Aleksander Dugin

Just wanted to break this out from a very long post I did in May before Trump 2.0 broke my brain 😀

24.Aleksander Dugin

Some call him Putins Brain but there is little evidence he has any direct contact with Putin. He is anti-Globalist, anti-liberalism , anti-Capitalism and pro-National (Civilization) Sovereignty and pro-Christianity. So that attracts some on the right who like the guy. They mostly ignore the anti-Capitalism and Russian Supremacy

He is also for a Multipolar World and against a Unipolar World led by the US. Of course we already have a multipolar world. The U.S. remains the most powerful single actor but no longer dominates unilaterally, as China, the EU, and others assert influence.

Born in 1962, Dugin grew up in Soviet Moscow, rebelling against communism with a mix of mysticism and far-right nationalism. He gained prominence in the 1990s, advising Russian politicians and shaping nationalist movements.

Dugin was one of the early pioneers of Anti-Globalism at a time when the American Right was largely pro-Globalism at least in a neoliberal economic sense . Don’t confuse pro-Globalism with pro-Global Government

Globalization facilitates the international trade of goods and services and travel and it has also facilitated the exchange of ideas and knowledge, scientific and political. I am anti-Globalist in the sense of not wanting to surrender national sovereignty to a supranational group , lose our manufacturing base and allow unbridled immigration, none of which needed to happen, but pro-Globalization in a controlled sense.

Dugin sees Globalism as the first step in the decay of traditional society believing that it replaces faith and hierarchy with individualism and economic logic.

I have a lot of common with the Right, being against the Green Agenda based on Climate Fraud , the Great Reset espoused by Karl Schwab, and those draconian COVID Policies. I have written a lot on excess deaths that may be related to the COVID vaccines. Taiwan just experienced a brutal 1st quarter despite no COVID (they no longer report COVID deaths).

That said I am a believer in Liberalism . I honestly don’t understand those against its ideals (how it has been practiced is another matter). This is not to be confused with neoliberal economics which has been a disaster for liberal ideals and the working/middle class.

Modern Liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology that emphasizes individual liberty, equality, and universal human rights, grounded in Enlightenment principles of reason, progress, and democratic governance. It advocates for a mixed economy with government intervention to promote social welfare, economic opportunity, and environmental sustainability, while protecting civil liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and association. Culturally, it prioritizes inclusivity, diversity, and secularism, often embracing cosmopolitan values and global cooperation. Institutionally, it supports constitutional democracy, rule of law, and checks and balances, aiming to balance individual freedoms with collective responsibilities.

The New (Woke) Liberalism (Postmodern Liberalism) is a problem. It is Woke Left. This is the progressive, globalist liberalism—think identity politics, gender theory, transhumanism, multiculturalism, etc.

“Now it is not about the rule of the majority, but about the rule of minorities. It is not about individual freedom, but about wokism”

Dugin believes it represents the final phase of liberalism, where all fixed identities, values, and truths are dissolved.

“Liberalism, having defeated all its enemies—monarchy, religion, communism, fascism—has now turned on reality itself.”

He calls this phase “ultra-liberalism” or “post-liberalism”, and sees it as anti-human, anti-traditional, and ultimately self-destructive and I agree.

However, I believe in Old non-Woke Liberalism -individual rights, democracy, free markets, caring for the poor, personal liberty. So why not just replace the New with the Old? Get rid of the Woke, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Before I go on I want to make clear that I don’t believe Trump and his boys are controlled by Putin. I do think that as a result of uncontrolled Globalization that an awful lot of money and criminal/oligarchal elements flooded into the US primarily with Real Estate Purchases and Trump was front and center in this following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and into the 2000’s. The flow was somewhat curtailed under Putin and especially after the passing of the Magnitsky Act.

So besides incoming money Russia and the rest of the FSU opened up their economy to Western businesses and knowledge and ideas were also exchanged. Heck, Elon Musk went to Russia in search of Russian Rocket’s and ideas for Space X.

