Project Eurosiberia - Recently Updated Pages

The Slavs in the Southern Balkans

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:47:41 CDT

Dimitris Michalopoulos

THE SLAVS IN THE SOUTHERN BALKANS:

THE CHILLING STORY OF THE FALLMERAYER ISSUE*

In memory of George C. Soulis

They were a kind, hospitable people; prisoners of war were very rarely ill-treated at their hands. But they were by no means prone to live along Graeco- Roman lines. As a matter of fact, they preferred to live as much by hunting, as by fishing and agriculture.
They were tall, fair - haired and hardy; but they had little military skill. They fought without fortifications (something that happened to be fatal to them); and, when endangered, they retreated into the great forests which they held in affection. In brief, their primitive groups were rural communities united by common descent; and they used to possess fields and woodlands in common. They lived in log cabins, disposed in lines along either side of the way, or grouped around a central space; and they practised a simple, often semi-nomadic agriculture and cattle raising. Civilization (whatever it means) came to them late…
This is the Slavic image, from the sixth to the eighth century, painted by Byzantine chroniclers and modern historians[1]. Nonetheless the former could hardly believe the turmoil in which Greek intellectual life was found to be during the nineteenth and the twenty centuries, due to this Arcadian people; and as far as modern historians are concerned, very few among them discussed this unbelievable state of affairs.

I

The end of the Greek Revolution in late 1829 marked the beginning of another conflict, this time an ideological one. In fact, the fight of the Southern Balkans’ Christian insurgents against the troops of the Sublime Porte had begun as early as 1821; nonetheless it had a successful conclusion, given that a kingdom was founded on the “classical soil” of Greece. It was the first independent non–Moslem State there after Constantinople had been captured by the Ottomans in 1453.
However, the freshly liberated country desperately needed not only a King but an official ideology, too. Both were essential to her national coherence; and both proved difficult to find. An unescapable truth is that after the tragic death, in 1831, of count John Capo d’Istria[2], the Czar’s joint Secretaty of State (1816-1822)[3] and, afterwards, the President of Greece[4], everybody within Europe’s Royal Houses was loath to accept the Greek crown[5]. Finally a candidate for the new throne was found; he was Otho, the second son of Louis I, King of Bavaria[6], who was eventually declared King of Greece in 1833. But he had not yet come of age; and until he did so, the country was run by a Council of Regency. This hybrid situation remained in being up to 1835. It was only then that Greece had at last a King and, thus, she was entitled to proclaim her legacy urbi (namely Athens) et orbi. But in the year after that, something critical took place: there was published in Germany the second volume of Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer’s monumental book Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea[7]. As a result a clamour was raised among the scholars of Central and Eastern Europe; and up today none has been able to put an end to the strife.

II

The achievement of Fallmerayer was Herculean; but he was ill prepared to confront the impact of his conclusions. For in the prologue of the second part of his work, he made an assertion that had repercussions not merely in Greece, but in the whole of Europe and even in the Near East: “The glow surrounding the Periclean age as well as the times of Praxiteles and Plato; the very halo that the the quixotic friends of the natives of both the Morea and the Rumelia had cherished is now being destroyed before our very eyes. Therefore, the inner divide of the [Greek] people, both its major divisions, i.e. the Slav and the Albanian one, as well as the death of the Ancient Greeks’ national character is every day more clearly brought out” [8].
In brief, Fallmerayer was trying to explain by means of Mediaeval History the internal disorders in nineteenth century Greece. Nevertheless, the corollary of his thesis was that the Modern Greeks had little (if any…) relationship with the Hellenes of classical times; and as could be foreseen, his concepts were regarded as sapping away at the very ideology on which Modern Greece was based.
That the Greeks who fought the 1821 Revolution thought of themselves as Hellenes needs no argument: that is why the State which was formed as a result of their struggle was given the name Hellas. Nonetheless, the Byzantines did not call themselves Hellenes; and although from the seventh century on practically all of them spoke Greek, they were considered as being merely the subjects of the Roman Empire in that Christian, progressively Eastern form conferred on it by Constantine the Great[9]. Moreover, it is a fact that the leaders either of the Greek struggle against the Ottomans or of the regenerated Hellas’ politics were mainly non–Greek. Some of them were descended from the Albanian invaders of Greece in the late Middle Ages; and they spoke Greek only with difficulty; a lot of them were Vlakhs[10], i.e. Walachians… and so on. In other words, there was abundant, palpable evidence of the veracity of Fallmerayer’s thesis; but, strangely enough, during the nineteenth century, neither public opinion nor academics in Greece showed any reaction towards the German scholar’s doctrines as far as the Albanians were concerned[11]. In fact, the main problem was the Slavs; and, of course, its nucleus was the Morea, in other words the ancient Peloponnese.
Why so? Because nobody could have misgivings about Rumelia, i.e. the Mainland Greece[12]. This toponym’s etymon is Turkish. In fact the term Rumeli, meaning the “land of the Rumi”[13], is found as early as the fourteenth century as a term indicating the European possessions of the Ottoman Sultan[14]; but in Modern Times, and in particular shortly before the Greek Revolution, it was just the name of the regions stretching as far as Epirus and Thessaly in the North and the Gulfs of Patras and Corinth in the South. The battles fought there, after the outbreak of the 1821 uprising[15], consecrated the toponym and integrated it in the vocabulary of the Modern Greek. In short, no problems were foreseen as far as Rumelia was concerned. But what about the Morea’s etymon? To tell the truth, the question was all the more crucial since this region was regarded as the very melting pot of the Greek nation (as it was, indeed).
However, Fallmerayer’s position on this issue was clear cut: the toponym Morea was derived from the Slavic word more, that means “sea”[16]. The evidence of that could be furnished by the German name of Pomerania, Pommern, the etymon of which is the Slavonic expression po – moran, i.e. “on the sea”[17]; and as a case in point, the Polish name of that region is Pomorze[18], expressing the very idea that Fallmerayer was the first to point out.
Thus the German scholar ‘cracked’ the enigma of a lot of the Morea’s toponyms. In other words, he explained that the name (N)ezeros derived from the slavonic ezero/ozero/jezero meaning “marsh” or “swamp”[19]; that the name Goritza>Koritza>Koritsa, widespread not merely in the Morea but throughout the Southern Balkans[20], was just a ‘diminutive’, meaning a mountain village or town and deriving from the root gora (=mountain)[21]; that the toponym Divri, the name of a provincial capital in the Northern Peloponnese, was a Serbo–Bulgarian word meaning “good, beautiful”[22]; and that the etymon of Mistras, the famous Mediaeval despots’ capital, was a slavonic toponym [23]. And last but not least, he managed to give a satisfactory explanation of the toponym Bardounia, a complex of villages north of the Mani, where, until the outbreak of the 1821 struggle, Albanian–speaking Moslems were settled. In fact, Fallmerayer brilliantly explained that the etymon of this toponym was bardo, a term in Illyrian slavonic meaning “mountain”[24].
Fallmerayer was right; and the correctness of his assertions is proved not only by the etymology of Pomerania but by the very name the Sublime Porte had given the Morea: djezire, which means “the isle” but also the “peninsula”, the “littoral”, and generally speaking the “land by the sea” or even “by the water”[25]. In other words, the Ottomans invaders had roughly the same conception of the Peloponnese as their Slavic ‘forerunners’ did[26]. And now the main problem is to know the path the German scholar followed in order to arrive to these conclusions.

III

During the sixth and the seventh centuries of the Christian era, a massive Slav influx poured into Greece[27]; moreover, in 747, the Peloponnese was a plague-ridden region[28]. As a result, Slavs submerged it[29]; thus merely a few nuclei of autochthonous populations remained here and there; and at least the western part of the peninsula remained a “slavic country” for over two hundred years[30]. Moreover, the restricted Greek groups on the eastern littoral were, during that same period, obviously in territories inhabited by Slavs[31]. Under these circumstances, the physical description of Nicetas, father-in-law of Christopher, a son of the emperor Romanus I Lecapenus (920-944), is quite understandable: Nicetas was from the Morea and his physiognomy was described as truly slavic[32].
Nonetheless, the Morean Slavs were, at the beginning of the ninth century, strong enough as to attack Patras, one of the last Greek strongholds in the peninsula. The city was besieged in the year 805[33]; but the aggressors were eventually defeated[34] - thanks, according to the tradition, to a miraculous intervention by Saint Andrew, the patron saint of Patras[35]. Their defeat was a turning point in the Mediaeval History of Greece; for the imperial authority embarked after that on a large-scale campaign in order to graecize the “barbarous” Morea. The hellenization meant in practice christianization; and at the beginning of the tenth century there were no more pagans (even autochthonous ones) in the Morea[36]. The fidelis in Christo deo basileus et imperator Romaeorum, in Constantinople[37], had henceforth the Morean Slavs as loyal subjects; and it was in that way that these Slavic populations became an integral part of Greek nationhood.
In other words, Fallmerayer was right; for his own subject was race, i.e. the stock, the blood, and in no case the nation. In fact, practically throughout Europe, nationhood is a concept quite different from that of common ancestry; and it was thanks mainly to the bitter, the cruel experience of the 1789-1792 years that the French people emerged as the primordial pattern of nationhood in today’s Western World. And to the crucial question “What is a Nation?” there were the French to provide the classical answer: “A group of human beings who have achieved success and victories in the past and who wish to do alike in the future”[38].
This very principle was fully adopted by Modern Greeks; and it is undoubtedly noteworthy that John Capo d’Istria was the first to define their nationhood. In fact, he had made, even before the end of the 1821 Revolution, the following statement: “The Greek Nation is composed of people who, after the capture of Constantinople [in 1453], did not abandon either the [Greek] Orthodox faith or the tongue of their fathers; and thus remained within the spiritual jurisdiction of their Church regardless of the region where they live in Turkey”[39].
Almost three decades later, this essential principle was brilliantly epitomized by Constantine Paparrhigopoulos, an intellectual who went on to write the historiographic gospel of Modern Greece. “Everyone who speaks Greek is Greek”, Paparrhigopoulos declared in 1853[40]; and he deduced the inescapable corollary: “everyone who will speak Greek is going to be Greek”[41]. Notwithstanding, by means of the above statements and declarations no solution is given to the essential problem, i.e. the reaction to Fallmerayer’s thesis, as far as the Slavic migration into Mainland Greece and the Morea is concerned. As explained, the German scholar’s theme was not the nation but the ancestry; and thus his theory was not at all in contradiction to the maxims of John Capo d’Istria and C. Paparrhigopoulos. In other words, the clamour raised after the publication of Fallmerayer’s theses is a real problem; and the key to the mystery is the political climate in the Balkans throughout the nineteenth century.
It was only a year after Paparrhigopoulos had epitomized Capo d’Istria’s maxim that a diplomat accredited to the royal court of Greece tried to bring the debate to an end with the following laconic statement: “A really independent Greece is an absurdity. Greece is either Russian or English; and since it may not be Russian it must be English”[42]. The obviously undiplomatic character of this ‘explanation’ should be regarded as being no more than a ‘reflection’ of belligerency: the Crimean War had already begun.
King Otho and his Queen Consort, Amelia, were then ardently in favour of the Russians. Otho used continuously to bring up that he was the only Christian monarch in the Near East; accordingly he regarded Athens as being merely a provisional capital of the regenerated Hellas. The Ottomans should be driven out of Constantinople; and Russia’s war against the Sublime Porte and her allies appeared to be a unique occasion for such an impressive achievement. The very antinomy between the ancient Hellas, based -allegedly- on blood relationship but chiefly on paganism, and the graecized Eastern Roman Empire of the Middle Ages, based entirely on the Christian faith, had, in those days, slipped everybody’s mind; though that contradiction was pointed out actually by both, Fallmerayer and Paparrhigopoulos. As a result, Greek volunteers fought in Sebastopol against the French, the British, and the Turks; and at the same time officers of the Greek army stirred up a general insurrection of the Christian populations in Epirus and Thessaly - regions, at that time, of the Ottoman empire bordering on Greece. The consequence was unescapable: in May 1854 French forces occupied Piraeus, the port of Athens. They were joined a little later by British troops and a policy partial to the interests of the two Western Powers was imposed on Greece. Thus the Crimean War turned into a traumatic experience for the Greek people: a general upheaval along the lines supposed to be the most appropriate for the regeneration of Byzantium resulted in the defeat of Russia and the occupation of Piraeus by Turkey’s allies. This revealed, among other things, the need for far-reaching changes in both the domestic structures and the international position of the country[43].
Once more, Paparrhigopoulos was among the first to herald the coming of the new era. It was in 1860, i.e. only four years after the end of the Crimean War, that he published the first volume of his masterly work “A History of the Greek Nation”[44]: the last tome happened to appear as late as 1874[45]. In the meantime, Otho and Amelia were overthrown[46], a new King, George I, was proclaimed in Greece[47] and the country had definitely entered the sphere of influence of the Western Powers. Paparrhigopoulos’ writings seemed to be prophetic: it was already in 1853 that he had plainly specified Macedonia as being the natural area for Greek expansion[48]; nonetheless Macedonia, in those days a part of the Ottoman Empire, was inhabited by compact Slavic populations; thus the Mediaeval precedent of the Morea, i.e. the Slavs’ hellenization, would be repeated in nineteenth century Macedonia. In short, he prescribed, in a few words, a foreign policy for Greece (regardless of the political party in power): no more dreams of Constantinople being christianized again. Macedonia was henceforth considered to be Greek living-space. It was of no matter that it was the very cradle of Slavic Christianity in the Balkan mountains[49]; and so Macedonia became an Apple of Discord between the Greeks and the Slavic nations of the Balkan Peninsula up to our time.

Constantine Paparrhigopoulos was an exceptional man. He was born in Constantinople in 1815; nonetheless his father was from Arcadia, i.e. the very heart of the Peloponnese. Because of the 1821 turmoil, little Constantine with his mother and brothers settled in Odessa; and, after Greek independence had been achieved, in Nauplia, then capital of Greece. Initially he joined the civil service; but after the 1843 military coup, that made the granting of a constitution and subsequently the establishing of a dictatorial régime by King Otho faits accomplis, he took up the teaching of History. Firstly he taught in an Athens gymnasium; and from 1851 on in the university of Athens; and thus he managed to become the most influential historian in nineteenth century Greece.
Paparrhigopoulos was virtually a self-taught man[50]; he had acquired, in Odessa, a good primary education as well as the basics of a secondary one; but he never went on to higher studies. Nevertheless he read a lot; and he kept reading and doing research during the whole of his life. He had a brilliant talent d’amateur, as efficient as Heinrich Schliemann’s[51]; he might be compared even to Anton van Leeuwenhoek[52]. In any case, he was the one to emphasize the importance of traditional oral sources as a factor linking Ancient with Modern Greece[53].
The most astonishing fact, however, is the equivalence between Paparrhigopoulos’ and Fallmerayer’s cases. Their work is complementary to each other. The latter had challenged the claim by Greeks (and by Philhellenists[54] on their behalf) to linear descent from the ancient Hellenes[55]; the former had produced evidence of the unbroken continuity of Greek History. The latter’s subject was race, whereas the former’s was the nation, i.e.something quite different[56]. The theses of both are objectively irrefutable[57]; and only their theses’ interpretation made them seem antithetical. In short, the key to the mystery is to be found, once more, in the political coincidence.
Fallmerayer was born in 1790, in Tyrol[58]. His family was a poor one; nevertheless he managed to study, at the university of Salzburg, Theology, Oriental Languages, and History. Already in 1835, he was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, at Munich; and in 1848 he was appointed professor of History in the university of the Bavarian capital. Nonetheless, during the revolutionary agitation of that année folle, he adopted a marked republican attitude; and as a result he lost his university chair. From that time on and until his death, in 1861, he excelled as a member of the Academy, as a historian - and as a columnist.
Fallmerayer nourished republican sentiments even before the année folle[59], given that, in the crucial 1848 year, he was elected a member of the German National Assembly[60]. The latter sat, from May 1848 to June 1849, in Frankfurt on the Main, and advocated the union of all Germans, along liberal lines, in a national state. In other words, the bitterness of Fallmerayer’s assertions[61] was nothing more than a disguised attack against the Wittelsbach Royal House, most probably because he regarded them as being an obstacle to German unity.
In brief, Louis I was the King of Bavaria; and his son, Otho, the Sovereign of Greece. Louis ascended the throne in 1825, but he abdicated after the 1848 uprising. Nevertheless and as far as culture is concerned, he achieved spectacular success. He regarded his capital as being a “New Athens”; and in fact he was able to give Munich a beautiful, typically neoclassical appearance. His peculiar ‘classicalist romanticism’ was one of the main reasons for acquiescing in the Greek crown be given to his son; and Otho made the classical revival a constituent element of his monarchy’s ideological basis. This is why almost every aspect of Greek intellectual life was ab initio oriented towards the classical past[62] and, moreover, why Fallmerayer’s book on the Morea was considered to be “anti-Greek”[63]; although it should never be emphasized enough by historians that the very lines on which ancient Hellenes conceived the world were a fundamental contradiction to the way of thinking and living of the Mediaeval and Modern Greeks.
At any rate, Paparrhigopoulos was a protégé in all but name of the Wittelsbach Royal House both in Athens and Munich. His ascendancy began in 1844, i.e. when King Otho established in Greece a royal dictatorship; and it was John Kolettis[64], a politician favoured by the Sovereign and prime minister from 1844 to 1847, who drove him to abandon a career in civil service and opt for a teaching post, albeit he had no doctor’s degree. Then there appeared a deus ex machina. After Louis I had abdicated, Maximilian II, i.e. Otho’s elder brother, succeeded him as King of Bavaria; and though liberal he pursued, as far as the liberal Pan-Germanism was concerned, the same policies as his father. This attitude proved to be fortunate for Paparrhigopoulos: in 1850, he was proclaimed, by the university of Munich, doctor in absentia. Thus a year later he was able to occupy the chair of History at the university of Athens. He kept teaching, and writing, and playing a leading role in the national life of the Greeks almost till his death in 1891.
Unfortunately for Fallmerayer, he died already in 1861, i.e. before Germany was unified (by means of blood and iron and by no means along liberal lines) by Otto von Bismarck[65]. Paparrhigopoulos remained unique in the arena of Greek historiography. Public opinion adulated him; and scholars throughout Europe held him in high esteem. Beyond the Greek border he was regarded very highly, for he was the first to give satisfactory evidence of Greek civilization extending, from Antiquity to our time, a connected whole; and domestically he was deemed worthy of the highest honours, because he managed to deal a severe blow to the Slavs, who “continuously threatened the Greeks”. Nonetheless, he was not entirely out of reach of potential attacks; and in February 1876 he was the victim of a public outcry. The reason? He was accused of being a … Pan-Slavic agent!

In January 1876, Paparrhigopoulos published in the first issue of Hestia, an influential scholarly review of Athens, an article on George Castriota (in Turkish being Scanderbeg), i.e. the Albanian leader who, after the fall of Constantinople, brought about the expulsion of the Ottoman troops from Albania[66].
George Castriota, born most probably in 1403, was a son of the lord of Croya[67], a fortified city in upper middle Albania. Sent as a hostage to the court of the Ottoman Sultan Murat II, he became a Moslem and he was named Iskender bey or Scanderbeg[68]. Subsequently he fought in the battle of Niš, in Serbia, on November 3, 1443, on the side of the Ottomans. Nonetheless, the latter were crushed there by the governor of Transylvania, John Hunyadi[69]; and that battle had grave consequences for the Balkans. First of all, Serbian independence, abolished after the 1389 Kosovo battle, was now restored; but far more important was the beginning of the Albanian uprising led by Scanderbeg[70]. In point of fact, the young Castriota rushed to Albania, reconverted to Christianity, took again his baptismal name, George, and afterwards raised the banner of the revolt in the very centre of his father’s fiefdom[71].
Some ten years later, Constantinople was captured by Mehmed II, the son of Murat II. The result? No more Christian basileis[72] in the Balkan mountains. George Castriota jumped at the opportunity and raised the flammulum, i.e. the red ensign bearing the two-headed eagle. This ensign used to be flown by the Byzantine armies, whenever the Emperor was leading them. The significance was clear: the basileus was dead; nonetheless someone else was the leader in his place[73]. From that moment on, George Castriota’s struggle against the Ottomans became a merciless one; and it lasted up to the death of the Albanian leader in 1468.
In other words, for almost twenty-four years Castriota led his countrymen in wars against the sultan Mehmet II the Conqueror. The latter, after he had conquered Constantinople, Athens, the Morea and Serbia, had real difficulty, in the West, only with Albania[74]. Castriota was particularly helped by Alphonse V, the King of Naples, who represented Western ambitions in the Balkan peninsula[75]. The King’s death in 1458 however left Castriota vulnerable; and in 1461 he accepted a truce with the Sultan; but Castriota managed to dupe him. In fact, in return for vague promises to refrain from further attacks on the Ottoman territory, he achieved once more the control of southern Albania and Epirus; and just a year later, in 1462, he resumed attacks on Ottoman garrisons. As a result Mehmet II invaded Albania again, but he achieved neither the seizure of Croya nor the subjugation of Castriota[76]; thus the Sultan pursued a conciliatory policy and signed a peace treaty with the Albanians. Now Castriota was assuredly the victor, a crusader on behalf of Christian Europe, a true “Champion of Christendom”, as the Roman Papacy called him after the Ottomans had taken Constantinople[77]. But January 1468 proved to be catastrophic: the Albanian leader went down with a bout of malignant fever and died within a few days[78]. This was the finis Albaniae. In fact, the Ottomans then began to extend their possessions in that country; and in 1478 Scutari, i.e. the last important city, fell[79]. A year later Albanian independence was over[80]; and the islamization of the Albanians was already under way.
Paparrhigopoulos, in his famous Hestia article, by no means minced his words: George Castriota was unique among the Balkan “crusaders” never to have been defeated by the Ottomans, given that the last basileus and autocrator[81], Constantine XI Palaeologus, was killed on the walls of his capital and John Hunyadi was eventually overcome, in 1448, in yet another Kosovo battle. Nevertheless the true misfortune of George Castriota was the fact that he did not have a historian worthy of him to set down his achievements[82]; and so this leader, “whose ancestry was Slavic”[83], has been overshadowed by his ‘fellow-heroes’, i.e. John Hunyadi and Constantine XI.
One could easily foresee that the revelation of Castriota’s
Slavic lineage would be a scandal in Greece, as it truly was. In 1876 the whole of Europe was preoccupied with the Eastern Question; and the Greeks were plainly divided. The élites were on the side of the Western Powers, whereas the populace supported the Russians and, generally speaking, the Slavs against the Sublime Porte. War was imminent[84]. As a result, Paparrhigopoulos’ declaration that the national hero of the Albanians[85], who had ascendancy over Mehmet II the Conqueror, was of Slavic stock brought the stormy political discussions of those days to a climax. During the four months after Paparrhigopoulos had published his findings on the subject of Castriota’s ancestry, he was in the eye of the tempest. Greek public opinion, which had acclaimed him, now was launching bitter attacks against his very person[86]. Practically speaking, he was in the same position as Fallmerayer had been in the 1850’s and the 1860’s. Nevertheless he did not give up; and in October 1876 he published in Hestia another article, in which Greeks and Slavs were painted as unique, outstanding peoples and, of course, as equals. But this time he was astute enough to couple his admiration for the Slavs with a trumpeting insistency on the unbroken continuity of Greek History[87]; and of course this (indisputable) continuity of Greek History was interpreted as a reassertion of Modern Greeks’ linear descent from the ancient Hellenes; and thus the whole affair fell into oblivion.

Nonetheless Paparrhigopoulos was right; for in the main written sources concerning Castriota’s life, his father’s name is given as Ivan[88]; and even today everyone is able to recognize the name Ivan as the Slavic word for “John”. Nevertheless, the key to the mystery of his abrupt admiration for George Castriota is to be found in the last words of his Hestia article: Scanderbeg, undoubtedly of Slavic stock and a Roman Catholic, was a Christian hero; and this is enough for History to record a good opinion of him. Politics is something different, in fact another realm[89]. In other words, Paparrhigopoulos now clearly separated the historian’s task from the politician’s one; and in doing so, he was begging Fallmerayer’s pardon posthumously.
Why? Because the latter was the first to underline both the Slavic origin of the Castriota family and his adhesion to the Roman Church; moreover he was the first in Modern Europe to stress the importance of Scanderbeg’s struggle. In fact, in his monograph on the “Albanian element in Greece”, published a mere year before his death[90], he clarified as follows:
a) The father of George Castriota was Ivan Castriota, that means he was a Slav; and he produced as evidence the very passage of the Byzantine source which Paparrhigopoulos put forward sixteen years later[91].
b) The origins of the Castriota family were either Kastorja[92] based or Kastrati based, i.e. a village in Albania[93]; in any case they were named after the place of their extraction.
c) Not only Scanderbeg’s father but even his mother was a Slav - from a place “between Macedonia and Bulgaria”. This is why George Castriota’s mother tongues were both Albanian and Slavic[94]. Furthermore, Scanderbeg’s sister, Mara, married Stephan Czernovitsch, the ruler of Montenegro; and so she gave birth to the well - known Czernojevitsch Montenegrin House[95].
d) The Slavs’ presence in Albania (and Epirus) is explained roughly by means of the same arguments as those used to explain the Slavic infiltration into the Morea/Peloponnese [96] .
e) George Castriota not only became a Roman Catholic but also became somehow the Commander-in-Chief of the Western Christians against the Turks[97]; as such his struggle was a life and death one[98].
As explained, Paparrhigopoulos summarized the above theses of Fallmerayer and brought out Castriota’s image as painted by the German scholar; and the very fact that he did not give up in spite of the attacks launched upon him by sections of the Athens press honours both the Greek historian as well as the memory of his former opponent. Nonetheless, the affair of G.Castriota’s origin seemed to have been sunk into oblivion until a tragic figure rescued it in the late 1950’s.

VII

George Soulis was now the persona dramatis. He was born in Yanina, Epirus, in 1927. His father, Christos, was a gymnasiarch[99] and a well known scholar who had a great influence on him during his early years. Thus he received his first training at his father’s hands; and after the end of WW 2 he attended the Philosophical School of the university of Athens.
Soulis’ family was an old one in Epirus; and, so to speak, a typical one in that remote, mountainous region bordering on Albania. Since Antiquity Epirus has been regarded as the cradle of the Greek race[100]. But in the 1940’s everything there was in turmoil. Leftist guerrillas began fighting against government troops as early as 1945; and so G.Soulis’ decision to study in Athens was something of an escape. Nevertheless Athens’ intellectual climate in those days was not favourable to him; and he left for the United States. He studied at Columbia University, obtained his doctorate at Harvard and, from 1957 to 1961, he served as Librarian of Dumbarton Oaks, the famous Harvard byzantine outpost[101]. Since the years of his early education, he had developed a love for Mediaeval Greece and he proved to be able to combine this love with a real sympathy for the Slavic peoples[102]. Thanks to his initiative, Dumbarton Oaks acquired rare Russian publications[103]; and as a result, in 1965 he was offered, by the University of California, at Berkeley, a professorship in Byzantine and Mediaeval Slavic History. He accepted; and it was at Berkeley that he died of a heart attack the following year.
While still the librarian of Dumbarton Oaks, he undertook to continue Paparrhigopoulos’ work as far as George Castriota was concerned. His starting point was the very assertion of Paparrhigopoulos’ that the Albanian leader’s posthumous fame was not worthy of his true achievements; he laid stress on his father’s name, undoubtedly Ivan; and he closed once for all the debate about his origin: George Castriota was of Slavic extraction[104].
Unlike Paparrhigopoulos, Soulis had strong arguments in favour of Castriota’s slavic ancestry. Halil İnalcık, the well known Turkish historian, had discovered in the early 1950’s a register of the Christian lords in Albania[105]; and simultaneously a sixteenth century Greek chronicle, by an anonymous author, was published in Athens[106]. In both sources, George Castriota’s father was spelled Ivan.
The young scholar was quick to do further research into the Albanian hero and, quite possibly, would had written his biography, had he not already been at death’s door.

CONCLUSION

And then they cried, like the troops of Xenophon after their long march: The sea! The sea![107]

Once upon a time? Vaguely, imprecisely? Not at all. As happened with Xenophon’s famous description, we are now able to establish firmly the cause, the date, and the corollary of the event. Greece has passed through many vicissitudes since Roman domination was stamped on her. The “barbarian” invasions and the successive epidemic outbreaks of deadly diseases decimated the indigenous populations[108]. The story could be considered to be one of rapid decline[109]. Moreover, the Byzantine monarchy discouraged municipal development mainly from the seventh century on; and as a result the so-called burgher class[110] practically disappeared[111]. As a corollary, the towns dwindled gradually (but rapidly) either becoming villages or castra/castella, namely fortified sites. Roads, bridges, and aqueducts, typical features in a Roman landscape, were neglected and began falling into decay. Communications in the mountainous regions became difficult; simultaneously, numerous plots of land, in wide areas, lacked culture. The invaders who had early overrun the Eastern (or Byzantine) empire, themselves often numerically inconsiderable, were accompanied by Slavonic auxiliaries or dependents; thus many regions devastated by their passage were repeopled by the Slavs who followed them[112]. Nonetheless, let us not underestimate those Slavonic tribes’ ability to raid Greek lands without foreign leadership. As early as the sixth century, they were allegedly the first to infiltrate themselves in great numbers through the porous (though militarily watched over) limes into the Empire[113]; and around the mid- eighth century they spread rapidly over the Peloponnese, a disease- ridden peninsula, and as a result drastically reduced in number the population in that time[114]. They were impressed by the sea surrounding the beautiful peninsula, all the more so because the Slavs, as far as we are able to know, have a passion for the great tracts of water (the sea included); and they named the whole country after their own word for the sea. But this was an obviously symbolic act; for the Greeks, from time immemorial, have been inseparably linked to the sea; and the very cry The Sea has been nothing other than a password signifying admission to the Greek world. Thus began the Slavic invaders’ integration into the Greek nation.
There is…no doubt that … the Greek lands were occupied by people of whom the overwhelming majority, whatever their ethnic ancestry, spoke Greek, belonged to the Orthodox Church and called themselves Romioi[115], meaning Greeks. Nor is it possible to believe that not a single one of them had an ancestor living in on Greek soil two thousands years ago. This is the way a brilliant scholar who knew the Greeks and their fatherland as very few did, epitomized the essence of the remarkably long history of the Greeks[116].
He was absolutely right. And so the main question that emerges from the imbroglios of the History - Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern - is the following: given that both, Fallmerayer and Paparrhigopoulos, were right, why then did they vie so vehemently one against the other? And why are their respective theses, even today, regarded as at variance, when they simply complement one another? Because Paparrhigopoulos went even further than his German colleague; for he, as one can see in the Ivan Castriota affair, virtually recognized the truth of mass Slav Mediaeval settlements throughout almost the whole of Greece.
The answer is simple: Political coincidences. Nonetheless, as Paparrhigopoulos himself emphasized, the realms of History are different from political ones.

NOTES

*As usual, many thanks are due to Professor Michael Lumley, who proof-read the work in manuscript form and made a lot of important observations.
[1] See mainly Margaret Deanesly, A History of Early Mediaeval Europe, 476 to 911 (London: Methuen, 1956), pp.484-485.

[2] After his election as President of Greece, he adopted the Greek spelling of his name: Capodistrias. See mainly C.M.Woodhouse, The Story of Modern Greece (London: Faber and Faber, 1968), p.123. His family was from Slovenia - most probably italianized Slavs; in the 14th century they had settled in Corfu, the biggest island in the Ionian Sea. Corfu was then under Venetian rule; therefore they had changed their name from Vittori to Capo d’Istria (after the town in Slovenia whence they came to Corfu) and, in the late 1680’s, a title of nobility was conferred on them.

[3] As far as his activity during that period is concerned, see Henry A. Kissinger, A World Restored. Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812 – 1822 (Boston: Sentry, n.d. [first edition: 1957]), notably pp. 257 and 287ff. (although the author presents his personality in remarkably dark colours).

[4] He was elected for a seven year term; and he was naturally close to the pro-Russian faction. (The others were pro-British and pro-French.) Although he thought and acted as a Greek and not as a Russian agent, committed a fatal error: he employed a part of the Russian fleet against the anglophilic “Constitutional Committee” of the famous nautical island of Hydra; and shortly after he was assassinated by his opponents on an obviously trumped up charge. See C.M.Woodhouse, op.cit., pp. 150-154; William Miller, A History of the Greek People (1821 – 1921), London: Methuen, 1922, pp.20-21; Richard Clogg, A Short History of Modern Greece (Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp.64, 65.

[5] As far as the situation in Greece after Capo d’Istria’s assassination is concerned, see Protocols of Conferences held in London relative to the Affairs of Greece. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty, 1832 (London: Harrison and Son [1832]), pp.145 – 147: Annex A to the Protocol (No.42) of the conference of 7th of March, 1832. Confidential Memorandum upon the state of Greece, communicated to Count Augustin Capodistrias by His Excellency Sir Stratford Canning, on the 28th of December, 1831. (Augustin Capodistrias was one of John ’s brothers.) And alsoMémoires, documents et écrits divers laissés par le prince deMetternich…publiés par son fils, le prince Richard deMetternich, vol.V (Paris: E. Plon, 1882), document No 1036 (p.203): Metternich to Ficquelmont (at Saint - Petersbourg), Vienna, September 11, 1831.

[6]Protocols of Conferences held in London relative to the Affairs of Greece,op.cit., pp.164 – 167: Convention between the Courts of France, Great Britain and Russia, on the one part, and the Court of Bavaria, on the other. Done at London the 7th of May, 1832.

[7] «A History of the Morea Peninsula». (J. Phil. Fallmerayer, Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters, vols I-II, Stuttgart and Tübingen: J. G.Cotta’ schen Buchandlung, 1830 and 1836.)

[8]J. Phil. Fallmerayer, op.cit., vol.II, p.ix.

[9] See W. Miller, op.cit., pp.19 –20.

[10] C.M.Woodhouse, op.cit., p.139. However the more prominent Ottoman generals of the time of the Greek Revolution were by birth…Orthodox Christians (ibidem, p.140).

[11] On the Albanians, Fallmerayer had written another important work though less famous: Das Albanische Element in Griechenland, I-III, Munich: Verlag der k.Akademie, 1857 – 1860.

[12] Furthermore, in that memorable year 1836, the tiny Kingdom of Greece consisted merely of Rumelia, the Morea, and some islands.

[13] Rum = The Mediaeval Greek, the Byzantine.

[14] See Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. I (Cambridge University Press, 19783), pp.34, 38.

[15] In particular, the defence of Missolonghi (1822 -1823 and 1825-1826), a little town near the Gulf of Patras, famous for its association with Lord Byron, who died there in 1824.

[16] Moreas ist aus dem Slavischen Worte More... (J. Phil.Fallmerayer, Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea..., op.cit., vol. I, p. 243.)

[17] Po-Moran (Pommern) d.i. Um- Meere, wurde der große Küstenstrich zwischen der Weichsel und Odermündung...(Ibidem, p.245.)

[18] Pomerania is the region of North Central Europe, extending along the coast of the Baltic Sea; now chiefly in Poland.

[19] Ibidem, p. 273. (N)ezeros is in the Southern Peloponnese, near Sparta; the modern name of that place is Helos, i.e.the Greek synonym of the Slavonic Ezero/ Ozero/ Jezero.

[20] Goritza, for instance, was the old name of Korytsa (Korçë), now in Albania.

[21], Ibidem, p.251.

[22]...Ist auch Dibra oder Dibre ein serbo–bulgarisches Wort und wird auf Dobro, weibl. Dobra gut, shön, zurückgefürt. (This in his book Das Albanische Element..., op.cit, III, pp. 24 – 25.) In point of fact, Dibre/Dibra/Divri is a common place name both in the Morea and in Epirus and Macedonia.

[23] J. Phil.Fallmerayer, Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea..., op.cit., vol. I, pp. 292-293.

[24] Bardo…ist synonym mit… gora (ibidem, p.283). Even in the Mani (Maina during the Middle Ages) he was able to provide evidence of Slavic penetration. (Ibidem, vol.II [Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1836], p. 41.)

[25] See Anastasia Kyrkinī-Koutoula, Hī othomanikī dioikīsī stīn Hellada. Hī periptōsī tīs Peloponnīsou,, 1715-1821 (= The Ottoman administration in Greece. The case of the Peloponnese, 1715 - 1821), Athens: Arsenidis, 1996, p. 217. Also: N.Mallouf, Dictionnaire français- turc (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1856), p.343, «île»; Encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition, vol.II (Leiden: E.G.Brill, 1991), p.523, «Djazīra».

[26] And of course the classical name of the Morea, Peloponnese, means the “isle of Pelops”.

[27] [In the year 615] Slavi Graeciam Romanis tulerunt…These are the words of Saint Isidore of Seville (560[?]-636). See Isidori Hispalensis episcopi, Historia de regibus Gothorum …, in Patrologia Latina, vol.LXXXIII, line 1056.

[28] According to the testimony of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. (De thematibus [Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana], p.9133 - 34. )

[29] Ibidem.

[30] See Ivan Duicev, Cronaca di Monemvasia. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note (Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di Studi bizantini e neoellenici, 1976), pp.2 -22.

[31] Vita S.Willibaldi in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptorum, vol.XV, p.93. Saint Willibald was the bishop of Eichstät (723-728). During his pilgrimage to Palestine, he stopped over at Monemvasia, and asserted that this town was “in a Slav territory”. See also the book of Antoine Bon, Le Peloponnèse byzantin jusqu’à 1204, (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1951), pp. 32-37. Also Sir Rennell Rodd, The Princes of Achaia and the Chronicles of Morea. A study of Greece in the Middle Ages, vol. I (London: Edward Arnold, 1907), pp.102-103, where the following complementary information is given: They [the Slavs] appear to have also at various times migrated peacefully into the peninsula [=the Morea], and to have occupied extensive areas which had ceased to be inhabited or utilised for want of available labour. Thus they were alternately the oppressors or the vassals of the original inhabitants, who remained sheltered in the walled cities of the coast…

[32] De thematibus (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana), p.9140. For some other opininions on Nicetas, see “Niketas Magistros”, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3 (Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 1480 – 1481. It is noteworthy that “his correspondence is full of allusions to ancient mythology and literature; thus Homer is quoted more frequently than the Old Testament”. (The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3 , op.cit., p. 1481.)

[33] Georges Ostrogorsky, Histoire de l’État byzantin (Paris: Payot, 1969), p.221; another probable date is the year 807. (See Sir Rennell Rodd, vol.I, op.cit., p.103.)

