ON the surface, Dugin’s use of the term ‘multipolar’ appears to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the true nature of polarity. Rather than function as either a duality, or set of opposites, anything defined as ‘polar’ should operate in the way that a single coin bears two faces or one end of a stick is joined to the other. Philosophically speaking, this artificial ‘polarity’ helps to sustain the illusion of the subject-object dichotomy and is a betrayal of the coincidentia oppositorum in the sense that perceived opposites cannot unite at a far deeper level. Keeping opposites apart ignores the fact that there is a transcendent aspect beyond notions of life against death, or good against evil. This concept appears in Advaita’s “no-two-ness,” itself based on the non-dualist realisation that opposites are terms of relation, rather than denoting ultimate reality.

Perhaps this is the political and economic secret behind the true nature of Dugin’s counterfeit agenda, that despite the rhetoric about Eurasianism and Atlanticism, or tellurocracy and thalassocracy, each polarity is not really separate at all and the geopolitical conglomerations he favours so much are connected to one another like two extremities of the same magnet. ‘Multipolarism’ is thus composed of entities that, outwardly, may appear independent but which cannot exist in isolation. The most important factor to bear in mind, therefore, is what actually lies between these purely symbolic poles and what is continuing to perpetuate the illusory ‘either/or’ of disparate empires. This is the great paradox of our times and one that should make us very suspicious of Dugin’s underlying motives.