Articles – Israel Shamir The Fighting Optimist Wed, 01 Dec 2021 03:25:39 +0000 en hourly 1 Victoria Annoys Russians, But Properly Wed, 20 Oct 2021 02:25:04 +0000 Rarely has Russia used this sort of language to a top rep of the major Western powers, but she was sorely pushed. Diplomats are usually polite, but Mrs (“F*ck the EU”) Nuland awoke the beast in her Russian counterparts. Probably it was a mistake to insist that she should be the one to deal with the Russians. As a young woman, Victoria Nuland joined the crew of a Russian fishing trawler, and though she no doubt learned many useful words and expletives, she was not prepared for her talk with Mr Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister.

People said she was visibly distressed after her meeting with Ryabkov; she complained she was ill-treated. Well, she took on a hard mission: to force the Russians to trim Russian mission staff in Washington. The Senators demanded they cut the Russian team by 300 diplomats, she said. She brought two lists of names for culling, and proposed that the first fifty be sent home by January. Instead of considering her kind proposal, Mr Ryabkov said that there aren’t that many Russian diplomats in Washington; there are Russian diplomats at the UN, but that has nothing to do with the US. Ryabkov accused Nuland of being a shell game artist because she tried to pass UN diplomats off as diplomats accredited in Washington. Added Ryabkov:

If you will insist, we are ready to close down all US missions in Russia, and to lock down our remaining offices at Washington. We can terminate all diplomatic interaction; if you want our relations be based on the number of our nuclear missiles, we are ready. But it’s your choice, not ours.

Ryabkov said there was no progress in negotiations; we do not rule out certain escalations, he added. Such a pessimistic press release after the first day of meetings is quite uncommon. But US-Russian relations are uncommonly bad.

Perhaps you’d remember at Geneva Summit there were hopes and expectations of a Grand Slam, of a long-term agreement between the US and Russia. (Our friend Thierry Meyssan called it even A New Yalta and provided lurid details). I didn’t believe it then. I thought I’d get a whisper of such a deal in Moscow or Tel Aviv; and there was no deal. Since Geneva, things didn’t improve much. Nuland didn’t meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov (that would be above her pay grade), but she got a letter from Lavrov explaining that it was impossible to cut the staff, that is unless the US wants to cut it to zero.

The other topics they discussed were also doomed to fail. Mrs Nuland brought up Mali, a North African state where the presence of Russian private military contractors has incited political anger and displeasure. Mali is a part of a whole chain of French ex-colonies. Though they are ostensibly independent, the French still want to keep them. There used to be a solid French military presence; but the Africans got tired of useless French soldiers standing around, and invited the Russians into the Central African Republic, into Mali and elsewhere. Russians enjoy their African adventures; in the Soviet days they fought in Ethiopia and Somalia; now it is time for the sequel. Western media writes of ‘Russian atrocities’, but that is something they have always said. The best soldiers in Africa are Cubans; if they return en masse, they will sweep Africa off its feet. Now the US and its Western allies are trying to keep Russians out of Africa. They tell Russians that they should not dare enter Africa; it is not theirs. But the Russian side responds that the Russian PMC was invited by the government of Mali; neither Bamako, nor Moscow needs a green light from Washington.

Libya was also discussed. It seems that a few American ladies employed by the UN are arranging the forthcoming elections so as to leave the country under American control. There will be Presidential elections in December, and for the legislature in January. Meanwhile the election process has not been working out as well as some Libyans wanted. It is still not clear who has been selected to run for President: will it be Khalifa Haftar, or Seif al Islam Kaddafi, a son of the late leader, or somebody else. The State Department representative expected to get full Russian cooperation while keeping the Russians completely out of oil exploration. This American plan didn’t work out well. Mr Ryabkov said to Mrs Nuland: the US tries to assign guilt over the destruction of Libya to innocent parties. As we know, Libya was destroyed by NATO forces in 2011 while Russia was making another one of its attempts to fit into the Western agenda. However, these days the Russians are less placid and obedient, and not so eager to accept Nuland’s guidance.

Another point was connected with post-Afghanistan arrangements. The Russians refused the US request to extend facilities to their intelligence in Central Asia. It became a problem after the fall of Afghanistan. For a while, the US demanded a temporary military base in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. It was discussed at Geneva at Biden-Putin summit. In a very typical Russian manner, Putin told Biden: Why do you need a base? Be a guest at our base! Alas, these Russian offers usually mean much less than what they sound like. The US climbed down to a facility for their intelligence; if there is no choice, it could be located at a Russian air base in Central Asia. However, the Russians refused that, too. Tomorrow they will receive Taliban’s delegacy in Moscow, and such intelligence-sharing arrangement would be misconstrued.

Russia took Nuland off its list of sanctioned US officials to allow her to enter Russia; this was the result of a tit-for-tat after the US banned quite a few Russian officials from visiting the US. And although this could do little to help the cases of the other officials, it seems that Mrs Nuland was definitely not the flavour of the month with Russian diplomats. The Foreign Ministry in Moscow was strongly against rescinding the ban, but a powerful if unconstitutional body called Administratsiya Prezidenta insisted on allowing her in. (Here is an interesting short essay explaining its role). More specifically, its Deputy Head Dmitri Kozak lobbied for the unbanning of Nuland; he spoke with her at length and he provided his version of their conversation.

Kozak is an old hand: a native of the Ukraine, a grim-faced KGB/GRU man, Putin’s henchman since early 90’s; he served in a few governments with little noticeable success. He is best remembered by his hare-brained idea of keeping all government deliberations secret from the public. Usually, the Administratsiya Prezidenta keeps out of foreign affairs. Their main occupation is the manipulation of public opinion and election trickery. Now it seems Kozak wants to build up some pro-Western credit in his name, to become an American agent in the power structure. To get Americans to support him at the inevitable mess after Putin day. Or, perhaps, he wants to please Putin by claiming that Russo-American relations are fine. Reality is very different. The relations between the US and Russia are as bad as we can remember; in spite of this Kozak has published a triumphalist communiqué expressing nothing but joy after meeting Mme Nuland.

Just compare the Foreign Ministry’s conclusion: “Ryabkov said he and Nuland made no progress on normalizing the work of their diplomatic missions, which has been hampered by multiple rounds of sanctions, adding that the situation could exacerbate even further. The Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated Moscow’s readiness to respond in kind to any unfriendly U.S. action” and Kozak’s conclusion: “a thorough and constructive dialogue took place regarding the settlement of the conflict in the south-east of Ukraine. They confirmed that the Minsk agreements remain the only basis for a settlement. Nuland admitted that progress on the Donbass issue is possible only with the recognition of its special status.”

Kozak prepared himself for playing the American fiddle years ago. After a coup in Moldova in 2019, Kozak said: “In the current situation, Russia, the European Union and the United States have taken a common position to support the democratic process in Moldova”. “This is a vivid example that on basic values we have more in common than disagreements,” added Dmitry Kozak. This is the same attitude that caused Russia to surrender Libya, the same attitude that brought the USSR to collapse. These old KGB blokes are keen on fitting into the Western narrative, and for such a purpose they will always shortchange their employers.

A few months ago, when the US began advanced planning for accepting the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, Kozak sounded the trumpet. He said

the Ukraine is entitled to join NATO. This a shocking claim; Putin was always against it. The presence of NATO tanks in Eastern Ukraine is as big a danger for Russia as Russian tanks in Texas would be for the US. Russia always considered NATO in the Ukraine almost casus belli; now Mr Kozak doesn’t mind it. What is even more odd, Kozak agreed with the US joining the Normandy Format (Russia, France, Germany and the Ukraine); France and Germany were always against it, and Russia, too, was strongly against it. Did Kozak discuss it with France and Germany (doubtful) or did he just shoot his mouth off trying to please Nuland? Apparently, the Russians at the top speak in different voices; one is the voice of Foreign Ministry, another is the voice of the Administratsiya Prezidenta. But who decides?

As time goes by, pro-US voices in the Russian power structure generally lose their volume and appeal. People like Kozak want to fit themselves into the Western agenda, but the people who are in charge of foreign affairs, gas, oil, nuclear power and weapons are aware of more urgent needs. Right after Victoria Nuland’s departure, US-Russian relations quickly got worse. The NATO head office in Brussels declared a few Russian diplomats ‘personas non grata’, and in response, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent home all NATO representatives in Russia. At the same time, the US began their campaign for taking Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.

I am as much for friendship between the US and the Russian people as you are, but historically speaking, our best way to friendship is Cold War. “Good fences make good neighbours.” We are already so dangerously close to ‘one world government’ that only fiercely independent nationalistic antagonism and hostility can save us from global dictatorship. If the relations were to improve, Mr Kozak and suchlike would sacrifice ordinary Russians on the altar of their Common Values with the US and EU. Only bad relations can hold back the Green New Deal and give us a chance to survive.

With the assistance of Paul Bennett.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Things Go Awry Tue, 12 Oct 2021 02:23:41 +0000

An interesting coincidence: the beginning of October ushered in a double crisis: the first collapse of the Internet and the final failure of the Green Economy. Facebook employees used saws and axes to get into their working places, for the smart doors stubbornly refused to yield the way and their badges had lost their magic touch. It seems the Internet trouble had been initiated by some unknown forces outside of Facebook. These forces have access to the inner working of the Internet. Perhaps it was military; or some obscure technicians guarding Internet secrets. They proved their power: even Facebook’s domain was placed up for sale. Mark Zuckerberg could not do it, I was told. Was it a blackmailer’s threat to global finance? Or an attempt to deflect Congressional hearings? Perhaps it was a simple demonstration of naked power.

At the same time, the first blow of winter revealed the inability of green energy to heat our homes and energise industry. Nature proved its abilities: all of a sudden, Europe’s winds refused to move the turbines. An unusual calm settled in the North, as if the winds were confined by Aeolus in his bag. Energy prices skyrocketed. The excellent future planned for mankind, all digital, internet-based and free of fossil remains, failed to materialise. Instead of continuing our march towards the dreadful New Normal, we shifted back to our troublesome but familiar normality when things went awry. The cowboy hat of Big Tech was too large for its head. Mercifully, this misfortune occurred well before the whole of mankind had been railroaded into smart dwellings heated by the mischievous wind. Otherwise, last weekend could have been the end of Homo Sapiens: we would have frozen outside, unable even to pass through the smart doors.

An energy crisis combined with an Internet failure is very dangerous. Why don’t we encounter extra-terrestrials? Here’s a possible answer: every sapient civilisation destroys itself before it achieves the capability to venture to the stars. Intelligent creatures tend to overestimate their thinking abilities; instead of sticking to known technologies and implementing small improvements, they want to make a giant leap forward. The results are gloomy, as we learn now.

It turns out that overriding smart doors requires a sturdy axe; perhaps green policy and green politicians should be subjected to the same solution. Some energy prices are incompatible with human life.

The Green New Deal turned out to be a quixotic fantasy. We aren’t ready to switch to futuristic sources of energy. Not now, anyway. We might as well stop calling oil, gas and coal by this fancy “fossil” name: they are combustible fuels. The war on combustibles, led by the Rockefeller Fund and joined by young futurists, was extremely successful, perhaps too successful for its own good. Europe and North America, as well as China and Russia have declared their desire to achieve a carbonless world. The contrary opinion, namely that man-made climate change aka global warming is just a hoax, has been officially banned.

China was the first to make the U-turn. They were already decommissioning coal mines in Inner Mongolia when they discovered that they need energy to power their plants. Surprise! Now they are in a national emergency in winter, forced to re-activate mothballed coal mines. The setup for the crisis was the closure of coal mines in Mongolia for globalist political reasons, and the completion of the crisis was stopping the import of Australian coal over a political dispute. Apparently, China’s leaders had been persuaded that the climate is rapidly becoming warmer, and that the Green New Deal means they no longer have to power their factories and heat their homes. It turned out that the globalists were premature, and they are switching back to proven energy solutions.

However, Europe is stubborn. Europeans have been convinced that there is no other way; they have to give up the usual fuels and switch to “clean” ones. Even if they would freeze to death, they will stick to clean energy. The German Green Party leader Annalena Baerbock was asked where she would get energy if the winds were becalmed and the sun was covered by clouds? (It happened this September). Electricity will continue to come from the sockets; but it will be carbon-neutral electricity, she said. “Where should the electricity come from? Of course, further from the socket and of course further from the factories, through the power lines that we have. But this electricity must be climate-neutral in the future.” She doesn’t seem to understand that it takes energy to create electricity.

The Greens are well-intentioned, but indoctrinated and opinionated. In Ghost Busters (1984), a Green activist shuts off the electricity to Ghostbusters’ HQ and disaster befalls New York City. Likewise, the Greens are actively destroying Europe’s traditional energy supplies. Probably it will spell the end of the Green Deal; that is, once people understand that this is a suicidal course.

Recently, natural gas, a convenient source of energy, was subjected to steep price rises over purely political manipulations. Instead of paying so much, the Germans could use Russian natural gas. The Russians have completed laying down the Nord Stream 2, a pipeline for natural gas that leads directly to Germany. If it became operative, the price for natural gas will go down and the German people will be warm this coming winter. But first, NS 2 has to be licensed; it has to satisfy some political conditions that were established some time ago in order to block the NS 2 from delivering cheap gas. Politicians demand that the pipeline must have more than one owner, because it was built by Russia’s Gazprom. Furthermore, they say Poland and Ukraine must be allowed to voice their objections before cheap Russian gas is permitted to cross the German border. Yet Poland and Ukraine are Gazprom’s competitors! If it depends on their permission, no gas will ever come via NS 2; rather it will continue to be delivered for much higher price via strongly anti-Russian Ukraine and Poland.

Putin broke the rise in gas prices by expressing his confidence that the problem will be resolved soon. If he had pointed out that it is far from certain, the price would stayed sky-high, bringing yet more dividends to Gazprom investors. Did Putin act against his (and Russia’s) interests out of pure altruism? Well, no. But Putin wants a healthy, sustainable business, bringing stable profits every year; on the other hand, German and European negotiators want natural gas prices intolerably high, forcing citizens to switch to electricity. Russia could profit a lot today, but there would be nothing for tomorrow. Putin prefers to have satisfied gas customers in Europe.

Europeans could have cheaper energy, both for heating and driving, but their leaders won’t allow that. They decided that energy prices will be high, very high; so you’ll feel every degree of Centigrade/Fahrenheit in your pocket. Putin stated the Europeans miscalculated when they decided to abandon traditional fuels. Perhaps he said so out of kindness, because there is not the slightest doubt: the European and North American leaders knew that ‘clean’ fuels are much more expensive and much less reliable, and still they chose it.

Could it be explained by their hostility to Russia? None of the countries blessed by natural gas and oil (Iran, Venezuela, Russia) are favoured allies of the EU and UK. It seems European leaders are determined to freeze out any houses that are being heated by natural gas. UK regulators rejected Shell’s plans to develop the North Sea gasfield, and Shell is not a Russian or Iranian company. My explanation: they want to kill off oil and gas; and they do not mind the frozen citizens. In the UK, the fuel bills will rise by £400; he who can’t afford it, let him suffer.

