Foruthrt rthrt

I take a Third Stance/Middle way Camp stance on individualism/collectivism and add that to my Fourth Political theory along with some type of communitarianism that meshes with the 4pt  

When it comes to contemporary anti-liberal people – those who actually transcend liberalism – it’s tough to find a more fine-read and toxic philosopher than Russian  Alexander Dugin. Having created and formalized a political ideology he labels as “Fourth Political theory Position” or the “Fourth Political Theory,” Dugin has put out a theoretical framework for humanity or – taking from Heidegger, as Dugin does, – Dasein is a “no” to liberalism and a change up from the matrix of capitalist-realism.

The Fourth Political Theory (4PT),, is a newer type of political ideology that is dissimilar to the three preceding ideologies: capitalism or liberalism (the first political theory), Communism or Marxism (the second political theory) and fascism or Naughtizism (the third political theory [3PT]). 

Yet the 4PT is not a total rejection of the previous 3 political ideologies. Rather it is better viewed as an surpassing or transcendence of the 3 ideologies since the 4pt creates ts own route which extracts the good from each of them while repudiating the bad from both of them

Thus many of us Third Stance/Middle way Campers will discover a lot to agree with in the work of Dugin, especially his blistering criticisms of liberalism which, of each of aforementioned three ideologies, receives the lion's share of his rage. But now as Third Stance/Middle way Campers like me are  aware of, the previous alternative theories to Liberalism etc and the subjects within it are supposedly among few of the subjects that people are allowed to out-right lie about both inside academia and without. 

The political machine against the proto Fourth political theory has never really ended going back to its first inception. It has only surmised new forms, and Dugin, has also taken up this mantle. While this is no shock to most people who have been inundated with this narrative since their younger days in one way or another from their education to their media consumption, it also holds correct for someone of the intellectual merit as Alexandre Dugin.

Dugin’s across the board critique of fascism, generally speaking, is that it takes part in the bankruptcies of all one modernist ideology after another in an indistinguishable way (like. liberalism and Marxism) this type of belief in non directional or dull progress, historicism, in addition to being a “globalist” ideology. In particular, Dugin imposes the truth that the National Socialists were trying to create a “global Aryan government,” and he rightfully condemns their racism and he connects it to the exact ideology that lays the groundwork for/sustains liberalism (liberals are apparently the real racists)

One obvious mistake in Dugin’s analysis is the absence of a historical and theoretical comprehension of some of the fascistic movements he is criticizing. 

One example is that makes the mistake of pondering that the private opinions and works of Alfred Rosenberg were the ideological platforms of the Third Reich and the religious like conviction of National Socialism. Dugin writes, “In German National Socialism, the historical subject is the ‘Aryan race’, which, according to racists, ‘carries out the eternal struggle against the subhuman races’”. A footnote exists here which is appended to this and it cites Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century leaving out any particular pages. He keeps this up in another work writing:

“[Carl] Schmitt’s National Socialism fundamentally differs from the National Socialism of Hitler or Rosenberg precisely in that Schmitt thinks in the category of peoples, not of one people, the German, or the notorious “Aryan Race,” by which ignorant Nazis understood only Germans themselves.”

There are numerous problems upfront here which shows that Dugin is wrong with this viewpoint and misses the point

Rosenberg aside, Dugin has not a lot of understanding of what was meant by the terms of the NDSAP 

Another idea of Dugin’s to be debunked is his insistence that all forms of fascism, too (the types I don't list in my Anti posts in these blogs), is an evolutionary movement and that the National Socialists reconciled a racial interpretation of this notion [ie. of Nietzscheanism]: this along with similar things that Alexander Dugin said the National Socialists adopted.” is more ahistorical nonsense. 

There is no authentic claim that can be put forward by Alexander Dugin to argue that the NSDAP wanted to go as far as Alexander Dugin said they wanted to go, even if they did in that exact way Dugin claims.  If this was actually the case, and, as Dugin makes it appear to be, the National Socialists were so blighted with ideology as to be the core of its doom (more on this later), then why did they make alliances with various non-white peoples of the world such as the Palestinians, the Indians and the Japanese?

This also debunks Dugin’s claims of a global government and his other false conspiracy theories about the NDSAP etc

Another critique Dugin made against German NDSAP is was the reason for its demise in the “historical, geopolitical, and theoretical sense.” Like, Dugin points to the anti-Slavic hatred of the Reich leadership for making Germany declare war on Russia and so be erased from History. Dugin’s outlook on said issue again is lacking genuine context and are a enormous oversimplification.

Alexander Dugin doesn't see the context or nuance in the relation between Slavs and the NDSAP, instead Dugin relies on the false info he peddled as a Pimyat member in the 1980s to falsely paint the situation

Dugin also ignores the alliance between Bulgaria and Germany.

There is a weird paradox of Alexander Dugin rightfully condemning the pan-Germanic irredentism and racist imperialism of Naughtizes and also the Third Reich for being united mega globalist when the geopolitical desires of Dugin’s Russia are as bad if not worse than those of NDSAP Germany! 

Dugin says that for Russia – with the Russian volk at its center – to be at the nucleus of a Eurasian “large space” or human development. This would, partly, incorporate Russia taking Mongolia, some of Northern China, the eastern portions of Europe, Finland, and the Caucuses. A very ambitious blueprint than most other similar ones and certainly no slouch in comparison with the evil NDSAP irrdentism and racist imperialism

I synthesize Third Stance/Middle way Camp with the Fourth Political Position (4pt) in my 4pt

When we delve into what Alexander Dugin has in store for his Fourth Political theory. But we observe that it increasingly more starts to take after the Third Stance/Middle way Camp . In the second volume of the Fourth Political Theory he states something about a people's union which makes it appear that Dugin has no particular issue with creating Third Stance/Middle way Camp things like a people's union in the 4pt, at its root.

