Exh 4pt
For non Liberal 2.0ers see here
For people, organizations etc that blurs line of being a Liberal 2.0 and non Liberal 2.0 or who are off in la la land -off compass see here
I am Anti Liberal 2.0 (Anti Liberal (2.0) Aktion) /Post Liberal (2.0) including Anti Neoliberal (Post Neoliberal) and Anti 'Centrist'.
Relatedly I reject and explicitly condemn Alt Fascism Movement (i.e the Fascoid MAFIA) . I am Anti Alt Fascism Movement Aktion (see here for more)
I am Anti Liberal 2.0 but I am really Anti Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism (Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism is chopped liver)
Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism is the archenemy of my ideologies unlike Liberalism 2.0 which is only a mere enemy of my ideologies
However, the Bourgeois Systematic Ruling Class is the Greater Scope Arch Villain .
The Bourgeois Systematic Ruling Class is a threat and arch villainous presence that's more dangerous, affects more people, and or is more significant than Liberalism 2.0 , Alt Fascism Movement ideology and even Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism in the setting as a whole, but it isn't causing the conflict of the immediate political climate (and may have little to do with it at all).
While Liberalism 2.0 and Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism along with Alt Fascism Movement ideology are directly responsible for the current political climate — Liberalism 2.0, Alt Fascism Movement ideology but especially/more so Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism are the villain/arch villain that I am trying to help us overcome
The Bourgeois Systematic Ruling Class isn't a major force in our political world, it is only a major force in the background. The Bourgeois Systematic Ruling Class are just responsible for anything evil or fueling at least a part of the current political setting in which our political story takes place.
The Bourgeois Systematic Ruling Class are in a way Liberalism 2.0 and Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism's superior and also is a superior to the Alt Fascism Movement ideology in a related way
There might be some direct crossover between the Bourgeois Systematic Ruling Class , Liberalism 2.0, Alt Fascism Movement ideology and Social Justice Anarcho-INGSOC Communalism, which is me also being Anti 'Centrist' and Anti Enlightened Centrist accounts for
I recognize there is good and bad in Liberalism as mentioned here
Why do I embrace the 4pt? Because being a 4pt in a Liberal 2.0 society is counter cultural , fun, disruptive, challenges social norms and thus its more fun to be counter cultural than being mainstream
Just like the New Left hippies in the 1960s were countercultural in a conservative society, I am a 4pt in a Liberal 2.0 society.
Like in the 1960s kids shocked their parents with long hair, promiscuity, edgy music, I embrace the 4pt as a way to shock our Liberal 2.0 overlords
It is way more fun to be a contrarianist than to be mainstream. I love taking the opposite side of some select mainstream Liberal 2.0 political views. Being different is truly liberating.
I believe in a fair society, but we can't get it through Liberal 2.0 democracy or stubborn hardlined Right Wing republic is built against us
I am Anti Liberal 2.0 (Anti Liberal Aktion) which includes Anti Neoliberal. I reject the Neoliberal school of thought. Liberalism 2.0 is agony
Liberal 2.0ers unintentionally helps right wing extremists and play right into their hands just like Liberals in Germany in the 1930s unintentionally helped the NDSAP and played right into their hands or worse
Liberal 2.0ers (just like proto Liberal 2.0ers) love defending Capitalism and being Capitalist and Capitalism is an economic system of fascism
Marxist theory says that fascism tends to follow the failings of the left to secure gains. Reformism and liberal 2.0 politics drag leftist politics to a screeching halt in times of pressure, and then chauvinistic movements come along to fill the gap.
This is exactly what is happening with Liberalism 2.0. We are entering a new era of economic insecurity where basic needs are becoming more and more inaccessible.
Yet, the ideologues of the democratic party want us to concern ourselves with the plight of transgender swimmers. They want us to be concern ourselves with someone's opinion on twitter. They want us to concern ourselves about gender inequality in corporate boardrooms.It's a load of bullsh*t
In politics, as in physics, each action has an equal and opposite reaction. The Liberal 2.0ers do not know what type of monster they are creating. If this continues without resistance, 45 will prove to have been a foreshock for an unspeakable menace. Angela Nagle’s book Kill all Normies expands on this and I generally echo everything she wrote in that book, as does this and this
I touch on this elsewhere in this blog .I also touch on this below in talking about “The radlibs (wokies etc) are centrist/center left but they share features with the alt right” part, but you apply this logic to all factions on the more extreme end of the right
Seeing how much the "Liberal 2.0" discourse in the USA aligns with ethno nationalist in Europe has constantly has been a point of weirdness to me. You get these people who are shouting calling themselves Liberal 2.0, and who talk way too similar to some European neo-naughtzies.
The populist hard right types love this small shell game because they can claim to be defending their culture instead of a concept of racial purity. Richard Spencer does this b.s. But so do more mainstream nativist sorts like Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen.
There are some vile little right-wing trolls that are pushing for a return of biological race science but I believe they'll be marginal on the right long-term. The lame Liberal 2.0 essentialists of liberal 2.0 academia's sociology and humanities departments have already handed the right the intellectual tools it needs to rationalize the abuse of otherized populations.
I am not hardcore, fanatically Anti Liberal 2.0. As long as Democrats and Liberal 2.0s don’t do things that consistently make Progressives look bad (using the most Anti MAGA and Pro Joe Biden subredditors criteria), then I say “give Democrats a chance, if Democrats as a whole represent your interests the best even if they have Liberal 2.0 factions and ideologies, then vote Democrat”
In actuality, the biggest barrier to change is not the people who are actively and openly in opposition but those people who are in the middle who just sandbag it by them never really ever attempting to change anything. It's always a bad time, it's always being done the wrong way, it's always wait until later, it's always "let the people enjoy this moment", it's always "it's too close to midterm elections" or "we must be pragmatic for the election".
The truth is that the Liberal 2.0s/Progressives don't really want change. They want to keep the status quo going and they prevent anything that may disrupt that. And they do it while at the same time pretending to be a friend
Not everything should be blamed on Liberal 2.0ers. Absolutism doesn't exist and nuance is always needed. Absolutism doesn't exist and nuance is always needed.
I can and do have a consolation document on my computer which lists all of the consolation prizes for most Liberalism 2.0 views and actions that I do not agree with. I also write the positives of every Liberalism 2.0 view and action that I do not agree with
The vast majority of modern Liberal 2.0ers are younger Gen Xers, Millennials and Gen Zers .
So our modern woke Liberal 2.0 society today is like the kids table at the Christmas-Thanksgiving-Easter-Passover dinner while our society in the 20th century, which was made up of (depending on the time period) :Baby Boomers, Silent Generation, Greatest Generation, etc was like the adults table at the Christmas-Thanksgiving-Easter-Passover, dinner . So looking at it that way I kinda am chill with it our Liberal 2.0 society
Some reasons I am anti Neoliberal can be found here. Neoliberalism is a failed ideology and unnatural ideology which is one reason I am against it. Here is more about Neoliberalism , in particular Neoliberal fronts
Neoliberalism is a term with a complicated history that most don't bother with, but colloquially, it's essentially used to refer to contemporary capitalist ideology.
For extended treatment on the topic, you might look at this Handbook of Neoliberalism from the anarchist Simon Springer (and a few others). My views on Neoliberalism are inspired by such things
Anyone who departs from the standard neoliberal orthodoxy gets blasted, either from right or the left. The institutions that enforce conventional wisdom are very hostile currently.
The problem with modern Democrats, Progressives and Republicans is they cannot be relied on to defeat Neoliberalism and Capitalism due to their interests more aligning with those systems than with other systems
The problem with Liberal 2.0ers is they cannot be relied on to defeat Neoliberalism , Fascism and Capitalism due to their interests more aligning with those systems than with other systems
Neoliberalism is wrong because it breeds deep-rooted social inequalities. Democratic Socialism and Post Neoliberalism is a good front to defeat Neoliberalism. We cannot allow neoliberalism degenerates to control overton window
For example, Neoliberalism made Chile one of the most unequal countries in Latin America.
In Chile, one percent of the country’s population owns about a quarter of its wealth. Neoliberalism forces poor people to pay the price of inequality. This is why I support Post Neoliberalism and Patsoc to defeat Neoliberalism, See the economic section for more, and anti neoliberal views can be found throughout this blog
I am against Liberal Universalism
I am against Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism, (the intellectual basis for most modern "conservative" movements and political parties), is a uniquely evil type of ideology that exists only to feed globalism, imperialism, corporate profits, state power, Capitalism, consumerism, the 0.1%, and and Zionism, while sucking up patriotic/left wing nationalist/anti-Left Wing votes to prevent any true progress from happening.
Liberalism (Classical Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Ordoliberalism, proto postmodernism Chuds i,e Neoconservativism-Chuds) and Communism defeated Fascism.
Then Liberalism defeated Communism , and now Liberalism 2.0: (see this briefly to another connection between Liberalism, Communism and Fascism)
Neoliberalism (including Social Neoliberalism variant of reddit Neoliberalism and Washington consensus Neoliberalism, modern Neoliberalism, Neoliberal left,etc), State Liberalism lite (like turbolibs)
Chuds, Conservatism 2.0, Wet Toryism, Neoconservatism, Imperialism-Western imperialism , Anti Libertarians
The Cathedral (including the Corporatized plutocratic left), Successor Ideology, Leninism 4.0 (French post-structuralism, radlib-unorthodox Marxism with woke idpol-intersectionality [like this]/related to the fictional utopian version of the Frankfort school), pseudo postmodernism/western political modernity (which combined is basically American Thought)
Synth Left-Pseudo Left (including Faux Progressivism)/Cringe Left and ultra left (including the type mentioned here and here) variant of the Left, including Orange LibLeft (i.e wokecalists), the PMC-lumpen alliance, Shitlibs, Twitter type 'leftists'/MSNBC type of Liberals
RadLib (Radical Liberalism), Post liberal progressivism (like revolutionary progressiveness, transnational progressiveness, PMC progressivism including the PMC soy Left ), cultural radicalism
See here for more examples of who is a Liberal 2.0er. Basically I am only against unreasonable Liberal 2.0ers (as mentioned in this thread).
