The Paradigm of the End_Second Version

8/13/2019 The Paradigm of the End_Second Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-paradigm-of-the-endsecond-version 1/30

Aleksandr Dugin

THE PARADIGM OF THE ENDThe Last Degree of Generalization

The Real Marxism

The Geo-Political Paradigm of History

The War of Nations Clash of Religions

The Last Formula

The Last Degree of Generalization

The analyses of civilizations, their correlation, their confrontation, their development, their

interdependence is so difficult a problem, that in dependence on methods, profundity of

research, one can obtain not just different, but directly contrary results. Therefore even toobtain the most approximate conclusions one has to apply the reduction, to reduce the

variety of criteria to the one simplified model. Marxism prefers just economic approach,

which becomes a substitute and a common denominator for all other disciplines. So does

(though less explicitly) Liberalism.

Geo-politics, which is less known and less popular than variety of economic approaches,

but no less effective and obvious in explaining history of civilizations, suggests completelyanother reduction method. Another version of reductionism is diverse ethic approach forms,

which include “racial theories" as their extreme aspect.

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

There four models seem to be the most popular ways of generalizations, and though thereexists diversity of other methods, the latter ones could scarcely come up with them by the

criteria of popularity, obviousness and simplicity.

For the notion of "civilization" is of extremely large scale - maybe of the most large scale,

that the historical consciousness of humankind is capable of generating - reduction methodsshould be extremely approximate, leaving nuances, details, factors of middle and smallimportance aside. Civilizations are such human conglomerations, which have vast spatial,

temporal, and cultural boundaries. According to the definition, civilizations should have

significant size - they should last long, control significant geographical regions, generate

special expressive cultural and religious (sometimes ideological) style.

http://utenti.lycos.it/ArchivEurasia/dugin_pf_eng.html#1














At the end of second millennium AD some summing up of civilizations' history suggestsitself, for the significance of the date suggests the idea of attainment some threshold, brink.

And hence the idea appears to bring diverse direction of civilization analysis to the one,

universal paradigm. Certainly, the degree of simplification, approximation and reductionwill be here even more, than in four above mentioned reduction models, but it should be

scarcely considered an insuperable obstacle. Any generalization (felicitous one or not, justified one or not especially) will indispensably come across the sharp criticism, which

can issue from both "particular harrow specialist", having long forgot about primordial principles in the whirl of details, and conscious (or instinctive) adherents of some other

generalization, just using pragmatically the contradictions in details in order to discredit the

whole.

The Real Marxism

Marx's doctrine was so popular in twentieth century, that it is utterly hard to talk about it,

especially in Russia, where Marxism was for long decades proclaimed the official ideology.

This issue is seen in the same way morbid and insatiated with allusions and connotations bywestern intellectuals also, for whom the dispute and debates on Marx where the central

theme of philosophical and culturological discurses. Nobody else influenced the modern

history so much as Marx did - it is difficult to name the thinker, comparable with him by

fame, popularity, book’s circulation.

But excessive exploitation of Marxism brought at some moment to the reverse result - itsideas and doctrines appeared to be so universal, that at some moment one stopped

comprehending them, turned Marxism to “dogma”, to gadget, to obscure cliche, which began to be used and interpreted in absolutely arbitrary way. Orthodox Marxists blocked

reflexions in that sphere, canonized Marx’s views even in the spheres, where they were

obviously disproved by the course of History itself (both economical and political).Heretics and revisionists extended Marxism too much, including ideas and theories, which

strictly speaking, bear no relation to Marxist context, in it. And after some time we came

across the paradoxical situation, when the most popular and famous thinker of the present(unpenetrable) unintelligible for most people. Ultimately Gordian knot of Marxism was just

liquidated by declaration of Marxist philosophy and political economy the “delusion” and

then universal renunciation of the ideology.

The excessive laudation and dogmatism turned to the same way excessive subversion andrelativity. And at the swift speed all having been looking so impressive building ofMarxism was suddenly liquidated in all parts. The forces, responsible for creation of

alienated dogmatic Marx’s cult, were the most zealous liquidators. Nevertheless, nowadays

Marx‘s practically have no adherents, but they haven’t become less profound and strikingly

exact in settling certain questions because of it. The situation is arising, when Marxism,having little by little utterly lost its adherents, can be applied by completely different forces,



having been standing aside from Marxism in the time, when the intellectual and political

stir reigned around its ideas and names.

Such distance and no engagement in one or another Marxist camp on the previous stage of

intellectual history allows to re-discover Marx again, read his message in the way, which

was impassable before. It’s absolutely obvious, that the vast part of Marx’s cultural andhistorical views are hopelessly obsolete, and various aspects of his doctrine should be

discarded (rejected) because of non-adequacy. However it is more important to impartially

consider those aspects of his doctrine, which vise versa completely retained up-to-datenessand which may help understand the most important aspects of history’s paradigm in its

economic, social and political display. And noone can be compared with Marx in that. This

is namely he, who formulated the capacious reductionist history’s paradigm, capable ofexplaining its essential processes and orientations with striking trustworthiness,

obviousness and convincingness. Therefore it is not out of place to remember the Marxist

comprehension principles of history formula. Marx’s approach to history is dialectical, presupposing the dynamical development of correlations between the (principle) main

subjects of historical events. Together with that the fundamental dualism of those subjects

is visible through his theory, it predetermines dialectics, it is its contents and the ethic base

of its course.

These two subjects were defined by Marx as Labour and Capital. Marx considered Labour

as creative, constructive impulse of being, as a central axis of life and motion, as some

positive, solar principle. Using Darwinist image-bearing expressions, Marxism asserts that“Labour made the Human out of the ape”. The matter is that the element of the creation

production is that main existence vector, which changes processes from the horizontal,

internal state to the vertical, volitional one.

The Labour is according to Marx a positive, bright principle. Apart from the Bible ethics, in

which Labour is meant to be the result of the Fall and some kind of damnation to Adam for

violation of divine commandments (such attitude to Labour is characteristic for other

religious traditions also), Marx undoubtedly proclaimed the sacred, wholly positivecharacter of Labour, its primacy (primary nature), its self-value and self-sufficing character.

But in its primordial state Labour as primary impulse of development and history’s starting

point (like Hegel’s Absolute Idea) still doesn’t realize itself, can’t bring about the

completeness of its inherent lighting nature.

To attain this, the long and complicated movement process is needed through the dialectical

labyrinths of history. Only after terrible ordeals and difficult exploits will Labour be able to

reach its triumphal victorious state through a number of dialectical self-negations, to become completely conscious, happy and free. According to Marx all the history is found

between “cave communism” - the primordial state, when the Labour was free, but not

realized and not universal - and just communism, when the latter returns to its lighting self-sufficing character having walked through the labyrinth of alienation, but it is then at the

total, universal and fully realized extent. The human became the human after he entered the

element of Labour. But he becomes a completed human only after he is able to realize theabsolute value of that element, free the latter from all the touches of the negative principle,

that is in the epoch of communism.



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

Labour?

Marx calls it “exploitation”, he instinctively reveals the supreme and perfect form of such

exploitation in Capital. Capital is the name of world evil, according to Marxism, the dark

principle, the negative pole of history. Between “cave communism” of just appeared humanand the final communism there is a long period of “exploitation”, alienating Labour from

its essence, ordeals and privations of sun in the labyrinths of darkness.

Properly speaking, this is just the (substance) content of history Capital does not appear atonce, it gradually shows as the instruments and mechanisms of Labour’s lighting element

exploitation by the dark forces of usurpers perfect themselves. The development of Labour

is conductive to the development of the exploitation models.

The complicated dialectics of productive forces’ and productive relations’ correlation

constant dynamics leads both poles of economic history along the spiral of development.

The opposed aims, the aims and activity vectors of workers and exploiters promote in theobjective way the intensification of one, political and economic process. The productive

forces are the internal structure of Labour and its organization. The relations of productionare the model for interaction of that subdued basic structure with the exploiter principle.

The element of Labour is the element of abundance. The Labour always produces somemore than it is necessary to meet vital needs of workers themselves. There is the essence of

its positive, creative, lighting, solar principle in that fact. The Labour produces plus. This

plus, this surplus is taken away by the dark pole, the parasite of history. The productiverelations are throughout all economic history reduced to the expropriation of some

substance from agents of plus by agents of minus. As the productive forces perfect

themselves, so do the exploitation paradigms. But already at the first stages of humankindhistory one can unveil the characteristic features of two beings, which will clash with all

their might only at the end of it.

The primeval worker is the germ of the industrial proletariat. The tribal elite is the germ of

Capital. As the long millenniums of humankind history go by, two subjects of world drama

attain the purest state, fully realized and summing up all previous stages. From slave-owning system trough feudal relations the capitalism forms itself, the most important and in

many aspects eschatological stage of Marxist doctrine. Here all the complicated social

situation is reduced to absolutely clear dualism - the proletariat as a class is the incarnationof the economic and historical Labour element development result, and the bourgeoisie is

the embodiment of the absolute, most perfect, completed and conscious pole of the pare

exploitation. The bright pole finishes its tragic way through the labyrinths of alienation, thedark pole comes close to its complete victory. The Proletariat and the Capital. The Pure

Labour, i.e. the proletarian has no property (“except of the chains”) - and the Pure Capital,

being transmuted from what is possessed into what possesses, into the element of the PureAlienation, Absolute Exploitation. Marx reduces all the rest historical, philosophical,

cultural, social, scientific and technical problems to this political and economic scheme,

considering them derivative and secondary ones as regards the basic paradigm.



