Articles – Israel Shamir Ideas that will Derail the descent to Barbarity Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:09:41 +0000 en hourly 1 Christchurch Revisited Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:07:42 +0000 You don’t have to be a white nationalist to commit a mass murder in a house of worship like the one in Christchurch, though if you only read mainstream media you’ll probably associate them with the unique depravity of doing so. Without the slightest intention to wax apologetic for the crime and rejecting conspiracy theories, I want to contextualise the event and preclude political profit-taking and guilt-assigning by the liberals.

White nationalists are not exceptional. A Muslim can do it just as “well.” In Egypt, Muslims massacred in April 2017 45 Christians in two Coptic churches. There is a long list of attacks on churches in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq by Islamic extremists. They kill not-sufficiently devout Muslims, too: over 300 Muslim worshippers were slaughtered by Muslim extremists in a Sinai mosque in November 2017. The ISIS atrocities are on a different (worse) level altogether, though they go underreported in the media that prefers to demonise president Assad and his Iranian and Russian allies.

(Many Muslim attacks on Christians go underreported, for media follow the policy of keeping local native nationalists under pressure, and full reporting would undermine this goal. In September last year, a man poured out petrol and tried to ignite a fire on a subway train in Stockholm. He was stopped by fellow passengers, arrested, sentenced to four years in jail. It was hardly reported at all, and the only report does not give his name, for a good reason: it is a Muslim name. However, so-called hate crimes get a lot of coverage.)

A Jew can do it even better. A Brooklyn Jew, Dr Benjamin (it’s all about the Benjamins, baby!) Goldstein single-handedly massacred about fifty worshippers in the Ibrahimiye Mosque of Halil/Hebron in Palestine on the eve of Purim 1994. He also wounded about 150 Muslim worshippers – though it is said that Israeli soldiers present at the spot gave him an assisting hand. Perhaps they thought it was free-for-all.

Benjamin (or Baruch) Goldstein is considered a hero and a sainted martyr within his community, the fiercely chauvinist Jews of Hebron. They go to his grave and ask for his intercession before the Almighty. Young girls ask him to find them a suitor. Candles are constantly lit in his memory. A book was published in his honour, and his name is frequently mentioned among the settlers. They claim (without any evidence or factual base) that this massacre saved the Jews from being massacred by Muslims.

While white nationalist videos have been de-platformed, YouTube has no problem with this video exculpating and glorifying the Jewish mass murderer. Prime Minister Netanyahu (another Benjamin, baby!) decided to bring the party of Goldstein fans, Otzma Yehudit, into his government coalition, and it did not interfere with his triumphal progress to the AIPAC conference to be held on March 24, right after Purim.

Goldstein had his predecessors. On 26 July 1983, a Jewish terrorist group attacked an Islamic college with hand grenades and submachine guns; three students were killed and thirty wounded. The attackers were eventually apprehended, sentenced and quickly pardoned by the president of Israel after a big public campaign: over 70% of Israeli Jews demanded their release.

As Purim approaches, activity around Goldstein’s grave comes to a peak. A mystic could think that the NZ shooter had been moved to action by the Purim awakening of the Goldstein spirit. At the same time, the name of the Jewish killer is hardly ever mentioned in the Western media, and the Jewish American officials, while expressing their (justified) horror and indignation regarding the Christchurch murders, never refer to their coreligionist who preceded and inspired Tarrant. Some of them even said that nothing similar to the mosque shooting ever happened.

So, white nationalists are not exceptional. An unusual feature of Tarrant’s crime was that it was a hate-less hate crime; essentially a gamer’s crime. Apparently there is a game-acquired appeal in raining bullets upon “vermin”. If you played videogames you would know what I mean. A sort of FPS (First-Person Shooter Games) with your preferred enemy instead of a zombie. And now, make the next step – consider real people being zombies. You do not need hate for that; and Tarrant did not hate his victims, judging by his writing. He even wrote about the great friends he made in Turkey.

The border between videogame and reality became blurred by way of modern warfare. The video Collateral Murder, the first breakthrough achievement of Assange and Wikileaks, gives us the FPS of an American pilot killing innocent and unarmed people on the streets of Baghdad. Israeli girl-soldiers operate a remote-control killing system on the Gaza fence. It is called the Spot and Shoot system. They do what Tarrant did as their daily job. The same is done by drone operators sitting in faraway places and killing children. (To make it easier, they call their victims “fun-size terrorists”.)

Video games that train you to kill without feeling hatred are a substitute for this sort of killing. I’ve been to wars, and I’ve seen and experienced the real thing. Hatred is not necessary to kill your enemy. If you know who is your enemy, you can kill without feeling hatred, and that is what most soldiers do, most of the time.

It’s not something to be horrified about. We have to recognise aggression as a necessary element of our mentality. It is not “good” or “bad”, this is what we are, in the favourite expression of Mme Pelosi. We have an inbuilt drive for hunt and warfare, that’s why a little boy goes “bang bang” before he is able to talk. This is the way we are hard-wired. People like to shoot people; if they aren’t allowed to in real life, they do it in games. But they dream of doing it for real, to fight, to kill and perhaps, to die. This drive, like other destructive drives, is normally canalised, or sublimated. A boy’s hunting instinct and his drive for war have been transformed into heroic actions, into defence of one’s home and country, or into performing Herculean feats. Without it, we would be still sharing bananas in the African jungle.

However, we live in a feminised society where feats are against the law. A boy is supposed to behave like a girl; a girl, like a boy. Not only clothes and toilets are unisex, so is the indoctrination. The propaganda of gender-fluidity aims at killing masculinity at its root. A young working-class man has very few prospects in life. He can get a low-paid temporary job with no security, at best. And he can pour out his indignation and desperation in a video games saloon or in a fighting club. Or just use more drugs and alcohol.

Games, and shooter games in particular, are very popular, because they cater for basic needs – as pornography does. They are so popular that the Swedish gamer who was mentioned by Tarrant has ninety million followers: it is many times more than any article-writing journalist can ever reach. So there are many frustrated and dissatisfied men. Will the games provide a sufficient outlet for the pent-up tension? Perhaps; porno certainly influenced sexual relations by making so many men less interested in the real thing.

It is not in the best interests of mankind. For mankind, it is better for men to be interested in women and perform feats of courage for the best of the community to win their love. For the people who consider themselves our masters, there are other priorities. They want to have calm herds of many cows and oxen; bulls are trouble. This comparison is somewhat misleading: humans are not herbivores, and we are more rebellious, clever and strong-minded.

In order to quell the rebellious spirit, our would-be masters invent traps and fake vents. Greta Thunberg and her demonstrations against global warming provide such a faux outlet for the rebellion. The Yellow Vests of France are fomenting a real rebellion, and that is why they are being demonised by the mass media. Our society should be reorganised to allow young men to perform real feats. They want to save the world, and the only things they are being offered is to flip hamburgers or play video games.

This desire to save the world is evident in Tarrant’s Manifesto. He describes the world in which he and other working-class young men are displaced, and though his proposed solution (terror) is wrong, the problem is real. He sees the people he is being replaced with, the immigrants, and he seeks to deal with them.

The replacement is real, but the culprits are not the immigrants he is being replaced with. It’s people who organise the replacement, who bomb Muslim lands to create living hell in the once-prosperous Middle East and North Africa, who bring the refugees to Europe (and its extension in Australia-NZ), who indoctrinate against ‘xenophobia’ instead of denouncing greed.

Actually, Tarrant is aware of it. He wrote in his Manifesto:

The major impetus for the mass importation of non-Europeans into Europe is the call and want for cheap labour. Nothing drives the invasion more and nothing needs to be defeated more than the greed that demands cheap labour… In the end human greed and the need for increasing profit margins of capital owners needs to be fought against and broken.

He is definitely right on that, spot on. Greed of capital should be destroyed in order to save mankind, but killing Muslims is not the right way for it.

Tarrant’s concern about the low birthrate of Europeans is understandable, but for one reason only: he takes for granted this demand for cheap labour and more sales have to be satisfied. However, it does not have to be satisfied at all. If greed is controlled and defeated, and immigration blocked, the population can gently decline until a new sustainable level is found. For a while, the population will grow older, true; but this is a temporary effect. We are not doomed to ever-increasing population, ever-increasing profits and sales, ever-rising shares, endless expansion. It can be changed.

And we should, because if we don’t, our ‘masters’ will organise a giant bloodletting, a new great war to turn millions of deprived young men into Tarrants in their service, as they did in 1914 and 1939. Mankind will defeat greed and work for its better future, or will it turn upon itself. This is the main lesson of the Christchurch massacre.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Where Is That Vaunted White IQ? Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:42:19 +0000 Whites have a stellar IQ compared to Blacks; this is an idea one often encounters in the writing of my esteemed colleagues on But when the country, the USA, was in dire need, the only person who dared to step forward into the line of fire was not a smart white guy, but a brave black woman, Ilhan Omar.

And she did it not once, by mistake, not twice, by coincidence, but thrice, and what she tells you three times is true, as Lewis Carroll said in The Hunting of the Snark. First, she said Israel “hypnotised the world.” Second, she said members of Congress were pro-Israel because Jews bribe them (“It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.”) Thirdly, she noticed “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to pledge allegiance to a foreign country (read: Israel).”

This is a black woman from Somalia, East Africa. And what was the response of the White men of the House? They queued up to repudiate her. The Republicans did this, while the Democrats exceeded them and prepared a new resolution against antisemitism in general, and against their own member Ilhan.

What’s more, the strongest voice in the US Congress against Israel before Ilhan was also that of a brave black woman, the admirable Cynthia McKinney. I sang odes to her, when she refused to sign the pledge of support for Israel, saying:

One woman, Cynthia McKinney, a member for Georgia, had dared to refuse the pledge. Four hundred congressmen signed it; they preferred their own personal advancement to the good of the country. Ancestors of Cynthia were slaves in her native Georgia. But she is one of a very few free persons in the US Congress. As we Israelis were used to say about our Golda Meir, she is the only man over there. She is a black woman, but she is the whitest man of them all, they would say before the Politically Correct era.

Don’t the white members of the House know that this allegiance to a foreign country is wrong? That it borders on high treason? If they don’t know, where is their fabulous IQ? And if they do know, where are their guts?

Yes, my esteemed colleagues, high IQ is good, but – without guts – it makes only for a smart servant. A man, on the other hand, would be brave and decisive, daring and caring. Do white men fit the description? Apparently, not those in power.

This problem is not specific for the US. In France, President Macron called his fellow citizens «gens qui ne sont rien», “people who are nothing”. What was the reaction of the French people? They went out in their multitudes to demonstrate in support of a Polish Jew who was dissed on a street. Is that a sign of high IQ?

In the UK, the Labour Party is using up the entire IQ they have to prostrate themselves before their masters. The bravest man in the Labour party, Chris Williamson, MP, a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, had been suspended for telling activists that Labour had been “too apologetic” over anti-Semitism, and he immediately issued a “deep sincere apology”. People who had guts were already defenestrated from British politics.

The British Royal House, this symbol of the White Man’s Rule, now has its scion married to a coloured American, whose child “will be brought up gender-fluid”. Meghan also famously complained that there are too many white professors at Oxford. The Royals do not care for commoners, if they ever did.

Ireland had fought to be free from English yoke for centuries, and when the Irish became free, they accepted an Indian homosexual to be their ruler. What was wrong with the English public-school products? Sinn Fein, was it worth it?

The working-class men of the US, UK and France know they are betrayed by their elites; they mumble darkly about their slave masters; they are going from bad to worse, but they can’t do anything about it. Is it because of their IQ?

And now some of my esteemed colleagues have chutzpah to argue that Russia went through “Judeo-Bolshevism”. If any economic arrangement calls for the prefix “Judeo”, it is modern Capitalism.

There was pre-Judaic Capitalism; Capitalism without advertising, without newspapers, without price competition, with fixed prices and in full agreement with trade unions. During pre-Judaic Capitalism, a man was tarred and feathered for cornering the market for imported goods in Boston; today, the Washington Post would celebrate him. The concept of pre-Judaic Capitalism was defined by Werner Sombart, and I wrote about it at length here and here. What the West has now, is Judeo-Capitalism.

Jews didn’t dominate Communism, though perhaps some Jews had this illusion. The comparison with Christianity is most illuminating. The first followers of Christ were Jews; His best disciple St Paul was a learned Jew, but St Paul squashed an attempt to make Christianity subservient to Jews. Established by Jews, the Church became the strongest hindrance to Jewish takeover, and it pulled the best Jews to its side.

Communism (or Bolshevism) did not ostracize Jews; like a new Church, like Christianity and Islam in their times, Communism allowed Jews to enter. Not as a separate unit: this was a demand of the Bund, Jewish socialists who sought the right of collective membership for their organisation. Lenin refused them: a Jew could enter the Communist brotherhood as an equal and without intermediaries, not as a Jew, neither as a Bund member. Many persons of Jewish origin accepted this condition, and they helped Communism to win in Russia.

Vladimir Lenin and his successor Joseph Stalin were aware of certain problematic qualities of Jews as well as of their excellence in other fields. The Russian Jews were successfully integrated and assimilated; they had shed their faith and their language, their organisations had been practically eliminated. An attempt of US Jewry to reanimate Russian Jewry was made in 1944, through the vehicle of the Jewish Anti-fascist Committee, but it failed. To the very end of Communist rule in Russia, Jews had very weak positions within the Party, at the top of the State or in the media.

It’s only with the advent of Capitalism that Russian Jews rapidly advanced and for a while, seven (or six) Jewish bankers (the infamous Seven Oligarchs) supposedly ruled Russia. So there was no Judeo-Communism, but there is Judeo-Capitalism. No Communist state had ever been dominated by Jews to the extent the US, UK and France are dominated by Jews.

People who speak of Judeo-Communism are like cuckolded husbands who condemn the only husband who has a virtuous wife.

