What the life after woke looks like? If we want to overcome woke, we need to identify its roots and extract them. The roots are nominalism, hyper-individualism and liberalism as ideology...
I wish that Dr. Dugan would talk about anti-religion and anti-God and not just anti-Christ. I understand that he recognizes all the perennial religions and especially the role of Islam in countering the phenomena or human development, he describes as the woke, liberal, modernist, nominalist, mentality and agenda. All of us who understand this need to join together not just those whose traditions are based on a Christ centric theology, but all of those who are based on a God centric theology.
Well that’s his argument here. I take him as saying pre-modernity was an eternal state outside of time, modernity was a departure out of the eternal state into an impoverished state that is bounded by time and space. In Christian eschatology it is the distinction between the Kingdom (of God) and the World (of Satan). As he says, there are only two rules, the rule of God or the rule of Satan.
This is a guy who has the temerity to make claims about “the Antichrist” even as he advocates global nuclear annihilation rather than risk the sovereignty of his supposedly Christian nation. Does anyone believe Dugin is a Christian? Does the man have any understanding of the words or life of Christ?
Dugin, a tool of oligarchical power, is EXACTLY the same ilk as the corporate state propagandist who promulgates capitalist myths of freedom and individuality in order to control the common man.
Only Dugin’s game is to attack modernity and woke ideology in the name of religion. But, of course, his true objective is to serve and curry favor with earthly power.
A radical pacifist? Did you miss when He had Israel wipe out all the inhabitants of Canaan, men, women, and children? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if "no one has seen or heard the Father at anytime except the Son, who makes Him known," then the same Christ who says "bless those who persecute you" is the same Christ who kills every first born son of Egypt, Who sends Israel to kill the Canaanites, Who sends the Angel of Death to kill thousands of Israelites until David repents of his sins, Who strikes down Ananias and his wife for holding back some of the profits from the sale of their estate in the Book of Acts. Know Christ before you claim others do not.
The western churches (particularly, America) have been hoodwinked with a fairy tale interpretation of Scripture, full of demonic imagination and blasphemy AGAINST CHRIST (ANTI-CHRIST). They have embraced a doctrine of demons— a Herodian political Zionism that despises Christ Jesus (The ONLY, Messiah) and embraces the mammon of Rome! For this, God is, no doubt, ANGRY! Just as He destroyed Old Israel (FOREVER), in 70AD, He is, NOW, destroying those heretical idolators of Evangelical Zionism in the west. St. Putin is God’s man of The Hour! He must DENY modern FAKE (antichrist) israel and focus on Christ Jesus and HIS Kingdom-Church, ALONE. For THIS, God will continue to bless him. For The CHURCH is TRUE ISRAEL, alone! Everything else is demonic distraction and deadly to those who have been Sovereignly, deceived!
I believe this serves as a reference point for Peter Thiel—a technological utopian who, as you noted, focus on technique, along with technological control and progress, which are mundane and temporal, stands in contrast to the pre-modern transcendental vision. At the heart of progressivism lies the idea that 2024 is inherently better than 2023, iphone 10 better than iphone 11, and thus, as we advance in time and technique, we improve ourselves. This notion, however, does not hold in the pre-modern worldview, where the spiritual takes precedence.
“Aghori” refers to a sect which embraces death, charnel matter, cannibalism of the deceased, as a religious goal. (Dugin’s source may be Mircea Eliade?)
I don’t know what Dugin means by “Technic” here - perhaps just the pursuit of technological control of Nature?
To understand Dugin, you have to look at what he means by nominalism. nominalism was introduced by William of Ockham - yes the razor dude. He negated the existence of universals(platonic) proposing that they only exist for the specific individual temporarily. So meaning comes from the here and now rather than from universal eternal truths. So modernity and post-modernity are anchored in the individual here and now, not in eternal truths. And progress is baked into the ideology by virtue of their dialectical method. Dugin is arguing for a return to platonic universals - but tweaked to specific civilizations - hence his multilateralism. (Obviously a vast oversimplification - but in the right direction.)
William of Ockham believed that abstract entities, Platonic forms and the like, are indeed real. He just didn’t think that they are universal. The mistake that too many make is to conflate Ockham’s theory of nominalism with anti-metaphysics. Which real owe everything to David Hume. (Also, Karl Marx never once addressed the issue. Neither did Freud; yet somehow they get blamed, which makes absolutely no sense.)
The answer to William of Ockham’s nominalism is found in Proclus’ distinction between particable and imparticable forms. That there are universal forms that cannot be participated, and emanating from them are particular forms that can be participated.
The fall of the Assad regime in Syria highlights the fragility of civilizations reliant on Russian protection and the ineffectiveness of their crisis management.
The future of any civilization lies not in clinging to tradition but in its ability to adapt dynamically to constant change. Wokeness, though not the core of Western culture, is one of many facets that coexist with traditional values, shaping a complex and evolving identity.
In stark contrast, Russia seems to offer little to the world beyond chronic alcoholism, low living standards, wars of aggression against its own people, and an economy trapped in stagflation.
In what reality does the so-called strong and enduring tradition described in this piece truly exist? And how can Russia, while frantically abandoning its key military positions in the Middle East, hope to carry it forward?
