Interview with Alexander Dughin, "the most dangerous philosopher for the West"

[yankeedoodle]

Interview with Alexander Dughin, "the most dangerous philosopher for the West"
https://ioncoja.ro/o-discutie-cu-alexander-dughin/

source: Antipresse
Author: Guy Mettan

During a trip to Siberia in mid-December, I had the opportunity to meet Alexander Dughin on the plane that brought us back to Moscow. Four months after his daughter's assassination, the bearded philosopher, who is often portrayed as a far-right nationalist and described in the Western media as "Putin's Rasputin" and the "Kremlin ideologue" - which he is not, because he is not close to Putin, and his positions are quite marginal in Russia, even if he has influence there, he is judged mostly in the West - calmly and without hatred he returns to his beliefs, his thinking and the radical critique of Western modernity. Here is the result of this impromptu interview, which took place in French, with Alexander Dughin fluent in a dozen languages. It goes without saying that the author does not necessarily share the views expressed in this text, but considers it necessary to present them in the current context, if only to understand the nature of the intellectual debates taking place in Russia today and to reaffirm the right to freedom of expressing and hearing all opinions, and especially those we do not share. (GM)

Can we go back to the attempted attack on you that claimed the life of your daughter Daria on August 20th? Why resorted to the assassination of a philosopher and an innocent young woman whose only fault was being the daughter of a philosopher? How can this crime be explained?

As you said, I am a philosopher and my daughter was also a philosopher. He never took part in military action and never had a commitment on the front. The only reason is my patriotic position and opposition to the hegemonic policy of the West. Before this attack, I was called "the most dangerous philosopher for the West." I was considered so dangerous that I and my daughter, who was the most beautiful part of me, had to be killed.

I think today the danger has become very great for people like me. However, we did nothing against Ukraine, we did not finance the war, we did not participate in the decision to launch the special military operation, which was taken only by our president. I am simply loyal to my country, my motherland, because I believe it is necessary to defend its sovereignty against Western aggression. But I was not the one who decided how to react, what red lines should not be crossed, how to respond to NATO threats. I think I was chosen as a target because my ideas oppose the domination of the globalists and because I criticize the liberal dictatorship. This heinous act shows who has truly become a terrorist. This attack is unique. Since the Russian intervention in Ukraine,

In Europe, many people condemned this assassination, as did the Pope, who sent me his condolences. Millions of people who had some reservations about me were affected by this crime. But on the other hand, many, many high-level officials approved of it and saw it as the price I had to pay for Russia's war in Ukraine.

Killing on the front is one thing. But attacking innocent people, whose only crime is that they hold a critical view of ultra-liberal globalist politics, is something else entirely. This shift from words to criminal actions is, in my opinion, very serious because it means that no one is safe anymore when criticizing the globalists. This is a sign that a new dictatorship is coming, the liberal dictatorship. I have always denounced the totalitarian nature of liberalism. But now the news is that liberalism has become a terrorist. And this while I was not very active at the time of the launch of the special operation. I expressed my opinions, but I did not intervene much in the public space and did not participate in the Russian propaganda for this operation. On the contrary, I rather remained on the sidelines and was by no means at the center of the ideological struggle against Ukraine. That makes this act on the part of Ukraine all the more amazing.

What stage is the investigation at now?

The investigation showed that Ukraine was involved. It was a woman from Ukraine who committed this murder, who is connected to the secret military services and whose order came from Zelensky himself. (This involvement has been acknowledged by the United States. See The war in Ukraine. Assassination of Daria Dughin: Ukraine identified by the United States, Courrier international, 6 October 2022, editor's note).

But it's quite strange because, as I said, I played no part, not even symbolically, in this military campaign. Since it was decided to launch an attack on me and kill my daughter, the reasons must lie elsewhere. Not in Kyiv, which was used and instrumentalized. The Ukrainian terrorist who committed this crime was a tool in the hands of people much higher up in the NATO system. MI 6 or CIA, it's hard to say. I don't think the Ukrainians had any real reason in this particular case to attack me.

Is it not because in Europe and in Atlanticist circles you are considered a champion of Eurasianism and this doctrine makes you a target for deconstructing the hegemonic discourse of the West and its claim to want to rule the world? Why is this Eurasianism so dangerous that we must assassinate the one who promotes it? Why do you make the West afraid?