Something quite similar happened at the end of World War II. After the War many (1600) Nazi scientists were imported into the US. One even became head of NASA. They worked with CIA and Military on various projects. Beyond scientists, many leading Nazis were allowed to reenter business and government while still holding onto their Nazi ideology. Americans had significant business interests in Germany in the 1930’s which they resumed after the War working with their ex-Nazi business partners. Over lunch, dinner, golf ideas get exchanged. Their Fascist ideology was hidden behind the guise of Anti-Communism after Stalin (Uncle Joe) the Ally became our greatest enemy (Evil Empire) in the blink of an eye

So back to Alexander Dugin .He has been on CNN and the Tucker Carlson show and his latest book is The Trump Revolution. Thanks to Globalization his ideas have permeated into the West, mostly among some factions of the political right.

His daughter was killed by Ukrainians in a car bombing in 2022 as we was pretty vocal about taking a big chunk of Ukraine and making it Russian.

So anyways, with the help of various AI platforms I did a more detailed look into Dugins writings since I don’t have time or the budget to read all his books. Besides, Amazon does not even sell his books. He has been a prolific writer of late churning out a book a year since COVID. No doubt he is influencing the European Right as well.

25.Dugins Books/Parties

Foundations of Geopolitics (1997)

Dugin advocates for:

- A Russian-dominated Eurasian bloc (opposing NATO/EU expansion).

- The destruction of American unipolar hegemony.

- Annexation of Ukraine

as critical to Russia’s destiny.

National Bolshevik Party (Nazbol)

The National Bolshevik Party (NBP) was founded in the early 1990s by Eduard Limonov and Alexander Dugin. The NBP was a bizarre and provocative mix of:

• Far-left communism (the “Bolshevik” part)

• Far-right nationalism (often ultra-Russian, even imperial)

• Aesthetic and cultural edginess (punk, avant-garde, underground art)

• Revolutionary politics aimed at destroying the post-Soviet liberal order

The party used fascist symbolism (Nazi-style aesthetics mixed with Soviet imagery)—think a black hammer and sickle in a white circle on a red background.

Dugin provided the philosophical backbone, fusing Traditionalism, anti-globalism, Russian nationalism, and esoteric fascism.

His vision: a new synthesis of Stalin + Hitler as symbols of authority, order, and anti-liberal modernity. He wanted to shock Russia out of its post-Soviet identity crisis by reviving the will to empire.

The Metaphysics of National-Bolshevism(1997) . This presents a provocative ideological synthesis that merges nationalism with Bolshevism, aiming to counter liberalism and the concept of the “Open Society.”

Dugin portrays National Bolshevism as the Enemy of Open Society , opposing liberal individualism. He argues that liberalism, epitomized by Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies, which he says undermines spiritual and collective bonds by promoting rationalism, individual rights, and global capitalism .

He posits that National Bolshevism can restore the sacred in a world dominated by materialism and rationality .

In The Metaphysics of National-Bolshevism, Dugin presents a radical critique of liberal modernity, proposing a synthesis of nationalist and Bolshevik principles to forge a new political and metaphysical paradigm.

Dugin fell out with Limonov by 1998. Dugin wanted a more spiritual, theocratic, and geopolitical movement aligned with Russian Orthodoxy and Traditionalism. Limonov was more of a writer-revolutionary and street radical, who veered into populism and protest theatrics.

Dugin’s time in the NBP he is not bound by the left–right political spectrum. He believes in revolutionary synthesis: taking the anti-capitalist zeal of the far-left and combining it with the hierarchical order of the far-right.

Dugin isn’t just a philosopher—he’s a culture warrior.

The synthesis of far-left and far-right remains central to his Fourth Political Theory which I will explain shortly

Dugin’s core ideology hasn’t changed much since his early National Bolshevik days. What’s shifted is his strategy, presentation, and audience.

1. From Shock Jock to Philosopher-King

In the early ’90s, Dugin was immersed in shock politics:

• Co-founding a party with Nazi-Soviet aesthetics.

• Quoting Hitler, Stalin, and Evola in the same breath.

• Talking openly about the need for empire, purification, spiritual war.

But by the early 2000s, he realized that if he wanted real influence, especially in Russian state circles, he had to clean up the image.

So what did he do?

• Ditched the punk-rebel aesthetic of the NBP.

• Repackaged the ideology into a more “metaphysical geopolitics” framework.

• Wrote books like The Foundations of Geopolitics and The Fourth Political Theory, which cloak the same ideas in philosophical and academic garb.

