Alexander Dugin, the Moscow Patriarchate, and the United States

[On a global scale] the main “scapegoat” will be precisely the U.S… — Alexander Dugin

Russian Orthodox churches and seminaries in the U.S. are sanctuaries of Soviet espionage.

Previously, Take Your Cross has covered the neo-Eurasianism of the Chekist clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, and repeatedly covered the GRU-backed neo-Eurasianist Communist geopolitician Alexander Dugin.

Now, from Kommersant (Hat Tip: La Russophobe), evidence that Dugin and KGB agent Patriarch Alexis II have joined forces to repress resistance within Russia to the KGB state:

Russian Church Stands against Human Rights

The Russian Orthodox Church Bishops’ Council will begin tomorrow. A document will be issued by the council that will define the church’s stance on human rights, calling for resistance to the emerging system of liberal values that contains “lies, untruth and insults to religious and national values.” Opponents see a possibility that the document is being prepared as a political order, to displace secular human rights organization, and the political opposition with them.

The ruling hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church meet in Moscow once every four years to determine the further course of the church. Deputy chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department of external relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said that a document was being prepared “on human rights, on the problem of freedom and dignity. We will try to answer the question of whether those who say that man is good from the start are right, and if he is completely emancipated, society itself will come to a normal life by itself.”

In 2006, at the World Council of the Russian People, the Russian Orthodox Church suggested that the concept of human right accepted in secular society should be reexamined. “In the complex of rights and freedoms of man ideas are gradually being integrated that not only contradict Christianity, but traditional moral understandings about man in general,” chairman of the world council, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill said at that time. A year later, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexiy II echoed those thoughts in a speech before the Parliament of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.

“This is the first document in history that officially applies Orthodox dogma to one of the most pressing socio-political problems in modern society – human right,” Orthodox political scientist Alexander Dugan [or Dugin], one of the drafters of the current document told Kommersant. He said that it would be “a powerful philosophical institution designed to influence the legal model of the Russian state.”

“We are convinced that the time has come to reexamine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are against those human rights that lead to the corruption of society and contradict moral bases,” said Konstantin Bendas, business manager of the Russian Union of Christian Evangelicals. Zinovy Kogan, chairman of the Congress of Jewish Religious Organizations and Associations of Russia said, “Unfortunately, the liberal approach to human rights protects sin that contradicts human nature and God’s law. The effort of the Russian Orthodox Church to change the situation is absolutely right; we support it.”

“The church in encroaching out of its area, because only the state can limit human rights, and not a church institution,” countered Lev Levinson of the Institute for Human Rights. “It is completely possible that this is a political order.”

“Secular human rights organizations have discredited themselves so much with their double standards that it is time to displace them,” said Dugan.

Dugin co-wrote the political program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Dugin is a Communist who makes his living working with the Russian government, helping to destroy the Western political tradition as represented by the Roman Republic, the Magna Carta, and the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Dugin and the Moscow Patriarchate will make and apply dogma as Putin wishes, using the U.S. as the main scapegoat for what they perceive as the internal rot in Russia.

Claiming to be Orthodox, Dugin flaunts his gnostic affiliation and love of Hindu paganism.

When Dugin came to Johns Hopkins University in 2005, the Soviet agent lied (see here, here, and here) when he said he believed geopolitical conflict between America and Russia was not inevitable.

As for Dugin’s being an “Orthodox political scientist”, below are excerpts from his writings that are inconsistent with Christian doctrine.

From The Gnostic:

The mankind has always had two types of spirituality, two paths — “Right Hand Path” and “Left Hand Path”. The first one is characterized by the positive attitude to the surrounding world; the world is seen as harmony, equilibrium, good, peace. All the evil is viewed as a particular case, a deviation from the norm, something inessential, transient, without deep transcendental reasons. Right Hand Path is also called “The Way of Milk”. It doesn’t hurt a person, it preserves him from radical experience, withdraws from immersion into suffering, from the nightmare of life. This is a false path. It leads into a dream. The one going by it will reach nowhere…


The Left Hand Path is called “gnosis”, “knowledge”. It is as bitter, as knowledge, it generates grief and cold tragedy. Once in antiquity, when the mankind still attached decisive significance to the spiritual aspects, gnostics developed their theories at a philosophical level, as a doctrine, as cosmological mysteries, as a cult. Gradually people degraded, ceased to pay attention to the realm of thought, sank into physiology, search of privacy, homelife. But gnostics did not disappeared [sic]. They transferred the dispute to the level of things, understandable to modern average people. One of them proclaimed the slogans of “social justice”, developed the class struggle theories, communism. “The Mystery of Sofia” became “class consciousness”, “struggle against malicious Demiurg, creator of the damned world” gained the character of social battles. The threads of ancient knowledge lead [sic] to Marx, Nechaev, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara….The Wine of socialist revolution, [the] pleasure of revolt against [the] forces of fate, sacred berserk passion to total destruction of all that is black for the sake of finding new, unearthly Light…

