Articles – Israel Shamir Ideas that will Derail the descent to Barbarity Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:35:31 +0000 en hourly 1 Pittsburgh: Advice to Jews Fri, 02 Nov 2018 19:33:42 +0000 I was hesitant to write on the subject while the Pittsburgh dead weren’t buried yet. I know, it is not a valid consideration for the militant pundits. The US Jews accused President Trump and the Israeli Jews blamed Palestinians for the shooting as on the cue before the victims were declared dead. However, you can’t talk sense before the dead are laid to rest. Now we can deliberate on guilt and blame.

The man who killed eleven Jews in Pittsburgh did it to have his objection to immigration heard. If he would be allowed to say that on his page in Facebook, instead of being blocked, these old people would still be alive. If the New York Times would allow anti-immigration feelings to be expressed and discussed on paper instead of being delegitimised, these old people would be still alive. The closing of all but ultra-liberal outlets for opinion expression had created a powerful pent-up pressure that caused the already unhinged man to go crazy.

If there are no newspapers, no public TV stations, not even a post in Facebook to say what you are eager to say, sooner or later guns will do the talking. Surely the guys who organised this massive silencing and censorship campaign are smart enough to expect exactly this outcome. They aren’t entitled to act surprised.

The US has never had a mass shooting of Jews until now, but the US has never had such an effective silencing campaign with at least half of its population including the President banned from sharing their marginalised views. It is elementary physics, the pent-up pressure leads to explosion. Problems should be discussed and feelings vented, otherwise people will die.

armedJewsPresident Trump, a simple soul, said the Jews had to defend themselves and install armed guards. Jews have enough armed guards. There is an Israeli-established institution that trains and arms Jews for the Jewish organisation in Pennsylvania. The US Jews have enough of everything, and a lot of power, but they are short of responsibility. Irresponsible power breeds hubris, while hubris leads to nemesis in the shape of a man with a rifle.

Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, Jews prefer to deny it. At a demo confronting President Trump upon his arrival to Pittsburgh, they flatly denied their actions in favour of immigration. The gunman, they said, “believed anti-semitic lies that Jews were funding the caravan.” At the same time, before the victims were buried, the Jewish organisations, such as HIAS, swore they will continue to deliver immigrants to the unwilling country, even if it is against the law. They defied the law by hiding illegals and protecting the smugglers. This readiness to break or bend the law is a dangerous feature for a powerful but rather small elite group. They should stick to the law with both hands, instead of setting an example of embracing illegality.

Indeed some ethical considerations could be placed above the law, but not with such abandon, not with such ease. Antigone broke the law and buried her brother, but she was not surprised to die for this transgression. These guys break the law and expect to be lauded for that.

Why American Jews support immigration, while Israeli Jews do not allow Gentiles to immigrate into the Jewish state? Double standards, you’d say. They do to you what they do not want to be done to them. – Not exactly. The Jews consider themselves a unique exterritorial community, while other nations are territorial. In the much-loved New Year prayer, the Jews praise Almighty for “He didn’t make us as the Nations of the Lands, the Families of the Earth” (עלינולשבחשלאעשנו כגוייהארצות ולאשמנוכמשפחותהאדמה).

In the Jewish view, the difference between [non-Jewish] territorial nations is of slight importance in comparison with the existential distinction between Jews and the nations of the lands. For this reason, Jews aren’t ‘racists’ – they do not think one race is preferable to another. Excepting Jews, for sure, who are a totally different story. As all Gentiles are quite the same for Jews, preferences (aka racism) of a Gentile are silly and meaningless, in the Jewish eyes.

Iroquois may consider themselves totally different from Huron or Blackfoot, but for the Europeans, all of them are Red Indians. Likewise, for Jews all Gentiles are quite the same.

Though this beautiful Jewish non-racism of being above races is based on theological grounds, it has economic consequences. Jewish economics is a miraculous magic of turning anybody’s blood and sweat into gold, and this magic works fine with whites, blacks and Latinos. Jews were traditionally into money, and the money of the black is of the same colour as the money of the white. The black and the white pay the same rent for the apartment the Jew lets them. The Mexican and the German pay the same commission to the Jewish bank.

Jews are exterritorial, in contra-distinction to the rest of humanity, to the Nations of the Lands. Israel is a brave [British?] experiment to ‘range Jews’ (in the words of Halford Mackinder), and indeed settled territorial Jews of Israel behave like all settled nations: they understand the difference between tribes and object to immigration. The US Jews still act as exterritorial Jews: they approve of immigration as it enlarges the pool of available customers. This is fine; such views are legitimate; Jews always embrace them. What is not so fine, that they tend to delegitimise the regular view of territorial nations.

If there is a lesson to Jews to be learned from Pittsburgh shooting it is “you should act responsible”. The Jews took control over a valuable public resource, that is the US mass media, and use it for their advantage with childish abandon. This is irresponsible. They should allow other views to be published and discussed without being marginalised and delegitimised.

Whenever people complain about Jewish behaviour, the Jews usually answer with the accusation of antisemitism, a mysterious and eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. This is too easy. The second lesson is “be more critical to yourself”. If your child comes home and complains about being bullied, you should ask him in what way his behaviour contributed to it. Bullying is surely bad, but the victim contribution should be discussed and taken care of.

Alas, in the modern paradigm it is not encouraged. There is a veritable taboo on dealing with victim contribution, whether it is the sexual misconduct or immigration argument. While unreservedly condemning the criminal action, we should also help victim by discussing his or her contribution.

If you want to eliminate negative feelings towards Jews, you should listen to complaints. If people complain about Jewish landlords or Jewish bankers, there is a easy way for a Jew, that is to retort “It is an old antisemitic canard” and a hard way: don’t be a landlord, don’t be a banker, eat your bread by the sweat of your brow, behave towards your non-Jewish neighbour in the same way you want him to relate to you. Take a position for regulation of banks and landlords. Do not allow them to skin people, for they will blame Jews.

Do not use your Jewishness as a spade to dig with. If you want to help refugees, or promote free trade or gay marriages, do not say “I do it because of my Jewish principles”, for it is silly. If you want President Trump to be impeached or re-elected, do not call for it “as a Jew”, do it as an American. Leave Jewishness for your Sabbath.

The victims weren’t connected with the immigration issue at all. There is no possible justification for the murder. But the sick head of the murderer accepted as positive truth silly claims of the immigration activists that they act as Jews and for the Jewish cause. They should be more cautious and more responsible before they claim acting for the whole body of American Jews.

Be honest and avoid weasel words. If you support affirmative action for blacks and Latinos, demand the Jews to be counted as a separate group. At present, the affirmative action is fuelled at sole expense of the white Gentiles, while the Jewish students still have their seats at the Ivy League secured, as Ron Unz proved.

If you support immigration of labourers, demand recognition of their learning certificates. If you are a physician, demand immediate acceptance and unlimited entry of foreign doctors. If you are a lawyer, ditto. It is unfair that immigrants you invite and bless can’t compete with you.

If you don’t do it, show your understanding of people who had suffered because of immigration and positive discrimination, instead of calling them ‘racists’. This is called for by the Jewish law saying ענייעירךקודמים, the poor of your town should be attended before the poor of other towns. Usually Jews think it refers only to poor Jews, but you may count it in a more general way.

Some Pittsburgh mourners wrapped up in Israeli flags. This is not appropriate. The Squirrel Hill Jews didn’t come under fire because of Israel, though Israeli government ministers were pleased to use the occasion to do their shtick and call for aliyah and for eternal hatred to Arabs and Muslims (unless they are called Mohammed bin Salman, live in Riyadh and want to fight Iranians). Israeli Jews have their own reckoning; their treatment of Gaza will bring retribution on their heads yet. The US Jews will do wise if they would not undersign this huge and growing debt.

Their own debt caused by irresponsible behaviour should be taken care of. And that can be done by paying heed to complaints of their fellow-citizens.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Cloak and Dagger Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:16:32 +0000 Russian intelligence operations have taken a heavy hit recently. It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean battle.

The external, visible signs of the hit are less than mind-boggling. A group of Russian diplomats had been detained and deported after an attempt to learn what is cooking in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). It had been claimed they were members of a GRU squad caught in flagrante while accessing Wi-Fi network; not exactly red-hand assassination stuff. The Russians denied even that; however, the claim is not specially damaging.

In a different development, two (separate but interacting) fronts for Western intelligence, Bellingcat and The Insider, claimed they have discovered the real identities of the two Russians accused by the Brits of involvement in the weird case of the alleged Skripal poisoning.

None of these achievements is important by itself. It makes sense for the Russians to make an effort and discover what is planned against them in the OPCW of which they are members. The Russian officials complained that the Western members excluded them from their deliberations and did not share their data, thus defeating the very reason for the OPCW’s existence. This is connected with the alleged Syrian chemical attacks and with the Skripal case, where the best Russian defence against ungrounded accusations came from clandestinely obtained sources.

If the OPCW would function as it should by its charter, the Russians would be notified officially that the Swiss lab had established that the samples proffered by the British as taken from Salisbury, could not be produced in Russia. But the Swiss played coy, and the Russians had to steal the very product they were entitled to by right. The OPCW did not reveal on its own initiative that the samples from Syria weren’t obtained by the OPCW officials in Syria, but passed through the unverifiable chain of the White Helmets network. Nor did it reveal that the chemical weapons seized in Douma had been made in England, in Salisbury.

If the Russian intelligence wouldn’t try and snoop in the OPCW labs and discussions they would be rightly accused by their superiors of wasting their budget and not earning their salaries.

Ditto discovering the identities of Salisbury agents. There is nothing that connected the two men with Skripal, or with alleged poisoning. There is not a single frame of endless CCTV videos that shows them near Skripal’s house. Even by the British version, they could not possibly cause harm to Mr Skripal as he had left his home before their arrival to the vicinity and didn’t come back at all.

And anyway nobody has had access to Mr and Miss Skripal since the alleged poisoning excepting for a call Miss Skripal had made to her aunt in Russia that practically debunked the official British story. If she had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.

If we want to find out who could poison Mr and Miss Skripal, we may ask the Brits a simple question, they know the answer to: who took the picture of them in the restaurant just a few minutes before they fell ill? Who did they dine with? Why did they turn off their phones for this meeting? Could it be connected with the D-notice (UK government prohibition to publish certain material) issued regarding a certain Mr Pablo Miller, Sergei Skripal’s former MI6 handler and a dweller of Salisbury?

The UK government is reticent about the involvement of Mr Skripal in the production of the Golden Rain dossier on Trump by the ex-spy Mr Christopher Steele of Orbis Intelligence, though it may explain some mysterious points of the story. That would justify the interest of American and Russian intelligence in Salisbury.

However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian jail.

Likewise, the Netherlands story of Russian hacking connected with the Dutch commission investigating the tragedy of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 sounds realistic. The commission refused Russians access to its findings; this unfair dealing would force any intelligence service in the world to try and learn what had been found.

Not that it was of any use. The Dutch commission indeed found out the numbers of the missile that destroyed the jet; the Russians went through their documents and proved that this particular missile had been delivered to the Ukraine (when it was a Soviet republic) and remained there. A scoop! Now we know what happened with the jet – it was destroyed by the Ukrainians, presumably by mistake, like they downed another Russian airliner. However, the Western media ignored this scoop altogether. They decided to blame the crash on the Russians, and so they did to the end. Even if Russian intelligence were to find and deliver to the Hague the Ukrainian soldiers who operated the missile launcher, the Dutch, as loyal NATO members, would look other way.

This already happened regarding Syrian chemical attacks – the Russians and the Syrians delivered the very kids who unwillingly participated in the White Helmets’ staged and filmed ‘attack, directly to the OPCW. It was of no use. These guys are not after truth, they are just repeating the narrative they learned by rote.

Still, Russian intelligence worth of its name would be expected to try and obtain maximum findings in order to help the government to clear Russia’s name of unjust accusations. There revelations of Russian activity weren’t particularly dangerous or vicious. But while this subject had been discussed, a very painful and distressing development had been revealed.

The Western intelligence services have achieved incredible knowledge of whatever happens in Russia. They have obtained extensive databases of Russian everyday life from traffic violations and fines to passport scans, from residence registration to taxi requests, from messenger chats to emails, allowing them to trace persons and events in Russia with uncanny precision.

Many databases had been stolen and sold by small-time crooks; Western intelligences had made a concentrated effort to buy whatever is available on the black market; some bases were stolen and sold for crypto-currencies on the deep internet.

The most valuable databases had been sold by the crooks and/or traitors, while the Information Security Centre of FSB (ЦИБ ФСБ) led by colonel Sergei Mikhailov who is now being tried for the high treason, did nothing to stop the leak.

It appears that by cross-checking a Russian passport, the Western services can find the passport holders with a deficient or faulty tracking history, insufficiently legended, in the trade talk, who are likely to be members of secret services. People have history, while agents have legends; if these legends are faulty, they are traceable. It refers only to low-level agents, to the operatives of not-very-high-class, who are likely to travel West with this sort of documents. High-class agents have a full legend, that is complete personal (probably fictitious) history, and they probably use foreign passports.

By monitoring messengers, the Western services could discover people who had sent or received messages congratulating them with the traditional Day of the KGB operative. This is very common even in Facebook, though it is usually done by retired agents or people who had casual connection to the secret services.

Much of this debacle can be learned through Pavel Vrublevsky, a prominent internet operator and businessman (he created Chronopay, the Russian system for online payments) who had been described as ‘cybercriminal No. 1 in the world” by an American expert, Brian Krebs of the Spam Nation fame. Vrublevsky was accused by Colonel Mikhailov of breaking internet security and had been sentenced for two years of imprisonment but released from jail when his archenemy Mikhailov had been charged with treason. Vrublevsky denied Krebs’ accusations. In his view, Krebs works for a Western secret service, and he helped the traitor Mikhailov. I have no idea whether it is true or not; however, Vrublevsky is free while Mikhailov is in jail. Pavel Vrublevsky gave me his explanation of the recent developments in the Russian services especially for

Russia is unique by its lax internet security and confidentiality rules and practices. For years, all the databases of Russia have been stolen and sold, while ISC FSB did nothing (or little) to fight it. Vrublevsky thinks the FSB had been misled by the Western services and concentrated its efforts on fighting viruses, worms and Trojans, while it was a money-and-time-wasting enterprise. The stolen databases allowed the West to get almost an complete picture of lower-level Russian spies.

Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.

Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal’s return. As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a ‘poisoning’ of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.

There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was.

However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.

Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff to the enemy.

That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks, explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin’s plan misfired.

The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre’s novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover. Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy’s eyes.

But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched. Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a formidable task.

There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we’ll go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent threats, this end of the world is quite possible.

]]> 0
Red ZOG Wed, 03 Oct 2018 05:58:48 +0000 This is a discussion of some issues raised in a previous article by Ron Unz:

Back in those late Cold War days, the death toll of innocent civilians from the Bolshevik Revolution and the first two decades of the Soviet Regime was generally reckoned at running well into the tens of millions… I’ve heard that these numbers have been substantially revised downwards to perhaps as little as twenty million or so, but no matter. Although determined Soviet apologists may dispute such very large figures, they have always been part of the standard narrative history taught within the West.

Meanwhile, all historians know perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish… a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government, an estimate fully consistent with the contemporaneous claims of Winston ChurchillTimes of Londoncorrespondent Robert Wilton, and the officers of … Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime.

