Global Putsch


When I first read Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, I was inspired by the boldness of his vision and by the breadth of his analysis. I agreed with his conclusions for the most part, and I particularly enjoyed his treatment of the three dominant political ideologies of the 20th Century: Marxism, fascism, and liberalism. I, at the time, still believed in the possibility of a hybrid solution, one that could effectively marry a robust vindication of Tradition with salvage from the more positive aspects of the Enlightenment. I hadn’t completely soured on the liberal project yet, and like many with a burgeoning awareness of postmodernism’s downsides, I believed that the only thing wrong with liberalism was that it had gone too far.

It is now abundantly clear that Dugin was correct in his assessment: the problem is liberalism itself. Liberalism sows the seeds of civilizational destruction wherever it finds fertile hearts and minds. History has been progressing towards the singularity with some alacrity, and taking the time to thresh the wheat from the chaff of liberalism is an indulgence made possible by ignorance and conditions of plenty. An unqualified belief in the beneficence of liberalism was possible before our treacherous global elites visited the “migrant crisis” upon the European populace, and before European elites assembled to thwart the unambiguously expressed political preferences of the people. Such a belief was quaint in a world before amnesty by executive order, before the cramdown of the TPP, before the federalization of marriage by judicial fiat. This was a world before public bathrooms were federalized to preserve the peace of mind of mentally ill deviants, before Paris, before Belgium. In short, the belief that the beneficial effects of liberalism could be sundered from its more poisonous aspects was an opulent fantasy that appeared plausible only during a time before elites weaponized liberalism and openly used it against the populace in order to concentrate their own power.

The good is inevitably co-opted in service of the bad.

Dugin was prescient and his theory sound, with one qualification: fascism may have failed, but it is far from dead. Necessity has resurrected it, and now the fashy Global Right is having a moment as those conned by liberalism become aware of its myriad failures and begin to seek draconian solutions in response. The masses have watched in disbelief as the Rule of Law touted by the global plutocracy has been subverted by the very same, turned into the Law of Rule for the purpose of advancing an increasingly illiberal & anti-human agenda. We now see that the political system ostensibly in place to express our will has become so pozzed and disordered that it now derives its power from its ability to circumvent the will of the people rather than its ability to be responsive to it. Anarcho-tyranny is the present reality, as liberal elites sic underclass filth on the middle class in order to destabilize it and eventually collapse it. People have seen the writing on the wall and are resisting the featureless, globalist, technocratic future that the powers that be have mapped out for them.

How else can the sudden rise of the Right be understood? How else can the sudden popularity of the alt-right be explained? How does one explain the hard pivot from milquetoast Romney to Trump-an unabashedly chauvinist, nationalistic, and pro-America candidate-within four years? How does one explain Hofer’s near victory in Austria? Or the rise of German shitlordette Frauke Petry? How is it that some ragtag Romanians threaten to burn down asylum centers and dares their local government to blink? How is it that this guy, who made a name for himself by extrajudicially offing derelicts as mayor of Davao City wins the presidency and pledges to keep killing sonsofbitches on behalf of his people if  he determines that they deserve it?

Around the world, people are doing what has long needed to be done. They now understand that if the state is not working for you, it’s working against you. They realize that if there is to be any future at all, active measures must be taken against all traitors working to spread chaos for their own ends. Civilization can only be saved by those willing to engage in savagery on its behalf; belligerence is the only way to neutralize agitating, subversive, fifth columns that would cheerfully commandeer the machinery of liberalism to advance lies and slavery. The pendulum is shifting again towards the strongman, towards the centrality of the state, towards jingoism, towards hypermasculine values, and towards isolationism. A hard reset to fash is necessary to clean house before creating a foundation for a functional future because the liberal values of inclusion, femininity, collaboration, and mortification have produced nothing more than licentiousness, weakness, and empty consumerism.

