TheFourthPoliticalTheory

AlexanderDugin

THEFOURTHPOLITICALTHEORY

ARKTOSLONDON2012

FirstEnglisheditionpublishedin2012byArktosMediaLtd.

CopyrighttotheEnglishedition©2012byArktosMediaLtd.

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedorutilisedinanyformorbyanymeans(whetherelectronicormechanical),including

photocopying,recordingorbyanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,without

permissioninwritingfromthepublisher.

PrintedintheUnitedKingdom.

ISBN978-1-907166-65-5

BICclassification:Socialforecasting,futurestudies(JFFR)Social&politicalphilosophy(HPS)

Translation:MarkSleboda&MichaelMillermanEditor:JohnB.Morgan

Proofreader:MichaelJ.BrooksCoverDesign:AndreasNilsson

Layout:DanielFriberg

ARKTOSMEDIALTDwww.arktos.com

TABLEOFCONTENTSANOTEFROMTHEEDITOR

FOREWORDBYALAINSORAL:WHYWESHOULDREADALEXANDERDUGIN

INTRODUCTION:TOBEORNOTTOBE?

1.THEBIRTHOFTHECONCEPT

2.DASEINASANACTOR

3.THECRITIQUEOFMONOTONICPROCESSES

4.THEREVERSIBILITYOFTIME

5.GLOBALTRANSITIONANDITSENEMIES

6.CONSERVATISMANDPOSTMODERNITY

7.‘CIVILISATION’ASANIDEOLOGICALCONCEPT

8.THETRANSFORMATIONOFTHELEFTINTHETWENTY-FIRSTCENTURY

9.LIBERALISMANDITSMETAMORPHOSES

10.THEONTOLOGYOFTHEFUTURE

11.THENEWPOLITICALANTHROPOLOGY:THEPOLITICALMANANDHISMUTATIONS

12.FOURTHPOLITICALPRACTICE

13.GENDERINTHEFOURTHPOLITICALTHEORY

14.AGAINSTTHEPOSTMODERNWORLD

APPENDIXI

APPENDIXII

T

ANOTEFROMTHEEDITOR

he bulk of the text in this book was published as Chetvertaiapoliticheskaia teoriia,whichwaspublished inSt.Petersburg in2009by

Amphora. The text has been revised by the author, and additional chaptershavebeenaddedtothiseditionfromotherwritingsbyProfessorDuginwhichwerepublishedlater,dealingwiththesametheme.

Unlessotherwiseindicated,thefootnotestothetextwereincludedbytheauthorhimself.Additional footnoteswhichwereaddedbyme for referenceare so marked. Where sources in other languages have been cited, I haveattemptedtoreplace themwithexistingEnglish-languageeditions.CitationstoworksforwhichIcouldlocatenotranslationareretainedintheiroriginallanguage.Websiteaddressesforon-linesourceswereverifiedasaccurateandavailableduringtheperiodofMarchthroughMay,2012.

IwouldliketothankAlainSoral,whoallowedustousehisPrefacefromtheFrencheditionofthisbookhere,andalsoSergioKnipe,whotranslateditintoEnglish.IwouldalsoliketoextendmygratitudetoMarkSleboda,whospentmany hours working on the translation and improving it; toMichaelMillerman,who provided uswith the translations for chapters 6 through 9;and to Michael J. Brooks, who proofread the manuscript. Others whovolunteeredtheirtimeinworkingonthetranslationwereNatellaSperanskaja,ZhirayrAnanyan,NinaKouprianova,FedorSmirnov,ValentinCherednikov,Cyrill Lazareff, and Ivan Fedorov. I also extend my appreciation to MarkDyal, who helped by tracking down the source of a very tricky Nietzschequotationcitedinthetext.

JOHNB.MORGANIVBangalore,India,May2012

W

FOREWORDBYALAINSORAL:WHYWESHOULDREADALEXANDERDUGIN

hen the notions of Right and Left have become politicallymeaningless, in the West as much as everywhere else in the world; whenliberalsandlibertariansagreeontheessentials;whenthethreegrandpoliticaltheoriesoftheTwentiethcentury—capitalism,Communismandfascism—haveultimatelyprovenincapableofgoverningpeoplespeaceably,whatislefttodo?

According toAlexanderDugin,a teacherof sociologyandgeopoliticsatthe renowned Lermontov University of Moscow, and one of the mostinfluentialintellectualsinRussia,onlyone,radicalsolutionremains:todeviseadifferentapproach,aFourthPoliticalTheory.

Conceptualisingandtheorisingit:suchistheaimofthepresentbook.The thought of this brilliant Moscow intellectual, which transcends our

Westernideologicaldividesandmedia-conditionedreactions,willnotfail tosurpriseconformists:foritsuggeststhatinorderforustofacethefutureinaresolute and victorious way, we should revert to traditional forms ofspirituality. According to Dugin, the primary target must be Westernpostmodernism: we must wage war upon this thalassocratic Empire — amorbidblendofthesocietyofthespectacle[1]andconsumerculture—anditsplanforultimateworlddomination.

In Fourth Political Theory, Dugin shows that the only way to build amultipolarworld,foundedonauthenticvalues,istoresolutelyturnone’sbackontheAtlanticistWestanditsfalsevalues.

And how can this be achieved? Only by unconditionally preserving thegeopolitical sovereignty of the powers of theEurasian continent—Russia,China,IranandIndia—whichsafeguardthefreedomofallotherpeoplesontheplanet.

Agenuinemanualforculturalguerrillawarfare,FourthPoliticalTheoryisabookthatcanbeseenasacomplementtomyownComprendre l’empire[2](whichhasbeentranslatedintoRussianbyfriendsofAlexanderDugin’s).

DugininMoscow,I(andothers)inParis…whileweonlymetforthefirsttimeinJanuary2011,andneverconsultedwithoneanother,ourideas—no

doubt formulated differently— agree on all the important points: from theneed to unite the value-centred Right and the labour-centred Left to theimperative need for resistance against the Empire, from the appeal toTraditionaswellastomanyotherconcepts…

Onceagain,thisshowsthattheonlyworthwhileinternationalisthatofthespirit,ledbygoodmen!

AlainSoral

(TranslatedbySergioKnipe)

IINTRODUCTION:TOBEORNOTTOBE?

n today’sworld,politicsappears tobea thingof thepast, at least asweused to know it.Liberalismpersistently fought against those of its politicalenemies which had offered alternative systems; that is, conservatism,monarchism,traditionalism,fascism,socialism,andCommunism,andfinally,bytheendoftheTwentiethcentury,haddefeatedthemall.Itwouldbelogicalto assume that politics would become liberal, while all of its marginalisedopponents, surviving in the peripheral fringes of global society, wouldreconsidertheirstrategiesandformulateanewunitedfrontaccordingtoAlaindeBenoist’s[3]peripheryagainstthecentre.[4]Instead,atthebeginningoftheTwenty-firstcentury,everythingfollowedadifferentscript.

Liberalism,whichhadalways insistedonde-emphasising the importanceofpolitics,madethedecisiontoabolishpoliticscompletelyafteritstriumph.Maybe thiswas toprevent the riseofpoliticalalternativesand toensure itseternal rule, or because its political agenda had simply expired with theabsence of ideological rivals, the existence of which Carl Schmitt[5] hadconsideredindispensablefortheproperconstructionofapoliticalposition.[6]Regardlessof the rationale, liberalismdid everythingpossible to ensure thecollapseofpolitics.At thesametime, liberalismitselfhaschanged,passingfromthelevelofideas,politicalprogrammesanddeclarationstothelevelofreality,penetratingtheveryfleshofthesocialfabric,whichbecamesuffusedwithliberalismand,inturn,itbegantoseemlikethenaturalorderofthings.Thiswaspresentednotasapoliticalprocess,butasanaturalandorganicone.As a consequence of such a historical transformation, all other politicalideologies, passionately feuding against each other during the last century,lost their currency. Conservatism, fascism and Communism, together withtheirmanyvariations,lostthebattle,andtriumphantliberalismmutatedintoalifestyle:consumerism,individualism,andapostmodernmanifestationofthefragmentedandsub-politicalbeing.Politicsbecamebiopolitical,[7]movingtothe individual and sub-individual level. It turnsout that itwasnot only thedefeated political ideologies that left the stage, but politics itself, and evenliberalism, in its ideological forms, exited. This is why it became nearlyimpossibletoimagineanalternativeformofpolitics.Thosewhodonotagreewith liberalism find themselves in a difficult situation — the triumphantenemyhasdissolvedanddisappeared;nowtheyareleftstrugglingagainsttheair.Howcanoneengageinpolitics,ifthereisnopolitics?

Thereisonlyonewayout—torejecttheclassicalpoliticaltheories,bothwinnersandlosers,strainourimaginations,seizetherealityofanewworld,correctlydecipherthechallengesofpostmodernity,andcreatesomethingnew— something beyond the political battles of the Nineteenth and Twentiethcenturies.SuchanapproachisaninvitationtothedevelopmentoftheFourthPoliticalTheory—beyondCommunism,fascismandliberalism.

TomoveforwardtowardsthedevelopmentofaFourthPoliticalTheory,itisnecessaryto:

• reconsider the political history of recent centuries from new positionsbeyondtheframeworksandclichésoftheoldideologies;

•realiseandbecomeawareoftheprofoundstructureoftheglobalsocietyemergingbeforeoureyes;

•correctlydeciphertheparadigmofpostmodernity;• learn to oppose not the political idea, programme or strategy, but the

‘objective’ reality of the status quo, the most social aspect of theapolitical,fractured(post-)society;

•andfinally,constructanautonomouspoliticalmodelwhichoffersanewway and a project for the world of deadlocks, blind alleys, and theendless recycling of the ‘same old things’ (post-history, according toBaudrillard).[8]

This book is dedicated to this very problem — as the beginning of thedevelopment of a Fourth Political Theory, through an overview and re-examination of the first three political theories, and to the closely-relatedideologies of National Bolshevism and Eurasianism that came very closeindeed to the Fourth Political Theory. This is not dogma, nor a completesystem, nor a finished project. This is an invitation to political creativity, astatementofintuitionsandconjectures,ananalysisofnewconditions,andanattempttoreconsiderthepast.

TheFourthPoliticalTheoryisnottheworkofasingleauthor,butisratheratrendcomprisingawidespectrumofideas,researches,analyses,prognoses,andprojects.Anyone thinking in thisveincancontributehisown ideas.Assuch, more and more intellectuals, philosophers, historians, scientists,scholars,andthinkerswillrespondtothiscall.

It is significant that the book, Against Liberalism,[9] by the renownedFrench intellectual Alain de Benoist, which has also been published inRussian by Amphora, has a subtitle: Towards the Fourth Political Theory.Undoubtedly, many things can be said on this theme by representatives ofboth the old Left and the old Right and, most likely, even by liberalsthemselves,whoareconceptualisingqualitativechangestotheirownpolitical

platform,evenwhilepoliticsisdisappearing.

For my own country, Russia, the Fourth Political Theory, among otherthings,hasanimmensepracticalsignificance.ThemajorityofRussianpeoplesuffertheirintegrationintoglobalsocietyasalossoftheirownidentity.TheRussian population had almost entirely rejected the liberal ideology in the1990s.ButitisalsoapparentthatareturntotheilliberalpoliticalideologiesoftheTwentiethcentury,suchasCommunismorfascism,isunlikely,astheseideologies have already failed and proven themselves unequal to thechallenge of opposing liberalism, to say nothing of the moral costs oftotalitarianism.

Therefore, in order to fill this political and ideological vacuum, Russianeeds a new political idea. For Russia, liberalism does not fit, butCommunismandfascismareequallyunacceptable.Consequently,weneedaFourth Political Theory. And if, for some readers, this is a question offreedomofchoiceandtherealisationofapoliticalwill,whichcanalwaysbeviewedfromapositiveornegativeposition,thenforRussia,itisamatteroflifeordeath—‘tobeornottobe’,intermsofHamlet’seternalquestion.

If Russia chooses ‘to be’, then it will automatically bring about thecreation of a Fourth Political Theory. Otherwise, for Russia there remainsonlythechoice‘nottobe’,whichwillmeantoquietlyleavethehistoricalandworldstage,dissolving intoaglobalorderwhich isnotcreatedorgovernedbyus.

T

1.TheBirthoftheConcept

TheEndoftheTwentiethCentury—theEndofModernity

he Twentieth century has ended, but it is only now that we are trulybeginning to realise and tounderstand this fact.TheTwentieth centurywasthe century of ideology. If, in the previous centuries, religion, dynasties,estates, classes, and nation-states played an enormous role in the lives ofpeoplesandsocieties,then,intheTwentiethcentury,politicshadshiftedintoa purely ideological realm, having redrawn the map of ethnicities,civilisations, and the world in a new way. On the one hand, politicalideologies represented early and deeply rooted civilisational tendencies.Ontheotherhand,theywerecompletelyinnovative.

All political ideologies, having reached the peak of their dominion andinfluenceintheTwentiethcentury,weretheproductofthenew,modernera,embodying its spirit, albeit in different ways and under different symbols.Today,wearerapidlyleavingthisera.Thuseveryonespeaks,moreandmorefrequently, of the ‘crisis of ideology’, or even the ‘end of ideology’.[10] Forinstance, the existence of a state ideology is explicitly denied in theConstitutionof theRussianFederation. It is time toaddress this issuemoreclosely.

TheThreeMainIdeologiesandtheirFateintheTwentiethCentury

ThethreemainideologiesoftheTwentiethcenturywere:1)liberalism(LeftandRight)2)Communism(includingbothMarxismandsocialism,alongwithsocial

democracy)

3) fascism(includingNationalSocialismandothervarietiesof theThirdWay[11] — Franco’s National Syndicalism, Perón’s ‘Justicialism’,Salazar’sregime,etc.).

They fought among themselves to thedeath, creating, in essence, the entire

dramaticandbloodypoliticalhistoryoftheTwentiethcentury.Itislogicaltonumber these ideologies (or political theories) based in part on theirsignificance,aswellasintheorderoftheiroccurrence,aswasdoneabove.

The first political theory is liberalism. It arose first, as early as theEighteenth century, and turned out to be the most stable and successfulideology, having ultimately prevailed over all its rivals. As a result of thisvictory, it proved, among other factors, the justification of its claim to theentirelegacyoftheEnlightenment.Today,itisobviousthatitwasliberalismthatwasthebestfitformodernity.However,thislegacywasdisputedearlier,dramatically,actively,and,attimes,convincingly,byanotherpoliticaltheory—Communism.

ItisreasonabletocallCommunism,muchlikesocialisminallitsvarieties,the second political theory. It appeared later than liberalism as a criticalresponsetotheemergenceofthebourgeois-capitalistsystem,whichwastheideologicalexpressionofliberalism.

And, finally, fascism is the third political theory. As a contender for itsown understanding of modernity’s spirit, many researchers, particularlyHannahArendt,[12]inparticular,reasonablyconsidertotalitarianismoneofthepoliticalformsofmodernity.Fascism,however,turnedtowardtheideasandsymbolsoftraditionalsociety.Insomecases,thisgaverisetoeclecticism,inothers—tothedesireofconservativestoleadtheirownrevolutioninsteadofresistinganother’s,andleadingtheirsocietyintheoppositedirection,suchasArthurMoellervandenBruck,[13]DmitryMerezhkovsky,[14]andsoon.

Fascismemergedlaterthantheothermajorpoliticaltheoriesandvanishedbeforethem.Theallianceofthefirstpoliticaltheorywiththesecondpoliticaltheory, aswell asHitler’s suicidal geopoliticalmiscalculations, caused it toexpireprematurely.Thethirdpoliticaltheorywasavictimof‘homicide’,orperhaps‘suicide’,notlivinglongenoughtoseeoldageandnaturaldecay,incontrasttotheideologyoftheSovietUnion.Therefore,thisbloodyvampiricghosttingedwithanauraof‘absoluteevil’isattractivetothedecadenttastesofpostmodernity,andisstillusedasabogeymantofrightenhumanity.

Withitsdisappearance,fascismclearedthefieldforthebattlebetweenthefirstandsecondpoliticaltheories.ThisbattletooktheformoftheColdWarandgavebirthtothestrategicgeometryofthebipolarworldwhichlastedfornearly half a century. By 1991, the first political theory, liberalism, haddefeatedthesecondpoliticaltheory,socialism.ThismarkedtheglobaldeclineofCommunism.

Asaresult,bytheendoftheTwentiethcentury,liberaltheoryistheonlyone remainingof the threepolitical theoriesofmodernity that is capableofmobilisingthevastmassesthroughouttheentireworld.Yet,nowthatitisleftonitsown,everyonespeaksinunisonabout‘theendofideology’.Why?

TheEndofLiberalismandtheArrivalofPostliberalism

Itturnsoutthatthetriumphofliberalism,thefirstpoliticaltheory,coincidedwithitsend.Thisonlyseemstobeaparadox.

Liberalismhadbeenanideologyfromthestart.ItwasnotasdogmaticasMarxism,butwasnolessphilosophical,graceful,andrefined.ItideologicallyopposedMarxismandfascism,notonlyundertakingatechnologicalwarforsurvival, but also defending its right to monopolise its own image of thefuture. While the other competing ideologies were in existence, liberalismcontinuedandgrewstrongerpreciselyasanideology,inotherwordsasasetofideas,viewpoints,andprojectsthataretypicalforahistoricalsubject.Eachofthethreepoliticaltheorieshaditsownsubject.

ThesubjectofCommunismwasclass.Fascism’ssubjectwasthestate,inItalian Fascism underMussolini, or race in Hitler’s National Socialism. Inliberalism,thesubjectwasrepresentedbytheindividual,freedfromallformsofcollectiveidentityandany‘membership’(l’appartenance).

While the ideological struggle had formal opponents, entire nations andsocieties,at least theoretically,wereable toselect theirsubjectofchoice—that of class, racism or statism, or individualism. The victory of liberalismresolvedthisquestion:theindividualbecamethenormativesubjectwithintheframeworkofallmankind.

Thisiswhenthephenomenonofglobalisationenteredthestage,themodelof a post-industrial society makes itself known, and the postmodern erabegins.Fromnowon,theindividualsubjectisnolongertheresultofchoice,but is akindofmandatorygiven.Man is freed fromhis ‘membership’ in acommunity and from any collective identity, and the ideology of ‘humanrights’ becomes widely accepted, at least in theory, and is practicallycompulsory.[15]

Humanityunderliberalism,comprisedentirelyofindividuals,isnaturallydrawntowarduniversalityandseekstobecomeglobalandunified.Thus,theprojectsof‘worldgovernment’orglobalismareborn.

A new level of technological development makes it possible to achieveindependencefromtheclassstructuralisationof industrialsocieties, inotherwords,post-industrialism.

The values of rationalism, scientism, and positivism are recognised as‘veiledformsof repressive, totalitarianpolicies’,or thegrandnarrative,andare criticised.At the same time, this is accompaniedby theglorificationoftotalfreedomandtheindependenceoftheindividualfromanykindoflimits,includingreason,morality,identity(social,ethnic,orevengender),discipline,andsoon.Thisistheconditionofpostmodernity.

Atthisstage,liberalismceasestobethefirstpoliticaltheoryandbecomesthe only post-political practice. Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’[16] arrives,economics in the formof theglobal capitalistmarket, replacespolitics, andstatesandnationsaredissolvedinthemeltingpotofworldglobalisation.

Havingtriumphed,liberalismdisappearsandturnsintoadifferententity—intopostliberalism.Itnolongerhaspoliticaldimensions,nordoesitrepresentfreechoice,butinsteadbecomesakindofhistoricallydeterministic‘destiny’.This is the source of the thesis about post-industrial society: ‘economics asdestiny’.

Thus,thebeginningoftheTwenty-firstcenturycoincideswiththeendofideology— that is, all three of them. Each met a different end: the thirdpolitical theorywasdestroyedin its‘youth’, theseconddiedofdecrepitoldage,and thefirstwasrebornassomethingelse—aspostliberalismand the‘globalmarketsociety’.Inanycase,theformwhichallthreepoliticaltheoriestookintheTwentiethcenturyisnolongeruseful,effective,orrelevant.Theylack the ability to explain contemporary reality or to help us understandcurrentevents,andareincapableofrespondingtothenewglobalchallenges.

TheneedfortheFourthPoliticalTheorystemsfromthisassessment.

TheFourthPoliticalTheoryasResistancetotheStatusQuo

The Fourth Political Theory will not simply be handed to us without anyeffort. It may or may not emerge. The prerequisite for its appearance isdissent.Thatis,dissentagainstpostliberalismasauniversalpractice,againstglobalisation,againstpostmodernity,against the‘endofhistory’,against thestatusquo,andagainsttheinertiaoftheprocessesofcivilisationatthedawnoftheTwenty-firstcentury.

The status quo and this inertia do not presuppose any political theorieswhatsoever.Aglobalworldcanonlyberuledbythelawsofeconomicsandtheuniversalmoralityof‘humanrights’.Allpoliticaldecisionsarereplacedby technical ones. Machinery and technology substitute for all else. TheFrench philosopher, Alain de Benoist, terms this la gouvernance, or‘micromanagement’. Managers and technocrats take the place of thepolitician who makes historical decisions, optimising the logistics ofmanagement.Massesofpeopleareequatedtoamassofidenticalobjects.Forthis reason, postliberal reality, or, rather, virtuality increasingly displacingrealityfromitself,leadsstraighttothecompleteabolitionofpolitics.

Somemayarguethattheliberalslietouswhentheyspeakofthe‘endofideology’(thiswasmydebatewiththephilosopher,AlexanderZinoviev);[17]‘inreality’,theyremainbelieversintheirideologyandsimplydenyallothers

the right toexist.This isnotexactly true.When liberalism transforms frombeinganideologicalarrangementtotheonlycontentofourextantsocialandtechnologicalexistence, then it isno longeran‘ideology’,butanexistentialfact,anobjectiveorderof things. Italsocausesanyattempt tochallenge itssupremacyasbeingnotonlydifficult,butalsofoolish.Inthepostmodernera,liberalismmoves from the sphereof the subject to the sphereof theobject.Potentially,thiswillleadtothecompletereplacementofrealitybyvirtuality.

The Fourth Political Theory is conceived as an alternative topostliberalism,butnotasoneideologicalarrangementinrelationtoanother.Instead, it is as an incorporeal idea opposed to corporeal matter; as apossibility entering into conflict with the actuality, as that which is yet tocomeintobeingattackingthatwhichisalreadyinexistence.

Atthesametime,theFourthPoliticalTheorycannotbethecontinuationofeitherthesecondpoliticaltheoryorthethird.Theendoffascism,muchliketheendofCommunism,wasnotjustanaccidentalmisunderstanding,buttheexpression of a rather lucid historical logic. They challenged the spirit ofmodernity(fascismdidsoalmostopenly,Communismmorecovertly:seethereview of the Soviet period as a special, ‘eschatological’ version of thetraditional society by Mikhail S. Agursky[18] or Sergei Kara-Murza)[19] andlost.[20]

This means that the struggle with the postmodern metamorphosis ofliberalism into the form of postmodernity and globalisation should bequalitativelydifferent; itmustbebasedonnewprinciples andproposenewstrategies.

Nevertheless,thestartingpointofthisideologyispreciselytherejectionofthe very essence of postmodernity. This starting point is possible — butneitherguaranteed,norordainedbyfate—becauseitarisesfromman’sfreewillandhisspirit,ratherthananimpersonalhistoricalprocess.

However,thisessence(muchliketherationalebehindmodernityitself—imperceptibleearlier,but laterrealisingitsessencesofully that itexhaustedits internal resources and switched to the mode of ironically recycling itsearlier stages) is something completely new, previously unknown, and onlysurmisedintuitivelyandfragmentarilyduringtheearlierstagesofideologicalhistoryandtheideologicalstruggle.

TheFourthPoliticalTheoryisa‘crusade’against:•postmodernity,•thepost-industrialsociety,•liberalthoughtrealisedinpractice,•andglobalisation,aswellasitsitslogisticalandtechnologicalbases.

If the third political theory criticised capitalism from the Right, and thesecond from the Left, then the new stage no longer features this politicaltopography: it is impossible to determinewhere theRight and the Left arelocatedinrelationtopostliberalism.Thereareonlytwopositions:compliance(thecentre)anddissent(theperiphery).Bothpositionsareglobal.

TheFourthPoliticalTheoryistheamalgamationofacommonprojectandarisesfromacommonimpulsetoeverythingthatwasdiscarded,toppled,andhumiliated during the course of constructing ‘the society of the spectacle’(constructing postmodernity). ‘The stone that the builders rejected hasbecome the cornerstone’.[21] The philosopher Alexander Sekatsky rightlypointed out the significance of ‘marginalia’ in the formation of a newphilosophicalage,suggestingtheterm‘metaphysicsofdebris’asametaphor.

TheBattleforPostmodernityTheFourthPoliticalTheorydealswiththenewreincarnationofanoldenemy.Itchallenges liberalism,much like thesecondand thirdpolitical theoriesofthepast,butitdoessoundernewconditions.Theprincipalnoveltyoftheseconditionsliesinthefactthatofallthethreegreatpoliticalideologies,onlyliberalismsecured theright to the legacybehind thespiritofmodernityandobtainedtherighttocreatethe‘endofhistory’basedonitsownpremises.

Theoretically, the end of history could have been different: a ‘planetaryReich’, if theNazishadwon,or‘globalCommunism’,hadtheCommunistsbeen right. However, the ‘end of history’ has turned out to be, precisely,liberal.ThephilosopherAlexandreKojève[22]wasoneof the first topredictthis;hisideaswerelaterrestatedbyFrancisFukuyama.[23]Butsincethisisthecase, then any appeals to modernity and its assumptions, to which therepresentativesofthesecond(toagreaterextent)andthirdpoliticaltheoriesappealed in varying degrees, lose their relevance. They lost the battle formodernityas the liberals triumphed.For thisreason, the issueofmodernity,and, incidentally,ofmodernisation,maybe removed from theagenda.Nowthebattleforpostmodernitybegins.

ItisherethatnewprospectsopenupfortheFourthPoliticalTheory.Thekindofpostmodernitywhichiscurrentlybeingrealisedinpractice,postliberalpostmodernity,cancelsoutthestrictlogicofmodernityitself—afterthegoalhadbeenachieved,thestepstakentoreachitlosetheirmeaning.Thepressureof the ideological shell becomes less rigid. The dictatorship of ideas isreplacedby thedictatorshipof things, loginpasswords,andbarcodes.Newholesareappearinginthefabricofpostmodernreality.

Asthe thirdandsecondpolitical theories,conceivedasaneschatologicalversion of traditionalism, once tried to ‘saddlemodernity’ in their struggle

with liberalism, the first political theory, today there is a chance ofaccomplishing something analogous with postmodernity, using these ‘newholes’,inparticular.

Liberalism developed flawless weapons aimed at achieving itsstraightforwardalternatives,whichwasthebasisforitsvictory.Butitisthisvery victory that holds the greatest risk to liberalism. We need only toascertainthelocationofthesenew,vulnerablespotsintheglobalsystemanddecipheritsloginpasswordsinordertohackintoitssystem.Attheveryleast,we must try to do so. The events of 11 September 2001 in New Yorkdemonstratedthatthisistechnologicallypossible.TheInternetsocietycanbeuseful, even for those who staunchly oppose it. In any case, first andforemost,wemust understand postmodernity and our new situation no lessprofoundlythanMarxunderstoodthestructureofindustrialcapitalism.

The Fourth Political Theory must draw its ‘dark inspiration’ frompostmodernity,fromtheliquidationoftheprogramoftheEnlightenment,andthearrivalofthesocietyofthesimulacra,interpretingthisasanincentiveforbattleratherthanasadestiny.

RethinkingthePastandThoseWhoLostThesecondandthirdpoliticaltheoriesareunacceptableasstartingpointsforresistingliberalism,particularlybecauseofthewayinwhichtheyunderstoodthemselves,what theyappealed to, andhow theyoperated.Theypositionedthemselves as contenders for the expression of the soul of modernity andfailedinthatendeavour.Yet,nothingstopsusfromrethinkingtheveryfactoftheirfailureassomethingpositive,andrecastingtheirvicesasvirtues.Sincethe logicof thehistoryof theNewErabroughtus topostmodernity, then italsocontainedthesecretessenceoftheNewErawhichwasonlyrevealedtousintheend.

The second and third political theories recognised themselves ascontenders for the expression ofmodernity’s spirit.And these claims camecrashing down. Everything related to these unfulfilled intentions in theprevious ideologies is uninteresting for the creators of the Fourth PoliticalTheory.However,we should attribute the very fact that they lost to one oftheiradvantagesrather than theirdisadvantages.Bylosing, theyprovedthatthey did not belong to the spirit of modernity, which, in turn, led to thepostliberalmatrix.Hereinlietheiradvantages.Moreover,thismeansthattherepresentativesofthesecondandthirdpoliticaltheories,eitherconsciouslyorunconsciously, stoodon the sideofTradition,althoughwithoutdrawing thenecessaryconclusionsfromthis,orevennotrecognisingitatall.

Thesecondandthirdpolitical theoriesmustbereconsidered,selecting inthem that which must be discarded and that which has value in itself. As

completeideologies,tryingtomanifestthemselvesinaliteralsense,theyareentirelyuseless,eithertheoreticallyorpractically.However,certainmarginalelements which advocated ideas that were generally not implemented, andwhich remained on the periphery or in the shadows (let us recall the‘metaphysics of debris’ once again), may, unexpectedly, turn out to beextremelyvaluableandsaturatedwithmeaningandintuition.

Yet, in any case, it is necessary to rethink the second and third politicaltheoriesinanewway,andonlyafterwerejectourtrustinthoseideologicalstructures onwhich their ‘orthodoxy’ rested. Their orthodoxy is theirmostuninteresting and worthless aspect. Cross-reading them would be far moreproductive:‘MarxthroughapositiveviewoftheRight’or‘Evola[24]throughapositive view of the Left’. This fascinating ‘National Bolshevik’[25]undertaking,inthespiritofNikolaiV.Ustrialov[26]orErnstNiekisch,[27]isnotsufficient by itself. After all, a mechanical addition of the second politicaltheorytothethirdwillnot,byitself,leadusanywhere.Onlyinretrospectcanwe delineate their commonalities, which were staunchly opposed toliberalism. This methodological exercise is useful as a warm-up beforecommencingafull-fledgedelaborationoftheFourthPoliticalTheory.

A truly significant and decisive reading of the second and third politicaltheoriesisonlypossibleonthebasisofanalreadyestablishedFourthPoliticalTheory.Postmodernityanditsconditions(theglobalistworld,gouvernance[28]or‘micromanagement’,themarketsociety,theuniversalismofhumanrights,‘the realdominationofcapital’,andsoon) represent themainobjectof theFourth Political Theory. However, they are radically negated as values inthemselves.

TheReturnofTraditionandTheologyTradition(religion,hierarchy,andfamily)anditsvalueswereoverthrownatthedawnofmodernity.Actually,allthreepoliticaltheorieswereconceivedasartificial ideological constructionsbypeoplewhocomprehended, invariousways, ‘the death of God’ (FriedrichNietzsche), the ‘disenchantment of theworld’(MaxWeber),[29]andthe‘endofthesacred’.ThiswasthecoreoftheNew Era of modernity: man came to replace God, philosophy and sciencereplacedreligion,andtherational,forceful,andtechnologicalconstructstooktheplaceofrevelation.

However, ifmodernism is exhausted in postmodernity, then at the sametime, the period of direct ‘theomachy’[30] comes to an end along with it.Postmodernpeople arenot inimical towards religion,but rather, indifferent.Moreover, certain aspects of religion, as a rule, such as Satanism, and the‘demonictexture’ofpostmodernistphilosophersarequiteappealingtomanypostmodernindividuals.Inanycase,theeraofpersecutingTraditionisover,

although, following the logic of postliberalism, this will likely lead to thecreation of a new global pseudo-religion, based on scraps of disparatesyncretic cults, rampant chaotic ecumenism, and ‘tolerance’.[31] While thisturn of events is, in some ways, even more terrifying than direct anduncomplicated dogmatic atheism and materialism, the decrease in thepersecution of faith may offer an opportunity, if the representatives of theFourthPoliticalTheoryactconsistentlyanduncompromisingly indefendingtheidealsandthevaluesofTradition.[32]

It is nowsafe to institute apoliticalprogram thatwasonceoutlawedbymodernity. Itno longerappearsasfoolishanddoomedforfailureasbefore,because everything in postmodernity looks foolish and doomed for failure,includingitsmost‘glamorous’aspects.Itisnotbychancethattheheroesofpostmodernityare‘freaks’and‘monsters’,’transvestites’and‘degenerates’—thisisthelawofstyle.Againstthebackdropoftheworld’sclowns,nothingand no one could look ‘too archaic’, not even the people ofTraditionwhoignore the imperatives of modern life. The fairness of this assertion is notonlyprovenby thesignificantachievementsof Islamicfundamentalism,butalso by the growing influence of extremely archaic Protestant sects(Dispensationalists,[33] Mormons, and so on) on American foreign policy.GeorgeW.BushwenttowarinIraqbecause,inhisownwords,‘Godtoldmeto invade Iraq’![34] This is quite in keeping with his Protestant Methodistteachers.

Thus, theFourthPoliticalTheorymayeasily turn towardeverything thatprecededmodernityinordertodrawitsinspiration.Theacknowledgementof‘God’sdeath’ ceases tobe themandatory imperative for thosewhowant tostay relevant. The people of postmodernity are already so resigned to thiseventthattheycannolongerunderstandit—‘Whodiedexactly?’But,inthesameway,thedevelopersoftheFourthPoliticalTheorycanforgetaboutthis‘event’:‘WebelieveinGod,butignorethosewhotalkaboutHisdeath,muchlikeweignorethewordsofmadmen’.

Thismarksthereturnoftheology,andbecomesanessentialelementoftheFourth Political Theory. When it returns, postmodernity (globalisation,postliberalism, and the post-industrial society) is easily recognized as ‘thekingdomof theAntichrist’ (or its counterparts inother religions—‘Dajjal’forMuslims, ‘Erev Rav’ for the Jews, and ‘Kali Yuga’ for Hindus, and soforth).Thisisnotsimplyametaphorcapableofmobilisingthemasses,butareligiousfact—thefactoftheApocalypse.

MythsandArchaismintheFourthPoliticalTheoryIfatheism,intheNewEra,ceasestobesomethingmandatoryfortheFourthPolitical Theory, then the theology of monotheistic religions, which at one

timedisplacedothersacredcultures,willnotbetheultimatetruth,either(orrather,mayormaynotbe).Theoretically,nothinglimitsthepossibilitiesforan in-depth readdressingof the ancient archaicvalues,whichcan take theirplace in thenew ideological constructionuponbeingadequately recognisedandunderstood.Eliminatingtheneedtoadjusttheologytotherationalismofmodernity, the adherents of the Fourth Political Theory are free to ignorethosetheologicalanddogmaticelementsinmonotheisticsocietieswhichwereinfluencedbyrationalism,especiallyintheirlaterstages.ThelatterledtotheappearanceofdeismupontheruinsofChristianEuropeanculture,[35]followedbyatheismandmaterialism,duringthephaseddevelopmentoftheprogramofthemodernage.

Notonlythehighestsupra-mentalsymbolsoffaithcanbetakenonboardonceagainasanewshield,butsocanthoseirrationalaspectsofcults,rites,and legends thathaveperplexed theologians inearlierages. Ifwereject theidea of progress that is inherent inmodernity (which aswe have seen, hasended), then all that is ancient gains value and credibility for us simply byvirtue of the fact that it is ancient. ‘Ancient’ means good, and the moreancient—thebetter.

Of all creations, Paradise is the most ancient one. The carriers of theFourthPoliticalTheorymuststrivetowardrediscoveringitinthenearfuture.

Heideggerandthe‘Event’(Ereignis)Finally,wecanidentifythemostprofound—ontological!—foundationforthe Fourth Political Theory. Here, we should pay attention not only totheologies and mythologies, but also to the reflective philosophicalexperience of one particular thinker who had made a unique attempt ofconstructing a fundamental ontology — the most all-encompassing,paradoxical, profound, and penetrating study of Being. I am talking aboutMartinHeidegger.

Abrief description ofHeidegger’s concept is as follows: at the dawnofphilosophical thought, people (more specifically,Europeans, andevenmorespecifically, theGreeks), raised the question ofBeing as the focal point oftheir thinking. But, by making it their primary subject, they risked gettingconfusedby thenuancesof thecomplicatedrelationshipbetweenBeingandthought,betweenpureBeing(Seyn)anditsexpressioninexistence—abeing(Seiende), between the human experience of being-in-the-world (Dasein—being-there) and being-in-itself (Sein). This failure had already occurred intheteachingsofHeraclitus[36]aboutthephusis[37]andthelogos.[38]Next,it isobviousthatinParmenides’[39]work,and,finally, inPlato,whoplacedideasbetween man and existence, and who defined truth as that whichcorresponded to them—the referential theoryofknowledge—reached its

culmination in failure. This gave birth to alienation, eventually leading to‘calculatingthinking’(dasrechnendeDenken)andthentothedevelopmentoftechnology.Littlebylittle,manlostsightofpureBeingandpursuedthepathof nihilism. The essence of technology (based on the relationship betweentechnologyandtheworld)expressesthisever-increasingnihilism.IntheNewEra,thistendencyreachesitspinnacle—technicaldevelopment(Ge-stell)[40]ultimatelydisplacesBeingandcrowns‘nothingness’.Heideggerbitterlyhatedliberalism, considering it an expression of ‘the source of the calculativethinking’whichliesattheheartof‘Westernnihilism’.

Postmodernity, which Heidegger did not live to see in its fullmanifestation, is, in every sense, the ultimate oblivion of Being; it is that‘midnight’,whennothingness(nihilism)beginstoseepfromallthecracks.[41]Yet his philosophy was not hopelessly pessimistic. He believed thatnothingness itself is the flip side of pure Being, which — in such aparadoxical way! — reminds mankind of its existence. If we correctlydecipherthelogicbehindtheunfurlingofBeing,thenthinkingmankindcansave itselfwith lightningspeedat theverymomentof itsgreatest risk. ‘Butwhere thedanger lies, therealsogrowsthatwhichsaves’,HeideggerquotesfromFriedrichHölderlin’spoetry.[42]

Heidegger used a special term,Ereignis— the ‘event’, to describe thissuddenreturnofBeing.Ittakesplaceexactlyatmidnightoftheworld’snight—atthedarkestmomentinhistory.Heideggerhimselfconstantlyvacillatedastowhetherthispointhadbeenreached,or‘notquiteyet’.Theeternal‘notyet’…

Heidegger’s philosophy may prove to be the central axis threadingeverything around itself— ranging from the reconceived second and thirdpoliticaltheoriestothereturnoftheologyandmythology.

Thus,attheheartoftheFourthPoliticalTheory,asitsmagneticcentre,liesthe trajectoryof theapproachingEreignis (the ‘Event’),whichwill embodythe triumphant returnofBeing, at the exactmomentwhenmankind forgetsaboutit,onceandforall,tothepointthatthelasttracesofitdisappear.

TheFourthPoliticalTheoryandRussiaToday, many people intuitively understand that Russia has no place in the‘bravenewworld’ofglobalisation,postmodernity,andpostliberalism.First,theworldstateandtheworldgovernmentaregraduallyabolishingallnation-statesingeneral.EvenmoreimportantisthefactthattheentiretyofRussianhistory is adialectical argumentwith theWest andagainstWestern culture,the struggle for upholdingour own (oftenonly intuitivelygrasped)Russiantruth,ourownmessianicidea,andourownversionofthe‘endofhistory’,nomatterhowit isexpressed—throughMuscoviteOrthodoxy,Peter’ssecular

empire, or the global Communist revolution. The brightest Russian mindsclearly saw that theWest wasmoving towards the abyss. Now, looking atwhereneoliberaleconomicsandpostmodernculturehasledtheworld,wecanbecertainthatthisintuition,pushinggenerationsofRussianpeopletosearchforalternatives,wascompletelyjustified.

Thecurrentglobaleconomiccrisisisjustthebeginning.Theworstisyettocome. The inertia of postliberal politics is such that a change of course isimpossible:tosavetheWest,unrestrained‘emancipatedtechnology’(OswaldSpengler)[43] will search for more efficient, but a purely technical,technologicalmeans.ThisisthenewphaseintheonsetofGe-stell,spreadingthenihilistic stainof theglobalmarketover theentireplanet.Moving fromcrisistocrisisandfromonebubbletothenext,theglobalisteconomyandthestructures of post-industrial society onlymakemankind’s night blacker andblacker. It is soblack, in fact, thatwegradually forget that it isnight-time.‘Whatislight?’peopleaskthemselves,neverhavingseenit.Forexample,atthetimeoftheeruptionofthe2008financialcrisis,thousandsofAmericansheld a demonstration, asking for the government for yet another economicbubble.Couldtheybeanymoreblunt?

ItisclearthatRussianeedstofollowadifferentpath,itsown.Yethereinliesthequestionandtheparadox.Evadingthelogicofpostmodernityinonlyone countrywill not be that simple.TheSovietmodel tried, and collapsed.After that point, the ideological situation changed irreversibly, as did thestrategic balance of power. In order for Russia to save herself and others,creating some sort of a technological miracle or a deceptive strategy isinsufficient.Worldhistoryhasitsownlogic.Andthe‘endofideology’isnotarandomfailure,butthebeginningofanewstage—andapparently,thelastone.

Inthissituation,Russia’sfuturecompletelyreliesonoureffortstodevelopthe Fourth Political Theory. We will not go far, and will only delay theinevitable,byattempting tosort thoseoptions thatglobalizationoffers touson a local basis, and by trying to correct the status quo in a superficialmanner.Postmodernity’schallengeistremendouslysignificant:itisrootedinthelogicofBeing’soblivionandinmankind’sdeparturefromitsexistential(ontological) and spiritual (theological) roots. Responding to it with hat-tossinginnovationorpublic-relationssurrogatesisimpossible.Therefore,wemust refer to the philosophical foundations of history and make ametaphysical effort in order to solve the current problems — the globaleconomic crisis, countering the unipolar world, as well as the preservationandstrengtheningofsovereignty,andsoon.

Itisdifficulttosayhowtheprocessofdevelopingthistheorywillturnout.Onethingisclear:itcannotbeanindividualeffortoronethatisrestrictedtoasmall group of people. The effort must be shared, and collective. In thismatter,therepresentativesofotherculturesandpeoples,bothinEuropeand

Asia, can truly help us, since they sense the eschatological tension of thepresentmomentjustasacutely,andarelookingforthewayoutoftheglobaldead-endjustasdesperately.

However,itispossibletostateinadvancethattheRussianversionoftheFourthPoliticalTheory,basedontherejectionofthestatusquoinitspracticalandtheoreticaldimensions,willfocusonthe‘RussianEreignis’.Thiswillbethat very ‘Event’, unique and extraordinary, forwhichmanygenerations ofRussian people have lived and waited, from the birth of our nation to thecomingarrivaloftheEndofDays.

B

2.DASEINASANACTOR

StagesandProblemsintheDevelopmentoftheFourthPoliticalTheory

eing a supporter of cyclical development, and an opponent of FrancisBaconandhis theoryofknowledge,[44] Iwould still like to suggest thatwedevelopandmodifyapproachestospecifictopicsandareasofthoughtinanongoingmanner.Wehave repeatedly clarified thenotionof ‘conservatism’.Weconductedaseriesofconferencesandscientificsymposiaon theFourthPoliticalTheory.Let usbelieve that these efforts, the results ofwhichhavebeen published in magazines,[45] anthologies, monographs, andWebsites,[46]werenotcarriedoutinvain,andthatthereaderismoreorlessfamiliarwiththem.Therefore,Iproposetomoveon.

I will demonstrate, with concrete examples, what has been done topromotethediscussionoftheFourthPoliticalTheoryand,consequently,theobservable resultsof theactivitiesconductedby theCentreofConservativeResearchattheFacultyofSociologyofMoscowStateUniversityandtheSt.PetersburgConservativeClubat theFacultyofPhilosophyofSt.PetersburgStateUniversity.ThisincludestwobooksthatwererecentlypublishedinSt.Petersburg,bythewonderfulSt.PetersburgpublishinghouseAmphora:AlaindeBenoist’sAgainstLiberalism:TowardstheFourthPoliticalTheoryandmyownTheFourthPoliticalTheory.[47] The book by the philosopherAlain deBenoist,whospokeatSt.PetersburgStateUniversityduringthe‘PhilosophyDays’there,isacompendiumofhisviewsonphilosophyandpoliticalsciencepertaining to themajor issues of our time: globalisation, the economic andsocial crisis, the process of European integration, new political and socialtrends,therelationshipbetweenEuropeandRussia,humanism,andsoforth.Alltheseproblemsareaddressedfromacriticalstandpointtowardtheliberalideologywhichdominates theworld(thefirst,and themoststable,politicaltheory).LackingcompetitionafterthecollapseofCommunism,ithasbecometheprimarytargetforcriticismbythosewhoareacutelyawareofthenegativeimpact of the status quo in politics, the social sphere, economics, culture,ideology, and so on, and who are searching for an alternative. The oldalternativestoliberalism—Communismandfascism—wereovercomebyhistory and discarded, each in its own way, and have demonstrated theirineffectivenessandincompetence.Therefore, thesearchforanalternativetoliberalismmustlooksomewhereelse.Theareatobesearchedisdesignatedas

the domain of the Fourth Political Theory. Such an approach correspondsexactlytothestatedtheme:‘Conservatism:TheFutureoranAlternative?’Ifwe thinkaboutanalternativeandcorrelate itwith theexistingblueprint forthefuture,thenweshouldclearlyunderstandwhatthatalternativeisgoingtoreplace.The answer is simple: liberalism as the dominant global discourse.Therefore,theonlysignificantalternativeshouldlogicallybedirectedagainstliberalism, hence the title of Alain de Benoist’s book. Nevertheless, thequestionremains:doesconservatismfitthisrole?Inpart,weheardtheanswerinBenoist’sspeech,inwhichhecriticisedtheliberaltheoryofprogress.Thisphilosophical approach proposes that conservatism is the most logicalcandidateforanalternativetoliberalism,eitherasarelativisingworldvieworasonewhichrejectsprogressaltogether.Whatremains,then,istospecifythekind of conservatism in question: it is obvious that liberal conservatism[48]

cannotbeconsideredanalternativeto liberalism,beingitsvariant.Thus,bytheprocessofelimination,wecanmakeaproposition:wemust lookforanalternative to liberalism in non-liberal versions of conservatism. All this islogical, since Benoist himself is known as a philosopherwith conservativeviews (he is sometimes referred to as one of the pioneers of the European‘New Right’), but the particular kind of conservatism he has in mind isobviousfromhisnewlypublishedbook.

ThereisanotheraspectworthmentioninginregardtothetitleofBenoist’sbook. Many readers will remember another ideological manifesto directedagainst liberalism called After Liberalism by Immanuel Wallerstein.[49]Despite the similarity in their titles and the object of criticism, there is asignificantdifference.WallersteincriticisesliberalismfromthepointofviewoftheLeft—fromtheneo-Marxistposition.And,likeanyMarxist,heseesliberalism (bourgeois democracy and capitalism) as a phase of historicaldevelopment,which isprogressive incomparisonwith theprecedingphasesof development (such as feudalismor slavery), but is inferior towhatmustcomeafter it—socialism,Communism,andso forth.Weare talkingaboutcriticism‘fromtheLeft’and,insomeways,fromthestandpointofthefuture(whichisexpressedinWallerstein’sbooktitle—AfterLiberalism).ThisisatypicalfeatureofMarxism.ForBenoist,neitherthesuperiorityofliberalismoverearliertypesofsocieties,northeadvantagesofaCommunistfuture,areobvious. Therefore, despite the similarity of titles, there is a fundamentaldifference between the authors’ initial positions: with Wallerstein, we aredealingwithcriticism‘fromtheLeft’;withBenoist,withcriticism‘fromtheRight’.Anotherdifferenceinvolvestherelationshiptoliberalism.AccordingtoWallerstein,theendofliberalismisaforegoneconclusionaccordingtotheverylogicofsociopoliticalandsocioeconomichistory,andsoheeasilyspokeof an ‘after’. For Benoist, the question remains: one must fight againstliberalism,yetinthismorallyandhistoricallyjustifiedstruggle,therearenoguaranteedresults.Itisimportanttofightagainstliberalismhereandnow;itis important to identify its vulnerabilities; it is important to forge analternativeworldview—butthefutureisinourhands,anditisopenrather

than predetermined. Wallerstein, in varying degrees, views thingsmechanically, like anyMarxist,whereasBenoist is anorganicist andholist,likeany(real)conservative.

ThelastitemthatIwouldliketopointoutinregardtotheideasofAlaindeBenoistandtheirrelevanceishisunderstandingofCarlSchmitt’sconceptof the ‘FourthNomos of the Earth’[50] — that is, the relationship betweenpoliticalscienceand‘politicaltheology’withgeopoliticsandthenewmodelofthepoliticalorganisationofspace.

Formypart, in thebookFourthPoliticalTheory,[51] I reviewed the threeprimarypoliticaltheoriesofthepast—liberalism,Marxism(socialism)andfascism(includingNationalSocialism),summeduptheiroverallbalance,andattemptedtoidentifythehorizonsforthedevelopmentoftheFourthPoliticalTheorybeyondallthreeideologies.This,ofcourse,isextremelyfarfromanydogmatism or proposal for a complete answer to the stated problem.Nevertheless, these are rather specific steps toward the preparation fortacklingthisissue.Withoutrepeatingwhatwassaidinmybookandthebookby Alain de Benoist, I will try to make a number of remarks about thedevelopmentofthissubject.

What theFourthPoliticalTheory is, in termsofwhat it opposes, isnowclear.Itisneitherfascism,norCommunism,norliberalism.Inprinciple,thiskind of negation is rather significant. It embodies our determination to gobeyondtheusualideologicalandpoliticalparadigmsandtomakeanefforttoovercome the inertiaof theclichéswithinpolitical thinking.Thisalone isahighly stimulating invitation for a free spirit and a critical mind. I do notreally understandwhy certain people,when confrontedwith the concept ofthe Fourth Political Theory, do not immediately rush to open a bottle ofchampagne,anddonotstartdancingandrejoicing,celebratingthediscoveryofnewpossibilities.Afterall,thisisakindofaphilosophicalNewYear—anexcitingleapintotheunknown.The‘OldYear’witnessedthestruggleofthethree political ideologies — one of which was so bloody that it claimedmillions of lives. All the criticism of liberalism was either fascist orCommunist.Thesecriticalapproacheshavebeenleftbehind,buttheoldestoftheseideologies—liberalism—isstillhere.Liberalismistheremnantofthe‘OldYear’; it is residuo,[52] an uncertain past thatwas not properly sent tooblivion.Ithasalreadypassed,butdoesnotwanttoleavepermanentlyinanyway.Inshort,itisachimera,‘thedragonthatswallowedtheSun’,[53]or‘theevil spirits that kidnapped the SnowMaiden’ before the NewYear.[54] In asense, liberalism embodies everything that was in the past. The FourthPoliticalTheoryisthenameforabreakthroughandanewbeginning.

Underscoring the relevance of this criticism, and especially highlightingthefactthatthisisaradicalrejectionofallthreepoliticaltheories(liberalism,Communism, and fascism) and their variants, I suggestwemeditate on the

positive aspects of the Fourth Political Theory. The fact that we haveidentifiedwhatweopposeis,initself,asignificantachievement,andrequiresa thorough understanding. The very idea of putting an end to fascism,Communism, and liberalism is an extremely liberating thing. The FourthPoliticalTheoryproclaims, ‘Say“no” to fascism,“no” toCommunism,and“no” to liberalism!’ ‘Liberalism will not work!’ It ‘will not pass!’ (¡Nopasarán!),[55] much like fascism once failed (no ha pasado).[56] The BerlinWall,too,collapsed;onlydustremainsfromtheonlyvisiblebarrierputupbyCommunists to separate themselves from the liberal capitalists. TheCommunists‘didnotpass’,either.Whatremainsisnotforliberalstopass—andtheywillnotpass!Butinorderforthemnottopass,thefragmentsoftheBerlinWallareinsufficientforus,astheWallitselfwasinsufficient.TheWallexisted,but they stillpassed.Even lesshelpful are thedark shadowsof theThirdReich,itsnezalezhnye,[57] inspiringonlythebrutalpunkyouthandtheperverteddreamsofsadomasochists.

Consequently,wesuggestmovingbeyondthenihilisticphaseoftheFourthPolitical Theory toward something constructive. Once the three politicaltheoriesasasystematisedwholehavebeendiscarded,wecan try to lookatthem from a different perspective. They are being rejected precisely ascompleteideologicalsystems,eachonthebasisofseparatearguments.Likeany system, they consist of elements that donot belong to them.The threepolitical ideologies own their unique philosophical systems, groups,explanatory methodologies, and represent a whole which is a structurederived from their ‘hermeneutic circle’ and their fundamental beliefs. Theyarewhattheyareasawhole.Dismemberedintocomponents,theylosetheirsignificance and become meaningless. Liberalism, Marxism (socialist orCommunist),andfascism(includingNationalSocialism)arenotcomponentsof overarching liberal,Marxist, or fascist ideologies. It is not that they arecompletelyneutral,butoutsideoftheirstrictideologicalcontext,onecanfindordiscoveradifferent,ornew,meaningforthem.Thepositiveaspectsofthedevelopment of the Fourth Political Theory are based on this principle. Arevision of the three political ideologies, and an analysis of each inunconventionalways,cangivecertaincluestothesubstantivecontentofourowntheory.

Ineachofthethreeideologiesthereisaclearlydefinedhistoricalsubject.Inliberalideology,thehistoricalsubjectistheindividual.Theindividualis

conceivedasaunit that is rationalandendowedwithawill (morality).Theindividualisbothagivenandthegoalofliberalism.Itisagiven,butonethatis often unaware of its identity as an individual. All forms of collectiveidentity — ethnic, national, religious, caste, and so on — impede anindividual’s awareness of his individuality. Liberalism encourages theindividual tobecomehimself, that is, tobefreeofall thosesocial identitiesanddependenciesthatconstrainanddefinetheindividualfromoutside.Thisisthemeaningofliberalism(inEnglish,liberty;inLatin,libertas):thecallto

become‘liberated’(Latin:liber)fromallthingsexternaltooneself.Moreover,liberal theorists (in particular, JohnStuartMill)[58] underscored the fact thatwe are talking about a ‘freedom from’,[59] about the release from ties,identifications, and restrictions that are an imposition upon the individual’swill. As forwhat the purpose of this freedom is, liberals remain silent. Toassertsomekindofanormativegoalis,intheireyes,torestricttheindividualand his freedom. Therefore, they strictly separate a ‘freedom from’, whichtheyregardasamoral imperativeofsocialdevelopment,fromthe‘freedomfor’—thenormativisationofhow,why,andforwhatpurpose this freedomshouldbeused.Thelatterremainsatthediscretionofthehistoricalsubject—inotherwords,theindividual.

The historical subject of the second political theory is class. The classstructureof societyand theconflictbetween theexploiterand theexploitedclassesarethecoreoftheCommunists’dramaticvisionofhistory.Historyisclassstruggle.Politicsisitsexpression.Theproletariatisadialectichistoricalsubject, which is called to set itself free from the domination of thebourgeoisieandtobuildasocietyonnewfoundations.Asingleindividualisconceivedhereasapartofaclass-basedwhole,andacquiressocialexistenceonlyintheprocessofraisingclassconsciousness.

And,finally,thesubjectofthethirdpoliticaltheoryiseithertheState(asin Italian Fascism) or race (as in German National Socialism). In fascism,everything isbaseduponaRight-wingversionofHegelianism, sinceHegelhimselfconsideredthePrussianstatetobethepeakofhistoricaldevelopmentinwhichthesubjectivespiritwasperfected.GiovanniGentile,[60]aproponentofHegelianism,applied this concept toFascist Italy.[61] InGermanNationalSocialism, the historical subject is the ‘Aryan race’,[62] which, according toracists, ‘carries out the eternal struggle against the subhuman races’. Theappalling consequences of this ideology are toowell known to dwell uponthem.However,itwasthisoriginaldefinitionofahistoricalsubjectthatwasattheheartoftheNazis’criminalpractices.

Thedefinitionofahistoricalsubjectisthefundamentalbasisforpoliticalideology in general, and defines its structure. Therefore, in thismatter, theFourthPoliticalTheorymay act in themost radicalwayby rejecting all ofthese constructions as candidates for a historical subject. The historicalsubject isneitheranindividual,norclass,northestate,norrace.Thisis theanthropologicalandthehistoricalaxiomoftheFourthPoliticalTheory.

We assumed that it is clear to uswho, orwhat, cannot be the historicalsubject.Butthenwho,orwhat,can?

We cleared a space and correctly posed the question. We specified theproblem of clarifying the historical subject in the Fourth Political Theory.Nowthereisagapingvoid,whichisextremelyinterestingandsignificant.

Heading into thedepthsof thisvoid,wepropose fourhypotheses,which

arenotmutuallyexclusive,andwhichcanbeexaminedbothcollectivelyandindividually.

The first hypothesis suggests abandoning all types of contenders for theroleof a historical subject fromclassical political theory, assuming that thesubjectof theFourthPoliticalTheory issometypeofcompound—not theindividual, class, state, race, or nation on their own, but instead, a certaincombinationthereof.Thisisthehypothesisofacompoundsubject.

Thesecondhypothesisis toapproachtheproblemfromthestandpointofphenomenology. Let us place all that we know about the historical subjectoutside the framework of classical ideologies, carry out the Husserlian[63]methodofepoché,[64] and try to empirically define that ‘lifeworld’[65]whichwill open up before us — the lifeworld of the political, one free frommetaphysicsortheology.[66]Isitpossibletoconsiderpoliticalhistorywithouta subject? History as such? After all, theoretically, there were historicalperiods when politics existed, but when there was no subject in thephilosophical,Cartesiansense.Ofcourse,inhindsight,eventhis‘pre-subject’in political historywas reinterpreted in accordancewith various ideologies.But,ifwenolongertrustideologies,suchasthethreepoliticaltheories,thentheir historic reconstruction is not an axiom for us. Ifwe consider politicalhistory in the style of the ‘Annales school’ (Fernand Braudel’smethod),[67]thenwehave thechance todiscovera ratherpolyphonicpicture,expandingourunderstandingofthesubject.InthespiritofPeterBerger,[68]wecanopenup the prospect of ‘desecularisation’ (throughout history, religiousorganisations frequently act as political subjects) or, together with CarlSchmitt,[69]we can rethink the influenceofTraditionon apolitical decision(inthespiritofSchmitt’sdoctrineof‘decisionism’).[70]Discardingthedogmaofprogresswillrevealawiderangeofpoliticalactors,operatingupuntilandbeyondtheNewAge,whichfits intotheconservativeapproach.Butwearefreetocontinueouropensearchforwhatmayreplacethehistoricalsubjectinthefuture—perhapsintheexotichypothesesofDeleuzeandGuattariabouttherhizome,[71]a‘bodywithoutorgans’,‘micropolitics’,andsoon,oronthehorizonofproto-historywithBaudrillardandDerrida[72](text,deconstruction,différance,[73] etc.). They offer us new — and this time, not entirelyconservative—capabilities.Therefore,itisnotworthwhiletorejecttheminadvance, simply on the basis of their authors’ sympathies towardMarxismandtheirLeftistaffiliation.

The third hypothesis is about forcing the phenomenologicalmethod andrushing several steps ahead: we may propose to consider Heidegger’sDasein[74]asthesubjectoftheFourthPoliticalTheory.DaseinisdescribedinHeidegger’s philosophy at length through its existential structure, whichmakes it possible to build a complex, holistic model based on it, thedevelopment of which will lead to, for instance, a new understanding of

politics. Many researchers have lost sight of the fact that Heidegger,especially, in his middle period between 1936 and 1945, developed acompletehistoryofphilosophycentredaroundDasein,which,ithasbecomeapparentinretrospect,canformthebasisofafull-fledgedandwell-developedpoliticalphilosophy.

Thus,acceptingtheDaseinhypothesisimmediatelygivesusabroadmapinordertonavigatetheconstructionofhistorynecessaryforpoliticaltheory.If thesubject isDasein, then theFourthPoliticalTheorywouldconstituteafundamentalontologicalstructurethatisdevelopedonthebasisofexistentialanthropology. We can map out the direction to describe this type of anapproach:

•Daseinandthestate;•Daseinandsocialstratification;•Daseinandpower(thewilltopower);•Beingandpolitics;•Thehorizonsofpoliticaltemporality;•Existentialspatialityandthephenomenologyofboundaries;•ThePrinceandnothing;•Parliament,thechoice,and‘Being-towards-death’;•CitizenshipandtheroleoftheguardiansofBeing;•Referendumandintentionality;•Theauthenticandtheinauthenticinjurisprudence;•Existentialphilosophyofjurisprudence;•Revolutionandtheflightofthegods;•UrbanisationandthehouseofBeing.

Naturally,thisismerelyacursoryoutlineoftheareasofinterestforthenewpoliticalscience.

