Political Anthropology | Alexander Dugin


A. Dugin

Philosophy Of Politics

Chapter 2

The concept of “political anthropology”. Minimal humanism/max humanism
What is a man?

The fact that people involved in politics are in it the main actors – so obvious, that such a statement seems trivial. However, uttering the word “people”,  we appeal to a reality that is not so clear and transparent, as many are accustomed to thinking. Surprisingly, at different times and in different cultures, in different societies and in different languages under the “person” was understood very different things. And as soon as the problem became more complicated, and the influence of “human factor” on the policy becomes less transparent.

Depending on the understanding of the changing nature of the Political. People are so diverse, that can be seen from all angles of view.

Consideration of human factors in relation to politics is called “political anthropology”.

Before we talk about anthropology in a broad sense, the “philosophical anthropology” or “political anthropology”, should present the range of the most common definitions of “person” in different types of societies.

Sacred anthropology

In traditional society , “man” refers to a potentially angelic or divine being, possessing qualities comparable to those conferred upon the gods of traditional mythology; the “man” was perceived as “an earthly God”, a relative of gods and spirits.

It is significant that the gods built their genealogies many Greek kings and noble citizens. Thus, the philosopher Plato seriously believed himself to be the grandson of Poseidon, the Greek God of the sea.

Man in this sense can be called “light man”. In the Greek language the word “fwz”, “male” and “fwz”, “light”, are written similar, and varies only in the nature of the stress. On this basis at the time philosophers-Gnosticsdeveloped the idea that man is a “light being”, a spirit, an angel, “a two-legged earthly deity”. This is one of the definitions of man.

InHinduism affirms the possibility of a gradual transition of different creatures at each other as the cycle of rebirth.

Thus, a plant in one life can become a pet to another person can transform into a God or demon, etc. thus the human incarnation is considered very high in terms of a universal hierarchy, directly adjacent to the level of deities. According to Hinduism, concentrating on the spiritual contemplation, man can achieve divine status during his lifetime, as it potentially involves the divine principle – the Atman.

Ancient Iranians considered themselves descendants of the bright deity Ormuzd, and perceived affiliation to their people as a direct relationship with the deity. This is true for many other pre-Christian peoples – Germans, Slavs, etc. are Not everywhere the doctrine of the potentially divine nature of man has received a detailed theoretical incarnation, but in almost all traditional societies (with the exception based on the monotheistic religions) is implied. We can say that the totality of these beliefs is “religious anthropology”1.

The basic principle of “sacred anthropology is that man is seen as a potential deityas something that can become a deity (correct and reverse – deity itself may be anthropomorphic, i.e. as potential employees).


The rational animal

A different notion of the person has developed in modern times: his divine nature is completely denied. There were brand-new anthropology: man was now seen as a kind of a symbiosis of animal and the thinking machine. This “biomechanical” man has the qualities of the animal at the level of anatomy and instincts, but still mind.

If the “light man” sacred anthropology is the spirit influencing matter-free organizing framework beginning, the modern anthropology argues instead bioavtomat, design, functioning according to mechanical logic. This being the object, it implements the nested genetic and mechanical program, not having the main as a subject — a quality of freedom. An intermediate person.

In addition to these two poles of possible third – intermediate –anthropological scheme. “Light man” and the biomechanism is the extreme limits of anthropology; below the lower limit is inhuman (animal) world, and above the top – the incognizable deity. According to the third model, man is something changeable: no potential deity, nor the actual bioavtomat, but the dynamic element, the process unfolding between the two limits.

This anthropological model sees man as a process, as the uncertainty of the assignment as an opportunity. The possibility of a completely different order than the ability to “become God.” In this case we are talking about the choice between anthropological concepts – traditional or modern, the idea of a potential “man-God or human – and it was.

An intermediate state of non-equilibrium dynamically. The creature can either move in the direction of attaining godhood (in some traditions — is the memory of the previous divine as the other-is his willful acquisition), or releasing the volitional intensity, to collapse towards its biomechanical essence, losing the ontological and sacred dignity, becoming object of manipulation, mechanical systems.