The Gulag

“I was given a full access to all archives, I learned everything there is about Stalin’s victims, and I prepared a complete report. However, I decided to save it for some future time. If I were to publish it, [I’d probably lose my job, there will be no more grants], my friends would drop me like a hot potato, I’d remain alone, and nobody will believe me anyway”.

This frank admission had been made in 2012 by the high authority on Communist era repressions, the founder and the chairman of the Memorial, a Russian anti-Communist NGO, Dr Arseny Roginsky. (He recently had died and had been lamentedby his American supporters.) The Memorial is a designated foreign agent, in receipt of generous aid from the State Department and George Soros Foundation, and the chairman Dr Roginsky was a life-long enemy of the Soviets, a person not likely to err in the Reds’ favour.

What was this terrible truth that Dr Roginsky decided to hide? “According to my calculations, – he wrote, – in the entire Soviet period from 1918 to 1987, according to the surviving documents, it turned out that 7 million 100 thousand people were arrested by the state security agencies (the Russian equivalent of the FBI) across the country. And that includes those arrested for banditry, smuggling, counterfeiting. And for many other criminal offences.”

Before you say that seven million is also quite a lot, bear in mind that just last (2017) year, in the peacetime USA, over ten million persons had been arrested, admittedly not only by the FBI, as I couldn’t find their statistics. The Russian numbers relate to seventy years of rebellions, civil wars, the world war, cold war and over vast territory embracing the Ukraine, Central Asia, Transcaucasia, Baltic states and Russia proper.

Among those arrested by state security there were tens of thousands of Bandera fighters, far-right Ukrainian nationalists, who had fought on Nazi Germany’s side in the world war and had continued their fight well into nineteen-fifties. Over one hundred thousand of them were arrested and over 150 thousand were killed in action, here are details in Russian. The state security fought against and arrested numerous Islamic insurgents in Central Asia and in Caucasus mountains, the predecessors of al Qaeda and ISIS. The US Secret services supplied and armed the Baltic and Ukrainian rebels, while the Brits supplied the Islamic ones.

Despite these enormous difficulties, the Russian FBI (State Security) had arrested only seven million persons for seventy years; the majority of the arrested were common criminals or rebels, said Dr Roginsky and continued:

“Here is the final figure of 7 million for the whole Soviet period. What should I do with this research? The public opinion says there were 12 million arrested only for 1937-1939. I belong to this society, I live among these people, I am a part of them. I knew for sure that, first, they would not believe me. And, secondly, it would mean that everything that we were told about the figures until now is untrue. And I put all my calculations aside. For a long time. And there was no right time yet”.

The Russian (as well as the Western) public had been taught very different numbers. 40 million were killed by Stalin, said Roy Medvedev, a noted dissident; 80 million, said Antonov-Ovseenko; 100 million, said the grey cardinal of Perestroika, a close associate of Gorbachev, A. Yakovlev, and his opinion was especially important, for it was introduced as the ‘full truth and nothing but truth’ in the critical years 1987-1991. This number included “children that weren’t born, but could be born”, he added in sotto voce, learning probably from pro-life calculations of millions killed in abortion clinics. He was anyway overtaken by the assassinated opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, who counted (in 2003) 150 million of Stalin’s victims, quite a lot for a country of 200 million!

After that, 7 million sounds quite a pedestrian number. Real numbers are even lower. Two best and most reliable documents regarding numbers of imprisoned and killed in Stalin’s days are (1) The Attorney General et al report to Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, saying 2.5 million were imprisoned for all Soviet period, and 600 thousand sentenced to death, and (2) Dr Victor Zemskov painstaking research, well known for its thoroughness. Zemskov had studied activities of the state security bodies from 1921 to 1954, and he discovered that in this period 650 thousand persons have been sentenced to death (not all of them were actually executed) and 2.3 million were sentenced to prison terms. That’s for 33 difficult years of Stalin’s rule. That’s all, folks.

Zemskov also provided numbers for each year. In the terrible 1937, there were 1,2 million prisoners in GULAG. Compare it with the US: in 2013, – 2,2 million adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails. About 1% of adults in the U.S. resident population, 0.8% for the USSR. Additionally, in the US 4,75 million were on probation or on parole, says Wikipedia. There were fewer prisoners in Gulag than in American penitentiary system. For more careful comparison see here.

So much for the claims about terrible bloodiness of Russian history and of the Bolshevik rule! In the Soviet days, Russian population had grown at steady average 0.60% per annum, double of that in the UK and France, and much more than in post-Soviet Russia. Russian Empire entered the WWI with 160 million population; the USSR had 210 million in 1959, impossible figures if you accept the multimillion figures of Stalin’s repression.

If it is so, why does “the standard narrative history taught within the West” uses those huge numbers? The main reason is fear of communism, a very reasonable and justifiable (for rich guys) fear of losing their millions and billions. It makes sense for them to spend some of their capital persuading you that Communism is bad for you, while it is only bad for them. They lied so much and so efficiently that they convinced everybody. Even a poor American or Englishman is afraid of Communism, for the Communists will take all he has including his wife and kids, and they will send him directly to GULAG.

A few days ago, President Trump said at the UN: “Virtually everywhere, socialism or communism has been tried. It has produced suffering, corruption, and decay. Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone.” The nations of the world had laughed. Trump’s dislike of socialism is a good recommendation for it. In the same speech, he lauded two exemplary countries, Israel and Saudi Arabia. They are good for him and bad for us. ‘Socialism or communism’ are awful – for billionaires like Trump. They are wonderful for ordinary people.

The problem is, Trump and other rich guys are not going to allow you to have socialism. That’s why, after this tirade, Trump continued: “Today, we are announcing additional sanctions against [Venezuela’s] repressive regime, targeting Maduro’s inner circle and close advisers.” If you want to have socialism, you’ll get US sanctions, interventions, blockade, war. They will try to make you miserable, so you’ll regret the moment you chose socialism.

The people of Korea and Vietnam chose socialism, and the US attacked these countries and destroyed and killed millions, so even if they win, they will inherit a scorched earth and a destroyed economy. Russia was the first on the road to socialism; miraculously she made it, and she sacrificed herself in order to allow other nations to have socialism, too. Even non-socialist states like the US were forced to let their workers to get some benefits the workers of socialist states had.

American workers had miserable lives before Russia broke the way to socialism in 1917; they had it rather good while Russia was socialist; and they reverted to misery in 1991, when socialism was dismantled in Russia. All the achievements of Russian socialism – 8-hour working day, pensions, health care, protected tenancy, paid holidays, annual leave, no arbitrary sackings, – were adopted in Europe, and now are on their way out, because the rich guys won.

Naturally they lie about socialism because they do not want you to have it, or even to dream of it. This is something you should remember and memorise whenever you hear another dreadful story about the Bolsheviks.

Jews and Bolsheviks

The story of Jewish-made Bolshevik revolution (my esteemed friend Ron Unz enlarged on it in his recent pieces here and here) is another frightful story out of this arsenal of fear. A sincere and diligent researcher, Ron Unz uncovered this old hat while digging for forgotten truths. Surprise: not only truth is being hidden and forgotten; fake news are being buried by sands of time, too. This particular fib had been invented in 1920s; it was popular in 1930s; it had been forgotten to such an extent that nowadays the Communists are supposed to be antisemites in modern discourse. Here you can find a text by one Jew being angry at another Jew for undercounting Bolsheviks’ antisemitism. In 1994, Jewish author Arkady Vaksberg wrote a book entitled Stalin Against the Jews. Its fundamental thesis is that Stalin was a fanatical anti-Semite. Louis Rapoport’s Stalin’s War Against the Jews reflects the same theme. But this Jewish fantasy of Reds against Jews has its symmetric partner in the fantasy or Jews controlling the Reds. Both are false.

Did Jews join the Bolshevik party? Many did, though more Jews supported the Provisional Government of Mr Alexander Kerensky, the enemy of Bolsheviks. The Prime Minister Kerensky had an established record of supporting the Jewish causes; his government granted them full equality. The Provisional Government had appointed Jewish representatives to prominent positions from governorships to Mayors of the two Russian capitals and to the Head of the Government Office.

The main appeal of the Bolsheviks to the Russian masses: an immediate end of the War, nationalisation of factories and agrarian reform were of little importance or attraction for the Jews. The Bolsheviks’ victory was in doubt, at best, or almost improbable, so career-minded Jews didn’t rush under the Red banners.

And still, many did, for Jews are active people, and many of them supported the revolution for the best of reasons. Communism is Christianity minus God; secularised Christianity, in learned words. Better Jews are immensely attracted to Christianity, attracted to and scared of, for they are conditioned to reject Christ. Communism was a way out for them, a way to unite with people avoiding the scaring (for them) name of Christ. And neoliberal capitalism is Judaism minus God, secularised Judaism, so the worse type of Jews are being attracted by neoliberalism. Karl Marx said that [neoliberal] capitalism is weekday religion of a Jew, while Judaism is the religion of Sabbath. Capitalism Judaises the Christians, while Communism Christianised the Jews.

In the long run, it didn’t work well, for you can’t avoid God forever; He reasserts His position. But then, it was not clear, and many Russian Jews joined revolution for a good reason.

Others joined the Revolution for not-so-noble reason, seeking adventure, looking for power or just for change. It is more useful to ponder why the Revolution took them on board. Jews had no sentiments about the Old Regime, and they had little compassion for ordinary Russians. Together with the Letts, they were the mainstay of State Security: they were literate, honest, not-too-compassionate. For revolution (or any large enterprise) to succeed, you need ruthless, smart and devoted people. Jews did well as organisers, too.

They never were the leading force of the Revolution. Is it true (as Putin said and Ron Unz quoted) that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government? No, it is not.

Here is a photo of the first Soviet government. There are 15 ministers, their ethnic origin is clearly stated. There is just one Jew – Leon Trotsky.

In 1918, a coalition government of Bolsheviks and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries was formed. You can read the full list here in Russian – there are two Jews, both from the LSR party.

If you want to become an expert, you can learn the names of all Soviet ministers from October 1917 to the end of nineteen twenties, each name is accompanied by dates of his staying in the office and by his ethnic origin. There are 62 names of most powerful Bolsheviks, among them there were 7 Jews.

Why, then, did Putin say that? Putin said that in order to get Jews off his back when they demanded a Jewish library presently in Moscow to be transferred to Brooklyn. Putin had meant that the Jews in the first Soviet government had their reasons to nationalise the library, and he does not intend to revert their decision and give it away to American Jews. It was a smart answer, factually wrong, but very convincing and flattering for Jews, as Putin-the-lawyer (by his background) would give.

So much for “reports of the overwhelmingly Jewish leadership of the Russian Bolsheviks”, as Ron Unz writes. Perhaps these reports weren’t “bigotry and paranoia”, but they were certainly grossly exaggerated in order to undermine legitimacy of the Bolsheviks. Some people view Jews with suspicion; political manipulators are aware of it, and they claim that a person they fight with is a Jew. A brief internet search will “prove” for you that Stalin and Hitler, Yeltsin and Putin, Clinton and Trump are Jews. This is true about political forces. Calling a party being under Jewish control is a sure-fire way to limit its attraction to some extent.

The anti-communists invented ZOG long before this term was applied (with better justification) to the US. It’s Mensheviks, the opposition to Bolsheviks, where the Jews were indeed numerous; and rude Stalin once suggested in jest that a good pogrom would remove the Mensheviks from the Party. In the most decisive months April to November 1917, there were very few Jews in the Party leadership, and none of them had any access to the Party’s financial affairs.

“The heavy financial support of the Bolsheviks by Jewish international bankers” is also a myth. Ron Unz discovered an old red herring of the Jewish banker Schiff funding the Bolshevik cause.

Unz had read and quoted Kenneth D. Ackerman’s 2016 book Trotsky in New York, 1917. Indeed Ackerman says that a leaked U.S. Military Intelligence report of the period, called Judaism and Bolshevism “directly made that astonishing claim”, but he also dismantles this claim.

The US MI report had been authored by Boris Brasol, the former Russian official who had prosecuted the 1913 Mendel Beilis ritual murder case in Kiev. In the US, he had become chief promoter of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, hardly an impartial observer. More to the point, his report was not based on intelligence research of any sort. The Russian émigré had no access to Bolsheviks neither to Schiff, and his claim that Schiff paid ten thousand dollars (not twenty million) to Trotsky hadn’t been substantiated.

Ackerman continues: “When Lenin and Trotsky seized power for themselves in November 1917, Schiff immediately rejected them, cut off further loans, started funding anti-Bolshevist groups, and even demanded that the Bolsheviks pay back some of the money he’d loaned Kerensky”.

While Schiff didn’t finance Trotsky, the future War Commissar (Minister of Defence) had some important Western backing. Not by the Jews, but by the Brits who used Trotsky to sabotage Bolshevik plans for separate peace with Germany. It was considered that Lenin and his people were allowed by German HQ to return to Russia in April 1917 for they constituted a pro-German faction of the Russian Social-Democrats. Trotsky and his people, on the other hand, were allowed by the Canadians, British and Americans to proceed to Russia for they were a pro-Anglo-American faction. Indeed Lenin called for immediate cease-fire and separate peace treaty with Germany, while Trotsky proposed “no war, no peace” formula and tried to disrupt negotiations with Germany, with some success.

The story of German financing was running heavy, and it was discussed and argued pro and contra for a long time. The version of Jewish financial support for the Bolsheviks had been marginal in the years following the Russian Revolution, while the contemporaries had some first-hand knowledge of events. Now, with the old generation gone, there is a time old fakes can find a new life.

Ron Unz is not alone here. In 2017, the anti-Communist Russian media also played with the idea of Jewish financial support for the Reds as the defining force behind the revolution. They could not find any evidence re Schiff, and they preferred to personify this corrupt Jewish influence in the figure of Alexander Parvus aka Israel Gelfand. Parvus is the main protagonist of Solzhenitsyn’s Lenin in Zurich, where he appears like a Mephistopheles to Lenin’s Faust.

Parvus, an adventurer and a revolutionary with an eye for profit, indeed tried to keep in touch with Lenin whom he considered, correctly, the strongest strategist of revolutionary movement. Lenin was unwilling to play ball with him, and refused to meet him when Parvus came to revolutionary Russia.

Jewish money rule the world, this is a very popular idea among Jews. Theodor Herzl, and before him, Benjamin Disraeli wrote of “terrible power of Jewish money”. Nowadays, such wealthy Jews as George Soros and Sheldon Adelson are proud of their influence upon the US politics. They surely have influence, but I doubt anybody considers this influence is a decisive and defining one. Both failed at their enterprises, Soros had been kicked out of every East European state (including Russia), Adelson preferred Marco Rubio, but Trump won anyway. In short, Jewish money can influence events, can improve the lot of politicians, scribes, media lords, but can’t define our future. Otherwise, we’d live already in the world-wide Gaza Strip. Jews are powerful, but omnipotent they aren’t.

Russian revolution had been made by Russian people, inclusive of Russian Jews, Russian Letts, Russian Poles, Russian Ukrainians, Russian Georgians and other ethnic groups. It was such a great event that it still scares the rich guys, and they still try to explain it away and convince you and themselves that Lenin won’t come back.

Ron Unz is doing an important and beneficial job for American public, as he reveals deceit in the core of the dominant narrative. Some deceits are laying too deep for him to uncover right away. Deceptions surrounding socialism lie deeper than Holocaust stories or JFK assassination. Still I hope this sincere man will keep on digging until the truth will come out.

