Interview with Ruuben Kaalep

2,214 words

Ruuben Kaalep

Ruuben Kaalep recently gave an interview to a Portuguese researcher sympathetic to the cause of nationalism. Presented here is their conversation.

Question: How do you distinguish between Faye’s “Archeofuturism” and “Ethnofuturism”?

I get this question a lot, but it’s important to recognize that Archeofuturism and Ethnofuturism are two independently conceived ideas, born under different circumstances, though they largely point in the same direction. Both schools of thought recognize that the 21st century’s challenges can only be adequately addressed by reviving the ancestral wisdom that stretches back through the centuries.

Faye’s Archeofuturism arose from the intellectual environment of the Nouvelle Droite in the West, focusing on the return to archetypal values like hierarchy, order, and duty, all while embracing technological advancement. Ethnofuturism, on the other hand, takes these lessons from the West and integrates them with the living Finno-Ugric tradition, emphasizing the continuity of national identity and ethnicity.

Our primary concern is the preservation and flourishing of unique peoples and their cultures. Ethnofuturism does not merely ask how humanity can advance technologically but how such progress can serve the deep cultural and genetic legacies of distinct ethnic groups. For us, the future is only valuable if it remains distinctly ours.

Q: There is a new right-wing avant garde, futuristic, that sees technology (AI, transhumanism, etc.) as the way to accelerate the coming of a new age – that will put an end to the current liberal egalitarian universalistic system. What are your views on accelerationism?

The term accelerationism is used in so many different ways that I hesitate to see it as a coherent ideology or doctrine. However, in certain contexts, what could be called accelerationism can be positive – specifically, accelerating the cultural process of postmodernism in its inevitable self-destruction. This collapse will make room for the resurgence of archaic, essentialist value systems, which I see as the natural and normal state of human existence. These values will reemerge regardless of how fast or slow technological progress unfolds.

That said, I don’t believe it’s within human control to fully dictate the speed or direction of technological advancement. There are forces at play that transcend the materialistic outlook of modern society – forces that drive the course of history itself. Only the great shamans and mystics have the power to influence the rhythm of history. So, treating accelerationism as a viable political strategy is naive at best.

While rapid technological progress may hasten the collapse of the current liberal order, we must be cautious. If technological acceleration occurs without a strong, culturally-rooted ethos, we risk losing our humanity in the process. The goal should never be mere acceleration but harmony with the direction of this advancement. Technology must serve the ideals of ethnofuturism, preserving our people and identity, rather than becoming a force that dominates and alienates us.

Q: In your book you write, “Perhaps the greatest single asset that makes this civilizational cycle different from all previous ones will be technology […] To fight against such technology would be self-defeating and even dangerous.” What do you say to those on the right who warn against the dangers of artificial intelligence?

The dangers of AI do not stem from the technology itself; all dangers are rooted in human misuse. Technology, in its essence, is neutral. What is truly dangerous is how modern society trivializes scientific advancements, reducing them to mere consumer gadgets like smartphones or mass entertainment. Instead, we should be using this technological marvel to stop environmental destruction, defend our nations, and explore the deeper mysteries of the universe.

Artificial intelligence, in particular, forces us to confront profound questions about existence, consciousness, and what it means to be a living being – questions that modernity and postmodernity have shamefully ignored for too long. This confrontation is healthy and necessary.

Ethnofuturists do not share the conservative fear of new technology. AI, like any tool, is neither inherently good nor evil – it is all about how we choose to use it. Those who fear AI usually see its potential for abuse in the hands of global elites who would use it for homogenization, surveillance, and control. And they are right to be concerned. But rejecting AI outright would be a fatal mistake. To do so would leave us defenseless in the battle for the future. AI, if properly governed by those who value identity, heritage, and sovereignty, can become a guardian of ethnic spirit, ensuring the survival of distinct cultures rather than contributing to their destruction.

Q: What are your views on transhumanism? Is a new ‘evolutionary divide’ between the enhanced and the non-enhanced (as a potential scenario in the future) something to welcome or instead to fear? Or is it just a development in the natural inequality of man?

We are witnessing the rise of a new mythical era, where gods may walk among us in forms we can’t yet fully comprehend. This has all been foretold in the mythologies of ancient peoples, thousands of years ago. The key question is whether we are sufficiently educated in our own traditions to understand and apply the teachings of those ancient myths to their futuristic manifestations. How we interpret and react to this era will be decisive.

As for transhumanism, it could certainly create a dangerous new divide between the enhanced and the non-enhanced if left unchecked. However, inequality is a natural state of humanity – differences in intelligence, strength, and ability have always existed. What matters is ensuring that this divide does not erase the cultural and ethnic uniqueness that defines us.

If we embrace enhancement, it must serve the flourishing of distinct peoples and not create a homogenized global elite detached from its roots. We must always ask ourselves: does this enhancement bring us closer to our true essence, or is it pulling us further away from who we are? The answer to that question will determine whether transhumanism is a force for good or for destruction.

Q: Post-human scenarios are also on the rise – new enhanced beings. Isn’t that development a further uprooting of man – and a further weakening of the ties to ethnicity, territory, ancestral foundations, etc.?

This risk exists, but only if these advancements are applied under the current paradigm – a paradigm already deeply uprooted from identity and natural order. In a different paradigm, one grounded in identity, roots, and natural hierarchy, technological progress could work in harmony with these foundations rather than against them.

