Ignoramus et ignorabimus: German leftists “do not allow” to study their own predecessors


The article by Paul Simon for Junge World, the German leftist newspaper, is not worthy of scrutiny, and its audience is apparently quite specific. Yet I find it remarkable that he considers the subject of Conservative Revolution unacceptable for the academic study. I bet he has never heard about Ernst Niekisch, a close friend of Ernst Jünger, and an equally close interaction between the German “fascists” and leftists of the interwar period within this current. I remember that the first public event that marked my fascination with the subject of Conservative Revolution was the student conference dedicated to the phenomenon of the critique. My speech, accordingly, discussed Conservative Revolution as an alter-Enlightenment precedent of the critique “from the Right.” The moderator of this section was Andriy Riepa, the Ukrainian leftist intellectual and translator.

He must be familiar to another Ukrainian leftist author Volodymyr Ishchenko who is upset about a crucial role of the new generation nationalists in the Maidan revolution and is quoted by Junge World. The biggest problem for Simon and Ishchenko are the researchers of right-wing extremism who did not leave the ground of rationality like them and do distinguish between my views and alleged views of the persons who happened to accompany me at some events: Adrien Nonjon, Anton Shekhovtsov, Vyacheslav Likhachev and Andreas Umland. The latter are also apparently familiar with the vast academic literature on Conservative Revolution, as well as the principle of academic neutrality that makes the issue of the “infiltration of the academic institutions by the far-right” irrelevant.

Pandora’s box of anti-intellectualism, ironically, and, again, in full accordance with my research project on “dialectics of Enlightenment,” was opened by the academic institution – the IWM’s administration who labeled me as a proponent of “right-wing extremism.” Which, by the way, is a far-reaching offence if taken seriously.

I fully agree with the aforementioned researchers of right-wing extremism who refuted such assessments of my activities: liberalism transforms into its opposite when it bans the others from scientific research and an intellectual discussion. Moreover, this is a sign of an intellectual and, potentially, scientific capitulation which places such institutions in the position of totalitarian regimes that are afraid of a free discussion.

Although an absolute priority of my activities as a coordinator of the Intermarium Support Group (founded by the non-banned and growing Ukrainian party of National Corps) have always been conferences organized by the governmental representatives and structures, I have never set any ideological filters for the attendees and the organizers of public events with my participation. Although some hired defamators went as far in their delirium as to portray me, a civilian woman who is not entitled to represent an official military unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, the Azov Regiment, as a recruiter of not only political but real soldiers in support of Ukraine, it is easy to see that my speeches are always philosophically, not ideologically oriented and spread around the ecumenical vision of the alternative West, thus serving to “de-radicalize” rather than radicalize the audience. This is not their goal per se, for my appearences at events organized by the Western New Right metapolitical communities or right-populist parties, as their titles and video recordings show, aimed to weaken and undermine the pro-Kremlin factions in the respective organizations or societies. The controversies which followed my conflicts with the Kremlin’s mouthpieces at some of these events were a serious challenge to those “monsters” who provided National Corps with a platform for that purpose.

My opponents do not even try to conceal the fact that they are aware of my real metaideological attribution, that is, the Third Position, but use other persons’ alleged views or the supposed collective guilt of entire organizations, regardless of my relation to them, in order to discredit me by association.

The brightest examples are persons who shared the floor with me at some conferences (Greg Johnson, Mark Collett, Millennial Woes, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, and others) and have never expressed “extremist” views, moreover, clearly condemned terror attacks like the Christchurch murder.

Another example is the metapolitical Pact of Steel conference which “casts the shadow” of Alexei Levkin’s personality and activities on me. I am not going to comment on his views, for my speeches, as in all the aforementioned cases, are recorded and do not need any advocating.


I will underline that my interests are different, and that is why I founded another conference cycle, Homeland, only due to the fact that the preceding Pact of Steel conference was timed to the Asgardsrei Festival organized by him. This parting ways was highlighted in the research paper by Adrien Nonjon which is favored by the columnists of yellow press at the level of the title but obviously has never been read by them:


As for the rest, they should talk to Alexei Levkin personally, for, according to his recent interview, since the beginning of the pandemic he has not been cooperating even with the broad movement of National Corps. Not sure if it helps, though, if those “researchers” consider irrelevant the reason why this cooperation with Russian political refugees who supported Ukraine had started at all.

I will keep exposing totalitarian methods of the imposters who dare to teach us tolerance and freedom and will pay a particular attention to the joke of the modern leftists as compared to the history of my family members who attributed themselves to the Left.