We are at quite the historical juncture. That electricity you feel is the world waking up from its slumber. From a billion people collectively realizing that everything is fucked and there will be no great unfucking. Billions of people realizing that we must create our own futures through bellicosity, brutalism, and blood if there is to be a future at all. Constitutions won’t save us. Incrementalism and gradualism have been exposed as philosophies of the grave; moderates are just traitors who came late to the party. Ultimately the Fourth Political Theory will come to life, a coalition of nationalists united in their efforts to root out globalist subverters, merchants of untruths, and the useful idiots whose nonchalance has led to the proliferation of filth and decay worldwide. Extremism is the order of the day, and this new right is animated by a will to survive, fiendish irreverence, by an atavistic, pagan energy. And it is all very necessary. There can be no redemption for liberalism.

I’ll end on this note:


“The end times and the eschatological meaning of politics will not realise themselves on their own. We will wait for the end in vain. The end will never come if we wait for it, and it will never come if we do not. This is essential because history, time, and reality have special strategies to avoid Judgment Day, or rather, they have a special strategy of a reversionary manoeuvre that will create the impression that everyone has come to a realisation and an understanding.… If the Fourth Political Practice is not able to realise the end of times, then it would be invalid. The end of days should come; but it will not come by itself. This is a task, it is not a certainty. It is active metaphysics. It is a practice.”


The Dissolution of Norms

In an increasingly interconnected and digital world, recognition of and adherence to unified norms of cyber governance are of paramount importance if order and security are to be maintained. Simply put, nations, and to a lesser degree – individuals – must agree to guard the digital commons and to refrain from engaging in nefarious acts of cyber hostility against each other in order to preserve the peace and to ensure the Web’s continued utility. All of this is quite obvious and intuitive, and requires little further exposition.

The problem with the bulk of the theoretical frameworks designed to deal with these concerns is that they have been fashioned upon precedent frameworks, frameworks that are profoundly dated, pre-digital, and predominantly Western. They are anachronisms repurposed for postmodernity. These models presumed that the West would always be ascendant, that warfare would always occur in real-time, and presumed the continuing primacy of the Western rationalist approach to global governance. Specifically, these models presume the universality of rationalism. The presumption is that every nation is largely the same, with largely consonant goals, and have a similar willingness to place economic concerns ahead of various other passion projects.

The assumption was that every nation, particularly the powerful ones would submit to rules of warfare because they collectively understood the dangers of not doing so: mutually assured destruction, increased and unsustainable costs, instability, insecurity, etc. It was taken for granted that the weaker (non-Western) nations would take the lead from the advanced (Western) nations in this regard and that this state of affairs, this world order would be accepted by all as being prima facie beneficial for all.

Man makes plans, and God laughs. 

The West fell. The BRICs rose. Rather than the homogeneity, hegemony, order and unification of norms pledged to the world by the West, we instead have the diversity, multipolarity, chaos, and competing norms proffered by the Rest. And what norms those are: China reneging on accords, China pilfering data, Iran doing…whatever the hell it is that Iran does, Russia maliciously accessing government intelligence, and the list goes on.

The failure of norms. The failure of Western norms as non-Western players come to the fore.

Nothing demonstrates the failure of universalism and to a certain extent, diversity better than this current state of affairs. Though this particular breakdown is occurring on the macro level, there is a clear parallel on the micro level. Fundamentally, the macro problem and the micro problem are the same:

(1) Equality does not exist and different people are incapable of adhering to the same standards. Therefore, differing standards must be adopted for differing peoples, increasing costs for everyone

(2) Differences made to coexist in close proximity eventually lead to destruction.

Digital interconnectivity creates a historically unprecedented  degree of global proximity, but not all nations and peoples are inclined to engage with this Brave New World in a civilized, orderly fashion. The norms set forth to govern this world are seen by many not as norms, but rather as illegitimate, arbitrary rules that may be flouted if and when beneficial to the flouter.

“The norm” is the standard. There can be but one standard, one “right way” of doing things. There may be deviations to the right or to the left, but the standard remains: immutable, the lodestar. The creation of norms arise from common culture, a common understanding of the world, a common value system. The former Western powers had (and still have) much in common. These commonalities provided the basis for their post-1945 conduct towards each other. Trust based societies with respect for the rule of law and for national sovereignty; equals. These characteristics make them predictable, orderly, and highly unlikely to engage in cyber hostilities against each other of their own accord. The operation of internalized norms, one might say.

