The kind of world where a distinguished theorist and philosopher climbs into the gutter to make slightly-more-intellectual posts than Trump's truth-social garbage.
BTW - "Neanderthal" is NOT an insult, though you clearly imagine it is. They were smarter, stronger, and survived the ice age better, and existed for longer than HomSap has.
Have some respect.
They are also the origin of red hair and blue/green eyes, interbred with HomSap to create 'Cro Magnons', and helped the HomSap survive when we struggled our way out of Africa.
Feel free to rip on Micron though. Perhaps of more relevance than his sexuality/his SO's gender, is his background in finance, disgusting anti-democratic tendencies, open narcissism, never-ending desire to send French troops to Odessa, and likely future careers after he "Fails upwards" and leaves 'National politics' however.
She's actually really cool, and pretty as a picture, but I'm seeing a lot of devolvement into National Enquirer and Soap Oprea stuff, ya know? Even with her. I guess it's a dance, but I'm like "damn, people, stay on target." Too much attention is being paid to the chattering class, not enough to the most important issues at hand, perhaps.
The text in question is structured like a tabloid exposé masquerading as political commentary. It adopts the stylistic trappings of sensational journalism, deploying provocation and narrative chaos to destabilize perception. The rhetorical strategy centers around three primary techniques. First, sensationalism: statements such as “Brigitte is a Neanderthal” or claims that “everyone saw that Brigitte allegedly hits Macron” are not intended to persuade through evidence but to titillate and provoke. They are calculated eruptions of scandal designed for viral intrigue. Second, the text relies on mocking irony—the claim that Owens’ investigation was “serious,” complete with “tons of testimonies,” is immediately undermined by its farcical conclusions. This irony produces an ambiguous tone: it is never clear whether the writer is parodying conspiracy culture or genuinely investing in it. Finally, the structure of the argument follows non-linear logic: there is no chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion, only insinuation and juxtaposition. This is characteristic of conspiratorial narrative, where suggestiveness replaces argument and causality is supplanted by aesthetic association.
Embedded within these rhetorical tactics are deeper ideological operations. The story mobilizes transphobic and gender-anxious tropes in its suggestion that Brigitte Macron is secretly a man. This echoes long-standing political strategies that seek to unseat powerful women by attacking the authenticity of their gender. The reference to Neanderthal ancestry compounds the grotesque, invoking eugenicist mockery that blends pseudoscience with cruel spectacle. It is not just a gender panic, but a racialized, pseudo-anthropological act of humiliation.
Beyond these personal attacks, the narrative enacts the weaponization of conspiracy. The superficial mimicry of investigative journalism photos, documents, testimonies is deployed without verification. This mimetic gesture is key to contemporary disinformation: it signals seriousness while delivering fantasy. The implication that Candace Owens’ investigation holds geopolitical weight that it could shape French foreign policy or provoke peace talks relocates power into the hands of media spectacle. The real power lies not with states, but with scandal-mongers. This is classic propagandistic myth-making, where symbolic narratives shape real-world perception.
In this mythology, Owens is not merely a journalist but a populist heroine. She is cast as a national redeemer, unburdened by law or diplomacy, immune to Macron’s lawsuits, and elevated above world leaders. Trump’s phone call turns the scandal into a bizarre diplomatic exchange, as if global peace is contingent on a tabloid narrative being dropped. This is where populist performance collapses into political absurdity: myth becomes mechanism, and internet gossip becomes the instrument of international negotiation.
All of this culminates in a deep crisis of reality. The closing question “What kind of reality are we living in?” is not rhetorical ornament but philosophical abyss. It encapsulates the collapse of epistemology under the weight of performative politics. In this world, truth becomes spectacle: the circulation of images, scandals, and innuendos replaces rational discourse. Satire and belief blur; irony becomes a cover for genuine ideological aggression, and ambiguity becomes the tactic of plausible deniability. This reflects the logic of the digital age, in which internet folklore supersedes institutional knowledge. The elevation of Owens, the grotesque mockery of Brigitte, and the fictive linkage between scandal and diplomacy illustrate how memes and mythologies now compete with factual governance.
The broader implication is that this text exemplifies conspiratorial populism in its purest form one that cloaks itself in journalistic form while hollowing out the principles of evidence and dialogue. It operates not to reveal truth, but to destabilize the possibility of shared truth itself. Its danger lies not in its content alone, but in its form: by simulating information, it corrodes discourse, infects perception, and reduces geopolitics to a war of spectacle and innuendo.
