Prof. Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory (4pt) presents a flawed historiography, one which incorrectly dismisses the 20th century’s fascist movements as both decadent and derelict, a refuted and obsolete “political theory” which history has moved beyond in its inexorable march toward his fourth (and final?) “political theory.” A problem has emerged for his model only a couple years after its publication, the global re-emergence of a tide of nationalism and third position which, by all popular accounts, should be an anachronism.
In a recent essay, “Traps and dead ends of the New Nationalism,” Dugin scolds history to get back on the course he’s laid out for it. While Dugin’s plasticity is legendary, there are some patterns. At his best, he’s a champion of Russia’s emerging role as the nationalist and traditionalist counter-pole to the Atlanticists in the Next Cold War. At his worst, he’s a Soviet revanchist, the Russian equivalent of a neocon. This is Dugin at his worst, and I’m hopeful that he’ll identify the error in his theory and take up the role he deserves as an intellectual champion of the anti-Atlanticist revolt taking place around the world right now.
Realism in MO (+ mercantilism and protectionism in economy) is almost guaranteed and it will become soon the ideology of the political Centre (with some delay needed to cleanse the last Liberals). Welcome into a new era of nationalism. Second political theory (communism) is so discredited by the history of the twentieth century that it could hardly represent an alternative – even when it is deeply impregnated by liberal virus. Now there is no more clean communism — rather far left liberalism in form of anarchism and trozkiism backed by such ultra-liberals as Soros. But nationalism is relatively forgotten. Its excessive demonization by the “anti-fascists” has made it look any meaning. The whole story of the name-calling “Nazis” of Putin and then – and this is important – of Trump finally has fully desemanticized the term – soon the word “fascist” will mean only the obscenity and will loose its sense completely. And the essence of nationalism, not the name, will come back and will be established everywhere, as simplistic alternative to the liberal hegemony, that is falling apart before our very eyes.
But did we want that issue? If someone wanted this, then that where’n’t certainly us.
Dugin perceives himself as the ideological progenitor of a new Russian imperium, as the Marx of the Eurasian global hegemony. The tragedy here is that Russia is actually poised to sit atop the 21st century political order, but they’ll have to shake off their theoretical errors in order to truly take the lead and seize the title. Fascist nationalism hasn’t returned because the oligarchs accidentally failed to use the correct insults. It’s returning because the colonial power structure (centered in the West, of course) is being pinched between the very gradual decline of the mercantile colonial economic order and the very rapid advancement of game-changing technology.
Fascism is the next “political theory,” and there’s nothing any theoretician can do about it. The colonial world order necessarily came to the fore when Europe’s Jews and peasant merchants seized the immense wealth unlocked by colonialism (which Russia and other “land powers” were locked out of). All of the French Revolution’s philosophes on down to their descendants in the West’s professorial sinecures are but propagandists of a world order that changed because of technology and economics.
The global Great Depression was an existential crisis for the Atlanticist order, and created an opening for the proletariat, the clergy, and the martial classes to unite in a doomed revolt. They were evidently premature, and the Atlanticists prevailed, but now the Atlanticist order is weakening again, and the same alliance of coalminers, cardinals, and colonels is rising up once more. Leninism wasn’t even wrong. Its internal “political theory” can be entirely disregarded. Functionally, Marxism’s impact on the 20th century proved little more than a command economy jumpstart to educate, industrialize, and urbanize the populations which had been left behind by the paleo-colonial economy.
The problem with thinkers is they’re under the impression that thinking drives history. They actually believe that the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Bolshevik Revolution were fueled by ideas. The ideas were but a reflection and ex post facto excuse for the undercurrents driving history. A darwinian process occurs throughout history where ideas that happen to be with the current rise up and those which happen to be against it get sucked under. The Protestants had their carefully considered reasons for rebelling against the Catholic Church, but they would have been as powerless as their forebears had the Jewish and peasant merchant oligarchs not exploited them as useful idiots in their challenge to the Ancien Regime.
First, nationalism – is a product of the Modernity. Exactly as the rest of political theory of Modernity – liberalism and communism. It is based on the denial of the spirit of Middle Ages and on the refuse of the traditions of the Empire and of Christ. It is bourgeois at its roots and in its essence. It may be a little better than liberalism and communism (that explicitly destroy identity of the people and religion), but nationalism is infected with the same poison – secularism, rationalism, atheism. It is other version of Westoxication (Occidentosis) –Gharbzadegi of person Heideggerian philosopher Ahmad Fardid called it.
