palestine bombing hamas idf
Palestine, November 6. 2023
Unfashionable observations on the October crisis

'Eyeless in Gaza'
Promise was that I
Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver
Ask for this great deliverer now and find him
Eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves

— John Milton, Samson Agonistes
Recently, what Aleksandr Dugin termed the 'Last War of the World Island', went into a new phase. After establishing undisputed totalitarian control over the West during the 2020-21 'Covid'+'BLM'+'Biden'+'J16'+'mRNA' 'Great Reset' sequence, the globalist elite's re-directed its multi-dimensional warfare campaign from West to East.[1] In the final analysis, 2022 'Ukraine' offensive, most directly aimed at eliminating Russia as Christian Europe's 'Last Katechon' and sovereign guardian of the World Island's Heartland, simply marks the start of the globalist West's switch from the domestic to the international part of the Great Reset: an all-out attempt to impose its will on the anti-globalist Rest.

Formally, the outbreak of open hostilities on the Don and Dnieper, facilitated by the globalist puppets in charge of their 'Ukraine' vassal-state, represents the start of the Last War of the World Island as a classic, kinetic clash of arms, albeit still limited to a single theatre and confined within tight constraints.

Thus far, these limitations and constraints have 'contained' the kinetic conflict: other potential kinetic clash points, such as Kosovo and Taiwan, have been avoided and potential escalation risks, such as direct third-party intervention and large-scale terror-proxy activation, have been controlled.

In many ways, however, the 'limited war' over 'Ukraine' has favoured the defender, giving the anti-globalist Eurasian alliance time to mobilize militarily, restructure socio-economically and expand into the Global South diplomatically. It has disadvantaged the aggressor, exposing the globalist-Atlanticist alliance's many weaknesses, including its insufficient industrial base, its fatal 'imperial overstretch' and its unrivalled MSM mendacity.

As a result, the international power balance is slowly but remorselessly shifting: the 'unipolar moment' of global hegemony by the Atlanticist West that started in 1992 ended in 2022. Equally important, the Western 'Empire of Lies' has now irretrievably lost the battle of 'minds and hearts' everywhere - except inside the now entirely reality-divorced 'golden billion bubble' that the Western media enforce by resorting to unprecedented censorship and misinformation.

Undoubtedly, this reality, i.e. this double loss of concrete power as well as abstract prestige, goes a long way to explain the next move of the globalist elite, viz. the 'engineering' and 'staging' of the 'Gaza Crisis' that broke out in October 2023.

This newest Gaza Crisis represents more than just the latest instalment of the Middle Eastern 'forever war': it also indicates that the globalist elite has shifted into fully fledged 'flight forward' mode. Unable to achieve a 'win' or even a 'draw' in the Ukraine, the globalist elite finds itself in desperate need of a distraction - and compensation.

Both are most easily achieved in the Middle East region, where the globalist elite's political interests and ideological stances, as projected through the Neocon-ruled United States, align perfectly with those of Neo-Zionist-ruled Israel. The autonomous nature and perpetuum mobile dynamics of the long-standing 'Middle East conflict' provide the American ruling elite with 'plausible deniability' cover if they opt for 'conflict compartmentalization', because, depending on the outcome of the conflict, it offers a whole range of 'attractive' self-marketing options.

From 'best' to 'worst' options, it can either claim 'victory for democracy' (if Israel defeats a SCO-BRICS-sympathetic alliance), or 'saving of the Jews' (if Israel is threatened with defeat and the US intervenes), or 'peace making' (if the conflict ends in stalemate), or even 'honest brokerage' (if Israel is defeated and the US negotiates a 'two-state solution').

Convenient off-ramps from the 'Ukraine' 'road to perdition', through an 'off-stage' abandonment of the Zelensky mob and a 'statesmanship-like' rapprochement with Russia, are well covered by any of these outcomes. In this larger geopolitical force field, Israel and Palestine are mere pawns. This statement of geopolitical fact does not, it should be noted, deny the 'agency' of both the Neo-Zionist Israeli political establishment and the Neo-Islamic Palestinian liberation movement: it merely emphasizes the utterly cynical nature of the globalist Great Reset agenda and its 'Great Game' extension into Middle Eastern power politics - and the fact that these now determine the fate of the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples.

