Towards A True Fourth Political Theory
I get my best ideas when I’m boxing.
It’s almost as if the pipes that are the neural pathways in my head get clogged from time to time. Getting smacked in the head helps clear them up like nothing else. I liken it to banging a pre-plasma era TV with a fist to make it work again. It works like a charm, even if you don’t quite know why it works.
(And hey, if you think that’s weird, you should look up how Martin Luther experienced his Eureka moment and how Protestantism was born.)
The Alt-Right places itself as a cutting-edge new movement with revolutionary ideas. These have yet to be codified, but it seems that the most cutting-edge ideas are the Archeo-Futurist and HBD ones. Everything else is an appeal to older systems, values, and traditions.
So does the Alt-Right really have something to constitute a new political theory? We actually might, if we stop and think about it.
To review, the first political theory was Liberal-Bourgeouis Democracy. The second rose as a reaction and critique of the first. We know it as Communism. And of course, the third was the most controversial of all, and it too rose in opposition to the first and second. Strangely enough, it seemed like a synthesis. Regardless, we know it as NatSoc.
I’m throwing some Dugin at you right now if you haven’t noticed:
According to Dugin, National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy were not just militarily, but ideologically defeated in the Second European Civil War (1939–45)—victims of “‘homicide’, or perhaps ‘suicide’.” Thereafter, these two national anti-liberal ideologies allegedly “overcome by history” ceased to address the great challenges facing European man. Then, with Communism’s fall in 1989/91, the second major anti-liberal “theory” opposing the Judeo-financial forces of Anglo-American liberalism collapsed. Today’s anti-liberal struggle, Dugin concludes, requires an ideology that has not “been destroyed and disappeared off the face of the earth.”
Dugin claims that he has synthesized a fourth political theory. Or at least that he has laid the groundwork for it. But you wouldn’t really understand that from reading his book, the Fourth Political Theory. It’s a slog and extremely difficult to read. There is no clear explanation of what the fourth political theory is, nothing quotable to tell your right-wing friends over brunch.
Don’t get me wrong, Dugin’s got some interesting things to say that are more easily understood. For example, he alleges that all of history has an enduring conflict between land and sea powers. Think Athens vs Sparta to Carthage vs Rome, all the way to America vs USSR.
In general, Dugin’s beliefs are categorized as Eurasianist. He talks about a Continental empire based on tradition and hierarchy to rival the Oceanic empire based on commerce and democracy. We’ve…adapted his ideas on the Alt-Right to describe a continental White Empire stretching from Vladivostok to San Francisco. Or at least the nuclear crater where San Fran used to be. There’s a bit more to his theories, but his belief that Russian civilization should merge with non-White civilizations on Russia’s borders because of shared values has a bit more to do with geopolitical realities than revolutionary political theory. It’s also NOT something that the Alt-Right can get behind.
In short, despite the title of his book, Dugin has failed to truly synthesize a fourth political theory, which by my reckoning means that the title is still up for grabs.
(By the way, there is a 5th political theory out there already though. It can also be called the Diaspora theory.)
As for a fourth political theory, I’ll do the opposite of what Dugin did. I won’t use obfuscating language and meandering sentence structure to hide the fact that I don’t have an idea yet.
I’ll just tell you what I had in mind.
The fourth political theory can start with the following underlying assumption:
Each peoples is unique and any political system that arises has to take into account the diversity of these societies. There is no universal theory or set of rules that will apply to each and every society. Adopting the French constition will not make India just like France. You need Frenchmen for that. Human biodiversity is real and societies should be tailor-structured to fit each people’s idiosyncracies.
I’ll give you an example of what I mean.
If you ever study world energy markets, you’ll notice that Norway is always referenced as the gold-standard for natural resource management and re-distribution. The Norwegian model is well thought out. It redistributes wealth fairly and there is practically no corruption to speak of. The money goes into sovereign wealth-funds or is re-invested in the company and the country. The natural resource wealth of the North Sea has been a boon to Norway, not a curse. Contrast that with Nigeria. In Nigeria and in other 3rd world countries, we talk about the “resource curse” instead of a “resource gift.” These countries are mired in poverty, corruption, and mismanagement of their natural wealth.
How can there be such a difference?
Well, that’s what many international bodies spend countless hours and resources figuring out. They hire experts and professional idiots to come up with complicated methods, incentive structures and bogus development plans for these countries to get themselves up to the Norwegian gold standard. They would be better off studying what makes Norwegians so Norwegian instead.
Nigerians can’t run an oil or gas field Norwegian-style.
Now, these experts obviously can’t admit that Diversity really does exist because it is a modern-day heresy and because it would put them out of a job.
But we can learn from these real world examples to learn that people are really really different and that it is impossible to make them all into carbon copies of Norwegians. Why? It might simply be culture. But we on the Alt-Right believe that culture is the bud and race is the root.