Keeping that in mind, we find that once we really get the left wing economic side of the Third Stance/Middle way Camp ideology as being about the people's union – as any casual glimpse at official  1950s German OrdoPublicism writings can tell us – you see that more and more that is the same thing that Alexander Dugin alludes to with the 4pt

The one defense in Dugin's writings that push back against the view would be the remark his made that 

the NDSAP stopped research into background Sociology including people's unions with racist dogma

With this, Dugin is speaking to his work he did with sociology, in which one of his narratives is that background sociology is not based on what others think it is. It is instead according to him, based on a variety of socioclasses, clusters etc 

While the second point above is given as a method  to show that some things do not matter in the grand scheme of things as concepts since it’s just about acknowledging one starting point which is more so than not soulist or fabled/legendary without necessarily being of a similar starting point. there is not one reason, under a background sociological substructure, why the admittance of just one starting point cannot be based in some more reductionist and attributed stuff

Before we go off the deep end though, it’s vital to state that there are still true integral variances between the Third Stance/Middle way Camp and 4pt even after throwing out Dugin’s pronounced unfounded criticisms. For instance, the Third Stance/Middle way Camp has modernist burdens which the 4pt purely doesn’t possess and, because of its relatively young lifetime was never able to gain anything from the acumen and discernings of postmodernism and different schools of thought that the 4PT relishes  

Another difference between the Third Stance/Middle way Camp and 4pt is that the 4pt is not a fixed political ideology as the numerous iterations of the Third Stance/Middle way Camp are like the 1950s OrdoPublicism of Germany, Spanish 1960s 1970s Neoliberalism, or National Syndicalism

This difference is born due to a couple of reasons. The main reason is not any parent ideology for the Third Stance/Middle way Camp in the way that Karl Marx was the parent for the next political theory, nor was there a blend of the diverse thinkers, in a geographical and also a smart conceptual way, as there was on the side of liberalism which was able to establish key tenets and open discource among its different progenitors and idealogues which halted the linguistic isolation as was the case with the idealogues of the Third Stance/Middle way Camp 

The 4pt in contrast, was definately much started to be an “open” ideology which went beyond and below the shutness of logos  — which renounce the nothing, something which the previous three ideologies all have in common among them — and into the chaotic open world. 

So from its inception the 4pt was constructed as a base, a point of commence, for more exact ideologies (like Dugin’s earlier 4pt writings, or Israel Lira’s Crisolism), at the same time that the Third Stance/Middle way Camp (in maybe a poetically got what it deserved way) was, from the start, massively linked to its one nationism (like One Nation Labour) or socialism in one countryism and its more specific conditions rather than getting inspiration from a wider ideological or outlook system tradition. The abundant Third Stance/Middle way Camp ideologies that surfaced in the early to mid 20th century were, thus associated to one another more by historical fates as opposed to the purposefulness of drawing on a shared ideological cornerstone

This lacking of a shared ideological groundwork was among the key errors of the Third Stance/Middle way Camp, historically in context, for the time they were upclose with the problems of their day, like the emerging geopolitical menaces, without a past convention to lean into, they commonly needed to adopt modernist band-aids. Also due to Social chicago school liberal pinochetism they were inflicted with a brutal demise in its infancy, they were not again able to make alternatives. Thus the shattered essence of social fascistic threat and its quick shell life has become the number one intellectual struggle facing the Third Stance/Middle way Camp in the postmodern era

However, highlighting these deviations should not cast a shadow over the similarities. For the 4pt too is putting Heidegger’s Dasein as its classical theme is able to be seen, if just in a instinctive
rooted way, found inside the workings of Actualism. Though Alexander Dugin dismisses that as only being wrapped up in “a Right-wing version of Hegelianism.” 

This blowback by Dugin also does not notice other resemblances between Hediegger and Actualism such as the critique of Hegel they have which is familiar to both ideologies, despite both of them only meeting one time and never being knowing of work's of the other (mostly because of lack of translation). In fact, Actualism philosophers and Heidegger give off a vibe they actually have more in common with one another than it would first look, but more philosophical research has to be done on that to see if its true

In Eurasian Mission, Dugin puts forth his vision for what’s ocasionally seen as “One Struggle.” Even citing the power to form pacts with first world national global individualists and considerably

rightoid European political parties just as long as they don’t stick up for the US (in its here and now form), globalism, etc. 

I have no qualms about this. I solidly believe in a few or more of the key principles of what Dugin goes on about. We have to have some type of universal revolutionary solidarity in opposition to capitalism, globalism, and down the line maybe Atlanticism (ymmv), and whatever other thing we can throw in this opposition stew. Of course this admission evidently, even if it is not its intention, presents us with the fact that the aperture between the Third Stance/Middle way Camp and the 4pt are not as big as they can nominally be perceived

My utmost criticism of the 4pt is that it states too much its distinctiveness and divergence with the Third Stance/Middle way Camp while doing that also denying it the attested and rational credit that it has earned. If we are to inspect and give opinions on an ideology by its haters, then the fact that two ideologies: high capitalism and communism ardently opposed Political syndicalretic thought and became aligned to turn the whole planet against it is telling

The thing I am proposing is that we are able to start to see the 4pt as the inception to a rectification
and rectification of Political syndicalretic thought that never came about. 

In particular (however not exhaustively), embracing Dasein, chronicled principlalism, perennialism, and free left wing stuff like Political syndicalretic thought: cleansed from its a-cosmopolitan historical oddities, while at the same time emancipating Political syndicalretic thought from the bondage of 4pt's modernism boogeyman and adding onto it new perceptions that have evolved since WWII. The 4pt is not the quintessential element, but it can be used as the first step into reclaiming Third Stance/Middle way Camp