Radical Subject, traditionalism, metaphysics - audio chapters from Dugin's books

Listen to audio

Watch the video

1. Hegel and the Platonic Leap Down - Alexander Dugin

   

   Hegel and the Platonic Leap Down - Alexander Dugin

2. Traditionalism as a Language - Alexander Dugin

   

   The Philosophy Of Traditionalism, M., 2002

   Lecture 1. Rene Guenon: Traditionalism as a language

   Structuralism: language and metalanguage

   Since the late NINETEENTH century, there developed the so-called “structural linguistics“. One of its founders was Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), who discovered a number of the patterns of this discipline. Science has proven so popular and interesting (especially as a methodology), as an effective and expeditious way to solve a number of problems that it gave rise to a new turn in the philosophical and scientific methodology of the twentieth century, leading to the so-called “structuralism” and then from that “post-structuralism“.

   Our century began with surprisingly accurate (like the rest of his aphorisms) phrase of Nietzsche, which gave the name to his early work: “We philologists“. And here, by understanding the extent to which we (as humans, as thinking beings) are “the linguists”, a number of philosophers drew attention to the problem of language.

   Very roughly we can say that the language in structuralism, structural linguistics, shall be in a separate category, showing us a world predetermined by the fact that the world is structured by interrelated meanings, that is, language is understood as something that conjugates the sphere of the intelligible, the intellectual, scope of thinking, the noumenon and the phenomenological sphere, immediate ontic realities available to us to us in perception – of what exactly we are dealing with. Thus, between meaning (or, say, spirit) and matter is language. Language has, as noted by structural linguists, some “magic” autonomy – all bodily things in this world have it in their dissolution, an entrance into the language: filleting with the elements of language, things are redeemed, withdrawn from the world of corporeality through what is named. Simultaneously, in the opposite direction, through language the realm of the spirit affects the sphere of the flesh, matter. You can remember the plot of Hoffmann (repeated by E. Golovin), where the characters of the narrative for the evocation of spirits used conventional grammar. Structural linguists using the developed conceptual, rational, expressed essentially the same magical idea: the thing dissolves in the word, the word says a thing.

   According to the hypothesis of Whorf-Sapir, “the reality around us is craftable by our language”. If something has no name – it simply is not. The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, in principle, perfectly coincides with the characteristic view of the world in the Tradition that the existence of things dissolves in their names, and the names are able to create, to embody, to materialize a specific thing. Even at the household level, it is clear enough in a certain situation to say with the tone of “do” such-and-such, “silent”, “die”, “kill” or “thou shalt not kill” – and the material world begins to change. Yet no matter what the mechanisms and how they act, it is only obvious that the word has a huge “theurgic” value. The Theurgy ancient Greeks called the priestly art, by means of which people using spells and rituals that could impel the Deities in a certain way to express themselves.

   Accordingly, the study of speech, language and its models is a kind of modern equivalent of “operational magic” that allows you to change, to transform reality and at the same time lead to the concrete world of phenomena to the conceptual, abstract model, eidetic reality, dissolving existence in some kind of conceptual ensemble. Today confirms a distorted view of the magical arts of antiquity: that they served only practical purposes and used the spiritual worlds to influence the situation and material things. Actually, it was the only one operational, application -one side of magic. There was another speculative side of magic, designed not to change existing material but to understand, to explain, to erect to the archetype, to unravel the inherent “sidereal meaning.”

   Central in today’s lecture topic is the separation of Ferdinand de Saussure (and behind it all structuralist philosophy) the aggregate of the language into two parts: potential and actual. In different languages this division can be expressed in different terminology. In the French language le (“whole language”) is divided into la langue (potential part, “proper language”) and la parole (“word”) or le discours (“utterance”) is the relevant part. In Russian language you can talk about the division into language (potential) and speech (actual).

   What does this mean? It is difficult to translate precisely these terms, because, by and large, it is not about simple ready definitions, but about the complex spiritual operations of the subtle differentiation (diacritice) separating two components of what appears to be a single reality. Language is ashwathama itself, a potential reality that is removed from the natural state, externalized, alienated and becoming “not a” at the very moment when the person speaks, carries out a discourse, a narrative.

   At this point, the language is updated. When a person says something, it uses some invisible, “pre-laying” language mass that is not in actuality, selectively withdrawn from potentially present language, to pronounce (simple or complex) speech. In language there are two elements. The first is actually a language, a set of lexical, morphological patterns, vocabulary (thesaurus) and laws governing sentence structure. This language was insisted by structurality – there is a certain constant, the synchronous value; it is always, simultaneously and completely present. Perhaps the most interesting structural linguistics is the recognition of the independent reality of a complex synchronic existence of language in potential space. Language exists in a kind of permanent, abstract from concrete speech condition. It is alwayssself-identitified, sovereign, synchronistical. Specific speech (utterance) withdraws from it fragments, translating Genesis of language from a synchronous state to a diachronic sequence. Saying there is a consistent, language – at the same time. The language is divided into two parts: what it says, and then, by means of what they say is what they say.
   Language as a potential part inextricably fused with the sphere of sense. And so, when structuralistism discovered this circumstance, it turned out that the language showing through it is not identical with the totality of all existing speeches (and even all possible speeches): it is always wider than what it says, and may be a separate object of study. The study of synchronic linguistic reality allows a wonderful way to highlight the mechanisms of social behavior, levels of psychoanalytic aspects of personality, structure, norms, and anomalies of up to radical somatic disorders. Thus arose the school of Lacan, the French psychoanalyst who combined structural linguistics with psychoanalysis and created a rather comprehensive doctrine. By the way, in Freud, in the book of reservations I first came across the idea of a combination of psychoanalysis and structural linguistics, linguistics as such. Lacan has deployed this theme, such as poststructuralist authors like Deleuze and Guattari, developed the methodology of the origin of language from the root vegetative level of physicality. It was a very interesting and very witty line of research. Deleuze, in “Logic of sense”, for example, shows how way, going from some initial perturbations bodily reality within the human being, there is metastructure language and logical thinking. Here, despite the modern rationalist context, pops up again old, archaic idea of operational significance of language, which not only reveals and veils (the Latin verb revelare means “to open” and “close” at the same time) status of corporal unconsciously-a vegetative human level, but also at the same time the opposite way affects the rights, changes his (and only his) body, governs it. Hence, the role of speech in mental health practice. Speech, conversation, story, discourse in some situations is able to cure serious mental illness.

   This raises an interesting point: the structural study of language by linguistsand structuralists, in fact, also occurs through language. And here we come to the most important: methodologically, studying the language, structuralist, structural linguists have developed a special “superlanguage”, “metalanguage”.

   The metalanguage is the language by which we study the language. This is a greater degree of generalization.

   The very fact of opening a language separate from that of speech, is already deepening in a kind of “ontological revisionism” because ordinary consciousness (digital, binary, the mind, the proverbial “common sense”) cannot grasp the synchronic language. Ordinary consciousness understands the language just as speech, as a collection of speeches or like a pattern manifesting itself in speech. Ordinary consciousness is verbal, but not linguistic consciousness, it is sensitive to discourse, but muffled language.

   The next step in understanding the ontology of language is to identify the needs and problems of metalanguage, which explores a certain language. It contains the most important is the fact that exploring language, and language models, structuralist were proprietary from some (протовлияний?), from certain paradigms, prefiguratively, predestined models, which studied that which underlies language.

   Why today we are talking about the crisis of structuralism and poststructuralism, about the exhaustion of these areas – because of the exhausted (metalinguistic) paradigm, which itself was based on the structuralist school in general, originating from either positivist-Kantian source (Saussure), or (in the avant-garde versions of the “new left”) from the Marxist paradigm. In other words, language learning in structuralist models was conducted with the help of some already defined proto-structures (deeply buried), but, actually, it is quite certainly a limited model. The study of the nature of language was conducted from positions of another language.

   In the case of structuralist learning the language was not clean (whether pure language learning – until the question), and obviously the specified models of the underlying meta-language were limited and predefined. Hence the priority interest of structuralists not to linguistic ontology, but to the evolution of speech.

   Actually, hence the modern crisis of the “new left” philosophy. I’m not talking about the complete absence of its representatives in Russia. We have never adequately understood this philosophy, and now there’s nothing to understand. Today Europeans who once (10 years ago) all perfectly understood, no longer understand what is meant by Deleuze or Lacan, since the underlying metalinguistic milestones have completely changed. Marxist imply that the “new left”
   exhausted the paradigm (which doesn’t mean “understood”) and the common denominator of linguistic research cannot serve. The field of linguistics the field of language studies came to a tragic end that requires a radical overcoming. If you look closely at the optimism in semiotic and linguistic studies in 60-70-x, including in our country) and to compare how similar problems are addressed now, we will notice a sharp contrast. Today in this area there is complete passivity, autism… Researchers have lost the nerve of what they were doing, suddenly forget the meaning and significance of what was done, losing the vital content of the categorical apparatus.
   But there is one man, one author (and associated with his name philosophy in the twentieth century), which remained aloof from the interests of structural linguistics. This author is very, very important to structuralism, although he never reckoned to the structuralists. Now that this area in General has lost its intellectual heart beat (and with it the inherent meanings), the author (through his ideological legacy) may join it in full and retained the conceptual outfit, such as “irresistible cuirass” as a new type of weapon, because this field is empty, and it’s full. I talking about Renee Guenon.

   Rene Guenon

   Rene Guenon is the most correct, the most intelligent and the most important person of the twentieth century. Smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute work was not and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Alleau in one volume dedicated to R. Guenon1, compared his work with that of Marx. Seemingly very different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative ultra-traditionalist. Marx was a revolutionary innovator, a radical Iconoclast subversive. But René Alleau absolutely correctly guessed the revolutionary message of Guenon’s exegesis, the extreme, brutal noncomformism of his position, his overthrowing of all and sundry, the totally radical nature of his thought. The fact that Rene Guenon was the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and many centuries before that, who not only identified and entered into the secondary language paradigm, but also questioned the very essence of language (and meta-language). The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting (especially at a certain historical stage), thinly reducing the historical existence of humanity by a clear and convincing formula to the confrontation of labor and capital (which, actually, was a colossal revolutionary and epistemological progress, as it allowed many things to be organized and brought in a more or less consistent, dynamic design). Being a paradigmatic Zeitgeist, Marxism was so popular as to win the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But in the work of R. guénon is an even more fundamental analysis, an even more radical unmasking, an even broader ideological conflict, settling the entire question.

   R. guénon developed one of the most important paradigmatic intellectual systems. Of course, in a vague form it existed before, and was to some extent used, but only Guenon identified it as a language. He did something similar to Saussure or other structural linguists. The most important aspect of the paradigmatic system of René Guénon, which he had deduced, and which is, perhaps, the most universal and the most powerful of the terms and concepts of our time, is the concept of the “language of modernity”.

   The concept of “modern”, “modernity” as a concept

   Historical scholarship has rightly opposed the New (modern) or modern society against traditional society. The meaning of the word le moderne – “modern”, “modernity” – in the mouth of Guénon, has such a tremendous value that it describes the entire meta-language of the world in
   which we live. In fact, in the concept of “modernity” Guenon puts the idea of paradigms2, pre-empting a metalanguage, a language, and then – the field of discourses of modernity. You can imagine what is the degree of generalization?!

   Structuralist indicated that in addition to the discourse of diachronic spoken speeches, arbitrarily developed verbal logical chains – a synchronic, synchronous, reality is constantly existing above and before verbal language, which they studied using a meta-language based on a special philosophical-linguistic methodology.

   R. Guénon, on the other hand, and this structuralist model, and many other epistemological paradigms that determine the various more specific languages (in the structuralist sense), more specific paradigmatic complexes and socio-cultural structures, includes the term, concluding in clearly defined boundaries, grasping the whole thing, detecting, revealing the essence of modernity as a huge field, encompassing all of what we are dealing with what used to operating, not knowing that this is only one thing, and that beyond this there is a whole array of other opportunities other languages. All methodology, all the languages of modernity, her entire paradigm was incorporated by Guenon into a single concept, relegating “His Majesty” of language (meta-language) to the modern level of one of the possible languages among others. We can say he that destroyed the claim of modernity to be the universal language – a set of speeches, built on a certain logic and strictly specific rules- showing that there are other full models that are much more universal. He abruptly dropped the ontological degree, the ontological level that determines our entire civilization and all the realities of our world. And this is an important point. Referring to Guénon, seeing him as an author who has committed an analogue structuralist revolution, we can discover a whole new meaning of his work and understand the important orientation of his mission.

   So, what is “modernity”? “Modernity in Guénon is a background paradigm, the operating system, a kind of computer language. The analogy with programming languages is very productive. With the development of computer technology, basic programming codes, computer language goes deeper and deeper into the background field. Gradually, there are languages that operate with the original machine language. Then there are users completely ignorant as to the original language and in the secondary, developed on its basis, and now hardly anyone remembers the early computer technology. At first, every computer user should have been in some way, albeit small, a programmer. Gradually this need disappeared, and accordingly, changed the understanding of how a computer works. Later there appeared more and newer operating systems, and eventually, even within the General theory of the process of programming, the existence of a computer language, dissipated. But the original machine language itself has not disappeared. It was just that it now moved beyond our attention to the background, where it no longer acted directly. We do not see it any more, this language is not apparent as it was before, in the first computers. Now we can’t even imagine what this language is; it exists on a different layer of computer equipment. In the end, there are people who know how to use a computer, who have mastery, but, nevertheless, have no idea of what lies at its technological base. As there are motorists who have no idea what is in the engine, and, nevertheless, can spend their life driving.

   The definition of “modernity” in the teaching of Guenon – is selection ofof some paradigmatic pathomechanism that defines how the world works. We, as ordinary human beings, immersed in a process of becoming, tend to perceive what surrounds us, what we are and what is around us is taken for granted, as a kind of “everything”. It is from this “only” that wdeveloped our cognition;
   getting an idea of what happened in the past, what the future will hold, we compare it with our “all”. This is our momentary “all” – it is for us all without the quotes. And outside it can only be analogy – analogy the past (memories), the analogy of the future (anticipation, of the gospel, planning). Guenon asserts that, in fact, the whole system of the operating system of today -our proverbial “all”- is none other than an imposed, malicious, abnormal, vicious, deeply distorted and inharmonious, artificial illusion, an artifact, a simulacrum, machination, and not “all.” Such a simulacrum of the operating system in the teaching of Guénon is called the “modern”, “the modern world.” Modernity, in his view, is an abortion. It is only one of the models, more precisely, the abnormal model within an infinitely large set of other possibilities. Just one of the languages, not some universal reality.

   Guenon opposes the notion of “modernity” – against the notion of “tradition”. Thus, this raises the interesting thing is that, from the point of view of philosophical structuralism, is central to the work. Guénon argues that there are two types of language: the language of modernity (including all the possibilities inherent in the concept of “modernity” that predetermine all the languages and even the meta languages in the framework of modernity) and the language of Tradition. And here arises the first conflict, the first line of separation: on the one hand modernity, on the other hand, Tradition. On the one hand the language of modernity, on the other hand – the language of tradition. Other researchers also use the term “modern society”, “traditional society”, “modern times”, “something that precedes a new time”, but usually all of us except the followers of Guénon. shared behind the scenes the standards of the modern paradigm, even if they are latent, and the whole terminology of traditional society is considered as something past and, correspondingly lower, and the Modern – as something present, close to the present, and, therefore, higher. In addition to our will, we operate in the operating environment of “modern” style, regardless of whether we understand the mechanisms of its functioning (as programmers), or treat it (as users) simply with inertia.

   This is true for all people of the modern world, without exception, in the extent to which the language of the modern world, the highest and most profound paradigmatic model, determines our attitude to the process of time, to the history, to terminology. So: how do people not criticize modernity, all of them, even Marx (although Marx, it should be noted, was a true revolutionary who questioned the whole layers of reality, saying that it’s not reality, and the game of capital, not authentic existence, and the machinations of capital, its akin to suspicion gronowska?) sooner or later stops. Guenon goes much farther than others. Guenon is already in a completely different reality. He contrasts the language of Tradition, and the language of the modern world. He is beyond all the others trapped in modernity, with freedom from all of the other illusions of the modern world. He is such a huge conceptual distance from the element of the language of modernity that within many of his followers, the question arises – who is, in fact, Guenon3? Some of his disciples are fascinated and horrorified by it: he can’t be human, because man is, by definition, is a product of its environment (i.e. its programmed basic operating language). Guenon is something opposite of the “product of the environment”, including space. This inference led to possibly one of the most radical hypotheses about his avatar nature (researchers began to study the location of the house where he was born and the church where he was baptized in infancy, in which hand she was oriented, the street on which he lived, tried from his house to make a et of granite temple4…). So strong were his followers’ intuitive suspicions about his distance from the language of modernity, as expressed in the theoretical description of thilanguage as something separate, outside, without affecting the basic paradigmatic levels of perception of existence.

   Anyway, Rene Guenon did not fit in our time. He was, said Michelle Balsan, “the largest intellectual miracle since the middle Ages”.

   A miracle is a miracle, but nevertheless it does not end there. Rene Guenon absolutely no contemporary author, moreover, he is perhaps the farthest removed from the present, but something’s still wrong, because even in the world of authentic and organic Traditions such amazing characters, like Guénon, there were quite is few. Guénon is not just a messenger of Traditions in an environment that is based on the denial of Tradition. Things are probably more complicated.

    

   Traditionalism and Tradition

   Guénon himself said Tradition alone is truly important. Above all, the language of Tradtion as a system of perception confronts the modern world, the language of the modern world, and has every reason in the truth, the absolute truth. The language of Tradition Guénon is the last and highest court, which, as the fullness of the paradigmatic onto-epistemological possibilities, has the right to make its own judgment with respect to any normal or abnormal fragments of reality, including with respect to the paradigm (or languages) of modernity.Therefore, in the book “the reign of quantity and the signs of the times”5 Guenon suggests that Tradition is more important than traditionalism. Tradition as the act of belonging to a much more serious and deeper tradition puts the person in a true operating system, rather than a purely theoretical traditionalism, which is only a kind of intention, the desire to belong to the Tradition. This raises a very interesting point: if we understand by “traditionalism” recognition, acceptance and development of thethe paradigmatic models proposed Guénonnon, the situation is not so straightforward. The relationship between tradition and traditionalism are not so obvious as Guenon wrote himself, because if not understood by the traditionalism of other traditionalists, namely traditionalists following the Guenon, the “guenonists”, then the picture would be more interesting.

   Guénon not just pointed to the fact that there is particular reality – the language of Tradition, in General, on a schematic level and described. He revealed the structurural skeleton which precedes the formulation of a specific historical historical incarnation. Therefore, to master the unveiled Guénon model is something other than to be an adept of this or that tradttion, to understand it, to manifest it to , to develop its logic. Guénon did the step that may be impossible within a tradition, for it is only within the modern world (the language of which is just complete nihilistic negation of the language of Tradition in its paradigmattic core) that it is possible to grasp the language of Tradition as something unified in its pure form of an ideal crystalization. Therefore Guenon did not speak on behalf of a particular tradition, and did not speak in its language(as he would have to do, if he was only the mouthptece of a particular tradition, which broadcasts on its own behalf) Guenon spoke generaly in his own language. It is a unique language that allows one to describe and to study the language of traditions and language of modernity (as a special case of degeneration that distorts the basic parameters of the language of tradition). Guenon has created a special metalanguage, and it is so universal and comprehensive that it can be adequately explore the structure of any language (in the moUnlike the technical metalanguage of linguists, the metalanguage of Guénon is indeed universal and its operation as a whole is free from the interference of a non-critical operating environment. Guénon firmly and consciously eliminated the root layer of the influence of the paradigm of “modernity.” He did this in a situation where the paradigm of Modernity was so total that the alternative paradigm of Traditionalism could be adopted only from the outside. The personal fate of Guénon was to move from the theoretical claims of traditionalism to the being-in-Tradition. But most importantly, this process was accompanied by a sharp reflection, the paradigmatic value of which far exceeds the modest framework of human destiny.

   The uniqueness of Guénon is that his Traditionalist doctrine represents something radically new, previously unknown. Thanks to Guénon, due to the absorption of Guenon’s historical message, we can now not only understand any one particular historical tradition or more traditions (as specific discourses), but also to get an idea about the structure and nature of the Tradition itself. It is particularly important that methodologically, this occurs on a very contrasting background, comparing the Tradition with the language of the modern world. Therefore, Traditionalism (as Guénon, and us as followers of Guénon.) is a unique historical opportunity that exists solely within the language of modernity as the antithesis of this language. Only in our unique conditions (apocalyptic, by all indications) is there the possibility for generalization and universalization of the Traditional paradigms that were previously impossible under a number of circumstances. After all, being in the Tradition, we can’t see it from the outside; we exist as a part of it. At the same time, being in traditionalism, we by force of circumstances are placed outside the Tradition, but are able to purify and crystallize the idea of its essence, its skeleton. In practice, methodologically, this is done through the negation of the modern world, through the negation of the language of modernity. Such a denial is not an abstraction, it is a specific direct act.

   None of the “people of the Tradition” could do it for the reasons which I have already said, none could create an elaborate description of the language of Tradition, to develop it as a universal metalanguage. Guénon did. He contrasted the language of Tradition, with the language of the modern world. This, first of all, and is the colossal revolutionary significance of Guenon. Anyone who follows Guenon, goes in the same direction, into the total negation of the modern world. The way this practice is carried out is through the sacrifice of the language of the modern world.

   It is also important that in addition to a radical dualism – the language of Tradition against the language of the modern world – there is also a mitigated dualism. There are authors (which can hardly be called “traditionalists” in a Guénonist sense, but which were either under his direct influence, or under the influence of similar ideas), who set themselves a different task: to identify the elements of the language Tradition in the language of the modern world. They do differently, tactically – not the head-on confrontation, but “entrism”, “infiltration”, an evolutionary attempt to change the paradigm of modernity towards the paradigm of Tradition.

   These are Mircea Eliade, Carl Gustav Jung, etc. This is a soft form of traditionalism. Orthodox “Guénonists” (e.g., J. Evola, Valsan or Titus Burkhart) practiced a total opposition, considering the modern world as a completely negative phenomenon, and its language – as the lies of the abomination. The second category of thinkers, by contrast, argued that the language of our time retained the remains of the main paradigmatic standards of the traditional complex. They insisted that the paradigm of modernity affected the human being only superficially, that the influence of the language of modernity afflicted only the rational process, that in the depths of human beings, as before, the paradigm of Tradition continued to operate (Jung called this reality the “collective
   unconscious”).

   Between Guénon (and “Guénonists”), on the one hand, and Eliade, Jung, etc.,on the other, there is a ratio similar to radical Marxism and European social democracy. The Traditionalism of Guénon insists on irreversibly pathological nature of the modern world and its language, and that the situation can only be corrected by a radical break with modernity, a kind of “revolt against the modern world”6, a “conservative revolution”.

   Eliade and Jung believe that the modern world is not so very “modern” in its heart, and therefore, with some effort (but without revolutionary confrontation) it is easy to return to the usual path of “eternal return”7. This is a kind of “social democracy” from socialism.

   Julius Evola, the most radical follower of Guénon, considered Eliade and Jung apostates who “sold out to the world occupation regime of the Kali-Yuga”. Other traditionalists disagree and achieve a similar, softer, traditionalism, introducing into the modern world subversive traditionalist themes, a kind of conceptual virus, thereby undermining the abnormal operating system, and bringing restoration. However, without Guénon’s analysis and actions, Eliade (and similar authors) would hardly be qualified; there would be no adequate terms and categories, which could accurately determine what, in fact, Mircea Eliade did in his works. Recognizing the correctness of the paradigms of the language of Tradition, he tried to find them in the modern world, to identify them as separate complexes and thus to reinterpret the modern world in order, ultimately, to carry out the “seizure of intellectual power.” His project, alas, did not work. In General, this path, the path of compromise, gives a definite positive effect, though, because thanks to Eliade a huge mass of people (and thanks to Jung – even more) were captured by the study of language Traditions, while Guénon was left deliberately by the author to a narrow intellectual elite, for a very limited number of heroic, uncompromising and radical people. Which is better: the quantitative growth of the fascination with the history of religions in “soft traditionalists”, sometimes not giving the desired quality, or the clarity of the circle of “strict Guénonists”, sometimes degenerating into inert and sterile critics, “moved with ressentimento”? The question is open, as in the case of figuring out who is right: the Communists or the social Democrats?

   Quality time synchronism, the ontology of eternity

   Moving on to more specific things. There are two essential elements that will allow us to understand what is the language of Tradition, and what is the language of modernity. In the language of Tradition, which Guénon revealed, is a set of postulates, fundamental principles that relate to the quality required for our global thinking in paradigmatic categories of time and space. When we talk about the understanding of space and time in language, Tradition and the language of our time, we find ourselves in the space of these two languages and begin to recognize the coordinates. As we mark the coordinate of this axis, two ambiguous uncertainties become more distinct, more concrete, more visibly outlined.

   Modernity (or the modern lanugage) sees the unidirectional main reality as the fundamental mode of existence. This axiom, this postulate in modern language is not questioned. Time flows in one direction, and all that exists, exists within time. Everything that lies outside of time, if you can think of it, is some abstraction, an artificial construction, not having its own Genesis. This is some imaginary construct having, perhaps, some grounds for consideration, but in fact is ontologically negative. Consequently, the formation is the only form of existence of existence, and what there is, is in existence, in unidirectional time. Indeed, there is no such language in eternity. If it’s spoke, it’s pure neontological abstraction. The formation of the same, left alone, being taken as a kind of self-sufficiency and the only real form of existence of existence, receives a fundamental paradigmatic load. The process time becomes an entirely ontologically positive process – obviously a positive, because it, from him, through him being there. Genesis is identical with time, as outside time nothing exists. This positive attitude to time, the representation of time as a unidirectional process, and a denial of the existence of a self-contained eternity, is the main coordinate of the language of modernity. This language is structured around an ontological axis. Ordinary people of our time (modern language) – be it a philosopher, scientist, doctor, banker, janitor, linguist, mathematician, physicist, attendant or driver clearly do not understand this. The vast majority of people both from scientific (and unscientific) community are absolutly unaware of how deeply the concept of being as time – Sein Zeit als – determines the current understanding of reality. Genesis in the language of modernity is identical with time, to be more precise, unidirectional time, which in the deployment process is positive, because it carries in itself existence. Almost no one (the vast majority) ever thinks about this, unaware that all their arguments, all actions, all decisions, all plans and all opinions on the nature of things stem from exactly this premise that is one of the most important vectors of the language of modernity, but that there can and does exist a paradigmatic language (in structuralist sense) model, arranged a very different way.

   If we subject to careful critical analysis any philosophical statement, any physical – but in general scientific – hypothesis, any idea of the chemical, social and cultural process, expressed in the framework of modernity, we find everywhere a constant bearer of time as one of the basic axes of language of modernity. Unidirectional time and the coincidence of time and being, the notion that the world exists only in this formation, which has a positive ontological (and axiological) character – this is the most important law of the paradigm of modernity.

   Such quantitative (or modern) time is thought of as infinite, having no objective progression.
   If you navigate to more specific manifestations of the language of modernity, to the level of families, of specific discourses, it is possible to identify two varieties of the ontologization of time. The most Orthodox one, from the point of view of a modern language, that most accurately reflect this inherent notion of time is a positivist approach, generalized by the worldview of liberal philosophy (F. von Hayek, B. Russell, K. Popper, I. Lakatos, etc.). Here time has no teleology, it flows unidirectionally without goals and tasks. This purely quantitative time of positivists and liberals is maximally close to the paradigmatic, of understanding the basic version of this position within the language of modernity. The Positivist (and postpositivist) approach, typical of classical science, deploys and explicitly reveals the most important rule of modern language – the identity of Being and Time. It is a kind of exemplary discourse, a language tautology – A = A, that informs us about the structure of the language in which it is uttered. This direction in the modern philosophy isolates the parameters of the meta-language of modernity, distinguishing its crystal clear paradigm from the unimportant and distracting details. A striking example here is Karl Popper8.

   If we take Marxism, which, of course, is also part of the language of our time, it represents the opposite pole here. The historical process (even if the process “of matter”) is recognized as a certain teleological task. History flows to the universal intelligence and communism as an ontological and eschatological purpose.

   From the standpoint of the paradigm of modernity, Marxism is a kind of “philosophical heresy”, although it remains within the language of modernity. This is an attempt to “internal exile” without going beyond it. It is possible to Express the idea differently: Marxism is the most contradictory statement from the standpoint of the normative rules paradigm of modern linguistics. This avant-garde speech challenges the elements of that language, on which, through which and by means of which it is made. Is a statement that attempts the recognition of the validity of language rules, the threat of demolition of all the language of present, and the proposal to use for the attainment of the critical model, the most alien structure. Marxism also is approaching the transition to the level of the metalanguage, as it seeks to interpret universal modernity. But if the liberal philosophy says this contemporary universal and total “Yes” (and therefore the metalanguage of liberals is congruent to the structure of modern), Marxism attempts to formulate a universal and total “no”, but not going beyond the approved modern (so the metalanguage offered by Marxism, is a radical critique). This clarification is needed for a new way to understand the convergence of Guenon with Marx in Rene Alleau. But this similarity is only up to a point. Marx stands on the border of the language of modernity, Guenon – on the other side of the border. Guenon is the transcendental language.

   Traditionalism, Guenon asserts, as a basic coordinate of language traditions, develops a very different picture, a different notion of time. Guénon argues that the form of existence of the being for the benefit of eternity; that a being, which is eternal being, unchangeable, nowhere comes in the form of emanations, intact, remains intact and non-affected by any processes, always, through all sorts of forms of time and being self-sufficient, samozabvennoi(?), complete, absolute reality – a reality that is simultaneously possible, valid (in itself and for itself), the necessary and absolute. So in the language of Tradition predtermined radically different notion of time. Along with the relative form of existence of existence, which is existence in time or being in becoming, there is the eternal existence, being self sufficient and still, nothing affected, we find ourselves in a very different paradigm.

   This is the first step: confirmation of the existence of eternity, of eternal existence and consequential existence, the idea of time as a process of ontological, existential descending order. Time, therefore, is not unidirectional, because it is ontologically dependant on a fixed ontology of eternity and revolves around it, arising from a primordial and unchanging, supra-temporal instance and being absorbed by it. From this side as dependent eternity infinitesimal particle, as a kind of otherness eternity, time is relative ontology. But, taken by itself, in isolation from eternity, it weighs nothing and means nothing, in a sense is simply not, this shadow aspect of time in paradigmatic language Traditions. In general, it is here the process of determining the reduction, gradual leniency from eternity itself, diachronic deployment of quality content in the direction of eternity existential descending. Therefore, time is not only a certain vector, a certain teleology, but this teleology is negative: it is a movement from plus to minus. From completeness to poverty. Understanding of the process time as degradation, as a secondary (and somewhat negative) category of the manifestation of the eternal being (since we are talking about going from high quality to low quality), gives us a totally different world, a different view about the nature of reality, different frame, different science, different culture, different art, different everything.

   But there is another very important for the language traditions of the time: because eternity is absolute, permanent and complete, but time is relative and decreasing, it cannot decrease forever,
   or even indefinitely. According to traditionalist language, the time decreases to a certain critical point, and when a sector of reality, captured by the time reaches a certain limit, eternal being again finds himself, and there is a new cycle. Thus, the time in the traditionalist picture at the same time and is teleological (oriented to specific quality limit) and cyclical. It moving from the fullness of the revelation of the existence denial of this revelation and, ultimately, when it comes to its extremely-critical boundaries, its positive part becomes infinitely small, the content side of time, its ontological cut, “spark of being” in the framework of the formation is exhausted, disappears, and then there is the special situation of the end times, the Apocalypse. Flipped the hourglass of the world, Genesis again finds himself in its splendor, in its eternal fullness, and there is a new EON, a new cycle.
   So, if one has an understanding of time, one has a most important illustration of one of the two coordinate axes, which is Central to the language of Tradition. Guénon describes it in the book “the reign of quantity and the signs of the times”. Understanding time in the meta-language of modernity is radically different. It is not hard to understand now that the two languages describe and determine two very different realities, two worlds, with a radically different ontological structure. And here it is not different accents or axiological assessment – orientation, dealing with ethical issues, preferences, morality, etc. – but the very idea of what is and what is not. In the language of Tradition time in its pure form is not, and there is an eternity. In the language of modern times – the only thing that is there, and everything is just in time and eternity, on the contrary, no. It is not difficult to imagine the extent to which such a fundamental paradigmatic linguistic differences affect all other forms of existence of those beings who act according to the rules of the two so different from each other “operating systems”. What is important to understand first of all? – What we are not talking about this or that philosophical school, each of which claim their own. We are not talking about the opinions of groups, even religious institutions (say, atheists think so, idealists in another, Christians and Buddhists as something else). It is a more serious, deep and general thing. The language of our time in the most total sense interprets in its own paradigmatic way, in its own interpretive system, the conceptual and logical structure of a variety of doctrines as separate discourses, sayings, decrypted and evaluated in accordance with a special model. This common language of modernity can use other, more narrowly understood languages (including religious, scientific, cultural, secular, etc.), putting them in everywhere of the underlying, invisible, ashwathama directly, unspoken, but implied elements. This situation is similar to what Freudianism calls “complexes”. The complex itself never tells lies, tries to elude direct analysis, and the desired complex psychoanalytic practice, to man remembered that in infancy he was scared, for example, of a rattle or a cat, and it was his main life problem. If this is remembered, then he recovered, so consider the Freudian. There are, however, more severe situation: Don ‘t remember everything, and die untreated, of the complex.

   So it is difficult to get to the bottom of, and to the basic elements of, language.
   In structuralism and Traditionalism speaks of a kind of psychoanalysis, which affects not just the individual but the whole of science, religion, whole continents of consciousness. By a special method revealed deep underwater pulses that determine the whole structure of the subsequent designs of strata. The threads of a barely visible language is picked up somewhere at the bottom and climbed up, understood, unraveled, showing what is in the basis of subsequent discursive speech constructions that deny its artificiality. There is a term in American journalistic speech – conventional wisdom, “conventional wisdom”. Any trivial assertion is the product of conventional wisdom. It seems that this “wisdom” comes from itself and corresponds exactly to the direct and spontaneous voice of the human (and not human) existence. Actually, this is absolutely not true. “Conventional wisdom” – a rough, mechanical, artificial, fake, created and cast by social engineers in accordance with the specific tasks of manipulation and pattern language of modernity.

   A comparison and contrast between the language and traditions of the language of our time, a study of their internal laws of language – it’s just the total destruction of the notorious conventional wisdom. This attack is on the deepest of paradigms that escape our attention even in the most serious and careful study of philosophy, when immersed in the essence of things. It reveals the ontological horizon, reservoirs and landscapes that have a fundamentally different nature, a different outline, a different configuration than are those who are engaged, immersed, uncritically, inertial, involved in a flat and ambiguous process of becoming.

   Quality space

   Now it is necessary to say a few words about the quality of the space. This is the second axis of language Traditions, on the one hand, and the language of modernity, on the other. In the language of our time space is seen as something that is quality free and homogeneous, as something quantitative. There is a special spatial world in the language of modernity. This spatial world language organizes our perception of space – length, with which we deal.

   In the spatial world of the modern language of all the items consist of interchangeable components – hence the idea of the quantum nature of space, which is nothing but the limit of bodily deployment of some alleged infinitesimal length (pure matter). By the way, one of the first catechists of the language of the modern world Rene Descartes said that there are only two things: “rational thinking” and “rational discourse”, and etendue, “length”, and space. Here it is purely quantitative, homogeneous l etendu is the fact that he understood the modern world. This space is isotropic, it right and left, top and bottom, the West and the East is not fundamentally different. Hence – as the limit – flows out the idea of One World, one world, “mondialisme”, the idea of unification of all countries, Nations and peoples into a single Commonwealth.

   Why is it possible? It is not only possible, but necessary from the point of view of logic the language of modernity, since, in principle, the essential homogeneity of space diversity only makes some inaccuracy, distortion (gravity or box Louisville in modern physics), which is responsible for the fact that the space is not strictly the same everywhere. From the paradigmatic point of view of the language of modernity, this fact carries a certain subtile negative load, being optional the disturbance component, which gradually, in the process of totalization of the paradigm of modernity and development “civilization” must be overcome.

   As in the case with the times, we never think about the quantitative space specifically, but the whole language of our time, all academic disciplines, methodologies, cultural and everyday acts have as a Wallpaper background, deeply rooted and hidden from direct critical reflections the idea of a homogeneous, quantitative space. This is a kind of “complex space”, organized on the basis of the Galilean-Cartesian systems. This is a local space.

   In the language of Tradition has a totally different view about space – namely, the space quality.

   It develops the concept of a cycle, the cyclic nature of reality. The cycle arises from the fact that there is eternity, and the spatial heterogeneity arises from the fact that there is a cycle. There is one character, the so-called “Celtic cross”. It is a circle with a cross, which is the most ancient and archaic Indo-European calendar, the oldest model cycle. This sign combines space and time, as is their Tradition. It’s like the time passed in the space or space, dynamically lively time. The whole cycle is covered from the perspective of eternity, where we see the beginning and the end is not consistently as a part of the establishment, and at the same time. We see synchronous and the beginning and the end and the middle. Therefore, turning to the presentation of the motion of the sun, the annual seasons, a certain portion of this figure, we can consider how the breakdown (left side) and the other (right side) – as a hoist. Placed in the matrix cycle, space acquires a quality value, some symbolic value. From now on, any object, any shape, any configuration of small and large objects with which we deal, borders, continents, acquires additional qualitative value, which is regarded not as something accidental, and as the voice quality of the space itself. And here it is not important whether a spatial symbolism (Yantra in Hinduism) is the product of human hands, or is it the handiwork of nature. You can see the wood that grows in itself, and to see inherent in the symbolic structure, and can contemplate the icon or Tibetan mandala, where similar harmonious symbolic figures artificially. For the traditional view, the language of Tradition is no difference between artificial character and the natural object does not exist. Drawn the real sun or the sun equally symbolize the Origin, existence, eternity. Because of this and there is a possibility of some magic transformations, transformations in Traditions. Tradition, accentuating the symbolic load, dissolves the existence of a homogeneous body, and the idea, the spiritual part, free light some of the things, creatures and items exempt from quantitative dark shell. The space is transformed, enlightened, spiritual, becomes alive. This is based on widely understood iconography Tradition, symbolism and sacred geography.

   One of the partial applications of spatial language Tradition is the science of geopolitics. This is the most modern and technological, somewhat pragmatic, application of the principle of qualitative space. Geopolitics as a methodology contrasts sharply with the language paradigms of the modern world, because it is based on certain mythological and symbolic assumptions, virtually identical to the language elements of the Tradition. Therefore, the most consistent keepers of the Orthodoxy of modernism denies the fact of the existence of this science. Note that deep philosophical and ontological the foundations of geopolitics lies not only did Karl Schmidt in his work “Land and sea”10, but in their purest form we find it in rené guénon. in his book “East and West”11

   Postguenonism

   The language of Tradition (and especially traditionalism work as a kind of metalanguage Traditions, language description language Tradition) is common to all historical traditions. I’m not talking about the most radical conclusions of the work, where he argues the existence of metaphysical unity of traditions. On this issue there may be different views, I would not want to stop13. What is absolutely beyond doubt is the absolute unity and the authorization of approval of the paradigm of traditionalism, which brought Guenon, and universal applicability of this paradigm to all forms of tradition, no matter how they were expressed.

   All existing tradition on its paradigmatic language level conflicts the hard way with the language of today, because of their inherent contradiction of basic facilities of basic ontological concepts. They are absolutely not reducible to each other, non-convertible, are mutually exclusive.

   When we talked about the ontological axes – time and space – about their central role in language traditions and language of our time, we have tried to show that can not co-exist peacefully when they have a conflict of basic facilities, that between them there is a deep confrontation. There are two “armies” two “parties”, the “party” language of tradition and the “party” language of modernity.
   So what is “Postguenonism”? “Postguenonism” is a term which is a kind of reaction to guenonism. Guenonistry – it’s authors, repeating Guenon, treat him as a guru, engage in repetition of involved guenonist discourse (without mastering his language) with very small deviations and considering this activity as a kind of intellectual hobby. Someone has been collecting stamps, some sadomasochism, and someone who consistently explores the crisis of the modern world, examining the signs of the times: it is a kind of niche for a certain type of European characters who see it as a discourse Guenon. To distinguish traditionalism of Guenon as a meta-language tradition from the reproduction of the discourse of Guenon, from simple repetition with variations of what was being said by Guénon, it is useful to introduce the term “postguenonism”. Is to be understood as an in-depth assimilation of the Traditionalism of Guenon as a fundamental language, really generalizing all other languages. But when guenonism becomes an internalized language, metalanguage, methodological and ontological at the same time paradigmatic structure and not a separate discourse, it can give an unexpected effect.

   Postguenonism – is not just a position, it’s a mission, it is an imperative towards action. In this process of assimilating Guenon, understanding Guenon as a language and not as a speech, there are two components. The first – the study and assimilation of knowledge from positions of traditionalism (Guenonism) by living the particular tradition with which we are dealing. This is a process of gradual movement from traditionalism to the Tradition. This is a very subtle and delicate path. Depending on the order of the particular tradition or denomination in question here, it has its specifics, the pitfalls, the nuances and deadlocks. But this is a special theme. Let me just say that this way is not going as smoothly as it might seem at first glance, and “traditionalists” are often changing denomination as costumes, finding nowhere a strict compliance with guenonist theoretical orthodoxy.

   The second component of postguenonism is a revision of the language of modernity from the Traditionalist perspective, that is, measuring the exact distance between what is exemplary modernity and what are the fragmented remnants of archaic structures, i.e. inertial existing elements of the language Tradition.

   Postguenonism is realized mainly in two areas of action. On the one hand, is the application of the opened Guenon paradigm to separate real-life traditions. It is not as simple as it seems at first glance. When we apply the paradigmatic language tradition (traditionalist meta-language) to the real Orthodoxy, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, to hermeticism – the living traditions and their authorities, we will put these areas (and these characters) certain conceptual methodological X-ray, which will highlight the structure of defects and deviations from the pure paradigm. This is a very serious and fundamental test of the adequacy of what appears as a tradition.

   Second: Guenon described the main characteristics of the modern world, the language of modernity in its net paradigm (which basically coincides with the case of liberal theories), but the surrounding real modernity has significant deviations from the ideal, from the basic model. These deviations are inertial elements of Tradition (les residues, les vestiges) that pervade modernity.

   The real “modern world” is much more traditional than the ideal “modern world”. Specific discourses of this world only aspire to the purity of the correct language of modernity. Accordingly, traditionalism as a method that allows an unexpected way to look at many modern phenomena, and open their inertial archaic nebula. The phase asserting that the language of modernity is the antithesis of the language of Tradition begs a second phase: the opening inside the modern world of various regions, deviating from the language of modernity, and hence, subject to adequate interpretation in the context of language Tradition. This is especially important because between the language of tradition and the language of the modern is not even nearly equal: the language of our time is an extremely distorted, aborted fragment of language tradition, which is primary, not only historically, but also ontologically, metaphysically. As the level of a purely quantitative matter is unattainable in principle, and the attempt to make a total reduction to it is only an impossible intention12, the absolutization of the language of modernity is unattainable in practice. Modernity is not to be cleansed of Tradition, as such a pure negation is ontically impossible to achieve. This line was developed by M. Eliade, Jung and their followers.

   However, there is the reverse circumstance. Modern (even authentic) traditions are in practice much more modern than it may seem at first glance. The fundamental language of Tradition gradually recedes under the pressure of the operating systems of today. And where the external facade remains unchanged and traditional, often at the level of exegesis (interpretation, interpretation, exploration and understanding) can be a quite modern spirit. Of course, a continuous tradition always retain the ability to recover the true traditional linguistic dimension, but in certain cases, to do is not easy, and a huge percentage of the authentic confessions not only contributes to this, but all kinds of obstacles. This is such a serious circumstance that in certain limiting cases seemingly secular and “modern” currents more archaic, sacral and, ultimately, Traditionalist traits can be detected than in certain varieties of denominations, with historical continuity. So, for example Soviet or Chinese communism contain more elements of the language of Tradition (expressed, however paradoxically and contradictory) than modern Protestant theology.

   Traditionalism (as postguenonism) is in our eschatological conditions something more than just belonging to a particular tradition. A traditionalist, not even practicing any religion (that, however is quite rare, as it is contrary to natural logic of Traditionalism), but having mastered Guenon, the language of Tradition, is closer to it (or, at least, is sharprly and tragically aware of their distance from it) than a person who looks and formally belongs to an authentic tradition (including initiatory or esoteric), but does not make a complex and painful process of uprooting language paradigms of modernity.

   Guenon said that Traditionalism – is only an intention, only an expression of the desire to join the Tradition. In fact, everything is much more complicated. In our point of the cycle, Traditionalism is what validates the Tradition of authenticity, it captures the presence (or absence) of the elements of the language of modernity.

   The picture that I describe is very simple. If to realize, to learn, to make the contents of your own consciousness, then many things will become clear. Everything can be reduced to simple formulas, however, these simple elements will allow you to clear huge paradigmatic blockages and drifts in religious, philosophical, ethical and practical problems. Identification and comparison of paradigmatic languages is a very important operational technique. After all, even real living tradition may at some point just forget about the fundamental maxims of Traditionalism. For example, understanding God and divine reality in some Christian and even half orthodox thinkers becomes a relation to something subject to time. Christian (and even Orthodox) theologians have so interpreted the historical change of epochs – before Christ, after Christ. Everything changes with the incarnation of the Son, true, but the Divine is always transcendental to the story, it makes history, but is never identified with her14…
   For example, the Jesuit Pierre de Chardin said that God and evolution of the material world – it’s the same thing. This is definitely the language of modern vestments (evolutionism) in pseudo-Christian “theological” garments. But the element of identification of being and time can very often be found among not so odious authors. The paradigmatic language of our time – this thing is not simple (there is no place to hide, not even by using a large number of prostrations, fasting, prayers, diligent self-improvement). He is like the devil, the spiritual dog that can easily penetrate behind closed doors: even into the saints and hermits he somehow found a way to sneak. The language of our time is the devil, the Antichrist, as conservatives say, the mental wolf. The language of modernity remains invisible and imperceptible inside decomposed conceptual, ontological, semantic, metaphysical or other traditions by partial or complete preservation of their external aspects. This is a very serious moment. Traditionalism has enormous religious, spiritual, eschatological significance because it is directly linked with the restoration of the most meaningful and important aspects of the Tradition. Of course, if Traditionalism is limited to criticism of the modern world, it remains inert, impotent, sterile. Such critical a postguenonism, dealing only with modernity and exposing all of its aspects, is important as pre-nihilistic phase, but insufficient. A full and complete postguenonism suggests the presence of both these elements. On the one hand positive “criticism from the right” of particular living traditions, with the entry in them, development and learning, and on the other – the most severe rejection of the modern world on the level of opening and exposing its deepest linguistic paradigms.
   Among the ordinary guenonists (not postguenonists as we are) there is a characteristic delusion: they repeat the critical theme directed against the modern world, which was developed by Guenon, with minor additions. Perceiving guenonism as speech (discourse), invectives against the meta-language of our time are considered as something fixed, once and for all. But the modern world is also changing, and efficiently and substantially. The modern world is degrading. Being a complex of anomalies, the degeneration goes from bad to worse.

   What happens in the progressive process of “modernizing” of the modern world? Anything that was not modern enough, that does not entirely reflect the perfect language of the modern world with its crystalline paradigm, is gradually worn away and overcome.

   Look at the dynamic processes in the ideological sphere of the twentieth century! It clearly shows how modernity gradually belches forth from what was internally less modern. Not to say that we reject this process truly traditionally, but in the modern language it was more traditional than the rest. Applying this model of analysis, one can notice that in the twentieth century the most “traditional” from “modern” ideologies ideology were the so-called “third way”. Being the least modern, they fell first, overcome by more modern ideological forms. Communist regimes were more modern than the ideology of the “third way”, but less modern than liberal. This raises a very interesting point that was overlooked by critics of the modern world among the conventional guenonists. Liberal discourse, consistently winning (and displacing) first the Nationalist and then the Communist ideologies, gradually approaching the pure language model of the present, practically identified with it.
   What guénon recognized as the basis of the language of modernity, was most fully proclaimed radical liberals B. Russell, K. Popper, R. Aron, F. von Hayek, F. Fukuyama, J. Soros. The modern discourse of militant liberal ideologues of the West and their philosophical subservient (Philippe Nemo, Henri-Bernard lévy, andré Glucksmann, etc.) is not just speech, expressed in modern language, but it’s practically the language. So they talk about the “end of history”, about “the exhaustion of any discourse” about “the postmodern”. Postmodern is the beginning of an era of triumphant liberalism, the last dash of the modern world for its ideal language. From now on, nothing new to say anymore, only the citation, recycling, “Remix” committed in the past – in the previous stages of history – statements. “The end of history”, understood in a liberal, there is a limit to the manifestations of the language of modernity in his latest, “eschatological” form. Liberals see things exactly the same, as we, the followers of Guénon.. So between us there are real tensions of dialogue, which is true of the intellectual content of the ongoing processes.
   All the events of the world around us (the fall of the ruble, military conflicts, resignations of governments, new discoveries in archaeology) is a struggle between two opposing camps. One pole is a tiny camp of postguenonists, almost not existing, like a grain in the desert, the other giant of the liberal camp of the language of modernity, which claims to global dominance.
   The little camp of postguenonism is, however, the heir to a giant ontological domain that is concentrated in the language of Tradition. In it is an incredible wealth of meanings. And these meanings are alive, they move, how the continents rise and fall. This is real life, which can be anything – good, bad, successful, disastrous, but that’s life. Traditions are different: sinister, benevolent, sometimes conflicting. But this is not so important, because only in them, in the world of language of Tradition, in the world of traditionalism today focus tremendous energy real existence, which contrasts their inner wealth and outer poverty with the opposite pattern of liberal peace based on cleaned and polished the language of modernity, where sparkling abundant advertising tinsel covers a suffocating semantic vacuum…

   Traditionalism and Russia

   What can you say about postguenonism (Traditionalism) in relation to the Russian situation? For us, the implementation of the programme of postguenonism is paramount, the only major state, national, social and cultural task. We only have one author that should be read is Rene Guenon. We have only one task – to understand what he wanted to say, to make his thinking our thinking, the language of our language. Only in this way can be formulated, to grope and find the things that really matter in national, in national context. Outside of that, any change in. governments, disasters and social upheavals (even the positive ones) are metaphysically equal to zero, because outside of postguenonism no spirituality, no social justice, no life – nothing.

   It is worth to emphasize a very important methodological point. Implementing the program of postguenonism in relation to the Orthodox tradition15, I came to the conclusion that there is an ideal form, which actually is our “national guenonism”. It’s the Old Believers, of old Christianity, which, since the second half of the SEVENTEENTH century, actually is in the ontological, eschatological and apocalyptic state, where it is crystal-clear and easy to understand the positions expressed by Guenon. There is not just the proximity or similarity of the positions (at the level of discourses), but almost complete identity. Adequately internalized Guenonism (i.e.postguenonism) in Russia and in the framework of Orthodoxy is an extremely old reality which preserves the paradigmatic traditionalist language, upon which rests the entire Christian tradition. Cycloplegia (or historical “ecclesiology”) of Christianity is adequately represented in this sector of Orthodoxy. Old belief is a conceptual reality, which comes to the fore when applying the traditional method to the consideration of the whole Orthodox tradition.

   Let me emphasize that this conclusion is not the result of personal acquaintance with the old believer community. Rather, adherence to the strict logic of postguenonism led me to the conviction of the authenticity and the highest values of the old belief, and then to contacts (extremely productive and meaningful) with the Old Believers.

   And because this conclusion is purely theoretical and true on an abstract level, the objective (sometimes dissonant, fragmented, troubled) state of today’s Old Believers (far, of course, from the inherent therein epistemological and eschatological standards) does not change anything about the adequacy of our beliefs. From now on, if properly search and use adequate conceptual tools, within the Old Faith we find all that we need.

   Apocalypse and linguistics

   People waste themselves in the actual. Sumerian language, I think, was dead at the time when it had said everything it could say, therefore, furthering the story demanded Assyrian languages, other languages. Language, being a potentially inexhaustible in its ontological centre, in a synchronic state, was in its diachronic forward development limited. And here comes a very interesting observation: the occurrence of language Guenon, the emergence of Guenon, his terminology, his model, his ontologically revolutionary paradigm shift occurred at precisely the moment when the tradition of the modern world was on the verge of (one foot beyond) existence. Only then it was possible to see and embrace all the contours of the ontological fact that developed, thinned and wasted in history.
   We, as heirs of Guénon, are the successors of a very disturbing, very desperate, almost hopeless position. We stubbornly defend what has historically lost, ended. Because as we approach the end of the cycle being gradually leaves the process of becoming, remove yourself from it, and does not increase the scale of its presence, and the traditionalism arose in a critical, limiting situations.
   Postguenonism – as the knowledge and the ensuing action – very tragic. But I am happy with the following: we see rapidly the exhaustion the content of the discourses, based on the norms of the language of modernity.

   This allows you to anticipate, anticipate, anticipate the emergence of a new, long-awaited era, when the situation will be somewhat different (radically different). Today our language (our traditionalist discourse) is minimized instead, most hidden. Even when we speak loudly, publicly and openly, it is more like a sermon in the catacombs than shouting from the rooftops. From our camp to a wider collective soul after filtration, the thought police, heard only the crackling, whistling and coughing: this is “the last man” and Fukuyama has turned on the silencer.

   But I am deeply convinced that in this “external dusk” we are not just powerless and only sad ascertaining the events witnessed, but the last small unit defending in the midst of the desolation of the Holy vessel. Lost in the winter at the end of time the little warlike faculty of the New University (new – because it belongs to reality, shining on that side of the marginal limits). The Department of “Fisher-Kings” that studies the laws of linguistics. I began with what Friedrich Nietzsche called one of his works “We philologists”. I dare to hope that he was to some extent meant to us.

   09.09.1998

   Notes:
   1 Rene Alleau “De Marx a Guenon: d’une critique “ri stage” a une critique “principielle” des societes modernes, Les dossiers H, Paris, 1984.>>
   2 the Greek word paradeigma literally means “that which determines the nature of existence, manifestation, staying out of existence” (para- is “over”, “above”, “across”, “about”, and deigma – “expression”, “manifestation”). In the broadest sense, is the original sample matrix, which acts not directly, but through their existence, defining their structure. The paradigm is not manifested by itself and not amenable to direct reflection of structuring the reality that, to stay in the background, sets the basic, fundamental proportions of the human thinking and human existence. The specificity of the paradigm is that in her epistemological and ontological moments not yet separated, and are subject to differentiation only as a basic intuition, passing through paradigmatic grid, issued in this or that statement epistemological or ontological nature. The term paradigm was used in Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy to describe a higher, transcendent of the sample, determining the structure and form of material things.>>
   3 Allemand, Jean-Marc: “Rene Guenon et les Sept Tours du Diable”, Guy Tredaniel/Editions de la Maisnie, Paris, 1990.>>

   4 ibid.>>
   5 R. Guenon “Le Regne de la Quantite et les Signes des Temps.” Paris, 1995.>>

   6 Julius Evola “Rivolta contro il modo moderno”, Roma, 1969.>>
   7 Mirchea Eliade “Le Mythe de l”йternel retour”, Paris, 1949.>>
   8 K. Popper “the open society and its enemies”, I-II, M., 1992.>>
   9 R. Guenon “Le Regne de la Quantite et les Signes des Temps.” Paris, 1995.>>
   10 Carl Schmitt “Land and Sea”, entirely in English published in proc. Dugin A. “Foundations Of Geopolitics”, Moscow, 2000.>>
   11 Rene Guenon “Orient et Occident”, Paris, 1983.>>
   12 A. Dugin “the Metaphysics of the Good News”, in proc. A. Dugin “Absolute Motherland”, M., 1999.>>
   13 Cm. Guenon R. “Le Regne de la Quantite et les Signes des Temps.” Paris, 1995.>>
   14 In detail this topic is consecrated in the “Metaphysics of the Good News”, the decree. op.>>
   15 A. Dugin “the Metaphysics of the Good News”, in proc. A. Dugin “Absolute Motherland”, M., 1999.>>

3. Postmodernity and Black Miracles - Alexander Dugin

   

   Postmodernity and Black Miracles - Alexander Dugin

4. Radical Object: the necro-ontology of Dark Enlightenment (Negarestani's philosophy)

   

   Radical Object: the necro-ontology of Dark Enlightenment (Negarestani's philosophy)

5. The Noology of the Ancient Chinese Tradition - Alexander Dugin

   

   The Noology of the Ancient Chinese Tradition - Alexander Dugin

6. From Sacred Geography to Geopolitics - Alexander Dugin

   

   Geopolitics as an “Intermediary” Science

   Geopolitical concepts have long been the most important factor in modern politics. These concepts are based on general principles which allow one to readily analyze the situation of any country and any individual region. 

   In the form in which it exists today, geopolitics is undoubtedly a worldly, “profane”, secularized science. However, among all other modern sciences, it is geopolitics which has preserved the greatest connection to Tradition and the traditional sciences.  René Guénon said that modern chemistry is the product of the desacralization of the traditional science of alchemy, just as modern physics has its origins in magic. Exactly in the same way, one could say that that modern geopolitics is the product of the secularization and desacralization of another traditional science, that of sacred geography. Since geopolitics occupies a peculiar place among modern sciences and is often ranked as a “pseudo-science”, its profanation is not nearly as complete and irreversible as in the case of chemistry or physics. Geopolitics’ relation to sacred geography is rather distinctly visible in this sense. Therefore, we can say that geopolitics occupies an intermediary place between traditional science (sacred geography) and profane science. 

   Land and Sea

   The two essential concepts of geopolitics are Land and Sea. It is these two elements  – Land and Water – that lie at the root of humans’ qualitative imagination of earthly space. In experiencing land and sea, earth and water, man enters into contact with the fundamental aspects of his existence. Land is stability, gravity, fixity, space as such. Water is mobility, softness, dynamism and time.

   These two elements are, in their essence, the most obvious manifestations of the material nature of the world. They stand outside of man: everything is heavy and fluid. They are also inside him: in the body and blood. The same is the case at the cellular level.

   The universality of the experiences of earth and water yields the traditional concept of the Firmament, since the presence of the Higher Waters (the source of rain) in the sky also implies the presence of a symmetric and necessary element – earth, land, the celestial vault. All together, Earth, Sea and Ocean are in essence the major categories of earthly existence, and it is impossible for mankind not to see in them some of the foundational attributes of the universe. As the two basic terms of geopolitics, they preserve their significance for both civilizations of a traditional kind and for exclusively modern states, peoples and ideological blocs. At the level of global geopolitical phenomena, Land and Sea generate the terms Thalassocracy and Tellurocracy, i.e., “power by means of sea” and “ power by means of land” – Sea Power and Land Power. 

   The strength of any state or empire is based upon the preferential development of one of these categories. Empires are either thalassocratic, or tellurocratic. The former implies the existence of a mother country and colonies, the latter a capital and provinces on “common land.” In the case of thalassocracy, its territory is not unified into one land space, which creates an element of discontinuity. The sea is both the strength and weakness of thalassocratic power. Tellurocracy, on the contrary, boasts the quality of territorial continuity.

   Geographical and cosmological logic at once complicate this seemingly simple model of division: the pair of “land-sea”, by reciprocal superimposition of its elements, gives birth to the ideas of “maritime land” and of “land-water”. The maritime-land is an island, i.e., the base of maritime empire, the pole of thalassocracy. “Land-water” or water within land means rivers, which predetermine the development of overland empires. On the river we find the city, the capital, the pole of tellurocracy. This symmetry is symbolic, economic and geographical all at once. It is important to note that the statuses of Island and Continent are defined not so much on the basis of physical magnitude as by the peculiarities of the consciousness typical of their populations. Thus, the geopolitics of the US is of an island nature despite the dimensions of North America, whereas the island of Japan geopolitically represents the continental mentality, etc.

   One more detail is relevant: historically, thalassocracy is linked to the West and the Atlantic Ocean, whereas tellurocracy is associated with the East and the Eurasian continent. The above-mentioned example of Japan is explained, thus, by the stronger “attractive” effect of Eurasia.

   Thalassocracy and Atlanticism became synonyms long before the colonial expansion of Great Britain or Portuguese and Spanish conquests. Long before the first sea migration waves, the peoples of the West and their cultures had already begun their shift to the East from their centers located in the Atlantic. The Mediterranean was also mastered from the Gibraltar to the Middle East, and not the other way around. Meanwhile, excavations in Eastern Siberia and Mongolia demonstrate that ancient pockets of civilization once existed there, which means that none other than the central lands of the continent were the cradle of Eurasian mankind. 

   The Symbolism of Landscape

   Besides these two global categories of Land and Sea, geopolitics also operates with more particular definitions. Maritime and oceanic formations can be differentiated among thalassocratic realities. For instance, the maritime civilizations of the Black Sea or Mediterranean Sea are rather qualitatively different from the civilizations of the oceans, i.e., insular powers and peoples dwelling on the shores of the open ocean. More particular divisions also exist between river and lake civilizations with relation to continents.

   Tellurocracy also has its own particular forms. One can distinguish between the civilization of the Steppe and civilization of the Forest, the civilization of the Mountains and the civilization of the Plains, the civilization of the Desert and the civilization of Ice. In sacred geography, diverse varieties of landscapes are understood as symbolic complexes linked to the particularities of the state, religious and ethical ideologies of different peoples. Even in those cases where we are dealing with a universalist, ecumenical religion, the concrete embodiment of such in a given people, race or state will be subject to adaptation to the local sacred-geographical context. Deserts and steppes represent the geopolitical microcosm of the nomads, and it is precisely in the deserts and on the steppes that the tellurocratic tendency reaches its climax, as the “water” factor is minimally present. Desert and Steppe empires should therefore logically be the geopolitical springboards of tellurocracy. As an example of a Steppe empire, one might consider the Empire of Genghis Khan. A typical example of a Desert empire was the Arab Caliphate, which arose under the direct influence of nomads. 

