On 6 April 2019, The Washington Post published an article titled “Why far-right nationalists like Steve Bannon have embraced a Russian ideologue. And how his medieval fantasies distort history for his cause”, written by Brandon W. Hawk and dedicated entirely to myself and the influence which my ideas exercise on American conservative and alt-right circles, including the leading non-conformist ideologue, Steve Bannon, and through him, Trump himself.
Perspective: Why far-right nationalists like Steve Bannon have embraced a Russian ideologue https://t.co/RXEtHxYFYE
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 16, 2019
Because of the total distortion of my real views, the lowest level of polemics, and the huge amount of lies and invectives (as usual), I at first decided to let this attack pass in silence, like I usually do with so many of the others. It is pure liberal-totalitarian propaganda, fighting against chimeras which it creates artificially with no connection to reality.
Modern liberalism is a purely totalitarian ideology which operates with Soviet/Goebbels style and methods: whoever challenges the liberal globalist narrative is either “fascist” or “communist”. I really challenge the liberal globalist narrative, and in the eyes of propagandists I don’t fit into the communist image (maybe “neo-Stalinist” as I am often called). Hence I am labeled “fascist” and all the rest follows – “racist”, anti-Semite”, “imperialist”, “Hitlerist”, and so on.
You can construct this discourse mechanically:
Mr. X is against liberal globalism. We know nothing of him or his ideas.
But the very fact that Mr. X is anti-liberal and anti-globalist means he should be either communist or fascist.
If Mr. X repeatedly mentions in his texts words such as “social justice” and “capitalism” or the names “Che Guevara” or “Marx”, he is for sure a communist – so let us attack him by way of Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, Gulag-crimes, and Pol Pot. He is a bloody commie.
If Mr. X uses the terms “tradition”, “family”, “people”, “Schmitt” or “Heidegger” – he is for sure a Nazi and personally responsible for the Holocaust and mass-murder.
For just a few words, Mr. X is done – purged, sentenced, and executed. No trial, no lawyer, no legitimate defense, no proper inquiry, no investigation. Everything is clear. Mr. X is as good as dead. Welcome to the liberal totalitarian dystopia. Orwell à rebours.
Brandon W. Hawk’s article is of exactly the same style. It shows no knowledge whatsoever of my writings, nor any interest in them at all. It merely says that Mr. Dugin is against liberal globalism (yes, this is true) and that on one random site (he has many of them, and a huge portion of them is made and maintained by persons totally unknown to himself – whether friends, trolls, or haters alike) there are pictures representing the European Middle Ages – including the Notre-Dame-de-Paris before the fire.
The word “tradition” is mentioned (sometimes with a capital “T”) and Carl Schmitt and Heidegger are often cited. No doubts any more: he is a Nazi. He supports Putin? Beautiful – he is “Putin’s Nazi”. Dangerous? For sure – exactly like Milo Yiannopoulos, or maybe much more (nuclear weapons included). Brandon W. Hawk has almost finished his article. What else? Ah!: Bannon is back and Trump is entering his second term campaign. Let there be Putin’s Nazi influence on Bannon and Trump. So they are Nazis and in Putin’s hands – well Mueller’s report must be somehow wrong. A new investigation is needed. Now everything fits in excellently.
The Washington Post eagerly prints the article. The happy little Goebbels liberal Brandon W. Hawk has done his job well. The conspiracy of the restoration of the evil Medieval Empire by Putin’s Nazi and Dugin-Bannon-Trump collusion becomes an established fact. The text – written by an idiot, published in a magazine of, by, and for idiots – is ready. Nothing personal – just an ideological war is raging. Liberalism and globalism are defending themselves and attacking the “enemies of the open society” – such is the orthodoxy of the Popper/Soros program. Lie, lie, lie loud and proud and they will obey your authoritarian orders.
Here are some illustrations of these lies and my responses:
“A Russian political analyst and modern fascist, Dugin”
– I am rather an anti-fascist, and I explain why in the hundreds of pages of my Fourth Political Theory – a book which, being anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-fascist, is banned from Amazon – guess why? (I give you a hint — Jeffrey Preston Bezos, owner of The Washington Post is at the same time CEO, and president of Amazon. It seems post service is ideological weapon — no less than press)
“His Eurasianist ideology is grounded in a fundamentalist religious nationalism”
– I am a convinced anti-nationalist because the nation is a modern, capitalist, artificial creation (I agree here with Gellner and Benedict Anderson on the notion of “imagined community”), and I am against Modernity, the bourgeoisie and capitalism (being non-Marxist and anti-communist because these are Modern and I am against Modernity).
“His website is plastered with medieval imagery and iconography: Stock images of icons of saints, Byzantine mosaics, manuscripts and church architecture abound.”
– Maybe this is so, but I cannot remember on which one of, as I have explained, many sites. But is this a crime? Is this a reason to call me a fascist?
“His view of the Roman Empire and medieval Europe exalts the triumphs of monolithic white, Christian nationalism.”
