[between_the_lies]

I had the good fortune to attend the 2012 Identitatian Ideas conference in Stockholm where Alexander Dugin, Professor of Conservative Studies at Moscow State University, and former advisor to Vladimir Putin spoke. Professor Dugin has recently published a book called the Fourth Political Theory and believes that he has “created the invitation” for the next political theory that will define the order of mankind. This is a summary of Dugin’s speech:

Dugin argues that the political theories of the past are Marxism, Fascism and Liberal Democracy. He argues that as overarching theories Marxism and Fascism have been defeated, and today the world is ruled by the theory of Liberal Democracy which has taken elements from Marxism and Fascism. Dugin says that the Liberal concept is that the individual is everything and the collective identity is nothing. The Liberal will say that “Peter is Peter whether he is Christian, black, white or gay.” Therefore Liberalism cannot recognise a gender, and given that gender can be verified and is natural, this proves that liberalism is an artificial construct, while the Liberal believes that it is natural. Because the individual is everything, the highest ideal in Liberalism is the defence of minorities, the protection of the individual identity and the removal of any other identity e.g. race, class, nation, gender, passports and fatherlands. It views the human being as the highest point and the human being is the only actor in its political space. While a number of people thought that Liberalism post the communist society collapse was the end of history, Liberalism itself and the societies governed by it are in fact collapsing. Liberalism, Communism and Fascism each thought that they were more modern, and Liberalism won the battle between the three. There is no currently constructed alternative to Liberalism. Liberal Democracy today has no enemies, and therefore it has no context and it has therefore become like a runaway train which has resulted in absurd dogmas for example a kind of racism or prejudice against the West, Europe and capitalism. [Liberalism has become abhorrent telling us that our babies are racists and that we must accept everything even sadomasochism, because to deny anything is to negate a person.] Liberals have criminalised their enemies. [If you are an enemy of Liberalism, then you are an un-person]. While the Liberals are in power, they have failed. They have a system but they cannot give modernity the power, the spirit because they don’t create anymore; they only use, consume and deconstruct. Society is now in decay and must be reconstructed.

The Liberal power is so strong, and the Liberal will do anything to hold onto that power, so the Fourth Political Theory must make no quarrel with the Liberal. The Theory must “Transcend” modernity rather than fight with it and this means to “Construct” rather than “Deconstruct”. We want to present a synthesis of pre-modern ideas and modern ideas as the future idea. The pre-modern ideas are who we are and the modern ideas are just conveniences. We need to change our attitude to the past. The modern idea is that God was and now he is dead, however changing the attitude means saying that some things are not the past, they are eternal. The Fourth Political theory is not simply materialistic but metaphysical and means regaining many of the lost qualities from the past. It is not a question of whether or not this reality is possible; it is a matter of fact that this reality is possible is we believe in it and in eternity and don’t believe in modernity.

We can see that a collapse is on the horizon; social collapse, financial collapse, political collapse. We should embrace the collapse rather than be sad to lose something that does not work anymore. We need to bring about the end rather than delay it, or live in a situation whether the end is endlessly pushed out. To reject Liberalism means to reject the dogma that the man is the measure or the political actor. We must reject class as a way of thinking, it is over. In order to overcome Liberal resistance we must remove from the argument all of the actors which is held sacred; race, class, gender, the state [and work with that which it cannot measure].

Heidegger said that most human activity centred on “doing” rather than “being”. For example Marxism, was a theory that the world was a pool of resources and that people were a pool of labour. The person was a number in a resource pool. It was survival, but survival for what? Heidegger called the idea of being, “Dasein”. In my Theory our being in the world, our existential aspects are what is central. Different cultures have a different “Dasein” and this goes to the argument for multi-polarity; different people, different culture. The difference is not based on race, class, gender etc. but on “Dasein”. The world would not have nation states but the boarders would be defined by the groups of people with going together with their proper existential ties. I see the European “Dasein” as being a “Eurasian” space which would encompass Europe and Russia.