   Mountains and mountain civilizations are more often than not archaic and fragmentary. Mountain countries are generally not sources of expansion, in fact, they tend to gather the victims of other tellurocratic forces’ geopolitical expansion. No empire has its center in a mountainous region. Hence the often repeated maxim of sacred geography, “mountains are inhabited by demons.” On the other hand, the idea that mountains can conserve the residual traces of ancient races and civilizations is reflected by the fact that it is precisely in mountains that the sacred centers of Tradition are placed. One could even say that mountains correspond to some kind of spiritual power in tellurocracy. 

   The logical combination of both concepts – the mountain as a hieratic model and the desert as a regal one – yields the symbolism of the hill, i.e., a small or average height. The hill is a symbol of imperial might rising above the secular level of the steppe, but it does not reach the limit of supreme power as is the case with mountains. A hill is a dwelling place for a king, a count, an emperor, but not a priest. All large tellurocratic empires’ capitals are placed on a hill or hills (often on seven hills – the number of the planets; or on five – the number of elements, including the ether, and so on).

   The forest in sacred geography is similar to the mountains in a definite sense. The symbolism of the tree corresponds to the symbolism of the mountain (both the former and the latter designate the world axis). Therefore, in tellurocracies the forest also plays a peripheral function, as it too is the “place of the priests” (the druids, the magi, the hermits), but also at the same time the “place of demons”, i.e., archaic residuals from a vanished past. Thus, a forest cannot serve as the center of an overland empire.

   The tundra represents the Northern analogue to the steppe and the desert, although the cold climate makes it much less significant from a geopolitical point of view. This “peripherality” reaches its apogee with the icebergs which, similarly to mountains, are deeply archaic zones. It is telling that the Eskimo shamanic tradition calls for a future shaman to depart alone on the ice, from where the world beyond will be opened to him. Thus, ice is a hieratic zone, the threshold of another world.

   Taking into account these essential and most general characteristics of the geopolitical map, it is possible to define the various regions of the planet according to their sacred qualities. This method can also be applied to the local features of a landscape at the level of individual countries or even of individual localities. It is also possible to trace the convergence of the ideologies and traditions of what are seemingly very diverse peoples. 

   East and West in Sacred Geography

   In the context of sacred geography, cardinal directions possess a special, qualitative nature. Visions of sacred geography can vary across traditions and periods in accordance with the cyclical phases of a given tradition’s development. Hence why the symbolic functions of cardinal directions often vary. Without diving into the details, it is possible to formulate the most universal law of sacred geography with regards to East and West.

   Sacred geography, on the basis of “cosmic symbolism”, traditionally considers the East to be the “land of the Spirit”, the paradisal land, the land of perfection, abundance, the sacred “homeland” in its fullest and most complete form. In particular, this idea is mirrored in the Bible, where Eden has an Eastern position. The exact same understanding is characteristic of other Abrahamic traditions (Islam and Judaism), as well as many non-Abrahamic traditions, such as the Chinese, Hindu and Iranian traditions. “The East is the mansion of the gods”, states the sacred formula of the Ancient Egyptians, and the very word “East”, or neter in Egyptian, simultaneously meant “god.” From the point of view of natural symbolism, the East is the place where the sun, the Light of the World, the material symbol of Divinity and the Spirit, ascends, or vostekeat in Russian, hence the Russian word for “East”, vostok.

   The West has the opposite symbolical meaning. It is the “land of death”, the “lifeless world”, the “green country” (as the Ancient Egyptians called it). The West is “the empire of exile” and “the pit of the rejected” in the expressions of Islamic mystics. The West is the “anti-East”, the country of the setting of the sun (zakat in Russian), decay, degradation, and transition from the manifest to the non-manifest, from life to death, from wholeness to need, and so on. The West [zapad in Russian] is the place where the sun descends, where it “sinks down” (zapadaet).

   It is in accordance with this logic of natural cosmic symbolism that ancient traditions organized their “sacred space”, founded their cult centers, burial places, temples and edifices, and interpreted the natural and “civilizational” features of the planet’s geographical, cultural and political territories. Thus, the very structure of migrations, wars, campaigns, demographic waves, empire-building, etc. was defined by the primordial, pragmatic logic of sacred geography.

   Peoples and civilizations possessing hierarchical characters stretched along the East-West axis – the closer to the East, the closer they were to the Sacred, to Tradition, to spiritual abundance. The closer to the West, the more the Spirit decayed, degraded and died. 

   Of course, this logic was not always absolute, but at the same time it was neither minor nor relative as it has so wrongly been considered by many “profane” scholars of ancient religions and traditions today. As a matter of fact, sacred logic and the tracing of cosmic symbolism were much more consciously recognized, understood and practiced by ancient peoples than is acceptably believed today. Even in our anti-sacred world, the archetypes of sacred geography are almost always retained in their integrity on the level of the “unconscious”, and are awoken at the most important and critical moments of social cataclysms. 

   Thus, sacred geography univocally affirms the law of “qualitative space”, in which the East represents the symbolic “ontological plus”, and the West the “ontological minus.” According to the Chinese tradition, the East is Yang, or the male, bright, solar principle, and the West is Yin, the female, dark, lunar principle.

   East and West in Modern Geopolitics

   Now we shall see how this sacred-geographical logic is mirrored in geopolitics, which, in the capacity of the exclusively modern science, merely fixates on the factual arrangement of affairs, leaving sacred principles themselves out of its framework and out of the picture. 

   Geopolitics in its original formulation by Ratzel, Kjellén, and Mackinder (and later by Haushofer and the Russian Eurasianists) took as its point of departure the peculiarities of different types of civilizations and states in relation to their dependence on geographical disposition. Geopoliticians established the fact that there is a fundamental difference between “insular” and “continental” powers, between “Western”, “progressive” civilization and “Eastern”, “despotic” and “archaic” cultural forms. Insofar as the question of the Spirit in its metaphysical and sacred understanding is generally never raised in modern science, geopoliticians have also brushed it aside, preferring to evaluate situations in different, more modern terms than those of the “sacred”, “profane”, “traditional”, “anti-traditional”, etc. 

   Geopoliticians have identified major differences between the political, cultural and industrial development of Eastern regions and Western ones over the past few centuries. The picture thereby derived is the following: the West is the center of “material” and “technological” development. On the cultural-ideological level, “liberal-democratic” tendencies and individualistic and humanistic worldviews prevail in the West. On the economic level, priority is assigned to trade and technological modernization. The theories of “progress”, “evolution”, and the “progressive development of history”, which are completely alien to the traditional Eastern world (and also to Western history in those periods when a rigorous sacred tradition was still in place there, as was the case in the Middle Ages), appeared for the first time in the West. On the social level, coercion in the West acquired only an economic character, and the Law of Idea and Force was gradually replaced by the Law of Money. A peculiar “Western ideology” was gradually cast in the universal formula of the “ideology of human rights”, which became the dominant principle in the most Western regions of the planet – North America, first and foremost the United States of America. On the industrial level, this ideology has corresponded with the notion of “developed countries”, and on the economic level is related to the concepts of the “free market” and “economic liberalism.” 

   The whole aggregate of these features, along with the purely military, strategic integration of different sectors of Western civilization, is defined today by the concept of “Atlanticism.” In the previous century, geopoliticians spoke of “Anglo-Saxon civilization” or “capitalist, bourgeois democracy”, but the “geopolitical West” has since found its most pure embodiment in the “Atlanticist” form. 

   The geopolitical East represents the direct opposite of the geopolitical West. Instead of economic modernization, here (in the “less developed countries”) traditional, archaic modes of production of the corporative or shop-manufacturing type prevail. Instead of economic coercion, the state more often employs “moral” or simply physical coercion (the Law of Idea and Law of Force). Instead of “democracy” and “human rights”, the East gravitates around totalitarianism, socialism and authoritarianism, i.e., around various types of social regimes whose only common feature is that the center of their systems is not the “individual” or “man” with his “rights” and his peculiar “individual values”, but something supra-individual, supra-human, be it “society”, “the nation”, “the people”, “the idea”, “the Weltanschauung”, “religion”, “the cult of the leader” etc. The East contradicts Western liberal democracy with a diversity of types of non-liberal, non-individualistic societies ranging from authoritarian monarchies to theocracies or socialism. Moreover, from a pure typological, geopolitical point of view, the political specificity of this or that regime is secondary in comparison to the qualitative division between “Western order” (= “individualist, mercantile”) and “Eastern order” (= “supra-individual – based on force”). The USSR, communist China, Japan until 1945 and Khomeini’s Iran have been representative forms of such an anti-Western civilization. 

   It is curious to note that Rudolf Kjellén, the first author to coin the term “geopolitics”, illustrated the differences between West and East in the following example: 

   “A typical pet phrase of the ordinary American,” Kjellén writes, “is ‘go ahead’, which literally means ‘go forward.’ In this is reflected the internal and intrinsic geopolitical optimism and ‘progressivism’ of American civilization, which is the extreme form of the Western model. The Russians, on the other hand, habitually repeat the word nichego [‘nothing’]. This manifests the ‘pessimism’, ‘contemplation’, ‘fatalism’, and ‘adherence to tradition’ peculiar to the East.” 

   If we now return to the paradigm of sacred geography, we see a direct antagonism between the priorities of modern geopolitics (such concepts as “progress”, “liberalism”, “human rights”, and “trade order” etc., are today positive terms for the majority of people), and the priorities of sacred geography, which evaluates different civilizational types from a completely opposite point of view (from the standpoint of such concepts as “spirit”, “contemplation”, “submission to superhuman force or superhuman idea”, “ideocracy”, etc., which in sacred civilizations are exclusively positive, and remain such  to this day for the Eastern peoples on the level of the “collective unconscious”). Modern geopolitics (with the exceptions of the Russian Eurasianists, the German followers of Haushofer, Islamic fundamentalists etc.) analyzes and imagines the world from an opposite perspective than that of traditional sacred geography. But in this, both sciences still converge in their description of the fundamental laws of the geographical picture of civilizations.

   Sacred North and Sacred South

   In addition to the sacred-geographical determinism along the East-West axis, an extremely relevant problem is posed by another, vertical orientation or axis – that of North-South. Here, as in all other cases, the principles of sacred geography, the symbolism of cardinal points, and the continents related to each, have a direct analogue in the geopolitical picture of the world, which is either naturally built up over the course of the historical process, or is consciously and artificially formed as a result of the purposeful actions of the leaders of this or that geopolitical formation. From the point of view of the Integral Tradition, the difference between “artificial” and “natural” is generally rather relative, since Tradition never knew anything in the likes of  the Cartesian or Kantian dualisms which strictly separate the “subjective” and the “objective” (or the “phenomenal” and “noumenal”). Therefore the sacred determinism of North or South is not only a physical, natural, or terranean-climatic factor (i.e., something “objective”), nor is it merely an “idea” or “concept” generated by the minds of individuals (i.e., something “subjective”). Rather, it is some kind of third form that is superior to both the objective and subjective poles. One might say that the sacred North, or the archetype of the North, was over the course of history split into the natural Northern landscape on the one hand, and the idea of the North, or “Nordicism”, on the other. 

   The most ancient and primordial layer of Tradition unequivocally affirms the primacy of North over South. The symbolism of the North corresponds to the Source, to the original Northern paradise from which all human civilization originates. Ancient Iranian and Zoroastrian texts speak of the northern country of Airyana Vaeja with its capital of Vara, from which the ancient Aryans were expelled by glaciation sent upon them by Ahriman, the spirit of Evil and opponent of the bright Ormuzd. The ancient Vedas also speak of a Northern land as the ancestral home of the Hindus, the Śveta-dvīpa, the White Land lying in the Far North. The Ancient Greeks spoke of Hyperborea, the Northern island with the capital Thule. This land was considered to be the homeland of the bright god Apollo. In many other traditions, one can detect the most ancient traces, so often forgotten and fragmentary, of this “Nordic” symbolism. 

   The fundamental idea traditionally associated with the North is the idea of the Center, the Immobile Pole, the point of Eternity around which revolves not only the cycle of space, but also the cycle of time. The North is the land where the sun never sets even at night, it is the space of eternal light. Every sacred tradition honors the Center, the Middle, the point where contrasts converge, the symbolic place that is not subject to the laws of cosmic entropy. This Center, whose symbol is the Swastika (which stresses both the immobility and constancy of the Center, and the mobility and changeability of the periphery), has acquired different names for each tradition, but it has always been directly or indirectly linked to the symbolism of North. Therefore, we can say that all sacred traditions are, in essence, the projection of the One Northern Primordial Tradition adapted to all different historical conditions. The North is the Cardinal Point chosen by the primeval Logos in order to reveal itself in History, and each of its further manifestations has only re-created this primordial polar-paradisal symbolism.

   In sacred geography, the North corresponds to the spirit, light, purity, completeness, unity, and eternity. The South symbolizes something directly opposite – materiality, darkness, mixture, privation, plurality and immersion in the stream of time and becoming. Even from a natural point of view, in polar areas there is one long semi-annual Day and one long semi-annual Night. This is the Day and Night of the gods and heroes, of the angels. Even decayed traditions remember this sacred, spiritual, supernatural Cardinal North, recalling the Northern regions to be the dwelling place of “spirits” and “forces from beyond.” In the South, the Day and Night of the gods are fragmented into human days – here the primordial symbolism of Hyperborea has been lost, and its memories became mere pieces of “culture” or “legend.” The South generally often corresponds to culture, i.e., to that sphere of human activity at which the Invisible and the Purely Spiritual acquire material, hardened, visible outlines. The South is the reign of substance, life, biology and instincts. The South corrupts the Northern purity of Tradition, but preserves its traces in materialized features.

   The North-South pair in sacred geography is not reduced to an abstract opposition of Good and Evil. It is rather the opposition of the Spiritual Idea to its coarsened, material embodying. In normal cases, in which the South recognizes the primacy of the North, there exist harmonious relations between these “parties of light”; the North “spiritualizes the South”, the Nordic messengers bring Tradition to the Southerners and lay the foundations of sacred civilizations. If the South fails to recognize the primacy of the North, then thus begins the sacred confrontation, the “war of continents.” In the view of Tradition, the South is responsible for this conflict in breaking sacred rules. In the Ramayana, for instance, the Southern island of Lanka is considered the dwelling place of demons that have stolen Rama’s wife, Sita, and declared war on the continental North with its capital of Ayodhya. 

   Thus, it is important to note that in sacred geography, the North-South axis is more important than the East-West axis. But being the more important one, it corresponds to the most ancient stages of cyclical history. The great war of North and South, of Hyperborea and Gondwana (the ancient paleo-continent of the South) belongs to “antediluvian” times. In the last phases of the cycle, it becomes more hidden, more veiled. The paleo-continents of North and South themselves disappear. Thus, the baton of opposition is passed to East and West.

   The shift from the vertical North-South axis to the horizontal East-West axis typical of the last stages of the cycle nevertheless saves the logic and symbolic connection between these two sacred-geographical pairs. The North-South pair (i.e., Spirit-Matter, Eternity-Time) is projected on the East-West pair (i.e., Tradition and Profanity, Origin and Decay). The East is the downwards horizontal projection of the North. The West is the upwards horizontal projection of the South. Out of this transition of sacred meanings, one can readily obtain the structure of the continental vision peculiar to Tradition. 

   The People of the North

   The Sacred North determines a special human type, which can have a biological, racial embodiment, but also might not have such a thing at all. The essence of “Nordicism” consists in the capacity of man to raise each object of the physical, material world to its archetype, to its Idea. This quality is not a simple development of a rational origin. On the contrary, the Cartesian and Kantian “pure intellect” is by its very nature incapable of overcoming the thin border between the “phenomenon” and “noumenon”, whereas it is precisely this ability that lies at the heart of “Nordic” thinking. The man of the North is not simply white, “Aryan” or Indo-European in terms of his blood, language, and culture. The man of the North is a particular kind of being endowed with a direct intuition of the Sacred. To him, the cosmos is a texture of symbols, each of them pointing towards the First Spiritual Principle that is invisible to the eye. The man of the North is the “solar man”, Sonnenmensch, who does not absorb energy, as black holes do, but allots it – the streams of creation, light, strength, and wisdom flow out of his spirit.

   Pure Nordic civilization disappeared with the ancient Hyperboreans, but its messengers laid the foundations of all present traditions. This Nordic “race” of Teachers stood at the origins of the religions and cultures of the peoples of all continents and colors of skin. Traces of a Hyperborean cult can be found among the Indians of North America, among the Ancient Slavs, among the founders of the Chinese civilization, and among the natives of the Pacific, among the blonde Germans and black shamans of Western Africa, among the red-skinned Aztecs and among the Mongols with their wide cheek-bones. There is no people on the planet that does not have a myth about the “solar man”, Sonnenmensch. True spirituality, the supra-rational Mind, the divine Logos, and the capacity to see through the world to its secret Soul – these are the defining qualities of the North. Wherever there is Sacred Purity and Wisdom, there, invisibly, is the North – no matter what point in space or time we inhabit. 

   The People of the South

   The man of the South, the Gondwana type, is directly opposite of the Nordic type. The man of the South lives in a circle of effects, of secondary manifestations; he dwells in the cosmos, which he venerates but does not understand. He worships exteriority, but not interiority. He carefully preserves traces of spirituality, their embodiments in the material environment, but he is not able to proceed from “symbolizing” to “the symbolized.” The man of the South lives by passion and speed, he puts the psychic above the spiritual (which he simply does not know) and worships Life as a higher authority. The cult of the Great Mother, of matter generating the variety of forms, is typical of the man of the South. The civilization of the South is a civilization of the Moon, which only receives light from the Sun (North), and preserves and diffuses it for some time only to periodically lose contact with it (the new moon). The man of the South is a Mondmensch.

   When the people of the South stay in harmony with the people of North, i.e. recognize their authority and their typological (not racial!) superiority, harmony reigns among civilizations. When they claim their supremacy because of their archetypical relation to reality, there arises a distorted cultural type, which can be globally defined by adoration of idols, fetishism or paganism (in the negative, pejorative sense of this term).

   As is the case with the paleo-continents themselves, purely Northern and Southern types existed only in remote ancient times. The people of the North and the people of the South confronted one another only in the primordial epochs. Later, whole peoples from the North penetrated the Southern lands, sometimes founding bright expressions of Nordic civilization, such as ancient Iran and India. On the other hand, peoples from the South sometimes went far northward, bearing their cultural type, such as Finns, Eskimos, Chukchi etc. The original clearness of the sacred-geographical panorama gradually became muddy. But in spite of all of this, the typological dualism of the “people of North” and the “people of the South” has been preserved in all times and epochs, only not so much in the form of an external conflict between two miscellaneous civilizations, as an internal conflict within the framework of any given civilization.

   The type of the North and the type of the South have since some moment in sacred history opposed each other at every turn, irrespective of concrete places on the planet. 

   North and South in East and West

   The type of the people of North can be projected in the South, East and West. In the South, the Light of North generated great metaphysical civilizations such as the Indian, Iranian or Chinese, which in the situation of the “conservative” South for a long time preserved the Revelation, were entrusted with it. However, the simpleness and clearness of Northern symbolism turned here into complex and miscellaneous tangles of sacred doctrines, sacraments and rites. The further to the South, the feebler are the traces of the North. And among the inhabitants of the Pacific islands and Southern Africa, Nordic motives in mythology and sacraments are preserved only in extremely fragmentary, rudimentary and even distorted form.

   In the East, the North manifests itself as classical traditional society founded on the univocal superiority of the supra-individual above the individual, where the “human” and the “rational” are retracted in view of the supra-human and supra-rational Principle. If the South gives civilization “stability”, then the East defines its sacrality and authenticity, the major guarantor of which is the Light of the North.

   In the West, the North is manifest in heroic societies, where such a tendency peculiar to the West as fragmentation, individualization and rationalization surpassed itself, and the individual, becoming the Hero, grew out of the narrow framework of the “human, all too human” personality. The North in the West is personified by the symbolic figure of Heracles who, on the one hand, releases Prometheus (the purely Western, titanic, “humanist” tendency), and on the other, helps Zeus and the gods to defeat the rebellion of the giants (i.e. serves for the sake of sacred rules and spiritual Order).

   The South, on the contrary, projects itself on all three orientations according to an opposite image. In the North, it gives the effect of “archaism” and cultural stagnation. Even the most Northern, “Nordic” traditions, when under the Southern influence of “Paleo-Asiatic”, “Finnish” or “Eskimo” elements, took on the traits of “idol-worshipping” and “fetishism” (this is characteristic, in particular, of the Germano-Scandinavian civilization in the “epoch of the Skalds”).

   In the East, the forces of the South surface in despotic societies, where the normal and just Eastern indifference towards the individual turns into denial of the great Supra-human Subject. All forms of Eastern totalitarianism, both typological and racial, are linked to the South.

   Finally, in the West, the South is manifested in the extremely rough, materialistic forms of individualism in which the atomic individual reaches the limit of anti-heroic degeneration, worshipping only the “golden calf” of comfort and egotistical hedonism. That this combination of two sacred-geopolitical tendencies yields the most negative type of civilization is obvious, since it overlaps two orientations which are already in themselves negative – South on the vertical line and West on the horizontal line. 

   From Continents to Meta-Continents

   If, from the perspective of sacred geography, the symbolic North unambiguously corresponds to positive aspects, and the South to negative, then in the exclusively modern geopolitical picture of the world, everything is much more complex – and to some extent even upside down. Modern geopolitics understands the terms “North” and “South” as wholly different categories than sacred geography does.

   First of all, the paleo-continent of the North, Hyperborea, has not existed for many millennia on a physical level, but remains a spiritual reality towards which the spiritual gaze of the initiated yearning for primordial Tradition has been directed .

   Secondly, the ancient Nordic race, the race of the “white teachers” who descended from the pole in the primordial era, does not at all coincide with what is today commonly called “white race” based only on physical characteristics, skin color, etc. The Northern Tradition and its original population, the “Nordic autochthones”, have not existed for quite some time as a historical-geographical reality. Judging by things as they stand at present, even the last remnants of this primordial culture disappeared from physical reality some millennia ago.

   Thus, ‘the North’, looked at in terms of Tradition, is a meta-historical and meta-geographical reality. The same can be said about the “Hyperborean race” – it is not a ‘race’ in the biological, but rather, in a purely spiritual, metaphysical sense. The topic of “metaphysical races” was developed in detail in Julius Evola’s work.

   The continent of the South, ‘the South’ as it exists in Traditionalist terms, and its most ancient population have not existed for quite some time. In a certain sense, the “South” at a certain  moment came to make up practically the entire planet, as the influence of the original polar initiatic center and its messengers dissipated across the entire world. The modern races of the South represent a product of multiple mixtures with the races of North, and skin color in general long ago ceased to be a distinctive sign of belonging to one or another “metaphysical race.”

   In other words, the modern geopolitical picture of the world has very little in common with the fundamentally supra-historical and meta-temporal view of the world. The continents and populations of our epoch are extremely far removed from those archetypes to which they corresponded in primordial times. Therefore, today there exists not merely a discrepancy, but an almost inverse correspondence between actual continents and actual races (the realities of modern geopolitics) on the one hand, and meta-continents or meta-races (the realities of traditional sacred geography) on the other.

   The Illusion of the “Rich North”

   Modern geopolitics refers to the concept of the “North” most frequently alongside the adjective “rich”  – the “rich North,” the “advanced North”. This term refers to an aggregate of Western civilization which attaches fundamental attention to the development of the material and economic side of life. The “rich North ” is rich not because it is more clever, more intellectual, or more spiritual than the “South”, but because it has built its social system on the principle of maximizing the material that can be extracted from social and natural potential, from the exploitation of humans and natural resources. The racial image of the “rich North” is linked to people with white skin, a feature which is central to various versions, whether explicit or implicit, of “Western racism” (in particular Anglo-Saxon racism). The success of the “rich North” in the material sphere was raised to a political and even “racial” principle in those countries which became the vanguard of industrial, technical and economic development, i.e., England, Holland, and later Germany and the US. In this case, material and quantitative welfare amounted to a qualitative criterion, and it is on this basis that the most ridiculous prejudices about the “barbarism”, “primitiveness”, “underdevelopment” and “untermenschlichkeit” of the Southern peoples (i.e., those not belonging to “rich North”) came about. Such “economic racism” was clearly manifested in Anglo-Saxon colonial conquest. Later, an embellished version was introduced in the most coarse and contradictory aspects of National-Socialist ideology. Nazi ideologists often blended vague guesses about pure “spiritual Nordism” and the “spiritual Aryan race” with the vulgar, mercantilistic, biological racism of the English variety. This substitution of sacred-geographical categories with categories of material and technical development was the most absolutely negative aspect of National-Socialism, and the element which led to its political, theoretical and military collapse. Yet, even after the defeat of the Third Reich, this kind of “rich North” racism has not disappeared from political life. Now, the US and its Atlanticist partners in Western Europe have become its primary bearers. In the most recent globalist doctrines of the “rich North”, questions of biological and racial purity are not stressed; nevertheless, in practice, the rich North’s relations with undeveloped and less developed countries of the Third World still advance the “racist” haughtiness typical of both English colonialists and the German National-Socialists’ orthodox Rosenberg line. 

   In fact, the “rich North”, in geopolitical terms, refers to those countries where forces directly opposed to Tradition have won out – the forces of quantity, materialism, atheism, spiritual degradation and emotional degeneration. The “rich North” is radically distinct from “spiritual Nordism” and the “Hyperborean spirit.” The substance of the North in sacred geography is the primacy of spirit over matter, the definitive and total victory of Light, Justice and Purity over the darkness of animal life, the arrogance of individual passions and the mud of base egoism. The globalist geopolitics of the “rich North”, on the contrary, means exclusively material welfare, hedonism, the consumer society, the “problem-free” and artificial pseudo-paradise of those whom Nietzsche called “the last men.” The material progress of technological civilization has been accompanied by the monstrous spiritual regress of all truly sacred culture. From the point of view of Tradition, the “wealth” of the modern, “advanced” North cannot serve as genuine criteria of any real superiority over the material “poverty” and technological backwardness of the modern “primitive South.”

   Moreover, the material “poverty” of the South is quite often conversely linked tied to Southern regions’ conservation of genuinely sacred forms of civilization. Spiritual wealth is sometimes disguised behind ostensible “poverty.” At least two such sacred civilizations still exist in the Southern space today despite all the attempts by the “rich (and aggressive!) North” to impose its own measures and path of development on the whole world: Hindu India and the Islamic world. In terms of Far Eastern traditions, there are various points of view: some see certain traditional principles that have always been definitive for Chinese civilization, even beneath the “Marxist” and “Maoist” rhetoric. These Southern regions are inhabited by peoples who have maintained their devotion to very ancient, nearly forgotten sacred traditions. Compared to the atheist and utterly materialistic “rich North”, these peoples are “spiritual”, “whole” and “normal”, while the “rich North” itself is “abnormal” and “pathological” from a spiritual point of view.

   The Paradox of the “Third World ”

   In terms of globalist projects, the “poor South” is de facto a synonym for the “Third World.” This part of the world was referred to as the “third” during the Cold War, a notion which presupposed that the other two “worlds” – the advanced capitalist and less-advanced Soviet – were more relevant and significant to geopolitics than all other regions. The expression “Third World” has a pejorative connotation: according to the utilitarian logic of the ”rich North”, such a definition renders Third World countries tantamount to a “no man’s land”, to little more than human resource reservoirs slated for subservience, exploitation and manipulation. In so doing, the “rich North” has skillfully played on the traditional political-ideological and religious characteristics of the “poor South” by subjugating it to its exclusively materialist and economic interests and structures which are, in terms of spiritual potential, far superior to the “rich North” itself. The “rich North” has almost always succeeded in this subjugation, since the very cyclical moment of our civilization is conducive to perverted, abnormal and unnatural tendencies. This is due to the fact that, according to Tradition, we are now in the latest period of the dark age, the ‘Kali Yuga.’ Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam and the indigenous traditions of the “non-white” peoples are but an impediment to the material conquests and aims of the “rich North”; yet, at the same time, certain aspects of Tradition are often appropriated to achieve their mercantile goals by manipulating contradictions, religious peculiarities or national problems. Such utilitarian appropriations of various aspects of Tradition for exclusively anti-traditional aims have been an even greater evil than the outright denial of all Traditional values, since the highest perversion is for the great to be made subservient to the “nothing.”

   In reality, the so-called “poor South ” is only “poor” on a material level precisely because of its spiritual attitudes, having always reserved only a minor and unimportant place for the material aspects of existence. The geopolitical South in our time has preserved a uniquely traditionalist attitude towards the objects of the external world, a calm, detached, and even indifferent attitude which starkly contrasts the obsessions of the “rich North” with materialist and hedonistic paranoia. The people of the “poor South”, by virtue of living in Tradition, to this day have fuller, more profound and even more magnificent existences. Participation in sacred Tradition bestows upon all aspects of their personal lives’ a meaning, an intensity and a saturation, of which the “rich North” has long been deprived. The latter is left hysterical with neuroses, material fears, inner desolation and a completely pointless existence. It is little more than a languid kaleidoscope with pictures as vivid as they are empty. 

   It could be said that the correlation between North and South in primordial times has a directly inverse correlation in our present epoch, as it is the South which today still preserves some links with Tradition, whereas the North has definitively lost them. Nevertheless, this statement does not cover the whole picture of reality, since true Tradition cannot abide such humiliating treatment as that practiced by the aggressively atheistic “rich North” against the “Third world.” The fact of the matter is that Tradition has been preserved in the South only in an inertial, fragmentary, partial form. It holds a passive position and can only resist, it is permanently on the defensive. Thus, the spiritual North has not fully transferred itself to the South in the End Times – the South only accumulates and preserves spiritual impulses that once came from the sacred North. No active traditional initiative can come from the South in principle. Meanwhile, the globalist “rich North” has managed to harden its pernicious grasp on the planet due to the specificity of the Northern regions that are conducive to activity. The North was and remains by its very nature the chosen place of power. Thus, truly effective geopolitical initiatives come from the North.

   The “poor South” today has a spiritual advantage over the “rich North”, but it cannot serve as a serious alternative to the profane aggression of the “rich North”, nor can it offer the radical geopolitical project capable of subverting the pathological vision of the modern world. 

   The Role of the “ Second World”

   In the bipolar geopolitical picture of “rich North” vs. “poor South”, there has always existed an additional component of self-sufficient and critical significance. This is the so-called “Second World”, which is conventionally understood to mean the socialist camp that was integrated into the Soviet system. This “Second World” was not quite the “rich North”, since it had definite spiritual motives that secretly influenced the nominally materialistic ideology of Soviet socialism, nor was it really the “Third world”, since overall an orientation towards material development, “progress” and other exclusively profane principles were at the heart of the Soviet system. The geopolitically Eurasian USSR was located both in “poor Asia” and “civilized” Europe. During the socialist period, the planetary belt of the “rich North” was broken in Eastern Eurasia, thus complicating the clarity of geopolitical relations on the North-South axis.

   The end of the “Second World” as a special civilization left the former USSR’s Eurasian space with two alternatives: either integration into the “rich North” (that is, the West and the US), or being thrown down to the “poor South”, i.e., to turn into a “Third world country.” One possible compromise would be the separation of some of the regions to the “North” and some to the “South.” As has often been the case over the last few centuries, the initiative of redistributing geopolitical spaces was the prerogative of the “rich North”, which cynically used the paradoxes of the “second world” itself to fix new geopolitical borders and break up zones of influence. 

   National, economic and religious factors are regularly instrumentalized by the globalists as tools in their cynical and deeply materialist-motivated operations. It is therefore no surprise that, in addition to false “humanist” rhetoric, almost blatantly “racist” pretexts are now increasingly invoked to incite Russians to demonstrate a “white superiority complex” towards Asian and Caucasian Southerners. This correlates with the inverse process of the former “Second World” being driven finally towards the “poor South” which has been accompanied by manipulations of fundamentalist tendencies, of the peoples’ inclination towards Tradition and of the revival of religion. 

   The disintegrating “Second World” is being broken apart along the lines of “traditionalism” (the southern, inertial, conservative kind) and “anti-traditionalism” (the actively Northern, modernist and materialist kind). This dualism, which is only being strategized today but will become the predominant phenomenon in Eurasian geopolitics in  the near future, is predetermined by the spread of the globalist understanding of the world in terms of “rich North” and the “poor South.” Any attempt to save the former Soviet Great Space, and any attempt to save the “Second World” as something self-sufficient and balancing halfway between North and South (in their exclusively modern meaning), cannot be successful without altogether questioning the fundamentally polar conception of modern geopolitics as understood and realized in its actual form, brushing aside deceitful humanitarian and economic proclamations. 

   The “Second World” is disappearing. There is no more place for it on the modern geopolitical map. At the same time, the pressure of the “rich North” on the “poor South” is increasing, with the latter left to fend against the aggressive materialistic technocratic society of the “North” in the absence of an intermediate power, such as the Second World was. Any other possible destiny for the “Second World” will only be possible if accompanied by a radical rejection of the planetary logic of the North-South dichotomy in its globalist vein. 

   The Project for the “Resurrection of the North”

   The rich globalist North is spreading its domination across the planet through the partition and destruction of the “Second World.” In modern geopolitics, this has also been called the project of the “New World Order.” The active forces of anti-tradition are consolidating their victory over the passive recalcitrance of the Southern regions which continue to preserve their economic backwardness and defend their residual forms of Tradition. The inner geopolitical energies of the “Second World” face a choice – either be annexed into the “civilized Northern belt” and decisively lose any connection with sacred history (which is the project of leftist globalism), or become an occupied territory allowed to partially restore some aspects of tradition (the project of right-wing globalism). Events are developing in precisely this direction today and they will continue to in the near future. 

   As for an alternative, it is theoretically possible to formulate a different path for geopolitical transformation based on rejecting the North-South globalist logic and on returning to the spirit of genuine sacred geography – to the extent that such is possible now, at the end of the dark age. This is the project of the “Great Return” or, in other terms, the “Great War of Continents.” In its most general features, the essence of this project is as follows:

   (1) The rich North will be opposed, not by the “poor South”, but by the “poor North.” The poor North is the sacred ideal of returning to the Nordic sources of civilization. Such a North is “poor” because it is based on total asceticism, on radical devotion to the highest values of Tradition, on utter hatred of the material for the sake of the spiritual. The “poor North” exists (in a geographical sense) in Russia, which, essentially being the “Second World”, has socio-politically resisted the adoption of globalist civilization in its most “progressive” forms to the present moment. The North Eurasian lands of Russia are the only territories on earth which have not been completely mastered by the “rich North.” They are inhabited by traditional peoples and are terra incognita in the modern world. The “path of the poor North” for Russia means refusing to be annexed by the globalist belt and refusing to have its traditions archaized, reduced to the folkloric level of an ethno-religious reservoir. The “poor North” must be spiritual, intellectual, active and aggressive. Potential opposition by the “poor North” to the “rich North” is possible in other regions as well, perhaps manifesting itself in part of the Western intellectual elite radically sabotaging the course of mercantile civilization and rebelling against the modern world of finance for the sake of the ancient, eternal values of the Spirit, Justice and Self-Sacrifice. The “poor North” could thus launch a geopolitical and ideological battle against the “rich North”, rejecting its projects, destroying its plans from the inside and out, combating its stainless efficiency and thwarting its social and political manipulations.

   (2) The “poor South”, incapable of independently opposing the rich North, will enter a radical alliance with the poor Eurasian North and begin a liberation war against the Northern dictatorship. It is especially important to strike at representatives of the ideology of the “rich South ”, i.e., those forces which, working for the “rich North”, stand for the “development”, “progress” and “modernization” of traditional countries, which will otherwise lead to a further departure from what remains of sacred Tradition.

   (3) The “poor North” of the Eurasian East, together with the “poor South”, will surround the entire planet, concentrating their forces against the “rich North” of the Atlanticist West. These efforts will put an end to the ideologically vulgar versions of Anglo-Saxon racism and praise of the “technological civilization of the white peoples” along with its accompaniment globalist propaganda. Alain de Benoist expressed this idea in the title of his famous book  Europe, Tiers Monde – même combat [“Europe and the Third World: The Same Fight”], which argues for a “spiritual Europe”, a “Europe of peoples and traditions” instead of the “Maastricht Europe of commodities.” The intellectualism, activism and spiritual profile of the genuine, sacred North will return the South’s traditions to their Nordic Source, and raise the Southerners in a planetary uprising against the common geopolitical enemy. In so doing, the passive resistance of the South will form a beachhead in the planetary messianism of the “Nordicists” who radically reject the degenerated and anti-sacred branch of white peoples who have followed the path of technological progress and material development. This could spark a planetary, supra-racial and supra-national Geopolitical Revolution based on the fundamental solidarity of the “Third World” with that part of the “Second World” which rejects the project of the “rich North”.

   Over the course of this struggle, the flame of the “resurrection of the spiritual North”, the flame of Hyperborea, will transform geopolitical reality. The new global ideology will be that of Final Restoration, putting a final end to the geopolitical history of civilizations – but this will not be the end which the globalist spokesmen of the End of History have theorized. The materialistic, atheistic, anti-sacred, technocratic, Atlanticist version of the End will give way to a different epilogue – the final Victory of the sacred Avatar, the coming of the Great Judgement, which will grant those who chose voluntary poverty the kingdom of spiritual abundance, while those who preferred wealth founded on the assassination of the Spirit will be condemned to eternal damnation and torment in hell.

   Lost continents will arise out of the abysses of the past. Invisible meta-continents will appear in reality. A New Earth and a New Heaven will arise.

   Thus, the path is not from sacred geography to geopolitics but, on the contrary, from geopolitics to sacred geography.

   Translators: Jafe Arnold and John Stachelski 

   Chapter 7 of Mysteries of Eurasia (Moscow: Arktogeia, 1991) / Chapter 6/Part 6/Book I of Foundations of Geopolitics (Moscow, Arktogeia, 2000). 

7. The Solar Hounds of Russia - Alexander Dugin

   

   The Solar Hounds of Russia - Alexander Dugin

8. Hyperborea and Eurasia - Alexander Dugin

   

   Hyperborea and Eurasia - Alexander Dugin

9. The Three Logoi: An Introduction to the Triadic Methodology of NOOMAKHIA - Alexander Dugin

   

   The Three Logoi: An Introduction to the Triadic Methodology of NOOMAKHIA - Alexander Dugin

10. Baron Ungern: God of War - Alexander Dugin

    

    Baron Ungern: God of War - Alexander Dugin

11. The Logos of Europe: Catastrophe and the Horizons of the Another Beginning - Alexander Dugin

    

    The Logos of Europe: Catastrophe and the Horizons of the Another Beginning - Alexander Dugin

12. The Battle for the Cosmos in Eurasianist Philosophy - Alexander Dugin

    

    The Battle for the Cosmos in Eurasianist Philosophy - Alexander Dugin

13. The necessity of the Metaphysics of Chaos -

    

    The necessity of the Metaphysics of Chaos -

14. Traditionalism as a Theory: Sophia, Plato and the Event - Alexander Dugin

    

    Traditionalism as a Theory: Sophia, Plato and the Event - Alexander Dugin

15. NOOMAKHIA: The Logos of Turan – “Turan as an Idea”

    

    NOOMAKHIA: The Logos of Turan – “Turan as an Idea” 

16. The Metaphysics of the Warrior: philosophy by way of the sword

    

    Conversation about Platonism devoted to the metaphysics of the warrior principle

17. Star of an Invisible Empire (on Jean Parvulesco) -

    

    Star of an Invisible Empire (on Jean Parvulesco) -

18. The Advent of Robot (History and Decision) - Alexander Dugin

    

    The Advent of Robot (History and Decision) - Alexander Dugin

19. Modernization without Westernization - Alexander Dugin

    

    Modernization without Westernization - Alexander Dugin

20. Introduction to Noomakhia: What is Noomakhia? [Lecture 1] - Alexander Dugin

    

    Dear friends: it is the final part of our geopolitical Serbian School experimental course. That is based on the previous lecture courses that are already made. I presume that you have understood well the previous courses. They are necessary to understand this final metaphysical and philosophical summary of multipolar approach to understand the very essence of modern situation concerning cultures, civilizations, societies, globalizations, and the place of identity in this context. Noology is the new philosophical discipline or approach developed by Romanian and Russian school of thought. There are two branches in noology; one Romanian and one Russian. Romanian is represented by philosopher Lucian Blaga and his kind of continuator, modern Professor Badescu. Russian noology is completely different but having the same sources of inspiration as developed in my person and my friends. I have published already 18 volumes of Noomahia, more or less 800 pages each one. So that is a kind of already made work. It is not finished yet. I’m working on the 20th book now. But it will have 21, maybe 22 volumes in all. So that is the project that is based on the special philosophical, metaphysical approach I try to explain in this course, in the ten lectures. They are very important because they are a kind of summary of everything said and done before. Excuse me for speaking English but the problem is not only that we lack the qualified translator from Russian to Serbian but there are kind of new created terms as well in Russian. For Russian to understand noomahia in Russian is difficult. For Serbia, it’s almost impossible because nobody can make a correct translation. If I would know Serbian well enough, I would prefer to make this lecture in Serbian but I doubt that there is someone besides myself that could make such philosophical translation. So excuse me for English in this course but I could stop or return to the point if you miss something. If you miss something you could ask if you don’t understand an important term, ask myself or Jovana. We will try to translate in Serbian to find the correct term because the philosophical terminology is not sufficiently developed neither in Russian nor in Serbian. We are always having in mind German or English or French words in order to transmit the concepts. I use English in the conceptual way in order to transmit the concepts, not the terms of our native languages.
    We will have ten lectures during these days, up to Friday. It’s very important to be present because if you miss something you could never get what is going on in the next one. Today we will have two lectures (introduction) but they are the most important among all the others. So we need to concentrate today and to try to put other concerns aside in order to concentrate on that. If you get that, you will understand and have the keys to open any intellectual doors in this course. If not, that will be the problem. So I invite you to concentrate. Thank you for your presence.
    Today’s first lecture is introduction of what is noology. Noology is a new term. The term noology consists of two roots; ‘nous' (Greek word) and ‘logy' (logic, logos, science, teaching). So noology is the teaching of ‘nous.’ What is the ‘nous’ in Greek? That is very serious word and if you try to translate it, it could be ‘ум' in Russian. It is intelligence and intellect. It is as well mind, order, thought, or a kind of consciousness. In German it is ‘Bewusstsein.' It is something that lies at the depth of the human thought. But what is human? Human is the being that is different from any other being in the world, when one thinks. It is thinking being. Every other qualities, we share with other beings but thought is the same as to be human, to be thinking. Thinking creature and thinking being is human. So the thought is the human. To think is to be human. We have bodies and we have instincts and pain, suffering, or joy. But the other creatures as well have the same. But nobody except us, in the living world, have thought. So the thought, or nous, is the essence of the man. The man is thought. All the rest is man and not only. But the thought is the only aspect of man that makes us human. To be human is to be thinking. So the nous as a kind of thought and mind is the deepest root of human being, of human-ness, of mankind. We are human because of thinking and because of nous. We are ourselves because there is the nous. Without nous, there is no human. We are human because there is the nous. So thinking about the nous and trying to explore noology is the same as to explore ourselves. It’s not the kind of alienated objected. To think about nous is the same as to think about us and about our deepest nature. It is not abstract. It is a kind of introspection. We are speaking and learning our depth. We are learning human-ness of human beings. That is the nous.
    We could present human being from different point of view. Noology presents human being from one point of view, from its essential point of view. It is the study of the thought as such. That is very very important. Noology as well is philosophical basis of multipolarity. Why multipolarity? Because the idea of noology is that there is not only one kind of thinking that is universal and common for all of humanity. There are differences. So when we try to study nous, the intellect, the mind, the thought carefully, we discover how much the process of thinking depends on culture. If you are thinking in one culture, you think in one way. If you belong to the other culture, to the other ethnical group, to the other religion, to the other age, you think completely differently. But you are still human. You are still Serb, Russian, French, English, Chinese, or African. But belonging to different cultures and spaces and times, you think differently. So if we want to study nous and the thought as such, we need to take into account these differences. And without studying the differences of way of thinking, we could not arrive at the essence of thinking. For example, if we presume that everybody thinks as ourselves, we will study our thought. But it is only part. Because for example, Croatians, or Albanians, or Russians, or English, or American, or African, or Chinese, or Muslims think differently not only about secondary aspects but they think differently about the nature of human, about life, death, family, gender, history, time, space, God, matter, world, about everything. Noology is a kind of phenomenology of the mind. We don’t prescribe how the nous should be or what the thought must be. We try to explore how it is, how thought works, and presents itself in different contexts. And this recognition of the differences without any normative prescription of how the man should normally think is the special feature of noology. So we are starting from the recognition of the differences and we are trying to understand better and deeper, the differences and not trying to unite or impose something as universal but trying to discover. That is very important feature. That is why noology is dedicated to the study of the concrete cultures. In my books in the project of noology, most of them are dedicated to European culture, for French Logos, English Logos, Eastern European Logos, Russian Logos, American Logos, Chinese Logos, Iranian Logos, and so on. We are studying cultures and basing on the cultures, we are deducing from these cultures their way of thinking. In that way, we are arriving to have the complete vision of the human thought. We are not saying ‘human should be as for example, modern European, white, atheist, materialist, and liberal.’ That is a concrete result of Anglo-Saxon European civilization. It is geographically and historically limited and it is not universal. It is English way of developing their English, American, European history. And if we go to Eastern Europe, Slavic world, Russian world, Chinese world, or Muslim world, we discover that they don’t go that American or English or European way. Everybody goes its own ways.
    There is the conflict of civilizations as well the key to understand what is going on now with your country or our country, how we are dealing with the west, how they treat us, why they treat us so, why we respond, why we resist, or why we submit. The essence of noology is recognition of the plurality of the minds of the cultures. Plurality means that there is not only one universal, normative way of development of mind. There are minds and not the mind. Or there are different manifestations of one mind, nous, but so differently and specially that we need to study carefully each case; Serbian case, Russian case, French case, German case. It is not to create hierarchy or to say ‘it’s more developed or it’s less developed’ but to understand how everybody thinks in different conditions. That is noology.
    Noology is multilevel analysis. In noology we are using philosophy. The minimal knowledge of philosophy is necessary to understand what is going on because the philosophy is the mirror of the thought. Studying philosophy, we are saving time to study the other, politics and history, because in philosophy, everything is in contact with it. It is simultaneously presented in the philosophy. So if we are reading the history of philosophy, we are reading the history of humanity. Why? Because to think is to be human. And philosophers consecrate all their life and all their efforts to thinking. So they are more human than other. They are more clear human than other. They are making the same thing as everybody but in special way. They are concentrated on this human-ness of human. And the other as well participate. We could say that every man is philosopher. But the philosopher is complete, accomplished, and perfect man. They are dedicated to the main goal of human, to think. That is why philosophy is so important in noology. History of religions is very important because religion is the other way to think. Religion is based on the premises of the thought. So without at least some knowledge of different religions, we could not understand noology because religion is as well the mirror of the thought. There is projection of our thought on the gods, on the relations between the reason of being and the source of being, creation, god, time, and many other things in religion that reflect the structure of nous. So in noology, we need to know a little bit of religion.
    What is important is that, in noology, we need to have some knowledge of geopolitics because geopolitics is concretization of civilization. So that is a kind of generalization and if we discovered geopolitical position of thinker, we could not understand what he means because we are defined by philosophical tradition and religious tradition but we are as well defined by our position in the world and our way of thinking. Our own cultural noology is defined by our geopolitical position. If you belong to the civilization of the sea (sea power) or the civilization of the earth, you think differently. That is very important difference. Position on the geopolitical map of the world is very important to interpret concretely the thought. So geopolitics is absolutely unavoidable. World history is main topic. We need to know the history of different peoples and cultures. We also need to know basic knowledge of sociology because sociology is the discipline that shows how much the way of our being is defined by society. So that is very important because society is very important way of self reflection because if we know how much society and its principles are inside us, we will discover that our individuality and originality is almost zero, is almost non-existent quantity. Everything in us is put by the society. We think ‘I’m thinking that.’ It is not ‘I’ that thinks. Society through me thinks. Sociology is very important. Anthropology and above all, the new anthropological school from Franz Boas and Claude Lévi-Strauss and the other tradition. And I suggest that in development of our course, we absolutely need to have a kind of anthropological course about anthropology. It is a very important part. And modern anthropology shows ethnical tradition and condition of the living and the nature and the culture and the balance between the nature and culture defines the values of the society and how different the societies are. That is very important gain of modern anthropology. Old anthropology of 19th century was based on the evolutionary theory. So everybody is developing. There are developed society and underdeveloped societies. Modern anthropology shows there are no such things as development. There are differences. And in order to study archaic society, we could discover the society more complicated and more complex than our society but they are different. They are not underdeveloped. They are not childish stage of the same culture. That is maybe mature, maybe childish, maybe old stage of different culture that we need to study carefully without projecting our own ideas on them. That is the gain of modern anthropology. That is one of the main principles of noology and noomahia.
    There is ethno-sociology that puts together ethnology and sociology. You had a course already about ethno-sociology. It’s very important and key course. The theory of imagination - I would suggest strongly to read the books of Carl Gustav Jung, Gaston Bachelard, but above all Gilbert Durand (French author) about sociology of imagination. That is very important. His methods and his teachings will be used in our course as a kind of methodological basis. I will explain in short terms what is sociology of imagination of Gilbert Durand. I have made doctrine on sociology of imagination and it will be of use. Phenomenology - I would recommend you to study Heidegger and Husserl. The most important idea of phenomenology is that the thing we are thinking of exists in our mind. All the qualities of the things belong to our mind. So what the thing is beyond our mind is something we could guess. There is no evidence and no quality. It’s almost nothing. For example, existence or not existence of the thing outside of our perception changes absolutely nothing in our relations with the thing. That is the main law of phenomenology. The things are present inside of our thought and our thinking process. That is the main law of phenomenology developed by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger and other philosophers of the same line.
    The structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, and Paul Ricoeur is very important as well because structuralism is philosophical method that explains that everything exists in the structures. Structure is something invisible but that defines the meaning. So the language is much more important than the discourse or the things that are said in the language. The language predefines what we are going to say. So what we are saying are citations from the language and from the dictionary. So it is our speech that we are so proud of thinking that it is something original. ‘Let’s go to the cinema’ for example, we say as if let’s be the world, let’s be the light, God’s announcement from nothing, from the void but it is pure citation of what many other men and women say to each other. ‘Lets go to the cinema.’ That is citation and that is defined by the structure of the language. There is nothing, zero originality in that. And with all our judgments the same, all our words and discourses, we are repeating the things that were said many millions and millions of times before us by the other. And there is no author. There is repetition of the structure. That is the language that speaks by itself. That is the concept and philosophy of structuralism. It is very interesting and very important methodological aspect that we use in noomahia.
    I suggest reading Heidegger as in Fourth Political Theory. I suggest reading traditionalist philosophers of the school of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola. They are very important. I suggest reading Bachofen about the gender and the matriarchy. It’s very important because the study of matriarchy is the essential part of noomahia. I will explain why. Bachofen has written the book that is called ‘Muterrecht’ (‘The Law of Mother’). That is classic book about how pre-Indo-European mediterranean matriarchy was. That is very important and it is basic classical work. We will mention, as well, structuralist author Georges Dumezil and Claude Levi-Strauss, as I have said, about modern structuralist anthropology and ethnology. There are more or less the kind of fields or methods of schools we are using in noology. But there are many many studies, pluri-disciplinary studies of such kind so there is nothing new or nothing concrete in everything I have just said. And what is originality of noomahia as such? That is the most important point. All the mentioned disciplines and methods and fields of studies are auxiliary. They help us to understand. They are tools. But what is the main method? The main method is the concept that this time is something partly new (and I will explain why) about existence of three Logos.
    What is three Logos? My idea is that the nous as a thought or mind or intellect manifests itself in three distinguished, different forms. In three - no less and no more. That is approximation as any methodological approach. But that is what the French call 'grilles de lecture.’ That is a kind of reading. If we accept that, everything will be put in the context of this methodological approach. So one mind and three major forms with many subdivisions, many other forms included in this main global general forms of the process of the thought that I’m calling Logos. So there is one nous and three Logos. How three Logos relate to the nous, we put out of the question. That is too metaphysical and is not so important for us. The most important idea is that the nous cannot manifest itself without passing through these three Logos. There is no thought outside of these three Logos. But these three Logos, we could find in any culture. They have no destiny for one of them. There is no hierarchy between these three Logos. And we find all three Logos necessary in any kind of culture. So that is the result of my work and the result of the studies and research. I started from the hypothesis that maybe we will find them in any culture and maybe not. After studying any culture in the world, including most archaic one in Oceania, in Africa, in Indian of Southern and Northern America, I have arrived at the point where this hypothesis was confirmed. In any culture and in any society, archaic or modern or postmodern or European or not European, in any time in any form of society, we could discover these three Logos in different proportions and in different balance. They could be combined in many ways, in million ways. And that is dynamic. I will explain this balance of the Logos and how they are changing. But they are present everywhere. No culture, no people, no religion, and no region could say ‘we have this Logos and only this, or these two.’ Every culture has three Logos. That is very important. That shows that we could not reconstruct the hierarchy between the culture or people, because the three Logos combine with each other in completely special way. And the way of combination is proper to each culture. So that is kind of our history. Our deep identity of the people, of the culture, of the religion consists precisely in this combination and the changes of the balance of these three Logos. Because there are so many forms to combine them, there are unlimited possibilities of the human society and no way to create hierarchy because the archaic society can be with domination of one Logos and modern with other and vice versa. There is no general rule that could be universal.
    And that is very important point because that shows that we are dealing in our science, in our methodology, in our politics, and in our culture with a kind of racist colonial approach in any culture. We are just projecting our own Logos as something universal. Careful study of the culture shows that that is illegitimate. Racism is the idea to say ‘my Logos or my special culture is universal’ without studying the other and without asking the other. And after that, after declaring that our culture is universal one, we put ourselves as example for the other. The other are either the same as ourselves or are less developed. And that is the case of modern European civilization and of us in the way we belong to it. If we accept that, we are entering into this racist attitude toward the history, toward the past, toward ourselves. And we are declaring 'that is universal, that is the only way to develop and everybody is going that way. There is only one culture and one Logos. And our Logos is universal and the measure of the things.’ That is completely wrong and is based on exaggeration of our own self. And that is something I will show that is completely illegitimate. And there is not only open biological racism. Modern liberalism, communism, and any kind of globalization are absolutely racist because they are basing on the universalism of the historic experience of the part of the humanity put as the whole of the humanity and as the goal. For example, who is in the eyes of globalists African negro? He is the man on the way to be white, modern, capitalist, liberal, European, Euro-centric man. He is a kind of underdeveloped European. He is not the representative of the culture going its own way. It’s something that is undeveloped. And modern idea of tolerance that we need to tolerate him precisely as something imperfect, something invalid, something on the way to be as ourselves is completely racist. We don’t recognize the other as complete and perfect human being different than us. We think that they are going our way and they are obliged to be and there is no other way, and we have pity on them. There is very nice film by Werner Herzog, ‘Where the Green Ants Dream.’ He shows that the people of Australia not only cannot follow Western example but they don’t want to do that. They are going their own way different from Western and that is their decision of their culture. And this clash of Anglo-Saxon racist version of the history and this aboriginal Australian vision of their own identity. They are not the Westerner of the second sort. They are Australian of the first sort for themselves.
    That is ethical aspect of noology. Noology is a fight for the human dignity for any society, without hierarchy and without this projection. It is the basis of anti-colonial metaphysics. Many teachings pretended historically to be anti-colonial (Marxism and liberalism as well). But they were based on the universal version of the history. For Marxism, we need to develop African society in order to make them Socialists and they will be equal but destroying their values and their system regarding them as underdeveloped in their natural state. The same for liberalism. Liberalism and Communism are in the same way as racist as racism of Hitler. That is main basis for fourth political theory, that we need to find some other way outside of three political ideologies. Noology is the metaphysical basis of why it is so needed, because doing differently and treating the other people differently, we are projecting our racist approach and we are making equation between ours and normative and universal. But that is a violation of the truth. It’s pure colonialist struggle for power and not understanding not knowledge, not wisdom, and not the truth. It’s something completely different. So that is why noology is so important. It is the philosophical and metaphysical basis of multi-polar world. And the concept of three Logos shows the differences that could exist in combination and in different cultures.
    Now what these three Logos are - here we could remind Nietzschean concept of the Greek God Apollo and the Greek God Dionysus. Apollo and Dionysus are two Greek Gods but Friedrich Nietzsche has interpreted them not as object of cult or worship. They were taken as metaphors, as kind of symbols or figures. So you should not be worshippers of Apollo to be Apollonian. You should not be worshipper of Dionysus and participate in the orgies to be Dionysian. To be Dionysian or Apollonian for Nietzsche was completely different meaning. To be Apollonian was to be hierarchical, to belong to the logical way to understand the world and to be Dionysian was to be irrational and intuitive understanding of the world. That is a kind of day way of thinking in Nietzsche (Apollonian) and night, dawn, dusk way of thinking (Dionysian). Nietzsche divided the cultures into Apollonian and Dionysian. So the cultures of Nietzsche were of two kinds. That was taken from Nietzsche and developed by many many other authors and now it is almost commonplace in the history and study of cultures. We say Dionysian style and Apollonian style following Nietzsche but going further. And I accept that and I think that we could affirm that there is the Logos of Apollo and there is the Logos of Dionysus. The nous (mind, thought) expresses itself through Apollonian or Dionysian Logos. That is very important. That sounds like Nietzschean approach and it is because I am inspired by Nietzsche in that way.
    Trying to discover Dionysian Logos more, I have written a kind of prequel for Noomahia that is called ‘In Search of the Dark Logos.’ My idea was to regard history of philosophy not from Apollonian point of view that is prevailing and dominating, but from the second Logos, to construct the history of philosophy basing on Dionysian reading. We know exactly how Apollonian reading of the history of philosophy is. That coincides with the history of philosophy always. We know what Apollo thought because the history of philosophy is Apollonian thought so Apollo thought precisely as a philosopher thought during the ages. And my idea was to discover how Dionysus would think regarding the same topics, the same categories, the same opposition and relations. That was as well a kind of invitation of Nietzsche and a little bit of Heidegger and many postmodern thinkers tried to do the same, tried to apply this Dionysian approach in order to decipher the history of philosophy. It is not so unique but I tried by myself. I have called it dark Logos because it is clear for me that Apollonian Logos is light and Dionysus is night or shadow or darkness. Going into the field of this dark Logos and trying to read with the eyes of dark Logos Hegel, Heidegger, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, and the others (and all that is described more or less in my book 'In Search for Dark Logos’ that is prequel or 0 volume of noomahia), in the kind of field research in metaphysics and not in the idea I had before, but working with this task to imagine the alternative history of philosophy based on Dionysian approach, I have discovered in the practical way very important basis of all noomahia. There are some phenomena including in culture, in religion, in philosophy, in history of philosophy, in science, in art, in human psychology, in unconsciousness that could not enter in the field of Dionysian Logos. So something fits but there is a new field that is outside that could not fit into the Apollonian Logos clearly but could not fit as well into the Dionysian Logos. That was a kind of practical empirical discovery in the field of metaphysics because there was some conceptual field, for example the philosophy of Heraclitus or Democritus, atomic theory, or the theory of modern science, that are absolutely not Apollonian or Dionysian. Searching dark Logos, I have arrived to the point that there is something outside of this new Logos. There is the third one. Behind the Logos of Dionysus was hidden something else that was in the shadow of Dionysus. If Dionysus is the shadow of Apollo, there is the other shadow of the shadow.
    That I have called in my studies the Logos of Cybele. Cybele is the name for very ancient Anatolian Goddess (the same as Greek Rhea). Cybele was the name of the mother Goddess of ancient Anatolia. It was before Hittites, there was the very special pre-indo-European people of Hattians, and Hittites Indo-European language has taken this Goddess and integrated into their own religious context and after that the Phrygian have as well and developed the cult of Cybele. And that was very interesting circle of the concept basing on the ritual castration of the man and the rule of the Great Mother. So the priests of Cybele were castrated and turned into the eunuch. So that was the emasculation of the man and that was the part of the great vision of matriarchy when the position of the man is completely different than we know. It is completely different from the Dionysian position because Dionysus in his cult is the center of interaction of the Bacchae, of the women, but as well of the men. That is the presence of the man in the center of the human existence. Dionysus is not transcendent Dionysus. He is immanent but he is man. That is immanence of the man, man-God, God as a man, man, not human. And this presence is a kind of immanent presence of transcendence. Dionysus is not the darkness, not black Logos. It is the presence of the light in the darkness. That is a kind of sun of the night. It is the man inside of the middle of the immanent, chthonic, feminine existence. So that is the male point in female reality. It is a kind of ray of the sun that goes through the darkness and that comes to the center of the darkness in order to create new dawn. That is Dionysus. And it could not be identified with darkness or with chaos. And all the orgies and all the rites and worships and all the topics linked to Dionysus were not so easy to interpret. That is not reversal of the normal Apollonian order. It was not a kind of revolution. Dionysus is the same as Apollo but coming not in the day but in the night. That was the male in the night, the light in the darkness, but ‘in’ the darkness. That is a kind of sun that comes down in the evening in order to appear anew in the morning. But when he passes, the moment of midnight, he is invisible, he is hidden, and there is no sun in the middle of the night but the sun is. If he will be absolutely absent, there will be no morning and no dawn. It is not the day but it is the sun of the night. The sun of the day is the same as Apollo or Helios. Where is the sun when there is no sun? Where is the heaven when there is no heaven? Where is the male when there is no male and only darkness, earth, immanence, matter, and female principle? He is hidden but he is. That is Dionysian Logos. It’s very special. He creates the new kind of dynamic vision, a kind of balance of the genders and metaphysics, the balance of transcendence and immanence, of heaven and the earth. It is the heaven in the earth and that is heavenly earth, earth in the heaven. So that is a combination of opposition. It is dialectics. That is Dionysian Logos.
    But in order to understand correctly what is the Logos of Dionysus, we need to introduce third Logos and that is something that changes completely all the other concepts and theories that existed before and that are principles or tools of modern culture, the history of cultures, and culturology. So the third Logos is absolutely new. That is a kind of essential feature of noology that there is the third Logos, the black one, the Logos of Cybele. Why was the Logos of Cybele discovered so late? Why did everybody before not speak about three Logos? When I started to try to understand, to solve this metaphysical problem, I have discovered a very interesting thing. For the dominating Logos of Apollo, this Logos cannot exist because seeing the situation from the purely Apollonian point of view, there could not be the other Logos beyond the Apollonian one because the Apollonian concept is exclusivist and purely male and based on a kind of equivalence; the man as male is a man and man is human, so to be man and to be human is the same and everything that doesn’t fit into this concept has no right to pretend to be called Logos. So Logos is Apollo, man and human. And everything that is not male (female for example), that is not logical doesn’t belong to Logos and doesn’t belong to human. And that is a kind of beast or some object and not the subject. Subject could be only Apollonian. And the Nietzschean idea to enlarge the concept of Logos and to give the status of Logos to Dionysus was already revolution because that has shown that it could be different approach to the Logos. That is absolutely crucial. And with Dionysus we have discovered that there could be Apollonian approach and there could be other approach. But together, Apollonian approach and Dionysian approach, they could not let the third Logos be because both of them are male, open as Apollonian or hidden as Dionysian, exclusive as Apollonian or inclusive as Dionysian, but they are male Logos. And the Logos of Cybele is not male. And from the male prevailing point of view, it could not be Logos. So it pass without being remarked. It is a kind of noise. It is not words. It is not speech. For the metaphysical male’s ears, what the woman says is noise and not speech. It is something as the sound of the nature for example. It can be beautiful or less beautiful, that depends.
    That is idea that Platonism is purely Apollonian philosophy. There are ideas that are above and there are images and icons that are below. There is verticality. There is the father that is eternal example and paradigm and there is the son that is a kind of phenomenological imitation of the father and nothing, khora, matter that has no quality. And the most important definition of Apollonian approach to the Logos is that beyond the Logos is nothing. Beyond father or son or matter that has no quality, so nothing, no being, darkness. Without quality, not Logos but what is important not Logos. There is the Logos of the father that is Apollonian. There is the Logos of the sun, immanent, that is the Logos of Dionysus and there is no Logos, because we are completely machist, we are patriarchal tradition, so we don’t let the other part of the reality to have Logos. So we deny that and that is why it was so hidden. And only starting to apply, to create, to describe a kind of approach to Dionysian history of philosophy, we discovered there is something below the lower border of Dionysian vision because Dionysian approach is not the castration. It is not the kind of dissolution of the great mother. It is the reach of the depth of hell in order to resurrect (Dionysian idea), to descend in order to ascend, to go down in order to go back to Heaven. It is the sacrifice and it is the death but in order to be resurrected. It is completely different. It is going from the top to the bottom in order to return to the top. Dionysus is the extreme version of Apollonian Logos that is different completely and creates different structure. So that is the other inclination of nous. Maybe the nous is the same but the form is completely different. But starting to work with Dionysian Logos seriously, I have discovered that there is something else. And that was a kind of metaphysical discovery that first of all was a kind of illumination and revelation in a philosophical sense but after thinking about that, I have arrived to the point that we could instrumentalize that. We could go beyond the Apollonian and Dionysian border and recognize this attitude as the Logos, as third form of the nous or the third Logos, the Logos of Cybele. And after that everything comes into harmony. After that we have complete explanation of all the possible versions of cultures, of philosophies, of religions, and relations between them.
    So we could imagine how the nous is divided in three ways in three Logos. These three Logos, each one of them, creates a world or the worlds by itself. So we can live in many Apollonian worlds, in many Dionysian worlds, and we could live in many Cybelian worlds. There is not only one world. There are multitudes, multiplicity, plurality of Apollonian worlds, Dionysian worlds, and Cybelian worlds. And they are embedded in each other, they are merged in each other, and they represent so rich content of the cultures, of the thought, of the art, of the history that we discover immediately the spiritual treasury of the human mind. But it is not the chaos. That is a kind of inner relations between them because we could describe pure forms of these three Logos. For example, what is the universe of Apollo? It is the idea that everything is created from the top to the bottom. Everything is a kind of descending process. Platonic philosophy is so actual and was always absolutely actual because it is the most perfect form to perfect this Apollonian Logos. Platonism is the same as Apollonian Logos. So in any kind of Logos of Apollo, in any culture, having the contact with Greek Platonism or having no contact with Platonism will create the same Apollonian version. I have discovered that, for example, in the Nilo-Saharan of Africa, with no links with Greece, in the very archaic tradition, Logos of Apollo, but exactly the same idea. There is the Father God that has created everything and the people are the sons of the Father God and we are descending from the Heaven and we are returning to that. There is no earth dimension in all that. The earth is the lowest line of going down in order to get back. There is pure patriarchal attitude. Everything is based on the honor, on the fight, the fight against the death and darkness, every man is a light man. That is a kind of hierarchy inside of society based through this line. That is Platonic European feudal traditional Serbian Russian vision of the society.
    By the Shilluk, by the Nuer, by the Dinka tribes of Nilo-Saharan people or for example the other African people of Western Africa in Yoruba people, we have the same purely Platonist vision. Sometimes there are kind of examples existing in the stars and all that we are dealing with are the reflections or phenomenological mirrors of what is going on above the stars. So there is Platonism that is not only in the texts or dialogues of Plato but there is Apollonian Logos. They have no contact with Plato. For example, Pharaonic tradition of Egypt was as well the sun from above, from the top that goes down and creates this kind of pyramidal version of the world. So the base is square and the top is unity. So there is purely Apollonian building in pyramid. That is why fire was presented in Plato as pyramid. It’s fire in Greek. Pyramid is a kind of fire that goes to the top. So fire is sacred and light is sacred and we are suns of the light and from this point the patriarchy and absolute domination of male principle and submission of the female principle and all Apollonian things. So the Logos of Apollo is not people who read Plato and people who have applied the texts of Plato to their society. Partly that was the case but we could not explain any Apollonian society with the reading of Plato. Plato was the part. I will explain in the future lectures what was concretely the Plato philosophy. But what is important now is that Apollonian Logos is Logos. It is not Platonic. Plato is reflection or mirror of this Logos. It is excellent form to express it. It is perfect art or revelation of this Logos in the most complete form. So it is the best introduction to the Apollonian Logos. But that is not creation of Plato. It is creation of nous. It is the way how the Apollonian Logos in nous works and how it reveals and manifests itself. That is very important. That is no artificial creation of some human mind. Human mind can be following Apollo’s line and can be Platonic. We are born with Platonism. We can be inner born Platonists if this Logos dominates in us, in our culture, in our religion, or in our system of values. And that defines our world. We regard the Heaven more than earth. So we are light. We have no weight. We worship the winged creatures and angels for example or birds. Our Gods are transparent. They live in the air or in the Heaven or in the clouds. So for our Christian Indo-European tradition, it’s Apollonic. Plato was a part of this culture. Almost all the Greek culture, before Plato, after Plato, not only Greek but Roman, Iranian, Indian, and Slavic tradition were all Apollonic.
    And for us, it’s so clear that we think that the world is such and there is no other world. But we are living in the Apollonian world. Our tradition is based on the Apollonian vision. And the discovery of the Logos of Dionysus is already spiritual metaphysical revolution. It could be different. We could live in different world with different symmetry and different organization not based on the worship of the transcendence. We could see this sacredness in the immanence. Dionysian world is organized differently with different meaning of the same words, of the same figures, and of the same Gods. In this Dionysian aspect of Christian tradition (we will speak about that more) is the figure of Christ. That is the God and the man. He is transcendent and he is immanent. He is eternal as in Apollonian world where everything is eternal in essence, and he is historic, so he came into the time. If we regard in this way we don’t oppose Apollonian Christianity or Dionysian Paganism. We understand better that in the same tradition in Christianity we have both figures; transcendence of the trinity of the God and the immanence of the Christ. So we have Apollonian and Dionysian aspect in very special situation.
    In other traditions, we discover the same. There are many other, in different tradition, the figure as Dionysus, not with the same name but with the same function, with some ecstatic liberation because the name of Dionysus in Roman culture was Liber (liberation, freedom). So this was liberation from the weight of the matter, from this chtonic aspect of human presence. And that is a kind of leap into the freedom of God. It is the leap from the human to divine, from the time into eternity. That is the essence of Dionysian cult. It is a kind of heresy in our Christian tradition. So we are in time and with bodies. We are coming into touch with the eternal that is God. That is a kind of metaphysical, anthropological, and ontological leap. So that is the essence of Dionysian tradition. And that is not the case that Eucharist in our church is made with the wine, with the blood of God, and with the grain, because the bread and wine were two symbols of Eleusinian Mysteries where Dionysus and Demeter were in the center of that. That is continuation of the special symbolical tradition based on Dionysus and Apollo. And when we see the world through the Logos of Dionysus, we have one world. If we see the world with the Logos of Apollo, we are dealing with different world. And there are different symmetries and different metaphysics. For example, Dionysus is the cycle. It is the kind of cycle around the point of eternity. And Apollonian Logos is eternity itself. It is eternity. So we are going from eternity and are returning to eternity. That is what is most important in the Apollonian idea. From then, in the everlasting law, the tradition, something should not be changed. The eternity of the ethic, of the cult is the belief in the eternity that pretends to be eternal itself. That is something eternal that is outside of the process of the time. And the time is not important. Only the time of the return is important. The only time that is important in the case of the Apollonian is the return to the eternity because the time itself is the reflection. As Plato says ‘it is the mirror of eternity.’ The ethics of Apollonian Logos is return, the reflection to the reflected object. That is idea that is the archetype, paradigm for eternity.
    The world we are living in defined by the Logos of Apollo is precisely based on some idea for example that we are using for example the words in our speech as if the essence of them were eternal. So we don’t name any time the different but similar things with new names. We say ‘this book.’ ‘This book,’ all that are books. And books as concept exist eternally. That is eternal books. And in our religion, it is a kind of pure projection. There is the Bible as eternal book that was created and written in the eternity. Everything is eternal; everything in the book, and the book is eternal. So every name we mention is eternal in itself. It always existed in the time of Adam. So that is a kind of Apollonian world that is very famous for us. We think the world is Apollonian in our traditional education. We are educated in Apollonian culture. We are dealing with logic. But logic of Aristotle is based precisely on the laws of the eternity. He says A is A. Or if there is no A there’s a second Law, or A or not A, third law of logic. But in the world around us, there is no such things. Everything is double. Something exists and not exists, dies and is born. So in the physics, there is no logic. Logic is something that describes Apollonian world, the world that we take for granted, we are dealing with but that doesn’t exist. It is a kind of revelation. Logic is a revelation. The A is A. Only God is God. Everything is some half created by God and half nothing. So there is no point in the universe where the A is A. A=A never, nowhere. So only God is God. That was logic, something for us that is so natural, something absolutely transcendental. It is the essence of Apollonian Logos that is working inside of our brain because it is working inside of our culture forming the semantical axis, the paradigm of our way of thinking. That is Logos of Apollo.
    So what is the Logos of Dionysus? That is interesting. When we are staying in Aristotle, we are coming to the other branches of his description of the sciences; we discover that for example, dealing with physics, Aristotle said every thing (he used the word ὄν, being) is double. It has form and matter. That is anti-logical concept that unity is double. Something that is united, everything that exists is double. You see one thing but in the reality, there are two things in one thing; matter and form. And if you separate them, there is nothing. That is Aristotelian physics. That is completely different Dionysian approach to the world. And that is described not by the logic but is described by the rhetoric because it is one but not exactly one, not as in the logic one, because there is double. There are two things in one thing; the form and the matter. And Dionysian way of thinking, Dionysian Logos is manifested by the capacity to think dialectically, to conceive one thing as two things at the same time, one and two, but in the logic, one or two. But in Dionysian world, no, one and two. There is not ‘here man, here woman. One and one.’ No. There is androgyne. Androgyne is something that is not a kind of sum of man and woman. It is not addition. 'We are taking man and we are adding woman and there is androgyne.’ No. There is something that precedes in Dionysian Logos to existence of male and female. The androgyne is not the result of combination. That is the source of the gender. That is not Apollonian way to think. That’s Dionysian way. Androgyne is the figure of Dionysus. There is two in one before there is two. There is in the middle, in the center before there are poles. For example, in Apollonian world, there is one pole and there is other pole and what is between is the secondary. It’s defined by limits, by poles. In Dionysian worlds is something completely different. There is what is between and its projections create poles. So we could live in the world, in the culture, in the religion of dialectical Dionysian approach; the two nature in Christ (the God and man). It is something that is irrational for the Dionysian version. Or how it could be the same and not the same, for example, in the holy trinity. So there is a kind of dialectical approach that creates a completely new symmetry in religion, in art, and in philosophy.
    And this Dionysian Logos is possible but it is presented much more than in the philosophy in poetry, in sacred, in art, in language, not in the mathematical language but in the human language, in rhetoric, not in the logic. Logic is Apollonian. Rhetoric is Dionysian because the rhetoric is precisely violation of the laws of the logic. What is rhetoric when we use some rhetorical formula? We try to violate, to give the part as a whole (that is metonimia) and the other. All the figures of rhetorics are based on this Dionysian Logos. And that is why literature, art, poetry, and the other, mythology rather than philosophy is the privileged field of the Dionysian Logos. And that is not the lesser Logos. That is important. Plato has said ‘lets put all the poets out of our ideal state’ because it is Apollonian understanding of what is Dionysian. Apollo thinks that Dionysus is a kind of sub-Apollo, something that would be Apollo, something incomplete. It is a little bit of Apollonian ethnocentrism, Apollonian racism. He thinks that he himself is the whole and all the rest is part of himself or the kind of images, sometimes perverted. So Plato said ‘lets put poets and mythologists out of our purely philosophical Apollonian state because they belong to the world of Dionysus and they have no place in the Apollo republic.’ Plato’s republic is Apollo’s republic. They should be put out because they are considered to be impure because they are rhetoric. They are dealing with inclination, not with the straight line but with the curves. They are dealing with combination of the structured elements in very very fantastic way. And that is the kind of creative spirit of the art that is Dionysian. But as well we could find in art, Apollonian line, but the majority of the art and the poetry is purely Dionysian and that is the realm of the immanence and of rhetoric.
    And there could be the philosophy of Dionysian style. In the modern philosophy, phenomenology is purely Dionysian. I have discovered finally, studying Heidegger for many years that Heidegger tried to create Dionysian philosophy. He tried and he succeeded in that. He developed this phenomenological aspect and his concept of dasein in purely Dionysian, is a kind of immanence. It should be regarded not as a kind of, in Apollonian way, a kind of projection of dasein, of the being. The being is Apollonian. But dasein (t/here being) is in Serbian ‘ту биће.’ But what is interesting is that in German ‘da’ is not there (ту, тамо). ‘Da’ is not here, not there, neither ту or тамо but in between. ‘Da’ is in between - not here and not there. And in Old Slavonic language there was the form that is conserved in present Serbia - овде биће (овде - neither ту or тамо - between).  So dasein is being not there, not here, but in between because there and here we could strictly define without us but between is precisely the point where the Dionysus exists. Dionysus is in between (овде). He is not there as Apollo. He is not here as something immanent. He is in between, always in between in the middle. So dasein is very Dionysian term in itself. овде биће - neither тамо биће nor ту биће. овде. In Russian we have lost this third grammatical form and maybe its a kind of luck that in Serbian you have conserved of this name in your language in order to understand better Heidegger, in order to understand better this Dionysian possibility of philosophy, to think not from the top, not from the bottom, but from the middle, nor from the two poles and after there is something that is the center. No. Thinking from the center, from between. And trying to express the idea of Heidegger in English, sometimes the philosopher translates as such - t/here being. Not there. Not here. Because they have no ‘овде’ as your rich Serbs.
    So the idea is that third Logos and more fascinating is third Logos. I think that already to compare two Logos, Apollo and Dionysus, in full measure was so revealing for creation of not one history of philosophy but two versions. So you could consult not only Apollonian bookshelf but as well Dionysian. And if we apply this method, we will be not obliged to write all these volumes anew but we could make a kind of combination of existing works, of existing philosophical and religious tradition, and to reorganize our intellectual space, to reveal, to reshape our understanding of the history of the philosophy. And the history of philosophy is the history of our society and the history of humanity.
    So next point of noology is that we could find the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Dionysus in any culture as well. So every people, every culture knows these two Logos. It’s very important. So there is no people of Apollo or people of Dionysus. There are Logos of Apollo and Dionysus in any human culture. But if we remark their relations, they are not so good relations, because Apollo thinks in one way, he creates this world with verticality, with this patriarchal symmetry, and he puts out poets or Dionysian. There is a kind of fight between two Logos, one nous, two Logos. And they fight against each other. We are approaching why noomahia, because noomahia is the fight of the nous or the fight inside of the nous. But the real dramatic aspect all this obtains when we come to the third Logos because there is the third new world that creates not from the top to the bottom, not from the center, but from the bottom to the top. It is a new symmetry. And this is lost Logos lost and denied by both Logos of Apollo and in the lesser scale by the Logos of Dionysus. And what could be such a universe and such a world created on this symmetry, on this Logos of Cybele.
    The world of Cybele and Logos of Cybele, it is the great mother that creates everything from herself. That is very important. That is absence of any male principle outside of the great mother. It’s absolute inclusiveness. So there is no God but the great mother. There is nobody but the great mother. There is only great mother earth that creates everything from herself and kills everything because she is at the same time the tomb and the cradle. So there is no two point of line. There is one and the same point of death and life. For example, the Goddess of death and the Goddess of life is only one mother that creates, gives life, and kills. So she creates the sun, the male principle, from herself without father, she uses it as a lover, and she emasculates, castrates, and kills it and make its revival once more. So that is Cybelian method that is explained in many forms in many cults in many worships but there is a kind of philosophy inside that is very interesting and very profound philosophy. There is no transcendence at all. There is no heaven. The heaven is the kind of mirror of the earth. So any kind of heaven is only reflection of the same of the matter. And we are coming to absolute materialistic immanence because immanence of Dionysus was not materialistic, it was spiritualist immanence, it was almost always in the middle, half spirit and half matter, and this half is before. It’s not the sum but before that exists before the matter and the spirit. And the great mother and the Logos of great mother is the idea that great mother creates and kills everything. And it is not the eternity or the cycle. It is something that is going in its way with the blind and absolute power. So there is a kind of progress that is the growth from the bottom to the top. It is also in the Apollonian way a titanic battle of the chthonian powers and forces directed against the heaven and the rule of the male Logos of Apollo. So Cybelian Logos is the third creation of the new world that is titanic, chtonic, and feminist in some way, not because there is equivalence between man and woman (that is much more Dionysian), but it is absolute domination of the mother over everything else.
    So we will follow this later. In order to conclude this first lecture, what is important is that three Logos I have explained stay in the absolute fight because they create the world, the system, the society, the cultures, the religions, the cults, the relations, the values, the political systems that are based on completely different approaches. They are in conflict and that is noomahia. There is already a kind of contradiction between Apollo and Dionysus but with Cybele and Apollo, contradiction reaches its utmost highest point because there is a serious titanomachy or gigantomachy between two versions of the vision because there are two Logos fighting seriously. The titans, the autochtonic sons of Cybele try to storm the Heaven and the Apollonian Gods try to defend it. And what is in philosophical way is Democritus with his idea, is purely Cybelian philosophy. It is Epicurus. And that is our scientific modern European science of Modernity that is purely Cybelian. And that is a kind of revenge of the Logos of Cybele after the thousands of years of domination of Apollo with Dionysus. So there is a kind of Cybelian eschatology we are living in. So if we consider now, not our spiritual tradition, cultural tradition, religious tradition, ethical tradition, but our scientific vision, it is purely atomistic, materialistic, progressivist, and based on this symmetry from the bottom to the top. So the Cybele doesn’t belong to the past, to the archaic time. The Logos of Cybele is something we are dealing with. And this Cybelian world vision we could find in as well in the ancient times, in our civilization, in other civilization. There is not Cybelian civilization. In any form of civilization, we could find all three Logos and they are fighting everywhere and we are living inside of this noomahia. It is not something that is purely theoretical. We are living that. And this noomahia is going through us, through our politics, through our culture, through our science, through our identity, and through our culture. And that is a kind of the end of the first lecture and that is most important part and most important principles of what is noomahia as a basis of theory of multipolar world.

