Journal of Right-Wing Studies

This past September, an event occurred that may go largely unnoticed, yet it holds significance for scholars of fascism and ideological radicalism. It concerns a rupture within the most prominent book publisher dedicated to international postfascist thought: Arktos Media. In a statement released on September 4 of this year, the influential alt-right publishing house announced that its editor in chief, Constantin von Hoffmeister, would be stepping down due to ideological differences. Although not the first split within this international movement—which some refer to as the “international alt-right”[1]—this division could be regarded as the second major ideological fracture within the postfascist ecosystem. The break could be worrisome if one of the parties manages to take advantage of the situation. Before examining this in greater detail, it is worth identifying the terms and main actors involved.

Is It Fascism or Postfascism?

In recent decades a considerable consensus has emerged in academia about a “fascist minimum”—a core set of ideas common to fascism in all its manifestations (including Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, the British Union of Fascists, the Romanian Iron Guard, Belgian Rexism, and Spanish Falangism)—that defines it as a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism.[2] In this understanding, pioneered by Roger Griffin, fascism is a political project oriented toward the rebirth (palingenesis) of a nation conceived in mythical terms through a populist awakening. The ultimate aim of fascism is to regenerate history and to create a new future in which the national community rises like a phoenix, guided by a new man and a new ethos.

Nowadays, the core ideas of historical fascism do not appear to generate debates as intense as those surrounding its post–World War II heirs.[3] In one influential assessment, Cas Mudde, building on the work of Klaus von Beyme, argued that four waves of right-wing extremism have emerged since 1945. The fourth wave, beginning in the twenty-first century, includes a set of actors whose ideas have been described under various labels—alt-right,[4] postfascism,[5] and national populism,[6] among others. Naturally, not all of the actors considered within this framework can be classified as fascists. What, then, are we talking about? In his analysis of fascism, Griffin highlighted the necessity of incorporating modernity into the discussion. Given the rapid pace at which modernity and its promises—particularly scientific and technological progress—transformed society during the nineteenth century, new political forces emerged seeking to harness these changes. Fascism was one of these forces. It arose not as a rejection of modernity but rather as an attempt to reshape it, aiming to establish a fascist new order.

Building on this view of fascism as an alternative modernity, we can identify contemporary European New Right (ENR) ideologues such as Alain de Benoist and Alexander Dugin—despite their frequent criticism of fascist ideology—in relation to historical fascism, provided we account for their ideological evolution and the way the world, too, has changed. On one hand, both de Benoist and Dugin explicitly reject racism, embrace a form of right-wing multiculturalism, and favor a civilizational or regionalist approach rather than an ultranationalist one. On the other hand, globalization, neoliberalism, mass migration, and the digital age have accelerated the dynamics of social change that began in modernity, with the result that we may not be living in modernity anymore but in distinctly postmodern times. In that case, we might expect fascism itself to take on a new form—“postfascism”—that reflects such transformations.[7] Indeed, modernity no longer serves as the horizon for Dugin or de Benoist. The regeneration of history in our time has led them to abandon the project of an “alternative modernity” in favor of what Dugin calls “the battle for postmodernity.”[8] In their search for an alternative postmodernity, they deploy multiculturalism strategically within their discourse. Here, I will use the term postfascism not only for chronological reasons (to signify the evolution of fascism since 1945) but also to identify actors, like Dugin and de Benoist, whose ideas retain fascist characteristics, albeit articulated with new nuances and situated outside the traditional intellectual world of radical right-wing or populist movements. Doing so will help me clarify the ruptures examined below.

Arktos Media: Making Anti-Globalism Global Since 2009

Arktos Media is a book publisher founded in Goa, India, in 2009 by the Swedish former neo-Nazi and current ENR activist Daniel Friberg and the American John B. Morgan. Officially launched in 2010, the press operated out of India for several years due to lower operational costs before relocating to Budapest, Hungary, in 2014.[9] By 2017, it had established additional bases in the United Kingdom and the United States, with offices directed by Gregory Lauder-Frost and Jason Reza Jorjani, respectively. Described as the “world’s largest publisher of radical-right and Traditionalist literature,”[10] Arktos has published more than 250 works by classical, modern, and emerging authors who converge around a traditionalist, nationalist, and postfascist metapolitical (i.e., culture war) alternative. Among its most frequently published figures are Julius Evola, Oswald Spengler, and members of the ENR such as de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Dominique Venner, and the Russian philosopher Dugin. Among the most prolific recent voices are Jason Reza Jorjani, Tomislav Sunic, Alexander Wolfheze, and Constantin von Hoffmeister.