Most MSM pundits of the recent violent upheaval that is now radiating out, in ever-widening circles, from its Gaza epicentre, are blind to this greater reality. They may perceive some of the larger picture and legitimately note the risk that this early-stage 'Gaza Crisis' conflates with the late-stage 'Ukraine Crisis', spiralling into a much larger, multi-theatre conflagration either by design or by accident. But these pundits tend to overlook the largest picture, which is the globalist Great Reset agenda that is driving - which is not to say: directing - the global-scale geo-political 'pyro-politics' of which 'Gaza' is as much part as 'Ukraine'.[2] In all likelihood, this meta-political agenda is only partially rational (or only partially conscious), and it may incorporate an eschatological component that is only partially intentional (or only partially human), but it is real nonetheless.

The only way to counter the meta-political agenda of the Great Reset and the pyro-geopolitical moves motivated by it, such as the 'Ukraine' gambit opening and the 'Gaza' castling move, is to securely base oneself on a radically alternative worldview and to consistently commit oneself to what American philosopher Jason Jorjani termed 'worldview warfare'. For the Eurasianist and the Multipolar movements, which provide the worldview basis of the SCO-BRICS anti-globalist project, it is essential to realize that such worldview warfare must be waged in the most radical possible way.

First, it is necessary to rethink war itself and to see it as something more than mere resource competition or mere ideological posturing: to wield it as an instrument of (self-)transformation, either on the individual or on the collective level, either self-willed or self-imposed.

Second, it is necessary to redefine the term 'worldview' and to see it as something more than a function of material interests and contingent perspectives: to inhabit it as a non-contingent state of being centred on authentic Tradition and aligned with transcendent Truth.

Third, it is necessary to commit oneself through a binding statement of virtuous intention - in Islam, this is known as نِيَّةٌ niyyah and in Christianity, it is found in the baptismal promise: to renounce Satan, all his works and all his empty promises. These steps are indispensable for any sincerely aspiring anti-globalist movement because there is now the only conceivable remedy for the current globalist-nihilist Griff nach der Weltmacht - Holy War, an uncompromising crusade for truth and justice:
Here I abandon peace and desecrated law
Fortune, it is you I follow
Farewell to treaties
From now on, war is our judge

— 'Gods and Generals'
Into the Abode of War
In einem Krieg wie diesem gibt es keine Zivilisten ('In a war such as this one, there are no civilians')

— 'Der Untergang'
Entering the arena of 21st Century Holy War, even the gruesome wars of the 20th Century appear like chivalric tournaments in comparison. If 20th Century 'mass-man' warfare was characterized by the abolition of knightly sentiment and martial honour, then 21st Century 'post-man' warfare is characterized by the abolition of the law of war itself and the civilian-military distinction itself. If those few soundbites and rare snapshots from 'Ukraine' and 'Gaza' that still slip through the censorship drag-net of the globalist MSM are anything to go by, then the notion of war itself has been updated to include what was till recently called 'genocide'.

This is why formerly weighty categories such as 'peace-keeper', 'journalist', 'civil rights activist', 'aid worker', 'medical staff', 'third-country national', 'innocent civilian' and even 'women and children' are being reduced to arcane anachronisms with astonishing alacrity: now, there is only 'us' and 'them', 'black' and 'white', 'good' and evil'. This is also precisely why the formerly anachronistic notions of Holy War and crusade are bound to re-enter the collective consciousness: these serve to exterminate the post-human, sub-human and anti-human forces that necessitate them.

Gradually, the actions of the globalist-ruled 'West, a.k.a. the 'international community', are bringing the Rest, i.e. the Eurasian East and the Global South, to the realization that there the time for talking is over. Slowly the reality is sinking in: that the West, ruled by a globalist elite pursuing a ruthlessly anti-human agenda, inhabited by the golden-caged 'golden billion' has turned all the thus-far sacrosanct temples of 'international governance' into houses of merchandise: over the last few years, they have seen their great expectations in these 'letter-institutions' betrayed.

