4th Political Theory (Review)

This review has in mind St Cheetos the Prophet.

The phrase that best sums up Dugin’s approach is “Negating the Logic of History.”  Dugin begins by listing the three most common (and modern) ideologies:

    1. Liberalism: the individual is the normative subject
    2. Fascism: race or nation is normative subject
    3. Communism: Class

      The second and third options failed, leaving liberalism in charge.
    4. 4th political theory: Dasein is the acting subject.

Liberalism is the broad, architectonic worldview that hinges on several assumptions (the challenging of which will entail a drone strike). Classical Liberals defined freedom as “freedom from.”  There should be no ties on an individual’s will.   It is these individuals, acting alone but taken as a whole, who form the circle of liberal action.Lacking a telos by definition, liberalism is hard-pressed to explain what we have freedom for.

Against this Dugin posits Heidegger’s Dasein as the acting subject of the 4th Political Theory. Dasein is a way to overcome the subject-object duality.  It is inzwichen, the “between.”

One valuable insight of Dugin’s is his pinpointing the bigotry of Western liberals.  All societies must accept liberalism in its current manifestation.  What if you don’t want to?  Well, if you don’t have natural resources you are probably okay.  Otherwise, look out.

Liberal ideology is necessarily evolutionary.  The concept of progress takes one from barbarism to technologism and the more refined way of life of the markets. This is what Dugin calls “The Monotonic Process:” he idea of constant growth, accumulation, steady progress by only one specific indicator (60).  In other words, in a system only one value (x) grows.  Only one thing (or a small group of things) accumulates.  Applied to either machines or biological life, this is death.  

Modern political options have all seen progress and time in a linear fashion.  Even more so, because of time there must naturally be progress.   By contrast, Dugin suggests that

T1: Time is a social phenomenon with its structures arising from social paradigms (68).

By this he wants to safeguard the idea that there can be “interruptions” and reversals in the flow of time.  History does not simply teach the march of capitalism upon earth (borrowing and adapting Hegel’s phrase).

Nevertheless, and perhaps unaware, Dugin remains close to the linear view.  He does note that time is “historical” (70) and from that draws a very important, Heideggerian conclusion:  it cannot be objective.

Why not? The acting subject, the historical observer (whom we will call “Dasein,” but this is true also of the individual in liberalism) is finite.  He doesn’t have a god’s-eye view on history. Of course, that’s not to say it can’t be real or reliable per the observer, but we don’t have the Enlightenment’s dream of a god’s-eye application of reason to reality.

Dugin then analyses how Leftist and Conservatism evolved in the 20th century.

Finally, he ends with a dense and staggering discussion on the nature of time.  Kant denied that by mere perception we have access to the thing-in-itself.  Therefore, if the being of the present is put in doubt, then all three moments (past, present, future) become ontologically unproveable. From the perspective of pure reason, the future is the phenomenon, and hence, it is (157).

Kant puts time nearer to the subject and space nearer to the object. Therefore, time is subject-ive.  It is the transcendental subject that installs time in the perception of the object.

Advertisements

Dugin notes, 3: Reversibility of Time

Modern political options have all seen progress and time in a linear fashion.  Even more so, because of time there must naturally be progress.   By contrast, Dugin suggests that

T1: Time is a social phenomenon with its structures arising from social paradigms (68).

By this he wants to safeguard the idea that there can be “interruptions” and reversals in the flow of time.  History does not simply teach the march of capitalism upon earth (borrowing and adapting Hegel’s phrase).

Nevertheless, and perhaps unaware, Dugin remains close to the linear view.  He does note that time is “historical” (70) and from that draws a very important, Heideggerian conclusion:  it cannot be objective.

Why not? The acting subject, the historical observer (whom we will call “Dasein,” but this is true also of the individual in liberalism) is finite.  He doesn’t have a god’s-eye view on history.

Of course, that’s not to say it can’t be real or reliable per the observer, but we don’t have the Enlightenment’s dream of a god’s-eye application of reason to reality.

Dugin notes, 2: Dasein as Actor

  1. What is the nature of freedom?
    1. Classical Liberals defined freedom as “freedom from.”  There should be no ties on an individual’s will.  
      1. It is these individuals, acting alone but taken as a whole, who form the circle of liberal action.
      2. Lacking a telos by definition, liberalism is hard-pressed to explain what we have freedom for.
    2. All political theories have an acting subject.
  2. Dasein as subject.
    1. Dasein is a way to overcome the subject-object duality.  It is inzwichen, the “between.”
  3. Hidden Racisms
    1. Is “progress” racist? Maybe.  Progressive societies have an implicit judgment that other societies, who do not hold such views, are inferior.
    2. The only true human rights are those enshrined by global capitalism, democracy, individualism.
  4. Ethnos: A community of language
    1. Racist societies, whether Nazis or American neo-liberals, reduce society to a concept like race, blood, market.
    2. A better reduction, if reduction it is, is language.

