of man in the world nor his extreme alienation from it. This is what this famous formula of the Apostle Paul actually means. It indicates a third way that is pointed out to us by the very Trinity of God, a structure that has been accepted in Christianity and is inconceivable both in the metaphysics of the manifestation of the absolute (i.e. in the ancient Aryan world) as well as the alienated creation of the world from some alienated ‘four-letter’ thing, as is the case in the ancient Judaic world. Above all else, this formula contains a metaphysical hint of the third way, the third essence of Christianity as such.

If Christianity indicates supermanifestationalist principles within itself, it correspondingly cannot fail to accept the idea of the sacred kingdom, which is fundamental for political theories of a manifestationalist character. But what kind of sacred kingdom is this? It is located both within and outside of the world. “My kingdom is not of this world” [9], – the Saviour says in the Gospels. This means that it is not related to the fallen world in which the laws of the Old Testament are in force. It is located within man himself, but, in a certain situation that we will speak of later, it can also be manifested within the world: in the form of the Orthodox Kingdom or Empire. The very nature of the Christian Church is distinguished and removed from the Old Testament church, thereby emphasising that Christianity should not be identified with the Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Islam.

In the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, it is said that the Christian priesthood is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. What does this mean? If we remember the Book of Genesis, before he meets the God of time (the ‘Four-Lettered’ One), Abraham makes a sacrifice to the king and priest of the Lord Most High who has a different name than the Four-Lettered One (El Elion) and also occupies a higher station than him. We are speaking here of Melchizedek, a priest-King. The very name Melkhi-tsedek means ‘Sacred King’ [10]. We have spoken about how Melchizedek is identical to the king of the world or Manu of the Indian and Aryan traditions. Thus, Melchizedek is not the lord of time, but the lord of eternity: he is king and priest in eternity. It is in the order of Melchizedek that Christ creates the Christian priesthood, which what is more brings a bloodless sacrifice in exactly the same way that Melchizedek did: as bread and wine. Thus, Christianity distinguishes itself of the Abrahamic tradition while essentially drawing closely to the ancient Aryan tradition, though it also surpasses this tradition.

Simultaneously, as Christ Himself incarnated within the Jewish people, Christianity forms as it were a link between the higher and the lower, between the most ancient, primordial, Hyperborean tradition and the second tradition, the Abrahamic, Atlantic, Western tradition. In other words, it is through Christ that a link between the metaphysical East and metaphysical West manifests itself. This is the source of the metaphysical relationship between law and anomie in the New Testament. I ask you to pay special attention to this. Anomie is the absence of the law. To translate it as ‘lawlessness’ is incorrect, because the word ‘lawlessness’ has a negative meaning, while anomie is entirely positive. Perhaps it could be translated as ‘supra-nomie’. Anomie is the absence of the law. In the epistle of the apostle Paul, it is said that “for the law having a shadow of good things to come” [11]; that is to say, the law has ended. This is a very important moment: with the resurrection of Christ, the law as such ended, it ceased to exist, it lost its meaning. On the other hand, the beneficial qualities of man (which are located outside of the law) are moved to the forefront: these are qualities such as peace, love, continence, and meekness, of which it is said that “against such there is no law”. That is to say, the absence of the law in the highest meaning of the word is accepted as the norm. Simultaneously, a highly paradoxical, shall we say, dialectic makes itself known. The thing is that the first Christians expected a very fast return of Christ (His Second Coming). However, because of reasons that are unknown to us, this did not occur in the first century of Christianity. Thus, Christianity was faced with the need to exist within this truly fallen world, a world that was seen either as subordinate to the Old Testament (the Judaic world) or as Hellene (pagan and polytheistic).

In this situation, the question of the nature of power in this world arises. That is to say, this is primarily the question of the nature of power in the Roman Empire, as Christianity appears within its boundaries. Christianity’s appearance within the Empire was covertly seen as a prefiguration of the future symphony of powers, of the future Christian empire. In other words, from the very beginning the Christian Church aspires to the Christianisation of [the] Empire. While not acknowledging the law in a Judaic sense, the first Christians simultaneously had an entirely different relationship to the laws of the Roman Empire. Properly speaking, the foundation of Christian political theory can be found in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, where the concept of the “what withholdeth” [12] (Greek “katechon”). What does this concept mean? The Apostle Paul speaks about how at the end of the world (the end of the world, the day and hour of which we cannot know and a description of which is given in the Apocalypse of saint John) will not come while the “what withholdeth” or katechon exists. As long as he is not removed from the centre, the end of the world will not come. However, when he is removed, the lawless one will appear [13]: that is to say, the one that the Church identifies with the antichrist. He is not above the law as Christ is, but explicitly “lawless”. This lawless one will appear in the world and manifest out of the mystery of lawlessness, which is already at work.

In this case, “lawlessness” is not interpreted as anomia in the Christian sense, but as lawlessness in a negative sense, as a corruption of human nature. We should not so much relate the word ‘corruption’ to this in its most commonly used sense, but, above all else, to the rule of this alienated principle, the alienation of man from God. We will return to this and discuss how the term lawlessness was interpreted in different eras. Lawlessness and anomie in a positive Christian sense are totally different things. Thus, the man of lawlessness will not appear while the what withholdeth exists. Properly speaking, the first Christians saw the Roman emperor as the what withholdeth (this has been recorded by Saint John Chrysostom). Why is this so? Because the lawless one must appear in the world as a man who copies and imitates Christ in every way and might even try to pass himself off as His descendant. Simultaneously, he must appear in the guise of a world king. The Apostle Paul says: “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God”. On the one hand, he is king of the world; on the other, he is the world hierarch of some kind of unified religion. The holy fathers presumed that he will appear in the earthly Jerusalem and come from one of the tribes of Israel, or, to be more precise, from the tribe of Dan. Therefore, as long as Roman power exists, or, as John Chrysostom put it, the “power of the strong Romans” exists, the man of lawlessness will not appear in the world. This is the source of the first Christians’ recognition of the Roman emperors, however cruel and harsh they may have been towards the Christians themselves.

This is an interesting problem. On the one hand, the Roman emperors subjected the Christians to all kinds of suffering; there have never been as much martyrs as during the Roman Empire. On the other hand, those very same emperors were seen by the Christians as the what withholdeth and were the subject of their prayers. Why is this so? Because the Roman emperor, whoever he may have been and whatever he may have done, is not the lawless one that must appear at the end times, he who will mark man with his own seal, thereby robbing man of his inner freedom. External freedom is of no importance at all to the Christian. However, the seal of the Antichrist that is mentioned in the Apocalypse primarily robs man of his internal freedom. That is to say (and using a modern expression), it zombifies man, and though the emperors may have put them to death, they did not rob Christians of their internal freedom. In other words, there is a difference here between external and internal freedom.

Thus, external freedom has no value at all to the Christian. This is very important. The first Christians acknowledged the Roman emperors and prayed for them because external freedoms and personal rights had no value at all to them, while the lawless one will rob man not of his external freedom; it is possible that external freedom will most likely flourish under him, and he might finally create a society of human rights. On the other hand, man will be robbed of his internal freedom during his rule. Sects are a component part of the modern world (‘New Age’). The consumer society is also a component part. The very principle of capital (capital on top of capital with the expropriation of capital) would also be a typical manifestation of lawlessness from the point of view of the first Christians, just like, for example, the banking system. The Church canon forbids the principle of the accumulation of capital from nothing, ex nihilo, which would also mean the alienation of capital from labour. In principle, the Church should live by the work of its hands. According to the Kormchaya Kniga [14], the priest should feed himself from the donations of his parishioners. Today, this is not the case. The clergy receives a salary, just like civil servants do; this system appeared in the times of Peter I. A lot is happening nowadays. We are today facing postmodernity, post-culture… In a certain sense, we could even say that we are today seeing post-Orthodoxy. We would most likely have to go and learn from the Muslims, at least on the issue of resisting the temptations of the modern world. But this is another question entirely.

So, the relationship of Christianity to the Roman state. The Roman state is that “what withholdeth”. The acceptance of the Roman state was to the Christians simultaneously the acceptance of Roman law and [Roman law], which is entirely natural. It is precisely for this reason that internal Church law was built by the Church Fathers on the basis of Roman law, and Church law was built from the very beginning according to the same principles as Roman law. This is a source of strength, but also of weakness; weakness in the face of the “spirit of this age”. In the early Christian community, there was no property at all. By this I mean the principle of equal (in this case spiritual) punishment for equal sins, the principle of justice: this is the principle of equitas, the principle of the formal equality of subjects within their acts etc. The strength of this system, however, is that within the Church itself, people were not treated differently according to their social or any other differences. If the emperor converted to Christianity and violated some kind of canons, he would be forced to undertake the same sort of penance as any other person. In a later era, our Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich (the Terrible) was banned from Communion until his very death for breaking canonical marital law; however, this did not prevent his being the recipient of royal honour as an “living image of the very King of Heaven” (saint Maximus the Greek) [15]. In this sense, the principle of equitas was taken by the Christians from Roman law precisely because they lived in the Roman Empire and, correspondingly, adopted a great deal from imperial law.

Together with Christianity and at times in close interaction with it, there existed another worldview which is commonly called Gnosticism. What is this movement? Gnosticism could be called negative creationism. Very frequently, the Gnostics themselves were members of the first Christian communities. Properly speaking, the entire history of early Christianity is the history of the separation of Orthodoxy (and this Greek word is translated precisely as православие [lit. ‘correct-belief’ – transl.]); that is to say, the separation of the correct-belief from Gnostic heresy. Thus, Gnosticism is negative creationism. What does this mean? This means that on the one hand, the world is seen as created; according to the Gnostics, however, it was created by some kind of negative principle or Demiurge. This Demiurge was identified by the Gnostics with the Four-Letter God of the Old Testament. The most famous Gnostic is Marcion (end of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd century), who proposed the wholesale removal of the Old Testament from Christian teachings. This is a very radical point of view, which was later rejected by the Church. It was rejected, mainly because it is impossible to describe the state of the fallen world without the Old Testament. Marcion, on the other hand, demanded the rejection of the Old Testament on the basis that it describes the creation of the world by the evil Demiurge. In other words, the Four-Letter God of the Old Testament was for the Gnostics strictly speaking nothing else but the adversary of the human race, i.e. Satan himself. To put it bluntly, according to the Gnostics, the world was created by Satan. Another Gnostic movement was called Ophitianism – serpent-worship. That is to say, if the world had been created by the evil Demiurge, then, correspondingly, all negative characters of the Old Testament (beginning with the serpent who appeared to Eve in Paradise and ending with the Cainites, Sodomites etc.) had (according to the Ophites) all been slandered, while it were exactly these images from the Old Testament that ‘represented’ the image of the God Most High (El Elion).

All ‘positive’ characters of the Old Testament, on the other hand, were the carriers of the spirit of this evil Demiurge. This is a very logical and coherent conclusion: if the world has been created by an evil principle, then, consequently, the entire meaning of the Old Testament had to be flipped, minuses had to be turned to plusses. On what basis? On the basis of the evil that rules the world. Something that is alive cannot exist without devouring another living being. The world is ruled by a total lie, and the primary carrier of this lie is the Old Testament. As a rule, Christ was acknowledged by the Ophites, but He was not seen as the Son of God (in that he was not the Son of the Old Testament God). According to the majority of the Gnostics, Christ never incarnated at all, and is nothing but a kind of spirit who can be known within oneself. That is to say, they generally rejected the incarnation of God and his appearance as a man, as man by himself is evil and God could not incarnate in evil. However, there are special pneumatics who can receive a spark from the God Most High, and this spark can save them from the fallen world. They entirely reject the world as such.

This is the most interesting conclusion: the so-called real world, the world within matter, is seen by the Gnostics as an evil as such; consequently, they consider the only task of man to be liberation from this evil. There are two paths to affect this: the first is absolute asceticism, i.e. entire asceticism up to the mortification of the flesh. Incidentally, some sects who claimed direct descent from the Gnostics (for example, the Medieval Albigensians [more commonly known in the West as Cathars – transl.] practiced the ritual mortification of the flesh, the so called endura, i.e. death by starvation. Thus, the first path is radical asceticism. We also knew such a movement in the 17th century: the “Kapitonovschchina” [16], which took place before the Raskol and which also included ritual self-mortification by hunger. In a sense, even the self-immolations of a few Old Believer confessions are also in a fashion related to these concepts. We could also include the Skoptsy. These examples all have one thing in common: the vivification of the Divine spark within oneself. The more the flesh is mortified, the more this Divine spark is vivified. It turns into a flame. Yes, yes, precisely like this: “One spark will start a flame” [17]. That is to say, the Gnostic turns into a totally different man. He is not resurrected in the Christian sense, he is transfigured without a resurrection, when he is still alive. This is ‘right-handed’ Gnosticism.

On the other hand, there also existed a ‘left-handed’ Gnosticism, something entirely opposite. It had the aim of passing through all stages of evil in order to finally vanquish it within oneself and definitively free the Divine spark. This path presumes self-liberation through the perpetration of all sins and crimes that exist. Examples of this path are also telling: we could point out Gilles de Rais (famously known as Bluebeard) as an example; at the very least, the influence of left-handed Gnosticism is clear here. That is to say, to pass through all kinds of evil, perversion, sadism or masochism, torture, and all else that is needed to finally free oneself. There are no guarantees of any kind here, because this is actually a desperate jump into nothingness. Because man dies anyway, he is doomed in any case to dwell in the lower worlds; therefore, there are no guarantees. The logic here is as such: get involved in a fight, and then see what is going to happen. The impossible is inevitable.

