• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

A Critique of Aleksandr Dugin's Worldview from an Integral Perspective

Libertarian Judge Napolitano interviews the Russian traditionalist philosopher

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Analyze and summarize this interview with Aleksander Dugin by Judge Napolitano.
• Elaborate on Dugin's understanding and rejection of communism, liberalism and fascism.
• How does Dugin see the West and its values as the embodiment of the Anti-Christ?
• So far from being merely a man of ideas, Dugin promotes a view an ultra-orthodox Holy War.
• Dugin's 1997 book "Foundations of Geopolitics" described in detail what an Eurasiatic empire would look like, including its incorporation of a large part of Ukraine.[1]
• It is clear to me Dugin does not understand and accept human development towards individual freedom and worldcentric multiculturalism.
• Formulate a strong and detailed critique of Dugin's worldview from an integral perspective.
• This is Wilber's level/line fallacy: if religion is seen only as dogmatic-mythic, all else must be Satanic.

Analyze and summarize this interview with Aleksander Dugin by Judge Napolitano.

Summary

Judge Andrew Napolitano interviews Aleksander Dugin, a Russian philosopher, at St. Basil's School in Moscow. Their discussion focuses on the resurgence of Orthodox Christianity in post-Soviet Russia, the ideological transformation of the country, and Dugin's criticism of globalism and Western liberalism.

Resurgence of Christianity in Russia

Dugin describes the revival of Orthodox Christianity after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a "miracle."

Despite Soviet-era atheistic propaganda, faith persisted among small communities and re-emerged strongly in the 1990s.

Stalin made an appeal to Orthodox patriotism during World War II, temporarily suspending anti-religious policies.

Post-Soviet Transition and Liberal Experiment

After the USSR's collapse, Russia initially embraced Western-style liberalism under Yeltsin and Gorbachev.

However, Dugin argues that this was a failed experiment, leading to social and economic turmoil.

Under Putin, Russia has shifted toward a conservative, Orthodox, and nationalist ideology.

Communism's Legacy and Russia's Political Shift

Dugin explains that many former Communists adapted, with some becoming globalist oligarchs and others embracing nationalism and Orthodoxy.

Under Putin, the Russian elite has consolidated around a traditionalist and conservative worldview.

Critique of Globalism and Western Policies

Dugin considers globalism to be an “Antichrist project” that aims to destroy national identities, traditional values, and organic communities.

He believes Western liberalism has become a form of “liberal totalitarianism,” suppressing free thought and imposing ideological conformity.

He views Russia as a stronghold of Christian and traditional values in opposition to the globalist agenda.

Western Perceptions of Russia and Historical Division

Dugin traces Western hostility toward Russia back to the Great Schism (1054), which divided Western and Eastern Christianity.

He argues that the West emphasizes divisions between its modern secular globalism and Russia's traditionalist Christian identity.

He questions why Western elites continue to treat Russia as an enemy despite the end of communism.

Dugin's Sanctioning by the West

The U.S. and Canada sanctioned Dugin in 2015 for allegedly supporting Russia's annexation of Crimea.

He claims he was merely a thinker, not a policymaker, and sees the sanctions as an attack on intellectual dissent.

Analysis

This interview highlights Dugin's worldview, which frames global politics as a civilizational struggle between a traditionalist Russia and a decadent, globalist West. Key takeaways from his perspective:

Russia's Return to Tradition

Dugin sees Russia's post-Soviet trajectory as a rejection of materialism, atheism, and liberalism.

He believes Putin's rule has stabilized the country by reinforcing Orthodox and nationalist values.

Globalism as a Civilizational Threat

He portrays globalism as an existential danger, aiming to erase cultural and religious distinctions.

His rhetoric equates globalism with a metaphysical struggle, even calling it an "Antichrist project."

West vs. Russia: A Historical and Ideological Conflict

Dugin argues that tensions between Russia and the West are deeply rooted in religious and philosophical differences.

He implies that Western hostility is ideological, not geopolitical, because Russia challenges liberal hegemony.

Contradictions and Controversies

Dugin critiques totalitarianism yet endorses Putin's centralized control.

