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.
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
“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
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.
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