Alexander Dugin: Political Philosophy in Judaism

Philosopher, chief editor of the channel of Tsar Alexander Dugin held the fourth lecture – “the Political philosophy of religious societies. Judaism” from the course “Philosophy of policy” in the framework of the educational project in the lecture hall of Constantinople. The third lecture on Aristotle’s “state of the son” can be read here.

Religious philosophy of politics. Creationism. Manifestations. Sacred. Profane

First of all, we need to understand what religion is. There are two main definitions.

  • Religion is traditional and archaic society that puts at the head of his value system the cause, supernatural, the spiritual, something sacred, divine, sometimes decorated in a simple theological system, sometimes presented in the form of myths, rites and rituals, sometimes existing as quite archaic beliefs (typical of the simplest types of societies).

This is the General concept of religion, including traditional society, the archaic society, religion, as institutionalized in the churches, dogmas, texts, laws, as well as the religious forms that exist at the level of mythology, polycentric system of beliefs in spirits, gods, heroes, the souls of the dead, etc.

Sacred: light and dark sides

That is, the representation includes all types of societies, the cornerstone of which is God, divine, spiritual. You can call this type of societies sacred societies.

Sacred[1] is a very complex category. Usually the sacred is separated from the concept of “Holy”, although technically it is very difficult to find in the Russian language is an exact match to the concept of “sacred”. It is Holy and sacred at the same time.

However, the concept of “sacred” is an important sociological category and is a kind of higher principle, not amenable to rational understanding that precedes all types of myths, theologies and religious theories. This concept is lived in concrete experience – in the experience of the deep psychology of C. G. Jung calls a numinous experience[2].

We are talking about the human encounter with something higher than himself. So high that the collision creates a double feeling: a sense of delight and horror. It is very important that the sacred is not only an experience good; it is an experience, not dissected for the delight and horror at the sensation of his own absolute insignificance and the greatness that is opened[3].

In the sacred is a creepy, dark side is the bright side. The dark side – what makes a man a terror, and so relieves his personality (in this respect, the sacred often appears in the form of death), in other words, the individual with the experience of sacred ends.

Another bright side is sacred is what brings a person to delight in endless joy, in bliss; here again is a removal of the individual.

The sacred is characterized in that terrifying and delighting in him are unrequited. This is a common root of the two strongest forms of experience. Thus, the sacred is a society that in prioritizing this instance. It may be called God, spirit, etc., and every time we deal with something sacred. In some societies, sacred figures became the leaders (sacralization of power) which inspire people to fear and love.

Sacred ruler is the Central figure in the religious society. The main element of the religious philosophy of politics society (if we mean by religion a wide range) is sacred, and we are dealing with a sacral society (and even then it was religious), or with profane, that is, putting in the forefront not sacred, but something else.

Mircea Eliade has a wonderful book “the Sacred and the profane”. In sociology Durkheim we find the same pair of terms “sacred – profane”. Sacred sociology in the late 1930s, he founded Roger Kaywa and Georges Bataille[4].

Religion Genou

  • There is a more narrow understanding of the term “religion”, particularly used by Protestant theologians, and the French traditionalist Rene Guenon.

Guénon treats religion not as sacred all of society, not all types of the sacred, but only as a part of this sacred. Religion in the full sense of the word can only be called those sacred institutions which assume the sacred beginning of the transcendental[5].

Religion, according to Genou, differs from other sacred systems, the highest sacred beginning called it the transcendent God. This God – the Creator, the creator (hence the term “creationism”); he creates the world from nothing, not from themselves (in creationism, there is an ontological gap between God and the created world). God is, and the world was created from nothing (the idea of creation out of nihil). The concept of creatii, creations only defines what is called religion in the narrow sense, and that is based and is closely linked to the basic idea of creation.

Create and demonstration

We have repeatedly said that every term has a certain way to be explained through the negative pair. As we said, the sacred, and not profane. What is the semantic pair which antonymy doublet have with the concept of “create”, “creation”? Is the term “manifestation” “manifestation.” Here is a distinction between the broad understanding of religious (which includes the sphere of religion as a theory based on the demonstration, and theory, based on creatii) and narrow sense (including only the theory of the origin of the world, which is based on the principle of creatii).

Create means the creation of God from nothing, not from yourself. And so another pair of terms to a couple of “create – manifestation” is “Creatio ex nihilo – Creatio Ex Deo (creation out of nothing – creation out of God”). Creatio Ex Deo = manifestation. If God creates out of himself, so he manifests himself in the world. Between him and the world there is no hard and transcendental models.


