The Fourth Position – Series Part II

sealBy Tim Kirby – Ideological Director, Eurasia Research Fellow, & Multimedia Project Director

The Fourth Position – The Victims of New Ideas (The Anti-Subject)




Part II, Episode II

The 4th Position” is an ongoing series of essays regarding the past, present and future of ideology and how we can move forward to an Illiberal age written by award-winning political analyst and radio talk show host Tim Kirby.


In the previous article we discussed the need for a 21st century political theory that takes into account both the individual and collective identities as its subject, which the other theories of the previous century(ies) did not.

Before we begin to fathom what a new subject could be it would valuable to take a look at the “anti-subject” of each of the big 3 political theories of the 20th century (Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism). There is no idea which could suit everyone, nor could there be any position which lacks a counter position. The second we create a new subject for a new political theory, we shall also have an anti-subject appear right in front of us.

Fascism’s enemy is the easiest to understand. Its anti-subject is any other race/ethnicity that it views as a threat or oppressive force, or for the most extreme basically all other ethnicities. For the Nazi’s in Germany this was the Jews (considered secret repressors keeping Germany from glory) and Slavs (considered subhumans wasting valuable territory that could be used for the “glorious” Aryans). There were of course other enemies as well but in general we can see that clearly who is the anti-subject of German Fascism and the Misery (the negative effects of political action/direction as felt by the masses) and violence they received for it. They are in the way of a Utopia for some sort of “master race”. If we look at any Nationalist of Fascist movements today, they always have some ethnic group they hate and blame for the poor state of their nation.

The anti-subject of Communism’s working class was of course the bourgeoisie and the capitalists. Marxism tends to divide the world into the “haves and have-nots” in a material sense. It is true that under Capitalism “it takes money to make money” but is that a justification to murder those with money? For Communists the answer would be “yes”. For the “haves” are a barrier against the victory of the working class, keeping everyone down in perpetual serfdom and therefore must be crushed or subjugated for the betterment of all mankind. They are in the way of a Marxist Utopia. If we look at today’s Marxists, we see that nothing has changed, they see a certain power class that must be destroyed in order to liberate the “oppressed”.

Liberalism’s anti-subject is essentially Communists and Fascists because they argue for a collectivist system of sorts. One would expect individualists to hate anti-individualists. This is why in pro-liberalism circles these terms (Communist/Fascist) are used almost interchangeably like racial slurs against enemies. Liberalism’s brutality has better PR but can be seen in the justifications for various regime changes after and during the cold war. Sending a country into anarchy and possibly indirectly killing a large percent of the population through famine and chaos is justifiable to fans of Liberalism so long as they adopt “the best system” which will bring them democracy, rainbows, and wealth at some point in the relatively near future.

Liberalism’s brutality can be very well showcased in the words of Madeleine Albright when she considered the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to the US intervention to be “worth it”. After all they got Liberalism as compensation. ( ). If we go father back in time then Liberalism felt perfectly justified in killing anyone against the revolution during the chaos in France at the end of the 18th century for they stood for the old repressive system blocking the way for an Enlightenment Utopia.

As you can see all three of these political theories have brought great Misery to their relative anti-subjects.

So the question is, are those who plink around with the ideas of Illiberal Democracy or a Fourth Political Theory just future Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and Nazis who haven’t gotten the opportunity to get blood on their hands yet? Will we repeat history? Is there a way to reduce the Misery brought upon the anti-subject of a new political theory? Can the ugliness be avoided if even just partially?

In order to not repeat history, a new political theory MUST be both Non-Utopian and Non-Universal.

This is of absolute critical importance. If we tell people that the system will guarantee a paradise for all, if and only if it is universally accepted by all, then this will naturally create Misery. If you truly believe that only after capitalism in the whole world is crushed, that a true Communist Utopia can be built then that is a justification for violence against those who work against Utopia on earth.

The problem is that there is no Utopia. There is no single system that could make all people happy. Numerous studies (…/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-gen… ) (…/voting-genes-are-poli…/ ), have shown that the basis of our political beliefs could actually be genetic, meaning that no matter how much you beat Liberalism into some people they will not and cannot accept it. The Soviets beat the Communism into the heads of every child in the USSR but in the end the government became filled with Liberals who hated the system into which they were indoctrinated and they allowed it (or provoked it) to commit suicide.

Is it so bad for various different people’s with their various different mentalities to come up with systems that work for them? This Western European idea (all three of the 20th centuries political theories came from the West) that there is only one possible truth must come to an end.


A plank in the platform:

-This new system, or way of being, must be born of, and made for one the world’s great civilizations. There is no one-size-fits-all system for every nation on earth.  

– Acceptance in the fact that non-belief in a new political theory is normal as no theory would suit everyone.

– Converting non-believers (or so to say those who could not possibly believe) by force only creates Misery and erodes the strength of the theory.

– There is not now, nor will there ever be Utopia and promising the masses Utopia only leads to extremism. The system should promise improvement but a realistic and achievable improvement (It would be Non-Utopian).

– The points above will dramatically reduce the likelihood of repeating the horrors that the previous theories are guilty of.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s