Aleksandr Dugin: "Neo-Eurasianism"

[Michael K.]

Editorial Comment:  Dugin is the one to watch.  His views are integrated into Putinism.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1626_279/ai_77712793/

Russian Nationalism Today: The Views Of Alexander Dugin
by Dmitry Shlapentokh

AT a recent meeting of specialists in Slavic Studies, some of the participants began discussing the views of Alexander Dugin, the popular Russian nationalist philosopher. Most of the Russian participants, mostly Westernized liberals, were unaware of Dugin. This was not the case with the American participants. Not only were they aware of his political stance but even the most minute details of his personality were under their endless scrutiny. For example, a lively debate ensued about whether Dugin sported a beard or had recently shaved it.

The interest in Dugin is justified, for he is one of the few contemporary Russian philosophers who fascinate Westerners. And it is not only academics who are interested in him (an article and a book chapter have recently been devoted to him in scholarly publications). The authoritative American journal Foreign Affairs also published an article on Dugin. Their profile asserted that his views were actually those of the Russian elite. The article has its merit for Dugin's works (and he is a prolific author) are used as textbooks in the Russian military academy, and he is also an adviser to Seleznev, the Speaker of the Russian Duma (parliament). In spite of the amicable meeting between President Putin and President Bush in June there are still underlying tensions between Russia and the United States. The views of this Russian nationalist philosopher therefore deserve exploring.

Dugin belongs to the school of what is called Eurasianism, a philosophical and quasi-political movement that began with Russian emigres who had fled the Bolshevik regime in the 1920s. Eurasianists were in many ways similar to traditional Russian nationalists. For example, they believed in the corporate/collectivist nature of Russia/Eurasia and asserted that Western-style democracy was foreign to the country's political culture. They also berated the West for its absence of a grand goal and a sense of spiritual messianism. For them, the West was crass, materialistic and, of course, morally rotten. What made the various brands of Eurasianists different from traditional Russian nationalists was their assumption that Russia's spiritual tone was not so much Slavic as Asian in origin. The leftist branch of the movement soon forgot about its anti-Bolshevik stand and began to identify with the communists. In their view the Marxist coating of the regime was merely a thin veneer, and beneath it one could easily discer n that the Bolsheviks were traditional Russian nationalists/Eurasiansists because they had made Russia strong again and had established an empire.

Since the collapse of the Soviet regime, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the West, and the Eurasianists' views are becoming increasingly popular among various groups of the Russian nationalistic elite. Dugin is the most prominent spokesman for this group of intellectuals, and thus while planning my trip to Russia recently I thought it might be a good idea to interview him. I was anxious to meet this prophet of the coming nationalistic revolution which would lead Russia/Eurasia to a final Armageddon with the West.

The location of Dugin's headquarters in itself is interesting because of what it says about the new Russia. His office is located close to the Novodevechy Monastery, a burial place for important people. It was built in the sixteenth -- seventeenth centuries, and is in comparatively good shape. White walls and the golden cupolas of the churches can be seen clearly against the screen of the blue sky. A big oval pond is near the wall, and children swim there despite the dubious cleanliness of the water.

Library 27

Library 27, where Dugin lives and works, is placed in a typical Moscow apartment building and residents of the building are seemingly unaware of its existence. However, I found the perennial Russian babushkas, old ladies who usually chat on the benches, and they pointed out the library, which is small and unimposing. It is one of the numerous regional libraries that are scattered all over the city. These libraries were designed to provide local residents with intellectual nourishment, but apparently have fallen into misuse. The authorities have meager funds to maintain them, and even more meagre funding for the purchasing of books. Most of the books are relics of the Soviet regime, and this is one of the major reasons that the libraries are not well attended...

'A confrontation between the West and Eurasia is inevitable', he began. 'And I was the first to state this. I was the first who made this clear even in the beginning of the Yeltsin era, when everyone was confident that Russia would become a part of the West. Everyone who has stated that Russia will clash with the West took these ideas from me. And what I say is on the mind of the Russian elite'. Here Dugin added that some members of the elite have complained to him because he has disclosed their private viewpoints to public scrutiny. 'And I respond -- this is not true. I do not disclose their ideas, they merely follow mine'.

'Who will lead this new Russia against the West'? I asked him. 'The communists? The national communists? I read their publications, especially Zavtra (Tomorrow) and what is preached is absolute gibberish'. Now, Zavtra is the main vehicle for what is called the red-to-brown movement, a loose coalition of nationalistic-minded communists. Their main concern is not so much the end of socialism as the end of the mighty USSR (read Russian empire). Those who follow this line of thinking see Yeltsin as a usurper and, of course, an unwitting tool of cunning Jews. The paper's contributors assume that the Russian people are prepared for a revolt that would bring them to power. The newspaper has been predicting the imminent revolution for years, but so far it all has been an illusion.

Here I added that since I had been in Moscow it seemed more like an illusion than it had back in America. From American shores, the rhetoric is deceptive. Wounded national pride, the war in the Balkans -- all of this should lead to a violent response from the Russians, at least from the perspective of Western logic. But you only need to be in Moscow, look at the people and talk with the people to find out that this is absolute gibberish. The whole thing -- the call to rise against Yeltsin, to fight for Orthodox brother Slays, to resurrect the mighty USSR -- is absolute stupidity. No one will rise for the communist/nationalist regime. Indeed, an absolute cynicism and passivity prevails throughout the country, I told him, trying to provoke a response.

I looked at his eyes once again. No, he was not the man I had expected to see. He was not what I would call a true believer. I have not read many of his books, but I have read most of his articles in Zavtra. There are several pages in the newspaper, actually a newspaper within the paper, that publishes Dugin's work along with that of similar folk. Many of these articles, including those of Dugin, are written in a semi-mystical language that emphasizes that the Orthodox civilization of Russia/Eurasia will collide inevitably with the West. A grand explosion, presumably nuclear, will be the final outcome of this confrontation. In these articles Dugin's hatred of the West is so intense that he regards the flames of mutual self-destruction as a better alternative to that of existence of the West. According to these articles, one could assume that Dugin was a true believer, a fanatic of the cause who cannot think rationally and look at himself and his ideas from the outside. I know some people with this frame of m ind in Russia. One of them was Svetlana Semenova, the leading specialist on the extravagant Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov (d. 1903). Fedorov's ideas were bizarre, or at least they were out of tune with anything that Western philosophy had ever proposed. He believed that the goal of mankind is the physical resurrection of the dead. He thought that this would be possible when humanity would abandon such follies as sex, which, he believed, was an essential aspect of Western civilization. As soon as the West would forsake its sexual drive, focus on the love of its dead ancestors, and unite around Russia, the grand project of the resurrection of the dead could be started. Then humanity's resurrected and immortal ancestors could be resettled all over the universe...

He said: 'I agree with you that Communists and Zavtra have no future. Zavtra's calls for uprising are hysterical and pathetic. Who would listen to them? The Communists are also at a dead end', he added. 'There are two problems here. To start with, despite all of their screaming, they are no longer truly the opposition. They have become part of the establishment, and if they would win they would act practically in the same way as the present day regime. Nothing radical could be expected. And secondly, they are Moscow-centered and anti-Semites. Their plan is to resurrect the old Soviet or Russian tsarist empire, the highly centralized bureaucratic body with Russians as a dominant ethnic group. No one would follow them. Their plan is a road to failure'. Then Dugin used a phrase, a familiar quote, that was uttered exactly 80 years ago by an ex-White officer, who was discussing Russia's future on the eve of the Bolshevik victory. Salvation will not come from this side, not from the side of the opposition.

Revolutionaries as Counter-Revolutionaries

In 1919 when Russia was in the midst of the Civil War, developments in the country in many ways followed the present day scenario. The only difference was that they were much more rapid and catastrophic. In February 1917, the Imperial Government had collapsed almost over night, with practically no resistance. In a similar way the Communist regime ended in 1991. In both of these cases, the events were celebrated as the beginning of a new era, an era of happiness and ideal democracy. After both events, it was believed that Russia would enter the family of Western democracy, and that success in all directions would follow. In the case of the February Revolution, it was believed that the Russian army would defeat the Germans and Austro-Hungarians in the First World War. It was also believed that the economic problems in the country would be fixed.

This same feeling was shared by the majority of those who witnessed the anti-Communist revolution and the collapse of the USSR that had followed the end of the communist regime. They dreamed that the new post-Communist Russia would enter a period of economic prosperity, and at the same time, the international standing of the new Russia could be upheld and Russia would be seen as an equal among the Western nations. All of these hopes were crushed soon enough. Both in 1917 and in 1991 the economy entered a speedy decline and the state disintegrated while the spread of crime and other asocial problems provided a great push toward anarchy. 1917 was different from 1991 in one perspective: this disintegration, the push for anarchy, was much stronger, and Russia had a civil war.

For quite a few historians, the reason why the Red Bolsheviks defeated their opponents, the Whites, was clear. The Whites represented the landlords and capitalists, the middle class which lost during the revolution most of its riches. While this was undoubtedly true for quite a few of the Whites, many others confronted the Bolsheviks for quite a different reason. Quite a few of them, especially the officers who represented the military elite, hated the Bolsheviks because they saw them as giving short shrift to the state. These Whites saw the Bolsheviks as the people who had incited the soldiers to desert, thus opening the road for advancing Germans. They also blamed the Bolsheviks for inciting the local separatism that had led to the disintegration of the Russian empire. It was not a concern for their material interests, but a desire to preserve Russia as united and indivisible, to restore the country to its previous glory, that pushed many of them to oppose the Bolsheviks, yet it was the Bolsheviks who won the Civil War and united Russia and actually fulfilled the dreams of Nationalistic-minded Whites.

At the same time it is the present day Communist-Nationalists, such as Zyuganov, who bemoan the lack of a mighty Russian state and dream of resurrecting the USSR, and paradoxically enough, play the role of the Whites of the Civil War. I thought over all of this when Dugin repeated, Salvation will not come from this side, not from the side of the opposition. 'Why'? I asked him.

According to Dugin, the reasons are clear enough. Despite their rhetoric, the present day communists have lost their ability to incite the Russian public. Thus, they are impotent, powerless to confront the current regime. He went on passionately: 'Have they created any underground opposition to the regime? Do they readily sacrifice themselves for the creation of a state that is ready to confront the West? Definitely not. Even if they would come to power they would follow the line of the present regime. They would not make many changes'.

Here I asked him what would happen if they did come to power and tried to resurrect the Soviet state. One should not discard the possibility. Dugin believed that their attempts could not work as they have no new ideas on how to build a state that would be able to confront the West. His point here was that the Communist-Nationalist programme is really only centuries-old Russian nationalism framed in Moscow-centered bureaucratic centralism.

'What other model could they follow'? I asked. Dugin's theory is that Russian nationalism and the centralism of the Russian state were the reasons for the collapse of the USSR. And here is where his Eurasianist viewpoint is most evident. He said that in the Russian-dominated state of the USSR, the people of Eurasia had seen themselves as subjugated. They were not ready to see Russia as their ally. The new Eurasian state would emerge as the broadest political and economic decentralization. Each of Russia's regions would receive as much freedom in its political and social arrangements as it wished. Those regions with predominantly Muslim populations could live according to their strict Muslim laws. Even polygamy would be permitted. In those regions where the population still believed in Communism, they could build a Communist regime if they wished. The variety of politico-social combinations could be endless...

The Elite and the West

All of this does not work in post-Soviet Russia where the elite has tried its best to be integrated in the West. There is a vested interest of the newborn Russian elite to maintain a good relationship with the West. The Russian elite wishes to receive Western loans. These loans are actually gifts, for it is clear to all parties that Russia has no intention of ever repaying them. More importantly, the West is a haven for their capital.

The point here is that money and power are tightly connected in present day Russia. There is no such thing as private property, as it is known in the West. An individual's property rights depend on his relationship to the holder of power, especially in the case of such lucrative property as oil and other natural resources. Money is not safe, and for this reason the new Russians, the emerging rich, send their money to Western banks. This is one of the major reasons why the elite will try to maintain a good relationship with the West.

The same concern for money and property is what has made them allies of Yeltsin's and now Putin's regime, which despite its political vacillation remains a pro-Western force. A change in political leadership could easily lead to the re-division of property, and this is another reason why the present-day post-Soviet elite was so concerned with the transition to the post-Yeltsin era.

Thus, for various reasons, the elite sees a good relationship with the West as critical. And because of this I think it would be unbelievable to assume that the present day Russian elite would turn against the West.

Dugin argued against my position in the following way: First, he disagreed with my statement that the present day elite sees the West as indispensable to their economic well-being. As a matter of fact, in Dugin's view, the present day Russian financial oligarchy could hardly be incorporated into the Western economy. The logic of events will lead them to a confrontation with the West. And here he pointed to Boris Berezovsky, the financial tycoon who has been actively involved in politics and is seen by some people as a king maker.