[34] De administrando imperio (Dumbarton Oaks. Center for Byzantine Studies), p.228 9 -12.

[35] Ibidem, p.22825–33. See also Georges Ostrogorsky, Histoire de l’État byzantin, op. cit., pp.221 – 223.

[36] De administrando imperio, p.23671-76.

[37] I.e. the Byzantine emperor.

[38] René Johannet, Le principe des nationalités (Paris: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, 1923), p. 226.

[39] La nation grecque se compose des hommes qui, depuis la conquête de Constantinople, n’ont pas cessé de professer la religion orthodoxe, de parler la langue de leurs pères, et qui sont demeurés sous la juridiction spirituelle de leur église, n’importe le pays qu’ils habitent en Turquie. (Correspondance du comte Capo d’Istria, président de la Grèce, vol. I [Geneva: Cherbouliez, 1839], p.265 [a letter from Capo d’Istria to Willmot – Horton, October 27, 1827]. )

[40] Constantine Paparrhigopoulos, Historia tou Hellīnikou Ethnous apo tōn archaiotatōn chronōn mechri sīmeron, pros didaskalian tōn paidōn (= A History of the Greek Nation from the most remote times up to our days; for children attending school), Athens: A.Koromilas, 1853, p.1.

[41] Ibidem, pp.94 – 95.

[42] Leonard Bower and Gordon Bolitho, Otho I, King of Greece. A biography (London: Selwyn and Blount, 1939), p.106.

[43] See Dimitris Michalopoulos, “The Crimean War and Greek Society”, in War and Society in East Central Europe, vol. XV: The Crucial Decade. East Central European Society and National Defense, 1859 – 1870 (Brooklyn College Press: Social Science Monographs, 1984), p.333.

[44] Historia tou Hellīnikou Ethnous, Athens: S. Pavlides, 1860; the second volume was published in 1865 (Athens: N.G.Passaris).

[45] Historia tou Hellīnikou Ethnous, vol.V, Athens: N.G.Passaris, 1874.

[46] See D. Michalopoulos, Vie politique en Grèce pendant les années 1862- 1869, Athens: University of Athens, 1981, pp. 50- 72.

[47] George I, King of the Hellenes, was a member of the Glücksburg Royal House; his uncle was the King of Denmark, Frederick VII. (Ibidem, pp.162 – 163.)

[48] C.Paparrhigopoulos, Historia tou Hellīnikou Ethnous…pros didaskalian tōn paidōn (= A history of the Greek Nation…for children attending school), op. cit., p.95.

[49] George C. Soulis, “The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs”, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol.XIX (1965), p.24. In point of fact, after Methodius’ death in Moravia, in 885, a small group of his disciples, led by Clement, Nahum, and Angelarius, sailed down the Danube and reached Bulgaria; there they propagated the Cyrillo-Methodian ideology, which proclaimed the principle of equality of all nations and languages and the right of each nation to share equally the benefits of the Gospels. Even Boris, at that time ruler of Bulgaria, became acquainted with this belief. He therefore established Nahum and some others in the monastery of Saint Panteleimon, near Preslav, and sent Clement and the remaining missionaries to evangelize the remote Macedonian regions. Clement achieved notable success in his new mission: he created a great educational center, produced a large number of disciples, ordained them as priests, deacons and readers, and sent them to spread the Slavic Word. (Ibidem, pp.21-24.) In other words, the seeds of the twentieth century graeco-bulgarian conflict in Macedonia are to be found as early as the late ninth century.

[50] See mainly the newspaper Aiōn ([Αeon] Athens), 33rd year, No. 2701 (August 2, 1871).

[51] The German merchant (1822-1890), who became an internationally famous archaeologist, for he successfully excavated the sites of Troy and Mycenae.

[52] The Dutch amateur microscopist (1632-1723), who gave the first accurate description of the blood corpuscles, bacteria and spermatozoa.

[53] Roderick Beaton, An introduction to Modern Greek Literature (Oxford-New York: Clarendon Press, 1994), p.71. In point of fact, the first to conceive the significance of the traditional oral factor in Greek history was Spyridon Zampelios (1815-1881), a scholar from Santa Maura, one of the Ionian Islands (ibidem); nevertheless, it was thanks to Paparrhigopoulos that this matter took on academic proportions.

[54] A term meaning literaly : “Friends of the Greeks”. The Philhellenists (or Philhellenes) were, in the early nineteenth century, the supporters of Greek national independence.

[55] R.Beaton, op.cit., pp.54 –55.

[56] The French translation of his work’s title (Histoire de la Civilisation Hellénique, Paris: Hachette, 1878) is rather eloquent.

[57] See mainly C.M.Woodhouse, op. cit., p.295: That Greek history is an unbroken continuity should need no further argument. It is unnecessary to waste words on the thesis of Fallmerayer, which is objectively irrefutable…There is indisputable evidence that in the 6th century the Greek lands were overrun by Slavs.

[58] His birthplace is now in Italy.

[59] Année folle = year of madness.

[60] Deutsche Nationalversammlung .

[61] See supra, note 8.

[62] See G.C.Soulis, “Historical Studies in the Balkans in Modern Times”, in The Balkans in transition. Edited by Ch. and B. Jelavich (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), p. 424.

[63] R.Beaton, op.cit., pp.54 -55.

[64] He was a graecized Vlakh (C.M. Woodhouse, op.cit., p.139).

[65] As far as Prince von Bismarck is concerned see, among others, H. A. Kissinger, op.cit., p. 323 (though even the great chancellor’s image is – dexterously – painted in obscure colours).

[66] “Gheōrghios Kastriōtīs ī Skenderbeys” (= George Castriota or Scanderbeg), in “Hestia”, vol. I, No 1 (January 4,1876), pp.4 -6. “Hestia” was modeled on the French review Le Foyer; it kept being published until the 1890’s.

[67] Today: Kruyë.

[68] That is “Alexander bey”. Scanderbeg seems to be an older (and more popular) form of “Iskender bey”.

[69] Transylvania is now in Romania but in those days she was under Hungarian rule. See A History of Romania. Edited by Kurt W.Treptow (Jassy: The Center for Romanian Studies. The Romanian Cultural Foundation, 1996), p. 50. John Hyniadi (being Hunedoara in Romanian) was a member of a Magyar family of Walachian (i.e. Romanian) stock. See G.Castellan, Histoire de la Roumanie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1984), pp.13-14.

[70] A History of Romania. Edited by Kurt W.Treptow, op.cit., pp.107-108.

[71] Stavro Skendi, The Albanian National awakening (Princeton University Press, 1967), p.4.

[72] Basileus is the Greek word for “King”. After Heraclius I, the Emperor who restored, in 629, the Holy Cross to Jerusalem, the Byzantine Emperors became basileis, too. Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor (and basileus), was killed when his capital was seized by the Turks in 1453. See Louis Bréhier, Les institutions de l’empire byzantin (Paris: Albin Michel, 19702), pp.46-47.

[73] The flammulum (< flamma [a Latin word] = flame) is today the Albanian national flag. See Georges Castellan, L’Albanie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1980), p.6.

[74] Stanford Jay Shaw, op.cit., vol. I,, p. 63.

[75] St.Skendi, op.cit., p.4.

[76] Georgii Sphrantzae Chronicon (Series Italica), XLIII3. G.Castellan, op.cit., p.6; Stanford J.Shaw, op.cit., vol. I, p. 64.

[77] St.Skendi, op.cit., p. 4.

[78] Georgii Sphrantzae Chronicon, op.cit., XLV2. Nevertheless, according to another source, he died in 1466. (J.Ph.Fallmerayer, Das Albanesische Element…, op.cit., III, pp. 95-96.)

[79] Today: Shkodër.

[80] J.Ph.Fallmerayer, Das Albanesische Element…, op.cit., III, p. 109.

[81] The Greek word for “Emperor”.

[82] His main biographer was a Roman Catholic priest from Scutari. (Marini Barletii Scodrensis sacerdotis de Vita et Rebus Gestis Georgii Castrioti Epirotarum Principis…, Frankfurt on the Main, 1578.)

[83] C.Paparrhigopoulos, “Gheōrghios Kastriōtīs ī Skenderbeys” (=George Castriota or Scanderbeg), in Hestia, op.cit., p.6.

[84] In fact, a Russo–Turkish war broke out in 1877. The Turks were defeated; and the “crushing” Treaty of San Stefano was imposed upon the Porte in 1878. Nevertheless this treaty was refashioned by a Great Powers Conference, which convened in Berlin in July of the same year.

[85] Albania had then been a part of the Ottoman Empire; nonetheless the Albanian national awakening had already begun, given that as early as 1866 it was published in Italy, in Naples in fact, by Girolamo de Rada, a long narrative poem recounting George Castriota’s life. (G.Castellan, L’Albanie, op.cit., p.9.)

[86] See for instance the newspapers Laos (= The People), 6th year, No. 661 (February 18, 1876); and No. 670 (February 28, 1876); and No. 729 (April 23, 1876). Also: Efimerīs(Ephemeris), 3rd year, No. 57b (February 26, 1876) and so on.

[87] C. Paparrhigopoulos, “Synchronos Hellīnismos” (= Modern Hellenism), Hestia, vol. II, No. 41 (October 10, 1876), pp.653 – 655.

[88] Laonici Chalcocondylae Atheniensis Historiarum libri decem (Bonn), lib.VII, p.3506.

[89] C.Paparrhigopoulos, “George Castriota…”, Hestia, op.cit., p.6.

[90] Das Albanesische Element in Griechenland… See supra note 11.

[91] The German spelling is Iwan. ( Das Albanesische Element…, op.cit., II, pp.56, 57).

[92] Now in Greece.

[93] Das Albanesische Element…, op.cit., II, p.57. Kastrati (Kastrat in vernacular Albanian) is in the mountainous region of Kukës; eventually the Castriota clan settled in Dibra. (Histoire de l’Albanie des origines à nos jours. Sous la direction de Stefanaq Pollo et Arben Puto, avec la collaboration de Kristo Frashëri et Skënder Anamali [Roanne: Horvath, 1974], pp.76–77.) Nevertheless, another plausible etymology of the family name Castriota would be the Greek word kastron (< castra [a Latin word]) meaning in the Middle Ages a “fortified site” or even a “fortified city”.

[94] Das Albanesische Element, op.cit., III, p.4.

[95] Ibidem, II, p.44.

[96] Ibidem, II, pp. 16, 24 ff. passim.

[97] Skanderbeg war Generalkapitän der lateinischen Christen gegen das Türkenthum.. .( Ibidem, III, p.13.)

[98] Es war ein Kampf auf Leben und Tod...(Ibidem, III, p.100.)

[99] That is to say the head of a Greek high school. Given the traditional frame of the Greek educational system, this position continued to be an influential one until the early 1980’s.

[100] Herodotus, IV, 33; Aristotle, Meteorologica, I, 1434-35. Also: Vasileios Kyranīs, Hellīno-īpeirōtika (= Graeco - Epirotica), vol. I (Salonika: Maiandros, 1990), pp.187 ff.

[101] Francis Dvornik, “George Christos Soulis (1927 – 1966)”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers,vol. XXI (1967), p.9.

[102] Ihor Ševčenko, “George Christos Soulis, 1927-1966”, Slavic Review,vol. XXV (1966), p.720.

[103] Fr.Dvornik, op.cit., p.9.

[104] George C. Soulis, «Ai neōterai ereunai peri Gheōrghiou Kastriōtou Skenderbeī» (=The new researches on George Castriota Scanderbeg), Epetīris Etaireias Vyzantinōn Spoudōn (=The Transactions of the Society of Byzantine Studies [Athens]), vol. XXVIII (1958), pp.446 – 457.

[105] Halil İnalcık, “Timariotes chrétiens en Albanie au XVe siècle d’après un registre de timars ottoman”, Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchiv, vol.4 (1952), pp.118-138.

[106] Gheorghios Th.Zoras (ed.), Chronikon peri tōn Tourkōn soultanōn (= A Chronicle of the Turkish sultans), Αthens, 1958.

[107] The credit of the expression belongs, of course, first and foremost to Xenophon; but it somehow redounds to James Diggle’s credit, too. (He was Reader in Greek and Latin at the University of Cambridge. See his work, Cambridge Orations, 1982 – 1993. A selection [Cambridge University Press, 1994], p.103.)

[108] Sir Rennell Rodd, op.cit., vol. I, p.102.

[109] Ibidem.

[110] Roughly, the bourgeoisie of Modern Times.

[111] Ibidem.

[112] Ibidem.

[113] See mainly Louis Bréhier, Vie et mort de Byzance (Paris: Albin Michel, 19692), p.40.

[114] See supra, note 28.

[115] Romios<Romaeos, i.e. the Greek word for Roman (Romanus in Latin). All the subjects of the Byzantine emperor (imperator Romaeorum [= Romanorum]) were considered to be Romioi. It is noteworthy that the term exists even today.

[116] C. M.Woodhouse, op.cit., p.295. Monty Woodhouse, who honoured the author of these lines with his friendship, died only a few years ago.

Artikelen

dmichalo — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:46:07 CST

Dimitris Michalopoulos*

MOSCOW, THE THIRD ROME

Москва- всем городам мать.
Москва – царство.
Москва не город а целый мир.

On May 29th, 1453, the Ottomans captured Constantinople, later renamed İstanbul. Contrary to legend successfully disseminated worldwide, the greater part of the Capital City most likely capitulated and was not, therefore, taken by assault. At least this is the version with which two very old janissaries provided the Sultan Selim I in 1520 - and it makes sense, given that the only church to be made a mosque after Mehmet II entered Constantinople was Ayasofya, i.e. the famous one dedicated to the Holy Wisdom. Had the City been taken by assault, no church would have been left to the Christians.
There is one more piece of evidence for this. The icon of the Virgin Mary, the selfsame one of the Strategos Protector of Constantinople and the Byzantine armies, was neither destroyed nor desecrated when the Ottomans entered the Capital : it was kept in the church of the Pantocrator nunnery. But when the nunnery was turned into the Zeyrek camii, the nuns left the icon there, in a cavity made in the wall of the church. Many years later, the Moslem epistates, i.e. the person in charge of the administration of the mosque, came upon the icon; and presented it to a woman, his neighbour. This woman, being in need of money, sold the icon to a Greek clergyman called Gabriel, the protosyngellus of the Jerusalem Patriarchate. And this Gabriel the protosyngellus, after having been provided with an encyclical letter issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius I certifying that this icon was none other than the Strategos Protector, presented it to the Czar of Russia, Alexis I Mikhailovich, the father of Peter the Great, in the early 1650s.

* * *

The Patriarch was eloquent in his encyclical. The Virgin Mary, the Strategos Protector of the Byzantine capital, had abandoned Her City not long before the Ottomans captured it. Why? For sins that only God knew, Paisius said.
Strangely enough, the sources agree with the Patriarch’s assertion. In point of fact, when the Christian dwellers of Constantinople tried to recite a litany in late May 1453 with the Strategos Protector icon at their head, hailstones scattered the crowd and the icon fell to the ground. In vain did some Christians try to pick it up. Moreover, the Capital City was covered in fog; and the besieged Constantinopolitans readily grasped the divine message: enveloped in the fog, the Virgin Mary was leaving the City. Almost simultaneously, a flash of lightning was seen above the dome of Ayasofya; and other mysterious lights were discerned behind the Ottoman lines. No satisfactory explanation of these phenomena has so far been put forward. At any rate, Constantinople was seized early in the morning of the 29th of May, 1453.

To be sure, the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans was a major turning point in the history of Europe and Christendom; for the Capital City of the Byzantine Empire was the New Rome, i.e. the Second one.
As far as the tradition of the Christian Church is concerned, there is no doubt that it is obligatory for the ecclesiastical administration to go along with the political one. So when the Christian religion began being protected by the Emperor in the early fourth century, the three Patriarchates then existing, namely Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, simply reflected the administrative reality (and the political one as well) of the Roman Ecumene. Constantinople, the New Rome, was designated a Patriarchate only in 381 – thanks to the strong personality of Gregory of Nazianzus, its bishop at that time, and the religious ardour of the Emperor Theodosius I. It was in that way that the initial Triarchy of Christendom was changed into a Tetrarchy; nevertheless many complaints arose because out of that. Constantinople was by no means the capital of the Empire as a whole but only that of the eastern part (pars orientis) of the Roman world. For it was not possible for the Emperor to control the western part (pars occidentis) of the the huge statehood from the shores of the Bosphorus. The New Rome, moreover, was not a hub of commercial routes as the Old one was. Truth to tell, its chief advantage consisted in its being easily defended: only assaulted on every side, simultaneously by land and sea, would Constantinople be captured.
All of the above concerned, of course, mainly traders and military officers. Nonetheless, the religious aspect of the New Rome was far more important: the new capital had nothing to parade in comparison with the –so to speak- original Rome: No martyrs; no disciples of Jesus Christ founding a local Church; no “agape” tables, no catacombs, nothing at all. The corollary was that in the late seventh century, the Roman Pope’s stubborn refusal to recognise the equality of the two Romes brought about a war in Italy. Imperial troops, in fact, moved against the Papal See but were not able to arrest Sergius I, the seditious Pope who had dared not endorse some of the canons of the 692 Council in Trullo thereby undermining the primacy of Old Rome.
Moreover, things had already become critically complicated in 451, when Jerusalem, too, was created a Patriarchate. The reasons for this –turbulent- promotion were never made clear. It was adjudged, however, that the very spot on which Jesus Christ was put to death was deemed worthy to be a Patriarchate. Nevertheless, because of the two additional Patriarchates, namely Constantinople and Jerusalem, the creation of which was due mostly to decisions of the secular power, the initial, the original Triarchy became a Pentarchy. And the related tension soon reached its climax, because the subjects of the Byzantine Emperors insisted upon calling themselves “Romans” (Rhomaioi>Romioi>Rumlar). Where now was Rome, the true one, to be found? In Italy or at the eastern extremity of Thrace? In other words, it was no easy matter for Constantinople, the New Rome, to consign the Old One to oblivion.
The Pentarchic system, however, sealed the fate of the Eastern Church: for it exists even today, regardless of the fact that Antioch is all but an unimportant city in Turkey; that very few Christians are to be found in Alexandria, and that Jerusalem is not Christian any more. But the the Pentarchy’s meaning was changed long ago. In point of fact, in the framework of the initial Triarchy, Rome (the Old One) had a right of advance, a so-called primacy vis-à-vis the other Patriarchates; for it was at the very centre of imperial authority. The removal of the imperial seat from Old Rome to the New One, i.e. Constantinople, embroiled matters. The point was where now was to be found the spiritual centre of the Ecumene: In Old Rome, saturated with the blood of Christian martyrs, or in the New Rome where Emperors were to dwell henceforth?
That was how things were when new causes of friction appeared. In 858, Photius, a layman but at the same time a protégé of Bardas, the regent of Byzantine Emperor Michael III, became Patriarch of Constantinople in merely … five days! Truth to tell, the ‘incident’ was only to be expected. For it was not possible for the Church to avoid constant imperial interference in her affairs. The Byzantine version of Roman law, in fact, was explicit in the matter: “Law is everything that pleases the King”. But the problem was now that the layman in question and henceforth the Patriarch of the New Rome had clear-cut ideas as far as Greek Philosophy and Christian Ecumene were concerned. He admired Aristotle. The latter, nonetheless, was to be hailed (and with good reason) in the twentieth century by Marxist thinkers, as a “titanic mind” and the real father of Materialism. That is why Photius’ literal (and spiritual) predilections had for such the impact of a catalyst. The monks, always numerous and influential in Constantinople, suspected that, thanks to Photius, Materialism was entering the Christianized Roman Empire through the ‘back door’. The corollary was easily foreseeable: the Pope of Rome, Nicholas I, had to intervene; and, needless to say, his involvement in the Photius affair was regarded as a hostile act by a significant part of the Byzantine ‘public opinion’; and so there was opened a vicious circle of hostility between the Eastern and the Western Churches.
Had the Rome/New Rome dispute been limited to purely spiritual matters, most probably it would have been sooner or later resolved. But Photius proclaimed himself to be “Ecumenical Patriarch” and wanted his jurisdiction to reach the limits of the Ancient Roman Empire. In other words, no place was left for the Old Rome in his worldwide imaginings. As a result, the Roman Pope reacted virulently; and the corollary was the schism proclaimed in 867 between Western and Eastern Christendom.
The schism crystallized out in 1054; and things reached a new peak in 1204, when the Byzantine capital was seized by Crusaders.

The creation of the Latin Empire of Constantinople presaged the election of a Latin Patriarch there. It was a violent break with the Byzantine past that then took place: the inconceivable had happened. But now, at least one thing was clear: New Rome, if resuscitated, would have nothing more to do with the Old One. The Schism, in fact, was henceforth irreversible. No matter that Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, after he had driven the Frankish conquerors out of Constantinople, composed a profession of faith to be read at the Council of Lyons in 1274, in which he acknowledged [and] accepted the papal primacy; no matter that the resourceful Emperor, anxious to make a reality of the reconcilement of the –once more Byzantine- Second Rome with the Old One, proclaimed John XI Beccus Patriarch of Constantinople, who would prove to be an ardent partisan of the unionist efforts. The populace however did not endorse the union of the Churches under the Papal primacy. And the 1453 capture of Constantinople by Mehmet II sealed the breaking up of Christendom into two hostile camps: the Catholic, i.e. universal, in other words the one obedient to the Roman Pope, and the ecumenical, i.e. universal as well, faithful to the Constantinopolitan Patriarch. The latter, nonetheless, had a serious problem. In point of fact, the Ottoman conquest had strengthened his position so much (for it had unified under his own jurisdiction the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, previously under secular sovereigns other than the one in Constantinople) that he considered it necessary to restore the old Patriarchal Pentarchy in place of the remaining Tetrarchy. But what city would be in a position to supersede the Old Rome? The answer was pretty much expected: Moscow, i.e. the seat of the Orthodox Czar.
Truth to tell, the idea was in the air prior to the fall of the Byzantine Empire. For it arose thanks to the famous correspondence between the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthony IV (1389-1390, 1391-1397) and the Grand Prince of Moscow Vasily I Dimitrievich. In point of fact, the Grand Prince, son of the famous Dimitry Donskoy who had defeated the Tatars, asked the Patriarch whether the Constantinopolitan Emperor, already a vassal of the Ottoman sultan, would henceforth be capable of ruling the Christendom. And the Patriarch, assuming the protection of the Emperor, stated that the corollary to the existence of the Church was the very existence of the Empire. For Church and Empire formed an indissoluble unity. It was inconceivable –and monstrous- to have Church without having Empire. The evidence? The famous passage of Peter’s First Epistle where it is written: Fear God. Honour the king, and not “kings”. For only one King must there be on the [Christian] earth. Один толъко царь…. Given, therefore, that an Emperor still existed, he should be revered by Christians. Strangely enough, the arguments then used by the Patriarch of Constantinople would prove to be the best ones for the creation of a Third Rome. For as early as 1441, the Grand Prince of Moscow Vasily II Vasilyevich explained to the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus that Rus too could boast a glorious tradition of Christian Orthodoxy, given that Saint Vladimir Svyatoslavich the Great, Grand Prince of Kiev (958-1015), was comparable with and to the Emperor Saint Constantine I the Great. Though the letter in which the above statement was made never reached Constantinople (for the Grand Prince believed that the Emperor had already fled to Italy), the next step was foreseeable: some years later, the Church of Russia was already an autocephalous one. And matters came to the boil when, in 1451, Jonah foretold the “capture and death” of Constantinople. In other words, the Third Rome was now clearly emerging on the horizons of Eastern Christendom.
Rus, nonetheless, was agitated by strong anti-Latin sentiment. It was common knowledge that the Orthodox Zemlya of North-Eastern Europe, the Land of Rus (and later Russia), was being liberated from the Tatar yoke without help from Western Europe. So, why were the Byzantines ready to leave the sacrosanctity of their Christian Orthodox Faith, of their existence, in order to be helped by the Papacy against the Ottomans? That help-to-be-given would soon prove to be nothing but a tissue of lies.
It was under these conditions, nonetheless, that the 1438-1439 Synod of Ferrara/Florence took place; and that Synod marked a shift in the predilections of an important part of the Byzantine political and church establishment. For as the Russians had already foreseen, the upper stratum of the rulers of the moribund Empire did endorse the idea of a reconciliation with the Old Rome. Of course, this implied the recognition of Papal supremacy; and this was done (in vague terms, truth to tell), on 6th July, 1439, by the archbishop of Nicaea, Bessarion, a fervent Platonist, who was the leader of the Greek delegation. But the populace, guided by monks, reacted violently and nearly rose up against the Palaeologi Imperial House which openly favoured the union with Old Rome. In point of fact, the attitude of the nucleus of the Greek Church was now quite different from the one it had adopted almost six centuries earlier, during the Photian dispute. Then the Roman Pope had been regarded as the protector of Orthodoxy and the defender of Eastern Christians; now was regarded as the latter’s foe par excellence. And this enmity was probably Mehmet Fatih’s latent but most effective weapon against the last Byzantine Emperor. For Constantinopole in decay, where merely 50,000 people dwelled, capitulated after the Emperor’s death and the withdrawal of his Italian fellow-fighters. And not long after the Mystras Despotate had been abolished and the Morea became an Ottoman dominion, the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, without coercion on the part of Mehmet II, made the Greek Church a pillar of the Sultan’s sovereignty in the Balkans. How was this effected? By the Church assuming voluntarily the obligation to pay an annual tribute to the Porte. In other words, and given that Church and Empire had been since ancient times an indissoluble unity, it was clear that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate endorsed the idea of Mehmet II being the successor of the Roman Emperors.

III

The Patriarchate of Constantinople, nonetheless, was playing a somehow double game. While seemingly accepting wholeheartedly the idea of the Porte’s sovereignty in the Balkans, it was simultaneously trying to undermine it; and its underhand ways culminated in Moscow being created the Third Rome. This march towards the Third Rome was greatly spurred on by the wedding of Zoe Palaeologina (renamed Sophia), a niece of the Emperor Constantine XI, to the Grand Prince Ivan III Vasilyevich. For it was then that the imperial insignia of Byzantium were inherited by Moscow.
According to Greek tradition, Bessarion, the one-time Nicene archbishop and now a Greek cardinal of the Roman Church (1439), was the one who had conceived the idea of that marriage. For Bessarion, after the Ottomans had captured the Capital City of the Byzantine Empire, was anxious to unite the Church of Russia, henceforth the most powerful Orthodox Church in the world, with the Church of Rome. This ‘achievement’ would signify, of course, the recognition of the Pope’s primacy by the Russians; and the ‘institutional’ basis of this grandiose plan would be the endorsement of the Church-union canon proclaimed at the end of the Ferrara/Florence Council held circa fourteen years before the fall of Constantinople. But this very chapter of the unionist effort had already taken an ominous turn. For when Isidore, the Metropolitan of Kiev and Moscow, a Greek appointed to those sees by the Byzantine Emperor, endorsed the Ferrara/Florence union-canon and proclaimed it in the Kremlin, he was deposed and put in prison; and, as already mentioned, the Russian Jonah was subsequently elected then Metropolitan of Moscow without any Constantinopolitan interference or approval.
Zoe Palaeologina (Sophia) who, after the Ottomans had taken Mystras in 1460, fled to Corfu and then to Rome and put herself under the protection of the Pope, agreed to be the means by which the unionist rapprochement between Moscow and Rome might be achieved. But neither she nor Bessarion nor the Pope Paul II, her mentors, had taken into account the Russian reaction – in spite of the ominous Isidorian prologue to the unionist plans of Old Rome. In point of fact, the sovereign, Sophia’s husband and the Russian clergy as well took advantage of the wedding ceremonies, in 1472, to declare urbi et orbi that Russia did not recognize the Ferrara/Florence Synod; and the taking of Constantinople by the Turks was God’s answer to the betrayal of the Orthodox Faith by the Greeks. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, therefore, had no “right of supervision” over the Russian Church anymore. Yet it was in that way that a major paradox of Modern Times arose: thanks to the wedding of Ivan III to Constantine XI Palaeologus’ niece, Moscow, instead of entering the sphere of influence of the Papacy, became the Third Rome. In point of fact, this state if affairs was reached in 1498, when Simon, Metropolitan of Moscow, proclaimed Ivan III Czar, and gave him the responsibility of caring for the souls of Orthodox Christians. Eastern Christendom was headless no more; and a New Rome, other than Constantinople, came into being.
The final step was to be taken in 1589, when the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Jeremias II raised Moscow to a Patriarchate to supersede the Old Rome (the union with which was now an anathema). Job, since then Metropolitan of Moscow, was now created a Patriarch of Moscow in full legitimacy, i.e. by means of the publication of a Synodical Tome by the Patriarch Jeremias. Nonetheless, of the utmost importance were the arguments the Greek Patriarch used in defence of his action: the First Rome had fallen because of heresy; the Second was held by the Turks; Moscow, therefore, capital of a Kingdom more pious than the previous “Christian Kingdoms”, was undeniably the Third Rome. In other words, Jeremias II reiterated the statement that the famous monk Philotheus, the hegumen of the Yelizarov monastery in Pskov, had made in 1511: instead of Rome and Constantinople, Moscow was now the shining light in the firmament of Christendom… For the two previous Romes had fallen, but the Third one was standing; and a Fourth one would never rise. It was an apocalyptic Weltanschauung which was to have a considerable impact not only on Russian spiritual and intellectual life but on the Greek one, too.
Nonetheless, Patriarch Jeremias’ declaration was somewhat inconsistent: If Moscow was recognized as the Third Rome, then why was the Russian Patriarchate placed on the bottomrung of the ecclesiastical hierarchical ladder? In point of fact, Moscow must be substituted for Rome; but the Russian capital was demoted disrespectfully to the bottom of the Patriarchates’ list, i.e. after Jerusalem. The message was clear: All right, the Czar was taking the place of the Byzantine Emperor; but the Patriarch of Constantinople was to be regarded as the spiritual head of the Christian Orthodox world – a supremacy that the Czar must always have taken into consideration.
Nevertheless, the Russian autocrats were not eager to follow the example of their Byzantine predecessors. If –the ninth century- Photius was the symbol, even the beacon of the secular power’s victory over the Church, in many cases quite the opposite had taken place. And as we have seen, in the final decades before Constantinople was taken by the Ottomans, the Patriarch had assumed the rôle of the Emperor’s protector. Would the monarchs of Russia accept such a protection, such an intervention in their affairs?
The answer is easy to come by: the elevation of the Russian monarchy implied that, sooner or later, it would be in bitter animosity with the Church. The phenomenon was quite common in Byzantium, where the improvement in the relationship between the Emperor and the Patriarch was, as a rule, the corollary of the decline of the secular power. It seems, nonetheless, that the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, thanks to which the Russian Church was “harmonized” with the Greek one, paved the way to the final clash. As a matter of fact, the rejection of the Slavic –or rather Slavonic- tradition would inevitably bring about the emergence of a Russian Papacy. But who would be the Russian ‘Pope’ : The Patriarch or the Czar? The clash between Nikon and Czar Alexis I Mikhailovich was, truth to tell, the prologue to the peculiar development of the Russian Church.
Had not the Moscow Patriarchate been surreptitiously abolished by Peter I the Great at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Peter would not have been able to secure his position as Emperor of All the Russias – after his proclamation in 1721. To study the system running the Russian Church after the reforms of Peter the Great would be beyond the scope of this paper. The point, nonetheless, is the following: did Moscow continue to be the Third Rome after the removal of the Russian capital from Moscow to Saint Petersburg? The answer to this critical question is a quite unexpected one: yes, because of the Greeks!

After Mehmet II had abolished the Byzantine Empire in 1453, the Mystras Despotate in 1460, and the Trebizond Empire in 1461, an important migration of Greek populations ensued. Although this may sound somewhat paradoxical, the main stream of this exodus of Greek people was oriented toward Spain and not Italy. In point of fact, the latter had been the country of refuge par excellence, when in the eighth and ninth centuries the iconoclast Emperors persecuted people venerating the icons. In every probability, large numbers of Byzantines, i.e. Greeks or Graecized people, then settled in Southern Italy (where Greek was the second spoken language as late as the eighteenth century). In the fifteenth century, nonetheless, these populations were in the process of assimilation; but their one-time brethren in the Balkans had henceforth other ideas about the Papacy’s spiritual jurisdiction. The Roman Pontiff was no more the defensor Orthodoxiae. In point of fact, the 1054 Great Schism and the subsequent Frankish occupation of Byzantine lands in the thirteenth century had made Eastern Christendom a bitter enemy of the West. Now, when the last Emperor was killed on the walls of his Capital City, the most turbulent elements among the dwellers of the Southern Balkans were ready to swallow the necessity of cohabitation with «the Papalins»; but this did not mean that they intended to live too close to the Papal See. As a corollary, Italy was excluded in principle, while Spain was emerging as an attractive alternative.
Sedes ubi fata quietas ostendunt… It is all but a truism that the Spanish crown was benevolent vis-à-vis Orthodox Greeks, for it believed that they were able of filling the vacuum created by the expulsion of Moslems and Jews from 1492 onwards. The Spanish monarchs proved to be right; but there was another advantage favouring the Greeks. They were particularly valued as seamen - and the Kingdoms of Castile and Leon was in almost desperate need of such people after America was discovered. Be that as it may; even in the seventeenth century, Christian populations of the Southern Balkans used to make representations to the Spanish Crown, if they had any complaints to make against the Sublime Porte. But Spain was embroiled in the Americas; and after Czar Alexis I Mikhailovich was presented with the icon of the Strategos Protector, the Russian Czardom appeared as the new Power to be entrusted with the protection of the Orthodox populations in the Balkans. And this turn of events was accelerated when Peter, Alexis’ son, became Czar.
Needless to repeat here the story of the wars of Peter the Great against the Ottomans; for the point is that from the eighteenth century on Greeks began to see Russia as their natural protector. The wars of the Russian Empire against the Tatar remnants in the Crimea created new population vacuums in Southern Russia. Greeks were most welcome as settlers there; and Moscow (not Saint Petersburg) took on the dimensions of a Mother City for them. It was only natural therefore that in 1751 the “Prophecies” of Hieronymus Agathangelus began circulating in manuscript.
These “Prophecies” had a huge impact, both spiritual and intellectual, on the Greeks practically till the beginning of the twentieth century. In handwritten editions in the 1700s and the early 1800s, and in printed form from the 1830s on, they culminated in Greece fighting on the side of Russia in the1853-1856 Crimean War. Nonetheless, the story narrated in the “Prophecies” is quite a strange one. According to the Prologue, Hieronymus Agathangelus was a Greek monk who lived in Messina, Sicily; and it was there that he wrote down, in the year 1279, a “Vision” he had had. This “Vision” was first published in Italian in 1555, in Milan, and afterwards translated and published in Greek, in the mid-1700s, by Theocletus Polyeides, suffragan bishop somewhere in Southern Macedonia and epopt of the Greek church at Leipzig as well. Of course, all these composition, publication, and publication stories of the “Prophecies” proved to be false ones. It is most probable, therefore, that the “Prophecies” had been written in Greek not by Hieronymus Agathangelus, whose existence is questionable, but by Theocletus Polyeides: in other words Agathangelus is simply a nom de plume.
The text, divided either into nine or into twelve chapters, is about 50-60 pages long. In point of fact, it is a naive imitation of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine. For starting from the very point where Saint John turned to see the voice that spake with him, Agathangelus (in fact Theocletus) saw a lion with some parchment in “its hands” (sic), where there were written events soon to unfold in Europe. To be sure, the lion with the parchment reminds one of the emblems of the Venetian Republic, well known throughout the Archipelago and mainland Greece; but the contents of the parchment codex has to do not with Venice but mostly with Russia and Germany. The latter is the Country that though dramatically divided will “revenge the Truth” – in other words will successfully disseminate and impose the Truth on Europe; while the former, namely Russia, will in the beginning be an “Evil Empire” but finally she will “wake” and reform the “whole planet”. No doubt left or permitted therefore that Germany and Russia are the very essence of Europe.
That was the state of affairs, when the 1768-1774 Russo-Turkish war broke out. This conflict was a peculiar one, because it proved to be disastrous for every participant concerned. For the Russians failed to destroy the Ottoman Empire and did not even capture Constantinople. The Ottoman Fleet, on the other hand, suffered a crucial defeat at Çeşme that heralded further defeats in the Archipelago during the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. But the status of the Southern Balkan Greek populations was not ameliorated. The Morea was literally devastated by Moslem-Albanian irregular troops: in theory in the service of the Porte but in practice in pursuit of loot. Neither an autonomous nor an independent Greek State, therefore, was established at that time. To be sure, the outcome of the war proved to be to the advantage of some Archipelago islands; for thanks to the famous Küçük Kaynarca treaty the Christian Orthodox subjects of the Sultan were given the right to sail under the Russian flag. But this privilege concerned mainly the Albanian-speaking populations of tiny islands such as Hydra and Spetsa. The Christians of the Morea, of Mainland Greece, and of Epirus suffered terribly in and on account of this war; and as a corollary constant streams of emigrants headed for the Romanian Principalities (then under Ottoman suzerainty but not sovereignty), the Habsburg Empire and Russia.
It was then that Agathangelus Prophecies began being read ‘systematically’; and far more important was the fact that –mostly- oral comments were being added to the manuscript editions circulating secretly. Not until the end of the eighteenth century did the comments prevail over the original text – the corollary being that great importance was attached to an allegedly “Blond Race” which was to come to the Southern Balkans to assist the Greeks in building again a great Christian Orthodox statehood. Of course, the Russians were supposed to be this very “Blond Race”.
Be that as it may; the 1828-1829 Russian-Turkish war emphasized these beliefs and hopes – and things reached a new pitch when in 1850 the Greek Church was recognized by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate as an Autocephalous one. Thus, the ecclesiastical head of the Greeks was no longer to be found at the Phanar (which was literally hated by Theodore Kolokotronis, the generalissimo of the Greek Armies in the Morea during the 1821-1829 Revolution and the virtual leader of the Russophile party). And when Greece, thanks to King Otho (who was a member of the Bavarian Wittelsbach House), aligned herself with Russia in the 1853-1856 Crimean War, the Agathangelus Prophesies seemed to be as good as realized. A Greek Legion fought alongside the Russians inside the besieged Sebastopol. And when things turned against Russia, and Otho’s monarchy was doomed following the occupation of Piraeus and Athens by French and British troops, the populace of Greece still kept a somewhat messianic concept of the Russian Czardom. The true ‘Pope’ of the Orthodox Christians was the Emperor of All The Russias. No matter that King George I of the Hellenes, who succeeded Otho (overthrown in 1862) proved to be a sincere admirer of Western Europe’s liberal régimes; the very fact that Olga, his Queen consort, was a Russian Grand Duchess was likely to guarantee that the “Blond Race” of the North would never abandon their little brethren in the Southern Balkans.