Liberalism 2.0 is found in the Center right Conservative Liberalism (including in the main right wing and alt right) and especially in the Center Left (Center Left ‘Normie’ Liberalism, and Left Center (moderate Leftists). There is a large overlap between the Left Center and Orange Libleft.
The radlibs (wokies etc) are centrist/center left but they share features with the far right (i.e they are basically Enlightened centrists). See here for more
The only thing that is ‘leftist’ about the radlibs (wokies etc) that they claim to be advancing egalitarianism, yet they are not interested in materialism, they are fully concerned with atrophying prejudice in each individual since they think this will make our current economic system ok.
That is absolutely a centrist project (they are basically Enlightened centrists), they want to improve the system we are living in, not change it, or at least their first priority is to get rid of prejudice, not economic change, so this excludes them from being far left.
Political beliefs can't really be classed on a single axis.
The vast majority of radlibs and wokies are authoritarian centrists, and have more in common with evangelical conservatives than either group would care to admit.
Some leftists who had extremely conservative religious upbringings, they would agree. There are more similarities than differences between the two groups, the obvious features being puritanical thinking and self-righteous moral absolutism.
Most of the Liberal 2.0ers (well at least the more leftists Liberal 2.0ers like Successor Ideologues, Revolutionary-Transnational Progressives, Radlibs , Synth left/orange Libleft) espouse the cultural values of green (i.e non Liberal 2.0) LibLeft but are tricked into WRONGLY thinking the state is the best avenue for enforcing those cultural values.(when the state should NOT be used to enforce those cultural values)
The people driving the Liberal 2.0 movement are either pure AuthLeft or AuthCenter, depending on the person. They want to expand societal influence (AuthLeft, like academics and activists) or consolidate it (AuthCenter, like politicians and corporations), originally by using their deformed brand of class warfare, but now they abandoned that approach after the Occupy Wall St which they were a part of, went nowhere.
They then embraced critical theory and pushed identity and cultural warfare, by which they have been more successful. They don't really believe any of it, they do however see it as a means to an end (wealth and control) by pushing green (i.e non Liberal 2.0) LibLeft values as a Trojan horse for AuthLeft/AuthCenter political systems.
The American "left"has split in 2 groups:
Non Liberal 2.0 Left: The traditional left who uphold those values and who seek improvement through humanism and compassion.
The Liberal 2.0 pseudo Left: The insane woke (American) left who mistakes fascism and oppression with progressiveness and who have created nothing more than a new religion, And are ironically guilty of all of the things that they are saying to be against.
There’s a niche minority of people who blur the line of being Left Wing and Liberal 2.0 (i.e synth left, cringe left, orange libleft, radlibs, pmc progressives/cultural radicals, postmodernists) and Liberal 2.0 leaning Leftists who are deeply embarrassed by the end result of over a half century of the critical theory, anti racism and the Liberal 2.0 variant of open borders activism.
It’s amusing to watch them squirm and to deny all of the fundamental talking points of Western leftism since 1945 have anything to do with Left Wing ideology. When confronted with the failings of globalism and multiculturalism the default position that they take is that these things are in reality ‘neoliberalism’.
Instead of owning the fact their worldview has made the West an objectively worse off ,we’re seeing ‘it’s not real communism’ play out before our very eyes
ANTIFA, drag kids and teens harassing college lecturers out of work for being ‘transphobic’ do not sit well with this ‘real left’, who gets that the tide is increasingly turning against them. The excuses and narratives are already being developed. Do not forget that the red flag has flown in the name of everything they now try to disavow.
Other things represented by Liberalism 2.0 is icon culture , a purely materialistic approach to humanism is destroying politics as a whole , anti religious (i.e anti christian)/anti-spiritual, anti-timeless values, anti ubiquitous values, anti-sacred turn in Western history that (not by chance) coincided with colonialism, the start of the Enlightenment, etc. This modern scientific, materialist, colonialist era of Western history is negative, this is the problem.
The Liberal 2.0ers also include the childless left and the Paul Krugman types (cats that have too much power in the US), basically a political class that caters to urbane McKinsey consultants.
Liberalism 2.0 also includes open society, Russia funded groups in the US to sow division, etc.
Liberal 2.0ers are trying to use religious and ethnical groups for their gain. For example, when fighting Islam as a sacred religious tradition, the globalist wing of Liberalism 2.0 allow a worst of both worlds type of migration system for Muslims in Europe which has negative drawbacks in Europe
When fighting against all kinds of national identity, the globalist wing of Liberalism 2.0 use Uyghur, and Ukrainian ethnical identities in order to destabilize the alternative poles in China and Russia respectively that do not belong to their unipolar global Liberal 2.0 world vision
Liberal 2.0ers are cynical in that sense in that they are hypocrites. Liberal 2.0ers can use something that they criticize if they need to, to own the non Liberal 2.0ers. Liberal 2.0ers have double morality.
Equity, Cultural radicalism/ Transnational progressivism-Revolutionary progressivism, and inclusionarism, are not compatible with the concept of liberty
State Liberalism Lite takes things a bit too far and is pretty authoritarian which absolutely sucks .
I also critique Liberals, Socialists and fellow Anarchists
So I combat Liberalism 2.0 with a 4pt (Fourth Political Theory). Fourth Political Theory is a similar concept to Third camp/stance in being politically syncretic. Though I would also support ideas from A Darwinian Left to provide a good framework around the 4pt ideas to combat Liberalism 2.0
But I support a Fourth Political Theory that is filtered through Max Blumenthal, Sameera Khan and Caleb Mauphin to make it Center left or Left Wing
Caleb Mauphin says that the west use Ukraine as a cover for world colonial powers. If Russia is opposed to these world colonial powers they are in the right. Mauphin says that Alexsandr Dugin has a unique perspective while acknowledging that Dugin is conservative
This article clears up some things about the 4pt
As a 4pter, I do not believe that the main topic of politics is individualism, class or nation but Dasein (a philosophy that roughly refers to the experience of being unique to humans)
I uphold all identity groups and their cultures equally who are in danger if being destroyed by globalization, cultural imperialism etc in addition to native religions
I am against this Western imperialism and I support those groups who are struggling against it. I am against overkill identity politics
I support diversity as I feel our world’s true wealth is the diversity of cultures and peoples. Even if bicultural diversity has negatives, diversity should be welcomed , maintained and cultivated
I love seeing LGBTQ+, BIPOC+, women etc get as much visibility as heteros, whites and men. That shakes things up, adds new elements (like a salad bowl), and makes things less boring and predictable.
It is wrong due to being indifferent to history, abstract individualism , lack of culture and detachment from reality and leads to corruption and globalization.
They use power to distance themselves from the average citizen so they don’t need to justify their actions. They breed impersonal labor leading to less quality (which is why cars made eons ago were better than modern cars). With less private public meshing, the less individual is rewarded and recognized which forces people to fill a role .New class depersonalizes western leadership and lowers their responsibility.
Liberal 2.0 ers aren’t as tolerant as they think.
The 4pt looks very convincing
What I write below is from the 4pt. I view the 4pt things below like Max Blumenthal, Sameera Khan and Caleb Mauphin views these things from the 4pt.
But like Max Blumenthal, Sameera Khan and Caleb Mauphin, the 4pt things below factor into my political views but in ways that they factor 4pt things into their political views (especially in me opposing Liberalism 2.0)
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, "our side," had captured a crucial word from the enemy. Other words, such as "liberal," had been originally identified with laissez-faire libertarians, but had been captured by left-wing statists, forcing us in the 1940s to call ourselves father feebly "true" or "classical" liberals. "Libertarians"’, in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over, and more properly from the view of etymology; since we were proponents of individual liberty and therefore of the individual's right to his property.” Murray Rothbard
In defense of anyone else whose been turned off to American Leftism (Liberalism 2.0), The American Left itself has pivoted away from economics-- at least in the west since the 1960's.
Fearing that they would be branded as foreign spies, the New left carved out a niche for themself as proto-SJWs (proto Liberal 2.0ers). They made every single thing about their precious identity. By the 2010's they became the single most reactionary force in society-- entirely eclipsing those dastardly WASPs who they deemed as responsible for all the world's ills.
History will not look kindly on the new left and everything it has wrought on the world. It began by burning bras and taking drugs at music festivals, it ended up by painting rainbow flags on predator drones (which is a homophobic thing to do because its proof that the US and its military are using LGBTQ as props to make themselves look moral and ‘inclusive’).
There is a paradigmatic shift with Liberalism. Liberalism 2.0 is replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry and racial harmony with ideas that are so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, which ends up moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. This meme shows this in visual form sort of
This new strain of Liberalism also includes vulgar individualist liberal ideology, increasingly bureaucratic governments, and big tech all morphing into a world that is at once tyrannical, full of chaos, and without value and morality systems that give human life richness and meaning. If we don’t stop Liberalism 2.0 we will end up in a top-down controlled state.
Everyone knows the absolute threat of the Right wing but much less knows the threat of the Liberal 2.0 which is its own brand of badness
Glenn Greenwald similarly says (and I touch on this in my polemic section of this blog) : “The CIA and the Deep State operatives became heroes of the liberal left (i.e Liberal 2.0ers), the people who support the Democratic Party.
They are now in a full union with the neocons and the Bush-Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street. Maybe this post can give you a little hint why
That is the union of power, along with mainstream media outlets, that are fully behind the Democratic Party, which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them, in the coming election and that’s a very alarming proposition, because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship and suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light.”
and also by Glenn Greenwald:
"If you are opposed to Big Tech censorship of the Internet, is that a left- or right-wing idea? If you're opposed to NATO and U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, is that a left- or right-wing idea? If you think that, you know, corporate giants are too close with the government and get too many favors from it, is that a left- or right-wing idea? Sounds a lot like the swamp that Trump was vowing to drain. It also sounds like what former President Barack Obama in 2008 was swearing to combat… And so I think it's more about what's happened to the labels around me rather than any changes within me,"
This from racket also backs this up: "Twitter emails show consistent collaboration between military and intelligence officials and elite “progressives” from NGOs and academia. “They/them” signatures mingle with .mil, @westpoint, @fbi and others.
