(E-E) Ev.g.e.n.i.j ..K.o.z.l.o.     Berlin                                                  


• Sergey Kuryokhin and Pop Mekhanika – all documents
• Сергей Курёхин и Поп-механика – все документы

Hannelore Fobo

Sergey Kuryokhin: Improvisations and Performances

Part Three

Empire and Magic. Sergey Kuryokhin's “Pop-Mekhanika No. 418” (1995)

Second, revised version 11 March 2020 (First version 13 August 2018)

page 9 • Dugin and the salvation of mankind

Table of Contents >>
to page 10 • Revolution: a question of style? >>

page 9 • Dugin and the salvation of mankind

Although Pop-Mekhanika No. 418 could not prevent Dugin’s election campaign from becoming a total failure,[1] it was a personal victory for Dugin – perhaps in an even more significant way. Sergey Kuryokhin’s fellowship – or followership? – had the effect of ennobling the NBP. Just as Limonov claimed Kuryokhin as the author of the National-Bolshevik movement he espoused (“In essence, he was one of the founding fathers of the NBP”[2]), Dugin appropriated Kuryokhin when it came to proclaming the new aeon:

    The core project of Sergey Kuryokhin’s life is highly ambitious. Pop-Mekhanika must become completely universal. Beyond Modernity the outlines of a “new reality” begin to emerge more and more clearly. Whatever art there was in Modernity, it has been exhausted – and with it, the culture of Modernity, the philosophy of Modernity, the politics of Modernity… Modern man has reached the brink of (his own) doom. The apocalyptic motifs of today’s civilisation have become evident to the point where they almost “advertise” themselves. But beyond the darkness, rays of light, yet invisible, break through. There emerges a new aeon, a new world, a new man.

    Those who have a “soft” mentality see what is coming in terms of infantile optimism: New Age philosophy, ecology, Zen Buddhism, remnants of “Hippies”. Kuryokhin lies much closer to the apocalyptic hues of Aleister Crowley. The new aeon will be cruel and paradoxical, encompassing The Age of the Crowned Child, the acquisition of runes, and the cosmic rampage of the superhuman. “The slaves are going to serve and suffer.” 

    The restoration of archaic sacredness, synthetic superhuman artistry – both cutting-edge and ancient all at once – is an important moment in “The Storm of the Equinoxes” – an eschatological drama”.[3]

    In his “Book of Law”, Crowley claimed that the only people who will be able to enter the new aeon in which the era of true postmodernism will arise, and do so without any groaning or compromising, will be those who know the meaning of the number 418. The last “Pop-Mekhanika” was designated 418. It was, in fact, a Crowleyan performance illustrating the end of the Aeon of Osiris.

    Something tells us we will soon see we are surrounded by strange signs: The Storm of the Equinoxes.

    Kuryokhin’s Pop-Mekhanika played a special role in the coming of The New Aeon.[4]

If the text’s pathetic tone lends it some unintentional humour, as with: “But beyond the darkness, rays of light, yet invisible, break through”, the repetition of sadistic prophecies is nevertheless quite revealing, manifestating as they do Dugin’s vision of the world. This is what Marco Pasi referred to as Crowley’s social Darwinism, stating that: “The various references to the ‘weak’, who must be exterminated by the ‘strong’, and towards whom no compassion must be shown, are highly significant.”[5]

But unlike Crowley, Dugin connects his merciless eschatological drama to a very peculiar interpretation of Christ’s mission, presented in his essay My Name is Axe. (Dostoyevsky and the Metaphysics of St. Petersburg), first published in 1996.

    Christ is the fulfilment of the Law. […] Strictly speaking, the advent of this era signifies that the commandments are no longer relevant.[6]

This argumentation allowed him to bestow upon Russia a messianic role in the salvation of mankind. It is reasonable to assume that in 1995, Kuryokhin was familiar with the extremes of Dugin's Weltanschauung as expounded in this essay; whether he approved of its radical consequences, it is impossible to say.

Before returning to Kuryokhin, we will have a closer look at Dugin’s text and its implications. Dugin’s idea of “Super-Russia” is that of an “apophatic nation”, a nation that can only be described in terms of what it is not: it is not like all the others, and it cannot even be compared to any other nation. This goes far beyond Fyodor Tyuchev’s famous verse “Who would grasp Russia with the mind?”[7] The pertinent extract from Dugin’s statement is as follows:

    We, the Russians, are a God-bearing people. Hence, all of our manifestations – high and low, comely and horrifying – are consecrated by other-worldly meanings, the rays of another City, washed with transcendental moisture. Good and evil mix and converge in the abundance of national grace, and suddenly the dark is illuminated, whereas white becomes the darkest hell. We are as unknowable as the Absolute. We are an apophatic nation. Even our Crime is incommensurably higher than the virtue of others.[8]

In his study from 2016, Jardar Østbø sums up Dugin’s statement as follows:

    The claim that Russia is beyond good and evil to the extent that Russian crime is “incomparably higher” than others’ virtue is perhaps the most extreme statement of Russian exclusivism recorded.[9]

Basically, Dugin justifies killing as a necessary act of religious belief. This is, of course, not a highly original idea; more original is the way he fuses this with his idea of empire, in that he regards Russia as having engaged in all the fights it deemed necessary because “in all the complicated, multi-stage, insatiable metaphysics of Russian Murder, which spread from the profundity of the initial Slavic birth to the Red Terror and Gulag […] The Killing of Death brings near the Resurrection of the Dead.”[10]  

This explains why Dugin calls the Russians “a God-bearing people”: as their killing will finally kill Death, it brings nearer the resurrection of the Dead. In other words, once the Russians have killed whoever it is he has in mind – each other? everyone else? – Death will be “killed” as well. It is as if the resurrection will commence once humankind has been completely wiped out. The whole Russian nation acts as a kind of modern Judas, bringing nearer the resurrection of Christ – with the only difference being that whereas Judas hanged himself, Dugin praises Russia.