If the person upper pole, we can say that “man-it sounds proudly”, and the second pole can say that “man-does that sound mean”, then the “intermediate man” we can say that “to err is human”. (The notion that “to err is human” implies that he may at some point not be wrong, making the right choice…)


The risk to be human

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: “Man is something that must be overcome”. This means that man is not a goal but a means; not the last reality but the way to it, the process. Elsewhere Nietzsche says: “Man is the arrow of longing, abandoned on the shore”2. This philosophical metaphor is very important for understanding the essence of anthropology.

The expression “the other shore” refers to the deity, “arrow of longing” — an impetus to the implementation of the divine. The arrow is cast, but whether it will fly to the target or not — impossible to tell in advance for sure. So the process how uncertainty, as a tension between two extremes, is a being who is fundamentally subject to risk.

A man’s risk, unlike risk other species, in particular animals, plants, etc., here is very special: no other natural substance can be in no danger of losing their specific quality, no one can change strong-willed image of its fundamental identity. Even the hapless wolf or a cat to remain a wolf or a cat. But man – at least in the anthropological picture described by Nietzsche — at risk to cease to be human.

Man is the only being in the absolute risk, and risk is the essence of man, since man is in this anthropological picture is not something constant; it is variable.

Elsewhere Nietzsche says that “man is the path to the Superman”. The term “Superman” he puts the same sense that the ancients invested in the concept of “God”, “hero”, etc. we are Talking about “beyond me”.

In the Hindu Advaita-pedantically tradition there is a story which says that man is likened to two birds sitting on one branch.

One of the birds pecking on the Apple growing on a branch, the other does not bite. One of the birds is immortal, the other mortal, one not subject to the risk of another subject.

We are talking about the two poles of anthropology: a bird, pecking the Apple, represents a self-contained and stationary light pole, the deity, the subjective absolute, “Atman”. The bird is immersed in the element of failure and compensating the insufficiency of “eating the Apple” — the image of the second pole, of the human process. According to Hinduism, “a bird pecking an Apple”, can realize his identity with the second bird, and then she will escape death, but may die as soon as the Apple is eaten”. Is based on this philosophy of asceticism, replace the deliberate restriction of carnal life perspective the “deification of the soul”, a change of species status.

Similar stories we find in Christian asceticism. So, in the words of St. Basil the Great, “God became man so that man might become God”. In this case, the path to this lies through the renunciation of eating the Apple, which symbolizes the immersion in everyday life, the enjoyment of earthly pleasures, etc.

Three definitions of man – man as a deity, the human process and the human bioavtomat — can be approached from two different positions. These positions can be defined as “minimal humanism” and “maximum humanity”.

Max humanism

The maximum humanism is a model, claiming that the two extreme poles of anthropological paintings – the God-man and man-zvermachine — possess an Autonomous existence, are the true realities, and the intermediate sphere the human process — is due to these real poles of the function.

The maximum humanism proceeds from the assumption that first there are the limits, then the center, that is, that the extreme anthropological poles have a self-sufficient reality. There is a deity the fact is, there was and is a fact, too. The existence of the deity in man potentially. Genesis beast-mechanism – relevant. And the potential and the actual in man equally is, and all that is between these two poles, draws its Genesis from them. The person itself is not its own ontology, this ontology is borrowed or “superhuman” or “subhuman”.

The maximum humanism believes that man as the process is completely dependent on the dialectic influences “light start” at the top and beast machines from below, and, therefore, is a complex equation in which dynamic, intense, and risky are two main reality.

F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel “the Brothers Karamazov” in the mouth of Mitya Karamazov says: “Here the devil is struggling with God, and the battlefield-the hearts of the people”. This capacious definition maximum of humanism in Christian terms. Man appears as a field of struggle between the two began.

In anthropological models of maximum humanity to man is the field drama contact two inhuman forces — the divine and surinamensis — and is regarded as derived from these two elements.