V

The occupation of Constantinople by Allies troops at the end of WW I virtually meant the end of the Porte – in other words the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Mustapha Kemal singled out the Greek Patriarchate as being among those factors trying then to dismember Turkish State - and most likely with good reason. It was all but natural, therefore, for the Turks not to admit to the existence of the İstanbul Rum Patrikhanesi after the conclusion of the 1919-1922 Greek-Turkish war. Eleutherios Veniselos, the chairman of the Greek delegation at the Lausanne conference, was ready to abandon the Patriarchate – in fact accept its abolition by the new Turkish nationalist authority. And the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate seemed doomed unless a deus ex machina provided it with the necessary support. Quite unexpectedly this saviour was to be found in the person of George Nathaniel Curzon, the prestigious Marquess of Kedleston, who -though the openly pro-Greek Lloyd George coalition government had fallen when the Lausanne conference began- remained at the British Foreign Office. As a matter of fact, Curzon fought hard not only for British interests but for Greece. So, thanks mainly to the adamant British attitude in this matter and in spite of Veniselos, who was quite recalcitrant, the Greek Patriarchate continued to exist at Constantinople (renamed İstanbul) – regardless of the fact that this city was a capital one no more and only 100,000 Greeks were finally to remain along the “Bosphorus littoral”.
For the historian, the key problem is Curzon. Why did he defend in so determined a way the cause of the Constantinopolitan Greek Patriarchate? The only rational explanation for this is likely to be found in the Phanar’s international connections. Even so, nonetheless, how is it possible that an as of then meaningless Greek religious institution at İstanbul, i.e. an ex-Capital, an ex-Imperial City, was able to enjoy such international support and backing? If one rejects the Knights Templar’s interpretation of the fact (not so nonsensical as it sounds), the only plausible explanation remains the geopolitical one. And when one speaks of the “geopolitical importance” of the İstanbul Greek Patriarchate, one is referring to the doctrine propagated mainly by Halford McKinder (1861-1947), a Scot and a professor at the University of London. According to him, if the State the territory of which occupies the heart of Eurasia (the so-called “Heart Land”), gains the control of Eurasia’s sea coasts, then the said State may achieve global domination. There is but one State which has so expanded at Eurasia’s heart; and that State is Russia.
Two corollaries arise from H. McKinder’s thesis. The first is that Russia must be obstructed from gaining control of the Balkan shoreline; and the second one is that a formal Russian alliance with any other important Power, like Germany, must be prevented at all costs.
The systematic approach to the second of these corollaries, being borne out in both World Wars, in spite of the Wilhem II/Nicholas II and Hitler/Stalin friendship, is beyond the scope of this paper. So let us instead put forward the implied meaning of the first corollary – connecting it with the importance of the İstanbul Patriarchate. As a matter of fact, that famous Patriarchate, which is really nothing more than a bumped up little bishopric which could have been removed from Turkey many years ago, is the main obstacle to Russia achieving an alliance with the Turks and, further, the control of at least a part of the Archipelago shorelines.
A Russo-Turkish alliance may be considered to be a condition (but not a sine qua non) of a Russian advance to the Macedonia coastline. To be sure, the impact of such an advance would by no means imply a threat to the Turkish sovereignty of Anatolia’s seashore. For Asia Minor is inhabited by compact Turkish populations, with a fierce national conscience; while Macedonian are inhabited mainly by Slavs who, in spite of the frightful oppression they had to suffer during the twentieth century, they still regard (even if under compulsion) the İstanbul Patriarchate as their religious leader. So, if the leadership of the Christian Orthodox World were to be handed over to its natural recipient, namely to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All the Russias, ipso facto (so to speak) Russia might well put forward her candidacy for world leadership. This seems to be the main –if not the only- reason why such an absurdity as the “Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and New Rome” is given such wide support and assistance internationally.
VI
The 1821-1829 Greek Revolution against the Porte is a chapter of the World History worth studying over and over again. There is no doubt that large segments of the Greek Orthodox populations in the Southern Balkans were avid defenders of their religious and cultural identity – and therefore ready to rise against any prolongation of the Sultan’s sovereignty in their lands. (The Kolokotronis clan and the Christian Albanians in Southern Epirus and in some ones of the Saronic Bay islands may be regarded as typical cases.) But it is fairly well known, on the other hand, that the majority of the populace in the Greek lands wholeheartedly accepted, even at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the idea of being Ottoman subjects. Given that, one may grasp the key point of the Greek Revolution: it would have failed, in spite of the insurgents’ initial spectacular achievements, had not the Great European Powers eagerly intervened; and this intervention culminated at the famous Navarino naval battle (October 1827), the result of which clinched the independence of Greece and, simultaneously, the final destruction of Moslem sea power. The Sublime Porte was henceforth at the mercy of the Great Western Powers; and her destruction was already in sight, despite the reforms of Mahmut II and the sagacity of Abdulhamit II.
Russia too took part at the Navarino battle and declared war on Turkey in 1829, because she did not want to stand by from what was already emerging as a “European Concert”. And the attitude that Otho, King of Greece, endorsed, as well as the international situation as crystallized in the early 1830s, seemed to justify the options of Russia. We know very well why King Otho lost his throne in 1862; but we do not know the details of the ultimate enmity between Russia and the Porte on one hand and Russia and Germany on the other. Even so, nonetheless, we know the main obstacle to Russia’s development today: the utter refusal to recognize her as the leader of the Orthodox Peoples and Nations. In other words, the absurdity of the existence of the İstanbul Greek Patriarchate is the symbol of the so-called “Atlantic World’s” stubborn refusal of Russia’s right to have a stable, permanent foothold on the Eastern Mediterranean littoral.
Truth to tell, a Russian ‘descent’ on the Archipelago coastline would be beneficial to Turkey, too. As a matter of fact, the İstanbul Greek Patriarchate, which is acclaimed as “Ecumenical” by the Western Press and Public Opinion (albeit that its influence over Eastern Christendom is quite insignificant), would not countenance the establishment at the Phanar of an “Orthodox Vatican”, as Adnan Menderes proposed to Constantine Caramanlis, during the latter’s visit to Turkey in 1959. The Patriarchate’s main point is most likely the internationalization of İstanbul – and such an event would be to the detriment not only of Turkey but of Russia and Greece as well. For a new seat of corruption and international antagonism would emerge in a part of our globe already saturated with such ‘benedictions’. Contrary to any pusillanimity, Russia seems to be in our time a natural ally of Turkey - as she was during the years 1919-1922. But Russia, for her part, needs not only prosperity (likely to be achieved in our lifetime) but also her recognition as the leading Power of the Orthodox World, i.e. of Eastern Christendom. Moscow is the Third Rome – regardless the world- wide campaign to hush up this fact. According to the Christian Tradition, the Church’s administration follows the political one. Today, İstanbul means nothing to Christians. Its primacy, therefore, and the subsequent ‘injury’ inflicted on Moscow creates a rotten international situation which will soon prove to be harmful to Christians - as well as to non-Christians alike.

* Dimitris Michalopoulos (dmichalo) is the director of the Historical Institute for Studies on Eleutherios Veniselos and his Era. He was born in Athens in 1952. He studied History in the University of Athens (1970-1974), and obtained his Ph. D. in the École des hautes études en Sciences Sociales, Paris (1978). From 1982 to 1994 he was lecturer and then assistant professor in Diplomatic History and Greek Foreign Policy at the university of Salonika. From 1990 to 2000 he was the director of the Museum of the City of Athens. (He lost his job because of his objection to the Elgin Marbles being returned to Greece.)

Links

xint — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:49:20 CDT

Project Eurosiberia
Novopress Nederland
Continente Eurasia
EURASIA-Rivista di studi Geopolitici
International Eurasian Movement
Paris-Berlin-Moscou
eurosiberia.com
Eurasian Movement
Coordinamento Progetto Eurasia

Comments, Remarks, etc

Anonymous — Mon, 28 May 2007 15:50:52 CDT

Comments on articles, projects, etc.
Remarks on projects, ideas, etc.
Critical views on the Eurasian Movement and Dugin in person.

To understand the concept of Eurosiberia and all that is connected to it, one must have great culture, sensibility and experience. Otherwise, there is little chance to find someone able to understand such subtleties about some kind of politics, ethnic psychology, human future – altogether.
Information is what people lack the most. Not the one coming from the mass media, but from their own intelligence. It would mean time and personal qualities for them to have, to achieve getting such profound vision. Needless to say, we are speaking about elite.
Eurosiberia has to be proved by herself. Convincing people to rally such or such idea is difficult, not to say vain for the reasons I tried to explain. But if the idea gives birth to some consequences (that is to say, some projects), it would offer people opportunities to understand things from the inside, whereas an idea is a cause – “the cause” – and therefore not what is looked for by people. People, nowadays, look for concrete opportunities. If they can put, after that, a name on a good opportunity, they shall adopt it as a concept and understand the premises of the idea. But they have to experience it somehow before all.
Unfortunately, there are not a lot of projects more or less related to the eurosiberian idea. I could find one here (http://www.eurosiberia.com) and it seems still very young… We should look for other similar projects, or better join or create some…

THE SACRAL AUTHORITY OF EURASIA

Anonymous — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 05:55:29 CST

by Constantin von Hoffmeister

On February 26, 2005, the EURASIAN UNION OF YOUTH met in Alexandrov (Russia) for a congress that concerned itself with the destiny and greatness of Eurasia. About 400 people attended. Its host, Alexander Dugin (head of the MOVEMENT EURASIA), chose the monastery of Ivan Grosny ("the Terrible") as the ideal place from where to send the message of Eurasia's sacred mission into the world. This particular monastery symbolizes a stage: henceforth, reprisals will be dished out after all wrongs committed against Russia today will be undone after the new (final) age has unfolded itself. Dog heads represent the devouring of the rotten system that is about to collapse.

Alexandrov is located about 70 miles from Moscow (the Third Rome). Several people spoke at the event, including yours truly. In the background, the images of Sergei Eisenstein's classic film IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1945) were reflected off the old white stone walls.

In one of his speeches, Alexander Dugin said, "Eurasians always viewed authority as sacral. We recognize that authority is sacred, that it is the maximum form of service, the maximum degree of spiritual pressure - to dominate. This kind of authority is a spiritual experience. But we do not love authority for authority's sake. What calls itself 'authority' today simply does not correspond to the term. Today's political elites in Russia simply do not understand the historical pressure which weighs on them. Nowadays, authority is merely at a feeding trough and a warm place. ... Our native land is threatened. ... We have been sentenced. There is a unipolar world which is building a global model in which the Russian space is considered an object that can be directly influenced. ... It is necessary that we oppose this process. And if it is not us Eurasians that will do this, then nobody will."

A young Orthodox priest, Father Igor Shestakov, said, "In this hall in Alexandrov, the steps of the Terrible Tsar are still audible. He ruled with an iron fist and unified Russia. He acted in the interests of the Russian state and all of Europe and all the then-known world. In the name of this great figure, we can now see the beginning of a new Russian state which is embodied in this youth movement. All the servants that surrounded Ivan the Terrible were young, and they wished to serve the state with their blood (an evangelical concept), not sparing their stomachs."

The press-secretary of the MOVEMENT EURASIA, Valery Korovin, said, "The center of the sea civilization was England, and then her successor, the USA. A land civilization is something completely different. It is a reasonable, contemplative and spiritual set of various peoples that originated in the great open spaces of the Eurasian continent. Today, the sea civilization considers itself universal and tries to impose its model of civilization everywhere, unifying peoples and cultures, erasing any distinctions. Eurasians support the preservation of all sets of peoples and cultures in their original form and oppose the unipolar process of globalization under the direction of the USA."

Justin Cowgill, from the NATIONAL ALLIANCE (USA), said, "Although I live in Russia, I consider myself an American patriot. I love America. I spent six years in the United States Marine Corps of which I am very proud. However, I am opposed to America's policy of the last 50 years. As traditionalists and conservatives say, America has become post-American America. Our foreign policy has nothing to do with the general interests of Americans and American security. Traditional American culture has nothing to do with globalization. And it hurts to me to realize that people associate international corporations with America. American culture is traditionally isolationist. It is necessary to remember that the strongest antiglobalist movements are in America. I, as well as many others, know that Europe has high hopes for Russia for the construction of a continental block to balance powers with America. This would be good for the whole world. I ask myself: Why do our leaders try to destroy the concept of America in the name of the post-American empire? America more and more resembles a police state. I hope that, within the framework of our union, we can all work together at the construction of a multipolar world where all cultures and people can live freely."

Please read my speech below. I held it in front of Ivan Grosny's richly adorned throne.

Dear Comrades,

I want to send you greetings from Germany. As a member of the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), I have been active in the fight for a free Europe for quite a while. Like in Russia, more and more young people are waking up in Germany. These young revolutionaries are sick of the liberal-capitalist system and want to create a new socialist order.

On 13 February of this year, 8,000 nationalists marched in Dresden to commemorate the innocent victims of the Anglo-American terrorist attack in 1945. This cowardly and vicious bombing raid was not only meant to wound Germany, but also to send a signal to Russia. Since the German Reich was technically already defeated, this unnecessary attack of the Western Allies was meant to weaken the morale of the Soviet Union. After all, Dresden was situated in the future sphere of influence of Russia. Yesterday (as today, like in Afghanistan and Iraq), the Anglo-American warmongers wanted to display their military might, with total disregard to the dreadful suffering of the civilian population.

Russia and Germany were fighting against each other in World War II. This was partly the fault of the Western warmongers Churchill and Roosevelt who wanted the German and Russian armies to bleed each other to death. To honor the memory of the fallen heroes of both sides, this tragedy must always be a reminder that only together will Russia and Germany be able to withstand the forces of disintegration within and without their respective borders.

The eternal Teutonic-Slavic Alliance must be solidified with a new Rapallo Treaty. This treaty, signed in 1922, marked a glorious partnership between our two nations. Both Germany and Russia benefited from this agreement, with economic aid and exchange of technologies crossing the borders regularly.

As General Otto Ernst Remer, veteran of World War II and a long-time advocate of German-Russian cooperation, said in 1992, "The principle of Western politics has been for a hundred years: Germans and Russians must be enemies and exterminate each other. In order to achieve this lucrative goal, the Anglo-American capitalists triggered the First and Second World War and are now preparing for the third. ... We want a new Rapallo. Rapallo means today: Europe from the English Channel to the Ural, the resurrection of Europe, the end of Anglo-American imperialism in Europe and the end of Zionist blackmail of Germany."

Whenever, in the history of our peoples, Germans and Russians worked together, it was for the benefit of both our nations, for the benefit of Europe's freedom, against imperialist exploiters (like Napoleon yesterday) or alien occupants (like the US and its lackeys today). This is why Germany and Russia must again strive to reach a mutually beneficial agreement, to work hand in hand to defend Europe's integrity against the lecherous Judeo-American enemy.

In the spirit of wise Lenin who, as the only statesman of the time, condemned the oppression of the German people through the injustice of the Versailles mandate, I say, "Glory and honor to the Russian people!"

THE EURASIAN RACE

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:16:34 CST

by Constantin von Hoffmeister

The Eurasian race is the most progressive race. Since all
civilization originated on the Eurasian continent, through the
collective will of the blood of the Eurasian peoples, one can clearly
establish that the Eurasians, as a whole, constitute one race. This
race is divided into several subraces, for example the Nordic (Aryan)
one, the Semitic one, the Turkic one, the Oriental one. Of course,
one also has to understand that the Eurasian root race is the
Hyperborean one. Without the strident aggressiveness of the Nordic
subrace, the Eurasian race would not be where it ended up - on top of
the human pyramid. Hence, the Nordic subrace is the one that
naturally should be the vanguard of Eurasia in the future, as it has
been in the past. Joseph Stalin acknowledged this when he said (in a
speech in the Kremlin to commanders of the Red Army on May 24,
1945), "Most of all, I drink to the health of the Russian nation
because it is the preeminent nation of all the nations of the Soviet
Union." Since the Russian people (nation) are a part of the Nordic
subrace and the Soviet Union was the epitomical homeland of the
Eurasian race, it is obvious that Stalin understood the vanguard role
that the Nordic subrace plays in Eurasia.

One should not for one moment suppose that negroes make up a
progressive race. Even Karl Marx himself agreed on this point, as is
evident in his views on slavery: "As for slavery, there is no need
for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring
explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect
slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the
slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions
of North America. ... Slavery is therefore an economic category of
paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most
progressive nation, would be transformed into a patriarchal country."
(from a letter to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, 1846) Obviously, Marx
argues that the enslavement of negroes was a prerequisite for the
emancipation of a predominantly White AmeriKa. Without the backs of
negroes on which to unload labor, White American men would be forced
to toil unnecessarily. White American women would thus be deprived of
the chance to exert an influence equal to that of the men. Without
the negroes' work, women would have to stay at home and take care of
the households themselves, instead of being productive in positions
that would enable them to realize a communal way of life. Through the
progressive element of slavery, women were freed from the shackles of
their social roles as housewives and property of working men.

This view is decidedly materialist in that it acknowledges the
evolutionary hierarchy that divides humanity into higher and lower
races. It is definitely non-Marxist behavior to pretend that all
races are equal. Since Marx was a Lamarckian, meaning he believed
that acquired traits were inherited, it is not surprising that he
held views that many leftist Communists would consider "racist." In
contrast to the Trotskyite multiculturalist nonsense, the Soviet
Union made great advances in racial science, in part influenced by
the revolutionary breakthroughs of the Third Reich in this field.

The only race that can be considered a "root race" is the Nordic
subrace. It was the Nordic subrace that was directly responsible for
the greatest and most original achievements in Eurasian history. The
Nordic subrace managed to infiltrate the other subraces' social
strata and assume leadership positions in their respective societies.
The red-haired mummies in China are but one example of the Nordic
legacy that was behind the foundation of all great civilizational
achievements on the Eurasian continent. The Nordic subrace is a "root
race" because at its roots, deep down and far back in time, Eurasia
owes its greatness exclusively to Nordic blood and genius.

CAPTAIN RUSSIA

the ideal worker in the Soviet Union
the Nordic worker
evident in sculptures throughout the former
empire

"his shield a weapon of glory"

"is he a person or a nation of workers?"

Libertarian free White AmeriKa as the vanguard in action
Nordic settlers frontiered
de-Indianized the West
Soviet enlightened Russia the brother brooding

CAPTAIN AMERICA asks CAPTAIN RUSSIA:
"Where is the line of demarcation?"

A bridge across the Bering Strait!

The Bloody Baron: Baron von Ungern-Sternberg, who viewed himself as
the reincarnation of Genghis Khan, hated Bolsheviks and Jews equally.
He equated the two. He killed, tortured and mutilated countless
innocent Bolsheviks and Jews. Nevertheless, he wanted to create a
Eurasian empire, a Buddhist empire with Nordic Russians as the ruling
class. It is ironic that the very people he despised (Bolsheviks and
Jews) were able to create the very empire that he failed to create.

The Bloody Baron: warrior Buddhist, follower of the 16th Path of
Oblivion, mad, on fire. An Aryan soul in search of power. A will to
solve, to obliterate to build, to drink to deny. Had cripples killed
so that they could be reincarnated whole again.

While today Persia continues to be occupied by Islam, von Ungern-
Sternberg wanted to liberate the peasants of Russia from the Semitic
infection they suffered from, namely Orthodoxy. Buddhism, an ancient
Aryan religion (before the Dalai Lamas perverted and mongrelized it),
would have been able to repurify the healthy Nordic instincts within
the Eurasian landmass. The Bolsheviks were also quite successful in
eradicating the disease of Orthodoxy, albeit not in the noble way
that von Ungern-Sternberg envisioned. European atheism is Aryan
Buddhism minus the cosmic spirit of belonging.

While contemporary Muslim savages blow up statues of the great Aryan
sage, von Ungern-Sternberg wanted to blow up shrines of materialism
and replace them with sanctified temples where worship of the
umpteenth faces of the Bhudda would have been mandatory.

White Eurasia

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:10:48 CST

by Constantin von Hoffmeister

dedicated to Guillaume Faye

Terrae Regnum

The White race is the master of Eurasia. Eurosiberians are the
inhabitants of Europe and Russia. Only eight million Whites live in
Siberia. It is their obligation to multiply and colonize this vast
space. Siberia is the new Wild West. Islam is an enemy of Europe. The
North is the enemy of the South. A new battlefront has been drawn. In
the trenches in the North, the White race, grim-faced and merciless,
sits ready with guns cocked and cannons loaded. The Islamic hordes of
subhumans from the South is advancing towards the citadel of the
North. The agents of Islam in the North have been expelled or
executed. The National Futurist troops of the Eurosiberian Federation
are sure that victory will be theirs. Once the subhuman lands have
been laid to waste, the dawn of a new civilization shall rise. The
West will decolonize itself with the help of fresh blood from the
East. West and East will merge and become Eurosiberia. The
Eurosiberian identity will give birth to the counterrevolution which
will pit itself against the world revolution of the colored peoples.
The current decadence of the West will vanish when the bombs drop
from gunships on their targets in the jungles and deserts of the
savage world. AmeriKa will become Vinland and its efficient military
will be the main guarantee of Eurosiberian world domination.

The Red Army (the sign of the Swastika on the soldiers' shoulders) is
the glorious ancestor of the National Futurist Army. The battle of
the Red Army against the treacherous Whites mirrors the battle that
is to come. The Red Army liberated Eurasia from the yoke of the
Semitic mindset that expressed itself in Orthodoxy and serfdom. The
National Futurist Army will rage relentless war against the minions
of mud peoples and their treacherous White allies in the decadent
West. The vanguard of the National Futurist Army is the man that has
locked away his wife, cut off the bonds with his family and is ready
to sacrifice his meaningless life in a struggle that delivers
meaningful deaths aplenty. In Finland they awake, in England they
will die, in the Ukraine they awake, in Poland they will die. Across
the vast open steppes of Mongolia, a thunderstorm of boiling blood
will rage when slit-eyed bastards will be killed and slayed, their
dwellings burned and - finally! - traces erased before the National
Futurist Army will settle to pave the path for the reality to come.
In Central Asia, news of liberation is near, floating through the
ether, travelling from Dublin to Ashgabat. The Eurosiberians on the
march! Integrated into an alliance with their Turkish brethren, the
Turkmen wail while jailed. The Turks, too, into prison thrust,
outside the sacred space of Eurosiberia. And from whence the enemy
will then endanger the holy empire? From outer space, signals already
announce the advent of the extraterrestrials, truly alien!, hostile,
creepy and tentacled. This is why, in accordance with the rule of
militant vigilance, the National Futurist Space Agency (NFSA) will
install battle stations, manned with gene-warriors and armed with
nuclear laser missiles, in orbit around our precious homeworld on
which Eurasia shines as the beacon of truth, might and justice
throughout the known galaxy.

Capitalism will, through force, cease to exist. A socialist planned
economy will replace the evils of the market economy. Through the use
of computer technology, an efficient system of planning the economy
can be applied to all sectors of labor and industry. The corrupting
chaos of commercial competition will be replaced with the serene
order of strict economic regulation. The state will manage the
economy, and citizens will enjoy more leisure time. Robots will do
all the work that the economic planning matrix assigns them.
Automated assembly lines will produce all the necessary goods for the
welfare of the people. Brands will cease to exist as all products
will be standardized. Grey pants will be called "grey pants." The
people will shop - shops for the people! The people will learn again
to live ascetically, to exist without the baggage that is non-
essential and even detrimental to its physical and mental well-being.
Away with discmen and in with state-of-the-art people-soothing panels
for every living room! The use of advertisements will be greatly
reduced. Thus, squares and streets will again become centers of
reflection instead of desensitization. All the people need is booze,
sex and metal. After all, this is all the majestic British Empire
needed to propel itself to the top position of the world. The sun
never sets on the lands of the Great Race.

The Golden Road to Bukhara: Will one finally see the blue beam on top
of the minaret (the one that Genghis Khan spared, converted into a
communication tower) buzzing its clear message to all the White
peoples of the world? Mosques turned into gymnasiums, madrassahs
turned into day care centers. Racial patriots will fight a new Great
Patriotic War to defend their motherland, the great continent of
Eurasia, through a preemptive offense, attacking the lands of the
false prophet and bashing in the heads of the towel-wearing sister-
beaters before these desert rats can infiltrate the lands of the
Great Race and bash its members. And peace will come to all, an ever-
lasting peace among the sons of rosy-cheeked Adam. The lower races
will serve the highest race, paying tribute through service and
respect. The lower races benignity will be enforced through the rule
of the caste law. Thus will the whole world benefit from the Eurasian
principle: The ones who rule on top, the ones who serve at the
bottom. Traditions will prevail through the implementation of the
ancient teachings of the Abraxi. The Jewish god must die so that
Aryan Allah may live.

Eurorus

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:02:28 CST

Congres Euro-Rus

Op zaterdag 2 december organiseerde Euro-Rus haar eerste wat grotere bijeenkomst in Lebbeke. Eerst werd zaal Harley's besproken, later werd een grotere zaal gehuurd toen bleek dat de opkomst groter was dan verwacht. Natuurlijk was er ook een flinke afvaardiging van de VNN aanwezig om onze vrienden van Euro-Rus te steunen. Het doel van het congres was om sprekers uit diverse landen hun visie op de toekomst van Europa te laten geven, waarna de aanwezigen verder van gedachten konden wisselen over deze belangrijke kwestie. De gastheer van het congres was Robert Steuckers, een nationalistische veteraan met een indrukwekkende staat van dienst. Meteen na zijn inleiding over de bijeenkomst mocht VNN-voorzitter Ronald van der Wal naar voren komen om het publiek te laten kennismaken met de VNN en even kort uit te leggen waarom hij Euro-Rus een goed initiatief vond.

Dit was natuurlijk kinderspel bij wat nog zou gaan komen. Yann-Ber Tillenon uit Bretagne hield een tamelijk theoretische toespraak over de achterliggende aspecten van de kulturele mens. Daarna was David Duke aan de beurt die een vlammend betoog hield over het verkeerde vijandbeeld van Rusland, de duistere kanten van het zionisme en de gewetenloze machtspolitiek van Israël en de Verenigde Staten. De voorzitter van de British National Party, Nick Griffin, gooide het over de analytische boeg en vond dat Rusland weliswaar een waardevolle bondgenoot was maar dat we niet blind moeten zijn voor de nog altijd bestaande verschillen tussen Oost- en West-Europa. Griffin pleitte er voor om botsingen tussen Europese nationalisten te voorkomen (Duitsland/Polen, de Balkan) opdat ze niet zullen kunnen leiden tot een nieuwe wereldoorlog die volgens hem de definitieve ondergang van Europa zou betekenen. Oprichter en voorzitter van Euro-Rus Kris Roman wist opnieuw het publiek te boeien met een toespraak waarin interessante informatie over Rusland werd gegeven, alsmede zijn persoonlijke visie op de toekomst van Europa in relatie tot Rusland. De laatste grote spreker was Guillaume Faye, een eigenzinnige Franse socioloog die een Frans/Engelse toespraak hield en met zijn bevlogen spreekstijl en wilde ondersteunende gebaren al snel alle bezoekers op het puntje van hun stoel liet zitten. Uit Duitsland was David Pattyn overgekomen die ter afronding een toespraak hield over o.a. het nationalisme in Duitsland en afsloot met "Het Duitse volk groet u!". Spijtig genoeg had de delegatie uit Rusland haar visa niet tijdig kunnen rondkrijgen, en was er niet voldoende tijd om ook Robert Steuckers zijn verhaal te laten doen.

Voor zowel Euro-Rus als de VNN was het een vruchtbare bijeenkomst. De banden met Vlaanderen zijn aangehaald en we hebben onze vereniging gepresenteerd aan een breder publiek uit binnen- en buitenland. Uiteraard hebben we aan alle gastsprekers een exemplaar van de laatst uitgekomen Kontakt plus een paar VNN-promotiekaarten uitgereikt om ze nader te laten kennismaken met het Nederlandse nationalisme. Het enige minpuntje was dat we in verband met de afstand weer tijdig moesten vertrekken zodat we slechts beperkt konden naborrelen. Wij hebben de indruk dat onze komst door Euro-Rus op prijs is gesteld en dat we namens de VNN een goede indruk hebben achtergelaten bij onze Vlaamse vrienden. Onze eindconclusie: positief en voor herhaling vatbaar.

Klik hier voor de fotopagina van de bijeenkomst.
Klik hier voor de toespraak van David Duke op video.

Eurorus fotopagina

Metaposos — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:50:12 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Meetings

Metaposos — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:29:34 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Home

Metaposos — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:16:17 CST

PROJECT EUROSIBERIA 2.0

A monopolar world does not allow the national states wishing to follow their own line of development, their rights of existence.

Unless the aspirations for a monopolar world are checked, the USA, in order to realize its plans for world hegemony, will continue trying to stifle the nation states, using all possible means.

It will continue to disregard the values of the other nations and to impose its own values on them, as if they were “universal” values.

The sole power which has the capacity to stop this, lies in the Eurasian territory, stretching from Eastern Europe to the Pacific.

A strategic alliance, formed in Eurasia will not only primarily balance the USA and thus contribute to world peace, but will also procure that the international relations stand on a more just basis.

This alliance will contribute to the common wealth of humanity by making it possible for every nation to follow its own line of development and develop its own culture and will open the way to the birth of a new civilization in Eurasia.

In Eurasia and everywhere, the Eurasian Alliance will strenthen the belief of the oppressed in the future of humanity and will make it possible for them to stand up.

Communique by Alexander Dugin, International Eurasian Movement

Join in by add articles, give your comments or start a project !

Project Eurosiberia 2.0 is in principe een Nederlands project dat haar activiteiten met betrekking tot projecten binnen het Nederlandstalige gebied wil houden.

Gezien het internationale (Eurosiberische) karakter van Project Eurosiberia 2.0, zijn veel artikelen, commentaren en mogelijk aangedragen projecten in een internationale taal om ook zodoende zoveel mogelijk samenwerking en overleg met gelijkgerichte projecten en organisaties te kunnen hebben, alsook ivm contacten met de International Eurasian Movement en haar woordvoerder Alexander Dugin.

Project Eurosiberia 2.0 staat open voor een ieder die het bovenstaande communique kan onderschrijven en een bijdrage wil leveren aan een 'Europa van Brest tot Wladivostok'.

Stuur ons een mail !

Technorati Profile

Labelnews

Metaposos — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:35:28 CST

Fotopagina 5

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:59:38 CST

Fotopagina

Metaposos — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:28:44 CST

		.
		.

Fotopagina 4

Metaposos — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:27:55 CST

Fotopagina 2

Metaposos — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:17:42 CST

Fotopagina 3

Metaposos — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:16:44 CST

Eurasien als Idee

Metaposos — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:09:38 CST

Jürgen Schwab: „Eurasien“ als Idee

Ein weiteres Thema, das auf der zurückliegenden 3. Arbeitstagung „nationalrevolutionär heute“ (AT NR heute) erörtert wurde, ist die Idee „Eurasien“. Dabei handelt es sich zunächst um einen aus der Geographie stammenden Begriff, der aufs Politische bezogen wird. Es liegt hier als ein geopolitischer Ansatz vor.

Die Teilnehmer der AT NR heute stimmten darin überein, daß es gegenwärtig und künftig bei „Eurasien“ um eine antiimperialistische Strategie zum Ausschluß der USA als raumfremde Macht gehe. In diesem Sinne seien auch Begriffsverwirrungen wie die von einer eurasischen „Nation“, einem eurasischen „Reich“ oder gar einer eurasischen „politischen Einheit“, also einem solchen Staat, zurückzuweisen, wie sie auf http://www.eisernekrone.tk vertreten werden. Um Eurasien als antiimperialistische Idee überhaupt fruchtbar machen zu können, seien die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen dieser Strategie auszuloten. Konzeptionelle Überdehnungen und uneinlösbare Utopien könnten hingegen nur dem Feind von Nutzen sein.

Gegenüber den Teilnehmern der AT NR heute machte ein autonomer Eurasier deutlich, daß es nicht „die“ Idee von Eurasien gebe, sondern eine ursprüngliche bzw. historische, die aus Rußland stamme, wozu im Laufe der Zeit noch mehrere Auslegungen hinzugetreten seien, die allerdings inhaltlich erheblich voneinander abweichen. Das Spektrum heute, von dem „Eurasien“ beansprucht werde, reiche von Traditionalisten in der Tradition des italienischen Philosophen Julius Evola bis hin zu nationalrevolutionären und nationalbolschewistischen Gruppen. Da es vom europäischen Traditionalismus mittlerweile auch eine islamistische Abzweigung gebe, laufe „Eurasien“ bei dieser Gruppe letztendlich auf ein islamisches Kalifat hinaus (wie bei http://www.eisernekrone.tk).

Es versteht sich von selbst, daß die islamistische Auffüllung der Begriffshülle „Eurasien“ mit der ursprünglichen Intention nichts zu tun hat und auch nicht von der Deutschen Akademie (DA) geteilt wird. Martin Laus analysierte zutreffend auf der AT NR heute, daß Europäer, die aufgrund ihres Anti-Amerikanismus zum Islam überlaufen, letztendlich – unter umgekehrten Vorzeichen – der „Logik“ vom amerikanischen „Kampf der Kulturen“ entsprächen. Hierbei gehe es vor allem darum, eine etwaige dritte, nämlich deutsche und europäische Position in dieser Auseinandersetzung aus dem Blickfeld zu drängen.
Gleichwohl sieht die Deutsche Akademie (DA) nicht im Islamismus den „Hauptfeind“, nicht einmal einen „Feind“, weil sich Nationalisten, so Martin Laus, um politische Feindschaften kümmerten und nicht um religiöse Ablenkungsmanöver von Uncle Sam, der die Heraufbeschwörung der islamistische Gefahr dringend für s e i n e n Kampf der Kulturen benötige. Daß darauf viele nationale Rechte hereinfielen, sei zwar bedauerlich, aber als gegeben hinzunehmen. So entwickelt eine Gruppe von „Eurosibiriern“ (Guillaume Faye, Pierre Krebs, Pierre Vial, Anatoli Iwanow) die Ideologie des Rassenkampfes zwischen Nord und Süd, wobei „der Islam“ die Rolle des Südens einzunehmen habe, was natürlich nicht der Wirklichkeit entspreche, da es in Schwarzafrika gerade viele christlich missionierte Völker und Stämme gebe. Umgekehrt gibt es in Europa zwei überwiegend islamische Völker: Bosnier und Albaner. Aber solche Feinheiten stören die „Eurosibirier“ nicht. Schon bei der Bezeichnung „Eurosibirien“ handelt es sich offenkundig um einen Etikettenschwindel, da Faye in einem Redebeitrag von einer Einheit der weißen Völker „von Vancouver bis Wladiwostok“ redete. Uns ist aber nicht bekannt, daß Vancouver zu „Eurosibirien“ gehört.
Daß wir Europäer dann beim Kampf zwischen Süd und Nord auf der Seite des „weißen Amerikas“ gegen eine Abtretung Kaliforniens und Texas an Mexiko zu stehen haben und auf der Seite der USA, wenn diese im Irak Erdöl plündern und in Afghanistan eine Pipeline bauen wollen, dies alles versteht sich dann schon von selbst. Daß das weiße Amerika nicht so handelt wie wir Deutsche es seit Wilhelm und Adolf wollen, liegt – so die Vertreter der reinsten Rassenlehre – einzig und allein an der „Vernegerung“ und „Verjudung“ der USA.

Wer erkannt hat, daß diese Theorie dem wirklichen Hauptfeind in die Arme arbeitet, der sollte sich mit den Ursprüngen der Idee von Eurasien befassen. Es handelt sich dabei, und da sind sich alle Verfechter dieser Idee einig, um eine antiimperialistische Strategie zur Abwehr bzw. zum Ausschluß raumfremder Mächte. Und das sind heute die USA. Hier mag man aus nationalistischer Sicht einwenden, daß Europa doch ein eigener Kontinent sei, was aber rein geographisch nicht zutrifft, vielmehr hat Europa sowohl geographisch als auch kulturell nach Osten offene Grenzen bzw. fließende Übergänge, was ein eigenes Thema wäre. Aber sicherlich unterscheiden sich die Europäer rassisch und kulturell von den eindeutig asiatischen Völkern. Und diese Unterscheidung soll auch weiterhin Bestand haben.

Allerdings ist hier zu erkennen, daß der Erfolg des US-Imperialismus auf einer eurasischen Gesamtstrategie beruht. Schließlich findet militärische Besatzungspolitik der USA sowohl im Westen des Gesamtkontinents, beispielsweise in Deutschland, Italien, in der Türkei, aber auch im Osten, in Japan und Süd-Korea, sogar im zentralen Afghanistan und in anderen zentralasiatischen Staaten statt. So weist der amerikanische Stratege Zbigniew Brzezinski in seinem Buch „Die einzige Weltmacht“ auf die Notwendigkeit des US-Imperialismus hin, das „eurasische Schachbrett“ zu beherrschen, das heißt die Völker und Staaten auf diesem Kontinent von Seiten der USA gegeneinander auszuspielen. In diesem Sinne, so waren sich die AT-Teilnehmer einig, sei auch vom deutschen Befreiungsnationalismus eine gesamteurasische Strategie zu verfolgen. Würde die US-Besatzungspolitik in Afghanistan und im Irak geschwächt, dann könne das den eigenen Zielen nur von Nutzen sein. Dies sollte bei der politischen Aufklärungsarbeit deutscher Nationalisten berücksichtigt werden. Die Strategie der „Eurosibirier“ sei dabei als dem Hauptfeind nützlich zu identifizieren.

Der bereits oben erwähnte Referent machte auf der AT NR heute deutlich, daß die Idee „Eurasien“ ursprünglich aus Rußland stamme. Das sei insofern leicht nachvollziehbar, da sich Rußland geographisch von Europa nach Asien erstrecke. Deshalb sei die eurasische Strategie in ihrem Kern typisch russisch wie die Idee Mitteleuropa typisch deutsch sei. Die eurasische Idee sei im Zeitalter Peters des Großen, also im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, entstanden, als sich die russische Politik stark auf westliche Vorbilder ausgerichtet habe. Die Slawophilen hätten in Rückbesinnung auf russische kulturelle und religiöse Wurzeln die Gegenbewegung zum bedingungslosen Anschluß Rußlands an den Westen gebildet. Rußland sei „rückständig“ so hieß es von den damals selbst ernannten fortschrittlichen Kräften um Peter den Großen. Als Zeichen des Fortschritts wurde die Hauptstadt von Moskau nach St. Petersburg verlegt, die Bärte der männlichen Landbevölkerung mußten abgeschnitten werden, um nur wenige Beispiele für die Anlehnung an des Westen zu nennen. Das ist in etwa zu vergleichen mit der zwanghaften Modernisierung des Kemal Atatürk in der Türkei (Verbot des Schleiers usw.); auch hierauf gab und gibt es eine (islamische) Gegenbewegung, die brutal unterdrückt wird, wobei dies die westlichen Gutmenschen nicht interessiert, da Mord und Totschlag nach deren Logik immer gut ist, wenn es dem Fortschritt nutzt.