Eurasianism is the multipolar world theory. It proposes an alternative structure to the liberal world order. Its goal is to emancipate itself from unipolarity, globalization, the West as the self-proclaimed center of postmodern civilization, and to establish a dialogue between different civilizations, including Eurasia. The other great independent spaces of civilization are China, India, Africa, Latin America and the Arab-Muslim world, of course. The Eurasian vision diminishes the role and power of the West. It affirms the freedom and right of other civilizations to exist independently, not only for Russia, but for the whole world.

I think that the globalist, unipolar, hegemonic West does not tolerate this multipolarity, the spearhead of which is the Russian branch. The rise of the other poles, especially Russia, which is becoming more and more independent and fighting for its sovereignty, increases the crisis so that the confrontation becomes more and more radical. This dramatic development has been evident in recent years. I am one of the promoters of this multipolar vision, because I believe that every civilization has the right to choose its path independently.

Can you say something about the origins of the concept of Eurasianism? It is not entirely new in the history of Russian ideas.

Eurasianism is the continuation of the theory of Slavophiles, who considered that Russia is not a European country, but a particular civilization, resulting from both Western elements and Eastern, Asian influences. This double influence is the basis of an autonomous ensemble based on its own traditions, namely the tradition of Byzantium and Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and the tradition inherited from the Mongols, on the other. Ginghis Khan's empire is part of the great history of Turanian steppe empires.

Eurasians of the 20th century rediscovered the importance of this Mongol heritage and Far Eastern influence. The empire pioneered by Ginghis Khan brought together dozens of different peoples and cultures and served as a model for the construction of the Russian supranational empire. The princes of Moscow, who claimed this heritage, were greatly inspired by it.

The other influence, especially on the religious level, came from Byzantium and Orthodoxy, which developed the idea of  ​​Katechon  of the emperor which, in the tradition of the Byzantine basil, possessed an eschatological, metaphysical dimension. It was the emperor's mission to prevent the devil, the Antichrist, from monopolizing all temporal power on earth. The Katechon is the "holder" of the world's destiny, who makes the world exist and keeps it from sinking into nothingness. It rejects the appearance of the Antichrist who would like to rule without limitation over humanity by sowing chaos. This is the religious and metaphysical mission of the spiritual empire inherited from Byzantium and Orthodoxy.

As for the great Turanians, the Mongols and other conquerors who came from the depths of Asia (Timur and his empire officially called Turan), it provided the framework for a political and social organization that allowed peoples of different origins, languages ​​and religions to coexist in harmony.

It is this dual heritage that ultimately shaped Russia's geopolitical, historical, and civilizational consciousness. Thanks to her, Russia is not just a country, but an independent civilization.

Can you come back with some clarifications regarding this idea of ​​the Katechon, which is no longer familiar to a Western audience that has lost its religious references ?

The term Katechon is taken from the Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians in which he talks about the end of the world. It is said that the devil will not triumph as long as he who owns the world is present. This is very important. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions applied this idea to the figure of the emperor (along with the pope in the Roman Catholic tradition). Therefore, the emperor is not just a temporal political leader, but a sacred figure who is the adversary of the antichrist.

Carl Schmitt developed this idea by transposing it into the structure of the state. For him, the state has a catechonic dimension. It rests on a metaphysical basis. Carl Schmitt took this term out of theology and applied it to modern political science in his book The Nomos of the Earth published in 1947.

Italian authors such as Giorgio Agamben (Italian philosopher influenced especially by Heidegger, Carl Schmitt and Walter Benjamin) and Massimo Cacciari (philosopher and former mayor of Venice from the Italian Communist Party), used this ideology later in a left-wing eschatology. They introduced it into the political doctrine of the left, which considers the Katechon to be an obstacle to progress. They believe that this concept is not only important to traditionalists like me, but also to people on the left who perceive it as an obstacle to the development of a secular leftist religion.

For me, in any case, the notion of Katechon is central. I founded a magazine and a website that goes by that name. It belongs to our heritage, our values ​​and corresponds to the idea of ​​Moscow the third Rome developed since the 15th century after the fall of Constantinople. For some anti-modernists, the war in Ukraine has a multipolar and katech character.