In any case, Dugin’s interpretation of “national grace” extends only to a fraction of the Russian people: Orthodox Christians (unless, perhaps, he equates being Russian with being an Orthodox Christian). If we are to believe Dugin, Orthodox Christians are already in a state of grace and thus no longer need to be guided by the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament: 

    Christ is the fulfilment of the Law. The Law ends with him. Its mission is accomplished. In a sense, the Law has been removed. Removed, but not abolished. The whole issue of spirituality has shifted to a completely different plane. The Post-Law era has come into force, and the era of Grace has begun. “The shadow of the Law has passed away.” Strictly speaking, the advent of this era signifies that the commandments are no longer relevant. […]

    For Orthodox Christians, keeping the Ten Commandments is not something essential. The only thing that matters for them is Love, i.e. the totally New Covenant, the Covenant of Love.[11]

Dugin’s rhetorical twist – “In a sense, the Law has been removed. Removed, but not abolished” – represents an attempt to make his statement accord with Matthew 5:17-26 – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them…”. Yet his conclusion is unambiguous: for Orthodox Christians, keeping the Ten Commandments is not something essential.

The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) called this kind of Post-Law Grace “cheap grace”:

    “Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian “conception” of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. […]

    Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. […] Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God.”[12]

Dugin develops his theme of the justification of sin using the example of Raskolnikov, the main character in Dostoyevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” (1866). When Raskolnikov murders the pawnbroker, it is not only a portent that anticpates the Russian Revolution. In fact, the killing of what is evil – the loan capital – is justified as a Christian act of love:

    Raskolnikov commits a murder not only for the sake of the human race (although this is one of his motives). He does it for the sake of Love—in order to undergo suffering, to die, to kill death in himself as well as in others. Both Ivan Kalyayev and Savinkov are profoundly Russian, profoundly Orthodox Christian, profoundly “Dostoyevskian”, and obviously as God-bearing as the whole nation, which is filled with such lofty, paradoxical, and Orthodox Christian thought that the most sophisticated and profound Western philosophies pale in comparison to it.[13]

In such a state of Grace, Dugin argues, killing does not stand in contradiction to the teachings of the New Testament, because “Thou shalt not kill” belongs to the Old Testament. The commandment merely regulates the outer life and has no metaphysical value whatsoever; we may compare it to a “No smoking” sign as found in a theatre foyer – that is, we may consider it grounds for public reprimand, no more. “You are not supposed to smoke in a theatre; it is not right.”[14]

With regard to the idea of a discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament, Dugin’s ideas are partly congruent with the writings of the Gnostic, Marcion of Sinope (85-160 AD): the Father, the God of the Old Testament – Yaweh – is law (legal justice), and the Son, the God of the New Testament, is love and mercy.[15] Dugin’s conclusions are quite radical. He not only characterises the commandments as “not essential” – contrary to Christ’s teachings – he also thinks that once our sins have been forgiven, our divinisation will be on the basis of our own merit. He moves from justification by God to self-justification. In his book from 1995 “The Goals and Tasks of Our Revolution”, we read the following:

    Faith in Christ, the Son of God, is incompatible with the Pharisaic and world-ordering spirit of the “old Adam.” If we have been “redeemed” by Christ, then we are essentially f r e e from sin, and we are to boldly approach the light of divinisation instead of scrupulously counting our imperfections.[16]

But if Dugin holds that “Thou shalt not kill” has no metaphysical value whatsoever, he must also hold that “Love” is equally devoid of meaning: it knows nothing of compassion and forgiveness. Dugin seems to be personally offended by the end of Dostoyevsky’s novel.

    The novel should have ended in triumph, ending in Rodion’s complete justification. […] However, … additional forces came into play. […] According to the primordial scenario, Raskolnikov should have rescued Wisdom (Sophia) from the brothel, just as Simon the Gnostic rescued Helena. […] Sophia, saved by Love and released from the bonds of usurious slavery, preaches universal resurrection. Yet, for no apparent reason, she suddenly conspires with the “humanitarian serpent-worshipper” Porfiry and begins to convince Raskolnikov that the old woman should have been spared and that she was not a “trembling louse.” It arises from a society of animal-lovers, which includes those who love the world-wide serpent from the blackest darkness, and those with a concern for the tears of capitalists.[17]

Again, we can see important parallels to Crowley’s thinking, as expressed in “The Book of Law,” Chapter 3, 18 (1909), and Crowley’s comments from 1912 (“The Old Comment”) and 1921 (“The New Comment”):

    AL III.18. “Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!”

    The Old Comment

    18. An end to the humanitarian mawkishness which is destroying the human race by the deliberate artificial protection of the unfit.

    The New Comment

    What has been the net result of our fine ‘Christian’ phrases? In the good old days there was some sort of natural selection; brains and stamina were necessary to survival. The race, as such, consequently improved. But we thought we knew oh! so much better, and we had “Christ's law” and other slush. So the unfit crowded and contaminated the fit, until Earth herself grew nauseated with the mess. We had not only a war which killed some eight million men, in the flower of their age, picked men at that, in four years, but a pestilence which killed six million in six months.

    Are we going to repeat the insanity? Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle? And exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians? Catholic Christians are really Pagans at heart; there is usually good stuff in them, particularly in Latin countries. They only need to be instructed in the true meaning of their faith to reflect the false veils.

    An XXI Sol in Cancer After some years spent in Catholic countries, I wish to modify the above. Catholics are dead alike to Spirituality and to Reason, as bad as Protestants. And the Jew is far from hopeless outside America, where the previous paragraph was written.[18]

It is sheer luck for Dugin that Crowley didn’t condemn Orthodox Christians, thus giving Dugin the chance to ascribe a leading role to them – in the killing of mankind.[19]

The paradox, the paradigm shift that Crowley and Dugin cannot in the least accept is mercy for the weak, the sick, and the sinner. Crowley argues that “Reason and Emotion […] are the two great enemies of the Ethic of Thelema,”[20] as follows:

    Now in practice, in everyday life, this unselfishness is always cropping up. Not only do you insult your brother King by your “noble self-sacrifice,” but you are almost bound to interfere with his True Will. “Charity” always means that the lofty soul who bestows it is really, deep down, trying to enslave the recipient of his beastly bounty![21]

In Crowley’s understanding, charity is veiled selfishness. This may well be the case in many or even most instances, but for a Christian – Dugin calls himself a Christian – Christ’s sacrifice for mankind represents unselfishness. In fact, Christ is considered the only being to have ever set foot on Earth who did not possess any trace of selfishness. The New Testament abounds in statements inviting the faithful to follow Jesus Christ’s example, exemplified in Mathew 9, 11-13: Christ called Matthew, the tax collector, to follow him, and would sit and eat with tax collectors:

    When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”[22]

That is, Christ offered his sacrifice, but did not ask for sacrifice – he desired mercy.

