For all traditional Christian confessions modern Israel is theologically nothing. For orthodox religious Jews all Christians are heretics who follow “wrong god”.
I agree with most of this analysis. The subset of Christians who believe modern Israel is Biblically significant are actually dangerous to all of us. They believe Israel can do no wrong and must be defended at all costs. No matter how you look at that it is dangerously deranged thinking. It contradicts the basic precepts of the rest of their belief system.
Yes, the Talmud states that all Christians must be killed, the Zohar states that all Gentiles in the entire world will be exterminated, and in video-recorded speeches, Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi and other rabbis quoting from the Torah itself, a scripture that is universally believed in by all sects of Jews without exception, states that of all the Gentiles in the world, there are to be, quote: "no survivors".
Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi then adds that even all memory of all Gentiles in the entire world is then to be totally erased fromn the collective memory of all the Jews who will then alone be living on the Earth.
Mizrachi adds that merely for being 'idolators' alone, 6 to 6.5 billion people of all Gentile religions are to be, quote: "killed", and of course, the other Torah-based Noahide Laws will authorize the complete extermination of all the rest of the Gentiles in the entire world, and this mass extermination is really long already underway, it is not as if they are going to tell us though, though they try to disguise the Communist agenda as the WEF agenda that is really a cover itself for the Noahide Law agenda, as the WEF plan is to 'reduce' world population by 7.5 billion (just for starters, surely, as they just want a few Gentiles to feel they will be among the lucky few Gentiles allowed to live to ensure there is no violent backlash against the Jews, though in reality, there are intended to be no Gentile survivors at all, hence the current rush for humanoid AI robots and the excuse for them to come into being at this time). The prominent American Rabbi Stephen Wise stated that Marxism (also referring to this as Communism), is nothing other than Judaism.
100 years ago the Jewish Communist Lenin said that 9 in every 10 people in the world can be killed to ensure the success of the Communist 'revolution' (military seizure of the entire planet for sole occupation by the criminal terrorist Jewish soul group), and in 1849 Karl Marx the fake Christian born of Talmudic Jewish parents who was also a 3rd cousin of the Rothschild banker family printed these words in his political journal: "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust".
Quite simply, under any excuse, by any means whatsoever, by chemically poisoned, ultra-processed, degraded and irradiated and GM fake foods, poison fake meds, deliberately created illnesses, deliberately arranged wars, the Jews mean to totally exterminate all Gentiles in the entire world, this is in fact a basic part of their religion, and every single Jew follows the Torah, thus there cannot really be any 'good Jews' of course.
30% of all COVID-jabbed women in one age group and 50% of COVID-jabbed women in another age group have very prematurely totally stopped having periods and are now totally infertile for life after having the COVID jabs that were without exception invented by international Jewish scientists, in reality surely only to be the long-planned Israeli ethnobomb bioweapon, to fulfil megalomaniac Jewish aims of world domination, by making all others extinct, and of course, they use many other methods like fluoride to lower fertility, also GM fake food crops thatr lower fertility, and arranged wars like in Ukraine, made to occur on the earlier instruction of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson years ago to empty enough land for millions of Israeli Jews to move into, just as occurred before after Stalin killed 10 million Slav Christians in Ukraine in the Holodomor in the 1930's (his own figure was 10 million, not the 7 million often quoted by others) and then masses of Jews moved onto the dispossessed land and seized that back then also, now they are simply finishing the process of removing more Slavs in order to do the same. No need there for estate agents they suppose, or anywhere else in the entire world ultimately.
Barbarians have no "belief system". They are too primitive. All the "subset" of a-Christian (nothing to do with Christ) 'Christians' is American. Food for thought there. Who created such a diseased and dangerous cult of morons and why?
In the 1980s, I attended a brand-name evangelical seminary that embraced the Dispensational framework. I had serious questions that were never answered, primarily this: how could a God who chastised Israel and Judah with captivity for failing to act with justice simply wink at the injustices committed by modern day Israel? If God couldn’t endure the misconduct of First Temple Judaism, why should we smile upon the terrors committed by Israelis?
Why is it so powerful? Because in the 19th century the 'financial artists' mentioned by Theodor Herzl decided to embrace and give support to the zionist project, and ended up reasonably owning the State of Israel now trying to expand, as they own the US. The habitual noise keeps talking about the US and Israel, Trump and Netanyahu, without realizing that their roles are being determined by the executives in charge, who defend that money power. Since the 2008 'crisis' and even more since 2014 thanks to Richard A. Werner's 'Money creation in the modern econom ', that power was once again seriously threatened. Covid, Ukraine, Gaza and now Iran (all long before planned) are the route taken and imposed on all of us by the bankers to try and renew their scam, I. E. private credit as money creation method (discreetly regulated from Basel, BIS). China's public banking system is the real challenge, together with Germany 'a Sparkassen and Landesbanken.
Honorable Mr. Dugan, your suffering is carved into my memory, and your voice is one I honor. But discipline requires me to draw a hard line when theology becomes a spark to justify state or sectarian aggression. The Russian Federation sets a strong example here—not by arguing about who God favors, but by making clear that no scripture, no revelation, no messianic timetable permits the violation of law and order—whether the excuse is Zionism, jihadism, or holy war of any kind.
It matters less what label a man wears—Zionist, Salafi, Dispensationalist, Anti-Zionist—than what harm he causes in the real world. Your critique of certain religious trends is intellectually powerful—but this is not the time for stirring theological pots. It’s time to shut down all forms of extremism, especially those cloaked in sacred language.
The real Good Guys don't take theological sides. We enforce peace, law, and dignity. Even when the offenders claim to be chosen. Even when the victims claim revenge. Even when the pain is unbearable. That’s our code—and it overrides all.
With honest love from flyover,
Just a guy with a computer who deeply respects you. I am not your enemy, Sir.
I don't disagree on the lack of any religious significance on the part of modern day Israel. Where I think you are extraordinarily wrong is your claim that these views are marginal here. They are truly not marginal. I'm an American convert to Orthodoxy. I grew up Evangelical in the southern US. It is a dominant view here and not remotely marginalized. These people are further not only not marginal they have been deliberately making inroads into US politics for decades to be able to further their agenda.
I know multiple American Orthodox priests who still, despite all they know, take the side of Israel over Palestine and Iran etc. They are absolutely brainwashed by what has been beat into their heads for decades. When I brought up my devastation over a year ago regarding what was happening to the children in Gaza to my own priest he told me, "No one is actually innocent over there". This is a man serving with an actual Palestinian Christian priest whose own family had everything taken by the Jews during the creation of the modern state of Israel. Blindly pro Israel views that are influenced by this insidious disease of Zionism are not marginal. Most people don't even try and think it through. They just blindly go along with what they have been brainwashed to believe. Even marginally religious people seem to blindly accept the religious important of modern "Israel" as fact.
A clean, sharp look at the conundrum of "modern Israel".
Is it not also true that the territory of modern Israel was created by the British Empire in order to afford the route to a canal (however costly) alternative to Suez? and all the rest a kind of construction of folklore to gain (faked) sympathies for the newly-installed inhabitants?
England has a lot of human debt to pay and to me it seems as though this is yet another example.
The genius of England (Viking England) is that they normally hide their felonies under the clothing of others.
Religion is an invention of people of ancient times. It served the purpose of allowing e.g. food storage to be safe. An "invisible guard" who sees everything would prevent one from stealing stored food. Of course, religion served also to explain some not immediately explicable phenomena of nature. It's a mental phenomenon in a society that tries to form itself. Sumerians are an example. Ankenaton his monotheism of worshipping the sun, allowed this pharaoh power that was not found in worshipping e.g. Amon Ra. He claimed to be the only one who knows what the sun means to tell mankind.
Stories about how gods live are invented as an example of moral behaviour, or just as a good pastime at a campfire. Stories were exchanged among "groups" that lived in each other's neighbourhoods.