This political energy crisis is worldwide. One reason is the huge government purchases of unreliable solar and wind technology. Another reason: combustible energy is underinvested. For quite a few years, energy companies believed that it isn’t worth it to spend money on traditional fuels; they were told that combustibles are on their way out. Now perhaps they will think again. Now that we realize we still need gas and oil, we better start investing in Russia because these products are only found in the far-away Arctic wilderness. It takes time and money to develop new gas fields.

The problem is that East Europeans like to cheat the Russians. They know the Russians are hated by the US and EU elites; so they believe they will get better results through litigation. They keep moving the goalposts to ensure their victory. The Russians started to build NS 2 a few years ago; to counter this development, the gas directive was applied to NS 2 in 2020. It was a peculiar decision: the directive was not around when Russians began to build the pipeline. But East European leaders are extremely dishonest. Advocate General Michal Bobek recently called upon the court to change its decision. Will it, or won’t it?

If the EU will not allow Russians to run the pipeline as they see fit, perhaps the Europeans won’t get any natural gas at all. And then, it will be this very cold winter that will decide for Europeans. The question is, do they prefer to stay well heated, or do they prefer to screw the Russians even at the price of freezing?

Russians also accept the idea of global warming. They think that within the Green New Deal, they will be able to showcase their mechanical talents, their higher education. It is more suitable for them than just selling oil like Saudi Arabians do. However, it is far from certain that sophisticated jobs will actually appear. Russia may be quite cold, but it has a great advantage in the national heating systems built in the Soviet days. It is warmer in Moscow apartments than in Jerusalem in the winter. In Israel, winter is cold; Moscow is better -as I discovered years ago.

Russia is beset by Ukraine and Poland, two very hostile neighbor states, yet Putin still wants to play ball with them. As winter sets in, very soon we shall see if the regulators persist. In the end of October, there will be the conference in Glasgow; and we shall see just how much the Europeans are ready to pay to ‘save the climate’.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Putin’s Disappearing Act Mon, 27 Sep 2021 02:22:50 +0000

President Putin has gone into hiding. Well, sort of. On September 14, he said that many people (“dozens”) in his inner circle have tested positive for the virus, and as a result he has to self-isolate. His sudden seclusion has sent waves of anguish across this huge country. His explanation was met with disbelief. Everybody around Putin is vaccinated and so is Putin, or so he claimed. Why would he need to self-isolate; how could all these vaccinated people become sick? Is the vaccine – fake? Or should we look for another explanation. Did he fall, or was he pushed? Will he come back? Is this the end of Putin’s era? Is Putin ill, or was he forced into isolation? Is it a conspiracy? The Russian government is, and always was manual, not automatic; the absence of the ruler at the helm of the mighty ship of the Russian state could spell trouble. The Russians do not believe the official version, but what is the truth?

A week before his announcement, on September 8th, a close friend of Putin and his former bodyguard, the man considered as a probable successor, the Minister for Emergencies, Mr Yevgeny Zinichev, died in unusual circumstances during an Arctic drill. The head of RT Margarita Simonyan said he died while trying to save a cameraman who fell off a cliff. Perhaps he was targeted as Putin’s successor, said rumours. Just before that, on September 7th, Putin went to a Siberian retreat with his Defence Minister, Mr Shoygu. What did they discuss far away from eavesdroppers? There were rumours that Putin suspected or uncovered a plot against him and preferred to minimise his contacts with the outside world and even with his own bodyguards. A very cautious man, President Putin knows that there are many powerful people and organisations that would like to see him dead and he doesn’t want to give them this satisfaction. For this reason, his enemies call him ‘The Old Man in the Bunker”. Still, Putin appeared on TV from his hideaway.

Alternately, there are precedents of rulers claiming force majeure when they wanted to miss an event or to avoid a meeting.

President Gorbachev learned of a plot hatched by Soviet hardliners and decided to stay away hoping to enjoy the benefits should the plot succeed and have his alibi if the plot fails. He went to his Crimean Phoros Palace during a tumultuous August 1991 and claimed he was detained by plotters; the plot failed, he returned to the capital, but he never got his powers back.

Likewise, the last Russian Emperor, Tsar Nicolas II learned of the planned demo of peasants and workers who intended to come to the Winter Palace to plead with the Tsar. He decided to stay away from possible trouble and went to his country residence Tsarskoe Selo. His officials machine-gunned the pleaders on the Bloody Sunday. This massacre caused the first Russian revolution of 1905-07, and the Tsar’s absence didn’t help him at all. On a different scale, President Trump went to play golf while his supporters gathered at the White House. It didn’t help him: he had lost the White House and he was accused of illegal actions. In short, staying away is not a good option for the ruler, but it is done, sometimes.

Let us consider this possibility. What could move Putin to do a Phoros-2? Now is a very eventful time and a healthy Putin would have to visit Dushanbe and deal with Russian parliamentary elections, among other things.

Dushanbe Summit

On September 16 and 17, there was the double summit of the SCO and the CSTO in Dushanbe. The SCO and the CSTO are two different international organisations, though their membership partly coincides. Putin was expected to come in person and deal with post-Afghanistan arrangements; though it could be dealt with remotely. But he was also supposed to meet with the leaders of China, India and Iran. Especially important was the planned summit with Chairman Xi, as the two leaders haven’t met face to face for a long time. There were rumours in Moscow that Putin is avoiding meeting the Chinese leader, though it was pre-planned for immediately after Geneva summit with Joe Biden. The Putin – Xi summit had been planned even earlier, to coincide with 20th anniversary of Russo-Chinese Friendship Treaty; then it was postponed because of the Geneva summit, and then just cancelled. Xi was supposed to come to Dushanbe to the SCO summit. When he learned that Putin wouldn’t come, he stayed at home, too. Thus this very important summit of two leaders didn’t materialise. Could it be that Putin does not want to be seen siding with China, in the context of the fateful triangle Washington-Moscow-Beijing? Perhaps. The Russian elites are divided; some prefer close relations with China, and others want to throw Russia’s lot in with the West. Putin is balancing these groups. Who will be first to make a deal with Biden, Putin or Xi? Perhaps Putin prefers to sit it out and allow Xi to try his hand first, at the next summit of the G2.

The physical place of Putin at Dushanbe had been taken by Alexander Lukashenko, the stalwart President of Belarus, and he visibly enjoyed the task. Years ago, after Belarus and Russia entered the Union State agreement, people mused that Lukashenko would lead both states, or at least deal with Russian domestic affairs, too. There was a feeling that Lukashenko would be better for economics, for agriculture, industry and social structure than Putin, who was more involved with foreign affairs. If Russia and Belarus would vote for the president, Belarusians would vote for Putin, while Russians would vote for Lukashenko, it was said jokingly. However, it didn’t happen. Lukashenko managed the Dushanbe session just fine and Putin spoke to them via video link.

It seems they failed to bring some sense into the stubborn head of Mr Rahmon, though they tried. Russia is ready to defend Tajikistan in case of a Taliban offensive or infiltration. But the Tajik President has much more daring plans. He speaks against Taliban interference in Tajikistan, but has hopes to resurrect the Northern Alliance, the group of Northern warlords, the enemies of Taliban. They are predominantly members of ethnic minority groups; many of them Tajiks, the second biggest (after Pashtun) ethnic group of Afghanistan. It seems Rahmon would like to break Afghanistan up and create there the second Tajik state and it would mean a new bout of civil war, something nobody else wants.

There was a report that Rahmon received and entertained Ahmad Massoud, the ‘Panjshir rebel’, and the former vice-president of Afghanistan Amrullah Saleh (who declared himself “acting president of Afghanistan”, after the flight of Ghani). It is not clear whether such a meeting actually took place. It may be just one of many examples of fake news from Afghanistan produced by Indian fake news factories. If it were true it would cross the red line in relations between the two neighbouring countries.

Russia would not like it, either: Russia has established working relations with the Taliban; the talibs asked Russia to help them to regain their lawful seat in the UN; they suggested a state visit to Moscow. The “Panjshir resistance” has been defeated without a battle. Some of the ‘resisters’ roam the mountains and appeal to warlike US politicians for support, but otherwise they lost their war. Apparently, Massoud and Saleh found a refuge in Tajikistan; it would be fine for a humanitarian gesture, unless the ambitious Rahmon turns his country into a base in the Afghan civil war.

However, this development wouldn’t justify Putin’s sheltering, unless there are some security issues.

The Russian Parliamentary Elections

Russia will “catch up with, and overtake America”, said Nikita Khrushchev in 1957. The recent (17-19 September, 2021) Parliamentary elections could be seen as a new attempt to catch up with America’s election fraud. The Russians couldn’t overtake the Shining City on the Hill: the last US Presidential elections were so profoundly dishonest that nobody could beat them. But the Russians had a good try.

Russia has a mixed system of electing Parliamentary members: some are elected by a Party list and some by majoritarian system. In the places where people were allowed to vote freely and their voices were decently counted, – mainly in Siberia – the Communists won. Elsewhere, the ruling party United Russia got the seats. They utilised all the methods successfully applied by the US Dems. People were allowed to vote at home and the collecting teams harvested a lot of votes. More people voted than there were registered. The opposition was kept away from the count. The seals of the voting boxes were often broken. But the best method was digital voting, allowed in a few cities including Moscow.

Like the postal vote in Detroit, the digital vote in Moscow was totally at variance with the real paper vote. Here is the picture of the Moscow vote, on the left – the real vote only, on the right – the real and digital vote; green for opposition (predominantly Communist), blue for the government candidates. The digital vote in Moscow had an unusual feature: voters were allowed to change their mind and re-vote. So the government could see the results and “re-vote” as much as they wanted.

Russia’s ‘democracy’ is as limited as anywhere. The political process is controlled by a governing body called AP (Administration of the President); it is not even mentioned in the constitution, but they decide who can take part in the elections and who will make it to the parliament. They do dirty tricks, too, by creating splinter parties to steal votes from the opposition. The AP decided that the Communists should not get more than 20 per cent of the vote, while the ruling United Russia should have about 50 per cent. These were the instructions given to local bosses and they just followed orders. In a few districts where the local bosses decided to ignore the AP orders, the Communists got up to 30 per cent, and United Russia below 30%. Together with the Socialists, the Russian Reds could form the new government. They would gladly serve under Putin.

The Russian Reds are not similar to the US (and European) Left. They are against identity politics, against gender and race discourse, they love Christ and Stalin. The Russian Reds differ from the US (and European) Right, for they support massive nationalization, a comprehensive health service and free education; they are against oligarchs and do not like immigration. In short, they are much more Putin than Putin. And they are not West-friendly. Their rise would change things on the world scale. Now, for the first time since 1996, they became popular among young people as well as among the older citizens. Though they are very different from the pro-Western liberal opposition, they learned to do things together against the AP diktat. CPRF is basically a social-democratic party, perfectly fit to rule; but the AP considers them too independent.

The Communists rejected the results of the digital vote; the government responded in force. Many Communist candidates and their staff were arrested. The government forbade the protest demos and rallies, using the Coronavirus as their preferred pretext. What would they do without the Corona, I wonder! The West correctly accused the Russian authorities of manipulating the electoral results; wrongly they attributed the opposition success to Navalny and his pro-Western liberals. But the Reds are quite timid, for two reasons: they are rather supportive of Putin and his foreign policy, and they are afraid of being outlawed and banned, as happened under Yeltsin. The liberals overthrew the communists and shelled the parliament in the 1990s, and they aren’t going to allow the Red Return, I was told by a member of the Russian parliament, the Duma.

Moreover, the people took the outcome in their stride. There were no big rallies or demos; true, they were forbidden, but people accepted the prohibition rather meekly. There is no revolution coming, not even big protests. Apparently, the Russians have reconciled themselves to this ‘limited democracy’. So did we all: from Australia to the US, from France to Germany, real democracy has died. Instead, we have sanitary tyranny with some face-saving ‘elections’ corrected by massive election fraud.

Russians think they are doing fine. People have their salaries, their cars, their country houses; the cities are in good shape, there is not much of unemployment. Before the elections, the obedient Covid almost vanished; now it is likely to reappear, but that is the case everywhere in the world. So there are no strong motives for protest, like it was in 1991 or even in 2011. More and more people come to conclusion that the elections are just a farce. But it is not enough to move people for revolution.

I spoke to some people close to the Kremlin; they told me that they think Putin went into hiding because of the elections, as his security people weren’t certain how the masses would respond to the election fraud. It could be a replay of 1991, when huge masses of people overthrew Soviet rule. Now we see that it did not happen. People took it laying down. But security likes to overplay their hand. In Washington, London and Moscow, there are more police than protesters at practically any rally.

One week after the elections, and they were totally forgotten. On the day the results were published, there was a mass shooting; an 18-year-old man took a hunting gun and shot six students in his school. Such terrorist attacks conveniently occur when there is a need for drastic change of the agenda, and there are enough mentally troubled men to do a massacre unless stopped.


We do not know for sure why Putin decided to claim that he has to self-isolate. It is not totally impossible (though unlikely) that there is indeed an outbreak of Covid. Otherwise, it could be connected with the election uncertainty or with the pending Putin-Xi summit, or, indeed, a plot was discovered. Most probably Putin will emerge out of his shelter by September 29th, for his summit with President Erdogan, as they have much to discuss. But his seclusion won’t gain him brownie points in the eyes of Russians.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

The Escape and Capture of Zakaria Zubeidi Fri, 17 Sep 2021 02:21:38 +0000

Heroes are rare; they are tragic and inspiring at the same time. Such a real-life hero is Zakaria Zubeidi, 45, from Jenin in Palestine. A man of brawn and brain, of sword and harp, he was an al Aqsa Brigade commander as well as the director of the Freedom Theatre. Years ago, the Sunday Times called him ‘one of Israel’s most wanted and implacable enemies’. A cat of nine lives, he survived many Israeli assassination attempts; he had been in and out of jail many times; he got his first Israeli bullet at 13; his film premiere at 14.

A few days ago, he staged an audacious escape from Israel’s high security prison, together with five other convicts. They dug a 20 yard-long tunnel with their spoons, just like the Count of Monte Cristo, and emerged outside the walls, squeezing through a narrow communication channel. This brave, nay impossible feat encouraged the captive Palestinians and gave them a second wind when they were exhausted and desperate. The people in the Holy Land and the large Palestinian diaspora held its collective breath following their escape and prayed for them to reach safety.

It is normal for humans to empathise with fugitives, rather than pursuers. Young readers of Uncle Tom’s Cabin thus followed the plight of Eliza, child in tow, crossing the frozen Ohio River from bondage to freedom, escaping the murderous dogs and slave catchers. Alas, Zakaria never reached the safe shore. In the Dixie of the 1830s, there were courageous and noble white people who harboured the runaway black slaves. Germans and Russians, Poles and Frenchmen provided refuge for the Jews that escaped from the camps. In Israel 2021, not a single Jew offered the fugitives water and food nor helped a Palestinian runaway; everyone who saw them immediately informed police, said the authorities. In a few days, four starved prisoners were hunted down, beaten up and taken back to jail; two are still at large.

