The most profound Russian thinkers of the 20th century were undoubtedly the Eurasianists, the ideologists of the special Third Way wing of the first Russian emigration who expressed genuinely important and reliable considerations on the fate of Russia. In their conceptions, the geographical location of Russia between East and West plays a central role. For them, Eurasia amounts to Russia and the Russian ethnos (in the supranational sense of the word) is considered to be the modern carrier of Turanism, a special imperial psycho-ideology accordingly passed down to the people of Rus by the Turkic-Mongolian tribes of the Horde. Thus, the Eurasianists, in contrast to the representatives of the monarchist camp, were not so much “Panslavists” as Turkophiles. And this is not a paradox since a significant part of the Russian nobility and, in particular, many Slavophile ideologists of the 19th century who constituted a significant percentage of the top Russian elite,were representatives of the Turkic heritage. For many Eurasianists, Russia-Turan was a supra-political concept whose value was defined by its geopolitical mission.
The intuition of the Eurasianists proved to be quite true, but the origins of this concept stretch back to pre-history, to the epochs prior not only to the conquests of Genghis Khan and his successors, but also prior to even the appearance of Slavs on Russian lands. Where did Russia-Turan come from?
Ex Occidente Lux
Neolithic Eurasia, according to the latest archeological data, by way of all the migrations of “cultures” and racial types, possessed some sort of constant vector, some kind of fundamental orientation, which could be called a “culturally dominant” center. The hypothesis of ex Oriente lux characteristic for historians of the 19th century gradually gave way to the Atlantic theory which at least gave a logical answer to the mystery of cro-magnon man. This Atlantic theory to which Herman Wirth and Julius Evola adhered claims that the source of Neolithic culture spread strictly from the North-West to the South-East with the Atlantic Ocean as its pole. The cro-magnons, the carriers of magdalenian culture, were the Atlantians of Platon, explorers and custodians of agriculture, the colonizers of Western Europe, North Africa, Arabia, South India, and down towards Oceania, where the tribal, aboriginal Maori nobility, who called themselves “Aryans” in contrast to the ordinary natives of the Negroid-Mongoloid type, possessed all the characteristics of cro-magnon man, the predecessor of Linnaeus’ homo europeus. These proto-historic Atlantians carried ancient cults and ancient linear writings, the later hieroglyphic-naturalistic development of which resulted in the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Chinese writing systems.
Long before its final formulation in our century, the Atlantic theory was undoubtedly well known in the West. Moreover, more than two thousand years of Western ignorance, which believes that everything that does not historically date back to the Mediterranean cultural area of Greece and Rome is “barbarian,” “primitive,” “exotic,” “naive,” “immature,” etc., is inexplicable without this theory. This Atlantic Western-centrism does not correlate with race or nation. It can be transmitted from people to people as an unspoken religion or as an ideological preconception which saturates Western culture as such. A kind of “Atlanticism” was revived by Alexander the Great, Rome, the German emperors, Napoleon, the British Empire, Adolf Hitler, and the contemporary ideologists of NATO. Gradually, however, the center of Atlanticist ideology has been shifted further to the West and its undisputed political leader today is the United States, the “New Atlantis.”
The Turkic-Sumerian factor
However, all Atlantic theories have one weak point when it comes to archeology: the so-called secret origin of the Sumerians. The matter at hand is that the most ancient layers of Sumerian culture have a non-Atlantic, or pre-Atlantic character and, nevertheless, attest to a high intellectual and spiritual development. Moreover, this Sumerian type of culture is extremely close to Neolithic monuments in Southern Russia and Southern Siberia. To this must be added the striking resemblance revealed between the Sumerian language and those of the Turkic group.
Thus, already in the Neolithic period we see traces of a cultural, geopolitical dualism of West and East, Atlantis and Siberia, which intersects in the Middle East in the mixing of peoples, cultures, languages and races. Especially in the Mediterranean region (North Africa – Greece – Anatolia – Arabia – Egypt) there exists substantial racial and ethnic heterogeneity when speaking of micro-variations in both the genetic and spiritual spheres. The further to the West towards the Atlantic coast or the further to the East towards Siberia that one goes, the purer are racial and cultural forms regardless of historical and purely political circumstances. Such a detail is curious. The Turkic-Mongolian peoples historically tended to repeat (with breaks every several centuries and even millennia) the paths of ancient migration from Siberia to Asia Minor, Southern Russia, and down to the Balkans and Anatolia. And it is precisely along this trajectory that one meets the most ancient Neolithic monuments of the “Sumerian” type in paleo-epigraphy, ornaments, cult objects, etc. Genghis Khan was by no means a pioneer. He belonged to the Great Tradition of Turan which stretches back centuries to the dawn of Eurasia, the earliest period in history when a Great Civilization flourished in Siberia and Northern Mongolia whose traces are preserved only partially in the “Aryan” formations of the Siberian region.
