By Alexandr Dugin
The evil of unipolarity
The current world is unipolar with the global West in its centre and with the United States as its core.
This kind of unipolarity has geopolitical and ideological sides. Geopolitically is strategic dominance of the Earth by a North-American hyperpower and the effort of Washington to organize the balance of forces on the planet in such a manner as to be able to rule the whole world in accordance with its own national (imperialistic) interests. It is bad because it deprives other states and nations of their real sovereignty.
Ideologically the unipolarity is based on Modernist and Post-Modernist values that are openly anti-traditional ones. I share the vision of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola who considered Modernity and its ideological basis ( individualism, liberal democracy, capitalism, comfortism and so on) to be the cause of the future catastrophe of humanity and global domination of Western attitudes as the reason of final degradation of the Earth. The West is approaching its end and we should not let it push all the rest of us with it into the abyss.
Spiritually globalization is the creation of The Grand Parody, the kingdom of the Antichrist. And the United States is in the center of its expansion. American values pretend to be “universal” ones. It is a new form of ideological aggression against the multiplicity of cultures and traditions still existing in other parts of the world. I am resolutely against Western values that are essential Modernist and Post-Modernist ones and promulgated by the United States by force or by obtrusion (Afghanistan, Iraq, now Libya, tomorrow Syria and Iran) .
So, all traditionalists should be against the West and globalization as well as against the imperialist politics of United States. It is the only logical and consequent position. So the traditionalists and the partisans of traditional principles and values should oppose the West and defend the Rest (if the Rest shows the signs of the conservation of Tradition – partly or entirely).
There can be and there are really men in the West and in the United States of America who don’t agree with the present state of things and don’t approve Modernity and Post-Modernity being the defenders of the spiritual tradition of the Pre-Modern West. They should be with us in our common struggle. They should take part in our revolt against th Modern World and Post-Modern world. And we would fight together against a common enemy.
The other question is the structure of the possible anti-globalist and anti-imperialist front and its participants. I think that we should include in it all forces that struggle against the West, the United States, against the liberal democracy, against Modernity and Post-Modernity. The common enemy is the necessary instance for all kinds of political alliances. The Muslims, the Christians, the Russians and the Chinese, the leftists or the rightists, the Hindus or the Jews who challenge the present state of things, globalization and American imperialism are virtually friends ands allies. Let our ideals be different but we have in common one very strong thing: the present reality that we hate. Our ideals that differ are potential (in potentia). But the challenge we are dealing with is actual (in actu). So that is the basis for a new alliance. All who share a negative analysis of globalization, westernization and post-modernization should coordinate their effort in creation of new strategy of resistance to the omnipresent evil. And we can find the «ours» in the United States also – among those who choose Tradition against the present decadence.
To the Fourth Political Theory
At this point we could raise a really important question: what kind of ideology should we use in our opposition to globalization and its liberal democratic capitalist and Modernist (Post-Modernist) principles? I think that all anti-liberal ideologies (communism, socialism as well as fascism) are not anymore relevant. They tried to fight liberal-capitalism and they failed. Partly because in the end of time it is evil that prevails; partly because of their inner contradictions and limitations. So it is time to make deep revisions of the antiliberal ideologies of the past. What is their positive side? - The very fact that they were anti-capitalist and anti-liberal, as well as also anti-cosmopolite and anti-individualist. So these features should be accepted and integrated in the future ideology. But communism is Modern, atheist, materialist and cosmopolite. That should be thrown out. On the contrary, the social solidarity, social justice, the socialism and general holistic attitude to society are good in themselves. So we need to separate the materialist and Modernist aspects and reject them.
On the other hand in the theories of the Third Way (dear up to certain point to some traditionalists as Julius Evola) there were some unacceptable elements – first of all racism, xenophobia and chauvinism. They are not only moral failures but also theoretically and anthropologically inconsistent attitudes. The difference between the ethnos doesn't mean superiority or inferiority. The difference should be accepted and affirmed without any racist appreciation. There is not common measure dealing with the different ethnic groups. When one society tries to judge the other it applies its own criteria and so commits intellectual violence. The same attitude is precisely the crime of globalization and Westernization, as well as American imperialism.
