The Fourth Political Theory

beyond left and right but against the center

You’ve probably noticed that in Russia the campaign against the liberal fifth column is gradually gaining momentum. This is related to the consolidation of the status of foreign agents for a number of media outlets and individual figures. Increasingly, the authorities are resorting to a completely justified classification of a number of liberal and pro-Western groups that are actively acting in order to destabilize society as extremism. What for decades got away with Navalny, Roman Dobrokhotov and other radical anti-state figures are finally beginning to qualify properly. Like a crime. Working for the collapse of your country in the interests of the enemy powers is, of course, a crime. In all senses. And it must be followed by punishment.

Many people know the character Thomas Sankara or Muammar Kadhafi was, but few know the deep thoughts of these characters. Few people know the concept of Pan-Africanism (at least among non-African peoples). Yet it is a thought that has always been at the center of the African debate in every era, in every generation. We will try to understand together the origins of this ideal, its objectives and the problems that it has had to face in each era and continues to face. In this article, we will focus on the history of the Pan-African current, addressing its origins, the Afro-descendant resistance in the Americas, Garveyism, African independence, and then addressing the more political-contemporary part with the resistance movements in this XXI century, like NGO Urgences Panafricanistes of Kemi Seba, an organization that I coordinate in the African diaspora, precisely in Italy.

September 22 is the Independence Day of the African state of Mali. In Antiquity, since the 13th century, a real African Empire was formed on the territory of this state. Its name comes from the Malinke people, which are part of the Mande group of West African tribes. Previously, this area was dominated by the power of the people of Ghana, but after its decline, the initiative passed to Mali. The founder of the Mali Empire is considered the legendary ruler of Sundyatta Keita, about whom the whole epic “Sundiata” was composed.

With the panic that followed the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, it is clear that we live already in a multipolar world. The unquestionable unipolar leadership of the West belongs to the past. The emergence of multipolar order is already a fact. That is a high time to revise the main players – present and future, global and regional. In the transitional phase, many unthinkable things of yesterday, become possible. It is the beginning of a global emergency situation – Ernstfall/ Emergency (C.Schmitt). Old doors are closed, old roads exploded, old walls destroyed. It is a moment to think boldly and to act swiftly. The shape of establishing multipolarity depends on us; it will be exactly as we intend to shape it: the world of our making (N.Onuf).

Context of Africa’s return to the spotlight is the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. During the unipolar moment that followed the collapse of the USSR, it seemed that only the United States and its junior partners were responsible for all the main events in the world. But at some point, this model stopped working, and after the shameful flight of Americans from Afghanistan after 20 years of senseless and brutal occupation and a costly and outright lost war with the Taliban, the United States with their current globalist leadership and president in dementia looks just pathetic. New players are gaining momentum and are rapidly taking their place in global geopolitics.

Let’s talk about Google. We are on the eve of a very important event. The claim of Constantinople against Google and the YouTube channel has every chance of becoming fateful. The Russian court recognized the full validity of the claim of Constantinople. And during this time the government issued a number of decrees directly ordering foreign services in their activities in Russia to obey Russian laws. Now the most interesting thing: if Google obeys, then its activities in Russia will be completely controlled by the state. This means not only the restoration of the account of Constantinople on Google with a million subscribers and compensation for damage. By the way, Google will have to restore my educational channel, as well as the accounts of Katekhon, Geopolitiki.ru, and all those resources that the globalists, having gone wild from their own impunity, demolished without any warning.

One of the branches of the Niger-Congolese family is the Mande people. Their languages ​​differ significantly in fundamental parameters from other Niger-Congolese languages, therefore linguists consider them to be the first to separate from the main trunk, along with the Ijo and Dagon languages. The differences between the Mande and the very structure of the Niger-Congolese family are so great that there are classifications that distinguish the Mande languages ​​into a separate families.

Contemporary discussions on the 'new world order', at the moment they ground their arguments on 'cultural' elements, on the other hand, can easily shift towards a Huntington-style cultural essentialism. Ιn Natίon and Narratίon Bhabha (1990) argues against this tendency to essentialize Third World countries into a homogenous identity. At the  moment,  a world  order  is  no  longer  established 'artificially', -that  is,  with  the help of valid polίtίcal ideas. Cultural components are called for in order to establish  an 'organic' order by creating coalitions between cultures in an almost 'natural' way. Such ideas accord with  historical ideas of  Nishida or of  Eurasianism  only as long as we take a superficial look. The present paper was supposed to show that these Japanese and Russian philosophies developed concepts of space through which cultural communities appear as more than merely organic, self-enclosed units. These philosophies constantly confront the contemporary reader with a paradoxical conceptual linking of openness and closedness, of self-awareness and awareness of the other, of reality and transcendence. Ιn this way, they manage to overcome both particularism and universalism.

