On
the many-coloured Hans Buenting Map (1581), our world looks like a
flower; its three petals present the three continents of Europe,
West Asia, Africa, united by the Holy Land. The map allows for a
different reading, too: the flower is the faith of Christ and Our
Lady, and the three petals are Islam, Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
While the Westerners preferred to view Islam as an antithesis of
Christianity, Eastern Christians, notably St John the Damascene,
considered Islam as another Christian Church, on a par with the
Western Catholic Church. Indeed, Islam with its veneration of
Christ and Sitt Maryam is not farther away from Orthodoxy than
icon-less priest-less anti-Marian Calvinists. The three churches
offer different readings of the same concept: the Orthodox stress
Christ Resurrected, the Catholics concentrate on Christ Crucified,
and the Muslims follow the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox rejection of
filioque is their additional link with Islam; theological
proximity grounded in geographical proximity.
This vision of Islam as of
the third great church of our oikouménè is basic to our
understanding of the Middle East war. Indeed, there are many ways
to interpret the conflict: political economy, demography,
geopolitics and race theory offer their conflicting
interpretations. The problem is, none work very well. A strong
feeling that the problem calls for a religion-derived explanation
found its expression in Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations”
doctrine positioning “Islam vs Christianity” as a repeat of
the mediaeval Crusades. Its vulgar, down-to-earth application can
be found in every mainstream Western newspaper from the NY Times
to Berlusconi’s empire, brought to its extreme by Oriana Fallaci
and Ann Coulter.
But the conflict between the
three great churches is over – for better or for worse,
chivalrous knights in red pelerines over shiny armour won’t ride
again in the hills of Palestine and the fields of Poitou
exclaiming Lumen Coeli towards the equally noble and
valiant Saracens with their green banner. Their areas of influence
are well established, and small border skirmishes and soul
poaching are just for keeping the braves awake. There is no
‘Islamic threat to Catholicism’ or ‘Catholic threat to
Orthodoxy’, though many people would bet otherwise.
The Orthodox Christians of
Greece and Russia, of Palestine and Syria fully share the views of
Muslims and are equally hostile to the American invasion. The
attempts to instil pro-American sentiment in Moscow and Athens
invariably fail. “Their [the Orthodox] views seem to have more
in common with public opinion in Cairo or Damascus than in Berlin
or Rome”, admitted The Wall Street Journal. So much for the
silly concept of conflict between Christendom and Islam. In my
view, and in this article, ‘Christianity’ includes Islam and
the great Apostolic Churches of East and West.
Huntington’s theory, albeit
erroneous, is based on the deep foundations of theopolitics,
a word unknown to the Microsoft Word dictionary but
introduced by Carl Schmitt. This great thinker is hard to
position, for he is claimed as their own by Nazis and Neo-cons,
Deconstructionists and Anti-globalists, thinkers as different as
Leo Strauss and Giorgio Agamben, Huntington and Derrida. In
Schmitt’s view, “all of the most pregnant concepts of modern
doctrine are secularized theological concepts.”
The “liberal democracy and
human rights” doctrine carried by the US marines even across
Tigris and Oxus is a crypto-religion, an extreme heretical form of
Judaised Christianity. Alexander Panarin, a modern (deceased)
Russian political philosopher, noticed the anti-Christian
character of the American doctrine: “The new American vision of
de-contextualised Goods and their de-socialised Consumers is a
heathen myth”; in his view the US doctrine represents a lapse
into heathendom.
In my view, this new religion
can be called Neo-Judaism; its adepts imitate classic Jewish
attitudes; Jews often act as priests of the new faith and they are
considered sacred by its adepts. Indeed, while mosques burn in
Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are
stirred in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is
written on a synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their
attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands
next to the White House. Support of the Jewish state is a sine
qua non for American politicians.
Everybody can become one of
the “Chosen” of the new faith – the choice is yours; the
Newest Covenant admits both Gentiles and Jews; worship Mammon,
disregard Nature, Spirit, Beauty, Love; feel you’re belonging to
a race apart, prove it by some this-worldly success - and you can
enter it. On the other hand, every Jew can opt out of it; there is
no biological guilt or virtue.