Russian philosopher Askold in the article “the Religious meaning of the Russian revolution” (collected “From the depths” applies to the Russian people following the model. — Askold wrote: “the Russian soul, like any other, three-part and has the peculiar combination of its three main parts. In the composition of all souls is the beginning of the sacred, specifically human and animal. Perhaps the greatest peculiarity of the Russian soul is, in our view, that the higher specifically human beginning is disproportionately weaker compared to the national psychology of other peoples. The Russian man, as a type, the strongest are the beginning of Holy and animal. It is a kind of spiritual symbiosis may seem strange. However, in our view, this combination is most natural.The angelic nature, since it is thought held by the knowledge of good and evil and preserved in its primitive innocence, in many ways much closer and more akin to the nature of the beast, than person.”3

This applies not only to Russian, understand people any most humanistic model for which the person itself is an expression of some more General realities than himself. Man, therefore, is not a measure of things or the center of things, nor perfection, nor any independent reality. Man is a task, not a given. People — it’s kind of a risky operation, the dynamic collision of two manless reality, veiled by the semblance of unity. Man can become human in the highest sense only through the implementation of the divine, but it may lose its specific identity, crashing to the level of biomechanism. In Nietzschean terminology, the first is the status of the Superman (Uebermensch), and the second – subhuman (Untermensch).

The maximum humanity, brought to its logical boundaries, goes beyond anthropology because, considering the human as derived from non-human realities, sooner or later, attention is focused on them. In this case, the problem is solved, ultimately, by appeal to theology or other forms of experience of the sacred.

If a person (like a job) there is a deity (“Superman”, the angel, etc.), it is logical to focus on the comprehension of the deity (as goals): then human nature is fully revealed in the contemplation of superhuman horizons of existence. Spiritual operation to merge the anthropological problem from a theological reflected in anthropomorphic (human) images of the deity. In the Christian religion this topic is at the center of all creeds. The maximum humanism insists that man was created in the image and likeness of God”, i.e.man is a secondary product of deity, not Vice versa. This is its essential difference from the minimum humanity.


Minimal humanism

Minimal humanism adopts the basic scheme of three instances, but puts the emphasis in exactly the opposite way.

The man is a “process” only if we accept the original reality two Autonomous poles of inhuman nature. If we deny these two realities in the ontological autonomy, we get a very different picture. Minimal humanism believes that, by and large, there is only one reality – a man in his middle understanding, a specific individual, and both of the pole – superhuman and subhuman – are only its conditional projections, its ideas, its abstract limits. People here ceases to be a process and becomes the constant loses specific dynamism, goes to static. This constant, constantly revolving around its invariable essence, is able to put forward two hypotheses about what may be behind her upper and lower limit. But these hypotheses are only ideas, not have an intrinsic immanent reality, devoid of Autonomous existence, by and large, it is the conventions and artificial constructs.

Minimal anthropological humanism sees the situation the opposite way, rather than the maximum. Minimum humanists claim that there is only a man, with man the individual, man as such, man is, strictly identical to itself, not man as a process.

Man as a process, as a function occurs only when it is not identical to itself. The formula is the maximum of humanism is: “man is man plus or minus something else.” “A” here is never equal to “A”.

The principle of Neodesha is a basic principle of the maximum of humanity and the Foundation of anthropology of all religions and religious philosophies that replaces “God” in other forms of non – human values- the sacredness (or its substitutes).

Minimal humanism, in contrast, believes that man is a reality identical to itself, is incapable of specific mutations. It is based on the conviction that a human being under any circumstances can not cease to be human, can become neither subhuman nor superhuman. Concepts and ideas about the Superman, God, ontology, existence, reality and subhuman worlds, from this point of view, are only hypotheses.

In this model man is an immutable reality.

A minimum sample of humanism is the fundamental work of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of pure reason”. The meaning of this book basically boils down to the proof that the mind of man is not able to cross the line that separates his world itself, from the “things-in-themselves”, from “reality-in-itself”. This “reality-in-itself” beyond the competence of the human mind, is detected as something completely unknowable and elusive from experience; Kant called this reality the “noumenon”. Man thus doomed to deal only with their ideas and structures of the mind.


