The Fourth Political Theory

[Hesper]

I recently read a book titled "The Fourth Political Theory" concerning the 3 main political theories of the past century - communism, liberalism, and fascism - and the need to create a new theory that can encompass stand against the "Evil Empire". In this attempt the author pulls many threads together, from religion to anthropology to philosophy, examining what was wrong and what was right about many different ideologies and practices.

The book was written by Alexander Dugin, an adviser to Vladimir Putin, and so it both A) provides some depth to the ideas potentially sustaining Putin and the strategies he represents on the world stage and B) is written by someone with tremendous influence in the world, and whose ideas we can see sprouting up in the BRICS nations and perhaps even the rise in Russian patriotism following NATO-EU aggression. As I read through it I kept having the impression I was really seeing a big piece of history in action.

As a way to gain some psychological distance and see American values from Russian eyes, the book is fantastic. There are many "ahah!" moments as the reader sees the water s/he's been swimming in. But, though it was an extremely interesting read, I believe it was missing a few crucial ingredients.

From the blurb:

All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideologies: the first, and oldest, is liberal democracy; the second is Marxism; and the third is fascism. The latter two have long since failed and passed out of the pages of history, and the first no longer operates as an ideology, but rather as something taken for granted.

The world today finds itself on the brink of a post-political reality - one in which the values of liberalism are so deeply embedded that the average person is not aware that there is an ideology at work around him. As a result, liberalism is threatening to monopolise political discourse and drown the world in a universal sameness, destroying everything that makes the various cultures and peoples unique. According to Alexander Dugin, what is needed to break through this morass is a fourth ideology - one that will sift through the debris of the first three to look for elements that might be useful, but that remains innovative and unique in itself.

Dugin does not offer a point-by-point program for this new theory, but rather outlines the parameters within which it might develop and the issues which it must address. Dugin foresees that the Fourth Political Theory will use the tools and concepts of modernity against itself, to bring about a return of cultural diversity against commercialisation, as well as the traditional worldview of all the peoples of the world - albeit within an entirely new context. Written by a scholar who is actively influencing the direction of Russian geopolitical strategy today, The Fourth Political Theory is an introduction to an idea that may well shape the course of the world's political future.

Alexander Dugin (b. 1962) is one of the best-known writers and political commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been an advisor to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical matters, being a vocal advocate of a return of Russian power to the global stage, to act as a counterweight to American domination.

Dugin makes no bones about the fact that he completely hates liberalism - "liberalism" as defined here is the ideology/mask of sanity that places the individual and selfishness above everything (ponerization). "Globalization" and "modernization" are terms used to hide the spread of this pathological material.

A multi-polar world is one in which the "individual" is not so much the focus, but instead diversity in the forms of civilizations, cultures, and peoples is given respect. The level of focus for a new ideology needs to be higher and more comprehensive than class, race, state, and certainly higher than the individual. In fact, Dugin goes so far as to say that the individual should not even be considered. The good of the group is what matters. And here we see a huge difference between Russian and American values.

Though Dugin dissects the various ideologies he does a disservice, though, due to a lack of knowledge of psychopathy. I would consider a contribution to the Fourth Political Theory, in the way of Ponerology, to be valuable. Due to this lacking he remains at the level of ideology throughout the work, making frequent forays into phenomenology, which is useful and enlightening in and of itself, but it leads him to miss the crux of the matter. Therefore, though his appeal to conservatism in order to oppose liberal values is very rich, being essentially a repudiation of the ponerization process and a return to normal, human society, it falls a little flat.

There is, nevertheless, the ontological possibility of saying "no". And from this begins conservatism.

That said, his dissection of the ideologies throughout the 20th century is very enlightening, and the book is extensively footnoted for follow-up research into many of the areas he touches upon.

As Dugin points out, the Fourth Political Theory is not the work of a group of intellectuals, but is a series of projects being carried out by people trying to understand the declining American empire and to prepare a new world. And for that it was a pretty amazing look at history in action.

And what does Western media think of him? Well let's ask Wikipedia:

He focuses on the restoration of the Russian Empire through the unification of Russian-speaking territories, which roughly corresponds to the former Soviet republics, such as Georgia and Ukraine, and unification with Russian-speaking territories, especially eastern Ukraine and Crimea.[12][13] In the Kremlin, Dugin represents the "war party", a division in the heart of the leadership concerning Ukraine,[14] and is seen as the driving conceptual force behind Vladimir Putin’s initiative for the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.[15] According to his geopolitical views, he considers the war between Russia and Ukraine to be inevitable and appeals for Putin to start military intervention in eastern Ukraine.[15]

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

And the National Review:

Most Americans don’t know anything about Alexander Dugin. They need to, because Dugin is the mad philosopher who is redesigning the brains of much of the Russian government and public, filling their minds with a new hate-ridden totalitarian ideology whose consequences can only be catastrophic in the extreme, not only for Russia, but for the entire human race.

_ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380614/dugins-evil-theology-robert-zubrin

And these are the words from Dugin himself, taken from an interview:

Recent attacks on you especially from Glenn Beck in the United States label you a Fascist Racist I understand you to be a conservative communist (nationalist communist) and anti racist - is my understanding correct ?

I am certainly not "Fascist Racist". I am not Fascist (not Third Position). I am convinced anti-Racist. I hate racism as part of liberal Eurocentric and imperialist ideology. Most Westerners including human rights partisans – are definitively racists being universalists and sharing the vision of Modern Western civilization as normative one.

I defend the plurality of civilizations, the absence of the universal (Western) pattern of social development. I strongly oppose any kind of xenophobia and nationalism as the bourgeois artificial and essentially Modern construction.

I am not communist nor Marxist because I refuse the materialism of any kind and deny the progress. So much more correct to describe my views as Fourth Political Theory and traditionalism.

On the level of International Relations it is translated as the Theory of Multipolar World based on the vision of the pluralist architecture of the World based on the great spaces principle (Grossraum). I am against capitalism as a essential phenomenon of Modernity.

I strongly believe that Modernity is absolutely wrong and the Sacred Tradition is absolutely right. USA is the manifestation of all I hate – Modernity, westernization, unipolarity, racism, imperialism, technocracy, individualism, capitalism.
It is in my eyes the society of Antichrist. USA hates me – repressing, putting under sanctions (only for my ideas!), blaming, lying, organizing the deformation on the world scale (Glenn Beck is only small part of it).