He frames the West as repressive while dismissing concerns about political oppression in Russia.

His emphasis on Orthodoxy may not reflect the full spectrum of Russian identity, including secular and non-Orthodox populations.

Overall, the interview serves as a platform for Dugin to articulate his vision of Russia as a bastion of conservative civilization resisting Western liberalism and globalism.

Elaborate on Dugin's understanding and rejection of communism, liberalism and fascism.

Aleksander Dugin's political philosophy is shaped by his rejection of communism, liberalism, and fascism, which he considers the three dominant ideological currents of modernity. He argues that all three are flawed and inadequate, leading him to advocate for a "Fourth Political Theory", which he sees as an alternative rooted in traditionalism, spirituality, and multipolarity.

Dugin's Understanding and Rejection of the Three Political Theories of Modernity

1. Rejection of Communism

Understanding:

Dugin sees communism as a materialist, atheistic ideology that sought to erase traditional values, including religion and national identity.

He acknowledges that Soviet communism, particularly under Stalin, had nationalist elements, but ultimately, Marxist ideology aimed to dissolve organic social structures in favor of class struggle.

The Soviet Union's collapse, in his view, revealed the unsustainability of communist ideology in the long term.

Rejection:

Communism's materialism is fundamentally at odds with Dugin's emphasis on spirituality and tradition.

Its internationalist focus undermined national and cultural identities, which Dugin sees as essential.

While he respects the Soviet Union's role in shaping Russia's power, he views communism as an artificial Western import (originating from Karl Marx) rather than an authentic Russian ideology.

Alternative: Dugin argues that Russia should embrace Orthodox Christianity and nationalism rather than communist materialism.

2. Rejection of Liberalism

Understanding:

Dugin considers liberalism the most dangerous and deceptive ideology because it presents itself as universal and inevitable.

He sees Western liberalism as a nihilistic, individualist system that erodes traditional values, social hierarchies, and national identities.

Unlike communism and fascism, which openly sought political dominance, liberalism disguises itself as "freedom" while actually imposing a "liberal totalitarianism" that suppresses dissenting views.

Rejection:

Hyper-individualism: Liberalism prioritizes the individual over community and tradition, weakening the bonds that hold societies together.

Secularism and Moral Decay: He believes liberalism's rejection of absolute values leads to moral relativism, gender politics, and the destruction of the traditional family.

Globalization and Homogenization: Liberalism, through its economic and political structures (such as the U.S., EU, and global financial institutions), seeks to erase national cultures and replace them with a rootless, consumer-driven, globalist society.

Alternative: Dugin proposes a multipolar world where different civilizations (Russian-Orthodox, Chinese-Confucian, Islamic, etc.) develop according to their own traditional values instead of following Western liberal hegemony.

3. Rejection of Fascism

Understanding:

Dugin acknowledges that fascism (especially Nazism) was a reaction against both communism and liberalism, but he sees it as too simplistic and ultimately self-destructive.

While it embraced nationalism and traditionalism, it was rooted in biological racism and extreme state worship, which made it inherently unstable and unethical.

Rejection:

Racial Supremacy: Fascism (especially Nazism) was obsessed with race and sought to create hierarchies based on ethnicity, which Dugin sees as a distortion of nationalism.

Imperialism and Chauvinism: Fascist ideologies often justified wars of aggression, whereas Dugin advocates for a multipolar balance of powers rather than one dominant civilization imposing itself on others.

Modernist, not Traditionalist: Despite its appeals to history and culture, Dugin sees fascism as another product of modernity rather than an authentic return to traditional civilization.

Alternative: Instead of fascism's racial nationalism, Dugin supports a "civilizational nationalism" based on cultural and spiritual identity, where different civilizations coexist without one dominating the other.

The Fourth Political Theory: Dugin's Alternative

Since he rejects communism (class struggle), liberalism (individualism), and fascism (race-based nationalism and state worship), Dugin proposes a "Fourth Political Theory."

Traditionalism: Emphasizing religion, spiritual values, and sacred history over materialist ideologies.