Ultimately, it’s not simply a matter of asking what kind of reality we are living in, but of recognizing that under the rhetorical logic of this text, reality itself becomes contested terrain. It is no longer about what happened, but about who controls the narrative apparatus that declares what can be seen, said, or believed.
If this text is indeed authored by Alexander Dugin, its significance is radically altered. No longer a bizarre or ironic fragment of conspiracy culture, it transforms into a deliberate ideological instrument—a calculated operation in the ongoing symbolic and informational war Dugin has long theorized. The story, ostensibly about Candace Owens investigating the gender of Brigitte Macron, takes on the character of semiotic sabotage, meant to destabilize perception, reality, and political legitimacy.
Read as a casual internet provocation or even as transphobic tabloid rhetoric, the narrative seems grotesque or satirical. But within Dugin’s intellectual framework, this is not satire but strategy. Dugin is not merely a political commentator; he is a metaphysician of geopolitical myth whose writings deliberately blur the boundaries between fact, symbol, and ritual. The text follows a rhetorical structure that masks its complexity beneath the appearance of a vulgar anecdote. Sensationalism, irony, and nonlinear suggestion are not failures of coherence but tools of a new kind of warfare. Statements such as “Brigitte is a Neanderthal” or the implication that Macron has been physically assaulted by his spouse function not as literal claims but as symbolic inversions meant to undermine the Western order through ridicule and spectral ambiguity.
At the level of ideological mechanics, the story is anchored in transphobic, misogynistic tropes. Brigitte Macron is symbolically “unsexed” to delegitimize her public presence not just as a wife of power, but as a political figurehead of the liberal West. The Neanderthal comment, far from a childish insult, becomes a Duginist reversal: instead of evolution toward progress, the West is seen as de-evolving, spiritually and anthropologically regressing. This is part of Dugin’s broader inversionist logic, where liberal democracy is not the telos of history but a terminal aberration. The grotesque functions as a metaphysical critique: to depict the Western elite as ontologically degenerate.
What appears as conspiracy is, in Dugin’s hands, closer to ritualistic narrative engineering. The invocation of Candace Owens—a right-wing American populist figure is not random. She becomes a surrogate, an American avatar of Eurasian ideological currents. In Dugin’s Eurasianist vision, the battle is not only between states, but between civilizational archetypes. Owens is cast as a truth-seeker who, despite legal threats and geopolitical consequences, exposes hidden realities. She is not merely a journalist; she becomes a kind of seer, a priestess of an alternate truth-world. Her persecution by “both Macron men” becomes a dark parody of martyrdom. Her eventual withdrawal, prompted by a phone call from Trump, is framed not as submission, but as an act of geopolitical sacrifice—narrative power exchanged for the possibility of diplomatic leverage. Myth replaces policy.
The most revealing moment is not the accusation, but the line: “What kind of reality are we living in?” This is not a rhetorical afterthought it is the thesis. In Dugin’s ontological program, the war of the future is not fought over territory or resources but over reality itself. By posing this question, the text draws us into a space where epistemology is undone, and where traditional distinctions between fact, fiction, parody, and prophecy collapse. Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory explicitly rejects Western rationalism in favor of mythic multiplicity: there is no single truth, only civilizational world-images. Within this frame, the story does not need to be true. Its effectiveness lies precisely in its ambiguity, its viral friction with the real, its ability to scramble sense and delegitimize official narratives.
In the Duginist schema, what matters is not belief but disbelief the cultivation of a world in which all belief is vulnerable, where truth becomes unstable and myth becomes more persuasive than evidence. The text becomes a psychic minefield. It is not intended to inform but to restructure symbolic reality, using vulgarity, spectacle, and scandal as destabilizing agents. Brigitte as Neanderthal is not a claim it is an incantation against liberal reason. Owens becomes a voice of metaphysical insurgency. Macron is portrayed not as a sovereign, but as a spiritually diminished puppet whose private life dictates global outcomes.
Attributing this story to Dugin, then, is not a trivial footnote. It transforms the narrative into a weaponized fragment in a broader project of ontological warfare. It reflects Dugin’s core tactic: to use the chaos of postmodern media and global cynicism to erode consensus reality itself. This is not a lie it is a ritual. It does not matter whether the story is credible. What matters is that it enters circulation, contaminates the symbolic order, and accelerates the collapse of epistemic sovereignty in the West.