Peter der Große, so fuhr der Referent fort, habe sicherlich richtig damit gelegen, daß das damalige Rußland von den Westeuropäern viel in den Bereichen der Wissenschaften und der Technik lernen konnte, aber dies habe nicht automatisch die Übernahme sämtlicher westlicher Werte bedeuten müssen. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist der heutige Iran unter der Präsidentschaft Ahmadinedschads, der sich ein modernes atomares Programm zulegen möchte, aber keinen Wert auf einen sich öffentlich schwul bekennenden Bürgermeister legt. Bereits Samuel Huntington hat in seinem, bekannten Buch vom „Kampf der Kulturen“ darauf hingewiesen, daß wissenschaftliche und technische Modernisierung und die völlige Übernahme westlicher „Werte“ nicht zwanghaft aufeinander angewiesen seien. Genau darin sieht der US-Imperialist und seine europäischen Vasallen das Problem, daß die Völker des Ostens ihre eigene Modernisierung unter Ausschluß westlicher Dekadenz wählen.

Die russisch eurasische Ideologie, so der Referent, sei eine Antwort auf die aus dem Westen importierten „Werte“ der bürgerlichen Aufklärung gewesen. Der Kern der „westlichen Werte“ bilde der Individualismus und die Auflösung der Gemeinschaften. Daß der Individualismus und die heilige Kuh des Kapitalismus, das Privateigentum, aufeinander verweisen, sei ohnehin klar. In Rußland habe sich unter den Slawophilen besonders der Schriftsteller Fjodor Dostojewski hervorgetan, aber auch die russischen Adeligen (die Bojaren) und die orthodoxe Kirche hätten sich größtenteils in diese antiwestliche Bewegung eingereiht. Es sei die Rede davon gewesen, daß der Westen die russische Seele zersetze. Da in früheren Jahrhunderten die Verwestlichung Rußlands hauptsächlich von deutschen Fachleuten und „Beratern“ ausgegangen sei, sei die slawophile Parole des „Ausländer raus!“ sehr schnell in ein „Deutsche raus!“ umgeschlagen. Die heutigen Slawophilen, so der Referent, seien hingegen deutschfreundlich und würden folgerichtig ihren Feind in den USA, aber auch in der proamerikanisch herrschenden Klasse in den europäischen Ländern sehen – wie in Tony Blair und Angela Merkel.

Auf der zurückliegenden Arbeitstagung „nationalrevolutionär heute“ (AT NR heute) zeichnete ein autonomer Eurasier die Ideengeschichte Eurasiens von ihren Ursprüngen im Zeitalter des Zaren Peter des Großen (1672-1725) bis in unsere Zeit nach.

In der jüngeren Geschichte habe der Georgier und sowjetische Staatsführer Josef Stalin (1879-1953) die eurasische Idee aufgegriffen. Somit sei Stalin der erste Eurasier gewesen, der in Rußland an die Macht gekommen sei. Zudem werde durch dessen kommunistische Ideologie deutlich, daß sich die eurasische Idee einer festen Einordnung in „rechts“ oder „links“ entziehe, diese vielmehr lagerübergreifend sei. Für die eurasische Ausrichtung des Sowjetkommunismus spreche die Rückverlegung der Hauptstadt von St. Petersburg (damals Leningrad) nach Moskau. Während Lenin und Trotzki im Sinne des Marxismus mit der „rückständigen“ russischen Tradition brechen wollten, sei Stalin nur dem Schein nach ein „Marxist“, dafür durch und durch Agrarromantiker gewesen, auch wenn er die Kollektivierung der Landwirtschaft mit Gewalt durchsetzte.
Bei Stalin sei das Sowjetische nur ein Synonym für das großrussische Reich unter kommunistischer Ideologie gewesen. Der gebürtige Georgier habe sich hierzu bewußt in die Tradition der russischen Zaren gestellt, wofür der sowjetische Propagandafilm Eisensteins nur ein Beleg sei. Mit Stalins Losung vom „Sozialismus in einem Land“ habe dieser den Internationalismus des Kommunismus relativiert, der hingegen von Trotzki in reinster Lehre weiterverbreitet wurde. Dafür habe Trotzki dann von Stalin die Quittung präsentiert bekommen. Stalin, der für Massenverbrechen auch im Osten und in der Mitte Deutschlands die Verantwortung getragen habe, habe immer in nationalen Kategorien gedacht, was dessen Spruch „Die Hitlers kommen und gehen, die Deutschen bleiben“ belegt werde.

Nach dem Niedergang der Sowjetunion um das Wendejahr 1991 siegten in Moskau erneut die Westler. Der im Westen überaus beliebte und in Rußland verhaßte Staatsführer Michail Gorbatschow leitete die Auflösung und den ökonomischen Ausverkauf des sowjetischen Imperiums ein, was von dessen Nachfolger Boris Jelzin konsequent fortgeführt wurde. Hierzu verübte Jelzin 1993 einen Verfassungsbruch, gegen den sich sein damaliger Stellvertreter im Präsidentenamt Alexander Ruzkoi leider erfolglos widersetzte. Alexander Ruzkoi vertritt einen großrussischen und somit antiwestlichen Kurs (deutscher Buchtitel: Alexander Ruzkoi: Vom Reich. Verlag der Freunde Berlin 1996).

Infolgedessen konnte Jelzin den unter Gorbatschow begonnen pro-westlichen Kurs fortsetzen, der in eine wilde Privatisierungsorgie mündete, die erst vor wenigen Jahren vom russischen Präsidenten Waldimir Putin gestoppt wurde, der – als Gipfel der Ereignisse – den Oligarchen Chodorkowski nach Sibirien schickte. Zuvor hatte dieser auf äußerst dubiose Weise aus der Konkursmasse der Sowjetunion ein Riesenvermögen akkumuliert. Schließlich hatte Chodorkowski versucht die russische Energieversorgung in amerikanische Hände zu spielen, bis ihm „Zar Wladimir“ das Handwerk legte.

Weil zudem der betreffenden Oligarch dem kleinen Volk angehört, so gilt Putins Rußland dem Westen spätestens jetzt als „Unrechtsstaat“, was heißt, daß in Moskau über das „Recht“ eine andere Vorstellung herrscht als in der BRD. Auch Putin zeigt somit seinen Hang zum eurasischen Ansatz, was nach Osten die Gründung der Schanghai-Organisation mit China und anderen Staaten und nach Westen die Einbindung Deutschlands und Europas beeinhaltet, wofür es unter Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder (SPD) immerhin ein Entgegenkommen gab (Achse Paris-Berlin-Moskau). Demgegenüber bemüht sich die Antlantikerin Angela Merkel, den deutsch-russischen „St. Petersburger Dialog“ zu sabotieren. Das hatte Merkel sicherlich nicht bei der DDR-Staatsjugend FDJ gelernt.

Seit 1991 gibt es in Rußland wieder eine (neo-) slawophile und somit eurasische Renaissance, da nun wieder offiziell die „westlichen Werte“ dominieren. Als Vordenker gelten hierbei die Schriftsteller Alexander Solschenyzin und Alexander Dugin. Bei der eurasischen Idee handelt es sich um zwei Erscheinungen: zum einen um eine konkrete Weltanschauung mit politischer, religiöser, wirtschaftlicher und sozialer Dimension, zum anderen um ein breites Bündnis mit einer gegen USA und „Atlantismus“ ausgerichteten geopolitischen Konzeption. Zum engeren Kern zählen Pamjat, Monarchisten und die Eurasische Partei, zum breiten Bündnis auch die Kommunistische Partei, weitere konservative und nationalistische Gruppen. Im Jahr 2003 wurde die Internationale Eurasische Bewegung gegründet. 22 Staaten und 20 Regionen waren dabei vertreten unter anderem der Präsident Turkmenistans. Zu Dugins politischen Hauptwerken gehören „Der Stern des unsichtbaren Imperiums“, „Manifest der Eurasischen Bewegung“ und „Grundlagen der Geopoltik“.

Erfreulich sei es, so der Referent, daß das russisch eurasische Spektrum von den Monarchisten bis zu den Kommunisten reicht. Der russische KP-Führer Sjuganow habe dabei kein Problem damit, daß der „Nationalbolschewist“ Dugin keinen richtigen Sozialismus, sondern „nur“ eine Teilsozialisierung vertrete. Somit sei der „Nationalbolschewismus“ Dugins kein „Nationalbolschewismus“ in einer Person oder in einer Gruppe, sondern es liege in Rußland ein breites Bündnis vor, das Monarchisten, Nationalisten und Kommunisten („Bolschewisten“) mit einschließe. Es sei nach Auffassung Dugins ein breites innenpolitisches Bündnis schon deshalb notwendig, da Rußland vom Westen bedroht werde. Hier könne man sich keine Haarspalterei und kein Sektierertum, weder von rechts noch von links, leisten. Ausschlaggebend sei die Erkennung des Hauptfeindes, des Amerikanismus. Eine Trennlinie werde allerdings zu solchen Kräften gezogen, die auf Neoliberalismus, bürgerliche „Demokratie“ und Amerikanismus ausgerichtet seien.

Wichtig in diesem Zusammenhang ist die Feststellung, daß es sich in Rußland – anders als in Deutschland und Westeuropa – bei der Idee „Eurasien“ um kein gesellschaftliches Randphänomen handelt. So berichtet die FAZ (vom 12.10.2006), daß sich der geistige Einfluß Dugins bis in die derzeitige russische Regierung auswirke. Der Erfolg von Dugins Konzept rührt daher, daß bei ihm „Eurasien“ klare geopolitische Konturen aufweise, daß vor allem hier eine eigenständige dritte Position zum „Kampf der Kulturen“ vorliege. Geopolitisch, so der Referent, gehe es Dugin um ein Bündnis von Staaten und nicht darum, daß gesamt Eurasien ein einziger Staat (eine politische Einheit) zu sein habe.

Nach diesen interessanten Ausführungen vertrat ich die Auffassung, daß deutsche Nationalisten im Sinne von Carl Schmitt und Ernst Niekisch einen eigenständigen Beitrag zu der neueren Entwicklung einer europäischen und eurasischen Großraumordnung leisten sollten. Dabei kommt es darauf an, „Europa“ und „Eurasien“ ordnungspolitisch aufzufüllen. Da aus lauter nationalen Machtlosigkeiten keine machtvolle Großraumordnung entstehen kann, steht für deutsche Nationalisten die Wiedergewinnung nationalstaatlicher Souveränität im Mittelpunkt, wobei sich in der weiteren Folge ein mitteleuropäisches Reich in eine gesamteuropäische Großraumordnung und diese wiederum in eine erweiterte eurasische Bündnispolitik einzufügen habe. Das entspricht dann einer organischen Lösung. Für alle Bündnisgenossen habe die Verpflichtung zu gelten, die Carl Schmitt mit der europäischen „Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte“ umschrieben hat. Hingegen sind diejenigen, die nicht einmal die Absicht haben, im eigenen nationalen Haus die Souveränität zurückzugewinnen für irgendwelche Großraumordnungen völlig unqualifiziert.

The Great War of Continents

Metaposos — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:45:27 CST

The Great War of Continents by Aleksandr Dugin

This text was originally published as Part III of “Konspirologya” (The Analysis of Conspirations), Arktogeya, Moscow 1992.
Part I - Before 1945
Geopolitics and the secret forces of history

The patterns of “conspiracy” are extremely miscellaneous. In this sphere the greatest popularity indoubtedly goes to the concept of the “Judaic-Masonic” conspiracy, so spread today in the most different circles. On principle, this theory deserves the most severe study, and we must recognize that we have no complete and serious scientific analysis of this theme, despite hundreds and thousand works either “exposing” this conspiracy, or “substantiating” its non-existence. But in the present work we shall examine a completely differente conspirologic pattern, based on a system of coordinates distinct from the “Judaic-Masonic” version. We shall try to describe in general the planetary “conspiracy” of two opposite “occult” forces, whose secret opposition and the invisible fight predetermined the logics of world history. These forces, in our opinion, are mostly characterized neither by national specificity nor by their belonging to a secret organization of Masonic or para-Masonic kind, but because of a radical divergence in their geopolitical orientation. As to the explanation of the final “secret” of these opposing forces, we are inclined to see it in the difference between two alternative and mutually excluding geopolitical projects, which stand aside of national, political, ideological and religious differences, and unite people of the most contradictory opinions and beliefs into one single group. Our conspirologic pattern is the pattern of “geopolitical conspiracy”.

The bases of geopolitics

Let's remind the basic postulates of geopolitics - a science which was earlier called also as “political geography” and whose basic elaboration is due to to the English scholar and political expert Halford Mackinder (1861-1947). The term “geopolitics” was for the first time introduced by the Swedish Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922) and then brought into use in Germany by Karl Haushofer (1869-1946). Anyway the father of geopolitics remains Mackinder, whose fundamental pattern stood at the bases of all subsequent geopolitical studies. A merit of Mackinder is that he managed to outline and to comprehend the definite objective laws of political, geographical and economic history of mankind. If the term “geopolitics” appeared rather recently, the realiy designated by this term has a pluri-millennial history. The substance of the geopolitical doctrine can be summarized in the following principles. In the world history there are two opposite and constantly competing approaches to the assimilation of land and room - the "overland" approach and the "maritime" approach. Depending on what attitude (“overland” or “maritime”) the diverse states, peoples, nations, their historical consciousness adhere to, their foreign and domestic policy, their psychology, their world-view are shaped according to completely definite rules. Given such feature, it is quite possible to speak about an “overland”, “continental” or even “steppe” (“steppe” is “land” in its pure, ideal kind) world-view and about a “maritime”, “insular”, “oceanic” or “aquatic” world-view. (We shall notice incidentally that the first hints of a similar approach can be found in the works of the Russian slavophiles - as Khomyakov and Kiryevsky). In the ancient history the “maritime” powers who became the historical symbol of the “maritime civilization” as a whole were Phoenicia and Carthago. The overland empire opposing Carthago was Rome. The Punic war is the purest image of the opposition of “maritime civilization” and “overland civilizations”. In the Modern Age and in the recent history the "insular” and “maritime” pole became England, “Mistress of the seas”, and later the giant island-continent America. England, as well as the ancient Phoenicia, mostly employed sea trade and the colonization of the coastal areas as its basic instrument for domination . The Poenician-Anglo-Saxon geopolitical type generated a special “mercantile-capitalist-market” pattern of civilization founded first of all on economic and material interests and the principles of economic liberalism. Therefore, despite all possible historical variations, the most general kind of “maritime” civilization is always linked to the “primacy of economics above politics”. As against the Phoenician pattern, Rome represented a sample of warlike-authoritarian structure based on administrative control and civil religiosity, on the primacy of “politics above economics”. Rome is the example of a non-maritime, overland, purely continental type of colonization, with its deep penetration into the continent and assimilation of the submitted peoples, automatically “romanized” after the conquest. In Modern History incarnations of the “overland” power were the Russian Empire and also Central European imperial Austro-Hungary and Germany. “Russia - Germany - Austro-Hungary” are the essential symbolls of “geopolitical land” during Modern History. Mackinder clearly showed that in the last few centuries the “maritime attitude” means “atlantism”, as today the “sea powers” above all are England and America, that is the Anglo-Saxon countries. Against “atlantism” personifying the primacy of individualism, “economic liberalism” and “democracy of a Protestant kind”, stands “eurasism”, necessarily presupposing authoritarianism, hyerarchy and the establishment of “communitarian”, national-state principles over the simply human, individualistic and economic concerns. The clearly expressed eurasian attitude is typical first of all of Russia and Germany, the two mightiest continental powers, whose geopolitical, economic and - most important – wordl-view concerns are completely opposite to those of England - US, that is the “atlantists”.

“Conspiracy of the atlantists”

Mackinder, as an englishman and “atlantist”, acknowledged the danger of an Aurasian consolidation and, since the end of 19th century, urged the government of England to do everything possible to prevent an Eurasian alliance, and especially an alliance between Russia – Germany - Japan (he considered Japan as a power of essentially continental and eurasian worldview). In Mackinder one can find the clearly formulated and minutely described ideology of accomplished and absolutized “atlantism”, whose doctrine stands at the base of anglo-saxon geopolitical strategy in the 20th century. Proceeding from this, we can define the essence of intelligence work, military espionage, political lobbysm, oriented towards England and USA, as the “Atlantic ideology”, the ideology of “New Carthago”- the one that is common to all “influential agents”, to all secret and occultist organizations, to all lodges and semi-closed clubs which served and serve the anglo-saxon idea in the 20th century, penetrating the network of all continental “eurasian”powers. And naturally, in the first place this immediately concerns english and american reconnaissance services (especially the CIA), which are not simply the “sentinels of capitalism” or “americanism”, but the sentinels of “atlantism”, united by a deep-rooted and pluri-millennial super-ideology of the “oceanic” kind. It is possible to call the aggregate of all “networks” of anglo-saxon influence as the “participants of the atlantic conspiracy”, working not only in the interests of each separate country, but in the interest of a special geopolitical and, in the end, metaphysical doctrine representing an extremely multi-planed, miscellaneous and wide, but nevertheless essentially uniform worldview. So, generalizing the ideas of Mackinder, it is possible to say that there is an historical “conspiracy of the atlantists”, pursuing through the centuries the same geopolitical purposes oriented to the interest of the “maritime civilization” of neo-phoenician kind. And it is important to stress that “atlantists” can be both “left-”, and “right-wing”, both “atheists”, and “believers”, both “patriots”, and “cosmopolitans”, as the common geopolitical worldview stands behind all particular national and political differencies. Therefore we deal with the most real “occult conspiracy”, whose meaning and metaphysical intrinsic cause often remain completely obscure to its immediate participants, and even to its most key figures.

Conspiracy of the “eurasists”

Mackinder’s ideas, revealing that definite historical and political regularity which many before had guessed or foreseen, opened the way to the explicit ideological formulation of the opposition to atlantism in the pure “eurasian doctrine”. The first principles of the eurasian geopolitics were formulated by russian white emigrants known under the name of “eurasists” (prince N.Trubetskoy, Savitsky, Florovsky etc.) and the famous german geopolitician Karl Haushofer. Moreover, the fact of the frequent meetings of russian “eurasists” with Karl Haushofer in Prague cause us to esteem that german and russian geopoliticians developed the related topics simultaneously and in a parallel way. Moreover, in the subsequent analysis they followed just the same principles, insisting on the necessity of the eurasian geopolitical alliance of Russia-Germany-Japan as a counterweight to “atlantist” policies aiming at any cost to opposing Russia to Germany and Japan. Russian eurasists and the Haushofer group formulated the definite principles of a continental, eurasian worldview alternative to atlantist ideas. It is possible to say that for the first time they expressed what stood behind the whole european political history of the last millenium, having traced the path of the “Roman imperial idea”, which from Ancient Rome through Byzantium had passed to Russia, and through the Medieval Sacred Empire of the German nations to Austro-Hungary and Germany. Thus russian eurasists attentively and deeply analyzed the imperial and to the maximum extent “overland” mission of Gengis Khan and the Mongols, having stressed the continental significance of the Turks. The group of Haushofer, for his part, studied Japan and the continental mission of the Far Eastern states in the perspective of the future geopolitical alliance. So, in reply to Mackinder’s frank confession, enlighting the secret planetary “atlantist” strategy, laying its roots deep into the centuries, russian and german eurasists in the ‘20s discovered the logics of the alternative continental strategy, the secret overland “imperial idea”, heir of Rome, which invisibly inspired power [derzhava] policies with an authoritarian-idealistic, communitarian-heroic worldview - from the empire of Charles the Great to the Sacred Union proposed by the great russian czar Alexander the First, deep eurasian mystic invisibly. The Eurasian idea is as global as the Atlantic one, and it too had set its “secret agents” in all historical states and nations. All those who restlessly worked for the eurasian union, those who hindered for centuries the propagation on the continent of individualist, egualitarian and liberal-democratic concepts (reproducing as a whole the typical phoenician spirit of the “primacy of economics above politics”), those who aspired to unite the great eurasian peoples in the atmosphere of East, instead of in an atmosphere of West – be it the East of Gengis Khan, the East of Russia or East of Germany - all of them were “Eurasian agents”, bearers of the special geopolitical doctrine, “the soldiers of the continent”, “the soldiers of Land”. The Eurasian secret society, the Order of the eurasists, does not start at all with the authors of the manifest “Exodus to the East” or with Haushofer’s “Geopolitical Journal”. This was, briefly speaking, only the revelation, the outcoming of a definite knowledge which existed since the beginning of time, together with its relative secret societies and network of “influential agents”. No less than in the case of Mackinder, its belonging to the aenygmatic “secret societies” is historically established.
Order of Eurasia against Order of Atlantic (Atlantides).
Eternal Rome against Eternal Carthago.
Occult punic war invisibly continuing during millennia.
Planetary conspiracy of Land against the Sea, Earth against Water, Authoritarianism and Idea against Democracy and Matter.
Does not the endless paradoxes, contradictions, omissions and vagaries of our history become more clear, more logical and more reasonabe, if we to look at them from the perspective of an occult geopolitical dualism? Will not in this case the countless victims, by which mankind in our century pays the bill for unclear political projects, receive a deep metaphysical justifying? Is it not a noble and grateful gesture to recognize all those who fell on the battlefields of the XXth century as the soldier-heroes of the Great War of Continents, instead of compliant puppets of conventional and constantly varying political regimes, transient and unstable, passing and casual, meaningless to such extent, that death for the sake of them looks trivial and silly? Different deal, if the fallen heroes served to Great Land or Great Ocean, if aside from political demagogy and raging propaganda of ephemeral ideologies they served the great geopolitical purpose before the pluri-millennial planetary history.

“Blood and Soil” - “Blood or Soil?”

The famous russian philosopher, religious thinker and publicist Konstantin Leontyev pronounced this extremely relevant formula: “Slavness [Slavyanstvo] does exist, slavism does not”. One of the basic geopolitical conclusions of this remarkable author was the opposition betwen the idea of “panslavism” and “Asian” [asyatskoy] idea. If we attentively analyze this opposition, we shall detect a general typological criterion, which will allow us to better understand structure and logics of the geopolitical occult war of the Eurasian Order against the Atlantic Order. Contrary to to the eclectic combination of terms in the concept of “Blood and Soil” by the german ideologist of national-socialist peasantry Wahlter Darré, at the level of geopolitical forces occult war in the modern world this problem is differently formulated - namely, “blood or soil”. In other words, traditionalist projects of preserving of identity of the people, state or the nations always stand before an alternative – which one to take as the dominant criterion, whether “unity of nation, race, ethnos, unity of blood” or “unity of geographical space, unity of borders, unity of soil”. Thus the whole drama consists in the necessity of the choice: “either - or”, and each hypothetical "also" remains only an utopian slogan which is not decisive, but only obscuring the fineness of the problem. Ingenious Konstantin Leontyev, convicted traditionalist and radical russophile, adressed precisely this question: «Russians must either insist on the unity of the slavs, on slavism (“blood”), or turn to the East and realize the geographical and cultural affinity Russian to eastern to the peoples linked to Russian territories (“soil”)». This question can be formulated in different terms as a choice between confession of the supremance of law of “race” (“nationalism”) or “geopolitics” (“statehood”, “culture”). Leontyev himself chose “soil”, “territory”, the specificity of great-russian imperial religious and state culture. He chose “orientalism” [vostochnost’], “asiatism” [azyatsnost’], “byzantism”. Such choice implied the priority of continental, eurasian values above narrow-national and racial values. Leontyev’s logics quite obviously resulted in the inevitability of the Russian-German, and especially Russo-Austrian union, and in the peace with Turkey and Japan. Leontyev’s categorical denial of “slavism” or “pan-slavism” roused indignation among many late slavopohiles, standing on the position of “blood is higher than soil”, or “blood and soil”. Leontyev was neither understood neither listened to. The history of the XXth century repeatedly demonstrated the extraordinary relevance of the problems he laid.

Panslavism against eurasism

The thesis “blood is higher than soil (in Russian context, it means “slavism”, “panslavism”) for the first time revealed all its ambiguity during the First World War, when Russia, having entered into alliance with the countries of the the Entente (the English, French and Americans), aiming to free the “Slav brothers” from the Turkish domination, not only began to fight against its natural geopolitical allies - Germany and Austria, - but also plunged itself into the catastrophe of revolution and civil war. As a matter of fact, Russian “slavism” worked on the side of “atlantists”, of the Entente and of a type of “neo-carthaginian civilization”, embodied in the mercantile-colonial, individualistic Anglo-Saxon model. It is not surprising, that among “patriot-panslavists” from the circle of the sovereign–emperor Nikolay II, the majority were employees of the english intelligence or simply “atlantist influential agents”. It is curious to recollect an episode from the novel of the russian patriot and ataman [head of Cossack militias] Petr Krasnov From the bicephal eagle to the red flag, where in the fire of the First World war someone asks the main hero, colonel Sablin, is aask: “Say frankly, colonel, whom do you consider as our true enemy?”, and he univocally answers: “England!”, though this conviction does not prevent him to honestly and courageously fight for english interests against Germany, following his duty of absolute loyalty to the eurasian Emperor. The hero of Krasnov’s novel is the ideal example of Russian patriot-eurasist, example the logics of “soil over blood”, which was characteristic for count Witte, for baron Ungern-Sternberg, for the mysterious organization “Baltikum”, consisting of Baltic aristocrats, till last minute remaining devoted to the imperial family (just like faithful to the czar in the chaos of universal betraying remained the turkmeni prince with his division, described in the same novel by Krasnov). It is striking, to what extent courageously and nobly acted during 1917 Asians, Turks, Germans and others “from other motherlands” [inorodtsi], serving by belief and truth the Czar and the Empire, serving Eurasia, “soil”, “continent” - in contrast to with many “slavs”, “pan-slavists”, quickly forgetting about “Constantinople” and the “Balkan brothers” and running away from Russia, leaving Czar and Fatherland, to the countries of “Atlantic” influence, to Western Ocean, to Water, betraying not only the Native land, but the great Idea of Eternal Rome, Russian Third Rome, Moscow.

The atlantists and racism

In Germany the affirmation of the idea “blood is higher than soil” produced not less terrible consequences. Contrary to the russophile and eurasist German patriots – Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Karl Haushofer etc.- insisting on the “supremacy of law of vital room" [1] in the interest of the continent as a whole, on the idea of the “continental block”, in the government of the Third Reich eventually victory went to the “atlantist” lobby, maintaining racist theses and - under pretext of the “anglo-aryans and related german ethnoses” - aiming to divert Hitler's attention to the East and to suspend (or at least to weaken) war actions against England. “Pangermanism” in this case (as well as russian “panslavism” in the First World War) only worked on the side of the “atlantists”. And it is completely logical that a major enemy of Russia, constantly aspiring to engage Hitler’s Germany in conflict against Russia, against the slavs (on “racial” reasons, "blood is higher than soil”), was the english spy and betrayer of the Reich, admiral Canaris. The problem “blood or soil” is extremely relevant also because the choice of one of these two terms to the detriment of the other allows to identify - maybe indirectly and mediately - the “influential agents” of this or that geopolitical worldview, specially when dealing with the “right” wing or “nationalists”. The essential feature of the “geopolitical conspiracy” of the atlantists (as, however, also of the eurasists) is that it covers the whole spectrum of political ideologies from the extreme right to the extreme left, but anyway the “geopolitical agents of influence” always leave their particular tracks. In the case of the “right”, such sign of potential atlantism is the principle of “blood over soil”, which, besides everything else, allows to abstract from the fundamentality of geopolitical problems, withdrawing the attention of leaders and statesmen to less relevant issues.

Who is the spy of whom?

As an example of the effect of occult geopolitical ideology of the “left”, it is possible to mention the eurasist national-bolsheviks from Germany - for instance, the German communist-nationalist Ernst Niekisch, the conservative revolutionary Ernst Junger, the communists Lauffenberg, Petel, Schultzen-Boysen, Winnig etc. Eurasist national-bolsheviks undoubtedly were also among the Russians, and the circumstance is curious, that Lenin itself during the emigration aspired to be pulled together to German politics and financiers; moreover, many of his theses were rather frankly germanophile. We do not want in this case to affirm that Lenin was involved in the Eurasian Order, but in some measure he was under the influence of this Order. Anyway, the opposition “Lenin=German spy” - “Trotsky=American spy” really corresponded to a definite typological scheme. In any case, at the pure geopolitical level, the operating of Lenin’s government had an Eurasian character, if only because, contrary to the authentic Marxist doctrine, he preserved the united great eurasian space of the Russian Empire. (Trotsky, on his part, insisted on exporting Revolution, on its “mondialization”, and considered the Soviet Union as something transient and ephemeral, as the bridgehead for ideological expansion, something which should disappear before the planetary victory of “messianic communism”; as a whole, Trotsky’s mission bore on itself the mark of “atlantism”, as opposed to communist “eurasist” Lenin). Leninist-bolshevik “internationalism” itself had a definite “imperial”, “eurasian” measurement-principle of “soil above blood” - though, certainly, this principle was distorted and misinterpreted due to the influence of other aspects of the bolshevik ideology and, most important, due to the activities of “influential agents” of atlantism inside the same communist government. Summing up all these reasons, it is possible to say that a distinctive feature of the representatives of the Eurasian Order in Russia was almost “compulsory” germanophily (or, at least, “anglophoby”), and conversely, in Germany eurasists were “compelled” to be russophile. Moeller van der Bruck made once a very correct remark: “French conservatives were always excited by the example of Germany, German conservatives by the example of Russia”. Here the whole logics is revealed of the geopolitical, continental backgound of the invisible occult fight passing through the centuries - the occult War of Continents.

You said GRU, mister Parvulesco?

Alone among western conspirolgists, to constantly stress the geopolitical character of the “world conspiracy” or, more exactly, two alternative “of world conspiracies” (“Euroasian” and “Atlantic”), is the ingenious French writer, poet and metaphysician Jean Parvulesco, author of many literary and philosophical works. In its long and extremely eventful life he was personally familiar with many prominent figures of the European and world history, including with the representatives of an “occult, parallel history” - mystics, outstanding masons, kabbalists, esoterists, secret agents of various special services, ideologists, politicians and artists. (In particular, he was friend of Ezra Pound, Julius Evola, Arno Brekker, Otto Skorzely, Pierre de Villemarest, Raymond Abellio etc .) Having heard about the specificity of our conspirologic studies, Parvulesco has granted us some documents labeled as strictly-confidential, which have allowed us to discover many major details of the planetary geopolitical conspiracy. A special interest is exhibited by materials concerning the activity of secret occult organizations in Russia. In the further description we shall try to expose the most interesting aspects of Parvulesco’s conception. On February 24, 1989 in Lausanne, before the members of the administrative council of the mysterious “Institute for Special Metastrategical Studies ‘Atlantis'” Jean Parvulesco presented a report under the intriguing title The GRU Galaxy, with the subheading The confidential mission of Mikhail Gorbachev, the USSR and the future of the great Eurasian Continent. In this report - a copy of which Parvulesco transmitted to us - he analyzed the occult role of the Soviet military intelligence service otherwise called GRU (Glavnoe Razvedyvatelnoe Upravlenie, Main Intelligence Service), and the connection of the GRU with the secret Order of Eurasia. As a reference, Parvulesco chose the book of the well known specialist in the field of Soviet special service, the famous agent of the French counter-intelligence and director of the “European Data Centre” Pierre de Villemarest, who in 1988 released in France the best seller “GRU, the most secret among the Soviet special services, 1918-1988”.

GRU against KGB

The conspirological model of the same Villemarest can be summarized as follows: “KGB is a continuation of the party, GRU is a continuation of the army. Already by its definition, the army defends the state, KGB defends the party... KGB is guided by the principle “patriotism at the service of communism”, while the army by the opposite principle “communism at the service of patriotism”. Proceeding from this logics of opposition between GRU and KGB as the most secret centres of bipolar power in the USSR (the army and the party), Villemarest builds the fascinating and argumented narration of the history of GRU. The secret sense of the invisible history of the USSR from the October revolution to the Perestroyka is to be found in the rivalry of “neighbours” - GRU, the “Aquarium” or the “military section 44388” at Khodynka, and KGB, the “office” at Lubyanka. But what is the connection between these rival special services and the two planetary geopolitical Orders, even more secret and hidden than most secret intelligence services? According to Parvulesco, the Eurasian Order was especially active in Russia in the beginning of the 20th century. Among its representatives he counts the St.Petersburg doctor Badmaev, baron von Ungern-Sternberg, the Swedish secret curators of Rasputin (signing their cyphrogramms by the pseudonym “Green”) and many other less known characters. It is necessary also to outline the special role of the future marshall Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who, according to Parvulesco, was initiated to the mysterious Polar Order during his stay in the German detention camp of Ingolstadt - where strikingly, just in the same period 1916-1918, we meet other major figures of modern history: general de Gaulle, general von Ludendorff and the future Pope Pio XII, monsignor Eugenio Pacelli. Just from this group of Russian geopolitical mystics, the testimony of the relay-race was later transmitted to the bolshevik regime, but basically to esoterists of continental attitude grouped in the army, in army structures, where there was a significant number of former imperial officers who had entered the ranks of the reds in order to change in the long run the bolsheviks’ nihilistic attitude of and to create the Great Continental Power using the communists, pragmatically possessed by the messianic idea. What matters is that among the red there were some agents of the Eurasian Order executing the secret continental mission. (It is curious, that the famous red robber Kotovskiy was a left-anarchist, occultist and mystic, and some specific parts of his biography justify the belief that in his case there have been contacts with the Eurasian Order). Thus, between pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russian “eurasists” there existed a continuity of members. The creation of the Red Army was bisiness of the agents of Eurasia; and in this respect it is curious to remind an historical event, that twenty seven days after the creation of the general headquarter of the Red Army on the Eastern Front (July 10, 1918) a crew of Chekists attacked it and liquidated all of its members, including the commander-in-chief. The cruel war between “red eurasists” from the Army and the “ red atlantists” from Djerdjinsky's Cheka did not stop for one minute since the first days of the Soviet history. But despite the victims, the agents of the Eurasian Order among the reds did not leave their mission. A triumph of the eurasists was in 1918 the creation within the Red Army of the GRU (Major Intelligence Service) under the direction of Semyon Ivanovich Aralov, former imperial officer and until 1917 linked to the military intelligence. More precisely, Aralov was the head of the Operational Department of Vseroglavshtab [All-Russian Major Staff], where the reconnaissance service entered as one of its constituting parts. The peculiarity of his activity, that mysterious, almost mystical immunity, which this man enjoyed through all his life during the most careful “purges” (he died by natural death on May 22, 1969), and also some other details of his biography cause to see in Aralov the man of the Continental Order.

White eurasists - red eurasists

According to Parvulesco, the russian affiliate of the eurasist Order after the Revolution was established in the Red Army, and even more exactly, in its most secret department - the GRU. But this concerned, naturally, only the “Red” eurasists. The “White” eurasists in Europe generally joined the german nationalists, and we find representatives of this Order in the Abwehr [Counter-intelligence], and later in foreign sections of the SS and SD [Sicherheit Dienst] (specially SD, whose chief Heydrik was himself a convinced eurasist, for which reason he too fell victim of the intrigues of the atlantist Canaris). The revolution divided the Russians between “Reds” and “Whites”, but behind this political and conditioned division there was a different mysterious geopolitical partition into areas of influence of the two secret orders - Atlantic and Eurasian. In Red Russia the atlantists were grouped around the Cheka and around the Politburo, although never before the appointment of Kruschev any open “atlantist” held the seat of General Secretary (Lenin and Stalin were “eurasists” or, at least, subject to strong influence from the agents of the Eurasian Order). Among the white russian emigration the atlantists were not less than in Russia itself, and apart from obvious english spies - liberals such as Kerensky and other democrats and Social Democrats - even in the field of extreme rightists, monarchists, the atlantist lobby was extremely strong - to it belonged even such a “right” philosopher as Berdyaev, and many others. (The overwhelming majority of russian emigrants which appeared in the US were related to this geopolitical attitude.) In a definite moment, at the beginning of the ‘30s, the network of GRU agents in Europe and especially in Germany penetrates deeply into the structures of german and french intelligence, and the GRU network duplicates the network of NKVD and later KGB agents. GRU agents first of all penetrated into army structures and sometimes the common eurasian platform makes the people from GRU and other european secret agents not so much enemies, how much allies, collaborators, secretly (even to their own governments) preparing a new continental project. Here again we are not talking about double agents, as about the unity of the highest geopolitical interests. So in Germany the GRU holds contact with some Walter Nikolay, head of the “Bureau for the jewish question” . Thanks to him the GRU gains access to the highest direction of the Abwehr, SS and SD. The central figure of this network was Martin Bormann himself. (This fact was well known to the allies after fact-findings linked to the Nuremberg process, and many of them were sure that Bormann after 1945 was hidden just in the USSR. It is known for certain that Walter Nikolay himself really passed in May 1945 to the Russians).

