Monthly Archives: April 2013

Boston Shut Down: The Exception to the Rule has Become the Rule

logic of war

The Constitutional rights of an entire town were violated Friday, April 19, 2013. The Constitution was deactivated by an undeclared state of exception, — complete with “papers please” searches and seizures and military hardware and weapons all over the streets.

papers please

The Obama régime shut down an entire city to literal empty sidewalks.

Image 1901

And train service was halted along a stretch over a hundred mile.

boston train shut down

The authorities also prevented residents who were away from their homes from returning their own homes, thus dispossessing citizens of their own residences for a while.

city shut down

city has shut down

And by effectively occupying a part of the Boston metro area, law enforcement officers made a mockery of the 4th Amendment.

boston shut down

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

— The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution

Since there was no “hot pursuit,” no argument was available to Law Enforcement Officers allowing searches of private property without consent or a warrant.

Image 1859

The Fourth Amendment applies in Boston to the searches of homes and what was done there is unconstitutional and as a consequence is a crime under 18 USC 242. The so-called “law enforcement” enforcers who committed those searches and seizures under duress without a warrant violated the law. This is true irrespective of the means by which such is done because The Fourth Amendment does not grant you the right to be secure in your papers and effects: you have that right because it is an essential element of liberty; the freedom to possess privately-obtained property through the fruits of your labor without it being rifled through or stolen by anyone, including government agents, except under due process of law where probable cause exists to believe you have personally committed a crime. There are logical exceptions — if a police officer personally sees a fleeing felon he is chasing enter your residence he can follow him onto your property without a warrant. But what he can’t do is guess.

The Fifth Amendment also gives rise to criminal liability under 18 USC 242 to the extent that anything was seized, no matter how momentarily, without a warrant.

The exception to the rule has become the rule under Obama — to an unprecedented extent. The Obama régime has been systematically institutionalizing arbitrary decision. It has created a new “normal” relationship between the citizen and the State.

What we are witnessing is no longer the free and active participation on the political level, but the appropriation and registration of private life and properties, and the control and manipulation of public speech by main-stream media installations.

Image 1623

The very distinction between peace and war, and between foreign and civil war, is impossible where the emergency becomes the rule. This began under Bush, with the Patriot Act. But it has been consolidated by the Obama administration.

1) Obama appeals to the principle of the state secret to block any judicial oversight of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

2) Obama asserts an exception for suspects considered terrorist threats.

3) Obama institutionalizes trial by military commission on domestic soil for individuals deemed “unlawful combattants” — in order to lower the bar of what constitutes admissible evidence and to restrict a suspect’s rights to legal defense.

4) Obama expands the system of secret “black sites” into which unlawful combattants disappear without a trace, whilst extending the mandate of the CIA (beyond information gathering) to military special-operation interventions.
cia black site

Source

Obama has made the CIA becomes a full-spectrum paramilitary force unto itself, carrying out the shadowy war games of the régime under the cover of secrecy provided by its black sites.

USSOCOM

Obama also issues secret Executive Orders giving the Pentagon’s US Special Operations Command CIA-like surveillance capabilities. Perpetually poised for instant delivery of extralegal action on demand, the USOC reports directly to the president personally.

5) The practice of targetted assassination has expanded significantly under Obama. The régime has even extended targetted assassination to US citizens.

6) Obama used the national security rationale to institute exceptions to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. And he has expanded the high-tech surveillance system by invoking state secrets to prevent judicial oversight.
Image 1897

Obama has also declared war on whisle-blowers, prosecuting with draconian zeal individuals who leak government and military information.

7) Obama deployed the military in Libya without consulting Congress — and never went back to Congress for its rubber stamp.

The use of extralegal powers is becoming the norm. The exception is becoming the norm. And that’s why a hot war is inevitable. THE EXCEPTION is now THE NORM, and peace cannot be distinguished from war any longer. The Constitution is out of order, inoperative, neutralized.

The Constitution and the State of Exception
Article 1 of the Constitution establishes that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” — but does not specify which AUTHORITY has the jurisdiction to decide on the exceptional suspension.

Another passage of Article 1 declares that the power to declare war and to raise and support the army and navy rests with Congress, BUT Article 2 states that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

Let’s just look at a few precedents:

During the Civil War (1861–1865), Lincoln acted counter to the text of Article 1 (on April 15, 1861) by proclaiming that an army of seventy-five thousand men was to be raised and convened a special session of Congress for July 4. In the ten weeks that passed between April 15 and July 4, Lincoln acted de facto as a total dictator. On April 27, Lincoln authorized the General in Chief of the Army to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus whenever he deemed it necessary along the military line between Washington and Philadelphia. Furthermore, on February 1862, Lincoln imposed censorship of the mail and authorized the arrest and detention in military prisons of persons suspected of “disloyal and treasonable practices“.