Nationalism is neither Modern nor Traditional, and it’s counter-productive to try to cram it into either box. National identity can manifest in the Romantic model, as a challenge to traditional Catholic imperium. It can manifest as it’s doing now, as a challenge to degenerate globalist imperium. The common Eurasianist slander that nationalism is a degenerate Enlightenment phenomenon is asinine. Nationalism is little more than applied tribalism, which is nothing more than an organic expression of our tribal primate instincts. Like all instincts, there are noble and ignoble ways to express it. But it’s decidedly value-neutral.
Nationalism needn’t be infected with poison. If anything, this “new nationalism” appears to be decisively less secular, rationalist, and atheist than what it’s challenging. In the neo-Bolshevik imagination, capitalism and West are intrinsically “racist.” This is demonstrably false, but Russians can’t help but indulge in the obnoxious habit, akin to neoconservatives calling Democrats “the real racists,” of rejecting racial identity as evil and ascribing that evil to the West.
“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human.”
Paleo-colonialism was racist, while neo-colonialism is vehemently anti-racist. The racial instinct begins as a catalyst of colonial capitalism in its early stages, but eventually proves to be an obstacle. Racial loyalty, national borders, religious confessions, and even every single class identity save for that final line between the global oligarchs and the rest of the world, become barriers to the free flow of capital to be corroded by the acidic ideology of globalism that now hangs like a cloud of poison gas over the entire world.
Technology is the deus ex machina in all this, and it’s why we’ll get to enjoy a collapse of the neo-colonial Atlanticist order several decades ahead of schedule. It was already in decline, but democratization of technology has had an accelerating effect, throwing it into what we see before us, a global existential crisis. What we saw in the early 20th century was merely a sneak preview, ladies and gentlemen. Fascism is now the ascendent political theory, and nothing can stand in its way.
The structure of politics is a reflection of economic and military might. In the 20th century, military technology was centralized, expensive, and hegemonic. It required a massive priesthood of engineers with computers the size of buildings and complexes the size of cities to maintain. So you had the 20th century’s Orwellian super-states, with America being the heart of an empire, the Soviet Union being the heart of another, and the rest of the world lurking like small mammals in the shadows of the dinosaurs.
The democratization of technology is the meteor strike which will kill off these sickly lumbering dinosaurs. My cheap disposable Chromebook I’m typing this essay on contains more processing power than the supercomputers of the 20th century, and a suitcase can pose a greater lethal threat than the hulking warheads of yesteryear. While ISIS made a lethal error of attempting to prematurely stake out sovereign territory, it was the first major example of what military conflict will look like in the coming decades. It will be on social media. It will be with small weapons devised from off the shelf parts.
Several years ago, I took up a hobby as a local bitcoin exchanger. While doing so, I encountered several technology hobbyists like myself, as well as people I strongly suspected were engaging in something illegal on the deep web. A couple even flatly admitted as much. But one man was Syrian. Being naive, I started gushing about my support for Assad against the Western-backed rebels. He humored me, making the now-defunct argument that the rebels were pretty much secular freedom-fighters against Assad’s brutal dictatorship.
It doesn’t matter. What matters is that I probably helped launder money to ISIS. My bad.
Contrary to the juvenile fantasies of anarcho-capitalists, this transformative techno-political revolution won’t result in a vacuum. The proletariat, clergy, and military forces will rise up to fill the void, with only superficial and thematic differences from what happened during their abortive coup which culminated in WWII. There’s unlikely to be a world war this time, though. All of the big iron 20th century technology will probably continue to rot in warehouses throughout America and the former Soviet Union. The fronts will be more agile and ephemeral than that.
Dugin, Putin, Trump, Le Pen, Farage, and Assad don’t understand the nature of this strange new current pulling them all to the forefront of the geopolitical order. They’re unwitting forerunners of the coming age of neo-tribalism, one where the political order devolves down to the ethnic nation, the denomination, the bishopric, and–ultimately–the ethnarch. It will be antisemitic and anti-capitalist (though anti-Marxist, as well), even as Dugin and Trump believe and insist to the contrary. The global Jewish community and the global capitalists are the implacable enemies of the future order, and they will fight us every step of the way no matter how desperately we deny that they’re our enemies.
This isn’t to say that we must necessarily imitate every error and excess (real or imagined) of the 20th century’s fascist vanguard. The game is different now, and we must adapt our vanguard so that it’s neither anachronistic nor guilty of the unforced errors of our fallen comrades. Nationalism must not devolve into national chauvinism, as global nationalism requires that the ethnicities of the world rise up as one against the globalists. Racial solidarity must not devolve into supremacism or hatred, as all of the races must join together as moral and political equals against the common threat to their extended families. Their materialist scientific reductionism (which was certainly not unique to the Axis at that time) is an anachronism we can and should step over, while embracing and exploiting scientific and technological progress at every turn.