As an example of cruel Judeo-Communism, these writers often bring forth the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, the so-called Holodomor. (Here is a longish piece explaining the factors for the famine). There was famine, no doubt. Perhaps not as awful as the one in Bengal under British capitalist rule. Shashi Tharoor, an Indian MP, wrote recently on

Thanks to Churchill’s personal decisions, more than 3 million Bengalis died of hunger in a 1943 famine. Churchill deliberately ordered the diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied British soldiers and even to top up European stockpiles, meant for yet-to-be-liberated Greeks and Yugoslavs. “The starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis is less serious” than that of “sturdy Greeks,” he argued. When reminded of the suffering of Bengalis, his response was typically Churchillian: The famine was the Indians’ own fault, he said, for “breeding like rabbits.” If the suffering was so dire, he wrote on the file, “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”

As for the Ukrainian famine, here is a clipping from a contemporary American-Ukrainian newspaper, telling us of the terrible situation in the Ukraine, of mass starvation and innumerable deaths. But here is one catch: the newspaper report was originated in the Western Ukraine, which in the1930s belonged to Poland. No Bolshevik Jew could possibly influence, let alone cause, this famine. Interbellum Poland was as anti-Jewish and anti-Communist as anybody could wish. And still, Ukrainians under this non-Jewish and non-Communist rule experienced a famine quite as awful as their brethren in the Soviet Ukraine to the east of the border did. Isn’t this sufficient proof that the Ukrainian famine was not caused by the malevolent Judeo-Commissars?

People who speak of “Judeo-Communism” usually are extreme right-wingers who hate Socialism like a rabid dog hates water. They hate Venezuela, too, though the Venezuelan brand of socialism is exceedingly mild. Despite many faults and the US sanctions, still, mildly socialist Venezuela is much better off than harshly capitalist and liberal Colombia or Honduras. We all have heard that three million Venezuelans fled their country. But have you ever heard that six million Colombian citizens have moved to Venezuela, attracted by its social achievements?

The difference between socialism and capitalism is that Capitalism is for profit, while socialism is for people.

But I digress. Coming back to IQ, sure it is good to be smart. But there is also a strong need for will power, for decisiveness, for ability to withstand pressure. And this is the biggest problem of Western Europe and North America. Perhaps it will be alleviated by immigration, for the migrants are usually resolute and dynamic people. Ilhan Omar is a paragon of these qualities. Maybe looking at her, some of the white men of Congress will feel shame and start doing something to set the Americans free.

In England, the Muslim migrants succeeded in block ing the revolting program of forcing homo- and trans-sexuality upon children. There were weekly protests over the lessons, which parents claim are promoting gay and transgender lifestyles, but the school paid no heed until the parents of 600 Muslim children, aged between four and 11, withdrew them from the school for the day. Only then did the school relent and drop the indoctrination. Why could native white Englishmen not do this? They were too meek and too obedient to authorities. They were too cooled-down to act.

Laws of thermodynamics can be applied to nations. As nations cool, they requite an external source of warmth to be injected. In the harsh conditions, the hot passionate people will conquer the chilled nation; mass migration is a similar but controlled process of heat transfer.

In the Orthodox Christian service, the Communion wine is warmed up with a splash of hot water. Immigrants are hot water added to native wine in the cup of Communion. Too much hot water will make wine unsuitable for Communion, and too many migrants can destroy the nation. But in small amounts, it can restore its warmth.

So IQ is fine, but it is not a substitute for drive and energy. Europeans spent too much energy trying to conquer the whole world; now they pay for it. Good that this payment has come in the diminutive form of Ilhan Omar.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Jussie Smollett and Jewish Hoaxes Sat, 23 Feb 2019 00:35:40 +0000 The Jussie Smollett hoax and its debunking may yet change the trend of baseless accusations. God knows, the hoaxers went too far, and it’s high time for correction. The concise list of hoaxes would be too long for this essay, but here is a small list of very recent ones. They were met by public outrage and media indignation, for very little reason, and now we may expect a downward market correction, due to overpriced stock.

Some unlikely persons already attempt to capitalise on the expected reaction in order to channel it to the preferred direction – in a very unlikely medium. Mr Noah Rothman, an editor of Commentary magazine, condemned in The New York Timesthe imprudent haste of media falling for the hoax. Come on, really! The NY Times is a leading propagator of similar hoaxes. Whenever there is a story of a suffering diversity person, The New York Times usually takes it and plays it to its full extent. And when the hoax is revealed, usually the newspaper mentions it on page 46, at the bottom. So why is this night different, as the Jews ask on Passover night?

Mr Rothman is all against hoaxes by coloured and gay persons, that’s why. He mentions a few of them and adds his complaint: “There have been no similar national paroxysms amid a sharp uptick in violence targeting New York City’s Jewish population… The real tragedy … that hate crimes are, in fact, on the rise in the Trump era, particularly against Jews”. He does not mind hoaxes, he minds blacks arousing paroxysms of anguish at the expense of the Jews. The Americans and Europeans should feel sorry for Jews and anger for their adversaries, and every cry and tear for a black is a waste of a good cry and tear.

Among hoaxes he mentions, there is not a single one by a Jew, yet Jews are the leading perpetrators of hoaxes. Michael Kader of Ashkelon, Israel with over two thousand hoaxes to his account claiming attacks on Jewish community centres and synagogues is the shining example, but there are plenty of them. A Jewish woman had made a hoax bomb threat to a synagogue. A Jewish man spray-painted swastikas on his own house.

For Rothman, Jews are always innocent victims, as opposed to uppity blacks, who are guilty. This bias is a hallmark of Commentary Magazine, flagship of the Neocons, and the Neocon movement was established with a highly prejudiced attitude towards the blacks. Their open anti-black racism has been their entry card into white society.

The very word ‘racism’ has been grossly devalued, like the word ‘rape’. Nowadays having mutually consensual sex amounts to rape in case of buyers’ remorse, like in the case of Julian Assange, while standing still in front of a Native American drummer is defined as ‘racism’ (BTW, Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic student, is suingthe perpetrator of this hoax, the Washington Post). When everything is ‘racism’, nothing is. However, racism (and rape) could be a real thing. The most racist anti-black rant you can find on an American internet site is not on a KKK nor a Stormfront nor a Hollywood Nazi page, but on the Commentary site. It was written by Norman Podhoretz, its editor-in-chief, and published in 1963, that is, 55 years ago.

Norman Podhoretz
Norman Podhoretz

In the article My Negro Problem—And Oursthe founder of the Neocon movement admits of “hating the Negroes with all my heart”. He tells of his mother who “in Yiddish cursed the goyimand the Schwartzes, the Schwartzes and the goyim.” All American whites are sick in their feelings about Negroes, he asserts. He admits that he “grew up fearing and envying and hating Negroes” and this feeling hasn’t gone. “Now do I fear them and envy them and hate them still? The answer is yes, but not in the same proportions and certainly not in the same way… I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple; If I were to be asked today whether I would like a daughter of mine ’to marry one,’ I would have to answer: ’No, I wouldn’t like it at all. I would rail and rave and rant and tear my hair.’”

Disgusting prurience – neither more, nor less! David Duke’s views are moderate compared to Norman Podhoretz’s, but Duke is ostracized while Podhoretz was a leading light of his generation. Podhoretz nursed a special hatred of Black Muslims, while Duke was friendly with them. Despite his admitted hate of the blacks, Podhoretz felt “the insane rage … at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism”. It is fine for him to hate them, but if they hate him, it is a reason for ‘insane rage’.

Podhoretz’s views, obnoxious as they were, derive from the traditional Jewish view as stated by Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed, 3:51), namely “the Blacks are like dumb animals; they are not fully human; they are positioned below humans, but they are above monkeys for their appearance is like human and their mind is better than that of monkeys”.

With such views, you understand why some Jewish scribes like Mr Rothman hate Black hoaxes – and here they find an echo chamber within some White groups. They just do not mention Jewish hoaxes.

However, black and gay hoaxes are annoying, that’s all. Jewish hoaxes are very dangerous and expensive. Michael Kader’s hoaxes cost the American taxpayer a great deal, for his bomb threats were translated into hundreds of millions of dollars of grants for Jewish NGOs. These funds were given by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “because the Jews are the most commonly targeted religious group in the United States.” Now we know that the Jews were targeted by their coreligionist from Ashkelon, but the funds have not been returned, with apologies. There are no statistics for the total Jewish share in the DHS’s $50 billion annual budget, but my guess it is a large one.

Presenting a frivolous remark of the freshman senator Ilhan Omar as an “antisemitic attack” is another kind of Jewish hoax, or “The Growing Anti-Semitism Scam”, in words of our colleague Philip Giraldi.

Similar scams were practiced this week in England and France with powerful results. In England, seven (now eight) Jewish and Judeophile MPs have stormed out of the Labour Party claiming Labour has been ‘infected’ with ‘anti-Jewish racism’. Since Jeremy Corbyn was elected to lead the party, it became the most numerous one in Western Europe. It became popular because it regained its ties with the British worker. And immediately its philosemitic Blairite wing began to campaign against the new leader.

Their campaign is based on the Jewish hoax of Corbyn’s alleged antisemitism and racism. This hoax is as baseless as that of Jussie Smollett’s but far more dangerous. You can watch the Al Jazeera film The Lobby Part 3 and see how an encounter between an elderly lady pro-Palestinian Labour-supporter and the head of Labour Friends of Israel was misrepresented as an “antisemitic onslaught”. Actually, Smollett is a rather innocent bloke; he bayed for sympathy, while Joan Ryan, an MP and the chair of Labour Friends of Israel has collected over million dollars from Israel Embassy’s slush fund.

The scammers want to sabotage the British people’s desire to throw off the shackles of Brussels. Their “Independent [from Brits, not from Israel] Group” is against Brexit, for NATO, for nuclear weapons, for wars overseas, for neoliberalism, and that is quite aside from the Jewish and Israeli issues. They are being joined by a few ex-Tories of similar persuasion. (My British friend heartily approved of this step, for “all the rotten apples should be in one basket”).

A Labour MP said it was “possible” that Israel is a financial backer of the breakaway Independent Group of MPs, but almost immediately recanted and apologised for the suggestion.

Many reviews of the British Labour split explain it by Corbyn’s pro-Palestinian views. Corbyn and his allies also prefer this explanation.

Another, more plausible explanation crosses the bounds of the permissible in civilised society. What the heck, let us cross it.

The British Jews overwhelmingly vote for Tories; the Jews are for Remain in the EU; Jews are for banks and international institutions. Corbyn’s Labour stands for its direct opposite. These are words of Jeremy Corbyn just before his election: They, the world’s bankers, International Monetary Fund, European Union, they are utterly united in what they want. Utterly united in deflation, suppressing the economy, and creating unemployment. In the same speech, Corbyn called for sanctions on Israel and for support of Gaza, but even without that, British and American Jews think that ‘bankers’, ‘IMF’ and ‘EU’ are them.” They are what they are, in the words of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The State of Israel is important for them, perhaps the Bible, Talmud and talith are precious, but only on Saturdays. While their identification with banks, globalism, neoliberal practice is their daily routine. Marx advised to pay attention to the Weekday Jew, rather than to the Saturday Jew. This advice is still valid.

Corbyn has no problem with Jews qua Jews; everybody in the Socialist movement is used to Jews. He is against Israeli anti-Palestinian policies, and there are Jews of such views, too (though we take a lot of beating). But being against Israeli policies AND against bankers, IMF and EU means threatening the Weekday Jew’s bread and butter.

Thirty years ago, in the formative years of Jeremy Corbyn, Jews were more to the left, and then such a policy had been possible. But now the Jews have moved to the right, or to the moneyed centre for bankers, and they would have a problem with Corbyn even if he were studying Talmud daily.

The struggle of the Seven against ‘antisemitism’ has nothing to do with their alleged anti-racism. Angela Smith, a UK MP who quit the Labour Party over alleged racism, next day was caught on live TV appearing to refer to people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds as having a “funny tinge”.

Our colleague and friend Jonathan Cook of Nazareth noticed that the departing MPs are united not only by their uncritical attitude to Israel, but also by “their enthusiasm for foreign wars, for the enrichment of a narrow neo-liberal elite; [they] are ambivalent about austerity policies, and are reticent at returning key utilities to public ownership”. In other words, they are for neo-liberalism, and complaints of antisemitism serve as a cover for it.

You can read my piece Love Labours Lost explaining this rightwards shift of Jews and dismay of British Labour at the loss of erstwhile allies.

In France, the Jews greatly improved on Smollett. A French Jewish scribe Alain Finkielkraut (let us call him f-Kraut for short) had been insulted by a kuffiyeh-wearing Palestinian who marched with other brave Gilets Jaunes along a Parisian street. It was a minor event; the scribe was not beaten or roughly handled in any way; he was called ‘a dirty Zionist’, not a big deal. He is a Zionist, no doubt. Other people in the street even invited f-Kraut to join them. Pretty much a non-event. If I was writing about every occasion I was called an ‘enemy of Israel’ or ‘enemy of the Jewish people’, I’d write of nothing else for lack of time. But the reaction in France was like a million Smolletts.

“A few insults directed against a certain essayist called “philosopher” by the media are infinitely more serious than the loss of an eye by a young student in philosophy of twenty years who had done absolutely nothing wrong” – acerbically commented our friend Jean Bricmont (a partner and co-author of the columnist Diana Johnstone).

Indeed, the same day Macron’s henchmen knocked out an eye of a young Gilet Jaune; they had left another one lacking an arm; thousands were attacked by gas in what was perhaps the biggest gas assault in Europe since Ypres. But the MSM took up the case of Finkielkraut and made a Kristallnacht out of it. They claimed f-Kraut was called a “dirty Jew” and that he was almost lynched, but saved by police. (Both claims are not true; though there were cases of journalists being roughed up at the demos, and calling someone a Jew is not an offence at all, but in this case it didn’t even happen).