How did the FBI and the Pentagon, once the avowed enemies of progressives for their attacks on the Black Panthers and the peace movement, their war-mongering and gross over-funding, begin to fuse and collude? They join together in election tabletop exercises and share hors d’oeuvres at conferences put on by oligarch philanthropists. That cultural and political shift was once a heavy lift, but now it is as simple as cc’ing each other."
Some liberal 1.0ers feel that the Democrats and liberal 2.0 in general have become a bit radicalized in the last couple of years. The Democrats and liberals used to be fighting against conservatives who were trying to censor video games and music in the 1990's because they believed it was bad. Maybe the parties have just switched. See here for more and this for more
Of course unlike Glenn, I agree more with these SLS posters said in this post on that topic than I do with Glenn above
The soy-left represents a strata of the non-productive PMC. It is the same mileu that made up the temprence and womens suffrage movement in the 1920's; the social reformers; woman's liberation etc. They later made up the church ladies of the 1980's. They are essentially a feminine strata of moralistic busy bodies, who love 'fixing' and regulating working class people, imposing their morobund social views on them and correcting their grammar and language.
The uptight spinster school teacher of the 1920's, who would berate proletarian kids for their poor grammar, is now the pink haired, obese feminist grad student who corrects blue collar workers on their uncouthness and improper gender pronouns. (well at least traditionalism like that can stay alive just with pmc soy left paint /s)
I have seen every alt right tropes that leftists discredited unironically used by neoliberals by simply twisting it for woke purposes. Alt right used "West is best"? Neolibs do this.
Alt right laughs at "We should improve society somewhat"? Neolibs do this.
The Liberal 2.0 were already wrongly framing the anti war protesters as right wing before it was happening. I mean they have been framing all protests negatively since the early 2020s, then Ukraine and they're building on top of that: "the upcoming protesters this winter will be the same people who protested against fill in the blank etc" ... It is really dystopian how divided our society is at this point, there is the obedient government sheep and if you're not one of them you must be one of the extremist terrorist dissidents. All parties pretty much align (except for the ring wing which consistently sits at 10% even throughout the early 2020s) as do all MSM
Even Left Wing MSM are framing all dissent as right wing even on clear leftist issues. Then there's all this twisting of reality, so much double speech/inversion. It's getting reeeealy ugly in the neoliberal NWO in the EU. And Germany is especially self hurting, with politicians who report to the US on a weekly basis (their foreign minister), while the population is kept in check with a completely corrupt press and their idpol narratives.
But instead they blame non-existent, far-right Naughtzies as usual.
Over the past half decade,the Democrats and Liberals in this transition to Liberalism 2.0 have fused together Libertarianism, Liberal 2.0 economics, Wall Street style refinancialization, along with authority enforcement in addition to the propaganda organ of Big Media and Big Tech combined.
The Democrats and Liberal 2.0ers now embrace free markets, which they steer to provide huge amounts of capital, which in turn gives them the ability of the borrowing required to keep Liberal 2.0 economics afloat and uses Red fascist-type insurgent/autonomous-totalitarian control techniques such as ostracism, deplatforming, gaslighting, all in a mob mentality way to control the population.
“The transformation of open borders into a “Left” position is a very new phenomenon and runs counter to the history of the organized Left in fundamental ways. Open borders has long been a rallying cry of the business and free market Right. Drawing from neoclassical economists, these groups have advocated for liberalizing migration on the grounds of market rationality and economic freedom.
They oppose limits on migration for the same reasons that they oppose restrictions on the movement of capital. The Koch-funded Cato Institute, which also advocates lifting legal restrictions on child labor, has churned out radical open borders advocacy for decades, arguing that support for open borders is a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, and “Forget the wall already, it’s time for the U.S. to have open borders.”2 The Adam Smith Institute has done much the same, arguing that “Immigration restrictions make us poorer.”3
Following Ronald Reagan and figures like Milton Friedman, George W. Bush championed liberalizing migration before, during, and after his presidency. Grover Norquist, a zealous advocate of Trump’s (and Bush’s and Reagan’s) tax cuts, has for years railed against the illiberalism of the trade unions, reminding us, “Hostility to immigration has traditionally been a union cause.”4” Andrea Nagle A Left Case against open borders
“the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit." Vladimir Lenin
"The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.”- The Communist Manifesto
Liberal 2.0ers weaken the Democratic Party with unpopular cultural attitudes
This Liberal 2.0 paradigmatic shift was crystalized as a rite of passage with Donald Trump being ousted for Joe Biden post-humanism and extreme technocracy. Historian Victor Davis Hanson made a similar point about this subtle paradigm shift once Joe Biden became President (see here for a similar point)
This Liberalism 2.0 (which includes Successor Ideology Liberalism). Successor ideology is wrong because it is toxic and because it shames , bullies and threatens instead of fostering debate
Democracy is supposed to be about the rule of the majority, full freedom of speech and thought, the open possibility to express any healthy position within reason that you choose, any religious choice, the right to or not to have a family etc.
from here: "The essentialist philosophy has especially manifested in various sub-cultures I am a part of, and has made it much harder for me to enjoy them and express myself freely and honestly within them, to the point where the number of people I can have honest conversations about any topic without fear of being judged or shamed are in the single digits.
Opinions that deviate from the corporatized leftist norm are shunned, and the people who express them often find themselves alone, or even thrust into the arms of the centre or right. Woke and woke-adjacent people have become gatekeepers that essentially do everything they can to make you believe you are actually a right-winger or centrist, and it took me a degree of self-confidence to realise this was blatant gaslighting."
But this paradigm shift moved Liberals from this Liberalism 1.0 to their new Liberalism 2.0 when that became unacceptable .The Successor ideology Liberalism in Liberalism 2.0 involves political correctness, cancel culture (including Right wing cancel culture), shaming all those who don’t accept this new Liberalism 2.0 etc .
Liberalism 2.0 stems from selfishness, it places personal interests ahead of the interests of the revolution second, and thus gives rise to ideological, political and organizational Liberalism 2.0.
“To anger a conservative non Liberal 2.0er , lie to them. To anger a Liberal Liberal 2.0er, tell them the truth” Gnostic/revisionist Theodore Roosevelt quote
People are now ostracized, excluded and shamed for not having the type of views that Liberal 2.0ers decide is ‘acceptable’ See this for more
Wes Yang's take on the successor ideology is a useful tool to decipher these things.
The agony of Liberalism 2.0 includes the approaching end of our Western political modernity, since neither
Liberal 2.0 Commie'ism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism nor Fascism can be regarded as real alternatives to Liberalism 2.0
Both Liberal 2.0 Commie'ism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism and Fascism have Materialism ,Atheism, Cultural Radicalism/post liberal progressivism and a purely materialistic approach to the human being in common with Liberalism 2.0
We cannot choose to oppose Liberalism 2.0 using Liberal 2.0 Commie'ism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism and Fascism, because they are alternatives of the past.
Fascism and Liberal 2.0 Commie'ism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism belong to the same family of Western modern ideologies as Liberalism 2.0
"....the left (proto Liberal 2.0/Liberal 2.0 especially the Synth left/Cringe Left like Orange LibLeft, Radlibs, Revolutionary Progressives) is more like a police force for, than an alternative to, the right. Walter Benn Michaels (2006)
From Wes Yang. “Liberalism is always in a sense succeeding itself, it's true, but when it crosses over into annulling its own foundational commitments an important threshold has been crossed"
Some blatant examples include a prominent lawyer for the ACLU now advocating for effectively banning Abigail Shrier’s book; "Antiracist" training materials declaring that being on time is contrary to blackness; etc
We have hard problems with defining what is happening within our American institutions. Everyone who participates in those settings knows first hand that we are in the midst some type of bourgeois revolution/bourgeois ‘moral’ revolution, where specific foundational Liberal (i.e Liberal 1.0/Classical Liberal) values concerning free speech due process, the presumption of innocence etc have come to be viewed more and more as ‘obstacles’ to the path of the attainment of a particular vision of ‘justice’ that is being articulated and pursued by the activist classes.
These activist classes’ ideas, were once confined to obscure pockets of academia, but have increasingly become sort of mainstream through the MSM/media and through social media as a part of the parlance of life that affects those who are operating within those settings.
There's a number of different ways to refer these sort of changes for Liberals. Commonly, it's heavily positively or negatively valanced. Basically a term like social justice is sort of an attempt to identify and link the cause with justice as we all perceive justice as such.
A term like idpol (identity politics) is a little more neutrally valanced, but it doesn't really encompass everything that compass under the rubric of what is happening right now.
Other terms for describing this from the right wing’s perspective, such the terms Cultural Marxism or postmodern Neo Marxism, along with having some descriptive problems that have spoiled provenance that people will end up pointing out in either sort of moralistic or pedantic terms often in ways that are both moralistic and pedantic that serve the function of preventing people from being able to talk about what is happening.
There is some implicit bias training that the NYC Board of Education or the Department of Education has sort of mandated that all of their employees to take.
There was a screenshot that listed some of the premises underlying this bias training, like its description of the white supremacy culture and the various facets of it like that bias training characterizing the white supremacy culture as consisting of ‘perfectionism’, a sense of urgency, worship of the written word.
The more you go into this bias training tools and you started to break down both the internal inconsistencies of a few or more of these ideas, but while also recognizing the provenance of them, you can see that these ideas were taken from anti-colonial studies, post-colonial writings, and a black nationalist inflected approach which views whiteness as itself like a form of ‘oppression’ of nonwhite people.
So what's being encoded within wokeness, idpol and Successor Ideology is so diverse, and in a lot of instances, so internally incoherent, and yet all of these various activist movements are moving together under a single umbrella and so there is a need a word to describe it.
So the word thus would be a vague word that was as vague as the movement itself, sort of the successor ideology. This is because we are in the midst of a type of an ideological succession and this succession is one that makes reference to an often sort of masquerades as being consistent with the Liberal 1.0 principles of fairness and tolerance out from which it grows.
However that in fact takes this in a place where we end up seeing it necessarily to annul or at any rate at minimum, draw a boundary around the exercise of those principles.