Dugin knows better than Christ. Showing mercy towards a “trembling louse” does not come into his thinking. Yet Christ said, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”[23]

If Christ’s incarnation on Earth, his death and resurrection occurred out of Divine love for every single human being, to save them as they were perishing in their sins, why should a Christian believer not follow Christ’s example and act, if not out of love for other human beings, then out of compassion or mercy – or at least out of sympathy for them?

Because, according to Dugin, redemption of sins occurs only once in history – and it has already occurred. Ergo, Christ’s mercy belongs to the past and cannot serve as an example for the present. It would appear that for Dugin, Christ, having fulfilled his mission by his sacrifice, has been relieved from any further obligations and is now taking it easy: “…when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3).[24] The Law ends with Christ. Its mission is accomplished. Exit Jesus Christ. We are now left on our own to struggle with our imperfections and “boldly aspire for the light of divinisation,” as Dugin puts it. Apparently, this is not a wholly unselfish aspiration – something revealed when Crowley appends an ironic P.P.P.P.S. to the passage about “Charity” quoted above:  

    "But the A.'. A.'. oath; aren't you—we—all out to improve the race, not counting the cost to ourselves!"

    Pure selfishness, child, with foresight! I want a decent place to live in next time I come back. And a longer choice of firstrate vehicles for my Work.[25]

Yet, in the writings of the New Testament, Christ remains by no means a distant observer. Although “And surely I am with you always until the end of the age”[26] might with some effort be interpreted in such a way – with Christ just being around, and refraining from any further intervention – such a view would stand in obvious contrast to the coming of the (last) judgement, as expressed in “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[27]

The logical contradiction of being redeemed and remaining a sinner is one of the key problems of Christian belief, intimately related to the question of why human beings are saved not on the grounds of their deeds, that is, not by an act of their free will, but by God’s grace – by an act of mercy. The problem is grounded on the concept of original sin having led to the corruption of the nature of every individual. It is a concept rejected by most other religions, and a constant source of frustration to those who argue that if God had wanted to create man good, then “Why didn’t he do so in the first place? Surely then he wouldn’t have had to send his son to earth to correct his error?” In short, it is the problem of Theodicy – the problem of finding a satisfying answer to the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil.[28] And, one might say, even if Dugin has “solved” the problem, albeit in a drastic way, his solution actually constitutes a typical attempt to cut the Gordian knot, reflecting an “enough is enough”-type mindset: man has already been saved, the Ten Commandments are no longer valid, and the problem is thus removed from the agenda. As we have seen, Dugin does so by relinquishing certain fundamental Christian attitudes – especially that of mercifulness.

When it comes to the logical contradiction of our being redeemed and still needing redemption, there is a much more encompassing view capable of integrating the key concepts (dogmata) of Christian belief in an intellectually and emotionally satisfactory way. This approach was laid out by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), the founder of Anthroposophy, for whom Christ and the Mystery of Golgatha are the turning point in the history of mankind. The main Christian churches reject his concept, because Steiner introduced the idea of karma, connected to the idea of reincarnation, thus going beyond any traditional interpretation of the Bible.

Steiner distinguished between two aspects of “damage” caused by individual guilt: one being that inflicted upon oneself, and the other being that inflicted upon the world. In a lecture from 1914, he detailed this concept, as follows:

    To start with, we must make a distinction. We must first consider how, through Karma, objective justice is fulfilled. Here we must clearly understand that a man is certainly subject to his Karma; he has to make karmic compensation for unjust deeds, and if we think more deeply about it, we can see that he will not really wish it otherwise. For suppose a man has done another person wrong; in the moment of doing so he is further from fulfillment than he was before, and he can recover the lost ground only by making compensation for his unjust act. […] When we grasp the true meaning of human freedom, we can have no wish that a sin should be so forgiven us that we would no longer need to pay it off in our Karma. For example, a man who puts out the eyes of another is more imperfect that one who does not, and in his later Karma it must come to pass that he does a correspondingly good deed, for only then will he be inwardly again the man he was before he committed the sin. So if we rightly consider the nature of man, we cannot suppose that when a man has put out the eyes of another it will be forgiven him, and that Karma will be in some way adjusted. Hence there is rightness in the fact that we are not excused a farthing of our Karma, but must pay our debts in full.

    But something else comes in. The guilt, the sins, with which we are laden are not merely our own affair; they are an objective cosmic fact which means something for the universe also. That is where the distinction must be made. The crimes we have committed are compensated through our Karma, but the act of putting out another person's eyes is an accomplished fact. […] The stain that we have personally contracted is adjusted in our Karma, but the objective fact remains — we cannot efface that by removing our own imperfection. We must discriminate between the consequences of a sin for ourselves, and the consequences of a sin for the objective course of the world.


    […] This distinction must be kept clearly in mind: karmic justice remains, but Christ intervenes in the effects of the guilt in the spiritual world. He takes over the debt into His kingdom and bears it further. Christ is that Being who, because He is of another kingdom, is able to blot out in the world our debts and our sins, taking them upon Himself.