Something else is of interest here. From the point of view of political-legal theories, a very important concept is hidden in Gnosticism. If the world is the creation of the evil Demiurge, correspondingly, all worldly political and legal institutions are evil. This is clear. This primarily has a bearing on man’s political-legal institutions. All of them are evil. Correspondingly, it is the task of the Gnostics to re-create this world. In other words, the re-creation of the world presupposes what would later receive the name ‘permanent revolution’. This is the root of the idea of the permanent revolution, an idea that we find with Marx, Trotsky, and, properly speaking, in all revolutionary ideas of the 19th and 20th centuries. By the way, we also encounter it in occult Nazism. De-creation and re-creation. “We will destroy this world of violence / Down to the foundations, and then / We will build our new world. / He who was nothing will become everything!” [18] This is an entirely Gnostic idea. We are dealing with on the one hand a left-wing version of revolutionary ideas (communism), and on the other hand a right-wing version of revolutionary ideas (National-Socialism). This must be understood: National-Socialism has the same Gnostic roots as Communism. I ask you to pay special attention to this. Socialist and communist ideas have no relation to economic materialism. For them, economic materialism was simply a means to awaken this spark. All communist ideas primarily carry within themselves this sub-foundation. Properly speaking, the Gnostics were the first socialists and the first communists, and in a most radical form at that.

Of course, a pure Gnostic should not aspire to power. A pure Gnostic will destroy the world for the sake of its destruction. But here we find a lacuna. The human element that remained within them truly did lead to communities of these Gnostics to try and rule the world. Properly speaking, all manner of secret societies that are constantly active in history trace their roots to Gnosticism. [A question from the audience: “the Freemasons?”]. Of course, they too. What is more, there are two movements in Freemasonry. On the one hand, we have ‘irregular’ Freemasonry: this form is a raw descendant of Gnosticism. This is the so-called Egyptian Rite. On the other hand, we have the so-called regular Scottish Freemasonry. It aspires to a maximal conservation of existing institutions. In contrast to the Egyptian Rite, it has Protestant roots. The fact is that, that Freemasonry initially existed in a form that is different from its current one. It initially was a community of builders of Gothic cathedrals. Actually, it was purely pagan and Hermetical-alchemical. It followed Hermetic and alchemical ideas under the cover of Catholicism. This is the first consideration we have to consider. On the other hand, Biblical ideas start to enter Freemasonry in the 17th century, immediately resulting in the birth of two movements: the irregular, Gnostic group (this is the Egyptian Rite) and the so-called Scottish Rite, which aspires to the conservation of existing rituals. Therefore, Freemasonry is generally a fairly diverse system, although it ultimately is unified. That is to say, it contained both this irregular, revolutionary movement and an extremely conservative party. Properly speaking, Biblical ideas enter Freemasonry only in the 16th-17th centuries, and through England at that. Therefore, we must differentiate medieval Freemasonry from the phenomenon that we encounter today: they are two entirely different things. It appears that Medieval Freemasonry has bene entirely lost, although some seem to know of it; Fulcanelli, for instance [19]. But I digress.

Thus, early Christianity was formed in opposition to (and at times in interaction with) Gnosticism. Many Gnostic ideas entered the Christian canon in a softened form. However, the Christian canon itself was formed only when the Roman state itself became Christian. If the power of the Roman emperors was considered by the Christians to be indispensable even before this very same Empire converted to Christianity, and if the Christians marked off the Kingdom which is not of this world and, consequently, existed as a Christian community (outside of the state), then after the Edict of Milan of Emperor Constantine (272-337) and after the even later First Ecumenical Council, everything changes. To put it in a modern and purely political way, Christianity moves from a left-wing to a right-wing discourse. The same thing happened with Marxism, which changed when it transitioned from Lenin to Stalin, although this comparison is lacking in many ways. In this period of around 50 years, the empire still exists as a unified whole, with only the capital changing. Thus, after the Edict of Milan of 313, and later after the conversion of Constantine the Great himself to Christianity, the Empire enters the Church. The Christianisation of the Empire takes place. What are the reasons for this? There is a historical point of view, according to which Constantine realised that Christians already constituted the overwhelming majority of the Empire’s population, and there is no reason for an Empire to fight its own population. On the other hand, there are two other versions that describe the reasoning behind Constantine’s conversion.

The first version holds that Constantine fell severely ill and summoned a Jewish doctor, who told him that he could only be cured through the use of infant blood. Constantine gathered infants from over the entire empire and prepared all of them to be sacrificed. However, seeing the tears of their mothers, he rejected the cure. Having rejected it, he saw a cross and understood that he should convert to Christianity, and that the blood of infants symbolised communion with the holy Mysteries of Christ. After he converted to Christianity and partaken of the Blood and Body of Christ, he was healed. This is one version. It is primarily dominant in the Western Church and described in the Catholic Golden Legend.

The second version, which, by the way, does not contradict the first, is primarily dominant in the Eastern Church. It describes how Constantine saw a cross carrying the message in hoc signo vinces [in this sign you shall conquer] in the heavens during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a sign that pushed him towards converting to Christianity. However, it must be said that (at least, according to the Eastern version) Constantin was actually baptised only at the very end of his life, when he was on his deathbed.

Thus, we are here faced with a purely positivist historical point of view and two ecclesial ones, one Eastern, one Western. It is here that the most important political idea of Christianity as a legal, imperial discourse is born: the idea of the city of Rome as the guardian of the Christian faith. Later, the New Rome (Byzantium) and the Third Rome (Muscovite Rus) will spring forth from this idea. That is to say, Rome unites within itself imperial power and the Christian katechon. However, the city does not simply become katechonic. It becomes exclusively katechonic. As a result, as Christianity within the Church accepts a supermanifestationalist image (it also does this in relation to sacred power), so too does it treat empire and imperial power, creating such a high conception of imperial power that it is alien even to the ancient Persians with their sacred power of their kings, which was called khvarenah and referred to a special, visible royal grace. The Orthodox Emperor becomes the animated image of the Heavenly King Himself. From that point onward, the idea of empire and the idea of the Church have been indelibly linked to each other; separating them is impossible. Properly speaking, there is only one Empire, just as there is only one Church. This is the most important provision of the entire post-Constantine history of the Christian world. That is to say, the idea of Christianity presupposes the idea of empire and imperial power. If in the first Christian communities the idea of the worldly Kingdom and Divine Kingdom were separate from each other, in the Christian Empire (be that the First, Second or Third Rome) they are united. The idea of the sacred monarchy is lifted to heights that were never before seen, neither in India, nor in Persia, nor in China.

Additional notes:

[1]: Karpets makes a difficult to translate pun here. The verb used, перестроиться, shares the same root as the word perestroika, the reforms that saw many hard-line communists transform into liberals overnight.
[2]: Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822 – 1885) was a Russian sociologist and geopolitician. His most famous book, Russia and Europe, proposed a historiographical scheme that envisions history as a chain of civilisations that are born, live, and die, much like living organisms.
[3]: Habeas Corpus is a legal recourse that allows a prisoner or detainee to demand a court session to see if his or her detention is lawful.
[4]: The droit de seigneur [lord’s right], also known as the ius primae noctis [right of the first night], is a supposed right that allowed feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women, especially on their wedding nights. Historians dispute whether it actually existed.
[5]: The word ‘draught’ is a translation of the Russian tyaglo [тягло], a system of taxation and other duties that saw widespread use in Medieval Rus.
[6]: From his sermon “De incarnatione Verbi” (in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca 25 p. 192).
[7]: The Mari are a Finno-Ugric group living in the Volga River region. The Mari faith referred to by the author is based on the veneration of a pantheon of deities while recognising the dominant position of the Great God (Kugu Jumo). It has seen a revival after the fall of the Soviet Union.
[8]: Galatians 3:28. This and all further Bible quotations are drawn from the KJV.
[9]: John 18:36.
[10]: A more correct translation would be ‘king of righteousness’.
[11]: Hebrews 10:1.
[12]: 2 Thessalonians 2:6.
[13]: The translator has chosen to translate the word беззаконный as ‘lawless’ and беззаконие as ‘lawlessness’. The KJV uses the term iniquitous, which does indeed carry the sense ‘lawless’; however, as this sense is somewhat archaic and is mostly used in fixed expressions (e.g. ‘den of iniquity’), lawless and lawlessness have been chosen as more modern replacements.
[14]: The Kormchaya Kniga (Book of the Helmsman) is an Orthodox nomocanon (collection of Church law) that was adopted by all of the Slavic Orthodox Churches.
[15]: Saint Maximus the Greek (1475 – 1556) was a Greek monk, scholar, and public figure who became an active religious reformer in sixteenth century Russia. He eventually fell out of favour with both the tsar and the clergy and spent a large part of his life in exile in various monasteries.
[16]: Starets Kapiton (end of the sixteenth century – somewhere in the middle of the seventeenth century) was a monk who first became known as a critic of what he saw as decadence in Russian society. Later, he became drawn to the Old Believers and emerged as one of the fiercest opponents of the reforms of patriarch Nikon. Karpets mentions him here as Kapiton is often mentioned as the ideological originator of the Old Believers’ proclivity towards self-immolation; however, there is little to no evidence for this claim. In addition, he practiced an extremely strict form of asceticism which in a certain sense resembles that of the Cathars. 
[17]: This phrase is drawn from the poem “Струн вещих пламенные звуки” (“The fiery sounds of prophetic strings”) by Decembrist poet Aleksandr Odoevsky (1802-1839). It became one of the leading slogans of the Russian revolutionary movement.
[18]: These lines are from the Russian version of the Internationale (re-translation mine).
[19]: Fulcanelli (date of birth and date of death unknown) was a French alchemist and esoteric author whose precise identity is still hotly debated. He first rose to prominence in the 1920s with the publication of his work Le Mystère des Cathédrales (The Mystery of the Cathedrals, co-authored with his student Eugène Canseliet). Fulcanelli was a prominent figure in French esoteric circles until disappearing after World War II, although Canseliet claimed to have met his master one last time in 1953.

The British Crown Against Rus – Part V

Author: Vladimir Karpets

Translator: Yulian Orlov

Source: Zavtra 40 (933), 5 October 2011

It is precisely starting in the middle of the sixteenth century (on the eve of the creation of John Dee’s main designs, and later with his active participation as well) that British intelligence agencies began ‘working on Russia’. In 1553-1554, the British merchant Richard Chancellor, a confidant of the English court, appeared in Rus. He was able to acquaint himself with the Muscovite state and was even honoured with an audience with the young Ivan IV. The conclusion that the Chancellor drew on Russia was such: “If they knewe their strength no man were able to make match with them.” [1] As pointed out by A. Efremov, an historian specialising in the history of the British intelligence services: “Richard Chancellor appeared in Russia as a result of an unfolding geopolitical conflict of a religious-civilisational character between the intensively Protestantised England and the rest of the Christian world, primarily catholic, that then surrounded it…The analytical conclusions that were sent to London by him were essentially geopolitical. He especially emphasised that at the beginning of his reign, Ivan IV had already “eclipsed his ancestors in both power and virtue” (incidentally, other Englishmen gave analogous evaluations in their reports to London). Chancellor also paid close attention to the fact that Rus:

“has many enemies and is pacifying them. Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Livonia, Crimea, and the Nogay are terrified by the Russian name…Towards his subjects, he is surprisingly lenient and amiable. In a word, there are none in Europe more devoted to their sovereign than the Russians, who equally fear and love him. He is unceasingly ready to listen to complaints and help Ioann in whatever arises and resolve everything; he is not bored with affairs, nor does he engage in merrymaking, neither catching beasts nor music, but is engaged exclusively with two thoughts: how to serve God, and how to exterminate the enemies of Russia.” [3]

Chancellor spent eight months in Moscow. After his return to England, a special ‘trading’ company was founded, the main partners of which were members of the Most Honourable Privy Council [3]. During the thirty years of its existence, the company was unprofitable, and financed by the coffers of the monarch. The ‘special’ nature of its activities is clear to see.

Soon, events started occurring that remain mysterious to this day. These events have already received widespread publicity (see php? p=2822 [dead link – transl.]). After the Commission for Graves of the Ministry of Culture of the USSR opened the tombs of Ivan the Terrible, his sons (Ivan Ivanovich and Fyodor Ivanovich), as well as that of voivode [4] prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky in 1963, a terrible picture emerged. An excessively high concentration of one of the most poisonous metals (quicksilver) was found in the remains of Ivan IV the Terrible. What is more, the amount of quicksilver reached thirteen grams per tonne, whereas the amount of quicksilver in a normal human body is not more than five milligrams per tonne! This is a difference of 2600 percent. What is more, during the analysis, the fact that Ivan IV had been buried in a robe that had been richly embroidered with golden threads had not been taken into account. Gold, however, is a very strong absorber of quicksilver. Consequently, the true amount of quicksilver in the remains of the tsar should have been far higher. The remains of Ivan Ivanovich were also found to contain quicksilver of up to several grams per tonne, which is also absolutely abnormal. Finally, in the remains of the tsar’s younger son (Fyodor Ioannovich), no quicksilver was found! The simple collation of these facts leads us to a single conclusion: Ivan IV and his family were purposefully poisoned with quicksilver. These are the facts.

The first-born (Dmitry) of Ivan IV and Anastasia Zakharina (Romanova-Yuryeva) was born a healthy and normal child, but died of the common cold (he caught the disease during a pilgrimage he made with his father), which at that time not even royal physicians could not cure. No traces of quicksilver were found in his remains.