Further, Marx proclaims, that the second industrial revolution, signifying the achievement by the capitalism its peak, is the turning point world’s its history. From that moment on

both historical subjects - Labour and Capital - become not just playthings of history

objective logic, but its conscious and self-dependent subjects, able not only submit thenecessity, but also manage the most important historical processes, prepare them, provoke,

project, establish their own autonomous will. The matter is not about an individual orgroup, but about a class subject. The proletariat, having become a class, becomes the

historical personality, realized by Labour, the successor of plus in all stages of itsdevelopment. The Capital embodies the world minus, removal, alienation, but only in the

absolute, free, volitional, personal state. Henceforth it is able to plan the history, manage it.

At this stage Labour and Capital pass to level of idea or ideology, exists from now on not

only in the objective substance of reality, but also in ideological space of thought.

The arrival of those two personalities in the sphere of thought fully unveils the essentiality

dualism in this sphere also - there is the thought of Labour and the thought of Capital, thereis the ideology of plus and the ideology of minus. Both those ideologies receive the

maximum possible independence and freedom, and all the sphere of consciousness

transmutes from the sphere of reflection into the sphere of creativity, projecting. The

ideology of Labour (proletarian philosophy) retains here its creative character too, it createsthe project. The ideology of Capital (bourgeois philosophy) remains essentially negative - it

usurps and re-produces the void, conceptualizes the immobilism, freezes life, postulates the

present moment and denies the goal.

The supreme and most perfect formula of Capital is, according to Marx, the English liberal

political economy - especially theory of “free exchange”, “universal market” of Adam

Smith and his followers. But except this, most evident form there exist the variety of moresubtle, complicated, complex ideological constructions, covering the pernicious, parasitic

breath of Capital. The bourgeois philosophy becomes henceforward the most effective

weapon of exploitation, its superior form.

But to counterbalance it, the doctrinal body of working class itself forms, the main contoursof the communist ideology becomes more and more clear. Marx considered his own works

exactly in such context. He had a presentiment about that his ideas will form the

“proletarian philosophy”, become the most important instrument of Labour during its

eschatological last battle against its enemy since earliest times.

Marx proclaimed a kind of “Labour Gospel”. He asserted, that Labour being then at turning

point of political and economic history, having become the Pure Labour, should

momentarily realize itself and its history, start performing the function of one out of twoteleological poles of history, unveil the mechanism of deception and alienation, being the

basis of any exploitation, unmask the negative, vampiric, minus function of the Capital (by

the explanation of the surplus value production and expropriation logic) and bring about the proletarian Revolution, which should overthrow the Capital into the abyss of non-existence

and uproot the world evil.

After the short phase of transitional formation (socialism) the “Eden on Earth” comes, the

Labour becomes completely free from the dark principle. Here the essence of Marxist



political and economic model is outlined. And one should recognize (admit), that he is so persuasive and reliable, that it is not surprising why Marx’s views captivated such amount

of people in twentieth century, having become a kind of religion, in which name

unprecedented sacrifices were made.

In which way Marx’s scenario was put into practice? What was it inexact in, what wasdisproved? How should the content of political and economic history of our century be

regarded, if we remain in frames of outlined by Marxism philosophy of history?

At a threshold of the third millennium we can assert, that Capital has won Labour, turned to be able to evade the coming Revolution, dissolve the completed historical manifestation of

Labour as a revolutionary subject, avert the danger of proletarian philosophy concentration

into the unitary , fully fledged ideological apparatus. But, nevertheless, the Labour, inspired by Marx, tried to give “last and decisive battle” to its primordial enemy. The Labour was

defeated, but the fact of the great battle cannot be denied. This battle is just the main

content of political and social history of twentieth century. It is all according to Marx, butwith some other (not good) result. The world evil has won. The minus turned to be stronger

and more skilful than the plus. The Capital having taken the form of subject proved its

superiority over the Labour, having also taken the form of subject.

How did it take place in the real life?

Firstly, the first lack of correspondence to Marxist orthodoxy has happened at the momentof the Great October socialist revolution. This event became the key turning point of the

post-Marxist history. On the one hand, the uprising of the marxist-bolsheviks demonstrated

the fact that Marxist ideas are true and confirmed by the real practice. The proletarian

communist worker party was able to commit Revolution, overthrow the exploiter system,destroy the power of Capital and the bourgeois class, build up Socialist State, basing on

main theses of Marx himself. The Marxism was proclaimed the dominating ideology of that

state. In other words, the Russian experience gave the first confirmation to the rightness andeffectualness of the revolutionary Marxist doctrine. However, the fact of the Russian

revolution is the most important circumstance here - the successful proletarian revolution

came about not there and not then, where and when Marx himself predicted. The spatialand temporal mistake was not the quantitative, but the qualitative factor. Therefore this

mistake bore the enormous doctrinal significance.

Marx supposed, that the final becoming of proletariat as a class and its forming into the

revolutionary party should come about in the most developed country of the industrialWest, i.e. exactly where bourgeois mechanisms reached its most perfect state of

development, and the industrial proletariat makes up the social dominant of all the

productive forces. Marx thought that the proletarian revolutions will immediately provokethe chain reaction in the other states and societies. Marx was sure, that in the other spatial

and temporal points the socialist revolutions can’t come about, for both historical subjects

in them - Labour and Capital - still don’t reach the stage, when the full and adequatetransition of the material into the ideal, of the subjective into the conscious, of utmost stage

of the basis development into the superstructure adequate form is possible. The Russian

experience showed the fact, that the socialist revolution turned to be possible and proceeded



successfully in the country with underdeveloped capitalism, long before the full-scaledachievement of the industrial revolution second stage, in the country with very insignificant

share of the industrial proletariat, and after Bolsheviks’ victory the revolutionary processes

did not spread in Europe at all, but remained within the boundaries of the former RussianEmpire. The Labour formed into the political party and has won Capital in completely other

conditions than which were foreseen by Marx.

In other words, the historical Revolution in Russia has corrected its spiritual father theory.

The sense of that historical correction is at the greatest extent grasped in research ofnational-bolshevism phenomenon, analyzed in detail by Mikhail Agurskiy . The proletarian

revolution in Russia proved the fact, that the victory of Labour over Capital is possible and

real only on the condition, that carrying out this political and economic act some additionaldimensions participate - national-messiahnism (utterly developed in Russians and East-

European Jews), mystic and sectarian chiliastic tendencies (of both ordinary people and

intellectuals), the Blanquist, order-like, conspiratorial style of the revolutionary party(Leninism, later Stalinism). By the way, the analogous set of approaches, though less

radical one, ensured the victory of some other anti-capitalist force, which was able to carry

out in practice the quasi-socialist revolution - the Italian fascism and German national-

socialism. In other words, the Marxism turned to be the historically practicable one inheterodox, national-bolshevik performance, a bit different from the strict concept of Marx

himself.

It came true only in combination with other factors, and, more specifically speaking, whereMarx’s political and economic doctrine was combined with cultural and religious

tendencies which were quite dissimilar with cultural and historical discourse (suggestions)

of “Capital” author himself. By contrast with the Marxism historical realization success inthe national-bolshevik performance, the transition to socialism did not take place in the

bourgeois West itself at the moment when the capitalism reached its development limit, i.e.

the threshold of the third industrial revolution (and that happened in 60s - 70s of twentieth

century). While the Marxism heterodox version turned to be practicable, the orthodoxversion was refuted by the history. The capitalism in its most developed form turned to be

able to overcome the most dangerous for it stage of development, effectively manage the

threat of proletarian rebellion and to go over to even more perfect level of existence, whenthe alternative opposed subject itself, the proletariat was abolished, dispersed, vapourized

as the class and the eschatological revolutionary party of Labour in the complicated system

of having had no alternative Society of Spectacle (Guy Debor). In other words, the post-industrial society, having become the reality, definitely showed that literally comprehended

Marx’s prophecies were not put into life. This, by the way, is the reason of the modern

European Marxism big crisis.

But we know also today about the sad end of the socialist state, which was self-liquidated

as a result of exclusively internal processes, having brought the national-bolshevik system

to the fatal brink of the bourgeois perestroyka. And 40 years before the other non-capitalist

regimes of Europe also fell - the fascist Italy and national-socialist Germany. Thus, to theend of twentieth century Capital has won Labour in all its ideological manifestations - be it

the orthodox Marxism (in the form of European Social-Democracy), the national-bolshevik



version of Soviets or kinds of the very approximate, compromise and doubtful variants of

the European regimes of so called “Third Way”.

The victory of Capital over the Labour in addition shows the greater degree of

consciousness of exactly that history pole, which is able to the long-term and consistent

keeping adherence to its primary goal, which is prepared to make conclusions from itshistorical enemies conceptual models studying and admit in practice the methods and

paradigms, revealed by the revolutionary genius, for the purpose of prevention.

After Marx the camp of Labour on global political and economic scale was divided intothree lesser disharmonious, conflicting with each other ideological camps - Soviet socialism

(national-bolshevism), western Social-democracy and (with reservations) fascism. The

capitalist camp remained in its essence indivisible and cleverly used the contradictions inthe Labour ideologies. Thus, instead of the united proletarian revolutionary communist

party, firstly, pro-Soviet, radicalism supporting bolshevik organizations under control of

Comintern, which means that they were associated with Moscow, as the capital of the ThirdInternational, and put into effect its will, secondly, aboriginal social-democratic parties,

fighting for the authority in proletarian circles with pro-Moscow forces, and thirdly,

national-socialist movements, applying national-bolshevik experience of Moscow (but in

much more relaxed variant) to their own national context, formed in bourgeois West in the

critical moment of history.

