Category: Politics

Seven Stories Press, 2008     Amazon.com

Book Description:

What do Eastern Europe’s booming sex trade, America’s subprime mortgage lending scandal, China’s fake goods industry, and celebrity philanthropy in Africa have in common? With biopirates trolling the blood industry, fish-farming bandits ravaging the high seas, pornography developing virtually in Second Life, and games like World of Warcraft spawning online sweatshops, how are rogue industries transmuting into global empires? And will the entire system be transformed by the advent of sharia economics? With the precision of an economist and the narrative deftness of a storyteller, syndicated journalist Loretta Napoleoni examines how the world is being reshaped by dark economic forces, creating victims out of millions of ordinary people whose lives have become trapped inside a fantasy world of consumerism. Napoleoni reveals the architecture of our world, and in doing so provides fresh insight into many of the most insoluble problems of our era.

”The fourth political theory”, Alexander Dugin explains in his new book with this title, is a collaborative project involving also the French intellectual leader of la nouvelle droite, Alain de Benoist, with whom Dugin has apparently reestablished his former close relation. The two thinkers seem to have met for a prolonged period in Moscow to discuss the concept, and in connection with this, Dugin also published a Russian translation of a collection of essays by de Benoist, the title of which, in English, is Against Liberalism: Towards the Fourth Political Theory – a title which could be said to be simply a more precise indication of the content of Dugin’s own book.

This indicates that what we have to do with here is an attempt on the part of Dugin and de Benoist to launch the concept of the fourth political theory as the most adequate designation of their shared positions. But this in turn raises the question if this is all simply a matter of renaming the New Right. If that is the case, there are, to begin with, two things that must be said about it.

First, there is the obvious advantage that the fourth political theory is for several reasons a better designation than the New Right. de Benoist and other New Rightists themselves have always complained about the latter, inasmuch as it was first used by the French media and in no way indicated the ambitions of GRECE to reject and transcend the left-right distinction. Although it was indeed clear they often did try to do this, the objections were sometimes hard to understand in view of the fact that de Benoist was, and, I think, to this day remains best known for his early book Vu de droite. Anthologie critique des idées contemporaines (1977), awarded by the French Academy with its grand prix de l’essai, and his thinking seemed to incorporate or overlap more obviously with various strands in what had always correctly been classified as rightist thought than with leftist thought. He also seems to have finally accepted the term New Right.

Still, the categorization of his intellectual groupement as simply beloning to the right is insufficient and partly misleading in view of the distinct whole of its philosophical position and interpretation of history. The right, and the term right, are too closely associated with conservatism in the forms in which it has historically existed in Europe, and it is, I believe (I have discussed this elsewhere), a correct insight of de Benoist’s that those conservatisms are not only insufficient in various respects in the present, but have shown themselves to be so in the past as well. The fourth political theory is a much better term, which, while purely formal and abstract, does greater justice to the ambitious GRECE project and communicates better its true nature.

On a general level, it must be said that both the term conservatism and the term right are philosophically and historically inadequate. Insofar as the term right is ever associated with the French National Assembly during the revolution, there is, at the very least, something disproportionate even in Evola’s use of the term “the true Right” for the uncompromising, integral “traditionalist” position as he conceives it.

Now, some will probably think that inasmuch as in the shallow and propagandistic discourse of the Left (including liberalism), the third political theory as described by Dugin and, I suppose, de Benoist, namely fascism broadly and, it must be said, somewhat imprecisely conceived, is almost always simplistically associated with the Right, described as a “right wing extremism” or “radicalism”, serving the interests of or behind the Right in a new historical situation etc., de Benoist regards the use of the term the fourth political theory as particularly suited to serving the need of marking and signaling the differences between this theory and the third, which have been deliberately obscured and downplayed by ideological opponents. But in this connection, it must perhaps be kept in mind that his objections to fascism are such as in substance are in fact rather associated with the historical European right and not new or specifically New Right ones, so that contrary to other parts of the fourth political theory where there is some substantial agreement with the (socialist) left, in this particular respect the need to disown the term right would at least not seem to have to be paramount. Needless to say, this does not imply that de Benoist shares all of the historical right’s objections to fascism.