Others opposed the secret energy of race, the murmur of blood to the commonness. They erected the laws of cleanliness and new sacrality, proclaimed the return to the Golden Age, the Great Return against mixture, degradation. Nietzsche, Heidagger [sic], Evola, Hitler, Mussolini shrouded the gnostic will into national racial doctrines.

That’s true that communists had no particular interest in workers, and Hitler — in Germans. But by no means due to their cynicism. Both were overwhelmed by a deeper, more ancient, more absolute aspiration — common gnostic spirit, secret and terrible light of the Left Hand Path. No workers, no “aryans”… That’s horse of a different colour.

Creative personalities also invoked on the Left Hand Path, on a path of gnosis swang [sic] to and fro between the “red” and “black”, the “white” and “brown”, rushed in spiritual searches. Being confused by the political doctrines, going into extremes, being unable to express clearly the metaphysical contours of their possessions, the artists from Shakespeare up to Arteau, from Michelangelo up to Max Eemans, from troubadours up to Breton feeded [sic] themselves with a secret wine of suffering, imbibing greedily in the society, in passions, in sects and occult brotherhoods the separate fragments of the terrible doctrine depriving you of an opportunity to smile. Knights Templars, Dante, Lautreamont… They never smiled. It’s the sign of special choseness, trace of the monstruous experience, which was common to all the “travelers of the Left Hand Path”. A gnostic surveys our world with his heavy look. The same look as his precursors, links of an ancient chain of the chosen, chosen by the Horror had [sic]. The repelling pattern appears to him. The West distracted in its consumer psychosis, the East — disgusting in its slow-wittedness and miserable obedience. Drowned world, planet laying [sic] at the bottom.”

In underwater woods the impulse is useless and the gesture is ceased…” (Evgeniy Golovin)

But [the] gnostic will stay adherent to the life-work.

Never, neither today, nor tomorrow. On the contrary, there are all reasons to triumph internally.

Haven’t we told the naive “Right Hand Path” optimists where their excessive ontological trust will get them to?

Haven’t we predicted the degradation of their creative instinct into that grotesque parody which is represented by modern conservatives who have resigned to everything, that horrified their more attractive (but not less hypocritical) precursors a pair of thousands of years ago?

They haven’t listened to us…

Now let them blame only themselves and read the “New Age” books or marketing manuals.

We have forgiven nobody; we have forgotten nothing.

We have not been deceived by the change of social scenery and political actors.

We have a very good memory, we have very “long arms”.

We have a very severe tradition.

Mazes of life, spirals of ideas, vortexes of anger…

From Just Bolshevism:

We need to radically reassess the Soviet period, work out a special historiographic model, and use its framework to rewrite Soviet history in a third variant. So far, we are aware of two approaches – anti-Soviet and Soviet. Soviet approach reflects Soviet history in Marxist terms, remaining hypnotized by an alienated and complicated scholastically communist methodology, muddled up as a result of numerous leaps and periods of development of socialist doctrine. More than that, the main line of strictly Soviet historiography has been cut due to collapse of the Soviet Union, and in its place appeared a plethora of sect-like, marginal historical groupings entangled in terminology, clashing with each other, unable to come to a unitary ideological picture of the Soviet stage.

The second ideological approach coincides with the anti-Soviet view. It has two positions. One is widely known, “democratic,” “westernist.” According to this theory, socialism is a delusion and an evil, the Soviet period is an anomaly rooted in dark, archaic conditions of underdeveloped totalitarian Asiatic masses inhabiting north-west Eurasia.

Another variety of anti-Soviet model is monarchist, “White.” According to this model, normal development of a peculiar European power was artificially interrupted by a conspiracy of alien fanatics, who carried out an anti-popular coup and ruled using force and terror for long decades until the system rotted through to the end.

Different interpretations of bolshevism in these two main perspectives – Soviet and anti-Soviet – are well-known, but there is also awareness of their internal discrepancies and inherent stretches.

In fact, what we possess so far does not give the main, true approach to the bolshevik phenomenon.