I saw on Israeli TV news four shackled prisoners in the court. Zakaria had been badly beaten. His capturers broke his ribs and jaw, while he was already handcuffed. His face was grim and stern like that of a suffering Christ before the crooked court of Synedrion. It was a sad sight, the return of the hero to the dark dungeons of the Jewish state. But then, he was born and brought up under the occupation. His story is the story of the cheated generation that came to the fore after the great betrayal.

In 1993, the State of Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo accords; this agreement certified by handshake on the White House lawn promised Palestinians full independence after five years of transition. The Jews reneged on the deal. While individual Jews can be honest and honourable; as a collective they are extremely untrustworthy. It comes from a Jewish superiority complex, of a refusal to obey the rules established for lesser species; of feeling they can do whatever they find expedient. Fair play is not a Jewish idea at all.

The Palestinians, swindled by Israel, had nobody to turn to; they responded by initiating the Second Intifada, the rising taking place in 2000. It was the pivotal event for Zakaria’s generation; for me, too. I was radicalised by the Intifada, by the dishonesty and cruelty of the Jewish state and by the courage of Palestinian resisters. In 2001, I began writing in English to an international audience; next year, in 2002, I entered the church, parting with Jewry.

The Jews became radicalised, too: The support of US Jewry for the 9/11 narrative and for the War on Terror can’t be understood outside of this context: the Oslo accords, reneging on Oslo, the Intifada and 9/11 are links of one chain. Before 9/11, Jews were condemned for reneging on Oslo and for the bloody suppression of the Intifada. After 9/11 they could smash the Palestinians with all their might. For young men like Zakaria even survival was problematic.

Zakaria deserves a Plutarch to write up his life, but I’ll do what I can, until a Plutarch comes along. Zakaria was born and grew up in the Jenin Refugee Camp, a place where the expelled Palestinians from Haifa’s Carmel were corralled in 1948 by the victorious Jews. His father was an English language teacher; he died rather young, leaving his widow and their eight children to survive.

Zakaria was 11, when the First Intifada began. It was a spontaneous protest, caused by the enclosure of common Palestinian lands and their transfer to Jewish settlers. Jewish lawyers, predominantly ladies of liberal persuasion, applied the English 16th century idea of ‘enclosure of the commons’ and claimed all commonly held lands as belonging to Jews only. In England this policy caused ‘enclosure riots’; as it did in Palestine. In response to Jewish land grabbing, unarmed peasants took the nearest handy stone and threw it at Jewish settlers’ cars. The Jews replied with fire. Hundreds of unarmed Palestinians were shot and killed. The children suffered most.

Boys like Zakaria lived dangerously in the camp. The Israeli army treated refugee camps as their hunting ground. They would drive in on their Jeeps and shoot around, terrorising children and grown ups. Chris Hedges, of the New York Times, wrote of their modus operandi in his Gaza Diary, published in Harper’s Magazine: “the refugee camp … is still and peaceful. Children play with scrap-paper kites and ragged soccer balls. Suddenly two IDF jeeps with loudspeakers pull up. They immediately taunt the boys with obscenities, luring them up to the fence. Then [a] percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than 10 or 11 years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me… The soldiers shoot; the bullets from the M-16s tumble end over end through the children’s slight bodies. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”

Instead of being cowed, the camp boys like Zakaria took the danger in their stride. The daredevils would throw stones at invading jeeps like the 13-year old boy, Farris Odeh did. Farris was the Palestinian kid we saw throwing stones at Israeli tanks with the nonchalance of a village boy chasing away a ferocious dog. It was a dangerous game: the famous picture of Farris was taken on October 29, and a week later, on 8th of November, a Jewish sniper murdered him in cold blood.

In similar circumstances, 13-year-old Zakaria had been shot by a Jewish soldier. The bullet entered his leg; he spent six months in hospital and went through multiple operations. He remains lame to this very day. The soldier has never been tried or punished for shooting a child, but a Jewish soldier is practically never tried or punished for wounding or murdering a Palestinian child, and there are thousands of murdered children.

As Zakaria recuperated, his mother (who was a great believer in peaceful coexistence with Israeli Jews) invited a new theatre company to do rehearsals at her home. She gave them the upper floor of their house, fed them and helped them. It was a children’s theatre, performed by camp children and for camp children, organized by an unusual person, Arna Mer. This Jewish communist lady “betrayed her people” (as many Jews were prone to say) and married an Arab, an Orthodox Christian Palestinian Arab, also a communist, even a prominent member of Communist Party. They called their son Sputnik, as a sign of their love for the Soviet Union, the beacon of light for such liberation movements. Eventually Sputnik found his name too exotic, and changed it to ‘Juliano Mer’. He became a friend of Zakaria. Together they acted on stage; the company consisted of six or eight children. The theatre was called The Stone Theatre. It was around 1988-89, at the height of the First Intifada, the rising that convinced Israel to seek an accommodation and enter Oslo accords with Palestinian leadership.

Years later, Juliano Mer made a film Arna’s Children, based on their memories and video archive. It turned out that the majority of the young actors were killed by Jews by that time. Zakaria’s mother was also killed by a Jewish sniper, shot through the window, while she was at home. One hour later, the same sniper shot her elder son and killed him. Their house, which had served as a home for the Stone Theatre, was bulldozed together with many other homes in Jenin.

Jenin was the place for a Jewish onslaught on the Palestinians in 2002. Recently the Israeli court banned Jenin, Jenin, a film about these fateful events, but you still can find it on YouTube. Zakaria was a great fighter; he became the commander of Jenin’s Al Aqsa Brigade. He survived four assassination attempts by the Israelis: in 2004, they murdered five Palestinians, including a 14-year-old child, while targeting a vehicle suspected of carrying Zakaria. On another occasion they killed 9 Palestinians, but Zakaria escaped.

Zakaria became widely known and respected in the West Bank and even in Israel. He was befriended by Yasser Arafat; he supported the election of Mahmud Abbas, Arafat’s successor. An Israeli woman, Tali Fahima, came to Jenin to support Zakaria and serve as his human shield. Israel arrested her in 2004 and she spent three years in prison for ‘aiding a terrorist organization’. After her release, she converted to Islam having become totally disillusioned by the massive Jewish support for the bloody punitive actions against Palestinians. Zakaria, who spoke perfect Hebrew and had many Israeli friends, was also disappointed by the Israeli Jewish Left. None defended him during these terrible years, despite all the efforts of his late mother to build relations with Israelis.

However, the uprising was defeated. And Zakaria continued his struggle by other means, establishing, together with Juliano Mer, his childhood friend, a new and bigger theatre company, the Freedom Theatre of Jenin. It is still around, and even prospers, though Zakaria is now in jail, and Juliano Mer was killed by unknown assassins. In 2007, Zakaria accepted the amnesty offered by Israelis to the Fatah fighters, though by its conditions he couldn’t leave Jenin. He abided by the amnesty conditions, but it didn’t help him: a few years later, Israel rescinded the amnesty. In 2019, Zakaria was caught and sent to jail for life.

He would rot in jail like other prisoners, and every second Palestinian of his generation had been in an Israeli jail for some part of his life. But then, the audacious breakout brought his name back to our awareness. He returned hope into the hearts of the Palestinians and their friends, but alas, for a short time.

It happened exactly twenty years after 9/11, the event that empowered the Jews to smash Palestinian resistance. Nowadays, the Jews can do whatever they want with their captive goyim. People aren’t even allowed to object. At the recent Tokyo Olympic games, an Algerian judoka Fethi Nourine refused to pair with an Israeli sportsman, saying his support for the Palestinian cause made it impossible for him to compete against an Israeli. The International Judo Federation promptly suspended the brave Algerian for ten years.

In the discourse, the Jews possess an unassailable position, and whoever demurs finds himself jobless and castigated as a ‘bigot’. Every time I post an item about Palestine, Facebook’s Zuckerberg bans me for a week. Never was Jewish dominance so complete. Before 9/11, the right wing was traditionally anti-Jewish. Nowadays, the European and American nationalist Right accept the rules of the game. It’s hard to find a ‘fascist’ or ‘white nationalist’ who doesn’t worship Israel. The Jewish ‘left’ in Israel avidly supports the current Israeli Prime Minister Bennett who is as strong a Jewish chauvinist as has ever held this position; and Bennett says openly that Palestinians will never be free.

And we also have lost our freedom. Freedom to roam the land, freedom to have and voice our opinion. Freedom to refuse a dubious ‘medical’ treatment. What 9/11 started, Corona completed. We are all Palestinians now.

However, as I watched the stern Christ-like face of Zakaria Zubeidi in the courtroom, I thought that despite all efforts of the Synedrion, the suffering and crucified Christ came back to life. So will Palestine. So will the World. Resurrection is as inevitable as Death, and it beats Death.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

9/11 Afghanistan Fri, 10 Sep 2021 02:20:35 +0000 Closing the circle, completing Gestalt, opening a new chapter – any simile you like, but choosing 9/11 for inauguration day calls for a heavy-duty sense of humour. This is what the Taliban decided. Their new government, the first in 20 years to rule from Kabul, will be inaugurated on 9/11. They decided to troll Uncle Sam. In addition to choosing this auspicious date, the Talibs staffed top positions in the interim government with Gitmo graduates, while the Interior Minister has a $5 million bounty on his head offered by the US. These are the leaders every country should be proud to be led by. The Russians and the Chinese promised to attend the inauguration at ambassadorial level. Even better, the Russians and the Chinese refused to attend a West-led conference on Afghanistan. We need less harmony and less agreement so the word ‘freedom’ retains some meaning.

Just a few days ago the Taliban succeeded in subduing the last sizeable enclave controlled by warlords: Panjshir gorge, a mountain valley in the spurs of the Hindu Kush, a hard-to-get-in place (getting out is even harder), populated by Tajik and other ethnics, it was a natural place to excite tribal enmity against the predominantly Pashto Taliban. With luck, Panjshir could be used to block the road to Mazar-i-Sharif, to cut off the North and the possibility of rekindling civil war.

Two people stood behind this effort; the former vice-president, Amrullah Saleh, and the son of the Northern warlord Ahmad Massoud. Saleh called himself the “legitimate head” of Afghanistan – after the shameful flight of President Ghani, he felt he was entitled to inherit the country. Saleh was closely associated with the CIA, according to American sources.

Massoud Jr. studied in England; he is advised by BHL (Bernard-Henri Lévy), the French-Jewish provocateur and adventurer, the master of discourse who always comes before the storm. (Victor Pelevin drew on BHL in his novel S.N.U.F.F. Yes, it is Pelevin’s world!) Massoud called his gang “Resistance forces”; for sure it was a BHL idea. As with every good Jew, BHL is forever doomed to live and re-live WWII, and what could be better than La Resistance, something straight from Casablanca?

The Washington Post published the appeal of Massoud to Americans to support him with money and arms in the name of “democracy and human rights”. The Neocons were delighted. A chance had dawned for renewed strife in the country. Massoud and Saleh walked out of the Taliban’s proposed reconciliation plan. They thought that the Taliban wouldn’t dare to enter their mountain area, but they miscalculated. On Monday, September 6, the Taliban took the valley; Saleh allegedly has fled to Tajikistan. Massoud Jr. escaped to a nook in the high mountains and promised to be back. Will he return?

British journalists sympathetic to Massoud believe that he has no chance after this defeat. He can talk about his will to win and his determination to keep on fighting, but he has fewer than a hundred fighters with him, and no sign of mass support. He is capable of a sortie, of an ambush, but he is not a serious threat to the Taliban; at least for now. We shall hear of him as we do of another Guaido; many Afghan embassies in the world said they recognise and represent Saleh. But without actual control of land, this thing will mean nothing beyond an excuse to loot some Afghan assets.

Massoud and Saleh have repeated the mistake of Ashraf Ghani, the former president. They thought they could keep negotiating for a long while and improve their hand at the same time; eventually they would get better terms. It turned out that the Taliban were not inclined to haggle. They offered yesterday’s enemy to join their ranks; a generous offer, but on condition of their deferring to Taliban supreme command. Massoud hoped to retain full autonomy, but that was an empty dream.

Everybody wants the Taliban to form a broad government coalition in Afghanistan; a government to include representation of Tajik, Uzbek and other ethnic groups. It seems that this idea is acceptable for the Taliban as well. But they do not want to grant broad autonomy to these groups and give them a chance to secede. Cohesive ethnic autonomous regions spell trouble. They undermined the USSR; threaten Spain and the United Kingdom, while France prospers without granting autonomy to Catalan, Breton etc.

So, while the idea of inclusive government is a good one, let the Afghans sort it out among themselves, without Western interference. The West had 20 years to form governments in Afghanistan, now it is the Afghans turn. Yesterday’s occupiers claim moral superiority and tell liberated people how they should form a government based on Western ideas. It is hypocritical BS as always. If they value ethnic inclusivity so much, let them convince the Jews to give equal rights and an equal number of government portfolios to Palestinians. If they value ideological inclusivity, let them share power with big parties, with Le Pen in France, with the AfD in Germany, with Trump in the US. Oh, it is easier to advise than to do.

Despite their brilliant military victory, the Taliban will have difficult time with the US-trained viragos who already marching on the streets of Kabul as their sisters and mentors did in Washington in January 2017. This gender mischief is the biggest damage caused by the US to the world fabric. Hopefully, equipped with their tradition and sharia justice, the Afghan Talibs will manage better than the US Deplorables. Ferocious Lesbians are a hardy enemy, as Western white men have been thoroughly cowed and unable to resist them.

While preparing for 9/11 commemorations, you should read an excellent long piece by Ron Unz written especially for this occasion, and/or a short piece I wrote and published 20 years ago. Unz says Mossad did it; I am reluctant to give Mossad this credit. Whoever did the attack on 2001, Sep 11, enacted an audacious deed and brought much pleasure to the world abused by the US. The vast majority of mankind enjoyed seeing their abusers being hit. Yes, the consequence of 9/11, the War on Terror, was horrible, but the same culprits could do it with a smaller pretext, or no pretext whatsoever. Yes, the official story of 9/11 was implausible, but not more implausible than Covid-19.

Like the Four Riders of the Apocalypse, the unknown kamikaze rode their giant crafts into the two visible symbols of American world domination, Wall Street and the Pentagon. They vanished in flames and smoke, and we do not yet know who they were. They could be practically anybody:

American Nationalists, American Communists, American Fundamentalist Christians, American Anarchists, anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination. They could be Native Americans returning to Manhattan, or Afro-Americans who still have not received compensation for slavery.

They could be foreigners of practically any extraction, as Wall Street and the Pentagon ruined many lives of people all over the globe. Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force. Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima. The Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine. Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade avenged. Latin Americans think of American invasions of Panama and Granada, of destroyed Nicaragua and defoliated Colombia. Asians count their dead of Vietnam war, Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions. Even a pro-American, Russian TV broadcaster could not refrain from saying, ‘now Americans begin to understand the feelings of Baghdad and Belgrade’.

The Riders could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermensch by the new Herrenvolk. They could be Russians, Malaysians, Mexicans, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Congolese, Brazilians, Vietnamese, as their economy was destroyed by Wall Street and the Pentagon. They could be anybody, and they are everybody. Their identity is quite irrelevant as their message is more important than their personalities, and their message is read loud and clear in the choice of targets.