The West often presents this worldview as a kind of Russian supremacism, a domineering and racist view of Great Russia over other nations and cultures. How do you respond to these criticisms?

This is absolutely false. If I were a racist, a fascist, a nationalist, a suprematist, I would gladly confess. But I am the exact opposite, because the multipolar world I defend is the opposite of supremacy, be it American, Russian or otherwise. I believe that all civilizations, and especially so-called archaic, traditional, or premodern or antimodern value-based cultures, are just as valid as modern, technologically advanced, secular, atheistic, materialistic Western civilization. I reject any hierarchy between civilizations, any supremacy and all racism. I defend the right of every civilization, of Russia and every other person, to be itself. So I defend the right of the West to be itself and to defend its own postmodern, ultra-liberal or Wokist values, if that is its desire. Human society has the right to its own identity. I fully agree that the Chinese should have their own peculiarities and values, as well as Muslims, Africans, etc. If that's their choice, that's fine. But this is not a reason to kill or remove them. It is the murderous globalist West that prevents other civilizations from being themselves. We are fighting for our right to peacefully assert our particularities and forge our own path without being assassinated.

This reproach seems all the more strange since Russia, for those who bother to know it, is a much more multiracial, multiethnic and multicultural country than most Western countries, which are based on a much more exclusive conception of the nation, including United States.

I am the absolute enemy of racism, and white racism in particular, because white racism has been the basis of Western supremacy and hegemony. It is essential to decolonize the spirits of these political and ideological imprints. The efforts of the peoples of the world who are trying to free themselves from the colonial and neo-colonial racism of Western globalism must be supported.

In this sense, I am also the enemy of the nationalists. I am highly criticized by nationalists because I am not favorable to the nation. The nation is a Western, modern, bourgeois and artificial invention. While I am in favor of a traditional organization of human society, with different and diverse states, which would be based on a spiritual hierarchy and the primacy of the aristocracy of the spirit over the exclusive domination of the economy. I am anti-materialist and anti-bourgeois because I believe that the triumph of the bourgeoisie was a fatal outcome. The bourgeoisie usurped power from the other members of the third social stratum. The most important part of the people was always composed of the peasants and not of the bourgeois. But it was the small bourgeois minority that seized power and monopolized it at the expense of the majority of the people. It perverted the social hierarchy not only towards the upper classes but also towards the lower classes and seized power from the peasants, artisans, workers, corporations. The emergence of the bourgeoisie was a pathology, a regression and not a progress. I hate the bourgeoisie. I am anti-capitalist and anti-nationalist.

I have written thousands of pages and a dozen books criticizing racism, nationalism, colonialism and any form of domination by a certain elite, type of society or country over others. And the same goes for Russia. I don't agree with the whole history of Russia and especially I don't agree with that of Russian nationalism. As a Eurasian, I believe that we must respect, cultivate, support identities that do not share orthodox values ​​within the great Eurasian union. We must accept the different peoples and preserve their particularities within the whole of which Russia is only a part, even if it is the largest.

In conclusion, I am also anti-liberal because I believe that liberalism has become the third form of totalitarian ideology in modern history.

Are you a believer and a practicing Orthodox, but still oppose the supremacy of Orthodoxy in the Eurasian world?

All supremacy is racist. Everyone has their own truth. It is necessary to be strong and independent to preserve this truth, but nothing should be imposed on Muslims, other Christians, atheists or so-called "progressives". If people want to convert, it is their personal choice and the state should not insist on making them change their religion.

Having said that, Orthodoxy is the axis of our society, of our consciousness. This religion formed our culture, our civilization and the core of the Russian people.

Let's go back to your criticism of liberalism. Why do you consider this form of thought and social organization to be totalitarian? How is liberalism the third form of modern totalitarianism? What would be this desirable fourth political theory that should be established to end these three forms of totalitarianism?

