Alexander Dugin

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.

Ukraine: My War – A Geopolitical Diary

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Jafe Arnold

The foreword to Ukraina: Moia Voina – Geopoliticheskii Dnevnik [Ukraine: My War – A Geopolitical Diary] (Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2015). 

ukraina-_moia-voina-geopoliticheskii-dnevnik-9785227056900

This book consists of texts written in the spring and summer of 2014 on the subject of the Ukrainian drama, i.e., the Maidan, the overthrow of Yanukovich, the nationalist junta’s seizure of power in Ukraine, the start of the Russian Spring, reunification with Crimea, and the battles for Donbass and Novorossiya. These texts have three levels:

  1. The geopolitical and political analysis of ongoing events, i.e., an attempt at understanding and systematically outlining the meaning of the dramatic events in Ukraine. This is the level of detached, objective analysis).
  2. Personal reactions to what transpired, i.e., a systematic outline of a citizen’s patriotic position. This is the level of emotional involvement and empathy in which geopolitics and its processes take place not in an abstract field, but in the context of one’s full existential involvement in the process itself.
  3. The formulation of patriotic responses, projects, and programs as an imperative that is meaningful and alive on the basis of the first two levels.

The first layer of texts can serve as the basis for an impartial analysis and, as such, does not lose any value. The second layer is of interest only for those who, alongside the author, relate to the events in Ukraine as if to a personal drama, thereby empathizing, participating in, and having compassion for them. The third layer presents itself as a kind of virtual field of desires or instructions which can either coincide with reality and confirm Realpolitik or “big politics” (an appraisal of the Maidan, the reunification with Crimea, the mobilization of the militia of Novorossiya), or contradict reality (as of the current moment in autumn, 2014, no peacekeeping contingent has been deployed, the DPR and LPR’s political independence has not been recognized, and there is hesitation  in Moscow over the fate of Donbass).

The geopolitical analysis is objective, and the emotional engagement is subjective, while the spectrum of practical imperatives is a zone of intersection between what is wished for and reality.

All together, this text represents a kind of geopolitical diary, with its own characteristic features, thoughts, remarks, sharp emotions, biased definitions, convergences and divergences with the factual state of affairs, etc. This book is of precisely that genre which imposes on itself certain clear, understood limitations. Due to the fact that some of the “imperatives” have been realized, it follows that the understanding of what has happened is correct. That the others have not been realized underlines the gap between the position of the author and the resultant trajectory of Russian politics as of spring 2014, when these two different stances began to diverge considerably. The risk of this book is that it describes a process which has not been concluded. How much the author was right and how much he was mistaken, where he was ahead of events and correctly recognized their meaning, and where he hurried or factors were incorrectly correlated – all of this will become clear and depend on what the conclusion to this process will be. Therefore, this book might subsequently have a varying fate: it could turn out to have been “prophetic” or to have been merely “a set of delusions,” “subjective appraisals” and “emotional breakdowns.”

If the situation on the map was only magnificent, then the risk of this book would be ridiculous. But what the conclusion to the Ukrainian drama will be depends on much more than the scholarly authority of this book’s author alone. The Russian Spring, victory or defeat for Russia in the battle against its existential enemy (Atlanticism, the global financial oligarchy, the West), the fate of the Russian World, Greater Russia, and the fact that Russia can be either great or will not exist at all – all of this has been thrown onto the table. And, of course, in all eras people have always paid a heavy price for greatness, sometimes spilling a whole sea of blood. Our people has paid an enormous price for Novorossiya. Dozens of thousands of people have been killed defending the Russian World in Donbass. I knew many of them personally. Two of them were my friends, Boris Sysenko and Alexander Proselkov, who went to Novorossiya and died there in the name of the ideals of Eurasianism in the struggle for a Russian future. I knew many of the fallen, not all of them so closely. Some had written to me; I met some one time or another, and some went to Donbass having listened to my opinions and accepted my analysis. I recognize that I bear personal responsibility for the drama and blood of Novorossiya, for its fate, its dead, and its living. Therefore I cannot be unbiased. This is my war, and I am a participant and a soldier in it like all the rest. And this risk cannot be boiled down to reputation, but amounts to proving and upholding a life position, principles, and symbols of faith – my Russian faith and my faith in Great Russia.

This book was interrupted in mid-sentence. I continued to write texts after I had submitted those already written to the publisher. In the meanwhile, the situation changed and a number of my prognoses came true and became facts while a number were refuted. I preferred to leave everything as is, and introduced only a few corrections. Frankly speaking, I would rather change recent history rather than my own texts. Therefore, instead of appearing to be a more insightful analyst, I would prefer to remain who I am – a Russian patriot who insists on his own opinion and who goes in his own direction even when it contradicts the decisions of the authorities. Truth and principles are for me the most important successes. My mistakes in prognoses testify not so much as to incompetence as to the divergence of the Russian version of the arrangement of events with something else, the successful actions of those forces who did everything possible in order to prevent the Russian Spring, stop the Russian Awakening, and dispel the rising strength of the people or draw it away from the true enemy towards a false one. From the very beginning, I knew that the Russian Spring would encounter fierce resistance not only from without (the Kiev junta, Ukrainian Nazism and, most importantly, the West in the form of the USA with its desire to prolong global domination), but also from within, as segments of this global Western-centric network exist in Russia, are represented within the Russian elite, and make up the Sixth Column which is more camouflaged and hidden than the Fifth Column, but which is, even though more delicate, more efficient at this time. But I did not expect that it would successfully seize the initiative in Novorossiya and bring the situation to such a sad state as it is in now.

The point of the Maidan in Kiev and the overthrow of Yankovich was striking at Russia and Vladimir Putin personally. This strike was dealt and the war with Russia has reached an acute form. In some ways, we were able to deflect this strike, while in some ways we were forced to retreat. From the very onset, I oriented myself towards only one scenario, one in which war has been declared by the West (first and foremost, the USA and NATO) on us, the Russian World, Putin, and Russia, and in this situation there is only one way out: to win this war. Naturally, I assume victory to be over both the external as well as the internal enemy. I analyzed everything from the position of victory. I cannot say whether this was correct or not. The lines of victory coincide, but I did not think about defeat. Wherever we see existing differences between analysis and reality, we are dealing with defeats of the Russian World, which I did not allow for. “Well, in vain!”, some aloof analysts will say. They are probably right for their part. But what is more important for me is what Russian patriots, the people awakened by the Russian Spring, and the people of Novorossiya, both living and dead, will say. To this day, I believe in only one victory: our victory in Novorossiya and in Russia itself. It is impossible to deny the successes of our enemies, including the Sixth Column. But this is not the end. It is barely only the beginning.

This book is being released at a difficult time in the Ukrainian drama. Our offensive, in all senses, has been suspended. Perhaps the situation will change at any moment and, accordingly, so will analyses, prognoses, wishes, and guidelines. But that would be an altogether different book.

October 5, 2014 – Alexander Dugin

Pivot to the East

Author: Petr Nikolaevich Savitsky 

Translators: Jafe Arnold and Yulian Orlov

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

There is a certain constantly noticeable analogousness in the situation of the world of France in the time of the Great Revolution and of Russia in the present time. However, apart from details and particulars, there is a fundamental difference that might be pregnant with the future… Then (as is the case now), Europe existed, and one of the countries of Europe brought Her a ‘new Gospel’: this country, having left its old political borders in a revolutionary burst outward, conquered nearly the entire continent; however, when it faltered in its conquests, the rest of Europe (by then united into a coalition) managed to bridle and occupy it. Before both the war and the revolution, Russia “was a modern civilisation of the Western type, [although] the least disciplined and most ramshackle of all the Great Powers…” (H. G. Wells) [1]. During the war and the revolution, however, the “Europeanness” of Russia fell away, much like a mask falls off a face, and when we saw that image of Russia that was not covered by a fabric of historical decorations, we saw a Russia with two faces… One of her faces was turned to Europe, that of Russia as a European country; as France did in 1793, she brings Europe a ‘new Gospel’, this time that of the ‘revolution of the proletariat’, of communism made manifest… Her other face, however, is turned away from Europe… Wells tells how “Gorky… is obsessed by a nightmare of Russia going East…”

“Russia going East”. But is Russia herself not “the East”? 

