Dugin explores the importance of Trump’s re-election as signaling a turning point in Western history.
The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. …Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.
Liberalism did indeed win the battle with a particular example of nationalism in 1945—an explicitly stated racial nationalism. But racial nationalism lives on in many countries, at least implicitly, and often with an ideology that the territory belongs to a particular people. Hungary’s Viktor Orban:
A recent speech outside Parliament epitomised his approach. On March 15th [2018]—a national holiday commemorating the failed 1848 uprising against the Habsburgs who ruled Hungary for centuries—Mr Orban … issued a rousing battle-cry to defend the Magyar homeland from waves of migrants; militant Islam; plans in Brussels for enforced migrant quotas; and a United States of Europe. In today’s Europe, thundered Mr Orban, “it is forbidden to speak the truth”: that immigration brings crime and terrorism and “endangers our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions”.
Indeed, I would argue that racial nationalism, at least implicit racial nationalism, is the rule around the world except for the West, with its individualist tradition and beset as it is with a substantially Jewish elite that is hostile to the people and culture they rule.
[In his Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis, Otis] Graham notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community was thus unique and differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins’ provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws; such a view entailed changing the ethnic balance of the U.S. (Quoted here, p. 37)
Nevertheless, I think Dugin is right: the non-Western peoples and cultures that are invading the West are ultimately incompatible with the West, as we are seeing throughout the West as the attempt to integrate different races and religions into Western countries is widely acknowledged to be a complete failure, leading to the rise of “far right” parties, political hyperpolarization, increased crime, no-go zones, and increasing hatred toward and marginalization of the founding White populations. I propose that the “deep civilizational identities” referred to by Dugin ultimately come down to different evolutionary trajectories. The idea that one ideology will ultimately fit all of humanity — much beloved by globalists — is a non-starter to an evolutionist. For example, Muslim peoples and cultures from the Middle East will never assimilate into Western societies in any meaningful sense any more than Jews as a group have assimilated to the West over the last two millennia (as indicated, among other things, by the simple fact that the United States and really the rest of the West are now client states of Israel as a result of Jewish activism on behalf of Israel). Instead, while maintaining their own brand of genocidal, ethnic cleansing ethnonationalism in Israel, Jews have assumed an adversarial stance toward the West and its traditional Christian culture, as indicated by their outsize role in promoting multiculturalism and non-European, non-Christian immigration to the West. Some Jews, Muslims and Africans can indeed assimilate to the West and truly identify with its founding people and its traditional culture and values, but that is simply not the case for the great majority. And, taking the example of Jews,
These civilizational fissures are deep and unbridgeable; ultimately they are based on very different genetic substrates. Despite the current elite hostility to the idea that genetics has anything to do with the proclivities and talents of different peoples, the West is finally waking up to that reality.
The idea that Trump with his considerably multiethnic coalition — which is absolutely necessary in the American political context where the traditional White majority is too splintered to win a national electoral majority — could be a pivotal figure in this transformation is problematic but not completely without any basis. He has often expressed the right ideas (“Paris isn’t Paris any more”) and some of his top officials are certainly willing to move things in the right direction (mass deportation would be a great start). But we are a very long way from a Reconquista.
The collapse of the liberal-globalist ideal seems inevitable. And when it happens, a racially and culturally divided and hyperpolarized West will look out at other more genetically homogeneous civilizations and find that are more unified and free of strife. The West would then realize that multiethnic multiculturalism — the ideology promoted by our hostile, Jewish-dominated elite since the 1960s — must be replaced. Then things will get truly interesting. As noted previously, it is conceivable that a non-Jewish elite is forming around Trump. The money is there. The only question is whether enough wealthy, politically based non-Jews will get on board.
* * *
The Liberal Moment – by Alexander Dugin – Arktos Journal:
[Long Intro] …
Trump as a Factor in World History
The very possibility of applying the term “moment” to the era of the global triumph of capitalism, even from within the Western intellectual sphere (as Krauthammer did), opens up a unique perspective that has yet to be fully explored and understood. Could the current, evident collapse of Western leadership and the inability of the West to serve as a universal arbiter of legitimate authority also carry an ideological dimension? Could the end of unipolarity and Western hegemony signal the end of liberalism itself?
This idea is supported by a critical political event: the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States for two terms. Trump’s presidency represented a striking repudiation of globalism and liberalism, reflecting the emergence of a critical mass of dissatisfaction with the ideological and geopolitical direction of the liberal elites, even at the heart of unipolarity. Moreover, Trump’s chosen Vice President for his second term, JD Vance, openly identifies as a proponent of “post-liberal conservatism.” During Trump’s campaigns, liberalism was consistently invoked as a negative term, specifically targeting the “left-wing liberalism” of the Democratic Party. However, among broader circles of Trump supporters, liberalism became a byword for degeneration, decay, and the moral corruption of the ruling elite.