The Gilgamesh epic e.g. contains a story about a person named "Uta Napishtim". It's the story of Noah but with slight changes here snd there. The Hebrew tribes copied it from the Sumerians and gave it thrir own twist.
Most likely our present-day science contains explanations that later generations will look upon as a myth. I hope that it will not be a hindrance for friendly relationships among peoples. Islam and Christianity overlap because of these common invented stories. But many people were killed because of the tiny differences.
For after all, modern religion and modern science are nothing but stories in a certain format that, like the ancient stories, could help us to survive.
Differences of explanation are foolish reasons to disagree. Nobody knows the true nature of things. It's nothing but guessing and invention of stories. Only the advertising of being absolutely right because bible, science, Buddha.... says blabla tells you that group A with story S wants to rule over group B with story Q.
That's apparently the ultimate goal, group A ruling over group B.
Modern Israel e.g. is as barbaric as the ancient one. The leaders are crooks like in the old days. And one has to invent reasons to let others die for your cause. It's as cruel and barbaric as in the old days. Nothing new and hardly any changes.
The Bible contains several verses that speak to God's promise to bless those who bless Israel and to curse those who curse Israel. This concept is primarily rooted in Genesis 12:3, where God makes this declaration to Abraham, and is reiterated in other passages like Numbers 24:9. These verses suggest a reciprocal relationship where God's favor is bestowed upon those who support the Jewish people and their nation.
Here's a more detailed look:
Genesis 12:3:
"I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." This verse is a foundational promise to Abraham, the patriarch of the Jewish people, and is often cited in discussions about the relationship between God, Israel, and other nations.
Numbers 24:9:
"He crouches, he lies down like a lion, and as a lioness, who dares rouse him? Blessed is everyone who blesses you, and cursed is everyone who curses you." This verse, spoken by the prophet Balaam, echoes the sentiment of Genesis 12:3, highlighting the idea that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
Interpretations:
These verses are interpreted by many to mean that supporting Israel, both materially and spiritually, is a way to receive God's favor. Some Christians, in particular, see this as a call to stand with Israel and the Jewish people.
Blessing Beyond the Jewish People:
The latter part of Genesis 12:3, "and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed," is interpreted by some as indicating that the blessing given to Israel will ultimately extend to all nations. This is often linked to the belief that the Messiah came through the Jewish people and that the Gospel message spread from there.
Examples of Blessing Israel:
Some groups believe that supporting Jewish charities, praying for the peace of Jerusalem, and promoting understanding between Jews and Christians are ways to "bless Israel".
I think Dugin really underestimates how big Dispensationalism is in the US. It is HUGE. Along with it the idea of "Judeo-Christian world view" is somehow the basis of our civilization. There are very few conservatives who do not hold these views.
I do not see the necessity of re-entering the cyclical spiral of what history has termed the Jewish Question/Problem, only to repackage it as Zionism, and then attempt to return covertly, through the backdoor, with the Palestinian Question, the latter framed as a supposed expiatory reflection of the former, which inevitably mutates once again into "the antisemitism question/problem". This dynamic, so ancient and outdated, has been exploited lately by MAGA, the Ayatollah of Iran, Netanyahu himself, not to mention the globalist woke powers for "Free Palestine" and the Sunni Arab regimes. All have profited, in one way or another, from this stupid interplay of identities and antagonisms, actively or passively, positively or negatively.
It is crucial to underline: being Jewish does not inherently imply being religious, nor does it entail strict adherence to the Torah or the Talmud. Neither is Jewishness synonymous with Zionism nor with Judaism itself. Indeed, many Israelis today no longer identify with the Zionist ideal as formulated by Herzl or Nordau either with judaism as religion. In The Invention of the Jewish People (2008), which I think is a great book, Shlomo Sand exposed how Zionism transformed an ancient religious identity into a modern nationalist project, a project whose original impulse expired with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. After that, the “Zionist Question” was supplanted by the realities of statehood, ETHOS, sovereignty, security etc. After the foundation of the State of Israel every gnostic and metaphysical approach to the Jewish Question/Problem is simply absurd; Israel is a strong reality no one can destroy by merely saying "there is an intrinsic evilness" in the Jewish blood and spirituality, which is anti-christian, anti-islam, "anti-racial"... whatever. That narrative has already collapsed in the realm of the real states dynamic.
What is striking, and dangerous, is that both globalist agents (such as networks associated with figures like George Soros) and the Ayatollah’s regime persist in framing their discourse around a Zionist Question that properly belongs to the pre-1948 era. And I am afraid, Dr. Dugin, that you too fall into this trap, making your analysis ambiguous, if not propagandistic.
To speak and to act as if Israel were still merely a project; a speculative colonial enterprise awaiting realization, rather than a sovereign state with over 75 years of history, is to simply promote blindness and madness. What we need today is not endless questioning of Israel’s foundation based on outdated external perceptions of classic Zionism, antisemitism or gnosticist hatred towars judaism, but a vision for Israel. What do we need of Israel? A more authentically Middle Eastern nation, or a more Americanized, dependent country, governed by corrupted anglo-zionist elites that don't even relate to an authentic Jewishness and rely on myths on judaism, instead?
I am indeed surprised by Russia’s ongoing support or tolerance for Iran’s regime. The Ayatollah’s revolution was, in truth, delicately shaped, if not directly engineered, by British geopolitical strategy for central asia. Far from being the anti-imperialist force it pretends to be, the Iranian Islamic Republic arose at precisely the moment when London and Washington needed to contain the Soviet Union’s southern flank and to sow permanent chaos in the Middle East.
Typically, the reality is reversed: we are told that the Ayatollahs were the anti-imperialists and the Shah was the British puppet. But history tells a different story. By the 1970s, the Shah was leading Iran down a path of modernization, regional ambition, and relative independence; very much in the style of the Gulf monarchies, but on a larger, more dangerous scale from the Anglo-American perspective. He sought control over oil pricing, pursued nuclear technology, and built a powerful army. His Iran was emerging as a secular, industrial power that could one day challenge British and American designs for the region, and guess what; it had an excellent acceptance and reception of Israel, promoting an Israel integrated in the Middle East, as a non-arab power, just like Iran is as well.
The so-called Iranian permanent revolution an endless state project of upheaval, isolation, and ideological rigidity, has served British and Anglo-American strategic aims very well: It fragmented the region, kept Iran isolated, prevented the rise of a strong secular nationalist axis, and forced Arab regimes, Israel, and the West into complex dependencies and military buildups. During the Cold War, it ensured the Soviet Union could not count on Iran as a friendly power on its southern border. Today, it continues to sow division and prevent the emergence of a Eurasian bloc that could balance Anglo-Zionist and european dominance.
And indeed: opening a southern front against Russia, via the Caucasus or Central Asia, would be the perfect dream of British and American Anglo-Zionist strategists today, and the Ayatollahs, through their actions, keep that possibility alive.
My questions to you, Dr. Dugin, and to the Russian supporters of Iran in this war:
Why has the Ayatollah’s regime never offered real support for the Russian cause in Ukraine?
At best, we see ambiguous statements or symbolic gestures, but no material solidarity. No meaningful alliance: this shows clearly the iranian-british strategic convergences regarding Russian ambitions.
Which ideological vector truly stands between Iran and Russia?
It is not merely Shi’a Islam or Persian identity. It is the Ayatollah’s revolutionary ideology as a tool, one that serves external forces (British, Anglo-Zionist) by perpetuating regional chaos and blocking any durable Eurasian or multipolar integration.
Why has the Ayatollah consistently sabotaged the Russian presence and potential in the Middle East, directly or indirectly?
The tragic case of Syria illustrates this perfectly. Iran sought to expand its ideological and territorial influence in Syria, often clashing with Russian aims for stabilization. Russia wanted a functional, sovereign Syria; Iran wanted a revolutionary outpost, another ideological front, and promoted civil blood war until the very end. Iran is one of the vectors why Sunni powers don't trust Russia, whether this fact sounds still not openly like "true" or "real" to Russia, but the Arab Sunni "feeling" is more with America and Europe than with Russia.