God-the Creator God is personal. He represents, if anyone, the individual that is in a “contractual” relationship with other individuals. Hence the idea of the Covenant as an agreement, contract, legal transaction, decorated between one individual (the transcendent, Almighty, absolute, eternal, immortal and Creator) and other individuals who are its antithesis; that is, people who are mortal, limited, temporary, ambiguous.

This view of individualization sacred beginning is the second feature that defines a narrow understanding of religion. The God of religion in the narrow sense is always personal, creative, transcendent God.

Companies religious and the profane

Thus, we separated the concept of religious understanding in a wide and narrow understanding. For the second understanding of religion characterized by the phenomenon of theology.

The term “theology” was introduced to describe the construction of a philosophy of religion in the framework of this basic model: when God is the Creator and when God is a person. To a narrow understanding of religious societies include the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If we take a broader concept of religion, then they, of course, include all other types of societies, but the society of the profane.

Profane society began to emerge in Europe, that is, from the XVI century. All the rest – not the European society, and European society before the sixteenth century – were, and remain, in a broad sense religious.

Religious is today’s society. For example, the Islamic society of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Hindu civilization is, of course, sacred and religious in a broad sense (but not in the narrow sense!); except in rare areas of Vaishnavism, the bulk of the religious ideas of the Hindus corresponds to manifestaciones.

That is, the impersonal God out there, he creates the world from himself (Creatio Ex Deo). A sacred civilization is the Chinese civilization (maybe even before the Soviet period); throughout its history it was religious in a broad sense and not monotheistic and not creationist in the narrow sense, because the Chinese tradition further than all the other tradition is separated from the idea of individual deity.

If in Hinduism, in some forms of krishnaism and Vaishnavism, there are cases of individual God perceived as a person, in the Chinese tradition, anything like that can not be detected. This tradition has even a remote idea about the creative transcendental nature of the personality. It is the Tao, the spirit, the will of heaven, the Holy Emperor. This is a sacred civilization in the full sense of the word, but in the narrow sense of “religion” there is instilled very bad.

If we look at the world in General, it appears that most of the political systems in most societies and in ancient times, and currently lives in sacred societies. Many is able to surprise, because we tend to think that we live in modern times (Russian, live in it half), but this is only a small spot of profanizm compared to the huge sea of the sacred. This is a very arrogant, aggressive, colonial, imperialist provalnosti island in the sea of the sacred. This sea is not dried up.

Romanian intellectual Calin Georgescu, who was a UN special envoy, said that the Marshall Islands to 1950-ies was an absolute Paradise, where everything was sacred. Then the Americans came back, and in just a few decades, the island Paradise turned into hell. The Americans established a naval base, spread the tent with the “Coca-Cola” and “Pepsi”, and gradually people began to degenerate.

The natural relationship between the tribes began to turn into a competition, life expectancy has declined significantly. Nature has been destroyed by underwater explosions of nuclear bombs, all were contaminated with radiation, the wild a huge impoverished population, grouped in a new pseudoseptic cities, was forced to eat scraps.

Here is a slick profanizm reached the Holy of the Marshall Islands. Approximately in the same vein you can look at the history of Western civilization, who initially dismantled the sacredness in their territory, and then spread through the world like a poisonous spot, reaching more distant from European territories.

Therefore, when we talk about what is sacred and what is society the profane society and, accordingly, that what is sacred (religious) and profane policy policy, you should understand that although today our education is based on the absolutization of the profane, the majority of mankind still lives in the world of the sacred.When we talk about sacred political philosophy, we are not talking only about something that once was – today it’s the Islamic world (!), and if we look at other regions, except Europe and North America, the sacred roots of society dominate modern humanity.

This is a paradoxical point: the modern humanity is more sacred than the profane, although the official totalitarian ideology of self-reflection of all our cultures and civilizations is profanizm.

Topics from this immediately raises the notion that somewhere there is a pole “purely profane” (modern Europe and USA). 500 years the West live under conditions of profane philosophy, profane policy. During these 500 years, religion has gradually shifted further and further from center to the periphery, turning from the Institute of public (and even political) to the institution of private.

The experience of the death of the individual

The collective dimension of religion is crucial for a sacral society, which puts in the forefront not the individual, and that individual takes. When we have an experience of the sacred, we experience the experience of the death of the individual.

