Russian theologian warns Alexander Dugin trying 'to mutate Christianity into something corresponding to Kabbalistic-Masonic standards'
 |
|---|
| Arkady Mahler
Critical analysis
On November 27, Alexander Dugin published an open letter Since I was one of those authors who criticized A. Dugin's religious views, it would be fair to analyze this letter in order to be aware of his current position. But to begin with, it makes sense to recall the attitude to the views of A. Dugin, which has developed in the church and scientific environment. As you know, A. Dugin's religious views in recent years have become the subject of constant criticism from the Orthodox community as incompatible with the dogmatic teachings of the Orthodox Church. It is very indicative that the religious component of Duginism was criticized by Orthodox clergy themselves - such as Archpriest Maxim Kozlov, Priest Daniil Sysoev, Deacon Andrei Belous, etc. Here's what, for example, Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev wrote about A. Dugin in the book "The Church in the World of People" (2007): "This enemy is more dangerous than any Blavatskaya (because he is smarter and more educated). Like Blavatskaya, this is an attempt to digest Orthodoxy into Kabbalism. It is enough to recall his article "Messianism of Kabbalah". The undisguised apology of terror, the thirst to turn Orthodoxy into a revolutionary-terrorist ideology also does not cause the desire to get closer to this person" (p.142). "In general, it is the usual "esotericism": continuous "tactical tricks" to carry out its work to mutate Christianity into something corresponding to Kabbalistic-Masonic standards" (p.144). Dugin's teaching is also understood as particularly heretical in the reference book of the Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate "New Religious Associations of Russia of a Destructive and Occult Nature" (2002). "In a number of neo-pagan teachings, Alexander Dugin's views occupy a special place", etc. Among other, the most detailed analysis of A. Dugin's doctrine as a heresy, one can recall the article by E. Zibnitsky "Neo-Eurasianism and the Faith of Fathers" (Provoslavie.ru). Now, in December 2009, 12 parishioners of St. Nicholas Church in Studentsy, the only (!) of the single-faith church in Moscow submitted an application to the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission with a request to analyze the false teaching of A. Dugin, which is spread in this temple by some parishioners: "according to the majority of the parishioners of our temple, books, articles and speeches of A.G. Dugin contain many ideas incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Orthodox doctrine, directly contradicting St. Scripture and St. Tradition of the Orthodox Church". In the academic environment, "Duginism" is often discussed as an example of scientific insolvency, but in response, instead of a meaningful discussion, the Duginists themselves arrange aggressive actions against critics of their guru. In particular, in response to the criticism of Dugin's ideas by Academician V.A. Tishkov, members of the Duginsky "Eurasian Youth Union" (EU) with their black flags held a rally on June 20, 2008 at the building of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Even before that, in response to my criticism of A. Dugin on March 23, 2007, the Duginists threw eggs at the corridors of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And such a reaction from the Duginists directly results from their aggressive ideology, and their critics cannot feel safe. On April 23, 2008, the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences held a conference devoted to the criticism of A. Dugin's ideas, and the greater surprise, to be to be precise, a real scandal, is caused by the fact that, having organized his "Center for Conservative Researchers" at the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University (Dean V.I. Dobrenkov) in September 2008, A. Dugin received the title of "professor". The fact is that Muscovite A. Dugin did not graduate from any university, but in 2000 he presented a diploma of graduation from the correspondence department of the Novocherkassk Engineering and Meliorative Institute (?!) and defended his thesis at Rostov State University. The question of Dugin's scientific status has already been analyzed by the writer Elena Chudinova, and even the employee of this university Boris Rezhabek. On December 5, 2009, Deputy Director of the Center for Modern Philosophy and Social Sciences of Moscow State University A. Bikbov at the conference "Right-wing Radicalism in Social Sciences" read the report "The Case of Dobrenkov-Dugin: from intellectual curiosity to institutional blackmail". Therefore, it is simply impossible to consider Dugin a research scientist, especially given the contempt for scientific knowledge that this author demonstrates in his works. Dugin's articles and books of recent years, which I had to read in order to be aware of the "evolution" of his views, only indicate that no evolution has occurred - these are the same views as ten or fifteen years ago, especially in relation to Orthodoxy. Also, this open letter "On my attitude to religion (forced explanations)", which should be the most impeccable theological text for an author who really wants to be considered Orthodox, does not condemn any of his previous misconceptions and does not make any corrections to his teaching. It seems that either A. Dugin believes in these misconceptions so much that he sincerely does not realize their non-Orthodoxy, or he believes that all readers of this open letter are so indifferent to dogmatic questions that their vigilance can be put to sleep with phrases like "The Church is always clearer, the Church is always right". Applying such a strategy of behavior, you can, on the one hand, promote outright heresy, and, on the other hand, say words like "The Church is always right" and feel out of criticism. The following analysis of Dugin's ideas is not an analysis of A. Dugin's teachings as a whole, which I have already given in my article Quote 1: "Initially, my worldview was formed in the early 80s on the basis of traditionalism. This philosophical trend insists that: Comment: The so-called "integral traditionalism", founded by René Genon (1886-1951), is a religious and philosophical doctrine of the twentieth century, largely reminiscent of Indian Advaita Vedanta and Greek Neoplatonism. This doctrine postulates the manifestation of all existing existence from the impersonal Absolute and the gradual ontological degradation of the world from earthly paradise to earthly hell. This doctrine is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity and contrary to it on its grounds - it denies the existence of the Personality of the Creator, the creation of the world from nothing, the Christian understanding of the human personality, the incarnation of God the Son, that is, the foundations of Christian ontology and anthropology. That is why the Frenchman Rene Genon himself did not remain a Christian, but accepted Sufi Islam, just as the Italian Julius Evola became the ideologist of neo-paganism. It is impossible to combine "integral traditionalism" and Christianity without falling into a frank contradiction. The points of "traditionalism" listed by A. Dugin also do not correspond to the Christian faith. 1) "Traditionalism" argues that "the modern world is an anomaly" due to the impersonal cyclical degradation of the cosmos, corresponding to the pagan teachings of Kali Yuga or the "Iron Age". This doctrine is incompatible with the Christian idea of the fall and linear history, where the free will of God and the free will of man act, where the incarnation of God takes place and the Church of Christ exists. 2) The accusatory "traditionalist" thesis that "the new age and its culture, science and philosophy are a deviation in relation to sacred traditions and religions" suggests that any "sacred traditions and religions" are obviously better than the culture of the New Age, although for a Christian there can be only one such tradition and religion - Christianity. In addition, when you analyze A. Dugin's texts, the culture, science and philosophy of the New Age are negatively evaluated not because of their rejection of Christian creationism, but because of their connection with Christian creationism. 