While doing a full Smollett, the media and President Macron went after the Gilets Jaunes, describing them as antisemites and Nazis. Thus a non-event was turned into a huge affaire; and the first real popular movement in France since 1968 was besmirched. On the same occasion, Macron explicitly equalled anti-Zionism with antisemitism and made it a criminal offence.

In addition, some unknown Smolletts painted swastikas on the Jewish cemetery, as is their wont whenever Jews wish to show they are being persecuted. I have little doubt these swastikas are painted by persons hired by this or that Jewish organisation, or by Macron’s men who wanted to amplify the f-kraut non-event.

Tens of thousands of gullible French attended a rally for f-Kraut and against antisemitism. “The fawning eagerness of the political class rushing to demonstrate against something that hardly exists”, – noted a French writer. The French political class paid no attention when a church was desecrated. But for a Jew whom somebody dissed on a street – they all marched. Media published denunciations of Yellow Vests, and Macron made a lot of political capital out of it. In purely political terms, the fallout of the f-Kraut affair could be compared to Trump’s impeachment in the wake of the Smollett shenanigans.

Mind you, this f-kraut deserved to be insulted all right. He is a French Norman (“I hate Niggers!”) Podhoretz. He spoke of “Black hatred for France”, said that “Gaza has too many children, and they have no place in the world”; ridiculed Black football players of France for being black; he is an enemy of Palestinians and of Muslims, and he does not care much for the French people either. He is known for his claim “What is good for the Jews is good for France”, for his call for segregation between Jews and Palestinians. It is amazing that a Jew with such views is considered to be “on the left”, and he is invited to TV and newspaper interviews, though he is more racist than French nationalists like Le Pen or Soral. He also wrote a nasty piece against the Gilets Jaunes, but the GJs have insulted him far less than he deserves.

In England and in France, as well as in the US, the Jews became a symbol of the present neo-liberal regime, as the scams and hoaxes make it apparent. This is more important for people here than the issue of Palestine, and unavoidable reaction to neo-liberalism will cause collapse of this Jewish role and incidentally will bring equality of Jew and Gentile to Israel/Palestine.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Starving Venezuela Into Submission Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:30:00 +0000 You are so kind-hearted! I shed a tear thinking of American generosity. “So many delightful goodies: sacks of rice, canned tuna and protein-rich biscuits, corn flour, lentils and pasta, arrived at the border of troubled Venezuela – enough for one light meal each for five thousand people”, – reported the news in a sublime reference to five thousand fed by Christ’s fishes and loaves. True, Christ did not take over the bank accounts and did not seize the gold of those he fed. But 21st century Venezuela is a good deal more-prosperous than 1st century Galilee. Nowadays, you have to organise a blockade if you want people to be grateful for your humanitarian aid.

This is not a problem. The US-UK duo did it in Iraq, as marvellous Arundhati Roywrote in April 2003 (in The Guardian of old, before it turned into an imperial tool): After Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure severely damaged… the blockade and war were followed by… you guessed it! Humanitarian relief. At first, they blocked food supplies worth billions of dollars, and then they delivered 450 tonnes of humanitarian aid and celebrated their generosity for a few days of live TV broadcasts. Iraq had had enough money to buy all the food it needed, but it was blocked, and its people received only some peanuts.

And this was rather humane by American standards. In the 18th century, the British colonists in North America used more drastic methods while dispensing aid to disobedient natives. The Red Indians were expelled from their native places, and then they were provided humanitarian aid: whiskey and blankets. The blankets had been previously used by smallpox patients. The native population of North America was decimated by the ensuing epidemics from this and similar measures. Probably you haven’t heard of this chapter of your history: the USA has many Holocaust museums but not a single memorial to the genocide near home. It is much more fun to discuss faults of Germans and Turks than of your own forefathers.

First, you starve people; then you bring them humanitarian aid. This was proposedby John McNaughton at Pentagon: bomb locks and dams, by shallow-flooding the rice, cause widespread starvation (more than a million dead?) “And then we shall deliver humanitarian aid to the starving Vietnamese”. Or, rather, “we could offer to do [that] at the conference table.” Planning a million dead by starvation, in writing: if such a note would be found on the ruins of the Third Reich, it would seal the story of genocide, it would be quoted daily. But the story of the genocide of the Vietnamese is rarely mentioned nowadays.

They did it in Syria, too. At first, they brought weapons for every Muslim extremist, then they blockaded Damascus, and then they sent some humanitarian aid, but only to the areas under rebel control.

This cruel but efficient method of breaking nations’ spirit has been developed by lion tamers for years, perhaps for centuries. You have to starve the beast until it will take food from your hands and lick your fingers. ‘Starvation-taming’, they call it.

The Israelis practice it in Gaza. They block all export or import from the Strip, interdict fishing in the Mediterranean and drip-feed the captive Palestinians by ‘humanitarian aid’. Jews, being Jews, make it one better: they made the EU to pay for the humanitarian aid to Gaza AND to buy the aid stuff from Israel. This made Gaza an important source of profit for the Jewish state.

So in Venezuela they follow an old script. The US and its London poodle seized over 20 billion dollars from Venezuela and from Venezuelan national companies. They stole over a billion in gold ingots Venezuela had trustingly deposited in the cellars of the Bank of England.

Well, they said they will give this money to a Venezuelan Random Dude, rather. To the guy who already promised to give the wealth of Venezuela to the US companies. And after this daylight robbery, they bring a few containers of humanitarian aid to the border and wait for the rush of bereft Venezuelans for food.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted: “The Venezuelan people desperately need humanitarian aid. The U.S. & other countries are trying to help, but Venezuela’s military under Maduro’s orders is blocking aid with trucks and shipping tankers. The Maduro regime must LET THE AID REACH THE STARVING PEOPLE.”

Venezuelans aren’t starving, even though they are going through difficulties. The biggest noise is made by the wealthy, as always. If Pompeo wants to help Venezuelans, he might lift the sanctions, return the funds, lift the blockade. The biscuits he wants to provide are of but little use.

President Maduro is right when he refuses to let this hypocrisy bribe the stomachs and hearts of his people. It is not just that he remembers his Virgil and knows, Timeo danaos et dona ferentes, “beware gift-bearing Greeks.” There are too many American and Colombian soldiers around the pending delivery place, and this place is suspiciously close to an airport with an extra-long runway suitable for a an airlift.

The US is known for its propensity to invade its neighbours: Panama was invaded in 1989 to keep the Panama Canal in American hands and to roll back the agreement signed by the good-hearted President Jimmy Carter. President George Bush Sr sent his airborne troops in after calling Panama president “a dictator and cocaine smuggler”. This is exactly what President Trump says about Venezuela’s president.

They are likely to use this aid to invade and suborn Venezuela. Wisely, Maduro began large military exercises to prepare the army in case of invasion. The situation of Venezuela is dire enough even without invasion. Their money has been appropriated, their main oil company is as good as confiscated; and there is a strong fifth column waiting for Yankees in Caracas.

This fifth column consists mainly of compradors, well-off young folk with a smattering of Western education and upbringing, who see their future within the framework of the American Empire. They are ready to betray the unwashed masses and invite the US troops in. They are supported by the super-rich, by representatives of foreign companies, by Western secret services. Such people exist everywhere; they tried to organise the Gucci Revolution in Lebanon, the Green Revolution in Iran, the Maidan in the Ukraine. In Russia they had their chance in the winter of 2011/2012 when their Mink-Coat Revolution was played at Moscow’s Bolotnaya Heath.

In Moscow they lost when their opponents, the Russia-First crowd, bettered them by fielding a much-bigger demo at Poklonnaya Hill. The Western news agencies tried to cover the defeat by broadcasting pictures of the Putin-supporters demo and saying it was the pro-Western Heath. Other Western agencies published pictures of 1991 rallies saying they were taken in 2012 on the Heath. In Moscow, nobody was fooled: the mink-coat crowd knew they were licked.

In the Ukraine, they won, for President Yanukovich, a hesitant and pusillanimous man of two minds, failed to gather massive support. It is a big question whether Maduro will be able to mobilise Venezuela-First masses. If he is, he will win the confrontation with the US as well.

Maduro is rather reticent; he hasn’t disciplined unruly oligarchs; he does not control the media; he tries to play a social-democrat game in a country that is not Sweden by long shot. His subsidies have allowed ordinary people to escape dire poverty, but now they are used by black marketeers to siphon off the wealth of the nation. Far from being a disaster zone, Venezuela is a true Bonanza, a real Klondike: you can fill a tanker with petrol for pennies, smuggle it to neighbouring Colombia and sell it for market price. Many supporters of the Random Guy have made small fortunes this way, and they hope to make a large killing if and when the Americans come.

A bigger problem is that Venezuela had become a monoculture economy: it exports oil and imports everything else. It does not even produce food to feed its 35 million inhabitants. Venezuela is a victim of neoliberal doctrine claiming that you can buy what you can’t produce. Now they can’t buy and they do not produce. Imagine a democratic Saudi Arabia hit by blockade.

In order to save the economy, Maduro should drain the swamp, end the black market and profiteering, encourage agriculture, tax the rich, develop some industry for local consumption. It can be done. Venezuela is not a socialist state like orderly Cuba, nor a social-democratic one like Sweden and England in 1970s, but even its very modest model of allowing the masses to rise out of misery, poverty and ignorance seems too much for the West.

It is often said there are two antagonists in the West, the Populists and the Globalists, and President Trump is the Populist leader. The Venezuela crisis proved these two forces are united if there is a chance to attack and rob an outsider country. Trump is condemned at home when he calls his troops back from Afghanistan or Syria, but he gains support when he threatens Venezuela or North Korea. He can be sure he will be cheered on by Macron and Merkel and even by The Washington Post and The New York Times.

He has the real WMD, the Weapons of Mass Deception, to attack Venezuela, and these WMD had been activated with the beginning of the creeping coup. When a rather unknown young politician, the leader of a small neoliberal rabidly pro-American fraction in the Parliament, Random Dude, claimed the title of president, he was immediately recognised by Trump, and the Western media reported that the people of Venezuela went out in mass demos to greet the new president and demand Maduro’s removal.

They beamed videos of huge Caracas demos back to Venezuela. Not many viewers abroad noticed that the video was old, filmed in 2016 demos, but the Venezuelans saw that at once. They weren’t fooled. They knew that there is no chance for a big protest demo on that day, the day of a particularly important baseball game in the professional league between Leones of Caracas and Cardenales de Lara from Barquisimeto.

But the WMD kept lying. Here is a report by Moon of Alabama: the reports of large anti-government rallies are fake news or prophecies hoping to become self-fulfilling ones:

Agence France-Press stated at 11:10 utc yesterday that “tens of thousands” would join a rally.

That was at 7:10am local time in Caracas, several hours before the rally took place. Such “predictive reporting” is now supposed to be “news”. A bit later AFP posted a video:

AFP news agency @AFP – 15:50 utc – 2 Feb 2019″>

VIDEO: Thousands of opposition protesters pour onto the streets of Caracas to back Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan #Guaido who is calling for early elections, as international pressure increases on President Nicolas #Maduro to step down

That was at 11:50am local time. The attached video did not show “thousands” but some 200 people milling about.

They lie that there are army deserters spoiling for a fight with the army. The young guys CNN presented weren’t deserters, and they didn’t live in Venezuela. Even their military insignia were of the kind discarded years ago, as our friend The Saker noticed.

However, these lies won’t avail – my correspondents in Caracas report that there are demos for and against government (for Maduro slightly bigger crowds), but the feelings aren’t strong. The crisis is manufactured in Washington, and the Venezuelans aren’t keen to get involved.

That’s why we can expect an American attempt to use force, preceded by some provocation. Probably it won’t be a full-blown war: the US never fought an enemy that wasn’t exhausted prior to the encounter. If the Maduro administration survives the blow, the crisis will take a low profile, until sanctions do their work and further undermine the economy.

In this struggle, President Trump is his own bitter enemy. He seeks approval of the War Party, and his own base will be disappointed by his actions. His sanctions will send more refugees to the US, wall or no wall. He undermines the unique status of the US dollar by weaponising it. In 2020, he will reap what he sow.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Talking About the Weather Wed, 06 Feb 2019 20:38:11 +0000 It is cold in the Midwest, so cold that Rachel Maddow already ascribed it to evil Putin (“Russia will freeze you and your family to death.”) It is extremely cold in England, too. I’d think this frost spell should put paid to the silly notion of Global Warming. But no, the adepts of Al Gore sect are not so easily dissuaded. Like the Flat Earth Society, they are impervious to arguments. These enlightened people keep struggling against global warming.

They decided to overturn Mark Twain’s adage Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it – and do something. There is a new popular hero, a pleasantly old-fashioned-looking 16-year old Swedish girl with braids, Greta Thunberg, who had sat down in a snowdrift and said she wouldn’t budge until somebody would do something against global warming. She has led a school kids demo for the same purpose, and the European MSM is rapturous.

This is the kind of demo they like; not the evil Jew-haters like the GJ, the Yellow Vests, not the workers asking for wages, not white nationalists calling for a stop to immigration, not the peaceniks objecting to highly justifiable and profitable war in Afghanistan and Syria, not the anarchists foaming at the mouth against innocent bankers, but a good bright friendly march of diverse people with open friendly faces and welcoming smiles.

There is no harm in protesting the weather. The obscure power behind the MSM, the Masters of Discourse love such cases. Greta became an instant saviour – she has been sent to Davos to give a speech to the owners of Planet Earth. She was called “almost a Messiah”, and the Swedish Church twitted that Jesus had appointed Greta Thunberg as His successor. (Not bloody likely! If He would pick such harmless causes, He won’t be crucified!). The poor girl (previously diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and selective mutism) had been promoted, like… like Stephen of Cloyes, the 12-year-old French shepherd who had led thousands of French and German children on the Childrens Crusade to liberate the Holy Land – and all the kids ended in the slave markets of the East, delivered by the adults who promoted the Crusade.