I think the modern West has been wrong from the start. I'm not talking about the traditional, sacred, Christian West, which is another thing. My critique focuses on Western modernity because I believe that this modernity - and in this sense I completely agree with Hannah Arendt who said that this modernity was totalitarian from the beginning - has a dictatorial tendency manifested and explicitly demonstrated in communism , which is a theory born in the West around the proletariat, in fascism, which is in turn a theory born in the West but focused on the nation, and is, in a somewhat more veiled way, also manifested in liberalism.

Today communism and fascism have largely disappeared, so the totalitarian nature of Western modernity is now mainly expressed in liberalism. Liberal modernity is profoundly hegemonic, racist, supremacist, colonial and chauvinistic. It considers its values ​​as universal values ​​applicable to all humanity. Today, liberals behave in a totalitarian way, wanting to impose their LGBT+ and gender norms, marriage for all, wokism, ultra-capitalism as the only possible values. I accuse this liberalism of being a new fascism, wanting to impose its own standards on all humanity at all costs. This is just a way of perpetuating the racist and colonial attitudes of the past.

What I call the fourth political theory is the countering of this liberal globalist totalitarianism and the penetration beyond the Western political conception according to which one can only choose between three political systems: communism, fascism or liberalism.

You have only these three options to choose from. If you are neither a communist, nor a fascist, nor a liberal, you have nothing to do in this world. There is no room for you. Moreover, liberals call everyone who disagrees with them "fascists", which is contrary to the very principle of liberalism.

The fourth political theory is not another 'ism'. It is a modus operandi, a struggle to maintain an independence of thought from what the modern West wants to make mandatory. It is an invitation to develop independent political thinking. If you want to do it within the Orthodox religion, that's fine. If you want to do it within the Muslim religion, Confucianism, or any other school of thought, that's just as well.

The fourth political theory is the opposite of dogmatism. It is multipolarity, the struggle against the harmful dogmas of modernity, such as that of the free market and capitalism as the only possible forms of economic organization. I have no problem with being a capitalist, but on the condition that a man can also be anti-capitalist if he so desires. You have to consider all people and all ideas.

The same is true of liberal democracy. If countries want to organize themselves according to the principles of liberal democracy, that's fine. But if others are against it, it shouldn't be a problem either. Liberal democracy is not an absolute value. But the West behaves as if capitalism and liberal democracy are absolute, universal values ​​applicable to all people. He acts as if people who oppose this point of view are criminals, terrorists and targets to be shot. This is not a subjective statement, but a fact, a reality: those who do not adhere to this worldview are eliminated just as my daughter was killed. Once again, this crime is a confirmation of the terrorist nature of liberalism as conceived by today's collective West.

Does the West still have the ability to impose its views? Isn't he already slim? How do you rate the chances of success of the fourth political theory?

In the time of Trump, I thought that the West could peacefully accept multipolarity and continue to build its identity and confine itself to its own space, the Atlanticist space, thus avoiding the third world war. Oisith World War. But with extremist fanatics like Joe Biden, George Soros and the American Democrats taking power in the US in 2021, the world is on the brink. These globalists are willing to sacrifice humanity to impose their ideas. They do not want to recognize that there is a non-West, other civilizations outside of them, and that these civilizations reject their hegemony. The beginnings of a multipolar world organization exist. But people like Trump, or true historical liberals, those who recognize the right of others to exist and live alongside them, prevail.

But with Biden, I think we have entered an era of catastrophe because the West is determined to fight multipolarity at all costs. This is very dangerous because Russia is willing to resist and fight to defend its civilization. China will be the next target and the others will follow.

Today in the West, those who do not share this totalitarian hegemonic vision find themselves in the same situation as the Jews of Nazi Germany. They are persecuted, they are accused of being "terrorists". Those protesting are now risking their lives (as shown, for example, by the Ukrainian website Myrotvorets, which has compiled a list of tens of thousands of names of Westerners criticizing Kiev for destruction) because we are dealing with a totalitarian system that destroys its own members and sometimes even its own leaders when they oppose the globalist order. The case of Trump, who was called a "fascist" and censored by social media when he was president, is a case in point.

This is a problem that only Westerners can solve. As for us, we fight for ourselves. We wish the West would accept our uniqueness and we want to live in peace with others in a multipolar world, but we are not given the chance.