Eschatological cults

The maximum humanism has many versions. As a rule, the full realization of the divine dignity of the person, i.e. complete exhaustion of the possibilities of identification with the upper pole, in religious teachings placed either in the ancient times, in the “Golden age”, in illo tempora, or in the era of the “end times” in the sphere of eschatology.

Traditional myths of various Nations argue that at certain points in the history of the potential divinity of man was the normal and universal phenomenon. As the regulatory maximum of humanism as an anthropological concept, such an attitude in practice sometimes gives grotesque forms. In particular eschatological cults.

The divinity of mankind was a fact in two points of history – in Paradise of the blessed times of the “Golden age” in the era of the last times, when these heavenly days will return. This is connected with a whole spectrum of anthropological doctrines based on the expectation of the “end times”. Here comes into play the “new man”corresponding to the unique ontological proportions of a new era. Here the potential divinity becomes relevant. Eschatological movement had a lot of varieties associated with specific religions and traditions. But the “primitive” system of beliefs, the clearer it appears the General structure of the myth, which in other, more developed religions hidden behind the many theological details.

To illustrate the manifestation of a maximum of humanism in the eschatological context here is an example of “cargo cults” of the peoples of New Guinea. “Cargo cults” — the generic name for outbreaks religions of certain primitive peoples of Oceania, related to the theme of the “abundance of goods”, “goods” (hence the name: “cargo”, “cargo”).

The Romanian historian of religions Mircea Eliade in the book, Mephistopheles and the Androgyne”4 describes one case of “cargo cult”:

“In 1945 on the island of Espírito Santo (New Hebrides) there was a strange cult. Its founder, Tzek, distributed in the villages the message, in which he urged men and women to abandon hip bands, pearl necklaces and other jewelry. In addition, he added, all the objects obtained from the whites, must be destroyed, along with the tools used for making mats and baskets. He called the people to burn all the houses and build in each village two large shared bedrooms, one of which was for men and another for women.(…)At the same time, TCEQ ordered to cancel many traditional taboos: for example, such as the prohibition of marriage within the same totemic group, ransom’s wife, the isolation of young mothers after childbirth, etc..(…) But the most sensational in the message was a message about the future arrival on the island “American”. All followers of the cult would receive the goods in unlimited quantities and, moreover, they were promised immortality and eternal life.(…) The members of the sect were convinced of the insidiousness of the old order and the superiority of the new.(…) In your message, TCEQ announced the establishment of an eternal Paradise on earth.People no longer had to work, didn’t need Pets and property. The old order has been abolished, laws, rules, bans would have lost its meaning. Instead of prohibitions, customs, dictated by tradition, we would have absolute freedom in the first place, sexual, because sexual life in all human societies is the subject of the most restrictive taboos and prohibitions. Cancel all laws and customs means a return to the original beauty and freedom, as prior to the person’s position in the current era, in short, to the heavenly condition.(…) As for the “Americans”, then obviously it’s deceased ancestors who come back Laden with goods. The Americans were the last white who were in contact with the natives of the Islands of Oceania. In the eyes of the natives all white is the spirits of the dead, that is, phantoms, revenants, coming from afar, from the Islands, which in mythical times arrived the ancestors of the Melanesians, the Islands, the native goes after death. (…) Of course, we are talking about a mythical land beyond the Ocean.The country of their ancestors beyond the Great Waters, is a fabulous island, a kind of Paradise, where the souls of the dead await the time of his triumphant return to the living. Once they return, but this time loaded with goods vehicles, similar to court, take daily white in their ports.”

Over movement, a cargo cult is sad – the arrival of the colonial police and restore order by force.

This grotesque model of “primitive eschatology”illustrates the main features of the maximum of humanity, are applied in practice. In the minds of such religious reformers as Tcec and his followers was scrapping the conditional edge, which separates man-the process of the man-God, and “the new order”, coupled with the abolition of all taboos, work, obedience white, returning dead, shipping free goods from the other side of death, etc., involves mass transfer in the validity of the underlying potentials, sleeping in the center of human nature and the nature of reality.People from the Islands of espírito Santo began in his eschatological enthusiasm “gods” and began to live like the completely free spiritual beings.