If I were a Muslim, I’d prefer to ascribe 9/11 to Muslim heroes rather than to Jewish tricksters. It is basically a question whether you approve of the deed. If you do, or at least tolerate it, you can say it was done by brave Muslims. If you do not approve of it, you may think it was done by Mossad agents who anyway are doing all sorts of awful things. Truth is important; but narrative is precious.

Golden Oldies

Is Elvis back? After Abba’s return I wouldn’t be surprised. It seems they try and squeeze the last drop of creativity from the departing generation, for the new generation has none. The most prominent film 2021 is a remake of Dune, the David Lynch’s 1984 film. The remake costs many times more than the original, but it is still the most boring film of the year. Other recent films are really old movies brushed up like Escape from New York, or old movies revamped by the woke canon, with Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother played by a black gay man (!) The Abba song Don’t Shut Me Down, implies the old singers have come back as computer design:

But in the shape and form I appear now I have learned to cope…
And now you see another me, I’ve been reloaded, that’s been decoded
I’m fired up, I’m hot, don’t shut me down
I’m not the one you knew
I’m asking you to have an open mind

This is certainly not a song about humans; we humans do not reload, decoded, fired up or shut down. All these words pertain to the computer world, or to some admixture of a man and a machine. This song will be the anthem of trans-humanity, a Swedish friend told me; and he added with more than a touch of pride that little Sweden provided the avatars for two of the most prominent ideological movements, Greta for Green and Abba for trans-human.

Now the super-rich are reaching for immortality, we are told in a longish piece in the Technology Review on Altos Labs, a secretive and extremely well funded institute in Silicon Valley. Apparently, Jeff Bezos and Yuri Milner want to live forever; these rich bastards think they are so precious to God, Mankind and Universe that they should be kept in play after all others return to the Creator. I am not aware of a single redeeming feature possessed by these two men. Yes, they hog a lot of other men’s resources, but they didn’t advance mankind by a single inch. They didn’t write a poem, they didn’t paint a picture, they didn’t invent; they didn’t commit a heroic act of sacrifice, they aren’t handsome; they did nothing for what the gods would share their table and goddesses – their beds; or grant immortality, indeed. They just hoarded money. And with this money they want to buy time off us.

These guys should be burned at the stake in the Central Park for the temerity of their enterprise: of stealing and robbing millions of working men of their labour’s fruit, of their life – to live longer. Back to the coffin, you gruesome zombies! For that is what they are – undead. Instead of immortality, these people promote endless clinging to the vestiges of life, instead of a normal, ‘A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever’ (Eccl 1:4) sort of thing.

Terry Pratchett in his Discworld novel Reaper Man imagined the world where Death had been retired, and it’s a mess. But this mess is normal in comparison to the two-tier system envisaged by trans-humanism: everybody dies, but some rich bastards live forever. To me, it is an advertisement for the prompt return of death penalty for the hoarders.

The problem is, though there are very few people who are likely to benefit from this development, they are also very rich. They want to live forever, something we Christians get for free, but they prefer to rely upon science. I wrote about this tendency recently, and now Victor Pelevin had published an entertaining satirical book last week, called Transhumanism INC.

For those who do not know who I talk of: Pelevin is probably the most important living Russian writer, a 21st century Voltaire, of sorts. He is an enigma, for nobody has sighted him for the last ten years, though he produces a book a year, and invariably publishes it at the beginning of September. His early books were translated and published in the West, especially for their anti-Soviet flair. Later on, he attacked (or laughed at) the Western mainstream agenda, and they stopped publishing him in English, while his books are printed in their millions of copies for politically incorrect Russian readers. An Unz reader would enjoy his satirical writing. Pelevin has a take on Wikileaks and Afghanistan (The Anti-Aircraft Codes of Al Efesbi); on human rights as a pretext for bombing (S.N.U.F.F.); gender roles and diversity (IPhuck 10); political correctness as a GRU plot against American society (The Art of Light Touches); and now Transhumanism.

The story takes place three hundred years from now; the top people in the world have discarded their bodies and moved their brains to be kept and serviced forever by Transhumanism Inc while they enjoy digitally induced paradisiac delights. Every human has a brain implant and is guided by AI. Dirty work is done by cloned slaves who are all White to conform to BLM ideas. By law, slaves must always wear a mask on their face, regardless of the epidemiological situation. The slaves themselves did not get sick, but they spread viruses asymptomatically . There is practically no sex, as we know it: women prefer to sodomise their male partners taking revenge for the patriarchy. The Green agenda has won; there are no cars, just chip-implanted horses and carriages. Electricity is expensive and people get by with kerosene lamps.

The Transhumanism Inc has a subsidiary Open Mind that deals with people’s minds. Open Mind is an enhanced Facebook you can’t get away from, or Google Smart Glasses you can’t take off. When you look at a person or a building, or listen to a song, Open Mind suggests to you the correct reaction, the proper assessment. A banker’s daughter looks delightful, a popular song sounds popular, if the creators paid for the advertising. Thus human responses are kept under control. This system coexists with local politics. Russia in the novel has a quasi-Communist-Nationalist government that has access to the implant, as well, but the vast majority of responses are determined by the market, that is by Transhumanism Inc. The big Communist-Nationalist Russian leader, a Putin on steroids, also has his brain stored away, next to the brain of Sheikh Ahmed, the leader of World Jihad.

It is not too different from what we have today. Governments differ, parties differ, from Putin to Modi to Biden to Merkel, but human responses and the agenda are quite similar all over the world, be it covid or climate, privatisation or transgender. Where they are not so similar they are moving towards this similarity. In the sad world of Transhumanism, the leaders succumbed to the supreme temptation of living forever in paradise while keeping in touch with their countries. Their brains (placed in jars) stand on a shelf in a well-protected cellar in London, or in Nevada, but at a moment’ notice they can connect to their assistants (like in the film Avatar) and interact with lesser folk.

In our world, we have Zuckerberg, the man who decides what we may and may not say and read. In Pelevin’s world, it is Goldenstern (sic!) whose name is taboo, unless preceded by the epithet Fair. Fair Goldenstern is ok; otherwise your account will be limited. Goldenstern is considered to be a Jew, for sure. The whole system works in the interests of vampire-like creatures that feast on human energy, thought and creativity.

And though the book is a fiction, or even a fantasy; when I look at today’s art, cinema, music I feel that human creativity had been sucked out and human energy has been limited to making profit; while the politicians all appear very different but their brains could stand on the same shelf in the same cellar and even take their commands from the same super-vampire.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

The Sheer Joy of Afghanistan Sun, 22 Aug 2021 02:19:48 +0000 My congratulations, friends and readers! The Taliban’s victory is our victory, yours and mine. We, non-Muslim and non-Pashtun folk, in the US and Europe, may rejoice, for in Afghanistan, virile (not “toxic”) masculinity defeated gender-diversity, believers defeated those weak of faith, the morals of our fathers overcome the morals of our sons. This is the sheer joy of the Afghan victory; this victory of bearded men with arms over a gender-diversified butch-run hosts and their feminist NGOs is our victory, too. Do not be ashamed of being a manly man; stand tall! It is a breath of fresh air, this manly victory in the far-away mountains trod by Alexander the Great’s phalanxes; and it is much nicer to write about than usual stuff, especially after this time of being drip-fed by hypochondriac news of another elder succumbing to the dreadful virus, of green passports, of medical advice on how to live longer, of atoning for the misdeeds of our forefathers, of being of the wrong race and how to avoid microaggressions lest somebody will feel hurt. If we, men, would like to hurt somebody, we won’t stop at a joke, we’ll reach for an RPG.

The RPG rocket launcher, of the kind preferred by the Talibs, really hurts. It is not an imaginary feeling of discomfort, but a real hole in the armour. Or a torn-off head. There is nothing micro in its delivery. You do not need a mask on the battlefield for the mask won’t stop the launched rocket. You won’t worry about the virus when you encounter real bullets. On the battlefield, the problem of gender-neutral toilets does not arise. Twitter can’t ban a machinegun, but a machinegun can banish Twitter and the whole Twitter gang. The Taliban defeated Wokery; they aren’t afraid of being politically incorrect as we are. The Taliban aren’t afraid to worship God and to call upon Him, as we are. They aren’t afraid to stand for family values – they don’t even understand how it could be different.

The Taliban is a harbinger of real muscular democracy and freedom from Bill Gates, Greta Thunberg, Anthony Fauci, Nancy Pelosi who all enslave us. They wouldn’t submit to this bunch; they would mete out revolutionary justice to those who want to deprive us of heating, who would blot out the Sun and suffocate us with their masks. A Trumper watches with envy as these rebels actually take the president palace instead of being accused of doing it on January 6.

These armed peasants reminded us that we still can change the world. It is not necessary to submit. All the rules of the game could be re-written; the whole game could be dumped. Normalcy, a traditional norm can be regained.

And it is a win-win thing: I, for one, do not think that America was defeated or that President Biden made a mistake. Far from it. Ending the occupation of a foreign land is a noble act. It was a real victory for Biden, victory over the Deep State, victory over Jewish Lobby. If it would be up to the Lobby, to the NY Times, to the CIA, the US would never ever leave Afghanistan. Read Bret Stephens in the New York Times (here is un-paywalled text), this is the authentic voice of the Lobby. Stephens, a Neocon and a son of Jewish parents (despite the assumed gentile last name), had been the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post at the time of the Intifada and glorified the horrors of Israeli occupation. Stephens bewails the US “defeat” and claims the US should have stayed in Afghanistan forever. His best argument runs as follows: “But didn’t we have to leave Afghanistan sometime? So goes a counterargument. Yes, though we’ve been in Korea for 71 years, at far higher cost, and the world is better off for it.” Silly man! The world would be better without US troops in Korea; North and South would unite, and money spent there could pay for Americans’ education and health.

The Neocons, the masters of the Deep State, would never allow Trump to leave Afghanistan, as they derailed his meek attempts to leave Syria. Now Trump can criticize Biden for the Kabul airport ugly scenes, but to tell you truth, there is no nice way to leave, neither an occupied country, nor a woman you lived with for twenty years. If you decide to leave, be prepared for a lot of ugly nastiness. Withdrawal from Vietnam was also ugly, but it was a right decision then, and it is a right decision now.

Consider Auschwitz, definitely a harsh place. When the Germans had to leave, hundreds of Jews followed them westward (Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust writer, was among them). They were afraid of the Red Army coming to liberate them and preferred the Germans they knew. That’s why I am not amazed a lot of Afghans want to follow the US troops elsewhere: they are afraid of their liberators.

Things could be tough for all-too-eager supporters of the occupying regime. When the Nazis left France, many collaborators went to jail, some were lynched by the French patriots. But it does not mean it would be better to keep France occupied.

Biden was right to order the US to leave Afghanistan. He demonstrated much stamina in going against pleadings of his army, his intelligence services and the whole of the Deep State. I must admit that I have today much more respect for President Biden than I had before the withdrawal. I respect him even more for his excellent response to the British poodle. British statesmen complained about Biden’s decision to withdraw “after so much blood was shed there”. The UK could stay there in Afghanistan if they liked, Biden replied. They had this option, to stay. Just without American support. The US does not want to be the world’s policeman anymore.

Incidentally, the UK was the only NATO member that had the appetite for staying there, Johnson admitted. The opposition Labour party’s new boss Keir Starmer (who came to his position after Corbyn was hounded away by the smear of antisemitism) was as strongly against Biden as Johnson was. Well, Brits like wars. They pushed the unwilling US into WWI and WWII, and recently they tried to get some action at the sea of Crimea. It is good that Biden is not an easy guy to play; not as easy as Wilson and Roosevelt were.

Now there is a fighting chance that Biden will command and take the US troops from Iraq and Syria; and with some luck, from other countries, from Korea and the Philippines, or even from Germany and the UK. It would be very good for the American people; and perhaps we shall yet see Boris Johnson climbing on the roof of the Grosvenor Square building of the US Embassy in London to take the last helicopter flight out to an American aircraft carrier before the Brits put him up against the wall.


This is not to diminish the victory of Taliban. They achieved an unbelievable feat: in the course of a few days, they finished off the Twenty Year War. Yes, it’s good news: the long Afghan War is officially over and done with. It began in 2001 with the US invasion; it was over last Sunday, August 15, when the US protégé, the former President of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, departed for the UAE with his four carloads of cash.

The Angel of History abided by the triple unity rules of classic drama: unity of action, unity of place and unity of time. In one day, power passed into the hands of the rebels – in Kandahar, and in Mazar-i-Sharif, and, finally, in Kabul. The apocalyptic expectations of the upcoming “battle for Kabul” didn’t materialise – the new government entered the presidential palace practically without a shot fired.

The most remarkable snapshot of this historic turn came on Monday. These weren’t fighters with bazookas or mujahedeen in the palace. These were Kabul girls going to school in the morning. In white kerchiefs, with backpacks, they, as usual, went to school.

Two days later, there was an even more remarkable video of a few female activists taking to the street to demonstrate with placards in front of the presidential palace. This is probably the clearest proof of their belief that they will not be interfered with. And indeed nobody bothered these ladies despite the plain silliness of their slogans in the midst of the momentous upheaval.

The topic of female discrimination in Afghanistan was inflated by feminists on the service of the US State Department, when it was necessary to justify the aggression and seizure of this independent country. It is unlikely that the status of a woman in Afghanistan differed greatly from that of a woman in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia – but nobody is in a hurry to land troops there. The alleged mistreatment of women and gays is often used by British and American hawks to justify “humanitarian interventions” and should be taken with a grain of salt. And the invasive Western LGBT discourse does not seem normal – not only for Afghans. Men love women, don’t believe lying butches, sister!

Sex ethics could be weird, in Afghanistan as well as in England. The Talibs ask ladies to cover their hair, just like Orthodox Jews and to behave modestly. The West hatched the absurdity of mutually non-consensual sex; 28 per cent of young women come to believe that winking ‘usually or always’ constitutes sexual harassment (read about it here); it beats Taliban anytime. Some of Taliban’s ideas are indeed odd; but not as odd as the scourging of Prince Andrew on a word of an aged trollop in the UK/US.

Life in Afghanistan will still improve for women and men, and it will be better than under the puppet regime, Afghans hope. It is Take Two for the Taliban, and both times they came to power practically without encountering resistance, a clear sign of popular support.

The Taliban came into being in early 1990s, after the pro-Soviet government of Najibullah (many Afghans now say that he was the best ruler of the country in the 20th century) had been overthrown by the CIA-sponsored mujahedeen. At the time, lawlessness reigned in the country. Each warlord considered himself a king. Against this background, the Taliban emerged as a grassroots movement for honesty, law and order, against the lawlessness of the warlords. They managed to win in 1996, without bloodshed, triumphantly entering Kabul. They stopped drug production and trade and practically eliminated the scourge. This was their undoing. The CIA wouldn’t allow meddling with drug supplies, for they wanted to keep the Americans in a narcotic-induced dream.