Appendix A

Кроме большевиков в правительство входили эсеры. Слева направо:

1.Исаак Штейнберг — член партии левых эсеров. Народный комиссар юстиции с декабря 1917 г. по март 1918 г. Национальность – ЕВРЕЙ. Купеческого сословия.

2.Иван Скворцов-Степанов – настоящая фамилия Скворцов, литературный псевдоним — И. Степанов. Член партии большевиков. Народный комиссар финансов. Крестьянского сословия. Национальность – РУССКИЙ.

3.Борис Камков – член партии левых эсеров. Сын земского врача. ЕВРЕЙ.

4.Владимир Бонч-Бруевич – член партии большевиков. Управляющий делами Совета Народных Комиссаров. Национальность – ПОЛЯК. Происхождение – дворянин.

5.Владимир Евгеньевич Трутовский – член партии левых эсеров. Народный комиссар местного самоуправления с декабря 1917 г. по март 1918. Происхождение – дворянин. РУССКИЙ.

6.Александр Шляпников – член партии большевиков. Народный комиссар труда (1917—1918). Родился в семье мещан старообрядцев. РУССКИЙ.

7.Прош Прошьян (Прошян) – член партии левых эсеров. Нарком почт и телеграфа декабрь 1917 – март 1918 г. АРМЯНИН.

8.Владимир Ульянов (Ленин) – член партии большевиков. Председатель Совета Народных Комиссаров. Дворянин. РУССКИЙ.

9.Иосиф Джугашвили (Сталин) – член партии большевиков. Нарком по делам национальностей. ГРУЗИН. Из ремесленного сословия.

10.Александра Коллонта́й (урождённая — Домонтович) – член партии большевиков. Нарком государственного призрения. Первая женщина – министр в истории. Дворянка. Мать – ФИНКА, отец – РУССКИЙ.

11.Павел Дыбенко – член партии большевиков. Народный комиссар по морским делам. Родился в бедной крестьянской украинской семье. УКРАИНЕЦ.

12.Кокшарова Елизавета – член партии большевиков. С декабря 1917 г. по август 1918 г. работала в аппарате Совета Народных Комиссаров вторым секретарем. Из мещанского сословия. РУССКАЯ. 13.Подвойский Николай – член партии большевиков. Нарком по военным делам ноябрь 1917 – март 1918. Родился в семье украинского сельского священника-учителя. УКРАИНЕЦ

14.Горбунов Николай — член партии большевиков. Секретарь Совета Народных Комиссаров и личный секретарь В. И. Ленина. РУССКИЙ. Родился в семье инженера.

15.Невский Владимир (настоящая фамилия и имя — Кривобоков Феодосии Иванович) – член партии большевиков. Зам. Наркома путей сообщения. Из русской купеческой семьи. РУССКИЙ.

16. Александр Васильевич Шотман – член партии большевиков. Член президиума ВСНХ (Высший совет народного хозяйства). Родился в финской семье мастерового Обуховского завода, ФИНН шведского происхождения.

17. Георгий Чичерин – член партии большевиков. Нарком иностранных дел. Дворянин. РУССКИЙ.

Appendix B


1. Председатель – Владимир Ильич Ульянов (Ленин)(26.10.1917 – 21.01.1924) – великоросс

2. Наркомат внутренних дел:
Алексей Иванович Рыков (26.10. – 4.11.1917) – великоросс
Григорий Иванович Петровский (17.11.1917 – 25.03.1919) – малоросс
Феликс Эдмундович Дзержинский (30.03.1919 – 6.07.1923) – поляк
Александр Георгиевич Белобородов (7.07.1923 – 13.01.1928) – великоросс

3. Наркомат земледелия
Владимир Павлович Милютин (26.10 – 4.11.1917) – великоросс
Александр Григорьевич Шлихтер (13.11. – 24.11.1917) – обрусевший немец (отец: 1/2 немец, 1/2 казак; мать родом из украинских дворян)
Андрей Лукич Колегаев (25.11.1917 – 16.03.1918) – великоросс
Семен Пафнутьевич Середа (3.04.1918 – 10.02.1921) – малоросс
Валериан Валерианович Оболенский (Осинский)(вр. 24.03.1921 – 18.01.1922) – великоросс
Василий Григорьевич Яковенко (18.01.1922 – 7.07.1923) – великоросс
Александр Петрович Смирнов (7.07.1923 – 19.12.1928) – великоросс

4. Наркомат труда
Александр Гаврилович Шляпников (26.10.1917 - 8.10.1918) - великоросс
Василий Владимирович Шмидт (8.10.1918 – 29.11.1928) – обрусевший немец

5. а) Комитет по военно-морским делам (26.10. - 8.11.1917 ), Совет военных комиссаров (8.11. – 26.11.1917):
Владимир Александрович Антонов-Овсеенко – малоросс
Павел Ефимович Дыбенко – малоросс
Николай Васильевич Крыленко – великоросс
б) Наркомат по военным и морским делам (26.11.1917 – 20.06.1934)
Николай Ильич Подвойский (27.11.1917 – 14.03.1918) – малоросс
Лев Давидович Троцкий (Бронштейн)(14.03.1918 – 26.01.1925) – еврей
в) Наркомат по морским делам (22.02 – 17.12. 1918)
Павел Ефимович Дыбенко (22.02. – 15.03.1918) – малоросс
Лев Давидович Троцкий (Бронштейн)(6.04. – 17.12.1918) – еврей

6. а) Наркомат торговли и промышленности
Виктор Павлович Ногин (26.10. – 4.11.1917) – великоросс
Александр Гаврилович Шляпников (и.о. 4.11.1917 – 26.03.1918) – великоросс
Василий Михайлович Смирнов (и.о. 2 – 22.04.1918) – великоросс
Мечислав Генрикович Бронский (и.о. 22.04. – 9.05.1918) – поляк
Леонид Борисович Красин (14.05.1918 – 12.06.1920) – великоросс
12.06.1920 преобразован в Наркомат внешней торговли
б) Наркомат внешней торговли (1920 – 91)
Леонид Борисович Красин (12.06.1920 – 18.11.1925) – великоросс
в) Комиссия по внутренней торговле при СТО (24.12.1922 – 9.05.1924), Наркомат внутренней торговли СССР (9.05.1924 – 18.11.1925)
Андрей Матвеевич Лежава (24.12.1922 – 9.05.1924)(9.05. – 17.12.1924) – грузин
Арон Львович Шейнман (17.12.1924 – 18.11.1925) – еврей

7. Наркомат просвещения
Анатолий Васильевич Луначарский (фам. по наст. отцу – Антонов)(26.10.1917 – 12.09.1929) – великоросс

8. Наркомат финансов
Иван Иванович Скворцов-Степанов (26.10.1917 – 20.01.1918) – великоросс
Вячеслав Рудольфович Менжинский (20.01. – 28.03.1918) – поляк
Исидор Эммануилович Гуковский (2.04. – 16.08.1918) – еврей (?)
Николай Николаевич Крестинский (16.08.1918 – 10.10.1922) – малоросс
Григорий Яковлевич Сокольников (Бриллиант)(10.10.1922 – 16.01.1926) – еврей

9. Наркомат иностранных дел:
Лев Давидович Троцкий (Бронштейн)(26.10.1917 - 8.04.1918) - еврей
Георгий Васильевич Чичерин (9.04.1918 – 25.07.1930) – великоросс (мать из рода немецких дворян)

10. Наркомат юстиции
Георгий Ипполитович Ломов-Оппоков (26.10 – 9.12.1917) – великоросс
Исаак Захарович Штейнберг (9.12.1917 – 16.03.1918) – еврей
Петр Иванович Стучка (18.03. – 22.08.1918) – обрусевший латыш
Дмитрий Иванович Курский (22.08.1918 – 18.02.1928) – великоросс

11. Наркомат продовольствия
Иван Адольфович Теодорович (26.10 – 4.11.1917) – поляк
Александр Григорьевич Шлихтер (18.12.1917 – 24.02.1918) – обрусевший немец
Александр Дмитриевич Цюрупа (25.02.1918 – 12.12.1921) – малоросс
Николай Павлович Брюханов (12.12.1921 – 9.05.1924) – великоросс

12. Нарком почт и телеграфов
Николай Павлович Глебов (Авилов)(26.10 – 9.12.1917) – великоросс
Прош Перчевич Прошьян (9.12.1917 – 16.03.1918) – армянин
Вадим Николаевич Подбельский (11.04.1918 – 25.02.1920) – великоросс
Артемий Моисеевич Любович (24.03.1920 – 26.05.1921)(12.11.1927 – 14.01.1928) – еврей
Валериан Савельевич Довгалевский (26.05.1921 – 6.07.1923) – русский
Иван Никитич Смирнов (6.07.1923 – 6.10.1927) – великоросс

13. Наркомат по делам национальностей (Наркомнац) РСФСР (1917 – 23).
Иосиф Виссарионович Джугашвили (Сталин) – осетин

14. а) Наркомат по железнодорожным делам (26.10.1917 – 24.02.1918)
Марк Тимофеевич Елизаров (8.11.1917 – 7.01.1918) – русский
б) Наркомат путей сообщения (24.02.1918 – 15.03.1946)
Алексей Гаврилович Рогов (24.02. – 9.05.1918) – великоросс
Петр Алексеевич Кобозев (9.05. – 24.06.1918) – великоросс
Владимир Иванович Невский (Кривобоков)(25.07.1918 – 15.03.1919) – великоросс
Леонид Борисович Красин (30.03.1919 – 20.03.1920) – великоросс
Лев Давидович Троцкий (Бронштейн)(и.о. 20.03. – 10.12.1920) – еврей
Александр Иванович Емшанов (10.12.1920 – 14.04.1921) – великоросс
Феликс Эдмундович Дзержинский (14.04.1921 – 2.02.1924) – поляк
Ян Эрнестович Рудзутак (2.02.1924 – 11.06.1930) – латыш

15. а) Наркомат государственного призрения (8.11.1917 – 20.03.1918)
Александра Михайловна Коллонтай (30.10.1917 – 17.03.1918) – малоросска (по отцу, по матери – финка)
б) Наркомат социального обеспечения (1918 – 1991)
Александр Николаевич Винокуров (20.03.1918 – 30.06.1921) – великоросс
Николай Александрович Милютин (и.о. 14.04.1921 – 29.12.1924) – великоросс
Василий Григорьевич Яковенко (29.12.1924 – 2.10.1926) – великоросс

16. Наркомат государственных имуществ РСФСР
Владимир Александрович Карелин 9.12.1917 – 16.03.1918) – великоросс
Петр Петрович Малиновский (и.о. 18.03. – 7.04.1918) – русский

17. Наркомат местного самоуправления РСФСР
Владимир Ефимович Трутовский (19.12.1917 – 12.06.1918) – русский

18. а) Наркомат государственного контроля РСФСР
Карл Иванович Ландер (9.05.1918 – 25.03.1919) – ? (прибалтийский немец или еврей)
Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин (Джугашвили)(30.03.1919 – 7.02.1920) – осетин
б) Наркомат рабоче-крестьянской инспекции (Рабкрин) РСФСР (7.02.1920 – 34)
С 6.07.1923 объединение с Центр. контрольн. комиссией ВКП (б)
в аппарат ЦКК-РКИ.
Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин (Джугашвили)(24.02.1920 – 25.04.1922) – осетин
Александр Дмитриевич Цюрупа (25.04.1922 – 6.07.1923) – малоросс
Валериан Владимирович Куйбышев (6.07.1923 – 5.11.1926) – великоросс

19. Наркомат здравоохранения
Александр Николаевич Винокуров (пред. Совета врачебных коллегий 21.01. – 27.06.1918) – великоросс
Николай Алекандрович Семашко (11.07.1918 – 25.01.1930) – великоросс

]]> 0
Russia and the Taming of the Israelis Fri, 28 Sep 2018 05:57:07 +0000 Russia’s unexpected decision to supply Syria with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems and to integrate Syria’s air defence within the Russian command calls for a quick reassessment of our views. It turned out that Russia is able to learn and respond in an unanticipated way. Yes, in the immediate aftermath of the Il-20 downing, the Russian reaction had been weak. The Russians agreed with Israelis that the plane had been hit by a Syrian S-200 missile. They provided the Israeli military with an opportunity to offer and defend their version of events, while Putin spoke of a “tragic chain of events”, apparently exculpating his Israeli partner.

I must admit I had thought that the Russians would accept the Israeli explanations, and the case would rest. This was the view of pro-Kremlin writers and bloggers, and they often know the mind of the Russian authorities. These guys and gals do not get their instructions directly from the Kremlin, nor do they have a consistent view of Russian interests nor an opinion of their own; usually they try to guess what the Kremlin will do next and build a defence line for it. If you watch them, you’ll get an idea of what the expectation.

They took a rather pro-Israeli line. Whoever called for a stronger response to the Israeli provocation, was called an “anti-Semite firebrand”. This is not as deadly a marker in Russia as it is in the West, but it still is not a great compliment, either. Some pro-Kremlin writers blamed the Syrians; so did the liberal opposition to Putin. Julia Latynina, the pet Russian writer of Western liberals, a Putin nemesis, a recipient of the Defender of Freedom Award, with hundreds of references in the Guardian and the New York Times, called the Syrians – “apes”. (The Russian anti-Putin liberals are racist beyond belief but they love Jews).

A pro-Kremlin English-language writer said that the Iranians (sic!) were to be blamed; perhaps they pushed the button and destroyed the Il. And Syrians surely were guilty as hell. He also ferociously attacked the experts who spoke of Israeli responsibility and called them “antisemites”. The chief editors of the Russian semi-official media apparently thought Putin wanted to forget about the whole business of the downed Il-20 as fast as possible. They promptly erased it from their agenda. Incredibly, on the next day the Russian media was practically free from any reference to the disaster. Only the hard old men of the opposition grumbled in their marginal online journals: “We are lost,” “Putin obeys his oligarchs,” “The Jewish lobby in Moscow won”, “Putin cares more of his Jewish friends than of the Russian soldiers”. But they were premature.

In Israel, the Ministry of Defence people rubbed their hands and said: We bombed all, we are bombing and we shall bomb as we find fit. They advised the Russians to blame Syria and accept the Israeli version of events. Israeli social networks rejoiced. But their joy was premature, too.

The first signal of something amiss was sent when the Russians refused to receive an Israeli high-level delegation in Moscow. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Lieberman proposed to fly to Moscow personally, but they were rebuffed. Only a military delegation led by the Israel Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin was allowed to come and present their version. It was found wanting. The Russian Ministry of Defence produced ample evidence that the Israelis knowingly caused the loss of the plane with all hands. Netanyahu had made a person-to-person call to President Putin, it was of no avail.

Apparently Putin was upset on a personal level with the Israeli attack. He is known for hating betrayal. He considered Netanyahu to be almost a personal friend, and the downing of the plane by this erstwhile friend grieved him a lot, so people close to the Kremlin intuit. There are less personal interpretations. In the same time the ruling (Putin’s) party United Russia suffered humiliating defeats in governors’ elections. 70% to 30% the incumbents were voted out, and representatives of strongly anti-Western coalition of Nationalists and Communists conquered those three districts. In the Armed Forces, the idea of letting bygones be bygones was rejected out of hand. The army demanded a stronger response.