The circle of Eurasia’s evolution
Gaston Georgel, to whom we referred in the previous chapter in speaking of the pole located at the intersection between the 60th meridian and the Arctic Circle, developed the topic of the evolution of cultures in another of his books, “The Four Ages of Humanity”  In this book, he explains that the pole of Eurasia in the Northern Urals was once the center of a northern proto-civilization from which waves of migrants, the bearers of Tradition, moved diagonally south and then moved circumferentially, the southernmost (lowest) point of which lies at the intersection of the 30 degree parallel (near the Iranian city of Kelat). It is indicative that on this parallel the Great Pyramid of Egypt is located, and it moves across the longest sector of land on the entire globe. Georgel calls this circumference the “circle of Eurasia’s evolution.”
According to the author of “The Four Ages of Humanity,” Eurasia had its own sacred geographical center which differed from the center of the Atlanticist tradition located at 120 degrees from the center of Europe to the West along the northern circle. Thus, the cro-magnon Atlantians were not the personifications of Eurasia, but the messengers of a different continent and different tradition which mingled with the mysterious secret tradition of the aborigines that is difficult to distinguish. Georgel emphasized in particular the part of the evolutionary circle which runs from Iran to the North-East, i.e., the sector stretching from the Gobi desert and Northern Siberia up to Kamchatka. It is there, the same path along which the warriors of Genghis Khan went, that the Neolithic heart of Turan should be sought.
From this it follows that in addition to the undisputed Atlantic dominant of ancient cultural migrations from the Northwest to the Southeast, the sacred geography of Eurasia is predetermined by its own Turanian vector from the Northeast to the Southwest. Altogether, this forms the X sign, St. Andrew’s Cross, of the dynamics of sacred history. It is curious to note that the circle of evolution of Eurasia turns out to be inscribed on the upper half of the cross while the southernmost point of the circle lies on the very meridian (our 60 degree meridian which we discussed in the first chapter) where there is the intersection of the two lines of the cross.
The sacred geographical hypotheses of Georgel, supported by an analysis of cosmic cycles, offer the opportunity to come closer to understanding the mystery of Turan. If the Atlantic wave established after itself something sustainable in a cultural sense, something bright and eye-catching saturated with Western-centric arrogance and rationality, then the Turko-Sumerian heritage, although no less militant, was essentially modest, interior, easy, terse, and generally prone to cultural minimalism and the setting of being naked in the steps under the high and round sky of silent Eurasia. Therefore, Atlanticism speaks for itself (although it is necessary to attentively and intently listen to its voice in under to understand). As for Eurasianism, we must hypothesize and seek it as a forgotten source of a continental mission. The Swedish mystic Swedenborg said on this matter: “Now the wise men of Tartary must seek out the mysterious Word forgotten by everyone.”
Through Siberia to “I”
The great merit of the Russian Eurasianists is that they sensed that, geopolitically, the real basis of Slavophile conceptions, which although might have been correct, were too abstract to be politically realized or advocated as “Panslavism,” i.e., the artificial reproduction of “Pangermanism” on Russian soil. The appeal to Turan as some kind of “Eurasian selfhood” meant the revival of the heavenly archetype of “Holy Rus”, insofar as the great Siberian proto-civilization emanated from the sacred Northern Ural center, and a return to racial (including ancient Slavic) origin, since the polar Hyperborean region of Inta or Indra itself was once inhabited by the original Aryans who later fragmented into the Indo-Germanic peoples. The Turks themselves, as the main bearers of the Turanian impulse, had many Aryan phenotypic and genotypic traits at least among the aristocratic stratum (recall that Genghis Khan himself was called the “White Tsar” and according to this description he was a full-blooded Indo-European). The degree of Mongoloidness or “Paleoasiaticness” that the Turks have is no higher than what is present in Great Russians of Finno-Ugric blood. All of this made Turanism realistic and highly resonant with a patriotic idea for the Eurasianists in their search for the national self-identitifcation of Russia. It is in Turanism that the eastern component of Russian geopolitical specificity was opened and through Turanism, the East, and Siberia that Russians can and should find the path themselves to their own national “I.”