The fourth hypothesis appeals to the concept of the ‘imagination’(l’imaginaire).ThistopiciscoveredindetailintheworksofGilbertDurand,[75] the basic ideas of which I discuss in my new work Sociology of theImagination.[76] Imagination, as a structure, precedes the individual, thecollective, class, culture, and race (if race exists as a sociologicalphenomenon,whichisuncertain),aswellasthestate.AccordingtoDurand,whodeveloped the ideas ofCarlGustav Jung andGastonBachelard,[77] theimagination forms the content of human existence based on the internal,

original, and independent structures that are embedded in it. Theinterpretationofpoliticalprocessesinhistoryaposteriori[78]isofnodifficultyfor the‘sociologyof the imagination’,and itproduces impressiveresults. Ifwe interpret the imaginationasanautonomousactor in thepolitical sphere,includingitsabilitytoproject,andgrantitasortofa‘legalstatus’,thenweendupwithanextraordinarilyfascinatingandtotallyundevelopedtrajectory.Eventhoughthestudentsof1968[79]demanded‘freedomfortheimagination’,inthatmomenttheywereunlikelytorecognisetheimaginationasacontenderforspecialpoliticalsubjectivity.Theyremainedtrappedin the individual—aspartofliberalism,evenif‘oftheLeft’—andclass(forexample,Marxism,althoughstrictlyreconsideredonthebasisofpsychoanalysis).

InthesearchforthesubjectoftheFourthPoliticalTheory,wemustboldlyenter into a new ‘hermeneutic circle’. The Fourth Political Theory is thewhole,which,naturally,hasnotyetbeensufficientlydescribedanddefined.Itis comprised of the ideas of its subject, which has been suggested in apreliminary fashion.But,moving constantly between the uncertainty of thewholeandtheuncertaintyofitspartsandbackagain,wegraduallybegintoclarify more precisely what is at stake. This process, starting from thestandpoint of dismissing thatwhich camebefore it (the rejectionof theoldhermeneutic circles: liberalism and the individual, Marxism and class,fascism/Nazism and the state/race),will lead to the development of amoreconstructiveideasoonerorlater.Itsstructurewillbefurtherclarifiedwhenitshermeneuticscomesupagainstexplicitlyabsurdcontradictionswhichcannotbe resolved, or else stops corresponding to the real world. That is, afterstartingfromacertainpoint,thedevelopmentoftheFourthPoliticalTheorywill begin to develop scientific and rational characteristics, which, for thetime being, are barely discernible behind the power of its groundbreakingintuitions and its revolutionary, herculean task of overcoming the oldideologies.

The entire hermeneutic circle of the Fourth Political Theory should beincludedinthe‘FourthNomosoftheEarth’.[80]Thisinclusionwillspecifyitscontent in even more detail and, in particular, will reveal the colossalepistemological potential of geopolitics. The latter, in addition to its purelypracticalandappliedobjectives,canbeviewedasabroadinvitationtothinkspatiallyinapostmodernscenario,whenhistoricalthinking,whichdominatedthe modern era, is becoming irrelevant. On numerous occasions, I havewrittenaboutthephilosophicalandthesociologicalpotentialofgeopoliticsinmyworks.[81]SpatialityisoneofthemostimportantexistentialcomponentsofDasein,sotheappealtotheFourthNomosoftheEarthcanbetiedtothethirdsubjecthypothesisoftheFourthPoliticalTheory.

NowwecanapproachtheproblemofcreatingtheFourthPoliticalTheoryfromanotherdirectionandexaminethecontendersforinclusioninthistheoryfromthethreeclassicalmodels.

However,beforedeterminingwhichaspectsofthethreeoldideologiescanbe borrowed from them, having neutralised them and taken them out ofcontext,rippingthemoutoftheirown‘hermeneuticcircle’,itisimportanttobrieflymentionwhichaspectsmustbefirmlydiscarded.

If we begin with fascism and National Socialism, then here we mustdefinitivelyrejectallformsofracism.RacismiswhatcausedthecollapseofNationalSocialismin thehistorical,geopolitical,and theoreticalsense.Thiswasnotonlyahistorical,butalsoaphilosophicalcollapse.Racismisbasedon the belief in the innate objective superiority of one human race overanother.Itwasracism,andnotsomeotheraspectofNationalSocialism,thatbroughtaboutsuchconsequences,leadingtoimmeasurablesufferingonbothsides,aswellasthecollapseofGermanyandtheAxispowers,nottomentionthe destruction of the entire ideological project of the Third Way. Thecriminalpracticeofwipingoutentireethnicgroups(Jews,gypsies,andSlavs)basedonracewaspreciselyrootedintheirracialtheory—thisiswhatangersandshocksusaboutNazism to thisday. Inaddition,Hitler’santi-Semitism,andthedoctrinethatSlavsare‘subhuman’andmustbecolonised,iswhatledGermany to go towar against the SovietUnion,which cost usmillions oflives.ItisalsotruethatthisresultedintheGermansthemselveslosingtheirpolitical freedom and the right to participate in political history for a longtime, ifnot forever.Today theyare leftonlywith theireconomyand, in thebest case scenario,with a concern for ecology.The supporters of theThirdWaywereleftinthepositionofideologicaloutcastsonthemarginsofsociety.It was racism — in theory and in practice — that criminalised all otheraspects of National Socialism and fascism, causing these worldviews tobecometheobjectofcursesandvilification.

Hitler’sracism,however,isonlyoneformofracism—thistypeofracismis themost obvious, straightforward, andbiological, and therefore themostrepulsive.Thereareotherformsofracism—cultural(assertingthattherearehighandlowcultures),civilisational(dividingpeopleintothosecivilisedandthose insufficiently civilised), technological (viewing technologicaldevelopmentasthemaincriterionforthevalueofasociety),social(stating,in thespiritof theProtestantdoctrineofpredestination, that therichare thebest and the greatest as compared to the poor), economic (in which allhumanity is ranked according to the degree of material well-being), andevolutionary (for which it is axiomatic that human society is the result ofbiological development, in which the basic processes of the evolution ofspecies— survival of the fittest, natural selection, and so on— continuetoday). European and American societies are fundamentally afflicted withthese typesof racism,unable toeradicate themfrom itselfdespite intensiveefforts.Beingfullyawareofhowrevoltingthisphenomenonis,peopleintheWesttendtomakeracismataboo.However,allthisturnsintoawitchhunt—newpariahsaccusedof‘fascism’areitsvictims,oftenfornoapparentreason.Thus, this very political correctness and its norms are transformed into atotalitariandisciplineofpolitical,purelyracistexclusions.Inthismanner,the

institutionalised French Left-liberal anti-racism has gradually become thedistributioncentreof‘racialhatred’.EvenAfricanssufferfrombeingaccusedof ‘fascism’. Such was the case of the unrestrained defamatory campaignagainstawell-knownblackcomedian,DieudonnéM’balaM’bala,whodaredtomockcertainhideousfeaturesofthecontemporaryFrenchestablishmentinhis routines, including anti-racism (Ras-le-Front, SOS-Racisme, etcetera).And then what? African comedian M’bala M’bala was categorised as‘brown’,thatis,accusedof‘fascism’and‘racism’.

Thenewest typesof racismareglamour, fashion,and the latest trends ininformationtechnology.Itsnormsaresetbymodels,designers,thesocialitesofpoliticalparties,andthosewhoinsistonowningonlythelatestmodelsofmobile phones or laptop computers. Conformity or nonconformitywith theglamour code is located at the very base of the mass strategies for socialsegregationandculturalapartheid.Today,thisisnotassociateddirectlywiththe economic factor, but is gradually gaining independent sociologicalfeatures:thisistheghostoftheglamourdictatorship—thenewgenerationofracism.

Thevery ideologyofprogress is racist in itsstructure.Theassertion thatthepresentisbetterandmorefulfillingthanthepast,andcontinualassurancesthatthefuturewillbeevenbetterthanthepresent,arediscriminationsagainstthepastandthepresent,aswellasthehumiliationofall thosewholivedinthe past, an insult to the honour and dignity of our ancestors and those ofothers, andaviolationof the rightsof thedead. Inmanycultures, thedeadplayanimportantsociologicalrole.Theyareconsideredtostillbealiveinacertainsense,presentinthisworld,andparticipatinginitslife.Thisistrueofall ancient cultures and civilisations. Billions of inhabitants on this Earthbelieve in this concept to this day. InChinese civilisation,whichwas builtuponthecultofthedeadandupontheirreverencealongsidetheliving,beingdeadisregardedasahighsocialstatus,insomewayssuperiortothestatusofthe living. The ideology of progress represents the moral genocide of pastgenerations—inotherwords,realracism.Equallyquestionableistheideaofmodernisation,whenitistakenasaself-evidentvirtue.Itiseasytodetecttheobvioussignsofracisminit.

Undoubtedlyracististheideaofunipolarglobalisation.ItisbasedontheideathatthehistoryandvaluesofWestern,andespeciallyAmerican,societyare equivalent to universal laws, and artificially tries to construct a globalsociety based onwhat are actually local and historically specific values—democracy,themarket,parliamentarianism,capitalism,individualism,humanrights,andunlimitedtechnologicaldevelopment.Thesevaluesarelocalones,emerging from the particular development of a single culture, andglobalisationistryingtoimposethemontoallofhumanityassomethingthatis universal and taken for granted. This attempt implicitly argues that thevalues of all other peoples and cultures are imperfect, underdeveloped, andshould be subject to modernisation and standardisation in imitation of the

Westernmodel.Globalisation is thus nothing more than a globally deployed model of

WesternEuropean,or,rather,Anglo-Saxonethnocentrism,whichisthepurestmanifestationofracistideology.

As one of its essential features, the Fourth Political Theory rejects allformsandvarietiesofracismandallformsofthenormativehierarchisationofsocieties based on ethnic, religious, social, technological, economic, orculturalgrounds.Societiescanbecompared,butwecannotstatethatanyoneof them is objectively better than the others. Such an assessment is alwayssubjective,andanyattempttoraiseasubjectiveassessmenttothestatusofatheory is racism.This typeof anattempt isunscientific and inhumane.Thedifferencesbetweensocietiesinanysensecan,innoshapeorform,implythesuperiority of one over the other. This is a central axiom of the FourthPoliticalTheory.Furthermore,ifanti-racismdirectlyopposestheideologyofNational Socialism (in other words, the third political theory), then it alsoindirectly attacks Communism, with its class hatred, as well as liberalism,with its progressivism as well as its inherent forms of economic,technological, and cultural racism. Instead of a unipolar world, the FourthPoliticalTheoryinsistsuponamultipolarworld,andinsteadofuniversalism,onpluriversalism,whichAlaindeBenoistbrilliantlypointedoutinhisbook.[82]

Clearlyhighlightingthemaintrajectoryfor therejectionofallformsandvarieties of racism, including the biological theories inherent in NationalSocialism,wecanidentifywhattheFourthPoliticalTheorymayborrowfromit. Strongly rejecting any suggestion of racism, we, in fact, destroy the‘hermeneuticcircle’ofNationalSocialistideologyandneutraliseitscontent,undermining its integrity and key foundations. Without racism, NationalSocialismisnolongerNationalSocialism,either theoreticallyorpractically,andbecomesharmlessanddecontaminated.Wecannowproceedwithoutfearto analyse it objectively in search of those ideas within it that could beintegratedintotheFourthPoliticalTheory.

Wenoteapositiveattitudetowardtheethnos,[83]anethnocentrismdirectedtoward that type of existence which is formed within the structure of theethnos itself, and which remains intact throughout a variety of stages,including the highly differentiated types of societies which a people maydevelopinthecourseoftheirhistory.Thistopichasfounddeepresonanceincertain philosophical directions of the Conservative Revolution[84] (forinstance, Carl Schmitt and his theory of ‘the rights of peoples’, in AdamMüller,[85]ArthurMoellervandenBruck,andsoon)ortheGermanschoolofethnicsociology(WilhelmMühlmann,[86]RichardThurnwald,[87]andothers).Ethnos is the greatest value of the Fourth Political Theory as a culturalphenomenon;asacommunityoflanguage,religiousbelief,dailylife,andthesharing of resources and goals; as an organic entity written into an

‘accommodating landscape’ (Lev Gumilev);[88] as a refined system forconstructing models for married life; as an always-unique means ofestablishing a relationship with the outside world; as the matrix of the‘lifeworld’(EdmundHusserl);andasthesourceofall the‘language-games’(LudwigWittgenstein).[89]Ofcourse,ethnicitywasnot thefocalpointeitherinNationalSocialism,or inFascism.Yet, liberalismasan ideology, callingfor the liberation fromall formsof collective identity ingeneral, is entirelyincompatiblewith the ethnos and ethnocentrism, and is an expression of asystemictheoreticalandtechnologicalethnocide.

Marxistideologydidnotpaymuchattentiontotheethnoseither,believingthat theethnos is overcome in a class-based society, and that no trace of itremainsinabourgeoisand,evenmoreso,aproletariansociety.Basedonthelatter, the principle of ‘proletarian internationalism’ becomes absolute. Theonly place where the ethnos received any kind of attention is in dissident,ThirdWay currents which were rather marginal in relation to the politicalmainstream,eventhoughNaziorthodoxyblockedtheorganicdevelopmentoftheethno-sociologicalsubjectareawithitsracistdogma.

Whatever the case may be, the ethnos and ethnocentrism (WilhelmMühlmann) have every reason to be considered as candidates for thebecoming the subject of the Fourth Political Theory.At the same time,wemustagainandagainpayattentiontothefactthatweviewtheethnosintheplural, without trying to establish any kind of a hierarchical system:ethnicities are different, but each of them is, in itself, universal; ethnicitiesliveanddevelop,butthislifeandthisdevelopmentdonotfitintoonespecificparadigm;theyareopenandalwaysdistinct;ethnicitiesmixandseparate,butneither one nor the other is good or evil per se — ethnicities themselvesgeneratethecriteriabywhichothersarejudged,eachtimeinadifferentway.We can draw many conclusions based on this point. In particular, we canrelativise the very notion of ‘politics’, which comes from the normativevaluesofthecity,thepolis,[90]and,consequently,oftheurbanmodelofself-organisationwithin the community (or the society).As a general paradigm,wecanreviewwhatRichardThurnwaldcalledDorfstaat—a‘village-state’.[91]Thevillage-stateisanalternativeviewofpoliticsfromtheperspectiveoftheethnosnaturally living inbalancewith itsenvironment.Thisviewisnotreflectiveofthecity(projectingitsstructureontotherestofthecountry),butis thatof thevillageor theprovince. It comes from the standpointof thoseregionsthathavebeenperipheralinclassicalpolitics,butwhicharethecentreof theFourthPoliticalTheory.However, this isonlyoneexampleofall thepossibilitiesthatopenupifweaccepttheethnosasthehistoricalsubject.Yet,eventhisshowsthepossibilitiesinherentintransformingeventhemostbasicpoliticalconcepts,andhowdrastictherevisionofanestablisheddogmacanbe.

Now let us discuss what could be taken from Communism, the second

politicaltheory.First,however,letusdecideonwhatshouldbediscardedinordertodemolishits‘hermeneuticcircle’.Firstandforemost,theCommunisttheories regarding historical materialism and the notion of unidirectionalprogress are inapplicable to our purposes.We have previously talked aboutthe racist element, which is embedded in the idea of progress. It looksparticularlyrevoltingwithinhistoricalmaterialism,whichnotonlyprioritisesthefutureaheadofthepast,brutallyviolatingthe‘rightsoftheancestors’,butalso equates the living ‘human society’ (Richard Thurnwald) with amechanical system operating independently of humanity, according to lawsthat are monotonic and uniform for all. Materialist reductionism andeconomic determinism comprise the most repulsive aspect of Marxism. Inpractice,itwasexpressedthroughthedestructionofthespiritualandreligiousheritageofthosesocietiesinwhichMarxismcametodominate.Anarrogantcontemptforthepast,avulgarmaterialistinterpretationofspiritualculture,afocus exclusively upon economic factors, a positive attitude toward theprocess of creating a social differential through the ‘dictatorship of theproletariat’,andtheideaofclassastheonlyhistoricalsubject—theFourthPoliticalTheoryrejectsalltheseaspectsofMarxism.However,withoutthesecomponents, Marxism (and, more generally, socialism) ceases to be itself,and,consequently,itisrenderedharmlessasafull-fledgedideology,breakingintoseparatecomponentsthatdonotrepresentasinglewhole.

Marxismisrelevantintermsofitsdescriptionofliberalism,inidentifyingthecontradictionsofcapitalism,initscriticismofthebourgeoissystem,andinrevealingthetruthbehindthebourgeois-democraticpoliciesofexploitationand enslavement which are presented as ‘development’ and ‘liberation’.Marxism’s critical potential is highly useful and applicable. Itmaywell beincludedinthearsenaloftheFourthPoliticalTheory.But,ifso,Marxismwillnotappearasan ideology thatprovidesanswers toa full rangeofemergingissues—answersthatarerationalandaxiomaticintheirfoundation—butasanexpressivemythorawitty sociologicalmethod.TheMarxismwhichwecanacceptismythic,sociologicalMarxism.

As a myth, Marxism tells us the story of the original state of paradise(‘primitiveCommunism’),whichwas gradually lost (‘the initial division oflabourandthestratificationoftheprimitivesociety’).Thenthecontradictionsgrew, moving toward the point when, at the end of this world, they werereincarnated, in theirmost paradigmatically pure form, as the confrontationbetween Labour and Capital. Capital — the bourgeoisie and liberaldemocracy — personified global evil, exploitation, alienation, lies, andviolence. Labour embodied a great dream and an ancient memory of the‘commongood’,anditsacquisition(the‘surplusvalue’)byanevilminoritygave birth to all the problemsofmodern life.Labour (the proletariat)mustrecognise the paradoxes inherent in this state of affairs and rise up againsttheir masters in order to build a new society— a new paradise on Earth:Communism. Only this will not be the naturally occurring primitiveCommunism, but an artificial, scientific kind, in which the differential,

accumulated over centuries and millennia of alienation, will serve the‘commune’,the‘community’.Inthisway,thedreamwillbecomeareality.

This myth fits neatly into the structure of eschatological consciousness,whichoccupies a significant place inmythologiesof all tribes andpeoples,not to mention the highly differentiated religions. That alone speaks in itsfavourinorderforustotreatitwiththeutmostconsideration.

On the other hand, as sociology, Marxism is tremendously useful inrevealing those mechanisms of alienation and mystification that liberalismuses to justify itsdominion, andasproofof its ‘correctness’.Beingamythitself, in itspolemical,activist form,Marxismservesasanexcellent tool toexpose the bourgeois ‘great stories’ in order to overthrow the credibility ofliberalpathos.Andin thiscapacity—‘against liberalism’—itcanbeusedeffectively under the new conditions: after all, we continue to exist undercapitalism, and hence, Marxist criticism of it, and the struggle against it,remain on the agenda, even if the old forms of this struggle have becomeirrelevant.

Marxism is often correct when it describes its enemy, especially thebourgeoisie. However, its own attempts to understand itself lead to failure.The first and the most prominent contradiction is Marx’s unfulfilledprediction about the type of societies that are the most prone to socialistrevolutions. He was confident that this would take place in the greatlyindustrialised countries of Western Europe, which had a high level ofmanufacturing and contained a large proportion of urban proletariat. Suchrevolutionswereconsideredimpossibleinagrariancountries,aswellasthosecountries with an ‘Asiatic’ mode of production, due to their supposedbackwardness. In the Twentieth century, everything occurred exactly to thecontrary. Socialist revolutions and socialist societies developed in agrariancountries which had a traditional, rural population, while nothing similaroccurred in any of the highly developed nations of Europe and America.However, even in those countries where socialism was victorious, Marxistdogmadidnotallowforarethinkingofitsbasiclogicalassumptions,suchastoreconsidertheroleofpre-industrialfactors,ortohonestlyevaluatetherealpowerofmyth.InitsWesternandSovietversions,Marxism’sself-reflectionturned out to be questionable and inaccurate. While justifiably criticisingliberalism, Marxism was seriously mistaken about itself, which, at somepoint,doomeditsownfate.Iteventuallycollapsedeveninthoseplaceswhereit had triumphed. And, in those areas whereMarx had expected it to win,capitalism prevailed; the proletariat dissolved into the middle class, anddisappeared inside the consumer society, contrary to expectations andpredictions. In the end, European revolutionary Communists turned intopetty-bourgeoisclowns,entertainingtheboredandjadeddemocraticpublic.

IfMarxismitselfwasunable to lookat itself fromtheproperstandpoint,thennothingpreventsusfromdoingsointhecontextoftheFourthPolitical

Theory.AlaindeBenoisthasaclassicbookentitledVudeDroite[92](AViewfrom the Right), in which he suggested the rereading of various politicalwriters(bothfromtheRightandtheLeft)fromthepointofviewofthe‘NewRight’. This book led to the inception of the ‘New Right’ movement inEurope.Itcontainsnotonlyacritiqueofthoseideaswhichservedasdogmaforthe‘OldRight’,butalsoa‘revolutionary’andwell-meantreadingofsuchauthors as theCommunistAntonioGramsci,[93] examined from the point ofviewof theRight. It is precisely this readingofMarx— ‘from theRight’,fromthestandpointofmyths,andfromarchaicandholisticsociology—thatwouldbeparticularlyfittingatthepresenttime.

Finally,whatcanwetakefromliberalism?Andhere,asalways,wemustbegin with those aspects that must not be borrowed. Perhaps, in this case,everything is described clearly and in a fairly detailedmanner in Alain deBenoist’swork Against Liberalism: Toward the Fourth Political Theory, towhich I keep constantly and consciously referring in my explanation.LiberalismisthemainenemyoftheFourthPoliticalTheory,whichisbeingconstructedspecificallytobeintotaloppositiontoit.Yet,evenhere,aswasthe case with the other political theories, there is something important andsomethingsecondary.Liberalismasawholerestsontheindividualasitsmostbasiccomponent.Itistheseindividuals,collectivelybutinisolationfromoneanother, that are taken as thewhole. It is, perhaps, for this reason that the‘hermeneuticcircle’ofliberalismturnedouttobethemostdurable:ithasthesmallest orbit and rotates around its subject— the individual. In order toshatter this circle,wemust strike the individual, abolish him, and cast himintotheperipheryofpoliticalconsiderations.Liberalismiswellawareofthisdanger, and therefore undertakes one battle after another with all otherideologiesandtheories—social,philosophical,andpolitical—thatencroachon the individual, inscribing his identity into a more general context. Theneuroses and fears located at the pathogenic core of liberal philosophy areclearlyseeninTheOpenSocietyanditsEnemies,[94]aclassicofneoliberalismbyKarl Popper.He compared fascism andCommunismbased precisely onthe fact that both ideologies integrate the individual into a supra-individualcommunity,intoawhole,intoatotality,whichPopperimmediatelyqualifiedas ‘totalitarianism’. Having undermined the individual as the constitutivefigure of the entire political and social system, we can put an end toliberalism.Ofcourse,thisisnotthateasytoachieve.Nevertheless,itisnowobviousthattheweakest(andthestrongest)aspectofthefirstpoliticaltheorycomes from its direct appeal to the individual, pleading that he remainhimself, by himself in his own autonomous individuality, uniqueness,particularity, and partiality. In any case, the Fourth Political Theory caninterpret Popper’s phobias in its favour. (This led him and his followers toanecdotalconclusions;quitetellingarehisfeeble-mindedcriticismsofHegelin the spirit of a ‘smear campaign’, and the accusationsof fascismdirectedtowardPlato andAristotle!)Understandingwhat the enemy fears themost,

wepropose the theory thateveryhuman identity isacceptableand justified,exceptforthatoftheindividual.Manisanythingbutanindividual.Wemustlook carefully at a liberal,when he reads or hears an axiomof this kind. Ithinkthiswillbeanimpressivespectacle—allhis‘tolerance’will instantlyevaporate.‘Humanrights’willbedistributedtoanyone,justnottheonewhodarestouttersomethingalongtheselines.This,however,Idescribedinmoredetail in my essay Maximal Humanism[95] as well as in my book, ThePhilosophyofPolitics.[96]

Liberalism must be defeated and destroyed, and the individual must bethrownoffhispedestal.Yet,isthereanythingthatwecouldtakeawayfromliberalism—fromthisliberalismthatishypotheticallydefeatedandhaslostitsaxis?

Yes, thereis.It is theideaoffreedom.Andnot just theideaof‘freedomfor’—thatsamesubstantivefreedomrejectedbyMillinhisliberalprogram,whichconcentratedonthe‘freedomfrom’.Wemustsay‘yes’tofreedominallitsmeaningsandinallitsperspectives.TheFourthPoliticalTheoryshouldbeatheoryofabsolutefreedom,butnotasinMarxism,inwhichitcoincideswith absolute necessity (this correlation denies freedom its very core). No,freedomcanbeofanykind,freeofanycorrelationorlackthereof,facinganydirectionandanygoal.Freedomis thegreatestvalueof theFourthPoliticalTheory,sinceitcoincideswithitscentreanditsdynamic,energeticcore.

Thedifferenceisthatthisfreedomisconceivedashumanfreedom,notasfreedomfortheindividual—asthefreedomgivenbyethnocentrismandthefreedomofDasein,thefreedomofcultureandthefreedomofsociety,andthefreedomforanyformofsubjectivityexceptforthatofanindividual.Movingin the opposite direction, European thought long ago came to a differentconclusion: ‘man (as an individual) is a prisonwithoutwalls’[97] (Jean-PaulSartre); that is to say, the freedom of an individual is a prison. In order toattain true freedom,wemustgobeyond the limitsof the individual. In thissense, theFourthPoliticalTheory isa theoryof liberation,ofgoingbeyondtheprisonwallsintotheoutsideworld,whichbeginswherethejurisdictionofindividualidentityends.

Freedom is always fraughtwith chaos, but is also open to opportunities.Placed into the narrow framework of individuality, the amount of freedombecomes microscopic, and, ultimately, fictitious. The individual is grantedfreedombecause theuses towhichhecanput itareextremely limited—itwillremaincontainedwithinthetinyscopeofhisindividualityandthatoverwhichhehasdirectcontrol.Thisistheflipsideofliberalism:atitscore,itistotalitarianand intolerantofdifferences,andmostespeciallyopposed to therealisation of a great will. It is only prepared to tolerate small people; itprotectsnotsomuchtherightsofman,but,rather,therightsofasmallman.This‘smallman’canbeallowedtodoanything,butinspiteofallhisdesire,hewillbeunabletodoanything.Yet,beyondthesmallman,ontheotherside

of ‘minimal humanism’,[98] one can just glimpse the closest horizon ofgenuinefreedom.However,itisalsotherethatgreatriskandseriousdangersemerge. Having left the limits of individuality,man can be crushed by theelementsoflifeandbydangerouschaos.Hemaywanttoestablishorder.Andthisisentirelywithinhisright—therightofagreatman(homomaximus)—arealmanof‘Beingandtime’(MartinHeidegger).And,likeanyorder,thispossible order, the coming order may be embodied in individual forms.Nonetheless, this is not individuality, but individuation; not empty rotationsaroundthatwhichhasbeenreceivedfromtheliberalauthoritiesandwhichismeaningless, but the actual executionof tasks, aswell as the tamingof therestlessandexcitinghorizonsofthewill.

ThebeareroffreedominthiscasewillbeDasein.Thepreviousideologies,each in its own way, alienatedDasein from its meaning, restricted it, andimprisoned it in one way or another, making it inauthentic. Each of theseideologies put a cheerless doll, das Man,[99] in the place of Dasein. ThefreedomofDaseinliesinimplementingtheopportunitytobeauthentic:thatis,intherealisationofSein[100]moresothanofda.[101]‘There-Being’consistsof‘there’andof‘Being’.Inordertounderstandwherethis‘there’islocated,weshouldpoint itoutandmakeabasic, foundationalgesture.Yet, inorderfor ‘Being’ to flow into ‘there’ like a fountain, we must place all of thistogether—place thisentirehermeneuticcircle into thedomainofcompletefreedom. Therefore, the Fourth Political Theory is, at the same time, afundamentalontological theorywhichcontainstheawarenessof thetruthofBeingatitscore.

Without freedom,we cannot force anyone to exist.Even ifwebuild theoptimal society, and even if we force everyone to act appropriately and tooperate within the framework of the correct paradigm, we could neverguarantee such an outcome. This results from a man’s freedom to chooseBeing. Of course, most often, man gravitates toward the ‘inauthentic’existenceofDasein,tryingtododgetheissue,tosuccumbtogossip(Gerede)andtoself-mockery.LiberatedDaseinmaynotchoosethepathtoBeing,mayhideinshelter,andmay,onceagain,cluttertheworldwithitshallucinationsandfears,anditsconcernsandintentions.ChoosingDaseinmaycorrupttheFourthPoliticalTheoryitself,turningitintoaself-parody.Thisisarisk,butBeingisarisk,too.Theonlyquestioniswhoriskswhat.Youriskeverything,or everything and everyoneputs you at risk.Yet, only thatwhich increasesfreedomwillmake thechoiceofauthenticBeingareality—only thenwillthestakesbetrulygreat,whenthedangerisinfinite.

Unlikeotherpoliticaltheories,theFourthPoliticalTheorydoesnotwanttolie,soothe,orseduce.Itsummonsustolivedangerously, tothinkriskily, toliberateandtoreleaseallthosethingsthatcannotbedrivenbackinside.TheFourthPoliticalTheorytruststhefateofBeing,andentrustsfatetoBeing.

Any strictly constructed ideology is always a simulacrum and always

inauthentic, that is to say, it always is the lack of freedom. Therefore, theFourth Political Theory should not hurry in order to become a set of basicaxioms. Perhaps, it is more important to leave some things unsaid, to bediscoveredinexpectationsandinsinuations,inallegationsandpremonitions.TheFourthPoliticalTheoryshouldbecompletelyopen.

T3.TheCritiqueofMonotonicProcesses

heideaofmodernisationisbasedontheideaofprogress.Whenweusethe term ‘modernisation’, we certainlymean progress, linear accumulation,and a certain continuous process. When we speak of ‘modernisation’, wepresuppose development, growth, and evolution. This is the same semanticsystem.Thus,whenwespeakof the ‘unconditionallypositiveachievementsof modernisation’, we agree with a very important basic paradigm— weagreewiththeideathat‘humansocietyisdeveloping,progressing,evolving,growing,andgettingbetterandbetter’.That is tosay,weshareaparticularvisionofhistoricaloptimism.

Thishistoricaloptimismpertainstothethreeclassicalpoliticalideologies(liberalism,Communism,andfascism).Itisrootedinthescientific,societal,political,andsocialworldviewinthehumanitiesandnaturalsciencesof theEighteenthandNineteenthcenturies,whentheideaofprogress,development,andgrowthwastakenasanaxiomthatcouldnotbedoubted.Inotherwords,thisentiresetofaxioms,aswellas thewholehistoriographyandpredictiveanalyticsoftheNineteenthcenturyinthehumanitiesandthenaturalsciences,wasbuiltontheideaofprogress.Wecaneasilytracethedevelopmentofthissubject—theideaofprogress—inthethreepoliticalideologies.

LetusturntotheclassicalliberalismofthesociologistHerbertSpencer.[102]He claimed that the development of human society is the next stage of theevolution of the animal species, and that there is a connection, and acontinuity, between the animal world and social development.[103] And,therefore, all the laws of the animal world leading to development,improvement,andevolutionintheanimalworld,withinDarwin’sframework,canbeprojectedontosociety.Thisisthebasisofthefamoustheory,‘SocialDarwinism’,ofwhichSpencerwasaclassic representative. If, according toDarwin,thedrivingforcebehindtheevolutionoftheanimalkingdomisthestruggle for survival andnatural selection, then the sameprocessmust takeplace in society, argued Spencer.And, themore perfect this struggle is forsurvival (inter-species, intra-species, the struggle of the strong against theweak, thecompetition for resources,pleasure), themoreperfectour societybecomes.Thequestion ishowtoaid thisprocessofselection.According toSpencer,thisisthecentralthemeoftheliberalmodel,andisthemeaningofsocial progress. Therefore, if we are liberals, in one way or the other, weinherited this ‘zoological’ approach to social development based on thestruggleagainstandthedestructionoftheweakbythestrong.

However, Spencer’s theory contains one important point.He argued that

therearetwophasesofsocialdevelopment.Thefirstphaseoccurswhenthestruggle for survival is conducted crudely, by force; this is characteristic oftheancientworld.Thesecondoccurswhen thestruggle iscarriedoutmoresubtly througheconomicmeans.Once thebourgeois revolution takesplace,thestruggleforsurvivaldoesnotstop.AccordingtoSpencer,itacquiresnew,moreadvanced,andmoreefficient forms; it relocates into thesphereof themarket.Here,thestrongestsurvive—thatis,therichest.Insteadofthemostpowerfulfeudallord,ahero,astrongperson,oraleader,whosimplyseizesallthatisupforgrabsaroundhiscommunity,takingawayallthatbelongstoothernationsandracesandsharingitwiththerulingethnicityorcaste,nowcomesthecapitalist,whobringsthesameaggressiveanimalprincipletothemarket, the corporation, and the trading company. The transition from theorderofpower to theorderofmoney,according toSpencer,doesnotmeanthehumanisationof theprocess, but onlyunderscoresgreater effectiveness.Thatistosay,thestruggleinthemarketspherebetweenthestrong(meaningrich)andtheweak(meaningpoor)becomesmoreefficientandleadstohigherlevels of development until super-rich, super-strong, and super-developedcountriesappear.Progress,accordingtoSpencer,and,morebroadlyspeaking,according to liberalism, isalways thegrowthofeconomicpower, since thiscontinuestorefinethestruggleforsurvivaloftheanimalspecies,thewarfaremethods of strong nations, and the castes within the framework of pre-capitaliststates.Thus,ananimalistic formofaggression isembedded in theliberal idea of progress, which is regarded as the main trajectory of socialdevelopment. With more economic freedom, there is greater power fortakeovers, attacks,mergers and acquisitions.Liberal discourse,meaning theanalysisoftheliberalideologist,isacompletelyanimaldiscourse.Insuchasystem, the ‘more advanced’ law or the more advanced, ‘more modern’methodsofproductiondonotmeanthattheyaremorehumane;whatitmeansisthattheyallowmoreopportunitiesforthestrongtomoreeffectivelyrealisetheir power, while the weak can only admit defeat, or, if they have anystrengthleft,fighton.Inthismanner,themodernideaofeconomicgrowth,aswe see in liberals such as Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, has itsfoundationandoriginsintheideaofthestrugglebetweenspecies,thatis,theferaldestructionoftheweakbythestrong,orthevalidationofthestrongattheexpenseoftheweak.Onlyinsteadoftheconflictbetweenpredatorsandherbivores, we have the golden billion,[104] and in that golden billion, theirown ‘kings of beasts’ (theNewYork StockExchange and theWorldBankbankers,whodevourall that isup forgrabsand, at the same time, turn theforestsoftheworldinto‘socialinfrastructures’.

Therefore, when we speak of ‘modernisation’ in the liberal vein, ofnecessitywemeantheenhancementofthesocial,political,cultural,spiritual,andinformationalscenariowithinwhichtheabsoluteaggressionofthestrongagainsttheweakcanbeimplemented.

American liberal Ayn Rand[105] (Greenspan[106] was one of her greatest

admirers)createdanentirephilosophy(called‘Objectivism’)[107]basedonthefollowingbluntidea:ifoneisrich,thenheisgood.ShereachedthelimitsofWeber’s[108]ideaabouttheoriginofcapitalismintheProtestantethicandsaidthathewho is ‘rich’ isalwaysandnecessarily the ‘good’—almostasaint,whilethe‘poor’manisevil,lazy,bad,andcorrupt—a‘sinner’.Beingpoor,accordingtoAynRand,istobeasinfulvillain,whereastoberichistobeasaint. She proposed to establish the ‘conspiracy’ of the rich (meaning thestrong, bright, sacred, and powerful capitalists) against any kind of labourmovement,thepeasants,andagainstallthosewhostandforsocialjustice,orthosewhoaresimplypoor.SuchacrusadeoftherichagainstthepooristhebasisoftheObjectivistideology.PeoplelikeGreenspanandthecurrentheadoftheUnitedStatesFederalReserve,Bernanke,are‘Objectivists’—thatis,those who interpret modernisation, progress, economic growth, anddevelopmentintheliberalvein.

Ifweunderstandmodernisationlikeliberaldemocrats,thenthatmeansthatwe are invited to join in this terrible struggle for survival at its greatestintensity,andtobecomejustlikethem,tryingtograbaplaceatthetroughofglobalisation.Globalisation,inthiscase,isthenewbattlefieldinthestruggleforsurvival,thestruggleoftherichagainstthepoor.

Naturally,theideologicallyphilosophicandmoralpremiseofthisversionofmodernisationisentirelyalientotheRussianpeopleintermsofourhistoryand our culture. We reject this type of modernisation unconditionally, andthosewhomighttrytoimposeituponuswillpaydearlyfordoingso.

InCommunism, the ideaofunidirectionalprogress is alsopresent.Marxarguedthatchanges insocialstructures,which lead to the improvementanddevelopment of societies and economies, will sooner or later result in theCommunistproletarianrevolution,redistributingtheaccumulatedwealthasaresultofthedevelopmentofalienatingtechnologies.Theexpropriationoftheexpropriatorswilloccur.Nevertheless,whilethishasnothappened,Marxistssay,leteverythingbeasitmayinthedevelopmentofcapitalism.Marxalsosawhistorypositively,asadvancement,andvieweditasataleofgrowthandimprovement,fromtheminustotheplus,fromthesimpletothecomplex.

Itistellingthatthelion’sshareofTheCommunistManifesto[109]byMarxandEngelsisdevotedtocriticisingspecificallythoseanti-bourgeoispoliticalphilosophies that differed fromMarxism; first and foremost, those that arefeudal,reactionary,andnationalistic.Bydoingso,MarxandEngelsstrovetoemphasisethat their‘Communism’wasdirectedagainst thebourgeoisie inamanner different from the criticism by the Right-wing anti-capitalists. Inreality, compared to all the other ‘reactionary’ and ‘conservative’ projects,Marxists stand on the side of the bourgeoisie and seek to bring its victorycloser,sinceittranslatesintothenarrativeofhistoricalprogressandthelogicofmodernisation.For thisreason,Marxismrejectsconservatisminallof itsforms.ThecontradictionsbetweentheCommunistsandthecapitalistsacquire

a particularly acute character as the triumph of capitalism becomesirreversibleandcomplete.ItisherethattheCommunistsenterhistoryasthevanguard of the proletariat and push historical progress further along —towardsocialismandCommunism.

Onceagain,weseeDarwinisminMarxism,includingthefullacceptanceof evolutionary ideas and its belief in the miraculous power of scientificprogressandtechnologicalimprovement.

Welivedthroughthiskindof‘modernisation’intheTwentiethcentury—paidforitmorethaninfull;thepeopleclearlydonothavetheslightestdesiretorepeatsuchexperiments.Therefore,thisversionofmodernisationwillnotwork—andmoreover,noonespeaksoutinfavourofit.

Oddly enough, fascism, too, is an evolutionary movement. We mayrememberFriedrichNietzsche,whospokeofthe‘blondbeast’andofthe‘willtopower’thatdriveshistory.Nietzschewasanevolutionistandbelievedthat,basedonthelogicofthedevelopmentofspecies,manwillbereplacedbythe‘Superman’, much like how man first came to replace the ape. He wrote,‘What is theape toahuman?Alaughingstockorapainfulembarrassment.And that is precisely what the human shall be to the overman: a laughingstockorapainfulembarrasment.’[110]TheNationalSocialistsadaptedaracialinterpretation of this idea: that thewhite race is ‘more developed’ than theblack,yellow,oranyotherkind,andonthisbasis,hasthe‘right’toruletheworld.Here,weencounterthesameprogressivistoutlook,alongwiththeideaof development and improvement, all of which leads to the assumption ofracial superiority on the grounds that the white nations own sophisticatedinstrumentsofindustrialproduction,whileotherethnicgroupsdonot.

Today, we reject and criticise fascism for its racial component, but weforget that this ideologyisalsobuiltontheideasofprogressandevolution,justliketheothertwopoliticaltheoriesofmodernity.IfweweretovisualisetheessenceofNaziideologyandtheroleofprogressandevolutioninit,thenthe connection between racism and evolutionwould becomeobvious to us.Thisconnection—inaconcealedform—canbeseeninliberalismandevenin Communism. Even if not biological, we see cultural, technological, andeconomicracismintheideologyofthefreemarketandinthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.

Inonewayoranother,allthreeideologiesoriginatefromthesametrend:the idea of growth, development, progress, evolution, and of the constant,cumulative improvement of society.They all view theworld and the entirehistoricalprocessas lineargrowth.Theydiffer in their interpretationof thisprocess, and they attribute different meanings to it, but they all accept theirreversibilityofhistoryanditsprogressivecharacter.

Thus,modernisation is a concept that sendsusbackdirectly to the threeclassical political ideologies. Furthermore, we can see the common ground

that unites the three ideologies through the idea of progress and in theirpositiveevaluationoftheconceptof‘modernisation’.Nowadays,allthreeofthese ideologies are being gradually discarded. This is strongly evident inregardtofascismandCommunism,butissomewhatlessobviouswithregardtoliberalism,butevenliberalismisgraduallyceasingtosatisfythemajorityoftheworld’spopulationand,simultaneously,isturningintosomethingotherthanwhat itwasduring the ‘classical’ era ofmodernity.Consequently, it isabout time that we pose the question of searching for the Fourth PoliticalTheory[111] beyond the first three. Additionally, the radical rejection of thethreeclassical theories reflectsourattitude towardwhat iscommonto themall — that is, our attitude toward modernisation, progress, evolution,development,andgrowth.

TheAmericanscientistGregoryBateson,[112]atheoristofethno-sociology,cybernetics,andecology,aswellasapsychoanalystandalinguist,describedthe monotonic process in his book Mind and Nature.[113] The monotonicprocess is the ideaofconstantgrowth,constantaccumulation,development,steady progress, all accompanied by the increase of only one specificindicator. Inmathematics, this isassociatedwith the ideasof themonotonicvalue; in other words, the ever-increasing value — hence, monotonicfunctions.Monotonicprocessesarethetypethatalwaysproceedinonlyonedirection: for example, all their indicators consistently increase withoutcyclicalfluctuationsandoscillations.Studyingthemonotonicprocessatthreelevels — at the level of biology (life), at the level of mechanics (steamengines,internalcombustionengines),andatthelevelofsocialphenomena,Bateson concluded that when this process occurs in nature, it immediatelydestroys the species; if we are talking about an artificial device, it breaksdown; if we mean a society, the society deteriorates and disappears. Themonotonic process, in biology, is incompatible with life — it is an anti-biological phenomenon. Monotonic processes are completely absent fromnature. All the processes which accumulate only one particular thing, oremphasiseonlyoneparticular trait, result indeath.Monotonicprocessesdonotexistinanybiologicalspecies,fromcellstothemostcomplexorganisms.Assoonasthiskindofamonotonicprocessbegins,deviants,giants,dwarfs,andotherfreaksofnatureappear.Theyaredisabled, incompatiblewithlife,cannotproduceoffspring,andlifeitselfcaststhemout.

Solving the problem of monotonic processes was one of the mostimportantproblemsinthedevelopmentofsteamengines.Itturnsoutthatthemost importantdesignelement insteamengines is thecentrifugalgovernor.Whena steamengine reaches cruising speed, it is necessary to regulate theintakeoffuel,otherwisethemonotonicprocessinitiates,everythingbeginstoresonate,and thespeedof theenginecan increase indefinitely,causing it toexplode. Itwasprecisely thissolutionofavoiding themonotonicprocess inmechanics that was the principal theoretical, mathematical, physical, andengineering problem during the early stage of industrialisation. It turns out

that themonotonicprocess isnotonly incompatiblewith life,but alsowiththeproperfunctioningofamechanicaldevice.Thetaskofdesigningadevicemust avoid themonotonic process, that is, itmust prevent one-dimensionalprogress,evolution,development,andtheplacementofgrowthintoaclosedcycle.

By analysing sociology, Bateson showed that there are no monotonicprocessesinrealsocieties.Monotonicprocesses,suchaspopulationgrowth,inmostcasesledtowars,whichthenreducedthepopulation.Inoursocietytoday we see an unprecedented level of technological progress along withunbelievablemoraldegradation.

Ifwelookatallthisevidencewithouttheevolutionarybias,thenwewillrealisethatmonotonicprocessesexistonlyinpeople’sminds;inotherwords,they are purely ideological models. Bateson demonstrated that they do notexistinbiological,mechanical,orsocialreality.

Marcel Mauss,[114] a well-known French sociologist, criticised themonotonicprocessaswell.Inthebookheco-authored,Sacrifice:ItsNatureand Functions[115] and especially in his essay, TheGift,[116] he showed thattraditionalsocietiespaidgreatattentiontotheritualdestruction,orsacrifice,ofsurplusgoods.Thesurpluswasseenasexcessive,likho,[117]andusurious.Likhopersonifiesevil,usuryistheinterestchargedonborrowedcapital,andexcess is that which is obtained beyond one’s needs. For instance, surpluscropswere seen as disastrous in traditional society. The ancientworldviewwasbasedonthebeliefthatanincreaseinoneareatranslatesintoadecreaseinanother.Therefore,asurplushadtobedestroyedassoonaspossible.Forthis purpose, the community either organised a feast, consuming all theadditionalfooduntiltheychoked,orelsegaveittothegodsintheformofasacrifice, gave it out to the needy, or destroyed it. This is the origin of aspecial ritual, the potlatch,[118] which brings about the deliberate gifting ordestructionofexcesspersonalproperty.

MarcelMaussproved that thebelief in thedestructivenessofmonotonicprocesses lies at the foundations of human sociality. The society remainsstrong only through the rejection of themonotonic process, and by turninggrowthintoacycle.

Émile Durkheim, Pitirim Sorokin, and Georges Gurvitch, the greatestsociologistsoftheTwentiethcentury,inessencetheclassicistsofsociologicalthought, argued that social progress does not exist, in contrast to theNineteenth-centurysociologists,suchasAugusteComteorHerbertSpencer.Progress is not an objective social phenomenon, but rather, an artificialconcept, akindof scientifically formulatedmyth.Whenwe study societies,wecanonlyspeakofthedifferenttypesthereof.Thereisnogeneralcriterionto determinewhich ismore developed, andwhich is less so. LucienLévy-Brühl[119] attempted to prove that savages think pre-logically,whilemodern

humansuselogic.[120]However,ClaudeLévi-Strauss[121]demonstrated[122]thatsavages think in the same way that we do, only their taxonomy is builtdifferently,sotheydonothave‘less’logicthanwedo;perhapsevenmoreso,andtheythinkinamorerefinedmanner.

As for the phases of social development, the greatest American culturalanthropologist, Franz Boas,[123] and his followers, as well as Claude Levi-Strauss and his school, proved that we cannot look at modern humans asbeingevolved from‘archaic’and ‘primitive’ tribeswithin the frameworkofanthropology. Primitives and primitive societies are simply different peopleanddifferent societies.Modern humans are one group, and archaic humansanother. But, they are people, too, no worse than we are. They are not anunderdevelopedversionofus.Theyhavedifferentchildren,whodonotknowmyths and fairy tales, since they are not taught them, in contrast to ourchildren. The adults are also different; their adults do know the myths,whereas ours do not believe in them.Our adults, our sober and practicalsociety,aremoresimilar to their children.Theadults inprimitive tribesarecapableof tellingmythological stories, sincerelybelieve in them,andknowthat they embody the feats of their ancestors and their spirits in their ownlives, making no distinction between them. In contrast, the children ofprimitivesocietiesarecharacterisedbycynicism,pragmatism,scepticism,andthedesiretoattributeeverythingtomaterialcauses.Thisdoesnotmeanthatmodernsocietieshavegrownfromthestateofprimitivismandsupersededit;it is just that we have configured our society differently, neither better orworse,andbuiltituponotherfoundationsandothervalues.

With regard to cultural studies and philosophy, Nikolai Danilevsky,[124]Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger,[125] Martin Heidegger, andArnoldToynbee[126]showedthatalltheprocessesinthehistoryofphilosophyand thehistoryofcultureareacyclicalphenomenon.TheRussianhistorianLevGumilevalsosuggestedthis inhisversionofcyclicalhistory,whichheexplainedinhisfamoustheoryofpassionarity.[127]Theyallacknowledgethatthereisdevelopment,butthatthereisalsodecline.Thosewhoplacebetsonthere being only growth and development act against all norms of history,againstallsociologicallaws,andagainstthelogicoflife.Suchunidirectionalmodernisation, such growth, such development, and such progress do notexist.

PiotrSztompka,acontemporaryPolishsociologist,stated[128]that,intermsofhowprogresswasviewed,thetherewasachangeinthehumanities.IntheNineteenth century, everyonebelieved thatprogress existed, and that itwasthe principal axiom and a scientific criterion. But, if we examine theparadigms of the Twentieth century in the humanities and the naturalsciences, then we will see that almost everyone rejected them; no one isguidedby it any longer.Nowadays, the paradigmof progress is consideredalmost antiscientific. It is incompatible with the criteria of contemporary

science,justasitisincompatiblewiththecriteriaofhumanismandtolerance.Anyideaofprogressis,initself,aveiledordirectracism,assertingthat‘our’culture, for instance, the ‘White culture’ or American culture, is of highervaluethan‘your’culture,suchasthecultureofAfricans,Muslims,Iraqis,orAfghans.AssoonaswesaythattheAmericanortheRussiancultureisbetterthanthatoftheChukchi[129]or theinhabitantsoftheNorthernCaucasus,weact like racists.And this is incompatiblewithbothscienceandwithabasicrespecttowarddifferentethnicities.

Twentieth-century science uses cyclicality as a scientific criterion, or,according to Sztompka, we have moved from the paradigm of evolution,modernisation, anddevelopment to the paradigmof crisis and catastrophes.Thismeansthatallprocesses—innature,society,andtechnology—mustbeconceived as relative, reversible, and cyclical. This is the most importantpoint.

In termsof itsmethodologicalbase, theFourthPoliticalTheorymustberootedinthefundamentalrejectionofthemonotonicprocess.Thatistosay,the Fourth Political Theory must assert that the monotonic process isunscientific, inadequate, amoral, and untrue as its future axiom (withoutspecifyinghowthemonotonicprocessmustberejected).And,everythingthatappeals to the monotonic process and its variations, such as development,evolution,andmodernisation,should,attheveryleast,beunderstoodintermsofthecyclicalmode.Insteadoftheideasofthemonotonicprocess,progress,and modernisation, we must endorse other slogans directed toward life,repetition,thepreservationofthatwhichisofvalueandchangingthatwhichshouldbechanged.

Insteadofalwayslookingformodernisationandgrowth,weshouldinsteadorientourselvesinthedirectionofbalance,adaptability,andharmony.Insteadofdesiringtomoveupwardandforward,wemustadapttothatwhichexists,tounderstandwhereweare,andtoharmonisesociopoliticalprocesses.

And,mostimportant,insteadofgrowth,progress,anddevelopment,thereislife.Afterall,therehasbeennoproofofferedyettoshowthatlifeislinkedtogrowth.Thiswasthemythof theNineteenthcentury.Life, incontrast, isconnected to the eternal return. In the end, evenNietzsche incorporatedhisideaofthewilltopowerintotheconceptofeternalreturn.[130]Theverylogicof life towhichNietzschewasdedicated toldhim that if there isgrowth inlife, theApollonian[131]movement toward the logos, then the balance of thenocturnalDionysianworldexistsaswell.AndApolloisnotjustopposedtoDionysus; they complement each other. Half of the cycle constitutesmodernisation,while theotherhalf—decline;whenonehalf facesup, theother half faces down.There is no lifewithout death.Being-towards-death,carefulattentiontodeath,totheflipsideofthesphereofBeing,asHeideggerwrote, is not a struggle with life, but, rather, its glorification and itsfoundation.

Wemustputanend toantiquatedpolitical ideologiesand theories. Ifwehave truly rejected Marxism and fascism, then what remains is to rejectliberalism. Liberalism is an equally outdated, cruel, misanthropic ideologylikethetwopreviousones.Theterm‘liberalism’shouldbeequatedwiththeterms fascism and Communism. Liberalism is responsible for no fewerhistoriccrimesthanfascism(Auschwitz)andCommunism(theGULag):[132]itis responsible for slavery, the destruction of the Native Americans in theUnitedStates,forHiroshimaandNagasaki,fortheaggressioninSerbia,Iraq,and Afghanistan, for the devastation and the economic exploitation ofmillionsofpeopleon theplanet,and for the ignobleandcynical lieswhichwhitewashthishistory.

But, most important, we must reject the base upon which these threeideologies stand: the monotonic process in all its forms, that is, evolution,growth, modernisation, progress, development, and all that which seemedscientific in the Nineteenth century but was exposed as unscientific in theTwentiethcentury.

We must also abandon the philosophy of development and propose thefollowingslogan:lifeismoreimportantthangrowth.Insteadoftheideologyofdevelopment,wemustplaceourbetsontheideologyofconservatismandconservation.However,wenotonlyrequireconservatisminourdaily lives,butalsophilosophicalconservatism.Weneedthephilosophyofconservatism.LookingtowardthefutureoftheRussianpoliticalsystem,ifitisgoingtobebasedonmonotonicprocesses,thenitisdoomedtofailure.Nostabilitywillever come from a new round of unidirectional growth derived from energyprices,realestate,stocks,andsoon,norfromthegrowthofglobaleconomyasawhole.Ifthisillusionpersists,thenitmaybecomefatalforourcountry.

Today,wefindourselvesinatransitionalstate.Weknowroughlywhatwearemovingawayfrom,butdonotknowwhatwearemoving toward. Ifwehead toward that which directly or indirectly implies the belief in anymonotonicprocess,thenwewillreachadeadend.

TheFourthPoliticalTheorymusttakeasteptowardtheformulationofacoherent critique of the monotonic process. It must develop an alternativemodel of a conservative future, a conservative tomorrow, based on theprinciplesofvitality,roots,constants,andeternity.

Afterall,asArthurMoellervandenBruckoncesaid, ‘Conservatismhaseternityonitsside.’[133]

T

4.TheReversibilityofTime

hree political theories have been produced from the ideology ofmodernity.Theywereallbasedon the topographyofprogress.Progress

implicates the irreversibility of time, a forward-moving and predeterminedevolutionary process. Progress is both an orthogenetic and a monotonicprocess. Inevitably, all three are based onHegel’s philosophy.AfterHegel,themeaningofhistorybecameunderstoodintermsoftheAbsoluteSpirit[134]becomingestranged from itself, assuminga formas thedialecticprocessofhistory,eventuallybecomingatypeofenlightenedmonarchy.

Marx accepted this topography, and afterAlexandreKojève and FrancisFukuyama, liberal thinkers have accepted it as well. In the framework ofNational Socialism,Hegelianismwas externalised in the concept of a FinalReich,withtheThirdReichasthethirdkingdomofJoachimofFiore,[135]andintheconceptofSocialDarwinism,wherethetheoryofnaturalselectionhasbeenadaptedtoapplytosocietyandraces.SocialDarwinismisalsoinherentinSpencer’sliberalism.Eachofthesethreeideologiesofmodernityisbasedon the premises of the irreversibility of time and of unidirectional history.They implicitly acknowledge the totalising imperative of modernisation.Modernisation can be liberal, Communist, or fascist. An example of theeffectivenessoffascistmodernisationwouldbe thesuccess,howeverbrutal,ofHitler’sindustrialmodernisationofGermanyinthe1930s.

TheFourthPoliticalTheory is anunmodern theory.AsBrunoLatour[136]has said, ‘We have never been contemporary’. The theoretical axioms ofmodernityareharmlessbecausetheycannotberealisedinreality.Inpractice,they are permanently and very spectacularly self-negating. The FourthPoliticalTheorycompletelydiscardstheideaoftheirreversibilityofhistory.This ideawas interesting ina theoretical sense,assubstantiatedbyGeorgesDumézil,[137] with his anti-euhemerism,[138] and Gilbert Durand.[139] I havewrittenpreviouslyaboutsociologyandthemorphologyoftimeinmybooksPost-philosophy, Sociology of the Imagination, and Sociology of RussianSociety.Timeisasocialphenomenon;itsstructuresdonotdependupontheirobjectives,butuponthedominationofsocialparadigms,becausetheobjectisassigned by society itself. In modern society, time is seen as irreversible,progressiveandunidirectional.Butthisisnotnecessarilytrueinsidesocietiesthatdonotacceptmodernity. Insomesocieties,which lackastrict,modernconception of time, cyclic and even regressive conceptions of time exist.Therefore,politicalhistoryisconsideredinthecontextofthetopographyofpluralconceptionsoftimefortheFourthPoliticalTheory.Thereareasmanyconceptionsoftimeastherearesocieties.

The Fourth Political Theory does not just discard progress andmodernisation, however. This theory contemplates progress andmodernisation relative to, and intimately connectedwith, current historical,socialandpoliticalsemanticoccasions,asinoccasionalisttheory.[140]Progressand modernisation are real, but relative, not absolute. What is meant arespecifiedstages,butnottheabsolutetrendofhistory.ThisiswhytheFourthPoliticalTheorysuggestsanalternativeversionofpoliticalhistorybasedonsystematisedoccasionalism.CarlSchmittwasveryclosetothisinhiswork.FernandBraudelandtheÉcoledesAnnaleshavealsobeeninspiredbythisintheirwriting. In thediscussionof thepolitical transformationofsociety,weplace them in their specific semantic context: history, religion, philosophy,economics, and culture, with its ethnic and ethnic-sociological specificsconsidered. This demands a new classification of social and politicaltransformation.Weacknowledge these transformations,butwedonotplacethem onto a broad-based scale that could be the common ‘destiny’ for allsocieties.Thisgivesuspoliticalpluralism.

The Fourth Political Theory uses a societally-dependent conception ofreversibletime.Inthecontextofmodernity,turningbackfromsomepointinhistory to a previous one is impossible.But it is possible in the context ofFourth Political Theory. Berdyaev’s idea of the ‘New Middle Ages’[141] isquite applicable. Societies can be variously built and transformed. Theexperienceof the1990s is quitedemonstrativeof this: people in theSovietUnion were sure that socialism would proceed from capitalism, not viceversa.Butinthe1990stheysawtheopposite:capitalismfollowingsocialism.It is quite possible that Russia could yet see feudalism, or even a slave-owningsociety,orperhapsaCommunistorprimordial societyemergeafterthat.Thosewholaughatthisarethecaptivesofthemodernanditshypnosis.Having acknowledged the reversibility of political and historical time, wehave arrived at a new pluralist point-of-view for political science, and wehavereachedtheadvancedperspectivenecessaryforideologicalconstruction.

The Fourth Political Theory constructs, and reconstructs, society behindmodernaxioms.Thatiswhytheelementsofthedifferentpoliticalformscanbe used in the Fourth Political Theory without any connection to the timescale.Therearenostagesandepochs,butonlypre-conceptsandconcepts.Inthis context, theological constructions, antiquity, caste and other aspects oftraditional society are only some of the possible variants; along withsocialism, Keynesian theory,[142] free markets, parliamentary democracy, or‘nationalism’. They are simply forms, but they would not be related to animplied topographyof ‘objectivehistorical time’.There isnosuch thing! Iftime is ‘historical’, it iscannot ‘objective’.Dasein says thesame.Dasein isthe subject of the Fourth Political Theory.Dasein can be recovered by therefinementoftheexistentialtruthderivedfromtheontologicalsuperstructureof society. Dasein is something that institutionalizes time. DurandinstitutionalisestimebyTraiectum[143]inhistopography.Traiectum/Daseinis

notafunctionoftime,buttimeisafunctionofTraiectum/Dasein.Thisiswhytime is something that is institutionalised by politics in the context of theFourthPoliticalTheory.Time isapoliticalcategory.Political time isapre-conceptofapoliticalform.

The Fourth Political Theory has opened a unique perspective: if wecomprehendtheprincipleofthereversibilityoftime,wearenotonlyabletocomposetheprojectofafuturesociety,butwewillalsobeabletocomposeawholerangeofprojectsofdifferentfuturesocieties—thuswewouldbeableto suggest some non-linear strategies for a new institutionalisation of theworld.

TheFourthPoliticalTheory is not an invitation to a return to traditionalsociety;i.e.,itisnotconservatismintheconventionalsense.Therearemanycharacteristicsofourchronologicalpastwhicharepleasant,andmanywhicharenot.Similarly, the formsof traditional society can alsobedistinguishedfrom each other. Finally, the ethnic and sociological matrixes, and thecontexts of different contemporary societies, are also different from eachother.Therefore, theFourthPoliticalTheoryshouldnot imposeanythingonanyone.Adherentsof theFourthPoliticalTheoryshouldactstepbystep: ifwe simply argue the reversibility of time andDasein as the subjectsofourtheory,thatwouldbethefirstandprimarystep.Wewouldthusfreeourselvestodevelopthepre-concepts.Wecandefineseveralpre-conceptswithregardstothereversibilityoftimeandDasein/Traiectum,andthereforewecandefineseveralpoliticalconceptsoftime.Andeachofthemcanbepluggedintothecurrent political project, according to the principles of the Fourth PoliticalTheory.