3) The "traditionalist" thesis that "the completeness of truth is found in the sphere of ancient myths and religious beliefs that directly referred to the eternal and unchanging Beginning" also indicates that all "ancient myths and religious beliefs" are true, while for a Christian all religions except Christianity are heresies. And when A. Dugin writes "I remain faithful to these basic attitudes" - he only confirms his commitment to the false teaching of "integral traditionalism". Quote 2: "At the same time, different traditionalists have differently formalized this starting point on the similarity of religious and sacred teachings - up to the hypothesis of the existence of the "primordial (primordial) Tradition", from where historical religions originate. In this vein (with a certain stretch and on the basis of a specific, not quite orthodox exegesis) it is possible to interpret some Islamic theories and certain statements of the Fathers of the Church (in particular, Clement of Alexandria (1) and even some fragments from the Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans (2), where it is about giving the Gods the way to the pagan peoples not through Revelation, but through the contemplation of the creature world in the pre-Christian periods)" Comment: 1) Clement of Alexandria is the only Christian theologian mentioned by A. Dugin in this letter to justify his positions, which in itself is very indicative. And in this mention he makes two gross mistakes. Firstly, Clement of Alexandria is not the father of the Church (!), moreover, he is not canonized at all (!!), he can only be considered one of the apologists. Secondly, the reference to Clement of Alexandria in defense of some "religious and sacred teachings", except for Christianity itself, is absolutely meaningless, since Clement did not mean all kinds of pagan religions, but the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, expressed in the form of natural laws of thinking and morality (Stromates VI 5;8). In addition, Clement argued that the ancient Greeks borrowed the best part of their philosophy from the Old Testament. Thus, Clement of Alexandria has no justification for Greek paganism, but there is an attempt to identify the intellectuality of the Greeks and their paganism as much as possible. As for the connection between Hellenic intellectuality and Christian theology, it was not the mutual influence of two religions, but the conscious use by the Fathers of the Church of the language of Hellenic philosophy, mainly Aristotle, to present Christian theology and nothing more. 2) The quotes given from the Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Romans (1:19-25) testify, first of all, that the pagans were not helped by "considering creations", they "furred in their wisdom and darkened their meaningless heart", and "they replaced the truth of God with lies, and worshiped and served creatures instead of the Creator". What is the point of turning to the "religious and sacred teachings" of the ancient Greeks after that, it is completely unclear. Moreover, the words of the Apostle Paul and Clement cannot in any way contribute to "the hypothesis of the existence of the "original (primordial) Tradition", from which historical religions originate". But A. Dugin does not stop there and writes the following phrase - Quote 3: "Proceeding from the same philosophical attitude to a positive attitude towards myths, mysticism and spiritual teachings, traditionalists studied these doctrines, emphasizing, however, the difference between traditional sacred sciences and arts and modern occultism" Comment: First of all, I have already explained that the words of the Apostle Paul and Clement of Alexandria in principle have nothing to do with "philosophical attitude to a positive attitude towards myths, mysticism and spiritual teachings" - Clement writes not about "myths, mysticism and spiritual teachings", namely about Hellenic philosophy, which he identifies with paganism and looks for its roots in the Old Testament, and the Apostle Paul generally sharply condemns the "wisdom" of the pagans. Secondly, the so-called "traditional sacred sciences and arts" opposed by "traditionalists" to "modern occultism" are the same occult sciences (magic, alchemy, astrology, etc.), which in Rene Genon's philosophical reconstruction may look more refined than they really are. But no matter how refined they are, they remain occult in any case. "Traditionalists" criticized modern occultists not because they were occultists, but because they were "wrong" occultists from their point of view. Thus, A. Dugin directly justifies the existence of occult "sciences and arts" and criticizes not occultism in general, but "modern" occultism. Quote 4: "Folling this line can explain my interest in traditional confessions (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, polytheistic religions and cults), as well as in mystical teachings: I was interested in all this from a philosophical and research point of view, never identifying myself with any of these trends, but at the same time trying to understand them more deeply, and not just criticize or refute them." Comment: No one accuses A. Dugin of involvement in the listed religions - he is accused of developing and spreading a doctrine, the provisions of which are incompatible with Orthodox Christianity. This doctrine is based on the philosophy of "integral traditionalism" and contains a number of heretical provisions that logically follow this "traditionalism". Quote 5: "I have devoted several of my books to the presentation of the foundations of traditionalist philosophy ("The Paths of the Absolute", "Mysteries of Eurasia", "Philosophy of Traditionalism", etc.), as well as many articles and speeches" Comment: Here A. Dugin gives exactly those texts and books to which the main dogmatic claims are made, since they contain his specific religious doctrine. "The Paths of the Absolute" (1989) is a book that systematically outlines the "traditionalist" false teaching, more similar to the development of the ideas of ancient Indian religious philosophy. "Mysteries of Eurasia" (1996) is a book that sets out the theory of "sacred geography", all the "sacredity" of which has a purely pagan character. Here, for example, is one of the key fragments of this book: "And in accordance with the laws of its own sacred geography, the Russian consciousness believes that the savior of Russia will be the Russian Savior, the Hyperborean Avatar, who must manifest himself in the heart of the Holy Motherland, in the Golden Heart of Russia, as a Rider on a white horse." There, of course, the basics of this false teaching are also set out: "Therefore, we can say that all sacred traditions are projections of the Unified Northern Primordial Tradition, adapted to certain historical conditions. The North is the side of the World, chosen by the original Logos in order to manifest itself in History, and any subsequent manifestation of it only restored the original polar-paradise symbolism". And finally, this book also sets out the author's attitude to Orthodoxy. For example, the Symbol of Faith is interpreted as a doctrinal reflection of the features and uniqueness of Russian Orthodoxy, and the rejection of the Catholic concept of Filioque is explained as the rejection of the "intermediary" instance between the sacred, spiritual Cosmos ("Holy Spirit") and the First Cause, that is, in other terms, the nature of the rejection of exotericism as an intermediate instance between the believer and the initiation". The book "Philosophy of Traditionalism" (2002) develops the corresponding ideas of "traditionalism" and at its very beginning the author writes: "Rene Genon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was not and probably couldn't be smarter, deeper, clearer, more absolutely Genon." The question arises - why was the "most correct" person of the twentieth century, from the point of view of A. Dugin, not a Christian thinker, but a consciously accepted Islamic Sufism? In this book, A. Dugin declares "Tradition" as a "holistic ensemble" and actually condemns any departure from holisticity, and here is how he evaluates the history of Christianity in this context: "Christianity was originally a Tradition, an initiatory Tradition. Only later, when the process of making Christianity a religion began, the situation changed dramatically. The example of the great Christian theologian Origen is very indicative in this regard. <... > Origen allowed Satan to allow the possibility of eschatological metamorphosis, that is, he treated him holistically, not religiously." And then: "Where is the boundary between what we call religions and a holistic ensemble? You can try to trace it on the example of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has always differed, say, from Catholicism in that it was predominantly a tradition (= holism). Even the term "religion" itself was not used by Orthodox Christians to define religion until the last centuries. It's very revealing. The very fall of Catholics in the IX-XI centuries was nothing more than a separation of religion from Tradition. And modern Protestantism (however, like modern Catholicism) is not even a religion anymore." Consequently, according to this logic, the teachings of Origen were incorrectly condemned, and the origenism itself was closer to true Orthodoxy than the one established at the V Ecumenical Council. It should be noted here that the founder of "integral traditionalism" Rene Genon himself claimed that the decline of Christianity, i.e. its transition from the state of esoteric "tradition" to exoteric "religion" occurred during the Ecumenical Councils. And both in all his "traditionalist" books, here A. Dugin outlines his attitude to Christianity: "Paradoxically, we have a very weak idea of what Christianity is. The term "Christianity" itself carries a certain ambiguity. In Russian, it is more legitimate to use the expressions "Orthodoxy", "faith", "church", "our faith", "fatherly faith", etc. The word "Christianity" is a neoplasm, a European tracing paper. Therefore, it is necessary to find out exactly what we actually mean by "Christianity". At least two options are possible here: Eastern Christianity (mainly Orthodoxy, but also Monophysitism, Jacobites, etc.) and Western