We now resume our review of one of the newer works of political theory. The point is not to critique it, but rather to see how its analyses and prescriptions expand or improve on similar projects based solely on Tradition. In The Fourth Political Theory, Alexander Dugin defines the essence of liberalism:

Liberalism as a whole rests on the individual as its most basic component. It is these individuals, collectively but in isolation from one another, that are taken as the whole.

Of course, we have previously remarked on this idea. In this view, society is a “heap” rather than an organic whole. That is why the liberal can sincerely believe that wholesale population replacement will result in no essential change to the liberal society. The corollary of the liberal assumption is clearly made by Dugin:

Liberalism as an ideology [calls] for the liberation from all forms of collective identity in general.

In particular, this involves the “denial of ethnos”, hence liberalism is ultimately an ethnocide. Moreover, other forms of collective identity are then seen as forms of oppression; this include race, gender sexual relations, and finally even gender itself. They are seen as artificially constructed categories that are incompatible with the freedom and full self-expression of the individual.

Dugin takes liberalism as the “first political theory”, at least if we are counting from the period called the Enlightenment. The second and third theories, intended to oppose liberalism, were communism and Fascism. Theoretically, these movements tried to supplant the individual as the basic atom of society with either class, race, or state. Nevertheless, liberalism triumphed over all of them. From the Traditional point of view, the second and third theories were just as inadequate as the first, since they ignore the fundamental understanding of transcendence. Dugin asserts:

Man is anything but an individual.

The Traditional alternative is that man is also a Person, to use the Medieval idea, also used by Guenon and Evola. Dugin plans to use the notion of Dasein as developed by Martin Heidegger as the model to oppose the individual of liberalism. Yet, another existentialist, Jean Paul Sartre brought to light the fundamental presuppositions of liberalism, both of which are contradicted by Tradition. These are:

• Existence precedes essence
• There is no transcendental ego

In this view, man exists first then chooses in freedom who he is, i.e., his essence. Hence, he can be whatever he chooses to be. The self is not transcendent to the world, but is somehow embedded in it, and therefore limited by its “facticity”. In liberal social policy, this facticity must be overcome either through social engineering or technological means. For example, the liberal may believe that anyone can become a “rocket scientist” and will base education policy on this belief. The reality of the dearth of rocket scientists can be overcome by “better schools”, better teachers, better methods, and so on. The one exception who becomes a rocket scientist out of a hundred is regarded with pride and a vindication of the policies rather than the adventitious event that it is.

By ignoring transcendence, the liberal is subject to the two primal soul or psychic forces: eros and thumos. Hence, the idols of modernity are the pop star and athlete, who exemplify the cancerous growth of eros and thumos respectively. In contrast, in the Medieval era, the primary types according to Frithjof Schuon (Light on Ancient Worlds), were the Saint, the Hero, and the Sage who exemplifies the Intellect, the transcendent power that dominates the soul forces.

The Person, as such, is transcendent, yet takes on an essence when manifesting in space-time. In contrast to existentialism, the Person is transcendent to existence, yet has essential characteristics. In this view, Man is related in two directions: vertically, to the Absolute via transcendence, horizontally, to others through his essential characteristics of gender, family, and ethnos. Yet these serve to fulfill the Person, not to oppress him. Without these larger supports, the individual as such can achieve little. Dugin writes:

The individual is granted freedom because the uses to which he can put it are extremely limited—it will remain contained within the tiny scope of his individuality and that over which he has direct control. This is the flip side of liberalism: at its core, it is totalitarian and intolerant of differences, and most especially opposed to the realization of a great will. It is only prepared to tolerate small people; it protects not so much the rights of man, but, rather, the rights of a small man. This small man can be allowed to do anything, but in spite of all his desire, he will be unable to do anything.

This is true. For many “individuals”, the most creative act of their life may be no more than choosing a tattoo or learning a new sex position. They may have little awareness of themselves as transcendent and fail to develop their Intellect. The Traditional society is criticized for being patriarchal and hierarchal; that is because no spiritual or political authority is recognized as natural, but rather authority depends solely on the consent of the individual. Nevertheless, the intent is not to oppress the masses, but rather to help them develop in the correct direction. Those with a weak Intellect or Will, can be guided and directed by the stronger members.

Some may object to this description on the grounds that no “liberal” truly acts the way described. We are merely pointing out the axioms and logic of liberalism. If no one can consistently and coherently think and act that way, then that is the limitation of the ideology itself. Of course, few will live, even in the modern age, solely by the unchecked forces of eros and thumos, and they will bring their Intellect into their way of life, even if not fully aware of it.