His post-NBP positions still include:

• Anti-liberalism

• Anti-modernity

• Imperial Russia as a sacred destiny

• Multipolarity as holy war

• Apocalyptic metaphysics

But instead of preaching to radicals and misfits, he started speaking to:

• Military theorists

• Orthodox theologians

• Kremlin insiders

• Western reactionary intellectuals

It’s less “storm the palace” and more “reclaim the sacred throne.”

His exit from NBP was tactical. The NBP was too chaotic, too street-level, too populist.

Dugin saw himself as a high priest of civilizational transformation, not just a revolutionary agitator.

To rise as a serious geopolitical thinker and influence the state apparatus (especially the military and FSB), he had to shed the political theater and rebrand as a metaphysical strategist.

Dugin didn’t change his beliefs—he changed his costume.

Leaving the NBP was less about rejecting radicalism and more about refining and weaponizing it for a higher audience.

The Fourth Political Theory published in 2009

This is basically National Bolshevism in a tailored suit.

The theories are:

1. Liberalism** (1st Theory)

2. Communism/Marxism(2nd Theory)

3. Fascism/National Socialism(3rd Theory)

4.National Bolshevism* (synthesis of Communism, Fascism and Traditionalism)

*Dugin avoids the name

Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory is National Bolshevism reborn—elevated from street rebellion to metaphysical war. Same enemies. Same vision of spiritual empire.

But now dressed in Heidegger, Evola, and geopolitics instead of punk aesthetics and Soviet kitsch.

He replaces the party with the civilization. But the world-historical mission of Russia remains the same.

In the NBP, the vision was revolution inside Russia. In Fourth Political Theory, the vision is civilizational multipolarity

In NBP days, the enemy was the post-Soviet liberal elite, global capitalism, and the West.

In Fourth Political Theory, the targets are almost identical:

• Liberalism is declared the “last ideology”—and it must be destroyed.

• Postmodern Western society is framed as the root of nihilism and civilizational decay.

• America is still the hegemon to be spiritually and geopolitically defeated.

Dugin might have left the leather-jacket aesthetic of NBP behind, but the core radicalism never left. Instead, he elevated it, reframing the same fusionist, anti-liberal worldview in highbrow, philosophical language meant to appeal to intellectuals, mystics, geopoliticians, and disillusioned ideologues worldwide.

Dugin claims to go beyond liberalism, communism, and fascism—the three great political theories of the 20th century. His “Fourth Theory” is positioned as a spiritual, post-modern alternative.

But if you squint even a little, you’ll notice:

From Communism (Bolshevism):

• Rejection of capitalism

• Anti-individualism

• Anti-Western imperialism

• Embrace of collectivist, civilizational identity

• Revolutionary orientation

From Fascism (and the far-right):

• Emphasis on hierarchy, tradition, and nationalism

• Anti-modernity and anti-democracy

• Metaphysical war against liberal decadence

• Sacralization of war and destiny

From Traditionalism (like Evola, Guénon):

• History is a spiritual decline (Kali Yuga)

• Need for sacred restoration through violence or catastrophe

• Civilization must be led by spiritually awakened elites

Dugin sees liberalism (especially in its neoliberal form) as the last remaining dominant ideology. He critiques its universalism, individualism, and promotion of globalization, which he believes erodes traditional cultures and sovereignties.

Dugin adopts René Guénon’s idea of the “Kali Yuga” (Hinduism’s “Dark Age”), where modernity represents spiritual decay before a coming collapse and rebirth.

He rejects the Christian/secular idea of history moving toward salvation or progress—instead, he sees decline followed by violent renewal.

He embraces Julius Evola’s “End of the Cycle” and believes we’re in the final phase of a corrupt era, requiring a heroic, reactionary uprising to restore sacred order.

He sees Moscow as the last bastion against the Antichrist’s global empire

(linked to Western liberalism/WEF).

Warns of an Apocalyptic War, a final battle between truth and the “religion of the future” and

Suggests a purifying Nuclear catastrophe might be necessary to destroy liberal modernity and allow rebirth.

He proposed the Fourth Political Theory as Salvation

In the Post-Apocalyptic Order, after the collapse of liberalism, Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory (rooted in ethnic and spiritual identity) would rise as a new medievalism with a world divided into sacred empires (Orthodox Russia, Islamic Caliphates, Hindu Bharat, etc.).