The problem is that now, culturally alien unequals have a seat at the table. Entities with no respect or use for the rule of law are expected to abide by law and keep lawlessness at bay. Entities with radically divergent interests and objectives and with radically divergent outlooks are expected to converge (or at least set aside differences) for the greater good. This is an impossibility. Order must necessarily break down under this strain, making the world a profoundly less secure place for all. If order is to be maintained, parallel systems of governance must be created to apply to different peoples, at once repudiating equality and destroying the very concept of norms.

There can be no security without norms, and there can be no norms without homogeneity, hegemony, and common culture. Diversity precludes security. You may have one or the other, but never both.

Book Review: The Fourth Political Theory

The Fourth Political Theory

By: Alexander Dugin

 214 pp. Title available for free with a subscription to Kindle Unlimited

 Rating: 2.5/5

This book is not for the faint of heart.  A stem-winder of metaphysics, deep right thought, and mysticism, Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory launches salvo after salvo at the ascendant (but degenerate) liberalism of the day and its perceived progenitor: the United States. Dugin came to my attention about a month ago after listening to a podcast in which he discussed his work and his philosophical orientations.

Often credited as the architect of Putin’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy as well as his intensely conservative domestic policies, Dugin’s hodgepodge offerings in The Fourth Political Theory are precisely what one would expect—incredible antagonism towards the West in general and the United States in particular, incoherent calls for the resurrection of long dead Traditionalism, eschewal of progress, technological skepticism, and ultimately the resurgence of a “Eurasianist” Russia that presides over an unstable coalition composed of the “liberal” West’s enemies.

The book while decently written, is at the same time pedantic and esoteric. The book’s main premise is this: the 20th saw the rise of predominant political ideologies, each vying for supremacy: liberalism (the subject of which is the individual), communism (the subject of which is class), and fascism (the subject of which is the state).  Fascism in Dugin’s view, died a quick death in its infancy due to the horrific legacies of such characters as Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.  Communism enjoyed a much longer shelf life but perished nonetheless; this death was signaled by the 1991 collapse of the former Soviet Union.  Liberalism, as the first political theory and heir to the Enlightenment, vanquished the second and third theories and stepped into the political void where it now exists unchallenged, as an assumption rather than a proposition:

“When liberalism transforms from being an ideological arrangement to the only content of our extant social and technological existence, then it is no longer an ‘ideology,’ but an existential fact, and objective order of things.”

Ultimately, Dugin views each of these philosophies as failures.  Fascism was too racist and bloody; communism was too godless and materialistic.  However, he is particularly angry with liberalism, as it has cut ties with Tradition and now advances its world view as the only acceptable and viable world view, to disastrous results.  To Dugin, liberalism disregards difference in order to impose a uniform set of values on the world and contains an inherent chauvinism that causes it to view the wholesale acceptance of its values as right and inevitable.  He scorns the “unipolarity” that liberalism creates and its philosophy of self-aggrandizement, radical individualism, irreligion, and Western chauvinism.  Dugin attempts to separate the wheat from the chaff of the three discarded ideologies in the interests of discovering a kernel of truth within each one to create a new, syncretic political ideology and an appropriate new subject for this ideology: The Fourth Political Theory.  This theory places itself in opposition to “postmodernity, the postindustrial society, liberal thought realized in practice, and globalization, as well as its logistical and technological bases.”  The theory is fundamentally atavistic, Traditional, essentially religious, and admittedly irrational.

The book begins on a strong note with its takedowns of the three political philosophies and its accurate descriptions of the grotesqueries that unchecked liberalism has visited upon the world. The book is also correct in calling for a return to traditional modes and mores through religion, hierarchy, and family, but its interest ends there. Dugin’s true apocalyptic agenda is quickly revealed:  (1) the destruction of America (2) the destruction of the individual (3) bringing about the end of days with a concomitant return to pre-rational modes of existence.  Quoth Dugin:

“We must strike the individual, abolish him, and cast him into the periphery of political considerations.”

“Liberalism must be defeated and destroyed, and the individual must be thrown off his pedestal.”

“Only a global crusade against the US, the West, globalization, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response”

“If someone deprives us of our freedom, we have to react.  And we will react. The American Empire should be destroyed.”

