The Fourth Political Theory

beyond left and right but against the center

The Eurasianism regards Russia not as country but as civilization. So it should be compared not with European or Asiatic countries but with Europe or Islam or Hindu civilizations. The Russia-Eurasia consist of modern and pre-modern features, of European and Eastern cultures and ethnies. This particular identity should be recognized and reaffirmed in the context of the new integration project. The eurasianism deny the universality of Western civilization and the unidemensionality of the historic process (directed to the liberalism, democracy, human right, marker economy and so on). There are different cultures with different anthropologies, ontologies, values, times and spaces. The West is nothing else as hypertrophied and insolent world province with megalomania. It is abject case of the hybris. The humanity should struggle against the West in order to put its pretensions in the legitimate limits. The world province should be become what it is – the province, the historic isolated case, the choice – not universal fate, normative or the common goal.

TSIDMZ expresses exactly this sort of nostalgia both from a pessimistic point of view, meaning ‘absence’, and from a constructive point of view, meaning a new accomplishment. This new accomplishment has then to be fulfilled in our times, “In Der Maschinenzeit”. Is it possible to realize a fair, sublime, “spiritual” society in the post-atomic era? According to TSIDMZ, some possible answers are to be found in the Futurism on an artistic and cultural level, while in Socialism, on a political and social level. As a consequence, electronic music and every form of “industrial” art becomes imperative. As far as the social and the political levels are concerned, this New Man has to be a master of the machine, and not a slave or a victim to it or of it anymore. Likewise, on a cultural level the New Man needs to integrate and identify with the machine, which has to become part of this new Culture. As a result, this will create an artistic identification, which will give a new identity appropriate to the Worker, as Jünger understood it.

The Eurasianism is a very large set of ideas, attitudes, approaches and concepts, which represent a complete model of world outlook, applicable to different levels. Eurasianism also contains, along with the political component, also the purely philosophical, historic-cultural, historical, sociological and geopolitical ones.

Therefore, when we analyze Eurasianism, we must, first of all, clarify what is the subject and within what level we want to explore it. For example, if it is about the current international situation, then Eurasianism is to be associated with the theory of the multipolar world. At this level, Eurasianism proceeds from the principle that the unipolar models, where dominate the Western values, claiming also the title of universal models, are totally one-sided and unacceptable and require a radical revision. A multipolar world represents the idea that the world must have several poles and not only one, as it is, for instance, the Western pole, nor only two, as it was during the Soviet times, but a series of poles in a mutual equipoise. And namely among these poles the Eurasian one should take its place: the American, European andFar Eastpoles… Particularly this Eurasian world-view has given birth to the idea of the necessity to integrate the post-Soviet space: in order to be a pole of a multipolar world,Russiaalone is not enough.

In the last spasms of the unipolar system that shook the world, stirring the global geopolitics, emerges ever more clearly the underground and never faded conflict between telluric forces and oceanic power. In the context of the international relations, the rising conflict between the East and the Far West of the world increasingly becomes acute, while in the macrocontinental space nations and countries rediscover their own imperial natural vocation, extending their influence for the creation of specific major regional areas, to achieve greater stability and definitely afford to reappear again in the stage of international politics, coming up again even as pawns of the great global chessboard.

”The fourth political theory”, Alexander Dugin explains in his new book with this title, is a collaborative project involving also the French intellectual leader of la nouvelle droite, Alain de Benoist, with whom Dugin has apparently reestablished his former close relation. The two thinkers seem to have met for a prolonged period in Moscow to discuss the concept, and in connection with this, Dugin also published a Russian translation of a collection of essays by de Benoist, the title of which, in English, is Against Liberalism: Towards the Fourth Political Theory - a title which could be said to be simply a more precise indication of the content of Dugin’s own book.

This indicates that what we have to do with here is an attempt on the part of  Dugin and de Benoist to launch the concept of the fourth political theory as the most adequate designation of their shared philosophical and political positions. But this in turn raises the question if this is all simply a matter of renaming the New Right. If that is the case, there are, to begin with, two things that must be said about it.