Capital’s strategy consists in that the three trends of Labour forces ideological expression

were by all means opposed to each other, in evading their consolidation into unitedhistorical social and political organism at any price. For the purpose of that the Social

Democracy and Bolshevism were opposed to fascism, the fascism itself to Social

Democracy and Bolshevism. The most successful stage of that strategy “people’s front” ofFrance in the epoch of Leon Blum and allied relations between the USSR and England with

USA during the war against countries of Axis.

On the other hand, western Social Democrats (as not adherent of national-bolshevik

Marxist orthodoxy) were actively drawn in political collaborationism with bourgeois

establishment by the parliamentary representation, were corrupted by the cooperation withthe System and were simultaneously opposed to “agents of Moscow” from the bolshevik

Leninist parties (Karl Kautskiy’s policy is the most significant in that sense).

And, finally, in the frames of the Soviet State itself there was not the consistent and

complete doctrinal forming of the national-bolshevism into the realized and non-contradictory ideology, in which its “i’s” were dotted and its “t’s” were crossed and the

strict correlations were set in approach to Marx’s heritage (what should be accepted, what

should be rejected). Instead of such correction, soviet ideologies went on insisting thatLeninism is just the adequate and orthodox Marxism, denying hereby the evident and

irrevocably losing the possibility of not contradictory and consistent, cognitively adequate

reflection.

Instead of clear and simple picture of Labour and Capital opposition in the form of the

Soviet socialist system, on the one hand, and countries of the capitalist West, on the other



hand, the separate mosaic emerged, in which the extremely negative matter was the factitself of existence of compromise (from the political and economic point of view) fascist

regimes and conciliating collaborationist Social Democracy. That intermediate fascist and

Social Democracy component stood firm in the way of the forming process of the unitedinternational proletarian communist party, which should have taken into account all the

ideological and spiritual experience of Russian Revolution.

This was the external factor. The internal factor consisted in the Soviet system itself

renunciation of making the most important ideological conclusions (with all the necessarycorrection of Marx’s cultural and philosophical views) out of its own success, which could

in its turn have facilitated the productive dialogue with fascism - especially in its extremely

left version. And finally, the western Social Democracy itself could instead of “people’sfrontal” anti-fascism pact with radical bourgeois forces and regimes come to mutual

understanding with nationally oriented socialist within the united anti-bourgeois block.

The Soviet bolshevism, European Social Democracy and even fascism as anti-capitalist intheir essence were bound to agree on the united ideological platform, somewhere between

the evident overestimation of Marx by orthodox adherents and his evident underestimation

by fascism. Such hypothetical ideology, some elevated to the absolute and universal

national-marxism, taking into account the consideration some other cultural and philosophical, spiritual and national points together with the absolutely right genius

historical paradigm of Marx; the realized and applying reflections ideal national-

bolshevism could just have been that effective social and economic platform, in which theLabour principle could be incarnated in the most perfect form. But it was seen evidently

unfortunately only a posterior, when one can summarize and analyze the great historical

catastrophe experience. Capital as a subject turned to be not only mightier, but also moreclever than Labour as a subject. It did not allow the “ghost/phantom/shadow of

communism” to be fully realized in history, dooming it to remain the ghost further on. It is

tragic ascertaining. But from epistemological point of view, from significant historical

paradigm generation point of view, which would allow us to clearly realize, at which

moment of history we are now, it is difficult to underestimate that conclusion.

The Geopolitical Paradigm of History

The geo-political reduction is known much less than the economic model, but its

convincingless and clearness, nevertheless, is quite comparable with the paradigm of

Labour-Capital. There is also in geo-politics the teleological pare of notions, which

represent the subject of history, but this time grasped not in its economic aspect, but in theaspect of political geography. The matter is about the two geo-political subjects - the Sea

(Thalassocracy) and the Land (Tellurocracy). The other pare is synonymous to them, theWest-East, where the West and the East are considered not just as geographical notions, but

as the civilization blocs. The West is, according to the doctrine of geo-politicians, equal to

the Sea. The East (Orient) is equal to the Land .



At the moment we are interested in the history’s summary, converted to the geo-politicsterms, the eschatological point, which is so clearly seen on the level of economy. There the

problem is formulated as follows: The Labour gave battle to Capital and lost. We live in the

period of that loss, which is considered by the liberal economic school as the final one,whence the theme of Fuckuyama’s “End of History” or Jaque Attali’s last “Monkey

formation”. Can one see some analogy to such situation in geo-politics? It is amazing, butsuch analogy not only exists, but also is so evident and obvious, that brings us close to the

very interesting conclusion.

The dialectics of geo-politics consists in the dynamical struggle of Sea and Land. Sea, the

civilization of Sea is the incarnation of the permanent mobility, “flurry”, the lack of fixed

centers. The only real boundaries of Sea are the continental masses along its edges, i.e.something opposite Sea itself. Land, the civilization of Land, on the contrary, is the

incarnation of the constancy, fixedness, “conservatism”. The boundaries of Land can be

strict and definite, natural, on various places of Land itself. And only Land civilization

gives good grounds for the sacred, juridical, ethical fixed systems of values.

The Land (the Orient) is hierarchy. The Sea (West) is chaos. The Land (Orient) is order.

The Sea (West) is dissolution. The Land (Orient) is a masculine principle. The Sea (West)

is the feminine one. The Land (East) is Tradition. The Sea (West) is contemporaneity. Andso forth. Those two subjects of geo-political history have a bent for the most full and

distinct expression, starting from the multi-polar complicated system of contradictions

(quite often reconcilable and partial ones) to the global scheme of blocs.

The Sea and the Land reached the planetary scale only in twentieth century, and especially

in its second half, when the contours of the bi-polar model finally formed. The Sea found

its final expression in the USA and NATO, the Land was incarnated in the socialistcountries conglomeration - the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). The technological

division of the planet into two camps, each of which was the purest form of the geo-

political civilization pare representative, has happened. The civilization of the Sea moved

throughout the history to the USA and Atlantism. Although that way was not at all direct.The civilization of Land was incarnated in the most complete form in the USSR. The

Atlantic and Eurasia were strategically integrated ones, and the hidden geo-political

tendencies, brilliantly recognized by Macinder in the base of the land spaces historical

logic, attained the great scale, the superior evidence of the "cold war".

But at the culmination for the geo-political history twentieth century the geo-political turn

occurred, which for some time confused the clear logic of geo-political as the science. The

emerging of the separate strategic bloc in 20s-30s in Europe - the countries of Axis - became the greatest obstacle, which stopped the organic becoming of Land civilization as a

valuable geo-political subject, laying down the foundations of the future defeat.

The countries of Axis tried to claim their geo-political independence and autarchy, having

rejected all the facts and recommendations of scientific schools. The European fascism was,from the geo-political point of view, the obstacle to the natural Eurasian expansion of

Soviets forward the West, but also rejected the obedient putting of the pure Atlantist

strategy into life.



Such ambiguity seriously hindered the world bi-polar picture crystallization, bore the inter-continental wars and conflicts, which strongly hindered the tendency, so that the Eurasian

Land continental subject realized itself and created its own consistent geo-political strategy.

The European fascism bore the irresponsible and bankrupt in the geo-political sense illusion

of the Sea (West) and Land (East) common interests, in the face of some third subject,which from the geo-political doctrine's point of view couldn't not be the fiction, for it didn't

possess enough geo-political, geographical, historical and civilization scale. The Europe (be

it fascist or not) has only two geo-political opportunities - either to be the western fore-postof the Orient (as it was, for example, in the Orthodox Empire of Rome before the split in

Christianity), or to be the strategic coast zone under control of Sea, opposed to the

continental masses of Eurasia. The strategy of Axis countries was neither this nor that one.The future defeat of Germany was evident already then, when the war on two fronts started.

Such unnatural shady enterprise was not only suicidal for Germany (on a large scale,

Europe), but also laid the indeterminate, unfinished geo-political base for the entireEurasian continent, which ultimately brought all the Land civilization to the destruction and

break-up.

That last suggestion is based on the brilliant analysis of the USSR and Warsaw treaty

organization break down, made by Jean Tiriar 20 years before it became the fact. Tiriarshowed that, from the geo-political point of view, the strategic space, controlled by

countries of the socialist camp, is not finished and can't stand the long confrontation with

the West. As he thought, the main reason was the problem of the divided Europe, whichgave all the advantages to the overseas Power to the detriment of the USSR. Tiriar thought

that to solve that difficult problem, left to Eurasia from Hitler's suicidal politics, it was

necessary either to conquer the Western Europe and include its countries in the socialistcamp, or, on the contrary, insist on the withdrawal of strategic bases and troops of the

USSR with the parallel disbandment of NATO and removal of all American strategic bases.

That would bring to the creation of neutral space in Europe, which would secure the

possibility for Moscow to fully concentrate on the southern direction and give the decisive

battle to the USA in Afghanistan, on the Far and Middle East.

But the civilization of the Sea studied Macinder's and Mahan's geo-political theories in the

most attentive way, not only collating its strategy with them, but also understanding all theseriousness of the threat, coming from the progressive Eurasian continental integration

under the protection of Soviets and took all the possible measures in order not to allow this

integration. And again, as in the case with Labour-Capital struggle, not only the objectivehistorical forces acted, but also the direct active intervention of a subjective factor was

observed - agents of influence of the West did their best, not to allow the "Continental

Bloc" realization, the pact of Berlin - Moscow - Tokyo, the project of which was advanced by the prominent German geo-politician Karl Haushofer. Together with the geo-political

researches development the Sea obtained the logical and effective intellectual, conceptual

apparatus to act throughout the history not just inertial, but consciously.