Christianity (Catholicism, later Protestantism)". It also says that Western Catholicism is bad precisely because it inherits the creationism of the Old Testament to a greater extent than Orthodoxy, and this topic is revealed in his book "Evolution of the Paradigm Foundations of Science" (2002), which in itself is a popular version of his candidate's thesis, where he writes: "Orthodox theology mostly remains within the framework of the paradigm of antiquity. This theology does not explicitly deny the dogma of creation, but interprets it in a spirit close to Hellenic thought, if you like, in Greek, in a neoplatonic way." Quote 6: "As a result of reflections on these problems, the book "Metaphysics of the Good News" was written, in which I tried to present a traditionalist view of Orthodoxy, clearly emphasizing - in what, in my opinion, it is permissible and in what is not" Comment: A. Dugin's book "Metaphysics of the Good News (Orthodox Esotericism)" (1996) as an example of his "Orthodoxy" suggests that this author simply does not realize its unorthodoxy, or expects that it will simply not be read by those attentive Orthodox people to whom he addresses. This book contains so many frankly heretical provisions that a separate large work is required to list them in detail. Therefore, within the framework of this article, I will only list the most noticeable provisions of this book, which diverge from the Christian doctrine as such, and allow myself to give the main quotes, even quite long. I understand that there are too many of these quotes, but you can't be unfounded in this matter. 1) About the Holy Trinity. This book begins with a statement of the "metaphysics of Christian dogmas", where the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are defined as the "metaphysical aspects of the Absolute", God the Father is defined as the impersonal principle of "Allness", God the Son as the "Possibility of Manifestation", and God the Holy Spirit as the "Posibility of Non-Manifestation". Further, the author says that "The third person (God the Holy Spirit) can only be correlated with the "primordal mother", with the substance of Manifestation, Natura Naturans". Moreover, in the discussion of the relations of these "aspects of the Absolute", he writes: "Thus, the triny metaphysics indirectly reports on a mysterious conflict that occurred in the bosom of the Transcendent, where the highest levels of the Absolute collided with each other, diverging in their views on the purpose, meaning and quality of their own presence". 2) About the first man Adam.. In this book, the reader can learn that Adam "was an angel projected to the very bottom of Creation", that he was "androgynous", "a synthesis of thinking and unthinking beings and things", that "he is not an individual. It does not have a separate body, but is a synthesis of all individual bodies and physical objects", that "In its pure form it always dwells in the earthly paradise"; "This is how two Adams appear - paradise and fallen. The first one is principled and eternal, the second one is historical and concrete, Adam after the fall. Both have no common measure with what we are used to calling "man" in the conventional sense, since we are talking about two universal states of existence". By the way, in chapter №26, devoted to the "Sacrament of Marriage", A. Dugin writes that "the wedding is the restoration of the androgynate". And in general, "in the eschatological perspective, the sex of the whole creation changes at all. If in the original archetypal heavenly state the creation is a projection of the Husband, Adam or the androgynous man, then in the final state it acquires the features of a Virgo or androgynous woman". 3) About angels and demons. According to Dugin, Christianity is "not creationism or manifestationism", and although he is forced to admit that Christianity "explicitly" asserts the creation of the world out of nothing, his sympathy is clearly on the side of manifestationism. Moreover, we can say that the apology of manifestationism and criticism of creationism is almost the main theme of all his "metaphysical" works, and among his followers "creationism" is just a swear word. So, his attempt to see Christianity as a manifestationist principle reached the point that he actually justifies the fall of angels: "We will return to the topic of "angelic choice". The creationist approach in determining which angels are "evil" and which are "good" is the opposite of the manifestonist approach. Consequently, the realization of the measurement of spiritual freedom in the manifested has a strictly dual perspective. The choice is made only from two possibilities of the creature's attitude to the Creator. The third is deliberately excluded here. But Christianity gives the "third answer" to this question. For Christians, neither the "fallen" nor the "fallen" are wrong, ultimately: neither "fallen". Thus, for Christians, the choice between angels and demons is not obvious, and Christians deny the unambiguous rightness of the former? If you call things by their names, it's Satanism. And one of the ontological justifications of this Satanism in A. Dugin can serve as this reasoning: "Creation, sin and Salvation are equally necessary for the absolute and are integral to it, as they express the fullness of its kenotic sacrificial orientation". 4) About the Blessed Virgin Mary. The idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary goes far beyond the Christian picture of the world as such: "The affirmation of the Virgin at the head of the angelic hierarchy brings us back to the problem of "choice of angels". It is quite obvious that, given the eternal nature of the sky and the angelic world, such an "event" cannot belong to either earthly time or any form of duration in general. It is ridiculous to say that the Virgin Mary "became" the head of the angels after her historic Assumption. In the "aeon" of the kingdom of heaven there is neither "before" nor "after". Consequently, the Mother of God has always been the head of angels. This follows from the super-temporary structure of the upper waters". It should be noted that against the background of this understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our claims to Mariological hyperboles in Catholicism seem simply insignificant, and for the Duginists there is no greater object of religious criticism than "Western Christianity"(!). But this is not enough: "Recall that, from the point of view of Orthodox metaphysics, the problem of the eternal choice of angels from binary turns into trinary; the doctrines of both Jews and Hellenians reveal their fundamental insufficiency, and the heavenly dual confrontation of the "good angel" (often symbolized by the archangel Michael) and the "evil angel" ("day") is removed in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, who became the Third Angel", and further: "It is important to emphasize that the Virgin Mary in heaven is the angel of the Third Way, different not only from the dennitsa, but also from the "good angels" who have stood on the point of view of strict and consistent creationism". 5) About King Melchizedek of Salem. From the point of view of A. Dugin, in the Christian faith as a "third way" between Abrahamic creationism and pagan manifestationism, there are a number of elements that are allegedly impossible within the framework of pure creationism. But if such elements include ideas about the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and the Virgin Mary, then other figures do not fit into strict creationism: "The creationists themselves tend to ignore the figure of Melchizedek in general, as well as other places in the Bible (in particular, episodes with Enoch or Elijah), which fit into the creationist context with great difficulty." And explanations: "Here it is interesting to ask the question: how does the Christian tradition, insisting on creationism, allows the existence of a special figure or anthropological instance, clearly falling out of creationist norms, from the law not only after the coming of Christ (we explained this), but long before this event," "Melchizedek was a pole of universal esotericism and had a direct connection with non-creature reality, i.e. he was the axis of manifestation (not creation). There is no need to repeat again that such a statement metaphysically corresponds to the "choice of the fallen angels" (Origen, who was clearly aware of this, therefore put forward the theory of "apocatastasis", the final "salve of the dennitsa", anathematized later orthodoxy). But that's not all - Melchizedek as an "anthropological instance" according to A. Dugin indicates that Christianity itself is parallel to the Abrahamic tradition: "The Christian tradition (even if abstracted from its transcendent aspects), contrary to its historical continuity of Judaism, in all its structure, symbolism, rituals and doctrines is more original and ancient, more primary than Judaism, and even all Abrahamism in general. And it is not surprising, therefore, that there are so many direct parallels with the Original Hyperborean Tradition in the structure of Christian sacredness, traces of which can be found in many Indo-European myths and cults. Melchizedek and the rite of his priesthood, his sacred church institution, is a complete revival of the ancient hyperborean