T

5.GlobalTransitionanditsEnemies

TheWorldOrderQuestionedheNewWorldOrder(NWO)asaconceptwaspopularisedataconcrete

historicalmoment—namely,whentheColdWarendedinthelate1980sandgenuineglobalcooperationbetweentheUnitedStatesandSovietUnionwasconsiderednotonlypossible,butveryprobable.ThebasisoftheNWOwaspresumablyaproductofconvergence theory,predicting thesynthesisof theSovietsocialistandWesterncapitalistpoliticalformsandclosecooperationoftheSovietUnionandUSAin thecaseofregional issues—forexample, inthe firstGulfWar at the beginning of 1991.However, as the SovietUnioncollapsed soonafter this, theprojectof aNWOwasnaturally set asideandforgotten.

After1991, theNewWorldOrderwasconsidered tobesomethingunderformation before our very eyes—a unipolarworld led by the open globalhegemonyoftheUSA.Itiswell-describedinFukuyama’sutopianwork,TheEndofHistoryandtheLastMan.ThisworldorderignoredallotherpolesofpowerexcepttheUSAanditsallies,includingWesternEuropeandJapan.Itwas conceived as a universalisation of free market economics, politicaldemocracy,andtheideologyofhumanrights,allofwhichwereassumedtobe part of a global system that would be accepted by all countries in theworld.

Skeptics, however, thought that this was rather illusionary and that thedifferencesbetweencountriesandpeopleswouldreappearinotherforms,forexample,inSamuelHuntington’sinfamous‘clashofcivilisations’thesis,orinethnic or religious conflicts. Some experts, in particular JohnMearsheimer,[144]regardedunipolaritynotasa‘proper’worldorderbut,rather,as‘unipolarmomentum’.

Inanycase,whatisquestionedinalltheseprojectsistheexistingorderofnation-statesandnationalsovereignty.TheWestphaliansystem[145]nolongercorresponds to the current global balance of powers. New actors oftransnationaland sub-national scaleareaffirming theirgrowing importance,anditisevidentthattheworldisinneedofanewparadigmininternationalrelations.

Therefore,thecontemporaryworldaswehaveittodaycannotberegardedasaproperly-realisedNWO.Thereisnodefinitiveworldorderofanykind.Whatwehaveinsteadisthetransitionfromtheworldorderweknewinthe

Twentiethcenturytosomeotherparadigmwhosefeaturesareyettobefullydefined. Will the future really be global? Or will regionalist tendenciesdominate?Will there be one unique world order? Or will there instead bevariouslocalorregionalorders?Or,perhaps,willwehavetodealwithglobalchaos?Itisnotyetclear.Thetransitionisnotaccomplished.Wearelivinginthemiddleofit.

If the global elite, and first of all the American political and economicelite,hasaclearvisionofthefuture,whichisratherdoubtful,circumstancesmayandcanprevent its realisation inpractice. If, however, theglobal elitelackaconsensualproject,theissuebecomesmuchmorecomplicated.

So only the fact of transition to some new paradigm is certain. Theparadigmassuchis,tothecontrary,quiteuncertain.

WorldOrderfromtheAmericanPoint-of-ViewThepositionoftheUnitedStatesduringthisshiftisabsolutelyassuredbutitslong-term future is under question. TheUS is now undergoing a test of itsglobalimperialruleandhastodealwithmanychallenges,someofthemquitenewandoriginal.Thiscouldproceedinthreedifferentways:

1)Creation of anAmericanEmpire strictosensu[146] with a consolidatedand technically and socially developed central area, or imperial core,withtheperipherykeptdividedandfragmentedinastateofpermanentunrest, bordering chaos. The neoconservatives, it would seem, are infavourofsuchapattern.

2)Creationofamultilateralunipolaritywhere theUSAwouldcooperatewith other friendly powers (Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, Israel,Araballies,andpossiblyothercountries)insolvingregionalproblemsandputtingpressureon‘roguestates’(suchasIran,Venezuela,Belarus,orNorthKorea), or preventing other powers from achieving regionalindependenceandhegemony (China,Russia, etc.). Itwould seem thattheDemocratsandPresidentObamaareinclinedtothisvision.

3) Promotion of accelerated globalisation with the creation of a worldgovernmentandswiftde-sovereignisationofnation-states in favourofthecreationofa‘UnitedStates’oftheworldruledbytheglobaleliteonlegalterms(forexample,theCFRprojectrepresentedbythestrategyofGeorgeSorosandhis foundations).[147]TheColourRevolutions[148] areviewedhere as themost effectiveweaponof destabilising and finallydestroyingstates).

TheUSoftenseemstobesimultaneouslypromotingallthreestrategiesatthesame time, as part of a multi-vector foreign policy. These three strategicdirectionsoftheUSAcreatetheglobalcontextininternationalrelations,theUSAbeing the key actor on a global scale.Beyond the evident differencesbetweenthesethreeimagesofthefuture, theyhavesomeessentialpointsincommon. In any case, the USA is interested in affirming its strategic,economicandpoliticaldomination;instrengtheningitscontrolofotherglobalactors and in weakening them; in the gradual or accelerated de-sovereignisationofwhatarenowmoreorlessindependentstates;andinthepromotion of supposedly ‘universal’ values reflecting the values of theWestern world, i.e. liberal democracy, parliamentarianism, free markets,humansrights,andsoon.

Therefore we face a contemporary world in a strong and seeminglypermanentgeopoliticalarrangementwheretheUSisthecore,andwheretheraysor spokesof its influence (strategic, economic, political, technological,informationalandsoon)permeatealltherestoftheworld,dependingonthestrength of the societal willof the various countries, as well as ethnic andreligious groups, to accept or reject it. It is a kind of imperial networkoperatingonaplanetaryscale.

This US-centric global geopolitical arrangement can be described onseveraldifferentlevels:

Historically: TheUSA considers itself to be the logical conclusion andpeakofWesterncivilisation.Atonetime,thiswaspresentedintermsofthe‘ManifestDestiny’ofAmerica,[149]andthenintermsoftheMonroeDoctrine.[150] Now they speak in terms of enforcement of ‘universal’ human rightsnorms,promotionofdemocracy, technology, freemarket institutionsand soon. But in essence, we are simply dealing with an updated version andcontinuationofaWesternuniversalism thathasbeenpasseddownfromtheRoman Empire, Medieval Christianity, modernity in terms of theEnlightenment and colonisation, up to the present-day phenomena ofpostmodernism and ultra-individualism. History is considered to be aunivocalandmonotoneprocessoftechnologicalandsocialprogress,thepathofthegrowingliberationofindividualsfromallkindsofcollectiveidentities.Tradition and conservatism are thus regarded as obstacles to freedom andshouldberejected.TheUSAisinthevanguardofthishistoricalprogress,andhas the right, obligation, andhistoricalmission tomovehistory further andfurtheralongthispath.ThehistoricalexistenceoftheUScoincideswiththecourse of human history. So, ‘American’ means ‘universal’. The othercultureseitherhaveanAmericanfutureornofutureatall.

Politically:Therearevery important trends inglobalpolitics thatdefinethetransition.Thepeakofthepoliticalthoughtofmodernitywasthevictoryofliberalismoverthealternativepoliticaldoctrinesofmodernity:fascismandsocialism.Liberalismhasgoneglobalandbecometheonlypossiblepolitical

system. It is now progressing further towards a postmodern and post-individual concept of politics, generally described as posthumanism. TheUSAagainplaysthekeyroleinit.Theformofpoliticspromotedgloballybythe USA is liberal democracy. The US supports the globalisation ofliberalism,thuspreparingthenextsteptopoliticalpostmodernityasdescribedin Empire, the famous book by Hardt and Negri.[151] There remains somedistance between liberal ultra-individualism and properly postmodernposthumanism, promoting cybernetics, genetic modification, cloning andchimeras. [152]But theworld’speriphery still faces theuniversalisingprocess— the accelerated destruction of all holistic social entities, and thefragmentation and atomisation of society, including via technology (theInternet,mobilephones,socialnetworks),wheretheprincipalactorisstrictlytheindividual,divorcedfromanyorganicandcollectivesocialcontext.

AnimportanttestimonytothedualuseofthepromotionofdemocracyhasbeenexplicitlydescribedinanarticlebytheAmericanmilitaryandpoliticalexpert,StephenR.Mann,[153]whoaffirmedthatdemocracycanworkasaself-generating virus, strengthening existing and historically ripe democraticsocieties,butdestroyingandcausingtraditionalsocietiesthatarenotpreparedfor it to descend into chaos. So democracy is thought to be an effectiveweapontocreatechaosandtogovernthedissipatingworldculturesfromthecore,emulatingandinstallingthedemocraticcodexeverywhere.Evidenceofthisprocesscanbeseeninthechaoticaftermathoftheheadyeventsoftheso-called ‘Arab Spring’. After accomplishing the full fragmentation of thesesocietiesintoindividualisationandatomisation,thesecondphasewillbegin:the inevitable division and dissolution of the individual human itself viatechnology and genetic tinkering to create a ‘posthumanity’. This ‘post-politics’canbeseenasthelasthorizonofpoliticalfuturism.

Ideologically:ThereisatendencyfortheUStoincreasinglylinkideologyandpolitics in their relationswith the periphery. In earlier times,Americanforeign policy acted on the basis of pure pragmatic realism. If the regimeswerepro-American, theywere toleratedwithout regard for their ideologicalprinciples.ThelongstandingUS-SaudiArabianalliancerepresentstheperfectexampleofthisrealistforeignpolicyinpractice.Thus,somefeaturesofthisschizophrenic and dual morality were ideologically accepted. However, Itseems that recently the US has begun to try to deepen its promotion ofdemocracy, supportingpopular revolts inEgyptandTunisiadespite the factthattheirleadersweretrustedalliesoftheUSaswellascorruptdictators.ThedoublestandardsintheUS’spoliticalideologyareslowlyvanishing,andthedeepening of the promotion of democracy progresses. The climax will bereached in thecaseofprobableunrest inSaudiArabia.When thishappens,thisideologicalpro-democracystancewillbetestedinpoliticallydifficultandinconvenientcircumstances.

Economically:TheUSeconomyischallengedbyChinesegrowth,energy

security and scarcity, crippling debt and budget deficits, and the criticaldivergenceanddisproportionbetweenthefinancialsectorandthezoneofrealindustry. The overgrowth, or bubble, of the American financial institutionsand the delocalisation of industry have created a discontinuity between thesphereofmoneyandthesphereoftheclassicalcapitalistbalanceofindustrialsupplyandconsumerdemands.Thiswasthemaincauseofthefinancialcrisisof 2008. The Chinese political economy is trying to reestablish itsindependencefromUSglobalhegemonyandmaybecomethemainfactorofeconomic competition. The control that Russia, Iran, Venezuela and someother relatively independent countries have over large reservoirs of theworld’s remaining natural resources puts a limit on American economicinfluence.TheeconomyoftheEUandJapaneseeconomicpotentialrepresenttwopossible poles of economic competition to theUS inside the economicandstrategicframeworkoftheWest.

TheUSAattemptstosolvetheseproblemsusingnotonlypurelyeconomicinstruments,butalsopoliticaland,attimes,militarypoweraswell.WecouldthusinterprettheinvasionandoccupationsofIraqandAfghanistan,aswellasthe interventions both overt and covert in Libya, Iran and Syria from ageoeconomic and geopolitical perspective. Promotion of domestic politicalopposition and insurgents in Russia, Iran and China are another, similarmethod towards the same goal. But these are only technical solutions. Themain challenge is how to organise the postmodern and finance-centriceconomy around continuing growth, overcoming the widening critical gapbetween the real economy and the financial sector whose logic and self-interestbecomemoreandmoreautonomous.

IthasbeenassertedthattheUSAisthemainandasymmetricactorinthecentre of the present transition state of world affairs. As Védrine[154] hasnoted, this actor is a true hyperpower, and the present geopoliticalarrangement that includes all the levels and networks examined above isstructuredaroundthisAmericancore.Thequestionthenraisedis:isthisactorfullyconsciousofwhatitdoesanddoesitfullyunderstandwhatitwillobtainat the end, that is, which form of international system or world order is itgoingtoestablish?Opinionsonthisimportantpointaredivided.Theneoconsproclaiming the New American Century[155] are optimistic as to the futureAmericanEmpire,butintheircaseitisobviousthattheyhaveaclear,ifnotnecessarilyrealistic,visionofanAmerican-dominatedfuture.Inthiscase,theworldorderwillbeanAmericanimperialorderbasedonunipolargeopolitics.Atleasttheoretically,ithasoneredeemingpoint:itisclearandhonestaboutitsgoalsandintentions.

The multilateralists are more cautious, and insist on the necessity ofinviting the other regional powers to share the burden of global hegemonywith the USA. It is obvious that only societies similar to the USA can bepartners,sothesuccessofthepromotionofdemocracybecomesanessentialfeature.ThemultilateralistsactnotonlyinthenameoftheUSAbutalsoin

thenameof theWest,whosevalues are, ormust bemade, universal.Theirvisionof a futureworldorder dictatedbyglobal democracy, but ledby theUS,isfoggierandnotasclearlydefinedastheneocons’AmericanEmpire.

Even hazier is the extreme vision of global governance envisaged bypromoters of accelerated globalisation. It might be possible to effectivelyoverthrow the existing order of sovereign nation-states, but inmany cases,thiswillonlyopenthedoortomorearchaic,local,religiousorethnicforcesand conflicts. The vision of a single open and, by necessity, largelyhomogenoussocietyencompassingtheEarthissofantasticandutopianthatitismucheasiertoimaginethetotalchaosofHobbes’‘warofallagainstall’[156]inthestateofnatureofaworldwithoutstates.

ThevisionsofpossiblefutureworldordersfromtheperspectiveoftheUSand the West differs among competing factions of American elites,ideologists, and decision-makers. The most consequent and well-definedstrategy, the neocons’ unipolar world order, is at the same time moreethnocentric,openlyimperialisticandhegemonic.Theothertwoversionsaremuchmore dimly conceived and uncertain. Thus, it is as likely they couldleadtoanincreaseinglobaldisorder,asorder.RichardHaass[157]hastermedthe paradigms of an international system according to these two visions asbeingcharacterisedby‘non-polarity’.

Sothetransitioninquestionis,inanycase,American-centricbyitsnature,andtheglobalgeopoliticalarrangementisstructuredsothatthemainglobalprocesseswouldbemoderated,orientated,directed,andsometimescontrolledbytheuniquehyperpoweractorperformingitsworkaloneorwiththehelpofitsWesternalliesandregionalclientstates.

TheWorldOrderfromtheNon-AmericanPoint-of-View

TheAmericano-centricworldperspectivedescribedabove,despitebeingthemost important and central global tendency, is not the only one possible.Therecanbeandtherearealternativevisionsofworldpoliticalarchitecturethatcanbe takenintoconsideration.TherearesecondaryandtertiaryactorsthatareinevitablelosersinthecaseofthesuccessoftheAmericanstrategies;the countries, states, peoples, and cultures thatwould lose everything, eventheirownidentity,andgainnothingiftheUSArealiseditsglobalaspirations.Theyarebothmultiple andheterogeneous, andcanbegrouped into severaldifferentcategories.

Thefirstcategoryiscomposedbythemoreorlesssuccessfulnation-statesthat are not happy to lose their independence to a supranational exteriorauthority—notintheformofopenAmericanhegemony,norintheWestern-

centric forms of world government or governance, nor in the chaoticdissolutionofafailedinternationalsystem.Therearemanysuchcountries—foremostamongthemareChina,Russia,Iran,andIndia,butitalsoincludesmanySouthAmerican and Islamic states.Theydonot like the transition atall,suspecting,withgoodreason,theinevitablelossoftheirsovereignty.So,they are inclined to resist the main trends of the global American-centricgeopolitical arrangement or adapt to it in such a manner that it would bepossible to avoid the logical consequences of its success, be it via animperialist or globalist strategy. The will to preservation of sovereigntyrepresents the natural contradiction and point of resistance in the face ofAmerican/Western hegemonic or globalist trends.Generally speaking, thesestates lack an alternative vision of the future international system orworldorder, andcertainlydonothaveaunifiedorcommonvision.What theyallwantandshareincommonisadesiretopreservetheinternationalstatusquoasenshrinedintheUNCharter,andthustheirownsovereigntyandidentityasnation-states in their present form, adjusting and modernising them as aninternalandsovereignprocessasnecessary.

Amongthisgroupofnation-statesseekingtopreservetheirsovereigntyinthefaceofUS/Westernhegemonicorglobaliststrategiesare:

1)ThosestateswhotrytoadapttheirsocietiestoWesternstandardsandtokeepfriendlyrelationswiththeWestandtheUSA,buttoavoiddirectandtotalde-sovereignisation;thisincludesIndia,Turkey,Brazil,anduptoacertainpointRussiaandKazakhstan.

2)Those stateswhoare ready to cooperatewith theUSA,butunder thecondition of non-interference in their domestic affairs, such as SaudiArabiaandPakistan.

3)Thosestateswho,whilecooperatingwiththeUSA,strictlyobservetheuniqueness of their society by filtering those elements of Westernculturethatarecompatiblewiththeirdomesticculturefromthosewhicharenot,and,at thesametime, tryingtouse thedividendsreceivedbythis cooperation to strengthen their national independence, such asChina,and,attimes,Russia.

4) Those states who try to oppose the USA directly, rejecting Westernvalues, unipolarity, and US/Western hegemony, including Iran,Venezuela,andNorthKorea.

However,allofthesegroupslackanalternativeglobalstrategythatcouldbesymmetricallycomparablewithAmericanvisionsofthefuture,eveniftakenwithout consensus or a clearly defined goal. All these states generally actindividually on the world stage and in their own direct interests. Thedifference in foreign policy among them consists only in the amount ofradicalismintheirrejectionofAmericanisation.Theirpositioncanbedefined

as reactive. This strategy of reactive opposition, varying from rejection toadaptation, is sometimeseffective, and sometimesnot. In short, it offersnokind of alternate future vision. Instead, the future of the world order orinternational system is considered as eternal conservationof the status quo,i.e.modernity,nation-states,theWestphaliansystemofstatesovereignty,andstrict interpretation and preservation of the existing UN Charter and UNconfiguration.

The second category of actors who reject the transition consists of sub-national groups, movements, and organisations that oppose Americandominance of the structures of the global geopolitical arrangement forideological,religious,and/orculturalreasons.Thesegroupsarequitedifferentfromoneanotherandvaryfromstatetostate.MostofthemarefoundedonaninterpretationofreligiousfaiththatisincompatiblewiththeseculardoctrineofAmericanisation,Westernisation, and globalisation.But they can also bemotivated by ethnic or ideological (for example. socialist or Communist)considerationsordoctrines.Othersmayevenactonregionalistgrounds.

The paradox is that in the process of globalisation, which aims touniversaliseandmakeuniformallparticularitiesandcollective identitiesonthe basis of a purely individual identity, such sub-national actors easilybecometransnational—thesamereligionsandideologiesoftenbeingpresentin different nations and across state borders. Thus, among these non-stateactorswe couldpotentially find somealternativevisionof the futureworldorder or international system that can stand opposed to theAmerican/Western-ledtransitionanditsstructures.

We can roughly summarise the different ideas of some of the moreimportantsub-national/transnationalgroupsasfollows:

•ThemostrecognisedformatpresentistheIslamistworldvision,whichaspires toward the utopia of an individual state based upon a strictinterpretationof Islamic law,orelseaUniversalCaliphatewhichwillbring the entire world under Islamic rule. This project is as muchopposed to the American-led transitional architecture as it is to theexisting status quo of modern nation-states. Osama bin Laden’s AlQaeda remainssymbolicandarchetypalofsuch ideas,and theattackswhichbroughtdownthetowersoftheWorldTradeCentreinNewYorkon9/11,andwhicharesupposedtohave‘changedtheworld’,areproofoftheimportanceofsuchnetworksandtheseriousnesswithwhichtheymustbetaken.

•Another such project can be defined as the transnational neo-socialistplan represented in theSouthAmericanLeft, andpersonallybyHugoChávez. This is roughly a new version of the Marxist critique ofcapitalism, strengthened by nationalist emotion, and, in some cases,such as the Zapatistas and Bolivia, in ethnic sentiments or Greenecological critiques. Some Arab regimes, such as the Libyan Arab

JamahiriyaunderGaddafiuntilrecently,canbeconsideredinthesamevein.The vision of the futureworld order is here presented as globalsocialistrevolutionproceededbyanti-Americanliberationcampaignsinevery country across the globe. The US/Western-led transition isenvisioned by this group as an incarnation of the classic imperialismcriticisedbyLenin.[158]

•AthirdsuchexamplecanbefoundintheEurasianist(akamultipolarity,GreatSpaces,orGreatPowers)project,proposinganalternativemodelofworldorderbasedontheparadigmofuniquecivilisationsandGreatPowers. Itpresupposes thecreationofdifferent transnationalpolitical,strategic,andeconomicentitiesunitedregionallybythecommunityofcommon geographic areas and shared values, in some cases religiousand in others secular and/or cultural. They should consist of statesintegrated along regionalist lines and represent the poles of themultipolarworld.TheEuropeanUnionisonesuchexample;thenascentEurasianUnionproposedbyRussia’sVladimirPutinandKazakhstan’sPresident Nursultan Nazarbayev, another. An Islamic Union, a SouthAmerican/Bolivarian[159]Union,aChineseUnion,anIndianUnion,oraPan-Pacific Union are other possibilities. The North American GreatSpace,coveringtoday’sNAFTA,wouldberegardedasjustoneamongseveralothermoreorlessequalpoles,nothingmore.

This is not an all-inclusive list of such non-state actors or theories withalternatevisionsofworldorder.Thereareothers,buttheyareofsmallerscaleandthusbeyondthescopeofthiswork.

Inthepresentstateofworldaffairs, thereisaseriousdividebetweenthenation-states and the sub-state or transnational actors and ideologicalmovementsoperatingondifferentlevels,mentionedabove.Thenation-stateslack vision and ideology, and the alternative movements lack sufficientinfrastructure and resources to put their ideas into practice. If, in somecircumstance,itwerepossibletobridgethatgap,takingintoconsiderationtheincreasingdemographic, economic, and strategicweightof thenon-Westernworld, or ‘the Rest’, an alternative to the American/Western-led transitioncouldobtainrealisticshapeandberegardedseriouslyasaconsequentialandtheoreticallysoundalternateparadigmforworldorder.

T

6.ConservatismandPostmodernity

WeAreinPostmodernityhe process that, in fact, has a global character is the process of once-victoriousmodernism’smovementintopostmodernity.Therearecentres,

foci,lociandregionswherethisprocessproceedslogicallyandsequentially.These are the West, Western Europe, and especially the United States ofAmerica, where there was a historical opportunity to create in laboratoryconditions theoptimalsocietyofmodernity,on thebasisof thoseprinciplesthat were developed byWestern European thought; to create from a blankpage, without the burden of European traditions, in an ‘empty’ place —NativeAmericans,asisknown,werenotreckonedaspeople.MichaelHardtandAntonioNegrishowintheirbookEmpirethattheAmericanConstitutionlookedatAfrican-Americansfromthestartassecond-classpeople,whiletheNativeAmericanswere not thought of as people at all. In such away, thespecificAmericansystemwasanidealplacefortherealisationofamaximumof freedom, but only for White people, and at the cost of a determinateexclusionofallothers.Inanycase,theUnitedStatesofAmericaistheavant-gardeoffreedomandthelocomotiveofthetransitiontopostmodernism.

TheLibertyPoleandtheFreedomtoChooseTVStations

We spoke of the pole that isWestern European civilisation, but within thespacesofthought,inphilosophy,andinthegeographyofthehumansoul,thepoleofaunipolarworldisnothingotherthantheUnitedStatesandEurope,as a purely geopolitical organisation, and specifically the idea of maximalfreedom. And the movement toward the realisation of this freedom is thesignificanceofhumanhistory,asWesternEuropeanhumanityunderstandsit.Western European society managed to bind the rest of humanity to thisconceptionofthesignificanceofhistory.

Thus, there exists the pole of a unipolar world — that is, the pole offreedom,whicharrivedatmodernity and isnowmoving to anewstage, topostmodernity,inwhichamanbeginstofreehimselffromhimself,insofarasheencumbers, interfereswithand isboredofhimself.Hedisintegrates into‘schizo-masses’,asiswritteninDeleuze’sAnti-Oedipus.[160]

People have become contemplators upon television, having learned to

change the channel better andmore quickly.Many do not stop at all: theyclicktheremote,anditnolongermatterswhatison—acomedyorthenews.The spectator of postmodernism basically understands nothing of whathappens; there is justastreamofpictures,whichamuse.Televisionviewersaredrawnintomicro-processes,theybecomethosewhohavenotgottheirfillofthespectacle,‘sub-spectators’,whoneverwatchanentireprogrammefromstart to finish, but only bits and pieces of various programmes. Todemonstrate this, the ideal film isRodriguez’sSpyKids2.[161] It ismade insuchawaythatthereisnomeaninginit.Butdistractionfromitisimpossible,because as soon as our consciousness becomes bored of it, a flying pigsuddenlyappears,andwemustcontinuewatchingtoseetowhereitflies.Andexactly in thesameway, themoment theflyingpigboresus,a littledragonclimbsoutofthehero’spocket.ThisproductionofRodriguez’sisfaultless.Inprinciple, the man who indefatigably changes channels will findapproximatelythesameeffecthere.Theonlychannelthatworksaccordingtoa different rhythm is that dedicated to ‘culture’, because there one can stillfindunhurriedhistoriesofcomposers,artists,scholars,theatre—thatis,theremnants of modernity. If it were removed from the bill, then one couldcalmly click through the channels not expecting to find anything that goesagainsttherhythminwhichonemustlive.

TheParadoxesofFreedomAndso,postmodernityarrives.Whatcanopposeit?Andcanonesay‘no’toit?Thisisthefundamentalquestion.

Incidentally, emerging from that same liberal thesiswhich contends thatman is free, it follows that he is always free to say ‘no’, to say this towhomever he will. This, in fact, constitutes the dangerous moment of thephilosophyoffreedom,whichundertheaegisofabsolutefreedombeginstoremovethefreedomtosay‘no’tofreedomitself.TheWesternliberalmodelsays:youwanttoopposeus?Please,youhavetheright;but, look:youwillnotwanttogiveyourwashingmachineback,right?Thewashingmachineistheabsoluteargumentofthesupportersofprogress.Afterall,everyonewantsawashingmachine—Black people, native peoples, conservatives and theorthodox. Communists, too, according to a different logic, spoke of thenecessity and irreversibility of structural change. They said that socialismwouldcomeaftercapitalism.Socialismcame,althoughweplainlyneverhadcapitalism. It stayed around for some time, destroyed quite a lot of people,and then disappeared. It is exactly thus with the washing machine. If onethinks about the metaphysics of the washing machine, to what extent it iscoupledwith the real values of a philosophical system, onewill be able tocome to theconclusion that, ingeneral,human life ispossible,andperhapsevenhasthepotentialtobeentirelyhappy,withoutthewashingmachine.

Butforaliberalsociety,thisisaterrifyingthing,almostsacrilege.Wecanunderstandeverything,butlifewithoutthewashingmachine?That’salreadyareally unscientific saying: life without the washing machine is impossible.Thereisnosuchthing.Lifeisthewashingmachine.Inthisresidestheeffectof the forceof the liberal argument,which takes on a totalitarian character.Thereisalwaysanelementofsomekindofconstraintinliberation—thisistheparadoxoffreedom.Attheveryleast,therearetheconstraintsofhavingto think that freedom is the highest value. Imagine that one person says,‘Freedomisthehighestvalue.’Anotherresponds,‘No,itisn’t.’Thenthefirstanswers,‘You’reagainstfreedom?Iwillkillforfreedom!’

The idea iscontained in liberalismthat therecanbenoalternatives to it.Andinthisthereissometruth.Iflogosputitselfontothepathoffreedom,ifthesocial logoswaspulled into theadventureof total liberation,wherewasthefirstshoveinthisdirection?ItmustbesoughtnotinDescartes,NietzscheortheTwentiethcentury,butbackwiththePre-Socratics.Heideggersawthismoment in the conception of physis[162] and in theway it was disclosed inPlato’s teaching of the idea. But what is important is something else: themovementoflogostofreedomisnotaccidental,butneverthelessonecansay‘no’toit.

ConservatismastheRepudiationoftheLogicofHistory

There is, nevertheless, the ontological possibility of saying ‘no’.And fromthisbeginsconservatism.

First,whatisconservatism?Itisa‘no’saidtothatwhichisaroundone.Inthenameofwhat?Inthenameofsomethingthatcameearlier.Inthenameofthat which, properly speaking, was overcome at some point duringsociopolitical history.That is, conservatism is thepursuit of anontological,philosophical, sociopolitical, individual, natural, religious, cultural, andscientificpositionthatrepudiatesthemovementsofthingsthatweareatthistimeencountering,andwhichweidentifiedanddescribedearlier.

Weare speakingnowofconservatismand thatwithwhichonecandenythe very course of history, pushing away from the sort of social-politicaltopography that has driven us tomodernity and postmodernity. Thismeansthe new age of modernity, with its linear vectors of progress and with itspostmoderncontortions,whichare takingusaway into the labyrinthsof thedisintegration of individual reality and to the rhizomatic subject or post-subject. But one can include here also earlier stages, which made thistendency possible and dominant. Conservatism builds its position on anopposition to the logic of the unfolding of the historical process. Thephenomenologyofmodernity—as,inourtime,ofpostmodernity—therotof which conservatism seeks to reject, serves as an argument in this

opposition.Butconservatismasastructuredoesnotleadtoanimpugningofphenomena. Negatively valued phenomenology here is not more than apretext.Conservatismconstructsatopographythatrejectsthelogic,workanddirectionofhistoricaltime.

Conservatism can build up its opposition to historical time in differentways. It has three fundamental possibilities for relating to the conceptualtrends of modernity and postmodernity. And from this begins thesystematisationorstructuralisationofconservatism.Thisisasystematisationwithout any preferenceswhatsoever, because the discussion is of scientific,andnotofvaluatedjudgements.

FundamentalConservatism:TraditionalismThe first approach is so-called traditionalism. Conservatism could well betraditionalism. In some models of political science, traditionalism andconservatismdiffer;as,forinstance,inMannheim’s.[163]Butnevertheless,theaspirationtoleaveeverythingasitwasintraditionalsocieties,topreservethatwayoflife,is,undoubtedly,conservatism.

Amorelogicaltraditionalism—substantial,philosophical,ontologicalandconceptual — is one that criticises, not various aspects of modernity andpostmodernity, but that rejects the fundamental vector of historicaldevelopment— that is, one that essentially opposes time.Traditionalism isthatformofconservatismwhichcontendsthefollowing:whatisbadarenotthoseseparatefragmentshereandtherewithinalargersystemthatcalloutforour repudiation. In thecontemporaryworld, everything isbad. ‘The ideaofprogress is bad; the idea of technological development is bad; Descartes’philosophy of the subject and object is bad; Newton’s metaphor of thewatchmakerisbad;[164]contemporarypositivescience,andtheeducationandpedagogyfoundeduponit,arebad.’‘Thisepisteme’,reasonstheconservativetraditionist, ‘isnogood. It is a totalitarian, false,negative episteme, againstwhichonemust fight.’And further, ifwe thinkhis thought through: ‘I likeonly thatwhichexistedbefore thestartofmodernity.’Onecouldgo furtherandsubjectthosetendenciestocriticismthatintraditionalsocietyitselfmadepossibletheappearanceofmodernity,allthewayuptotheideaoflineartime.

Suchtraditionalistconservatism,afterthefallofmonarchs,theseparationof Church and State, and the taking up of the baton of modernity by allsociopolitical,culturalandhistoricalnations,wasthoughttobenon-existent.InRussia, itwas exterminated by atheistmilitants. From a certain point ofview, it iscertainlyso.Inasmuchas itwasthought tohavebeencompletelyeliminated,peoplealmoststoppedtalkingaboutit;ofsocialgroupsthatstoodonthesepositions,practicallynoneremained,anditsoonenoughdisappearedeven from some models of political science (e.g., Mannheim’s). For that

reason,wedonotseeitnorbeginfromit.Andthis isunjust.Ifwewant totrace genuine conservatism and construct a completed topography ofconservative positions, wemust, as a first priority, study precisely such anapproach. In traditionalism we have a full-blown and mostly completecomplexoftheconservativerelationshiptohistory,societyandtheworld.

In the Twentieth century, when, it would seem, no social platformremained at all for such a conservatism, there suddenly appears a wholegalaxy of thinkers: philosophers who begin to defend this traditionalistposition. What is more, they do so with radicalism, consistency andpersistence, and not with the thoughts of the Nineteenth or Eighteenthcenturies.These areRenéGuénon, JuliusEvola,TitusBurckhardt,LeopoldZiegler,andallthosewhoarecalled‘traditionalists’inthenarrowsenseoftheword. It is significant that in theNineteenth century, when therewere stillmonarchsandchurches,andwhenthePopestilldecidedsomething,therewasno one who held such radical opinions. Traditionalists advanced theprogrammeoffundamentalconservatism,whenmattersconcerningTraditionapproachedtheirnadir.Inthisway,fundamentalconservatismwasabletobeformulated into a philosophical, political and ideological model oncemodernismhadpracticallyconqueredallpositions,butnotwhile thereweredefinitepoliticalandsocialforcesstillactivelystrugglingagainstit.

A number of political scientists in the Twentieth century attempted toidentify or to tie together the influence of fundamental conservatism withfascism. Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier, the authors of the book TheMorning of theMagicians,[165] wrote, ‘It could be said that Hitlerism, in asense,was“Guénonism”plustanks.’[166]This,ofcourse,isdefinitelynotso.Fascismissoonerthephilosophyofmodernity,which,toasignificantdegree,iscontaminatedwithelementsoftraditionalsociety,thoughitdoesnotprotestagainst modernity nor against time. Moreover, both Guénon and Evolaharshlycriticisedfascism.

In theirworks,Guénon andEvola gave an exhaustive description of themostfundamentalconservativeposition.Theydescribedtraditionalsocietyasa super-temporal ideal, and the contemporary world of modernity and itsfoundationalprinciplesasaproductoftheFall,degeneration,degradation,theblendingofcastes, thedecompositionofhierarchy,andtheshiftofattentionaway from the spiritual[167] to the material, from heaven to earth, from theeternal to the ephemeral, and so on. The positions of the traditionalists aredistinguishedbyperfectorderliness and scale.Their theories can serveas amodeloftheconservativeparadigminitspureform.

Of course, some of their evaluations and prognoses turned out to beincorrect. In particular, both anticipated the victory of ‘the fourth caste’, inother words, the proletariat (as represented by the Soviet Union) over ‘thethird caste’ (the capitalist camp), which proved incorrect. They opposedCommunism, not completely understanding how much there was in it of

traditional elements. A few of their appraisals need correction. At onecongress in Rome, commemorating the twentieth anniversary of Evola’sdeath,Ideliveredalecturecalled‘Evola—VistoDaSinistra’(Evola—TheViewFromTheLeft),inwhichIsuggestedhavingagoodlookatEvolafromLeftistpositions,thoughheconsideredhimselftobeontheRight,evenonthefarRight.

FundamentalConservatisminOurTimeThere is also fundamental conservatism in our society. First, the Islamicproject is fundamental conservatism. If we peel it away from the negativestereotypesandlookathow,theoretically,thoseMuslimswholeadthebattleagainstthecontemporaryworldwouldhavetofeelandthink,wewillseethattheystandonthesametypicalprinciplesoffundamentalconservatives.Theymustbelieveintheletterofeverywordof theQur’an, ignoringanyattacksfrom the proponents of tolerance,who censure their opinions, finding themcruelandoutofdate. Ifa fundamentalistcomesacrosssuchacommentatoron television, he comes to a simple conclusion: he must throw out thetelevision,togetherwiththecommentator.

There is a similar kind of orientation in America, too, amongfundamentalistProtestantgroups.And,asisnotsurprising,approximatelythesameviewsareheldbyasignificantpercentageoftheRepublicanelectoratein the USA. And television programmes featuring these Protestantfundamentalists,who,fromaProtestantpointofview,criticiseeverythingonecancriticiseinmodernityandpostmodernity, leavingnostoneunturned,arewatched by millions of American viewers. There are a great number oftelevangelists, like the late Jerry Falwell, who criticise, essentially, thecontemporaryworldinallitsfundamentals,andinterpretalleventsfromthepointofviewoftheProtestantversionofChristianity.

Suchpeople are also found in bothOrthodox andCatholic circles.Theyreject modernity structurally and entirely, considering the teachings andregulationsoftheirreligiontobeabsolutelyreal,whileseeingmodernityanditsvaluesasanexpressionoftheruleoftheAntichrist,inwhichtherecanbenothing good by definition. These tendencies are developed among theRussianOldBelievers.[168] There is still a ParacleteUnion in theUrals thatdoesnotuseelectric lamps.Lampsare ‘the lightofLucifer’; thus, theyuseonlytorchesandcandles.

Sometimes this reaches the point of a very deep penetration into theessenceof things.Oneof theOldBelieverauthorsmaintains that, ‘Hewhodrinkscoffeewillcoughhimselftodeath;hewhodrinksthetealeaf,willfallfrom God in despair’. Others affirm that one ought never to eat boiledbuckwheatbecauseitis‘sinful’.[169]

Coffee is strictly forbidden in such circles. This may sound stupid, butstupid for whom? For rational, contemporary people. Indeed, ‘the sin ofboiledbuckwheat’isstupid.Butimaginethatintheworldoffundamentalistconservatives, room is found for such a figure as ‘the sin of boiledbuckwheat’. SomeOldBeliever congressmight be dedicated to ‘the sin ofboiled buckwheat’. At this congress, they would seek to ascertain to whatorderofdemons itbelongs.Afterall, therewere‘trousercouncils’.WhenagroupofyoungOldBelievers, sometime in theEighteenthcentury, tookonthehabitofwearingchequeredtrousers,theFedoseyans[170]gatheredacouncilin Kimry, sometimes called the ‘trouser councils’, where it was discussedwhethertoseparatefromgoodrelationsthosewhowearchequeredtrousers,because it seemed at that time that it was indecent for a Christian towearchequered trousers.Partof thecouncilvoted toseparate;anotherpartvotedagainst. And these investigations are not really all that delirious. OldBelievers seem ‘outdated’ to us, but they are not that outdated. They aredifferent.Theyoperatewithintherangeofadifferenttopography.Theydenythat time is progress. For them, time is regress, and modern men are asacrificialofferingtothedevil.

HerewecanbringintheideasofClaudeLévi-Strauss.Heprovesthatthe‘prerational peoples’, of whom Lévy-Brühl and the evolutionist scholarsspoke,who studied ‘primitives’, donot exist, and that aboriginal societyorthestructureof Indianmythswereascomplex in their rationalconnections,enumerated taxonomies and juxtaposed themes and happenings, and just asdramatic, asmodernEuropean forms.Theyare simplydifferent.Wedonothere have an exampleof a ‘pre—logos’ but of a different logos,where thesystemof relations,nuances,differences,diversitiesandconstructedmodelsworkinadifferentsystemofhypotheses,butbyitsowncomplexityandtheparametersofitsstructures(structuralismproceedsfromhere)itisabsolutelycomparable with the consciousness, thought and social models ofsocialisationandadaptationofothernations.

Infundamentalconservatism,therenunciationofmodernityhasaperfectlyrationalandsystematic form. Ifweobserve fromthatpointofview,weseethatabsolutelyeverythingcomestogether,everythingislogicalandrational,butarisesfromadifferentlogos.Itisalogosinthespaceofwhich‘thesinofbuckwheat’,theParacleteUnion,livingbycandlelight—allthatwhichcallsforth a scornful smile from themodernman—doesnot call forth a smile.Thisisanutterlydifferentregimeofexistence.

StatusQuoConservatism—LiberalConservatismThere isasecond typeofconservatism,whichwehavecalledstatus-quoorliberalconservatism.Itisliberalbecauseitsays‘yes’tothemaintrendthatisrealisedinmodernity.Butateachstageofthistrenditattemptstosteponthe

brakes:‘Let’sgoslower,let’snotdothatnow,let’spostponethat.’Liberalconservativesreasonapproximatelythus:itisgoodthatthereisthe

freeindividual,butthisfreepost-individual, that’salittletoomuch.Ortakethequestionof ‘theendofhistory’.Fukuyamaat firstbelieved thatpoliticshad disappeared, and that it would eventually be entirely replaced by ‘theglobalmarketplace’,inwhichnations,governments,ethnicities,culturesandreligions disappear. But later he decided that one would have to slow theprocess down and implement postmodernity more calmly, withoutrevolutions,becauseinrevolutionstherecouldappearsomethingundesirable,which could disrupt the plan of ‘the end of history’. And then Fukuyamastarted to write that it is necessary to temporarily strengthen nationalgovernments.Thisisalreadyliberalconservatism.

Liberal conservatives do not like Leftists. They also do not like Right-wingers,suchasEvolaandGuénon,either,butthesetheydonotnoticeatall.ButassoonastheyseeLeftists,theyimmediatelysquareup.

Liberal conservatives are distinguished by the following qualitativestructuralcharacteristics:agreementwiththegeneraltrendsofmodernity,butdisagreement with its more avant-garde manifestations, which seemexcessivelydangerousandunhealthy.For instance, theEnglishphilosopher,EdmundBurke,[171]atfirstsympathisedwiththeEnlightenment,butaftertheFrench Revolution, he pushed away from it and developed a liberal-conservative theory with a front-end criticism of revolution and Leftists.Hence the liberal conservative programme: to defend freedom, rights, theindependenceofman,progressandequality,butbyothermeans—throughevolution, not revolution; lest there be, God forbid, a release from somebasement of those dormant energies which with the Jacobins issued in theTerror,[172]andthenintheanti-Terror,andsoon.

Inthisway,liberalconservatismprincipallydoesnotprotestagainstthosetendencieswhichconstitutetheessenceofmodernityandevenpostmodernity,although liberal conservatives before the face of postmodernity will pressdownmore strongly on the brake pedal than before. That is, here at somepointtheycanevenshoutout:‘Halt!’Seeingwhatpostmodernitycarrieswithitself, and having their eyes on Deleuze›s rhizome, they manifestly feelthemselvesoutof theirelement.Besides, theyareafraidthat thequickeningdismantlement ofmodernity,which is being unwrapped into postmodernity,mightliberatethepre-modern.Theywriteofthisfrankly.

Forinstance,theliberalHabermas,[173]whowasonceaLeftist,saysthatif‘WedonotnowpreservethehardspiritoftheEnlightenment,orbeliefintheidealsofthefreesubjectandmoralliberation.Ifwedonotholdmanonthisprecipice, thenwewill flyoffnotonly intochaos,butwewill return to theshadowof tradition,and thesenseof thewaragainst it,whichwas, in fact,represented by modernity.’[174] That is, he fears that fundamental

conservativeswillcome.

BinLadenasSignThefigureofbinLaden,independentofwhetherheisrealorwhetherhewasthoughtupinHollywood,hasafundamentalphilosophicalsignificance.Thisis a formulated caricature of the transition within the framework ofpostmodernity to the pre-modern. It is an ominous warning that the pre-modern(tradition),meaningabeliefinthosevaluesthatweregatheredintoaheapandtakentothejunkyardat theverystartofmodernity,canstillarise.ThephysiognomyofbinLaden,hisgestures,hisappearanceonourscreensand in newspapers andmagazines— this is a philosophical sign. This is asignofwarningtohumanity,comingfromthesideofliberalconservatives.

TheSimulacraofCheGuevaraLiberal conservatives as a rule do not perform that analysis concerning therelation between liberalism and Communism that we performed, and theycontinuetofearCommunism.Wealreadysaidthattheeventsof1991—theend of the Soviet Union — possess colossal philosophical and historicalsignificance, and have few analogues. There are only a few such events inhistory, as in 1991 liberalism proved its exclusive right to the orthodoxinheritanceoftheparadigmofmodernity.Allotherversions—includingthemost important, Communism — proved to be deviations on the path ofmodernity;offshoots,leadingtoanothergoal.Communiststhoughtthattheywere travelling the paths of modernity in the direction of progress, but itbecameclearthattheyweremovingtowardsomeothergoal,setinadifferentconceptual space. But a few liberals suppose even today that ‘Communistsgaveuptheirpositionsonlytemporarily’andmightyetreturn.

Extrapolating false fears, contemporary anti-Communism, to a largerdegree, probably, than contemporary anti-fascism, gives birth to chimeras,spectres, and simulacra. Communism is no longer present (as fascism haslong ceased to be)— in its place there remains a plaster-cast imitation, aharmlessCheGuevara, advertisingmobile telephonesoradorning the shirtsof idle andcomfortablepetty-bourgeoisieyouth. In theepochofmodernity,CheGuevarawastheenemyofcapitalism;intheepochofpostmodernity,headvertises mobile connections on gigantic billboards. This is the style inwhichCommunismcanreturn—intheformofasimulacra.Themeaningofthis commercial gesture consists in the postmodern laughing off of thepretensionsofCommunismtobeanalternativelogoswithintheframeworkofmodernity.

Nevertheless,liberalconservatism,asarule,isastrangertothisirony,and

isnotinclinedtojokewitheither‘Reds’or‘Browns’.Thereasonforthisisthat liberal conservatism fears the relativisation of logos in postmodernity,beinguncertainthattheenemyhasbeencompletelydefeated.Itdreamsthatthe prostrate carcass still stirs, and therefore it does not recommendapproachingittoocloselyormockingit,seeingthisasflirtingwithdanger.

TheConservativeRevolutionThereexistsyeta thirdkindofconservatism.Fromaphilosophicalpointofview,itisthemostinteresting.ThisisafamilyofconservativeideologiesthatitiscustomarytocalltheConservativeRevolution(CR).Thisconstellationofideologiesandpoliticalphilosophiesconsiderstheproblemofthecorrelationbetweenconservatismandmodernitydialectically.

One of the theorists of theConservativeRevolutionwasArthurMoellervan denBruck,whose bookwas recently translated intoRussian.[175] OtherthinkerswhobelongedtothistendencywereMartinHeidegger, thebrothersErnstandFriedrichJünger,CarlSchmitt,OswaldSpengler,WernerSombart,OthmarSpann,FriedrichHielscher,ErnstNiekischandawholeconstellationof mostly German authors, who are sometimes called ‘the dissidents ofNationalSocialism’,because themajorityof them,atsomestage,supportedNational Socialism, but soon found themselves in a state of internalemigration, or even in jail. Many of them participated in the anti-fascistunderground and helped to save Jews. In particular, Friedrich Hielscher, afirst-rateConservativeRevolutionaryandasupporteroftheGermannationalrenaissance, helped the famous Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber,[176] hidefromtheNazis.

ConservativesMustHeadtheRevolutionOne can describe the general paradigm of the Conservative Revolutionaryworldview in the following manner. There exists an objective process ofdegradation in theworld. This is not simply the striving of ‘evil forces’ toperpetratetheirchicanery;itistheforcesoffreedom,theforcesofthemarket,which lead humanity along the path of degeneration. The peak ofdegeneration, from the point of view of Conservative Revolutionaries, ismodernity.Sofar,everythingoverlapswiththetraditionalistposition.But,incontrasttoit,ConservativeRevolutionariesbegintoaskthemselves:whydidithappenthatbeliefinGod,whocreatedtheworld,indivineprovidence,inthesacred, inmyth, transforms ina specificmoment into itsownopposite?Whydoes it slackenandwhyare theenemiesofGodvictorious?A furthersuspicionarises:maybethatremarkablegoldenage,whichthefundamentalistconservativesdefend,carriedinitselfsomekindofgeneoffutureperversion?

Maybethingswerenotallthatgreateveninreligion?Maybethosereligious,sacral and sacred forms of traditional society, which we can still catch aglimpse of up until the onset ofmodernity, carried in themselves a certainelement of decay? And then the Conservative Revolutionaries say to theconservative fundamentalists: ‘Youoffer to return to a conditionwhenmanexhibited only the first symptoms of illness, when there first began thehackingcough.Todaythismanliesdying,butyouspeakofhowgoodthingswereforhimearlier.Youcontrastacoughingmanwithadyingone.Butwewant to dig down to discover fromwhence came the infection andwhyhestartedtocough.Thefactthat,incoughing,hedoesnotdie,butgoestowork,doesnotconvinceusthatheiswholeandhealthy.Somewherethatvirusmusthave nested even earlier…’ ‘We believe’, continue the ConservativeRevolutionaries,‘thatintheverySource,intheveryDeity,intheveryFirstCause, there is drawn up the intention of organising this eschatologicaldrama.’Insuchavision,themodernacquiresaparadoxicalcharacter.Itisnotmerely today’s sickness (in the repudiated present), it is a disclosure intoday’sworldofthatwhichyesterday’sworldpreparedforit(sopreciousfortraditionalists). Modernity does not become better from this; and tradition,meanwhile,losesitsunequivocalpositivity.

OneofthemostimportantformulasofArthurMoellervandenBruckwas:‘Earlierconservativesattemptedtostoptherevolution,butwemustleadit.’This signifies that,havingcome together in solidarity, inpart forpragmaticmotives,withthedestructivetendenciesofmodernity,onemustuncoverandespy that bacillus which, from the beginning, engendered the tendency tofuturedecline—thatis,tomodernity.ConservativeRevolutionarieswantnotonlytoslowtimedown,liketheliberalconservatives,ortoreturntothepastliketraditionalists,buttopulloutfromthestructureoftheworldtherootsofevil, to abolish time as a destructive quality of reality, and in so doingfulfilling some kind of secret, parallel, non-evident intention of the Deityitself.

DaseinandGe-stellTheHeideggerianhistoryofphilosophyisbuiltonasimilarmodel.Dasein,as thefinalandlocalisedbeingofman,begantheraisingof thequestionofbeing — that is, of itself and its surroundings — at the daybreak ofphilosophy. The concept of physis became one of the first conceptionsexpressing this kind of questioning, likening being to nature andconceptualisingitasasequenceof‘ascents’.Thesecondconceptionwastheagrarianmetaphoroflogos,aconceptformedfromtheverblegein—thatis,‘toharvest’,andlaterreceivingthesenseof‘to think’,‘toread’,‘tospeak’.Thepair,physis-logos,accordingtoHeidegger,describingbeing,embraceditin excessivelynarrow frameworks.These frameworkswerenarroweddownfurtherinPlato’steachingaboutideas.Furthermore,Europeanthinkingonly

aggravated alienation from being through increasing rationalism, up to theoblivionofthoughtsaboutbeingaltogether.AtthecuspoftheNineteenthandTwentiethcenturies,thisoblivionspilledoverintonihilism.Ingeneralterms,the definitive essence of the increasing domination of technique inHeideggerianphilosophyisGe-stell,thatispo-stav,[177]theorganisationofallnewalienatingandnihilisticmodels.

But forHeidegger,Ge-stell is not an accident. It expresses by itself thatwhich, on the other side of being, is nothing, as its internal measure. InauthenticDasein, beingandnothingmustbepresent together.But if amanaccentsbeingas‘theuniversal’(koinon)—thatis,onlyasthatwhichis(theidea of physis)— he lets out of sight nothingness, which reminds him ofhimself, leading philosophy to nihilism — through Ge-stell. Thus,contemporarynihilismisnotsimplyevil,butnewsofbeing, turnedtowardsDasein, but given in this complexway.Therefore, the taskofConservativeRevolutionaries is not simply to overcome nothingness and the nihilism ofmodernity, but to untangle the tangle of the history of philosophy and todecipherthemessagecontainedinGe-stell.Thenihilismofmodernity, thus,isnotonlyevil(asforthetraditionalists),butalsoasign,pointingtothedeepstructuresofbeingandtheparadoxeslyingwithinthem.

TheGloomyEndoftheShowConservativeRevolutionariesdespisetheactualtosuchadegreethattheyarenot content to oppose it merely with the past. They say: ‘The actual isdisgusting, but onemust live it through, drive it forward, pull it to its finalend.’

The liberal postmodernist offers ‘an endless end’. Fukuyama’s ‘end ofhistory’ is not simply a disappearance: after the end of history, economictransactionscontinue tooccur;marketscontinue tooperate;hotels,barsandnightclubs shimmer invitingly; exchanges function; dividends are paidaccordingtotheirpriceinthepaper;computerscreensandtelevisionsshine;stocksareissued.Historyisnot,butthemarketandTVare.

Everything is differentwithConservativeRevolutionaries.At the end ofhistory, theycountonmaking theirappearanceon theother sideofDasein,from the troubled space of ‘that side’, and to transform the postmodernistgame into anon-game.The spectacle (‘the societyof the spectacle’ofGuyDebord)[178]willendwithsomethingveryunpleasantforviewersandactors.Initstime,accordingtojustsuchalogic,thereoperatedagroupofSurrealist-Dadaists:ArthurCravan, JacquesRigaut, Julien Torma and JacquesVache,whoglorified suicide.But critics thoughtof this as emptybragging. Inonemoment,thegrouppubliclydidthemselvesin,provingthatartandSurrealismwere,forthem,amatterofsuchgravitythattheygavetheirlivesforit.Here

we can recall Kirilov from Dostoevsky’s Demons,[179] for whom suicidebecameanexpressionofthecompletefreedomthatopenedupafter‘thedeathofGod’.

RecentlyinRussiathereoccurredeventsnolesshorrendous.Forinstance,Nord-Ost.[180]Theobsceneandraunchycomicactor,SashaTsekalo,putsonaperformance, at which an impressive Moscow public is present. ThenChechen terrorists arrive, and at first people think that this is a part of theperformance.Only later,withhorror,do theyunderstand thatsomethingnotrightishappeningonstage,andthentherebeginsareal,nightmarishtragedy.

Conservative Revolutionaries present themselves in an approximatelysimilarmanner:letthebuffooneryofpostmodernismhaveitsturn;letiterodedefinite paradigms, the ego, super-ego and logos; let it join up with therhizome,schizo-massesandsplinteredconsciousness;letnothingcarryalongin itself the substance of the world — then secret doors will open, andancient, eternal, ontological archetypes will come to the surface and, in afrightfulway,willputanendtothegame.

Left-WingConservatism(SocialConservatism)There is still another tendency, so-called Left-wing conservatism or socialconservatism. The typical representative of social conservatism is GeorgesSorel[181](seehisReflectionsonViolence).[182]HeheldbackhisLeftistviews,but at a specific moment discovered that both the Left and the Right(monarchistsandCommunists)fightthesameenemy:thebourgeoisie.

Left-wing conservatism is close to the Russian National Bolshevism ofUstrialov,who detectedRussian nationalmyths under the purelyLeft-wingMarxist ideology. This is even more distinctly set forth in the NationalSocialismofStrasser,[183] and in theNationalBolshevismofNiekisch.SuchLeft-wing conservatism can be brought to the family of the ConservativeRevolution,oritcanbeseparatedintoadistinctschool.

It is interesting that the party United Russia[184] adopted socialconservatism as its informing ideology. This orientation is now beingdevelopedbyAndreiIsayev.AttheotherpoleofUnitedRussiaistheliberalconservatismofPligin.

EurasianismasanEpistemeEurasianism isnotapoliticalphilosophy,butanepisteme. Itconcerns itselfwiththeclassofconservativeideologiesandsharessomecharacteristicswithfundamental conservatism (traditionalism) and with the Conservative

Revolution(includingthesocialconservatismoftheLeftistEurasianists).Theone thing in conservatism that is not acceptable to Eurasianists is liberalconservatism.

Eurasianism,recognisingthepretenceoftheWesternlogostouniversality,refuses to recognize this universality as an inevitability.This is the specificcharacter of Eurasianism. It considers Western culture as a local andtemporary phenomenon, and affirms a multiplicity of cultures andcivilisationswhichcoexistatdifferentmomentsofacycle.ForEurasianists,modernity is a phenomenon peculiar only to theWest,while other culturesmustdivest thesepretensions to theuniversalityofWestern civilisation andbuildtheirsocietiesoninternalvalues.Thereisnosinglehistoricalprocess;everynationhasitsownhistoricalmodel,whichmovesinadifferentrhythmandattimesindifferentdirections.

Eurasianism, in itself, is gnoseological plurality.Theunitary epistemeofmodernity — including science, politics, culture and anthropology — isopposed by the multiplicity of epistemes, built on the foundations of eachexistingcivilisation—theEurasianist episteme forRussiancivilisation, theChinesefortheChinese,theIslamicforIslam,theIndianfortheIndian,andso on. And only on these foundations, cleansed of Western-mandatedepistemes,must long-term sociopolitical, cultural and economic projects bebuilt.

Wesee in thisaspecific formofconservatism,whichdiffers fromother,similarconservativeversions (with theexceptionof liberalconservatism) inthat its alternative tomodernity is not taken from the past or from uniquerevolutionary-conservative ideologies, but from societies historicallycoexisting with Western civilisation, but geographically and culturallydifferentfromit.Inthis,Eurasianismapproaches,inpart,thetraditionalismofGuénon,whoalsothoughtthat‘contemporiety’wasa‘Western’notion,whileformsoftraditionalsocietywerepreservedintheEast.ItisnotaccidentalthatamongRussianauthors,thefirsttorefertoGuénon’sbookEastandWest[185]wastheEurasianistN.N.Alekseev.

Neo-EurasianismNeo-Eurasianism, which appeared in Russia in the late 1980s, completelyapprehended the fundamental points of the previous Eurasianists’ episteme,but it supplemented them with attention to traditionalism, geopolitics,structuralism, the fundamental-ontology of Heidegger, sociology, andanthropology,andlikewisecarriedoutthegigantictaskofproducingconcordbetween thebasic conditionsofEurasianismand the realities of the secondhalfof theTwentiethcenturyandthebeginningof theTwenty-first,withanenumeration of new scientific developments and studies.Today,Eurasianist

journalsarecirculatedinItaly,France,andTurkey.

Neo-Eurasianismisfoundeduponthephilosophicalanalysisofthethesesofmodernityandpostmodernity.DetachmentfromWesterncultureallowsfordistance, thanks to which it is possible to embrace with a glance all ofmodernity,andtosaytoallofthatafundamental‘no’.

In the Twentieth century, modernity and Western civilisation weresystematicallysubjectedtoananalogicalcritiquebySpengler,Toynbee,andespecially the structuralists— in the first place,Lévi-Strauss,who foundedstructuralanthropology.Thisstructuralanthropologyisbasedontheprincipalequalitybetweenvariouscultures,fromtheprimitivetothemostdeveloped,whichdeprivesWesternEuropeancultureofanykindofsuperiorityoverthemost ‘wild’ and ‘primitive’ non-literate tribes.Herewemust recall that theEurasianistsRomanJakobson[186]andNicolaiTrubetskoy,[187] thefoundersofphonology and eminent representatives of structural linguistics, were theteachersofLevi-Straussandtrainedhiminthepracticeofstructuralanalysis,whichhehimselfwillinglyacknowledges.Inthisway,anintellectualchainisretraced—Eurasianism, structuralism, andNeo-Eurasianism. In this sense,Neo-Eurasianism becomes the restoration of a broad spectrum of ideas,insights and intuitions,which the first Eurasianists outlined and intowhichenteredorganicallytheresultsofthescientificactivityofvariousschoolsandauthors (for the most part, those with a conservative orientation) thatdevelopedinparallelthroughouttheentirecourseoftheTwentiethcentury.

T

7.‘CIVILISATION’ASANIDEOLOGICALCONCEPT

TheDemandforaMoreExactDefinitionhereisnoagreementtodayastothemeaningoftheconcept‘civilisation’

in intellectualandscientificcircles—as,bytheway, is thecasewithotherfundamentalterms.Thisspringsfromthefundamentalmeaningofourepoch,shiftingfrommodernitytopostmodernity,whichessentiallyaffectssemanticfieldsandlinguisticforms.And,inasmuchaswefindourselvesinthestageofan unfinished transition, an inconceivable confusion reigns in our ideas:someoneusescustomarytermsintheiroldsense;someonefeelsthenecessityfor semantic displacement and glances into the future (which has not yetcome); someone fantasises (perhaps coming closer to the future, or simplyfalling into individualistic, irrelevant hallucinations); someone else getscompletelyconfused.

Whatever the casemight be, for the correct use of terms, especially keyterms, to which, undoubtedly, the concept of civilisation belongs, it isnecessary today to carry out, let it be elementarily, a deconstruction,tracing[188] the meaning to its historical context, and retracing its basicsemanticshifts.

‘Civilisation’asaPhaseoftheDevelopmentofSocieties

The term ‘civilisation’ received wide circulation in the epoch of the rapiddevelopment of the theory of progress. This theory proceeded from twofundamental, paradigmatic axioms of modernity: the progressive andunidirectionalcharacterofhumandevelopment(fromminustoplus)andtheuniversalityofmanasaphenomenon.Inthiscontext,‘civilisation’,forL.H.Morgan,[189]definesthestageinwhich‘humanity’(intheNineteenthcentury,everyone uncritically believed as one in the evident existence of such aconceptas‘humanity’)commencesafter thestageof‘barbarity’,while that,inturn,replaceswithitselfthestageof‘savagery’.

Marxists adopted such an interpretation of civilisation easily, havingwrittenitintothetheoryoftheevolutionofeconomicsystems.AccordingtoMorgan, Taylor and Engels,[190] ‘savagery’ characterises tribes engaged ingathering and primitive kinds of hunting. ‘Barbarity’ relates to non-literate

societies, occupied with the simplest kinds of rural economy and cattle-breeding,withoutacleardivisionoflabourordevelopmentofsociopoliticalinstitutions. ‘Civilisation’ signifies by itself the stage of the appearance ofletters, sociopolitical institutions, cities, crafts, technological improvements,the division of society into classes, and the appearance of developedtheological and religious systems. ‘Civilisations’ were thought of ashistorically steady and able to be preserved; developing, but with theirprimaryfeaturesremainingconstantoverthecourseofmillennia(suchastheMesopotamian,Egyptian,Indian,Chinese,andRomancivilisations).

