Journal of Right-Wing Studies

The Russo-Ukrainian War has shown that traditional military strategies are no longer sufficient. Indeed, since the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War in Azerbaijan, autonomous weapons and vehicles have begun to shape new forms of warfare. This has intensified concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in the design of public policies and social norms. While many ethicists were already concerned about the misuse of AI for the implementation of tyrannical or illiberal governments, as well as the possible emergence of a superintelligent AI with human-level capabilities, the Russo–Ukrainian War has shifted attention toward the ethics of using AI in war and killing. At the same time, a range of new reproductive technologies has been embraced as part of the efforts of several countries (e.g., Israel and Hungary) to increase their native populations. Alongside this trend, concerns have emerged about the use of genetic engineering not only to cure diseases but to design babies (the new eugenics), enhance human capabilities, and, in the future, create a new breed of humans—a possibility advocated by transhumanist philosophy. These developments make attending to the advanced technologies of the twenty-first century an urgent necessity.

Considering that all these transformations are part of the ongoing Fourth Industrial Revolution, it is reasonable to ask how ideologies are evolving in response. Sociologist James Hughes has examined the new threats and the evolution of conservative-progressive polarization in this context,[1] while other scholars have explored the implications for nationalism, capitalism,[2] and socialism. A key feature of the twenty-first century is that, as many authors argue, we are witnessing a fourth wave of right-wing radicalism,[3] in which a range of nondemocratic ideologies and actors—including monarchists, religious fundamentalists, neo-Nazis, and fascists—are attempting to regain cultural influence. Fascism appears to remain alive in a small number of movements, particularly on digital platforms. Arktos is probably the leading far-right publisher, including works by fascist thinkers, and has brought together a growing number of ideologues under its publishing project. Given this context and the social transformations driven by advanced technologies, it is worth asking about the ideological future of fascism. How are fascist authors taking advantage of these transformations and the opportunities they create?

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

The eighteenth century is widely recognized as the period in which the most profound social transformations began. The First Industrial Revolution started in the eighteenth century and lasted for nearly one hundred years. It was driven by the introduction of machinery into production and the use of coal as a new source of energy. It was followed by the Second Industrial Revolution (from the 1850s to the end of World War II), during which a new generation of technologies and production processes was powered by petroleum and electricity. Later, the Third Industrial Revolution emerged with the development of semiconductors, computing, satellites, and the internet.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is the term coined by Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, to describe the current and future transformations that society is undergoing as a result of a new generation of disruptive technologies. Referred to by Schwab as megatrends, these technologies are also known as NBIC technologies (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science). They are the outcome of decades of scientific development and technological convergence, largely driven by digitalization. The convergent nature of NBIC technologies lies in their ability to operate at a fundamental level within their respective systems—atoms, DNA, bits, and synapses—and to integrate these elements into new systems and products.[4] What makes the 4IR distinctive is not only its new digital capabilities but also its potential to transform the physical, digital, and biological realms through NBIC technologies.

Technologies such as smart materials, biosensors, nanotransistors, brain-computer interfaces, genetic engineering, blockchain, “big data” analysis, augmented reality, cell culture, 3D printing, machine learning, tissue printing, quantum computing, DNA computing, 5G networks, biochips, and xenotransplantation, among others, are likely to dramatically transform democratic institutions, warfare, security, productivity, healthcare, automation, the economy, daily life, and many other dimensions of society. Brain-computer interfaces, for example, are expected to help mimic, restore, and enhance neuronal activity. In this context, technologies capable of modifying or merging with human biology—such as genetic engineering, smart prostheses, and neurotechnologies—may shift medicine from rehabilitation and treatment toward preventive care and, ultimately, human enhancement. In this way, the 4IR offers a new anthropological paradigm: the transhuman.[5] Transhumanism has been defined as a movement that “promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology.” It therefore presents a new vision of humanity, one in which human beings actively guide their own evolution. Another key technology is artificial intelligence. The most anticipated development in this field is the creation of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a prospect that has generated an intense debate about its risks and opportunities for society and humanity as a whole.