21. Introduction to Noomakhia: Geosophy [Lecture 2] - Alexander Dugin

    

    What is geosophy? It is application of the principles of noology to the study of the concrete culture and societies. It is a kind of civilizational analysis with the help of the methods of three Logois. So the idea of geosophy is the following - it is close to what is called in philosophy and anthropology, ‘perspectivism.’ There is an interesting Brazilian anthropologist Viveiros de Castro that has developed this attitude of perspectivism. Perspectivism is the idea that we consider, for example, modern western man thinks there is one physical world and there is one culture of understanding of this world. That is modern western European culture. That is the kind of truth. There is the world and more and more correct understanding of this one world, one truth, and western culture as a kind of one way from this one world to one truth of this world. So that is a kind of pure genocide of other cultures because everybody who is not on this way is out, considered to be undeveloped and should be colonized and taught to follow the white man’s example. It is colonial vision.

                Against that, there is so called multicultural position or postmodern position that affirms that 'there is one world. Let it be. But there are multiple interpretations of this one world.’ That is multiculturalism. It is already not so bad because it gives the possibility to other to think differently. But some anthropologists remarked that 'what is going with this one world with different interpretations? Why are we so sure there is one world? What is the ontological basis of this one world that is differently interpreted?’ And they have remarked finally that this one world is the projection of the modern western European mind on the nature. And the concept of nature is European and the interpretation of nature is modern European scientific world that we have taken as granted, as some objective reality that is differently and subjectively interpreted. That is multiculturalism. These new anthropologists started creating a kind of cannibal metaphysics. They tried to destroy this concept of this one world differently interpreted and replace by different worlds. So they invite us to believe to what the people of different cultures say about worlds. Not to say ‘that is their interpretation of this world.’ No. That is correct description of what they see and feel and what they live in. So that is completely new attitude. And noology and geosophy is most radical example of this recognition of the multitude of the worlds. We have spoken in the first lecture about three universes that are linked to the three Logos. But we could put it on the vertical axis because we see this Logos in any culture. So we could in any culture, explain with these three Logos the verticality. But geosophy is application of this verticality to the horizontal aspect. It is not vertical interpretation but horizontal interpretation.

                Geosophy is based on the principle that any culture creates the world of its own. And that does not explain the universal world around earth, turning around the axis. But living in different worlds, with maybe flat earth, or concave earth, and if they think they are living there, we need to accept that and not consider from the beginning that it is not correct interpretation of the reality, we know better than them. Because in multiculturalism, there is the old racism of ‘we know better than you but we let you to stay with your illusions.’ That is multiculturalism. And that is multi naturalism. ‘You are living in the world that is real for you and because we could not project on you our own vision, your world is correct for you. You’re living inside this world and not in your interpretation of world we know better than you.’ That is a kind of new anthropological approach based on the recognition of the dignity of any culture. So if you think so, it is so for you. And in order to understand you and to speak with you and to deal with you, we need to understand not your illusions but your truth, and to put ourselves in your position. That is very important and geosophy is based on that. That is the idea that we have not one space, one time, and one timeline. People by different cultures interpret their landscape, their history and so on in different ways. ‘We know better but let them have their illusion.’ No. Geosophy is based on that passing from our civilization, our people, our culture to the other, we need first of all to ask these people how they understand the world and not to explain to them what the reality of the world is.

    So that is geosophy. Geosophy is not our understanding of the earth (geo, our understanding). It is the idea that in any culture, in any point, there are different worlds coexisting in the same context. Deleuze and Guattari, in one book, tried to apply this but from their postmodernist, leftist, liberalist, western center way, speaking about geo-philosophy. In order to make a difference in their approach that is too dogmatic and open approach of noology, I have introduced the word ‘geosophy’ (not geo-philosophy but geosophy), in order to make a difference. The concept of geosophy is studying the other culture, we need to believe absolutely in what they believe the world is. When we are coming back we could return to our belief, but dealing with them and studying them, we should not impose on them or project on them our vision about subjective and objective aspect of reality but to try to understand what for this culture, archaic or developed, North American or Oceanic (Australian for example) what the world is for them, objectively and subjectively, if they have something like that. Maybe they have no object and subject. The wisdom for them will be absence of object or subject. And I have discovered some cultures with very particular absence of subject. For example in the Paleo-Asiatic groups of very archaic people living in the extreme north of Chukotko-Kamchatka in Eurasia in the North of Russia, and as well in the North American tribes, there are cultures with no concept of subject. For us it is incredible. For Africans as well, because the majority of African culture is based around subject of different kind, completely different from our subject, as a ghost or as a returning ancestor but the subject is. In their way, no. In every culture, no.

                But there are so many different cultures that we could not imagine. And we need to accept them as such and not judge them, not try to hierarchize them, for example; animism, fetishism, not yet animism, already fetishism, as in evolutionist anthropology. But we need to accept them as they think the things are. And that will create a new vision of earth. Not civilization where the same try to get the power, the resources, and fighting against each other as we do. But for example, some people are fighting, and the other not. For example, arrow. The people in civilization living beside them refuse to use arrow. For example, Australian aborigines. Because it is immoral to kill someone in one way movement. You kill, you are not killed. So the boomerang is something that can kill you. You hit and it returns. That is idea of reciprocity, of killing and being killed. That is against the arrow. Such simple things as arrow could be negated, could be denied on the moral consideration. And that is difference between Melanesian and Australian population. There are so many things because the ethics between black and very similar Papua type of civilization, they have completely different Logos and completely different reality and they are living in different worlds and we should not judge them who is more developed, with arrow or without arrow. We should understand both. We should understand them in the same way, North American. What are they doing here and why are they bombing Belgrade? It is not so easy. ‘Because they hate us’ is not an explanation. How do they understand the world? Maybe in this case we know better how they understand the world. But there are so many people thinking completely different, living in completely different worlds, that we will be astonished when we will know that. The richness of geosophy is not only Americans against everybody, everybody good and Americans bad and so on. No such things. There is rich reality without good and bad, but with not only different re-interpretations of reality. There are realities inside of the world. And that is the mankind. Mankind is not only one way to one thought. It is many thoughts coexisting in different ways. Sometimes dramatically opposed and conflictual and sometimes very peaceful. So geosophy is methodology of how to describe the civilizations.

                In the first volume I’ve made a kind of surveyal, full existing, of almost all the main schools to study civilizations in the plural (not one civilization but civilizations) starting from Danilevsky, Spengler, Toynbee, Huntington (modern American) and many others. The idea is that we should recognize civilizations as cultures and as worlds, worlds absolutely defined by the living people and not by us. So that is a kind of introduction to other volumes where concrete worlds or civilizations are studied. What is important here as in the sense of methodology? First of all I have remarked that any civilization or people or some entity that shares the main aspects of culture, some community, we could call it people, we could it call it society, or culture, something where the people are living more or less in the same world, because there are borders between the worlds, not the same as between individuals. They are linked to the language for example, to the religions, and to other things. There are many borders but one of the entities we are dealing with, speaking about civilization or geosophy is people, or kind of cultures or civilizations more or less the same without differences, where there is organic community of language, of value, the same world. Maybe it is very small as tribe. Sometimes it is great civilization with millions of people inside. But that is not so important the quantity. The quality of this world is what is important. Some collective community sharing the same world vision and living in the same world. That is civilization.

                And studying these entities and trying to make a kind of list of these entities, to find a kind of measure what we could treat as entity or part or supra-entity. That is the question as well as nomenclature here discussed in this book. And I have arrived to more important conclusion that dealing with entity, we always see the moment of noomahia. The concept arrives. What is moment of noomahia? That is concrete balance of the fight of the three Logos. Three Logos are in fight. It’s clear. And the concrete moment of this fight is the concrete identity of such entity as culture or civilization. For example, Greek culture. That is based on the domination and the victory of the Logos of Apollo over Logos of Cybele. All Greek culture is based on that. There was Pelasgian pre-Greek tradition of Great Mother represented in Mycenaean and Minoan culture. And there was the Hellenic invasion with completely different Apollonian values. And what is the identity of Greek culture? We understand of the Greek, the moment of noomahia where this Logos of Apollo as in Diós overcomes Python and kills Python. That was the oracle of the Great Mother. That is moment when Logos of Apollo overcomes, outweighs the Logos of Great Mother. It is a kind of victory in titanomachy. Greek civilization is based on the moment of the victory of titanomachy. Titans, the sons of Great Mother, attack Gods. Gods fight back and they win. The Gods win. It’s not always the case. In Greek civilization, Gods win. Olympian Gods, Apollo wins over Cybele.

                And that is as well the war of interpretation. It is the war of the thought and over interpretation of any kind of religious, cultural symbol, or political organization and so on. So that is patriarchy that has won over matriarchy. And that is to be Greek in concrete moment. Greek civilization is based on the moment of noomahia. The other civilization, for example Iranian civilization, is based on the idea very similar to Greek because that is the victory of Ohrmazd (the God of light) over Ahriman (the God of darkness). So two different names but the same symmetry, the same titanomachy, and the same victory. So two kind of different civilizations based on the similar moment of noomahia and with other culture the same. So in order to find what is the Logos in the horizontal way, in the horizon of concrete Hellenic civilization, we need to define what Logos, where we are in the noomahia. For example, because we are citing the majority of Indo-European society (German, Celt, Roman, Greek, Iranian, and Indian) are based on the same moment of Noomahia. It is the victory of the Logos of Apollo over the Logos of Cybele. We have the idea that every civilization is based on the same moment. Not at all. A very important example in this situation is Chinese civilization. Chinese civilization is quite different. It is the purely Dionysian civilization where there is the balance between the Yin and Yang, between male and female, between heaven and earth, and not the domination of heaven over earth as the value and the norm. The norm is the balance. When there is too much heaven, there appears arrower with arrows that kills the suns, heaven. There begins the flute and there appears the new hero that tries to diminish the quantity of the cold water. So the balance is norm and not the victory of the Gods over the Titans. So zero result is the norm of Chinese civilization. It is completely different logic. There is no linear Apollonian Logos. There is always Dionysian civilization. It is not always so but everything we know about Chinese civilization from the first so called Jade Emperor up to now, to Hu Jintao (actual leader of China), that is this Dionysian moment. And any change of balance is inside of this Dionysian version. So the Chinese are living in Dionysian world, with a little more Apollonian in some moments and more Cybelian in other, but inside of this moment. That is not the destiny of the Chinese. We should not say ‘that will last forever.’ We don’t know. Maybe there will be the change, maybe not so always. But we constate. It is constation. It’s not rule. It’s not law. It’s not the final truth. It is moment of noomahia.

                So we need, in order to deal with different civilizations, to define the moment of noomahia. That is first. After that we should presume that the moment of noomahia could change. It is not frozen moment. Noomahia is going inside. For example, in order to keep Dionysian balance, Chinese culture during many thousands of years applied and applied all the efforts, all the powers to conserve, to guard, to save this balance, because if they for example sit back and let the thing be, the Dionysian balance could be overthrown. So it is not easy and taken for granted that they will be always Dionysian. If they stop to be Chinese, they could stop to be Dionysian. If they will be for example colonized or destroyed from inside, they could stop to pay all their existential efforts in order to keep things going in that way of not too much Yang and not too much Yin. It’s very important. It’s almost fight for the Logos of Dionysus (Yellow Dionysus I’m calling this book about Chinese civilization). In Indo-European as well, if we stop to fight for Apollo there will appear Cybele immediately because she is always there. She will attack immediately when we stop to impose this Apollonian will over matter. So that is very important. The moment of noomahia shouldn’t be considered as a kind of eternal and taken for granted identity of the culture of civilization. It could change.

                That is the meaning of the history because the history is the fight of the Logos. And every people has its own version of this fight. And every people, every culture is in the different moments of this noomahia defined by its own proportions. There are people with domination of Cybelian or for example, Afro-Asiatic people as Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber people or Kushit people, there is the huge influence and power of Cybele. They could overcome it from time to time but that is a kind of natural inclination. But it is not the fate. They could change that and they could create something completely different. But identity is the process. Identity of the people is changing and is dynamic. So the moment of noomahia could be the same or could change. Proportion of the three Logos in the same people and same society could be different from the other society and could change during the history of the same people without ethnical or social change. So we receive at the end, very dynamic and multi-level structure of geosophy. So there are horizontal differences between one society and the other society living in the other geographical space but they have the same or the different moments of noomahia. They have different identity. Including if they share some moments, they could be expressed differently. In the relations between them, all that is very important. The relation of Greeks with moment of noomahia where Apollonian aspect has victory over Cybelian, with Iranians with the same moment of noomahia where the Apollonian has victory over Cybelian, were conflictual. Those were two forms of Apollonian Logos. Because the balances, proportions, and combinations were different. So if there is more or less the same moment of noomahia that doesn’t mean that there will be completely agreement and correspondence. So, the situation is different.

                At the same time, in any culture or geosophical entity we take into consideration, could be historical change. And the change of this element of noomahia, domination of Logos of Apollo over Logos of Cybele or the Logos of Cybele over Logos of Dionysus or Dionysus domination over both and so on could change. So the history and the direction of this change is not universal. It is kind of the product of the inner dynamic of the people. So we have many civilizations going with many worlds, with many different moments of noomahia, going in different ways. So there is no way for example. We don’t all go to Cybele or Apollo. Everybody is going its own way. So that is geosophy. Geosophy is recognition of multiplicity of the culture in any sense in the space and in time. So everybody is different, going in different directions with different speed, and with open end. Compare that with the major existing concept of the history. There is only one goal, for example, in Christian way or Muslim way, there is only one truth, there is maybe one or two possibilities or ways to reach this truth, one wrong and the other right, and that’s all, and there is universal norm. And there is one space, one time, one object, maybe more than one subject, one better than the other, liberal better and not liberal worse, and that’s all. And compare that narrow, purely racist, purely ethno-centrist understanding of the human history with what geosophy proposes. Geosophy proposes to discover so many worlds without quitting the earth. The new worlds, the other worlds are living here beside ourselves, new to us. But we don’t remark them because we are projecting our own narrow vision about that. For example, Russian author and Eurasianist Count Trubetzkoy has said once ‘if we consider, for example, the structure of book written about law in the west, how it is universal law. There is Roman law. It is thousand pages dedicated to Roman law and its development and two pages about Chinese law.' And that is universal law with no mentioning of other kind of law. That is more or less comparable situation with for example; Roman law is law of law. But to be universal is not enough to put very profoundly studied Roman law, compared with very superficially observation of Chinese law from the Roman law point of view and that is universal law. It is not universal law at all. It is Roman law with two pages of Chinese law interpreted from Roman law point of view and there’s nothing universal in that.

                So geosophy is invitation to the real universality, to the real acceptance of the richness of any people, any society, and any civilization in the serious way. It is serious multipolarity and serious tolerance. It is not this kind of disguised racism that is modern liberal globalization that projects the result of only one civilization, western civilization, as universal, one of everybody else, pretending that is universal because it’s not so white based on the mixture. It is not enough because everything we see in the mixture of the culture is the western culture with something taint skin. Obama is absolutely white. He is white supremacist. He is white as Hitler. He has nothing African about him. He has nothing black. He is purely W.A.S.P. because there is nothing that would be outside from his American Anglo-Saxon mentality. It is semi-black puppet of white man. And all globalization is the same. It is transmission of the same very narrow result of the modern and post-modern western culture over humanity. It is not dialogue, it is not multiplicity, it is not pluralism, it is not tolerance. It’s pure colinizatory racism based on the most savage prejudices and that is what we are dealing with. 

    So geosophy obtains in this situation, revolutionary mission to destroy this attitude, to rediscover the world, to decolonize any kind of civilization, in order to give the right to the other to be other, without asking permission from globalists, from Soros, from Americans, and to affirm identities how these identities are, bad or good, accepted or rejected, radical, extremist, archaic, based on human rights or not based on human rights, no matter. Human rights is purely racist concept because in human and in rights; that's Roman rights in the modern interpretation and the western understanding of what is human (so individual). So it is liberal totalitarian idea of human rights, because they don’t ask no one what you think. For example, ‘you Chinese - what is human?’ No asking only question. ‘You should be more strictly in the same granting human rights for your Chinese dissidents.’ That’s all. That is complete colonizational attitude. Nobody asks Chinese what is human for them, nobody cares. Because the globalists know better what is human because they are human and they put the norms what is human. What all that has to in the real pluralism or real democracy or real human, there is pure racism. So geosophy is against that, not ethically but methodologically because it is perspectivism that is based on careful study of civilization without prejudices. So for example, you are Serbian, we are Russians. We are Orthodox. We are past all the Christian Indo-European civilization. We are going to Cannibal society. We are projecting our idea. That is bad society because they eat each other. It is satanic, daemonic, devilish, or underdeveloped. We don’t ask that. We try to change them immediately with our understanding. And that is the same practice. We are dealing with neighbors, with far or near people living around us and that is the source of misunderstanding and source of almost all errors. Maybe it’s natural but it’s erroneous, erroneous human but nevertheless the error. So we need to change that and the idea is to study the society, accepting what the members of the society think the reality and the values and the nature, the subject, the object, the history is.

                But here we encounter a serious methodological problem. How could we study different society with the same languages, for example, with the same criteria? So we need at least small things of common criteria that we could try to apply to different society in order to see whether there is some correspondence or not, in open way. So three Logos as I have explained, I have tried to apply to any civilization, any culture that I have studied, and everywhere I have encountered the clear traces of all of them. So that is something seriously universal but in open combination. There is no one law but they are present and they are fighting. So maybe that is something universal that there are three Logos. And there is the fight and there is open end of that. And in geosophy, I have tried to find the other criterion that could be useful in studying the civilizations, in order to have something in common between them. And first of all, following Heidegger and phenomenology, I have chosen the concept of existential horizon, or existential space. What is existential space? It is ‘Da’ of Dasein. It is space, where in German ‘Da.’ That is space but that is not the space of the science, not the space as a concept. It is the space where the being is. The existential space is the space where the thinking, living human being is. And this space doesn’t exist without this living thinking being. So it is special. It is not geographical. It is existential. If there is the thinking man and collectivity with languages, with culture, with roots, with some symbolic system, there is this existential space, existential horizon. And where we have the same structure of existential horizon, we have the same existential space, we have the same Dasein, and we have the same people or the same culture. Where is the border? There begins the other.

                So that is very important in order how to separate, how to create a nomenclature of peoples, of cultures, of civilizations. If we apply the other criterion, more sophisticated, more developed, we will be dealing with secondary results of what is already constructed over this existential space. So this existential space is very important. And that is linked to the concept of the multiplicity of Daseins. I have spoken with the direct student of Heidegger and his continuator, Professor Herrmann (in Freiburg, Germany). We have spoken about the multiplicity of Daseins. He has said that Heidegger thought that the Dasein was universal, that there is only one Dasein (because he was racist). He thought that German, European, Greco-Roman Dasein was the only one. And he carefully put aside the other Dasein as something not Dasein. For him the Dasein was only one as philosophy was only one, as Logos was only one. That was Western European Logos. It’s normal for you to recognize that as absolutely legitimate ethnocentrism. Herrmann has said ‘but Dasein was defined by Heidegger as the relations to the death and that death is the same for every living human being.’ I have responded ‘not at all. Absolutely not at all. In nothing the same.’ Every culture, every Dasein has its own relation to death. And precisely, in this relation to death, which I agree is the most important characteristic of Dasein, represent a particularity and originality of Dasein. And I have studied that in my book on Heidegger. I have written four books on Heidegger. The second one is called Martin Heidegger: The Possibility of Russian Philosophy, where I have applied Heidegger’s criterium, existentiells (with s), to the Russian Dasein. And I have discovered that the majority of them don’t work in Russian situation. We have different relations to very core of existential realities with death, with God, with each other, with the place of human. So Daseins are multiple. That is very important. And existential horizon defines the natural border of Dasein. That corresponds, some partly, with geographical borders. That is normal because the people live in some concrete space.

                And we could regard this existential horizon as space where the people live, Lebensraum. But at the same time, it could not exist without human being, without people, without language, without tradition. If you put the mixed population in some space you don’t get this existential space. It is not Dasein. And that is very difficult example in our history - Kalingrad people by Russian that was Prussia people by Baltic tribes, invaded by Germans, assimilated, and after that taken by us and we have put the Germans aside. So that is space Russian, not so German, no, Baltic, no. There is the place, the people there living, the culture, and the history but there is no Dasein. So a part of territory of the space is evacuated from existential aspect. It’s very special conditions. I have studied Serbian history and that is kind of this idea of migration of Serbs that created the similar idea where are the borders of Serbia. Where is Serbians, the bearers of Serbia? Or could the Serbs exist without Serbian motherland or not? It is open question. So that is a kind of exilic tradition. So it deals with the problem of existential Dasein. Existential Dasein is not the territory. And that is not only the people. It is the relation, the Sein (being) to the place, existential relations of the being to the place that passes through the people, through the cultures, through the humans, through the thought. It’s very particular concept but it’s very important to geosophy because geosophy studies precisely existential horizons. It is the relations of the being to the space that goes through the culture, through the language, through the tradition, through the identity. So that is very important category of geosophy.

                We can say we are studying the people but not the people as ethnology studies the people because ethnology studies that from some demographical aspect or some statistical or some formal material. This is a study of Dasein. For example if we are studying Serbs, we should put first the question, 'what means to be Serb?’ It’s not easy. Any formal answer is not enough. Or Russians. And here begins our poetry, our philosophy, our imagination, our political aspirations, everything is here. 'What it means to Serb.' 'What it means to be Russian.’ And it is not abstract. We could not say ‘these things to be Serb, these things to be Russian.’ No. We are giving the answer through all our history, through our victories. For example, we could say this is our empire. But empire grows and diminishes and to be Russian, what borders? And our defeats and our errors can be our answer to what it means to be Serbian or Russian. So it is existential horizon linked to the space, linked to the people, but not to them in material way. So nobody can answer this question of what it means to be Serb. Neither Englishman nor Russian can give the satisfactory answer. Maybe Serbs as well cannot respond. But that is the process. That is open question of identity, understood existentially.

                So practical result from geosophy, we need to begin to study what is Serbian Dasein. Put the question in these terms, not to try to find our Slavs identical term. We will be lost in this way. We could accept that technically. Heidegger thought that Dasein is unique. We agree that we have multiplicity, multiple Daseins. And starting with this, we could concretely put the question ‘what does it mean to be Serb?’ And that is not a futile question. It is not only a slogan. It is something that you and your ancestors have paid with the blood, with the body, with Kosovo, with King Lazar, with all your history, all your existence is kind of solving this problem of what it means to be Serb. And the future is here. And the future of Kosovo and Metohija is here and the future of the Serbian identity is here. And the answer doesn’t belong to the past or only to the present. It is eternal question. You are Serb because you are inside of this existential horizon because you are solving this problem. Maybe not solve, but you are part of this. And the culture and the language, and the tradition, and the values, and as well maybe the body are the parts of this. So creation of ancestors, and the future, and the children, and the families all are inscribed in this existential horizon.

                But I think that why we so badly need this concept of existential horizon is because without that we could not correctly put the right questions we need to solve now. Because seeing as population or for example, GDP, for how much income we have or where is better to live and where is more possibility for social mobility. If we consider Serbs for example, Russian in that way, we receive completely different answer that could not explain absolutely nothing in our history. So existential horizon is key concept for geosophy and without that we could not come into real study of deep identity of the entities we are trying to study. Existential horizon is basic methodological principle of noology and geosophy. And the second term is as well very important. If existential horizon deals with so-called space but space in the sense of the ‘between,’ somewhere where the human thinking presence is. It is existential space. So we should deal as well with existential time. That is second category of geosophy. That is as well Heideggerian in its origin. Heidegger in his Sein und Zeit (time and being) has made distinction between two German terms; ‘Geschichte' and ‘historische.' It is translated the same. 'Geschichte' is history and 'historisch' is historic. Sometimes Heidegger uses as well the term ‘Seinsgeschichte.' That is onto-history, the history of being. And that is already a kind of important clarification of the term. So ‘Geschichte’ or ‘Seinsgeschichte’ in German is time that is linked to the being. If for example ‘da’ is space linked to the being, ‘Geschichte' is time linked to the being. So it is the time of being or existential time we could name it.

    And interesting that the continuator of Heidegger, great French philosopher Henry Corbin that is best specialist in the Islamic esoteric tradition, trying to translate difference between ‘historisch’ and ‘Geschichte' in French has introduced two words in French; historique (historische) and l’historial (Geschichte). In English there is no such difference. In Russian and Serbian as well, everything is conceptual, we are dealing with concept. So we could try to use historical and historic. The historical substantive, and the historic. It’s purely pragmatic but the meaning is different. Let’s call historical the kind of history of being. So it is the history of the Sein. It is not the consequence of the facts but the consequence of the meanings. So the historical is a kind of intellectual existential reading of historic. Historical is ontological aspect of historic. Historic is a fact that is documented. But historical is the explanation of fact. But when we are living through the historical, we are not explaining afterwards. Living in the history, we are committing the deeds that could be historic or could be historical. If they’re historical they have to do something with Dasein, with our identity, with our deep roots. We are existing historically. And historic, all elements seen from outside are documented.

                So historic is something that has to do with the facts and historical is something that has to do with the meaning and with the being. And in French, Corbin uses this l’historial (historical) as substantive (l’historial - the historical). I am using in Russian, the term ‘историал.’ It's very strange word but that has concrete meaning in geosophy, in noomahia. So we have existential horizon, existential space, and we have existential time. Existential time is our interpretation of our history. And that is our interpretation of our history. For example, the facts in this interpretation of the history speak to us, to our soul, to our blood, to our spirit, everything. And to other, that could be the event with no significance. So formal events, the other measure this event with their measure. And we are measuring these events not materially, not quantitatively, but we are living through them. For example, the struggle in Kosovo field is Serbian event. It is key part of Serbian historical, not historic. Historic we could say is one battle against the other and King Lazar was not so great and so on. But in your methodological understanding of what it means to be Serb, the key moment that is basis of being after Kosovo and before Kosovo, because Kosovo was the end of something and beginning of something and eternal Kosovo fight. And the eternity of this event has something to do with the existential aspect of Serbian Dasein. For us it’s the same, for example, of the Kalka fight, or Poltava, or Second World War. So there is not only one meaning of that. The meaning to this event belongs to the people, belongs to the Dasein, to the Serbian Dasein, to the Russian Dasein, to the American Dasein, to the French Dasein, to Chinese Dasein. And the meaning and the reality of what is, was, and will be depends directly on this existential relations to the time.

                Husserl said time is like a melody. If you hear one note and after that the other note and other note, there is logic. So you know tonality, you know chords, and when the note is not correct, you are shocked by that. You try to improve, to play the right note if there is not the correct note. And the next note is predefined by previous notes. Because history is not the fact, fact, fact. There is melody. It is logical. And we could miss the note or we could delay. For example there should be chords and there is no chord. And we are living, waiting for the chords that we already are anticipating. So that is the history that should happen. If that doesn’t happen that is as well maybe a kind of introduction of silence in the melody, of new Stockhausen version of melody. But that is the music. The history is music. And only the people or Dasein can understand this historical music. It is not universal. You could not say hear something and everybody deciphers from the noise on the special frequency. So the historical of any people has its own frequency. Russians are hearing our Russian melody and we understand it very well. And you hear your Serbian melody but they are played on different frequencies. So from outside, it is difficult to say whether you are at good stage, bad stage, you are developing or you are in decadence. So there are no universal criteria in the historical, because relations to the time is existential property of Dasein. And after that it is a kind of all that, existential horizon and existential time (the historical) are defined by noomahia because in any moment you could not express your melody in the history or your identity as a people placed in the space without three Logos. You use them or they use you.

                So that is a kind of balance in dynamic of the Logos. So if your Logos for example is centered around Apollo and there is for example coming Cybelian moment, this moment is for you, if you stay loyal to your previous Logos you consider to be essential. It is a kind of experience, the test, you pass through, you don’t assimilate. And that separates Bosniaks from Serbs. Where the Turks came, the part of the Serbian people have decided that you should integrate in the new condition. That is forever. And the other made, as King Lazar, the different decision. You should stay with Orthodoxy, with the previous identity and defend it through the night of the Turkish rule. Two decisions; to give in or to stay with the Logos. That is decision of the people. And two people, Bosnian and Serbian, appeared after that. So the distinction is on the weight of one Logos. It is very concrete thing. I am speaking about how we go from the same melody but after one moment we could split and the people could split; Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, and Anglo-Saxon. So there are many interesting points of this bifurcation of this melody. So creation of new Dasein, of new people. And all that is linked to the noomahia as a fight between three Logos. So we could explain the historical of every people and the existential horizon of every people as a kind of element, they are expressed with the help of the Three Logos or we could use the other image. We could represent Three Logos as three grain put in the existential fields and these grains grow. And some of them prevail, some is in the shadow, some win, the other fails. So this existential ground could exist and grow different fruits but grains are always there in this existential horizon. And dynamic of their growth, combinations, and conflicts is always different and is proper only to one people with only one historical. So that is the people’s history (народа история) as special thing that could not be explained or understood from outside. Noomahia is not something artificial. It is the process we are living through. It is kind of our identity. And that is the second very important aspect of geosophy.

                And the last thing that I would like to explain here is that we are living with very interesting contradiction because if we have many worlds, and many cultures, and many identities that are developing in different directions, in different ways, with different results, how we could really understand that because we, for example, Russians, are absolutely defined by Russian Dasein and I could be nobody but Russian. I represent Russian Dasein. I have only one vision - Russian vision, because I belong to my existential horizon. I am living in the moment of my Russian melody, how we as existential being understand that. And I could judge, for example, what is going on outside of Russia only with my eyes. Exactly the same with Serbs. You could not imagine yourself to be Albanians, against possibility including game playing. We are trying to use Ossetian in one ethno-sociological school. We have said ‘lets imagine you are the enemy, you are the other. Let’s imagine you are Georgian.’ They could not accept that including in the game playing, in the role playing. No. There was no Georgian. Everybody will play Ossetes. It is ethnocentric aspect that is embedded in the searcher mind. For example, it is logical to presume that all noomahia is Russian vision of everything. It reflects Russian ethnocentrism. That is very comfortable for Serbs but maybe will be not so much comfortable for Croats, or Polish, or Americans, or Chechens. So how could we solve in that situation the problem that we are defined by own Dasein and how could we deal with other Dasein being the part of this Dasein? So that is very difficult methodological question but without answering that we could not come to geosophy. That will be only pure hallucination about the multiplicity. So the idea is the measure. So if we, for example, insist on pure universality, and if we try to overcome any ethnocentrism, we come to nothing. We have no position. There is no such existential space and there is no such melody that could be the earth for all of humanity or universal history. That will be the same as in Trubetzkoy's example. That will be a thousand pages about our civilization history and two pages about everything else. So that will be just our own «objective» understanding of multiplicity of Dasein. That will be absolutely ethnocentric and therefore wrong. So if we pretend to create the system without ethnocentrism, universal, that will be our ethnocentrism in some perverted, titanic, gigantic version.

                So the problem how I solve it, it recognizes the right for ethnocentrism. We could not exist without ethnocentrism and trying to deny that, we become more ethnocentrism. That is because globalism and liberalism is much more racist than National Socialism because it thinks one fate, one destiny for everybody. And Germans were racist but they tried to impose their Germanity over more or less limited quantity of the people. The people were against. They fought against. We have fought against and we have won. And that was more or less with limit. Globalists try to do the same on the global scale, to impose their identity, to turn everybody into globalists without distinction. Trying to avoid racism, under pretext to be anti-fascist, they became the real fascists, the serious fascists, the hyper fascists because they tried to impose in a very racist way their understanding of what is human, what is good, what is progress, what is time, what is technology and so on. So we could not pretend that we are universalists. But we could not stay ethnocentric. Because that will not be noomahia but history of Russian Dasein or Serbian Dasein. The idea how to solve that is to recognize the natural limits of this existential space and positive appreciation of the Dasein of the other. Positive doesn’t mean that we should exchange our Dasein against the Daseins of others. But positive appreciation recognizes the rights of the other to be completely different without no hierarchy. Difference could sometimes provoke conflicts but if there is not conflicts, it’s not the destiny of the difference. So we shouldn’t eliminate the differences in the so-called universalist direction but we shouldn’t overgrow, we shouldn’t put our own recognized ethnocentric identity as something that should be imposed over other. And that is very interesting. What I’m speaking about is borders that should not be fixed once for all, that could change because the people could develop, they could change their identity. They are dynamic entities. They are inside of the historical (not historic) process of the balance of their noomahia. They are fighting with each other. They are changing religions. They are open in any way, in positive or negative way, in any way, in conflicts, in war and peace (war and peace of Tolstoy). There are always possibilities. War and peace, changing. And this changing situation, the identity could change. We are not obliged to stay absolutely with one and the same moment of noomahia. It depends on so many factors that it is always open question.

                And if we consider a kind of concert of these ethnocentric groups, if we recognize the right to be ethnocentric in some borders, not overcoming them, not in the universalist nor in the purely chauvinist xenophobic way, if we are staying clung to our own identity, defending it sometimes, imposing it when its the possibility, but at the same time if we recognize the inner right of difference to the other, we don’t eliminate ethnocentrism, we don’t overcome ethnocentrism, and we don’t glorify excessively ethnocentrism. And that is Apollonian methods, because as Friedrich Jünger, the brother of Ernst Jünger, has described it in his famous book about Greek Gods, 'the essence of titanism, of this Cybelian Logos, is not knowing the measure.' So if you are ethnocentric, you are imperialist colonialist. You impose your ethnocentrism over everybody. If you are universalist it is the same. It is titanism. If we stay in the borders we could not over-reach that, not to fall in one or the other, not pretend to be the center of the world but we are center of the world, everyone of us. If we are not center of the world, we are not in Dasein. If we do not have the center of our identity, of our sacred territory, of our tradition, of our symbols without churches and sacred places, we are not people. We should be center of the world but we should recognize the right to the other to be center of the world as well in their eyes, in their world, in their borders. And the borders should not be just. They’re always unjust, because we are living beings. These existential horizons are living. So we could not say ‘lets be the Great Russia and nobody will pass.’ There comes the time when someone other pass the border. And the borders should not be titanic. They should be open as well. We should fight for our borders. We should live with our borders because our borders are kind of our bodies, our skin. We are living in that. They should let something in, something out, as the skin. They should be different. But they should exist. They should be recognized in the clear and the logical and the metaphysical way; so the borders between one horizon and the other, without pretending to creature the common measure, to put them together, to overcome our ethnocentrism. 

    We could call it self-reflecting ethnocentrism. We understand that we are the center of the world and we are happy with that. But we understand and we should recognize the right to think the same and to be the same in the other borders of the other. That is very important. That is the only solution to create balanced geosophy and the world based on multipolarity because otherwise we will come to completely kind of humanism without the essence, without the nature, without the content, pure form. That will be at the end of the day pure racism, the other side of pure racism as pure humanism, because if you don’t agree with the values of this liberal humanism, you are not human and finally you should be destroyed, as is the case with Muslims or with Slavs in Anglo-Saxon version. Or we try to impose our own ethnocentrism without understanding the measure.

                So maybe we could call it measured ethnocentrism, self-reflecting ethnocentrism that recognizes the dignity of this existential entity of these people but recognizing the right to have the same for those who we like or we don’t like as well. With those who we like, it’s no problem but with those who we don’t like at all, it’s the problem. For example, following this path in concrete, in writing noomahia, I have written and published the book on North America, North American Logos. You can imagine my relation to North American culture. I simply hate it. But dealing with North American Logos, I have discovered that was a challenge for myself. Because if I would write Russian version of criticism of American imperialism and so on, that will be caricature. That will not be American Logos. It’s pity but that will not be noomahia. And going into depth of American Logos, I have discovered completely different things. I started to understand them. I don’t approve them but now I understand them. I understand what they are doing because everything fits in their context. And they are kind of consequential in their attitude, in their titanism, in their creation of artificial, post-traditional civilization. They are doing what they should do. They are creating some kind of American society on the global scale because it was based on this universalism from the very beginning. I don’t approve that but that is quite logical if we consider that there is American world and there is the Logos of American world. And I have identified that in the pragmatist philosophy, a very special philosophy, very different from European philosophy. It’s not good, not bad but it’s purely American. It’s based on inexistence of object and subject. Very interesting. I have passed the test I think. Because dealing with American Logos, I didn’t write a caricatural critical volume of how awful they are and how we should fight against them but it was written with some sympathy for them. For me it was really a challenge. After that, I could write a volume of Noomahia on any people after overcoming this challenge. For example, after this test, I have discovered the logic of Croats, of Polish, and with great astonishment I have found that the Slavophile tendency and tradition was started not by Russian but by Croats. Croats were the first Slavophiles. And Czechs, and there was a Slavophile tendency in Polish tradition. Not for Russia but Croatian was pro-Russia. It’s very strange.

                So there are so many things that we could discover overcoming our ethnocentrism and at the same time destroying completely universalism imposed by globalists. So that is new way. It is not rehabilitation of nationalism. It is not the return to the nation states. It is not pure revanchism noomahia. It is new way of thinking that is new for Russian, for myself. And I think that if we learn to use that methodologically, we could solve many details in political, cultural, scientific, in any sense, and very concrete challenges. So that’s for today. We have covered today, two most important methodological aspects of noology as a philosophical discipline. We have spoken about three Logos and geosophy with most important terms and concepts introduced in two first lectures. And I invite you to think about that, to try to use that in concrete aspect, and follow next eight lectures because in the next eight lectures, we will apply what we have spoken about today to the concrete cases, as examples to show how that works, because it works as concrete tools. If they are tools they should help us to do something with that. That is all for today. 