The advantages of the new designation are, as I have indicated, much more general. The introduction of it, and the consensus regarding it between de Benoist and Dugin, are to be welcomed. But the second thing that must initially be said about it as amounting simply to a renaming of the New Right is that it inevitably raises again the question of the problems and limitations of the New Right as it has historically existed. If the fourth political theory is in substanc simply the New Right, it does not represent any advance in relation to it. The term would connote and express not only the same strengths but also the same weaknesses. I have briefly indicated elsewhere what I find those weaknesses to be, and will not develop or even repeat this here, but I hope to return to it shortly. The weaknesses are, from my position, serious. As I have had to emphasize, the New Right has in central respects always been quite far from my own positions, especially with regard to what I include as defining the concept of the alternative modernity (which, I add, is not the same as that with which all others who may also use it prefer to define it). I have found this regrettable, since there are also several strengths, valuable parts of a body of work that is by now enormous, which I would have liked to be able to support.

One obvious thing that must be asked here is whether the renewed collaboration between Dugin and de Benoist implies that the former has simply accepted all the New Right’s positions. The fact that this is unlikely speaks against interpreting the forth political theory as simply a new name for an old thing. Dugin is much closer to the traditionalist school than de Benoist, and he has related traditionalism to Russian identity in a way that makes it hard to see how he could relinquish it. For me as partly a Lindbomian, this is, prima facie, in some central respects a strength in Dugin’s thinking in comparison with de Benoist’s, and signifies, in the perspective of the resumed collaboration, at least a potential for one needed modification and development of the New Right legacy. On the other hand, it is of course not clear to what extent de Benoist has been prepared to adapt to Dugin.

But that the fourth political theory is not intended as a mere new name also is suggested by the way Dugin describes it in terms of “a correctly posed question” rather than a set of ready answers, and invites us to a constructive dialogue instead of awaiting a response to an already elaborated theory as a finished result. For many, this is undoubtedly promising, after decades of the New Right’s consistent alienation of large groups of important potential supporters by their insistence on its more outlandish elements as essential and fundamental programmatic points (in the sense in which things can for them be essential and fundamental). By this, they seem unnecessarily to have marginalized themselves in a way that sometimes went so far as to border on sectarian irrelevance.

On the other hand, it might seem a little far-fetched to hope that Dugin, known for a number of rather extreme and problematic positions of his own, different from those of the New Right, will be able to correct and improve on the New Right positions in these respects. But with the new name and some of the new formulations, they – he and de Benoist together – now at least to some extent appear to be signalling a new openness. It seems it is not impossible that this could finally hold out the promise of another rapprochement, namely with the kinds of positions and traditions I have tried to point to as necessary to uphold and defend. This would mark a decisive, historic shift. We certainly need a fourth political theory, but we also need this theory to go beyond the New Right. The new name should signal a new philosophy, or a philosophy in some important respects different from that of the New Right. I will come back to the question of the extent to which Dugin’s book bears out as reasonable the hopes for such a development.

Justice internationale, gouvernement mondial, guerre juste…

La Table Ronde, 2004     Amazon.fr

Présentation de l’éditeur:

Idée séduisante après les crimes massifs du XXe siècle, la justice internationale ne trouve pas de légitimité théorique, en tout cas au regard de nos propres références. Faire justice, est-ce toujours prioritaire pour restaurer le vivre-ensemble après une catastrophe? Pouvons-nous imposer à tous les peuples la même hiérarchie des malheurs et la même hiérarchie des priorités? Aucune justice ne peut s’exercer sans la reconnaissance. Il faudrait donc, auparavant, convaincre. Peut-on juger de loin et hors contexte? Peut-on faire si bon marché de l’autorité politique, en plaçant directement les citoyens sous une loi mondiale? La loi naturelle, qui préside à la justice internationale, peut-elle s’instaurer en loi positive? Et, dans ce cas, dans quel recoin peut encore se loger l’esprit d’Antigone? La justice internationale ne pourra exister que sous un gouvernement mondial. Elle porte en elle la tare rédhibitoire de l’uniformité et du despotisme. En invoquant Montesquieu, Grotius, Kant, on défendra ici, face aux crimes d’État, la guerre d’ingérence comme décision politique.