The Fascist and Postfascist Ecosystem

In recent years, scholars have reached a broad consensus on the key characteristics of fascism. According to Roger Griffin, the defining feature of fascist ideology is its palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism, which seeks a “reborn” political order as an alternative to modernity.[6] In a previous essay for On the Right, I examined the current state of the fascist ecosystem, and I proposed the emergence of a postfascist trend, one whose vision is no longer ultranationalist but civilizational or what Tamir Bar-On calls “ultraregionalist”[7]—replacing the ultranationalism of classic fascism with an analogous, and equally extreme, embrace of ethno-regional identities. Within this new ideological evolution, which includes authors from the European New Right (ENR) and their intellectual successors, fascism has abandoned biological racism and instead advocates the right of peoples to preserve their distinct identities and defend their ethno-cultural heritage. [8] At the same time, it has moved away from the struggle for an alternative modernity and now seeks to establish a new postmodern epoch.

This new trend was pioneered by Alain de Benoist and the ENR during the 1960s. By labelling themselves the “new right,” a group of intellectuals initiated the first major ideological break with what may be called classical fascism. The think tank GRECE (Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne) became the main vehicle for the reformulation of fascist ideology to fit a new historical context, marking the emergence of postfascism. However, even during the consolidation of this new form of fascism, some heterodox thinkers, such as Guillaume Faye, advanced ideas that were highly innovative for their time. Because of ideological disagreements, Faye left GRECE in the late 1980s. He returned to ideological writing in 1998 by proposing the archeofuturist paradigm: a return to archaic values to manage the power unleashed by technological advancement, and to build an “orderly” world on the ruins on egalitarian modernity. The reception of Faye’s ideas was largely positive and helped shape the new face of fascism, inspiring a new generation of ENR and postfascist authors, including Jason Reza Jorjani and Constantin von Hoffmeister.

More recently, another ideological rupture has occurred, this time within the postfascist ecosystem itself. Drawing on the work of Alexander Dugin, Constantin von Hoffmeister has embraced multipolarity and shifted his attention toward a global strategy to oppose liberalism, rather than focusing exclusively on the future of Europe. Taking into account what conservatives, religious fundamentalists, ultranationalists, traditionalists, fascist-inspired movements, ethnocentric groups, and other nonliberal actors perceive as the negative effects of liberal modernity, multipolarity seeks to build a global resistance against Western liberalism. However, this rupture differs from the first, through which fascism underwent a profound ideological renewal. In this case, the main difference lies in strategic priorities rather than in ultimate objectives, as multipolarity maintains the goal of creating a new multipolar world composed of ethnically homogeneous societies. Although the overall objective remains similar, considerable ideological differences persist, some of them shaped by the transformations associated with the 4IR.

The Postfascist Diagnosis

Postmodernity is the context that compelled fascism to evolve into postfascism. Although postmodernity has been variously defined,[9] postfascist ideologues have developed their own diagnosis of this context to fit their political imaginary. The French ENR author Guillaume Faye was the first to articulate this new beginning. In Archeofuturism, Faye argued that modernity was moving toward an inevitable collapse.[10] Its end, he claimed, could not be avoided. A series of catastrophes—including economic, social, political, and biological crises, such as pandemics and ethnic wars—would bring the liberal Golden Age of humanity to an end. Rather than presenting this as the end of history, however, Faye portrayed this apocalyptic scenario as an opportunity for ethnic Europeans to recover their historical legacy. By adopting an archeofuturist worldview—that is, striving for a scientifically sophisticated future rooted in a premodern mentality—ethnic Europeans would reorganize into a new empire in which advanced technology and magical beliefs would coexist within a two-tier social order: a scientifically educated elite alongside a mass population living according to a medieval way of life. By combining a diagnosis of civilizational decline with a prophecy of collapse and a vision of the future, Faye’s interpretation of the processes shaping the twenty-first century became a major source of inspiration for a new generation of postfascist authors.

In a similar vein, Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, one of the leading intellectuals associated with the ENR, has offered his own account of the challenges that civilizations and their Dasein (a kind of national spirit, perennial characteristic, true self, or essential identity) have faced. His diagnosis begins with the triumph of liberal ideology in the twentieth century and its global expansion through several stages: first, the spread of capitalism; second, globalization; and third, the rise of gender ideology and posthumanism. According to Dugin, liberalism experienced a series of crises during the twenty-first century, including the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he argues that what he calls the globalist elite took advantage of these crises to rapidly develop a project known as the Great Reset. In his view, this project seeks to control public consciousness on a global scale through cancel culture and advanced technologies, replace the modern industrial order with an ecological economy, and accelerate humanity’s transition into the 4IR and the cyborg-transhuman replacement of humankind.[11]