    So let us realize that Karma will not be taken from us, but that our debts and sins will be wiped out from the Earth-evolution through what has come in with the Mystery of Golgotha. Now we must, of course, realize clearly that all this cannot be bestowed on man without his cooperation — i.e., cannot be his unless he does something. And that is clearly brought before us in the utterance from the Cross of Golgotha which I have quoted [“Thy kingdom, O Christ, is another; think of me when thou art in Thy kingdom.”[29]]. It is very definitely shown to us how the soul of the malefactor on the right received a dim idea of a super-sensible kingdom wherein things proceed otherwise than in the mere earthly kingdom. Man must fill his soul with the substance of the Christ Being; he must, as it were, have taken something of the Christ into his soul, so that Christ is active in him and bears him into a kingdom where man has, indeed, no power to make his Karma ineffective, but where it comes to pass through Christ that our debts and sins are blotted out from our external world.[30]

This concept offers the possibility of uniting redemption with responsibility towards one’s own deeds – freedom – because it assigns them to two different kingdoms: the kingdom of Christ and the earthly kingdom. This gives rise to a new dichotomy, as human beings belong to both insofar as they willingly recognise Christ as the King of a spiritual kingdom. This is recognised by the malefactor on the right, as opposed to the malefactor to the left, who believes that “in the Christ merely an earthly being is present”.[31] Hence, the malefactor to the left will still be able to adjust his own karma, but the consequences of his deeds remain for the objective course of the world.

This new dichotomy is quite different to that professed by Crowley in his Book of Law – “…there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the ‘lone wolf’ and the herd”. Steiner’s concept does not divide humankind into different categories; rather, the dichotomy is present insofaras each human being recognises both the “kingdom of Christ” and “the earthly kingdom”. We might even compare this dichotomy to Martin Luther’s doctrine of individual human beings being “simul iustus et peccator / both righteous and sinful” – with “righteous” signifying inclusion within the “kingdom of Christ”, and “sinful” signifying that the person belongs to the “earthly kingdom”.

To put it simply, instead of dividing people into neat categories of “the righteous” and “the sinners”, the dichotomy is perceived to be within each human being. This does not mean that this view involves regarding all people as being the same with regard to their moral standards. It means, rather, that such differences are of a gradual, not an absolute nature: the saint is thus able to see in the “trembling louse” a brother or a sister.

Ideally, this dichotomy expresses itself as a dialectical state that allows a “paradigm shift”, as we see with the example given by the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

    19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.

    20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

    21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

    22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

    23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.[32]

Steiner’s concept also allows us to perceive the necessity of constant redemption that takes the form of a repeated act continuing virtually “to the end of the age”[33] – as many acts carried out by human beings (and also their thoughts, we should add) have destructive consequences on what Steiner calls “the objective course of the world”.

We can now ask ourselves the question of what it means to help others to settle their debt, i.e., to adjust their Karma – assuming such a thing is at all possible. It is not a matter of pretending to be unselfish, but of expanding our individual selves via other selves. It is a matter of asking ourselves what would be the most appropriate way to help, in every single case that arises, and what would be the repercussions such deeds would have on ourselves, in a positive or negative sense. We may reflect upon the question of whether our forgiveness differs from our simply forgetting about something that we think ought not to have happened: whether our forgiving someone or someone forgiving us has an existential – cosmic – meaning.[34]

With regard to what has been defined by Steiner as “the objective course of the world”, forgiveness (remission) of sins requires a person’s cooperation in that it requires them to recognise the spiritual kingdom. This does not take place purely in the realm of abstract knowledge. The knowledge in question equates to repentance – repentance in the sense of the Greek metanoia. Metanoia, though generally translated as repentance, is a conversion of the inner self, a “change of mind and heart” leading to acts of a different quality. Here is a translation of Mark 1:4 from The Expanded Bible. The words in square brackets, taken from the original text, expand the translation so as to clarify the intended meaning.

    John [Cthe Baptist] was baptizing people in the desert [wilderness] and preaching a baptism of changed hearts and lives [turning from sin; repentance] for the forgiveness [remission] of sins.[35]

“Forgiveness” and “remission” or “release from sins” are all possible translations of eis aphesin hamartiôn,[36] but the main point is that the sins are taken away through a mysterion, or sacrament, be it baptism or communion – that is, by a process of initiation or transubstantiation.[37] Again we are confronted with manifestations of the will emanating from two different sources: the one being the human being, the other, God. Thus, first a human being makes a conscious choice to repent, and that is then followed by a manifestation of God’s will via His grace, namely: the mysterion of forgiveness. The main question today is who, other than God Himself, holds the key to the actuation of God’s forgiveness. The Orthodox Church possesses its authority via sacred tradition – i.e. via apostolic succession. This is what authenticates the effectiveness of the sacraments – tainstvo (таинство) in Russian (which can also be translated “mysterion”). It is no wonder that the Orthodox Church repudiated as unacceptable Dugin’s position that “If we were ‘expiated’ by Christ, then we are by all means f r e e of sins”:

    In this way, A. Dugin challenges such a fundamental and important aspect of spiritual life as the sacrament of repentance and confession. In other words, the reader is asked to voluntarily relinquish participating in the greatest sacraments of the Church, which are a binding part of Orthodox life.[38]

Dugin’s attempt to combine (Orthodox) Christian thought with Aleister Crowley’s mediumistic writings on the one hand, and with what he understands to be “gnosis” on the other, leads to a Christianity without Christ. Dugin’s eclecticism establishes the superiority of the Russian nation, yet his “Christian” love is but an empty formula that has no consequences, and his “Christian” grace is a commodity that allows him to fabricate a convenient concept of self-justification. The result is a failure to make “the most sophisticated and profound Western philosophies pale in comparison.”[39]

As far as Dugin is concerned, neither this “love” nor this “grace” will get us anywhere, so we might as well do away with them. This then allows us to say that the Ten Commandments only regulate the outer life and to furthermore say that Dugin has been courageous in proclaiming that for the “new man” the Commandments have become obsolete, the conclusion being: the “new man” is now free of “false morality”.

