Dugin Against Dugin: A Traditionalist Critique of the Fourth Political Theory

There is no way that I can do justice to Charles Upton's Dugin Against Dugin: A Traditionalist Critique of the Fourth Political Theory, the book is just too comprehensive. I would urge you to just have an open mind, and at least give this book a fair read. Whether you are admire Dugin or loathe him, Upton’s work puts substance on the table when it comes to grappling with and critiquing Dugin’s thought. You could totally reject his conclusions while still coming out of it with a richer, better informed, understanding of Dugin, his thought, and of the possible criticism that could be leveled at it.To date, a lot of criticism aimed at Dugin has been fantastical, emotive and superficial. Of the little serious criticism out there, almost none has come from the perspective of a school of thought Dugin sometimes claims to follow; the Traditionalist or Perennialist school. Upton’s book is the first major attempt to critique Dugin from this perspective.This is a formidable and substantial work, perhaps Upton’s thickest since his The System of Antichrist. But it is absolutely packed with insights and the startling bits of unearthed lore that Upton’s writings are noted for. It is a well written, well informed, and well-reasoned critique and takedown of Aleksander Dugin's ideology of Eurasianism and Fourth Political Theory. And most interestingly, it's written from a Traditionalist, "Perennialist" perspective. And, moreover, Upton offers solutions, by the way of a kind of Sacred Activism informed by Sufic and Islamic principles. So he doesn’t just assault Dugin, he suggests viable alternatives, ones that involve the kind of personal transformation that is a necessary prerequisite to broader societal change. Or at least that’s my reading.Upton’s other works articulate a nuanced understanding of the Perennial Philosophy, one closer to that which was articulated by Rene Guenon, than that articulated from Frithjof Schuon, Whose problematic aspects Upton recognizes and implicitly tackles in other works. But Upton’s thought makes a broad intellectual synthesis not only of both thinkers and their students (M. Lings, W. Perry, Lord Northbourne, S.H. Nasr et al), but of wealth of spiritual religious and culture lore, as well as fertile grounds of Mythopoeia, from which he draws some original insights.In this book, Upton takes this synthesis and uses it as a tool to rigorously examine Dugin and his thought, holding it to the mirror of an orthodox and normative Traditionalist understanding of Metaphysics, Philosophy and Socio-Religious thought and action.Dugin has a Geopolitical vision, and he has an eschatological vision. The eschatological vision of course is apocalyptic. Dugin’s geopolitical views and aims are informed by his eschatology, and perhaps in a sense serve it. It is a vision rooted in Chaos. In a sense Chaos is his method, as well as his teleology. Dugin aims to use chaos, to arrive at chaos. Chaos is practically his god, his divinity in an effective sense.Upton’s analysis looks at some of the startling and blatant inherent contradictions in Dugin’s publicly expressed worldview, philosophy and agenda. And Upton discovers many contradictions indeed. He also examines the contradictions between Dugin’s claimed adherence to the Traditionalist school of thought and his actual stated views. He examines Dugins metaphysics, and Upton suggests some amazing conclusions.When rigorously examined there is an actual Satanic aspect to Duginsim. In many ways it appears to be an inversion of Traditionalist or Perennialist thought. His metaphysics is an inversion of traditional metaphysics. Dugin adopts many of the motifs and wording of Traditionalism, but turns them on their head. In the question of Islam, moreover, Dugin horrifically misreads Islam and its currents. He at times expresses an admiration of, or at least an admiration of the utility of, Salafism for example, while at other times courting Sufism and Sufis, and Shiites, not only ignoring the oppositions between all of these camps, but more dangerously seeming willing to use the most destructive tendencies of Salafism for his own aims.From Upton’s outline and criticism Dugin’s real aims appear to be more or less immanentizing the eschaton, in a sense. But worse, it is from what really appears to be a Promethean or Titanic perspective. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your perspective, of course. But a Titanic, Promethean, urge to overthrow all order in place of Chaos, a Chaos that Dugin practically divinizes, is not a good thing in my book. Your mileage, of course, may differ.Upton's criticisms of Dugins many contradictions and apparent bad faith and hidden motives resonate with me. What I get out of this reading is that Dugin's project would appear to resonate with the motto ORDO AB CHAO, the Masonic maxim who’s Latin translates as 'Order out of Chaos.' But in a certain sense it doesn’t quite. Because Dugin appears to aim at dissolution and dissipation; Chao, not Ordo. Yet, if there is to be any order emerging from his stated aim then it is to be a Eurasianist super-state, whose spiritual and temporal center is Moscow.Dugin claims that many of the world’s problems lie in the unipolar dominance of the modern American, or Anglo-American, empire. Thus, we need a multi-polar world that preserves much of the ethnic and religious diversity that globalism, and its totalitarian tendencies toward flattening and leveling all qualitative distinctions, threatens. A dominant Eurasia forms the second pole to oppose and keep the Anglo-America sphere in check. However, at the core, Dugin seems to aim at a unipolar world too: one dominated by Eurasia, which in reality will be a greater mother Russia.In other words, Dugin wants a world empire. Again, he has his reasons. His vision of a tellurocratic Greater Eurasia superstate is a reaction to the aggressive attempts at global dominance by the Anglo-American thalassocratic empire. Dugin fans would see his aims as just, and right. As the necessary defense against the aggressive tendencies of thalassocracy in general, chiefly Americanism and Transatlanticism. Fine, sure. But the real point, I think, is that Dugin aims for only one power to dominate. This exposes a basic contradiction. The man who opposes unipolar world empire implicitly aims at it. Power and dominance, not truth, is what matters then.In any case those are my surface reflections and reactions to Upton's book. It is the type of work that I will have to read two or three times to fully 'grok', let's say, with apologies to Heinlein... It's a book that, I'm confident, will further unlock aspects of the phenomenon and mystery of Dugin that are still cloudy to me. Whether you totally disagree with with Upton's perspective, or whether you totally disagree my review, I urge you give his book a good fair reading. Even if you reject his conclusions you will come out of it better informed of the kinds of criticism that can fairly be leveled at Dugin's thought.

There is no easy way to characterize this work. Let me begin noting, it’s main interest for me, is akin to my interest in speaking with the homeless people of California, or in having a talk with the locals after a drink. The stories are long and full of fallacy and error, and there is a feeling, perhaps one is not spending one’s time well with this sort of behaviour. Yet, there is a draw of the local, a desire too, for a window on the mind of the fellow California, the fellow American; and some of the stories just do seem really great. Then, in the end, Upton's work does actually explain at least a few things wrong with Dugin, if you are willing to sift through the mass of Upton's other attacks that were not so on target. Indeed, Upton proves - Dugin is a 'Satanist,' or would be, were he not just, mostly being facetious.I found Upton's reaction to Heidegger, so bizarre and wrong-headed. Upton is a very intelligent fellow, with a great mass of knowledge of traditional, sacred texts. Unfortunately, his knowledge of Philosophy is limited, as is his knowledge, not only of scholarly standards, but of the human psychology involved, when people do not meet them....The work is obviously, and without a doubt, a work based in the intent, of demonstrating human error, in a kind of ‘show them don’t tell them approach.’ To say the author is not aware, he is offering what are literally, quite fallacious arguments, would be idiocy indeed. This is a work that charts, what has gone wrong with Baby Boomer generation of Americans and what has gone wrong with the Californian intellectual. Upton understands the American Baby Boomer, like no one else, and he understands America. It is fitting that he ought to use the dialectic with the Russian national author, Alexander Dugin, to give picture of postwar America. (For what has postwar America been, above all, but an great Air Force base versus Russia?)One might interpret the work in many ways. The way I am drawn to interpret it, is as the story of Charles Upton, famous 60’s poet, denizen of the post-Beat poetry world of San Francisco, native of Marin County and product of Marin’s system, of Roman Catholic education. The work provides a good deal of biographical information about Upton, who moves from his roots in poetry, drug-use, and political activism, to practice the Islamic religion, while upholding the Traditionalist belief-system of René Guénon. It also offers biographical details on Upton’s wife, Jenny, a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy who leads Upton to Fort Ross and the Russian colony in the California area. Indeed, these biographical details, ground the whole work, which centers on Upton’s complaint, the Russian Dugin – also a member of the Orthodox Church - has praised Rene Guénon and aligned himself with the Traditionalist movement, while failing to live and write in-keeping with all the beliefs that Guénon had.Let me just say, this focus is totally cracked, as nowhere does Dugin ever say, he accepted all of Guénon’s beliefs, making the charge that he does not, ignoratio elenchi. What is worse, Upton tells us, he does not read Russian. Yet, most of Dugin’s work is not translated. More importantly, an examination of Dugin’s writing reveals, even that work that is translated, deals with such difficult and esoteric topics, we can know with certainty, it has not yet been translated well.But, never mind all that. This is not a scholarly treatment of Dugin, but a personal reaction to the Dugin phenomenon, a testament, like that of devoted fan – though of course, as I say, Upton has a big axe to grind, and makes all he can of this, offering some hilariously off-base assaults on Dugin, and offering theatrics regarding people, who happen to praise features of traditional Islam without accepting the main tenants of such religion….It is also very hard not to notice, the connection with the Muller investigation, which in fact, Upton references in the work, at least obliquely. This is a work full of ideas of shadowy Russian influence in American and of Dugin’s duplicity and merely simulating character. It is not really long on evidence but still Upton makes clear to his fellow Americans, how it really is, these are latter-day Soviets prancing about as if they were somehow great friends of the Western conservative and his ideals. It is not long on evidence, and then moreover, what evidence there is mixed up with ‘disqualifying’ statements that would lead any normal European observer to say, Upton is a mad creature slandering Dugin. I will assert, that’s not true, but obviously Upton is not someone keen to have a rosy picture of himself portrayed. His task is to get the information across. Were someone to mention, ‘CIA,’ well, how could we answer?Yet, let’s not focus only the negative. 500+ pages, can only mean devotion. Plus, indeed, outwardly, Upton does offer much praise of Dugin, along with criticism, in a procedure, frankly schizophrenic to anyone paying attention. The main interest appears to the ideas, of cycles of time, ‘time’s reversibility,’ and the dialectic of Modern vs. liberal. Here I think a summary might possible in terms of the idea, while Dugin wishes to return to the folk-society, obviously as aligning with features of NS ideology, Upton wishes for a more proper conservative return to traditional religious practice - aligning then with the Hebrew prophet, denouncing the unbelief of the masses.The real story, as I say, is the story of the Californian Boomer poet, Upton, as a kind of microcosm of the American Boomer in general. Now of course, he is not like every Boomer; he is not very Midwestern, and not very Southern. He is extremely Californian, also sounds rather New York and Boston. This Boomer attempts to reposition himself from ‘liberal’ toward ‘conservative,’ attempting then a synthesis (the ‘union of Mercy and Justice in Jesus Christ’). Here we get the tale of the misunderstanding of the common person, regarding liberalism, the inability to see, the sharp difference between political-liberalism and ‘social liberalism’ / libertinism. Upton is actually against the libertine, but pretends to denounce ‘Liberalism.’ Speaking of political liberalism, there is in fact, not an illiberal bone in his body. He is one the ‘great liberals’ of the Age, a person who realizes, even Republicans and white people have the right to free to freedom of speech - yet also that there is a traditionalist Christian basis for, offering refugee-rights to victims of Central American conflict. In all ways, he supports the individual, and indeed, speaks movingly of his great love for America and the American project, then too, without any real words of support for the fully free market. It is just, liberal, liberal, liberal. He pretends some kind of kinship with the anti-liberalism that Dugin and I share, but this is wholly a matter of Boomer’s duplicity. It is simply the story of people such as Rod Dreher – notice how ‘Dreher’ refers to turning, and thus cycles – who pretend a conservatism whilst remaining wholly in the chiliastic-liberal camp.…Dugin and I, are anti-liberals. We believe a minority or majority ought to impose its vision upon wayward individuals, for the greater good: the greater good as we each, respectively and differently, see this good to be, and looking to some minority or majority who shares our own particular vision. Cf. Mussolini, who offers the Form, of the fascist minority paternalistically securing the greater good for Italy, as this good is determined by the minority. Yet, to oppose liberalism is not fascism, as Italian fascism for example is a doctrine saying things like ‘fascists are good at dying’ and ‘we must have war, only war’: while merely wishing to impose one’s will on individuals, does not logically entail those concepts. In a similar way, to support imposition as a possibility, is not to support each actualization of this possibility, as inevitably, the ‘folk societies,’ will have conflicts, and there is no clear reason why I would not want to pursue advantageous conflict though it happen to be deadly for the other. This is anti-liberalism.A person such as Upton, who offers ideas such as ‘refugees from Latin America need protection, it’s the Christian thing to do even if white people are a group that ought to stick up for themselves’ – these are no anti-liberals. These are liberals. They are saying, hey, it would be the good for whites to help each other out, but, no, can’t do it, Yahweh doth forbid this, etc. We would like to help: but, there are rights, Universal Truths, the promise of America, blah blah. That’s liberalism.Then there is another group, which says, not that the individual needs rights, but rather, that: white people need to be equal; that ‘white privilege’ is a terrible wrong; and European culture, over-emphasised. These matters they plan to change, using Government and your tax-dollars. --These people are also, not liberals. They are Democrats.So, there you have it. There is liberal, and there is anti-liberal, but pursuit of one of these labels, does not guarantee contact with truth.‘Chapter One: Gog and Magog vs. the Covenants of the Prophet.’ Eschatology will be our theme. Yet, politics is apparently, the heart of the End Times. Upton’s classifications appear meaningless, intentionally wrong. ‘Leftism,’ for example, is denounced as distinct from capitalism, when the ‘Leftism’ Upton has in mind, is only the false-flag operation capitalism has designed; a part of capitalism itself. So, real Leftism is not considered. Likewise, ‘capitalism’ is aligned with anti-hierarchy, ‘right-wing tyranny’ and fanaticism, with hierarchy. Yet, we all know, our capitalism is nothing but hierarchy, where not only legitimate goods are purchased, but also government coercion and private death-squads.Things are bad. Upton responds, through a comparison of the Book of Apocalypse, the myth of Atlantis, and the cycle mythology of the Hopi. However, things soon take a darker turn, as it is suggested to little children, Donald Trump aligns with the Beast and the Anti-Christ, while Hillary Clinton – yes, the Whore of Babylon.After dozing I found I had moved several sections later into the work.Chapter Two takes us to ‘Inverted Metaphysics.’ This will be a difficult chapter for Upton, as here he must grapple with Dugin’s use of Heidegger, who totally rejects metaphysics, and as the central thesis of his work. At the same time, what Upton casts as metaphysics, does not actually seem to be anything objectionable to Heidegger, who had nothing against the practice of religion, so long as it does not offer a ‘metaphysical’ account of God (this means it cannot be a ‘Technological’ or ‘grasping’ account of the sacred). As we shall see in Chapter Three, Upton is not at all aware of how Heidegger, would likely have no philosophic objections to Upton’s metaphysics of Traditionalism, or to his interest in contemplative practice.Of course, Heidegger would object to the charge he has failed in necessary contemplative practice, and such a charge against Heidegger, while not one with which I coccur, is interesting; though I sense, not as such original to Upton.Upton sees Heidegger, as enthusing for the Heraclitian flux against Christ the Logos. This sense of Heidegger, he derives from Dugin. However, no work of Heidegger is cited, and the notion sounds wholly specious. Heidegger