cults,commies and comics

Some Definitions
By using the terms “cult,” “occult,” and “New Age,” christians are in no way implying that the followers or leaders are necessarily evil or immoral people. It simply means that such groups seem to promote doctrine or practices which may be considered outside the realm of historic Christianity.
By its primary dictionary definition, the term cult just means a system of religious beliefs or rituals. cult comes from the French cultes, and is rooted in the Latin cultus, which means “care” and “adoration.” That idea comes from on a farming term – the past participle of colere, which means “to cultivate.”The word was used in the sense of “to worship or give reference to a deity.”
You may also have heard of, for example, cult films, cult bands, or cult hits. Here the term ‘cult’ refers to a relatively small but devoted following.

. Sociologists and anthropologists sometimes use the term cult to describe religious structure or belief patterns with meanings (usually non-pejorative) unique to their disciplines. In modern usage, the term cult is often used by the general public to describe any religious group they view as strange or dangerous. Thus, cult can describe religious leaders or organizations that employ abusive, manipulative, or illegal control over their followers’ lives. In addition to these usages, Christians generally have a doctrinal component to their use of the word. Cult in this sense, is a counterfeit or serious deviation from the doctrines of classical Christianity. Christians usually uses the term cult with a theological or doctrinal definition in mind. In most cases the group claims to be Christian, but because of their aberrant beliefs on central doctrines of the faith (God, Jesus-Christ,Bible and salvation), the organization is not considered to be part of historical,orthodox, biblical Christianity. Research material and Profile are available here

14 thoughts on “cults,commies and comics”

  1. This topic brings up an interesting point…
    … re: the relation between traditionalist conservatism, and “family values” conservative heretics, e.g. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the “Church of Christ”, and so on. A leader of a small right-wing party in Canada is a Mormon; he used to head a different small right-wing party, but left, ostensibly forced out due to his Mormonism, though I’m not sure if that’s true or not. Anyway, I’ve wondered about the appropriateness of supporting a Mormon, JW, etc. who is decidely social conservative, for public office. In politics, which is said to be the art of compromise, as distinct from matters of faith, is it nevertheless important for Christians to rule out voting for anti-Trinitarian heretics, or does it depend on the circumstances? I’m not sure what to think… As a traditionalist conservative, non-mainstream politically, I’m already not overly concerned with pragmatism…

      • Neither – in fact, it’s all irrelevant to me, MS…
        “…Some presbyterians are returning to the original presbyterian position of full subscription to the Westminster Standards including obedience to the continuing moral obligations of the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant. This group could accurately be labelled “paleopresbyterians” since they hold to the original conceptions of what presbyterianism means. In contrast, those presbyterians unwilling to accept full subscription to the Standards or the binding nature of the Covenants could be called “neopresbyterians” since they have effectively watered-down the original presbyterian position. Using these terms will help to clarify the issues at stake in the emerging debate between Covenanters (paleopresbyterians) and all other presbyterians (neopresbyterians).”

        Alas, MS, all this is irrelevant to me, as I’m continental (Dutch) Reformed, not Presbyterian; we don’t even hold to the Westminster Standards, but instead, rather, to the Three Forms of Unity, and the ecumenical creeds. I couldn’t care less about intra-Presbyterian bickering over one or another Presbyterian group’s adherence, or lack thereof, to these “covenants”; I’m not sure I fully understand all that, and I don’t care; not my concern.

    • are mormons conservatives?
      Are Mormons Conservative?
      by Justin Hart
      31 March 2004.
      Everything you wanted to know about Mormons but were afraid to ask.
      As Peter Jennings was tallying up the electoral votes for George Bush (41) during the 1988 presidential election, I can recall feeling a bit slighted as a Mormon. Said Jennings: “Utah, with its three electoral votes, has voted Republican for as long as anyone can remember.” I was only 16 years old at that time, but I recall a certain grit and assumption in Jennings’ tone that led me to think… is it really a given that Mormons vote Republican?

      History has borne out Jennings’ remark and for good reason. Republicans, or more broadly, conservatives, share many of the same values as Mormons. Both groups tout solid traditional values, limited government intervention, and entrepreneurial thinking. Mormons will likely lean Republican for the foreseeable future. I’d like to think this fact keeps the Left up at night, but I doubt it.

      Mormon Politics

      On the other hand, maybe it should? Mormon representation in American politics has grown beyond demographic equilibrium. With over five million members living in the United States (11 million world wide), Mormons account for 1.6% of the U.S. population, but more than 5% of elected representatives in congress. Please don’t tell Jesse Jackson.