22. Introduction to Noomakhia: Logos of Indo-European Civilization [Lecture 3] - Alexander Dugin

    

    We are continuing our lectures dedicated to Noology, philosophical discipline about consciousness, human mind, and the thought. Today we have two lectures. The third lecture has the name ‘Logos of Indo-European Civilization.’ So now we are going to apply the methodological principles explained in the previous two lectures to concrete objects and to concrete civilizations. We have spoken about the three Logos theory and the concept of existential horizon and the Historical. So now we are going to apply that to Indo-European culture. First of all when we are speaking about existential space, we can apply this concept to different scales, to small communities, to middle sized communities, or to big communities, for example united by the similar or same linguistic origins. And now we are going to speak about Indo-European existential space. What is Indo-European existential space? It is one of the largest forms of unity. Indo-European existential space coincides with the space where people speaking Indo-European languages live. What are Indo-European languages? That is Roman, Latin, Greek, German, Celt, Slavic, Persian, Indian Sanskrit and the other Prakrit languages, Hittite in Ancient Anatolia, Phrygian, Thracian, Illyrian (the ancestors of Albanians), and Balts more or less. What is interesting is that gypsies as well belong to this linguistic community because the language of the gypsy is also Indo-European. Their origins are uncertain but they speak in Indo-European languages. As well, Yiddish, a Jewish language, (a German language essentially) belongs to the European family. That is more or less the space populated by the people speaking these languages that enter in this Indo-European ecumene, Indo-European existential horizon. That is a huge amount of space, of peoples, of histories, very contradictory and conflictual, but at the same time that covers people speaking Indo-European languages. That is existential space.
    We have spoken yesterday that we are defining the cultures and people by existential horizon, the space, and the historical. So we could speak about the Indo-European history or Indo-European historical sequence of the events. We will see later what could be or what versions of this main general Indo-European historical sequence can be but now we are going to discuss what is the kind of main features of Indo-European existential horizon. What is Indo-European Dasein? (t/here being) First of all, we need to concentrate on a very important concept. That is the concept of Turan. Normally, we use the term Turan as a space where Turkish people lived. But that is not so, because the term Turan is purely Iranian and it is much more ancient than the appearance of the first Turkish tribes in Central Asia or in Eurasian steppes. The term belongs to Avesta, to the ancient Zoroastrian Mazdaen religion and was used in the Iranian tradition long before the manifestation or creation of the first Turkish tribes. So that is an Indo-European term (Turan). And what is the meaning of the Indo-European term? We know very well Ferdowsi, a Persian poet of the Middle Ages that has created a kind of poetry about the Iranian historical sequence called Shahnameh poem. This Shahnameh is based on the duality taken from Avesta, from ancient pre-Islamic sources, about duality and dualism and the fight between Iran and Turan. Iran was sedentary people of Iranian descent. Iranians as we know them living in Persia and in the Media to the north of the actual Persia, in the Caucasus. The essential feature of Iran was sedentary. And Turan was the space where nomadic people lived. But what is the meaning of the word ‘Turan’? The original meaning, root of this Indo-European word was ‘tribe’ or ‘people.’ It is the same as in the case of ‘tautos' in Lithuanian (nation or people). That was the name for the people of the steppes. And the meaning of Turan was the space populated by the nomadic tribes. And these tribes, in the ancient Avestan time when this term was used, these peoples were absolutely Indo-European as well. So we are dealing with very interesting duality (dualism), cultural and civilizational. Iran and Turan signified in the original time, two versions of Indo-European societies. Iran was the same as sedentary Indo-European society and Turan was the name for nomadic Indo-European society. That is very important because that has to do with the origins of the Indo-European peoples.
    When we try and when we start to explore, from Iran and Turan, what kind of civilization or society was more ancient, we come to the absolute conclusion that is the main position of any historians that Turanian Indo-European tribes were first. So the Iranians that were at the source of sedentary Iranian culture were the ex-nomadic tribes that turned into sedentary tribes. They came from the same Turanian space. That is the main position. There are many many debates and quarrels of where exactly in Turan was the center of this proto-Indo-European culture. But almost everybody agrees that that was somewhere in Turan. There is position that was far to the east or to the south of the Ural Mountains, or in the Caspian area, or to the north of the Black Sea, but somewhere from Danube up to the southern Siberia. That was a large area but somewhere there was the so-called motherland, or urheimat to use the German word, initial, original motherland of the European people. So that is urheimat (in Russian прародина), something not motherland but pre-motherland. That is more or less the common position, somewhere there. That is the main principle of the origins of the European civilization.
    Second moment - if we have location somewhere in Turan, the second principle of the Indo-European origins is that the first Indo-European cultures were nomadic, so strictly linked to the pastoralism. They were pastoralist, nomadic, Turanian tribes. I would suggest the readings of Marija Gimbutas (Lithuanian author), that have explained excellently and brilliantly the kind of logic of this Indo-European expansion. The idea is that, according to Marija Gimbutas, and according to the many Russian scientists and archaeologists as well, the origin of these Turanian Indo-European tribes was somewhere to the south of the Ural, around Chelyabinsk city where a very ancient city was recently discovered called Arkaim, because that was the typical Turanian city of the nomadic Indo-European tribes.
    You know that it is common wisdom and common scientific position that the first bearers of Indian Vedas came as well from the north, from this same Turanian space. The ancestors of the Iranians came from the same Turanian space. The ancestors of the Hellenic, Roman, Latin, German, Celts, Slavs, Balts, and Hittites (one of the first of the more ancient tribes) came to their places from the same urheimat, from the same Turanian space. And all of them were bearers of the nomadic pastoralist culture. According to Marija Gimbutas, there were many waves of these Indo-European tribes. Any wave brought with it new languages, new forms, new mixtures of different dialects of Indo-European languages that were at the origin of the modern Indo-European languages. They were bearers of the Kurgan culture. Kurgan culture is very important for us. Now we could reconstruct a kind of archaeological historical sequence of the phases of the creation of the Indo-European societies in that way. There was urheimat. There was an Indo-European motherland somewhere. Let’s say to the south of the Ural. I don’t insist on this concrete location but that is more or less as the majority or serious part of the historians that agree about that. It was maybe to the east or maybe to the west but somewhere there.
    The second point that is as well Kurganian hypothesis of Marija Gimbutas is that every Indo-European people in the origin was nomadic and pastoralist. They were not farmers, not sedentary. They created a kind of special city and they were warriors. They domesticated the horse for the first time. The domestication of the horse came from precisely this Turanian space. It’s normal they have domesticated horse. They moved through the steppes in order to conquer the other spaces, going from this urheimat through India up to Britannic Islands. They colonized Eurasia starting from that point. That is normal Kurganian hypothesis and that is the origin of all Indo-European languages. Ancestors of any Indo-European tribe and people spoke this Indo-European language living in the Turanian space, being nomads and pastoralists, and elaborating a kind of culture, culture that is at the origin of any Indo-European society and Indo-European civilization. We could speak about this proto-Indo-European culture and civilization and we could localize it, situation it in the Turan, identify it with the nomadic way of life, with the warrior type of being and ethic of the warrior and heroism, with domestication of the horse, and very important moment with the solar circle as the main moment of this.
    There is very interesting author, Leo Frobenius (German author) that explained the stages of the culture in the following way. The first stage is fascination. If you are fascinated by something you are possessed by spirit, by beauty, by God, by inner feeling, by something. The second stage of the culture is the expression of this possession. You liberate yourself from this possession, trying to express in the images, in the exterior forms what possesses you, what fascinates you. That is second. And after that, you apply the result of this expression technically. We could see in the ancient Indo-European Turanian stage, all these three stages linked with the concept of the circle. First of all, that is the sun; sun as deity, sun as the day, sun as Apollo. So, you are fascinated by the sun. You are possessed by the sun. You worship the fire, the light, the sun, the heaven. It is at the center of your fascination. After that you create the symbol of it. You create the sign of the circle and you worship that as something that possesses you. That is kind of your inner concentration. After that, you apply this technically in the third stage. And what is this? That is the wheel and chariot created by the wheel. That is common wisdom as well. The first charioteers and the first creators of chariots with the wheel and with the horses were Indo-European. With the help of the chariots, they have conquered every space in Eurasia, from the Britannic Islands up to India or Persia or Greek and Balkans. So Europe and all European spaces were conquered by chariots with the horses and with this application of the sun (circle) to the technical aspect. They were possessed by the sun. They worshipped the sun. And they technically used the symbol of the sun in order to create the chariot. And with the chariot and with their inner dynamic being like the sun, they have expanded the rays of the sun through the Eurasian continent from the Turanian urheimat motherland.
    That is more or less pre-historic Indo-European, the Historical sequence. So that is a kind of destiny. That is to be like the sun, to shine, and to expand the fire and the light of the culture from the starting point. So that is very important in order to grasp what is Indo-European Dasein. And that is reflected in all Indo-European languages and Indo-European cultures. All Indo-European peoples are heirs of this Indo-European Dasein because we are speaking, we are thinking, we are defined, we are prefigured, we are pre-defined by this Indo-European solar Dasein of this Turanian (not yet Iranian - Iranian culture is the second phase. First phase to be Indo-European is to be Turanian, nomadic warrior tribe of the steppes.) That was common origin of all Kurgan culture type of the society according to Marija Gimbutas and almost everybody else. Kurgan is area. And the sign of that was the hill over the tomb. Kurgan is a kind of artificial hill over a tomb. That is very important because it is a kind of verticality, a creation of this vertical society. And as well the second sign is to put the weapon in the tomb. Because in other cultures, there was not. And the horse. Horse, weapon, and the hill are the three signs of this Kurganian type of culture. That is Indo-European Dasein.
    We could trace, from the point of Turan, somewhere in Turan, maybe. Because the first wheels were discovered precisely to the south of the Ural mountains and the first traces of the domestication of the horse in more or less the same space. So that would be logical to presume that the center of Turan was situated somewhere there in the Kazakh Russian steppes. (Actually Russian, before that was Indo-European.) That was the heart of Turan. And from this point, that was a kind of expansion, an expansion, not only physically in the search of the new field to feed the horse and the cows, but as well that was a kind of imitation of the sun. So the earthly sun was situated somewhere there in Turan and from this point there was a kind of expansion of the race. So we could presume that that was not only inertia or something casual but that was idea that there is the center somewhere in Turan, (for example to the south of the Ural mountains in the steppes) where there was a kind of sacred motherland of Indo-European tradition, the center, the pole of Indo-European tradition, and from this pole there was expansion in all possible directions. The main bearers of this Kurgan culture were nomadic Indo-European tribes. And they have colonized almost all of the Eurasian continent, from the West to India and through India to the Indian Ocean, expanding Buddhism as a kind of product of Indian culture which was as well a continuation of the same cultural influence projected to Chinese culture, that was completely different. So we have a kind of race everywhere. But the most interesting conclusion from that, the pure type of this Indo-European culture, we need to seek in the nomad Indo-European tribes as Afghanian or Ossetian (actual Afghanian Pashtuns) or some Pakistani tribes (nomadic as Baluch in Iran and Pakistan) or actual Ossetians (Ossetes, the direct descendants from Sarmatian Tribes). They turned into sedentary very recently and they were continuators of this Turanian type of culture. Iranians were secondary and Turanians were first. Their conflict (Turan against Iran) was very very secondary aspect of this history of the first stage of the Indo-European history.
    That was as well the idea of the late Oswald Spengler theories. There is posthumous writings of Oswald Spengler, a recently published unfinished book that was called The Epic of Man. That was unfinished. Only parts were written by Oswald Spengler (the author of The Decline of the West). In this The Epic of Man, he developed this concept that, according to Spengler, there existed three pre-civilizations; Atlantic with megalithic culture, Cushitic with Afro-Asiatic covering Northern Africa and Near East (Ancient civilization), and the third was precisely named Turanian civilization by Spengler. That fits well with Marija Gimbutas’ concept and with archaeologists’ Kurgan hypothesis and with studies in Indo-European past because unity of all Indo-European languages points out more or less to the same area where the Indo-European peoples lived before being separated in the actual known Indo-European languages and peoples. So Spengler, Gimbutas, linguistics, archaeology, everything points in that area.
    How we could evaluate the structure or noology of this proto-Indo-European Turanian society, there is an author that helps us very much that is called Georges Dumézil. I highly recommend his works. (I don’t know whether they are published in Serbia. In Russia, we have one book published about Latin religion and another about Indo-European Gods.) Georges Dumézil is a French historian that has dedicated all his life to the brilliant exploration of the Indo-European culture, comparing all kinds of mythologies, religions, tales, folk songs, and so on, symbolism in the written or oral traditions in Indo-European culture. He has written many books. He has written a very important text that is called Indo-European Ideology. That is a kind of summary of his extensive books with many thousands of pages, comparing carefully with details, different mythologies of Indo-European peoples. What is the result or summary of the studies of Indo-European structure by Dumézil? That is the three functional theory. He has arrived at the conclusion that all types of Indo-European cultures, ancient or modern, were based on the concept of the three functional society.
    Any Indo-European society consisted of three castes. First caste was the priests. They were sacred kings and priests. They were considered to belong to the heaven. They were divine. They were considered to be deities, not man but divine beings, or the sacred kings and sacred priests. Their traits were Brahman and Brahmin in Indian caste system. They had their own ethic and metaphysic, the idea that they possessed a special kind of soul consisted from the light. The rule of the priests and sacred kings was based on the same idea of the sun. Because they were earthly sun, they were fire, they were light. And they represented light as the sun of God, of heaven God. The second caste was warrior or 'Kshatriya' in Indian system, ‘raθaēštar’ in Iranian system and ‘raθaēštar’ is staying on the chariot (warrior on the chariot). Because the chariot with the wheels was the main symbol of expansion through Turanian space of these Indo-European tribes. And the third caste were the simple pastoralists or masters of the animals, of the cows, of the horses. And all society represented a kind of army, an army going through the space in order to fight and to die, because there was no death in our understanding. There was a kind of elevation. Every soul was considered to be heavenly sparks coming down to the earth in order to return. So the quicker the better. If you die young, that is good because it is normal to die young, to die in the fight, to die killing the enemies. Not to survive, but to die was the goal of the warrior. And to be wise and not to live long was the task and the goal of the priests; to be pure, to purify himself and everybody else. To be loyal and to be brave, to have many horses and cows was the task of the third function.
    And there was absolutely vertical hierarchy with the priests on the top, the warriors in the middle, and the pastoralists at the bottom. Because pastoralists dealt with the material aspects of the cows, horses, and sheep so they were considered less pure and less perfect. But they strived to be the same to be wise as priests and kings and to be brave as warriors. So the value system was based not on the simple pastoralists and their goals but in the center was the concept of the priests and warriors and they defined as well the ethics of the third caste. But everything was absolutely vertical and we could see that here in that situation, pure version of Logos of Apollo in our noological understanding. That is the most brilliant, most expressive, most clear Logos of Apollo, vertical, because all the living was considered a kind of coming down of the light, of the sun into the sacred kings and priests, expanding going through the warriors, and finishing with the pastoralists, in order to return to the heaven.
    And what is interesting is the quality of the earth in the steppe in the Turan. The earth was hard. It was not the type to put the seeds, to plant something there. That was a kind of space in order to get to and to return back. There was no under-earth dimension in that vision in the steppe. The most daemonic, most devilish, most negative creature symbolically was the mouse, living under the surface of the space. The little hole of the mouse was considered to be something as a Hell and that was the symbol of Satan in their tradition, or the snake living under the surface of the Turanian steppes, but not deeper. That is tradition and society with no roots because the roots are in heaven. That was completely different version. That is not something growing from the earth but something growing from the sky, expanding its branches on the earth precisely as Indo-European tribes and returning to the roots but to return to the roots is to return to the Gods and to the fire. That is cremation rite to put the body of the dead man into the fire in order to return through the fire to the sun, to the fire, and to heaven. So everything was quite opposite that we habituated. That was purely nomadic Indo-European tradition. That was as well pure type of Apollonian Logos.
    According to Dumezil, what is Indo-European? It is Apollonian we could say. It is exactly the same as Logos of Apollo and any kind of normal, known by us, Indo-European society (Celtic, German, Latin, Illyrian, Thracian, Hellenic, Greek, Hittite, Iranian, Indian, Scythians, Sarmatians, Slavs, Balts), every kind of Indo-European culture was based originally on this Logos of Apollo. The name was given by the Greeks but the same we could identify easily in Veda, in Avesta, in German the Odin myths, in Celt legends and myths. And Georges Dumezil has put together all these types of mythologies in order to compare them. That was clear when we are reading one book after the other that that is absolutely founded. That is almost common sense. There is nothing absolutely new. That is a kind of clear manner to explain that in the very transparent way. That is his result of his writings. That was the school as well founded by him and continued by Émile Benveniste, one of the best linguistic authorities of the 20th century. Émile Benveniste has created a kind of dictionary of Indo-European terms that shows the correctness of the Dumezilian concept theory that is now accepted.
    And the second important thing in Dumezil is what he calls Indo-European ideology. Indo-European ideology is a structure that is unchangeable and everlasting. That is represented in the language, culture, symbols, and way of thinking of Indo-European people that is strictly the same in the time of urheimat and modern Indo-European mind. So there are constant principles. They affect us in our understanding of the cosmos, of the political society, and of the history. This ideology is reading, grilles de lecture, interpretation, scale. Through this reading we decipher and interpret what is going on. We consider the society. There is philosophers or intelligentsia, there is military, and there is all the rest of the population. That is vertical and hierarchical vision with the president or leader as a kind of ancient sacred king, military or administrative groups, and population. It is unconscious in us but any Indo-European society is based around this three functional axis (modern or ancient, Christian or Pagan, eastern in Indian and Iranian or western in Celtic, German, Slav, French, Latin). So that is very interesting. According to Dumezil, nothing changes in that. More than that, through this ideology, we interpret the history; the history of the founding of Rome, the history of the founding of any country, of any Indo-European state. There is always some messenger of God or some sacred king coming from outside because the foundation of the kingdom was from outside, from Turan coming these nomads somewhere, and founding there the city. But the city was a kind of fortress. That was not a continuation of the village. That was something created from outside with the kind of military man coming somewhere and creating the fortress (citadel) in order to defend this military position. So it was a military conquest with some sacred heroes and leaders coming from outside. That was the main scenario. And after that, there was a kind of these three functions and relations, sometimes conflictual relations between priests and warriors, their basic interests, and the mass of the population. All three functions were described in many many ways through the chronicles, histories, myths, religious tales, folklores, songs, and so on. That is the main content of Indo-European tradition, to establish this verticality.
    That is interesting idea of the gender relations in this Turanian society (very important). When we study the relations between the sexes in the nomadic Indo-European society, we see a very interesting idea. Gimbutas, in other occasion, has proposed the terms of a kind of equivalence between men and women but in the matriarchal society. She proposed the concept of gylania. It’s not domination of the woman over man but a kind of friendship but under the main concept of the domination of matriarchy. Gylania was friendship and equality between man and woman but seen from the female position. I proposed the opposite neologism, anelygynia. That is the same, the kind of friendship between man and woman but from the male point of view, from the Turanian Indo-European point of view. There are two neologisms - gylania and anelygynia. (gylania : γυνή [Greek for woman], ἀνήρ [man]) That’s the same but Gimbutas puts woman first but in the Turanian male patriarchal society, the male is first (anelygynia, ἀνήρ). But there was not submission of the woman to the man but the friendship based on the concept that this solar warrior and celestial sky concept is the domination. So men and women were friends basing on the domination of this solar concept of the man nature. That was very interesting because men always were in the war and the women with children cannot go to the war normally. And they were left in the camps in the fortress. But that was not peaceful living because everywhere were as well the same type of societies, very aggressive and very expansive. And women were obliged to defend the cities. So they should be heroic and they should be warriors as well. Otherwise they will be conquered by the other and they didn’t want that. So they were as well the other type of warrior, with the same values as the man.
    That was reflected in many Turanian traditions in the nomadic society. Before the marriage there was a battle between the girl and boy. If the boy could not overcome the girl, the marriage could not be concluded. He should testify his force, his power over her power. There was a kind of competition in the fight but in order to fight, girls should be as well warriors. That is reflected in Brunhild complex in psychoanalysis. When on the bed of marriage, there was a continuation of the fight between man and woman. And woman can overcome and kill the man before the marriage is made. That is the kind of trace of this anelygynia, of this military friendship based on the recognition of the normative values of patriarchy. Amazonian type of society was not feminist or not female. Amazonians were absolutely patriarchal because that was a kind of projection of masculine, male type of culture and values over female society. That was a kind of purity and braveness and force and power of the type of the society exactly as male type of society but in the case of women. So Amazonian is not matriarchy. That was completely the last victory of patriarchy because the women accepted all kind of male type of behavior. That is anelygynia. We could say that is the extreme case in Amazonian society. But that is Turanian type of society with powerful and very strong and independent women that could represent not only a kind of possession of man. They were absolutely the citizens of these Turanian tribes that could defend themselves against possible aggression. That is very important and that is the pure patriarchy.
    There were not so much Goddesses in this mythology or when they were present, they were as men, as Greek Athens that was virgin. She was wise as a priest, and she was brave as warrior, and she was virgin. That was not the mother type of woman. That was the warrior, and priests, and virgin type of woman that is purely Turanian. So Greek Athens is the reflection of the male values. Wisdom is the most important male feature of the first caste, first function in the Dumezilian version. And the bravery and heroic spirit and the fight, all the attributes of Athens were as well wisdom and warrior heroism and no mothership, no purely earthly destiny of woman, no children. That is very important anelygynia concept of the Turanian society. That is the sources of the Logos of Apollo.
    Here we can as well remind ourselves of Plato. Plato, as I have already said, is a purely Indo-European thinker. He is the best known possible representative of the Logos of Apollo. He was considered to be incarnation of the God Apollo by the followers. In three dialogues of Plato, we see the clear images of this three functional cosmos, universe of purely Turanian and Indo-European type. In Timaeus, there was the Platonic cosmology based on three species. First example or paradigm, the father. The second was the image, icon, the son or child. And the third that was very not clearly defined concept of the matter or khora or the space, not the matter in our understanding nor the substance but space. It is khora, the third principle of Plato’s dialogue Timaeus. Khora is the space. So there is the origin, the paradigm, father. There is the son as the reflection of the father. And there is a kind of space where it is no more. That was called not so much mother but the woman that nurtures, that nourishes, that is the figure that gives the place in order for this reflection act to happen. So there are three levels of the reality in Plato. In the last one, khora, that is country or space and nothing more. That is not mother that gives birth to something. It is something that accepts the influence from the top of the hierarchy, from paradigm, accepts and gives back. That is purely Indo-European version of cosmology. And that is very very clearly defined so we could regard that as pure type of Apollonian cosmology that was accepted as such in Christianity, in Middle Ages, in Roman culture. Platonic Timaeus version of cosmology is normative for any Indo-European tradition.
    We could compare that with Vedas. In Vedas, more or less the same, in Iranian version more or less the same. There is a kind of three worlds; the highest, the middle, and the next very poorly defined. The last third world is a kind of surface of the earth where begins return. In the neoplatonic tradition that was the idea of the providence and return. So everything comes from the sky, heavenly father, comes down, and that is epistrophê, return to the same. There is a vertical cycle. The life is moment of the return and the death is not the end. It is the stage of return. So when we are un-manifested in the earth, we exist in better conditions than in the earth. The lowest point of the descent from our inner and paradigmatic position, from our own spirit (Atman in Hinduism) from our immortal soul. So our soul descends in order to ascend, in order to come back, and in order to go to the source. But the source is on the top, above. That is in Timaeus.
    In other dialogue, Plato’s Republic, there are three types of ideal state; philosophers (that is equivalent of the priests traditionally), warriors, and all the other. And philosophers should rule because they are dedicated to the highest contemplation of the sources, of the principles. Because they go from the cave out to see the unity, to see the sun, to see the stars, the heavenly lights. And he returns and has the right to rule because he is linked to the sky. So that is idea in Plato’s Republic. The state should be as such. The philosophers, Brahmans, or sacred kings contemplating the source of heavenly light and fire should govern over the other. The warriors should follow them and the others involved in material matters should obey to the philosophers and to the warriors. We have three functional concept in Plato.
    And the same Plato in the Phaedrus, Plato gives description of the soul. The soul has three parts according to Plato. There is black horse that is epithymia that is a kind of desire, desire in a more bodily sense, desire of something material, of sexual relations, of the nourishment, of eating and so on. That is kind of tendency to the bottom, to the most material aspect. That is black horse. There is white horse that is called thymos in Greek. That is desire for the glory. That is purely warrior value. It is not the material things but to be known, to have the fame, to be famous, to have glory. That was very important for Greek culture. That is purely Kshatriya value. And there was a kind of charioteer of these two horses, black and white, that is represented by the nous or by Logos in man. That is thought. That is priests in man and human soul. That is thinking principle, the center of the soul. And we see in this metaphor, in Phaedrus, once more chariot and horses, purely Indo-European signs and the soul is the same. It consists from three parts, hierarchically, vertically organized where charioteer is the main, is the Brahman, the priest. The white horse is the glorious warrior. And there is the material inclination of the black horse that is the worst by all the definitions of Plato. So the soul, the political system and the universe, and the cosmos, the world around us, all of them, cosmology, politology, and psychology are based on the same Indo-European pattern.
    And that is not the case as is said that all the European philosophy is only marks on the margin of Plato. So Plato is the philosopher’s ‘par excellence.’ It is the absolute philosopher. So everything is around Plato, or criticism of Plato, or development of Plato, or kind of debate with Plato as in case of Aristotle. But Plato is the center and if we now consider the structure, what is Indo-European structure, we could call it Platonism. Platonism is based on the concept of the eternity. It could not be too old. It could not become too old because eternity is not the past. Eternity is the past, present, and the future. There is the Platonism of the past, there could be and should be Platonism of the present, and there could be Platonism of the future because it is based on the strong belief in the eternity. It is based on our Indo-European Dasein. Being Indo-European, we are Platonists. That was not only the past. It is as well our present Dasein. We are Indo-European, using Indo-European languages, living in our history, being Platonists. It is very important. Because in that Indo-European version of the Logos, there is no modern understanding of time. There is vertical time in Platonism. The time is the reflection; the mirror of eternity says Plato. So that is more or less Indo-European attitude. That is vertical time. We are going here in order to go back. We are not developing in the earth. We are the witnesses of the glory of God that will come. And in our Christian tradition, everything is present. It is pure Platonism in any sense. That is very important.
    What we could add here are some considerations. First of all, in Indo-European cultures, there is not only one form of this vertical Logos of Apollo. Logos of Apollo can manifest itself in different ways. And there are many types of this Logos of Apollo. We could, for example, compare two main forms of it. In one form, there is a kind of absolute domination of the light. And that is Platonic version. So there is no problematic. There is the light that goes from the source, reaches the darkest point, the more distant point, the earth, the bottom line, and peacefully, joyfully returns to the source. There is nothing that could oppose the light. There is nothing that could fight seriously against the sky, against God, against the sun. There are some potential powers of the earth that would try not to let sun go back, return, or try to keep us on the earth, not to let us go back, not let us die, not let us return. But in the Platonic understanding that is something that is not so much important. We could easily overcome that following discipline, ascetic tradition, following the orders, to integrate in the heroic society, to have a kind of paideia in Greek (education) that teaches us how to return. All the educational system in Platonic society is not only to obey formally but to accept the order, integrate the order inside and following this help of the state, of the church, of the tradition, to become the real Indo-European man and woman in order to follow this straight line of return.
    In that optic, there is no evil. The evil as Platonists say, it is diminution of the good. That is only form of diminishing good. There is not evil as nature. There could not exist something like evil in this version because the good is the sun, is the origin, the good is the heaven and the God, and distance from the God is necessary test, for example, for soul. It is not evil in such. So any kind of evil, it’s only a test, an experience that tries to put obstacles in our way to return to ourselves. There is Platonist version but there is as well a much more developed Indian Vedic advaita metaphysic where there is this concept Advaita Vedanta (Indian metaphysics) that stresses this point that we go from the reality and truth into the world of the illusion in order to overcome the illusion and to return to ourselves because the essence of ourselves is God. So we are Gods but we have forgotten about that, Indian says. So there is no problematic. There is Advaita Vedanta non-dualistic version of Apollonian Logos. So everything that is not God is as well God but not knowing it. So there is no darkness. The darkness is simply the absence of the light and absolute darkness could not exist. There is only relative darkness that is kind of a darkening of the light. And darkening of the light, as we know in our observations of nature, is the first stage of the dawn, of the sunrise. If there is no darkening, there is no lightening. So that is unproblematic. I’m calling that advaita Platonism sometimes. So there is no dvaita, no duality. So it could be in Platonic or Indian.
    But there is the other formulation of Logos of Apollo that is problematic. And we see that in Iranian tradition. Iranian tradition is as well as Greek and Indian and Vedic, has the same sources, has the same origin that came from the Turan, from Indo-European structure, from Indo-European Dasein and is a kind of form, type of this Indo-European Dasein. But it considers the opposite force as something much more important. And we could call that dvaita Platonism. So there is a light and there is the darkness. The darkness in that version of Iranian dualistic tradition is not only kind of smallness of the light. Darkness is something much more serious. And that creates a kind of intense titanomachy and idea of the ethos of the fight of the light against the darkness. But this time the fight is something much more serious. In Platonic advaita perspective, it is a kind of illusion and we need to overcome the illusion. And in Iranian version, we need to overcome the enemy because this time the evil is. It is not only illusion. In the end of the day, it is illusion but not when we are in the reality. And that is a kind of much more serious and intense opposition of Logos of Apollo against something other.
    So in Platonic advaita Indo-European tradition, we have no opposition to that or the opposition is a kind of game. Plotinus has said once ‘the game is taken seriously only by puppets. The real players understand that all that is game and it is not serious.’ But in the case of dvaita Platonism or Iranian dualism, that is not the game. That is a fight. That is a war. And a war is serious because the power of the darkness, of something that is opposite to Apollonian Logos, this time is huge and is comparable with the power of the light. That is completely new attitude (dualism). And we could see that here is something approaching to the Logos of Cybele. The pure Logos of Apollo in the case of advaita non-dualist Platonism or Hinduism, they don’t know the Logos of Cybele. They don’t consider it to be something important. It’s only the surface of the earth that is very hard. You come down in order to come back. You could not fit into the hole of the mouse. You are too big for that. You are too glorious for that. It is the fate to be like the snake. Nobody can imagine that as a fate to come down to the earth, to come into the earth, to be in the hole, to have something in common with the snake or mouse. So the Apollo is represented in very archaic version staying over the figure of mouse or mole. The mole is Satan in this version because he is blind and could not see the light.
    And here appears something other. But in order to go further, go to this dualist version of Indo-European structure and Indo-European society, we need to consider more what happens when these Turanian nomadic tribes become sedentary because there is a kind of shift. Some tribes that rest in the same state including up to now (Kalash population, Nuristani population, Pashtun population in Afghanistan and Pakistan) are continuing to be nomadic Indo-European tribes. So there were Scythes, Sarmatians, Alans, Iazyges, and Ossetes who were continuators of this nomadic tradition. But what happens when the Indo-European tribes come to the sedentary society, conquer them, and become as well sedentary? We will explore that in the next lecture. And now I suggest a little break in order to follow this kind of detective story about Indo-European Dasein and Indo-European existential horizon.

    •  

23. Introduction to Noomakhia: Logos of Cybele [Lecture 4] - Alexander Dugin

    

    In order to understand better how Indo-European culture came to the sedentary stage and what happened during this shift and this change in the structure in the moment of Noomahia, we must consider what was the existential horizon that was around Turan. So the Turanian tribes came to Eastern Europe, to Anatolia, to Balkans, to territory of Elam in Iran (Persia), and to Indian space. And these spaces were not empty or void. There existed some other civilizations, some other existential horizons with different kind of (we presume, or maybe the same but we will see now…) proper moment of Noomahia. What were these pre-indo-European civilizations of Europe, Balkans, Anatolia, Persia, and India? I follow here, as well as in the first and previous lecture, the concept of Marija Gimbutas, that affirmed that there existed in Anatolia, Balkans, and Europe before the coming of the Indo-Europeans, a very ancient civilization of the Great Goddess. 

    According to Marija Gimbutas, Lepenski Vir, Vinča, Karanavo Gumelnița, and other archeological places belonged to the civilization of the Great Mother. This civilization was very similar to Çatalhöyük site, in Anatolia, in Modern Day Turkey. The oldest levels of this civilization belong to the 7-8,000 years before Christ. The first waves of the Turanian Indo-European population was 3,000 years before Christ. And so this civilization existed before the appearance of the Indo-Europeans. In the case of Europe, there is the name or concept used by Marija Gimbutas of ‘Old Europe’ or ‘Paleo-European.’ (Paleo is a Greek word for ‘old.’) This was a civilization, according to GImbutas, with the center in the Balkans, because the oldest findings and archeological sites were discovered precisely in the Balkans, in the territory of Serbia and Bulgaria and around there; Karanovo, Starčevo, Tisza, Körös, Pannonia, around there. And this civilization was the civilization of the Mother. We see feminine figures and no male figures, and the concept of the tombs, without weapons. These were sedentary type of ancient agricultural societies with completely different structure than Turanian Indo-European tribes. 

    I suggest as well, Bachofen, who has written the book called ‘Muterrecht’ (‘The Law of Mother’), a classical and absolutely necessary work. In this work of the 19th century, he explored all the matriarchal topics in the tradition of the Greek civilization and the Anatolian civilizations; Lydian, Lycian, Carian, Phrygian, Hattian, and so on. And if we consider Bachofen’s big volume, or Marija Gimbutas, or many other authors, it is almost conventional wisdom. There are debates on who were these Paleo-European? What modern people are the continuator of them? The most probable is the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian population, Etruscan population, Hattian population (Pre-Hittite population), as well as the modern Caucasian population of Georgian, of Dagestanian, of Avar population, Chechen population, and Abkhazian population were the continuator of this pre-Indo-European Paleo-European population. 

    But what is important is that everyone agrees that before these waves of Turanian Indo-European Kurganian culture, there existed a different civilization with a different Logos. And when we study this Logos not only from the symbols but from some tales embedded in the European Hittite or Phrygian or Hellenic or Latin civilization, we could reconstruct, in main features, these pre-Indo-European cultures. 

    The main features of this culture are the following. First of all, it is Chthonian, Earthly civilization. There is no idea of the Heavenly Father or the Light coming down from the Heaven. There is the Birth of the Great Mother. That is Great Mother Earth and Water, that has given the light to everything that exists. So the logic is quite opposite. There is a kind of primordial substance, that gives birth to everything else. And the figure of the Mother, the most ancient figures, they have the lower part of the body described in realistic way, but there is no head, no face, no hands. So the upper part of the body is not described because it was not the center of attention. The bearing belly of the Great Mother was the center of attention because it was the origin and the end. That was the tomb as well as the belly that gives the life. That was the center of this civilization and the center of sacrality. 

    And that kind of civilization, for example, had as well, big cities. Big cities with the cults and sacred places in center but without a wall. That was a completely different city. If we consider Indo-European cities, they were also with walls. This was a sign that it was a military construction. It was not developed from the sedentary village or some different villages growing, but was a kind of artificially created something in order to conquer the territory. So there are 2 types of cities; Indo-European Turanian (with walls) and without walls (Logos of Cybele). The city without walls, as something peaceful, sedentary, and agrarian. This was a sign of that. Agrarian culture was made by women. There is the term ‘Hoe’ which is the instrument to prepare the field for the seed, which was a purely female tool. The earth was labored by the women. Because they were linked to the earth, they were considered to be the mother, the creator. And they were the workers on the earth with these hoes. These hoes were not too heavy and so were easy to manipulate. And there were no animals laboring the fields. The fields were small and were labored by women. And so now we have pure type of the civilization based on completely different structure. That is the sedentary civilization; not nomadic. Matriarchy; not Patriarchy. Chthonian; not Heavenly. Based on the cult of the mother; not of the father. Mother is earthly, Father is Heavenly. There is no heavenly father in this pure type of Cybelian civilization. There is only Mother that creates, that nurtures, that destroys and that gives birth again. So everything goes from the mother and returns to the mother. And that gives a completely different image of the cosmos, where the inner space of the earth is the center. It is something hidden. It is not the open space of the sky. It is not the fire, it is water. It is not the day, it is night. It is not open, it is closed. It is not male, it is female, something that goes from inside as the woman gives birth from inside to outside. 

    And the belly of the woman is the image of the cosmos, of the world. And the world is constructed differently. It is a different world. The center is not above, it is beneath. It is under earth. The earth is not a hard surface in order to come down and come back. It is a completely different vision. It is inconceivable for Platonist’s version because it is not Platonist's world. It is a completely different picture of the world, different relations. There are roots, there are trees growing from the earth, not from the sky. Everything is based on the construction that goes from beneath the earth, from underground. It is not cremation, it is inhumation (putting in the tomb). It is earthly and not heavenly. That is the Kingdom of Mothers and not the Kingdom of Fathers. But that is not a direct opposition to it. It is a different perspective. For example, we could not receive the concept of Matriarchy if we simply change plus and minus with Patriarchy. It’s something different. For example, Patriarchy or Indo-European civilization is based on the line or the ray of the sun. But here, everything is based on the curve or the spire. So, you go to the center. You don’t kill by direct hit but you try to get into the trap and to suffocate in a mild manner. It’s not a radical cut of the throat, it is purely unremarkable and comfortable suffocation of the victim. So that is a completely different version of death and life. There is no immortal soul coming from the sky. That is eternal birth and death of the same substance, recombined in a different way. So that is matrilineal society as well, where the affiliation to the family is defined by the Mother and the Father is unknown or the father is not so much important. Because the father does not give life. The mother gives life. And in some radical cases, there is no father, because the idea that the father is linked to the conception of the child is a patriarchal one. In matriarchy, it was the woman who could bring the child, having relations with winged creatures or with serpents or with invisible spirits, as incubus coming through the night in the dreams. So, the conception of the child was considered to be very special with no help of the father. The father didn’t exist in that as something important. 

    So the figures of the Great Mother were surrounded by the beasts; two beasts, on the left and on the right of the Great Mother. Little by little, they obtained human features. They were half beast half man, and after that they were man. So the man was a kind of development of the ape, of the beast. So the creation was from the matter, the substance, the matriarchal giver of life. And we have a completely different version of symbolism. The serpent was the same as the male in that situation. The only concept of the male figure was the serpent. Something living inside of the Great Mother, or the fish. The son was the serpent and the husband was the serpent of this Great Mother, living inside of her, underground, and appearing on the surface and disappearing anew. So the serpent was absolutely positive but the serpent was a kind of absent male because in the concept of these purely matriarchal world visions as represented in the Phrygian myth of Cybele, there was the concept of the female androgyne (Agdistis in Greek). Agdistis was the female androgyne. She was female but why androgyne? Because she did not need anybody in order to conceive the child. So she was as well the father. This is the concept of the she-father, Agdistis in the Greek myth. And this Agdistis gave birth to Attis, the Anatolian hero. And being mother of Attis, she has fallen in love with Attis. The incestuous relations between mother and son are a basic feature of this matriarchal cycle and tale. But when Attis grew up, he wanted to marry with a normal human woman. And this provoked the revenge and great jealousy of the Great Mother and she put the madness on Attis and he castrated himself and died. But in that time, Cybele in this myth, had sadness about the loss of Attis, and she resurrected Attis. And Attis became her priest. That was the origin of the castrated priests, called Gallus in Anatolia. And they created the town of emasculated castrated priesthood of the Great Mother. That was the origin of the orgies of the Great Mother, of Cybele. That was a kind of civilization of sedentary peaceful type, with blood victims and bloody sacrifices because the blood of the male priest was a kind of nourishment for the earth that helped to give crops and plants to grow and so on. 

    We could see this existential horizon of Ancient Old Europe (Pre Turanian Europe) with centers of civilization, with cities, with fields, with ceramics, with many objects and very developed civilization, with worship, cults, temples of the Great Mother. In the south we see traces of it in the stone, but we could imagine what was this civilization when all the buildings were from wood. There could have existed huge center in the Balkans and other places. What is interesting is that in Lepenski Vir, the people living around Lepenski Vir make the same floors as the time of Lepenski Vir culture, more than 5-6,000 years before Christ. The serbs, villagers, and peasants living in the same area now are making the same kind of floor. That is very interesting how constant, how stable these structures can be. 

    At the same time, many levels of the mythology of the Great Mother enter into the Patriarchal society, into the Greek mythology. This idea of castration of Cronus by Zeus as well is a part of this Matriarchal cycle and dethronement of Patriarchal Zeus of Cronus of Saturn, the elder, the oldest Titans. The Titans were a kind of matriarchal figures of the man in the previous tradition. All of these topics are very stable and they continued into the mythology and folk tales up to the present time. For example, there is an author called Gasparini (italian), who has written the book (3 volumes) ‘On the Slavic Matriarchy’ and he has found many matriarchal aspects in Slavic tradition; Balkanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Czechs, and so on. These topics, we could find after thousands of years of domination of patriarchal Indo-European culture. So we are obliged to recognize that we are dealing, in European society, with two levels. Two existential horizons; one existential horizon we have identified as Turanian or Indo-European and we have described more or less in the general features, the structure of this verticality in the Indo-European system of values. And when the Indo-European tribes have conserved their nomadic tradition, going through the steppes of Turan, they lacked this second level. They had only one level (the level of their patriarchal civilization) but when they came through the Dnieper River, behind the Dnieper there was the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture of matriarchal type. And this produced a mixture between two existential horizons, and this was the kind of the moment of Noomahia, an encounter, a meeting between the Logos of Apollo, represented by Indo-European type of society, three functional and patriarchal, with the Logos of Cybele, represented by Paleo-European population that lived behind the Dnieper. And that was interesting that Marija Gimbutas affirms that that was precisely the border between two civilizations for many thousands of years. The Dnieper on the Eastern side was Turan and on the Western side began these kingdoms of the Great Mother. 

    In the case of Anatolia, little Asia, that was more or less the same with maybe the same type of Paleo-European population but to the West there was Dravidian population of a different kind. But this Dravidian population of ancient Iran, Pre-Indo-European and Ancient India, as well was of matriarchal type. Interesting. They were maybe from phenotype, they were different. Maybe they were not Paleo-European or nobody knows. They say they had dark skin but maybe they were darker type of the same Paleo-European, maybe they were completely different. But what is interesting is that from the point of Noology, they belong to the same type of Logos of Cybele that we could discover under the level of the Indo-European civilization, above all in India. In India it’s clear that there is Vedic level of civilization and there is Pre-Vedic, which is matriarchy, chtonic, with center of Titans and female Goddesses and so on. 

    But at the same time, in Italy, Spain, and British Isles, we could find the traces of this matriarchal civilization. Or in Iberian Peninsula there is the Basques civilization, that is an origin of this matriarchal Paleo-European type. So, any kind of sedentary Indo-European civilization known now is the result of the mixture of two Noological types; the mixture of patriarchy and the Logos of Apollo linked to the Indo-European level and something other, a pre-Indo-European existential horizon. And we are dealing not only with the past but we are dealing with the present because existential horizon is not something that belongs to the material aspect of the things. Existential horizon is something that lives now. So we have this other very, very deep and hidden matriarchal existential horizon of Paleo-European civilization that was a kind of basis for sedentary Indo-European society. That is the most important result of Noological analysis of Indo-European culture. Every Indo-European society is based on the superposition of two existential horizons, so anн existing Indo-European culture (Celtic, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Slavic, Greek, Iranian, or Indian), all of them have two existential levels. They are based on the Titanomachia, based on the Noomahia represented by this fight between the Logos of Apollo and the hidden, neglected, ignored, secret you could say, Logos of Cybele. 

    Friedrich Jünger has said that the order of the Olympian Gods is constructed over the shoulders and the heads of the Titans. So they are created not over nothing, or over a void, but there are Titans living at the bases of the Indo-European heroic societies. That is a living Cybelian existential horizon that we could find in European tradition, folk tales, myths, religions, rites, and psychology. Our tradition is double. Officially, we are Indo-Europeans. We have patriarchy, vertical structure of society. But secretly, in the night part of our society, we are matriarchal. We belong to this existential horizon of the Great Mother with peaceful, pacifist, and as well democratic and up to some situation matriarchal and democratic society, not organized by vertical male domination but much more mild society. And our identity of Indo-European peoples and culture should be regarded as double, essentially double. 

    Without the recognition of this second Pre-Indo-European level, we could not explain anything in our historical sequence because our European history, Iranian history, and Indian history is the continuing fight between two Logos. That is our moment of Noomahia. The Logos of Apollo came over the Logos of Cybele and that was the main event when Turanian nomadic tribes conquered the sedentary societies. They created something new, a new kind of society. It was officially Indo-European but secretly not so. That is the difference between Iran and Turan. Iran had this matriarchal horizon and Turan didn’t have it. Iran against Turan in Ferdowsi, or in Avesta, or ethno-sociological or noological sense is something other than it appears. It is the sedentary nature of Indo-European society that shows that inevitably and necessarily there should be an encounter and assimilation of this second existential horizon, second dasein. And this dasein was conquered, was put under control, and was domesticated. It was a kind of domestication of Cybele, a kind of conquering of the female power. And putting over this female power, man as rulers. But patriarchy was the result of the very violent fight that still continues, because we are living in sedentary societies and we have inside our cultures this matriarchal Logos of Cybele that doesn’t belong only to the past. So we are living in this two level society where the Titanomachia, the war between Gods and Titans, between Indo-European and Pre-Indo-Europeans, is still continuing. That is the most important fact of this noological analysis; that we are dealing with double level societies and cultures, not with uni-level as Turanian civilization. 

    And we could follow and trace this extremely important line in analyzing third function of Dumézil. Now we come back to this three functional theory. We see that the priests and the warriors, lets say, were turned into the ruling class in the sedentary Indo-European societies as they were. The warriors and our military are still Turanian. Our priests are still Turanians. They are male ascetics, priests, and warriors. Up to the present, our priests, our Christian priests, our army have continued to be morally and metaphysically Turanian. They are still purely patriarchal society and they were not so much affected by the sedentary. They continued to create the fortresses, to create the cult of the Sun God, the God of Father, the God of Sun. They continued to defend the hierarchical system of our political states that are the continuation of the same vertical structure. And they are not so much affected. They are affected but not so much. The priests and warriors have imposed language on the conquered people. They have imposed their Indo-European ideology. We are living under Indo-European ideology with the ruling class a continuator of these Turanian conquerors, charioteers. And all our culture, education, philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, everything, aesthetics of light, we are living officially in the Apollonian society. 

    But if we come back to the third function, we see in the Turanian society as the pure type of this Logos of Apollo, nomadic pastoralists. The people dealing with the big animals, with bulls, cows, and horses. It’s very important because they are great, they are big. So in order to put them under control, you should be very strong and you have to have the space in order to feed them. So the pastoralist needs open space, needs the field, and the very strong male controller of them. But when they came to the sedentary way of life, these pastoralists, the third caste were a kind of economical caste, because warriors could only destroy or consume. They produced nothing. As well as priests, they produced nothing. Everything that was produced, the richness, the economy, was in the hands of this third caste of cattlers and pastoralists. They were masters of the material aspect. They gave food and everything to the chiefs, to chieftains, to leaders, to the warriors and the priests. But they breed the cattle; they were occupied with the cattle. The pastoralists and cattlers were an economical class. And when they conquered the sedentary society, they introduced in this third caste all sedentary society. The peasants were the main type of this matriarchal society. But the peasants in the pure matriarchal society were women. Now that is the change of the sex of the gender of this sedentary society because the woman was replaced by the man. And the woman with the hoe was replaced by the man with the plow. And the field was labored by woman herself, but now it is done by the animal (domesticated horse or cow or bull) with the heavy plow that it is impossible for the woman to manage. And there is an iron end of the plow used in that. And so it is not gentle or mild relation with the earth, but it is violent relations with earth. And this is the appearance of the male figure in the agriculture, the male Indo-European peasant that replaced the previous peasant woman of Pre-Indo-European society. That was very important from an economic point of view because that was the shift from the cattle towards the grain, the wheat, and the plants. And that was as well assimilation and creation of mixture in the third function of the pure Turanian society and all the economical and as well social structure of Paleo-European society. 

    So we have very interest idea that origins of European peasantry, of all the sedentary peasants in all of Europe, was the Balkans and Anatolia (including German Peasants, Celt Peasants, Latin Peasants.) They came indirectly from the first poles of these matriarchal civilizations of Great Mother on the Balkans and Anatolia. And after that it was expansion. First it was expansion on the purely matriarchal civilization through all Europe. After that it was the wave of the European societies that created first mixed and after sedentary European, Indo-European society with the peasantry. But the origins and the sources of the old European peasantry were Balkanic and matriarchal. And we could introduce a very important concept of peasant dasein of Europe. In this peasant tradition that represented during history the absolute majority of our people, because the nobles, the priests and warriors were a minority. The majority of people always during all the stages were peasants. Peasantry had very serious and important aspect of the Pre-Indo-European tradition. So there is a continuation of the tradition of the Great Mother in European peasantry. That explains why, in our folk tales and traditions and so on, there are so many matriarchal topics and figures, hidden or open. Because on the level of the European peasantry, on the part of the third function of Indo-European society, was integrated many tales about serpents, about queens, about fairies, about rusalki, and other types of female spirits of different kinds (good or bad). All of them were kind of mirrors or sparks of the Great Mother figure. 

    It is important that when European tribes became sedentary, they assimilated this dimension, this existential horizon in their structure. Officially, there was a historical pact between the gainers and the losers. The civilization of the Great Mother had lost its Titanic battle against the Gods. On this victory is based all the historical consequences of European history. That was the history of how the Turanians had conquered the Old European (Paleo-European civilization), and all our ethical system is based on it. But the conquered existential horizon, conquered dasein still lives and lived inside of our society, in the third function, that is the majority our society. We could try to write the history of European peasantry as a special civilization, embedded in our official civilization. Our normal history is the deeds of our saints, our kings, and our aristocracy. We know almost nothing about the everyday life of the peasants. We celebrate only the highest level; the first two functions of Indo-European society. We know almost nothing about the everyday life or way of thinking or ideology of our peasantry. But only when there was a kind of renaissance of the national tradition in the fight against the Middle Ages and feudalism, we started to collect folklore. It was only the 18th and 19th century, only recently. And we have discovered that there was a huge amount of data of information of the tales, of the topics, a huge universe of archaic peasant tradition. And now we know them. But in the middle ages, that was outside of the sphere of interest of the learned castes and classes of the population. 

    We could identity and individuate this peasant universe as a meeting point between two existential horizons. Between the patriarchal horizon with the male figure that sows the grains and seeds but in Eastern Europe up to the 19th century, to gather crop was the privilege of the women. Not with great tools but with little tools (scythes and sickles). Only the weeds, the males were obliged to cut for the cattle. But the crops belonged to the women and it was necessary to cut with a sickle. So it was a continuation of the ancient tradition of the female. As well, in Serbia there were special rites when there was not rain. The women should accomplish special rites outside of man, outside of the villages, in order to provoke rain, accomplishing special ritual movement. Many traditions are linked with this matriarchal aspect. 

    In our European civilization, we have two existential horizons and two daseins. One is the Logos of Apollo represented by the official ideology, three functional ideology, and the other is the Logos of Cybele. That is very important in the shadow part, in our subconscious, in the mother tradition. It is a part of the second parallel, hidden, or secret ideology. It is not the void. It is an ideology that is present in our societies but is not obvious, is not explicit. It is an implicit Logos of Cybele but is still alive because we are living in the civilization with the huge part of agriculture system and economy because we continue to produce and to consume the agriculture and food and we are sedentary. This level which we could individuate put the concept of the Logos of Cybele, not to the ancient types, but the Logos of Cybele exists now inside of ourselves, because our society is partly based precisely on this moment of noomahia. But noomahia is a continuing process. We could not once and forever grant the victory of one logos. If the Logos of Apollo weakens, that means that some other pole will become stronger. If the patriarchy dissolves (which is the case now in modernity), the other counter-current begins to appear, becomes more and more explicit, not implicit. That is the most important result of this noological analysis. 

    When we speak about that, we have defined now two existential horizons, that are common to any Indo-European societies. We see that in the absolute majority of European society, that is the situation. But there are exceptions. One exception is Phrygian culture because precisely in Phrygian society there was a cult of the Great Mother of Cybele. Cybele was considered to be a Great Goddess in Indo-European society. That is an extremely important sign that in Indo-European context, the power of the Great Mother can be so strong that it could transform and re-interpret the figures of Indo-European ideology in a completely different way. So we shouldn’t be too confident in the victory of the Gods. There are examples that the Titans can win, including in this common mixed type of the society with Indo-European domination. The same with Lykian. They are not Thracian but they are a continuator of Indo-European Hittite tradition. Lykian, Lycian, and Lydian, the other Anatolian people, they as well were matriarchal, with the cult of the Great Mother as the Phrygian. So we know the cases where and when the Great Mother wins. It is important that in Bachofen there are many examples precisely taken from some Greek colonies. Ionian Greeks and Aeolian Greeks were as well, up to a certain point, overcome by this pre-Greek tradition. When Dorian, the last from four Greek tribes, came to the Balkans, to the Peloponnese, and to the Greek space, they were pure androcratic, pure Turanians, Dorians. But previous Hellenistic tribes were more or less assimilated in this Minoan and Mycenaean mixed civilization where we see walls around the towns (Turanian feature) but with the temples of the Great Mother in the center as in ancient Mycenaean cities. So there is a mixture with a kind of revenge of the Great Mother. And only Dorian who have destroyed any achievement of this mixture of Ionian and Aeolian Greek civilization based on this mixture between two horizons, only Dorian coming precisely from Macedonia, from the Balkans, have brought with them something decisive element of the patriarchy. They were as fresh Turanians, pastoralists, pure, with androcracy, with no compromise with the Logos of Cybele. Their coming from the Northern Balkans to the South was 1200 years before Christ. But the first waves of Hellenic tribes were much earlier. 

    We see that there is a fight, there is a noomahia continuing, everlasting noomahia, and when you being absolutely Indo-European, you think that everything is already granted, you could discover to be completely controlled by the Great Mother that is dealing from inside, not from outside, but because it is assimilated in the sedentary type of culture, it begins the new semantic war, the war of interpretation. For example, it is not the replacement of God by Goddess or one God of the sky by the God of the underground of the Hell. Not at all. It would be too simple. No. It is the interpretation of the same figures, of the same symbols, of the same names. For example, there is Zeus, the great God, purely patriarchal, but there is the tale of the Cretan Zeus that is completely matriarchal. So you take one and the same God and you re-interpret it in a different way. Or for example, the same on the other side. You could interpret from the point of view, from the perspective of the Turanian horizon, the Goddess. She will become a kind of anelygynia - the Goddess as Athens, the Goddess purely of the male type, virgin, pure, fighting, and wise, completely different with no links with mothership, with no links with this power of the Earth, with no chthonian relations with the serpent. You can take the element from the horizon of the Logos of Cybele and re-interpret in the Logos of Apollo but you could make opposite. You could take Apollonian type, Zeus for example, and re-interpret it in the chthonic sense, in the case of the Cretan Zeus. That is example of the mythology. That is the same for everything. There is a kind of conflict of interpretation that is inherent, implicit in all the Indo-Europe on and on. It is a kind of lasting process because we have the Logos of Cybele inside our culture. That was not the case for Turanians, pure Turanians. Living in their nomadic space in Eurasia, they were free from that because they hadn’t contact. 

    There is, as well, a very important shift in the concept of the woman in these mixed types. Turanians, dealing with new sedentary concept, they had discovered that there are two women, not one. One woman they knew before, in the context of anelygynia, the woman as friend and as warrior. That was the friend from Turanian type. And there was the completely other woman, earthy woman, not masculine, but feminine woman, completely different type, that was considered as a kind of tribute, a kind of cradle, a kind of possession. So the friend and possession was the kind of bifurcation of the shape, of the image of the woman, coming from nomadic style of life to the sedentary style of life. There was woman as the friend, and as more or less the equal, and there was woman as the kind of belonging that belonged to you and maybe as well as a kind of enemy that you should submit and should appropriate and control. And that is always double the split in the image of the woman. That is reflected in the double kind of Goddess. The Goddess could be of one kind or other. They could conserve Turanian features as Athens or Diana or Artemis. And they could turn into Cybelian type as Demeter or Rhea or Gaia. Gaia is pure name for matriarchal type of woman. So there are two strategies; the strategy of conquest, control and submission and the woman becomes a kind of property, following ethical and juridical bases and laws. And there is the other woman, woman as friend. There is a kind of split in this image that is reflected in the many institutions of the society. And in any cases, this duality, for example, the chthonian deities were integrated in the third function. The third function was presented by female deities in these mixed types of cultures, Indo-European culture of the sedentary stage. 

    Now, we are prepared to understand what is the existential structure of the Old Indo-European society. We know now that there are two existential horizons, mixed, superposed on each other and what is important is that is a kind of conditions to study more any concrete Indo-European society (European, West European, East European, Iranian, or Indian). I have finished all these studies and have dedicated to French Logos, German Logos, Latin Logos, Greek Logos 2 books, English culture 1 book, Iranian culture 1 book, Indian culture 1 book. I have applied this concept of two horizons in order to test how this hermeneutics, how this interpretation works in concrete cases of each of these cultures. And how this superposition of two horizons affects the content and semantics and meanings of each of these people and cultures. And I could say that everywhere it works. Everywhere we could find both horizons. We could identify their interrelations, interactions, we could see the aspect where one horizons prevails and the other prevails in the other situations, in the concrete contexts, in the mythology, in the religion, in the science, in the world vision, because Logos affects everything. 

    At the end of this lecture, I would like to say something as an introduction to the next lecture, the fifth lecture, that maybe you could think about by yourself before tomorrow. If we put together the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Cybele in the mixture type of society, and if we could remember what I have said in the first lecture about the Logos of Dionysus, we could presume that precisely in this mixture, this mixed type of civilization, it is the space or the place where Dionysus appears, where Dionysus manifests itself, because that is precisely intersection of two horizons; vertical Logos of Apollo with all its structural content, Turanian content in the pure version, and the chthonian underground Logos of Cybele. When they meet, when they fight there is precisely the moment of noomahia where Dionysus appears. So the next lecture will be dedicated to the Logos of Dionysus.

24. Introduction to Noomakhia: Logos of Dionysos [Lecture 5] - Alexander Dugin

    

    Now, in the geosophy perspective, we understand better what the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Cybele mean in the concrete sense and in the sense of the cultures and existential horizons. So now we are going to speak about, not in the general sense, the Logos of Dionysus, but in the concrete ethno-sociological, historical, sociological, and economical sense. We have fixed the very important moment in European history that defined the main structure of European Noomahia, European historical sequence of the events. The key to interpret European history in its ontological and existential dimension is to follow and observe how this process of Noomahia or how this interaction between two opposite existential horizons developed itself through the historical epochs and eras and cycles. We already have a kind of grilles de lecture reading system of interpretation, hermeneutic of European history, because as we have seen, it is based on the mutual reinterpretation of the same symbolic and mythological structures, religious structures, and cultural structures from two contrary perspectives. That is Noomahia in the purest sense. The Logos of Cybele tries to reinterpret the same figure or impose its own figure in the context of the mixed civilization. And that is a kind of fight for the gender of the deity, of the divinity, because divinity could be interpreted in the materialistic Cybelian perspective or spiritualistic and patriarchal, heavenly, vertical, Indo-European (in its original sense) way.

    We have a kind of intersection or battlefield of European history between two Logos, which demands an encounter, a meeting point between two existential spaces. And this battlefield creates a kind of new structure, a third structure, because in the purest sense, the Logos of Apollo is represented by Turanian nomadic society. In its purest sense the Logos of Cybele is represented by agrarian, matriarchal, sedentary society. But there is a new dimension that is created that is precisely the field or space of Dionysus, where the patriarchal concept of the man is descending into the depth of the matter. That which belongs to the sky comes to the earth and comes into the center of the earth, to the center of underground. Dionysus became a king of Hell as Zagreus in the Greek myth. So there is a kind of differentiation of this Apollonian structure. The pure Apollo has no direct contact with the matter of the Logos of Cybele. He stays outside absolutely untouched. He belongs to the sky, to the day, to the light. He has no contact. He is pure. Apollo’s order is the order of the father, of the purity, of the Logos, of the logical, and of the metaphysical strictness. There is the law of Heaven, of Platonic ideas, of the light, of the stars. But when the sun of the sky comes to the earth, that begins a new dimension and this dimension is the dimension or level of the Dionysus. There is a completely new field of reality. A new Logos is appearing. It could be regarded as a kind of result of the encounter, meeting, or the battleground between two Logos but little by little it could be as well regarded as something autonomous that is not the product of the encounter of two opposite Logos but the third Logos as such.

    We see that not in the European history but we see that in other cultures. For example; in Chinese culture or in the Pygmies in Africa. Chinese and Pygmies have the Dionysian society in the purest sense, and not as a result of a superposition of two existential horizons, but something original and autonomous. We should preserve in this Logos. Why are we speaking about three Logos and not about two? Because there is possibility in some societies, (not in the Indo-European sedentary or nomadic) but in other societies, we have the structures based fully on the absolute domination on this Dionysian Logos. But in the case of Indo-European culture, there is always a battlefield. Dionysus is a battlefield. (In other societies, not necessarily.) We need to take that into account in order to better understand what the Logos of Dionysus is. But in the Indo-European society, we are dealing precisely with the war between the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Cybele. In the ethno-sociological sense, it is translated by the fundamental events and processes that were developing in the field of the third Indo-European function where there was a synthesis between third function (pastoralists), cattlers function of the Turanian pure Indo-European existential horizon and sedentary agricultural matriarchal society. In this segment of the society, in the European peasantry was the special space of the Dionysus. There is the field and the kingdom of Dionysus. It is the kingdom of the agriculture. Dionysus is the God of agriculture and the God of wine but is as well the God of the sacrifice of the bull and the cow. And in the mysteries and above all in the Eleusinian mysteries, he is always accompanied by Demeter, the new figure. Dionysus and Demeter are both the deities and the figures of agriculture. And that is a very important pair and very important duality between Dionysus and Demeter who play central roles in the Eleusinian mysteries. Eleusinian mystery was the mystery of the wine and the bread; wine grape represented by Dionysus and the sprout of the wheat represented by Demeter. This pair of the mother and heavenly son and patriarchal seed not created from her but put in her, in the center of the earth, in order to resurrect, in order to be revived, in order to come back. That was completely new version of agriculture, patriarchal understanding of agriculture.

    Demeter is not the same as Cybele. It is a completely different understanding of what mother earth is. That is the concept of the patriarchal interpretation of mother earth. It is the mother earth that is seen from above and not from inner side. It is ephictonich and not epochtonich deity. Epicthonic is above the surface of the earth. That is the field. Demeter is the mother of fields labored, prepared and directed to the sky, open to the sky, and open to the influences of the sky. That is the figure of the great mother recognizing transcendentality, the transcendent principle of heaven and the father. And it is submitted and domesticated mother. It is the mother in the patriarchal sense, embedded in the patriarchal society and accepted under such conditions precisely as agriculture. There is the shift from Cybele to Demeter. It is the very important shit. It is the shift from savage mother and domesticated mother. The mother creating autonomously the world and mother as helper to the father’s seed to grow. That is different concept of the feminine principle of woman that is here intact. Dionysus is pair; he is son and he is lover and he is husband. He as well is father of Demeter. It is completely new relations. And here we see in that pair in Eleusis mysteries of Greece, of the Thracian region (and I will explain why Thracian region is so important and Thracian partly covered Serbian territory) that is a mystery of the shift from purely Cybelian existential space in the peasantry into the patriarchal Demeteric space of the mixed Indo-European agrarian society. And there appears Dionysus as completely new figure. It is not Apollo but it is not Attis from Cybelian cycle. It is new figure of immanent transcendence - something that is coming from the sky in order to go to the center of the earth and after that save the earth from its chaotic or gravity or this Cyebalin aspect. This is purification of the earth by the wine. The mystery of wine is kind of like the mystery of blood of God that has descended into the center of the earth in order to save the world, the matter itself.

    The wine is Dionysus as a kind of freedom from the Great Mother. The freedom is possible and Dionysus is the sign of the freedom. Return is possible. The freedom is possible. The flight is possible. We could die but we should arise with Dionysus. So that is very important transcendental dimension installed in the context of the agrarian sedentary matriarchal society or existential horizon. There is very important aspect in the cycle of the myths and rites around Dionysus. There were Bacchae groups of women, followers of Dionysus. There was a moment when the Bacchea heard the call of Dionysus. That was a kind of silent voice that only initiated Bacchae women could hear. And that was a kind of call to go to the mountains. And the Bacchae, hearing the call of Dionysus, became mad and crazy and went through the fields and forests as crazy, tearing apart everything they encountered on their way, in order to get to the cave of Dionysus because that was the call that Dionysus is alive. And this crazy state of mind was very similar to the matriarchal orgy but with a very important difference. That was the appearance of the transcendental male figure. That was the profound feeling of the existence or the arrival of the savior (male savior). That was not autonomous creation of female androgyne (Agyditis) as in the cycle of Cybele. That was a kind of appearance of transcendental seed that was not a part of the great mother. That was female madness encountering with the real transcendental male figure, completely different from the previous orgiastic tradition. And that encounter with this transcendental vertical aspect was the essence of this call of Dionysus.

    It is very interesting that in Indo-European tradition, we never see Dionysus in the pure state. It is always Dionysus as brother of Apollo, as bearer of light. So we interpret the figure of Dionysus and Logos of Dionysus in the Apollonian perspective. We have no other Dionysus. There is only one Dionysus in our tradition. It is Dionysus of the Indo-European existential horizon. But there is always possibility to re-interpret this figure in the perspective of Cybele. Cybele tries to regard this coming of the male figure, of the transcendental patriarchal figure, in its ancient matriarchal Cybelian perspective, and to replace the Dionysus by Adonis. Adonis was the figure of the matriarchal cycle, by Attis. And that slight change of the meaning turned everything upside down. That is why Dionysus was and is battlefield between two Logos in Indo-European context. Indo-European reading of Dionysus was Apollonian but they operated in a very dangerous space where the power of the Great Mother and its interpretations and its hermeneutics was very very strong. And that is as well one of the reasons why there were no special rites and myths dedicated exclusively to Dionysus. And the majority of the rites, processions, myths, figures of Dionysus were taken from the special worship practices of Great Mother. That is fully described in two books that I suggest to you to read. The book of Carl Kerenyi; Dionysus; Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life, and Dionysian and Pre-Dionysian (that is Vyacheslav Ivanov, in Russian Language.) When Carl Kerenyi (Hungarian author and friend of Mircea Eliade, a very interesting and profound author) tried tor reveal the sources of the cult of Dionysus, he came to the conclusion that there was before the figure of Dionysus something very near and very close to him but in completely different context. That was purely matriarchal cult with almost the same processions, almost the same rites of the cave, of the Bacchae, of the madness, of the orgies, but totally matriarchal. That is the most important and most interesting point. In the field of the rites, the cults, the legends, the myths of Dionysus in their origins were matriarchal traditions, transformed by coming of new Indo-European existential horizon.

