    The Trefoil and the Cross

    By Israel Shamir

    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.

       ________________________________________________________

       Definition:   \Au*toch"thon\, n.; pl. E. {Authochthons}, L.
       {Autochthones}. [L., fr. Gr. ?, pl. ?, from the land itself;
       a'yto`s self + ? earth, land.]
       1. One who is supposed to rise or spring from the ground or
          the soil he inhabits; one of the original inhabitants or
          aborigines; a native; -- commonly in the plural. This
          title was assumed by the ancient Greeks, particularly the
          Athenians.

       2. That which is original to a particular country, or which
          had there its origin.
       ________________________________________________________

    If we refer to the Axis of Earth, there is difference between
    autochthons and wanderers. Yuri Slezkine[1] 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[2] 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.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------

    [1] The Jewish Century, Princeton University Press, 2004
    http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/November_2004/QA-
    _A_conversation_with_Yuri_Slezkine.asp

    [2] 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