If it was written by Dugin, we are not witnessing a conspiracy theory we are witnessing a mythopoetic act of ideological insurgency, crafted to reformat not just opinion, but the very possibility of shared reality.
Why is Dugin becoming so base and trashy? This is serious philosophical/political analysis? What happened to this man? Is it the result of fame and success, like that of the proverbial Hollywood movie star?
In the West that is dominated by a country, where everything is built on lies & total fantasy. I'd say we're living in a alternative reality. The American financial system is the biggest con job in history. The dollar is worthless paper in reality backed by nothing but bullshit. At least 90% of Americans believe the Hollywood version is factual. Despite never defeating anyone on their own in any Wars. 99% of Americans believe they've got the most powerful military in the history of the planet. Now that takes some huge amount of brainwashing. They believe they had the technology to go to the Moon repeatidly from the late 1960's. So you'd believe it was a walk in the park nowadays. Not so ! I don't know the bullshit excuses they come up with today for not being able to go back. But I do know they can't make a decent fighter jet anymore. But despite being in none stop conflicts since the F22 1st became their number 1 fighter. It still hasn't got 1 single kill. But try telling an American it isn't the most lethal fighter ever built. I suppose it's easy to tell the most gullible citizens on the planet. America is the best country in the World. When 99% have never left it shores & they believe half the population living in poverty. Is a normal thing. I won't talk about the murders & crime figures they speak for themselves. Healthcare anyone? Education anyone?
The kind of world where a distinguished theorist and philosopher climbs into the gutter to make slightly-more-intellectual posts than Trump's truth-social garbage.
BTW - "Neanderthal" is NOT an insult, though you clearly imagine it is. They were smarter, stronger, and survived the ice age better, and existed for longer than HomSap has.
Have some respect.
They are also the origin of red hair and blue/green eyes, interbred with HomSap to create 'Cro Magnons', and helped the HomSap survive when we struggled our way out of Africa.
Feel free to rip on Micron though. Perhaps of more relevance than his sexuality/his SO's gender, is his background in finance, disgusting anti-democratic tendencies, open narcissism, never-ending desire to send French troops to Odessa, and likely future careers after he "Fails upwards" and leaves 'National politics' however.
Just saying.
Some of my best friends are Neanderthals, and yes, they all use Geico. ;-)
Von der Leyan or whatever her name is has got more testosterone than Macron, Starmer and Zelensky added together 😂😂😂
Von der Crazy. "The Russian economy is in tatters! Tatters I tell you!" 🤣🤣🤣
Girl-Boss POWAH!!! :Vomits:
What a ‘weenie’!🤓 Love Candace and wow! She literally brokered some peace between countries.. that much power❣️❣️
we all know they are all inverts.
She's actually really cool, and pretty as a picture, but I'm seeing a lot of devolvement into National Enquirer and Soap Oprea stuff, ya know? Even with her. I guess it's a dance, but I'm like "damn, people, stay on target." Too much attention is being paid to the chattering class, not enough to the most important issues at hand, perhaps.
Whatever it takes to get Macron talking to Putin again I am for it.
Yea, anything to prevent more idiocy and war. Agreed. Ego's need to take a back seat; we need to end the freaking killing, period.
The text in question is structured like a tabloid exposé masquerading as political commentary. It adopts the stylistic trappings of sensational journalism, deploying provocation and narrative chaos to destabilize perception. The rhetorical strategy centers around three primary techniques. First, sensationalism: statements such as “Brigitte is a Neanderthal” or claims that “everyone saw that Brigitte allegedly hits Macron” are not intended to persuade through evidence but to titillate and provoke. They are calculated eruptions of scandal designed for viral intrigue. Second, the text relies on mocking irony—the claim that Owens’ investigation was “serious,” complete with “tons of testimonies,” is immediately undermined by its farcical conclusions. This irony produces an ambiguous tone: it is never clear whether the writer is parodying conspiracy culture or genuinely investing in it. Finally, the structure of the argument follows non-linear logic: there is no chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion, only insinuation and juxtaposition. This is characteristic of conspiratorial narrative, where suggestiveness replaces argument and causality is supplanted by aesthetic association.