      Just a few examples: in the House of Representatives there is Jeff Flake (AZ), John Doolittle (CA), Wally Herger (CA), Howard McKeon (CA), Ernest Istook (OK), Mike Simpson (ID), Thomas Udall (NM), Rob Bishop (UT), and Chris Cannon (UT). All except Udall are Republican. (Udall notes his faith as unspecified, but he comes from a long historical line of Mormon politicians) There are 21 Mormon members in the House of Representatives all together.

      In the Senate there are 5 Mormons. Senators Orrin Hatch and Rober Bennett, both from Utah, Senator Michael Crapo of Idaho and Gordon Smith from Oregon (the latter is considered a moderate Republican). The fifth member of the Senate is the ultimate exception to the rule: Senator Harry Reid, senior member of the Democrat leadership and, by all accounts, left-leaning.

      Outside Washington you have the successful gubernatorial candidacy of Olympic organizer Mitt Romney, Bay Buchanan, radio talk show host Glenn Beck, and most recently, former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was confirmed as Secretary of the EPA.

      Mormons, Inc.

      Beyond politics, Mormons also share the Conservative “mark of the beast.” Indeed, most of the prominent Mormon names people recognize are not in politics but in “Big Business.”

      Most notably there is the Marriott Corporation: J. W. Marriott, the late founder of the hotel chain who started his empire selling R&W Root Beer on the Mall in the early 1940s. Next on the list: Stephen R. Covey, author of the bestselling book: Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and CEO of Franklin Covey, Inc. Top executives at Dell, AOL, Novell, Black & Decker, the list goes on. During the heyday of the 90’s investment watch there was even a Mormon Stock Index. You could also include the sports and entertainment careers of Steve Young, Danny Ainge, and the Osmonds.

      The Mormon Church is frequently branded as a business in its own right. In 1997, Time Magazine ran a cover story entitled: “MORMONS, INC. The Secrets of America’s Most Prosperous Religion.” Trumpeted Time: “The church’s material triumphs rival even its evangelical advances.” They estimated the Church’s worth at about $30 Billion. This is a bit overboard as I see it, but the church does require a tithe from its members, which sustains the church’s coffers very well.

      To top it off, the Mormon Church has a lay clergy (there’s a cost savings right there!). My Bishop, for example, is an analyst for the CIA, his counselor was a field agent (now that’s a Batman scenario!). Our local Stake President (something like an Arch-Bishop) just retired as a top controller for the CBO. (I’m not sure if this last point is strictly conservative)

      Mormon Welfare

      However, there are well-established conservative programs that any welfare-loathing neo-con would appreciate. Local tithes go to support needy families in the ward (parish). Such welfare support is limited to one year and every ward has an “employment specialist.” The Mormon Church also has canning facilities throughout the world, where members of the church volunteer time and money, and whose stockpiles are sent to foreign countries as aid.

      Recently, the church implemented a “perpetual education fund;” low-interest school loans to non-U.S. Mormons who have “served missions” (you know, white shirts, black name tags). They attend schools within their own communities and pay back the money into the fund for other aspiring students. As a side note, while American Mormons are decidedly pro-Bush, they turned down the administration’s “faith-based” funds without blinking.

      The church is wholly self-sustaining, paying for every building in cash and accepting all forms of collateral for tithes. (My father usually pays with in-kind stock donations). The church owns farms, schools, banks, and broadcasting services (check for the BYU channel on Dish network).

      Liberals against Mormons

      Of late, the church has gotten into all sorts of trouble with liberals. Whether it’s feminist complaints about BYU staffing, urging members to support California’s DMI campaign, or rantings about “free-speech” suppression; leftist-groups on the whole, pretty much loath the Mormon Church. Did I mention that the Mormon Church accounts for almost fifteen percent of Boy Scout troops across the nation?

      To be sure there are exceptions to the conservative norm. The church is surely anti-tobacco and my friends tell me I’m not truly a conservative until I can “drink with the best of them.” Issues like polygamy still follow us around (my wife is also my third-cousin once removed, but not by blood – go figure) and one always has to wonder about Orrin Hatch.

      But, in truth, if you see a guy sporting a Book of Mormon, odds are seven to one he leans right! But I’m not betting man, I’m a Mormon after all.