The end of the Soviet bloc, break up and disintegration of the USSR means in geo-politicalterms the victory of Sea over the Land, the Talassocracy over Tellurocracy, West over East.

And again, as in the Labour-Capital pare case, we see in the history of twentieth century the



teleological distinguishing of two very important, earlier not manifested geo-politicalsubjects, but this time this is Sea and Land, we see their planetary duel and the final victory

of Sea, West.

If we compare the case of economic reduction with the geo-political history explanation

model, the obvious parallelism immediately arrests our attention, the parallelism which isdetected in all the stages of both history aspects. It seems that one and the same trajectory is

repeated on different, parallel levels, not associated directly with each other. Therefore the

following analogy suggests itself:

Fate of Labour = Fate of Land, East.

Fate of Capital = Fate of Sea, West.

The Labour is fixed, Capital is liquid. Labour East is the creation of values, rising ("the

East" literally means in Old Russian "rising"), Capital West is exploitation, alienation the

Fall of the thing ("West" literally means in Russian "falling down").

The Sea civilization is the civilization of liberalism.

The Land civilization is the civilization of socialism.

Eurasia, Land, East, socialism is the synonymous sequence. Atlantism, Sea, West, Capital,

liberalism, market is the synonymous sequence too. The comparison of the politicaleconomy and the geo-politics shows us the uncommonly harmonious conceptual picture.

"End of History" in geo-political terms means "end of Land", "end of East". Doesn't it

remind of the Gospel symbolism of the Flood, the Deluge?

The War of Nations

Another model of history interpretation is various ethic theories, which consider nations,

sometimes races, sometimes one nation, opposed to all the rest ones as the main subjects ofhistory. There is the uncountable variety of versions is this sphere. A German Herder was

one of the most prominent theorist of the ethic approach, his ideas were developed by

German romanticists, partially borrowed by Hegel, and ultimately, applied by the German“Conservative Revolution” representatives, especially by the prominent thinker, lawyer

Carl Schmidt.

The racial approach was in a general way stated in count /Gobino/’s works, and then takenup by German national-socialists. But the ideals of considering the history in the light of

the one nation are in the most distinctive way represented in Judaic, Zionist circles, basing

on the Jewish religion specificity. Besides, during the period of patriotic enthusiasm the

tendencies, close to the idea of national exclusiveness, can be detected in any nation, butthe difference is that almost nowhere else these theories acquire as explicit religious



content, are so stable and developed, have such a long historical tradition, are the object of

almost general agreement as among Jews.

There exists a number of the unusual, but extremely persuasive ethic theories, missing all

the above mentioned. Such is, for instance, the theory of “passionarity” and “ethnic

genesis” suggested by the genius Russian scientist Lev Gumilyov. This theory allowsconsiders the world history as a result of the organic live being, going through various

periods of life - from infancy to old age and death. Despite the fact that this theory is to the

greatest extend interesting and reveals many enigmatic natural laws of civilization, itdoesn’t have that degree of teleological reductionism, which interests us. Gumilyov’s view

s don’t claim to be last generalization. Moreover, Gumilyov was prone to consider the

eschatological views (evident or hidden) as the expression of nation’s decadent stage ofdevelopment, as chimeras, emerging in the environment of the decaying cultures and

nations, having lost passionarity, closing the threshold of their death.

Correspondingly, the statement itself of the question, which interests us - the versions of“end of history” interpretation - would be nothing else but the expression of the profound

decadence. By that reason Gumilyov should be put aside.

After the example of Gumilyov one can distinguish the first criterion, basing on which all

theories of nation as a subject of history should be divided in two parts. - Some theorieshave the teleological, eschatological dimension, the other do not. What do we mean? There

exist such conceptions of the ethic history, which consider the fate of some nation (variant’

several nations or races) the reverberation of the entire historical process sense, andconsequently, the ultimate triumph, rebirth or, vise versa, defeat, humiliation,

disappearance of a nation is considered as a result of the history, the ultimate expression of

its secrete sense.

This is the ethic theories of the eschatological orientation, they interest us most of all. The

other ones, even the most extravagant and interesting, but having no teleologicaldimension, don’t contribute anything to understanding the problem we study. So, for

instance, Russian, American, Jewish, Kurdian, English nationalism, German racism

obviously tend to eschatologically state the question. Polish, Hungarian, Arabian, Serbian,Italian or Armenian nationalism despite the fact that they can be not less original, saturated

and dynamic. Are evidently passive in the teleological sense. The first group supposes that

the given nation is the primary subject of history, its peripetia make the historical processcontents and final triumph together with trampling of the hostile nations will put an end to

history. The second group does not have views of such global scale and insist just on the

pragmatic and not so pretentious strengthening of national specificity, culture and statehoodin the face of surrounding nations and cultures. Here is the important dividing line. The

study of the second group of ethic doctrines by no means helps us expose the historical

paradigm, for there is too small scale here from the very beginning. The first group, on thecontrary, meets our requirements. Though here also we should separate the “globalism of

desire” from the “real globalism” for the given nation should posses a great deal of

historical scale (both in time and space) in order to consider even in purely theoretical way

the ethic interpretation of history, because otherwise the picture turns to be ridiculous.



But even having reduced the subject of considering to the “teleological nationalism”, westill do not have the evident picture, like those which were obtained during the analysis of

two previous paradigms. And for there was a perfect and amazing evident analogy between

the political economy and geo-politics, we will try - a bit artificially - to spread the samemodel onto the ethnic history also. And only then we will find out whether such

identification was justified or not.

The geo-politics allows in this respect to take the first step. It Sea = West, the “nation of

West” is the bearer of the talassocratic tendencies in the ethnic respect. And for we alreadyhave in our equation the formula Sea = Capital, the hypothetical (yet) “nation of West”

becomes the third member of identification - Sea = “nation of West” = Capital. It is easy to

build the equation of the opposite pole Land =”nation of East” = Labour. Now let’scorrelate both notions of “nation of West” and “nation of East” with some fixed historical

realities, and find the presence of the corresponding eschatological doctrines out.

Here Russian Eurasians (Trubetskoy, Savitskiy and others) come to the aid of us. Theyidentified the “nation of West” after Danilevskiy with “Roman-German” nations, and,

correspondingly, the “nation of East” - with “Eurasians”, in the center of which there are

Russian as a unique synthesis of Slavonic, Turkic, Ugric, German and Iranian nations.

Certainly, to talk about “Roman-Germans” as about a nation isn’t quite accurate, but stillthere obviously exist some common civilization and historical features here. The Roman-

Germans are united by geography, culture, religion, the common character of the

technological development. The Western Roman Empire and later “Sacred (in reality,absolutely not sacred) Roman Empire of German nations” was usually considered the

cradle of what could be called “Roman-German civilization”. The national and cultural

unity is present, but whether it is justified to talk about the united eschatologicalconception, which would consider the fate of that ethnic group as the paradigm of history?

If we look attentively at the logic of the Roman-German world development, we see that

this world practically from the beginning usurped and used on itself the concept of

“oecumena”, i.e. “universe”, which characterizes earlier in Orthodox empire the Aggregateof all its parts. But after split from the Byzantium the West limited the concept “oecumena”

by itself only, reducing the universal history to the history of the West, leaving overboard

not only non-Christian world, but also all eastern Orthodox-Christian nations, andmoreover, all axis of genuine Christianity - the Byzantium. So, the very center of authentic

Christianity - the Orthodox-Christian East slipped out the boundaries of the “Christian

world” of Roman-Germans. And further, that conception of “European oecumena” wasinherited by nations of West both after the breach of their catholic religious unity and their

ultimate secularization. The Roman-German world identified its ethic history with the

history of the humanity, what, in particular, gave grounds to Nikolay Trubetskoy to entitlehis splendid book “Europe and Humanity”, wherein he persuasively demonstrates that the

identification by the West if itself with all the humanity makes the West the enemy of the

real Humanity in the full and normal sense of that concept.

In such perspective the actual self-identification of Europe and Europeans with the ethicsubject of history starts to be perceptible, and in such perspective, the positive (in mind of

the Roman-German) outcome of history will be equal to the ultimate triumph of the West,

its cultural and political “oecumena” over all the rest nations of the planet. This, in



particular, presupposes, that the Roman-German political, ethical, cultural and economicstandards, generated in the process of history, should become the universal and everywhere

accepted, and all the resistance from the autochthon nations and cultures should be broken

down.

The conceptual eschatologism of the European nations came through several phases ofdevelopment. At first it had the catholic and scholastic expression, parallelly with which the

purely mystical doctrines were also developed, like the conception of the “Third Kingdom”

by Joahim de Flor. The question was that the Roman-German world will complete the“gospelization” of barbarians and heretics (including orthodox Christians!) and the

“paradise on Earth” will come, aspects of which seemed more or less analogue to the

universal domination of Vatican, but only brought to the absolute state. In sixteenth centurythe European eschatologism was expressed in Reformation, and later found its final

formula in Anglo-Saxon protestant doctrine of “lost tribes”. That doctrine considers Anglo-

Saxon nations as ethic descendants if 10 lost tribes of Israel, having had not returned,according to Bible history, from the Babylonian captivity. Therefore, the genuine Jews,

Israelites, “chosen nation” are Anglo-Saxons, the “golden corn” of Roman-German world,

who should at the end of times establish the domination over all other nations of Earth. In

this extreme doctrine, formulated in seventeenth century by the adherents of OliverCromwell, all the logic of European ethic history is concentrated in a concise form, West’s

ethic and cultural universalism of claims to the world dominance is clearly and undoubtedly

affirmed.