No less impressive was manifested by similar motives in the period of the uprising eschatological sect of “Adamites” in the Czech Republic, who announced that a heavenly eschatological state, headed by the Christ has already returned. The Adamites also combined wives and property. They were called “Adamites” because they preferred to go naked “like Adam in Paradise.” The Catholic inquisitors, however, did the Adamites in essence the same as the American police unhappy eschatological cargo cultists of New Guinea, only with incomparably greater cruelty. Most of them were burned at the stake or tortured to death.In the opinion of the Western Church, eschatological events which the Czech sects hastened to put to the present, should be attributed to the uncertain distant future.

In the eschatological cults we continue to see the desire to proclaim that man is not only God in potency, a God in the future, but God in actuality, here and now. This direction is called “messianism” or “chiliasm”.

Straight, true and absolute divinity of man was proclaimed in the medieval Fraternity of the free spirit”.

Russian communism, especially the first years, impressively described in “Chevengur” by Andrey Platonov, has a direct relationship to the rise of an eschatological sense: the part of the Russian Bolshevik revolution and subsequent events were perceived as offensive “Kingdom of God on Earth”, the full disclosure of supernatural start in the “new people” of Bolshevism5.


The spiritual version of humanism is the maximum version maximum of humanism, which is considered as the only authentic reality of the person it is low, biomechanical pole. Called these theories materialism. The philosophy of materialism developed in the history of human thought gradually, putting forward as proof of his innocence of the facts and laws confirm availability in man, animal and mechanical elements.

The mechanism, which after Descartes and Newton, he became one of the most philosophers of the New time, developed view of the Universe, animals and even about the man as about ingenious mechanisms (the so-called “metaphor of the hours”). The philosopher Descartes believed animals devices, and sensualist La mettrie brought this approach to its logical conclusion in his famous work “Man-machine”, where he identified the human body with a technical device. In this direction the idea and founder of the physiological school (Balvi, Suntory, Golf courses, etc.), who proposed to consider the human body as a mechanical devices: liver – bake, easy – fur, joints — levers, muscle-strings, the heart – pump, etc., forming a new pure hardware representation of the human anatomy. The physiological approach is the basis of all modern medicine has developed from the “iatromechanism” making the human body as a collection of mechanical parts.

An advocate of this version of materialism was the leader of the proletarian revolution V. I. Lenin, according to which human consciousness is a reflection of objectively existing reality outside of it, that is a mechanical reflection of the environment. Soviet science has recognized this approach for the unconditional dogma.

As a mechanical pole in man is recognized as the only real, and the rest of the superstructure – mental and mental – is considered derivative (Soviet biologists, physiologists and medical doctors, in particular, Pavlov, a lot of effort put in order to justify the theory of “innate reflexes”, which expresses the mechanical code that controls the behavior of living beings), the person ceases to be only a man and becomes a process of self-improvement material substance.

Due to the presence of materialistic common denominator people become functions preceding them, and a comprehensive materiality. Mechanical materialism is often part of the Communist and egalitarian theories address the common material beginning eliminates individual differences. This attitude symmetrically as in the spiritualist version, a maximum of humanism the human soul dissolves in the rays of the superhuman deity.


In parallel with the mechanism developed and other anthropological direction, approaching the same subject a few with the other hand. We are talking about the development of the theory of the origin of man from animals and (at the last stage) of the monkey. The turning point in this direction are the works of Charles Darwin who gave the theory of harmony, provided a scientific apparatus.According to Darwin, the spontaneous movements of inanimate matter has led many statistical combinations to the emergence of the living cell, and from it the result of chaotic processes began to appear the first primitive living organisms, then went more complex, and finally through the “evolution of species”, many stages of adaptation to the natural environment and the struggle for the survival of man appeared.

Man in this sense is an evolved animal and, therefore, the key to its understanding should be sought in the study of the animal world. More details of the ideas developed by Konrad Lorenz, proving that people (even modern, civilized man) — is a highly civilized animal, and his actions are nothing else than the manifestation of an animal beginning in subtle forms.