Why is the so-called Russian-Iranian alliance merely a crypto-alliance, a theater, and not a true open partnership? Not because of Russia... Russia is firm while the Ayatollah is Ambiguos.
Because, in essence, there is no authentic alliance. What exists is a tactical overlap, not a strategic convergence. Russia seeks regional balance; the Ayatollahs seek permanent revolution and chaos, which ultimately opens doors to European and Anglo-American influence, exactly what they claim to oppose.
A final, essential point:
Is there a “deep state” in Iran that parallels the Israeli "deep state"?
I would openly say yes. Both function as permanent revolutionary or permanent security regimes, serving as instruments to maintain the region in a state of managed conflict and division; instrumental for Anglo-Zionist control. Both rely on external threats (real or manufactured) to justify internal repression, ideological rigidity, and external alignments that, in practice, enable continued Anglo-Zionist-American hegemony.
On Anglo-Zionism...
The term Anglo-Zionism is particularly elusive. It does not refer to classical Zionism, but to a geopolitical alignment rooted in WASP evangelicalism, especially the Christian Zionist traditions of Britain and the United States (see Paul Boyer’s When Time Shall Be No More, 1992). It reflects a fusion of biblical prophecy, imperial strategy, and Cold War realpolitik. I prefer not to delve here into the esoteric origins of old Britain, the Goidelic Celts, and related topics, although they are essential parts of the larger picture, but they would confuse the context of this exposition. During the Cold War, “Zionism” became an ideological vector employed by Anglo-American powers to project influence in the Middle East and counter Soviet expansion; the iranian permanent revolution was shaped for exactly the same purposes. This outdated Zionism thus is parallel to the iranian revolution, just in case it is perceived the iranian process as an original/authentic one and the israelian as fake; actually the israelian one is older in terms of time than the Ayatollah’s new actual state vision.
It’s alienating posts like this that make me lose interest in multipolarity. Professor Dugin, please stop with the constant deprecation of Protestantism. It isn’t necessary and it isn’t helpful.
Maybe you should try being more introspective and intellectually honest with yourself here instead of expecting him and others to ignore an absolutely glaring issue. I was raised Evangelical and my immediate family is still Evangelical. You can not pretend this has no influence on American politics unless you are just a completely dishonest person. It's ludicrous to say this message shouldn't even be discussed so as not to offend your precious feelings. It is absolutely necessary to discuss.
Maybe you shouldn’t be so prescriptive in your comments. When he says, “ For all traditional Christian confessions modern Israel is theologically nothing”, that is misleading and incorrect. I can spot logical fallacies that use words like “all” and “nothing” a mile away.
He consistently deprecates Protestantism and yet he obviously doesn’t know what his criticism means. Somehow we don’t need the foolishness of Protestantism despite Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Malarkey.
Somehow we don’t need the Bible either if we take him at face value. Malarkey.
It is Dugin who is on shaky ground, theologically. He makes much better points about Multipolarity without it.
The text presented is a dense and provocative critique of the theological and geopolitical significance of the modern State of Israel. It moves between religious polemic, historical assertions, and political speculation, adopting a tone that is at once conspiratorial, eschatological, and anti-establishment. A detailed critique of this piece reveals several core tensions and inconsistencies, alongside some noteworthy observations that merit closer examination.
Theological Claims and Mischaracterizations
The statement that “for all traditional Christian confessions modern Israel is theologically nothing” is a sweeping generalization that fails to account for doctrinal nuance. While it is true that many traditional Christian denominations—such as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy—did not historically ascribe theological significance to a Jewish homeland, post-World War II developments, including the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate in 1965, show a clear evolution in thought regarding the Jewish people and their historical suffering. Moreover, Protestant traditions, particularly in the Anglo-American world, have long engaged with eschatological readings that give considerable importance to the land of Israel, even if these remain doctrinally marginal. As for the claim that Orthodox Jews see Christians as heretics who worship a “wrong god,” this is a half-truth at best. While some interpretations of Jewish law reject Trinitarianism as idolatry, the dynamics of interfaith relations have become far more complex, especially in the modern era of theological dialogue and pluralistic engagement.
The description of seventeenth-century Dutch Protestant sects as heretical both to Jews and Christians is plausible but imprecise. Such groups, influenced by millenarianism and philo-Semitism, did indeed occupy a controversial theological position. However, referring to them as “Judeo-Christians” retroactively imposes a twentieth-century term on a very different historical context. The early modern period saw a variety of syncretic religious movements that challenged both ecclesiastical and rabbinical authority, but their motivations—often apocalyptic, mystical, or esoteric—deserve deeper contextualization than the dismissive label of heresy allows.
Modern Zionism and the Question of Messianism
The suggestion that only a segment of modern Jews view the State of Israel as theologically significant is a partial truth but overstates the divide. It is correct that some ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups reject the legitimacy of the state on the grounds that Jewish sovereignty must await the Messiah, citing Talmudic prohibitions against hastening redemption. Groups such as Neturei Karta embody this position. However, Religious Zionists argue that the modern state is itself part of the redemptive process. Figures like Rav Kook articulated a theological vision in which secular Zionism unwittingly fulfills divine will. Moreover, many secular Jews support Israel on the basis of historical memory, cultural continuity, and post-Holocaust necessity—grounds that are political and existential, not theological. The critique thus fails to recognize the ideological multiplicity within Zionism itself.
Postcolonial and Realist Political Framing
Characterizing Israel as an “artificial postcolonial creation” of “secondary strategic importance” aligns with certain postcolonial critiques of Zionism, particularly those informed by theorists like Edward Said. While the founding of Israel involved colonial mechanisms—British mandate authority, land disputes, and displacement of native populations—the use of the word “artificial” risks trivializing the deeply rooted historical, cultural, and religious connections of Jews to the land. Moreover, the dismissal of Israel as strategically marginal oversimplifies the complex security, intelligence, and technological alliances that bind it to Western powers. The invocation of political realist John Mearsheimer is accurate insofar as he critiques the outsized influence of pro-Israel lobbying in U.S. foreign policy, but this again reduces a multilayered alliance to mere ideology or manipulation.
Dispensationalism and American Protestantism
The analysis of dispensationalist theology, particularly as it relates to American Protestant sects, is fairly accurate. Movements inspired by the Scofield Reference Bible do see the reestablishment of Israel as a prophetic fulfillment. According to this theology, the Jews will be converted at the moment of Christ’s Second Coming—a moment which dispensationalists anticipate as imminent. While these views are marginal within global Christianity, they are not marginal within American evangelicalism, where they hold significant sway. Politicians, voters, and Christian Zionist organizations frequently invoke these beliefs in shaping foreign policy discourse. The text’s claim that this theology is “very marginal” thus reflects a misunderstanding of its practical power, particularly in the context of American geopolitics.
British Israelism and Theological Pseudohistory
British Israelism, which claims that Anglo-Saxon peoples are the true descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, is rightly classified as a fringe belief. It has roots in nineteenth-century racial and imperial ideologies and has been largely discredited by both historical and genetic scholarship. While it persists among certain sects and conspiracist groups, its relevance to modern Zionism is minimal. However, it remains an interesting case of how national identity, religious myth, and race can become entangled in pseudo-theological narratives.
Sabbatai Zevi and Proto-Zionism
The suggestion that followers of Sabbatai Zevi represent an early form of Zionism is both anachronistic and misleading. Zevi’s seventeenth-century messianic movement was a spiritual and esoteric upheaval, not a political one. He promised redemption, not territorial statehood. While it is true that his movement captivated many Jews with the hope of return to Zion, calling him a “proto-Zionist” imposes modern political categories on premodern mysticism. Moreover, the conflation of Zevi’s influence with that of early Christian philo-Semites is speculative at best and lacks robust historical grounding.