When we have an experience of the sacred, we experience the experience that more than we do. So much more brighter, globally, that we dissolve in front of him and rejoice in this dissolution. Either we are astonished. Or experienced both together.

Therefore, it is best to say that the basis of sacred philosophy of politics is the experience of death, experience “terrible” the beginning is also the beginning of “good”. And if we try to tear a good beginning of Grozny, for example, the delight of terror, we just destroy sacred as his property, to have both.

The sacred can not only be Holy. Sacred is necessarily monstrous, that is, it terrifies, destroys, suppresses, makes you tremble. And if the sacred is not makes you tremble, then it’s not sacred, but only its substitute, a simulacrum. Genuine sacred so different that it precedes the division into the good and the horrific.


Profane civilization banishes the notion of the sacred and the profane is building a completely different policy. In this case, religion of the Central institution of society, becomes peripheral, obligatory model – a case of private choice.

Accordingly, the religion ceases to be religion, and even if it persists, she persists in these profane societies in a new way. Is there a religion in the modern West? Of course. But this profane society, because religion is not in the center of social life, nor has a public dimension, nor is a political institution. It is, but from the point of view of socio-political, it is not.

This is the idea of secularism and secularization: separation of Church and state, separation of religion from society. In the sacred (religious) society, it is impossible. Policy has been subordinated to religious principles and has its roots in religion. In the profane society, politics appears as something independent, is also derived from philosophy, but from philosophy the profane.

Thus, it is possible to say that there is a religious philosophy characteristic of sacred societies, and profane philosophy of politics, characteristic of societies profane, that is, those who proclaimed the principle of secularism and made religion not political, not social, but personal and private affair of a person.

When religion becomes a private affair of man, it ceases to be religion

The fact is that, if religion becomes a private affair of man, it ceases to be religion. At the transition of the Church or another institution from the sacred world to the profane, the changing nature of religion. Religion implies an inclusive understanding of the world. Religious peace cannot be a product of self-development of matter or the evolution of monkeys. The world which has a religious Outlook, is either a manifestation of deity, or the product of God’s creation. In the first and in the second case, this world certainly has the beginning of holism, wholeness.

Holism is opposed to the concept of individualism. Thus, we have two approaches to understanding (any) things. Galitskoe understanding things given by Aristotle: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Individualistic understanding implies that a is an arbitrary combination of parts (that is, a whole equal to the sum of its parts, and if we will reorganize and classify these parts, we will create a different integer). From the point of view of holism, the whole has such a quality that exceeds the quality of all its total fragments. From the point of view of individualism, the whole fully equal to its parts.The founder of sociology Emile Durkheim aristotelians understand the society, believing that society is primary in relation to the individual. Of course, this halitsky approach.

As for the religious philosophy of politics, in the broad sense we can consider it as a combination of political Platonism and Aristotelian political. All types of religious philosophy fully fit into the Platonic and the Aristotelian.In fact, Islamic political philosophy, Christian political philosophy, and Jewish political philosophy, and political philosophy of China and India – they all can be explained with Plato’s understanding of the world and the state (Polis), and also assuming that something does not fit into this political Platonism – it is possible to apply the principle of Aristotelian political.

The philosophy and politics of Plato and the philosophy of Aristotle are religious. These types of political philosophy the sacred and correspond to the traditional society (and this, which has vysokomehanizirovannoe structure). Archaic society is organized not as symmetrical and vertically as paintings that build Plato and Aristotle. We have said that there are three castes, three bars:

The priests/philosophers



This scheme corresponds to the developed traditional societies. From societies of hunters and gatherers, we find no such strict tragicheskoi model.

It is important to understand that when we talk about religious political philosophy, in fact we are considering some form of “applied” Platonism and “applied” of Aristotelian.

Judaism and politics. Israel as an idea

The political philosophy of Judaism is based on religious principle of the Covenant between the single personality of God (the Creator) and “chosen people” (Jews). This is called the old Testament. The Jews made with God the Creator, the Covenant on serving Him and not other gods.

That is, from the totality of sacred they chose one piece. Does religion coincide with the people and belonging to a nation is determined by the fact of religion. Those who believe in the one old Testament God, the one who inherits the Covenant with him, he is a Jew.

Because the Jewish people lived a long time contrasting itself with other peoples, the Jews had developed a distrustful attitude towards peoples who also claimed the belief in these gods. Therefore, there was a gradual rapprochement between ethnic and religious.