Biographie de l’auteur:

Chantal Delsol est professeur de philosophie à l’Université Paris-Est. Auteur d’ouvrages de philosophie, d’essais, de romans, traduits en treize langues. Lauréate du prix Mousquetaire, du prix de l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques et du prix de l’Académie française.

Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, 2007     1-4

2  3  4

Western Views of Putin and His Presidency

Continuum, 2012 (2009)

Book Description:

When President Vladimir Putin ascended to the Kremlin at the end of the 1990s, he had to struggle with the after-effects of Boris Yeltsin’s political agenda: outrageous corruption, endless social injustice, and deeply entrenched interests dating back to Gorbachev and beyond. From the outset, Putin saw his task as leveling out the political scenery. Discontent had been building up among ordinary Russians on these consequences of the dramatically unstable 1990s. Stabilization of the political system and cleaning up the widespread corruption were Putin’s aims, and the Russian people supported him wholeheartedly. Many observers in the West were quick to condemn Putin and depict him as an authoritarian, dishonest leader who was still linked to the KGB. When asked why Russians were supporting the new Kremlin, many experts explained that it was a paradox that combined the country’s supposed history of tyranny and its people’s inclination towards it. These explanations shaped the West’s understanding of modern Russia and they appear to be unshakeable in cultural circles today. Bruno Sergi argues, in this new study, that the way to know the complete story behind how Putin’s presidency has been viewed in Russia, is to examine closely the hard realities that conditioned Putin’s policies and responses. Misinterpreting Modern Russia: Western Views of Putin and his Presidency looks beyond the stereotypes to the hard logic of the 1990s, and asks a range of provocative questions about the disintegration of the old Soviet empire and the extraordinary riches that have caused so much opportunity and turmoil in recent years.

Pour en finir avec les clichés

L’Âge d’Homme, 2000     Amazon.fr

Avec contributions de Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin, Philippe d’Hugues, Philippe Conrad, Charles Champetier, Manuel Rici, Jean-Paul Lippi, Jean Mabire, Alain de Benoist, Philippe Lamarque, Pierre Le Vigan, Luc-Olivier d’Algange, Claude Polin, Jean-Jacques Mourreau, Claude Rousseau, Xavier Saint-Delphin, Luc Saint-Etienne

Présentation de l’éditeur:

Au moment où la droite est en désarroi, il devient souhaitable de lui montrer la voie de sa reconstruction intellectuelle et culturelle. Dans cet ensemble d’études, des auteurs engagés dans le combat contre le mondialisme et pour la défense des valeurs traditionnelles abordent vingt-cinq thèmes majeurs de notre époque. Pour la première fois, le lecteur trouvera ici un panorama riche et original des nouvelles résistances au conformisme économique et social ambiant.

Die Gesellschaft in der Falle modischer Irrlehren. Ursachen – Folgen – Auswege

Resch-Verlag, 4. Aufl., 2007     Amazon.de

Kurzbeschreibung:

