The Fourth Political Theory as well as Alain de Benoist's New Right project for Europe are both based on the idea of honest and sincere dialogue between peoples.
The concept of people (le peuple, Volk) is what Alain de Benoist considers to be the subject of 4PT. That doesn't denyDasein as subject, because Heidegger said "Dasein existiert völkisch" – being t/here, the presence, exists as people, through people. To be is to be German, French, Italian, Hungarian, Serb, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian and so on. We cannot exist without being someone, being an individual without content. This would be a machine, not a human being. In Heideggerian sense, machines can't exist. They are simply something at hand. So "to be", "to exist" means to be ethnically, culturally, linguistically. Völkisch. Thus, the dialogue between different peoples, each one of them existing differently, is 4PT's main goal. This dialogue between German and French, Russian and Polish or Ukrainian, Hungarian and Romanian, Croatian and Serbian is very difficult and delicate. But we need to foster it and develop it. On a collective basis – not on the individual level as liberals suggest. It is not peace or tolerance or friendship, then. It is the understanding of the Other without necessarily identifying with them, preserving in this understanding our own identity.
Recently I have discovered the Polish identity. It is remarkable, tragic, full of sorrow, the suffering Christ of Europe –Hoene Wronski or tragic cries of Boleslav Lesmyan. Or morbid visions of great Wietkazsy… Extraordinary! We have many contradictions with the Poles in the geopolitical or historical field, but understanding Poles is the discovery of a great fantastic world of the soul, a profoundly slavic soul, completely different from the Russian soul, although very close…
We can also hear the words of some indigenous masters from Brazil, saying that each person has the responsibility of making the intercultural dialogue happen inside themselves, because we can only recognize the differences as being both unsurmontable and yet all too natural. As such, this dialogue occurs solely in a situation of a double-ended openness:
open to the culture of the Other, whom we recognize as being not an Object (ours), but a full Subject of their own, having, then, as much right to existence as we do;
being entirely open to our own culture, or being open to it in its entirety, because otherwise there is no way to be fully recognized as a Subject in turn, and demand sujbectiveness. This second point has two meanings to be conjugated:
a) it is almost impossible to be fully recognized as a Subject by the Other without an inner understanding of our own subjectivity;
b) it is not possible to know what to want when one does not recognize themselves as a full Subject; in this case, one easily "swallows" anything that is given to them without further thinking – becoming, by acting so, a mere Object.
About this intercultural dialogue, too, it is necessary to clarify some points. We could distinguish four positions when it comes to the theme of culture:
omniculturalism: a sole culture rules – in our era, most certainly it will be that of the white successful male. His culture sets the patterns under which every one in the society will be judged, and those who don't have the natural rationale for it will be considered an "almost-there" person, something that must fight to "get there". There is no single country to represent this trend fully, although this is the idea that informs the universal claims of the West, who is its best representative;
multiculturalism: many different cultures in the same place, where the white successful male standard is a little bit more diffused, but nevertheless irrefusable; there might be new versions of the standard, prone to fit too strong cultures living in the same place. USA stands firmly for this one – therefore the counterculture ("counter"?) of the melting pot;
pluriculturalism: cultures are blended together and it is not possible to follow a strand with fidedignity, because the roots are not there anymore – for historical reasons, they have been wiped off. Something new and unique could be created, but, because the lack of clear roots bring along the lack of identity strength, these countries are easy preys to the omnicultural ideal. Brazil and many other American countries are good examples;
interculturalism: cultures are different and this is good, because it is natural, and everyone is a Subject in their own right. No country represents this trend yet – it has to be sought and worked for with responsiblity and a conscious effort.
Therefore, our idea is to lead this dialogue against all historical obstacles. It is a hard and long work, but necessary, once the kings of manipulation are ready to use our deepest essence in their foul game putting us against each other, inciting us to hate, to kill, to overcome. We need a kind of "nationalism of understanding" – although realizing the inappropriation of the word nationalism here: we don't believe that Nation-State and its nationalism can lead us where we want, because, by the end of the day, Nations are ready to destroy each other in order to maintain themselves at the top, in the best feature of "hate, kill, overcome". Not our case. We also strive for a geopolitics and for political regimes with a natural comprehension of the intercultural perspective. In this matter, we may talk about our "Dasein Politics" against their "DanichtSein Politics." But, until it is time, we can only plan our ways within a nationalist frame. So, we work for a process in which, from the nationalism of understanding, we might finally reach a nationalism of love.