spirituality, which both in temporal and qualitative aspects surpasses Abrahamism in all its versions". Apparently, this "hyperborean spirituality" is expressed in the religion of Zoroastrianism: "In a sense, it is the Iranian tradition that is closest to purely Christian sacredness, to the combination of creationism and manifestationism, which constitutes the essence of Orthodox metaphysics. It is no coincidence that Iranian esotericism (and later Manichaeism) had such an impact on Christian Gnostics, who saw in Zaroastrianism and its versions a doctrine very close to the doctrine of the Gospels." ; "From all these correspondences, it can be concluded that the sacrament of the "priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek" is somehow connected with the Iranian tradition, and it is no coincidence that, according to the Bible, paradise was located in the East, and based on the sacred geography of Israel, the "East" for the promised land was Persia (Iran)." And both in the case of the author's idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so here, the most "manifestationist" personality in the Bible is connected with the denial of the choice of good angels: "We can say that parallel to the dual hierarchy of two angelic armies, there has always been a third, secret hierarchy - the army of the Queen of Heaven or, in other terms, "angels of Melchizedek". Let me remind you that the inadequate perception of the figure of King Melchizedek of Salem in the early Christian era gave rise to a certain heresy, which St. John Damascene mentioned in his list of one hundred heresies under number 55: "Melchizedekians: these honor Melchizedek, claiming that he is a kind of force, and not a simple man, and dared to build everything to his name." 6) About the "millennial kingdom" from the Apocalypse (Revelation 20:2-7). Quote: "From the point of view of Orthodoxy, the Byzantine Empire was the most real thousand-year kingdom, to which the Old Testament and apocalyptic prophecies belonged. Thus, for about a thousand years - from the founding of Constantinople and its transformation into the capital of the Roman Empire (324-330) to its capture by the Turks (1453) - a sacred order was established in the world, corresponding to the highest and most harmonious hierarchical structure. For adequate modern Christian consciousness, chiliastic aspirations, unlike the Jews who did not accept the Lord, thus refer not to the future time, but to the past, i.e. to the period of existence of the Byzantine Empire, in which the Orthodox symphony was embodied in a perfect and complete form." It should be noted that A. Dugin repeats this thesis about the identity of the "catechon" of the Byzantine Empire and the "millennial kingdom" from the Apocalypse repeatedly and from here logically follows a number of specific provisions of neo-Eurasian ideology, which are directly related to the tsarism and neo-oprichny of its followers. Completely extremist conclusions also follow from this provision: "a normal Christian who has accepted the fullness of Orthodox doctrine and thus also succeeds the eschatological aspect of the social doctrine of the Church, must be spiritually hostile to the social environment in which he is today, like the first Christians who lived in conditions of either Jewish theocracy or pagan tyranny (often simultaneously both there and there). Only if the first Christians lived before the "thousand-year kingdom", modern Christians live after its end. But spiritual, social and ideological nonconformism should be no less (if not greater!) in our time. A. Dugin's confidence that the eschatological millennial kingdom in the historical past, and not in the future, reaches the point that in the opposite point of view he reproaches the Jews and Catholics, and this reverse position itself would mean for him a revision of the attitude to the modern world: "To consider the modern stage of history in some other form and remain a Christian is possible only by denying the sacred significance of the Byzantine period and refusing to identify this period with the "millennial kingdom". This position is typical for modern Catholicism, which in matters of sacred history is actually in solidarity with Judaism and allows a "thousand-year kingdom" as an analogue of the Jewish "Shabbat", i.e. an event of the future, not the past. From all of the above it follows that A. Dugin's book "Metaphysics of the Good News", which is given by his supporters as an example of his Orthodoxy, actually testifies to the strict inconsistency of his worldview with Holy Orthodoxy. The dogmatic analysis of this book alone provides sufficient material to condemn all his religious teachings. Quote 7: "Even more, I developed the problem of contradictions between traditionalism and Christianity in the article "Contrinition", considering the Genon concept of "contrinition" (a single structure behind all anti-traditional and anti-religious trends) as a too abstract reconstruction that contradicts the irremovable dogmatic divergence of traditional confessions with each other" Comment: Both references to previous texts and references to the article "Contrinition" in this context can be calculated only for those who have not read and are not going to read this article, because there is no revision of the specific provisions of Dugin's doctrine there. Moreover, this is one of his key works that reflect the foundations of his false teaching. Yes, this work carries out the idea that there is an "irremovable dogmatic divergence of traditional confessions among themselves" - the idea is too obvious to pass it off as news, but for Genon fans with their "hyperecumenism on the right" this idea can really look like news. The author writes that "under the contrainitiation of Rene Genon understands the set of secret organizations that possess initiative and esoteric data, which, however, direct their activities and their efforts towards the goal directly opposite to the goal of normal initiation, i.e. not to the achievement of the absolute, but to the fatal disappearance and dissolution in the "kingdom of quantity", in the external twilight". According to Genon, "initiation" is the way to achieve an impersonal absolute, which is preserved in the "esoteric core" of all religious traditions that differ only at the "exoteric" level. Accordingly, there must be a "universal esotericism" and as its antithesis "universal counterinitiation". However, since in fact all "traditions" diverge on a metaphysical level, there is no single "contrainitiate doctrine or organization". But instead of abandoning the very idea of counter-initiation, the author offers him a new meaning. Dugin is trying to solve the following problem - the existence of a modern "anti-sacred civilization", prepared by the forces of "contrinition", is obvious, but those "who are easiest to enlist as "representatives of contrinction" on the basis of purely external criteria, i.e. frank "luciferites", "satanists", etc., are too marginal and parody to blame them. For the sake of justice, it should be noted that Dugin was never a banal conspiracy theorist - he was always looking for some paradoxical solutions and this always sharply distinguished him from the usual acisers of some "Jewish-Masonic conspiracy". It was this paradox and external unpredictability of his position that often attracted young adepts who were not satisfied with their usual approaches. But paradoxality is not a sign of truth, otherwise it is necessary to abandon Christian morality itself, which is what happens in Dugin's doctrine. Therefore, Dugin comes to the conclusion that the so-called forces of "contrinitiation" are not some obviously destructive forces, but those representatives of traditional religions who are cool about the tasks of "initiation" (spiritual path) and do not bring it to the end. Here is an extensive quote about this: "Thus, the problem of counter-initiation boils down to incomplete and imperfect esoteric realization, and not to some original and strictly "satanic" oriented secret society aimed at creating and strengthening an anti-sacred civilization. This anti-sacred civilization, which is indeed built today and continues to be built, should rather be considered as the result of the superposition of many unfinished implementations, primarily esoteric, and solidarity in this matter is obvious among all those who, within their own sacred form, are satisfied with half-hearted, incomplete trends. The predominance of profaneism, into which general degeneration is poured, is only a consequence of the degeneration of the initiative organizations themselves, which, contrary to their original orientation, instead of non-stop and heroic movement to the center of metaphysics, are content with intermediate surrogates and unrealized potentialities. At the same time, it is unlikely that the "demonized" force, which is called "devilish", "satanic", is involved in this whole process. In fact, the most terrible and serious results in the cause of perversion and desacralization are achieved by people with the best intentions, convinced that they are orthodox and carriers of the most obvious good. Every initiate who is cool about the spiritual path, every cleric who considers his tradition and its dogmas as an ethical or moral convention, every traditionalist who calms down on