These anthropological version cannot be considered as a form of the maximum of humanity, because they emit as the dominant, only the low – animal-machine aspect-person. However, they are significant because in contrast to the minimal humanism, the reality of a person relies not in the human being, but beyond that functionally unites the extreme materialists extreme spiritualists.

Subjective subjective idealism and materialism

Minimal humanism is closely associated with what in philosophy is called “subjective idealism”. Everything here proceeds from the assumption that the individual always remains himself, strictly identical to itself. Such static, the individual cannot come into direct contact with what lies outside its boundaries, it has only representation of the hypothesis of rational design. He may seek to rise to the ideal of but the limits of such aspirations are severely limited, people under no circumstances can not overcome the fatal boundary beyond which (hypothetically here) is “inhuman”.

Along with the “subjective idealism” it is easy to imagine and “subjective materialism”. This term is quite capacious, because, staying within the minimum of humanity, it is quite possible to imagine a person who is not committed to the achievement of lofty ideals, lives out of inertia, except for tangible items and vegetative sensations, coming closer with the rhythm and structure of the existence of the “beast-machine”. But in this case, the minimum humanism recognizes such a person a person, i.e., something fundamentally different from zvermachine. Mechanistic and animal material-oriented person is seen here as a manifestation of “relaxed naturalness”, but as a consequence of “moral choice”, i.e. the submission and will determine the action (whatever it was).

The minimal humanism should not use the terms “superhuman” and “subhuman”. Minimal humanism asserts that the “supermen” and “subhumans” there can not bethat there is a “very bad” or “very good”), but the people in the anthropological niche; species of regress or progress, of crossing some line of anthropological determinism can not be.


On superhuman the beginning of the policy

Now consider how anthropology (and its variants in the form of minimum and maximum of humanism) are Political. Traditional society, religious thinkers, regardless of age, proceeded from the concept of maximum humanity. The anthropological concept of maximum of humanism characteristic of the vast majority of historical cultures and traditions. This should be considered when analyzing the respective political systems.

For Aristotle, the “Superman” is placed above politics, and degraded “subhuman” – under it. However, the rise of the politics of Superman puts him out not Political, but the middle of it, as superhuman measurement means, according to Aristotle, the closer to the “real engine”, the highest authority, which governs all things all – natural, social, moral, and public. Rise above politics only the best and highest nature, which must govern, i.e. to be a source and a pole of politics, its subjects.

Even more clearly this theme is developed in Plato, who believed that to rule in society, it should be philosophers, i.e. those who are as close to divine elements Sophia-Wisdom, the World Soul.

Their Political finds its highest expression, a smooth transition into the sphere of the divine, into the worlds of ideas. The structure of the political organization of society with such approach it is anthropomorphic. Political society is a big man. His spirit, continuously and gradually turning into the worlds of the divine – embodied in the caste of sages, philosophers, priests. Muscle, strength, joints – the caste of warriors, the guardians. More mundane organs and functions – the class of merchants and artisans.The lower aspects of human physicality – in slaves and vnekastovyh beings, gradually turning into the animal and vegetable worlds, through a series of fantastic semi-prospering or poluraspredelenia creatures (centaurs, nymphs, fauns, hamadryade, Cyclops, harpies, Naiads, etc.), which was heavily populated by the expanse of Ancient Greece.

Aristotle believed that slaves are not political beings, and depriving slaves of their political quality, it also deprived them human. Non-political and non-human, according to Aristotle, are the same.

Consider as an example the Greek socio-political term “idiot”. In Greek, “idiotez” meant “stranger in the city, not belonging to the political system” that is the man-alien, non-policy part of the Political structure. A man identified as “the idiot”, would feel great to live in luxury and bliss, but he was deprived of the chief — he was not a part of the Political, and, ultimately, “idiotes” politically was such a slave.

In anthropology a maximum of humanism, under the rule of the rights of men, women also belonged to the category of politically defective together with children, slaves, idiots and a wide range of social types. They were all involved in politics indirectly. “Idiots” to a lesser extent, women and children more because they are considered as a “family continuation” of a male citizen. The mandate for full participation in the Political was only men. Although in practice, being in the family circle, he could not hear the opinions and political comments from his wife, younger children, etc., and accordingly, could not them not to react, which in turn affected decisions.Thus, the woman is too involved in politics, albeit indirectly, and we know many examples from history, how significant could be this effect.