The Ribbentropp-Molotov pact and the subsequent revenge of the atlantists

In relation to Martin Bormann, friend of Ribbentropp and Walter Nikolai, Jean Parvulesco himself tells one extremely revealing story, casting some light on the secrets of the occult war between the two geopolitical Orders. Arno Brekker, the famous German sculptor, who very well knew Bormann, told Parvulesco about one strange visit from him in Jackelsburg. «On June 22, 1941, immediately after the attack of Hitler’s Germany against the USSR, Bormann came to him without a warning, in a state of shock, having left his office at the Reichskanzlerei. He was constantly repeating the same mysterious sentence: “Non-being, in this June day, has gained victory above Being... All is over... All is lost..” When the sculptor asked what he meant, Bormann kept silent; then, already at the door, he turned as he wanted to add something, then decided not to, and left slamming the door». That was the great collapse of long-term efforts for the eurasian agents. For the atlantists, the date of June 22, 1941 was a great celebration day: the intra-continental war of the two major eurasian powers, one against the other, was a pledge of triumph for the Atlantic Order, irrespective of what side victory would go to. June 22, 1941 for the Order of the eurasists was an even more tragic event than the October revolution. It is important to stress that the agents of the Eurasian Order used their best efforts to avert the conflict. Preparatives for the conclusion to the maximum extent of the symbolical pact “Ribbentropp-Molotov” (both, by the way, were out-and-out eurasists) were actively led from both sides during long years. In 1936 Stalin, definitively shifting at the threshold of the ‘30s on the side of the Order of Eurasia, had given Berzin, chief of the GRU (Berzin was the exception of a rule: agent of atlantism heading the eurasian organization and working inside it for the NKVD) this order: « Immediately suspend any activity against Germany ». (It must be noticed that Berzin ignored this order). In 1937 Heydrik and Himmler in a secret dispatch assured the Fuehrer, that «Germany is not more a target of Komintern activity, and also of other Soviet subversive activities». The pact Ribbentropp-Molotov was the summit of strategic success for the eurasists. But at the last moment the Oceanic forces overcame. The eurasists in GRU and, more generally, in the army - Voroshilov, Timoshenko, Zhukov, Golikov etc.- until the last moment refused to believe in the possibility of war, since the serious influence of the eurasian (that is, russophile) lobby in the Third Reich was perfectly known to them. (National-socialist anti-slavic propaganda they deemed so insignificant and superficial, as well as Marxist demagogic internationalist rethorics in the USSR). General Golikov (concealing his noble origins and his authentic date of birth, and also his true biography, on motives purely linked to conspiracy within the “Eurasian” order) even reproached his subordinates, having received the piece of information about the Germans crossing the Soviet border: “English provocation! Investigate! ” He did not know at that moment what Martin Boormann already knew: “Non-being has gained victory over Being”.

Contours of the Atlantic lobby

The secret Atlantic Order has a most ancient history. Some traditonalist authors trace it back to the initiatic societies of ancient Egypt and specially to a sect worshipping the god Seth, whose symbols were the Crocodile and Leviathan [2] (i.e. aquatic animals), and also the Red Ass (see J.Robin Secret societies in apocalyptical rendez-vous, J.M.Allemand René Guénon and Seven towers of the devil etc.). Later the sect of Seth merged with various phoenician cults, specially with the bloody cult of Moloch. According to the French conspirologist of the XIXth century Claude Grace d'Ors, this secret organization still existed many centuries after after the ruin of the phoenician civilization. In Middle Age Europe it existed under the name of “Minstrels of Morgana”, whose emblem was the “Dancing Death”, or Dance Macabre. Grace d'Ors affirmed that Luther's Reformation was conducted under the instruction of this sect and that Protestants (especially Anglo-Saxon and French) still remain under its influence. Jan Parvulesco believes that Giuseppe Balsamo, the famous Cagliostro, was one of the major agents of this secret Order which emerged at the surface at the end of the XVIII century under the mask of the irregular “Egyptian” Masonry of Memphis rite, later of Memphis-Mithra. Such symbolical prehistory of the atlantists characterizes the substance of their geopolitical and cultural-economic strategy. Its sense is reduced to emphasizing “horizontal” values, to bring on the foreground the lowest aspects of the human being and society as a whole. This does not mean that atlantism is identical to vulgar materialism, but anyway, the “material”, purely economic, commercial aspect of human activity holds the central place in it. The notion of a system of values at a merely human level supposes individualism and radical anthropocentrism, peculiar to atlantism in all its manifestations, and in parallel to this notion there necessarily emerges the typical “Atlantic” scepticism and depressive irony in relation to ideal, supra-human measure of life. In fact, the images of the Red Ass and the Dancing Death perfectly mirror the substance of “Atlantic” scepticism. And according to the strange logics of history, the most radical forms of protestantism, individualistm, social and religious critical consciousness after Lutherian reform, as a matter of fact, were “attracted” as a magnet towards the Atlantic regions - to England and further Westward, even deeeper into the Atlantic - to America, where found a favourable ground the most extreme forms of radical protestantism incarnated by Baptists, Quakers and Mormons. (J.M. Allemand marked a symbolical concurrence: from Cadiz - a port which was historically the major centre of phoenician colonies on the Iberian peninsula - Cristopher Columbus sailed for his Atlantic expedition, concluded with the discovery of America). But the consolidation of the Atlantic Order in the Extreme West and the creation of an exclusively Atlantic civilization in the US, acoording to the project of this Order, were just an intermediate stage in the “neo-carthagenian”plans of the atlantists. The following strategic step consisted in exporting the Atlantic model on the other continents, in the geopolitical colonization of the whole planet, in the transfer of the West, in mystical and geopolitical sense, all over the world, including, of course, also the East. Therefore the network of Atlantic agents in the states of Eurasia not only pursued a defensive goal (weakening the alternative geopolitical force), but also supposed offensive operations. The avantgarde of “atlantism” in Eurasia were “leftists”, “anarchist” subversive movements, though also in their environment there always existed an internal eurasian opposition. However, is is necessary to recognize “economic socialism” and “communism” in their theoretical and pure kind as the “atlantic” form of propaganda, the socio-political mask for the secret Order of the Red Ass. If we take into account the specifical geopolitical and occult doctrines of the Atlantic pole, it becomes completely clear why “leftist” subversive movements were so much encouraged by the Anglo-Saxon powers in continental European and Eurasian countries, while in England, and especially in America, “communists” and “social-democrats” constitute an insignificant percentage. For the atlantist lobby, “leftists” have always been the fifth column in Eurasia. From here also comes that natural harmony between russian atlantists of communist inclination and anglo-saxon capitalists, which so often leads to a blind alley foreign scholars and historians, wondering about such complete mutual understanding between “class enemies” – between “messianic” bolsheviks with their dictatorship of proletariat and Wall Street bankers with their cult of the Golden Veal. The secret society of the Dancing Death, Red Ass, “Minstrels of Morgana”, Brotherhood of the Ocean - these images will help us to understand the logics of the world atlantist lobby, aspiring not only to defend their “islands”, but also to turn the whole planet into “Carthago”, in the united universal “ human market”.

KGB at the service of the “Dancing Death”

Pierre de Villemarest rightly defined the Cheka (OGPU, NKVD, KGB) as the “continuation of the party”. It would be even more precise to say that it is the secret centre of the party, its mind and its soul. Jan Parvulesco has supplemented this definition by occult geopolitical measurement. According to Parvulesco, KGB is the centre of the most straight influence of the Atlantic Order, Order of the Dancing Death. KGB is a cover for this Order. Many had guesses about an occult background of this organization. Some even spoke about presence in KGB of a secret organization of parapsychological studies, about the so-called black-magic “Company of Viy”,[3] where all the leading political figures of the USSR received, so to speak, their consecration. However, hearings about the mysterious “Company of Viy”, most likely, are but the oversimplified and grotesque description of a much subtler and deeper reality, as the occult mission of KGB is not at all reduced to magic or parapsychological experiences, to which, we shall notice, this organization really always showed some abnormal, heightened interest. KGB was initially planned as the only ideological-punitive structure called to supervise above the subjects of the communist social and cultural space. The communists in their ideological, messianic, Marxist dimension, in relation to the eurasian population of the regions subject to them, always erected themselves as colonizers, as newcomers, always keeping an ideological distance from the needs, requirements and interests of the indigenous population. At the purely “ideal” level, they aimed at imposing to the eurasian peoples an economy-centered model unnatural for them - which compelled the former to use a repressive apparatus. The Cheka (NKVD, OGPU, KGB) was initially the parody of the “knightly-ideological” order called to punish the autochtones and to stifle their natural inclination for the “soil”. Cheka (and KGB) also professed the thesis of “blood over soil”, but already in its completely misunderstood, blood-sadist variant, as a disturbing memoir of the bloody phoenician cult of Moloch, to which the atlantist agents were typologically and generically linked. Cheka-KGB always served the “Dancing Death ”, and many paradoxes and unreliable (because of their inhumanity) histories linked to this dark organization become more clear, if we shall take into consideration the not only metaphorical, but occultist-esoterist connection of this Order to the most ancient middle eastern cults, whose adherents never ceased to exist actually, continuing the secret chain through secret european and middle eastern organizations of atlanist kind.

Convergence of intelligences and the “polar mission of GRU”

The CIA, as an instrument of the American atlantism, typologically belongs to same conspirological category. Moreover, at the origins of this organization we find outstanding figures of the american masonry - which, by the way, the european masons consider as irregular, that is heretical and sectarian. (However a question here follows from necessity: is there in the US as a whole anything, in the sphere of religion or metaphysics, that would not be heretical and sectarian?) The CIA, as KGB, was never indifferent to magic and parapsychology, and on the whole its role in modern civilization is quite comparable to KGB's role, though the blood-sadist substance in this case is not so obvious. The CIA (and its forerunners) together with the english secret services, since the beginning of the century have filled Eurasia with a network of agents, which constantly influenced the course of historical events in atlantist key. Somehow, it is quite possible to speak about “convergences of special services”, about “merger” of KGB and CIA, about their lobbyist unity at a geopolitical level. This explains such an abundance of so-called “Soviet spies ” in the highest regions of american power, from Hiss to Reserford, who, according to some authors, transmitted the project of the hydrogen bomb to Soviet nuclearists. (It is possible, by the way, that just within the atlantist lobby of the Soviet-American nuclear scientists, the academician Sakharov acquainted himself with mondialist projects of the anti-eurasian orientation, upon which he later based his social and political and futurological views.) It is necessary to notice that the doubling of the KGB agents network in the US and other anglo-saxon countries by the GRU agents network was laid in constant secret conflict with “neighbour”agents of Lubyanka; and given the radical contradiction of geopolitical and even metaphysical orientation of these two Soviet secret structures, it would be logical to suspect that the true and only oppositor of the CIA were the GRU agents, and not at all KGB. These convergence of secret services, as well as the converging realignment of the Soviet communists of the highest echelon with American mondialists, are grounded on the unity of fundamental geopolitical orientation, on the unity of a secret structure, which makes use both of West atlantists and atlantist agents in the East, sometimes occupying the highest places in the state and political nomenclature. But the complete and open merger of these two affiliations of the Order of the Dancing Death from a certain moment was hindered by the efforts of the alternative eurasian lobby, genetically linked to GRU and to the Soviet General Staff, but also including in its network many european and asian intelligence structures (especially from Germany, France - linked to general de Gaulle’s secret geopolitical projects- Arab countries, and so on), united at the service of the alternative Order, the Order of Eurasia - otherwise called as the society of the “minstrels of Mursya” or as the polar “Order of Heliopolis”, Order of Apollon, solar winner of the Snake-Python, that Snake which the Greek tradition identified with the Egyptian god Seth, with the Red Ass.

Rise and eclypse of the Eurasian Sun

Let us now briefly outline the peripeties of the occult war of the Eurasian Order against the Atlantic Orders within the Soviet system. As we have said in the previous chapters, Lenin as a whole adhered to the Eurasian attitude. It is characteristic that during his leadership the GRU was created and directed by the sincere eurasist Semyon Ivanovich Aralov. Aralov himself permeated the structure of this secret army organization with eurosian continental principles, gathering around himself the most valuable and efficient “brothers of Eurasia”, who like him were sent among the red ranks for accomplishing their special metapolitical mission. It is curious that at the beginning of the ‘60s Aralov released a book under the expressive title “Lenin led us to victory ”. It is necessary to remark here one relevant detail: the so-called “leninist guards”, despite of political affinity to Lenin, at a geopolitical level belonged in the overwhelming majority to the alternative, Atlantic geopolitical orientation. “Lenin’s nearest collaborators”, and not at all “the ambitious tyrant Stalin” (as many still today wrongly consider), stood behind his demise from the government of the country. The end of the leninist leadership marked in itself the passage of power in the hands of the atlantists, and as a matter of fact, during the second half of the 1920s - first half of the 1930s we are witness of a significant improvement of the relations between the USSR and the Anglo-Saxon countries, and first of all the US. In a parallel way to this we see also symptomatic permutations of cadres within the GRU. The atlantist and chekist Berzin, creating an intelligence structure with the support of Komintern and communist zealots, i.e. of atlantist elements, is appointed to replace the eurasist Aralov. But even Berzin fails to change the orientation of GRU. The structures created by Aralov are strong and at the same time flexible enough to surrender without fight. Despite of all Cheka-NKVD attacks against the army, the military have significant authority and preserve their intellectual geopolitical elite in the ranks of GRU. One curious detail deserves notice - all the chiefs of GRU who replaced Aralov prior to the beginning the Great Patriotic War, were executed. We list them: O.A. Stigga, A.M. Nikonov, Ya.K. Berzin, I.S. Unschlikht, S.P. Uritskiy, N.I. Yezhov, I.I. Proskurov. All of them (except for general Proskurov) were not military cadres, all of them worked against the eurasian idea, but it did not prevent the GRU to remain the only eurasian organization secretly acting to the accomplishment of the great continental project. The dismissal of Berzin in 1934, after nine years’ stay as the head of GRU, meant a severe crisis in the occult war behind the scenes of the Soviet government. Hitlers’ coming to power had extraordinarily strenghtened the positions of the “continental lobby” within the Soviet government. In 1934 GRU agents begin to prepare the German-Russian strategic union reaching its summit with the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact. Stalin definitively reveals his support to the eurasian orientation, believing that the anti-atlantic tendencies of national-socialism will attract on themselves the attention of the anglo-saxon powers and that in such situation it will possible, at last, to open the way to the destruction of the powerful “atlantic” lobby within the USSR. The destruction of the “leninist guards” begins. All stalinian processes, sometimes apparently absurd and completely groundless, were actually deeply substantiated at a geopolitical level. All “right” and “left-wing” conspiracies were perfectly real - although to directly call them by name and to incriminate the whole “atlantist lobby ”, acting already for a long time in the Soviet government, Stalin did not resolve to. Probably, he had reasons to be afraid of a terrible and cruel reaction. Therefore he was compelled to mask his claims on this or that group of the high-ranking cadres through “relative” charges and allegorical labels. Layer after layer, Stalin liquidated the influential agents of “New Carthago”, but also the inverse reaction was unavoidable. An especially severe impact on the eurasian lobby was the killing of the head of the “Polar” lodge within the Red Army, marshall Tukhachevsky. Though also in this case the revenge of the atlantists on Tukhachevsky and all claims showed against him were deeply substantiated, this was only true in the specific “atlantist” perspective, in the context of anti-eurasian sabotage.

Notes
(1) It must be remarked that in Haushofer's theory of "vital space", “Lebensraum”, there was no allusion to any anti-slavic expansionism, while the two expressions became associated for Hitler and other ideologists of the Third Reich (See Karl Haushofer De la géopolitique Ed. Fayard, France, 1986). [Author's note]
(2) "Behemoth" in the original text is clearly a misprint. [Ed. note]
(3) Imaginary figure from Gogol's fiction; leader of demons, vampyres, witches. [Ed. note]

Part II - After 1945

After the “victory”

Hitler’s aggression against the USSR was the great eurasian catastrophe. After the terrible fratricidal war between two geopolitically, spiritually and metaphysically close, related peoples, between two anti-atlantist oriented regimes, Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, USSR victory was actually equivalent to a strategic defeat - since all historical experience demonstrates that Germany can never be reconciled with a defeat, so that the winner already by its victory fastens the knot of a new forthcoming conflict, sowing seeds of forthcoming war. Besides, Yalta caused Stalin to solidarize with the Allies, that is with those powers which have always been the worst enemies of Eurasia. Stalin, perfectly understanding the laws of geopolitics and having already made his eurasist choice, could not fail to understand it. Immediately after the german defeat, Stalin began to realize a new geopolitical project, the Warsaw Agreement, integrating East European countries in the atmosphere of Great Soviet Russia. And here came the first conflicts and dissents with the atlantists. Until 1948 Stalin disguised his continental intents and even approved the creation of the state of Israel, that was the major strategic act of England (and more generally, of atlantism) in reinforcing its military, economic and ideological influence in the Near East. But already in 1948, using besides all other means the chain of command of internal political positions of the army (Zhukov, Vasilevskiy, Shtemenko etc.), Stalin returned to orthodox eurasist geopolitics, renewed the anti-atlantic purges within the Soviet government and pronounced the “condemn” of Israel as an anti-continental formation generated by “anglo-saxon spies”. Strangely enough, Stalin’s death coincided with the most dramatic and tense moment in the accomplishment of his eurasist plans, when the perspective was actual of a new continental union - USSR-China, that could radically change the logics of planetary alignment of forces and bring revenge to the Great Order of Eurasia. If we take into account these reasons and the geopolitical features of the post-stalinian course in the USSR, the version about the assassination of Stalin (advanced by many european historians) becomes more than probable. And the main role of NKVD and its chief, the sinister Berya, worst enemy of GRU, General Staff and Eurasia, in the supposed assassination of Stalin is remarked by the majority of the historians. [It is necessary to warn that the Author's views about Berya have substantially changed since this paper was written, along with new elements of historical interpretation brought to light by (mostly) russian historians.
So in the review Elementy (n.9) appeared an article by A.Potapov (Eurasia and secret services) presenting a completely different view of Berya and his role.]
In 1953, eight years after the pseudo-victory, there was one only step before the real Victory (as well as in 1939). But instead of it the world saw the Fall of the Titan.

The “polar” mission of general Shtemenko

According to Jean Parvulesco, since the second half of the ‘40s a key figure of eurasian geopolitical lobby in the USSR was the general-colonel Sergey Matveevic Shtemenko (1907 - 1976). His high sponsors were marshall Zhukov and general Aleksandr Poskrebyshev (who, according to some sources, carried over at Stalin a mission similar to Martin Bormann’s at Hitler, that is was the vehicle of germanophile ideas). During the ‘60s Shtemenko was one of the key figures in the Soviet Army: in different periods he was commander of the armed forces of the Warsaw Agreement countries and chief of the General Staff of the USSR. But the most relevant of his appointments, according to the fundamental line of our conspirological study, was the position of head of the GRU in the years 1946-1948 and 1956-1957. With Shtemenko the GRU was completely restored in its “polar”, occult, order features introduced into the structure of GRU by its founder Aralov. Pierre de Villemarest called general-colonel Shtemenko the first and most outstanding Soviet geopolitician. Shtemenko was a natural and univocal supporter of the Great Continental Project, in full correspondence with the traditional logic of the eurasist Order. In his book Villemarest wrote about him: «Shtemenko belonged to that special caste of Soviet officers who, though being also “soviet”, were nevertheless representative of great-russian spirit and expansionist beliefs». And further: «For this caste the USSR is an empire called to guide [upravlyat] the eurasian continent, and not only from the Urals to Brest, but from the Urals to Mongolia, from Central Asia up to the Mediterranean». Strategic plans of Shtemenko included the peaceful economic-cultural penetration into Afghanistan (about which he spoke in the years 1948-1952) and the entry of Soviet troops in the arab capitals - Beyrut, Damascus, Cairo, Algeri. Already in 1948 Shtemenko insisted on the special geopolitical role of Afghanistan, which would allow the USSR to gain access to the ocean and boost the military power of the Soviet fleet in the Black and Mediterranean seas. It is important to notice that the famous admiral Gorshkov was a close friend of general-colonel Shtemenko. Shtemenko and the occult subdivision, revived by him, in GRU created under Stalin a powerful and advanced network of eurasist influence, which, despite of all Berya's attempts to erase it, was not destroyed even after Stalin’s death - although from 1953 to the middle of the ‘60s the eurasist lobby within the army was compelled to hold a defensive position. As an unavoidable evil, GRU agents for 23 years (1963-1986) had to stand as the head of GRU the atlantic agent of Lubyanka, former “liquidator”, general Petr Ivashutin. It was an indispensable compromise. General-colonel Shtemenko, agent of the “Polar Order”, Order of Eurasia - that is key which will help us understand the secret logics of Soviet history from Khrushev to perestroyka. This history,- not differently, however, from all world history – is the both open and obscure fight of two secret orders, “Minstrels of Morgana” and “Minstrels of Mursia”, devotees of the Egyptian Seth, the Red Ass, and devotees of the northern, polar Apollon, killer of the Snake Python.

Nikita Khrushev, agent of Atlantis

Khrushev was the first protegé of the atlantist lobby to become the individual leader of the USSR. Despite his dissents with Berya, Khrushev leaned on KGB and at a definite time made the final , opposite to the choice of Lenin and Stalin. Khrushev's activity was directed to destroying the internal structures of the eurasists in the USSR, and also to undermining the global continental project of a supra-statal planetary block. The coming of Khrushev was the coming to power of KGB. Khrushev, once he had consolidated his position, begins to strike blow after blow against all levels of the continental-patriotic lobby. All his attention is henceforth centered on the anglo-saxon countries, especially on the US. Khrushev’s slogan “to catch up and bypass the West” means alignment to the atlantic powers and acknowledgement of their social and economic superiority. The theses about the rapid approach of communism are directed to riding again the “leftist-messianic”, “bolshevist-internationalist” tendencies almost forgotten during the long years of eurasian imperial geopolitical stalinism. Khrushev aims to strike a blow on all “soil” traditional structures, which had been saved, due to the secret protection of the Eurasian Order, even in the most terrible periods of red terror. Khrushev wants definitively to get rid of the Russian Orthodox church. Khrushev was “americanist” and “atlantist” in everything: starting from the famous atlantic “corn” and ending with his military concepts exclusively based on employing intercontinental missiles to the detriment of all remaining kinds of weapons. Khrushev did not care at all for the eurasian continent. He was concerned with Latin America, Cuba etc. Between the atlantists from Khrushev war cabinet (whose leader was marshal S.S. Biryuzov) and the eurasists from Shtemenko's group there was almost open conflict. Khrushev insisted on the concept of “nuclear intercontinental blitzkrieg”, which, from the continental point of view, is nothing else than strategic sabotage, weakening the real military power of continental forces, shattering the economy and creating a planetary apocalyptical threat. After Khrushev’s dismissal, “Red Star” quite fairly wrote: «That strategy, which we eventually refused, could only be born in an ill brain». Shtemenko even earlier in the same “Red Star” warned: «It is nowise possible to base the safety of the USSR only on ballistic intercontinental missiles». With Khrushev begins the definitive separation of intra-statal functions: “men of the party” and representatives of Lubyanka solidarize henceforth with khrushevists on the strategy of “nuclear blitzkrieg” (the Soviet Army becomes the first hostage of the “nuclear terrorists” of KPSS [Communist Party of the Soviet Union], more exact, of the atlantic wing of KPSS), while eurasists and GRU lobbyists insist on the development of conventional armaments and try to take a revenge through military space studies. In 1958 Khrushev dismisses from authority the powerful and extremely popular eurasian marshall Zhukov. In 1959 he starts another offensive – he places at the head of GRU one of the most odious figures of Soviet history, the bloody executioner, chekist Ivan Serov, known under the nickname of "zhivoder" [cut-throat. This bloody character - ideal type for the characteristic of Order of Red Ass as a whole – was abhored by the General Staff and, of course, by GRU agents and patriots of Eurasia in the first place. Another “atlantist”, general Mironov, becomes the accountable curator of the so-called “executive organs” - that means supervision above basic army and intelligence subdivisions. However the khrushevian offensive manoeuvres meet the well coordinated occult reaction of the eurasists: Konev, Sokolovskiy, Timoshenko, Grechko try to defeat Khrushev at any cost. Each superfluous day of stay in power of this “atlantist” renders an irreplaceable ideological, strategic and political damage to the USSR, and, as a whole, to the interests of the continental powers. Let's notice another curious detail: in Khrushev's epoch the domination of the “totalitarian-hegelian” line in Soviet “ritualistic” marxist philosophy (attributing primacy to the supra-individual, “objective” factors above the individual and subjective) is replaced by the domination of the “subjective-kantian” line (attributing primacy to the individualistic and “subjective” above the “objective”). Just in those times begins the quick degradation of civic education, appears the new constellation of “khrushevist” academicians and scientists representing a mob of unskilled and arrogant laymen. (We shall recollect, for instance, as a representantives of “khrushevists” A.N. Yakovlev, who admitted to have criticized Marcuse, not having found time at all to read him; the Stalin scientists continuing, though in a peculiar form, the pre-revolutionary academic traditions, as a rule, were distinguished for their knowledge of those authors which they sincerely or not so sincerely criticized). With Khrushev begins the step-by-step propagation in the society of an “atlantism”-oriented, groundless and cosmopolitan intelligentsia, which KGB brood unseen even in its most radical and dissident variants. The themes of the West, the themes of the US begin to spread in the USSR as “prohibited”, but “attractive” ideals from the end of the ‘50s – beginning of the ‘60s.

The long path to 1977

Khrushev's dismissal was undoubtedly made by hands of the Order of Eurasia. It is indicative, that eight days after he left the place of General Secretary, the airplane on which were two key agents the “atlantic” lobby - marshall Biryuzov and general Mironov – suffered a crash. After Khrushev's knockout the eurasists step-by-step began to recover their positions. Leonid Brezhnev was a figure supported by the eurasists. It is significant, that the writer Smirnov in 1965 wrote: “On May 9, 1965 at the parade for victory in Moscow before the veterans’ columns should pass, celebrating the twentieth anniversary of Victory, marshall Zhukov himself, decorated with battle orders”. After seven years of khrushevian disgrace Zhukov was again rehabilitated. It was the present victory of GRU. But the triumph of the Order of Eurasia under Brezhnev was far from being complete. “Atlantists” from KGB were not going to to surrender. The continental projects were constantly stopped. In the middle of the ‘60s even there was a paradoxical situation, when the perspective of the continental block was debated, bypassing the USSR. In this respect it is interesting to report the facts about negotiations of Arthur Axmann - former head of the “Hitler-jugend” organization and participant to the eurasian lobby inside the SS - with Zhou Enlai concerning the creation of a united continental block Pekin – Berlin - Paris, bypassing the USSR. Laval, and even general de Gaulle without reserve greeted such project. A further meeting was held in Bucharest. Arthur Axmann in Madrid told Jean Parvulesco about the following episode on his flight to Pekin. In the same plane sat a group of Soviet military, which tried to convince Axmann of the necessity of including also the USSR in this Eurasian project – which was, however, the old dream of Axmann himslef, oppositor of Hitler’s antislavic racism since the times of his implication in the eurasian lobby inside the SS (the SS circle of hauptmann Aleksandr Dolezhalek, Richard Hildebrandt, Guenther Kaufmann etc., linked, of course, with Walther Nikolay and Martin Bormann). GRU officers also reported to Axmann about the intrigues of the atlantist lobby in the USSR, putting insuperable obstacles to all geopolitical projects oriented to the continent – and so to all continental powers, most important of which being the USSR. The atlantists from KGB, using their traditional tactics, forced the Army to resign itself with Ivashutin (old chekist and extremely unpopular figure) at the head of GRU for 23 years. But nevertheless, since 1973 Brezhnev began to advance the military closer and closer to the government of the country. In 1973 marshall Grechko became member of the Politburo. Replacing him, also Ustinov entered this body, though we must notice that the chiefs of KGB - Andropov, and later also his heir Chernikov - were members of the Politburo since 1967. But the greatest triumph of the Army and GRU was in 1977, when the new brezhnevian constitution founded the “Security Council”, becoming a self-supporting and formally independent legal and political force. It was a victory of the Army over KGB. It was a victory of Eurasia. The cautious and never hastening Brezhnev had fulfilled his promise – made to the eurasian lobby – to change the backstage order of the internal soviet structure of power. The army had now its rigorous agency at the highest level. Brezhnev's strategy was on the whole continentally oriented, though space and space weapon became nevertheless the basic sphere of strategic interest. In a parallel way to working at space war projects, the geopolitics of the Brezhnev epoch elaborated applicable ideological and political models taking into account the new strategic and military nomenclature and typology of the space age. It is important to mention in this context the ideas of the author and ideologist of the patriotic movement A.Prokhanov, tightly linked to definite geopolitical groups in the General Staff since the times of marshall Ogarkov..Prokhanov assures that the Soviet-eurasian military strategy at the end of the 1970s - first half of the 1980s seriously elaborated the project of a new continental-space civilization based on a combination of spiritual, “soil” and metaphysical traditions of Eurasia with ultra-modern techniques, space stylistics and the global system of the “new communications”. This, in Prokhanov’s opinion, should become the Eurasian answer to the American pattern of “star wars”, exhibiting the future space age as the celebration of the anglo-saxon idea not only on the planet, but also in the universe. To the American universe, the American Space, the "soil-futuristical” ideologists of the General Staff, according to Prokhanov, were ready to oppose the Russian universe, the eurasian universe, the image of Great Eurasia, projecting itself on boundless regions of stars and planets. The “neighbours” at the Lubyanka had chosen a Cosmos arranged according to the image of “insular” mercantile-colonial civilizations of the extreme West. The American pattern fully suited them. So, in the newest technological shapes, we again meet with the most ancient themes, with voices from a millennial history, with the call from our far ancestors always solving an essentially single problem: “Is it necessary to destroy Carthago?”- in whatever shape this problem ever presented itself.

Geopolitics of marshal Ogarkov

One of the immediate heirs of Shtemenko’s geopolitical mission was marshal N.V. Ogarkov, eminent geopolitician, strategist and eurasist. He carried on the activity of the “Polar” Order within the Army to the middle of the ‘80s. Of the three brezhnevian chiefs of the General Staff - Zakharov, Kulikov, Ogarkov (all three convinced eurasists) – the brightest was Ogarkov, an ingenious connoisseur of masking, many times strategically fooling both external and internal atlantists. Ogarkov was the organizer of the Prague operation, which passed so smoothly only because he managed to fully confuse NATO intelligence services the and to impose on them some excellently sent misinformation. It is curious to mark that the events of the “Prague spring”, ended for democratic putschists in a “sad autumn”, were somehow a strategic duel between two characters dedicated to the deepest secrets of the planetary conflict. Today it is well-known that the occult author and director of the “Prague spring” was David Goldstucker. In this operation he was confronted to the eurasist Ogarkov, and it is necessary to notice that Ogakov’s victory was not simply the victory of rough force of the Soviet tanks, but a victory of thought, cunning and magnificent mastering of the art of misinformation, “camouflage”, with the help of which NATO leadership was led to commit the worst mistakes and had no time for that reaction which, of course, doctor Goldstucker and his creatures (Dubchek, Havel etc.) from the beggining counted upon. Ogarkov pioneered the creation of “Spetsnaz” [special forces], called to perform local and instant operations in the back-zone of the opponent’s front, absolutely necessary for the success especially of continental, local military operations. Geopolitically marshal Ogarkov always openly (in contrast to the hidden and cautious eurasist Grechko) defended the “eurasian project” and aspired to transform the USSR Armed Forces so that they could conduct themselves in the best way in a long, local war with prevailing conventional weapons. After Krushev the question about “nuclear and intercontinental” kinds of weapons acquired a symbolical sense - depending on the emphasis of the military doctrine on “global war ” or on “local war ” in army circles defined as “ours” and “theirs”, that is representatives of the atlantist or eurasian lobby: “ local war” with application of conventional armaments and without using nuclear weapons was the slogan of the “eurasists”, and “total nuclear war” the slogan of the atlantists, never stopping to put ideological pressure on the Army. Around Ogarkov the military élite of eurasian orientation was grouped together. First of all, his fellow comrades were marshals Akhromeev and Yazov. Both of them, especially Akhromeev, were secretly devoted to the “Polar Order ”, founded in the Soviet Army already by Mikhail Tukhachevsky in parallel to Aralov’s similar organization, created by him immediately after the appearance of GRU.

The Afghanistan catastrophe

The huge concentration of power in the hands of the eurasist military after 1977 threatened the atlantists’s clan. To KGB and other servants of the “Dancing Death” inside the Soviet government it was necessary to undertake any urgent counter-measures. Precise data allow to believe that the Afghanistan war was inspired by KGB to discredit the Army in the course of a long and insensate conflict and to provoke the atlantic interference in the internal political situation on part of the US. The Afghanistan conflict is considered as the instigating of KGB against the Soviet Army and, more widely, against the whole eurasian lobby, by such specialists of occult sovietology as Pierre de Villemarest and Jean Parvulesco. Knowing about the geopolitical projects of general Shtemenko, and in particular, about the geopolitical and strategic value of Afghanistan, the people from Lubyanka decided to provoke an armed and forced intervention in the afghani internal political situation. (It is necessary to notice, thus, that Shtemenko himself excluded such interference, insisting on peaceful integration and gradual economic-strategic infiltration of Afghanistan in complete correspondence with the normal logics of any organic and natural economic and cultural expansion on the north-south axis). And not only starting an insensate war, but also its irresolute, uncertain, dull conducting was a consequence of KGB interference in the affairs of the Army - since the atlantists needed the USSR to lose the war, a war which could result in the definitive destruction of the Eurasian block. Therefore in Afghanistan KGB special forces arranged acts of terrorism against the peaceful afghani population - that was a perfect absurdity, if the Soviet troops really wanted to integrate Afghanistan and to make it a geopolitical vassal. From above through the Party and the Politburo the atlantists, vice-versa, tried to rein the most reasonable military operations, sometimes stopping them, when they began to be crowned with success. Pierre de Villemarest affirms that this war was lost only because the highest ranks in the Soviet government wanted it to be lost. Anyway, this war was fatal for the Army, GRU and the Eurasian Order.

The “right-wing” in KGB and the Andropov paradox

In the post-brezhnevian epoch one very important point began to show, characteristic for all history of the invisible fight of the two Orders. Its meaning is that the atlantist lobby in Eurasia, as we often stressed, leans not only to the “left” (though, certainly, this is preferred owing to some typological affinity of their concept itself with the atlantist plot), but also to the “right”. For this reason post-war NKVD-KGB, remaining essentially atlantist, adopted some definite ideological features of Army, conservative, “right” orientation. Genetically ascending to the squads of anti-soil, anti-Russian and anti-state punitive red gangs of the ‘20s, KGB at the same time has undergone to a significant influence of “right-wing” eurasists of GRU and the General Staff in those times when Stalin’s imperialism was dominant. Such duplicity of KGB logically resulted in a definite compromise in KGB structure, which can explain all the political and conspirological “oddness” linked to this organization. If the substance and the major centre of KGB remained purely atlantist, integrated in the united planetary network of atlantist intelligences, at the periphery, among ordinary employees and even officers, a “nationalist” atmosphere developed on the whole. However this “Lubyanka nationalism” (sometimes joined with a rather strong judeophobia) always corresponded to the principle “blood over soil”- that is, it never had actually a continental, imperial, eurasian character. And such situation rather suited the figures of the atlantist Order, as this “naive nationalism” of the ordinary employees served as a perfect masking for the network of anti-soil, “messianic” and mondialist agents. As a whole, post-war KGB was typologically similar to panslavist groups inside the imperial government on the eve of the First World War and with racist, xenophobe organizations in the Reich, serving as a cover for the atlantist residents. In this perspective it is necessary to consider the coming to power of Yuri Andropov, former KGB chief, after Brezhnev's death. The above mentioned reasons of KGB duplicity will help to understand the duality of Andropov's role, and also the dualist image of this figure, which can be simultaneously considered as both father of perestroyka and democratization, “accomplished” by Gorbachev, and extreme conservative attempting to restore the totalitarian epoch of Lavrenty Berya.* It is curious, that among simple russian people in relation to Andropov two opposite estimations are common: “Andropov - jew - sionist” and “Andropov - patriot - anti-semite”. (Of course, both these deffinitions should be “metaphorically” understood). Actually, Andropov’s riddle is simple - he is a representative of KGB, i.e. complete and convinced atlantist, loyal to his Order of the “Dancing Death”. He was simultaneously “jew - sionist” and “patriot - anti-Semite”, as this pair looks contradictory only in extremely simplified conspirological patterns, whereas actually the conspirological picture is much more complex, and its key factors are neither national nor political criteria, but only fundamental geopolitical orientations more often carefully kept secret to the outsiders. The coming of Andropov was the second terrible blow against the Army after the beginning of the Afghanistan war. Now the authority in the state was in the hands of a member of that organization which during all its existence had but one goal - to erase the Order of Eurasia inside the USSR, to shatter the secret structures created by Aralov, Tukhachevsky, Shtemenko, Ogarkov, Akhromeev and other eurasists, to blow up Eurasia from the inside, to make once and for all of the idea of a new continental block an unrealizable utopia, a fiction, to gain definitive victory to “New Carthago”, to the US, to establish together with the CIA the New World Order on the planet, the New Trade Construction. The coming of Andropov, the coming of the “right of KGB”, meant no more an no less as the beginning of perestroyka.

The double agent Mikhail Gorbachev

The preliminary phase of perestroyka - preparing the new cadres, allocation of roles, introducing the necessary people into the government, the general script of the events - all this was carried out by Yuri Andropov together with other atlantist analysts of special services and experts from the Orders of the “Dancing Death”. But Andropov well understood that at any stage of perestroyka the eurasists could try to take revenge, to throw off the atlantists from KGB and Politburo and to lead the country according to an eurasian policy. Therefore the choice of the major figure of the new policy fell on the most evasive and uncertain of the then supreme leaders, who was so cautious, flexible and elusive, that none of the two sides did know for what Order he actually worked. On the other hand, according to the most ancient traditions of Order of Atlantic, to which Andropov belonged, it was accepted to give special attention to people whose appearance showed some eloquent defect. According to this principle were selected the highest priests of the cult of the aegyptian ass-headed god Seth. Gorbachev with his mark (which, by the way, one Mussulman - traditionalist has read as an arabian inscription of three letters - kaf, f?, ra, that gives “Kafir”, i.e. “hypocrite”) was the most eligible figure. Promoting Gorbachev, Andropov calculated that his candidature would satisfy both geopolitical groupings, as the solution of internal tensions in the USSR already for a long time had ripened and the political change should logically be backed by both atlantists and eurasists. The atlantists’ interest in change was obvious, but also the eurasists - after the beginning of the Afghanistan war and the coming of Andropov to power - were not anymore interested in preserving the status quo, and consequently would easily accept the transformation. Gorbachev was convenient and useful to everyone. As Gorbachev's guardians on behalf of the two conflicting Orders were apponted A.I.Lukyanov and A.N.Yakovlev. Both these figures were the immediate participants to the ramified continental conspiracy, showing however two conflicting parties.