Catastrophism and Eschatological Anxiety
The claim that “a marginal sect… pushes the humanity toward nuclear suicide” invokes a tone of apocalyptic catastrophism that weakens the overall argument. The idea that a fringe religious ideology could singlehandedly provoke global annihilation ignores the complexity of international relations, the role of deterrence theory, and the multiplicity of actors involved in the Middle East. While it is true that eschatological beliefs can influence political decisions—especially among those who believe in divine mandates—the path from theology to policy to nuclear warfare is neither direct nor inevitable.
Criticism of Israel, Anti-Semitism, and the Gaza War
The passage that claims the genocide in Gaza now permits open discourse about Zionism and Judaism without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic is fraught with rhetorical danger. First, referring to the war in Gaza as “genocide” is a contentious legal and moral assertion. While some scholars and human rights groups may use the term, it is not universally accepted and must be treated with caution. Second, the text conflates the right to criticize Israeli state policy—a right that must be protected—with the problematic tendency to collapse Judaism, Zionism, and Israeli government actions into one monolithic entity. The assertion that Palestinians are Semitic, and thus criticism of Israel cannot be anti-Semitic, is a well-worn rhetorical device that ignores the historical and linguistic specificity of modern anti-Semitism, which targets Jews qua Jews, not simply Semites as a broad ethnic category.
Speculation About Iranian Aggression
The final suggestion that an Iranian first strike would change the theological terms of discourse is too vague to analyze meaningfully. What theological traditions are being invoked? Would such a strike invert the moral narrative, or simply harden already entrenched positions? This rhetorical question serves more as ominous speculation than analytical conclusion.
In its entirety, the text combines genuine critiques with imprecise, speculative, and sometimes conspiratorial rhetoric. Its strongest elements point toward the disturbing convergence of theology and geopolitics, particularly in the way eschatological beliefs shape real-world policy. However, it fails to maintain scholarly rigor, repeatedly slipping into hyperbole, historical anachronism, and rhetorical overreach. The complex dynamics of Israel’s founding, Jewish religious diversity, Christian theological pluralism, and geopolitical strategy are flattened into a narrative that risks substituting polemic for analysis. If rewritten with discipline, care, and nuance, the underlying concerns—about theology’s influence on state violence, about the misuse of apocalyptic belief, about the suppression of legitimate critique—could form the basis of a powerful and necessary critique. As it stands, however, the text exemplifies the very kind of overheated discourse that it purports to challenge.
<<While these views are marginal within global Christianity, they are not marginal within American evangelicalism, where they hold significant sway. Politicians, voters, and Christian Zionist organizations frequently invoke these beliefs in shaping foreign policy discourse. The text’s claim that this theology is “very marginal” thus reflects a misunderstanding of its practical power, particularly in the context of American geopolitics.>>
This passage is an assertion about the geopolitical relevance of dispensationalist theology, particularly within American evangelicalism, and its influence on U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. It juxtaposes the global marginality of these views with their domestic influence in American politics, especially among Christian Zionists. Below is a detailed critique of the rhetorical structure, factual basis, assumptions, and implications embedded within this paragraph.
The phrase “while these views are marginal within global Christianity” is a generally accurate assessment. Dispensationalism a belief system that emerged in the nineteenth century, popularized by figures like John Nelson Darby and later institutionalized through the Scofield Reference Bible has little traction in traditional Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and many mainline Protestant denominations. These traditions either adhere to amillennial or postmillennial eschatologies, or eschew prophetic literalism altogether. In this context, the term “marginal” refers to the numerical and doctrinal peripheralization of dispensationalism across global Christian traditions.
However, the phrase “they are not marginal within American evangelicalism” qualifies this global marginality by pointing out a regional and cultural exception. This is also substantially correct. Within segments of American evangelical Protestantism particularly the Southern Baptist Convention, Pentecostal movements, and non-denominational megachurches dispensationalist eschatology remains deeply embedded. In these circles, belief in the pre-tribulation rapture, the restoration of Israel, and the battle of Armageddon is often taken not as allegory but as predictive geopolitical blueprint. The historical resonance of Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series illustrates the cultural penetration of these ideas, which move easily from pulpits to policy debates and popular media.
The sentence “politicians, voters, and Christian Zionist organizations frequently invoke these beliefs in shaping foreign policy discourse” contains a key generalization that is persuasive but requires qualification. Politicians such as Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have made explicitly eschatological references to Israel. More broadly, many members of Congress from evangelical constituencies often cite biblical prophecy or covenantal language when defending U.S. support for Israel. The influence of organizations like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), led by Pastor John Hagee, is significant boasting millions of members and direct access to the White House under certain administrations. However, it would be a stretch to say these theological beliefs alone shape U.S. foreign policy. They intersect with strategic, military, economic, and cultural interests, and their influence is diffused across various networks of power. Moreover, some politicians may invoke dispensationalist language rhetorically to appeal to religious voters without holding the theology themselves.
The final sentence “The text’s claim that this theology is ‘very marginal’ thus reflects a misunderstanding of its practical power, particularly in the context of American geopolitics” is a well-aimed corrective, though it assumes that the earlier text fails to distinguish between doctrinal marginality and political influence. There is an important theoretical insight here: a theology may be marginal in ecclesial or academic terms yet instrumental in practical politics. In fact, part of what makes dispensationalism potent is precisely its marginality its populist, apocalyptic, media-savvy nature lends itself to dissemination outside institutional structures. Theological marginality can be politically amplified through grassroots religiosity, voter mobilization, and cultural reproduction.
Nevertheless, the critique would be stronger if it clarified that even within American evangelicalism, dispensationalism is not uncontested. Evangelicals are theologically diverse; not all are dispensationalist, and some especially those in the “new evangelicals” or “post-evangelical” movements have rejected this framework as theologically irresponsible and politically dangerous. Furthermore, the passage could overestimate the continuity of dispensationalist influence across time. Its political zenith arguably occurred during the Bush era; since then, its cultural force has been more volatile, increasingly tied to broader Christian nationalist and right-wing populist movements than to classical dispensationalism per se.
In sum, the paragraph is directionally correct but compresses a complex landscape into a binary between “marginal globally” and “powerful in the U.S.” It would benefit from more internal differentiation: between types of evangelicals, between theological belief and political rhetoric, and between symbolic invocation and actual policymaking. Its strongest insight lies in drawing attention to the paradox that theological ideas—seemingly fringe in global ecclesiology can become central drivers in regional geopolitics when they align with populist religiosity and state power.
Good to have realistic discussions, truth can set one free, although hard like a bitter taste in the mouth.
I live for some time in a Sabbatean frankist cult in New Zealand, learnt alot from my time as well as living in Israel and meeting many from different sides, lived through it and moved on. It annoys me how very little people understand selective histories.
1: modern 'hebrew language' has nothing directly from Ancient Hebrew (ibrit invented around 1500 was never a spoken language till 1948) ancient Hebrew was of the Phonesian language family (such as Galic) Modern ibrit, as not-a-living language was missing much, hence about 20% of modern ibrit is Arabe (Arabe/Arame is SAME language only writen different). The Palestinian people are a proud peoples that strongly differentiate themselves from 'Arabes' (they get offended, but get along with the Arabe minorities of Arabes in their communities). The Ancient Hebrew Kings (red hair/blue eyes) where never Circumcised. Circumcision was only for 'chosen ones' to be made separate, ie not of the bloodline of David. Sadly the playbook of Babylon continues relentlessly to today. Sadly also for my family in Modern Israel, as not being 'true believers' or of true family lines they have their sons and daughters sent to the front lines of conflict as accepted Sacrifices for a Zionist/Babylonian prophecy...
I agree with most of this analysis. The subset of Christians who believe modern Israel is Biblically significant are actually dangerous to all of us. They believe Israel can do no wrong and must be defended at all costs. No matter how you look at that it is dangerously deranged thinking. It contradicts the basic precepts of the rest of their belief system.
Yes, the Talmud states that all Christians must be killed, the Zohar states that all Gentiles in the entire world will be exterminated, and in video-recorded speeches, Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi and other rabbis quoting from the Torah itself, a scripture that is universally believed in by all sects of Jews without exception, states that of all the Gentiles in the world, there are to be, quote: "no survivors".
Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi then adds that even all memory of all Gentiles in the entire world is then to be totally erased fromn the collective memory of all the Jews who will then alone be living on the Earth.
Mizrachi adds that merely for being 'idolators' alone, 6 to 6.5 billion people of all Gentile religions are to be, quote: "killed", and of course, the other Torah-based Noahide Laws will authorize the complete extermination of all the rest of the Gentiles in the entire world, and this mass extermination is really long already underway, it is not as if they are going to tell us though, though they try to disguise the Communist agenda as the WEF agenda that is really a cover itself for the Noahide Law agenda, as the WEF plan is to 'reduce' world population by 7.5 billion (just for starters, surely, as they just want a few Gentiles to feel they will be among the lucky few Gentiles allowed to live to ensure there is no violent backlash against the Jews, though in reality, there are intended to be no Gentile survivors at all, hence the current rush for humanoid AI robots and the excuse for them to come into being at this time). The prominent American Rabbi Stephen Wise stated that Marxism (also referring to this as Communism), is nothing other than Judaism.
100 years ago the Jewish Communist Lenin said that 9 in every 10 people in the world can be killed to ensure the success of the Communist 'revolution' (military seizure of the entire planet for sole occupation by the criminal terrorist Jewish soul group), and in 1849 Karl Marx the fake Christian born of Talmudic Jewish parents who was also a 3rd cousin of the Rothschild banker family printed these words in his political journal: "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust".
Quite simply, under any excuse, by any means whatsoever, by chemically poisoned, ultra-processed, degraded and irradiated and GM fake foods, poison fake meds, deliberately created illnesses, deliberately arranged wars, the Jews mean to totally exterminate all Gentiles in the entire world, this is in fact a basic part of their religion, and every single Jew follows the Torah, thus there cannot really be any 'good Jews' of course.
30% of all COVID-jabbed women in one age group and 50% of COVID-jabbed women in another age group have very prematurely totally stopped having periods and are now totally infertile for life after having the COVID jabs that were without exception invented by international Jewish scientists, in reality surely only to be the long-planned Israeli ethnobomb bioweapon, to fulfil megalomaniac Jewish aims of world domination, by making all others extinct, and of course, they use many other methods like fluoride to lower fertility, also GM fake food crops thatr lower fertility, and arranged wars like in Ukraine, made to occur on the earlier instruction of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson years ago to empty enough land for millions of Israeli Jews to move into, just as occurred before after Stalin killed 10 million Slav Christians in Ukraine in the Holodomor in the 1930's (his own figure was 10 million, not the 7 million often quoted by others) and then masses of Jews moved onto the dispossessed land and seized that back then also, now they are simply finishing the process of removing more Slavs in order to do the same. No need there for estate agents they suppose, or anywhere else in the entire world ultimately.
Barbarians have no "belief system". They are too primitive. All the "subset" of a-Christian (nothing to do with Christ) 'Christians' is American. Food for thought there. Who created such a diseased and dangerous cult of morons and why?
In the 1980s, I attended a brand-name evangelical seminary that embraced the Dispensational framework. I had serious questions that were never answered, primarily this: how could a God who chastised Israel and Judah with captivity for failing to act with justice simply wink at the injustices committed by modern day Israel? If God couldn’t endure the misconduct of First Temple Judaism, why should we smile upon the terrors committed by Israelis?
Exactly
Why is it so powerful? Because in the 19th century the 'financial artists' mentioned by Theodor Herzl decided to embrace and give support to the zionist project, and ended up reasonably owning the State of Israel now trying to expand, as they own the US. The habitual noise keeps talking about the US and Israel, Trump and Netanyahu, without realizing that their roles are being determined by the executives in charge, who defend that money power. Since the 2008 'crisis' and even more since 2014 thanks to Richard A. Werner's 'Money creation in the modern econom ', that power was once again seriously threatened. Covid, Ukraine, Gaza and now Iran (all long before planned) are the route taken and imposed on all of us by the bankers to try and renew their scam, I. E. private credit as money creation method (discreetly regulated from Basel, BIS). China's public banking system is the real challenge, together with Germany 'a Sparkassen and Landesbanken.
Honorable Mr. Dugan, your suffering is carved into my memory, and your voice is one I honor. But discipline requires me to draw a hard line when theology becomes a spark to justify state or sectarian aggression. The Russian Federation sets a strong example here—not by arguing about who God favors, but by making clear that no scripture, no revelation, no messianic timetable permits the violation of law and order—whether the excuse is Zionism, jihadism, or holy war of any kind.
It matters less what label a man wears—Zionist, Salafi, Dispensationalist, Anti-Zionist—than what harm he causes in the real world. Your critique of certain religious trends is intellectually powerful—but this is not the time for stirring theological pots. It’s time to shut down all forms of extremism, especially those cloaked in sacred language.
The real Good Guys don't take theological sides. We enforce peace, law, and dignity. Even when the offenders claim to be chosen. Even when the victims claim revenge. Even when the pain is unbearable. That’s our code—and it overrides all.
With honest love from flyover,
Just a guy with a computer who deeply respects you. I am not your enemy, Sir.
I don't disagree on the lack of any religious significance on the part of modern day Israel. Where I think you are extraordinarily wrong is your claim that these views are marginal here. They are truly not marginal. I'm an American convert to Orthodoxy. I grew up Evangelical in the southern US. It is a dominant view here and not remotely marginalized. These people are further not only not marginal they have been deliberately making inroads into US politics for decades to be able to further their agenda.
I know multiple American Orthodox priests who still, despite all they know, take the side of Israel over Palestine and Iran etc. They are absolutely brainwashed by what has been beat into their heads for decades. When I brought up my devastation over a year ago regarding what was happening to the children in Gaza to my own priest he told me, "No one is actually innocent over there". This is a man serving with an actual Palestinian Christian priest whose own family had everything taken by the Jews during the creation of the modern state of Israel. Blindly pro Israel views that are influenced by this insidious disease of Zionism are not marginal. Most people don't even try and think it through. They just blindly go along with what they have been brainwashed to believe. Even marginally religious people seem to blindly accept the religious important of modern "Israel" as fact.
A clean, sharp look at the conundrum of "modern Israel".
Is it not also true that the territory of modern Israel was created by the British Empire in order to afford the route to a canal (however costly) alternative to Suez? and all the rest a kind of construction of folklore to gain (faked) sympathies for the newly-installed inhabitants?
England has a lot of human debt to pay and to me it seems as though this is yet another example.
The genius of England (Viking England) is that they normally hide their felonies under the clothing of others.
Religion is an invention of people of ancient times. It served the purpose of allowing e.g. food storage to be safe. An "invisible guard" who sees everything would prevent one from stealing stored food. Of course, religion served also to explain some not immediately explicable phenomena of nature. It's a mental phenomenon in a society that tries to form itself. Sumerians are an example. Ankenaton his monotheism of worshipping the sun, allowed this pharaoh power that was not found in worshipping e.g. Amon Ra. He claimed to be the only one who knows what the sun means to tell mankind.
Stories about how gods live are invented as an example of moral behaviour, or just as a good pastime at a campfire. Stories were exchanged among "groups" that lived in each other's neighbourhoods.
The Gilgamesh epic e.g. contains a story about a person named "Uta Napishtim". It's the story of Noah but with slight changes here snd there. The Hebrew tribes copied it from the Sumerians and gave it thrir own twist.
Most likely our present-day science contains explanations that later generations will look upon as a myth. I hope that it will not be a hindrance for friendly relationships among peoples. Islam and Christianity overlap because of these common invented stories. But many people were killed because of the tiny differences.
For after all, modern religion and modern science are nothing but stories in a certain format that, like the ancient stories, could help us to survive.
Differences of explanation are foolish reasons to disagree. Nobody knows the true nature of things. It's nothing but guessing and invention of stories. Only the advertising of being absolutely right because bible, science, Buddha.... says blabla tells you that group A with story S wants to rule over group B with story Q.