She organised a school strike. Some teachers objected and said that the kids can march outside of school hours, but the media was indignant: they will learn much more marching against global warming than studying useless math. Computers can do math better than people, while humans should learn to march after the Piper.

“The [kids] should be proud of the non-excused absences from classes on their school reports. … They learn more about civic engagement during a day of demonstrating – mobilising schoolmates, making banners, organising climate-neutral travel and debates (perhaps even with teachers and parents) – than in many a class on politics” – pontificated German Die Zeit.

Whoever does not agree with Greta, should be punished by the hate laws, says the Austrian Der Standard: “The right-wing populists don’t care about climate change, because the answers are complicated and demand a sacrifice from everyone. That doesn’t fit in with the populists’ election arithmetic scheme. It’s much easier to simply brand people as foreign. Or as different, as they do with Greta Thunberg.” Indeed, there is no more tolerance, no place for dissent in mass media today, than it was in 1930s. The agenda had changed, but you have to follow the agenda all the same.

The girl is not completely wrong, mind you. Conservation of nature is a very important thing, and we can do a lot for it. We can construct repairable and durable gadgets, instead of using disposables; we can wear wearable and mendable clothes, instead of throwing them away as they go out of fashion; we can naturally the decrease the population of our countries, instead of importing North Africans and Syrians. But all these initiatives will be bad for sales. Greta objects to meat, so she could demand that Swedish shops stock and sell fish, wild fish caught in the sea, not the farmed variety. Wild fish is better, healthier, saves a lot of energy, but you need qualified fishmongers to sell it, you can’t hire an illiterate immigrant, equip him with a scanner and pay him pennies. So fish became rarity in Sweden. But sitting in the snowdrift or marching instead of studying is hardly a remedy.

Our betters love conservationist causes; they use it to lever extra taxes and hike the cost of living. The GJ rising was triggered by Macron government’s introduction of a new eco-tax on diesel. In Sweden (and in North Europe in general), energy is necessary for survival, but the rulers keep raising energy costs by switching to “green energy”, meaning generated without oil or coal. As a result, tens of thousands Europeans die of cold every winter, and it is not a figure of speech. So they conserve oil and kill people. This is very expected for Greens.

Expensive Green Energy has an additional advantage: it is not bought from Russia, the great enemy of the Masters. Russian gas and oil are cheaper and easier to deliver, but who cares about the price? Consumers, you’d mutter? Who cares about consumers? Not the organisers of the new crusade. They offer two expensive options: American LNG or Green Energy. The Europeans will pay, stimulated by the little Swedish girl. Really neat!

In England, they plan to build a new railway line HS2 using wind farms and other unconventional sources of energy. The problem is price tag, $77 billion to start with, but probably much more. All that will be paid by taxpayers and passengers – while the UK has already very expensive rail. In order to avoid coal (and keep miners from ever earning their bread) – and oil (possibly allowing Russia to sell some) they are ready to throw more and more money.

But what about Global Warming? This phenomenon exists, but it has little to do with humans. We should be modest, as we have every reason to be: humans are still unable to influence climate to a great extent. One volcano produces more output than all mankind in century. Climate changes, true, but those changes, cyclical or not, are induced by factors of different order: by sun activity, first of all, and the sun is not susceptible to school strikes. We may fart all we can, and still it will have a very little influence on climate.

Even more modestly I’ll admit: we can’t prove the thesis this way or other way. We still haven’t got a working mathematical model of the earth’s climate. We are very, very far from being able to predict weather on a large scale. You would never know that if you read MSM. They all know. And any scientist that openly argues for agnosticism will suffer the lot of Dr James Watson of DNA fame.

I have no idea whether Watson is right or wrong, but I presume a mature scientist of such a calibre is entitled to hold and express his opinion. Ditto Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winners are entitled to hold and express their opinion about AIDS without being marginalised and hunted.

The Masters of Discourse want to have just one opinion; it is their way or highway. This is what upsets me. My logic, and my conversations with scientists convinced me that we do not know with any degree of certainty whether humanity is able to influence planetary climate, but I wouldn’t ban a scientist who thinks differently. I just ask not to ban any scientist, but that is probably too much.

In 17th century, the advanced scientists believed that the Moon was populated. Johannes Hevelius, an astronomer and a Mayor of a German Baltic city of Danzig (now repopulated by Poles and re-Polonised into Gdansk) gave the Moon-dwellers a name: Selenites. A scientist who doubted (or worse, denied) existence of Selenites would be rejected by his peers as a retrograde exceptionalist, i.e. a believer in exceptionality of Man and Earth (when every scientist worthy of this name knows that Moon, Sun and stars are populated as much as Earth!..)

But belief in Selenites does not call upon our communities to invest in special tools to save them, move them to Earth or build a ladder to the Moon. The belief in man-made climate change is a very costly belief, and it is good that President Trump took his country out of Masters-promoted setup. The wild campaign of promotion for the Swedish girl Greta indicates that the Masters haven’t given up on their plan to impose an undemocratic World government on us, under their control. What else could make us voluntarily freeze in our homes? Like the Fat Boy in Pickwick, they want to make our flesh creep. Scaremongering is the oldest device of population control, and it is the preferred one for the MSM.

They scare us all the time, to get larger budgets and to command more obedience. They scare the Brits that they will “starve among putrefying piles of rubbish after Brexit” according to The Guardian. They scare the Swedes by the mythic Russian submarines. But actually they, the Masters of Discourse and their MSM are the biggest danger for mankind. If we shall succeed in undermining their flagging credibility, we shall save us and our children with more certainty than by sitting in a snowdrift with Greta.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Migrants Across the Mediterranean Tue, 29 Jan 2019 04:30:45 +0000 Fakirs playing their flutes to fearsome cobras, a native dentist with his nasty-looking tongs and a jar of extracted teeth, drummers in colourful national garb, stalls serving spicy food in bright tagines: the main square of Marrakech, the old capital of Maghreb (that is North Africa west of Egypt and North of Sahara, presently and mainly Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia), is exotic, vibrant and gaudy, justifying expectations of a new Paul Bowles. The plaza is surrounded by a web of narrow lanes, similar to the old city of Seville.

Indeed Maghreb and Spain are united by much of its culture. The Bahia Palace of Marrakech is a modest brother to the magnificent Alcázar of Seville and its minarets are modelled on La Giralda. The Moors, or Maghrebis created the great pearls of Spanish civilisation in Granada, Cordova and Seville, but they could not repeat this feat after the expulsion on their own soil.

Marrakech is a hub of old roads connecting through Sahara to Timbuktu and through Gibraltar Straits to Andalucía, to the Atlantic seaboard with its surfers and to the rest of North Africa via Fes and Tunis. The first road is the most romantic one. The best record of this trans-Saharan navigation is the glorious yet underappreciated film of recently demised Bernardo Bertolucci, The Sheltering Sky. If with years passing by, cinema will follow manuscript illumination and vanish from public conscience, this film will remain, with a very few others, as a memory of this once great art. These square mansions, called Kasbah, with their windowless walls and crenelated roofs, stand along the routes now frequented by lorries instead of camels. Sub-Saharan Africa is very far away – 52 days of camel ride separate it from Maghreb. The best thing in Sahara is the starry sky, unbelievable sky – you never saw anything similar, and this is a good reason to travel to Sahara.

The second road, to Gibraltar and beyond, is more important, for Maghreb is well-connected with Europe. The Mediterranean connects Maghreb to Europe, while Sahara separates it from the rest of Africa. Arnold Toynbee considered Maghreb an outlying part of Europe, like Balkans or Scandinavia. If Europe is the Roman Empire, Maghreb, or Africa and Mauretania, were the wealthiest Roman provinces of long standing, when Germany and Scandinavia were still terra incognita.

This proximity is counterbalanced by faith difference. The Moors accepted Christ among the first, and they gave to the Church its Fathers Tertullian and Augustine; but they switched to Islam long time ago, and became not only neighbours but competitors and adversaries to Europe.

They, the Moors, are the reason of this article. They, and the Europeans, invade and invite each other in turns, like waves that ingress and regress upon the shore. It’s not that one side was always prevailing. The Moors colonised Europe and Europeans colonised Maghreb. They also expelled their colonisers even centuries later. Nothing is final.

Maghrebis, or the Moors are not particularly meek. Not at all. Quite dynamic and vigorous folk with enough testosterone. Do not push Moors, or you’ll regret it. You may regret it anyway, as Desdemona did. The Moors are not black. They look like Southern Europeans, some are lighter and some are darker, like Greeks, Italians or Spaniards. A lot of them live now in Europe, chiefly in France and Netherlands, so many that one can speak of a new Moorish conquest.

Their mutual invasions began 2000 years ago. In the confrontation of Carthage, the main North African city, and Rome, the first European capital, the Romans won; they conquered and colonised the Moors and brought them into the Empire; they embraced Christ and entered the Latin Church. Together with Spain, the Maghreb was overrun by the Vandals, a North European folk but returned to (East) Roman rule, under Justinian.

The European dominance ended with arrival of the Arabs, who intermingled with the natives, brought them Islam, mobilised them and crossed into Europe. The Moors took over Spain (this is called La Conquista, the Conquest) and there peaked their civilisation. But nothing is forever.

Hundreds of years later the Spaniards defeated the Moors and pushed them back to North Africa. Even the Christian Moors were expelled, though a bit later. (This was called Reconquista, Taking back).

However, the idea of separation didn’t work out. The Moors didn’t take the defeat lying down. They began raiding Europe’s shores and attacking European shipping.

Now they were called ‘Barbary corsairs’, formidable adversaries of the Europeans. They raided Europe as far as Iceland, and depopulated villages and towns of Southern France and Spain. They mined Europe for slaves.

That was the big difference between Europe and the Muslim world: slavery. It was marginal in Europe (after the crash of Roman Empire) and popular in the Dar al-Islam. The Muslims used slaves, they needed slaves, and they apparently preferred European Christian slaves. While Spain was Muslim, the Vikings raided Eastern Europe, captured local folk and sold them to Jews, while the Jews traded this valuable commodity in Cordoba. Later, East Europeans, ancestors of modern Russians, were raided and captured by Crimean Tatars to be transported to Istanbul. But the demand was big, the profit huge, and the Moors began raiding West European shores and capture boats in the Mediterranean.

These corsairs were quite different from the Caribbean pirates. Jack the Sparrow people were Europeans, and they robbed the boats. They didn’t care for crews and passengers of the captured vessels: they could be thrown overboard or given a dinghy or landed on a shore; rarely kept for ransom. Barbary corsairs were going mainly for crews and passengers. They treated the Europeans like the Europeans treated Sub-Saharan Black Africans – captured, enslaved and sold on the market. Yes, Virginia, whites also were slaves. Every European could become a slave in Dar al-Islam, and millions of East and West Europeans, French, Spanish, British and Russians were sold and bought on Istanbul markets.

Europeans were forced to take over Maghreb, (likewise Russians were forced to conquer Crimea) to stop slavers’ raids. That was the beginning of European colonisation of Maghreb.

The Moors stopped to come to Europe, but then, the Europeans have moved to Maghreb. They had built towns and cities, established industries, and re-joined Maghreb to Europe. They settled in Maghreb, hopefully forever.

But it didn’t work: surprisingly (?), the Moors didn’t like it. They rose in rebellion, got independent, and expelled all the European colonists in their millions back to Europe. Half a million from Morocco, one and a half million from Algeria, two hundred thousand from a smaller Tunisia had to leave their homes and go to the country they probably never visited.

Did they parted their ways? Not really! In a short time, the Moors went to Europe by hundreds of thousands, and settled there. Now France and Netherlands have more Moors – between three and four million – than Spain had in the zenith of Moorish power.

It didn’t help the expelled Europeans. The houses of European colonists in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia weren’t returned to their owners. They are still there, as a memorial for the days when Europeans lived in North Africa.

General de Gaulle granted Algeria independence, he said, to stop mass migration of Moors to France. It didn’t work: Algeria became independent, but migration didn’t stop.

I spoke to my Moroccan friend Hamid about moving to Europe. He doesn’t want to, though many of his friends, relatives and acquaintances did the move. He says it is more comfortable to live in his native Maghreb. In order to live in France on the same level, he’d have to work much more. Accommodation in France is quite expensive. At home, in Morocco, he lives well as proper middle class, and still works normally without overtime. He is wise – but many other Moors move to Europe.

Within the Old City of Marrakech, I found a synagogue. A sprawling complex with courtyard, it is located a few hundred yards from the royal palace – as Jewish centres usually are everywhere. Despite squeaks of ‘persecution’, my ancestors were highly privileged even in Morocco and Spain. They were instrumental in the Europe-Maghreb population flow for centuries.

Jews helped the Moors to conquer Spain in the first place, continuing the tradition of switching sides in the real time. (In Palestine Jews supported the Persian invasion, and afterwards, the Arab one.) Jews played an important role in Moorish Spain, and had to leave together with the Moors.

In Maghreb they switched back to the European side. A Jewish minister of justice in 19th century France, Adolphe Crémieux gave Algerian Jews (as opposed to other Algerians) French citizenship. It was a shrewd act: influential local Jews supported France against the natives.

In Tunisia, the Jews were extremely powerful for centuries. In 1819, the United States consul in Tunis, Mordecai Manuel Noah, wrote of them: “The Jews are the leading men; they are in Barbary the principal mechanics, they are at the head of the custom-house, they farm the revenues; they control the mint, they are the bey’s treasurers, secretaries, and interpreters. These people, then, whatever may be said of their oppression, possess a very controlling influence, and their opposition is to be dreaded.”