Berezovsky and similar members of the Russian economic and political elite, Dugin stated, would not be able to function in the West. All of them are criminals, or at least semi-criminals, and cannot become a part of the Western economic system. Dugin pointed to the scandal with the Bank of New York where several of the bank's employees had been linked to money laundering. These sort of scandals endanger the ability of Russia to attract new loans from the West (and much of these loans go directly into the pockets of the Russian bureaucracy). Eventually these scandals will have serious repercussions, and the money the tycoons have in Western banks might not be safe in the future.

Recent developments give some credibility to Dugin's assumptions that the Westernism of the present day Russian oligarchy, whether they are ethnic Russians or Jewish, is a fleeting phenomenon, and that they will eventually have to join the Russian nationalists and prepare Eurasia for a showdown with its arch enemy, the United States. Dugin ended our conversation with the ominous statement that the perceived passivity of the Russian populace is deceptive and a great confrontation lies ahead. He also added that in the confrontation with the USA, Russia-Eurasia will not stand alone and will be able to assemble around herself a mighty alliance of assorted nations ranging from Israel to Iran.

The Importance of Dugin's Views

I was ready to part, for Dugin's time was in short supply. While he rounded off before my eyes the prospect of a grand alliance of Russia, Iran, Central Asia, and possibly even Israel to confront Nato, another visitor was already waiting to talk to him. He, too, was a representative of the country which Dugin viewed as the mortal enemy of Russia/Eurasia, the United States.

Dugin's views, i.e., the sense of hostility to the West, seem to be spreading among the Russian elite, and not only among those who disagree with the government. In a public radio interview, the editor of one of the new Russian magazines stated that Russia and Nato are on a collision course and the Russian elite should strengthen the country's armed forces to be ready for all eventualities.

In the editor's view, the West in general and America in particular have done their best to destroy Russia. Russians, he continued, should drop their illusions about the West and be quite pragmatic and even cynical in dealing with the West. He stated that present day Russians would be wise not to follow the example of Nicholas II. He had fought for peace, just as Brezhnev had. The results of these struggles for peace were a disaster, the commentator emphasized. Russia experienced devasting defeats and the revolutions that led to Nicholas' death. Russians should look not to him but to Alexander III, who did not fight for peace. Alexander understood that the West was Russia's enemy and prepared for the war. And it was Alexander's policy that made Russia a powerful and influential player in global affairs. The commentator implied that the present day Russian elite should follow the road of Alexander's pragmatic nationalism.

How should one view the statements of Dugin and similar people about the inevitable confrontation of Russia/Eurasia with the West? Some of them should be carefully scrutinized. There are those who state that unless Russia is engaged the present day Russian elite will follow the Weimar scenario, and a Russian Hitler will come to power. This scenario is not only pleasing to the Russian elite for it implies a direct economic benefit, but it is also pleasing to Western scholars in Russian studies. For them, the prospect of a mighty nationalistic Russia threatening to confront the West also entails various materialistic benefits -- i.e., a better job market, fatter grants, easiness of publications, etc. This certainly explains their interest in Dugin and similar figures who are practically unknown in their own country but popular in the West.

Moreover, Dugin and other Russian nationalists do not seem to grasp the practical implications, both in their own lives and for Russia, of a confrontation with the West. In a nationalistic/authoritarian state Dugin would hardly be allowed to entertain foreigners. Quite likely a new wave of terrorism would consume Dugin and similar extravagant thinkers regardless of their professed love for a nationalistic order. For, as protagonists of the French and Russian Revolutions discovered long ago, revolutions usually eat their children. For the general population, the new political arrangement would call for a strict work discipline, conscription and, of course, a further decline in the already low standard of living.

And it would be wrong to assume that many members of the Russian elite, despite their anti-Western rhetoric, are not aware of these implications. Most members of the elite do not want to confront the West. Thus, the pronouncements of people like Dugin might not be the beginning of a round of confrontation with the West, but actually the heralding of the new Russia's retreat, which could finally lead to the country's disintegration, its transformation into a loose coalition of fiefdoms. Yet despite these caveats, one should not totally discard Dugin's views for they might indicate an important new political trend in the country.

To start with, his views indicate that it would be a mistake to assume that the rise of an anti-Western regime could only come from the Communist/Nationalist opposition to the current elite, from those who are usually called the red-to-brown. The current elite could well change from its pro-Western stance almost overnight, especially if it found out that its money was no longer safe in Western banks or that there would be no more Western loans. While a Weimarian transformation (the rise of a Russian Hitler) of the country, of course, is not the only option in such a case, the other alternatives (and they cannot all be foreseen for the combinations could be unexpected or even bizarre) could be as troubling for the West. And this is the reason why Dugin cannot be ignored.

Dmitry Shlapentokh teaches Russian history at Indiana University South Bend. He is the author of two books comparing the Russian and the French Revolution.

[Michael K.]

[Michael K.]

Editorial Comment:  Dugin lays out the metaphysical doctrine of the Anti-Christ.  He calls the west "Antichrist," which it is in a literal and obvious way.  But the Biblical Anti-Christ of the End, The Beast, is not so obvious.  Rather, the term denotes "in place of Christ," which is what the esoteric doctrine preached by Dugin, a initiatory mysticism of transcendent destruction and the coming Golden Age return of deliverance from the Jew Babylonian West, is really all about.

http://arctogaia.com/public/eng-teor.htm

A.Dughin

The metaphysics of national-bolshevism

        1. The delayed definition

        2. Karl Popper's inestimable contribution

        3. The sacred alliance of the objective

        4. The Metaphysics of Bolshevism (Marx, look "from the right")

        5. Nation's metaphysics.

        6. The traditionalism (Evola, the look "from the left")

        7. The Third Rome - the Third Reich - the Third International

1. The delayed definition

The term "national-bolshevism" can mean several quite different things. It emerged practically simultaneously in Russia and Germany to signify some political thinkers` guess about a national character of bolshevik revolution of 1917, hidden in orthodox Marxism internationalist phraseology. In Russian context "national-bolsheviks" was a usual name for those communists, who tried to secure the integrity of state and (either consciously or not) continued the Great Russian historical mission geo-political policy. Those Russian national-bolsheviks were both among "whites" (Ustrialov, smenovekhovtsy, left Eurasians) and among "reds" (Lenin, Stalin, Radek, Lezhnev etc.) (1). In Germany the analogous phenomenon was associated with extremely left forms of nationalism of 20s-30s, in which the ideas of non-orthodox socialism, the national idea and positive attitude to Soviet Russia were combined. Among German national-bolsheviks Ernst Niekiesch was undoubtedly the most consistent and radical, though some conservative revolutionaries may also be referred to this movement, such as Ernst Juenger, Ernst von Salamon, August Winnig, Karl Petel, Harro Schultzen-Beysen, Hans Zehrera, communists Laufenberg and Wolffheim, and even some extremely left National-socialists, such as Strasser and, within a certain period, Josef Hoebbels.

In fact, the term "national-bolshevism" is much more extended and profound, than the listed political trends` ideas. But in order to adequately comprehend it, we should examine the more global theoretical and philosophical problems, regarding the defining of the "right" and the "left", the "national" and the "social". The word national-bolshevism contains a deliberate paradox. How can two mutually exclusive notions be combined in one and the same name?

Independently on how far did the reflections of historical national-bolsheviks go, which were certainly limited by the surrounding specificity, the idea of approach to nationalism from the left, and to bolshevism from the right is amazingly fruitful and unexpected, opening absolutely new horizons of comprehension of history logic, social development, political thought.

We should not start from some concrete political facts` collection: Niekiesch wrote this, Ustrialov evaluated some phenomenon as such, Savitskiy adduced such argument as, etc., but try to look at the phenomenon from an unexpected point of view, which exactly made it possible, the "national-bolshevism" combination existence itself. Then we will be able not only to describe this phenomenon, but also comprehend it and, with its help, many other aspects of our paradoxical time.

2. Karl Popper's inestimable contribution

It's difficult to imagine anything better for a difficult task of defining the essence of "national-bolshevism", than a reference to the sociological researches of Karl Popper, and especially to his fundamental work - "Open Society and its Enemies". In this bulky work Popper proposes a rather convincing model, according to which all the types of a society are roughly divided into two main kinds - "Open Society" and "Non - Open Society" or "Open Society Enemies' Society". According to Popper, "Open Society" is based on central role of an individual and its basic characteristic features: rationality, step-type behavior (being discrete), absence of global teleology in actions etc. The sense of an "Open Society" is that it rejects all the forms of an Absolute, which are non-comparable with individuality and its nature. Such society is "open" just because of the simple fact that the combinations' varieties of individual atoms do not have a limit (as well as no purpose or sense), and theoretically such a society should be aimed at the achievement of an ideal dynamic balance. Popper also considers himself as a convinced adherent of an "open society".

The second type of a society is defined by Popper as a "hostile to open society". He does not call it "closed", foreseeing possible objections, but frequently uses the term "totalitarian". However, according to Popper, just basing on the acceptance or rejection of an "open society" concept all political, social and philosophical teachings are classified.

The enemies of an "Open Society" are those, who advance (proclaim, put forward) variable (different) theoretical models based on the Absolute against the individual and his/her central role. The Absolute, even being instituted spontaneously and voluntaristically, instantly intrudes into the individual sphere, sharply changes the process of its evolution, violates (exercises coercion over) the individual's atomistic integrity, submitting it to some outer individual impulse. The individual is immediately limited by the Absolute, therefore the people's society loses its quality of the "exposure (openness)" and the perspective of free development in all directions. The Absolute dictates the aims and tasks, establishes dogmata and norms, violates (coerces) an individual, as (like) a sculptor coerces his material (stuff).

Popper starts the genealogy of the "Open Society" enemies from Plato, whom he regards as a founder of the philosophy of totalitarianism and as a father of "obscurantism". Further, he proceeds to Schlegel, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, Spengler and other modern thinkers. All of them are unified in his classification by one indication, which is the introduction of metaphysics, ethics, sociology and economy, based on the principles, denying the "open society" and individual's central role. Popper is absolutely right in this point.

The most important in Popper's analysis is the point that thinkers and politicians are put in the category of the "enemies of an open society" irrespectively of, whether their convictions are "right" or "left", "reactionary" or "progressive". He accentuates some other, more substantial, more fundamental criterion, unifying on both poles the ideas and philosophies which at the first sight seem to be the most heterogeneous and opposite to each other. Marxists as well as conservatives and fascists, and even some social-democrats can be reckoned among the "enemies of an open society". At the same time, liberals like Voltaire or reactionary pessimists like Schopenhauer can turn to be among the friends of open society.

So, Popper's formula is as such: either "open society", or "its enemies".

3. The sacred alliance of the objective

The most felicitous and full definition of national-bolshevism will be as follows: "National-bolshevism is a superideology, common for all open society enemies". Not just one of the hostile to such society ideologies, but it is exactly its full conscious, total and natural antithesis. The national-bolshevism is a kind of an ideology, which is built on the full and radical denial of the individual and his central role; also, the Absolute, in which name the individual is denied, has the most extended and common sense. It could be dared to say that the national-bolshevism is for any version of the Absolute, for any "open society" rejection justification. In the national-bolshevism there is an obvious trend to universalize the Absolute at any cost, to advance such kind of an ideology and such kind of a philosophical program, which would be the embodiment of all the intellectual forms, hostile to the "open society", brought to a common denominator and integrated into the indivisible conceptual and political bloc.

[Editorial Comment:  The above bold text represents the innate rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who ultimately opened the way for the individual as opposed to the group.  In fact, being Bolshevism it is a form of Judaism, where the tribe is the idol worshiped as holy, and the righteous individual opposed to the 'will of the tribe' as expressed through its leaders, is impaled.]  

Of course, throughout the history the different trends, which were hostile to open society, were also hostile to each other. The communists indignantly denied their resemblance to fascists, and conservatives refused to have anything to do with both the above mentioned trends. Practically, no one from "open society enemies" admitted their relation to the analogous ideologies, considering such comparisons as the pejorative criticism. At the same time the different versions of "open society" itself were developed jointly with one another, being clearly conscious of their ideological and philosophical relation. The individualism principle could have united the English Protestant monarchy with the democratic parliamentarianism of Northern America, where the liberalism at first was nicely combined with the slave-owning.

The national-bolsheviks were exactly the first to try grouping the different ideologies, hostile to "open society", they revealed, as well as their ideological opponents, some common axis, uniting round itself all possible alternatives to individualism and to the individualism based society.

On that profound and scarcely fully realized impulse the first historical national-bolsheviks based their theories, using the "double criticism" strategy. The aim of that national-bolshevik criticism was the individualism, both in the "rights" and the "lefts". (In the rights it was expressed in economics, "market theory"; in the lefts it was expressed in the political liberalism: "legal society", "human rights" and so forth).

In other words, the national-bolsheviks grasped beyond the ideologies the essence of both the opposite and their own metaphysical position.