I would like to begin by pointing out that this is not the first Arab Spring  – No! That there was another Arab Spring about a hundred years ago. And there is a remarkable similarity between the two Arab Springs. Both of them were engineered by the same Anglo-American Western Alliance. Both of them had the same objectives of advancing the Zionist agenda to further the cause of a Euro State of Israel which would eventually become a ruling state. In that first Arab Spring, remember - that the Ottoman Islamic Empire which has served Western Europe very faithfully while plunging a bloody knife for almost six hundred years into Eastern Europe - what the Qur’an refers to as Rum - that Ottoman Islamic Empire which had served the cause of Western Europe so faithfully for almost five, six hundred years was dismantled and in its place came pro-Western Arab rulers. For example in, in Arabia the Saudi regime came to power with her very faithful agenda of aligning themselves with the Anglo-American Alliance -the Zionist Alliance. Similarly, in other parts of the Arab world that were part of the Ottoman Empire - pro-Western rulers were all put in place. And in consequence of that first Arab Spring - Israel could be created. Had there not been that first Arab Spring - Israel could not have been created. The second Arab Spring is taking place and it’s - it’s purpose is to take the Israeli State one step further to its culmination really where… The Libyan regime was unwilling to become a client and an ally of the Anglo-American Zionist Alliance.

Traditionalism emphasizes the dualism that exists between two worlds: the world of tradition and the modern world. This dualism corresponds to two sociological categories: pre-modernity and modernity. This parallelism between traditionalism and sociology is very important and it is necessary to develop this affinity in the future.

In Paris, in 2011 I gave a lecture under the title: "René Guénon as a sociologist." René Guénon in his book "The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times" used the traditional and sacred symbol of the Egg of the World. In Guénon’s perspective, the pre-modern world corresponds to the Egg of the World open on the top and closed on the bottom. The spiritual rays enter the world and so the cosmic and material things receive the sacred qualities.

Modern society corresponds to the Egg of the World closed on the top and on the bottom. It is the materialistic, atheistic, consumerist civilization. That is, the scientific, mechanical and atomistic worldview. Postmodern society corresponds to the Egg of the World open on the bottom and closed on the top. It is the demonic post-human and post-social civilization. The reality in which we live. But for now let us put aside momentarily postmodernity, despite the great interest with which we could develop this correspondence.

The idea of Iran, as a federating civilization,  both absorbing and prevailing over the ancient kingdoms of West and South Asia arises with the conquests and universal claims of Cyrus (Kurosh) the Great, the founder of the Achaemenid Empire in 549 B.C. but the great Median Kings, before him, had already laboured to unite the tribes of the Iranian plateau   while   throwing   covetous   glances   at  Assyria   and  Babylonia.   Indeed   the Mitannians, the Hittites and the Kassites, to mention three illustrious predecessors, had built mighty “Indo-Iranian” states (for want of a better cultural definition) in the Near East, several centuries before Cyrus. Indeed the Kassites   ruled Babylonia during the second half of the second millennium BC.

Further back in history, it is now possible to trace the roots of Iranian civilization at least to the fourth millennium BC, and not, as was held so far in Mesopotamia, the supposed cradle of humanity hailed in the Bible, but  much farther to the East, in what is today Kerman province, on the site of Jiroft which was only discovered in 2001, not far from the shores of the Persian Gulf, on the Halil river.

In studying contemporary Russian Eurasianism—both as  a doctrine and as  a political movement—one constantly comes across Aleksandr Dugin. One  of the main reasons that he is relevant to any such study is the quasi-monopoly he exercises over a certain part of  the  current  Russian  ideological spectrum. This spectrum includes a plethora of right-wing groupuscules that produce an enormous number of books and an impressive quantity of low-circulation newspapers, but are not readily distinguishable from each other and display little theoretical consistency or sophistication. Dugin is the only major theoretician among this Russian radical right. He is simultaneously on the fringe and at the center of the Russian nationalist phenomenon. He provides theoretical inspiration to many currents and disseminates precepts that can be recycled at different levels. Above all he is striving to cover every niche on the current ideological  marketplace. He  proceeds  from  the assumption that  Russian  society and  Russia’s political establishment are in search of a new ideology: he therefore owes it to himself to exercise his influence over all the ideological options and their possible formulations.