But I accept all this patiently. If you are against the Modernity it is but logical the Modernity were against you.

_http://4pt.su/en/content/maoism-too-modern-me

 

[Niall]

In light of our critiques of liberalism here in the aftermath of 'Trumpocalypse', I thought I might revive this thread with some excerpts from Dugin's '4PT'.

I recently read a book titled "The Fourth Political Theory" concerning the 3 main political theories of the past century - communism, liberalism, and fascism - and the need to create a new theory that can encompass stand against the "Evil Empire". In this attempt the author pulls many threads together, from religion to anthropology to philosophy, examining what was wrong and what was right about many different ideologies and practices.

Yes, it's an interesting undertaking, taking a broad historical view that shows the commonalities of the main left-right 'isms'. A general point I took away from it is that they all emerged during this current (and now ending, apparently) era of 'Western hegemony'. As such, they will, in all probability, die with it.

The book was written by Alexander Dugin, an adviser to Vladimir Putin and so it both A) provides some depth to the ideas potentially sustaining Putin and the strategies he represents on the world stage and B) is written by someone with tremendous influence in the world, and whose ideas we can see sprouting up in the BRICS nations and perhaps even the rise in Russian patriotism following NATO-EU aggression. As I read through it I kept having the impression I was really seeing a big piece of history in action.

There's some debate about the extent to which he was an 'advisor' of Putin's. He did appear to be somewhere near the inner circle in the early 2000s, but since then he's become a public figure (primarily in Russia) and has routinely expressed dissatisfaction with Putin and the Russian govt, notably in his 2012 book on Putin. However, Dugin currently says he is more or less satisfied with Putin now that he's 'finally standing up to the Empire'.

There was a spate of articles about Dugin being 'Putin's brain' in the aftermath of the Kiev coup, but rather than that being an accurate representation, I put that down to Western analysts and think-tanks being apoplectic about the return of Crimea to Russia! Dugin is an easy target because he's very 'opinionated', let's say, whereas Putin keeps his cards close to his chest.

What is evident is that Dugin's ideas about 'Eurasianism' are gaining popularity because they reflect, to some extent or another, the direction Russia has taken vis a vis 'traditional values', 'state sovereignty' and 'independent foreign policy'.

As a way to gain some psychological distance and see American values from Russian eyes, the book is fantastic. There are many "ahah!" moments as the reader sees the water s/he's been swimming in. But, though it was an extremely interesting read, I believe it was missing a few crucial ingredients.

<snip>

Dugin makes no bones about the fact that he completely hates liberalism - "liberalism" as defined here is the ideology/mask of sanity that places the individual and selfishness above everything (ponerization). "Globalization" and "modernization" are terms used to hide the spread of this pathological material.

A multi-polar world is one in which the "individual" is not so much the focus, but instead diversity in the forms of civilizations, cultures, and peoples is given respect. The level of focus for a new ideology needs to be higher and more comprehensive than class, race, state, and certainly higher than the individual. In fact, Dugin goes so far as to say that the individual should not even be considered. The good of the group is what matters. And here we see a huge difference between Russian and American values.

This is kind of where the rubber hits the road - on a philosophical level anyway - between West and East: the individual vs the collective. I'm going to leave that aside for now and focus on Dugin's comments about 'Liberalism'.

Though Dugin dissects the various ideologies he does a disservice, though, due to a lack of knowledge of psychopathy. I would consider a contribution to the Fourth Political Theory, in the way of Ponerology, to be valuable. Due to this lacking he remains at the level of ideology throughout the work, making frequent forays into phenomenology, which is useful and enlightening in and of itself, but it leads him to miss the crux of the matter. Therefore, though his appeal to conservatism in order to oppose liberal values is very rich, being essentially a repudiation of the ponerization process and a return to normal, human society, it falls a little flat.

Yes, like with most everything else, ponerology is an ingredient that would greatly supplement Dugin's '4PT'. I wouldn't be so down on the 'depth' of his forays though: he himself stresses the "need for objective language" and recognizes that we're in uncharted waters.

 

[Niall]

This article - published shortly after the Ukraine exploded in 2014 - pretty much synopsizes Dugin's take on liberalism (and is, in places, word for word lifted from this books Fourth Political Theory and Putin vs Putin):

Essence of liberalism

In the modern West, there is one ruling, dominant ideology – liberalism. It may appear in many shades, versions and forms, but the essence is always the same. Liberalism contains an inner, fundamental structure which follows axiomatic principles:

• anthropological individualism (the individual is the measure of all things);
• belief in progress (the world is heading toward a better future, and the past is always worse than the present);
• technocracy (technical development and its execution are taken as the most important criteria by which to judge the nature of a society);
• eurocentrism (Euro-American societies are accepted as the standard of measure for the rest of humanity);
• economy as destiny (the free market economy is the only normative economic system – all the other types are to either be reformed or destroyed);
• democracy is the rule of minorities (defending themselves from the majority, which is always prone to degenerate into totalitarianism or “populism”);
• the middle class is the only really existing social actor and universal norm (independent from the fact of whether or not an individual has already reached this status or is on the way to becoming actually middle class, representing for the moment only a would-be middle class);
• one-world globalism (human beings are all essentially the same with only one distinction, namely that of their individual nature – the world should be integrated on the basis of the individual and cosmopolitism; in other words, world citizenship).

These are the core values of liberalism, and they are a manifestation of one of the three tendencies that originated in the Enlightenment alongside communism and fascism, which collectively proposed varying interpretations of the spirit of modernity. During the twentieth century, liberalism defeated its rivals, and since 1991 has become the sole, dominant ideology of the world.

The only freedom of choice in the kingdom of global liberalism is that between Right liberalism, Left liberalism or radical liberalism, including far-Right liberalism, far-Left liberalism and extremely radical liberalism. As a consequence, liberalism has been installed as the operational system of Western civilization and of all other societies that find themselves in the zone of Western influence. It has become the common denominator for any politically correct discourse, and the distinguishing mark which determines who is accepted by mainstream politics and who is marginalized and rejected. Conventional wisdom itself became liberal.