When the French came, these ‘leading men’ switched sides and supported the French colonial administration. Though even then they had no sympathy for the French settlers, and their expulsion had been explained as a perfectly justifiable act by Albert Memmi, the prominent Tunisian Jewish writer. For Memmi, they were greed-obsessed carpet-baggers: “You go to a colony because jobs are guaranteed, wages high, careers more rapid and business more profitable. The young graduate is offered a position, the public servant a higher rank, the businessman substantially lower taxes, the industrialist raw materials and labor at attractive prices. He is often heard dreaming aloud: a few more years and he will take leave of this profitable purgatory and will buy a house in his own country.” He didn’t notice that the same attitude could be ascribed to the Tunisian Jews and Muslims that moved to France. The Jews would go to Israel or to Quebec whenever the time is right; the Muslims may return “to their own country”, but it probably won’t happen.

The Jews of Europe are fond of immigration from Maghreb. At least they promote it. Fine, but why did the Europeans accept the Maghrebi immigrants? After being expelled from these countries, one could expect the Europeans to say “You wanted to get rid of us, now stay away and enjoy your freedom from Europeans”. But European countries were eager for immigrants, and it was not caused mainly by need for working hands, for some European countries managed fine without them.

After the long world war Europe had been occupied; the West by the US, the East by the USSR. Their policies were very different: the Western rulers had little trust in their nations, and they began to bring immigrants from North Africa and Turkey, in the same time preaching diversity.

The pro-Soviet leaders didn’t want any immigrants, and they carried out soft nationalist policies. Experience of East Germany, Czech Republic and Hungary proved the European countries do not need immigrants for their economy.

These countries entered homeostasis, a rather stable balance with little development, almost stagnation accompanied by steady improvement of workers’ life. Homeostasis is the best for ordinary European workers. This was achieved in socialist states, including soft-socialist Scandinavian ones.

The Europeans could live quiet peaceful life, slowly and gradually improving their lot and going down in numbers. There is nothing wrong with diminishing population: it could be fine for ordinary people. The world is not endless, the resources are limited, housing construction takes time. It could be good for Europe to slowly decrease its population to the level circa 1800. It would be a new Golden Age, many green lawns, green forests, modest but pleasant life for everybody.

But it would be bad for sales. Jewish love of immigration is connected to their preference of sales upon production: while production could be automated, robots introduced, productivity increased, the sales are done by humans. You need more people willing to buy, take credits and rent your housing, to work hard to advance, and to push others to take credits and compete. Without immigration, the Jews would lose their raison d’être.

Would there be immigration without Jews? Yes, for there are enough non-Jews who imitate Jews. Even if not all of them succeed, there are many of them and they are willing to go to considerable lengths. The way to stop immigration is to stop expansion and growth, to kill capitalism as we know it.

Production and market are perfectly possible in homeostasis; interest, shares, currency trading are not.

The GJ, the French Yellow Vests, proposed to make things last long. This is a good and radical step, instead of rubbishing the world with models that came two years ago and are already out-dated or broken. We had these things: I remember a fridge in good shape after 20 years of use, and a VW car running well after 30 years of service. If we want, we could make things that will serve practically forever, repairable and serviceable.

Japan is a good example of developments: our colleague Linh Dinh visited the land of Yamato and had been upset by what he saw, that is by aging population and loveless youth. I am also a regular visitor in Japan; yes, Japan was perhaps more fun many years ago, but it is doing all right. It does not grow much, the American and European traders do not become rich overnight speculating with Japanese goods. Shares do not rise, true. But for ordinary Japanese this is good. They could have even less progress and still be satisfied.

Japanese friends often told me (when I’d regret slow growth of Japanese economy): we do not want more. The years of rapid growth were the years of our misery. The years of stagnation are just fine for us. If the US were to forget about us completely instead of pushing to conform to their ideas of growth and diversity, we’d be even more happy.

Our world needs less and less working hands. What stops us from enjoying this situation? The European population does not grow, it gently decreases. Immigrants from North Africa and elsewhere do grow, but let them grow in their ancestral lands.

There is no reason to worry about the growing African population. This is after all, an African affair. The Sahara is too big to cross; the airlines can be stopped from carrying human traffic. Yes, many Africans would prefer to live in France or Holland, and surely some Africans will do it. But no massive population waves please, unless led by Theodoric or Genghis Khan.

In my childhood, there was a popular game called Musical Chairs. While music played, one could choose a chair and sit on it the moment music stops. It’s enough of this game. Let people sit where they sat. This temptation to grow endlessly may and should be defeated.

It is enough to defeat the greed, the spirit of getting more and more; and then we shall softly land on a green meadow.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Banned by Facebook for Telling the Truth Sun, 20 Jan 2019 04:33:36 +0000 Harvard scientists insisted last year we had been visited by guests from a galaxy far, far away. Well, almost. The suspected spacecraft Oumuamua first drew close to the earth, but then it accelerated, sped by our planet and disappeared somewhere into Deep Space. What went wrong? Why did the little green men of Vega, the brightest star in the Lyra constellation, gave up what was presumably their original plan to visit us Earthlings? Could it be they read our internet communications, watched our TV shows, checked our newspapers and chose to postpone the actual encounter until a better times?

One can understand them. We have really made a mess of our communications. We humans need to discuss things in order to make correct decisions, and the field for discussion shrinks rapidly. At first, we lost the media.

Once, the newspapers competed, leaders had differing views, the pundits argued, the parties called for various actions. They vied for our pennies and votes and tried to convince us. Not any more. Now they know better what’s good for us. They do not care about circulation, they do not have to sell newspapers, for the advertisements are paid for by the rich, anyway. Once, minorities had been excluded from discussion; now, it is majority that is banned.

There is not a single newspaper in the US that supports the views of the US President. Nobody defended him when he was accused, brazenly, in-your-face, of being a Russian agent. Nobody supported him when he called to bring the troops home from Syria. Nobody came to his aid when he mulled parting with NATO. There are tens of millions of men and women who voted for him, but he has only his Twitter account at his disposal.

The media accuses Trump of paying too little attention to Israel’s needs. Israel needs US troops in Syria and in Germany, US jets in Spain and Qatar, US ships in Italy and the Gulf. Israel needs the US to lead NATO to contain Russia. If Israel needs it, the US should provide, says Daniel Shapiro, the ex-ambassador. Not a single American newspaper, not a single US statesman cared to reply that President Trump had been elected by the American people to do what is needed for them, not for Israel.

The US is not an exception. Millions of French people support the GJ, but not a single newspaper, not a single TV channel gives them a platform. They are called anti-Semites for they are revolted by Danny Cohn-Bendit and Bernard-Henri Levi, who are Jewish. They are also called homophobes because they want to ban same-sex “marriage”. They are being attacked by the bankers’ storm-troopers, the Antifa, and no media defends them.

Millions of Brits support Jeremy Corbyn, but all the mainstream media is against him, even the state-supported BBC, even the Labour Guardian. Corbyn is accused of anti-Semitism, for Corbyn speaks for the workers and against the bankers. Nobody defends him and there is no mainstream media to speak for him.

Only the minor Russian RT channel provides, up-to-a-point, some alternative views, defending the American, British and French people’s sovereignty, but they can’t do much. Paradoxically, RT does not broadcast in Russian and its English-language broadcasts can’t be seen in Russia. The rest of the Russian media doesn’t differ much from the Western variety.

The mainstream media from Tokyo to Paris to Los Angeles speaks in one voice. All other opinions had been pushed out of mainstream discussion. It is good that we have the internet and sites like Unz Review that allow us to express our views. The problem is with delivery. How can we deliver to the public? The real mainstream media has so many more views and viewers! For them, hundreds of thousands or even millions of views are not unusual.

We need our social networks to deliver the ideas and exchange opinions, to inform readers of our publications, to convince and rally. In over-populated, nuclearized world, with family and neighbourhood ties torn, there is no substitute for these networks. And Facebook and Twitter could help us. Google could help us.

Alas, they betrayed us, too. The social networks, by their bans and de-platforming took away from us the last possibility to communicate. An aging baby-boomer who dwelt in many countries under many rulers, I am taken aback by the new totalitarianism that crept in under the guise of new technology. Even in the grim days of Stalin and McCarthy the authorities exercised less mind control than does Mr Zuckerberg and his ilk.

And not only for politics. They want to draw and implement their agenda on all topics disregarding our views.

Facebook hates when men and women have wholesome sexual relations. This is taboo for them. Men are supposed to abuse women. Women are supposed to complain #MeToo style. Alternatively, men may lust after men, and women after women. They actually ban normal relations between the sexes.

I have been banned and my post removed by Facebook moderators for saying that French women are among the best. This is sexism and it goes against the community standards, they said. Can’t you, Mr Zuckerberg, keep your hands off other people’s communications? Allow me to have my own (highly favourable) opinion about French women! Oh no, he can’t.

I have been banned and my post removed for mentioning a Durham University editorwho was fired for saying ‘women don’t have penises’. This is offensive to transgenders and goes against Facebook norms.

Facebook and Twitter censorship is insistent, annoying and discourse-distorting everywhere, but the Russian-language Facebook has been subject to particularly severe censorship. FB moderators for the Russians are mainly Ukrainians with a grudge against Russians. Apparently this is the condition by white they are chosen. They remove and ban practically every Russian reference to the Ukraine and its affairs, and never remove or ban Ukrainian insults. Russian poets, classic and modern, are being banned; what appears to these bumpkins as ‘PC rules’ are being enforced ruthlessly.

They ban people for allegedly non-PC posts and comments made years ago. Two years ago a man had quoted in his own FB blog a poem by Joseph Brodsky, the Nobel laureate, and two years later this quote was found and the man banned for a month.

Or an even better example. In 2006, a Russian philologist gave a lecture about origins of Russian language in a Moscow Bilingua café. In 2015, the lecture was posted by a user in Facebook. This week in 2019, it was removed and the user was banned.

Russians have no tradition of PC, for good or for bad. They do not hesitate to mention negroes or mulattos, Gypsies or Jews. They are not aware these words are considered insulting by the new lawgivers. They call the Ukrainians khokhol, or “forelock”, after traditional Ukrainian haircut. Khokhol had been used in Russian language for years, usually with positive or neutral connotation. A modern nicknames for Ukrainians are ukr or ukrop. Until now, nobody considered these nicknames insulting, like chicookieand tex are not slurs. But for Zuckerberg, all such words call for ban.

I do not know of a Russian FB user who hasn’t been banned for at least a month. Thus, it is not just censorship, but a whole re-education program of the kind usually associated with Chairman Mao and his times.

Zuckerberg and his trained beasts actually decided to mould public discourse of Russian civilisation in their own shape and image. Poor Russians who survived such re-education by the Bolsheviks in 1920s and by anti-Soviets in 1990, are now being processed through the fine mesh of SJW talk. When the Soviets were disbanded, the Russians were promised freedom of speech. Where is this freedom of speech?

FB bans for posting links to the sites they do not like. I have been banned for posting a link to Links to RT and Sputnik are removed, too. Last week, FB removed and banned 500 accounts with 850,000 followers for publishing links to RT and Sputnik. A friend of mine, Mr Oleg Tsarev, a former member of Ukrainian parliament, a contender for Ukrainian presidency and the chairman of the Donbas parliament, had his account with two hundred thousand followers, and Mr Zuckerberg scrapped it without an explanation.

I asked my FB friends to report whether they ever were banned, and if yes, for what reason. Here is a shortlist of their responses: for speaking against Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian Quisling; for discussing Shevchenko, the Ukrainian 19th century poet; for mentioning forelocks; for posting picture of Putin; for speaking about victims of Ukrainian shelling of Donbas; for using such words as ‘pederast’ or ‘lesbian’; for saying women are more emotional than men; for posting a still from an Almadovar film; for arguing against a Ukrainian historian who claimed Jesus and Buddha were Ukrainians; for defending the Russian Church; for criticizing the leading pro-Western liberal Mr Gozman; for arguing against NATO manoeuvres in the Baltic states; for speaking against discrimination of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states.

And now for Israel and Jews. This is a major cause of FB bans. It is next to impossible to refer to Israel on Facebook – without being banned. I have been banned and my post removed for posting links to my own articles on . A link to an article telling of Palestinian church land sales to Jewish settlers had been removed, too. The Haaretz newspaper links were almost always removed and banned.

For instance, Haaretz informed its readers that a Palestinian mother of a teenager killed by Israeli soldiers had been imprisoned for 11 months for an angry post in Facebook. I was banned for reporting that to Facebook readers as for ‘hate speech’. Killing the woman’s son and imprisoning the mother is surely ‘love deed’, but telling of that is sheer hate.

Russian mainstream media steers away of Israel. The Russian editors are not necessarily Jews, but there are enough Jews in every newspaper to stop a critical item. If there are no Jews, every editor feels it would be safer for him to avoid the topic. Facebook is the only possible conduit for free information regarding Israel. Alas, it is equally partial. My friends anti-Zionist Jews have been frequently banned for their “anti-Semitism”. My FB blog with its few thousand followers and viewers allows the Russian readers to learn of Israeli developments. My audience is many times smaller than that of the mainstream hasbara. Can’t you tolerate even such a small window of free speech and real news, Mr Zuckerberg? Apparently he can’t.

In a really shameful episode, Facebook accepted the orders of Israeli military censors. In November 2018, a band of Israeli spies in Arab dress was stopped in Gaza Strip. The Israelis succeeded in escaping while their commanding officer, a high-ranking Druze, was shot dead. It transpired that the Israeli team had spent a few days or more in Gaza, pretending to be members of an international humanitarian relief organisation while actually spying and preparing the ground for shelling Gaza.

They were criminals since the laws of war expressly forbid combatants from using the Red Cross (and other relief organisations) as their cover. Israelis disregard this rule and do use Red Cross ambulances as their troop carriers. (Marwan Barghouti, a potential Palestinian Mandela, was kidnapped by such a fake ambulance.) Gaza security people managed to collect all the photos of the criminals and posted them online offering a million dollars for information leading to their full identification and apprehension. Israeli military censors forbade Israeli media and foreign journalists based in Israel from publishing the photos. However, a Jewish American dissident Richard Silverstein broke the ban and published the photo.