Afghanistan was placed under creeping sanctions; the poor country was even more impoverished; the northern tribes rebelled, and then the American invasion overthrew the Taliban so it would return to power 20 years later. During this time, Afghanistan has changed; Kabul has grown to become a city with four million inhabitants. But there still was no order; warlords and large drug producers still ruled freely, robbing villagers at will.

The original support base of the Taliban were the village Pashtuns, who generally wanted very little from the state: they wanted order, functioning customary law, or Islamic law, no interference with their private lives, and preferably no taxation at all. (Here is an excellent background piece by Anatol Lieven) Now as the big cities come under Taliban rule, they will have to show more flexibility. In cities with a population of over one million, customary law does not always work. But the Taliban also learned a lot. It is hoped that they will be able to find a compromise between the village and the city, bearing in mind the fact that the weapons are in the hands of the villagers.

This confrontation of city and village reminds us of Mao’s revolution and of the Khmer Rouge takeover in Cambodia. But the world is different today. The Western way of life is hardly attractive now; the progress entered an impasse of gender madness, corona lockdowns, critical race theory and digital totalitarianism. Even the great crime of Taliban pre-2001, the destruction of ancient monuments, has been repeated by the US and British progressives from Atlanta to London. Perhaps the Afghans will be able to figure out how to proceed. Every nation is a great architect of its future. And over the past 200 years of constant incursions, Afghans have had little chance of figuring out what they really need.

An important new factor is a powerful China, which needs Afghan transit. The British and Americans did not need to transit through Afghanistan; they dominate the sea. But in the old days, before the European arrival, caravan routes went through Afghanistan. Maybe traffic flows will start again, Iran’s oil will flow to China, trade with the north through former Soviet Central Asia will resume, and a corridor to India will be open. Russian geological prospecting has discovered huge reserves of rare earth elements in the mountains of Afghanistan, and their development could re-link Russia and China with Afghanistan.


In Kabul, the people awaited the Taliban entry with great trepidation. However, the Taliban didn’t interfere with the evacuation; when President Biden asked for their permission, they immediately gave the go-ahead. But in general, there was no need to rush the planes.

The Russian Foreign Ministry announced they reached an agreement with the Taliban that Russian civilian airlines will fly out everybody who has a place to go to. Alas, there is no place on earth that would like to accept so many Afghan refugees. People should stay home and make peace with their countrymen; if they have committed crimes, they should pay for these crimes. However, the Taliban issued a general amnesty, and hopefully they will stick to this humane and merciful course.

In Kabul itself, as in other cities, the first days of the new government passed calmly. The Taliban replaced soldiers at their embassy posts and promised that not a single hair would fall from the heads of diplomats. At the Russian embassy, ​​diplomats said that it is even safer now than it was under the old regime.

The Taliban statements are also reassuring. They promised that there would be no revenge. Women can continue working without having to dress in a strict traditional style. Indeed, in the first few days of the new Afghanistan, these promises were kept.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov believes that we need to wait and see how things will develop in Afghanistan, although his first impressions are favourable: “We are observing positive processes on the streets of Kabul, where the situation is quite calm and the Taliban are effectively enforcing law and order.” The Russian ambassador to the UN also expressed cautious optimism at the Security Council meeting. “You shouldn’t give in to panic. It is important that we managed to avoid mass bloodshed among the civilian population, ” he said. The Russian president’s special envoy for Afghanistan, Kabulov, also assessed the turn of events positively. “The Taliban have long seemed to me much more reliable than the puppet Kabul government,” he said.

The Taliban’s first steps in law making were encouraging, too. The Taliban have banned blood feuds, the long-standing scourge of Afghanistan. They say they will be guided by Sharia law – which may seem like a nightmare to our secular readers, but this is a much more merciful alternative to the Pashtunwali tribal law. Pashtunwali approves of blood feuds; according to Sharia, it is prohibited. Referring to Sharia law, the Taliban banned the distribution and use of drugs, which was the main occupation of Afghans under American occupation. They also banned the local custom of bacha bazi, the homosexual exploitation of boys. They banned witchcraft and interest-bearing loans, and even cancelled all debts, something we all can learn from. Let’s see what of this will be implemented and what will remain an empty promise.

A real and present danger would be any attempt of the Western forces to come back and meddle in Afghanistan. There are many warmongers; guys like John Bolton always want more war. Ahmad Massoud, a son of the Northern warlord has already asked for arms to keep fighting the Taliban. He had met with BHL (Bernard-Henri Lévy), the French-Jewish master of discourse who always comes before the storm.

That’s why President Putin, at his press-conference after meeting with Frau Merkel said, “It’s not in our interests right now to talk about US failure. We are interested in the situation in the country being stable.” Vladimir Putin has demanded that countries not interfere in Afghanistan after the liberation of Kabul, saying the West “must stop the irresponsible policy of imposing foreign values from abroad”. And that is probably a very good point.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Trans-Digital vs Oil Wed, 11 Aug 2021 02:18:33 +0000 Let’s begin with good news. Resplendent August, the last summer month, has blessed the North! The sun is shining, the lakes are still warm enough for swimming, the mushrooms are ready for picking, the wild raspberries are crimson and sweet, the ginger Bambi fawns frolic in the forest as it reaches up to our summer house; God’s in His heaven— all’s right with the world! Or is it? Despite unabated efforts to tip us into panic and despair, this sturdy world isn’t easily thrown into turmoil, and there are even signs of improvement (though thunder clouds still hover at the horizon).

People are moving out of the big cities into smaller towns, reversing a long trend. The overcrowded capital cities began to unload their surplus dwellers. Stockholm began to release its population; so does Moscow. Innovative Russians ponder plans to rebuild their capital in faraway Siberia, leaving Moscow high and dry. Salaries of agricultural workers and builders go up, for guest workers are not easy to find. As the flow of migrants and refugees dries up, workers’ salaries have begun to grow.

International travel has become so difficult that only the very rich or the very obstinate still venture abroad, and so there is more domestic tourism – something that was almost extinct. Why would a sane Swede, Briton or Russian holiday in his own country, when it is cheaper and more exotic to go to Spain, Turkey, Greece? Now with these endless encumbrances they would rather spend their time and money in their own country. A Swede will discover the mountain forests of Bergslagen or the medieval town of Gotland; a Russian may visit the Vologda monasteries forgotten centuries ago in the Northern wilderness, or tour the lovely Altai Mountains; a Briton, instead of the Canary Islands, now may go to rugged Cornwall or visit the lofty Salisbury Cathedral. We never thought much of globalisation, and our desire was granted: globalisation is out. This is definitely a positive outcome of a very negative development.

However, regime tightening-up continues all over the world. Some elementary freedoms nobody doubted, so basic we didn’t even knew they were freedoms – going to a pub, lighting a cig, driving a mile, chatting with pals, flirting with gals, spending pocket money, speaking your mind – have been discarded like chaff on the threshing ground. The right to gather, to demonstrate, to decide one’s own fate, even the right to control our own bodies is now dismissed as unsanitary and villainous. The authorities always pretend to do it in our interests, because they know what is best for us.

Years ago, they went after tobacco companies; the judges found them guilty for every case of cancer and fined them billions. People applauded; nobody likes big companies. Only later did they begin to make life hell for people with the innocent habit. Now they go after oil companies. They are big and dirty; nobody likes them. But very soon, our heating bills, our transportation and food costs will skyrocket. And then we’ll discover that to stay warm in winter is not a natural right, but a great luxury.

Today the price of oil went south again, continuing the downward trend. Yet the price at the pump never goes down, so we do not get to enjoy this result of the oil war. But somebody does: the digital giants. Mammoth oil has been defeated in the discourse by sleek digital giants. Twenty years ago, when the US went to the Middle East wars, it was tactful to call each a “war for oil”, unless you were prepared to face a charge of (God forbid!) anti-Semitism. In vain did we point out that Big Oil didn’t need Iraq’s oil and could not profit from it. We noted that Afghanistan had no oil, but the invasion was still called a War for Oil. The oil companies were powerless to counteract the charge without pointing at Israel, and so they sat and fumed in stony silence.

Now there is a serious offensive against oil companies. The Dems drafted a bill that would tax Exxon, Chevron and a handful of other major oil and gas companies, claiming that the biggest climate polluters should pay for the floods, wildfires and other disasters that scientists have linked to the burning of “fossil fuels”. The tax is estimated at $500 billion for the next decade. Before you cheer at the downfall of warmonger Big Oil, remember that they will transfer every penny of this tax onto you, their customers. And who is pushing for the tax? Our beloved philanthropists, says the New York Times:

“These oil companies and their executives are by far the most responsible parties for the climate crisis,” said Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a philanthropic group that helped develop the proposed legislation. Oil companies have accused the Rockefeller Family Fund of bankrolling a climate conspiracy by funding research that has been used in litigation against the fossil fuel industry.

The story goes back to 2016, when the Rockefeller family was accused of encouraging and bankrolling the investigations and campaigns against oil companies. We continue in the un-paywalled version:

Both journalism organizations that investigated the Exxon Mobil were financed by Rockefeller philanthropies, though the organizations say that their donors have no control over what they write.

This is a very likely claim, for sure! The donors are as likely to support The Unz Review as the publications they do actually support, indeed!

Rockefellers have also supported groups like Greenpeace and that have investigated and criticized the company. A conference on oil and climate was held at the offices shared by two Rockefeller family funds with intent to “establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.” Alan Jeffers, an Exxon Mobil spokesman, said in an interview, “At every turn, as we saw the company coming under attack, there was a link back to either the Rockefeller Brothers Fund or the Rockefeller Family Fund.”

For us it is particularly relevant that the earliest known script of the Covid pandemic and the preferred response to it (Lockstep 2010 – here is a rather ridiculous “debunking of this accusation”) was created by this same Rockefeller family, that old enemy of mankind. Their unique hold on the US had been ostensibly broken in 1911 by a Supreme Court decision, but like the mythic Hydra, it grew new heads and is back at its old games of control. Covid and the Green Agenda seem to be inseparable as Siamese twins, both born and weaponized by these international “philanthropists”.

It wasn’t long ago that they urged us to discard our trusty refrigerators because they cause “ozone holes”! I really do not care much for the Green Deal and its mandatory austerity.

Underneath the noisy battle against oil companies, the real economy is quietly being strangled by the digital economy. You may choose to look even deeper into the rabbit hole and glimpse what lurks below. There you will discover the trans-humanist agenda, a peculiar idea of creating android-supermen and discarding ordinary humans. The denial of God is at the foundation of this idea. Nietzsche made it popular in the beginnings of the 20th century, after announcing his famous quip “God is dead”. Julian Huxley gave it the name of transhumanism.

The idea has gotten a boost in the peripheries of Soviet thought due to its thoroughly godless environment. The pop version can be found in the sci-fi books penned by the Strugatsky brothers. They posit that transhumanity is the next logical step of evolution, inevitably resulting in immortal, computer-connected, incredibly smart creatures. Transhumans will inherit the earth, while ordinary humans will be allowed to live out their natural lives and then go extinct. Here is where the idea of Universal Basic Income comes in, as the modern version of Roman bread and circuses – this is money provided by superior transhumans to allow ordinary humans to carry on their useless lives until their natural demise.

This strange post-Soviet (or rather anti-Soviet) idea was imported into Silicon Valley by the Russian-Jewish IT techies who formed the nucleus of Google. From there, it spread among the high tech personnel until it attracted the attention of the super-rich, who always wanted to be special and not just rich. Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli bestselling writer, became one of the prophets of transhumanism, denying the very existence of a human soul and free will.

Video Player


Transhumanism is the ideological base of Wokery (or Wokeism or Wokeness), a special way of speaking and thinking that stresses one’s special and superior status. Scott Alexander quipped, wokeness is a made-up mystery religion that college-educated people invented so they could feel superior to you. Ordinary people do not like it but are given to understand that wokes have more money and power, and that’s reason enough to emulate them. It is a faith, but it is not a faith for everybody like Christianity was. It is a faith for the ruling class. The Arian version of Christianity was such a faith for rulers in Visigothic Spain until the Moors crashed the party. The Judaic faith is another example of a religion for the elite, turning life for the masses into a living hell. You can’t understand the times we go through unless you are aware of this hidden faith of our superiors.

Transgenders are being extolled and promoted by the elite-owned media to prepare humanity for the advent of the Transhuman. Ditto the covid vaccines that are being promoted and pushed with unprecedented vigour. It is not done in order to kill off mankind, as anti-vaxxers suspect, nor in order to save us all from the dreaded covid, as vaxxers believe. It is a step in the direction of transhumanity. The Digital Economy, Universal Basic Income, trans-sexuality and mandatory mRNA vaccinations is a rapid evolutionary strategy that today’s visionaries expect will prepare the masses to accept a trans-human super-race.

But these are far-off and deep-down things. There is a lot of fleecing to be done before their dream can materialise. Let’s get up to the observable level, to the current fight over energy. The Covid pandemic diminished the demand for oil in 2020 and 2021; and that allowed the Green agenda to grow. It is not enough; the Green future needs another attack on oil, and the Delta variant of Covid will deliver it. The present fall of oil prices has been interpreted as the anticipation of impending lockdowns, first of all in heavily vaccinated Israel. In the US, despite much urban vaccination, there are 250 thousand new cases per day, and there are shrill demands to limit business activity.

China is a powerful player against Big Oil; it has little oil of its own; they are forced to buy it abroad and so they have a strong interest to drop oil prices. That is why, though China has a laughable amount of covid sufferers (125 new cases! A thousand times less than in the US), they still limit travel heavily. The Chinese version of Google, Baidu, says traffic in Beijing is down 30% from last week. Sure, we might explain these draconian measures by citing China’s reverence for human life, but maybe their participation in the global oil war may explain it better. The Chinese quietly continue to run their economy with coal power, which shows how little their Green partners in the oil war fear Climate Change. Ditto the US: A planned deal to end coal burning failed to make the communique from June G7 meeting in Britain, reportedly because the Biden administration feared pushback at home.

The customer, that is you, will eventually end up paying more in any case; in fact, that is the idea. In Europe, natural gas prices surged 1000%, reported Bloomberg; it is not cheap anymore, but still necessary to warm Europeans in the forthcoming winter. The story is that the price is high because EU bureaucrats based their calculations on spot prices, which are usually cheaper than long-term contract prices, and they planned to screw Russian natural gas suppliers, but in recent days the trend reversed due to gas deficit and increased demand.

The Russians were supposed to be the first victims of the Green agenda, of Covid and of natural gas spot pricing, but apparently the great Judoka Putin-san has once again come out on top. Gas spot pricing was supposed to impoverish Russia, but instead brought it riches. The attack against US and British oil companies by the purveyors of the Green Deal unexpectedly played into the hands of Russian oil companies. Russia will have to pony up some climate tax, but this expense will be unloaded onto their international customers. The Green Deal has already turned Russia into the second largest oil exporter into the US, after Canada.

Russian natural gas will flow very soon, possibly before August is over, into Germany by the North Stream II, the new pipeline completed last week. This is exactly on time to counter rising prices as a gas deficit is being felt all over Europe. President Biden agreed, in a semi-secret agreement with Chancellor Merkel, to lift American objections to the European pipeline. One of the reasons cited is a global shortage of natural gas, as China and South East Asia buy more and more of it. This too is connected to the Green Deal, for its designers consider natural gas the least polluting and damaging of natural fuels.

