Articles – Israel Shamir Ideas that will Derail the descent to Barbarity Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:51:14 +0000 en hourly 1 They Spoke Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:35:25 +0000 The highly anticipated encounter of the two presidents went better, much better than anybody predicted. There was a lot of anxiety, and expectations were low as heavy rain clouds, especially after Trump’s visit to Warsaw where he obediently repeated the Cold War platitudes dictated by his minders. Trump had been sent off to Hamburg by Washington establishment with warnings a convent novice gets before an unfortunate but unavoidable meeting with a Don Juan. They didn’t trust the inexperienced youngster, and insisted he should speak with Vlad only in presence of grown ups, like Auntie Fiona (Hill) or Uncle HR (McMaster), well known for their aversion to Russians.

They warned him that, short of a nuclear strike, every other reaction will be considered betrayal of the Shining City upon a Hill. Every neocon and Cold Warrior in the West gave his advice to the President, how should he humiliate Putin and put him on his place, below the salt. They actually didn’t allow Trump to have a proper meeting with Putin, with full agenda, advisers and ministers, preferably a few days long, in a Camp David format or similar. But they failed profoundly.

The meeting on the margins of G-20 had become the central event, while G-20 became a meeting on the margins of Putin-Trump summit. When Donald and Vlad had met, there was no stopping: a great sympathy they had felt for each other manifested itself in every smile. At the beginning, Putin had been quite reserved; he steeled himself to a possible rejection, to a possible affront, even to insult. But Trump skilfully put him at ease.

Instead of planned thirty minutes, they spoke for over two hours; even an attempt by Trump’s wife to restrain her husband wasn’t crowned with success. They just could not tear themselves apart. After a few hard months of enforced separation by the self-appointed duennas, the pals were together, at last.

The Western media, trying its damnedest to cause ill feeling between the two men, spoke of Putin’s victory, of the Russian becoming the boss, the top dog. A typical reaction was that of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, which declared that Trump had “just unilaterally surrendered to Russia”. They hoped that vain Trump would be upset at being bettered by Vlad. We shall not join their legion by ceding victory to Putin. Both won, and we won with them.

At such an event, one can hardly expect real tangible results. The results need more time. Creating conditions for future work together would suffice. And still there were some achievements.

I’d suggest you watch the long but rewarding film “Putin Interviews” by Oliver Stone as prolegomena to the meeting reports. In the film, Stone asks Putin about accusations of cyber-meddling in the US elections, and Putin gives a full explicit answer. He said that he had offered President Obama a treaty on cyber security, properly describing what the states can, and can’t do in cyberspace to each other.

Obama did not take the offered ball, for the US felt it had vast superiority in the field, and didn’t want to give the advantage away. “According to an unnamed senior intelligence official with the US government, the Obama administration has penetrated Russia’s electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin’s command systems. The purported hack means that critical parts of Russia’s infrastructure are now vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons”, reported Australian news agency.

Indeed complaints of “Russian hackers” sound false, bearing in mind that NSA spies against everybody in the world, including Russia. Millions of Russian calls are intercepted by the American secret services annually, as Snowden told us. The idea of drafting and concluding a treaty forbidding offensive hacking is a good and timely one. At the meeting in Hamburg, President Trump agreed with that, and the presidents decided to appoint a bilateral commission to sort it out and to prepare the treaty. It will be good for all the nations, not only for Americans and Russians, as NSA spied even on American allies like Mme Merkel.

The treaty should also deal with really dangerous viruses, like Stuxnet that was unleashed against Iran, and its newer versions like WannaCry. Julian Assange provided us with the provenance of the viruses: they are from the NSA collection of tools, and they already caused mayhem from Russian banks to British hospitals. The NSA factory of viruses should be brought under control by the treaty.

Interference in elections is also a valid point addressed by the two presidents. Not the silly story of Russian interference in the last American elections, but the very real one of American interference in the elections in Russia, France and elsewhere. President Trump apparently agreed that it should be covered by the treaty and stopped. Professional Cold Warriors were alarmed: how can you compare Russian meddling with our Western pro-democracy drive! That reminds me of an old Jewish joke, preceding World War One: – Let us go and kill some Turks! – And what if they will kill us? – Why would they? We didn’t wrong them!

“How can you compare” is a favourite Jewish cliché, frequently used if you compare a killed Jew and a killed Palestinian. I never could understand it. If it is ok for the US to meddle in Russian elections, why can’t Russians meddle in the US elections? Perhaps the two presidents will agree to cease meddling, but I won’t bet my socks on it.

They made a move forward in Syria, too, by approving the agreement prepared by their teams in Amman, Jordan. For a first time, this agreement contains a declaration in favour of the territorial integrity of one, undivided Syria; this is an important Russian achievement. If carried out, the agreement will bring a ceasefire to South-Western Syria, in the area adjacent to Jordanian border and to the Israeli armistice line on the Golan Heights.

In a surprising move, President Trump agreed that the area would be patrolled by Russian military police. This suggestion had been hotly argued against by the Israelis. Despite their frequent visits to Moscow, they really trust only the US. There should be American troops on the ground in Syria, and no Russian troops close to our lines are acceptable, said Israeli politicians. If indeed Russian military police will patrol the area, the Israelis will eat a big fat frog.

There is an additional nuance: the Russian military police in Syria have been staffed with Chechens, who are good fighters, Muslim by faith, and devoted to President Putin – though he fought them, defeated them, and brought them back under Kremlin rule. There was a time when the enemies of Russia would profess their love of Chechens, but not anymore. Now their own leader Ramzan Kadyrov, the son of their previous rebel president and a former rebel himself is a strong supporter of Putin, and a subject of a hate campaign by Western liberals – and by Russian nationalists. Placement of Chechens in the military police in Syria is a success of Putin’s national policies, especially relevant in the light of a new development.

This week, the Russian authorities blocked public access to the Russian far right nationalist site Sputnik and Pogrom, as you can read in the column of my worthy colleague Anatoly Karlin. It’s got its name from (allegedly) the only two Russian words that have entered English dictionaries. They are Nazi sympathisers, like the Ukrainian nationalists, and that is not a popular view in Russia, which bore the brunt of fight with Nazis. Their chief editor published a column on June 22, saying that every good Russian was happy when the Germans invaded their country.

They are also extreme anti-Communists, and this is also not too popular a view in Russia. This site had been established with help of Western secret services to sow discord between Russian citizens of different ethnic origin, just like the US-sponsored Radio Liberty did in the Soviet days, and the Germans during the war it, too. They do instigate hostility between Russians and Ukrainians, between Russians and the people of the Caucasus.

Typically for such political organisations, despite the site’s name (pogrom was, after all, an anti-Jewish riot), they are quite pro-Jewish and fervently pro-Zionist. Otherwise, the IA wouldn’t dare support them. However, they always have something bad to say about Putin (they hate him) and the Chechens and their leader.

Now we see that Putin was right in encouraging the Chechens to fight for Russia. It is indeed a good idea to use Sunni Muslims as a police force in this heavily Sunni Muslim area being liberated from ISIS, and Chechens are known as fierce fighters that nobody wants to mess with. It is better to have them on the side of Moscow than on the side of its enemies, and it is definitely worth while to block the Sputnik and Pogrom, leaving moral considerations aside.

The two presidents spoke about North Korea. Some years ago, Russians had supported sanctions against DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name of North Korea), and the Americans had no problem in passing a sanctions-enforcing resolution in the Security Council. Not anymore. Last month, the Russians made a radical shift on Korea. Now they are strongly against sanctions likely to economically strangle the country and definitely against military action there. So, the Russian position has become quite close to the North Korean one, surprisingly more so than that of the Chinese, although Chinese trade with Korea dwarfs the Russian trade. If the Americans want the North Koreans to stop their nuclear tests, Putin said to Trump, they should refrain from carrying out large-scale military exercises. The Russians also want to encourage North-South dialogue. Such dialogue had been very successful and popular in its time, but then the US interfered in South Korean elections and blocked pro-dialogue politicians. The Northern rulers, however, would like the dialogue to resume with unification of Korea in mind. The Russians and their Chinese allies object greatly to the American THAAD missile defence system being installed in South Korea.

On Ukraine, the presidents agreed to establish a special bilateral channel of communications between the US special envoy and his Russian counterpart. They also confirmed their faith in the Minsk agreements, and this is an important diplomatic achievement for the Russians. However, these agreements did not prevent Kiev troops shelling the cities of Donbass.

To sum it up, Putin and Trump managed to save the day, despite all odds. Their immediate achievements are indeed modest, but they established the ground for progress. Future steps will depend mainly on Trump’s ability to withstand the pressure, to set himself free from his minders. He is the first American president experiencing such a continuous media onslaught, and he still stands. It seems that his advisers urge him to surrender to his enemies in the media and in the congress, but he is a stubborn man. He also discovered that in Vladimir Putin, he can have a real friend and partner.

The world has changed: in 1980s, the Russians were happy that their leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had met with Ronald Reagan and that he was admired and lionised by Western media. They thought it natural that Gorbachev admires Reagan. Then, the Western support was a real asset for a Russian politician. Gorbachev came to power in aftermath of Margaret Thatcher’s blessing.

Now, the Russians are happy that they have a leader who can withstand any pressure, a leader who is admired for his strength. If he is hated in the West, they feel he is doing something right. Probably the Western media, if they want to undermine Putin, should begin to sing him dithyrambs.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
What Would Putin Tell Trump? Mon, 03 Jul 2017 17:28:51 +0000 The first date is a decisive one, as we learned in college, while courting Nancy or Alice. The coming first date of two Presidents, the two superheroes of our generation is likely to set the trend for coming years. How will it go? What will they say? The consequences can be joyous – or fatal.

The two leaders are the best these two great countries have produced for many years. Russia has had no leader equal in stature and public support to Putin since Stalin – in a recent poll for the greatest personality in history, a plurality of Russians placed Putin and Stalin at the top, preceding Pushkin, the Russian poet who occupies a place safeguarded for Shakespeare in English hearts. Trump, with all his shortcomings, is a great and good leader in the beginning of his statesman’s career, head and shoulders above his recent predecessors since Richard Nixon.

They are very, very different. Their biggest difference lies in experience. Putin has led his country for (more or less) 17 years; he learned the tricks and skills of the power game the hard way, from being a frontman for the seven Jewish bankers who privatized Russia in Nineties, to a fully independent autocrat comparable to the penultimate Russian Tsar Alexander III, or to Napoleon III. He is a wise ruler, in the Confucian way, forever hiding his steel will under a velvet glove; always modest, moderate, temperate, not given to a momentary abandon of passion. He is in full control of himself, and the Sages tell us this is the most difficult and sublime subject of control. He is also a responsible and reliable statesman; his word is as good as his bond: he kept the ridiculous promises he gave to Yeltsin’s family. He is also very popular with his subjects.

Trump has just recently and in mature age embarked on the statesman’s path, after a lifelong pursuit of business and pleasure. He sorely lacks experience, his hold on power is precarious. He is surrounded by open and hidden enemies, by people who pray for his failure. He is opposed by his own secret services, by the media, by his own party. His popularity isn’t certain.

He is a flamboyant and passionate person, likely to give vent to his feelings and emotions. He is an extrovert, while Putin is an introvert. He is a showman, while Putin had worked in the shadows, being a close approximation to a Russian James Bond.

Such differences could form the basis for a beautiful complementary friendship. If these two persons of different skills and abilities were to work together for a common purpose, they could guide mankind out of its present impasse. Their differences are the differences of ‘two strong men standing face to face, tho’ they came from the ends of the earth’.

However, both leaders are severely handicapped. Trump is handicapped by the poisonous campaign insinuating that he had been elected due to Russian interference and that he is in thrall to Russia; at any conclusion short of a military strike the New York Times and CNN will smirk that he surrendered the crown jewels. Putin is handicapped by the fact that Russia is weaker than the US in every way excepting Doomsday weaponry. Russia is surrounded by US military bases; the US military budget is ten times bigger than the Russian one. Putin has very little leeway to retreat and he is likely to respond in force to a provocation.

If Putin were to speak his mind freely to Trump, and it is not likely, as their conversation will certainly be bugged, recorded and leaked by the NSA to the hostile media, he’d tell him:

– Donald, you can fulfill all your wishes, make America great again, reach all the realistic objectives of the US, if you take a leaf from the book of your great predecessor Richard Nixon, the last independent American President. Even today, after years of inflation, an American worker takes home the same wages his father took in the days of Nixon. If there was a golden age for Americans, it was then. Nixon created the basis of prosperity, he established a long term foreign policy for the US, which is still good and still functions albeit in need of corrections, based on China trade and Arab oil. Nixon ended the wars in SE Asia and brought détente.

Nixon made a U-turn on Vietnam. He ended the war that had snowballed for years, without winning it: he recognized the futility of the war. You can do a U-turn on the Middle East wars your country has carried on for too long. These wars are futile. Everything you want to obtain in Syria, you can have without shooting a single bullet, without sending a single soldier.

I thought of that a few days ago when I was visited by the new Vietnamese President. The US fought in Vietnam for years, you lost 50,000 men and killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and still you were defeated and expelled from Indochina. And the bottom line? The Vietnamese now are best friends of the US. They like Americans more than they like us, the Russians, or the Chinese, though we supported them through thick and thin in their wars against you or against the French. What was the Vietnam War for? In a few years, the Americans will ask you: what for did we fight that war in Syria and Iraq? You would be lost for an answer.

Nixon dared to make a U-turn on the generation-old policy of containing Red China. He built bridges with China and achieved peace and prosperity for the American people, and for the Chinese, too. You can do a U-turn on the policy of containing Russia, Iran and other smaller independent states. Build bridges instead, and we all shall prosper.