In philosophical language the "individualism" is practically identified with the "subjectivism". If we apply the national-bolshevik strategy on that level, it can be asserted that the national-bolshevism is strongly against the "subjective" and strongly for the "objective". It is not the question: materialism or idealism? The question is: the objective idealism and objective materialism (on one side!) or subjective idealism and also subjective materialism (2) (on the other!).

So, the philosophical policy of the national-bolshevism affirms the natural unity of the ideologies, which are based on the statement of the central position of the objective, which is conferred the same status as the Absolute, without dependence on how this objective character (outness) is interpreted. It could be said that the supreme national-bolshevism metaphysical maxim is the Hinduist formula "Atman is Brahman". In Hinduism "Atman" is the supreme, transcendent human's "Ego", being regardless of the individual "ego", but inside this "ego" as its most intimate and mysterious part, slipping the immanent grasp. The "Atman" is the internal Spirit, but the objective and over-individual one. "Brahman" is the absolute reality, embracing the individual from without, the outer objective character, elevated to its supreme primary source. The identity of "Atman" and "Brahman" in the transcendent unity is the Hinduist metaphysics crown and, what is above all, it is the base for the way of spiritual becoming. This is the point, common for all the sacred doctrines, without any exception. In all of them the question is about the main aim of human's existence, that is the self-overcoming, expanding beyond the bounds of the small individual "ego"; the way away from that "ego" either outside or inside brings to the same victorious outcome. Hence follows the traditional initiatic paradox, expressed in the famous gospel phrase: "who ruins his soul in my name, that one saves his soul". The same sense is contained in Nietzsche`s genius statement: "The human is what should be overcome". The philosophical dualism between the "subjective" and the "objective" affected throughout the history the more concrete sphere, the ideology, and then the politics and social order specificity. The varied versions of the "individualist" philosophy has gradually concentrated in the ideological camp of the liberals and liberal-democratic policy. This is exactly the "open society" macro-model, which Karl Popper wrote about. The "open society" is the final and the most complete individualism fruit, turned to the ideology and being fulfilled in the concrete policy. It is appropriate then to raise the problem of the maximum common ideological model for the "objective" approach adherents, of the universal political and social program for the "open society enemies". As a result we will acquire none other than the national-bolshevism ideology.

Together with the radical novelty of that philosophical division, made in this situation vertically toward the usual schemes (such as idealism-materialism), the national-bolsheviks mark the new boundary in the politics. Both the lefts and the rights are themselves divided into two sectors. The utterly left, communists, bolsheviks, all Hegel*s successors "from the left" are combined in the national-bolshevik synthesis with the utter nationalists, estatists, "New Middle Ages" idea supporters, in short, with all Hegel`s successors "from the right".(3)

The open society enemies return onto their metaphysical ground, common for all of them

4. The Metaphysics of Bolshevism (Marx, look "from the right")

Now we will refer to the clarification of how we should interpret both parts of the term "national-bolshevism" in a exclusively metaphysical sense.

The term "bolshevism" has at first appeared, as it is well known, during the discussions in RSDRP (Russian Social Democratic Labour (Worker's) Party) as a definition for the fraction, which took the part of Lenin. Let us remind, that Lenin's policy in Russian Social Democracy consisted in the unlimited radicalism orientation, compromise refusal, accentage on the elite character of the party and on "Blankism" (the theory of a "revolutionary conspiracy"). Later the people who did the October Revolution and seized the power in Russia were called "bolsheviks". Almost immediately after the revolution the term "bolshevism" has lost it's limited meaning and has become to be perceived as a synonym for the "majority", "all-national policy", "national integration" ("bolshevik" can be approximately translated from Russian as a 'representative of the majority') . At a certain stage the "bolshevism" was perceived as purely Russian, national version of communism and socialism, opposed to the abstract dogmatics of the abstract Marxists and, simultaneously, to the conformist tactics of other social-democratic trends). Such interpretation of "bolshevism" was, at large degree, characteristical for Russia and almost exclusively dominated in the West. However the mentioning of "bolshevism" in a combination with a term "national-bolshevism" is not limited to these historical sense. The question is about a certain policy, which is common for all the radical left tendencies of the socialist and communist nature. We may call this policy "radical", "revolutionary", "anti-liberal". The aspect of the left teachings, which Popper reckons in the "totalitarian ideologies" or in the teachings of the "enemies of the open society" is meant here. Thus, "bolshevism" is not just a consequence of the Russian mentality influence on a social-democratic doctrine. It's a certain component which is constantly present in all the leftist philosophy, which could develop freely and openly only in Russian conditions.

In these latter days the most objective historians more and more often raise a question: "And whether the fascist ideology is really "right"? And the presence of such a doubt, naturally, points to an opportunity of interpretation of "fascism" as a more complex phenomenon, possessing a great deal of typically "left" features. As far as we know, the symmetric question - "And whether the communist ideology is really a "left" one?" - is not raised yet. But this question is more and more urgent. It is necessary to raise it.

It's difficult to deny the authentically "left" features in communism - such as the appeal to rationality, progress, humanism, equalitarianism and etc. But alongside with it, it has the aspects, which unequivocally drop out of a framework of the "left", and are associated with a sphere of irrational (surd ?), mythological, archaic, anti-humanist and totalitarian. It is this set of "right" components in the communist ideology is what should be named "bolshevism" in the most common sense. Already in Marxism itself its two ingredient parts looked like rather doubtful, from the authentically "left" progressivist thinking point of view. It's the heritage of the utopian socialists and Hegelianism. Only the Feyerbach`s ethics drops out of this "bolshevik" in its essence Marx's ideological construction, giving to all the discourse a certain terminological coloring of humanism and progressivism.

The utopian socialists, which were undoubtedly included by Marx in a number of his predecessors and teachers, are the representatives of a specific mystical messianism and forerunners of the "Golden Age" return. Practically, all of them were the members of esoterical societies, inside which an atmosphere of radical mysticism, Eschatology and apocaliptical apticipations prevailed. This world was a mix of some sectant, occult and religious motives, the sense of which was reduced to the following scheme: "The modern world is hopelessly bad, it has lost it's sacred dimension. Religious institutes have degraded and have lost God's blessing (the theme which is common for extreme Protestant sects, "Anabaptists" and Russian old-believers). The world is ruled by evil, materialism, deception, lies, selfishness. But the initiated ones do know about a soon upcoming of a new golden age and promote this upcoming with the enigmatic rituals and occult actions."

The utopia socialists reproduced this common for western messianist esoterism motive on the social reality and gave to a coming gold century the social and political features. Certainly, there was a point of the eschatological myth rationalization in it, but at the same time, the supernatural character of the coming Kingdom, Regnum, is obviously seen in their social programs and manifestos, in which one could easily detect a mention of future communist society wonders( navigation on dolphins, weather operation, common wives, peoples flights in air etc. ). Absolutely obvious, that this policy has almost traditional character; and such radical eschatological mysticism, idea of return to the Beginning, makes it absolutely logic to name this not just a "right" component, but even "extremely right".

Now what regards Hegel and his dialectics. It's widely known that the political beliefs of the philosopher himself were extremely reactionary. But this is not the point. If we study Hegel's dialectics more closely, to his philosophy base method (and it was the dialectical method what Marx borrowed from Hegel at a greater degree), we shall see a concrete exactly traditionalist and also eschatological doctrine, using some specific terminology. Moreover, this methodology reflects a structure of the initiatic, esoterical approach to the gnoseological problems, apart from just profane, every day logic of Decart and Kant, who relied on "common sense", gnoseological specifications of a "every day consciousness", which, as we notice a propos, all the liberals and Karl Popper in particular are the apologets of.

Hegel`s philosophy of a history is a traditional myth version, integrated with purely Christian teleology. The Absolute Idea is alienated from itself and becomes the world (Let's recollect Koranic formula: "Allah was a hidden treasure, which has wished to be learned".).

Being incarnated throughout the history, the Absolute Idea affects the people from the outside, as a "ruse of the World Intellect", predetermining the providential character of tissue of events. But finally, by means of Lord's Son advent, the apocaliptical perspective of the Absolute Idea total realization unveils itself on the subjective level, which due to this becomes "objective" instead of "subjective". "The Being and the Idea become one.". Atman coincides with Brahman. And it takes place in a certain chosen Kingdom, in an empire of the End, which German nationalist Hegel identified with Prussia.

The Absolute Idea is the thesis; its alienation throughout the history is the antithesis; its realization in the eschatological Kingdom is the synthesis.

The Hegel`s gnoseology is based on such vision of the ontology. Apart from the usual rationality, based on the laws of the formal logic, operating only with the positive statements, limited by the actual cause-and-result relations, Hegel`s "new logic ", takes into account the special ontological dimension, integrated with potential aspect of a thing, inaccessible to "every day consciousness ", but actively used by mystical schools of Paracels, Boehme, Hermetists and Rosicrucians. The fact of a subject or statement (to which Kantian "every day" gnoseology is reduced)is for Hegel just one of three hypostacies. The Second Hypostacy is the "denying" of this fact, and interpreted not as pure nothing (as the formal logic sees it), but as a special superintellectual modality of existence of a thing or a statement. The First Hypostacy is Ding fuer uns ( "a thing for us " ); The Second is Ding an sich ( " a thing in self " ). But apart from Kant`s vision, "the thing in self " is interpreted not as something transcendent and purely apophatic, not as gnoseological non-being, but as the gnoseological in-other-way-being. And both these relative Hypostacies result in the Third one, which is the synthesis, embracing both statement and denying, the thesis and antithesis. Thus if one considers the process of thinking consistently, the synthesis occurs after "denying", as the second denying, i.e. " Denying of denying ". In synthesis both the statement and denial are taken. The thing co-exists in it with its own death, which is evaluated in special ontological and gnoseological view not as emptiness, but as the in-other-way-being of life, as the soul. The Kantian gnoseological pessimism, the root of liberal meta-ideology, overturns, unveils as "thoughtlessness", and Ding an sich ( " the thing in self " ) becomes Ding fuer sich ( " a thing for self " ). The reason of the world and the world itself are combined in the eschatological synthesis, where existence and non-existance are both present, without excepting one another. The Earthly Kingdom of the End, ruled by the initiated ones` cast ( the ideal Prussia), is integrated with the descending New Jerusalem. The end of a history and era of Holy Spirit comes.

This eschatological messianist scenario, having been borrowed by Marx, was applied to a little bit different sphere, to the sphere of the industrial relations. Interesting, why he did so? The usual "rights" explain it "by the lack of the idealism" or "his rough nature" ( if not by the subversive intentions). Surprisingly foolish explanation, which, nevertheless, is popular with several generations of reactionaries. What is most likely, Marx , who used to closely study English political economics, was shocked by similarities between the liberal theories of Adam Smith, who saw the history as progressive movement towards the open market society and universalization of a material monetary common denominator and Hegel*s concepts concerning the historical antithesis, i.e. the Absolute Idea alienation throughout the history. Marx has genially identified the maximum Absolute self-alienation with Capital, the social formation, which actively submitted the Europe, contemporary to him.

The capitalism structure analysis, its development history gave Marx the knowledge of the alienation mechanics, the alchemical formula of its functioning rules. And this mechanics comprehension, the "formulas of the antithesis " were just the first and necessary condition for the Great Restoration or the Last Revolution. For Marx the Kingdom of coming communism was not just the progress, but the result the turn-over, "revolution" in the etimological sense of this word. Not accident, that he calls the initial stage of the humankind development the "cave communism". The thesis is the "cave communism", the antithesis is the Capital, the synthesis is the world communism. The communism is synonymous to the End of History, the era of the Holy Spirit. The materialism and accentuating the economy and industrial relations, testify not about Marx's interests practicism, but about his aspiration to the magical transformation of the reality and radical refusal from compensatory dreams of those irresponsible dreamers, who just aggravate the element of alienation by their inactiveness. According to such a logic, the medieval alchemists could be reproached with the "materialism" and hunger for profit, if one does not take into account the deeply spiritual and initiatic symbolism, hidden behind their discourses about the urine distillation, obtaining gold, conversion of minerals into metals etc.

It is this Gnostic tendency of Marx and his predecessors was applied by the Russian bolsheviks, who were raised up in an environment, where the enigmatic forces of Russian sects, mysticism, national messiaism, secret societies and passionate romantic characters of Russian rebels were being summoned against the alienated, temporal, degraded monarchic regime. "Moscow - Third Rome, Russian people is the God carrier, the nation of the All-man. Russia is destined to rescue the world. All those ideas impregnated Russian life, which had it in common with the esoterical plots incorporated in the Marxism. But apart from purely spititualistic formulas, the Marxism offered economic, social and political strategy, which clear and concrete, clear even to the simple person and giving basis for social and political measures.