But eventually a horror vacui comes into play, only for Dugin to fill this vacuum (twenty years later) with new laws he regards as applicable to the “new man”. In his article “Horizon of the Ideal Empire”, published in 2017 under the general heading of “political philosophy”, he draws an outline of “how society and the world should be after the victory of, or even in the course of the struggle for the Fourth Political Theory”. The Fourth Political Theory is Dugin’s main philosophico-political project; here is a short summary taken from his article, “The Fourth Political Theory and the Problem of the Devil”:

    4PT is a theory of global, absolute, and radical Revolution aimed not only against the domination of the West in particular, against the current state of European civilization, the hegemony of the United States of America, or liberalism, but against modernity itself, against the political paradigm of the Logos of the Great Mother, against the metaphysics in which the world is viewed from the bottom up.[40]

Dugin’s article, “Horizon of the Ideal Empire”, which he modestly called “a scientific metaphor,” starts with the insight that “Sometimes one hears the reproach from critics that the Fourth Political Theory offers no positive image of the future, instead operating with what seem to many to be “abstractions.”[41] Before I present Dugin’s “positive image of the future”, expounding some of his amazing commandments, I will quote Kuryokhin’s expectations of Dugin and Limonov taking over power:

    A professional politician is a person with two fundamental sides: on the one hand, he must be a real politician, and on the other hand he must truly understand those mechanics of ideology allowing politics to exist at all. Dugin and Limonov are perhaps the only people bringing together both sides. I cannot call them politicians in the usual way because they are not yet in power. They possess a much larger, metaphysical awareness of the meaning of politics. Today the most important thing is that such people as Dugin and Limonov should come to power. Because at that point power will unite an understanding of the course of the historical process with the ability to solve the problems of real, day-to-day politics. However, without a philosophical comprehension of the principle of statehood, the principle of history and of man’s activity in the most general way, politics becomes devoid of meaning, is castrated and annihilated, and becomes what is now called politics.[42]

Yet it is difficult to find in Dugin’s political concept any “ability to solve the problems of real, day-to-day politics.” His ideal empire looks akin to Evola’s “Pagan Imperialism”, updated along the lines of Plato’s “Politeia”; it is ruled by an obscure philosopher-king “who is absolutely transparent, devoid of any individual properties”[43] (Evola: “Invisible Leaders who do not speak and do not show themselves, but whose action does not experience resistance and who can do everything.[44]) This philosopher-king “stands at the centre of the Platonopolis”; (– Plato’s philosopher-king stood at the centre of Kallipolis). “The philosopher king must be hidden. Moreover, his existence must be so intense that it transcends the limits of existence […] Perhaps he will communicate with his subjects from behind a curtain, from the depths of a cave, or even through an oracle. He should not not speak nor be silent, but instead only give signs, if that is how we should paraphrase what Heraclitus said in fragment 93 of the Delphic Pythia  […] Meaning is located between words and silence.” If meaning is indeed located between words and silence, the only realistic way we will be able to interpret meaning will be via use of the modern equivalent of Pythia – the secret algorithm of the web search engine!

Let us now proceed from the abstract to the concrete. The old laws stipulated what NOT to do, thereby leaving room for what ought to be done. This is not good enough for Dugin. He develops his own concept of what ought to be done, and it is based on his personal likings, establishing a sort of personal caliphate. Here are some of his ideas regarding women, poets and famers:

    Women will be provided with earthenware pots with fresh milk and huge, extremely beautiful hats […] Warriors will additionally be taught gymnastics and figure skating. Poets will be taught different languages, from 10 to 15 each. Farmers will have nothing to be taught besides bossa nova and tango. They are already so wise in their sacred labor.[45]

And with regard to art:

    The art of dance will be one of the most important arts. Dance will become a political duty. All will dance in circles, and tango, twist, and bossa nova will be promoted and made mandatory. Everyone should be able to dance. Officials, like in China, will need to compose poetry in addition to painting. […] TV and the press will be cancelled, as they are always spouting some kind of meaningless nonsense. […] There will be no law. He who is smart, bold, and beautiful, is right.[46]

Dugin sees in the rejection of money a sign of angelic presence and marks of a good leader: the philosopher-king leads a simple life.

    People, intimately knowing Stalin, will testify to his extreme simplicity in being. For example, they will tell of how he, at the zenith of his power, preferred to sleep on a cot. Another communist ruler of imperial scale, Mao Zedong, tried to never touch money, which he hated physically. The very thought of money or touching it caused him physical pain. These are signs that an angelic presence is close. These are also the marks of a good leader.[47]

Likewise, Dugin shows extreme contempt towards any activity connected with the production of goods; in this, he shares Evola’s contempt towards merchants: “The economy will be abolished and economists dismissed.” Who then, one would ask, will work?

    The sun will work. Earth and time will belong to the eidos. There will be no banks, no large estates. Rilke and Heidegger spoke of such as “transferring the weights from the Merchant’s hands to the hands of the Angel.”[48]

In fact, the role of the angel is Dugin’s favourite subject. The question remains whether it will be the Kind Angel or the Fallen Angel. But then, of course, there is the magical paradigm shift, which can turn the one into the other.

The only point that is somewhat reassuring, at least in comparison with Dugin’s texts from the 1990s, is the fact that he does not describe any killing or shedding of blood. As outlined below, defence is to be organised in a way that differs from Dugin’s earlier approach:

    Below are the berserkers, the warrior barons. They are the Guardians, the “guardians of being” (Heidegger). Warriors will be extremely frightening, terrifying to the point that no one will want to fight them. In the army will serve battle Dragons and aggressive fighting cocks.[49]

Exhausted by attempting to figure out the “global, absolute, and radical Revolution” of the Fourth Political Theory, one might ask a simple question: is this one of Kuryokhin’s parodies?

If not, what is the sense of knowing all those angelic hierarchies, the magical paradigm shifts, the Old and the New Testament, the Kaballah, Taoist and other innumerable esoteric writings, plus the whole of philosophy from Plato to Heidegger, plus Dostoyevsky and many other writers – if the result amounts to nothing but a caricature of Creation? Dugin alone knows.

[1] Segwick: “Dugin polled only 2,493 votes, 0.85 percent of those cast.” Rogatchevski and Steinholt: “a measly 1,500 votes”

Sedgwick, Mark. Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century New York: Oxford University Press 2004, p. 246.