Wokeness and traditional values cannot coexist. Wokeness seeks to destroy anything traditional. How you could not see this after nearly 10 years of full scale Woke propagandization is beyond me. The future lies not in coexistence, but the eradication of the Woke perversion.
Syria didn't fall because Russia abandoned it, but because it was a hollowed out state and little more than an Iranian vassal by the time HTS and Ukrainian intelligence finally launched their campaign. Meanwhile, West Africa (and the Global South more broadly) is abandoning the US and France at an ever increasing rate, in spite of their thirty year unipolar reign.
Russia has launched exactly zero wars of aggression. And before you point the finger at them, maybe look into the causes of the 2 conflicts they've been in this century, then compare those to the US and NATO.
But arguing with a woke secularist isn't going to go anywhere, so I'll stop here.
World change as the people develop. Its not antichrist. In Christianity you respect all people regarding their race, color of skin, sexual orientation and so on.
There are no threats to traditions. Let people live their lives.
Antichrist is the force which turns people from the True God to false gods, especially when pretending those false gods are Christ. The perfect example is the false "Christianity" you preach
As a teenager, I travelled from Boston to New York City to see the new Trump Tower that had been erected. I also remember a news bite of Trump and Ivanka on the street in NYC and Trump pointing to a bum and telling Ivanka that that bum has more money than he has. Trump owned the Brand not the Real Estate which was built and financed by the Mob.
While I'm personally considerably more radical than this writer, Alexander, you might find some ideas of interest in this essay - almost written as a reply to yours.
Christianity, the foundation for Western culture, incorporates it's own opposition. Modernity makes peace with the adversary instead of engaging in an unholy struggle.
Long story short... it's just recent pop culture and Holiwood entertainment ( i wish it was entertaining) corporate propaganda masquerading as state fascist policies "rules based order" or other sounds bites to give skimpy veil of legality for utter corruption . The masks are off. But Western world societies still under hypnosis of Plandemic fea mongering propaganda.
**Critique of Alexander Dugin’s Text Through Multidisciplinary Lenses**
---
### **Philosophical Analysis**
Dugin’s argument hinges on **metaphysical essentialism**, positing modernity as inherently antithetical to tradition and spirituality. By equating modernity with the "Antichrist" and liberalism with "Satanic rule," he constructs a **Manichean binary** that oversimplifies complex historical processes. His critique of nominalism as the root of "woke" ideology conflates medieval philosophical debates (e.g., nominalism vs. realism) with contemporary identity politics, committing a **category error**. Nominalism’s focus on individuality does not inherently lead to hyper-individualism or "woke" ideology; this is a reductionist leap. Additionally, his assertion that modernity denies "eternity" in favor of "pure temporality" borrows from Heideggerian critiques of technology but lacks engagement with modern philosophies that reconcile temporality with meaning (e.g., existentialism, process theology).
---
### **Political Analysis**
Dugin’s call to "overcome Modernity" and return to a pre-modern "eternal paradigm" aligns with **reactionary authoritarianism**. By framing democracy as "demonic" and praising hierarchical rule (e.g., "King of the World"), he echoes Carl Schmitt’s anti-liberal decisionism, advocating for a **theocratic vanguard** to replace pluralistic governance. His dismissal of liberalism as a "rebellion of matter against spirit" rejects Enlightenment values of individual rights and secularism, promoting instead a **mythic collectivism** that risks erasing dissent. The reference to "dark accelerationism" and Silicon Valley as "satanic" reveals a conspiratorial worldview that demonizes technological progress while paradoxically endorsing a "right-hand path" traditionalism—a tension left unresolved.
---
### **Sociological Analysis**
Dugin diagnoses modernity’s erosion of collective identity (e.g., nation, religion, gender) but offers a **regressive solution**: reinstating pre-modern hierarchies. His critique of hyper-individualism ignores how modernity also fostered new forms of solidarity (e.g., civil rights movements). By reducing "woke" ideology to a "final stage of Western Modernity," he neglects its roots in marginalized groups’ struggles for recognition, flattening intersectional critiques into a monolithic "degeneracy." His vision of a "return to Tradition" risks enforcing oppressive norms (e.g., rigid gender roles, ethnonationalism) under the guise of cultural preservation.
---
### **Historical Analysis**
Dugin’s historiography is **teleological and conspiratorial**. He frames Western history as a linear decline from a pre-modern golden age, ignoring the complexities of feudalism, the Enlightenment, and industrialization. Linking capitalism to Protestantism (via Weber) while omitting colonialism and class struggle reveals a **cherry-picked historiography**. His claim that "woke" is the "logical consequence" of liberalism overlooks countercurrents within modernity (e.g., religious revivals, conservative movements). The assertion that "secret societies governed history" (para. 5 of prior text) resurfaces here in references to Silicon Valley as "satanic," echoing unfounded conspiracy theories rather than rigorous analysis.