Neoliberalism/Liberalism won big in the 20th century over other ideologies through tact, strategy and dominance (especially in the 21st century for the latter) and became the unipolar ideology at which time it has morphed into post modernity which is inherent in Liberalism 2.0
Chinese ‘Communism’ is not a full scale alternative to Liberalism 2.0 because it operates on the global market which forces China to accep liberal rules and free markets
Post-Modernism is sort of a common ground for former Communists to become more liberal (individualist, hedonists etc) and for Left Wing liberals to adopt the avant guard epistemology of radical thinkers. They do this by promoting radical theories and practices that involve liberation (i.e rules, norms, stable identities, hierarchies, borders etc).
Liberal 2.0ers promote perversions and degeneracies like Pornography, Zoophilia, orgies and that is wrong
This Liberalism 2.0 sees the fifth column as its inner enemy. To them, without Liberalism’s traditional enemies of Communism and Fascism, proto Liberal 2.0ers got bored and so turned inward to map their worldwide dominance
The Donald Trump phenomenon was the last and most decisive period that prompted the whole structure of Liberalism 2.0 to appear as it is.
While Nazbol vortex ideologies like with Russia under Vladimir Putin (which mixes USSR like anti Westernism with traditional Russian Nationalism), China under Xi Jinping (which mixes special Chinese ‘Communism’ with Chinese Nationalism), the Five Star movements coalition with Lega di Nord, and the Yellow Vests in France (in which the followers of Marine Le Pen were fighting the liberal center alongside the followers of Jean-Luc Mélenchon against Emmanuel Macron in France) were a threat to proto Liberalism 2.0
So proto Liberalism 2.0 started to pay attention to this threat by undermining its structures etc wherever they could do so.
The alternative to proto Liberalism 2.0 is Russia under Putin, China under Xi Jinping, European coalitions (like above), Anti Western Imperialism movements in the Middle East ,Anti Capitalism in Latin America and Africa
To not aid promoting their self imposed alternative to Liberal globalism , and to suppress their above threat to Liberalism 2.0, proto Liberal 2.0ers and their global elites have been digging below the surface , a la the fifth and sixth columns with Liberal 2.0ers solidly embedded in governmental structures and formally loyal to sovereign leaders in respective regimes
Liberalism was fed by its enemy/friend struggles but if that faded it could no longer be effective or even exist . Which they take to mean that no political enemy would mean ideological suicide for what would become Liberalism 2.0
Proto Liberal 2.0ers unconvincingly contained this potential undefined illiberal threat from the Nazbol vortex because that threat operated outside of the Liberals sphere on influence.
So proto Liberal 2.0ers moved on and to create a defined enemy from within the Liberal sphere of influence. Thus Liberals they created an inner enemy
That inner enemy was Donald Trump who was such an enemy to proto Liberal 2.0ers from the day he announced his run for President. Trump teetered on the boundary between pre paradigm shift Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) and paradigm shift Liberalism 2.0, as noted above reigning in that new Liberalism
According to Glenn Greenwald, the struggle against Trump was used by the Liberal 2.0ers to distract from what he called their ‘social fascism’
Donald Trump was the inner enemy that proto Liberal 2.0ers created from their sphere of influence to create a easy to beat enemy , Trump was not the enemy from the Nazbol vortex that was outside the Liberals sphere of influence and whom they buried as a threat.
The narrative shifted, Liberals became downplayed that Donald Trump’s junta win being related to economic strife, and overplayed the impact of Russian interference to set up Trump’s junta win
Liberals also came to see Trump’s rise wrapped in Republican racial animus. Whatever the ultimate strength of this diagnosis — which at minimum appeared to discount some portion of voters who had previously supported former President Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders — it sure seemed that blue-collar voters didn’t need to be courted back after all. Which, basically, gave cosmopolitan America all of the permission that it needed to look away from the troubles of rural White America.
That they were weak links tying Trump’s pure ideological opportunism to the latter anti Liberal threat and its pure ideological opportunism. Putin (who unlike Trump is from the Nazbol vortex), is more of a more of a pragmatic realist despite the few similarities between him and Trump .
So proto Liberal 2.0ers couldn’t define Trump as the Nazbol vortex threat to them as noted above, so the alternative for them would have been to paint Trump as a fascist.
Despite the overuse of calling Trump a fascist, the label in the eyes of the 4pt was inconsistent. Trump and his staff were not fascists or even fringe rightists, if we go by their view that the consensus definitions of fascism which itself was long ago marginalized in the US existing only as a kind of libertarian fringe of kitsch culture.
Thus the proto Liberal 2.0ers found a way to define Trump ideologically outside of the Nazbol vortex and fascism
They defined Trump as their inner (fifth column) enemy which they used to break free of their old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0)into their new Liberalism 2.0 via this paradigm shift. Thus they go on to say, Trump was the enemy of this new Liberalism 2.0 that they created by their paradigm shift away from Trump and their old Classical Liberalism 1.0
So Liberalism has and always be its biggest threat (other than the Nazbol vortex ideologies which Liberals see more of a thorn in their sides who they choose to ignore due to the Nazbol vortex being outside of the Liberal sphere of influence). Thus for Liberalism to move forward, it needed an inner purge
Up until the 1990s there wasn’t a huge line between Liberals and Conservatives (Neoliberalism was used to describe fiscally Conservative Capitalism , and Center left social policies in the 1990s and 2000s US for example).
Not until Newt made the distinction in the 1990s were the split between Liberalism and Conservatism made most apparent and crystal clear. The US and particularly the Republicans won the Cold War against Communism , the Republicans then started the Culture War vs the Democrats/proto Liberal 2.0ers .Thus the roots for this Liberalism 2.0 paradigm shift above
This new Liberalism 2.0 continues with Post modernism, no longer recognizes the old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0). So thus Liberal 2.0ers define their enemies as the ‘other’. The ‘other’ Liberal 2.0ers use to define their enemies can be seen in Joe Biden’s campaign
Donald Trump was the embodiment of that old Liberalism 1.0 that Liberals broke from “return to normality” (new normality) and “build back better” etc
New normality for Liberal 2.0ers means that the old Liberalism (Socially Liberal Capitalist, pragmatic, individualist, somewhat libertarian) was judged by Liberal 2.0ers in their new Liberal 2.0 state to be abnormal.
This Liberalism 2.0 is a bit totalitarian.
When old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) was fighting overt totalitarian ideologies like Fascism and Communism, it wasn’t so, or at least explicitly so. But once Liberalism won those battles and was left on its own, it became totalitarian all by itself. Now Liberalism 2.0 won’t allow people to be non Liberal. See this post for more
The old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) would be against such totalitarianism as old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) is not compatible with that since old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) is based on freedom of choice. Liberty is no longer free it is now a duty. This new liberty is defined as such by Liberalism 2.0.
The old classical liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) put the individual in the center of society. The individual in the social physics of liberalism plays the same role as the atom in physical science.
Society consists of atoms and individuals who represent the only real and empirical foundation of social, political and economic constructions. Everything can be reduced to the individual. That is the law.
As such, if the individual is the main subject of political theory, he or she needs to be liberated from all ties with the collective entities that limit his or her freedom and depriving him or her of his natural rights.
Historically, all of the possible institutions and rules were created by individuals (like Thomas Hobbs) which acquired some undue power over them, with the State being a clear example of this (like the Leviathan) .
But all of the social structures (communities, sects, Churches, estates, professions, recently time class, nationality and gender), have the same function and that function is to usurp the liberty of the individual, imposing on him or her of the false myths of some “collective identity”.
So, this struggle against all kinds of collective identity are the liberals’ ‘moral duty’ and progress is measured by whether this struggle is succeeding or not.
But I reject or a part of me rejects, or I am wary of the political perception of social struggle and I recognize that revolutionary struggle is not a program but instead a struggle for the individual and social reappropriation of the totality of life. (thus making it inherently Anti Political)
So I am at times/part of me is against , or I am wary of any form of social organization and any method of struggle in which the decisions about how to live and to struggle are separated from the execution of those decisions regardless of how democratic and participatory this separated decision making process might be.
Here the victorious history of Liberalism 1.0 went full,stop. The individual is liberated. The end of history is drawing near
There are no more official liberal enemies outside of liberalism.
The ideology of human rights, affirming almost equal rights for any person beyond national jurisdictions (as is the main ideological core of mass migration), is certified.
After this liberals realized that, besides all their victories, there was still something collective, a forgotten collective identity that should also be destroyed. This delved into gender politics.
People of all genders sharing a definite collective identity prescribing solid social and cultural practices.
This is a new obstacle for liberalism. To them, the individual should be liberated from sex, as the latter is still regarded as something objective. To them, gender should be optional and the consequence of purely individual choice.
Gender identity politics thus begins here and subtly changes the very fundamental concept of the individual.
The Postmodernists were the first to point out that the liberal individual is a masculine, rationalist construction. In order to ‘humanize’ that, they needed new emancipatory practices that should not only overcome the equality of genders, but totally exchange the good old individual for a new, awkward and strange (as it may seem), construction.
The simple equalizing of social possibilities and functions for males and females, including the right to change sexes freely and at will, doesn’t solve the problem. Still the traditional patriarchy will prevail in defining rationality, norms, and so on.
So, the Postmodernists came to the conclusion that liberating the individual is not sufficent. The next step is to liberate the person, or better yet, the ‘living entity’ from the individual.
Now comes the final moment of the replacement of the individual with the gender-optional rhizomatic entity, like a network identity. The final step will be to replace humanity with post-human weird beings like machines, chimeras, robots, AI, and other species of genetic engineering.
In Joe Biden’s campaign, this was already a fully formed ideology that was on the offensive. No longer glorifying the individual (as in the old/classical liberalism 1.0) but the new, incoming post human entity (i.e the techno centric, gender optional, post individual dividual).
Left wing authors like Antonio Negri and and Michael Hardt (sponsored and promoted by the liberal donors) prepared the intellectual terrain for these concepts. But now they are accepted by Big Capital itself despite having originally been directed against it.
The line between the individual and the dividual, or between the still human and existent post-human, is the main issue of this liberal paradigmatic shift from Liberalism 1.0 toward Liberalism 2.0.
Trump was a human individualist who defended individualism in the still classical human context. Maybe he was the last. Joe Biden is an advocate of the arrival of post-humanity and dividualism.
4pt is normatively oriented against all forms of postmodernism and transnational progressiveness.