Can one find many in Russia through whose veins there does not flow Khazar or Polovtsy, Tatar or Bashkir, Mordvin or Chuvash blood [2]? Is the mark of the Eastern spirit (its mysticism, its love for contemplation, and, finally, its contemplative laziness) alien to many Russians? One notices a certain sympathetic attraction to the popular masses of the East among the Russian masses of the common people, and through the organic fraternisation of the Orthodox with the Asian nomad or pariah, Russia truly is an Orthodox-Muslim, an Orthodox-Buddhist country.

The Bolsheviks launched a campaign of persecution against Orthodoxy and mockery of all religion. This is true. At the same time, however, the religious attitude and direction of those Russian and non-Russian masses by whose movements and breath Bolshevism lives comes to the forefront with even greater clarity and emphasised by the full force of contrast… 

The Bolshevik mockery of, or the Bolshevik indifference towards religion are of as much use for understanding Russia as the Bolsheviks’ attempts to implement the eloquent prophecies of Marx in practice.

It is for this reason that Russia is not just “the West”, but also “the East”, not just “Europe”, but also “Asia”, and not even Europe at all, but “Eurasia”… For this very reason, the historical essence that was embodied in the Great French Revolution is joined by another, far from unveiled essence in the Russian Revolution…

The French Revolution was a revolution that took place in a European country with a population of 25 million and an area of 540 thousand square kilometres. The Russian Revolution is taking place in a country that is not entirely European, or even European at all, and in a country with 150 million inhabitants and an area of 20 million square kilometres. France is a part of Europe. Russia on the other hand is a “continent in itself” that is (in a certain sense) “equal” to Europe… The allies of 1814-1815 managed to pacify and occupy France. How great must the new coalition be for it to gain the opportunity to pacify and occupy Russia?.. The Great French Revolution is one of the episodes of European history. The Russian Revolution is not merely an episode of European history.

Two problems fuse together in the modern period. One touches upon deep questions of being and cultural creation; the other translates the terms of ideological denominations into the concrete language of cultural-geographic, cultural-historic reality.

Through immense suffering and deprivation, hungry and covered in blood and sweat, Russia has taken upon itself the burden of finding the truth from all and for all. Russia is mired in sin and godlessness, covered in filth and dirt; however, Russia is searching and struggling in a quest for an otherworldly city… The pathos of history will not stay its hand against those who are calm in their knowledge of the truth, on those who are self-content and full. Fiery tongues of inspiration will not descend on the beati possedentes [3], but on those who are restless of spirit: the wings of the angel of the Lord disturbed the water of the fount.   

It seems as if the world has not changed, except for the fact that Russia is now absent from the comfortable civilised world. In this absence lies change, for in her special kind of “non-existence”, Russia is becoming in a certain sense the ideological center of the world.

Translating what has been said above into the language of reality, this means that a new cultural-geographical world that has not yet played a guiding role has appeared in the arena of world history. An intense gaze looks onto the future with disdain: might the goddess of Culture whose little tent had been put up among the valleys and hills of the European West leave for the East? Might she leave for the hungry, the cold and the suffering?..

We are under the spell of a premonition… And in this premonition we can obtain a source of contentment of a special kind: the contentment of those who are suffering… To surrender to contentment means to die. It is not permissible to hide that which is considered to be the truth. However, it is also not permissible to relax in premonition. It is not by quietism, but by the achievement of self-perfection that the matter of history is formed. Those who become prideful will be abandoned by the grace of seeking, and the curse of infertility will strike the self-confident… There is no inevitability. There is possibility. Only by way of intense creativity without any fear of confessing one’s mistakes and acknowledge one’s weaknesses, only at the price of constant efforts that are realised within the limits of this ‘plastic’ world that is open to will does possibility become actuality.

Translator’s notes:

[1]: A citation from Wells’ Russia in the Shadows, which is available online here.

[2]: All groups mentioned here (with two exceptions) are ethnic groups that inhabit Russia. The Khazars were a Turkic people that ruled a large khaganate that encompassed the South-Russian steps until 969 A.D. The Polovtsy (also known as the Cumans) were a nomadic Turkic people that roamed the Russian steps until their settlement in Hungary, where they were assimilated by the local population. The Tatars and Bashkirs are two Turkic peoples who live in two republics in the southern region of the Ural Mountains. The Mordvins are a Uralic people that inhabit a republic on the Volga river. Finally, the Chuvash are a Turkic people who inhabit a region stretching from the Volga to Siberia.

[3]: ‘Beati possedentes’ is a Latin expression meaning ‘blessed are they who possess’ that is usually used to illustrate the stronger position of the possessor over someone who does not possess a certain object (as the possessor does not need to prove that he owns something, whereas anyone else must do so).

Iran and Multipolarity

Author: Leonid Savin

Translator: Jafe Arnold 

The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming book…

At the turn of the millennium, Irani’s President from 1997-2005, Mohammad Khatami, proposed the concept of dialogue of civilizations. Initially being a counter-thesis to Samuel Huntington’s work, The Clash of Civilizations, Khatami insisted on and argued for the need for discussion between different religions and cultures, especially during his address to the 53rd session of the UN General Assembly (1998-1999) when he officially declared 2001 to be the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations. The peculiarity of Mohammad Khatami’s theory of “dialogue of civilizations” rests in that it offers a systematic, scholarly, and practically feasible and purposeful use of exchange between civilizations to overcome barriers of alienation between different players on the global political scene to prevent crisis situations in the world taking into account the modern level of technological and communication development and with an eye towards global problems which threaten the very existence of mankind.[1]  Khatami said:

We should not forget that cultures and civilizations always have interaction and mutual influence. New abilities were formed due to their interaction. Non-dialogue paradigm leads to a deadlock, to overcome which we inevitably appeal to the dialogue approaches. Constructive indicators of dialogue certainly must not be limited only to the spheres of politics and culture. Not all constructive indicators of culture are only cultural ones; since economic, social, cultural and educational aspects participate in this formation. Therefore, promotion of dialogue of civilizations should be recognized as a multi-sided necessity.[2]

In 2001, however, a terrorist attack struck New York and the American neoconservatives subsequently triumphed in their insisting on the necessity of military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting terrorism and finding (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. The harsh dualism put forth as an ultimatum by the George W. Bush Administration to the tune of “those who aren’t with us, are with the terrorists” buried any efforts at establishing such a dialogue of civilizations.

During the presidency of Khatami’s successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran became yet another pretext for the West’s contrived “concerns.” Meanwhile, on the other hand, Iran became an object of interest for all those forces resisting Washington-led unipolar globalization. High prices and demand for oil contributed to Iran’s economic development, although sanctions imposed by Western countries and later the UN hampered the Iranian economy. Despite this, Iran demonstrated political resilience to outside influence, remained loyal to its ideological principles, and affirmed its right to be an influential player in the region. In addition, Iran under Ahmadinejad began actively cooperating with those Latin American countries which adopted an anti-imperialist foreign policy course.

The fact that these countries’ leaderships, and first and foremost Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia adhered to socialist views did not hinder the establishment of an alliance which set for itself the goal of political multipolarity based on respect for the sovereignty of states and their peoples’ cultural traditions. Cooperation with Russia, China, and African countries was also amplified.