---
### **Semiotic Analysis**
Dugin employs **apocalyptic semiotics** to evoke fear and urgency. Terms like "Antichrist," "Satan," and "damnation" invoke religious eschatology, framing modernity as a cosmic battle between good and evil. The binary of "eternity vs. temporality" functions as a **floating signifier**, imbuing his argument with transcendent stakes while obscuring logical gaps. References to "Technic" (likely echoing Heidegger’s *Gestell*) and "dark accelerationism" create an aura of intellectual mystique, masking the text’s lack of empirical grounding. By naming figures like Peter Thiel as "aghoris," Dugin weaponizes exoticized Eastern symbolism to demonize tech elites, leveraging Orientalist tropes for rhetorical effect.
---
### **Aesthetic Theory**
Dugin’s rhetoric aligns with **fascist aesthetics**, privileging mythic unity over pluralism. His vision of a "return to Tradition" mirrors fascism’s fetishization of a romanticized past (e.g., Nazi mysticism, Futurist vitalism). The text’s structure—apocalyptic warnings followed by salvific promises—mirrors religious prophecy, performing the "myth-making" he advocates. This aesthetic strategy seeks to mobilize emotion over reason, appealing to those disillusioned by modernity’s fragmentation.
2. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**: Attributes modernity’s ills to liberalism’s rejection of Catholicism, ignoring multifactorial historical drivers.
3. **False Dichotomy**: Presents "pre-modern eternity" and "modern temporality" as mutually exclusive, excluding synthesis.
4. **Ad Hominem**: Dismisses opponents as "satanic" or "degenerate" rather than engaging their ideas.
---
### **Conclusion**
Dugin’s text is a **syncretic manifesto** blending reactionary metaphysics, authoritarian politics, and conspiratorial semiotics. While rhetorically potent, it collapses under scrutiny: philosophically reductionist, historically selective, and sociologically regressive. Its power lies in mythic storytelling, not rational argumentation, appealing to those yearning for certainty in a fragmented world. The call to "overcome Modernity" is less a coherent program than a **performative negation**, reinforcing the very "crisis" it claims to resolve. Ultimately, Dugin’s vision risks replacing pluralistic modernity with a homogenized authoritarianism cloaked in sacred garb.
**Critique of Alexander Dugin’s Text Through Multidisciplinary Lenses**
Dugin’s argument hinges on **metaphysical essentialism**, positing modernity as inherently antithetical to tradition and spirituality. By equating modernity with the "Antichrist" and liberalism with "Satanic rule," he constructs a **Manichean binary** that oversimplifies complex historical processes. His critique of nominalism as the root of "woke" ideology conflates medieval philosophical debates (e.g., nominalism vs. realism) with contemporary identity politics, committing a **category error**. Nominalism’s focus on individuality does not inherently lead to hyper-individualism or "woke" ideology; this is a reductionist leap. Additionally, his assertion that modernity denies "eternity" in favor of "pure temporality" borrows from Heideggerian critiques of technology but lacks engagement with modern philosophies that reconcile temporality with meaning (e.g., existentialism, process theology).
---
### **Political Analysis**
Dugin’s call to "overcome Modernity" and return to a pre-modern "eternal paradigm" aligns with **reactionary authoritarianism**. By framing democracy as "demonic" and praising hierarchical rule (e.g., "King of the World"), he echoes Carl Schmitt’s anti-liberal decisionism, advocating for a **theocratic vanguard** to replace pluralistic governance. His dismissal of liberalism as a "rebellion of matter against spirit" rejects Enlightenment values of individual rights and secularism, promoting instead a **mythic collectivism** that risks erasing dissent. The reference to "dark accelerationism" and Silicon Valley as "satanic" reveals a conspiratorial worldview that demonizes technological progress while paradoxically endorsing a "right-hand path" traditionalism—a tension left unresolved.
---
### **Sociological Analysis**
Dugin diagnoses modernity’s erosion of collective identity (e.g., nation, religion, gender) but offers a **regressive solution**: reinstating pre-modern hierarchies. His critique of hyper-individualism ignores how modernity also fostered new forms of solidarity (e.g., civil rights movements). By reducing "woke" ideology to a "final stage of Western Modernity," he neglects its roots in marginalized groups’ struggles for recognition, flattening intersectional critiques into a monolithic "degeneracy." His vision of a "return to Tradition" risks enforcing oppressive norms (e.g., rigid gender roles, ethnonationalism) under the guise of cultural preservation.
---
### **Historical Analysis**
Dugin’s historiography is **teleological and conspiratorial**. He frames Western history as a linear decline from a pre-modern golden age, ignoring the complexities of feudalism, the Enlightenment, and industrialization. Linking capitalism to Protestantism (via Weber) while omitting colonialism and class struggle reveals a **cherry-picked historiography**. His claim that "woke" is the "logical consequence" of liberalism overlooks countercurrents within modernity (e.g., religious revivals, conservative movements). The assertion that "secret societies governed history" (para. 5 of prior text) resurfaces here in references to Silicon Valley as "satanic," echoing unfounded conspiracy theories rather than rigorous analysis.
---
### **Semiotic Analysis**
Dugin employs **apocalyptic semiotics** to evoke fear and urgency. Terms like "Antichrist," "Satan," and "damnation" invoke religious eschatology, framing modernity as a cosmic battle between good and evil. The binary of "eternity vs. temporality" functions as a **floating signifier**, imbuing his argument with transcendent stakes while obscuring logical gaps. References to "Technic" (likely echoing Heidegger’s *Gestell*) and "dark accelerationism" create an aura of intellectual mystique, masking the text’s lack of empirical grounding. By naming figures like Peter Thiel as "aghoris," Dugin weaponizes exoticized Eastern symbolism to demonize tech elites, leveraging Orientalist tropes for rhetorical effect.