Critics accuse Dugin of Gnostic Radicalism: A”revolutionary nihilism” wanting to accelerate collapse to trigger renewal.

His vision mirrors Nazi “Ragnarök” mysticism (glorifying destruction as renewal).

A telling quote in the book:

“The end of the liberal world is the end of the world. But it is also the beginning of another.”

He sees the current world order as Satanic (liberal, materialist) and believes its violent overthrow will birth a new sacred age.

He often blends Orthodox Christian apocalyptic themes with geopolitical analysis, casting Russia as a “Katechon” (a term from Christian eschatology meaning the force that holds back the Antichrist).

Evola’s “Revolt Against the Modern World”had a massive influence on Dugin. Both believe that not everyone is spiritually equal, and history should be shaped by a spiritual aristocracy or warrior-priest elite and a sacred authority—where political power was legitimate only if rooted in spiritual principles.

Evola saw the warrior (kshatriya) as a noble archetype, living by honor, hierarchy, and transcendence through struggle. Dugin incorporates this into his militaristic and apocalyptic vision—especially in framing the West vs. Russia as a spiritual war, where heroism is a sacred act.

Dugins ideas are authoritarian

and anti-democratic, emphasizing strong state control and civilizational hierarchy.

Right Wing Anti-Capitalism (2020)

The Right-Wing Anti-Capitalism is a key work by Aleksandr Dugin where he critiques capitalism from a traditionalist, conservative-revolutionary, perspective.

Dugin argues that capitalism is not just an economic system but a metaphysical disease a product of Western modernity that destroys traditional societies, spirituality, and ethnic identities. He sees it as inherently materialist, individualist, and spiritually empty.

Unlike left-wing anti-capitalism (focused on class struggle and equality), Dugin’s right-wing anti-capitalism opposes it for:

Destroying hierarchy and organic order (replacing aristocracy and tradition with bourgeois values).

- Promoting rootless globalization (eroding nations, cultures, and civilizations).

- Enforcing a homogenized, consumerist world (the “last man” of Nietzschean decay).

Dugin ties capitalism to Anglo-American hegemony (Atlanticism), which he believes seeks global domination through financial elites (e.g., Wall Street, neoliberalism). His solution is a Eurasian alternative-a civilizational bloc resisting liberal universalism.

Dugin rejects both Marxism and laissez-faire capitalism, advocating instead for

a corporatist, autarkic economy (like fascist or pre-modern models). A state-guided “national economy” that serves ethnic and spiritual goals, not profit. A return to “sacred economics”where markets are subordinate to tradition.

He aligns with early 20th-century Conservative Revolutionary thinkers (e.g., Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Oswald Spengler), who opposed both communism and liberal capitalism, seeking a revolutionary traditionalism.

Anti-Capitalism from the Right presents capitalism as the enemy of all authentic civilizations, calling for a metaphysical revolt-not just economic reform but a total rejection of liberal modernity in favor of a new traditionalist order.

Dugin’s vision of a corporatist, autarkic economy is a key component of his anti-capitalist, traditionalist worldview.

Corporatism, in Dugin’s framework, rejects both liberal capitalism )with its focus on individualism and competition) and Marxist class conflict (which seeks to abolish hierarchy). Instead, it proposes:

Economic organization by “corporations” (estates/guilds)

with Society divided into functional groups (workers, managers, clergy, soldiers, farmers, etc.), each with a designated role.

These groups collaborate under state supervision, avoiding class warfare.

Unlike liberal democracy, where markets dictate social order, corporatism enforces a natural hierarchy based on duty, tradition, and service to the nation/empire. The economy serves spiritual and civilizational goals, not profit.

Dugin blends corporatism with national syndicalism (a far-right adaptation of socialist worker organization). The state mediates between labor and capital, preventing exploitation while maintaining order.

Autarky (economic self-reliance) is crucial for Dugin’s vision because it resists globalization.

It rejects dependency on international markets, multinational corporations, and financial elites and opposes the “unipolar world”dominated by the U.S. dollar and Western institutions (IMF, WTO).