      Justin Hart is a free-lance writer and marketing director for a Virginia tech firm. He lives in Northern Virginia with his wife Heather and his three children. Follow Justin’s blog: Right Side Redux. NOTE ADDED BY ANDRÉ MAUROIS: Our Lord Jesus Christ said “Shabbath/religious commandments/ exists by human’s sake,no humans by shabbath´s sake”,please will s. take in consideration,to contribute to stop holocaust from abortion is many more important than theological considerations/their right place is when you evangelize to mormons/,review reformed theologians,schaeffer and his concept from cobelligerants NO ALLIED, concept from orders of creation as promoted by lijska zijlstra,hendricus collins,abraham kuyper,chantepie de la saussaye and dolentiae dutch second reform people,in your case your abstentionism contributes to liberal triumphs. And by the way jehova witness no votes,they believe governments are satanics.

      • I’m inclined to agree, André…
        > please will s. take in consideration,to contribute to stop holocaust from abortion is many more important than theological considerations

        I’m inclined to agree, though many of my brethren feel uncomfortable at the prospect of voting for a Mormon, and some will categorically refuse to do so. I’m inclined, generally, to vote for any traditionalist conservative party that aren’t just about rhetoric, but about action. Alas, there’s the rub…

        > their right place is when you evangelize to mormons

        Quite true…

        > review reformed theologians,schaeffer and his concept from cobelligerants NO ALLIED, concept from orders of creation as promoted by lijska zijlstra,hendricus collins,abraham kuyper,chantepie de la saussaye and dolentiae dutch second reform people

        I’m relatively new to the Reformed faith, and will have to do more reading on and of the works of those you’ve mentioned; I do know that Kuyper was certainly open to working with non-Reformed Christians, e.g. Roman Catholics, and drew a clear distinction between being opposed to Roman Catholic theology on the one hand, but being in favour of working with Roman Catholics towards common goals. I’m the same; I do believe in anti-ecumenical unity, between Trinitarians, and I may even be, depending on the circumstances, inclined to extend that, in political terms, to include non-Trinitarians, in order to fight against socially liberal policies, IF and ONLY IF I believe they are serious, and will actually accomplish something more than mere rhetoric…

        > in your case your abstentionism contributes to liberal triumphs.

        See this essay for some excellent arguments against pragmatism.

        And Jon Dykstra’s suggested CHP slogan, at the bottom of this essay from Reformed Perspective:

        “Pragmatism be damned! Vote your conscience this time!*

        * Just as God’s name can be used both properly and in vain, so too other words, commonly abused, can have a proper usage. For those who might be offended by the inclusion of one of the words in this slogan, consider for a moment whether its use might be proper. This is not casual cursing – this sentence says exactly what it means to say.”

        (Mind you, despite both these pro-CHP arguments, I agreed with the general anti-pragmatism attitude, and simply didn’t vote in the last election, because I could not bring myself in good conscience to support any of the parties, and didn’t want to reward any of them with my vote, when none had earned it. The CHP didn’t run in my riding, but I have some big problems with them, too, in terms of their foreign policy, which is identical to that of the Conservatives, and with which I disagree profoundly. So I won’t vote for them, either. (I’ve discussed this in more detail, elsewhere ( here).)

        No, I’m inclined to agree with much of the sentiment of this essay, although if I were American, I’d probably have, in line with the sentiments of Ron Gray and Jon Dykstra, in the aforelinked essays, have voted for Michael Peroutka; see here and here. I like Peroutka and his party far better than I do Canada’s CHP, and wish we had something like them up here… Did you know that Peroutka is Reformed? I’m not sure which denomination/federation, but apparently, he belongs to a Reformed church.)

        > And by the way jehova witness no votes,they believe governments are satanics.

        I know; my reasons are different from theirs; I’d vote, if I felt I could do so, in good conscience; perhaps one day, I will again…

        • peroutka is catholic
          please read the post “peroutka to be catholic or protestant is unimportant” in presidential post.and by the way what is your opinion about it:

          • I have no preference for president along religious lines, André
            André I couldn’t find the article you referred to in your comment about Peroutka being Catholic. I’ll say that I have no preference as to the religion, sex, race, color, or national ancestry of leaders as long as they do what’s right. Part of doing what’s right is not bringing in replacement populations in their tens of millions, soon to be hundreds of millions, for the purpose, literally, of completely replacing the traditional populations of the states of this country, one-by-one, until the population of the whole United States has been entirely replaced by another race and ethno-culture, in order that the future of one’s family political dynasty be better secured by filling up the U.S. with Mexican peasants, in order that one’s Wall Street Crony-Capitalist cronies no longer must deal with high-wage white people, and in order to re-pay past and anticipated future favors done you and your family by Vicente Fox and his coterie of billionaires who include about half-a-dozen of the richest men (and also biggest crooks) in all of Latin America. Not doing all that is part of what would qualify a candidate to be president, by my lights. As can be seen, George Bush doesn’t qualify … (while Peroutka does).