Geopolitically, liberalism was inscribed in the America-centered model in which Anglo-Saxons formed the ethnical core, based upon the Atlanticist Euro-American partnership, NATO, which represents the strategic core of the system of global security. Global security has come to be seen as being synonymous with the security of the West, and in the last instance with American security. So liberalism is not only an ideological power but also a political, military and strategic power. NATO is liberal in its roots. It defends liberal societies, and it fights to extend liberalism to new areas.

Liberalism as nihilism

There is one point in liberal ideology that has brought about a crisis within it: liberalism is profoundly nihilistic at its core. The set of values defended by liberalism is essentially linked to its main thesis: the primacy of liberty. But liberty in the liberal vision is an essentially negative category: it claims to be free from (as per John Stuart Mill), not to be free for something. It is not secondary; it is the essence of the problem.

Liberalism fights against all forms of collective identity, and against all types of values, projects, strategies, goals, methods and so on that are collectivist, or at least non-individualist. That is the reason why one of the most important theorists of liberalism, Karl Popper (following Friedrich von Hayek), held in his important book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, that liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests that human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning. (It should be noted that George Soros regards this book as his personal bible.) Any goal, any value, and any meaning in liberal society, or the open society, should be strictly based upon the individual.

So the enemies of the open society, which is synonymous with Western society post-1991, and which has become the norm for the rest of the world, are concrete. Its primary enemies are communism and fascism, both ideologies which emerged from the same Enlightenment philosophy, and which contained central, non-individualic concepts – class in Marxism, race in National Socialism, and the national State in fascism). So the source of liberalism’s conflict with the existing alternatives of modernity, fascism or communism, is quite obvious. Liberals claim to liberate society from fascism and communism, or from the two major permutations of explicitly non-individualistic modern totalitarianism.

Liberalism’s struggle, when viewed as a part of the process of the liquidation of non-liberal societies, is quite meaningful: it acquires its meaning from the fact of the very existence of ideologies that explicitly deny the individual as society’s highest value. It is quite clear what the struggle opposes: liberation from its opposite. But the fact that liberty, as it is conceived by liberals, is an essentially negative category is not clearly perceived here. The enemy is present and is concrete. That very fact gives liberalism its solid content. Something other than the open society exists, and the fact of its existence is enough to justify the process of liberation.

Unipolar period: threat of implosion

In 1991, when the Soviet Union as the last opponent of Western liberalism fell, some Westerners, such as Francis Fukuyama, proclaimed the end of history. This was quite logical: as there was no longer an explicit enemy of the open society, therefore there was no more history as had occurred during the modern period, which was defined by the struggle between three political ideologies (liberalism, communism and fascism) for the heritage of the Enlightenment. That was, strategically speaking, the moment when “unipolar moment” was realized (Charles Krauthammer). The period between 1991 and 2014, at the midpoint of which Bin Laden’s attack against the World Trade Center occurred, was the period of the global domination of liberalism. The axioms of liberalism were accepted by all the main geopolitical actors, including China (in economic terms) and Russia (in its ideology, economy, and political system). There were liberals and would-be liberals, not-yet liberals, not-liberal-enough liberals and so on. The real and explicit exceptions were few (such as Iran and North Korea). So the world became axiomatically liberal according to its ideology.

This has been the most important moment in the history of liberalism. It has defeated its enemies, but at the same time it has lost them. Liberalism is essentially the liberation from and the fight against all that is not liberal (at present or in what has the potential to become such). Liberalism acquired its real meaning and its content from its enemies. When the choice is presented as being between not-freedom (as represented by concrete totalitarian societies) or freedom, many choose freedom, not understanding it in terms of freedom for what, or freedom to do what… When there is an illiberal society, liberalism is positive. It only begins to show its negative essence after victory.

After the victory of 1991, liberalism stepped into its implosive phase. After having defeated communism as well as fascism, it stood alone, with no enemy to fight. And that was the moment when inner conflicts emerged, when liberal societies began to attempt to purge themselves of their last remaining non-liberal elements: sexism, politically incorrectness, inequality between the sexes, any remnants of the non-individualistic dimensions of institutions such as the State and the Church, and so on. Liberalism always needs an enemy to liberate from. Otherwise it loses its purpose, and its implicit nihilism becomes too salient. The absolute triumph of liberalism is its death.

 

[Niall]

More from Dugin on liberalism...

Fourth Political Theory, p.59

We must put an end to antiquated political ideologies and theories. If we have truly rejected Marxism and fascism, then what remains is to reject liberalism. Liberalism is an equally outdated, cruel, misanthropic ideology like the two previous ones. The term ‘liberalism’ should be equated with the terms fascism and Communism. Liberalism is responsible for no fewer historic crimes than fascism (Auschwitz) and Communism (the GULag): it is responsible for slavery, the destruction of the Native Americans in the United States, for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the aggression in Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, for the devastation and the economic exploitation of millions of people on the planet, and for the ignoble and cynical lies which whitewash this history.

Fourth Political Theory, p.140

Today the same could be said about liberalism [as fascism] as an ideology, which was victorious in the West and which spreads its influence — using many old and new methods — across the entire world, supported by superpower number one, the United States. It seems once again that this might is inevitable, not accidental, and follows the same fundamental fateful law which seems to suggest that to argue with this power is useless. But again, as in the case of Ernst Niekisch, people are found who are ready to carry out that same programme, only this time not as regarding a separate country, but rather all mankind: ‘Liberalism is the evil fate of human civilisation.’ The battle with it, opposition to it, and refutation of its poisonous dogmas — this is the moral imperative of all honest people on the planet. At all costs, we must, argumentatively and thoroughly, again and again, repeat that truth, even when to do so seems useless, untimely, politically incorrect, and sometimes even dangerous.

Fourth Political Theory, p.154

The path that humanity entered upon in the modern era led precisely to liberalism and to the repudiation of God, tradition, community, ethnicity, empires and kingdoms. Such a path is tread entirely logically: having decided to liberate itself from everything that keeps man in check, the man of the modern era reached his logical apogee: before our eyes he is liberated from himself.

Fourth Political Theory, p.155

...we are dealing not with an accident, but with something systemic; not with a temporary deviation from the norm, but with a fatal, incurable disease, the origins of which we should seek in those periods in which to many everything seemed unclouded and clear, and humanity seemed to enter into the epoch of progress, development, freedom and equal rights. But this was simply a syndrome of approaching agony. Liberalism is an absolute evil; not only in its factual embodiment, but also in its fundamental theoretical presuppositions. And its victory, its world triumph, only underscores and displays those most wicked qualities...