Dugin outline, chapter 1

I am doing an analytical outline of Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory.

Birth of a Concept

  1. Three Ideologies
    1. Liberalism: the individual is the normative subject (this includes both free market capitalism and the Democratic Party.  I am using “liberal” in a non-perjorative sense).
    2. Fascism: race or nation is normative subject
    3. Communism: Class
      The second and third options failed, leaving liberalism in charge.  Without any alternatives, liberalism is the norm.
    4. 4th political theory: Dasein is the acting subject.  We will explain more on this later.
  2. Postmodernism
    1. Global Market Society
      1. Globalism
      2. Technology
    2. Kingdom of Antichrist
  3. Heidegger and the Event
    1. The ancient greeks confused the nuances between pure being (Seyn) and a being (Seinende).
    2. Nihilism and the event
      1. The “Nothing” is the flip side of being and paradoxically reminds one of Being’s existence.
      2. Event: the sudden return of being.

 

European Plain: What’s at Stake for Hillary in 2017

By J. B. Aitken

Hillary must start WWIII by 2017 if she wants to have any semblance of Atlanticist domination.  Even then, the price might be too high.

Atlantis at the Threshold

Atlanticism, following Dugin, is the geopolitical reality that prioritizes trade and commerce.  It is the Platonic form of Carthage and Tyre.  It’s god is a variant of Ba’al. It opposes itself to Eternal Rome, the notion of a Tellurcratic society.  That society prioritizes tradition and stability.  The DC/London/Brussels nexus is the locus of Atlanticism.

But Atlanticism is quite interested in “land.”  Specifically, it is interested in trade routes that can also function as “funnels” into land-based empires.  This explains the Beltway insistence on foreign military actions and adventures that really don’t make sense.  DC’s goal is quite simple, and is documented by a host of scholars (Dugin, Engdahl, Johnson et al).  It must surround Russia and take advantage of Russia’s lack of geographical borders.  This allows manifestations of Atlantist, notably NATO, key invasion routes.

The Beast Thwarted?

The most obvious invasion route is through Western Russia.  While STRATFOR analyst George Friedman is almost always wrong about Russia, he did raise several interesting points: you can draw a line from Moscow to Rostov and everything West of it is the European peninsula.  This means Moscow is very close to “The West.”  Take away the buffer of Ukraine, and Moscow can be invaded from two points, from Kiev and from the Baltics.

But things did not go according to Soros’s plans.  Novorossiya arose from the ashes of Ukraine and removed any invasion route from the south.  Therefore, Atlantis can only reach Moscow from the West.

Maintaining Air Dominance

No one disputes traditional NATO air superiority, but this must be placed in a context.  Saddam Hussein didn’t have advanced missile systems.  Serbia had out-dated Soviet defenses and still shot down American planes.  How will NATO fare against S-400 missiles in 2016? If Hillary attacks now (which is the only issue that matters in the 2016 presidential race), can we expect something like 70% air casualties, even assuming a technical NATO victory? Russian defense systems are expected to be at the S-500 or even S-600  level in 2018. Not only can Russia negate NATO nuclear superiority, she will knock every NATO plane out of the sky.

But…

Of course, this assumes that NATO attacks first.  What if Russia refuses to be caught off-guard and initiates its own attack?  The RAND corporation has admitted that Russia can overrun the Baltics in 60 hours (of course, holding those gains is another scenario, but neither bodes well for the West).

Wild Cards

The above analysis assumes that this will be a NATO vs. Russia war.  In reality it will be no such thing.  Any war with Russia will be a war with China, and a war with China won’t be merely physical, it will be also economic (Cf Johnson 2016).

I suspect Hillary knows all of this, which is why the Pentagon/gram and Hillary are in such a strained mental state.  They have to act in order for the New World Order to continue, yet they know such an action will be their doom.

 

Post-Brexit 2.0

I initially looked at Brexit with glee.  Anything that makes leftists cry is always a good thing.  But this glee was always tempered with suspicion–so voting is now an honest thing and isn’t manipulated? So even though Brexit appeared to be legit, you can understand my skepticism.  A friend of mine pointed out John Milbank’s twitter account.  That surprised me since Milbank has historically been reticent about blogs and social media.