---
### **Aesthetic Theory**
Dugin’s rhetoric aligns with **fascist aesthetics**, privileging mythic unity over pluralism. His vision of a "return to Tradition" mirrors fascism’s fetishization of a romanticized past (e.g., Nazi mysticism, Futurist vitalism). The text’s structure—apocalyptic warnings followed by salvific promises—mirrors religious prophecy, performing the "myth-making" he advocates. This aesthetic strategy seeks to mobilize emotion over reason, appealing to those disillusioned by modernity’s fragmentation.
2. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**: Attributes modernity’s ills to liberalism’s rejection of Catholicism, ignoring multifactorial historical drivers.
3. **False Dichotomy**: Presents "pre-modern eternity" and "modern temporality" as mutually exclusive, excluding synthesis.
4. **Ad Hominem**: Dismisses opponents as "satanic" or "degenerate" rather than engaging their ideas.
---
### **Conclusion**
Dugin’s text is a **syncretic manifesto** blending reactionary metaphysics, authoritarian politics, and conspiratorial semiotics. While rhetorically potent, it collapses under scrutiny: philosophically reductionist, historically selective, and sociologically regressive. Its power lies in mythic storytelling, not rational argumentation, appealing to those yearning for certainty in a fragmented world. The call to "overcome Modernity" is less a coherent program than a **performative negation**, reinforcing the very "crisis" it claims to resolve. Ultimately, Dugin’s vision risks replacing pluralistic modernity with a homogenized authoritarianism cloaked in sacred garb.
Modernity is a mode. Hence, the very word 'mod' in modernity. Point being: modes are transient by nature. Progress is based on transient modes, thereby inviting instability (i.e. nothing ever settles into maturity).
Such explains the decline of traditions, thereby creating alienation, which in turn leads to a decline in mental health. America and Europe are prime examples of this (they've become victims of their own secular success). It is the cruelest of ironies.
“Modernity is a mode. Hence, the very word ‘mod’ in modernity.” This opening salvo might catch the eye with its tidy etymological turn, but it quickly collapses under scrutiny. The attempt to root a cultural critique in wordplay is clever but misguided. “Modernity” doesn’t derive from “mod” as in trendy or mode-like, but from the Latin modernus, meaning “just now.” The link being made here is not etymological but rhetorical, and it’s a shaky foundation for the argument that follows.
From this shaky start, the post launches into a sweeping generalization: progress, it says, is based on transient modes, which supposedly leads to instability. But not all progress functions like a passing fashion trend. Scientific and technological advancements, ethical debates, and social reforms are not mere “modes”—they are often accumulative, deliberate, and driven by reflection as much as novelty. To equate all progress with ephemerality is to ignore entire traditions of thought and history that reveal just the opposite. This is conceptual overreach.
The argument takes a darker turn, claiming that this transience of modernity erodes tradition, causes alienation, and results in a mental health crisis. This causal chain is tidy but entirely unsubstantiated. There’s no definition of what “tradition” means here, no exploration of what “alienation” entails, and no evidence for how these abstractions are linked to mental illness. It’s all asserted, not demonstrated. Mental health is complex—affected by economics, trauma, urban life, inequality, digital culture, and systemic injustice. To pin it all on “modern modes” is to ignore the reality of countless other pressures that shape human psychology.
Then we get the claim that America and Europe are prime examples, victims of their own secular success. This is where the argument veers into moralizing. “Secular success” is a vague term—what does it mean? Technological growth? The decline of organized religion? Expanding human rights? It assumes that secularism naturally erodes meaning, yet this neglects the vast number of people who find purpose, community, and dignity in secular life. Religion and tradition aren’t guaranteed sources of stability either—history is full of examples of violent or repressive traditions. The argument implies a nostalgic ideal of tradition that simply doesn’t hold up.
Finally, we’re told that all of this is “the cruelest of ironies.” The phrase lands like a closing curtain, but it feels more like a rhetorical shrug than a conclusion. Yes, irony abounds in modern life—but irony alone isn’t an argument. What’s missing here is depth, evidence, and a real engagement with the complexities of modernity. The critique gestures toward a grand narrative of civilizational decline but offers little more than a sequence of loosely linked abstractions. If modernity is indeed unstable, then so is this analysis.
Still, the post is trying to get at something real: the experience of disorientation in a world where things change rapidly and meaning feels harder to come by. That’s a worthwhile concern. But it deserves more than linguistic shortcuts and historical nostalgia. It deserves thought. Want to take it there?
I wish that Dr. Dugan would talk about anti-religion and anti-God and not just anti-Christ. I understand that he recognizes all the perennial religions and especially the role of Islam in countering the phenomena or human development, he describes as the woke, liberal, modernist, nominalist, mentality and agenda. All of us who understand this need to join together not just those whose traditions are based on a Christ centric theology, but all of those who are based on a God centric theology.
Why is pre-modernity eternal, and modernity is not?