‘Civilisation’and‘Empire’However,togetherwiththepurelyhistorical-phasemeaningintheconceptof‘civilisation’, a territorial sense was also included, though less explicitly.‘Civilisation’offeredavastenoughareaofdiffusion;thatis,inadditiontoaconsiderabletemporaldimension,abroadspatialdiffusionwasalsopresumedtocharacteriseit.Inthisterritorialsense,thebordersoftheterm‘civilisation’in part coincidedwith themeaning of theword ‘empire’, in the sense of a‘world power’. ‘Empire’ in this civilisational sense pointed not to thepeculiarityofapoliticalandadministrativearrangement,buttothefactofanactive and intense spread of influence, proceeding from the centres ofcivilisationtothesurroundingterritory,supposedlypopulatedby‘barbarians’or ‘savages’. In other words, in the very concept of civilisation one canalready espy the character of expansion and the export of influencecharacteristicofempires(ancientandmodern).

CivilisationandtheUniversalTypeCivilisationworkedoutanewuniversaltype,qualitativelydifferingfromthemodelsof ‘barbarian’and ‘savage’societies.This typewasmostoftenbuiltonthe‘globalisation’ofthatethno-tribaland/orreligiouscentrethatstoodatthesourceofagivencivilisation.Butinthecourseofthis‘globalisation’,thatis, through the equating of the concrete ethnic, sociopolitical and religiouspatterntothe‘universalstandard’,theveryimportantprocessoftranscendingthe ethnos itself occurred, transferring its natural and organic, most oftenunconsciouslyimparted,traditionintotherankofaman-madeandconscious,rationalsystem.ThecitizensofRome,eveninthefirststagesoftheEmpire,already differed essentially from the typical residents of Latium, while avarietyofMuslims,prayinginArabic,wentfarbeyondtheBedouintribesofArabiaandtheirdirectethnicdescendants.

In thisway,at the timeof themove to ‘civilisation’,socialanthropologyqualitativelychanged:man,turningto‘civilisation’,hadacollectiveidentity

imprinted on a fixed body of spiritual culture, which he was obliged toassimilatetoacertaindegree.

Civilisationassumedarationalandvolitionalforcefromthesideofman;that,whichintheSeventeenthcentury,afterDescartes,philosophersstartedtocall ‘the subject’. But the necessity of such a force, and the presence of amodel,abstractedandfixedintheculture,equaliseditself,toacertainextent,with both the representatives of the core ethnos (of religion), lying at thefoundationof‘civilisation’,andthosewhoendedupinthezoneofinfluencefrom other ethnic contexts. To adopt the foundations of civilisation wasqualitativelyeasierthantobeacceptedintoatribe,inasmuchastherewasforthisnodemand toorganicallyabsorb thegigantic reservoirsofunconsciousarchetypes,buttoperformaseriesofrational,logicaloperations.

CivilisationandCultureInsomecontexts(dependingonthecountryortheauthor)intheNineteenthcentury,theconceptofcivilisationwasidentifiedwiththeconceptofculture.Inothercases,hierarchicalrelationswereestablishedbetweenthem—mostoften, culture was thought of as the spiritual filling of civilisation, whilecivilisationproperlymeant the formal structureof society, answering to themainpointsofthedefinition.

Oswald Spengler, in his famous book The Decline of the West, evencontrasted civilisation and culture, considering the second an expression oftheorganic,vitalspiritofman,butthefirstaproductofthecoolingoffofthatspiritinmechanicalandpurelytechnicalboundaries.AccordingtoSpengler,civilisation is a product of cultural death. However, such a sharp-wittedobservation, correctly interpreting some qualities of contemporaryWesterncivilisation,didnotreceivegeneralacknowledgement;andmostoftentodaythe terms civilisation and culture are used as synonyms, although eachresearchercanhavehisownopiniononthispoint.

PostmodernismandtheSynchronisticUnderstandingofCivilisation

Eventhemostcursorysurveyof themeaningof thetermcivilisationshowsthat,inusingit,wearedealingwithaconceptsaturatedwiththespiritoftheEnlightenment, progressivism and historicism, which was characteristic forthe epochofmodernity in its uncritical stage; that is, until the fundamentalreconsiderations of the Twentieth century. Faith in the progressivedevelopmentofhistory,intheuniversalityofthehumanpathaccordingtoacommon logic of development from savagery to civilisation, was the

distinguishingfeatureof theNineteenthcentury.ButalreadywithNietzscheand Freud, the so-called ‘philosophers of suspicion’, this optimistic axiomstartedtobedoubted.AndoveraperiodoftheTwentiethcentury,Heidegger,the existentialists, traditionalists, structuralists, and at last postmodernistssmashedittobits.

In postmodernity, criticism of historical optimism, universalism andhistoricism acquired a systematic character and established the doctrinalpremisesforatotalrevisionoftheconceptualapparatusofWesternEuropeanphilosophy.Thisrevisionitselfhasnotyetbeencarriedouttoitsconclusion,butwhathasbeendone(byLevi-Strauss,Barthes,Ricoeur,Foucalt,Deleuze,Derrida,andothers)isalreadyenoughtoconvinceoneoftheimpossibilityofusing the dictionary of modernity without a thorough and rigorousdeconstruction.PaulRicoeur,summarisingthethesesofthe‘philosophersofsuspicion’, paints the following picture: man and man’s society consist inrational-conscious components (kerigma, according to Bultmann;‘superstructure’, according to Marx; ‘ego’, to Freud) and the unconscious(properly, ‘structures’ in theStructuralistunderstanding; ‘bases’; ‘thewill topower’ofNietzsche;‘theunconscious’).[191]Andalthoughexternallyitseemsthatthepathofmanleadsdirectlyfromthecaptivityoftheunconscioustothekingdomofreason,andthat thisexactlyrepresentsprogressandthecontentof history, in fact, under the closest scrutiny, it becomes clear that theunconscious (‘myth’) proves much stronger and, as before, considerablypredetermines the work of the intellect. Moreover, reason itself andconscious,logicalactivityisalmostalwaysnothingotherthanagiganticworkof repressing unconscious impulses — in other words, an expression ofcomplexes, strategiesofdisplacement, the substitutionofprojection, and soon. In Marx, the unconscious is played by ‘the forces of production’ and‘industrialrelations’.[192]

Consequently, civilisation does not merely remove ‘savagery’ and‘barbarism’,entirelyovercomingthem,butitselfisbuiltpreciselyon‘savage’and‘barbaric’grounds,which transfer to thesphereof theunconscious,butthere is not only nowhere to escape from this, but, on the contrary, theyacquire unlimited power overman, to a large extent precisely because theyarethoughttobeovercome,andevennon-existent.Thisexplainsthestrikingdifference between the historical practices of nations and societies, full ofwarfare, oppression, cruelty, and wild outbursts of terror, abounding inaggravating psychological disorders, and the pretensions of reason to aharmonious,peacefulandenlightenedexistenceundertheshadowofprogressanddevelopment.Inthisrespect,themoderneraisnotonlynotanexceptionbut also the peak of the intensification of this discrepancy between thepretensionsofreasonandthebloodyrealityofworldwars,ethniccleansing,andthehistoricallyunprecedentedmassgenocidesofentireracesandnarodi[193].Andintermsofsavagery,modernitypossessesthemostperfecttechnicalmeansinventedbycivilisation,rightuptoweaponsofmassdestruction.

Thus, the critical tradition, structuralism and the philosophy ofpostmodernity force one to move from the mainly diachronic (phased)interpretationofcivilisation,whichwasthenormfortheNineteenthcenturyandwhich,by inertia,continues tobewidely inuse, to thesynchronic.Thesynchronicapproachassumesthatcivilisationcomesnotinsteadofsavageryorbarbarity,notafter them,but togetherwith themandcontinues tocoexistwith them. One can imagine civilisation as the numerator, and savagery-barbarism as the denominator of a conditional fraction. Civilisation affectsconsciousness,buttheunconscious,throughtheunceasing‘workofdreams’(Freud),[194]constantlymisinterpretseverythinginitsfavour.Savageryisthatwhichexplainscivilisation,andisthekeytoit.Itturnsoutthatmanhurriedtoproclaim ‘civilisation’ as that which already actually happened, while itremains not more than an incomplete plan, constantly suffering disruptionundertheonslaughtofthecunningenergiesoftheunconscious(howeverwemightunderstandit:asNietzschean‘willtopower’,orpsychoanalytically).

TheDeconstructionofCivilisationHow, in practice, can one apply the structuralist approach for thedeconstructionoftheconceptofcivilisation?Incompliancewiththegenerallogic of this operation, one should subject to doubt the irreversibility andnovelty of thatwhich constitutes the basic characteristics of civilisation, incontrastwithsavageryandbarbarity.

Themaincharacteristicofcivilisation isoften thought tobean inclusiveuniversality; that is, the theoretical openness of the civilisational code forthosewhowouldliketojoinitfromwithout.Inclusiveuniversalityis,atfirstglance, the complete antithesis of exclusive particularity, the primarycharacteristicoftribalandancestralsocietiesofthepre-civilisationalperiod.Butthehistoricalpretensionsofcivilisationtouniversality—ecumenicalism,and,correspondingly,uniqueness—constantlypushedagainst the fact that,besides the ‘barbarian’ nations, beyond the borders of such a civilisation,thereexistedothercivilisations,withtheirownuniqueanddifferentvariantsof universalism. In this case, a logical contradiction was placed beforecivilisation:eitheronemustadmit that thepretension touniversalityprovesgroundless, or onemust include the other civilisation(s) in the category ofbarbarians.

Whilerecognisingthisgroundlessness,variousdecisionscanalsofollow:eithertotrytofindasyncreticmodelof theunificationofbothcivilisations(at least in theory) into ageneral system,or to admit the correctnessof theothercivilisation.Asarule,inconfrontingsuchaproblem,‘civilisation’actsonthebasisofanexclusive(notinclusive)principle,andconsiderstheothercivilisation defective; that is, ‘barbaric’, ‘heretical’, or ‘particular’. In otherwords,wearedealingwiththetransferofthepreviouslytribalethnocentrism

to ahigher levelofgeneralisation. Inclusivityanduniversalism, inpractice,turn intoafamiliarexclusivityandparticularismthat isusuallyattributed tosavagery.

This iseasytorecognisein thefollowing,strikingexamples: theGreeks,consideringthemselvesasacivilisation,numberedeveryoneelseamongthebarbarians.Theoriginoftheword‘barbarian’istheonomatopeicpejorative,signifying him whose speech makes no sense and is a bundle of animalsounds. Many tribes have a similar relationship to members of a differenttribe: not understanding their language, they think the others have nolanguageatall;consequently, theydonotconsider thempeople.Fromhere,incidentally, is derived the Slavic tribal name nemtsie (Germans), that isnemie (dumb,silent,mute),forthosewhodonotknowwhatanyonecallinghimselfamanshouldknow:theRussianlanguage.

AmongtheancientPersians,whorepresentedpreciselyacivilisationwithpretensionstotheuniversalityintheformoftheirMazdianreligion,thiswasexpressedevenmoreclearly:divisionintoIran(people)andTuran(demons)wasdrawnonthelevelofreligion,cults,ritesandethics.Themattercametothepointoftheabsolutisingofendogenousrelationsandthenormalisationofincest,inorderthatthesolarsunoftheIranians(AhuraMazda)wouldnotbeprofanedbytheimpuritiesofthesonsofAngra-Mainyu.

Judaismasaworldreligion,havingpretensionstouniversalismandhavinglaid the theological foundationsofmonotheism—both forChristianityandforIslam,whichweredevelopedbyafewcivilisationssimultaneously—is,tothisday,almostethnicallylimitedtotheblood-tribesbytheHalakhah.[195]

The tribal system is based on initiation, in the course of which theneophyte is informedabout the foundationsof the tribalmythology.On thecivilisationallevel,thissamefunctionisplayedbyreligiousinstitutions;andin comparatively later epochs, by the system of common education, madedeliberately ideological. Neophytes learn the myths of modernity in otherconditions and under another veneer, but their functional value remainsconstant, while their foundation (if one takes into account the Freudiananalysisofthesubstitution-repressionactionsofreasonandthe‘ego’)hasnotstrayedfarfromlegendandtradition.

In a word, even a rough deconstruction of civilisation shows that theclaimstoovercomingpreviousphasesareillusions,whileinpractice,bigand‘developed’collectivesofpeople,united ina civilisation, inessence simplyrepeat,onadifferentlevel,thearchetypesofthebehaviourandmoralsystemsof ‘savages’. Hence, endless and ever bloodier wars, double standards ininternationalpolitics,fitsofpassioninprivatelife,andtheconstantlybrokenethical and normative codes ofmoderate and rational societies.DevelopingRousseau’s idea of the ‘noble savage’ (Rousseau, by the way, sharplycriticisedcivilisationasaphenomenonandthoughtof itasthesourceofallevil), one can say that the ‘civilised’ man is none other than the ‘wicked

savage’,adefectiveandperverted‘barbarian’.[196]

TheSynchronicandPluralUnderstandingofCivilisationPrevailsToday

With these preliminary observations, we can at last turn to that which weincludetodayintheconceptofcivilisation,whenwedevelopHuntington’s[197]thesis about ‘the clashof civilisations’ or raiseobjections to itwith the ex-PresidentofIranKhatami,insistingupon‘adialogueofcivilisations’.

The very fact that there is hardly any consensus in the use of the term‘civilisation’ evidently shows that the phased (purely historical orprogressive) interpretation of that concept, prevailing in themodern epoch,and generally accepted in the Nineteenth and first half of the Twentiethcenturies,hasclearlylostitsrelevancetoday.

Only the most outdated researchers, who are stuck in the uncriticalmodernityofKantorBentham,[198]cancontrast ‘civilisation’and‘barbarity’today.Althoughitiscomfortabletousethetermcivilisationinstrumentallyina historical analysis in the description of ancient types of societies, still, itclearly lost its ideological charge as a global positive in comparisonwith aglobal negative (barbarism and savagery). Universalism, gradualness ofdevelopment, the anthropological unity of human history — on thephilosophicallevel,allofthishaslongbeenputintoquestion.Byhisstudiesin structural anthropology, based on the richest ethnographic andmythologicalmaterialof the lifeofNorthandSouthAmerican tribes,Levi-Straussconvincinglyshowedthattheconceptualandmythologicalsystemsofthose same ‘primitive’ societies, by their complexity, richness of nuance,connections and functional elaborations of differentiations, are in no wayinferiortothoseofmorecivilisedcountries.

In political discourse, there is still talk of ‘the privileges of civilisation’,but even this already looks anachronistic. We confronted such a spike ofuncritical ignorance when liberal-reformers tried to present the history ofRussia as a continuous chain of unchecked barbarity in the face of‘flourishing’, ‘resplendent’, and ‘established’Westerncivilisation.However,eventhiswasnotonlyanextrapolationofthebravado-based,propagandisticpretensions of the West itself and a result of the network of influence’sinduction, but also a form of Russian cargo-cults: the first McDonald’s,private banks and clips of rock bands shown on Soviet television wereperceivedas‘sacralobjects’.

With the exception of these propagandistic symbols or the hopelessbackwardnessofuncriticalphilosophers,intheframeworkofanevendistantfamiliaritywithcontemporaryphilosophy,still theconceptofcivilisation,in

discoursethatdoesnotcontradictthemainstream,isinterpretedwithoutanymoral charge whatsoever, but is used as a technical term, and implies notsomethingopposedtobarbarismandsavagery,buttoanothercivilisation.InHuntington’s famous and aforementioned article, there is not aword aboutbarbarism; he speaks exclusively of the borders, structures, peculiarities,frictions and differences of various civilisationswhich are opposed to eachother.And this feature is one of not only those of his positions or lines ofargument stemming from Toynbee, whom Huntington clearly follows. Theuse of this term in the contemporary context already suggests a blatantpluralism,comparativism,and,ifyoulike,synchronism.Here,philosophicalcriticism and the reconsideration of modernity, implemented in a thousanddifferentwaysinthecourseofthewholeTwentiethcentury,areimmediatelyimpactful.

And so, if we dismiss the recurrences of uncritical liberalism and thenarrow-minded naïvety of pro-American and pro-Western propaganda, wewill see that today the term civilisation, in operational and active politicalanalysis, is used above all synchronically and functionally, in order todesignate wide and stable geographical and cultural zones, united byapproximately common spiritual, moral, stylistic and psychologicalarrangementsandhistoricalexperience.

Civilisation in the context of the Twenty-first century signifies preciselythis: a zone of the steady and rooted influence of a definite social-culturalstyle,mostoften(thoughnotnecessarily)coincidingwiththebordersof thediffusion of the world religions. And the political formation of separatesegmentsenteringintoacivilisationcanberatherdifferent:civilisations,asarule,arebroaderthanonegovernment,andcanconsistofsomeorevenmanycountries; moreover, the borders of some civilisations cross countries,dividingtheminparts.

If,inAntiquity,‘civilisations’mostoftencoincidedwithempires,andwereinonewayoranotherpoliticallyunited,thentodaytheirborderscorrespondtoinvisiblelines,irrelevantlysuperimposedontotheadministrativebordersofgovernments.Someofthesegovernmentswereneverapartofasingleempire(for instance,Islamspreadalmosteverywhereintheconquestsof theArabswhobuilttheworldCaliphate).Othersdidnotshareacommonstatehood,butwere united among themselves in different ways: religiously, culturally orracially.

TheCrisisofClassicalModelsofHistoricalAnalysis(Classical,Economic,Liberal,Racial)

Wehaveestablishedthat,intheuseofthetermcivilisationintheTwentiethcentury and in the framework of criticisms of modernity, there occurred a

qualitativeshifttothesideofsynchronicityandplurality.Butcanonetakeastepfurtherandattempttounderstandwhy,infact,thiswordusagebecamesotopical inpreciselyour time? Indeed, theearlier conceptof civilisationwasnotasubjectofdeliberateproblematisation,whileitwascustomaryonlyforhumanitarianandacademiccirclestothinkintermsofsuchacategory.Otherapproaches — economic, national, racial, class-based — dominated inpolitical and, closely related to it, political sciencediscourse.Todaywe seethat to think only in terms of economics, to speak of national governmentsandnationalinterests,andmoreso,toputclassanalysisortheracialapproachattheheadofone’sanalysis,islessandlessacceptable.Andonthecontrary,itisrarethatsomestatementorspeechofapoliticalactorpassesbywithoutamentionofthewordcivilisation,tosaynothingofpoliticalandanalytictexts,wherethistermisperhapsmostprevalent.

With Huntington, in fact, we see the attempt to make civilisation thecentralmomentofpolitical, historical and strategic analysis.Weare clearlyonourwaytothinkingintermsofcivilisations.

Hereweshouldlookmoreattentivelyatthatwhich,preciselyinthemainversionsofpoliticalsciencediscourse,substitutes itself for ‘civilisation’.TospeakseriouslyofracesisnotacceptableafterthetragichistoryofEuropeanfascism.Class-based analysis in themainstreambecame irrelevant after thefallofsocialismandthebreakupoftheUSSR.Andatthatmoment,itseemedthat the sole paradigmof political sciencewouldbe liberalism.Meanwhile,the impression grew that the national borders of homogenous, essentiallyliberal-democraticgovernments,nolongerconfrontinganykindofsystematicalternatives laying claim to a planetary scope (after the fall of Marxism),wouldsoonbeabolished,andaworldleadershipandaone-worldgovernmentwould be established with a homogenous market economy, parliamentarydemocracy (world parliament), a liberal system of values and a commoninfrastructureofinformationtechnology.In1990,FrancisFukuyamaemergedastheheraldofsuchawonderfulnewworldinhispolicybook,TheEndofHistoryandtheLastMan.Fukuyamabroughtthedevelopmentofthephasedinterpretationof theconceptofcivilisation to its logicalconclusion: theendof history, in his version, signified the final defeat of civilisation overbarbarisminallitsforms,guisesandvariants.

Huntington arguedwith Fukuyama, advancing as hismain argument thefact that the end of the opposition of the clearly-defined ideologies ofmodernity (Marxism and Liberalism) in no way signified the automaticintegrationof humanity into aunified liberal utopia, inasmuch asunder theformal constructions of national governments and ideological camps werefound deep tectonic plates; as it were — continents of collectiveunconsciousness,which,assoonbecameclear,werebynomeansovercomeby modernisation, colonisation, ideologisation and enlightenment, and asbefore,predeterminedthemostimportantaspectsoflife—includingpolitics,economics and geopolitics— in one or another segment of human society

accordingtotheirbelongingtoacivilisation.Inotherwords,Huntingtonproposedtointroducetheconcept‘civilisation’

asafundamentalideologicalconcept,andcalledforthereplacementnotonlyof the class-based analysis, but also of the liberal utopia, which took tooearnestly anduncritically thepropagandistic demagogueryof theColdWar,andthusbecame,initsturn,itsvictim.Capitalism,themarket,liberalism,anddemocracy seem universal and commonly human only externally. Eachcivilisationreinterpretsitssubstanceinaccordancewithitsownunconscioustemplates,where religion, culture, language andpsychologyplay amassiveandoftendecisiverole.

Inthiscontext,civilisationacquiresacentralsignificanceintheanalysisofpoliticalscience,steppingintofirstplaceandreplacingwithitselftheclichésoftheliberalVulgate.

Theunfoldingofeventsinthe1990sshowsthatHuntingtonprovedinthisargumenttobeclosertothetruth,andFukuyamahimselfisobligedinparttoreconsiderhisviews,havingadmitted thatheevidentlyspoke toosoon.ButthisveryrevisionbyFukuyamaofthethesisof‘theendofhistory’demandsamorethoroughreconsideration.

TheStepBackoftheLiberalUtopians:StateBuilding

Theproblemis thatFukuyama,analyzing thediscrepancyofhispredictionsabout‘theendofhistory’throughtheprismoftheglobalvictoryofliberalismstill tried to stay in the framework of that logic, from which he at firstproceeded. Consequently, he needed to implement a one-time reality checkandtoturnasidefromthat,inordertoadmitthecorrectnessofhisopponentHuntington,who,inhisforecast,provedbyallsignsclosertothetruth.ThenFukuyamamadethefollowingconceptualmove:heproposedtodefertheendofhistorytoanindefinitedate,andmeanwhiletoengageinthestrengtheningofthosesociopoliticalstructuresthatwerethenucleusoftheliberalideologyinitspreviousstages.Fukuyamaadvancedanewthesis:‘state-building’.Asan intermediate stage for the transition to global government and worldleadership, he recommended strengthening national governments with aliberal economy and democratic system of rule, in order to morefundamentally and profoundly work the soil for the final victory of worldliberalismandglobalisation.Thisisnotarejectionoftheperspective;thisisits postponement until the indefinite future with a concrete propositionconcerningtheintermediatestage.

Fukuyama says almost nothing about the concept of civilisation, butclearly takes intoaccountHuntington’s theses, indirectlyrespondingtohim:thesteadydevelopmentofnationalgovernments,whichprovedcrampedboth

in theepochofcolonisation, in theepochofnational-liberationmovements,and in theepochof the ideologicaloppositionof the twocamps,mustnowproceedinduecourse.Itisthiswhichwillleadgraduallytodifferentsocietiesadoptingthemarket,democracyandhumanrights,uprootingtheremainsofthe unconscious and preparing a more fail-safe (than now) soil forglobalisation.

ThomasBarnett’sTheWorldasNetworkInAmericanpoliticalscienceandforeignpolicyanalysis, therealsoexistsanewpromulgationofapurelyglobaltheory,presentedthistimeintheessaysofThomasBarnett.[199]Themeaningof thisconceptioncomesdownto this:that technological development establishes a zonal divisionof all territoriesonEarthintothreeregions:thecore,thezoneofconnectedness,andthezoneof disconnectedness. Barnett thinks that network processes freely penetratethrough borders, governments and civilisations, and structure the strategicspaceof theworld in theirownway.TheUSAandEuropeanUnionare thecore; there are concentrated all the codes of the new technologies and thedecision-makingcentres.Themajorityofothercountries,doomedtoa‘user’relationship to thenetwork,constitute the ‘zoneofconnectedness’ (theyarecompelled touseready-made technologicalmeansand toadjust to therulesthatareworkedoutbythecore).Tothe‘zoneofdisconnectedness’belongthecountries and political forces that have stood up in direct opposition to theUSA,theWestandglobalisation.[200]

For Thomas Barnett (as for Daniel Bell), ‘technology is fate’; in it isembodiedthequintessenceofcivilisation,understoodpurelytechnologically,almostaswithSpengler,butwithapositivesign.

TheAmericanViewoftheWorldSystem(ThreeVersions)

InAmericanpolitical analysis—andwemust recognise that it ispreciselytheAmericanswhosetthetoneinthisregion—allthreeconceptionsoftheseparation of subjects on the map of the world coexist. Globalism andcivilisation(inasingularsense),inthespiritofFukuyama’searlierideas,arereflected in Barnett’s constructions. Here, only the core is recognised as asubject;therestissubjecttoexternaldirection,thatis,tode-subjectivisationandde-sovereignisation.

Fukuyamahimself,criticallyexamininghisearlier,optimistic statements,takesanintermediateposition,insistingthatonemust,forsometimelonger,recognise‘nationalgovernments’asasubject,thedevelopmentofwhichmust

prepareamoresecuregroundforthecomingglobalism.And finally, Huntington and the supporters of his approach think that

civilisationsareexcessivelygrandandfoundationalrealities,whichcanwelllayclaimtothestatusofbeingtheglobalsubjectsofworldpolitics.Whentheprevious ideologicalmodelscollapsed,nationalgovernmentsstarted to lose,in leapsandbounds, the real stuffofsovereigntyunder the influenceof theseparate, effective aspects of globalisation, but globalisation itself, whilebreakingoldborders,wasandisunabletoactuallypenetrateintothedepthsofsocietieswithsettledtraditionalcomponents.

It is significant that those forces in theworldwhich strive to slip awayfrom globalisation, Westernisation and American hegemony in order topreserve and strengthen anew their traditional identity hold to preciselyHuntington’s thesis.Only in place of the gloomy, catastrophic discourse ofHuntington concerning ‘collision’ and ‘conflict’, they started talking about‘dialogue’.Butthisalmostpropagandistic,moralisticnuanceshouldnotleadusintoamisunderstandingconcerningthemostimportanttaskofthosewholargely accept Huntington’s model. In the first place, this is the IranianPresident Khatami’s. juxtapositioning of ‘collision’ or ‘dialogue’ — thequestion is secondary and practical;muchmore important is the principledagreement that precisely civilisation becomes today the foundational,conceptualanalyticsubjectofinternationalpolitics.

Inotherwords,incontrasttobothglobalist-maximalists(likeBarnett)andto moderate liberal-statists, the supporters of the civilisational methodexplicitly or implicitly take their stand on the position of a structuralist,philosophicalapproachtotheunderstandingofworldprocesses.

Themarkingoutofcivilisationasthefoundationalsubject,poleandactorof contemporaryworld politics is themost promising ideological approach,both for those whowant to objectively evaluate the real state of affairs inworld politics, for those who are striving to select an adequate toolkit forpolitical science’s generalisations of the new epoch, the epoch ofpostmodernity, and for those who are striving to defend their own uniqueidentityintheconditionsofaprogressiveblendingandalsooftherealattacksofnetworkglobalisation.Inotherwords,theappealtocivilisationsallowsonetoorganicallyfilltheideologicalvacuumthatwasformedafterthehistoricalcrisis of all theories that had opposed liberalism, and also after the internalcrisisofliberalismitself,whichwasunabletohandletheguardianshipofthecontemporary world space, as the unfortunate experience of Fukuyama’sutopiaconfirms.

Civilisation as a concept construed in the contemporary philosophicalcontext proves to be the centre of a new ideology. This ideology can bedescribedasmultipolarity.

TheScantinessoftheIdeologicalArsenalof

OpponentsofGlobalismandtheUnipolarWorldOpposition to globalism, which announces itself ever more loudly on alllevels and in all corners of the planet, has not yet formed into a concretesystemofviews.Inthisistheweaknessoftheanti-globalistmovement;itisunsystematic and deprived of ideological orderliness; patchy and chaoticelements prevail in it, most often representing an inarticulate mixture ofanarchism, irrelevant Leftism, ecology and even more extravagant andmarginalideas.Init,third-ratelosersofWesterngauchism[201]layclaimtotheleading roles. In other cases, globalisation collideswith resistance from theside of national governments,which do notwish to give over part of theirsovereign authority to external control. And finally, the representatives oftraditional religion, as well as supporters of ethnic and religiousindependence, actively resist globalisation and its Atlantic-Western liberal-democratic code, its networked nature and its value system (individualism,hedonism,laxity);weseethisespeciallyclearlyintheIslamicworld.

These three existing levels of opposition to globalisation and Americanhegemony are unable to lead to the development of a general strategy anddistinct ideology, which would be able to unite different and disconnectedforces, at times incomparable in scale and oriented in contrary ways inrelation to local problems. The anti-globalist movement suffers from ‘thedisease of infantile Leftism’ and is blocked by the experience of a wholeseriesofdefeatssufferedbytheglobalLeftistmovementinthelastcentury.National governments, as a rule, do not have enough of a scope to throwdowna challenge to the highly developed technologicalmight of theWest;besides,theirpoliticalandespeciallyeconomicelitesarecompletelyinvolvedintransnationalprojects,dependentonthatveryWest;whilelocal,ethnicandreligious movements and communities, although they can, at certainmoments, prove to be an effective opposition to globalisation, are toouncoordinatedtocountoninearnestforachangeinthefoundationaltrendsoftheworld,orevenforacorrectionofcourse.

TheMeaningoftheConcept‘Civilisation’inOppositiontoGlobalisation

Insuchasituation,theconceptofcivilisationcomestohelpasafundamentalcategory for the organisation of a full-blown alternative project on aworldscale. Ifoneputs thisconceptat thecentreofattention, thenonecanfindabasis foraharmonicresonanceofalignmentofbroadgovernmental,public,social and political forces into a general system. One can unite under thebanner of a multiplicity of civilizations, peoples, and religious and ethniccommunities living under various governments, offering them a common,centralisedidea(intheframeworkofaconcretecivilisation)andleavingthem

manychoicesforthehuntforidentityinsideit,allowingforthecoexistenceofcivilisations,differingaccordingtotheirfundamentalparameters.

Andsuchaperspectiveabsolutelydoesnotnecessarilyleadtoa‘clashofcivilisations’,Huntingtonnotwithstanding.Herebothconflicts andalliancesarepossible.Themostimportantthingisthatamultipolarworld,emerginginsuchaninstance,willcreatetherealpreconditionsforthecontinuationofthepoliticalhistoryofmankind,inasmuchasitwillnormativelyaffirmavarietyofsociopolitical,religious,moral,economicandculturalsystems.Otherwise,simpleandsporadicoppositiontoglobalismonalocal leveloronbehalfofanideologicallyamorphousmassofanti-globalists(andthatinthebestcase)willonlypostponethis’end’,andwillputthebrakesonitsonset,butwillnotbecomearealalternative.

Toward‘LargeSpaces’TheselectionofcivilisationasthesubjectofworldpoliticsintheTwenty-firstcentury will allow one to conduct ‘regional globalisation’, a unificationbetween themselves of countries and narodi, relating to one and the samecivilisation.Thiswillallowonetomakeuseofthebenefitofsocialopenness,notinrelationtoeveryonesimultaneously,butratherinthefirstplacetothosewhobelongtoacommoncivilisationaltype.

Anexampleofsuchintegrationalongcivilisationalcriteriaisaffordedbythe new supranational political organisation of the EuropeanUnion. It is aprototype of ‘regional globalisation’, including in its boundaries thosecountriesandculturesthathaveacommonculture,historyandvalue-system.But, having admitted the undoubted right of Europeans to form a newpoliticalsubjectonthebasisoftheirowncivilisationaldifferences,itisrathernaturaltoadmitananalogicalprocessintheIslamic,Chinese,Eurasian,LatinAmerican,andtheAfricancivilisations.

AfterCarl Schmitt, it is customary in political science to call analogicalprojectsofintegration‘largespaces’.[202] Ineconomics,evenbeforeSchmitt,this was theoretically understood and employed in practice with colossalsuccessbythecreatorofthemodeloftheGerman‘customsunion’,Friedrichvon List.[203] The ‘large space’ is a different name for that, which weunderstandby‘civilisation’initsgeopolitical,spatialandculturalsenses.The‘largespace’differsfromotherexistingnationalgovernmentspreciselyinthatitisbuiltonthefoundationofacommonvaluesystemandhistoricalkinship,and it also unifies a fewor even amultitudeof different governments, tiedtogether by a ‘community of fate’. In various large spaces, the integratingfactor can vary; somewhere it will be religion; somewhere ethnic origin;somewhere, cultural form; somewhere, the sociopolitical type; somewhere,geographicposition.

Animportantprecedent:thecreationofaEuropeanUnionshowsthattheembodimentofthe‘largespace’inpractice,thetransitionfromagovernmentto a supra-governmental establishment, built on the foundation ofcivilisational commonality, is possible, constructive and, despite all internalproblems,positivelyunfoldsinreality.

ARegisterofCivilisationsIncontrasttonationalgovernments,itispossibletoargueaboutthenumberandbordersbetweencivilisations.Huntingtonseparatesoutthefollowing:

1.Western,2.Confucian(Chinese),3.Japanese,4.Islamic,5.Indian,6.Slavic-Orthodox,

7.LatinAmerican,andpossibly,8.Africancivilisations.

However, some considerations force themselves on us.Huntington includestheUSAandCanadainWesterncivilisationwithEurope.Historicallythisisaccurate, but today, from a geopolitical point of view, they constitute inrelation to one another two different ‘large spaces’, the strategic, economicandevengeopoliticalinterestsofwhichdivergeevermoreandmore.Europehas two identities: the ‘Atlantic’ (for which it is entirely fair to identifyEuropeandNorthAmerica)andthe‘Continental’(which,onthecontrary,isstronglyattractedtotheconstructionofindependentpoliciesandtothereturnof Europe to history as an independent player, and not as a mere militarybeachheadforitsNorthAmerican‘youngerbrother’).

EuroatlantismhasitsheadquartersinEnglandandthecountriesofEasternEurope (which are moved by an inertial Russophobia), whileEurocontinentalismhasitsinFranceandGermany,withthesupportofSpainand Italy (this is classicOld Europe). The civilisation is, in any case, one,Western, but its ‘large spaces’, it may be, will be organised somewhatdifferently.

BySlavic-OrthodoxcivilisationitismoreaccuratetounderstandEurasiancivilisation, towhichbelonghistorically,organicallyandculturallynotonlytheSlavsandnotonlytheOrthodox,butalsootherethnicities(includingtheTurks, Caucasians, Siberians, and so on) and a significant portion of thepopulationprofessingIslam.

The Islamic world itself, undoubtedly, united religiously with theconstantlygrowingawarenessofitsownidentity,initsturnisseparatedintoafew ‘large spaces’: ‘theArabworld’, ‘the zone of continental Islam’ (Iran,Afghanistan, Pakistan) and the diffusion of Islam in the Pacific region. AspecialplaceinthispictureisoccupiedbytheMuslimsofAfrica,butalsobythe constantly growing communities of Europe and America. And,nevertheless,Islamispreciselyacivilisation,moreandmorerecognisingitspeculiarity and its difference from other civilisations, and in the first placefrom liberal-Westerncivilisation,whichhasbeenactively treadingupon theIslamicworldinthecourseofglobalisation.

It is complicated to establish borders between the zones of influence ofJapanese andChinese civilisation in thePacific region,whose civilisationalidentityremainsopentoasignificantdegree.

And,ofcourse,itisdifficultfornowtospeakofacommonconsciousness

oftheinhabitantsoftheAfricancontinent,althoughinthefuturethissituationmightchange,inasmuchasinthepresentprocessthereisatanyratehistoricalprecedent,suchasintheAfricanUnion,[204]butalsointheexistenceofaPan-Africanidea.

The growing intimacy between the countries of LatinAmerica in recentyearsisevident,especiallyconsideringthefactofNorthAmericanpressure,althoughitistooearlyfornowtospeakofprocessesofintegration.

There are no existing barriers at all to the integration of the EurasianexpansearoundRussia, inasmuchas thesezoneswerepolitically,culturally,economically,sociallyandpsychologicallyunitedduringthecourseofmanycenturies.TheWesternborderof theEurasianist civilisationgoes somewhatmore East of the Western border of the Ukraine, making that newly-formulatedgovernmentafortiorifragileandnotviable.

Essentially,theenumerationofcivilisationsgivesusanideaofthequantityofpolesinamultipolarworld.Allofthem—besidestheWest—dwell,sofar, inapotentialcondition,butat thesame timeeachof thesecivilisationshasserious,impressivegroundstomovetowardintegrationandtobecomeafull-fledgedsubjectofthehistoryoftheTwenty-firstcentury.

TheMultipolarIdealTheideaofamultipolarworld,wherethepoleswillbeasmanyastherearecivilisations, allows one to propose to humanity a broad choice of cultural,paradigmatic,socialandspiritualalternatives.Weshallhaveamodelwiththeavailabilityof ‘regional universalism’ in concrete ‘large spaces’,whichwillgivetoenormouszonesandsignificantsegmentsofhumanityanunavoidablesocial dynamic, characteristic of globalisation and openness, but withoutthoseshortcomingsthatglobalisationhastakenonaglobalscale.Moreover,in such a system, regionalism and the autonomous and independentdevelopmentof local,ethnicandreligiouscommunitiescanbedevelopedatfullspeed,inasmuchasthemoreunifyingpressure,characteristicofnationalgovernments, weakens considerably (we see this in the European Union,whereintegrationconsiderablyfacilitatesthedevelopmentoflocalcommunesandsocalledEuroregions).[205]Inaddition,weshallbeableatlasttodecidethe fundamental contradiction between exclusivism and inclusivism of the‘imperial’identity:theplanetwillpresentitselfnotasone,soleoecumene[206](withtheinherent‘culturalracism’ofthissolitarinessinthedistributionofthetitlesof‘civilisednations’,asopposedto‘barbarians’and‘savages’)butasafewoecumenes, a few ‘heavens’,where therewill live side-by-side in theirrhythm,intheircontext,intheirowntime,withtheirownconsciousnessandunconsciousness,notone‘humanity’,butafew.

It is impossible to say beforehand how relations between themwill turnout.Surely,bothdialogueandcollisionswill emerge.But somethingelse ismore important: history will continue, and we will return from thatfundamental historical dead-end to which uncritical faith in progress,rationalityandthegradualdevelopmentofhumanitydroveus.

Something inmanchangeswith time,butsomethingremainseternalandinvariable.Civilisationallowsonetostrictlydevelopeverythinginitsplace.Reasonandthephilosophical,social,political,andeconomicsystemscreatedbyitwillbeabletodevelopaccordingtotheirownlines,whilethecollectiveunconscious will freely preserve its archetypes, its basis and inviolability.Moreover, in every civilisation, both rationality and the unconscious canaffirm their own standards, secure their correctness, and strengthen themorchangethemaccordingtoitsowndiscretion.

There will be no universal standard, neither in the material nor in thespiritual aspect. Each civilisation will at last receive the right to freelyproclaim that which is, according to its wishes, the measure of things.Somewhere that will be man, somewhere religion, somewhere ethics,somewherematerialism.

Butinorderthattheprojectofmultipolaritycanrealiseitself,wemuststillsurvivemorethanafewskirmishes.Andinthefirstplace,itisnecessarytogetthebetterofthefirstandforemostenemy:globalisation,thestrivingoftheAtlanticWesternpole tohang itsunipolarhegemonyonall thenations andcountries on Earth.Despite the deep and sure observations of its own bestintellectuals,manyrepresentativesof thepoliticalestablishmentof theUSAcontinue as before to use the term ‘civilisation’ in a singular sense,understanding by it ‘American civilisation’. This is the real challenge, towhich all nations of the Earth, and Russians most of all, must give anadequateresponse.

I

8.THETRANSFORMATIONOFTHELEFTINTHETWENTY-FIRSTCENTURY

TheLeftistPhilosophyinCrisisn contrast to the situation that ruled in the sphere of political ideas and

projects one hundred years ago, to speak of the presence of some kind ofclearlydeterminedspaceforLeftist(socialistorCommunist)projectsisnowimpossible. The problem is that, at the end of the Twentieth century, thereoccurred a fundamental crisis of expectations, connected with Leftistmovements, Leftist ideas, Leftist philosophy and Leftist politics. This isaboveallconnectedtothebreakupoftheSovietUnionandthefallingapartof the socialist camp, and also to the loss of influence and prestige ofEuropeanMarxism,whichataspecific timepracticallybecame‘thereserveideology’ofWesternEurope.

Moreover,evenatthebestoftimes,theLeftistprojectwasnotsomethinguniformanduniversal, and the fateofLeftist ideas in the concretepoliticalpracticeofvariouspeoplesshowedthat,evenfromapurelytheoreticalpointof view, within the Leftist political philosophy itself, various foundationaltendenciesexist,whichoneshouldstudyseparately.

Leftist political philosophy from the beginning was thought of as afundamental, general and systematic criticism of liberal capitalism. In themiddleoftheTwentiethcentury,therearosethephenomenonofasystematiccritiqueoftheLeftistproject(bothfromthesideofliberals—Hayek,Popper,Aron, and so on, as well as from the side of neo-Marxists and Freudian-Marxists);with theLeftist ideology itself, the philosophical schools carriedout the same thing that the Leftist ideology carried out concerning liberalcapitalism100,or150yearsago.

ThreeVarietiesofLeftistIdeologyFrom the position of today’s historical experience, one can identify threefoundationaldirections inLeftistpoliticalphilosophy,which either continuealonganewbranchofpreviousideologicaldevelopment,rethinkthepast,oroffersomethingradicallynew.Theyare:

•TheOldLeft(French:vetero-gauche);

•LeftNationalists(NationalCommunists,NationalBolsheviksorNationalGauchists);

•NewLeft(neo-Gauchists,Postmoderns).

The first two tendencies existed at the end of the Nineteenth century andthroughout the Twentieth century, and to some degree they are present intoday’s world. The third orientation appeared in the 1950s and 1960s anddevelopedoutofacriticismoftheOldLeftists,whichgraduallyappearedinthe course of postmodernity and influenced the aesthetics, stylistics andphilosophyofmodernWesternsocietytoagreatextent.

TheOldLeftToday(TheBlindAlleyofOrthodoxy;PerspectivesofEvolutionaryStrategyandPro-

LiberalRevisionism)TheOldLeftarenowdividedintoafeworientations:

•OrthodoxMarxists;•SocialDemocrats;•Post-SocialDemocrats (adherents of the ThirdWay, along the lines of

Giddens);[207]

•EuropeanOrthodoxMarxists.

Byinertia,theyexistinEuropeancountriesandalsointheUnitedStatesandThird World countries, continuing to defend the foundational premises ofMarxist thought.TheyareoftenembodiedinCommunistparties,professingthecorrespondingideology.Inthemajorityofcases,thoseOrthodoxMarxistssoften(inthespiritofEurocommunism)[208]theradicalityofMarx’steaching,rejecting the call to a revolutionary uprising and the establishment of adictatorship of the proletariat.Themost lasting formofOrthodoxMarxismturned out to be theTrotskyitemovement (the Fourth International),whichwasalmostuntouchedbythefalloftheUSSRandthebreakupoftheSovietsystem,sofarasitinitiallyoriginatedfromahardcritiqueofthatsystem.

ItischaracteristicthatthemoreorthodoxfollowersofMarxmeetinthosecountrieswhere theproletarian,socialist revolutionsdidnotoccur,althoughMarx himself predicted that, precisely in the more developed industrialcountrieswithaworkingcapitalisteconomy,theserevolutionsweredestinedto takeplace.EuropeanMarxisminsomesenseaccepted thefact thatMarxandEngels’predictionswererealised,notwherebyalllogictheyshouldhave

beenrealised,butonthecontrary,whereitwasthoughtthattheycouldneverbe realised under any conditions, such as Russia. Rejecting the Sovietexperienceasahistoricalstretch,thisvarietyofoldLeftistsinpracticedoesnotbelieveinthesuccessofMarxistprophecies,butcontinuestodefendtheirviews rather as being faithful ‘in the moral sense’ and ‘to the ideologicaltradition’,ratherthanseriouslycountingontherevolutionaryuprisingoftheproletariat(who,inthemodernWesternworld,itseems,nolongerexistasaclass,tosuchadegreehasitmergedwiththepettybourgeoisie).

ThemostimportantshortcomingofWesternOrthodoxMarxistsconsistsintheircontinuingtooperateusingthetermsoftheindustrialsocietyatatimewhenWestern European and especiallyAmerican society havemoved to aqualitatively new stage, the post-industrial (information) society, of whichalmostnothingissaidinclassicalMarxism,excludingthetroubledintuitionsof theyoungMarxabout ‘the realdominationofcapital’. In theabsenceorfailure of the socialist revolutions, this can come as a replacement of ‘theformal domination of capital’, characteristic of the industrial age.But eventhese fragmentary observations of theOrthodoxMarxists, as a rule, do notsparkgreatinterestandarenotatthecentreofattention.

Gradually,theprognosticandpoliticalmeaningofsuchOrthodoxMarxistdiscourse comes tonought, and thismeans that to speakof their ideas as a‘project’—even‘aLeftistproject’—isnotpossible.Atthesametime,theircriticalobservationsconcerningthecapitalistsystem,moralviews,solidaritywiththeunfortunateandthecriticismofliberalismcanarousedefiniteinterestand sympathy. The adherents of this persuasion almost always relate onlywithdistrusttootheranti-liberaltheories,andaretypicallyclosedtodialogueandaredegeneratingintoasect.

EuropeanSocialDemocracyEuropeanSocialDemocratsdifferslightlyfromOrthodoxCommunists.Thispolitical current also derives from Marxism, but already in the epoch ofKautsky[209] it selected not a revolutionary, but an evolutionary path,repudiating radicalism and placing its goal in influencing politics in theLeftist manner (social justice, the ‘welfare state’, etc.) by parliamentarymeansandthroughorganisedlabourmovements.ThisversionoftheoldLeftachievedconsiderableresultsinEuropeancountries,havingpredeterminedtoalargedegreethesociopoliticalaspectofEuropeansociety,insharpcontrastto the United States, where, on the contrary, the Right liberal doctrineundoubtedlyprevails.

The purpose of the SocialDemocratic orientation of the old Left in ourtimecomesdowntoeconomictheses,whichopposeliberaltendencies.SocialDemocratscomeoutinfavourof:

1)Progressiveincometax(liberals:forflattax);2)Thenationalisationoflargemonopolies(liberals:forprivatisation);3)Thebroadeningofgovernmentresponsibilityinthesocialsector;4) Free medicine, education, guaranteed pension plans (liberals: for

reducing government influence in the economy, private medicine,educationandpensionplans).

SocialDemocratstrytorealisethesedemandsthroughparliamentaryelectoralmechanisms and, in critical situations, through the mobilisation of labourunionsandsocialorganisations,rightuptostrikes.

It is significant that for Social Democrats, the characteristic slogans arelibertarian(nottobeconfusedwithliberal!):

•Thelegalisationoflightnarcotics;• The protection of sexual and ethnic minorities and homosexual

marriages;•Thebroadeningofindividualrightsandcivicfreedom;•Thedevelopmentoftheinstitutionsofcivilsociety;

•Ecology;•Thesofteningofcriminalpenalcodes(repealingcapitalpunishment),and

soon.

ClassicalSocialDemocratscombinethedemandsofLeftisteconomics(socialjustice,strengtheningtheroleofgovernment)withthebroadeningofpersonalrights and civic freedoms (‘human rights’), the development of democracy,and internationalism(today it isaccepted to speakof ‘multiculturalism’and‘globalisation’).

TheprojectofclassicalSocialDemocrats,directedtowardthefuture,isthecontinuation of such a politics of concrete steps along a sociopoliticalevolution,inargumentwiththeRight—bothwithliberalsineconomics,andwithnationalconservativesinpolitics.Mostoften,classicalSocialDemocratsarealso:

•Forprogress;•Forthebattleagainstarchaicandreligiousprejudices;•Forscienceandculture.

Atthesametime,therearenoserioustheoreticaldevelopmentsregardingthe

newconditionsofpost-industrialsocietydiscussedinthiscamp,andboththecriticismofclassicalMarxismandthethematisationofcapitalismonthenewhistorical stage (in contrast to the postmodernists and ‘the New Left’) arealmostentirelyabsentfromthem.

Socialistsof‘theThirdWay’One more version of the Old Left is an orientation of Social Democrats,whichinthefaceoftheevidentupsurgeofliberalideasin1990-2000decidedto compromise with liberals. The theoreticians of this orientation (inparticular, the Englishman Anthony Giddens) called it the Third Way,something between classical European Social Democracy and American(more generally, Anglo-Saxon) liberalism. Proponents of the Third Waypropose to find a compromise between Social Democrats and liberaldemocrats on the basis of their common ideological roots in theEnlightenment,andtheircommondislikebothofconservatismandofLeftistextremism.Theplatformforcompromiseisconstructedintermsofgive-and-takerelatingtoconcretearrangementsconcerningtheextenttowhichSocialDemocratsagreetolowertheprogressivetaxinthedirectionoftheflattax,while liberals raise the latter in the direction of the former.Concerning therights of man, there are no principal disagreements between them aboutguaranteeingminorityrightsoraboutmulticulturalism(ifwedonotconsiderliberal conservatives, who combine the idea of a flat income tax withconservativeprinciplesofthefamily,morals,andreligionasAmericanrights,suchastheRepublicansand‘neocons’).

Thepurposeof theThirdWayproject, according toGiddens, consists inthe cooperation of Social Democrats and liberals in the construction of aEuropean society, founding itself on a broadening of personal rights,preservationoftheinstitutionsofprivateownership,andamodificationoftheability of government to intervene and the mechanism of redistribution ineach concrete instance, in deliberately established limits. In contrast toclassicalSocialDemocratsandevenEuropeanCommunists,theadherentsoftheThirdWayrelatesympatheticallytotheUSAandinsistonstrengtheningtheAtlanticalliance(whereastypicalLeftists—botholdandnew—harshlycriticise America and American society for its liberalism, inequality andimperialism).

If there are real renegades among the Leftistmovements, then these arepreciselythefollowersoftheThirdWay.NextcomeformerTrotskyites(suchas certain Americans— the theoretical founders of neoconservatism— orEuropeans, for instance the head of the European Commission, thePortugueseBarroso),[210]whochangedtheirviewsfromextremeCommunismand revolutionary socialism for a no less radical defence of liberalism, themarketandeconomicinequality.

TheLeftist project in the case ofThirdWay socialists is to preserve thestatusquo.

NationalCommunism(ConceptualParadoxes,IdeologicalImbalances,SubterraneanEnergies)

NationalGauchismshouldbeunderstoodasaperfectlyuniquephenomenon.In contrast toOrthodoxMarxism and SocialDemocracy, this orientation isstudiedmuchless,anditscorrectdecipheringisamatterforthefuture.Theproblem is that National Gauchism almost never parades its nationalcomponent,coveringituporevenrepudiatingit.Consequently,thestudyofthe direct and honest discourse of the National Communist movements,partiesor regimes themselvesmostoftenbecomesmoredifficultbecauseofthefactthatthethesestheydiscusseithercorrespondtorealityonlyinpart,orelse not at all. We meet deliberate, open and unbroken National Gauchistdiscourseonlyontheperipheryofthoseregimesandpoliticalpartiesthat,inthemselves,professandrealise this ideologicalmodel, refusing,however, toadmitthis.Forthatreason,NationalGauchismdodgesdirect,rationalstudy,preferring to safeguard half of the phenomenon; whatever is tied to the‘national’isintheshade.

National Communists themselves reckon themselves as being ‘simplyCommunists’and‘OrthodoxMarxists’,strictlyfollowingtheteachingsoftheCommunist classics. In order to understand what the discussion is reallyabout, it suffices to propose the following criterion: socialist (proletarian)revolutionswere victorious only in those countries thatMarx thoughtwereentirelyunpreparedforthembyvirtueofthefollowing:

•Theiragrariancharacter;•Underdevelopment(orlack)ofcapitalistrelations;•Apaucityofurbanproletarians;•Weakindustrialisation;• The preservation of the fundamental social conditions of traditional

societies(invirtueoftheirbelongingtopre-modernity).

And this is the fundamental paradox of Marxism: where socialism wassupposedtobevictorious,andwhereallconditionscametogethertothisend,itwasnotvictorious;althoughpurelytheoreticallyitwastherethatOrthodoxMarxistpartiesandtrendsexisted,andareinpartstillpreserved.Butinthoseplaceswhere,accordingtoMarx,thesocialistrevolutioncouldinnowaywin,they won triumphantly. The victorious Communists, in the first place theRussianBolsheviks,carefullytriedtocoverupandretouchthisobviouslack

of correspondence to the prognosis of their teacher, never subjecting it tocarefulanalysis,preferringtoarbitrarilybuildarealityundertheirspeculativeconstructions — driving society, politics and economics under abstractcriteria, artistically and mechanically. And only foreign observers(sympathisers or critics) noticed this National Communistic character ofsuccessfulMarxistrevolutions,recognisingnationalisticelementsasadrivingfactor and virtue, providing these revolutionswith success and stability viaarchaic national stories of the mobilisation of Marxism as a nationallyinterpreted eschatological myth. Sorel was one of the first to notice this;Ustrialov noticed a little later. (Savitskiy, the Germans Niekisch, Petel,Lauffenburg, Wolfheim and others — from the side of the sympathisers;Popper,Hayek,Cohn,Aron—fromthesideofthecritics.)

NationalCommunismruledintheUSSR,CommunistChina,NorthKorea,Vietnam,Albania,Cambodia,andalsoinmanyCommunistmovementsoftheThird World, from the Mexican Chiapas and Peruvian Sendero Luminoso(The Golden Path) to the Kurdish Workers’ Party and Islamic socialism.Leftist—socialist—elementswerefoundintheFascismofMussoliniandinthe National Socialism of Hitler, but in these cases, these elements werefragmentary,notsystematisedandsuperficial,exhibitedmoreinmarginalorsporadic phenomena: Left Italian Fascism only occurred in its earlyFuturist[211]phaseand in theItalianSocialRepublic;[212] and theLeftist anti-Hitler National Socialism of the Strasser brothers, or the anti-HitlerundergroundoftheNationalBolsheviksSchultz-Boysenandsoforth,neitherof which was permitted any place within the regime of the Third Reich.Although, itwouldseem,according to theformalsignsand title,weshouldrelateNationalSocialismtothiscategory,therewasnopuresocialismassuchthere—ratherstatism,multipliedbytheinvocationofthearchaicenergiesoftheethnosand‘race’.But inSovietBolshevism,verypreciselyindicatedbytheSmena vekh[213] author Nikolai Ustrialov as National Bolshevism, veryevidently both beginnings are present: the social and the national, althoughthistimearound,the‘national’didnotreceiveaconceptualformulation.

Up to the present day, many political movements, for instance in LatinAmerica,areinspiredbythiscomplexofideas,whilethepoliticalregimesofCuba,VenezuelaorBolivia(EvoMoralesisthefirstSouthAmericanleaderofnativeIndianheritage),orOllantaHumala,[214]thesupportersofwhomareclosetoseizingpowerinPeru,andotherNationalCommunistmovementsarefull-blownpoliticalrealities.Eitheragovernmentalsystemisalreadyfoundedonthem,orelsethiscouldhappeninthenearfuture.AndeverywherewhereCommunismhasarealisticchance,therewefaceLeftistideasthathavebeenmultipliedbynational (ethnic, archaic) energies and are implemented alongthe linesof traditional society.Basically, this isneo-OrthodoxMarxism,suigeneris[215] National Marxism (however it would characterise itself). Butwhere there are all the classical prerequisites, according to Marx, for itsrealisation (industrial society, the development of heavy industry, an urban

proletarian,andsoon),socialistrevolutionsdidnotoccur(withtheexceptionof the ephemeralBavarianRepublic),[216] are not occurring, andmost likelywillneveroccur.

Themeaning of Leftist nationalism (National Gauchism) consists in themobilisation of archaic foundations— local, as a rule— in order to breakaway to the surface and exhibit itself in sociopolitical creativity. Here,socialist theory comes into play, serving as a sort of ‘interface’ for thoseenergies, without which it would be forced to remain a strictly localphenomena,butthankstoMarxism—howeverunderstoodandinterpreted—these national energies receive the possibility of communicatingwith otherenergies, analogical by nature but different structurally, and can even claimuniversality and planetary breadth; transforming, thanks to a socialistrationalitywarmedupbynationalism,intoamessianicproject.

ThegrandioseexperienceoftheUSSRshowshowlarge-scaletheNationalCommunist initiative can be, having produced for almost a century afundamental headache for all the world’s capitalist systems. China,meanwhile, even today in a new context, accentuating more and more thenationalcomponentofitssociopoliticalmodel,provesthatthisfoundation,ingood time and delicately worked, can remain competitive, even after theglobal triumph of liberal-capitalism. The experience of Venezuela andBolivia,foritspart,illustratesthatNationalCommunistregimesariseeveninourtime,anddemonstratetheircapacityforlifeinthefaceofgreatpressure.NorthKorea,VietnamandCuba, asbefore,maintain their political systemsfromSoviet times,notadoptingsuchmarket reformsasChinaadopted,andnotgivinguptheirpositions,astheUSSRdid.

Fromatheoreticalpointofview,inthephenomenonofNationalGauchismwearefacedwithMarxism,interpretedinthespiritofarchaiceschatologicalexpectationsanddeepnationalmythologies,connected to theexpectationof‘the end of times’ and the return of ‘the golden age’ (cargo cults,millenarianism).The thesis of justice and ‘government rights’ onwhich thesocialist utopia is built is recognised as religious, which awakens thefundamentaltectonicenergiesoftheethnos.

Does National Gauchism today have a project for the future? In itscompletedform,no.Itishamperedbyaseriesoffactors:

•Thepersistingshockof thedissolutionofSovietNationalCommunism(RussianEurasianists even in the 1920s predicted this downfall if theSoviet leadership did not recognise the importance of minding thenationalandreligiousmythsdirectly,facetoface);

• The lack of a conceptualisation and rationalisation of the nationalcomponentinthegeneral ideologicalcomplexofNationalCommunistmovementsand ideologies (theabsolutemajorityof supportersof thisideologicalorientationtrulyreckonthemselvestobe‘simplyMarxists’

or‘socialists’);• The weak institutional communication of National Bolshevik circles

betweenthemselvesonaglobalscale(therearenoserious,large-scaleconferenceson this theme,no theoretical journalsarepublished,or, ifthey are, they remain marginalized, and there are no philosophicaldevelopments).

Nevertheless,inmyopinion,NationalGauchismcouldcertainlyhaveaglobalfuture, insofar as among many segments of humanity archaic, ethnic andreligious energies are far from being spent, whatever can be said of thecitizensofthemodern,enlightenedandrationalWest.

TheNewLeft(Anti-Globalism,PostmodernPaths,LabyrinthsofFreedom,totheAdventof

Posthumanity)More than anything today, that which is called the ‘New Left’ (neo-Gauchism) or ‘postmodernism’ fits the word combination ‘Leftist project’.Amidst the whole spectrum of Leftist ideas at the start of the Twenty-firstcentury,preciselythisorientationisnotonlythemostbrightandblazing,butalsothemostthoughtout,intellectuallyadjustedandsystematised.

NewLeftistsappearedinthe1950sand1960sinEuropeontheperipheryoftheLeftistflankofMarxists,Trotskyitesandanarchists.Marxwasthesinequa non[217] for them, but they also actively used other theoretical andphilosophical sources, in contrast to the ‘Old Leftists’, bringing importedelementsintotheirowntheorywithoutdisturbance.Forthatreason,Marxismin this form actively broadened, while constantly juxtaposing with otherphilosophical conceptions, developed itself, rethought itself, subjected itselftocriticism—inshort,becameanobjectofconcentratedreflection.SuchanunrestrictedrelationoftheNewLefttoMarxismproducedtworesults:ononehand,itbecamediluted;ontheother,itmodernisedessentially.

The ‘philosophers of suspicion’, drawing not only onMarx but also onFreud and Nietzsche, exerted a great influence upon the philosophy of theNewLeftists.ThroughSartre,oneoftheclassictheoristsoftheNewLeftists,thedeepinfluenceofMartinHeideggerandtheexistentialproblempenetratedintotheLeftistmovement.Structuralismhadacolossalsignificance,fromthemostimportanttheoreticiansofstructuralism,FerdinanddeSaussuretoLevi-Strauss.Inaphilosophicalsense,NewLeftistswerethemselvesstructuralists,whileinthesecondhalfofthe1980s,developingthisphilosophicalimpulsefurther, theymovedonto‘post-structuralism’,havingexposedtosystematiccriticalreflectiontheirownviewsofthe1960sand1970s.