            “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

          • Like Fred, I can’t find it either…
            I looked up your previous post, where you made that claim, and like Fred, I can’t see anywhere in the referenced article, here, where Peroutka says “to be catholic or protestant is unimportant”.

            As far as religious affiliation, in response to the question, “What is your religious affiliation and how will it affect your campaign and possible presidency?”, he responded, “Well, I was raised Roman Catholic, I began then to be influenced by a reform Presbyterian movement. I actually attend a Protestant church now.” Then he said immediately after that, “I don’t think the denomination is actually as important as we believe.”; given that he was asked how his religious affliation would affect his campaign and presidency, I assume that when he says he doesn’t think denomination is as important as we may believe, he’s obviously talking about the political context (he must have become Presbyterian for a reason, so obviously the spiritual dimension is of importance to him, or he wouldn’t have changed), and I agree with what Fred said; for my part, it’s not of utmost importance to me which religious affiliation a candidate has, so long as he stands for and does, what’s right… BTW, earlier in this same thread, I discussed my musing about whether or not to vote for a party led by a Mormon. Well, I did, recently, since that posting (not a national election, but a provincial one – I live in Alberta, incidentally). I may disagree with him on matters of faith, but I agree on matters of politics, largely, so I gave him and his party my support. They only got one seat, but they sent a message to the ostensibly rightist government, if they’ll hear it, that they can’t ignore their right flank, and should move to protect it next time, and this being Alberta, they may well do so…

            Is that your blog? You’ve never discussed, as far as I recall, where you’re from; are you from Zimbabwe? Your name sounds French to me… (Moi, je suis Canadien, et je parle un peu de francais; je ne suis pas parfaitment bilingue, mais je peux comprendre beaucoup plus que je peux parler.) I only ask, because I note that many of the posts concern topics we have discussed – and I recognize some of the articles as ones you’ve linked or posted here – and I note the characteristic use of all lower case letters, which seems, here at Turnabout, to be mostly characteristic of postings by you, Engelbert Wittig, and Eliecer.

            Anyway, an interesting blog; while I of course disagree with much of it, and don’t find it to be an effective refutation of other Protestants’ attacks (e.g. I find it interesting how, in this post and also in this post too, both of which are ostensibly critical of Calvinism, the criticisms come from Calvinists themselves – hey, I’ll be the first to admit our human failings, myself, and agree that we can improve on things – but the very fact that it is our own who are recognizing these things, means it’s not symptomatic of the entire tradition, only of part of it… These have been posted or linked here before – at least, this one has; that’s your blog, isn’t it?); nevertheless, I am glad to see that person – it’s you, isn’t it? – standing up for what he believes, and articulating his Christian tradition.

  2. Christ in Islam

    The Pardesh:
    A Christian very rarely knows or understands what the Christians want from themselves and from bewildered mankind. This lack of understanding causes many fine men and women to proclaim their support (or opposition) to the body politic called ‘Israel’.

    The Trefoil and the Cross

    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 Anne Coulter.

    But the conflict between the three great churches is over – for better or for worse, chivalrious 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 these view, and in this article, ‘Christendom’ 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 Hugo Chávez, 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 USA 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

    By Andrew G. Bostom | 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 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.


    The Jewish Century, Princeton University Press, 2004

    [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.

    Adaptated from I. Shamir. Disagree? Makes your voice sounds.

  3. Churches involved in homosexualizing
    By Steve Hargreaves, CNN/Money Staff Writer

    Networks wont run church spot featuring gay couple; say ad runs contrary to company policies.

    NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – The CBS and NBC networks have refused to run an ad by a liberal church promoting the acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation because the networks believe the ad is advocacy advertising.

    The 30-second spot, run by the United Church of Christ, features two muscle-bound bouncers standing outside a church, selecting people who could attend service and those who could not. Among those kept out are two males who appear to be a couple. Written text then appears saying, in part, “Jesus didn’t turn people away, neither do we.”

    /Do you feel askeance in these blasphemous use from very sacred words from our Lord./

    “Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples…and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast,” the church quoted CBS as saying.

    A CBS spokesman confirmed that the ad was banned, but would not comment directly about the above statement.

    “It was against our policy of accepting advocacy advertising,” said the spokesman.

    An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same sex couples at church, but its implication that other religions are not open to all people.

    “It went against our long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues public controversy,” said the NBC spokeswoman.

    “It’s ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial,” said Rev. John Thomas in the statement.

    “We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church’s loving welcome of committed gay couples, that’s where they draw the line.”

    NBC couldn’t comment on the seeming contradiction by the networks who aired a slew of controversial political ads during this past election but now refuse to air the ad from the United Church of Christ.