I tried to repost it, but shamefully, Facebook removed and banned the photo. It blocked the photo even in Messenger. I could not believe my eyes: I have placed the photo in Messenger, and it immediately disappeared! What is Facebook, then? Is it an international body – or an outpost of Israeli hasbara?

It is our luck that the Western Union does not (yet) belong to Mr Zuckerberg, otherwise we’d get even letters from our family censored by his sidekicks.

It is paramount to save social networks from Zuckerberg diktat. It should be a public facility, protected by law; it should be possible to appeal every block and ban in the court; no arbitrary decisions should be made. Censorship in peacetime is unacceptable; it is against the US Constitution, too. If we want to save mankind from destruction, we must open communication channels, and keep them open. And then, perhaps, the next scout from Vega will visit us.

P.S. In real time. While this article was being written, another post of mine has been blocked: “This post goes against our Community Standards, so no one else can see it.” This was repost of a link to Haaretz interview of Benny Morris, an Israeli New Historian, who predicts that soon “the [Israeli] Jews will remain a small minority within a large Arab sea of Palestinians, a persecuted or slaughtered minority, as they were when they lived in Arab countries. Those among the Jews who can, will flee to America and the West.”

Apparently life goes against their Community Standards! Shouldn’t people be allowed to read what one of the most important Israeli historians has to say? It is a pretty grim text. Morris expresses regret that Jews didn’t ethnically cleansed the whole of Palestine in 1948, and remove all non-Jews; and he says there is no chance for peace settlement at all. He also says that Trump won’t last a year in the office, and with his departure, Netanyahu will also go under.

In the comments to the article, an (apparently American) reader comments: “do America a favor and go elsewhere, we have enough racist bigots here already.”

P.P.S. Richard Silverstein has been banned for his publication in Facebook, and put up a vigorous fight against the ban.

]]> 0
Yuletide Message Sun, 23 Dec 2018 21:05:14 +0000 I am a big fan of President Trump’s Christmas greetings. We need a US president to wish Merry Christmas in this dark time. And by declaring his troops’ withdrawal from Syria, he almost earned the right to do it.

Do not forget: the anti-Christian wave that covered the world had began in the US. In this great country, Christmas had been outlawed; only Hanukkah lights were allowed in public spaces, while Christian signs and images of Bethlehem Manger had been forbidden.

Enemies of Christ and enemies of American people promoted some previously unheard-of Kwanza, as if the black Americans weren’t Christians but some pagans straight from African jungle. Truth must be said, the US blacks were known and famous for their spirituals, for their steady church attendance, for their love of Christ. So many troubles, criminality, drugs and degradation this community suffered because Christ’s enemies’ drive to de-Christianise them and the whole of American society. People are often unfair to the blacks: at first, they encouraged them to turn away from the church, and then, they blamed them for the consequent depredation.

They encouraged celebration of Hanukkah, the Jewish feast commemorating mass murder of … Jews who embraced Western culture and assimilated, by their fundamentalist and West-hating brethren. In a recent article, an American Jewish journalist admitted that he is revolted by the story and by the events, but he still celebrates it because he hates Christianity and does not want to give an inch in his struggle against Christ.

I refer to The Hypocrisy of Hanukkah by Michael David Lukas who has been planning to abandon the Jewish feast, but he decided not to do so because he needs something to offer his young daughter who is attracted to Santa Claus. As he puts it, “it’s all about beating Santa.”

“Santa” is an euphemism for Christ. He accepts Hanukkah he dislikes because he hates Christ even more. And one of the usual tricks is to say that Christ could not be born now, in the darkest time of the year, and it is just secondary use of some pagan practice. Their opponents say that Jesus could be born anytime, so by chance it occurred in late December.

But it is not by chance Christ was born in Judea, a day after the winter solstice, the darkest time of the year. It is not by chance He was born in the family of Palestinian refugees from Galilee, driven by the army to the caves at the edge of the desert.

The Son of Man could be born anywhere on earth, and He would be received with great glory. Instead, he chose the darkest time and the darkest place, and the lowest position there is. He came as light comes to where and when it was most needed.

His birth in Palestine is sometimes interpreted as a sign of special election of the people he was born amongst. The Jews were chosen as worthy to give birth to Christ, so preach Evangelical Zionists in their drive to support Israel. Another Zionist outlet, Jews for Jesus, try to appropriate Christ as their coreligionist and a fellow Jew, a Saviour for the Jews. A whole PR industry promotes an idea of Jesus as a Jewish Rabbi, and of the necessity for Christians to give tribute to Jews.

But it is possible to read the story in a different light: Jesus chose to be born in the darkest time, in the darkest place, among people possessed by the darkest ideas. The Jewish paradigm of that time (as now) was a system of double morals, of mutual support combined with disregard for outsiders, of inward love and outward enmity. Christ chose to be born here as He knew: this idea is the most dangerous that mankind faces, and it has to be taken on.

The tradition tells, after His death, He descended to the netherworld and saved the souls of the just. It is called Harrowing Hell, and a visual presentation of this deed can be found in many churches, for instance, in the small apse of the St Saviour monastery of Chora in Constantinople/Istanbul. His birth in Herodian Judea under Pharisee control was a prefiguration of His descent to Hell. He came to the worst place and saved the souls of the just, even of Adam and Eve. A short three hundred years after His birth, His idea of the brotherhood of man had won the day. Alas, the forces of darkness were not totally defeated.

This idea of supremacy, of inequality, of being good to your kin and awful to the rest, is again the biggest danger mankind faces now, two thousand years later, when the world has made a complete circle and came back to the same place. Bethlehem again bewails its innocents; a newer, better-equipped version of King Herod rules in Jerusalem; the doctrine of double morality again spans the earth and captures the great empires.

Still, one finds hope the day after the solstice: the darkest time is already behind us. Be merry!


Yuletide Controversy

Christmas greetings are supposed to be pretty non-controversial stuff, but not anymore. The date of Nativity caused a heated dispute among my friends and readers. Lane, from Miami wrote, “it was my understanding that the actual time of Christ’s birth was in September”. Shanaz from Saudi Arabia was of a different mind: ‘Jesus was born in April; check it out’. Prof John Williams from Virginia explained: ‘You may be aware that most historians believe that Jesus must have been born in September, under the sign of the Virgin. The Church moved his “official birthday” to just after the shortest day of the year in order to emphasize that he was the Light of the World’. And Bryce from Atlanta offered another date: “most scholars will agree that Jesus was born in mid-late October (a kindred Libran)”.

Such variety of proposed dates, and all of them ‘actual’, and agreed by ‘most experts’! Is it a meaningful controversy? Well, up to a point. There isn’t and can’t be any new historical knowledge about the Nativity that was not available to, say, St Jerome of Bethlehem or Eusebius of Caesarea. As centuries and millennia pass by, we do not learn more about these times, we just forget. People of Bethlehem are not likely to remember the particulars of the birth of a humble refugee from Galilee. The church decided on the date on the basis of the best data available at the time. The persons who decided were men of great faith, curiosity, desire to establish true facts, and I see no reason to doubt their decision.

Could the Church move his birthday in order to emphasize that he was the Light of the World? Before replying to this question, I shall quote an amusing booklet published in the second half of the 19th century under the title Napoleon as a Solar Myth. The author ‘proves’, tongue-in-cheek, that Napoleon never existed, but was just a new version of the Solar Myth, and his 12 marshals were, yes, you guessed it, twelve months or signs of Zodiac. In the same vein, one could argue that Sabbatai Zevi, the great Jewish prophet of the 17th century, was an invention, as he was born and died on the 9th day of Ab, the day of the Destruction of the Temple. Many other important men were born on auspicious dates. Why would not Christ be born on such a day?

Doubt of the Nativity date obscures a greater doubt, the doubt of divinity, doubt of predestination, doubt of God’s existence. If God exists, and if He arranged for the Star to announce the coming of Christ, is it strange that Christ would be born on a day of great importance to all mankind? No, it would be logical. The birth of the Son of God was a cosmic event, and it would be expected to happen on a special day. As He was the Light of the World, He was born after the winter solstice. Even more important, the darkest time of the year hints to the darkest place on earth. Jerusalem was the focal point of the system of double morals, of inward love and outward enmity. Christ chose to be born here as He felt: this idea is the most dangerous that mankind faces, and it has to be taken on.

This connection is overlooked by the Evangelical Zionists, who misunderstand His birth in Palestine as a sign of special election of the people He was born amongst. The Jews were chosen as worthy to give birth to Christ, they preach. One could think Christ was born in purple. The date is especially relevant as it confirms what we know: He was born in the Heart of the Darkness.

If you doubt Christ, then it makes sense to doubt the cosmically significant date of Nativity. And then you can find yourself on a wrong side of the frontline that goes through New York and Bethlehem, as the struggle is far from over.

The Washington Times (28.11.01) published an interesting article called ‘Calendars for Advent appear more secularised’. A newspaper reporter visited a few bookshops in the US, from Barnes and Noble to Borders, and found that the Advent calendars had dropped the Nativity. There are mice, bunnies, Santa Claus, bears, the ‘Nutcracker’, but no Bethlehem, no Nativity. ‘The stores do not want to offend any non-Christian shoppers’, speculates an interviewee.

Who are those ‘non-Christians’? Surely not Muslims, who commemorate the Nativity of Christ as much as anybody, and who are anyway disfavoured in the US. There are not too many Neo-Pagans, either. So, why could they not write in a less-oblique way, ‘the shop owners feel the Jews do not want to see anything connected to Christ’? Probably because it would be a painful truth.

The Orthodox Jews have even a special routine for Christmas. The preferred activities are cutting toilet paper for the forthcoming month and suchlike, reported the local Jerusalem newspaper Kol Ha-Ir. Non-religious Jews have forgotten the reason why, but still keep fighting Christ and Christianity.

Forward[1], the most progressive Jewish American newspaper, dedicated a long article to Jewish Christmas customs. It refers to ‘the traditional Eastern European Jewish custom of playing cards on Christmas Eve’ and explains it: ‘The most precious commandment for religious Jews is learning Torah…. The only time Jews would not learn was at times of personal or communal mourning — and on Nitlnacht. There would be no learning to bring honour and merit to the one that was born on that night (i.e. to Jesus Christ)’.

Jews would not say ‘Christmas’. “Punning derogatorily in different languages on Christian words for this holiday, it turns out, was indeed a time-honoured (!) Jewish practice. For instance, Nitlnacht (a pun on nit, nothing, or on Hebrew nitleh, “the hanged one,”), Kratzmakh, (a made-up Yiddish word that sounds like “Scratch-me”), Taluy-nakht, “the night of the hanged man”, blinde nakht, “Blind Night” (a pun based on the Ukrainian, in which sviatyi vechir, “sacred evening,” was turned by Jews into slipyi vechir, “blind evening”), Khvoristvo (a pun on Ukrainian rizdvo, “Christmas,” and Belorussian khvori, “sick.”). “Some Yiddish speakers in Western Poland called Christmas beyz-geboyrenish, “Badly Born,” playing on Polish Boze Narodzenie, “Divine Birth.”

The Forward concludes: “It’s clear, I think, why Christmas should have inspired so many Jewish puns. It was a day that Jews had an instinctive distaste for, it being the holiday on which Christians celebrated the incarnation of God in human form of all Christian beliefs, the one to strike the Jewish mind as the most absurd and repugnant.” Repugnant, no less!

The Washington Times quotes Patrick Scully of the Catholic League: ‘We witness neutering of Christmas … Christmas suffered a direct hit from this secularisation. One is allowed to see symbolism in Kwanza, while a Nativity scene may mean a battle with the (heavily Jewish) ACLU’. As the Christians of the US prefer to avoid battle with the ACLU, Israelis can battle the besieged Bethlehem with greater ease, but who can say, which front of this battle is the more important one?

The American Jewish Committee, the ADL and other major Jewish supremacist organizations have worked relentlessly to forbid the singing of Christmas carols in schools and public institutions. They have made sure that Nativity scenes and Christian symbols are removed from community property, but they have worked for and even received court approval for Jewish Menorahs on public property.

Take for instance a recent ADL guide for Jewish parents in their campaign against Christmas in public schools, called: Religious Issues in Your Child’s Public School: A Guide for Jewish Parents, available on the ADL Website.

Q. What is excessive when it comes to Christmas decorations on handouts and in the classroom?

A. First, it is important to note that while Christmas trees, Santas, wreaths, wrapped gifts, and reindeer are commonly used as Christmas decorations or symbols, the courts have decided that they are secular symbols of the season. Nevertheless, their inordinate usage is inappropriate. Talk to the teacher about the plethora of Christmas decorations on the homework assignments. Explain that while you understand that displaying such graphics on workbook assignments is legal, such excessive use makes you and your child feel uncomfortable. Suggest alternative winter decorations, including snow flakes, gingerbread houses, and mittens that may be more inclusive.

Q. Is it appropriate for teachers to hold Christmas parties and to allow those who don’t observe to be excused?

A. The students are being told, in effect, “Come to a fun party with gifts, food, and games, or go to the library for the afternoon”. While legal, this party is insensitive to those students who do not celebrate Christmas. With a few adjustments, this party can be a positive experience for all of the students. Instead of celebrating Christmas, the party can celebrate the winter season or a variety of holidays. Finally, since receiving gifts from Santa Claus is a Christian tradition, it is inappropriate in the public-school classroom”.

Attempts to sow doubts about Christ are regularly made by some Jewish scholars, who usually try to downgrade Him. If he existed, they claim, he surely was just an ordinary bloke, a vagrant teacher from Galilee, who was born anywhere but in Bethlehem, anytime but on an auspicious date, and grew up anywhere but in Nazareth. If he existed he surely did not care about Goyim, non-Jews, they say. Why indeed would a good Jewish Rabbi care about the rest of mankind? (This is the underlying idea of the book of Hiyam Maccobi, for instance, where the Jewish nationalist writer claims Christ was a Jewish extreme nationalist, a Rabbi Kahane of his day). For Jewish scholars, media-owners, opinion-makers, the fight against Christ was and remains an important part of the agenda, and denial of Nativity is a weapon in this struggle. It is not the only weapon, and I shall give you an example.