For the second time in recent history, a political figure overtly critical of liberalism triumphed in the very citadel of liberal ideology, the United States. Among Trump’s supporters, liberalism has come to be demonized outright, reflecting its association with moral and political decline. Thus, it is increasingly plausible to speak of the end of the “liberal moment.” Liberalism, once thought to be the ultimate victor in historical progression, now appears as merely one stage in the broader course of history, a phase with a beginning and an end, constrained by its geographic and historical context.
The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. Along with it, the “unipolar moment” described by Krauthammer and the broader cycle of singular Western colonial domination over the globe, which began with the age of great geographical discoveries, has also ended.
The Post-Liberal Era
Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.
Humanity is overcoming liberalism not through a socialist, materialist, or technological phase but by reviving cultural and civilizational layers that Western modernity deemed obsolete and eradicated. This return to the pre-modern, rather than a continuation of the postmodern trajectory rooted in Western modernity, defines the essence of post-liberalism. Contrary to the expectations of left-wing progressive thought, post-liberalism is emerging as a rejection of the universal claims of the Western modern order. Instead, it views the modern era as a temporary phenomenon, an episode driven by one specific culture’s reliance on brute force and aggressive technological exploitation.
The post-liberal world envisions not a continuation of Western hegemony but a return to civilizational diversity, akin to the era before the West’s sharp rise. Liberalism, as the last form of Western global imperialism, absorbed all the key principles of European modernity and pushed them to their logical extremes: gender politics, woke culture, cancel culture, critical race theory, transhumanism, and postmodernist frameworks. The end of the liberal moment marks not only the collapse of liberalism but also the conclusion of the West’s singular dominance in world history. It is the end of the West.
The Liberal Moment in Hegel
The concept of the “end of history” has surfaced repeatedly in this discussion. It is now necessary to revisit the theory itself. The term originated with Hegel, and its meaning is rooted in Hegel’s philosophy. Both Marx and Fukuyama adopted this concept (via the Russo-French Hegelian Alexander Kojève), but they stripped it of its theological and metaphysical foundations.
In Hegel’s model, the end of history is inseparable from its beginning. At history’s start lies God, hidden within Himself. Through self-negation, God transitions into Nature. In Nature, God’s presence is latent but active, and this latent presence drives the emergence of history. History, in turn, represents the unfolding of the Spirit. Societies of different types emerge over time: traditional monarchies, democracies, and civil societies. Finally, history culminates in the great Empire of Spirit, where God becomes most fully manifest in the State — not just any state, but a philosophical state guided by Spirit.
In this framework, liberalism is but a moment. It follows the dissolution of older states and precedes the establishment of a new, true state that marks the culmination of history. Both Marxists and liberals, rejecting Hegel’s theological basis, reduced his theory to materialist terms. They began with Nature, disregarding Hegel’s conception of God, and ended with civil society — liberalism — as the culmination of history. For liberals like Fukuyama, history ends when all of humanity becomes a global civil society. Marxists, meanwhile, envisioned history ending with a classless communist society, although it remained within the framework of civil society.
By restoring Hegel’s full philosophical model, it becomes evident that liberalism is only a transitional phase — what Hegel would term a “moment.” Its conclusion paves the way for the ultimate realization of Spirit, which Hegel envisioned as an Empire of Spirit.
Postmodernism and Monarchy
In this context, the idea of monarchy acquires renewed significance — not as a relic of the past but as a potential model for the future. The global era of liberal democracy and republicanism has exhausted itself. Efforts to establish a global republic have failed. By January 2025, this failure will be definitively acknowledged.
What comes next? The parameters of the post-liberal epoch remain undefined. Yet the recognition that all of European modernity — its science, culture, politics, technology, society, and values — was merely an episode, culminating in a dismal and inglorious conclusion, suggests that the post-liberal future will be radically unexpected.
ORDER IT NOW
Hegel offers a clue: the post-liberal era will be an era of monarchies. Contemporary Russia, while still formally a liberal democracy, already exhibits the characteristics of a monarchy: a popular leader, the permanence of supreme authority, and an emphasis on spiritual values, identity, and tradition. These are the foundations for a monarchical transition — not in form, but in essence.
Other civilizations are moving in a similar direction. India under Narendra Modi increasingly reflects the archetype of a sacred monarch, a chakravartin, akin to the tenth avatar Kalkin, who ushers in the end of a dark age. China under Xi Jinping demonstrates the traits of a Confucian Empire, with Xi embodying the archetype of the Yellow Emperor. Even the Islamic world may find integration through a modernized Caliphate.
In this post-liberal world, even the United States could see a monarchical turn. Influential thinkers like Curtis Yarvin have long advocated monarchy in America. Figures like Donald Trump, with his dynastic connections, might symbolize this shift.
An Open Future
The term “liberal moment” holds revolutionary implications for political thought. What was once considered an inevitable destiny is revealed as merely a fleeting pattern in history’s broader tapestry. This realization opens the door to boundless political imagination. The post-liberal world is one of infinite possibility — where past, future, and even forgotten traditions may be rediscovered or reimagined.
Thus, the deterministic dictates of history are overturned, heralding an era of plural timeframes. Beyond the liberal moment lies a new freedom, with diverse civilizations charting their paths toward the unknown horizons of a post-liberal future.
(Translated from the Russian)