It prioritizes national production and subsidizes key industries (defense, agriculture, heavy industry) to ensure independence while limiting foreign ownership of resources (echoes of Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country”).

Dugin sees liberal capitalism—especially, global capitalism—as the economic arm of a materialistic and spiritually bankrupt worldview. For him, capitalism is not just an economic system, but a tool of Western hegemony that spreads individualism, secularism, and nihilism.

Capitalism is one of the mechanisms of the Antichrist—a force that leads humanity away from transcendence and toward spiritual annihilation. It is the economic infrastructure of the modern West’s “Antichrist civilization.”

Dugin romanticizes pre-modern hierarchies, sacred kingship, and caste-like orders, all wrapped in mystical nationalism. It’s not literal feudalism, but it’s close in spirit: a vertical, spiritual, and deeply anti-modern order.

Like with Peter Thiel , Carl Schmitt is one of Dugin’s biggest intellectual influences, especially in terms of political theology, sovereignty, and the friend–enemy distinction.

Carl Schmitt:

• “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”

• For Schmitt, sovereignty isn’t about following laws—it’s about deciding when to suspend them. This ties into his critique of liberal legalism: the state must be able to act decisively in times of crisis, which liberal democracies are too weak to do.

Friend–Enemy Distinction

Schmitt:

• Politics is defined by the distinction between friend and enemy. This isn’t personal hatred—it’s existential: the enemy is whoever threatens your way of life.

Dugin:

• Fully embraces this, but escalates it to a civilizational and metaphysical level.

• The “enemy” becomes not just NATO or the U.S., but liberalism itself, modernity itself.

Political Theology

Schmitt:

• Believed that the state had to take on quasi-theological authority to maintain order and legitimacy.

Dugin:

• Pushes this idea into outright religio-political messianism.

Both are virulently anti-liberal and anti-universalist:

• Schmitt rejected liberalism for being too abstract, individualist, and morally neutral.

• Dugin goes even further, calling liberalism the ideology of anti-being, dissolving identity, tradition, and spirit in the acid of consumerism and relativism.

Dugin radicalizes Schmitt.

He takes Schmitt’s ideas about sovereignty, decision, and political theology, then injects them with Traditionalist metaphysics, Russian messianism, and geopolitical eschatology.

The Theory of a Multipolar World (2021)

1. Critique of Unipolarity

• Dugin opposes the global dominance of the liberal, capitalist, and Western-centric world order, which he sees as imperialistic and culturally homogenizing.

• He argues that the U.S. promotes a unipolar system under the guise of universal values like democracy and human rights, which he claims are not universally applicable.

2. Multipolarity as an Alternative

• Dugin advocates for a multipolar world, where several powerful, independent civilizations (e.g., Russia, China, Islamic countries, India, Europe, Latin America) coexist.

• Each civilization should follow its own “Logos” or internal logic, traditions, and values without interference from others.

3. Civilizational Pluralism

• The world should be organized around large cultural-civilizational blocks (poles) rather than nation-states alone.

• He draws heavily from the idea of ethnosociology, positing that each civilization has a unique worldview that deserves protection and autonomy.

5. Creation of a New International Order

• He envisions a new model of international law and global governance, based on multipolarity and civilizational sovereignty.

• This system would replace the current liberal international order dominated by institutions like NATO, the IMF, and the UN (as it currently functions).

In his model:

• These Supranational institutions don’t enforce a single ideology or value system (like liberal democracy or free-market capitalism).

• Instead, they regulate interactions between civilizations (e.g., trade, diplomacy, conflict resolution) based on mutual respect and civilizational sovereignty.

• Each civilizational pole sets its own internal rules, but agrees to basic norms for coexistence—like respecting borders, engaging in fair trade, and non-interference in internal affairs.

There’s surface-level similarity between Dugin’s multipolarity and the Club of Rome’s regionalization concept but

Dugin’s Multipolarity is explicitly anti-liberal, anti-modern, and anti-universalist. It rejects Enlightenment values, modernity, and globalization as inherently corrosive.

• Club of Rome’s Regionalization is liberal, technocratic, and pragmatic. It accepts modernity but seeks to manage global complexity by breaking the world into manageable regions for planning and sustainability.

• Before WWII, the world was multipolar: Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the U.S. all competed for influence.