the fact that he repeats after the masters apparently correct, but meaningless phrases due to the mental laziness of followers - all of them build little by little the building of continitiation, cutting off its metaphysical peak from the pyramid of the initiative realization. Those who are easiest to enroll in "representatives of contrimination" on the basis of purely external criteria, i.e. frank "luciferites", "satanists", sometimes have tragedy, pain, nonconformism, the ability to look the terrible truth of apocalyptic reality in the eye. And that's why they can't act as the main "scapegoats" for traditionalists. Of course, some of them may be in solidarity with the processes of desacralization, but this is rather an exception. Most often (at least among those who take the matter seriously), on the contrary, it is about the uprising against desacralization, conformism with a degenerate world, to which many representatives of "Orthodox" traditions - oddly enough! - easily adapt and in which they are beautifully and comfortably settled. Most often, religious nonconformists ("heretics", "satanists", etc.) are looking for the totality of sacred experience, which Orthodoxy representatives cannot offer them. This is not their fault, but their trouble, and the true fault lies with those who allowed authentic tradition to turn into a flat facade, behind which there is simply nothing. And perhaps it is these "doubtful" forces and groups desperately and confused, but still persistently, heroically going to esotericism and initiation, deep into reality, while the profane or moralizing conformists from initiation remaining on the periphery, on the contrary, prevent this in every possible way." From this reasoning of Dugin follows a direct practical conclusion - that it is better to honestly go to the end on the path of "initiation" in any of the possible religions than to be not quite conscious, warm parishioner or cleric of the Orthodox Church, i.e. a zealous Islamist or Satanist is better than an insufficiently zealous Orthodox Christian. It does not follow from this article by Dugin that Christianity is the only true religion and therefore this conclusion is not corrected in any way. And, as it usually happens in his other texts, if other religions are considered as certain versions of "esotericism" and "full-fledged metaphysics", then the main subject of its rebukment is Roman Catholicism: "The main origins of contrinitiation in the West should be sought in Catholic scholasticism and the Vatican"; "Catholism rejected non-Christian esotericism and finally descended to the level of contradictory secularized Judeo-Christian morality"; "Catholic (later completely secularized Protestant) moralism, plus anti-clerical, bureaucratic, philanthropic-demagogic rationalism of Freemasonry - all this is much more counter-initiational (judging from the standpoint of full-fledged Orthodox metaphysics) than bursts of anti-church, pagan or even "Luciferian" cults in the West, which were perhaps only a paroxysm of nostalgia for a full-fledged and total Tradition, even a hint of which has not been in the West since time immememorial". It is hardly necessary to stipulate that the false dogmas of the Vatican are heresy, but the very position of Dugin and his followers of his doctrine is characteristic - Catholicism is always worse than any religion and the denunciation of "Western Christianity" is more important to them than other religious teachings. I especially pay attention to this formula - "Catholicism rejected non-Christian esotericism", i.e. Catholicism is accused by Dugin of abandoning non-Christian esotericism. According to Dugin, "from the standpoint of full-fledged Orthodox metaphysics", Catholic scholasticism is "the main source of contrinitiation", while "anti-church, pagan or even "Luciferic" cults" are "only a paroxysm of nostalgia for a full-fledged and total Tradition, even a hint of which has not been in the West since time immemorial". It turns out that insufficiently Orthodox Christianity of the West is worse according to Dugin than frank anti-Christianity. But then the question arises - what are the criteria of orthodoxy then, according to Dugin? What kind of "orthodoxy" is this, from the point of view of which Western Christianity is worse than anti-Christianity? In the same article "Constrinitization" about Christianity, we learn the same idea that we met above: "Christianity is classified as Abrahamic traditions only in the Islamic perspective and in some Judeo-Christian currents. Orthodoxy cannot recognize such a name, as it is clearly aware of its inner spiritual nature as the Melchizedek, pre-Abrahamic and super-Abrahamic traditions." As in other cases, we see here a frank attempt in a purely Marchionite spirit to oppose the Old Testament and the New Testament, to declare the non-Abrahamic origin of Christianity. According to this logic, which is constantly reproduced in Dugin's texts, Christianity is only to the extent that it breaks with the Old Testament ("Abrahamism"), and Christian orthodoxy is the emphasis of the "manifestationist", "esoteric" line as opposed to the "creationist", "exoteric" line. Hence the following question - why then in general, according to A. Dugin, do we need Christianity, if there are already, for example, such fully "manifestationist" traditions as Advaita Vedanta, Sufism, Kabbalah or Neoplatonism? Since according to Dugin it is important to find not the only true religion, but to follow the path of "initiation" to the end within the framework of any other religion (in any case, any "traditional" religion), the external moral criteria of initiatory perfection are fully relativized. He says this in the same article, when he describes the logic of initiation in Genon's "true esotericism": "In other words, up to a certain point (and quite far from the sphere of profane people), the path of initiation and contrinitiation is not only parallel, but in fact unified. And with regard to the "up" or "down" orientation, which might seem like a convincing criterion from the outside, it should be noted that these orientations in the direct initiative experience are not at all indicative, since in the border sphere between the ordinary and the otherworldly, the rise is carried out all the way through the descent, and the take-off leads directly into the abyss. If you follow this path to the end, you will get an adept and an effective metaphysical implementation. If you get lost, you will have all the attributes of the contrinition." This "effective metaphysical realization", when "the rise is carried out through the descent" by Dugin is often called the tantric concept of "the path of the left hand", a path that leads to the same goal as the normal "path of the right hand", but only through chaos and denial of morality. In the book "Philosophy of Traditionalism" himself mentioned by him (chapter 3 "Satan and the Problem of Preception"), where "Tradition" and "religion" are opposed, this thesis is reproduced in full: "In the Hindu (holistic) concept, freedom of existence is connected with the freedom of God (who is not separated from the essence), that is, the freedom of being and the freedom of God are the same thing. The problem of hard choice does not exist, there is rather a problem of deepening. It's good that it's closer to the center, and not that it behaves better. If he behaves "badly", but at the same time still approaches the center - "the way of the left hand". In religious concepts, the question of freedom is posed very rigidly. Everything is subject to a strict moral assessment. Everyone should be responsible for their actions. It is believed that Satan was the first to get freedom and immediately used it in the wrong way. Or maybe he just made a mistake? Did you make the wrong bet? Like in a roulette... (I wrote about it in the "Metaphysics of the Good News") This is a very complex topic, everything here is not as primitive as the authors of various catechesics imagine." Of course, "authors of various kinds of catechesis" for the author of such lines cannot be authoritative by definition - at least, the authors of Christian catechesisms. But in religious matters, authoritative authors who have nothing to do with Christianity - Rene Genon and Hermann Wirth, or rather, directly rejected him. In conclusion of the article "Contrinition", Dugin finally turns to the "sacred tradition" of his "Tradition", whose authority is not questioned and here we find out which particular tradition turns out to be the most complete and original: "Now a few words about the Original Tradition (Primordial Tradition). From our point of view, the contours of this tradition are outlined with amazing clarity in the works of the German professor Hermann Wirth, whose book Genon published a review in "Etudes Traditionnelles". According to Wirth, all existing mythological plots, all symbols, all religious dogmas and rituals, moreover, all human languages and alphabets have developed from a single calendar protoform, the "Sacred Circle" with protorunic signs located on it. This protoform was a description of natural phenomena observed by primordial mankind at the North Pole, on the ancient extinct continent of Hyperborea (or Arctogea). Thus, the Original Tradition from a rather abstract concept becomes a rather tangible and concrete