Embedded within these rhetorical tactics are deeper ideological operations. The story mobilizes transphobic and gender-anxious tropes in its suggestion that Brigitte Macron is secretly a man. This echoes long-standing political strategies that seek to unseat powerful women by attacking the authenticity of their gender. The reference to Neanderthal ancestry compounds the grotesque, invoking eugenicist mockery that blends pseudoscience with cruel spectacle. It is not just a gender panic, but a racialized, pseudo-anthropological act of humiliation.
Beyond these personal attacks, the narrative enacts the weaponization of conspiracy. The superficial mimicry of investigative journalism photos, documents, testimonies is deployed without verification. This mimetic gesture is key to contemporary disinformation: it signals seriousness while delivering fantasy. The implication that Candace Owens’ investigation holds geopolitical weight that it could shape French foreign policy or provoke peace talks relocates power into the hands of media spectacle. The real power lies not with states, but with scandal-mongers. This is classic propagandistic myth-making, where symbolic narratives shape real-world perception.
In this mythology, Owens is not merely a journalist but a populist heroine. She is cast as a national redeemer, unburdened by law or diplomacy, immune to Macron’s lawsuits, and elevated above world leaders. Trump’s phone call turns the scandal into a bizarre diplomatic exchange, as if global peace is contingent on a tabloid narrative being dropped. This is where populist performance collapses into political absurdity: myth becomes mechanism, and internet gossip becomes the instrument of international negotiation.
All of this culminates in a deep crisis of reality. The closing question “What kind of reality are we living in?” is not rhetorical ornament but philosophical abyss. It encapsulates the collapse of epistemology under the weight of performative politics. In this world, truth becomes spectacle: the circulation of images, scandals, and innuendos replaces rational discourse. Satire and belief blur; irony becomes a cover for genuine ideological aggression, and ambiguity becomes the tactic of plausible deniability. This reflects the logic of the digital age, in which internet folklore supersedes institutional knowledge. The elevation of Owens, the grotesque mockery of Brigitte, and the fictive linkage between scandal and diplomacy illustrate how memes and mythologies now compete with factual governance.
The broader implication is that this text exemplifies conspiratorial populism in its purest form one that cloaks itself in journalistic form while hollowing out the principles of evidence and dialogue. It operates not to reveal truth, but to destabilize the possibility of shared truth itself. Its danger lies not in its content alone, but in its form: by simulating information, it corrodes discourse, infects perception, and reduces geopolitics to a war of spectacle and innuendo.
Ultimately, it’s not simply a matter of asking what kind of reality we are living in, but of recognizing that under the rhetorical logic of this text, reality itself becomes contested terrain. It is no longer about what happened, but about who controls the narrative apparatus that declares what can be seen, said, or believed.
If this text is indeed authored by Alexander Dugin, its significance is radically altered. No longer a bizarre or ironic fragment of conspiracy culture, it transforms into a deliberate ideological instrument—a calculated operation in the ongoing symbolic and informational war Dugin has long theorized. The story, ostensibly about Candace Owens investigating the gender of Brigitte Macron, takes on the character of semiotic sabotage, meant to destabilize perception, reality, and political legitimacy.
Read as a casual internet provocation or even as transphobic tabloid rhetoric, the narrative seems grotesque or satirical. But within Dugin’s intellectual framework, this is not satire but strategy. Dugin is not merely a political commentator; he is a metaphysician of geopolitical myth whose writings deliberately blur the boundaries between fact, symbol, and ritual. The text follows a rhetorical structure that masks its complexity beneath the appearance of a vulgar anecdote. Sensationalism, irony, and nonlinear suggestion are not failures of coherence but tools of a new kind of warfare. Statements such as “Brigitte is a Neanderthal” or the implication that Macron has been physically assaulted by his spouse function not as literal claims but as symbolic inversions meant to undermine the Western order through ridicule and spectral ambiguity.
At the level of ideological mechanics, the story is anchored in transphobic, misogynistic tropes. Brigitte Macron is symbolically “unsexed” to delegitimize her public presence not just as a wife of power, but as a political figurehead of the liberal West. The Neanderthal comment, far from a childish insult, becomes a Duginist reversal: instead of evolution toward progress, the West is seen as de-evolving, spiritually and anthropologically regressing. This is part of Dugin’s broader inversionist logic, where liberal democracy is not the telos of history but a terminal aberration. The grotesque functions as a metaphysical critique: to depict the Western elite as ontologically degenerate.