Thus, the specification of ethic subject of Roman-German world comes about. The Anglo-

Saxons, the protestant fundamentalists of eschatological persuasion gradually, but more and

more evidently show as it . But one should seek for the grounds of that doctrine in thecatholic Middle Age, in Vatican. As regards this, Verner Sombart gave the brilliant analysis

in his book “Bourgeois”.

Anglo-Saxons, parallelly to the forming of conception of being ethnically chosen, were first

to enter two decisive processes, which underlie the modern political economy and geo- politics. England carries on the industrial break-through, first of the European powers,

brining about the industrial revolution, which speeded up the achievement of the capitalism

bloom, and simultaneously conquers sea space of the planet, winning a victory over more

archaic, “ground” and traditionalist Spaniards during the geo-political duel.

Carl Schmitt clearly demonstrated the interrelation between those two turning points of

modern history . Gradually, the initiative of England was adopted by another “branch” state

- the USA, which was at first based on principles of the “protestant fundamentalism” andwas seen by its founders as the “space of utopia”, as the “promised land”, where the history

must end in the planetary triumph of “10 lost tribes”. This idea is incarnated in American

conception of Manifest Destiny, which considers “American nation” as the ideal human

community, being the apotheosis of nations’ world history.

Having compared the abstract theory of “Anglo-Saxons’ ethnic beingness chosen” with

historical practice we will see, that the real influence of England as the vanguard of Roman-

German world on Europe itself and, on a broader scale, on the entire world and world



history is really huge. And in the second half of twentieth century, when USA became defacto the synonym of notion ”western nations” and the symbol of the eschatological Anglo-

Saxon nationalism validity, no one can doubt Manifest Destiny at all. If, for instance, the

mason-catholic nationalism of Frenchmen , despite the lofty myths about the “last king”,turned to be just regional and relative one, the Anglo-Saxons conception of protestant

fundamentalism is confirmed not only by striking successes of “mistress of seas”(England), but also by the giant superpower, the only one in the modern world.

Now let’s turn to the “nation of East”, to Eurasians. Here one ought to pay attention, first ofall, to nations which proved their large historical dimensions. And, naturally, there is no

doubt, that Russians are the only ethnic community, which turned to be up to the mark of

history in the modern world, which was able to establish its national eschatologism on ahuge scale. It was not so always, during some period of East’s history Russians were just

one of nations, together with the others, extending or decreasing with the changeable

success the area of its cultural, political and geographic presence. China and India, beingthe most ancient and elevated traditional civilizations, despite their dimensions and spiritual

significance, never advanced any conceptions of eschatological nationalism, nor attached

any dramatism to international conflicts and relations. Besides, neither Chinese, nor

Hinduist tradition were notable for “messianism”, the claim to their religious and ethic paradigm universality. This is Orient - static, “permanent”, profoundly “conservative”, not

able and not wishing to accept a challenge of the West. Neither in China, nor in India there

never existed any national theories, according to which the Chinese or Indians willsometime, in ultimate times, rule the world. Only Iranians and Arabs possessed the national

and racial theories of eschatological orientation. But the history of last centuries showed

that the real expressed Islamic religious component - is not sufficient to consider this

teleology as a serious competitor to that of “nations of West”.

The duties of vanguard of “nation of East” is undoubtedly imposed upon Russians, who

were able to generate the universalistic and messianist ideal - comparable with that of

Anglo-Saxons later with American one by its scale - and incarnated it in the enormoushistorical reality. The eschatological idea of Orthodox-Christian Kingdom - “Moscow as

the Third Rome” - was transferred to the secularized Petersburg Russia, and, finally, to the

USSR. From the Byzantine Orthodox Christianity through the Holy Russ to the capital ofthe Third International. In the analogous way to how Anglo-Saxons moved from the ethnic

conception of “Israel tribes” to American melting-pot as the “artificial eschatological

liberal paradise”, the Russian messianism - at first based on the conception of “opennation” - obtained in twentieth century the formula of “Soviet nationalism”, gathering

nations and cultures of Eurasia under the giant cultural and ethical universal project.

The fact, that American protestants by common consent identify Russia with the “countryof Log”, i.e. with the place, where antichrist will come from, is one more confirmation of

just such ethic dual teleology. The doctrine of “dispensationism” directly asserts that the

final battle of history will go off between the Christians of Empire of Good (USA) and

heretic dwellers of Eurasian Empire of Evil (i.e. Russians and rallied round them nations ofthe Orient). Such idea of conferring the status of “ country of Log” to Russia spread in

especially active way in the protestant circle of America starting from the middle of the last

century. Such views are characteristic also for many protestant trends in England and



among Jesuit Catholics. The judaizing catholic priest (Jesuit) Emmanuil la Concha,working under the pseudonym “Rabbi Ben Esra” was first to formulate the principles of

conception of “dispensationism”. The Scottish preachress Marta MacDonalds from the sect

of Fiftieth Day Longers borrowed the dispensationist theory from him, and then this theory became the foundation stone of the doctrine of English fundamentalist preacher Derby, who

founded the sect “Plymouth brothers” or just “Brothers”. All this protestant (and sometimescatholic) eschatology, extremely popular in the West, asserts that western Christians and

Jews have at the “end of times” the identical fate, and the orthodox Christians and other notChristian nations of Eurasia incarnate the “antichrist’s suite”, which will take the field

against the force of Good, bring a lot of harm to the just men, but, ultimately, will be routed

and defeated on the territory of Israel, where it will find its death. The degree of trust to this

theory and its dissemination among the ordinary people constantly increases.

The Bolshevik Revolution, creation of the state Israel, the cold war nicely fitted the

“prophetical” conceptions of “dispensationists” and strengthened their own faith in their

rightness.

Let us cursorily look through two more variants of ethnic teleology and make a conclusion,

which is probably already made by the attentive reader.

The easily verified throughout the history ethnic dualism, unveiled by us - “nation of West”(Kernel: Anglo-Saxons) and “nation of East” (Kernel: Russians) - ignores two famous

ethnic doctrines, which usually come to mind first of all every time the question is about

the “eschatological nationalism”. We mean that “racism” of German national-socialists andZionist conceptions of Jews. On what grounds did we put those realities aside, and

examined in the first instance the American and Russian-Soviet “nationalisms”, which are

not so evident and radical as the bordering on barbarity Nazism or the emphasizedanthropologic dualism of Jews, refusing the right of belonging to human kind to the “gois”4

?

We shall answer this question a bit later, and now let’s remind in short, what those two

variants of national eschatology consist in. The German racism reduces all the history to

racial opposition of Aryans, Indo-Europeans and all the other nations and races, considered“defective”. In the ground of such approach there is a mythological conception of “ancient

Aryans”, the first cultural dwellers of Earth, the magic race of kings and heroes of the high

Nord. This “Nordic race” was notable for all kinds of virtues, and the authorship of allcultural inventions belongs to it. Gradually the white race went down south and mixed with

the rude, semi-animal, sensual and wild nations. So did the mixed cultural forms, the

modern nations appear. All what is good in the modern civilization is possessions of thewhites. All what is bad is the product of mixing, the coloured races’ influence. The

vanguard of the white race are Germans, they preserved the purity of blood, cultural and

ethnic values. The vanguard of the coloured nations is Jews, the main enemies of the white

race, constantly plotting against the latter.

The racial eschatology consists in the idea, that Germans should place themselves at the

head of the white race, begin purifying the blood, separate the coloured nations from not

coloured ones and reach the world dominance, which reproduces at the now stage the





“African” orientation. The Eurasianism obviously relates to the East. The Atlantism relates

to the West.

In addition, the historical scale of the horizontal pare Anglo-Saxons - Russians is much

more significant and weighty than in the case of the vertical pare. And though Nazis were

in their time able to achieve the significant territorial successes, they were geo-politicallydoomed already from the very beginning, for their ethic and eschatological paradigm was

evidently insufficiently universal and ranged, and their history was not an independent

spiritual pole (as distinct form Russia). Just in the same way, despite the enormousinfluence of the Jewish factor in the world policy, Jews are still very far from their messian

ideal, and the role of the state Israel is still insignificant and exclusively instrumental in the

context of the big geo-politics, in which only blocs, comparable with NATO or former

Warsaw Treaty Organization, possess really serious significance.

One can’t disregard the German racism (historically obsolete) and all the more the Jewish

messianism (on the contrary, having strengthened itself in the second half of the twentiethcentury). But one also shouldn’t overestimate their significance, for in the case of USA and

Russia we have much more weighty and ranged realities.

In the connection, it is much more helpful to undertake the following operation. - Let’s part

the pare Hitler’s racism - Zionism in two ingredient. In the sense of political economy thefascism was just a compromise between the capitalism and the socialism, and in sense of

geo-politics the countries of Axis were something intermediate between the clear Atlantism

of the West and the clear Eurasianism of the East, so, just in the same way, in sense of ethiceschatology the opposition Nazism - Zionism just veils the more serious opposition Anglo-

Saxons (and their Manifest Destiny) - Russians. This means that both Nazism and Zionism

can be interpreted as a combination of intrinsically heterogeneous factors, being drawn toone of two more fundamental ethnic poles. This idea was in rough developed by a Eurasian

Bromberg, its other version belongs to the remarkable writer Arthur Kestler.

The Jewish messianism is parted in two ingredients. One of them holds with the Anglo-

Saxon messianism. This is “westernist ingredient” in the Jewry. So are Jewish communities

in Holland, which were always associated with the propaganda of the protestantfundamentalism. It can be called “Jewish Atlantism” are “the Right Jewry”. This sector

identifies Jews’ eschatological expectations with the victory of Anglo-Saxon nation , with

USA, liberalism, capitalism.

