The Fourth Political Theory

beyond left and right but against the center

Traditionalism is something other than tradition. It is a breakthrough to that which is the tradition of traditions, the secret grain, the theory. But being a theory, a construct, it needs to be continuously recreated. A construct is not so bad if the matter at hand is something rooted in the light nature of man himself. By creating, man creates himself. Therefore, Traditionalism must either happen or disappear. Its claims are too enormous and its bar has been set too high by Guénon and the Sophiologists on whom he constructed his doctrine. “Perennialism” means that Sophia is Perennis: she is here and now. But how can we relate the fact of the Kali Yuga, our God-forsaken “now” and the dustbin of the modern Western-centric global world, our vile, desolate “here”, with the rays of the Angel-Initiator, the light of Great Love, and the nature of man as a winged divine being? The Gnostics offered a dualist answer which often seems to be the only one acceptable and applicable to us. But is this not simply a recognition of our own weakness, of our own personal inability to transform the “Cover” into the “Mirror”, Absence into Presence, apophany into epiphany, and occultation into revelation? Is this not the signature on the warrant for the death of the Logos, the insuperability of Western nihilism, or the recognition of the closed, self-referential world to be the only possible and real?

Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, returned to the headlines in August, having been arrested on a yacht and charged with defrauding donors to a private campaign to build a wall along the US-Mexico border. Of the $25m collected by the We Build the Wall organisation, Bannon and three partners are accused of diverting more than $1m for personal expenses. At a preliminary hearing, Bannon’s attorney entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. Bannon is often characterised as a “nationalist” and a “populist”, but few realise that he is also affiliated with a much more obscure movement – one stranger and more radical than right-wing populism, and one whose cause is greater than that of a single election, greater, in fact, than politics.

We could find in that reading and discourse the convergence -- similar meaning with different outer shapes could emphasize the serious divergence, because in the long perspective that means two world orders – realist and liberal.  Trump’s line will somehow accept multipolarity as established fact trying to secure the US leading role in multipolar world order, while Biden’s globalism will try to prevent at any price the coming of the multipolar age because that destroys the linear progress of liberal democracy that is now almost “religious” dogma of Democrats and globalists.

Intellectuals and writers of modem Russia with great enthusiasm take care of the search for adequate socio-political explanations of the former gigantic empire, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union was lost and disoriented. At the same time, the universal vacuum was affecting Russia's integral environment due to the fall of the Marxist-Leninist development project. After all this, philosophers and social activist tried to make a foundation to the actual ideological goals of Russian society. However, so far, many of ideological aspirations to create new national policy was unsuccessful.
Since the mid-1990s, theoretical debates about Russia’s role in post-soviet space began with the key concepts of “Eurasia” and “Eurasianism”. The concept of Eurasia has become an integral part of the political discourse in Russia. As a matter of this discourse, the value of this concept appeared numerous presentations and analytical works of publicists, intellectuals, and politicians who are tried to use it to describe the present and future role of Russia in world politics. Today, Eurasianism advocates general turns and ideas of geopolitical and geo-strategic processes which should give an idea about the Russian position in the post-communist world order. In this sense, the concept of Eurasia represents mainly normative category, which is used in the work within the framework of political and ideologically debate about the self-understanding of Russia.

I simply disdain analytical philosophy and rational positivism and consider materialism individualism and analytical approach to the consciousness as forms of mental disease. I think it is enough to understand why I am called by them “most dangerous philosopher of the world”. And that explains perfectly all cancellings, deplatformings, demonizations, marginalizations, caricaturizations, criminalizations and so on I am victim of. That is what is epistemological warfare. The globalists will lose. Their educational system should be totally overthrown and destroyed. What they promote is pure mental poison. But to deplore the fact is not enough. We should rise up, resist, revolt and fight for each millimeter of epistemological space.