reality, the paradigms of which are extremely convincingly and voluminously revealed by Hermann Wirth". As they say, no comments. My review of the article "Contrinition" was, of course, too detailed, but I specifically conducted this review to show what specific text A. Dugin gives as an example of the "evolution" of his views. It is quite obvious that not every Orthodox reader who has read this Open Letter of A. Dugin will delve into his arguments and read the books and articles to which he refers. Therefore, I consider it necessary to compensate for this shortcoming with my own analysis. Quote 8: "Reflecting on these not simple philosophical topics, I never claimed to create some own doctrine, let alone imagine myself as a "teacher of faith". Comment: Firstly, the claims against Dugin are not that "he claimed to create some kind of his own doctrine and presented himself as a believer", but that the views he spreads do not correspond to the Orthodox doctrine. No need to substitute meanings and deviate from the topic. Secondly, in order to spread heresies, it is not necessary to be a conscious heresiarch. For the last twenty years, Dugin has been actively spreading his views, not only regularly presenting them in numerous books, articles and speeches, but also creating special publications, websites and even ideological organizations for them (NBP in 1994, Eurasia in 2002, MED in 2003, ESM in 2005, CCI in 2008). He can tell anyone that he does not claim to "create his own doctrine", but he de facto created it. And those young intellectuals who ever joined these organizations followed him not as a politician, but as the founder of a particular doctrine. Let's open the same book "Philosophy of Traditionalism" (chapter 14 "The Origins of Great Evil"): "Summing up the metaphysical observations, I developed a certain hypothesis about the nature of the great evil. <... >Now I would like to say a few words about this "new metaphysics". <... > I believe that many texts have already been published, many lectures on conventional traditionalism have been read. So I fulfilled a certain "publicising" duty. Maybe it's time to touch on more serious and scary things... So, the new metaphysics that I developed in my youth <... > I planned to found a whole metaphysics." Let's take his interview about himself on the website Prave.ru from 22.02.2006, where there are such words: "Therefore, my formation as a person, as an intellectual, as a thinker, as a metaphysicist, as a politician, as an ideologist was exactly traditionalist. <... > In 1981-82, I was already a complete philosopher with my own intellectual agenda, with my metaphysics and ideology. <... > I haven't grown up anymore. <... > But the neo-Eurasianism I developed is not just the development of classical Eurasianism, it is a synthesis... <... > The guys are going to do a great thing. They are inspired by my ideas " From these words it is obvious that Dugin, of course, always claimed to create his own doctrine, his own ideology, and put a lot of effort into it. Therefore, excuses that "I have never claimed to create some own doctrine" look not only dishonest, but also meaningless. Quote 9: "At the same time, I remained a parishioner of the Russian Orthodox Church all this time. I quite admit that certain texts that were written and published during this period may differ from canonical Orthodox interpretations, and if the indications of such discrepancies are thoroughly supported by references to the Orthodox tradition, then I am obviously ready to admit my individual mistake and the truth of the Orthodox faith. The church is always more visible, the Church is always right. And this attitude to the unconditional and indisputable authority of the Church, as well as to the shakyness of any individual view (including my own) - is also the foundation of my philosophical (traditionalist) position". Comment: First of all, you can formally be a parishioner of the Orthodox Church and not only believe in anything, but also preach anything; unfortunately, a rare priest is interested in the beliefs of his flock, and only a few are ready to specifically analyze the religious views of even famous people. Secondly, already in 1998, on October 20, A. Dugin spoke at the Old Believers' Council of the Belokrinitsay Consent (the Council of the Russian Old Orthodox Church), and this speech is still published on his website "Arctogea": Dugin participated in this cathedral as an active supporter of the Old Believers, the author of many texts praising the Old Believers-schismatics. There are such words in this speech: - "The Old Orthodox Old Believer Church of the Belokrynitsky Concord inherits, preserves and continues the most ancient traditions of the Faith of Christ, prudently preserves for more and more new generations of Russian people, people of the whole world the evening Light of Truth and Salvation." ; - "The Old vers, at the cost of countless sufferings, martyrdom, high passion, unyieldingly defended the spiritual heights of Stoglav, guarded the spiritual and moral message of Holy Russia inviolability." ; - - "And now from the depths of the ages, the harsh and unyielding voice of the great protopope, St. Habakkuk, comes to us: "My little mermaids are not so cute, they dare to the fire, but they do not betray orthodoxy." - "Today Russia is experiencing a turning point. As the once pro-Western, alienated, anti-Russian, pseudo-Orthodox empire of the Romanovs collapsed, so did the atheist regime of the Bolsheviks." - "I am deeply convinced that the Truth of the Ancient Orthodox Church has not just ethnographic, local significance. This truth is universal, universal, designed to convey the most important and profound revelations to everyone living on earth. For the revival of Russia, Old faith plays a key, central role in general." At the same time, the text of this speech is one of the most moderate on this topic, and I cite it not so much because of its content, but because of its status. So at least on October 20, 1998, A. Dugin was not a full member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Quote 10: "I stopped at the One-Beath, and since 1998 I became a parishioner of the monotheistic church of Michael the Archangel of the Russian Orthodox Church in Mikhailovskaya Sloboda. I still remain one, being a "cleroshan" and in some cases acting as a church reader." Comment: We need to understand, did you stop at One-Believe not earlier than October 20, 2008? In general, the Monothy is not a separate religion and not a separate confession to "stop" on it, it is just a set of parishes of the canonical ROC-MP, serving according to the Old Russian rite. There are other supporters of Dukinism in monotheistic parishes - such as V. Karpets, M. Tyurenkov, etc. And at a certain time it may have seemed that the Monotheism is a haven for authors like Dugin, who will be forgiven for all their dogmatic mistakes for the apology of the "sacral tradition" alone. But this, it turned out, is not quite true - Dugin's views so outraged the monotheistic environment that, as I have already noted above, in early December 2009, 12 parishioners of the only (!) in Moscow, the single-faith church of St. Nicholas in Studentsy submitted an application to the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission with a request to assess the views of A. Dugin on compliance with the dogmatic Orthodox faith. So even in a monotheistic environment, A. Dugin's religious views caused resistance. Quote 11: "Since the period of 1998 (appeal to Mono-belied) I have been trying to make any of my texts touching on the issues of Orthodoxy and religion in general to be balanced (which I admit not always observed in my youth) in everything related to religious matters" Comment: What "youth" are we talking about? Dugin's defenders very often say that his ideological delusions belong to some "early", "young", "young" period of his activity. This argument is designed for those who simply do not know its activities and are ready to take their word for it. In the exact sense of the word, "early", "young", "young" period can be considered a time up to 30 years, i.e. in the case of Dugin before 1992. By this time, he had written one book - "The Paths of the Absolute" (1989), that is, the "youth" period practically did not exist. But in 1992, at the age of 30, he published his second book "Conspiracy Studies" (1992) and №1 almanac "Sweet Angel" and №№1,2 of the magazine "Elements", and so his intellectual activity began. In this regard, it is necessary to record three circumstances. Firstly, there was no full-fledged "young" period, as we established, the full spread of his views began with A. Dugin in the early 90s. But that's not the most important thing. Secondly, all texts by A. Dugin of all periods of his "evolution" are still published on his websites and distributed by his organizations, i.e. there is no condemnation of these texts on his part. Moreover, he often republishes his books and republishes his old articles in new collections, which finally confirms his agreement with them. Thirdly, the most important thing is that A. Dugin did not have any significant "evolution" of views and what he preaches today is a logical continuation of what he preached in the early 90s, it's all the same "integral traditionalism" and "manifestationism". As he