Arktos has not only focused on publishing books and producing merchandise centered on the profiles and legacies of authors it seeks to position as iconic within its network; it has also pursued additional strategies to advance its objectives. On September 29, 2023, Arktos announced the launch of Arktos Journal on Substack, the widely used online publishing platform. Since its launch, Arktos Journal has published more than five hundred columns from different authors aligned with its rejection of democracy, globalism, egalitarianism, and Enlightenment values. Its media presence also includes podcasts, such as Eurosiberia, hosted by Constantin von Hoffmeister, and Werewolf, hosted by Alexander Wolfheze. At present, the editorial team includes Tor Westman as managing director, alongside Christoffer Dulny, Jafe Arnol, Alexander Raynor, and Roger Adwan.

Despite its success, Arktos has also garnered attention for its internal tensions. In 2016 the publishing house distanced itself from John Morgan and from Greg Johnson, director of the website and publisher Counter-Currents, due to insider disputes.[11] This marked the first rupture within the international network, creating a lasting rivalry between the publishing houses. A year later, in 2017, Jason Reza Jorjani resigned his position at Arktos, though he continued to publish his subsequent works with the press. A more comprehensive and detailed account of Arktos Media’s history up to 2020 is provided by Louie Dean Valencia-García’s Far-Right Revisionism and the End of History.

Constantine von Hoffmeister: Dugin’s Apprentice?

Constantin von Hoffmeister is a German postfascist intellectual best known for serving as editor in chief of Arktos Media. He was born in Bruchsal, Germany, in 1976. After spending several years in Germany, he moved to the United States, where he studied in Arizona. He earned degrees in political science and English literature from the University of New Orleans. His professional career has taken him to India, Uzbekistan, and Russia. During the 1990s, he gained recognition as a journalist in various English-language media outlets in India. In an interview published on Substack, von Hoffmeister recalled that he first encountered the work of Oswald Spengler in high school when a friend gave him an abridged edition of The Decline of the West.

Since his appointment as editor at Arktos, von Hoffmeister has translated several texts and authored multiple books and essays. He has also served as host of Arktos’s official podcast, Eurosiberia, which released its first episode on December 19, 2023, inaugurating the series with an interview with Alexander Dugin. Through this platform, von Hoffmeister has engaged in conversations with various New Right figures, including Jason Reza Jorjani, Alexander Markovics (a member of Generation Identity Austria), and Kevin DeAnna, also known as “James Kirkpatrick,” an alt-right internet propagandist. Since joining Arktos, von Hoffmeister has published two books: Esoteric Trumpism (2024) and Multipolarity! (2025). The latter engages with the ideological contributions of Alexander Dugin, who, in the book’s foreword, states that von Hoffmeister successfully links the geopolitical thesis of a multipolar world with a critique of liberalism and the challenges of contemporary technology. Reading his work, it is possible to discern an intention to continue the ENR’s ideological line in the direction proposed by Dugin.

The Rupture

On Thursday, September 4, Arktos published on both its website and its Substack a statement titled “Recovering our Commitments: A Statement on Arktos’s Editorship.” The announcement disclosed the termination of its contractual relationship with editor in chief Constantin von Hoffmeister, citing his assumption of responsibilities beyond his mandate without Arktos’s knowledge, as well as his ideological divergence from the publishing project (figure 1). The statement concluded with a reaffirmation of the publisher’s commitment to upholding its principles.

Figure 1. Arktos’s statement announcing its break with Constantin von Hoffmeister.

The same day, von Hoffmeister issued a response on his X account, republished the next day in Multipolar Press, in which he argued that the rupture stemmed from other factors. According to von Hoffmeister, several months earlier Arktos had reportedly decided to distance itself from Alexander Dugin—an author whose works it had published in fourteen titles across various formats—and instructed that his promotion be discontinued. Dugin’s work centers on themes such as multipolarity and Eurasianism, which argues for Russia’s imperial expansion in order to preserve its unique civilization. Both themes are crucial to von Hoffmeister, who had already begun developing the Multipolar Press project in parallel, continuing up until the day of the split.

On the same day, Arktos’s official X account retweeted a post by von Hoffmeister, originally published on September 1, which featured an image bearing the statement “Multipolarity is the future” (figure 2). In its retweet, Arktos commented that posts of this kind, among other reasons, explained why von Hoffmeister was no longer part of its editorial team. The following day, Arktos’s Substack repurposed the very same image shared by von Hoffmeister to illustrate the article “Against Third Worldism” by Guillaume Faye. This move appeared to be a direct response to von Hoffmeister’s September 2 essay, “The New Right and Third Worldism,” in which he surveyed the ideas of Europe’s interwar conservative revolutionary authors (figures such as Oswald Spengler and Ernst Jünger) as precursors to a multipolar perspective later adopted by the ENR and Alexander Dugin. By publishing an excerpt from Faye’s manifesto Why We Fight, Arktos delivered a pointed message to von Hoffmeister: Third Worldism has no place within our ideological framework.