Moreover, similar views came to be shared by other senior politicians of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In May 2006, the Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, stressed that “Today, taking into account countries such as Russia, China, India, an Iran, the world is moving in the direction of multipolarity contrary to the desire of the USA.”[3] Ahmadinejad continued Iran’s course towards multipolarity during his second presidential term as well. At the 65th session of the UN General Assembly in October 2010, Ahmadinejad said:

The inefficiency of capitalism and existing global governance and its structures has manifested itself for many years, and the majority of countries and peoples are in search of fundamental changes for the sake of justice in international relations…The world is in need of the logic of compassion, justice, and universal cooperation, not the logic of force, domination, unipolarity, war, and intimidation…The Iranian people and the majority of peoples and governments of the world are against the current, discriminatory global governance. The inhumane nature of this governance has brought it to a standstill and requires radical revision. Universal cooperation, pure thoughts, and divine and humane governance are needed to remedy the situation in the world and to transition to peace and prosperity.[4]

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, also stressed the pursuit of multipolarity. During his speech at the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran in August 2012, Khamenei pointed out the need to reform the UN, drew attention to the West’s unilateral imposition of its programs undermining the principles of democracy, the destructive work of monopolized mass media, and problems of weapons of mass destruction. Khamenei proposed the doctrine of a “Middle East without nuclear weapons” by which, of course, he meant Israel as an outcast in this issue, and highlighted the need to improve “political productivity in global governance.”[5]  Without a doubt, such a venue as the Non-Aligned Movement’s summit is not only for political reports advising the need for high morality and justice, but is a platform for criticizing neo-imperialism. It is a powerful pooling of leaders and senior officials of states from all continents to meet and take advantage of a decent opportunity to reach agreements, discuss the prospects of joint projects, and reduce possible friction in diplomatic relations.[6] Iran’s role in this regard is very indicative.

If Iran de facto is and has been before a geopolitical center, then the changing international situation has opened the possibility for it to transform its status and rise to the level of a geopolitical pole. If Iran is approached not only as a sovereign nation-state, but as a center of Shiite Islam, then we undoubtedly see that Iran’s influence in a number of countries with Shiite populations makes it a geopolitical subject of a different level and significance. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine are states which depend on support from Iran through various mechanisms.

The Iranian international relations expert Behzad Khoshandam posits that 2016 was a turning point for Iran in regards to choosing its international course, which was finally confirmed to be that of multipolarity. This is due to several interconnected factors: (1) the signing of the nuclear deal with six countries (a manifestation of the logic of Iran’s strategic patience in political, trade, economic, and other interests); (2) rapprochement with Russia; (3) Trump’s victory in the US presidential elections; (4) understanding the hostile intentions of the numerous countries conducting proxy wars against Iran (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel); (5) and the overall serious turn towards Eurasia.[7] To this we can add the strategic agreement with China announced in January 2016 which includes Beijing actively supporting Iran in acquiring full membership in the SCO.[8]

Indeed, in the opinion of Iranian scholars, the country’s national interests are best protected in none other than the multipolar paradigm of global politics. Mohammad Mehdi Mazaheri from Tehran University believes that only in a multipolar international system can regional cooperation and balanced relations with all powerful states help countries achieve their national interests.[9]

The Iranian political scientist Massoud Mousavi Shafaei from Tarbiat Modares University has proposed that Iran take advantage of the fluidity of the international system and the emergence of new conditions for active operations in different regional environments. Insofar as Iran is located between the Middle East and Central Asia, it indeed does have a choice. The Middle East is submerged in chaos, ethnic conflicts, wars, and terror, and this crisis will likely continue for an indefinite period of time. In these circumstances, the restoration of order in the region under the leadership of a single hegemonic power or even under the pressure of large powers is seen as practically impossible.[10] Given that the US instrumentalizes most Arab countries to contain Iran’s geopolitical ambitions, this thesis is justified. Washington simply will not allow Iran to be more actively engaged in the region even if Iranian intentions are altogether benevolent and noble. Therefore, in Massoud Mousavi Shafaei’s opinion, Iran must reorient itself and its geo-economic logic towards Central Asia and Southeast Asia. However, this does not mean an end to Iranian presence in the Middle East necessary to defend its vital national security interests.

The opinion has also been expressed that Russia, Iran, and China “all feel that [a] multipolar world is the only condition for future development of our planet and its inhabitants. They have experienced again and again that unilateral dictates emanating from US, instead of solving problems, generates more and more of them. So it is obviously in their interests, to get united on the issue of multi-polarity, and insist – through various institutions like US, or press, or even new military alliances – that the business as usual – is not going to be accepted.[11]          

Iran understands that joining the multipolar club inevitably means pressure from the West. Thus, Tehran can expect new challenges, as can the other architects of the multipolar world order. In this vein Tehran University Professor Jahangir Karami has noted that although Russia can effectively restrict the US’ unilateral approach through the UN, NATO expansion challenges Russia’s efforts, as was the case with the crises provoked in Ukraine and Syria aimed directly against Moscow.[12]

Nevertheless, Iran has a long history of withstanding Western hegemony and other forces from the first contacts with the Portuguese in the early 16th century to the seizure of the US Embassy during the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Indeed, opposing US sanctions and working to develop their own economic approaches and conduct in international affairs are characteristic of Iran’s course towards multipolarity.

Footnotes: 

[1] Мелихов И.А. М. Хатами: межцивилизационный диалог и мусульманское сообщество/ «Дипломатический вестник», серия «Дипломатия, наука и общественность». № 9. 2001.

[2] Seyyed Mohammad Khatami. Dialogue among Civilizations. High-Level Conference. Eurasia in the XXIst Century: Dialogue of Cultures, or Conflict of Civilizations? Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan, 10 and 11 June 2004. Paris, 2005. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146593E.pdf

 [3] Иран и Российская Федерация: Россия, Китай, Индия и Иран – линия мощной силы, 10 мая 2006. http://www.iran.ru/news/politics/39484/Iran_i_Rossiyskaya_Federaciya_Rossiya_Kitay_Indiya_i_Iran_liniya_moshchnoy_sily

[4] Выступление президента Ирана на 65-й сессии Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН, 04 октября 2010 http://www.iran.ru/news/interview/68545/Vystuplenie_prezidenta_Irana_na_65_y_sessii_Generalnoy_Assamblei_OON

[5] Выступление аятоллы Хаменеи на саммите Движения неприсоединения.// Геополитика. 31.08.12 http://www.geopolitica.ru/Articles/1483/

[6] Савин Л.В. Иран, Движение неприсоединения и многополярность. Геополитика.ру, 17.09.2012 https://www.geopolitica.ru/article/dvizhenie-neprisoedineniya-iran-i-mnogopolyarnost

[7] Behzad Khoshandam, Iran’s Foreign Policy in 2016, Iran Review, DECEMBER 28, 2016      http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran-s-Foreign-Policy-in-2016.htm

[8] Iran, China Announce Roadmap for Strategic Partnership, Farsnews, Jan 23, 2016.       http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941103001266

[9] Mohammad Mehdi Mazaheri, Russia Bracing for Multipolar International System, Iran Review, September 21, 2015  http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Russia-Bracing-for-Multipolar-International-System.htm

[10]   Massoud Mousavi Shafaei, Iran’s Foreign Policy Needs Paradigm Change: Transition from Middle Eastern Terror to Geo-economics of Asian Hope, Iran Review, JANUARY 31, 2017 http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran-s-Foreign-Policy-Needs-Paradigm-Change-Transition-from-Middle-Eastern-Terror-to-Geo-economics-of-Asian-Hope.htm

[11] Prof. Golstein: ‘Russia, Iran, China Feel Multi-Polar World is Only Condition for Future Development’, Jul 17, 2016    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950421000941

[12]          Jahangir Karami, Russia, Crises in Syria and Ukraine, and the Future of the International System, Iran Review, APRIL 15, 2014    http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Russia-Crises-in-Syria-and-Ukraine-and-the-Future-of-the-International-System.htm

Thinking Chaos and the “Other Beginning” of Philosophy

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Yulian Orlov

From Platonizm.ru 

Chaos was not part of the context of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy was built exclusively as a philosophy of the Logos, and to us such a state of affairs is so normal, that we (probably correctly from a historical point of view) identify philosophy with the Logos. We do not know any other philosophy, and, in principle, if we are to believe Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger along with contemporary postmodernist philosophy, we will have to acknowledge that the very philosophy which was discovered by the Greeks and built up around the Logos has today fully exhausted its contents. It incarnated itself in techne, in the subject-object topography that turned out to be evidentiary for only two or three centuries until the final, sunset note of West-European philosophy. As a matter of fact, today we are standing on the line or endpoint of this philosophy of the Logos.