Fourth Political Theory, p.155

‘Freedom from’ is the most disgusting formula of slavery, inasmuch as it tempts man to an insurrection against God, against traditional values, against the moral and spiritual foundations of his people and his culture.

Another book of Dugin's translated into English is Putin vs Putin: Vladimir Putin Viewed from the Right. First published in 2013, it was updated in 2014, after everything changed with the Kiev coup. Dugin was very critical of Putin in the initial chapters - understandably less so in the additional chapters! (This, by the way, more than anything, showed me that Dugin is not in Putin's inner circle...)

Relevant excerpts from Putin vs Putin:

[...]one day during a private meeting with Brzezinski, I asked him how the West managed to persuade Gorbachev to withdraw Russia’s troops from East Germany. He smiled and said, ‘We tricked him.’ The structures of the Western intellectual clubs operate using extremely delicate strategies. They rely on strategies of deception, geopolitical lies, techniques of psychological warfare used against the subconscious of the masses, and on new memes of mass liberal culture. They work as the vanguard of modern trends in religion, philosophy, and psychology. They also use the images of global revolutionary practices against models of counter-hegemony. With these ideas, they permeate the deepest levels of the subconscious minds not only of every man and woman on the street, but also of the minds of the world’s most rational intellectuals. They do this ultimately, whether through soft or hard power, to condition humanity towards the Global Liberal Empire.

Today, liberalism has won out against all others. ‘Freedom from’ is now an irrefutable right. We live in a liberal world, where an individual does not have to free himself from anything, in principle, except from the ground and from his own humanity. We have now discovered the purest essence of liberalism: freedom from everything, which is nothing more than pure nothingness and absolute nihilism.

Whatever about the extent to which 'liberalism' can be identified as the cause of all that is wrong with this world, 'the bottom line' for Dugin is that:

The divide between ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ is outdated. Today it is far more important whether someone stands for hegemony or against it.

...to which I would add that to be able to stand against it, you first have to know about it! I think hegemony is not as eternal as 'history' would have us believe; it's relatively recent, transient, and probably not going to be here much longer - something I hope to explore in a future thread.

 

[Hesper]

The path that humanity entered upon in the modern era led precisely to liberalism and to the repudiation of God, tradition, community, ethnicity, empires and kingdoms. Such a path is tread entirely logically: having decided to liberate itself from everything that keeps man in check, the man of the modern era reached his logical apogee: before our eyes he is liberated from himself....

...we are dealing not with an accident, but with something systemic; not with a temporary deviation from the norm, but with a fatal, incurable disease, the origins of which we should seek in those periods in which to many everything seemed unclouded and clear, and humanity seemed to enter into the epoch of progress, development, freedom and equal rights. But this was simply a syndrome of approaching agony. Liberalism is an absolute evil; not only in its factual embodiment, but also in its fundamental theoretical presuppositions. And its victory, its world triumph, only underscores and displays those most wicked qualities...

Excellent quotes, thanks Niall. The more that I read about postmodernism the more my eyes are opened to the fact that those pathological ideas, that there is no truth, that 'anything goes', is a large part of this 'path that humanity entered upon' aka 'liberalism'. It seemed 'unclouded and clear' and yet now its fruits are being seen all around us. In light of this I found the following stage-based interpretation of 'modernism' interesting:

1. premodernism: Original meaning is possessed by authority (for example, the Catholic Church). The individual is dominated by tradition.

2. modernism: The enlightenment-humanist rejection of tradition and authority in favour of reason and natural science. This is founded upon the assumption of the autonomous individual as the sole source of meaning and truth--the Cartesian cogito. Progress and novelty are valorized within a linear conception of history--a history of a "real" world that becomes increasingly real or objectified. One could view this as a Protestant mode of consciousness.

3. postmodernism: A rejection of the sovereign autonomous individual with an emphasis upon anarchic collective, anonymous experience. Collage, diversity, the mystically unrepresentable, Dionysian passion are the foci of attention. Most importantly we see the dissolution of distinctions, the merging of subject and object, self and other. This is a sarcastic playful parody of western modernity and the "John Wayne" individual and a radical, anarchist rejection of all attempts to define, reify or re-present the human subject.

_http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0242.html

I find it interesting that the rise of the religion of science played such a potentially large role in this - itself feeding the rise of postmodernist ideas (and of course numerous schizoidal types found a niche there too). By placing man on the same plane as a 'god', who through will and intellect could shape the world however he saw fit, it seems logical that soon people would take their own radical subjectivity for truth, and for pathological types that would be only natural.

Some social critics have attempted to explain the postmodern condition in terms of the historical and social milieu which spawned it. David Ashley (1990) suggests that “modern, overloaded individuals, desperately trying to maintain rootedness and integrity . . . ultimately are pushed to the point where there is little reason not to believe that all value-orientations are equally well-founded. Therefore, increasingly, choice becomes meaningless.” Jean Baudrillard, one of the most radical postmodernists, writes that we must come to terms with the second revolution: “that of the Twentieth Century, of postmodernity, which is the immense process of the destruction of meaning equal to the earlier destruction of appearances. Whoever lives by meaning dies by meaning” ([Baudrillard 1984:38-39] in Ashley 1990).

_http://anthropology.ua.edu/cultures/cultures.php?culture=Postmodernism%20and%20Its%20Critics

It sounds a lot like a form of transmarginal inhibition to me.

I think hegemony is not as eternal as 'history' would have us believe; it's relatively recent, transient, and probably not going to be here much longer - something I hope to explore in a future thread.

I look forward to reading that.

 

[Iosif]

Thanks Hesper and Niall, I find interesting Dugin's ideas you shared.