It was just the "right Marxism" that triumphed in Russia, which obtained the name of "bolshevism". But it does not mean, that only in Russia the matter was as such. The similar tendency is present in all communist parties and movements all over the world, if, certainly, they do not degrade to the parliamentary Social Democracy, conforming to the liberal spirit. Thus, it is not surprising, that socialist revolutions have taken place except Russia only in the East: in China, Korea, Vietnam etc.. It emphasizes once again, that just traditional, non-progressive, the least "modern" ("alienated from the Spirit") and, correspondingly, the most "conservative", the most "right" peoples and nations, have recognized the mystical, spiritual, "bolshevik" essence in the communism.

The national-bolshevism takes turn of just such bolshevik tradition, the policy of the " right communism ", which was originated by the ancient initiatic societies and spiritual doctrines in remote ages. Thus the economic aspect of communism is not diminished, is not denied, but is considered as a gear of the teurgic, magic practice, as a particular tool of a reality transformation. The only thing that should be rejected here is an inadequate, historically exhausted Marxism discourse in which the accidental, inherent to the past epoch, humanist and progressist themes are often present.

The Marxism of the national-bolsheviks means Marx minus Feurbach, i. e. minus evolutionism and sometimes appearing inertial humanism.

5. Nation's metaphysics

The other part of the term "national-bolshevism", "national" also needs to be explained. The notion "nation" itself is far from being simple. There are its biological, political, cultural, economic interpretations. The nationalism may mean both "racial purity" or "ethnic homogeneity" accentuating and the atomistic individuals` consolidation in order to achieve the optimum economic conditions in the limited social and geographical space.

The national-bolshevism "national" component (historical national-bolshevism as well as metahistorical, absolute one) is completely special. Throughout the history national-bolshevik circles were notable for the imperial, geo-political nation interpretation orientation. Ustrialov`s followers and like-minded people, left Eurasians, not to mention Soviet national-bolsheviks, interpreted "nationalism" as over-ethnic, associated with geo-political messianism, with the "place-of-development", with the culture, with the country continental scale phenomenon. In Niekisch`s and his German supporters` works we also run into the idea of the continental empire "from Vladivostok to Flessing", and also into the idea of a "third imperial figure"("Das dritte imperiale Figur").

In all the cases the question is about the geo-political and cultural nation interpretation, free from even hints on the racism, jingoism or aiming at "ethnic purity".

This cultural and geo-political "nation" interpretation was based on the fundamental geo-political dualism, at first clearly designated in Macinder`s works and then picked up by Haushofer`s school in Germany and by Russian Eurasians. The imperial conglomeration of the oriental nations, united round Russia, "heartland", makes up the possible continental country skeleton, consolidated by the "ideocracy" choice and the "plutocracy" rejection, by socialism and the revolution orientation against the capitalism and "progress".

That is significant, that Niekiesch used to insist upon saying that in Germany the "Third Reich" should have been based on potentially socialist and Protestant Prussia, genetically and culturally associated with Russia and Slavic world, not on the western catholic Bavaria, gravitating towards the Roman and capitalist model. (4) But together with that "great continental" nationalism version, which, by the way, precisely corresponds to the universalistic messianist claims of particular Russian nationalism, which is eschatological and all-human, there was also in national-bolshevism more narrow nation interpretation, not contradicting the imperial scale, but defining it more exactly on the lower level.

In that case "nation" was interpreted in the analogous way to how the concept "narod" (people, nation) was interpreted by Russian narodniks, that is, like some organic, whole being, in essence not yielding to any anatomical subdivision, having its own specific fate and unique structure.

According to Tradition doctrine, the certain angel, the celestial being is appointed to look after each nation of the Earth. This angel is the given nation's history sense, being out of the time and the space, but being constantly present in all nation's historical peripetias. The mysticism of a nation is based on this. Nation's angel isn't anything vague or sentimental, indistinctly dim. This is an intellectual, lighting being, "God's thought", as Gerder said. Its structure one can see in nation's historical achievements, in social and religious institutes, which characterize the nation, in the national culture. All gist of the national history is just the text of narration about quality and form of that lighting national angel. In traditional society the national angel used to have the personified expression, in "divine" kings, great heroes, pastors and saints. But being the over-human reality, this angel itself does not depend on the human bearer. Therefore after the monarchical dynasties fall it can be incarnated in a collective form, for instance, an order, a class, or even a party.

So, the "nation", taken as a metaphysical category is not identified with the concrete individuals` multitude of the same blood, culture and speaking the same language, but with the mysterious angelic personality, showing itself throughout all the history. This is the analogue of Hegel`s Absolute Idea, but in minuscule form. The national intellect, being estranged in the individuals` multitude and collected in nation's elite (in the conscious, "skimmed" form) during the certain eschatological history periods.

Here we come up to a very important point: those two "nation" interpretations, equally acceptable for the national-bolshevik ideology, have a common ground, the magic point, in which they combine all together. The question is about Russia and its historical mission. This is significant, that in German national-bolshevism the Russophilia was the foundation-stone, on which the geo-political, social, economic views were based. The Russian and, to a greater degree, Soviet interpretation of "Russian nation" as an open mystic community, destined to bring the light of salvation and truth to the whole world in times` end epoch, meets both the great continental and historical, cultural nation's aspects. The Russian and Soviet nationalism just becomes in that situation the national-bolshevism ideology focus, not only within Russia and Eastern Europe frames, but also on the planetary level. The angel of Russia is discovered as the integration angel, as some special lighting being, seeking to teleologically unite other angelic beings inside itself, not obliterating their individuality, but elevating it to the universal imperial scales. It is not accidental, that Erich Mueller, Ernst Niekiesch`s disciple and associate, wrote in his book called "National-bolshevism": "If the First Reich was catholic, and the Second Reich was Protestant, the Third Reich should be orthodox". Orthodox and Soviet at the same time.

In the given case we run into the very interesting question. For the nations` angels are different individuals, the nations` fates throughout the history, and, correspondingly, their social and political, and religious institutes reflect the forces disposition scheme in the angelic world itself. It is amazing, but this absolutely theological idea is brilliantly supported by geo-political researches, which demonstrate the interrelation between geographical, landscape conditions of nations` existence and their culture, psychology and even social and political preferences. So, it is being gradually explained, the dualism between the East and the West, dubbed by the ethnic dualism: the land, "ideocratic" Russia (the Slavic world plus other Eurasian nations) against the island "plutocratic" Anglo-Saxon West. The angelic horde of Eurasia against the Atlantic capitalism armies. About the true nature of Capital's "angel" (in Tradition its name is "Mammon") one could easily guess...

6. The traditionalism (Evola, the look "from the left")

When Karl Popper "discloses" the enemies of the "open society", he constantly uses the word "irrationalism". It is logical, because the "open society" itself is based on the norms of common sense and the postulates of "everyday consciousness". Usually, even the most openly anti-liberal writers tend to justify themselves at that issue and object to the blame in "irrationalism". The national-bolsheviks, consistently accepting Popper's scheme, evaluated in the absolutely opposite way, accept this reproach too. That is right, the main incentive of the "open society enemies" and its most raging and consistent enemies, national-bolsheviks, is never based on the rationalist grounds. The works of traditionalists help in that most of all, first of all it is those of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola.

Both Guenon and Evola expounded the mechanics of the cyclic process, in which the degradation of the earth element (and correspondingly human consciousness), the civilization desacralization, and the modern "rationalism" with all its logic consequences is regarded as one of the last stages of degradation. The irrational is interpreted by traditionalists not as just negative or deteriorative category, but as a vast sphere of reality, not subject to the study with just analytical, common-sense methods.

Hence, the traditionalist doctrine in this question does not challenge the witty conclusions of the liberal Popper, but agrees with them, rearranging marks to directly the opposite. The tradition is based on over-intellectual knowledge, on the initiatic rituals, provoking gaps of consciousness, and doctrines, expressed in symbols. The discursive intellect has only auxiliary character, and consequently, has not any decisive significance. The center of gravitation of a Tradition is in a sphere not only not rational, but also Non-human, and the question is not about the insight guesses, anticipations and assumptions, but about reliability of experience of the special initiatic type. The irrational, unveiled by Popper in the center of enemies of Open Society doctrines, actually, is not less than, the axis of the sacred, the basis of the Tradition. If it is so, the various anti-liberalist ideologies, "left" revolutionary ideologies are included, should have some relation to the Tradition. If in case of "extremely right " and hyperconservatives it is obvious, in case of the "left", it is problematic. We already touched that matter, when we talked about the concept of "bolshevism". But there is and one more point: the revolutionary anti-liberal ideologies, especially communism, anarchism and revolutionary socialism, assume the radical destruction of not just capitalist relations, but also such traditional institutes, as monarchy, church, religious cult organizations. How should we combine this anti-liberalist aspect with the traditionalism?

It is significant that Evola himself (and to some extent Guenon, though it can't be asserted definitely, for his attitude to the "left" was not so certainly stated, as in Evola`s case, who openly reckoned himself among the radical conservatives and extremely right) denied the revolutionary doctrines traditional character and considered them as the maximum expression of spirit of contemporaneity, degradation and decay. However there were periods in Evola`s personal destiny, the earliest and the latest one, during which he had almost nihilist, anarchist views towards the surrounding reality, proposing nothing but "to ride the tiger", i. e. make common cause with the forces of decline and chaos, in order to overcome the critical point of the 'decline of the West'. But it is not the question of such Evola`s historical experience as a political figure. What's more important, in his writings of even the middle, maximum conservative period the necessity of appeal to some esoteric tradition is accentuated, which is, generally speaking, not quite fit the monarchic and clerical models, characteristic for the politically connected with him European conservatives. It is not just the question of his anti-Christianism, but the question of his heightened interest in the tantric tradition and Buddhism, which within the frames of the Hinduist traditional conservatism are considered as quite heterodox and subversive. Besides, Evola`s sympathies to such characters as Guliano Kremmerz, Maria Naglovska and Alistaire Crowley, which were undoubtedly reckoned by Guenon among the "counter-initiation" representatives, in the negative, destructive trend of the esoterism, are absolutely scandalous. So, Evola, constantly talking about the "traditionalist orthodoxy" and strongly criticizing the subversive doctrines of the "left", constantly appeals directly to the obvious heterodoxy. The fact which is even more significant is that he reckoned himself among those who go the "left-hand path". Here we come up to a specific point, associated with the metaphysics of national-bolshevism. The matter is that in that trend not just political antagonists are in the paradoxical way combined ("rights" and "lefts"), not just at first sight negating one another philosophical systems (idealism and materialism), but also two tendencies in the traditionalism itself, the positive (orthodox) one and negative (subversive) one. Evola in the given case is a very significant writer, though there is a certain discrepancy between his metaphysical doctrines and political convictions, which is based in our opinion on some inertial prejudices, characteristic for the "extremely right" circles of the Middle Europe in that time.

In his splendid book about the tantrism, called "The Yoga Of Power" Evola describes tantric organizations initiatic structure (kaula) and the hierarchy, characteristic for them (5). This hierarchy is vertical towards also sacred hierarchy, characteristic to the Hinduist society. The tantra (as well as the Buddhist doctrine) and the participation in its traumatic experience in some way cancels all usual social and political structure, asserting that "one who goes the short way, does not need in the support from outside". In the tantric circuit it is absolutely not important who is a Brahmin and who is a Chandala (the lowest cast representative) Everything depends on the success in carrying out the complicated initiatic operations and the transcendent experience authority. It a kind of the "left sacredness", based on the persuasion in insufficiency, degeneration and alienatedness of usual sacred institutions. In other words, the "left esoterism" opposes the "right esoterism" not because of negation, but because of the special paradoxical statement, that insists in the authentic character of the experience and concrete character of self-transformation. It is obvious, that we face this "left esoterism" reality in case of Evola and those mystics, who stood at the source of the socialist and communist ideologies. The demolition of Churches isn't just the religion negation, it is a special ecstatic form of the religious spirit, insisting in the absolute, concrete character of self-transformation "here and now". The phenomenon of old-believers` self-immolations or Khlysts` zeal belongs to the same category. Guenon himself in his article called "The Fifth Veda" devoted to the tantrism, wrote that in some special cyclic periods, which are very close to the "Iron Age", "Kali-Yuga" end, many ancient traditional institutions lose their stamina and therefore the metaphysical self-realization needs in some special non-orthodox ways and methods. Therefore the doctrine of Tantrums is called the Fifth Veda despite the fact that their are only four Vedas. In other words, while the traditional conservative institutions degrade, such as monarchy, church, social hierarchy, cast system etc., the special, dangerous and risky, initiatic practices, associated with the "left-hand path", become the most up-to-date.

The traditionalism, characteristic for the national-bolshevism in the most common sense is certainly the "left esoterism", dubbing in the main the principles of the tantric Kaula and the "destructive transcendentness" doctrine. The rationalism and humanism of the individualist kind has smitten even those contemporary world organizations which nominally have the sacred character. The establishment of the Tradition true proportions is impossible by the gradual environment state betterment. This is the way of "right-hand esoterism" is beforehand deemed in the eschatological situation. Moreover, the appeal to the evolution and graduality just gives way to the liberal expansion. Therefore the national-bolshevik comprehension of Evola consists in the accentuating those points which are directly combined with the "left hand" doctrines, traumatic spiritual becoming in the concrete revolutionary and transforming experience, beyond the conventions and habits, which have lost their sacred justification.