Let us consider Syria first. What does the US want to have in Syria? You name it, you can have it, and without war, without expenditure, without trouble. And I do not mean in a part of a broken and fragmented Syria under occupation, I mean one Syria, united and complete, with its capital Damascus, and its president Bashar al Assad. There is nothing within reason that President Assad would refuse you and I’ll second his promise. Do you want to trade, to produce, to sell, to transit? Welcome and Ahalan we-Sahalan, Assad would tell you. There is nothing he would like more.

The same is true about Iran. This great and ancient country is keen on American friendship, trade and investments. They elected a very pro-Western and liberal president just a few months ago. They agreed to the quite humiliating conditions of a nuclear deal. They never sent out a single terrorist to the US or Europe.

The conditions? The same conditions President Nixon accepted in dealing with China. No interference in internal affairs. Nixon did not demand that the Chinese disarm, forfeit their Communist rule, sell their industries and natural resources to American companies or even fully open their markets to the US. Likewise, you may give up interfering or getting involved in the other countries’ internal affairs.

Iran wants to be an Islamic Republic and allows its priests called ayatollahs to oversee their government. Fine, it is their business! It is neither better nor worse than the Saudi Arabian idea that one family, descendants of Saud, should rule and have all the benefits; or the Israeli way of privileging their faith, or the European way – all that is a matter of choice of people. We do not tell them what to eat, how to choose their mates, or how to rule their lands. Nobody is perfect, as they said in Some Like It Hot.

Some people like to meddle. They say:too much power in Syria belongs to the Alawites. We say: it is their business. They do not tell you that too much power belongs to Jews, and you do not tell them about Alawites. Let Syrians deal with it the way they find fit.

I would not worry about disarmament, too. Nixon did not. If he was to wait for China to disarm, you’d have no Chinese goods in your shops.

Now your military budget is bigger than all military budgets of all states in the world. If you are worried about disarmament, cut your own down to a reasonable size, and other states will follow.

And oh yes, there was a matter of Taiwan. Taiwan claimed sovereignty over China, kept its place in the Security Council, its powerful lobby blocked every attempt to change this status quo. Richard Nixon made a U-turn on Taiwan, as well. He did not “sell out” nor “abandoned” Taiwan, as Taiwanese lobby claimed. He just downgraded Taiwan to its legitimate and reasonable place in the American politics.

Taiwan continued to prosper, it has good working relations with mainland China, it has good relations with everybody, even its own people gained freedom and human rights – it just lost its unreasonable claim to China and its veto over American policy.

There is a “Taiwan” in the Middle East, called Israel. Its claim of superiority and ascendancy in the Middle East is the main reason for your wars on Syria, Iran and Iraq. You can deal with it like Nixon had dealt with Taiwan.

I am the last person to wish ill to the Jewish state. I visit it frequently, I pay pensions to hundreds of thousands of Israeli pensioners, I receive their leaders very often, I have there friends of my childhood. I am well known for my good attitude to the Jewish people. I gave a month’s salary to the upkeep of the Jewish Museum in Moscow, which is the biggest Jewish Museum in the world. Our Jewish community prospers. The Chief Rabbi, who belongs to the same Chabad branch of Judaism as the synagogue your daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared are members of, comes to me and always find help and support.

Jews are wonderful people, no doubt. However, you should not allow these wonderful people to ride upon you as upon a horse. This was a saying by Vladimir Lenin, that I learned as a young Communist. Lenin was very, very friendly to Jews; he had many Jewish colleagues, but he never allowed them to ride upon him. Neither do I.

The Taiwan treatment would be in the best real interests of people of Israel. In recent years, some hundred thousand Israelis have moved to Russia. We accept them, for they aren’t very happy in Israel as it is. Free from its ambitions, Israelis will find their peace in the Middle East, their national home.

Russia is a good friend of Iran and Syria, and it does not interfere with our friendship with Israel. Israelis understand that for us they are a Taiwan, while the rest of the Middle East is a China. You can do the same: make peace and friendship with Syria and Iran, while retaining friendship of Israel. They will understand; perhaps they will whine for a while, but they will eventually find a new modus vivendi.

Before getting into a war, define your objectives. If you will do this regarding Syria, you’ll see that you are getting into a war for the interests of the army command, for the interests of global banking and for Israeli interests. I’d respect these interests, they are perfectly legitimate, but they aren’t your interests, they aren’t interests of the American people.

Generals like wars, that is their occupation; they want more wars, a bigger part of budget, more promotions. But a good ruler commands his generals, he does not follow their command. I have sent home three quarters of my generals, and my popularity did not suffer. How come? I appointed a silly-looking non-professional guy for Secretary of Defence with the brief to slim down the Army. He did it and he got all the flak. At the end, I fired him and the Army loved me even more.

You will really prosper and you will be called the best president of all time, if you will slim down your military. Russia has had many bases abroad, from Cuba to Vietnam, from Aden to the Arctic North; we disbanded them all, and we did not regret it for a day. Bases are an expensive thing, and it is better to do without them.

You know, my generals beseeched me to send troops into the Ukraine, but I didn’t. We’d better spend money on the improvement of our citizens’ life. Now a few million of Ukrainians have voted with their feet: they moved to live and work in Russia, because our way of life is better than theirs. And bear in mind: the Ukraine had been the richest part of the USSR in the time of the Union’s breakup in 1991. Now they are quite poor. It is better to improve the economy than to fight wars.

The global bankers also like wars. I respect their wishes, but I do not intend to oblige them. The Jews like wars, but it is not necessary to grant them every wish. The US has not a single real interest to fight for Syria or Ukraine. Or for Estonia. I can promise you: our tanks will not roll into the Baltic states, though they were a part and parcel of Russia for three hundred years. Just take away the NATO bases from our vicinity. If you won’t we’ll have to defend ourselves.

Nixon also made a U-turn on his policy towards Russia. Instead of confrontation, he chose détente. It was so effective, that in 1990, all Russians chose to support America, follow America and accept America’s model. I was very pro-American myself. In the Oliver Stone film, I admit it. I was first to call President Bush offering my help on 9/11. I gave him transit facilities when he decided to go to Afghanistan. It took years of American support for terrorist rebels in Caucasus, of NATO encroachment eastwards, of vicious campaigns against me and our Russian way of life, of attacks on Iraq, until I changed my mind about the eternal benevolence of the United States and I made it clear in my Munich talk.

You can make this U-turn, too – from confrontation to détente with Russia, like Nixon did. You will find in me your best and most reliable ally.

What would you say to this offer, Donald?

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
After a Dark Political Winter, Summer Is Finally Arriving Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:51:47 +0000 As a rule I try to see my glass half-full, leaving the half-empty one to other fellows. And now there are some good reasons for an eternal optimist to stick to his positive schedule.

Though it tarried, the summer has come, after all, to the North. The skies are blue, the grass is green and lush, the flowers are breaking out; in short, there is nothing for complaint. If God in His abundant grace bestowed this marvelous beauty upon us, He surely will not abandon us. Summertime, it is much harder to feel dejected than under incessant rain. God is in heaven and all’s right with the world.

And beside the wonderful weather, the whole neo-liberal edifice is collapsing. With the election of Trump, I told you that the Jewish Century (in the words of Slezkine) was on its way out. It is so, though sometimes it is darkest just before the dawn.

You were annoyed by PC, political correctness. And rightly so. You may call a spade, a spade, but you can’t call a Jew, a Jew. They do not like it, and waste no time in making their dislike known. This was the unfortunate experience of Jeff Sessions, the Attorney-General, who referred to “the Jewish AIPAC”. This does not sound very controversial. What can be more Jewish than AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, aka Israel Lobby, or Jewish Lobby? This organisation is a member of the Jewish Organisations’ Conference. Its participants are Jews – or politicians and activists hoping to get generous Jewish donations. Still, Jeff Sessions has been called an anti-Semite and a KKK sympathizer.

It had much less impact that you’d expect. There were no apologies, no visible distress. A much forwarded twit (by Andrew Joyce) said “Expect Sessions to be labelled an anti-Semite from here on in for the egregious crime of suggesting that AIPAC is Jewish. Jews in panic mode”.

Why did they panic? An important part of Jewish strength has been due to their stealth mode of operation. They aren’t seen, they try (and often succeed) in being invisible.

If a scientist gets a Nobel prize, or an actress has a hit, and they are Jewish, you’ll know it. If it is a slum landlord, you won’t. AIPAC is in the twilight zone: it is a valuable tool, but with a murky reputation as Capitol Hill’s Genghis Khan. If people will call it “Jewish”, as Sessions did, who knows what else they will call “Jewish” tomorrow? The New York Times?

And here we come to the second and bigger reason for Jewish panic. Their Masters of Discourse system (media, talking heads, opinion makers) does not deliver the goods anymore. They failed to crown their preferred choice Hillary, and they failed to stop advancement of Jeremy Corbyn. The British establishment vowed to derail Corbyn; the newspapers prophesied he would suffer the biggest defeat in the history of the Labour Party. This mild man had been presented as the arch-enemy of the Jews; his hobnobbing with Hamas and other Palestinians had been mentioned endlessly. They demanded his apologies, he had to prove he was not an anti-Semite.

His worst enemies were in his own party. The Guardian attacked him incessantly. The Jewish socialists wanted to skin him. The Jewish Labour MPs were strongly againstCorbyn. They participated in an attempted coup, when they and other Blairites voted no confidence in Corbyn. Corbyn appealed to the masses – and won.

Michael Foster is a typical Jew-against-Corbyn. He is a millionaire many times over, a sponsor for Blair, an enabler of the Iraq war, the man whose name is connected to political bribery and to the subversion of the Labour Party in Blair days. He published a ferocious attack on Corbyn in the Mail, and then in the Haaretz newspaper, calling the new leader “a bully who is bad for democracy, for Britain and for British Jews”.

He objected to Corbyn’s rejuvenation of the Party: “Now [Corbyn’s people] are “democratizing” the established Labour Party by swamping the old membership with more radical, more vocal, more socialist, more Green, more anti-establishment middle class and working class supporters. Old and young, they expound a creed of public sector socialism we all experienced as having been completely discredited by the dark economic stasis of the 1970’s.”

But his “discredited” does not impress people anymore. The other way around: whatever they dislike, whatever they condemn, is a good thing for voters. There are real objectives of Corbyn, first of all. It is not a vague “make Britain great”, but a down to earth decision to end austerity, to provide free tuition in universities, to grant housing benefits for youngsters, to renationalise the railways, the National Health Service and other utilities. To take money from the defence budget, and give it to people. This is what people want, and this is what they were promised by Corbyn, while the Conservatives promised more austerity for all and less taxes for the rich.

Trump would do good to borrow a leaf from Corbyn’s cooking book: he organised his supporters into an “inner party”, called Momentum, the nearest thing to Lenin’s idea of a party. Its members acted against British counterparts of John McCain, against the traitors within the Labour. They were so efficient, that Michael Foster called them “Nazi Stormtroopers”, though their leader is Jon Lansman, who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family, lived in an sraeli kibbutz for a while, and is friendly to the Israeli Left (So much for the alleged anti-Semitism! A sincere Jew is always welcome in any movement, as opposed to two-timers in search of opposition control. Even Josef Stalin, who was not a renowned philosemite, had Jewish comrades at the top positions in the government and in the Party, and they remained loyal to him when others betrayed his memory.)

Foster was a poor prophet. “Labour, under Jeremy Corbyn, has never done so badly in the polls since the early 1930’s”, he wrote. Actually, Labour never did so well for many years, as under Corbyn.

Do you think the Jews hated Corbyn because of his stand on Israel/Palestine? They would like you to think so. They like to be seen as patriots of Israel, but Israel is just a smokescreen to cover their true interests. They are against the working people and for themselves, that is for landlords and moneybags. They have a much better reason to hate Corbyn than the Middle East. Israel/Palestine is after all just an indicator of policy.

Indeed, now Corbyn called to take over empty houses of absentee landlords to house the survivors of the horrible fire in North Kensington. There are at least fifteen hundred empty houses in the borough, whose owners keep them empty in the hope of selling them on at a massive profit when the time is right. There are also empty houses kept by banks and investment companies.

This is why London has such expensive property rents, such long waiting lists for municipal housing, and that’s why native Brits can’t afford to live in London. Their homes are being taken over by people who can afford the high rents or by people who are willing to squeeze into shoe-box-size flats, like the burned-out Grenfell Tower. In both cases the tenants aren’t likely to be English, while the landlords are very likely to hate Jeremy Corbyn.

Not all British landlords are Jews, far from it. But the Jews speak for them and support them. The majority of British Jews vote Conservative, and over 70 Conservative MPs are landlords. They are proud that Jewish voters stopped Corbyn from becoming Prime Minister against the wishes of the British people.

Corbyn belongs to the traditional Labour of the 1970s. In those days I also lived in London, working for the BBC. London and England influenced me a lot. My favourite writer is Wodehouse, not Dostoyevsky. My favourite river is the Thames, not the Volga or the Jordan. I remember England of the Labour days with great nostalgia. The wonderful city full of life was affordable even for a young journalist. I and my wife could (and did) buy an apartment of a decent size in Kensington, and paid a very reasonable mortgage. The housing was affordable because the Labour gave priority to the tenants, not to the landlords. The homeless (or just the adventurous) squatted in luxury properties of foreign millionaires that anyway stood empty. Landlords could not evict their tenants at will or raise the rent freely, and they sold their properties to their tenants. ‘Landlord’ was not a good vocation in Labour England. Owners-occupiers became the biggest group of London dwellers.

In those glorious days, financiers were severely taxed, while coal miners were subsidised. That was before the wicked witch Margaret Thatcher closed the mines and turned workers’ Britain into a financiers’ paradise, before they invented Global Warming to kill coal. And that is the England Jeremy Corbyn wants to return to. That is why British Jews hate him so passionately.