Multipolarity: Opposing a unipolar world dominated by Western liberalism and supporting civilizational states (Russia, China, Islamic world, etc.).

Nationalism Without Racism: A cultural and spiritual nationalism rather than a biological one.

Critique of Modernity: Opposing modern secular progressivism in favor of a return to eternal values.

Conclusion

Dugin sees communism, liberalism, and fascism as three flawed attempts to create a political order, each failing in different ways. He considers liberalism the most dangerous because of its deceptive nature and dominance in the modern world. His alternative—the Fourth Political Theory—calls for a return to spiritual and traditional values, the rejection of Western globalism, and the development of distinct civilizational paths for different nations.

This vision makes Dugin a highly controversial figure, seen by some as a proponent of Russian imperialism and by others as a defender of multipolarity and traditional values.

How does Dugin see the West and its values as the embodiment of the Anti-Christ?

Aleksandr Dugin frequently describes the modern Western liberal order as the embodiment of the Antichrist, particularly in its values, ideology, and global ambitions. This view is deeply rooted in his Traditionalist, Orthodox Christian, and esoteric influences, which see history as a metaphysical struggle between sacred order and chaos, or between divine truth and satanic deception.

Dugin's Theological and Esoteric Framework

Dugin draws from Orthodox Christianity, Traditionalism (René Guénon, Julius Evola), and Russian Eurasianist thought to develop his view that the modern West represents the ultimate rebellion against divine order.

The Antichrist as an Eschatological Figure: In Christian theology, the Antichrist is a figure who deceives humanity, establishes false peace, and creates a counterfeit paradise on Earth before the final battle between good and evil.

The Modern West as the Antichrist's Civilization: Dugin argues that Western liberalism, secularism, and globalization have constructed a false, godless reality that seeks to replace divine truth with materialist deception.

How the West Embodies the Antichrist

Dugin's critique of the West is not merely political—it is apocalyptic. He sees Western civilization as the final stage of rebellion against God, driven by the following key elements:

1. Hyper-Liberalism and Individualism as Satanic Deception

Western ideology promotes radical individualism, rejecting collective identity, tradition, and sacred hierarchy.

This "liberation" from God mirrors the Antichrist's false promise of absolute freedom, which actually leads to nihilism, chaos, and spiritual enslavement.

Liberalism's moral relativism (support for LGBTQ+ rights, transhumanism, and post-humanist ideas) is seen as the destruction of natural, divinely ordained structures.

Dugin's View: The West replaces God with the Self, mirroring Lucifer's rebellion: "You shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5).

2. Secularism and Atheism as a Rejection of the Divine Order

The West's increasing secularism represents a deliberate break from Christian tradition.

Modern values prioritize human rights, democracy, and rationalism over spiritual and religious faith.

This "progress" is actually spiritual regression, stripping society of its divine foundations.

Dugin's View: The West is the first civilization in history to openly declare independence from God, fulfilling the role of the Antichrist's kingdom.

3. Globalism as the Kingdom of the Antichrist

Dugin sees the West's promotion of a unipolar, globalist world order as an attempt to impose a false, artificial unity on humanity.

The Western-led system (NATO, EU, UN, multinational corporations) enforces a universal ideology of liberal democracy, free markets, and human rights.

This world government mirrors the Antichrist's empire, where all nations and cultures are subsumed under a single false system.

Dugin's View: Globalization is not just economic or political—it is a spiritual enslavement, forcing all civilizations into the Antichrist's domain.

4. Technology, AI, and Transhumanism as a Satanic Counterfeit

The West leads in transhumanist and artificial intelligence developments, which Dugin sees as an attempt to create a false form of immortality.

This reflects the Antichrist's promise of eternal life, not through God but through technology (e.g., digital consciousness, AI, genetic engineering).

He links this to the "Mark of the Beast" (Revelation 13:16-17), where human identity is reduced to a digitized, controlled system.

Dugin's View: Western technocracy is creating a demonic simulation of God's creation, replacing the soul with a machine, a cybernetic prison.