Today, we can glimpse the entire process of the evolution of logocentric philosophy that began with Heraclitus and the Pre-Socratics, reached its apogee in Platonism and Socrates, was developed fairly violently in Greco-Latin patristics and later in Scholasticism and the Neoplatonic Renaissance and, in the New Era, turned together with Descartes through the subject-object topography onto its last- self-reflective stage that, in turn, ended with Nietzsche.  According to Heidegger, it was precisely Nietzsche who ended West-European philosophy. Thus, we have before us a finished story with a beginning, climax, and end, all about logocentric culture. The Logos, from cradle to grave. But then we have to ask ourselves: who was Heidegger?

On the one hand, Heidegger definitely ends this process of Western philosophy and puts down the final seal, but on the other hand he (potentially) lays the foundations of something new. The end of philosophy is absolutely clear, but the question about the “other Beginning” (der andere Anfang) remains open.

It is totally clear that West-European philosophy, being logocentric, has exhausted its potential. However, we have to ask ourselves the question: what role did chaos play in this logocentric philosophy? It was rejected from the very beginning, left out of account, crossed out, because the Logos is based on the exclusion of chaos, on the affirmation of there being a hard alternative to it. What is the fundamental difference between logos and chaos? The Logos is exclusivity, the Logos is separation, the Logos is a clear idea about the one and the other; it is not by random chance that the Logos received its formalised form in the logic of Aristotle, in its fundamental laws: the law of identity, the law of negation and the law of the excluded third. It is necessary to emphasise that modern and post-modern studies entirely correctly show, that the logocentric understanding of the world is masculinoid, i.e. exclusively male, exclusivist [1]. It is this way, in an explosive manner, that men think of the world and order. The Logos is a male, hierarchised beginning that was simplified in West-European philosophy, reached its high point, and… collapsed, was cast down, dissipated. Today, the “great man”, the “cosmic man” has been shattered into fragments. He collapsed, and together with him his philosophy crumbled, as the Logos and the male beginning are, as a matter of fact, the very same thing. This is where the rightness of the postmodernist, critical term “phallo-logocentrism” comes from. The entire West-European philosophy was built on the male principle from beginning to end. This end is here. We are living through it. This means that the Logos is exhausted. Therefore, we must either meekly slip into the night, or search for new paths.

If we review this process of the appearance, establishment, and downfall of Western European philosophy and the appearance of the Logos in a pure form, consequently, as demasculinisation continues (according to Plato, only the philosopher is a true man; in other words, a man is he who philosophises; therefore, today we can speak of a sweeping degeneration and spiritual castration of men, as they are no longer capable of engaging in philosophy) and the Logos falls, we see before us an image of mixing: dissipated fragments of male logical thought are turbulently mixing amongst each other, thereby forming a post-masculinist amalgamate. It is precisely to this mixing, this phenomenon of the turbulence of parts that are no longer part of something whole that is indicated by those who use the concept of “chaos” in modern science.

Here, we must immediately say that the chaos with which modern science, modern physics, and chaos theory operate is actually a set of structures of order that is more complex. This is nothing else than complex systems that are not at all alternatives to order as such, but are just an extravagant, baroque (here, too, the ideas of postmodernist G. Deleuze from his essay “The Fold: Leibnitz and the Baroque” are valuable) version of a complexified, twisted and significantly perverted order. That was is today called “chaos” by representatives of the scientific and, in part, the cultural establishment is the condition of the post-logical world, a world that is still located, however, within the Logos, inside its orbit, albeit at the most distant periphery, at its last border. A very precise name for such a state of affairs has been given by René Guénon, who called this situation “la confusion” (Fr. “mixing”, “tangle”, “everything getting caught in everything else”.

The concept of “chaos” that is dominant in modern science does not correspond at all to the Greek chaos as something primordial, organic, and spontaneous, but as the product of the collapse of logocentric philosophy and the logocentric culture that was based on it. The fact that we are today dealing with an alleged “chaos” actually refers to the product of the Logos’s collapse and separation into different fragments. It is precisely for this reason that scholars of “chaos” find within it residual or extravagant, eccentric structures of the Logos. These can be studied and quantified only in more complex procedures and with the help of a special device that has been adapted for the quantifying and description of bifurcational processes, non-integrated equations (I. Prigozhin), and fractals (B. Mandelbrot). The theory of “chaos” studies process that are exceptionally dependent on initial conditions. The definition of “chaos” in modern science is today taken to be the following: a dynamic system with the following traits: sensitivity to initial conditions, topological mixing, and the density of periodical orbits. Mathematicians further specify, that a “chaotic system should have non-linear characteristics and be globally stable, but also have at least one unstable point of equilibrium of oscillating type; in addition, the dimensions of the system should be no less than 1,5 (i.e. the order of a differential equation should be no less than 3)” [3].

Actually, it is not the Greek chaos at all that is hinted at in this concept of “chaos”, but a product of the dispersion and disintegration of the Logos. This is so because we have not yet left the bounds of the Logos: the chaos that modern science deals with is integrated into the Logos, it splashes around within its inner space (albeit at the most extreme orbit), as far away as possible from the logocentric axis, in the furthest borderland of the conceptual Platonic cosmos, in the world of the Titans [4]. Therefore, we must, strictly speaking, call this reality a “very remote copy” that has nearly lost its link to the original; we must not in any case, however, call it “chaos”. Here, either the term “mixing” (Guénon’s “la confusion”) is most appropriate or the postmodern concept of the “simulacrum”, which J. Baudrillard interprets as a “copy without an original”. This is an intralogical zone (albeit at a maximum distance from the centre) that has nothing in common with the initial image of Greek chaos, which, according to myth, precedes the Logos, precedes order, i.e. the cosmos. True chaos is pre-cosmic, pre-ontological. The “mixing” or “chaos” of modern science is post-cosmic, and although almost nothing of being remains within it, it still is, which means that it is in some sense ontological. Here, Zeno’s aporia on the quick Achilles and the turtle is entirely relevant. No matter how much the “mixing” might try to run from ontology, it is analytically incapable of doing so; as René Guénon shows, a line x moving towards 0 will never be equal to 0, but will only continually approach 0 while always remaining at an ever diminishing but still infinitely great (although it is infinitely small) distance from it. 

While researching “chaos” (the philosophical Gilles Deleuze describes this as a way of coexistence for incompatible monads [6]; Deleuze himself calls such “monads” “nomads”), modern science is researching the intra-logos, post-logos, dissipative order, instead of an alternative to order, as the nihilistically minded postmodernists had hoped. 

