THE PARADIGM OF THE END

The Last Degree of Generalization 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Marxism 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did it take place in the real life?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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 the aspect of political geography. The matter is about the two geo-political subjects - the Sea (Thalassocracy) and the Land (Tellurocracy). The other pare is synonymous to them, the West-East, where the West and the East are considered not just as geographical notions, but as the civilization blocs. The West is, according to the doctrine of geo-politicians, equal to the Sea. The East (Orient) is equal to the Land . 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Fate of Labour = Fate of Land, East. 

       Fate of Capital = Fate of Sea, West.

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

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

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

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

The War of Nations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anglo-Saxons, parallelly to the forming of conception of being ethnically chosen, were first to enter two decisive processes, which underlie the modern political economy and geo-politics. England carries on the industrial break-through, first of the European powers, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the connection, it is much more helpful to undertake the following operation. - Let’s part the pare Hitler’s racism - Zionism in two ingredient. In the sense of political economy the fascism was just a compromise between the capitalism and the socialism, and in sense of geo-politics the countries of Axis were something intermediate between the clear Atlantism of the West and the clear Eurasianism of the East, so, just in the same way, in sense of ethic eschatology the opposition Nazism - Zionism just veils the more 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 to one 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 protestant fundamentalism. 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 mass involvement 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 deviation from ethnic particularism of the traditional Judaism, with others - especially western - forms of Judaic social organization. Thus, Kestler advanced an interesting version about that 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 not important 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 many representatives 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 this respect 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 civilization advantages 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 it suggested 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 in Germany 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 the main 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 the supremacy 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 in conception 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 of developments, 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.
 
 

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 and Capital, 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 has ingloriously 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 the second 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 

One of the poles - Capital - West - Sea - Anglo-Saxons’ - is traced, as we saw, to Western Roman 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 a religious 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 first socialist 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 universalized result 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 of Christianity (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, which ultimately 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, based on 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 defined correlation, 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 - took another 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 the Middle 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 was traditionally 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, national churches), 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, on the 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 the doubtful 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 why Lutheran 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 to typically 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 the anti-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, appears at 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. - The Protestantism 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 goes even 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 against Catholicism 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 insisting on 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 Heaven Kingdom” 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 improvement of 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 a shortcoming, but, on the contrary, the useful background for the spiritual search, and asceticism, monasticism, distraction from he matter of this world is considered as the superior mission.

Suffering in this world turns to be not just a punishment, but a glorious and blessed repetition 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 the worldly matters, political intrigues, accumulation and distribution of the mundane (secular) welfare. The Protestant fundamentalism exaggerated that aspect, switching all the attention to 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 extremes there 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 of ethics, 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, the mosaic 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 manifested eschatological 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 itself is 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 is denied 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 will flourish 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 other nations 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 unbiased observer. 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 the traditional 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 in the 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 that extremely 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’s rationalism, 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 exclusively immanent, 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 epoch with 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 Orthodox Christianity) 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 the massive 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 genuine tradition, 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 quite considered 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 Islamic factor 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 about something 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 and religious problem to the detriment of accentuating of the main opposition between Orthodox Christianity and Western one, reminds of the situation we came across, analyzing the German racism significance. The gravitation of many Islamic ideologists towards making out of “Israel” and “Jews” the central question of modern history, having exaggerated 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 not existing 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 most generalized 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. There opposition, 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 and absolutize.
 
 

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 in certain 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 resolve the 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 after the 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.