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