Well that’s his argument here. I take him as saying pre-modernity was an eternal state outside of time, modernity was a departure out of the eternal state into an impoverished state that is bounded by time and space. In Christian eschatology it is the distinction between the Kingdom (of God) and the World (of Satan). As he says, there are only two rules, the rule of God or the rule of Satan.
This is a guy who has the temerity to make claims about “the Antichrist” even as he advocates global nuclear annihilation rather than risk the sovereignty of his supposedly Christian nation. Does anyone believe Dugin is a Christian? Does the man have any understanding of the words or life of Christ?
Dugin, a tool of oligarchical power, is EXACTLY the same ilk as the corporate state propagandist who promulgates capitalist myths of freedom and individuality in order to control the common man.
Only Dugin’s game is to attack modernity and woke ideology in the name of religion. But, of course, his true objective is to serve and curry favor with earthly power.
Jesus Christ was a radical pacifist.
He's more of a gnostic subversive occultist than a Christian. He casts spells with language he doesn't cite verse.
A radical pacifist? Did you miss when He had Israel wipe out all the inhabitants of Canaan, men, women, and children? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if "no one has seen or heard the Father at anytime except the Son, who makes Him known," then the same Christ who says "bless those who persecute you" is the same Christ who kills every first born son of Egypt, Who sends Israel to kill the Canaanites, Who sends the Angel of Death to kill thousands of Israelites until David repents of his sins, Who strikes down Ananias and his wife for holding back some of the profits from the sale of their estate in the Book of Acts. Know Christ before you claim others do not.
The western churches (particularly, America) have been hoodwinked with a fairy tale interpretation of Scripture, full of demonic imagination and blasphemy AGAINST CHRIST (ANTI-CHRIST). They have embraced a doctrine of demons— a Herodian political Zionism that despises Christ Jesus (The ONLY, Messiah) and embraces the mammon of Rome! For this, God is, no doubt, ANGRY! Just as He destroyed Old Israel (FOREVER), in 70AD, He is, NOW, destroying those heretical idolators of Evangelical Zionism in the west. St. Putin is God’s man of The Hour! He must DENY modern FAKE (antichrist) israel and focus on Christ Jesus and HIS Kingdom-Church, ALONE. For THIS, God will continue to bless him. For The CHURCH is TRUE ISRAEL, alone! Everything else is demonic distraction and deadly to those who have been Sovereignly, deceived!
I believe this serves as a reference point for Peter Thiel—a technological utopian who, as you noted, focus on technique, along with technological control and progress, which are mundane and temporal, stands in contrast to the pre-modern transcendental vision. At the heart of progressivism lies the idea that 2024 is inherently better than 2023, iphone 10 better than iphone 11, and thus, as we advance in time and technique, we improve ourselves. This notion, however, does not hold in the pre-modern worldview, where the spiritual takes precedence.
“Aghori” refers to a sect which embraces death, charnel matter, cannibalism of the deceased, as a religious goal. (Dugin’s source may be Mircea Eliade?)
I don’t know what Dugin means by “Technic” here - perhaps just the pursuit of technological control of Nature?
Most likely a reference to Spengler.
With "aghori" he might be referring to "Agorism", a type of libertarianism:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/derrick-broze-what-is-agorism-a-history-of-agorist-theory-and-practice
Thank you, it seems attinent with the argument than the Hindi sect.
Interesting angle, thanks.
Probably 'technique.'
I don’t think so. Does not match the context.
My guess would be 'technocracy'.
To understand Dugin, you have to look at what he means by nominalism. nominalism was introduced by William of Ockham - yes the razor dude. He negated the existence of universals(platonic) proposing that they only exist for the specific individual temporarily. So meaning comes from the here and now rather than from universal eternal truths. So modernity and post-modernity are anchored in the individual here and now, not in eternal truths. And progress is baked into the ideology by virtue of their dialectical method. Dugin is arguing for a return to platonic universals - but tweaked to specific civilizations - hence his multilateralism. (Obviously a vast oversimplification - but in the right direction.)
Not exactly.
William of Ockham believed that abstract entities, Platonic forms and the like, are indeed real. He just didn’t think that they are universal. The mistake that too many make is to conflate Ockham’s theory of nominalism with anti-metaphysics. Which real owe everything to David Hume. (Also, Karl Marx never once addressed the issue. Neither did Freud; yet somehow they get blamed, which makes absolutely no sense.)
The answer to William of Ockham’s nominalism is found in Proclus’ distinction between particable and imparticable forms. That there are universal forms that cannot be participated, and emanating from them are particular forms that can be participated.
The fall of the Assad regime in Syria highlights the fragility of civilizations reliant on Russian protection and the ineffectiveness of their crisis management.
The future of any civilization lies not in clinging to tradition but in its ability to adapt dynamically to constant change. Wokeness, though not the core of Western culture, is one of many facets that coexist with traditional values, shaping a complex and evolving identity.
In stark contrast, Russia seems to offer little to the world beyond chronic alcoholism, low living standards, wars of aggression against its own people, and an economy trapped in stagflation.
In what reality does the so-called strong and enduring tradition described in this piece truly exist? And how can Russia, while frantically abandoning its key military positions in the Middle East, hope to carry it forward?