Image 1648

In the speech he delivered to Congress July 4 1861, President Lincoln justified his actions as the holder of a supreme power to violate the Constitution in a situation of necessity:

“Whether strictly legal or not, [the measures he had adopted had been taken] under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity” in the certainty that Congress would ratify them. Those exceptional measures were based on the conviction that even fundamental, natural law could be violated IF the very existence of the union and the juridical order were at stake:

Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?

–Lincoln

Although Congress was aware that the constitutional jurisdictions had been transgressed, it could do nothing but ratify the actions of the President, as it did on August 6, 1861. Strengthened by this approval, Lincoln proclaimed on September the emancipation of the slaves on his authority alone and later generalized the state of emergency throughout the entire territory of the United States, authorizing the arrest and trial before courts martial of “all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of the United States.

***

During World War One President Wilson assumed broader powers than those Lincoln had claimed. However, instead of ignoring Congress, as Lincoln had done, Wilson had those extraordinary powers delegated to him by Congress. Instead of declaring a state of emergency, he had exceptional laws issued. From 1917 to 1918, Congress approved a series of acts (from the Espionage Act of 1917 to the Departmental Reorganization Act of 1918) that granted the President COMPLETE CONTROL over the administration of the United States and not only prohibited disloyal activities (such as collaboration with the enemy and the diffusion of false reports), but even made it a crime to “willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States” (from the Sedition Act of 1918).

***

Since the power of the President is grounded in the emergency linked to a state of war, the metaphor of war became a part of the presidential vocabulary whenever decisions considered to be of vital importance are being imposed.

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to assume extraordinary powers by presenting his actions as those of a Commander in Chief during a military campaign:

I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.…I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken Nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.…But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take [the necessary measures] and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

–Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

From the constitutional point of view, the New Deal was realized by delegating to the President (through a series of statutes culminating in the National Recovery Act of June 1933) an UNLIMITED POWER to CONTROL every aspect of the economic life.

The outbreak of World War Two extended these powers with the creation of a “Office of Emergency Management” [the ancestor of today’s FEMA]. On September 7, 1942, FDR renewed his claim to TOTAL CONTROL during the emergency:

In the event that the Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility, and I will act.…The American people can…be sure that I shall not hesitate to use every power vested in me to accomplish the defeat of our enemies in any part of the world where our own safety demands such defeat.

On February 19, 1942, the FDR administration proceeded with the internment of seventy thousand American citizens of Japanese descent who resided on the West Coast (along with forty thousand Japanese citizens who lived and worked there).

***

By constantly referring to himself as the “Commander in Chief of the Army” after September 11, 2001, President Bush produced a situation in which the emergency becomes the rule.

The logic of politics has become a logic of war. This logic renders the citizen a suspect all along, a suspect against which all those military techniques and media installations need to be mounted that had been conceived of only for the most dangerous individuals.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and the Islamic Society of Boston

Boston Bombing

The Boston marathon jihad bombing (Monday, April 15, 2013)

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, approximately 10-20 minutes before the Boston Marathon explosions (Monday, April 15, 2013)

Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarneev, minutes before the bombing.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is now dead, and his brother, Dzhokar, was captured alive.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev Dead

Tamerlan died from a combination of bullets and being run over by his brother in a carjacked vehicle trying to escape. (Yeah, Dzhokar ran over his own brother.)

Both brothers are muslims. According to the Boston Globe, Dzhokhar attended the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), in Cambridge.

islamic society of Boston and the Boston Bombing

islamic society of boston
islamic society of boston

In this YouTube video, Anwar Kazmi describes Dzhokhar as “an infrequent visitor” of the ISB “in the last year-and-a-half or so.”

According to the L.A. Times, both brothers attended the huge mosque on Roxbury Crossing (the largest mosque in the New England area), the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC), owned and managed by the Muslim American Society (MAS).
isbcc

At the Cambridge mosque near where the bombing suspects lived, two worshipers who showed up for Saturday’s prayer service recalled seeing both men [the Tsarnaev Brothers].

isbcc2

The ISB Cultural Center opened in 2004 near Roxbury Community College.