So if we were to apply the Norwegian example to political theory, and spread the word far and wide, no one would be able to sell the American public on the idea of spreading Liberal Democracy to Iraqis. We would say that it was impossible. They have a different culture and are a different race. There is no way that we can spread American-style democracy to non-Americans. If we truly have the Iraqi’s best interests in mind, we would encourage a political system that caters to their cultural and racial idiosyncrasies. We would take into account that they are far more inbred than Core Europeans and far more clannish and nepotistic. We would dip into HBD theories to synthesize a political system that is compatible with the Iraqi people.
So really, we can call the fourth political theory the Burger King Political Theory.
Because you can have it your own way. Each peoples need to think about a system that highlights its racial predispositions, curbs its natural deficiencies and plays to its peoples’ strengths.
One of my favorite reference points are the Russians. For so long, they have suffered a massive complex over not being European enough. Every time that Russians have occasion to visit Europe (either as an invading force or as part of a guided tour) they always remark on how clean and orderly Europe is. This still applies now, despite the worsening conditions of Europe.
More than that, Russians always comment on how law-abiding the Germans are. They don’t even jaywalk. It floors Russians to see them in their natural environment, even if it leads to no real change in their behavior. Russians are wilder and have a completely different attitude towards authority and the law. Every Russian thinks of the law in antagonistic terms. There is no respect for it because every Russian thinks that he has a better understanding of true Justice than some middle-level bureaucrat. Unsurprisingly, Russia is more corrupt than Germany now and always has been.
And it’s not just Germans, but Core European-descended peoples as well.
I used to date a girl who was descended from the Mayflower settlers. A White Anglo Saxon Protestant. She had an ancestral home in Cape Cod and all. One day we were going to the movies, but we had bought a bottle of water beforehand. This was a problem as they don’t allow outside snacks in movie theaters. Naturally, I told her to stuff it in her bag so we could sneak it in.
But she stiffened and refused.
“Why?” I asked. “It’s like 7 bucks to buy a water at the counter here and I’m thirsty.”
She started to freak out and whine that it was against the rules.
“So what!?” I said.
But there was no convincing her. She looked like she was physically ill at the idea.
Later, I told one of my American friends about it. To my surprise, he took the girl’s side.
“You know that movie theaters don’t make money off tickets and need to sell those snacks to stay in business, right? You have to buy their water or they’ll go out of business.”
Amazing. These people were following the rules even though there was no policeman watching over them and forcing them to. They had internalized the rules and now they followed them even when no one was watching or they would just feel bad.
Me, being the half-wild Slav barbarian that I was didn’t care. I even took it as a personal affront. You have to side with your friends and family over the rules, even when they do stupid shit. It’s about loyalty to your in-group above all else. That’s the way I always saw things.
Unsurprisingly, in Russia, I had no trouble getting a girl to sneak some hard lemonade into the movie theater. Looking around at the crowd, it was clear that we weren’t the only ones that had done so. She was a nice girl, but she simply hated the rules and took great pleasure in subverting them. Just like me. This attitude towards authority and the rules makes Russia what it is: a disorderly, but fun place.
And Communism isn’t to blame. Russia has always been more disorderly compared to Germany for example. There are many explanations for this phenomenon that are plausible, and part of the development of the fourth political theory has to be to suss out these answers through genetic study.
I’ve also found that Italians are similar in their attitudes toward the law and authority. There’s a funny Italian quote that I can only paraphrase as the exact wording eludes me:
“With this sort of government, the only patriotic thing one can do is not pay one’s taxes.”
Funny enough, both Italians and Russians are more inbred than Core Europeans. They didn’t out-marry as much as say, the Dutch. Therefore, they have stronger familial ties and similar attitudes towards living with an extended family. They also have both historically been on the fringe of Europe and not safely nestled in the core.
Unsurprisingly, these societies are more corrupt than their Core European counterparts. Why? Because more outbred people have an easier time thinking in terms of laws and universal concepts. They aren’t as prone to tossing some dollars their son’s way, they’d rather toss him to the curb at 18 and tell him to build his own life. So holding a Russian or Italian to German standards is ridiculous and shouldn’t be attempted. Germans act the way that they do because of years of genetic development that has become reflected in their society. These genetic idiosyncrasies should be studied and codified.
So far so good, nothing too controversial if you are woke to the race question.
But let’s not stop there. Perhaps a fourth political theory should be proactive in its program as well.
Perhaps some peoples’ should be nudged in a different direction if they are to survive the 21st century. There isn’t a government out there that isn’t hostile to White’s interests as the situation now stands. So really, it begs the question: if your entire political system is hostile to you and your people, does it help to be naturally law-abiding or naturally rebellious? Who has a better shot at resisting their government and its machinations?
Perhaps we will have to change as a people to make it out of the 21st century intact.
I’ll pick up where I left off in Part Two.