Since Vladimir Putin's assumption of the Russian presidency in December of 1999, Moscow's foreign policy has changed course. The norm is no longer President Yel'tsin's sometimes halting embrace of Europe and the West, which persisted in spite of pressures both from hard-liners within his own government (such as Foreign Minister -- and later Prime Minister -- Yevgeny Primakov) and from the secret police and intelligence organs. Instead, under Putin's direction, Russia's manipulation of foreign affairs -- despite fluctuations in tone -- generally appears to be more aggressive and "geopolitical," raising worries about renewed imperial aspirations on the part of the Kremlin.
The post-1999 foreign policy approach is based on an ideological infrastructure. Long relegated to ultranationalists and a handful of "new right" thinkers, the previously obscure doctrine of Eurasianism has emerged as a major force in Russian politics. It is noteworthy not only for its appeal as the basis for a renewed quest for national greatness, but also for the degree to which its tenets appear to have begun to animate many of President Putin's international maneuvers.

One perceptive observer of the Russian political scene, Francoise Thom, noted as far back as 1994 that fascism, and especially its “Eurasianist” variant, was already at that time displacing Russian nationalism among statist Russian elites as a post-communist “Russian Idea,” especially in the foreign policy sphere.  “The weakness of Russian nationalists,” she emphasized, “stems from their inability to clearly situate Russian frontiers.  Euras[ianism] brings an ideological foundation for post-Soviet imperialism.”
There has probably not been another book published in Russia during the post-communist period which has exerted an influence on Russian military, police, and statist foreign policy elites comparable to that of Aleksandr Dugin’s 1997 neo-fascist treatise, Foundations of Geopolitics.3

The impact of this intended “Eurasianist” textbook on key elements among Russian elites testifies to the worrisome rise of fascist ideas and sentiments during the late Yeltsin and the Putin periods.

On June 5, 2007, the Ukrainian government declared Russian intellectual Aleksandr Dugin persona non grata and banned him from entering the country for a period of five years. This exceptional decision was motivated by a series of inflammatory remarks made by Dugin and his followers about Russia’s various pro-Western neighbors, the Ukraine foremost among them. It was not long, however, before Kiev retracted its decision, fearing further deterioration in its relationship with the superpower to the east. Dugin, after all, is not merely a philosopher. He has influential friends in the Russian presidential cabinet and is associated with many leading politicians, as well as prominent academics and celebrities. And indeed, Ukrainian apprehension was justified by the events that followed: That very evening, Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykola Zhulynsky and his family, who had arrived in St. Petersburg to visit the graves of their relatives, were deported by the Russian government. This retaliation had no mitigating effects on Dugin’s aggressive public campaign against the Ukraine. On October 12, activists from Dugin’s International Eurasian Movement sawed through the country’s national emblem—a statue of a trident situated on Mount Hoverla—and announced that they had thus "castrated” the Ukraine of its sovereignty. Following this ostentatious act of vandalism, Dugin was again banned from entering the Ukraine. This did not, however, prove to be the end of the affair. Authorities in Moscow were quick to show their support for the provocative thinker, and promptly deported Ukrainian political analyst Sergei Taran. The Russian Foreign Ministry left no doubt about Moscow’s motivations when it announced that Taran’s expulsion was a direct response to the Ukrainian ban.

Without this, several things are left unclear: the context we find ourselves in, the language we speak, the surroundings we are dealing with. Who does not understand the course of history and its models is as useless as a crow on the edge of a field. He is liable to outer forces, and his intellectual capabilities are minimal. Every single idiot should have at least some idea of the course of history. Once people didn't dare to appear in public without some certain ideas concerning the course of history. Today the very question might seem a bit too abstract for professional philosophers, historians, and presidents. Grease and television have become the brain protheses of the nation. Someone's talking about something - possibly joking, or telling a story about how he just got out of prison. The spirit of our time is against us standing for the understanding of history. Could this be just a coincidence?