How do you see the conflict in Ukraine from this perspective?   Like a clash of civilizations as Huntington predicted? Do you think that Russia will be able to achieve its goals of independence in this context of direct  war  with the West through Ukraine?

The war in Ukraine is much more difficult than was thought at the beginning of the military operation. This conflict resembles the Crimean War of the 19th century. At that time, in Turkey, which was quite weak, there was a large coalition of former enemies of Turkey who suddenly rallied behind it because of Russophobia, forming a force that was difficult to defeat.

Now we are put to the test and Russia cannot win immediately. But it is important to know that we cannot lose this war because it is about the very existence of our country. We're stuck, sort of: it's impossible to lose, but it's also very hard to win. And this makes the situation dramatic and perhaps catastrophic, because Russia will fight to the end and to this end the nuclear apocalypse could be unleashed. It is a result that is becoming more and more tangible. Since Russia cannot accept anything but victory, this makes the situation globally critical.

Otherwise, the stake is not Ukraine, but the overall global security balance between Russia and the West. It is a civilizational war. Russia did not fight Ukraine as an independent nation state. Such a Ukraine would have been a bridge between us and Europe, open to us because half of the Ukrainian population was of Russian origin, although this is no longer the case today, and open to Europe because the other half of Ukraine is pro-Western . As in the case of Belgium or Switzerland, which are made up of two or three peoples with different identity and culture, it would have been perfectly possible to build a federal Ukraine. But this historic opportunity was lost and eventually the Ukrainian state became fascist, ultra-nationalist and Russophobic. It became the spearhead of the fight against Russia, which we could not accept without reacting. That is why this war broke out. It was not wanted by us, but as it had already started in Donbass, we had no choice but to go there and win at any cost.

And when we say at any cost, it really is at any cost. Putin reminded us of this because he understands very well that if we lose this war, we will lose everything and that Russia will no longer exist because they want to divide and subjugate it.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that in cynically justifying the European sanctions that were taken after my daughter's murder, I was accused of providing the theological basis for Russian military intervention. It is officially included in European documents. This reference to my "theological" role is surprising and comes from the pen of Europeans who otherwise reject all forms of theology and religion and vow secularization.

But maybe they're right this time. I believe that this war has a religious, spiritual and metaphysical dimension. Russia is struggling to be what it is. Otherwise, it can no longer exist as such and would survive only as a Western colony. This struggle is not only taking place externally, but also internally for Russia. It is a return to Russia's spiritual roots.

I believe that the West could live and be safe by accepting the existence of a multipolar world. But that would pose a danger to the colonialists and extremists who usurped power. Their dominance and survival depends on their ability to demonize Russia, China and other nations that resist them. But they do not represent the entire West, and there is still a chance for Europe to accept a neutral and independent Russia on its side, since Russia is not trying to conquer Europe.

How can we see the future of Russia under these conditions? What should they do to make this transition to independence and multipolarity?

Antonio Gramsci's analysis must be used here. Gramsci raised the issue of Caesarism versus hegemony. Hegemony permeates society totally, directly and indirectly, politically, culturally, through intellectuals, education, but also through economics, markets and consumption. Thus the liberal democratic hegemony, governed by the laws of capital, was established. The ultimate goal of this hegemony is to kill any form of societal independence in order to create a totalitarian world government.

According to Gramsci, one can fight against this hegemony in two ways. For him, the best way to fight it was communism. But I do not share the same opinion, because I believe that communism is only a variant of this hegemony, especially at the cultural level. However, his formal analysis remains relevant.

For me, the right way to fight against hegemony is multipolarity, building a multiple and therefore anti-hegemonic world. Hegemony is by definition unipolar in all fields, economic, cultural, social, IT, civilized, ideological, spiritual, scientific, educational, etc. Therefore, it must be fought at all levels. Capitalism, no! Liberal democracy, no! Gender politics, no! Cancel culture, no! World government, no! Transhumanist science, no! All theses of hegemony must be systematically countered in order to build a counter-hegemony.

But for Gramsci, there is one more method of fighting hegemony, which he calls "Caesarism." It is forced to accept some elements of hegemony but to reject others, and in particular to cede power to an external power in the end. It insists on both independence and realism, which makes it acceptable to take over certain elements of hegemony, such as capitalism and certain forms of liberal democracy, but with some degree of authoritarian power to prevent external hegemonic leaders from took over political power within the country.