Ethnofuturism rejects the idea that we can sever our ties to ethnicity, territory, and ancestry without catastrophic consequences. Technology should be a tool that enhances our ability to preserve and defend our identities, not something that transforms us into rootless beings devoid of history and culture. The future must be one where we continue to honor our ancestors, not forget them.

However, we must also recognize that humanity’s era of believing we can fully control nature is coming to an end. The primordial forces of nature and myth will reawaken, reminding us of our place in the greater order. These same forces created our ties to ethnicity, territory, and ancestry. We, as living beings, stem from those organic forces. I have no fear, because what is temporary and mechanistic will inevitably fall away, while what is eternal and organic will rise to power once again. Every great chaos brings with it the restoration of these natural truths.

Q: Does your vision of the future – with a new hierarchy, a new elite etc. – spells the end of democracy and announces new autocratic political systems?

No, not necessarily. The new elite I envision is cultural and spiritual, not purely political. In nations with a strong tradition of democracy, it is good to continue that tradition. However, we should always remain open to experimenting with other systems, even entirely new forms of governance that better serve the needs of the people and the survival of unique cultures.

The notion of democracy as the sovereignty of a people or nation should be clearly distinguished from the current totalitarian ideology of liberal democracy, which dominates the West. Liberal democracy has shown itself to be hostile to the survival of distinct peoples and cultures, rooted in the fallacy of universal equality. It prioritizes abstract rights over the organic survival and flourishing of communities. The future may well require new forms of governance that recognize natural hierarchies and the leadership of a visionary elite. This does not necessarily mean a return to autocracy, but rather a system that places the well-being of the nation and its people above the shallow desires of individuals.

Democracy should be brought back to its roots. The only true form of democracy is direct democracy, where the people have genuine control. Representative democracy, as we know it today, is corrupt by nature and ultimately a hoax. Whether the future spells the end of democracy as we know it or its transformation into something more authentic remains to be seen, but what is clear is that the current system is unsustainable.

Q: Biodiversity should be defended, as you write. What would be the main features of your environment protection plan?

The central pillars of my environmental protection plan would focus on protecting landscapes, safeguarding habitats, and preventing the extinction of species. The destruction of habitats is the greatest threat to biodiversity. Every country faces its own specific environmental challenges. For Estonia, the clear-cutting of forests is one of the most urgent problems, and this must be addressed domestically before looking outward.

Humans must learn to live in harmony with nature once again. Moving to the countryside and adopting traditional farming methods, enhanced by modern technology, offers a sustainable path forward. Technology today allows for a simpler, more balanced life in rural settings, and we should embrace this opportunity to live closer to nature.

An effective environmental protection plan must prioritize native ecosystems that are crucial to the identity of different ethnic groups. Nature is not a commodity to be exploited for profit, as the liberal globalist order would have us believe. Instead, it is a living, breathing part of our heritage, intertwined with our cultural identity. Nationalism and environmentalism are natural allies, both committed to protecting what is unique and irreplaceable.

The debate over landscapes mirrors a broader societal divide. Some see forests as mere economic resources, advocating for intensive logging to maximize profits. On the other side are those who understand the intrinsic value of forests – recognizing them as sacred spaces that must be preserved.

Sustainable management of landscapes, like the traditional upkeep of heritage meadows, offers a model for using natural resources without destroying the environment. These meadows once functioned as vital ecosystems, integrating human activity into nature without conflict. We must return to this mindset of stewardship, understanding that humans are part of the ecosystem, not its conqueror.

This concept extends to what I call biocultural realm – the interweaving of culture and biology. It is an approach that recognizes the ecological wisdom inherent in traditional lifestyles. These traditions held profound respect for the environment and viewed nature as something sacred.

The root cause of environmental destruction, including large-scale logging, is the misguided pursuit of endless economic growth driven by global capitalism. This mindset is not sustainable. The drive for infinite profit comes at the cost of our natural world, and ultimately, at the cost of our own survival. We must reject this model and adopt one that values long-term sustainability over short-term gains.

Q: Finally, what would be the best scenario for Europe (and the West in general) in 2100?

The best scenario for Europe and the West in 2100 will be one where we have secured the survival of our ethnic identities, allowing our traditions to evolve in new and surprising ways – ways we shouldn’t try to predict too rigidly. When a people are secure in their ethnic survival, their culture can flourish and adapt, taking on new forms while remaining deeply rooted in ancestral wisdom.

By 2100, Europe will consist of independent ethnic states, connected through a network of autonomous communities and sustainable economies, free from the domination of any centralized power. Each nation will experience a cultural renaissance, inspired by its own history and traditions, creating a vibrant mosaic of unique yet interconnected peoples.

This future will see the emergence of a world system based on the respect for every indigenous nation’s self-determination. Each ethnic group will be free to flourish according to its own values, traditions, and sense of identity. Nations will honor one another through a shared respect for the sovereignty of their borders, the pride of their heritage, and the unity of blood and soil.

Technology will serve these nations, not as a force for homogenization, but as a tool to protect and enhance their distinct cultures. The liberal globalist order will be a relic of the past, replaced by a new ethos of rootedness and ethnocultural pride. The future will not be about imposing uniformity but celebrating the multiplicity of human experience, with every nation contributing to the beauty of this plurality.

By 2100, Europe will no longer be a battleground for universalist ideologies, but a collection of sovereign nations, each secure in its identity, each shaping its future in harmony with its past. The flourishing of such nations will usher in a new era of ethnic and cultural revival, securing a proud and enduring legacy for generations to come.