What appears as conspiracy is, in Dugin’s hands, closer to ritualistic narrative engineering. The invocation of Candace Owens—a right-wing American populist figure is not random. She becomes a surrogate, an American avatar of Eurasian ideological currents. In Dugin’s Eurasianist vision, the battle is not only between states, but between civilizational archetypes. Owens is cast as a truth-seeker who, despite legal threats and geopolitical consequences, exposes hidden realities. She is not merely a journalist; she becomes a kind of seer, a priestess of an alternate truth-world. Her persecution by “both Macron men” becomes a dark parody of martyrdom. Her eventual withdrawal, prompted by a phone call from Trump, is framed not as submission, but as an act of geopolitical sacrifice—narrative power exchanged for the possibility of diplomatic leverage. Myth replaces policy.
The most revealing moment is not the accusation, but the line: “What kind of reality are we living in?” This is not a rhetorical afterthought it is the thesis. In Dugin’s ontological program, the war of the future is not fought over territory or resources but over reality itself. By posing this question, the text draws us into a space where epistemology is undone, and where traditional distinctions between fact, fiction, parody, and prophecy collapse. Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory explicitly rejects Western rationalism in favor of mythic multiplicity: there is no single truth, only civilizational world-images. Within this frame, the story does not need to be true. Its effectiveness lies precisely in its ambiguity, its viral friction with the real, its ability to scramble sense and delegitimize official narratives.
In the Duginist schema, what matters is not belief but disbelief the cultivation of a world in which all belief is vulnerable, where truth becomes unstable and myth becomes more persuasive than evidence. The text becomes a psychic minefield. It is not intended to inform but to restructure symbolic reality, using vulgarity, spectacle, and scandal as destabilizing agents. Brigitte as Neanderthal is not a claim it is an incantation against liberal reason. Owens becomes a voice of metaphysical insurgency. Macron is portrayed not as a sovereign, but as a spiritually diminished puppet whose private life dictates global outcomes.
Attributing this story to Dugin, then, is not a trivial footnote. It transforms the narrative into a weaponized fragment in a broader project of ontological warfare. It reflects Dugin’s core tactic: to use the chaos of postmodern media and global cynicism to erode consensus reality itself. This is not a lie it is a ritual. It does not matter whether the story is credible. What matters is that it enters circulation, contaminates the symbolic order, and accelerates the collapse of epistemic sovereignty in the West.
If it was written by Dugin, we are not witnessing a conspiracy theory we are witnessing a mythopoetic act of ideological insurgency, crafted to reformat not just opinion, but the very possibility of shared reality.
Your Victory will stop the War.
Why is Dugin becoming so base and trashy? This is serious philosophical/political analysis? What happened to this man? Is it the result of fame and success, like that of the proverbial Hollywood movie star?
It is not a reality ..it is a fake AI
In the West that is dominated by a country, where everything is built on lies & total fantasy. I'd say we're living in a alternative reality. The American financial system is the biggest con job in history. The dollar is worthless paper in reality backed by nothing but bullshit. At least 90% of Americans believe the Hollywood version is factual. Despite never defeating anyone on their own in any Wars. 99% of Americans believe they've got the most powerful military in the history of the planet. Now that takes some huge amount of brainwashing. They believe they had the technology to go to the Moon repeatidly from the late 1960's. So you'd believe it was a walk in the park nowadays. Not so ! I don't know the bullshit excuses they come up with today for not being able to go back. But I do know they can't make a decent fighter jet anymore. But despite being in none stop conflicts since the F22 1st became their number 1 fighter. It still hasn't got 1 single kill. But try telling an American it isn't the most lethal fighter ever built. I suppose it's easy to tell the most gullible citizens on the planet. America is the best country in the World. When 99% have never left it shores & they believe half the population living in poverty. Is a normal thing. I won't talk about the murders & crime figures they speak for themselves. Healthcare anyone? Education anyone?
Farcical one
A crazy world, indeed. At least we can all agree on that.
Emperor Trump wants to send science and engineering in the US back to the dark middle ages. His bombs will be less nd less competitive. Donkey rules.
Il semblerait que Trump tienne Macron, alias Foutriquet, ainsi que Jean-Michel, par les couilles...
😆
Candace is on our side .The side where truth matters .Thanks Alexander for reporting this as I had not heard of this before .Cheers from Canada
Of course macron is married with a transgender.
Okay, now do the Obamas.