TheNewLeftistsapproachedMarxismfromastructuralistposition—that

is, they thought that Marx’s most important idea of Marx’s concerned thefundamentalinfluenceofunderstructures(intheusualcase,bourgeoissociety,carefully hidden from ideological consciousness) in relation to asuperstructure. The Marxist analysis of ideology as ‘false consciousness’became, for the New Leftists, the key to the interpretation of society,philosophy, man and the economy. But that same train of thought theydiscovered from Nietzsche, who had raised the whole spectrum ofphilosophicalideastotheprimordial‘willtopower’(thiswasitsverybasis,according to Nietzsche), and from Freud, for whom the base was thesubconsciousandunconsciousimpulses,rootedinthemineralfoundationsofman’s sexuality and thehabitual structures that form in early childhood.Tothiswas added theHeideggerianmodel,where the base is the fact of pureexistence,Dasein.Allthevariousdecipheringsofthe‘base’wereaggregatedbytheNewLeftistsintoageneralscheme,wheretheroleof‘thebase’assuch—regardlessofaconcretephilosophical tendency—wascarriedover intothe notion of structure. Structure— that is, simultaneous industrial forcesreproducedinindustrialrelations,thesubconscious,‘thewill topower’,andDasein.

Thebasic ideaof theNewLeftists is thatbourgeoissociety isaresultofmany-faceted violence and oppression by the ‘superstructures’ (of thebourgeoisie political system, ordinary consciousness, the rule of elites,generally accepted philosophical systems, science, society, the marketeconomy,andsoon), ‘bases’and‘structures’ (alsounderstoodverybroadly,including‘unconscious’,‘proletariat’,‘corporeity’,‘mass’, theexperienceofauthenticexistence,freedomandjustice).Bysuchmeans,theNewLeftists,incontrast to theOldLeftists,mount a systematic, critical attack on capitalistsociety simultaneously from all directions, from the political (the events ofMay 1968 in European capitals) to the cultural, philosophical, artistic, thevery presentation ofman, reason, science, and reality. In the course of thismassiveintellectualwork(towhich,incidentally,neithertheOldLeftistsnortheNationalGauchistspaidtheslightestattention),theNewLeftistscametothe conclusion that capitalism is not only sociopolitical evil, but thefundamental expression of a global lie concerningman, reality, reason, andsociety,andconsequently,incapitalistsociety,asintheresultingmoments,isconcentrated the whole history of alienation. The New Leftists reanimatedRousseau’sideaof the‘NobleSavage’andproposedanextensivepanoramaof an ideal society without exploitation, alienation, lies, suppression, orexclusion, by analogy with the archaic groups which are motivated by the‘economyofthegift’(M.Mauss).[218]

Theanalysisof theNewLeftistsshowedthatmodernitynotonlydidnotrealise in practice its ‘liberation’ slogans, but made the dictatorship ofalienationevenmorerigidandrepulsive,althoughhiddenbehinddemocraticand liberal facades. In this manner was the theory of postmodernismassembled,foundedonthefact that,at theveryfoundationof thepictureof

the world, science, philosophy and political ideologies, which had beenassembled at the dawn of the epoch of modernity or in the course of itsdevelopment, are strained interpretations, infelicities, delusions and ‘racist’presuppositions,which even theoretically block the possibility of liberating‘the structure’ (‘the base’) from ‘superstructures’. This led to thereconsideration of the philosophical tradition of modernity with theunmasking of thosemechanisms that concentrate the nodes of alienation inthemselves.Thispracticereceivedthename‘deconstruction’,whichproposesacareful and thorough structural analysisof thecontext fromwhichoneoranother idea proceeded, with a detailed ex-articulation of the substantialnuclei from out of the layer of pathos, moralism, rhetorical figures andconsciousjuggling.Foucault,inHistoryofMadness[219]andTheBirthoftheClinic,[220]showedthatthecontemporaryrelationtopsychologicaldisorders,and, more broadly, to disease as such, carries all the signs of intellectualracism,apartheid,andothertotalitarianprejudices,thatbecomeevidentintheequation of the sick with the criminal and in the structural identity ofpenitentialand therapeuticestablishments,havingbeenoneand thesame intheearlystagesofmodernity.

Bourgeoissociety,despiteitsmimicryanddemocraticfacade,provestobea totalitarian and disciplinarian society.What ismore, at the centre of thisliberal dictatorship, the New Leftists recognise the deep and almost neverdoubtednormativenotionsofreason,science,reality,societyandsoon,andnot only one or the other political and economic mechanisms, which arethemselvesconsequencesofthedeepmechanismsofalienation.

InthisconsiststhemaindifferencebetweentheNewLeftistsandtheOldLeftists:theNewLeftistsdoubtthestructureofreason,theycontestthebasisof our conceptionof reality, disrobepositive science as amystification anddictatorship of the academic circles (Feyerabend, Kuhn)[221], and sharplycriticisetheconceptofmanasatotalitarianabstraction.TheydonotbelievethatitispossibletochangesomethingbythepathofevolutionintheLeftistmanner of the existing system, but also contest the effectiveness of radicalMarxism,noting that itdidnotovercomewhat itwassupposed to;and thatwhere it did, it was notOrthodoxMarxism (they borrow fromTrotsky thecriticismofStalinismandtheSovietexperience).

AndsotheNewLeftistsformulateavastprojectof‘thecorrect’future,inwhichthecentralplaceisoccupiedby:

• The rejection of reason (the call to the conscious adoption ofschizophreniabyDeleuzeandGuattari);

•Therenunciationofmanasthemeasureofallthings(‘thedeathofman’ofLevi,‘thedeathoftheauthor’ofBarthes);

• The overcoming of all sexual taboos (freedom to choose one’sorientation, renunciation of the prohibition on incest, a refusal to

recogniseperversionasperversion,andsoon);•Thelegalisationofallkindsofnarcotics,includingthehardones;•Amovetonewformsofspontaneousandsporadicbeing(the‘rhizome’

ofDeleuze);• The destruction of structural society and government in the service of

new,freeandanarchicalcommunes.

ThebookEmpire byNegri andHardt, inwhich are given the theses of theNew Leftists, can be read as a political manifesto of these tendencies,simplified to the point of primitiveness. Negri and Hardt call the globalcapitalistic system ‘Empire’ and identify it with globalism and Americanworld government. In their opinion, globalism creates the conditions for auniversal, planetary revolution of the masses, who, using the commoncharacterofglobalismand itspossibilities forcommunicationand thewide,openspreadofknowledge,createanetworkofworldsabotage,for theshiftfrom humanity (standing out as the subject and object of oppression,hierarchical relations, exploitation and disciplinarian strategies) toposthumanity(mutants,cyborgs,clones,andvirtuality),andthefreeselectionofgender,appearanceand individual rationalityaccording toone’sarbitraryruleandforanyspaceoftime.NegriandHardtthinkthatthiswillleadtothefreeingupofthecreativepotentialofthemassesandatthesametimetothedestructionoftheglobalpowerof‘Empire’.ThisthemeisendlesslyrepeatedinthecinematographyinsuchfilmsasTheMatrix,TheBoys’Club,andsoon.

Theanti-globalisationmovement inwhole isorientedprecisely tosuchaprojectofthefuture.Andsuchactionsas‘theConferenceinSãoPaulo’,[222]where anti-globalists first tried to aim at a common strategy, attest that theNew Leftist project is discovering forms of concrete political realisation.Many concrete actions— gay parades, anti-globalisation protests, OccupyWall Street, the disturbances in immigrant suburbs of European cities, therebellionsof ‘autonomousones’ indefenceof squatters’ rights,broadsocialprotestsofnewlabourunions(allremindingoneofacarnival),themovementforthelegalisationofdrugs,ecologicalactionsandprotestsandsoon—areincludedinthisorientation.

Moreover, postmodernism as an artistic style, having become themainstream of contemporary Western art, expresses this very New Leftpoliticalphilosophy,enteringourwayof life throughpictures,designor thefilmsofTarantinoandRodriguez,withoutpreliminarypolitical-philosophicalanalysis, outrunning our conscious selection, hooking itself into our mindswithoutourknowledgeorwill.Thisisattendedbybothageneralbroadeningof virtual communication technologies,which in their own system carry animplicit invitation to postmodernity, and the dispersion into posthuman,hedonistic fragments. SMS and MMS messages, Internet blogs and video

blogs,flashmobsandotherhabitualengagementsofcontemporaryyouth,inessence represent the realisation of separate sides of theNew Left project,while, it is true, being controlled by the bourgeoisie system, willinglyprofiting froma fashion that this time is not its own, but that of its hiddenenemy.

HereweshouldsayafewwordsabouttherelationsofthenewLeftistsandanti-globaliststocontemporaryliberalsandglobalists.AsMarxthoughtinhistimethatcapitalism,despiteitshorrors,wasmoreprogressivethanfeudalismand the Middle Ages (since it brings closer the onset of socialism), socontemporary postmodernists and new Leftists, while harshly criticising‘Empire’, stand in solidaritywith it to some degree, as it, in their opinion,while aggravating alienation and strengthening its planetary dictatorship,latentlypreparestheworldrevolutionofthemasses.

LeftistsinContemporaryRussiaIn conclusionwewill say a fewwords about the state of affairs of Leftistforces in contemporary Russia. In practice, we see that we have no ‘OldLeftists’inthefullsenseoftheword,justaswehadnoneinSoviettimes.AgroupofSovietMarxist-dissidents (Zinoviev,Schedovits,Medvedev)areofno account, inasmuch as they were unable to start any sort of ideologicalschool.

National Communists, on the other hand, afford by themselves a broadformation— social, psychological and political— the leaders ofwhich, inourtime,aretheCommunistPartyoftheRussianFederation.InasmuchasallSoviethistory,markedbythevictoryofsocialism(thetruesignofaworkthathasanarchaicfoundation),isthehistoryofunconsciousNationalGauchism,suchasteadytendencyisnotsurprising.

In the first stagesofZyuganov’screationof theCommunistPartyof theRussianFederation[223](notwithoutsomeparticipationonmypart,aswellasProkhanov,[224]whichwasexpressed in theopinionof thenewspaperZavtra[Tomorrow] at the start of the 1990s), efforts were made to interpret andconceptually appraise the presence of the national component in the Sovietworldview (National Bolshevism), but this initiativewas abandoned by theleadershipoftheCPRF,whichhadoccupieditselfwithsomeothermatters—which were apparently more important for it. However, on the level ofrhetoric and first reactions, Russian Communists in all senses presentthemselves as confirmed national conservatives — sometimes even as‘OrthodoxMonarchists.’

Indeed, average Russians — especially the middle aged and oldergenerations—areinlargepartunconsciousNationalGauchists.Theysupportthis complexof ideaswhenever the opportunity is afforded them (the party

Rodina),[225]andconstrueinthisveinmuchthathasnorelationwhatsoevertothat complex (the social conservatism of United Russia, and even Putinhimself). Those same marginalised groups, who, imitating European neo-Nazism,attempttobringoutanamalgam‘nationalsocialism’byname,wereneverNationalGauchists;insofarastheyimitate(asarule,fromadeficiencyof intellect) the gadgets ofHitler’s regime, as itwere continuing to play atsoldiering in the sandbox or while watching the programme SeventeenMomentsofSpring,[226]delightingintheblackasthecrow’swinguniformofBronevoyasMüller.[227]TheprojectoftheNationalBolshevikParty,whichI,inmytime,waspreparingtotransformintoanauthentic,Russian,consciousNationalGauchismonthefoundationsof thetheoriesofUstrialov,Niekischand the Leftist Eurasianists, alas, degenerated at the end of the 1990s intohooliganism and senseless organisation, and later started to serve the anti-Russian,Orange[228]ultra-liberalpowers, fedby theWest (whichcompletelycontradicts the fundamental premises of National Bolshevism, whichrepresents,bothintheoryandinpractice,theconsciousLeft—beingthusastrictly anti-liberal, Russian patriotic — and consequently anti-Western—project).

TheNewLeft and the postmodernists in Russia›s political spectrum arepracticallynot represented: thephilosophicaldiscourseofpostmodernism istoo complicated for them. A tiny group of conscious (representative) anti-globalists exists, but it is knownmore in theWest and constitutes nothingserious,neitherinanorganisationalnorinatheoreticalsense.InRussianart—inparticular,intheGuelmangalleryatWinzavod,[229]andalsoinRussianfilm—postmoderntendencies,onthecontrary,areratherclearlyevident,andtheirartisticexpressionsareattimesimpressive.ThebooksofSorokin[230]orPelevin[231]presentpostmodernisminaliteraryform.

Moreover, the average artistic or even technological — which is moreimportant!—productoftheWestcarriesinitselfanotinsignificantchargeoflatent postmodernity, occupying therewith the Russian cultural space withactively functioning signs, which are hammered out in the creativelaboratoriesoftheNewLeft,andarethenputontheproductionlineofglobalindustry, which derives a short-term benefit from them (and graduallysharpens its own foundations). Russia here performs the role of an inertconsumer, not understanding the political and ideological meaning of thatwhichit isbuyingautomatically—followingfashionsorglobal trends,andforgettingthateverytrendhas,asthepostmodernistssay,trend-setters:thosewhoestablishadeterminatetrendforaspecificgoal.

I

9.LiberalismandItsMetamorphoses

n1932,theGermanNationalBolshevik,ErnstNiekisch,whoseideaswereremarkablysimilartoboththeRussianNationalBolsheviks(Ustrialov)and

the Eurasianists, wrote a book with a revealing title: Hitler: Disaster forGermany.[232]Thebookwentalmostunnoticed,butafterafewyearsledhimstraight to theconcentrationcamps.He turnedout tobeabsolutely right—Hitlerhad,infact,appearedtobepreciselysuchafatefulfigureforGermany.Fateful, meaning not accidental; well-founded, engrained in the course ofthings,joinedwiththelogicofFate,butembodyingherdarkeraspect.Andinthis book, as in others of his works, Niekisch repeated, ‘In human societytherearenofatalitiessuchasthoseinherentinnature—thechangingoftheseasons,naturaldisasters.Thedignityofmanconsistsinthefactthathecanalways say ‘no’.Hecanalways rebel.Hecanalways rise and fight againsteven thatwhich seems inevitable, absolute and unbeatable.And even if heloses,hegivesanexample toothers.Andothers takehisplace.Andotherssay‘no’.That’swhythemostfatefulandfatedoccurrencescanbedefeatedwiththestrengthofthesoul.’

Niekisch fought againstNazismand theNazis, andpredicted earlier andmore precisely than most others what would be the consequences of theirbloodyruleforGermanyandmankind.Hedidnotgiveup.Hethrewdownachallenge to ‘evil fate’, not putting down his fists. Most importantly: heresistedastrengththatseemedinvinciblewithahandfuloflike-mindedanti-Nazis.AgroupofNiekisch’sfollowers—oneofthemtheNationalBolshevikHarroSchulze-Boysen[233]—became the core of the ‘RedOrchestra’.[234] Itwas him, almost blind by then, that the Soviet troops freed from aconcentrationcampin1945.Hedidnotseethephysicalvictoriesforwhichhegavehislife,butuntiltheendofhisdaysheremainedconvincedthatitisnecessarytostandopposedtotheevilfateofhumanhistory,evenifitarisesfromitsdeepestflywheels.

Todaythesamecouldbesaidaboutliberalismasanideology,whichwasvictoriousintheWestandwhichspreadsitsinfluence—usingmanyoldandnewmethods— across the entireworld, supported by superpower numberone, theUnitedStates. It seemsonceagain that thismight is inevitable,notaccidental, and follows the same fundamental fateful law which seems tosuggest that toarguewith thispower isuseless.Butagain,as in thecaseofErnst Niekisch, people are found who are ready to carry out that sameprogramme,onlythistimenotasregardingaseparatecountry,butratherallmankind:‘Liberalismistheevilfateofhumancivilisation.’Thebattlewithit,opposition to it,and refutationof itspoisonousdogmas—this is themoral

imperative of all honest people on the planet. At all costs, we must,argumentativelyandthoroughly,againandagain,repeatthattruth,evenwhento do so seems useless, untimely, politically incorrect, and sometimes evendangerous.

LiberalismasaSummaryofWesternCivilisation,andItsDefinition

In order to adequately understand the essence of liberalism, we mustrecognisethatitisnotaccidental,thatitsappearanceinthehistoryofpoliticalandeconomicideologiesisbasedonfundamentalprocesses,proceedinginallofWestern civilisation.Liberalism is not only a part of that history, but itspurest and most refined expression, its result. This principal observationdemandsfromusastricterdefinitionofliberalism.

Liberalism is a political and economic philosophy and ideology,embodyinginitselfthemostimportantforce-linesofthemodernageandoftheepochofmodernity:

•Theunderstandingoftheindividualasthemeasureofallthings;•Beliefinthesacredcharacterofprivateproperty;•Theassertionoftheequalityofopportunityasthemorallawofsociety;•Beliefinthe‘contractual’basisofallsociopoliticalinstitutions,including

governmental;•Theabolitionofanygovernmental, religiousandsocialauthoritieswho

layclaimto‘thecommontruth’;

•The separation of powers and themaking of social systems of controloveranygovernmentinstitutionwhatsoever;

• The creation of a civil society without races, peoples and religions inplaceoftraditionalgovernments;

• The dominance of market relations over other forms of politics (thethesis:‘economicsisfate’);

•Certainty that the historical path ofWestern peoples and countries is auniversal model of development and progress for the entire world,whichmust,inanimperativeorder,betakenasthestandardandpattern.

Itisspecificallytheseprincipleswhichlieatthebaseofhistoricalliberalism,developed by the philosophers Locke, Mill, Kant, and later Bentham andConstance,rightuptotheneoliberalschooloftheTwentiethcentury,suchasFriedrichHayek[235]andKarlPopper.AdamSmith,[236]thefollowerofLocke,

[237]onthebasisoftheideasofhisteacher,analysedbusinessactivityandlaidthe foundations for political economy, having written the political andeconomicBibleofthemodernepoch.

‘FreedomFrom’Theprinciplesofthephilosophyofliberalismandtheveryname‘liberalism’are based on the thesis of ‘freedom equals liberty’. At the same time, theliberalphilosophers,inparticularMill,underscorethatthefreedomtheystandforisastrictlynegativefreedom.Moreover,theyseparatefreedomfromandfreedom to and suggest using for these things two differentEnglishwords:‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’.Liberty implies freedomfromsomething. It is fromhere that thename liberalism isderived.Liberals fight for this freedomandinsistonit.Asfor‘freedomto’-thatis,themeaningandgoaloffreedom—hereliberalsfallsilent,reckoningthateachindividualcanhimselffindawaytoapplyhisfreedom,orthathecanneglectaltogethertosearchforawaytouseit.Thisisaquestionofprivatechoice,whichisnotdiscussedandwhichhasnopoliticalorideologicalvalue.

Ontheotherhand,‘freedomfrom’isdefinedpreciselyandhasadogmaticcharacter.Liberalsproposetobefreefrom:

•Governmentanditscontrolovertheeconomy,politicsandcivilsociety;•Churchesandtheirdogmas;•Classsystems;•Anyformofcommonareasofresponsibilityfortheeconomy;•Any attempt to redistribute, with one or another government or social

institutions,theresultsofmaterialandnon-materiallabour(theformulaof the liberal philosopher Philip Nemo, a follower of Hayek: ‘Socialjusticeisdeeplyimmoral’);

•Ethnicattachments;•Anycollectiveidentitywhatsoever.

One can think that we have some version of anarchy here, but that is notexactlyright.Anarchists—atleastthoselikeProudhon[238]—consider,asanalternative to government, free, communal labour, with a completecollectivisation of its products, and they come out strongly against privateownership; while liberals, on the other hand, see in the market and in thesacredness of private property a pledge for the realisation of their optimalsocioeconomicmodel.Besides,theoreticallyconsideringthatthegovernmentmust sooner or later die out, opening up a place for theworldmarket and

worldcivilsociety,liberals,forpragmaticreasons,supportthegovernmentifit is bourgeois-democratic, facilitates the development of the market,guarantees to ‘civil society’ safety and protection against aggressiveneighbours,andstavesoff‘thewarofallagainstall’(Hobbes).

In everything else, liberals go rather far, repudiating practically allsociopoliticalinstitutions,rightuptothefamilyandsexualdifferentiation.Inextremecases,liberalssupportnotonlythefreedomofabortions,buteventhefreedom from sexual differentiation (supporting the rights of homosexuals,transsexuals,andsoon).Thefamily,asanotherformofsociety,isthoughtbythem to be a purely contractual thing,which, aswith other ‘enterprises’, isconditionedbylegalagreements.

On the whole, liberals insist not only on ‘freedom from’ tradition andsacrality (not tomentionprevious formsof traditional society),but evenon‘freedomfrom’socialisationandredistribution,onwhichLeftist—socialistandCommunist—politicalideologiesinsist(tospeakofpoliticalformsthatarecontemporariesofliberalism,orevenpretenderstoitsthrone).

LiberalismandtheNationLiberalismwasengendered inWesternEuropeandAmerica in theepochofbourgeois revolutions and strengthened as Western political, religious andsocial institutions that preceded the imperial-feudal periods graduallyweakened:monarchy, the church, estates. In its first stages, liberalismdealtwith the ideaof thecreationofcontemporarynations,when inEurope theyconceived the ‘nation’ as a uniform political formation founded on acontractualbasis,opposingthemoreancientimperialandfeudalforms.‘Thenation’wasunderstoodasthetotalityofcitizensofastate;atotalityinwhichis embodied the relationship of a population of individuals connected by acommonterritorialresidenceandacommonlevelofeconomicdevelopment.Neither ethnic, nor religious, nor class factors had any significance.Such a‘nation-state’(état-nation)hadnocommonhistoricalgoalandnodeterminatemission. It conceived of itself as a corporation or business that is foundedthroughthereciprocalagreementofitsparticipantsandthatcantheoreticallybedissolvedonthosesamebases.

The European nations kicked religion, ethnic identity and classes to thecurb,believingthesetoberemnantsofthe‘darkages’.Thisisthedifferencebetween liberal nationalism and other versions thereof: here, no values ofethno-religious or historical communities are taken into consideration; theaccentisputonlyonthebenefitsandadvantagesofthecollectiveagreementof the individuals concerned, who have established a government forconcrete,pragmaticreasons.

TheChallengeofMarxismIf,withthedismantlingoffeudal-monarchicandclericalregimes,everythingwasgoingsmoothlyforliberalism,andnoideologicalalternativesstemmingfrom the EuropeanMiddle Ages were able to oppose liberals, then in thedepths of the philosophy of the modern era there appeared a movementcontesting with liberals for the right to first place in the process ofmodernisation, and coming out with a powerful conceptual critique ofliberalismderivednot frompositionsof thepast (from theRight),but frompositionsof thefuture (theLeft).SuchweresocialistandCommunist ideas,receivingtheirmostsystematicexpressioninMarxism.

MarxcarefullyanalysedthepoliticaleconomyofAdamSmith,and,morebroadly, of the liberal school, but he drew from these ideas an absolutelyoriginalconclusion.Herecognisedtheirpartialcorrectness—incomparisontofeudalmodelsoftraditionalsocieties—butheofferedtogofurther,andinthe nameof the future ofmankind, to refutewhat are for liberals themostimportantpostulates.

Inliberalism,Marxism:• Denied the identification of the subject with the individual (thinking

insteadthatthesubjecthasacollective-classnature);•Recognised the unjust system of the appropriation of surplus value by

capitalistsintheprocessofamarketeconomy;• Reckoned the ‘freedom’ of bourgeois society a veiled form of class

supremacy,maskingundernewclothesthemechanismsofexploitation,alienationandoppression;

•Calledforaproletarianrevolutionandabolitionofthemarketandprivateproperty;

• Pinned its hopes on aiming for the social collectivisation of property(expropriationoftheexpropriator);

•Claimedcreative labouras thesocial freedomof theCommunist future(astherealisationofman’s‘freedomto’);

•Criticisedbourgeoisnationalismasaformofcollectiveviolenceoverthepoorest layers of its respective societies, and as an instrument ofinternational aggression in the name of the egoistic interests of thenationalbourgeoisie.

Thus, over two centuries, Marxism transformed into the most importantideologicalopponentandcompetitorof liberalism,attacking its system,andideologically following and sometimes scoring important successes,especially in theTwentiethcentury,with theappearanceofaworldsocialist

system.Atacertainpoint,itseemedasthoughpreciselythoseLeftistpowerswould win the argument over the heritage of modernity and for the‘orthodoxy’ofthenewage,andmanyliberalsbegantobelievethatsocialismwastheunavoidablefuture,whichwouldcorrecttheliberalpoliticalsystem,and perhaps abolish it altogether. From here, the tendencies of ‘social-liberalism’ begin, which, recognising certain ‘moral’ theses of Marxism,strove to smooth over its revolutionary potential and to combine twofoundationalideologiesoftheneweraatthepriceofrejectingtheircruelestand most pointed affirmations. Revisionists on the side of Marxism, inparticular Right-wing SocialDemocrats,moved in the same direction fromtheoppositecamp.

ThequestionabouthowtorelatetosocialistsandLeftistsreacheditsmostdifficultmomentsforliberalsinthe1920sand1930s,whentheCommunistsfirstprovedtheimportanceoftheirhistoricalintentionsandthepossibilityoftheir seizing and holding power. In this period, the neoliberal school arose(vonMises,Hayek, anda little later,Popper andAron), formulating averyimportant ideological thesis: liberalism is not a transitional stage fromfeudalismtoMarxismandsocialism,butratheranideologythatiscompleteinitself,holdinganexclusivemonopolyontheheritageoftheEnlightenmentand the modern era. In this view, Marxism itself is no development ofWestern thought, but rather a regressive return, usingmodernist slogans, tothefeudalepochofeschatologicaluprisingsandmillenariancults.Neoliberalsproved this by the systematic critique of the German conservativephilosopher, Hegel, as well as by references to the totalitarian Sovietexperience,andcalledforareturntotheroots,toLockeandSmith,standingfirmly on their principles; and by criticising social-liberals for theirconcessionsandcompromises.

NeoliberalismasatheorywasmostclearlyformulatedinEurope(Austria,Germany, andGreatBritain), but its large-scale realisation happened in theUnitedStates,whereliberalismdominatedinpolitics,ideologyandeconomicpractice. And although at the time of Roosevelt there were strong social-liberal tendencies even in the USA (the New Deal era, the influence ofKeynes,andsoon),theindisputableadvantagewaswiththeliberalschool.Ina theoretical sense, this tendency received its greatest development in theChicagoschool (M.Friedman,F.Knight,G.Simons, J.Stigler,andothers).[239]

After the Second World War, the decisive stage of the battle for theheritage of theEnlightenment began: liberals supported by theUSA foughtthefinalbattlewithMarxism,personifiedbytheUSSRanditsallies.Europeoccupied the third place in the ideological war: social-liberal and SocialDemocratictendenciesprevailedthere.

TheDefinitiveVictoryoftheLiberalsinthe1990sThe fall of the USSR and our defeat in the Cold War signified, from anideological point of view, the final distribution of roles in the fight for theheritageof theEnlightenmentand for thewayof the future.Exactlyon thestrengthofthefactthattheUSSRlostandfellapart,itbecameobviousthathistorical rightwason the sideof the liberals, especiallyof theneoliberals,who prevented socialism andCommunism from claiming the future as ‘theprogressivetomorrow’.Sovietsocietyandothersocialistregimesturnedouttobecarefullydisguisedversionsofarchaicstructures,havinginterpretedintheirownwaythe‘mystically’,‘religiously’understoodMarxism.

This all-importantmoment in thepoliticalhistoryofmankind first of allputthedotontheiwithrespecttothemostimportantquestionofthetimes:whichofthetwocentralideologiesoftheTwentiethcenturywouldfollowthepast(thespiritoftheEnlightenment)andautomaticallyreceivethefuture(theright todominate,by ideologicalmeans, the comingdays).Thequestionofthegoalofthehistoricalprocesswasprincipallysettled.

InthemiddleoftheTwentiethcentury,theFrenchphilosopher,aHegelianof Russian origin, Alexandre Kojève, suggested that the Hegelian ‘end ofhistory’wouldmarkaCommunistworldrevolution.Thetraditionalists(RenéGuénon,JuliusEvola),whorejectedtheEnlightenment,defendingTraditionandforetelling‘theendoftheworld’throughthevictoryof‘thefourthcaste’(the Shudras,[240] or proletarians) thought similarly. But in 1991, with thedissolutionoftheUSSR,itbecameclearthat‘theendofhistory’wouldcarrynot a Marxist, but a liberal form, about which the American philosopherFrancis Fukuyama hurried to inform humanity, proclaiming ‘the end ofhistory’ as the planetary victory of the market, liberalism, the USA andbourgeois-democracy.Marxism as a possible alternative and project of thefuturebecameameaninglessepisodeofpoliticalandideologicalhistory.

From thatmoment, there not only began the take-off of liberalism in itsmostorthodox,fundamentalistAnglo-Saxonandanti-socialistforms,butalsothe laying bare of the fundamental fact of the ideological history of man:liberalism is destiny. But this means that its theses — its philosophical,political,socialandeconomicprinciplesanddogmas—shouldbelookedatassomethinguniversalandabsolute,havingnoalternatives.

OntheThresholdoftheAmericanCenturyAsaresultofthepoliticalhistoryoftheTwentiethcentury,itwasdiscoveredthatliberalismhadwonthewarforcontemporarytimes,havingbeatenallitsopponentsonboththeRightandtheLeft.Thehugecycleofthemodernerawas completed with the triumph of liberal ideology, which received

henceforthamonopolyonthecontrolanddirectionofhistoricaldevelopment.Liberalismwas leftwithno symmetrical enemy,no large-scale subjectwithanadequatehistoricalself-understanding,aconvincingandorderlyideology,serious material and military resources, and comparable technological,economic and armed forces. All that still opposed liberal ideology showeditself as a chaotic collection of simple nuisances and mistakes; in a word,‘noises’,opposingthroughinertiathebuildersof‘thenewliberalorder’.Thiswasnotarivalryofalternativecivilisationalandgeopoliticalsubjects,butthereactiveandpassiveresistanceofadisorganisedfield.Thus,soil,rain,karsticemptiness ormarshland bothers the builders of roads: the discussion is notabout theconstructionofanother route thatanothercompany insistson,butabouttheresistanceoftheenvironment.

InthissituationtheUSA,asthecitadelofworldliberalism,tookonanewquality.Fromthistimeon,itbecamenotonlyoneoftwosuperpowers,butthesingleplanetaryhero,suddenlypullingawayfromitsrivals.TheFrenchcriticoftheUnitedStates,HubertVédrine,[241] suggested that it shouldhenceforthnotbecalledasuperpowerbutahyperpower,underscoringitssolitarinessanditsasymmetricalsuperiority.Fromanideologicalpointofview,thevictoryofliberalismandtheriseof theUSAisnotanaccidentalcoincidence,but twosides of one and the same occurrence. The USA won ‘the ColdWar’ notbecause it amassed more potential and got ahead in the technologicalcompetition,butbecauseitbaseditselfontheliberalideology,provingbothits technological competence and its historical rightness in the ideologicalwar, substantiating the balance of the modern era. And just as liberalismdisplayeditsfateddimension,theUSAreceivedaconcreteconfirmationofitsmessianism, which, in the ideology of Manifest Destiny, was, since theNineteenthcentury,anarticleoffaithfortheAmericanpoliticalelite.

American neoconservatives recognised this arrangement ofmattersmoreclearly than anyone else. In the words of one of their most importantideologues,WilliamKristol,[242] ‘The Twentieth century was the century ofAmerica’s rise, but the Twenty-first centurywill be theAmerican century.’Letusconsiderthatstatement:whatdifferenceistherebetween‘thecenturyofAmerica’and‘theAmericancentury’?‘ThecenturyofAmerica’signifiesthat,inthatperiod,theideologyofliberalismfoughtwithitsrivals(residualtraditionalism, fascism, socialism and Communism) and smashed them tobits.America,havingbeenoneofafewworldpowers, transformedintotheonly one. And now, according to the thinking of the neoconservatives,AmericaisduetoaffirmtheAmericanmodel,theAmericanwayoflife,asaworld order obligatory for all.Before one’s eyes, theUSA stoppedbeing anational government and became a synonym for world government. Theentire planet must henceforth become a ‘World America’, ‘WorldGovernment’,or‘WorldState’.Thisiswhattheycall‘theAmericancentury’,theprojectofglobalising theAmericanmodel toglobalproportions.This isnotsimplycolonisationoranewformofimperialism,thisisaprogrammeof

thetotalimplementationoftheoneandonlyideologicalsystem,copiedfromAmerican liberal ideology. America henceforth has pretensions to theuniversalspreadingofaunitarycode,whichpenetratesintothelifeofpeoplesand governments in a thousand differentways— like a global network—through technology, the market economy, the political model of liberal-democracy, information systems, the model of mass culture and its mediaproducts,and theestablishmentofdirect strategiccontrolofAmericansandtheirsatellitesovergeopoliticalprocesses.

TheAmericancenturyisthoughtofasare-smeltingoftheexistingworldorder intoanewone,builtuponstrictlyAmericanpatterns.Thisprocess isconditionally called ‘democratisation’, and it is directed at a few concretegeopoliticalenclavesthatare,inthefirstplace,problematicfromthepointofviewofliberalism.Inthisway,therecametobetheprojectsof‘theGreaterMiddle East’, ‘Greater Central Asia’ and so on. The meaning of them allconsists in the uprooting of inertial national, political, economic, social,religiousandculturalmodelsandtheirreplacementbytheoperationalsystemofAmericanliberalism.Butitisnotthatimportantwhetherthediscussionisabout the enemies of theUSAor their allies: both friends and enemies aresubjecttore-formatting,asarethosewhowishtoremainneutral.Thisisthemeaning of ‘the American century’: liberalism, having defeated its formalenemies,penetratescompletely.AndnowitisnotenoughtobeonthesideoftheUSAinlocalconflicts(asmanycountriesbehavedthatwerenotliberal—those like Pakistan, SaudiArabia andTurkey).Henceforth, liberalismmustpenetrateintothedepthsofallsocietiesandcountrieswithoutexception,andthe slightest resistance will be, according to the designs of theneoconservatives,broken—ashappenedinSerbia,IraqandAfghanistan.

American critics of such an approach — for instance, thepaleoconservative,PatrickBuchanan—declare:‘Americaacquiredthewholeworld, but lost itself.’ However, this does not stop neoconservatives,inasmuchastheytaketheUSnotonlyasanationalgovernment,butalsoasthe avant-garde of the liberal ideology. And it was no accident that theneoconservatives emerged from Trotskyism. Just as Trotskyites sought aglobal Communist revolution, mercilessly criticising Stalin and the idea ofbuildingsocialism inonecountry, contemporaryneoconservativescall foraglobal liberal revolution, categorically rejecting the call of ‘isolationists’ tolimitthemselvestotheAmericanbordersandtheirhistoricalallies.Preciselythe neoconservatives, setting the tone for contemporary American politics,most deeply understand the ideological meaning of the fate of politicalteachingsatthedawnoftheTwenty-firstcentury.Americanneoconservativecirclesmost adequately perceive the significance of the large-scale changeshappening in the world. For them, ideology remains the most importantsubjectofattention,although today italso turns into‘soft ideology’or ‘softpower’.

LiberalismandPostmodernityHavinggoneoverfromtheformaloppositiontothealternativeideologiestothenewphaseofintroductionontheworldscale,theliberalideologychangesits status. In the epochofmodernity, liberalismalways coexistedwith non-liberalism, which means that it was an object of choice; like with moderncomputer technology,where one can theoretically select a computerwith aMicrosoft, Mac OS or Linux operating system. After defeating its rivals,liberalism brought back amonopoly on ideological thinking; it became thesole ideology,not allowinganyother alongside itself.Onecould say that itswitched over from the level of a programme to the level of an operatingsystem, having become something common.Notice, coming to a store andselectingacomputer,wemoreoftenthannotdonotsay,‘Givemeacomputerthat runs Microsoft.’ We simply say, ‘Give me a computer.’ And inaccordance with our silence, we are sold a computer with a Microsoftoperatingsystem.Soitiswithliberalism:itisimplantedinusbyitself,likesomethingstandard,whichitwouldbeabsurdandpointlesstocontest.

The content of liberalism changes, switching over from the level ofexpressiontothelevelofspeech.Liberalismbecomesnotproperliberalism,but sub-audition, silent agreement, consensus. This corresponds to theswitchoverfromtheepochofmodernitytopostmodernity.Inpostmodernity,liberalism, preserving and even increasing its influence, ever more rarelyprojects an intelligent and freely adopted political philosophy; it becomesunconscious, self-understood and instinctive. This instinctive liberalism,havingpretencestotransformitselfintothegenerallynon-conscious‘matrix’of contemporariness, gradually acquires grotesque characteristics. From theclassicalprinciplesofliberalism,whichhavebecomeunconscious(‘theworldreserveunconscious’couldbeusedasananalogyalongsidethedollarasthe‘worldreservecurrency’),thegrotesquewaysofpostmoderncultureareborn.Thisisalreadyasuigenerispostliberalism,followingfromthetotalvictoryofclassicalliberalism,butleadingittoextremeconclusions.

Thustherearisesthepanoramaofpostliberalgrotesques:• The measure of things becomes not the individual, but the post-

individual,‘thedividual’,accidentallyplayinganironiccombinationofpartsofpeople(hisorgans,hisclones,hissimulacra—allthewayuptocyborgsandmutants);

• Private property is idolised, ‘transcendentalised’, and transforms fromthatwhichamanownstothatwhichownstheman;

• Equality of opportunity turns into equality of the contemplation ofopportunities(thesocietyofthespectacle—GuyDebord);

•Belief in thecontractualcharacterofallpoliticalandsocial institutionsgrows into an equalisation of the real and the virtual, and the world

becomesatechnicalmodel;• All forms of non-individual authorities disappear altogether, and any

individual is free to think about theworld howsoever he sees fit (thecrisisofcommonrationality);

•Theprincipleof the separationofpowers transforms into the ideaof aconstantelectronicreferendum(asortofelectronicparliament),whereeach Internet user continually ‘votes’ on any decision by giving hisopinion in anynumberof forums,which in turn cedespower to eachindividual citizen (each becoming, in effect, his own branch ofgovernment);

• ‘Civil society’ completely displaces government and converts into aglobal,cosmopolitanmeltingpot;

•Fromthethesis‘economyisdestiny’ittakesupthethesis‘thenumericalcode—thatisdestiny’,sofaraswork,money,themarket,production,consumption—everythingbecomesvirtual.

Some liberals and neoconservatives were terrified at that prospect, whichopenedup as a consequenceof the ideological victoryof liberalism,beforethe transition to postliberalism and postmodernity. Thus, Fukuyama, theauthorofthethesisoftheliberal‘endofhistory’inthelastdecade,hascalledontheUSandtheWest‘toturnback’andtoholdoverthepreviousphaseof‘vintage’ classical liberalism, with the market, the nation-state and itscustomaryscientificrationalism,inordertoavoidslidingintothepostliberalchasm.Butinthis,heiscontradictinghimself:thelogicofthetransformationfromnormalliberalismtotheliberalismofpostmodernityisneitherarbitrarynorvoluntary;itiswrittenintheverystructureoftheliberalideology:inthecourse of the gradual liberation of man from all that which is not himself(fromallnon-humanandsupra-individualvaluesandideals),onemustsoonerorlaterfreeamanfromhisownself.Andthemostfrighteningcrisisoftheindividualdoesnotbeginwhenheisfightingalternativeideologiesthatdenymanisthehighestvalue,butwhenheattainshisconclusiveandirreversiblevictory.

LiberalisminContemporaryRussiaIfweweretojuxtaposealltheaforementionedaboutliberalismwithwhatisunderstoodbyliberalisminRussia,wewouldhavetoadmit that there isnoliberalismhere.Thereare liberals,butno liberalism.Until thebeginningofthe1990s,MarxistideologyformallydominatedinRussia,andraisedupfromchildhoodtheoutrightmajorityofthosepeoplewho,inonewayoranother,influencethedecisionsofgovernmenttoday.Theprinciplesofliberalism,inthefirstplace,wereforeigntotheinstinctivefoundationsofRussiansociety;they were severely persecuted by the ideological organs in the USSR, and

wereeitherunknownorelseconstruedinacaricaturedandfragmentaryway.The solemeaning of ‘liberalism’ inRussia in the 1990swas freedom fromRussian-Soviet political-economic traditions and an uncritical, ignorant andparodic imitation of the West. Practically none of the post-Soviet eliteselectedliberalismconsciouslyanddeliberately:untilthelastmomentofthefalloftheUSSR,theleadersofRussianliberalismeulogisedtheCommunistParty,theideasofMarx,thePlanandsocialism,whiletheoligarchsmadealivingintheCommitteeofKomsomols[243]orservedintheKGB.Liberalismasapoliticalideologyinterestednoone;notapennywaspaidforit.Suchacheap and crooked liberalism was maintained in the 1990s as an ersatzideology for post-SovietRussia.But insteadofmastering liberal principles,itssupportersandpreachersengagedincareerism,privatisationandsettinguptheirownlittledeals,inthebestcasefulfillingtheguidelinesoftheWesterncurators of the breakdown of the Soviet and Russian state. This was anideologicaldisintegrationofthepreviousstructurewithouterectinganythingnewinitsplaceatall.Nooneevenreallychosethedubious‘freedomfrom’.

WhenPutincametopowerandattemptedto turntheprocessofRussia’sdisintegration around, he encountered, to a large measure, no ideologicalopposition.Hewas challengedby concrete economic clans,whose interestshediscerned,andthemoreactiveagencyof influence,deeplyentrenchedinespionageintheserviceoftheWest.Theabsolutemajorityofliberalsquicklytransformed themselves into ‘backers of Putin’, adapting themselves undertheindividualpatrioticsympathiesof thenewleader.EveniconicfiguresofRussian liberalism — Gaidar,[244] Chubais,[245] etc. — behaved like banalopportunists:theycouldnotcarelessabouttheideologicalcontentofPutin’sreforms.

InRussia,irrespectiveofthewholeperiodofthe1990s,liberalismdidnotpenetrate deeply and did not spawn a political generation of authentic,convinced liberals. ItoperatedonRussiamainlyfromwithout,which led intheend toaworseningof relationswith theUS, to theobstructionofPutinandhiscourseintheWest,and,inresponse,tohisMunichspeech.[246]

ButinsofarasthenumberofconsciousliberalsduringthecriticalmomentofchangeinRussiaturnedouttobenotmorethanthenumberofconsciousCommunistsattheendofthe1980s,Putindidnotinsistontheirideologicalharassment,optingtocontrolonlythemoreunbridledoftheliberaloligarchsandthedirectagentsofinfluencewhobecameimpudentthroughlawlessness.Intuitively striving to preserve and consolidate Russian sovereignty, PutinenteredintoaconflictwiththeliberalWestanditsplansforglobalisation,butwithout forming his actions into an alternative ideology. This was mostlybecausethereweresoveryfewconvincedliberalsinRussia.

The real liberal is the onewho acts in compliancewith the fundamentalprinciplesofliberalism,includinginthoseinstanceswhentodosocouldleadto serious consequences, repressions and even deprivation of life. If people

turnout tobe liberalsonlywhen liberalism ispermitted, in fashionorevenout of obligation, ready at the first difficulty to repudiate these principles,such‘liberalism’hasnorelationtotherealkind.ItseemsKhodorkovsky,[247]the ‘icon’ of contemporary Russian liberals, understood that, having spentsometimeinprison.Butinthis,itseemstome,heisanexceptionamongtheliberalswhoremainfree.

TheCrusadeAgainsttheWestHowevermuchliberalismtodayclaimsthattherearenoalternatives,thereisalwaysachoiceinhumanhistory.Whilemanexists,heisfreetochoose;bothwhateveryonechooses,andwhatnoonedoes.Liberalism(and,bytheway,theUSandtheWest)todaydoesnotofferitselfupasanoptionamongmanytoprefer; itcalls thisdecisiontheonlyonepossible.Andthis isnotausualarbitrariness:thelogicofthepoliticalhistoryofmodernityavowsthevalidityofsuchanapproach.

Ofcourse,onecouldimaginethatmanypeopleontheplanetcamelatetotheawarenessofwhathappenedat theendoftheTwentiethandthestartoftheTwenty-firstcentury,andbyinertiabelieveinsocialism,Communismandeven religion.Ormaybe that someone does not accept liberalism for someotherlocalorindividualconsideration—forinstance,afterrealisingthat,insuchasystem,hewouldfindhimselfamong‘losers’.Butthisdoesnotmattermuch:allsystematicandfoundationalalternativesarecrushed,andsomeone’speripheral, troubled and unintelligent dissatisfaction, plainly, in political-ideologicalterms,affectsnothing.

Nevertheless, even in the new phase of its self-evident imposition,liberalism (and postliberalism) may (and must — I believe this!) berepudiated. And if behind it, there stands the full might of the inertia ofmodernity, the spirit of theEnlightenment and the logicof thepolitical andeconomic history of European humanity of the last centuries, it must berepudiated together with modernity, the Enlightenment, and Europeanhumanity altogether.Moreover, only the acknowledgement of liberalism asfate,asafundamentalinfluence,comprisingthemarchofWesternEuropeanhistory,willallowusreallytosay‘no’toliberalism.Weshouldrepudiateitinitscapacityasaglobalmetaphysicalfactor,andnotasaparticular,accidentalheresy, or as a distortion of normal development. The path that humanityentered upon in the modern era led precisely to liberalism and to therepudiation ofGod, tradition, community, ethnicity, empires and kingdoms.Suchapath is treadentirely logically:havingdecidedto liberate itself fromeverything thatkeepsman incheck, themanof themodernera reachedhislogicalapogee:beforeoureyesheisliberatedfromhimself.

The logicofworld liberalismandglobalisationpullsus into theabyssofpostmoderndissolutionandvirtuality.Ouryouthalreadyhaveonefootinit:

the codes of liberal globalism are effectively introduced on an unconsciouslevel — through habits, commercials, glamour, technology, the media,celebrities.Theusualphenomenonnowisthelossofidentity,andalreadynotsimply only national or cultural identity, but even sexual, and soon enoughevenhumanidentity.Anddefendersofhumanrights,notnoticingthetragedyoftheentirepeoplesthattheysacrificetotheircruelplanof‘thenewworldorder’,willhowltomorrowabouttransgressionsagainsttherightsofcyborgsorclones.

Thepeople’srefusaltoadoptliberalismiscompletelyunderstandable,andcanbemetateveryturn.Butitwillremainimpotentandineffectiveuntilwerecognise that we are dealing not with an accident, but with somethingsystemic; not with a temporary deviation from the norm, but with a fatal,incurable disease, the origins of which we should seek in those periods inwhichtomanyeverythingseemeduncloudedandclear,andhumanityseemedtoenter into the epochofprogress,development, freedomandequal rights.But this was simply a syndrome of approaching agony. Liberalism is anabsoluteevil;notonlyinitsfactualembodiment,butalsoinitsfundamentaltheoretical presuppositions. And its victory, its world triumph, onlyunderscores and displays those most wicked qualities, which earlier wereveiled.

‘Freedomfrom’is themostdisgustingformulaofslavery, inasmuchas ittemptsmantoaninsurrectionagainstGod,againsttraditionalvalues,againstthemoralandspiritualfoundationsofhispeopleandhisculture.

Andevenifliberalismwonalltheformalbattlesandbroughtusindeedtothecuspof ‘anAmericancentury’, the realbattle isstillahead.But it takesplace only after the authentic meaning of the past will be genuinelyunderstood, when the metaphysical meaning of liberalism and its fatefulvictorybecomesknownintherightmeasureandtherightproportions.Onlytearingitoutbyitsrootscandefeatthisevil,andIdonotexcludethatsuchavictorywillnecessitateerasingfromthefaceoftheEarththosespiritualandphysicalhalosfromwhicharosetheglobalheresy,whichinsiststhat‘manisthemeasureofallthings’.[248]OnlyaglobalcrusadeagainsttheUS,theWest,globalisation,andtheirpolitical-ideologicalexpression,liberalism,iscapableofbecominganadequateresponse.

TheelaborationoftheideologyofthisCrusadercampaign,undoubtedly,isa matter for Russia not to pursue alone, but together with all the worldpowers, who, in one way or another, oppose ‘the American century’.Nevertheless,inanycasethisideologymustbeginwiththerecognitionofthefatalroleofliberalism,whichhascharacterisedthepathoftheWestfromthemomentwhenitrejectedthevaluesofGodandTradition.

I

10.TheOntologyoftheFuture

s there a future? The question is legitimate because it provokes thinkingabouttheontologyoftime.Whatis,orat least, isnow?Preciselybecause

ofthefactofitsbeingnow,itisconsideredasbeingproperaccordingtothemultitudeofourdirect,empiricalperceptions.Whatwas,or thefactsof thatwhich has existed previously, is certified by the historical record and otherremnants. But in both cases, forgery or misunderstanding is possible.Therefore,theexistenceofwhathasyettobeishighlyquestionable,atbest.

Martin Heidegger spoke about three ecstasies of time:[249] the past, thepresent and the future. Apparently, there are three ontological argumentsrelativetothesethreeecstasies:immediacy(thereis/thereisnot)isrelatedtothepresent;documentary(therewas/therewasnot)isrelatedtothepast;andprobabilistic(therewillbe/therewillnotbe)isrelatedtothefuture.Itseemsthatwecouldcreateahierarchy,basedon theevidence: there is, therewas,there will be. ‘There is’ is most evident. ‘There will be’ is most doubtful.‘There was’ is in the middle. The future is the most unreliable among thethreeecstasiesof time.The futurecannotbe taken intoconsideration to thesame degree as ‘there is’ or ‘there was’. ‘There was,’ was, or at least webelieve that it was from the evidence at hand. Concerning the future, youcannotknowforcertain.Agiveneventorthingcouldhappen,butmostlikelywillnot.Thus, thefuture lacks‘being’comparedwith theotherecstasiesoftime.

From this point we could proceed in several different directions. Forexample,wecouldquestionthesolidityofontologicalargumentsconcerningthemost evident moment— the present. This recalls Kant and his doubtsabouttheinnerbeingoftheobject.Thefactofsimplyperceivingsomethingisnotenoughforadefinitivedeclarationofitsbeing.ThisistheDingansich(the-thing-in-itself) conundrumofKantianphilosophy.Notpurereason,butonlypracticalreasongivesbeingtoanobject,basedonthemoralimperative.Anobjectshouldhavebeing.Itwouldbegoodforittohaveit.Therefore,ithastohaveit.

Ifthe‘being’ofthepresent,asthemostevidentofallthemomentsoftime,canbeseriouslyputindoubt,thenwearearrivingataninterestingpoint:allthreemomentsoftimearethenontologicallyunprovableandunverifiableandconcernonly thegnoseologic level, relating to thephilosophyofknowledgeandthehumanfacultyforlearning.Thisispessimisticconcerningthepresent,whoserealitywehabituallytakeforgranted,butisoptimisticconcerningthetwoothermoments, thepastand thefuture.Thepastand thefuture therebyacquire equal consideration with the present. From the perspective of pure

reason, the present, past and future all have equal phenomenological value.Thefuture, inthiscase, is thephenomenon,andhence,phenomenologicallyspeaking,itis.Beingthephenomenonitself, thefuture isandit isreal.Thefuture,therefore,isactual.

Kant, analysing theapriori forms of sensibility, puts time nearer to thesubject,andspacenearertotheobject.Itindicatesthattimebelongsclosesttothe orbit of the subject. Time is hence subjective. It is the transcendentalsubjectthatinstallstimeintheperceptionoftheobject.

Now let us change perspective and consider time phenomenologically.Husserlproposedtostudytimethroughtheuseofmusic.Theconsciousnessofhearingthemusicisnotbasedonthestrictidentificationofnotessoundingin a concrete, discretemoment. Hearingmusic is something different fromhearinganindividualnotethatsoundsnow,inthepresent.Theconsciousnessofmusicoccursbyhearinganindividualnotethatsoundsnow,inthepresent,as well as recalling the past notes that are dissolving little by little intonothingness.However,theirresonancepersistsintheconsciousnessandgivesmusicitsaestheticsense.Husserlcallsit‘thecontinuousinstance’.Thepastispresentinthepresent.Thepresentthusbecomescontinuousandincludesthepastasavanishingpresence.

Thisisthemethodologicalkeyfortheunderstandingofhistory.Historyisawareness of the presence of the past in the present. The vanishing eventscontinue to sound in theactof recallingof them.ClioandPolyhymnia, theMusesofHistoryandTimerespectivelyinGreekmythology,aresisters.Thisrecallingisnecessarytogiveusoursenseofthepresent.Theanamnesis[250]ofPlato has the same function. The soul should recall the hidden past of itspreviouslivesinordertoreconstructthewholenessofthemelodyofdestiny.Onlythuscoulditbeplayedharmoniously.

The future should, therefore,beunderstood in this context.The future iscontinuous in thepresent.Not themomentofnovum,[251]but theprocessofthefadingofthepresentintothepast.Thefutureisthetail-endofthepresent,itsresonance.Welivethefuturejustnow,andalreadynow,whenweplaythenote of the melody of life. The future is the process of the death of thepresent, attention to the dissolution ofmelody into the totality of harmony.Thenovumappears in the future onlywhen the harmony is lost, when ourattention fallsasleep,and thensuddenlyweawakenandcannot identify thesounds thatwe hear.Momentarily, they simplymake no sense. That is thenovum: spontaneous incomprehensionofwhat isgoingon in theecstasyoftime. It is the nature of discreet, discontinuous events. It is the suspendedmomentofbeingwithouthistory,andhencewithoutasenseofawarenessandconsciousness.

EdmundHusserl dugmuch deeper into the phenomenology of time. Hediscovered the new instance of consciousness lying underneath the levelwherethenatureoftime,asilluminatedbymusic,isperceived.Accordingto

Husserl,beneaththislevelthereisanother,ultimateone,whichisresponsiblefor our perception ofwhat is nowwith the force of evidence, and amuchmoreintensivetasteofrealitythatrecallstheever-dyingpast.Thisinstanceisconsciousnessitself,theconsciousnessassuchthatprecedestheintentionalityand the dualist nature of apprehension, being necessarily divided into twoparts— theperceivedand theperceiving. In thepresent, the consciousnessperceives itself andnothing else.That is theultimate experienceof the lastsourceofreality.AccordingtoHusserl,thefoundationofallconsciousnessistranscendentalsubjectivity,fromwhenceitconceivesitselfasakindofshortcircuit.Thisexperienceisself-referential.Init,thereistheperceptionofpurebeingasthepresenceofthesubjectivityofconsciousness.

Thisshortcircuitcausesallkindsofdualitiestobeborn—thelogicalonesand the temporal ones.Thenecessityof stopping this trauma ismanifest inthe creation of time, the articulation of the three moments of time.Consciousnessoftimeisnecessarytohidethepresent,whichisthetraumaticexperienceoftheself-referentialnatureofpureconsciousness.Intentionalityand logical judgmentsareall rooted in thisevasionof theperceptionof thepainofthevoidwherebyconsciousnessbecomesawareofitself.

Suchanattitudetothelevelsofconsciousnessexplainstheoriginoftimeastheevasionofthepresent,andtheunbearabletensionofthepurepresenceofthesame.Thistensionisimmediatelyrelievedbytheexpansionofalltheimaginable types of dualities that constitute the textures of the continuousprocess of time. The model of this process is the creation of the threemomentsoftime.Thelogicalandspatialsymmetriesfollow—suchdualitiesas yes/no, true/false, high/low, right/left, here/there, and so on.Before/afterbelongs to the same cadence. Time constitutes consciousness running fromtheunbearableconfrontationwith itself.But thisconfrontation is inevitable,sothepresent,andthehighprecisionofitsexistentialperception,isborn.

What ismost important in this interpretationof themorphologyof time?Theideathattimeprecedestheobject,andthatintheconstructionoftimeweshould seek an inner depth of consciousness, rather than a consciousnessrootedinouterphenomenaconstitutedbythesubjectiveprocessoftraumaticself-awareness.Theworldaroundusbecomeswhat it isbythefundamentalactionofpresencingaccomplishedbythemind.Whenthemindsleeps,realitylacks the sense of present existence. It is fully immersed in a continuousdream.Theworldiscreatedbytime,andtime,initsturn,isthemanifestationofself-awaresubjectivity,anintrasubjectivity.

Theseremarks leadus toconsiderationsof thefuture—prognostication,projection,andanalysisofthefuture.

Movingfrommantosociety,andfromanthropologytosociology,wecanaffirmthefutureassomethingabsolutelysubjectiveinnature,andso,inthiscontext, it is somethingsocial.The future is socialbecause it is ahistoricalfeatureandnotimmanenttoanobject’snature.Theobjecthasnofuture.The

Earth, animals, stones,machines— all have no future. Only that which isincludedinthehumansocialcontextcantakepartinthefuture,andthenonlyindirectly.Withoutself-referentialconsciousness,therecanbenotime.Timeisthatwhichisinsideus,andwhatmakesuswhatwhoweare.Timeisman’sultimateidentity.

Thissubjectivityof timedoesnotmeanthatprognosticationwillbeself-fulfilling prophecy, as per Robert K. Merton,[252] nor that any event isrealisableapriori.Thefutureisstrictlydetermined,notsomethingvoluntary.Time, being historical, is predefined precisely by its historical content. Thesubject is not free from its structure, and more than this, it is absolutelyenslavedby it.Timeneeds thefutureasavoidfor thecontinuousfadingofthepresentand,partially,ofthepast.Withoutthefuture,thesubjectwillnothave the space necessary to evade, running from the impossible encounterwithitself,fromtheshortcircuitmentionedabove.Thefrozenmomentofthepresentwithoutthefutureisthatofdeath.

Society needs the future to run from itself further and further. Thechronicleofsucharunisthesenseofhistory.Societyrequiresanarrativeofthepast.Thefutureispredefinedbythestructureofthesubject.Thatiswhythefutureisstrictlydefined.Thesubjectcannotstopitselffromdeployingthechains of reason, it cannot not think, and cannot constitute the temporalcadences.Thefuture is in thesamemeasureas thepresentandpast.Wheretimeis,thefutureisalso.

Thefuturemakessense.Itmakessenseevenbeforeithappens.Morethanthis, the future makes sense even if it will never happen. In this lies thesemanticvalueofprophecyandprognosis:evenifitdoesnotoccur,itisalsopregnant with meaning and helps explain the present. Prophecies andprognosis, further, help us to discern themeaning of the future.When thefuture refutes the expectations of prophecy and prognosis, the fact of theirrefutationgivessensetothefuture,becauseourunderstandingofitconsists,inpart, inwhatwasnot realised.Unfulfilledprophecyhasexactly thesameimportanceasfulfilledprophecy.

Thefuturecanbeanalysedwiththesameaccuracyasthepresentandthepast.Theonlyuniquefeaturesofthefuturearetheflashoftheencounterofthedeepestconsciousnesswithitself,andtheintensiveshockthatresultsfromaconsciousunderstandingofthepresentforwhatitis.Whatthepresentis—is the note that sounds now.But it is notmusic, and can be analysed. Theisolatednotesaysnothing.Itconveysnothingtous.Itisunderstandableonlyby taking into consideration and in the context of the other notes of theparticular piece ofmusic. The context gives it sense. So, in the content oftime,it issomethingwholethatisdisposedaprioriinthethreemomentsoftime.Weexperience time in its totality.Therefore, the future isalready laidoutwiththesenseofmusic.Historyisnotonlyourmemoryofthepast.Itisalsotheexplicationofthepresentandtheexperienceofthefuture.Whenwe

understandhistoryand its logicwell,wecaneasilyguesswhatwill follow,whatisgoingtohappen,andwhichnoteshouldcomenext.Knowingsociety,wecouldidentifyinitshistorytheharmony,theperiods,therefrains,andthestructure of the piece. Of course we could encounter surprises, but mostsurprisingwouldbethepossibilityofoneauthenticmomentofexperiencingtheself-knowledgeofpureconsciousness.Itispossibletobeawokenbythestrength of this inner light of self-reflection. In this traumatic situation,wediscover our identity between the most inner and outer levels of ourconsciousness.We live in the creationof the externalworldby the internalself.Butthatisnolongerhistory;itisbreakingthroughhistory,anintrusiontothecentreoftime,wheretimeiseternallybeingconstructed.Timespringsfrom this point. There it exists in the undifferentiated unity of all threeecstasies—past,presentandfuture.

Timecanbeconstructedandorganisedindifferentways.Thepastcanbeconnected with the present and with the future by different links. This,circulartime, isbasedonaneternal refrainpattern. In thecentreofcirculartime,thereistheexperienceofconsciousnesslinkedtoitselfinthemannerofa short circuit. The power of this trauma rejects our awareness of life andbanishesittotheperiphery,whereitbecomescirculartime,wherethefuturebecomesthepast,andsoon,foreternity.Itistheeternalreturnofthesame.

Time can be organised as a regressive line, traditional time. Here, theexperienceoftheshortcircuitisplacedinthepast.Theeartriestocapturethedistantsoundsofthepastandtrulyreproduceit.Intraditionalsociety,timeisbasedontheeverlastingeffortofPlatonicanamnesis.Mostimportanthereismemory and transmission. In this organisation of time, the future and thepresentareconstructedbythepast.Realityandactualityregressintothepastandareconsignedtomemory.

Time can also be constructed as the perpetual state of waiting for thefuture.Thisischiliasticormessianictime.Here,theshortcircuitexperienceisprojectedintothefuture.Historyisgoingtofulfilitselfinthefuture,wheretheultimatenatureofrealitylies.Thisorganisationoftimeiscentredonthatwhich is to come. Tomorrow is the focus of the historical sense. Being isorientedtofuturelife.