In phenomenology, the Cartesian distinction between subject and matter is considered unnecessary (epoché in Husserl's term), which means that the subject experiencing the object is in fact experiencing the object as part of himself, and vice versa. Heidegger, as Husserl's student, developed this thesis, and introduced the now famous notion of Dasein [Being]. Being, whose existence, or ontology, precedes reality and imposes itself on everything, discovering its surroundings as elements (existentials in Heidegger's words) of itself. This approach revolutionized social science  in 'left wing' [Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze] - as well as 'right wing' cirles [Leo Strauss, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye].

Sculpture number 4, which is being erected on Bolotnaya Square, is being heatedly discussed today. The sculpture, of course, is still the same. And what she reminds each baby is clear. Almost everyone is familiar with this.

This is the logic behind the current surge of Russophobia in the CIS countries. There is no doubt that there is friction. They have always existed, and in the era of the collapse of the USSR, they bore a character close to ethnic cleansing against the Russian population and the practice of genocide – on a large territory of the CIS countries. Today the scale is incomparably smaller. And because millions of Russians were forced to flee. And because it is completely unprofitable for the authorities of the CIS countries to draw additional attention to this. Of course, new countries are building their own national states, and language plays a key role in such cases. But even this can be solved gradually and gently. And when necessary, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan do just that.

The ideological situation in Russia on the eve of the elections is becoming tenser and tenser. The election result does not matter. But the system itself begins to tremble not from impending risks but entering into resonance from the contradictions accumulated in itself. They are not reflected in elections, but in the system itself and in society – how. This

Francis Fukuyama recently wrote a fairly objective and balanced article about the end of American hegemony. Fukuyama in the early 90s was clearly in a hurry to declare the worldwide victory of liberalism and the end of history. He later corrected his position. In some personal conversations with him, I became convinced that he understands many world processes quite realistically and is able to admit mistakes in his forecasts – a rare feature among narcissistic political scientists who make mistakes every day and that only makes them even more arrogant.

As we said, the Taliban banned in Russia took Kabul and established their control over almost the entire territory of Afghanistan. The way the Americans fled the country, who had previously spent all their efforts on celebrating the week of transgender and perverts at their embassy in Kabul, shows that American domination and the hegemony of liberal ideology have collapsed.

On August 10, 70 AD, a very important event took place for two world religions – Christianity and Judaism. On this day Roman legions of the emperor Titus broke into Jerusalem, which was defended by the Jews-Zealots who had raised against the Roman power. The Romans subjected the inhabitants to indescribable brutality repression, killing hundreds of thousands of people. They burned the city itself to the ground, and they destroyed the Second Temple, built by Zerubbabel after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, to the ground. The fall of the city was preceded by a terrible famine, which also claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and was accompanied by monstrous events, including cannibalism, which is colorfully described by the Jewish historian Josephus.

On September 11th 1990, during the ongoing disintegration of the Soviet Union, then US President George Herbert Walker Bush announced the arrival of a “New World Order”. Much ink has been spilt and many-a-video has been made about this phrase by those whose tinfoil hat is fastened around their heads perhaps a little too tightly, and thus have largely misunderstood the implications of this phrase, wound up by hyperbolic conspiracy mongers and distracted by dystopian visions of Satanic orders and a global police state.

The problem with the Russian elections is that the idea of ​​representative democracy and especially party representative democracy is completely alien to Russian political culture and tradition. At the same time, Zemskaya democracy, the election of village elders, and before the schism and parish priests, has a long history in Russia. At the most critical moments – as, for example, at the end of the Time of Troubles – the people even chose a king, a new dynasty. And before that, it was the popular decision to form a militia – especially the second, which saved the country. But the Russians never really chose parties. They chose people – their own people, acquaintances, or those they believed. They were always chosen personally, not in bulk. The Russian tradition is personal. She wants to see a person as a political figure. He wants to understand him, know him, trust him. And sometimes hate him, despise him, punish him. But always it is a person. Our view of the world is deeply human. And about politics too.