Here, it is important to pay attention to the concept of “nothing”. The Logos draws everything into itself and accords to everything the quality of self-identification with itself, i.e. with the Logos. The Logos is everything and draws everything into itself, with the exception of that which it is not; but that which it is not is nothing, the Logos excludes everything that it does not include, and, as it includes everything, only nothing remains outside of it. However, it interacts harshly with this nothing: according to Parmenides, there is no non-being. Nothing surrounds order and serves as a boundary. As we are looking at nothing through the eyes of the Logos, however, it becomes clear that we cannot reach that boundary. However hard we might strive to words nothing, whatever nihilism we might cultivate, we keep remaining in the limits of something and not nothing, inside of order, under the hegemony of the Logos. And even though this hegemony weakens at its extreme limit, it never entirely disappears. Therefore, on the road towards liberation from the power and domination, the modernists (and the postmodernists after them) find the figure of the “despot” in God and traditional society, in society as such, later in reason, even later in man himself, structures, language, context (poststructuralism) etc. The condition that there is no non-being makes being unbearable for those who consider its weight to be a hindrance. All evocations of “chaos” or calls to “nomadic”, incompatible monads that are incapable of providing the desired result, i.e. the final and irreversible uprooting of the “will to power”, which is the main aim of the liberating program of the Enlightenment cannot and will not succeed by its very definition.

Those who understand the situation of the deep crisis of Modernity (in particular Martin Heidegger) turn to the roots of the West, to the Greek matrix that birthed philosophy. Heidegger meticulously studies the birth of the Logos and tracks its faith, all the way up to the rule of technics, Machenschaft. In order to describe it, he introduces the concept of “Gestell”, in which the referential theory of truth itself is summed up, from Plato (and even from Heraclitus) up to the mechanical mercantile-materialistic civilisation of modern, utmost planetary (but continuously Western-centric) decadence. Having examined the history of philosophy (which also is history as such) from beginning to end, Heidegger finds that it ended so wrongly precisely because it begun so incorrectly. As an alternative, he proposes the project of the “other Beginning” [7].

Having described the first Beginning of philosophy, which led to the logos and, finally, to that dissipative postlogos (and post-masculine) ontological regime that we find ourselves in, Heidegger identifies it as the consequence of a fundamental error that was made in the first, even preparatory stages of the development of West-European philosophy. According to his views, the history of Western European philosophy, culture, and religion is the result of a small, primordial fault in our metaphysical contemplation. According to Heidegger, two-and-a-half thousand years of human history were in vain, seeing as at the very beginning, somewhere in the area of the first formulations of the Logos’ status, a certain error was accidentally allowed to sneak in, an error that, as Heidegger puts it, must first be acknowledged and then be overcome. Thus develops his idea of the two Beginnings of philosophy: the first Beginning, which began, formed, developed, flourished, and eventually degraded and has now become nothing (let us at least remember the modern nihilism that was discovered by F. Nietzsche and magnificently examined by Heidegger), and the other Beginning, which could be found as far back as the roots of philosophy (but this did not happen, and we can see the result: the Logos and its defeat), but, in any case, it should be delineated and initiated now, while everything is clear. But this beginning will begin only when everything truly becomes clear. Everything became clear to Heidegger. The rest is experiencing a “delay”, everything is “still not clear”, noch nicht[8], the eternal “still not”. The other Beginning — der andere Anfang.

If we examine in detail what Heidegger means by the “other Beginning” (the alternative, potential Beginning that has not yet formed or come to pass), and if we trace the line of the grandiose deconstruction of the Logos that he has undertaken, we will be able to view the entirety of West-European philosophy, culture, and history, including religious history; after all, religion is nothing other than the development of constructions of the Logos (which is why Heidegger speaks of “theologica”: the Christian faith, as well as the Muslim kalam and theological Judaism are founded upon the Logos, and, in principle, we know of no other monotheistic religions but for those religions of the Logos). The logocentrism of religions is a very important thing to understand: it shows, that it is futile to turn to religion when searching for an alternative or protection from the downfall of the Logos. The crisis of modern religions is the crisis of the Logos; when the Logos collapses, its entire vertical structure and all its variations (including theological ones) fall with it. This is interrelated: monotheism loses its fascinativeness as the attraction of the Logos weakens, and vice versa. Religions without the Logos cease to be themselves. But even in the case where the Logos is present within them, it will be as a phantom pain, a “confusion”, as the vanity of desemantisised structures (which is what we are seeing today in the form of the dubious phenomenon of a “religious renaissance”, which unambiguously smacks of a simulacrum and a parody).

For this reason, Heidegger proposed to look for an exit in a completely different way: in the sources of Greek philosophy, in the very Beginning (even in the vestibule of this Beginning) on the one hand, and beyond the boundaries of our world on the other, thereby uniting the problem of the moment of philosophy’s birth, its existence in an embryonic, intrauterine state with the problem of the moment of final agony and death. Before Heraclitus, philosophy was located in the uterus, the Logos “swam” in amniotic fluid, in a matrix: today, the Logos is buried in its grave. The grave and the womb have, on the one hand, the meaning of an antithesis: the first signifies death, the second birth; however, at the same time we know, that in the collective unconscious they are synonyms, mutual systems. One can figuratively say, that in both cases it is a night, darkness, existence without distinction, erasure of borders, nocturne [9], all the more so because many intiatic rituals are linked to a descent into the grave as well as the beginning of resurrection, i.e. another, second birth. This is also the rite of Orthodox baptism: water symbolises the earth, the grave, death. The total, three-time immersion of the baptised into the baptistery is a symbol of the three days Christ spent in the grave. It is a descent into the earth, into the grave: the “burial of Christ” is a prerequisite for a new birth.

Thus, if the Logos was born in the first Beginning of Greek philosophy through the rejection of Chaos as an exclusive, central principle of division, hierarchy, exception, and order; that is to say, the male beginning was essentially raised to the level of the absolute; and if all of this began the way it did, and if everything ended with what we have in the modern world, then, accordingly, we must follow Heidegger in finding what was lost, what the mistake of that first impetus, which started the development of a logocentric civilisation, was. Heidegger develops his vision in recapitulative and exceptionally complex book “Beitrage zur Philosophie” [10], which I recommend all readers to familiarise themselves with (the work has not been translated, and I would say that this is excellent; it cannot be translated, and there are things that are not just difficult to translate, but which are criminal to translate, things that require the original language to be learned to be understood). The book directly deals with the “other Beginning”; contrariwise, we find a short and relatively “light” treatment of these ideas in the “Geschichte des Seyns” [11].

Heidegger proposes us to think in a radically different way from the one that is usual in philosophical or philosophical-religious thought. But how is it possible to philosophise differently, how can there be a “different Beginning” of philosophy? If we take a close, detailed look at the moment of the birth of Greek philosophy, we will find a single, essential element: philosophy is born alongside exclusion; what is more, it is Chaos that is the first victim of exclusion. Chaos is not a philosophical concept and never was one, but it enters philosophy exclusively through its intermediary, through its substitute in the person of the choir (cora), Platonic “space” in the “Timaeus”, or later in the person of Aristotle’s “matter” (ulh). However, the view of the choir in the “Timaeus” and the view of Aristotle’s matter is the view of the Logos [12], and all the Logos says it that it has already excluded Chaos during the process of its ascension in a similar fashion to “political propaganda” or a “press release”. What the Logos tells us about matter is an exclusively constructivist Wille zur Macht, the “will to power”, a development of an impassioned and aggressive strategy of male domination, the establishment of hierarchic hegemony, the projection of wishful thinking and self-fulfilling prophecy. From the very beginning of philosophy, the “dog was wagged”. Philosophy tries to force unto us that, which is favourable to itself. This is the hiding place of male cunning, the male drive to the absolutisation of the self, and, accordingly, the exclusion of the female beginning, the “other” beginning. And, if we examine this, we can recognise the total incomprehension of the woman. This is the source of woman being accorded qualities that, in reality, she does not have at all. Thus, the male forms between itself that which is excluded by the male from the intellective process. The Logos rejects the choir because of its (un)intelligibility. However, it does not understand it purely because it does not want to understand and prefers to deal with a representation instead of the female itself. The man thinks, that the only way of knowing the woman is to hide her in inner rooms, separate her from the public, social dimension. Later, he thinks a suitable solution is to chase the female away entirely, etching way her traces through the suffering of lonely male asceticism. Therefore, the opinion of the Logos about chaos is a notorious lie, violence, hegemony, the exclusion of chaos as the other. As the Logos is everything, chaos becomes nothing [13].