The second ingredient is “Jewish Eurasianism”, Bromberg called it “Jewish Easternism”.This is mostly the sector of the East-European Jewry, mainly of Hasidic trend, at one with

the Russian messianism and especially with its communist version. This fact, in particular,

explains such large-scale Jews’ participation in the October Revolution and their massinvolvement in the communist movement, having been the cover for planetary Russian

messianist idea realization. Generally speaking, the “Left Jewry”, which is so stable and

large-scale reality, that Nazis just identified “communism” with “Jewry” in their propaganda, typologically associated exactly with the Eurasian conglomeration, united with

the Russian-Soviet eschatological ideal. Most often “Jewish Eurasianists” appealed to the

amazing historical formation - “Khazar Kaganate”, in which the Judaism was combined



with the powerful hierarchical military empire, based on Turk-Aryan ethnic element.Except well-known extremely negative estimation of “Khazars” (extensively expounded by

Lev Gumilyov), there exist also other “revisionist” version about the history of that

formation, which strongly contrasts by its continentalist stylistics and the sharp deviationfrom ethnic particularism of the traditional Judaism, with others - especially western -

forms of Judaic social organization. Thus, Kestler advanced an interesting version aboutthat the East-European Jews are indeed the descendants of ancient Khazars at all, and their

different from that of Western Jewry character betrays their racial difference. It is notimportant here, whether such view of situation is “scientific”, what is really important is

that conception reflects in the mythological way the deep inner-Jewish dualism.

Now, the German racism. Here the picture is not so evident, it is not so easy to part this phenomenon in two ingredients. Firstly, because the Russophile and pro-Soviet trend in

Nazism and, to a greater extent, in German national movement was almost always anti-

racist oriented. This positive Ostorientierung, which is the characteristic feature of manyrepresentatives of German Conservative Revolution (Arthur Meuller Van den Bruk,

Fridrich Georg Junger, Oswald Spengler, and especially, Ernst Niekiesch), was associated

with Prussia and the estatist idea, rather than with some racial motives. But still, some

certain varieties of racism can be attributed to the Eurasianism. Such “Eurasian Racism”was, undoubtedly, in the minority and not significant, marginal. Professor Herman Wirth

was its typical adherent, he supposed that you can find the “Aryan”, “Nordic” element in

most nations of Earth, including Asians and Africans, and that Germans aren’t in thisrespect any kind of exception, they are a mixed nation, in which there are both “Aryan” and

“not Aryan” elements. Such approach denies any allusion to “jingoism” or “xenophobia”,

but just because of this Wirth and his associates very soon opposed to Hitler’s regime.Besides, some representatives of this trend supposed that “Aryans” of Asia - Hindus, Slavs,

Persians, Tajiks, Afghans etc. - are much closer to the Nordic tradition, than Europeans or

Anglo-Saxons, and consequently, such racism displayed the obviously seen “Easternist”

features.

But the most spread version of racism still was the other, “Westernist” trend, insisting on

the white race supremacy (in the most direct sense), and especially on the supremacy of

Germans over all other nations. The technological successes of the whites, their civilizationadvantages were by all means glorified. The other nation were demonized and shown as the

parody “Untermenshen”. In the most radical version, only Germans themselves were

considered “Aryans”, as to Slavs or Frenchmen, they were given the status of second-grate people, which was already not racism, but the extreme form of the narrow-German ethnic

chauvinism. Such vulgar racism - by the way, it was characteristic for Hitler personally -

was quit at one by the spirit with the ethnic eschatology of Anglo-Saxons, though itsuggested the rival version, based on the specificity of German psychology and German

history. Significant, that both versions of such ethnic eschatology were based on two

branches of the united in the former times German tribe (Anglo-Saxons were at the

beginning the German tribes), and on two varieties of Protestantism (Lutheranism inGermany and Calvinism in England). However, racism was considerably larded with the

heathen elements, the appeals to pre-Christian mythology, barbarism, hierarchy. Unlike that

of Anglo-Saxons, the racism of Germans was more archaic, extravagant and wild, but pretty often this esthetic contrast, the difference of styles veiled the common character of



the historical and geo-political orientation. By the way, Hitler’s Anglophilia is a generally

known fact.

So, the pare Zionism-Nazism turns to be not sufficiently ranged in order to be considered as

the axis of the eschatological drama in its ethic dimension. Even if it is “axis”, it is only

secondary, auxiliary, subsidiary one. It helps explain many points, but doesn’t cover themain point of the problem. In that perspective we can consider the “Jewish Easternism” as

one of the specific varieties of the “Eurasianism” (or “nation of the East”), at one in outline

with the universal formula of the Russian-Soviet messian ideal. To the same “Eurasian”conglomeration some (minor) forms of “Easternist” racism of “Aryan” system of values

adherents should be added on. And, on the contrary, the Jewish Westernism” organically

fits the Anglo-Saxon ethnic and eschatological project, on what the profound alliance of the“Right Zionism” and protestant fundamentalism is in fact based. “10 lost tribes”

represented by Anglo-Saxons (especially by Americans) combine with two rest tribes in the

common eschatological expectation. The “Westernist” version of racism, singing thesupremacy of “civilization of whites” - market, technical progress, liberalism, human rights

- over the archaic “barbarian”, “underdeveloped” nations of the Orient and the Third

World, also borders with that conglomeration.

Now we can clearly detect the same, already known to us due to the previous parts of the

article, historical trajectory, but on the new ethnic and eschatological level.

The history is rivalry, the battle between two “macro-nations”, tending to universalization

of their spiritual and ethical ideal at the moment of culmination of history. These are“nation of the West” (Roman-German world) and “nation of the East (Eurasian world).

Gradually these two formations come to the most large-scale, purified, refined expression

of their “manifest destiny”. The Manifest Destiny of “nation of West” is incarnated inconception of “10 lost tribes” of the protestant fundamentalists, underlies the planetary

English dominance and later makes up the foundation of the civilization, which in reality is

coming close to realization of the sole world control. “Russian truth” from the national state

ascends to the state of empire and incarnates in Soviet bloc, having rallied round itself the

mere half of the world.

This duel makes up the basic of ethnic (more accurately, macroethnic) history of twentieth

century. Moreover, the European fascism becomes the substantial obstacle in the way of

clear designation of roles and functions again (once again), converting the clear dualism problem into the confused and secondary complex of contradictions, what subverses the

natural logic of the great ethnic war, brings to unnatural alliance’ conclusion, to

displacement of center of gravity, to the wrong statement of a question.

Starting at the center of the ethnic eschatology not real dualism between “Roman-German”,later Anglo-Saxon, much later “American” camp, on the one hand, and “Eurasian”,

Russian-Soviet camp, on the other hand, but in many aspects artificial and not self-sufficing

pare of antagonists - Aryan Germans and Jews, nazis hindered the natural trend ofdevelopments, distracted attention to the false purpose, established the contradiction in the

point, which wasn’t substantial and central in the historical and eschatological way. And

once again the damage was caused to the “Eurasian” camp.



The Anglo-Saxon ideal, the “nation of West” inflicted a crushing defeat to the “nation of

East”. The “Soviet” universalism yielded to the Anglo-Saxon one.

Let us add one more level to our formula, connecting the political, economic and geo-

political model.

Labour = Land (East) = Russian (Soviet, Eurasian) nation

Capital = Sea (West) = Roman-German (Anglo-Saxon, American) nation)

The duel is taking place between those multi-level poles through the centuries and epochs,

coming to its close and at the end of the second millennium A. D.

Let us note that the European fascism performs the analogous function practically on all

levels.

On the economic level it claims to the removal of contradictions between Labour andCapital, but this turns to be fiction, it just indirectly flavoured the victory of Capital. On the

geo-political level it rejects the fundamental character of opposition between Land and Sea,

claiming to the independent geo-political significance, but hasn’t managed the task and hasingloriously disappeared, again flavouring the following victory of Sea over Land. And,

finally, on the level of the ethnic eschatology nazis’ racism distracts from the great

opposition between Anglo-Saxons and Russians to the false alternative between “Aryans”

and “Jews”, the Great Russian nation is (without any reason) classified as equal with the“coloured untermenshen”. And this, ultimately, turns to have been serving the purposes of

Anglo-Saxons exclusively.

By the way, in the last case - on the ethnic level - we should recognize the fact that thesecond pole of that ethnic dualism (Jews) also turns to be for the most part on the side of

“nation of the West” and “Jewish Easternism” appreciably weakens and almost comes to

nought. Noticeable, that this decline coincides with the moment of creation of state Israel,which at the beginning the East European Jews of mostly sociable orientation (“Jewish

Eurasianists”) struggled for, - therefore Stalin also hastened to recognize the legality of that

state, - which however almost at once after creation headed for the West, having become

the true agent of Anglo-Saxons’ policy, first of all of USA, in the Middle East.

Clash of Religions

The last large-scale level of reduction of history to the simple formula should be found inhistory of religions and in inter-confessional problems. For the historical process general

trajectory, which we detected from the very beginning in the economic paradigm, turned to

be applicable to all other analyzed levels, we can with confidence seek for its analogues in

the religious sphere also.



One of the poles - Capital - West - Sea - Anglo-Saxons’ - is traced, as we saw, to WesternRoman Empire, the source and starting point of all those tendencies, which have gradually

crystallized in that pole.

The Western Roman Empire in the religious sense is associated with Vatican, the catholic

version of Christianity. Consequently, it is quite logic to appeal to Catholicism as areligious matrix of that pole.

