Alexander Dugin speaking about the Ukraine conflict.
May I quote Dugin, on Fourth Political Theory?
Liberalism, he says, ´´always insisted on de-emphasising the importance of politics and it made the decision to abolish politics completely after its triumph. Its political agenda,´´´ he writes, ´´expired with the absence of ideological rivals, the existence of which Carl Schmitt had considered indispensable for the proper construction of a political position.´´
Dugin tells us that, ``Those who do not agree with liberalism find themselves in a difficult situation ---the triumphant enemy has dissolved and disapeared; now they are left struggling against the air. How can one engage in politics, if there is no politics?
Liberalism now functions as the first ´´post-political practice´´.
On the other hand, Dugin writes that we need to ``realise and become aware of the profound structure of the global society emerging before our eyes.``
Liberalism, he says, has as its subject the individual, just like other theories has as their subjects race or class or the state. He said the theories so far ``lack the ability to explain contemporary reality or to help us understand current events, and are incapable of responding to the new global challenges.``
He said that ``some may argue that the liberals lie to us when they speak of the `end of ideology`, in reality they remain believers in their ideology and simply deny all others the right to exist.``
He says that the ``postmodern metamorphosis of liberalism into the form of postmodernity and globalisation``presupposes, what he calls, monotonic processes, which is, at its core, racist. The answer, he says, is to return to theology and tradition. ``Undoubtedly racist is the idea of unipoloar globalisation.`` He argues for a multipolar world on postmodern principles. And thus, he says, we see ``the colossals epistemological potential of geopolitics.`` Progress is sometimes a degress and, he writes, we need to carefully examine our ideas of what is civilization and progress, but using anthropology that sees all cultures as different but essentially equal.
``Additionally, the radical rejection of the three classical theories reflexts our attitude toward what is common to them all --- that is, our attitude toward modernisiation, progress, evolution, development, and growth.`` He refutes ``social Darwinism`` and the ideas of historical progress that crept in during the enlightenment. He said it`s good that society, as a whole, rejected fascism and classic communism. Now, he says, it`s time we reject liberalism as well, by which we mean free markets, democracy, human rights, individual liberties and unipolar globalisation. ``Fourth political theory should be completely open...we´re not trying to smooth, soothe and seduce.´´
Dugin writes that, ´´The idea is contained in liberalism that there can be no alternatives to it. And in this there is some truth. If logos put itself onto the path of freedom, if the social logos was pulled into the adventure of total liberation, where was the first shove in this direction? It must be sought not in Descartes, Nietzsche or the Twentieth century, but back with the Pre-Socratics. Heidegger saw this moment in the conception of physis and in the way it was disclosed in Plato´s teaching of the idea. But what is important is something else: the movement of logos to freedom is not accidental, but nevertheless one can say ´no´ to it.
This ´´ontological possibility of saying ´no´. And from this begins conservatism.´´
Dugin writes that in the United States of America ´´there was a historical opportunity to create in laboratory conditions the optimal society of modernity, on the basis of those principles that were developed by Western European thought; to create from a blank page, without the burden of European traditions, in an ´empty´ place.´´
´´The United States,´´ he says ´´is the avant-garde of freedom and the locomotive of the transition to postmodernism.´´
The idea of unipolar globalisation, America forcing its culture on the world, can be seen in ´´the chaotic aftermath of the heady events of the so-called ´Arab Spring´. After accomplishing the full fragmentation of these societies into individualisation and atomisation, the second phase will begin: the inevitable division and dissolution of the individual human itself via technology and genetic tinkering to create a ´posthumanity´. This ´post-politics´ can be seen as the last horizon of political futurism.´´ That´s a very good description of post-Maidan Ukraine.
Think Fukuyama´s ´End of History´ brought about by American dominance.