The national-bolsheviks comprehend the "irrational" not just as "not rational", but as "the aggressive and active destruction of the rational", as fight with the "everyday consciousness" (and the "everyday behavior"), as submersion into the "new life" element, that is the special magic existence of a "differential human", who has discarded all outer bans and norms.

7. The Third Rome - the Third Reich - the Third International

Only two of variety "open society enemies" doctrines were able to win a temporary victory over liberalism: It is the Soviet (and Chinese) communism and the Middle European fascism. Between them there were national-bolsheviks, as a unique and not put into life historical opportunity, as a thin streak of the clairvoyant politicians, forced to act in the periphery of fascists and communists, and deemed to see the failure of their integrationist ideological and political efforts.

In German national-socialism the deemed-to-fail, Bavarian and catholic Hitler's policy fatally prevailed; as to Soviets, they obstinately rejected the idea to openly proclaim their ideology mystic underlying reasons, having spiritually exsanguinated and intellectually castrated the bolshevism.

The fascism fell first, then there was the last anti-liberal citadel` turn, that of the USSR. At first sight, in 1991 the last page of the book of the geo-political confrontation with Mammon, the Atlantic West demon, the perverted "cosmopolitical Capital's angel", is closed. However, at the same time not only the national-bolshevism metaphysical truth, but also the absolute historical correctness of its first representatives becomes crystally clear. The only political discourse of 20s-30s, which is actual till now, is ` the texts of Russian Eurasians and German "left" conservative revolutionaries. The national-bolshevism is the "open society enemies" last asylum, unless they want to persist in their outdated, not historically adequate and absolutely not effective doctrines. If "extremely left" refuse to be the venal and opportunist Social Democracy appendage, if "extremely rights" do not want to serve as substance to be recruited as an extremist fraction of the liberal system repression apparatus, if people, possessed by the faith, do not find satisfaction in the wretched moralist substitutes, with which they are regaled by the priests of the willfully mispresented cults or the primitive new-spiritualism, they all have the only way, the national-bolshevism.

Beyond "rights" and "lefts", there's one and indivisible Revolution, in the dialectical triad "third Rome - third Reich - third International".

The realm of national-bolshevism, Regnum, their Empire of the End, this is the perfect accomplishment of the greatest Revolution of the history, both continental and universal one. It is angels` return, heroes` resurrection, the heart's uprising against the reason's dictatorship. This last revolution is a concern of the acephal, the headless bearer of the cross, sickle and hammer, crowned by eternal sun fylfot.

[Michael K.]

Editorial Comment:  In this essay Dughin exposits on the Jews, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Orthodoxy.  An interesting read for anyone considering themselves Jew-wise, it expresses the underlying messianic position of Eurasianism, and illustrates something of how it is related to Judaism


http://arctogaia.com/public/eng-parad.htm

A.Dughin

The Paradigm of The End

                The Last Degree of Generalization

                The Real Marxism

                The Geo-Political Paradigm of History

                The War of Nations

                Clash of Religions

                The Last Formula

The Last Degree of Generalization

The analyses of civilizations, their correlation, their confrontation, their development, their interdependence is so difficult a problem, that in dependence on methods, profundity of research, one can obtain not just different, but directly contrary results. Therefore even to obtain the most approximate conclusions one has to apply the reduction, to reduce the variety of criteria to the one simplified model. Marxism prefers just economic approach, which becomes a substitute and a common denominator for all other disciplines. So does (though less explicitly) Liberalism.

Geo-politics, which is less known and less popular than variety of economic approaches, but no less effective and obvious in explaining history of civilizations, suggests completely another reduction method. Another version of reductionism is diverse ethic approach forms, which include "racial theories" as their extreme aspect.

Finally, religions suggest their own reductionist model of civilizations' history.

There four models seem to be the most popular ways of generalizations, and though there exists diversity of other methods, the latter ones could scarcely come up with them by the criteria of popularity, obviousness and simplicity.

For the notion of "civilization" is of extremely large scale - maybe of the most large scale, that the historical consciousness of humankind is capable of generating - reduction methods should be extremely approximate, leaving nuances, details, factors of middle and small importance aside. Civilizations are such human conglomerations, which have vast spatial, temporal, and cultural boundaries. According to the definition, civilizations should have significant size - they should last long, control significant geographical regions, generate special expressive cultural and religious (sometimes ideological) style.

At the end of second millennium AD some summing up of civilizations' history suggests itself, for the significance of the date suggests the idea of attainment some threshold, brink. And hence the idea appears to bring diverse direction of civilization analysis to the one, universal paradigm. Certainly, the degree of simplification, approximation and reduction will be here even more, than in four above mentioned reduction models, but it should be scarcely considered an insuperable obstacle. Any generalization (felicitous one or not, justified one or not especially) will indispensably come across the sharp criticism, which can issue from both "particular harrow specialist", having long forgot about primordial principles in the whirl of details, and conscious (or instinctive) adherents of some other generalization, just using pragmatically the contradictions in details in order to discredit the whole.

Nevertheless, the themes of "End of History" (Francis Fukuyama) "Clash of Civilizations" (Samuel Huntington), "New World Order" (George Bush), "New Paradigm" (New Age), "Messiah Times", "End of Utopia", "Artificial Paradise", "Apocalypse Culture" (Adam Parfrey) become more and more popular as we near the century bound - the millennium bound. And all those themes are just to one or another degree attended by complicated reductionism models, which are the fruit of bringing more restricted methods together - first of all it is four above mentioned ones.

The Real Marxism

Marx's doctrine was so popular in twentieth century, that it is utterly hard to talk about it, especially in Russia, where Marxism was for long decades proclaimed the official ideology. This issue is seen in the same way morbid and insatiated with allusions and connotations by western intellectuals also, for whom the dispute and debates on Marx where the central theme of philosophical and culturological discurses. Nobody else influenced the modern history so much as Marx did - it is difficult to name the thinker, comparable with him by fame, popularity, book's circulation.

But excessive exploitation of Marxism brought at some moment to the reverse result - its ideas and doctrines appeared to be so universal, that at some moment one stopped comprehending them, turned Marxism to "dogma", to gadget, to obscure cliche, which began to be used and interpreted in absolutely arbitrary way. Orthodox Marxists blocked reflexions in that sphere, canonized Marx's views even in the spheres, where they were obviously disproved by the course of History itself (both economical and political). Heretics and revisionists extended Marxism too much, including ideas and theories, which strictly speaking, bear no relation to Marxist context, in it. And after some time we came across the paradoxical situation, when the most popular and famous thinker of the present (unpenetrable) unintelligible for most people. Ultimately Gordian knot of Marxism was just liquidated by declaration of Marxist philosophy and political economy the "delusion" and then universal renunciation of the ideology.

The excessive laudation and dogmatism turned to the same way excessive subversion and relativity. And at the swift speed all having been looking so impressive building of Marxism was suddenly liquidated in all parts. The forces, responsible for creation of alienated dogmatic Marx's cult, were the most zealous liquidators. Nevertheless, nowadays Marx's practically have no adherents, but they haven't become less profound and strikingly exact in settling certain questions because of it. The situation is arising, when Marxism, having little by little utterly lost its adherents, can be applied by completely different forces, having been standing aside from Marxism in the time, when the intellectual and political stir reigned around its ideas and names.

Such distance and no engagement in one or another Marxist camp on the previous stage of intellectual history allows to re-discover Marx again, read his message in the way, which was impassable before. It's absolutely obvious, that the vast part of Marx's cultural and historical views are hopelessly obsolete, and various aspects of his doctrine should be discarded (rejected) because of non-adequacy. However it is more important to impartially consider those aspects of his doctrine, which vise versa completely retained up-to-dateness and which may help understand the most important aspects of history's paradigm in its economic, social and political display. And noone can be compared with Marx in that. This is namely he, who formulated the capacious reductionist history's paradigm, capable of explaining its essential processes and orientations with striking trustworthiness, obviousness and convincingness. Therefore it is not out of place to remember the Marxist comprehension principles of history formula. Marx's approach to history is dialectical, presupposing the dynamical development of correlations between the (principle) main subjects of historical events. Together with that the fundamental dualism of those subjects is visible through his theory, it predetermines dialectics, it is its contents and the ethic base of its course.

These two subjects were defined by Marx as Labour and Capital. Marx considered Labour as creative, constructive impulse of being, as a central axis of life and motion, as some positive, solar principle. Using Darwinist image-bearing expressions, Marxism asserts that "Labour made the Human out of the ape". The matter is that the element of the creation production is that main existence vector, which changes processes from the horizontal, internal state to the vertical, volitional one.

The Labour is according to Marx a positive, bright principle. Apart from the Bible ethics, in which Labour is meant to be the result of the Fall and some kind of damnation to Adam for violation of divine commandments (such attitude to Labour is characteristic for other religious traditions also), Marx undoubtedly proclaimed the sacred, wholly positive character of Labour, its primacy (primary nature), its self-value and self-sufficing character. But in its primordial state Labour as primary impulse of development and history's starting point (like Hegel's Absolute Idea) still doesn't realize itself, can't bring about the completeness of its inherent lighting nature.

To attain this, the long and complicated movement process is needed through the dialectical labyrinths of history. Only after terrible ordeals and difficult exploits will Labour be able to reach its triumphal victorious state through a number of dialectical self-negations, to become completely conscious, happy and free. According to Marx all the history is found between "cave communism" - the primordial state, when the Labour was free, but not realized and not universal - and just communism, when the latter returns to its lighting self-sufficing character having walked through the labyrinth of alienation, but it is then at the total, universal and fully realized extent. The human became the human after he entered the element of Labour. But he becomes a completed human only after he is able to realize the absolute value of that element, free the latter from all the touches of the negative principle, that is in the epoch of communism.

So what is the negative pole according to Marxism? What opposes the lighting nature of Labour?

Marx calls it "exploitation", he instinctively reveals the supreme and perfect form of such exploitation in Capital. Capital is the name of world evil, according to Marxism, the dark principle, the negative pole of history. Between "cave communism" of just appeared human and the final communism there is a long period of "exploitation", alienating Labour from its essence, ordeals and privations of sun in the labyrinths of darkness.

Properly speaking, this is just the (substance) content of history Capital does not appear at once, it gradually shows as the instruments and mechanisms of Labour's lighting element exploitation by the dark forces of usurpers perfect themselves. The development of Labour is conductive to the development of the exploitation models.

The complicated dialectics of productive forces' and productive relations' correlation constant dynamics leads both poles of economic history along the spiral of development. The opposed aims, the aims and activity vectors of workers and exploiters promote in the objective way the intensification of one, political and economic process. The productive forces are the internal structure of Labour and its organization. The relations of production are the model for interaction of that subdued basic structure with the exploiter principle. The element of Labour is the element of abundance. The Labour always produces some more than it is necessary to meet vital needs of workers themselves. There is the essence of its positive, creative, lighting, solar principle in that fact. The Labour produces plus. This plus, this surplus is taken away by the dark pole, the parasite of history. The productive relations are throughout all economic history reduced to the expropriation of some substance from agents of plus by agents of minus. As the productive forces perfect themselves, so do the exploitation paradigms. But already at the first stages of humankind history one can unveil the characteristic features of two beings, which will clash with all their might only at the end of it.

The primeval worker is the germ of the industrial proletariat. The tribal elite is the germ of Capital. As the long millenniums of humankind history go by, two subjects of world drama attain the purest state, fully realized and summing up all previous stages. From slave-owning system trough feudal relations the capitalism forms itself, the most important and in many aspects eschatological stage of Marxist doctrine. Here all the complicated social situation is reduced to absolutely clear dualism - the proletariat as a class is the incarnation of the economic and historical Labour element development result, and the bourgeoisie is the embodiment of the absolute, most perfect, completed and conscious pole of the pare exploitation. The bright pole finishes its tragic way through the labyrinths of alienation, the dark pole comes close to its complete victory. The Proletariat and the Capital. The Pure Labour, i.e. the proletarian has no property ("except of the chains") - and the Pure Capital, being transmuted from what is possessed into what possesses, into the element of the Pure Alienation, Absolute Exploitation. Marx reduces all the rest historical, philosophical, cultural, social, scientific and technical problems to this political and economic scheme, considering them derivative and secondary ones as regards the basic paradigm.