After reflecting on some of Milbank posts, other thoughts on Brexit solidified. So, here goes a list:

  1. No one is seriously saying the world should go back to post-Napoleonic nationalism and nation-states, so calm down.
  2. Even if we wanted to, it is simply not possible given global capital and technology.  Dugin has a point here (Eurasian Mission).
  3. Ironically, people fear Dugin but he has the most level-headed approach to globalism.
  4. Milbank is correct that both alternatives represent neo-liberal capitalism–and both are fraught with problems (problems, I think, cannot be fixed)
  5. Milbank (more on this below) thinks that the EU is a Christian institution interested in preserving the fragments of Christian civilization.  The romanticism in Milbank has always been very attractive, but could he be more mistaken?

Now for some of Milbank’s other comments:

Christians are duty bound for theological and historical reasons to support the ever closer union of Europe (which does not imply a superstate) and to deny the value of absolute sovereignty or the lone nation-state.

Sez who? Unless you are thinking of the Eastern Roman Emperor I am not sure what kind of argument you can make?

Towards a Better EU?

Maybe not in the future, since NATO is making sure that future can’t exist.  But I think a lot of the reasons behind Milbank’s reasons are quite sound and worth considering.  In the future, after modern Atlanticism is in dust and ashes, a real European Union is worth considering around Dugin’s lines.

  1. With the collapse of the USSR, the pole of Atlanticism shifted further to the West (America) leaving Britain adrift between the US and Europe.
  2. Disentangle Europe from NATO.  There is no reason the Balts must die for false promises.
  3. Go back to the distinction between a Common Market (good) and Single Market (bad).  This was a good idea based on the best of European subsidiarity.
  4. Rethink the open labor laws.  Flooding a market with cheap labor benefits CEOs, never the common man.
  5. Whenever the EU remained antagonistic to Atlanticism (like in the Iraqi war), it did well.
  6. Dugin’s final point is the heart of the matter:  the same globalist forces that created it are dissolving it.

So, if that’s true, there is little cause for Brexiteers to rejoice.  And Milbank is right on that point:  isolated nation-states cannot resist globalist economic networks.  Only superpowers united around polar zones can do so.

War of the World Island (Dugin)

In this work A. Dugin advances and develops the typology of Eternal Rome vs. Eternal Carthage–land empires against sea, mercantile empires. So his thesis: Russia cannot be interpreted apart from the Russian land (Dugin loc. 128). From this he deduces a Geopolitical theorem: “the geopolitical system depends on the position of the observer and interpreter” (loc. 147). All observers are already embedded in a context.

Russian geopolitician: geopolitics of the heartland. Russia is going to be a “civilization of Land.” Of course, this is the typology of Eternal Rome vs. Eternal Carthage/Atlantis. This ties in with Dugin’s thesis: we are always already observers. Russia, therefore, will observe itself from a certain perspective, a land-based perspective.

Dugin extends the analysis a step further: Russia as Land-Civilization means its gradual becoming in history will ultimately be on a planetary scale (loc. 188). It is a “continental Rome.” Unfortunately, this means it will be drawn into conflict with “Carthage/Atlantis,” Britain and America. As Dugin notes, “The fact that Russia is the heartland makes its sovereignty a planetary problem” (loc. 259).

He gives the reader a brief treatment of Russian history from the October Revolution to the current day (though not including Putin’s presence in Syria). Readers may chafe at his neutral account of Soviet terror, but one supposes it fits his thesis: the Soviet Union strengthened Russia’s presence as a Land Civilization.

The Politics of Yeltsin:

Retells Chesterton’s narrative of Rome vs. Carthage. Rome’s defeat of Carthage was the defeat of Moloch. Dugin sees the contrary of this happening in 1991. I disagree. Rome’s sordid, almost dead state was parallel to Yeltsin’s Russia.

New Atlanticist Geo-Politics: The structure of the bi-polar world remained but with one of the poles withdrawn (loc. 1527ff). There was no longer a West-East Axis, but a “Center-Periphery” one. Nato was placed at the center of the world and everyone else on the periphery.
Dugin’s conclusions.

(1) There is a need for an energetic, post-Putin head of state (2741).
(2) Although working for a multipolar world, Russia must have global ambitions to thwart Atlantis.

Critical of Putin

Some say Dugin is the brainchild behind Putin. This is false. Dugin criticizes Putin on a number fronts.

*Dugin says Putin should not have allowed US support in Afghanistan, as this placed more NATO bases on Russia’s border (2144).

*Dugin notes no matter how important Putin’s gains are, they are not irreversible (and thus, they are open to a NATO/Atlanticist turn; loc. 2741).

Conclusion:

The book was surprisingly good. I had heard horror stories about Dugin (see the shrill hysteria at National Review), but most of his analysis is level-headed and familiar territory to Russia readers.