The Goths, Huns, and the Swastika
It has long been noted that true history is made in silence away from surging crowds. Sometimes, a purely scholarly polemic among specialists brings catastrophe to the world and a romantic project, the project of an impossible dream, results in the great movement of entire peoples. In the article “Atlantis and Hyperborea” in 1929, the French esoteric Rene Guenon, a teacher of Gaston Georgel and indeed all contemporary Traditionalists, pointed to a certain inadequacy in identifying Hyperborea and Atlantis, i.e, the northern and western paleocontinents. This commentary was addressed to the German archaeologist and historian of religions Herman Wirth who in his fundamental work “The Origin of Mankind” often used the expression “Northern Atlantic”, having in mind Hyperborea, to describe the Atlantic tradition. It is very likely that none of Guenon’s contemporaries paid the slightest attention to his remark due to its narrow specialization. In fact in the near future this resulted in millions of victims, burnt villages, destroyed cities, and a crushed Germany and bloodied Russia. The point is that Herman Wirth soon became one of the leading ideologists and inspirers of the “Ahnenerbe” (“Ancestral Heritage”) organization which to a certain extent determined the cultural-political and ideological positions of the Third Reich. The identification of Hyperborea as Atlantis and the North as the West in the writings of Wirth ultimately led the imperial military will of Germany in a certain direction, making the Anglo-Saxons (Atlanticists) potential allies and the Turanists enemies. To this was added a purely racial, “seriological” approach based on the study of various blood groups which gave fleeting results. Such an orientation might appear to be a simple consequence of Nazi racism. However, this is not so. The racism of such large and foremost ideologues of Ahnenerbe as Herman Wirth was entirely free of “Pangermanist” chauvinistic prejudices against the eastern nations. Wirth himself emphasized the universality of the Aryan race, its supranational character and the possibility of the presence of descendants of the Aryans among “non-white” peoples as well as the presence of a substantial percentage of “non-white” types among a formally “white” population. In addition, Wirth recognized the Sumerian-Turkic commonality and the proto-Aryan basis of the Turkic tradition. Therefore, the issue of identifying the North and Hyperborea (which was an absolute value to the Nazis’ mythologized worldview) as the West and Atlantis had a key significance and could have ultimately tipped the scales in favor of certain geopolitical decisions on this or that matter.
In history there is the precedent of an alliance of Gothic and Hunnic tribes which acted together as “barbarians” of the Turanian impulse against “Atlanticized” Rome. It is curious that during the Second World War the English derisively called the Germans “Huns.” And it is impossible to deny that in certain aspects Hitler’s Germany was genuinely oriented in an Atlanticist direction, as is the case with the wars against England, France, and America, the alliance with Japan, etc. Perhaps a bit more theoretical subtlety predetermined the arrangement of forces in the Second World War, a subtlety in the adulation of Neolithic, prehistoric events of which nothing remains other than two or three fantastic legends and a few dozen bones, shards, and stone axes with a swastika or the sun wheel of Odin…
Black Iran and White Iran
There is yet another important point in Eurasianist doctrine which is the comparison of Turan and Iran, i.e. the nomadism of the northern steppes vs. the settlements of the southern planes, dynamism vs. stasis, and spirit vs. culture. In addition to a purely psychological argument precisely reflecting the specificity of the “steppe soul,” it is possible that this juxtaposition is a result awakened by the shock of revolution of the deep geopolitical archetypes of the Eurasians’ imperial, all-Turanian subconsciousness. Iran is situated at the southernmost point of the circle of evolution. Insofar as the North is associated with Hyperboria as an orientation, pole, and is spiritually positive, then the South, on the contrary, is endowed with a negative meaning. Hence the mythological and actual confrontation of these sacred geographical energies and orientations.