The Washington Post printed in its last Easter edition on the first page (not far from its usual glorification of Israel) a feature called ‘The Face of Christ’, containing a police-style e-fit. It showed a rather crude and brutish face of a man, with low forehead, darkish skin, eyes expressive of cunning, a type of lowly menial laborer. It bore the caption, ‘Face of Christ’. Bold headlines advised the reader that now the latest tools of science were used in order to find out how Jesus Christ looked, on the basis of some skulls found in Jerusalem. Well, 90 p.c. of the readership does not go beyond the bold headlines, into the fine print, and they would come away with the feeling that in fact, the skull of Jesus was discovered, and he turned out to be quite an unpleasant fellow.

Only careful perusal of the feature article reveals that the face is a reconstruction of a Jewish contemporary of Christ, based on a few skulls found in Palestine. The authors could call the brutish e-fit, ‘The High Priest of Jews’. They could remain neutral and unbiased and call the e-fit ‘a face of a Jewish (?) contemporary of Christ’, but they preferred the misleading legend ‘Face of Christ’, with its implication that Christ actually looked like a low criminal.

With absolutely the same license, they could make a composite photo of a few women from the local old folks’ home and publish it as ‘the face of Marilyn Monroe’. But then, this newspaper has its own agenda. On this agenda, fighting Christ has higher priority than debunking Marilyn Monroe. And this newspaper does not stand alone, but i liaises with other media outlets all over the US, Canada, England. The picture of ‘the face of Christ’ appeared in all of them, and afterwards, probably, in every major newspaper, as who would miss such a sensation?

The struggle against Christianity and Christ is the raison d’être of Judaism, as Christ symbolises the end of Jewish chosen-ness. We are truly blessed that nowadays, the Jewish war against Christ is expressed just in the siege of Bethlehem and a ban on Christ in ‘Christmas’.

December 2002-2018


Our Lady of Sorrow (Free PDF)
The Collected Essays from the Holy Land
Israel Shamir

Send any appropriate PayPal payments to


[1] JANUARY 10, 2003

]]> 0
Gilets Jaunes: The End of Dystopia Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:02:19 +0000 The French are the best. The men don’t get fat. The women don’t sleep alone. The kids are well-behaved. They have the best architecture, the best way of living, best bread, best wine, best olive oil, best cooking, some of the best writing, films, painting, poetry, perfume – and women. They also excel in revolutions. Each revolution of theirs is a peach, perfect, round and juicy. They open a new epoch for mankind.

Just thinking of a French revolution makes me feel young, for I remember the previous one, in May 1968, and it was a beauty, the revolution of Forbidden to Forbid. It ushered us into the short-living paradise of permissible. Believe it or not, we could freely flirt with the opposite sex, we could smoke in the pubs and cafés, we could have a drink and drive. We could rent a room for small price, and roam Europe for $5 a day. Workers weren’t fired, jobs were aplenty, there were no one-year contracts, parking was free and gasoline cheap. Oh yes, and the cotton was high.

Previously, the world had been hard, cold and rigid – more or less the way it is now, with prohibitions overtaking permissions. Half a century had passed since then, and the world is ripe for a new French revolution – and it came, the GJ rising. And in time for Christmas, making it an excellent gift for us all.

The French people said Non to prosperity for the rich and austerity for the rest, to dismantling of the social state, to privatisations, to wars abroad, to mass migration – to all these plagues unloaded upon civilised and advanced West for last thirty years.

The revolt is not over. Don’t get discouraged by a few setbacks. Like a bonfire, popular uprisings burn unevenly. Now they burst out, in a few days they appear extinguished, and suddenly flare up again. This is the case with the GJ uprising. It is impossible to predict what will happen next. Even if repressions, mass arrests, propaganda and armoured cars will help the Macron regime to hold on for a while, the bell rang: the end of the bankers’ plan to tighten our belts, and to grow their triple chin is nigh. After all, the final elimination of the old feudal order took place many years after the shining example of 1789 Revolution.

Paris sets fashion; their infrequent rebellions define humanity’s future. In 1789 rebellious Parisians buried the Ancien Régime, proclaimed democracy, liberty, equality and fraternity. In 1848 the rebellious Parisians started the Spring of Nations, the great pan-European revolution. In 1871 the Paris Commune became a forerunner of all socialist revolutions. Two world wars, the massive bloodletting of Verdun and Nazi occupation had kept the people of Paris in survival mode, and the next revolution came only in 1968. And now, in 2018, the Parisians put an end to the radical neoliberal project of enslaving humanity.

The usual suspects have already accused Putin’s Russia of fomenting the Paris uprising. The BBC has been caught in flagrante – they asked their stringer in Paris to find a Russian connection, a Russian businessman, or anything Russian to blame the events on the Russians and delegitimise them. This correspondence has been leaked, and the Russian MFA complained about it.

I’d be glad and proud if such an accusation had at least some basis. Alas, it is not the case. Russians did not support any French revolution ever, from 1789 to 1968. Now, too, the official Moscow does not intervene in internal affairs of other states as a matter of principle. Russia has not yet condemned the brutal suppression of the uprising and the arrests of schoolchildren, though Beijing and Teheran did.

The Russian social networks and public organizations are suspicious of the French rising. After the trauma of Kiev Maidan-2014, the Russians had been hit by conspiracy paranoia and they are seeing manipulations of the State Department in everything. In the Russian media, the events in Paris are often described as “pogroms”; their main Channel One even made a point to show sympathetically a French Jewish real estate dealer whose office had been rampaged. Their wonderful RT does provide great coverage of the French events, but the RT does not broadcast in Russian and in Russia.

Alexander Dugin, the maverick Russian thinker, astutely suggested that the enemy does not believe in Russian involvement, whether in the US elections, or in the GJ rising, but it uses Russia as a marker of hostile force. He identifies the enemy as the shadow World Government, the force that aims to rule the world behind and above national governments. The very existence of this force has been vehemently denied, but now it manifested itself in running a smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour leader. The campaign was managed by a secretive Integrity Initiative; its existence has been disclosed by Anonymous hackers. This body, ostensibly run by British secret service, included some writers of the Guardian (Luke Harding etc) who were suspected of working for MI6. They attacked Julian Assange, they attacked me personally, but according to the hackers’ disclosure, they were supposed to go after Russia.

While going after Russia sounds legit – that is what the intelligence services are for, – fighting against and smearing the Her Majesty’s Opposition Leader Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn, PC MP is not. Dugin says they created the myth of “Putin’s Russia as an absolute and unconditional enemy, embodying pure world evil” though they are aware that Russia’s involvement beyond its borders is almost non-existent.

“The World Government is clearly aware that with all its power, a serious opponent is about to appear – not so much even from the outside (from Russia or China), but from within. Russia is here only a marker and the easiest way to discredit and demonize these alternative trends. This applies to European populism (both left and right), the anti-globalist government of Italy, the GJ of France, the fighters against capitalism and mass immigration”.

This technique of using a marker to create “guilt by association” has been practiced for years. And as the old markers of “Nazis” and “antisemites” get worn and torn, a new marker of evil Russia has been employed against the GJ.

No worry, the old markers still work! BHL (as the French call Bernard-Henri Lévy, their chief TV pundit and the never-failing voice of the Masters of Discourse) who approved of the rebels in Libya, Syria and Kiev, has already condemned the Parisian uprising and called the rebels – Nazis. He noticed supporters of Le Pen and of Mélenchon among the Vests, and this is no good!

However, the people of France were not afraid of this label. 75-80% of the people believe the GJ are right. (Probably we shall see soon a group of Jews for GJ, quipped Gilad Atzmon, for these excellent people like to have a finger in every pie, while keeping themselves separate.)

The revolution–1968 had been derailed because of their leaders’ sell-out. Danny the Red, or Daniel Cohn-Bendit had been one of the traitors, as I wrote after meeting him some years ago. The GJ movement has no HQ, no party, no leadership, and that’s why the regime did not manage to bribe and intimidate their leaders or to make a deal with their party, as the neoliberals have worked this technique to perfection over the past 50 years.

The GJ is a native French movement, mainly middle class, of people who live in small towns and villages. It is real France, not recent immigrants, and this real France had been pushed to precarious instability of being unable to have their ends meet. The very rich have it too good; they pay no, or little taxes, and the government is doing everything for them, at the expense of the once strong middle class. Such a middle class movement is a real thing; its participants are not likely to be tricked and they can insist on their agenda.

After the first successes of the movement, the political parties began to show interest. Le Pen could be a natural to support the movement of native French people, but Marine had recently lost the national elections to Macron, and her movement feels hurt and vulnerable. More importantly, Le Pen concentrated on immigration, a side issue for GJ. The GJ do not want to fight Arab and African immigrants; their problem is with the neoliberal government, while migration is just one of the neoliberal tools. That’s why, despite BHL’s claims, Le Pen’s party has no strong position among the protesters.

The Americans may learn from this experience. Immigration is a good topic for publicity, but it’s not likely to lead to big social changes. Yes, the GJ oppose mass migration and want to terminate it, but they balance this demand with another one: stop robbing Africa. Indeed, Africa is going from bad to worse because it has been exploited by the developed countries. The balance of payments between Africa and France favours France, and this is the main reason for African migration to France. The Africans just follow their money.

If the American populists were to adopt a similar demand, they should balance their desire for the wall and no immigration by calling the US companies to stop pumping profits from Latin America. Noam Chomsky correctly stated that Central Americans won’t run to the US if the US wouldn’t destabilise their countries for profit. Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador—three countries that have been under harsh U.S. domination, supply the most of refugees knocking at the US door.

This is true for Europe and the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) states, as well. If Europeans would not bomb Libya and undermine Syria, if the US would not invade Iraq, there would be no refugees, no immigrants, legal or illegal. The GJ gave us a lesson how to treat the immigration problem. The profit of invasions goes to the rich, while the middle classes suffer the consequences of mass migration.

Another correction of the Trump agenda has been suggested by Ron Unz. Trump is putting a lot of effort into stopping illegal migration and refugees from Latin America. He should read Ron Unz who proved with numbers that the real problem is not illegal but legal immigration running too high.

American legal immigration levels have been far too high for many years with net legal immigration been running at a million or more a year, and it should be sharply reduced. Trump’s focus on illegal immigration makes no sense at all.

There is little difference between legal and illegal immigrants, they are quite the same, there are just too many of them. And legal immigration can be stopped right away, without a wall.

The immigrants’ participation in the GJ rising has been quite small. Their underclass used the revolt to break shops’ windows and loot, yes, but they didn’t fight police. And the police, on their side, didn’t fight the looters. The government apparently instigated the looters and instructed the police to allow them to do their worst, while MSM used it to condemn the GJ as vandals. The mainstream media is strongly against the GJ, and it took me an effort to find a video neutral or sympathetic to the protesters. You may watch it with English subtitles here and see for yourself that the protesters are similar to you.

I am not horrified by some broken windows. On ne saurait faire d’omelette sans casser des œufs, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, as a French royalist famously said in 1796. The general de Charette broke heads, not eggs nor windows, and he was executed when caught, but he was still correct. Without some impressive violence, things can’t change. If you just stand in the square and sing a nice song, or if you march down the street shouting this or that, you will achieve nothing. The government loves people singing and marching for climate change or for gay equality. You should know that people are doing a right thing if police attacks them and they defend themselves valiantly.

The Bolsheviks used the battleship Aurora to make their statement. Her salvo in view of the royal palace proved their ability and readiness for violence; they had armed soldiers and sailors to take over the centres of power including banks, post and telegraph offices, and railway stations. At the occasion, windows were broken and people were robbed; this is unfortunate but otherwise, you can’t make an omelette.

During the French Spring, the French marched in their hundreds of thousands in biggest and most peaceful demos Paris ever knew. The government disregarded it completely. The protest has to be violent and sustainable to get somewhere. Only after four rather violent weekends, Macron deigned to respond, and he has met some demands of the GJ – an extra hundred euro for low-paid workers, no tax on the annual bonus or on overtime, no gas price rise. It was a step in the right direction. 16 million middle-class French will enjoy the fruits of Macron’s forced benevolence; it will cost 12 billion euro – a good Christmas present for hard-working people, and proof that violence works.

The American nationalist right is too law-abiding to achieve anything. They used some non-institutionalised violence against blacks, and even that was long time ago. They collect a lot of weapons but never use them against hard targets. They have lost their will to fight. Probably they won’t even defend their President Trump if he were to be removed from power. They have to join forces with some dynamic blacks who aren’t afraid to disobey authority, but for that, they must understand that their enemy is the liberal establishment, not the blacks or immigrants. The French far right had concentrated on the immigrants for too long a time, and failed to take a place and lead the protests.

So much about the far right. What about the left? Mélenchon has many supporters among the GJ, but he is perceived as connected with the party that discredited itself while Hollande was in power. All major mainstream parties – whether nominally left or right, in Paris, Berlin, or London – acted the same and carried out the same neoliberal agenda. That’s why people voted for Macron who promised to be different – but it turned out he was not different at all. There is just one agenda, just one direction – the direction to the neoliberal state ruining middle classes. A new force is badly needed.

Alain Soral would be an excellent man to lead the new force. He is already known to English readers; in France he is very popular, though he is less known than the main contenders. Soral supported the GJ from beginning. His site has published an interesting political mandala explaining his – and others’ – position.


He locates his movement between Socialism and Nationalism, between Labour and Traditionalism, opposing Macron who stands for Capitalism and Globalism, between Profit and LGBT; while Le Pen prefers Nationalism (like Soral) and Capitalism (like Macron), and Melenchon takes a more familiar course of Socialism and Globalism. On the mandala, Soral is True North, a highly symbolical position.