    The cult of Dionysus and Logos of Dionysus was the Logos, structure, and cult of Great Mother transformed by the descent of the transcendental patriarchal principle. So all the symbols of Dionysus were pre-Dionysian and matriarchal. Sometimes he appeared as the serpent. Sometimes he appeared surrounded by the figures of the half-man satyrs, half beasts. They were normally partners of the Great Mother. And these processions of Dionysus were as well continuations of the processions of the Great Mother, with the same rites, with the symbolism; the symbolism of Paean linked with Dionysus was the symbolism of the Great Mother as well. That is interesting that that was a kind of conquest of the territory of the myth by Indo-Europeans. It was conquest and inner semantical transformation. The Indo-Europeans have conquered not only the physical space or villages or peoples. They conquered the space of myth. They conquered as well, worship practices. And they transformed semantically the figure of Cybele surrounded by all the symbols and all the signs and all the practices and worship and the cult into the figure of Demeter and Dionysus. This transformation was as well a kind of conquest. Indo-Europeans were conquerors that have appropriated the space that didn’t belong to them because in the Turanian way of life they didn’t know such things. They had taken that and conquered that and had imposed their reading. That was a kind of attack on the new field by Indo-European civilization.

    In the metaphysical sense, in the neoplatonist tradition, Dionysus was presented as a mind. The main myth of Dionysus was the myth how the titans had turned Dionysus apart. The little child Dionysus playing on Olympus was attacked and turned apart and eaten by titans to win Olympus, in order to kill Dionysus. Neoplatonic interpretation of Dionysus is a mind that is present in any human but as a kind of spark of Dionysus. Because in Orphic interpretation, in neoplatonic interpretation of human nature, human nature is double. On one side, it is Titanic by the body and by the material aspect, and on the other side, it is Dionysian. And that is human soul and human mind. Human thought is Dionysian. Dionysus is turned apart as a spiritual intellectual principle presented in the multitudes but being unified, unique in its core. That is the concept of immanent intellect. Not the paradigm of intellect in the father. But that is a kind of son of God present in the human nature and opposite to the other side of this nature that is titanic. This is precisely the problem of metaphysics of Dionysus and the metaphysics of human culture. It is double (human culture) because it consists from two horizons. There is titanic horizon that is not the body as such and not the matter but is the Cybelian reading of what is body. That is Noomahia. Dionysus is the man. Dionysus is the other name for the human being as cultural being in the context of superposition of two existential horizons. So that is the problem of all Indo-Euorpean society - the problem of Dionysus. Dionysus as battlefield between the patriarchy and matriarchy embedded in our culture. That is precisely the problem of Dionysus. It is the problem of Indo-European culture and it is key to Noomahia of Indo-European society, in Western Europe or in Asia. Because in Iran and India, there is exactly the same structure of the cultural problem. There is no such figure as Dionysus in Indian culture but there is Shiva, a paradoxical figure. And there is no direct equivalence but there is always this battlefield between two Logos.

    And what is interesting is that in Indo-European societies, this Logos of Dionysus is unstable. There are the other cultures I have mentioned already (Chinese and Pygmy and maybe up to a certain point the culture of Aztecs in the new world [in America, South America, Central America] with Quetzalcoatl figure which is more or less a combined figure, a winged serpent). But in Indo-European society, the figure of Dionysus and field of Dionysus is unstable because it is very antagonistic and conflictual. There is the conflict between mind and body, not because of the nature of mind and body but because of the reading of the nature of mind and body. Mind as we consider it is something that belongs to Logos of Apollo and its immanent representation in Dionysus. And our body is read (not is the part of the Logos of Cybele) as something material, something with gravity. That is not necessary. There are other cultures that have completely different concept of body with no materiality inside. But our Indo-European problem, with the weight of the body, of the materiality of body is the trace of the Logos of Cybele and not the objective nature of the body. Everything we are dealing with are the projections of this paradigm. So the existential horizon of Cybele dictates the quality of our body, of something that is gravity, that is a limitation of the soul. It is not natural. It is cultural construction (our concept of mind, body so on). But what is important is that the figure of Dionysus in our cultures is unstable. The center of the Logos of Dionysus is always shifted. Or to the Apollonian Logos that is the normal situation. So we don’t know Dionysus as such. Indo-Europeans know Dionysus in Apollonian perspective as the brother of Apollo, not as such. So the center of Dionysian understanding of the world is shifted to the top. It belongs to the Apollonian universe that dominates in Indo-European cultures. So the Logos of Dionysus is normally a kind of continuation or immanent dimension of the Logos of Apollo. That is a classical or normative case of Indo-European civilization.

    In order to understand better what is Cybele, we could not compare that with something material, for example the waves or frequencies. We are dealing with Logos. We are not dealing with the same matter with different gravity or different density. We are dealing with completely different understanding of everything. So we could not regard the Cybele as something that is outside of us, as object or matter or vibrations or frequencies or beauty or darkness. Cybele is a kind of vision of the world. For example, if we are speaking about matter or elements, we could suggest three readings of that. So the main idea of Noology is the Logos of Cybele, Logos of Dionysus, and Logos of Apollo are deep inside of any form of thought. They are inside of thought and not in front of thought. They are the paradigms that are very difficult to grasp, to seize, and to understand because they are dealing behind our mind, defining its structure. We could not see Cybele as image that is in front of us (or Apollo or Dionysus). When we are speaking about the Logos, we are speaking about something that is deep behind our fluid of consciousness that defines the roots of our mentality. We could not speak about the pure or impure, of high frequency or low frequency. Just because it is not the matter, it is not the wave; we could not put it in front of us.

    But in order to proceed with Logos of Dionysus, we need to understand the problematic nature of Dionysus in our culture. It is not the universal law or rule in our culture. It is shift to the top. It is not pure Logos of Dionysus. It is Apollonian Dionysian Logos we are dealing with. But being the battlefield and being precisely the intermediary space, there is always the possibility of opposite reading. Through the books and through studies of Noomahia in my books, I have discovered that that is maybe the main metaphysical problem of all Indo-European cultures in history. That is a kind of structure or moment or sequence of Noomahia. It is a key to our historical being. As historical beings, that is the key to understand what we are and what is our history. Because there was always the effort of something inside us to put this center of the Logos of Dionysus to the other direction and regard it as something that lays beneath this line that separates and distinguishes Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele. I am calling that (a kind of presumption) black double of Dionysus, or Adonis, or Attis. That is not as Dionysus as we know in our normative Indo-European tradition but a kind of product of Cybelian re-interpretion of Dionysus. And that is precisely the titan, the figure of Lucifer, or the titan of Prometheus, or someone that is very very close to Dionysus. We could consider that but it is kind of his black double. There is German word, ‘between’ of Adonis (‘dunkler Zwilling’ – black double). And this figure is very close to the figure of Dionysus. It is not normative. It is considered to be completely opposite to our world vision but it is always present as shadow of Dionysus, but not the shadow in the simply material way. It is metaphysical shadow that is maybe more ancient than Dionysus because it belongs to the Great Mother (cosmos). Because Dionysus is always mystery as something dynamic. It is not only the eternal light that shines always (the day). That is the light that becomes darkness, that fades, that disappears, and shines anew. So there is dynamic, the mystery of dynamic, the mystery of the seed, which dies, is resurrected as a sprout or a plant. And we could consider that as a kind of cycle of something that belongs to the top essentially, goes down to the center of the night, darkness of the earth, and after that it resurrects and returns to its original place on the top of creation. That is the full cycle of the sun, of the year.

    We could consider almost the same starting from the other point. There is something that belongs to the bottom, that is created by Great Mother and it arises, storming the Heaven in order to bring down the Gods and to replace them. That is a kind of rise of this Titanic Prometheus element, to dethrone the Gods. But there is the fate of Titans to fall down as Prometheus. He could trick the Gods and win the Gods for time being (as for example Typhoeus that has overcome Zeus in Greek mythology) but the fate of Titan is to fall down. If we re-present this cycle, it’s almost the same as in the case of Dionysus. Because something is rising, something achieved the highest point, and after that something falls. So if we consider that in the main features, it is almost the same scenario, almost the same tale. But the first tale begins from the sky to the earth and returns to the sky. The other tale begins from the earth; it is conquest of the heaven and the fall; the fall of angels, of titans, of Prometheus into Tartaros. Titans are climbing to the top of Olympus. They tear apart Dionysus there. And they are blamed and they are stricken by Zeus with his bolt and they fall, totally destroyed, and go to the Tartaros. So there is a kind of Noomahia that we could read normally from both sides.

    And there is a kind of symmetry. Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele agree about the main structure of this Titanomachia but they read this process, the same tale, from two opposite points of view, two perspectives. What is conscious decision of Dionysus to come down to the center of the Hell in order to save his mother Semele and bring her back to Olympus, that is one cycle. And if we read that from other angle, we have Titan born by the Great Mother, attacking the Gods, dethroning the Gods from Heaven and the sky in their kingdom. And after that there is revenge of the fate of the destiny and they fall down to the same point from where they have appeared. So it is the same tale with two readings. That gives the problem of black double of Dionysus all its metaphysical measure. Because dealing with the cycle, with the logic of the year, of the sun, of the cycle of any kind, we are dealing always with two possibilities of reading, with two semantic structures of how to interpret that. When Dionysus arrives in the mixed society where there is a superposition of two existential horizons, there begins the open problem of the nature of Dionysus. The nature of Dionysus in our tradition is absolutely unstable. It is dynamic. It is contradictory. It is dialectic. There is not only one version to interpret this dialectic. There are two versions. Dionysian can be at the same time, almost simulacrum of Dionysian, could be Adonysian, at the same time as Dionysian. That could be pre-Dionysian and Dionysian at the same time. The problem of the European civilization is the problem of Dionysus. It is not something that is given to us as something granted. It is an open question and we could not solve it abstractly because we are this process. As neo-platonists have said, Dionysus is our mind. So our mind in that vision has its own double, black double inside of it. So our mind, our soul, our spirit is double in its nature being Dionysian. It is split. It is dealing always with something that is opposed in itself to its inner self. There is simulacrum problem that is embedded in the Indo-European mind because Indo-European mind is double and is based precisely on the superposition of two existential horizons. And we could not be sure when we are Titans and when we are Dionysus. For example, mind is Dionysian and the body is Titanic. There is as well Dionysian body and titanic mind. So the body and mind are not so clearly separated. They are intermingled because mind and body are the products and projections of Logos and not something that exists without Logos. In human world, nothing could exist without Logos. Everything we are dealing with are the products of project, of perspective of this paradigmatic approach. There are two bodies and two minds in us. There is spiritual body (the body of Resurrection in Christian doctrine) and there is material mind (titanic mind, mechanical reason, calculation). So we have as well material body and spiritual mind. And that is the problem of dialectic of our culture because this double of Dionysus is not something that exists outside of our culture but it exists inside of our culture.

    If we consider now, that is the most important concept of the Logos of Dionysus. That is why the figure of Dionysus was so important to discover, in the case of Nietzsche and developed in the philosophers that followed Nietzsche. They discovered this problem, this dark Logos. It is the real problem of European history because we could not be sure we are dealing with Dionysus or Adonis, when we are dealing with real mind or the simulacrum of mind. The Logos of Cybele now explains carefully and fully what we are dealing with. So that is the necessary dimension that explains everything in this problem of Dionysus. But to reveal and to find out the Logos of Dionysus in the case of Nietzsche was already a heroic act, a metaphysical revolution that has discovered the key to the problem of European or Indo-European, I would say, man. That is double of Dionysus. The possibility of Titanic reading of Dionysus explains why before Noology, before the introduction of Logos of Cybele, that Dionysus was mistakenly taken for Titan or some purely negative aspect of the light or white Logos of Apollo. So that is most important metaphysical discovery because with the introduction of the Logos of Cybele, everything is put in its place. Now we see why there is some dialectical misinterpretation of Dionysus and its identification with the black perversion or something upside down. And now we see the most important thing is the instability of Dionysus. So the interpretation, or speaking with Paul Ricoeur, the conflict of interpretation is open. We are dealing with two hermeneutic spaces embedded in the figure of Dionysus and there is always a possible kind of replacement, of tricks, of special metaphysical perversion or deviation of the semantic structure linked to the Logos of Dionysus.

    In order to make a kind of example of this kind of Dionysian approach to understand better and deeper what is the Logos of Dionysus, I would like to say some words about Gilbert Durand. He is a very important author (Gilbert Durand, French, died recently at very old age). Gilbert Durand has created sociology of imagination. Sociology of imagination is excellent. I have made my third doctorate on sociology of imagination. He is a follower of Carl Gustav Jung, Henry Corbin, and Gaston Bachelard. But he has developed a very original version of the structure of imagination. According to Gilbert Durand, man is imagination. We have nothing but imagination and we are nothing but imagination. Everything we are dealing with are imagined structures. And he studied the roots of the imagination and how imagination works in us. It is not reflection of the existing object, but quite contrarily, the objects are the products of our imagination. First we imagine something and after, we are dealing with what we have imagined previously. That is almost the same as phenomenology.

    I have already mentioned Edmund Husserl and his concept of intentionality. According to Husserl, intentional act is the act directed towards something that exists outside of our mind but that has no quality in it. So any quality that we are dealing with is inside of mind. Husserl calls that noema. The process of intentional act is noesis and noema is something that is thought of. So we are dealing with the qualities of the objects that are inherent to our process of thought and not exterior to it. So that is phenomenology. Heidegger is a continuation to this phenomenological tradition as are many others. But Gilbert Durand proposes a different way to this phenomenological approach and he speaks about the regimes of imagination. That is very important. Gilbert Durand affirms that our imagination works in three regimes. And that is very very close to the concept of three logos. Now we are going to see how. Regime of imagination is a kind of inner state of the structure of human mind that creates different sequences of basic principle images, symbols and structure. According to Gilbert Durand, there are three regimes. First is diurne, which is the regime of day. That is the regime of light that is based on the concept of strict duality. So there are strict and absolute differences. So when we divide and separate (regime of diurne is to separate, not unite, only separate) everything is clear as in the daylight. And this regime as well is a regime of vertical organization of the space. It is linked, according to Durand, with the postural reflexes of the child. When the child begins to stay in vertical position, it is considered by imagination as a flight. He is a kind of arrow that is going to the heaven. That is the flight. Verticality is strictly connected with this regime of diurne that is heroic, warrior, male, patriarchal regime. What we have said about the Logos of Apollo could be easily applied to the regime of imagination that is called diurne. That is vertical orientation of everything and according to Durand, the regime of diurne (that is Latin word for day, daily) is the fight against the night, against the death, and against the darkness. So that is a kind of conflictual Apollonian war of light that is continuing always. In the field of mental illness, it corresponds to paranoia. Paranoia is absolutization of this diurne. So everything is separate up to the atomic quantities and there is always consolidation of the subject and destruction of the object. That is warrior. Warrior is always fighting. He destroys with the sword everything and the sword is diurne, is something that separates, not kills but separates, mutilates, puts apart. That is consolidation of the subject and destruction of the object. That is regime of diurne and that is very Apollonian and Indo-European. According to Durand, Logos is born from this regime.

    So our thought is based on the development on this kind of imagination. We imagine the things separately. We separate the things and the objects and we consolidate our subject by this. Everybody is against us but we are winners of everybody. So that is the creation of hierarchy, of verticality, with the most paranoid subject at the top of the society; the tsar, the king that destroys everything and consolidates himself. So the paranoia is purely the illness of the kings because everybody is against them and everybody is planning to overthrow them (and that is the case sometimes) but they go to the final fight with the death and with the darkness because the king is surrounded by shadows and darkness and his destiny is to fight against them, to start the war, to win the war, to estroy everything and consolidate everything inside and destroy everything outside. That is normal warrior attitude. Our reason is working in this regime. Our reason differentiates. The main practice of the reason is to differentiate. (That is not so, that is here, there, that is one thing, that is other thing). And negation is as well very diurne because negation is separation; what is and what is not, what exist and what doesn’t exist and so on. So any kind of pairs. But our process of our thinking is based on that and that, duality, on pairs and separations, and that exists or doesn’t exist. That is how our reason proceeds.

    But according to Durand, it is no more than one regime of imagination. There are two other. Both of them are called ‘nocturne.’ First is dramatic nocturne and the other is mystical nocturne. So what is it? That is regime of functioning of our mind in a completely different way, in a way not to separate but to unite, not to distinguish but to put together. It is not to separate something that is outside of us and to consolidate something that is inside of us, as in the case of the diurne, but quite opposite. It is to unite everything that is around us and to divide ourselves. That is purely schizophrenic attitude, in the extreme case. Schizophrenic is separated inside. So there are voices and different egos inside and there is the world around it that has reason, that is more powerful than the subject. So the world is united and strong and the subject is weak and problematic and ill. That is nocturne regime and that is based not on the logic but on the rhetoric and on the effeminization. For example when it hurts, we are happy, we are satisfied. When we lack something, we consider that a kind of gift that we lack something. For example, darkness, we are afraid of the light, something mild. That is effeminization. We call the things by completely different names in order to avoid the horror that is embedded because we are afraid of everything and of ourselves as well. We are not sure about our existence so we are using the tactic of naming the things by the opposite names in order to avoid. For example, when the women call the big husband with the diminishing names such as fish or sheep and so on with great powerful muscular man in order to diminish them in order to make them a child, to make them innocent by this magic of regime, by regime of words, and that is diminishing the proportion of the world, and as well treating something that menaces us, threatens us, as something very friendly. So that is not warrior concept but pacifist consciousness. So ‘be quiet. We have something in common. You are not as horrible as you look. Let’s try to find a common denominator.’ In the extreme case that is Stockholm Syndrome. You are taken as a hostage and you come to the side of the terrorists. You share with them their position. Immediately you discover that they are right in their claims. Because it’s very difficult to stay in this position of absolute domination of other so you say ‘they are not other. The Muslims are very good. The fundamentalist terrorists are nice guys. Lets stay with them. Lets stay with the evil because it’s not so evil. Lets stay with the death because its not death, its new beginning. Lets stay with the loss because it is a kind of gift.’ So that is the other regime of imagination according to Durand. It’s very expressive and very interesting to follow many many examples and symbols that Durand gave in his books and writings. It is a very complicated theory. I am explaining in the simplest version.

    But in the field of this regime of nocturne, there are two versions as well. The radical form of nocturne is called mystical nocturne by Durand. It is a complete exchange of the object and subject, myself and the other. It is a complete betrayal of the self. So everything is outside. Inside is nothing or just reflection of outside. It is pure night. Night is the light. Bottom is top. Top is bottom and so on. Male is female. Female is male. To die is to live. To live is to die. So it is pure antiphrasis in rhetoric. You are calling the things by completely different names, by contradictory name, and you are happy with that. So that is mystical nocturne that corresponds to the Logos of Cybele. That is the absolute domination of something created by self-betrayal. The subject is not consolidated. It is completely dissipated in the imagination. And the process of dissipation of mind creates the matter or exterior world. The subject is weak and the matter is strong. But the matter doesn’t exist. It is a project of this weakness of imagination. It is not something that exists independently. It begins to exist as if it is independent, by the weakness of the subject. That is the same imagination that could imagine the strong subject or weak subject. That is inner move. That is why it is so close to the concept of Logos. And I’m using the concept of Gilbert Durand in my interpretation of different cultural, religious, and historical phenomenon.

    And there is the third regime, as well nocturne, as well the regime of night, but it is called dramatic nocturne, in the works of Durand. It is not radical effeminization. It is more of less balanced effeminization. In this regime, we don’t call night a day and a day a night. We are calling them dawn. So there is not light and not darkness. There is the plane, something intermediary. So we are in the dusk, in the shadow that is not the complete darkness. That corresponds to the Logos of Dionysus. And that is problematic because it could be interpreted in the radicality as darkness that pretends to be light or as light that is not too clear for example. And there is the problem of Dionysus that I have spoken of. So if the regime of diurne is paranoid and the regime of mystical nocturne is schizophrenic, what is the mental disease that corresponds to the dramatic nocturne? That is normality. That’s interesting. There is no mental disease. It is normality. Because we are using in a normal situation this dramatical nocturne, the Dionysian approach to reality. Sometimes there is effeminization and sometimes there is radical separation and differentiation. So we are using both strategies at the same time.

    So the problem, in the psychological way, speaking about imagination and its anthropological structure, the problem of Dionysus is the structure of our imagination. We are imagining the world precisely in that way. But if we consider that there is something material, we are approaching the mystical nocturne but staying in the dramatical nocturne. But when we distinguish something clearly and separately, when there is a kind of reason or function we are approaching the other, the light pole of this Dionysian concept. But we are using both. The mental disease begins when it is too clear or too dark in our imagination. When we are attracted too much to one of these poles. All the structure of the society could be Apollonian or in this way diurne. That is hierarchy, rationality, law, and official relations and norms. And there is a night side of the society where are these laws are separated; where there are crimes, corruption, and domination of anything that is against law. So that is nocturnal aspect of society that is presented inside of the society.

    So we could imagine the normal society, clear society, but as well we are imagining the dark society and night side of society and they are embedded in each other. So if there is law that rules, in the other there is crime that rules. But the crime for the criminal is the law. In Russia we have the term ‘robber in law’ (Вор в законе). That is completely nocturnal. That means that there is some criminal group where the chief of this criminal group (but criminal is to be against the law) has all the right and has the law to be considered as some legitimate figure. So that is the robber in law (robber who makes robbery of banks or killings). So we have a kind of state against the state or the chief or leaders of the crime groups but considered to be legal and legitimate. That is legitimation of the night side of the society. Sometimes they interact in very special way in Russian society. Now it’s difficult to say where the day ends and where the night begins because in our society both aspects are intermingled. But normally we understand that. For in Russian we have the saying, ‘the правда is not право.' It’s very difficult to say in English. So the law is not truth maybe. So if you go directly in the law way and accomplish all the demands you can be not right, you can be evil, being completely strict in following the law, because the law and the truth are separate. It’s impossible to explain to Western Europeans because they could not understand the meaning of that. But that is the realistic understanding of the multitude of the regimes of imagination that is proper to our Slavic culture and our society. We understand that there are the laws of the night and the laws of the day and they work together. That is the richness of the imagination. We could imagine at the same time contradictions. That is why we are Dionysian up to a certain moment. We could deal with dialectic, the law and the truth. We could imagine many theories on this account. But the main basic motivation of it, that is the richness of regimes of imagination.

    We could finish this explanation of Logos of Dionysus and all historical and existential analysis, adding one phrase that ‘Dionysus is Dasein’ as well. Dionysus is in the center. It is between, not to either pole. And it has some affinities to what Gilbert Durand called dramatic nocturne. So, that is all and now I propose to make a break and now the questions. And after, we will have the sixth lecture about the structure of European civilization based on this Noological analysis.

     

25. Introduction to Noomakhia: European civilization [Lecture 6] - Alexander Dugin

    

    Now the lecture number 6 that has as a topic, European Civilization. Now we put aside other Indo-European societies and we concentrate on European history, and European cultures, and European people. So now it is clear that European civilization is based on this superposition of two existential horizons and has a center, and the main problem is the problem of Dionysus and its interpretation. So European history is titanomachia or noomahia and the basic condition of this titanomachia was the fact of this coming of Turanian Indo-European cultures with Kurgan culture in the field of the Great Mother, civilization of Great Mother. Speaking about Dionysus in the previous lecture, we have identified that Dionysus is the main problem of this civilization and that is the battleground where there is titanomachia developing.
    I have mentioned as well, the case of Thracian people. Thracian people were people of Turanian type first of all, Indo-European people that came to the Balkans before the Slavs (maybe 1200 years before Christ, maybe a little bit later, maybe earlier. It’s difficult to say). What is important is that was a kind of empire of the Thracian tribes. Many Thracian tribes lived in the Northern Balkans but they occupied almost the huge part of the Eastern Europe. What is important is that these territories where the Thracian civilization was based and was expanded were the poles and the centers of the civilization of Great Mother. Lepenski Vir, Vinča culture, Karanavo Gumelnița culture, Cucuteni–Trypillia, Criș, Tisza culture, and all other cultures were under existential horizon of Thracians. We don’t know and we could know whether the Thracians were the first Indo-Europeans coming over these territories but we don’t know the more ancient groups (Indo-European). Maybe and possibly (probably) there were the other waves of Turanian people coming there. Maybe not. We could not say. But Thracian culture was precisely the field or special European culture where this meeting between horizon of Apollo and Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele was accomplished. So that was the culture of meeting. And Slavic tribes that came much later in the Balkans have assimilated and included these Thracian elements inside of their structure. As well, there is a very important aspect that Dionysus was considered by the Greeks to be Thracian God. Whether that was really Thracian or pre-Thracian or by some Indo-European people that preceded Thracian in the Balkans, we don’t know. But that is very important that Dionysus came from the North to the Greece, from the Thracian, as well as Orpheus. As well as Bendis, Bendis was  Thracian goddess very popular in Greece. The festival mentionned by Plato in “Republic” dedicated to her was Bendideia. The other goddess of Thracian origins was Kotys. Orgiastic festival dedicated to her was called ”Cotyttia”. Phrygians as well were close to Thracians and Phrygian civilization was the people where the Cybele cult was developed. That as well has something to do with Thracian world.
    It is possible that Thracian tribes were more ancient than we presume and maybe they were the first, or maybe not. We could not affirm. But what is certain is that they were Indo-European society with very developed nomadic aspect and more to the north, more nomadic they were, more to Transylvania, to Romania that was already the steppes of Eurasian, Turanian space. But what is certain is that Thracians were here around Danube River and basin and in Balkans long before Scyths and Sarmats. So that is very ancient Indo-European culture that has assimilated and included the paleo-Indo-European tradition directly or by intermediary by some other Indo-European society. We could not say anything affirmative here but what is important is that regarding the Slav horizon of Eastern Europe that dominated Eastern Europe as civilization after 5th and 6th century when the Eastern Europe was invaded by Slavs, before the coming of Slavs, the Thracian civilization was here. And that was Indo-European. And maybe the meeting between Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele was precisely in Thracia. And the other important is that if so, European peasantry expanded from the same region. The Balkan space was the motherland (Urheimat) not only for Eastern European peasantry but for all European peasantry, because the agricultural tradition was developed much earlier, precisely in the fertile territories of Balkans, where this matriarchal society existed, long before coming of Turanian culture.
    Eastern Europe that is considered to be periphery or border or something marginal to Greece or afterwards to Western Europe, maybe was central one. So we need to consider more this Eastern European space as existential space. We need to pay more attention to this Eastern European Dasein and existential horizon of Eastern Europe. It is complex with many tribes, many people, and many levels of the culture but what is very important is the Thracian origins of Dionysus and Orpheus. In the perspective that I have explained about the central role of the figure of Dionysus as a key to the historical sequence of European history, to ontology of European history, the Eastern Europe obtains new dimension and new importance. It was not in the reality, periphery of the other Greek, Roman, later Western European civilizations. That was something polar in Eastern Europe, in Balkans, that was kind of center and pole. But the quality and the noological nature of this pole, we need to study more. So not only to be proud to be Balkanian Slavs living here after Thracians, but what is important is to understand the structure and the levels to noology of this space. Because the problem of Dionysus is central and so important as I have tried to explain, the role of Eastern Europe is growing. We could deduce from that, one important thing. We could deduce that we know Eastern Europe (Thracian, Slavic, Balkanic space) as a kind of continuation or result or periphery of the Western Europe and Eurasia, Russia, or Turanian space. But there is absolutely new Dionysian kind of Eastern Europe where this meeting that is key event in the ontological and semantical history of the Western Europe was produced. So Eastern Europe is not the periphery but is in some way the center and the pole, in very special way. Regarded as such, we need to concentrate more on the motherland of Dionysus because it is precisely the motherland of Dionysus. And the factor of Thracian language and Thracian culture and the only pure Thracian God, Zalmoxis, that is known, we need to pay more attention to this figure. There are many parallels and common aspects between Zalmoxis and Dionysus. Mircea Eliade and Romanian tradition paid great attention to the figure of Zalmoxis and its role in the Thracian horizon. So Thracian culture as well as matriarchal culture before Thracians, the civilization of Eastern European Great Mother didn’t disappear. It entered into the peasant Eastern European tradition and expanded with the peasantry through all of Europe. Where we have the peasants in Europe, we have the continuator, the descendants from the Balkanian motherland.
    So we could speak about peasant Dasein, a special kind of third function that conserved cultural lines of pre-Indo-European tradition. One of the first pre-Indo-European societies that integrated these elements were Thracians. And after them were all the other. Maybe we should pay special attention to Illyrians as well because they lived here in the Western Balkans with Thracians. And according to some historians, the space of Illyrians reached to the Baltic Sea. Maybe Illyrians lived as well far to the north before Slavs came there. But we know too little about these two people but we could deduce some things starting interpreting correctly Southern Slavic tradition because there is cultural continuity. Because all the peasants we know, maybe after the thousands of years of Indo-Europeanization, they were originally Balkanic. Peasantry is Balkanic and peasant Dasein and peasant tradition is in the roots, in the depth, Balkanic. So that is very important.
    Now we could consider European space and to say some words about different lesser existential horizon of the great European space. As we have said already, there is the huge Indo-European Turanian space that includes almost all Eurasia, from the British Isles to India. That is the greatest Indo-European existential horizon. There is European existential horizon of the Western but European that includes as well Eastern Europe. But we could as well change the scale of noology and geosophy and try to consider the lesser scale. But now we know what we are seeking. We are seeking how each society solved or is solving the problem of Dionysus. Now our search is much more concrete. Trying to understand or decipher or interpret hermeneutically, one or other European culture, we are searching the noological balance and the moment of noomahia in any society.
    For example, starting with Greek tradition, Greek tradition is based on the absolute victory of the Logos of Apollo. But this victory as I have mentioned yesterday was not immediate. Hellenistic tribes (Aeolian, Ionian) came to the Balkan and the Peloponnese in waves controlling or overcoming the existing matriarchal civilization. But at the same time there was exchange of the elements. Some Greek territories conserved this Indo-European vertical tri-functional purely patriarchal structure and some have lost it or some elements. So we had Minoan and Mycenaean cultures where there was the mixture between patriarchy and matriarchy elements. And only the last wave of the Hellenic tribes coming from the north, from Macedonia, Dorian wave, the fourth Hellenic tribe, brought with itself decisive Apollonism, decisive pastoralism and destroyed Mycenaean culture and introduced the purely Turanian style. That was very important. That is reflected in the Sparta. It is more Dorian than Ionian Athens. And the dualism of Greek culture between Sparta and Athens is that Athens was Ionian and Sparta was Dorian. And that was as well the dualism of the balance of noomahia because in Sparta, the Logos of Apollo was clearer and more powerful. And in Aeolia and Ionia, in Athens, in the Anatolian Greek colonies, the power of this vertical Logos of Apollo was lesser. That is important that in Greece as well there were the kind of differences of existential horizons. And the dualism between Sparta and Athens is the key dualism in the geopolitics, as well has noological and geosophical interpretation and explanation.
    Dionysus was Greek God as well with Thracian origins, but it was purely Greek because around him there was Apollonian perspective and very ancient Cybelian space. And in Greek culture, in the worship, in the polytheistic religion, and in philosophy, we see this element very clearly. I would like to mention that I have already said that could be the Logos. All three of them could be reflected in the religion and in the myth but as well in the philosophy. The Logos of Apollo is reflected in the perfect, almost absolute best way in the Platonic philosophy. Platonic philosophy is the absolute version of Logos of Apollo, as well as logic of Aristotle that was the disciple of Plato. In part of Aristotle’s teaching we as well see the Logos of Apollo in the purest and formalized version. There was the Logos of Dionysus in Heraclitus that is dialectic. That is as we have called that dramatic nocturne. That is Heraclitus philosophy that is based on the cycle, on the war, on this dialectic between eternal and what is in time. But that is not materialist. Heraclitean belongs to the Dionysian aspect. As well the part of the teachings of Aristotle of physics and rhetoric belong as well to Dionysian Logos because they are dealing with a paradox of two-in-one, a form and matter in one thing. The thing is double and is one. That is not Apollonian. Apollonian is 'one is one. That is that and not the other.' If there is something that is ‘that is that and the other’ we are already shifting to Dionysus. So that is the great error to consider the physics of Aristotle as the logic of Aristotle. There are two visions in Aristotle. There is Apollonian side of Aristotle that is logic. And there is Dionysian side of Aristotle that is physics. And what is interesting is we are dealing with completely erroneous understanding of Aristotelianism because we are trying to apply logic to physics. We are working with physical mathematical object. There is not such object in the reality. There is mathematical object that is purely Apollonian and there is physical object that is purely Dionysian.
    From that follows a very important remark. In order to study the physical world, we need to apply not the logic to this world but rhetoric. Rhetoric will be more strict science and more precise science of the physics. We need to use Heraclitean concept of dialectics and rhetorics. Rhetorics is a kind of violation of the law of the logic. In rhetoric, we are saying the things that don’t correspond exactly to what we pronounce. That is irony. Irony is the main figure of rhetoric. Irony is when we are saying one thing and are meaning the other thing. For Slavs it’s very clear. Our language is rhetoric and ironic. We are living in an ironical culture. We never say what we mean. We say one thing and mean another and make a third and the result is fourth. That is classical rhetorical ironical society. We are ironical people. All our speech is based on irony. But irony is the main figure of the rhetorics. So irony is violation of the laws of logic. For example, metonymy; metonymy is the figure that we say as how many ‘heads of cattle’ we have but we mean cows or bulls or sheep and not the ‘heads’ of them. But we are using the part as the whole as rhetoric. But it is violation of the logic. We are counting heads. And all rhetoric figures are such. We are saying one thing and meaning something other. Synecdoche and anti-phrase and all the other rhetoric figures cover the physical reality exactly. But logically we could not gain such precision just because the physical object could not belong to the intellectual object or mathematical. There is not physical mathematical. With logic we could study mathematical and geometrical objects but physical objects we should study with different rhetorical method. And only this rhetorical method could be strict and precise enough to cover the dialectical structure of the object. The thing is rhetorical and not logical. That’s very important.
    I suggest reading of early texts of Heidegger about Aristotle as well as Aristotelian studies of early Husserl and Brentano because the phenomenological tradition in philosophy stressed this Aristotelian aspect ignored by the previous tradition. Phenomenologists have rediscovered this Aristotle. There was as well in Greek existential space, the third logos (logos of Cybele), represented philosophically and not only in the mystery of Great Mother. This philosophical tendency of Ancient Greece was represented by Democritus and by Epicurus and in Rome by Lucretius. These three authors were typically representatives of ancient materialist and immanentist tradition because for them there were no patriarchal principles and everything consists from atoms. They professed (above all Epicurus and Lucretius) the concept of progress that says everything is going in the positive way from the lesser to the better, from the evil to the good. That was the concept that everything was growing from the bottom to the top. The concept of the progress, of evolution is purely titanic. That was materialistic titanic version of the cosmos. Three Logos were present in Greek philosophy but what is important is normative Logos were considered to be Logos of Apollo (Platonism and partly Aristotle) and Heraclitus (Dark Logos but as well accepted). Democritus and Epicurus (in the lesser scale) were rejected. Plato suggested to burn the book of Democritus because that was considered a very dangerous heresy and philosophy could be as well heresy. Now we see clearly, that was the continuation of Indo-European titanomachy or noomahia and the moment of Greek culture of noomahia was based on the victory of the Logos of Apollo with the friendship and alliance of Logos of Apollonian Dionysus over this materialistic Cybelian Logos. That is more or less, in some words, an explanation of Greek tradition. And inner dualism was represented in the dualism of Sparta and Athens.
    What is important is that is Hellenistic time. Many things were changed during Hellenistic times after Alexander the Great. During Alexander the Great, Greece had expanded its control over completely new existential horizon. That was Iranian existential horizon. That was included in the Mediterranean and Greek culture. And that created the phenomenon of Hellenism. Hellenic is one thing and Hellenistic is other thing. Where lays the difference between two cultures and existential horizons? Hellenic is Greek as we have explained. Hellenistic is Greek plus not Orient, not Eastern, not Asian, not Semitic as we usually say, but precisely Iranian existential space. So it is not vague or something Orientalistic. Hellenism is regarded as Greek plus something Oriental. If we study correctly this phenomenon of Hellenistic civilization, we discover very important thing - that Hellenism is strictly Greece plus Iran, and not Greece plus Egyptian, Semitic, Eastern, Indian, in the general sense. It is Iranian because Iranian civilization was not only the culture of Iran. That was culture of Achaemenid Empire that included in itself as well Egypt Semitic tradition and transformed in its Iranian Logos, all these ancient cultures. There was the common denominator in this Achaemenid cultural tradition and existential horizon. All that I have explained in my book The Logos of Iran, Iranian Logos. Iran has included all the previous cultures and transformed in the context of its own dominating Zoroastrian Mazdean concept. So we are dealing with Egypt, with Semitic world, with Babylonia, after Achaemenid Empire, not directly but through Iranian concept. They were Iranized. What we are calling Egyptian, Semitic, Babylonia in the reality were Iranized version of this tradition.
    So I suggest to distinguish Iranian and Iranistic as we are distinguishing Hellenic and Hellenistic. So Achaemenid Empire was not purely Iranian but that was not exclusively Iranian but was inclusively Iranian. That included the other traditions but transformed them semantically in the context of Iranian Logos. In Hellenism, that was a kind of heir, and Alexander of Macedonia has received the heritage of this Iranism in full scale because the Empire of Alexander (Hellenistic Empire) was the same as Achaemenid Empire plus Greece. But that heritage is almost always ignored. They say ‘Alexander of Macedonia has received Oriental heritage and not Iranian’ because we consider this acquisition of the new territories and conquests of Alexander the Great with Greek eyes. In that sense, we Europeans (Russians, Serbians, French, Germans) are all Greeks because for us, Greek history is our history and Iranian history is the history of other. Never do we consider Iranian history as our history. So that was conquest of us against them. And they were not so clearly distinguished. So we should overcome them, include their cultures, but we don’t go into the details of what we have acquired. They were conquered culture. But if we consider that in the perspective of Iranians, everything changes. There was a kind of Iranian Logos. And what was the essence of Iranian Logos that we should include in our understanding of European civilization because of Hellenism. And I will explain why Hellenism is so important.
    Iranian Logos is based on the main principles; first of all that is the war of light. That is, as we have said yesterday, radical dualistic Platonism. It is the Logos of Apollo against the Logos of Cybele but recognizing the power and the substance and the autonomous nature of this second Logos. So that is not only as in Advaita Platonism, as non-dualist Platonism, which the darkness is the absence of light. No. The darkness in Iranian concept is a living thing, is powerful thing, and is winning thing. For Plato, to suggest that the evil can win against the good is absurd. It’s absolutely impossible. Because in the world of Apollo and Logos of Apollo, there is the eternal victory of the light over darkness and darkness doesn’t exist. In dualist Iranian version, darkness exists and darkness is God but the other God. The night is powerful and the night can win. The fight between them is for the first time comparing to the Platonism and the Logos of Apollo is serious and something dramatic, something that you can lose. That is completely different attitude toward life. That is Apollonian. To be Iranian is to be the bearer of light for Iranians. There is no other definition of Iranian. Iranian is the son of light put into the field of the darkness in order to fight. So that’s extremely dramatic version of Logos of Apollo with recognition of the substance, the reality, and the power of the Logos of Cybele. It is Iran purely.
      In Iranian self-consciousness, Iranian identity is based on the concept that only Iranians are pure, the people of light and all the rest, including Turanians, are people of darkness. So that is a kind of metaphysical racism in Iranian tradition; purity. And that was the situation of the permission of the incest. Incest is strictly prohibited in any kind of culture primitive or developed but not in the Iranian. Because the concern to conserve the purity of the Iranian soul, Iranian body, and Iranian blood was so great that it outweighed the prohibition of the incest and the marriage between the sister and brother or son and mother. That’s almost incredible in archaic society and developed society but in Iranian society, that was permitted. That was almost obligation in order to save this purity of the son of light. So that is extreme version of Logos of Apollo. But that is Iranian tradition. But Iranism included Egyptian, Semitic, Babylonian, and other people. So that was not so much exclusive as Iranian. Iranism is a kind of symbolical transfer of this quality of son of light, not from the direct Iranian bodily concrete material (in some way) understanding of what is the light and what is the son of the light as a kind of metaphoric son of light. So Iranism is not Iranian. It is not so exclusive. It embedded in itself the other traditions. The concept of war of light is accepted in the broader sense.
    After that, the other concept of Iranian tradition that wasn’t known by the Greek society is the idea of time and the idea of history. In the Platonic version, there is no history and there is no time as something important. There is always just the same, the cycle of the birth and the death, of the same. That is eternal return of the things. That is purely Platonic with no reason, with no development, with no progress, and with no regress. There is completely different time. You come from the source and you return to the source. That’s all. And what is going on in these sublunar cycles has no matter, no knowledge, no sense, no direction, no time, and no history. So there is the history of eternity. The Platonic history is the history of eternity and the time is reflection of eternity so it doesn’t exist in the sense that is common to us. But only in Iranian tradition, the time obtains meaning because Iranian tradition affirms that in the beginning there was the light over darkness. And the second stage of Iranian historical sequence, the darkness has interrupted and has invaded the realm and field of light and began to destroy and deviate and pervert the world of light. In the next moment, the darkness will overcome the light and will win the light. At the end of the rule of the darkness, there will be the great restoration, resurrection, and appearance of the chosen one that will be the king and the savior of humanity (Saoshyant). So there appears the time because now the time matters. In Plato, the time doesn’t matter. It’s nothing. There is no logic. And here appears the history. Here appears the time and the eschatology. Here appears messianism, the messiah. Here appears the last king of the world that should appear and restore the realm and the kingdom of light as the last result of the fight of the war of light. And there is resurrection of the lost perfection of the creation of light. That is Iranism. But we are dealing with that as something completely close to us. But all that was completely unknown to the Greeks. It is purely Iranian influence; history, time, resurrection, eschatology, and the meaning of the time. In Greek Platonic world, the time has no meaning at all. Only return to the origin has meaning. The time and the history is nothing. There is only the example of the past heroes in order to repeat that. The heroes of the past are functioning as paradigms, as ideas. And here appears the history. Here manifests itself the completely new Iranian perspective and after conquests of Alexander the Great, that spiritual philosophical and metaphysical heritage entered into the Mediterranean Greek culture. That which was outside became inside.
    There is a kind of idea that the time, the messianism, and the history were all brought by Semitic Jews by the Bible. But we know the Bible only after Babylonian captivity. In Babylonian captivity and the end of Babylonian captivity, there was the Achaemenid Empire that distributed this Iranian Logos including among the Jews. The late Judaism that we know and that is linked with the concept of Messiah, of the end of time, and resurrection is some Iranian redaction of the purely Semitic original Judaism. The time and the history was Iranian and was Hellenistic. Hellenism is so important for European culture and for any European existential horizon because it is precisely based on two conceptual pillars and not on one. It is not the Greek Hellenic culture and something Oriental or Semitic. It is Greek and Iranian. Hellenism is Iranism at the same time. And Hellenistic culture and Hellenistic world was precisely the existential space that created Hellenistic Dasein. Hellenistic Dasein was the basis of European culture of the next stage. What is important is first of all; this Hellenistic space and Dasein had changed the ruling point. That was the shift from the Greek domination to the Roman domination. But the Ancient Rome was as well something like the Logos of Apollo in Italy. But the conquests of Rome of the Mediterranean space was the conquest of the Hellenistic world. And that was as well the shift from the Roman to the Roman Empire and the late Republic as well because that started long before the Empire. After the victory over Greeks, there was the beginning of the change of the Roman culture. Roman culture we know is Hellenistic Rome. But Hellenism is Greek plus Iranian. So Roman Mithraism and many other aspects were taken from these Hellenistic sources. And this Greco-Roman Iranian Hellenism, in Roman version, expanded to the northern Western Europe, to the Balkans. Roman conquests in the cultural dimension were Hellenistic. The Roman soldiers brought Hellenism everywhere they came to.
    What was Hellenism? Hellenism, once more, was Logos of Apollo in Greek Platonic tradition, Logos of Dionysus in Greek mysteriosophic and as well Heraclitean tradition, Logos of Apollo in Iranian version, in dualistic version with time, with concept of war of light, with Messiah eschatology, and no Logos of Cybele. The Logos of Cybele was present in the depth of this existential space but was not represented clearly. Only maybe in some Pergamon, in some history of the sibyl’s prophecy and to put the black stone of Cybele from Phrygia to Rome but that was more or less marginal. There was a kind of matriarchal cult in Roman Hellenistic Empire but they were not dominating. The dominating culture was Apollonian, Greek Apollonian, Iranian Apollonian, and Greek Dionysian. But precisely this Hellenism was Roman Empire culture. And that was Christianity, because Christianity was constructed over this space. And that has logical continuation of the same culture, Christianization of the Hellenism in Greco-Roman version. Iranian aspect in Christianity was crucial. But now we see this Roman Hellenism with domination of Logos of Apollo. That was conserved with some aspect of Dionysian culture up to Modernity. The Latin Logos, the Roman Empire Logos, is Hellenistic, is Roman in its deepest aspect, but Hellenistic and Greco-Iranian in the next level. And that was with some aspect of dualism that in Roman culture was more accentuated than in Byzantine Christianity. St. Augustine was Manichean in his youth. Manichaeism is a form of Iranism and Iranism is dualism, and so on. So there is something Manichean and Iranistic in Rome a little more than in Byzantine where there is much more Dionysian balance, or not dualistic Platonism in Byzantine Orthodoxy and dualistic Platonism in Roman Latin Catholicism. Nevertheless the Roman Catholic Empire was based on the Logos of Apollo with more dualism and maybe less Dionysian but at the same time purely Indo-European. And that was the destiny of Italy up to the last time. Conservation of this Logos of Apollo was a kind of moment of noomahia for Italy, to be the place where Rome was, to be the center of the Roman Empire, to be invaded by the German Indo-European tribes, to create a new state, but stay true to this Christian (in Catholic version) source to this kind of Christianized Hellenism up to the end.
    The last form of this, in the very Modernized and perverted way, was the Italian Fascism. That was continuation of this Apollonian attitude. It was vertical hierarchy in the modern version. But that was the kind of straight line. Italian Fascism was the last sound of the See. Before that was the Trident Council where the Catholicism refused to go in the Protestant way. Defense of this Catholic identity or Apollonian Roman identity was the kind of destiny of the Italian existential horizon. That was not only caricature in the Fascism. There was absolutely a caricatural aspect of Roman tradition in Fascists as everything in Modernity is a caricature but at the same time there was something logical and continuation of this Roman tradition in very special way, but continuation and defense.
    The next existential of Europe is France. That is Celt tradition. What is particularity of Celt existential horizon? It is the power of the feminine principle, the power of Mother. Celt tradition has fresh roots of matriarchy. So the Celt Christianity was much more feminist friendly. There are many legends and myths about the island of mothers. The death was considered to be feminine. Maybe partly the tradition of the knights of Middle Ages with the cult of love was based on these Celt traditions. There is Denis de Rougemont, the very interesting author that tries to study the sources. Denis de Rougemont has written the book that is called Love in the Western World where he studied the sources and the roots of the tradition of glorifying love in the knight’s culture in the Middle Ages. That was as well Celt influence with very strong presence of Great Mother. I gave the name for the book on French culture, The French Logos: Orpheus and Melusina. Melusina was the name for the fairy that was female dragon in Celt mythology. Orpheus as well was the figure (Thracian by origins), very important for French culture and Celt culture because the idea to go down to the center of the Hell in order to meet with the feminine principle that resides in the center of the Hell is the kind of destiny of the French culture in best aspect and the worst aspect. That was a kind of journey to the center of the earth in order to discover the femininity, the mother.
    German Logos was quite different from Celt. It was heroic, it was warrior, and it was Apollonic. And that was the fight, a little bit as in Iranian case, against the Chtonic power. That is everlasting fight. To be German is the same as to fight. The German fights against the serpents, against dragons, against everybody else around. That is paranoid type (if we remember Gilbert Durand) of culture, but strongly patriarchal and with anelygynia relations with valkyries. So German women are more like German men. They are the same. They are fighting. They are Brunhildas. That is a kind of heroic society and destiny is the fight against titans. But when the Germans follow their destiny, they fight so sincerely that they could not remark the moment when their fight becomes titanic itself. They fight so much and are so devoted to the fight that it overcomes some natural limits and overcoming the natural limits is something titanic. So they begin to destroy themselves and to destroy everybody else around them. In Hitler, the titanic aspect of truly Germanic spirit is clear. That was good idea to create Great Germany but that was not so good idea to destroy everything and afterwards Germany itself with this over-measure. There is the Greek term ‘hubris' that means absence of measure. So if for example you kill the enemy in the fight, that is good for heroic ethos. But if you violate, for example, his child in order to continue this, that is hubris. That happens but that is not considered to be too much heroic, or rape of the women, which is as well always a part of the war. But that is hubris. Maybe in the certain situation hubris and in the other not, but there is overcoming natural borders. In the German case, we see this warrior spirit, purely Apollonian, that sometimes overcomes its borders and the enemies of the titans become titans themselves. So they’re trying to overcome the other and they change their roles in the history. So being fighters of the sky against the earth, they begin to fight the earth in chtonic way.
    There was very important idea in Iranian tradition that the army of light is weaker than the army of darkness. And the defeat of the army of light is necessary element of resurrection and the final victory. That is very metaphysical aspect. So in order to win, you should undergo defeat with the light. If the light should die, it’s better to die with the light than to win with the darkness. So the force is not the last word. The last word is the truth or the light. So the idea is that when we pass over some measure, some borders, some limits, and if we fight too much we could destroy everything. That is German destiny and that is German Logos. In the case of Protestantism, in the beginning, that was very important idea that Christ is something inner, not only outer, not only belonging to the cult, and not only going from outside. Christ comes from within. That was the original idea of Protestantism. And Platonism and German mystics (Meister Eckhart) were inside at the center of the early Protestantism. But without measure, being brought to the hubris in titanic way, that becomes something completely different; the individualism, rationalism, absence of mystery, absence of humility in front of God. That was heretic Arianism. It was a kind of return to the Arianism. That was the Protestantism that was as well German, in the best and the worst aspects. Protestantism is titanic version of Christianity because Catholicism and Orthodoxy are Apollonian version of Christianity. But modern Protestantism (Calvinism above all) and the radical versions of Protestantism are not Christian. They are titanic versions.
    So England and the British horizon - when I studied British history, I have arrived at the conclusion that I could not call the book dedicated to the English ‘The English Logos’ because I didn’t find the English Logos. But I have discovered a profound duality of English culture. There was the Celt pole represented by Welsh, by Ireland, and by Scotland that is part of the Celt world and Celt existential horizon. This is part of the France in some way with the same fascination with the feminine principle, with the same descent to the Hell, with the same black romanticism and so on. And Celt part is not only Irish or Scottish. That was as well in Wales and inside of English society. The Stuart Dynasty was Celt. The Celtic elements are inside of English identity. They are not outside. Outside are the radical aspects in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. But the majority of the population of the British Isles were Germanized Celts. The other pole is German.
    So the mixture of Celt and German elements didn’t create a new Logos or new existential horizon. It created English schizophrenia and bipolarity. There is a kind of unbalanced mixture between German and Celt that was not a kind of synthesis. That was a very ill mixture or confusion of contradictory elements. They didn’t create a united Logos. They didn’t create a united identity. They created a bipolar society which was very very troubled inside. And there is the other example of the relations between Celt and German identity in Switzerland, Belgium, and all the heritage of Lothair, the third heritage of Charles the Great. And in Switzerland there is very very thin balance between both identities. There is not so much synthesis but there is harmonization. And what we see in England is absolutely disharmony, absence of any harmony. There is very aggressive German part and very depressive Celt part. They don’t form the whole, something holistic, something internal. They formed bipolar entity with deep conflict inside that could not be resolved internally so it expanded as British Empire. It was expanded as a kind of explosion of these two contradictory identities that didn’t create a Logos. It created British Empire of capitalism, imperialism, and liberalism. If French Celt Logos, for example, is much more Dionysian with many aspects of the black Dionysus and German Logos is Apollonian with possibility to change the situation to the titanic aspect, English culture and identity took the black Dionysus and titanic aspect of German Logos, united them in very conflictual way and expanded over the planet. That was a kind of not colonialism but colonization of illness that wasn’t cured inside and couldn’t be cured. That is manifested in the main myth of England - the fight of two dragons; the red dragon and white dragon. That was the beginning of the history of England. The red dragon represents Celt identity and white dragon represents German identity. And these two dragons are still fighting. And the explosion of British Empire didn’t change anything and didn’t cure English mind. English mind rests ill and bipolar but now it is obliged to return to this fight that never ends. That is very interesting idea. There is no Logos. In France we could identify the Logos. In Germany we could identify the Logos. We could identify the Logos in Italy, Greece, and other countries but not in England.
    There is a kind of North American Logos. South American is the continuation of the Latin Logos with Apollonian structure. That was embedded in the pre-European population not without the problems but that was a synthesis. And Anglo-Saxons brought to North America their illness. They began to destroy the Indians and not integrate them into their society. And they created an absolutely ill North-American society as continuation of the same problem. But there is a kind of American Logos in pragmatical philosophy. There is a kind of solution for them. Pragmatism is the main trend in North-American philosophy. What is Pragmatism? It is the idea that there is no normative knowledge about subject and there is no normative knowledge about object but there is only interaction in practice. If something works, it is. If something doesn’t work, then maybe next time. There is no concept of what subject or object should be, of what should be matter, nature, cosmos, or human soul. We could pretend to be everybody; Elvis Presley, martians, Anglo-Saxon, everybody. If it works, so nice. If it doesn’t work, it’s bad for you. So we could treat the world in any way we want. So that is a kind of pragmatical freedom. That is why American philosophers tried to adapt Heidegger in their Pragmatist way. It’s not Heidegger but it’s American reading of Heidegger, precisely because they believe only in what is between, what is interaction, practical. For example, if you are constructing the time machine in order to return to the other time, you are free to do that because doing that, something could happen. Maybe not return to the time but you could discover some elements or some knowledge to sell something or new bottle for Coca-Cola. So you are completely free to do whatever you want because there are no limits of object or subject. There is no inner and no outer. It’s only interaction. And interaction is practical and pragmatical, if it’s good to you. That is American Logos. It’s very special. It’s not Anglo-Saxon. It is the other kind.
    And now in globalist time, there is a kind of loss of this Logos, because America could not pretend to be colonialistic, because colonialism is the clearly defined goal. So now America is not anymore American. They are in the hands of some other groups. American Logos is not so. It is pragmatism that couldn’t tolerate any goal. They could act and something happens or something doesn’t happen and you could feel happy or not but you could try everything and you shouldn’t prescribe to anybody nothing. Political correctness is anti-American and anti-Pragmatic. You can say everything and act how you like and make the monuments you prefer or not have any monuments at all because there is nothing inside or outside but only in the interaction. So that is pure American in best or worst. That is American Pragmatist Logos. Now North America is not such. It is different.
    That is analysis more or less of the different existential horizons or cultural spaces of European civilization. I have already said some words about Slavs. We are Indo-European society. The last centuries, we are under great influence of the West. So partly we share with German, with French, with British, with Greeks, with Latins, their problems, having some special features. We will dedicate to Serbian identity a special lecture so I don’t want to anticipate too much. But what about our Slavic Logos? It is clearly a part of Hellenistic cultural space because all the other identities I have described are a kind of result of this Christian Hellenism in different combinations. But what is as well clear is that we do not have such Slavic Logos as something already made or something completed. It is the most interesting thing. That is challenge for us. That is open Logos. I have studied the possibility of the Russian philosophy basing on Heidegger in special book. I didn’t yet write the last book of noomahia that will be dedicated to Russian Logos, possible or not. But dealing with Eastern European Slavic tradition, I see clear that the Slavic Logos is possible and some time in the history we approached it.
    We were very close to it in the Dusan the Strong in your history, with the first and the second Bulgarian Kingdoms in the history of Bulgarians, we were close some time in the Polish Kingdom with Lithuanian and Great Moravia as well with some philosophical tendency. But we have never achieved the final version of this Logos in Eastern Europe, as well in Russia. We didn’t achieve the final version of Logos. Our existential horizon is not finished. It hasn’t received the last form. And that maybe is our historical challenge. And Slavophile thinkers saw that we came to the history later than the other when there was already a huge building of German philosophy, German political history, French philosophy, Roman philosophy, Greek philosophy, and as well political history. We Slavs have arrived to this a little later, not in the history, but to the understanding of history, to Logos of history, and to our philosophy. Our philosophy is a little bit childish and infantile. There is great example, great explosion of intellectual richness of precious thinkers such as Petar II Petrović-Njegoš metaphysical as well, Russian Dostoyevsky but all that is a kind of feeling of coming of our Logos and not the Logos itself. We are living in the anticipation of the Slav Logos. And when we study the past, we see many heroic deeds but we could not say that is our Logos. No. That is something like that. There is Saint Sava in Serbia. That’s anticipation of the Serbian mission, of the history. The creation of Nemanja Dynasty, Russian Ivan the Terrible and the other moments in our Slavic history are anticipation of Logos and not the Logos itself. That’s my personal opinion and it’s more difficult to describe our own Logos than to study the Logos of the other because it demands very deep introspection inside in our culture.
    But nevertheless we should recognize some centuries we were under the influence of the other existential horizons and they defined many things in our actual consciousness. But that is always scientific truth. We have conserved our identity and the core of our existential Slav horizon in the same condition. Maybe it is buried in the depth but it exists surely in the Serbian example of the resistance to globalization. It is one of the examples. Yes, that was the defeat but Kosovo struggle was as well defeat. But on this defeat is based the victory. On this defeat, on this capacity to resist is based the future resurrection. That is not only the death as defeat. That is heroic death. It’s always promise of the resurrection. To say the truth, I constate very pessimistic state in modern Slav society but at the same time, I’m very optimistic concerning the possibility of this Logos. It is not yet done or completed. But that is the challenge for new generations of Slav intellectual elite that should bring to the final point all the historical experience, all this historical (not historic) sequence of our ontological presence in the world. I think that we should study the cultures of other European people. We should study in depth these existential horizons to understand where we are and who lives around us, with whom we have to deal, who are oppressors, who are saviors, friends, and enemies but most importantly to understand who we are. But without knowing who are the other, we could not define ourselves. In knowing the other, we know ourselves. In knowing ourselves, we know the other. So in order to establish or re-establish or discover this Slavic Logos, we need to study as well, the Logos of and geosophy of European world, Indo-European world and the other people. That is the importance of noomahia.

26. Introduction to Noomakhia: Christian Logos [Lecture 7] - Alexander Dugin

    

    The seventh lecture is dedicated to Christian Logos. So now we are going to make a short Noological analysis of Christianity and Christian tradition. I would like to say that, that is not dogmatic. We are regarding Christianity as cultural, social, political, structural, philosophical phenomenon. So we don’t defend or accuse Christianity, being I presume mostly Orthodox Christian as myself, we are going to treat Christianity in the correct way but not insisting too much on our confessional preferences. That is a kind of Noological analysis. We don’t discuss the truth or heresy or what was accepted as dogmatically correct or heretic. Everything we are going to speak of will be regarded from the Noological point of view, the structural analysis.

    First of all, when we consider Christianity and Christian doctrine from a Noological point of view, basing on geosophy and basing on the Three Logos, we could easily, from the very beginning, formulate some general principles concerning Christianity. First of all, the Logos of Christianity is clearly Apollonian. First of all, that is verticality. And the concept of God the Father, the Heavenly Father, the Holy Trinity, and the transcendence of the Creator in front of creation all creates a kind of traditional Logos of Apollo that we already know. That is pure vertical organization of the metaphysical space. There is the Heavenly Father (Father not Mother) that is in the Heaven, that is in transcendence, that has created the world. So that is a kind of coming down from top to down. Creation is from eternity to time, from Heaven to the earth, from God to the man and the other creatures. There is purely Apollonian logic in basic dogmatical principles. All three person of Holy Trinity are considered to be male, masculine. That’s very important. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three are considered as male figures. That in the symbolical way is very important. The relation between the creature and the creator are hierarchical. The created things should be submitted to the creator. So that is a kind of hierarchy. And this verticality is the basic feature of Christian tradition. That is the essence of Christian tradition. That is patriarchal.

    And affirming that, we could say that it is not the chance that this tradition has developed in the Indo-European world first of all (in Greece, in Rome, in Europe.) Christianity became a normative tradition for Indo-European society. Not for all but for Western part of Indo-European society where the concept of God and its main features of Christian God (Father) was more or less correspondent to Zeus, to Jupiter, to the male deities of pre-Christian time. In the popular consciousness it was easy to replace one Heavenly Father by another. Because the figure in German language is the word, ‘Gestalt.' That is the figure; the image that is not the precise person that we know its qualities. Gestalt is a kind of frame of Heavenly Father that was the same. So that was a kind of continuity from pre-Christian tradition and Christian tradition. It was a continuity that was based on the structure, on the frame, on Gestalt, on the typology of the civilization. So that is very important. We could see how Greeks, Latins, Germans, Celts, Slavs accepted one figure of Heavenly Father instead of the other. So that was a kind of transformation that didn’t touch the structure of world vision of Indo-European people. So that is very important. There was a kind of continuity.