• This balance-of-power system led to constant tension, arms races, proxy wars, and eventually two world wars.

• The Treaty of Versailles (post-WWI) failed to prevent WWII because it punished Germany without creating a sustainable international system.

The Liberal Solution:

• After WWII, the U.S. and its allies designed a rules-based international order to:

• Embed powerful states in institutions that constrained unilateral action.

• Promote economic interdependence, making war less rational.

• Spread liberal norms (democracy, rule of law, human rights) to build common ground.

• Contain rivals (e.g., Soviet Union) within a relatively stable bipolar Cold War system.

Dugin’s Critique:

• Dugin believes this system replaced overt war with covert cultural domination, and that the cost of peace has been the erasure of traditional civilizations and their values.

• He views liberal hegemony as imperialism by other means—less bloody, but equally destructive in the long run.

The Great Awakening vs. the Great Reset (2022)

1. The Great Reset (Globalist Vision)

Proponents: The World Economic Forum (WEF), Western elites (Klaus Schwab, George Soros), liberal democracies, and transnational corporations.

Core Agenda:

- A technocratic, post-national world governed by global institutions.

- Digital control (CBDCs, social credit systems, AI governance).

- Cultural homogenization (erasure of traditional identities in favor of liberal individualism, LGBTQ+ norms, and “woke” ideology).

-Green capitalism (climate policies as a pretext for centralized control).

Dugin’s Critique:

- A neo-feudal dystopia where elites rule over a disempowered populace.

- The final stage of

liberal hegemony , destroying sovereignty, religion, and ethnic identity.

2. The Great Awakening (Traditionalist Counter-Vision)

Proponents-Anti-globalist forces—Russia, China, the Global South, populist movements, and traditional religions (Orthodoxy, Islam, Hinduism).

Core Agenda:

- Multipolarity: A world of sovereign civilizations resisting U.S./Western dominance.

- Spiritual revival: Rejection of materialism in favor of sacred traditions.

- National conservatism:

-Defense of borders, family, and ethnic identity.

- Technological sovereignty: AI and digital infrastructure serving nations, not globalists.

- Metaphysical Struggle: Not just politics, but a

clash of civilizations

—materialism vs. spirituality, globalism vs. localism.

- Eschatology: Dugin hints at a cosmic battle (influenced by Traditionalism) where the Awakening could lead to a new golden age—or fail, plunging the world into techno-totalitarianism.

Criticisms

- Conspiracy-adjacent: Dugin’s framing leans into anti-Semitic tropes (global bankers controlling the world).

- Authoritarian bent: His “Awakening” requires strong, illiberal states to resist liberalism.

Dugin’s book is a manifesto for anti-globalists, framing current conflicts as an existential war between two futures.

The Trump Revolution: A New Order of Great Powers (2025)

In this concise 133-page work, Dugin argues that Trumpism 2.0 signifies the dismantling of the liberal-globalist order, ushering in what he terms the “Order of Great Powers.” This new paradigm emphasizes a pragmatic, multipolar world where sovereign civilizations assert themselves without reliance on cooperative global institutions.

The book delves into the convergence of Trumpism, technological advancements, and realpolitik, examining how these forces contribute to the collapse of the old Atlanticist order. Dugin positions Trump as a catalyst for this transformation, challenging established norms and promoting a new geopolitical reality.

His alignment with traditionalist and nationalist ideologies resonates with certain segments of the American right, including figures like Steve Bannon.

. He suggests that Trump’s emphasis on national sovereignty and traditional values resonates with European conservatives, leading to movements like “MEGA” (Make Europe Great Again), which seek to restore national identities and oppose supranational entities.

Politica Aeterna: Political Platonism & the Dark Enlightenment (2025)

Dugin posits that politics is an eternal struggle between transcendent, hierarchical ideals (rooted in tradition and divine order) and the materialist, egalitarian tendencies of modernity, which he associates with decay. The “Dark Enlightenment” in the title refers to a radical rejection of liberal democratic values, which Dugin sees as a betrayal of deeper political truths. He contrasts traditional societies—where politics reflected cosmic order—with modern systems, which he claims prioritize individualism and materialism over collective destiny.