I recently saw his following article that caught my attention

Dismantling China as artificially supported by the globalist World Government logically follows from Trump’s anti-globalism. He looks at things plainly: a totalitarian communist country with a massive population is challenging US interests in the Pacific, threatens to annex Taiwan, has flooded America with cheap garbage, steals high technology as soon as it lays eyes on it, and is doing all of this successfully. China’s challenge is voluminous and formidable, and China’s economic growth rates are a challenge to the US. In this context, Russia, with its poor economy, is relegated to a second rate problem. This does not mean that there will be straightforward pro-Russian policies - there won’t be, because Trump is a patriot and a realist. But this does mean that Trump will seriously go after China. This is quite enough to keep him busy during his presidency.
We certainly need to take advantage of this. This does not mean that we should abandon our partnership with China and latch ourselves to Trump. This is not worthy of a great power. But the Chinese-American conflict is simply not our business. If Washington’s attention will be focused on the Far East, then we have the chance to quickly resolve our tasks in the Middle East and, most importantly, in the Eurasian space. If Trump ignores geopolitics, then he will not pay too much attention to this. At least I hope so.
By the way, about China: I don’t think that everything is right with ideology in China. There is clearly a crisis of the Heavenly Mandate that Mao received once upon a time. Behind the facade of ostentatious success, Chinese society is heading towards crisis. But, once again, this is only their, Chinese business.
http://katehon.com/article/china-great-game-and-globalism

And after finding the Wikipedia information that Hesper share. I put a red flag to him

Dugin is an easy target because he's very 'opinionated',

[quote author= Dugin]I strongly believe that Modernity is absolutely wrong and the Sacred Tradition is absolutely right. USA is the manifestation of all I hate – Modernity, westernization, unipolarity, racism, imperialism, technocracy, individualism, capitalism.
…
The path that humanity entered upon in the modern era led precisely to liberalism and to the repudiation of God, tradition, community, ethnicity, empires and kingdoms.[/quote]

I'm curious if he think empires are not bad in themselves or should be implemented again, or monarchies. I think he could be a little too radical for Putin :)

Recently an interview on Sott was published about the Return to the empire in Russia, perhaps Dugin ideas could be related to this:

In other words, the guy is exceptionally intelligent and exceptionally well-educated. One of the best analysts in Russia. And yet he speaks of monarchy and putting Christ in power. And he lumps Communists and Liberal into one group.
https://www.sott.net/article/342648-Former-KGB-General-Reshetnikov-Return-to-the-Empire

Do anyone have any thoughts on this? Would be a monarchy in Russia, with Christ as emperor a good idea? :D I think I don't really understand that article

 

[Iosif]

I found this transcript of Dugin recent interview with Alex Jones that I found interesting, maybe it could worth to publish it in Sott. I think that he would have been more realistic expressing some doubts about the true intentions of Donald Trump, but it could be because the interviewer.

Mr. Putin and I, we defend the same position, we share the same concerns, we love our people. It is the same agenda that I hope Mr. Trump shares as well. And we all are blamed. It is not because we are bad or extremists, but it is because of our values and position.
In my book The Fourth Political Theory, I criticize three political theories. I am against liberalism, against globalism, and I am against communism. I am a traditionalist and Christian. I was a dissident in Soviet times because I never shared the conventions of communism, I didn’t accept this illness. I am anti-communist and at the same time I am anti-Nazi, anti-fascist. I don't share this neo-racism. I am always standing on the same thing - I belong to the fourth political theory and when the liberal media tries to present me as an extremist or communist, that is an absolute lie.

- But first, can you tell us why Vladimir Putin is so popular in Russia and around the world? What does he really stand for?

- My introduction was important because I would like to stress that I am simply a realist like you, Alex, and like Mr. Trump or Mr. Putin.
Realism doesn’t mean nationalism. Realism doesn’t mean any ideology. Realism is considering the sovereignty of people and nations as the highest value. And that is a completely anti-globalist agenda
http://katehon.com/article/alexander-dugins-interview-alex-jones

 

[Glenn]

Liberalism, as defined here, and experienced by us, seems to be at it's core, the STS agenda, in it's most unfettered form. Separation. It reads as a Manifesto:


"In the modern West, there is one ruling, dominant ideology – liberalism. It may appear in many shades, versions and forms, but the essence is always the same. Liberalism contains an inner, fundamental structure which follows axiomatic principles:

anthropological individualism (the individual is the measure of all things);
belief in progress (the world is heading toward a better future, and the past is always worse than the present);
technocracy (technical development and its execution are taken as the most important criteria by which to judge the nature of a society);
eurocentrism (Euro-American societies are accepted as the standard of measure for the rest of humanity);
economy as destiny (the free market economy is the only normative economic system – all the other types are to either be reformed or destroyed);
democracy is the rule of minorities (defending themselves from the majority, which is always prone to degenerate into totalitarianism or “populism”);
the middle class is the only really existing social actor and universal norm (independent from the fact of whether or not an individual has already reached this status or is on the way to becoming actually middle class, representing for the moment only a would-be middle class);
one-world globalism (human beings are all essentially the same with only one distinction, namely that of their individual nature – the world should be integrated on the basis of the individual and cosmopolitism; in other words, world citizenship)."


It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a path to destruction dressed up as the only thing that will protect the individual.

The STO path, is towards unity, union with the One. It seens that Liberalism wants to prevent this, at any cost. That seems to be it's whole objective. My 2 cents.

 

[Niall]

I think he could be a little too radical for Putin :)

Yes, Dugin's got good insights, but he's not someone you would put near the actual implementation of ideas.

Would be a monarchy in Russia, with Christ as emperor a good idea? :D I think I don't really understand that article.

It might; absolute monarchy served Russia well for long periods of time. The problem with 'grand ideas', however, is explained by the interviewee himself:

The President of our country is acting based on the information we are not privy to, and thus, sees the situation differently from how it appears to us.

'The Saker' billed this former KGB guy as 'an insider', but he's not really. He's another outsider, like us, trying to make sense of it all and trying to see where it is all going.

In this information age, so much of what we believe about how the world works is being challenged. It's causing 'identity crises' all over the place, not just in Russia. New data doesn't just challenge beliefs about the present; it can open up beliefs about the past, bringing to light that which was previously 'false' or simply unknown, in turn opening new vistas for how the world could be in future.