Still, there is a strong
feeling of continuity between Palaeo-Judaism and the newer
version. The Jewish state is the enactment of the paranoid Jewish
fear and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal policies of
Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear and loathing
on global scale. The ideas for Neo-Judaism were formed by Jewish
nationalist Leo Strauss, and promoted by Jewish writers of the New
York Times. There is a project of supplying Neo-Judaism with
exoteric rites by constructing a new Jerusalem Temple on the site
of al Aqsa Mosque.
Neo-Judaism is the unofficial
faith of the American Empire, and the war in the Middle East is
indeed the Neo-Judaic Jihad. It is intuited by millions: Tom
Friedman of the NY Times wrote that the Iraqis call the American
invaders “Jews”. Neo-Judaism is the cult of globalism,
neo-liberalism, destruction of family and nature, anti-spiritual
and anti-Christian.
This is also an anti-social
cult of commodification, alienation and uprooting; fighting
cohesive society, solidarity, tradition - in short, fighting the
values upheld by the three great churches. As the church has lost
its position in the West, the adepts of Neo-Judaism consider
Western Christendom almost dead and fight it by bloodless means
through their ADL, ACLU and other anti-Christian bodies. The
Village Voice calls Bush ‘the Christian’, The New York Times
writes of priests’ child abuse, Schwarzenegger demolishes a
church in The Last Days, - this is the Western front of the
Neo-Judaic Jihad.
But Islam is the last great
reservoir of spirit, tradition and solidarity, and the Neo-Jews
fight it with all firepower at their disposal. Islam has to be
crushed if the Neo-Jewish Temple is to be erected on the site of
al Aqsa. Islam is the dominant faith of Israel’s neighbours and
enemies. Islam has a historical role of defending Palestine, the
centrepiece of the three-petal flower, the depository of the
united pre-tradition divined by Guénon. Carl Schmitt has observed
“the great historical parallel” between our days and the days
of Christ. Indeed the war on Palestinians is often interpreted as
a new attempt of (Neo-)Jews and Mammon-worshippers to crucify
Christ in His land. Guénon considered that modernity
(representing the kali yuga or final age) would conclude in
the appearance of the Antichrist and the end of the world. Thus
the war on Islam is a stage of the last war, the War on Christ.
On a deeper, metaphysical
level, there is a struggle between two tendencies: a power that
draws Heaven and Earth together and re-sacralises the world; and a
power that tries to separate Heaven and Earth - to profane the
world. The uniting power is represented as Christ in the arms of
Our Lady. The dividing power, the Great Profaner, is greater than
the Jews; but they eagerly support him for in their view the world
outside Israel (Persona Divina, not the state) should be profane
and godless. Thus the actions of the Neo-Jews eventually lead to
the profanation of the world, and, on another level, to liberation
from the limitations imposed by the society and God, to the
victory of individualism.
II
Now, once we have diagnosed
the disease (Neo-Judaism as a new religion and the Middle East as
its jihad) we may attempt a cure. The centrepiece of this warfare
is not the battlefield of Falluja, but the battle over minds
carried on by ideas: will Christ or Antichrist win? This question
is not decided by force of arms, but by our ability to defeat the
enemy in discourse. You, my readers and comrades, are an elite
fighting unit of the spiritual army; expose the enemy and beat
him.
It is possible to fight a
religion, especially Neo-Judaism, an extreme form of heresy. We
should show its religious roots, profane its sacral heirloom,
ridicule its concepts and highlight its crimes. When the
predecessors of Neo-Judaism began their fight against the Church,
they made fun of its tenets. From this point of view, the French
stand-up actor Dieudonné did as much as anybody to stop the
Jihad.
Guenon considered the
Reformation as the Fall, as the beginning of Kali Yuga;
Neo-Judaism should then be seen as its completion, as the extreme
of Reform where the reformed body becomes a total opposite to the
pre-reform one. In a way, our task is Counter-Reformation, and our
banner is Our Lady, who is ‘majestic as troops with banners’
(SS 6:4). Schmitt also considered Our Lady Mary as the most
important cultural and religious symbol, though he was not aware
of her connection to Islam.