Figure 2. Artktos’s statement explaining the break with Constantin von Hoffmeister.

 First Ideological Fracture

Within the international alt-right ecosystem there are openly neo-Nazi groups, yet this discourse has been partly muted and concealed through the work of the main ideologues of postfascism—a process I consider the first ideological fracture in the evolution of fascist thought since 1945. Influential in this project of ideological renewal is the ENR, a circle of intellectuals whose origins can be traced to the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right), which has been led by Alain de Benoist since the late 1960s. Originally inspired by French fascists and nationalist intellectuals, and active in political militancy during his youth, de Benoist gradually recognized the need to transform the struggle into a metapolitical campaign. Distancing himself from the right-wing authors of his time, de Benoist underwent a leftward shift during the 1980s, incorporating leftist revolutionary ideas, including Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s insistence on the need to win cultural hegemony, and showing some sympathies with the Soviet Union.[12] As Alberto Spektorowski’s research on ENR thought has shown, by building on conservative revolutionary authors the ENR effectively distanced itself from outdated forms of racism, instead adopting a “right to difference” approach that they call “ethnopluralism.” According to this principle, every ethnic group is entitled to “demand recognition and respect for cultural differences,” a logic that first justifies “segregation of foreigners and later advocates for their ‘respectful expulsion’ to their own nomos, or natural environment.”[13] This reframing has been popularized in various intellectual spaces and complemented by Alexander Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory, which incorporates Martin Heidegger’s notion of Dasein as a kind of national spirit that will lead to the rebirth of societies against liberal order and create a new multipolar order. Through this embrace of a right-wing version of multiculturalism and a studied repudiation of outright racism, the first postfascist ideological fracture emerged. By distancing itself from overt white supremacists, this stage of postfascism sought to articulate an ethnopluralist approach that framed itself as respectful of other ethnicities while remaining nativist and exclusionary.

A Second Ideological Fracture?

What has taken place between Arktos and von Hoffmeister—indirectly involving Alexander Dugin—may echo earlier tensions and reflect two different approaches to the same problem. One side seeks to internationalize postfascist ideas, while the other favors safeguarding only the European legacy. Both sides, however, remain committed to the same crusade: opposing liberalism, which they portray as a homogenizing and totalitarian project aimed at subjecting ethnic communities to economic control, ultimately leading to the dissolution of ethnic lineages and, with them, the end of cultural diversity. The difference lies in the strategy each side believes should be pursued.

On the one hand, Alexander Dugin has made a theoretical effort to build on aspects of the ENR’s work and propose a political project extending beyond Eurasian domination. This effort is reflected in his book The Fourth Political Theory, which, according to Anton Shekhovtsov, can be regarded as the same project of Eurasianism but rearticulated for an international audience.[14] Von Hoffmeister’s book Multipolarity! goes further, attempting to synthesize Alain de Benoist’s ethnopluralism and Guillaume Faye’s archeofuturism with Dugin’s theories into a single narrative.[15] Both Dugin and von Hoffmeister follow de Benoist’s conviction that so-called Third World movements against imperialism can serve as sources of inspiration, while also emphasizing the need for Europe and Russia to form a common front with Third World countries against liberal or Atlanticist imperialism. This orientation may be referred to as the multipolarist branch.

On the other hand, a more purist, Eurocentric branch rejects this idea. Driven by concerns over the decline of white European populations—framed as the result of an ongoing “invasion” and replacement by non-white people from the Global South—Arktos positions itself against the multipolarist orientation. Why should it ally with, or show concern for, individuals who they claim despise Europe, and whom it regards as responsible for its decline? This may be referred to as the Europeanist branch, the postfascist current that refuses to link its goals with those of non-white movements. In the end, Arktos’s main concern is reflected in its slogan “Europe First” and its explicit objective to “promote anti-globalist narratives on a global scale, while also advocating for Europe’s interests and preserving its civilisation as a whole, rather than any particular country’s.”

Opposed to the ethnically pure Europe defended by the Europeanist branch of the postfascist movement, von Hoffmeister has also expressed disagreement with proposals for remigration. He considers such plans a “fantasy,” given the many legal and constitutional constraints, and instead advocates for a more “realistic” ethnopluralist approach. In his view, Europeans should emulate the tendency of foreigners to cluster with those of similar backgrounds and preserve their own cultures. Much like Turks or Africans who cluster in specific neighborhoods in Europe, ethnic Europeans should retreat into their own enclaves, with each ethnic group living in parallel without mixing. This arrangement, on a smaller scale, would reflect the ethnopluralist credo while allowing Europe to endure and reawaken.