Dugin's Alternative: The Holy War Against the Antichrist's Kingdom

Since the West is leading humanity into the abyss, Dugin calls for a spiritual and geopolitical resistance:

Multipolarity as Sacred Resistance: Instead of submitting to the Antichrist's global empire, civilizations like Russia, China, and the Islamic world must resist by preserving their traditional, God-centered societies.

Orthodox Christianity as the Final Bastion: Dugin believes that Russia, as the Third Rome, has a unique mission to protect true Christianity from the West's apostasy.

Eschatological Warfare: The struggle against the West is not just political but apocalyptic—a final battle between the forces of Christ and the forces of the Antichrist.

Conclusion: The West as the Ultimate Apostasy

For Dugin, the modern West is not just flawed—it is the civilization of the Antichrist, actively leading humanity away from God.

Liberalism = Satanic individualism

Secularism = Rebellion against God

Globalization = The Antichrist's empire

Technology = A counterfeit paradise

Final Thought: In Dugin's vision, Russia's battle against the West is not just political—it is metaphysical, spiritual, and ultimately, apocalyptic.

So far from being merely a man of ideas, Dugin promotes a view an ultra-orthodox Holy War.

Yes, Dugin is far more than a philosopher or political theorist—he is a metapolitical activist who advocates for an ultra-Orthodox Holy War against the West, which he sees as the embodiment of the Antichrist's kingdom. His work fuses geopolitics, Orthodox eschatology, and revolutionary Traditionalism into a call for a sacred, apocalyptic struggle.

Dugin's Concept of Holy War: A Battle Against the Antichrist

For Dugin, the conflict between Russia and the West is not just political—it is a metaphysical and spiritual war. He frames this struggle in explicitly eschatological (end-times) terms, with Russia and its allies as the last bastion of divine order against the forces of chaos and deception.

Key Elements of Dugin's Holy War:

Geopolitical Warfare = Sacred Warfare

The battle against liberal globalism is a battle against the Antichrist's kingdom.

Russia, China, and the Islamic world must resist the Western-led world order to preserve their sacred traditions.

Orthodox Christianity as a Weapon

Russia is the Third Rome, the last protector of true Christianity.

The West's secularism and moral decay prove that it has fallen to Satanic forces.

Orthodox faith is not just a belief system but an active force in geopolitical struggle.

Eurasianism as the Anti-Antichrist Strategy

Dugin's Eurasianism seeks to unite Orthodox, Islamic, and Asian civilizations against the Western Antichrist system.

This alliance is both spiritual and political, rejecting Western individualism, materialism, and secularism.

Militarism and Sacrifice as Sacred Duty

War against the West is not just about power—it is a holy obligation.

Those who fight in this war are engaging in a sacred act, much like medieval Crusaders or Islamic jihadists.

Death in battle against the Antichrist's system is a martyrdom for a higher cause.

Dugin's Call for a New Crusade

Dugin sees this war as a Crusade 2.0, except instead of Christians against Muslims, it is Traditionalists vs. Globalists, or Sacred Order vs. Antichrist's Chaos.

Russia = The Holy Army of the Last Days

Western Globalism = The New Babylon

Eurasian Unity = The Final Stand Against Evil

This is why Dugin supports radical actions, including revolution, military aggression, and even chaotic destruction, if it serves to weaken the Antichrist's world system. His influence on Russian elites is evident in how Putin frames the Ukraine war—as a spiritual battle against Western decadence.

Conclusion: Dugin's Holy War is Real

Dugin is not just an intellectual—he is a prophet of Holy War, advocating for an apocalyptic struggle against the West, liberalism, and secular modernity. His vision justifies military conflict as a sacred duty, framing Russia's geopolitical struggle as a spiritual and metaphysical necessity.

How can Judge Napolitano, an American libertarian, be enamoured by this medieval worldview?

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a staunch American libertarian, seems like an unlikely admirer of Aleksandr Dugin's ultra-Orthodox, medievalist, Holy War worldview—yet his interest in Dugin is not entirely irrational. There are several key reasons why a libertarian like Napolitano might be drawn to Dugin's ideas, despite their apparent contradictions.