It is interesting that, from the point of view of the philosophy of politics of Judaism, the optimal political system is a state of Paradise (before the fall). In this political system, no masters, no work, and there’s only Adam, faithful to God. This Paradise on earth that will be restored in the latter days, lies at the heart of the story, and the story itself is thought of by the Jews as the path to Paradise (which was in the beginning of the story) to the last of the Messianic era, when Moshiach[6]. Between them is tested.

At the core of Judaism – the agreement with the Creator

Accordingly, the different phases between the fall/expulsion from Paradise ancestors and restore the original fullness of the heavenly world, constitute a cycle of sacred history.

The Jewish people, the Jewish religion is connected with this sacred history directly. A Jew is one who lives in this story and is a part of it. A Jew is a subject of history. All the other demons. Hence the idea that once the Jewish people is a subject of history, really from beginning to end the whole story is conceived and measured phases of the existence of the Jewish people. Occurs radical religious ethnocentrism.

So, the basis of the philosophy of politics of Judaism lies the axis Treaty between the Jews and the Creator of the world, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In fact, the whole story is the problem of faithfulness and betrayal to his God.

At different stages of the political organization of the Jews differently relate to this vertical. Getting the old Testament, the Jews are starting to carry it. The main idea is the organization of society around the vertical axis of the Covenant: around religious leaders, the prophets, around, around the Shrine of the Ark of the Covenant, on the tablets of the Covenant that Moses received on mount Sinai. Accordingly, Jewish society, politics and history are built around this sacred model, so the Jews often call themselves the people-priest.

Judaism and Platonism

If we now return to the Platonic model of the Cave and ask who is the king, we will reply that it is the philosopher who ascends and descends. The Jewish people as a whole thinks himself a priest among the Nations. Other people, either soldiers or craftsmen, and the priest is the people of the book, people’s thoughts, people, which makes the service of the Supreme deity of the basic problem (hence the number of synagogues and the people who study the Torah).

This approach forms a conception about the place of Jews among other peoples. This Royal philosophical place, which was occupied in the period when the promised Land Abraham was destined for a future Kingdom, then there was the Egyptian captivity and Moses the Jews were able to return to the promised Land, to again become king, to recover his Royal dignity.

So the promised Land was given by God to the 12 tribes of Israel, and they return to their land, in order to become the kings of the peoples of Canaan living around them. Occurs Canaan centre, where the Jews control the huge territory of Israel. At first, the organization of the Jewish people, associated with the division of the land into 12 tribes, is uncertain: there are judges (which is why this era is called “the period of the Judges”), representing priests and sages, who determine how you need to organize a true political and social model of ancient Israel.

Thus in the conquest of Canaan differ just soldiers, in particular, the military leader Joshua, who converted a religious problem by military means. Therefore, Israelis are often at war with the surrounding Nations, but this war is Holy, sacred.

The fact that the result of the war the Jews seized the defeated peoples is Herem. This is a very interesting term, with the understanding which began with the sociology of Durkheim. Why, when the Jews seized the spoils from other people, this production is called Herem? Jeremy, on the one hand, can be sacrificed to God, and then there’s the fact that the Jews, being clean, can’t eat or take his. Jeremy must either be sacrifice to God, or to destroy, because other people blurred demons, mnogobozhestvo, and what is taken from them, is sacred.

From here we can already see that there is a definite political philosophy, which is built in the concept of political Platonism, but instead of the king-philosopher here comes the chosen people, “the king of all peoples.” God says to the Jews: “You will rule over all Nations”[7]. And not because they are kings, and not even because they want to. They will rule other Nations because ascended (ἄνοδος) God, and God sends them to rule, sends to the victim (κάθοδος) so they can save their people. From the point of view of Platonic topics, we can understand the religious structure of Judaism, and his political philosophy.

Philosopher Samuel and king Saul

During the reign of Saul there is the idea of the Kingdom of Judah. It is very interesting how the Bible describes its formation: the Jewish people feels that he can not cope with the organization, and asks the prophet Samuel to set a king over him.

The prophet Samuel is very upset by this request, because the king of Israel is God, and if people ask to put it on the king as other Nations, that means he wants less and the worst[8]. The prophet Samuel is experiencing the Jewish people, pointing out that if he put over them a king, they will have to obey God not directly but indirectly. Samuel promises to anoint on the Kingdom of Saul at the same time warning the Jews that they will lose the best of the king (God) losing the sacred king, they will receive the king sakralizirovannaya.