Dugin takes issue with the Dark Enlightenment’s fascination with technology and individualism, especially in its libertarian or transhumanist strands. Thinkers like Land advocate for accelerating capitalism and technological progress to transcend liberal constraints, which Dugin sees as a continuation of modernity’s materialist errors.

In Politica Aeterna, he argues that such views prioritize efficiency and innovation over collective, hierarchical, and sacred political structures. For Dugin, the Dark Enlightenment’s techno-optimism risks replicating the atomizing tendencies of liberalism, undermining the communal and spiritual basis of a true politeia.

While the Dark Enlightenment excels at deconstructing liberal ideology, Dugin critiques its failure to offer a coherent, positive political alternative. For instance, Curtis Yarvin’s neoreactionary ideas emphasize elite rule and corporate-style governance, but Dugin finds these too pragmatic and devoid of metaphysical depth.

In contrast, Dugin’s own Fourth Political Theory seeks a synthesis of tradition, collectivism, and anti-liberalism rooted in eternal truths. He sees the Dark Enlightenment as stuck in a reactive, negative critique—tearing down the “Cathedral” (Yarvin’s term for liberal hegemony) without proposing a sacred order to replace it.

Dugin’s critique is not outright dismissal; he sees the Dark Enlightenment as a useful ally in dismantling liberal ideology but ultimately insufficient for his grander vision of a metaphysically grounded political order.

Dugin’s “Political Platonism” draws heavily on Plato’s ideas of a philosopher-king and a stratified society, which he sees as a blueprint for countering what he calls the “materialist decay of the democratic age.”

26.Dugins Acceptance by US Political Right

1. The Dissident/Online Right & Trad Influencers:

This is where Dugin gets the most love in the U.S.

• Figures in the New Right, neo-reactionary (NRx), and TradCath/Orthobro circles are drawn to his:

• Anti-liberalism

• Traditionalism

• Spiritual war rhetoric

• Rejection of modernity and consumerism

• Dugin’s mystical, eschatological, anti-globalist tone resonates with those who already feel like modern America is spiritually dead.

His language about civilizational identity and multipolarity gets Occasional nods in certain corners of Tucker Carlson-style populist nationalism

2. Mainstream National Conservatives / Post-Trump GOP:

This crowd is split. They agree with Dugin on:

• Sovereignty

• Anti-globalism

• Cultural decay

• Anti-liberal elite critique

But they often stop short of his metaphysical and imperial ideas.

•

3. Christian Nationalists & Theocrats:

Some elements of the Christian right—especially those leaning toward post-liberal integralism or dominionism—are intrigued by Dugin’s emphasis on:

• Hierarchy

• Sacred authority

• Anti-modernism

• The eschatological role of nations

4. Neoconservatives / Liberal Hawks:

This camp hates Dugin—and sees him as a fascist ideologue and Putin’s Rasputin.

• They often exaggerate his influence on the Kremlin, portraying him as the “brain of Putin” (which is debatable).

• For them, Dugin is the face of the new totalitarian threat—combining the worst of fascism, mysticism, and authoritarianism.

5. Alt-Lite / Libertarian Right:

More skeptical of Dugin.

• While they agree with anti-globalism, they tend to be suspicious of:

• Authoritarianism

• Theocracy

• Russian imperialism

• Dugin’s contempt for individual liberty and classical liberal values makes him a poor fit for libertarians or civic nationalists.

Dugin is like philosophical black metal: Too intense for most, but fascinating to fringe intellectuals, spiritual warriors, and disaffected online rightists.

• Admired by parts of the dissident right, Christian nationalists, and Traditionalists.

• Watched cautiously by post-Trump nationalists.

• Rejected by neocons and classical liberals.

• Misunderstood by many who think he’s just “Putin’s philosopher.”

27.Duginism vs Trumpism 2.0-

there are many but not all aspects of Duginism that seem to be adopted by Trumpism 2.0

Creating a Multipolar World

Authoritarianism (see Anti-Democracy)

Anti-liberalism

Anti -Democracy (ignoring Congressional Laws and Court Orders)

Christian Nationalism

Fracturing the Atlanticist Order

Autarky (bringing manufacturing back to America)

Anti-Globalism

Ending USD Supremacy (reducing confidence in it)

Reducing Material Goods

Consumption due to Tariffs

Religio-political messianism

Corporatism

Sacralization of war

Destruction of American unipolar hegemony

28.Thiel vs Dugin

Keeping in mind that Dugins Great Awakening promises it could lead to a new golden age—or fail, plunging the world into techno-totalitarianism much like Klaus Schwabs Great Reset, and that Thiel seems to favor an Apocalypse to usher in his New Order, I asked ChatGBT the following.