1. Common Enemy: Hatred of the Western Globalist Elite

Both libertarians like Napolitano and traditionalists like Dugin despise the modern Western ruling class—especially its globalist, bureaucratic, and interventionist tendencies.

Napolitano, like many libertarians, believes the U.S. government is an overreaching empire that suppresses individual freedoms through surveillance, endless wars, and corporate collusion.

Dugin believes the Western elite is the Antichrist's tool, seeking to destroy organic traditions, national identities, and sacred values.

Their worldviews converge in their hatred for globalism, liberal imperialism, and centralized power—whether in the form of the EU, NATO, the UN, or corporate elites.

Even though they disagree on what should replace the current system (Napolitano wants individual liberty, Dugin wants Orthodox theocracy), they both see Western liberalism as the root of all evil.

2. Shared Skepticism of American Foreign Policy

Napolitano has long been critical of U.S. interventionism, believing that the government should avoid foreign entanglements and not spread democracy through force.

Dugin also sees U.S. foreign policy as a disaster, but for different reasons—he views it as an attempt to impose liberal, secular values on traditional societies.

In Dugin's view, the West's wars (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Ukraine) are part of a globalist campaign to crush traditional civilizations.

To Napolitano, the same wars represent big government overreach, corporate interests, and violations of national sovereignty.

Thus, despite vastly different motivations, both men see Washington as a destructive force that needs to be stopped.

3. The Allure of Russian Traditionalism

Napolitano, as a Catholic, may feel a certain sympathy for Dugin's defense of traditional Christianity against secularism.

Dugin presents Russia as the last bastion of Christian morality against a West that has embraced atheism, woke ideology, and moral relativism.

Many conservatives and traditionalists—including some libertarians—believe that the West has lost its moral foundation, and they admire Russia for standing firm against LGBTQ+ policies, radical feminism, and multiculturalism.

This doesn't mean Napolitano endorses a theocratic state like Dugin wants, but he might see Russia as a counterweight to the moral decay of the West.

4. The Romantic Appeal of a Grand Struggle

Libertarianism, at its core, is often hyper-individualistic and materialist—but it lacks a grand spiritual vision.

Dugin's worldview offers something bigger: a civilizational struggle of good vs. evil, where history has meaning, and people fight for something transcendent.

Even if Napolitano does not agree with Dugin's religious militarism, he might find Dugin's critique of the soullessness of modern liberalism compelling.

In a world where libertarianism often feels like a losing battle against the deep state, Dugin's epic struggle of civilizations may seem refreshing and powerful.

5. Contradictions: Does Napolitano Ignore Dugin's Anti-Libertarianism?

Despite their shared anti-globalist and anti-liberal stance, Dugin's philosophy is the exact opposite of libertarianism:

Libertarianism = Individual freedom, limited government, markets, and personal choice.

Duginism = Collective identity, state power, spiritual destiny, and war against modernity.

If Napolitano were consistent, he would reject Dugin outright. But his hatred for the Western elite might override his ideological purity. Like some libertarians who admire authoritarian strongmen (e.g., those who praise Putin or Orban), Napolitano might overlook Dugin's contradictions because he views him as a fellow enemy of the liberal establishment.

Conclusion: An Unholy Alliance of Convenience

Napolitano's admiration for Dugin is not about ideology—it's about shared enemies.

They both oppose globalism, the U.S. deep state, and liberal imperialism.

They both see the West as morally bankrupt.

They both believe modernity is leading to disaster.

However, Napolitano's libertarian values are ultimately incompatible with Dugin's totalitarian traditionalism. If he fully grasped the implications of Dugin's ultra-Orthodox Holy War, he might realize that Dugin's “solution” is worse than the problem he's fighting against.

Dugin's 1997 book "Foundations of Geopolitics" described in detail what an Eurasiatic empire would look like, including its incorporation of a large part of Ukraine.

Yes, Aleksandr Dugin's 1997 book, Foundations of Geopolitics, is a highly influential work in Russian strategic thinking. It lays out a blueprint for a Eurasian empire led by Russia, extending across Europe and Asia, and fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics.