Such an approach can be formed only in the event of recognition of fundamental unity, spiritual and ethical kinship between national (especially Russian) idea and the basic pathos of communism as an ideology, including Marxism. Other approaches radically distinguish nationalism and socialism (communism), view them as ideological antitheses, incompatible tendencies. And the conviction in this incompatibility is projected further on the entire course of historical reconstruction. The consequences are known – essence of the phenomenon is lost, contradictions fall on top of each other creating endless stretches and misunderstandings. It may be that the only approach close to the truth is extremist Western liberalism, characterized by maximum russophobia in conjunction with the utmost hatred for any forms of socialism or communism. Only here – although in a negated form – is correctly noted the surprising solidarity, consonance of bolshevism and the Russian Idea, deep kinship to the other side of external forms.

The problem boils down to working out not a negated form, as in the case of russophobic anti-communists, but a completely positive, apologetic historiographical model of bolshevism as a phenomenon organically combining in itself national and communist traits. I principle, the basis for such a construction was laid down by Mikhail Agursky in his priceless book “Ideology of National Bolshevism” and especially in its complete English variant “Third Rome.” Surprisingly, this brilliant work was not followed by a serious development of the given subject by other authors. Nothing but scraps, fragments, details. Although, it would seem that the creation of an entire historical school, armed with Agursky’s methodology and having in its possession a multitude of reasearch works of radical russophobic anti-socialists, whose outlines can be used as ready blocks with an automatic replacement of the ethical value of one and same phenomena from a minus to a plus, is calling for itself.

Perhaps, it is necessary to wait out for some time, until the political agiotage of supporters and opponents of socialism passes, until numerous extremely talentless historians, filling all institutions during the dismal period of late Brezhnevism(they indirectly furthered surrender of socialism!) move to the sidelines. Now, with an increasing tempo, the “monarchists” historiographical method is being discredited, while the liberal-russophobic position, notwithstanding its domination ever since perestroika, will soon become physically insecure in a situation of desparate condition of the Russian people and an inevitable social explosion. The last refuge of scoundrels remains national-capitalism, anti-socialist, anti-communist, rightist fascism (as a rule, linked with racism, xenophobia, etc.) It is contradictory and irresponsible. It is absolutely untrue and leads nowhere. This theorization of an unnatural compromise is conceptually and historically doomed. It is a deliberately amoral and unintelligent dead end, mixed up on ressentiment and/or paranoidal complexes.

On the contrary, all paths are clear for national-bolshevik historiography. It is the only one that has a future. It is an approach in which the passion for historical truth is tied with a fitting ethical choice, national pride, and an exalted social ideal.

It can already be seen that in the future the barest necessity to use the term “bolshevism” with prefix “national-” will go away. Bolshevism is already in itself national-bolshevism, since no “non-national bolshevism” has ever existed.

From The Metaphysics of National Bolshevism:


2. Karl Popper’s inestimable contribution

It’s difficult to imagine anything better for a difficult task of defining the essence of “national-bolshevism”, than a reference to the sociological researches of Karl Popper, and especially to his fundamental work – “Open Society and its Enemies”. In this bulky work Popper proposes a rather convincing model, according to which all the types of a society are roughly divided into two main kinds – “Open Society” and “Non – Open Society” or “Open Society Enemies’ Society”.

According to Popper, “Open Society” is based on central role of an individual and its basic characteristic features: rationality, step-type behavior (being discrete), absence of global teleology in actions etc. The sense of an “Open Society” is that it rejects all the forms of an Absolute, which are non-comparable with individuality and its nature. Such society is “open” just because of the simple fact that the combinations’ varieties of individual atoms do not have a limit (as well as no purpose or sense), and theoretically such a society should be aimed at the achievement of an ideal dynamic balance. Popper also considers himself as a convinced adherent of an “open society”.

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

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

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

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

So, Popper’s formula is as such: either “open society”, or “its enemies”.

3. The sacred alliance of the objective

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

Of course, throughout the history the different trends, which were hostile to open society, were also hostile to each other. The communists indignantly denied their resemblance to fascists, and conservatives refused to have anything to do with both the abovementioned trends. Practically, noone from “open society enemies” admitted their relation to the analogous ideologies, considering such comparisons as the pejorative criticism. At the same time the different versions of “open society” itself were developed jointly with one another, being clearly conscious of their ideological and philosophical relation. The individualism principle could have united the English Protestant monarchy with the democratic parliamentarianism of Northern America, where the liberalism at first was nicely combined with the slave-owning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond “rights” and “lefts”, there’s one and indivisible Revolution, in the dialectical triad “third Rome – third Reich – third International”.

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


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: