The Eurasian Mission to Save Europe

Empire vs. imperialism

Constantin von Hoffmeister draws on Alexander Dugin’s Eurasian Mission to imagine a Europe reborn beyond liberal universalism, nation-states, and American hegemony.

Alexander Dugin’s book Eurasian Mission (Arktos, 2015) details the dream of a multipolar future, where all civilizations can pursue their own courses of development, existing and thriving in cultural harmony, untouched by the pernicious unipolar influence of a hyperpower dictating its terms with a big stick and a dark syrupy drink. The glorious Holy Roman Empire with its medieval warrior-monasticism shall be resurrected, in all its arcane mysticism and martial splendor, in the age of digitization and hypersonic missiles. The pendants of the sovereign duchies are fluttering, their colors in the morning breeze alternating between magenta (the flowering of an ethnic group’s passion) and crimson (the blood of the forefathers hailing from afar). Dugin’s concept of Archeomodernism is reminiscent of Guillaume Faye’s vision of Archeofuturism, which postulates that future realms use teleportation devices but still recite folk hymns praising the glorious deeds of ancestors long gone but immortalized in the hearts and minds of a traditionalist ancestral chain.

According to the French New Right thinker Alain de Benoist, the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia is not only a war between two countries. Nor is it a clash between Ukrainian nationalism and Russian nationalism. Instead, it is a war between the passionate magnificence of empire and the cold logic of the nation-state. It is a war between the dying West and the ascending East, between the liberal world and that of the civilized space, between the sea and the land.

Eurasianism consists of organized state-level and guerilla resistance to the all-encompassing umbrella network of globalization, whose tentacles invade every orifice offered by a people metaphorically lobotomized. Eurasianism defends the flowering multiplicity of peoples, religions and beliefs. All anti-globalist tendencies are de facto Eurasianist. Eurasianists are staunch supporters of Eurasianist federalism, which entails a combination of strategic unity and ethnocultural sovereignties. The key phrase that sums up the Eurasianist credo is “empire vs imperialism.”

An empire that embraces anti-imperialism as its prime directive is an empire that will last.

America is an empire that is imperialist in nature. It is aggressive, domineering and hell-bent on conquering new territories, forcing them into its cultural and economic spheres of influence. America wants to rule the world, impose its way of life on all peoples it subjugates, and thereby usher in the final dawn of mankind. Resistance to this kind of Americanized globalization is met with annihilation. America has become the tool of the managerial class’ ambitions to control the world’s peoples and territories according to the salvational principles of the false religions. America’s indigenous European peoples have been designated to become the discardable pawns in this global quest for control and genocide through murder and multiculturalism.

The European peoples of America must free themselves from the bondage of their alien overlords and unite with their cousins in the Old World to become one once more.

The new Holy Roman Empire will be anti-imperialist in that it will acknowledge the rights of its freely federated territories. In the new European empire, nation-states will be abolished as they exemplify relics of a feudalist, and hence imperialist, past. Instead, newly established regions, which reflect ancient ethnic, linguistic and cultural entities (even the smallest entities will be recognized, such as the Basque and the Sorb territories), will be set up in a decentralized federation. Thus, there will be no “leading nation” and no “leading people.” Rather, ethnic equality will become a reality through radical measures that will include the dismantling of symbols of chauvinism, symbols that have haunted Europe for millennia, symbols that were ultimately responsible for horrible fratricidal wars all throughout European history.

The early Bolshevik regime and its nation policy of “re-root-taking” can serve as an example. When the Soviet Union was established in 1922, Vladimir Lenin had the foresight to grant independence to all territories within the former sphere of control of the then-deposed Tsar. Tsarist Russia had been decidedly imperialist in that it did not recognize the legitimate ethnic interests of the non-Russian territories that Russia controlled (therefore uprooting and delegitimating the unique national characteristics of these territories). Lenin insisted on the right to self-determination of all nations. While the Whites were political reactionaries and Russian nationalists, the Reds were revolutionaries in that they wanted to rid the Eurasian heartland of Russian chauvinism.

The Bolsheviks promoted social equality and a voluntary federation of the various Eurasian nations. After the victory over the Whites, the Bolsheviks established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on December 30, 1922. In practice, this meant that all republics were considered equal in the new Communist/Eurasian empire. In contrast to Tsarist policy, the administration of the non-Russian republics was left to local elites. The cultural tolerance of the Bolsheviks manifested itself in the promotion of non-Russian languages and traditions. 48 ethnicities received new written languages (in Latin, not Cyrillic, script), and non-Russian languages were used in administrative and educational facilities. In this way, illiteracy was successfully reduced and independent regional development guaranteed.

The West seems to be in inexorable decline according to the historical cycle described by Oswald Spengler. Europe is dying from obsolescence and wear and tear on its forms, but also from infection by Americanism, xenophilia and Islamism—invasions launched and directed with increasing efficiency as this part of the world abandons its foundations and falls back into barbarism while simultaneously moving forward to the establishment of a bona fide idiocracy. Only inclusion in a Eurasian superstructure might save it from becoming irrelevant in the long term. Moving back to the faith-based peasant past will enable it to be propelled into a majestic majority-ruled future.

If you enjoy Constantin von Hoffmeister’s writing, order his new book, The Fate of White America, here.