Political discrimination against women, however, is not a characteristic maximum of humanism — the humanism of the maximum theoretically possible in the context of the predominance of the feminine and maternal rights. It is hard to imagine what was the real role of men in matriarchy. It is believed that it was more full and balanced than the role of women in the Patriarchy, and men are not undermined in their political rights. Some legends about the Amazons tell that men in such societies have generally been gender genocide, but perhaps it was the extreme cases of some of the most radical matriarchal structures.

The application of anthropology to a maximum of humanism to the Political explains why in traditional society, often considered the first political institutions created mythological gods and heroes, and religious traditions give the social codes of miraculous divine origin (for example, the gift to Moses of the Tablets of the Covenant on mount Sinai, the heavenly indulgence of the Koran of the prophet Mohammed, etc.).

The ancient policy becomes Political

Imagine a particular political society with the most humanistic anthropology, for example, the ancient Greek “Polis” (literally, “the city”), from which came the word “policy”. This city is inhabited by people who perceive themselves and other people as an open process of exchange of energy between the world of gods and the lower world of subhuman creatures.

Engaging in the Political, the policy — for example, Athens — recreates the mythological story about their origin, about who founded his gods, the deeds of heroic ancestors, who defended his, who visited his heroes, virgin goddess and warrior, the goddess of Supreme wisdom, Athena-Pallada. … Every place in the city, every temple, every house, every area of consecrated myth and symbol. The city itself is an open process it from people, rituals, traditions, and sacraments. a sacred trembling of a single living space condensed life, and concentrating this life memory of origins, he is ready to face new challenges coming from within and without. Now his policy is theFoundation, is the Foundation.

If the city threatened by the enemy, on the basis of this Foundation, the decision about the need for war. It is universal and at the same time draw the solution, it is accepted and rational, and emotionally (based on patriotism), and with the intervention of divine forces, great attention is paid to the predictions of oracles and priests. In this solution, for example, about the war, participates all the human and superhuman, rational and irrational, past, present and future. It is the policy of the whole city, the solution take Athens. Athena, the warrior, and will participate in the battle with the enemy. The origins of this decision, this will be lost in the realm of the open process. In vain we look for a final instance, responsible for it, the responsibility is evenly distributed on the multitude of plans, and along with that is expression positions the whole.

Getting in another Polis, a resident of Athens, is dipped in a different policy. It is ruled by other gods and other revered heroes, there are other cults and other mysteries, different customs, a different structure of government and organization. Is that Political, but equally open, equally multi-dimensional and alive. But in the centre it – if we, for example, in Sparta are enemies of Athens, Apollo and Diana. So, other customs, other habits.Conflict cities are the conflicts of the gods, the earth goes unnoticed in the heavenly, scheming kings, aristocrats and tyrants quietly infused with a sophisticated love of Zeus and the jealousy of his wife Hera. Political humans and gods coexist, and the distinction between transparent and hazy, it is easy to overcome on both sides.


Minimal humanism negate the ontology of Political

For the minimum of Political humanism is not an independent reality, a sense of ownership which in itself is important and the highest good is the scope of the contract, the contract between individuals.

Thus, going from maximum to minimum humanism, we don’t just go to private versions possible philosophical and political doctrines, based on it, we are moving away from an ontological understanding of the policy. Policy and, with respect to the minimum of humanity, is something absolutely differentthan the policy in its total (philosophical) understanding.

Minimal humanism appeared relatively late in history and was initially developed on a relatively small geographic space. We are talking about Europe. Yes, and there it coexisted and competed with other models, in one way or another retain a link with maximum humanity.

In terms of a minimal humanism, philosophy of politics, in the sense, which were discussed above, simply cannot be. Policy is conceived as a contract between the individual creatures themselves, do not possess an independent reality and value. In this case, the minimum humanity in its ultimate incarnation, the ultimate formulation leads to the cancellation of the Political.