Boston Jiha Socie
Source: FBI: Boston suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev followed ‘radical Islam’

Boston Imam inciting to terrorism

Imam Abdullah Faarooq represents the Muslim American Society in the ISBCC.

American Muslim Society
The Muslim American Society (MAS) is an American front of the Global Muslim Brotherhood.

The MAS appears in a 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood list (*.pdf) of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a founder of the Islamic Society of Boston, testified that “everyone knows that MAS is Muslim Brotherhood.”

Jihad in Boston

Abdulrahman Alamoudi wrote from his prison cell, “I am, I hope, still a member of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the USA.”

isbcc

Abdulrahman Alamoudi founded the ISBCC, and the ISBCC is owned by the Muslim American Society.
Al-Qaradawi’s name was listed on the Arabic language brochure for the ISBCC’s mosque — but omitted from the English version.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) sold the land to the ISB for their proposed new mosque at far less than fair market value, and is now being sued by concerned citizens of the area.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority, which is the city’s municipal planning agency and which is comprised of mayoral appointees, conveyed the land for the ISB’s purchase in 2000 at more than $400,000.
However, the city of Boston only charged ISB $175,000 for the land, with an agreement that the ISB perform other services for the city to make up the $225,000 remainder. The ISB agreed to deliver a series of lectures at Roxbury Community College, to assist the Roxbury Community College Foundation in its fundraising efforts, and to maintain a Boston “play area.”
The deal was later described in media coverage as “an apparent financial handout” and a “possible government subsidy” from the city of Boston to the ISB.

***

Originally intended to minister to an urban congregation of African-American Muslims, the mosque project was turned over by the city, with no fanfare and little notice, to the control of suburban-based Muslims of largely Saudi Arabian heritage: the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), which more recently became the Muslim American Society of Boston (MAS-Boston).

the MAS and the ISBCC

The MAS is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Walid Fitaihi is a top donor to the ISBCC

Walid Fitaihi, a top donor to the ISBCC, helped broker the ISB’s deal with the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

Suhaib Webb is the imam of the Boston Jihad Bombing  Mosque

Suhaib Webb (@ImamSuhaibWebb; Facebook account here) is the imam of the ISBCC. According to his wikipedia page,

From 2004-2010, Suhaib Webb studied at the world’s preeminent Islamic institution of learning, Al-Azhar University, in the College of Shari’ah, in Cairo. He is “an active member of the Muslim American Society” and thus of the Muslim Brotherdood.

Boston Jihad Imam is a liar
The imam is now denying the Tsarnaev brothers attended the ISBCC — despite the testimony of ISB Board Member Anwar Kazmi.

Jihad in Boston: Tarek Mehanna and Ahmad Abousamra

Tarek Mehanna and Ahmad Abousamra were indicted for a terror plot in 2009 to murder Americans. Abousamra is the son of Dr. Abdul Abousamra, the former vice-president of the Islamic Society of Boston.

Tarek Mehanna: Wanted by the FBI

Tarek Mehanna: Wanted by the FBI. The Boston jihadist went to training camps in Pakistan and Yemen, and fought in Iraq and Syria.

Islam is transnational and is going global. The Tsarnaev brothers may or may not have attended an islamic training camp at some point in the past. But islamic training camps are becoming obsolete when it comes to the emerging type of pop-up terrorism favored by jihadists in the West. Muslims who admire the jihadis in Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya, Mali, Israel, Thailand and a many other places eventually either want to join in or help out. The two brothers received plenty of islamic indoctrination and maybe even explosives-training through jihadist social media.

 Dzhokar's FB page

On his russian-language social media page, Dzhokhar features a drawing of a bomb under the heading “send a gift,” and just above links to islamic sites. The Boston Bomber also posted links to videos of fighters in the Syrian civil war and to islamic web pages with titles like “Salamworld, my religion is Islam” and “There is no God but Allah, let that ring out in our hearts”.

Their islamic indoctrination comes from jihadist videos of islamic sermons and battle scenes from the front lines of islamic terror. And their bomb-making know-how might have its source in the training materials scattered around social media.

Tamerlan’s YouTube page features videos by Sheikh Feiz Mohammed (see here, and here), a cleric who “urges Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praises martyrs with a violent interpretation of jihad.”

Dzhokar's YouTube page

Tamerlan *liked* a video titled “The Emergence of Prophecy: The Black Flags from Khorasan.”