The Jews wouldn’t be Jews if they were to support just one party. They support them all and turn them into look-alikes. They supported Labour, and Labour became Conservative Lite, all for bankers and against workers. They supported Conservatives, and they dropped their conservative ideas, embraced the Jews and the PC, and brought foreigners from the Third World and from East Europe in droves. And now comes Corbyn, reinventing Labour as it was and ruining all their efforts to gentrify the party.

Corbyn’s Labour didn’t win outright at the polls, but chances are good that he will – perhaps within one year. Jewish columnists like Nick Cohen (a disclosure: he attacked me for my collaboration with Julian Assange and Wikileaks) may eat their hats: they predicted Corbyn would fail miserably, but it was they who failed.

I’ll give you an additional example of the PC collapse that is taking place in Europe.

In Sweden, a wonderful country hit by extreme, almost suicidal self-abnegation, there is the issue of “unaccompanied minor refugees”. These are usually young male Afghanis or Syrians who arrive in Sweden and claim they are unaccompanied minors. They are accepted and provided with all modest comforts. Even if they commit a crime, they are treated leniently, as minors. They often look like young men in their twenties, or even thirties. True, it could be hard to determine the age of a person of a different background, and the Easterners look older than Northerners. Usually these “children” lack reliable documents. Until now, it was considered a hate crime to doubt they are what they say they are. When a journalist wrote they were in their middle twenties, he was branded by a Nazi stigma and lost his job. Reputable journalists in reputable papers referred to the common feeling on their age as an “urban legend”.

However, there has been a big shift in attitudes. The Swedish Democrats, the far right nationalist party, a Swedish twin of French FN, became, according to the recent polls, the second biggest party in the country. And the liberals understood that their ideas can’t be outlawed and marginalized, that they do not scare people anymore by a Nazi comparison, people do not buy it anymore.

They did a full paradigm shift. The leading liberal newspaper, the same one that stigmatised its opponents as Nazis, published an editorial saying that the accompanied children are not children at all. 80 to 85 per cent are over twenty. It is not an urban legend, as they said previously, but reality. And they proposed to eliminate the category of children refugees by declaration. If one wants to be considered a child, he or she should submit to medical examination. This demand has been considered a Nazi demand; a good person was supposed to believe what the boys were saying. And now it changed. A good person may trust his own eyes, and send the boy to a doctor to have his age determined. So the struggle against people who are used by the world government strategists keen on population replacement bore fruit.

Does it mean that the Swedish Democrats are likely to win the elections? I doubt it, for they have no answers to other questions beside immigration. Should Sweden stay in the EU, or leave? Should Swedish workers get security of their jobs, or they will continue to work under easily revoked contracts? They have no answer, and thus it is hard to believe they will win. But anyway they did a good job by undermining PC and allowing the free exchange of ideas.

You can trick some people etc, but you can’t trick all the people forever. The great Jewish invention called PC and their media do not impress anymore.

If that is so, why, will you ask me, did the opposition not win in France? It is because the far right, or the alt-right, the FN has some good ideas, but it is not fighting for real issues: austerity, salaries, dwellings, job security. It is good to be against immigration, but it is not the most urgent question people want to answer. Corbyn promised to turn temporary jobs into permanent, while Marine Le Pen did not.

The US is very different. Though your young people are also working under short term contracts and can be fired at five minutes notice, though you have to pay thousands of dollars for schooling and medical help, you are used to it and consider it natural. You have never had social democracy, your trade unions are non-existent. In your view, the leftists are those who stand by Jews and blacks, not for you. A true leftist, one who fights for the workers, would probably end up being lynched as a Commie.

Anyway, be aware that all over the world there is a new wind blowing, a wind of change. You may consider it a sort of return to 1970s, after many years of CIA-bred neoliberalism. As the US had always been different from Europe, your way forward will also be different.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Trump’s Pilgrimage Sun, 04 Jun 2017 18:06:16 +0000 Life is not boring with President Trump. Perhaps he hasn’t yet fulfilled many wishes of his voters, but he definitely has made their news much more entertaining. Standing a few inches from impeachment, surviving lynch by media, hunted down by rogue Republican senators, the US President broke three taboos established by his predecessors: he removed the major fear of climate change, he voided the trans-pacific and trans-atlantic trade treaties, and he undermined NATO. Those three achievements would win any president his place in the history books.

Before his unexpected electoral victory, the West was rolling towards a Brave New World, led by the United States and followed by Western Europe. Trade treaties were supposed to eliminate democracy and impose governance by major companies. The Transhuman agenda had been prepared to embark upon an audacious project of completely remaking Homo Sapiens. Our life was about to turn for the worse: with greater expenses, as heating without oil would cost more; with less income, as more immigration would lower salaries; and and with less security for workers.

Trump unhooked the US engine from this train speeding to the inferno. The European train keeps rolling on without its American engine. France celebrated a necrophiliac “marriage” of a cadaver to his same-sex (if dead men have sex) partner in the presence of former French President François Hollande. Such a pagan travesty of the natural human order would become normal all over the world, but for Trump. After Trump, this weird act remained a signifier of what could happen in the New World Order.

Trump did these great things in the aftermath of his pilgrimage to the sources of faith. He went to the Guardians of the Two Mosques. He walked to the greatest church of Christendom, the Holy Sepulchre. He visited the Jewish Wall. He had a private audience with the Pope. Afterwards, he teased the heads of the European states, incurring their hostility. At the end, he came back to his capital to be hunted again.

A man of his own will and designs, nobody’s puppet, Donald Trump had been the first ruling American president to visit the Holy Sepulchre. This great church, first built by the Queen Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD, and rebuilt by the Crusader Queen Melisende in the 12th century, harbours the sites of the Crucifixion, of the Burial and of the Resurrection of Christ. Crusades had been launched on its behalf, and its liberation from the yoke of infidels had been the best wish and dearest dream of the shining knights whose names – Godfrey of Bouillon, Tancred, Richard Cœur de Lion – are not entirely forgotten.

Usually, American statesmen stay away from the Holy Sepulchre. They go to the Jewish Western Wall, for a photo op that will do them a lot of good with their Jewish voters or supporters. Trump began his pilgrimage in the Holy Land with the Church, where he had met with the Latin and Orthodox Patriarchs and only afterwards, he went down to the Wall. Moreover, he refused Netanyahu’s request to let him accompany the President. “The Wall has nothing to do with the state of Israel – it is a part of East Jerusalem, a part of Palestine”, his people said to Israeli officials. His visit to East Jerusalem and to Bethlehem hadn’t been presented to the Israeli Foreign Office nor of Israeli government. Thus he stated in the visible form that the Church is more important for him, that despite his positive attitude to the Jews, he is not their obedient servant.

His audience with the Pope in Rome was dignified and sincere. The President and the Pope had a long private talk, and only after that, he departed to political meetings with the NATO leaders.

During his election campaign, Trump declared NATO obsolete, and indeed he was right. NATO had been created in the days of Cold War I to confront the mighty USSR, a superpower with 50,000 tanks and 5 million soldiers. The border went west of Prague and Berlin. Now the border runs east of Kiev and Tallinn, Russia has about one thousand tanks, and its army is of an ordinary European size. NATO is superfluous to deal with Russia.

Perhaps if Trump’s hands were free, he would give NATO his Paris accord treatment, and just walk out, but that was plainly impossible. The allegation of Putin-Trump conspiracy is the last and best defence of NATO, and of the New World Order. While being accused of illegal dealings with the Kremlin, Trump could not dump NATO, drastically cut his military expenditure and attend to friendly relations with Russia. He was even forced to say he changed his mind and became a new believer in NATO.

But his plans did not change. Instead of slamming the door, he accused his NATO partners of not paying their dues. He quarrelled with them, until Mrs Merkel said that “Europe will defend itself by its own means”. The result was the same desirable one: NATO is on its way to dissolution.

But his greatest strike against hidden world governance was in Washington when he dumped the Paris climate accord. The man-made GW (Global Warming) doctrine had been located in the very pinnacle of the single unified narrative impressed upon mankind by the Masters of Discourse, right next to the Holy Holocaust. Ten years ago, a prominent columnist of Boston Globe Ellen Goodman stated that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”. Since then, the twain were frequently compared as examples of what “thou shalt not”.

And now, all of a sudden, Trump broke the taboo and gave us freedom. We do not have to profess our fear of rising seas, melting ice and scorching heat when we live through the coldest spring on living memory. It was snowing today, June 2, in Moscow, and in Sweden, the apple trees came to bloom only now, instead of early May, but without Trump, we’d never dare to admit loudly that man-made climate change theory is sheer bunkum.

Actually, I have never met a climate scientist who believed in the GW theory, though few would say that openly in company, for fear of losing their job and being ostracised. In private, they all laughed off the idea that people are able to influence climate. The climate changes all right all the time, but human contribution to the change is negligible. Russian scientists (the same ones who imposed Trump upon Clinton-loving Americans, perhaps?) had made a working model of climate, and they concluded that the main factor of change is solar activity. Carbon dioxide (CO 2) is rather a by-product of warming than the cause, and anyway it is beneficial for vegetation.

As opposed to historical events, physical effects are observable. We shall see with our own eyes who is right. According to the Russian climate model, we are in the beginning of a minor Ice Age. Observations of the Antarctic ice fields confirm that ice is building, not receding. It will not become warmer, as official scientists claimed; it will be much, much colder, at least for the next thirty years. Winter is coming! The fathers of the Kyoto and Paris treaties will surely congratulate themselves with winning the battle against global warming when we freeze. Our influence on climate is very minor, whether for good or for ill, but we shall need oil and coal to survive.

Why, then, has such a doubtful theory gained importance and forced business-minded nations to pay through the nose or lay off workers? This is not a question of science. By the Paris accord, the World Bank had full control over its implementation. Bankers, the hidden wannabe government of the world, could rule over industries. Besides, bankers’ mind control matrix needed some defining points. Once, there was belief in royal prerogative and in Christ the Saviour, then profit and family, and recently market forces, global warming, gender shift, mass migration (“antiracism”) and Jewish superiority. If you doubt a defining point, your opponent will act insulted and will try to insult you. He may weep and cry and break down in tears.

In my childhood, love to Stalin has been a defining point for the Russians; when Khrushchev removed it, people cried – but eventually they were freed. Even if they came back to their admiration of Stalin, they did it as free men of their own free will.

Perhaps we, or our children will reassess the climate theory, but it will be done by our own free will, and not under bankers’ guidance. The fateful decision of Trump removed the defining point of last twenty years.

I have noticed that prominent scientists who debunked the GW conspiracy tend to be Russians, even if they worked in the West, such as Prof Zharkova of Northumbria University, or Dr A Kosovichev of Stanford University. The Russians aren’t scared by the word “denier”; like Lorelei Lee, the blonde of the Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, they lack mental inhibitions. Their Soviet system was rough but people were free to think what they want. “The Russians did not care what I think, but the Americans did. They wanted me to think as they did”, observed Carl Schmitt, the great German philosopher of law. He had spend time in Russian and in the American occupation zones of Germany after 1945, so he could compare, and he found that in Russian-ruled East Germany minds were free. The Russians – whether in Russia or elsewhere – are still rather independent of mind, as they haven’t been properly brainwashed by the Masters of Discourse.

The Russians never believed in the man-made GW; Russia didn’t ratify the Paris accord, Vladimir Putin didn’t condemn Trump for withdrawing from the accord despite being pushed to do so. He doubted whether the countries of the world were really in a position to halt climate change. This is Putin’s personal point of view: the world climate changes all the time, but human factor is negligible.

“Somehow we here aren’t feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St Petersburg], it’s rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American imperialism,” Putin joked. Trump referred to the whole GW scheme as “hoax”. Indeed there were many surprising revelations like Climategate, when emails of leading British climate scientists were leaked and the emerging picture has been best described as hoax. The revelations made little impact: apparently the forces behind the conspiracy were adamant on carrying their plot through.

In 2003, Senator James Inhofe asked his famous question: “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?” He further stated, “some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor.” Inhofe has suggested that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol are aiming at global governance. Perhaps he was right.

Symbolically, a man who spent a lot of money and effort on imposing the Global Warming dogma upon mankind, died just very recently in March at the ripe old age of 102. This was old David Rockefeller who had changed six hearts, according to popular belief. The geezer was very keen on the idea. Two years ago, when Rockefeller has been but an energetic 100 y.o., Dr John Spritzler of The New Democracy wrote that Rockefeller wants us to believe in Global Warming for nefarious reasons, namely he needs a “new Big Idea with which to get the masses to follow the leadership of the upper class”. They want to frighten us – with GW or terrorism or whatever – into submission.

The European train keeps rolling; the European leaders insist on following the Paris Accord. It will cost more money for their populace, but until now, they had their defence cost-free by gracious leave of the American taxpayer. That’s why Trump’s GW rejection is strongly connected with NATO rejection.

Now the European clowns are running under their own steam. They continue to enforce the NWO program. They manufactured a new line of leaders: youngish, homoerotic, childless, good-looking. And Russia-bashing. Hostility to Russia and to Trump, total loyalty to their defining points – this is the bankers’ writ to Europe. How far will they go without the US?

Their first trial is the UK elections, where the wonderful Jeremy Corbyn weathers the same media assault that Trump survived in the US. Corbyn has a chance: the media now publishes endless streams of fake news about and against him. But as we learned on the US example, this trick doesn’t always work. If Corbyn wins, the NWO Europe will shrink down to the EU core.