The second son of Ivan IV and Anastasia was Ivan, the very same son that was apparently killed by his own father in 1581 with crook (there is not even a hint of such a death in those historical documents that concern this period of the rule of Ivan), was born in 1554 when his father was only twenty-four years of age. He grew up to be a healthy and strong man. Based on evidence from documents and chronicles, it is very clear that the tsarevich ‘passed’ during four days of horrific suffering caused by a severe illness, which, in turn, was (as has already been proven in the twentieth century) caused by severe quicksilver poisoning. 0,18 grams of quicksilver are enough to end in a lethal result. Meanwhile, as has been indicated above, the amount of quicksilver that was found in the tsarevich’s remains was several tens of times higher than the minimum lethal dose! The myth about Ivan’s filicide was ‘invented’ by the papal legate and Jesuit Antonio Possevino, who had arrived in Moscow in 1581 to serve as an intermediary in the negotiations between the Russian tsar and the Polish king Stefan Bathory, who in turn had invaded Russian lands during the Livonian War. Before this, he had offered Ivan a royal and later imperial title from the pope in exchange for the organisation of a “crusade” against the Ottoman Empire and the “liberation of Constantinople”; the tsar refused both offers. We do not want an all universal state”, the Russian Tsar answered at the time, for which he received in return from Rome a dose of ritual slander that has not been repealed by neither the Church nor historians up until this day. Later, Possevino’s theory would be adopted by the ‘German oprichnik’ Henrich von Staden, who would subsequently go on to propose one of the first projects for the conquest of Muscovy [5]!

In 1560, tsaritsa Anastasiya passes away. What is more, at this juncture Ivan Vasilyevich himself had no doubts that she was poisoned. Poisonings with quicksilver (mercury chloride) have been known for a long time. For example, in the entire recorded history of Europe we find an ailment called ‘mad hatter disease’: the disease was widespread among haberdashers, who used lethal quicksilver compounds when preparing the then fashionable felt. The illness is now known as the ‘Minamata disease’, as it was first encountered in Japan as the result of mass quicksilver poisoning.

Soon after Chancellor, another envoy of London appeared at the height of the Livonian War in 1570: a German (or rather Dutchman) who had married an Englishwoman called Eliseus Bomelius (1530 – 1579). He would go on to become the Tsar’s royal surgeon and was a highly skilled poisoner.

The influence of the new chirurgeon and astrologer became practically limitless after Bomelius revealed to Ivan IV that he was under the influence of dark magic and that two of his wives had been killed by jealous courtiers and black mages (the attempt to ‘shift’ the blame on the Russian boyars is telling). According to several historians, it was due to the instigation of Bomelius that such prominent and respected men of that time as the princes Mikhail Vorotynsky, Nikita Odoevsky, and Petr Kurakhin [6], the boyar Mikhailo Morozov and his two sons and wife Evdokia, okolnichy Petr Zaitsev [7] and Grigory Sobakin, the Pskovian hegumen Kornely, and finally, the Novgorodian archbishop Leonid were all punished by the tsar.

What is more, Bomelius himself soon entered into an agreement with the Pskovian boyars who hated Ivan the Terrible and one night, having taking the gold he had acquired, fled from Moscow; however, after as little as a day, the physician was captured on the road to Pskov and taken to Moscow. After harsh torture during which the astrologer revealed all his accomplices, Bomelius was given the penalty of the death: the disgraced mage was first strung up on the rack, all his joints were turned inside out, and, finally, his legs were dislocated with his heels forward (the version given here has been created with the help of materials provided by S. Kozhushko. Source: “Mysteries of the Twentieth Century” no. 19, 2010).

“A geopolitical layer is present in the remaining folktales about Russian enmity towards Bomelius: as they hated him and were convinced that the evil German Bomelius had ingrained brutality in the Tsar through his magic, the Russian people crafted an explanation that the Germans (i.e. all foreigners) [8] apparently had found out through their scrying and magic that they would be utterly destroyed by the Russian Tsar. In order to prevent themselves from having to suffer such a fate, they sent one of their sorcerers to Rus” – A. B. Martirosyan, another historian of the activities of the British intelligence agencies in Russia, tells us. – “The actions of the young Tsar were an absolutely adequate reaction to the then sharply growing onslaught against Rus which came primarily from the Catholic West, which was searching for an overland route to the East, to India: in those days it was already known that it lied through Rus. It is not by chance that this onslaught, especially in the first period of the Rule of Ivan IV, met with deservedly fierce resistance from Muscovy, which, in addition, aspired to reacquire its historically legitimate exits to the Baltic Sea. In this arena of the harsh geopolitical confrontation of Catholicism and strongly growing Protestantism, London came out with its spies, mages, and poisoners in a highly cunning combination.” ( [dead link – transl.]).

To this very day, many questions surround the so-called ‘English courting’ of Tsar Ivan which is widely used to compromise the Tsar, as if he had initially courted the British queen and then called her a “simple broad” in a letter because she was “not autocratic” [9]. This is what A. B. Martirosyan says on the matter: “As he aspired to the development of Anglo-Russian cooperation, Ivan IV granted the Muscovy Company a monopolistic right to trade with the Russian state, as a result of which the British traders turned into absolute monopolists overnight. Later, the company received the right to toll-free trading, and in 1569 it even received the unique right to toll-free transit trading with Eastern countries via the Volga trade route! The Brits purposefully worked towards acquiring these privileges. For example, there is a letter dated to 1568 that was sent by the lord Burghley to the English resident ambassador in Moscow Randolf, in which the lord indicated the need to demand the expansion of privilege for English traders from the Russian government, especially that of independent trade with Persia. After all, the main task of the English was to reach the East in any possible way, while bypassing the control of Catholic countries…. However, the unrestrainable greed of the British led the Tsar to deprive the Company of all its privileges after one of his fits of brutality in 1570. That is to say, the British lost their privileges after only a year! In that time already, ‘special means’ prevailed to such a degree in the activities of British diplomacy that Moscow’s patience ran out. In cooperation with the dyaks [10] of the Ambassadorial Prikaz [11], the autocrat executed an interesting action of strategic influence: he sent the English queen Elizabeth a missive on 24 October 1570 in which he directly accused her of allowing her entourage to conduct the affairs of the British state… Actually, what kind of negotiations or unions can we speak of if Lord Burghley knew very well that his own agent was poisoning the Tsar and his relatives with catastrophic consequences for the Russian royal dynasty?!” Later, this missive would come to be interpreted as the hysterics of an offended husband, and this interpretation enters into all history textbooks… How else?

Translator’s notes:

[1]: Quotation from a partial online edition of Richard Chancellor’s The booke of the great and mighty Emperor of Russia, available at .

[2]: EIA was unable to track down the original source of this quotation in the above-cited accessible version of Richard Chancellor’s The Booke of the Great and Mighty Emperour of Muscovy. Karpets references the following dead link: See above. 

[3]: The Most Honourable Privy Council is a body of advisors to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. It consists mostly of senior politicians who advise the Sovereign on various legal issues. In the past, however, it was vastly more powerful and influential, being made up of various nobles. 

[4]: ‘Voivode’ is a Slavic term that denotes a high-ranking military leader. Its meaning is now dependent on the country in which the term is used. In West-Slavic use, it denoted a noble roughly equal to a duke. In Rus, the term eventually came to denote a noble who acted as a high-ranking official with civil and military powers.

[5]: Henrich von Staden (1542 – date of death unknown) was a German mercenary and maverick adventurer who joined the service of Ivan IV in 1578. His main occupation, however, was that of a spy for the Teutonic Order. The plans mentioned by Karpets are recommendations for a conquest of Rus that Staden sent to the kings of Poland and Sweden. He wrote one of the few eye-witness descriptions of the so-called oprichnina, which can be read here.  

[6]: Mikhail Vorotynsky (1516 or 1519 – 1573) was an outstanding military leader and the founder of the first Russian border service. Nikita Odoevsky (date of birth unknown – 1573) was another prominent military leader. Petr Kurakhin (date of birth unknown – 1575) was a voivode in service to Ivan IV.

[7]: An okolnichy (окольничий) was a high-ranking civil servant with either military or purely civil duties.

[8]: The general Slavic term for foreigner, ‘nemets’ (derived terms include Polish niemiec, Russian немец), literally means ‘mute one’. The term eventually came to be applied exclusively to Germans.

[9]: The term used here (‘autocratic’) is not meant to carry any pejorative connotations. Rather, Ivan IV is accusing Elizabeth of not being truly sovereign, with her power being depending on various third persons.

[10]: A dyak (дьяк) (derived from the Greek διάκονος, from whence English deacon) was a civil sergeant in charge of a prikaz in Muscovite Rus.

[11]: A prikaz (приказ) was a Muscovite governmental entity that is roughly equal to a ministry in power and importance.   

The British Crown Against Rus: Part IV

Author: Vladimir Karpets

Translator: Yulian Orlov

Source: Zavtra 39 (932), 28 September 2011 

The ‘era of great geographical discoveries’ was above all else the beginning of the ‘restoration of Atlantis’ for the British crown. “The New Atlantis”: it is precisely this name that was chosen by Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) for his work on the ideal island of Bensalem, which is ruled by the House of Solomon [1]. With the Abrahamic religions having formed in the East and the Mediterranean, the Atlantic tradition emerges in the West as the legacy of the Thuata de Dannan, a legacy located in the first instance within the framework of ‘grand geopolitics’ and even ‘transcendental geopolitics’ (an expression of Jean Parvulesco [2]). During the sixteenth century, when the New World had not yet been given the name America, these lands were often called Atlantis, especially in England. For example, the famous seafarer Adrian Gilbert was granted an official allowance in 1583 for the development and establishment of English ways in “the northern part of Atlantis, which is called the New World” [3].

The very name ‘New World’ is highly characteristic. The year 1492 was the end year of a computus [4] that had been created many centuries earlier. This event coincided with the seventh century “from the creation of the world” (if we are to take the Bible literally, as the Western tradition demanded at the time). This date was connected with the coming of apocalyptic events and the end of the world, as well as the manifestation of a “New Earth and New Heaven”. Earlier in 1453, the Byzantine Empire, considered to be the New Rome by Eastern Christianity and the last redoubt of the one true faith, had fallen after the Ferraro-Florentine Union with the Catholic West [5]. The grand prince of Moscow, Vasiliy the Second (the Dark) of the Ryurikovichi-Danilovichi line rejects the Union and enters the spiritual legacy of Byzantium. In the north-east, the Third and last ‘Rome’ begins, located strictly in the region of the heritage of Hyperborea.

The end of the world did not come. Rather, it arrived ‘prefiguratively’. The ‘New Earth and New Heaven’ did not ‘descend from the heavens’, but were rather discovered within the realm of earthly dimensions, strictly speaking, as a ‘grand parody’ (R. Guénon), the realm of which starts to quickly develop precisely at that very moment. We are here speaking purely of the reestablishment of a ‘New Atlantis’, the ‘empire of the Thuata de Dannan’ or the ‘empire of the Danites’, which opposes the ‘New Hyperborea’.

MIGIMO Professor N.A. Barabanov  [6] points out:

“A special symbolic rationale accompanied the process of the discovery of the new lands in the northernmost part of the New World, i.e. Greenland, Canada, and the islands between them. Here, many of the newly discovered islands evoked reminiscences of the legendary Ultima Thule of medieval myth, and therefore their acquisition acquired a special ideological meaning. The use of the symbolism of Thule in this region has been preserved to this day. Even today, the American military base in the extreme northwest of Greenland has the name Thule”.

Ultima Thule (‘extreme Thule’, ‘last Thule’) is the name of a fabled, ancient northern land in Virgil’s “Georgics” (I. 30) [7]. In the Greek language, the toponym of the ‘ultimate North’ is written with the letter theta and pronounced differently in different languages, both as Tule (Tula) and as Thule (Thula). Strabo provides information on Tule (Thule); he is followed by Arab authors in the Middle Ages. Al-Kindi (died 961/962) wrote about the enormous island of Tulia and a great city “at the northern end of the inhabited earth, near the North Pole.” There is a story in the Gothic Wars by Procopius of Caesarea (sixth century) that reads: “Now Thule is exceedingly large; for it is more than ten times greater than Britain. And it lies far distant from it toward the north. On this island the land is for the most part barren, but in the inhabited country thirteen very numerous nations are settled; and there are kings over each nation. In that place a very wonderful thing takes place each year. For the sun at the time of the summer solstice never sets for forty days, but appears constantly during this whole time above the earth. But not less than six months later, at about the time of the winter solstice, the sun is never seen on this island for forty days, but never-ending night envelops it…” [8] The most interesting here, however, is that the cosmographer Dimeshki in his explication of this information, stresses that the land of Tulia was inhabited by Slavs [9]. This echoes the information about the Isle of the Ruses provided by Arab travelers. In Russian medieval ‘Cosmographies’ and supplements to them, the territory of Russia was up until the eighteenth century depicted as an archipelago, the islands of which form a semicircle. In Karelian-Finnish runes, the Northern Land of Pohjola (the setting for the events of the Kalevala) has a second, more archaic name: Sariola [10]. The root of this name is clear. A reminiscence of the Hyperborean homeland also resounds in the name of one of the oldest cities of the Russian part of the East-European Plain [11].  

The matter at hand is the polar homeland itself. Rene Guénon gave a very stern warning on this subject: “On the other hand, the Atlantean Tula must be distinguished from the Hyperborean Tula, which latter represents the first and supreme centre for the entire current Manvantara and is the archetypal ‘sacred Isle’, situated, as we have seen, in a literally polar location. All the other ‘sacred isles’, although everywhere bearing names of equivalent meaning, are still only images of the original. This even applies to the spiritual centre of Atlantean tradition, which only governed a secondary historical cycle, subordinate to the Manvantara.” (Guénon R. “The King of the World”, translated by Yu. N. Stefanova, included in the book Guénon R. “Symbolism of the Cross”, M., 2004, p. 289) [12].