This development allowed Putin to undermine the Ukrainian authorities that had tried to play first fiddle in the anti-Russian orchestra. Until now, Russian natural gas came to Europe via old Soviet-built pipelines going through Ukraine and bringing hefty transit fees to Kiev. Now, with the completion of North Stream II, the bulk of gas will go directly to Germany. European gas will become considerably cheaper; the Ukrainians used to steal much of the gas destined for Western Europe, besides gouging both sides for the transit fees. This means that the Ukraine will have fewer profits to play their anti-Russian games. It is not impossible that the people of Ukraine will understand that their future lies in friendship with Russia, for enmity has brought no benefits to them. A recent poll says almost half of Ukrainians dwelling in the East and South of this fragmented country feel a great affinity to Russians and agree with Mr Putin’s vision of Ukrainians and Russians as being one people. Oil prices and gas pipelines do wonders to people’s minds!

In my recent piece, Prof Roman Zubarev calls these changes “Peak Oil”, the concept of an inevitable decline of extracted natural fuels. Some ten years ago, Peak Oil was all the rage in media, but since then, it is hardly ever mentioned. However, a recent analysis of Yale Environment 360 analytic Fred Pierce comes to the same conclusion and goes even further: Peak Oil is already behind us. Apparently it happened in 2019. Last May, activists angry at ExxonMobil’s climate policies won three seats on its board of directors; Chevron shareholders voted to force the company to start cutting emissions; and a judge in the Netherlands ruled that Shell must slash its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. Oil is on its way out; so is the associated travel and many other pleasures we once had. Only the future will tell whether oil is ‘out’ because we ran out of it, or because it was declared unfashionable, but either way the digitally and transhumanically-inspired elites have decided to retire it.

We expect that the main victim of all this will be the US consumer. The bungling Donald Trump cared for this great country and its people, but couldn’t do much; the elites now sipping at the founts of power couldn’t care less about ordinary Americans. They have a higher vision of transforming mankind and reshaping its course. You will pay for it, and you may not like it, but they do not care.

Biden’s US has less appetite for military adventures; the woke ideology is strongly anti-testosterone. This is reason enough for the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. You can’t expect wokes to want to fight in Third World countries, far away from the urban delights of New York and California. And while their elitist ideology, or trans-faith, is abominable, the international consequences could be positive for the world.

Summing up

We are living through a titanic struggle of a digital future against our oil past. This explains much of the covid drama. In this struggle, oil-less China is pitted against Big Oil, even at the price of heavy restrictions and lockdowns for its populace. Russia abstains from the Green Deal attack on US oil producers and yet still profits from the sidelines as the demand for Russian gas rises. Russia has its own vaccine, so it is rather insulated from orchestrated pandemic pressures. Afghanistan and Iraq have become quite irrelevant for Biden’s elites; they have more pressing battles back home, first of all against US nationalists. That’s why the empire withdraws. In the end, godless transhumanists will be defeated, as all their predecessors were; that is, unless they reach their “Singularity” (their name for the advent of Antichrist) first. But let us not worry too much about the future, for it is said (Matt, 6:34): do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Written in cooperation with Paul Bennett.

Covid Riots Mon, 26 Jul 2021 02:16:11 +0000 The Russian people have successfully managed to foil the latest attempt by the Global Covid Party to enforce its most current list of restrictions and vaccinations. The covid restrictions were unleashed June 16, while Putin was away at the Geneva summit. Moscow Mayor Sobyanin announced that QR codes would be required to enter all cafés and restaurants, and followed this up with demands for mandatory vaccination. But Russians continue to refuse to comply; by now they have found many ways to beat the system, the simplest solution being to avoid (and thus bankrupt) collaborating restaurants. The Mandatory Vaxx Regime brings new conspirators (like Alexei Navalny, the Russian Guaido presently in jail for swindling) and old school Kremlin propagandists into a rare (and suspicious) agreement. Now they all excrete New York mainstream media.

Many loyal Putinists were disappointed and aggrieved by the actions of Moscow’s Mayor; they spoke of treason and of abject surrender to US Dems. The people began to grumble that they would be voting Communist in the upcoming (September 19, 2021) Parliamentary elections. President Putin tried his best to stay above the fray, but recognizing that the Covid Party is actively arranging his political demise, he took steps to rescue his loyalists. Putin publicly called for the mayor to drop the restrictions, and then behind the scenes he had them removed. The QR codes have dried up, and peace has returned to Russian society only one month after the restrictions were announced. The vaccination effort goes on, but it is voluntary. Barring unexpected developments, Russia has passed through the pandemic trial with flying colours, in typically Russian style (“Give a candle to God and a poker to Satan”). People fell ill and died, as always, but there were no disturbances, no riots, and Putin continues to outperform his challengers, in word and in deed.

Not every leader manages to escape intact from these orchestrated confrontations with global Covidians. President of Haiti Jovenel Moïse was reluctant to push for the vaxx in his poor country; he didn’t drop everything and immediately reorganise his state’s government around the new vaccination regime. He then flatly refused AstraZeneca, saying the stuff is dangerous for your health. Little did he know that refusing Big Pharma is perilous to the health of even the elected leader of a sovereign state. Sadly, he has been assassinated by a gang of Colombian mercenaries claiming to be DEA (the US Drug Enforcement Administration) and some of them actually serving with the DEA. The killing was organised by a Florida-based security firm. The killers were trained by the US Army. As soon as the President of Haiti was murdered, the US called in the Marines and half a million doses of vaccine. Thus, this small rebellion against the Covid empire has been squashed.

Moise was bravely following in the footsteps of four African leaders who also tried to resist Covid rule. Tanzanian President, John Magufuli, a cheeky man, adroitly tested some papaya, a goat, and a sample of engine oil for Covid using WHO-supplied tests, and they all turned out positive. He rejected testing and declared Tanzania Covid-free. Immediately afterwards the London Guardian newspaper (in a section funded by Bill Gates) called for regime change. The US Council on Foreign Relations seconded the call, and presto! The man is dead. It has been persuasively argued that Tanzania was untouched by Covid because the population regularly used an easily available and inexpensive anti-malaria drug and thus the dreaded coronavirus could not sicken them.

Magufuli was preceded by the President of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza, who did not allow WHO envoys into his country and refused to lock down and succumb to mass testing. He promptly died of a heart attack, just like Magufuli. The man who took his place immediately invited the WHO into the country and followed their instructions. Hamed Bakayoko, the Prime Minister of Ivory Coast and Ambrose Dlamini, who was prime minister of Eswatini (Swaziland) also died in suspicious circumstances. The suspicious circumstances around the assassinations are currently being covered up by Reuters fact checkers, who are claiming that “there is no evidence that leaders of Tanzania, Ivory Coast, eSwatini and Burundi were killed for refusing to vaccinate their countries against COVID-19.” I wonder whether if these fact checkers were so cautious about accepting evidence when Reuters was accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or when they claimed that that Putin poisoned Navalny with Novichok.

There is also a Covid component in the recent jailing of former South African President Jacob Zuma. While we are aware of tribal differences in South Africa, and even of Zuma crossing the ‘red line’ by attacking Oppenheimer of de Biers, his record on Covid was not widely publicized. A little research by Paul Bennett reveals the following vignette:

On 05 July 2021, former president Jacob Zuma on Sunday dismissed questions about his supporters gathered outside his home in KwaZulu-Natal without observing Covid-19 regulations. Zuma‚ who has not received a Covid-19 vaccination‚ addressed media personnel at his KwaDakwadunuse home in Nkandla on Sunday night and said he was not responsible for what his supporters did even if their actions were against lockdown regulations. According to Zuma‚ lockdown regulations were no different to the rules imposed on people during the mid-1980s state of emergency enforced by the apartheid regime. “We have a level 4 lockdown with all the hallmarks of a state of emergency and the curfews of the 1980s‚” said Zuma. “The only difference is that we use different levels‚ like contempt of court instead of detention without trial‚ but the substance is exactly the same. Being jailed without trial is no different from detention without trial.” Zuma revealed he had not been vaccinated against Covid-19 despite his age group qualifying for jabs. In what could be viewed as his first sign of disregarding lockdown regulations‚ the former president went out with Amabutho (Zulu regiments) on Saturday to greet supporters while not wearing a mask.

Bear in mind extremely strict anti-covid measures in South Africa, and you will understand their riots as a natural response to lockdown oppression, just like BLM in the US. You are free to reach your own conclusions about the coincidences in the case of Zuma, as with all the other recent regime changes connected to Covid activism.

The mask is a ‘masonic’ sign of support for the Covid Masters. Good guys like Biden wear the mask even when alone, while bad guys like Trump are usually maskless. Lukashenko and Putin are maskless, while the Belarus opposition and Navalny supporters wear masks. In Chile recently, the Left held primaries to pick a united candidate for presidency. The favourite was Daniel Jadua, a grandchild of Palestinian immigrants known for his fierce opposition to Israel. Worse, he fought for affordable medicines and pioneered ‘people’s pharmacies’. In his photos, he does not wear the mask. He was vociferously attacked by Chilean Jews who condemned his (yes!) anti-Semitism. Jadua was defeated, and the happy victors immediately presented their masked faces to the media so that we all might know who is good and who is bad. On some occasions, politicians do both, to err on the safe side. Russian and Iranian foreign ministers obliged mask fans by posing for pictures fully masked with elbows touching, then re-posed themselves for photos that will please ordinary folk, without masks and with a healthy handshake. The mask has evolved into a public declaration that we accept the Covid narrative, in the same way Christians cross their hearts.

The recent riots in Cuba were described as a ‘Covid Uprising’ by WSJ. Cuba indeed has an unusually high number of reported cases, hospitalisation and deaths – for a country with an excellent and free health system. It is rather low for Latin America; Communist Cuba manages very well compared to America’s best ally, anti-Communist Colombia.

Cuba’s problems have not changed since 1960; it is the US sanctions that continue to strangulate this island and its 12-million-strong people. Since 1991, there is no more USSR to relieve its loneliness, to buy its sugar and sell it oil. Putin’s Russia is friendly, but is not willing to quarrel with Washington for Havana’s sake. Venezuela would help, but it is also under US sanctions. Iran would provide it with oil, but the US Navy stops its vessels and steals the oil. Biden, as Trump before him, wants to prove Communism does not work; all they actually prove is that it is very hard for a small country to survive if the US is determined to crush it.

Cuban leaders are neither Covid dissidents nor anti-vaxers. Cuba had already developed its own vaccine and begun to vaccinate people. It was not an easy enterprise, for even the needles needed for injection are under US sanctions. Worse, Cuban efforts to save themselves incited the fury of the US vax party: they want everybody vaxed with US vaccines, and any kind of competition drives them mad. Cubans, as vaccine producers themselves, took Covid very seriously and they laid many restrictions upon the people; the standard new rules we are all now familiar with: lockdowns, masks, social distance. We manage with these impositions by stocking up our pantries and filling up our refrigerators and freezers. The shops are well stocked so we eat well and simply spend more time at home. In Cuba, the houses are small; the people don’t have the means to horde quantities of food. Store shelves are empty; food is scarce as a result of sanctions. In addition, tourism is almost dead now, and this was a major source of income in Cuba. The combination of Covid restrictions and scarce food under sanctions has laid the foundation for some highly publicized riots: encouraged, promoted, directed and managed by the US State Department.

Every second Cuban has a relative in Miami; and red state Florida has no lockdowns and masks. This made Cubans even more upset. The riots were dealt with deftly; the government simply overwhelmed the US funded crowds with its own supporters, converting the anti-Covid demos into pro-Cuban demos. Apparently, the Communist authorities are still sufficiently popular to field great quantities of volunteers. None of this has prevented the global mainstream media from distorting the source of Cuban unhappiness, nor prevents Washington from further interference, but all’s well that ends well, and we remain hopeful.

Phillip Knightley tells us in The First Casualty that between November 1917 and November 1919 the New York Times reported no fewer than ninety one times that the Bolsheviks were about to fall or indeed had already fallen. “Lenin losing control”, “Lenin and Trotsky fled the country”, “The Bolsheviks must fall”. Four times Lenin and Trotsky were reportedly planning flight; three times they had already fled; once Lenin had been killed, and three times he was in prison. Now the New York Times and Wall Street Journal announce daily that the fall of the Havana Communists is imminent.

There is a funny déjà vu. In 1917, a photograph showing Russian troops packed on the roofs of railway carriages on their way home was published under the heading Russian troops hasten to the front.

1917 Troops go home
1917 Troops go home

In 2021, a photo of a huge demo in Havana in support of the Cuban Revolution was published under the heading Cubans rebel against Communist regime. A few days later the heading was quietly corrected.

Cuba 1 Cubans for Revolution
Cuba 1 Cubans for Revolution

The fall of Cuba is not imminent; but the government is caught in a double bind. If they ignore Covid and avoid lockdowns, they won’t be able to sell their vaccine abroad. They won’t be able to receive foreign tourists. If Cuba has even one more death that can be traced to Covid, Washington will claim that the Communists have doomed all Cubans to a horrible death. If Cuba rejects the international Covid cabal, the blockade will only tighten further, for Canada, Spain and France (the countries that send the most tourists to Cuba) are heavy on Covid restrictions. Sweden tried in 2020 to avoid Covid measures and for a while it was almost locked out of Europe.

Cuba cannot afford to cut itself off from the global community. Yet if the Cuban government locks its people down to please the Covid regime, they are likely to cause great dissatisfaction, perhaps leading to more riots. This is exactly what the Covid Masters want, global unrest. Chaos means opportunity, at least for some us. The strain of dealing with the virus is too great for ‘failed or failing states, from Cuba and South Africa to Iran and North Korea’ wrote the Daily Telegraph: “Covid could topple the world’s worst regimes”.

Many states now find themselves in a precarious situation, among them, the UK, where they plan to introduce a vaxx pass to visit nightclubs and a new tax on salt and sugar, but we are still nowhere near the grim predictions of Contagion, the 2011 movie, a hysterical Covid dress rehearsal scripted by the Rockefeller Foundation. In the movie, people die like flies, riot like the BLM in Seattle and eagerly wait for the one and only vaccine to save them. Reality is not that dramatic.

The vaccines are not deadly (despite Luc Montagnier’s claims) nor can they save us. In heavily vaccinated Israel the relentless spread of Covid has not been halted. People get sick and die, some vaccinated, some not. Old people used to die from the flu, now they die of Covid. The “Clot Shot” may be killing us, but it is too early to judge. In a year, we shall know more.