Was läuft in unserer Gesellschaft, in den Familien, bei den einzelnen Menschen wirklich ab? Wir haben ein unbehagliches Gefühl, dass manches nicht mehr stimmt und aus dem Lot geraten ist. Aber die Ursachen, von Einzelnen häufig gut erkannt, sind in der Öffentlichkeit tabuisiert. Ist – wie vor 50 Jahren – erst die nachfolgende Generation in der Lage, die gegenwärtige Situation zu erfassen? Lassen sich die heutigen Erscheinungen eines kulturellen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Niedergangs, des Sinnverlustes und der Orientierungslosigkeit vieler Menschen, allein als urtypische Dekadenz eines schlaff gewordenen Schlaraffenlandes umschreiben? Nein. Ist es auch Wahnsinn, so hat es doch Methode: Kollektiverziehung wird unbeeindruckt durch die verheerenden Misserfolge dennoch als Modell der Zukunft installiert, die Männer werden feministisch abgehalftert und die Frauen zu Männinnen aufgeplustert. Sex und Perversionen werden Kindern als Lebensziel angepriesen, statt sie vor der Zerstörung ihrer Persönlichkeit, die mit dem vermeintlich gewonnenen Lustgewinn einhergeht, zu warnen und zu schützen. Die bekannte Psychotherapeutin Christa Meves beschreibt in ihrem neuesten Buch “Verführt, Manipuliert, Pervertiert” Hintergründe dieser modischen Irrlehren und wartet mit konstruktiven Vorschlägen auf. Sie analysiert das heute gängige Bild, dass von dem Mann, der Frau, der Familie, der Jugend und der Erziehung, vermittelt wird. Deutlich zeigt sie die Ursachen der Fehlentwicklungen auf. Sie bestätigen die Richtigkeit ihres Ansatzes. Denn vor mehr als 30 Jahren hat sie die sich heute abzeichnende Situation prognostiziert. Dem Leser werden verständlich die Folgen verdeutlicht, weil die Ursachen aufgedeckt und beschrieben werden. Die Autorin bleibt aber nicht stehen, im Aufzeigen der Fehlentwicklungen, sondern sie zeigt auch auf, was getan werden kann, um dieser Entwicklung Herr zu werden. So stellt dieses Buch einen wertvollen Diskussionsbeitrag dar, wenn wir nicht ratlos vor all den Phänomenen, der gescheiterten Familien, der Aggressivität und Orientierungslosigkeit kapitulieren wollen.

Über den Autor:

Christa Meves, geboren 1925. Studium der Germanistik, Geografie und Philosophie an den Universitäten Breslau und Kiel. Staatsexamen in Hamburg, dort zusätzlich Studium der Psychologie, Ausbildung zur analytischen Kinder- und Jugendlichen-Therapeutin an den psychologischen Instituten Hannover und Göttingen. Frei praktizierend in Uelzen, Mutter zweier Töchter, sechs Enkel. 1974 Wilhelm-Bölsche-Medaille, 1976 PRIX AMADE, 1978 Niedersächsischer Verdienstorden, 1979 Konrad-Adenauer-Preis, 1985 Bundesverdienstkreuz Erster Klasse, 1995 Preis der Stiftung Abendländische Besinnung, 1996 Preis für Wissenschaftliche Publizistik, 2000 Preis der Vereinigung, 2001 Deutscher Schulbuchpreis, 2005 Großes Verdienstkreuz des Niedersächsischen Verdienstordens, 2005 Komturkreuz des Gregoriusordens, 2007 Preis der Stiftung Ja zum Leben, 2010 Pokal von Aufbruch 2009.

Website

Translated by Mark Sleboda & Michael Millerman     Foreword by Alain Soral

Arktos, 2012     Amazon.co.uk

Back Cover:

All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideologies: the first, and oldest, is liberal democracy; the second is Marxism; and the third is fascism. The latter two have long since failed and passed out of the pages of history, and the first no longer operates as an ideology, but rather as something taken for granted. The world today finds itself on the brink of a post-political reality – one in which the values of liberalism are so deeply embedded that the average person is not aware that there is an ideology at work around him. As a result, liberalism is threatening to monopolise political discourse and drown the world in a universal sameness, destroying everything that makes the various cultures and peoples unique.