Dugin argues that a Great Awakening has begun to resist this scenario. Lacking a centralized organization or a planned structure, the Great Awakening is presented as a spontaneous reaction of the masses against liberal elites; it constitutes the opposition to the Great Reset.[12] Dugin portrays Islamist societies, China’s successful nonliberal system, anti-progressive European populists, and Russia’s anti-Western resistance as expressions of this broader awakening. According to Dugin, however, the Great Awakening does not possess a coherent political agenda. Because he considers his “Fourth Political Theory”—the ideological framework he developed on the basis of the ideas of Carl Schmitt and the interwar German Conservative Revolution, which aims to transcend twentieth-century liberalism, communism, and fascism[13]—to be the only political doctrine capable of confronting global liberalism, he argues that the masses’ intuitive opposition to globalization must ultimately be directed toward a multipolar agenda.

For postfascist authors, the twenty-first century is the historical stage of an ongoing clash of civilizations. Adopting Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis of a clash of civilizations, former Arktos editor Jason Reza Jorjani argues that, since the September 11 attacks, the conflict has become more than a civilizational competition; it has evolved into a Third World War.[14] Like other postfascist thinkers, Jorjani rejects the liberal order because of what he considers its internal contradictions. An example is the multicultural model associated with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which demands tolerance of different religions and worldviews, and the ethos actually found in religious fundamentalisms, tribal belief systems, and premodern convictions that insist on their superiority vis-à-vis other creeds. However, Jorjani’s diagnosis introduces a new variable: a technological apocalypse. In his view, the liberal order is not the only threat leading to dehumanization; the advanced technologies of the 4IR pose an equally significant challenge. The transhumanist possibility of creating new classes of superhumans, together with the virtualization of reality and the prospect of interplanetary wars between humans and these enhanced beings, leads Jorjani, drawing on the ideas of Carl Schmitt, to argue that humanity is entering a global state of emergency.

The Proposed Solution: Architects of the Past-Future

To overcome this critical situation, postfascist authors broadly agree on two key principles: (i) the need for nationalism to evolve into a multipolar order in opposition to liberal homogenization, and (ii) the need to struggle for an alternative postmodernity, understood as a historical context fundamentally different from modernity. However, what role do advanced technologies play in their visions of a postmodern world? The answer can be summarized in a single concept: archeofuturism. At least two distinct strands of archeofuturism were distinguished by Faye in his work and can be identified within postfascist thought.[15] The first is projectist archeofuturism, which seeks to use advanced technologies to reconstruct a premodern sociopolitical order, with the aim of subsequently abandoning those technologies. The second is integrationist archeofuturism, which seeks to combine advanced technologies with archaic values in order to establish a new order in which those technologies are retained.

Traditionalism or Projectist Archeofuturism?

When examining the work of Alexander Dugin, it is hard to overlook his use of supernaturalism to analyze and explain political dynamics (e.g., America as the Antichrist). As a traditionalist, Dugin builds on the works of René Guénon and Julius Evola, arguing that the return of tradition—in the form of theology and everything that is premodern or archaic—will provide the foundation for a Fourth Political Theory capable of opposing and overcoming modernization.[16] Drawing on Martin Heidegger’s ontological concept of Dasein (authentic being), Dugin rejects technology as the pinnacle of “calculative thinking,” which causes “man [to lose] sight of pure Being . . . [and] ultimately displace[s] Being and crown[s] ‘Nothingness.’” [17] This philosophical framework helps explain Dugin’s rejection of transhumanism and artificial intelligence. For Dugin, advanced technologies are the primary instruments through which globalist elites will dehumanize humankind. In particular, he portrays transhumanism as the final stage of the liberal project of liberating humanity from every form of constraint: first religion, tradition, and the caste system; then the nation; and finally, gender and humanity itself. Artificial intelligence, in turn, is presented as the beginning of the end of humanity.