The true face of Anatoliy Lukyanov

Since 1987 Anatoliy Ivanovic Lukyanov became the head of the so-called “administrative organs”. Now the destiny of any appointment or promotion among the highest military ranks depended on him. Lukyanov, always showing loyalty to Gorbachev, constantly tried, nevertheless, to interpret in the eurasist key the ambiguous and nebulous instructions of the new Kremlin leader. Gorbachev’s aspiration to terminate the Afghanistan conflict was in the hands of the Army, and there are some reasons to believe that Lukyanov was involved in this geopolitical action. As flexible and cautious as Gorbachev, Lukyanov, contrary to him, had a strict and clear geopolitical attitude. His purpose, as well as the purpose of the “Polar” Order, was the Great Eurasia from Mongolia up to the Mediterranean, the Pax Eurasiatica, the great continental union. Lukyanov was obliged by virtue of his position to control GRU and to supervise the General Staff, but, actually, this accurate and quiet man was not the “guardian of the messianic bolsheviks ” upon the military eurasian state within the state, but the messenger of GRU, surveilling the bolsheviks-atlantists on behalf of the Army. Being covered by his ostensibly standing on a “centre-left” position, Lukyanov realized in the Supreme Soviet a special mission, whose sense consisted in forming the parliamentary block oriented for the benefit of the secret eurasian mission.

“ Mr. Perestroyka ”

Aleksandr Nikolaevic Yakovlev already from the beginning of the ‘70s was one of the major ideologists of the open atlantism in the USSR. Dues must be given, that he started his open attacks against the patriots-eurasists already in 1974, when the positions of GRU were very strong and when Grechko already was member of the Politburo. By openely invoking the ideological pogrom of the “national-bolshevik” literature, which in those years served as a tribune for the ciphered exchange of information, ideas, concepts and projects for all patriotic eurasian lobby, Yakovlev accepted to run a definite risk. And despite intercession from Andropov and the highest circles of KGB after the publication of famous paper «Against anti-historicism», the manifest of russophobe and anti-patriotic atlantism, he nevertheless had to be sent away from Russia. The truth was that KGB had decided to turn “poison into medicine” and to use Yakovlev's envoy in Canada for activating an espionage atlantist network. According to the informations collected by Jean Parvulesco in his report The GRU Galaxy, in Ottawa, where Yakovlev was sent afterwards, he entered into contact with David Golstucker, who represented at that time in the US the international interests of Israel, under the cover of his involvement in confidential negotiation with a Chicago firm linked to nuclear power engineering. Dr. David Golstucker who, as it is known, was a relevant figure not only in Israeli special services, but also directly in special services of anglo-saxon countries (this on the whole reminds of a situation characteristic also for Soviet KGB), elaborated together with Yakovlev the atlantist strategy of the future perestroyka. This fact is so well-known in the West, that Yakovlev's name there is just “Mr. Perestroyka”. So already for the second time in history, practically the same figures prepared for a desperate, complex, dangerous and capturing geopolitical duel. Once before, during the Prague spring, Goldstucker, agent of the“Dancing Death”, suffered a crushing defeat from GRU - from the collected, clever, brilliant and courageous servants of the Order of Eurasia, general Shtemenko and marshal Ogarkov. The same Goldstucker ten years after prepared his revenge. This time GRU and Soviet General Staff must be attacked on their own territory, instead of “neutral” Czechoslovakia. And this time Goldstucker hoped not for the slow NATO with its huge, terrible, but in some situations useless nuclear arsenal. Now the major destructive weapon of the resident of planetary atlantism - Goldstucker - should become the swollen “Mr. Perestroyka”, the brand-new tactical weapon of the Order of the Red Ass, hope of the atlantic battle orders, captain of the occult Anglo-Saxon “spetsnaz”, sent from Ottawa behind the lines of the Eurasist opponent.

Between false alternatives

The true logics of perestroyka, that is the logics of the cyclical manoeuvring of the super-uncertain Gorbachev between two poles – a vivid reminder the course of illness with manic-depressive psychoses - as a matter of fact remained completely incomprehensible until the same August putsch, for the reason that very few guessed the true role of Anatoliy Lukyanov. Such conspiracy resulted, eventually, in the catastrophe of the eurasian lobby. The atlantic authors of the anti-imperial project of perestroyka resorted in this case to a traditional method - the creation of a pseudo-opposition, i.e. the substitution of a false “conservative” pole to the real one. Since the true enemies of the atlantists were not simply nationalists, but “ nationalists of an imperial, continental kind ”, “continentalists”, it is natural that the pseudo-opposition to the open atlantism of “Mr. Perestroyka” should be anything but eurasist. Following this logics the people from the Atlantic Order, with the active involvement of KGB, created parallel and consequently false poles. These poles were:
1) “communists - conservatives”. Their symbols were Yegor Ligachev and then Ivan Polozkov (both of them at some moment vanished as smoke, and this is not surprising, as their opposition was generally not based on any principles, and besides was a centuries old and well-known set-up).
2) “patriots - nationalists”. This movement was created through the active involvement of KGB, which projected chauvinistically a judeophobe position on marginal groupings of sincere but short-sighted patriots, thus setting up a special algorithm of “patriotic movement”, unable to cause any serious harm to the more and more legalized atlantist lobby.
3) “national-bolsheviks”. This current was more interesting and stood close to the conceptions of the eurasist lobby, but, thanks to the efforts of KGB, the sense of measure here was lost and the “national-bolshevik”conception assumed a repelling, grotesque and extremist character - both in the sense of an excessive accentuation of “leninism”, and in the sense of excessive judeophobia.
4) finally, the highest ruse of the atlantist KGB was to promote KGB itself as an opposition to the “democrats” - and this course too worked, since even to open employees of “Lubyanka” the “patriots” referred with definite trust, and even with some hope.
And at this time KGB detachments arranged the atlantist revolutions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, staged the show of repression in Romania, broke the Berlin wall, betraid Honecker, threw off Zhivkov, helped the separatists in the Baltic Republics and Caucasus, and as a culmination of their atlantist triumph, prepared the theatrical putsch in August 1991!
So “the most elusive man” with a characteristic mark on his front plied between “Mr. Perestroyka” and Anatoliy Lukyanov, but exteriorly it seemed, that his second pole was not at all Lukyanov, but someone different, more odious, more scandalous, more showy, but really either a completely insignificant figure, or a clear straw-man. GRU and the Army with expectation and impatience looked at Anatoliy Lukyanov. Yes, to some changes - end of the insensate war, reduction of intercontinental arms, foreign policy steps towards Germany, Japan and China – the eurasists could pay compliments. Even the dedication to the theme of the “common european home” in the “Polar” Order could be easily interpreted in the key, since this doctrine was drawn from the geopolitical arsenal of that eurasist opposition within the SS to which belonged Axmann, Hildebrandt, Doleschallek, Kaufmann etc. (typologically linked with the Order of Eurasia in GRU). But the ruin of the Union, the attacks against the Army, the attempts to involve the Army in nationalist and micro-territorial conflicts, the suicidal policies in the Baltic Republics, shattering the last remains so valuable for the eurasists of the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact, the promotion of uncontrolled mafia and open criminals into the political arena, and many other things led GRU in a blind alley. But Anatoliy Lukyanov remained in the shadow. Cautiously, consequently and step by step he prepared a back strike, decisive and final. Up to last moment it seemed that everything could be saved in a moment, and then the eurasist lobby would use all the positive geopolitical sides of “perestroyka”, having done with “Mr. Perestroyka” and his accomplices, who from then on were all “burned”, and the new great era would begin, free from the communists, atlantists and servants of the “Dancing Death”, the era of Eurasia, Cosmic Eurasia, era of Sacral Solar Continent, Era of the East. But has burst August 1991.

Putsch, culmination of the occult war

Deputy Obolenskiy, member of the comission of inquiry of business about the affair of GKChP [Gosudarstvenniy Komitet po Chrezvichaynomu Polozhenyu; State Committe for the State of Emergency within the PCUS], a few time after the putsch made a strange declaration to the mass media: «The truth concerning the events of August 1991, probably, will be found out only by our descendants one hundred years from now». What terrible secret touched Obolenskiy, investigating the history of putsch? From the point of view of geopolitical conspirology, the argument here can be only one: he had touched materials linked to the occult war of two Orders behind the scenes of power, to the mysterious opposition of Order of Eurasia and Order of Atlantic. Only in this case, the declaration of deputy Obolenskiy acquires sense, and his reliance on safety of secret becomes clear. The August putsch was (or should be, on premeditation of his authors) the culmination of geopolitical opposition, the decisive moment of the invisible war. The order of Atlantic could not ignore that the eurasists prepared for winter 1991-1992 years a definite operation, which should result in introducing a military regime on the whole USSR territory under pretext of stabilizing the social, political and economic situation. They also perfectly understood that the ideological attitude of the eurasist military direction would have been non-communist and patriotically oriented, but without the “anti-semitism”, xenofobia and “panslavism” traditional for KGB. In other words, the military direction promised to be stable, liberal in the economic field, geopolitically correct, exempt from terrorist kurtosises peculiar to bolshevik forms of dictatorship. Besides, the Eurasian Military Regime, Roman-imperial Regime, had every chance to be popular to the highest degree, as it would refrain from “communist dogmatism” and “marxist utopism”, on the one hand, but on the other - it would be quite responsive to the natural inclination to hierarchy, to discipline, to centralization and communitarianism, sociality, “integrality” (in Khomyakov's sense) of all true Eurasian ethnoses. The patriotism of the Military Regime should have been imperial, instead of “russian” and “nationalist” in the narrow sense of this concept. All this made such perspective not only unacceptable, but fatal and deathly to the atlantist lobby inside the USSR, and also for world-wide atlantist mondialism. Despite of the huge destructions caused to the country by the agents of the “Order of the Dancing Death”, by “Mr. Perestroyka”, together with his comrade from KGB, Shevardnadze (accursed, by the way, by his own Georgian people), the Order of the Eurasists knew how to use this negative situation to the benefit of their own position, since in the secret GRU departments there worked worthy followers of the great russian strategists - Shtemenko and Ogarkov. The geopolitical duel with Goldstucker could end with a defeat for this skilled and active representant of the Atlantic Order. The major problem for the atlantists was to prevent the forming of a war situation in the USSR, to which, it appear, the logics of events was leading. Just to this purpose the August putsch was organized.

Miscalculations of marshal Yazov

The major mistake of the eurasists in August 1991, and especially the personal mistake of marshal Yazov, was to trust the head of KGB Kryuchkov. It was a strategic trap. KGB already for many years had tried to create for its agents an image of “patriots-nationalists”, using the peripheral mass of the “uninitiated” employees sincerely believing in the “jewish-masonic” conspiracy and considering themselves as “nationalists” or “national-bolsheviks”. On the other hand, the fraudulent manoeuvres were made also at the top of power - both Chebrikov and Kryuchkov aimed at solidarizing with the eurasist-military against “cosmopolitans-democrats”. (As a matter of fact, the whole democratic movement was of course organized just by the KGB, and further, it was even more artificial and “built-on” than the patriotic movement, since for the Russian and other originally eurasian ethnoses it is much more natural to support the “right”, than the “left” - this is an historical constant). To conceal this double game, the atlantists from KGB created myths about the “jewish-masonic wing”of KGB (as such were called, in particular, its Moscow branch as a counterweight to the Union’s, and later the KGB of Yeltsin’s RSFSR [Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic], etc.). As a matter of fact, KGB was busy with sharply anti-eurasian activities, destroying the structures of the eurasian network in the countries of Eastern Europe, overthrowing “soil” and anti-atlantist regimes (such as the Ceausescu regime, which, by the way, was always oriented towards an eurasian continental block and hated the atlantist “sell-out” of the USSR government - see Claude Carnou “Again on the East” in the review Crisis, n. 5 April 1990, France). Anyway, the GKChP affair plainly proves that some rather unclear moves of Kryuchkov succeeded in convincing some eurasists - marshal Yazov and Oleg Balkanov - to hurry with the forming of a war situation, and to accept the help from KGB, on condition that it took distance from its atlantism and stood, in the end, on the side of the Army and ready to act against the “democrats”. Probably, Kryuchkov had stipulated some conditions also for his organization, as in case of a rigorous military eurasist regime the KGB structures of course would be erased - at least, in their old, party-terrorist, mondialist and atlantist kind. What arguments the agents of Order of Eurasia reported to marshal Yazov, we do not know yet. It is obvious only that the signing of the Novo-Ogarev Agreements had not the slightest relation to this. Everything could be changed once again, annulling any “paper” which had come out from under the pen of casual people, not so clearly realizing the geopolitical situation, led by the extremely evasive “Gorby”- delivered to this position not for taking decisions, but for “masking”, and by virtue of a mark of definitely occult “election”. What must have said Kryuchkov to marshal Yazov, for the latter – essentially devoted to the strategy of the Eurasian Order - to jeopardize the destiny of a multi-millennial occult opposition, the destiny of the continent, destiny of the Eurasian Space, a destiny inevitable and, as it seemed, so close to victory? Why Yazov has chosen the chief of the most anti-eurasist body? For the moment, we have to limit ourselves to assumptions about it. And is perfectly clear that the mistake of marshal Yazov hides some terrible secret, maybe even involving any paranormal, “magic” or telepathical influence, or the effects of some special psychedelic drugs. All this is not so unbelievable, if we remember the testimonies of some GKChP members about their complete amnesya during those three fatal days. Only complete idiots could consider that people, having arrived up to the highest levels of their political, military, intelligence and “conspirological” career, can in such a decisive situation behave like irresponsible drunken tramps, that is stoplessly getting drunk and going to get over it in the city, crowded with tanks and “democratic” propagandists. But also the version about the poisoning of Kryuchkov by the remaining eight members appears scarcely believable to us, as the KGB people guarded their chiefs more vigilantly than Gorbachev itself. In the affair about the “mistakes of marshal Yazov”, probably, there took place a combination of many occult-ideological and parapsychological factors, synchronically operating. But what “weapon” this time has been used by the Atlantic Order? We shall talk about it very soon.

“Mr. Perestroyka” goes on attack

Immediately after the arrest of the members of GKChP, as always happens at the climax of conspirological and ideological efforts, the definite aspects of a conspiracy usually remaining in the shadow were overtly shown. The most open moment was the emerging on the surface of “Mr. Perestroyka” (N.Yakovlev) in the russian parliament. Naturally, his mission consisted not in notifying the “naive” deputies about the “thugs, who again could surround Gorbachev”. This speech was pronounced by “Mr. Perestroyka” as a smoke-screen. Yakovlev had come to the russian parliament with a request of arresting Lukyanov. The russian parliament, made of completely incompetent and casual people, not having any explicit geopolitical attitude and acting on casual, random and anarchist emotions in its coward lobbying, after the shock of the Moscow farce, could spoil the whole deal. Yeltsin, whether he had not received in time the information, or simply had forgotten about the most important thing (the mental condition of the Russian president also causes to believe that he too was under some parapsychological influence, as remarked not only by european conspirologists, but also by many western journalists - in the beginning explaining Yeltsin’s complete unadequacy by his belonging to the “extreme right”, but later forced to resort to the version about occult or psychotrope influences), concentrated his crushing polemics against the eight, having forgotten about the principal task.
Yakovlev came to the “white house” (more reminding in that moment a “yellow house ”) to demand the arrest of Lukyanov. Yeltsin compliantly repeated for “Mr. Perestroyka” the famous phrase - “behind the conspiracy of the eight there was Lukyanov, he is major ideologist of the conspiracy ”.

Lukyanov and the ritual dwell on marshal Akhromeev’s tomb

Lukyanov – here is the secret explanation of the August putsch. Lukyanov it was necessary to remove at any cost. Just in his hands the threads of the eurasist occult structure were concentrated. Since 1987 just Anatoliy Lukyanov was the protector of the “Polar” Order, Eurasian Order, hope of Eternal Imperial Rome. The putsch was just aimed at him. But Lukyanov himself - alone among the eurasists, one way or another linked with the GKChP affair - had not yielded to Kryuchkov’s instigation and was legally absolutely not implicated in the putsch. Trying to simply involve him too was impossible. This was an unpreviewed and annoying miscalculation for the atlantists. Therefore Yakovlev, bypassing all legal norms, hurried in a “revolutionary way” to get Lukyanov accused by Yeltsin's stuttering lips of being the ideologist of the conspiracy (on the ground that Lukyanov really was the ideologist, but of the other conspiracy, the “Polar” conspiracy, conspiracy of the saviours of the great Continental Power, conspiracy of Eurasia against the Western Islands). But despite of the imprisonment of Lukyanov, it was nevertheless not possible to present him as the head of the conspiracy and to erase on this basis all the the eurasist agents network, all GRU secret structures. The atlantist winnesr could lift only the higher layer of “party” and military conservatives, which even so did not represent a special danger. Except for Pugo’s assassination, the most important blow to the lobby of Eurasia was the aenygmatic death of marshal Akhromeev and the subsequent strange events on his yet fresh tomb. Here it is necessary to make a short digression in the history of the Atlantic Order, and specially in the history of the medieval Order “ Minstrels of Morgana”, whose emblem was the “Dancing Death”, Dance Macabre. According to Grasset d'Orcet, who was occupied with the study of this Order, its adherents used as a hieroglyphic password the symbol of the “Revived Deadman” or “Dead leaving its tomb”. In some definite branches of this Order, dealing not so much with occult politics and geopolitics, how much with “magic” and “necromancy”, there was a ritual exhumation of corpses with symbolical and occult purpose. The whole history of death and subsequent exhumation of Akhromeev’s corpse adresses to the implication in his death’s crime of the Atlantic Order and maybe, its most dark, magic ramifications. Anyway, western conspirologists univocally associate the detail of the profanation of the marshal’s body with to the “ritual exhumation”, till now practiced in the West by the members of rather dark sects. Probably, the atlantist agents also hoped to find any secret documents hidden together with Akhromeev, or any special marks on his corpse. All this becomes more than believable, once we take into account the major role of Akhromeev in the army “Polar” Order and his tight connection to Ogarkov, one of the major characters of the Eurasist Order. Anyway, after the putsch the atlantists have undertaken some resolute steps to beheading the eurasists. But after one month it became clear that their attack was wrecked, and behind their hysterical attempts urgently to complete the ruin of the state, fear and panic were also clearly visible. The order of Eurasia was not definitively erased and now comes its turn to strike back. Some definite signs allow to consider that this blow should be the Last.

Metaphysics of the occult war

The opposition of Order of Atlantic to Order of Eurasia through the centuries and millennia, being vested in the most various forms, is in a sense the major conspirological content of history, the history of great planetary passions, history of peoples and religions, races and traditions, spirit and flesh, war and peace. In the confrontation between two Orders one must not see the simplified moralistic image of the fight between Good and Evil, Truth and Lie, Angels and Demons, and so on. This fight of two opposite types of world-view, two metaphysical pictures of Life, two paths to the cosmos and through the cosmos, two great Principles, not only opposing each other, but also indispensable to each other - since on this pair all cosmogonic and cosmological process, all cyclical course of human history is based.
The order of Eurasia, Order of the Male Principle, Sun, Hierarchy, is the projection of the Mount, Apollon, Ormudz, Solar Christ-in-Glory, Christ-pantocrator. Eurasia as the Earth of East is the Earth of Light, Earth of Paradise, Earth of Empire. The Earth of Hope. The Earth of the Pole.
The order of the Atlantic, Order of the Female Principle, Moon, Orgiastic Equality is the projection of the Egyptian Seth, Python, Ahriman, Christ Suffering, Human, immersed in the metaphysical despair of the lonely Getsemane prayer. The Atlantic, Atlantis as the Earth of the West, is the Earth of the Night, the Earth of the “pit of exile” (as an islamic sufi said), Centre of Planetary Skepticism, Earth of the Great Metaphysical Spleen.
Both Orders have the deepest ontological and sacred roots, and have the metaphysical reasons to be what they are. To consider any of these Orders as an historical accident means to deny to the secret logics of human and cosmic cycles. The choice of a geopolitical path mirrors the choice of a metaphysical path, esoterical path, the path of the Spirit across the universe. Therefore any warranties do not exist, therefore it is impossible, strictly speaking, to affirm that Eurasia is good and Atlantic is bad, that Rome is saint and Carthago is wicked, nor the contrary. But everyone called by the Order should commit a resolute step and serve the Order. The laws of our world are such that the outcome of the Great Battle is not predetermined, the outcome of the drama “Eurasia against Atlantis” depends on the totality of planetary solidarity of all those called on to serve, all the soldier of geopolitics, all the secret agents of Land and the secret agents of Sea. The outcome of the cosmological war of Apollon with the Snake Python depends on each of us, whether we understand it or not.

The end of Times

All traditional religious and metaphysical doctrines describe the End of Times, the end of the cycle as the Last Battle, as the Final battle. The various traditions differently treat this conflict, and sometimes what in one tradition is represented as “the party of Evil”, becomes in other tradition “the party of Good ” and vice-versa. For example, for the orthodox christians at the end of Times judaism is considered as the religion of the Anti-Christ, and for jews “ the goi-christians from the northern country of king Gog ” act as a concentration of escatological Evil. Hinduists consider that the Tenth Avatar, the one who should come at the end of the cycle, will erase “Buddhists”, and Buddhists believe that the Buddha of Forthcoming Times, the Savior Maytreya will appear among a buddhist community etc. All this does not testify about the relativity of the division of roles in the Last Battle, but about the impossibility to early choose a self-evident Good, to secure oneself and obviously to take part in the escatological battle on the “right” side. Therefore it is said about the Last Times “even the chosen ones will be tempted”. The choice of one of two escatological “parties” cannot be something formal. It is a choice of the Spirit, it is the Highest Hazard, it is the Great Metaphysical Drama. For this reason nothing in the reality of the escatological epoch - and many traditional and religious authorities affirm that we now live just in such epoch - can serve as absolute negativeness or absolute positiveness. And it is especially silly to absolutize any political form, equating it to “Absolute Evil” or to “Absolute Good”. Even the beginning of the true choice stands far beyond the border of exterior political ideologies, beyond the border of the relative dividing between democrats, fascists and communists. The true choice begins at a level of geopolitics and ascends further on “along a prophetical helix” (according to the expression of Jean Parvulesco) to the abysses of Mysticism, Metaphysics, Gnosis, to the abysses of the Incomprehensible Divine Secret. Eurasian Order and Atlantic Order are the last secret of exterior, human, public history. As a matter of fact, inside these Orders there are many other mysterious and closed spheres linked with Pure Metaphysics. But anyway, the true, rigorous and conscientious escatological fight begins just with Order of Eurasia or Order of Atlantic. Even not diving deep into the ultimate secrets, simply to work in an Order is already enough to be an active, called and elected participant of the Great Drama.

Endkampf

The German word “Endkampf” (“Final Battle”, “Battle of the End”) well expresses the essence of the modern planetary situation. Escatological motives, the motives of the End of Times, penetrate not only religious and mystical movements, but also immediate politics, economy, daily life. In Israel, since 1962 devout jews live in a special “final Time”, in the “time of the Messiah”. The US aspire to establish on the planet a special New World Order. European mondialist Jacques Attali preaches for the coming of the last phase of a special Trade Regime. Islamic peoples (especially shi'ites) expect in the near future the incoming Mahdi, the hidden Imam. Hinduists are assured of the rapid termination of Kali-Yuga, the Dark Century. There is a revival of racist escatologism on behalf of world national-socialist movements. In the Christian communities prophesies ever more circulate about the Last Pope (Flos Florum) for the roman catholics and about the Last Patriarch for the orthodoxes. Lamaists are sure that the present Dalai Lama will be the last. China has hardened in mystical expectation. Soviet communism fell suddenly and unexpectedly. All these signs tell us about the beginning of the Endkampf, about the beginning of the Last Battle. And in the eschatological context even the words of the bolshevik songs «It is our last and decisive fight» sound as a disturbing revelation, as a hint to the planetary Endkampf.

Order and “ours”

The term “ours” [nashi] was not often used in a global geopolitical context. The famous German geopolitician and jurist Carl Schmitt insisted on the necessity of introducing the concept “ours” for explaining the geopolitical self-determination of a nation, state or ethnic block. The famous tele-reporter Aleksandr Nevzorov realised it in practice in a series of broadcastings. “Ours” has become today in the Russian Empire an univocally eurasist concept, including not only Russians or Slavs, but also Tartars, Turks, Ugro-Finns etc., realizing a genetic connection to imperial space and imperial idea. In practice Nevzorov's “ours” is a synthetic definition of native born Eurasians, imperial autochtones, masters, by right of culture and birth, of the great land. It is indicative that the atlantists in Russia do not use this word (it is logical, for here they are among “not ours” [ne-nashi], another's; for them, their own “ours” live beyond the border of the continent, on a distant and dismal “Island”). But for Jean Parvulesco, who too made of this term a fundamental geopolitical and conspirological concept, the concept “ours” is even more all-inclusive (though he willingly ranks himself also to Nevzorov's “ours”). Jean Parvulesco identifies the concept “ours” with the whole network of partizans of the Great Continental Bloc - from Japan to Belgium, from China to France, from India to Spain, from Iran to Germany, from Russia to Italy. “Ours” for Parvulesco is a synonym of the Eurasist Order itself with all branches and groups, finding themselves, consciously or not, obviously or secretly, in the zone of its geopolitical, mystical and metaphysical influence. “Ours” is the united invisible escatological front of the Continent, Front of the Land, Front of the Absolute East, whose western province is Europe, “our” Europe, Europe opposed to “West”, the Europe of Tradition, Soil, Spirit. “Ours” is both roman catholics and orthodoxes and islamists, both hinduists and taoists and lamaists, both pagans and agnostics and mystics... But only those among them who are devoted to the Continent of East, to its mysterious and unknown Destiny. Parvulesco speaks about a “parallel France”, “parallel Romania”, “parallel Germany”, “parallel Russia”, “parallel China” etc. as about a spiritual substance, as about the invisible spiritual measure of real countries secretly united into the only “parallel Eurasia”, “Eurasia of Pure Spirit”. “Ours” are the soldiers of “parallel Eurasia”, heroes of Absolute East, all of them serving through the occult logics of the “prophetical helix ” the One and Only Idea, Purpose, Hidden Principle. Once the German conservative-revolutionary, nationalist, russophile and eurasist Arthur Moeller van den Bruck said, rephrasing Khomyakov (“the Church is One”): “There is only one Reich (one Empire), as well as there is only one Church”. It is the Reich of “ours”, the Church of “ours”, it is “our” Empire and “our” Church.

Hour of Eurasia

While we find ourselves in Eurasia, while we speak in its name, while we remain linked with its mysterious, mystical flesh - Eurasia belongs to us, is “ours”. Despite of all persecutions on the part of the atlantists, despite of all the effectiveness of their blasting strategy, despite the heavy and deep “sleep” of whole areas and whole peoples there living, despite the domination of the agents of the Atlantic Order on continental politics, on continental culture, on continental industry - the “decolonization” process is relentless. Only, we should refrain from falling into archaism, defending any obsolete cultural, social or political forms; we should not be simple conservatives, conservatives for inertness. The order of Eurasia is the total Conservative Revolution, this Great Arousing of geopolitical consciousness, it is the path of the Vertical, instead of the snake-like oscillations from left to right or attempts to move backwards. The order of Eurasia is the cruel and open duel with the strong and clever Opponent, with the Order of Seth, Red Ass, Order of the “Dancing Death”. We should throw the servants of the Ocean into the Ocean, we should ship the agents of the “Island” back to their “Island”. We should pull out from the political, cultural, national flesh of Continent those who betraid “ours”, who betraid our ideals, our concerns. Yes, our enemies have their truth. Yes, we should respect their deep metaphysical choice, we should fix our eyes into their Secret, into the secret “Pit of the West ”. But this should not influence our resoluteness, our rage, our cold and passionate Cruelty. We shall be indulgent only then, when our Continent will be free, when the last atlantist will be dropped into Salt Waters, in the elements symbolically belonging to the Egyptian god with the Crocodile face. Judging by definite signs, “the Time is near”. Endkampf, Last Battle should burst very soon. Are you ready, gentlemen of the “Polar Order”? Are you ready, soldiers of Eurasia? Are you ready, wise strategists of GRU? Are you ready, great peoples having made your bet by the fact itself of your birth?
Already tolls the decisive Hour of Eurasia...
The GREAT WAR OF CONTINENTS already approaches its last point.

Moscow, February 1991 - January 1992

THE GEOPOLITICAL PROJECT OF PAX EURASIATICA

Metaposos — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:45:09 CST

THE GEOPOLITICAL PROJECT OF PAX EURASIATICA

RUSSIA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
by Nikolaj von Kreitor

For the period after the end of Second World War, the United States gained increasing prominence as the leading power of imperialist reaction, taking Germany’s place in this respect... And its ruling class managed, particularly during the imperialist era, to have the democratic forms so effectively preserved that by democratically legal means, it achieved a dictatorship of monopoly capitalism at least as firm as that which Hitler set up by tyrannical procedures...And this democracy could, in substance, realize everything sought by Hitler.
Gyorgy Lukacs(1)

Resoluteness does not first take cognizance of Situation and put that Situation before itself; it has put itself into that Situation already. As resolute, Dasein is already taking action.
Martin Heidegger(2)
We don’t have enemies in the East.
Bismarck

The concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political. The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and foe, wrote Carl Schmitt.(3) The affirmation of the political is a recognition of the reality of the political and thus a recognition and identification of the foe. Only by affirmation of the political in an act of decision, which by necessity is a meta-existential choice, can a nation as a collective entity assert its own sovereignty and thus political future.

In the aftermath of the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991 which reduced the former Great Power to a state without politics and thus to a landmass in chaos, a sort of a Weimar-republic of the 90-ties, and in the face of the new American expansionism, the ideological discussion and search for viable political orientation within the former Soviet Union has intensified. Professor Nikolaj Zagladin pointed recently that the competition between the Soviet Union and the United States during the period of the Cold War must be characterized as a real war during which actual military power had been used to a very limited extend- mostly in proxy wars. This was so not because of a lack of will but because of the nature of the military technology— the existence of nuclear weapons made the war impossible. The nature of the war between the United States and the Soviet Union, known as the Cold War, was to its essence technology specific. But the Cold War was in fact the Third World War, claims Zagladin.(4) To a similar conclusion comes Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to President Carter, and presently one of the major ideologists of the «Expansionists of 1991», who wrote, paraphrasing von Clausewitz, that «the Cold War can be defined as warfare by other (non-lethal) means. Nonetheless, warfare it was. And the stakes were monumental. Geopolitically the struggle, in the first instance, was for control over the Eurasian landmass and, eventually, even for global preponderance».(5) Obviously the Soviet Union gave up much more in the settlement than the United States, agreed to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, although the military arm of American domination of Western Europe, NATO, continues to exist and is steadily expanding. Soviet Union unilaterally reduced its engagement in the Third World while the United States escalated her interventionist foreign policies. Soviet Union even supported the war in Iraq, a war that to its essence was a war for the control of the oil in the Persian Gulf and thus a war against the national interest not only the Soviet Union, but also of other European countries; a war that made it less likely that an accommodation between the Soviet Union and Western European countries could be reached. Soviet Union even agreed to withdraw its military forces from Germany while the United States intends to permanent her occupation of Germany, a fact that was clearly stated by President Bush during the November 7-8, 1991 NATO summit meeting in Rome. And that brings us to the post Cold War settlement, its consequences for Russia and for the international order. A critical observer will characterize this settlement as analogous to a Second Treaty of Versailles. Zbigniew Brzezinski point out that as a consequence of the Second Treaty of Versailles, the defeated Russia is passing into American receivership. «This is an outcome historically no less decisive and no less one-sided than the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, or of Imperial Germany in 1918. Unlike the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War in a grand religious compromise, cuius regio, cuius religio , does not apply here. Rather, from a doctrinal point of view, the outcome is more similar to 1815 or 1945; the ideology of the losing side has itself been repudiated. Geopolitically the outcome is also suggestive of 1918, the defeated empire is in a process of dismantlement. As in previous termination of war there was a discernible moment of capitulation, followed by postwar political upheavals in the losing state. That moment came most probably in Paris on November 19, 1990. At a conclave marked by ostentatious displays of amity designed to mask the underlying reality, the erstwhile Soviet leader, Michael Gorbachev, who had led the Soviet Union during the final stages of the Cold War, accepted the conditions of the victors by describing in veiled and elegant language the unification of Germany that had taken place entirely on Western terms as a ‘major event’. This was the functional equivalent of the act of capitulation in the railroad car in Compiegne in 1918 (the capitulation of Germany) or on the U.S.S. Missouri in August 1945 (the capitulation of Japan).»(6) George Kennan remarked that «the collapse of the Soviet system amounted to the unconditional surrender we envisaged-a voluntary one if you will, but surrender nevertheless.»(7) And as a result the United States is attempting to impose on Russia terms of surrender stated in the National Security Council Memorandum 20/1 (NSC 20/1) which already in 1948 defined the American war aims in the Cold War and envisioned a post Cold War settlement tailored after the Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918(8) , leading to the partition of the Soviet Union, disarmament, destruction of the national economy of Russia and establishment of American protectorate over large parts of the territory of the former Soviet Union: (...)Such terms would have to be harsh ones and distinctly humiliating...They might well be something along the lines of the Brest-Litovsk settlement of 1918...(We) would have to demand:
a. Direct military terms (surrender of equipment, evacuation of key areas, etc) designed to assure military helplessness...
b. Terms designed to produce a considerable economic dependence on the outside world.(9) NSC 20/1 stated further that the unified geopolitical space of the Soviet Union—the «fortress Heartland»—had to be destroyed by partitioning of the country and inclusion of above all the Baltic States and Ukraine into a Shatterbelt of U.S.A controlled territory.

Wolfram Henrieder has pointed out that de Gaulle wanted the German issue solved- the unification of Germany, because it constituted a decisive cause and justification for American continuous military presence in Europe, a cause that would be eliminated with the solution of the German question, leading to the dissolution of the Cold War military alliances and speeding American withdrawal from Europe(10) , creating an emancipated Europe to the Urals. «The creation of unified Europe requires political decision which is tantamount to a will of independence... A united Europe, in this sense, could be build only in opposition to America.»(11) By her dominant position within the alliance America has kept Europe in a straitjacket, has made her fearful of speaking in her own voice. Since Europe has lost its elan and has borrowed an American personality, it must be forced to reassume an identity. As this identity does not exists, it must be created. If Europe can be roused only by instilling an apprehension over American hegemony, then this must be done for the sake of Europe’s survival, claimed de Gaulle for whom a truly emancipated Europe was an America-free Europe.

From this perspective Gorbachev’s foreign policy and the geopolitics of implosion of Perestrojka negatively effected the possibilities for emancipation of Europe. In the ongoing political debate in Russia but also in France, it has been asserted that the defeat of the Soviet Union begins to appear as a defeat for Europe as well.

Lenin once characterized the original Treaty of Versailles in the following words:
“What is the Versailles Treaty? This unheard of, predatory peace, enslaves tens of millions of people, including the most civilized. This is not a treaty but dictates imposed by robbers with a knife in hand on a defenseless Germany. Germany has been deprived from all her colonies by virtue of the Versailles Treaty. Turkey, Persia and China have been enslaved. Seventy percent of the world population live in conditions of enslavement...And that is why this international order, which rests on the Versailles Treaty, rests in reality on a volcano."(12) And while Russia at the moment is in the same predicament as Germany after the W.W.I, the predatory New World Order, proclaimed by President Bush and implemented by the present Clinton administration, also rests on a volcano.
The intensifying confrontation of Russia with the dictates of the New World Order has led to intensive ideological debate about the future of Russia. This debate has resulted in a renewed interest for the writings of the prominent German jurist Carl Schmitt whose book, “The Concept of the Political”, has already been translated into Russian and published in the sociological magazine Voprosy Sotsiologij.(13) The known Russian politician and chief editor of the influential magazine Elementy (Elements) Alexander Dugin must be credited with the first comprehensive introduction of the works of Carl Schmitt in the essay “Carl Schmitt- Five Lessons for Russia”, published in the Journal of Russian Writers ‘Nash Sovremennik’ (Our Contemporary)(14) and with the creative applications of his writing to the contemporary political and ideological chaos in Russia. “For Russia the writing of Schmitt are of special interest and significance because of his brilliant analysis of state of emergency and exceptional situations in contemporary political reality and the necessity of a decision to preserve the national existence of people. ..People exists politically only if they constitute an independent political community/entity and only if they as an entity oppose other political entities in order to preserve its understanding of the cultural specificity of its own community...The theory of exceptional circumstances and with it related theme of decision are of paramount importance for us today, because we are now in such historical juncture of the history of Russian people and Russian state in which the state of emergency has become a natural state of our nation, permeating and constituting the Being of our nation...We Russians must discover and understand our national essence and existence because we live in a time of emergency which demands a act of collective existential choice, an act of supreme decision.”(15) Here one can see a Heideggerian motif- the political identifies the essence and existence of community; it is the empirical Russian nation which in a time of national emergency must become fully political in an act of self-choice and decision and thus choose itself and its own historical destiny.(16) The act of self-choice presupposes a nation that has become political because only the political being of Russia gives existential meaning to the friend-enemy antithesis, what does not politically exist cannot consciously decide(17) , political unity is grounded on political existence. Political sovereignty is an existential question because it concerns the resolution of an existential conflict. Not only does every politically-existing people decide on the question of its own political existence and any possible danger to it; it decides also on whether an existential question actually exists- a question which is political by its very nature. Since for politically-existing people there is always the possibilities of an existential conflict, the question of sovereignty, i.e. the ultimate existential decision, always remains open.(18) «Every existing political unity has its value and existential justification not in the rightness or usefulness of norms but in its existence. Juridically considered, what exists as apolitical force has value because it exists. From this stems its ‘right to self-preservation’, the presupposition of all further considerations; it seeks above all to maintain its existence , it protects its existence, its integrity, its security, and its constitution - all existential values»(19) Carl Schmitt points out that «as long people exists in the political sphere, it must itself make use of the distinction between friend and enemy, at the same time reserving it for extreme conjunctures which it itself judges as such. This is where the essence of its political existence lies. From the moment it lacks the capacity or the will to use this distinction, a people ceases to exist politically...If the people should no longer have the strength or the will to continue in the political sphere, this is not the end of politics in the world. It is only the end of weak people...If the state refuses or is unable to make a decision in an exceptional situation, it inevitable runs the risk that other forces will make one in its place and establish their norms.»(20) Building on this theme Alexander Dugin sees the elements of will, decision and time intertwined in the quest for historical existence of Russia: «Decisionism not only amplifies and focuses on the state of emergency and the exceptional circumstances, but it is also a defense reaction against those circumstances: in the moment of historical decision for authentic national future, the people and the nation actualize their past and decide their future in a dramatic mobilization of the present. The present then becomes the focal point and synthesis of three qualitative characteristics of time: its source, i.e. the past when people entered into a historical existence, the will of the people directed toward the future, and the political self-assertion of the historically existing people in an act of decision which at the same time is an act of authenticity, in the present. In the supreme mobilization of the decision the historically existing Russian people reveals, recaptures and mobilizes its timeless historical uniqueness and identity. Therefore the political and historical future of Russian people is build on understanding and affirmation of its historical past...