Unless they can get rid of Donald Trump. The photo of Kathy Griffin in the role model of Judith presenting Trump as Holofernes is a terrible reminder that things are very serious. In our culture codes, Judith was a righteous woman who beheaded the enemy of her nation. Griffin presented Trump as Holofernes, as the enemy who should be killed. Such a presentation can unhinge a would-be assassin. This is very dangerous – bearing in mind the endless media assault and betrayal by Republican Congressmen and Senators. Will he survive?

This depends on the American people. Changes produced by Trump amount to revolution; he will do many good things if he has a chance. Luckily, the Americans have their guns. This is the best defence for the Donald. Vladimir Lenin in his most important and short book The State and the Revolution calls for arming people the American way. This is the real leftist attitude. The American pseudo-left calls for disarming, but the real left is for people with guns who decide their future. I am surprised that supporters of Trump haven’t yet formed their militia, call it the Trump Guard, to prevent any attempt at a coup d’état. If they won’t do it, I’d say, they do not need guns at all.

The Republican Party should be cleansed of traitors. People who do not support the President should be kicked out of the Party. Let them be independent, if they were already elected, and vote them out at the first occasion.

Donald is doing well, but he should think more of his voters. More populism! He should give his supporters something they wouldn’t like to lose. Not the rich people – the ordinary working class Americans should be given a bonus. A compensation for so many years without pay rise. Pay their debts, their student loans. This is the right time to build a good steady base of support.

His military pursuits won’t help him, nor America. After unnecessary involvement in Syria and Iraq, where American bombers kill civilians by hundreds, now Trump goes deeper into the Afghanistan quagmire, sending troops and supplying the Taliban with weapons. Afghanistan is already a very unhappy and ruined country, 16 years under American occupation. CIA thugs have made billions smuggling and selling drugs produced there. Given that the CIA is hostile to Trump, does it make sense to pump more money, arms and soldiers to Afghanistan? Better forget about the place, take the soldiers back home and let the Afghans sort their problem out themselves. His anti-Iranian posture is equally useless: Iran isn’t looking for trouble, but it is not a soft target. Saudis, with all the weapons in the world, will never be able to fight Iran. Ditto North Korea. War-mongering in Korea will give Trump no brownie points, just troubles.

Trump should concentrate his mind on his survival, on reshuffling the government, on promoting his supporters, and undermining the Deep State. This task is big enough without going to unnecessary wars.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Vladimir Ilyich Trump? Wed, 17 May 2017 17:05:57 +0000 God bless Donald Trump for sacking James Comey! Just a few days before this decisive step, Justin Raimondo of called James Comey “the most powerful man in America”. Comey was pushing the US into an unnecessary war with unwilling Russia. Answering a question by Lindsey Graham, the notorious warmonger, he said that Russians are “the greatest threat of any nation on earth, given their intention and their capability.” This is really not an FBI agenda! He claimed the right to decide the foreign policy of the US, and even what is (MSM) and what is not (Wikileaks) legitimate media. The guy became too big for his boots, and it is good that he’s gotten the boot.

By sacking Comey, Trump has made a first step to recovering his lost ground. Previously, we saw him retreating. He sacked Bannon, he bombed Syria, he promoted his silly daughter and her weird husband to almost-presidential status. The results were sad. The president has been treated as a legless (not just lame) duck. Comey’s behaviour has been especially insulting. If the foreign policy is decided by the FBI and the NY Times, who needs a president, anyway?

I would applaud if Trump were to send killing drones, Obama-style, to deal with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, too. It would make a terrific show: over a beautiful chocolate cake, watching drones flying all the way to these two bastards. But probably Trump is not made of sufficiently stern stuff. He should invent some less spectacular way to get rid of the traitors.

His next step – inviting Mr Sergey Lavrov to the White House – was also good and right, particularly in the context of Comey’s “Russia is a threat” pronouncement. Some wise heads suggest that he chose the wrong timing and exposed himself to attacks. Bollocks! He would be attacked at any time, sooner or later. By doing what he did when he did it, Trump proved that he can. Despite the incredible demonization of Russia, despite the silly claim that he is on Putin’s beck and call, he met with the Russian minister. This was a manly act, something to be proud of.

The warmongers responded with the ridiculous accusation of “leaking strategic secrets to Lavrov”. Ridiculous but meaningful: the idea is to build a conditioned reflex in politicians and statesmen, like Dr Pavlov did for dogs. His dogs began salivating while hearing the bell usually associated with feeding, or they ran away at the sound associated with trashing. A conditioned politician will cross the street to the opposite pavement if a Russian diplomat is sighted, and thus the danger of peace will be removed.

Until now, the clearest cases of conditioning were produced by the Israel Lobby. Jews are wonderfully good at conditioning. So many politicians and journalists have been conditioned into swearing their compliance with Jewish dogma. At the first sound of displeasure, they crawl of all fours and declare their love for the Jews and/or Israel. The late Joe Sobran, a witty Washington journalist, compared them to cows that graze on a field surrounded with low-voltage electric wire. If they try to get close, they get a small but unpleasant shock. For vast majority, this is enough to keep them inside.

And when a politician is conditioned, he can be led wherever his shepherds want. Indeed, the first man to blow whistle on Trump “passing secrets” to Lavrov had been Alan Dershowitz, the torture-loving Zionist, who had conditioned many politicians to love Israel or else.

For this reason I prefer politicians who proved they weren’t scared or conditioned by the Jews. Such is the wonderful Cynthia McKinney – she lost her position on the Capitol Hill, but she did not surrender. This I would call the first test for a politician. If the Jews can subdue you, they will. I’ll add for your comfort: it is not necessary to fight the Jews: just do not give them a single inch, and then they will do what you want. It is practically the same idea as in walking a large dog. Let him have his way once, and he will pull you for miles and miles; keep him on tight leash, and he will obey.

I saw this quality in President Trump, too. He rejected the Jewish call to apologise for the six-pointed star on Clinton’s image, he rejected their insistence to mention the Holocaust, and even when he did, he did not mention Jews, to their great annoyance. Then he gave in for a while, and bombed Syria and made some pro-Israel noises, and he sent his Ivanka to do an even more pro-Jewish routine, and he appeared defeated. But then he had met with Lavrov. Let us hope this time Trump will keep the leash in his strong hands.

I am somewhat embarrassed to cheer the US President for doing such minor routine things as firing an FBI director or meeting with the Foreign Minister of a major state. Next, I’d have to laud him for eating an apple or washing his hands (“Attaboy!”). But one feels that the guy needs our encouragement for doing something right. As the father of three boys, I know: boys need encouragement. And if there is no great achievement to cheer them for, even washing their hands before the meal will do.

Trump has a huge, Herculean task: to turn the battleship America away from its collision course when all the important people in all the important positions are deadly keen to run it full speed ahead. They think the other ship will turn away first; but the “other ship” is actually a lighthouse. It is the rock of the World-Island and its Heartland. Why would so many smart Americans, Brits and Europeans push their luck by courting war and disaster?

Exactly a hundred years ago, in 1917, Vladimir Lenin discovered that the present system necessarily produces world wars. It is not a question of bad guys or good guys, it’s the system, stupid! He wrote about it a concise book called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, radically updating Marx. The idea is that capitalism evolves from dynamic competitive production to financial capital takeover, while the financial capital unavoidably leads to wars. If financiers rule, war is inevitable, he said, because they are insatiable.

Industrialists, builders, farmers can and will stop at the limits of their territory, but financiers always want more, and there is no natural limit to their expansion. They want to colonise more lands, subjugate more nations and suck up their substance. The only way to save the world from the horrors of war (remember, Lenin wrote after Verdun and Ypres), is to get rid of financial capital’s dominance (Jesus came to the same conclusion whens He expelled the moneychangers from the temple).

That same year, Lenin made his great experiment to rid his country Russia of bankers and other exploiters, while earning their eternal hatred (and volumes of fake news about his bloodthirsty cruelty, in addition). History has proven him partially right: the countries that followed Lenin’s path never began a war, and they never colonised other states, though they did help some to get rid of their leeches and Western interference. Soviet Russia is an example: it was a donor to all the other socialist states, from Georgia to Afghanistan. (Perhaps the communists had been too good for this world. After Russia was de-communised, Russian income went up, while the incomes of practically all the ex-Soviet states plummeted, unless subsidised by the EU.) And they knew no war.

On the other hand, the states that remained under bankers’ sway went to war more and more frequently. They colonised or were colonised. Probably none as often as the US, the home country for the Federal Reserve, for the dollar and for so many great financial companies.

For America, the next World War is inevitable, unless the Americans can get rid of their financiers – and of their servants in the mass media and other state institutions. My sympathy to President Trump has been based on his antipathy to the moneymen. When he attacked the Federal Reserve and Wall Street, he swayed me, and perhaps you, too.

But then, I am not a real Marxist. I’ll explain. Marxists consider financial capitalists as progressive sort of exploiters. “Progressive” is not a synonym of “better”; it is just more advanced, like in “progressive disease”. Classical Marxists believe the happy future of mankind will come after the full victory of progressive financial capitalism. Lenin came to the conclusion that there was no reason to wait for their victory: the workers can do everything better. This is the question of who and how to fight financial capital.

Financial capital has two sorts of enemies: progressive and reactionary. The progressive are those who go for the future, for the elimination of money rule altogether, for the happy brotherhood of all men, for liberated labour, for human development, for the world of no masters and no slaves. These people are workers, and they are happy to work without being fleeced. They do not want to exploit or to be exploited.

The reactionary prefer the past. The Alt-Right is that sort of people. Evola and Guenon, the lodestars of the Alt-Right, hated modernity and believed it could be rolled back. They wished feudalism or even older formations to return.

We do not fully realise that the industrial capitalism of the 1950s, with its captains of industry and people of the real economy, of oil tycoons and great builders, also belongs to yesterday. They are still rich and powerful, but so are kings and dukes. They also were defeated by the sleek moneymen.

Marxists believe that the the progressives will win, while the reactionaries are doomed to defeat. Lenin was not a classical Marxist, as he believed in great potential of “reactionary”, or backward, peasants. He didn’t think people have to wait until the bankers take over the world. A short-cut is possible, and exploiters can and should be defeated.

Being of an optimistic and eternally hopeful disposition, I am not even a true Leninist, as I am sympathetic to all the enemies of the bankers, whether progressive or reactionary, Alt-Left or Alt-Right, whether workers, farmers, aristocracy, religious fundamentalists, people of free spirit, oil tycoons – or builders like Trump. I can’t exclude the possibility that Trump will do what the Left failed: destroy the Federal Reserve, put bankers on a leash, give Americans productive work, lead them to universal prosperity and save them from horrible war. The idea of historical determinism is wrong as it denies free will.

Trump – and you – can see that world can be bettered if the huge resources directed to war would be redirected to peace. Just now in China they had a global Silk Road forum (OBOR) with the active participation of Russia, China, Turkey. They have in mind a huge infrastructure project which will allow many countries to develop side by side. The US did not participate at all, while the Germans objected that the Chinese do not allow them to buy Chinese companies “like they do in Germany”. The Chinese are right: there is no reason to sell one’s producing companies. Let them produce in the interest of the nation. This could be a solution suitable for Trump.

In many countries, people try now to find a way out of the impasse. Such a man is the UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. His problems are similar to those of Trump. In his party, though the grass roots support Corbyn, the top brass had been appointed and promoted by Tony Blair. Twice Corbyn defeated their attempts at a coup. Still, the media – and most of all, the Guardian, the leading Labour–Liberal paper, are baying for his blood. Every day they publish Corbyn’s political obituaries, hoping, by voodoo magic, to cause his demise.

Now they pre-published Corbyn’s Labour Manifesto with his plans of what to do after a victory. They thought this publication would kill him, but it is the other way around: people are positive about his plan to spend billions on undoing the extremes of Thatcher and Blair privatisations. The English people would regain their great NHS, National Health Service, the best in the world; they would regain their railways that fell into disrepair, as private owners skim the profits and the taxpayer pays the expenses.

Actually, these plans would still be cheaper than the Conservative alternative as Corbyn wants to eliminate British’s nuclear arsenal and stop bottomless spending for weapons, while the Conservatives want to spend more money on new weaponry. A little bird tells me that if he unexpectedly wins, the Russians will be accused of interference on his behalf. Such accusations do little harm to the candidates, and even less to the Russians, who are proud of being considered so powerful.

Bear in mind that works of Lenin are not that popular nowadays, and as his name had been besmirched, I’d suggest a new book published recently in Russia: a mammoth biography of the great man by Lev Danilkin. This is a very well written, not too reverential but respectful, with an eye for a modern reader book, scanning Lenin’s life from his childhood on Volga River to his wanderings in European cities and to his untimely death in Moscow. It hasn’t been translated yet, and I am sure it will make an impact when it is.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 1
Facing Aurora Thu, 04 May 2017 20:26:04 +0000 For Russians, “Aurora” is not the Goddess of Dawn; it is first of all the battleship Aurora, the legendary cruiser whose thundering salvo over the Winter Palace had started the Russian Revolution in November 1917. Recently I participated in a conference commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in the Mirror of World Left Movement, in St Petersburg, the City of the Revolution, attended by representatives of European socialist parties. In front of our venue, we had the cruiser Aurora, and it helped concentrate our minds on the only important things, victory and defeat.

The Left had won a hundred years ago, and the Left lost quarter of century ago. When the Soviet system went down, there was a wide-spread illusion that the Left would blossom as the eternally young movement had gotten rid of rusty old-fashioned Russia. This was the idea of the Euro-Communists. Surprisingly, the Left just agonised and died after 1991. The Euro-Communist parties vanished. We did not know it, or we denied it, but apparently, the world Left movement had been connected with the Russian Revolution.

A hundred years ago, Lenin and Stalin solved all their problems by cutting the Gordian knot of greed. They modernised their country, they gave people hope, they offered a choice for the workers. They did not turn Russia into a paradise, though the Soviet Russia of the 1960s had been as developed and as prosperous as any core country of Western Europe.