However, if we consider the realities of the First political theory’s win over its rivals, and thereby its securing the status of unique heir apparent to the main spirit of postmodernism, 4pt is overtly and radically Anti Liberal 2.0
If the Nazbol vortex is the first stage of the ideological political philosophical reflection on the fact of the final win of Liberalism 1.0 over Communism in 1991 in all its metaphysical depth, then 4pt is obviously the second stage of the same vector.
The key difference lies in 4pt’s rejection of Bolshevism, Nationalism, or any of mixture of the two as a positive alternative to globally victorious Liberalism 2.0.
That is a consequence of the radically anti postmodern ground of 4pt which should be evident in its formulation of its basic values, nonetheless in engaging in various compromises with existing political structures, whether they are left or right.
Neither Left nor Right illiberal 2.0 populism can achieve sincere victory over Liberalism 2.0 today. In order to achieve victory we would need to integrate the illiberal Left and the illiberal 2.0 Right. But the ruling Liberal 2.0ers are very vigilant of this, and they always try to prevent any move like this in advance.
The short-sightedness of Far left/Radical Left and Far right/Radical Right politicians and groups only carries out Liberal 2.0’s tasks.
After thirty years of ideological struggle, we bypass the Nazbol vortex stage, and pass directly to the 4pt stage itself, rejecting any kind of the type of what Republicans falsely call ‘Socialism’ (i.e Liberal Mixed economy, Materialism and Left Statism economics), Capitalism, Social Fascism and Nationalism, instead affirming a anti postmodern political organization vision
It’s hard enough to unite weak and decadent leftist and rightists, that it could be easier to start from the ground up and create 4pt as a fully independent and openly anti postmodern ideology.
But, also, we shouldn’t be ignorant of the present and growing abyss between Liberalism 1.0 and Liberalism 2.0 .
The inner purge from the Postmodernism and Transnational Progressiveness inside of Liberalism 2.0 is now leading to the harsh punishment and full excommunication of a new type of political entities, the victims will be Liberal 2.0ers themselves, those who don’t recognize themselves in the J Biden-Great Reset strategy, those who refuse to revel in the final disappearance of humanity, individuals, freedom or the market economy.
There will be no place for those things in Liberalism 2.0. It is going post human, and any person who questions this will be welcomed into the enemy stable of these Liberal 2.0s. We have been around for decades and we feel more or less comfortable here.
So, welcome to heck, newcomers. Any non extreme Trump supporter or regular Republican is now considered a potentially dangerous personality, exactly as they have been for a long time.
When we insist on overcoming the Nazbol vortex stand, we don’t mean to be more acceptable for Liberal 2.0ers. No, we just clarify our position to make it more consistent with deep anti postmodern concepts. But, in the present transition from Liberalism 1.0 to Liberalism 2.0, this might incidentally have at least a few practical connotations.
Liberals 1.0 should realize that 4pt identifies as its main ideological opponent that reality which now manifests itself of what they hate and are suffering through. Trumpism and in general, human individualistic Liberalism (Classical Liberalism) are now under attack.
Angela Nagle in her book ‘Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right’ sort of crypto supports using the 4pt against the Liberalism 2.0 since Nagle quickly realizes that Liberalism 2.0 gave rise to far right extremism gave “Alexander Dugin states that he is laying the foundations for an entirely new political ideology, the fourth political theory, which integrates and supersedes the three past ‘theories’ of liberal democracy, Marxism, and fascism,” See here for more
In the eyes of Liberalism 2.0s and Bidenites, they above are almost identical to the Nazbol vortexers etc.
They make no real distinction between them. To be an enemy of the Open Society is the final sentence. You can’t change this. So, it is long past due, to take note of the fact that Liberals 1.0 are no longer seen as respectable citizens of the Capitalist status quo. Liberals 1.0 are now being sent into exile, into the political wastelands – to us.
Because 4pt calls for revising the whole course of political Postmodernity that is part of Liberalism 2.0, it is not needed to become friendly to Communism or Nationalism in this wasteland.
This is not about the Nazbol vortex. 4pt is about humanity’s last battle versus Liberalism 2.0 - just what you think of. From the very start it was a sort of compromise to include Nationalism in this anti postmodern revolt
Some classical philosophers explained the reasons and limits of that type of compromise.
It was no lesser and possibly more greater of a compromise to include the Anti Liberal 2.0 left (what Republicans falsely call Socialists, Socialists without adjectives and Social Fascists) and Communists, if they were truly counter-hegemonically oriented.
We can now take one more step: let Liberals 1.0 join our ranks. To do this it is not necessary in order to become illiberal 2.0, philo Communist, or very Nationalist. Nothing of the sort. Everyone can keep their good old imperfections and hang ups as long as they desire. 4pt is a unique position where true liberty is welcome.
The Fourth political Theory is an invitation to use this window of historical opportunity that is represented by Liberal 2.0 agony as the 1st political theory to overcome all that is common to all types of political modernity (the philosophical, metaphysical, political and ideological)
The 4th Political Theory is an invitation to search for the alternative to Liberalism 2.0 since liberalism continues to fall into decay. Liberalism was intended to be the main and unique, one and only political ideology from the Fukuyama's moment of ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ (1992) until right now
Maybe our 4pt coalition against Liberalism 2.0 can include Bernie bros, libertarians, and Marxists in the anti-authoritarian camp. This will coalesce faster as 2A/freedom of speech rights get chipped away - libertarians will panic and conclude they must throw in their lot with the Andrew Yang gang.
Liberal 2.0ers like Radlibs, neoliberals, and most of the US political establishment will fall in the authoritarian camp as we go against them.
The latter party is inadvertently gaining steam up this process and getting more and more proselytization of the former ideology by attempting to silence them and alienating people from the political establishment. If there is a civil war in the US, it will be along these lines, and not Democrats vs Republicans.
Anyways, see you guys in the hate speech reeducation gulag.
The way that we can get out of this epistemological field of Western political modernity is , for us to focus on the name Western political modernity, we have already found a solution. As to get out of these boundaries, we need to go beyond the West.
So, we can find solutions in and help from the East, non-Western civilizations, Islam, India, Africa, great ancient Chinese civilization, off the grid/Technoprimitive and less modern persons. All of these civilization forms could be our example to follow.
We should consider the Western history as just one branch of the history of humanity.
If we reject the pretensions of Westerners' universalism, we might rediscover the values of political ideas/thought from China and Islam , Christian Eastern Orthodox (Eastern, not Western, since Christian Western Orthodox is a completely different form of political thought).
We might rediscover Indian tradition, or off the grid/Technoprimitive and less modern principles.... not judging them from the point of view of progress or technological development.
All forms of people , living in all society types, are all human — maybe they are more human than our technological civilization.
We should rediscover the multiplicity of all types of cultures and societies, and we should accept them.
Accept off the grid /Technoprimitivism and less modern people, societies and tribes that are living beyond the so-called "civilization" as an example to follow, and possibly, to discover and study. This could be something that we have to first understand, not to judge or bring to the criteria of Western political modernity.
We are rediscovering every type of civilization outside of the West. There is an immense amount of political, cultural thought, philosophy, religion outside of the West. So we can take them as a model on how to create something new. We can propose some non-Western thing and take that as a guiding star for the 4th Political Theory
It is obvious that we can’t reach some new type of universalism; we shouldn't, and don't need that. We must open the perspectives for each civilization and culture to create their own political future, separate from something inevitably imposed as a destiny by the colonial Western modernity.
This invitation is geographical. We must recognize the value of political thought outside of the West.
For instance, Russian Eurasianists claim that Austrian philosopher Kelsen's universal history of law study is wholly dedicated to Roman law. Only a few pages of it are dedicated to all of the other non-Western legal systems.
That isn’t to say that Roman law is evil. There are non-Roman law systems that exist outside of Western civilization, and that is fine. We have Islamic law, Indian law , Chinese law, the Confucianist tradition,, besides some less modern legality and legitimacy systems of. We would better served to consider them all.
Every civilization could be inspired by their own political thought. That is the concept of the 4th Political Theory. After the end of Liberalism 2.0 which we are heading toward, we have to rehabilitate non-Western political systems.
These political systems might seem terrible, uncivil and awful to Westerners . However that is not an argument. Westerners need to worry about their own civilization, which is only one kind of civilization among a lot of other civilizations.
Moreover nobody can judge the others. Nobody, whether it is George Soros, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton, Washington DC, Brussels, Moscow Russia, Riyadh, New Delhi, Beijing etc. Nobody can judge the other. There is no universal criterion in political thought, and that is the main principle of the 4th Political Theory.
The 4pt is the liberty to fight for social justice, the liberty to be patriotic, and the liberty to defend the State, Church, people and family, along with the liberty to remain human or to become something else.
Liberty is not on their side any longer. Liberalism 2.0 is the enemy of all liberty. So, let’s not lose sight of this value. It’s a most very good value, since it is the essence of the soul of humanity and the human heart. Liberty opens us up to God’s way, to sacrality, and to love.
So for starters, we need to overcome and beat Liberalism 2.0.
We must bring this lasting decay to the end, and to finish with Liberalism 2.0 (with open society, with all the products of our Liberal 2.0 NGO and donor style liberal system based on individualism, materialism, cultural radicalism/post liberal progressivism on the full alienation of the people and extinction of social links and using a human rights system consistent with my human rights views in this blog as human rights models
The main idea of fighting Liberalism 2.0 is to fight all Western political modernity. That is our opponent. The 4th Political Theory invites everyone to fight. However, we are not fighting against the West. The West is not an enemy.
We are not fighting against modernity or say the contemporary state of affairs in some societies.
This is because we have different societies, different civilizations that each exist in our modern world and don't belong to the Western modernity. We can actually live in the modern world outside of Western political modernity.
We should not use past alternatives like Communism or Fascism to defeat Liberalism 2.0. We should not fall into those traps
We need to imagine something radically different than those ideologies to defeat Liberalism 2.0, not only from Liberalism, but from the Western political modernity taken altogether. This is what the 4th Political Theory is all about.
Individualism is the last step of liberalism, thus we should finish with the concept of individualism.
The New class is ineffective , counter productive and a waste. It closes in on itself causing public hostility at the elite.