Rogatchevski, Andrei and Steinholt, Yngvar B. “Pussy Riot’s Musical Precursors? The National Bolshevik Party Bands, 1994-2007”, 2015. In Popular Music and Society, 2016, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 457. Web. 25 July 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2015.1088287

[2] По сути дела, он один из отцов-основателей НБП

Limonov, Eduard [Edward]. Kniga mertvykh. (The Book of the Dead.) [Книга мертвых.] Saint Petersburg: Limbus Press, 2013. Web. 25 July 2018.  https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=100917&p=71

[3] “The moment of change from one period to another is technically called The Equinox of the Gods.”

Crowley, Aleister. Liber AL vel Legis. (The Book of Law.) Introduction. IV. Web. 25 July 2018.


“The Equinox” was also Aleister Crowley’s official organ of his own mystery school called the Argenteum Astrum = A∴A∴, “The Review of Scientific Illuminism”, ten editions of which were put out between 1909 and 1913. See Mistlberger, p. 31

[4] Жизненный проект Сергея Курехина амбициозен в высшей степени. Поп-механика должна стать до конца тотальной. По ту сторону модерна все яснее вырисовываются черты «новой реальности». Искусство, каким оно было в эпоху "модерна", исчерпано. Вместе с ним исчерпана культура модерна, философия модерна, политика модерна... Человек модерна подошел к роковой (для себя) черте. Апокалиптические мотивы нынешней цивилизации стали почти "рекламной" очевидностью.

А за гранью мрака пробиваются невидимые пока лучи. Новый эон, новый мир, новый человек.

Люди с психологией "soft" видят грядущее в тонах инфантильного оптимизма - нью-эйдж, экология, дзэн-буддизм, пережитки "хиппи". Курехину гораздо ближе апокалиптические краски Алистера Кроули. Новый эон будет жестоким и парадоксальным. Век коронованного младенца, обретения рун, космического буйства Сверхчеловека. "Рабы будут служить и страдать".

Восстановление архаической сакральности, новейшее и древнейшее одновременно синтетическое сверхискусство - важный момент эсхатологической драмы, "бури равноденствий".

Кроули утверждал в своей "Книге Законов", что только тот, кто знает смысл числа 418, сможет перейти в новый эон, в котором наступит эра подлинного постмодернизма - без стонов и компромиссов.

Последняя "Поп-механика" проходила под знаком 418. Фактически, это была кроулианская постановка, иллюстрирующая конец эона Озириса.

Что-то подсказывает, что скоро мы увидим вокруг нас странные знаки.

Буря равноденствий.

"Поп-механика" Сергея Курехина играла в пришествии нового эона особую роль.

Dugin, Alexander [Aleksandr]. 418 Masok subyekta. (The Entity’s 418 Masks) [418 Масок субъекта] First published in Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 1996. Web. 25 July 2018. http://arcto.ru/article/103

[5] Pasi, Marco. Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics. New York: Routledge, 2014, p. 48

[6] Христос есть исполнение Закона. […] Строго говоря, наступление такой эры означает неактуальность заповедей.

Dugin, Alexander [Aleksandr]. Imia moe – topor. (Dostoevskii i metafizika Peterburga). My Name is Axe. (Dostoyevsky and the Metaphysics of St. Petersburg). [Имя моетопор. (Достоевский и метафизика Петербурга).] First published in 1996 in Nezavisimaia Gazeta.

Web. 25 July 2018. http://arcto.ru/article/104

[7] Fyodor Tyuchev (1803-1873). The poem, from 1866, contains four lines: Who would grasp Russia with the mind? / For her no yardstick was created: / Her soul is of a special kind, / By faith alone appreciated. / (translated by John Dewey)

Hayes, Sebastian Fyodor Tyutchev by John Dewey. 1 Feb. 2018. Web. 27 July 2018.


[8] Мы, русские, народ богоносный. Поэтому все наши проявления — высокие и низкие, благовидные и ужасающие — освящены нездешними смыслами, лучами иного Града, омыты трансцендентной влагой. В избытке национальной благодати мешается добро и зло, перетекают друг в друга, и внезапно темное просветляется, а белое становится кромешным адом. Мы так же непознаваемы, как Абсолют. Мы апофатическая нация. Даже наше Преступление несопоставимо выше ненашей добродетели.


The English translation is taken from Østbø, Jardar, The New Third Rome: Readings of a Russian Nationalist Myth, Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2016 p. 145

[9] Østbø, Jardar. The New Third Rome: Readings of a Russian Nationalist Myth. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2016, p. 145

[10][…] во всей стихии, сложной, многоплановой, насыщенной метафизикой Русского Убийства, которая растянулась от глубин славянских первородов до красного террора и ГУЛАГа. […]. Убийство Смерти есть приближение Воскрешения Мертвых.  

Dugin, Alexander [Aleksandr]: Imia moe – topor. (Dostoevskii i metafizika Peterburga) My Name is Axe. (Dostoyevsky and the Metaphysics of St. Petersburg) [Имя мое – топор (Достоевский и метафизика Петербурга)] First published in 1996 in “Nezavisimaia Gazeta”

Web 25 July 2018 http://arcto.ru/article/104

The English translation is by Vladislav Ivanov, corrected by the current author: Ivanov gives a misleading translation of “The Killing of Death”. He translates it “Killing and Death”. Web. 6 January 2020. http://arctogaia.com/public/eng/axe.html

[11] Христос есть исполнение Закона. На нем Закон заканчивается. Миссия закона выполнена. В некотором смысле, он снят. Именно снят, но не отменен. Духовная проблематика переходит в радикально иную плоскость. Теперь начинается пост-Закон, эра Благодати. "Прейде сень законная". Строго говоря, наступление такой эры означает неактуальность заповедей.

[…] Соблюдение 10 заповедей не обладает решающим смыслом для православного. Для него важно только одно - Любовь, Новый, совершенно Новый Завет, Завет Любви.


[12] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Macmillan Publishing 1949, First Macmillan Paperbacks edition 1963. Twenty-first printing 1979, pp. 45/46
Imprint: Translated from the German NACHFOLGE, first published 1937 by Chr. Kaiser Verlag München by R. H. Fuller, with some revision by Irmgard Booth.