The video teaches that the infidels will suffer a decisive defeat during the End Times at Khorasan, a region including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's twitter account

@J_tsar is believed to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Twitter Account — since a cached version of this account shows this:
cached version of  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's twitter account

Every muslim is a potential terrorist, ready to undergo jihad. As a muslim becomes more islamic, his thoughts turn to jihad — whether supporting it directly or indirectly. His increasing islamism need not become overt. A muslim can be outwardly secular, but inwardly islamic. He doesn’t have to grow a beard or read the koran everywhere. In order to wage jihad in the West — where muslims are still minorities — islam allows a muslim to live a secular life so long as he dedicates himself to the fight against “infidels”.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev *liked* this song on YouTube: “We Will Dedicate Our Lives to the Jihad”.

Infidels rule the earth
for the faithful life is torture.
From above the duty calls you
to fight boldly in the way of Allah.

Forget sorrow and take in eternity.
The bright road of Jihad waits for you.
Paradise’s rivers softly chime,
The 72 virgins lovingly whisper.

Terrorism is embeded within islam — which is a political and supremacist system built on violence, and spreading by bloody violence.

Image 1882

A translation of a Muslim Brotherhood document.

Global Muslim Brotherhood

Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were islamic warriors. They believed in a Caliphate to come.

Mohammed the mouth of allah

The Great Inquisitor is Watching Over

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

— Jesus to Peter, in Matthew 16:18

Peter, in his First Letter, defines the experience of time proper to the Church as ho chronos te paroikias (1 Peter 1.17), — the time of the parish, or parochial time. Originally, “parish” (from para– “besides” + oikos “house”) meant the “sojourn of a foreigner”. In Greek, the term paroikousa — “sojourning” — designates the manner in which dwell foreigners and those in exile. Paroikein — to sojourn as a foreigner — is the word that designates both 1) how a Christian is to live in the world, and 2) the way a Christian experiences time; it is opposed to katoikein, a verb designating how a citizen of a city, state, kingdom or empire dwells.

The term “sojourn” does not refer here to a fixed period of time, a chronological duration. The sojourning of the Church on earth can last — and indeed has lasted — millennia.

The parochial time of the Church — the only time that really defines it and is one with it — is opposed to a common error among Catholics, often called a “delay of the Kingdom of God”. According to this error, the initial Christian community, expecting the imminent Second Coming of Jesus (and thus the end of time, the eschaton), found itself confronted with an inexplicable delay. In response to this error, there’s a movement within the Church aiming at reorientating the bark of Peter to stabilize its institutional and juridical organization, — pushing the Church to cease to paroikein, — to sojourn as a foreigner in this world — so as to katoikein instead, — to live as a citizen of the world and thus to function like any other institution of this world.

The parochial time of the Church cannot designate a chronological period. We can not speak of a chronological delay in the context of the Messiah as though we are speaking of a train being delayed, because there is no place in parochial time for a fixed and final habitation (oikos); there is no time for delay.

It is with this in mind that Paul reminds the Thessalonians, “About dates and times, my friends, we need not write to you, for you know perfectly well that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5.l-2).

In this passage, the verb “comes” — erchetai — is in the present tense, just as in the Gospels the Messiah is called ho erchomenos, ‘He Who comes’ — that is, He Who never ceases to come, and just as Walter Benjamin writes in his thesis on history, “every day, every instant, is the narrow gate through which the Messiah enters.”

The messianic time is not the end of time but the time of the end. It is very different from the apocalyptic time, from the last day, from Judgement Day. What is messianic is not the end of time but the relation of every moment (every kairos) to the end of time and to eternity.

What interests Peter and Paul is not the final day, the moment at which time ends, but the time that contracts and begins to end — the “time that remains” between time and its end; it is nothing less than a radical qualitative change in how time is experienced: as a foreigner in a foreign land.

To live in “the time that remains” between time and the end of time — to experience “the time of the end,” — means a radical transformation of our experience of time. We cannot conceive of it as that segment of chronological time extending from the Resurrection of Christ to the Apocalypse. What is at stake is neither the homogenous and infinite line of chronological time (easy to represent, but empty of all living experience) nor the precise and unimaginable instant where it ends. No. What is at stake is a time that pulses and moves within chronological time, that transforms chronological time from withinlike a thief in the night entering through the narrow gate of every day, every instant.

On the one hand, the messianic time is the time that takes time to end. On the other hand, it is also the “time that remains” — the only time we have and will EVER have. It is the time which we need to end time, to confront our customary image of time and to liberate ourselves from it. Chronological time — the time in which we wrongly believe we live — separates us from what we are and transforms us into powerless spectators of our own lives. The messianic time-of-now is the only real time of experience, and to experience this time-of-now implies an integral transformation of ourselves and of our ways of living.