Putin is the most pro-Western ruler Russia is likely to have; his successor will probably be more rigid to Western demands, while pro-Western elements (“liberals”) have a snowball-in-hell chance to come to power in Russia via the election booth. That’s why Putin has to watch his step to keep in line with his base, as any ruler does. He didn’t want to spoil relations with Israel, but freedom of action had to be denied to the Israeli Air Force.

There was a lull when the disaster of the downed plane completely disappeared from media, Russian or Western. It was not mentioned by the New York Times, it was not mentioned by the Russian newspapers. And after that, unexpectedly, the Russian Defence Minister Mr Shoygu made his announcement. Russia responded adequately, closing the sky over Syria, or at least over Western Syria, and activating its powerful GPS-jamming system off the Syrian coast. Israel has lost its right to bomb Syria at will.

The Russians said it will take them two weeks to deliver, install and make the system operative. I have heard that the system of up to eight S-300 had already been delivered by massive airlift a few days ago, with cargo planes landing in Syria every few minutes. Probably two weeks will be needed to install and activate the system.

Now in Israel the response was of two kinds. The hot heads said Israel is not worried by S-300; they know how to deal with it, and if necessary, Israeli commandos will come and sabotage the system just in time for a massive air attack by Israeli bombers. Sensible people said Israel should try to repair relations with the Russian military. The Russians did a lot of what the Israelis asked them for, including removal of Iranian forces from the vicinity of Israeli borders (rather, armistice lines). A thorough investigation of the air disaster may uncover the mistakes and convince the Russians that they aren’t likely to occur again.

Netanyahu sounded like he was trying to minimise the strife with the Russians. After meeting with President Trump in New York, he said that he came with specific requests “and I received everything I wanted from him [Trump]. Our goal is to preserve the connection with Russia and on the other hand to defend Israel’s security against these threats.”

So, for good or bad, Israel is not going to break relations with Russia, and Russia is not going to go further, beyond sealing Syria’s sky for Israeli raids. If Israeli leadership will keep its fingers away from Syria, things may cool down. Otherwise, the results will be quite unpredictable.

In Israel, there aren’t many people at the top, apart of Netanyahu and Lieberman, who cherish their country’s involvement with Russia. For Israelis, Putin is one of many unsavoury leaders from Idi Amin to Orban their country has to play ball with. Russia is not popular with ordinary Israelis who prefer America or Germany. A lot of Israelis will be pleased with breakup of this connection. Immediately after the Russian decision had been announced, Haaretz had made its feelings clear: “In recent years, Russia has been caught lying or spreading disinformation about its role in a number of incidents, the most recent being its involvement in the U.S. presidential elections, the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain, and the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So it’s hard to believe that anyone but Syria and Iran will adopt the Russian version of last week’s events.” This is not a way one’s partner is usually described.

More conspiratorially minded Israelis opined that beyond downing of the Il, there was an Air Force plot against Netanyahu and Lieberman who are unpopular within the top echelon of IDF. Others say it was an American Secret Service plot to undermine Russian-Israeli connection.

For otherwise, why did the Israelis do that? Were they just careless and brutal, as is their wont? They didn’t give a damn about the Russians, and considered them a lesser breed, whose life is of little importance. This is a possible reading, quite consistent with their general attitude to strangers considered to be children of a lesser God.

On the other hand, it is possible that the whole Israeli raid had been staged to down the reconnaissance plane and to leave the Russians without its real-time intelligence data. In 1967, the Israelis bombed and sunk the USS Liberty, an electronic spy ship, the then equivalent of Il-20, for they did not want to have foreign eyes and ears in the area. But then, there was an ongoing full-scale war between Israel and Egypt, and the USS Liberty had been attacked just before the planned Israeli invasion of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Could it be that Israelis expected an attack by France, England and the US upon Syria on that night, an attack that did not materialise thanks to the Russian-Turkish agreement on Idlib? There was a British plane and a French frigate in the vicinity, and a whole lot of American ships.

The agreement on Idlib was a very important event, though Il-20 displaced it out of our collective memory. Putin and Erdogan reached a working compromise, thus avoiding almost unavoidable large scale hostilities. The White Helmets had already prepared a film with staged chemical attack upon Syrian children, but the agreement had made the attack improbable in the first place. It is possible that the American coalition assault had been postponed in the last moment, when the Russian plane had been already downed.

However, all is well that ends well. Russian decision to create practically a no-fly zone is a good decision, good for all. It is good for Russians as they learned that their Commander-in-Chief can make strong decisions. It is good for Syria, as they will suffer less of the Israeli bombardments. And it is really good for Israel, as this naughty child, a spoiled brat, a darling of America had to be forbidden to bother neighbouring children. The automatic missile defence system will provide a threat of spanking. The kid had been told that he is not allowed to kill neighbours. With its excessive aggressiveness multiplied by impunity, Israel has been spoiled, as anybody would. With this block, Israel can still become a mensch, and for this chance, thank you, Russia.

Will Tel-Aviv use this chance? The US will try to frustrate the Russian taming of Israel. John Bolton and Mike Pompeo already declared that no one may interfere with Israel’s divine right to freely bomb Syria. Will the Israeli lobby in America be able to neutralise Moscow’s decision and unhinge Israeli soul once again? Will they convince Putin to postpone his decision like they did in April, and a few years ago? I do not think so.

We can congratulate the leadership of Russia on the consistent, justified and well-balanced decision that may yet tame the Jewish shrew.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Toilet Wars Sun, 23 Sep 2018 05:54:44 +0000 Boys and girls are different. Once, this difference had been celebrated. Vive la petit difference, exclaimed the French, and other nations also enjoyed it. Now it has lead to multiple troubles, on the seas, in the cities and even in outer space, as you will learn now.

Men and women pee in a dissimilar way, to start with. It was not a problem for last six thousand years of recorded history, but now, for the enlightened West, it has become a real worry. This difference is upsetting for feminists, who want to do everything men do. In 1970s, the first Women Lib posters proudly presented a badass of a girl peeing in a urinal, to great amazement and envy of a few properly diversified onlookers. But that was then. Since then, the feminists decided it will be more fun to force men to use female facilities and to destroy facilities for men.

The newest American aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford has no urinals. It is all gender-neutral, so a few ladies serving on board the ship will be able to go to pee wherever they wish. New gender-neutral toilets take much more space, they aren’t specially clean because men miss the bowl quite often, and they are much more time-consuming. But Submission of the Male and exorcism of the Patriarchal spirit offsets this small deficiency.

Germany and Sweden eliminated urinals, too. Their toilets are suitable for men and women, they are gender-neutral but money-specific. In order to pee in a public toilet in Sweden you must use a smartphone and a credit card: their toilets not only charge a lot, they do not take coins and bills, too.

In Germany, the most guilt-ridden land on earth, a man using a urinal is branded a Nazi. A Non-Nazi German should pee sitting down, like a woman. Ditto Sweden. Not surprisingly, Germans and Swedes have the highest in Europe (over 80%) approval rate for accepting migrants from the war-torn Middle East. German and Swedish women are all for import of manly Pashtuns and Kurds, as their own men have become too effeminate trying to fit the feminist agenda. Native men just agree with what their womenfolk decide, and are too scared to dissent; while women are notoriously fickle and likely to reject what they chose in the first place.

Well, some men found a way. Berliners go and pee among the stelae of their Holocaust memorial. There are about three thousand concrete slabs, or stelas, the place is rather dark, and the smell leaves you with no doubt that local men found a solution to the lack of urinals. But not every city is blessed with such a graceful and useful memorial.

American schools have become an arena of the long war for toilets, with some kids confused about their gender playing the leading role. If Jack feels he is really Jill, may he come and pee in the ladies’? There is no acceptable answer to this question beyond eliminating toilets altogether.

In Paris, a great piece of street furniture called pissoir had been invented in 19thcentury, and it made city life easy. Men could pop in and pee for free and without bother. But the feminists objected to it, and the spirit of capitalism supported them. A free facility is already a beginning of hated socialism. Rapidly, the number of street urinals went down from 1200 to one. Instead, pay booths suitable for men and women came into existence. These structures demand money, take time and are complicated to use. The feminists were happy, money-charging descendants of Vespasian (the Emperor who said ‘money doesn’t smell’ and introduced a toilet tax) were very happy, but men weren’t so happy to pay for something they always had for free. So the men preferred to pee outside. And Paris stunk to high heaven.

Squeezed between malodorous streets and feminist fury, the Paris Town Hall created a new sort of urinal: open-air one, zero privacy, just pee and go away. Not much of a luxury, nothing for women to be envious about. And they weren’t envious, – just furious. They assaulted the hated symbols of male patriarchy with concrete, pouring it down the drain, and quickly blocked them and made them unusable. I suppose the owners of pay-as-you-pee supported them, and probably even supplied them with concrete at slashed rate, but it is just my wild guess. Anyway, now Paris stinks again, and the feminists may use this reason to hate men.

And now this toilet war had been carried out to the outer space. There was a strange recent incident on the International Space Station (ISS). The pressure in the station had dropped. In the search of a possible leak, a small (2 mm) hole had been discovered in a wall of the Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to the station. The hole was located near the toilet and covered by decorative fabric.

The US astronauts demanded that their mission be aborted and they return to earth; the Russian cosmonauts just glued the hole with a bit of epoxy and the flight went on.

It was promptly established that it was not a result of a meteorite strike; the hole had been drilled. Dmitry Rogozin, head of Roscosm said that it was probably done by a homesick astronaut. This version was considered just too bizarre. It was dismissed by all and sundry as a new proof of Russian goofiness. The preferred version said that the hole was drilled by a Russian worker on the ground, immediately before take-off, as you would expect from inept Russians.

However, it is possible that Rogozin was right. I have heard from people in Korolyev (Russian Houston) a very unusual if unverified story that fits perfectly with the rest of American toilet gender disorder. The setup is as follows. The ISS has an American, a Russian and a common compartments, separated but interconnected. (The Russian segment is the docked spacecraft). There are four astronauts in the Western sector, and two cosmonauts in the Russian sector. Among the Westerners, there is one lady.

Though the astronauts are carefully checked, still in the space things could run into uncharted territory. The story from Korolyev says the lady objected to their toilet arrangements as demeaning for her as a woman, and tried to readjust the equipment to fit her requirements. The men did their own readjustment and complained about the feminist. In a short while, the delicate toilet in the Western sector had been broken beyond repair, for nothing is simple in the space, not even going to loo.

And the big grown men, ex-Navy and ex-Air Force captains and commanders, had been reduced to use diapers on the daily basis. It is not only unpleasant to use: the ISS has no storage for such a mass of used and stinking diapers. The Western sector began to stink like Paris streets or worse.

By that time, the astronauts became mightily upset by the lady’s extravagant behaviour, and they complained: “Houston, we have a problem! Please take her home!” Houston, or NASA, had two objections to granting their wish. One, diversity and female equality had to be maintained at all costs. The second objection was money.

Now only the Russians have the means to take astronauts to the station and back home. Though the US had landed a man on the Moon many years ago, they still have no working shuttle to fly men to ISS. The inept Russians still have their spacecraft, though their best shuttle The Buran and their best space station Mir had been dumped during the pro-Western stage of Russia’s political orientation at American insistence. The Americans have to pay a hefty sum to the Russians for each flight, and evacuation of the virago would punch a hole in NASA budget, bigger and more painful than the hole in the ISS hulk. That’s why Houston replied breezily: “This is your problem, guys! Try to get along with her!”

The Russian toilet and shower worked fine, and the Americans at first tried to use it. But after a quarrel (and alas, people forced to live in close quarters are likely to quarrel), the Russians objected and barred the Western astronauts from their Soyuz. The lady’s mental health deteriorated, and stench and floating excrement made her miserable and vicious; and eventually her companions decided to implement a smart plan. When the two Russians went out to space for scheduled work, the Americans made their way to the Russian module (there are no locks in the ICC) and drilled a hole, sealing it with a sealant and covering with decorative fabric.

It was a creative and working idea. The sealant held on for a while and didn’t burst immediately. The pressure in the station is quite low, only one atmosphere, so the hole didn’t present a mortal danger for the team. If and when the leak were found, it would be possible to insist on emergency evacuation of the crew, thus getting rid of the troublesome virago and extricating themselves from the stinky hell while blaming the goofy Russians for the failure. And the best part of it: the hole is in the section of the Soyuz capsule that is jettisoned during its return to Earth, thus eliminating all evidence of the foul game.

But the plan didn’t work out. The Russians closed the hole with a better epoxy sealant and refused evacuation. Keep shitting in your diapers, gentlemen! The Western commander jerked into the Russian module, shouting “I, as a commander, will decide what to do about it”, and he tore off the sealant. The Russians told him: “You are the station commander, but on board the Soyuz you’re just a guest”, and they bodily kicked him out and re-sealed the hole.

The cosmonauts reported to Korolyev (the Russian flight control centre), and Korolyev asked Houston to show them video records from the American module to check who went with the drill to the Russian module. The Russian sanitary block (and that is where the hole was drilled) isn’t monitored for privacy reasons. Houston refused outright.

The situation on the ISS remains tense; the Russians apparently used force to evict the Americans who tried to drill more holes. The Americans are unhappy as they have to spend all their nights and days with the troublesome woman, and their toilet still does not work. Now they hope that the US will soon be able to send a new all-American commercial private shuttle to remove them, for NASA is adamant in their refusal to pay Russians for the evacuation, and the Russians do not want to do this job for free. The latest reports speak of “whodunit in space” and of Russian cosmonauts planning more examination of the outer walls.

Thus the feminist-induced gender disorder of the West had almost caused disaster, – if you believe this story.

But another running disaster is the feminists’ attempt to derail nomination of Judge Kavanagh. One can like or dislike the judge, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl while in high school is completely insane. MeToo, Kavanagh, I also had affairs with girls so many (and more) years ago!

Even if all the complainant claimed was true (and Kavanagh denied it) I’d find him not guilty and vote for him to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, we speak of events that took (or not) place years ago. In those years, girls were expected to surrender only to some token force. “No means no” was a totally unheard-of idea.

I’d compare it with a parachute jump. It is usual for the instructor to kick out a hesitating parachutist. If a guy went up the plane with a parachute, and continued all the way to the door, he should be pushed if his courage fails him. “No means no” can’t be applied here. The same with the young girls. These wonderful creatures were likely to get cold feet at the critical moment while already undressed in bed with a boy, and often had to be more-or-less gently pushed. This was the game boys and girls played so many years ago. The crime of rape was known then, but its definition was not stretched as far as now.

Surely we speak of moderate and token application of force, as in case of the Kavanagh complainant. If what he did then would amount to rape, the girl would surely run to police right away. If she didn’t, it was not, it is that simple. Men and women do not need that much of state interference in their relations. If the woman kept it secret for 35 years, let her keep it for another 35 years. No man should be stopped from any position for such flimsy reason.

The Trump-and-whores saga is another example of the noxious mixture of Puritan morality and man-hating feminism. If a man of his age (we are of the same age, actually) has enough energy for his wife and for lovers, I can only congratulate him. There is no law that forbids a New York businessman or a Washington politician to court prostitutes. In some more advanced (from the feminist point of view) countries it is forbidden. In Sweden, every whore’s client faces imprisonment, while she goes scot-free. But the US is not there, yet. And hopefully it will not end there, provided the voters in the midterm elections will pay heed to their candidates’ position.