A way to answer it lies in applying the same criteria for the vaccine as for any other disease. People who died within 28 days of having a positive PCR test were declared official Victims of Covid. Let’s say that the Victims of the Vaxx are everyone who died within 28 days of being vaccinated. You will get a lot of casualties by this method. In Scotland, 6000 persons died within 28 days of vaccination, by official statistics. According the the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), over twenty-six thousand people either died, had a life-threatening injury, or were permanently disabled within 30 days of receiving a Covid vaccine:

COVID19 (COVID19 (PFIZER-BIONTECH)) (1200) 17,421 66.97%
COVID19 (COVID19 (MODERNA)) (1201) 7,375 28.35%
COVID19 (COVID19 (JANSSEN)) (1203) 1,398 5.37%

We might at the same time cast doubt on the lethality of Covid itself, since nearly all who died were already suffering from “co-morbidities”. We all know this, and yet the single-minded drive for mass vaccination takes place now all over the world; the prominent people who object, they die in a hail of bullets like Haiti’s President, and not from Covid. The rest of us have no choice but to struggle along under the oppression and legalized discriminations of the global Covid machine.

And now we ‘circle back’ to the point of origin. How does the orchestrated global Covid campaign (formulated by Hollywood and coordinated by ‘exercises’ like Event 201) dovetail with the most popular hypotheses of origin, whether natural or bioweapon, accident or blowback? It does not.

For instance, consider Ron Unz’s theory of Covid being a US bioweapon used to attack China (and Iran) by rogue Deep State agents. It is an excellent theory. It is hugely popular all over the world: even Russian ministers send it to each other. It explains the timing of the MSM’s switch from the natural bat bite narrative to the Fauci-funded lab leak: it only occurred once Iran’s deadly attack was forgotten. But it has one deficiency. Obviously these ‘rogue Deep State agents’ have full access to the mass media, to medical institutions, to armed mercenaries. If they wanted to attack China and Iran, why do they keep bothering people all over the world enforcing vaxx? Aren’t there better ways to wage war?

Whatever theory we consider, all of them presume that Covid is an unprecedented single event, like the Big Bang. Probably it is an aberration caused by theological stress on the act of Creation. God indeed created the World, but He didn’t wash His hands and went home to rest. He keeps the World running. The Big Bang theory is misleading for it presumes that it was enough to jumpstart the world and now it will run under its own power. The world we live in is different. God attends to our world on day-to-day basis, still allowing us free will. So do the evil forces. They keep working, too. Let’s not forget that Covid was preceded by Avian flu, SARS, MERS, Ebola, and Zika, and that Fauci was intimately involved in the AIDS debacle.

We might ‘follow the money’. The people who funded ‘gain of function’ research, meddling with viruses, tweaking diseases to cross the human-animal barrier and apparently spreading them from Wuhan to Qom, these same people are profiting from the corresponding medicines; these same global corporations are benefiting from the mandatory lockdowns and vaccinations. This is now a proven business plan. If they did it once, they can do it again. New varieties of virus will no doubt appear whenever people are no longer afraid of the old stuff. What was an attack on China has become an attack on all humanity, and it stands to reason it was intended that way from the start. Only a conspiracy denier would refuse the force of logic: Wuhan was just the beginning.

So what can we do about it? Try and beat the anxiety. There are forces that want us to be continuously afraid and stressed. They invent or create endless reasons for it. The pandemic is still going on strong, but the media (never at rest like a shark) is already proposing new dangers.

Wobbling’ moon will cause devastating worldwide flooding in 2030s, NASA warns. Coastal cities under threat from ‘rapidly increasing high tide floods’, which could occur in clusters lasting a month or more, say scientists – so claim English media. Wobbling occurs every 18 years; it is a well-known phenomenon, but it does not stop the doomsayers.

And here is even greater news. According to the media, just a few days ago the earth just missed getting fried by a solar flare that would’ve wiped out civilization, as we know it. After lockdown it doesn’t seem like such a bad thing, right? So, let’s hope for the best. Maybe the next one will do the job that misanthropes have been counting on, from Bill Gates to Greta Thunberg. I do hope that will make the control freaks and technocrats finally happy!

When will people realize that these dire predictions of disaster are not only specious but clearly manipulative? Not only are the official threats (esp. Global Thermonuclear War, Global Jihad, Third World War, and now the endless Global Covid Pandemic) hysterically hyped, but also the “unofficial” threats promoted by NASA, the US military and their astroturf armies (Nibiru, Aliens, Moon Wobble, Comets, Asteroids, etc).

End of the World Prognostication is a reliable way to whip up and direct popular opinion. It has been shown time and time again that if a distraction is needed, a good world-ending yarn is compelling water-cooler talk. Our collective memory is short enough so we maintain our sense of impending disaster without noticing the Gaslighting pattern. “We are goldfish in a bowl continuously imprinted with flickering, phantasmal fears,” says Paul Bennett.

And yet, far away from the media din we are surrounded by a beautiful world, full of grace and compassion. We deserve it. Our women could seduce the angels; our men defeated dragons. Our wise old folk argued with Socrates and prayed with Apostles. Every green valley, every river stream, every flower is a gift of God. Enjoy it, and ignore the busy termites who are well paid to keep us hanging on tenterhooks. Death is unavoidable; it is part and parcel of life. The best we can do is to avoid anxiety and enjoy life while it lasts. Let Fauci vaxx Bezos aboard their phallic spaceship. Just let them all fly away never to be seen again.

Written in cooperation with Paul Bennett.

Soul-Searching Science Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:50:10 +0000 I love scientists but they will kill us all, said Jon Stewart on The Late Show with Steven Colbert . Science eased our suffering due to a pandemic that was most likely caused by science, he told the audience. (Here you can find an acerbic response to the show on the Unz Review) Is it true? Do science and the scientists save us or kill us? How far can we trust them? It has become a relevant question for now they are not satisfied to stay in their labs but rather aspire to govern us as Anthony Fauci and his ilk do.

This aspiration emerges from an Open Letter by Nobel Prize laureates and other dignitaries who demand that we cede to them the planetary stewardship the Church had, or claimed to have in the Middle Ages. Such a mind-boggling pronouncement passed without attracting much attention; this says more about the mass media than about the magnitude of the event itself. After all, since the 11th century, nobody has yet claimed to guide the whole of mankind.

The letter, called “Our Planet, Our Future: An Urgent Call for Action,” claims that Science is the new Church of mankind, benevolent and wise. “Science is a global common good on a quest for truth, knowledge, and innovation toward a better life. [We want] to promote a transformation to global sustainability for human prosperity and equity. Global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by half and destruction of nature halted and reversed.” They claim Covid-19 is a “zoonotic disease”, carried by bats and pangolins – the letter was published in the end of April, just before the miraculous U-turn of the scientific consensus on this point. The scientists propose seven principles of governing our lives, and some of them are very far-reaching. Should we accept their recommendations?

To discuss this, I went to one of the leading contemporary scientists, Prof. Roman Zubarev. He is a daring and outspoken man who is not afraid of speaking his mind – a rare quality amongst this rather shy multitude! Roman Zubarev heads a laboratory in the Karolinska Institute, arguably the best scientific institution in Sweden which has been heavily involved with the selection and nomination of Nobel Prize winners. In an impressive first, he formed a living cell from dead matter. He discovered Isotopic Resonance, a phenomenon related to the creation of life.

• • •

ISH: Recently Nobel Prize laureates got together and published “An Urgent Call For Action” to mankind, in the name of science. It seems they want to form a world government, an age-old dream of various visionaries all the way from HG Wells and Shaw up to Schwab and Gates. What do the scientists actually suggest, and should we, mankind, heed their call?

RZ: I was simultaneously puzzled, disturbed, elated and provoked by that call. Usually, when a Nobel Prize winner speaks, it is worth paying attention. Here, a whole company of Nobel laureates and other esteemed experts has crafted a Letter. I have read it multiple times, trying to understand the deeper meaning, hidden underneath what appears to be virtue signaling – calls for all things good and against all things bad. But I wouldn’t think of criticizing them if not for the long-standing tradition of peer review in research. The scientists that crafted and signed the Letter must be well accustomed to relentless critical analysis of their writings by often – but not always – anonymous reviewers. Thus I thought it best to treat the Letter as if it was a research manuscript submitted for publication.

ISH: And what is your verdict?

RZ: The Letter presents a very uneven landscape of some deep thoughts and some apparently rather shallow suggestions.

One particularly striking thought is spread thinly across the Letter. I had to pick up one relevant sentence here and another one there to assemble a complete and coherent message. Here it is: Our world is in danger due to two factors – degrading environment and inequality, and without solving the latter one can’t solve the first.

They talk about global transformation and say that an essential foundation for this transformation is to address destabilizing inequalities in the world. They also quote Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Memorial prize laureate of 2001, who said The only sustainable prosperity is shared prosperity. Of course, Karl Marx has said essentially the same 150 years earlier.

It appears that now the world’s top scientists are calling for a global revolution as Marx did in his time. That appears to be the most logical conclusion one can arrive at after a careful reading of the Letter.

First the Authors admit, to their great credit, that science is not a solution to the world’s greatest problem but rather an essential component of that problem. They say: On aggregate, technological advancements so far have accelerated us down the path toward destabilizing the planet. They also say that scientific progress has led to greater levels of urbanization, and urbanization is exacerbating existing, and creating new, inequities.

Furthermore, to their additional credit they implicitly blame capitalism as a socio-economic system: While all in societies contribute to economic growth, the wealthy in most societies disproportionately take the largest share of this growing wealth. This trend has become more pronounced in recent decades.

When you distill the message, it is pretty clear – if we don’t want to lose the planet, we need to fix it within this decade, and to do that we need to change the global socio-economic system. No amount of scientific advances can be a substitute for such a change, as in capitalism technological achievements can only exacerbate inequality. That’s pretty revolutionary!

ISH: What do they suggest in practical terms?

RZ: Not much. It appears that, as scientists, they are more interested in diagnosing the problem and outlining a generalized solution rather than giving realistic advice.

In a practical sense there is a mixed bag of seven suggestions. The one in Policy is most closely related to the socio-economic system. However, it sounds strange and weak: to complement the current metric of economic success, gross domestic product (GDP), with some kind of measures of true well-being of people and nature.

I am not an economist and maybe this is a great suggestion. But to me it sounds similar to a proposal of merging the US dollar with “likes” in order to create a new world reserve currency. As far as I know, GDP is just a number used in economic reports, and it has little bearing on real-life economic processes, not to mention the structure of the socio-economic system. There are already a number of socio-economic indexes ranking the countries, and it’s unclear why more indexes would solve the inequality problem.

One suggestion in Finance & Business also sounds a bit weak: businesses must recycle more. But then they suggest that economic, environmental, and social externalities should be fairly priced. I remember Brezhnev’s demand, much ridiculed in the former USSR years past his demise in 1982, that “the economy should be economical”. But unlike Brezhnev’s toothless declaration, this one quickly grew teeth in form of the recent EU carbon tax. Unfortunately, these teeth seem to be biting the third-world hand that feeds them.

There are still some other good suggestions. In Education, the Letter calls for teaching in universities of planetary stewardship. That’s nice! I hope that the curriculum includes Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky’s Biosphere published almost a century ago in 1926. It’s about time we thought of our planet as a single system that doesn’t recognize artificial country borders. Of course one has to be careful so as not to create a monstrous and oppressive world government. With countries’ diversity, dissidents can still find refuge somewhere – we can’t risk losing this.

Another good suggestion is found in Businesswe must develop new business models for the free sharing of all scientific knowledge. I couldn’t agree more! Due to the existing copyright situation, university libraries are forced to pay exorbitantly for getting access to the publications that we scientists write and review for free. Researchers that don’t have the privilege of access to well-funded university libraries are asked to pay several dozen dollars to read a single paper that may be just a few pages long.

This is now changing, but the main battle for setting information free is still in the future. A few existing but relentlessly hounded “pirate” web sites offering free downloads of scientific literature have arguably done more to promote science in the less developed world than major Western universities.

The rest of the suggestions in the Letter seem to be full of contradictions and misconceptions. Mission-Driven Innovation, for example, calls for large-scale collaboration between researchers, government, and business, while the Letter admits elsewhere that 100 years of such collaboration has resulted in exacerbation of world’s worst problems.

In Information Technology the suggestion that Societies must urgently act to counter the industrialization of misinformation sounds dangerously close to a call for global censorship of social media. Such a thought should be foreign to any scientist truly adherent to Magna Charta Universitatum’s principle that freedom in research and training is fundamental for university life.

Equally puzzling is the call in Education to teach only scientific consensus. The Authors and Signees must know better than anybody else that scientific consensus is mostly used in science for the so-called “null hypothesis” which must be proven false by every new scientific discovery. And since education and research according to Magna Charta are inseparable, teaching only ‘scientific consensus’ means researching mostly within the null hypothesis. If implemented, this suggestion would likely result in the death of the modern science as we know it and in resurrection of the zombie corpse of scholasticism.

History is often cruel enough to let doctors taste the bitter medicine they prescribe. It’s an old story: two thousand years ago, Li Si institutionalized “five pains” punishments, and was himself subjected to them in due time. Those who cry for the political persecution of dissidents get persecuted themselves; just look at Trotsky. Those who advocate censorship will get censored themselves – the examples are too many to cite. Apparently Nobel prizes are not given for the knowledge of history.

And the history payback can materialize pretty fast. On the official signature date of the Letter, April 29, the ‘scientific consensus’ was that SARS-Cov2 was a natural virus, and the Letter dutifully blamed the Covid-19 pandemic on the destruction of natural habitats, highly networked societies, and misinformation (!). Now the growing consensus among independently-minded scientists and the general public alike is that the virus is a lab creation. Does this emerging consensus mean that the Letter spreads misinformation and has to be banned from social media? A rhetorical question, of course.

ISH: What else caught your attention?

RZ: The meandering strength of the scientific arguments that our world is doomed unless… The Letter talks about the survival of all life on this planet, a pretty high stake, and yet all we can say for sure is that we are 1.2°C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) level. This doesn’t sound too much, especially knowing that half of that value had already been achieved in 1940s, when the CO2 emissions due to human activity were much smaller.

Even the statement that we are experiencing the warmest temperature on Earth since the last ice age some 20,000 years ago doesn’t sound too dangerous – at that time, trees grew above the Arctic Circle.

The Letter also says that we are losing the Earth’s resilience, but environmental resilience is hard to overestimate: in Northern Siberia, for example, average temperatures fluctuated between 46,000 to 12,000 years ago by some 20°C, and yet the living environment remained stable.

The Letter also says that there is a danger of >3°C warming in 80 years, which hasn’t happened for at least 3 million years. But even assuming that this projection is more accurate that the previous failed catastrophe predictions, 50 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than that. Palms growing in the Arctic region and in Antarctica are hardly consistent with the projected death of all life on the planet.

I am not against the notion that the global climate is changing, and it is a plausible hypothesis that human activity is contributing to it. But what worries me is that, when talking about climate change, the Letter doesn’t mention the positive effects of global warming, such as the land productivity increase in the vast northern part of the Northern hemisphere. In general, there seems to have been a shortage of competent ‘pro’ and ‘con’ climate change discussions recently. Hand-waving arguments without reliable and testable computer modeling are not instilling confidence. Disturbingly, discussions of the positive effects of global warming are being banned today in mainstream media.