Wokeness and traditional values cannot coexist. Wokeness seeks to destroy anything traditional. How you could not see this after nearly 10 years of full scale Woke propagandization is beyond me. The future lies not in coexistence, but the eradication of the Woke perversion.
Syria didn't fall because Russia abandoned it, but because it was a hollowed out state and little more than an Iranian vassal by the time HTS and Ukrainian intelligence finally launched their campaign. Meanwhile, West Africa (and the Global South more broadly) is abandoning the US and France at an ever increasing rate, in spite of their thirty year unipolar reign.
Russia has launched exactly zero wars of aggression. And before you point the finger at them, maybe look into the causes of the 2 conflicts they've been in this century, then compare those to the US and NATO.
But arguing with a woke secularist isn't going to go anywhere, so I'll stop here.
World change as the people develop. Its not antichrist. In Christianity you respect all people regarding their race, color of skin, sexual orientation and so on.
There are no threats to traditions. Let people live their lives.
Antichrist is the force which turns people from the True God to false gods, especially when pretending those false gods are Christ. The perfect example is the false "Christianity" you preach
As a teenager, I travelled from Boston to New York City to see the new Trump Tower that had been erected. I also remember a news bite of Trump and Ivanka on the street in NYC and Trump pointing to a bum and telling Ivanka that that bum has more money than he has. Trump owned the Brand not the Real Estate which was built and financed by the Mob.
While I'm personally considerably more radical than this writer, Alexander, you might find some ideas of interest in this essay - almost written as a reply to yours.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/26/on-organized-religion-and-prophets-in-history/
Christianity, the foundation for Western culture, incorporates it's own opposition. Modernity makes peace with the adversary instead of engaging in an unholy struggle.
Long story short... it's just recent pop culture and Holiwood entertainment ( i wish it was entertaining) corporate propaganda masquerading as state fascist policies "rules based order" or other sounds bites to give skimpy veil of legality for utter corruption . The masks are off. But Western world societies still under hypnosis of Plandemic fea mongering propaganda.
**Critique of Alexander Dugin’s Text Through Multidisciplinary Lenses**
---
### **Philosophical Analysis**
Dugin’s argument hinges on **metaphysical essentialism**, positing modernity as inherently antithetical to tradition and spirituality. By equating modernity with the "Antichrist" and liberalism with "Satanic rule," he constructs a **Manichean binary** that oversimplifies complex historical processes. His critique of nominalism as the root of "woke" ideology conflates medieval philosophical debates (e.g., nominalism vs. realism) with contemporary identity politics, committing a **category error**. Nominalism’s focus on individuality does not inherently lead to hyper-individualism or "woke" ideology; this is a reductionist leap. Additionally, his assertion that modernity denies "eternity" in favor of "pure temporality" borrows from Heideggerian critiques of technology but lacks engagement with modern philosophies that reconcile temporality with meaning (e.g., existentialism, process theology).
---
### **Political Analysis**
Dugin’s call to "overcome Modernity" and return to a pre-modern "eternal paradigm" aligns with **reactionary authoritarianism**. By framing democracy as "demonic" and praising hierarchical rule (e.g., "King of the World"), he echoes Carl Schmitt’s anti-liberal decisionism, advocating for a **theocratic vanguard** to replace pluralistic governance. His dismissal of liberalism as a "rebellion of matter against spirit" rejects Enlightenment values of individual rights and secularism, promoting instead a **mythic collectivism** that risks erasing dissent. The reference to "dark accelerationism" and Silicon Valley as "satanic" reveals a conspiratorial worldview that demonizes technological progress while paradoxically endorsing a "right-hand path" traditionalism—a tension left unresolved.
---
### **Sociological Analysis**
Dugin diagnoses modernity’s erosion of collective identity (e.g., nation, religion, gender) but offers a **regressive solution**: reinstating pre-modern hierarchies. His critique of hyper-individualism ignores how modernity also fostered new forms of solidarity (e.g., civil rights movements). By reducing "woke" ideology to a "final stage of Western Modernity," he neglects its roots in marginalized groups’ struggles for recognition, flattening intersectional critiques into a monolithic "degeneracy." His vision of a "return to Tradition" risks enforcing oppressive norms (e.g., rigid gender roles, ethnonationalism) under the guise of cultural preservation.
---
### **Historical Analysis**
Dugin’s historiography is **teleological and conspiratorial**. He frames Western history as a linear decline from a pre-modern golden age, ignoring the complexities of feudalism, the Enlightenment, and industrialization. Linking capitalism to Protestantism (via Weber) while omitting colonialism and class struggle reveals a **cherry-picked historiography**. His claim that "woke" is the "logical consequence" of liberalism overlooks countercurrents within modernity (e.g., religious revivals, conservative movements). The assertion that "secret societies governed history" (para. 5 of prior text) resurfaces here in references to Silicon Valley as "satanic," echoing unfounded conspiracy theories rather than rigorous analysis.