“But this I say, my brothers,
time has contracted (ho kairos synestalmenos* esti).
While it lasts,
those with wives should be as those who had none (hos me = “as not”),
those who weep as though they wept not,
those who rejoice as though they rejoiced not,
those who buy as though they possessed not,
and they that use this world, as not abusing it.”

— I Cor. 7.29-3 1

*The verb systellein indicates both the clewing up of a ship’s sails and an animal’s gathering of its strength before pouncing.

Just as messianic time transforms chronological time from within, rather than abolishing it, the messianic vocation (klesis), — thanks to the “as not,” — revokes every vocation at once; it voids and transforms every vocation and every social condition so as to free them for a new usage (“make use of it”):

“Let every man remain
in the calling in which he was called.
Were you called as a slave? Do not be troubled.
But if you can become free, make use of it.”
(I Cor. 7.20-22)

Under the “as not,” one life cannot coincide with itself, and is divided into a life that one lives (vitam quam vivimus, the set of facts and events that define one’s biography and positions) and a life for which and in which one lives (vita qua vivimus, what renders life livable and gives it a meaning and a form).

To live in the messianic time, within the parochial Church, means to revoke and suspend — every day, every instant — every aspect of the biographical life that we live. It also means to make the life for which we live appears within it. Paul calls it the “life of Jesus” (zoe tou Jesouzoe, and not bios):

“For we which live
are always delivered unto death for Jesus’s sake,
that the life also of Jesus
might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.”

— 2 Corinthians 4:11

To live the life of Jesus is to live the impossibility that life might coincide with a predetermined social position, or biographical narrative. It means the revoking of those aspects in order to open one’s life to the zoe tou Jesou.

“Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”
–Matthew 6:24-34 (Luke 12:24-27)

The verb oikonomein acquires the meaning of “providing for the needs of life, nourishing”: the Acts of Thomas paraphrase the expression from the parable in Matthew 6:26 “your heavenly Father feeds them” about
the birds of the sky as ho theos oikonomei auta.

For Paul, the time of the Messiah cannot be a future time; he always uses the expression ho nyn kairos, the “now time” to defines it. As he writes in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, “Idou nyn, behold, now is the time to gather, behold the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

Paroika and parousia, the sojourn of the foreigner and the presence of the Messiah, have the same etymological structure, expressed in Greek through the preposition para-: a presence that distends time and space; an “already” that is also a “not-yet”; a “here” that is also an “not-here”; a delay that does not put off until later but instead produces a disconnection within the present moment that allows us to grasp time; an ultimate that is also a “non-ultimate” — e.g. a penultimate, a next-to-last.

Just as messianic time is not some other time but an integral transformation of chronological time from within, an ultimate experience (an experience of the last things) would entail, first and foremost, experiencing penultimate things differently.

Real eschatology is nothing other than a transformation of the experience of penultimate realities. Yet the evocation of final things to come, of ultimate realities (such as the Kingdom of God), has so completely disappeared from the statements of the Church that it has been said that the Roman Church has closed its eschatological window. “Christ announced the coming of the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church,” wrote Alfred Loisy.

What is at stake here and now is the Church’s ability to read what Matthew (16.3) called “the signs of the times,” (ta semeia ton kairon). To live in the time of the Messiah means to read the signs of His presence in history, to recognize in the course of history the signature of His economy of salvation. If the relation of history to the Kingdom of God is penultimate, the Kingdom nevertheless is to be found first and foremost in that history. And in the eyes of the Church Fathers, history is presented as a field polarized by two opposing forces: the katechon and the Church.

In a passage of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul calls katechon the first of these forces. The katechon defers and holds back the eschaton — the advent of the Kingdom of God, the full presence of the Messiah, and thus the end of this world. The katechon maintains and ceaselessly defers the end of time along the linear and homogenous line of chronological time. The katechontic force does it by placing origin and end in contact with one another. And doing so, the katechon endlessly fulfils and ends time. And as it is, this force is dedicated to the indefinite and infinite governance of this world; so let’s call it the State.

As for the second force of history, let’s call it the Church, or the Messiah. Its “economy” is the economy of salvation, and by this token is essentially finite.

The only way that a community can form and endure in time is if these two poles are present and a dialectical tension prevails between them.

Yet this tension seems today to have disappeared from every institutions of this world. The sense for a finite economy of salvation in historical time is weakened; and the infinite economy of the State extends its blind dominion to every aspect of our biographical and social life.