And even if a thorough analysis will show that the ‘cons ‘prevail, and that human-induced global climate change is bad for humanity, the cure may still be worse than the disease. The Letter says that Global emissions of greenhouse gases need to be cut by half in the decade of 2021-2030. Compare this with the global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic – in 2020 carbon emissions from energy use fell by 6.3%, but the world’s GDP shrunk almost equally, by 5.2%. What impact on the global economy will a 50% reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption have, in view of the economic need for reliable energy sources? The intermittent “renewables” are already maxed out almost everywhere in the developed world, and not much more can be added without making the energy supply unreliable. We have already pushed this green sustainable energy envelope pretty hard, and if the new generation of environmental zealots knows something that the previous one didn’t, they should share this knowledge with the world.

Perhaps it would be more honest to admit that we are experiencing Peak oil, and no matter what we do now and how much a barrel of oil is going to cost, the production of marketable oil will inevitably go down. That has already happened once with conventional oil in the middle of 2000s, but then the American cavalry came to world’s rescue, untapping the shale oil potential. That solution worked for a while, but turned out to be just a temporary fix. Now oil production decline seems inevitable, and according to some projections, it could reach 50% by 2030. If this happens, the Authors’ wishes as well as the EU’s plans to cut carbon emissions by 55% compared with 1990 will be fulfilled automatically.

Or they may not be, because these days one needs to burn a lot of oil to produce some commercial oil. And in the past with Peak oil one needs to burn more and more oil to produce less and less marketable oil. And all that burned oil converts to CO2. That’s probably why such an (ostensibly) ‘environmentally conscious’ country as Canada, instead of decreasing its level CO2 emissions, has increased it by 3% between 2016 and 2019, and since 1990 the increase is over 21%.

Thus it stands to reason that past Peak oil fossil energy production declines may be accompanied with a simultaneous increase in overall CO2 emissions. Worse yet, the artificial reduction of oil consumption is intended to keep oil prices down, but when the cost of extracting a barrel of oil exceeds the market value of that barrel of oil, extraction simply stops. And with that world production of most other goods, including food, will also halt. We will then be reduced to using draft animals for farming and what in some places was euphemistically called nightsoil for fertilizer. That, and not global warming, is the truly nightmarish scenario.

But whether global warming is used as a cover for running out of economic oil or not, the decarbonization problem may just be too complicated to be reliably modeled today. The Letter admits that No one knows for sure what will work. If this is the case, the environmental zealots can only be blamed for over-selling their unreliable projections rather than purposefully wrecking the world economy.

The abrupt drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption, no matter whether it is caused by the physical absence of oil or political prohibition of its usage, will almost certainly wreak havoc on the world’s economy. The EU hopes to insulate itself from that havoc by investing 1.8 trillion Euro into the implementation of its 55% CO2 reduction scheme and related measures. Simultaneously, the already mentioned carbon tariffs are being introduced (carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM). They are ostensibly aimed at leveling the playing field but in reality they are hurting many developing countries, such as Mozambique, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, etc. How does this damage to the third world square with the aim of reducing global inequality? Not much, but some peoples must foot the bill for the Western environmentalists’ dreams, and they appear to be those of the poor countries.

Since the Letter warned that climate change [is] expected to worsen inequality, and inequality is declared to be the root problem, EU actions should make the Authors and Signees furious. How could the EU act on global climate without addressing first the inequality problem, and in fact, risk increasing the global inequality?

The Letter calls for planetary stewardship by the 193 nations that have adopted the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Have all these nations, or at least their majority, approved the EU’s CBAM carbon taxation? If not (and I sincerely doubt they did), there seems to be a major violation of the Letter’s call for collective decision-making.

This could be a litmus test for the Letter’s sincerity. If the Authors and Signees raise their voice scolding the EU for putting the cart before the horse, they will deserve kudos. But if they remain silent or endorse the EU’s course of action – the Letter can be dismissed as mere virtue signaling.

Given the Authors and Signee’s credentials, that would be a big disappointment. But one could probably be forgiven for not holding one’s breath awaiting a satisfying outcome. After all, there are signs in the Letter that the Authors themselves don’t take it very seriously. For instance, the ending is anticlimactic: The long-term potential of humanity depends upon our ability today to value our common future. Ultimately, this means valuing the resilience of societies and the resilience of Earth’s biosphere.

Wait a second! One thought the aim of the Letter was to create a sense of urgency as life’s very survival on Earth was in danger. Instead, one got this?. The danger to our long-term potential is not much of a concern today for most people because first, it’s long term, and second, it’s just potential.

Also, what does it mean – valuing someone’s resilience? Doesn’t it mean – relying on their ability to cope with current challenges? Thus, if we are valuing the resilience of societies and the resilience of Earth’s biosphere, we should just stand down, respectfully relying on their ability to fix the emerging problems on their own. I am confused, but so appear to be the Letter’s authors.

ISH: Rounding up your words, we may conclude: Science is not made to guide people. Science has no morals, no ethics, no feeling of right or wrong. It is a tool, like a tractor. An excellent powerful tractor, but still a tractor. It’s men who decide how to employ tractor – or how to use science. A tractor wouldn’t tell you what to do; neither will Science. Science is not a church, it is not supposed to guide people; people should guide science. People understand what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. Science does not. Whoever speaks in the name of Science is an impostor, like a priest speaking in the name of an idol. With one difference: God can speak to people, maybe, sometimes. Science can’t talk. It has no voice or mind. But this scientist, Prof. Zubarev, has a voice and a mind and we shall turn to him again to discuss Covid-19 and other important themes.

Roman Zubarev was trained (M.Sc.) in Engineering Physics at the Moscow Institute for Engineering Physics, USSR, and received PhD in Ion Physics from the Uppsala University, Sweden, in 1997. After postdoc training with Fred W. McLafferty in Cornell University, USA, he became associate professor of biological mass spectrometry at the Chemistry Department in Odense University, Denmark. In 2002 Dr. Zubarev came back to Uppsala as professor of proteomics. In 2009 he has moved to Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, taking a professorship in medicinal proteomics. Among his scientific achievements, Dr. Zubarev has pioneered electron capture dissociation and related fragmentation techniques, has formulated and verified the Isotopic resonance hypothesis, and developed novel methods of Chemical proteomics. For his contribution to mass spectrometry he has been awarded by the Carl Brunnee award (IMSC, 2006), Biemann medal (ASMS, 2007) and a Gold medal (Russian MS Society, 2013). Dr. Zubarev has published more than 350 peer-reviewed papers, and has several patents

Israel Shamir can be reached at

]]> 0
The Israeli Farce Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:46:59 +0000 The recently inaugurated Israeli government, the Coalition-for-Change, the wet dream of Israeli and American liberals, Biden-approved-and-blessed after fifteen years of Bibi Netanyahu’s tyranny and four rounds of elections in the last two years – barely surviving a vote of confidence in cliffhanger-fashion – 59:59. It came to power on a slim ‘majority’ of 59.5:60.5 in the 120-members-strong Parliament. The delightful story of its almost-fall allows an insight into the inner workings of the Jewish state, for the members were fighting over their captive Gentile population’s right to marry and live in blessed matrimonial conjugation. Practically all Jewish MKs were against this right, but they acrimoniously argued over whether the current limitations were sufficient or should be intensified.

What is it all about? Anton, a young man from Nazareth met a girl, Sophia from nearby Jenin; they fell in love and got married. They are both Palestinians; Nazareth and Jenin are cities in Palestine; but they are not allowed to live together because Nazareth was conquered by the Jews in 1948 and Jenin in 1967. It sounds crazy, but that is Israeli reality.

Israel today is probably the most racist country in the world. The comparisons with South African apartheid or Jim Crow don’t even come close. Israeli racism is not even a distant relative of what you may call ‘racism’ in your country. A ‘racist’ American cherishes the names and traditions of his ancestors, or rejects the affirmative action that discriminates against him. An Israeli Jewish non-racist wants to keep the numbers of Goyim down, and he would be angry if called ‘racist’ because there are other Israeli racists who call for the total expulsion of non-Jews.

Under Israeli law, if an Israeli citizen marries a Palestinian, the young couple cannot live together. In our example, Anton is an Israeli citizen and he has a blue ID; Sophia has no citizenship, despite being a native of the land, and she has an orange ID. They can’t live together in Israel proper, for a Palestinian woman cannot be brought into Israel-48 even if she is the legally wed wife of an Israeli citizen. They can’t live together in the occupied territories of Israel-67 either, for Israel does not allow its citizens to live in the occupied territories unless they live in a racially segregated settlement, and Palestinians aren’t allowed into such a settlement. Thousands of such impossible marriages, mostly between Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian non-citizens of Israel, have taken place despite the prohibition. These married couples break the law every day of their lives, living illegally, without medical care and without the right to work or travel together. They are often stopped by the police and usually spend months in jail. For years they have been demanding the right to ‘family reunion’, government permission to live together legally on a permanent basis, but they aren’t even allowed to apply for it.

Older people perhaps remember how Soviet Jews demanded to be allowed to reunite with their beloved aunt in Tel Aviv, and how the wicked Bolsheviks prevented this. They remember Nobel Prize winners and humanists around the world demanding that the Kremlin let the families be reunited. Perhaps, if you are old enough, you even marched at the Soviet consulate demanding Let My People Go! Well, how can you compare? This is totally different! Then it was for the sake of Jews, and now it is for the sake of Gentiles, and that is not the same.

The law forbidding the reunion of Palestinian families is so revolting to modern sensibilities that Israel came up with a clever way of obscuring it. They call it “temporary” and renew it once a year (and have so since 2003) so they could wring their hands and say, oh, it is only a temporary measure. Other nasty and racist regulations like the Emergency Laws are renewed annually in the same way.

And now they have failed to renew the law, and it has lapsed. Not because they felt this unjust racist law should be removed from their books. No way! The new Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is such a desperate racist that the KKK would ban him as too much of a good thing, and the Proud Boys would call him a Hollywood Nazi. He hates Goyim with all his heart, as all good Lubavitcher disciples do; he boasted that he killed many Arabs in his life; he was angry with Bibi Netanyahu because Bibi didn’t kill enough Arabs in Gaza for his liking. Despite such a background, Bennett was branded ‘traitor” by the nationalist camp, for he came to power by joining forces with the remnants of the once-powerful Left (Labour and Meretz) and a small Arab Islamist party. Now he feels he has to prove his racist credentials; otherwise in the next elections his party Yamina (“Rightwards”) will be decimated by its nationalist voters. The vote on extending the reunion law gave him this opportunity. He wanted to extend the law, but in his zeal he overdid it.

He correctly assessed that the left wing of his unwieldy Coalition for Change, Meretz, would vote against the extension, and so he turned the vote for extension into a vote of confidence, expecting that this tactic would thwart all resistance. With this ‘smart’ decision he kicked his own ass, because the whole opposition mobilised against the renewal. In addition, two Palestinians from the Islamist party abstained and one deputy of his own party crossed the party line.

With a vote of 59:59, the government barely survived the no-confidence vote, and the anti-reunion law’s extension did not pass. And this means that 15,000 Palestinian couples will be able to apply for reunion. And that’s great, because preventing couples from reunion is murder, akin to genocide, as the Talmud rightly says. Now everyone in Israel is looking at each other, confused.

  • Racist Prime Minister Bennett helped the Palestinians reunite, even though he put his government on the line to prevent it.
  • The Israeli left – Meretz and Labour – voted for the racist law, showing that they are only interested in Jewish LGBT rights. Their favourite topic, the right of Jewish gays to use substitute mothers to create children, was much more important for them than the most elementary rights of non-Jews.
  • The Islamist Palestinians voted for the racist law because they did not want to bring down the government. They were eager to join any government, be it with Netanyahu or Bennett or the Devil himself, as they think this is the only way to save Palestinians from losing more homes to Israeli demolitions. They were intimidated into supporting this racist law.
  • The Likud, Netanyahu’s party, as racist as anybody, voted against the racist law against their own beliefs, for they wanted to take advantage of the no-confidence vote and send Bennett packing.
  • The far-far-right and nationalist Religious Zionist Party led by Smotrich torpedoed Netanyahu’s chances to form a government, because it didn’t want to sit in government alongside Islamists. They voted against the racist bill for they want to unseat Bennett, and furthermore they feel the bill is not enough: they want to enshrine in law a permanent ban on Arab citizenship. They proved that racists are too stupid for politics: no government can be formed without the small Islamic party tipping the balance. Netanyahu and Bennett both realised that, but Smotrich’s people are too stubborn for their own good.
  • Only the Communists voted in accordance with their conscience against the racist law. In short, almost all parties (except the Communists) kicked themselves in the groin, and hard!

Let us at least hope that these long-suffering couples can be reunited. “We shall have fifteen thousand applications for citizenship tomorrow”, wailed Ms Ayelet Shaked, the Interior Minister and member of Naftali Bennett’s party. Alas, she is likely to deny these applications, or to let them languish for years. For the very idea of the law, keeping Jews in and Palestinians out, is still the one thing that all the Jewish parties of Israel, left or right, agree upon. Just ahead of the final vote, Foreign Minister and alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid tweeted this:

There’s no need to hide from the purpose of the law. It’s one of the tools meant to secure a Jewish majority in Israel. Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and our goal is that it will have a Jewish majority.

Americans and Europeans are not allowed to harbour such sentiments. When the Italian prime minister tried to stop the massive illegal immigration of Africans, he was called ‘Nazi’, sued for ‘kidnapping’ (actually, stopping transgressors) and lost his job. In the US, Americans are obliged to welcome illegals. Jews are on the frontlines fighting for population displacement in Europe and the US, while their brethren in Israel are going the opposite way.

A similar process is taking place now in Poland, where the government is trying to impose a 30-year statute of limitations for claims of property. Yair Lapid demanded that the Poles refrain from such a step until the last house has been returned to the Jews. So Poles are not entitled to the same consideration Lapid allows Jews in Israel. Before WW2, Jews owned an immense amount of real estate in Poland. Some of the property was lost during the war, other properties were nationalised by the post-war Communist government. Now, Israel and the US are demanding that Poland restore all Jewish property to the heirs of the previous owners; and in their absence, it must be handed over to the ‘Jewish Community’. Israel and the US are angry about Poland’s 30-year statute of limitations. Jewish rights must be preserved forever. But if a Palestinian’s house was taken over by Jews after 1948, his house has become Jewish forever. There is no way to return it to the previous Gentile owner. This is the law of the Jewish state, and the US is happy with it. The laws for Jews and Gentiles are completely different, even within the great American Empire.

This difference is felt strongly in Belarus, the state that suffered the greatest losses in WW2. 25% of its population perished during the war. While Jews received billions in reparations from Germany, Belarus got only sanctions. These sanctions continue to suffocate this small (10 million population) North European state. The West has banned flights to and from Belarus; its exports and imports are blocked in an effort to collapse its economy and buy on the cheap its industry and resources. Speaking on their National Day, Lukashenko said, referring to the actions of Nazi Germany during WW2, that there had been a “Holocaust of the Belarusian people”. But who counts Gentiles? “We didn’t want to offend anyone and so we came to be insulted; while the Jews have succeeded in bringing the whole world to its knees before them and no one will dare to raise their voice and deny their Holocaust”. It is hard to argue against President Lukashenko, while at the same time US President Biden actually kneels before the Israeli president.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

]]> 0