valorises the logos as the gathering of the authenticity ground of the German past into the German present. Upton charges Dugin with being a ‘deconstructionist’ and then this must be somewhat on the mark, for it is Derrida rather than Heidegger who is the basis for negative rhetoric regarding the Logos.Chapter Three pursues further, Heidegger as an issue. However, Upton does not tell us, whether in addition to a lack of knowledge of Russian, there is a similar situation with German. Upton makes clear his hatred for Heidegger, yet, I have no idea of the basis. Heidegger strikes me as a wonderful and moving philosopher, the very best of the 20th century so far known to a general audience.Upton does not understand Dasein at all. He has no account whatsoever of thrownness, authenticity, the critique of the Cartesian subject, the role of time in Dasein’s space, etc. Rather, he thinks Dasein concerns ‘simplicity.’Yet, Upton may have some good points against Heidegger. He suggests, the Heideggerian emphasis on waiting and non-grasping, goes awry. This may be. Obviously Heidegger, a citizen of the German republic, was more drawn to non-activity, than someone such as Upton or myself. We are commended for active involvement in militaristic functions, etc., while Heidegger is only criticized, whenever he connects with army workings.In Chapter Four, the mis-understandings continue. The Cartesian subject, is taken to offer an accurate model of our situation as a species, while Heidegger’s rejection of Cartesianism, i.e. the subjectified yet still Aristotelian legacy of the normative human subject, is ignored. Upton does see, the issue revolves around time yet shows no indication as to how, Heidegger may have used Hegel and a new understanding of temporality, to generate a yet newer account of temporality…. The point is, Heidegger sees the subject as branching into differing modes of being over time, with nothing outside of time unifying them as modes of one, normative subject.Here I would suggest, again it is ‘show them don’t tell them.’ Upton I think is trying to scrawl out or sculpturally mark, the American Boomer is caught up in a false understanding of the subject - as held down in traditional religion and its intense demands regarding ignorance. America is land both longing for ‘conservatism’ and faced with the reality, it lacks a national church or any deep traditions of its own, to conserve. What has happened with traditional religion has in many ways, not gone well in this country, and then the ignorance and intellectual plainness of the ‘ugly American’ is an international topic, e.g. in the circles of Alexander Dugin.////Another ‘show it’ issue here – Muslims. They can get offended, that is true. Possibly converting to Islam, and ministering to this group, has not been easy for Upton, a white man and person of Reason….To speak to Muslims, while accepting their books but rejecting the main of their theology – this is obviously upsetting to them, as even in the Koran itself, the subtly non-believing seems a special focus, much more than mere Christian or Jew. Likewise, battles between Shia and Sunni are legendary. On the other hand, I cannot say what the reception of Traditionalism in Islam is. How it really any ‘worse,’ than Christianity or atheism? Precisely, one does not wish to speak for Muslims, yet it is very difficult to see how it could be ranked as worse. Upton's Traditionalism disputes, that Mohammad meant to cast the Christians as forever cut off, as opposed to temporarily corrupted in their thinking. Yet, it sticks with the idea of an original Abrahamic message and that Islam, is correct and proper as a way of life. That’s certainly more than you’d get from me, as a Christian….Anyway, Islam, physics, time-travel, Marin County, cycle of doom: we have it all! Let’s not stop now. All must be one, and in one book too….'Big wheels keep on turningCarrying me home, once AgainSinging songs about the Southland –I miss Ol’ bama once Again…Watergate, does not bother meDoes your conscience bother you?'--Marcus Verhaegh, author of Capitalism and Resistance

In this fascinating and engrossing book Charles Upton critiques the writings of Aleksandr Dugin who has been called Putin's brain. Dugin claims to be a Traditionalist and a member of the Russian Orthodox Church but Upton reveals Dugin's flirtations with radical Islamists, chaos magic(k), and satanism. Fascinating figures like Aleister Crowley, Rene Guenon, and Julius Evola are also discussed. Recommended for anyone interested in these subjects, geopolitics or a potential future war between Eurasia and the West.