– I am anti-racist. This is my deep and strong conviction. I think that race is an artificial creation of Modernity. The Eurasianism which I really advocate favors the mixed identity of the Russian people and the positive role of the Tatars and other Turanic ethnic groups in Russian society. There are no words about “triumphs of monolithic white, Christian nationalism” in my works. This may be the case with American or European nationalist movements, but has nothing to do with my own ideas. Once more, I am strongly against all kinds of nationalisms – “Christian nationalism” sounds totally meaningless to me.
“Dugin, Bannon and other right-wing fundamentalists use the racist dog-whistle term “Judeo-Christian”.
– I never use the term “Judeo-Christian.” Steve Bannon does. And 50 000 000 of American Evangelicals do it as well. But theoretically, how can a religious term that includes Christians (without any hint as to ethnicity) and Jews be “racist”? So 1/6th of American population is according to this “logic” are “anti-Semites”… Strange.
“Additionally, there are connections between Dugin and David Duke, Milo Yiannopoulos, Stephen Miller and even President Trump.”
– David Duke once approached me in a Russian museum, swiftly took a selfie before I recognized him (I didn’t know him before), and disappeared immediately. We didn’t exchange a single word. I am often approached in that way on the streets in different cities of the world. I presume there are thousand of selfies of this kind. I know Milo Yiannopoulos from Facebook and Alex Jones’ TV show. He is funny. I like his way of trolling liberals, who look perfectly dumb in his presence. Can the fact of paying attention to some interview of Milo Yiannopoulos on the Internet be considered a “connection?” In the totalitarian way of being, yes of course. Big Brother is watching you. Ok then.
– Last question: who is Stephen Miller? It seems I have missed something important. “Connections” seems to be only the strong word of the strong man Mr. Brandon W. Hawk, a courageous fascist fighter, Captain America against Dr. Evil.
– “And even President Trump”.
Yes, of course – Ask Mr. Mueller and his report.
These citations help to understand the quality of the knowledge and the level of objectivity of the author and The Washington Post. Nothing special.
I have decided to respond to this idiotic propagandistic, liberal-globalist biased attack (I presume not so much against me as against Bannon and Trump) not to defend myself from false accusations – I understand how futile protests are in the totalitarian global System of the established liberal lie that is the discourse in power. The reason is quite different.
The reason is such: I agree with Brandon W. Hawk in the essence. I love the Middle Ages and I hate Modernity. For me, the Enlightenment is totally wrong, and Modern science and the broader Modern “scientific” world vision is based on a lie. I believe in God, Angels and the Holy Spirit, not in Descartes, F. Bacon, or Einstein. I think Plato and Aristotle were absolutely right and their atomist detractors absolutely wrong. I am sure that the Church Fathers are bearers of absolute truth and that Modern philosophy is the radiation of the mind of the fallen Angel – Satan. I am sure that the Apocalypse is near, and I regard liberalism and globalization as clear signs of the approaching Antichrist and End Times. I am a Traditionalist and follower of the Russian Slavophiles, of Dostoevsky, of Soloviev, of various Russian religious philosophers and monarchists. I appreciate very much the ideas of René Guénon and Julius Evola.
I am absolutely in favor of Antiquity and the Middle Ages and absolutely against Modernity in all its forms. So I have an anti-Modern and anti-Western (when the Modernity and the West mean the same) worldview, and I see Modernity as the catastrophe and decline of the West. Philosophically, I agree with Heidegger that Modernity is based on the Oblivion of Being, and I call on thinking people to awaken to the new discovery of Being. I regard Artificial Intelligence as the final personification of das Man (or Gestell) and I consider it to be the Antichrist, or one of his heads.
I am in favor of the restoration of Holy Empire – Roman for Europe and Byzantine for Russia. At the same time, I like the idea of autonomous, self-ruled rural collectives – so the Empire should be polycentric and federal in some way – not centralized and nationalist. I reject race and I embrace religion as deep and profound identity to be defended. Being Orthodox Christian, I have great sympathy toward other traditional religions – Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, some traditional anti-Modern branches of Judaism (like Naturei Karta). I am an admirer of Chinese sacred civilization as well. I hope all of these will return. I am really an advocate of the Return of the Great Times, or of the Middle Ages – the Middle Ages are the reflection of Eternity, not of the past. So the Middle Ages is always possible. It is not a question of time, it is a question of choice.
In Russia there are some people – in different segments of society – who agree with me. There are others – much more numerous – who are against me. The same is the case in foreign countries. There are Traditionalists in Europe, the US, the Islamic world (above all in Iran and Turkey), China, India, Latin America and Africa, who share this approach. It is obvious that the absolute majority does not. The fact that this is so is not strange. In these times, the majority is supposed to be under the hypnosis of the Antichrist (globalism, liberalism, object-oriented ontology, AI and so on). I am happy that there are persons, movements and sometimes first-rate political leaders who share the Traditionalist vision – whether partly, pragmatically or – very rarely – in whole.