In this context, Arktos appears to prefer maintaining its monopoly over the European identitarian and alt-right movement rather than embracing the multipolar approach. This suggests that a significant part of Arktos, along with many followers of the ENR, remains loyal to what scholars have described as a “cryptic” or disguised form of white supremacism. By rejecting efforts to build a transnational front and a global ethnopluralist strategy against liberalism, this Europeanist branch of the postfascist movement demonstrates that its evolution has been largely discursive—inviting us to suspect that their rhetoric merely camouflages their enduring sympathy with the legacy of Nazi brutality and the beliefs that fueled it.

Multipolarity as a Future Threat?

Although Alexander Dugin has not yet made any public statement, if we give credence to von Hoffmeister’s claim regarding Arktos’s decision to distance itself from Dugin, we may be witnessing a second ideological fracture within the postfascist movement. Considering the scope of Dugin’s influence—which has long extended beyond Russia and Europe to include Latin America, as evidenced by platforms such as Geopolitika—and the commitment von Hoffmeister has expressed to his new Multipolarity Press, the situation could evolve from an ideological fracture into a full movement split. Von Hoffmeister will likely draw on the experience he gained during his years at Arktos and seek to recruit new voices for this multipolar project, probably creating a formidable competitor in the far-right ecosystem. However, Arktos will almost certainly endure. The real challenge lies with Multipolarity Press and von Hoffmeister: whether he can reposition European identitarianism to pursue a more global, Third World-oriented audience.

Explicit white supremacism remains a marginal phenomenon in countries with majority ethnic European populations. The advance of liberal and progressive ideas—alongside the memory of the horrors of World War II—has built a political and legal barrier against movements of this nature. Although there has been a resurgence of radical right-wing movements that have incorporated elements of postfascist thought into their political platforms, such as nativism and remigration, there is still no sign of a latent fascist threat comparable to that of the 1930s. Conservative and radical right-wing populist politicians continue to operate within liberal-democratic frameworks, exploiting the rules to their advantage and pursuing aspects of their agendas, but they are far from embodying any reborn version of Nazi Germany. Therefore, the European public does not seem particularly fertile ground for ethnocentrism—something the multipolarist branch appears to take into account.

However, in other parts of the world—such as Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia—liberal democracy is not the norm. There, coups d’état, military governments, and other forms of nondemocratic rule remain commonplace. These regions are still marked by ethnic, national, religious, and tribal conflicts, often resolved through violence and outside the bounds of law. Recent events in Indonesia, Nepal, Congo, and Ghana evidence this uncomfortable reality. In today’s climate of international tensions and renewed great power competition, supranational institutions appear weakened, creating pressure for new alliances and a rewriting of the rules of the international order. Under these conditions, the likelihood that postfascist discourse could spread into these regions—instrumentalizing grievances or fueling discontent against the West and Enlightenment values in order to justify traditional modes of life—appears particularly high. If the multipolarist branch of the postfascist movement were to capitalize on this opportunity and succeed over the long term, the emergence of new postfascist or fascist-like regimes outside Europe should come as no surprise.

Another factor to consider is Dugin’s connection to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s efforts to secure new allies—a scenario that could prove convenient for Multipolarity Press in its bid to continue spreading anti-Western ideas worldwide.

Whatever alternative Multipolarity Press takes, the turn led by Dugin and von Hoffmeister could prove even more dangerous than traditional Europeanism. Whether understood as a genuine concern or as an instrumentalization of non-white communities, the multipolar ethnopluralist revolt against the liberal global order seeks to unite discontented traditionalists, ultranationalists, religious fundamentalists, and radical movements across the globe into a common front aimed at creating a new world order (or perhaps a new Dark Age). Such a world divided into ethnic and civilizational groups would be marked by violence, human rights would be subordinated to religious dogma or unfounded beliefs, science would be rejected, and myths, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories embraced—conditions that could foster war, exclusion, catastrophe, and the abandonment of any prospect for a peaceful, cooperative, and cosmopolitan international order. In fact, von Hoffmeister openly asserts that multipolarity entails a Darwinian competition between civilizations. The central problem with the vision of an alternative postmodernity envisioned by postfascist authors is that escaping from such a new Dark Age could prove even more difficult than in the past. Advanced technologies—artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and global 5G networks—might serve not as tools of liberation but as instruments of intensified domination, making the possibility of a renewed Enlightenment that could free humanity from darkness increasingly remote