Here, the problem of the primary or secondary nature of the tradition makes itself very apparent. If the ‘Atlantic tradition’ was acknowledged as secondary by its bearers and its very separation as the ‘original sin’ of history, everything could have been different; however, that which is desired is not that which is real. The capture and substitution of the Russian island, and, consequently, of Rus (Kings) as well is the metapolitical foundation of Atlantism as such and, above all else, of the ‘British project’.

The formation of ‘neo-Atlantic’ ideology as such belongs to the famous ‘Elizabethan magus’ John Dee (1527 – 1608), an esotericist (he is said to have engaged in alchemical exercises; however, they were most likely theoretical, and he received his ‘powder’ from a certain Edward Kelley [13]), geographer and mathematician. Dee’s name is linked to the development of the idea that forms the foundation of later British colonial empires, the idea of the special mission of the New World, and also an attempt to unite magic with world politics. He is considered to be the creator of the British intelligence agency MI-5. It is interesting to note that Dee signed his secret messages to the queen with the pseudonym ‘007’. In turn, English intelligence agencies used the ‘Enochian language’ [14] that was ‘revealed to John Dee by angels’ in coded messages during World War II.

N. A. Barabanov [sic] points out: 

“John Dee was a long-time confidant of Wueen Elizabeth I. It is precisely to him that the appearance of the very term ‘British Empire’ and the development of the concept of an English right to colonial conquests and world domination belongs. He developed this idea between 1577 and 1578 in his treatises. Dee envisioned the term ‘empire’ as encompassing Britain and its colonies. He emphasised that the British Empire surpasses any monarchy on earth from the time of the creation of the world and could become a universal monarchy. This new, “non-Roman” empire (this point received special emphasis: the British Empire was supposed to be a counterweight to the ‘Roman inheritance’ of the continent, from the Orthodox Third and Second Rome to the Roman Catholic Holy Roman Empire) was called the “Green Land” by John Dee. The colour green is a key concept in alchemy. An alchemist who has begun the Great Work must necessarily leave for the Green Land, in order to find vitriol, the Stone of Philosophers (the beginning) through which the Philosopher’s Stone is acquired (the end). The “Green Land” of John Dee is a way of transforming the world towards the “New Atlantis”. It is a ‘hermetic brew of global history’. Dee openly juxtaposed the British Empire with both the Christian ideal of the ‘mystical universal city’ that unifies the entire world as well as the ‘cosmopolitan government’ that is meant to rule it. Thus, he simultaneously gave the British Empire a universal, global character. He also spoke in this regard of the concept of ‘world citizen’ and of cosmopolitism under the auspices of empire.”

John Dee’s template was later adopted by the Puritans as well as modern American Protestant fundamentalists.

The entrepreneur and politician Cecil Rhodes (1853 – 1902) directly continued John Dee’s ideas at the end of the 19th century. According to Rhodes, long-term global peace can only be maintained under the auspices of a global empire. Therefore, the goal of empire becomes the “foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity” [15]. The planned universal British Empire was declared by Rhodes to be the inheritor of the universal empires of the past: “it is in the interests of this country, and, as Mr. Lawley very neatly put it at Bulawayo, what was attempted by Alexander, Cambyses, and Napoleon, we practical people are going to finish.” In other words, the whole world must be united under one rule. The Macedonians, Persians, and French failed. We, British, will succeed [16].”

The symbolism of ‘Ultima Thule’ was projected by Rhodes onto the south, the other edge of the world. What’s more, the ‘Primordial’, ‘Aryan’ tradition was also used in its ‘Atlantic’ redaction by Rhodes at the end of the 19th century; he would go on to add to its ‘Middle Eastern’ paradigm in strict accordance with the earlier ‘Atlantic paradigm’. When Rhodes’ colonists set off to conquer future Rhodesia, their first fortified settlement beyond the boundaries of the white settlements was named Thula, reminding us of the legendary ‘Ultima Thule’ of North-European medieval myth: an island on the very edge of the world, lying on the edge of the otherworld. After the discovery of gold deposits in South Africa, a legend began to spread that claimed that those lands were the mysterious land of Ophir from which (according to the Bible) the Israelite king Solomon had brought gold for the decoration of the Temple in Jerusalem [17]. Here, Rhodes emphasised that it was he who was developing a “copy of King Solomon” [18]. 

The heirs of the Thuata de Dannan are singularly oriented towards the ‘secondary Thule’ of the Atlantic tradition, contrary to the primary, Hyperborean Thule.

Before us is the direct esotericism of the ‘North-Atlantic alliance’ versus the esotericism of the Northern Pole, of Rus.


Translator’s notes: 

[1]: The New Atlantis is available here.

[2]: Jean Parvulesco (1929 – 2010) was a French philosopher and author of Romanian extraction who wrote several geopolitical treatises, as well as a large number of novels with esoteric themes.

[3]: Adrian Gilbert (1539 – 1628) is a little-known seafarer and government official who was instrumental in the exploration of the northern areas of North America.

[4]: A computus is a (meaning ‘computation’ in Latin) is a calculation used to determine the date of Easter.

[5]: This Union attempted to bridge the Great Schism of 1054, with the result being that the Byzantine Orthodox Church as well as most other Orthodox Churches briefly entered into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Although the Union was later rejected, it did result in the formation of several Eastern Catholic Churches, creating sources of tension in the Orthodox world.

[6]: The professor in question is actually named Oleg Nikolaevich Barabanov. The article mentioned is available in Russian here.

[7]: “…or whether thou come as god of the infinite sea, and thy deity only be adored of sailors, to thee utmost Thule be tributary, thy hand Tethys purchase for her daughter with dower of all her waves…”. Translation drawn from The Georgics of Virgil translated from the Latin into English by J. W. Mackail Fellow of Balliol College Oxford (Boston 1904; The Riverside Press), p.8. The translation is available here.   

[8]: Translation drawn from the Loeb edition of Procopius’s History of the Wars: Books V and VI, translated by H. B. Dewing (New York 1919: G. P. Putnam’s Sons), p.417. The text is available here

[9]: Khems-ed-Din Abu Abdallah Mohammed ed-Dimeshki (date of birth and death unclear) was a medieval Arab cosmographer. His main cosmographical work is available in Arabic here.

[10]: The Kalevala is a compilation of Karelian and Finnish oral folklore and mythology. The work has for all intents and purposes become the national epic of the Finnish and Karelian peoples. The work can be found online here.

[11]: This is probably a reference to the Russian city of Tula. 

[12]: Translation drawn from René Guénon. The Lord of the World (Moorcote 1983; Coombe Springs Press) p.56.

[13]: Edward Kelley (1555 – 1597) was John Dee’s “skryer”, i.e., medium for conversing with angels. In addition to angelic rituals, Kelley worked extensively on alchemical operations. 

[14]: The ‘Enochian language’ was the language revealed to Edward Kelley and John Dee by angels in 1583.

[15]: From a will drafted by Rhodes in 1877. The full text is available here.

[16]: This quote is drawn from a speech given by Rhodes on September 17 1898 at Port Elizabeth in South Africa. The speech can be found in its entirety in Vindex (F. Verschoyle). Cecil Rhodes, His Political Life and Speeches 1881-1900 (London 1900: Chapman and Hall), pp.603-613 (for the quote see p.609), available online here. The ‘mr. Lawley’ mentioned is Arthur Lawley, sixth Baron Wenlock (1860 – 1932), a colonial administrator. The quote originates from a speech made by Lawley at the opening of the railway from Mafeking to Bulawayo in 1897. The original article also groups the three sentences that follow it with it, though these are absent from the speech itself. 

[17]: The following passages relate to Ophir: “And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon” (Kings 9:28) ; “Even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal…” (1 Chronicles 29:4); “And Huram sent him by the hands of his servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon.” (2 Chronicles 8:18); “And the servants also of Huram, and the servants of Solomon, which brought gold from Ophir, brought algum trees and precious stones.” (2 Chronicles 9:10). All quotations are drawn from the KJV.

[18]: The precise source of this quotation has not been discovered. 

The British Crown Against Rus – Part III

Author: Vladimir Karpets

Translator: Yulian Orlov

Zavtra no 38 (931), 21 September 2011

King Alfred (871 – 901) is seen as the greatest British monarch in the entire history of the isles. Some hold that it is precisely this historical person that inspired Tolkien to create Aragorn. At the foundation of his Doom Book lies Biblical law and the Doom Book in turn lies at the foundation of all future English, American, Australian etc. law, i.e. the system of Common Law. It is especially important to pay attention to the thirty-third codex of King Alfred (there are forty-eight provisions in this text in total that are directly based on the text of the Old Testament Book of Exodus): “You should not oppress wanderers and those who come from afar, for once you yourself were wanderers in the Egyptian land” [1]. “These words directly hint at the descent of the Anglo-Saxon tribe from the ancient Israelites. Such a declaration from the man who is practically the father of the English nation is worth quite a bit!” – states a Russian diplomat and specialist in international law who goes by the nickname “evolist” online [2].

One way or another, it is known that the tribe of Dan knew two branches: one northern and one southern. We will speak of the southern branch later. The northern branch had a fleet and busied itself with trade. Attempting to save itself from the Assyrians, the northern branch sailed to Ireland through the Mediterranean. It is identified with the Thuata de Dannan, an identification that, of course, appears to contradict the ‘Atlantic-Nordic’ theory, although both theories coincide on the level of ‘metahistory’ in a surprising way. One way or another, in those historical chronicles that have been found in Ireland, there are reports of a strong populace appearing on Irish territory that was called the Thuata de Dannan, the “tribe of Dan”. This people arrived on ships and drove away the settlements of the autochthonous Irish inhabitants… Part of the tribe of Dan moved to other regions from Ireland; to be more precise, it laid the foundations for the highest English government and aristocracy, a fact that British symbolism pays witness to. Symbols personifying Dan appear on the image of the royal crest of Great Britain. “This spirit of the tribe of Dan penetrated America along with the Anglo-Saxons. This is the spirit that rules that country to this day” [3], — writes T. V. Gracheva, head of the department of Russian and foreign languages of Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia.

According to various narratives, the Danites gradually “went underground, into the hills” (Irish sidhe, si), or, in other words, became part of the genetic inheritance of those families that carried Danite blood. It is they who became the forefathers of the druidic priesthood and those royal lines that carry a specific ‘serpentine’ inheritance and hold within themselves the archetype of the civilisation of the ‘sea’, which, we will repeat, is secondary in relation to the Hyperborean, continental civilisation. A syncretic (not a synthetic) link manifests itself through the Danites, i.e. a kind of ‘intermediation’ of two traditions: the Aryan (manifestationism) and Semitic (creationism) as well as the ‘building of civilisations’, with all the consequences that follow from it, including its alienation and degeneration. The “serpent by the way” of Dan is the “prince of the world”, with both its physical (gravity, causality) as well as social laws. In a certain sense, the tribe of Dan is also the intermediary for a certain compromise (‘covenant’, brith), including between the ‘monarchy’ and the ‘judges’.

According to the Jewish midrash, the mother of the ‘Mashiach’ must come from the tribe of Dan (Beresheit Rabba 49:9). Correspondingly, the Church Fathers univocally state that the Antichrist will be born from the tribe of Dan (of a “mortal woman and prostitute” from that tribe). Jacob’s prophecy concerning the snake is in fact juxtaposed with the enumeration of the one hundred forty-four thousand virgins from all the tribes of Israel with the stamp of God on their heads in the Book of Revelations (Rev. 7: 4) [4]; the tribe of Dan is entirely excluded from their ranks. From this the Holy Fathers drew the conclusion that the Antichrist will originate from the tribe of Dan. Saint Andreas of Caesarea writes: “This should be noted, as the tribe of Dan, since the Antichrist would be born from it, was not included with the rest (of the tribes), but instead of it that of Levi, as the priestly (tribe) of old which did not share in the division (of the land of Israel)” [5]. Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, speaking about the antichrist, notes, that: “And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says: “We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan…” (Jer. 8:16). This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse along with those which are saved.” (Rev. 7: 5-7) [6]. [7]

We can or cannot accept today’s widespread ideas on the direct descent of the ‘global elite’ from ‘snakes’, ‘nagas’ [8], or ‘reptiloids’ (the American [British – transl.] investigator David Icke is most famous for his theories on this subject). We will agree that we are speaking of a ‘totemic history’, and, correspondingly, of a battle between totems. The presence of a serpentine genotype in the human strain is confirmed by Orthodox patristic anthropology. When contemplating the mysteries of fallen human nature through eyes enlightened by the Spirit, they saw a “serpent that lies under the mind beneath the surface of the thoughts, and burrows into what we call the secret chambers and storehouses of the soul and murders thee…” [9].