    That was explained in the philosophy of some first Christian apologetics and saints, for example, Justin Martyr or Clement of Alexandria, that said that there were two branches of tradition, (not only Judaic tradition before Christianity.) There was as well Hellenic tradition. That was the second branch of that. And that was also sacred. But both Judaic tradition and Hellenic tradition in Christianity were transformed and were enlightened, were transformed into something more correct and more true, according to Clement of Alexandria and Justin philosopher. There was as well, in the first stages of elaboration of Christian doctrine, the concept that Christianity has two sources, not only Judaism but as well Hellenic (so Indo-European source). That was reflected above all in the Christian Platonism. Christian Platonism started first with the apostles themselves. Because the Gospel of John; “In the beginning was the Word.” In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos is not the word only as we translate. The Logos is not only the word. It is intellect. It is Nous in some aspect. It is a very very complicated concept of Greek philosophy. The fact that we know the Gospels only in Greek, so they maybe were written in Greek and not translated from Aramaic, because the Greek was the Hellenistic koiné, the language that was distributed in the Mediterranean world because Christianity was born in Hellenism, in the Hellenistic context. Platonism begins not with exegetic tradition. It begins with the apostles themselves. Many aspects of Christian traditions from the very beginning was based on some Greek concepts because in Aramaic and Hebrew, there is no word equivalent to Logos, but that is the beginning of our Christian teaching. ‘In the beginning was the Logos.’ And we don’t know the Aramaic Semitic word used for such concept. So with the beginning of Christianity, Christian theology was the Logos and Greek philosophy. That was developed later by Justin philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, and basically in Alexandrian school, with the great Origen, who was a Platonist. There was created the whole building of Christian theology, with the Holy Trinity, the transcendence of the creator and so on. Everything was based on Platonism, on the teachings of Plato. They say that Origen was the pupil, the disciple of Ammonius Saccas. Alexandria was Hellenistic. That was Egyptian in the traditional sense. That was Greek Hellenistic city. And there was Ammonius Saccas, who was the first teacher of Neoplatonism, of the so called fifth academy. He was the founding father of Neoplatonic tradition and Origen was his pupil. So that was the pure Platonic affiliation and continuity.

    We have already spoken about the relations between the Logos of Apollo and Plato’s teaching. They are almost the same. Platonism is the best and most accomplished, excellent, perfect expression of the Logos of Apollo. The elaboration of Christian dogmatism reflects this cultural continuity of pre-Christian tradition and Apollonism was in the center of it. But we remark as well, in some Christian dogmas, Dionysian features. For example, there is the clear logic, pure celestial heavenly logic of Apollo in some aspects, but treating with Christology we are dealing with a Dionysian concept. Christ is the man and the God. So that is something Dionysian, something dialectical. There are two natures and one person in Christ. In the Holy Trinity, there is unity and trinity, so as well a kind of internal divine dynamic in that. And the relations of the creature and the Creator as well is something dialectic. The relations between them is not only the cause and the effect. They are intermingled. The God is present inside of creation and the incarnation of the Christ is the most important moment of the history of creation according to Christian doctrine, and that is Dionysian element that is embedded in the Christian dogmatic teaching. As well, Dionysian, Christ dies, resurrects, comes down to Hell to liberate the ancestors. He comes down and comes up and there is ascension in the Christian holidays and the saint moments, so He rises from the death and He still continues to go to the Heaven after that, after staying 40 days with the apostles. So there is pure Dionysian cycle. He comes down from Heaven to the earth. He dies and comes to the center of Hell. He destroys and wins the Hell. And after he liberates the saint souls of the ancestors and everybody goes to the common general resurrection with Christ, in the Easter, in this ascension moment, Christ returns to the Heaven, being the Son of God and ruling in the Heaven. So any aspects of this Christian narrative are purely Dionysian concerning Christ and purely Apollonian concerning the basic structure of the world which all these events are put in.

    But what kind of Dionysian logic do we have? We have already said that in Indo-European tradition, the point of Dionysus is not exactly in the center between the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Cybele. It is rather a bit higher than this dividing line. It is Apollonian reading of the figure of Dionysus and in the figure of Christ it is absolutely transparent, it’s clear. So all chtonical, all negative aspects or dialectical, nocturnal aspects in the figure of Christ are not present. So that is purified Dionysus, Apollonian Dionysus. He is pure, immaculate. He has no sin. And coming to the center of the Hell to win the Hell and His power, He still rests God and absolutely pure. We are dealing with the normative, two figures of classical Indo-European structure. That is Indo-European religion with Indo-European theology, with the pure victory of the patriarchy over the Logos of Cybele. There is no sign of Logos of Cybele in this concept. And the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God is represented as Demeter much more than purely earthly figure. It is complete purification of the female nature. She’s considered to be the head of the angels. It is the purity and virginity of the Holy Mother because she did not know the husband in the normal way, and she was bride of Holy Spirit, of God. So veneration of Holy Mother is purely Indo-European. It is the concept of the virgin, the heavenly celestial virgin and there is nothing chthonic in this image.

    So all the principal figures of Christianity are Apollonian and Dionysian in the Apollonian reading of Dionysus. All these elements were present before Christianity, and not in the Semitic tradition. They were the basic concept of the Hellenistic world that was based on this alliance with Logos of Apollo with Logos of Dionysus. And in the periphery, there were some chthonic aspects in Hellenism, not dominating, but they were present as the traces of the Great Mother culture. But in Christianity there were no such things. That was the pure formula, pure version of Indo-European Logos, restored to put in its brilliance, in absolute affirmation. And that is why Christianity became the tradition of the European West. In our cultures, our people have accepted Christianity because they were Christian before the Christ. So they were prepared for this revelation that was new, that was something completely different from the past, but there was the clear structural continuity. The existential horizon of Indo-European society was the same, was prepared, and was ready to receive the good news. So that is very important. In other civilizations, it is almost impossible to explain what is the Christ. It is universal but universal figure in the context of this Apollonian Logos. If the Apollonian and Dionysian Logos is present in other civilizations they could understand Christianity but it is not always the case and we need to make serious work to prepare the other cultures, the other existential horizons to Christianity. And in Hellenistic existential horizon, everything was ready to receive Christianity. That is very important.

    Christianity is not our new tradition of the last 2000 years. That was continuation of the old Indo-European tradition. This structure with triads, trinity, everything was prepared. Not exactly because with any reform of religion, of mythology, of tradition, of the church, there are new elements but nevertheless the essence was the same. As well, for example, communion was the moment when the wine becomes the blood of God and the bread becomes the body of God. That is Demeter and Dionysus, prefiguration of it. So we could see prefiguration of Christ in the Old Testament that is completely legitimate. But as well we could see as Justin philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, a kind of prefiguration of Christian mysteries in Greek mysteries, not exactly but a prefiguration, the images, anticipation of Christianity. And we have the same tri-functional tradition as Christianity. There are priests and patriarchs, there are kings and warriors, and there are peasants. So we have in the Christian society, all three Indo-European functions. And this structure of society lasted in the pure form up to the beginning of the Modernity, up to the end of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. So, there is continuity as well in the social structure. There is continuity in Empire. There is some continuity in the rites, in the worship practice. So structurally, that was unity and continuity between pre-Christian Indo-European existential horizon and Christian existential horizon. So that is very important.

    But at the same time, we see in the early Christianity, two very contradictory centers of elaboration of Christian doctrine. There is Alexandrian School and there is Antiochian School. Normally they say that everybody agrees about the philosophical and metaphysical quality of Alexandrian School founded by Saint Apostle Mark and developed by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Tradition of the Origenism came after to the Cappadocians; to Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory, and the other. And that was the dogma accepted in the first three Ecumenical councils. That was the kind of victory of Alexandrian School. And the conceptual axis of it was Neoplatonism, in different form. The highest point of Christian Neoplatonism is Dionysius the Areopagite and his works. That is pure Christian Platonism; the creation of nine orders of supernatural angels, powers, and all the Christian mysteries were explained in this Platonic symbolism. So there is clear Alexandrian tradition and that is one part of Christian teaching.

    There is Antiochian School that gave many heresies, (such as Arius, Nestorius, and the others) that was opposed to Alexandrian School. And they say that was a kind of Semitic spirit orientated against Greek or Indo-European spirit. Alexandrian tradition was based on the symbolical allegorical reading of the Old Testament and New Testament and that is normal for Platonism. Plato’s teaching regards everything that existed as symbol of the ideas. So everything should be read as symbolical text. Every thing, every event, every person should be regarded as an icon, as an image of the paradigm. (Hence the symbolical allegorical reading of Alexandrian School of any sacred text.) That is completely normal. And they say that in the case of the Antiochian School, that was a different approach; literal. And they say that is Semitic because it was not so much Greek with Platonism but that was historic. That was the history and that is sometimes called Judeo-Christian reading of Christianity. And we could say that Alexandrian School is Indo-European reading or Greek (Hellenistic) reading of Christianity. I thought the same before I had started to study it more closely. Because the Antiochian School was situated in Syria, Antiochia, that was considered where the main Semitic population was, it was considered to be Semitic. But starting to study the Antiochian School and the phenomenon of Judeo-Christianity that was opposed to Alexandrian School, and after writing the book on Semitic Logos (I have one volume of Noomahia dedicated to Semitic Logos, the Logos of Semites), I have discovered that that is not so.

    Semitic Logos is quite different. It is based on a kind of Titanism of Baal in the pre-Judaic tradition. There was a very patriarchal version of the Eastern Semitic tradition of Akkadian and Assyrian in Babylonia that was similar to Hittite tradition or later to Iranian tradition. And there was Judaic tradition that was in some way anti-Semitic because the Judaic Logos (by traditional Judaism) was against all the people living in the Canaan (mostly Semites) with the cult of Baal, the Titanic deity that demanded bloody sacrifices of the children. And Judaism was absolutely opposed to it but not affirming something special. That was a kind of counter-identity. So the most anti-Semitic tradition historically was Jewish tradition, because that was opposed to any Semitic cultural horizon of Canaan. That was anti-Canaan in any senses. So, the Jews blamed all people living around them because they were supporters of Baal’s cult. And they opposed to them, in the early stage of Jewish tradition, something very special. We could call that ‘old God’ because the Baal was considered by the most Semitic people as ‘new God,’ a kind of lesser God that didn’t receive the heritage and has started a revolt against the ‘old God,’ So the mostly Semitic traditions, western Semitic traditions, were on the side of the new God Baal, with some Titanic Dionysian features. That was the black double of Dionysus (we have spoken about that). And the Jewish tradition was against this new God, against Baal, in favor of old God that was dethroned by Baal. But that had nothing to do with Christianity, not Baal nor old God. So Christianity was completely different.

    In Antiochian School, I have found not this inter-Semitic drama of Western Semites (Assyrian, Aramean [not Jewish], and Jewish tradition) but something completely different. I have discovered there, Iranism in pure form. That was Iranistic tradition. And if we consider the late Judaism, the Judaism after Babylonian captivity (so called Second Temple Judaism), we could easily identify in that, Iranian topics. That was a kind of original Judaic tradition transformed in the Zoroastrian Iranian context. Hence the concept of Messiah that was absent in the early Judaism, the history, the salvation, and the resurrection. All that appears during Babylonian captivity, in the late stage, in the second temple Judaism. So the late Judaism was Iranized form of Judaism and not so Semitic, in Jewish (originally Jewish) or not Jewish (other Semitic people) sense. That is very important. And Antiochian tradition was much more dualistic and Iranistic as well (not Iranian but Iranistic) because Semitic people, after the Achaemenid Empire, lived, including during the Hellenistic time, under great influence of Iranian Logos. And this dualism (in Manichaeism later) had all kind of Messianic tendencies, very similar to Christianity. That was the logical result of the concept of the war of light and the appearance of, at the end of the time, the figure of the last king and the savior. All that is, in our eyes, completely Christian or Jewish (in the late Judaism) but only in Iranian tradition does all that obtain the real metaphysical and structural meaning. All Iranian metaphysics explains why (because of the history, because of the war between the light and darkness.) So the Antiochian tradition was an Iranistic school.

    We have in Christianity, a kind of world between the Greek advaita, non-dualistic Platonism (in the case of the Alexandrian School that we could call mostly Greek and Platonic) and we have Iranistic, dualist, historic version of it, which is not so much symbolic but historic in the sense of Messianism. But Messianism is not Jewish. Messianism is Iranian (metaphysically Iranian). So we have a kind of discussion or debate on the new stage between two Logos, both of them Indo-European, both of them vertical, both of them patriarchal, but with different editions. So that was the dialogue not between Judaism and Hellenism. That was the dialogue between Hellenism with Greek domination, and Iranism with Iranian dominations. All that was also the part of Christianity. In Christianity, in Christian doctrine, we have two poles. We could be more Platonic or more Iranistic and Messianic. And Judeo-Christianity is not Jewish spirit. It is Iranian spirit. Judeo-Christianity is Iranistic version of reading of Christianity.

    That defines all history of Christian dogmatic councils. Of the first seven councils, the first three councils were victories of Alexandrian School over Antiochian School; over Arius in the first council, over Nestorius after that, and defeat of the Antiochian tradition that was much more inclined toward dualistic version. That is why Christ wasn’t considered as God. He was considered as saint, as prophet, as the last savior, but not God, because there was a kind of difference, opposition between the material world and spiritual world. There is dualism, Nestorianism, and Arianism developed in the Antiochian Iranistic School, and spiritual Monism developed in the Alexandrian School. Both of them had heretic versions that were outside the Christian dogmatic orthodoxy. Antiochian School gave Arius and Nestorius and they were considered to be heresies. As well, the radicality of Alexandrian Platonism gave the other extremity; Monophysite heresy represented by the disciples of Cyril of Alexandria, Eutyches, and the others. So the Monophysite heresy was a kind of purely excessive Platonism (Greek version), and excessive Iranism (Nestorian version). They were heretical extremities of the legitimate orthodox point of view. The other parts of the Alexandrian School with the Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Saint Gregory, and the other Cappadocian teachers), and the other part of the Antiochian School (Saint John Chrysostom who was representative of the Antiochian School) were considered to be absolutely orthodox. So there were heretic versions and there were completely orthodox versions of both of them.

    And when they say that during Justinian that Platonism and Origenism were blamed (that is the fact) and considered to be heresy, it concerns only radical parts of this Platonism. For example, it didn’t concern the teachings of Saint Basil the Great or Dionysius the Areopagite, who were accepted as orthodox authorities. Or for example, the excommunication of Nestorius didn’t affect John Chrysostom who was considered a most orthodox figure in the Orthodox Church but he was representative of this historical (not symbolical) Iranian, Iranistic version of Christian doctrine.

    The first three councils were victories of the Alexandrian School and the second three were a kind of revenge of the Antiochian School. After the end of the pure Antiochian School, the Antiochian School was destroyed and defeated but the tendency to moderate this Alexandrian neoplatonic version still existed. And the next three (the 4th, 5th, and 6th ecumenical councils) were a kind of victory of the Antiochian spirit because that was moderation of the pretensions of most radical representatives of Alexandrian School. That was a kind of balance. And that was a kind of victory of the Hellenism (but this time Christian Hellenism) where the two forms of Iranian and Hellenistic, historic and non-dualist, symbolic, all were united in the context of the orthodox dogma. And the seventh Ecumenical Council was not so important concerning metaphysics. That was about iconoclasm. (That had relations to this as well but no so directly.)

    So, we have in Christianity, a continuation of the Mediterranean Hellenistic existential horizon with two poles (Iranistic and Greek poles.) And that was a kind of new form or new ideology of the traditional Indo-European horizon. We could say that there was a difference regarding the woman in Christianity. We see two approaches, as well very proper to Indo-European society. On one side there is a kind of ‘anelygynia’ that I’m calling. There is recognition of the full dignity of woman and a kind of spiritual equality between man and woman in Christ. There is the saying of St. Paul that ‘there is no man, no woman but only Christ.’ So that is a recognition of the dignity of the soul of woman that is equal to the soul of man. That is a kind of partnership, friendship, traditional Turanian friendship between the female warrior and male warrior in the defense of the identity. That is female warriors and male warriors as warriors of Christ. That is spiritual equality of the souls. At the same time, there was the second relation between man and woman that was a reflection of this coming of the nomadic Indo-European over matriarchal society where there was a kind of submission of the woman to the man. That was reflected in the other sayings of St. Paul, when for example women cannot teach in church, women should be submitted to the husband, and the others. That is hierarchy and equality, both versions of gender archetypes traditionally for Indo-European society in its historic relations with the matriarchal society. There is a kind of hierarchical submission and on the other level, a kind of friendship and equality and spiritual dignity. That is a kind of best solution, a more organic and natural solution for the concrete historical society we are dealing with (not with the abstract.) In our tradition, how these horizons, spiritual and cultural spaces and civilizations were created during their historical and existential development that was the best solution that satisfied both demands of equality and hierarchy in a very concrete way. That was reflected in the Christian tradition. That was not casual. As Platonism was a reflection or expression of this Logos of Apollo, Christian tradition was an excellent and perfect reflection of this Apollonian, Dionysian style of civilization. That is the reason why we are Christians. We were not obliged to be Christians. We have accepted that as something that we knew before. That was a kind of remembrance of our identity. That is identity of Christian tradition that was recognized by the people of the Mediterranean, Hellenistic context because that was continuation of the same relations in the best way.

    At the same time, we see continuity in empire because Christianity was accepted as religion and ideology of empire with Constantine the Great. There was developed a very important concept that is this time Iranian by its origin; the concept of Katehon (Greek name for 'that who supports.’ Katehon is participle of Greek word κάτω έχουν. κάτω is under, έχουν is to have.) This figure appears in the second epistle letter of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, where there is concrete phrase; ‘the son of perdition, the anti-Christ, will not come until the supporter, Katehon, (that who supports, who keeps) will be taken out of the way.' That was an enigmatic phrase. So, there is some figure that resists the coming of anti-Christ. Because there is a historical vision of Christianity, Messianic vision of Christianity, and that reflects not Platonic version of the eternity of the world, but dialectic of history that is Iranian. There appears some figure that fights against anti-Christ and that figure is key figure in the Iranian historical sequence, Iranian Logos. That is represented by the sacred emperor in Iranian tradition. In Iran, there is Iranian Kingdom and the sacred King of this Kingdom is that who fights the forces of the darkness and doesn’t let them invade the world. That is a purely Iranian figure that didn’t exist in the Greek concept. In the Greek idea, there was not such a figure. But in Roman ideology, in the Roman Empire there appears something like that, not so clearly defined, under influence of Iranian because Iranism was the part of the Hellenism and Hellenism was the main culture of the Roman Empire. That was a Latin empire. That was the Roman Empire that was based on the Hellenistic culture (we have spoken about that.) What is important is that this figure mentioned in St. Paul’s 2nd letter to Thessalonians was identified clearly by Saint John Chrysostom (as well very important because he was representative of Iranistic branch of Christian theology, of the Antiochian School) but it is clear that before him as well, was identified as the figure of Roman Emperor.

    So Katehon was the Roman Emperor, the King of the Empire. And there was theology of empire linked to the eschatology - the end of time, the resurrection, and the final apostasy. All the cyclic historic vision of the Christian Church was based on this figure (above all in Byzantium but not only Byzantium). In Byzantine Empire that was dogmatic ideology of Byzantines. In Byzantine existential space, in Byzantine culture, the Katehon was Emperor but Christian Emperor. He was considered to be a kind of Bishop of the Church. So he was the key figure of the sacred King that fights against the coming of anti-Christ. And he was with the Patriarch. They made a kind of symphony (the term is from Christian Orthodox tradition), symphony of the powers. Symphony of the powers was based on the alliance between the Patriarch (the representative of the spiritual authority) and the Emperor (not normal king, nor knyaz, nor prince.) The Emperor was not only a secular ruler. The Emperor was the sacred figure of Katehon. He was linked to the historical cycle where there is empire with emperor as the head. There is no anti-Christ. We are living in the Christ’s world. So, empire obtains with emperor a new dimension. It’s not only a political organization. It is the sacred organization that is Christian, Apollonian, Dionysian (at the same time) version of organization of political reality as cosmic reality. Because the anti-Christ, the son of perdition (as in the St. Paul) is not only a historical person. It is manifestation of the darkness. It is manifestation of the cosmic, political, historical, metaphysical form. And dualism is not Christ against anti-Christ. That is completely artificial. There was not the case. Christ is God and was considered a God. He could not be put on the same level as anti-Christ. But emperor was the figure that was symmetric to anti-Christ. The Christian Emperor was the obstacle and the resistance and was a symbolic figure that united the Christian world and gave to it its vertical axis. That was a very important figure, continuing the same pre-Christian tradition.

    But in Christian situation; empire, church, theology, patriarchy, dogmatic tradition, orthodoxy, all that forms the Christian Orthodox ideology as a new form of all elements that pre-existed, that existed before Christianity. That is very important. If we put together all these elements of verticality, of the Dionysian nature of Christ, of historical messianism of Iranism, and the figure of the sacred Emperor, we have in all that a full teaching that reflects not new teaching of Christianity but reflects the eternal moment of Noomahia of Indo-European society. At this time there was the figure of Satan that represented Chthonic forces or the Babylonian whore, the red Babylonian woman (Babel) that is the Great Mother in that context. That is the figure of Cybele (Babylonian, that was kind of close to Anatolia). Symbolically, we had all these Logos in Christian context. There is the scarlet woman (the great Babel, the Babylonian whore) that was a kind of figure of the Logos of Cybele. There is Satan or anti-Christ as a representation of Satan as ‘Titan.’ In some Christian texts they both were used, ‘Titan’ or ‘Satan,’ were considered to be very close. So that is a kind of serpent, dragon, dragon that is consort of the Great Mother (traditional). So they try to overthrow the Christian Empire that is under power of the spiritual figure of the Patriarch or Bishop and the sacred King Emperor. That was a reorganization of the Indo-European existential space in Christian time.

    So we have a new ideology (Christian ideology), a new religion (Christian religion), and we have a very old tradition that was reflected in that. So Christianity was based on the victory over Satan. Satan was chained for a time being and put under the control of the Empire. The figure of Tsardom, Kingdom, the figure of Tsar and sacred King was a kind of seal, a kind of sigil (печат) over this victory of the Christian Church over Satan and Cybelian world. The situation was sealed with the King. So the King was seal. If we put together the seal, everything is destroyed and there is a kind of explosion because this Christian Kingdom, Christian civilization, Christian society was constructed on the prison of Satan or the shoulder of the chthonic power, controlled and domesticated and submitted by the Logos of Apollo, chained in the Hell, but always alive. And when the King or the Emperor will become too weak (the subject of classical Iranian tale), he could not resist the appearance of the anti-Christ, anti-Christ will appear and Satan will liberate (liberalism) itself from the Hell in order to come to the human society. And that was explosion of the underground or a kind of return of Cybele with dragon as scarlet woman, as Babylonian whore with the serpent that should destroy the Kingdom, destroy the Church and create a completely new civilization that belongs to other existential level.

    That all was and is the normal world vision of Christian Orthodoxy. It was preserved much more in the Eastern Church. In Byzantine tradition, in Orthodoxy, it is still normal. So if we come to Mount Athos and speak with the monks (for the man it’s possible to come to Mount Athos, for women not) we could find exactly the people with the same consciousness. They will repeat exactly what I have said today and that is normative world vision of Orthodoxy; the meaning of the Katehon, the meaning of the sacred Roman Empire, the concept of the Church and God and dignity of man, a fight against evil, against Satan, against daemons. What normally the monks of Mount Athos do there is they fight. They are fighting against demons day and night. They are in fight. And that’s concrete. And if we are reading Paisios from Mount Athos, we see that the fight obtains physical dimensions as well. It is a physical fight, a struggle against the powers of darkness. It still continues in Mount Athos. It still continues in politics (we will see it later). But was is important is that we have a complete world vision with all aspects of normative laws and relations between man and nature, political laws, social laws, based on Christian teaching. So Christian teaching is not only Church, not only cult and worship. It is world vision. It includes political normative ideas. It includes a kind of Monarchism, inner, embedded. You could not be normally democrat and be Christian. You should be in some way, in that context you should recognize the validity of teaching of the Katehon. It is not a preference or political opinion that you could form basing on your own position. It is the Orthodox point of view. And that is obligatory in some way. That is Indo-European root of Christianity. As well, we have some norms, some social relations, gender relations, family relations that are normative and Christian and that reflect this complete world vision. So Christianity is much more than cult, worship, and Church. That is, we could say, ideology, or Indo-European world vision, in new and actual form that lasts still up to today. When we have Christian Church with normal traditional priests and parish and normal man, we have the same today. Today, in Russia, in Mount Athos, in Serbia, in Bulgaria, in Macedonia, in Romania, in Ukraine, in Greece where there is traditional Orthodoxy, we have the same vision, culture, and civilization.

    That was as well the case for the Latin Church but with much more accent on the power of spiritual authority over Emperor. But there was, after Charles the Great, as well (in our eyes), usurpation of the identity or the status of the sacred Emperor by Charles the Great. And that was the split in Catholic tradition between Emperor and Pope of Rome. But the dominating tendency in Catholicism was much more opposition between two kingdoms, formulated in Saint Augustine who was Manichean. The idea that the Pope of Rome is representing of the spiritual is vertical as well (but once more Indo-European, everything is Indo-European). Verticality was represented by Rome and the kings were not sacred. That was the idea that the Roman sacred Pope should rule over purely secular kings. But with the institution usurped (in our eyes), by Charles the Great, that was as well the figure of Emperor. That was reflected in the Ghibelline tradition (the fight of the Guelphs against the Ghibellines in Western history). So there was as well a kind of Katehon for them. And this Katehonian Western Christian tradition lasted up to the Habsburg, up to the Austrian Empire. So the Habsburg Emperors were considered to be continuators of this Katehonian function. So, this was Austrian Empire in the Catholic version.

    We didn’t recognize the status of Charles the Great. We had at the time Byzantine Empress Irene. And that was the anti-feminist move of the Catholics. They considered that the woman cannot rule a sacred Empire and that is why they have appropriated the title of the Emperor in the case of Charles the Great (Charlemagne). But at the same time, we don’t speak about who was right. We are speaking about how structurally that worked and functioned. And that concept of this sacred Emperor was certified from the beginning of the 9th century in the Emperor tradition of the Kings of Frank. And after that the Habsburg and Austrian Empire was the last moment of this Western Katehonian tradition. That was the kind of emperor line. It was not so much accepted by Popes of Rome but what is interesting is that it was nevertheless recognized by Catholics and by Guelphs as well (with not such interpretation as in the case of Ghibellines). Guelphs (the partisans of the absolute power of the Pope of Rome over secular Kings of Western Europe), in their tradition, recognized the status of the Emperor as a Katehonian figure (not so clearly, but recognized). So that was interesting that the Western Church as well recognized that.

    So we had two versions of Christian civilizations - Eastern that is closer to the original version, with all the proportions conserved up to now. That was a kind of uninterrupted tradition of this Indo-European heritage coming to Christianity from Hellenism as I have explained, and fixed in the form of seven Ecumenical Councils. And there was much more, I would say, contradictory Western Christian tradition but in the same limits. And Catholicism has conserved that almost up to the Second Vatican Council. After that began a kind of collapse of Western Christianity. But nevertheless there was a kind of a continuation of tradition. So Catholicism and Austrian Empire were two forces of this Christian conservatism, of this middle ages tradition of Western Europe.

    The collapse came with Protestantism. Protestantism was the third form. That concerned only Western Christianity. In order to think about Protestantism, this third branch of Christianity, we need to put ourselves not with the context of Orthodox against Catholic but Catholic against something else (so take Orthodox out of the picture. They didn’t participate in anything in that conflict). It is interesting that at the origins of the Protestantism, we could find very very correct ideas. First of all, there is the idea that the Roman Church is totally corrupted and has usurped relations between the man and Christ. That was reflected in the concept of what is the Church in Catholicism. For Catholics, the Church is the community of the priests. And what are the other Christians? They are semi, quasi, almost-Christians. They were a kind of outside circle around the Church and not inside the Church. That is very very important. For us, it’s strange because the dogmatic Orthodox understanding of what is Church is that it is the community of all baptized people. So not only priests but as well any Christians. Church is the community of the baptized Christians, not only priests. Catholic tradition was quite different. There was a kind of hierarchy but in a spiritual sense. There was a hierarchy that interrupted direct relations between man, the ordinary Christian with God that should pass through priests and through the Pope of Rome. That was a kind of intermediary obstacle. Maybe that was necessary, maybe not. We don’t speak about good or bad. We try to understand or describe it structurally. But nevertheless there was a kind of interruption between the relations of man and God.

    The early Protestants, and above all, the German mystics (Meister Eckhart, Heinrich Seuse, and at a lesser scale Albertus Magnus) affirmed that there should be inner relation between the heart of the man with the Christ. It should not pass through exterior relations. For us there is no problem because in Orthodox tradition we recognize both. We recognize completely the authority of the Church and completely this direct relationship because we have the other concept of the Church. For us, the problem could not exist because we could not understand that. In our situation, there is no split. There are both. We have both ways - inner and outer. But for Western Christian tradition, there was a problem. And the first pre-Protestant mystics said ‘good, let us accept the outer exterior form but let us proceed in an inner way.’ And they were Platonic because they said that we have the direct relations with God and God could speak inside of us and that is our inner dimension. So they were purely Christian. In our situation they were closer to Orthodox in some ways. There were excesses, as well, of Platonism. For example, Meister Eckhart said that there is something beyond the Trinity, unity beyond the Trinity. That is not too much Orthodox. But nevertheless the main idea was so. This radical subject concept, the concept of the inner self that is living in the heart, and the ‘inner Christ’ as they called it was at the origin of Protestantism (in Wycliffe, Hussites, Czechs, German mystics). So that was legitimate up to some point.

    But when they tried to oppose this teaching with Luther and Calvin to Catholic tradition they had lost the tradition itself. They have lost icons, monks, monasteries, and Church as such. Trying to clear the direct access from man to God, they destroyed the sacredness. And they took what we could call radical subject (the inner self that is living inside of our soul) and replaced that with normal individuality, with profane individuality. So that was a kind of religious individualism instead of this mystical dimension. Because when Protestantism began to expand itself, it appealed to the masses that could not have this special inner experience. And that was full perversion. That was destruction of Christianity. Because from the legitimate starting point of the early Protestantism or maybe pre-Protestant mysticism of Wycliffe or European Platonists, that was a kind of destruction of the traditional Catholic society. And that was Titanic.

    There is an inner self that is divine. But if we affirm not this radical interiority, where in the center of our heart Christ lives, and shift to the exterior aspect instead of the real subject (radical subject), we are receiving positive subject. This is not the third man in the mystical language of Johannes Tauler. He has said there are three men in one of us. There is the man as beast (that is exterior), the rational man (second man), and there is hidden mysterious secret man inside of us (that is radical subject) and it is he who has relations with God. It is mystery man (third man) inside of us, inside of inside. It is not only inside of body but inside of the soul. It is the mysterious point that is hidden in our mind. This third man and second man (rational man) are not the same. They are in opposition. And the first mystics defended this third man (hidden secret mystery man). And normal Protestantism made a shift from the third man to the second man. They affirmed the dignity of something that shouldn’t have such dignity because there is no possible direct relation between second man (rational man, positive subject) and God. It should always have some intermediary. Direct relation is impossible. And the pretension to have such relation is purely titanic.

    So that was transformation of the Logos in that. In the early Protestantism was a kind of legitimate claim to have relations between third man (hidden man inside of us) and God. And in the normal, profane Protestantism there was a completely different approach. That was fatal and that was the destruction of traditional society because of this titanism appearing in Lutheran teaching but above all in Calvinism. Calvinism is much worse than Lutheranism. Calvinism is radical absence of any sacredness in the world. It is glorification of the second man as the only one. It is profane and destruction of sacredness. That was the premise for the occasion of Modern post-Christian civilization. Protestantism was the break in the great wall of Christian civilization. That was the destruction of Western Christian tradition.

    In order to prepare for the next lecture about Noological analysis of Modernity, we could make a very short analysis of what is dechristianization of modern society. That was destruction of Logos of Apollo and Logos of Dionysus. That was destruction of Indo-European heritage. That was not only an exchange or replacement of one religion (Christian religion) by secular version. That was a catastrophe that is much deeper than only the fall of Christianity. That was the fall of the Logos that was ours before Christianity. That was destruction of all form of verticality. That was the real coming of anti-Christ, liberation of Satan from the chains of Hell, and eruption, intervention, invasion of Titanic power in existential horizon of European culture. So now we could evaluate what was done with Protestantism and dechristianization. So that is new moment of Noomahia because Noomahia had the same moment (the victory of the Logos of Apollo with the Logos of Dionysus against the Logos of Cybele.) That was the beginning of our civilization. That was the first chart. That was the first basic event. That was a kind of reign. We lived during thousands of years, basing on this moment of Noomahia, having contradictory existential horizons inside of our society, but lived in the victory of light over darkness. And that didn’t begin with Christianity. That continued with Christianity. We were happy during many thousands of years, being the sons of the light to live in the kingdom of light, with all the problems, with all the dramatic aspects, all the Dionysian aspects, dying, resurrecting, being destroyed and winning anew our Noomahia, our battles. With the dechristianization came something absolutely radical from a Noological and geosophical point of view. We are going to see what in the next lecture.

27. Introduction to Noomakhia: Noological analysis of Modernity [Lecture 8] - Alexander Dugin

    

    Lecture 8 is dedicated to noological analysis of the modernity. I presume that now it is more or less easy to anticipate what will be the result of this analysis. First of all, I would suggest the reading of the traditionalist school’s very important others such as Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Titus Burckhardt, Frithjof Schuon, Michel Valsan, or Hossein Nasr who have explained that the modernity is a special concept. So modernity is not something that has to deal with contemporarity. Because now in the contemporary actual moment we could have modern society, pre-modern society, post-modern society, archaic society, society with religion, middle ages type of society but living in today’s world. So contemporary does not mean modern. That is a very important aspect and conceptual element. So when we speak about modernity, we don’t speak about what exists now. It is a description of a type of society, of structure, of existential horizon, of civilization that is a little bit a-temporal. So we could imagine modernity now. We could imagine modernity belonging to the past or belonging to the future. That is already very important.

    So we consider the modernity not as the fate 'cause we have it now and we will have it tomorrow, and we are obliged to be modern’ and so on. Traditionalists affirm that to be modern is a decision. You can be modern or you can be not modern. And they have created two concepts - the tradition and the modernity. So modernity is not something actual. That is a kind of society or civilization or world vision or picture of the reality. That is one thing. And there is tradition. That is the picture of reality, the civilization, the culture, and the society that is different. And between them, affirmed the traditionalists, there is antagonism. That is very important because that gives us the possibility to study modernity not as something inevitable but as something that is the product of concrete historical development based on concrete sequence of decisions and choices.

    And the modernity is artificial, I would say. It was artificially created. It is not something that went by itself. Modernity is not natural. Modernity was created, is supported, is defended, is adjusted, and is developed. But there is a kind of free will behind the modernity that is not fatality. There is not mechanical law of modernity, because we know many societies that are not modern. For example, there is Islamic society, Indian society in some aspects, archaic society, which are not modern. They exist today. And if we consider the majority of mankind and humanity today in 21st century, they live not in the modern society. The society they belong to is traditional society. Modernity has something to do with contemporary world but we should understand that separately from contemporary.

    We could speak about structure of modernity. Modernity is something structural, constructed, and could and should be deconstructed. Postmodernist philosophy is based precisely on this deconstruction of modernity with their special aspects. But that is possible. And deconstruction of modernity (and that is crucial point in noology) could be made from 2 positions. Deconstruction of modernity could be made by postmodernists with their hyper-modern ethics. The majority of postmodernists are disappointed with the modernity because modernity didn’t fulfill its promises, doesn’t satisfy them, their hopes and anticipations. So that is a kind of despair. They’re in despair that modernity couldn’t accomplish the goal that it declared. So that is post-modernity in the sense that modernity is too small, is not enough. And they try to deconstruct modernity in order to show that it should be overcome in order to create what modernity wanted to do but couldn’t accomplish by inner limitations. In the eyes of post-modernists, the modernity was too traditional, excessively traditional. Modernity could not overcome tradition, but it should and it shall with the post-modernity. So that is a kind of deconstruction of modernity that shows that modernity was not so much modern as it needed to be in the eyes of post-modernist ethic. But what is interesting in this method, in doing that they show the artificial nature of modernity, that modernity is a creation, that modernity is based on the decision. So we could deconstruct something that something has constructed. So we can use some methods of post-modernity precisely dealing with modernity.

    But what is much more important is the other possibility to deconstruct the modernity in much more radical way than post-modernist critics. That is traditionalism that regards the modernity as a kind of the type of the structure that was created against the tradition. So that is consideration of modernity as anti-tradition. It could be represented as a kind of reversal of all traditional values. And what was in the traditional society with the sign plus in the modernity is minus. So that is a kind of reversal of the traditional state of things. And that was based on decision, subversion, and the will to destroy and to exchange the thesis with anti-thesis in some way. So modernity is anti-thesis for tradition. That is traditionalist position. And what is interesting is that post-modernists agree with the goal of modernity. So they criticize modernity as something not enough, something not sufficient. But traditionalist criticize the modernity as something awful, as something completely negative, as nihilism, as destruction, as perversion, as subversion, as daemonic design of reality or as a kind of anti-Christ civilization created by the conscious partisans of Satan. So the modernity in the eyes of traditionalists is conscious satanic creation. So there is traditional divine society, divine world, and divine soul and there is satanic tradition, satanic order, satanic cosmos and so on.

    That is very interesting because this kind of deconstruction of modernity exists as well, including in our world. And we could use both in order to deal with modernity. We could have deconstruction from the left (postmodern deconstruction) with elaborated methodology with traditionalist deconstruction. I don’t insist now on who is right. I try to show that there are two possibilities to deal with modernity outside of the pretensions of modernity, because modernity says ‘oh, that is necessary, that’s mechanical law of development, the progress, the man is good, the man is developing, the progress is inevitable’ and so on. All that is questioned by post-modernity and all this is questioned by traditionalism. If we unite both criticisms, methodologically we obtain something completely new. So we see, joining both methodologies, at least one thing for certain - that we are dealing with something absolutely artificial, because both criticisms show that with all the power of persuasion of scientific expression from different positions and that is very important. So we could regard the modernity as something conceptual, structural, and in some way eternal. So modernity exists, not only in contemporary world, but it is structure. If we could describe the modernity with mathematical, for example structures, values and anti-values, plus and minus, if we could have a kind of formula of modernity, it could not be contemporary. So this formula could exist in a different context. So that opens to us the way to analyze the modernity as something that could be turned from the contemporary moment. That is very important. So we could study modernity as we are studying for example Chinese culture or Roman culture in the same way. That is something that is accomplished but that belongs to some eternal text. We could choose different scales; we could go closer or go further from modernity. So modernity is the object of the study.

    When we try to concretize in noomahia perspective what is modernity, we have already spoken about that it is anti-Christianism. Because we had in our European history tradition, about which traditionalists speak, in the form of Christian tradition. And we have shown in the previous lecture, how this Christian tradition included in itself pre-Christian structures and Indo-European Logos. So tradition now, in this noological version, is the same as Christianity but at the same time is the same as the alliance between Logos of Apollo with Logos of Dionysus in concrete historical Christian form. So that was and is tradition that we could identify and as well describe as type. So if we have this concrete and positive description of what is tradition, it is not something vague. It is concrete. It is Logos of Apollo with its structure, its symmetry, verticality with Logos of purified Apollonian Dionysus in the case of dialectic embedded in this version. So everything is quite concrete.

    And we try for example to deny all that, to make a kind of reversal of that. We receive the other type - no Apollo, no Dionysus. And now it is not only nihilism or destruction or parody (as traditionalists say) but in our noological analysis, we see clearly what is so called positive content of modernity. So the modernity is not only destruction, the chaos, the anti, anti, anti, against, against, against. It is not nihilism. In the eyes of Logos of Apollo, there is no Logos of Cybele. There is nothing. There is destruction, matter. But in three Logos concept of noomahia, there is Logos of Cybele. There is a kind of structure that we could imagine, that we could describe with positive inner relations. That is why noomahia noology is so important now, because thanks to noomahia we have the key to deeper and the better understanding on what is modernity. Because when traditionalists criticize the modernity, they use negative terms. That is ‘overthrow of the traditional values, negative, nihilism.’ That is conservative discourse. They belong to tradition, to the Logos of Apollo and Dionysus and they consider the end of this situation as the end of time. So there’s nihilism, negative terms. Maybe that is the reason why they could not get the essence of modernity, because the modernity is purely negative for them, as it is purely positive for modernists. They could as well not understand the modernity, because for them, that’s all. That’s beauty, that’s progress, that’s something inevitable, that’s nature, that’s casual sequence of events that we could not change, something predefined. Modernists don’t understand the modernity. And traditionalists understand better than modernists but in negative way, so as well they understand not enough. But with noomahia we could say, that is not only destruction. That is not only nihilism. That is not only chaotic transformation. That is other Logos - third one.

    And if we apply to the modernity this concept, we obtain completely new vision and perspective to understand the modernity. And modernity is in the reality ancient. That is not paradox. It is absolutely ancient because it is precedent to the Indo-European Turanian invasion. So we are dealing not with something new. We are dealing in the modernity with something very very old that existed before Indo-European invasion, before Turanian Logos of Apollo. So in that case the modernity is old and Indo-European tradition and Christianity is something new because it came after. And the modernity is return to the pre-Indo-European aspect of civilizations. That is extremely important remark. Because now we are dealing not with something as the end of some natural construction. There is nothing natural in human history. Everything is based on the Logos. So modernity is a moment of noomahia that came the new attack of Titans against the Gods. And this one is a successful attack. So modernity is the victory of the titans, of Cybele, of the serpent over God. Successful attack. So that is the moment of noomahia that existed as potential possibility always. And when the power of light became too weak and too small, the Titans were liberated from the hell and from the chains and they made interruption again in the realm of the order and they have submitted the humanity to their rule. So that is not purely negative description. There is event and we could speak about the Logos of modernity. The modernity has a Logos.

    In order to trace the modernity, we could come to the event or the time when modernity started. That was the end of middle ages and Renaissance time was the border time. That was precisely the moment where this noomahia and titanomachy reached the critical stage, in the Renaissance. That is the name for the special battle between Logos of Apollo against the Logos of Cybele where the battle was lost by the Gods. The battle was lost by Indo-European tradition. The battle was lost by this patriarchal existential horizon in favor of this alternative Logos. And we see multiple aspects of that. That is beginning of capitalism, of bourgeois, of national state. That was beginning of secularization of the state and the society, the end of Christianism. And that was reflected in the science, because the modern science is a kind of necessary aspect of modernity. So we are living in the world where our understanding of reality is based on the science. And this science, this modern science (it is called modern science to make a difference from middle ages science) is very special. We could consider its structure. When we begin to read the first texts of authors of modern science, we see very special feature - they criticized Aristotle. Aristotle was a kind of dogmatic scientific concept of middle ages. And that was scholastic and that was Christian. In Orthodox context, Aristotelian teaching was adapted by John of Damascus to Orthodox Christian doctrine. In western Christianity that was scholastic tradition based on the combination between Platonic and Aristotelian concepts. Aristotle and to a lesser scale Platonism were overthrown in the beginning of the scientific world vision. And we could trace what concretely was attacked, how this titanomachia was developed in the field of the scientific theories. I have dedicated my first thesis to the concept of creation and appearance of modern science.

    First of all there was the criticism against the natural places theory of Aristotle or anisotropic version of the space. Anisotropic understanding of the space of the natural places Aristotelian theory was based on the concept of what is movement. According to Aristotle, everything has its own goal, its own entelecheia. The goal is the final reason. That is equivalent with natural space. So everything has its natural space. And the movement of the thing, it is moving toward this natural place. When the thing reaches its natural space, the movement ends. So the movement is because all the things are not in their natural space. They are moving toward them but they prevent each other to get there. And that defines the nature of movement. So everything strives to reach its natural space and because it is a little chaotic under the sphere of moon, (according to Aristotle, there is chaotic movement), so everybody hurt the other. Nobody is in its own space, only God. Only God has reached from the beginning, eternally He is in His natural space. Everything other is out. And that is why everything is living, everything is moving. That is the explanation of the nature of kinetic movement. But that creates the special space with the absolute center for each thing. The absolute center for each thing is its natural place. So everything is striving somewhere, somewhere that is more important, and more natural for things than other place. So you could be at home. The concept of home is very important. Home is the natural place. We are going home. And everything is going home. It is return. It is return to the God but only God is in His own place. That is immovable mover. It is something that moves everything but is not moved by anything. That is the concept. So the space or the cosmos is theocentric. And there is a kind of sacred geography with the special sacred centers, with special points of cult, and all cosmos have the meaning, structure, and reason. So there is a center.

    The main attack of Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, and the other was against this concept of the natural place. They affirmed there is no natural place and there is no final reason. There is only casual reason. There is the reason of movement if something makes impact on other thing. So there is casual reason but final reason doesn’t exist. Because there is no goal, there is no teleology of the movement. And there is no absolute center. Everything is relative. Everything is moving chaotically as in Aristotelian version, but with no plan, with no goal, and everything is defined by the previous cause. So the cause belongs to the past. And there is no cause of the future. There is no eschatology and no goal. Everything is casual. And there is no center. There is no center in space. Everything is relative. There is no anisotropic space. There is isotropic space. Isotropic space means you will go any way with the same possibility because there is no natural space for things. So everything is absolutely relative. And that was destruction of Apollonian structure of space and time and destiny and history. Everything is destroyed with that. And that was so called scientific discovery.

    Post-modernists show that that was publicity. That was the war of the school, of laboratory. Everything in Galileo Galilei was a kind of trick organized in order to convince the audience that he’s great but his personal motivations we could put aside. But what was the meaning of Galileo Galilei and the other founding father of modernity? They destroyed Logos of Apollo represented in Plato and Aristotle by the Logos of Cybele. And the Logos of Cybele was not their discovery. That was return to the third form of Ancient Greek Pre-Socratic philosophy represented by Democritus, and later by Epicurus and Lucretius. They were put aside in the Christian version. Christian world vision was based on Plato and Aristotle, and Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius were put aside and forgotten. They were purged by Logos of Apollo because they belonged to the other vision, the atomistic vision, to the materialistic vision. Already in the ancient time, before Plato, they were anti-Indo-European and they belonged to the context of Logos of Cybele. And they reappeared in the Renaissance. So that is not new. That was something that was denied, that was put off, that was prohibited. That is some prohibited knowledge that reappeared as a dominating one. So postmodernists show that there was nothing convincing in the new ideas and they won not because they were more true. They won because they won. Because something changed in the mind of the Renaissance man that has opened the way to the Logos of Cybele to return with scientific premise. There was atomism.

    Atomism belonged to the past. Atomism was rejected by Christian cosmology but it returned with Boyle, with Newton, with Gassendi, with Hobbes, and with Descartes. That is not the chance that Marx had dedicated his doctorate to relations between Epicurus and Democritus. So the most modern philosopher of the 19th century dealt with in his doctorate with very old problem of the matter, of the atomism, and of the evolution. Because evolution, almost Darwinian type, we see Lucretius, in his point that was the idea of the evolution of the species. So the species were confused and little by little they developed into the creatures we know. That was by the Venus, by the Holy Mother that was produced. In Lucretius, there are purely Cybelian topics, purely scientific. So in this Lucretius concept, there are as well black Gods in Democritus. Democritus says that Gods as well have bodies and daemons as well. That was atomic. They live more than the body of human but they will as well die. So dying Gods of Democritus, black Gods or daemons. There was the mixture between scientific and mythological topics but what kind of mythology was that? That was purely materialistic, chthonian, and Cybelian mythology.

    At the same time, destruction of verticality, of old order, of old middle ages doctrine and Christian teaching was replaced by new world vision based on Cybelian ideology. Cybelian ideology is strictly materialist and immanentist. There is no heaven. There is no transcendental God. There is substance and everything grows from this substance. And the growth has reason as cause but has no final reason because this growth is something that confuses. It is a kind of growth as such with no reason. That is a kind of immanent process. And there is no attractor. There is no point to which this growth leads because that is the huge immanent substance that has the goal in itself. So the reason is. The cause is. The final reason is not.

    That was reflected in the cosmology of Copernicus. That is not the shift from geocentric to heliocentric doctrine but the reason of Copernican revolution was that there is no center at all. Everything is relative. The earth was not the center, was not natural place of incarnation of God. It is something casual. The earth is something casual. It is some ball that is revolving around some other fireball and so on, in the context of the other balls in the infinite disordered chaotic atomic tradition. What is important is that according to Democritus, atom could be small and invisible or great. That is something like very modern concept of the body, the heavenly body of the particle and so on. So that was reflected in the scientific vision. And what is considered today to be scientific is the same as Cybelian. Cybelian is scientific. What is not Cybelian, what for example insists on the existence of natural place, is not scientific, and is mythological. So there was the change of the Logos but that was not immediately. The Logos of Cybele in scientific world vision appropriated some aspects of Apollonian rationalism, of logic, of Dionysian dialectic. But everything was put under this sign of Cybele. So that was a kind of post-Apollonian culture and that was difference with pre-Apollonian kingdom or civilization of Lepenski Vir, Vinča, or Çatalhöyük. So the civilization of great mother was pre-Apollonian and modernity is the same civilization with the same structure and the same Logos but post-Apollonian. So that was appropriation of methods of logic, of philosophy and put under control of this materialistic, atomistic, immanentistic, substantialist domination.

    That was reflected in the politics. That was destruction of empire. That was the essence of modern politics. Because empire, as we have seen, was the normative organization of Christian political space, in Byzantine sense, but as well in the Western Catholic sense. So the concept of modern state and the concept of nation were two concepts directed against empire. That was atomic vision of the state - the state as social and political, with no reason. And the difference between modern state and the empire is there is no final reason, there is no natural space, there is no function or mission of Katehon. The national statehood is directed against Katehonian mission. It is directed against the sacredness of empire and mission of empire. Modern state by definition of Jean Bodin or Thomas Hobbes is created from below as a kind of social contract. And that is Leviathan in Hobbes. Modern state is not reflection of the heavenly paradigm. It is created and has no final reason. It has reason as cause. The reason of this modern state is social contract so it is created by the people, by the individuals, in order to prevent them from the other individuals. So that is completely different concept of politics. It is a revelation that Hobbes has called the Leviathan, the serpent, the modern state. Modern state is a serpent, a dragon that is mechanically organized from below in order to destroy everything that is sacred. The modern state is directed against the empire in its origin.

    That appeared precisely in the Renaissance with scientific vision, with this completely new understanding of religion. And the modern state should be secular, with no religious sense. It could have church; Protestant, or Catholic, or Orthodox. But church should be separated and exist outside of politics. So the modern state is titanic. And modern national state is anti-Christian, anti-traditional, anti-European, anti-Apollonian, and anti-Dionysian. It is purely titanic. It is serpent and dragon. And as such it was introduced as Leviathan in the beginning of the modernity.

    So what is nation? Nation is as well a concept that appeared precisely in modern meaning in the Renaissance time. Nation is the population living inside of the national state. Nation is absolutely artificial. That is the community of citizens who are those who have created the social contract. So the citizens are participating in social contracts. And citizen can redefine, concluding the other social context, the state. For example, the citizen could conclude that they don’t want to live anymore in Belgium and they want to have Flemish state and Bolognian state. They have all the right because Belgium has no reason. It is not reflection of something that is transcendental. It is result of social contract. So the people could create Yugoslavia, could destroy Yugoslavia if they want, because there is no Yugoslavia, there is no France, there is no Belgium, and there is no Germany. So they could easily create one Leviathan or destroy if they think that is better for them. So that is absolutely immanent concept of the politics. And it could be reflected in the vertical structure of state as a tradition of pre-Cybelian Indo-European tradition but it is from the beginning titanic. That is a new kind of hierarchy, a titanic bureaucracy with new type of dominating figure. This type we should regard and describe carefully. Because in modern state, there are not priests. It is clear that secularism has put the priests outside of the government. So they could exist as a cultural institution on the margins for example, as cult or funerals or weddings, something not so important, less and less important. Because marginalization of the church is the process of political modernity and church should be put more and more outside of the political decisions.

    In the case of the warrior, warriors were a noble class, aristocracy of the traditional state. They should be marginalized as well. They should be a kind of mercenary by the state. They could not have their arms with them because the arm is a symbol of warrior. They take the arm from the state. And when the state thinks that is enough for them to fight, the state takes the arm back. It is difficult with sword but it is easy with cannon or tank. So it is development of the state weapon (nuclear weapon you could not possess being an aristocrat warrior with private ownership). But if you have no weapon, you’re not autonomous warrior. You’re just a hired mercenary that serves as a servant with something that is given to you by the state and that is decided bureaucratically. So warrior is not the type that decides. Priests are not the type who decide.

    Who decides? There appears a new figure - bourgeois. We are calling that capitalist system. We are calling this bourgeois system. And bourgeois is a normative figure in modernity in political way. And now we should regard and make a kind of structural analysis of what it is. It is conventional wisdom that bourgeois belongs to the third state (tiers état). That is third function. There are first priests, second warriors, and bourgeois third. It is called tiers état in French (третье сословие in Russian). But here lays a very interesting misunderstanding, because it is represented by the man that lives in the city (bourgeois) and is occupying with the commerce (commercial). That is bourgeois. But this figure was absent from the Turanian society that was nomadic and was very marginal in the traditional sedentary European and Indo-European society, where existed third function, pastoralists and cattlers in one case, and peasants in the other case. But they were not bourgeois. So third function in the classical Indo-European society was peasant or cattler and not the merchant living in the city. So bourgeois is something new. We could not say that that is traditional third function that overcomes first and second. It is not tiers état in the Indo-European sense. There is something else. And bourgeois and merchant living in the city is not a cattler. He has nothing to do with cows, with sheep, with goats. He has nothing to do with laboring earth. He is not peasant. He is turned from that.

    But who is that? Who is bourgeois? It is something that is between warrior and peasant. That is very lazy peasant that doesn’t want to work on the earth. And it is coward as warrior because he could not affront death. He is in middle - lazy peasant and coward warrior. So it is a slave. In Russian language there is the name ‘холоп.’ Холоп is slave of the master. So he helps master to live good. It is not servant we could say. It is not free or not free peasant working in its field, maybe paying taxes or giving something else. He doesn’t participate in the battle. He is between people and aristocracy, between second and first functions and third. Because the Indo-European cities were founded by warriors in order to be a kind of fortress, in their military strategic relations with the space and with the people, so they were a kind of secondary worker serving these warriors. That was artificial class that has grown with the growth of the commerce in this city. Their appearance as an important class begins precisely in the same moment when begins the Cybelian revenge. They are special form of new sociological type living in the city, busy with the commerce. And it is important that the traditional symbol of Cybele is the town as the crown. Cybele has the crown in the form of town. There is something bourgeois in that crown of town. And there is something perverted in the commerce. So to be busy with commerce, in our traditional Christian and Indo-European logic, we have no pattern, no example, and no place for that. Because it is not war, it is not work, and it is not religious rite. It’s something that has no place in the traditional society. But it could exist in the margin of society in order to facilitate some technical aspect but that never was a kind of class or function. It never had its own mythology, its own ethic, its own tradition. And we see in bourgeois something completely unnatural for our tradition, dealing with the commerce and the exchange. They say mild commerce is not war because they’re coward. They could not take away as the warrior make, or they could peacefully work for their fields embedded in the traditional society with many cultural traditions concerning any stepped life that is the peasant life. That is the peasant turned from the tradition. That is warrior that could not fight. That is perversion. The bourgeois is the ill type. It is completely sick, sociological sickness, representation of perversion in our traditional way. So majority of bourgeois were peasants but peasants turned from their natural state.

    When the peasant that by some reason has lost its possibility, its field, its normal and natural place in the village, it comes to town. But who is the peasant in town? Nobody. He is idiot (Ιδιώτης), idiot in Greek sense, the person with no collective identity. That is something individual. That is atomic. And the atom was the basis of the new materialistic science of the Renaissance. That is new and old figure but one that had no place in the traditional society. That is something that was regarded with pity maybe in traditional society. It is ill peasant (because lazy or too arrogant) and it is coward warrior that didn’t want to fight. So that is perversion. It could always be under-class being. Bourgeois is under-class, the group of sick, mad, perverted, anti-normal human being that are idiotical by semantic definition. They have no organic relations with collective identity. Their identity is artificially constructed. They didn’t belong to the traditional warrior or agricultural societies. They were devoided of any organic collective qualities. They came to the city and they tried to find their way. It is not the case that bourgeois were from other places or other ethnical group, because they were individuals put in the city, and not belonging to the traditional cooperation and form. And they began to grow in number and they began to define the normative vision of the social normative type. They have dethroned warriors. They have dethroned priests. And they have as well misrepresented third state, because the bourgeois hates peasants, because it exploits him. He doesn’t let him sell his things openly because he buys it by itself and they make a speculation. They are speculator. They don’t produce anything and they make kind of balls of money in order to manipulate with production. Bourgeois is unproductive. Peasants were productive.

    At the same time, bourgeois were partly peasant. Because they came to town from where? Some part from other ethnic groups or some marginal groups, they became bourgeois. But the majority, the growth of the bourgeois state was from peasant. But now we see the real noological mystery. But who were the European peasants? They were the members of the civilization of Cybele under control of Indo-European horizon. And when they were turned from this controlled structure, the Cybelian origins of the peasantry could be revealed. So that is a kind of liberation of the deepest level of peasant European identity taken from the special Christian and traditional aristocracy, feudal vertical society was liberated. So they were bearers of some very ancient archetypes of ancient collective unconsciousness that was reanimated precisely in the moment of the end of the middle ages.

    So we see that modernity and all political theories that were developed in the later phases of modernity dealt with this bourgeois organization. The pure and the most important glorification of bourgeois is liberalism. It is dealing with idiots (idiots in the semantical sense) because the man devoided of any kind of collective identity is idiot (Ιδιώτης) in Greek sense. Liberalism is from the beginning, idiotism. So that is glorification of idiots. The individual is devoided of any collective identity, it’s clear. But the Communism is dealing with the same concept. Communists hated as well peasants. They think that everything is developing in the city. And the poor bourgeois are proletariat. The rich bourgeois are bourgeois. But both of them are purely modern (in the conceptual structural sense) industrial figures living in the city, not outside of the city. So Communism was the idea that poor bourgeois should overcome rich bourgeois and create the society where proletariat should dominate over bourgeois. But who are proletariat? They were ex-peasants coming to the city. And these ex-peasants were devoided, precisely in the Communism conception, from relations with the traditional society. And that was positive in the eyes of Communism. So they were no more peasant and being no more peasant in Communist eyes was the same as having no relations with religion, with the cult, with the culture, with the language, with the traditions, and so on. They were as well, the other form of idiots. There were rich idiots, or more or less easy idiots, bourgeois as basic figure of liberalism. And there were poor idiots as proletariats. But they should be cut from tradition, from traditional state (priests, warriors, or peasant). And they should be put in the artificial commercial structure, commercial spaces of the modern bourgeois city. That was one of the ideas of Communism. And that was good. If we read Marx’s manifesto, the majority of it is dedicated to what Marxist Communism is not. Marx and Engels stressed that it is not enough to be anti-bourgeois to be Communist. It is necessary to be post-bourgeois and not pre-bourgeois. And the criticism of the first part of the manifesto of the Communist party was directed against so-called aristocracy, anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist tradition that were as well anti-bourgeois but pretending to restore some pre-bourgois, in comparison to feudal or traditional society, Communists should be on the side of bourgeois, of capitalism, but they should not only destroy traditional society. They should help to destroy traditional society but afterwards, the poor citizens of the city (bourgeois is the bourger, someone who lives in the bourg, in the city, in town) poor citizen should overcome rich citizens. So proletarians as bourgeois are absolutely un-traditional. They are two semantically idiotic concepts because there is rich idiot and poor idiots. And poor idiots in the Communist vision should take richness from rich idiots and distribute among the idiots. And where are peasants in this situation? They should be transformed into proletariat. They should be brought to the cities. That is the concept of how to merge the villages with the city. The village was the enemy of Marxism, of Communism. So villages should be destroyed and transformed into city and the peasants should be transformed into workers and workers should be normally industrial workers living in the city, working in the fabric. So that is as well mechanical vision. That was materialistic as well as Liberalism. That is the second political theory.

    Third political theory was as well absolutely Cybelian. That is maybe difficult for Serbians with patriotic feeling. But the idea of modern state is artificial creation. Modern state is based on the destruction of empire. Modern state is based on the social contract. And nation is artificial creation of bourgeois. Nation is purely bourgeois concept. It is not organic community, with the state, with warriors, with priests, with peasants. The nation is the concept in center of which is the chauvinistic and egoistic citizen of the city. And the state is created as the city, not as empire. And the peasants as well were considered to be secondary form. They live between one city and the other. They have no proper space. They were considered as citizen. But the term citizen; city is town. Peasant is not citizen. He is villager. In the normative concept of political nationalism, peasants were included. We should speak of citizens and villagers for example. But we are speaking only about citizens. Because we consider peasants to be the citizens of the second sort, so they were politically sub-human in some way in nationalist, communist, and as well liberal concepts. So that was the split in the third function in the beginning of modernity. The split between traditional Indo-European peasantry and this ex-peasantry of ex-peasants coming to town and becoming bourgeois or proletarian or nationalist. That is why all three political theories, Communism, Liberalism, and Nationalism are absolutely Cybelian. Because modern nationalism is modern, is based on the bourgeois concept. That is artificial unity of the citizens that accentuates not only the freedom of commerce, but most the defense of their own commercial interests by a nation, bureaucracy, or state.

    Now we could apply that to geosophy of Europe. Where did modernity start? Modernity stated partly in Italy, partly in the northern part of Europe, but the most clear and most bright examples of modernity was Great Britain that began creation of this bourgeois version. That was not revolutionary bourgeois but evolutionary bourgeois history. They tried to introduce more and more bourgeois elements in the government. So Hobbes was one of the English political theorists. But with Cromwell and with Protestant revolution, that was bourgeois revolution. And the killing of the tsar, of the monarch was a kind of symbolic action of dethronement of the traditional Indo-European Logos. Protestantism was as well as we have seen, a kind of titanism inside of Christianity. And all these elements, the development of bourgeois, the killing of monarch, and Protestantism, that was England that was in the center. And the fight of Englishman against Celt-Catholic was inner drama. Because the modernity was on the side of Anglo-Protestants and tradition in their case, in this bi-polar case of English culture, tradition and continuity was on the side of the Celt. That is why the Celts were in that sense, the last defenders of more or less traditional society, in front of purely modernist Cybelian English society.