Liberalism 2.0 is wrong also because it downplays or doesn’t employ changing things from within (other than with the CRT antiracism federal board which I support and liquid democracy) Anarchism , changing things from within, saviorism (some) and Paternalism/Libertarian Paternalism and even complete social justice "epistemology" designed on purpose to get around the mainstream and usual modes of argumentation and mutual criticism (to an extent) are five great methods for positive radical change.
I can even stomach Liberal 2.0 activist judges using their Liberal 2.0 bias to implement Liberal 2.0 laws due to that Liberal 2.0 bias. If you want Liberal 2.0 policies literally enact them yourself , true change from within. I do give Liberal 2.0ers credit for their drive in being much more willing than non Liberal 2.0ers to constantly fight to impose their values onto society.
For major social issues, there is a gap between these rulers and their governed via technocratic means (see anti statist and anti state prop parts below). The media also plays a part in this and deepens it. We see this with the bourgeois and rulers via double talk, virtue signaling, capital indulgence, bottom of the social ladder, struggles of daily life, nihilism , and the wants for common values.
Historically this role was fulfilled by religious institutions hence the usage of the term "cathedral", this is intentionally contrasted with the institutions that fulfill the role of the cathedral in the modern age that being Schools, Universities, the Media and the Entertainment industry who largely market themselves as "Secular".
It is worth to note that the Cathedral (in it's modern incarnation) is not a formal institution that people just belong to but rather an informal network of leaders of the before-aforementioned institutions that happen to agree on most important matters (Harvard, The New York Times, Disney and The Guardian rarely disagree for example). Basically this which can be considered authright and socially left (pretty much libs)
Also see here and specifically here and especially here along with this for more
This leads to anti elitism by the public leading to cynicism. We need more structural autonomy to help the true desires of people on the lower part of that social ladder. This would give them the ability to make or remake specific nomoi. We must create a user friendly society where we avoid anonymity, value commodification and social reification. We would need direct democracy or Democratic Con federalism to do this
Homogenization causes the evils of national chauvinism, tribal behavior, irredentism, etc. This is due to globalization, which is responsible for this junk. Western bred self affirming behavior is the result of taking away the rights of individuals to find their identity within a collective and historic framework, uniformity representing people through imposition etc. Now it is sameness that replaces fear of the other.
After the fall of Communism and Fascism in the 20th century, proto Liberalism 2.0/Liberalism 2.0 became the only political ideology, and it intended to be a sort of universal language (something very imposed, with a free market, Liberal democracy, parliamentarianism, individualism, tech, icon culture and wokeness). All that was seen as universal. But now this universality is coming to an end.
Modernity has taken away social systems that helped people get a realistic assessments of themselves. Modernity leads to people needing their identity affirmed in society and the public square . Modernity has not met these needs identity needs as international tourism don’t fix these problems but instead buries them (see lifestyle blog for more)
I affirm differences which are not transitory that lead to some higher echelon of unity nor are accidental parts of personal lives
These differences are the fabric of the social sphere. It can be political or non political but closer to the individual.
Being a citizen means a sense of belonging and commitment to different levels of public life.
Whether it is at the local level, city level, state level , geographic region level , national level, or more. This is in accordance to devolved power at each of these sovereign levels.
We are not global citizens, since that is abstract and abstract is of the bourgeois liberal class All people should have their causes upheld. This is due to the right of difference and its generalness which emboldens it.
It is justified only in defending a persons difference from other people if the person is in turn able to defend the difference in others. This means people cannot use the right of difference to exclude people who are different.
See this for more. I believe in the integration between social groups where differences are valued in an environment of solidarity, respect, protection (possibly paternalism) and collaboration as a means to create a happy and democratic society.
In this way, social relations are ordered through organization and collaboration over the logic of competition. In addition where at the individuals level their integrality is valued this is the affective, social and political dimension as opposed to merely an economic one.
Liberalism 2.0 is the representation and symbol of absolute cringe because it is still here, and Liberal 2.0ers still want to organize the world under the rule of the Liberal 2.0 transnational elite. For those reasons alone Liberalism 2.0 are worse than Liberal 2.0 Commie'ism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism and Traditional Conservatism as the latter are chimeras, rests, residues of political history and belong to the past
In order to create a positive meaning for 4pt/postliberal world order we must recognize that all civilizations can establish their own political systems that are outside of any universal paradigm and above all, outside of the modern Western political paradigm (accepted or imposed as something universal).
Liberal Democracy/Democracy, Liberalism 2.0, the system of human rights that don’t mesh with my human rights views in this blog, progress ,LGBTQ+, robotization, digitalization and cyberspace are optional. They’re not universal values since there are no universal values, except for the value upon which all kinds of civilizations could agree upon.
We lack a real international order due to the fact that we lack the full-scale subjects that would establish such law. Now, we are still in colonization.
There is only one subject which is the modern Western liberal subject, whom tries to impose its own values as a universal formal order over all others.
So this is radically wrong. We are fighting exactly against this pretention. The West is the West but the West is not all. The West is a part of the whole.
Westerners are a part of humanity, the West can either be accepted or rejected and that depends on other civilizations’ free decision. The West is one civilization among many others.
This is why a non-Western political thought is so vital. The true universal history of law should include all usable/salvageable legal systems of all existing civilizations, including from the serious part of Confucianism, Indian political thought, the great part of Islamic law, Roman law, Byzantine law, and the part of the various less modern systems of law....
Each less modern society can create their own system, and we must be attentive to that.
Yet, we also could include modern Western political thought, but that should only be a small part of the whole political thought of humanity
We should insist upon this redistribution of the system of values. This is a way forward to get out of the Western political modernity.
We should see the full-scale dignity of non-Western political thought. This is solidly concrete: in each civilization we can find some amount of political treaties, ideas, schools...etc. Jasbir Puar makes similar points here as do postcolonial feminism as I mention here etc
But we are ignoring them entirely, dealing with open society and its enemies (like Karl Popper, Frederick Hayek, or Karl Marx) as universal thinkers or systems.
It is true that they are more interesting than non interesting. Yet, compared with Confucianism, Indian or Islamic political thought, Liberalism 2.0, Marxism and Western nationalism are less good. They are only possible forms of political thought , basically a small proportion of a very colorful proportion of humanity. They are only a small part, but not the whole. So this is very important.
The West is only a part of the Rest
We have to restore the dignity of all non-Western political philosophies, including Africa, India and North, Central and South Americas. This includes great and developed civilizations along with the small less modern societies of Oceania.
We need to accept humanity as humanity and not the West and the Rest. We must reverse the position: the Rest is the name of humanity, and the West is the part of the locust of Liberalism 2.0 in the garden of humanity. The Rest is the center, not the West. (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order book by Samuel Huntington, 1996)
We are leaving in place a system where the modern West is the unique pole (unipolar) and intends to establish its rule for the Rest.
We should organize the global geopolitical human revolution against such rule. The status between the subject and the Rest should evenly be distributed
The West is part of the Rest , albeit a small part of the Rest.
The West should not be punished. The West should be put within its normal historical organic borders — nowhere else.
If you are Western, good, but you are not universal. You strongly believe in human rights like Transgender rights, non binary rights and animal rights? It's up to you as that is your decision, not another persons decision. It is not necessary.
We could redefine marriage again or expand straight pride, that is absolutely the right of persons, and that is the highest decision that we can take. Or we could not redefine marriage again and not let straight pride happen.
Nothing healthy and within reason should be universally condemned or justified. Everything should depend on the balance of the decision made by each civilization.
In order to establish the world order on this principle, we need to reject the claim of Western political modernity to establish universal rule. Non-Western societies should be put first. We should extinguish Western consensus; there's no such thing as Western consensus. There is regime, there is colonization, there is occupation — this is the Western imperial liberalism we should fight against.
The West itself should be liberated from the modernity
This is important; we should not blame the West, we should blame the modern West which is totally different. This is because, not only many of the world’s peoples are colonized and exploited by the Western modernity: the Western cultural identity (of the Western civilization, of the Western society) is hijacked by the modernity.
Moreover now, with the flourishing of the cancel culture, we see how this works. Liberal 2.0ers are wrongly trying to cancel the very principles of the Western identity.
They wrongly want to Cancel Aristotle, cancel Plato, cancel Hegel, cancel Frederick Nietzsche, basically demonizing everything in the great Western thought and culture. Everything that is that does not fit into the narrowing limits of this radically intolerant Liberal 2.0 ideology. Everything is judged as ‘Fascism’, as something ‘unacceptable’.
The modern West is destroying more and more of the pre modern West principles
This means that we should liberate the West. This means not only liberating the Rest from the West; but, at the same time, liberating the West from the modernity.
The reason is because the modernity tries to cancel its origins (the sources of the Western identity).
Now, it is quite open. Everybody is colonized by the Western political modernity, not only non-Western cultures and civilizations , the whole West itself is colonized by the modernity.
The west needs to be liberated . We need to liberate Plato, Aristotle, Greek-Roman antiquity. We need to restore the dignity of the pre modern Judeo Christian societies, political thoughts, cultural values, philosophies, metaphysics
We have to restore the pre-modern West heritage ,which is on its way to be totally cancelled by a new purge of the Liberalism 2.0
We should be united on the global revolution against Western political modernity while understanding that we are not fighting against the West. We are fighting against the regime of the modernity.
The modernity is anti-West. It's not the West. It is a deviation of the Western history that is based on the total misunderstanding of its own self.
Western modernity is the negative energy. It's a Western negative energy — but, first of all, it kills the West itself. This means that we must help the West to be freed from the modernity.
There is a need to liberate Europe and the US from Liberalism 2.0.
If that is what should be strived for, then we should support various types of popular movements and tendencies that attempt to restore social justice and liberate the people from the Liberal 2.0 political elites that promote more and more of this type of modernization, Liberalism 2.0, and self inflicted wound.
Because right now postmodern Western education is focused on departing from all types of Western values. That is a new barbarianism. Liberal 2.0ers don't bring culture, they bring barbarity.