If the Russian people can self-assert themselves and their historical choice in this fateful and dramatic juncture, and if the Russian people are able to reveal and designate friends and enemies, recapturing from the flow of history its political self assertion, then the supreme political decision of the Russian people would be an authentic, historical and existential decision , an affirmation of thousand years of history of Russian people and the Russian state. If on the other hand political decisions will be taken by others, i.e. by the United States in the guise of the insidious ideology of pseudo universalism, which the United States is in the process of establishing as the only legitimate ideology in the New World Order, then our future will be un-Russian, i.e. the future will cease to exist for us. The historical Being of Russian people, Russian state and the Russian nation will became a Being without a future and thus a non-Being. Thus also Russian past will loose its meaning, will dissipate into nothingness: the historical drama of Russian history in the post-Gold War period will became a tragedy of submission under the dictates of the American New World Order, a tragedy of annihilation of Russian future».(21)
«Past, present, and future are existential characteristics, and thus render possible fundamental phenomena such as understanding, concern and determination. This opens the way for the demonstration of historicity as a fundamental existential determination.»(22) Alexander Dugin emphasizes that the essence of a nation’s being-in-the world is a hermeneutical process of questioning and problematization of a crisis situation, a state of emergency. The concept of political existence of the Russian nation is actualized in a time of radical disintegration and regression, a time of emergency and outer and inner danger which creates awareness of being situated in a crises which must take on a political form. The understanding of the political roll of Russia in contemporary world after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is a power to grasp the nation’s possibilities for being, which by necessity not only requires a disclosure of the nation’s concrete potentialities for being, in a sense of preserving itself and maintaining its own authenticity, but also the revealment of the sources for an inauthentic national existence. This revealment presupposes the identification of the foe which in the process of a national self-understanding becomes manifest; the hermeneutical circle thus closes - the reached understanding leads to resoluteness and demands a political decision on the part of the Russian nation;(23) because the potentiality for authentic national Being remains a mere potentiality unless accompanied by political decisionism. It is the decision to choose itself and thereby to oppose the foe and thus become political, which is the supreme political act of the nation. Those are the issues that are entertained in the most recent issues of Elementy (Elements), the ideological organ of the Russian opposition, dedicated to geopolitical discourse and ideological alternatives in the post-Cold War Russia, a period in which in the words of Aaron Friedberg, Professor in political sciences in Princeton, « the United States has emerged as a single, unchallenged ‘Great Satan’, against whom all ideological energies must be mobilized». The magazine is published by the Center for Special Meta-Strategical Studies in Moscow and beside Alexander Dugin, who is the publisher, lists among its co-editors the editor of the most important opposition newspaper Zavtra (formely Den’), Alexander Prochanov, the New European Right’s ideologists Alain de Benoist (editor of the French magazines Neuvelle Ecole, Elements, Krisis), Robert Steuckers (editor of the Belgian magazines Orientations, Synergies Europeennes and Vouloir) the Italian geopolitician Claudio Mutti, the Serbian geopolitician Dragosh Kalajic, as well as the controversial Russian politician and member of the former Parliament, colonel Victor Alsknis.(25) The interesting issues contain a translation of Carl Schmitt’s essay on “Nomos and the principle of Grossraum”, Karl Haushofer’s work on “Continental geopolitical unity” as well as contributions of authors such as Alain de Benoist and the Austrian general Heinrich Jordis von Lochhausen, the foremost theoretician of contemporary geopolitics and advocate of European liberation from American occupation. Alexander Dugin must be credited with both political imagination and ideological creativeness. He introduces a new vocabulary of resistance. In the tradition of a true iconoclast he identifies not only the foe of Russia and, in the future, of Europe— the United States , but also exposes the most pervasive ideological mystification— Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts— namely the Myth of American Democracy and its claim of pseudo-universality. And finally he argues for the establishment of a new Grossraum in Europe, Pax Euroasiatica , opposing Pax Americana, and based on a coalition of Russia with Central European powers such a Germany and France—a new geopolitical continental block. In essence this concept could be described as a Monroe Doctrine for Europe which will exclude every American intervention in European affairs as well as necessitate a dissolution of NATO and withdrawal of all American military forces from European soil. A Monroe Doctrine for Europe is also a radical departure from the established American paradigm of international order- defined by Zbigniew Brzezinski as »American domination of Europe is axiomatic»(26) —,a paradigm that has been transformed into oppressive political theology and exercise of American hegemony. The relevance of Dugin’s writings as well as the magazine Elementy lies in the formulation of the geopolitical doctrine of Eurasian defense against American expansionism. The geopolitical discourse translates itself into a vision of future liberation which, according to Dugin, must become a categorical imperative for Russia’s-being-in the-world.

THE PRINCIPLE OF GROSSRAUM

The most fundamental principle in geopolitics is the principle of Grossraum formulated by Carl Schmitt in his book “Voelkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot fuer raumfremde Maechte” and seen by him as a foundation for the science of international law. A Grossraum is «an area dominated by a power representing a distinct political idea. This idea was always formulated with a specific opponent in mind; in essence, distinctions between friend and enemy would be determined by this particular political idea. As an example Schmitt cited the American Monroe Doctrine and its concept of nonintervention by foreign powers in the American Raum»(27) This is the core of the great original Monroe Doctrine, a genuine Grossraum principle, namely the union of a politically-awakened people, a political idea and, on the basis of this idea , a politically-dominant Grossraum excluding foreign intervention.(28)

According to the concept of Grossraum the national sovereignty of a country depends not only on its military power, technological development and economic base but also on the size and geographical location of its land. The sovereignty of a country depends on its geopolitical independence and self-sufficiency of the geographical region. Countries that strive to achieve sovereignty must resolve the problem of territorial self-sufficiency. The Grossraum is a geopolitically unified and economically autarchic space— a spatial power. It is a «territory with rounded-out production and consumption which, if necessary, may exist by itself within closed doors.»(29) As such it protects itself from intervention by spatially alien states and from any other potential Grossraum,(30) and above all from American «Open Door» imperialism—defined by Isiah Bowman as American version of Nazi-Germany’s Lebensraum—in its geopolitical, economical or military manifestation.
Prior to the dissolution, or as Alexander Dugin claims, subversion of the Soviet Union in 1991(31) , in the bipolar world of two Superpowers , there existed two competing Great Areas (Grossr?ume) or two opposing political blocks, each with its sphere of influence and ideology: the Atlantic Grossraum dominated by the United States and the Eurasian Grossraum dominated by the Soviet Union. The political competition between the two blocks gave a substantial latitude for autonomy and independence for countries included in the sphere of influence of the two blocks. However after 1991 a completely new world system has been created. The bipolar world landscape of two superpowers has been transformed into a mono landscape of one superpower imposing its will on the rest of the world.

«The existence of the socialist block and the Warsaw Pact was a decisively positive factor for the prospective European unity, continental integration and future sovereignty of Eurasia. The end of the bipolar world and the emergence of the unipolar New World Order, is a blow on Eurasia, a blow on the continentalism and on the future of all Eurasian countries. If Russia would not immediately start to reconstruct her Greater Area (confirmed by the Helsinki Agreement) ...she would bring to a catastrophe not only herself, but also all people on the World Island...Today Russia, situated in the heart of the Eurasian continent, represents from a geopolitical point of view Europe as a continental block. Therefore the geopolitical interests of Russia and Europe not only confluence but are identical.»(32) In order to understand the historical background of the conflict between the Atlantic Grossraum and the Eurasian Grossraum as well as Dugin's analysis of the American New World Order as a final attempt by the United States for world domination, — a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world as envisioned already by President Wilson at the end of the WWI—, a short account of geopolitical concepts is necessary.

It was the British author Halford Mackinder who in 1904 proposed the notion that the continental part of Eurasia, by virtue of its land mass and geo-strategical importance, forms the world Heartland. The power that controls the Heartland threatens the sea powers-once Great Britain, now the United States—that control the World Island— that is our planet. In 1919 he claimed the necessity for control of the Eastern Europe by the sea power. After the Versailles settlement the new Eastern European countries, concieved as exclusive sphere of influence of the sea powers, had to form a cordon sanitaire between Germany and Russia preventing the geopolitical consolidation of Eurasia. «Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island. Who rules the World Island commands the World,»(33) asserted McKinder.

In 1943 MacKinder reformulated his theory— the state that controls the Heartland will dominate the World Island.(34) At the same time McKinder acknowledged that «The Heartland is the greatest natural fortress on earth. For the first time in history it is manned by a garrison sufficient both in number and quality»(35) The American geopolitician Alfred Mahan formulated the idea that world hegemony of sea powers can be maintained by control of series of bases around the Eurasian continent. Sea powers could dominate land powers by enclosing them in. The American geopolitician Nicholas Spykman developed the concepts of MacKinder and Mahan but put the emphasis on the control of Eurasian coastal regions which he called the Rimland or Inner Ring. He maintained that the United States could assert control over the Heartland by controlling the Rimland. The Rimland can be seen as an America controlled buffer zone or a huge Cordon Sanitaire, including the NATO countries, Scandinavia, China, India and Indochina. In spite of prolonged wars—the Korean War, the occupation of Taiwan, the war in Vietnam—, the United States has never been able to fully dominate the countries of the Rimland and thus to globalize her Grossraum. The theory and practice of containment born of the Cold War—United States creating NATO, SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) and CENTO (Central Treaty Organization), putting bases surrounding the Soviet Union, maintaining puppet regimes around the world, are derived from MacKinder’s, Mahan's and Spykman’s geopolitical ideas. If Soviet Union was a fortress, «then to deal with a fortress is to surround it and seal it...This is known as containment»(36) Heartland theory stands as the first premise of the United States geopolitical doctrine and military though during the Cold War. American containment policy «represented a validation of MacKinder«(37) and acceptance of the necessity of destruction of the Hartland. NSC-68 was a statement of this primary objective of the American postwar foreign policy: world domination through destruction of the fortress Hartland— the Soviet Union—and imposition of preponderance of American power in Eurasia. Also U.S. primary foreign policy objective in the New World Order —the conquest of Eastern Europe through «inclusion» of the former Warsaw Pact countries in the military instrument of the global Monroe Doctrine— NATO, is derived from both MacKinders ideas and identical objectives in NSC-68.

One can see the similarities between MacKinder’s and Frederick Jackson Turner’s geopolitical ideas,(38) between the MacKinder’s assertion that the geopolitical dynamics inevitable will lead to a creation of one World Empire (an Anglo-Saxon) and Turner’s «frontier thesis» , defining the essence of the United States as perpetual expansionism. The merger of the Monroe Doctrine, the «Open Door» imperialism and geopolitics in the frontier-expansionist Weltanschaung which has defined the U.S. foreign policy during this century, led after the end of the W.W.II to the grand design of an American Century and an American World Empire enbracing the globe.(39) NSC 68 was a statement of strategy and tactics to achieve those objectives.

However the contraposition between the Atlantic Grossraum and the Eurasian Grossraum does have, according to Dugin, even a wider and more profound context that transcends the geopolitical power competition. In this conjunction one can recall de Gaulle objections in the past to Britain’s entry into the Common Market based on his perception of England as a type of civilization different from that of Europe . The English, as he saw it, were lacking cultural and historical identity with the Continent and were not interested in building a Europe distinct from America. «England is, in effect, insular, maritime, linked through its trade, markets and food supply to very diverse and often very distant countries. Its activities are essentially industrial and commercial, and only slightly agricultural... In short, the nature, structure and economic context of England differ profoundly from those of other States on the Continent.»(40) For Dugin the Atlantic Grossraum and the Atlanticism versus the Eurasian Grossraum and the Eurasianism represent two different paradigms of societal organization that can not be reconciled. Halford Mackinders geopolitical theories as well as Carl Schmitt’s work “Land und Meer” and to a lesser extend Oswald Spengler’s “Prussentum und Socialismus” and Werner Sombart’s “Haendler und Helden”, form here the theoretical framework. Dugin distinguishes two types of civilization: sea-oriented Atlantian and land-oriented Continental or Eurasian and sees the future rapprochement between Russia and Western European countries on the basis of the principle called Continentalism or Eurasianism, which he opposes to English and American Atlanticism. The antagonism between Atlanticism and Continentalism/Eurasianism, between a seagoing civilization and land civilization, goes back to ancient times, constituting the major tension of world history.(41) Atlanticism, exemplified by the legendary Atlantis, by ancient Carthage and by contemporary England and the United States, is characterized by the spirit of trade and profit and it values mercantilism and cosmopolitanism. Continentalism, best represented by legendary Hyperborea, and by historical Roman, German and Russian Empires, emphasizes the organic unity of people in their spiritual bonds with the earth and their fidelity to national tradition. Thus the very form of the landmass supporting a people influence the substance or their culture and national character. «In ancient history a sea power that become a symbol for sea civilization was Phoenicia-Garthage. The land civilization in opposition to Carthage was then the Roman Empire. The Punic wars reflected the irreconcilable differences between the sea-oriented and land-oriented civilizations. In modern history the Queen of Seas - Great Britain - raised as the sea pole of world politics, later to be overtaken by the United States. In the same way as Phoenicia and Carthage in the past , Great Britain used in the first place commerce, trade and colonialism as instrument for her hegemony. The geopolitical paradigm of Anglo Saxon sea orientation created a particular ‘commercial-capitalist-market’ oriented civilization, based primarily on economic and material interests and on the principles of economic liberalism. In spite of historical variation, the most common type of ‘sea civilization’ has always expressed the fundamental idea of the ‘primacy of economics over politics’. Mackinder clearly shows, that during the period of modern history ‘sea orientation’ meant Atlanticism, and today sea powers are United States and England, also the Anglo Saxon countries. In opposition to the Atlanticism stands the Eurasianism, the land based civilization. In modern history the Eurasian orientation is above all characteristic for Germany and Russia. Therefore the historical tradition of those countries has been and would be in opposition to the ideology and the geopolitical interests of the Atlanticist- the United States. Whereas Atlanticism can be equated with capitalist individualism, economic liberalism and commercial notion of imperialism, Eurasianism means communitarianism, social welfare, economic democracy , the precedence of general welfare over self-interest, of the societal ‘whole’ over the parts, and the primacy of politics over economics.»(42) Referring to the fundamental differences between the two paradigms of societal organization, Dugin projects that the world will one day witness a war between Eurasian continentalism, championed by Russia, and the global Atlanticism—the New World Order—, upheld by the United States, or, as Alain de Benoist writes: « Eurasia against America would be the decisive battle of the future. The United States is the enemy of humankind-hostis humani generis-, the Carthage that must be destroyed.»(43)

THE NEW WORLD ORDER

The essence of the New World Order proclaimed by President Bush , and terminologically and conceptually borrowed from the lexicon of Nazi Germany, as well as Woodrow Wilson’s expansionist ideas of a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world, is a new geopolitical project to transform the world into a single Grossraum- in Carl Scmitt’s thought a new Nomos of the Earth—, dominated, controlled and orchestrated by the United States with the corollary of subversion of international law, the United Nations and the sovereignty of other countries except the United States. United Nations is bound to loose all significance, becoming a disciplined puppet and instrument of American expansionism and assertion of global jurisdiction and system of interventionism, a sort of pseudo legitimizing facade through which U.S. will unilaterally act to further her expansionist interests. What seems to be in the future is a global Latin-Americanization of the world with the United Nations reduced to a sort of OAS (Organization of American States ) , i.e. a well-behaved puppet in American hands. «It is obvious that the American concept of Atlantic Grossraum - the American New World Order - totally excludes any form of real state’s and political sovereignty on part of any other country and people. The preexisting bipolar world prior to 1991 gave incomparably more freedom and sovereignty to countries that were included in the sphere of influence of the then existing Superpowers and competing Grossr?ume. The emerging Atlantic Grossraum of the American architects of the New World Order will lead to disintegration of the very principle of state sovereignty because power suppression - by military and economic means- will become the only instrument of control.

The new situation in the world puts other countries, and in particular the countries that previously were members of the geopolitical block opposing the Atlantic Alliance, before the following alternatives: either a forced integration in the U.S. dominated New World Order— the Atlantic Grossraum— with subsequent renunciation of their sovereignty, or a creation of a new Grossraum which will be able to oppose the United States and thus will give them chance to preserve their sovereignty and cultural autonomy».(44)

History in general and U.S. behavior in particular show us that predatory countries abhor power vacuum. It is certain, and it is happened, that the United States would hasten to exploit the withdrawal of Soviet Union from the word arena and impose unilateral advantage over other countries until now protected by the balance of power and the U.S. -Soviet competition. In retrospect one may say that the end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union have gone a long way toward decreasing stability in Europe and elsewhere.

A substantial part of Alexander Dugin’s geopolitical analysis is focused on the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance , drafted under supervision of Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon’s Under Secretary for Policy, and provided to the New York Times in February of 1992,(45) and which in all respects could be called a blueprint for total domination of the world. In the 46-page classified document the Defense Department asserts America’s political and military will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe , Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union. American mission and strategy is summarized in the document as follow: «Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control , be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe , East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. There are three additional aspects to this objective: First , the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defensive areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role...

... NATO is the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs. While the United States supports the goal of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergency of European only security arrangements which will undermine NATO».(46)
The document further outlines strategies to subvert the United Nations by substituting it in reality with the United States dominated and controlled NATO and also postulates the right of the U.S. to sidestep United Nations in acting independently and unilaterally.(47) The political development since 1991 can only be described as determined implementation of the American master plan for world domination, outlined in the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance which is a mirror image of identical objectives stated in NSC-68. The document is interesting, as Dugin points out, because it allows for the obvious conclusion that the future enemies of the United States could be her former allies and that the threat that U.S. poses against the Russia now may become a threat against France, Germany and Japan tomorrow. And it is just a matter of time before the antagonism between Western European countries and U.S. will surface and articulate itself as opposition between different national interests. Despite the political transformation in Europe United States has resolved that NATO and the U.S. military presence on the continent should be a permanent geopolitical fixtures. Disbanding of the Warsaw Pact in July 1991 was not followed by the disbanding of NATO . The American alarm concerning the prospect of creation of a Franco-German joint force is understandable since such force will not only inevitably lead to assertion of sovereignty on part of European countries (48) but also to articulation of European identity and collective national interest different from that of the United States. The difference in national interest’s is emphasized by general H.J. von Lochhausen who in his article “The War in Iraq is a War Against Europe” writes: «U.S. has understood that in order to maintain its worldwide domination she must position herself against her enemies of tomorrow i.e. Japan and united Europe. U.S. has chosen to take a firm control of those oil resources on which Japan and Germany will depend in the future ...The war in Iraq was such positioning and it was made possible only because the Soviet Union was eliminated as a player on the world arena and thus also as a deterrent to American aggression. One must remember that the country that controls the oil in the Persian Gulf controls also Western Europe and Japan...And it is deeply disturbing that U.S. forced Germany and Japan to finance the war which ultimately was aimed to their weakening and control in the future».(49) To a similar conclusion comes Samir Amin who points out that »I believe that the decision to go to war in the Gulf was taken deliberately by Washington as a method of preventing the formation of ‘European bloc’ :by weakening Europe (the supply of oil now being unilaterally controlled by the United States; by revealing the essentially fragile political union of Europe...and by neutralizing Moscow».(50)

THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

I would like to examine in more detail two issues that are central to Alexander Dugin’s criticism of the New World Order namely the framework of new international law it creates and its consequences for Russia and Europe as exemplified by the war in Yugoslavia. The issue of international law can be seen in the light of Dean Acheson’s statement concerning the American concept of sources of and obligations under international law. »Much of what is called international law is a body of ethical distillation, and one must take care not to confuse this distillation with law...Further, the law trough its long history has been respectful of power, especially that power which is close to the sanctions of law...the law simply does not deal with such questions of ultimate power- power that comes close to the sources of sovereignty»(51) , and the tendency on the part of the U.S. to assert her will as the sole source of international law. In this conjunction it is interesting to recall that already de Gaulle saw at the end of the World War II in President Roosevelt’s grand design for United Nations not only America’s bid for world hegemony through creation of international body subservient to and controlled by the United States but also «a permanent system of intervention that he (Roosevelt) intended to institute by international law»(52) , a design that re-emerged and came to realization in the New Word Order. The war in Yugoslavia on the other hand is of particular importance since it has been perceived in Russia not only as a contemporary analogy to the Spanish Civil War with the U.S. assuming the role of the former fascist powers but also as a general rehearsal to what may happen to Russia in the event U.S. gains a strategic nuclear superiority. And as before during the 30-ties in Spain a number of Russians has volunteered to serve in the Serbian forces.(53) A particular alarm in Russia has caused the so called Presidential Directive 13 which outlines American plans for massive cover operations as well as outright military intervention in Russia under the familiar disguise of so called peace keeping operations in former Soviet republics and formulated with the objective to prevent any recognition of a Russian Monroe Doctrine in the former Soviet Union.(54) A starting point for the analysis of the transformation of the concept of international law must be a discussion on the nature and development of the unilaterally proclaimed Monroe Doctrine which from its very inception has been the ideological basis of American imperialism and assertion of an ever increasing extra-territorial jurisdiction. The Monroe Doctrine designated an area far exceeding the territory of the United States- The Western Hemisphere- as a Grossraum with the U.S. assuming the role of imperial power vested with absolute sovereignty in the region while depriving other countries in the same region of rights to sovereignty and self-determination.(55) U.S. unilaterally reserved for herself the right of intervention in the Western Hemisphere creating a qualitatively new form of colonialism with the right of intervention as a cornerstone for political control and domination. The essence of the Monroe Doctrine and its subsequent codification in the Rio Treaty, is the repudiation of the main principle of the United Nations Charter namely the principle of equality and sovereignty of nations on which the body of international law rests. And already Hegel knew that international law-jus gentium-presupposes and is based on sovereignty of states. In a situation where only one state in the international community is a possessor of absolute sovereignty, the international law as such can not exist- it will be the application of the domestic law of the dominating state disguised into an universal principle.(56) After the conclusion of the W.W.I, at the Paris Peace Conference, which resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and creation of the League of Nations , president Woodrow Wilson presented his Fourteen Points which proclaimed a new universalism as well as , employing what later will be called a Orwellian New Talk, the right of self-determination as a foundation for the postwar world order. At the same time his Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, wrote a memorandum explaining the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine : «In its advocacy of the Monroe Doctrine the United States considers its own interests. The integrity of other American nations is an incident, not an end. While this may seem based on selfishness alone, the author of the Doctrine had no higher or more generous motive in its declaration.»(57) United States refused to enter the League of Nations unless its "Charter incorporated the Monroe Doctrine - a demand less concerned with the right of self-determination than with American domination in the Western Hemisphere. As it turned out, even though Art. 21 of the Chapter did incorporate the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. did not join the League. In Schmitt’s view, Art. 21 symbolized the triumph of the Western Hemisphere over Europe.»(58) the grand design of President Wilson was to transform the Treaty of Versailles and its creation, the League of Nations , into a instrument of American imperialism and dominance of Europe.(59)

Of particular interest are United States fifteen reservations which did not provide for ratification but, rather, for the nullification of the Treaty. Some of those reservations form a distinct doctrinaire body concerned with the nature of U.S. obligations under international law.
1. The United States so understands and construes article 1 that in case of notice or withdrawal from the League of Nations...the United States shall be the sole judge as to whether all its international obligations and all its obligations under the said covenant have been fulfilled...

4. The United States reserves to itself exclusively the right to decide what questions are within its domestic jurisdiction and declares that all domestic and political questions relating wholly or in part to its internal affairs ...are solely within the jurisdiction of the United States and are not under this treaty to be submitted in any way either to arbitration or to the consideration of the council or of the assembly of the League of Nations, or any agency thereof, or to the decision or recommendation of any other power.

5. The United States will not submit to arbitration or to inquire by the assembly or by the council of the League of Nations, provided for in said treaty of peace, any questions which in the judgment of the United States depend upon or relate to its long-established policy, commonly known as the Monroe Doctrine; said doctrine is to be interpreted by the United States alone and is hereby declared to be wholly outside the jurisdiction of said League of Nations...

14. ..The United States assumes no obligation to be bound by any decision, report, or finding of the council or assembly arising out of any dispute between the United States and any member of the league.(60)

Those reservations express the specific American dualistic position in respect to international treaties: treaties are to be used as a vehicle for other countries to assume obligations while the U.S. does not assume any obligations.(61) Treaties were to be so designed solely to promote United States interests by securing action by foreign governments in a way deemed advantageous by the U.S. and not for the U.S. to undertake any international obligations. The purpose of this dualistic doctrine has historically been to solidify and promote American hegemonical claims. Recognizing the true nature of the pseudo-universalism of the international law created after the W.W.I which appeared not to rest on respect for existing sovereignties but was merely a pretext for complete political and economic domination by the United States, Carl Schmitt wrote that «Behind the facade of general norms of international law lies, in reality, the system of Anglo-Saxon world imperialism»(62) After the W.W.II United States needed a further disguise to unilaterally assert U.S. power and to underscore Washington’s hemispheric hegemony. It resulted in a creation and signing of the Interamerican Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed in Rio de Janeiro in September of 1947, and a subsequent pact concluded in Bogota in April of 1948, which established the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). The significance of the Rio Treaty goes beyond the formal codification of the Monroe Doctrine. First, in view of the fundamental professed principle of the Charter of the United Nation namely the principle of sovereignty and equality of member states , a regional treaty which in substance repudiates the very principle of sovereignty save for the sole sovereignty of the United States , must be seen as incompatible with the U.N. Charter. Secondly OAS became a prototype of a pseudo-international organization with a pseudo-universal ideological facade, an instrument for American interventionism in the region. And finally it must be seen as a paradigm of American concept of organization of a Grossraum in particular and World Order in general the globalization of which is the very essence of the New World Order. Or as Noam Chomsky points out « For the U.S. , the Cold War has primarily been a history of worldwide subversion, aggression and state-run international terrorism, with examples to numerous to mention. Secondarily , it has served to maintain U.S. influence over the industrial allies, and to suppress independent politics and popular activism.»(63) An additional aspect of the New World Order seems to be the U.S. repudiation of one of the most fundamental rules of international law namely that treaties must be performed in good faith; the rule of “pacta sunt servanda”. The massive cover operations undertaken by the United States in Poland during the 80-ties after President Reagan signed a secret national-security-decision (NSDD 32)(64) that authorized a wide range of subversive measures by the CIA to destabilize the country , were motivated by the U.S. resolve to nullify the Yalta Agreement.(65)

The U.S. invasion of Panama in December of 1990 was based on the Washington design to prevent the effect of the treaty that would transfer the control over Panama canal to Panama. I can certainly agree with Noam Chomsky’s conclusion that the Panama war which resulted in more than 20.000 civil casualties «is a historic event in one respect. It is the first U.S. act of international violence in the post-World War II era that was not justified by the pretext of a Soviet threat.»(66) And finally the war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent partition of the country which, historically seen, is almost analogous to Hitler’s partition of the country: a Croatian puppet state has been established by the neo-Ustachi. The general perception in Russia is that the so called Bosnian forces, promoted by the U.S. , are no more than the equivalent of the so called Contras in Nicaragua and the war is the first example of Latin-Americanization of Europe. But the partition of Yugoslavia, which in not so distant past was one of the leaders on the non-aligned countries, is seen as a flagrant violation of the Helsinki Accord of 1975 which essence was inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrities of states as well as guaranties of sovereign equality of nations and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty(67) and on which all security arraignments in Europe were based. In pertinent part the Helsinki Accord states that:

The participating States will respect each other’s sovereign equality and individuality as well as the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the right of every State to judicial equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political independence...The participating States regard as inviolable all one another’s frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers...
The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States. Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.

While the partition of Yugoslavia must be seen as violation of the Helsinki Accord, the issuing war and the U.S. outright military intervention and occupation of part of Yugoslavia—Bosnia—,do have wider implications since those measures involve and articulate the relationship between the U.S. and the United Nations. Summarizing the intentions of Washington William Safire in an article in the New York Times(68) writes concerning the prospective air-strikes against Serbian forces that the Clinton Administration has adopted a new resolute policy vis-?-vis the United Nations- «Don’t ask, tell Policy...Coercive diplomacy would become the order of the day» A State Department spokesman, Michael McCurry, asserted that « The United States would be ready to carry out an air campaign against advancing Serbian forces whether or not it received the approval of European allies at a NATO meeting in Brussels on August 2, 1993.»(69) He further omitted all references to any necessary authorization by the United Nations.

Although the Clinton Administration was rebuffed by the U.S. Secretary General who rightfully asserted that the U.S. does not have jurisdiction over U.N. forces and that furthermore, any decision in respect to air-strikes must be sanctioned by the United Nations(70) , United States has persisted in claiming that U.S. alone can decide whether or not to strike. Or as the former State Department official John Bolton correctly pointed out:

«We are the central multilateralists. The idea that there is some collective international will out there is just fairly land stuff. The true measure of America’s diplomatic clout will always be the military resources we are willing to commit.»(71) After a meeting in Washington with Alija Izetbegovic, the U.S.’s man in Bosnia, and a former officer of the Waffen SS (72) , President Clinton stated on September 8, 1993, that any military intervention in Yugoslavia must be undertaken «by a peacekeeping force from NATO — not the United Nations but NATO». The French reaction was understandable. Richard Duque, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said France believed that any such operation should be «under the authority of the United Nations».(73) The French reaction must be seen also in light of the Defense Secretary Les Aspin’s assertion that any peacekeeping forces should be under NATO command, that is, under the ultimate direction of the Supreme Allied Commander, a post always held by an American officer. France however does not belong to the NATO’s integrated command and apparently sees the American statements as an attempt to infringe upon her sovereignty. The American objectives in Yugoslavia were fully realized. For all practical purposes NATO tog over all the essential functions of the United Nations, in fact replacing the United Nation. The Daytona «agreement» seen by many as a Second Munich , embodied not only the essence of the diplomacy of ultimatums but also the American attempts to subvert the of international law. In fact the Daytona Agreement is a nullity according the international law(74) . The agreement, modeled after the Platt Amendment in regard to Cuba, created a virtual American protectorate in Bosnia. The French geopolitician General Pierre-Marie Gallois, one of the leaders of the Resistance movement during the WWII, the creator of the military doctrine of France and one of the closest advisers of General de Gaulle sees the war and the partition of Yugoslavia as an integral part of the American design for world domination, embodied in the concept of the New World Order. And thus it serves the geopolitical strategy of the ultimate extension of American Lebensraum—the Monroe Doctrine for the whole world. In his words one can hear the voice of General De Gaulle: «The pursuit of truth and justice made me involved in a resolute struggle against the greatest absurd and evil which flow out of the totalitarian idea of the New World Order. The partition and destruction of Yugoslavia , the aggression against Iraq , the murder of hundred of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, all those abominable acts are all but pages of the same scenario: the imposition of the evil will of one over all who are perceived as obstacles for the imposition of American Weltherrschaft over humankind...It is rather obvious that the partition of countries in Europe has not ended yet.
Our participation in NATO and the occupation of Yugoslavia is a threat to the independence of France, a betrayal of our national interests. The Balkan crisis is an expedient device to justify the unjustifiable: the expansion of the American military presence in Europe. And at the same time UN, rather than being an institution for promotion of international understanding and peace, has been transformed into an instrument for collective aggression. NATO is not on a peace mission in Yugoslavia. NATO’s forces in Yugoslavia are an act of aggression, an act of outright occupation.»(75) At the same time, points and emphasizes Galouas , the war in Yugoslavia, serves an important geopolitical purpose, designed to imperil the desire for geopolitical independence of Europe: «Germany will grow stronger and soon she would no longer tolerate the presence of American military forces on her soil. Therefore a reserve position for the American NATO forces is necessary, the addition of an ideal geopolitical region for stationing and regrouping of the military instrument of American foreign policy. Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia form that region...The world according to American recipes is an absolute and total negation of the old tradition of respect for rights and freedoms. After the genocidal bombing of civilian Serbian targets and the economic embargo serving the same purpose—weakening of the Serbs—, United States created Bosnia as her protectorate...That is abominable. But those atrocities serve the overriding geopolitical goal of the United States: to remain in Europe at any cost...Dayton Agreement is the latest embodiment of the new American diplomacy, aggressive and uncompromising , confident in its power, the diplomacy that knows and uses only the language of ultimatums...

U.S. literally bombed to pieces Iraq, poisoned the nature and the ecological environment , with unparalleled barbarity killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, only in order to control the supply of oil and dictate its price as it pleases Washington...As a result of the embargo against Iraq 570.000 civilians were murdered....And this is a crime against humanity par excellence.
And again and again decisions are made in Washington which will result in murder of innocent elderly, sick and poor. And then Washington dears to teach the world morality...Or take the so called War Tribunal in Hague, allegedly set up to represent moral and truth but in reality an instrument of war (war with other judicial means) and continuous aggression against the Serbs.(76) What better evidence of the absurdity of this tribunal than the fact that there were no war crime tribunals for all war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the massive war crimes committed in Vietnam, an for the war crimes committed in Iraq during the operation Desert Storm. It is as if all those massive war crimes did not happen or were insignificant compared to the Serbs resistance against the conquest of their country...I can not accept such perverted American logic, and I am very sorry that my country is forced to participate in those American atrocities.(77)

The obvious conclusion is that the partition of Yugoslavia, and the subsequent war, serve several purposes:
a. Expansion of the American Grossraum with the establishment of a Bosnian puppet state controlled by the U.S., as well as, in all probability, establishment of U.S. permanent military bases on the Adriatic;
b. Prevention of the emergence of any independent European foreign policy initiatives and thereby the emergence of Europe as an unified new Grossraum;
c. Consolidation of the control over the Rimland;
d. Abrogation, in fact, of the Helsinki Accord;
e. Subversion and factual demise of the United Nations as an international body and finally
f. A rehearsal for, as it is perceived in Russia, an impending war of aggression against Russia. In any event, it is quite obvious, that substitution of United Nations with NATO will render the veto power of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council inoperative, which will effect the interests of not only Russia but also France and China. If the incorporation of the Monroe Doctrine in Article 21 of the Chapter of the League of Nations signified the subversion of the universality of international law and Europe’s defeat by the U.S. , the war in Yugoslavia and air-strikes against Serbian forces signifies even more important historical event namely the subversion of the United Nations and its transformation in the future , if U.S. is not resolutely opposed , to a functional equivalent of the OAS i.e. to a pseudo-international body serving as a rubber stamp for American hegemony and wars of aggression disguised as so called peace keeping operations in countries that, prior to the peace keeping initiatives, have already been destabilized by the U.S. covert and overt subversion. The partition of Yugoslavia can very well became a second Munich for Europe. It is obvious that Washington is seeking to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world. To achieve this aim United States will have to effect the complete subversion and forcible destruction of the machinery of government and structure of society in , above all, former socialist countries and their replacement by an apparatus and structure subservient to and controlled from Washington.

Hitler left the League of Nations preparing for aggressive wars; United States strategy on the other hand is much more dangerous - the subversion of the United Nations to further the same end . Recognizing the changing nature of the United Nations in the post 1991 era and the issuing crisis of legitimacy, one of the founders of the National Salvation Front in Russia and the former editor of the Military-Historical Journal general B. Filatov wrote that
«When the National Salvation Front comes to power and that will happen very soon, we will leave the United Nations which has become a fascist punitive organization, an instrument of CIA. We will put our rockets on alert. Then we will see who will dare to attack Serbia.»(78) The necessary strategy for Russia and other European countries, Germany and France above all, must be a geopolitical project to create a new Grossraum - Pax Eurasiatica- in opposition to Pax Americana and its corollary , the New World Order, because only in opposition to the United States can Europe begin an independent geopolitical life and reach a genuine emancipation, writes Dugin. The purpose of a new Kulturkampf is to problematize the American hegemony as a threat to Europe as a historical formation in general and to its culture in particular. Finding the authenticity of European destiny and political life implies by necessity a rejection of any false claims of universalism advanced by the U.S., which to its substance is both an ideological facade and concealment of American particular national interests. European revival is conditioned upon the dissolution of NATO which today is solely an instrument of American control over its alleged allies and a pretext to maintain U.S. occupation forces in Europe /for more than one hundred years» as President Bush asserted. The strategical objectives of the U.S. controlled NATO have been defined by Wolfram Hanrieder in his book Germany, America, Europe(79) as a strategy of «double containment»: containment of the Soviet Union in the past on one side and of American allies on the other. «The logic of this strategy was put bluntly by Lord Ismay in his famous dictum about NATO’s purpose in Europe (which could have described the U.S. policies toward the Japanese) ‘Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.’»(80) Europe as a collective entity must enter the famous hermeneutical circle and walking there must find the truth about its separate and unique collective existence which during the Cold War years has been concealed. As Heidegger has pointed out , the attempt to achieve national authenticity is always expressed in resoluteness and resoluteness is the true substance of Kulturkampf.

Dugin proposes the revival of the concept of Mitteleuropa, originally formulated by Friedrich Naumann, as an ideological platform for a new geopolitical orientation opposing Pax Americana and creating a competing Grossraum—Pax Eurasiatica— which will exclude and oppose the United States. Closely associated with the concept of Mitteleuropa is the specific political extrapolation of the Kultur/Zivilization dichotomy as formulated by Thomas Mann in his book “Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man”(81) in which he counterpoises German «culture» against largely Anglo-Saxon «civilization». Dugin elaborates on that dichotomy reaching the conclusion that not only Europe’s national interest differs from that of the United States but that also its cultural tradition is the antithesis of the hollow shell of «civilization» in the U.S. Whereas «culture» in European countries is expression of national identities and of organic historical tradition, the American «civilization» is the bearer of an all-embracing commercialism and consumerism whose penetration dissolves all national identities. A rather paradoxical conclusion emerges from the revival of the concept of Mitteleuropa namely an anti-West oriented Europe. Dugin sees the term West as largely an American ideological construct, an Atlanticist mold thrown over Europe, and regards de Gaulle’s decision in 1966 to withdraw from NATO’s integrated command, which, as de Gaulle emphasized, deprived France of her sovereignty, not only as the first assertion of European identity separate and different from that of the United States, but also as the first anti-West manifestation by an European country in the U.S.’s sphere of influence. De Gaulle emphasized that the American design has always been to transform a cohesive European community into a larger and looser Atlantic community under American control.(82) Recognizing that Atlanticism was virulently aggressive as ever, he was compelled to look for ways of resisting American hegemony in Europe. »There were two options: he could either take unilateral measures to challenge American hegemony or he could seek alternative partners with a common interest in breaking down hegemonic control.»(83) France’s withdrawal from the NATO’s integrated command become de Gaulle’s ultimate gesture of anti-hegemonism.