himself admitted in an interview: "I haven't grown up anymore" and it's not a joke, it's a position. For example, now, in 2009, A. Dugin's new book "The Fourth Political Theory" was published - there is no essentially new concept in this book, it is a continuation of the same "traditionalism", "Eurasianism" and "conservative revolution", which he preached in 1992, only under a new name. This book was preceded by an article with the same name from a year ago ("Profile" №48, 22.12.2008). In this article he writes: "If for the fourth political theory, atheism of the New Age ceases to be something mandatory, then the theology of monotheistic religions, which at one time displaced other sacred cultures, is also not the truth in the last instance (or rather, it may or may not be).Theoretically, nothing limits the depth of the appeal to ancient archaic values, which, being correctly recognized and understood, may well occupy a certain place in the new ideological construction. Freed from the need to adjust theology to the rationalism of modernism, the carriers of the fourth political theory may well neglect those theological and dogmatic elements that were affected by rationalism in monotheistic societies (especially in the later stages), which, however, led to the emergence of deism on the ruins of the Christian culture of Europe at the beginning, and then atheism and materialism during the phased deployment of the New Age program. Not only the highest super-reasonable symbols of the Faith can be taken on the shield again, but also the rational moments of cults, rituals and legends that confused theologians at the previous stages. If we discard progress as an idea inherent in the modern era (and it, as we see, is over), then everything ancient acquires value and persuasiveness for us just because it is ancient. Older means good. And the older it is, the better. The oldest of creations is paradise. The carriers of the fourth political theory should strive for its new acquisition in the future. <... > And finally, we can outline the deepest - ontological! - basis of the fourth political theory. Here one should refer not to theologies and mythologies, but to the in-depth philosophical experience of the thinker, who made a unique attempt to build a fundamental ontology - the most generalizing, paradoxical and profound doctrine of being. It's about Martin Heidegger. For the fourth political theory, Heidegger's philosophy may be the main axis on which everything else will be strung - from rethinking the second and third political theories to the return of theology and mythology." For those who do not know the ideological positions of A. Dugin, I can state that this "new theory" of his - in fact, walking in a circle, exactly the same thing he could have said ten years ago. But it's not that he "walks in a circle", this problem does not concern us - the point is that he walks in a circle of ideas that are not compatible with the Orthodox doctrine. Here is the same opposition of "other sacred cultures" and "monotheistic religions" in favor of the former, only now, in the absence of a better one, as an ontological (!) Heidegger's doctrine was chosen as the basis of political theory - fundamentally, the non-Christian one was emphasized. Now we take the "latest", newly published book by A. Dugin with the same name "The Fourth Political Theory" and read the following manifesto there: "Our idea of man is Eurasian, and it teaches that a person is a convention, just a convention. And then he can expand the boundaries of his "I" to infinity. For example, up to say: "I am the spirit". Or in width to declare: "Three or five people live in me..." <... > A person can expand down and sadly proclaim: "Well, what a beast I am!" And he'll be right too. He also has the right to pigs. The Eurasian idea of man states that man is the embodiment of his people and a temporary phenomenon, a non-permanent value. Now he's "that" and "so", tomorrow a little "different". The day after tomorrow there will be another "something". But there are permanent things - it's people and space. And the eternity that lives through us." I remind you that the quoted text is - Probably, on this thesis about some special difference between today's ontological views of Dugin and his "early" views loses all power. Quote 12: "Now about my political views. I base my political views on the basis of the conviction in the absolute rightness of the sacred Tradition." Comment: What exactly is the "sacred Tradition"? There are pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Islamic traditions, etc. If it doesn't matter what, and this conclusion can be drawn from the very philosophy of "integral traditionalism", then it's religious relativism, i.e. heresy. If this is some kind of "integral", "primordial", "Nordic Tradition", which he mentions in the article "Contrinition", then this is also heresy. The position "everything ancient acquires value and persuasiveness for us already because it is ancient. Older means good. And the older it is, the better." - it's also heresy. That is, all three positions are incompatible with the Christian Revelation, incompatible with the Orthodox faith. As soon as we talk about the self-value of some abstract "Tradition", we open the way to an infinite number of arbitrary provisions, including arbitrary political provisions. Hence, in the Catechism of the "Eurasian Youth Union" (EU) created by him there are such words: "Everything in the Tradition is beautiful. Especially what is unreasonable, incomprehensible, unreasonable, which exceeds the small bald mind. The tradition is full of dazzling solar delirium, which must be accepted with an open heart - as it is. It is necessary to observe all the rules of Tradition - especially the absurd ones. This is the only way we will understand her hidden logic - which will awaken in us a higher winged creature, languishing in the body as in a dungeon of meat." Quote 13: "These views are conservative and patriotic. I am convinced that our people need to turn to the roots and strengthen their identity, and not follow the path of Western civilization and modernization in a liberal-democratic, secular way." Comment: Here I analyze Dugin's religious views, not political ones. If Dugin had limited himself to the propaganda of any political and ideological views, but had not tied them to Orthodoxy and had not positioned himself as an Orthodox author, there would have been no special attention to his religious views. But when Dugin talks about "the need to go to the roots of strengthening his identity", then in the light of theological claims to him, this appeal looks, to put it mildly, ambiguous. A. Dugin's Eurasianism has not a pragmatic, but a worldview meaning: it is not just a utilitarian geopolitical program, it is an independent ideological doctrine directly related to its "integral traditionalism", "holism" and "manifestationism". Therefore, in his lecture about P.N. Savitsky, co-founder of Eurasianism, Dugin passionately quotes his words: "Russia is a truly Orthodox Muslim, Orthodox-Buddhist country". Therefore, in another place he writes: "Tataria is our higher self; who doubts - to the oven!" I will not develop the topic of A. Dugin's political views further, since it goes beyond purely dogmatic issues, but I can say one thing - the "roots" and "identity" of Dugino conservatism have any character, but not Orthodox. So, as a result of this analysis, we can come to the conclusion that A. Dugin's Open Letter "On My Attitude to Religion (Forced Explanations)" (November 20, 2009) does not in any way testify to his overestimation of his own religious views, but only confirms his loyalty to his own misconceptions, heretical from the point of view of Orthodox dogmatic doctrine. Only those people who have either not read the work of A. Dugin, or do not take the dogmatic faith of the Orthodox Church very seriously can consider these "forced explanations" satisfactory in the Orthodox context. If A. Dugin really believes that "The Church is always right", then he should abandon these views, but at the moment his statement that the authority of the Church is "the foundation of my philosophical position" and that "any of my texts touching on the issues of Orthodoxy and religion in general were balanced" are categorically not true. AFTERWORD In conclusion, I would like to confirm once again the reasons that force me to analyze the religious views of A. Dugin. First of all, in order to prevent extraneous doubts, I specifically stipulate that I do not have and did not have any personal relationship with A. Dugin. I openly cooperated with him in 1997-1999, when I was 17-20 years old, because I considered his ideas convincing. At the end of 1999, I stopped cooperating with him, but continued to develop his ideas, trying to systematize them on the basis of the Orthodox worldview. The result of this systematization was my book "Strategies of Sacred Meaning" of 2003, but in the process of this systematization I began to realize the irremovable contradictions between the Orthodox doctrine and the "synthesis of Dugin". Elements of Duginism are also preserved in my next book "The Spiritual Mission of the Third Rome" of 2005, although to an incomparably lesser extent. I have long condemned and removed all the texts, one way or another related to the