Me:It seems both Thiels Founders Fund and Dugin favor a great catastrophe in order to build the World they envision as ideal. Build Back Better. A Great Reset. While Dugin is far outside the center of power Peter Thiel is quite close to the inner circle. Both are known as Accelerationists and Dugins naming his party Bolshevik Nationalism suggests Revolutionary tendencies as does Thiels admiration for Carl Schmitts Conservative Revolution.

ChatGBT: Yes—you’re picking up on a very real and provocative parallel.

Both Aleksandr Dugin and Peter Thiel can be seen as revolutionary reactionaries—figures who reject the status quo not to reform it, but to destroy and replace it. And yes, both are tied, explicitly or implicitly, to accelerationist ideas: the belief that pushing a system toward collapse is necessary to make space for something radically new.

Let’s unpack and sharpen this synthesis:

⸻

1. Catastrophe as Catalyst: Shared Revolutionary Logic

While their end goals differ, both thinkers believe in the necessity of a great rupture:

• Dugin wants the West—and its global liberal order—to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, ideally catalyzed by geopolitical or spiritual war. Only through this catastrophe can a multipolar, traditional, Eurasian civilization rise.

• Thiel, influenced by accelerationist and Schmittian thought, wants to break the gridlock of liberal democratic systems so that a new order—led by founders, visionaries, or techno-elites—can emerge.

Both embrace what we might call a purifying crisis—what many mainstream thinkers would call catastrophic, they see as necessary and even desirable.

⸻

2. Revolutionary Conservatism and the Schmittian Turn

You’re absolutely right to connect Thiel to Carl Schmitt and the Conservative Revolution:

• Thiel has explicitly referenced Schmitt’s idea of the state of exception, where law is suspended and sovereign power reasserts itself—especially relevant in times of crisis.

• Schmitt was key to the Weimar-era Conservative Revolution, a group that sought to destroy liberalism not to bring back the old order, but to forge a new hierarchical, nationalistic one.

• Dugin, too, draws from Schmitt, as well as from the same German interwar thinkers (Evola, Heidegger, Spengler)—all of whom argued that liberalism is inherently self-destructive and cannot resist chaos.

“Bolshevik Nationalism,” as Dugin coins it, is the clearest symbol of this hybrid revolutionary-traditionalist ethos: fusing leftist radicalism (seizure of power, total transformation) with hard-right civilizational goals (ethnos, hierarchy, sacred order).

In that way, both Dugin and Thiel reflect a Nietzschean will to power: they reject incrementalism, preferring revolutionary leaps through controlled (or welcomed) destruction.

⸻

3. Build Back Better, But Not for You

The language of the Great Reset—co-opted or referenced from the World Economic Forum—isn’t necessarily invented by Dugin or Thiel, but it rhymes with their thinking:

• Dugin’s Great Reset: Collapse of Atlanticism, rise of a Eurasian spiritual empire.

• Thiel’s Great Reset: Collapse of liberal stagnation, rise of post-democratic technocratic rule.

Both are comfortable with authoritarian structures (Dugin: sacred empire; Thiel: CEO-sovereign).

And both, crucially, believe the future cannot be born without revolutionary destruction of the current system.

⸻

4. Access to Power: Outer vs Inner Circle

• Dugin: Marginal in terms of officialRussian power (Putin doesn’t take direct orders from him), but influential in shaping the ideological mood of Russia’s nationalist, imperialist right. His real power is metaphysical and cultural.

• Thiel: Much closer to the center of institutional and financial power. He’s funded political candidates (e.g., JD Vance, Blake Masters), influenced Republican realignment, and maintained proximity to military-industrial and intelligence spheres (via Palantir, Anduril, etc.).

So while Dugin offers the prophecy, Thiel funds the war chest.

⸻

Bottom Line: Revolutionary Reactionaries with Divergent Visions