The Church has almost abandoned its eschatological exigency, and this exigency is being recycled and reactivated in a secularized and parodic form — not only in the occult sciences that have rediscovered the gestures of the prophet of doom, and announce every sort of irreversible catastrophe, but also within the State: the permanent crises, the states of permanent exception and emergency that the governments of this world continually proclaim are a secularized parody of the Church’s incessant deferral of the end of time and the Last Judgement.

With the eclipse of the messianic and parochial experience of the Church comes an unprecedented hypertrophy of the State — one that, under the guise of a permanent crisis, betrays its illegitimacy through executive excess and the indefinite suspension of the Rule of Law.

Nowhere in this word today is a legitimate power to be found. Even the powerful men of this world are convinced of their own illegitimacy.

The complete juridification and commodification of human relations — confusions between what we might believe, hope and love and that which we are obliged to do or not do, say or not say — are the signs of the times, not only of a crisis of the State and of the Rule of Law, but also, and above all, a crisis of the Church.

The Church can be a living and legitimate institution only on the condition that it maintains an immediate relation to its end, its finitude, which is the salvation of souls.

According to Christian theology there is only one institution which knows neither interruption nor end: Hell. The paradigm of contemporary politics — which pretends to be an infinite economy of this world — is thus effectively infernal.

Jesus has promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church; so the Church has not and will not lose itself completely in time; it will not curtail its original relation with the paroikia; it will not lose its messianic vocation of salvation; it has not been swept away by the disaster of illegitimacy menacing every government and every institution of this world. But it has become very weak and corrupt; the parochial and messianic Church is shrinking; and we should work with that diminishing Church to help it grasp again the historical occasion of now. And to do so, we must remember that the present history of humanity is not an interim founded on the delay of the Kingdom of God.

What is at stake here is the nature and identity of the katechon, the force that defers and eliminates the end of time, in order to perpetuate the penultimate time of the end.

For some Catholics, the main sign of the katechon is the Empire, the sovereign power of the Christian empire:

“The belief that a restrainer holds back the end of the world provides the only bridge between the notion of an eschatological paralysis of all human events and a tremendous historical monolith like that of the Christian empire of the Germanic kings.”
–Carl Schmitt

For others, the katechon coincides with the Jews’ refusal to believe in Jesus Christ. They go so far as to believe that the historical existence of the Church is founded upon the suspension of the Kingdom due to the Jews’ failed conversion. For them, the Church can only exist because the Jews, as the people elected by God as the representative of mankind, have not believed in Jesus. Not all Catholics are antisemitic, but the specificity of Catholic anti-Semitism is defined by those two suppositions relating to the historical existence of the Church (the foiled conversion of the Jews, and the delay of the Kingdom of God). According to this error, the existence of the Church founds itself on the endurance of the Synagogue, — and given that in the end “all Israel will be saved” (Romans II:26) and the Church must give way to the Kingdom, Israel will also have to disappear.

What is crucial here is the reactivation of a philosophy of history oriented toward salvation, in order to resist the infernal economy of the State and the extermination of the Jews. One heresy is threatening the unity of the Church today: the belief that at the point where the economy of salvation had reached completion with the Resurrection of Jesus, an event took place (the failed conversion of the Jews, or the Christian empire) that had the power to suspend the eschaton.
If the eschatological advent of the Kingdom will become concrete and actual only after the Jews have converted, then the destruction of the Jews cannot be unrelated to the destiny of the Church. The deportation in Rome, on October 6, 1943, of a thousand Roman Jews to the extermination camps that took place with the silence of Pope Pius XII points to the ambiguity of a theological thesis that tied both the existence and the fulfillment of the Church to the survival or the disappearance of the Jews. This ambiguity will possibly be overcome only if the katechon — the power that, postponing the end of history, opens the space of secular politics — is returned to its original relation with the salvation of souls and the glorious Kingdom of God.
The action of the powers of this world is eschatologically irrelevant, here: what acts as katechon is not the political power of the State, but only the Jews’ refusal to convert. Historical events — from the World Wars to totalitarianism, from the technological revolution to the atomic bomb — are thus theologically insignificant. All but one: the extermination of the Jews. This false belief is leading many to negate the relation between the time of now and the ultimate apocalypse, and thus to transform the chronological time of history into a suspended time, in which every dialectic tension between the Church and the State is abolished, and the Great Inquisitor watches over so that the full presence of the Messiah is not produced in history.