The opposite “Eurasian” pole is directly associated with “Byzantism“ and Orthodox

Christianity, for Russians are both the orthodox Christian nation and the authors of the firstsocialist revolution, they are also those, whose dwelling is the continental Heartland, which,

according to Macinder, is the axis category of all forces of Land. To the same extend, to

which the modern liberal West is secularized, generalized, modernized and universalizedresult of Catholicism, the Soviet model represents the utmost - also secularized, generalized

and modernized - development of Orthodox Christian Empire. Regarding the secondary

character of all other world religions in the question of eschatological drama we can apply

the same kind of approaches we used talking about the ethnic eschatology.

The Orient Traditions aren’t focused on eschatology, don’t accentuate in the middle of their

systems the themes of “end of times” or “last battle”.

The matter is not in that they don’t know about this reality, but they don’t confer it the

central position, which would be comparable with the clear and primary eschatologism ofChristianity (or Judaism). This observation also explains the lack of the eschatological form

of nationalism in the Orient (it was mentioned above), for the ethnic and religious

ideologies are closely connected with each other and inter-define one another.

This scheme is quite evident and nicely matches the previous models. The only point which

needs additional clearing up is the question of Protestantism.

The Reformation was the most significant moment of West’s history. It not only was a

multi-level phenomenon, but also consisted of two strictly opposite trends, whichultimately gave birth to the polar forms. We can’t here split hairs in theology and refer our

reader to our detailed monograph on this theme “Metaphysics of Annunciation”6 .

Let’s just draw a scheme.

Catholicism is a fragment of Orthodox Christianity, because information, before the

dissidence the West was as Orthodox Christian as the East; in addition this fragment is

distorted and claims priority and completeness.

Catholicism is anti-Byzantianism, and Byzantianism is complete and authentic Christianity,

containing not only the dogmatic purity, but also the allegiance to the social and political,state doctrine of Christianity. In the very general outline, we may say, that the orthodox

Christian conception of the symphony of the powers (vulgarly called “Caesarean Papistry”)

is associated with the comprehension of eschatological significance of not only the



Christian Empire. Hence the teleological and soteriologic function of the Emperor, basedon the 2-nd message of Saint Apostle Paul to Phessalonicians, in which the question was

about the “holding one”, “cathehon”. The “holding one” is identified by the orthodox

Christian exegetes with the Orthodox Christian Emperor and the Orthodox Christian

Empire.

The defection of the Western church is based on denial of the symphony of the powers, on

the rejection of the social and political, but at the same time eschatological doctrine of the

Orthodox Christianity. It is eschatological because the Orthodox Christianity links the presence of the “holding one”, which hinders the :advent of son of perdition” (=antichrist),

with the existence of just politically independent orthodox Christian state, in which the

temporal power (Basileus) and the spiritual power (patriarch) are in strictly definedcorrelation, determined by the principle of the Symphony. Consequently, the deviation

from that symphonic Byzantine paradigm means, “apostacy”, defection.

Catholicism from the beginning - i.e. right after the defection from the united Church - tookanother model instead of the symphonic (caesarian-papist) one , in which the authority of

Roman Pope spread also onto the spheres, which were strictly referred to Basileus’s

competence in the symphonic scheme. Catholicism broke the providential harmony

between the temporal and spiritual dominions, and, according to the Christian doctrine, fell

into heresy.

The spiritual crisis of Catholicism became especially apparent by the sixteenth century, and

Reformation was the peak of that process. However, we should note, that as long as in theMiddle Ages in Europe there existed the tendencies, which had more or less propensity for

the restoration of the adequate model in the West. The Ghibelline party of German princes

Hohenstaufens was the bright example of “unconscious Orthodox Christianity”, quasi-Byzantian resistance to the Latin heresy. And already then in the center of anti-papist

movement there were the representatives of the noble German kins. In several centuries the

similar forces - German princes again - supported Luther in his anti-Roman protest. It is

interesting, that Luther’s criticism against Rome was very similar with one that wastraditionally put forward by Orthodox Christians. Worships in national languages

(especially orthodox Christian feature, associated with the mystic significance of

glossolalia comprehension , which was embodied in the linguistic variety of local, nationalchurches), the Roman Curia dictation denial, the significance of “cathehon”, the celibacy

denial for the “priests” - these all typically Lutheran axis theses quite could be called

“orthodox Christian” ones. Another matter is icon reverence and divine rituals denial,freedom of individual interpretations of Holy Writ, the rejection of the “Old Testament”

sacred character. These features could none be called orthodox Christian ones, they are the

side negative aspects of anti-papism, which was rather based on the spiritual intuition, onthe protest, than on the hallowed by the great Tradition truths of the purest Orthodox

Christianity. As rejection of Rome in the name of pure Christianity Reformation was fully

justified. But what was proposed instead? Exactly here was the most important thing.

Instead of appeal to the complete and authentic Orthodox doctrine, protestants went thedoubtful way of intuitions and individual interpretations. In its superior manifestations this

was the Pleiad of the brilliant mystic visionaries. But even in that case there wasn’t any

approaching to the heights of the Orthodox Christian Metaphysics. In its worse



manifestations this was Calvinism and variety of the extreme protestant sects, which

retained nothing from the Christianity but the name.

There exists the dualism between Luther and Calvin, between Prussian (and French,

Huguenot) Protestantism and the Swiss one, later “Old Testament”, Pharisaism,

“nomocracy” of Catholicism, i.e. Judo-Christian component of papism. That’s whyLutheran Bible contains only “New Testament” and Psalter, rejecting the other old

testament books, which are considered inconsistent with the Christian ethics and the

Christian tradition orientation in general. As to Calvinism, it on the contrary came totypically old testament historicism (historical method?), to virtual denial of Christ’s divine

character, who turned to be a “cultural or moral hero”. Thus, Calvinism developed most not

orthodox-Christian tendencies, inherent earlier also in Catholicism, whereas Luther’s

criticism was just leveled against them.

Thus, there existed two opposite trends in Reformation. One is, relatively, anti-Catholic

from the Orthodox Christian side (Lutheranism). The other one is anti-Catholic from theanti-Orthodox side. Catholicism - especially spread and expedited, by the way, in Roman

countries - turned to be between two versions of Protestantism, whose main bearers were

Germanic nations. The most eastern Germans-Prussians, who at the beginning were the

germanized Slavic-Baltic tribes - adopted Lutheranism, drove Calvinism and Judo-

Christian tendencies to their utter state.

Thus, one version of Protestantism (Calvinism, Protestant fundamentalism) becomes the

vanguard of the Western - Sea - Capitalist pole, and the other one, on the contrary, appearsat most to be a close to the Orthodox Christianity (but still far from being the Orthodox

Christian one) branch of Western Christianity.

The connection between Protestantism and Capitalism was nicely and in detail shown by

Max Weber in his book “Protestant ethics”, you can find also there the explanation of

difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism. The example is significant. - TheProtestantism in England brings to the capitalist reforms. The Protestantism in Prussia just

strengthens the feudal system. Consequently, Weber concludes, the question is about

profoundly different tendencies. In the analogous analysis Weber’s disciple Zombart goeseven further, he traces the source of Capitalism not only to Protestantism, but also to the

very basic catholic scholastic doctrine7 . Oswald Spengler adduces interesting observations

on that theme in his work “Socialism and Prussians”.

The paradigm of the religious opposition is defined as Orthodox Christianity againstCatholicism and (later) against the extreme protestant fundamentalism. In that antithesis the

great importance is attached to the ratio between what is of this world and what is of the

other world in the religious ethics. The Orthodox Christian ethic ideal consists in insistingon the reverse proportion between the human world and divine one. The ground for such

approach is laid in the “Gospel” itself (“I came not to the just ones, but to the sinful ones”,

“It is easier for a camel to go through the needle eye, than for the rich one to get to HeavenKingdom” and so forth), in the Orthodox Christian legend, also in the social ethics of the

Eastern Church.



The mundane welfare is considered the ephemeral, insignificant one, and the improvementof life and this world is considered as the secondary matter and in essence not important

one in the face of the main task of the Christian - the task of gaining the Holy Spirit, of

salvation, transformation. Poverty and modesty in such view appear to be not a kind of ashortcoming, but, on the contrary, the useful background for the spiritual search, and

asceticism, monasticism, distraction from he matter of this world is considered as thesuperior mission.

Suffering in this world turns to be not just a punishment, but a glorious and blessedrepetition of Christ’s way. Something of the other world shows through in that of this

world, making the latter relative, insignificant, transparent, transient.

Hence follows the traditional (though of course relative also) neglect of arranging life,characteristics for the Eastern Christianity. One may not assert that such orthodox Christian

approach always brings to the positive results. In its superior manifestation it is sanctity,

non-grubbing of money, summits of spiritual conscious making, contemplation. In its

interior manifestation, the parody one, it is laziness and carelessness.

The Western Church from the beginning was notable for its heightened interest in theworldly matters, political intrigues, accumulation and distribution of the mundane (secular)

welfare. The Protestant fundamentalism exaggerated that aspect, switching all the attentionto this world exclusively. The protestant ethics asserts, that poverty by itself is a vice, and

richness is a virtue. The other world’s element is fully shifted to this world’s one both

recompense and punishment is moved from the other world to this one.

This was conductive to the unwitnessed spurt in the sphere of arranging life, but diminished

or denied at all the contemplative, merely spiritual aspect of the religion. In its extremesthere is not only no spirit, but also no letter left from the Christian doctrine. Hence follow

the attempts to censor the “New Testament” in the place where there are glaring

contradictions with the extreme theses of the Protestant spirit. These so opposite kinds ofethics, having been secularized, on one hand, gives birth to socialism, on the other hand,

gives birth to liberal-capitalism. In such picture two main subjects of history are defined -

The Eastern Church (Orthodox Christianity) and the Western Church, or, to be precise, themosaic of western confessions, in the vanguard of which the “protestant fundamentalism”

is, we’ve already come across it. The dialectics of their opposition unveils the secret

trajectory of history’s religious content.