That's apparently the ultimate goal, group A ruling over group B.
Modern Israel e.g. is as barbaric as the ancient one. The leaders are crooks like in the old days. And one has to invent reasons to let others die for your cause. It's as cruel and barbaric as in the old days. Nothing new and hardly any changes.
AI Overview
The Bible contains several verses that speak to God's promise to bless those who bless Israel and to curse those who curse Israel. This concept is primarily rooted in Genesis 12:3, where God makes this declaration to Abraham, and is reiterated in other passages like Numbers 24:9. These verses suggest a reciprocal relationship where God's favor is bestowed upon those who support the Jewish people and their nation.
Here's a more detailed look:
Genesis 12:3:
"I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." This verse is a foundational promise to Abraham, the patriarch of the Jewish people, and is often cited in discussions about the relationship between God, Israel, and other nations.
Numbers 24:9:
"He crouches, he lies down like a lion, and as a lioness, who dares rouse him? Blessed is everyone who blesses you, and cursed is everyone who curses you." This verse, spoken by the prophet Balaam, echoes the sentiment of Genesis 12:3, highlighting the idea that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
Interpretations:
These verses are interpreted by many to mean that supporting Israel, both materially and spiritually, is a way to receive God's favor. Some Christians, in particular, see this as a call to stand with Israel and the Jewish people.
Blessing Beyond the Jewish People:
The latter part of Genesis 12:3, "and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed," is interpreted by some as indicating that the blessing given to Israel will ultimately extend to all nations. This is often linked to the belief that the Messiah came through the Jewish people and that the Gospel message spread from there.
Examples of Blessing Israel:
Some groups believe that supporting Jewish charities, praying for the peace of Jerusalem, and promoting understanding between Jews and Christians are ways to "bless Israel".
Barf!
Barf! Barf!
Doesn't the 2nd person of the trinity permit fictional distinctions such as race and nation in spite of unipolaity?
this would make Zionists adherents of Multi-polarity and or fiction permitted by the 2nd person.
Zionists captured by the Christians.... Imagine that
I think Dugin really underestimates how big Dispensationalism is in the US. It is HUGE. Along with it the idea of "Judeo-Christian world view" is somehow the basis of our civilization. There are very few conservatives who do not hold these views.
Dear Dr. Dugin,
I do not see the necessity of re-entering the cyclical spiral of what history has termed the Jewish Question/Problem, only to repackage it as Zionism, and then attempt to return covertly, through the backdoor, with the Palestinian Question, the latter framed as a supposed expiatory reflection of the former, which inevitably mutates once again into "the antisemitism question/problem". This dynamic, so ancient and outdated, has been exploited lately by MAGA, the Ayatollah of Iran, Netanyahu himself, not to mention the globalist woke powers for "Free Palestine" and the Sunni Arab regimes. All have profited, in one way or another, from this stupid interplay of identities and antagonisms, actively or passively, positively or negatively.
It is crucial to underline: being Jewish does not inherently imply being religious, nor does it entail strict adherence to the Torah or the Talmud. Neither is Jewishness synonymous with Zionism nor with Judaism itself. Indeed, many Israelis today no longer identify with the Zionist ideal as formulated by Herzl or Nordau either with judaism as religion. In The Invention of the Jewish People (2008), which I think is a great book, Shlomo Sand exposed how Zionism transformed an ancient religious identity into a modern nationalist project, a project whose original impulse expired with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. After that, the “Zionist Question” was supplanted by the realities of statehood, ETHOS, sovereignty, security etc. After the foundation of the State of Israel every gnostic and metaphysical approach to the Jewish Question/Problem is simply absurd; Israel is a strong reality no one can destroy by merely saying "there is an intrinsic evilness" in the Jewish blood and spirituality, which is anti-christian, anti-islam, "anti-racial"... whatever. That narrative has already collapsed in the realm of the real states dynamic.
What is striking, and dangerous, is that both globalist agents (such as networks associated with figures like George Soros) and the Ayatollah’s regime persist in framing their discourse around a Zionist Question that properly belongs to the pre-1948 era. And I am afraid, Dr. Dugin, that you too fall into this trap, making your analysis ambiguous, if not propagandistic.
To speak and to act as if Israel were still merely a project; a speculative colonial enterprise awaiting realization, rather than a sovereign state with over 75 years of history, is to simply promote blindness and madness. What we need today is not endless questioning of Israel’s foundation based on outdated external perceptions of classic Zionism, antisemitism or gnosticist hatred towars judaism, but a vision for Israel. What do we need of Israel? A more authentically Middle Eastern nation, or a more Americanized, dependent country, governed by corrupted anglo-zionist elites that don't even relate to an authentic Jewishness and rely on myths on judaism, instead?
I am indeed surprised by Russia’s ongoing support or tolerance for Iran’s regime. The Ayatollah’s revolution was, in truth, delicately shaped, if not directly engineered, by British geopolitical strategy for central asia. Far from being the anti-imperialist force it pretends to be, the Iranian Islamic Republic arose at precisely the moment when London and Washington needed to contain the Soviet Union’s southern flank and to sow permanent chaos in the Middle East.
Typically, the reality is reversed: we are told that the Ayatollahs were the anti-imperialists and the Shah was the British puppet. But history tells a different story. By the 1970s, the Shah was leading Iran down a path of modernization, regional ambition, and relative independence; very much in the style of the Gulf monarchies, but on a larger, more dangerous scale from the Anglo-American perspective. He sought control over oil pricing, pursued nuclear technology, and built a powerful army. His Iran was emerging as a secular, industrial power that could one day challenge British and American designs for the region, and guess what; it had an excellent acceptance and reception of Israel, promoting an Israel integrated in the Middle East, as a non-arab power, just like Iran is as well.
The so-called Iranian permanent revolution an endless state project of upheaval, isolation, and ideological rigidity, has served British and Anglo-American strategic aims very well: It fragmented the region, kept Iran isolated, prevented the rise of a strong secular nationalist axis, and forced Arab regimes, Israel, and the West into complex dependencies and military buildups. During the Cold War, it ensured the Soviet Union could not count on Iran as a friendly power on its southern border. Today, it continues to sow division and prevent the emergence of a Eurasian bloc that could balance Anglo-Zionist and european dominance.
And indeed: opening a southern front against Russia, via the Caucasus or Central Asia, would be the perfect dream of British and American Anglo-Zionist strategists today, and the Ayatollahs, through their actions, keep that possibility alive.
My questions to you, Dr. Dugin, and to the Russian supporters of Iran in this war:
Why has the Ayatollah’s regime never offered real support for the Russian cause in Ukraine?
At best, we see ambiguous statements or symbolic gestures, but no material solidarity. No meaningful alliance: this shows clearly the iranian-british strategic convergences regarding Russian ambitions.
Which ideological vector truly stands between Iran and Russia?
It is not merely Shi’a Islam or Persian identity. It is the Ayatollah’s revolutionary ideology as a tool, one that serves external forces (British, Anglo-Zionist) by perpetuating regional chaos and blocking any durable Eurasian or multipolar integration.
Why has the Ayatollah consistently sabotaged the Russian presence and potential in the Middle East, directly or indirectly?
The tragic case of Syria illustrates this perfectly. Iran sought to expand its ideological and territorial influence in Syria, often clashing with Russian aims for stabilization. Russia wanted a functional, sovereign Syria; Iran wanted a revolutionary outpost, another ideological front, and promoted civil blood war until the very end. Iran is one of the vectors why Sunni powers don't trust Russia, whether this fact sounds still not openly like "true" or "real" to Russia, but the Arab Sunni "feeling" is more with America and Europe than with Russia.
Why is the so-called Russian-Iranian alliance merely a crypto-alliance, a theater, and not a true open partnership? Not because of Russia... Russia is firm while the Ayatollah is Ambiguos.