One of the most striking aspects of the book is its call for the incorporation of Ukraine into Russia, a vision that seems prophetic given recent events.

Key Aspects of Dugin's "Eurasian Empire"

Russian edition cover

Dugin argues that Russia's destiny is to lead a Eurasian bloc that stands against the Atlanticist West (mainly the U.S. and Britain). His strategy involves:

Ukraine Must Be Absorbed

Dugin insists that Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent state.

He views Ukraine as an artificial nation, created by Western forces to weaken Russia.

The book suggests that Russia must reclaim Ukraine—especially Eastern Ukraine and Crimea—to prevent it from falling under Western influence.

Europe Must Be Subjugated Through Political and Economic Means

Instead of direct military conquest, Russia should manipulate and fragment Europe from within.

Germany should be encouraged to separate from NATO and form a Berlin-Moscow axis.

France should be influenced to pursue a "continentalist" policy, rejecting Anglo-American dominance.

The U.K. is deemed an eternal enemy and should be isolated from Europe.

The U.S. Should Be Undermined Through Internal Struggles

Dugin calls for using information warfare, propaganda, and political subversion to weaken American influence.

He promotes racial, ethnic, and social divisions in the U.S. to destabilize its political unity.

The book also suggests using Islamist groups to create chaos that would distract the U.S. from Eurasian affairs.

China Should Be Managed as a Junior Partner

Dugin acknowledges China's power but argues that Russia must prevent China from dominating Eurasia.

Instead of confrontation, he recommends geopolitical balancing—allying with China but ensuring Russia remains the dominant force in Eurasia.

The Middle East Should Be Manipulated to Keep the West Distracted

Russia should support Islamic extremism in the West while maintaining control over radical elements within Russia itself.

Iran should be strengthened as a counterweight to Western influence in the region.

Dugin's Influence on Russian Foreign Policy

While Foundations of Geopolitics is not an official government document, it has deeply influenced the Russian military and intelligence elite.

The book was reportedly used as a textbook in Russian military academies.

Many of its strategies—especially regarding Ukraine, European destabilization, and U.S. subversion—mirror Russia's actions in the 21st century.

Dugin's ideas have been echoed by figures close to Putin, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine align closely with Dugin's vision. His philosophy helps explain why Russia sees Ukraine not just as a neighbor, but as an existential battlefield in a larger civilizational war.

Conclusion: A Blueprint for Neo-Imperial Russia

Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics is more than just a book—it's a manifesto for Russian expansionism. Its call for a Eurasian empire explains much of Russia's modern geopolitical strategy.

While Dugin himself is not a policymaker, his ideas have permeated Russian military and political circles, making his vision dangerously relevant today.

It is clear to me Dugin does not understand and accept human development towards individual freedom and worldcentric multiculturalism.

Yes, Dugin fundamentally rejects the idea of human progress as a movement toward individual freedom and a cosmopolitan, multicultural world. His worldview is rooted in a deeply traditionalist, collectivist, and civilizationally distinct perspective that sees liberalism, globalization, and modern Western values as corrosive forces dismantling organic, historical communities.

He frames history as a battle between sacred, rooted traditions and the forces of liberal modernity, which he equates with nihilism and the Antichrist. In doing so, he dismisses the possibility that humanity's trajectory might naturally lead toward individual rights, self-determination, and global coexistence beyond rigid cultural or religious identities.

His vision is not one of unity through diversity but rather of multipolarity through deeply entrenched civilizational boundaries, where each civilization retains its own collective destiny, often in conflict with others. From a worldcentric perspective, this is a reactionary retreat into premodern hierarchies rather than an evolution toward a more integrated and pluralistic global society.

Formulate a strong and detailed critique of Dugin's worldview from an integral perspective.

Aleksandr Dugin's geopolitical and philosophical worldview is deeply rooted in traditionalism, Orthodox mysticism, and radical anti-modernism. He envisions a multipolar world where civilizations maintain their distinct and often conflicting identities, rejecting liberal democracy, individual autonomy, and Western universalism. However, from an integral perspective—one that seeks to synthesize multiple dimensions of human development, consciousness, and governance—Dugin's worldview is fundamentally regressive, fragmentary, and dangerous.