The most important information here is the ‘effect on history’: first through the introduction of the ‘serpentine genotype’ in the strain of the ruling dynasties, and in the ‘global’ elite of the end times. It is possible (and, apparently, necessary) to reject the neospiritualist theories of Western conspiracy theorists (such as David Icke) on “alien reptiloids”, and rather speak of the ‘mental serpent’, the “dragon down in one’s own mind” [10] legitimately and from any point of view. On the subject of the royal lines, we are speaking of the ‘reptilisation’ of Vamsa Surya, the main subject of which is the very tribe of Dan. Actually, the ‘secondary nature of the tradition’ is ‘reptilisation’, the fall of man. This is the meaning of the ‘birth’ of the new, ‘Danite’ lines and dynasties. The Russian Orthodox researcher Nikolai Kozlov (Andrei Alekseevich Schchedrin [11]) offered an important hint as to the fate of the ‘northern branch’: “From the time of the wanderings in the desert, the standard of the tribe of Dan occupied a northernmost position, as was remarked by the historical holy writer: “The standard of the camp of Dan shall be on the north side by their armies” (Numbers 2:25). According to one historical hypothesis or hunch that is confirmed by the classical scientific silence that surrounds all more or less important…mysteries, one of the princes of the tribe of Dan was the ancestor of an ancient European royal dynasty and granted his name to those lands that lie in Northern Europe and Scandinavia, thus receiving the name Dania or Denmark, the land of Dan. It is thought, that the name of the legendary king Dan the Proud is also borne by the inhabitants of the land of Dania: the Danes. One of the descendants of Dan the Proud, Skjold Scefing, became the patriarch of the Scyldling line of Danish kings (Skjold meaning shield)…”

On the other hand, the southern branch of the tribe of Dan was taken captive by the Assyrians, as a result of which it settled around the Caspian Sea and in the Caucasus. Later, the southern Danites spread to the north and occupied the area around the Black Sea: these are the very same lands in which the Khazar Khaganate would later take shape. This subject is treated by T. V. Gracheva, who later indicates, that: “Thus, the tribe of Dan was at the source of the creation of the Khaganate; that is to say, Jews from that tribe who had abandoned the faith of their forefathers had become the leaders of the Khazars, even when this group still lived in tribal communities… The fact that the first wave of migration consisted of Danites also confirms the fact that the Khazars worshipped the serpent” [12]. The northern and southern branches were in a sense called (by whom is another question) to step on the road of future history.

Rus (and later Russia) is the direct heir of Hyperborea, the ‘land of kings’; Britain is the heir of Atlantis, the ‘land of the covenant (brith)’. There can be no coincidences in language: after all, it is, according to Martin Heidegger, the House of Being.

Translator’s notes:

[1]: translation mine; there are currently no complete translations of the Doom Book in modern English available.

[2]: evolist’s LiveJournal (in Russian) can be found here.

[3]: T. V. Gracheva: Невидимая Хазария : Алгоритмы геополитики и стратегии войн мировой закулисы (The Unseen Khazaria: The Algorithms of Geopolitics and The War Strategies of the Global Backroom) (Ryazan 2011: Zyorna-Slovo), p. 192.  

[4]: This and all further biblical quotations are drawn from the King James Version. “And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.”

[5]: Translation drawn from Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinoi; Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East part 2: Translation of the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea (Quebec 2008: Faculté de théologie et des sciences religieuses, Université Laval) p.91.

[6]: “Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. f the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.”

[7]: Translation drawn from The Writings of Irenaeus (Vol. II) (part of the Anti-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, edited by the Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, L.L.D.) (Edinburgh 1871: T. &. T. Clark), p. 137.

[8]: A naga is a supernatural being in Buddhism, Hinduism, and several other religions of Asia. They usually take the form of a great snake or a dragon.

[9]: Translation drawn from Fifty Spiritual Homilies of St. Macarius the Egyptian (translated by A. J. Mason, D.D. (New York 1921: The Macmillan Company) p.149. The text can be found here.

[10] This is most likely a reference to the myth of Saint George and the Dragon. The relevant Russian phrase used by Karpets literally translates as “the dragon below one’s own mind”, whereas modern English commentaries on the myth use the phrase “the dragon of the abyss.” 

[11]: Andrei Alekseevich Schchedrin (1954) is an Orthodox researcher and political activist. He was active in several monarchist organisations until eventually coming to lead a traditionalist oprichnik brotherhood from the village of Kaschcheevo.

[12]: Невидимая Хазария , p. 188.  

China and Multipolarity

Author: Leonid Savin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming book…


Contemporary Chinese political scientists derive their doctrine of multipolarity from the Cold War era, and in particular the five principles of peaceful coexistence which formed the basis of the 1954 treaty with India. These five principles are:

1.     Mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty;

2.     Non-aggression;

3.     Non-interference in internal affairs;

4.     Equality and mutual benefit;

5.     Peaceful coexistence.

China began actively participating in the development of the multipolar strategy under discussion today more than 30 years ago, for which there exists a specific Chinese term, duojihua – 多极化, meaning multipolarity or “multipolarism.”[1]

      In an article from early 1986 entitled “Prospects for the international situation”[2], Deng Xiaoping’s national security advisor, Huan Xiang, who also boasted experience in diplomatic service abroad and cooperation with Shanghai academic circles, indicated that insofar as the Cold War conflict had become relatively stable, the world’s superpowers were effectively losing the ability to control their own camps, hence the beginning of political multipolarity. The first step in this direction was the emergence of the strategic USSR-USA-China triangle following which, in the author’s opinion, a quintipolar world would appear including Japan and Europe.

         Two years before this article’s publication, Huan Xiang noted in 1984 that: “The old world order has already disintegrated and the new world order is now taking shape, but up to now it still has not yet completely formed.. U.S. domination of the Asia-Pacific will end … Japan knows what role it should take, but it still hesitates… China must go through a long period of hard work . . . 30 to 50 years time will make it truly powerful.”[3] Huan also pointed to what the confrontation between the USSR and USA was leading to: “The two largest military powers are weakening and declining . . . militarily they are developing in the direction of multipolarization . . . if the Star Wars plan develops, multipolarization could develop toward bipolarization, and could again return to bipolarization. If secondary ranked countries want to carry out a Star Wars plan, it will be very difficult. The position of those countries will immediately decline.[4]

         In January 1986, however, any uncertainty regarding the future structure of the world evaporated[5] and its transformation and transition acquired clear traits and stages. In Huan Xiang’s words: “Future international politics and economics are facing a new period.”[6] By 1986, Huan Xiang was no longer alone in his forecasts. Another author published an article in China’s National Defense University’s journal entitled “The development of global strategic multipolarity.”[7] After some time, multipolarity was already regarded as the trend of the 21st century.[8]

         It bears noting, however, that this concept of multipolarity eventually came to be met with opponents, albeit not immediately. In 1997, senior analyst for the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Yang Dazhou, published an article entitled “My opinion on the global structure after the Cold War” which subjected the traditional Chinese view on multipolarity to thorough, detailed criticism.[9] The article’s main arguments consisted of the following theses:

–     The United States will maintain its superpower status for at least three decades.

–     The United States will maintain its alliances with Japan and Germany.

–     In the next two to three decades, there will be no period of “uncertainty.”

–     There will be no extended transition period from this trend towards multipolarity.

–     There already exists a “pluralist” global structure of “one superpower and four powers.”

–     Only the United States is a genuine “pole” capable of resolving key issues in any region, as exemplified in the case of the Dayton Accords. “The United States plays a leading role which no other nation can replace…it is the only country which is a ‘pole.’”

–     China “does not possess sufficient qualification to be a ‘pole.’”

–     For more than 20 years, no other nations, including Third World countries, will become major powers capable of challenging the five strongest. Thus, the phrase which many analysts adhere two of “one super, the rest strong” is actually inappropriate.

–     It is unlikely that large local wars will break out between nations.

Of course, these theses drew criticism first and foremost from conservative Chinese circles, such as the military. The editor of the National Defense University’s journal, International Strategic Studies, subsequently decided that an article by General Huang Zhenji would be suitable as a response despite the fact that it was rather sharp in tone and “unusual” in style.[10] General Huang mentioned excerpts of Yang’s article without directly quoting it and confirmed the original point of view on each of these points:

–     The US’ decline is inevitable and underway.

–     The US’ global influence is already severely restricted.

–     Quintipolar multipolarity is inevitable, especially in terms of the growing tensions between the United States, Japan, and Germany (as was evidenced by fresh meetings of the highest level between the European Union and Asia which excluded the declining United States).

–     The emergence of the “Third World” has changed global politics and will contain the United States.

–     Local wars are certain even though “peace and development” will be the main trend in the “uncertain” transitional period of coming decades.

Here it is also necessary to note how the Chinese have understood the global political order of the past two centuries while taking into account the fact that the country was effectively a colony and under occupation until only the second half of the 20th century. China’s authorities believe that global politics is a system or “strategic pattern”, among which they distinguish five different pattern periods:

1.     The Vienna System: 1815-1870;

2.     The Transitional System marked by Germany and Italy’s unification and the Meiji reforms;

3.     The Versailles System: 1920-1945;

4.     The Yalta System: 1945-1989;

5.     Transition period…

As can be seen, such an approach shares common elements with Braudel and other authors’ concepts. However, there are some differences, namely, minor differentiations which allow us to draw conclusions on the different criteria for evaluating the global system that are peculiar to the Asian (non-Western) type of thinking.

By the end of the 1990’s, three approaches to future multipolarity had been developed in China. Xi Runchang from China’s Academy of Social Sciences who, like Yang Dazhou, said that there will be “one superpower and four strong powers”, suggested that this pattern represents the new global structure: “Currently there has already basically formed a new embryonic structure supported by the five powers . . . in the 21st century, this new structure will further form and be perfected.[11]

         Yan Xuetong from the Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Studies presented a second scenario known as the “theory of the completion of the main project of multipolarity.” Yan argues that the “The basic establishment of the great nations’ strategic relations in 1996 caused the post-Cold War transition from a bipolar structure to a one super many strong structure to be completed.[12]

          Song Baoxian and Yu Xiaoqiu’s works from the same institute suppose a third scenario closer to that envisioned by Huang Zhenji and the conservative camp in which “multipolarity is formed” and other countries besides the five strongest only become stronger. They argue that “the development of trends of multipolarity is accelerating” and “a new group of powers is arising” which will play “the role of restricting the five main powers” thus making the trend of multipolarity as the global structure more attractive and diverse.[13]

         In 1997, another senior analyst at the Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Studies, Li Zhongcheng, summated these three differing views on the future global structure put forth by the institute and Academy of Social Science’s analysts. Li does not criticize any of the authors, whose ideas he merely presents, but his own expressed views are evidently closer to the third purported scenario.[14]

         Yan Xuetong from the Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Studies became the one who genuinely attempted to develop an alternative approach to questions of multipolarity, as when he wrote: “The new international structure has some special characteristics, the most important of which is the replacement of ‘poles'(ji) by ‘units’ (yuan). The nature of ‘poles’ is long-term stable confrontation, but the nature of ‘units’ is that the dominant position of key countries is determined by the nature of specific affairs.”[15]

         These distinctions deviated from the conservative line. For example, a large part of Yang Dazhou’s article centered on challenging this point of view by means of the tactic of establishing and clarifying definitions for such key words and phrases as “pole”, “transition era”, “pluralization” (duoyuanhua), “multipolarization” (duojihua), “large nation” (daguo), and “power” (qiangguo). Dazhou defined a “pole” as something founded on the standards of the Cold War era when the only poles were the United States and Soviet Union. Accordingly, the “four strong powers” are not poles because “when compared to the Soviet Union, there still is a great distance.”[16]

         In a similar vein, in his argument against those who claimed that the world is in a transition era set to continue for an indefinite period of time, Yang argues that any transition is by definition not uncertain: “Some people believe that the post-Cold War transition period could continue for 20, even 30 years. This type of argument is not appropriate; a ‘transition period’ always has an ending time. Suppose the ‘transition period’ goes on for 20 or 30 years, then this itself already constitutes a new structure different from that of the Cold War period.”[17]

         Overall, Chinese analysts have argued that China should not be purely passive, but can and even should aid the inauguration of the multipolar trend and accelerate its tempo.

For example, China is purported to be in a position to help Europe become a pole. One Chinese author has claimed that the EU wants to play a more important international role as a “powerful, independent pole” in the unfolding multipolar world, and thus is “seeking to at the same time strengthen its ties with the world’s major powers”, hence the release of the important political document, “Building a Comprehensive Partnership with China” in March 1997. The Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Studies’ Feng Zhongping calls this “strategic partnership.” In Feng’s opinion, these new relations with China will “help the EU in its long quest to establish itself on the world stage and become and independent ‘pole’ in global affairs.” The basis for the EU possibly becoming such a “pole” is explained by “China’s status in the unfolding global balance of power.”[18]

         A similar argument was advanced by Shen Yihui, who claimed that the “EU should count on China’s support” because “the establishment of closer ties with China will allow Western Europe to play a greater role in international affairs.” Shen adds that China can not only help the EU gain authority in world affairs, but also that improved relations between China and the EU could help the latter in other problems.” In economic terms, he argues, “the Chinese market is needed to catalyze economic growth in Europe.” Even in the sphere of security, “China can be used to create a fortnight security zone around the EU.”[19]

         Subsequent years have shown that Beijing has been met with certain resistance despite the fact that China has partially penetrated Europe’s market. It should also be noted that current Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s predecessor, Jiang Zemin, highlighted the concept of multipolarity, economic globalization, and the development of science and technology as the fundamental global trends of the era.


[1] John Lee, “An Exceptional Obsession”, The American Interest,  May/June 2010,

[2] Huan Xiang, “Zhanwang 1986 nian guoji xingshi” (Prospects for the 1986 international situation), in Huan Xiang wenji (Beijing: Shijie zhishi chubanshe, 1994): 1291. Originally published in Liaowang, no. 1 (1986).

[3] Huan Xiang, “Yatai diqu xingshi he Mei-Su de zhengduo zhanlue” (The situation in the Asia-Pacific region and U.S.-Soviet rivalry strategy), in Huan Xiang wenji, 1115. This article originally appeared in Guoji zhanwang (International Outlook), no. 14 (1984).

[4] Huan Xiang, “Xin jishu geming dui junshi de yingxiang” (The influence of the new technological revolution on military affairs), in Huan Xiang wenji (The collected works of Huan Xiang)(Beijing: Shijie zhishi chubanshe, 1994), 2: 1263. This article was originally published in Liberation Army Daily, June 7 and June 14, 1985.

[5] It cannot be ruled out that this Chinese author’s opinion was influenced by the shift in the USSR’s political course. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev assumed the post of General Secretary of CPSU and subsequently launched Perestroika.