The failure of the Soviet Union, due to defeatist and de facto anti-national foreign policy of the Gorbachev administration, to condition the unification of Germany on her withdrawal from NATO, was a major self-inflicted political defeat affecting not only Russia but also Germany in the future. For Russia it means a weakening of its strategic potential and for Germany a lost chance to gain full sovereignty by not having foreign occupation forces stationed on her territory. And for Europe as a whole it signifies a lost momentum to replace NATO, i.e. American power projection and an instrument of containment against U.S.’s former allies, with a pan-European security system. In this perspective one must se the alternatives for Europe as envisioned by the Maastricht treaty which may lead to gradual unification: either a Federated Europe as a power projecting Grossraum or as an even more divided and weakened Europe under the oppressive and leveling effect of the American pseudo-universalism, which in substance will amount to an Atlanticist police state with the NATO’s strategy of containment directed toward the U.S.’s former allies. In the latter case the Maastrich treaty will lead to deligitimization of national sovereignties and to weakening and dissolution of national identities of member states. Instead of a new European self-identity, the result will be the creation of an amorphous space with obliterated national and cultural identities and functionally integrated into the American Grossraum. Already de Gaulle foresaw that possibility when he stated that if the United States is not opposed «at the end there would appear a colossal Atlantic community under American dependence and leadership which would completely swallow up the European community.»(84) Against the anti-European concept of Atlantic community, devised as an ideological vehicle for subjugation of independent European geopilitical existence, stands the concept of a Monroe doctrine for Europe, claims Alain de Benoist : «What bothers me is that I do not see the Maastricht Treaty leading to an autonomous, politically sovereign Europe determined to acquire the equivalent of what the Monroe doctrine was for the United States, but rather a phantom of Europe, a Europe a unemployment, absent and impotent, a free trade zone governed on the theoretical level by ultra-liberal monetary principles and, on the practical level , by administrators and bankers who neither have a political project nor democratic legitimacy...Nietzsche said: «Europe will create itself on the edge of a tomb». For my part, I believe it will create itself over and against the United States, or it will not create itself.»(85) In historical perspective the Anglophone powers , Great Britain in the past, United States now, have always been an obstacle to consolidation of Europe and thus a true geopolitical adversary. «The urge to evict the Americans, and before us , the British from the Continent has deep roots in reaction to the role of the English-speaking countries in foiling every attempt to unify Europe since the Renaissance. With the exception of the more misguided members of the House of Stuart , every English-speaking head of state from Elizabeth Tudor to Harry Truman opposed the consolidation of the Continent. Elizabeth I fought Spain; from the time of Marlborough to the time of Wellington the English fought France; from Asquith to Churchill and Roosevelt the «Anglo-Saxon» fought Germany. Even when American policy shifted under Truman to support the peaceful integration of Western Europe , it was out of desire to fend off the greater menace of the Soviets...The positive contribution to European civilization of the old «divide and rule» policy cannot, however, disguise its essentially negative goal. The British sought to keep the Continent embroiled in quarrels while they assembled a global empire and grew rich. The United States relied on Britain to maintain a European balance that kept the Europeans from interfering in the New World while we, like our British cousins, traded freely with all quarters of the globe...In the twentieth century the Elizabethan realpolitik of the Anglophone powers acquired a Wilsonian overlay...The Elizabethan and the Wilsonian policies remain at the core of American interests today. As good Elizabethans, we understand that it is not in America’s interests...for European integration to take place under the hegemonic leadership of a single power, whether this power is based in Moscow or Berlin. Nor would it be in America’s interests for European integration to proceed in such a way as to create a single hegemonic power center in Brussels»(86). The grand design of the United States, particularly now, when Washington is aggressively advancing the plans to globalize NATO, and thus its Monroe doctrine, is the Latin-Americanization first of the former socialist countries, including Russia and second, of her former West European allies. And as long as United States is not displaced from her position of hegemony in Europe and ultimately driven out of Eurasia, European countries will never acquire that which is necessary for independent geopolitical existence. A federated Europe with American military forces on its soil is no more than an obedient satellite. During the 60-ties de Gaulle warned against a supranational Europe of the Common market which he then considered a divided Europe under the mentorship and hegemonial design of the United States. Reading Dugin one may paraphrase Bismarck and say that if the power of Russia is ever broken , it will be difficult for the former members of the socialist block to avoid the fate of Poland in the past that is the destiny of divided and contested area to be claimed by the United States as «glacis and perimeter of battle». By the same token a weak Russia may spell weakness also for other European countries. But does it mean that Dugin envisions a sort of a new Rapallo treaty(87) as a political foundation for a new geopolitical orientation? I can agree with Rudolf Barho’s assertion that »A new Rappalo would break Western Europe from North America«.(88) However, a new Rapallo can only be used as a metaphor for diplomatic and political initiatives that may lead to a possible alliance between Germany, France, Russia and China as central powers. A new equivalent of Rapallo treaty is a geopolitical and existential imperative for Europe, a fundament for future continental unity and continental defense against American expansionism, against the pseudo universalism and totalitarian claims of the American Imperium Monde. Dugin’s concept of a new European geopolitical orientation resembles de Gaulle’s visions during the ‘60s. Rejecting American hegemony de Gaulle conjured an alliance, an European coalition, which, without infringing on the sovereignty of the member states would constitute an alternative European Grossraum. He recognized that the ideology of Atlantic unity is in fact the ideology of American domination and counterpoised his concept of European unity which today only can be seen as America free Europe. However de Gaulle recognized that a genuine European alliance could not be created without there being in Europe today a federator with sufficient power, authority and skills.(89) At that time there was no such strong federator. In his memoirs de Gaulle noted that «The American President’s (F.D. Roosevelt) remarks ultimately proved to me that, in foreign affairs, logic and sentiment do not weight heavily in comparison with the realities of power; that what matters is what one takes and what one can hold on to; that to regain her place, France must count only on herself».(90) United States believed that the Frenchmen «in a grip of sort of neurasthenia would gradually relax into the status of an American protectorate...The alternative, as de Gaulle constantly proposed it, was for Frenchmen to continue the arduous struggle for national self renewal until they again became masters of their own fate.»(91) In his advocacy of a new continental geopolitical orientation and in his definition of Pax Eurasiatica, Alexander Dugin criticizes and rejects the old ideology of Panslavism. The difference between the Panslavism and Eurasianism is summarized by him as a difference between two principles — «the principle of blood» and «the principle of soil (realm)». For the Panslavism the emphasis is on the concept of ethnic identity—in other words the primacy of blood over the soil. For the traditional Eurasianism on the other hand, the land takes precedence: as ideology it expresses the primacy of the soil over the blood. «It presupposes the ideological choice of continental, Eurasian values over narrow ethnic or racial values.»(92) A further differentiation of the concept of Eurasianism can be made by distinguishing between two sub directions of the Eurasian ideology.

The first one is centered on the notion of a specific Eurasian identity—the concept of polyphonic ethos of Russia—defined in terms of ethos and land.(93) The second one defines Eurasianism in terms of geopolitical realities and necessary geopolitical strategy, also in terms of realm and Grossraum. The emphasis here is on the land power status of Russia as opposed to the atlanticist sea power status of the United States. Alexander Dugin is a proponent of this definition of Eurasianism. From a geopolitical point of view the past observation of Halford MacKinder that the greatest danger to Anglo Saxon hegemony would be a political union and a geopolitical block of Russia and Germany, bears particular relevance. The concept of Eurasian resistance against the dictates of the American New World Order and the global American hegemony articulates the geopolitical and the national meta— existential necessity to create such geopolitical block able to stop the steamroller of the New World Order.

An additional aspect of Dugin’s analyses of geopolitical orientations and strategies concerns the future relationship between Russia and Islam. The starting point is Robert Steuckers view that Russia must make a common cause with Iran against American interests.(94) Continental, Islamic — revolutionary Iran is contrasted with the Atlanticist secular Turkey and the Arabic theocratic variant of Islam of Saudi Arabia. Turkey is the primary agent of American influence in the region and a virtual colony of the U.S., an Asian forpost of American geopolitical interests which serves as a cordon sanitaire between the Asian East of Russia and the Arab world. A conflict between Russia and Islam countries is the main purpose of the U.S. foreign policy, a main conduit for which is Turkey.

A similar roll serves also Saudia Arabia, a country which in fact must also be seen as an American colony. The interests of Saudy dynasty and of the American Atlanticism coincide, forming a bullwark against creation of an Arabic Great Area. Through the control of Saudi Arabia U.S. controls the supply of oil. And the U.S. controlls the economy of Europe through control of the oil in the Gulf region. Therefore, to counterbalance American hegemony in the region, Russian foreign policy must be oriented toward Iran, asserts Dugin.

In today perspective the events of 1991 are of paramount importance because, as Dugin points out, 1991 is the year of destruction of the Eurasian Grossraum, the only one that possessed resources to withstand American expansionism and which consisted of all countries belonging to the socialist block. Central Europe in general and Germany in particular, as geopolitical entity are only a pure potential at present time. Central Europe can constitute itself in the future only in alliance with Russia which occupies a unique position as a centrum of the Eurasian continent, as a Heartland. Russia occupies also a key strategical and geographical position in the world with its huge landmass and human potential. A new geopolitical orientation must take into account the so called Atlantic factor which Dugin in length discusses.

The Atlantic factor is the United States strategy to impose her will on former Soviet republic and socialist countries and to transform those into satellite countries in the American orbit, linking them into a Cordon Sanitaire around Russia. Certainly one can already see the shadow of the Atlantic masters over the Baltic republics. As the Russian jurist Vladimir Ovzinski asserts the «CIA already works totally in the open in Lithuania , not only through American Embassy in Vilnius but also through American advisers to the Supreme Council of the Republic. And the situation is similar in both Latvia and Estonia».(95) The Atlantic factor is a geopolitical consequence of what William Appleman Willams has called the American «frontier thesis» —the perpetual expansionism in pursuit of new western frontiers.

United States has a perspective for real world hegemony only if no competing Grossraum is allowed to arise. Therefore both NSC-68 after the end of the WWII and its mirror image—the Pentagon Planning Guidance after the «end» of the Cold War, envision control or destruction not only of any competing Grossraum but also any geopolitical area which can consolidate itself in the future into power projecting Grossraum. The conclusion is that the primary objectives of the American geopolitics are to destroy any potential geopolitical alliance as well as to prevent its building. To paraphrase Clemenceau the American politics of peace vis-?-vis Russia are nothing else but continuation of war with other means. The Cold War has been replaced by Military Peace. Therefore creation of Cordon Sanitaire around Russia, which by necessity mandates the conquest of the second Europe—Eastern Europe—under the guise of enlargement of NATO, is the most important objective of the American foreign polic

Cordon Sanitaire consists of territory of countries and people situated between two geopolitical blocks. It is created by virtue of hegemonic control or, as in the American creation of a puppet Bosnian state in the failed attempt to create a Georgian state under Schevernadze, and in the war in Chechnya, with outright force and subversion. The countries that potentially will be included in the Cordon Sanitaire are those countries whose unity or membership in a competing Grossraum would constitute a geopolitical disadvantage to the United States.

United States is actively pursuing her double-edged foreign policy objective of further expansion of her extra-territorial jurisdiction and transformation of former socialist countries into a Cordon Sanitaire through plans outlined by the Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the NATO meeting in Travem?nde on October 21, 1993 to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact.

Cordon Sanitaire in the beginning of this century consisted of countries situated between Russia and Germany and were controlled by England. Those countries, being an agent and tool of the Anglo-Saxon West, were breaking the Grossraum of Mitteleurope and the Grossraum of Russia. In present days the perfidious Albion has been replaced by the perfidious Washington and the American objectives can be summarized as assertion of hegemonic control and transformation of former Soviet republics into virtual American colonies in which, with employment of coercive measures: subversion, terror, aggression, economic warfare, United States will install marionette rulers without any trace of political independence. Or as Noam Chomsky puts it «One consequence of the collapse of the Soviet block is that much of it may undergo a kind of ‘Latin-Americanization’ , reverting to the service role, with the ex-Nomenclatura perhaps taking the role of the Third World elites linked to international business and financial interests»(97)

In conjunction with this it is important to bear in mind that American attempts to partition Russia and gain control of her huge natural resources predate the Cold War period and NSC-68. In October of 1918 the American government drafted secret commentaries to President Wilson’s 14 points which outlined U.S. plans to partition Russia into small regions in order for the United States to assert her hegemony and gain control over Russian territories and natural resources in Siberia and Caucasus. On the map prepared by the Department of State titled «Proposed Borders of Russia» and presented by President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference, all that is left of Russia is her central part , the Mid-Russian Plateau. In an appendix to the map it was stated that «All Russia must be divided into large natural regions, each with its own economy. However none of those regions should be sufficiently independent to build a strong state».(98) Those long-standing American plans make it even more urgent for Russia to make a decisive geopolitical orientation. Of course, if President Yeltsin turns out to be a Russian Quisling,(99) and his September 21,1993 coup with subsequent destruction of the Russian Parliament most certainly suggests this possibility(100) , then the prospects for a new geopolitical orientation will become more difficult to realize. In his 1938 study “Ueber das Verhaeltnis der Begriffe Krieg und Feind”, Carl Schmitt, anticipating the future of the Cold War, described the world as moving toward an ‘intermediary situation between war and peace’, a kind of a bellicose peace which is neither war nor peace, which Carl Schmitt called military peace, i.e. a world condition of global confrontation which tends to take the form of a total war. In “Totaler Feind, Totaler Krieg, Totaler Staat”, published in 1937, Carl Schmitt related the idea of total war to the idea of total State, a war that «will be total for two reasons. First because it would not be localized in the sense that it would enfold in on a battle field, but it would be spread across the entire planet including sidereal space. Next, because it would not only be military, given that all the activities -scientific, technological, economic-and all of the material and ideal aspects of existence will be directly implicated in this gigantic conflict. Protected zones will no longer exist since both the military and the non-military will be engaged in this conflict. Politically speaking, there will no longer be a distinction between those who fight and those who do not».(101) During the Cold War two kind of Grossraum confronted each other- the existential categories of friend and enemy applied also to the concept of Grossraum- and out of that confrontation a world order build on plurality of Grossr?ume was maintained. However the end of the Cold War did not lead to revival of the concept of state sovereignty but to renewed attempt to universalize the ordering principles of the American Grossraum and establishment of a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world- an overriding objective of American foreign policy since the time of President Willson- under the slogan of a New World Order. Alexander Dugin equates the New World Order with American world wide hegemony, which, in order to be established, requires the totalization of the ‘intermediary situation between war and peace’, i.e. a new Cold War with different ideological justification but with the same aim: total American world domination. «The total war, previously localized in the Cold War confrontation between U.S. and the Soviet Union, is the essence of American universalism. Military peace is the present substance of the New World Order with which Russia and other countries are confronted now and the American implementation of this New World Order can only lead to a new total war.»(102) As a paradigmatic figure of Russian resistance to the New World Order, of what he calls the Endkampf, Alexander Dugin takes the symbol of the Russian partisan. The phenomenon of partisan is for Carl Schmitt «a paradigmatic figure for the decomposition of the classical Nomos and for the appearance of bellicose peace. The figure is remarkable because it still has a landlocked reality-described by Schmitt as its ‘telluric character’»(103) The partisan embodies the concept of Resistance, his physical existence is overshadowed by his political existence- Existenze des Wiederstand- and he takes his law from hostility, i.e. from his sense of supreme distinction between friend and enemy. His struggle is against the New World Order, its dictates and its total claim of annihilation of Russian future. For Dugin the American New World Order is a triumph of global totalitarianism. The Partisan is the answer to the illegitimate legality of the New World Order. «In the condition of the state of emergency, in the intensifying atmosphere of ‘military peace’ or ‘peaceful war’, the defense of national soil, history, people and nation are the sources of his legitimacy. He heralds the beginning of a total war with the total enemy...In Russian history his prototype is the partisan during the war against Napoleon, the partisan of the World War II, the resister to the Nazi German New World Order. Now he is the resister of a new New World Order- the American. The partisan is the harbinger of the healing power of national soil and historical national space of the Russian people. In the post-Cold War period of intensifying ‘military peace’ only the Russian partisan can show the way to a Russian historical future». (104) However the only viable alternative to the totalitarian globality of the New World Order is the reconstitution or creation of a new Grossraum opposing American world empire and the emancipation of the principles of international pluralism. The pseudo-legality of the New World Order must be confronted by a new alternative legality. Against the all-embracing American pseudo-universalism must stand the will-formation of national particularism and mobilization of geopolitical resistance. Against the steamroller of the American New World Order and the American invasion in the geopolitical vacuum of Eurasia after the destruction of the Soviet Union a new continental geopolitical unity must be consolidated resulting in proclamation of a Monroe doctrine for Europe. Therefore, referring to the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance, Alexander Dugin writes: «The overriding objective of the United States is to prevent the creation of any real geopolitical alternative. Therefore our main objective must be the creation of any new geopolitical alternative.» This is a good point of departure because it presupposes the concept of the political. And after all, to paraphrase Heidegger, the political is the house of Being.

ENDNOTES

(1) Gyorgy Lukacs -The Destruction of Reason (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1981 at pp.765,770.
(2) Martin Heidegger -Being and Time (Harper and Row, New York, 1962) at p. 347.
(3) Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1976) at p.p.19, 26.
(4) Nikolaj Zagladin -Pochemu zavershilas ‘holodnaja vojna’ - Kentavr, January/February 1992, Moscow, pp. 45-60
(5) Zbignief Brzezinski -The Gold War and Its Aftermath -Foreign Affairs, Fall 1992 (Council on Foreign Relations, New York) - at p. 32
(6) Zbigniew Brzezinski - ibid. at p. 34
(7) George F. Kennan-The Failure in Our Success -New York Times, March 14, 1992, p. A17
(8) The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , signed March 3, 1918, ended the war between Soviet Russia and Germany. As a result of the treaty Soviet Russia was partitioned and lost 34 percent of the population and 54 percent of the industrial production. According to the terms of the treaty Germany, enlarging her Lebensraum, was to occupy Ukraine , Byelorussia, Caucasus , the Baltic provinces etc. With the defeat of Germany the treaty was repudiated.
(9) Thomas H. Etzold and John Lewis Gaddis Containment. Documents on American policy and Stategy, 1945—1950 (Columbia University Press, New York, 1978) p. 196. NSC 20/1 was subsequently incorporated in the infamous NSC 68. On this subject in Russian debate see Nikolaj von Kreitor Geopolitika holodnoj vojny , Juridicheskaja gazeta No. 26, 1996, Moscow.
(10) Wolfram Henrieder -Germany, America, Europe (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989) - at p. 17
(11) Here quoted after Ronald Steel -Pax Americana (The Viking Press, New York, 1967)- at p.p. 79-80.
(12) Lenin Collected works, vol. 41, p.p. 353-354
(13) Voprosy sotsiologij , nr 1, 1992 (Moscow )
(14) Alexander Dugin -Carl Schmitt –piat’ urokov Rossii (Nash Sovremmennik, nr. 8.1992, Moskow)
(15) Alexander Dugin - ibid , at p.p. 129, 130,135
(16) Agnes Heller has analyzed the problem of a meta-existential choice of a nation in a context of friend\foe dichotomy in the essay The Concept of Political Revisited , published in Political Theory Today , edited by David Held (Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1991).
(17) Carl Schmitt -Verfassungslehre (Duncker&Humblot, Berlin 1970) - at p. 50. Schmitt writes further that «because every being is a particularly-constituted being, every concrete political existence has some sort of constitution. But not every politically existing force decides in a conscious act concerning the form of this political existence and succeeds in consciously determining the concrete type of its political existence as did the American states with their Declaration of Independence and the French nation in 1789. ibid. p.23 .See also G.L.Ulman -Anthropological Theology, Theological Anthropology (Telos, Nr.93, Fall 1992, New York) at p. 71.
(18) G.L. Ulmen Anthropological Theology...ibid p.71,72; Carl Schmitt Verfassungslehre -ibid.p.372.
(19) Carl Schmitt Verfassungslehre ibid. p. 22
(20) Carl Schmitt The Concept of the Political
(21) Alexander Dugin- Carl Schmitt, pjat’ urokov Rossii- ibid. p. 131, 132
(22) Herbert Marcuse «Contribution to the Phenomenology of Historical Materialism» (Telos, Number 4, 1969), here quoted from Richard Wolin «Introduction to Marcuse and Heidegger» (New German Critique, Number 53, 1991, New York) p. 23
(23) For a discussion on Heidegger’s concept of hermeneutics in Being and Time se Richard Palmer Hermeneutics ( Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1969)
(24) Aaron L. Friedberg-The Future of American Power (Political Science Quarterly, Vol.109, Spring 1994) at p. 17.
(25) Colonel Victor Alsknis’ father general Jacov Alsknis has been a close friend of marshal Mikhail Tukhachevski; in 1937 general Alsknis participated in the military commission investigating the treason charges against Tuchachevski.The transcript of the commission’s proceedings, classified secret, has never been released. First in 1990, after the intervention of the then Chairman of the KGB Krutchkov, colonel Alsknis gained access to the transcripts and after reading them came to the conclusion that during the 30-ties there was a pro-German conspiracy in the Red Army in which marshal Tukhachevski participated. Alexander Dugin claims that marshal Tukhachevski was a member of Nordlich Light- Elementy -at p.p.10,11.
(26) Zbigniew Brzezinski A Plan for Europe (Foreign Affairs, January/February 1995) p. 26
(27) Joseph W. Bendersky -Carl Schmitt (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983), at p.253.
(28) G.L. Ulmen - American Imperialism and International Law: Carl Schmitt on the US in World Affairs- Telos, Nr. 72, Summer 1987; se also Carl Schmitt- Voelkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung, op.cit., p.20.
(29) Rudolf Kjellen Der Staat als Lebensform (Berlin, 1924) p. 139. Kjellen writes that the autarchic principle envisions the geopolitical space of the state as «People’s Home». The principle of autarchy «is a reaction against the industrialist type of the nineteenth century. The latter was fundamentally cosmopolitan; in the name of free trade it exposed national households to competition on the world market where the strong always succeeded in swallowing the weak. Its first setback occurred with the adoption of the protectionist system during the second half of the century. Here the state acts in defense of the household (People’s Home). It blocks the road to foreign conquerors by tariff walls behind which national economy can prosper like a true nursery protected from the storm of the sea...The autarchic principle ... replaces «open doors» with «closed spheres of interest» Ibid. p.p. 139, 140. In contemporary perspective the autarchic principle and concept of protected geopolitical space conceived as «People’s Home» is the antagonistic opposite of the American «open door» imperialism.
(30) The concept of Grossraum is discussed in Nikolaj von Kreitor Problemy bol’shich prostranstv i buduschee Rossii Nash Sovremennik, No 3 , 1996, Moscow and Nikolaj von Kreitor Stoletie novogo mira. Universalizm protiv pljuralizma, Kentavr, No. 6, 1995, Moscow.
(31) The National Security Council Memorandum 68 (NSC-68 ) promulgated in 1950 called for a roll-back strategy aiming to hasten the decay of the Soviet system from within and to foster the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system by a variety of covert and other means that would enable the U.S. to negotiate a settlement with the Soviet Union or a successor state or states. The memorandum further called , adopting the objectives of Hitler, to dismantle the Soviet Union into smaller states-se also Noam Chomsky -On Power and Ideology (South End Press , Boston, 1987) at p. 15. In different articles published during 1991 and 1992 in the Moscow newspaper Denj (DAY) have surfaced assertions that during the years of the so called. Perestrojka United States has invested more than 50 billion dollars for covert subversion in the Soviet Union.
(32) Elementy , Number 4, 1993, p. 33
(33) Halford McKinder Democratic Ideals and Reality (W.W. Norton & Company, N.Y. 1962) p. 150
(34) Se Gerald Chaliand, Jean-Pierre Rageau-Strategic Atlas-(Harper Perennial, N.Y. 1992)- at p. 30
(35) Halford MacKinder The Round World and theWinning of the Peace , Foreign Affairs, 21 , New York, 1943. p.p. 595-605. The article is included in the book Democratic Ideals and Reality. See also W.G. Fast How Strong is the Heartland, Foreign Affairs, 29, New York, 1950 p.p. 78-93 and D.J. M. Hooson A New Soviet Heartland , Geographical Journal , 128 (1962) p.p. 19-29.
(36) Peter J. Taylor Political Geography (Longman, London, 1985) p. 42
(37) Richard Muir Modern Political Geography (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975) p. 195. For geopolitical analysis in Russia see E. A. Pozdnjakov Geopolitika (Progress-Kuljtura, Mpscow, 1995. Nikolaj von Kreitor Ot doktriny Monro do Novogo Mirovogo Porjadka , Molodaja Gvardija No 9, 1995, Moscow and Nikolaj von Kreitor Amerikano-fascistkaja geopolitika na sluzhbe zavoevania mira, Molodaja Gvardija No. 8, 1996, Moscow.
(38) See James C. Malin The Turner-MacKinder Space Concept of History in Eassays on Historiography (Lawrence, Kansas, 1946) p.p. 1-45; Per Sveaas Andersen Westward in the Course of Empires. A Study of the Shaping of an American Idea: Frederick Jackson Turner’s Frontier (Oslo University Press, Oslo, 1956).
(39) See William Appleman Williams The Contours of American History (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1988) p. 17.
(40) David P. Calleo Europe’s Future. The Grand Alternatives (W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 1967) p.p. 89,90.
(41) Carl Schmitt claimed in his book Land und Meer that world history is the history of perpetual conflict between land powers and sea powers.
(42) Alexander Dugin Konspirologia (Arktogej, Moscow, 1993) p.p. 92, 93
(43) Alain de Benoist , Den’ No 1(29) , Moscow, 1992
(44) Elementy nr 3, 1993 - at p. 18
(45) Patrick E. Tyler- U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop - New York Times, March 8, 1992, p. 14
(46) Excerpts from the document published in New York Times , March 8, 1992
(47) Patrick E. Tyler - US Strategy Plan...
(48) President Bush stated after the November 7-8, 1991 NATO summit in Europe that security interests of the United States and Europe were indivisible and, therefore , the Atlantic alliance could not be replaced even in the long run and also that the United States presence in Europe would be needed for a century of so. see Ted Carpenter-- In Search for Enemies-(CATO Institute, Washington D.C. 1992, at p.p. 11-12; also White House, Office of Press Secretary, Press Conference by the President, November 8, 1991, transcript, p.1.
(49) H. J. von Lochhausen - The War in Iraq - a War Against Europe - Elements p.p. 34,35,36. von Lochhausen asserts also that the war against Iraq, i.e. a war for the control of the oil , was planned a long time in advance and its blueprint was worked out by Henry Kissinger and published in 1975 in the magazine Commentary and later in Harper’s Magazine.
von Lochhausen writes points out that studies of American relations with her allies show that U.S. is prone to take advantage against them i.e. using the war as a vehicle to transform her allies into vassals. In both W.W.I and W.W.II the American participation was largely parasitic. While the allies made the decisive efforts the United States reaped the fruits of the victory . See Elementy - ibid p.p. 35, 36. It is interesting to note that both right-wing and left-wing interpretations of the Gulf War coincide in their condemnation of American expansionism. For a left-wing parallel to von Lochhausen see Dario Da Re, Rosanna Munghiello and Dario Padovan Intellettuali, sinistra e conflitto del Golfo: un’interpretazione retrospettiva del dibattito (Altreragioni, No. 2,1993) p.p. 151-174.
(50) Samir Amin -U.S. Militarism in the New World Order-Polygraph, 5/1992 (Durham, NC) -at p.23
(51) 1963 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 13. Discussing further the legal justification of the Cuban quarantine in 1962, Dean Acheson emphasized that « I must conclude that the propriety of the Cuban quarantine is not a legal issue. The power, position and prestige of the United States has been challenged by another state; the law simply does not deal with such questions of ultimate power., se also Noyes Leech, Covey Oliver,Joseph Sweeney-The International Legal System- at p. 105.
(52) Charles de Gaulle -Unity, Documents (Simon & Schuster, New York 1960) -at p. 269. Se also David Calleo- Europe’s Future. The Grand Alternatives (W.W. Norton & Company , New York,1967) - at p.112.
(53) The memory of the American intervention in Soviet Union in 1918 in Archangelsk and Vladivostok in the Far East prompted by the U.S. interest to gain control of the natural resources of Siberia as well as by senator Lodge plan to divide Soviet Union into smaller states in order for the United States to gain control over Ukraine has resurfaced and the issue have been debated in the mass media. See on this subject A. Nevins-Nenry White: Thirty Years of American Diplomacy, N.Y. 1930, p.354; Ljudmila Gviashvili-Sovietskaja Rossija i Soedinennije Schtaty 1917-1920 -(Foreign Relations Publishing House, Moscow,1970.)
In the Russian debate it has been pointed out that the objectives of the U.S. foreign policy will be to achieve strategic superiority in the field of nuclear armaments and through aggressive and adventurous foreign policy initiatives to force Russia to further unilateral disarmament and even to attempt to gain control over the nuclear potential of Russia which is the only deterrent that prevents an outright intervention.
(54) U.S. Peacekeeping Policy Debate Angers Russians-N.Y.Times, August 29, 1993. An editorial in Krasnaja Zvezda or Red Star, the magazine of the Russian army called Directive 13 ‘outrageously cynical and a direct and unceremonious interference in the domestic affairs of Russia.’ Although U.S. opposes a Russian Monroe Doctrine it is in a process of unilaterally extend its Monroe Doctrine to include former members of the Warsaw Pact as well as Baltic countries, which in the new American doctrinal thinking are to form a Cordon Sanitaire surrounding Russia- se N.Y. Times, February 17, 1992.
(55) What the Monroe Doctrine meant for other Latin American countries was the freedom of U.S. to rob and exploit those countries.- Noam Chomsky - ibid. op. cit. p. 7.
(56) Hegel -The Philosophy of Right Oxford University Press, London,1967) p.p. 208-216.
(57) Noam Chomsky - ibid. at p. 14
(58) G.L. Ulmen - ibid. at p. 59, 60
(59) Y. Semenov- Fashistkaja geopolitika na sluzhbe amerikanskogo imperializma (Gospolitizdat, Moscow,1952)-at p.32.
(60) Ferdinand Czernin -Versailles 1919 (Capricorn Books, N.Y. 1964) at. pp.404-406
(61) «Treaties should be designed to promote United States interests by securing action by foreign governments in the way deemed advantageous to the United States. Treaties are not to be used as a devise for the purpose of effecting internal social changes... in relation to what are essentially matters of domestic concern» and the United States being the sole judge of what constitutes domestic matters - see Department of State Circular No. 175, (December 13, 1955), reprinted in 50 Am. J. Intl. L. 784(1956).
(62) Carl Schmitt -V?lkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung... p. 43.
(63) Noam Chomsky - Terrorizing the Neighborhood. American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era (AK Press, Stirling and San Francisco , 1991) - at p. 24.
(64) se The Holy Alliance - Time magazine, February 24, 1992- at p.32
(65) Times- ibid. - at p. 29
(66) Noam Chomsky -Terrorizing the Neighborhood - at p. 19.
(67) Helsinki Accord, Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States. The full text is published in Thomas Buergenthal (ed) -Human Rights, International Law and the Helsinki Accord-(Allanheld, Osmun/Universe Books, New York, 1979) at pp.161-165
(68) William Safire -Bosnia vs. the United Nations - N.Y.Times. , August 9, 1993
(69) N.Y.Times , August 2, 1993 - at p. A3
(70) N.Y.Times. , Aug. 5, 1993 - p.1.
(71) Newsweek, August 28, 1993
(72) See Pravda, March 30, 1995
(73) N.Y.Times, September 12, 1993
(74) Article 52 (Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties of May 22, 1969 states «A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.»
(75) Pravda 5, No. 24, 1996, p. 10-11. Interview of General Galuas by Jole Stanischic.
(76) In Russian debate the Haag War tribunal has been described as an instrument of continuous aggression, to paraphrase Clausewitz, as war with other, judicial means, a tribunal set up by the war criminals in Washington to justify the American territorial conquests under the guise of establishment of a New World Order—a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world—, and persecution Serbs— the partisans of the Resistance against dictates of the New World Order. A historical equivalent of Hague Tribunal would have been a tribunal set up by Nazi Germany to persecute the partisans of the Resistance during an earlier version of the New World Order- Hitler’s. General Gallois , one of the organizers of the Resistance movement in France, fully realizes the absurdity of Hague Tribunal.
(77) Pravda 5, ibid.
(78) See Novoe Russkoe Slovo , March 23, 1993- at p. 9.
(79) Wolfram Henrieder -Germany, America, Europe (Yale University Press,New Haven,1989
(80) Hans W. Maull -Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers (Foreign Affairs, Wintern 1990/91, Council of Foreign Relations, N.Y. 1991) - at p. 93.
(81) Referring to Goethe Thomas Mann defines culture as « intellectualization of the political» and expression of the identity and self-realization of a nation: »The nation is not only a social being; the nation, not the human race as the sum of individuals, is the bearer of the individual, of the human quality; and the value of the intellectual-artistic-religious product that one calls national culture...that develops out of the organic depth of national life-the value, dignity and charm of all national culture therefore definitely lies in what distinguishes it from others, for only this distinctive element is culture, in contrast to what all nations have in common, which is only civilization. Here we have the difference between individual and personality, civilization and culture, social and metaphysical live». Thomas Mann Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man (Frederick Ungar Publishing Co, N.Y. 1983)- at p. 179.
(82) Andrew Shennan -De Gaulle (Longman, New York, 1993)- at p. 118.
(83) Andrew Shennan - ibid , p.118.
(84) David P. Calleo Europe’s future. The Grand Alternatives (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1967) p. 90
(85) Interview with Alain de Benoist , Le Monde, 15 Mai, 1992 (Paris)
(86) Walter Russel Mead The United States and the New Europe (World Policy Journal, New York), Winter 1989-90 p.p. 53,55,56
(87) The Rapallo Treaty was concluded on April 16, 1922 between Germany and the Soviet Union. It allowed the Soviet Union to break the monolithic capitalist encirclement by the Versailles powers while for Germany it signified the road to revision of what was perceived as the Versailles dictate. Discussing the possible political orientation of Russia in the future , Dugin elaborates on the issues of a Russian-German Sonderweg as a historical background to a common political union.
(88) Rudolf Bahro -Rapallo-Why Not- (Telos, No. 51, Spring 1982, N.Y.) - at p. 125.It is interesting to note that the German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel stated during his a meeting in Bavaria with his Russian counterpart Andrej Kozyrev that «Creation of a partnership axis Bonn-Moscow is an objective for German foreign policy»—Izvestija, Moscow, August 24, 1993.
(89) David Calleo -Europe’s Future -ibid. p.89; se also de Gaulle-Unity- ibid. pp.176-177.
(90) Charles de Gaulle Unity ibid. p. 271
(91) David Calleo Europe’s Future ibid. p. 124
(92) Alexander Dugin Konspirologija ibid. 96 . Dugin refers to the works of Konstantin Leontief in which the primacy of the principle of land over the principle of blood was first articulated.
(93) In contemporary Russian political discourse the main proponent of this notion has been Lev Gumilev.
(94) Robert Steuckers The Asian Challenge, Elementy , nr 3, p. 24
(95) Vladimir Ovzinski -Konterperestrojka -Nash Sovremennik -5-1992, Moscow, at p.128.The author who has made interviews with a large number of former KGB operatives from Lithuania, claims on the basis of those interviews that U.S pursues four different objectives:1.Assertion of American hegemonical interests in Lithuania in opposition to German interests. 2. Subversion of what CIA perceives to be a Communist opposition as well as organizations defending the interests of the Russian minority in the country. 3. Collection of materials concerning former Lithuanian KGB operatives in order to either persecute or recruit them. 4. Sending of recruited agents to other former Soviet republics.
(96) See Elaine Sciolino- U.S. to Offer Plan on a Role in NATO for Ex-Soviet Block -N.Y. Times, October 21, 1993; Stephen Kinzer- NATO Favors U.S. Plan for Ties With the East, but Timing is Vague-N.Y.Times, October 22, 1993. President Clinton made a formal proposal for the expansion of NATO at the NATO’s summit meeting in January of 1994.
(97) Noam Chomsky -A View from Below in Michael Hogan -The End of the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, New York 1992) at p.142.
(98) Y.Semenov -Fascistkaja geopolitika -ibid. p. 29
(99) General Victor Filatov compares Yeltsin with the W.W.II traitor general Vlasov-see Denj, Nr 25, 1993, Moscow, June 27, 1993. Stephen Cohen points out that since 1991 the U.S. policy has been characterized by a steadily escalating interventionism in the Russian domestic matters which has created the impression among patriotic movements that Yeltsin’s government is a U.S. sponsored ‘occupation regime’. United States interventionism resulted in a resolution passed on March 21, 1993 by the Russian Parliament condemning the American interference in the internal affairs of Russia. «The Clinton Administration has steadily escalated this kind of interventionism-by contriving the April Vancouver summit as an attempt to ‘help Yeltsin’ in his ongoing conflict with the Parliament, by supporting the Russian President’s threats to disband the legislature , by endorsing Yeltsin’s effort to seize dictatorial or special powers from virtually all of Russia’s other democratic institutions and even by suggesting that Clinton might go instead to Moscow for a solidarity summit with Yeltsin. The result has been to put U.S. government in very bad institutional company. Opposed to Yeltsin’s power grab was not only Russia’s Parliament but also its Constitutional Court, Attorney General, Justice Minister and Vice President.»- see The Nation, April 12, 1993 , at p.p.477,478.
(100) The events surrounding the September 21, 1993 coup allow for the impression that Yeltsin undertook the coup in collusion with the United States and, not unthinkable, on instigation of the United States.
(101) Julien Freund-The Central Themes in Carl Schmitt’s Political Thought ,Telos, nr 102, New York 1994, at p. 31
(102) Alexander Dugin- Carl Schmitt. Pjat’ urokov Rossii-ibid. at p. 134
(103) Julien Freund - ibid. p. 31
(104) Alexander Dugin- ibid. p. 134

New York 1994-96
This article was initially published in abreviated form in the American political journal "Telos" and in different version has been published in other journals.
The full version was published in German: "Rusland, Europa und Washingtons Neue Welt-Ordnung. Das geopolitische Project einen Pax eurasiatica" ETAPPE, Heft 12/Juni 1996