Kavanagh and Trump are the last chance of American men to regain self respect and to save America’s manhood. The stories of their adventures with girls would only encourage me to support them. It means they have some red blood in their veins. Men can and should regain the ground they lost.

PS The promised piece on the Russian Bolsheviks will come soon.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Kamikaze from California Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:09:48 +0000 There are worse, more dangerous endeavours. Ride a tiger, steal cubs from she-bear, walk a high voltage wire. Doubting the Holocaust is slightly less perilous. The doubters found themselves invariably out of job, oftentimes in jail, rarely killed. This is the dogma-Mother-of-all-dogmas, and Jews, the priesthood of New World, are attending to its pristine inviolability.

Nowadays, one may openly doubt the Crucifixion and Resurrection or (maybe) challenge the founding myths of Israel. Yet the cult of the Holocaust retains a unique, court-enforced prohibition against any investigation that might cast a doubt on its sacred dogma. Dogmas have a way of attracting critical minds. And critical minds step forward, despite the inherent danger.

Ron Unz, this kamikaze of critical mind from California, has stepped on the third rail knowingly, in full awareness of the consequences. He did not stop at doubting the established mantra, he also published and made available to readers and internet users some more important books on the subject.

H dogma, discovered Unz, came into existence years after WWII, when people with first hand knowledge of the events were already dead or retired. While the memory was still fresh and pristine, the Jewish Holocaust was unknown, and the very word Holocaust was used in reference to the fiery death of Dresden and Hiroshima, the ultimate Anglo-American crimes.

Unz provides some historical meat to the fearless group of H deniers. Indeed, the H denial had been formed in France, under influence of a French communist and a survivor of Nazi camps Prof Paul Rassinier.

Some deniers were men of Right, some favoured Nazis, like Ernst Zundel and his spouse Ingrid Zundel, the great Prof Robert Faurisson was a Vichy sympathiser, but otherwise H denial had been formed by the Leftists.

This is a good time and place to mention the recently deceased Prof Serge Thion, whom I knew personally. Tall and handsome, a successful man with strong scientific and Leftist credentials, Thion supported the Vietnamese and the Algerians who fought against French colonialism; he occupied a prominent place in French academe and administration, but sacrificed it all and became a refugee and a fugitive from ‘justice’ for his strong position on H denial. He was always on the run from France to Italy to SE Asia, but while running, he also managed a site full of forbidden stuff.

My good friend and an important French and Spanish poet Mme Maria Poumier was/is a Communist, and she lived for some ten years in Cuba. She introduced me to Roger Garaudy, an old Communist, a friend of Arabs and Muslims, the man who tried to bring together Christianity and Communism, and embraced Islam in his endless religious search. Garaudy connected the Holocaust cult with Zionism in his book.

The great stand-up black artist, the funniest French comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, a giant son of a Cameroonian and a Bretonese, has made fun of the Holocaust. A political maverick, he ran for Parliament for Marine Le Pen’s Front National, and formed its far-left-and-right wing together with Alain Soral.

The established French MSM prefers to call all these people “Nazis”, but actually they are the real still unbroken Left. Even I was called a Nazi and a H denier, though I never denied (or affirmed) its historical veracity. It is forbidden to deny H under fear of imprisonment, so it is not an option for a law-abiding citizen. And I was never interested in facts, just in their interpretation.

I do deny its religious salvific significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness, I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust and I think every God-fearing man, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim should reject it as Abraham rejected and smashed idols. I deny that it is good to remember or immortalise such traumatic events, and I wrote many articles against modern obsession with massacres, be it the Jewish holocaust of 1940s, the Armenian massacre of 1915, the Ukrainian “holodomor”, Polish Katyn, Khmer Rouge etc. This is not forbidden yet.

Unz wisely avoided discussion of gruesome details, for the calculation of bodies, stoves and bullets is too awful for a modern reader. It is a meta-narrative, dealing with discussion of the topic without entering the topic, and it was a clever and calculated choice. It is not necessary to overburden the reader with macabre specifics of the events. The details and facts are not really all that important. So many people were killed by their fellow-humans in the course of history, for a lot of reasons. Who cares?

The most important question Unz’s essay leads us to, is not ‘whether six million Jews were killed by Germans just because they were Jews’ but: Why the Holocaust cult became so popular, with its temples, perversely called “Holocaust museums” or “Places of Tolerance” sprung up everywhere from Nebraska to Fiji? There are differing and mutually-non-exclusive answers to this question.

The first and obvious answer is “It is good for rich and powerful Jews”. It solved the eternal problem of the rich and influential, warding off the envy and hate of the poor and exploited. It allowed Madoff and other Jewish swindlers to cheat and steal. It covers asses of the three Jews, the lawyer-fixer Cohen, the smut-dealing publisher Pecker and the numbers whiz Weisselberg who set up Donald Trump. The Jewish oligarchs of Russia and Ukraine use it whenever they are accused of stealing their countries’ wealth.

The second answer is “It is good for Israel”. It allowed the Israeli army to murder children and starve women with impunity. Ari Shavit of Haaretz said in 1996, when the Israeli Army killed over a hundred civilian refugees in Kana, Lebanon: “We may murder with impunity, because the Holocaust museum is on our side”. Now a Holocaust organisation cooked up a definition of antisemitism, explicitly forbidding any criticism of Israel, and forced the Labour Party to accept it, despite objections of the Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The third answer is “Because it is profitable”. Jewish organisations claiming to represent the H survivors, reap billions of dollars from Germany, Switzerland and other countries, even from Poland and Estonia; they pay themselves five- or six digit salaries, while giving out some peanuts for real survivors. Norman Finkelstein covered this angle in his book, mentioned by Ron Unz.

These three answers cover the Jewish position, but they do not fully explain the almost universal acceptance of the H dogma by the ruling classes all over the West. And here comes the fourth answer: “The H cult is good as a discursive tool of the Deep State against the majority”.

The H priests preach that the majority of Germans approved of Hitler and approved of the Holocaust, so one can’t accept democracy and shouldn’t trust the majority, unless the majority votes as ordered by those who know better. Now this idea is being enforced by the New York Times and its sisters against the Deplorables and against Trump who was elected by Deplorables but hasn’t been confirmed by the Deep State. In England, they use it to overturn the people’s vote for Brexit; and before that, they used it to re-run plebiscites until obtaining the desired result in the Netherlands and Sweden.

The fifth answer is “It is good for the US providing it with a licence to be the World Sheriff”.

The H priests teach that the US won the war and restored Germany to the free world, despite its population’s wishes. It means that the US is the force to check and control whatever people or even elites in other countries decide. This is the logic behind American interventions from Grenada and Panama to Afghanistan and Syria. If tomorrow they will invade Italy or Hungary, they will still refer to Auschwitz and Nuremberg.

This also helps to make American occupation of Germany a permanent fixture. Undermined by the H cult, Germans agree they can’t take their fate into their hands, and they have to be firmly guided by the US.

The sixth answer, “It is good for justifying unlimited migration and open borders”. Whenever a government in the US or in Italy tarries with receiving the endless flow of migrants, the Holocaust is immediately mentioned. Every Mexican agricultural worker or an African looking for a better life has to be accepted for the Jews were threatened with the Holocaust.

The seventh answer will lead us into deep waters, and you can skip it if it is too deep for you. “It is good to replace Christ”. The H dogma is a parody of Christian teaching, with Jews being brought as a sacrifice, with Auschwitz replacing Golgotha, and with creation of the State of Israel as a new Resurrection. Jews are essential Christ Deniers, and for them the H is an occasion to downgrade Christianity as “irrelevant after Auschwitz”. The alternative answer is that Auschwitz is irrelevant after the Resurrection, but there aren’t many (or any) Christian theologians daring to say that. Enemies of Christ (Gentile as well as Jewish) are likely to support H cult for its anti-Christian core.

The H cult is not the last word in Jewish fight against Christian faith; there is a the Noahide Project. It starts where the H cult ends. “The Noahides are a theological phenomenon of very recent vintage. It’s a form of Zionist mission, which seeks to create a world religion whose believers adore the Jewish people and the State of Israel – without belonging to either. The believers are required to accept the supremacy of Judaism but are not accepted into the Jewish people and are even barred from upholding such commandments as Sabbath observance. Anyone who wishes to be a Noahide is called upon mainly to recognize the Jewish people and its state.”

Chabad Rabbis hope there will be 7 billion of Noahide believers; adepts of H cult are well on their way to joining the Noahides for they already believe that the death of a Jew is more important than a Gentile death.

These are important points that call for discussion, and hopefully one day we should mount a round table discussing the cardinal question: why H is so popular, and what does it mean for us?

Unz’s essay is a new link in his American Pravda series, where Unz dismantles the web of old worn lies woven by the mainstream media, undermining the whole narrative modern America is based on. ‘The Slaughter of Sacred Cows’, he could call it. Every society needs a dash of revisionism in order to free its spirit from old tenets.

(In Israel, they were called New Historians, who slaughtered the sacred cows of “the Arabs voluntarily had left their homes in 1948” and “the Jews always sought peace, and the Arabs refused their offers”. Benny Morris and Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe undid the myth of 1948, of ethically pure Israel fighting for its survival against the genocide-bent Arabs. The change they brought to the narrative allowed Yitzhak Rabin to sign peace treaty with Yasser Arafat; though this achievement had been erased by the following leaders after Rabin’s assassination.)

Moreover, our society is a result of Sacred Cows’ wholesale slaughter undertaken by previous generation. The cows of Family, Marriage, Normal life, of Boys and Girls, of Womanhood and Manhood, of Going to Church, of trying to keep fit, so many established truths had been slaughtered in the last fifty years. Upon their bones, new cows had been grown: of gender minorities, of toxic white male patriarchy, of bodyshaming, and indeed the Holocaust is one of the fattest cows.

It is a bout of poetic justice that these cows will be slaughtered too. H priests hoped that their narrative, that of Holocaust, will last forever, smoothly flowing into Noahide utopia. But nothing is forever, not even their dogma.

In order to defend their cows, they brought in ‘hate laws’. But the seven reasons we listed above do not include hate of any sorts. You do not have to hate anybody to disprove of crooks, to support Palestinians, to condemn officials milking countries for their personal gain in the name of dead victims, to love democracy, to respect majority, to withdraw soldiers from Germany, to stop mass migration, to reject “invite the world, invade the world” imperial paradigm, and to love Christ.

We come to unexpected conclusion: whether the Holocaust narrative is based on sterling facts or on exaggerations, it is good to reject it. Even if the ‘deniers’ are factually wrong (let us presume it for the sake of argument), they are still right with their conclusions. And Ron Unz had made an important contribution for the benefit of mankind by his publication.

There is a minor fault in his excellent piece, for this self-taught man knows little about Russia. While he has bravely demolished the myths of American and European history, Unz swallowed the Russia-related myths hook, line and sinker. He accepted wholesale every lie that was ever invented by the Western ideologists to regain their control over Russia and eventually over their own workers. This subject will be discussed in our following piece.

P.S. In my previous piece, I wrote about the first ever trial for Holocaust Denial in Russia. The accused was Prof Roman Yushkov of Perm. And now for good news. The Russian jury dismissed the charges against Yushkov and thus confirmed that H denial is not a crime in Russia. Nor in the US, I hasten to add. Neither USSR nor Russia had ever accepted the peculiar idea of uniqueness of Jewish deaths, perhaps because the Russians had lost so many people at the same war.

Shamir on the Holocaust Denial:

Vampire Killers 2001

For Whom The Bell Tolls 2006

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Trump and Corbyn Sun, 26 Aug 2018 22:08:36 +0000 As a new military confrontation over Syria is impending, thought out by Israel, prepared by the British and executed by the US, the West’s future depends greatly upon two mavericks, the US President Donald Trump and the UK Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn. These two men are as different as you can make. One is for capitalism, another one is a socialist, but both are considered soft on Russia, at least they do not foam at the mouth hearing Putin’s name. Both are enemies of Wall Street and the City, both stand against the Deep State, against NATO, both are enemies of globalism and of world government. One is a friend of Israel, another is a friend of Palestine, but both are charged with racism and anti-Semitism.

It is a quaint peculiarity of our time, that anti-Semitism is considered the great and unforgivable sin, trading places with Christ Denial. Negative attitude to Christ-denying Jews had been de rigueur at its time, and the Church, or its Tribunal, the Inquisition, had tried the charged. Nowadays, the heavily Jewish MSM is the accuser, the judge and jury, considering anti-Jewish attitude as a worst sort of racism. The two leaders aren’t guilty as charged, but the MSM court dispenses no acquittals.

Racism is indeed an ugly trend (though greed is worse), and hatred of Jews qua Jews is not nice, either. (You wouldn’t expect a different answer from the son of Jewish parents, would you?) Jews are entertaining, clever, cunning, sentimental and adventurous folk, able to do things. They can be good, that’s why the Church wants to bring them to Christ. If they were inherently bad, why bother with their souls? Are Jews greedy? Everyone would sell his grandma for a fistful of dollars, but only a Jew would actually deliver, say Jews. Jews tend to preach and claim high moral ground, but that is a tradition of the Nation of Priests. However, universalism and non-racism is not their strong point, and it is amazing that they appointed themselves the judges on racism.

Nazis were against Jews, ergo, Jews are the pukka anti-Nazis, this is the logic behind the appointment. It is easier to deal with ethnic or racial categories than with ideas. However, an easier way can lead to wrong results, as we shall prove by turning… no, not to bad Netanyahu or Sharon, but to the best of Jews.

Would you call “a leftist and a liberal” a man who wants to create a reservation for Blacks, a separate state for Blacks, to give them the voting rights in this separate state? A man whose motto was “you are there; we are here”? Hardly. Depending on his colour, you’d probably describe him a white racist, or a member of the Nation of Islam. But for Jews, there are different standards.

The recently demised Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery had been eulogised royally. Many Israelis came to part with him before his body was cremated and the ashes spread on Tel Aviv seashore. Mass media from all over the world, statesmen, politicians, activists dedicated many words to his memory. A brave man, a noble spirit, a fighter for peace, all that was said, and all that was true. But this the most progressive, the most left-liberal man in the whole of Israel was the godfather of the Separation Wall; he coined the slogan “you are there; we are here”. He did not want to live with Arabs in one state. He pushed for creation of ghetto for non-Jews.

He was fine to visit Arabs, to play chess with Arafat as he did during the siege; to defend them if they were mistreated by Jewish lowlifes. But to live with them as equal? No, no way. Avnery’s attitude was that of an old-time Boer Nationalist, a Bantustan creator. He would find himself at home with founders of Rhodesia.

There was a practical and pragmatic reason: Avnery and his ilk had robbed Palestinians of their lands and their livelihood in 1948, expelled them from their homes, corralled them into reservations, and split the booty. They became rich. They did not want to allow refugees back and give up the stolen loot, oh no.

Avnery believed peace was possible, for the Arabs should be grateful if they were left in peace in their Bantustans. He was for peace with Hamas, for he was sure they also will gratefully accept keeping what’s they’ve got.

This is Israeli Left: people who had got enough of Arab goods, and do not need more.

Avnery’s adversaries weren’t Arabs; they were Jews who arrived in Palestine at a latter stage. They didn’t share in the Big Robbery of 1948; they wanted to get something for themselves.

This is the Israeli Right: people who want to squeeze more out of Palestinians, even if it means armed conflict will go on.