Paradoxically, the Western workers had been the greatest beneficiaries of the Russian Revolution. The Western owner class had been scared by the Russian communists and afterwards behaved rather nicely. It shared its profits with its workers. Your life has been good because the naval guns of the Aurora threatened your One Per cent. In 1991, the communists were defeated through the treason of their leaders. And since then, the victorious Western owners have gone into full-scale Reconquista. They took away all the achievements of the workers, and created this new world of immense wealth for a few and growing misery for the rest.

But what was lost, can be regained. The capitalists did not despair in 1917, the communists should not despair in 2017. It seems that there is no other way, no shortcut: the world needs new Lenins and Stalins. Greed should be defeated again, media and factories have to be taken away from the owners. Not only minimal, but a maximal income should be legislated.

Populism became a dirty word, but I’ll tell you: there should be more, much more populism. Work with dignity for workers – this populist slogan gave Trump his entry ticket in the White House. People should be given whatever they want. Lenin promised to give land to farmers, factories to workers, peace to nations, and his government did it as much as they could. People now want to be sure of their tomorrows, they want their children to study, they want to have free medical care and affordable, good housing; they want freedom and safety. They want to regain all that was lost after 1991. And if for this purpose some bankers should be retired to the wall at Dawn, so be it.

No more Mister Nice Guy, this is the first commandment for the Left’s comeback. The Left should part its ways with the liberals.

It’s the right time for divorce, if it’s not too late. Oh gosh, but why? The Left and liberals appear happily married. At first, it was a marriage of convenience, but by now it’s a marriage of love. So far so good. It’s just that the life expectancy of the Left became pretty short, as that of an octopussy’s mate. These creatures (Octopus cyanea, to be precise) eat their mates after they have done their job. The Left did its job, and now it is ripe to be eaten. But who will notice the Left’s disappearance?

Sometimes I am ashamed of belonging to the Left. Ask a man on the street, what do the leftists strive for, and he will tell you: these are the good people who support good causes. Transgender toilets, gay marriages, women for CEOs, Syrian refugees, climate change, access for the handicapped, perhaps unemployment benefits. They are certainly against immigrant discrimination, micro-insults, they are for political correctness and identity politics. The Left hates Putin and Trump, and loves Israel though not its present Prime Minister.

Or even worse. With a sense of short, sharp shock I’ve read it three times, and I couldn’t believe my eyes. A honourable writer of, Dr. Paul Gottfried, described the red-faced ADL ex-boss, Abe Foxman as a “leftist”. This is really an insult. A Jewish nationalist like Mr Foxman can’t be a leftist. Stalin would have sent him to the Far North-East of Siberia, where the hard work and hard climate would cure him of his permanent indignation and constipation. Leftists are not against “white Christian majority population,” as Gottfried claims. Leftists are for the working class majority.

There is no light between the Left and the liberal agenda, you’d say. And now, surprise! Until 1990, the Left and the liberals were sworn enemies. The Left was for the workers; its icon, Stalin, scared the hell out of liberals; he advised the German Communists to make an alliance with the German Far Right instead of Liberals; its Marxism was not the cultural abomination, but real trouble for the rich guys. But after 1990, the Left joined with the victorious liberals – for practical reasons. As it happens in marriage of convenience, their relations turned to true love, and eventually they became one.

In politics, Occam’s Razor works mercilessly. The Left had lost its own identity, and a reason to exist. Now it disappears, having been eaten by liberals. Usually, the way to oblivion goes through a government coalition. Whenever the Left joined the government of the liberals (they could call it National Unity, or Popular Front, or Stop the Beast Government), the Left melted in the liberals’ hot embrace.

I am very sorry that the Counterpunch, a publication I liked and wrote for many years (admittedly, in Alex Cockburn’s days), has succumbed to that disease. They still call themselves the Voice of American Left, but they publish John Feffer. The nauseous beastie, Feffer, a “leftist”-for-free-immigration-war-with-Russia-and-against-Trump, made a call: “Everyone to the left of Ann Coulter should be on board. If ever there were a time for unity, it is now.” Oh no, I want to stay with Ann Coulter who wrote on almost the same day Feffer penned his garbage: Let Russia be our sister-state. And the last thing I want is unity with Feffer.


Fefferite unity for all brought us to this place: the Left is dying, and the Liberals will inherit the lot. The anti-Liberal Right is not a viable alternative, alas. The recent Dutch elections on March 15 proved that point.

I wonder whether you followed these elections, the most interesting and most important event coming out of Netherlands since the Glorious Revolution. It was impossible to predict how the Dutch would vote. The Trump effect, people said darkly, and hinted that the Dutch would vote for their own Trump, called Geert Wilders.

The guess was quite a reasonable one. The Netherlands had been governed by a joyless coalition of Right and Left. It makes no difference whether you prefer left or right, anyway the parties of Left and Right rule together. It is the establishment that governs, while democracy provides a smoke screen.

With such a government, it was expected that people would vote for an outsider. But for whom? The Netherlands, like the rest of Western Europe and North America, has a large dissatisfied electorate of ‘Deplorables,’ victims of neo-liberalism. They suffer being pushed by waves of immigrants out of their jobs and housing, or they had landed, instead of steady employment in a steel plant, temporary jobs at McDonalds.

The Deplorables could vote for the old-style Left, as these unemployed or precariously employed men were dispossessed by the rich and powerful. But the present-day-Left (PvdA) did not care for them. The Left enjoyed its alliance with the liberal elite, with Jewish and Jewified financiers and media; tolerance (meaning priority for minority), cultural Marxism (it is not even a relation of real class-based red-tooth Marxism), elitism were of greater importance for them than the blue-collar workers to whom they felt little affinity.

The mainstream right-wing (VVD of Prime Minister Mark Rutte) is a party of wealthy establishment. They carry out neo-liberal policies, they import immigrants, they support NATO, they are anti-Russian. They are similar to the pre-Trump Republicans, not an appealing lot for dispossessed men.

The Freedom Party (PVV) of Geert Wilders homed in the Deplorables. Wilders is a liberal gay guy who hates Islam and immigrants, he loves Israel as he considers it as the European bastion in the sea of Islam. He is quite anti-Russian, but he is anti-establishment. Or is he? The ruling parties loved and used Wilders’ party in order to to scare the voters into obedience. If you won’t vote for us, Wilders the nazi-fascist will win and take Holland to hell.

This is a usual trick in Europe. In Sweden, too, the mainstream right and left parties united in a government citing the scary Sweden’s Democrats as the reason. In France, “anybody but LePen” is the slogan of Macron’s gang.

Even in the Ukraine, the former president Yanukowych nurtured, bankrolled and promoted the fascist Freedom Party hoping that all the rest would support him as the only alternative. This plan misfired, as had every plan hatched by Viktor Yanukowych.

Wilders party is practically a single issue party: against Muslim immigrants. This year, because of influx of Syrians, the PVV had a chance to move mainstream. He was expected to win 30% of the vote in the highly fragmented elections. The dispossessed were sufficiently desperate to vote for a devil himself as long he was not a member of the government coalition. And resistance to mass immigration following Merkel’s appeal (“please come you all”) became acute.

The real Communist Left is usually against immigration: Cuban Communists are a good example. There are many Latin Americans who would love to go to Cuba, one of the more prosperous and pleasant countries in the Western hemisphere, but Cuba does not take the immigrants, as a rule. Immigration is not good for local people, and Communists are first of all for local people.

The Dutch Liberal Left was in favour of the Third World mass immigration. They thought the immigrants would vote for them, and they had as little empathy towards the native workers, as the Right had had. They belong to a comfortable well-to-do class of scholars and officials, and they do not mind immigrants, for poor immigrants with their strange customs can’t rent apartments in the prosperous areas where the leftists live and they can’t steal their jobs either.

Immigrants cause discomfort for lower classes, while the wealthy and prosperous benefit from immigration. They can get their housecleaning maids for less money. If the rich and powerful would not want it, no immigrant would cross the sea. Much as I dislike mass immigration, I’d admit: the immigrants should not be blamed, but their importers in the government and business.

In Israel, too: the Africans move into South Tel Aviv, where poor Jews lived. The poor Jews complained and they are being called “racists”, while wealthy Jews of North Tel Aviv (who allowed the Africans to come) can condemn racism of the poor Jews from a safe distance.

Immigration (like terrorism or rifles) is a misleading culprit. Rifles do not kill: people do. Immigrants will come only if the people of power will allow them, for their purpose. Immigrants are a tool in the hands of neo-liberals. People who blame immigrants are people of limited intelligence, and such people can be duped easily. This is exactly what happened with the Deplorables of Netherlands. The right-wing VVD party stole the protesting electorate of Geert Wilders as easily as yob Tim wrests a sweet out of a little Minnie’s hand.

At that time, the Turks of Netherlands (that is the Turks who kept their Turkish citizenship, a biggish community of about 400 000) were supposed to vote on changes in Turkish constitution. A Turkish minister flew in to speak to his fellow-citizens and mobilise them to vote in a certain way. In usual circumstances, this would pass unnoticed. Every day a migrant community discusses their migrant affairs. The Kurds demand their Kurdish state, the Moroccans argue for the Western Sahara; Syrians for Islam fight Syrians for Assad. So there would be an additional argument: whether Erdogan should be allowed to declare an emergency or not.

But the Right-wing (VVD) Party had to show to the Deplorables that they are every inch as awful to Turks and Muslims as Geert Wilders is, and even worse (or better), for they have power, while Wilders hasn’t got it. They refused the Turkish jet its landing request, and sent another Turkish minister out of Holland. The Turks went to protest, and the Dutch police attacked Turkish demo with ferocious German shepherd dogs.

Potential Wilders voters were ecstatic. They did not care about Erdogan, but they were happy that the Muslim ministers were kicked out of Holland and the dogs were set upon the Turks. The Far Right calls to expel the Muslims, we actually do it – that was the VVD subliminal slogan. And it worked. Despite expectations, the VVD won, the Far Right party of Geert Wilders showed a small gain, but the Labour Party (PvdA) had lost the elections completely. This party disintegrated. Some part of their electorate went to a more radical left party, but majority just left in disgust.

The Dutch establishment had managed to trump the Trump Revolution. Wilders remained in the political desert, Labour collapsed, the centre-right forces will remain at power. The voters clearly wanted a change; they refused neo-liberalism and globalisation, but they will get it anyway as a payment for being nasty to the Turks.

The correct conclusion from the Dutch elections is that the Left should move further to the left and part company with the liberal right, if it still wants to be an independent power.


The French elections began from the point at which the Dutch ended: the disintegration of the Socialist Party. Nothing to regret: that party became a twin of the liberal Right and pursued the same sort of policies. The Socialists annoyed workers by their anti-worker laws penned by Macron, they annoyed the Catholics by forcing gay marriage laws. A Socialist candidate got 6 per cent of the vote in the first round.

The leftist cause has been saved by Melenchon. Not only did he do well in the first round, but he even refused to support Macron in the second round. It would be better if he were to openly support Marine LePen, but probably that would be too hard for French Left.

As things are, a French leftist has no choice but to vote for LePen. Le Pen is not Geert Wilders, she is not a single cause person. She has strong Communist support. She is not an ideal candidate for the Left, but beggars can’t be choosers.

If she wins, the Revolution started by Trump’s election will continue. If she fails, we’ll be back to square one. The surprise win of Trump will have been wasted. The people in power learned their lesson.

Perhaps now the Left-vs.-Right division is irrelevant; what is relevant is the attitude to globalism and neo-liberalism. Perhaps. Theoretically I can agree. We could say that perhaps Bannon will do better than Trotsky. But now we see that the anti-globalist right is failing its promise. Bannon is out, and Trump is not sure whether he will send Mrs Janet Yellen of FRS home packing. So this is the time for the Left to attack the bastion of the bankers and their ilk.

The anti-globalist right will not disappear anyway; a rejuvenated Left of Lenin’s sons should consider them as possible allies. However, revolutions succeed when they are led by decisive and thoroughly men, and such men can emerge on both sides of the political spectrum.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Donald Goes to Canossa Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:26:54 +0000 What’s wrong with gassing your own people? After all, California does it and Oklahoma plans it, and these are fine advanced states. I would not like the Russians to send their howling missiles to Sacramento: they gas their own people. While gassing someone’s else people may be considered a sort of interference in their affairs, gassing of one’s own people is clearly one’s own business. Mind your own business, sir, gas your own.

And if these are beautiful babies that you worry about, why, the US flushes them down the drain, a million beautiful babies a year are ripped out by abortionists. Would you like Vlad Putin to strafe the Planned Parenthood headquarters at 434 West 33rd Street, New York, NY as they kill beautiful babies?

Who are “your own people” is also open for interpretation. A few years ago I went to the funeral of a young Palestinian Christian girl who has been gassed to death by Israelis in her own bedroom in Beit Jalla near Jerusalem (they shot a tear gas bomb into her window). Was she “their own people”? If you say she wasn’t, then, by the same measure, the Jews of Germany weren’t “their own people” for the Germans, and then, Hitler did not “gas his own people” making him a great improvement on Bashar Assad, according to the ADL-authorised version.

Why it is so God-awful to gas people and/or beautiful babies, while frying them with napalm, pouring Agent Orange over them or starving them to death is a proper thing to do. Or nuking them, indeed. Would nuking Nagasaki count as a lesser crime than anything else? If it is a question of aesthetics, I think napalm makes the worst pictures of deep-fried babies as those made in Gaza after Israeli attack. They are so awful that I forbade my Italian publisher to place one of them on the cover of my book. In comparison to them, gas deaths are almost blissful.