---
### **Semiotic Analysis**
Dugin employs **apocalyptic semiotics** to evoke fear and urgency. Terms like "Antichrist," "Satan," and "damnation" invoke religious eschatology, framing modernity as a cosmic battle between good and evil. The binary of "eternity vs. temporality" functions as a **floating signifier**, imbuing his argument with transcendent stakes while obscuring logical gaps. References to "Technic" (likely echoing Heidegger’s *Gestell*) and "dark accelerationism" create an aura of intellectual mystique, masking the text’s lack of empirical grounding. By naming figures like Peter Thiel as "aghoris," Dugin weaponizes exoticized Eastern symbolism to demonize tech elites, leveraging Orientalist tropes for rhetorical effect.
---
### **Aesthetic Theory**
Dugin’s rhetoric aligns with **fascist aesthetics**, privileging mythic unity over pluralism. His vision of a "return to Tradition" mirrors fascism’s fetishization of a romanticized past (e.g., Nazi mysticism, Futurist vitalism). The text’s structure—apocalyptic warnings followed by salvific promises—mirrors religious prophecy, performing the "myth-making" he advocates. This aesthetic strategy seeks to mobilize emotion over reason, appealing to those disillusioned by modernity’s fragmentation.
---
### **Logical Fallacies**
1. **Slippery Slope**: Assumes nominalism → hyper-individualism → woke ideology without causal evidence.
2. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**: Attributes modernity’s ills to liberalism’s rejection of Catholicism, ignoring multifactorial historical drivers.
3. **False Dichotomy**: Presents "pre-modern eternity" and "modern temporality" as mutually exclusive, excluding synthesis.
4. **Ad Hominem**: Dismisses opponents as "satanic" or "degenerate" rather than engaging their ideas.
---
### **Conclusion**
Dugin’s text is a **syncretic manifesto** blending reactionary metaphysics, authoritarian politics, and conspiratorial semiotics. While rhetorically potent, it collapses under scrutiny: philosophically reductionist, historically selective, and sociologically regressive. Its power lies in mythic storytelling, not rational argumentation, appealing to those yearning for certainty in a fragmented world. The call to "overcome Modernity" is less a coherent program than a **performative negation**, reinforcing the very "crisis" it claims to resolve. Ultimately, Dugin’s vision risks replacing pluralistic modernity with a homogenized authoritarianism cloaked in sacred garb.
**Critique of Alexander Dugin’s Text Through Multidisciplinary Lenses**
---
### **Philosophical Analysis**
Dugin’s argument hinges on **metaphysical essentialism**, positing modernity as inherently antithetical to tradition and spirituality. By equating modernity with the "Antichrist" and liberalism with "Satanic rule," he constructs a **Manichean binary** that oversimplifies complex historical processes. His critique of nominalism as the root of "woke" ideology conflates medieval philosophical debates (e.g., nominalism vs. realism) with contemporary identity politics, committing a **category error**. Nominalism’s focus on individuality does not inherently lead to hyper-individualism or "woke" ideology; this is a reductionist leap. Additionally, his assertion that modernity denies "eternity" in favor of "pure temporality" borrows from Heideggerian critiques of technology but lacks engagement with modern philosophies that reconcile temporality with meaning (e.g., existentialism, process theology).
---
### **Political Analysis**
Dugin’s call to "overcome Modernity" and return to a pre-modern "eternal paradigm" aligns with **reactionary authoritarianism**. By framing democracy as "demonic" and praising hierarchical rule (e.g., "King of the World"), he echoes Carl Schmitt’s anti-liberal decisionism, advocating for a **theocratic vanguard** to replace pluralistic governance. His dismissal of liberalism as a "rebellion of matter against spirit" rejects Enlightenment values of individual rights and secularism, promoting instead a **mythic collectivism** that risks erasing dissent. The reference to "dark accelerationism" and Silicon Valley as "satanic" reveals a conspiratorial worldview that demonizes technological progress while paradoxically endorsing a "right-hand path" traditionalism—a tension left unresolved.
---
### **Sociological Analysis**
Dugin diagnoses modernity’s erosion of collective identity (e.g., nation, religion, gender) but offers a **regressive solution**: reinstating pre-modern hierarchies. His critique of hyper-individualism ignores how modernity also fostered new forms of solidarity (e.g., civil rights movements). By reducing "woke" ideology to a "final stage of Western Modernity," he neglects its roots in marginalized groups’ struggles for recognition, flattening intersectional critiques into a monolithic "degeneracy." His vision of a "return to Tradition" risks enforcing oppressive norms (e.g., rigid gender roles, ethnonationalism) under the guise of cultural preservation.
---
### **Historical Analysis**
Dugin’s historiography is **teleological and conspiratorial**. He frames Western history as a linear decline from a pre-modern golden age, ignoring the complexities of feudalism, the Enlightenment, and industrialization. Linking capitalism to Protestantism (via Weber) while omitting colonialism and class struggle reveals a **cherry-picked historiography**. His claim that "woke" is the "logical consequence" of liberalism overlooks countercurrents within modernity (e.g., religious revivals, conservative movements). The assertion that "secret societies governed history" (para. 5 of prior text) resurfaces here in references to Silicon Valley as "satanic," echoing unfounded conspiracy theories rather than rigorous analysis.