This cancel culture (which includes LGBTQ+, the 2020-21 racial unrest, and liberal feminist tendencies) is like a call to cancel all other types of culture. It is the genocide of the Western culture similar to what ISIS did to historical places and artifacts in the 2010s. Right wingers cancel too and they are just as bad with it
Modernity is not Western. It is a negative energy, a modern negative energy that destroys Western identity. And it’s not a human enemy that causes this negative energy — it is caused by a change in the register of existence.
We need to end Capitalism, Western modernity, materialism, science that is weaponized to back Liberal 2.0 social views , all sorts of political, cultural, philosophical fruits of this type of modernity.
And that is not nihilism, not at all. Because by extinguishing modernity, we will be able to perceive the huge heritage of Greek-Roman culture (which is now or will be soon cancelled or radically cancelled).
We will discover the roots of Western identity which include the spiritual, religious, philosophical, political roots — not this type of deviation and perversion that we’re dealing with through the political modernity.
Not only should the world be decolonized, but the West itself should be decolonized and then restored to its real dignity — as one great civilization among other great civilizations.
So, the 4pt is not against the West. It is against Liberalism 2.0 and globalism, Western political modernity.
Post-Modernity view from the Right
The Fourth Political Theory is an invitation to go forward and to go ahead. We can take inspiration from the past, but we are living in the present. We shouldn't return to the past exactly as it was, we need to make a step ahead, forward, and not many steps backward.
The past should be considered as an eternal example, of Platonic ideas, and of the being that inspires us. But we are dealing with time, and modern time is the catastrophe.
It's the time of the decay, collapse, and final catastrophe. So, we need to go further.
We could use some postmodernity methods in order to deconstruct the Western political modernity.
There are two parts within postmodernism. The first part within postmodernism is that there is very legitimate criticism of the violent and perverted part of Western political modernity as totalitarianism.
We can agree with this postmodern criticism, but there is the second part of postmodernism too, which is that the moral continuation of modernity , an agreement with its call for further liberation, equity and other subjects of the Liberal 2.0 moral.
In that moral regard, postmodernity is very much worse than modernity. But we have to separate these two parts within postmodernity . We might be able to accept and use the criticism and deconstruction process of the modernity, and then reject moral solidarity ways that are proper for the postmodernism.
We need to have a kind of "right" postmodernism, which is postmodernity viewed from the right. Not political or economic right; this word is only used to differentiate the Liberal 2.0 use of postmodernity to continue destroying more and more of the Western and global human identity.
In light of that, we should focus on the deconstruction process of the Western political modernity without sharing the moral presumptions of postmodernity
The Fourth Political theory is a Leftist movement with big tent (diverse) political ideologues including ideologies like anti racism (including universalist anti racism), traditionalism, anti postmodernism, anti globalism etc.
I like how the Fourth Political theory fights against racism in Eastern Europe and Western Asia and also creating socioeconomic class warfare in the US at the same time
I like how the 4pt supports anti racism methods to help shield Chechyens and Balkans from racism.
So the 4pt offers unique strategies for mass migration and touches on immigration of the unskilled underclass, snd includes concepts such as anti-liberalism, non-interventionism, anti-globalism etc.
The 4pt is similar to the Five Star Movement in Italy and such types of movements are good because they simply listen to what people actually want. The average person is open to left wing economic policies, but is also apprehensive about the necessity of aimless, in their minds subversion of Tradition and uni-polar globalism.
The 4pt also is good for promoting new class warfare in the US to lead to a more socialistic and post capitalist society in the US
The Fourth Political Theory like Liberalism will eventually morph into a bad version of itself within a century or so, so before that happens we need to create a Fifth Political theory to defeat it
I am against the new class. Western society through globalization promotes a global ruling class through logico symbolic manipulations of the existing systems that are in place. They do this via global laissez faire Capitalism, globalism , and institutionalized imperialism.
This new class gentrifies the world creating superficial detaches cyborgs so to speak . I am Anti hierarchies, Anti power-subordination and Anti patriarchies. I also disavow classism and the existence of classes .
I look forward to seeing the “cool kids” leave the Liberal 2.0 regime along with its values and worldview. This luckily might be happening now though not all of them in this vibe shift are on the vanguard side in a global rebellion against world order
I would even settle for former Liberal 2.0ers getting out of politics even though it would be great seeing of them fight against Liberalism 2.0. Some of them just want to convert to Catholicism and or raise a family and those admirable goals
From the ideological theory and moral justification routes.
The third theory calls for the nation and nation-state to be the center point of society. With total loyalty. It also says morality is just whatever is good for the nation, is good. Also paired with totalitarianism.
The 4pt calls against totalitarianism and universalism, moral and other. It’s also post-modernist, but also traditional; believing a lot of things are social-constructs, but that is understandable and fine even, and we should retain unique societies.
It’s the core justification and value that’s the difference. Nation vs Dasein, which is the human experience of reality, people , both individual and collective, and how they view the world. It also values a diversity in this.
It’s sorta like a Hegelian dialectic. Thesis, tradition/modernism, antithesis, post-modernism, synthesis, 4th theory.
So how does the 4pt base a political ideology off of human experience ?
It’s difficult and a bit esoteric.
Basically Alexander Dugin argues that the human experience varies for people groups based on their society and it’s myths. As well as perception of reality.
For example. Liberalism and communism, and also western society, views time as progressive, heading towards a better until it reaches an end of history. Whereas other societies, many actually view time as a circular and repeating in eras. Time is a sort of example he likes to use as a good explication.
It also extends to mythical things, such as the probably mythical first Chinese dynasty. It’s probably not real, and yet the perception that it is was used to build Chinese civilisation.
I also like to personally view it as an expansive/comprehensive view that recognizes the 4pt does not know some things. It doesn’t have a singular overriding value or purpose, which has a conclusion of totalitarianism in pursuit of that, like communism and equality.
How is the 4pt different from the nationalist idea of self determination? And since I have a spiritual conception of nations does that make make me a 4pt
I’d say 4pt is nationalist self-determination. Alexander Dugin names it differently however, attempting to portray it as something deeper, and not necessarily linked to national identity, but a cultural background and common understanding.
I also think he doesn’t call it that since there are a lot of minorities in Russia that might like self-determination.
It can do, but there’s more to it in his works. Have a read and see if it fits. 4pt is anti-totalitarian. Anti-genocide. And 4pt dislikes racism. Furthermore the interpretation of Dasein by 4pt is more than simply nationality, it can include multiple nationalities.
4pt is not fascism. Fascism philosophy reduces mortality and societal organisation to what ever is best for the nation/nation-state. However, the 4th theory doesn’t. And the 4pt openly criticizes the totalitarian elements of it.
Though I think the fact that under 4pt morality ascendes the nation and state makes 4pt notably different from fascism
Sort of like how Liberalism and Communism both value freedom and equality, yet heavily lean on one or the other, and disagree between of the individual and the collective. Still different enough from though.
Also they economics is tied into 4pt different than the other 3 theories economics
I reject Anarchism that becomes authoritarian. I prefer a system with informal regulations, unless needed. It sounds absurd and dodgy, yet Britain has managed to do that in media. They have laws that say “a reasonable amount of time” and they work.
Well I suppose Anarcho-Primitivism or Anarcho-Posadism is sustainable. Death and removal of ability to make a proper state.
I am a realist and total freedom is not realistic. I dislike totals. There isn’t anything small that comes to mind I would ban using 4pt and stuff outlined in this post as a blueprint. Maybe more ceremonial bans that reinforce culture. Such as insulting the crown having a small fine.
Eurasianism is interesting. It’s a effective theory (effective in a bad way) and framework that’s relatively popular for Russian trolls, and has better values/insights compared to Russian tsarism and Russian fascism that can be learned from and adopted to make that Euranism become Alt left through sanitizing it and making it equalequitable
There will be a struggle between the unipolar universalist western order and the multi-polar emerging order. Though if Britain goes the way I want. It wouldn’t be a century of conflict. There’d be an Atlantic power okay with multi-polarism.
I think Russia can earn their way to have a sphere of influence, in a multi-polar world if they redeem themselves and get better as a country. But this 4pt method the way Russia is doing it is flawed, they are doing it while they have the strength because their society is going through a crisis. Russia should try to fix their society.
Also, I’m very disappointed in how much of a failure Russia has been in this. I expected better.
I don’t think Alexander Dugin should glorify innocent deaths. Doing so is beyond kind of fucked up. That’s my view. I may take ideas from the 4pt but I do no support the creator (Dugin)
I’d say people hate the 4pt because it conflicts with their core morality and values (see my views on morality elsewhere in these blogs). This is an ideology (4pt) that is post-modern, believing many things to be subjective; though there is conflict with its anti-totalitarian stance and value for diversity in Dasein.
Alexander Dugin who made the 4pt was promoting some aggressive stuff, and is quite controversial.
I don’t believe the 4pt to be inherently radical or naive. Though it is new, and new ideologies tend to attract those sorts. I believe at its core it can be non-radical and reasonable though. The 4pt says stuff about like China’s first dynasty. It’s probably mythical, but was the truth and was the foundation as well as justification for civilisation. (I’ve used that example a lot, but it’s a good one).
I think morality is technically a social construct/subjective, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a slam dunk thing
No other creatures have it. Humans will abandon it easily for survival. Also societies disagree on what is moral, or a reasonable response.
I still hold that my morality is true as can be seen throughout my blogs, and I feel that morality should be true, but I recognize it isn’t necessarily so as much as we think. So if I want it, and I need fight (figurative) for it, fight to preserve it. Some leftists view the 4pt as the Dictatorship of a benevolent "humanitarian elite" - The concept that all political descisons should be made by a "cadre of Academic Scholars, Philanthropic Oligarchs and Charitable Organisations" who are trusted to operate in humanites best interests.
Those leftists claim that the 4pt is basically just authoritarianism that doesn't quite fit into Left or Right specifically - a true "AuthCenter" really. But I disagree. The 4pt doesn’t call for explicit dictatorship, or even authoritarianism. Alexander Dugin even mentioned once in an interview how it could be applied anarchically.
He said that some political and economic systems are better for various Dasein (people groups), and it’s for them to decide. But anti 4pt leftists counter with the 4pt walks talks and acts like a Government System that specifically rejects liberal democracy in favor of having a small ruling aristocrats make all the decisions (sort of like the US does now)?