For these reasons I do not intend to discuss whether Bashar Assad did, or he didn’t. The story is murky, and the Russians – and the alternative press – had a few mutually contradicting versions Rashomon-like. The whole thing was a false flag cautiously prepared by the rebels and/or Americans; or it was a freak accident, a result of Syrian air force hitting a rebel chemical weapons factory, like the US did a week later; or was it a combination of two, the rebels using the spill to raise hell. Washington is not Kurosawa, and the Trump administration immediately declared they knew what happened before the dust settled, just like Bush and Netanyahu all knew on 9/11. For me it is of little interest: in what way these eighty people died – out of hundreds of thousands who have died in the Middle East wars started by President Bush the Senior and continued by his worthy successors.

The verdict of official Washington is of very little value, after the Kuwaiti incubator baby hoax, the Iraqi WMD of Powell, Libyan atrocities and similar fake news. This boy has cried wolf too often for us to pay attention this time. I do not trust anything the mainstream media tells us, for they proved to be inveterate liars. But who cares even if it were true, when we have heard US State Secretary Madeleine Albright saying it was worth while to kill 500,000 beautiful babies to weaken Iraq?

I would advise you to dismiss this horror story of he-gassed-his-own-people and banish it out of your mind. Who cares? It is just a psy-war against his-own-people, meaning you. Rejecting such stories will restore your ability to judge right. Reject whatever they want you to discuss out of hand and you will regain freedom of mind.

However, the underlying story of Donald’s U-turn is one of the most entertaining and riveting stories that deserves to be looked at. Without unnecessary embellishments (“he saw dead babies”) it is even better. After years of twits against Middle Eastern wars and for friendship with Russia, after going against the establishment and winning, such full surrender is amazing.

It is less amazing if you think of his choice: to be removed from power and locked up in the cellars of Alcatraz or Guantanamo. The CIA and The New York Times with help of the judiciary and the ever-treacherous McCain had plotted to jail or kill Trump, and he saw no other way to save his skin but doing a full Canossa.

Trump had some ambitions, but becoming a martyr hasn’t been one of them. He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day, he murmured to himself, dumped Bannon and bombed Syria.

It worked like magic. His avowed enemies in Congress and in the media greeted him like a young lad coming out of a cathouse: boy, now you became a man! Now you are a real president! Fareed Zakaria blessed him on CNN: “Donald Trump became President of the United States last night.” The Jews forgot their silly stuff of antisemitism and threw their yarmulkes high in his honour. Mme Clinton stopped sulking and said now she does not regret losing the elections to this fine man. A small deed, but a great reward, Donald could say. If Paris was worth a mass, Washington is worth a strike.

After all, America is an evolved Comanche and Apache tribal union, and the Great White Chief has to have the biggest string of scalps at his belt.

The Russians weren’t unduly upset. They have tolerated Israeli missile strikes and bombings of Syria all the time; so why would they object now? The Russian line is as follows: we fight the terrorists, we do not fight for Bashar Assad against other forces, be it Israel, Turkey, Kurds or the US or against moderate opposition. Yes, it is unfair to Assad, but this is the Russian attitude, like it or not. They do not intend to fight the whole West, Israel and the Sunni kingdoms. They fight against ISIS, Al Nusra and similar extreme factions of Islamic movement. So Trump’s strike annoyed them, but it did not cross the red line they drew.

The Western media stressed that the Syria strike has been aimed against Putin, first of all, that the intention was to humiliate the Russian ruler. The Russians did not think so. For them it was an affair between Trump and Assad. Putin did not feel humiliated, and that’s why he received State Secretary Rex Tillerson at the Kremlin. He and Mr Lavrov told Tillerson that the US has absolutely zero evidence for their claim; that this event should be investigated; that they do not believe Assad was behind it. Tillerson proposed that the Russians switch sides in Syria, and this proposal was been immediately rejected. Lavrov quickly recapped previous the causes of war in Iraq, Libya and Syria; he reminded them of the proven case of 2013 chemical weapons hoax. Still, they parted without acrimony. Russian-American relations are not worse than they were; mainly due to Putin’s dogged desire to avoid war with the US for as long as he can, preferably for another five or six years at least.

Trump managed the China angle well. He claimed that President Xi expressed his understanding or even approval of the strike. The Chinese deny that, but they did not make too much of it. They abstained at the Security Council vote on Syria, and Russia had to veto it alone. This is a big achievement for the American President, and an unexpected one.

The pundits thought Trump planned to befriend Russia in order to isolate China; surprisingly he used China to isolate Russia. The Russian and the Chinese Presidents should worry about this American gambit more than about the Syrian strike.

Israel has been happy about the strike; Israeli left and right were united on this point, though they offered differing explanations. But then, Israel is happy at any strike at an Arab target. American Jews were happy, too. I wrote of a chasm between liberal Jews and Zionists Donald Trump tried to exploit in his interests. This time he satisfied both factions.

If Trump will be satisfied with this great result, we can say he emerged a winner, and he didn’t even poison his relations with Russia or China. The problem is, he is tempted to repeat this trick with North Korea, and this will be a very costly mistake.

North Koreans, whom I visited last year, are not a soft target like Syria or Iraq. This is the hardest target on the planet. They are used to confrontation with the US. They were born into this confrontation; they grew at the Korean War of 1950s when their country had been devastated by American bombs. Their fathers lived through the Japanese colonisation, and they are determined – never again. They have little love for Americans and for Japanese, and they would like to mete their vengeance on them and on their South Korean stooges. The Japanese and the American soldiers and sailors’ mothers should pray to their gods to restore President Trump to his senses.

If Trump strikes Korea, the Koreans are likely to strike back at the US fleet, the US bases in South Korea and in Okinawa. Probably they will use their nuclear weapons. This is exactly the occasion they prepared their A- and H-bombs for. This is exactly the reason they refused the plans of denuclearisation, and they were right.

A problem with American planning is its repetiousness. They always do the same routine they borrowed from a spaghetti Western. You know, the vigilante calls upon his adversary: release your hostage and drop your gun or I’ll shoot! When the fool drops the gun, the vigilante smiles madly and shoots anyway. It is not a chivalrous approach, but then, American foreign policy is charted by businessmen, not by knights.

In September 2013 Obama threatened Bashar Assad into dropping his gun. Assad gave up his arsenal of chemical weapons, the only thing he could employ against nuclear-armed Israel next door. The Russians (willingly or not) supported this Israeli-American subterfuge. After Assad had voluntarily disarmed, Israel was safe; Assad couldn’t do anything to harm Israel or Americans. Then they accused him of using the chemical weapons he gave up, and attacked him.

The same routine happened in Libya. They threatened Muammar Gadhafi and he gave up his weaponry. He also opened his country for the TNC to buy and operate Libyan oil and gas. They privatised and bought everything they could, and at the end they attacked Libya anyway and killed Gadhafi.

You remember that Saddam Hussein agreed to all American demands, that he opened every door in his country for their inspection, and when they learned he had no WMD, they accused him of possessing WMD, attacked, destroyed his country for good and hanged him. You can’t even call the American foreign policy makers “treacherous”, like you can’t call a cyclone “strong wind”.

The North Koreans had learned this lesson by heart. They are not going to drop their guns, even if the Russians and the Chinese were to beg them on their knees to do it for their sake please. Once, Russia and China were reliable, but it was in the days of Stalin and Mao, they think. Koreans know that nowadays a country has to rely on its own nuclear forces and to be ready to deliver the payload wherever it hurts.

For Iraq and Syria, a nearby spot of enemy’s vulnerability (“the hostage”) was the Jewish state, but they allowed themselves to be convinced to surrender their weapons. For North Korea, the adversary’s vulnerable spots are the US bases, and Japan, an old enemy and the US ally.

Donald Trump had sent a formidable force to the Korean shores. There are tens of thousands of sailors and soldiers, there are ships, nuke-bearing submarines and air force. Just now the Americans exploded their Mother-Of-All-Bombs in Afghanistan, this poor land they ruined – first, by bringing there Osama bin Laden, then by conquering it, and after all, by turning it into biggest producer of drugs in the world, this ultimate source of CIA’s independent wealth. No doubt, the US can destroy Korea – second time within our lifespan. But they can’t scare the North Koreans into submission. The Koreans can’t be scared.

North Korea has no billionaires ready to serve as an American Fifth Column. They have no ethnic or gender minorities, no culture of critique. Stubborn folk, they will not surrender.

Trump will have to bomb them; kill a million; and perhaps a million Japanese and Americans will be killed by the Korean payback. Trump might have his Pacific Fleet sunk just at the time when the US might need it for future confrontation with China. The Koreans can’t harm the continental US in any case, but Trump’s attack and Korean response may undermine the US naval strength, and then the US will be overrun by the same Mexicans Trump hated so much. Ironic justice, of sorts. Nobody can cause so much damage to the Republic as the President, after all. Is it possible? Yes. Not a sure thing, but a possible one.

It will be an inglorious end for Trump’s career, and quite unnecessary one, too. North Korea threatens nobody; they live their own life in their far-away peninsula. They have nukes to make them a hard target, hard to swallow and digest, not in order to attack. It would be better to forget about them, and to return to the things Trump promised to his voters.

It is still possible; his Syrian strike will be forgotten; Trump has enough time left to eliminate his enemies in the Republican Party, to dismantle the CIA, to create his own militia and to proceed and save America.

However, there is a hitch. Why do so many Americans want to have the world war as they push upon Trump to start it? America is overpopulated, that’s why. There are too many people, and since the Trojan war, a war has been the solution for overcrowding. The forces that bring refugees and immigrants to your shores are the same forces that lead you to war.

My baby-boomer generation came to life after the WWII, and the world welcomed us. We grew in spacious places; we had countryside in which to frolic, and housing had been relatively inexpensive. We could have children, we had something to look for. Now it is crowded everywhere; nature has been destroyed or privatised, even the Dead Sea has been killed.

The US population doubled since 1960; Europe (as well as Russia) added 25%, mainly immigrants, some cities grew much faster: Moscow’s population tripled. Population growth brings war. The Middle East is at war, and it is not only America’s fault, but also of their preoccupation with fertility. The population of Israel, of Palestine, of Syria quadrupled, that of Jordan multiplied by factor of ten, while Lebanon has had it better than most by just doubling its population. Unhappy Aleppo’s population grew six times since 1950s, and naturally there was the civil war. Even after so much death and destruction, Syria today has more people than it ever had, while Israel has no place even to bury its dwellers. Israel is a thousand per cent more crowded (its population density is 1,000 per cent higher) than the OECD average.

Another, less discussed reason is that the means of production improved greatly and now Wall Street and other hard-core liberals think there are too many unneeded people who can’t be employed profitably. Instead of returning industries to the US, it is easier to kill a hundred million of America’s surplus population.

For these reasons the War Party wants to start World War Three, to free space for the coming generations and to get rid of surplus. Perhaps this man with orange hair is an unlikely avatar of Shiva the Destroyer, whose attack on Korea will lay our world waste, and bring in the new spacious world for our sons and daughters – if they will survive the war. And if Korea thing will fail, there are still Russia and China, and sooner or later they will oblige. Unless the liberals who want the world without us will be defeated.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Purim Gifts Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:04:00 +0000 The Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is the friendly calf of the Russian proverb who sucks two cows. After his rather successful meeting with President Trump, he went to the enemy No.1 of the United States, and to his good friend, President Putin, in chilly Moscow, where he always gets a warm reception.

This time he came just before Purim, the jolly Jewish feast, when the Jews celebrate their legendary rise to prominence in Persia, some 2500 years ago. This feast (coming this Sunday March 12) was very much on the mind of two men. To keep up with tradition, Netanyahu was supposed to bring his host some Purim sweets, homentashen in Yiddisch, or “Haman ears”, triangular pastries filled with jam.

One of the nicest street scenes you can observe in the Orthodox Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, Mea Shearim, is played on the next day, when perfectly dressed in 18thcentury garb dainty maidens carry neat willow baskets with sweets, shalahmones to their friends and relatives, like so many Little Red Riding Hoods. Purim is the Jewish carnival, Mardi Gras, and it almost coincides with the beginning of Christian Lent. Carnival is the time for doing things topsy-turvy: Jews get drunk and boisterous; in the old days they were likely to manhandle a Christian, preferably a priest and generally indulged in wayward frolics.

Putin, friendly as ever, wished his guest joyous Purim, and Bibi, as on the cue, immediately revealed the reason for his visit. Persians wanted to kill Jews on that day, but God prevented that, he said. Nowadays Iranians, who are the Persians, want to kill the Jews, but the Jewish state is strong etc. Bibi came to ask Putin to drop Iran; to remove Iranian fighters from Syria; block Iranian transit to Lebanon; or even to join an anti-Iranian coalition, and this reference to Purim had been an argument in defence of his audacious request.

Putin has been framed to play the part of Artaxerxes, the silly Persian king, who had been convinced by the arch-seductress Esther to arrange for mass killings of the enemies of the Jews and for giving the Jews the preferential treatment they enjoy to this very day. Bibi played the part of Esther in this short Purim-Spiel (Purim Play), traditional comic performance the Jews usually enacted on Purim. He tried to entice Putin with prospect of joining President Trump, the Saudi King and himself against the evil Persians.

Netanyahu was worried that the Syrian war is almost over (he’d love it to last forever, until the last Syrian), and the Iranians who contributed so much to Damascus victory will probably stay and keep their Hezbollah friends in Lebanon resupplied. And it means Israel won’t be able to bomb Lebanese and Syrians as freely as she had been accustomed to. Russians never used their S-400 missiles against Israeli jets when they intruded into Syria, but Iranians perhaps won’t be that reluctant to respond. Just a few days ago the Iranians demonstrated their Russian-supplied S-300 system is fully operational.

