Hannelore Fobo

Sergey Kuryokhin: Improvisations and Performances

page 4 • The “hedgehog-type” model of an empire, and other paradoxes

Dugin and Kuryokhin shared two disconnected strands of thought. There was, on the one hand, the “imperial consciousness” with its inherent anti-Westernness, so to speak – which, as we have seen, Kuryokhin was not actually willing to apply to his activities as a musician – and, on the other hand, there was the “antithetical thinking”. In the second part of the article entitled “Pop-Mekhanika in the West”, I have already discussed Kuryokhin’s “antithetical thinking” vis-à-vis his artistic creation. During Pop-Mekhanika performances, an antithesis could be created by attacking rock with jazz, or by bringing animals on stage.[1]

If “antithetical thinking” professes the equal value of points of view that stand in opposition to each other, “imperial consciousness” is a hierarchically organised mode of thinking, whereby one nation or culture is ranked above another, for instance. We have seen this in the NBP’s programme: Russian civilization is regarded as forming the basis for an Empire stretching from Vladivostok to Gibraltar. In contrast, antithetical thinking expresses a strong inner feeling that the individual cannot be confined to any single position, whether that be “better” or “worse”, or “right” or “wrong” – whether “one” or “minus one”, to put it in mathematical terms. This constitutes its anarchic, anti-authoritarian character – something strongly appreciated by Kuryokhin, forming, as it did, part of his avant-garde self-concept. Thus, Kuryokhin wanted the public to be amazed and bewildered by his unpredictable acts and thoughts. This explains his need to “feel the moment when the radical and the fresh becomes banal and universally recognized”.[2] That which is “radical and fresh” stands at the top of his hierarchy, but when this no longer belongs to the elite, it has to be removed by its antithesis. Kuryokhin found these antitheses within the repertoire of the NBP, which abounded with fanciful concepts and slogans.

For Kuryokhin, the NBP was a

totally new ideology, religion, and culture; it represents those on the right striving to move to the left, and those on the left striving to move to the right. Putting it roughly, the concepts of “left” and “right”, “up” and “down” have no meaning whatsoever when it comes to the National Bolsheviks. Any semblance of dualism has been completely eradicated.[3] This is of fundamental importance. This is what Dugin calls a “conservative revolution”.[4]

Building the case for his “anti-dualistic” ideology in his New Year’s column for the magazine OM, Kuryokhin declared Marx to be “a man with a deeply gnostic understanding of the nature of the cycles pertaining to the social aspect of the life of a society.” Juxtaposing Karl Marx with Dugin’s favourite author Réné Guénon, Kuryokhin continued: “Guénon and Marx form two facets of this magic crystal, via which prism we are able to perceive the essential reality of the world in the epoch of Achievement.”[5]

The other strand of thought, “imperial consciousness”, stems from a tradition rooted in Russian and Soviet state ideologies. The collapse (or implosion) of the Soviet Union meant the borders of both the Russian empire and the Soviet Union lay beyond those of today’s Russia. This “shrinkage” was perceived by many to be akin to a defeat in a lopsided battle, or was even perceived as an insult, Russia having lost its prominent place in the hierarchy of world powers. The NBP wanted to restore Russia’s place through use of military force, and, additionally, Dugin intended to restore Russia’s place with the help of God’s grace. This idea will be discussed in the chapter entitled “Dugin and the Salvation of Mankind”.

At the same time, there can be no doubt that the end of the Soviet Union brought with it individual liberties. Kuryokhin reacted to the situation by amalgamating totalitarian ideas with liberal ideas. He imagined a strong totalitarian state in conjunction with totalitarian art, accompanied by total freedom for himself. He and Dugin conceived of a “hedgehog-type” model of empire. Kushnir quotes Dugin:

“When I explained to Kuryokhin my political ideas, which were rooted in metaphysics and tradition, leaving no place for liberalism or Western-type civilisation, he accepted these ideas with great delight” – remembered Dugin. Together we worked out a ‘hedgehog-type’ model of empire – missiles, formidable tanks and battleships all pointed outwards. Within the empire, fauns walk about and thrive, with mermaids’ tails flickering in the grottos. In other words, there is complete freedom: internal freedom and external empire. Sergey took immense pleasure from this paradoxical idea.”[6]

In other words, a hierarchical mode of thinking was applied to world affairs, while, within the realm of individual action, antithetical thinking remained permissible – although society as such would be anti-liberal in character.

If we judge by logic, this doesn’t make sense. Empires are structured from above, assigning tasks to individuals by integrating them into a hierarchy. Yet internal freedom would permit the hierarchies to be challenged at any moment. In that a case, “internal freedom” would only be available to the privileged few standing atop the hierarchy. This contradiction is characteristic of the NBP’s programme, in which totalitarian, imperial ideas stand in contrast to the promise of individual freedom. (Point 4: “Once in power, the NBP will […] build a TOTAL STATE, and human rights will give way to the rights of nations; Point 17: “The freedom of nations from the aggression of globalisation is what guarantees individual freedom.”[7])

But Dugin and Kuryokhin didn’t have to prove to each other that their “hedgehog model” was more than just a fantasy. To their minds, the paradox made sense. Perhaps they followed Crowley’s proposition as set out in the Book of Law, quoted in the introduction: “In the words of the famous paradox of the Comte de Fénix — The absolute rule of the state shall be a function of the absolute liberty of each individual will.”[8]

As a matter of fact, Crowley’s propositions are often not only paradoxical, but entirely contradictory. Within his writings it is easy to find arguments both for individual liberty and for the submission of one person to another.