    It is very interesting that there was traditional concept of four Empires in Christian culture. The first empire was Assyrian. The second empire was Achaemenid. The third empire was Greek. And the fourth empire was Roman. That was put into context with prophet Daniel’s vision of the giant with the gold head, silver breast, bronze thighs, and iron feet. Iron feet represented Roman Empire, most radical but traditional empire. This tradition had some ties with Katehon. That was transition of Katehon. The Roman Empire was considered to be the last one, where Christ was born. So we have normal concept of four empires. And fourth empire was Roman. Roman and Byzantine were the same, including all the continuation with third Rome and so on with Russia and Bulgarian kingdoms and so on. And the idea was that in the English British revolution, there was the concept of the fifth empire. Fifth empire was called fifth monarchism. That was the tendency that that should be the other empire, beyond Roman one (that was considered beyond the Rome as Catholic). That was a kind of modern, secular, Protestant empire and that was called fifth monarchism. There were two versions of it. In Dutch, in Holland there was Jewish version of it that the fifth empire should be Jewish one. That was among the Jews of the circle of the philosopher Spinoza. And that was Anglo-Saxon concept of fifth monarchism. And they were linked with the same circles of English Protestants living in Holland and coming back to England to give the status of fifth monarch to Cromwell.

    But in the story of this giant that is a symbol of this fourth Empire, there is concept that in the iron feet of the giant, there is sand, we could say. And this sand is the fifth element in giant. And thanks to this sand, the giant will fall. So there is a kind of symbol of anti-Christian, post-Christian, post-traditional element, fifth element of sand that makes all this empire unstable. So the fifth empire is precisely the end of empire, the destruction of empire, the destruction of traditional order. It has to do with sand, the fifth element in the vision of Daniel. That is the concept of fifth element or fifth monarchy that was British Empire. British empire was anti-empire that was based on bourgeois concept of nationalism and liberalism (socialism was absent). That was the first and the third political theories represented in this British Empire. So the British Empire was the first modern empire that was anti-traditional empire and that was one of the main sources, philosophical as well with the philosophy of common sense. Common sense philosophy is absolutization of the little individual with idiotic scale of thought, with no great revelations, absolutized mediocrity represented by Reid and by Ferguson. And that was the basis of North American society because these Scottish philosophers of common sense were considered to be philosophical fathers of North American society. That was glorification of idiotic mind with very narrow interests, with pragmatism, with little concern as development of Protestant titanism and positivism. I’m calling that positive subject. That is second man in the three man theory of Tauler (German mystic). That was evolutionary bourgeois concept.

    But at the same time in France, there was preparation of revolutionary bourgeois concept with its culmination in the French Revolution, with the concept of purely anti-Christian motivation, with scarlet woman as the symbol of the freedom, with the killing of monarch. That was as well the other revolutionary form, with socialism already, with the concept of preparing socialism and social democracy, the idea of absolute immanence, openly anti-Christian not in the Protestant way but purely atheistic and materialistic. Enlightenment theory was a kind of culmination of all of this modernity. Modernity started with that, with the revenge of Cybele. And all the history of modernity was a kind of purification of this noological pattern. The civilization of Cybele became more and more and more Cybelian. All traces of the previous Indo-European society were purged, were cleansed. That was a kind of creation from more and more perfect Logos of Cybele. For example, what was revolutionary 300 years ago, after that was considered conservative. So new and new stages. But that was construction of very ancient type of civilization.

    And when we are dealing with modern feminism, that is the finalization of the process. It is not the beginning of something. So now Cybele appears as it is. This march of Madonna in New York against Trump, with hundreds of thousands of women with rose cat disguise in order to kill the Trump is a kind of call for castration of the male figure. They try to sacrifice Trump as a symbol of the patriarchate. He is macho, male, a symbol of the previous stage of civilization. So it is modern feminism and politics and minds in education and social norms, and juridical acceptance of homosexuality that was the part of the Cybelian procession. Homosexuality was a kind of part of typically Cybelian cult. They participate in the procession as special type of priests. The homosexuals are priests of Cybele. So now everything has come back to the pure image of that. But feminism didn’t start yesterday and doesn’t start today. Feminism started with titanism. The modernity was metaphysically feminist, because materialist, because orientated against this heroic type of patriarchy, of Indo-European culture. Bourgeois is feminist class already because it is not warrior and it is not worker. It is parasitic class. That is the worst form of feminine nature. It is not Indo-European or Christian concept of femininity. It is something completely different. It is Cybelian femininity. And Werner Sombart has said that capitalism began with the mistresses because when the people had wives, they were not so obliged to have more and more money, but having mistresses, they were obliged to participate in the speculations more and more because they needed excessive amounts of money, and mistresses were parasites that demanded more and more with no work and so on. According to Werner Sombart, that was a kind of motivation of capitalist development of capitalist society. It is anecdotal but it is sociological anecdote.

    All our science is feminist because it is materialist and Cybelian. We are living in the world of Cybele in the modernity. We will speak about that later tomorrow in the last session of lectures, but we are living inside of this kind of civilization. The moment of noomahia we are living in is the moment of revenge of pre-Indo-European existential horizon, artificially with bourgeois, organic but very ancient with our scientific world vision, based on this lowest level of the peasant identity of European peasantry. So we have a kind of special image now of modernity that is explained as well with Christian vision. That is the end of Katehon. The Katehon has fallen. The Katehon was the king, the tsar, the emperor that defended traditional society and that was defeated by modern political system with democracy, national state, globalization today. And that was the same fate for Christian faith. That was the fate for all three traditional functions, because there are less and less peasants. We have no peasants in Europe. We are losing them. Everybody is citizen. Everybody is bourgeois (poor bourgeois proletarian or rich bourgeois). We are living precisely in the post-Katehonian cycle. That is when Satan is liberated and when there is a kind of intrusion of underground tendency that we see around us. So everything fits well in this noological analysis. Now we see that this noology could appear a little bit abstract, a little bit too metaphysical, has to do with the reality we’re living in. We are inside of this noomahia. We are a part of this fight and the battle of the Logos. We could not be free from that. We are defined absolutely. Everything in us is defined by this moment of noomahia. We consider the reality as we are taught, as it is imposed. We could not deal with reality as such. We are dealing with reality through a type of reading, through a paradigm. And this paradigm is defined now by the Logos of Cybele.

    But the knowledge that there are two other Logos helps us to see relativity of modernity and to put the modernity into the context of noology and to define as well the geosophical place we are in. So if France and England were the first in order to promote this in the geosophy of Europe, Latin worlds and Austrian empire resisted against them. Russia resisted more than other. Ottoman Empire resisted because that was as well traditional society. But when traditional empires had fallen, new modern states appeared. And being modern, they were doomed if we think they could transmit traditional spirit. Modernity and tradition are incompatible. Creating a national state instead of a traditional kingdom, we are already doomed. The creation of modern state, Russian or Serbian, is the end of Russia and Serbia. That will be the state, modern but not Russian and not Serbian. What is modern could not be really Serbian or Russian or German. It is already simulacrum. It is already something Cybelian. That is why, anticipating the next lecture, maybe that could explain as well some aspects of modern Serbian history, of Yugoslavia, Serbia, because after liberating from Ottoman Empire that was traditional, that was the chance for revival and the chance was lost (for many reasons). In the next lecture, we will maybe openly discuss that (I have some concept). But in order to finish, I think that noology and geosophy now gives us the key to interpret the world we live in.

28. Introduction to Noomakhia: Serbian Logos [Lecture 9] - Alexander Dugin

    

    Let us concentrate on the Serbian Logos. First of all, it is sure and certain there is such thing as Serbian Dasein or Serbian existential horizon. That is absolutely sure because there is the Serbian people. And having Serbian people, that means that there is such thing as Serbian Dasein and Serbian existential horizon. As long as I know, there is no one who has dedicated to describe fully Serbian Dasein with Heideggerian categories, but it is up to some level, the technical task. If we understand what we have said about noology, about Dasein, about existential horizon, and knowing being and time of Heidegger, we could apply his categories (he called that existentials) special categories to describe Dasein. And it is technical task to apply that to Serbian Dasein.

    In my second book on Heidegger that is called Martin Heidegger: The Possibility of Russian Philosophy, I made the same for Russian Dasein. And I have arrived at the conclusion that Daseins are different, because Russian Dasein appeared to have some different kind of existential, based on the different structure of Russian existential horizon. And that is a kind of example you could use in order to repeat the same thing for the Serbian Logos or Serbian Dasein, in order to explore the possibility of Serbian philosophy. As long as I know, there is no such kind of Serbian philosophy as something clear, complete. There are Serbian philosophers but there is no such thing as Serbian philosophy, as well as Russian. There is no Russian philosophy. There are Russian philosophers, very brilliant or less brilliant, but there is no such kind as Russian philosophy. We started to create something like that at the end of the 19th century, many years after the existence of German, French, Latin, and Greek philosophy (thousand years after). And that was interrupted in our history with Communists that have finished this process. And now we tried to come back to the moment we have stopped. And that is not yet success. We are still outside, in Russian history, of the moment where the process of manifestation of Russian religious philosophy was interrupted. So comparing with Serbia, maybe it could serve as example. I’m not sure whether there is such kind of serious effort to create Serbian philosophy. It is always possible because there is Serbian Dasein. But to reveal it, to put it in the form of Logos, is not technical problem. We could technically approach to that but to do that we need some Serbian genius and I am sure that it belongs to the present and the future, and not to the past. In the past, we have a kind of philosophical, existential, historical ground for that.

    But we could make a kind of short, preliminary analysis of what is Serbian existential horizon. The first fact of the Serbian historical sequence is arrival of so called unnamed prince to the Byzantium where he was accepted by the Byzantine Emperor. The tradition affirms that this unnamed prince was from White Serbia that is identified somewhere in the north of the Eastern Europe. More or less, one of the theories is that had something to do with Lusatia (Lausitz, Łužica), with Serbs, with one of the Polabian Slav tribes – Łužici, Łužicane and Obotrites (Obodrzycy). And the last traces of it are actual Lusatian Serbs or Sorbs. That is one of the theories. So there is a kind of Serbian motherland that is situated not in the Balkans but to the north of the Balkans. At the same time there is the question of the urheimat of Slavs, motherland of Slavs. That is situated to the north of the Carpathian Mountains. That was not original Serbian place but the proto-Slavs lived to the north of the Carpathian Mountains in the space of the Western Ukraine actually. And there was as well situated White Croatia and White Croats were near to that. And after expansion of the slavs, part of the slavs emigrated to the north of the Baltic states and among the other Polabian Slavs. They were the dominating population of the 5th and 6th centuries of the coasts of the Baltic Sea. And one of these Polabian tribes, Lutici, Obotrites and Lusatian, are presumed to be Serbian ancestors, living to the west of all the other Polabian tribes. And from this point, the ancestors of Serbs arrived to the Balkans and after first settling to the East of Balkans. And after that the Byzantine Emperor granted the territories to the present day Serbia as a kind of territories in order to defend the Byzantine Empire against Avar that have created their cognates in Pannonia, part of Romania, and modern day Hungary. So that is conventional history. There are many alternative versions but let us take that as a kind of orientation.
    So what is interesting is the name of the territory of Polabian Slaves. That was called the European Sarmatia. And that was dominated by the Sarmatian tribes. So the Slavs were very closely connected with Sarmatians, Iranian nomadic groups of population that occupied almost all of Eastern Europe as population but much more as ruling class. And from these Sarmatian groups were created a kind of ruling class of Eastern European society. This idea was developed in Poland who traced the roots of their aristocracy to the Sarmats, and the same for Balts. It seems that when we study the type of the society of Polabian Slavs, that they were Turanian in our sense. They were very very warrior. They had not so much developed peasantry. The major feature of the Polabian Slavs was their warrior-like attitudes, having the horses and the veneration of horses. And they were very independent. They couldn’t tolerate any power above them. So they were Sarmatian, Turanian type. They spoke Slavic languages but with many Sarmatian features. We could not say anything for sure about the balance between Sarmatian aristocracy and Slavic population but the type of Polabian Slavs was Sarmatian and Turanian with serious amount of aristocracy, of noblemen, warrior with horse. And that is Turanian type of society.
    What is interesting is that there was a different between this Polabian type of Sarmatian Slavs and Sclavins, the other Slavic group coming to the Eastern Balkans with Avars. There dominated more peasantry. So the Serbs coming to Balkans were the bearers of this Sarmatian spirit. And that affected Serbian identity. After the peasantry was developed and Slavification of Thracians and maybe pre-Thracians population was accomplished because the territory where the first Serbians settled in the Balkans belonged before them to Thracians, Thracian society was mixed between three functional Indo-European society and the rest of the traces of the pre-Indo-European peasantry belonging to the ancient civilization of Great Mother. So Serbs settled over this existential horizon, assimilated, affected, and finally created a special Serbian people with differences from Bulgarian people (precisely Macedonians). The dominating identity of the early Serbs was precisely this warrior type of human being. So peasantry was very secondary and wasn’t dominating in the beginning. That is why special Serbian character was formed basing on this Polabian Sarmatian type. So Serbs were considered as warrior first. So that was a kind of pre-hajduk type. So small Serbs, big Serbs, everybody was a knez; little knez, small knez, big knez. And that was a kind of nomadic Iranian tradition, not having the great tsardom, not having the other rule over the other. And that was a kind of aristocratic society, mixed with the previous population that was as well included in the Serbian society. But the balance, for example in Russia, Russian society peasant style is absolutely dominating. So that was the peasant society and the tales and the folklores and the stories about bogatyrs were based on the peasant figure or they were of foreign origins. So for example in Eastern Slavs and above all in Russian society there was not Slavic aristocracy. All Russian aristocracy was not of Slavic origins. They were Germans, they were maybe as well Sarmatians, but not Slavic. In Serbian case, it’s not the case. There were many aristocracy families from the very beginning. Not one, not only dynasty but many other; secondary thirdly. Up to a certain point the Serbians were aristocracy or considered themselves to be. The aristocracy is the image. If you are knez you behave like knez (prince). That is the kind of attitude. And that was dominating attitude.
    Similar situation was with Polish people. Everybody pretended to be szlachcic. Almost one third of the population was szlachcic (prince, aristocracy). In Russia for example there was less than one percent of the population belonging to the aristocracy and in Poland, one third. So in Serbia, maybe like that, half the population were considered to be knez, small knez aristocracy. But that is very important. That is warrior tradition of Sarmatian type. That was a kind of very important starting point for studying Serbian identity that, we could identify, including in the 21st and 20th century. So that is the very stable tradition of Serbian psychology. So when we have this type of society or existential horizon, it’s very difficult to construct the state because nobody wants to submit to the authority of the other. So everybody is its own authority and there is no other authority. That is a kind of aristocratic anarchy in this kind of existential horizon. That is the constant feature of Serbian history.
    The next element was the influence of the Byzantine culture. So Serbs were Christianized, living under protection of Byzantines. And that was acceptance of the Christianity in the Eastern form. That was not so clear in the early phases because there was no split before. When Serbs were Christianized, there was not clear difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There was unity that was split later. But nevertheless, the dominant influence over Serbs was exercised by Byzantines. And that as well was in the beginning of the Balkan Serbia and that is in the end now. So that is very stable factor of Christian Orthodox Byzantine tradition. But we have spoken yesterday that Byzantine tradition of Orthodoxy is not only religious tradition. It is as well cultural, political, and social. So Serbs were integrated in the context of the Byzantine empire with Katehon as the concept, with the patriarch as the head of the church, and as well popular Christianity that integrated pre-Christian tradition of the holidays, of the pre-Christian figures, in the context of Christian saints, festivals, and so on. So popular Slav, Serbian Christianity was as well not so much exclusive in front of the pre-Christian tradition but inclusive. So Serbian Christianity included many pre-Christian types of tradition, figures; Petak, Sveta Nedelja, Svetac George, Prorok Ilija or Sveti Nikolaas the new archetypes for pre-Christian Indo-European patriarchal figures (mostly). So if we want to know pre-Christian Serbian tradition, it is not only folklore or folk songs or pagan myths that are conserved in the very small quantity but correct analysis of Serbian Christian tradition could show us much more about pre-Christian culture of Serbian people than for example artificial postmodern reconstruction of paganism. So if we want to understand what was before Christianity, we need to analyze Serbian Christianity and concentrate on certain figures and festivals and traditions linked to Serbian Christian saints and the special days of the calendar and so on. Because that was inclusive.
    But what was included? Precisely we have already made the analysis that was the one level of Indo-European patriarchal tradition that was linked with pre-Serbian Thracian existential horizon but reinforced as well by first Serbs, who were bearers of the same vertical structure. And in Greek Byzantine tradition they met with a very similar concept, and Thracian tradition very similar, and in Roman tradition, and in Hellenistic tradition. That was around Platonism that was all created. In pre-Christian Serbia, in Christian Serbia, in Thracians, Byzantines, Romans, that was a kind of Indo-European level but at the same time there was a paleo-European tradition and existential horizon that was very powerful here, more powerful than in the north of Europe. So in the north of Europe, in the Polabian White Serbia, the motherland of Serbs, there were lesser elements of the matriarchal type but they could exist from Cucuteni–Trypillia culture as the traces as well to the north and to the east but in the lesser scale than in the Balkans.
    There was a kind of matriarchal dimension that was as well embedded in the newly created Serbian identity. That was the motherland of the matriarchal civilization. Here in Balkans that was very strong. And that explains partly what Gasparini (Italian author) called Slavic matriarchy. There was no such kind as Slavic matriarchy but influence of matriarchy in the Balkans was very strong and embedded in Serbian tradition. That was reflected in the Vila history in some Gestalt, in some feminine images of the folk songs and folk traditions, or in the very ancient song of Skadar, creation of Skadar, when the woman was blocked in the wall. That was the origin of the creation of the city. It is a purely Cybelian story about the creation of the city of Skadar. It is very tragic, very romantic, but matriarchal. That was not so much Sarmatian by Serbian. That was Balkanic. And we have exactly the same pattern in Romanian culture with Meșterul Manole, putting in the wall of the most beautiful church created in the Argeș in the Carpathian Mountains by Meșterul Manole who was obliged to put there his wife who was as well pregnant as in the song of Skadar.
    So the idea is that some matriarchal aspect of very ancient Balkanic matriarchal civilization as well had these elements embedded in the existential horizon of Serbs. And we need to measure this influence. We could not say for sure how deep this influence was. It is certainly that there was such influence. It was mirrored in the Serbian peasant tradition on some level, not in the whole tradition. Because that was male tradition, based on the heavy plow that could be managed only be men laborers, but there were many traditions that linked woman with the earth, with the crop, with laboring the earth, that we need to identify more in order to have a concrete picture or image of this deepest level of Serbian identity. So that was a kind of preliminary analysis of the Serbian Dasein. But the new edition of this Dasein begins with Nemanja dynasty. As well Christianization was made in the context of the Great Moravia and Cyril and Methodius tradition. So that was already something Slavic in all that. So Serbians have received Christian tradition in the Cyrillic, in the Slavic way. And that was very important step because that was in the religious sense linked to Bulgarian initiative to organize the special kind of Slavic Christian church, so called sixth Patriarchy declared by the Bulgarians in order to have independence and autonomy for Slavic Christianity. And that was the claim to create first Slavic patriarchy, independent in the first Bulgarian kingdoms after Christianization. So Serbs were in the same conceptual field. Acceptance of the Orthodox Christianity, but in the Slavic form, with Church Slavonic, which was unique Bulgarian language that was elaborated in the Great Moravia, accepted in Bulgaria and in Russia. So Church Slavonic language is not Russian or Serbian. It’s much more Bulgarian. Or it is considered to be one of the special south Slavic languages (church Slavonic).
    But what is important is that Serbs were integrated into Christian society not only with Byzantine domination but as well in the Slavic context. And that was fully developed with Nemanja dynasty. So that was a kind of idea that now it is the time, and that was event in Serbian history, now it is the time with Nemanja to create Serbian kingdom, kingdom in the full Byzantine sense, repeating up to the same time, Bulgarian example. Because the Bulgarians were the first to claim Slavic kingdom and Slavic special autonomous church. So that was the kind of Bulgarian heritage, in the competition level a bit with Bulgarians but at the same time as continuation of the same. Great Moravia was lost for Orthodoxy and for Slavic special tradition and the time of Russia didn’t come or Romania, so there were two pretenses to create some independent Slavic Christianity in Byzantine sense, and now it appears literally, how important the context of kingdom in all that was, because Byzantine means a kind of empire. So they should be based on the symphonic relationship between the sacred king and the Patriarch or the head of the church. That was first made by Bulgarians in the first and the second Bulgarian kingdom. But with Nemanja and Saint Sava, that was repeated in the Serbian case.
    So creation of Serbian kingdom and Serbian Patriarchy in Peć was the same event as acceptance of the Katehonic mission. First the claim to be Katehon was made by Bulgarians and Macedonians (the same space). And with Nemanja, there was second claim. So the creation of Serbian state was preparation to take the heritage of the Byzantines and replace the mission of Katehon from universality of Byzantine Empire to Slavic world. And there was the Bulgarian pre-tendencies and Serbian. In certain moment, Bulgarians were dominating and Serbs were in the periphery of this, and with Nemanja there is a kind of growth and rise of this Serbian Katehonic tradition that has affected absolutely Serbian identity in the next period.
    But this Katehonian tradition based on the symphony between Serbian king and Serbian patriarch with seventh patriarchy (Serbian this time) was claim of Byzantine heritage. So we could say that Russia and the rise of Russia was a kind of Third Rome. Before that was Veliko Tarnovo in the second Bulgarian and Veliki Preslav Third Rome and now it is Russia Third Rome. It was second claim in the Slavic existential space to receive Byzantine Orthodox mission. So that was the concept - Serbian state, Serbian church, Serbian patriarchy, as Katehon. That was a kind already of form of Serbian Logos. Because all Christian tradition and the links and ties of Saint Sava with Mt. Athos, with all the monks’ metaphysical tradition of spiritual mystical Orthodoxy was brought to Serbia and put to the center of Serbian Christian Katehonic enlightenment linked with the concept of the sacred Serbian kingdom. It was considered in Nemanja's time already as proto-empire, Serbian empire that should include the world in it. Because the Katehonic tradition is the fight, as we have explained, against anti-Christ. So that was the Apollonian Dionysian mission of the tsar but by extension of the people. So Tsar, church, and people formed Katehonic unity. A kind of logical philosophical tool for that was the Byzantine tradition that included as Christianity the pre-Christian way of thinking and that was organization of the first and (I would say) greatest form of Serbian Logos. So with Nemanja, Saint Sava, Patriarchy of Peć, were laid the foundations of Serbian Logos. That is Serbian identity where existential horizon and Serbian Dasein has reached its height. So we could not imagine anything comparable or anything similar in all of Serbian history. So that was a kind of highest point, where the immanent Serbian Dasein has created a Serbian Logos in the state, in the Serbian religious tradition with St. Sava, and Serbian people as Katehonic people with the mission to fight against darkness with tsar, with kings, in the favor of Christianity. And that Serbian mission was for it. So Serbs essentially are bearers of that Serbian Logos formed and explicitly manifested in the time of Nemanja dynasty from very beginning.
    And that was the claim as well that opposed Serbian Katehonic expectations to Bulgarians. Because that was not opposition. They were kind of competitors. Because they had very similar post Byzantine, as well Slavic, as well Orthodox, as well Katehonic identity. So that was the roots of competition of two greatest Balkanic Slavic people, two versions of Katehonic society, independent from Byzantine Kingdom and political state and independent up to a certain point of Church organization. That was prefiguration of Great Russia, of Third Rome because there were two examples of something that was repeated in the fourth century of Russia. But that was made before us. The claim of Bulgarians and Serbs to be Katehonic Slavic people with eschatological mission in the war of light against the forces of darkness, defending Katehon was much earlier than Russian claim of the same. Russia maybe made more spectacular success in that, coming to the world power, but ideology was very similar or just the same. Russia Third Rome is the concept of translation of empire, repetition of Bulgarian example. But at the end of the Byzantine history, in the fifteenth century, there appeared a kind of height of this process, highest point. And that was Dusan the Strong.
    Dusan the strong created the real Empire that controlled almost all Balkans territory and the major part of Greece. And that was special and political space where this mission has obtained its concrete limits. So that was the greater Serbian empire that was made. It lasted not too long but Mt. Athos was included under control of Serbian King. So in the time of Dusan the Strong, there was a kind of concrete realization of this Katehonic tradition with Russia in the center and with very weak (at that time) Bulgaria. Bulgaria wasn’t a kind of alternative to that. So that was the highest point, the rise of Nemanja, and the highest point of this Logos. So the Logos was formed in the intellectual, spiritual, religious time in the beginning of Nemanja, and has reached its full special manifestation in the space, in the concrete reality, in the Baltics, in the time of Dusan the Strong. So all this Nemanja period was the period of birth, development, and maturation of the Serbian Logos. So the real Serbians that lived in that period were a kind of archetype. So to be Serb means to belong to this point of history. As for us, to be Russian, that means to belong to Ivan the Terrible time. So that was the height of our historical, spiritual, political and cultural achievement.
    So Serbian Logos is located there in time and in space. So there is the greater Serbian space and there is the greater Serbian time because the Logos in Byzantine and Slavic Christian historical situation was formed. So everything we have there and then is purely Serbian in any sense. Everything that existed before Nemanja was a kind of introduction. Everything that existed after Dusan the Strong was a kind of equal resounding of that, continuation, kind of consequences. That is the center of Serbian history and the highest point of Serbian Logos.
    After that was the very quick decline of that and the growth of Ottoman Empire. And the next point was the Kosovo Battle where the future of Katehon was decided. And the song of Kosovo battle, the song of King Lazar in the Vuk Karadjuc textbook is very revealing. I remand that you know better than everybody else that that was a kind of choice in front of King Lazar; to have царство небесное (heavenly kingdom) or to win in the Kosovo battle and to have царство земаљско (earthly kingdom). In both cases, he should fight. In both cases, the Serbs should come to the Kosovo battle and should participate. And every family that declined to be there are damned. That was the damnation of the King Lazar. So everybody should defend the Logos. But decision and the choice was to lose the earthly battle and to win the battle of light but fighting strongly and dying in the Kosovo field or to have the victory but to lose the fight for the light. That is Iranian tradition that the force and the army of light is weak. Because sometimes there is a time for light to win and darkness to overcome and the army of light has special limitations. It could not accept the weapon of the darkness. It could not betray its holy nature and holy essence and that are limitations because the devil and the darkness has no rule. It could easily overcome the nature. It is hubris, titanic forces. And the army of light has its rule. You could not win at any price. You should stay with Christ, with verticality up to the end. And that was the choice of King Lazar and decision was made - ‘I will go to fight against the Ottomans. I accept the loss. And I am sacrificing myself and my people in order to have heavenly Kingdom.’ So that was decision of the hero of light. That was a kind of transcendentalization of the Nemanja Kingdom and Empire and obtaining post-human post-mortem dimension of the Serbian Logos. That was the pure martyrdom and pure sacrifice of all Serbian people in order to come to heavenly Kingdom.
    So that was not the loss. That was the greatest victory. That was reflection of traditional Sarmatian ethics - to die in the battle in order to be immortal, to die in order to win. It is better to be defeated with Christ than to win with Satan. That was the main lesson of Kosovo battle. And when we read the song of the Kosovo Battle, there was not glorification only of humility of Serbs but the greatest braveness. So they fought up to the end. They destroyed everything they could, including the chief of the Ottoman army. So that was heroic battle. The battle was very serious. But decision was made beforehand. That was purely Christian, purely Sarmatian, purely Indo-European decision and not something casual. Not defeat in front of the material force and power. So that is the kind of assumption of Serbia, passing from the earthly Serbia to heavenly Serbia. And that was accomplishment of Katehonical mission. That was the fight against anti-Christ and that was defeat. And there came the end.
    So after that, the next period of Serbian history was to be in Hell and to conserve identity in Hell. Not betray it, not converting to Islam, not accepting the rules of dominating power, but conserve its Nemanja identity, its profound identity, its Christian Orthodox Slavic identity with all the suffering. That was the history of suffering, being in the historical Hell for centuries. So that is very dramatic. But what is important is that was not meaningless. That was continuation and consequence of the period of greatest and a new divine test for Serbian people and creation of the introduction of resurrection. That was the dying process in order to resurrect. That was not meaningless suffering. That was completely meaningful suffering. That was eschatological test in order to resurrect, but resurrection of Serbian Logos.
    The next moment in Serbian Logos was precisely the moment when the opportunity to liberate Serbian people from Ottoman control came. That was new challenge to Serbian Logos. And what did Serbs do in that situation? There was one part of tradition. There was a kind of monarchistic, imperial, Orthodox, Serbian, patriot, archaic. So they conserved the elements of the real and profound Serbian Logos that was in direct connection with the Serbian Dasein itself, the core of its Dasein. Because there was a kind of Orthodox Serbian, conservative imperial tradition that continued to be present in the end of the Ottoman rule. And that was a very great inspiration that was in all the Serbian people. And in the part of Serbian aristocracy there appeared Obrenović and Karađorđević trying to incorporate this spirit and this identity in order to restore Serbian kingdom, greater Serbia with Orthodox Serb identity, with Logos, following Nemanja’s example of kind of resurrection of the Serbian Logos after traumatic period of suffering.
    But the time when this appears, when Ottoman Empire was destroyed, that was modern time, when the Cybelian Logos dominated, and when the west was already under full domination of this modern world vision, where there was no place for such kind as Apollonian Logos, Christian tradition, empire, kingdom, or warrior heroic values. All that was discredited and destroyed in the West. So the west power fighting against Ottomans tried to use this will of the Serbian people to restore its identity as a tool in order to destroy Ottoman Empire that was traditional, to destroy Austrian Empire, and to block Russian expansion in the Balkans. So they organized masonic structures in Serbia, they made education of the Serbian nationalists in the republican spirit, and they tried as well to enter in this process of liberation in order to propose their nationalist vision (3rd political theory), liberal vision (1st political theory), and after with Tito and the other, 2nd political theory. All three political theories were a kind of network (мрежа or сеть) put over Serbian identity but with no connection. That was a kind of suffocating network in order not to reveal it in a proper sense and to deviate Serbian energy and Katehonic revival in the other sense.
    But there were kind of many Logois in that Serbian liberation. There was inner profound Nemanja Katehonic identity, the pure Serbian Logos. There was western European influence. There was Russian pragmatic or Orthodox Empire, very friendly Logos maybe by pragmatical reasons by affinity of Third Rome and Moscow with the same opposition against western powers. There was a kind of different form of what I’m calling archaeo-modernity. Archaeo-modernity is not modernity as in the west. As in the west there was tradition and diminishing of tradition was the growth of modernity (so either modernity or tradition). But archaeo-modernity is where tradition and modernity coexisted in a very bad and sick way. You have something or you have something opposite. You have tradition or you have modernity. That was the case for Western Europe. But for Russia or Serbia, there was archaeo-modernity. You are at the same time for modernization and at the same time for archaic roots. So that created a kind of schizophrenic society. Russian society after Peter the Great is purely archaeo-modern and schizophrenic.
    I presume something like that was producing here. Serbian Logos was after the end of the Ottoman Empire schizophrenic and archaeo-modern when legitimate claims to restore Serbian Logos were mixed with modernist republican liberal socialist nationalist tradition. They blocked both because they are two Logos. Modernity is the Logos of Cybele and inner Serbian Logos is the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Dionysus. So that was deep noological contradiction that wasn’t remarked, wasn’t accepted as such, and wasn’t cured and that created sick society because archaeo-modern is sick society. That is the case for many other societies. But the difference between the western society and the archaeo-modern society is precisely that in Europe, modernity entered in the society in the logical way, following Aristotelian logic (modernity or tradition. If you have something modern in that place you shouldn’t have something tradition). So you destroy, for example, monarchy and you install republic. And that was the same. Church or atheism. In archaeo-modern society, atheism and church, republic and kingdom, tradition and modernity coexist in a very bad way without remarking each other. That creates a double interpretational reading. So everything is double. It’s purely bipolar disease because you see something, you interpret in two contradictory ways at the same time. So there is democracy or is no democracy. Democracy and dictatorship is the same.
    So that is not Dionysian but what we have called, according to Gilbert Durand, mystical nocturne. You see one thing and you call it completely different name. That is schizophrenic attitude because that is split of personality. And in Western Europe there was the clear personality; you accept modernity or you accept tradition. In our society that was archaeo-modernity. You accept both. Serbian Logos and liberalism or communist or nationalism that belongs to completely different context without noticing it. It is not conscious lie. It is unconscious lie. Conscious lie is when we know the truth and we hide the truth but unconscious truth is when we don’t know the truth and don’t care about it. So we are lying just because not having any interest to the truth at all. So that is archaeo-modernity and I presume that to the end of the Ottoman Empire, in the beginning of the independence of modern day Serbia was precisely this element - this mixture between Chetniks, between Communists, between Liberals, between Masons, between traditionalism, between Orthodox Popes and all this mixture was completely archaeo-modern with no clearly defined line of division.
    That was creation of Yugoslavia. First Yugoslavia had two contradictory readings in the same. Majority of the Serbs have seen in that restoration of the Greater Serbia and that was to end of the Karađorđević rule that has produced the reactions of everybody else (above all the reactions of Croats). Because that was kind of how the Serbs saw Yugoslavia. That was the rule of Serbs, the re-creation of the Greater Serbia, and return to the Dusan Dynasty in new situation but at the same time that was republic with completely modernist ideology, with balance of the interest, and bourgeois type in the center. So the materialist, commercial, and egoist element were dominant in the nationalist or liberal sense. That was the archaeo-modern mixture of the society. And that was the reason of misunderstanding of the components of Yugoslavia. That was not internationalism. That was not purely liberalism. That was not empire. That was not confederation. That was something archaeo-modern.
    And any pole in early Yugoslavia had its own reading of what was going on. So for the Serbs that was the victory and as well for the radical Chetniks that was the kind of return to the roots, that was the kind of accomplishment of the mission of Katehonic tradition. For the other that was conventional, purely multi-national confederation organized by purely pragmatical materialistic bourgeois reasons. There was multiplicity of the reading of Yugoslavia. There was the end with German occupation. And the fight of two powers; communist partisans and Chetnik and monarchist partisans. That was where the future of Yugoslavia after the Second World War defined in this fight. And the victory of the Soviet Union of the Nazi regime was the reason why second political theory dominating in Eastern Europe and in Yugoslavia as well.
    So the new Yugoslavia was based on the second political theory but at the same time that was the new reading of what is Yugoslavia, with the Marxism completely strange to the concrete development of rural peasant Serbian society with archaic tradition, with partly modernized cities and that was the new kind of archaeo-modernity where the pure form of the Serbian Logos was prohibited. That was put out, was considered to be dissident, and Chetniks were persecuted as counterrevolutionary tendencies. So the pure Orthodox version of Serbian Logos was prohibited. There was a kind of domination of the second political theory of Marxism, absolutely Cybelian. And that was a kind of new Yugoslavia.
    But when the second political theory began to shake in the Soviet Union, that as well affected Yugoslavia. And with Milosevic, Serbian reading of Yugoslavia has reappeared. So that was a kind of nationalistic reaction, not clear philosophically and not explained. But intuitively that Serbian fight for Yugoslavia was the fight for this Katehonic reading of Serbian state. That was as well the last greatness of fight of the Serbs for Република Српска, for Српска Крајина, Книнска Крајина, Slovenia, Baranya, and Western Srijem? and in the last moment the fight for Kosovo against Albanians. So the Serbs with Milosevic, considered Yugoslavia as Katehonic entity unconsciously, without saying it clearly, without explaining that. And saying that with very awkward language, trying to adjust this to communist, to nationalist agenda, to western liberal. So that was archaeo-modern version of Serbian Logos and that was defeated. But as any defeat of this kind of Logos, has something positive inside. As the fight of Kosovo, that is the fight for the light. In any Serbian hero that has given his life to defense of Yugoslavia, they have sacrificed their life for the case of this Logos of light, for the deeply Katehonian mission. In their case, there was no convention. That was the mistake. That was the clear breakthrough to the reality of the Serbian identity. They have invested the blood and life in this Serbian identity and that could not vanish without a trace. That was continuation of the Kosovo battle. That was continuation of the Serbian way through the history. And that was preparation for the future, for real eschatological, Katehonical Serbian future.
    After that, with the betrayal of Russia that has betrayed itself in the 90s and afterwards, there was a kind of actual moment of Serbian state. That was defeat recognized by society, by state, and by Serbian people. Russia could not be a kind of real alternative to modernization or to westernization. There is the first political theory that dominates now in purely Cybelian sense. But where is now the Serbian Logos? I presume that he is here. He is in Serbian people, in Serbian identity, in Serbian space, and in Serbian culture. And having received this defeat, this defeat should be first of all understood and deciphered, should be interpreted correctly in order to go further in the Serbian history because now the problem that we are facing with Serbian Logos is almost the same that we have with the other form of Apollonian Logos and Dionysian in Dionysian-Apollonian sense. So there is the huge planetary fight that is lost almost by everybody. Maybe we Russians have the image that we resist still or Syrian or Iranians still resist. But domination of the force that has overcome Serbian fight is not only the west or United States but something deeper. In that sensation, it should not be reason for despair. Because the force of Cybele or return of the Great Mother is a kind of coming of anti-Christ or liberation of Satan from the abyss and that was planned and let to happen by God. And that is the final test. I think that concerning Serbian Logos, now is the moment not to blame the state or the society, or Russian or western to do what they do but to concentrate precisely on the cultivation of this Logos instead of everything because it is planned test, maybe last one. Maybe not. Maybe there will be one more test, one more fight, one more chance, as you have as Serbs two chances; creation of first Yugoslavia and fight of Milosevic and nationalist renewal. Both chances were lost. Both. But maybe there will be the new one.
    If there is the living tradition, if there is living Serbian Dasein, it could make a kind of analysis of why that was lost, how we should not repeat the error of the other, how to defend the pure form of Serbian Logos against this attack, because nothing has ended yet. So when the Serbs are, there is Serbian Dasein, there is Serbian state. That’s already something. Maybe it’s a little bit awkward in actual situation but it is. And that is very important. That is already something to seize as opportunity, not as response, not as answer, but as something that is positive Serbian value. Serbian people, Serbian tradition, Serbian culture, Serbian heritage, Serbian state, Serbian church, Serbian Christianity. So we have many things now and because there is spiritual fight, not material. It has no comparison with material aspects. All that is secondary. If we fight the spiritual battle, we win everything. If we could win one Serbian heart, we could win everything. The fight is over and that is the victory. So that is the fight for human that is going inhuman. That is not material atomic confrontation between the masses of matter. There is the human spirit and the fight is inside of us and the Logos is inside of us. It’s not something that is imposed on us from outside. So we are the Logos and Logos acts through us. And Serbian Logos acts and lives through Serbs as everlasting or maybe not everlasting, lasting continuously up to the end of time.
    So I think that Serbian people were chosen in order to keep its identity up to the end of time and to reappear in the last moment of history on the side of God and Christ and Logos of Apollo and this verticality in order to participate in the general universal Kosovo battle or create the universal empire of light, empire of Christ, whose prefiguration was the Kingdom of Nemanja and Dusan the Strong. So that is more or less my exposition of Serbian Logos. And we could say as well that Yugoslavia and modern day Serbia were and are simulacrum of real Serbia. It’s clear. But simulacrum is as archaeo-modernity. It’s partly archaic and partly perverted and caricature. So we need to solve the problem of simulacrum and restore the authenticity and the pure state of what is not simulacrum and that is hiding behind simulacrum. So we need to deduce the grain of truth from that.

29. Introduction to Noomakhia: Noomahia in XXI Century [Lecture 10] - Alexander Dugin

    

    Now, this is the last lecture, the 10th lecture that is a kind of result of this course that could be considered as Introduction to Noomahia. The 10th lecture is dedicated to Noomahia in 21st century. In the sociology, they say, now we are living in the shift, the transformation from modernity to the post-modernity. So we have identified the modernity as return or revenge of the Logos of Cybele. Now we could ask, ‘what is the Logos of post-modernity?’ 'What kind of noological structure is it?’ The Logos of post-modernity is in some way the finalization of the Cybelian revolution. So that is the kind of bringing to the logical end, logical consequence of the previous modernity. So we should not be deceived by the anti-modern speech of the post-modernism. Post-modernism is essentially modern. It is the essence of the modernity. It is not alternative.

    The post-modernism as it is, in the French philosophy first of all, is based on the idea that modernity is not enough. So modernity is not pure modernity. That began with Frankfurt School when they said that ‘we need to enlighten enlightenment,’ that ‘enlightenment was not really enlightened so we need to purify the pure modernity’ and that is a kind of purge or ethnical cleansing of modernity, all the rest of what was tradition. So, post-modernity is an idea to bring the modernity to the end, to create the ‘pure modernity,’ In philosophical sense, it is the idea to gain the pure imminence, or pure matter, or pure body as in Deleuzian version. So everything in the modernity according to postmodernists was too much penetrated by the pre-modern, by tradition, for example, the reason. Human reason was a kind of slogan in the fight against the theocracy, against the church, and against theology. That was all made in the name of the human reason. That was the vanguard position of the modern fight.

    But postmodernists have discovered that after the victory of the human reason over theology, and creating absolutely autonomous science and philosophy, they, in new condition have encountered a kind of domination, a kind of philosophical fascism. But this time, human reason, human brains were considered to be radical dictatorship. So before, the idea in modernity was to liberate (‘liberalism’) human reason from theology. Now it is to liberate the human being from the reason because the reason is dictatorship. The reason predicts what to do. It deals with unbalanced radical hierarchical systems on the classes, on the classifications. So now, we need to come, in the postmodernity, with the next stage. Not the liberation ‘of' the reason, but the liberation ‘from' the reason.

    That is the concept of schizophrenic revolution of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari that was anti-Oedipus. For example, the concept of Freud was a kind of modern revolution against rationality. So that was as well an introduction to postmodernism, because the reason was put under question, under doubt, in order to explain the functioning of the brain on the reason by irrational motivation of subconsciousness. But Deleuze and Guattari in the pure postmodernity have discovered that was a reflection of the male understanding of the functioning of subconsciousness. And the complex of Oedipus was a kind of male projection, so they proposed to create a female, feminist psychoanalysis that will not be affected with some paranoid particularly male concept of irrational desire. So that was the idea to bring to the end, all the irrationalism and they have discovered that there are two types of the psychological system; paranoid one and schizophrenic one. The paranoid one was hierarchical and that was considered the reason is paranoid according to Deleuze Guattari, but schizophrenia when there is a kind of inner split of the self, its much more feminist, its much more equalitarian. So we need to promote schizophrenic attitude as the normative attitude of society. And that is as well the kind of fight against the brain and dictatorship of the brain. So we need to liberate the organs, different organs. They should behave at their will without this ‘Hitlerism’ of mind. So postmodernism is the fight against any kind of vertical hierarchies, not only traditional way but in the individual way as well.

    So that first was the fight against everything in the sake of individual and now that is the construction of individual itself that is considered to be too Apollonian (in our terms). Because the man is vertical, for example, it’s not normal. It’s creating a kind of privilege for the head, for the brain. It is at the top. We should make quite opposite. We should crawl as a serpent. We should give full freedom to our organs and consider our body not as kingdom of the reason, but as a kind of parliamentary assembly of the organs that could organize political parties, vote to take some decision, not only dictated by reason, but promoted and supported by the other organs. The most radical idea was that the organs themselves are totalitarian because they have too many special forms. They are adapted and adjusted to one mechanical function so we should consider the body without organs. That is the concept. So the body should exist without any form, without any organic state. That we could achieve during virtual existence. That is the two-dimensional space and we should emigrate into the network in order to fill not with organs but with all our body. So that is rhizome. It is the concept that should replace individual. Rhizome is network mankind that is not united and interacting with each other as individual with individual but with organ with organ, in the completely schizophrenic sense. So one hand could behave itself in its own way than the other part.

    So that is as well, dissipation of the personality with avatars, with names in the networks. We could change the gender, change the age, and everything, and personality. We could dissipate ourselves. And that is not only roles, because the man in sociology is the assembly of the roles. These social roles and relational games are dissipated and distributed through the network and there are new kind of rhizomatic.

    Rhizome in Greek is the root, but not the root of the plant, but the root as potato or mushroom. They are expanding not in the vertical but in the horizontal situation. And that is a kind of postmodern society that is the next step. That is not individual but dividual in some way. So there is a new stage of immanentism and materialism. It is not the materialism of the things. It is materialism of something that is below the things, beneath the things. Rene Guenon called that ‘infra-corporeal world’ and this ‘infra-corporeal world’ was peopled in the traditional religious understanding by purely underground beings. The idea to turn the man in the assembly of the daemons. That is the idea of Deleuze. And to open the possibility of the material spirit living through us and in us to reveal themselves and behave themselves freely as a kind of parliament of organs or desires and the machines of desires distributed through the network. This is a kind of destruction of any vertical forms including in the early liberal or capitalist version. Here there is a very thin change from classical liberalism (first political theory) in post-liberalism. That is the mixture between communism, or Marxism, not defending proletarian or the class struggle but defending materialism and egalitarianism united with liberalism. So postmodernism is a kind of cultural Marxism mixed with the liberalism (left liberalism). That is a new version. Old liberalism operated, dealed with the individual. And now that is dividual that is coming.

    Normal human reason is replaced by artificial intelligence. Networks should replace the normal relations. And virtuality is replacing reality. I have dedicated yesterday’s lecture, presentation of the book ‘network warfare’ partly to this postmodern horizon, postmodern perspective. The idea is to replace what was, in the paradigm of modernity, called reality by virtuality. So virtuality is not only reflection of the reality. It is very interesting moment. In virtuality there is reflection of reality or translation of something real in something digital. After that, that is work with digital. Improvement for the sound for example, or image, photoshop working on the photo and so on, or cleaning of the sound on the music, and new emulation of the purified image in the reality. Printing in a 3-D printer, for example, printing back the reality. So the most important thing is the autonomy of what is digitalized. So this reality that is separated in the numbers in the computer, is considered most important thing. For example, the credit card. So they are numbers, something electronic, that is calculation process. We put money on the card and we take money. It comes through virtual instance. Here is the possibility to make with our money everything because they are not material. And virtuality is the idea when we don’t make this kind of operation too often. We don’t transform reality into virtuality and we don’t emulate reality back. We are satisfied with staying with credit card. Not putting the money, not taking the money. We have credit card, and we are satisfied, we are happy. So, not trying to, how it works, not trying to put it back. We see how it works so we are happy with having a credit card.

    So, offline relations between, for example, dating. There is the photo; the photo of girl and photo of man (I presume normal relations). And there is online encounter, meeting, and there is offline. Offline can be disappointing but when you prove, you testify of the quality, the reality of the girl or young man you have seen in the internet in the reality, it’s a kind of emulation of this virtual personality. But we are invited in the postmodernity to accept these virtual images as they are. Living there, not making this proof, test how they are. You could create your personality, and after in the future, you could create your body. And that has already begun, emulation of body, printing on the 3-D printers different organs. This is purely avatar. Or for example, amelioration of the body now, with botox for example, fighting against the aging, or making some artificial adjustments to women figure or male figure as well (in modern western society). So there is a kind of emulation of body. In that process, we are losing a kind of individual. We became the combination of the parts. We could transform into numbers and calculational sequence and we could be emulated. We could disappear in virtuality and reappear in reality, passing maybe ameliorating some features. So that is not only reflection. That is something when virtuality becomes primordial, becomes something that goes first. So we could for example, emulate something that doesn’t exist in reality. For example, chimera, cyborg, centaurs, rusalki. We could print in the future and there are fantastic films about that, could print something that is not reflection of the reality, that is production of virtual fantasy. And we could people the world with these images and in some situations, when first we fire received credit card, we were not so confident with it, we tried to have some machine in order to take money to be sure that they are there. But now, little by little, we are happy with having card. We don’t testify anymore.

    We have more and more confidence in something virtual and we are replaced, we are transferred into the realm of virtuality and we become more and more virtual. Artificial intelligence is the kind of limit of it. There will be not anymore separate individuals. There will be a kind of network. Because artificial intelligence is not like one clever guy or girl. It is network distributed through many computers. That is neural network that is capable to create something new, to imagine something new.

    There are two different kinds of artificial intelligence; weak artificial intelligence and strong artificial intelligence. Weak artificial intelligence is already constructed. It is a kind of databases of many knowledge of humanity put into the digitalized way. There are great masses of books, of knowledge, of technology, all present in the computers. And we could immediately access this book and they are inside of memory. So if we could grant permanent access to that, we are inside of this weak artificial intelligence that could make calculations instead of us, make comparisons, translations of languages, so transmitting as well some semantic elements. And that is ameliorating each day Google translates from English and into English better, with other languages not so, but with English better and better. So we could see how this weak artificial intelligence progresses.

    But there is strong artificial intelligence. It’s appearance is awaited, anticipated for two thousand twenty, twenty five years, so it rests not so much time, and that is called singularity moment. Singularity moment is the appearance of the strong artificial intelligence that will be completely comparable with human. It will be not programmed operations but neural network. Neural network is algorithm (mathematical) that could create something that wasn’t from the beginning was put in. That is self development form of calculation. And the simplest neural network depends absolutely from operator. But developed neural networks are independent. More and more they become independent from operator so they could arrive at the conclusion that wasn’t planned by operator. In that manner, human reason functions. That is something that is autonomous but following some rules because human reason as well is following some rules. And this singularity moment is considered to be the shift, the greatest shift in human history when there will be not only human reason in the earth, or in the space. There will appear something comparable to us, but the next evolution, next step of human progress. That will be post-human species, post-human beings.

    And there is, in modern philosophy, a tendency that is called accelerationism that invites us to bring this singularity moment quicker, quick, now, accelerate towards this singularity situation. That is studied and done by great corporations, by Google, Microsoft, and others. That is as well a hedging process. They invest billions in the creation of artificial intelligence. And the billions as well in hedging, in security, trying to identify the threats of this. So that is hedge fund for artificial intelligence and the development projects for artificial intelligence.

    At the same time, the concept of what is human has changed in post-modernity. So post-modernity is going towards post-human, in new step of evolution. Because modernity is based on the concept that human beings appeared as a kind of progress of beast, so singularity is the next step. There was the development as a beast, after that the development as a man, after that development as a machine. But artificial intelligence is not machine. It’s something different. And what is interesting is that in order to have artificial intelligence, we need to understand that our brains as well are something artificial. So we could repeat our human brains only when they are considered to be something material, mechanical. And this is precisely the science of cognitivism, the conscious, the study of conscious body, conscious problem, trying to emulate the function of human reason. But in order to facilitate this, we need to turn present humans into machines. That will facilitate this process. And that is precisely the case.

    And now the present human beings are more and more like the other. We are more and more artificial, because political correctness is new kind of totalitarianism.

    They try to persuade us how its necessary to think, what is normative way of thinking, and praising the liberty and freedom. At the same time, we become less and less free. And any challenge to that process is regarded as a crime, as a mind crime, a crime of opinion. For example, if you don’t agree with that, you are Fascist, if you try to defend something, for example, Auschwitz or Stalinists, that’s the same. So you could not challenge evolution. You could not challenge the progress. For example, you could not say ‘stop let us conserve what is here.’ The hysterical reaction of American society against Trump’s victory is a demonstration of how intolerant progressivists are. Trump is not an alternative to that. He doesn’t plan to stop the researches into the artificial intelligence. He doesn’t protest against the gay prides and so on. He’s very tolerant. But he is less progressive than is needed so he is fascist. There are Russians who are fascist behind him. So if you aren’t a progressivist, you are an enemy of progress. All the consequences we could see in the prohibition of my book on Amazon, in the free world where everybody has absolute right to express anything, except if that is something that challenges the status quo. You are free, completely liberated to be liberal; right, left, center liberal. But you are not free not to be liberal. If you are not liberal, it’s suspicious. Maybe a terrorist or fundamentalist or Russian or Trump-ist and so on.

    That is now, a caricature. We see how this kind of political totalitarian propaganda works with no reason at all, because everything now is virtual. For example Russian intervention in the American elections. Virtual. There is no proof. And they could not prove it in the world of networks. There are repeated sentences. That is considered to be a kind of algorithm. For example, everybody cites the New York Times or Washington Post as if it is the truth, but it is algorithm. It is emulation of the status quo, that could be completely with no relations with the reality. Or you could easily exaggerate something, some little element, you could combine. For example, I’m giving many interviews to the western press, but only the fragments that correspond to what they expect from myself are shown. For example I gave to BBC interview that Russian oligarchs have financed Hillary Clinton’s campaign. No, no mention of that. When I was asked whether Russians intervened in the Trump elections, I answered ‘no’ and they said ‘yes.’ So if they receive completely opposite reaction, they don’t care. So they emulate what they need. That is a kind of emulation independent from previously destructed and processed information. So in postmodernity, the information goes first. And information you could imagine or combine. So nobody could verify. If we see the image, if we read something, if we repeat it, if it is distributed in many other agencies, then that is the truth. So it is emulation and not reflection.

    In the metaphysical sense, that is the shift from the real to the virtual. So the virtuality is more important than reality. Because it is not reflection of reality but the basic emulation of reality. And there is indignation of the old style people who say ‘lets defend reality in front of virtuality’ but it is impossible because the reality was brought by the modernity. Because in the world of tradition, of Apollonian Logos, ideas existed. Ideas were the real beings, or spirit, or God, or something hidden, or something heavenly, or something divine, existed as the basic ontological argument for the reality. So reality took its being from the fact of being created by God. Creation was the ontological explanation of the reality. When we have made a step from the Logos of Apollo and the spiritual basis of the reality, when we have accepted the reason as such, the man as such, the world as such, nature as such, as substance without the author, we have already cut the relations with the metaphysical basis of the existence. Reality is virtual. That is why this shift from the reality to the virtuality is possible. Metaphysically speaking, we could not defend reality, without saving first spirituality. Because this metaphysical foundation of the reality was not real, was pre-real. Ideas exist in the reality, eternal ideas of the thing. If we could cut them and deny that, we have the things, but the things, as reality, is not real in the last sense. It is already something virtual, something emulated, it is simulacrum and not the thing. And virtuality is the last conclusion of this process. In post-modernity, nothing new. It seems to be very new and very modern but it is logical conclusion of the modernity.

    So if we consider now, what is noological analysis of post-modernity, we should recognize that it is not something new, comparing with modernity, but is the final phase of modernity. When we have spoken about the Logos of Cybele, the post-modernity is the absolute domination of the Logos of Cybele. Logos of Cybele was expanding during modernity and now it is already expanded. So there is the difference of moments of Noomahia. There is the fight and when the fight is over. So that is a kind of Kingdom of Scarlet Woman, in the Christian eschatological sense, and full domination of Great Mother, in its complete version. That is why there is feminism now.

    Some words about feminism - there could be different forms of feminism. Modern feminism as well is different. But I would like to accentuate that there could be feminism that I’m calling Hecate feminism, that is based on the very special figure of Great Goddess Hecate, that was in the Greek history and early Greek history, Hesiod, described as the Goddess that gives every fruit, every desired thing, but when Hesiod mentions what Hecate gives, he has said ‘the wisdom, the bravery, the victory in fight, and the cattle’ and there was no mention of agricultural crop. So Hecate in the original sense was Turanian Goddess, was a kind of feminine archetype of Turanian type. Afterwards they were associated with Persephone or Demeter, and put into the realm of night and underground. But originally, Hecate wasn’t chtonic deity. That was heavenly feminine female figure. And Hecate feminism, it is the dignity of the woman that reflects patriarchal values, as Athena (the other Greek deity). Athena is pure state of what is purely patriarchal; it is wisdom of the priests and the victory and heroism of the warrior. That was Hecate feminism. Maybe it could be returned to the Indo-European feminine principle from the wrong or deviated form of patriarchate, materialistic patriarchy. So Hecate feminism is restoration of the dignity of the woman as the friend and ally of the man, the Indo-European man. That is a kind of Indo-European feminism that is against the Logos of Cybele, because it is glorification of feminine principle of purely Indo-European Logos. So that is interesting that in Hindu tradition that is the concept of Shakti. Shakti is not something that goes against the male principle. It is a kind of power of this male principle. That is Shekhinah as well in the Kabbalah. So that is feminine principle of light and not chtonic deity, but that is not the case with today’s feminism because post-modern feminism is absolutely anti-Indo-European and purely Cybelian.

    And that is not the beginning of the liberation of the woman. It is a kind of total destruction of the man that began with the modernity. So, materialistic limits put on the man and discreditation of the priesthood, of the monks, the warriors as types was already the victory of the matriarchate. And bourgeois type is matriarchal as such. And when women in the modern world pretend to have power, that is, as with Deleuzian metaphysics, is not something new. It’s the finalization of the process. So the power of Cybele, today, is open and manifest. And interesting remark with feminism; traditionally women can’t expect happiness; it could happen, it could not. It depends from some transcendental moment. The woman can meet the right man, have the right babies, and right families and be happy, or could not. That depends. But modern Cybelian feminism says lets say goodbye to this happiness. Feminine happiness is an illusion. It is more dreams, that is not real. There is no such kind of women happiness and every woman should say goodbye to that. There is no happiness, it is an illusion. It is patriarchal trick in order to keep women under control. You will never have feminine happiness but instead you can have power. So you exchange that problematic feminine happiness and non-problematic fight for power and will for power. So that is not a claim for more happiness or more equality. That is the fight for power in the society. And that has almost already succeeded. We are not in the beginning or first stages of feminism. We are in the last stages of feminism. And this fight for power and the concept of woman as power reflects the essence of the feminine principle in tradition because the pure state in the Indian tradition, in the Purusha, the male principle is wisdom with no power. It is pure light of thought. And the power is already feminine. But this liberation of the power from the wisdom is power as itself, a kind of blind power. That is what is going on with present day feminism. That is finally arriving to such absolute feminine power, woman loses herself, her nature, and her content. She becomes absolutely blind might, a kind of vitality. So there is the blind force of things themselves, pure gravity, pure matter, matter in the state of no orientation. So no more happiness, but new power, and emasculation and disappearance of man. Man should disappear. They lose man in such situation, their position, their archetype, and the idea of recognition of homosexuality as the norm in the western society is the end of the man, is the end of the balance between the genders, that is destroyed, everything is optional, you have not these two poles. And that is a victory of Cybele which is now open and manifest, not only implicit as in the modernity, but explicit, as now.

    Now we are coming to post-liberalism. When liberalism, the first political theory is left alone, there is no second, no third. And when they try to exclude Fourth Political Theory as possibility. So, the first political theory is as well changed in a kind of post-liberalism. There is no more individual. There is the dividual, something divided, something tomic, as atom wasn’t atomic. Atom, when it was discovered, it was as well recognized as something that you could divide more. So that is not atomic. Atom is undivided, indivisible. If there is something divisible, that is not atom. But you still call atom something that is divisible, so you still call individual something that is not anymore considered to be ‘in-dividual,’ ‘in-divisible.’ So it is something already rhizomatic. That is a transformation that goes with globalization. Globalization destroys any kind of society, including destroys modernity. Liberalism is devoided of any kind of national boundaries, borders. It is pure cosmopolitism. There is no race, no ethnos, no society. Everybody could live in every point of the space. Today, it is the freedom of the individuals but tomorrow that will be the freedom of the networks. Because it is a kind of matrix with artificial intelligence and with bodies emulating bodies. The concept of body as well could change but we are promised to have immortality instead, but immortality of the machine, because the machine could not die. The machine could be adjusted or decomposed or recomposed, so machine doesn’t die. And when we say, we become immortal in the physical way, in the imminent way. In that moment we stop to be human. And that is singularity moment that is appointed for some years in front of us. We are living not in the hundred, two hundred years before singularity. We are living close to the singularity.

    Some questions concerning what is Russia in that. Russia, we should not mistake. Russia is conservative society that tries to delay the process described before. Russia is not alternative (present day Russia). It is a kind of, trying to stop or delay the movement in one way, in that way, that is anti-acceleration power. We say ‘not so quickly.’ Our society, our president, our government says ‘Not so quickly. The direction is good but not now.’ That is purely conservatism. That is not proposition to restore Apollonian Logos. That is pure inertia. ‘Not yet. Not now. That’s all right, quite right. But not so quickly. Let us die calmly.’ That is a kind of purely irresponsible, but very sane as instinct reaction against postmodernity. But the most radical formulation of Russian Logos today in modern Russian Federation, is very shy defense of reality. The best and bravest in Russia pretend to defend reality against virtuality. They are materialists absolutely, and some modernists absolutely. But they don’t want to make the last step in that direction. There is strong traditionalist feeling in the people, there is in our Church a radical group that protests against the status quo, basing on Mount Athos, basing on the Elders Tradition, but that is absolutely marginal minority that has no influence on the society. They are considered to be completely crazy. Because our society is archeo-modern, It is modernist in the old sense, It cannot and doesn’t want to accept post-modernity but no will, no desire, no capacity, no thought to return or to go to the pre-modern Logos. That is bad news, I presume, because it seems quite different from outside. From outside, Russia is conservative revolutionary power that fights against the West, against all that. It’s not so! Maybe we should not stress too much at this point, but Russia, that is the great possibility because our Dasein and our people is bearer of this Katehonical mission. And we could see that in the reaction of the people. We have Russian Dasein. Russian Dasein is based on the Dionysian much more than the Apollonian Logos, but it is imprisoned. Our identity is imprisoned. This imprisonment is not only the Liberalism of ‘90s, as well as Communist period of Cybelian domination. But that was as well the late Romanovs Tsardom that was Modernist, Archeo-Modern, pro-western and so on.