Further, Marx proclaims, that the second industrial revolution, signifying the achievement by the capitalism its peak, is the turning point world's its history. From that moment on both historical subjects - Labour and Capital - become not just playthings of history objective logic, but its conscious and self-dependent subjects, able not only submit the necessity, but also manage the most important historical processes, prepare them, provoke, project, establish their own autonomous will. The matter is not about an individual or group, but about a class subject. The proletariat, having become a class, becomes the historical personality, realized by Labour, the successor of plus in all stages of its development. The Capital embodies the world minus, removal, alienation, but only in the absolute, free, volitional, personal state. Henceforth it is able to plan the history, manage it. At this stage Labour and Capital pass to level of idea or ideology, exists from now on not only in the objective substance of reality, but also in ideological space of thought.

The arrival of those two personalities in the sphere of thought fully unveils the essentiality dualism in this sphere also - there is the thought of Labour and the thought of Capital, there is the ideology of plus and the ideology of minus. Both those ideologies receive the maximum possible independence and freedom, and all the sphere of consciousness transmutes from the sphere of reflection into the sphere of creativity, projecting. The ideology of Labour (proletarian philosophy) retains here its creative character too, it creates the project. The ideology of Capital (bourgeois philosophy) remains essentially negative - it usurps and re-produces the void, conceptualizes the immobilism, freezes life, postulates the present moment and denies the goal.

The supreme and most perfect formula of Capital is, according to Marx, the English liberal political economy - especially theory of "free exchange", "universal market" of Adam Smith and his followers. But except this, most evident form there exist the variety of more subtle, complicated, complex ideological constructions, covering the pernicious, parasitic breath of Capital. The bourgeois philosophy becomes henceforward the most effective weapon of exploitation, its superior form.

But to counterbalance it, the doctrinal body of working class itself forms, the main contours of the communist ideology becomes more and more clear. Marx considered his own works exactly in such context. He had a presentiment about that his ideas will form the "proletarian philosophy", become the most important instrument of Labour during its eschatological last battle against its enemy since earliest times.

Marx proclaimed a kind of "Labour Gospel". He asserted, that Labour being then at turning point of political and economic history, having become the Pure Labour, should momentarily realize itself and its history, start performing the function of one out of two teleological poles of history, unveil the mechanism of deception and alienation, being the basis of any exploitation, unmask the negative, vampiric, minus function of the Capital (by the explanation of the surplus value production and expropriation logic) and bring about the proletarian Revolution, which should overthrow the Capital into the abyss of non-existence and uproot the world evil.

After the short phase of transitional formation (socialism) the "Eden on Earth" comes, the Labour becomes completely free from the dark principle. Here the essence of Marxist political and economic model is outlined. And one should recognize (admit), that he is so persuasive and reliable, that it is not surprising why Marx's views captivated such amount of people in twentieth century, having become a kind of religion, in which name unprecedented sacrifices were made.

In which way Marx's scenario was put into practice? What was it inexact in, what was disproved? How should the content of political and economic history of our century be regarded, if we remain in frames of outlined by Marxism philosophy of history?

At a threshold of the third millennium we can assert, that Capital has won Labour, turned to be able to evade the coming Revolution, dissolve the completed historical manifestation of Labour as a revolutionary subject, avert the danger of proletarian philosophy concentration into the unitary , fully fledged ideological apparatus. But, nevertheless, the Labour, inspired by Marx, tried to give "last and decisive battle" to its primordial enemy. The Labour was defeated, but the fact of the great battle cannot be denied. This battle is just the main content of political and social history of twentieth century. It is all according to Marx, but with some other (not good) result. The world evil has won. The minus turned to be stronger and more skilful than the plus. The Capital having taken the form of subject proved its superiority over the Labour, having also taken the form of subject.

How did it take place in the real life?

Firstly, the first lack of correspondence to Marxist orthodoxy has happened at the moment of the Great October socialist revolution. This event became the key turning point of the post-Marxist history. On the one hand, the uprising of the marxist-bolsheviks demonstrated the fact that Marxist ideas are true and confirmed by the real practice. The proletarian communist worker party was able to commit Revolution, overthrow the exploiter system, destroy the power of Capital and the bourgeois class, build up Socialist State, basing on main theses of Marx himself. The Marxism was proclaimed the dominating ideology of that state. In other words, the Russian experience gave the first confirmation to the rightness and effectualness of the revolutionary Marxist doctrine. However, the fact of the Russian revolution is the most important circumstance here - the successful proletarian revolution came about not there and not then, where and when Marx himself predicted. The spatial and temporal mistake was not the quantitative, but the qualitative factor. Therefore this mistake bore the enormous doctrinal significance.

Marx supposed, that the final becoming of proletariat as a class and its forming into the revolutionary party should come about in the most developed country of the industrial West, i.e. exactly where bourgeois mechanisms reached its most perfect state of development, and the industrial proletariat makes up the social dominant of all the productive forces. Marx thought that the proletarian revolutions will immediately provoke the chain reaction in the other states and societies. Marx was sure, that in the other spatial and temporal points the socialist revolutions can't come about, for both historical subjects in them - Labour and Capital - still don't reach the stage, when the full and adequate transition of the material into the ideal, of the subjective into the conscious, of utmost stage of the basis development into the superstructure adequate form is possible. The Russian experience showed the fact, that the socialist revolution turned to be possible and proceeded successfully in the country with underdeveloped capitalism, long before the full-scaled achievement of the industrial revolution second stage, in the country with very insignificant share of the industrial proletariat, and after Bolsheviks' victory the revolutionary processes did not spread in Europe at all, but remained within the boundaries of the former Russian Empire. The Labour formed into the political party and has won Capital in completely other conditions than which were foreseen by Marx.

In other words, the historical Revolution in Russia has corrected its spiritual father theory. The sense of that historical correction is at the greatest extent grasped in research of national-bolshevism phenomenon, analyzed in detail by Mikhail Agurskiy . The proletarian revolution in Russia proved the fact, that the victory of Labour over Capital is possible and real only on the condition, that carrying out this political and economic act some additional dimensions participate - national-messiahnism (utterly developed in Russians and East-European Jews), mystic and sectarian chiliastic tendencies (of both ordinary people and intellectuals), the Blanquist, order-like, conspiratorial style of the revolutionary party (Leninism, later Stalinism). By the way, the analogous set of approaches, though less radical one, ensured the victory of some other anti-capitalist force, which was able to carry out in practice the quasi-socialist revolution - the Italian fascism and German national-socialism. In other words, the Marxism turned to be the historically practicable one in heterodox, national-bolshevik performance, a bit different from the strict concept of Marx himself.

It came true only in combination with other factors, and, more specifically speaking, where Marx's political and economic doctrine was combined with cultural and religious tendencies which were quite dissimilar with cultural and historical discourse (suggestions) of "Capital" author himself. By contrast with the Marxism historical realization success in the national-bolshevik performance, the transition to socialism did not take place in the bourgeois West itself at the moment when the capitalism reached its development limit, i.e. the threshold of the third industrial revolution (and that happened in 60s - 70s of twentieth century). While the Marxism heterodox version turned to be practicable, the orthodox version was refuted by the history. The capitalism in its most developed form turned to be able to overcome the most dangerous for it stage of development, effectively manage the threat of proletarian rebellion and to go over to even more perfect level of existence, when the alternative opposed subject itself, the proletariat was abolished, dispersed, vapourized as the class and the eschatological revolutionary party of Labour in the complicated system of having had no alternative Society of Spectacle (Guy Debor). In other words, the post-industrial society, having become the reality, definitely showed that literally comprehended Marx's prophecies were not put into life. This, by the way, is the reason of the modern European Marxism big crisis.

But we know also today about the sad end of the socialist state, which was self-liquidated as a result of exclusively internal processes, having brought the national-bolshevik system to the fatal brink of the bourgeois perestroyka. And 40 years before the other non-capitalist regimes of Europe also fell - the fascist Italy and national-socialist Germany. Thus, to the end of twentieth century Capital has won Labour in all its ideological manifestations - be it the orthodox Marxism (in the form of European Social-Democracy), the national-bolshevik version of Soviets or kinds of the very approximate, compromise and doubtful variants of the European regimes of so called "Third Way".

The victory of Capital over the Labour in addition shows the greater degree of consciousness of exactly that history pole, which is able to the long-term and consistent keeping adherence to its primary goal, which is prepared to make conclusions from its historical enemies conceptual models studying and admit in practice the methods and paradigms, revealed by the revolutionary genius, for the purpose of prevention.

After Marx the camp of Labour on global political and economic scale was divided into three lesser disharmonious, conflicting with each other ideological camps - Soviet socialism (national-bolshevism), western Social-democracy and (with reservations) fascism. The capitalist camp remained in its essence indivisible and cleverly used the contradictions in the Labour ideologies. Thus, instead of the united proletarian revolutionary communist party, firstly, pro-Soviet, radicalism supporting bolshevik organizations under control of Comintern, which means that they were associated with Moscow, as the capital of the Third International, and put into effect its will, secondly, aboriginal social-democratic parties, fighting for the authority in proletarian circles with pro-Moscow forces, and thirdly, national-socialist movements, applying national-bolshevik experience of Moscow (but in much more relaxed variant) to their own national context, formed in bourgeois West in the critical moment of history.

Capital's strategy consists in that the three trends of Labour forces ideological expression were by all means opposed to each other, in evading their consolidation into united historical social and political organism at any price. For the purpose of that the Social Democracy and Bolshevism were opposed to fascism, the fascism itself to Social Democracy and Bolshevism. The most successful stage of that strategy "people's front" of France in the epoch of Leon Blum and allied relations between the USSR and England with USA during the war against countries of Axis.

On the other hand, western Social Democrats (as not adherent of national-bolshevik Marxist orthodoxy) were actively drawn in political collaborationism with bourgeois establishment by the parliamentary representation, were corrupted by the cooperation with the System and were simultaneously opposed to "agents of Moscow" from the bolshevik Leninist parties (Karl Kautskiy's policy is the most significant in that sense).

And, finally, in the frames of the Soviet State itself there was not the consistent and complete doctrinal forming of the national-bolshevism into the realized and non-contradictory ideology, in which its "i's" were dotted and its "t's" were crossed and the strict correlations were set in approach to Marx's heritage (what should be accepted, what should be rejected). Instead of such correction, soviet ideologies went on insisting that Leninism is just the adequate and orthodox Marxism, denying hereby the evident and irrevocably losing the possibility of not contradictory and consistent, cognitively adequate reflection.

Instead of clear and simple picture of Labour and Capital opposition in the form of the Soviet socialist system, on the one hand, and countries of the capitalist West, on the other hand, the separate mosaic emerged, in which the extremely negative matter was the fact itself of existence of compromise (from the political and economic point of view) fascist regimes and conciliating collaborationist Social Democracy. That intermediate fascist and Social Democracy component stood firm in the way of the forming process of the united international proletarian communist party, which should have taken into account all the ideological and spiritual experience of Russian Revolution.

This was the external factor. The internal factor consisted in the Soviet system itself renunciation of making the most important ideological conclusions (with all the necessary correction of Marx's cultural and philosophical views) out of its own success, which could in its turn have facilitated the productive dialogue with fascism - especially in its extremely left version. And finally, the western Social Democracy itself could instead of "people's frontal" anti-fascism pact with radical bourgeois forces and regimes come to mutual understanding with nationally oriented socialist within the united anti-bourgeois block.

The Soviet bolshevism, European Social Democracy and even fascism as anti-capitalist in their essence were bound to agree on the united ideological platform, somewhere between the evident overestimation of Marx by orthodox adherents and his evident underestimation by fascism. Such hypothetical ideology, some elevated to the absolute and universal national-marxism, taking into account the consideration some other cultural and philosophical, spiritual and national points together with the absolutely right genius historical paradigm of Marx; the realized and applying reflections ideal national-bolshevism could just have been that effective social and economic platform, in which the Labour principle could be incarnated in the most perfect form. But it was seen evidently unfortunately only a posterior, when one can summarize and analyze the great historical catastrophe experience. Capital as a subject turned to be not only mightier, but also more clever than Labour as a subject. It did not allow the "ghost/phantom/shadow of communism" to be fully realized in history, dooming it to remain the ghost further on. It is tragic ascertaining. But from epistemological point of view, from significant historical paradigm generation point of view, which would allow us to clearly realize, at which moment of history we are now, it is difficult to underestimate that conclusion.

The Geo-Political Paradigm of History

The geo-political reduction is known much less than the economic model, but its convincingless and clearness, nevertheless, is quite comparable with the paradigm of Labour-Capital. There is also in geo-politics the teleological pare of notions, which represent the subject of history, but this time grasped not in its economic aspect, but in the aspect of political geography. The matter is about the two geo-political subjects - the Sea (Thalassocracy) and the Land (Tellurocracy). The other pare is synonymous to them, the West-East, where the West and the East are considered not just as geographical notions, but as the civilization blocs. The West is, according to the doctrine of geo-politicians, equal to the Sea. The East (Orient) is equal to the Land .