The Judaic tendency which
first appeared in Christendom with the Reformation (or, according
to Dugin, with the Roman church’s deviation from the Nicene
creed) has now blossomed into Neo-Judaism. This religion is
vulnerable because it is not a universal faith. Like its
predecessor, [Palaeo-] Judaism, it is a religion for the Chosen;
this time for those Chosen by Mammon, and beyond Mammon we see
that Great Profaner, Anti-Christ. The Chosen are but a few; the
rest follow this heresy against their own best interests.
Californian Professor Kevin
McDonald wrote with some astonishment: “Wealthy, powerful
European elites are often unaware of or do not value their own
ethnic interests. They have acted to subvert the ethnic interests
of their own people… One reason may be that these elite
Westerners are able to live in gated communities insulated from
the rest of the world, completely ignoring their ethnic kin.” He
failed to comprehend that the modern ‘powerful European
elites’ emulate traditional Jewish attitudes: they live in
‘gated communities’ as the Jews lived in ghetto;
[historically, a Jewish ghetto was a privileged ‘gated
community’ just like a European settlement in pre-Communist
Shanghai, wrote Jabotinsky] and they do not regard ordinary people
as their kin. This is the Neo-Jewish way to success, for Neo-Jews
have neither ethnic kin, nor homeland.
An emulation is rarely as
successful as the original. The Sufi poet Rumi tells the bizarre
story of a maid who was happily copulating with a donkey: she used
an aubergine to make his enormous size suitable for her human
dimensions. Her mistress noticed her doings and decided to emulate
her; but she did not apply the magic of aubergine and was torn to
death at first attempt. Likewise, the Neo-Jews failed to notice
the family-like support real Jews provide to their own; they paid
attention only to the external features of Jewish behaviour, i.e.
of their disregard for native society. That is why they are liable
to suffer as did the silly mistress of the wily maid: indeed, they
will decline and destroy their society, having nothing to fall
back to.
The observation of McDonald
can be interpreted as recognition of people’s betrayal by the
elites. This is correct: while the USSR collapsed as the result of
the elites’ betrayal, a similar process now is taking place in
the West. The War on Islam goes as badly as it does for the US and
Israel because local native elites mobilised by their Church do
not go for full betrayal. Such betrayal is not comme il faut
in Dar al Islam.
We may separate the Chosen
from the misled, but first we have to break through a few defence
rings of the enemy. The outer defence ring of Neo-Judaism is its
blank denial of its being a religion. This device was used by
Communism and eventually became its undoing. The second defence
ring is the presentation of religion as ‘a private matter, of no
concern to others’. Their Jihad differs from the noble Jihad of
the Prophet Muhammad; instead of proclaiming their faith, Neo-Jews
try to impose it by stealth. The false flag of Bushite
“Christianity” adorns the third ring.
Until now, Neo-Judaism has
won by defeating its enemies one after the other; now we must
unite them together. In Cabbalistic terms, we should collect the
divine sparks that were dispersed when the Vessels were broken by
excess of Divine light (Shevirath Keilim). In this process we
shall recognise the positive [for Christ and Our Lady] forces and
tendencies of our oikouménè and unite them, while deconstructing
the enemy devices.
The left-right schism was
imposed by the enemy; we should overcome it. The Left and the
Right refer to one-dimensional universe; while our world for sure
has more dimensions than one. Analysis of Judaic political
practices shows that the Jews do not over-estimate the Left-Right
distinction: the leader of a left-wing Meretz party, Yossi Sarid,
eulogised the assassinated leader of extreme-right Judaeo-Nazi
Party Rahavam Zeevi. Israel is not an exception to the rule: the
most militant Republican Jews, Neo-Cons, expressed their
willingness to change their colours and become Neo-Liberals in
case of Kerry’s victory:
|
Going Back Where
They Came From , by Patrick J.
Buchanan
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2371
|
|
"If
we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals
and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William
Kristol has told the New York Times.
The Weekly Standard editor added that the
neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and
convert to neo-liberalism. Ranking his political
preferences, Kristol added, "I will take Bush over
Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan....If you read the last few
issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more
in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional
conservatives."
Yes, it does. But as
John Kerry backs partial birth abortion, quotas, raising
taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and
has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy, how can
Kristol prefer him to other conservatives? Answer: War and
Israel.
|
Our answer is more
complicated. The Left and the Right are only positions on the
social axis, important as they are. But there are two other axes,
the Axis of Spirit and the Axis of Earth, or the Axis of Christ
and the Axis of Our Lady. Together they form the three-dimensional
cross described by Guenon in his Symbolism of the Cross.