Up to this point, Dugin’s ideas may appear to imply a complete rejection of technology, something he has done before. However, in recent years his position has evolved in a way that is more consistent with contemporary Russian policy, particularly under Vladimir Putin. When describing contemporary Russian society, Alexander Dugin uses the term archeomodernism, referring to the coexistence—but not the integration—of a liberal-modernist elite and a deeply traditionalist mass population. Viewing Putin as the leader capable of channeling these traditionalist sentiments, Dugin was asked about Putin’s claim that mastery of artificial intelligence is essential for victory. He replied: “When humans have control over technology there is the possibility of return and the possibility to make a decision other than the decision to just follow the technical process.”[18] This suggests that, in Dugin’s view, there is a place for advanced technologies, but only insofar as they remain subordinated to human will. Indeed, he does not regard technology as humanity’s destiny or ultimate end but rather as a deviation from humanity’s true path: the pursuit of God or eternity.[19]

This evolution has become even more evident in recent developments. In June, the Future 2050 Forum was held in Moscow, where the directors of the Tsargrad Institute, including Alexander Dugin himself, discussed a wide range of issues related to technology and demography. These discussions suggest that, in line with the positions of Vladimir Putin and influential Russian elites, Dugin has come to accept that digital sovereignty and technologies such as artificial intelligence should be promoted, provided they are embedded within a nonliberal, non-Western worldview grounded in Russian traditionalism and patriotism. This position is made possible by Dugin’s distinction between the technical and the socio-moral dimensions of modernization.[20] While he considers the former beneficial, he regards the latter as destructive because it entails the abandonment of belief in the divine and in traditional values. Accordingly, a specifically Russian path would preserve the traditional cultural foundations of society while directing technical advancement according to those values. From this perspective, Dugin can be understood as a traditionalist insofar as he rejects modernity and its scientistic and materialist philosophy in favor of a supernatural metaphysical order. At the same time, he can be regarded as an archeofuturist because he conceives archaic values as the means by which technology should be subordinated to humanity—not humanity to technology—in order to restore a premodern traditionalist social order.

Two Dugins can be identified: an earlier one who rejected advanced technologies as an expression of modernity in favor of recovering tradition, and a more recent one whose openness to technological development may reflect a pragmatic adaptation to the political requirements of Putin’s Russia, particularly its desire to preserve its status as a global power and maintain its technological and military capabilities. In this sense, Dugin’s archeofuturism may be shifting from a projectist to a more integrationist orientation.

Integrationist Archeofuturism

The first author to introduce the positive use of new technologies within this intellectual current was Guillaume Faye. Although he was a critic of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which he described as the ideology of a neoscientism that overreacts to innovation and whose benefits are not necessarily comparable to those of previous industrial revolutions, Faye nonetheless incorporated biotechnologies and artificial intelligence into his broader narrative. In Archeofuturism, Faye develops a societal project for the time after the collapse of the Western global order in which advanced technologies play a central role. This future society is constructed in explicit contrast to Christian ethics and its derivatives, including liberal and secular humanist frameworks. In this sense, and within what may be described as an integrationist form of archeofuturism, Faye advocates the use of advanced biotechnologies to create human-animal hybrids as part of an anthropologically pagan worldview, modify human beings through genetic engineering, produce hybrid or enhanced animals for resource optimization, and develop human cloning for organ harvesting, alongside assisted reproduction strategies aimed at increasing the number of ethnic Europeans.

When analyzing these technologies in Sex and Deviance,[21] Faye does not dismiss the possibility that artificial intelligence—potentially powered by biological or molecular computing—could achieve consciousness, nor the prospect of mind-uploading processes. On the contrary, he treats these developments as technologically plausible outcomes. He also suggests that their development, including advances in genetic engineering, may be more feasible in Asia due to the absence of Christian moral constraints such as the concept of a fixed “human nature.” In this framework, transhumanism is not rejected but reinterpreted through a distinct lens: Human enhancement should be restricted to elites and guided by an archaic or pagan ethical orientation.

More precisely, Faye aligns with what Giorgio Locchi terms superhumanism, understood as the drive to overcome humanity by self-transformation, in contrast to humanism, which conceives the human being as an end in itself.[22] Superhumanism is thus presented as a titanic force oriented toward movement and self-overcoming, opening the possibility for human beings to use the power of the will to recreate themselves.

Jason Reza Jorjani adopts a distinct approach within the integrationist archeofuturist paradigm. Given what he describes as an ongoing global state of emergency, he argues that, in order to avoid both a traditionalist dystopia and a transhumanist dystopia, a form of world government inspired by an archaic “Aryan” worldview must be established before 2050.[23] In his view, returning to humanity’s primeval worldview—understood as an Aryan cultural matrix from which Buddhist, European, and Christian civilizations are said to have emerged—constitutes the only viable path for addressing technological apocalypse and for actively shaping technological development rather than rejecting it outright. Within this framework, such a government would prohibit human cloning, the hybridization and creation of new human species, and the use of genetic engineering for narrowly task-specific human design.[24] At the same time, it would require humanity to undergo subsidized enhancement processes aimed at general improvement, including increased physical strength, extended lifespan, and enhanced cognitive capacities.[25] From a position similar to Guillaume Faye’s, Jorjani treats archaic values as a guiding moral framework. However, unlike Faye, he conceives human enhancement not as an elite privilege but as a universal obligation.