The common ground of Israeli Left and Israeli Right is their unwillingness to give Palestinians freedom and restore the stolen goods. The difference is that the Left, wealthy Jews, wanted to leave Palestinians in peace in their Bantustans. The Right, poorer Jews, want to keep squeezing Palestinians.

The late Mr Avnery greatly disliked the poorer Jews that migrated to Palestine after 1948. He denied they were mistreated by his pals. The talk about Oriental (or Sephardi) Jews being exploited and abused upon arrival annoyed him immensely.

He was, however, a very nice man. Regretfully I must admit that wealthy men looking for peace (even while keeping their booty) are more pleasant than poor guys keen on robbing somebody else.

Uri Avnery was one of the best of his kind. But he was not a liberal, nor a non-racist, neither a leftist by a long shot. As Ron Unz made a point in his widely read piece on Jews and Nazis, he was a living example of a Jew informed by Nazi Germany. He was brought up there; and upon arrival to Palestine, he joined a fascist terrorist group that courted Nazi Germany. He wrote in fascist newspapers, he actively participated in ethnic cleansing, and he freely admitted that.

His attitude to Arabs was similar of Adolf Eichmann to Jews in 1930s, mutatis mutandis. As Unz correctly stated, Eichmann was a big fan of Jews and a top liaison with Zionists at that time. He wanted Jews to prosper, just not in Germany. Avnery wanted Arabs to prosper, but on the other side of the border.

If he was the best, you can imagine the average of Israeli Left (Israeli Right is even worse). The previous leader of Israeli Labour, Mr Isaac Hertzog, became the head of the Jewish Agency and declared that his main task is to fight “the plague of mixed marriages”, that is marriages between Jews and non-Jews. The present leader of Israeli Labour, Avi Gabbay, told a meeting of party activists that “the Arabs have to be afraid of us”. He added: “They fire one missile – you fire 20. That’s all they understand in the Middle East”. He also vowed to never enter into a coalition with the non-Jewish party (the Joint List, a Knesset group representing Palestinian citizens).

Such views are totally unacceptable for any mainstream party in the US or the UK. Probably they are too radical for KKK, too.

Now sit tight and prepare yourself for a shock. This Israeli Labour Party, which would be considered a Nazi party elsewhere, decided to cut ties with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party for British Labour is “anti-Semitic”, they said. It is a shame that Corbyn hasn’t been the one to take this step first. If you maintain ties with any Israeli party, you should have no problem to fraternise with Hollywood Nazis, let alone the Ku Klux Klan. And Jeremy Corbyn quite correctly compared Zionists with Nazis. Now he is being skinned alive by British Jews.

They ran the same front page in their three newspapers saying that Corbyn is an existential threat to British Jews, because he does not agree with their definition of anti-Semitism. He is not anti-Jewish, but he doesn’t worship the Jew. And he is not a Jew. A young British Jewish Labour voter regretted that Ed Miliband, the Jewish former Labour leader, is not in power, for “there wouldn’t be Brexit, there wouldn’t be Jeremy Corbyn, and we’d just have a lovely Jewish prime minister.” Isn’t it a racist sentiment? But Jews are pukka anti-racists…

Corbyn had been trying his best to accommodate the Jews. He expelled his staunch supporters whenever the Jews demand their heads. He is going to a compromise after a compromise, he denounced the Jews who stayed with him despite community pressure. All in vain, because the Jews care little about definitions, but they are worried about Corbyn’s hostility to banksters, by his excessive (in their eyes) sympathy to British workers and by his unwillingness to fight wars for Israel. They can’t say that openly, that is why they keep pushing anti-Semitism button hoping to unseat Corbyn and return Blair-2.

My respected friend Jonathan Cook, the great British journalist based in Nazareth, summed it up well:

“Besieged for four years, Corbyn has been abandoned. Few respected politicians want to risk being cast out into the wilderness, like Ken Livingstone, as an anti-Semite. Corbyn himself has conceded too much ground on anti-semitism. He has tried to placate rather than defy the smearers.”

Cook points out that by conceding ground, Corbyn betrayed Palestinians and betrayed anti-Zionist Jews who were expelled by droves from Labour. Even Tony Greenstein, a Jewish nationalist though anti-Zionist, had been expelled; the same Tony Greenstein who attacked me and Gilad Atzmon for our anti-Semitism (I responded to him here). He was also sent home packing. The late Hajo Meyer, a Holocaust survivor and defender of Palestinian rights, a personal friend of Corbyn, had been denounced. Palestinians were betrayed, and we should care about them more than about Jewish fine feelings.

But why should we give a damn about Corbyn and/or Palestinians if we aren’t British voters? I’ll tell you.

In the British establishment, pro-Jewish forces decided to side with the Washington War Party to push us close to war. The recent visit of the British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (the man on the shortlist of Israel’s agents within the British establishment) to Washington where Hunt delivered a speech calling for full-out war on Russia, “has been read as an intervention on the side of the anti-Russian faction in the split and divided US administration”, said the Guardian.

The speech is just an opening, missiles will follow soon. Today, I was informed by my contacts, the Russians have delivered a demarche to the State Department, warning the Americans to desist from their plans to attack Syria. Russian intelligence learned that eight tanks containing chlorine have been delivered to Halluz village of Idlib province where the group of specially trained militants has already been deployed in order to simulate the rescue of the victims of chemical attack. The militants were trained by the British private military company Olive (which had merged with the American Constellis Group.

The operation, the Russians say, had been planned by the British intelligence services to justify an impending airstrike directed against Syrian military and civil infrastructure. For this strike, USS The Sullivans guided missile destroyer with 56 cruise missiles onboard arrived to the Persian Gulf, and the US Air Force bomber B-1B with 24 cruise Air-to-Surface Missiles had been flown to the Al-Udeid air base in Qatar.

The idea is Israeli, the operational plans are British, weapons and vessels are American, and a possibility for confrontation grows stronger each day. The success of Corbyn would put a stop to these plans of war. But will he have a chance?

Ron Unz wrote that the British establishment together with Organised Jewry were able to push unwilling America into the world wars twice, and perhaps they will be able to repeat this feat a third time. It seems that the Question of Palestine, one of the reasons for America’s entry into the world wars, is likely to unleash another war.

Who is the master and who is the slave of the two, Organised Jewry or English establishment? This is the-chicken-and-the-egg dilemma, and there are conflicting answers.

* IndianaUniversity’s Professor of Geography, Mohameden Ould-Mey provided strong arguments that English were the Master. I presented his case here.

* The opposing view is that of the late Times correspondent Douglas Reed, presented in his Controversy of Zion, a cryptic book. Proponents of both views had been banned beyond marginalizing. You are just aren’t allowed to ponder it.

I do not intend to rule who is right; however, the moot area where the twain intersect is definitely a trouble spot. Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel are the groups within this intersection. Their desire for war against Russia sends us a powerful signal of danger.

On the opposing side, there are two intersecting groups: (1) friends of Palestine, and (2) opponents of Jews.

The racial and tribal anti-Semites are of little value, for they are not particularly bright and are easily misled and manipulated. They do not like Jewish noses, but who cares?

But people rejecting globalism, rule of the banks, neoliberalism, impoverishment of native workers, uprooting, Christ-denial, mass migration and population replacement, the “invite and invade” mode – are the core of the resistance. They are called “anti-Semites”, even if they never mention Jews, even if they are Jewish.

Some people who strongly reject this paradigm prefer to dismiss a thought of Palestine. Bannon and his ilk, the British Nationalists never fail to express their admiration of Israel. It shows they are immoral and dishonest. As long as you choose between Banksters’ rule and Zionists’ yoke, you will get both.

Palestine is the heart of the matter. Palestine is why the Jews want the attack on Syria.

Palestine is the tool allowing us to unmask the racist nature of our adversary and defeat him. This is the way to compassion and the way to Christ. If the only escape from anti-Semitism label leads through betrayal of Christ and Palestine, I’d rather bear this label with pride.

Trump and Corbyn are coming to the point from different sides. They are fighting a strong and well-entrenched adversary. Both are tired, both are full of imperfections, but they offer us a chance to save our beautiful world from destruction. It would be silly if they fail for antisemitism scare.

P.S. The first ever trial of a Holocaust Denier in Russia is taking place now in Perm, the Doctor Zhivago city. Roman Yushkov, a Perm University Professor, had been sacked; his social accounts erased, his YouTube presentations removed; there is practically no publicity at all. He reposted an article expressing doubt of the amount of Jewish dead, and a local resident of Habad Chassid House reported him to authorities. There is no law forbidding H denial in Russia, but there is a law forbidding to cause interethnic wrangle. The verdict is expected on September 4. You can write to Prof Yushkov <>

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
The Throne and the Altar Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:03:17 +0000 Ron Unz did it again. He published a few pieces on the Jewish Question, and caused a veritable avalanche of comments and responses. His strong point is the personal touch. It is not a lecture on Jewish faith or Jewish contacts with the Nazis, but rather a story of Unz’s own Odyssey from commonly accepted truisms to a better understanding. Along the way, Unz breaks out of the box, and we share in his discovery of unknown or well-forgotten truths.

His language is moderate, he never screams, and such peaceful delivery makes the material easier to comprehend. He did not emerge a philosemite, for sure, he is not a man who believes that everything Jews do they do for the Glory of God. He goes quite far, but he does not go to the extreme in his judgements, and this is good thing.

In the prevailing climate of Adoration of the Jew, it is good that some brave and noble persons step forward to speak truth to power and to the masses. Without going too far in history, in the beginning of the present century there were more such stubborn and reckless guys. I wrote here on WHEN VICTIMS RULE: A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America, a huge internet project that regretfully disappeared from its usual place, and it hadn’t been updated for a decade at least, but it still can be found here, albeit under a Not Secure banner.

Ron Unz mentions his predecessors Professors Albert Lindemann of the University of California, Kevin MacDonald of California State University, Israel Shahak of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Elliot Horowitz, Israel Joseph Yuval of the Hebrew University and other researchers. These people of science doubted the eternal benevolence of the Jews for the Gentiles.

Unz bravely deals with the German anti-Jewish polemics of Mein Kampf, as well, and he made it available on his site. Though, if you are interested in Hitler’s thoughts on the subject, you can choose a much shorter (22 pages) and more lucid book, a discussion between Adolf Hitler and his teacher, early NSDAP ideologue Dietrich Eckart, Bolshevism From Moses to Lenin.

Unz did not get yet to the Leftist critique of Jewishness, and there are real pearls waiting for him, like Karl Marx’s On the Jewish Question, a brief (22 pages) and powerful treaty, and Abram Leon’s The Jewish Question. There is Left-Christian point of view by the wonderful Simone Weil, who famously refused to enter the Catholic Church considering it “too Jewified”, and whose Need for Roots combines Communism and rejection of mass migration.

There is a Right-Christian view of G K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars is a contemporary bearer of the Catholic anti-Jewish tradition (His latest text had been annotated thus “Catholics and the Jew Taboo by E. Michael Jones. For more than 50 years, the Catholic Church has lost every battle in the culture wars. Sun Tzu said if you don’t know who you are and who your enemy is, you will lose every battle. The record of the Church has proven Sun Tzu right. It’s time for a different approach. It’s time to break the Jew Taboo.”)

Indeed there is no better tool against Jewish supremacy than the glorious name of Christ; but it will take time and effort for Americans to recognise that.

One of the best critical thinkers on the subject was the greatest historian of the 20thcentury, Arnold Toynbee. Any discussion of Jews and Nazis is incomplete without reference to his seminal Study of History, v.8 (can be read here). Toynbee explained why Jews want mass migration from the Third World to Europe: in a European country populated by Somali, Afghan, Syrian etc communities, the Jews will become normalcy itself. Toynbee considered Naqba, the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948, a terrible crime on a par with Nazi persecution of Jews. For his moral position, his name had been erased from the lists of recommended literature, he is not quoted anymore, and practically vanished, while ceding space to his third-grade Jewish contemporaries.

In short, there were Jews and Gentiles, leftists and rightists, who made a go at deconstructing the Jewish narrative and undermining Jewish influence. Today, there are fewer and fewer such voices; and that’s why God bless Ron Unz for picking up the torch. Hopefully he will persist where others dropped of fatigue. The Jews and Gentiles both need it, and especially in the US.

Jews and Bolsheviks

This is not to say that Unz is always right. The Russian Revolution had been allegedly perpetrated by Jewish money, and/or German money, but those claims remained in the realm of black PR. Jacob Schiff was in correspondence with Milyukov, a leading minister in Kerensky government, and an enemy of Bolsheviks in 1917. Claims that Lenin took money from German military had been disproven long time ago. Antony Sutton’s book presents the sum of these claims, and the Russians argued against it convincingly.

Moreover, there is nothing wrong about taking money from wealthy Jews. I did it. Everybody does it. Wealthy Jews give money to all parties that have some chance of success; like now in the US, they support the Reps and Dems, for Trump and against Trump.

Lenin’s attitude was simple and straightforward: take money from whoever gives, do only what you should. Lenin wouldn’t hesitate to take money from Schiff, or Rothschild, or from the Elders of Zion. He believed the capitalists will sell Bolsheviks the rope they will be hanged on. But people who tried to collect what they considered a debt of influence were promptly shot after Bolsheviks’ victory. Jews were involved on all sides in the Russian Revolution: for Lenin and against Lenin, but apparently majority of Russian Jews supported the Mensheviks, the moderate Social Democrats, who lost in 1918 to Lenin’s Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks succeeded to de-Jewify even Russian Jews: they were quickly assimilated, their language Yiddish vanished, their synagogues were decimated; they intermarried, took Russian names, many of them joined the Russian church.

Do not overestimate importance of money. Clinton had much more money than Trump, yet she lost. Bolsheviks had much less money than their enemies, yet they won. Their victory was due to Lenin’s genius, to clear and coherent agenda, to their iron will and readiness to act, and the last but not least: due to popular support by the Russia’s Deplorables.

The Jews moved from their hamlets to Moscow and Petersburg after the Revolution, and they were very visible, like Latinos in New York in 1970s, or like the Blacks after the Civil War. However, they couldn’t and didn’t take over the Russian state. The anti-Communists (“the Whites”)who had lost in the ensuing struggle blamed their defeat on Jewish intervention – like Dems blame their defeat on Putin’s Russia. In reality, they had to blame themselves.

Jewish Church

The Jews aren’t only about money. For many generations, clever Jewish kids were trained to be lawyers, theologians, priests, while second-best went for business. (The nearest comparison is provided by Brahmins of India.) And for many generations, their abilities were of little use beside arguing in the synagogue. Only in 19th century, when the Jews joined gentile society en masse, they could practice these well-honed skills on the large scale. They began to build a theocratic society, the only one they were trained to build. In this theocracy, they were supposed to be lawgivers, judges, preachers; and thus Jews took positions in the legal profession and in media, judging and preaching.

Jewish success means they succeeded to build this society, where they form the Church and the Law. On the way, they had to break the “old” Christian church, and they had to establish the supreme position of the Law, undermining the political structure of executive and legislative powers.

Perhaps the first struggle of Jews for superiority was the fight against tobacco companies. They could not pass laws against them, but they could ruin them by accepting frivolous suits against them. When the US Courts began to rule against tobacco companies to the extent of many billions of dollars, the companies surrendered. Like the abortion law, tobacco law had been given by judges, not by Congress or the President administration. It could not be done without the active support of media: the gentlemen of the press convinced the public that tobacco is bad, and that the courts act in the public interest. Since then, the Jewish church, that is media, and the Jewish courts (Jews have almost-majority in the Supreme Court and in the media) together rule the US, just like the Jews did in the Biblical times.