Our enemies are able to form unions over the Left-and-Right divide
for they are united in their negation of Christ and rejection of
the Virgin. Likewise we should be able to unite with other people
of Spirit and of Earth despite differing social views.
If we refer to the Axis of
Spirit, there is a dichotomy between the all-embracing faiths
of the Three Great Churches; and the exclusivist cults.
“Religion is not a private affair of spiritually inclined
individuals,” wrote Panarin; “The Church is the guarantor of
values, an alternative and higher authority standing above the
moneychangers. It has to have power to exclude female beauty and
love, convictions, land from the market place.” That is why our
enemy fights the Three Churches so remorselessly. In modern
society, one may say anything he likes about the Three Churches,
but must say nothing but good about the Judaism, the prototype of
Neo-Judaism.
“The Sacred Jewish Practice
of Child Murder” - you won't find an article with such title
anywhere in our “antisemitism-ridden” world, despite hundreds
of Palestinian children slaughtered by Jews in last few years. But
you will find in a prominent Jewish magazine:
|
The Sacred Muslim
Practice of Beheading
By Andrew
G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com
| May 13, 2004
Reactions to the
grotesque jihadist decapitation of yet another "infidel
Jew," Mr. Berg, make
clear that our intelligentsia are either dangerously
uninformed, or simply unwilling to come to terms with this
ugly reality: such murders are consistent with sacred jihad
practices, as well as Islamic attitudes towards all
non-Muslim infidels, in particular, Jews, which date back to
the 7th century, and the Prophet Muhammad's own
example.
|
|
Every
attack of the Churches and their sacral icons is permitted, even
such an evil one as was used by the French Jewish Student body
called UEJF. In France, the courts accept Jewish demands to
silence church bells; the hijab is another well-known example of
it. In Palestine, last week police raided the Anglican Cathedral
and removed Christian asylum seeker Mordecai Vanunu. We should
mobilise the churches and defend their spirit.
Communism was an attempt to
create a new all-embracing Christianity, but without Christ.
Though some Right-wing thinkers stress the ‘Judaic origin’ of
Communism, it was an anti-Judaic, all-embracing ideology. Alas,
they applied the Occam razor too vigorously by far, and died of
haemorrhage. We should accept the survivors of the collapse and
give them a place in our ranks.
If we refer to the Axis of
Earth, there is difference between autochthons and wanderers.
Yuri Slezkine[i]
proposed to call them Apollonian and Mercurian,
where “Apollonian society consists of peasants, warriors and
priests; while Mercurians are messengers, merchants, interpreters,
craftsmen, guides, healers, and other border-crossers”. He
compares this distinction with the Jew-Gentile dichotomy and
notices: “Jews are Mercurian, while Gentiles are Apollonian. In
the modern world, all of us became more Mercurian - more Jewish,
if you will, and traditional Mercurians – Jews - are better at
being Mercurian than anyone else.”
Naturally, the ‘all of
us’ of Professor Slezkine are his colleagues in Berkeley and
Moscow, hardly peons of California or Russian peasants. With this
correction, his thesis should be rephrased: in order to succeed in
the Kali Yuga period, one has to adopt Jewish qualities and become
a Neo-Jew. These ‘Jewish qualities’, according to Slezkine,
are “mobility, restlessness, rootlessness, ability to remain
strangers by staying aloof, not fighting, not sharing meals - just
making, exchanging, selling, and possibly stealing, things and
concepts”. “Staying aloof” implies lack of compassion;
“not sharing meals” implies not sharing the faith, “not
fighting” implies benefiting from other men’s war,
“rootlessness” leads to their tendency to uproot others.
Indeed, Neo-Jews have no
compassion, they benefit from wars other men fight, and they are
rootless and ruthless; an ideal described by Jacques Attali who
seeks the world made out of modern nomads unconnected to roots or
soil. We should return the Mercurians to their modest position at
the margins of the society.