This can lead to corruption and nepotism, as can be seen in Russia today. It can be said that Putin's regime is of the Caesarian type. It accepts much of Western hegemony, but rejects that which threatens its own power. It is a Caesarism, but it is not a counter-hegemony. In fact, the moment of counter-hegemony is now coming to Russia, because the war in Ukraine no longer allows maintaining this Caesarian balance between borrowing from Western hegemony and Russian sovereignty. When you are at war, you cannot be half on board with your enemy.

For Russia, therefore, the moment of truth is coming. The only way to win the war against the West is to accept counter-hegemony as an ideology. Putin's latest speeches hinted at this. Laws were introduced to defend traditional values ​​and establish the primacy of spirit over matter. The state is beginning to recognize the importance of these idealistic values. The introduction of these idealistic factors into state politics marks the end of absolute materialism. The state changes its meaning, it is no longer a liberal state, it is a state charged with a sacred mission, a "kingdom" in a metaphysical sense. What is happening in Russia today is the transformation of Caesarism into a counter-hegemony in Gramsci's sense.

Let us now consider other civilizations. You have particularly expressed admiration for Chinese and African civilizations. What do you admire about Chinese civilization? What about African civilization, looked down upon by the West?

I have studied the history of civilizations in a book called "Noomakhia" which has 24 volumes. I am impressed by their richness and plurality. Chinese civilization is exemplary in that it manages to reconcile modernity and tradition. I was a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai and studied China well. The great Confucian civilization is based on the primacy of culture, which structures the relationship between the individual and the state. It is the hidden genius of Chinese culture to have succeeded in creating a balance between the individual and the collective, between the human person and the state. The ancient Confucian tradition is the key to understanding Maoism and capitalism with Chinese characteristics. The originality of Chinese capitalism must be based on solidarity and not competition. We do not seek to fight against each other, but to act in harmony with each other.

For example, a major Chinese oligarch, Eric Li, told me that when he is invited to a Communist meeting, he toes the party line because he feels obligated. He feels grateful to the state for being able to create his wealth. He knows that it wasn't just him, alone in his corner, who managed to pull her together. He is aware that the fortunes have been given to him by the state, by the community, and that, therefore, he must use them wisely to develop the country and maintain social harmony. Chinese capitalism is not Western. It is the fruit of its own culture in which the Communist Party is a prominent part. From this point of view, China is a success story. He succeeded in combining the principles of capitalism and those of Eastern culture to create modern China.

The case of Africa is different. Africa has a multitude of cultures that are too often ignored. When decolonization began, it wanted to imitate the West. It imported capitalism, socialism, nationalism, communism, which in fact were just a perpetuation of colonization because it was about applying the theories manufactured by the colonial powers to develop, when, on the contrary, they should have emancipated themselves from it. It continued to rely on the imagination and principles of the Western colonizer.

Today, Africa must enter a new phase, begin a deep decolonization and return to the origins of independent African consciousness, which is multiple and multipolar. Africa is not homogeneous. It has countless different peoples, cultures, languages ​​and ethnicities and each of them must be respected. Post-colonial borders tore up vast wholes and divided ethnicities and cultures in two to create artificial nations that then fought each other and prevented the emergence of a pan-African consciousness. I think the richness of African culture needs to be reclaimed. And we must accept African values ​​as they are today, and not just when Africa is developed. This dichotomy between tradition and modernity, between supposedly archaic and modern cultures,

This forced progressivism is racism. African peoples must be allowed to develop as they wish, in their own way, with their own values, in harmony with their own cultures. There are so many admirable principles and traditions that need to be rediscovered. Instead of wanting to colonize again, we should help Africa assert itself and take time to contemplate its human wealth.

Islamic culture is another source of inspiration, like that of India or Latin America, which is neither European nor liberal nor Asian. They seek to express themselves as well. They must be allowed to assert and build themselves independently and not through the imposition of ready-made, ready-to-wear or imposed precepts. The Russians can contribute to this, but without imposing their own visions.