    The church says the ad has been accepted on a number of other networks, including ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT.

    TBS and TNT are owned by Time Warner , which also owns CNN/Money.

    CBS is part of Viacom while NBC belongs to General Electric,and to RCA Victor a sub-contracter from Pentagon and CIA.

    The Cleveland-based United Church of Christ claims 6,000 congregations with 1.3 million members.

  4. Turkey demonstrate islam and democracy are uncompatibles
    Sunday 5 Decembers 2004 Opinion – Turkey Muslim behind the mask of the laicità. The democracy is incompatible with the Islam, we do not fall in the deceit Turkey and Islam (the Padania) the Committee For Native Europe of Ferrara has sended to you concern European dell’Unione to us a Memorandum in which they are illustrates the reasons to you that render unacceptable l’adesione of Turkey all’Ue. We bring back l’intero issue to heading. 2- the COPENAGHEN CRITERIA ARE NOT APPLICABLE To TURKEY Turkey do not belong to the Europe continent. The geographers have always considered the Turkish peninsula, under the dizione of front Asia or Anatolia, re-entering nell’Asia. Nell’Anatolia, in how much lambita from the Mediterranean, can be found some Mediterranean characteristics, but of for himself these characteristics ET cannot “sic simpliciter” to be tramutate in European characters. Of the rest l’insediamento in Anatolia of the Turkish population, of Mongolian race, its connaturale Asian character attests. The Turkish State conserve, for ancient bloody conquest, a piece of Thrace nell’estrema Southeastern tip of the Balkan peninsula, but this portion does not give some right to Turkey to define itself European. In purpose 1917 envoy from the European powers dell’Intesa to the United States deserves to remember the memorandum dell’11 January d’America, with which dell’obiettivo was inquired “to drive away dall’Europa l’Impero Ottoman, which stranger has demonstrated itself totally to the western civilization”. The USA Government, moved from European spirit for concurrent reasons since the first world-wide post-war period, succeeded to block the plan to turn out the Turks from Costantinopoli and its hinterland, benefitted from the taken part deep divisions between the European States. The French historian Jacques the Goff, convene on a storiografica position widely majority contrary all’ingresso of Turkey, of it recalls the motivations that “are geographic, historical and cultural. One given geographic definition of Europe exists and, even if is difficult to define of the frontiers orients them, is clearly that close-oriental exists also un’altra geographic unit which they belong l’Anatolia, Syria, Palestine… Is an other geographic and cultural world, that its coherence has one “. (Interview – May 2004) – the German historian Ernst Nolte has premised: “They are of the opinion that this nation cannot become a member European dell’Unione for demographic and cultural reasons. One entered to full load tito it of Turkey nell’Unione could have like consequence un’invasione, for how much pacific, of the Germany and perhaps dell’intera Europe “. (Interview – July 2000) – Neither can be forgotten the circumstance to us, remembered from Heinz Gollwitzer (“Europa, Abendland”, 1972), that the Europe term after l’inizio modern dell’età is journeyed dall’uso narrow of the umanisti all’uso popular like taken of general conscience of the Turkish danger. The wisdom of the European statesmen, embezzling itself to diktat the imperialistico American, is in not transforming this knowledge in hard political reaction Goes to the situated one Sendes a your comment to this page! Source: SL all the straight ones reserve you return to the First Page… it returns to the previous page… SELECTION From the WEB a new postChristian Christianity the God that it loves, John MacArthur Gospel Events in Loyal Tuscany Italy helps the children of the Sudan to exit from the slavery Bethel Church of Milan – Registration to the Biblical course OTHER Sponsored ARGUMENTS give: Publishing Claudiana Mission suicide: like killing Americans in Iraq and Israeliani Billy Graham in California: God offers to its forgiveness Modernizations on Christian Communications Nigeria: Extremist Muslims cause to the dead women of two persons during a Christian encounter Opinion – Turkey Muslim behind the mask of the laicità. The democracy is incompatible with the Islam, we today do not fall in the deceit Tuscany Totus tuus network Civic Rome the other holocausts – genocidio of the Turkish Armenian Genocidio Armenians and dissidents.

    • Web address for “The Committee for Native Europe”?
      “[…] the Committee For Native Europe of Ferrara has sended to you concern European dell’Unione to us a Memorandum in which they are illustrates the reasons to you that render unacceptable l’adesione of Turkey all’Ue.”

      I wonder if Mysterious Stranger (12/5, 6:45 pm) has a web-site address for the Committee for Native Europe. I tried googling it, and also with the words “of Ferrara” on the end, without success.

      “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

Comments are closed.