Now let’s examine some other religious confessions, in which there is a manifestedeschatological factor and which are large-scale enough to claim the leading role in history’s

final drama. Only Islam and Judaism claim that role.

Judaism is the paradigm of the eschatologically oriented religion, and the Christianity itselfis closely associated with the Judaic eschatology. The Judaic religion draws most

completed in the conceptual way picture of end of times and of participation of nations and

churches in it.

Here is in the most general outline the sense of Judaic eschatology.



Jews aren’t just a nation, but simultaneously a religious community, access to which isdenied for other nations’ representatives. Such identification of ethnic element with the

religious one makes up the unique characteristic feature of Judaism. In this sense

everything what was told in the previous part regarding Jews as a nation, is fully applicable

to the Judaism as a religion.

Judaism is a subject of the religious history, its pivot. For long time Judaic religion is under

attach from other “goiish” confessions, but at the end of times, with the advent of Messiah,

gathering all the Jews on the promised land and restoration of the Temple, Judaism willflourish and place itself at the head the Earth. Modern Zionism has become the secular

expression of that religious eschatology.

The fact that Jews haven’t dissolved as the nation and as the religion in the sea of othernations for long centuries of the dispersion, that they have kept the faith in their future

triumph, that , having undergone so many tests, they have been able to fulfil the long-

awaited dream and re-create their own state, makes a great impression on any unbiasedobserver. Such literal fulfillment of the eschatological expectations of Jews obviously

witnesses that this tradition is, really, closely associated with the world history mystery,

and ho skeptics, no positivists, no anti-Semites can dismiss the matter with a wave of their

hands. Moreover, during last centuries the status of Judaism as religion improved from the peripheral unfranchised heresy in the eyes of Christian nations so much, that this confession

received the vote in discussing and resolving the most important world questions. However

one should notice that the confessional unity of Israelites is not so solid, as this can appear

on the face of it.

There exist - in the most general outline - two versions of Judaism: spiritualist (mystic one)

and materialist (one, having arranging life as an objective). The various trends of thetraditional Jewish mystics - Cabala, Hasidism and some heretic trends of “Sabbathaism”

kind - correspond to the first version. The second version correlates with Talmudism, the

literal and nomocratic, determining the matters of everyday life, ritualistic interpretation of

Tora principles. In that dualism we see the direct analogue to the corresponding dualism inthe Christian tradition itself also - the life arranging western Christianity (from Catholicism

to the Protestant fundamentalism) and the contemplative and mystic Eastern one (Orthodox

Christianity).

This theme is in detail expounded in the works of the prominent modern Jewish thinker

Gershom Sholem.

The spiritual sector of Judaism - and it should not surprise anyone already - in the first

instance characteristic for the East-European Jews, in addition the Hasidism itself of Baal-

shem Tov emerged and developed on the territory of Russian empire. And exactly from thatextremely spiritualist circles most Jewish Marxist revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, socialist-

revolutionaries etc. come. The Eurasian, “orthodox Christian”, ascetic ethics and the

messianic ideal of brotherhood precisely corresponded to that spiritual , mystic variant of

the Judaic tradition. In its secular form it gives birth to “left Zionism”.



The opposite branch, Talmudic orthodoxy, continuing the policy of Maimonid’srationalism, in the same way as ancient Sadducees gravitated towards the diminishing of

the other-world’s factor, towards the implicit denial of “resurrection of the dead”, towards

the immanent ethics of arranging life.

In eschatological way Talmudism considered the future triumph of Jews as exclusivelyimmanent, social and political victory, achievement of the enormous material power.

Instead of transformation of the world at the end of times, of its “restoration” (“tikkun”),

which was anticipated by the Jewish mystics, Talmudists identified the messianic epochwith such kind of re-organizing of the given elements, which would transfer the leverages

of power and control to the possession of Judaism representatives and to the restored

Israelite state. Such general immanentist trend and the ethics, focused on the resolving of

this-world, life-arranging, practical matters unites both orthodox rabbis and “right Zionist”.

In other words, in the same way as in the case of the ethnic eschatology, the religious field

of Judaism is extended between two poles - the eastern one (expressed in the OrthodoxChristianity) and the western one (expressed in Catholicism and the extreme Judaeophilian

Protestantism)

The Islamic tradition, connected with the Semitic religious heritage, nevertheless, is in

incomparable way less eschatological than Christianity or Judaism. Though there exists

also the developed eschatological doctrine in Islam, it is evidently secondary before themassive logic of monotheism asseveration in no dependence on the cyclic reasons. The

most eschatological versions of Islam are spread not among pure Arabs of the Northern

Africa, but in Iran, in Syria, Lebanon and especially among Shiites. The Shiite trend of

Islam is the closest to Christian ethics and the eschatological orientation. There are a lot of parallel’s here also with the spiritual trend in Judaism. The extreme Shiite sects - Ismailites,

Alavites and so on - at all base their tradition on the eschatological theme, expecting the

advent if the “hidden Imam” or “Kaiim” (“resurrector”), who would restore the genuinetradition, spoiled by the centuries of compromises and deviations, and return the mankind

in the kingdom of justice and brethrenhood.

This eschatological trend in Islam - both in the Shiite context and beyond it - could be quiteconsidered as the variety of “Eurasianism” in the most general interpretation. It in exact

way corresponds to the Orthodox Christian eschatological perspective, though it operates of

course, with another dogmatic and confessional terminology. The other one, non-

eschatological version of Islam, brightly expressed in Saudi Vakhabism, despite the powerful mechanisms of the fanatic mobilization, is quite neutral in the sense of the

conceptualization of Islam’s role at the end of times or considers that problem in the

technical and material perspective. For the Islamic population steadily grows, the Islamicfactor significance is in the natural way increasing. Both in Vakhabite pragmatism and in

other non-eschatological forms of the Islamic fundamentalism one quite can reveal the

features, which are typologically similar with life-arranging fundamentalism of Protestants

or orthodox Jews.



In the present time one could hardly seriously speak about “Islamic factor” as aboutsomething united, enough large-scale one to suppose its own independent religious version

of “end of times”. We just can note, that “anti-Judaism” or, exactly speaking, anti-Zionism”

is a common factor for the Islamic world. And in this sense, exposing that ethnic andreligious problem to the detriment of accentuating of the main opposition between

Orthodox Christianity and Western one, reminds of the situation we came across, analyzingthe German racism significance. The gravitation of many Islamic ideologists towards

making out of “Israel” and “Jews” the central question of modern history, havingexaggerated the Islamic-Jewish contradiction, again brings us to the deadlock and

insolvable situation, which hindered so much the clarification of functions and identify

main subjects of the human history, which is inevitably closing is outcome.

We should note, that Islam itself also starts to be considered as a kind of “fright”, in the

face of which the “progressive forces” or even “Christian countries” should unite. In other

words, Islam or so called "Islamic fundamentalism" starts to perform the function of notexisting nowadays fascism. We have seen, how dubious the role of fascism was on all

levels of the real duel. It would be extremely dangerous to reproduce the analogous

situation, but this time with "Islam".

The Last Formula

Let's finally sum up our cursory analysis. We found out that an all levels of the mostgeneralized reductionist models of the historical teleology there exists almost the same

trajectory of the historical process development. Now we just should pit all the revealed

components in the last generalizing formula.

Thus, two subjects, two poles, two utmost realities act throughout the history. Thereopposition, their struggle, their dialectics make up the dynamic content of the civilization.

There subjects become more and more clear and evident, turning from the dim, veiled,

"ghostly" existence to the clear and ultimate, strictly fixed form. They universalize andabsolutize.

First subject: Sea (West) = Anglo-Saxons (in the broad sense "Roman-Germans") =

West Christian confessions

Second subject: Labour = Land (East) = Russians (in the broad sense "Eurasians") =

Orthodox Christianity

The twentieth century is the culmination point of those two forces opposition

maximum tension, the last battle, Endkampf.

At the moment we can establish the fact, that the first subject almost by all parameters was

able to overcome the second subject. And the main instrument, the tactic move of that

west's victory, being constantly and on all levels repeated, the using of some intermediate



(third) reality, third pseudo-subject of history, which each time turned to be the incorporeal

mirage, destined to veil the eschatological opposition true essence, was.

West's victory (in its full extent) can be realized in two ways. The optimistic liberals assert,

that it is final and that "history is successfully concluded". The more careful ones say that

this is just a provisional stage, and the thrown down giant could be able to stand up incertain circumstances. What is more, the victor faces the new and completely unusual for it

situation, the situation of absence of enemy, the duel with which made up its historic being

content. Consequently, the actual subject of history, having been left alone, should resolvethe problem of the post-history, what challenges it, whether it is remaining the subject in

that post-history or is transforming to something else?

But this is absolutely another theme.

And what is the vanquished one? It is difficult to expect the clear and impartial reflections

from it. In most cases it does not realize, what has happened with it, and the amputated

organ - in the given case it is the heart - still aches and smarts, as it is in the patients afterthe operation. Only a few clearly realize, what has happened in the early 90s.

Or else, how can you explain the fact, that Gorbachev can calmly walk in the streets, just

risk sometimes being slapped in his face by a tight hard worker.

From Elementy n. 9.

The Paradigm of the End_Second Version

Documents