The IMF and World Bank turned into instruments of neo-imperialist plunder and bankster exploitation, the UNHCR and IOM turned into instruments of inverse colonization and ethnic replacement, the ICC turned out to be the executioner of legal apartheid, the WHO turned out to be the executive branch of big pharma, the NATO and EU turned into control mechanisms for the globalist banking agglomerate and military-industrial complex. Now, finally, the most revered of these, the UN and UNWRA, are exposed as worse-than-useless charades, toothless and spineless paper tigers, unable and unwilling to defend the defenceless in the face of undisguised evil. It is time to exit these illusions - and enter the abode of war. And what better destination for a crusade than the Holy Land and what better destiny than the Kingdom of Heaven?
Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves,
and in goodness, in what God desires

— 'The Kingdom of Heaven'
Centenary Questions
The reckoning is to come for what was done one hundred years before
The Muslims will never forget
Nor should they
— 'The Kingdom of Heaven'
A century ago this year, on 24 July 1923, the last treaty concluding the First World War, between the Allies and Turkey, was signed at Lausanne. It was the only treaty signed on neutral (Swiss) territory and the only one in which a Central Power substantially thwarted the 'Carthaginian Peace' demands of the Allies: it served to revise the earlier Sèvres Treaty that had been signed between the victorious Allies and the defeated Ottoman Empire on 10 August 1922.

The signing of the Sèvres Treaty may have left a permanent scar (a.k.a. the Sèvres Syndrome) on the Turkish nation, which was the defeated empire's core nation, but it also caused that nation to rise in arms, eject Allied occupation forces and reject its Ottoman ruling dynasty, its Ottoman imperial commitment and much of its Ottoman cultural heritage.

On 29 October 2023, the Turkish Republic celebrated its centenary - Turkey has staunchly defended its sovereignty ever since and its present leader, President Erdogan, is no exception. He has pursued non-globalist policies domestically, standing for economic controls, religious values and social justice, and internationally, prioritizing Turkey's interests above globalist agendas. He has outmanoeuvred deeply entrenched pro-Western interest groups at home and weathered unprecedented economic blackmail from outside. Erdogan kept 'pharmaceutical neutrality' by permitting Russian and Chinese non-mRNA vaccines during the 'Covid Crisis' and by refusing anti-Russian sanctions during the 'Ukraine Crisis'. During the now-unfolding 'Gaza Crisis', he has again refused to toe the globalist line.

It is safe to say that the globalist campaign to re-colonize Turkey during the 2000s and early 2010s, which would have reduced it to a NATO and EU vassal state, has failed. On balance, Turkey may be said to have preserved, by and large, the sovereignty it regained at Lausanne - even if it has paid a heavy price in socio-economic terms.
© Adem Altan/AFP via Getty ImagesRecep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of the Republic of Turkey since 2014
The wider region, the Middle East and North Africa, has been less lucky. Ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it has been plagued by an unending sequence of armed conflicts and political crises, aggravated and engineered by imperialist interference, economic exploitation and cultural distortion.

Only slowly and only partially have some of the states, constrained by the borders drawn and manipulated by the regimes, as confirmed by the same Lausanne Treaty, managed to shake off this imperialist legacy. In this region, following the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Sudan, there is currently only fully sovereign nation, without foreign bases and foreign allegiances: Iran, which has been conducting a full-spectrum anti-globalist (anti-American, anti-Zionist) defence that has only recently transformed into a limited regional counter-offensive.

Other territorially significant non-state and state actors, however, are also pursuing a restoration to full sovereignty, in many cases with overt or covert Iranian support. Examples of these include not only fully anti-globalist but territorially restricted actors such as the Ba'ath government in western Syria, the Hezbollah movement in southern Lebanon and the Houthi movement in northern Yemen, but also cautiously realigning but rich and powerful states such as Saudi-Arabia and the UAE. The rest of the region, ruled by local elites that walk the tightrope between globalist blackmail abroad and revolutionary sentiment at home, is basically in a wait-and-see mode.