    So, Russia is in trouble; its Logos, its people, its Dasein, its existential horizon. But 'nothing is lost when there is something that is not lost,’ as Curzio Malaparte has said. So I think that we are in a situation that is structurally close to the situation of Serbian people. We have different scale, different power, different space, different number of population, but the problem is the same. And Russia could not be regarded as the answer or alternative to what is going on. It is only the other place where the Noomahia still continues, with domination of the Cybelian Logos. So we are inside of Cybele. We are not outside of Cybele. That maybe was remarked by Milos Crnjanski in his final result of his book, that Russia is good but that is not the answer for Serbian quest for identity. Milos Crnjanski’s result or summary is a tragic one because Serbs become kind of in exile, in permanent exile, with no motherland left for them. But all the hopes on Russia should be measured with this pessimistic but very open solution of Milos Crnjanski because he loved Russia, and Serbians love Russia. And that is good, but when we have too much incorrect expectations, we could miss the question and unity in fight with something that already accomplished and perfect. So that is very important to Serbs and to all the fighters of identity to know that Russia fights. Russia is not yet defeated formally, because our people is, because it exists. But we have so great problem with Russian Logos, we could not yet start to continue the situation when our effort to create Russian philosophy was cut drastically by Communists. So we are outside of the place where really philosophy begins. We are outside. And this place is not attained, not reached yet. We are fighting to go to this moment. And because of great damage we had during last hundred years, we could not restart the process. In Russia today, there is pure social madness. We could not speak with nobody. As people, we are very good and open and very Christian, but as a kind of bearer of some intellectual ero. With so big people, so few people capable concretely to think, it is unimaginable. That is a kind of deep, dogmatical sleep (not dogmatical in the positive sense, it’s adogmatical), modern, post-modern sleep, conservative sleep of the people. So we are sleeping but that is good thing that we could be awake, lets hope.

    If we go to the next moment, what is the problem of the post-modernity? The post-modernity is the problem of Dionysus, because we could not appeal to the Logos of Apollo directly, because it is out of reach of our understanding. That has disappeared long, long ago, as such with the end of Middle Ages, maybe earlier. We have only the figure of Dionysus that is the sun inside of the night. So that is hidden intellect. That is hidden Logos. Being in the Hell, but not being the Hell, being inside of the night, but not belonging to the night, being inside of the world of Cybele but not being the part of function of the world of Cybele. I’m calling that in completely other type of philosophical direction, the radical subject. Radical subject is the subject that is in the center of the night, not being the night. But there is the problem of the black double of Dionysus. Because there is something Titanic that imitates Dionysus and that is his mirror or his double, as Adonis (the black double of Dionysus). And the problem is how to make distinction of them. That is the problem of simulacrum and in the religious sense, the problem of Anti-Christ, because Anti-Christ is not scarlet woman herself. It is not Cybele. It is a creation going from the abyss. And it pretends to be Christ. So the problem of Anti-Christ, or the problem of simulacrum, or the problem of double of Dionysus is the center problem of post-modernity because it pretends to be radical subject. It pretends to be this figure of Dionysus in the center of that. And that is not Christ. Radical subject is not Christ. Christ is heavenly God and man as well. But that is something that is quite different and Dionysus is the figure that is really problematic. And I gave the name for one of my books ‘Radical Subject and its Double.’ So that is the problem of Dionysus in other words. So we need to find this point that is in the night and doesn’t belong to the night. And we shouldn’t mistake it for its parody that exists close to it. So that is metaphysical explanation of Noology or Noomahia in 21st century. And I think that is the deepest analysis that could be given to the situation.

    To finish this course of lectures, we could ask ourselves where the place of Serbia is in this last moment of Noomahia. That is open question and we could not answer it abstractly. So it is up to Serbian people to decide this place. It is very important to define the noological space to make this analysis, to carefully identify the main figures, main tendencies. But that depends on the decision. And what is important is that decision is possible always up to the moment when the singularity comes. So we have very limited time for decision. Having Dasein, Dasein, being there, it is always open possibility to decide in one or the other direction. So the choice is possible when there is human. Human is there when Dasein is. But I think if we will be irreversibly replaced by artificial intelligence and devoided of our deaths, (the condition of existence, of Dasein, according to Heidegger) we will seize to be what we are. And we will lose, irreversibly, the possibility of a decision. Now we have a small amount of time in front of us because something that is approaching is more terrible and horrible than the death or torture or catastrophe, much more terrible. It is the end of the human Dasein as we know, as the result of the not correctly taken decision. According to Heidegger, European Dasein, Western Dasein has decided not to be. And that is the definition of the modernity and post-modernity. It has decided not to be and not to awake in the night, in the middle of the night, where we are. That is why he said ‘Only God could save us’ in the last interview, because decision was wrong and was already taken. Multiplicity of Dasein that is based on Noomahia preserves the possibility to decide otherwise. If the West has decided, I think that this kind of decision not to exist was taken for us, for Serbs, and for Russians, by the other. That was not our decision. And we didn’t decide finally. So we should do it. We have time, very small amount of time to make this decision. And that is the end of the ten lectures of the Noomahia as introductory course for this study.

30. Eurasia: A Special Worldview - Alexander Dugin

    

    Eurasia is not only a geographical concept; it is also a whole theory, system, and special worldview. Its essence lies in the following.

31. The Dormition of the Mother of God - Alexander Dugin

    

    Chapter 13 of Mysteries of Eurasia (Moscow, Arktogeya: 1991)

32. Christian Metaphysics: The Essence of the Problem - Alexander Dugin

    

    Introduction/chapter 1 of The Metaphysics of the Gospel (1994) in Absolute Homeland (Moscow: Arktogeia, 1999). 

33. On the Third Rome - Alexander Dugin

    

    Chapter 46 of The Metaphysics of the Gospel in Absolute Homeland (Moscow: Arktogeia, 1999). 

34. Russian Orthodoxy and Initiation - Alexander Dugin

    

     

    Chapter 8 of Mysteries of Eurasia (Moscow, Artktogeya: 1991)

35. Prince Nikolai Trubetzkoy and his Theory of Eurasianism - Alexander Dugin

    

    On April 16th, 1890, Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetzkoy, the great Russian thinker, linguist, and founder of the ideological movement of Eurasianism, was born. Trubetzkoy’s main idea was that Russia is not simply a European country, as the Russian Westernizers insisted, but a particular, separate civilization, the Russian World. This is the most important point.

36. Herman Wirth’s Theory of Civilization - Alexander Dugin

    

     

    Chapter 22 of Part 2, “Theories of Civilizations: Criteria, Concepts, and Correspondences”, of Noomakhia: Geosophy – Horizons and Civilizations (Moscow, Akademicheskii Proekt, 2017).

37. NOOMAKHIA: Principles for Comprehending Chinese Civilization - Alexander Dugin

    

     

    Chapter 1 of Noomakhia – The Yellow Dragon: The Civilizations of the Far East (Moscow: Academic Project, 2018)

38. Carl Schmitt’s 5 Lessons for Russia - Alexander Dugin

    

    From The Conservative Revolution (Moscow, Arktogeya: 1994), The Russian Thing Vol. 1 (2001), and The Philosophy of War (2004) – Article written in 1991, first published in the journal Nash Sovremennik in 1992

    The famous German jurist Carl Schmitt is considered to be a classic of modern law. Some call him the “modern Machiavelli” for his lack of sentimental moralism and humanist rhetoric in his analysis of political reality. Carl Schmitt believed that, in determining legal issues, it is first and foremost important to give a clear and realistic outline of political and social processes and refrain from utopianism, well-wishing, and a priori imperatives and dogma. Today, the scholarly and juridical legacy of Carl Schmitt make up a necessary element of juridical education at Western universities. For Russia as well, Schmitt’s creativity is of special interest and particular importance since he took interest in the critical situations of modern political life. Undoubtedly, his analysis of law and the political context of jurisprudence can help us to understand more clearly and deeply what exactly is happening in our society and Russia.

    Lesson #1: Politics above all else

    The main principle of Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law was the idea of the unconditional primacy of political principles over criteria of social existence. It is politics that organized and predetermined the strategy of internal economic factors and their increasing pressure in the modern world. Schmitt explains this in the following way: “The fact that economic contradictions have now become political contradictions…only shows that, like every other human activity, economics travels a path that inevitably leads to political expression” [1]. The meaning of such an allegation employed by Schmitt, understood as a solid historical and sociological argument, ultimately boils down to what can be defined as the theory of “collective historical idealism.” In this theory, the subject is not the individual or economic laws developing substance, but a concrete, historically and socially distinguished people which maintains, with its special, dynamic will – endowed with its own law – its socio-economic existence, qualitative unity, and the organic and spiritual continuity of its traditions in different forms and at different stages. In Schmitt’s understanding, the political sphere represents the embodiment of the will of the people expressed in various forms related to both the legal, economic, and socio-political levels.

    Such a definition of politics stands at odds with the mechanistic, universalist models of societal structure which have predominated Western jurisprudence and legal philosophy since the era of the Enlightenment. Schmitt’s political sphere is directly associated with two factors which the mechanistic doctrines are inclined to ignore: the historical specificities of a people endowed with a special quality of will, and the historical particularity of a given society, state, tradition, and past which, in Schmitt’s opinion, finds concentration in its political manifestation. Thus, Schmitt’s assertion of the primacy of politics introduced qualitative, organic characteristics into legal philosophy and political science which are obviously not included in the one-dimensional schemes of “progressives”, whether of the liberal-capitalist or Marxist-socialist persuasion.

    Schmitt’s theory thus considered politics to be an “organic” phenomenon “rooted” in “soil.”

    Russia and the Russian people need such an understanding of politics in order to sufficiently govern their own destiny and refrain from once again, like seven decades ago, becoming a hostage of an anti-national, reductionist ideology that ignores the will of the people, its past, its qualitative unity, and the spiritual meaning of its historical path.

    Lesson #2: Let there always be enemies; let there always be friends

    In his book The Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt expresses an extraordinarily important truth: “A people exists politically only if it forms an independent political community and contrasts itself to other political communities for the sake of preserving its own understanding of its specific community.” Although this point of view completely disagrees with the humanistic demagogy characteristic of Marxism and liberal-democratic theories, all of world history, including the real history (not the official one) of Marxist and liberal-democratic states, shows that such a fact is indeed true in practice, even if the utopian, post-Enlightenment conscience is incapable of recognizing it. In reality, the political division between “ours” and “not ours” exists in all political regimes and in all nations. Without this distinction, not a single state, people, or nation would be able to preserve its own face, follow its own path, and have its own history.

    Soberly analyzing the demagogic assertion of anti-humanism, the “inhumanity” of such an opposition, and the division into “ours” and “not ours”, Carl Schmitt notes: “If one begins to act in the name of all humanity, on behalf of abstract humanism, in practice this means that this actor denies all possible opponents the claim to having human qualities at all, thus declaring himself to be beyond humanity and beyond law, and therefore potentially threatens a war which would be waged to the most terrifying and inhumane limits.” Strikingly enough, these lines were written in 1934, long before the Americans’ terroristic invasion of Panama or bombardment of Iraq. In addition, the GULAG and its victims were still not quite known in the West. In this view, it is not the realistic recognition of the qualitative specifics of a people’s political existence, which always presupposes the division into “ours” and “not ours”, that leads to the most terrifying consequences, but rather the striving for total universalization and the cramming of nations and states into the cells of the utopian ideas of a “united and uniform humanity” devoid of any organic or historical differences.

    Beginning with these prerequisites, Carl Schmitt developed the theory of “total war” and “restricted war,” so-called “wars of form” in which total war is the consequence of universalist, utopian ideology which denies the natural cultural, historical, state, and national differences between peoples. Such a war actually threatens the destruction of humanity. As Carl Schmitt believed, extremist humanism is the direct path towards such a war which implies the involvement not only of militaries, but also civilian populations in a conflict. This, in the end, is the most terrible evil. “Wars of form,” on the other hand, are inevitable because of the differences between peoples and their indestructible cultures. “Wars of form” involve the participation of professional soldiers, and can be regulated by the defined legal rules of Europe that once bore the name Jus Publicum Europeum (European Common Law). Such wars, accordingly, represent a lesser evil whose inevitability’s theoretical recognition can protect peoples in advance from a “totalized” conflict and “total war.” On this note, it would be appropriate to quote the famous paradox posed by Shigalev in Dostoevsky’s The Possessed, who says “Proceeding from absolute freedom, I arrive at absolute slavery.” Paraphrasing this truth and applying it to the ideas of Carl Schmitt, it can be said that the supporters of radical humanism “proceeding from total peace, arrive at total war.” With all due consideration, we have the opportunity to see Shigalev’s remarks’ in all of Soviet history. If Carl Schmitt’s precautions are not taken into account, it will be significantly more difficult to realize their truth, since there will be no one left to testify that he was right – there will be nothing left of mankind.

    Now on to the final important point in the distinction between “ours” and “not ours”, that of “enemies” and “friends.” Schmitt believed that the centrality of this pair for the political being of a nation is valuable as within this choice is decided a deep existential problem. Julien Freud, a disciple of Schmitt, formulated this thesis in the following way: “The enemy-friend duality lends politics an existential dimension since the theoretically implied possibility of war raises the problem and choice of life and death in this framework” [2].

    The jurist and politician, judging in terms of “enemy” and “friend” with a clear consciousness of the meaning of this choice, thus operate with the same existential categories which lend decisions, actions, and statements the qualities of reality, responsibility, and seriousness that all utopian humanist abstractions lack in transforming the drama of life and death into a war in one-dimensional chimerical decor. A terrible illustration of this was the coverage of the Iraqi conflict by Western mass media. Americans followed the deaths of Iraqi women, children, and the elderly on television as if they were watching Star Wars computer games. The ideas of the New World Order, the foundations of which were laid during this war, are supreme manifestations of how terrible and dramatic events are when deprived of any existential content.

    The “enemy” – “friend” pair is both an external and internal political necessity for the existence of a politically complete society, and should be coldly accepted and conscious. Otherwise, everyone becomes an “enemy” and no one is a “friend.” This is the political imperative of history.

    Lesson #3: The politics of “exceptional circumstances” and the Decision

    One of the most brilliant aspects of Carl Schmitt’s ideas was the principle of “exceptional circumstances” (in German Ernstfall, literally “serious case”) elevated to the rank of a political-legal category. According to Schmitt, legal norms describe only normal socio-political reality flowing uniformly and continuously without interruptions. Only in such purely normal situations does the concept of “law” as understood by jurists apply to a full extent. There exist, of course, regulations of “extraordinary situations,” but these regulations are most often of all determined on the basis of criteria derived from a normal political situation. Classical jurisprudence, in Schmitt’s opinion, tends to absolutize the criteria of a normal station when considering the history of society as a legally constituted uniform process. The most complete expression of this point of view is Kelsen’s “pure theory of law.” Carl Schmitt, however, sees this absolutization of a “legal approach” and “rule of law” as an equally utopian mechanism and naive universalism produced by the Enlightenment with its rationalist myths. Behind the absolutization of law hides an attempt to “close history” and deprive it of its creative, passionate pattern, its political content, and historical peoples. On the basis of this analysis, Carl Schmitt posits a particular theory of “exceptional circumstances,” or Ernstfall.

    Ernstfall is the point at which a political decision is made in a situation which can no longer be regulated by conventional legal norms. Decision-making in exceptional circumstances involves the convergence of a number of diverse, organic factors relating both to tradition, the historical past, cultural constants, as well as spontaneous expressions, heroic overcoming, passionate impulses, and the sudden manifestation of deep existential energies. The True Decision (the very term “decision” was a key concept of Schmitt’s juridical doctrine) is made in precisely such a circumstance where legal and social norms are “disrupted” and those that describe the natural course of political processes and which begin to act in the case of an “emergency citation” or “socio-political catastrophe” are no longer applicable. “Exceptional circumstances” means not merely a catastrophe, but the positioning of a people and its political organism in front of a problem, appealing to a people’s historical essence, its core, and its secret nature which makes this people what it is. Therefore, the Decision politically taken in such a situation is a spontaneous expression of the deep will of the people responding to a global, existential, or historic challenge (here one can compare the views of Schmitt to those of Spengler, Toynbee, and other conservative revolutionaries with whom Carl Schmitt had close personal ties).

    In the French school of law, Carl Schmitt’s followers have developed the special term “décisionisme” from the French décision (German Entscheidung). Decisionism puts the main emphasis on “exceptional circumstances” since it is in this instance that the nation, the people, actualizes its past and determines its future in a dramatic concentration of the present moment in which three qualitative characteristics of time merge, i.e., the power of the source from which the people came forth in history, the people’s will facing the future and affirming the here and now where the timeless “I” is revealed and the people takes responsibility into its own hands to the greatest extent, and self-identity.

    Developing his theory of Ernstfall and Entscheidung, Carl Schmitt also showed that the affirmation of all judicial and social norms happens during precisely such periods of “exceptional circumstances” and is primordially based on the both spontaneous and predetermined decision. The intermittent moment of the singular expression of will bears later on the basis of the constant norms which exist up until the emergence of new “exceptional circumstances.” This in fact perfectly illustrates the contradiction inherent to the ideas of those radical supporters of the “rule of law”: they knowingly or unknowingly ignore the fact that the appeal to the necessity of establishing the “rule of law” itself is a decision based on none other than the political will of a given group. In some sense, this imperative is put forth arbitrarily and not as some kind of inevitable, fatal necessity. Therefore, the acceptance or denial of the “rule of law” and in general the acceptance or denial of this or that legal model must concur with the will of the particular people or state to whom the proposal or expression of will is addressed. Supporters of the “rule of law” implicitly strive to create or utilize “exceptional circumstances” for the implementation of their concept, but the insidiousness of such an approach and hypocrisy and inconsistency in method can quite naturally draw a popular reaction, the result of which could very well appear as another, alternative decision. Moreover, it is all the more likely that this decision would lead to the establishment of a different legal reality than the one sought after by universalists.

    The concept of the Decision in the super-legal sense as well as very nature of the Decision itself accords with the theory of “direct power” and “indirect power” (potestas directa and potestas indirecta). In Schmitt’s specific context, the Decision is made not only in instances of “direct power” (the power of kings, emperors, presidents, etc.) but also under the conditions of “indirect power”, examples of which can be religious, cultural, or ideological organizations which influence the history of a people and state not so clearly as the decisions of rulers, but which, nevertheless, are much deeper and formidable in operation. Schmitt believes that “indirect power” is thus not always negative, but, on the other hand, he merely implicitly alludes to the fact that a decision contrary to the will of the people is most often adopted and implemented by such means of “indirect power.” In his book Political Theology and its later addition Political Theology II, he examines the logic of the functioning of these two types of authority in states and nations.

    The theory of “exceptional circumstances” and the theme of the Decision (Entscheidung) tied to it are of paramount importance for us today, as it is precisely at such a point in the history of our people and state that we now find ourselves, where “exceptional circumstances” have become the natural state of the nation and not only the political future of our people, but also the comprehension and essential confirmation of our past, now depend on the Decision. If the will of the people affirms itself and the people’s national choice in this dramatic moment, can clearly define “ours” and “others”, identify friends and enemies, and wrest political self-assertion from history, then the Decision of the Russian state and Russian people will be its own, historic, existential decision that will put a stamp of loyalty on millennia of spiritual “people-building” and “empire-building”. This means that our future will be Russian. If others make the decision, i.e., the supporters of the “common human approach,” “universalism,” and “egalitarianism,” which since the death of Marxism represent the only direct heirs to the utopian and mechanistic ideology of the Enlightenment, then not only will the future be “not Russian”, it will be “all-human” and thus be “no future” (from the standpoint of the being of the people, state, and nation). Our past will lose its meaning and the drama of great Russian history will turn into a silly farce on the way to Mondialism and complete cultural leveling into “universal humanity,” i.e., the “hell of absolute legal reality.”

    Lesson #4: The imperatives of a Great Space

    Carl Schmitt also touched on the geopolitical aspect of social issues. The most important of his ideas in this sphere is the notion of “Great Space” (Grossraum) which would later come to be considered by numerous European economists, jurists, geopoliticians, and strategists. The conceptual meaning of “Great Space” in Carl Schmitt’s analytical perspective lies in the delineation of geographical regions within which the variations of the political self-manifestation of specific peoples and states included in this region can be conjoined to achieve harmonious and consistent generalization expressed in a “Great Geopolitical Union.” Schmitt’s point of departure was the question of the American Monroe Doctrine encompassing the economic and strategic integration of American powers within the natural borders of the New World. Given that Eurasia represents a much more diverse conglomerate of ethni, states, and cultures, Schmitt posited that it was thus worth speaking of not so much total continental integration as the establishment of several large geopolitical entities, each of which should be governed by a flexible super-state. This is in principle analogous to Jus Publicum Europeaum or the Holly Alliance proposed to Europe by Russian Emperor Alexander I.

    In Carl Schmitt’s opinion, a “Great Space” organized into a flexible political structure of the federal imperial type would compensate for various national, ethnic and state wills and serve as a kind of impartial arbiter or regulator of possible local conflicts, “wars of form.” Schmitt emphasized that “Great Spaces”, in order to be organic and natural formations, would necessarily have to represent land territories, i.e., tellurocratic entities, continental masses. In his famous book The Nomos of the Earth, he traced the history of continental, political macro-entities, the path of their integration, and the logic of their gradual establishment as empires. Carl Schmitt noticed that parallel to the existence of spiritual constants in the fate of a people, i.e., constants embodying the spiritual essence of a people, there also exist geopolitical constants of “Large Spaces” which gravitate towards new restoration with intervals of several centuries or even millennia. In this sense, geopolitical macro-entities are stabile when their integrating principle is not rigid and abstractly recreated, but flexible, organic, and according with the Decision of the peoples, their will, and their passionate energy capable of involving them in a unified tellurocratic bloc with their cultural, geopolitical, or state neighbors.

    The doctrine of “Great Spaces” (Grossraum) was established by Carl Schmiit not only as an analysis of historical trends in the continent’s history, but also as a project for future unification which Schmitt considered not only possible, but desirable and even necessary in a certain sense. Julien Freund summarized Schmitt’s ideas on future Grossraum in the following terms: “The organization of this new space will not require any scientific competence, or cultural or technical preparation insofar as it arises as a result of political will, the ethos of which transforms the guise of international law. Once this ‘Great Space’ is unified, then the most important thing of all will be the strength of its ‘radiation’” [3].

    Thus, Carl Schmitt’s idea of “Great Space” also possesses a spontaneous, existential, and volitional dimension as does the fundamental subject of history in its understanding, i.e., the people as a political unit. Following the geopoliticians Mackinder and Kjellen, Schmitt juxtaposed thalassocratic empires (Phoenicia, England, the US, etc.) to the tellurocratic empires (the Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburgs, the Russian Empire, etc.). In his point of view, the harmonious and organic organization of a space is possible only in the case of tellurocratic empires, and Continental Law can only be applied to them. Thalassocracy, moving beyond the borders of its Island and initiating naval expansion, enters into conflict with tellurocracies and, according to geopolitical logic, begins to diplomatically, economically, and militaristically undermine the foundations of the continental “Great Spaces.” Thus, in the perspective of continental “Great Spaces,” Schmitt once again returns to the concepts of the “enemy-friend” and “ours-not ours” pairs, only this time on a planetary macro-level. The will of the continental empires, the “Great Spaces”, is revealed in the confrontation between continental macro-interests and the macro-interests from overseas. “Sea” thus challenges “Land,” and by way of responding to this challenge, “Land” most often returns to its deep continental self-consciousness.

    As a side note, we will illustrate the theory of Grassraum with two examples. In the late 18th – early 19th century, the US’ territory was divided between several Old World countries. The Far West, Louisiana, belonged to the Spanish and later the French; the South belonged to Mexico; the North to England, and so on. In this situation, Europe represented a tellurocratic power for the US preventing the geopolitical and strategic unification of the New World on the military, economic, and diplomatic levels. After the US obtained independence, it gradually began to more and more aggressively impose its geopolitical will upon the Old World, which logically led to the weakening of continental unity of the European “Great Space.” Therefore, in the geopolitical history of “Great Spaces,” there are no absolute tellurocratic or absolute thalassocratic powers. Roles can changes, but continental logic remains constant.

    Summarizing Carl Schmitt’s theory of “Great Spaces” with regards to the situation in today’s Russia, we can say that the separation and disintegration of the “Great Space” once called the USSR contradicts the continental logic of Eurasia, since the peoples inhabiting our lands lost the opportunity  to appeal to the [Soviet] superpower arbiter capable of regulating or containing potential and actual conflicts. But, on the other hand, the rejection of the overly rigid and inflexible Marxist demagogy raised to the level of state ideology can lead and will lead if allowed to a spontaneous, passionate restoration of the Eastern Eurasian Bloc, since such a reconstruction accords with all the organic, native ethni of the Russian imperial space. Moreover, it is most likely that the restoration of a Federal Empire, a “Great Space” encompassing the Eastern part of the mainland, would seize by means of its “radiation of power” those additional territories which are rapidly losing their ethno-state identities in the critical and unnatural geopolitical situation prevailing since the collapse of the USSR. On the other hand, the continental thinking of the genius German jurist allows us to distinguish between “ours” and “not ours” on the  continental level.

    Awareness of the natural and to a certain extent inevitable confrontation between tellurocratic and thalassocratic powers offers the harbingers and creators of a new Great Space a clear understanding of the “enemy” facing Europe, Russia, and Asia that is the United States of America along with its thalassocratic island ally, England. Once again returning from the macro-level of the planet to the level of the social structure of the Russian state, it thus follows that the question should be posed: does a hidden thalassocratic lobby not stand behind the desire to influence the Russian Decision of problems in a “universalist” vein which can exert its influence through both “direct” and “indirect” power?

    Lesson #5: “Militant peace” and the teleology of the partisan

    At the end of his life (he died on April 7th, 1985), Carl Schmitt devoted special attention to the negative outcome of history which, indeed, is quite possible if the unrealistic doctrines of radical humanists, universalists, utopians, and the supporters of “common human values”, centered around the gigantic symbolic potential of the thalassocratic power that is the USA, achieve global predominance and become the ideological foundation of a new world dictatorship – the dictatorship of a “mechanistic utopia.” Schmitt believed that the modern course of history is inevitably moving towards what he called “total war.”

    According to Schmitt, the logic of the “totalitarianization” of planetary relations on the strategic, military, and diplomatic levels is based on the following key points. Beginning with a certain point in history, or more precisely the epoch of the French Revolution and the independence of the United States of America, a maximal withdrawal from the historical, judicial, national, and geopolitical constants which previously guaranteed organic harmony on the planet and served the “Nomos of the Earth” was initiated.

    On a legal level, an artificial and atomizing, quantitative concept of “individual rights” (which later became the famous theory of “human rights”) began to develop which replaced the organic concept of “rights of the people”, “rights of the state,” etc. In Schmitt’s opinion, the employment of the individual and the individual factor in isolation from the nation, tradition, culture, profession, family, etc. as an autonomous judicial category meant the onset of the “decay of law” and its transformation into a utopian, egalitarian chimera contrary to the organic laws from the history of peoples and states, regimes, territories, and unions.

    On the national level, organic federal imperial principles came to be replaced with two opposing yet equally artificial conceptions: the Jacobin idea of the “nation-state” and the Communist theory of the complete withering away of the state and the onset of total internationalism. Those empires which preserved remnants of traditional, organic structures, such as Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, etc., rapidly began to be destroyed under the influence of both external and internal factors. Finally, on the geopolitical level, the thalassocratic factor intensified to such a degree that a profound destabilization of legal relationships in the sphere of “Great Spaces” took place. Let us note that Schmitt considered “Sea” as a space to be much less amenable to legal delineation and arrangement than “Land.”

    The global spread of legal and geopolitical disharmony was accompanied by the progressive deviation of dominant political and ideological conceptions from reality and their becoming increasingly chimerical, illusory and ultimately hypocritical. The more that the “universal world” was spoken off, the more worse became wars and conflicts. The more “humane” that slogans became, the more inhuman became social reality. It is this process that Carl Schmitt called the beginning of the “militant peace,” i.e., a state in which there is neither war nor peace in the traditional sense. Today’s looming “totality” which Carl Schmitt warned of has come to be called Mondialism. “Militant peace” has received its complete expression in the theory of the American New World Order which in its movement towards “total peace” is clearly leading the planet towards a new “total war.”

    Carl Schmitt considered the development of cosmic space to be the most important geopolitical event symbolizing a further degree of departure from the legitimate ordering of space, as the cosmos is even less amenable to “organization” then maritime space. The development of aviation was also a step towards the “totalization” of war according to Schmitt, with space exploration beginning the process of final illegitimate “totalitarianization.”

    Parallel to pushing the planet to such maritime, aerial, and even cosmic monstrosity, Carl Schmitt, who was always interested in more global categories, the smallest of which was the “political unity of the people,” came to be drawn to a new figure in history, the figure of the “partisan,” the study of whom Schmitt devoted his final book to, The Theory of the Partisan. Schmitt saw in this small fighter against larger forces some kind of symbol of the last resistance of tellurocracy on the part of its last defenders. The partisan is, undoubtedly, a modern figure. He, as other modern political types, is divorced from tradition and lives beyond the Jus Publicum. The Partisan breaks all rules of warfare in his struggle. He is not a soldier, but a civilian using terrorist methods which would, in a non-wartime situation, be equated with hard-core criminal offenses akin to terrorism. Nevertheless, it is the Partisan who, according to Carl Schmitt, embodies “faithfulness to Land.” The Partisan is, put simply, an illegitimate response to the masked, illegitimate challenge of modern “law.” The extraordinariness of the situation and the constant thickening of “militant peace” (or “pacifist war,” which is one and the same) draw the small defender of soil, history, people, nation, and the ideas of the source of his paradoxical justification. The strategic efficiency of the Partisan and his methods are, according to Schmitt, the paradoxical compensation of the begun or beginning “total war” against a “total enemy.”

    It is perhaps this lesson of Carl Schmitt, who himself drew much from Russian history, Russian military strategy, and Russian political doctrine including analyses of the works of Lenin and Stalin, that is most intimately understandable for Russians. The Partisan is an integral character in Russian history who always appears when the will of the Russian political establishment and deep will of the Russian people itself is deviated from to a maximum extent. Turmoil and guerrilla warfare in Russian history have always had a purely political, compensatory character aimed at correcting the nation’s course when its political leadership is increasingly alienated from the people. In Russia, partisans won the wars that the government lost, overthrew the non-Russian traditions of economic systems, and corrected the geopolitical mistakes of its leaders. Russians have always possessed a fine sense of when illegitimacy or organic injustice is inherent to this or that doctrine emerging through this or that character. In some sense, Russia is a gigantic Partisan Empire operating outside the law and driven by the great intuition of Earth, the Continent, that “Great, Very Great Space” that is the historical territory of our people.

    At the present time, as the gap between the will of the nation and the will of the establishment in Russia (which represents exclusively the “rule of law” according to the universalist model) is threateningly large and as the wind of thalassocracy is intensifying the ordering of “militant peace” in the country and gradually becoming an extreme form of “total war,” perhaps this figure of the Russian Partisan will show us the path to the Russian Future through the extreme form of resistance, the stepping over of artificial boundaries and legal norms which do not accord with the true canons of Russian Law.

    A more detailed assimilation of Carl Schmitt’s fifth lesson means taking up the Sacred Practice of defending Land.

    Final remarks

    Finally, the sixth, unscheduled lesson of Carl Schmitt can be called an example of what the leader of the European New Right, Alain de Benoist, calls “political imagination” or “ideological creativity.” The geniality of the German jurist lies in that he not only felt the “field lines” of history but also heeded the mysterious voice of essence, even though it is often hidden behind the bland, empty phenomena of the complex and dynamic modern world. We Russians should learn from Teutonic stiffness in setting our bottomless and overvalued institutions into clear intellectual formulas, clear ideological projects, and convincing and compelling theories.

    This is necessary especially today because we live in “exceptional circumstances” on the threshold of a Decision so important that our nation has perhaps never seen the likes of it. The true national elite has no right to leave its people without an ideology which would explain not only what it feels and thinks, but what it doesn’t feel and think, and what has even been kept secret from itself and devoutly worshipped for thousands of years. If we do not ideologically arm the state, which “not ours” could temporarily snatch from us, then we must necessarily, without fail ideologically arm the Russian Partisan who is awakening today to fulfill his continental mission in what are now “Anglicizing” Riga and Vilnius, the “blackening” Caucasus, “yellowing” Central Asia, “Polonizing” Ukraine, and “black-eyed” Tartary.

    Russia is a Great Space whose Great Idea is carried by her people in its gigantic, continental Eurasian soil. If a German genius serves our Awakening, then in doing so the Teutons have earned themselves a privileged place among the “friends of Great Russia” and will become “ours”, “Asians,” “Huns,” and “Scythians” like us – the natives of the Great Forest and Great Steppes.

    Footnotes:

    [1] Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen, p.127

    [2] Julien Freund, “Les lignes de force de la pensée politique de Carl Schmitt”, Nouvelle Ecole  No. 44

    [3] Ibid.

39. Counter Hegemony in the Theory of the Multipolar World - Alexander Dugin

    

     

    From Leviathan No. 5 [Moscow, Eurasian Movement: 2013]

40. Post-Anthropology - Alexander Dugin

    

     

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

41. Deconstructing the “Contemporal Moment”: New Horizons in the History of Philosophy - Alexander Dugin

    

     

    Chapter 1 of Noomakhia: Voiny Uma – Tri Logosa: Apollon, Dionis, Kibela (Noomakhia: Wars of the Mind – Three Logoi: Apollo, Dionysus, Cybele) (Moscow: Akademicheskii Proekt, 2014).

42. The Figure of the Radical Subject (Traditionalism and Sociology) - Alexander Dugin

    

    (the lecture in Curitiba, Brazil – Colloquium on Evola, september 2012)

43. How the world of things will replace the world of people (on Speculative Realism) - Alexander Dugin

    

    Today we will be discussing contemporary philosophy. In particular, speculative realism and object-oriented ontology. In my opinion, this is a very relevant topic. I can admit that I have previously not entirely correctly interpreted speculative realism, beginning with Quentin Meillassoux. It seemed to me that his defense of new materialism, his struggle of the subject against the subject, his apologism for contingentiality, his proposal to in the framework of the philosophy of the Copernican Revolution to displace the subject from central positions into the periphery, in this there is something archaic, harkening back to 19th century materialism, non-critical positivism, plus his critique of Deleuze, whom he reproached for various “vitalisms.”

44. Encounter with Heidegger: An Invitation to Journey - Alexander Dugin

    

    But there is something that demands careful and thorough study.  Without such study our notions [представления; notions, views, concepts, ideas; this term will be considered explicitly and in detail below; until then, it is usually translated as notions] about thinking, philosophy, [and] the history of culture will be defective, incomplete, fragmentary, and hence unreliable.

    Translator: Michael Millerman

45. Deconstruction of Democracy - Alexander Dugin

    

    For Platonists, democracy is a false doctrine; it is built on a world that doesn’t exist and a society that cannot exist.

    The Deconstruction of Democracy – Arktos

    Video by Rogue Insider Podcast

46. On Speculative Realism - Alexander Dugin

    

    Today we will devote ourselves to contemporary philosophy, more precisely speculative realism and object-oriented ontology. In my opinion, this is a very important issue.

47. Russia as a Civilization (Cultural-Historical Type) - Alexander Dugin

    

    Another view of Russia defines it as an independent civilization. This position wa characteristic of the late Slavophiles (Leontiev, Danilevsky), Russian Eurasianists, the Little Russians, and National-Bolsheviks (Ustralyov, Smenovekhovtsy).

48. The Forefront of the Great Awakening - Alexander Dugin

    

    The rejection of liberalism and globalisation has become particularly acute in recent years, as liberalism itself has revealed its deeply repulsive features to Russian consciousness. 

49. Russia Awakening: An Imperial Renaissance - Alexander Dugin

    

    Russia has never been “just a country”, much less “just one among other European countries”. 

50. Introduction to Dasein - Alexander Dugin

    

    If we approach Dasein from the side of the history of philosophy, we can say that it is the last point

51. The fate of the “Russian Spengler” - Alexander Dugin

    

    Talking about Trubetskoy is the same as talking about Eurasianism as such.

52. There is No Time - Alexander Dugin

    

    Some people think that time exists and eternity does not. But in fact, everything is the other way around.

53. We are Going Beyond the Horizon - Alexander Dugin

    

    There are no borders for our actions. So when they say: “But where will you stop?,” it is right to respond: “We will not stop anywhere, we will never stop, because Eurasianism is an open philosophy.”

54. Civilization as Paideuma (the Educational Concept of Civilization) - Alexander Dugin

    

    The theory of the paideuma, developed by representatives of the historic school of “cultural circles,” and especially Leo Frobenius, can serve as a more precise version of the epistemological approach to civilization. 

55. Being is More Primary Than Time - Alexander Dugin

    

    The conservative strives to understand what in the historical process of a concrete narod [people] — in our case, Russia — was constant and invariable, what of that exists now, and what, correspondingly, will be in the future. 

56. The Idea of “Progress” as the Basis for Political Colonization and Cultural Racism - Alexander Dugin

    

    The identity of “modernization” and “Westernization” requires some clarifications, which will lead us to very important practical conclusions.

    The issue is that the formation in Europe of the unprecedented civilization of the modern era led to a particular cultural arrangement, which at first formed the self-consciousness of the Europeans themselves and later also of all those who found themselves under their influence. The sincere conviction grew that the path of development of Western culture, and especially the transition from traditional society to contemporary society, was not only a peculiarity of Europe and the peoples that populate it, but a universal law of development, obligatory for all other countries and peoples. Europeans, “people of the West,” were the first to pass through this decisive phase, but all others are thought fatally doomed to go along the same path, because this is the supposedly “objective” logic of world history. “Progress” demands it. 

    The idea arose that the West is the obligatory model of the historical development of all mankind, and world history — as in the past, so in the present and future — was and is conceived of as a repetition of those stages that the West, in its development, already passed through or is presently approaching, in advance of all others. In all places where Europeans encountered “non-Western” cultures, which preserved “traditional society” and its way, Europeans made an unequivocal diagnosis: “barbarism,” “savagery,” “backwardness,” “absence of civilization,” “sub-normality.” Thus, gradually the West became the idea of a normative criterion for the evaluation of the peoples and cultures of the entire world. The further they were from the West (in its newest historical phase), the more “defective” and “inferior” they were thought to be.

57. The Fourth Political Theory and Heidegger’s Dasein - Alexander Dugin

    

    The Fourth Political Theory rejects the capitalism, individualism and ‘religion of money’, within liberalism; in Communism, materialism, atheism, progressivism and the theory of class struggle; in fascism, all forms of racism, totalitarianism and the idea of the dominance of one culture over another. On the other hand, the Fourth Political Theory borrows the idea of the value of freedom from liberalism; the ethical ideal of justice, equality and the harmonious development of coexistence based on the overcoming of alienation from Marxism; and from the ‘Third Way’ it takes the values of ethnos, nation, religion, spirituality, family, and the sacred.

    These principles are entirely sufficient to construct a pluralistic and open system of intercultural and inter-civilisational dialogue. The subject of the Fourth Political Theory ought not to be the individual, class, race or the state, but Dasein — human existence, present and wellgrounded in its organic, cultural, linguistic and spiritual history. The term Dasein is the basis of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy and is borrowed by the Fourth Political Theory as essential to understanding the subject of the contemporary political process.

    From the philosophical standpoint, the Fourth Political Theory can be attributed to the fields of phenomenology, structuralism, existentialism, ethno-sociology and cultural anthropology. All these philosophical and humanitarian fields of study focus on the variety of human cultures and see this variety as the highest value and the treasure of the human spirit, something that must not be eradicated and levelled out but carefully preserved, supported and protected in every way. All conflicts and disagreements should not be solved via violence, universalism and colonisation (whichever apologist phraseology it may hide behind), but through harmony and a dialogue between civilisations.

    The Fourth Political Theory is an answer to the challenge of postmodernity, which stems from the logic of forgetting the essence of being and in removing humanity from its ontological and theological (spiritual) roots. It is impossible to respond to that with ‘one-day solution’ innovations or PR surrogates. It appears that in order to solve the most pressing issues of the global economic crisis, in order to resist the unipolar world, maintain and preserve sovereignty, and so on, it is essential to turn to the philosophical basis of history and to make a metaphysical effort. The Fourth Political Theory cannot emerge on its own. An exertion of will is required here, conceptual work: a disagreement with postmodernity and with the status quo; with the inertia-propelled development of history; with the disappearance of politics from life; and with the utter alienation of the individual from the sphere of politics, spirit, culture, civilisation, and from humanity in general. The Fourth Political Theory is a crusade against postmodernity, and against the post-industrial society, liberalism and globalism. This is the strategy of riding postmodernity; much like how the Eastern practices offer to ‘ride the tiger’. This is a search and a discovery of weak points in the global systems and the hacking of those points. It is not possible to just walk past postmodernity, globalism and hegemony and merely ignore them. Hence why the Fourth Political Theory must turn to the precursors to modernity and to what modernity actively fought, but what became almost entirely irrelevant to postmodernity. We must turn to tradition, to pre-modernity, archaism, theology, the sacred sciences, and ancient philosophy. In Russia’s case that means turning to the full Orthodox tradition, to its sources, to the mystical Orthodoxy of Byzantium, to even more ancient Platonic and Neo-Platonic doctrines, to the archaic layers of tradition, and to the highest super-rational creeds. Within the framework of the Fourth Political Theory we are also talking about a profound philosophical comprehension of being, about opening up the deep ontological source of human existence, and a careful understanding of the philosophical depth of experience that was made by Martin Heidegger — a thinker who made the unique effort of trying to construct a fundamental ontology — a deep, paradoxical, piercing teaching about being.

    The Fourth Political Theory cannot be a task undertaken by an individual or even a limited group of people — it is for everyone to partake in. This effort must be a collective one. Representatives of other cultures from both Asia and Europe can help us here, as they feel the eschatological tension of the moment just as sharply, and they are just as desperately seeking an escape from the worldwide dead end.

    The Fourth Political Theory must be developed by various peoples and cultures, and everyone can contribute. However, Russia, located in Eurasia, at the intersection of the cultural and civilisational tendencies of East and West, is destined to stand at the focal point of this conceptual process by the merit of its location alone. It comes as no surprise that the first systematic thoughts concerning this theory emerged in Russia.

    Gramscian counter-hegemony calls for the formation of a counterhegemonic block, a Global Revolutionary Alliance which joins all those opposing capitalism and hegemony, Eurocentrism and racism, all of which are implicit in the idea of the universality of Western cultural values, the superiority of Western civilisation and modernisation. In the context of the theory of the multipolar world and the Fourth Political Theory, the theory of counter-hegemony gains a concrete cultural and civilisational space of a non-Eurocentric pluralistic universe. Contemporary counter-hegemony must be inclusive, which means engaging with all types of resistance to hegemony; this involves the Left and the Right, and positions and theories that are outside the boundaries of the political ideologies of modernity within the framework of the Fourth Political Theory.

58. Nationalism criminal fiction and ideological impasse - Alexander Dugin

    

    Probably only few people paid serious attention to the fact that the Fourth Political Theory, which I adhere to, pays the most serious attention to the criticism of nationalism. Most striking is the criticism of liberalism and the rejection of Marxist dogma. But equally necessary and fundamental is the radical rejection of not just nationalism, but even the nation.

    A special place in the Fourth Political Theory is occupied by a frontal and uncompromising criticism of racism, which can be regarded as one of the versions of nationalism, or, more broadly, as a general paradigm of the attitude of Western civilization to all other peoples and cultures.

    At a time when Russia is conducting a military operation in Ukraine, the purpose of which is denazification, we should dwell on this in more detail.

    Plurality of Civilizations and Multipolarity

    The Fourth Political Theory is based on the fundamental idea of ​​a plurality of civilizations and cultures, that is, the idea of ​​a multipolar world - as history, the present state of affairs and a project for the future. This means that Western civilization and, in particular, modern Western civilization that has developed in Modern times, is only one of the variants of civilization, and beyond its borders, there have existed, exist and, most importantly, there must and will exist other civilizations based on other civilizations original principles.

    These non-Western civilizations are:

    ·   Russian (Orthodox-Eurasian) civilization (we start with it, because we are it);

    ·   Chinese (quite unified and today politically formalized);

    ·   Islamic (multipolar and multi-vector in itself)

    ·   Indian (not yet acting as an independent pole);

    ·   Latin American (in the process of becoming);

    ·   African (potential and represented by the Pan-Africanism project).

    In addition, in Western civilization itself, two sectors can be distinguished:

    ·   Anglo-Saxon (USA, England, Australia, Canada) and

    ·   European-continental (primarily Franco-German).

    At the same time, Western civilization presents itself as unique and universal, equating its values and attitudes with those of all mankind. This is deep Western racism (ethnocentrism), which was the basis of classical colonialism and remains so - but only a little more veiled - in the projects of globalism.

    The Racist Nature of Unipolarity: Western Hegemony and Agents of Influence

    At the level of geopolitics and geostrategy, Western racism is expressed in a unipolar model - the West (USA and NATO) control all of humanity based on full-spectrum dominance (military, economic, diplomatic, informational and cultural dominance).

    Any country and any person can agree with the West's claim to universalism (that is, unipolarity), or can reject it. The choice of unipolarity or multipolarity is not a given - it is always open. Every Russian, Chinese, Muslim, Hindu, African or Latin American can recognize the hegemony of the West, or can say a resolute "no" to it, swearing to their own civilizational identity. So everything depends on the position we take. If we accept the universality of the West and its strategic and cultural dominance, we become agents of NATO influence. And nothing else. If we do not agree, then we will experience the blow of world hegemony. That is, we are entering into a fight with the West, NATO and its agents of influence, that is, with all those who say “yes” to the West.

    Today Russia is conducting a military operation against the West and its hegemony. It was with him that we entered into direct confrontation. This means Russia - as a distinctive civilization and a nuclear power - rejects the West's claim to hegemony and universalism. Moscow hesitated for a long time, but finally decided to say a radical "no".

    Quite naturally, the racist globalist West responds to Russia in the same way. He is fiercely waging a proxy war with us, and by proxy, with the help of the neo-Nazi regime he has nurtured in Ukraine.

    There is an armed confrontation between the multipolar world and the unipolar one. This is a clash of civilizations. Civilizations in the plural. And not a war of one “only civilization with the barbarians”, as the West propagandizes.

    Since the war (not with Ukraine, but with the West) is already underway, therefore, right now is the moment when we must oppose the West with our civilizational structures - theories, ideas, paradigms, teachings, values, principles. And Western values ​​should at least be relativized or discarded altogether. To relativize means to say: "you like it, well, that's fine, but it's yours and only yours, and not universal." In order to discard, everything is clear. But in return, in all cases, it is necessary to approve something of your own, original and complete.

    Hegemony in political science

    Just as some media and publicorganizations in Russia have for some time now been required to wear the disclaimer “foreign agent”, so it is with political theories. Liberalism, communism, and nationalism of particular interest to us are the main political and ideological versions of Western Modernity. All three classical ideologies (liberalism, communism, nationalism) were formed precisely in the West and correspond to its historical experience and its identity. In the rest of non-Western societies and entire civilizations, these three theories were extended in the course of intellectual colonization. Today they are considered as general and universal, and therefore applicable to any peoples and countries. But in fact, we are talking about the conceptual and theoretical products of only one part of humanity, one civilization - modern Western. In all non-Western societies, an exposition of liberalism (today the dominant and therefore the most dangerous), communism and nationalism must begin with a warning - “Beware! We are dealing with toxic colonial-imperialist content!” That is, the supporters of liberalism, communism and nationalism outside the West are conscious or unconscious "foreign agents". Unless, of course, they subject these theories not only to criticism, but at least to comparison with their own teachings and theories, built on the basis of the beginnings of their civilization. And this happens very rarely and as a rule is immediately suppressed.

    Being a liberal, a communist or a nationalist outside the West is like being an agent of influence, a collaborator and a "fifth column".

    This is a general conclusion from multipolarity and the recognition of a plurality of civilizations, as well as the fundamental basis of the Fourth Political Theory, based on the rejection of the claim of Western political science and its three main theories - 1. liberalism, 2. communism, 3. nationalism - for universality.

    Western political science is a product of capitalism

    Moreover, it should be added that we are dealing with the political science of the modern West, which took shape precisely in that era when the West completely broke with its classical and medieval heritage - primarily with Christianity.

    Three political theories became the basis of Western political science along with the bourgeois system.

    Liberalism initially proclaimed bourgeois individualism and civil society on a cosmopolitan - planetary — scale.

    Nationalism is the same individualism and citizenship, but only within the framework of a bourgeois state.

    And communism, accepting capitalism as an inevitable phase of human development (a racist and Eurocentric thesis), claimed to overcome the bourgeois order (which was destined to become global first), but retained faith in progress and technical development, continuing - but only in a mass democratic and class key - bourgeois ethics of "liberation" from tradition, religion, family, etc.

    Of course, having won in non-Western societies (contrary to Marx himself, who believed that this was impossible), communism changed qualitatively (in Russia, China, etc.), but did not make significant adjustments to the theory itself, remaining part of Eurocentric political science.

    Nationalism as anti-tradition

    Now more specifically about nationalism. Nationalism is a Western bourgeois-capitalist phenomenon. It appears in Europe as the rejection of the medieval way of life - religion, a single European church, the Empire, the class organization of society. European nationalism is the same artificial and instrumental construction as other versions of Western ideologies. This is not an alternative to capitalist modernity, this is its direct product.

    Of course, liberalism more fully corresponds to the capitalist system and was originally conceived as globalism, that is, as the spread of the norms and attitudes of the bourgeois system to all mankind. This, incidentally, was well understood by the Marxists. Nationalism, on the other hand, was an intermediate stage when it was necessary to destroy the pan-European institutions of the Middle Ages - Catholicism, the Empire, the class organization of society, and offer something in return for the temporary preservation of the state, already captured by the bourgeois oligarchy. Not surprisingly, nationalism first appeared in Protestant countries, where, starting from Holland and England, we see all three main signs of emerging capitalism (anti-Church, anti-Empire, anti-hierarchy) -renunciation of Rome, fierce opposition to the Habsburgs and the transfer of initiative in the economy and politics from the aristocracy and the priesthood to the class of urban merchants.

    It was the bourgeois anti-traditional - anti-Catholic, anti-estate and anti-imperial - circles of European societies that became the main carriers of nationalism.

    Historically, capitalism has developed in phases: first in the form of nationalism, then in the form of globalist liberalism, although liberal theories were formed at an early stage, and Adam Smith's globalism was identical in its contours to the territories of the world colonial British Empire.

    With the success of the bourgeois system, capitalism became more and more liberal and less and less national, but in many cases national forms did not disappear anywhere - bourgeois national states have survived to this day. Modern liberal globalists want to abolish them as soon as possible, transferring power to the World Government, but they still exist and, if necessary, are used by the capitalist elites that control them. Nevertheless, it is logical to consider nationalism an early stage of capitalism, and liberalism (globalism) a late one.

    Communism in this context is a detour. Communists (at least dogmatic Marxists) are in solidarity with the globalists in rejecting nation-states and consider the triumph of cosmopolitan capitalism on a planetary scale necessary and inevitable. Therefore, in the fight against clearly nationalist regimes, they often find themselves on the side of the liberals.

    But at the same time, they are waiting for the moment when the capitalist system, having become global and international, will enter into a crisis, and then, in their opinion, the conditions will be created for the proletarian world revolution. This is where the confrontation between communism and liberalism will make itself felt. Such is the abstract theory of communism, completely refuted by historical practice. In fact, communist regimes did not take shape in a capitalist and international society, but in agrarian countries with an almost medieval way of life. And they turned into something national-Bolshevik, which a significant part of Western Marxists generally refused to consider "socialism" or "communism." So, contrary to pure Marxist theory, some communist regimes (Soviet Russia, China, etc.) began to build socialism in one country, that is, in fact, linked communism with the national context (without giving it, however, a theoretical formulation).

    All this created a terrible confusion in terms, since all parties were forced to make ideological stretches and propaganda moves designed to somehow obscure obvious theoretical contradictions.

    In any case, nationalism is something purely modern, Western and capitalist.

    The nation is an imaginary community

    The artificial nature of nationalism is beautifully described by the sociologist Benedict Anderson. He convincingly shows that, unlike a people or an ethnos, a “nation” is a political and artificial concept, created for pragmatic purposes by bourgeois ideologists, when it was necessary to somehow hold society together after it rejected the tradition - religious, class and hierarchical (imperial) . Anderson called his book "An Imaginary Community", which emphasized the illusory nature of the nation, as an arbitrary and fictitious creation of the intelligentsia, ideologically serving the interests of the bourgeoisie.

    Benedict Anderson makes a very important statement: nationalism does not follow the nation as its extreme form, but it precedes the nation. Nationalism comes first, and only then the nation itself. Every nation is invented by nationalists. Nationalists begin by inventing ancient roots for a specific historical people that have nothing to do with it. The modern bourgeois state is proclaimed the heir of some great Empire. And then the nationalists impose on the entire population of the state some arbitrary language (most often from among the dialects, it is called "idiom"), a single cultural code and a common system of law on an individual - civil - basis. This collection of individual citizens, who were forced to speak the same language and consider themselves fictitious descendants of great (or fictional) ancestors, is only necessary so that a fragmented and atomized society does not fall apart at all, but at the same time so that neither religious nor religious estates or imperial institutions or rural communities. And in order to unite this heterogeneous mass, an enemy is needed, in the face of which all these human fragments (parts without a whole) would feel solidarity in hatred and unjustified superiority.

    At the same time, the word “citizen” itself is important, which comes from the word “city”, that is, “citizen”. Such is the etymology of the word bourgeois, from the word Burg, "city." Nationalism is an urban, urbanistic phenomenon, where people live scattered and nuclear - in contrast to rural communities.

    Such is any nationalism. It is first formed into a theory, which is later put into practice. Nationalism molds the political nation.

    Hence the feeling of inorganicity and ugliness, which are inextricably linked with all forms of nationalism. It is based on lies, forgery and destruction of the genuine organic life of peoples, cultures and communities.

    Functional racism

    Racism is the ultimate form of nationalism. In this version, nationalism reaches its extreme stage. Members of some fictitious nation, in which various ethnic and cultural elements will necessarily be present (but this is precisely what nationalism and racism are denied), are proclaimed the “master race”, which (it is not known by whom, because religion is considered a relic) is given the right conquer the lower ones.

    Racism was the most important component of European colonialism, primarily Anglo-Saxon, where the right to subjugate and enslave entire continents was based on the “racial superiority of the white man”. In the traditional Empires of antiquity, any conquered peoples had their own legal status and it never occurred to anyone to enslave them or consider them inferior. European racism arose in modern times and was also a bourgeois invention. A race is as much an imaginary phenomenon as a nation. But it emphasizes biological characteristics, as in the case of animals - for example, thoroughbred trotters. The typical appearance of this or that people, of course, matters, but the idea of ​​basing social and economic hierarchy on biological differences is pure absurdity. Perhaps the talents and cultures of different peoples are really different, but it is impossible to build a hierarchy between them without arbitrarily taking one of the peoples as a model and ideal. And this is racism: the identification of one's culture (one's own skin color, language, history, values, etc.) with a universal model.

    If for some - primarily for the Anglo-Saxons, who created the first complete racial theories - racism served as a justification for colonial domination and slavery, then in other cases - in Nazi Germany - racism was used - just like nationalism, but only more radical - to rally bourgeois society, falling apart as traditional religious, political and social institutions disappear. Mere nationalism was not enough to unite the disparate German lands of Western and Southern Germany, and Protestant Prussia, which was completely different from them, into a single "imaginary Empire" was not enough. Therefore, ultranationalism was involved - that is, biological racism, borrowed from the British and brought to the most absurd and inhuman theories - the glorification of the Aryan race (which was identified with the Germans), the declaration of other peoples as "non-humans" (including the Indo-European Slavs or Gypsies) and their mass extermination.

    And again for the same purely pragmatic goal - to unite what has crumbled into atoms with the help of a false theory.

    Why does the Fourth Political Theory reject nationalism?

    The Fourth Political Theory rejects racism and any form of nationalism precisely because it is an anti-traditional bourgeois Western and modernist construct. And operating with the concept and theory of nationalism to explain the political and social processes of non-Western and especially in traditional societies is an act of the same universalist - essentially colonial - strategy. This is where racism and the claim that the West and its political science have the last word in explaining all socio-political processes in any peoples and societies lies. Once we agree to use the three theories (liberalism, communism and nationalism), we are already under the direct ideological control of Western hegemony.

    The Fourth Political Theory strongly disagrees with the basic premises of nationalism -

    with the inevitability of the dismemberment of an organic (whole) society into atoms, that is, with the Western interpretation of "modernity";

    with capitalism as a necessary stage in the development of mankind,

    with linear and copied from Western history social progress, which consists in more and more individualism, comfort, technical development, fictitious dispersion of power on the atomized masses and a real increase in control from the hidden oligarchic clans and their monopolies.

    ·   with citizenship in its European modernist interpretation,

    ·   with mandatory secularity (essentially anti-religious),

    ·   with the abolition of estates and

    ·   with the destruction of rural communities in favor of urbanized "lonely crowds" - both bourgeois and proletarian.

    And since these phenomena belong to the history of the West, the Fourth Political Theory considers them a local, regional case. Other civilizations do not necessarily have to go through this stage - Modernity, capitalism, secularism, industrialization and urbanization - may or may not go through. And neither capitalism nor its nationalistic or racist phases represent any universal law of development.

    It is indicative that the Russian Slavophiles and their followers both in the right and in the left spectrum of Russian political life of the 19th and early 20th centuries thought in the same way. The Slavophiles rejected the universality of the West and especially the modern West. The same line was supported, on the one hand, by conservative Orthodox-monarchist circles, and, on the other hand, by Russian populists. The Russian Eurasians rejected even more clearly and radically the claims of the West to universality.

    Structure of Ukrainian Nazism

    These theoretical remarks make it possible to better understand the situation in which modern Russia faced the phenomenon of nationalism and even Nazism in the case of post-Soviet Ukraine, and especially after the Maidan and during the special military operation, where Ukrainian nationalism (in its extreme forms) found itself in the role of the main political ideological enemy of Russia.

    Here we see all the classic features of nationalism:

    ·   appeal to fictitious ancestors (up to idiotic inventions about "ancient Ukrainians"),

    ·   the image of the enemy (primarily in the face of the Russians and Russia, that is, functionally the Empire),

    ·   suggestion of alleged superiority (over the same Russians),

    ·   the imposition of one - artificially created language just for purely political purposes (an idiom like language),

    ·   bourgeois-oligarchic system,

    ·   rapid urbanization of the rural population.

    And all these ideological tools are aimed at one goal - to create a nation that does not exist and which does not have and did not have any historical prerequisites for the emergence. Nationalism, and especially its extreme racist forms, testify to the fact that the bourgeois nation does not yet exist. But there is no longer a people, a traditional society, or we are dealing with different peoples and identities that accidentally found themselves within the boundaries of the same ephemeral statehood. In such a situation of desperate alienation, the hasty creation of a “square” required extraordinary measures - it was they who brought modern Ukrainian Nazism to life.

    Here a natural question arises: how did the West, which is in a completely different phase, when nation-states are almost abolished, being replaced by global institutions, and liberalism seeks to destroy even the remnants of nationalism, allowed such Ukrainian aphasia? There are two answers to this:

    ·   The West turned a blind eye to Ukrainian Nazism because of its pronounced Russophobic orientation; Russia has the potential to become an independent pole that would limit the hegemony of the West, while Ukraine does not pose any serious threat.

    ·   Ukrainian nationalism was perceived by the West as an inevitable growing pain, a phase that Western societies have long since passed and (as they think) have overcome; Ukraine, having entered the era of capitalism and oligarchy, is forced to rely on nationalism in order to build a state as quickly as possible under rather difficult conditions, given the lack of any constructive experience and potential of Russia as a strong civilizational pole of gravity, alternative to the West.

    As a result, in Ukraine, the West supported everything against which it fought desperately at home. What this policy led to is known: another attempt to build a Ukrainian state failed again - first Crimea and Donbass, then a special military operation. And no Nazism helped, although its consequences this time were monstrous in scale.

    The ideology of the new Russia

    Last thing. It is important to understand that Russia, which claims that it is fighting Nazism in Ukraine and insisting on denazification, is, in fact, acting from the position of the Fourth Political Theory. It is obvious that Moscow does not rely on liberal globalism, with which, on the contrary, it has entered into a deadly confrontation. The liberal West and, more broadly, global capitalism under the rule of the world oligarchy is the main enemy of Russia as a pole, civilization, and culture. The struggle for multipolarity cannot be based on liberalism, that is, on the ideology of the enemy.

    Modern Russia has nothing in common - except for the relatively recent past - with communist ideology. Communism collapsed precisely because it lost its inner vitality. The Russian and Eurasian factor, tradition, religion and communal spirit were not included in the Marxist dogmatics, that is, the de facto existing National Bolshevism was not comprehended and accepted. This gave rise to contradictions between what the USSR was and what its party elite thought dogmatically.

    But the modern political regime in Russia cannot be called nationalistic either – the way is Russian, not Ukrainian. And this would be a contradiction, since various ethnic groups and cultures participate in Russia-Eurasia, easily integrated into the Empire, but opposed to direct artificial Russification, turning into a nation.

    That is, none of the three Western political ideologies exists in modern Russia and cannot exist. However, today it has no ideology at all.

    And yet, the struggle today is with nationalism as an ideology - and quite specific. But it is impossible to fight ideology without ideology. Because in this case, no one will be able to understand or explain - with what exactly, why and on what basis this struggle is taking place.

    There is only one way out: to reject the West and its civilization as something universal, and return to our own roots, to our history, to our fundamental worldview, to our Tradition, of which all Eastern Slavs (and Great Russians, and Ukrainians, and Belarusians) were a part. There is no better political science system than the Fourth Political Theory (as well as its versions - Slavophilism, Eurasianism, traditionalism, conservatism, etc.). Only it is capable of substantiating our struggle against Ukrainian Nazism and liberal globalism, and everything else is not. An ideological vacuum in such conditions can lead to fatal consequences.