 

[Niall]

Liberalism, as defined here, and experienced by us, seems to be at it's core, the STS agenda, in it's most unfettered form. Separation. It reads as a Manifesto:


"In the modern West, there is one ruling, dominant ideology – liberalism. It may appear in many shades, versions and forms, but the essence is always the same. Liberalism contains an inner, fundamental structure which follows axiomatic principles:

anthropological individualism (the individual is the measure of all things);
belief in progress (the world is heading toward a better future, and the past is always worse than the present);
technocracy (technical development and its execution are taken as the most important criteria by which to judge the nature of a society);
eurocentrism (Euro-American societies are accepted as the standard of measure for the rest of humanity);
economy as destiny (the free market economy is the only normative economic system – all the other types are to either be reformed or destroyed);
democracy is the rule of minorities (defending themselves from the majority, which is always prone to degenerate into totalitarianism or “populism”);
the middle class is the only really existing social actor and universal norm (independent from the fact of whether or not an individual has already reached this status or is on the way to becoming actually middle class, representing for the moment only a would-be middle class);
one-world globalism (human beings are all essentially the same with only one distinction, namely that of their individual nature – the world should be integrated on the basis of the individual and cosmopolitism; in other words, world citizenship)."


It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a path to destruction dressed up as the only thing that will protect the individual.

The STO path, is towards unity, union with the One. It seens that Liberalism wants to prevent this, at any cost. That seems to be it's whole objective. My 2 cents.

I leave it open that every idea, every ideology, every religion and every philosophy has at least some merit to it, prior to it being corrupted anyway.

However, when liberalism is distilled as in the above summary, I agree that it reeks of STS.

 

[Iosif]

I was reading some of Dugin's articles in Katehon, I was curious about "the man who inspires Putin," and the neo-eurasianism that seems to be the theory (the main one at least) used by the media to denounce the new Russian "expansionism."

With what I read so far it seems to me that he has a style similar to Trump, which makes it easy to misrepresent his words. Sometimes he uses strong words, speaks of hatred, struggles, war against globalism, clash of civilizations, talk about dividing the world into federations or democratic empires, does not seem to care much what others think of him as he affirms in an interview below. Other times he speaks with great common sense and great tolerance towards different ideas. But I have the feeling that as long as they can create his desired Eurasian area he doesn't care much about the means to achieve it or the destiny of other parts of the world.

I think it facilitates the manipulation of Western politicians (those who aren't psychopaths) with the tale that the development of Russia is the end of Western civilization. Although if his ideas were implemented it wouldn't be far from the truth

One of the first, simplest movements in the direction of the Fourth Political Theory is the global rehabilitation of Tradition, the sacred, the religious, the caste-related, if you prefer, the hierarchical, and not equality, justice, or freedom. Everything that we reject together with modernity and everything that we completely rework…

Kuzichev: Could be the basis of a new “new time”…

Dugin: Exactly. This is what Berdyaev spoke of: the return to the Middle Ages. Returning to the Middle Ages or turning to them to look for inspiration, and I am not speaking of merely reproducing - that’s impossible to do. But we have stood on the path of modernity. We’ve stood on the path of modern totalitarianism regardless of whether of the first, second, or third theory. We’ve exhausted all of their possibilities, built all three models. We’ve built liberal civilization, communist civilization as part of such an experiment, and we’ve even built fascism. We can now compare everything before us. And if all of this does not satisfy us, this means that the most important mistake was made not in the 20th century and not even in 1991…

Kuzichev: But at the time of the first step?

Dugin: At the first step. This means beginning to move in the direction of the Fourth Political Theory, exiting the confines of these three political theories and, if such pleases, going back further, because the idea of progress, the idea that we only need to move forward - this idea came together with modernity when they justified themselves, imposed such on us for 300 years, and told us that there is no regression, that development is everything, and everything that came before was bad but now everything is good. We are programmed by this totalitarian ideology of progress, development, liberating or improving humanity’s material criteria which, although true, becomes only a restricting factor when we reject the spirit and when everything for us must be here and now. But before Descartes and modernity, people believed in the immortality of the soul…

Kuzichev: So you and I have been saying the same thing, but have not yet formulated the word that should be on the banner. It turns out that this word is “faith.”

Dugin: Faith, Tradition, Religion, but not only…

Kuzichev: Faith, Tradition, Religion?

Dugin: Yes, this is the set embodied in the empire. There’s caste society, hierarchy…

Kuzichev: You know what, wait, I have to think this through for a second. You know, I am looking from the point of view and perspective of a journalist, and I understand that you purposefully use “we” the whole time - what we should realize, we must move, etc. But in order for “us” to be engaged, it needs to be attractive, but not only attractive, and not only interesting as a conversation for our viewers. This is a fantastically interesting conversation, and incredibly simple. I’ll thank fate for bringing me together with Alexander Gelyevich. But in order for “us” to be engaged, people have to be proposed something that they will want to embody. You understand just how strong language is when we speak of returning to traditions. They’ll call you an “obscurantist” and you yourself have mentioned the word “Middle Ages.” This implicitly causes the feeling that this can’t be what Alexander Gelyevich is offering us.

Dugin: You know, you’re rightly speaking of selling and making things attractive. We are already arriving at modernity. Modernity is the cause of merchants, spin doctors, those people who sell and must be sold to…

Kuzichev: You can sell anything, it’s true.

Dugin: Absolutely correct. This is not my cause. I don’t have to advertise anything to anyone. I don’t have to sell to merchants. I’m not a merchant by caste or in my ways. I’m a thinker. I’m a philosopher. From the point of view of Platon, not modernity, philosophers are the human type who should rule.

http://katehon.com/article/4th-political-theory-and-post-liberalism

The Theory of Multipolarity demonstrates that nation-states are a Eurocentric and mechanical phenomenon, on a larger scale, “globalist” in their initial stage (the idea of individual identity, normative in the form of civility, prepared the ground for the “civil society” and, correspondingly, for the “global society”). That the whole of world space is currently separated into territories of nation-states is a direct consequence of colonization, imperialism, and the projection of the Western model over all of mankind. Therefore, the nation-state does not carry in itself any self-sufficient value for the Theory of Multipolarity. The thesis of the preservation of nation-states from the perspective of the construction of the Multipolar World Order is only important in the case that, in a pragmatic way, that impedes globalization (and does not contribute to it), and hides in itself a more complicated and prominent social reality. After all, many political units (especially in the Third World) are nation-states simply in a nominal form, and virtually represent diverse forms of traditional societies with more complex systems of identity.

In this case, the position of the defenders of the Multipolar World is completely the opposite of that of the globalists: If a nation-state effectuates the homogenization of society and assists in the atomization of the citizens, that is, implements a profound and real modernization and Westernization, such a nation-state has no importance, being merely a kind of instrument of globalization. That nation-state is not being preserved worthily; it does make any sense in the Multipolarist perspective.