By and large, minimal humanism is a form of political anthropology, which aims at a total negation of the Political in all its essential qualities. There are teachings that deny the independent reality of power; there are teachings that deny the necessity of the state in the value systems; there are scientists who deny that collective identification is a critical component of the policy. Fan denial of a particular political ontology, is diverse minimal expression of humanism.

Minimal humanism founded on the negation of the Autonomous existence of what oneindividual and versuche, and the Political is as follows. Minimal humanism comes from the fact that a political entity is not. There is only parts and only they are real and Autonomous. Parts are obviously more whole.

The society with which it has minimal anthropology of humanism, seeks to be exempted from the policy, to escape from Political. Unlike the ancient Greek Polis and its inhabitants, it denies gods existence (may instead be or not to be faith in God); it denies the existence of the world (instead of “world view”, “view of the world”). Starting with the genocide of fantastic creatures, once inhabited caves, forests, fields, rivers, coastline and lakes, the critical mind bled and the man himself, trapping him in a narrow dungeon “categorical imperative”, where hypothesis and the representation, analysis and description have replaced the living tissue of the open of being.Closing the person on the top and bottom, zagermetizirovat society, shattering it into atomic particles, the minimum spot of humanism began to spread in breadth and depth, trying to involve other sectors of society, which still retained the living presence of the Political.


Minimum 7 humanism and manifestations of Political

Minimal humanism seeks to:

– to limit (minimize) the political poweras something external to the individual as the source of “unjustified violence” and “suppression of freedom”. Ontology authorities here denied, the presence in society of government institutions is regarded as a “relic” of the old system and is subject to a gradual weakening and dissolution; rather, traditional authorities are expected to focus on the “fourth power”, for the field of entertainment and the continuous performances;

– abolish the concept of a political purpose or a political project (society does not need anywhere to go, every member is free to move along its trajectory, stochastically only limited by the fact of collision with other trajectories and logic of competition);

– to abolish the political inequality (equality is inherent in the nature of minimal humanism, as in his anthropological installation space comparison is limited to the narrow sphere of the individual, above and below which no Autonomous reality, not assumed);

– to subordinate the political system the system of legal (moving from the ontological understanding of the Political the natural to the artificial, contractual, contractual understanding);

– to cancel collective identity, allowing the individual to define himself within his own individuality (this is the meaning of humanism minimum: identification is the arbitrariness of the individual and cannot go beyond it, one can determine himself, and no rating scale is not, therefore, the individual in liberal theories considered only in itself apart from the ethnic, confessional, social and other characteristics);

– to cancel the violence or turn it in the opposite direction from the side of individuals (for example, in the Political as totality, tradition, environment or other species, while allowing for violence in a single region – in economic, which is considered a “sphere of collision of ideas” and, therefore aggression is indirect and conditional”);

– to cancel the value system as a self-contained community code (making the value function of time, possibly more short-term contracts between individuals, thereby replacing values of prices, subject to market conditions).

Minimal humanism insists on the replacement of political society-civil society, political, state – legal, tending to the General “apolite”, desire to escape Political at all.

The doctrine of civil society-is the study of how society, which through the policy exempt from policyassumes getting rid of policy by political means.

1see A. Dugin “the Philosophy of traditionalism”, M., 2002, Chapter “Unavailable Anthropos” (the doctrine of man in the Tradition), “Anthropology in the modern world”, “Sex and the subject”.>>

2F. Nietzsche’s “thus spoke Zarathustra”, M., 2001.>>

3″Of depth. A collection of articles on the Russian revolution”, Paris, 1967, p. 44-45 “the Religious meaning of the Russian revolution”, April 29, 1918>>

4M. Eliade “Mephistopheles et l Androgyne”, P., 1976 CIT. For unreleased baerwalde N. In.Melentieva-A. G. Dugin .>>

5the eschatological interpretation of creativity of A. Platonov and the phenomenon of early Bolshevism in Russia, see A. Dugin “Magic Bolshevism Andrei Platonov,” in proc. “Russian Thing”, the decree. Op.>>

Stauffenberg was Right!

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s