If we want to comprehend the very possibility of an “other Beginning” of philosophy, on the one hand, we must come to the moment of the birth of the Logos and fix this transition of the boundary, discern the details and semantics of this rite du passage. How could it have come to pass that the Logos managed to break loose, unbind itself, and who allowed it to issue its own, exclusive decrees concerning chaos? Now we come to the most interesting: if we feel discontent with the dissipative logical and postlogical structures, we must acknowledge, that we must turn to the Logos again, seeing as it was the Logos that created all the prerequisites of its dissipation through its exclusivity. We cannot simply up and return to Platonism: there is no way back. The Logos moves only in one direction: it divides and divides (and divides and divides… and so on into the distance [14]). Gilbert Durand [15] call this logic the regime of the “diurn”: until everything is reduced to a chit and stops. This schizomorphosis [16] directly leads to G. Deleuze and F. Guattari’s concept of “schizomass” [17]. This has been beautifully illustrated in the films of Takeshi Miike, for example, in “Killer Ichi” or “Izo”. In the latter film, an insane samurai, having begun his battle with the world, does not stop until he has cut everyone he encounters into pieces. Izo is the Logos.

The Logos will not help us. If we do not like how the modern, postlogical world is organised, we are forced (if we like it or not) to turn to chaos. We have no other alternative: we must fundamentally step backward towards the first Beginning of Greek culture, in order to make even the smallest step forward, truly forward, and not following the endless arc of the eternally ending world, that is still not capable of finally ending (“still not”). If we do not do this, we will reach the eternal deadlock of the infinite return of dissipative structures and confusions. This is the choice we must make: either we choose the modern, postlogical chaos of confusions, or we break through its boundaries; but the way to break through its boundaries can be found only in chaos, which itself precedes the Logos and is located radically beyond its borders, behind the line of its peripheral agony. 

Chaos can and should be seen as an inclusive order, as an order founded upon a principle that is opposite to the Logos; that is to say, the principle of inclusivity, inclusiveness. Therefore, it is very important to understand what inclusiveness means. Once we have comprehended this term, we will know if it is at all possible to build a philosophy of chaos, that is, a philosophy of the “other Beginning”.

If we see chaos the way it is seen by logocentric models, we will get nowhere. There is nothing logical (exclusive, masculine, no Wille zur Macht) in chaos, and this means, that it becomes ouk on (Greek: “pure non-being”), French “rien”, Spanish “nada” to the Logos and Onto-Logos. – ouk on and not mhon, as the Greeks called the non-being that is capable of producing something from itself, “pregnant non-being”). As the Logos will not see anything except itself, according to the principle of Aristotelian logic, we cannot juxtapose anything to it: either A is equal to A (and, in this case, we find ourselves within logical boundaries) or A is not equal to A; now we are outside of those borders, in nothing. According to Aristotle, the latter situation means that A simply does not exist; the A that was not equal to A does not exist. This is in contrast to, for example, the view of the Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida, who has, in contrast to Aristotle, developed a separate logic of spaces, “basho”, founded upon Zen Buddhist models of thought.

However, outside of the Logos and its hypnotic suggestion, it is entirely possible to conceptualise chaos as a principle of absolute inclusion or an inclusive philosophy. Why is this possible? Because, if we extract ourselves from the political propaganda of the Logos (under the conditions of which we have been living for two and a half thousand years), we will be able to see chaos as it presents itself, and not the way the Logos presents it. Chaos reveals itself as the inclusive, it carries within itself all possibilities, including the possibility of exclusion, right up to the exclusion of the self. Naturally, chaos contains the Logos as it thinks itself, like a seed in a woman’s uterus: it is and it is being born, it will most definitely be born, tear away, mature, and leave: however, something more important is left out of the picture: that which allows it to live, that which produces, nurtures, and feeds it.

The Logos can be seen as a fish swimming in the waters of chaos. Without this water, thrown onto the surface, the fish chokes, and this is, actually, how the structures of the Logos “croaked”. We are dealing with nothing but its dissipative remains. These are the bones of the fish that has hurled itself onto the shore. It is not by chance, that many speak of the symbolism of Aquarius as the new water, without which the old fish could not live.

The philosophy of chaos is possible because chaos, being all-inclusive, all-encompassing, and the antecedent of any exclusion, contains this very exclusion within itself, but carries a different relation to it and itself, as well as differing from the way exclusion itself (i.e. the Logos) relates to chaos and itself. We know only one view of chaos: the philosophical view from the position of the Logos, and if we want to look at the Logos from the point of view of chaos, we are told that this is impossible, seeing as we are used to examining chaos only from the point of view of the Logos. It is thought, that only the Logos is capable of seeing, and that chaos is blind. No, this is not true, chaos has a thousand eyes, it is “panoptic”. Chaos sees itself as that which contains the Logos, which means that the Logos is located within chaos and can always be within it. However, while containing the Logos within itself, chaos contains it in a totally different way the Logos contains itself, which it does by rejecting the fact that it is contained by anything (whatever that container may be) except itself, and, accordingly, placing chaos out of its view, equating it to nothing, rejecting it. Thus, the fish, recognising itself as something different from the water surrounding it, can come to the conclusion that it no longer needs the water and jumps onto the shore. However one might try to throw the stupid fish back, it will try to jump time and time again. They called this insane fish “Aristotle”.

But water is the beginning of everything. It contains the root of other elements and other creatures. It contains that which it is and that which it is not. It includes that which acknowledges the abovementioned fact, but also that which does not.

We can draw the following conclusion: first, a philosophy of Chaos is possible, and second, salvation through the Logos is impossible: the salvation of the Logos is only possible through a correct turn towards chaos.

Chaos is not just “old”, it is always “new”, because eternity is always new: the eternity (l’éternité) that Rimbaud found again (a retrouvé) – c’est la mer allée avec le soleil. Pay attention: la mer. Chaos is the newest, the freshest, the most fashionable, the latest from the current season’s collection (Il faut être absolument moderne. Point de cantiques : tenir le pas gagné) (1). Precisely for the reason that it is absolutely eternal: time ages extremely quickly, yesterday appears archaic (there is nothing more ancient than the “news” of a month old newspaper), only eternity is always absolutely new. Therefore, the discovery of chaos does not equate to an excavation of history or of the structures that are presented to us as conquered by historical time; no, it is an encounter with the eternally young. Chaos was not sometime earlier or before. Chaos is here and now. Chaos is not that what was, as the Logos propagandises. Chaos is that what is, and that what will be.

In conclusion, we return once more to Heidegger. To reach the truth of being (Wahrheit des Seyns) is possible only in two moments of history: in the Beginning, when philosophy is about to be born, and in the End, when the disappearance, the liquidation of philosophy takes place. Of course, individual personalities could reach the truth in different stages as well; however, they could do this, but they could also be satisfied with something else: they lived in the magic of the Logos, warming themselves in the rays of the solar seed.

Today, this is the only thing we have left, all the rest has been bled dry, and to satisfy ourselves with dissolution in an endlessly ending but incapable of truly ending world, in the “not yet” is the fate of nonentities. Apart from this, doing this in our time is easier than it ever was before. You and I, dear reader, are living in extraordinary times, in which we are presented with an entirely unexpected opportunity to directly encounter chaos. This is not an experience for the weak minded. After all, our task is the construction of a philosophy of chaos.

Footnotes: 

[1] See the problem of the “diurn” in the topography of G. Durand’s imaginative structures. Dugin A. G. Sociology of the Imagination. Moscow:Akademichesky Proekt, 2010.