Thus, the post-WWI Lausanne Treaty, which liberated Turkey but destroyed its empire, is still holding much of the region hostage to the whims of the 21st Century globalist heirs to the 20th Century imperialists. In the final analysis, the inter-war establishment of Atlanticist protectorates over the oil-rich Persian Gulf littoral, as well as the post-WWII insertion of the Atlanticist-sponsored Zionist state project right into the heart of the region, find their historical and legal basis in the Lausanne Treaty.

Recently, however, stress fractures have been appearing in the highly artificial Lausanne Treaty construct: the West's neo-imperialist divide-and-conquer machinations and its neo-con forever-wars, both aimed at maintaining the status quo at all costs, have resulted in the fracturing or destruction of many states (Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan) and the realignment or alienation of many others (the Gulf monarchies, Turkey).

The recent expansion of the Zionist state project, in which the heretical cultic doctrines of the globalist elite find their real-world expression, is now compounding these stress fractures: as the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of the rump-Palestine is moving into higher gear, and as the atrocities perpetrated in the name of 'Israel' are unapologetically moved into genocide-territory, even the most compliant of the globalist vassal regimes are reaching the limits of their ability to diffuse and squash fellow-Arab and fellow-Muslim mass outrage.

As the 'Gaza Crisis' accelerates into massacre mode, even within the cognitive bubble of Western consumer life, there are now faint stirrings of unease, as virtue-signalling line-toeing is coming at the ever-steeper price: the price of having to watch daily instalments of unadulterated genocide in between MSM infotainment and social media entertainment.

Occasionally, some resistance-in-the-rubble, elite-soldier-vs-boy-fighter and women-and-children-lined-up pictures, flashing by on the screen in full colour, may trigger the most taboo association of all: a strange reminder of pictures taken many years ago, in black-and-white, during the desperate days of the doomed Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising lasted about a month and caused about 12.000 direct casualties (not counting the many more that followed its suppression) - at the moment that these words are written, the Gaza Crisis has reached about the same duration and the same human toll.

To watch a massacre of that magnitude unfold, either passively outraged in a Polish window as Wladislaw Szpilman or actively engaged in a German uniform as Jürgen Stroop, implies an existential choice. For those closest by, on an individual and a collective level, the time for such existential choices is approaching.

For others, other countries and peoples as yet removed from the war zone, there another 'lull in the fighting', another 'humanitarian cease-fire', another 'diplomatic initiative', even another 'peace process', may still intervene between today and the point at which a final choice becomes inevitable - but that point will come.

To many, within and without the Holy Land, Jew and Gentile, Christian and Muslim, the Zionist state project has now already utterly exhausted its morale credit, shaking its foundational narrative, even prompting them to revisit thus-far untouchable topics such as the Holocaust and the Nakba.

Even within the West, despite the MSM's utter dedication to upholding the Gaza=Hamas=Daesh=Hitler equation (tentatively connecting it to the Zelensky=Churchill vs. Putin=Hitler equation), if necessary at the cost of self-purging half of its own 'diversity' staff and audience, narrative comfort zones are being exited.

The question on many a mind is: can the 20th/21st Century Zionist state project last longer than (or even as long as) the 11th/12th Century crusader state project? The latter project managed to hold Jerusalem from 1099 to 1187 (conditionally and briefly recovered 1229-44). And: are the Zionists, who are close to uniting the entire region against themselves and alienating their allies from themselves, approaching their very own Battle of Hattin moment? Appropriate questions for this centenary of the Lausanne Treaty, which set the stage for the present tragedy in the Holy Land. With the outcome as yet in the balance, there is still (some) valuable time to decide as to which side to take - and when and how. It is not, however, the probable outcome that counts.
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just

— Abraham Lincoln
The No-State Solution
But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you

— Matthew 6:33
In the current Middle East power balance, the most important geopolitical pivot and the most important regional 'swing state' is undoubtedly Turkey: it carries great demographic, economic and military weight and it wields considerable cultural and diplomatic prestige as the historic champion of (Sunni-)Islamic causes.