And then there is a very interesting point: the prophet Samuel anoints the Kingdom of Saul, that is, there arises the idea of institutionary new political system of the Kingdom which is blessed and a ritual anointing; the king of Israel becomes the firstborn of Israel. Once again we see here the figure of the king-philosopher, but now it is split: there is a philosopher Samuel and king Saul. And Saul the king of Israel, is not just a warrior, not just the best and the strongest. It becomes a sacred figure that belongs to the first but not the second caste.It is Israeli to know nobility (like any system) workers.

Babylonian captivity

In the era of kingdoms, the changing pattern of relations of the chosen people to God, but the model remains the same – we are dealing with classical political philosophy the sacred sense, but instead of a General figure of the philosopher-king in Plato put here first, the patriarchs, the leaders (such as Moses), then judge, and then the kings.

Age of kingdoms is also based on this philosophy, the sacral king, a sacred figure, but gradually the warning of Samuel beginning to have an impact, because the kings are starting to stray away from high ideals.

Deviation occurs already with Saul, and even David the prophet was a serious transgression. This Kingdom begins in a certain way to fall, unless there is a total loss, the collapse of the Babylonian captivity. The Kingdom of Israel will not reach your own horizon. It is punished by God for the deviation from its ideal model, from his destiny. It departs from normative political philosophy, the eternal Israel, from the idea of Israel.

Israel and Aristotle

The meaning of Israel, when he acts in history can be reduced to Aristotle’s politics. Remember what a “real motor” of Aristotle or the immanent God.

So, the function “real estate engine” in the Jewish political philosophy runs the Axis of the world – Jerusalem or the Temple, built by the third king Solomon. Everything related to Jewish history after that, there is the desire to preserve and protect the Temple, and after destroying it – to rebuild the Temple (as well as to rebuild the Second Temple of Zerubbabel, and in our time is to restore the Third Temple).

Please note that if the Platonic philosophy is perfect and eternal Israel, who is always with God, that is phenomenal and Israel that departs from God and should their efforts to return to Him. This is the Aristotelian effort. Not just the contemplation of a pure image of political philosophy and strong-willed, active, practical commitment associated with a political metaphysics of the Temple. Hence the idea of returning to Jerusalem and the idea of restoring the Temple.Thus, in the political spectrum of Aristotelian Jewish philosophy is the restoration of the Temple, with the protection of Jerusalem and the re-establishment of the state of Israel.

In political terms, the scattering, which began with the era of Vespasian, from 70 ad, was the last of God punishing the Jews for unfaithfulness to Him, for abandoning the divine commandments. And the Jews sent into Galut (Hebrew. גָּלוּת exile) in order to purify themselves. During this period, their policy aims in the past and the future, at present they have no political philosophy. These 2000 years the Jews lived under the influence of the other (Gentile) political systems that are their punishment.Therefore, the political philosophy of the state and the societies in which Jews there 2000 years, in fact, appear as anti-Jewish, and the Jews in order that they felt bad to leave God. This is some historical propaedeutics.

Israel as a political praxis. Zionism. The Messiah King

How to act politically to Israel in the era of Galut? He seeks to return to the promised Land, that is, to restore in the future past. Hence the Messianic-political idea back in any way to the promised Land, to build Israel, to recreate it where it was. It is an effective desire to return to what Aristotle calls “natural place”. A “natural place” of the Jews, from a religious point of view, is the Temple of Jerusalem. This desire is the basis of the policy of the Galut at that time.

The first surge return to Zionism, to Zion, to “natural place” of the Jews is the pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zvi, which declares that the end times have come, that he is the Messiah and that we need to follow him to the promised Land. Starts with the first emigration of Jews to Palestine. From the point of view of Jewish philosophy of history, the end of the world will be the coming of the Messiah king. Please note: the Messiah for the Jews, the king, that is good, righteous king who restored the fulness of the political philosophy of Judaism in both cases, Platonic and Aristotelian.

In this Platonic aspect of this eschatological Israel, the ideal Israel, and from the standpoint of volitional intentions, it is embodied in the Messiah the king (it is very important that the Messiah to the Jews – not God and the king, the messenger of God, and this is their fundamental difference from Christians). This king is strong-willed way – in the Aristotelian space – returns his people to the promised Land; and here the phenomenal world is in resonance with the structures of the unchanging, eternal world, is the closure of the immanent pole, which is the Temple in Jerusalem, and transcendental foundations.It’s the end of history and is a political project of modern Jewry.