Because, in essence, there is no authentic alliance. What exists is a tactical overlap, not a strategic convergence. Russia seeks regional balance; the Ayatollahs seek permanent revolution and chaos, which ultimately opens doors to European and Anglo-American influence, exactly what they claim to oppose.
A final, essential point:
Is there a “deep state” in Iran that parallels the Israeli "deep state"?
I would openly say yes. Both function as permanent revolutionary or permanent security regimes, serving as instruments to maintain the region in a state of managed conflict and division; instrumental for Anglo-Zionist control. Both rely on external threats (real or manufactured) to justify internal repression, ideological rigidity, and external alignments that, in practice, enable continued Anglo-Zionist-American hegemony.
On Anglo-Zionism...
The term Anglo-Zionism is particularly elusive. It does not refer to classical Zionism, but to a geopolitical alignment rooted in WASP evangelicalism, especially the Christian Zionist traditions of Britain and the United States (see Paul Boyer’s When Time Shall Be No More, 1992). It reflects a fusion of biblical prophecy, imperial strategy, and Cold War realpolitik. I prefer not to delve here into the esoteric origins of old Britain, the Goidelic Celts, and related topics, although they are essential parts of the larger picture, but they would confuse the context of this exposition. During the Cold War, “Zionism” became an ideological vector employed by Anglo-American powers to project influence in the Middle East and counter Soviet expansion; the iranian permanent revolution was shaped for exactly the same purposes. This outdated Zionism thus is parallel to the iranian revolution, just in case it is perceived the iranian process as an original/authentic one and the israelian as fake; actually the israelian one is older in terms of time than the Ayatollah’s new actual state vision.
It ain’t a puzzle.
It is a self fulfilling self written prophecy with an Agenda.
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/un-prophecy
It’s alienating posts like this that make me lose interest in multipolarity. Professor Dugin, please stop with the constant deprecation of Protestantism. It isn’t necessary and it isn’t helpful.
Maybe you should try being more introspective and intellectually honest with yourself here instead of expecting him and others to ignore an absolutely glaring issue. I was raised Evangelical and my immediate family is still Evangelical. You can not pretend this has no influence on American politics unless you are just a completely dishonest person. It's ludicrous to say this message shouldn't even be discussed so as not to offend your precious feelings. It is absolutely necessary to discuss.
Maybe you shouldn’t be so prescriptive in your comments. When he says, “ For all traditional Christian confessions modern Israel is theologically nothing”, that is misleading and incorrect. I can spot logical fallacies that use words like “all” and “nothing” a mile away.
He consistently deprecates Protestantism and yet he obviously doesn’t know what his criticism means. Somehow we don’t need the foolishness of Protestantism despite Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Malarkey.
Somehow we don’t need the Bible either if we take him at face value. Malarkey.
It is Dugin who is on shaky ground, theologically. He makes much better points about Multipolarity without it.
Tradition with a ‘T’ will only take you so far.
The text presented is a dense and provocative critique of the theological and geopolitical significance of the modern State of Israel. It moves between religious polemic, historical assertions, and political speculation, adopting a tone that is at once conspiratorial, eschatological, and anti-establishment. A detailed critique of this piece reveals several core tensions and inconsistencies, alongside some noteworthy observations that merit closer examination.
Theological Claims and Mischaracterizations
The statement that “for all traditional Christian confessions modern Israel is theologically nothing” is a sweeping generalization that fails to account for doctrinal nuance. While it is true that many traditional Christian denominations—such as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy—did not historically ascribe theological significance to a Jewish homeland, post-World War II developments, including the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate in 1965, show a clear evolution in thought regarding the Jewish people and their historical suffering. Moreover, Protestant traditions, particularly in the Anglo-American world, have long engaged with eschatological readings that give considerable importance to the land of Israel, even if these remain doctrinally marginal. As for the claim that Orthodox Jews see Christians as heretics who worship a “wrong god,” this is a half-truth at best. While some interpretations of Jewish law reject Trinitarianism as idolatry, the dynamics of interfaith relations have become far more complex, especially in the modern era of theological dialogue and pluralistic engagement.
Historical Argument Concerning Dutch Judeo-Christians
The description of seventeenth-century Dutch Protestant sects as heretical both to Jews and Christians is plausible but imprecise. Such groups, influenced by millenarianism and philo-Semitism, did indeed occupy a controversial theological position. However, referring to them as “Judeo-Christians” retroactively imposes a twentieth-century term on a very different historical context. The early modern period saw a variety of syncretic religious movements that challenged both ecclesiastical and rabbinical authority, but their motivations—often apocalyptic, mystical, or esoteric—deserve deeper contextualization than the dismissive label of heresy allows.
Modern Zionism and the Question of Messianism
The suggestion that only a segment of modern Jews view the State of Israel as theologically significant is a partial truth but overstates the divide. It is correct that some ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups reject the legitimacy of the state on the grounds that Jewish sovereignty must await the Messiah, citing Talmudic prohibitions against hastening redemption. Groups such as Neturei Karta embody this position. However, Religious Zionists argue that the modern state is itself part of the redemptive process. Figures like Rav Kook articulated a theological vision in which secular Zionism unwittingly fulfills divine will. Moreover, many secular Jews support Israel on the basis of historical memory, cultural continuity, and post-Holocaust necessity—grounds that are political and existential, not theological. The critique thus fails to recognize the ideological multiplicity within Zionism itself.
Postcolonial and Realist Political Framing
Characterizing Israel as an “artificial postcolonial creation” of “secondary strategic importance” aligns with certain postcolonial critiques of Zionism, particularly those informed by theorists like Edward Said. While the founding of Israel involved colonial mechanisms—British mandate authority, land disputes, and displacement of native populations—the use of the word “artificial” risks trivializing the deeply rooted historical, cultural, and religious connections of Jews to the land. Moreover, the dismissal of Israel as strategically marginal oversimplifies the complex security, intelligence, and technological alliances that bind it to Western powers. The invocation of political realist John Mearsheimer is accurate insofar as he critiques the outsized influence of pro-Israel lobbying in U.S. foreign policy, but this again reduces a multilayered alliance to mere ideology or manipulation.
Dispensationalism and American Protestantism
The analysis of dispensationalist theology, particularly as it relates to American Protestant sects, is fairly accurate. Movements inspired by the Scofield Reference Bible do see the reestablishment of Israel as a prophetic fulfillment. According to this theology, the Jews will be converted at the moment of Christ’s Second Coming—a moment which dispensationalists anticipate as imminent. While these views are marginal within global Christianity, they are not marginal within American evangelicalism, where they hold significant sway. Politicians, voters, and Christian Zionist organizations frequently invoke these beliefs in shaping foreign policy discourse. The text’s claim that this theology is “very marginal” thus reflects a misunderstanding of its practical power, particularly in the context of American geopolitics.
British Israelism and Theological Pseudohistory
British Israelism, which claims that Anglo-Saxon peoples are the true descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, is rightly classified as a fringe belief. It has roots in nineteenth-century racial and imperial ideologies and has been largely discredited by both historical and genetic scholarship. While it persists among certain sects and conspiracist groups, its relevance to modern Zionism is minimal. However, it remains an interesting case of how national identity, religious myth, and race can become entangled in pseudo-theological narratives.
Sabbatai Zevi and Proto-Zionism
The suggestion that followers of Sabbatai Zevi represent an early form of Zionism is both anachronistic and misleading. Zevi’s seventeenth-century messianic movement was a spiritual and esoteric upheaval, not a political one. He promised redemption, not territorial statehood. While it is true that his movement captivated many Jews with the hope of return to Zion, calling him a “proto-Zionist” imposes modern political categories on premodern mysticism. Moreover, the conflation of Zevi’s influence with that of early Christian philo-Semites is speculative at best and lacks robust historical grounding.