But if a nation-state serves as an exterior support for another social system – a special and original culture, civilization, religion, etc. – it should be supported and preserved while it actualizes its evolution towards a more harmonious structure, within the limits of sociological pluralism in the spirit of Multipolar Theory.

The position of the globalists is directly opposite in all things: They appeal to eliminate the idea by which the nation-states serve as an external support of something traditional (such as China, Russia, Iran, etc.) and, conversely, to strengthen the nation-states with pro-Western regimes – South Korea, Georgia, or the countries of Western Europe.

http://katehon.com/article/nation-state-and-multipolar-world

Samuel Huntington described in a realistic manner the obstacles which inevitably face the supporters of a Unipolar World and the fanatics of the End of History. When the last formal enemy of the United States, the Soviet Union, disappeared, some imagined that the West had reached the conclusion of its liberal-democratic development and that it was going to access the “earthly paradise” of the techno-mercantile society. That was the idea of Francis Fukuyama when he wrote his famous piece about the End of History. Huntington had the merit of showing all that which contradicted the optimism then professed in the medias of globalist communication. Analyzing these phenomena, he arrived at the conclusion that they could be included under a single denomination: civilizations. This is the key word.

But that word also means the reappearance of a premodern concept in a postmodern form. The Islamic civilization, for example, existed before modernity. But in the modern epoch, colonization and secularism delegitimized the use of this term; now only Muslim “ethnic groups” were recognized. After decolonization, nation-states appeared which had a “Muslim population,” but it is only with the Iranian Revolution (where we find some traits characteristic of Traditionalism and of the Conservative Revolution) when the emergence of a Muslim state properly speaking was seen, where Islam was politically recognized as the source of power and law. Theorizing about the transition from State to Civilization, Huntington formulated a new political-scientific concept, named to thus implicitly take (and draw attention to) a new dimension of international politics which was born after the demise of the USSR. Following that, the Atlanticist milieus discovered that they would face an enemy which, unlike the Soviet Union, is not based on an explicitly formalized ideology, but which nonetheless has begun to question and undermine the foundations of the liberal and Americano-centric “New World Order.” The enemy is now the civilizations, and no longer only countries or states – a turning point.

Among all civilizations, only the Western civilization has presented itself as universal, pretending to be in this way “the civilization” (singular). In formal terms, now nobody replicates it, rather in reality the great majority of men and women who live outside of the European or American space reject this dominion, and continue to be rooted in different historical-cultural types. This is what explains the current resurgence of civilizations. Huntington concluded, concerning that, that the planetary dominion of the West will face new challenges. He advised being conscious of this danger, to prepare oneself for the reappearance of certain premodern forms in the postmodern era, and to try to protect oneself against them to guarantee the security of Western civilization.

Fukuyama was a globalist optimist. Huntington is a globalist pessimist, who analyzed the risks and measured the dangers. We can draw out a Eurasianist lesson from his analysis. Huntington was right when he said that civilizations will reappear, but he was wrong to be upset by it. In contrast, we should rejoice about the resurgence of civilizations. We should applaud it and support it, preparing the catalysts of this process and not passively observing it.

The clashes between civilizations are almost inevitable, but our task must consist of reorienting the hostility, which will not stop growing, against the United States and Western Civilization, instead of against neighboring civilizations. We must organize the common front of civilizations against one civilization which pretends to be the civilization in singular. This prioritary common enemy is globalism and the United States, which is now its principal vector. The more the peoples of the Earth will be convinced of that, the more the confrontations between non-Western civilizations can be reduced. If there must be a “clash” of civilizations, it has to be a clash between the West and the “rest of the world.” And Eurasianism is the political formula which suits this “rest.”

There is another point which, obviously, we cannot follow Huntington on: when he calls for the strengthening of transatlantic relations between Europe and the United States. The new generation of European leaders has already responded positively to this call – something which we may lament. The destiny of Europe is not on the other side of the Atlantic. Europe must clearly establish itself as a distinct civilization, free and independent. It has to be a European Europe, not American and Atlanticist. It must construct itself as a postmodern democratic empire, through the reclaiming of its cultural and sacred roots, as a part of its future as well as something residing in its past. A Europe which does not also rise up against the United States would betray its roots at the same time that it would condemn itself to not having a future. Europe also does not belong to the Eurasian space. Certainly, it can and should even be Eurasianist to the extent it adheres to this “universal idea that there is no universal civilization,” but it does not have to integrate itself into the geographic space of Eurasia. What Russians desire most is simply that Europe be itself, that is, European. Eurasianism does not consist of imposing its identity on others, but rather to help all the different identities to affirm themselves, to organically develop themselves, and to prosper. The Russian philosopher Konstantin Leontiev said that we must always defend the “flourishing multiplicity.” This is the preferred motto of the Eurasianists.

http://katehon.com/article/huntington-fukuyama-and-eurasianism

Eurasia as Three Great Living-Spaces, Integrated across the Meridian; Three Eurasian Belts (Meridian Zones)

The horizontal vector of integration is followed by a vertical, vector.

Eurasian plans for the future presume the division of the planet into four vertical geographical belts (meridian zones) from North to South.

Both American continents will form one common space oriented on and controlled by the USA within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine. This is the Atlantic meridian zone.

In addition to the above zone, three others are planned. They are the following:

Euro-Africa, with the European Union as its center.
Russian-Central Asian zone.
Pacific zone.

Within these zones, the regional division of labor and the creation of developmental areas and corridors of growth will take place.

Each of these belts (meridian zones) counterbalance each other and all of them together counterbalance the Atlantic meridian zone. In the future, these belts might be the foundation upon which to build a multipolar world: the number of poles will be more than two; however, the number will be much less than the number of current nation-states. The Eurasian model proposes that the number of poles must be four.

The Meridian zones of the Eurasian project consist of several “Great Spaces” or “democratic empires.” Each possesses relative freedom and independence but are strategically integrated into a corresponding meridian zone.

The Great Spaces correspond to the boundaries of civilizations and include several nation-states or unions of states.

The European Union and the Arab Great Space, which integrates North, Trans-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, for Euro-Africa.

The Russian-Central Asian zone is formed by three Great Spaces that sometimes overlap each other. The first is the Russian Federation along with several countries of the CIS—members of the Eurasian Union. Second is the Great Space of continental Islam (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan). The Asian countries of the CIS intersect this zone.