[13] Раскольников убивает не просто ради человечества (хотя и ради него тоже). Он убивает во имя Любви. Ради того, чтобы пострадать, чтобы умереть, чтобы убить смерть в себе и других. Иван Каляев, да и сам Савинков - люди глубоко русские, глубоко православные, глубоко "достоевские", явно богоносные, как весь народ, проникнутый такой высокой, парадоксальной и православной Мыслью, в сравнении с которой бледнеют самые изысканные и глубокие западные философские схемы.

Dugin, Alexander [Aleksandr]. Imia moe – topor. (Dostoevskii i metafizika Peterburga). My Name is Axe. (Dostoyevsky and the Metaphysics of St. Petersburg). [Имя моетопор. (Достоевский и метафизика Петербурга).] First published in 1996 in Nezavisimaia Gazeta.

Web. 25 July 2018. http://arcto.ru/article/104

[14] Курить в театре не положено, это нехорошо.


[15] Note that in his interview with Dugin from 1993, Christian Bouchet presented himself as “Brother Marcion”. See Chapter 8, footnote 2

[16] Исповедание Христа, Сына Божьего, несовместимо с фарисейским и мироустроительным духом "ветхого Адама". Если мы "искуплены" Христом, то на нас принципиально н е т греха, и надо смело идти к свету обожения, а не подсчитывать скрупулезно свои несовершенства.

Dugin, Alexander [Aleksandr]. Tseli i zadachi nashei revolutsii. (The Goals and Tasks of Our Revolution.) [Цели и задачи нашей революции.] Moscow: Fravarti 1995. (The publishing house could not be verified.) Web 31 July 2018.


[17] Роман должен был бы закончиться триумфально, полным оправданием Родиона; […] Но ... В дело вступили дополнительные силы. Раскольников, в соответствии с примордиальным сценарием, должен был бы спасти Софию-Премудрость из дома терпимости, как Симон-гностик Елену. […] спасенная Любовью София, освобожденная от оков процентного рабства, проповедует всеобщее воскресение. Но тут она почему-то вступает в заговор с "гуманистом-змеепоклонником" Порфирием и начинает внушать Раскольникову, что старуху надо было якобы пожалеть, что она – "не вошь дрожащая". Общество любви к животным, включая мирового змея кромешной тьмы. Забота о слезинке капиталиста.


[18] Crowley, Aleister et. al. Commentaries 
to Liber AL vel Legis Chapter III.18. Text © Ordo Templi Orientis.

Web 6 September 2019


[19] Crowley is nevertheless a fierce critic of Christians in general. Here is one of his comments on The Book of Law:

“Mohammed's point of view is wrong too; but he needs no such sharp correction as 'Jesus.' It is his face – his outward semblance – that is to be covered with His wings. The tenets of Islam, correctly interpreted, are not far from our Way of Life and Light and Love and Liberty. This applies especially to the secret tenets. The external creed is mere nonsense suited to the intelligence of the peoples among whom it was promulgated; but even so, Islam is Magnificent in practice. Its code is that of a man of courage and honour and self-respect; contrasting admirably with the cringing cowardice of the damnation-dodging Christians with their unmanly and dishonest acceptance of vicarious sacrifice, and their currish conception of themselves as 'born in sin,' 'miserable sinners' with 'no health in us.”


[20] Crowley, Aleister. Magick Without Tears. Letter 46. Biblioteka Peyades. Complete and Unabridged, edited with a Foreword by Karl J. Germer2. © 1954 Karl J. Germer for Ordo Templi Orientis. Renewed 1982 © BLURB. Web. 28 July 2018. https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/mwt/mwt_contents.htm

[21] Ibid

[22] Mathew 9:11-13. New International Version. Web. 31 July 2018. http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/9.htm

[23] Matthew 25:40. New International Version. Web. 31 July 2018. http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/25.htm

[24] Hebrews 1:3. 21st Century King James Version. Web. 31 July 2018. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:2-4&version=KJ21

[25] Crowley, Aleister. Magick Without Tears. Letter 46. Biblioteka Peyades. Complete and Unabridged, edited with a Foreword by Karl J. Germer2. © 1954 Karl J. Germer for Ordo Templi Orientis. Renewed 1982 © BLURB. Web. 28 July 2018. https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/mwt/mwt_46.htm

[26] Matthew 28:20. Evangelical Heritage Version. Web. 31 July 2018. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:19-20&version=EHV

[27] Matthew 25:46 Web. New Revised Standard Version. 31 July 2018. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A45%E2%80%9346&version=NRSV

[28] The Christian’s believer’s dilemma arising from the attempt to unify these two doctrines has recently led Pope Francis to propose a change in the translation of the sixth petition of the Pater Noster “Lead us not into temptation”. An article published by the Guardian quotes from an interview the Pope gave for an Italian TV channel:

“It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation. […] I am the one who falls; it’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen. A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department.” The article continues: “The 80-year-old also highlighted that the Catholic church in France had adapted the prayer, and uses the phrase ‘do not let us fall into temptation’ instead.”[28]

Sherwood, Harriet and agency. “Lead us not into mistranslation: pope wants Lord's Prayer changed.”

The Guardian, 8 Dec. 2017. Web. 25 May 2018.


[29] As a matter of fact, Luke 23:42 quotes the malefactor’s words without “Thy kingdom, O Christ, is another.”

[30] Steiner, Rudolf. “Christ and the Human Soul”, 15 July,1914, Norrköping. Original title: “Christus und die menschliche Seele.” Lecture three from a cycle of three lectures published in: Rudolf Steiner Christus und die menschliche Seele. GA 155, Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, Schweiz, 1960

English translation online since 31st March, 2006. The name of the translator is not indicated. Web. 31 July 2018. https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA155/English/RSP1972/19140715p01.html

The German text uses the noun “Mensch” for “man”, and this is non-specific with regard to gender.

[31] Ibid.

[32] 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. New International Version. Web. 31 July 2018.


[33] And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. Matthew 28:19-20, English Standard Version. Web. 7 September 2019.