Currently we have an attempt to create a uni-polar world. One polarity is trying to convert the entire world to its polarity and this results in numerous amounts of wars. Multi-polarity would in all likelihood increase peace. We should reject the uni-polarity from the United States and leave that for the United States and all those who wish to align to it. We should reject the zero-polarity of the Bilderbergers. In a multi-polar world, there can be an American “Dasein”, a European “Dasein”, an Africa “Dasein”, an Asian “Dasein”. The world is dominated by the American “Dasein” and if one wants to exit this, one must question the idea of artificial demands; instead of trying to consume something we don’t want or need, we should try to deconsume. We should get rid of the television and the mass-media from our space because it makes you more stupid.
Most of the problems created by modernity will be removed when we remove modernity. To transition to The Fourth Political system, while the nation state is not required in this system, Nationalism would be required during the transition. The sovereignty and economic power of the nation state would have to be restored as the first step in the new alignment. The alignment will be nothing like the European Union which is a top down construction. It will be a natural alignment that creates from bottom up. The result will be multiple polarities co-existing in a peaceful, natural order.

[internetguru]

I don't get it.

[between_the_lies]

What exactly don't you get?

[gladders]

Can we have this distilled into three sentences please? You're not going to get much conversation with a wall of text.

[between_the_lies]

That is as concise as I can make it. We are talking about an entire new political theory with a metaphysical aspect. That is the summary version. I think that the problem is that it is “outside of the box” in terms of the way that most people have been taught to think. In all honesty it would probably require some effort, and reading each sentence and thinking about it to get the meaning. It not like at all like reading something like “David Cameron does not agree with the Keynesian view that borrowing for fiscal stimulus is the answer” which is the type of political statement people are used to.

[gladders]

Well I've just read it and I'm none the wiser, I'm afraid. I starts with a critique of liberalism, but nowhere can I exactly see what this new Fourth Theory is.

[creak]

Can you explain the major differences between this and fascism? It's very hard to make out exactly what this fourth theory actually is.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by gladders)
Well I've just read it and I'm none the wiser, I'm afraid. I starts with a critique of liberalism, but nowhere can I exactly see what this new Fourth Theory is.

The Fourth Theory is that we succeed liberalism with a system that discards race, class, gender, sexuality, nation etc. in favour of recognizing only one quality, the way in which you "exist", and the world is ordered in groups of the different people that "exist" in different ways. So Europeans "exist" on a different plane that say Native Americans, so they would be in a different sphere. The second part is that that the theory says that modernism is just a toolset and not our true nature and the Fourth Theory wants to go back and restore our true nature, defining it as eternal, but also use modern conveniences, just not regard them as the important reality, but just a toolset.

(Original post by creak)
Can you explain the major differences between this and fascism?

"All is race; there is no other truth ,and every race must fall which carelessly suffers its blood to become mixed." Benjamin Disraeli said this.

Dugin declares that fascism like Marxism and liberal democrasy are finished. Fascism tries to use force and a military like structure to impose what it deems as the right way to live. While there are some similarities between the underlying philosophy of this theory and Hitler's National Socialism (for example Heidegger had some influence on the German National Socialist movement), the big differnce is that this theory wants to allign to what is natural and not use the fascist techniques which boil down to a highly regimented and militarised society. Fascism tends to attract a lot of negative propaganda and this reduces its chanced of success.

[gladders]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
The Fourth Theory is that we succeed liberalism with a system that discards race, class, gender, sexuality, nation etc. in favour of recognizing only one quality, the way in which you "exist", and the world is ordered in groups of the different people that "exist" in different ways. So Europeans "exist" on a different plane that say Native Americans, so they would be in a different sphere. The second part is that that the theory says that modernism is just a toolset and not our true nature and the Fourth Theory wants to go back and restore our true nature, defining it as eternal, but also use modern conveniences, just not regard them as the important reality, but just a toolset.

In what ways, exactly, do native Americans 'exist' differently from Europeans?

"All is race; there is no other truth ,and every race must fall which carelessly suffers its blood to become mixed." Benjamin Disraeli said this.

Dugin declares that fascism like Marxism and liberal democrasy are finished. Fascism tries to use force and a military like structure to impose what it deems as the right way to live. While there are some similarities between the underlying philosophy of this theory and Hitler's National Socialism (for example Heidegger had some influence on the German National Socialist movement), the big differnce is that this theory wants to allign to what is natural and not use the fascist techniques which boil down to a highly regimented and militarised society. Fascism tends to attract a lot of negative propaganda and this reduces its chanced of success.

If this is national socialism wrapped up in new packaging then I'm not interested. You ever wonder why it gets negative propaganda? Because it's a reprehensible political theory.