[6] Huan Xiang, “Wo guo ‘qiwu’ qijian mianlin guoji zhengzhi jingji huanjing de fenxi” (An analysis of the international political and economic environment that China is facing during its seventh five-year plan), in Huan Xiang wenji (Beijing: Shijie zhishi chubanshe, 1994): 1300.

[7] Gao Heng, “Shijie zhanlue geju zhengxiang duojihua fazhan” (Development of global strategic multipolarity), Guofang daxue xuebao (National Defense University Journal), no. 2 (1986): 32-33.

[8] Luo Renshi, “Strategic Structure, Contradictions and the New World Order,” International Strategic Studies 19, no.1 (March 1991): 1-6.

[9] Yang Dazhou, “Dui lengzhan hou shijie geju zhi wo jian”, Heping yu Fazhan (Peace and Development) 60, no. 2 (June 1997): 41-45.

[10] Huang Zhengji, “Shijie duojihua qushi buke kangju” (The inevitable trend toward multipolarity), Guoji zhanlue yanjiu (International Strategic Studies) 46, no. 4 (October 1997): 1-3.

[11] Xi Runchang, “Shijie zhengzhi xin geju de chuxing ji qi qianjing” (The embryonic form of the world’s new political structure and its prospects), Heping yu fazhan (Peace and Development), no. 1 (1997), cited in Li Zhongcheng, Kua shiji de shijie zhengzhi (Trans century world politics) (Beijing: Shishi chubanshe, 1997): 29.

[12] Yan Xuetong, “1996-1997 nian guoji xingshi yu Zhonguo duiwai guanxi baogao” (A report on the 1996-1997 international situation and China’s foreign relations), Zhanlue yu guanli (Strategy and Management), supplementary issue (1996-1997), cited in Li Zhongcheng, Kua shiji de shijie zhengzhi, 31.

[13] Song Baoxian and Yu Xiaoqiu, “Shijie duojihua qushi jishu fazhan” (The world’s multipolarity trend continues to develop), Renmin ribao (People’s Daily), December 28, 1994, cited in Li Zhongcheng, Kua shiji de shijie zhengzhi , 32.

[14] Wu Hua, Shen Weili, and Zhen Hongtao, Nan Ya zhi shi–Indu (The lion of South Asia–India) (Beijing: Shishi chubanshe, 1997): 2.

[15] Yan Xuetong, Zhongguo guojia liyi fenxi (Analysis of China’s national interests) (Tianjin: Tianjin renmin chubanshe, 1996): 55.

[16] Yang Dazhoug, “Dui lengzhan hou shijie geju zhi wo jian,” 43.

[17] Ibid, 42.

[18] Feng Zhongping, “An Analysis of the China Policy of the European Union,” Contemporary International Relations 8, no. 4 (April 1988): 1-6. Feng was Deputy Director of the Division for Western European Studies at CICIR.

[19] Shen Yihui, “Cross-Century European-Chinese Relations,” Liaowang, no. 14 (April 6, 1998): 40-41, in FBIS-CHI-98-114, April 24, 1998. For an additional article discussing improving Sino-EU relations see Wang Xingqiao, “A Positive Step Taken by the European Union to Promote Relations with China,” Beijing Xinhua Domestic Service, July 1, 1998, in FBIS-CHI-98-191, July 10, 1998.

Breaks and Ties

Author: Georges Vasilievich Florovsky

Translator: Yulian Orlov

Source: Exodus to the East: Forebodings and Events: an Affirmation of the Eurasians (Sofia 1921), accessible in Russian here. 

Why? saith the Lord of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.
Haggai 1:10.

Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin–; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
Exodus 32: 32. [1]

For many long years, ‘revolution’ has been the Russian ideal. The image of the ‘revolutionary’ has appeared to the social consciousness to be the highest kind of patriot who combines within himself eminence of intention, love for the people, the destitute, and the suffering, and a readiness towards oblational self-sacrifice on the altar of common happiness. However different the contents that different men put into these concepts may have been (from the monarchic to the anarchic), all versions have been similar to each other in one respect: in the faith that, be it through organised civil society, the good sense of the people, or by the selfless courage of ‘those dying for the great cause of love’, they had the strength to and, by way of exerting their will, they could break the ties of the social and political evil that had ensnared Russia and establish the highest and most perfect form of social-cultural life. In this faith in themselves, in the glorious essence of their inner being, in the true goodness of their internal constitution concurred all men, from inveterate Zimmerwaldians [2] to rabid reactionaries. They thought that it was necessary and sufficient to put on a mask and change into costume a l’européenne; others thought it enough to tear off the Western clothes they had so quickly put on, while yet others sought recourse in a restructuring of classes. There were debates about what the true people were; however, almost everyone was a ‘narodnik’ [3] deep down: all believed in the messianic calling of the entire people or some part of it. Gorky’s ‘prayer’ was close to them all to a greater or lesser degree: “…and I saw her master, the all-powerful, immortal people and I prayed: There shall be no God but thou, for thou art the one God, the creator of miracles.” [4]

It is in this sentiment that we entered and ‘accepted’ the war, placing it in the magnanimous scope of Utopian, ‘progressive’ humanism. Misanthropy and fratricide were seen under the mark of the “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people”; the mysterious contradictory nature of the task (buying and securing a thousand lives at the price of a thousand murders and a thousand deaths) was hidden with hypnotising words about this war being “the last”, a “war for peace”, for “universal disarmament, internal overcoming, the self-exhaustion of belligerence”.

The sharpness of the moral tearing that must be passed by all those who pick up the sword was softened by the transfer of pathos to the straightforwardness of formal duty to the fatherland and one’s tribesmen, to the good of humanity, and to civilisation. It was truly believed that “the cross and sword are one”, that for the revealing of the bestial elements of human life their enlightenment would magically arrive and that the war would be followed by the blessed time of “eternal peace”…  Men would make themselves perfect to such a degree that it would be possible to turn swords to plough-shares. It is for this alluring dream that men happily went off to kill and die…

In its [war’s] name, the ecstatic hymns of the “magnanimous and merciful” revolution sounded four years ago. When from beneath the ‘bloodless’ image, which was known from legend and dear from tradition, the demonic contours of the growing collapse started to brazenly make themselves manifest among the carbon-black and wandering wafts of incendiary catastrophe, when beneath the reddening smoke before our very eyes chaos was ”startled into action”, the uncomprehending societal mind started to speak of some form of errors or miscalculations, about prematurity, about tardiness, about the confusion of the idea, about the uncouthness of the masses, all the while not losing its faith in an easy and possible correction, and, as if it were seeking to defend itself, it concentrated its gaze on squabbles of daily life, on all kinds of crisis, from that of production to that of paper, all in order not to see the all-encompassing, terrible dash into bottomlessness, the rupture of body and soul.

There, where death and disease

Have been passed by the slashing gauge –
Disappear into space, disappear
Russia, my Russia… [5]

And Russia has disappeared… Not only has Russian “statehood” disappeared, not only our hereditary way of life: national unity has collapsed, all social fasteners have fallen away, and, as was the case with the Tower of Babylon of old, a mixing of the tongues has taken place within our consciousness. In the currents of this historical maelstrom has been drawn everything that Russia had become through the ages, everything She was when we first started loving Her, a “strange love” though it may have been.

Peering into the mouth of the “silent Russian sphinx”, which is covered with a wise smile, we suddenly, unexpectedly see the ghoulish image of an “enormous, disgusting beast, a-hundred maws and barking” [6], and, what is most horrifying, we recognise within it the concretion of our own, ancient, great-grandfathers’ hopes. The longer we stare at this terrible riddle, the clearer we feel that these old dreams have not yet lost their power over our souls as well, and that we still believe, or want to believe in a “successful conclusion”, in a “natural sequence of things”, in the creative power of lofty ideals.

In this great cataclysm, all fissures and crevices have opened, primordial breeds have been carried up the surface, the depths have been laid bare…  We have felt the bifurcation of the Russian national element… And we have seen Russia standing

at a crossroads,
neither daring to take up the sceptre of the Beast,
nor the light yoke of Christ [7]

And we have seen that we love Russia precisely for this two-facedness of hers, for her endlessness, in which two abysses, above and below, are joined. Atavistically enchanted by the straining of raging forces, we once again dream of strength and glory on an elemental scope… human strength and glory.

There is truth in the fact that the ‘disappeared’ Russia was stronger than the West, which persists until now; however, the truth of repudiation does not redeem the possible mendacity of affirmation. This is precisely the reverse of the pink optimism of the author of the “Theodicy” [8]:  they are all right in the fact of their affirmation and only err in their repudiations; only someone who believes in his omnipotence, in his inborn goodness, one for whom evil is an error and not a sin. Of course, no one ‘made’ the revolution, and no one is guilty of its horror and sorrow. It created itself, was irresistibly born as the result of the entire Russian historical process that preceded it. Everything in the revolution is irresistible, everything is marked with the seal of Judgement. However, what did it grow from: from the good, holy, eternal, sacred elemental forces of our people, from its ‘idea’, from the fact that “God thought about it in eternity”, or from a spiritual lie, a twisting that was put at the foundation of our historic existence by human will?… .

We will comprehend the past and become worthy of the future only when it does not become a sweet hope for us, but a duty, when hopes are reborn into a thirst for victory, when the thickened, almost apocalyptic atmosphere of our days pours streams of true religious pathos, of the ‘fear of God’ into our souls, when behind the collisions of finite human will with the blind occurrences of the ‘great Faceless Nothing’ we comprehend the Christian tragedy of internal bifurcation: I do not do the good that I wish to do, but the evil that I wish not to… When we understand that only

With the Lord Creator  
There is the eternal obliteration
of all earthly suffering…

We are not speaking of ‘repentance’. There has been a great deal of repentance in Russia, a very great deal, even to an excessive and exuberant degree. Repentance managed to become so habitual that it became a pose, a caricature, transforming into prideful self-deprecation, into the most exquisite and refined form of spiritual delusion [9].The computation and all-national confession of our own sins (as well as those of others at the same time) became not the laborious achievement of providential rebirth, but a stylised sentiment, and good deeds and worthy penitence were replaced by the over-exertion of a self-flagellating and self-comminating voice. We are now speaking not of the arithmetic of sin, but rather about the need to feel horror in the face of current events, feel the entire mystery of life that is splitting into two, to see through the reality of evil and temptation…  

“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?” [10]. This is the question Dostoevsky posed to himself, and he shuddered in agony as he did not understand, did not accept this harsh world…

However, it is not by the tears of one tortured child, but by the hands of tears and blood that the “fabric of human destiny”, the fabric of the fate of Russia is founded and created. It is now being forged by bloodied hands, there, in emptied spaces… For years upon years we have lived in hatred, rage, a desire for vengeance, a desire for victory and punishment. Some kill. Others die. All hate. There are even those who dare to call their hatred “sacred”, who dare to speak of the “sweetness of hating one’s homeland”, as in the old days [11] … All kill: some with words, some with looks, some with swords. There is no love in anyone. There is no exit, as there is no desire for repentance. We are suffering. We even cry, bitterly and inconsolably. However, our tears are still those of an offended child, not the tears of a man who has stood face to face with his ‘second death’. We are confidently capable of justifying our lowest means with a ‘higher’ goal: we still hope all too stubbornly that pride will melt away entirely. The downfall of our ‘geographic fatherland’ is hiding the horror of the dying of human souls from us…  It is not terrible that men die, but rather that they cease to be human. There is only one exit from this horror and fear. Our hearts should burn not only for our ‘Great Russia’, but above all else for the cleansing of the darkened Russian soul. It is not in prideful guesswork, nor in prophesies, nor in the enjoyment of a flowing forth of national forces, nor in the contemplation of the superhuman strength and power of elementary popular forces, but in repentance created by tears, burning prayer, and providential forgiveness from Above that will we acquire the right to believe, hope, prophesy, and call out.

Sophia, 31 March 1921


Translator’s notes:

[1]: all translations of Bible quotations are drawn from the King James Version.

[2]: a reference to the Zimmerwald conference, which was held in Switzerland from 5 to 8 September in 1915. It marked the start of a split between reformist socialists and revolutionary socialists in the Second Internationale.

[3]: although this term can be translated as ‘populist’, the meaning is slightly different and does not necessarily indicate a supporter of ‘populist’ policies; rather, it very broadly means ‘someone who plaсes special importance on the Russian people (narod) and wants to either change or reinforce the Russian state through it’, with different sub-meanings depending on the characteristics of individuals or political movements.

[4]: the translation of this quote has been drawn from Maxim Gorky: Confession: A Novel, translated by Rose Strunsky (New York 1916: Frederick A. Stokes Company Publishers), accessible here.

[5]: the quotation is from a poem named Ash by the well-known symbolist poet and author Andrei Bely (1880 – 1934). The poem can be found in Russian here.

[6]: a quotation from the famous opening epigraph of the Russian liberal author and social critic Aleksandr Radischchev’s (1749 – 1802) work A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.

[7]: this quotation is drawn from the poem Vengeance of the Sword (Месть мечная) by the symbolist poet and literary critic Vyacheslav Ivanov (1886 – 1949). The translation is mine. It can be found in Russian here.

[8]: the German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646 – 1716). The Theodicy is available in English here.

[9]: the term used here, прелесть (prelest) is usually translated as spiritual delusion. It is a theological term that indicates a type of spiritual delusion that involves demonic influence, usually manifesting itself sensorially (for example, a Christian in a state of prelest might think that he sees an apparition of Christ while he actually sees a demon) and in thought.

[10]: a quote by the nihilist materialist Ivan Karamazov from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov (1880). The translation has been drawn from Fyodor Dostoevsky; The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Constance Garnett (New York: The Lowell Press), p. 308; accessible here.

[11]: this is an infamous quote from the autobiographical work Apologia pro vita mea (Apology of My Life) by the Russian liberal political emigreé and author Vladimir Pecherin (1807 – 1885). The work can be found in Russian here.