[34] The fith petition of the Pater Noster (Matthew 6:12) relates God’s forgiveness and human forgiveness: “and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors”.

The Pater Noster, a canonical prayer, establishes not only an exact succession of Petitions, but also an exact formulation of each Petition; only then can it empower a human being’s spiritual development in the proper way. In this respect, it is similar to the effect of a mantric meditation. See the discussion of imiaslavie in Chapter 11 “It’s magic”.

[35] Mark 1:4. Expanded Bible (EXB) Web. 31 July 2018. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:3-5&version=EXB

[36] Mark 1:4 ἐγένετο Ἰωάνης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν / Translit. egeneto iôannês baptizôn en tê erêmô kai kêrussôn baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartiôn

The New Testament in the original Greek. Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D. Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. New York. Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square. 1885.

Perseus Digital Library, Gregroy R. Crane, Editor-in-Chief, Tufts University. Web. 31 July 2018


[37] Guy D. Nave extensively discusses the relation between repentance, remission of sins, and salvation in his book The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts. The Society of Biblical Literature, Leiden, 2002

[38] Тем самым, А. Дугин ставит под сомнение такую фундаментальную и важную сторону духовной жизни, как таинство покаяния в исповедь т.е. фактически читатель, призывается к добровольному отказу от участия в важнейших таинствах Церкви, которые составляют обязательную часть православной жизни.

Novye religioznye obyedinenia Rossii destruktivnogo i okkultnogo kharaktera. Spravochnik / Missionerskiy Otdel Moskovskogo Patriarkhata Russkoy Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi: Informatsionno-analiticheskoy vestnik No 1. – Belgorod, 2002. Izdanie 3-e, dopolnennoe, razdel № 4, polpunkt 4.9 [61] glava „Uchenie Aleksandra Dugina“. p. 167

Handbook of New Religious Associations of Destructive and Occult Nature in Russia. / The Missionary Branch of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church. News and analyses bulletin No 1. Belgorod, 2002. Third revised edition, section No 4, subparagraph 4.9., chapter headed: “The teachings of Alexander Dugin”, p. 167

Новые религиозные объединения России деструктивного и оккультного характера. Справочник / Миссионерский Отдел Московского Патриархата Русской Православной Церкви: Информационно-аналитической вестник Но 1. — Белгород, 2002, Издание 3-е, дополненное, раздел № 4, подпункт 4.9 [61] глава «Учение Александра Дугина», p. 167. Web. 31 July 2018. Download at http://apokrisis.ru/eresi/duginizm/51-tserkovnaya-otsenka-ideologii-a-g-dugina

This is only one of several of Dugin’s points of view repudiated in this article.

[39] See footnote 13

[40] Dugin, Alexander [Aleksandr] The Fourth Political Theory and the Problem of the Devil.

Translated from the Russian by Jafe Arnold. Published on Dugin’s website gepolitka.ru. Web. 31 July 2018. Original title: Chetvertaia politicheskaia teoriia i problema diavola. [Четвертая политическая теория и проблема дьявола]

in English 18 July 2017


in Russian 13 July 2017


[41] Dugin, Alexander. Horizon of the Ideal Empire. Original title: Gorizont ideal’noi imperii. Горизонт идеальной империи. Translated from the Russian by Jafe Arnold. Published on Dugin’s website gepolitka.ru Web. 31 July 2018

in English 11 October 2017 https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/horizon-ideal-empire

in Russian 10 October 2017 https://www.geopolitica.ru/article/gorizont-idealnoy-imperii

[42] Профессиональный политик – это человек, в котором сосуществуют две важнейшие части: с одной стороны – собственно реальный политик, а с другой – человек, который прекрасно осознаёт механизмы идеологии, благодаря которым существует политика вообще. Дугин и Лимонов – может быть, единственные люди, которые совмещают в себе эти стороны. Я не могу их назвать профессиональными политиками в бытовом смысле потому, что они пока не находятся у власти. Они имеют гораздо большее – метафизическое осознание смысла политики. И сейчас самое главное – чтобы такие люди, как Дугин и Лимонов, пришли к власти. Ибо тогда власть соединит в себе понимание хода исторического процесса со способностью решать вопросы реальной, бытовой политики. Но без философского осмысления принципов государственности, принципов истории и деятельности человека вообще политика становится бессмысленной, она становится кастрированной, она становится вообще никакой, она превращается в то, что сейчас называют политикой.

Zhvaniia, Dmitrii. “Sergei Kurekhin: Natsional-bol’shevizm – eto svezhii veter i podvizhnichestvo”

(“Sergey Kuryokhin: ‘National Bolshevism: a fresh breeze – and asceticism too’”) [“Сергей Курёхин: «Национал-большевизм — это свежий ветер и подвижничество»”.] (1995) Novyi smysl, 9 July 2012. Web. 28 July 2018. http://www.sensusnovus.ru/interview/2012/07/09/13959.html

[43] Dugin, Alexander, “Horizon of the Ideal Empire” Original title: Горизонт идеальной империи Translated from the Russian by Jafe Arnold. Published on Dugin’s website gepolitka.ru Web 31 July 2018

in English 11 October 2017 https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/horizon-ideal-empire

in Russian 10 October 2017 https://www.geopolitica.ru/article/gorizont-idealnoy-imperii

[44] Evola, Julius. Pagan Imperialism. Translated by Cologero Salvo. Gornahoor Press 2017. Web. 31 July 2018. (First published in Italian as Imperialismo Pagano in 1928.) Web. 31 July 2018.


[45] Dugin, Alexander. Horizon of the Ideal Empire. Original title: Gorizont ideal’noi imperii. Горизонт идеальной империи. Translated from the Russian by Jafe Arnold. Published on Dugin’s website, gepolitka.ru Web. 31 July 2018.

in English 11 October 2017 https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/horizon-ideal-empire

in Russian 10 October 2017 https://www.geopolitica.ru/article/gorizont-idealnoy-imperii

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

to page 10 • Revolution: a question of style? >>
Table of Contents >>

Uploaded 13 August 2018
Last updated 13 May 2021