[creak]

So it differs to fascism in its implementation but not really its end state, and draws on a few broad ideas from Huntington's clash of civilisations. Not much of this is really new, is it? Nor is it very appealing. Hardly eclipses class, either.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by creak)
Can you explain the major differences between this and fascism? It's very hard to make out exactly what this fourth theory actually is.

Maybe its a bit like the third theory, y'know like an international fourth position.

[Kibalchich]

Dugin is a Russian fascist btw.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by gladders)
In what ways, exactly, do native Americans 'exist' differently from Europeans?

Across tribes, Native Americans generally believe in one all-powerful, wholly kind, and beneficent deity. Often this supreme being is thought to reside in the sky, the sun, some lofty and inaccessible mountain, or some mysterious lake. Because most tribes believe this deity to be male, they often believe he has a wife and family. Guardian spirits reveal themselves to humans in visions and through natural phenomena such as birds and animals. The earth, or Earth Mother, nourishes life. Dangerous spirits live in the land of the dead. All these supernatural beings weave themselves into the fabric of daily living for Native Americans. They are symbolized by images and charms, and they inspire worship in prayer and in ceremonies. A Santee Dakota physician and author wrote in 1911 about the manner in which his people worshiped:

In the life of the Indian there was only one inevitable duty,– the duty of prayer–the daily recognition of the Unseen and Eternal. [The Indian's] daily devotions were more necessary to him than daily food. He wakes at daybreak . . . stands erect before the advancing dawn, facing the sun, . . . and offers his unspoken orison. . . .

Whenever, in the course of the daily hunt the red hunter comes upon a scene that is strikingly beautiful or sublime . . . he pauses for an instant in the attitude of worship.

The Native American consciousness of the harmony and beauty in the universe connects tribe members to their God and urges them to act in harmony with one another and the earth. For them, every creature is a teacher and potential friend. Each teacher in nature holds a deep abiding love for the Great Holy and will impart messages to those who seek the mysteries of the unknown.

If this is national socialism wrapped up in new packaging then I'm not interested. You ever wonder why it gets negative propaganda? Because it's a reprehensible political theory.

I am not defending National Socialism, like the theory says socialism and fascism are dead. There are some similarities, and this does not mean that the new theory is bad. There are some similarities between Mira Hindley and Mother Teresa.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Dugin is a Russian fascist btw.

The word "fascist" is often misused to mean "someone we disagree with" or "someone we don't understand but have been told to disagree with."

[zaliack]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand of it, the "Fourth Political Theory" is that we should just stick to our own nations, and not interfere with each other. Isn't that just nationalism?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
The word "fascist" is often misused to mean "someone we disagree with" or "someone we don't understand but have been told to disagree with."

However, in this case, seeing as Dugin is one of the leaders of the National Bolsheviks, its a fairly accurate description.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
The word "fascist" is often misused to mean "someone we disagree with" or "someone we don't understand but have been told to disagree with."

But hey, if you prefer a "liberal" state that makes someone from the country a minority in their own town, then jails them if they have an outburst about this "Emma West", this is not fascism right? It's liberal? Right?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
But hey, if you prefer a "liberal" state that makes someone from the country a minority in their own town, then jails them if they have an outburst about this "Emma West", this is not fascism right? It's liberal? Right?

How's your right arm? Tired yet?

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
However, in this case, seeing as Dugin is one of the leaders of the National Bolsheviks, its a fairly accurate description.

The National Bolshevik Party is historial. Dugin is associated with The Other Russia Party, a Russian Nationalist Party that wants to reject the Americanisation of Russia. Nationalism is not the same as fascism. Nationalism is for example something badly needed in the UK e.g. to stop the endless immigration and return communities that are not integrated into British culture and don't even speak the language to their homelands. The Persusuomi in Finland are another example of a nationalist party that are fascist. They have managed to limit immigration to single thousands per year and are the second largest political party in Finland. Finland is a highly civilised country.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
The National Bolshevik Party is historial. Dugin is associated with The Other Russia Party, a Russian Nationalist Party that wants to reject the Americanisation of Russia. Nationalism is not the same as fascism. Nationalism is for example something badly needed in the UK e.g. to stop the endless immigration and return communities that are not integreated into British culture and don't even speak the language to their homelands.

You're advocating repatriation?

I diagnose a serious right arm problem. Nurse!