Netanyahu could try and tempt Putin with his ability to mobilise Israel Lobby on his side, and to end anti-Russian hysterics in Washington. The Jews have a lot of power in the US; surely the Jewish state’s Prime Minister can swing them the way he likes, if Putin agrees to his demands. And Trump had made some very anti-Iranian statements, to make the suggestion plausible.

Many people were anxious to see how Putin will respond to his Jewish seducer. Putin laughed him off. Even if you never watch videos, I strongly suggest to see with your own eyes these few seconds of mirthful laugh, of totally relaxed Russian President who listened to the Israeli Prime Minister as the indulgent father to an insistent son who just had tried an umpteenth time to trick him to buy a dangerous toy. No way, son, – thought Putin, and he said: “that was 2500 years ago. Now we live in a different world”.

I was not particularly anxious, as a few days ago this very dialogue had been dress-rehearsed, by Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Michael Bogdanov and the journalists of Al Hayat, the prominent Saudi-owned Arab newspaper of record published in London. Bogdanov is an excellent diplomat, smart, good-looking, spiritual, intellectual and knowledgeable. He served as the Russian Ambassador in Tel Aviv and Cairo, and he knows everybody who is somebody in the Middle East by his first name. Now he is also the special representative of the President in the Middle East. He is a man who knows Russian foreign policy in the Middle East as well as anybody. His responses could not be far-removed from Putin’s views.

He was grilled by Raed Jabr, the Moscow correspondent of Al Hayat, a dark and svelte Palestinian who represents mainstream Arab view prevalent from Riyadh to Beirut. Do you remember the favourite line of U.S. presidents and legislators that “there is no light between the U.S. and Israel”? Judging by Jabr’s persistent questions, there is no light between Israel and Saudi Arabia, too.

Time after time, Al Hayat man asked when and whether Iranians will withdraw from Syria. Mr Bogdanov replied: In Syria there are tens of thousands of foreign volunteers, thousands of Tunisians, Moroccans and Afghanis, while the Iranians, like the Russians, are in Syria by request of the legitimate government, and only the legitimate government can issue them walking orders. “The official leadership may demand all foreign forces to withdraw after reaching a solution”.

His words were imprecisely but fluently rendered by the WaPo “The lawful authorities who will be lawfully chosen in Syria would be the ones with the right to demand the withdrawal of all foreign powers from the country,” Bogdanov said. Actually Bogdanov spoke only of legitimate government after the settlement, not necessarily of a government chosen in this or other way.

Bogdanov rejected the talk about the export of the Iranian revolution, and the alleged Iranian desire to expand their influence in the Middle East, in particular in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain. He called for US and Iranian rapprochement with Saudi participation. In Syria he called for a secular system, not a Shiite and not a Sunni Muslim and not a Christian, comes by way of free, fair and transparent elections at home and abroad including the participation of refugees in neighbouring and non-neighbouring countries, under the auspices of the United Nations.

Bogdanov complained that the US wants to keep Iran out of negotiations on Syria. “Americans are working without respect for international laws. We must respect the sovereignty of Syria, a member state of the United Nations.” He is clearly pessimistic about dealing with Syrian rebels: “They say, the revolution does not end until after the overthrow of the regime, when Bashar al-Assad and his clique will be brought to an international court. With this goal, the war can go on forever.”

He rejected the idea of Iran exporting its Islamic revolution. “Iranians say the Islamic Revolution was an internal affair to meet the interests of the Iranian people.” He reminded of Iranian military presence in Oman in 1970s at the request of the legitimate government. When the troubles were over, the Iranians had left Oman without an argument.

He called for the Russian-brokered talks between Iran and Saudis, in Moscow or elsewhere. Bogdanov also rejected the Saudi view of Yemen war (Saudis think they are entitled to deal with Yemen, but Iran should stay away). He rejected Turkish attitude to Kurds in Syria (“Why Turkey agreed on Iraqi Kurdistan, but does not agree to the Kurdistan in Syria? I think that this is not their business. This is an Iraqi affair and the Syrian affair. Syrian people and not the Russian or Turkish state should decide”.)

He summed up Russian policy: “Russia wants to abide by international legitimacy. We are committed to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of any country, including non-interference in our internal affairs. We respect the democratic process and not the colour revolutions. For coming to terms by the parties, the principle of no victor or vanquished is the best”.

This interview of Mikhail Bogdanov fully answers the question whether Russia will possibly act against Iran in any way. No chance. In politics, many things are possible. Politics is not a boy scout game. I am aware of realpolitik. But there is absolutely no real reasons for Russia to give up on Iran in exchange for some obscure Purim promises of Mr Netanyahu.

The US and Israel became well-known by their perfidious acts. From Philippines to Egypt and to Azerbaijan, the countries that once were pro-American, had suffered betrayal and turned away from Washington. The US is not a reliable partner anymore. Perhaps if Mr Trump will overcome the Pink Revolution in his country and establish himself as a real ruler, he will restore American trustworthiness. But meanwhile the US is not trustworthy. As for Israeli double-dealing, it is enough to check how Israelis had kept their promises made in Oslo to the Palestinians. Iranians are less than straightforward, but they are allies and fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russians in Syria, where the endgame is close but is not over yet. So simple realpolitik tells Russians to stick with them and reject Bibi’s offers.

But Israelis are insistent. A few days ago, Israeli defence minister Mr Avigdor Lieberman called (in the interview for Die Welt) to create a “NATO-like” military alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states against Iran and against Shias. So the Jewish state has had fully assimilated in its region as a part of pro-Western reactionary Sunni block. It is not an odd man out anymore.

There is way out. It is to promote a compromise between Saudis and Iran. The feud between two states is very old, much older than the Islamic revolution, but there were compromises before, notably in mid-1970s, and now they are ripe for a new compromise. Saudis had spent too much of money on destabilisation in Syria and on hopeless war in Yemen. Russians may push them to settle. And that would put Israeli ambitions for a new round of wars to rest.

But for that, the Pink Revolution in Washington should be defeated, and President Trump should proceed with demilitarisation of the US foreign policy. The alternative, a war with Iran, is too awful to contemplate.

And Bibi? He received a consolation prize: a very meaningful Purim gift from Putin. Not a head of Iranian fighter on a silver plate, neither sweets or Haman Ears in willow basket, but a 500-years-old book, The Jewish War of Josephus. This is a well-chosen book, likely to remind unruly Bibi that it is better to compromise than to try and reach for the sky. The Jews of Josephus could have it very good under benevolent Rome, but they overreached themselves and came to disaster.

Or, perhaps, Putin had in mind another sentence from Flavius saying: the Jews had a picture of the Persian capital on a gate of their temple so they would never forget that the Persians returned the temple to the Jews, and that they, the Persians, should be respected and feared by the Jews forever.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
The Russian Scare Thu, 09 Mar 2017 19:02:43 +0000 Full disclosure: I’ve met with Russians. I met with a Russian this morning. She brought me coffee. Such crazy and dangerous things can occur in Moscow. I am afraid the CIA and NSA could take notice of this meeting, and then it can be used – even against you. “You have perused an article by Israel Shamir. Were you aware he had Russian contacts?”

Though I am not too young, this is the first time I have witnessed such a witch-hunt. In Russia, there are many foreigners, Europeans and Americans as well, and Russians mingle with them freely, with no fear. The Russians are not afraid to meet with the US Ambassador; they are rather proud of the occasion. When the US Ambassador throws a party or holds a reception, all who-is-who in Moscow come to Spaso-House, the residence.

Even in Stalin’s days, the Russians went to the reception, and Mikhail Bulgakov depicted such a reception as Satan’s ball in his Master and Margarita. In recent years, all Russian opposition figures have visited the US ambassador and had had hearty chats with him.

Not only in Russia. The Wikileaks-published State Department cables describe hundreds of meetings between US Ambassadors and opposition figures all over the world. Amazingly, nowhere was such a meeting considered as a breach of national security and an incapacitating blemish on an opposition leader.

Well, probably in light of the Russian scare, nations should enact laws forbidding a person who had met with the US ambassador from occupying any public position or running for election. They could call it the Flynn Law, in the spirit of reciprocity.

The US political class has brought this calamity upon itself. If whoever met the Russian ambassador or a Russian government minister, or the Russian president (God forbid) is unsuitable for governing, the whole top layer of American politicians would be disqualified. Last year even Jill Stein, the super-kosher woman of the US politics, the Green Party candidate for president, visited Moscow and had a place at the table with Putin, before flying back and asking to recount the Wisconsin vote.

The Russians watch the new witch-hunt over the ocean with mild surprise. They did not know they were so formidable, so scary. Nor did I. I can list Russia’s faults from today till next Christmas – it is a country of terrible bureaucracy, of impossible laws, of annoying police, of huge social gaps, of harsh weather and bad roads – but I do not know of a single reason for considering Russia a threat to anybody. The Russians are keen to accept international law, they believe in national sovereignty, they do not tell other states how they should manage their civic life or do business. And they do not meddle in other states’ affairs, though it would be better if they did.

When in February 2014, Ms Nuland, then of the US State Department (the ‘F*ck the EU’ lady mercifully lost her job with ascent of Trump) and the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt stoked the Maidan fire and doled out cookies in Kiev, the Russian Ambassador in Kiev made himself scarce. Perhaps he went to play golf. Not a single Russian political figure had bothered to go to Kiev and talk to people. Russian non-interference in the Ukraine’s affairs had been so scrupulous, as if the Ukraine were a remote Latin American state of little interest to Russians.

That fateful February three years ago, the only thing in which the Russians had interested were the Sochi Olympic Games. Kiev burned, but they discussed the biathlon. Biathlon, forsooth! The governors of Ukraine provinces asked Moscow whether it would come to save the day of the legitimate government, but in Moscow nobody picked up the receiver.

On February 22, 2014, when the president Yanukovych escaped Kiev and went to Kharkov for meetings with the leaders of the Eastern Ukraine, the Russians could have established the legitimate government in Kharkov and at least split the Ukraine into two halves, with very little effort. But they did not show up and they did not say they would support such a government, and the people of Ukraine accepted the Kiev putsch.

If Putin were just slightly similar to the fire-breathing image of himself in the Western media, the Ukraine would be a Western province of Russia, as it had been for the last four hundred years, and it could have been done legally, without firing a single shot.

But Vladimir Putin is not Vlad the Terrible of your comic strips. He is a great procrastinator, a man who will do nothing if possible. He goes into action only if there is no way to postpone it. He took the Crimea, or rather accepted the Crimeans’ demand to join Russia, as he (correctly) thought his people would not forgive him for surrendering the peninsula with its main fleet base to NATO and the Russian population to the tender mercy of ferociously anti-Russian Western Ukrainian gangs.

My old Israeli friend and Russia watcher, Yakov Kedmi, the former head of an Israeli intelligence service, predicted in April 2014 that the Russian army would take East and South Ukraine before the May 2014 presidential elections in Ukraine. I dismissed that as a pipe dream. Putin will do nothing if he is given half a chance. I was right.

Putin acted in Georgia in 2008 only after his peace-keeping troops had been attacked by the NATO-trained troops of President Saakashvili, who famously said his army would take Moscow in a fortnight. Even then he did not take Tbilisi the capital, but quietly pulled his troops back. Even such provocations as the removal of Russian war-time graves and memorials, as stripping ethnic Russians of their citizenship rights in the Baltics, did not force his hand.

The last thing he wanted was to quarrel with the United States. He approved of the US invasion of Afghanistan and opened his territory for the transit of the US troops and weapons. He approved the resolutions on Iraq before the US invasion; he spoke against the invasion only in tandem with France and Germany. He agreed (rather, abstained) on the West-sponsored resolution on Libya leading to the murder of Colonel Gadhafi. He gave up the Russian bases in Vietnam and Cuba. He withdrew his troops from Tarsus, his only naval base in Syria, and returned to Syria only in face of an imminent American attack on the sovereign state, at request of its legitimate leader.

The Western media presents Russia as a ferocious Rottweiler, and the Russians do not recognise themselves in the mirror of the Western media. Russia is a Newfoundland dog, not a Rottweiler. It is big, strong, peaceful and not aggressive. I know, I have had Newfoundlands. Even a very nasty cat can’t wake up their fighting spirit.

Ideologically, Putin’s Russia is not all that different from the West. March 8, Women’s Day, is an official holiday in Russia, and Russian women have all the rights their Western sisters have, or even dream of. Russian billionaires are free to build the biggest yachts in the known universe. They pay as little taxes as anybody, a flat income tax rate of 13%. Even Trump is unlikely to beat that. Communism is dead, and the official propaganda machine daily tells Russians that the Soviet days were dreadful, in spite of the living generation’s tender memories of Soviet equality. Communists have no access to the mass media, despite being the second biggest party in Russia.

The small and unpopular pro-Western (say, Clintonesque) opposition receives a lot of government support. They are allowed to demonstrate, they have a TV and newspapers, while anti-Western opposition, whether Trumpist or Communist, has been kept in the cold, without demos and only marginal media.

White nationalists, a small band, are being jailed at the first anti-Semitic jibe. Jeremy Bedford-Turner of Russia would have been in jail a long time ago. Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free.

Article 282 of the Russian Penal Code is as strict as ADL or SPLC activists would dream of. A big part of articles, if published in Russia, would send their authors to jail. Russia has millions of immigrants; it is actually the third country in the world by the number of accepted immigrants. The majority of them are Muslim. Moscow has one of the biggest mosques in the world. Russia has a visa-free arrangement with many Muslim countries.

Russia’s connection with the Alt-Right is a figment of the imagination. The Alt-Right has its Russian counterpart, the well-known philosopher and student of Heidegger, Alexander Dugin and his followers. They are faring worse than the Alt-Right in the West. Dugin is often presented as “Putin’s adviser”, but he has never so much as met Putin tête-à-tête. Dugin supports Putin, but Putin does not support Dugin. The philosopher has been pushed out of Moscow State University, landed in a marginal internet TV channel, and it is rumoured he is even being pushed out of that channel. His views are less acceptable in Russia than those of Bannon are in the US.