This arrangement is profoundly anti-democratic, and it could not but cause great dissatisfaction. This explains the nature of the current fight between President Trump and the US media and law establishment. If for a moment we overlook the Jewish aspect of the media and law, it is a struggle between the Power and the voice of critical public. This is how the media gentlemen would prefer us to see it, for a person of a free mind will side with critics of Power.

But if we take into account the Jewish aspect, we shall get a totally different picture. Trump is a spiritual heir to Henry the VIII and other great kings who had fought the Church. The Western Jewish and Jewified media is a modern Church that displaced and replaced the Christian Church in the West. And in the struggle between the Throne and the Church, a free person will rather choose the Throne.

Regarding freedom, the Jews had made a U-turn. Traditionally, the Jews allied themselves to the Kings, against the Church and against the Commons. They were enemies of the Church, and as they exploited the common folk, they needed royal protection. As they were enemies of the Church, they were considered allies to men of free spirit, who struggled to free themselves and the society from the church shackles. Films and books (notably by Umberto Eco) present Jews as the best friends of first European free-thinkers opposing the Inquisition.

The Jews did not love freedom for freedom’s sake. They wanted to become the dominant Church themselves, and to rule the spirit of the world. They made it in the US, the only country without a church of its own. The US has, instead, a lot of churches, but it has not one single church to unite the citizenry in one communion. In the competition against these splinters, the Jewish Church did win its dominant position in the society.

After achieving this historic victory, the Jews rolled the world back to pre-Christian times, to the rule of their church and their judges. The King had his power severely undermined, and democracy almost lost its meaning. Before, Jews were for freedom; now, the Jews are against it and for obedience to their rules.

The Supreme Court is the real highest authority of the United States, exactly as the Jews prefer – especially that there are three, or four Jews. Now President Trump wants to bring in a Catholic in place of a resigning Catholic, Justice Kennedy, and the Jews are upset. The old witch of California, Senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the Catholic Judge Amy Coney Barrett for her faith. They wanted another Jewish judge, and Obama nominated him; alas, the Republicans blocked his appointment, otherwise there would be Jewish majority, and they would be able to declare the US as another Jewish state by claiming that it is what the Constitution means. After they declared that the Constitution means a union of two men is marriage, or that every woman is entitled to murder her unborn child, or that the President is not allowed to stop illegal immigration, they can decide anything.

Trump does not dare to say he wants to get a non-Jew to the Court, so he speaks in terms of Liberal vs Conservative judges. Certainly it is important, but even more important to defang the Supreme Court, to force it to give up the authority it usurped.

The FRS is too independent, and also in Jewish hands. Shouldn’t Trump try to pry it away? And the Security Agencies: how many of them are being led by Jews?

Hate speech laws are a modern equivalent of medieval blasphemy laws. The Jews want to decide who can – and can’t govern. In the UK, three Jewish newspapers attacked Jeremy Corbyn, but other mainstream newspapers, ostensibly non-Jewish, also are sticking to the same tune. In the US, the Jews decided that Trump may not be president, that is unless he is doing everything Israeli Prime Minister asks for.

So indeed there is a great need to bring democracy to the US by restoring President’s constitutional powers and by severely curbing unconstitutional Jewish powers. And fine articles by Ron Unz could be a great start for this road to real American independence.

P.S. It hurts to defend a serial killer, especially for free, but the recent Monsanto case, where the rogue giant was ordered to pay up $290 million to a sick gardener, calls exactly for that. The law establishment wants to demonstrate its humaneness and responsiveness to our feelings. This is a way of good tyrants to endear themselves upon the people.

Monsanto deserves to be destroyed, but so is the tyranny of the legal establishment. The law gentlemen (and ladies) should be cut down to size, while the political decisions (and fighting Monsanto is a political decision) should be made by people and their elected politicians.

An American revolution should free people of law dictatorship; let courts decide in normal cases, normal damages, like it is done in Europe where courts never issue similar rulings, and you will be free. It is clearly absurd to decide millions to an old gardener, with all sympathy. The money will anyway be shared between lawyers, and he will get pennies.


Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Helsinki Secrets Tue, 24 Jul 2018 17:38:40 +0000 Like an orange hurricane, President Trump made a stormy visit to the Old World. Usually American presidents’ visits to Europe present photo opportunities and vows of eternal love and friendship. Not this time. Since the Mongol invasion, not many visitors from outside shook Europe like he did. The US President has finally emerged from the cage built by his political adversaries, and begun to say things his voters wanted to hear.

However, his wonderful daring statements were quickly undermined and disowned by his ministers and advisers, creating the feeling that Trump speaks only for himself, while the US administration, his own appointees say the opposite. And then he also repudiated his own statements, saying he was misunderstood.

The American president increasingly resembles the hero of The Prince and The Pauper, the poor boy who accidentally became a king – and began to behave in a non-royal way: showing mercy and caring for people. His own staff disregards his commands. Trump says what people like to hear, but his administration sticks to the original course.

During the first part of his trip he acted a rebel in Wodehouse World with its feeble men and formidable women. Indeed the West is ruled by formidable aunts and elder sisters. Aunt Angela in Germany, Aunt Theresa in England, Aunt Brigitte in France. Only Aunt Hillary is missing to complete the puzzle and establish the rule of Aunties over their hen-pecked nephews.

(Hillary’s defeat didn’t derail the Aunties’ program of emasculation: #MeToo campaign goes on unabated. Men are afraid to flirt with girls. Henry (The Superman) Cavill admitted as much in an interview, saying that flirting with somebody would be like “casting myself into the fires of hell”, as a person in the public eye. “I think a woman should be wooed and chased”, he said, but it could lead to jail. He was immediately attacked for this heresy: “If Henry Cavill doesn’t want to be called a rapist then all he has to do is… not rape anyone”, implausibly they claimed. And he apologised profusely.)

Trump’s trip had been accompanied by mass protest demos. Normally I am all in favour of a good anti-American demo, but in this case, the protesters were extreme feminists and supporters of unlimited immigration. That’s people who like the Aunties, and hate Uncles. They do not mind conflict with Russia and even consider Trump as a “Russian agent”. They dislike that he does not obey Aunties.

In the second part of the tour, Trump had met with the formidable Mr Putin, a real man. Now that we have learned from our reliable sources what had happened in the palatial halls of Helsinki (excepting face-to-face private talk with Putin) we can describe Trump’s Pilgrim’s Progress and share our knowledge and conclusions with you.

In short, President Trump made the right sounds and called for right solutions, but he has been unable to insist on any. If he were a free man of his own mind, this trip would transform the world. The way things are, it will remain a sign of his honourable intentions, for everything he said has been overturned and denied by his aides.

In Brussels, Trump attacked Frau Merkel. How does she dare to buy Russian gas, if Germany faces a Russian threat? Why does it accept immigrants and refugees who undermine the European way of life? Saying that, he sided with “the populists”, the Italians, Hungarians and Austrians, whose top politicians are male and friendly to Trump and Putin.

The Brussels meeting almost came to an undoing of NATO. Trump hinted that the US would leave NATO unless they pay. They have to pay more, much more, if they want to have American protection.

Could he mean it? NATO is an instrument of American control over Europe, and Washington keeps dozens of bases in Europe, in particular – in Germany. Germany has remained under American occupation since 1945. This would seem good for America, but the occupied and controlled Western European states are tied to the Clinton camp, to Democrats and liberals. They do not accept Trump as their rightful sovereign. And Europe does not pay for its occupation, so it is costly. Of course, it is a great honour to occupy and control the great powers of the past, England, France, the Netherlands, Spain. But it costs a lot of money for America. Likewise, in 1990 Russia discovered that it is expensive to control surly East Germany, independent Poland, sunny Georgia, tricky Armenia, populous Uzbekistan and the rainy Baltic States.

There is no certainty that the countries of Europe will agree to pay and submit to Trump’s demands. In Germany, there are growing voices demanding the Yankees be sent home, that is, to ask the American soldiers to leave Germany. It would be good if NATO were to disintegrate and disappear, like the Warsaw Treaty Organization disappeared. Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to return the American soldiers home. Perhaps we shall witness Pax Americana without American troops in Europe, like England fictitiously claimed to belong to the Roman Empire, though Roman legions had left, and Rome lost all interest in foggy Albion.

In England, Trump confronted Mrs May. She reminded him of his school mistress, and Donald does not like school mistresses. The soft Brexit, which she intends to conclude, is a complete bummer, not a Brexit, he said. Under the proposed treaty, all prerogatives remain in Brussels. So, there can be no trade agreement between the United States and Britain. America will negotiate directly with Brussels. And in general, it would be better if May transferred Downing Street 10 to her former Foreign Secretary, a hard-line Brexit supporter, the red-headed Bojo (as the Brits call Boris Johnson, who had just resigned, resenting the proposed plan for soft Brexit).

The European Union is an American design, too. Why, then, does the US President want to undermine it by removing the UK, his own Trojan Horse? Apparently, it means that the globalist forces have entered a state of direct confrontation with America.

This first part of Trump’s tour had been followed by the Kremlin with satisfaction. The Kremlin also believes that NATO has become obsolete, and that Brexit is the right step. Russia instinctively disapproves of mass migration, just like Trump.

Trump’s meeting with President Putin had been postponed for a year; both men were eager to meet. Trump wanted to meet another strong man, a powerful chieftain who can assist him in building a new world, instead of the one created under Obama, by media and Supreme Court Judges. President Putin wanted to solve bilateral issues and to ease American pressure upon Russia.

Their problems were very different. The main problems of Trump were Mme Clinton and Barack Obama, and the whole army of their obstinate followers who didn’t recognise Trump’s legitimacy. Putin couldn’t do much for him, with all his sympathy.

Putin’s problem is the hybrid warfare carried out by the United States against Russia. Despite accusations you hear in your media (alleged Russian ads in the Facebook and Twitter influencing voters), American pressure on Russia is very real and very painful. American officials try to wreck every international deal Russia attempts to clinch. It is not only, or even mainly about weapons. If a country A wants to sell Russians, say, bananas, the US ambassador will come to A’s king, or his minister, and will expressly forbid him to sell bananas to godless Russians. Otherwise, do not expect the US aid, or do not count on US favours in your disputes with your neighbours, or the US won’t buy your production, or US banks will take another long and jaundiced view at your financial transactions. You witnessed the scene, when the crazed Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, threatened sovereign nations with severe punishment for voting against the US desires, so you have an idea of American delicacy and caution while pushing their will through.

Russians are in a very uncomfortable seat. All their neighbours are subject to American pressure to annoy Russia, be it Georgia (once they even attacked Russia militarily being led by American and Israeli advisers) or the Ukraine (Americans arranged a coup d’état and installed extremely hostile to Russia government in Kiev). American military bases surround Russia and NATO troops drew closer and closer to its centres. American military budget of 600 billion dollars dwarfs the Russian one, while the armaments’ race can undermine Russian finances. If Russia were a woman, she would scream: stop it!

Perhaps our colleague Mr Andrei Martyanov is right and the US can’t destroy Russia militarily; perhaps Immanuel Wallerstein is correct and American power is in decline; but meanwhile the US is perfectly able to make life hard and difficult for any state. It made life unbearably hard for North Korea, extremely hard for Iran. Russia is not doing half as good as she could do without ceaseless American meddling.

President Putin would like Trump to relent. There is no reason for this incessant picking on Russia; it is not Communist anymore; it is much smaller and less populous than the former USSR; it wants to live in peace as a member of the family of nations, not as a great alternative. The anti-Russian offensive began in earnest in the days of previous US presidents, namely Obama and Clinton; so it would make sense for Trump to stop it.

Problem is, President Trump is also actively engaged in war against Russia. Just a few days ago he pressured the German Chancellor to give up on the North Stream-2, to stop buying Russian gas. His advisers demanded that Turkey desist from buying a Russian antimissile system. The US Air Force bombed Russian troops in Syria.

Still Putin made a good try. He proposed to hold a referendum in the Donbas area of Eastern Ukraine which is presently independent though lacking international recognition. The people of Donbas had their own referendum in 2014, and voted for independence; Kiev regime and its Western sponsors denied its validity as it was done under Russian army’s protection, they claimed. Now Putin proposed a re-run under international auspices.

Trump ostensibly agreed, he said it was a good idea, and he asked for the opinion of John Bolton, his national security advisor; Bolton confirmed it was a good idea. This was in Helsinki; however, since then the idea had been rejected by the Americans, as the Kiev regime balked at it. The regime knows well that the people of Eastern Ukraine aren’t likely to opt for their tender mercies, and Trump administration won’t push Kiev to agree to secession, or to abide by the Minsk agreements and let them re-join federal Ukraine as an autonomous unit. So this haemorrhaging wound at the western border of Russia will bleed on.

As for Syria, Putin told Trump that he agreed upon the arrangements with Mr Netanyahu to keep Iranians and their militias at some 80 km away from the disengagement (1974) lines at the Golan Heights. (Iranians are now going through a difficult stretch and they accepted this solution without a murmur.) This was acceptable to Trump, and both presidents stressed that they value Israeli security highly.

(They have differing reasons for it. Putin wants Syria to remain in peace under his protégé and ally President Bashar Assad, and for this, he needs some security arrangements with pugnacious Israel. Putin is aware of Jewish state’s ability to pull strings and he doesn’t want to antagonise it. Putin also wants Trump to be happy, and Israel is a point of huge importance for the US President, much more than for Putin.

Trump sacrifices at the altar of Israel to propitiate the Jews he is fighting in the US. Trump fights everything American Jews stand for, against all they achieved recently. He wants to have them back in the cash flow cubicle, the ‘short guys that wear yarmulkes every day’, counting his notes. They want much, much more: they wish to dominate and rule America their own way. Trump is ready to give all he can to Israel, so the American Jews will be less eager to fight him.

This ploy had been tried by the German National-Socialists in 1930s, who gave the Zionist-Socialists the most profitable Ha’avara deal to offset and overcome hostility of American Jews. It failed then, it is likely to fail again, but not before the Zionists will get all they dream of.)

For North Korea, Putin lauded Trump’s move and said he will keep playing a supportive role to American efforts.

For the bogus “Russian interference in the US elections”, Putin proposed to establish a bilateral expert group for cyber security. Let experts deal with experts, and sort out the claims, he said. Trump agreed with the idea, though his advisers were quick to repudiate it upon their return to Washington.

Putin also proposed to allow cross-examinations on the reciprocity basis: the US investigators will travel to Russia and interrogate Russian officials indicted by Mueller’s team; while Russian investigators will travel to the US and interrogate Ambassador McFaul for his participation in Browder affair. Trump had been impressed by the generous offer; but as he returned to Washington, McFaul (falsely) claimed Trump intends to send him to the Gulag, and Trump’s advisers promptly repudiated the proposal.

Putin did not intend to arrest and detain McFaul, just to question him; likewise, he wouldn’t permit Mueller investigators to carry Russian intelligence officers to a Guantanamo of their choice, just to ask them questions. The Browder Affair grows bigger as time goes: though the rascal was not the biggest of Russian assets’ looters, he was the most outspoken and keen on hanging on the stolen goods. The US advisers from top-league universities implanted in the Yeltsin administration in 1990s had stolen more; they also facilitated creation of the mighty oligarchs of that time. However, Browder had more tenacity and he judiciously invested a lion share of his ill-gotten profits in bribes aiming to suborn the US administration and turn it onto relentless pursuit of Russia. Ambassador McFaul fronted for him and covered his misdeeds; while McFaul tried to interfere in Russian electoral process following the precedent established in 1996.