Dugin's ideas. In June 2005 A. Dugin offered me to resume cooperation in connection with the threat of the "orange revolution", which then seemed to be the greatest danger to Russia, and invited me to lecture to his followers from the ESM. At that time, my worldview had already diverged too far from the Duginsky, but I agreed to resume cooperation with him, which lasted from June 2005 to June 2006, in order to influence the Christianization of the "Eurasians" themselves. I read lectures on Orthodox topics in the ESM and several Duginists eventually revised their attitude to Christianity, but I have to state that, just like ten years ago, most of the current Duginists despise the dogmatic doctrine of the Orthodox Church, the words "creationist", "synodal" and "Niconian" remain abusive, which naturally follows from the teachings of A. Dugin himself. If Dugin's positions contradict the official teaching of the Church in some way, then, from their point of view, all the worse for the Church itself; they do not measure Dugin's texts by Scripture and Tradition, but the Scripture and Tradition themselves are measured by Dugin. Their sectarian and extremist attitude finally proved to me not only the falsehood, but also the social danger of his views. Secondly, I will answer the constant question of my colleagues - how much, in general, should I pay attention to "Duginism"? Yes, Dugin's doctrine is not so serious philosophically and not so politically popular as to pay supernatural attention to it. As I wrote in my previous article, Dugin's teaching is not a philosophy, it is an ideology, but it is as an ideology that it has a certain potential that can create a political movement and even unite quite different destructive forces. Let me remind you that the ideologies of Bolshevism or Nazism were incomparably more primitive, but this did not prevent them from gaining popularity, and perhaps even helped. The main, obvious property of the Dugin ideology, whatever brands it acts under, is its eclecticism, based not on the affirmation of any positive values, but on the denial of three principles - 1) Abrahamic religiosity (creationism), 2) Western European civilization, 3) the historical project of Modern. This property constitutes both his weakness and his strength. Weakness, because any eclecticism and any association on the principle of "against" inevitably lead to contradictions and chaos, and nothing solid and durable can be created on the basis of this approach. This is the main reason for the amorphous nature of all Dugin's political projects. Strength, because this eclecticism at some point can unite very different people in opposing those very principles. Since the conscious commitment to the Dugin ideology implies a certain, non-produmentary interest in intellectual topics, but does not imply fundamental humanitarian education, its main social base will always be the young people who are looking for, but undereducated. This is a potentially problematic stratum of society, whose energy can go both for good and evil, and therefore the Russian Orthodox Church should work especially actively with such young people, explaining to them where Orthodoxy ends and heresy begins. Dugin is not just a "author of books", he is one of the ideologues among modern politicized youth, a theorist and leader of a certain youth movement, which in its real scale is always greater than a specific ESM organization. And, at the same time, it cannot be said that his followers allegedly "radicalize" his ideas, not at all, they only logically follow them and implement them in practice. It is enough to take the ESM Catechism and immediately understand EVERYTHING about the essence and consequences of the ideology of Duginism: "Our goal is absolute power. We are the Union of Lords, the new rords of Eurasia. We will affirm our will sovereignly, unshakably, irrevocably." <... > "Untill we win, we will be evil. Goodness should be shown to the defeated and weak. A strong opponent who is not going to give up and retreat deserves our hatred." <... > "You can believe in whatever you want. There is an absolute truth. But not alone. Every tradition and religion calls to distant shores. And he does the right thing: that's the virtue of the spirit. Let everyone make their own choice - who relies on the voice of blood, who on the personal will, who on the tradition of the family, family, tribe. If you don't believe in anything, carry it to yourself - nothing is also a significant category. But you have to be honest. Believe it, you're doing the right thing. They'll ask you what, you'll tell me. They won't ask, don't mess with it." <... > "There are only two forces in the world - they and us. It's like a plus and minus, like fire and ice. And there's nothing else. He who is not an enemy is a friend. And not a friend - an enemy." Are there enough quotes? As Archpriest Maxim Kozlov said about this Catechism of Duginists: "If anyone tries to prove that this kind of worldview is identical to Orthodox Christianity, I will be very grateful to this person." Let's remember how the ideologist himself expressed contempt for "authors of various kinds of catechesis"! So this Catechism turns out to be better, truer than the existing Christian catechisms? And no one can say that the catechism of this organization is just a "joke", and its ideologist himself has never read it. In the above interview with "oprichnaya" Pravoy.ru, A. Dugin confirmed his attitude to the ESM: "I am responsible for them". Well, for something, and for their Catechism he is definitely responsible, as well as for all their other ideological declarations. Thirdly, of course, I absolutely do not hope that A. Dugin will condemn his views and it would be naive to harbore such illusions. But if this happened, then he would have to remove all relevant texts from his websites, stop distributing these texts and greatly adjust his religious worldview. To date, most of his texts are published on his websites, he distributes and republishes them, and his new texts also reflect these views.His young adepts are guided by them, primarily from the ESM, and he himself takes advantage of the fact that not all people from the political and media elite, as well as from the church leadership, delve into his ideas. The assessment of A. Dugin's religious views by the official bodies of the Russian Orthodox Church - for example, by the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, has no formal obstacles. There is a statement of 12 parishioners of one Orthodox church and there are church experts who are ready to study these religious views as part of the working group and present a detailed answer to this statement. The only problem is that A. Dugin himself does not seem to be such a significant figure that the church commission makes any statements regarding his views, but personally I believe that the Russian Church should develop a certain mechanism for responding to such statements without distinguishing between "significant" and "insignificant" cases. Today, there are enough figures in Russian society who pass off their positions as Orthodox, taking advantage of the fact that the church leadership will not evaluate these positions precisely because of their "marginality". A contradictory situation is developing - it turns out that in order for the Church to recognize someone as a heretic, this person must not only preach heresy, but also do it loud enough for the church leadership to hear him. On the other hand, if the definition of Dugin's doctrine as heresy by one synodal department, namely, the Missionary Department in 2002, did not have any authority for the Duginists themselves, then where are the guarantees that the definition of another synodal department will have any meaning for them? Meanwhile, the concept of "marginality" in our time is very relative and it is enough to remember how A. Dugin recently hosted his own program on the Orthodox TV channel "Spas", which caused indignation and he left this channel. But the videos with Dugin as a TV presenter are still exhibited by the Dugnists as proof of his recognition by the Russian Church as an authoritative church thinker. Now A. Dugin is a member of the Council of the World Russian People's Council (!). I understand that the VRNS is a public organization, not a church, but the Duginists themselves also cite this fact as proof of its "Orthodoxy", as well as the fact of the appearance of Orthodox clergy in the Dugin "Center for Conservative Studies" at the Social Faculty of Moscow State University. However, it must be recognized that if today we consider the main task of the Russian Orthodox Church to be active missionary work, an open ideological dialogue with all possible people, then this dialogue will only make sense when the Church directly and openly declares its worldview, distinguishing between orthodoxy and heresy. Not only the Church itself, but also its opponents, and even completely strangers to it, are interested in the dogmatic assessment of any popular views, in defining them as Orthodox or non-Orthodox, because they also need to know how Orthodoxy differs from non-Orthodoxy. And therefore a clear theological assessment of any views is the task of every Orthodox theologian, especially an assessment of those views that pretend to be "Orthodox". December 2009 |
|---|