Putin has always had a certain sympathy for Germany. This is his personal experience, knowledge of the country, and language. And the geopolitical orientation towards the construction of a Greater Europe – from Vladivostok to Dublin – where Germany is called upon to objectively play the main role. Germany is the core of the European sovereign economy. Like France in the post-World War II world – primarily under De Gaulle – has traditionally been the core of sovereign politics. Franco-German alliance and became the basis of United Europe. Initially, it was planned very differently than it turned out. Europe was supposed to become an independent pole of a multipolar world – independent of both us and the United States, and at the same time maintaining friendly ties with both. Europe in the last 30 years has not depended much on us, but on the USA, on the contrary, excessively.

On August 14, 1385, the authorities of two neighboring medieval states – Poland and Lithuania – met at the Krevo castle, which is located on the territory of today’s Belarus, and concluded a historical pact – union. The alliance between the two neighboring and very influential states at that time was sealed by the marriage union of the Queen of Poland Jadwiga, the last of the Piast dynasty, and the pagan Lithuanian prince Jagiello. At that moment, this seemed an excellent geopolitical solution, since it allowed two previously hostile states to focus on solving more important problems – to resist the Teutonic Order located in the neighboring Baltic lands and to strengthen the influence of Lithuania in the east, which was under the rule of the Mongols and controlled by the Russian princes. vassals of the Mongols.

After Azerbaijan regained control over Nagorno-Karabakh territory, analysts began to notice Turkey’s increasing effectiveness both in the Caucasus region and more broadly in Central Asia. Erdogan began to strengthen his presence in Turkish states again, he began to assert Turkish interests in Georgia, he set his sights on Afghanistan, where a significant part of the population is of Turkish origin (Afghan Uzbeks).

From the very beginning of his rule, Putin began to withdraw Russia from the influence of the West and its globalist structures. With each step, Russia became more and more independent and sovereign. It not only stopped the disintegration that began under Gorbachev and continued under Yeltsin, but began to expand its territory (this is clearly seen in the reunification with Crimea, and in many other things). And as the course of Russia became more and more independent, the pressure on it from the West grew. At the same time, Putin himself and the forces loyal to him in Russia were subjected to systematic demonization and criminalization. In the eyes of the liberals, relations with Russia acquired an increasingly pronounced ideological character.

After Azerbaijan regained control over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, analysts increasingly began to notice an increase in Turkish activity both in the Caucasus region and, more broadly, in Central Asia. Erdogan again began to strengthen his presence in the Turkic states, began to promote Turkish interests in Georgia, set his sights on Afghanistan, where a significant part of the population also has Turkic roots (Afghan Uzbeks).

The seizure of all power by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the shameful flight of the Americans and their allies require a broader survey of fundamental changes in world geopolitics. Afghanistan has been an indicator of these changes over the past 50 years. It was with him that the fractures in the global architecture of the world were associated. Of course, this was not the cause of geostrategic transformations, but rather a  screen on which, more clearly than anywhere else, the fundamental changes in the world order were reflected. 

When we trying to analyze the evils of the African continent, it is essential not to forget to address the ideologies with which Africa has aligned itself in order to emerge in the geopolitical chessboard. In the 1960s, African nations gained independence, but not de facto. Being independent does not only mean having control over one's own territorial primacy. We must be able to apply a unique paradigm from the perspective of geopolitical pluriversalism. It was Africa's fundamental problem, of having rooted itself in exogenous ideologies conceived by others, for others, and therefore which are not in line with the realities of the African continent. After colonization, several African nations adopted modern ideologies derived from the Age of Enlightenment: liberalism (both socially and economically), communism, micro-nationalism, liberal democracy, social democracy, capitalism, etc.

Agamben has long been dealing with the problem of “bare life”, when the pressure of the political system reaches the very biology of man, penetrates his body, and seeks to control it at the biochemical level. A person in the ultimate dictatorship turns precisely into a biological object, determined by a set of sanitary indicators. Real totalitarianism seeks to control not the mind, but the body. This is “naked life” when a person is equated with a set of biological indices. This, according to Agamben, is the end of man and the triumph of the most disgusting political systems imaginable. In his writings, Agamben stressed in every possible way that the most avant-garde and perfect example of “naked life” was the situation of prisoners of Nazi concentration camps. The prisoners in them were not considered human at all.