[2] Deleuze, G. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Logos, 1997.

[3] Gutzwiller Martin. Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.

[4] See Proclus. Commentaire sur le Timee. Par A.J.Festugiere. t. I. P.:Vrin, 1966.

[5] Guenon René. Les principes du calcul infinitésimal. Paris, Gallimard, 1946.

[6] Deleuze, G. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque.

[7] Dugin A. Martin Heidegger. The Philosophy of Another Beginning. Moscow: Akademichesky Proekt, 2010.

[8] Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Erstes Kapitel §§ 46–53. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1952.

[9] Dugin A. G. Sociology of the Imagination.

[10] Heidegger M. Beiträge zur Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2003.

[11] Heidegger M. Geschichte des Seyns. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1998

[12] Dugin A. Martin Heidegger. The Possibility of Russian Philosophy. Moscow: Akademichesky Proekt, 2011.

[13] Ibidem.

[14] On “diarhysis” and the structure of the “diurn”, which are distinct features of the Logos’ work, see Dugin A. Sociology of the Imagination..

[15] Durand G. Les Structures anthropologiques de l’imaginaire, Paris: P.U.F., 1960.

[16]  Ibidem.

[17] Deleuze, G., Guattari F. Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Yekaterinburg: U-Faktoriya, 2007.

Translator’s note:

(1): One must be absolutely modern. Never mind hymns of thanksgiving: hold on to a step once taken.

The Solar Hounds of Russia

Author: Alexander Dugin

Translator: Yulian Orlov

From part 5 of Tamplery Proletariata [The Knights Templar of the Proletariat] (Moscow: Arktogeya, 1997). 

 

1. Terminus

The border circumscribes the State. It describes the State. In being its boundary, it determines the State.

Every thing is what it is thanks to its borders. After all, it is they that separate it from another thing. This distinction carries the most important meaning of the concept of the border not just for international law, defense doctrine, or the structuring of a country’s armed forces, but also for philosophy as such. The border is not just an instrument of philosophy, but its essence, seeing as the highest philosophical concept – transcendence -in Latin literally means “that what lies on the far side of the border”.

The border externally reflects that which lies inside it, while simultaneously confining the essence of the thing in its confrontation with other things. The border is something sacred. The ancient Greeks knew a special god, Terminus, whose name meant ‘limit’, ‘border’. This was not just the guardian-deity of borders, but a “border-deity”, a kind of special, sacred concept that played a central role in the worldviews of the ancient Indo-European peoples.

In magic, there also exists the important concept of the “Guardian of the Threshold”, a special being that is located at the intersection of two worlds: the beyond and the present, the vulgar and subtle, that of life and that of death, the waking world and the dreaming world. This is the very same ancient Terminus, with only slight modifications.

The hierarchy of the “guardians of the threshold” is described in particular detail in Tibetan tantric Buddhism. They are depicted as dakini, terrifying female creatures from the retinue of the goddess Kali or Tari. They throw themselves at a man the very moment he reaches a new level of existence: at the moment of completion of special rituals (especially the ritual of Chöd), during travels through abandoned places, immediately after death etc. It is as if the “guardians of the threshold” try to make sure that people and things remain themselves, to ensure that their inner “I” is preserved unmolested and steady. As soon as someone crosses a line, they are right there. The same could be said about the philosophical side of things. A thing exists through its concept, through a kind of awe-inspiring aureole of meaning and language that does not allow it to dissolve in the chaos of an unstructured, irrational reality. The border is adjoined to reason and reason’s secret nature. As an exclusively human and divine quality of the highest order, reason happens to manifest precisely through the erection of borders, definitions, confirmations of the essence of things and phenomena.

Thus, the border is the foundation of thought, the manifestation of the divine principle. God as such is limitless, ‘transcendental’; however, he reveals his divinity through the absence of those borders that He already affirms in being, in order to differentiate Himself from the not-Him and to ‘become known’ by the not-Him, even if partially.

If all of this is true, then the borders of the state and their defenders should be allocated an entirely distinct symbolism and execute a highly important, sacred mission that far and away transcends a purely utilitarian, administrative, military-strategic function.

Border guards are not just a type of soldier, but a kind of special, sacred quality. They are the modern adepts of the extremely ancient cult of the god Terminus.

2. Expansion: from tribe to Empire

The border as an index is not quantitative, but qualitative. The greater its volume and extension, the more universal and full-fledged the concept it expresses through itself. Therefore, as the concept (the definition, enclosure of space by the boundary) widens, it encompasses in itself a constantly growing number of individual aspects. In other words, everything that is included in the concept is comprehended by the mind as a part, while it could earlier have been erroneously taken as a whole. The widening of the border of things and concepts is a dynamic process of the development of a single essence that clearly demonstrates the common part of something that earlier was present in two (or several) different things before a certain moment. Thus, the concept “animal” includes tigers, rabbits, mice, turkeys, elephants etc. “Animalness”, “animality” lays bare its universality through the inclusion of all species and variants of living creatures, which themselves make the transition from the individual to the common.

The same happens in the state. A tribe or lineage has its territorial, cultural, linguistic etc. borders. These borders widen, stretching themselves out to the concepts ‘people’, ‘nation’, ‘state’. Finally, the highest form of a state is the Empire. Its borders are enormous, they include the maximum possible number of natural human organisations: it has a place for tribes, lineages, cultures, religions, nations, ethnoi, and, in some cases, it can even accommodate likenesses of independent states (provinces, dominions etc.). As a form of state, the Empire is the highest category, comparable to the most sacred and all-encompassing gnoseological concepts such as “God”, “Truth”, “Good” etc. This is why the concept of the “Sacred Empire” is so durable. The sanctity of the Empire flows forth from the quality of its borders, which should incorporate some kind of absolute, universal knowledge, some kind of global mission that constitutes the essence of the imperial state as a historical and national community. For this reason, the borders of the Empire are directly linked to its fundamental theological orientation. The Roman Empire and its borders carried within them one spirit; the Empire of Alexander the Great another; the Arab Caliphate a third; Byzantium yet another; Rus a fifth and so on and so forth. The axial mission of the Empire also dictated the quality of Its borders, be they maritime, riverine, overland, and located in mountain, steppe or desert… The highest idea of the Empire spilled out into the landscape and structure of the borders. Researching the transition from maritime to terrestrial borders allows us to trace the dynamics of the spiritual and social development of a society, and even to from time to time explain the most important religious, cultural, and economic transformations. Thus, only after the unification of all lands in a unitary state did England recognise itself as an Island, did it change its religion, transition to a maritime existence, and lay the foundation for capitalism and industrialisation (1). The movement from clan to Empire is not a political, but a spiritual process that is merely reflected in earthly reality. As borders expand and different landscapes, civilisations, religions, and ethnoses are included into a unified geopolitical space, the discovery of a new, more universal Idea, that had earlier hidden Itself under the kaleidoscopic manifold of the multitude, takes place.   

3. Templars of the Great Wall

Based on the direct link between the sacred spirit of Empire and its borders, military units of border guards (warriors who were charged with the protection of the far reaches of the state) were formed in traditional civilisations. This link can be seen most clearly in the Knightly Order of the Temple, the Templars, warrior monks and bearers of a special, universal knowledge. This esoteric knowledge was concentrated in the secret of common ratios that were capable of unifying different regions of the feudal medieval West, including Near-Eastern lands. The symbolism of the Templars does not only contain very ancient pre-Christian elements related to the sacred geography of Europe, but also doctrines drawn from esoteric Islam, especially from Sufism and heterodox Shiism. It is not by chance that the overwhelming majority of Templar commanderies were located next to megalithic structures which had once belonged to civilisations of more ancient eras. The Templars united the North and the South, the past and the future. The warriors of the Order executed a most important function: the safekeeping of the secrets of Western unity. Simultaneously, their conception of Islam opened up an opportunity for a truly imperial expansion beyond the boundaries of Europe, towards the south and south-east. Growing their esoteric competencies, the members of the Order potentially laid the foundation for an expansion of the State, of the Western Roman Empire. Once more, it is not by chance that with the destruction of the Order by Philip the Fair, United Europe collapsed for all eternity. The line of the Ghibellines and the Hohenstaufens [1] was defeated by the Guelphs, the Vatican, and divided nation states modelled after the centralist and absolutist France.

The Templars, as well as their analogues in other cultures, were a shield against the intrusion of the forces of hell, Gogs and Magogs of the Bible, into the Empire [2]. They defended sacred civilisation from streams of decomposition and sickness. It was this that was the goal of Alexander the Great’s “iron wall”. The very same symbolism forms the foundation of the Great Wall of China, as well as the ancient fortifications on the northern borders of the Roman Empire. When the Orden of the border guards disintegrates, the foundations of imperial unity are undermined, the forces of chaos infiltrate civilisation, and, finally, a new collapse and Babylonian mixing of the tongues begin. The fall of the Empire is the catastrophe of the order of the border guards (in the physical as well as magical sense).

A brilliant illustration of the magical nature of border guard duty is given in the film “The Desert of the Tartars” [3]. In it, a mysterious, exclusively male collective (Mannerbund) of border guards awaits the advance of an enemy, an imaginary enemy, faith in the existence of which is seen by the border guards themselves as an obsessive, collective mania. One after the other, they fall to internal tension. Only the last of them, haggard from premonitions and visions, receives his reward: he becomes worthy of participating in a true miracle, during which the imagined enemy becomes a reality and its wild hordes attack the almost defenceless and abandoned fortress. The last templar against the hordes of Gogs and Magogs.

4. Cynocephalus

The Soviet Empire was an empire in the fullest sense. It was united by a common, universal idea: the idea of Socialism, in which the primordial Russian will to Truth and Justice manifested itself. The Soviet was a legitimate continuation of the Russian and the Orthodox, if only more universal, more common, more global. The archetype of border mysticism was entirely analogous to the traditional idea of the role of the Templars, the guardians of the threshold. The Soviet period was initially pregnant with a deep esotericism, which, however, was rarely expressed in a rational, open, and finished way.

To trace the trails of the Templar element in the concept of the Soviet Border Troops, we will turn to the most banal association possible: “the border guard and his trusty hound” [4]. The hound is not just an instrument of state security. It is something more: a symbol. The symbolism of the dog in the Tradition is tightly linked with the idea of the border in a wide sense, including in the metaphysical dimension. The dog guards the house, all the while located at the edge of the internal and the external. This animal is the incarnation of the “guardian of the threshold”, of an occult character, whose mission is the safekeeping of the selfsameness of the thing. Simultaneously, however, the dog also symbolised a crossing of borders, which is why it accompanied the soul of the deceased in shamanic rituals meant to help the dead travel to the other world. In other words, the dog is the animal manifestation of the god Terminus, the border deity. This is the origin of the very ancient myth about the origins of men and hounds. The Mongols and Turkic peoples state, that their ancestors were “yellow hounds”. The same belief remained among many North American Indians. The main hero of the Celtic national epos is Cú Chulainn, whose name means “the hound of Chulainn”. Even Christianity knows an image of the dog as a sacred symbol. For example, Dante uses the word veltro, “beagle”, to indicate a mysterious harbinger of the Second Coming, as well as the “Ghibelline emperor” (once again, a link with the Empire!). Monks of the Catholic Orden of Saint Dominicus deciphered their name as “Domin canes”, “hounds of the Lord”. The same symbolism is found among the Egyptian cynocephali, divinities with canine heads, especially Anubis, the “guide of the dead”. The Greek Cerberus stems from the same origin. This symbolism allows us to form the following image: the border guard (the modern analogue of the Templar) is not just the master of the hound that he uses, but, in the spiritual perspective, becomes a projection of the Sacred Hound, a manifestation of Anubis, cynocephalitic, a “yellow hound”. The animal and man “change places” as it were. Human individuality retreats in the face of a higher, magical function. Personality disintegrates in the mystery of the border.

Not the eagle, but the Hound’s Head should be the emblem of the border guards, the seal of a neo-Templar order, and, in turn, we involuntarily remember the attributes of Ivan the Terrible’s oprichniki   

5. Requiem

The fall of Empire is not just a socio-political catastrophe. It is a spiritual disaster. Along with the contraction of the borders, a collapse of the life-giving organic idea takes place. The highest philosophical spheres are struck. The parts lose their understanding of belonging to the whole, fall away from the life-giving centre, die off, and degenerate. The fall of the borders is the fall of concepts, ideas, a mental muddling. The fall signifies blood and the mixing of tongues. It is a deep catastrophe of the holy figure of the border guard. The forces of hell infiltrate the nation; the thief makes his way into the house; strife and numbness assault peoples. The cynocephalic god Terminus loses consciousness and distances himself. The chaos of spiritual night descends unto the Empire’s people.

Empire is the good made manifest into endless borders. The end of Empire is evil, manifesting itself in the destruction of borders. This is national, state treason, but it is also more. The warriors who fell at the border, the templars of the Soviet Idea are betrayed by their successors and descendants; however, their magical acts are primordially mated to the mystery of thought. The fall of the borders is directly provoking a crisis of philosophy. The chaos of the Gogs and Magogs penetrates the mind. Idiots head the country’s government.

The bastion of the spirit has fallen.

The gates of hell are open.

Hordes of enemies pour in through the crack in the great wall… 

All is lost.

But the abandoned, betrayed, lonely and forgotten border guards of the Empire carry on their duty at far-flung posts. Islands of Orders lost in chaos, now meaningless guardians of the remains of a once truly Great Wall.

Forgotten on their half-smashed barriers, like Baudelaire’s sailors. However, for the time being, like the hound of saint Dominicus, they release fiery bursts of rage from their lungs. Tracer bullets into a light that has become darkness.

“Fiery air”. Ernst Jünger described it thus:

“Fiery air is necessary for the soul for it not to choke. This air makes a man die day and night in total solitude. The moment when youth feels that the soul is beginning to spread its wings, it is necessary that its view should be turned away from those mansards, away from those stores and bakeries, so that it can feel that there, deep below, on the edge of the unknown, in the no man’s land someone does not sleep, someone is guarding a banner, and that there is a watchman even at the farthest post.”   

Dead or alive, with the head of a dog or a man, in a dream or in reality, “our men” are standing at the stumps of the border. They are the last who think for all of us. Guardians of a sold Idea. Watchmen of a no man’s land. Sentries of the farthest posts.

Within them is the beat of the pulse of the world, and of our Russia, which will rise again at the moment of the so very sweet, so very near Day of Judgement.

 

Footnotes:

*(1) See Carl Schmitt. “The Planetary Tension between Orient and Occident and the Opposition Between Land and Sea”, accessible here.

Translator’s notes:

[1]: The Ghibellines and Guelphs were two warring factions in the Italian city-states during the 12th and 13th centuries; the former supported the Holy Roman Empire, while the latter defended the interests of the Papacy. The Hohenstaufens were a German noble lineage that produced several Holy Roman Emperors, the most famous of which was Frederick I Barbarossa. They were supporters of a strong Empire and involved themselves in the violence in Italy, until the destruction of the lineage in the 13th century. Further details on all parties listed above can be found in the excellent work by Julius Evola, The Mystery of the Grail: Initiation and Magic in the Quest for the Spirit (Inner Traditions: 1996).

[2]: Gog and Magog are two entities (which are sometimes collectives, and sometimes individual beings) that appear in several books of the Bible, as well as the Muslim tradition. They are always forces of violence, destruction, and chaos.

[3]: The film (based on the eponymous book by Dino Buzatti) can be found here (in Italian).