These qualities are not
“racial”; indeed, Karl Marx and Simone Weil, Ludwig
Wittgenstein and Otto Weininger are good examples of our
comrades-in-arms who provided tools for modern anti-Judaic
discourse. They proved that the ‘Judaic tendency’ is an
ideological and theological, not a racial trend. Immense publicity
for, and almost promotion of Hitler’s crimes by the Judaic media
is a tool to obscure this distinction: mean-spirited biological
antisemitism, a freak development of an age-long struggle against
the Judaic spirit, is presented as the rule.
While rejecting racism, we
may equally reject anti-racism, for today this is a code word for
an extreme anti-autochthonic attitude. In vain did the friends of
Palestine try to use this concept in their struggle for equality
in Palestine/Israel. Though every idea can be used in more ways
than one, anti-racism is attuned and honed for the neo-Judaic
fight against cohesive native societies. They would use it today
against Guatémoc or Boadicea, they use it against Mugabe.
Anti-racism is a denial of the autochthon's right to decide his
fate; a tool to separate Man from his native landscape. This
concept de-legitimises objections to swamping a land with a flood
of immigrants and ruining the society's fabric.
Theophilus d’Obla noted
that “Contemporary antiracism as well as human-rights’ concept
are not principles of fighting against exclusion and thus
protection of the Human Person. Quite to the contrary, it is in
the name of inclusion, dilution in the formless Whole, that these
concepts are carried to the pinnacle of the dominant culture”.
The [Jewish] Holocaust is a
shibboleth[ii]
of the New Chosen. It has a social function to be used to throw
suspicion on native traditionalist majorities: unless disarmed,
transformed into “open societies”, their state undermined and
their economy privatised and sold to the American companies, they
will embark on the next holocaust. Socially-minded Panarin writes:
“Whoever accepts the Holocaust as the most important historical
event is able to carry out the civil war against the
traditionalist majority and becomes a member of in-group for the
globalists”. But the Holocaust also has a theological value as
this event is offered to supplant the Crucifixion for believers.
The
human rights mantra is an important part of Neo-Judaism. It is
used to undermine a society's interests. Neo-Jews inherited from
their medieval ideological ancestor a peculiar vision of society
as a host society; a society they do not belong to but prey upon.
There is a real contradiction between the rights of such an
individual and the right of society; Neo-Judaism consistently de-legitimises
the rights of [host] society. Thus, the right of a Chodorkovsky or
a Berezovsky to sell his oil company to Western interests is more
important than the Russian society’s right to provide every its
member with heating in winter. The right of a pimp to import
pornography or to export women to whorehouses is more important
that the right of a society to protect its women or its morals.
Conclusion
The Jewish state of Israel
became the banner of the enemy and has to be dismantled. Israeli
‘Jewish’ citizens are torn between two loyalties: loyalty to
the land and loyalty to the Jewish People. This second loyalty
stops them from becoming Palestinians; thus it has to go. We
approve of the Israeli citizens who demanded from their Supreme
Court to cease designating them as ‘Jews’: to a basically
irreligious people this word has became a designator of loyalty to
World Jewry. Their lot is with their native Palestinian brothers
who will accept them. A small Ultra-Orthodox pre-Zionist Jewish
minority in Palestine proved its adherence to the tradition: they
should be protected as the remnant and a witness; their fate
should be left to the spiritual powers.
Palestinians are the epitome
of autochthonous people who are being uprooted by the immigrant
Jews. They are the last katechon, in terms of St Paul’s Second
Letter to Thessalonians, the last defence of our sacral heritage,
the guardians of the holistic tradition before this was divided
into the Three Churches. They are the paradigmatic victims of
outsourcing: the working people who are being marginalised and
replaced by mercenaries of labour. Thus this war in Palestine is
our war by all three axes: this is a war of autochthon against
uprooting power, this is a war of all-embracing Churches against
Christ’s enemies, this is a war of peasants and workers,
warriors and priests against the money changers. This is also a
symbolic war: about whether Neo-Judaism will win on a global scale
or lose globally. This is the most decisive war of the century,
and its outcome will decide the future.
[ii]
A word that identifies one as a member of an 'in' group. The
purpose of a shibboleth is exclusionary as much as
inclusionary: A person whose way of speaking violates a
shibboleth is identified as an outsider and thereby excluded
by the group