There is another construction of time installed in the object, which ismovedto theextremeperipheryof thesubject,where theobjectiveworldisfixed. This organisation of time is material time, time introduced in thesubstanceofthephysicalworld.Thisisthetimeofslaughter,ofthedeathofthesubject.

Consciousness can construct different forms of time and theircombinations.Beforecreatingtheworldfilledwithforms,thesubjectcreatestheformoftimewheretheworldistobe.

The histories of different societies are different. Different, too, are thepieces,themusicians,thecomposers,theinstruments,themusicalgenre,and

thetypesofnotationusedbythem.Thatiswhyhumanityasawholecannothave a future. It has no future.To speak of the future of humanity is quitesenselessbecauseitcompletelylackssemanticvalue,aswellasthesenseofthesedifferent societal constructionsofhistoryand time.Every society is aseparateactofconsciousness,expandedintherationalandtemporalhorizons.All areuniqueandopen.Butbefore coming to anunderstandingof the thehistoryofagivensociety,weshould immerseourselves in thedepthsof itsidentity.Thefact thateverypeople,everyculture,everysocietyhas itsownhistory, makes time a local phenomenon, grounded in geography. Everysocietypossessesitsowntemporality.Foragivensociety,allthemomentsoftime are different — past, present, and future. Societies can cross andintersect,cross-pollinateandinteract.Theirsenseofhistory,however,cannot.Historyislocal.Asharedsenseofhistoryispossibleonlyonthebasisofthedomination of one society over another, and imposing its own history and,thus,itsidentityontheenslavedone.

Thatmeansifagivensocietyistohaveafuture,itmustbeitsownfuture.Its future is formed through appurtenance to the expanding forces of theconstituentsubject.Asocietyisunitedthroughthestructuresofthecollectiveconsciousnessoftheindividualsthatcompriseit.Itmeansweshouldunitethesemantic ranges of our respective pasts. Further, it means that in order toprovetheharmoniouscorrespondencesofthenotesandmelodiesofourownparticular musical piece, the symphonic nature of a given society must berealised. The past is fading, but never extinguished. If the past wereextinguished,thepresentwouldloseitssenseandthefuturethepossibilityofoccurring. The fading of the past is an essential characteristic of time. Thefadingofthepastisnecessaryforthemorphologyoftimeatthesamelevelastheflashofthepresentandthevaguenessofthefuture.

Therefore, themembers of a society should ask themselves today abouttheirfuture.Iftheyhaveahistory,theycouldhaveafuture.Iftheyhavebothahistoryandafuture,theyare.Iftheyare,thefutureisimplicit,now,inthepresent.Thefutureisbeingmadenow.

Onthisbasis,wecanestablishbothprognosisandprojection.AccordingtoHeidegger, ‘thrownness’ (Geworfenheit) is a concept that describes theinteractionsofthesubjectwithitssurroundingsineverydaylifethatcauseittoactuponinstincts,formimmediatereactionstootherpeople’slanguageandactions,‘flowwiththesituation’,andmakeimmediateinterpretations.Being‘thrownintoasituation’withoutbeingabletoreflectonitfirst,andthereforenotactingisalsoanaction,forreflectiononthesituation(i.e.,notacting)isalsosomething thatcanbe interpretedasanaction.Onethereforemustrelyon instinctual interpretations, and gowith the flow. The thrownness of thesubject(Dasein)forcesittoprojectitselfintothefuture.Etymologically,itisclear:thesubjectisformedbysub-jectum(sub-jacere),projection—bypro-jectum (pro-jacere). In both cases we have the Latin verb ‘to throw’. Theanalysis of the future is rooted in this: by apprehending the future, we are

makingit.Therefore,anyconsiderationofthefutureistoworkonhistoryandtheconsciousnessoftimeassuch.

Itisdoubtfulthatonesocietyiscapableofcomprehendinganothersocietyat the same level as it is comprehended by its own members. Such apossibility presupposes the existence of the meta-society, the society-God,which could operatewith the ultimate depths of consciousness in the samemanner as consciousness operateswith awareness,noesis,[253] intentionality,logic, time, and finally with the world. Obviously, Western society isparticularly afflicted with such an ethnocentric approach and ‘universal’pretensions rooted in its racist and colonialist past. But in the Twentiethcentury,thiswasproventobecompletelyunfoundedandfalse.Structuralists,sociologists, cultural anthropologists, postmodernists, phenomenologist,linguists, existentialists, and soon,havealldeployedconvincingargumentsdemonstratingthattheinnernatureofsuchanattitudeisrootedinthewilltopower and paranoid imposition of one’s own identity on the Other. ThisillnessiscalledWesternracism.

The West is a local and historical phenomenon. It is a very acutecivilisation,veryparticular,veryarrogant,andverysmart.But it is justonecivilisationamongmanyothers.TheWesthashistory, and isbecauseof itshistory. The attempt to abdicate this history in favour of pure universalismand in favourofmeta-culture andmeta-language is doomed.There are twopossibleoutcomesofthis:

1) either the West will lose its own identity and will turn into anautomaton;

2) or it will try to impose its own history, conceived by itself as beinguniversal,onalltheotherexistingcivilisations,destroyingthemintheprocess,andcreatinganewkindofglobalconcentrationcampfortheircultures.

The first outcome implies a struggle of automatons with humanity. Thesecond implies an inevitable global liberationmovement struggling againstthis neo-imperialism. It is for the West to decide how to manage theconsequencesof itsproperhistoryand its implications.TheWestcan try tocloseitshistory,butitisunlikelythatitwillsucceedinclosingthehistoryofalltheothers.

Nowisthemomenttobeginthefightforthehistoricalbeingofsocieties.This historical being is time, the sense ofwhich is constituted subjectively.This sense can reside only in a given society itself. Time is socially andsubjectively constructed. TheWest cannot intersect with the sense of non-Westernsocieties.Thenon-Westernsocieties,i.e.the‘Rest’,cannotcorrectlyunderstandtheWestanditsvalues.Theyareincontinuouserrorthinkingthatthey can. It is false. They cannot. But, likewise, Western people cannotunderstandtheRest.Thestructuresofthesubjects, itssenseoftime,andits

music are all different. The past, the present and the future of historicalsocietiescannotbeexposedbyanymeta-culture:theyarelyingtoodeepandaredefendedfromforeigneyesbythedestructivemightoftheself-referentialmoment,bytheshockofthisgreattension.WhatfortheWestis,fortheotherculturesisnot.So,wearedealingwithdifferentconceptionsoftimeandwithdifferentfutures.

Atlast,wehavecometo‘theendofhistory’andglobalisation.Theendofhistory is the logical conclusion of universalism. The end of history is theabolitionofthefuture.Historyproceedsandreachesitsterminalstate.Thereis nomore space to go on.By abolishing the future, the entire structure oftime, such as the past and the present, are also abolished.How can this bepossible?We could compare it to the simultaneous playing of all existingnotes,sounds,andmelodiesofamusicalpiece,resultinginacacophony,thegnashing and grinding of teeth. At the same time, it will provoke absolutesilence, deafness and sourness. Hence there will be no space for thetemporalisationof the inner tensionof transcendental subjectivity; the shortcircuitwouldgrowexponentiallywithoutthepossibilityofbeingdissipated.Thatmeans the igniting of a conflagration, the same fire that goes usuallygoeshand-in-handwiththesword.

Inordertopreventtheblazeandtheclashingofswordsthatwouldresultfromclosingthetemporalandlogicalreliefvalve,theworldwillstrivetotrapconsciousness in networks and virtuality, where it can run away from theinnerpressureofself-awarenesswithoutissue.If itsucceeds,thenewworldofthemachinekingdomwillbecreated.Theglobalnetworksandcyberspaceare suitable only for the existence of posthumans, post-society, and post-culture. Instead of fire we will get lightning and electricity. Some peoplebelieveFukuyamaisalreadyarobot.

Globalisation is equivalent to the end of history. Both go hand-in-hand.Theyaresemanticallylinked.Differentsocietieshavedifferenthistories.Thatmeans different futures. If we going to make a ‘tomorrow’ common to allsocieties existing on the planet, ifwe are going to propose a global future,thenweneedfirsttodestroythehistoryofthoseothersocieties,todeletetheirpasts, to annihilate the continuous moment of the present, virtualising therealities that are constructed by the content of historical time. A ‘commonfuture’ means the deletion of particular histories. But this means that nohistories at all, including their futures,will exist.The common future is nofuture. Globalisation is the death of time. Globalisation cancels out thetranscendental subjectivity of Husserl or the Dasein of Heidegger. Therewouldbeneitheranymoretime,norbeing.

Wemustdealwiththebifurcationoftemporalconstructions.It is timetoaddressthisquestionwithallitsimplicitweight.Now,ontheeveoftheendof history, the edge of the descent into post-history, we could make thedecisiontogivedifferentontologicalresponses.

Whenweconstructthefuture,itshouldnotbeglobalinscope.Itcannotbejustonefuture,wemusthavemanyfutures.Thetranscendentalsubjectivities,cultures,andsocietiescanpreservespacefor thescatteringofenergiesbornof the encounter with oneself, the short circuit in question through itstemporalisation: that will grant the existence of the outer world and thecontinuingof(alwaysandnecessarily)localhistories.Timewillcontinue,andthe world as the experience of real presencing, will be supported by thestructure of the deep subjectivity. History will remain local. The commonhistorymust be a symphony of the differentmusic of local histories beingcreated by the unique chronological rhythms of times, and not one partattemptingtodrownoutandoverwhelmtherestuntilitistheonlysoundthatcanbeheard.

The next question is: does the formalisation of the nation-state correctlyand exhaustively reflect the structure of the transcendental subject as thecreator of history? Will future historical time necessarily be national (asconstructed bymodernity), orwill it be expressed in otherways?Maybe itwill return to pre-modern forms?WhenHuntington evokes civilisations, headmits the possibility of emergent localities and local identities beingdifferent from the existing, manufactured, nation-states. Civilisations arecultural and religious communities — not ethnic-national ones. We couldimagineastepbackward,intheprenationaldirection(Islamicintegration);orastepforwardinthepost-nationaldirection(theEuropeanUnionorEurasianUnion);orwecould tolerateother civilisations in the formofnation-states.Thehistoricalnarrativesandthewayinwhichpoliticsformalisestimecouldbechanged.Itmeansthere isa lotofworkthatshouldbedone,historicallyspeaking.Whilesomeoneisalive,hecanchangenotonlythefuturebutalsothepast.Thegestureormeaningful actionaccomplished in thepresentwilladd a new sense to the past. Only after death does one’s past become thepropertyofanother.Hence, thehistoryofpeoples, societies, andcultures isopen.Theyhavethepossibilitytomaketheamazingturnthatisnecessarytoviewtheirpastfromanewperspective.So,historyismusicandtheworkofMuses.

Are civilisations destined to clash with each other? It is not written instone:historylackslinearrules.Differencedoesnotautomaticallynecessitateclashandstruggle.Ofcourse,historyknowswar.Buthistoryknowspeaceaswell.Warandpeacehavealwaysexisted.Warandpeacewillalwaysbe.Theyserve to relive the tension and the stress of the present. They liberate andsubjugatehorroranddeath.Totalwarandtotalpeaceareequallymurderous.

The continuation of the history of local societies instead of a singlehistorical narrativewill lead to the preservation of being, and hence to thepossibilityforthefuturetohappen.

The second option is globalisation. It cancels the future. It requires thearrivalofposthumanity. It constructs thepost-worldconsistingof simulacraandvirtualstructures.Inplaceof thetranscendentalsubject,Dasein,society

becomesahugecomputercentre,amatrix,asupercomputer.Inplaceoftime,itcreatessimulacrumsofthepast,presentandfuture.Thesimulacrumofthepast is falsememory, the product of artificial influence rewriting historicalmemory.Thewalling-offof the transcendental subjectallows thepast tobechangedasifitwereapiratedDVD.Analternateversionofsocietycouldbeloaded as a prequel. Such a substitution of the past is technically possible.Sufficientcontroloverthepresentallowsthepasttobeeasilyrewritten.

The substitution of the future follows from this manipulation. Twodisparate tracks mixed and played over each other produce cacophonicrepercussionsinthefuture.Thefutureispetrified,andthesemanticsoftimeblur,fork,andmultiply.

Manipulatingthepresentisalittlemorecomplicatedandrequiresahigherdegree of sophistication. To remove the present, the transcendentalsubjectivitymust not only bewalled off, but eradicated.This presumes thetransitionfromthehumantotheposthuman.

Developmentsinthehumangenomeproject,cloning,advancesinrobots,and new generations of cyborg all brings us close to the advent ofposthumanity.Thegoalof thisprocess is toproducecreatures thatwill lackanexistentialdimensionwithzerosubjectivity.Simulacrumscanbemadenotonlyoutofreason,butalsofromunconsciousness.Themostimportantfacetofthisprocessistheabolitionofthepresent.Suchposthumancreaturesandinanimateobjects—animals,vehicles,plants,stones,andsoon—havenosenseofthepresent.

If globalisation continues, what is the fate of subjectivity? What is theontology of the future that will — probably — never happen? A fairlyunorthodox theory could be suggested. Let us assume that multipolarity isstillborn, that history has ended, and that the project of globalisation hasbecomea reality.Howwill the finalexorcismof transcendental subjectivitybe performed? How will ‘the final decision’ concerning the abolition ofDaseinbe implemented? After all, as long asmankind and societies exist,they shouldmake this decision for themselves. It is impossible tomake anappealtotheOtherwhichcouldbeblamedorpraisedforthedecisionanditsresult.SuchareferencetotheOtherisacceptableonlywhentheSelfandtheOtherareoneandthesame.Ifweloseouridentity,wewillalsolosealterity,the capacity for ‘otherness’, and thus the ability todistinguishbetween selfand not-self, and consequently to assume the existence of any alternativeviewpoint. So we are the authors of the end of history which concernsourselvesandnooneelse.

Thus having excluded the presence of theOther, an explanation is stillrequiredabouthowmancanaccomplish the lastgestureof self-destruction.How can he transfer the initiatives of existence to the posthumanworld, aworldthatwilldisappearimmediatelyupontheexpirationofthelastman—fortherewillbenoonelefttobearwitness?

This is a great problem, and it requires an even deeper insight into thestructure of the transcendental subject that generates time and itsformulations.Nobodyelsecanmakedecisionsabouthowtoresettimeortoendit,anendthatcanonlybebroughtaboutbyourselvesthroughafinalself-immolation by the exaltation of the short circuit.Hence, the subject carrieswithinitselfthepossibilityofsuchachronocide.Globalisationandtheendofhistory cannot be reduced to thewill of someone other than hewho is thesource of the creation of time, at least not within the limits of immanentphilosophy. Consequently, this can mean only one thing: that within thedepths of transcendental subjectivity, there lies another layerwhichHusserlhadnotuncovered.Husserlwasconvinced that the layerhediscoveredwasthe last one. But it turns out that this is not so. There has to be anotherdimensionyettobefound—themosthiddenone.

WecandesignateitastheRadicalSubject.If Husserl’s transcendental subjectivity constitutes reality through the

experienceofamanifestationofself-awareness,theRadicalSubjectistobefound, not on the way out, but on the way in. It shows itself only in themoment of ultimate historic catastrophe, in the traumatic experience of the‘short circuit’ which is stronger, and lasts for a moment longer than it ispossibletoendure.

The same experience thatmakes the transcendental subjectivitymanifestitself and deploy its content, thus creating time with its intrinsic music, isregarded by the Radical Subject as an invitation to reveal itself in anothermanner—ontheothersideoftime.FortheRadicalSubject,time—inallitsforms and configurations— is nothing more than a trap, a trick, a decoy,delayingtherealdecision.FortheRadicalSubject,itisnotonlyvirtualityandthe electronic networks which are the prison, but reality itself has alreadybecome so: a concentration camp, an agony, and a torture. The slumber ofhistory is something contrary to the condition where the Radical Subjectcouldexist, complete itself, andbecome.Thecreationof subjectivity,beingthesecondaryformationoftemporality,isanobstacleforitsrealisation.

If we accept the hypothesis of the Radical Subject, we immediatelyconfront an instance that explains who has made the decision in favor ofglobalisation, the suicide of humanity, and the end of history; who hasconceived this plan and made it reality. It can only therefore only be thedrastic gesture of the Radical Subject, looking for liberation from timethrough the construction of non-temporal (impossible) reality. The RadicalSubject is incompatiblewithallkindsof time. Itvehementlydemandsanti-time,basedontheexaltedfireofeternitytransfiguredintheradicallight.

Wheneverybodyhasgone,theonlythingthatremainsisthosewhocannotbegone.Perhapsthatisthereasonforthisgreatestofallprobations.

W

11.THENEWPOLITICALANTHROPOLOGY:THEPOLITICALMANANDHISMUTATIONS

ManasaFunctionofPoliticshat man is, is derived not from himself as an individual, but from

politics.Itispolitics,beingthedispositiveofviolenceandlegitimatepower,that defines the man. It is the political system that gives us our shape.Moreover, the political systemhas an intellectual and conceptual power, aswell as a transformative potential without limitations. The answer to theanthropologicalquestionrestsontheconfigurationofpowerinsociety.Poweritself consists of two elements: first is the power to shape the paradigm,integrated in society through state institutions, and second is power as thedispositive of violence, which serves as ameans to integrate the paradigminto thesociety.Consequently, thesingle,highestauthorityofpowerand itsstructurecontrolsourpoliticalconceptofmaninagivensociety.Thesphereofpoliticalanthropologyemergeshere, the studyof thepoliticalconceptofman. But there is also the concept of the political man. The differencebetween these two categories is that the political concept of man is theconcept of the man as such, which is installed in us by the state or thepolitical system.Thepoliticalman is a particularmeansof correlatingmanwith thisstateandpoliticalsystem.Atfirst, thestateor thepoliticalsysteminstallsthisconceptinus,andthenitbothgrantsandtakesawayourrights.

However, on the pre-conceptional level, on the level of politicalanthropology,itfallstoustogive(ortotakeaway)ourownrightsandtoadd(or remove) a political status.We believe that we are causa sui, generatedwithinourselves,andonlythendowefindourselvesinthesphereofpolitics.In fact, it ispolitics thatconstitutesus.Whetherweareborn inamaternityhospital or in an open field, whether we are carried into a ward withelectricity or a dark, smoky hut, depends on politics. Politics grants us ourpolitical status, our name, and our anthropological structure. Man’santhropologicalstructureshiftswhenonepoliticalsystemchangestoanother.Consequently,thepoliticalmanandourpoliticalanthropologyalikearegivendifferentshapesaftertheconversionfromtraditionaltomodernsociety.Ifweremainwithintheboundsofconventionalpolitical-anthropologicalstructures,whichweredescribedingreatdetailmybook,ThePhilosophyofPolitics,wemaystresstwonotions.First,wecansay,‘Lookhowtremendoustheshiftinthe political anthropology is, that resulted from the conversion of the

traditionalstatetothemodernstate.’Wemaybeastonishedbyit;wemaybeamazed,athowit isnotonly thepolitical institutions,butalsomanhimselfthat is transformed on themost fundamental level. But later, we inevitablyencounter the fact that, right now, we are in the state of shifting from thepolitical mode of modernity to postmodernity, and we realise that acompletely new view surrounds us. It becomes clear, from our perspectivethat theparametersofboththetraditionalandmodernsocietyflowoneintotheother.Infact,Homopoliticus,thepoliticalman,waspostulatedinbothoftheseparadigms.Ofcourse,on thepoleofmodernity,wehave the rational,autonomousindividual,andwehaveaparticleofacertainholisticensembleon the other pole. As for postmodernity, it declares that there are nodifferencesassuchbetweenthesetwotypesofsociety,politics,andconceptsofman. Itmattersnotwhether thisveryman isconstitutedaccording to theliberal, individualistapproachorbytheholisticeidos,[254] it isManwhichistheoutcome.

TheBoundariesofPostanthropologyandtheOriginofPostpolitics

Atthisstageweareabletosingleoutcompletelynewsymptomsofthetypeof man constituted by the politics of postmodernity: depolitisation,autonomisation,microscopisation,andsub—and transhumanisation.That is,today man is not regarded as a whole — his parts are considered to beindependent.Itishisdesires,emotions,moodsandinclinationsthatmatter.Atthe same time, while on the one hand attention is transferred from theindividual to the sub-individual level,on the other hand, the sub-individuallevelmergeswithothersub-individualities,thatis,itentersthedomainofthetransindividual.Thechaosofacontemporarydanceclubcanberegardedasametaphor for this transindividuality. It is possible to distinguish betweenpairs, figures, styles of expression, and sexes during quadrille or even rockdancing, which is late modernity. But, in a modern dance club, there arecreatures of uncertain sex, undefined appearance, and vague identity,regularlymovingtothebeatofthemusic.Moreover,thedancinghasahyper-individualistic nature: the dancers are not moving, they are being moved.Whatmoveseachdancer,movestheothers.Aretheymovingseparately?No,their bodies aremoving simultaneously, giving in to a common resonance.Something like this is happening in politics: the de-individualisation of theindividualand thesub-and transindividualisationofpolitical institutionsandstructures.

Thus,weareconfrontingacompletelynewpolitics,theessenceofwhichisthedenialofpoliticsitselfasacertaindistinct,authoritativeline.Nomatterhowwesolvethequestionofpower(towhomitbelongs—totheelite,tothecaste, tothepriests, tothewarriors,or tothedemocraticparliament), itwill

still be a formalisation of political relations. Interests, positions, levels,statuses,androlesarealwaysvisible.Wearedealingwithapoliticalsociety,beitmodernortraditional.Butifoneproposestoremovetheveryquestionofpower,ifonesaysthereisnosuchconcept,ifwearecompelledtowithdrawthisquestion,ifthenotionofthesubjectofthepoliticalprocessisforbidden,itwillbeoustedbyarhizomaticentity(GillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattariusethe term ‘rhizome’ and ‘rhizomatic’ to describe theory and research thatallows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in datarepresentationandinterpretation),whichHardtandNegrinamea‘multitude’.[255]These ‘multitudes’ act for both subject and authority.Consequently, theconceptoftheStateisreplacedbytheconceptofthepost-State.Whatisthepost-State? It is the idea of the abolition of the State. The process of thedemonisationoftheStatestarts,thebasisofwhichisthethesisthatthestateinterfereswithprivateproperty.Theword‘thestate’itselfeventuallybecomesaninvective,andafterthis, itsabolitionbecomesanobviousmeasure.Afterthat,everythingthatinterfereswithabsolutefreedomisabolished.

In the end, all forms of vertical symmetry (the orientation of a ‘top tobottom’ hierarchy) are subject to destruction, and everything becomeshorizontal. Similarly, the vertical lines of power and the state becomehorizontal,andthuspoliticalanthropology,implyingthisorthatconstitutionoftheindividual,dissipatesanddispersesinthespaceofrhizomaticdust.Onecouldcallitapoliteia.[256]Butifitreallywereapoliteia,wewouldobserveagradual fading of the political, its entropy. But we are not speaking aboutapoliteiaor indifference towardspolitics. Insteadweencounteradeliberate,axiologicaltrend.Thatistheliquidationofpoliticalstructures,orthestructureof the political, ifwe include the structures of both political pre-modernityandmodernity. That is, while confronting postmodernity, both of them arerejected. At the same time, in order to actively denounce the political,political will is required. It turns out that postmodernity is loaded withpolitical meaning. And it is loaded with an imperious, epistemologicallyobsessionalmeaning,andanobligatorypoliticalmeaningofapolitisation,atthat. That is, this is not pure entropy of the political structure; it is arevolutionary counter-project, a theoretical scheme of political post-anthropology. And the core of this post-anthropology is, of course, thisrhizomatic sub-and transindividual network. It is this dispersed nebula ofmultitudethatisdeliberatelydestroyingthestructuresofthewillthatbelongtothepolitical(dasPolitische),initsclassicalSchmittianmeaning.

TheCoreSubjectsofPostpoliticsToday we can sum up the situation in this way: we add the destructive,corrosive strategy of political postmodernity (possessing the sameauthoritative,offensivedispositive) into thesphereof thepolitical (which is

Schmitt’sclassicalpolitics, includingpre-modernityandmodernity),andwereceive politics in its widest meaning, in its absolute meaning. This is theAbsolute Political (absolut Politische), in the boundaries of which we canplace two basic anthropological models. It sounds natural: the first is‘contemporaryman’, constructedby thepolitical, strugglingagainstpoliticsas such.He is like a dancer at a club.He has his blog, hewatchesTV, hepretendshevotesfortheopposition(thatis,helatentlyidentifieshimselfwiththedestructive,anti-statepoliticaltrend,evenifhelacksawell-thought-out,coherentpolitics).Whenconfrontingany integralpoliticalconcept,hestartsby saying ‘no’, his attitude toward it is very aggressive, and it creates aspecifically-aimed influence. The other figure is the political soldier (DaspolitischeSoldat).‘Thepoliticalsoldier’ isadifferentconcept,developedinthe 1930s, which is a personality, summing up what we have called theclassicalapproachtodasPolitische,theclassicalapproachtothepolitical.Itsdefinition isverypicturesque: thepolitical soldierdiffers from thecommonman by the fact that he kills and dies for politics.His killing and personaldeathbecomeanexistentialelementofthemanifestationofthepolitical,andthus, for him the political acquires an existential dimension.The politician,unlikethepoliticalsoldier,dealswiththepolitical,butneverkillsordiesforit.When thepolitician confronts death andmurder, he says, ‘No, I’d betterrethinkmyconvictions.’

Thisisawonderfulromanticimage,employedasapartofmodernityandtheTwentieth century,wherewe could see these splendidpolitical soldiers.Nietzsche’swordsillustratetheirroleinthehistoryoftheTwentiethcentury.AlthoughwarsintheNineteenthcenturywerefoughtformaterialgoals,‘[a]warlikeage[is]approachingthatwillaboveallrestorehonourtobravery!Forit shall pave theway for a still higher age and gather the strength that thelatterwillonedayneed—theagethatwillcarryheroismintothesearchforknowledge and wage wars for the sake of thoughts and theirconsequences.’[257] When is this time? It was the Twentieth century. TheentiretyoftheTwentiethcenturywasfilledwithpoliticalsoldierskillingeachotherfortheirbeliefs.Theykilledandwerekilled.Besides,everytraditionalsociety (for example that of Genghis Khan’s) was founded by politicalsoldiers.TheRussianEmpirewasalsobuiltbypoliticalsoldiers.Modernitywasverysensitivetothisfigure.Theysaythepoliticalsoldierfightsonlyforelevated and spiritual ideas. But that is not the case. Even a liberal canbecome a political soldier (although there is nothing spiritual or noble inliberalideas).Hemaydieforquitesenselessideas,butheremainsapoliticalsoldier, and that is very important. The political soldier is an instrumentalnotion,andshouldnotbehyperbolised.Itisacharming,butpurelyutilitarianelementofmodernity.

Webelievethat,onthelevelofpoliticalanthropology,thispoliticalsoldieris confronting the decomposed, rhizomatic posthuman android.We registerthisreading,anditmayseemthatwearereadytothrowawayourideological

differencesandforthepoliticalsoldiertoconfrontthepostmodernworld.Butmy thesis is that, from the perspective of the phase shiftwe are in,we areliving in a societywhere this conflict is possible, but, at the same time, itsoutcomeispredetermined.Infact,thefigureofthepoliticalmanisremoved.Andhisanthropologicalspaceisbeingoccupiedbyanewpersonality,averycunningandsuspectpersonality,whichisnotthatofthepoliticalsoldier,but,at the same time, is not related to the hissing, rhizomatic, twittering sub-individual.Thispersonalityisthepoliticalman’ssimulacrum.Itissomethingthatimitatesthepoliticalsoldier,inthesamewaythatpostmodernityimitatesModernity. In the finalanalysis, the readingsdonotgiveus the ‘humanvs.posthuman’ scenario. Instead,whatwe see is the undisguised, rotten liberalposthuman and the pseudo-human, the pseudo-soldier, within whom thegeneral substance of this phase of history has found itself. This iswhywehave the phenomenon of contemporary fascism, which is an excellentillustrationofthiscondition.Everylastvestigeoffascismthatwasembodiedby political soldiers ran out in 1945. Each and every declared fascist after1945 is a simulacrum. The liberals’ fears, taking the form of fascists, is acomplete parody. They do not differmuch from the decomposed and half-dissolved masses. Communism, which has held out longer than fascism,created its simulacrum within itself. The late Communists were alreadypseudo-political soldiers. Today there are no chances for Communism toreturntolife.Thesamegoesforfascism.Soon,wewillseethatliberalismhasarrivedat thesamepoint.Atleastourliberals,whoarenotreallyliberalsatall,demonstratethis:givethemsomemoney,andtheywilldeclareanythingandeverything.Wearedealingwithentities,lackinganythingresemblingtheclassicalpoliticalanthropology.

TheFatalismofPostanthropologyandAngelpolisAs much as can be discerned, we are dealing with Deleuze’s ‘fold’ (theconceptallowsforcreativethoughtabouttheproductionofsubjectivity,andultimatelyaboutthepossibilitiesforandtheproductionofnon-humanformsofsubjectivity):wehavetheconfrontationofpost-politicalanthropologyandthepseudo-politicalsoldier.Inthiscase,theantithesisoftheposthumanisthenon-human. If we face it, we acquire a very complex and intriguingperspective. It is either phantasmagoric despair, to which Baudrillard,[258]describingtheworldwithradicalpost-historicalcategories,gaveway,orthefeeling that we are not satisfied with this fold, this post-anthropologicalperspective.However,ifwegraspthefatalityofthispair,wecancalmlystepbackandassessthesituation.

Havingraised thequestionofanthropology,wemust lookforasolution,andatthesametimewemustacknowledgethispost-anthropology,thatis,notwait forwhat is coming toarrive,but toconsider, instead, that it is already

here. What do we gain from this perspective? I think that Schmitt, whocreated theclassicalapproach to thepolitical,mightgiveussomehints.Hespoke about political theology.Schmitt said that all political ideologies andsystems are integral theologicalmodelswith religions, dogmas, institutions,andritesoftheirown.Thatiswhy,inordertounderstandpolitics,onemustregard it as a religiousphenomenon.Butpolitical theologypresupposes theexistence of the political telos,[259] which can be constructed by man, likeHobbes’Leviathan,[260] or it can be of non-human construction, such as theCatholicmodelofimperium,whichwasclosetoSchmitt’sheart.Naturally,inthepost-anthropologicalstructure, inpostmodernity, thisappealtotelosasapolitical factorwhich unfolds the system into an integral theologywill nothelpusmuch,aswehavecrossedtheboundariesofpoliticaltheology.

Itisimpossibletospeakaboutpoliticalanthropologywhiledescribingthepost-anthropological model of today’s politics. We are forbidden to speakabout an integral political theology because we have witnessed thisfundamentalmutationof‘thefold’.Whatareweallowedtospeakabout?Wehavepoliticalprocesses, sourcesofpoweranddispositivesof influence,weobserveparadigmaticepistemologies,whicharepushedandpromotedinthesameway as theywere in the frameworkof classical politics.They remainwithus,whichmeansthatthepoliticalinitswidersenseishere,itissimplythatneithermannorGodisthere.Whoistheactorofthispost-politics?Thereis a certain hypothesis that I call the concept of Angelopolis, ‘the city ofAngels’orAngelpolitia(angelicpolitics)thatisaturnfrompoliticaltheologytopoliticalangelology.What thismeans is that thesphereof thepolitical isstarting to be controlled by and is starting to ground itself upon theconfrontation between superhuman entities. That is entities that are neitherhumannordivine(ornotdivineatall).Angelopolispossessesahugepotentialto assign political roleswithout taking humanoids and post-humanoids intoaccount. For example, one may think that a man sends an SMS, but it isactually the SMS that sends itself. Considering the growing level ofstandardisation and lack of originality in these messages, its over-individualisticessenceisbecomingmoreandmoreevident.

There really is a command centre in post-politics. There are actors andtherearedecisions,buttheyaretotallydehumanisedinpostmodernity.Theyare beyond the frames of anthropology.We can find a certain proof of thishypothesis in traditional teachings and in traditional eschatologies, whichstatethattheEndTimeswillnotbetriggeredbythehumanhand,butthatitwillstopjustpriortothefinalhour.Thefinalactwillnotdependonman.Itwillbeawarofangels,awarofgods,aconfrontationofentities,nottiedbyhistorical or economic laws and patterns, and which do not identifythemselveswithreligionsorcertainpoliticalelites.Andthisangelicwarcanbe thought of politically. That is Angelopolis, or Politische Angelologie,which I bring forward as a concept, devoid of mysticism and esotericism,which has the same sense and nature as Schmitt’s metaphor of ‘political

theology’. Political angelologymust be considered as ametaphor which isboth scientific and rational. Angelopolis is a method to understand, tointerpretand tohermeneuticallydecipher thecontemporaryprocesseswhichsurroundusandareregardedasbeingalienatedfrompoliticalanthropology,from humanity as a species, and as a politically institutionalised andconstitutednotion.

T

Field Term1 Term2

scienceTheory

(contemplation)

Practice

(things)

metaphysics principle manifestation

religion myth ritual

philosophy mentality activity

technologyIdea

(project)

realisation

(implementation)

commonuse thinking action

12.FourthPoliticalPractice

he adherents of theFourthPoliticalTheory are inneedof a plan.Theplanisbasedonthefollowingidea:ifwehavetheFourthPoliticalTheoryasasetofconceptsandatheoreticaldefinition,thenthistheorymustberealised,becauseeverytheoreticalconstructioncaneitherbebroughttolife,orcannotbecauseofcircumstances.

Therefore, ifwe theorise and talk about the Fourth Political Theory,weshould also think about how it could be realised in practice.However, thisshouldgiveuspause,becausetheFourthPoliticalTheorystrainstoconcludethepoliticaltopographyofmodernity,withallitsimplicitandhiddendualisticmodels therein. We can develop a scheme representing the correlationbetweenthetheoryanditspracticeindifferentfieldsofknowledge:science,metaphysics,religion,philosophy,technologies,andcommonuse.Belowisatablewiththesedifferentfieldsofknowledgeonthehorizontalaxisandwithtwo columns on the vertical axis, ‘Term 1’ and ‘Term 2’. The first columnconcernsthefieldtheoretically,andtheseconddealswiththefieldinpractice.

Ofcourse, theconsiderationof thesecolumns in itselfcanbringus tosome

very interesting conclusions; startingwith the question ofwhat theory is interms of science (i.e., contemplation, vision) and what is praxis (the term,formedfromtheGreekpragma,i.e.,object,objectification,acting).Whentheproblem of defining what a ‘thing’ is (res, hereafter ‘reality’) arose a fewyears ago, the attempts to come across a counterpart of this basic term incontemporary philosophy led to the revelation that there is no acceptableequivalentforthisLatinwordinGreekatall.Thereispragmaasan‘action’and the ‘act’ at the same time. It is an active object, but not as anaccomplishment. And there is an ‘existent’ from Aristotle, which isexpoundedasresinfurtherLatintranslations.

Therefore, there is no such word as ‘thing’ in Greek, and this is veryimportant,becauseitmeansthattheconceptofrealityisalsoabsent.Realityis formedon thebasisofres, reality isapropertyofres, reality is (whose?what?)—somethingreferringtothe‘thing’,or‘thingness’.Therefore,thereare the Greek words pragma, ‘existent’ and ‘practice’ for the Latin res.Pragmaistheactionandtheobjectatthesametime.

It is very interesting: the entiretyofGreekmetaphysics evolvesbetween‘theory’ascontemplationand‘action’(praxis),keepingshortofsevereLatinsubjectivity,the‘thingness’hiddeninthetermres.

If we amplify the aforementioned duality of this table, we would comeacrossGuénon’s[261] model of the ‘principle of themanifested’;[262] notably,that themanifestationhere iscloser to thepractice,butnot to thatwhich ismanifested;wecanseetheactivityinthesecondcolumn,concerningpractice.Ifwemakesomefurtherassertions in thehistoryandsociologyof religion,we would come across functionalism and the human sociology ofMalinowski,[263]whichexaminesthisdivisionbetweenmythandritual.

The original Greek definition of myth must be remembered: myth is astorybeing toldduringaritual.Thedualityofmythandritual isoneof thebasicitemsextensivelydiscussedinboththehistoryofreligionandofsocialanthropology.Inphilosophycanbeseenthe‘mentality-activity’,or‘mental-activity’ (this pairing and duality of terms is similar to that of ‘theory-practice’).And finally, technology is rather simple— it is the duality of aprojectanditsrealisation.

So,wehave twocolumns. If theFourthPoliticalTheory is added to thefirstcolumn,Term1,thenwecanprobablyfindsomespecificconceptintheFourthPoliticalPracticetoplaceinthecolumnTerm2inaccordancewithit.If the Fourth Political Theory was an ideological variation, or somecombinationoftheelementsofthepoliticaltheoriesofmodernity,wewouldfollow this strictly. That is to say, if we create an additional concept,constructedof the sameelements andbasedon the same topographyas thepoliticalideologiesofmodernityare,weshouldtalkaboutthefieldnotonlytheoretically,butalsoinpractice,inthecolumnTerm2.

And generally, it would be interesting to do this, because talking aboutsemanticfieldsassociatedwiththeFourthPoliticalTheoryinconnectionwiththecolumnTerm2couldbeveryuseful.ButIleavethisproblemforsomeoneelse,andproposeanotherway.

The point is that if we talk about the very core of the Fourth PoliticalTheoryanditsfundamentalproblems,weunderstandthatthemainideaoftheFourthPoliticalTheoryistowalkawayfromthedualismbetweenthesubjectand the object, between intention and realisation, and from the dualtopographywhichthephilosophyofmodernity,thescienceofmodernity,andthepolitologyofmodernityarebasedon.

ItisnotmerechancethatwetalkaboutDaseinasthesubjectofpoliticaltheory.Dasein,asproposedbyHeidegger,isawaytoovercomethesubject-objectduality,thatis,anaspirationtofindtherootofontology.

Heideggermentionedtheinzwischen,orthe‘between’,whiletalkingabouttheexistenceofDasein.TheprincipalnatureofDasein isbeing ‘between’.Dasein is inzwischen. We should not use the system of classical politicaldualism, the scientific topography of both modernity and Aristotle’s timewhiletalkingabouttheFourthPoliticalTheory,andpresumethefactthatthesubjectanditscore,thebasisoftheFourthPoliticalTheorypole,isDasein.

It is necessary, instead, to examine Fourth Political Practice in anotherway, taking into account Heidegger’s criticisms of constructing non-fundamentalontology,i.e.,ontologyasitis.HeideggersaidthatifwewanttounderstandDasein,we should realise and construct a fundamental ontologywhichwouldnotlosecontactwiththeontic(thatwhichexists;reality)rootsofDasein, andwould not ascend or sublimate, sooner or later, to anythingcorrelated with the 2000-year-old (from Plato, or even the last of the Pre-Socraticphilosophers,uptoNietzsche)generalphilosophicalconstructionsonwhichmodernityisbased.

We should putDasein as the centre and the pole of the Fourth PoliticalTheory.Whatdoesthismeaninthecontextofpractice?ItmeansthatDaseinshouldnotbequalifiedeitherasatheoreticalconstruction,orasaprinciple.Shoulditbeusedasamyth,likeanarrative?Thiscomesmuchcloser,butitshouldbecarefullyconsidered.Itshouldnotexactlybeusedasamentality,atleast not as an ontologicalmentality.Likewise, it should not be used as anideaoranythingconcerningthesubject.

Keeping this universal and pre-dualistic status ofDasein inHeidegger’sphilosophyinmind,Iwanttosuggestareferencetosomeroot,tosomethingthatpredatesthisdualism,todefineFourthPoliticalPractice.Inotherwords,whatisthecentreofFourthPoliticalPractice?Thiscentreissomethingthatliesbetween thecolumns,betweenTerm1andTerm2,between theoryandpractice.Butthisdoesnotatallmeantheircombinationorahappymedium.A ‘happymedium’ is nonsense thatwe should distance ourselves from.Weshould not look for a happy medium or a compromise of column 1 and

column2,thepolarityoftheoryandpractice,butweshouldfindtherootthatthese pairs grow from, their common root. From the perspective ofDaseinanalytics, both the subject and object are ontological constructions, grownfromthe‘between’,i.e.theinzwischen.

We are interested in the instance that both theory and practice appearedfrom, the instance where theory and practice are not yet divided and, afortiori,[264]arenotopposites.Weareinterestedinthatkindofinstancewherebothprincipleandmanifestationhaveacommonroot(theycanneverhaveacommonroot,notforamoment,andthatismostinterestingforus),thatkindofinstancewheremythandritualarenotyetseparated,atthatinstancewherementality and activity are in common, where idea means realisation andrealisationisidea,andwherethinkingandactinghaveonesource.

We are interested in this very intermediate level not achieved by ahorizontal consideration of these pairs, but only by a new, non-horizontaldimension. Unlike Hegelianism, Marxism, communication theory, and inprinciple,theentirestructureofmodernity,wearenotinterestedinanythingthat sits upon the line between theory and practice. We are looking forsomethingthatdoesnotbelongtohorizontalsubspace,ortosomeratio-basedconfigurationofthecolumns,ortothelinebetweentheoryandpractice.Weareinterestedinsomethinghiddenunderthetheoryandpractice,somewherein the common root they both grow from. From this point of view, thequestionoftheprioritisationofeitherconscienceormatterduringtheSovietperiodisabsolutelywrong.Thepriorityforusistheproblemofthecommonroot, andwe shouldgrow theFourthPoliticalTheory and itsPractice fromthisroot.

Havingacknowledged thisnotionasbeingbasic,wecan say thatFourthPolitical Theory is Theory to the same degree as it is Practice, and it isPracticetothesamedegreeasitisTheory.

Inotherwords,ifwecanfeelthe‘between’relatedindepthoverthesetwocolumns, if we can seize the geometry of this political vector (that is, ofcourse,itsrealphilosophicalandmetaphysicalvector),wewillseethatthesetwotreesgrowfromthesameroot.

IfwefocusonthesubjectoftheFourthPoliticalTheory,meaningDaseinor inzwischen, wewill understand that it does not belong to the horizontaldispositionbetweenthesetwocolumns.Whydowetalkaboutrootsbutnotthehead?Thisisaveryseriousanddeepmoment,becauseweshouldrealisethereduction that isbeingmade. Ifwerealise thehorizontal reductionfirst,andwegetanunsatisfactoryresult,wewillconcludethatweshouldinsteadrealisetheverticalreduction,tomovetowardsonticrootsbutnotontologicalheights. Therefore, we should postpone such notions as the dimension ofspiritand thedivine,andmove towardschaosandotherverticalanddepth-orientedconcepts.

Nietzschesaid,‘Notwhentruthisdirty,butwhenitisshallowtheseekerofknowledgestepsreluctantlyintoitswater.’[265]Accordingtothis,howcanwe try to form a clear conception of what Fourth Political Practice is? Byreversing the order of these two columns as a first step.We should obtainpractice as theory, take principle asmanifestation,mentality as activity andthinking as action. What is Fourth Political Practice? It is contemplation.WhatisthemanifestationoftheFourthPoliticalPractice?Itisaprincipletoberevealed.Inwhataspectisthemythrealisedasritual?Itbecomestheurgicfact(letusrecognisethatNeoplatonictheurgyisthereanimationofstatues).What is activity as mentality? It is the idea that thoughts are magic, thatthoughtscanchangereality;itisasuggestionthatthoughtsreplacerealityasfact. Fourth Political Practice brings us to the nature of the supranaturalworld, to the antithesis of Weber’s[266] metaphor in the realisation of thetechnological aspect of the project.What is the supranatural world? It is aworldwherethereisnobarrierbetweenideaandrealisation.Itistheprincipleofadoptingamagicalviewoftheworldbasedontheideathatthoughtistheonlythingthatcrossesworlds,andeverythingwecrosswithisnothingmorethan a thought. What kind of thought is it? Pure thought. The vehicle ofFourth Political Theory and Practice lives in a supranaturalworld.What is‘menactivity’?Itisatrans-substance,atransformationofspiritintobodyandbodyintospirit,anditisthemainproblemofhermeticism.

We have come to the realisation that Fourth Political Practice is not aroughrealisationofFourthPoliticalTheoryinsomespacewherethetheoryissuggestedtobedifferentfromitspractice.Thereisnomorespace,nomoretopos,[267] and no more topology in Fourth Political Practice aside fromtheory; we have annihilated any other spaces before we started, not in theconsummation, but in the very beginning, before we started in a pre-ontologicalcontext.Inotherwords,weshouldnotlookforward(itwillneverbechanged)orbackwardifwereallywanttochangethesqualorwelivein,becauseall the remnants thathavemade thisultimate formofdegenerationpossible and real have appeared and been stored there. These roots are notmerechance.Thescrap-heapweexistinisnotaccidentalandhasaprofoundlogic.Here,primordialmetaphysics is expressed in techniquesbothmodernand postmodern. Accordingly, the only path for real political struggle isappealing to the Fourth Political Practice as to the roots, free from theevolutionaryprocess,fromtheveryconceptiontothefinalpointwherewearenow,becauseeitherourpoliticalstruggleissoteriologicalandeschatological,orithasnomeaning.

And here we come to the last point. What does a world avoiding anyduality look like? It looks likepostmodernity, likevirtuality.Thewiredandvirtualcontemporaryworldjustsays: thisisnottheoryandnotpractice,notprincipleandnotmanifestation,notmythandnotritual,notthoughtandnotaction.VirtualityisjustamockeryofFourthPoliticalTheoryandPractice.Itis counterintuitive enough, but this postmodern reality is closer than all

previous topologies, including the theological and proto-theological.Virtuality iscloser to theveryuniquemodelofFourthPoliticalTheoryandPracticethananyotherelement.

Thus we can raise the question, how does our traditionalism or newmetaphysics relate to postmodernity? I consider them to be very close.Virtuality tries tomix the semantic fields of the columns on the horizontallevelsoastobecomeindistinguishable.WecansaythatDeleuze’srhizomeisa postmodern andpost-structuralmockery ofHeidegger’sDasein.They arealikeandtheyareoftendescribedinthesameterms.Butpayattentiontothefactofhowpostmodernismsolvestheproblemofthereversalofthecolumn’sorder.Itsolvestheproblembyappealingtothesurface,andthisisthemainideaweseewithDeleuze.RememberhisinterpretationofArtaud’s[268] ‘bodywithoutorgans’,[269] his interpretation of the necessity of destruction, of theleveling of structure, and his interpretation of man’s epidermis, his outerlayer, as the basis for the screen ontowhich his image is projected. It is apoint of mockery where Fourth Political Theory and postmodernism meeteachother. If thecolumnsmixhorizontally,somemadnessappears.Wecanuse the thesis thatHomo integros, the complete integral man, consists ofHomosapiensandHomodemens.[270]Deleuzesays,‘FreeHomodemens!’Hesays thatmadness should escape from underHomo sapiens and realise thetransgressionbetweenthesetwocolumnsinthepoliticalsphere.Herecomesthe rhizomatic process, Ionic and chronological ideas of temporality. Thispostmodern dementia is much like the Fourth Political Theory, and differsfrom it only in its horizontality and flatness. The main problem ofpostmodernity is its elimination of any vertical orientation in terms of bothheightanddepth.

Theend timesand theeschatologicalmeaningofpoliticswillnot realisethemselvesontheirown.Wewillwaitfortheendinvain.Theendwillnevercomeifwewaitforit,anditwillnevercomeifwedonot.Thisisessentialbecause history, time, and reality have special strategies to avoid JudgmentDay,orrather,theyhaveaspecialstrategyofareversionarymanoeuvrethatwill create the impression that everyone has come to a realisation and anunderstanding.ThisisthehugearsenalofHeidegger’snochnicht,oreternal‘not yet…’ If the Fourth Political Practice is not able to realise the end oftimes,thenitwouldbeinvalid.Theendofdaysshouldcome;butitwillnotcomebyitself.Thisisatask,itisnotacertainty.Itisactivemetaphysics.Itisa practice.And it can be a potential and rational solution of the enigmaticlayersthatarediscoveredwhiletalkingaboutFourthPoliticalPractice.

T

13.GenderintheFourthPoliticalTheory

obeginwith,letusanalysewhattenetsaboutgenderarecharacteristicofthepoliticaltheoriesofmodernity.Ifweattentivelyexaminetheperspectivefrom which socialism, liberalism, nationalism, fascism, and NationalSocialism all operate,wewill notice that some features are common to theclassicalunderstandingofgenderinallthepoliticaltheoriesofmodernity.Ontheonehand,itisnotoriginaltomodernity,becausemodernityherefollowstraditional European society (even pre-modern Christianity), which wasmostly patriarchal. Even before Christianity, it was patriarchal, back untilthose immemorial times in the Mediterranean which were discussed byBachofen in his book,Mother Right.[271] In other words, behindmodernity,andbehindmodernity’sconceptionofgender,isWesternorglobalpatriarchy.This patriarchy has heavily influenced the structure and politicalunderstanding of gender in modernity. However, this patriarchy hasundergonecertainmodifications in the final formulationofgendernorms inthepoliticaltheoriesofmodernity.

Itisacceptabletoconsider‘agender’insociologicalterms,inotherwords,gender as a socially-constructed phenomenon. This is in contrast to theanatomical ‘sex’ inherent inbiological terms.Gender is a social conventionwhich can change from society to society. At the same time, the politicalformulationofgenderisthesocialnorm,whichisapprovedasanimperativeon the basis of political power. Thus, archaic societies practise rites ofpassageorinitiationsafterwhichaboycanberegardedasa‘man’,otherwisehehasnosocialsex,no‘gender’,andisdeprivedofaman’ssocialfunctions(marriage, participation in hunting, and ritual). Depending on a society’srequirements,gender tenets canchange.For example, in some slaveholdingsocieties,male slaveswere not thought of asmen, andweremade towearwomen’sclothing.Slaveswereusedaswomenbecausetheydidnothavethesocialstatusofmen.Hencethephenomenonofcastration—thedeprivationofthephysicalattributesofmenonaparwiththeirsocialstatus.Therefore,genderisbothasocialphenomenonandapoliticalone.Political,becauseweare dealing with the management of social norms regulated by a society:community, police, and so on, the retreat fromwhich leads to a variety ofsanctions.

Thethreepoliticaltheoriesofmodernityallaskthesamequestions:‘Whoisthepoliticalperson?Andwhatisthepoliticalgender?’Atfirst,‘theperson’is theman. From the sociological point of view, women became ‘persons’

only recently,and this raises thequestionofwomen’spolitical rights.Fromtheviewpointofmodernity,awomanisnotaperson.Apersoncanonlybeaman;however,noteveryman,onlyaspecialtypeofman.Thecharacteristicsof a real man include wealth (until the end of the Nineteenth century inEurope, property was a necessary attribute of citizenship, i.e., politicalgender),rationality,thrift,andlivinginacity(thepeasantwasnotconsideredanequalinsociopoliticalsignificance).Thus,intheelectionsofthefirststateDuma in Russia in 1905,[272] the voice of one townsmanwas equal to 100peasants’ voices. In modernity, a peasant is not quite a ‘person’. Othercharacteristics of being a ‘man’ include maturity and age. These socio-professional and age categories are included in the concepts of gender andgender functions. The last characteristic is that a ‘man’ must belong toEuropean civilisation and havewhite skin.When considerations of culturalsuperiorityandracismaretakentogether,thisisthe‘politicalman’,orl’homepolitique,fromananthropologicalpointofview.

Such gender tenets are an axis for all threemajor political ideologies ofmodernity and their derivations.However,within these ideologies there aredifferencesinrelationtothisfigureofthe‘man’.Themost‘male-affirming’isthetheoryofliberalism,asitconsidersthisfigureoftherational,rich,adultWhitemaleasthenormandasanaturalphenomenon.Liberalismcanonisesthis conception of gender and standardises it, trying to eternalise thisbourgeois social system, typical of Eighteenth-and Nineteenth-centuryEurope.Liberalismassertsthefactualityofthisgenderandprojectsitontothefuture:‘Themodernworldisconstructedbymen,conceivedandanticipatedbymen, andwill belong tomen,Homo oeconomicus and Homo faber’.[273]Suchanunderstandingofgenderisundergoingchangeswithtime:theareaofgender that is ‘men’ increases; the standard archetypebegins to include thepeasants, the poor,women, and then the non-White ‘races’.How does thismechanismapplytothecaseofwomen?Forwomen,‘manly’characteristicsstart to be attributed to them: a businesswoman is onewhomanifestsmalequalities;White females become ‘citizens’. Thus, ‘the woman’ starts to bethoughtofas‘theman’.So,liberalfeminism,ortheaspirationtogivewomenfreedom, means to identify a woman as a man and thus equalise themsociopolitically, that is, represent a woman as a man socially. The sameprocedure is applied to represent the rural peasant as anurban city-dweller,thenon-White‘races’asWhite,thepoorasrich,the‘stupid’asreasoning.Awomanwhositsbehindthewheelofacarisamanoracaricatureofaman.However,underliberalism,thedivisionsof thesocialconceptionsofgenderremain.Womanmayacquire the same technical rights asmen, and thus, inperformingthefunctionsof‘aman’,maybeconsideredasequaltomen,butthesocialconstructionof‘theman’and‘thewoman’isunchanged.

Thesecondpolitical theory,Marxism, starts from the sameposition; thatgenderisabourgeoispoliticalconstruction.Butthissituationiscriticised,andtheneedtochangethissituationisexpressed.Fromheredevelopsanideaof

totalequality,includingintermsofgender.Theconceptofgenderequalityinthe second political theory qualitatively differs from the understanding ofequalityinthefirstpoliticaltheory.ThefeminismorgenderegalitarianismofMarxism contends that both men and women who exist in the context ofMarxistideologyceasetobemenandwomenwhoconstitutethestandardandimperative gender division of liberalism. That is, we see a desire to movebeyondgenderinthebourgeoisinterpretation.Infact,‘theman’herelosesthesolepossessionofrationality.TheHungarianneo-MarxistphilosopherGeorgLukács[274]saidthat‘thedialecticalmethodasthetruehistoricalmethodwasreservedfortheclasswhichwasabletodiscoverwithinitselfonthebasisofitslife-experiencetheidenticalsubject-object,thesubjectofaction;the‘we’of the genesis: namely the proletariat’.[275] Proceeding from such aformulation,classicalMarxistsconsistentlycallforinsanity,toschizophrenia,to the schizo-revolutionary (Deleuze). They rely on the urban poor and theproletarians,whocouldneverbecomefull-fledgedbourgeois;theyturntothenon-White urban populations; however, they ignore thosewho live in ruralareasorpeasants,seeingthemthroughtheprismofbourgeoisperception.Buton the whole, in the gender policy of the Communists, we see a newtendency:theyrecognisethestatusquoofgenderandoffertochangeitunderthe banner of historical materialism. This means the transgression ofbourgeois man in the downward direction, and the appeal to the materialsubstance (literally ‘what stands below’ — the sub-state), to theundifferentiated realm of work, where there is no qualitative differencebetween the ‘good cooking woman’,[276] the sailor, or the masculine hero.Marxistsventureevenlowerdown,wherenothingisleftofgenderhierarchiesandstrategies.Thus,themostextremeMarxistideashaveadesiretodestroythebourgeoisarchetype.Therealityofpractise,however,wasdifferentfromthetheory: inStalin’sRussia, themalearchetype, the‘rational,domineeringman’ prevailed, despite attempts to recreate Marxist gender equalityimmediately commensurate with the revolution of 1917. But the idea ofovercoming the social construction of ‘the man’ through the reference toanatomy,tothe‘desiring-machine’,[277]ischaracteristicofMarxism.

Fascism,thethirdpoliticaltheory,acceptsthemodeloftheurban,White,European,rational,wealthy‘man’,andexalts in it. If liberalismaccepts thismodel as the norm, then fascism begins to gift ‘the man’ with additionalproperties. In National Socialism, he should be not simply be White, butNordicWhite;notjustrational,butinpossessionoftheuniqueformofreasonthatonlytheGermanicAryanracepossesses.ThisissimilartothepositionofLévy-Brühl,whopostulated that only theEuropeans have a logos, and thatother peoples are guided by pre-logical, non-civilised social structures.Masculinitywasfurtherexalted,andwomenwereurgedtobeengagedonlyinkinder,kirchen,undküchen(children,church,andkitchen).Othertenetsofgender were offered peripherally: for example, by Julius Evola in his TheMetaphysics of Sex,[278] in which the superiority of the masculine over the

feminine is asserted, it is argued thatmen are dormant potential gods, andwomen are dormant potential goddesses, but standing a little lower in thehierarchyofthesexes.Whileconsideringthethirdpoliticaltheory,thefringeconception of ‘Nordic matriarchy’ should also be mentioned: there was anontologyof the feminine.HermanWirth,[279] a discipleofBachofen, arguedthattheSupremeBeingisawoman,butthatwomenarecompletelydifferentfrom men, a woman in her ontology, weisse Frau. However, in the thirdpolitical theory, the image created by liberalism and then exaggeratedremainedthenorm.

The Fourth Political Theory represents an aspiration to overcome thegenderconstructionof the threepolitical theoriesofmodernity. In thiscase,what is its gender strategy, its imperative? First of all, the Fourth PoliticalTheoryputs outside thebrackets ‘theman’, in otherwords, that ‘man’ as agender with social constructions that are characteristic of modernity. TheFourthPoliticalTheorydoesnotaddresssucha ‘lastman’,asherepresentstheclosedarchetypeofModernity.Outsideofthesphereofgender,theFourthPolitical Theory gropes with the contours of its ‘man’. In the face of thisconstructionof‘man’ashewhopossessesreason,wealth,responsibility,city,whiteskincolor,andsoon,werevolt.Thisimageofmanmustdie;hedoesn’thave a chance to survive, as he is closed inside modernity’s historicaldeadlock.Hereproducesthesmallhierarchiesandcannotgobeyondhisownborders. Such a man believes himself to be immortal. In self-reflection hecreatespermanentrealities,mirrorslookinginmirrors.Thesamegoesforallthose images to which the man of modernity has been extended: thebusinesswoman,non-Whitesin‘respectable’roles,andsoon.

The positive attribute ofman, beyond the paradigm ofmodernity, is thenon-adult.ThesubjectoftheFourthPoliticalTheoryisanon-adultmale.Forexample, Le Grand Jeu of Gilbert-Lecomte and René Daumal,[280] whooffered to live their lives without maturing to remain playing at beingchildren.Thiscanbeconsideredasaninvitationtodevelopgendertenetsforthe Fourth Political Theory, a system of aesthetic and political philosophy.Undertheconceptofthenon-White‘man’liesthepre-logicalworldsystemofLévy-Brühl,where the logos is not the only means of social organisation.HerewedrawfromLévi-Straussa theoryofsocialanthropologyandethno-sociology drawn from the analysis of the experience of many non-Whitesocieties. Further, frommadness: all forms of intellectual transgression, thepractise of voluntary insanity from Friedrich Hölderlin and Nietzsche toBataille and Artaud. Madness is part of the gender arsenal of the FourthPolitical Theory. In general: non-White/European, insane, non-urban ordefinedbyaconstructedlandscape.Forexample,theecologistoraboriginal:thatis,thepersonwhodidnotbreakwithnature,asdiscussedbyRedfieldinhisThe Folk Society.[281] Thus, we create a search algorithm woven of allthose elements that are ignored or rejected by modernity. These elementsmakeupahuge fieldof existence andmetaphysics, a fieldof the intensive

being of the Fourth Political Theory. Supplementing the Fourth PoliticalTheory, we should refuse all those tenets about gender which liberalismcarrieswithinitself.Fromthesecondpoliticaltheory’sgenderconception,itwouldbepermissibletoborrowtheideaof‘thedesiring-machine’,theideaofovercoming ‘theman’ throughglobal egalitarianismwithin the limitsof thematerial.Fromtheclassicalfascistgendermodelofthethirdpoliticaltheory,as well as liberalism, there is nothing to learn, while the conceptionsdevelopedontheirfringesmaybeofgreatinterest,namelysexontologisation(fromEvola)andtheideaofNordicmatriarchy.

What is the subject of the Fourth Political Theory? The subject of theFourth Political Theory isDasein or Zwischen, the ‘between’ in the spacebetween the subject and the objectwhich it is possible to identifywith theanthropological trajectory of Gilbert Durand. WithinDasein, trajectory,[282]l’imaginaire,[283]isthereasocialconceptionofsex?AndwhatisthegenderofDasein?It isnecessarytoformulatethenormativeandimperativegenderoftheFourthPoliticalTheory.GenderintheFourthPoliticalTheoryisthesameas sex inDasein, that is,wehave explainedoneunknown through another.Daseincansomehowbesexualized,butthatsexwhichithascannotbeeithermale or female. It may make sense to speak about it in terms of theandrogyne.ShouldwesaythattheFourthPoliticalTheorymaybeaddressedtotheandrogynousbeing,anditsgenderistheandrogyne?Perhaps,butonlyifitispossiblenottoprojectontotheandrogynoustheobviouslysplitmodelsofsexashalvesofawhole.Sex,accordingtoPlato,isaunitythathasbeendivided. So trajectory is that which, according to Durand, is between thesubjectandtheobject,andisdefinedinrelationtothem,asinDaseinwhich,according toHeidegger, is inZwischen, on the border between the internalandexternal,constitutingitselfontheexistentialborderbetweenthedivisionof unity.And the concept of l’imaginaire contains divisionwithin itself (inGreek, διαίρεσις) as one of its possible regimes. So, if we understand theandrogyneinthisway,notassomethingthatiscomposite,butassomethingrootedorradical,thenwecantalkaboutaradicalnotion,whichisnotsexinthe sense that it ishalfof somethingelse.That is, thegenderof theFourthPoliticalTheoryis thathalf, thatsexwhichissimultaneouslythewholeanddoesnotneed its antithesis, and is therefore self-sufficientwithin itself.Wecantheoriseabout thisgender that itdoesnotsomuchcomeaboutfromananalysis of sexual or gender archetypes, but because of thinkingphilosophicallyandpoliticallyuponthesubjectoftheFourthPoliticalTheory.Thus,wechangetheformulationofthequestion.WedonotaskwhichsexisDasein, we answer that the gender of the subject of the Fourth PoliticalTheoryisthesameasthatofDasein.Inthiscase,wecanalsotalkabouttheradical (‘root’: from the Latin, radicula) androgyne, which exists not as aresultofacombinationofthemanandthewoman,butthatrepresentsinsteadtheprimordial,untouchedunity.