This is the big difference between the West and us. For us Russians, the Other has the right to be the Other. We don't want others to be like ourselves. We do not demand that others be in our image. For Westerners, Africans, Muslim Arabs, or Latin Americans are only respectable when they are no longer African, Arab, or Latin American, and when they are Westernized and adopt European customs, from clothing to gender theories. Only when the Other has acculturated and adopted the traditions of European modernity is he accepted. The other must have become "white", secular, postmodern, atheist, LGBT compatible to be recognized.

This inability to find the right attitude towards the Other is the cardinal sin of the West.

You are in the process of publishing a new book, called Being and Empire, which should be out this year. What topic does this book cover?

This book deals with the ontology of empire, empire understood not as a political organization but as a metaphysical entity. I analyze the notion of empire from Mesopotamia, Sumer, Ur, Babylon and how the concept of empire was integrated into Judaism, by Greece after Alexander the Great, then by Rome, Christianity with Constantine and the Byzantine Empire, by the modern Western and Russian empires.

As I mentioned above, you must know that every empire has an eschatological aspect, a metaphysical dimension, because each of them faces its own goal and therefore the end of the world. Hence the vital importance of the problems of transmission of power in empires, by dynastic succession in ancient monarchies and by elections in liberal empires.

If we apply this idea of ​​metaphysical empire to the history of civilizations, we see that the imperial idea is still alive and will live until the end of history. Even when it comes to reverse empires like the American empire. Historians such as Niall Ferguson increasingly accept the idea of ​​an American empire. The United States, which presented itself as anti-imperialist at the time of its creation, is increasingly appearing as a parody of empire, a counter-empire that wants to impose the universal realm of LGBT, Wokist, ultra-capitalist values.

It is interesting to note that Russia is rediscovering this catechonic mission of the traditional empire. It is the war between these two conceptions of empire that is taking place before our eyes today. In my opinion, it is more important than the war for natural resources, gas or oil. It is a metaphysical confrontation in which empire plays the role of the hidden engine of history. Nebuchadnezzar's empire had already faced this idea of ​​the end, of extinction, as prophesied by the prophet Daniel.

Empire is the hidden spring of human history, its clock. By studying its evolution, we can know at which stage of development, at which historical moment we have reached. Today is one second to midnight. We are on the verge of a change. The idea of ​​eschatological empire returns and recovers. It is not a particular political form, but it is a key to understanding the clock of history.

One last question in closing.  Why this radical anti-modernity? Is there nothing to save in today's modernity?

Modernity is a process. If we follow this process, we will arrive at the overcoming of Man by the Machine, the emergence of asexual personalities, and the reproduction of the human race without human intervention. This is because individualism, which is the engine of modernity, secularism, atheism and the negation of tradition, leads us directly to dehumanization. We are not aware of this because we judge modernity by the criteria of modernity itself and modern values.

But if we judged it through the eyes of tradition, we could see the fall, the degradation, the increasing dehumanization, and we would see how humanism, pushed to its extremes, leads to the disappearance of man in the generic sense of the term.

Transhumanism and gender politics that destroy the family and impose strange human types, together with the belief in the omnipotence of technical progress, lead to a fatal outcome. If we were to deconstruct modernity, we would see that an erroneous path was taken from the beginning of the flowering of Western civilization with atomism, materialism, the rejection of Aristotelianism and metaphysics, nominalism, the development of physics and Newtonian materialism, which led to a completely false view of the nature of man and the Cosmos. By destroying the sacred dimension of Man and Nature, we reach a total dehumanization. Today's individualistic materialism is the final phase of this process. It is not the product of excess or deviation, but the result of an implacable logic. Therefore, we must break this infernal logic and take another path.

Tradition is a return to the roots. It is not a return to the past, but a rediscovery of eternity. Modernity began with the denial of eternity. Eternity does not exist for its own sake. It is essential to rediscover the eternal dimension of being. Eternity is not an indefinite duration either, it is another dimension of being, perpendicular to chronology, both vertical and transversal. It belongs not only to the past, but also to the present and the future. It is necessary to rediscover the three-dimensional dimension of being with the help of poets, mystics, philosophers and theologians. Accountants and managers cannot help us in this task. Otherwise, we will succumb to the fatal orders of modern civilization as proposed by the West.