But with the abolition of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Caliphate, now almost exactly one hundred years ago, Turkey was reduced from a global-scale Great Power into a regional-scale secondary power. This severely handicaps Turkey in its potential to arbitrate the various Middle East conflicts: nothing less than the authentic authority of a supra-national Imperium,[3] such as the Ottoman Empire (as opposed to the illegitimate regime of trans-national hegemony, such as the Atlanticist 'rules-based order'), and the legitimate exercise of Katechon power,[4] such as pursued by the Ottoman Caliphate (as opposed to the violent enforcement of counterfeit 'progress', such as imposed by the woke-capitalist agenda), will do if the region is to be restored to something resembling human harmony.

Neither the self-proclaimed 'State of Israel', nor the counter-claimed 'State of Palestine', both driven by shallowly secular and legalistic notions of nation-state identity and both 'damaged goods' in terms of psycho-historical trauma, will be able to judiciously reconcile the righteous claims and legitimate rights of the rival ethnic groups and religious communities involved in that greatest Middle East conflict of all: the battle for the 'promised land', between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, home to the great shrines and holy places of the world's three great monotheist religions — and many more such shrines and places beside.

Only a mighty Imperium, claiming the full power of the Katechon, can reconcile these claims and rights, if need be by 'freezing' (acknowledging and accepting but also curtailing and postponing) them. Thus the great question arises: which Imperium? At this point, that question can only be answered by pointing to what is lacking, in substance as well as form, in the two most obvious candidate states for imperial status: (1) In theory, it could be a restored Persian Empire, building upon the foundations laid by the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this regard, Iran's credentials are excellent, albeit truly dated: they date back, in fact, to Cyrus the Great and his edict of manumission, releasing exiled Juda from Babylonian captivity.

But only a fully restored Persian Empire, i.e. ruled by a truly sovereign monarch, standing above religious and sectarian divides, would have the authority and credibility to liberate the hijacked Holy Land and set free the millions of captives, Israeli as well as Palestinian, currently held at ransom by the Zionist occupation regime.

(2) Again, in theory, it could be a restored Turkish Empire. This claim is much more recent: the last authentic Imperium and the last authentic Katechon to rule — however imperfectly — the Holy Land was represented by the Turkish Ottoman Empire.[5] The Turkish Ottoman Empire was removed from that 'promised land' and its holy places by Britain's military conquest as recently as 1917-18, during the last phase of WWI.

After the legal elimination of the Ottoman Empire from the Holy Land, formalized under the Lausanne Treaty, Britain could, in theory, have exercised its right of conquest and attempted to fill the void as sovereign overlord, but it proved unable - and unwilling - to do so. With Britain bankrupted and bled dry by WWI, the time of its world empire status was drawing to a close (as shown by its failure to effectively oppose the Irish and Indian independence movements) and its (contradictory) commitments to its war-time Jewish and Arab allies severely restricted its options (as documented in its Balfour Declaration and McMahon-Hussein Correspondence).

Thus, Britain merely took upon itself a 'League of Nations Mandate for Palestine', issued by a proto-globalist institution that lacked both authentic legitimacy and sovereign authority: this left the legal status of the thus-named territory in limbo. After Britain's withdrawal in 1948, this legal limbo was effectively continued by an equally substance-less 'United Nations Resolution' to divide the territory into a Jewish and an Arab state, leaving de facto control in the hands of the Zionist settler 'State of Israel' and the neighbouring states of Egypt and Jordan, which had stepped in to protect the rights of the indigenous population.

The Zionist ideologues who founded the 'State of Israel' merely aimed at establishing a nation-state for a resettled Jewish people, capitalizing on the Christian-Zionist-inspired economic and military support of America and using the Holocaust-guilt-inspired diplomatic and financial backing of Europe.

They never aspired to gain legitimacy in terms of Imperium or Katechon functionality in the eyes of the indigenous populations and religious communities who call the Holy Land their home. Even after the 1967 Six Days' War, during which the Zionists conquered the Egyptian- and Jordanian-controlled parts of the territory, they simply continued to settle and expand their narrow-minded and tight-fisted nation-state project, studiously ignoring the fact that they were now in charge of the world's most Holy Land.