Catastrophism and Eschatological Anxiety
The claim that “a marginal sect… pushes the humanity toward nuclear suicide” invokes a tone of apocalyptic catastrophism that weakens the overall argument. The idea that a fringe religious ideology could singlehandedly provoke global annihilation ignores the complexity of international relations, the role of deterrence theory, and the multiplicity of actors involved in the Middle East. While it is true that eschatological beliefs can influence political decisions—especially among those who believe in divine mandates—the path from theology to policy to nuclear warfare is neither direct nor inevitable.
Criticism of Israel, Anti-Semitism, and the Gaza War
The passage that claims the genocide in Gaza now permits open discourse about Zionism and Judaism without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic is fraught with rhetorical danger. First, referring to the war in Gaza as “genocide” is a contentious legal and moral assertion. While some scholars and human rights groups may use the term, it is not universally accepted and must be treated with caution. Second, the text conflates the right to criticize Israeli state policy—a right that must be protected—with the problematic tendency to collapse Judaism, Zionism, and Israeli government actions into one monolithic entity. The assertion that Palestinians are Semitic, and thus criticism of Israel cannot be anti-Semitic, is a well-worn rhetorical device that ignores the historical and linguistic specificity of modern anti-Semitism, which targets Jews qua Jews, not simply Semites as a broad ethnic category.
Speculation About Iranian Aggression
The final suggestion that an Iranian first strike would change the theological terms of discourse is too vague to analyze meaningfully. What theological traditions are being invoked? Would such a strike invert the moral narrative, or simply harden already entrenched positions? This rhetorical question serves more as ominous speculation than analytical conclusion.
In its entirety, the text combines genuine critiques with imprecise, speculative, and sometimes conspiratorial rhetoric. Its strongest elements point toward the disturbing convergence of theology and geopolitics, particularly in the way eschatological beliefs shape real-world policy. However, it fails to maintain scholarly rigor, repeatedly slipping into hyperbole, historical anachronism, and rhetorical overreach. The complex dynamics of Israel’s founding, Jewish religious diversity, Christian theological pluralism, and geopolitical strategy are flattened into a narrative that risks substituting polemic for analysis. If rewritten with discipline, care, and nuance, the underlying concerns—about theology’s influence on state violence, about the misuse of apocalyptic belief, about the suppression of legitimate critique—could form the basis of a powerful and necessary critique. As it stands, however, the text exemplifies the very kind of overheated discourse that it purports to challenge.
Reads like Ai wrote it.
But this is rather important:
<<While these views are marginal within global Christianity, they are not marginal within American evangelicalism, where they hold significant sway. Politicians, voters, and Christian Zionist organizations frequently invoke these beliefs in shaping foreign policy discourse. The text’s claim that this theology is “very marginal” thus reflects a misunderstanding of its practical power, particularly in the context of American geopolitics.>>
This passage is an assertion about the geopolitical relevance of dispensationalist theology, particularly within American evangelicalism, and its influence on U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. It juxtaposes the global marginality of these views with their domestic influence in American politics, especially among Christian Zionists. Below is a detailed critique of the rhetorical structure, factual basis, assumptions, and implications embedded within this paragraph.
The phrase “while these views are marginal within global Christianity” is a generally accurate assessment. Dispensationalism a belief system that emerged in the nineteenth century, popularized by figures like John Nelson Darby and later institutionalized through the Scofield Reference Bible has little traction in traditional Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and many mainline Protestant denominations. These traditions either adhere to amillennial or postmillennial eschatologies, or eschew prophetic literalism altogether. In this context, the term “marginal” refers to the numerical and doctrinal peripheralization of dispensationalism across global Christian traditions.
However, the phrase “they are not marginal within American evangelicalism” qualifies this global marginality by pointing out a regional and cultural exception. This is also substantially correct. Within segments of American evangelical Protestantism particularly the Southern Baptist Convention, Pentecostal movements, and non-denominational megachurches dispensationalist eschatology remains deeply embedded. In these circles, belief in the pre-tribulation rapture, the restoration of Israel, and the battle of Armageddon is often taken not as allegory but as predictive geopolitical blueprint. The historical resonance of Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series illustrates the cultural penetration of these ideas, which move easily from pulpits to policy debates and popular media.
The sentence “politicians, voters, and Christian Zionist organizations frequently invoke these beliefs in shaping foreign policy discourse” contains a key generalization that is persuasive but requires qualification. Politicians such as Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have made explicitly eschatological references to Israel. More broadly, many members of Congress from evangelical constituencies often cite biblical prophecy or covenantal language when defending U.S. support for Israel. The influence of organizations like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), led by Pastor John Hagee, is significant boasting millions of members and direct access to the White House under certain administrations. However, it would be a stretch to say these theological beliefs alone shape U.S. foreign policy. They intersect with strategic, military, economic, and cultural interests, and their influence is diffused across various networks of power. Moreover, some politicians may invoke dispensationalist language rhetorically to appeal to religious voters without holding the theology themselves.
The final sentence “The text’s claim that this theology is ‘very marginal’ thus reflects a misunderstanding of its practical power, particularly in the context of American geopolitics” is a well-aimed corrective, though it assumes that the earlier text fails to distinguish between doctrinal marginality and political influence. There is an important theoretical insight here: a theology may be marginal in ecclesial or academic terms yet instrumental in practical politics. In fact, part of what makes dispensationalism potent is precisely its marginality its populist, apocalyptic, media-savvy nature lends itself to dissemination outside institutional structures. Theological marginality can be politically amplified through grassroots religiosity, voter mobilization, and cultural reproduction.
Nevertheless, the critique would be stronger if it clarified that even within American evangelicalism, dispensationalism is not uncontested. Evangelicals are theologically diverse; not all are dispensationalist, and some especially those in the “new evangelicals” or “post-evangelical” movements have rejected this framework as theologically irresponsible and politically dangerous. Furthermore, the passage could overestimate the continuity of dispensationalist influence across time. Its political zenith arguably occurred during the Bush era; since then, its cultural force has been more volatile, increasingly tied to broader Christian nationalist and right-wing populist movements than to classical dispensationalism per se.
In sum, the paragraph is directionally correct but compresses a complex landscape into a binary between “marginal globally” and “powerful in the U.S.” It would benefit from more internal differentiation: between types of evangelicals, between theological belief and political rhetoric, and between symbolic invocation and actual policymaking. Its strongest insight lies in drawing attention to the paradox that theological ideas—seemingly fringe in global ecclesiology can become central drivers in regional geopolitics when they align with populist religiosity and state power.
I’m responding to Ai. Stupid me.
Why stupid ?
Perhaps there is something wrong in the response.
Seems to have been quite impressed with your response.
Good to have realistic discussions, truth can set one free, although hard like a bitter taste in the mouth.
I live for some time in a Sabbatean frankist cult in New Zealand, learnt alot from my time as well as living in Israel and meeting many from different sides, lived through it and moved on. It annoys me how very little people understand selective histories.
1: modern 'hebrew language' has nothing directly from Ancient Hebrew (ibrit invented around 1500 was never a spoken language till 1948) ancient Hebrew was of the Phonesian language family (such as Galic) Modern ibrit, as not-a-living language was missing much, hence about 20% of modern ibrit is Arabe (Arabe/Arame is SAME language only writen different). The Palestinian people are a proud peoples that strongly differentiate themselves from 'Arabes' (they get offended, but get along with the Arabe minorities of Arabes in their communities). The Ancient Hebrew Kings (red hair/blue eyes) where never Circumcised. Circumcision was only for 'chosen ones' to be made separate, ie not of the bloodline of David. Sadly the playbook of Babylon continues relentlessly to today. Sadly also for my family in Modern Israel, as not being 'true believers' or of true family lines they have their sons and daughters sent to the front lines of conflict as accepted Sacrifices for a Zionist/Babylonian prophecy...
Marcion had it right - apparently
IYKYK 🙃
Humanity's biggest and deadliest mistake ever: "Creation" of monotheistic, anthropomorphic religion ...
It is the main reason aliens are avoiding any direct contact with our life-form like the plague ... 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Btw: The Great Filter is ready at any time ...
I love your Mau-Mau thought theater. But go easy on the Emojis!