If we free socialism from its materialist, atheist and Modernist features and if we reject the racist and narrow nationalist aspects of the Third Way doctrines we arrive at a completely new kind of political ideology. We call it the Fourth Political Theory (first being liberalism, that we essentially challenge, the second the classical form of communism, the third national-socialism and fascism). Its elaboration starts from the point of intersection between different antiliberal political theories of the past (communism and Third Way theories). So we arrive to National-Bolshevism that represents socialism without materialism, atheism, progressism and Modernism and Third Way theories without racism and nationalism. But that is only the first step. The mechanical addition of deeply revised versions of the antiliberal ideologies of the past doesn’t give us the final result. It is only first approximation, preliminary approach. We should go further and make appeal to the Tradition and to Pre-Modern sources of inspiration. There we have Platonic ideal State, the medieval hierarchic society and theological vision of the normative social and political system (Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu) . This Pre-Modern source is very important development of the National-Bolshevism synthesis. So we need to find a new name for this kind of ideology and “Fourth Political Theory” is quite appropriate for this. It doesn't tell us what this Theory is, but rather what it isn't. So it is a kind of invitation and appeal rather than the dogma.
Politically we have here an interesting basis for conscious cooperation of the left-wingers and the right-wingers as well as with the religious or other anti-modern movements (the ecologists for example). The only thing that we insist on in creating such cooperation is to put aside anti-communist as well as antifascist prejudices. These prejudices are the instruments in the hands of liberals and globalists with which they keep their enemies divided. So we should strongly reject anticommunism as well as antifascism. Both of them are counter-revolutionary tools in the hands of the global liberal elite. At the same time we should strongly oppose any kind of the confrontation between religions – Muslims against Christians, the Jews against Muslims, the Muslims against the Hindus and so on. The interconfessional wars and hatred work for the cause of the kingdom of Antichrist who tries to divide all the traditional religions in order to impose its own pseudo-religion, the eschatological parody.
So we need to unite the right, the left and the religions in the common struggle against our common enemy. Social justice, national sovereignty and Traditional values are three principles of such ideology. It is not easy to put all this together. But we should try if we want to overcome our foe.
In French there is a slogan: “la droite des valeurs et la gauche du travail” (Alain Soral). In italian it goes: “La Destra sociale e la Sinistra identitaria”. How exactly it should sound in English we will see later.
We could go further and try to define the subject, the actor of the Forth Political Theory. In the case of communism in the center there was class. In the case of the Third way movements in the centre was the race or the nation. In the case of religions – it is the community of the faithful. How the Fourth Political Theory could deal with this diversity and the divergence of subjects? We propose, as a suggestion, that the subject of the Fourth Political Theory can be found in the Heideggerian concept of Dasein (being-t/here). It is a concrete but extremely profound instance that could be the common denominator for further ontological development. What is crucial here – that is authenticity or non-authenticity of existence of the Dasein. Fourth Political Theory insists on the authenticity of existence. So it is the antithesis to any kind of alienation – social, economic, national, religious or metaphysical.
But the Dasein is a concrete instance. Any man and any culture possess their own Dasein. They differ between each other but they are present always.
Accepting that we should progress to the elaboration of common strategy in the process of the creation of the future that should fit to our demands and our visions. So such values as social justice, national sovereignty and traditional spirituality can serve us as the clue.
I sincerely believe that the Fourth Political Theory, the National-Bolshevism and Eurasianism can be of great use for our peoples, our countries and our civilizations. The key word is “multipolatity” in all senses – geopolitical, cultural, axiological, economical and so on.
The important vision of Nous (Intellect) of the Greek philosopher Plotinus corresponds to our ideal. The Intellect is one and multiple at the same time, because it has all kinds of differences in itself – not uniform or mixed, but taken as such with all their particularities. The future world should be noetic in some way – the multiplicity, diversity should be taken as richness and the treasure and not as the reason of inevitable conflict: many civilizations, many poles, many centres, many sets of values on one planet in one humanity.
But there are some who think otherwise. Who are against such a project? Those who want to impose uniformity, the unique thought, one (American) way of life, One World. And they are doing it by force and by persuasion. They are against multipolarity. So they are against us.
No comments:
Post a Comment