For his part, although acknowledging the philosophical differences between Guillaume Faye and Alexander Dugin, Constantin von Hoffmeister affirms the archeofuturist project, albeit with a multipolar edge, trying to conciliate both Faye and Dugin. For him, archeomodernity can be achieved through an archeofuturism that preserves European cultural heritage while incorporating the advantages of new technologies like artificial intelligence or genetic engineering.[26] He describes this convergence of the archaic and the futuristic—manifested in projects such as Atlantis-inspired smart cities, rockets bearing pagan names, and crypto-economies influenced by ancient Rome—through the concept of mythic techs. In this sense, Hoffmeister envisions an archeofuturist Holy Roman Empire: a political form that would emerge after the end of the unipolar world order. Instead of the soulless technological modernity of globalization, this new Rome, or archeofuturist Imperium Europa, would fuse ancient values with technological advancements to achieve an ethnic and spiritual reawakening of European civilization. This alternative state would reject Enlightenment conceptions of linear and material progress and instead seek to restore the link between humankind and God, using technology as a means toward that end.[27]

Although Hoffmeister’s archeofuturist approach resembles Dugin’s in that both subordinate technology to a transcendent and traditional order, I prefer to categorize Hoffmeister’s position as an integrationist archeofuturism. Hoffmeister explicitly seeks to reconcile Faye’s and Dugin’s approaches and incorporates advanced technologies into his projects. Unlike Dugin’s earlier projectist orientation, however, Hoffmeister does not envision technology merely as a means to recover a premodern order. Rather, advanced technologies are retained as an integral part of the future order he envisions, provided that they remain subordinated to traditional values. In this sense, Hoffmeister represents a clearer case of integrationist archeofuturism than Dugin, whose more recent openness to technological development may indicate a shift toward this position.

Conclusion

As with many ideologies, fascism has evolved. Its new form, postfascism, has expanded its scope and aims in response not only to contemporary geopolitical issues but also to technological progress. The 4IR will transform society in such radical ways that even fascist thinkers have begun to regard it as a new opportunity to achieve their goals. We may be witnessing a new stage in the fascist spiritualization of technology[28], similar to the period in which the steel industry inspired German Conservative Revolutionary authors and Italian Futurism, that is, an alternative vision of technological progress grounded in national rebirth (palingenesis). As a modernist project, fascism did not reject modernity as such but only the perceived decadence of materialism and liberal individualism. The same could be said of postfascism, whose goal is to reclaim postmodernity. In this sense, advanced technologies—the new products of scientific progress in postmodernity—can be used as tools to counteract the perceived decadence of the postmodern context.

Authors such as Guillaume Faye, Alexander Dugin, Jason Reza Jorjani, and Constantin von Hoffmeister have not only reflected on technology but have also incorporated it into their programmatic visions (Faye and Jorjani in greatest detail). Although their strategies differ significantly—for example, between Faye’s and Jorjani’s adoption of a postfascist version of transhumanism and Dugin’s rejection of it—they nevertheless converge on what has been termed an “archeofuturist” vision. Thus, it is not yet possible to speak of a new rupture within the postfascist ideological ecosystem, or at least it appears too early to do so. This is especially the case given Dugin’s evolving approach to AI as a tool for Russia’s effort to reassert itself as a great power. More research on the far right’s archeofuturist imagination is needed, including studies of the resurgence of Russian cosmism in relation to Dugin’s multipolar framework, the postfascist interest in Nick Land’s Dark Enlightenment, and other postfascists contributors to the debate on advanced technologies, transhumanism, and AI such as Daniel S. Forrest, Alexander Markovics, Alexander Wolfheze, and Ruben Kaaleps.

In an increasingly digitalized world and within an AI and biotechnological race between states, the new permutations of postfascist ideology merit further attention. Geopolitical tensions may be reshaped by the incorporation of new technologies into everyday life, as well as by their impact on economic and technological development (e.g., the competition in AI and microchip production between the US and China). In this context, the influence of postfascism on political or economic elites in any country—such as Dugin in Russia—may have significant implications.