Thus at Helsinki, a pattern had been established, I was told by a witness. Putin would make a proposal, Trump would tentatively agree and promptly deny and repudiate on return to Washington.

From the beginning to the end, the US media was highly hostile to Trump and to his mission in Europe. They eagerly followed anti-Trump demos and exaggerated his every blunder. Google obediently trailed at the top Twitter messages of the ex-CIA boss calling Trump ‘a traitor’. All prominent Western newspapers spoke of Trump’s ‘treason’.

Perhaps they would be able to convince some Republicans to follow their trend, but the defeat of Rep. Mark Sanford in South Carolina primaries following Trump’s angry Twitter had brought them to their senses. A Republican leader stated the case well: “Obviously there are going to be those who are going to criticise him but they’re going to criticise him for anything that he says. This committee stands strong, stands behind him and wants to support him. We’re interested not only in the 2018 elections, we’re interested in the 2020 elections as well.”

The result of violent Trump-is-a-traitor campaign was surprising: 80% of Trump voters approved of his Helsinki shtick, notwithstanding the vehement accusations. American media had lost its silver touch. President may continue to build his power structure, and perhaps one day his word will be worth something.

Bottom line: Trump dared, and survived.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
The Singapore-Helsinki Express Wed, 04 Jul 2018 20:44:06 +0000 Helsinki after Singapore! The summit Trump-Putin will hopefully take place this month in the Finnish capital, after being delayed and delayed for ages. We had expected the two strong men to meet right away after Trump’s historic election, but the summit didn’t take place, for Trump had been besieged by Mueller’s Gestapo and accused of being a Russian agent. This frivolous accusation is still floated every time Trump is doing something sensible, but things changed with Trump-Kim summit, an event that grows in importance in perspective almost daily.

Trump before Singapore and after Singapore are entirely different creatures, like a boy before and after his first kiss. Before, he was a Mr Big Mouth, a ruler of his own Twitter account and of preciously little beside it. After the summit, he became Prometheus Unbound, the regal President of the mighty US. By meeting Kim, he denied the wiseguys in the media and in the deep state; he refused to take their orders and did what he thought right. By meeting Putin he will turn his disobedience into full scale revolt.

His adversaries, the Masters of Discourse, were alarmed by Kim summit and horrified by approaching Putin meet.

Let us have a brief look at their reaction to Singapore. (Here you can find a lot more). The Senate Minority leader Chuck (“the Guardian of Israel”) Schumer has expressed “extreme concern”, saying that “Trump has drawn a false equivalency between the legitimate joint military exercises by South Korea and the US, and illegal North Korean nuclear testing (“How can you compare!” – a standard Jewish response) … Nothing should be given to N Koreans until “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program.”… Trump has given “a brutal and repressive dictatorship the international legitimacy it has long craved.”

Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times complained that Trump ‘made a huge concession — the suspension of military exercises with South Korea’ while he got nothing in return – “nothing about North Korea freezing plutonium and uranium programs, nothing about destroying ICBM, nothing about allowing inspectors to return, nothing about North Korea making a full declaration of its nuclear program, nothing about a timetable, nothing about verification etc”. Noah Rothman, co-editor of the neocon magazine Commentary, called the summit “a disgrace”.

And the “humanitarian interventionists”, that is, the leftists for intervention on humanitarian grounds, have already rolled out complaints of defectors from North Korea to the front pages, and they expectedly demand to never consent to any peace without a complete change of regime, lustration and international control.

President Trump has been presented with a united front of media and experts alarmed with any progress towards peace. For them, the only way to deal with N Korea is the Libya way: disarm first, intervene and bomb later, for it is much safer to bomb a disarmed country. The Korean leader understands that; he is not likely to go the Gorby way. The last Soviet leader disarmed his country, dismantled the Warsaw Treaty, gave East Germany to the West and allowed the US inspectors into the most secret Russian installations after a friendly chat with President Reagan. Kim won’t do it, and China won’t allow him. The last thing Chinese (or Russians) need is an American protectorate in North Korea, a rather short drive from Beijing, Harbin, and Vladivostok. But warm relations between N and S Koreas and the US are certainly possible, if President Trump were to stick to his Singapore line.

However, a few weeks after Singapore, it seems that the naysayers prevailed, as they usually do. The US refused to work towards lifting sanctions in the UN Security Council, and had rejected the Russian-Chinese proposal to begin their dismantling, while the Western media began working up its roll of Kim’s transgressions. Thus the aura of unreliability again surrounded the head of American president.

Putin’s meet had brought forth similar responses. OMG, peace is breaking!

“Fears grow over prospect of Trump ‘peace deal’ with Putin, editorialised The Times.Britain fears that President Trump will undermine NATO by striking a “peace deal” with President Putin… Cabinet ministers are worried that Mr Trump may be persuaded to downgrade US military commitments in Europe… NATO figures fear that Mr Trump could seek to replicate his “peace agreement” with Kim Jong-un of North Korea, which generated positive coverage. One cabinet minister said: “What we’re nervous of is some kind of Putin-Trump ‘peace deal’ with Trump and Putin saying, ‘Why do we have all this military hardware in Europe?’ and agreeing to jointly remove that.” Other media sources, and politicians are equally unhappy and worried. “European allies hugely worried over Trump’s summit with Putin”, says MSNBC; so does the Atlantic, the Guardian etc.

The nearest to a positive attitude to the Singapore meeting had been displayed by the observer of the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, British Jewish journalist Anshel Pfeffer: of course, an agreement with the bloody tyrant (Kim) is undesirable, but there is a hope that, having reconciled with Kim, Trump will go to war with Iran more easily. He comforted the warmongers that their loss of a Korea war will be made up by a war on Iran. This is the line the comforters take on the Helsinki meeting: Ta rump-Putin summit could be forgiven if it would lead to war on Iran. This is the alternative as presented by the Western MSM: warmongers condemn both summits, comforters say ‘not all is lost, there is still Iran’.

In order to understand why unwilling Americans are being led into war, we shall turn to a recent important piece by Ron Unz. It is a part of his American Pravdaseries investigating modern American history and its [mis]presentation in media and in public memory. Our Great Purge of the 1940s, despite the title, is a decoding of secret codes in American and British public discourse in 20th century. After going through an immense number of newspapers and magazines, Unz discovered that whoever in American public life sided against wars, usually had found himself marginalised, expelled, forgotten, or even assassinated.

In a touching personal way, he tells of his discovery that writers he believed were marginal radicals actually had held supreme positions in MSM and politics of their times, until they were marginalised and presented as extremists.

An example is H.E. Barnes, a highly esteemed and popular commentator on most prestigious tribunes, until “By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently “disappeared” as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May 1940.” He disappeared from memory, says Unz.

A political example is Charles Lindbergh, strong voice for peace in the end of 1930s – beginning of 1940s. Just once he mentioned that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media attacks and denunciations, writes Unz. That was the end of Lindbergh’ political career, and the US entered the WW2.

In the battle for Hollywood (a very important tool of mass propaganda), the only Gentile studio owner, Disney, a staunch pro-peace force, had his premises occupied by the US Army, tells Unz, on the day after Pearl Harbour.

Was it good or bad, from our present point of view? We should make a strict distinction between the time before and after the beginning of hostilities in Europe. Before, the peace platform was right, for the WW2 could be avoided altogether: if Poland (with British and American encouragement) wouldn’t provoke Germany, Hitler could stay at home and try to turn his country into Nazi paradise. As the war began in earnest, the US had to intervene in Europe to prevent a German victory and subsequent German domination of the whole Eurasian landmass, from English Channel to Vladivostok. As for the war with Japan, it could be avoided if the US didn’t provoke Japan by its oil embargo.

Unz writes that the Jews and the Roosevelt administration prevailed on Britain and Poland to take a strong anti-German line. The Jews were certainly anti-Nazi, and they were willing to take chances of the world war. But F.D. Roosevelt had been elected because he promised peace and neutrality, – and when elected, he made a U-turn and went to war.

It appears to be a permanent feature of American politics: presidents get elected promising peace, and choosing war after their election. F.D. Roosevelt supported the Neutrality Bill, but ushered the US into WW2. G.W. Bush promised “humble foreign policy” and went on to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq. B.H. Obama had been so keen on peace that even received his Nobel in advance, but continued to carry war in Libya and Syria. And now we have Donald Trump, whose election campaign included the promise of ‘no more regime change’ and friendship with Russia, but his presidency (meanwhile) will be remembered by war threats to Iran and N Korea.

Unz in the mentioned article refers to Iraq war, too. Those who objected to this most meaningless and destructive war were marginalised and ostracised:

Phil Donahue had high ratings on MSNBC, but in early 2003 his show was canceled, with a leaked memo indicated that his opposition to the looming war was the cause. Conservative Pat Buchanan and liberal Bill Press, both Iraq War critics, hosted a top-rated debate show on the same network, but it too was cancelled for similar reasons. Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan was similarly blacklisted from the media for his opposition to the Iraq War. Numerous prominent media voices were “disappeared” around the same time, and even after Iraq became universally recognized as an enormous disaster, most of them never regained their perches.

So there is a force that pushes for war consistently, at least since 1914 till our days. This force coincides with the main vector of American politics, and since 1991, with the Western politics at large. It has a strong Jewish component based in media and universities; a new Church of the West trying to embrace the world. Its wars are ‘crusades’ (מצווהמלחמת, ‘wars for faith’ Joshua-style). That’s Jewish drive for world domination. Jews are shy of admitting that, but once, Jews will admit and recognise it; especially as their drive is intertwined with the American drive for world domination (called Manifest Destiny), and the British ‘White Man’s Burden’.

One of the reasons the Jews parted their company with Russians is the latter’s lack of aggressiveness. Whether in football or in war, the Russians are usually defensive players. Even Josef Stalin, whose name still scares people, hardly ever initiated an aggressive war; he never dreamt to conquer Europe or the world. Other Russian rulers were even more defensive, at best. This does not suit the Jews, who prefer more action.

For Anglo-American civilization has its intrinsic aggressiveness, too. This is not a value judgement, not a condemnation per se: there are grass-eaters and carnivores; we like and make pets of cats and dogs, the predators, not of timid lambs and calves. However, the aggressiveness has to find its limits, otherwise the world will be destroyed. This limit is now being sought, and President Trump who floated trial balloons of leaving NATO and dismantling other aggressive alliances is doing just that.

The Syria Deal

There are hints that Trump wants to do in Syria what Nixon did in Vietnam, namely, to get out of it. This is a wise step, if he will be allowed to take it. According to media reports, Trump has two conditions to be discussed with Putin.

The first condition, Iran. The US wants Russia to limit its collaboration with Iran or even oust Iran from Syria. For that, the United States is proposing to drop its “Assad must leave” demand; to stop insisting that Syria should be governed by a new provisional government without Assad. The US is ready to agree that the elections in Syria will take place in 2021, and until then this topic will be removed from the agenda. Moreover, the US tempts Russia with lifting some sanctions on Russia proper. This bargain had been proposed to the Russians a few weeks ago, and it had been elaborated upon ever since.

Iran is the enemy of choice for Israel. Donald Trump had made a temporary alliance with Zionists, a Jewish group that is interested mainly in the Middle East, as opposed to the ‘Liberal’ Jews who are after world domination. Liberal Jews are strongly opposed to Trump; while for Zionist Jews the liberal agenda in the US and Europe (immigration, gender, outsourcing, free trade) is less important, while the Middle East (Israel, Iran, Syria) is more important. Trump tries to satisfy Zionist appetites hoping that they will limit their brethren’s attacks on him, in return. Provided that Putin is also friendly to Zionists while the Liberals are hostile to him, two presidents can find an acceptable compromise. But it won’t be what Israel dreams of.

Russia does not intend to quarrel with Iran; it can’t possibly oust Iran from Syria, even if it would like to. As soon as this issue was discussed in the press, there appeared a lengthy interview with President Assad, in which he stressed that Iran’s alliance is most important for him. After all, the Iranians fought on Assad’s side when the Russians were onlookers.

But the Iranians are in a quandary. They do not want confrontation with Russia, nor with the United States, neither with Israel. When Putin launched his trial balloon, saying that all foreign troops should withdraw from Syria, the Iranians did not object, but said: “We can leave, if we are asked”. The Iranians can leave Syria, but Damascus does not want this.

However, Iran agreed not to participate in the current struggle for the south-west of Syria, for the territory adjacent to the borders of Jordan and Israel. There, the legitimate army of Syria is conducting a successful offensive against the rebels with Russian aerial support and without Iranian participation.

Perhaps, this absence of Iranians near Israeli borders will be presented by Trump to Israel as his achievement. Trump wants Russia to create an exclusive Iranian-free zone next to Jordanian and Israeli borders. Russia does not control the situation in Syria to such an extent that it can undertake it. But Russia can negotiate with the Iranians to prevent the Shiite militias from entering this region. They did it once: when the Syrian troops approached the Israeli border in Kuneitra area, Israel demanded that the Shiite militias stay 50-70 km away. The Russians said: “No, but we’ll arrange for you a few kilometres of separation.” Hence, this kind of agreement is possible, if the parties are flexible enough, but there will be no “Russia betrayed Iran” kind of deal.

The second is the fate of the rebels.

Trump does not want the withdrawal of American soldiers to be accompanied by a blood bath. While the US representative to the United Nations accused Russia of violating the ceasefire and not observing the deconfliction zone, the White House said that America would morally support the rebels, but it would not fight for them. “You should not base your decisions on the assumption or expectation of a military intervention by us”, was the message.

This was a signal of approaching end of rebellion. Robert Fisk thinks their collapse is imminent. The Russians won match and set. Some rebel groups already surrendered and went over to the Damascus’ side. The stubborn ones in their thousands retreated to Israeli and Jordanian borders, but neither Israel nor Jordan intends to let them in.

Trump reasonably does not want them to be slaughtered. He does not need screaming media reporting on massacred Syrian freedom fighters and their children and pregnant women betrayed by the Russian agent Trump. He needs an agreement that the Syrian troops will behave and allow the rebels to reconcile with the legitimate government or leave unharmed. This demand suits Russia. From the very beginning and to this day Russians believed and insisted that it is necessary to drag the disparate rebel bands to the side of Damascus. And it suits Assad, for wherever the Syrian troops came as liberators or conquerors, whether in Eastern Ghuta or in Aleppo, they did not indulge in revenge or debt-settling. I am sure that President Putin will help President Trump to leave Syria without losing face.

I understand that for many of my readers it is difficult or impossible to support Trump. The tragedy of Richard Nixon may yet be repeated, for the president who made peace with China and Vietnam had been hated by warmongers and by all media-influenced Americans, and was forced to retire. He was the last independent and peace-loving president; those who condemned him were punished by a long run of inferior rulers. Trump has many faults, but he still wants to avoid a great war. He deserves a chance.

As for Putin, I am certain he will be friendly and charming with the American, and mercifully he won’t be tempted to make big concessions to Trump, for Trump’s powers are still quite limited; his decisions are likely to be blocked by the Congress and possibly overturned by his successor. Only a rash person would make with him a complicated long-term deal, and prudent Putin probably will be satisfied with ad hoc dealing.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 2