On the other hand, it is possible to map Eurasia’s circle of evolution with the projections of the zodiacal belt on the globe based on the logic explained in the previous chapter. Then the Iranian point of the evolutionary circle will correspond to the point of the winter solstice, i.e., the point between the “sign” (but not a constellation!) of Sagittarius and the “sign” of Capricorn. Winter solstice was the ancient new year (of the Aryans, Sumerians, Turks, etc.) and it is the temporal and spatial symbol of the “secret place”, the “place of power,” and is simultaneously the “place of death” or the “burial place.” Here the movement of the sun ceases, pauses, or there is what happens in the Arctic when the sun does not rise above the horizon during this period. This is the symbolic country of darkness and night. And in accordance with this symbolism the ancient layers of Iranian burials in fact evidence the presence of a “black race” of the prototypical Negroid type in this region. Only in the iron and bronze ages did the white Aryans come to Iran as the bearers of the northern tradition.
However, the “new year’s” location of Iran on the evolutionary circle of Eurasia might have a purely positive (from a symbolic point of view) meaning. The “place of death” in the ancient traditions of the sacred year was simultaneously the “place of resurrection” and the “place of the shifting the poles,” where there is an abrupt change in the annual cycle of the sun from descent to ascent. Therefore, a genuine Turanian geopolitics cannot ignore the archetypal mission of the Iranian “territories” especially since Iran has long since become “white” in a symbolic sense, hence its modern name “Iran” – “land of the Aryans” – whose image and likeness conforms to the ancient Arctic Hyperborean region (Airyanem Vaejah). In some sense, this is the image and likeness of the center of Eurasia. These considerations show the borders of the reasonable opposition between Turan and Iran, beyond which it is necessary, on the contrary, to foresee the prospect of a new holy alliance of the Eurasian North and the Eurasian South.
Linking up with the East
Among the Eurasians and their predecessors such as Baron Unger-Sternberg or Dr. Badmaev, there arose project not only for the theoretical revival of the Turanian spirit within the Russian Empire but also the deepening of contacts with Mongolia, Japan, Manchuria, etc. This was the idea of a “closure” of Russia to the West and an opening to the East in opposing the land of the continent to Europe. Such plans necessarily meant not only a strategic and geopolitical alliance, but also the opening of Russia to the metaphysical East with its ancient teachings of Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and this in turn meant translating Russian consciousness from one atheistic, utilitarian, narrowly rationalized, and long since spiritually stagnant in the context of European civilization into the lively and holistic world of the eastern tradition, i.e., a spiritualization of Russia with sacred energies.
However, such a project in no way meant a “de-Christianization” of Russia. On the contrary, the turn away from the anti-traditional West, whose Christianity had departed into the sphere of purely external religiosity and secular moralizing, towards the real tradition of the East could not but lead to the rebirth of the true Christian spirit in Russia, that absolute tradition which once determined and oriented all the layers of life of the nation. Orthodoxy, in dialogue with the traditions of the East, would be forced to turn to the metaphysical roots of faith, deepen itself in the dogmas and principles of religion, and thus revive and restore the grain of the intellectual and initiatory content of tradition. Since the Nikonian Reforms, this tradition had been exposed to deliberate undermining by anti-traditional forces within the Church itself – the rationalists, Westernizers, Crypto-catholics, modernists, protestantizing moralists and, finally, the dubious “conservatives” who under the guise of defending “the primordial tradition” were in fact defending the products of stagnation and spiritual carelessness of previous generations, i.e., the empty shell instead of the true fire of faith.
Now more than ever it is important to deepen the Eurasian myth, cleanse it of short-term political details, and return or, more precisely, open its metaphysical dimension and its metahistorical meaning.
At the current moment, the collapse of the Soviet bloc unambiguously represents the victory of “Atlanticism.” The way for a new Atlanticist colonization is completely open. There is only one way out for contemporary Eurasianists: forming a sacred alliance with those countries and nations of the East which are fighting for geopolitical autarchy and the restoration of traditional values against the modern world and Atlanticist, American aggression.
Turan should begin its rebirth out of the “dual” abyss. In this case, he who knows the depths of the subconsciousness of Eurasia, the stability of its imperial archetypes, the strength of the pole, and its reflection in the traditions of nations and races cannot give up hope and faith in the great awakening.
 Gaston Georgel “Les quatre ages de l’Humanite”, Besancon, 1949
 Available in Russian in the journal “Sweet Angel” No. 1 (Moscow: 1991)
Translator: Jafe Arnold
Chapter 2 of Mysteries of Eurasia (1996) from the collection Absolute Homeland (Moscow, Arktogeya: 1999)