The Zionists' multiple campaigns of ethnic cleansing, replacing the indigenous Palestinian population with supposedly Jewish settlers, their repeated wars of aggression against neighbouring states and their continuous breaches of international and humanitarian law, now lasting over three-quarters of a century, have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, their inability - and unwillingness - to aspire to, let alone attain, the minimum level of supra-national authority, moral equilibrium and balanced statesmanship that are necessary to become the legitimate custodians of the Holy Land.

The 2004 death of Yasser Arafat, the last Palestinian leader enjoying popular legitimacy (and rumoured to have been assassinated) marked the end of the sham 'peace process' era that was initiated with the 1993 Oslo Accords: at this point, the Zionists forfeited the last shred of diplomatic credibility. Henceforward, calculating that the 'might is right' principle would favour them, they trusted in force of arms only, not realizing that this might eventually expose their entire nation-state project to a reckoning of truly Biblical proportions.

From that point forward the Zionist presence in the Holy Land constitutes usurpation and occupation pure and simple. Having pre-empted the old Jewish vision of a return to Zion, which by all scriptural accounts and according to all sound doctrine is contingent on the direct intervention of the Messiah, the Zionists are now actively obstructing the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven in the Holy Land.

This is not to say that all the innocent people currently inhabiting the Holy Land, including innocent Jewish people who were either lured there by Zionist promises or happen to have been born there and who currently hold 'Israeli' travel documents, do not have an absolute right to continue to reside and live there in peace. It merely means that, from a Traditionalist perspective, neither a 'one-state solution' nor a 'two-state solution' will do: only a no-state solution will do.

For as long as human history continues, the only appropriate solution for the Holy Land is to let it revert to the rule of an authentically supra-national Imperium, exercising the legitimate power of the Katechon. For the Holy Land, nothing else suffices but the righteous rule of a true Katechon, protecting the sanctity of its holy places and upholding the rights of its peoples, according to the just principles of subsidiary delegation of administrative and judicial powers and ethnic and religious sphere sovereignty for different groups.

Only such an authentically supra-national Imperium, applied in a time-appropriate Archaeo-Futurist fashion, can rise above the old divisions of supremacist racism, narrow-minded nationalism and religious sectarianism, as well as the new deceptions of liberté-égalité-fraternité universalism, 'greed is good' social-darwinism and identity-erasing transhumanism. Nothing less would justify a Holy War for the Holy Land. It deserves a Kingdom of Conscience - or nothing.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum ('Let justice be done though the heavens fall')
Slouching towards the Eschaton[6]
Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired
before the decree bring forth
before the day pass as the chaff
before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you
before the day of the Lord's anger come upon you.
Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment
seek righteousness, seek meekness
it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord's anger

— Zephaniah 2:1-3
The last paragraph's closing statements reflect a radical realization, slowly dawning on some and haltingly expressed by few: that the heavens may fall and that there does exist, in truth, a nothing option. Slowly creeping out of the shadows of forgotten prophecy and ignored premonition, almost imperceptibly crawling its way into thoughts and words, there arises the radical realization that something else is slouching towards the Holy Land.

This highly unwelcome realization brings with it an entirely unpalatable possibility: that, after all, 'cooler heads' may not prevail, that 'good men' may do nothing and that the 'moderates' may be wrong. That there may be a limit to their rationalizing, their discussing and their dithering. That, after all, the 'extremists' may be right - on both sides at the same time. That, already, they are right, in as far as they demand clarity, choices and consequences. That they are willing to make choices, to commit themselves, to take sides. That the extremists on both sides, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of their causes, are right in gearing up for an all-out fight, preparing for a final battle and putting their lives on the line. They are right in seeking, demanding and gathering for the final revelation, the last judgment and the Kingdom of Heaven.

To those committed to the now ennobled - because blood-baptized - causes of Eurasianist and Multipolarity movements, to those whose Global South liberation struggles now align with these movements, to those who, since 22-02-2022, have sacrificed some, much or all on the 'Ukraine' front of the Last War of the World Island, and to those who are now already engaged in Holy War in the Holy Land, all their struggles interlocked now, there can be no doubt as to who stands on the right side, and who stands on the wrong side.