How does gender change under the conditions of postmodernity? The

postmodern represents a combination of all three political theories. On theonehand,thisisanaccomplishedmodernitywhichhasreacheditslogicalendashypermodern (or ‘ultramodern’).Thus, all three political theories projectontopostmodernitytheirowngenderarchetypes,whichrepresentedthelimitsof their own structures. These limits are expressed through aninstitutionalisation of gender in postmodernity. What is the postmoderngender? It is a maximisation of ‘the liberal man’, the archetype of whichapplies toallof itsantitheses: thestupid, thepoor, thenon-White, the little,andso forth. It is also thegenderofglobalisation,when thepropertiesofacertain type are extended as social standards onto all other types asuniversalism. Hence the idea that the proletarians are only the bourgeoisiewhohavenotgrown richyet,Blacksareunmodernisedwhites, andwomenare not yet fully liberated men. That is, we see that this all-consumingarchetypebecomesmeaningless.There-extensionofexistinggendermodelscan lead to the explosion of the hypermodern like a rotting fungus, and itsgenderarchetypeswillfail.Nowweareinthismomentofapostmodernre-extension, and the final breaking of gender. The stages of this break arefeminism,homosexuality,sex-changeoperations,andtranshumanity.

IntheWest,thesecondpoliticaltheoryhadagreatinfluenceontheelites,particularlythecreativeprofessions(actors,writers,philosophers,etc.).Thisis ‘the desiring-machine’, incorporating Leftist feminism with its ideas offreedomfromsex.DonnaHaraway[284] issuchafeminist,orratherlooselyaneo-Marxist and a postmodernist. She argued thatwhile thematurewomanmayfeelanurgetobe‘liberated’,liberationinourcultureinvolvesdefinitionof theopposite.Therefore it isnecessary toovercomeboth themanand thewomanthroughbecomingacyborg.According toher,sexcanbeovercomeonly by having overcome being human. In a similar vein is Foucault’s[285]conceptionofsexuality,thatis,sexualitypriortosex,asaneutraldispositive:sexuality, spreading along the surface of the screen, the ‘body withoutorgans’. This pan-sexuality, which is a smooth surface of sexual arousals,remains unclear in terms of fromwhom it is derived, forwhat reason, andmost importantly,nomatter inwhatorientationordirection.Asawhole, intermsoftheerosionanddestructionofthegenderconstructionsofmodernity,Marxist thought introduces the most significant contribution. Elements offascism in postmodernity are represented by the practise of BDSM.[286]Contemporary fascism contains strong elements of sadomasochism, andperverted fascism is an essential attribute of postmodernism, along withfeminism,cyborgs,a‘bodywithoutorgans’,andsoon.

Eventuallywe findourselves in an interesting situation: thepredominantgenderofmodernityisexposedasare-extensionofitsoriginalconception,isfast eroding and, in some instances, is about to explode, or perhaps hasalreadyexploded.Westandonatransitionbetweenthehypermodernandthepostmodern,andwedonotknowwherethetruthandwheretherealitylies.So,inapostmodernconstructionofgender,therewillnotbeanymen.Letus

imaginethissituation:thearchetypeof‘theman’fallsintopieces,whichdonot constitute parts of the whole anymore, but symbolise only themselves.Conservative forces can stand up for this archetype, demand the return ofmasculinity— this reasonable, wealthy white person— but thereby, theyonlytrytocontinuemodernitythroughgenderreconstructions.Thispositionseemshopeless, andhere again theFourthPoliticalTheory, in our opinion,goesforward.WesuggesttakingasteptowardsgenderasDasein,despitethenotorious representations and opprobrium that we will cause. By goingbeyond the limits of gender which we know, we get to the domain ofuncertainty, androgyny, and sex as practised by the angels. In the samesphere, it isnecessary tosearch foragenderof theFourthPoliticalTheory,namelybytakingrisksinlookingbehindthelimitsofthecollapsedchimeraof modernity.We can as yet provide only outlines: we know that it is thegenderofDaseinandtrajectory,thatthisgenderrepresentsarootreality,thatit belongs to l’imaginaire.Byextendingour investigation,we can raise thequestion about the gender of the Radical Self, which is beyond the basicparadigms.

T

14.AgainstthePostmodernWorld

TheEvilofUnipolarityhecurrentworldisunipolar,withtheglobalWestasitscentreandwith

theUnitedStatesasitscore.This kind of unipolarity has geopolitical and ideological characteristics.

Geopolitically, it is the strategic dominance of the Earth by the NorthAmericanhyperpowerandtheeffortofWashingtontoorganisethebalanceofforcesontheplanetinsuchamannerastobeabletorulethewholeworldinaccordancewith itsownnational, imperialistic interests. It isbadbecause itdeprivesotherstatesandnationsoftheirrealsovereignty.

When there is only one power which decides who is right and who iswrong,andwhoshouldbepunishedandwhonot,wehaveaformofglobaldictatorship.This isnotacceptable.Therefore,weshould fightagainst it. Ifsomeonedeprivesusofourfreedom,wehavetoreact.Andwewillreact.TheAmericanEmpireshouldbedestroyed.Andatonepoint,itwillbe.

Ideologically,unipolarityisbasedonmodernistandpostmodernistvaluesthatareopenlyanti-traditionalones. I share thevisionofRenéGuénonandJulius Evola, who considered modernity and its ideological basis(individualism,liberaldemocracy,capitalism,consumerism,andsoon)tobethecauseofthefuturecatastropheofhumanity,andtheglobaldominationoftheWesternlifestyleasthereasonforthefinaldegradationoftheEarth.TheWestisapproachingitsterminus,andweshouldnotletitdragalltherestofusdownintotheabysswithit.

Spiritually,globalisationisthecreationofagrandparody,thekingdomoftheAntichrist.AndtheUnitedStatesisthecentreofitsexpansion.Americanvaluespretendtobe‘universal’ones.Inreality,itisanewformofideologicalaggressionagainst themultiplicityof cultures and traditions still existing inthe rest of the world. I am resolutely against Western values which areessentiallymodernist andpostmodernist, andwhich arepromulgatedby theUnitedStatesbyforceofarmsorbyobtrusion(Afghanistan,Iraq,Libya,andperhapssoon,SyriaandIran).

Therefore,all traditionalistsshouldbeagainsttheWestandglobalisation,aswellasagainst the imperialistpoliticsof theUnitedStates. It is theonlylogicalandconsequentposition.SotraditionalistsandpartisansoftraditionalprinciplesandvaluesshouldopposetheWestanddefendtheRest,iftheRestshowsignsoftheconservationofTradition,whetherinpartorinitsentirety.

There can be and there really exist people, in theWest and even in theUnitedStates ofAmerica itself,who do not agreewith the present state ofaffairs and do not approve of modernity and postmodernity. They are thedefendersof thespiritual traditionsof thepre-modernWest.Theyshouldbewithusinourcommonstruggle.Theyshouldtakepartinourrevoltagainstthe modern and postmodern worlds. We would fight together against thecommonenemy.

Another question is the structure of a possible anti-globalist and anti-imperialist front and its participants. I think thatwe should include in it allforces that struggle against the West, the United States, against liberaldemocracy,andagainstmodernityandpostmodernity.Thecommonenemyisthenecessaryinstanceforallkindsofpoliticalalliances.ThismeansMuslimsandChristians,RussiansandChinese,bothLeftistsandRightists,theHindusand the Jews who challenge the present state of affairs, globalisation andAmerican imperialism.Theyare thusallvirtuallyfriendsandallies.Letouridealsbedifferent,butwehaveincommononeverystrongfeature:hatredofthepresentsocialreality.Ouridealsthatdifferarepotentialones(inpotentia).Butthechallengewearedealingwithisactual(inactu).Thatisthebasisfora new alliance. All who share a negative analysis of globalisation,Westernisation and postmodernisation should coordinate their effort in thecreationofanewstrategyofresistancetotheomnipresentevil.AndwecanfindcommonalliesevenwithintheUnitedStatesaswell,amongthosewhochoosethepathofTraditionoverthepresentdecadence.

TowardstheFourthPoliticalTheoryAt this point, we should raise a very important question: what kind ofideology should we use in our opposition to globalisation and its liberaldemocratic, capitalist, and modernist (postmodernist) principles? I believethatallpreviousanti-liberalideologies(Communism,socialism,andfascism)areno longer relevant.They tried to fight liberalcapitalismand theyfailed.This ispartlybecause, at theendof time, it is evil thatprevails; andpartlybecauseoftheirinnercontradictionsandlimitations.Soitistimetobeginadeep revision of the illiberal ideologies of the past.What are their positivesides? Their positive side is the very fact that theywere anti-capitalist andanti-liberal,aswellasanti-cosmopolitanandanti-individualist.Thesefeaturesshould be accepted and integrated into a future ideology. But Communistdoctrineitselfismodern,atheist,materialistandcosmopolitan.Thatshouldbethrownout.Ontheotherhand,Communism’ssocialsolidarity,socialjustice,socialism and general holistic attitude to society are good, in and ofthemselves.Soweneedtoseparateoutthematerialistandmodernistaspectsof Communism and reject them,while preserving and embracing its socialandholisticaspects.

Asfor the theoriesof theThirdWay—whichweredear,uptoacertainpoint, to some traditionalists such as Julius Evola — there were manyunacceptableelements, foremostamongthesebeingracism,xenophobiaandchauvinism. These are not only moral failures, but also theoretically andanthropologically inconsistent attitudes. Differences between ethnicities donotequatetosuperiorityorinferiority.Thedifferencesshouldbeacceptedandaffirmedwithoutanyracistsentimentsorconsideration.Thereisnocommonoruniversalmeasuretojudgedifferentethnicgroups.Whenonesocietytriesto judge another, it applies its own criteria, and so commits intellectualviolence.ThisethnocentricattitudeispreciselythecrimeofglobalisationandWesternisation,aswellasofAmericanimperialism.

Ifwefreesocialismfromitsmaterialist,atheisticandmodernist features,and ifwe reject the racist and narrow nationalist aspects of the ThirdWaydoctrines,wearriveatacompletelynewkindofpoliticalideology.Wecallitthe Fourth Political Theory, or 4PT, the first being liberalism, that weessentiallychallenge;thesecondbeingtheclassicalformofCommunism;andthethirdbeingNationalSocialismandfascism.Itselaborationstartsfromthepointofintersectionbetweendifferentanti-liberalpoliticaltheoriesofthepast(namelyCommunismandtheThirdWaytheories).SowearriveatNationalBolshevism, which represents socialism without materialism, atheism,progressivism,andmodernism,aswellasthemodifiedThirdWaytheories.

But that isonly the first step.Themechanicaladditionofdeeply revisedversionsoftheanti-liberalideologiesofthepastwillnotgiveusafinalresult.Itisonlyafirstapproximationandpreliminaryapproach.Wemustgofurtherandmake an appeal to Tradition and to pre-modern sources of inspiration.There we have the Platonic ideal state, Medieval hierarchical society, andtheological visions of the normative social and political system (Christian,Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu). These pre-modern sources are a veryimportantdevelopmentfortheNationalBolshevismsynthesis.Therefore,weneedtofindanewnameforthiskindofideology,andFourthPoliticalTheoryisquiteappropriate.Itdoesnottelluswhatthistheoryis,butratherwhatitisnot.Soitisakindofinvitationandappeal,ratherthandogma.

Politically,wehavehereaninterestingbasisfortheconsciouscooperationoftheradicalLeft-wingersandtheNewRight,aswellaswithreligiousandotheranti-modernmovements,suchastheecologistsandGreentheorists,forexample. The only thing that we insist on in creating such a pact ofcooperationistoputasideanti-Communist,aswellasanti-fascist,prejudices.These prejudices are the instruments in the hands of liberals and globalistswith which they keep their enemies divided. So we should strongly rejectanti-Communism as well as anti-fascism. Both of them are counter-revolutionarytoolsinthehandsofthegloballiberalelite.Atthesametime,we should strongly oppose any kind of confrontation between the variousreligiousbeliefs—MuslimsagainstChristians,theJewsagainstMuslims,theMuslims against the Hindus and so on. The inter-confessional wars and

tensions work for the cause of the kingdom of the Antichrist who tries todivideallthetraditionalreligionsinordertoimposeitsownpseudo-religion,theeschatologicalparody.

SoweneedtounitetheRight,theLeftandtheworld’straditionalreligionsin a common struggle against the common enemy. Social justice, nationalsovereigntyandtraditionalvaluesarethethreemainprinciplesoftheFourthPoliticalTheory.Itisnoteasytoputtogethersuchavariedalliance.Butwemusttryifwewanttoovercomethefoe.

InFrance,thereisasayingcoinedbyAlainSoral:ladroitedesvaleursetla gauche du travail. In italian it goes: La Destra sociale e la Sinistraidentitaria.HowexactlyitshouldsoundinEnglishwewillseelater.

Wecouldgofurtherandtry todefinethesubject, theactorof theFourthPoliticalTheory.InthecaseofCommunism,thecentralsubjectwasclass.InthecaseoftheThirdWaymovements,thecentralsubjectwaseithertheraceorthenation.Inthecaseofreligions,itisthecommunityofthefaithful.HowcouldtheFourthPoliticalTheorydealwiththisdiversityandthedivergenceofsubjects?Wepropose,asasuggestion,thatthemainsubjectoftheFourthPoliticalTheorycanbefoundintheHeideggerianconceptofDasein.It isaconcrete, but extremely profound instance that could be the commondenominator for the further ontological development of theFourthPoliticalTheory. What is crucial for consideration is the authenticity or non-authenticityoftheexistenceofDasein.TheFourthPoliticalTheoryinsistsontheauthenticityofexistence.Soitistheantithesistoanykindofalienation—social,economic,national,religiousormetaphysical.

ButDasein is a concrete instance. Every individual and every culturepossesses their ownDasein. They differ between each other, but they arealwayspresent.

AcceptingDaseinasthesubjectoftheFourthPoliticalTheory,weshouldprogress toward the elaborationof a common strategy in theprocessof thecreationofafuturethatfits toourdemandsandourvisions.Suchvaluesassocialjustice,nationalsovereigntyandtraditionalspiritualitycanserveusasthefoundation.

I sincerely believe that the Fourth Political Theory, and its secondaryvariations,NationalBolshevismandEurasianism,canbeofgreatuseforourpeoples,ourcountries,andourcivilisations.Thekeymanagerofdifferencesismultipolarityinallsenses—geopolitical,cultural,axiological,economic,andsoon.

The important concept of nous (intellect) developed by the Greekphilosopher Plotinus[287] corresponds to our ideal. The intellect is one andmultipleatthesametime,becauseithasmultipledifferencesinitself—itisnotuniformoranamalgam,buttakenassuchwithmanyparts,andwithalltheirdistinctparticularities.The futureworldshouldbenoetic insomeway

—characterisedbymultiplicity;diversityshouldbetakenasitsrichnessandits treasure, and not as a reason for inevitable conflict: many civilisations,many poles, many centres, many sets of values on one planet and in onehumanity.Manyworlds.

But therearesomewho thinkotherwise.Whoarealignedagainst suchaproject?Thosewhowant to imposeuniformity, theone (American)wayoflife, OneWorld. And their methods are force, temptation, and persuasion.Theyareagainstmultipolarity.Sotheyareagainstus.

APPENDIXI

I.PoliticalPost-Anthropology1.Eachtypeofpoliticalsystemandeachstageofpoliticalhistoryoperates

inaccordancewiththenormative,political typeofthehuman.Wesay‘a man of the Middle Ages’, ‘a man of modernity’, and so on,describing the specific historical and political constructs. Theseconstructsaredirectlydependentontheorganisationandformalisationofpowerrelationsinasocietyandrelatetotheaxisofpower,whichistheessenceofthepolitical,andwiththedesignationofone’sfriendandenemy (C. Schmitt), which is also the essence of the political. Thepoliticalispowerandpoliticalidentification(theSelf/theOther).Eachpolitical form provides a different model of power and suchidentification.However,manypoliticalsystemsexist,andeachhas itsownpoliticalanthropology.Politicaltheology(C.Schmitt)[288]suggeststhat the policy and political system reflects, and in certain casesconstitutes,astandardofpoliticalanthropology.

2. The political human is transformed from one form of the political toanother. This is sufficiently traced in the ‘philosophy of politics’ and‘post-philosophy’. Now we will focus on which form of politicalanthropologymeetspostmodernity.

3.Postmodernityissomethingthatsetsinandstepson—stepsonus.Butit has not stepped yet. Therefore, the study of postmodernity suffersfromanabsurdcreativegap.Althoughitcansteponus,itmayalsonotsteponus,andwecan(orcannot,itisnotyetclear)wriggleoutfromunderit.So,talkingaboutpostmodernityisinteresting,excitingandatthesametimerisky.Itisaprocesswithanunknownendanduncertainmeaning. It is still possible to influence this end and this meaning.History,apparently,hasended,andpost-historyisonlybeginning,andonehastosearchinitforaspaceofstruggle,towinbackthisspaceandexpandit.

4. Political post-anthropology is about forecasting and constructing thepoliticalhumaninpostmodernity.Itisnormative.Wedonotjuststudywhatexists;wefollowtheprocessandtrytoaffectit.Wishfulthinkingand self-fulfilling prophecy is quite legitimate andwelcome here. By

exploringpoliticalpost-anthropology,webringthepoliticalbacktolife.

II.PoliticalPosthumanityandthePost-State1.Theabsolutefeaturesoftheposthumanityofpostmodernityare:-depoliticisation;-autonomisation;-microscopisation;-sub-andtranshumanisation(asaspecialformofdehumanisation);-Dividualisation(fragmentation).That is, the rejection and denial of something that was political in the

previous phases of history becomes the dominant form of politics.Politicisationmeetswithdepoliticisation.Thepoliticsoftheposthumanof postmodernity lies in the attempt to escape from it, and in theprojection of the political into the new sphere. The posthuman ofpostmodernitydeclareswaronthepolitical:first,basedontheeconomy(homo oeconomicus vs. homo politicus), then against the classicalsubject-object economy in the name of the network dynamics of thefree,creativegameofdisengaged‘sets’(NegriandHardt).Theindustryof fashion, celebrity, glamour and show business inculcates the ideathat, to attain material prosperity, one does not need to earn moneythroughwork;onemustinsteadenterandberecognisedbytherelevantsocialsetandbecomeamemberoftheever-changingglamournetwork.Glossypages,onwhichabodywithoutorgansisslidingrightandleft,are like a concrete embodiment of Deleuze’s l’espace lisse[289]— animageofpost-economics.Actualworkisnotnecessary,itisoptional.

2.Thepost-politicalposthumanoverthrowspowerandthecollective,andthen his or her own dividualised identity. He does not recognise thepowerrelationsoverorunderhim,doesnotknowSelfandOther,anddoesnotacceptorunderstandanythingthatliesbeyondthescopeofhismicrocosm. His policy is expressed in the form of desires andvegetative impulses of unknown ownership and aims. Maybe it is‘desire’, but this ‘desire’ is no one’s and is not specifically addressedanywhere.

3.Itisfromarandomgameofsub-individualityandtransindividualitythatthe posthuman creates amodel of the post-state. The post-state is anironic parody of the State. It is the State vice-versa, the State-as-phantom,theState-as-mockery.Inthepost-state,institutionsaremobileand ephemeral. Policies and legal principles are continuously andrapidly changing. It has neither vertical, nor horizontal symmetry,

aiminginsteadtomergewiththenetwork.Itissortofapiraterepublicplacedincyberspace,oraBraziliancarnival,whichreplacestheroutinewitha routineofspectacle. In thepost-state, theseriousand frivolousswap, and it is a kind of Saturnalia[290] rendered permanent. In post-politics,posthumanityconstitutesthispost-statethroughbeingamusedbyitsowndeadly,hallucinatorygame.

4.Inpoliticalpost-anthropology,allisreversed:leisureandwork(themostserious occupation, actual work, is watching television shows),knowledgeandignorance(completeidiotsaregivenjobsasacademics),publicandprivate .The tiniest,most inanedetailsofone’s lifeare thecentre of attention in this reality show, even in political debate.Traditional male and female roles are reversed. Rather than beingesteemedandexperiencedelders,politiciansarechosenfortheiryouth,glamour, appearance and inexperience. Victims become the criminalsandviceversa…

5. Why are we talking about post-politics when it is obviously aboutsomething directly opposite to the political? Because such ananthropological type of postmodernity, in theory and social practice,stepson,i.e.itattacks,persistentlyimposesitself,introducesitself,andgraduallybecomesthenorm.Itactsasabasicpersonality(A.Kardiner).[291]Andforsuchanattackandsuchanadvance,dispositif[292]ofpowerandcollectiveidentification,thepolitical,again,isrequired.But,inthiscase, models of counter-power tend to affirm their own power, andthose models that deny all forms of a type as such insist onuniversalisationoftheirtype(type,inthiscase,isasynonymforeidosor universality). Apolitical singulars and divides compose a sort of arulingpartyofpostmodernity.The Influentialand thoseclose to themseizepowerorarealreadyinpower.

6. This ‘party’ has a stylistic and strategic arsenal. This is fashion andinteractive information technologies (Twitter, mobile phones, socialnetworks,blogs).InFrench,‘fashionable’isoftenreferredtobyaslangword, branche, literally ‘connected’. Fashion and technology arechanging rapidly, and the one who is ‘connected’ is the one who ischangingalongwithit,hereandnow,rapidlyanddynamically.Thereisnoyesterdayandtomorrow,noteventoday.Thereisonlynow.NowitisGoogleandTwitter,butinamomenttheywillbeprehistoricevents,such as typewriters orAtari.Herein is adromocratic[293] aspect (PaulVirilio).[294]

7.TwitterrevolutionsintheArabworldoriPadpresidents,suchasDmitriMedvedev, are clear signs of political post-anthropology and thephenomenonofthepost-state.Therevoltoftheelitesandtheoscillationof the intensity level of consciousness of the ruling groups are nearzero.Aclassicexampleisadrugaddictaspoliticalstrategist.

III.ThePoliticalSoldierandHisSimulacrum1. Like any political model, the political post-anthropology can be

accepted andmay be rejected. It does notmatter howmuch itwouldinsistonitsown‘naturalness’.Apersoncanchooseboththestructureofpowerandhisidentity.Thepost-state,Twitterrevolutions,andiPadPresidentsareallpartofasingletrend,steppingonandintruding.Theymaybemainstream,butarenotunique.Theremayalsobealternatives.

2.Thefirstalternative is thepoliticalanthropologyofpreviousforms. Inthe face of political post-anthropology, it can be generalised by thefigure of a ‘political soldier’. This is an anthropological concept. Itgivesno ideaofwhatpolitical ideology the‘politicalsoldier’ follows.Butthisconceptimplicitlycontainsabeliefintheexistenceofpoliticalontology:thepoliticalsoldierfightsforamodelofpowerrelationships,and directly and openly identifies himself with a particular group(‘ours’).Afundamentaldistinctionof thepolitical soldier is thathe isreadyandabletodieforhispoliticalidea.Thisdifferentiateshimfromanordinarysoldierandanordinarypolitician.Asoldierdies,butnotforapoliticalidea.Apoliticianfightsforapoliticalidea,butisnotreadytodieforit.

3. The political soldier may be a Communist, a nationalist, or even aliberal. But in any case, he personalises modernity, modernity in itsspecificpoliticalforms.Thepoliticalsoldierisamediastinum[295]ofthepoliticalanthropologyofmodernity.Andassuch,intheory,itcanfightpolitical post-anthropology. This will be a conservative answer. Anindividualfightsanindividual.Apresent‘ending’rejectstheatemporal,post-historical ‘future’. The drama of the ‘last’ humans clashingwithposthumans inapoliticalconflict isatonceveryheroic, tragic,poeticand…hopeless.

4. But: political post-anthropology makes such a position almostimpossible. The political soldier in the unique conditions of thecorrosive waters of postmodernity is immediately converted into asimulacrum.This is themain delicacy of postmodernity: it carries anironic mutation in regard to all aspects of modernity, in regard toanthropology—inthefirstplace.Todayitisalreadynolongerpossibletomeetwiththepoliticalsoldier;wecanonlymeetwithhisdouble,hissimulacrum,hisfake.

5. In an anthropological series of political and anthropological forms,postmodernity installsavicious link.All the threads that connect thepolitical arena of postmodernity with modernity and deeper intopoliticalhistoryarebrokenatthemomentofpostmodernity,andthereis

found a knot. After that knot, with all the visible continuity, a fakesegmentissituated.

6.Todaytherearenopoliticalsoldiers.Allthatremainsistheirshells.

IV.AlternativeinPoliticalPostanthropology:Pre-humanandPC

1. My thesis is reduced to the following affirmation: in the context ofpolitical post-anthropology, postmodernity and the posthuman(dividual) cannot be opposed to modernity and human (individual).Opposing dualities will not be like the dividual vs. individual andposthuman vs. human, but like dividual vs. pseudo-individual andposthuman vs. pseudo-human. The anthropological fold (Deleuze) ofpostmodern anthropology is this: a simulacrum meets with asimulacrum.

2. In postmodernity, a political soldier is impossible. It can only be asimulacrum.

3. Consequently, the opposition must be different. It is not a previousanthropological link that is designed to collide with a post-anthropologicalsegmentofananthropologicalseries,whichis locatedafterthesubstitutedelement(knot),butanentirelydifferentfigure.Thatis,oneshouldspeakofthepoliticalexpressionoftheRadicalSubject.

4. This topic should be integrated into the Fourth Political Theory. It isbeyondthescopeofthisbooktodevelopit.Butingeneralwecansay:an alternative topolitical post-anthropology is alsopost-anthropology,butdifferent.

5.Theroutesofthetransgressionofhumanity’sboundariesorlimitationsmay not be as such as in the case of the dividual. It is not really thehumanthatmeetswiththeposthumaninthepoliticalpost-anthropology,butapre-human,thepre-conceptofthehuman.Thepointoforiginthatcamebeforethehumanisparalleltohimandwillremainafterhim.

6.Herewecanalsotouchonthedelicatethemeofangelomorphosis.Itisnoaccidentthatintheeschatologyofmostreligionsandtraditionsweare dealingwith theEndkampf[296] panoramic view,which necessarilyinvolves angels. In Hollywood blockbusters, indeed, this also suffersfromsimulation.Butitisinevitable.

ThepoliticalexpressionoftheRadicalSubjectcanbedefined,notastheareaof political theology (Carl Schmitt), but as the area of politicalangelology.Thistopicrequiresfurtherdevelopment.

M

APPENDIXII

TheMetaphysicsofChaosodernEuropeanphilosophybeganwith the conceptof logosand the

logicalorderofbeing.Forovertwothousandyears,thisconceptbecamefullyexhausted.Allthepotentialitiesandtheprincipleslaidinthislogocentricwayof thinkinghavebynowbeen thoroughlyexplored,exposedandabandonedbyphilosophers.

However,theproblemofchaosandthenatureofchaoswasneglectedandputasidefromtheverybeginningofthisphilosophy.Theonlyphilosophyweknowatpresentisthephilosophyoflogos.Butchaosissomethingoppositetologos,itsabsolutealternative.

FromtheNineteenthcenturyandcontinuinguntilthepresentday,themostimportant and brilliant European philosophers (such as Friedrich NietzscheandMartinHeidegger)began to suspect that logoswas fast approaching itsend.Someof themdaredtosuggest that, fromnowon,weare livingin thetimeoftheendoflogocentricphilosophy,andapproaching…somethingelse.

Europeanphilosophywasbasedonthelogocentricprinciplecorrespondingtotheprincipleofexclusion, thedifferentiating,Greekdiaeresis.[297]All thiscorresponds strictly to the masculine attitude and reflects a patriarchal,authoritative,vertical,andhierarchicalorderofbeingandknowledge.

This masculine approach to reality imposes order and the principle ofexclusivity everywhere. That is perfectly manifested in Aristotle’s logic,wheretheprinciplesofidentityandexclusionareputinthecentralpositioninthenormativemannerof thinking.Aisequal toA,notequal tonot-A.Thisidentityexcludesnon-identity(alterity)[298]andvice-versa.Hereitisthemalewhospeaks,thinks,acts,fights,divides,orders,andsoon.

Nowadaysallthislogocentricphilosophyhascometoanend,andwemustconsider another road for thought, not in the logocentric, phallocentric,hierarchicalandexclusivistway.

Iflogosnolongersatisfiesus, fascinatesus,ormobilisesus, thenweareinclinedtotrysomethingelseandatlasttoaddresstheproblemofchaos.

Tobeginwith:therearetwodifferentconceptsofchaos.Modernphysics

and philosophy refers to complex systems, bifurcation or non-integratingequations and processes, using the concept ‘chaos’ to designate suchphenomena. They understand by that not the absence of order, but amorecomplicatedformoforderthatisdifficulttoperceiveassuch,andis,infact,its essence.Suchchaosor turbulence is calculable innature,butwithmoresophisticated theoretical and mathematical means and procedures than theinstrumentsthatclassicalnaturalscienceisdealingwith.

Theterm‘chaos’isusedhereinametaphoricalmanner.Inmodernsciencewearecontinuingtodealwithanessentiallylogocentricmannerofexploringreality.Sothe‘chaos’hereisnomorethanadissipativestructureoflogos,thelastresultofitsdecay,fall,anddecomposition.Modernscienceisdealing,notwithsomethingotherthanlogos,butwithakindofpost-logos,orex-Logos:logos in the stateof ultimatedissolution and regression.Theprocessof thefinaldestructionanddissipationoflogosistakenherefor‘chaos’.

Inreality,though,ithasnothingtodowithchaosassuch,withchaosintheoriginalGreeksenseoftheterm.Itisratherakindofutmostconfusion.RenéGuénon has called the erawe are living through now an era of confusion.‘Confusion’ means the state of being that both runs parallel to order andprecedes it.Thus,weshouldmakeacleardistinctionbetween twodifferentconcepts.Ononehandwehavethemodernconceptofchaosthatrepresentspost-order,oramixtureofcontradictoryfragmentsofbeingwithoutanyunityand order, linked amongst themselves by highly sophisticated post-logicalcorrespondences and conflicts. GillesDeleuze has called this phenomena a‘non-co-possiblesystemcomposedbythemultitudeofthemonads’(usingtheconcept ofmonads and co-possibility introduced by Leibniz),[299] becomingforDeleuze the ‘nomads’.[300]Deleuze describes postmodernity as a sumofnon-co-possiblefragmentswhichcancoexist.ItwasnotpossibleinLeibnitz’svision of reality, based on the principle of co-possibility. But withinpostmodernity we can see excluding elements coexisting. The non-orderednon-co-possible monads, or nomads, swarming around could seem to bechaotic,andinthissenseweusuallyusethewordchaosineverydayspeech.Butstrictlyspeaking,weshouldmakeadistinction.

We need to distinguish between two kinds of chaos, the postmodernist‘chaos’ as an equivalent to confusion, a kind of post-order, and the Greekchaosaspre-order,assomething thatexistsbeforeorderedrealityhascomeintobeing.Onlythelattercanbeconsideredaschaosinthepropersenseoftheword.Thissecond,butactually theoriginal,conceptionofchaosshouldbeexaminedcarefullyandmetaphysically.

The epic vision of the rise and fall of logos in the course of thedevelopmentofWesternphilosophyandWesternhistorywas first espousedbyMartinHeidegger,whoarguedthatinthecontextofEuropeanorWesternculture,logosisnotonlyaprimaryphilosophicalprinciple,butalsothebasisof thereligiousattitudeformingthecoreofChristianity.Wecanalsonotice

that theconceptofkalam,or intellect, isat thecentreofIslamicphilosophyandtheology.ThesameistrueforJudaism(atleastinthevisionofPhiloofAlexandria,[301]andaboveallinMedievalJudaismandtheKaballah).Thusinhighmodernity,whereweareliving,weassistthefalloflogosaccompaniedby the corresponding decline of classical Greco-Roman culture andmonotheistic religion aswell.These processes of decadence are completelyparalleltowhatMartinHeideggerconsidersthepresentconditionofWesternculture as a whole. He identifies the origin of this condition of decline insomeofthehiddenandhardlyrecognisableerrorscommittedduringtheearlystages of Greek thought. Something went wrong at the very beginning ofWesternhistory,andMartinHeideggersees thiswrong turnprecisely in theaffirmationoftheexclusivistpositionofanexclusivist logos.Thisshiftwasmade byHeraclitus[302] and Parmenides,[303] but above all by Platowith thedevelopment of philosophic thought that envisaged twoworlds or layers ofreality where existence was perceived as the manifestation of the hidden.Later,thishiddenelementwasrecognizedaslogos,astheidea,theparadigm,the example. From that point on, the referential theory of truth proceeds.Truth lies in the fact of the immediate correspondence of the given to thepresumedinvisibleessence,or‘thenaturethatlikestohide’[304]accordingtoHeraclitus. The Pre-Socratics were at the forefront of this philosophy. Theunfetteredexplosionof themodern technique is its logical result.HeideggercallsitGe-stellandthinksitisthereasonforthecatastropheandannihilationofmankindthatinevitablyapproaches.Accordingtohim,theveryconceptoflogoswaswrong,soheproposed to radically reviseourattitude to theveryessence of philosophy and the process of thought, and to find anotherwaywhichhecalled‘theotherbeginning’.

Logos first appeared with the birth of Western philosophy. The earliestGreekphilosophyaroseassomethingthatalreadyexcludedchaos.Preciselyatthesametime,logosbegantoflourish,revealingakindofmightywill topower and the absolutisation of the masculine attitude to reality. Thebecomingof logocentric cultureontologicallyannihilated thepolaroppositeto logos itself— the feminine chaos. So chaos as something that precededlogos, was abolished by it, and its exclusivity were both manifested anddismissed at the same time. Masculine logos ousted feminine chaos.Exclusivity and exclusion subdued inclusivity and the inclusion. So theClassical world was born, stretching its limits for 2500 years — up untilmodernity and the rationalist scientific era.Thisworldhas come to its end.Butnevertheless,wearestill livinginitsoutskirts.Atthesametime, inthedissipating postmodern world, all the structures of order are degrading,dispersing,andbecomingmoreandmoreconfused.Itistheduskoflogos,theendoforder,thelastchordofmasculine,exclusivistdomination.Butstillweareinsidethelogicalstructureratherthanoutsideit.

By stating this, we have conjured some basic solutions concerning thefuture.The firstpossible solution is the return to thekingdomof logos, the

ConservativeRevolution, therestorationofmalefull-scaledominationinallspheresofthelife—inphilosophy,religion,andineverydaylife.Thiscouldbedonespiritually, sociallyor technically.Thiswaywhere techniquemeetsspiritualorderwasfundamentallyexploredandstudiedbyHeidegger’sfriend,Ernst Jünger. It is a return to classicism accompanied by an appeal totechnologicalprogress.Itisanefforttosavethefallinglogos,therestorationoftraditionalsociety,andtheeternallynewOrder.

Thesecondpossiblesolutionistoacceptthecurrenttrendsandtofollowthe direction of confusion, becoming more and more involved in thedissipationofstructure,inpost-structuralism,andtryingtogetpleasureoutofthecomfortableglideintonothingness.ThatistheoptionchosenbytheLeftand the liberal representativesofpostmodernity. It ismodernnihilismat itsbest — originally identified by Nietzsche and explored thoroughly byHeidegger.Theconceptofnothingbeingthepotentialpresentintheprincipleofidentitypropertologositselfisnotthelimitoftheprocessofthefallofthelogicalorder,butrathertheconstructionofarationalrealmoftheunlimitedexpansionofhorizontaldecay, the incalculablemultitudesof the flowersofputrefaction.

However,wecouldchooseathirdpathandtrytotranscendthebordersoflogosandstepoutbeyondthecrisisofthepostmodernworld,thatisliterallypostmodern, i.e., lying beyond modernity, where the dissipation of logosreaches its limit.So thequestionof thisvery limit iscrucial.Seenfromthestandpointoflogosingeneral,includingitsmostdecayedaspects,beyondthedomainoforderliesnothing.Socrossingtheborderofbeingisontologicallyimpossible.Nothing isnot: sospeaksall logocentricWesternontologyafterParmenides. This impossibility asserts the infiniteness of the outskirts oflogosand grants to the decay, inside the realm of order, eternal continuity.Beyond the border of being lies nothing, and tomove toward this limit isanalyticallyinfiniteandunending(theaporiae[305]ofZenoofElea[306]areherefullyvalid).So,noonecancrossthatfrontierintothenon-existentnot-beingthatsimplyisnot.

Ifweinsist,nevertheless,indoingthis,thenweshouldappealtochaosinits original Greek sense, as to something that proceeds being and order,somethingpre-ontological.

We stand in front of a really important and crucial problem. A greatnumberofpeopletodayareunsatisfiedwithwhatisgoingonaroundus,withtheabsolutecrisisofvalues,religions,philosophy,politicalandsocialorder,withpostmodernconditions,withtheconfusionandperversion,andwiththisageoftheutmostdecayingeneral.

Butconsideringtheessenceofthedeclineofourcivilisationtothepresentstate,wecannotlooktotheprecedingphasesofthelogocentricorderanditsimplicit structures, because it was precisely logos itself that has broughtthingstothestatewheretheyarenow,bearingwithinitselfthegermsofthe

presentdecay.Heideggeridentified,withextremecredibility,therootsofthetechnique in thePre-Socratic solution to theproblemof beingbymeansoflogos.Logoscannotsaveusfromthesituationthatitisthecauseof.Logosisofnousetoushereanymore.

Onlythepre-ontologicalchaoscangiveasahintabouthowtogobeyondthe trapofpostmodernity. Itwasputasideon theeveof thecreationof thelogicalstructureofbeingasacornerstone.Nowitisitsturntocomeintoplay.Otherwise, we will be doomed to accept the post-logical dissipatedpostmodernitythatpretendstobeeternalinsomewaybecauseitannihilatestime. Modernity has killed eternity and postmodernity is killing time. Thearchitectureofthepostmodernworldiscompletelyfragmented,perverseandconfused.Itisalabyrinthwithoutanexit,asfoldedandtwistedasaMoebiusstrip.[307]Logos,whichwastheguarantorofstrictnessandorder,serveshereinstead to grant curvature and crookedness, being used to preserve theimpassability of the ontological borderwith nothing from the eventual andinevitabletrespassersseekingtoescapeintothebeyond.

Sotheonlywaytosaveourselves,tosavehumanityandculturefromthissnare,istotakethestepbeyondthelogocentricculture,towardschaos.

We cannot restore logos and order, because they bear in themselves thereasonfortheirowneternaldestruction.Inotherwords,tosavetheexclusivelogos,weshouldmakeanappeal to thealternativeinclusiveinstancethat ischaos.

Buthowcouldweusetheconceptofchaosandbaseourphilosophyonitif, up to now, philosophy has always been for us something logical bydefinition?

Inordertoresolvethisdifficulty,weshouldapproachchaosnotfromtheposition of logos but from that of chaos itself. It can be compared to thefemininevision,thefeminineunderstandingoftheOtherthatisnotexcludedbut,onthecontrary,includedinthesameness.Logosregardsitselfaswhatisandaswhatisequaltoitself.Itcanaccept

thedifferencesinsideitselfbecauseitexcludestheOtherthatlieswithout.Sothe will to power is working, the law of sovereignty. Beyond logos, logosasserts,liesnothing,notsomething.Sologos,excludingallotherthanitself,excludeschaos.Chaosusesadifferentstrategy.Itincludesinitselfallthatitis,butatthesameallthatitisnot.Soall-inclusivechaosincludesalsowhatisnotinclusive,namelythatwhichexcludeschaos.Sochaosdoesnotperceivelogos as theOther,but as itself,or as somethingnon-existent.Logos as thefirstprincipleofexclusionisincludedinchaos,presentinit,envelopedbyit,andhasaplacegrantedinsideofit,asthemotherbearingthebabybearsinherselfwhatisapartofherselfandwhatisnotapartofheratthesametime.Man conceives woman as an external being and seeks to penetrate her.Womanconsidersmanas something internal and seeks togivehimabirth,

andtogivebirthtohim.

ChaosistheeternalnascenceoftheOther,thatis,oflogos.To sum up, chaotic philosophy is possible because chaos itself includes

logos as some inner possibility. It can freely identify it, cherish it andrecognise its exclusivity included in its everlasting life. Sowe come to thefigureoftheveryspecial,chaoticlogos, thatis,acompletelyandabsolutelyfreshlogosbeingeternallyrevivedbythewatersofchaos.Thischaoticlogosisat thesametimeexclusive(this iswhyit isproperly logos)and inclusive(beingchaotic).Itdealswithsamenessandothernessdifferently.

Chaos can think.We should ask her how she does this.We have askedlogos. Now it is the turn of chaos.Wemust learn to thinkwith chaos andwithinthechaos.

I could suggest, as an example, the philosophy of the Japanese thinkerKitaroNishida,[308]whohasconstructed the‘logicofbasho’or the‘logicofplaces’,inplaceofAristotle’slogic.

We should explore other cultures, rather than Western, to try to finddifferent examples of inclusive philosophy, inclusive religions, and so on.Chaotic logos is not only an abstract construction. Ifwe seekwell,we canfindtherealformsofsuchintellectualtraditionsinarchaicsocieties,aswellasinEasterntheologyandmysticalcurrents.

Tomakeanappealtochaosistheonlywaytosavelogos.Logosneedsasavior,itcannotsaveitself.Itneedssomethingoppositetoitselftoberestoredin the critical situation of postmodernity. We could not transcendpostmodernity. The latter cannot be overcomewithout appeal to somethingthat has been prior to the reason of its decay. So we should resort tophilosophiesotherthanWestern.

Inconclusion,itisnotcorrecttoconceivechaosassomethingbelongingtothepast.Chaosiseternal,buteternallycoexistingwithtime.Therefore,chaosis always absolutelynew, fresh, and spontaneous. It couldbe regarded as asource of any kind of invention and freshness because its eternity has, initself, always somethingmore thanwas, is, orwill be in time.Logos itselfcannotexistwithoutchaos,likefishcannotlivewithoutwater.Whenwetakea fish out of water, it dies.When the fish begins to insist excessively thatthereissomethingotherthanwateraroundit,evenifitistrue,itcometotheshore and dies there. It is a kind ofmad fish.Whenwe put it back in thewater, it only jumpsout again.So, let it die thisway if itwants.There areotherfishesdeepinthewater.Letusfollowthem.

The astronomical era that is coming to an end is the era of the fishconstellation, of Pisces. The fish on the shore. The dying one. Sowe needwaternowverybadly.

Only a completely new attitude to thought, a new ontology, and a new

gnoseologycansave logos outof thewater, on the shore, in thedesert thatgrowsandgrows,asNietzscheforesaw.

Only chaos and the alternative philosophy based on inclusivity can savemodern humanity and theworld from the consequences of the degradationanddecayoftheexclusivistprinciplecalledlogos.Logoshasexpiredandweallwillbeburiedunder its ruinsunlesswemakeanappeal tochaosand itsmetaphysicalprinciples,andusethemasabasisforsomethingnew.Perhapsthisis‘theotherbeginning’Heideggerspokeof.

OtherbookspublishedbyArktos:BeyondHumanRightsbyAlaindeBenoist

ManifestoforaEuropeanRenaissancebyAlaindeBenoist&CharlesChampetier

TheProblemofDemocracybyAlaindeBenoist

Germany’sThirdEmpirebyArthurMoellervandenBruck

TheArcticHomeintheVedasbyBalGangadharTilak

RevolutionfromAbovebyKerryBolton

TheFourthPoliticalTheorybyAlexanderDugin

MetaphysicsofWarbyJuliusEvola

ThePathofCinnabar:AnIntellectualAutobiography

byJuliusEvola

ArcheofuturismbyGuillaumeFaye

ConvergenceofCatastrophesbyGuillaumeFaye

WhyWeFightbyGuillaumeFaye

TheWASPQuestionbyAndrewFraser

TheSagaoftheAryanRacevolumes1-2byPorusHomiHavewala

TheSagaoftheAryanRacevolumes3-5byPorusHomiHavewala

TheOwlsofAfrasiabbyLarsHolgerHolm

DeNaturaeNaturabyAlexanderJacob

FightingfortheEssencebyPierreKrebs

CanLifePrevail?byPenttiLinkola

TheTenCommandmentsofPropagandabyBrianAnsePatrick

AHandbookofTraditionalLivingbyRaido

TheAgniandtheEcstasybyStevenJ.Rosen

TheJediintheLotus:StarWarsandtheHinduTradition

byStevenJ.Rosen

ItCannotBeStormedbyErnstvonSalomon

Tradition&RevolutionbyTroySouthgate

AgainstDemocracyandEqualitybyTomislavSunic

TheInitiate:JournalofTraditionalStudiesbyDavidJ.Wingfield(ed.)

[1]ThisreferstooneofthekeyconceptsofGuyDebord(1931-1994),aFrenchMarxistphilosopherandthefounderoftheSituationistInternationalwhoseideashavebecomeinfluentialonboththeradicalLeftandRight.Thespectacle,asdescribedinhisprincipalwork,TheSocietyoftheSpectacle, isoneofthemeansbywhichthecapitalistestablishmentmaintainsitsauthorityinthemodernworld— namely, by reducing all genuine human experiences to representational images in the massmedia,thusallowingthepowers-that-betodeterminehowindividualsexperiencereality.-Ed.

[2] Alain Soral, Comprendre l’empire: demain la gouvernance globale ou la révolte des nations?(Understanding Empire: Global Government Tomorrow or the Revolt of the Nations?— Paris:Blanche,2011).-Ed.

[3]AlaindeBenoist(b.1943)foundedtheGroupementdeRecherchesetd’ÉtudespourlaCivilisationEuropéenne, the first andmost prominent group ofwhat came to be termed the ‘EuropeanNewRight’,in1968,andcontinuestobeitsmostwell-knownrepresentative.-Ed.

[4] In an address given in France on 12May 1993, Benoist called for a rejection of the traditionalLeft/Rightdichotomy,insteadpreferringtheterms‘centre’and‘periphery’.Hedefinedthecentreasthe various factions comprising the dominant ideology of the country from both ends of thespectrum,andtheperipheryasallthoseforceswhichrejectthisideology.Thus,inhisview,thefarRightandfarLeftshouldnaturallyallywithoneanother,ratherthanjoiningwithanygroups(suchasmainstreamconservativesorliberals)whoaccepttheprevailingorder,andthereforecompromisethemselves.-Ed.

[5] Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) was an important German jurist who wrote about political science,geopoliticsandconstitutionallaw.HewaspartoftheConservativeRevolutionarymovementoftheWeimar era. He also briefly supported the National Socialists at the beginning of their regime,although they later turned against him. He remains highly influential in the fields of law andphilosophy.-Ed.

[6]CarlSchmittwrotethattheenemyis‘theshapeorconfigurationofourownquestion’,inTheoryofthe Partisan (NewYork: Telos Press, 2007), p. 85. A footnote to this phrase in the Telos PresseditionofthisworknotesthatitsmeaningisexplainedinSchmitt’spost-warnotebooks:‘Historiainnuce[historyinanutshell].FriendandEnemy.Thefriendishewhoaffirmsandconfirmsme.Theenemyishewhochallengesme(Nuremberg1947).Whocanchallengeme?Basically,onlymyself.Theenemyishewhodefinesme.Thatmeansinconcreto:onlymybrothercanchallengemeandonly my brother can be my enemy.’ From Glossarium: Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947-1951(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1991),p.217.-Ed.

[7]Biopolitics, asdefinedbyMichelFoucault inhisbookTheHistoryofSexuality, aswell as inhislectures,isthemeansbywhichapoliticalsystemregulatestheactualphysical,biologicallivesofthepeopleitgoverns,suchasthroughhealthandmedicine,sexualityandreproduction,andfamilylife.-Ed.

[8]JeanBaudrillard(1929-2007)wasaFrenchphilosopherandculturaltheoristwhoisregardedasoneof themost importantpostmodernist thinkers.Inseveralofhisworks,suchasTheIllusionof theEnd, he posited that civilisation is entering a period inwhich the notion of history itself, and ofhistoricalprogressasdescribedbyMarx,nolongerhasanymeaning.Therefore,historyisending,notbecauseanysortofgoalhasbeenreached,butbecausehistoryhasbecomeirrelevant.-Ed.

[9]InRussian,Protiv liberalizma:Kchetvertoi politicheskoi teorii.This is a collectionof essays thatwasputtogetherbyDugin,inconsultationwithAlaindeBenoist,fortheRussianreadership.ThereisnocorrespondingtitleinFrenchorEnglish.-Ed.

[10]DanielBell,TheEndofIdeology(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1960).

[11]TheThirdWay is a termused for awide variety of political and economic ideologies that haveattemptedtototranscendthedichotomybetweenliberaldemocracyandsocialism.-Ed.

[12] Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was a German-Jewish political theorist who studied with MartinHeidegger.ShefledtheNazisandlivedformostoftheremainderofherlifeintheUnitedStates,becomingoneofthemostinfluentialpoliticalphilosophersoftheTwentiethcentury.HereDuginisreferringtoherbook,TheOriginsofTotalitarianism(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&Co.,1951).-Ed.

[13] Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (1876-1925) was one of the principal authors of the GermanConservative Revolution. He is best known for his 1923 book, Das Dritte Reich (translated asGermany’sThirdEmpire).AfollowerofNietzsche,headvocatedtheideaofathirdGermanempiretoreplacetheWeimarRepublicwhichwouldembodyasynthesisofsocialismandnationalismandprovidefortheneedsofallcitizens,butwithinahierarchicalframeworkbasedontraditionalvalues.Despite Hitler’s appropriation of his book’s title, he rejected National Socialism for its anti-intellectualnatureinanoteheleftjustpriortohissuicide.-Ed.

[14]DmitriMerezhkovsky (1865-1941)wasaRussiannovelistwithastrongmysticalbentassociatedwith Symbolism and the Silver Age of Russian literature. Many of his books are available inEnglish,includingDeathoftheGods,ResurrectionoftheGods,andTheRomanceofLeonardodaVinci. He fled Russia after the Revolution of 1917 and became a virulent anti-Communist,supportingMussoliniandHitler.-Ed.

[15]SeeAlaindeBenoist,BeyondHumanRights:DefendingFreedoms(London:Arktos,2011).-Ed.

[16]FrancisFukuyama(b.1952)isanAmericanpoliticalphilosopherwhoisbestknownforhis1992book, The End of History and the Last Man, which postulated that with the triumph of liberaldemocracyattheendoftheColdWar,humanityhadattainedtheperfectformofgovernmentandthattheremnantsofotherideologieswouldsoonpassaway.ItwasviewedbymanyasthecredoofAmerica’s political and economic dominance of the world during the 1990s. Although widelyassociated with American neoconservatism at that time, he has distanced himself from themovementinrecentyears.-Ed.

[17] Alexander Zinoviev (1922-2006) was a Russian logician who served in the Red Army withdistinctionduring theSecondWorldWar.During theBrezhnevera,hebecameoneof theSovietUnion’smostnotedlogicians,buthealsogainednotorietyforexpressingmilddissentagainst theregime.AfterhewroteseveralworksoffictionthatwerecriticaloftheSovietUnioninthe1970s,hewasstrippedofhishonoursandallowedtoemigratetoWestGermanyin1978,andcontinuedtowrite critiques of the Soviets until the mid-1980s.With the rise of Gorbachev and perestroika,however,hebegantodefendCommunism,andviewedthepost-SovietregimeofBorisYeltsinaspart of a Western conspiracy to destroy Russia. He returned to Russia in 1999, becoming anoutspokencriticofglobalization.-Ed.

[18]MikhailS.Agursky,Ideologiianatsional-bolshevizma(Moscow:Algoritm,2003)[TheIdeologyofNational Bolshevism]. (See also his earlier book: Mikhail Agursky, The Third Rome: NationalBolshevismintheUSSR[Boulder:WestviewPress,1987].-Ed.)

[19]SergeiKara-Murza,Sovetskaiatsivilizatsiia:otnachaladonashikhdnei(Moscow:Algoritm,2008)[TheSovietCivilization:FromtheBeginninguntilToday].

[20]EnglishspeakersmayhaveaneasiertimeaccessingsomewhatrelatedworksontheSovietUnion,modernity,andtraditionalism,suchasDavidL.Hoffman,StalinistValues:TheCulturalNormsofSovietModernity,1917-1941 (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2003); andDavidBrandenberger,NationalBolshevism: StalinistMassCulture and the Formation of theModernRussianNationalIdentity,1931-1956(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2002).

[21]Mark12:10.

[22]AlexandreKojève, Introduction to theReadingofHegel:Lectureson thePhenomenologyof theSpirit(NewYork:BasicBooks,1969).

[23]FrancisFukyama,TheEndofHistoryandtheLastMan(NewYork:FreePress,1992).

[24]JuliusEvola(1898-1974)wasthemostimportantItalianmemberofthetraditionalistschool,whichistosaythatheopposedmodernityinfavourofanapproachtolifeconsistentwiththeteachingsoftheancientsacredtexts.-Ed.

[25]TheNationalBolshevikPartyemerged inRussia in1992, shortlyafter thecollapseof theSovietUnion,seeking tocontinue the legacyof theoriginalNationalBolsheviks fromthe1920s. ItwasoriginallyledbyEduardLimonovandDugin,althoughDuginsoonleftthepartytofoundhisown,the National Bolshevik Front, and later abandoned National Bolshevism altogether to form theEurasia Movement in 2001. The original NBP has been repeatedly banned by the Russiangovernment, although its members continue to agitate. Several other groups continue to use theNationalBolshevikname,bothinRussiaandabroad.NationalBolshevikideology,whichemergedaftertheFirstWorldWarasanattempttosynthesiseCommunismandnationalism,wasoriginallyformulatedbysomeparticipantsinGermany’sConservativeRevolution,suchasErnstJüngerandErnst Niekisch. National Bolshevism was also present among some members of the anti-SovietWhitemovementandevenamongsomeSovietCommunistsinthedaysoftheRussianCivilWar,although Lenin and Stalin both opposed it. Regardless, elements of the ideology re-emerged inStalin’sbrandofnationalism,whichbegantoappearinthe1930s.-Ed.

[26]NikolaiUstrialov(1890-1937)wasaprofessorandSlavophilewhofledtheSovietUnionfollowingthe Russian Revolution and joined the anti-Soviet White movement. Originally opposed toCommunism,helatersoughtafusionofelementsofSovietCommunismwithRussiannationalism.Hereturned to theSovietUnion in1935,believing thatNationalBolshevik ideaswerebecomingmoreacceptable,butwaschargedwithespionageandexecutedin1937,duringtheGreatPurge.-Ed.

[27]ErnstNiekisch (1889-1967)was aGermanpoliticianwhowas initially aCommunist, but by the1920s sought to merge Communism with nationalism. He published a journal, Widerstand(Resistance), and applied the termNational Bolshevik to himself and his followers. He rejectedNational Socialism as insufficiently socialist, andwas imprisoned by them in 1937, and becameblind.Uponhis release in1945,hesupported theSovietUnionandmoved toEastGermany,butbecamedisillusionedbytheSoviets’treatmentofworkersandreturnedtotheWestin1953.-Ed.

[28]French:‘theartofgoverning’.-Ed.

[29]MaxWeber (1864-1920)wasaGermanwho is consideredoneof the foundersof sociology.HisprincipalworkisTheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism.-Ed.

[30]FromGreek,whereitwasappliedtotheOlympianpantheon,itmeansabattleamongthegods.-Ed.

[31]Fora traditionalist takeonthis idea,seeRenéGuénon,Theosophy:HistoryofaPseudo-Religion(Hillsdale, NewYork: Sophia Perennis, 2001), The Spiritist Fallacy (Hillsdale: Sophia Perennis,2003),andTheReignofQuantityandtheSignsof theTimes(Hillsdale:SophiaPerennis,2004);andCharlesUpton,TheSystemofAntichrist:TruthandFalsehoodinPostmodernismandtheNewAge(Hillsdale:SophiaPerennis,2005).-Ed.

[32]DuginusesthetermTraditioninthesamesenseasRenéGuénon,JuliusEvolaandFrithjofSchuon;namely, as a set of transcendentalmetaphysicalprincipleswhich lies at theheart of all authenticreligions,andwhichremainsthesameevenwhentherearedifferencesintheexotericpracticesanddoctrines.-Ed.

[33]DispensationalismoriginatedasaNineteenth-centuryevangelicalmovementwhichholdsthatChristwill physically return to the world to rule for a thousand years prior to the end of the world,fulfillingGod’spromisestoIsraelbyallowingtheJewstoreturntotheHolyLand,butthatpriortothis event therewill be a rapture inwhich truebelievers are transported toHeaven, leavingonlyunbelieverstosufferthecatastrophesthatwilloccurbeforeChrist’sreturn.Inpresent-dayAmerica,dispensationalism is most evident in evangelical movement such as the Baptists and thePentecostals,andhasledtotheriseofChristianZionisminAmericanpolitics.-Ed.

[34]According toseveralnewsagenciesandwitnesses,PresidentBush, inameetingwithPalestinian

leaders in Egypt in June 2003, told those in attendance that God had ordered him to invadeAfghanistanandIraq.TheWhiteHousedeniedthereports.-Ed.

[35]Deism,aproductoftheEnlightenment,aroseintheSeventeenthandEighteenthcenturies,holdingthattheexistenceofGodcanbededucedrationally,regardlessoftheteachingsoftheChurch,andthatwhileGod created the universe, he never intervenes in it, thus eliminating the possibility ofdivinerevelationormiracles.-Ed.

[36]Heraclitus(c.535-475BCE)wasapre-SocraticGreekphilosopher.-Ed.

[37]Greek:‘nature’,ormoreprecisely,‘thatwhichexists’.-Ed.

[38]Greek:‘idea.TheGreeksbelievedthatthereisalogoswhichorderstheentireuniverse.-Ed.

[39]Parmenideswasapre-SocraticGreekphilosopheroftheFifthcenturyBCE.-Ed.

[40] Ge-stell, which can be translated literally as ‘framing’, was used by Heidegger to describetechnologyasthemodeofhumanexistenceinthemodernworld.-Ed.

[41]InFriedrichHölderlin’spoem‘BreadandWine’,thenightisusedtosymbolicallyrepresentourage,whentheancientgodsofGreeceandChristhavelefttheworldanditisonlythepoetswhoattempttokeeptheirmemoryaliveuntiltheirreturn.MartinHeideggerdiscussesthispoematlengthinhisfamous essay ‘WhyPoets?’, inMartinHeidegger,Off theBeatenTrack (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).-Ed.

[42]MartinHeidegger,OfftheBeatenTrack,p.222.

[43]OswaldSpengler(1880-1936)wasaGermanphilosopherwhoisregardedasoneof theprincipalConservativeRevolutionary figures of theWeimar period inGermany.Hismost importantworkwas his two-volume 1922/23 book, The Decline of the West, in which he theorised that allcivilisationsgothroughaninevitablecycleofagesofriseanddeclineinpower,withthepresentageoftheWestcurrentlyenteringitsdecliningperiod.-Ed.

[44]FrancisBacon(1561-1626)wasanEnglishphilosopherwhoiscreditedwithdevelopingthenotionofempiricismandthescientificmethod,whichholdthatknowledgecanonlyemergefromsensoryperception,and that theoriescanonlybeproven throughobservationsof theworldwhichcanberepeated.-Ed.

[45] Issue #1 of the journal Russkoe Vremia (Russian Time), published in 2009, was completelydedicated to the subject of conservatism. See also A. G. Dugin, ‘The Fourth Political Theory’,Profile48(603),22December2008.

[46]ForEnglish-languageonlineresources,see,amongmanyothers,InternationalEurasianMovement(http://evrazia.info/index.php?newlang=english), Global Revolutionary Alliance (granews.info),TheGreenStar(americanfront.info),andOpenRevolt!(openrevolt.info).-Ed.

[47]AlexanderDugin,Chetvertaiapoliticheskaiateoriia(St.Petersburg:Amphora,2009)—ontheWeb:http://konservatizm.org/konservatizm/amfora/031209153016.xhtml.

[48]Prof.Duginmeansconservativeideologieswithinthedomainoffreemarketliberalism,suchastheRepublicanPartyintheUnitedStatesandtheConservativePartyintheUnitedKingdom.-Ed.

[49]ImmanuelMauriceWallerstein,AfterLiberalism(NewYork:NewPress,1995).