The entire world is now in the hard war against our identities because liberals and globalists and the hegemonic powers in the West have declared the war to all of us. I think, being isolated, Arabs, Muslims, Russians, Europeans suffering from this globalist Africans, people from India, China or Latin America, we are helpless we can’t win because being isolated makes them more powerful. We need to join our efforts, we should not try to impose Russian values on you, Islamic values on us, try to turn to our case China. We need to recognize all the identities, sacred identities and the right of all the people to restore their civilizational sovereignty and that is the main logic of multipolar politics, the main logic of Eurasianism.

Modern liberalism is the absolute enemy of any independent thought. Anything that doesn’t coincide with liberal dogma should be canceled, eliminated, declared “fascism” and its bearers will be severely punished cut off from access to networks, deplatformed, ostracized.

If you don’t share all dogmatic assertions of liberals you are automatically put under attack, denunciated, pursued,  condemned and doomed.
It is not double standards or conscious systematically distortions of facts. The facts don’t exist outside of interpretation. And in globalist world there is only one interpretation – liberal interpretation. All the rest is “fascism” that should be destroyed.

The liberalism is based on fundamental premise: the man is identical to individual. There is no other identity except individual one. It should be applied universally – in ideology, politics, economy, culture, law, everyday life. But individual as such is man (woman) totally detached of any form of collective identity – religious, racial, national, of class, sexual and so on. Such pure individual doesn’t exist in reality. It represent the moral goal of liberalism as historical, ideological, political and economic process.

As a matter of fact, Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory as a new political alternative opposes the geopolitical and ideological victory of liberalism over communism and fascism. For Dugin, liberalism as a foundational basis of Capitalism reached its peak during the cold war and hence, began disintegrating in the post-cold war era, when it became unchallenged. In this way, the unchallenged post-liberalism came into close association with postmodernity. Unfortunately, today it is the postmodernity that defines post-liberalism—, which illustrates the complete relegation and refutation of liberal history.

On August 1, 2020 the First Online International Conference on Fourth Political Theory (4PT) was organized by Professor Dugin (author of the Fourth Political theory), which was hosted by Paideuma TV. Around 200 participants from at least 40 countries have participated in the conference with different philosophical perspectives on the Liberal totalitarianism and liberal world disorder. This was the first international congress on the emerging Fourth Political Theory, which will play a crucial role in shaping the future of human civilization. The major theme of the conference was the brief discussion on the three political theories of modernity i: e liberalism, communism and Fascism, which are also the central focus of Professor Dugin’s book."

By the close of the 20th century, the violent battle between the three political theories of Modernity, i.e. Liberalism, Communism and Fascism, ended with the spectacular worldwide victory of the First Political Theory, Liberalism. This yielded the unipolar moment, Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of the “End of History” (as it at least seemed to be so in the 1990s), and globalization. “One World” began to be discernible based on one universal ideology – liberal globalism. In the 1990s, the overwhelming majority of analysts and experts, public figures and political scientists were inclined to believe that henceforth the economy and civil society would gradually replace politics and competition among nation-states. This created a new paradigm of truths and new obligatory epistemological criteria, such as those represented by such trends as cognitivism, techno-science, political correctness, and “LGBT+ culture.” This unipolar moment lasted until the year 2000, after which something went wrong (for the First Political Theory). The 9/11 attack, the gradual recovering of sovereignty of Putin’s Russia, the spectacular rise of China, the populist wave in Europe, and finally Trump’s election marked symptoms of the fact that Liberalism is in trouble, submerged in a crisis that has become more and more serious and irreversible.

A criminal was considered not only to be a person in full health and consciousness who had made a negative impact, but also as a person marked by a dark spirit. There was something abnormal about the criminal in the eyes of this society. This kind of  abnormality was also associated with disease; for instance, being infected with cholera or the plague was considered a crime. Physical pathology, moral pathology and the commission of a crime were brought closer together in the minds of people, leading to the isolation of both criminals and the sick.