The British Crown against Rus – Part II

Author: Vladimir Karpets

Translator: Yulian Orlov

Zavtra 36 (929), 7 September 2011

In the Orthodox Tradition, Jesus Christ (‘The King of the World and Saviour of our souls’) is called a ‘priest in the order of Melchizedek’. As the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, He also becomes a universal symbol (an archetype, to be more precise) of the Line of Kings. “The figure of the king symbolically depicts the figure of Christ, and thus acquires a kind of duality in its semantic content”, Aleksandr Ivanov writes in his work From Paganism to Christianity: On the Paths of the Last Austrasia: “On the one hand, the king is a part of the people. On the other hand, however, through the universality of his general imperial role, he ascends his own people and in a certain sense becomes a representative of the single proto-people that had not yet lost its link with the Creator in the entropic flow of being.”

The British Isles are located directly on the interstice northern polar world (although it has sunk and disappeared under the ice) and the Western oceanic world (even if it has disappeared under the waves). Two traditions: a continental, kingly one, and an Atlantic, priestly, judiciary one. From the very beginning, they have collided in that far-off land together with the surrounding islands, which together form, as it were, the Ocean’s bulwark against the Continent. On the basis of excavations, archaeology has come to the conclusion that the territory of Britain was settled by humans roughly between 10000 and 8000 b. C. The separation of the islands and the mainland (if we do not pay special attention to the myth of Atlantis) was (or coincided with) the beginning of the segregation of the “Atlantic tradition”. The ‘newcomers’ transition from a nomadic way of life to a settled one while the ‘Hyperboreans’ (who were initially settled) are forced to change their place of life (or ‘topogenesis’ [1]) only because of circumstances.

Beginning roughly from the fifth millennium B.C.  in a wide area ranging from modern Spain and Portugal to Bretagne, Ireland, England, Scotland, and Scandinavia, stone constructs (Newgrange in Ireland, Maeshowe in the Orkney Islands, and Brin-Kelly-Dee near Anglesey) that remain mysterious to us moderns begin to appear. Their distinguishing trait is an underground corridor, the ceiling, walls, and floors of which are covered with stone plates. This corridor leads into an underground cave upon which a burial mound has been built. Many megalithic stones (especially in Ireland) are decorated with drawings of an unknown meaning. In Martin Brennan’s book The Stars and the Stones, it is proven that several of these symbols are depicted with extreme precision in order for a ray of sunlight or moonlight to fall upon it at a certain moment of the year. Brennan also claims that the corridor leading into the subterranean chambers was partially oriented in such a way so that a ray of light could enter it at a certain day of the year. What happened in these structures?

Some years ago, it was thought to have been proven that the builders of the megaliths had moved to the North from a kind of Mediterranean “cradle of European civilisations”. However, recent studies have shown that the monuments on the European Atlantic coastline are significantly older than their apparent Mediterranean prototypes. Before our very eyes, theories that were earlier considered ‘exotic’ come to life, such as the hypothesis of J. Foster Forbes [2], an author who wrote several books on British history, among which is the book called The Unchronicled Past (1938), in which it said that “these stones were erected from the eight millennium B.C. onward; their builders were men from the West, or, to be more precise, the priests that had survived the catastrophe that struck Atlantis. They erected their grand constructs in order to establish and support social order.” The sacred construction works of the ‘aliens’ (newcomers) [3] took place on the sites of the Neolithic temples of the ‘autochthonous inhabitants’… In turn, the ‘aliens’ acquired the status of ‘deities’ and became the founders of the ruling dynasties as well as priests. For example, according to a legend found in the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth [4], the honour of the construction of Stonehenge belongs to the sorcerer Merlin. Despite common opinion, the site has nothing to do with the Celtic druids that appeared in Britain one and a half thousand years after its construction. The mythologems related to Arthur and Merlin have no direct relation to ‘Celticism’, as has been shown in particular by Laurence Gardner.

The Celts arrived in Britain about 600 B.C. According to all recent data, this group originated in the Mediterranean and Middle East. It is most likely that the invasion of the Celtic tribes was not a single moment at all, but rather had an extended character. Together with their language, the Celts brought their religion of druidism to Britain while still preserving many elements of the pre-Celtic mytho-religious constitution of the country. The druids (the Celtic priestly caste) served as a form of ‘connecting link’ between the various tribes. Their power was higher than that of any chieftain or king. The druidic calendar (like the calendar of the megalithic period) was founded on a combination of the lunar and solar cycles. The social structure of Celtic society was fundamentally theocratic and anti-monarchical, strongly reminiscent of the structure that is described in the Biblical Book of Judges.

The conquerors of Britain (the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) had continental origins. The king had sacred functions that were accorded to the clergy in the ‘Celtic-Atlantic’ worldview. The eldest continental tradition places ‘monarchy’ above the ‘clergy’ and accords the ‘king-konung’ sacred functions. The continental pantheon was headed by Odin (Wotan, Wodan), the guardian of warbands, the god of wisdom, the ‘supreme shaman’, and the patron of initiation: later tradition associates Odin with the origins of the various Germanic royal houses.

In a certain sense, we can say that according to the primordial, Hyperborean tradition, Monarchy stood higher than the ‘clergy’ (or, to be more precise, that it encompasses the ‘clergy’). ‘Atlantism’, on the other hand, places the ‘Clergy’ (or ‘priests’) higher than ‘Monarchy’. A special role in the ‘Atlantic tradition’ is accorded to judicial power.  As far as the concrete question that we are examining is concerned, two mutually exclusive traditions lie at the foundation of ‘British identity’: the Atlantic (the initial tradition in Britain, but secondary in the larger picture) and the Continental (‘Hyperborean’), which is the general primordial tradition, but secondary for Britain.

The presence of these mutually exclusive traditions is the root of the fundamental duality of the British monarchy: on the one hand, it is indeed a monarchy comparable to its continental brethren; on the other, it is something totally different.

Departing from all that has been said, we must make mention of one important piece of information: René Guénon points out a most important circumstance: the ‘Jewish tradition’ (and, consequently, the ‘Abrahamic religions’) are the most important component of ‘Atlantism’:

“Since this last [the Atlantic tradition – transl.], on the other hand, is located in a region that corresponds to the evening in the diurnal cycle, it must be regarded as belonging to one of the last divisions of the cycle of present terrestrial humanity and therefore as relatively recent… Besides, just as the autumn of the year corresponds to evening in the day, one can see a direct allusion to the Atlantean world in the fact that the Hebraic tradition (whose name moreover betrays its Western origin) indicates that the world was created at the autumn equinox… And it seems also that the biblical deluge corresponds directly to the cataclysm in which Atlantis disappeared…  But what we wish to say is that, although the Atlantean cycle was taken as a foundation in the Hebrew tradition, it seems that the transition was either made by the mediation of the Egyptians – which at least has nothing improbable about it – or by altogether different means. If we make this last reservation, it is because it seems particularly difficult to determine how, after the disappearance of Atlantis, the current coming from the West was joined with another current coming from the North proceeding directly from the Primordial Tradition…” [5].

Actually, even the Bible itself indicates the ‘secondary nature’ of the ‘Abrahamic tradition’ several times, most importantly when the text speaks about the blessing Abraham receives from Melchizedek (Gen. 14: 18-20). The apostle Saint Paul indicates this in an entirely unambiguous fashion:

“1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better” (Hebr., 7: 1–7) [6].

At the foundation of the ‘second tradition’ (the Atlanto-Abrahamic, the beneficiary of the ‘blessing of Melchizedek’ for a certain historical cycle) lies not the cyclical, calendarian  holism of death and Rebirth, but rather a “radically innovative mission” as Dugin calls it, in light of which the “theme of monarchy is combined with the subject of sin” [7].We are speaking of the relations of the “covenant” i.e., “agreement” (brith), a “contract” in a purely judicial (even ‘notarial’) sense. Therefore, we are dealing with a special judicial sacrality in which the relations between cause and effect are regulated not by unity, but by an ‘agreement’. This is not purely characteristic of ancient Israel, but through it also for the entirety of Western civilisation, for which the category of law as such is a form of religion.

The interaction between the Atlantic tradition and its most important component (the Mediterranean (Semitic) traditions) according to various hypotheses manifested through one of the most important of the ‘tribes of Israel’: the tribe of Dan. According to Jacob, “Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel. Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward” (Gen. 49:16–17).

The very word dan means ‘judge’ in Biblical Hebrew, and all the main historical events related to the tribe of Dan take place in the Book of Judges, the very book that is juxtaposed with the Books of Kings (which to Israel are secondary and in a sense incidental, in contrast to Hyperborea and the East). In this sense, the Hebrew (‘hierarchic’, i.e. ‘priestly’) tradition and druidism essentially coincide up to such a point, that today as well precisely this union, or, to be more precise, amalgamation, forms the foundation of the entire ‘national idea’ of both England and the US. As far back as 1840, J. Wilson published the book Our Israelitish Origin, and many of his ideas would go on to (envisioned in an, of course, Protestant light, ‘liberated’ from the ‘pagan’, ‘pantheistic’ sides of druidism) form the foundations of so-called ‘dispensationalism’, which, in turn, would form the foundation for the ideology of the modern American ‘neoconservatives’ [8].

“As has happened with the other lost tribes, a not insignificant number of speculations about the fate of the descendants of Dan has appeared” — an entirely official source reads — There is a multitude of versions (cursive ours. — V. K.) that frequently seek evidence in linguistic similarities that connect the Danites with the Danes (cursive ours. — V. K.), Koreans, Japanese, or even American Indian tribes… (Information drawn from “Drevo: The Open Orthodox Encyclopaedia” – author).

Theories purporting to hold information about the “Koreans, Japanese, or even American Indian tribes” have, of course, a purely exotic character. However, the spread of the Danites through northern Europe is a fact that is openly acknowledged by almost all European and American historiography. In addition, the Old Testament places the tribe of Dan in the north (Numbers 2:25) [9]. In places, the Bible ‘lets slip’ that the Danites possessed maritime lands (Judges 5:17) [10] and had no inheritance among the tribes of Israel (Judges 18:1) [11]. Researchers connect this ancient race to the Atlanteans that spread over the entire globe.


Translator’s notes:

[1]: The Russian term used here (месторазвитие) denotes a fundamental Eurasianist concept that encompasses the relation between a people and the space it inhabits and includes not only the physical characteristics of a space, but also its cultural and historic traits. The term is usually translated as “place-development” or “topogenesis.” 

[2]: John Foster Forbes (1889 – 1958) was a British historian and esotericist who wrote four books on the ancient and paranormal history of the British Isles. He was a member of the Order of the Cross, a mystical fellowship. The influence of several members of the order drove Forbes to reach his eclectic range of subject matter that combines research on psychic phenomena, Atlantis, and pre-Roman antiquities, with UFOs becoming an additional subject of his work in the 1950s.  

[3]: Karpets puns on the terms алиен (derived from the English ‘alien’ with the meaning of ‘extra-terrestrial visitor’) and пришелец (which means ‘alien’ in the broader sense of ‘person from a foreign land’, as well as carrying the meaning of ‘newcomer’). A case could be made for translating the sentence as ‘the construction works of the ‘aliens’ (aliens)’, but, as the pun does not carry over into English well, a choice has been made in favour of translating пришельцы as ‘newcomers’.  

[4]: Geoffrey of Monmouth (c. 1095 – c. 1155) was an English cleric and chronicler. His History of the Kings of Britain attempted to forge a connection between the legendary Trojan hero Aeneas, King Arthur, and the then ruling British monarchs. Although the book was extremely influential in the Middle Ages and early modern period, modern historians see Monmouth’s work as a folk history with no basis in historical fact.

[5]: The translation of these quotes by Guénon has been drawn from pp. 24 to 26 of Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles (Sophia Perennis: Hillsdale NY 2004).

[6]: All quotations from the bible are drawn from the King James Version.

[7]: A. G. Dugin. Filosofiia politiki (Arktogeya: Moscow 2004), p. 207.

[8]: John Wilson (1799 – 1870) was a historian and one of the founders of the theory of British Israelism. His main work, Our Israelitish Origin: Lectures on Ancient Israel, and the Israelitish Origin of the Modern Nations of Europe (1840) is available here.  

[9]: “The standard of the camp of Dan shall be on the north side by their armies: and the captain of the children of Dan shall be Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai.”

[10]: “Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.”

[11]: “In those days there was no king in Israel: and in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel.”

Turan: The Key to Understanding the Russian Logos

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

From Ekspertiza Dugina #17. (The following is a partial transcript of Alexander Dugin’s video talk on his recent new Noomachy: Wars of the Mind volume: The Logos of Turan: The Indo-European Vertical Ideology (Moscow, 2017). 

The task of describing Turanian civilization in the recent volume of Noomakhia was inseparable from the fact that Turan is gone. The book was therefore a reconstruction of a past society, an archaeological volume, in which Turanian civilization had to be restored bit by bit on the basis of archaeological research, linguistic analysis, what we know about ethnology and ethnography, and essentially artificial methods.

A few Turanian peoples can be named. For example, the Ossetians are the last heirs of the Sarmatians, there are the various Pashtun tribes, and the direct descendants of the Indo-European nomads in the Great Steppe. There are also descendants in Nuristan, the Kalash in Pakistan and Afghanistan, enclaves of direct Turanian cultures and Indo-Europeans nomadic tribes. But, of course, this is largely a conditional reconstruction.

What is the importance of Turan? The very concept of Turan is sometimes misinterpreted. We know it from Suhrawardi and Shahnameh, which speaks of a confrontation between Iran and Turan. By Iran Shahnameh meant settled Iranian civilization, whereas by Turan was understood nomadic civilization.