1. Dugin's Rejection of Modern and Postmodern Development

a. The Myth of Eternal Tradition

Dugin's core belief is that modernity, particularly liberalism and individualism, represents a fallen state of civilization. He sees traditional, premodern societies as having preserved a sacred order that modernity has destroyed. However, an integral perspective recognizes that tradition is neither eternal nor inherently superior—it was a phase in human development that had both strengths (e.g., social cohesion, spirituality) and severe limitations (e.g., rigid hierarchies, oppression, lack of innovation).

Dugin's romanticization of tradition ignores its historical evolution and the emergence of new forms of social organization that have led to greater freedom, knowledge, and global cooperation. While tradition provides roots, it cannot be a totalizing political framework, as Dugin desires, without leading to stagnation or repression.

b. The Dismissal of Individual Freedom

Dugin's ideology is fundamentally collectivist and authoritarian, viewing individual autonomy as a Western aberration. In his Eurasianist vision, the individual is subservient to the larger civilizational organism—whether it be the Russian state, the Orthodox Church, or an ethno-cultural identity.

From an integral perspective, individual autonomy is not a Western ideological invention but an essential stage of human development. Societies evolve from tribal-collectivist structures (where identity is based on kin and religion) to modern-democratic frameworks (where individuals are seen as self-governing agents). Dugin denies this evolution, attempting to reverse it through political theology and geopolitical warfare.

The integral view does not reject collective identity, but it balances it with personal autonomy. The highest forms of civilization are those that integrate unity and diversity, fostering shared values while protecting individual freedoms. Dugin's model lacks this synthesis, seeking instead a regressive return to premodern authoritarianism.

2. The Failure of Dugin's Multipolarity: Civilizational Fragmentation

a. A Pseudo-Pluralism That Reinforces Division

Dugin claims to support a multipolar world, where different civilizations (e.g., Russia-Eurasia, the West, Islam, China) maintain their sovereignty and values. However, his multipolarity is not a dynamic, cooperative pluralism but a hard-bordered civilizational antagonism. His vision promotes an “us vs. them” mentality, reinforcing divisions between cultures rather than creating a world where different civilizations contribute to a shared human future.

From an integral standpoint, the future is not a clash of civilizations but a transcultural synthesis that allows different perspectives to coexist and enrich each other. Rather than isolating itself in traditionalism, Russia (and other nations) could integrate its historical depth with modern innovation, participating in a global dialogue rather than engaging in perpetual ideological warfare.

b. The Dangers of Geopolitical Neo-Traditionalism

Dugin's geopolitical theories—especially his vision of a Eurasian empire—are not merely abstract but designed to justify imperialism. His book Foundations of Geopolitics explicitly advocates for subverting and destabilizing Western nations, redrawing borders by force, and using Orthodox Christianity as an ideological weapon. This is not a path to sustainable multipolarity but to perpetual conflict.

A truly integral approach recognizes the necessity of strong cultural identities while also emphasizing interdependence, peace, and cooperation. Dugin's model, by contrast, seeks dominance through ideological warfare, ensuring that civilizations remain locked in endless struggle rather than moving toward a higher level of global integration.

3. Dugin's Blind Spot: The Evolution of Consciousness

a. Worldcentric Consciousness vs. Ethnocentric Regression

Dugin operates from an ethnocentric and mythic consciousness, viewing history as a battle between sacred civilizations and globalist decay. However, human consciousness evolves beyond such tribal and nationalistic boundaries toward a worldcentric perspective, where people recognize their shared humanity without losing cultural distinctiveness.