At the moment we are interested in the history's summary, converted to the geo-politics terms, the eschatological point, which is so clearly seen on the level of economy. There the problem is formulated as follows: The Labour gave battle to Capital and lost. We live in the period of that loss, which is considered by the liberal economic school as the final one, whence the theme of Fuckuyama's "End of History" or Jaque Attali's last "Monkey formation". Can one see some analogy to such situation in geo-politics? It is amazing, but such analogy not only exists, but also is so evident and obvious, that brings us close to the very interesting conclusion.

The dialectics of geo-politics consists in the dynamical struggle of Sea and Land. Sea, the civilization of Sea is the incarnation of the permanent mobility, "flurry", the lack of fixed centers. The only real boundaries of Sea are the continental masses along its edges, i.e. something opposite Sea itself. Land, the civilization of Land, on the contrary, is the incarnation of the constancy, fixedness, "conservatism". The boundaries of Land can be strict and definite, natural, on various places of Land itself. And only Land civilization gives good grounds for the sacred, juridical, ethical fixed systems of values.

The Land (the Orient) is hierarchy. The Sea (West) is chaos. The Land (Orient) is order. The Sea (West) is dissolution. The Land (Orient) is a masculine principle. The Sea (West) is the feminine one. The Land (East) is Tradition. The Sea (West) is contemporaneity. And so forth. Those two subjects of geo-political history have a bent for the most full and distinct expression, starting from the multi-polar complicated system of contradictions (quite often reconcilable and partial ones) to the global scheme of blocs.

The Sea and the Land reached the planetary scale only in twentieth century, and especially in its second half, when the contours of the bi-polar model finally formed. The Sea found its final expression in the USA and NATO, the Land was incarnated in the socialist countries conglomeration - the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). The technological division of the planet into two camps, each of which was the purest form of the geo-political civilization pare representative, has happened. The civilization of the Sea moved throughout the history to the USA and Atlantism. Although that way was not at all direct. The civilization of Land was incarnated in the most complete form in the USSR. The Atlantic and Eurasia were strategically integrated ones, and the hidden geo-political tendencies, brilliantly recognized by Macinder in the base of the land spaces historical logic, attained the great scale, the superior evidence of the "cold war".

But at the culmination for the geo-political history twentieth century the geo-political turn occurred, which for some time confused the clear logic of geo-political as the science. The emerging of the separate strategic bloc in 20s-30s in Europe - the countries of Axis - became the greatest obstacle, which stopped the organic becoming of Land civilization as a valuable geo-political subject, laying down the foundations of the future defeat.

The countries of Axis tried to claim their geo-political independence and autarchy, having rejected all the facts and recommendations of scientific schools. The European fascism was, from the geo-political point of view, the obstacle to the natural Eurasian expansion of Soviets forward the West, but also rejected the obedient putting of the pure Atlantist strategy into life.

Such ambiguity seriously hindered the world bi-polar picture crystallization, bore the inter-continental wars and conflicts, which strongly hindered the tendency, so that the Eurasian Land continental subject realized itself and created its own consistent geo-political strategy.

The European fascism bore the irresponsible and bankrupt in the geo-political sense illusion of the Sea (West) and Land (East) common interests, in the face of some third subject, which from the geo-political doctrine's point of view couldn't not be the fiction, for it didn't possess enough geo-political, geographical, historical and civilization scale. The Europe (be it fascist or not) has only two geo-political opportunities - either to be the western fore-post of the Orient (as it was, for example, in the Orthodox Empire of Rome before the split in Christianity), or to be the strategic coast zone under control of Sea, opposed to the continental masses of Eurasia. The strategy of Axis countries was neither this nor that one. The future defeat of Germany was evident already then, when the war on two fronts started. Such unnatural shady enterprise was not only suicidal for Germany (on a large scale, Europe), but also laid the indeterminate, unfinished geo-political base for the entire Eurasian continent, which ultimately brought all the Land civilization to the destruction and break-up.

That last suggestion is based on the brilliant analysis of the USSR and Warsaw treaty organization break down, made by Jean Tiriar 20 years before it became the fact. Tiriar showed that, from the geo-political point of view, the strategic space, controlled by countries of the socialist camp, is not finished and can't stand the long confrontation with the West. As he thought, the main reason was the problem of the divided Europe, which gave all the advantages to the overseas Power to the detriment of the USSR. Tiriar thought that to solve that difficult problem, left to Eurasia from Hitler's suicidal politics, it was necessary either to conquer the Western Europe and include its countries in the socialist camp, or, on the contrary, insist on the withdrawal of strategic bases and troops of the USSR with the parallel disbandment of NATO and removal of all American strategic bases. That would bring to the creation of neutral space in Europe, which would secure the possibility for Moscow to fully concentrate on the southern direction and give the decisive battle to the USA in Afghanistan, on the Far and Middle East.

But the civilization of the Sea studied Macinder's and Mahan's geo-political theories in the most attentive way, not only collating its strategy with them, but also understanding all the seriousness of the threat, coming from the progressive Eurasian continental integration under the protection of Soviets and took all the possible measures in order not to allow this integration. And again, as in the case with Labour-Capital struggle, not only the objective historical forces acted, but also the direct active intervention of a subjective factor was observed - agents of influence of the West did their best, not to allow the "Continental Bloc" realization, the pact of Berlin - Moscow - Tokyo, the project of which was advanced by the prominent German geo-politician Karl Haushofer. Together with the geo-political researches development the Sea obtained the logical and effective intellectual, conceptual apparatus to act throughout the history not just inertial, but consciously.

The end of the Soviet bloc, break up and disintegration of the USSR means in geo-political terms the victory of Sea over the Land, the Talassocracy over Tellurocracy, West over East. And again, as in the Labour-Capital pare case, we see in the history of twentieth century the teleological distinguishing of two very important, earlier not manifested geo-political subjects, but this time this is Sea and Land, we see their planetary duel and the final victory of Sea, West.

If we compare the case of economic reduction with the geo-political history explanation model, the obvious parallelism immediately arrests our attention, the parallelism which is detected in all the stages of both history aspects. It seems that one and the same trajectory is repeated on different, parallel levels, not associated directly with each other. Therefore the following analogy suggests itself:

Fate of Labour = Fate of Land, East.

Fate of Capital = Fate of Sea, West.

The Labour is fixed, Capital is liquid. Labour East is the creation of values, rising ("the East" literally means in Old Russian "rising"), Capital West is exploitation, alienation the Fall of the thing ("West" literally means in Russian "falling down").

The Sea civilization is the civilization of liberalism. The Land civilization is the civilization of socialism.

Eurasia, Land, East, socialism is the synonymous sequence. Atlantism, Sea, West, Capital, liberalism, market is the synonymous sequence too. The comparison of the political economy and the geo-politics shows us the uncommonly harmonious conceptual picture.

"End of History" in geo-political terms means "end of Land", "end of East". Doesn't it remind of the Gospel symbolism of the Flood, the Deluge?

The War of Nations

Another model of history interpretation is various ethic theories, which consider nations, sometimes races, sometimes one nation, opposed to all the rest ones as the main subjects of history. There is the uncountable variety of versions is this sphere. A German Herder was one of the most prominent theorist of the ethic approach, his ideas were developed by German romanticists, partially borrowed by Hegel, and ultimately, applied by the German "Conservative Revolution" representatives, especially by the prominent thinker, lawyer Karl Schmidt.

The racial approach was in a general way stated in count /Gobino/'s works, and then taken up by German national-socialists. But the ideals of considering the history in the light of the one nation are in the most distinctive way represented in Judaic, Zionist circles, basing on the Jewish religion specificity. Besides, during the period of patriotic enthusiasm the tendencies, close to the idea of national exclusiveness, can be detected in any nation, but the difference is that almost nowhere else these theories acquire as explicit religious content, are so stable and developed, have such a long historical tradition, are the object of almost general agreement as among Jews.

There exists a number of the unusual, but extremely persuasive ethic theories, missing all the above mentioned. Such is, for instance, the theory of "passionarity" and "ethnic genesis" suggested by the genius Russian scientist Lev Gumilyov. This theory allows considers the world history as a result of the organic live being, going through various periods of life - from infancy to old age and death. Despite the fact that this theory is to the greatest extend interesting and reveals many enigmatic natural laws of civilization, it doesn't have that degree of teleological reductionism, which interests us. Gumilyov's view s don't claim to be last generalization. Moreover, Gumilyov was prone to consider the eschatological views (evident or hidden) as the expression of nation's decadent stage of development, as chimeras, emerging in the environment of the decaying cultures and nations, having lost passionarity, closing the threshold of their death.

Correspondingly, the statement itself of the question, which interests us - the versions of "end of history" interpretation - would be nothing else but the expression of the profound decadence. By that reason Gumilyov should be put aside.

After the example of Gumilyov one can distinguish the first criterion, basing on which all theories of nation as a subject of history should be divided in two parts. - Some theories have the teleological, eschatological dimension, the other do not. What do we mean? There exist such conceptions of the ethic history, which consider the fate of some nation (variant' several nations or races) the reverberation of the entire historical process sense, and consequently, the ultimate triumph, rebirth or, vise versa, defeat, humiliation, disappearance of a nation is considered as a result of the history, the ultimate expression of its secrete sense.

This is the ethic theories of the eschatological orientation, they interest us most of all. The other ones, even the most extravagant and interesting, but having no teleological dimension, don't contribute anything to understanding the problem we study. So, for instance, Russian, American, Jewish, Kurdian, English nationalism, German racism obviously tend to eschatologically state the question. Polish, Hungarian, Arabian, Serbian, Italian or Armenian nationalism despite the fact that they can be not less original, saturated and dynamic. Are evidently passive in the teleological sense. The first group supposes that the given nation is the primary subject of history, its peripetia make the historical process contents and final triumph together with trampling of the hostile nations will put an end to history. The second group does not have views of such global scale and insist just on the pragmatic and not so pretentious strengthening of national specificity, culture and statehood in the face of surrounding nations and cultures. Here is the important dividing line. The study of the second group of ethic doctrines by no means helps us expose the historical paradigm, for there is too small scale here from the very beginning. The first group, on the contrary, meets our requirements. Though here also we should separate the "globalism of desire" from the "real globalism" for the given nation should posses a great deal of historical scale (both in time and space) in order to consider even in purely theoretical way the ethic interpretation of history, because otherwise the picture turns to be ridiculous.

But even having reduced the subject of considering to the "teleological nationalism", we still do not have the evident picture, like those which were obtained during the analysis of two previous paradigms. And for there was a perfect and amazing evident analogy between the political economy and geo-politics, we will try - a bit artificially - to spread the same model onto the ethnic history also. And only then we will find out whether such identification was justified or not.

The geo-politics allows in this respect to take the first step. It Sea = West, the "nation of West" is the bearer of the talassocratic tendencies in the ethnic respect. And for we already have in our equation the formula Sea = Capital, the hypothetical (yet) "nation of West" becomes the third member of identification - Sea = "nation of West" = Capital. It is easy to build the equation of the opposite pole Land ="nation of East" = Labour. Now let's correlate both notions of "nation of West" and "nation of East" with some fixed historical realities, and find the presence of the corresponding eschatological doctrines out.

Here Russian Eurasians (Trubetskoy, Savitskiy and others) come to the aid of us. They identified the "nation of West" after Danilevskiy with "Roman-German" nations, and, correspondingly, the "nation of East" - with "Eurasians", in the center of which there are Russian as a unique synthesis of Slavonic, Turkic, Ugric, German and Iranian nations. Certainly, to talk about "Roman-Germans" as about a nation isn't quite accurate, but still there obviously exist some common civilization and historical features here. The Roman-Germans are united by geography, culture, religion, the common character of the technological development. The Western Roman Empire and later "Sacred (in reality, absolutely not sacred) Roman Empire of German nations" was usually considered the cradle of what could be called "Roman-German civilization". The national and cultural unity is present, but whether it is justified to talk about the united eschatological conception, which would consider the fate of that ethnic group as the paradigm of history? If we look attentively at the logic of the Roman-German world development, we see that this world practically from the beginning usurped and used on itself the concept of "oecumena", i.e. "universe", which characterizes earlier in Orthodox empire the Aggregate of all its parts. But after split from the Byzantium the West limited the concept "oecumena" by itself only, reducing the universal history to the history of the West, leaving overboard not only non-Christian world, but also all eastern Orthodox-Christian nations, and moreover, all axis of genuine Christianity - the Byzantium. So, the very center of authentic Christianity - the Orthodox-Christian East slipped out the boundaries of the "Christian world" of Roman-Germans. And further, that conception of "European oecumena" was inherited by nations of West both after the breach of their catholic religious unity and their ultimate secularization. The Roman-German world identified its ethic history with the history of the humanity, what, in particular, gave grounds to Nikolay Trubetskoy to entitle his splendid book "Europe and Humanity", wherein he persuasively demonstrates that the identification by the West if itself with all the humanity makes the West the enemy of the real Humanity in the full and normal sense of that concept.