Ferdowsi wrote this in a period when the Turkic peoples had already for several centuries largely taken over the role of nomads. Hence the impression that Turan is related to the Turks, ( [the names of] which are of the same or similar root), and as follows, the confrontation between Turan and Iran was between the Turkic and the Indo-European, particularly the Iranian world. But this is not true etymologically or historically, because Ferdowsi took the term Turan from the Avesta, from the oldest layers of pre-Islamic culture where this term existed since time immemorial, when there were still no Turks on the expanses of Eurasia and the Eurasian steppes.

When we begin to consider the term, this Indo-European term, it meant none other than “people.” It is very similar to the Lithuanian concept of Tauta (“nation” or “people”) and Deutschen and Teutonen. In fact, this [Turan] was the name of the very same ancestors of the Indo-Europeans, the very same Iranians, only the nomadic ones, who lived on the territory of the Great Eurasian Steppes. Some of them moved to Persia, closer to Elam, to Media, where they settled and came to be called Iran. Those who continued to live under the same conditions came to be called Turanians. In Iranian civilization, Turan is understood as the realm of the nomadic Iranians, whereas Iran is the area of the settled Iranians.

Thus immediately arises a completely different vision of Turan which has nothing to do with the Turks. If we look closely at where they came from and who the Iranian nomadic tribes in Eurasia were, then it turns out that they were always there – precisely in the Eurasian steppes. Regardless of whichever archaeological hypothesis we accept – that is, regardless of whether the Indo-Europeans originated closer to the Black Sea, the Azov Sea, the Caspian Sea, or in the Southern Urals – in any case we are dealing with the space of Turan, the space of the Great Eurasian Steppe.

The Turanian world was in all actuality represented by none other than the warlike nomadic tribes who domesticated the horse, built chariots, and began to use the wheel, who boasted colossal militancy, and began to spread across the whole Eurasian mainland, going all the way to the West, where their descendants became the Celts, Germans, Italic peoples, the Illyrians, Thracians, and to Greece (as the ancestors of the Hellenes), to Anatolia (one of the first Indo-European tribes, where they laid the basis for Serbian civilization). The Slavs and Balts are bearers of the Turanic element, because these are the same Indo-European peoples who moved together with the Kurgan culture, according to Gimbutas, to the West, at some point settling on different territories. There are the Iranians and Indians as well.

This Turanian world is the key, ancestral homeland and proto-matrix of all of Indo-European civilization.

By what means were they able to extend their influence to practically the whole of Eurasia? The wheel. We can see how this process of the Indo-Europeans’ expansion continued into the colonial period. Even today’s cars are part of the Turanian worldview, the new chariots. This is the line of the expansion of chariots, the expansion of martial style, the Indo-European languages, and the Indo-European political system – which is patriarchal, masculine, and androcratic.

Androcracy is the rule of men. The power of androcratic societies created the historical-political landscape of nearly all of Eurasia, with the exception of the Chinese, Southeast Asia, and perhaps some of the Semitic regions of the Middle East. Palestine was once inhabited by the Hittites, the chariots of the Hurrians, perhaps the Indo-Aryans, and the Mittani went to Egypt – hence the appearance of the chariot in Egypt.

In other words, Turan itself is a kind of paradigm. It is Indo-European nomadism, which most likely spread from the Southern Urals. I think that this is the most accurate hypothesis.

Later this initiative of the Indo-European, patriarchal, androcratic societies was taken on by other peoples, such as the Huns, Turks, and Mongols. And it was then that the space of Turan was brought a very similar nomadic culture by other – non-Indo-European and post-Indo-European – ethnoi.

If we put this all together, then we see a colossal picture of all Indo-European societies, their source model, and their differences, which are relative to degree of remoteness from the Indo-European homeland, which was the Turanian homeland. When the Indo-European peoples moved away from this homeland and mixed with more matriarchal, agricultural societies, they created a mixed type of culture. In the final analysis, Turan thus acquires an entirely different significance, another dimension. If we are not indifferent to our roots, then this Indo-European Turan, as the homeland of Indo-European cultures, is in my opinion an extremely important element for understanding ourselves, because our country is the territory of Turan.

After many centuries and millennia, after Turan had originally been the territory of the Indo-Europeans, after the Indo-European peoples had passed their initiatives to other non-Indo-European peoples, such as the Altaic and partially the Uralic, the heritage of Turan once again returned to Russia. We, the Russian Indo-European people, are the keepers of this gigantic territory of Turan. The mission of the Indo-Europeans has made a full circle, starting with Indo-Europeans and ending with Indo-Europeans, in coming to us.

Thus, Eurasianism acquires an entirely different dimension, and the notion of Turan is transformed radically. And, of course, if we are sensitive towards our own identity, and if we are not indifferent toward our roots, our past, and our future, then I think that this book would find very wide resonance in another state of society…

But we live in a world of some kind of pause. I look to the future with optimism, as the present time of dark mental illness in society will pass, and we will return to the search for ourselves, return to our Russian rebirth, to our roots. And then the idea of Turan, which allows us to look at all of our history in a completely different way, including the Mongol conquests, our relations with the Turks, the Turkic peoples, and projects such as the creation of the Eurasian Union, which has now been declared in policy or is being implemented (albeit in the form of a simulacrum). All of this will truly acquire meaning. 

The Strength of the Weak

Author: Petr Petrovich Suvchinsky

Translators: Yulian Orlov and Jafe Arnold 

Source: Exodus to the East: Forebodings and Events: an Affirmation of the Eurasians (Sofia 1921), accessible in Russian here

What happens if one has not yet begun to be disturbed,
while another has already come up against a bolted door
and violently beaten his head against it?
The same fate awaits all men in their turn unless they walk in the saving road of humble communion with the people.

– Dostoevsky (Pushkin Speech) [1]

At the current time, an event of global importance is unfolding, the true essence and consequences of which are impenetrable even to the most perceptive. This event is the Russian Revolution, not in its socio-political meaning and importance, but rather in its national-metaphysical essence. As a manifestation of a socio-political order, it is most likely submissively flowing forth through the watercourse of revolutionary legitimacy. Its secret lies in its national and global sum.

The West, in trying to surround Russia with barriers, is not only afraid of the communist contagion. Europe has understood (albeit it unclearly and without confidence) or rather felt, the future result of the Russian Revolution and has already shuddered before it and, finally, taken defensive measures. She has understood that this result is defined not by the revolutionary energy of Russian communism, but by the historical predestination of the entire Russian people. She has understood that before the eyes of the world a former European province is rising up and growing in strength; a province that will unavoidably have to engage in combat, a province that will strike first, without even waiting for a lofty challenge, and engage itself in a war of reproof, reproach, and rage against its recent and apparently eternal parent state.

Russia has been a great power and has never been a state [2]. The state habits of every people is determined resultant state consciousness of all individuals that compose it. This great-power essence is the predestined potential of the authority, scope, and overflow of the entire essence of a people. It is the subconscious feeling of power, the fateful weight of the entire mass of the people, a mass that dislodges and moves the environment that surrounds it. It is involuntary self-confirmation, the droit sacré of one’s own being. The great-power essence sometimes arrogantly sprouts up, and sometimes weakens, disintegrates, thereby transforming the apparently strong flesh of the state into a crumbling, weak, collapsing human substance. Sometimes, the gift of the great-power essence coincides with developed aptitudes for the building of a state; sometimes, however, they are mutually exclusive… 

The glory of Russia is not consciously dependent on the governmental capabilities of her people. The glory is that Russia has been blindly endowed with its great-power essence. It is by this essence that the entire history of the Russian popular collective has been determined, the Russian person is fully subordinate to it, the traits of the Russian soul and will are contingent on it, and, to be more precise, even the character of the mass flows forth from the character of the person. Similar to the ebb and flow of the great-power essence of the Russian state collective, the Russian person is on the path to spiritual ascension, on the path of a vital test, all the while wavering, reeling between rise and fall, ascending and stalling. Ascension astounds with its rising force, as if an unseen hand extends from heaven and swoops it up. Stalling is always horrific through the void of the fall, through the loss of the Image of God.

And then humility and obedience border on servility, cowardliness, the dirty feeling of personal lostness: at times, bravery turns into insanity, yielding pride. In this wavering lies the law of the history of the Russian people, as does the law of the life of every individual person of the Russian people. In this interchange of exaltation and humiliation the popular [3], elemental Russia lived, at times limitlessly like a great power, at times powerless and enslaved when the mysterious forces of popular effort and elasticity suddenly dried up, ran out, were pushed together like the gigantic wings of a frightened bird.

The Russian intelligentsia has long accustomed to interpreting European culture not on an equal footing, but by seeing it as superior, obligatory, exclusive, and right. This servility and submission are undoubtedly rooted in the very essence of the Russian nature: if one acknowledges oneself as unequal, allows someone’s superiority to take hold over one, then it is necessary to submit, acquiesce, cowardly rejecting one’s own. This is a kind of servility, even a form of self-betrayal. In relation to other peoples, elemental Russia was either like a great power i.e. dominant, or spasmodically compressed herself, collapsing, involuntarily submitting, surrendering, while simultaneously hiding her covenants in the depths of the popular soul…  

Pan-human ideas are reflected by different peoples in the forms of diverse cultures. By developing within herself the genius of pan-human ideal capacity, the Russian intelligentsia actually combined, absorbed within its conscious all varieties of alien European cultures up to the level of total congeniality, thereby harming the self-discovery and affirmation of Russia’s own culture. As a result of this, the Russian intelligentsia was internationally enlightened, but de-personalised.

A specific “intelligentsia” does not, of course, deplete Russia as a great whole. In the manifestations of dominant great-power essence and in creative work, she guards examples of a unique, exclusive, and true national will as a valuable property.

In our days, in an era of the greatest tragedy of the decline, the paralysis of the sovereign forces and will of the Russian people, in an era where the whole concentration of Russian statehood [4] has weakened and become blurred, and thereby its internal interrelationships must be born anew and structured, the popular element has unconsciously yet powerfully begun a persecution of revenge and reproof against its conscious/responsible part, when it could not provide the people during a time of tribulation with a familiar, comprehensible, popular, national culture. We cannot say that the entire intelligentsia has been banished; however, we can confidently state that, with small exceptions, only the intelligentsia has been banished.

Through the medium of this banishment an awesome judgement has been passed on that form of the reception of Western culture that was seen as the Russian consciousness from the times of Peter [5] as immutable and true. As much as the creative, prophetic genius of Russia is free and unique, in equal measure is it accommodating and assimilative, and this genius revealed itself in all its shyness and submissive conditionality. The intelligentsia finds itself atomised all over the world. Simultaneously, the popular element is once again acquiring its mysterious, great-power forces through torturous battles and passions, forces that will sooner or later spread it out, pour it out into its former glory and strength. The Russian intelligentsia, which has for the first time been confronted face to face, person to person with the civilised peoples of the world must thereby, finally, deservedly self-assess its capabilities, most importantly its national, popular roots and begin to experience the redemptive process of belated self-discovery and self-confirmation. Only in this forceful, virtual contraposition, not from the “beautiful far-away” or the process of blind adoption has the Russian intelligentsia really felt the line that has been drawn between it and its spiritual idol of yesterday. It has understood and remorsefully shuddered as its own has turned out to be too invaluable and precious,  and the foreign too obsolete and poor. Powerless and banished, the intelligentsia has begun its rebirth and, if it does not interrupt this process, then in the near future it will regain its true strengths and rights. The people gather their strength in collective struggle, while the intelligentsia(s) in the experience of personality. At this moment they are enemies, as in its thirst for self-identification and liberation from alien forms of thought and life, the people placed the intelligentsia on the side of its European enemies; however, it would be a great mistake to think that the Russian people is fighting Europe and the intelligentsia with the sword of communism. On the contrary: communism is the final likeness that the intelligentsia has taken in its fanatical defence of the principle of equalisation and universality.

Having banished its false ideological leaders in a burst of hatred, in its search for conscious truth, the Russian people has followed its usual submissiveness put its fate in the hands of another, subjected itself to slavery once again, to the dictatorship of that very same intelligentsia that had ruled to that very moment until the revolution had actually manifested and did not reside anymore in the realm of fanatical will. The unaccountable, rebellious forces of the intelligentsia, selected in a blind drive towards global socialist ideas, have focused a terrifying, painful energy into the unhealthy, overheated atmosphere of the emigre community and the underground. This will is  fiery, merciless, vengeful, without any restraint; it has now grabbed the popular masses, which have lost their star, in its grasp. However, its guiding truth is alien and hateful towards the true Russia as much as its predecessor; after all, the Bolshevik international is but a volitional consequence of the cosmopolitan errors and temptations of the godless, sinful spirit of the Russian intelligentsia – sinful, because the dream of the global and true cannot be righteous outside of the Church. All will understand this sooner or later, after which the volitional (final?) dictatorship of the intelligentsia will be wiped out with the very same elemental fury. Then the great covenant of Russia will be fulfilled, her prophetic mystery will come into being: the wisened and calmed people and the enlightened intelligentsia will, reconciled, unite under the single great and all-solving cupola of the Orthodox Church

Translator’s notes:

[1]: The full speech is accessible in English here.

[2]: That is to say, Russia has never been a state in the European, Westphalian sense of the word.

[3]: The Russian term народ has no direct equivalent in English. It corresponds best to the German term Volk, which has a limited analogue in English folk or “the people”.

[4]: As has been noted above, this does not mean that Russia is a European state; rather, this is a reference to the loss of Russia’s territorial integrity and great-power essence.

[5]: Peter the Great.  

The British Crown Against Rus – Part I

Author: Vladimir Karpets

Translator: Yulian Orlov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Translator’s notes:

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

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

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

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

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