To them, it is clear that globalist Tower of Babel projects such as Neo-Khazaria and Neo-Zion are doomed to failure, because they lack a grounding in long durée power equations and because they reject recognition of divine providence. They, who have 'eyes to see', will recognize the right and wrong signs by which choices should be made. Thus, they will not join those who, in the cause of 'Black Rock' portfolios and 'gay disco' values, chose to take up arms against Russia on the fields of Little Russia. Nor will they join those who, in the cause of some 'psytrance festival' revellers breaking Shabbat and forgetting Simchat Torah on the fields of Re'im, indulge in the mass slaughter of innocent men, women and children just because they live on the other side of some fence.

But all this does not diminish the importance of the stance taken by those who have chosen wrongly. Because, taken in combination, the extremists on both sides are still collectively right: collectively, they insist that there is such a thing as a higher cause - and that their causes must, at some point, be put before a final arbiter. For the unbeliever that cause may be chance, fortune or fate. For the believer that cause will be judgment, providence and the Creator. In this regard at least, the extremists on both sides are ethically superior to the moderates.

At the very least, the extremists have something that the moderates - the couch-potato consumer-mass, the business-as-usual bourgeoisie, the everything-is-relative intelligentsia and the better-than-thou NGO-crowd - lack: a higher cause, a cause that radically overrides bubble-life comfort-zones, white-washed profits, human-corrupted legalities and narcissistic cognitive dissonances. At the very least, the extremists on both sides have something worth dying for, which is better than to be found among the moderates, who have already walked off into the sunset of the living dead.

In the words of Aleksandr Dugin, the leading light of the Eurasianist and Multipolar movements: the moderates are 'afraid that purification [and] deliberalisation will become a radical imperative'.[7] But 'if we step beyond the hypnosis, the fog of nonsense, and the postmodernist defragmentation of consciousness, we shall see a very intriguing and terrifying picture of what is happening in the Middle East'.[8] At the very least, the extremists on both sides, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of their causes, have courage: the courage to take this next step. Thus, together, the extremists may resolve the issue - by reaching for the Eschaton. As this equals an appeal to the Highest Arbiter, there is nothing to fear. With the New Jerusalem in reach, we may confidently give our all.
What is Jerusalem worth to you?
- Nothing. Everything.

— 'The Kingdom of Heaven'

[1] For the author's analysis of the Great Reset's shift from the domestic to the international sphere, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, 'The Fall of the West', Arktos Journal ( 17 August 2022.

[2] For the author's summary of Robert Steuckers' analysis of globalist-nihilist 'pyro-politics' in the international arena, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, Rupes Nigra. An Archaeo-Futurist Countdown in Twelve Essays (Arktos: London, 2021) 45-50.

[3] For the author's analysis of Imperium as an operative principle of Sacred Geography and its historical decline throughout the Modern Age, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, A Traditionalist History of the Great War, Book II: The Former Earth (Cambridge Scholars: Newcastle upon Tyne, 2020) 103-11.

[4] For the author's analysis of the Katechon as an operative principle in Sacred Geography as well as Traditionalist state-craft, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, Alba Rosa. Ten Traditionalist Essays about the Crisis in the Modern West (Arktos: London, 2018) 112-8.

[5] For the author's assessment of the Ottoman Empire's legitimate Imperium, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, A Traditionalist History of the Great War, Book II: The Former Earth (Cambridge Scholars: Newcastle upon Tyne, 2020) 480-1, 497-9.

[6] For the author's analysis of the contemporary convergence of Traditionalist and Modernist eschatological models, including Eric Voegelin's 'Immanization of the Eschaton', cf. Alexander Wolfheze, 'Fast Forward to Frashgard', 19 August 2021.

[7] Aleksandr Dugin, 'End the Liberals: The People's Hope for Change', 31 October 2023.

[8] Aleksandr Dugin, 'The Essence of Zionism', 2 November 2023.