The third Great Space is Hindustan, which is a self-dependent civilization sector.

The Pacific meridian zone is determined by a condominium of two great spaces (China and Japan) and also includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Australia (some researchers connect Australia with the American Meridian zone). The geopolitical region is very mosaic and can be differentiated by many criteria.

The American meridian zone consists of the American-Canadian, Central and North American Great Spaces.

Importance of the Fourth Zone

The structure of the world based upon meridian zones is accepted by most American geopoliticians who seek the creation of a New World Order and unipolar globalization. However, a stumbling block is the existence of the Russian-Central Asian meridian space: the presence or absence of this belt radically changes the geopolitical picture of the world.

Atlantic futurologists divide the world into the three following zones:

American pole, with the European Union as its close-range periphery (Euro-Africa as an exemption) and
The Asian and Pacific regions as its long-range periphery.
Russia and Central Asia as fractional, but without it as an independent meridian zone, our world is unipolar.

This last meridian zone counterbalances American pressure and provides the European and Pacific zones ability to act like self-dependent civilization poles.

Real multipolar balance, freedom and the independence of meridian belts, Great Spaces, and nation-states depend upon the successful creation of a fourth zone. Moreover, it’s not enough to be one pole in a two-pole model of the world: the rapid progress of the USA can be counterbalanced only by the synergy of all three meridian zones. The Eurasian project proposes this four-zone project on a geopolitical strategic level.

Eurasianism as Russian-Central Asian Integration; Moscow-Tehran Axis; Fourth Meridian Zone – Russian-Asian Meridian Integration

The central issue of this process is the implementation of a Moscow-Tehran axis. The whole process of integration depends on the successful establishment of a strategic middle and long-term partnership with Iran. Iranian and Russian economic, military, and political potential together will increase the process of zone integration, making the zone irreversible and autonomous. The Moscow-Tehran axis will be the basis for further integration. Both Moscow and Iran are self-sufficient powers, able to create their own organizational strategic model of the region.

...

Eurasianism is an Open Philosophy

Eurasianism is an open, non-dogmatic philosophy that can be enriched with new content: religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries, geopolitics, economics, national geography, culture, strategic and political research etc. Moreover, Eurasian philosophy offers original solutions in specific cultural and lingual contexts: Russian Eurasianism will not be the same as French, German, or Iranian versions. However, the main framework of the philosophy will remain invariable.

Principles of Eurasianism

The basic principles of Eurasianism are the following:

Differentialism, the pluralism of values systems versus the conventional obligatory domination of one ideology (American liberal-democracy first and foremost);
Tradition versus suppression of cultures, dogmas, and discoveries of traditional society;
Rights of nations versus the “gold billions” and neo-colonial hegemony of the “rich North”;
Ethnicities as values and subjects of history versus the depersonalisation of nations, imprisoned into artificial social constructions;
Social fairness and human solidarity versus exploitation and humiliation of man by man.

https://neweuropeanconservative.wordpress.com/tag/lev-gumilev/

 

[Iosif]

I leave it open that every idea, every ideology, every religion and every philosophy has at least some merit to it, prior to it being corrupted anyway.

However, when liberalism is distilled as in the above summary, I agree that it reeks of STS.
[/quote]

Dugin's theory leaves me a taste of STS before it even starts.

 

[TheSingularity]

I recently read a book titled "The Fourth Political Theory" concerning the 3 main political theories of the past century - communism, liberalism, and fascism - and the need to create a new theory that can encompass stand against the "Evil Empire". In this attempt the author pulls many threads together, from religion to anthropology to philosophy, examining what was wrong and what was right about many different ideologies and practices.

The book was written by Alexander Dugin, an adviser to Vladimir Putin, and so it both A) provides some depth to the ideas potentially sustaining Putin and the strategies he represents on the world stage and B) is written by someone with tremendous influence in the world, and whose ideas we can see sprouting up in the BRICS nations and perhaps even the rise in Russian patriotism following NATO-EU aggression. As I read through it I kept having the impression I was really seeing a big piece of history in action.

As a way to gain some psychological distance and see American values from Russian eyes, the book is fantastic. There are many "ahah!" moments as the reader sees the water s/he's been swimming in. But, though it was an extremely interesting read, I believe it was missing a few crucial ingredients.

From the blurb:



Dugin makes no bones about the fact that he completely hates liberalism - "liberalism" as defined here is the ideology/mask of sanity that places the individual and selfishness above everything (ponerization). "Globalization" and "modernization" are terms used to hide the spread of this pathological material.

A multi-polar world is one in which the "individual" is not so much the focus, but instead diversity in the forms of civilizations, cultures, and peoples is given respect. The level of focus for a new ideology needs to be higher and more comprehensive than class, race, state, and certainly higher than the individual. In fact, Dugin goes so far as to say that the individual should not even be considered. The good of the group is what matters. And here we see a huge difference between Russian and American values.

Though Dugin dissects the various ideologies he does a disservice, though, due to a lack of knowledge of psychopathy. I would consider a contribution to the Fourth Political Theory, in the way of Ponerology, to be valuable. Due to this lacking he remains at the level of ideology throughout the work, making frequent forays into phenomenology, which is useful and enlightening in and of itself, but it leads him to miss the crux of the matter. Therefore, though his appeal to conservatism in order to oppose liberal values is very rich, being essentially a repudiation of the ponerization process and a return to normal, human society, it falls a little flat.



That said, his dissection of the ideologies throughout the 20th century is very enlightening, and the book is extensively footnoted for follow-up research into many of the areas he touches upon.

As Dugin points out, the Fourth Political Theory is not the work of a group of intellectuals, but is a series of projects being carried out by people trying to understand the declining American empire and to prepare a new world. And for that it was a pretty amazing look at history in action.

And what does Western media think of him? Well let's ask Wikipedia:



_Aleksandr Dugin - Wikipedia

And the National Review:



_ Dugin’s Evil Theology | National Review

And these are the words from Dugin himself, taken from an interview:



_http://4pt.su/en/content/maoism-too-modern-me

Can't believe you all are so far ahead

I have so much to discuss.

I wish there was a chat room. I will reply to the original post like I was planning.

There's too much synchronicity of thought for more to not interact.

This is twice now, this forum has been exactly on point with what I was thinking.