In the beginning we will talk about the ontology of the theater. Ontology is the study of being. So, in the ontology of the theater, we will consider how the theater relates to such a major philosophical category as being. That is, if Martin Heidegger’s main work is “Sein und Zeit”: Sein – being and Zeit – time, “Being and time”. This is the main philosophical work of the XX century and perhaps one of the most important in the whole history of philosophy. Our course is dedicated to “Sein und Theater”, that is “Being and Theater”. So, theater will be for us the same problematical category as "being" for Heidegger.

The plague gods teach us humility. God sends plague in monotheistic cultures so that a person remembers how insignificant and weak he is. And if we fight the plague by means of a state of emergency, a new number of masks, ventilators, only relying on doctors – then we, as Ereshkigal, say that we are not convinced – we will defeat the plague ourselves, we will not change our way of life, we will make fun and live as before, we will restore the capitalist economy, our secular values, our entertainments, our path of autonomous humanity, our research in the field of high technologies and AI, we will continue to modernize and digitalize our society, we will implant everyone during the epidemic and the quarantine with microchips, and thus overcome the plague ourselves.

We ended the era of peremptory existence in an open global world, we were forced to find ourselves in a closed commercial state, and I propose to seriously think over this perspective. We can return, I do not exclude this possibility that we can return to globalization, it will be, however, a different globalization, we will not return there soon, but there are very great reasons that we will never return to this globalization, and will exist for a very long time in a closed commercial state. In order to prepare for this second scenario, which we are already doomed to, and we don’t know how much time it will last: the coming months, maybe years, maybe even longer. That is why I propose to make this mental experiment and, in fact, to make a choice. Without this choice, we cannot move on. The situation is very serious, and Russia will have to make this choice, but all other countries will also have to make this choice. So, either we temporarily take a step back from globalization, to which we will return after the end of the coronavirus, as Bill Gates, Gordon Brown (speaking about world government) and George Soros say (in fact, he keep silence now, because now to advocate for globalism is like to make a coming-out, that is, if you say “I'm a liberal,” you can be hospitalized for this, so only people with a bunker or some kind of reliable shelter such as Bill Gates or Gordon Brown can afford it. In principle, today, of course, everyone understands that only closeness is saving, but nonetheless, voices even from these dungeons, from secret shelters are heard that propose however to make a world government. But, of course, today no one is listening.

Having said this, we consider that the reading of the aforementioned work reveals, in between the lines, a specific methodology, so to speak, a way of universal action to be adopted apt to allow the construction of positions informed by the Fourth Political Theory on the most diverse topics and in the most diverse areas of knowledge. In this sense, regarding the methodology, we are talking about something which belongs to the “praxis”, but in the measure in which this methodology depends on the comprehension of the Fourth Political Theory in order to be unveiled and, simultaneously, points towards the work of permanent construction of the same, this also belongs to the “theory”.

The state of emergency, Ernstfall, it is very very serious and one who is in power in such a situation, is not likely to give it up voluntarily to anyone. This is, let's say, the positive side of the epidemic in which we now live. Of course, it’s important to deal with it, it’s important to survive, but you can’t reduce everything to solution of purely technical issues, it is essential to think about the future. And at the exit from this pandemic we will come across a completely new post-global reality.

I think that this is perhaps the most important: we must think not just how to save ourselves from the coronavirus, but why and most importantly for what it came to us, whoever stood behind its appearance and whatever the nature of this pandemic - man-made / not man-made, natural or artificial is, it’s not important, it is the sense of it that really matters. And here when it comes to telos, the purpose of something, the meaning of something, then we must turn to the figure of Apollo, who is the interpreter and the true originator, that is, the metaphysical source of the pandemic that happens to people, and it is a healing, albeit rigid, shaping, it is a hand outstretched to us and aid from light metaphysics so that we return to ourselves, that we close our borders, that we close our homes, that we close our eyes and draw them inside ourselves .

The outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic has been a decisive moment in the destruction of the unipolar world and the collapse of globalization. The crisis of unipolarity and the slippage of globalization has been noticeable since the very beginning of the 2000s - the 9/11 catastrophe, the sharp growth of China's economy, the return to global politics of Putin's Russia as an increasingly sovereign entity, the sharp activation of the Islamic factor, the growing crisis of migrants and the rise of populism in Europe and even the United States that resulted in the election of Trump and many other parallel phenomena have made it clear that the world formed in the 90s around the dominance of the West, the US and global capitalism has entered a crisis phase. The multipolar world order is beginning to form with new central actors, civilizations, as anticipated by Samuel Huntington. While there were signs of emerging multipolarity, a trend is one thing, and objective reality another. It is like cracked ice in spring - it is clear that it will not last long, but at the same time, it is undeniably here - you can even move across it, albeit with risk. No one can be certain when the cracked ice will actually give way. 

We should stand together with the awakened Iranians, awakened Shiites, awakened muslims and all awakened from other confessions and religions in order to participate on the same side in common struggle against Daddjal, the Lier which we call Antichrist and which is identified in the actual world in globalism, Western hegemony, global capitalism and murderous politics of United States of America with all theirs pawns, puppets and proxies.
The Iranian Revolution ids the revolt against modern World in favor of eternal truth and the coming age of the Restoration, Resurrection and establishing of global Justice. It is our common struggle – we have common enemy and we should feel ourselves as brothers in spirit and arms.

When Bush was in Moscow, at the moment of the invasion of the United States in Iraq, he said: ‘Please be patient, you will have democracy as well, like in Iraq.’ Putin said: ‘Thank you very much, we will find another way to build our society.’
I think the picture you gave is correct, but it has nothing to do with modern Western society, where there is a purely totalitarian way of describing the facts, not in favour of a small group of owners of one mass medium or another, but in favour of a political elite. And they are in that sense a kind of Platonists, taking their truths from their liberal ideology; that is something Platonic as well. And the people are in revolt against that, in different countries but also in the West. I think the wave of populism is precisely the refusal of the European people, not right wing or left wing, but a refusal by normal European citizens of this absolutely abstract agenda of liberal elites. So I think that it is not about the State now, we are speaking about political elites.

So, Russia is in trouble; its Logos, its people, its Dasein, its existential horizon. But 'nothing is lost when there is something that is not lost,’ as Curzio Malaparte has said. So I think that we are in a situation that is structurally close to the situation of Serbian people. We have different scale, different power, different space, different number of population, but the problem is the same. And Russia could not be regarded as the answer or alternative to what is going on. It is only the other place where the Noomahia still continues, with domination of the Cybelian Logos. So we are inside of Cybele. We are not outside of Cybele. That maybe was remarked by Milos Crnjanski in his final result of his book, that Russia is good but that is not the answer for Serbian quest for identity. Milos Crnjanski’s result or summary is a tragic one because Serbs become kind of in exile, in permanent exile, with no motherland left for them. But all the hopes on Russia should be measured with this pessimistic but very open solution of Milos Crnjanski because he loved Russia, and Serbians love Russia. And that is good, but when we have too much incorrect expectations, we could miss the question and unity in fight with something that already accomplished and perfect. So that is very important to Serbs and to all the fighters of identity to know that Russia fights. Russia is not yet defeated formally, because our people is, because it exists. But we have so great problem with Russian Logos, we could not yet start to continue the situation when our effort to create Russian philosophy was cut drastically by Communists. So we are outside of the place where really philosophy begins. We are outside. And this place is not attained, not reached yet. We are fighting to go to this moment. And because of great damage we had during last hundred years, we could not restart the process. In Russia today, there is pure social madness. We could not speak with nobody. As people, we are very good and open and very Christian, but as a kind of bearer of some intellectual ero. With so big people, so few people capable concretely to think, it is unimaginable. That is a kind of deep, dogmatical sleep (not dogmatical in the positive sense, it’s adogmatical), modern, post-modern sleep, conservative sleep of the people. So we are sleeping but that is good thing that we could be awake, lets hope.