According to Alexander Dugin, what is needed to break through this morass is a fourth ideology – one that will sift through the debris of the first three to look for elements that might be useful, but that remains innovative and unique in itself. Dugin does not offer a point-by-point program for this new theory, but rather outlines the parameters within which it might develop and the issues which it must address. Dugin foresees that the Fourth Political Theory will use the tools and concepts of modernity against itself, to bring about a return of cultural diversity against commercialisation, as well as the traditional worldview of all the peoples of the world – albeit within an entirely new context. Written by a scholar who is actively influencing the direction of Russian geopolitical strategy today, The Fourth Political Theory is an introduction to an idea that may well shape the course of the world’s political future.

Alexander Dugin (b. 1962) is one of the best-known writers and political commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been an advisor to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical matters, being a vocal advocate of a return of Russian power to the global stage, to act as a counterweight to American domination.

JOB’s Comment:

Readers of this blog who are also familiar with Dugin’s thought and its traditions will have a fairly clear idea of what I agree and what I disagree with in this book. I may come back and spell this out myself later. For now, I just want to point out that Dugin says that what he does is to invite us to a dialogue about an unfinished Fourth Political Theory in the process of development and articulation. He even describes it, as it exists today, rather as “a correctly posed question” than in terms of specific answers. I fully agree we need a Fourth Political Theory, and would therefore try to contribute something to the dialogue about it. “What the Fourth Political Theory is, in terms of what it opposes, is now quite clear”, Dugin writes in the second chapter after having explained his view of this. “It is neither fascism, nor Communism, nor liberalism. In principle, this kind of negation is rather significant. It embodies our determination to go beyond the usual ideological and political paradigms and to make an effort to overcome the inertia of the clichés within political thinking. This alone is a highly stimulating invitation for a free spirit and a critical mind. I do not really understand why certain people, when confronted with the concept of the Fourth Political Theory, do not immediately rush to open a bottle of champagne, and do not start dancing and rejoicing, celebrating the discovery of new possibilities.”

Fayard, 2012     Amazon.fr

Description de l’ouvrage:

Un quarteron de journalistes félons menace la République. Ils s’appellent Éric Zemmour, Robert Ménard, Ivan Rioufol, Élisabeth Lévy. Ils ont le mauvais goût de ne pas se prosterner devant toutes les lubies de l’époque: la culture réduite à l’écran, l’art dévoyé en marketing, la disparition de l’autorité des salles de classe, l’effacement des frontières. Ce sont les “nouveaux réactionnaires”.

How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It

Twelve, 2011     Amazon.com

Book Description:

In an era when special interests funnel huge amounts of money into our government – driven by shifts in campaign-finance rules and brought to new levels by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – trust in our government has reached an all-time low. More than ever before, Americans believe that money buys results in Congress, and that business interests wield control over our legislature.

With heartfelt urgency and a keen desire for righting wrongs, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig takes a clear-eyed look at how we arrived at this crisis: how fundamentally good people, with good intentions, have allowed our democracy to be co-opted by outside interests, and how this exploitation has become entrenched in the system. Rejecting simple labels and reductive logic-and instead using examples that resonate as powerfully on the Right as on the Left-Lessig seeks out the root causes of our situation. He plumbs the issues of campaign financing and corporate lobbying, revealing the human faces and follies that have allowed corruption to take such a foothold in our system. He puts the issues in terms that nonwonks can understand, using real-world analogies and real human stories. And ultimately he calls for widespread mobilization and a new Constitutional Convention, presenting achievable solutions for regaining control of our corrupted-but redeemable representational system. In this way, Lessig plots a roadmap for returning our republic to its intended greatness.

While America may be divided, Lessig vividly champions the idea that we can succeed if we accept that corruption is our common enemy and that we must find a way to fight against it. In Republic, Lost, he not only makes this need palpable and clear-he gives us the practical and intellectual tools to do something about it.

About the Author:

Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school’s Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lessig serves on the Board of Creative Commons, MapLight, Brave New Film Foundation, The American Academy, Berlin, AXA Research Fund and iCommons.org, and on the advisory board of the Sunlight Foundation. He is a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Association, and has received numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Award, Fastcase 50 Award and being named one of Scientific American’s Top 50 Visionaries.

Wikipedia     Website