In such perspective the actual self-identification of Europe and Europeans with the ethic subject of history starts to be perceptible, and in such perspective, the positive (in mind of the Roman-German) outcome of history will be equal to the ultimate triumph of the West, its cultural and political "oecumena" over all the rest nations of the planet. This, in particular, presupposes, that the Roman-German political, ethical, cultural and economic standards, generated in the process of history, should become the universal and everywhere accepted, and all the resistance from the autochthon nations and cultures should be broken down.

The conceptual eschatologism of the European nations came through several phases of development. At first it had the catholic and scholastic expression, parallelly with which the purely mystical doctrines were also developed, like the conception of the "Third Kingdom" by Joahim de Flor. The question was that the Roman-German world will complete the "gospelization" of barbarians and heretics (including orthodox Christians!) and the "paradise on Earth" will come, aspects of which seemed more or less analogue to the universal domination of Vatican, but only brought to the absolute state. In sixteenth century the European eschatologism was expressed in Reformation, and later found its final formula in Anglo-Saxon protestant doctrine of "lost tribes". That doctrine considers Anglo-Saxon nations as ethic descendants if 10 lost tribes of Israel, having had not returned, according to Bible history, from the Babylonian captivity. Therefore, the genuine Jews, Israelites, "chosen nation" are Anglo-Saxons, the "golden corn" of Roman-German world, who should at the end of times establish the domination over all other nations of Earth. In this extreme doctrine, formulated in seventeenth century by the adherents of Oliver Cromwell, all the logic of European ethic history is concentrated in a concise form, West's ethic and cultural universalism of claims to the world dominance is clearly and undoubtedly affirmed.

Thus, the specification of ethic subject of Roman-German world comes about. The Anglo-Saxons, the protestant fundamentalists of eschatological persuasion gradually, but more and more evidently show as it . But one should seek for the grounds of that doctrine in the catholic Middle Age, in Vatican. As regards this, Verner Sombart gave the brilliant analysis in his book "Bourgeois".

Anglo-Saxons, parallelly to the forming of conception of being ethnically chosen, were first to enter two decisive processes, which underlie the modern political economy and geo-politics. England carries on the industrial break-through, first of the European powers, bringing about the industrial revolution, which speeded up the achievement of the capitalism bloom, and simultaneously conquers sea space of the planet, winning a victory over more archaic, "ground" and traditionalist Spaniards during the geo-political duel.

Karl Schmitt clearly demonstrated the interrelation between those two turning points of modern history . Gradually, the initiative of England was adopted by another "branch" state - the USA, which was at first based on principles of the "protestant fundamentalism" and was seen by its founders as the "space of utopia", as the "promised land", where the history must end in the planetary triumph of "10 lost tribes". This idea is incarnated in American conception of Manifest Destiny, which considers "American nation" as the ideal human community, being the apotheosis of nations' world history.

Having compared the abstract theory of "Anglo-Saxons' ethnic beingness chosen" with historical practice we will see, that the real influence of England as the vanguard of Roman-German world on Europe itself and, on a broader scale, on the entire world and world history is really huge. And in the second half of twentieth century, when USA became de facto the synonym of notion "western nations" and the symbol of the eschatological Anglo-Saxon nationalism validity, no one can doubt Manifest Destiny at all. If, for instance, the mason-catholic nationalism of Frenchmen , despite the lofty myths about the "last king", turned to be just regional and relative one, the Anglo-Saxons conception of protestant fundamentalism is confirmed not only by striking successes of "mistress of seas" (England), but also by the giant superpower, the only one in the modern world.

Now let's turn to the "nation of East", to Eurasians. Here one ought to pay attention, first of all, to nations which proved their large historical dimensions. And, naturally, there is no doubt, that Russians are the only ethnic community, which turned to be up to the mark of history in the modern world, which was able to establish its national eschatologism on a huge scale. It was not so always, during some period of East's history Russians were just one of nations, together with the others, extending or decreasing with the changeable success the area of its cultural, political and geographic presence. China and India, being the most ancient and elevated traditional civilizations, despite their dimensions and spiritual significance, never advanced any conceptions of eschatological nationalism, nor attached any dramatism to international conflicts and relations. Besides, neither Chinese, nor Hinduist tradition were notable for "messianism", the claim to their religious and ethic paradigm universality. This is Orient - static, "permanent", profoundly "conservative", not able and not wishing to accept a challenge of the West. Neither in China, nor in India there never existed any national theories, according to which the Chinese or Indians will sometime, in ultimate times, rule the world. Only Iranians and Arabs possessed the national and racial theories of eschatological orientation. But the history of last centuries showed that the real expressed Islamic religious component - is not sufficient to consider this teleology as a serious competitor to that of "nations of West".

The duties of vanguard of "nation of East" is undoubtedly imposed upon Russians, who were able to generate the universalistic and messianist ideal - comparable with that of Anglo-Saxons later with American one by its scale - and incarnated it in the enormous historical reality. The eschatological idea of Orthodox-Christian Kingdom - "Moscow as the Third Rome" - was transferred to the secularized Petersburg Russia, and, finally, to the USSR. From the Byzantine Orthodox Christianity through the Holy Russ to the capital of the Third International. In the analogous way to how Anglo-Saxons moved from the ethnic conception of "Israel tribes" to American melting-pot as the "artificial eschatological liberal paradise", the Russian messianism - at first based on the conception of "open nation" - obtained in twentieth century the formula of "Soviet nationalism", gathering nations and cultures of Eurasia under the giant cultural and ethical universal project.

The fact, that American protestants by common consent identify Russia with the "country of Log", i.e. with the place, where antichrist will come from, is one more confirmation of just such ethic dual teleology. The doctrine of "dispensationism" directly asserts that the final battle of history will go off between the Christians of Empire of Good (USA) and heretic dwellers of Eurasian Empire of Evil (i.e. Russians and rallied round them nations of the Orient). Such idea of conferring the status of " country of Log" to Russia spread in especially active way in the protestant circle of America starting from the middle of the last century. Such views are characteristic also for many protestant trends in England and among Jesuit Catholics. The judaizing catholic priest (Jesuit) Emmanuil la Concha, working under the pseudonym "Rabbi Ben Esra" was first to formulate the principles of conception of "dispensationism". The Scottish preachress Marta MacDonalds from the sect of Fiftieth Day Longers borrowed the dispensationist theory from him, and then this theory became the foundation stone of the doctrine of English fundamentalist preacher Derby, who founded the sect "Plymouth brothers" or just "Brothers". All this protestant (and sometimes catholic) eschatology, extremely popular in the West, asserts that western Christians and Jews have at the "end of times" the identical fate, and the orthodox Christians and other not Christian nations of Eurasia incarnate the "antichrist's suite", which will take the field against the force of Good, bring a lot of harm to the just men, but, ultimately, will be routed and defeated on the territory of Israel, where it will find its death. The degree of trust to this theory and its dissemination among the ordinary people constantly increases.

The Bolshevik Revolution, creation of the state Israel, the cold war nicely fitted the "prophetical" conceptions of "dispensationists" and strengthened their own faith in their rightness.

Let us cursorily look through two more variants of ethnic teleology and make a conclusion, which is probably already made by the attentive reader.

The easily verified throughout the history ethnic dualism, unveiled by us - "nation of West" (Kernel: Anglo-Saxons) and "nation of East" (Kernel: Russians) - ignores two famous ethnic doctrines, which usually come to mind first of all every time the question is about the "eschatological nationalism". We mean that "racism" of German national-socialists and Zionist conceptions of Jews. On what grounds did we put those realities aside, and examined in the first instance the American and Russian-Soviet "nationalisms", which are not so evident and radical as the bordering on barbarity Nazism or the emphasized anthropologic dualism of Jews, refusing the right of belonging to human kind to the "gois"4 ?

We shall answer this question a bit later, and now let's remind in short, what those two variants of national eschatology consist in. The German racism reduces all the history to racial opposition of Aryans, Indo-Europeans and all the other nations and races, considered "defective". In the ground of such approach there is a mythological conception of "ancient Aryans", the first cultural dwellers of Earth, the magic race of kings and heroes of the high Nord. This "Nordic race" was notable for all kinds of virtues, and the authorship of all cultural inventions belongs to it. Gradually the white race went down south and mixed with the rude, semi-animal, sensual and wild nations. So did the mixed cultural forms, the modern nations appear. All what is good in the modern civilization is possessions of the whites. All what is bad is the product of mixing, the coloured races' influence. The vanguard of the white race are Germans, they preserved the purity of blood, cultural and ethnic values. The vanguard of the coloured nations is Jews, the main enemies of the white race, constantly plotting against the latter.

The racial eschatology consists in the idea, that Germans should place themselves at the head of the white race, begin purifying the blood, separate the coloured nations from not coloured ones and reach the world dominance, which reproduces at the now stage the primordial dominance of the Aryan kings. The German racism is of course an extravagant doctrine, quite artificial and exclusively modern, though it is based on some having really existed ancient myths and religious teachings. In Germany itself the racism became widely spread under the influence of occultist circles, to a certain extent associated with theosophism.

The Jewish messianism is the archetype for all the rest variants of national eschatologies. It is exhaustively expounded in the "Old Testament", deciphered in Talmud and Cabala.

Jews are considered the chosen nation for the most part, and Jewish nation is the main subject of the world history. On the opposite side of the model "not Jews", "goim", "nations", "heathens", "idolators", "forces of the left side" (according to "Zohar"). In esoteric interpretation of Cabala "gois" aren't people, they are "evil spirits having assumed the aspect of humans", therefore they have not even theoretically the perspective of salvation or spiritualization. But Jews also, despite their chosen character, often step aside the right ways, go astray to the path of Evil, go ways of "gois" and their "false deities".

The Four-lettered (whose name consists of 4 Jewish letters) (=Jahve) inflicts penalty on its nation for this, dispatching it in dispersion to "gois", who by all means slight the Jews, causing them humiliation, pain and offense. After destruction of the Second Temple in 70th A. D. By Titus Flavius the Jews were dispatched for their sins in the "forth dispersion", which would be the last one. After the centuries-old sufferings this dispersion should end up in "catastrophe", "holocaust", "shoa", next to which the return to the promised land comes, the restoration of the state Israel, and henceforward the Jews will rule all the world. In addition, in some Cabalistic texts it is asserted that Jews' triumph will b based on the genocide of "gois", Which are doomed of the total extermination in the messian epoch5.

Let us note an interesting correspondence - there is an evident correlation between the German racism and Jewish messianism, though their positions are directly the opposite. German racists saw the focus of "racial evil" exactly in Jews, and Jews themselves - especially after World War II - recognized the maximum concentration of "goiish evil", on the contrary, in Nazism. And it is not accidental that the religious, historiosophical concept "shoa" was applied exactly to oppression of Jews in national-socialist Germany. And also the creation itself of state Israel is directly associated with Hitler's regime fate. - Jews received the moral right to their own state in the eyes of the world public as a kind of compensation for the incurred losses in the times of nazism.

German nazism and Jewish messianism are very intensive forms of ethic eschatologism, ranged and weighty ones, having proved their large scale by the real involvement in the process of the world history. But still, neither Hitlerist nazism, nor Zionism embodied with such evidentness and obviousness, with such historical clearness the basic tendencies of the world history, as in the case of Americanism and Sovietism. Also, the purely geographical disposition is interesting. - The racism was spread in Europe, the state Israel is in the Middle East. It looks like they oppose to each other along the vertical line. As to Anglo-Saxon and Eurasian worlds, they oppose to one another along the horizontal line. If Hitler's racism appealed to "Nordism", the Jewry accentuates the "south", "Mediterranean", "African" orientation. The Eurasianism obviously relates to the East. The Atlantism relates to the West.

In addition, the historical scale of the horizontal pare Anglo-Saxons - Russians is much more significant and weighty than in the case of the vertical pare. And though Nazis were in their time able to achieve the significant territorial successes, they were geo-politically doomed already from the very beginning, for their ethic and eschatological paradigm was evidently insufficiently universal and ranged, and their history was not an independent spiritual pole (as distinct form Russia). Just in the same way, despite the enormous influence of the Jewish factor in the world policy, Jews are still very far from their messian ideal, and the role of the state Israel is still insignificant and exclusively instrumental in the context of the big geo-politics, in which only blocs, comparable with NATO or former Warsaw Treaty Organization, possess really serious significance.

One can't disregard the German racism (historically obsolete) and all the more the Jewish messianism (on the contrary, having strengthened itself in the second half of the twentieth century). But one also shouldn't overestimate their significance, for in the case of USA and Russia we have much more weighty and ranged realities.

In the connection, it is much more helpful to undertake the following operation. - Let's part the pare Hitler's racism - Zionism in two ingredient. In the sense of political economy the fascism was just a compromise between the capitalism and the socialism, and in sense of geo-politics the countries of Axis were something intermediate between the clear Atlantism of the West and the clear Eurasianism of the East, so, just in the same way, in sense of ethic eschatology the opposition Nazism - Zionism just veils the more s