The implementation process of the Jews their historical millennia of the program comes out of nowhere. This process is in the context of the disintegration of the traditional civilizations of the West, the de-Christianization of the New time, where religious factors are not taken into account; Zionism itself takes the form of nationalism, copied from European bourgeois type (but within the Zionist movement, of course, enlivened religious political philosophy).

Israel is today an existing and established in 1947, is a sign of the beginning of the Messianic era. The Jews already living in the Messianic era. The Jews are returning to Israel, the promised Land from their exile only in the Messianic time (not before it).

Thus, there is a short horizontal this phenomenal philosophy of politics – philosophy of politics vertical. And it is happening now. It is this visual confrontation with the Muslims in Jerusalem. Muslims control the area where, was the Temple, and the Temple, as we have said, it’s a “real engine” of the Jewish policy.

Today there are two kinds of Jews: those who understand that come “the same time”, and those who are in the process of this understanding, that is in the process of implementation of the return to the promised Land.

Thus, the political philosophy of Judaism, inscribed in the sacred history, in the religion of the old Testament, in Judaism as a set of religious beliefs, is not only a tribute of some distant past. The texts are constantly read prayers constantly ascend, and it is one continuous process of the political philosophy of Judaism, which thus at this stage, the final for the Jews, provides the last point in the Covenant made by the Jews with their God in ancient times.

Therefore, the philosophy with regard to religion is something very important. And it is not the past is what is happening today and allows us to adequately decipher the news that, for example, relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus, the political philosophy of religion is a valid factor in today’s modern specific policy, explains the past and determines the future.


[1] From the Latin. sacer – “Holy, Holy”. The sacred is ambivalent and includes not only “sacred” and “defiled.” This is indicated by Mircea Eliade: “Commenting on Virgil’s “auri sacra fames” (“the rumor, the sacred ear”), Serviy rightly observes that “sacer” can mean both “damn” and “Holy.” Eustace points to the duality of meanings in the Greek “hagios”, which can have a value of both “purity” and “impurity”. And with the same ambivalence of the sacred, we meet the ancient Semites and the Egyptians.” Eliade M. Essays on comparative religion. M.: Ladomir, 1999. 30.

[2] The concept of “nominationthe”, “numinous”, “numinosum” (from lat. Numen – a deity, the will of the gods) was introduced by the German theologian Rudolf Otto in his work “the Sacred” (Das Heilige). Numinous, according to Otto, includes four main components: a sense of creatureliness (Kreaturgefuhl), awe-inspiring mystery (Mysterium’t refer to misterium tremendum), the rapture (Fancinans) and a sense of numinous values sacred (Sanctum numinoser Wert als). The basis of all religions, according to Otto, United and rooted in the experience of the numinous. Behind him, C. G. Jung believed that “the idea of God comes from the experience of the numinous.It was a physical experience moments of ohvachennoi, aboutnote them. Rudolf Otto in his the psychology of religion has identified this moment as nonenotnull, elevating the word to the Latin numen, meaning a hint or a sign.” (Jung C. G. Nietzsches Zarathustra (1934-1939) // James L. Jarrett (Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. P. 1038).

[3] You may recall the famous line Derzhavin: “I am the King – I slave – I worm – I God!” (Works Of G. R. Derzhavin. T. I. M. 1798. P. 1-6).

[4] for More details, see Denis O. the College of sociology. SPb: Nauka, 2004.

[5] Strictly speaking, in the article “Religion and Tradition”, rené guénon insisted that the term “religion” should only apply within a group of religious traditions formed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also Guenon indicates that the difference is purely metaphysical thinking from the thinking of theological (or religious) and philosophical. (Genon R. Essays on Tradition and metaphysics. SPb: Azbuka-Klassika, 2010).

[6] the Mashiach, or Messiah – from the Hebrew. מָשִׁיחַ – “the anointed one”.

[7] “And thou shalt reign over many Nations, but they are over you will not dominate” (Deuteronomy 28:12).

[8] “And the Lord said to Samuel, hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for it is not you they have rejected, but Me, that I should not reign over them” (1 Sam. 8: 7).

Stauffenberg was Right!

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

You are commenting using your 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