[50]Carl Schmitt, TheNomos of theEarth in the InternationalLawof the Jus PublicumEuropaeum(NewYork:TelosPress,2003).

[51]ThisparticularchapterwasnotincludedintheoriginalRussianeditionofFourthPoliticalTheory.-Ed.

[52]Latin:‘residual’.-Ed.

[53]AccordingtoancientChineseandPersianlegends,solareclipseswerecausedbyadragoneatingtheSun.-Ed.

[54]InRussianfairytales,Snegurochka,ortheSnowMaiden,isthegranddaughterofDedMoroz,theRussian equivalent of Santa Claus or Father Christmas. After the celebration of Christmas wasabolishedintheSovietUnion,thegivingofpresentsandsoforthmovedtoNewYear’sDay,andthis remains aRussian tradition to this day. Inmodern versions of the old fairy tales, the SnowMaidenissometimescapturedbyevilspirits,suchasthewitchBabaYaga,beforeNewYear’sDay,andhastoberescuedbyDedMoroz.-Ed.

[55]¡Nopasarán!wasadoptedasabattlecrybytheCommunistforcesintheSpanishCivilWar,intheirfightagainstFranco’snationalistarmy.WhenFrancocapturedMadridin1939,herespondedwith‘Hemospasado’(wehavepassed).-Ed.

[56]Spanish:‘hasnotpassed’.-Ed.

[57]Russian:‘independentcorpses’.RussiansusethistermtorefertoNazisympathisersamongtheWestUkrainians.-Ed.

[58] John StuartMill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher of utilitarianism and one of themostimportanttheoristsofliberalism.InhisbookOnLiberty,headvancedtheideathattheindividual,andnotthestate,shouldbethebasisofsociety,andthatcitizensshouldbeabletoexercisecompletemoralandeconomicfreedom,exceptincaseswheretheiractionsmayharmothermembersofthestate.-Ed.

[59]JohnStuartMill,OnLibertyandOtherWritings(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989).

[60]GiovanniGentile (1875-1944)wasanItalianphilosopherwhodevelopedwhathe termed‘ActualIdealism’,inthathebelievedthatIdealistphilosophywasonlyrelevantintermsofhowitcouldbeapplied to life itself,asopposed tomerespeculation.Healsoheld to thecorporative idea thatanindividual’slifeonlyattainedmeaninginrelationtothestate.HewasastaunchFascistfrom1922untilhismurderat thehandsofanti-Fascistpartisans in theSalóRepublic,wasamemberof theFascistGrandCouncil,andwasregardedastheofficialphilosopherofItalianFascism.-Ed.

[61] A. James Gregor, Giovanni Gentile: Philosopher of Fascism (New Brunswick, New Jersey:TransactionPublishers,2001).

[62]AlfredRosenberg,TheMythoftheTwentiethCentury:AnEvaluationoftheSpiritual-IntellectualConfrontationsofOurAge(Torrance,California:NoontidePress,1982).

[63]EdmundHusserl(1859-1938)wasawidelyinfluentialAustrianJewishphilosopher,andoneoftheteachers ofMartin Heidegger. He founded the phenomenological school of philosophy in 1900,primarily through his book, Logical Investigations (London: Routledge, 1970), and elaboratedfurtheronhistheoriesin1913inIdeas(London:Allen&Unwin,1931).-Ed.

[64]Epoché,or‘suspension’,totheancientGreeks,wastheactofsuspendingallone’sjudgmentsaboutthewayinwhichtheworldexists.Husserlexpandeduponthisconcept,believingthattheonlywaytostudyconsciousnesswastodistinguishbetweenconsciousnessandtheobjectsintheworldthatitisperceiving.Indoingthis,Husserlbelieveditwaspossibletoarriveattheessenceofthings.-Ed.

[65]ThiswasHusserl’stermfortheworldofobjectsthatliesbeyondhumanperception.-Ed.

[66] Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge,Massachusetts:MITPress,1985).

[67] TheAnnales School, a school of historiography, was founded in 1929, but was taken in a newdirectionwhen thehistorianFernandBraudel (1902-1985)began to assume the leadershipof thegroupinthe1950s.Braudelbelievedthathistoriographywastoofocusedonshort-termevents,suchascrises,andspecificevents,whilenotenoughattentionwaspaidtothelong-termdevelopmentofhistoryandthoseelementswhichremainconsistentthroughlongperiodsoftime.Continuities,theschoolheld,weremuchmoreimportantthansuddenchanges.TheyalsorejectedtheMarxistviewofhistoricalmaterialism.-Ed.

[68]PeterL.Berger (ed.),TheDesecularization of theWorld:ResurgentReligion andWorldPolitics(GrandRapids,Michigan:W.B.Eerdmans,1999).

[69]CarlSchmitt,Dictatorship(Oxford:BlackwellPublishers,2010).

[70]AccordingtoSchmitt,thevalidityofaparticularmoralorlegalprecepthasnothingtodowithitsspecificnature,butonlydependsontheauthorityfromwhichitwasissued.

[71] The rhizome concept according toDeleuze andGuattari: ‘1 and 2: Principles of connection andheterogeneity: any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be… 3.Principle of multiplicity: only when the multiple is effectively treated as a substantive,“multiplicity”thatitceasestohaveanyrelationtotheOneassubjectorobject,naturalorspiritualreality, image andworld… 4. Principle of asignifying rupture: against the oversignifying breaksseparatingstructuresorcuttingacrossasinglestructure.Arhizomemaybebroken,butitwillstartup again on one of its old lines, or on new lines… 5 and 6: Principle of cartography anddecalcomania:arhizomeisnotamenable toanystructuralorgenerativemodel.It isastranger toany ideaofgeneticaxisordeepstructure…The rhizome isaltogetherdifferent,amapandnotatracing’. From Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism andSchizophrenia(London:Continuum,2004),pp.8-13.

[72] Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) was a French philosopher who is widely regarded as the mostimportantofthepostmodernistphilosophers.Hisworkhashadanenormousimpactonphilosophyandliterarytheorysincethe1970s.Hisworkledtothetechniqueof‘deconstruction’,bywhichitisheld that no text or idea can be reduced to a single meaning, but rather that every text can beinterpretedinmanydifferent,andcontradictory,ways, thusdenyingthatanauthoritativemeaningcanbeclaimedforanytext.–Ed.

[73]DifféranceisatermcoinedbyDerrida.Itsmeaningiscomplex,butessentiallyitreferstoDerrida’scontentionthatwordsaredefinedmorebythewayinwhichtheydistinguishatypeofobjectfromotherobjects,morethanintermsofwhattheyrepresent.-Ed.

[74]MartinHeidegger,OnTimeandBeing(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2002).

[75] Gilbert Durand, The Anthropological Structures of the Imaginary (Brisbane: BoombanaPublications,1999).

[76]AlexanderDugin, Sotsiologiia voobrazheniia:Vvedenie v strukturnuiu sotsiologiiu (Sociology oftheImagination:IntroductiontoStructuralSociology—Moscow,2010).

[77]GastonBachelard(1884-1962)wasaFrenchphilosopherwhoappliedpsychologyandepistemologytothephilosophyofscience.Hewasinfluentialuponthepostmodernists.-Ed.

[78]Latin:‘fromtheobservedfacts’.-Ed.

[79]Theyear1968markedaseriesofinfluentialLeft-wingprotestsbystudentsandothersthroughouttheworld,themostnotablebeinginParis,wherethestudentswerejoinedinastrikebythemajority

of the French workforce. Although these strikes failed in their stated objectives, in France andelsewhereitmarkedthemomentwhenthetraditionalsocialordersbegantobeforcedtogivewaytomoreliberalattitudes.-Ed.

[80]Carl Schmitt argued that, with the extension of Europe throughout theworld via colonialism, aglobal social order had been established, which, for the first time, led to the creation of aninternationalsystemoflaw,particularlyinregardtomilitaryconflicts.However,Schmittbelievedthat this order is now on the decline, and that the birth of a new global order was possiblyimminent.-Ed.

[81]AlexanderDugin,Myslit’ prostranstvom:Osnovygeopolitiki (ThinkingSpatially:TheOriginsofGeopolitics—Moscow,2000).Newedition:Sotsiologiiaprostranstva,Sotsiologiiavoobrazheniia:Vvedenie v strukturnuiu sotsiologiiu (Sociology of Space, Sociology of the Imagination:IntroductiontoStructuralSociology—Moscow,2010).

[82]AlaindeBenoist,Protivliberalizma.

[83]Greek:‘nation’,inthesenseofacommunityofpeoplewhoallshareacommonheritage.-Ed.

[84]TheConservativeRevolutionisatermfirstcoinedbyHugovonHoffmansthal,whichhascometodesignate a loose confederation of anti-liberal German thinkers who wrote during the WeimarRepublic.TherewasagreatdiversityofviewswithintheranksoftheConservativeRevolutionaries,butingeneraltheyopposedbothdemocraticcapitalismandCommunisminfavourofasynthesisofaristocratictraditionsandspiritualvalueswithsocialism.-Ed.

[85]AdamMüller(1779-1829)wasaGermaneconomistwhoopposedAdamSmith’s liberal theories,callingforareturnoftheimportanceofethicsandreligionineconomicandsociallife.-Ed.

[86]WilhelmMühlmann (1904-1988) was a German sociologist and anthropologist who worked onethnological projects for theNationalSocialist regime, butwas rehabilitated after thewar. Inhiswritings, he taught that an ethnic group cannot be defined by blood relationship, but only by itsculturaltraditionsandethnographiccharacteristics.-Ed.

[87]Richard Thurnwald (1869-1954) was an Austrian ethnologist who is credited with founding theschoolofethnosociology.-Ed.

[88]LevGumilev(1912-1992)wasaSovietanthropologistwhoattemptedtoexplainethnicdifferencesthrough geological factors, especially in his book Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere (Moscow:Progress Publishers, 1990).He has been very influential onmodern Eurasianism. To provide anexampleofthisconcept,Gumilevheldthatthesteppewasthe‘accommodatinglandscape’fortheMongols,andthustheywereunabletoliveoutsideofitanddidnotwishtogiveuptheirnomadiclifestyle.-Ed.

[89]‘Language-games’,accordingtoWittgenstein,areformsoflanguagethatareoffshootsoflanguageasitnormallyexists,suchasthelanguageofchildren,whichissimplerthanlanguageproper.-Ed.

[90]Greek:‘city-state’.-Ed.

[91]RichardThurnwald,DiemenschlicheGesellschaftinihrenethno-soziologischenGrundlagen,vol.1(Berlin:W.deGruyter,1931).

[92]Alain de Benoist, Vu de droite: Anthologie critique des idées contemporaines (Paris:Copernic,1977).

[93]AntonioGramsci(1891-1937)wasanItalianCommunistwhowasimprisonedbytheFascists.Hedeveloped the theory of cultural hegemony, which (in brief) holds that a political group cannotmaintainpowerwithoutfirstpersuadingthemembersofasocietythattheideasitpropagatesarethe

normalstateofaffairs,thusgivingitselflegitimacy.Therefore,controlovertheculturalapparatusofa society is a prerequisite for holding power, rather than being something which follows arevolution.ThisideahasbeenhighlyinfluentialontheEuropeanNewRight.-Ed.

[94]KarlPopper,TheOpenSocietyandItsEnemies,2vols.(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1945).

[95]AlexanderDugin,Maksimal’nyigumanizm(Moscow:Russkaiavesch’,2001).

[96]AlexanderDugin,Filosofiiapolitiki(Moscow,2004).

[97]Jean-PaulSartre,TheAgeofReason(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1947).

[98]AlexanderDugin,Maksimal’nyigumanizm.

[99]MartinHeidegger,OnTimeandBeing.

[100]German:‘being’.-Ed.

[101]German:‘there’.-Ed.

[102]HerbertSpencer (1820-1903)wasa theoristofevolutionwhowasacontemporaryofDarwin. Itwashewhocoined thephrase ‘survivalof the fittest’ inhis1864book,PrinciplesofBiology, todescribeDarwin’sideaofnaturalselection.DarwinhimselflateradoptedSpencer’sterm.SpenceralsoappliedDarwin’stheoriestothesocialrealm,somethingDarwinneverdid.-Ed.

[103]HerbertSpencer,Essays,Scientific,Political, andSpeculative, 3vols. (NewYork:D.Appleton,1891).

[104]‘Goldenbillion’isatermusedinRussiatodescribethebeliefthatarelativelysmallpercentageoftheworld’spopulation,locatedinthewealthiestnationsoftheWest,consumethelargestpercentageoftheworld’sresources.-Ed.

[105] Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a Russian-American novelist and philosopher who promoted anextremeformofindividualistcapitalismwhichshetermedObjectivism.-Ed.

[106]AlanGreenspan(b.1926)wastheChairmanoftheUnitedStatesFederalReservefrom1987until2006.Beginning in the1960s,GreenspanbecamepartofRand’s inner circle andwasoneof themostprominentObjectivists.While initiallyquitepopular,manyofhispolicieshavecomeundercriticism.Manyclaimthatheassistedtrendswhichledtothe2008subprimemortgagecrisisintheUnitedStates,whichinturnprecipitatedtheglobalfinancialcrisis.-Ed.

[107]AynRand,Capitalism:TheUnknownIdeal(NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1966).-Ed.

[108]MaxWeber(1864-1920)wasaGermanwhoisconsideredoneofthefoundersofsociology.HisprincipalworkisTheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism.-Ed.

[109]KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,TheCommunistManifesto:AModernEdition(NewYork:Verso,1998).

[110]FriedrichNietzsche,ThusSpokeZarathustra(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),p.6.

[111] Alexander Dugin, Chetvertaia politicheskaia teoriia; Alain de Benoist, Protiv liberalizma: Kchetvertoipoliticheskoiteorii.

[112]GregoryBateson(1904-1980)wasanEnglishanthropologistandcyberneticistwhoseworkrangedover a wide variety of fields. In his later years, he attempted to create a ‘meta-science’ of

epistemology.-Ed.

[113]GregoryBateson,MindandNature:ANecessaryUnity(NewYork:Dutton,1979).

[114] Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) was a sociologist whose work also had a significant impact onanthropology,particularlyClaudeLévi-Strauss.-Ed.

[115]HenriHubertandMarcelMauss,Sacrifice:ItsNatureandFunction(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1964).

[116]Marcel Mauss, The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (New York:Norton,1967).

[117]InancientRussianmythology,thelikhowasacreaturewhichembodiedcalamitiesandmisfortune.The word itself is the equivalent of ‘evil’, and is etymologically related to lishnii, that is,‘excessive’. Dugin also uses the original meaning of the term likhva, an archaic word whichsignifies‘usury’,andisalsolinkedtolikho.-Ed.

[118]ThepotlatchisacustompracticedbyvariousNativeAmericantribesinNorthAmerica,inspiteofefforts by the Canadian and American governments to ban it during the Nineteenth and earlyTwentiethcenturies.-Ed.

[119]LucienLévy-Brühl(1857-1939)wasaFrenchphilosopherwhopositedthatthereweretwobasicmentalitiesinhumanity:‘primitive’and‘Western’,withanevolutionarychainbetweenthem.-Ed.

[120]LucienLévy-Brühl,Pervobytnoemyshlenie:Psikhologiiamyshleniia(Moscow:MGU,1980).

[121]ClaudeLévi-Strauss(1908-2009)wasthemostinfluentialanthropologistoftheTwentiethcentury.-Ed.

[122]ClaudeLévi-Strauss,TheSavageMind(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1966).

[123] FranzBoas (1858-1942)was anAmerican anthropologistwho laid the groundwork formodernanthropology.-Ed.

[124]NikolaiDanilevsky(1822-1885)wasaRussianphilosopherwhoproposedacyclicalcycleinthelifeofcivilisatons,similartotheideadevelopedlaterbySpengler.

[125] Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) was one of the most prominent of the German ConservativeRevolutionaries,but thatwasonlyonephase ina longandvariedcareer.Hevolunteered forandfought in the German Army throughout the First World War, and was awarded the highestdecoration,thePourleMérite,forhisservice.Afterthewar,hewrotemanybooksandnovels,wasactive in German politics, experimented with psychedelic drugs, and travelled the world. HeremainedambivalentaboutNationalSocialismatfirst,butneverjoinedtheParty,andhehadturnedagainsttheNazisbythelate1930s.HerejoinedtheWehrmachtattheoutbreakofwar,however,andremainedinParisasacaptain,wherehespentmoretimewithPicassoandCocteauthanenforcingtheoccupation.HisobjectionstotheNaziswereinfluentialuponthemembersoftheStauffenbergplot toassassinateHitler in July1944,which led tohisdismissal from theWehrmacht.After thewar,Jünger’spoliticalviewsgraduallymovedtowardasortofaristocraticanarchism.-Ed.

[126]ArnoldJ.Toynbee(1889-1975)wasaBritishhistorianwhowrotea12-volumestudyofthecyclesofcivilisations,AStudyofHistory,between1934and1961.-Ed.

[127]Gumilevsawpassionarityasthelevelofvitalityinagivenethnicgrouporcivilisation,atypeofenergywhichwouldgraduallyincreaseuntilreachingitspeak,atwhichtimethegroupwouldmakeitsgreatestachievements,followedbyaslowebb.HesawEuropeancivilisationasbeingatitslowpoint,andArabcivilisationasbeingveryhighinpassionarity.-Ed.

[128]PiotrSztompka,TheSociologyofSocialChange(Oxford:Blackwell,1994).

[129]TheChukchipeopleinhabittheChukchiPeninsulaneartheBeringSea.-Ed.

[130]‘What if somedayornightademonwere tosteal intoyour loneliest lonelinessandsay toyou:“This life asyounow live it andhave lived ityouwillhave to liveonceagainand innumerabletimesagain;andtherewillbenothingnewinit,buteverypainandeveryjoyandeverythoughtandsigh and everything unspeakably small or great in your lifemust return to you, all in the samesuccessionandsequence…”’FromFriedrichNietzsche,TheGayScience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),p.194.ThisisoneofNietzsche’scentralideas.-Ed.

[131] InNietzsche’s understanding of the term, theApollonian is thatwhich is related to reason anddreams.TheDionysianisrelatedtointoxicationandecstasy.-Ed.

[132]TheGULagwas an acronym for themassive systemof forced labour camps that existed in theSovietUnion, inwhichconditionswereextremelyharshandmanydidnotsurvive.TheyreachedtheirpeakunderStalin,whenby1953overtwomillionSovietcitizenswereinternedinGULags.TheGULagswereshutdownby1960.-Ed.

[133]ArthurMoellervandenBruck,Germany’sThirdEmpire(London:Arktos,2012).

[134] In his Philosophy of History, Hegel postulates that there is a spirit behind civilisations whichmanifests itself through the dialectical process of history. He once referred to Napoleon as the‘worldspiritonhorseback’.-Ed.

[135]JoachimofFiore(1135-1202)wasanItalianpriestwhowasthefounderofthemonasticorderofSanGiovanni.HedevelopedatheorythathistorywasstructuredaccordingtotheChristianTrinity,consistingof theAgeof theFather, theAgeof theSonandtheAgeof theHolySpirit,whichhebelievedwouldbeginin1260.InthisAge,hetaught,humanitywouldbeabletocommunedirectlywithGod,renderingthestructureoftheChurchobsolete.HisideaswerecondemnedbytheChurchandarestillconsideredhereticaltoday.-Ed.

[136]BrunoLatour(b.1947)isaFrenchanthropologistwhohasappliedanthropologyandsociologytothe study of science.Dugin is referring to his bookWeHaveNever BeenModern (Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1993).Init,hearguesthatancientpeoplesmadenodistinctionbetweensocietyandthenaturalworld,unlikeinthemodernworld.-Ed.

[137]GeorgesDumézil(1898-1986)wasaFrenchphilologistbestknownasapioneerinmythography.HealsostudiedthenatureofsovereigntyinancientIndo-Europeancivilisations,whichledhimtopostulate theTrifunctionalHypothesis:namely, thatIndo-Europeanculturehaddevelopedalongatripartitestructureofwarriors,priestsandfarmers.HebelievedthatthiswastheoriginofboththeHinducastesystemandthefeudalsysteminMedievalEurope.-Ed.

[138]EuhemerismisnamedaftertheFourth-centuryBCEGreekmythographerEuhemerus,whoclaimedthattheGreekgodshadtheiroriginintheoraltransmissionoftalesthatwereoriginallyaboutgreathuman beings, but which over time became elevated to the status of gods. Those who followeuhemerism likewise believe thatmyths and tales from the sacred traditions have their origin inactual historical events, albeit elaborated upon. Dumézil instead saw them as symbolicrepresentationsofsociopoliticalrealities.-Ed.

[139] Gilbert Durand (b. 1921) is a French professor of philosophy who specialises in symbolicanthropologyandtheimagination.HeisamemberoftheEranosgroupandworkedwithC.G.Jung,Gaston Bachelard and Henry Corbin. He has theorised that there is a correspondence betweenphysiologyandthestructureofsociety.-Ed.

[140]Occasionalisttheory,wasoriginallyquiteprominentinIslam,andwaslatertransmittedtoChristiantheologyandwasalsotakenupbyDescartesandhisfollowers.Init,alleventsaresaidtohavetheirultimate cause inGod, sincematter is incapableof causing them.The theory alsomaintains that

Godisrationalandthattheeventshecausesthereforehavealogicalsequence.-Ed.

[141] Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948) was an influential Russian millenarian mystic and politicalphilosopher.HewasoriginallyaCommunist,butrefusedtosupporttheRussianRevolutionof1917due tohisobjection to theCommunists’ authoritarianismandatheism.Hewas expelled from theSovietUnionin1922andlivedtherestofhislifeinParis.InhisbookTheEndofOurTime(1924),heprophesied the imminentendof liberalismandhumanism,and the returnofwhathe termedaNewMiddleAges,whichwouldincludeareturntocivlisationsbaseduponreligionandmysticism.-Ed.

[142] John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) was a British economist whose ideas regarding the thepossibilitiesofthefreemarketandbusinesscycleshavebeenextraordinarilyinfluential.-Ed.

[143]TraiectumwastheRomannameforwhatistodaythecityofUtrechtintheNetherlands,sonamedbecauseitwasaplacewhereitwaspossibletocrosstheRhine.-Ed.

[144]JohnMearsheimer(b.1947)isanAmericanpoliticalscientist.Heisperhapsbest-knownforhavingco-authoredthebookTheIsraelLobbyandU.S.ForeignPolicywithStephenWaltin2007,whichdetailedtheinfluenceofspecialinterestgroupsthatsupportIsraelipoliciesontheUSgovernment.-Ed.

[145]TheThirtyYears’WarendedwiththePeaceofWestphaliain1648,inwhichthenationsofEuroperecognisedeachothers’territorialintegrity.Somehistoriansconsiderittohavebeenthefirststepinthedevelopmentofthemodern-daysystemofinternationalrelations.-Ed.

[146]Latin:‘inastrictsense’.-Ed.

[147]TheCouncil onForeignRelations (CFR) is aprivately-ownedpolitical think tank in theUnitedStates,whichhasitsoriginsinthepeaceprocessattheendoftheFirstWorldWar.TheCFR,ititselfclaims, seeks to influenceglobalpolitics inadirection thatprovidespeacefulconflict resolutionsand multilateralism.George Soros (b. 1930) is an American billionaire who uses his wealth topromoteliberalcausesaroundtheworld.HefundedmanydissidentgroupsinEasternEuropeandtheUSSRduringtheColdWar,andcontinuestosupportdemocraticcausesthere.CriticshavesaidthatSorosismerelyactingasanagentofAmericanforeignpolicyinterests.-Ed.

[148]TheColourRevolutionswasatermcoinedbytheinternationalmediatodescribevariousuprisingsthattookplaceinthenationsoftheformerSovietUnionandtheBalkansduringtheearly2000s,and later for variousMiddleEastern revolutions aswell. In each case,mass demonstrations of apeaceful nature succeeded in overthrowing leaders perceived as authoritarian, such as in Serbia,Georgia andUkraine.Many of these revoltswere associatedwith a specific colour (such as theOrange Revolution in Ukraine), hence the name. Opponents have often claimed that theserevolutionswerebackedbytheUSgovernmentortheSorosFoundation.-Ed.

[149]ManifestDestinywasatermcoinedbyanAmericanjournalist,JohnL.O’Sullivan,in1845inanarticlewhichcalledfortheannexationofthethen-independentterritoriesofTexasandOregon.Theterm refers to the belief that itwas thenatural destinyof theUnitedStates to expand across theNorthAmericancontinent.ThetermwaspickedupbythosewhosharedO’Sullivan’sview,andwasusedbyDemocratstojustifythe1846-48Mexican-AmericanWar.-Ed.

[150]TheMonroeDoctrinewasproclaimedbyUSPresidentJamesMonroein1823,justaftermostofthe nations of Latin America had proclaimed their independence from Spain. Fearing that othercolonial powersmight try tomove in,Monroe declared that theUnitedStateswould regard anyEuropeaninterventionintheAmericanhemisphereasanactofaggressionagainstitself.PresidentTheodore Roosevelt added a corollary in 1904, stating that the US also reserves the right tointervene in thecaseof ‘wrongdoing’byanyLatinAmericangovernment.TheMonroeDoctrinehas continued to be invoked by the US up to the 1980s, when it was used to justify AmericaninterventioninNicaragua.-Ed.

[151]MichaelHardt andAntonioNegri,Empire (Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress, 2000). In thebookitispostulatedthattheworldisintheprocessofmovingawayfromthetraditionalrelationsbetweenvariousnation-stateandintoanewworlddominatedbytheUnitedStatesandNATO,aswellasmultinationalcorporations,witheverythingelseintheworldinasubservientrelationshiptothem.-Ed.

[152]Ingeneticengineering,achimeraisagenetichybridbetweenanimalandhumanDNA.-Ed.

[153]StephenR.Mann,“ChaosTheoryandStrategicThought,”Parameters(Autumn1992),availableatwww.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA528321.-Ed.

[154]HubertVédrine(b.1947)isaFrenchpoliticianoftheSocialistParty.Anopponentoftheunilateralaction of the United States in Iraq, he popularised the term ‘hyperpower’ to describe theunprecedentedinfluenceoftheUSintheworldintheTwenty-firstcentury.-Ed.

[155]TheProjectfortheNewAmericanCenturywasaprivateinstituteestablishedin1997whichservedasamouthpieceforneoconservativethoughtuntilitwasdisbandedin2006.TheProjectsoughttodevelopwaystomaintainandextendAmericansupremacyintotheTwenty-firstcentury,andmanyof itsmemberswere either part of or influential upon the administrationofPresidentGeorgeW.Bush.-Ed.

[156]ThomasHobbes(1588-1679)wasanEnglishpoliticalphilosopherwholaidmanyofthetheoreticalfoundationsformodernliberalsocieties.InhisbookLeviathan(1651),the‘warofallagainstall’wouldbetheconditionofthehumanraceinatheoreticalworldwithoutanyformofgovernment.-Ed.

[157]RichardN.Haass(b.1951)isanAmericandiplomatandhasbeenthePresidentoftheCouncilonForeignRelationssince2003.HeservedasanadvisortoPresidentGeorgeH.W.BushduringthePersian Gulf War of 1991. He described his view of non-polarity in an essay, ‘The Age ofNonpolarity:WhatWillFollowU.S.Dominance’,inForeignAffairs(May/June2008).-Ed.

[158]LeninoutlinedhisconceptofimperialisminhisbookImperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalism(1917), in which he theorised that capitalist nations eventually exhaust the possibilities foreconomic growth in their own lands andwill inevitably resort towar and colonialism to secureadditionalresourcesforcontinuedgrowth.-Ed.

[159] Bolivarianism refers to political ideologies derived from the doctrines of Símon Bolívar, theNineteenth-centuryVenezuelanGeneralwho fought for the independence of the LatinAmericancoloniesfromSpain.Intoday’sworldthisreferstothedesireforaLatinAmericanuniondedicatedto defending the interests of all peoples on the continent. It is especially influential in HugoChávez’sVenezuela.-Ed.

[160] Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (New York:PenguinBooks,2009).-Ed.

[161]SpyKids2:TheIslandofLostDreamswasreleasedin2002,directedbytheAmericandirector,RobertRodriguez.-Ed.

[162]ClassicalGreek:‘nature’.-Ed.

[163] Karl Mannheim (1893-1947) was a Hungarian sociologist whose most important work wasIdeologyandUtopia(1936).HereDuginisreferringtohisbookConservatism:AContributiontotheSociologyofKnowledge (NewYork:Routledge&KeganPaul, 1986), although it shouldbenotedthatMannheimusedtheterm‘traditionalism’afterMaxWeber,inthesenseofonewhoclingsto the customs established in previous times within one’s own society, and not in the sense ofGuénon.-Ed.

[164]IsaacNewtonbelievedthatthephysicallawshehaduncoveredrevealedthemechanicalperfectionof the workings of the universe to be akin to a watchmaker, wherein the watchmaker is God.However, Newton also believed that, like a watchmaker, God was forced to intervene in theuniverseandtinkerwiththemechanismfromtimetotimetoensurethatitcontinuedoperatingingoodworkingorder.-Ed.

[165]TheMorningoftheMagicians(NewYork:Stein&Day,1964).Thisisthebookwhichfirstgaverisetomanyofthefalsemythswhichpersisttodayaboutasupposed‘occultconspiracy’attheheartofNationalSocialism.-Ed.

[166]TheMorningoftheMagicians,p.180.-Ed.

[167] The original word used by Dugin in Russian, духовного, also has the connotation of ‘moral’,‘ecclesiastical’,‘noetic’andsoon.-Ed.

[168]TheOldBelieversareasectoftheRussianOrthodoxChurchwhichunderwentaschismfromthemainbranchoftheChurchin1666,afteritsadherentsobjectedtocertainreformsbythePatriarchofthetime.-Ed.

[169]InRussian,therootoftheword‘buckwheat’soundssimilartotherootfor‘sin’.-Ed.

[170]TheFedoseyanswereasectoftheOldBelieversthatemergedinRussiaintheEighteenthcentury,favouringstrictasceticismandabolishingtheinstitutionofmarriage.-Ed.

[171] Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was an Irish politician and philosopher who sat in the House ofCommons as a member of the Whig party. He was opposed to democracy and the FrenchRevolution,althoughhedidbelieveintheimportanceofrepresentativegovernmentandsupportedthecauseoftheAmericanRevolution.HewasalsoinvolvedformanyyearsinaddressinginjusticesperpetratedbytheBritishEastIndiaCompanyinIndia.-Ed.

[172] The Jacobin Clubwas themost powerful group among the French revolutionaries in the yearsimmediately following the 1789 Revolution. Robespierre and those around him who wereresponsibleforthemurderousReignofTerrorofthe1790swereallJacobins.-Ed.

[173]JürgenHabermas(b.1929)isaGermanMarxistphilosopher.-Ed.

[174]JürgenHabermas,‘Modernity:AnIncompleteProject’,inMaurizioPasserind’EntrèvesandSeylaBenhabib (eds.), Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on thePhilosophicalDiscourseofModernity(Cambridge:MITPress,1997),pp.38-55.(ThisquotedoesnotexistintheEnglishversionoftheessay.-Ed.)

[175]ArthurMoellervandenBruck,Germany’sThirdEmpire.

[176]MartinBuber(1878-1965)wasanAustrianJewwho,asaZionist,latermovedtoIsrael.Heisbest-knownforhavingformulatedaformofJewishexistentialism.-Ed.

[177]InRussian,roughly,‘theon-or-alongside-placed’.

[178] The ‘society of the spectacle’ is a term coined byGuyDebord (1931-1994), a FrenchMarxistphilosopherandthefounderoftheanarchistSituationistInternational.Thespectacle,asdescribedinhis principal work, The Society of the Spectacle, is one of the means by which the capitalistestablishment maintains its authority in the modern world — namely, by reducing all genuinehumanexperiencestorepresentationalimagesinthemassmedia,thusallowingthepowers-that-betodeterminehowindividualsexperiencereality.TheSituationistswereveryinfluentialinthemassprotestsandstrikesinFrancein1968.-Ed.

[179]FyodorDostoevsky,Demons(Cambridge:PenguinClassics,2012).-Ed.

[180]Nord-OstisapopularRussianmusicalthat,inpart,celebratesthetriumphofSovietsoldiersintheSecondWorldWar.On23October2002,agroupofChechensuicideterroristsstormedaMoscowtheatre during a performance of themusical and took the entire audience and company hostage.Theystandoffcontinued for threedaysuntilRussian forcesattacked the theatre, firstpumping intoxicgastodisabletheterrorists.Althoughmostoftheterroristswerekilledorcapturedduringtheattack,someofthehostageswereexecutedbytheterrorists,butmostwerekilledbythegas,andmorethan130hostagesdiedinall.-Ed.

[181]GeorgesSorel(1847-1922)wasaFrenchphilosopherwhobeganasaMarxistandlaterdevelopedRevolutionarySyndicalism.Headvocatedtheuseofmythandorganisedviolenceinrevolutionarymovements.HewasinfluentialuponboththeCommunistandFascistmovements.-Ed.

[182]GeorgesSorel,ReflectionsonViolence(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999).

[183]GregorStrasser(1892-1934)wasanearlyleaderoftheNationalSocialistmovementinGermanywho emphasised the element of socialismmore strongly than did Hitler. Perceived as a rival toHitler’sauthority,hewasexecutedduringtheinfamous‘NightoftheLongKnives’inJune1934.HisbrotherOttoattemptedtorevivethenotionofa‘Left-wingNationalSocialism’inthepost-warera.-Ed.

[184]United Russia is a centre-Right party that was founded in Russia in 2001. It has always beenstrongly supportive of Vladimir Putin, and Putinwas the party’s leader during the period 2008-2012.Asofthiswriting(2012),UnitedRussiaisthelargestpartyinthecountry.-Ed.

[185]RenéGuénon,East andWest (Hillsdale,NewYork:SophiaPerennis, 2001). (First published in1924,itisconsideredthefirstfullformulationofGuénon’sdoctrines.-Ed.)

[186]RomanJakobson(1896-1982)wasaRussianlinguistwhowasoneofthefoundersofwhatcametobecalledStructuralism.HefledtheSovietUnionjustpriortotheSecondWorldWarandlivedfortheremainderofhislifeintheUnitedStates.Accordingtotheoriginalfootnote,Duginisreferringto his book Selected Writings, vol. 7: Contributions to Comparative Mythology (New York:Mouton,1985).-Ed.

[187]NikolaiTrubetskoy,TheHeritageofGenghisKhan(Moscow,2000).

[188]Also‘elevating’and‘raising’.-Ed.

[189]LewisHenryMorgan(1818-1881)wasalawyerwhoalsoconductedresearchintoethnology.HebecamefascinatedwiththeNativeAmericansandwasinitiatedintotheIroquoistribe.InhisbookSystemsofConsanguinityandAffinityoftheHumanFamily,hecomparedhisstudiesoftheNativeAmericanswiththetriballifeofothercultures,anddevelopedhistheoryoftheUnityofOriginofMankind, in which he believed he had identified the universal primordial social structure ofhumanity.Healsocametobelievein thenecessityforcontinualprogress insocieties inorderforthemtosurvive,whichheidentifiedinmoderntimeswithtechnologicalprogress,asdescribedinhisAncientSociety(NewYork:HenryHolt&Co.,1877).ThisisthebookcitedbyDugininhisoriginalfootnote.MarxandEngelswereheavilyreliantonMorgan’sworkwhendiscussingtribalsocietiesandsocialprogressintheirowntheories.-Ed.

[190]FriedrichEngels,TheOriginsof theFamily,PrivateProperty, and theState, in theLightof theResearchesofLewisH.Morgan(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1972).

[191]PaulRicoeur.HermeneuticsandPsychoanalysis:ReligionandBelief(Moscow,1996).

[192]KarlMarx,Capital(London:PenguinBooks,1986).

[193]DuginusesthetermnarodnikassynonymouswiththeGermantermvolk,orpeoples.-Ed.

[194]SigmundFreund,TheInterpretationofDreams(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999). (Freudbelieved that the purpose of dreams was to interpret one’s unconscious desires in symbolic orallegoricalform.-Ed.)

[195]HalakhahreferstothetotalityofJewishlaw.-Ed.

[196] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997).

[197] Samuel Huntington (1927-2008)was anAmerican political scientist who became infamous forserving as an advisor to authoritarian regimes, such as SouthAfrica in the 1980s. He famouslypostulated that nations in the process of transitioning intomodernitymust be cautious about notintroducingdemocracytooquicklyintotheirsocieties,andthatrepressivemeasurescanactuallybenecessaryandbeneficialintheshortterm.Morerecently,hebecamewell-knownforhis1993essay‘TheClashofCivilizations’publishedinForeignAffairs,whichwaslaterexpandedintoabookofthe same name, in which he theorized that the changing world order following the collapse ofCommunismwouldbedefinedbyconflictsbetweenculturalblocs,suchastheWestandtheIslamicworld.-Ed.

[198]JeremyBentham(1748-1842)wasanEnglishjurist,socialreformerandUtilitarianphilosopher.-Ed.

[199]ThomasP.M.Barnett(b.1962)isanAmericangeostrategistwhowasworkedfortheUSNavyandthe Department of Defense. Dugin is referring to his book The Pentagon’s NewMap:War andPeaceintheTwenty-firstCentury(NewYork:G.P.Putnam’sSons,2004),anditssequels.-Ed.

[200]ThomasP.M.Barnett,ThePentagon’sNewMap:WarandPeaceintheTwenty-firstCentury.

[201]DugindiscussesthisatlengthinChapterEight.-Ed.

[202]CarlSchmitt.Völkerrechtlichegrossraumordnungmitinterventionsverbotfürraumfremdemächte:Einbeitragzumreichsbegriffimvölkerrecht(Berlin:DunkerandHumbolt,1991).

[203]Friedrich vonList (1789-1846)was aGerman philosopher and economist. In his own footnote,DuginreferencesFriedrichvonList,NationalSystemofPoliticalEconomy(Moscow,2005).VonListhasneverbeentranslatedintoEnglish.-Ed.

[204]TheAfricanUnionwasestablishedin2002andconsistsof54Africannations,andisanattempttoorganiseaunitedfrontamongthevariouscountriestoaddressesproblemsthatarespecifictotheircontinent.-Ed.

[205]Euroregionsarethoseareaswhichextendovertheterritoryofseveraldifferentsovereignstateswhoborder upon each other. Euroregions allow for the citizens of these regions to address commonproblems,althoughtheirpowerisrestrictedtothelocallevelandhavenonationalpower.-Ed.

[206]FirstcoinedinitsmodernusagebyLewisMumfordinhisTechnicsandCivilization(1934), thetermreferstoatheoreticalunifiednationconsistingofallthecountriesoftheworld.-Ed.

[207]AnthonyGiddens(b.1938)isaBritishsociologist.HeenvisionstheThirdWayasapost-Marxistphenomenonwhichwilldealwiththeeffectsofglobalisation,changesinpersonallifewroughtbymodernity and postmodernity, and humanity’s connection to nature.He outlines these ideas in anumberofbooks,especiallyTheThirdWay(Cambridge:Polity,1998).-Ed.

[208] Eurocommunismwas a term coined in the 1970s to describe an attempt to develop a form ofCommunismspecificallysuitedforWesternEuropeannations,andnotdependentonalignmentwiththeSovietUnion.-Ed.

[209] Karl Kautsky (1854-1938) was a Czech-German Marxist philosopher who was the leadingEuropeanMarxisttheoreticianbetweenthedeathofEngelsandtheRussianRevolution.Hewasanopponent of theBolshevik revolution, claiming that Leninwas attempting to impose reforms onRussiaforwhichitdidnothavethecorrecteconomicorsocialbasis.-Ed.

[210]JoséManuelBarroso(b.1956)was thePrimeMinisterofPortugalbetween2002and2004,andbecamePresidentoftheEuropeanCommissionin2004(andstilloccupiesthisposition,asof2012).Duringthe1970s,BarrosowasanoutspokenMaoist,butbythe1980shadmovedtotheRight.-Ed.

[211]Futurismwasan Italianartmovementwhichwas foundedby thewriterF.T.Marinetti in1909.Futurism loathed anything conventional or traditional, and embraced speed, technology,youthfulnessandviolence,aswellasItaliannationalism.AlthoughFuturismhadalreadyreacheditsapex by 1918, Marinetti himself became an ardent Fascist, and attempted, unsuccessfully, toconvinceMussolinithatFuturismshouldbecometheofficialartofFascism.Marinetticontinuedtonursesuchambitions,bybringingFuturismclosertomainstreamItalianculture,untilthelate1930s,whenFascism, followingGermanNationalSocialism,ultimately condemnedallModernist art asdegenerate.-Ed.

[212] The Repubblica Sociale Italiana, also sometimes known as the Salò Republic due to its beingheadquartered there, was the government of Fascist exiles which was set up in northern ItalyfollowingthecoupagainstMussoliniinJuly1943.OncerescuedbytheGermansandinstatedasitsheadof state,Mussolini returned tohis socialist roots, and said thathehadbeenprevented fromrealising the genuine Fascist revolution by political contingencies, and pledged to create a newFascist state thatwasmuchmoresocialist innature.Heclaimed toadvocateworkers’ rights,andwhiletheoriginalFascistregimehaddefendedprivateproperty,henownationalisedallcompanieswithinhissphereofinfluence.-Ed.

[213]Smenavekh(ChangeofLandmarks)wasacollectionofarticlespublishedbyUstrialovin1921,statingthebasicprinciplesofNationalBolshevism.-Ed.

[214]OllantaHumala(b.1962)istheleaderofthePeruvianNationalistParty.HewaselectedPresidentofPeruinJuly2011.-Ed.

[215]Inphilosophy,itreferstoanideathatisuniqueandcannotbeincludedinawiderconcept.-Ed.

[216] The Bavarian Social Republic was a short-lived attempt to establish a Soviet state in Bavaria,Germany.Formedon6April1919, it lasted forslightly less thanamonth,whenelementsof theGerman Army and the paramilitary Freikorps entered Munich on 3 May and defeated theCommunists.-Ed.

[217]Latin:‘athingthatisessential’.-Ed.

[218]MarcelMauss (1872-1950)wasan influentialFrenchsociologist. Inhis1923bookTheGift, hestudiedarchaicsocietiesanddiscoveredthattheireconomieswerebasedonaprincipleofreciprocalexchange,ratherthanwealthaccumulationasinmodernsocieties.-Ed.

[219]MichelFoucault,HistoryofMadness(London:Routledge,2006).-Ed.

[220]MichelFoucault,TheBirthoftheClinic(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1973).-Ed.

[221]PaulFeyerabend(1924-1994)andThomasS.Kuhn(1922-1996)werebothphilosophersofsciencewhoarguedagainstthenotionthatmodernsciencerepresentedaformofobjectivetruth,freefromideologicalorotherprejudices.-Ed.

[222]Presumably,thisisareferencetotheWorldSocialForum,ananti-globalistorganisationwhichhaditsfoundingmeetingon9April2001inSãoPaulo.-Ed.

[223] Gennady Zyuganov (b. 1944) is the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the RussianFederation(CPRF),which,atpresent,isthesecond-largestpartyinRussia.Foundedin1993,ithasattemptedtoformulateanewformofCommunismwithamorenationalistbent.ItdeclareditselftobethesuccessortotheCommunistPartyoftheRussianSovietFederativeSocialistRepublic,whichwas established in 1990 to provide a republican-level branch of the Soviet Union’s CommunistPartyforRussia,whichhadalwaysbeentheonlyoneoftheUSSR’srepublicstolackarepublicanorganisationofitsown.Itwasabolishedin1991followingthecoupagainstGorbachev.-Ed.

[224]AlexanderProkhanov(b.1938) isaRussianwriterandnovelistwhobecameanultra-nationalistfollowingthecollapseoftheUSSR.HeistheEditor-in-ChiefofZavtra.-Ed.

[225]Rodina,orMotherland-NationalPatrioticUnion,wasacoalitionofnationalistandLeftistgroupswhich was created in 2003. The party generated some controversy when it was accused ofpromotinganti-Semitismandracism.In2006,Rodinamergedintoanewparty,AJustRussia.-Ed.

[226]SeventeenMomentsofSpringwasaSoviettelevisionminiseriesairedin1973,aboutaSovietspywho has infiltrated theNazis’ high command and is taskedwith disrupting negotiations ongoingbetween the Third Reich and the United States for a separate peace, aligned against the SovietUnion,duringtheSecondWorldWar.-Ed.

[227]LeonidBronevoyplayedthepartofGestapoofficerHeinrichMüllerintheseries.-Ed.

[228]TheOrangeRevolutiontookplaceintheUkrainein2004-05,andwasseenasavictoryforliberalforcesoverthetraditionalpoliticalestablishment.-Ed.

[229]TheMoscowContemporaryArtCentreinMoscow.-Ed.

[230] Vladimir Sorokin (b. 1955) is a popular Russian writer and playwright of the postmodernistschool.-Ed.

[231]VictorPelevin(b.1962)isaRussianwriter,alsoapostmodernist.-Ed.

[232]ErnstNiekisch,Hitler:eindeutschesVerhängnis (Berlin:Widerstands-Verlag,1932).NoEnglishtranslationexists.-Ed.

[233]HarroSchulze-Boysen(1909-1942)wasaLeft-leaningnationalistwhofoughtagainsttheFrenchoccupation of the Ruhr, and was later a member of Volksnationale Reichsvereinigung (People’sNational ImperialUnion).Hewas friendlywithbothnationalistsandCommunists,andhelped tobegintheanti-Naziactivitiesofthe‘RedOrchestra’group.HejoinedtheLuftwaffeasapilotandeventuallybecameanofficer.Hewasarrestedandexecutedin1942.-Ed.

[234] Red Orchestra was the name given by the Gestapo to a spy ring in Berlin that was passinginformationtotheUnitedStatesandtheSovietUnion.Beginningitsactivitiesin1936,theGestapodestroyeditin1942.-Ed.

[235]FriedrichHayek(1899-1992)wasaneconomistwhowascrucialtothedevelopmentoftheAustrianschool of economics. He opposed collectivism and state control of the economy in favour ofclassical liberalism, holding that only the free market and limited government were the onlyeffectivemethodoforganizingsocieties.-Ed.

[236]AdamSmith(1723-1790)wasaScottisheconomistwhohelpedtolaythefoundationformodern-day capitalism.He advanced the idea that individual self-interest was ultimately good for all ofsociety.-Ed.

[237]JohnLocke(1632-1704)wasanEnglishphilosopheroftheEnlightenmentwhoisregardedasthemostimportanttheoristofliberalism,ashisworkswereextremelyimportanttothedevelopmentofmoderndemocracy.-Ed.

[238] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) was a French politician and philosopher who opposedcapitalismanddidnotbelieveinstateownershipofproperty,insteadbelievingthatpropertyshouldbelongtoworkers’groups.-Ed.

[239]TheChicagoschoolofeconomicswassonamedbecausemostofthosewhodevelopeditwereonthefacultyoftheUniversityofChicago.Theyfavortotalderegulationoftheeconomy.-Ed.

[240]IntheVedic(Hindu)castesystem,theShudrasarethelowestclass,consistingoftheservantsandlabourers.-Ed.

[241] Hubert Védrine (b. 1947) was the Foreign Minister in Prime Minister Jospin’s Socialistadministration between 1997 and 2002. Védrine is well-known for his opposition to Americanhegemonyandpopularisedtheterm‘hyperpower’todescribeAmerica’spositioninworldaffairs.-Ed.

[242]WilliamKristol(b.1952)isoneofthemostinfluentialneoconservativethinkersinAmericatoday.HewasoneofthefoundersoftheProjectfortheNewAmericanCentury,andisalsothefounderand Editor-in-Chief of the neoconservative journal The Weekly Standard, and is a regularcontributortotheFoxNewsChannel.

[243]Komsomol was shorthand for the Communist Union of Youth, which was the young people’sbranchoftheCommunistPartyoftheSovietUnion.-Ed.

[244]YegorGaidar(1956-2009)wasaRussianeconomistwhobrieflyservedasPrimeMinisteroftheRussian Federation during 1992. He was the developer of the ‘shock therapy’ method oftransitioning the Russian economy from being state-run to the free market, which involved thesudden removal of state regulation and the introduction of liberal reforms. This move wascontroversialsinceitledtohardshipforagreatmanyRussians.-Ed.

[245]AnatolyChubais(b.1955)isaRussianpoliticianwhoservedasDeputyPrimeMinisterduringtheYeltsinadministration.Hewasgiven the taskofprivatisingRussian industryafter thecollapseoftheSovietUnion.-Ed.

[246]At theMunich Conference on Security Policy on 10 February 2007, President Putin criticisedAmerica’s hegemony and what he said was America’s unconstrained use of force to resolveinternationaldisputes,suchasinIraq,sayingthatsuchpoliciesabrogatethevalueofinternationallawandwouldleadtoan‘armsrace’.-Ed.

[247] Mikhail Khodorkovsky (b. 1963) is a Russian oligarch who made billions in developing theSiberianoil fields after thecollapseof theSovietUnion,becoming the richestman inRussiaby2004.AnadvocateofliberalpoliciesandacriticofPutin,Khodorovskywaschargedwithfraudandsentencedtoprisonin2003,leadingtothecollapseofhisempire.Somehaveclaimedthathisarrestwasengineered to removeoneofPutin’s rivals.He is currently set tobe released fromprison in2017.-Ed.

[248]ThisstatementwasoriginallymadebytheGreekphilosopherProtagoras(ca.490-420BCE).Asthequoteonlysurvivesasafragment,itsoriginalcontext,andthereforeitsintendedmeaning,hasbeendisputed.-Ed.

[249]ThisisinOnTimeandBeing.

[250]AccordingtoPlato,whodiscussestheconceptintheSocraticdialoguesMenoandPhaedo,sincethesoulisrepeatedlyincarnatedinaseriesofbodies,eachbirthcausesonetoforgeteverythingoneknew in one’s previous lives, therefore learning is actually a process of remembering what oneknew previously, rather than being the acquisition of new knowledge. He terms this processanamnesis.-Ed.

[251]Latin:‘newthing.’-Ed.

[252] Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) was an American sociologist. Among the many concepts hedeveloped was the idea of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ in his book Social Theory and SocialStructure(1949),bywhichabelieforexpectationheldbyasocialgroupaffectstheirbehavior.AnexamplegivenbyMertonisofawomanwhogetsmarriedbutisconvincedhermarriageisdestinedtoendindivorce;herexpectationswillinfluenceheractionsandcausethistoactuallyhappen.-Ed.

[253]Noesis, or nous, is a Greek term which refers to the mind or the intellect. The Neoplatonistsunderstoodnousas theprocessbywhich themind transmutesmatter into form, formwhichwasidentifiedwithbeauty.Theyalsobelievedthatobjectscouldbethustransformedbybothreasonandthesoul(althoughreasonwasconsideredthemoreperfectmethod).-Ed.

[254]InPlato’stheoryofideas,theeidosdesignatestheessentialformofsomethingbeforeitbecomesabstractlyrepresentedbythoughtorlanguage.-Ed.

[255]AccordingtoHardtandNegri,the‘multitude’isacollectivesocialsubjectwhichbothsustainstheglobalempireoftoday,butwhichwillalsoeventuallybringaboutitsdestruction.-Ed.

[256] Latin: ‘apolitical’. Both Julius Evola and Ernst Jünger adopted this term to describe their ownindifferencetomattersofpracticalpoliticslaterinlife.-Ed.

[257]FriedrichNietzsche,TheGayScience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),pp.160-161.

[258] One of Baudrillard’s principal ideas is that contemporary reality is made up of concepts andsymbols which have no corresponding meaning in the real world, a condition he termed‘hyperreality’.-Ed.

[259]ClassicalGreek:‘purpose’or‘goal’.-Ed.

[260] In Hobbes’ book Leviathan, he defends the concept of absolute monarchy on social contractprinciples(anagreementbetweenthemonarchandthosegoverned).-Ed.

[261]RenéGuénon(1886-1951)wasaFrenchwriterwhofoundedwhathascometobeknownasthetraditionalist schoolof religious thought.Traditionalismcalls fora rejectionof themodernworldanditsphilosophiesinfavourofareturntothespiritualityandwaysoflivingofthepast(GuénonhimselfendeduplivingasaSufiMusliminCairo).

[262]Guénondiscusses this inhisManandHisBecomingAccording to theVedanta (Hillsdale,NewYork:SophiaPerennis,2001).-Ed.

[263]BronisławMalinowski(1884-1942)wasaPolishanthropologist.Hisethnographicstudies,baseduponextensivefieldworkamongtribalpopulations,werepioneeringintheirapproach.-Ed.

[264]Latin:‘anargumentfromastrongerposition’.-Ed.

[265]FriedrichNietzsche,ThusSpokeZarathustra(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007),p.161.-Ed.

[266]MaxWeberbelievedthatscienceandtechnologyhadmadeitimpossibleformodernmantobelieveinthesupranatural,whichhetermedthe‘disenchantmentoftheworld’.-Ed.

[267]ClassicalGreek:‘place’.-Ed.

[268]AntonArtaud (1896-1948)was aFrench artist anddramatistwhodeveloped the concept of the‘theaterofcruelty’,bywhichhedidnotmeansadismbutamethodfordestroyingfalsehoodsforthe

audienceandunveilingthetruthbeneath.-Ed.

[269]InArtaud’splay‘ToHaveDonewiththeJudgmentofGod’(1947),hewrote,‘Whenyouwillhavemadehimabodywithoutorgans,thenyouwillhavedeliveredhimfromallhisautomaticreactionsandrestoredhimtohistruefreedom.’InAntoninArtaud,SelectedWritings(Berkeley,California:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1976),p.571.

[270]Latin:‘madman’.-Ed.

[271] Johann Jakob Bachofen (1815-1887) was a Swiss anthropologist who asserted in his book,Mutterrecht (translated intoEnglish in thevolumeMyth,Religion, andMotherRight [Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press, 1992]), that lunarmatriarchywas the primordial condition of humansociety,andthatsolarpatriarchyemergedlaterinoppositiontoit.-Ed.

[272]Following theRussianRevolution of 1905, theStateDumawas convened, supposedlywith theintentionofacting inanadvisoryrole to themonarchyasa lowerhouseofparliament.However,lawsenactedin1906ensuredthattheDumawouldhavelittleinthewayofinfluenceovertheCzarandhisministers,andsupremepowercontinuedtorestwithhim.-Ed.

[273]Latin:‘economicman’and‘manthecreator’,respectively.-Ed.

[274] Georg Lukács (1885-1971) was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and critic who sought analternativemodeofMarxismtotheorthodoxypromotedbytheSovietUnion.Hiswritingsremaininfluentialtoday,particularlyinthefieldofliterarytheory.HealsobrieflyheldthepostofMinisterofCultureinthebriefHungarianSovietRepublicof1919.-Ed.

[275]GeorgLukács,HistoryandClassConsciousness:StudiesinMarxistDialectics(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1971),pp.148-149.-Ed.

[276]VladimirLeninoncesaid,‘Undersocialismanygoodcookingwomancould,withthesameease,ruleastate.’-Ed.

[277]DeleuzeandGuattariuse the termdesiring-machine todescribewhat they seeas theessentiallymechanistic nature of desire, viewed as a type of machine embedded in a network of otherbiologicalmachines.-Ed.

[278]JuliusEvola,ErosandtheMysteriesofLove:TheMetaphysicsofSex(Rochester,Vermont:InnerTraditions,1991).-Ed.

[279] Herman Wirth (1885-1981) was a Dutch German who believed that there was an ancient,worldwideNordicculturewhichhasbeenforgottenapartfromsometraceswhichremainencodedin ancientmyths and symbols.He devoted his life’swork to proving this thesis.Hewas brieflyinvolved with the SS Ahnenerbe in the 1930s, although when he refused to make his theoriesconformtothoseoftheNationalSocialists,hewasrejectedbythemandforcedintoexile.-Ed.

[280]LeGrandJeu(TheGreatGame)wasthejournalofasmallgrouparoundDaumalinParisbetween1928and1932,knowncollectivelyas theSimplists.Theyattemptedtosynthesiseavant-gardeartwiththeirknowledgeofEasterntraditions.-Ed.

[281]RobertRedfield,TheFolkSociety(Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1947).-Ed.

[282]Anthropological trajectorywas the term coined byDurand to describe the relationship betweenphysiologyandsociety.-Ed.

[283]In thissense, l’imaginaire,or the imagination, isused in thesense that it isa toolwhichallowshumanstorediscovertherelationshipbetweenthematerialworldandtheworldofidealforms,orthespiritualworld.-Ed.

[284]DonnaHaraway(b.1944),aProfessorattheUniversityofCaliforniaatSantaCruz,hasdevelopedwhatsheterms‘cyborgfeminism’.Thetheoryiscomplex,butbasicallysuggeststhatconceptsofgenderrolesareartificiallyconstructedratherthanhavinganyrootinbiologicalreality.-Ed.

[285]MichelFoucault(1926-1984)wasaneruditeFrenchphilosopher,historianandsociologistwhohasbeenassociatedwithboth structuralismandpostmodernism, althoughhe rejectedboth labels.Hewrote not only on philosophical themes, but also on the subjects of insanity and its treatment,prisons,medicine,andthehistoryofsexuality.-Ed.

[286]Bondageanddiscipline,dominanceandsubmission,sadismandmasochism.–Ed.

[287]Plotinus (ca.204-270)wasaGreekphilosopherwhowas the founderof themystical schoolofthoughtnowknownasNeoplatonism.-Ed.

[288]CarlSchmitt,PoliticalTheology(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2005).

[289] French: ‘the smooth space’. InAThousandPlateaus,Deleuze andGuattari distinguish betweensmoothspaceandstriatedspace.Theyclaimedthatsmoothspacewassynonymouswiththeoceanandthedesert,areasinhabitedbynomads,andthatsmoothspacewasaplaceofconstantchange.-Ed.

[290]SaturnaliawasaRomanfestivalforthegodSaturn.Aweek-longcarnivalwasheld,whichincludedthemastersservingtheirslavesthroughouttheperiod.-Ed.

[291] Abram Kardiner (1891-1981) was an American anthropologist and psychologist. Kardinermaintained that culture was a product of the personalities of the individuals who comprised it,whichwasinturnaproductofsocialconditioningsresultingfromsocialinstitutions.-Ed.

[292]Dispositif,sometimestranslatedas‘apparatus’,isatermusedbyFoucaulttorefertothemethods—physical, ideologicalandbureaucratic—thatareusedbyasocietytoenforceitswilluponitsmembers.-Ed.

[293] Virilio coined the term ‘dromocratic’ to describe what he saw as the most salient feature ofmodernity, which is the pursuit of ever-increasing speed through technical and scientificadvancement.Viriliobelievedthatweareapproachingthelimitofsuchspeed,andthatthereachingofthislimitwouldmeantheendofmodernity.-Ed.

[294]PaulVirilio (b. 1932) is aFrenchphilosopherwhowrites primarily about technology,aswell aswhattheuseofphysicalspacetellsusabouttheinstitutionsthatutilizeit.-Ed.

[295]Theorgansthatliewithinthethorax,includingtheheart,theesophagus,andthelymphnodes.-Ed.

[296]German:‘finalbattle’.-Ed.

[297]A termoriginallyusedbyPlato inhisdialogues,which refers toagroupofconceptsorobjectswhicharedividedandsubdivideduntiladefinitionoftheiteminquestionhasbeenfound.-Ed.

[298]A term, first defined in its modern usage by Emmanuel Lévinas, which refers to ‘otherness’,meaningtheactofexchangingone’sperspectiveforthatofthetheoreticalOther.-Ed.

[299]GottfriedWilhelmLeibniz(1646-1716)wasaGermanphilosopherandmathematician.Inhistext,TheMonadology,heclaimedthatsubstancescouldbedividedintomonads(aconceptwhichpre-datedhim),andthateachmonadwaspre-set toact inaspecificwayininteractionwiththeothertypesofmonads.-Ed.

[300]ToDeleuze,anomadrepresentsastateofbeingthatexistsbetweenfixedpoints,justasadesertnomadisperpetuallymovingfromplacetoplacealongpre-setpatterns.-Ed.

[301]PhiloofAlexandria (20BCE-50CE)wasa Jewishphilosopher.Hebelieved that the logoswasGod’smethodforinfluencingthematerialworld.-Ed.

[302]Heraclitus(ca.535-475BCE)wasapre-SocraticGreekphilosopher.Onlyfragmentsofhisworksurvive.-Ed.

[303] Parmenides was a Greek philosopher of the Fifth century BCE. Only fragments of one of hispoemssurvive.-Ed.

[304]OneofHeraclitus’fragmentsreads,‘Naturelovestohideitsef.’ItisFragmentB17inHeraclitus:The Complete Fragments, available atcommunity.middlebury.edu/~harris/Philosophy/heraclitus.pdf.

[305]Inphilosophy,anaporiaisaproblemthathasnoclearsolution,suchasaparadox.-Ed.

[306]ZenowasastudentofParmenidesandapre-SocraticGreekphilosopher.Heisbest-knownforhisaporiae,orparadoxes.-Ed.

[307]AMoebiusstripisastructurethathasonlyonesideandonlyoneedge.-Ed.

[308]KitaroNishida(1870-1945)wasaJapanesephilosopherwhowasthefounderoftheKyotoschoolofphilosophy.Heconceivedbashologicasawayofovercomingthesubject-objectduality.-Ed.