RT, the Russian TV channel, news agency and site, is always cautious, like the BBC. Recently, an Alt-Right American of Russian origin, Nina Kouprianova, whose witty twitter has many followers, far from being a “Moscow Mouthpiece”, as the beastly Daily Beast claimed, had her articles removed from the RT site. Her full-blooded support for Putin did not help her at all. Dugin is not a frequent guest in the RT, or on any major Russian channel.

On the positive side, there is freedom of speech “like in the West”, and attacks on Putin and his Prime Minister Medvedev are a daily routine in the Russian media and in social networks. Just now a short documentary by Mr Navalny accusing Medvedev of corruption has received its six million views. Millions of Russians use Facebook, where Mr Mark Zuckerberg teaches them what can be said in the polite society and what can’t.

In short, sorry to disappoint you, Russia is wonderful, but it is not an enemy of the West even in its Obama-Clinton version. It just wants to proceed with its own speed. It did not and does not want to interfere with your ideas.

The unlikely stories of Russian hackers influencing American voters can be laid to rest after publication of Vault 7, a vast collection of CIA hacking devices, in particular of its Umbrage. The CIA has created a “fingerprint” that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity.

Wikileaks explained: “This is analogous to finding the same distinctive knife wound on multiple separate murder victims. The unique wounding style creates suspicion that a single murderer is responsible. As soon one murder in the set is solved then the other murders also find likely attribution. The CIA’s Remote Devices Branch’s UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the “fingerprints” of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from”.

So much about “Russian fingerprints” allegedly found in the DNC email leak and other Trump-related leaks! Indeed there is not and can’t be any proof of who hacked what, but the presumption is that if some proofs are presented, they were made up by the CIA.

And this leads us to the real villain of the story, the US intelligence community. It became so powerful that it decided to lead the country, the US, and the world, while keeping democratic institutions as a sham cover.

It is they, not timid Putin’s Russia, that is leading the world to its final Armageddon. It is they who organised the Russian Scare. Now we know that President Trump is the last defender of the dying democratic order, while his enemies in the mass media are CIA stooges.

As nobody likes to be manipulated, I’ll tell you, American voters. You weren’t manipulated by the Russians. The other way round, you are the freest people in the world, and you had and used the unique opportunity to save your country and the entire world from being taken over by spooks. This job is far from over, and there is nobody who will do it for you, certainly not the Russian president.

Now, armed by this knowledge, you can support your president and disregard the CIA-produced propaganda. Now we have no doubt that the President Obama indeed listened and read every word said or written by Donald Trump and in his vicinity. Now we have no doubt that the mass media is just another hacking tool in the CIA collection created to hack the most precious computers: your minds and your hearts.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 1
Against All Odds Mon, 20 Feb 2017 20:52:55 +0000 Mike Moore’s flabby mug always looks indecently exposed, like middle-aged female genitalia. The fat slob could lead the old hags’ march without the pink pussyhat. Just his own visage would suffice. He is actually similar to George Soros: the same obscene pussyface. For me, his appearance would doom him: like Oscar Wilde, I believe that ugly creatures are immoral as well. It’s enough to look at Madeleine Albright, another cuntface, for a proof. But if you need more, his Stupid White Men has been the most execrable book produced in the US in this century: there he claimed that were 9/11 passengers black, the hijack would never have succeeded. Now Mike the Cuntface bared the hidden plans of Putin and called for enthroning Clinton because Trump is a Russian spy. Years ago he spoke against the Iraq War; now he calls for the nuclear Armageddon. With such enemies, we should not give up on Trump.

Trump is down, cry the fans and haters alike. He’s been defeated, broken, never to rise again. He is a lame duck soon to be impeached. He will crawl back to his golden lair leaving the White House to his betters, or even better, he will run to his pal Vlad Putin.

No, my friends and readers, Trump is fighting, not running, but things take time. It is not easy to change the paradigm, and the odds were heavily slanted against Trump from step one. Still, he got this far, and he will go on. Stubborn guy, and he perseveres. The corrupt judges chain his hands; the CIA and NSA reveal his moves to the NYT, CNN, NBC; but he stands up, ready to carry the fight to his – and American people’s – enemy, the hydra of so many triple-letter heads.

There are sprinters who want to see victory right away, and they despair at the first setback. A power-intoxicated judge opens America’s gates for the ISIS advance troops, voiding a very moderate and sensible executive order, and they wring their hands. Terrible, but what could Trump do? To do nothing because his order would be overturned? He had to try, so the people will see and judge the judges. Line the judges up against the (Mexican border) wall at sunrise? He can’t do it yet, though it would make sense.

Flynn had to leave, and they exclaim: all is lost. It would be bad indeed, if Trump were to take it lying down, but he did not. At a very public and well-covered press-conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Trump said: “Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media — as I call it, the fake media. It’s very, very unfair what’s happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and the documents and papers that were illegally — I stress that — illegally leaked. Very, very unfair.” These are fighting words, of a man who lost a battle, or a skirmish, but he still fights the war.

Perhaps it would be better to keep Flynn, but politics is an art of possible. Trump’s words of support for the dismissed general were already out of line.

Trump had met with Netanyahu, and the faint-of-heart bewailed the US President’s surrender to the nefarious lobby. The other way round. The ADL, the Jewish assault crew, attacked him for refusing to mouth their favourite word “antisemitism”, Haaretz declared “Yes, Trump is an antisemite”, the NY Times editorialised why he did not condemn the a-s word as demanded; Rabbis called his remarks “terrifying” and “anti-Zionist” for Trump refused to tromp the well-trodden impasse called “two-states solution”. By the way, Palestinians do support one-state-solution mentioned by Trump and do not believe in the mythic two-states-solution, the Middle-Eastern equivalent of squaring the circle. Trump deftly applied his weapon of choice, Bibi Netanyahu’s support; with this weapon a-blazing, Trump was able to beat off the bouts of a-s hunters without doing what they wanted.

It would be better to forget about Jews altogether, but it can’t be done while they own all the fake-news media and the hearts of ordinary Americans. Refusing to condemn a-s is as far as an American politician can walk without falling of the earth’s disc altogether.

After this explaining-away, let us admit that the first month of Trump’s first term was an uphill one. We hoped the defeated forces would be reasonable and allow the new president to implement his agenda, but they carried on their arrière-garde battle. His task is huge: Trump endeavours to bury globalising capitalism before it buries European and American workers. Without Trump, America and Europe would be invaded by millions made homeless by R2P wars. Without Trump, the American and European workers would work in hamburger joints, while the financiers would bloat off their blood and sweat. Such a U-turn couldn’t pass unopposed.

Look back at people who achieved radical changes of such magnitude. I will not mention names so you won’t be scared. None of them had a specially nice personality, but they had charisma, iron will, good memory, vision and perseverance; they were master tacticians, i.e. they felt when it was the right time to retreat and when to advance. Perhaps Trump has these qualities. But besides, they usually had a loyal and supportive party, or at least an army or secret services at their disposal. Trump has none.

These additional tools are necessary to overcome the undemocratic and unelected elements of the government. In the US, the judiciary and media, two “powers” out of four, are profoundly un- or even anti-democratic. The media is owned by the media lords, usually rich Jews, and it promotes their agenda. Judges are instinctively anti-democratic; they despise democracy and popular opinion.

The judiciary is also heavily Judaised: three out of nine (or four out of nine) Supreme Court judges are Jewish. President Obama had tried to install an additional Jewish judge, and pro-Jewish elements will fight to prevent a non-Jew “stealing” his place. There are so many Jewish lawyers and Jewish teachers of law that this puts its imprimatur upon the whole profession. No radical change can be entertained and implemented unless these powers are limited.

Trump has no loyal party, no reliable and loyal secret services. The US intel is against him, spies on him and delivers the goods to his political enemies. The Republican Party is suspicious of Trump. There are too many Republicans sharpening knives for his back, beginning with the old traitor, John McCain. Republican Senators and Representatives owe a huge debt to (a large extent Jewish) donors; they need the support of the media in order to get re-elected.

Trump should establish control over his party, by placing his loyalists and weeding out his adversaries in the party apparatus, in the Senate and Congress. I’d advise him to break, humiliate and unseat a prominent hostile Republican Senator, even if the seat would go to a Democrat. It is not an impossible task. This would instill some fear in the meek hearts.

Bringing the secret services under control is relatively easy: begin a witch-hunt after the traitors who leaked the contents of classified phone conversations to the media. This is high treason; a lot of people of dubious loyalty can be dismissed just in case of suspicion. A one-way ticket to Guantanamo will help to focus minds of potential traitors. They should be treated as harshly as poor Bradley Manning was. And anyway, the secret services are overblown; the US can’t support one million spies. Eighty per cent should go. They should enter the labour market and be useful. The remainder will be loyal.

The media can be subjugated by various means. Usually media holdings are not highly profitable and are susceptible to hostile takeovers; some holdings can be broken using anti-trust legislation. Hostile media lords can be brought to heel by checking their tax returns. In case of the NY Times, their system of multi-tier shares is plainly unjust and can be attacked by shareholders. The best and most radical measure would separate advertising and content by banning political content in ad-carrying publications, as I argued elsewhere, but it would need the approval of Congress.

The judges are human; hostile judges who think they are above the president and congress can be subjected to thorough inspection with some prejudice. Life tenure should be abolished in the courts and in the universities.

So the task of President Trump is formidable but not impossible. Cut the security services down to size of, say, British or French services (it is also a lot). Remember that after WWI, the US had no secret services at all, and prospered. Terrorise a media lord and a Republican senator. Discover the corruption of District judges. Open a can of worms in the Clinton Foundation. Try some neocons for lying to the Congress. Mend bridges with Bernie Sanders. Call your supporters to enlist in the Republican party and achieve your dominance in primaries. And yes, it will take time.

Now you understand why the pessimistic assessments of our colleagues Paul Craig Roberts and The Saker are at least premature. In the face of the ancient regime’s hostility, Trump will need at least six months merely to settle properly in the White House. Just for comparison: Putin had spent five years consolidating his power, and another five years solidifying it, though he had full support of Russian security services and a most authoritarian constitution written by the Americans for their stooge Mr Yeltsin.

President Putin remembers that it takes time. For this reason, he is not unduly upset by President Trump’s delay with normalising US-Russia relations. The fake news of Russian disenchantment with Trump are exactly that, fake news. Russians believe in positive developments for US-Russia relations, and they do not hold their breath.

But why I do believe that Trump will win, at the end? The US is not an island; it is a part of the West, and the West is going through a paradigm change. Cuntfaces lost, Deplorables won, and not as a fluke. Remember, Trump was not the first victory; the Brexit preceded him. Between the Brexit vote and the Trump election, the British government hesitated and postponed acting upon. The Brits weren’t sure whether that vote was a sign of change, or a fluke. After Trump’s victory, the Brits marched on.

The British judges – every bit as evil as the American ones – tried to stop Brexit by insisting that the case be sent to Parliament. They believed that the Parliament would throw the case out, and leave England in the EU, as their media demanded. But they were mistaken. Though the British public voted for Brexit 52:48, the British parliamentarians approved it 83:17. The Deplorables won hands down.

Now let us cross the English Channel. The French Establishment preferred François Fillon (centre-right, a moderate Republican, in American terms) to inherit the chair of pussyfaced President Hollande. His victory appeared assured. But as he readied himself for the move to the Palais de l’Élysée, an unpleasant fact has been revealed. This modest member of parliament misappropriated (stole, in plain English) a cool million dollars of French taxpayers’ best by claiming his wife worked as his parliamentary assistant.

Now nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole, and the chances of the Queen of Deplorables, Marine Le Pen winning the May elections in the first round became highly plausible. She will be opposed by a soft socialist Emmanuel Macron, and he is not very hot. His rhetoric of calling her “bitter” and “enemy of liberte-egalite-fraternite” as she is not keen on Arab immigration, probably will fall on deaf ears. People are bitter, and they aren’t sure that more Arabs means more equality. So Marine may win, and France will become an ally of Trump’s America.

Fillon accused “shadowy” forces of seeking to crush him, and probably he is right. This revelation took air out of his sails, and it came in the right moment, just like in the case of DNC emails. In both cases, the crime, or at least dishonest dealing of the culprit was real, and he (or she) deserved defeat. In both cases, only a real powerful and “shadowy” force could make it stick. This is not Russia: Russia is not in this league yet. It is a “shadowy” Western force standing for nationalist capitalism, against globalist liberal “invade-invite” force. This force helped Trump reach White House, this force caused Brexit, this force removed Fillon from Le Pen’s way. It is probable Frau Merkel will lose the forthcoming elections, ruining Obama’s preposterous plan to install Germany as the liberal globalised world’s cornerstone.

The Masters of Discourse are being defeated in all the West. Temporary setbacks of Donald Trump can’t change this tendency. Nationalist productive capitalism is set to inherit from the financiers, the media lords, the minority promoters, the transgender toilets and women studies. The battle is not over yet, but meanwhile it seems the Deplorables are winning, and Pussyfaces are losing.

We do not know who stands for the Deplorables. When Brexit won, the Masters of Discourse said the pensioners, lumpens, chavs did it. But then, the Parliament approved Mme Clinton despised the deplorables, but now Trump sits in the White House. With France and Germany in the queue, a new force is coming to the fore. It is supported by native majorities. Who leads it from behind? Industrialists, people of spirit, or just the Spirit of Time, the Zeitgeist? Whatever it is, this force will help Trump, if he will persist.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 1