On the frame of the mandala, you can discern names; bankers George Soros and Jacques Attali stand behind Macron; the above-mentioned Cohn-Bendit stands behind Melenchon; Finkelcraut and Zemmour are depicted behind Marine Le Pen; and (I am proud to note) the names of three writers of Unz Review are written at Alain Soral’s side, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, et moi, Israel Shamir. Soral also published my books, and I am very positive about him. A man who is not afraid to use the National Socialist moniker definitely has guts, especially as there are many young North African and Black men in his predominantly white nativist and masculine movement.

The demands of the GJ are already better than anything proposed by political parties of the left and the right. They want the rich to pay too, not only the middle class. They want to roll back privatizations, especially of the railways, re-install the dismissed workers and employees, recruit doctors to hospitals and teachers for schools, to put an end to the dismantling of the welfare state. Leave the EU, leave NATO, stop wars abroad. Stop the massive migration to the country and at the same time stop the looting of the former French Africa, because it is this looting that is pushing the Africans to a mass flight to France. Drop out of competition who will make more concessions to corporations and their owners, i.e. tax the international companies.

In short, the insurgents demand to reverse the reforms of recent years, for the previous administrations, whether of Sarkozy the rightist, Hollande the leftist or Macron the outsider competed who will do more for the companies and less for the people (they call it ‘increasing competitiveness”). They want to return to pre-1991 France. In those days, the rich people had some vestigial fear of communism and they paid some consideration to workers, and allowed them to live and flourish. The rebels also demand to decouple media off the elites, give a voice to the people, listen to their wishes, and this is a very important demand.

Judging by these demands, France is again leading the world. On the barricades of Paris, the neoliberal dystopia of creating a state for the super-rich had collapsed. Even if the uprising will be finally crushed, its basic demands will serve as a beacon for new uprisings and revolutions until they win. And the people will surely win.

P.S. If you feel the writer is biased and other nations are no less wonderful, you may find me saying good things about the English, the Germans, the Greeks, the Poles, the Japanese and Palestinians, Ukrainians and Russians, Norwegians and Swedes, Indians and Vietnamese…

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

]]> 0
Unz Goes Nuclear Thu, 06 Dec 2018 23:01:21 +0000 Some discoveries are just too shocking to digest. Recently I wrote of intrepid Ron Unz, the Californian maverick publisher and IT-genius, who dared to share with his readers his insights into the ideas and motifs of revisionists, or Holocaust Deniers, as their enemies call them. But this absolutely verboten topic fades into irrelevance in comparison with his most momentous discovery that has made somewhat less resonance, paradoxically, because of its magnitude. It was too big. Dark pages of the world war history or of interracial relations in 1930s, or even the whodunit of 9/11, all that is fine and very interesting, but hardly a Stop Press kind.

His other, most significant discovery is not just Stop Press, but Burn the Press Down. He discovered and proved with hard data that Jews discriminate against you to a degree you could not even guess. While you queue at the front door of the Elites, they enter freely by the back door. Chances of a smart non-Jewish “white” American kid getting there are ten-fold lower than that of a Jew. There are ten times more smart non-Jewish white American kids than smart Jewish kids, but there are more Jewish students in the Ivy League than white non-Jews. The system is biased, and not in your favour.

Once you could work your way up to success, like Henry Ford did. That was the American Dream. Not anymore. Now the only way to the best jobs, into the American elites leads through a few top colleges of the Ivy League. You can’t bypass this funnel of opportunity. “A greater and greater proportion of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities” (all unattributed quotes are from the Unz essay). Unless you get the imprimatur of Harvard or Yale, your future is dim. Well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector for those lacking college degrees are scarce, and workers are being paid less now than forty years ago. When America’s richest 1 per cent has as much wealth as the bottom 95 per cent, it is winner takes all, and this winner is probably a Jew.

The elites have duties, too. The elite universities are supposed to pick the best boys and girls to lead America to its glory and greatness. By your own experience you already know that it does not happen; that the new US elites lead themselves to prosperity, while pushing you to poverty and perdition. The new elites failed you, failed your country, failed the world (always excepting the Jewish state). This failure is the main reason to explore how the elites produce their new generation.

The great surprise is that WASPs, the legendary descendants of the Founding Fathers, have lost their privilege, or even their fair chance to success. Unz proves that a smart Christian American boy of English or German parentage has ten times less chance to get into these crème-de-la-crème universities than an average Jewish boy. This very unfair way of forming tomorrow’s elites has been made possible by the sheer nepotistic networking of the universities’ admission offices. Clannishness, the Jews were (justifiably) accused of.

In actual words of Ron Unz, “Jews are enrolled at Harvard and other elite colleges at a rate some 1,000% greater than white Gentiles of similar academic performance”. One thousand per cent, OMG! Provided that these Ivy League colleges are the only sure-fire way into American elites, into best jobs and into good and important positions, this biased enrolment guarantees the Jews their position of the top dog well into next generation.

In 1920s, Jews accused the WASPs of discriminating them at university admission. The WASPs kept them under 15% of admissions. Now with Jews at the top they show what real discrimination is all about. However, there is one major difference. Then, the Jews volubly complained, now the Christians do not even dare to complain.

While the White Christian Americans kept mum, the Asians dared to speak and went to court against the colleges. The colleges have been forced to explain how they admit students. The heavily-Jewish elites of the legal system and MSM allowed this case of Asian-Americans to proceed (after many years of rejection) for a good reason: they wanted to obscure this fragrant discrimination against white Gentiles by Jews by a SEP device.

In Douglas Adams’s 1982 novel Life, the Universe and Everything, (a sequel to his Hitchhiker’s Guide), the protagonist explains: a SEP is something we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a blind spot. SEP is the best way to hide a pink elephant in a room: people would have walked past the elephant, round it, even over it, and simply never have noticed that the thing was there.

The problem of Asian-American discrimination is an excellent SEP. Indeed, as Unz said, the Asian-Americans are discriminated at Ivy League universities (though much less than ordinary Americans). But even if they are discriminated, who cares? There are not too many of them, and they anyway manage well. Thus the real point of Unz – you are discriminated! – had been hidden.

The UNZ essay is very long with its 26,000 words, too long for average reader, so here are its salient points:

  • Jews organized a clannish network to get themselves into best universities in numbers well beyond their share in population, and (!!!) well beyond their abilities;
  • their fight against discrimination of Blacks has being carried at the expense of America’s white Christians. If previously discriminated minorities, be it Afro-Americans or whatever, enjoy the fruits of affirmative action (positive discrimination), it is no loss for Jews, as only Gentiles, once privileged WASPs are being screwed up.
  • if once upon a time Jews had got into best colleges because they were smart, smarter than Gentile kids, now they are noticeably less smart, but they get there anyway because they are Jews.

The numbers distilled by Ron Unz out of dusty spread sheets are terrifying. You can look at the diagram he compiled, or immerse yourself in the ocean of data he provides, to get convinced: the discrimination is very real.

Unz quotes a Jewish writer who exhilarates that “the WASP demographic group which had once so completely dominated America’s elite universities and virtually all the major institutions of American life had by 2000 become a small and beleaguered minority at Harvard, being actually fewer in number than the Jews whose presence they had once sought to restrict.” For a Jewish nationalist, it is a cause for celebration. For a WASP, it is a reason to regret the unwise decisions of his fathers who tried to play a fair game with Jews and were Jew’d.

But for an average American, the answer lays in the macro picture. Do the new Jewified elites manage America better than WASPs did? Are they better shepherds? Is America-2018 (with Jews getting over 25% of all seats in the express train to better future, leaving 20% or less to WASPs) better for Americans than America-1962 with 15% of Jews and 80% of WASPs in Yale and Harvard? If you belong to 1% of Americans, the answer is positive; if you are one of the 99%, it is not.

Unz is very meticulous, very cautious in his approach. He asks an almost-insulting question: perhaps the Jews are so smart (after all, that is the kin of Einstein and Freud) that their share in the Ivy League is a result of meritocratic selection? And he provides an almost-insulting answer: no, they aren’t. There are some universities that admit strictly by merit; in these universities Jews do not exactly star. Caltech, the California Institute of Technology is one of them. The Jewish presence there is quite small; Hillel, the Jewish students’ body, gives it as zero. In reality, it is about 6 per cent, like in other merit-based competitions.

It can’t be zero, for sure. In 2003, two Palestine Solidarity activists, Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf, had been booed there by pro-Israeli Jews who tried their beastly best to drive away the speakers. But there are not many Jews. There are few Jewish Olympiad winners; once they were in dozens, now there are hardly any. Altogether Jewish kids make up some six per cent of NMS, the highest-performing students’ list. This is a good result, in line with Jewish admissions into meritocratic colleges, but it is four times less than what you would expect judging by their Yale admissions. The Jewish IQ, as Unz found out, is also in line with that of their Gentile peers, and not the fabulous 110-115, as the Jewish newspapers claim. Jews are not all that smart anymore, judging by their score.

Unz explains this “sudden collapse of Jewish academic achievement” by inertia. The youngsters just do not try hard enough, in contradistinction to their fathers’ generation. They will succeed, they think, by their old-school-tie connections or through their parents’ links. Indeed when you look at the face of President Trump’s son-in-law, Mr Jared Kushner, you understand that the Nature took a nap in his generation. His parents’ generation were predators and major crooks (his father actually served two years in jail for tax evasion while obtaining his two-billion-dollar loot), but Jared’s generation could not enroll or graduate without assistance, while his political meddling made a mess of already troubled American Middle East politics.

This is the Nature way to deal with problems. Thomas Mann in his 1901 novel Buddenbrooks subtitled The Decline of a Family depicts three generations of a North German family: the first generation amasses fortune, the second maintains it, the third wastes it away in Bohemian pleasures. Smart people’s kids are usually not that smart, and have much less drive. For this reason, I wouldn’t be bothered too much by Jewish achievement of the elder generation; the young generation will waste it all right.

The problem is, there is more than one way to shine. One is to be brilliant, another is to dim others to shine in their background. In Israel, the Jews promoted plethora of laws and regulations circumscribing Palestinians’ ability to compete. In the US, Jewish support of migration from underdeveloped countries and discrimination of the white American students achieve a similar effect as it lowers the average ability of non-Jewish population and allows the Jews to excel in comparison.

Unz exploration could bring enormous benefits to the American society. His diagnosis of the malady allows to cure it. In his consequent article on the subject, Unz discovered that after publication of his article, the numbers of Jewish admissions in the best colleges had been sharply readjusted downwards. What was 25% (Jews in Harvard) became 12%. But do not rejoice before time. The Jews responded with subterfuge instead of correcting action. Now they refer in their statistics only to Jews who state that they are followers of Jewish faith; and this is a dwindling lot. If one counts the students who refer to themselves as “descendants of Holocaust survivors” and speak of “my true home Israel”, we are back to 25%.

So the US Jews have learned how to perpetuate their dominance, by jealously guarding the gates of the best universities. Can it be corrected?

Jews broke the glass ceiling of admissions to Harvard by mass protests and media pressure. The Gentiles are not likely to emulate their strategy as they became even more obedient and placid as if being bred for these traits. The Americans aren’t rebellious by nature; that’s why the US is so prosperous and that’s why the lot of a working American is going from bad to worse. Yes, Scylla and Charybdis guard the passage to well-being: over-rebellious folk grows poor as revolutions diminish the treasury; on the other hand, over-docile folk grows poor because their betters oppress them fearing not for harsh response. Wise elites navigate these narrow straits cautiously like the Swedes did until 1990. Obstinate elites have to be cured by revolution, like in England or France, or by state terror, as in Russia or China.

Now you have to live with Jewified elites. Historically, the record is not encouraging. Jews are not very good in the top dog position. They are too obstinate, doctrinaire and despise the low classes to whom they feel no affinity. A single person of Jewish origin can be very good as a leader (Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian chancellor, is a good example). Some Jewish politicians are very loyal – the much-denigrated Kaganovich remained loyal to Stalin when all the rest switched to Khrushchev. But when Jews form a prominent part of elites, like it happened in a few states in different times, the result is not very good. We have the example of Israel, where the natives have neither basic rights nor citizenship, and by millions they are deprived of property and locked up in the ghetto of Gaza.

The Unz revelation demonstrates the main feature of Jews: as a rule, they are immoral (or, if you prefer, they have a different, Jewish moral, as many Rabbis claim). It gives them an advantage in some dealings but eventually courts disaster. In the Tsar’s days, the Jews complained vociferously about two things: one, Numerus Clausus, (a Jewish quota of students) and two, the Pale of Settlement, a part of the country where Jews could reside freely. They – my grandparents – sounded so sincere denouncing these evils. Nowadays, the victorious Jews established the Pale of Settlement for Gentiles in Palestine, while in the US, they fixed the low quota for previous lords of the land, and very few Jews complain about it, as I noted at length.

When it is good for Jews, it is bad for Gentiles, says the Talmud. “If you hear that Caesarea (a symbol of Gentile rule) and Jerusalem (a symbol of Jewish rule) are both in ruins or that both are flourishing peacefully, do not believe it. Believe only a report that Caesarea is in ruins and Jerusalem is flourishing or that Jerusalem is in ruins and Caesarea is flourishing”. (Talmud, Tractate Megillah 6a). History confirms it – up to a point. Jews can have it good under Gentile rule, though not as good as they would like to. But under Jewish rule, not only Gentiles, but even middle-to-low-class Jews are being screwed up, as you can observe in the Jewish state of Israel – and in the heavily Jewified US, as well. Like fire, like women, – Jews are good when under control and dangerous and destructive when they are in control.

Still, there is a free will; everyone can choose one’s own way. Nobody born in the Jewish family has to stick with Jews. The best of Jews, from Christ Apostles to Joseph Brodsky and Ron Unz always escaped it to join the people.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0