They on to claim that ANY Anarchist society would not accept the rule of a small aristocrat class making decisions undemocratically. how does one become a "Philanthropic Oligarch" in an Anarchist society? My reply is through the 4pt you can have an authoritarian democracy (but with equity ideas from the CRT and this thrown in)
The 4pt is not an oligarchy, it is a plurality. There are plurality of versions of modernity with oligarchy being an alternative form (per 4pt)
In practice, Authoritarian Democracy is non-distinguishable from center right Dotp/ conservative authoritarianism, as any Democracy that doesn't value each persons input equally is bound to result in a privileged class having the final say in all the decisions on behalf of everyone else. But that is not in reality about the 4pt or Auth dem.
The 4pt -Auth Dem is something like a lower house of democratically elected, and an upper house of non-elected, and a constitutional monarch. Also, give operations of the state to officials, not the democratically elected (they’re oversight).
Make the non-elected notable co-op leaders, philosophical/religious leaders, experts in their fields, post military officials. Make the state unitary, have a lesser separation of powers.
Basically this 4pt and Auth Democracy is like State Liberalism with a pluraity of versions of modernity with oligarchy being an alternative form (per 4pt, basically similar to the way the UK is now and has been since the age of Tony Blair) but with reform added it . So 4pt is an ideology, or at least a basis for one, that Alexander Dugin (Russian) wants to create
The 4pt foundation is Dasein, the human Experience. And that extends to a cultural-thing, such as mythological Chinese dynasties which was the foundation for the first true dynasties (probably).
It has post-modernist characteristics, but also calls for a respect and return to traditions, lest they be killed off.
4pt opposes totalitarianism, in practice and thought (such as absolute lawless freedom). 4pt apposes universalism because it’s basically the west colonizing others and destroying Dasein; it extends to globalism, moral universalism, end of history ideologies.
I can provide a link to the book: http://symbioid.com/pdf/Politics/The%20Fourth%20Political%20Theory%20-%20Dugin,%20Alexander.pdf?view=FitH
4pt or at least my type of it, does in part have a bit of the corporatism of the Nordic Model, Mark Twain economic thought and Labour party type of Communitarian corporatism fused together (plutocracy m twain)
I personally like the idea of the corporatism of the Nordic Model fused with Mark Twain economic thought and Labour party type of Communitarian corporatism. Though for my 4pt, I’d want a wide net thrown, with many separate structures of such a sub ideology (of 4pt). And brought together by a democracy (in the west).
The 4pt prevent citizens from being on the receiving end of any oligarchy (unlike in our current US Liberal democracy oligarchy) .The structures of the 4pt should balance each other out so no one can damage the freedoms people currently have. This is accomplished by making the people a necessary base of negation force for the actions that lead to oligarchical structures and such structures themselves if god forbid they ever arise in such a type of society.
For example. A church/philosophy is dependent on mass support. Give workers voting rights in companies, meaning they have to negotiate. Make a large part of the military militia. Make experts need democratic supervision. Tie it together by choosing ‘the’ leader via democratic election. This is similar to Super (left wing) Capitalism
Edit: also, this is explicitly what I think it should be for the west/Britain. I respect alternatives.
The 4pt says that all cultures are equally unique and special, but we do not need to have them all become like the US or west or use their identity through evil things like cultural imperialism, corporate colonialism, globalization and American universalism-consumerism otherwise we’ll all be the same.
4pt or not we need to make sure that there isn’t just one country that gets to decide all the rules and tell everyone what to do, so we need more than one country to be strong. This is a lot like what i believe
The 4pt is various types of things that pile up. I’m completely fine with the 4pt calling for having no private property when it comes to organizations , I am a LibLeftist after all (individuals especially in regards to privacy are another matter). The 4pt does state that the people who actually run the country should be elected within an expanded electoral college in the general election where elected officials then leave it to the pros to iron out the edges so to speak
The 4pt calls ofr more executive powers and strong positions, but divide it up, like the minister of health can declare something which needs a 2/3 vote to override
Also the 4pt is supportive of post military funding, encouraged and nudged basic training, etc.
The 4pt also has an anti-gun element to it.
I would balance some of those bad parts of the 4pt though by saying 4pt should embrace the notion of having post military bases throughout communities, and since everyone is trained (as in an Anarchist society see here for example), worst case scenario they can arm themselves. But not as vigilantis .
Ideological/philosophical root and motivation of 4pt is anti-genocide, anti-totalitarian, anti-universalist, and post-modern. Alexander Dugin uses the 4pt to even criticize nationalism . Dasein as used in the 4pt is more than just nationality or culture .
I am fed up with the left-right binary. However the healthy ideas which I fuse in ideas from the 4pt would be seen by others as traditionally liberal
Overall I’d describe my views as a whole on individualism/collectivism as third stance since I am a communitarian, which rejects denying the group and the individual and embraces both (like I mention here).
Each values have their advantages, embrace both, cover each of their weaknesses.
I think it’s vital to introduce community to cities. I think the method to do this would be to make apartments big enough for families, and make some shared facilities in a building to encourage more interaction. Pair that with universal day cares being run in apartment blocs by the older people living there. Architecture/city-planning is an important thing
And on top of that ,throw in a greater community area equivalent to a ward. Creating most necessary services within that ward adjacent. Interesting view. While I’d align more with left libertarians on economics and the role of government I am pretty darn Spartan when it comes to the social order.
But I don’t believe in institutionally limited government as that never functions unless we have a truly strong moral society. That is what I’m all for, a strong moral society that is based on natural law as outlined throughout my blogs
So while the healthy ideas I draw from the 4pt (but not my views as a whole) can be seen as traditionally liberal by some I deny that label for those particular ideas I have that are drawn the 4pt and I instead label those healthy ideas I draw from the 4pt as “Alternative Position”. (these type of ideas of mine share a bunch of elements of libertarianism and a fusion of defensive democracy with tankie Marxism-Leninism and Christian theofash)
But I don’t 100% agree with Spartanism, yet I can respect it enough to have the views above I have of it especially when individuals or communities decide to live under such an order.
So I especially break with 4pt in that I support societies with government but without institutions, or a post statist society with unlimited Mutualist type of institutional institutional power.
I want a strong society. And one that also doesn't rely on natural laws as a crutch though and this can be seen throughout my blogs. I mean why does nature and natural stuff get all of the credit they do for being good. Blind naturalism isn't good or practical.
But I am ok with sort of cursed sharing elements from such contrary things but maybe not really. I want the correct people to have power, until we abolish the state and its bed buddies, I don’t want to limit power until we begin to desolve the state and that authoritarian structure within it. The Spartan tripartisan model I support would be pretty good too. There were some flaws in that system but I more times than not find it good.
As for sharing things from contrary things I said above, it might be cursed. But it’s inspired off of the amount of Americans perception of Auth Centrism and how American Auth centrist movements actually are. Not actually submission to the state, yet seeing the state as a a-temporary and legit social institution and a tool that isn’t bad in and of itself.
But the correct people can still fuck up, or 1 bad person slickly fall through the cracks. Limits on that only to prevent said muck ups, even if essentially of power being in a committee instead than an individual, is good in ways that mesh with my blogs. I’ve got syncretic views after all.
Fascism draws all morality and justification to the point of the nation-state, and what is best for it.
The 4pt rejects this, especially racism, conquests and the totalitarianism (ie, the evil parts). 4pt's morality derives from the Dasein (and makes up part of my morality thought) which is the human experience (similar to lived experience), and that h.e's variations between cultures and the way that people live.
4pt is like a post USSR type of a fusion of FDR Marxist Leninism with Anarcho-Totalitarianism and Left Autocraticism .
4pt like me heavily supports freedom of speech and the type of anti censorship Twitter has under Elon Musk (along with Lib Left methods of 'censorship' through people not the state and things in particular such as knowledge barriers). All of that is a part of western civilization and cultural identity. Moreover that stuff is an extremely vital tool for criticizing incompetent leadership. Though some things should be censored. For example, knowledge hazards.
4pt is also anti expansionism . Philosophically. the 4pt views Ukrainians and Russians as one, and feigns 'unity', We cannot take Russia's military aggression lightly and must be prepared to counter it since they genuinely think the west will take them. I don’t think it is crystal clear that there is any conflict between Alexander Dugin's 4pt ideology and actions.
But such warmongering imperialism by Dugin does put a dim light on his 4pt ideology itself because of how he uses it, as his fighting words. But I don’t think it’s bound to that, it will only make things harder to promote it and for me to reject Dugin's brand of it which I do. One reason the 4pt of Alexander Dugin may cause Russia to intervene and try to retake Ukraine is that the 4pt accepts morality as a social-construct. Though I’d say, by my standards of morality and by societies morality, such disregard for morality as Russia has shown in Ukraine are seen as something that should not happen.
Even though morality is a spectrum that has no well-defined meaning, society works because a good portion of people’s moralities agree (like the obvious are bad).
The atrocities that happened aren’t the type of thing Kin like Russia and Ukraine should do to one another,.
4pt draws ideas from includes mystical theosophy, and Eastern Orthodox esotericism (and non right wing and non bigoted Esotericism as noted way above by me)
4pt as a whole is bad due to its imperialist nature which I reject but I hope Alexander Dugin realizes that Russia has more than enough living space, and the influencism of the 4pt is better than the territory that Russia seeks.
A political ideology of the 4pt is based on Dasein, the human experience. This unique outlook and perception of reality affirm the various cultures and peoples hold. It values that stuff and loathes any attempts to destroy that, and it is anti-totalitarian to boot. It’s also post-modern.
4pt says that te wests globalist system is evil (which it is). Because such a decedent systemt promotes a singular ‘correct’ moral system of, whatever makes a person free. It ‘frees’ people from their Dasein in exchange for a singular world view, and ‘end of history’ where everything naturally progresses towards freedom. (I agree with this part and this can be seen throughout my blogs).
I don’t think the 4pt is in its own quadrant. Though it is quite unique. The 4pt can span all over, mainly it’s establishment due to the looking back to move forward nature of it, and neutrality on western ‘culture war’ issues.
In a libleft way we need an initial start of the convo bug actually to enjoy this discussion on the 4pt
Comments
Post a Comment