Several sentences from the Book of Law support the concept of the “absolute liberty of each individual will”, in particular those three sentences from Chapter III that establish the Code of Conduct for human beings: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” “Love is the law, love under will.” “There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.”[9]

Crowley’s own comments on his “Book of Law”, for instance in “Magick Without Tears”, 1940, stand in direct contrast to the above: “The Book announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the ‘lone wolf’ and the herd.”[10] Marco Pasi infers an anti-democratic viewpoint from Crowley’s writings that negates the concept of equal rights for all men. Pasi provides the following example, taken from Crowley’s “Magick without Tears”:

He states for instance that the “nauseating cult of weakness”, namely democracy, is “utterly false and vile”.[11]

The contradiction is even more blatant in The Liber OZ (1941), which lists the rights of the individual, starting with “Man has the right to live by his own law”, and finishing with “Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights”.[12] The problem of how living according to one’s own laws violates the rights of others is obvious.

Whatever the sources of Dugin’s and Kuryokhin’s “hedgehog model”, their so-called “imperial thinking” only worked because their “antithetical thinking” stopped short of admitting its inherent consequences – namely, the randomness of what subcategory a person would belong to: i.e. “friend” or “enemy”, “master” or “slave”, or “good” or “bad”. They did not bother to apply their antithetical thinking to their imperial thinking. With regard to the latter, their dualistic view remained tied to firm positions, with America always being “the bad guy”. This was in line with their communist upbringing, which had taught them to divide the world into two solid blocks: “us” and “them”.

Kuryokhin’s claim notwithstanding, Dugin’s “conservative revolution” had by no means erased dualism; rather, it increased it. The so-called “Catechism for Members of the Eurasian Youth Union”, the youth organisation of the “International Eurasian Movement” founded by Dugin on 20 November 2003,[13] stipulates that

There are only two forces in the world: us and them. It is akin to plus and minus, fire and ice. There is nothing in between. Whoever is not an enemy is a friend. Whoever is not a friend is an enemy (or a coward or a simpleton, which is no different to being an accomplice of the enemy – idiots are utterly guilty and they will be punished unreservedly).[14]

Concerning a proper attitude towards the enemy, it further stipulates that:

We shall be malicious until victorious. Any powerful enemy not prepared to surrender or pull back deserves our hatred. This is the correct sentiment...[15]

Irina Prokhorova, Chief Editor of the journal Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie (New Literary Survey), recently referred to such outspoken brutality as being a heritage of the Soviet era:

Violence and abuse were standard practise, and often still are. […] But this really is how they perceive the world, with destruction and acts of violence being effective ways of resolving problems.[16] [17]

On the other hand, Kuryokhin admitted to himself that you cannot eradicate evil by killing it:

Fascism was a romantic reaction to capitalism and the horrors of war. But everything idealistic has a tendency to degenerate in the course of its deceptive evolution. The common, social version of fascism became the very thing it had initially been fighting. There is a Chinese legend about a young hero who slew a dragon which, people said, was the embodiment of evil. But having slain the dragon, the young man himself turned into a dragon. Before dying, the dragon told him, “Don't think that you have killed evil. You may have killed the bearer of evil, but evil itself is indestructable.” Apologies for relating such a banal story. In summary, the young man turned into a dragon. But this doesn’t mean that fighting against evil is evil. It just comes down to the laws of nature and time.[18]

To put it another way, you actually turn into the very thing you have slain. This represents a gloomy prospect for Dugin: it suggests his fate is to become an American! Yet Dugin’s and Kuryokhin’s “imperial thinking” shows their unwillingness – or, perhaps, their inability, or at least their lack of intellectual courage – to remain consistent with their “antithetical” position, which would involve them seeing themselves as being in the position of the defeated enemy. It was unthinkable that Russia should play anything but the leading role in world affairs.

It was only on stage that Dugin and Kuryokhin argued that it is arbitrary to identify with one category or another. We will later see that during Pop-Mekhanika No. 418, Dugin expanded “antithetical thinking” to cover the field of chaos magic. This he did by using a passage from Crowley’s Ararita to show that it is possible for “good” and “bad” to exchange places – at the will of the magician. Antithetical thinking is a magic-based practice.

Still, hierarchal thinking offers more satisfaction than antithetical thinking, thus, since the appearance of Dugin’s early publications, his extremely aggressive anti-Western rhetoric has not waned. In Russia, Dugin’s role as a political opinion maker has been ever-increasing – especially via the “International Eurasian Movement”, which he founded. He has important contacts among the political and military elite. In 2007, he created the slogan “Putin is everywhere, Putin is everything, Putin is absolute, Putin is irreplaceable.”[19] But he is also active in European right-wing circles[20] and in the near East.[21] It behoves one to consider Dugin’s power of persuasion.

to page 5 • A new spark for Pop-Mekhanika: Aleister Crowley >>
Table of Contents >>