---
### **Semiotic Analysis**
Dugin employs **apocalyptic semiotics** to evoke fear and urgency. Terms like "Antichrist," "Satan," and "damnation" invoke religious eschatology, framing modernity as a cosmic battle between good and evil. The binary of "eternity vs. temporality" functions as a **floating signifier**, imbuing his argument with transcendent stakes while obscuring logical gaps. References to "Technic" (likely echoing Heidegger’s *Gestell*) and "dark accelerationism" create an aura of intellectual mystique, masking the text’s lack of empirical grounding. By naming figures like Peter Thiel as "aghoris," Dugin weaponizes exoticized Eastern symbolism to demonize tech elites, leveraging Orientalist tropes for rhetorical effect.
---
### **Aesthetic Theory**
Dugin’s rhetoric aligns with **fascist aesthetics**, privileging mythic unity over pluralism. His vision of a "return to Tradition" mirrors fascism’s fetishization of a romanticized past (e.g., Nazi mysticism, Futurist vitalism). The text’s structure—apocalyptic warnings followed by salvific promises—mirrors religious prophecy, performing the "myth-making" he advocates. This aesthetic strategy seeks to mobilize emotion over reason, appealing to those disillusioned by modernity’s fragmentation.
---
### **Logical Fallacies**
1. **Slippery Slope**: Assumes nominalism → hyper-individualism → woke ideology without causal evidence.
2. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**: Attributes modernity’s ills to liberalism’s rejection of Catholicism, ignoring multifactorial historical drivers.
3. **False Dichotomy**: Presents "pre-modern eternity" and "modern temporality" as mutually exclusive, excluding synthesis.
4. **Ad Hominem**: Dismisses opponents as "satanic" or "degenerate" rather than engaging their ideas.
---
### **Conclusion**
Dugin’s text is a **syncretic manifesto** blending reactionary metaphysics, authoritarian politics, and conspiratorial semiotics. While rhetorically potent, it collapses under scrutiny: philosophically reductionist, historically selective, and sociologically regressive. Its power lies in mythic storytelling, not rational argumentation, appealing to those yearning for certainty in a fragmented world. The call to "overcome Modernity" is less a coherent program than a **performative negation**, reinforcing the very "crisis" it claims to resolve. Ultimately, Dugin’s vision risks replacing pluralistic modernity with a homogenized authoritarianism cloaked in sacred garb.
Modernity is a mode. Hence, the very word 'mod' in modernity. Point being: modes are transient by nature. Progress is based on transient modes, thereby inviting instability (i.e. nothing ever settles into maturity).
Such explains the decline of traditions, thereby creating alienation, which in turn leads to a decline in mental health. America and Europe are prime examples of this (they've become victims of their own secular success). It is the cruelest of ironies.
“Modernity is a mode. Hence, the very word ‘mod’ in modernity.” This opening salvo might catch the eye with its tidy etymological turn, but it quickly collapses under scrutiny. The attempt to root a cultural critique in wordplay is clever but misguided. “Modernity” doesn’t derive from “mod” as in trendy or mode-like, but from the Latin modernus, meaning “just now.” The link being made here is not etymological but rhetorical, and it’s a shaky foundation for the argument that follows.
From this shaky start, the post launches into a sweeping generalization: progress, it says, is based on transient modes, which supposedly leads to instability. But not all progress functions like a passing fashion trend. Scientific and technological advancements, ethical debates, and social reforms are not mere “modes”—they are often accumulative, deliberate, and driven by reflection as much as novelty. To equate all progress with ephemerality is to ignore entire traditions of thought and history that reveal just the opposite. This is conceptual overreach.
The argument takes a darker turn, claiming that this transience of modernity erodes tradition, causes alienation, and results in a mental health crisis. This causal chain is tidy but entirely unsubstantiated. There’s no definition of what “tradition” means here, no exploration of what “alienation” entails, and no evidence for how these abstractions are linked to mental illness. It’s all asserted, not demonstrated. Mental health is complex—affected by economics, trauma, urban life, inequality, digital culture, and systemic injustice. To pin it all on “modern modes” is to ignore the reality of countless other pressures that shape human psychology.
Then we get the claim that America and Europe are prime examples, victims of their own secular success. This is where the argument veers into moralizing. “Secular success” is a vague term—what does it mean? Technological growth? The decline of organized religion? Expanding human rights? It assumes that secularism naturally erodes meaning, yet this neglects the vast number of people who find purpose, community, and dignity in secular life. Religion and tradition aren’t guaranteed sources of stability either—history is full of examples of violent or repressive traditions. The argument implies a nostalgic ideal of tradition that simply doesn’t hold up.
Finally, we’re told that all of this is “the cruelest of ironies.” The phrase lands like a closing curtain, but it feels more like a rhetorical shrug than a conclusion. Yes, irony abounds in modern life—but irony alone isn’t an argument. What’s missing here is depth, evidence, and a real engagement with the complexities of modernity. The critique gestures toward a grand narrative of civilizational decline but offers little more than a sequence of loosely linked abstractions. If modernity is indeed unstable, then so is this analysis.
Still, the post is trying to get at something real: the experience of disorientation in a world where things change rapidly and meaning feels harder to come by. That’s a worthwhile concern. But it deserves more than linguistic shortcuts and historical nostalgia. It deserves thought. Want to take it there?