Heraclitus called “hostility” the “father of things.”
Everywhere in the world there are opposing poles: executioners and victims, men and women, coercive authority and rebelious subject. War of the elements. War of classes, nations, races, economic formations, material interests, ambitions, ideas. Ever since a certain time, ordinary conscience got used to making a demagogic move: a contradiction in instance does not preclude general harmony; in the end, the opposites concur. The fairy-tale of a good ending, a painless and unproblematic synthesis. Naive belief in the “third” of beings, completely absorbed in a hurricane of fatal struggle of the two.
The real world is built according to the law of duality.
Perhaps, this duality, somewhere in infinity, stops being its own self, following an unproved (and not provable) Lobachevsky’s law or the theological assertion of Nicholas of Cusa. As long as we are dealing with a concrete world, hostlity remains the common denominator of existence. The problem is not in vulgar Darwinism and “struggle for survival.” Any subject, any being, any idea is stretched between two limits – existence and nonexistence, life and death, presence and absence, attraction and repulsion, the likes and the differences, and so forth. The borders are opposite, inimical to each other. Their presence fills reality with an internal dramatism, dynamics, force, and anguish.
That is why aggression – is the founding law of existence.
It is possible to draw a great number of trajectories, by way of which move the discharges of cosmic energy. It is possible to study attraction and repulsion of particles on an atomic level and, in this way, to understand the principle of aggression lying at the basis of nuclear weaponry. It is possible to tackle cosmology and explore the fantastic process of disappearence of matter in gravitational supermasses of black holes. It is possible to compile a typology of violence among animals and draw graphs of outbursts of aggression in the human collective. At last, it is possible to examine in this light the doctrines of class warfare or racial hatred. Aggression – is a significant and complex, fundamental phenomenon of cosmic reality. In its universality, it may surpass everything else…
Whatever the type of aggression we would examine, from the very beginning we encounter definitions of two positions, two poles, two borders, between which ripens and bursts a lightning of violence, scorching fire of war. (By the way, the same Heraclitus believed exactly the fire to be the mystical foundation of cosmos).
For “Elements,” the definition of our own and alien, friendly and hostile does not present any difficulties. From the very forst volume, we tirelessly drew a demarcation line between “ours” and “not ours,” following the logic of Schmitt and Sartre’s thesis on the “struggle of consciences.” Obviously, nothing but aggression can exist between “ours” and “not ours.” It is a different matter that this aggression can be actual or potential, expresses itself in direct death-dealing conflict or latently ripens amid seeming inaction. The truce may seem protracted. But sooner or later it will burst.
“Our,” from a spiritual point of view, is Tradition, organic society, inhuman Revelation, total superiority of the spiritual over the physical, hierarchy, qualitative differentiation, assertion of ethics of hero over ethics of dealer.
“Our,” from a social point of view, is socialism, material equality, community, domination of the principle of fairness over the principle of profit and effectiveness, collectivism, and nationalism.
“Our,” from a geopolitical point of view, is Eurasia, continental alliance, forces of land, giant bloc formed around Russia.
“Our,” from the point of view of style, is movement, life, activity, overcoming, Love and Death.
“Not our,” from a spiritual point of view, is the modern world, western civilization starting with Enlightenment, humanism, cartesianism and kantianism, individualism, materialism, domination of merchant society.
“Not our,” from a social point of view, is capitalism, hierarchy based on material wealth, centrality of profit and interest, egoism, individualism, cosmopolitism.
“Not our,” from a geopolitical point of view, is America and the West, forces of the sea, Anglo-Saxon world, atlantism and mondialism.
“Not our,” from the point of view of style, is stagnation, conservatism, conformism, tranquillity, cowardice, cautiousness, coolness, indifference, and selfish fear of death.
Between these poles of “our” and “not our” springs up inexorable and terrible hatred. One excludes each other. In this case, the “struggle of consciences” is absolute, since all instances of disagreement within each camp are removed when faced with a totally alien, opposite, giant system of values. Anarchists, fascists, communists, left nationalists, nonconformists turn out in the same camp, despite all internal contradictions.
A new map of conflicts and battles, terrorist acts and polemics, attacks and strategic maneuvers is being drawn out. We are entering into a completely unique time of New Aggression, where all former opposites, feuding sides, opponents and enemies are sharply restructuring their ranks. Communists of yesterday are fraternizing with capitalists under the slogans of mondialism, fascists of yesterday are shaking hands with anarchists in diversionary headquarters of the struggle against mondialism.
“New World Order,” “open society,” world government, planetary market, human values, One World, universalization of the West and its model, liberalism, canonization of the idiot-commoner as a normal, average representative of humanity. This – is from one side, these – are “not ours’.”
Eurasian Empire, “enemies of the open society” (look carefully at who is included in this category by Karl Popper in “Open Society and Its Enemies” – thats us), freedom of nations and peoples to maintain their originality, autonomy, spiritual hierarchy, national differentiation, superhuman values, for East and against West, exceptional right to be called human, alloted only to the hero, wiseman, devotee, soldier. These are “ours’.”
Two positions which could not be brought together, two all-encompassing superworldviews, two mutually exclusive projects of the future of mankind.
Between them is only enmity, hatred, brutal struggle according to rules and without rules, for extermination, to the last drop of blood. Between them are heaps of corpses, millions of lives, endless centuries of suffering and heroic deeds.
Which of us will sum up History?
What will its end look like?
Who will say the last word?
Who will be the last to laugh?
Who will thrust the last bullet into the flesh of the fallen enemy?
Them or us?
“Ours” or “not ours?”
This will be decided by war. The “father of things.”