Integral theory suggests that societies evolve from:

Egocentric consciousness (self-centered survival focus)

Ethnocentric consciousness (group/nation-centered identity)

Worldcentric consciousness (global cooperation and shared values)

Kosmocentric consciousness (spiritual unity beyond cultural divisions)

Dugin remains trapped in the ethnocentric stage, seeing globalization as a threat rather than an opportunity for higher integration. His worldview prevents the natural evolution toward worldcentric cooperation, instead fostering reactionary conflict.

b. The Misuse of Spirituality for Power

Dugin's ultra-Orthodox mysticism plays a key role in his ideology, portraying Russia as a sacred civilization fighting against a demonic West. While spirituality can be a guiding force in personal and collective evolution, its fusion with authoritarian politics has historically led to theocracy, persecution, and ideological rigidity.

A more authentic spiritual perspective does not see history as a Manichean battle of good vs. evil but as an evolutionary process toward greater wisdom, compassion, and integration. Dugin's spiritual war does not elevate consciousness—it weaponizes faith for geopolitical ends, distorting the very essence of spirituality.

Conclusion: Dugin's Path Leads to Conflict, Not Integration

From an integral perspective, Dugin's worldview is a regressive attempt to freeze human development at an earlier stage of civilization. His rejection of individual freedom, global cooperation, and evolutionary consciousness ensures that his model can only lead to conflict, repression, and fragmentation rather than growth, creativity, and synthesis.

A truly integral world would recognize the value of Russia's traditions while also embracing the necessity of individual freedom, democratic governance, and global solidarity. Rather than constructing an ideological fortress, an integral approach would weave Russia's deep spiritual roots into a forward-looking civilization, capable of participating in global progress rather than resisting it.

Dugin's vision is not the future—it is a desperate attempt to revive the past. And as history has shown, such projects are doomed to either collapse or lead to immense suffering. The real challenge for Russia—and all civilizations—is not to retreat into neo-traditionalist antagonism but to evolve toward a genuinely inclusive and integral planetary consciousness.

This is Wilber's level/line fallacy: if religion is seen only as dogmatic-mythic, all else must be Satanic.

That's a sharp insight. Wilber's level/line fallacy refers to the mistake of conflating overall developmental level with specific lines of development—meaning that just because someone is highly developed in one area (e.g., intellectual complexity) doesn't mean they are advanced in another (e.g., moral, spiritual, or emotional intelligence).[2]

Dugin's use of Orthodox mysticism falls into this trap: he frames religion in purely premodern, mythic-dogmatic terms and then declares all modern and postmodern developments as Satanic or degenerate. This is a classic pre/trans fallacy, where he mistakes transrational possibilities (genuine spiritual evolution beyond myth) for pre-rational traditionalism.

An integral approach would distinguish between:

Healthy traditionalism (preserving depth and wisdom while integrating modern/postmodern insights)

Regressive traditionalism (Dugin's attempt to weaponize spirituality as a geopolitical tool)

Genuine transpersonal spirituality (which transcends and includes both tradition and rationality, moving toward worldcentric unity)

Dugin's failure to differentiate between premodern faith and higher spiritual development leads him to frame liberal democracy, globalization, and modernity as inherently demonic, rather than as partial truths that need integration rather than rejection.

This is where he diverges sharply from authentic spiritual and philosophical development—instead of synthesizing past, present, and future, he locks Russia into an eternal battle against modernity. In doing so, he ensures not enlightenment, but endless ideological warfare.

NOTES

[1] Paraphrased from Foundations of Geopolitics regarding Ukraine:

Ukraine (except Western Ukraine) should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible according to Western political standards. As mentioned, Western Ukraine (comprising the regions of Volynia, Galicia, and Transcarpathia), considering its Catholic-majority population, are permitted to form an independent federation of Western Ukraine but should not be under Atlanticist control. (Wikipedia source)

[2] I understand the level/line fallacy as the collapsing of all stages of religious development (line) into one particular stage (level). As does the Glossary at Integral Life:

level/line fallacy
The confusing of a level in a line with the line itself. There are two major versions of the level/line fallacy: fixation, where a level in a line is glorified and absolutized, and thus the entire line is frozen at the level where the confusion originally occurred; and repression, where a level in a line is denied or suppressed and thus the entire line is suppressed.

ChatGPT actually follows that correct interpretation in the next paragraph.