IS THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY JUST ANOTHER IDEOLOGY?
The Fourth Political Theory (and Eurasianism as its geopolitical - geocultural field of application) is not another ideology, nor an ideological synthesis on the existing ideologies of modernity, such as, for example, National-Bolshevism. This would imply that it is nothing but another subjectivity of Modern rationalism. The Fourth Political Theory is a broader political thesis-expression belonging to a deeper layer of political philosophy, as Professor Dugin described it very graphically in the book “Political Platonism”. It is a theory that, using scientific criteria and methodology, describes, first of all, in sociological and philosophical terms, the reality, taking into account all aspects of the history of the human thought, and then proposes how to adapt to it or avoid the adverse conditions brought about by the modern centuries of cold rationalism and empiricism that darkened Logos (Ορθός Λόγος). In short, it is not an ideological dogma and is therefore essentially pluralistic.
But because it is not just another ideology:
First, the concept of ideology is a product of the European Enlightenment which in turn ushered in the Modernity which is fundamentally challenged by the Fourth Political Theory (and therefore by its geopolitical scope, which is Eurasianism). The Fourth Political Theory explains, among other things, the rationalist way in which each ideology of the Western Enlightenment isolated a metaphysical element of social and political reality by cutting it off from its dialectic relation to the rest. A dialectic relation that existed in the Pre-modern era. Liberalism, as the First ideology, isolated the Individual which is expressed by the capitalist model of productive relations, Marxism, as the Second, the Class which is expressed by the communist/socialist productive model, and Fascism, as the Third, the Race or Nation which is expressed by both productive models depending on the geopolitical position and cultural origins of each people. Each of these ideologies has its own teleological visions (always on the linear progressive scheme of time perception from Modernity and onwards) and which are intended to be established in time cut off from the rest; i.e. antidialectically. In the postmodern period we are currently experiencing, it is liberalism that desperately desires its completion by putting forward its Orwellian posthumanist visions of the future. The Fourth Political Theory, however, by examining political and social reality on a deeper philosophical level, does not get trapped within the modern ideological constraints but examines reality realistically and reintroduces the dialectical relationship between these metaphysical elements, which is also confirmed by the historical reality in which no ideology has, in the end, been able to express itself completely independently of the others. Any time they sought it, a conflict occurred. The present time is such a time.
Secondly, it cannot constitute an ideology since the concept of ideology, as a Western, i.e. highly rationalist product, dictates its absolute-horizontal application in any social-cultural condition, something that can only be achieved through the construction of a centralised bureaucratic state, which is itself a product of Western modernity. It is the mould into which everyone enters, whether they want to or not. Even though each of these ideologies seeks to overcome ethnocracy in fact needs it for its absolute, horizontal imposition on the masses. In contrast, the Fourth Political Theory is a broader political theory which allows and seeks to adapt to each culture in a different way. This is why it is linked to the organizational structures that derive from Eurasianism (e.g. communalism - κοινοτισμός in the context of Romanism - Ρωμηοσύνη, the millets of the Ottoman Empire, etc.) and is not bound by bureaucratic ethnocracy. It is a traditionalist - anti-modernist theory and as such it is essentially pluralistic (and not in the individualistic liberal sense of pluralism described in contemporary International Political Theory) and thus allows and aims at the construction of a multipolar system of balance of power in the planetary geopolitical environment, since, de facto, every cultural tradition is different. Besides, proof of this is the emergence within Eurasianism of the imperial (not imperialist) expression of each culture in the wider Eurasian geopolitical - geo-cultural environment and the need to develop links between these cultures that go beyond the ethnocratic enclosure but with respect for the diversity of tradition and in contrast to the globalizing Euro-Atlantic melting pot of peoples and traditions, which is anti-culturalism (dissolution of traditions and cultural characteristics for the benefit of consumption, technologism and posthumanism).
Finally, it is good to point out that the Fourth Political Theory and Eurasianism do not attack the West of the Greco-Roman past, as many Greeks who have taken a superficial approach to the two theories erroneously believe, but the modern Protestant, rationalist and materialistic Euro-Atlantic version of it, which is considered responsible for the decadent course of Western civilization. Besides, the Eurasian movement also includes groups of people from the hard core of modern Western Europe who consider the new liberal, Euro-Atlantic, globalist narrative as a deviation of European Civilisation. It is the Greek people's duty to redefine their collective identity in order to define their role in the new emerging multipolar international environment, the ideological background of which is described through the Fourth Political Theory. The first step to achieve this is to shed the long-standing impressed modernist notions that conceal not only the social reality but also the very identity of the people living today within the framework of the Greek ethnostate and lead them to absolute affinity with a civilization, that of the West, which is collapsing. The issue is of course not only practical. The detachment from the Western tyrant must not only be done for practical reasons, but primarily for the fact that it is something alien to the true essence of the Roman spirit (Ρωμαίικου πνέυματος) which was suppressed and almost eliminated from the creation of the Greek ethnostate and onwards. This, moreover, is pointed out by important contemporary Greek political scientists, philosophers, theologians and writers who in the last quarter of the 20th century set the initial framework for this search. They have taken the first steps and, clothed in the discourse of the pre-modern tradition combined with scientific methodology, are waiting for us to study them in order to get out of the current intellectual quagmire once and for all. We are the ones who will most coherently define these formulations in the light of the new systematized concepts (such as the Fourth Political and Eurasianism) that offer the ground for the expression of the traditional Roman spirit (Ρωμαίικου πνέυματος).
In conclusion, we would say that the Fourth Political Theory and Eurasianism not only do not constitute ideologies but their study, apart from being a methodologically scientific philosophical work, is also a process of de-ideologicalization, as a necessary condition for the elimination of the stereotypes and the deeper perceptions of Modernism about reality and the pre-modern past - Tradition. De-ideologicalization is a necessary element of intellectual survival in the modern nihilistic subjectivism that brought about the present confusion of ideas. It liberates the spirit and allows it to reach the core of philosophy.