Dugin is essentially a leftist whose critique of the Left comes from even further left. His “traditionalism” is simply the mask that his reconstituted version of communalism wears, as evidenced by his opposition to development, to the individual and to progress.  When Dugin cites “traditionalism,” he’s not referring to traditionalism in the context of developed societies; he’s referring to tradition as it would have developed in the Paleolithic age.  Tradition as it naturally occurs in the state of nature.  Dugin would be more than happy to throw the world into a second Dark Age, to cut down the tree of modernity, negatives and positives alike, rather than simply prune its decayed branches.

Ultimately, the book fails on several fronts. Dugin regularly conflates “liberalism” and “leftism,” using them interchangeably throughout the book.  “Leftism” is a cancer, on this we can agree.  Or do we? Are we talking about the “leftism” that has given rise to transsexualism, feminism, repressive tolerance, gay rights, transhumanism, identity politics and etc.?  Or are we referring to “liberalism,” which brought the world concepts of limited government, property rights, freedom of speech and conscience, due process, and equality before the law? While The Fourth Political Theory correctly concludes that certain features of postmodernity are absolutely repugnant, it does not properly distinguish between the two and thus mischaracterizes the cause.  Furthermore, Dugin does not establish why tradition would be incompatible with Enlightenment principles.

We can agree that the West, and the US in particular is now like a patient with a gangrenous limb.  The limb represents the forces of ultra-leftist postmodernity that has brought the world a veritable circus of degeneracy, the fifth column that is destroying the West from within.  Where we diverge, however, is how we choose to treat this patient.  As one who despises the leftward tendency of the West and believes in tradition, I believe that the patient (the West) can be saved were the dead limb to be cut off and the wound cauterized.  Dugin would rather euthanize the patient in order to give the hospital bed to another patient (Russia and its coalition of Traditionalists).  Dugin opts to ignore the existence of this fifth column and imputes their perverse agenda to the entirety of the West, using this as a pretext to call for the West’s destruction.  Indeed, rather than identifying the globalist Left for what it is—the source of both the decay and the increasing unipoliarity of the world—Dugin extends the olive branch to the Left, confusingly inviting it to join his coalition of Tradition as an ally.

Furthermore, his denunciation of the US is based upon a conception of the US that has not really existed in 70 years.  Dugin sees the US as an imperialist power, eager to spread its values of materialism and liberalism at all costs.  However, a quick look at the US puts the lie to this claim. The Obama Presidency has seen the adoption of European style socialism in the arenas of health care and trade.  It has seen the liberalization of relations with illiberal regimes that had long been sanctioned. It has also seen the US throwing off the mantle of “global police officer,” and withdrawing further into its own hemisphere where it disembowels itself to atone for its “privilege.”  Above all, this presidency has seen the acceleration of leveraging, miring the country further and further in debt.  America is running on fumes.  America is not the powerhouse of Duginian fantasy and nightmare.

Of concern also is the nouveau ethno-Marxism that he proposes as “traditionalism,” that relies upon an unstable coalition of “the Rest” against the West, the adherents of tradition versus the agents of postmodern destruction:

“Politically, we have here an interesting basis for the conscious cooperation of the radical Left-wingers and the New Right, as well as with religious and other anti-modern movements, such as the ecologists and green theorists.”

“Another question is the structure of a 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 . . . [t]his means Muslims, Christians, Russians, and Chinese, both Leftists and Rightists, the Hindus and the Jews who challenge the present state of affairs…”

In accepting all cultures antagonistic to the West (and to each other) regardless of common values or features, Dugin also accepts that he may be preparing to unleash forces that will ultimately be beyond his control and will begin to cannibalize the both Fourth Political Theory and the coalition before unleashing great chaos upon the world.  In particular, Islam is an ideology that lusts for universal supremacy, not for alliance or coalition.  These pronouncements make it clear that Dugin is not opposed to unipolarity per se: he’s opposed to a unipolar world led by the US and the West.  He’s fine with a relatively unipolar world with Russia at the helm and a cavalcade of assorted cultures bringing up the rear.

Ultimately, the Fourth Political Theory’s greatest failure is the fact that it remains open by design and unfinished.  The Fourth Political Theory, in Dugin’s own words is “contemplation.”  It is not action, it is not design, it is simply thought and wishful apocalyptic thinking.  The Fourth Political Theory is a book that promises but never delivers.