I know that there are such people in the US – mostly among Trump’s supporters. I am happy with that. And it should be so: the Last Battle cannot be limited to national borders. It is the event of humanity, of all human history. The Self of Dasein fights against das Man (as the inauthentic form of existence of Dasein) in order to solve the question “To Be or Not To Be?” That is the dividing line. This is not a question of old ideologies (liberalism, communism or fascism), nor a war between nations, religions, “races”, and civilizations. It is Eternity vs. Time. It is the Absolute vs. Relativity pretending to be absolute in its turn. Plato-Heidegger-Guénon vs. Epicurus-Descartes-Popper. This is the Sacred vs. the Profane.
That is the Middle Ages which I stand for: the eternal Middle Ages in the eternal fight against the Modern Age. This is the Fourth Political Theory – neither communism, nor fascism.
I strongly reject those things which I do not recognize and which I deny formally and informally (racism, nationalism, imperialism, colonialism, xenophobia, and so on). At the same time, I can be recognized as a defender and advocate of Traditionalism, the Conservative Revolution, and the Return of the Middle Ages (the “New Middle Ages” was a thesis of the Russian religious philosopher Nikolai Berdiaev). Given these explanations and clarifications of mine, I can accept Brandon W. Hawk’s thesis in The Washington Post.
Now do Bannon, Trump or Putin share the same attitude towards the structure of human history? Is their conservatism of the same kind? Are they Traditionalists? Let’s ask them themselves. Maybe yes, maybe not. But what is certain is that the idea of the Return of the Great Times is now quite serious. That is the main point of it being discussed in one of the main globalist magazines. All foolish accusations aside, Brandon W. Hawk’s article is great and correct in capturing the essence that there are two camps in the world: theirs and ours. The real fight is going on inside our societies, not between them.
Maybe some serious Americans really think likewise and want the Great Return. I am sure that there are some such people in the Kremlin, in Beijing, Ankara, Tehran, in the capitals of Europe, and in Latin America. Some of them I know, but most of them I do not. But, nevertheless, we are on the same side of the eschatological Final Battle. Are there such people in the USA? There should be. Wherever the human is, Dasein is present. The Dasein decides – maybe for the last time in history (in ontological history – Seynsgeschichte), if the choice will be wrong.
So when Brandon W. Hawk says: “In sum, Dugin believes that “the alternative to the notion of liberalism is ‘returning to the Middle Ages’”, he is quite right. Yes, I believe exactly that.
Brandon W. Hawk continues: “Such idealizations of the Middle Ages use the idea of the past, rather than its reality, to serve their modern political projects.” But here Brandon W. Hawk pretends that I am dealing only with “idealizations of the Middle Ages” and that he in fact knows the “reality.” The same in the next sentence: “Yet his notions have little to do with the actual Middle Ages.”
Mr. Brandon W. Hawk pretends to know exactly what the “actual Middle Ages” were and denies the quality of my notions. Any arguments? The Washington Post proudly presents…once more a totalitarian argument.
The same goes for: “Dugin idealizes a fictional version of the Middle Ages…Dugin is dealing with “fiction”, while The Washington Post knows the “reality”. Sure…
And finally, as for the remark that “it buys into myths constructed from bad history.” “Bad history” is any version of history that does not coincide with globalist liberal discourse, obviously.
But these details are of no importance. To be published in The Washington Post, you are obliged to denounce “Nazis”, “Putin’s agents”, and “evil guys’ dealing with “wrong myths” and “distorted notions.” You cannot recognize any positive features in the “bad guys’” camp – they are awful and disgusting in any and all aspects. N’est-ce pas, docteur Goebbels? This is the necessary formula.
The essence is elsewhere – in the main idea of the article. This idea is true. Modernity is approaching its end. It is time for a global revision of Modernity as a whole. Moderate conservatism is no longer valid. It is exhausted. Either we fall into the abyss, or we remember how one flies with the wings of the soul. Any compromise between liberal accelerationism and mild-moderate conservatism is over. Only radical solutions remain. If we perpetuate the logic of Modernity and partly Post-Modernity, we will be destroyed and replaced by a post-human species. Rather than deciding to brake or slow down, we need to revise the whole direction in which we are going. The problem is not speed. The problem is direction.
The project of the New Middle Ages affirms strongly: the error was made at the dawn of Modernity. We cannot save the situation without a radical revision of the Western European decision to enter the Modern Age and Enlightenment. That was a mistake and the break with Sacred Tradition. This was the source of the crisis of the modern world and the beginning of the reign of quantity (Guénon).
Modernity is over and in its inner horizon there is nothing outside of it. We are invited to overcome this horizon. That means the New Beginning. The Great Return. This no longer only a philosophical concern. This is the main problem of global politics. So thank you, Brandon W. Hawk. You have touched upon the essential point. Let us go ahead to the New Middle Ages.