Articles – Israel Shamir Ideas that will Derail the descent to Barbarity Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:00:43 +0000 en hourly 1 The Pink Revolution and How to Beat It Sun, 27 Aug 2017 03:59:59 +0000 Colour revolutions usually occur only in the countries blessed with a US diplomatic presence. You need an American embassy to find the perspective ruler to be uplifted by a human swell and placed on the throne; you need an American embassy to bring in enough cash to cover expenses of the organised mayhem; you need an American diplomat to protect the revolutionaries and to order the present dictator to desist. Could it be that there is now an American Embassy in America?

The Great American Colour Revolution marches on. The script is very similar to the ones they have used overseas. Usually it includes toppled monuments. The pro-American forces toppled monuments to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, to Felix Dzerzhinsky in Moscow, to Vladimir Lenin in Kiev, to the Russian soldier-liberator in Tallinn and Warsaw. And now the trend came back home to America like a boomerang, with toppling Confederate statues.

This is not meaningless vandalism, but a symbolic declaration of victory. The victorious side topples the monuments of the defeated. And the defeated spitefully grumble, but can’t do anything. However, watch their hands: everywhere and every time, the colour revolutionaries choose some dated memorials of little importance to the majority. This is a difference with real revolutions, where actual symbols of power go down.

A real revolution in France 1789 destroyed the Bastille, a real revolution in Russia 1917 destroyed the Tsar’s statues and took over the Winter Palace. A real revolution in the US will probably take over the Federal Reserve and topple statues of recent presidents. But colour revolutions are fake, faux-revolutions, so they choose an easy target. Lenin in Kiev, or Lee in Charlottesville were sitting ducks. Lenin’s cause had been defeated in 1990, a quarter century ago, while the cause General Robert Lee fought for had been defeated over 150 years ago. A lot of people are rather upset by their removal, but very few people would care enough to take up arms and defend them. It is a PR action, and a very effective one.

The wonderful Steve Sailer wrote: “The American deep state has taken down various opposing regimes via the mechanism of a Colour Revolution.” This is a good reading, but not a sufficient one. The force behind the colour revolutions, including the present American one, is not an American force, not even the American deep state, but a global one, serving the globalist elite and the shadowy world government. Until recently, they used US power for their ends, now they successfully fight the rising Golem of the United States as they fought much a weaker Ukraine or Sweden. “Golem, know thy place” is the incantation used by the Wizard of Prague, the creator of the Golem, in the medieval Jewish legend. This spell suborns the creature.

People close to power in the US know or feel the global hegemony. Its bearers are heavily Jewish liberal groups, who use their PC, their hostility to the Church, their approval of gender flux in order to undermine the mind and mentality of an ordinary American, of a redneck, of a working class Goy (as in the Goy, Bye headline). They ceaselessly tease and annoy this goy, in order to cause his premature acts of rebellion to be easily squashed. In order to spite the worker, they even put on the latest aircraft carrier only toilet bowls and no urinals ‚ to make it more comfortable for supposed transgenders and to enrage the rednecks.

The world globalists received a serious blow when their candidate Hillary Clinton lost the election, but they didn’t waste time and immediately mobilised for a fight. They aren’t going to give up hegemony. Practically all the media, judicial system, Congress, intelligence services are in their hands. Charlottesville provided an occasion to show rednecks in whose hands rests hegemony.

Hegemonists have their own storm troops – Antifa. This extremist movement was born in Germany. There they walk on the streets on the anniversary of Dresden bombings with Israeli flags and chant: “Death to Germany! Long live Bomber Harris” (the British commander of the Air Force, a big fan of the carpet bombing of Germany). They managed to terrorize the Germans: as soon as someone objects they call their opponent a Nazi and beat him up. And if they encounter resistance, the police comes to the rescue. That’s why in Germany resistance to the mass inflow of migrants was almost imperceptible. It is spoken about in the kitchen, but not on the streets.

And now Antifa came to America. They have the same mode of action as in Germany. Whoever is against them is a Nazi, or a “white racist”. They proved their mettle in Charlottesville, the city blessed with the Jewish mayor who chose the city police. Many Jewish activists came to participate, from as far as Boston. After the scuffle, the newspapers raised a hue and cry: Nazis attack Jews!

President Trump condemned both sides participating in the brawl‚ both white nationalists and Antifa. It is exactly what his opponents were waiting for. His attempt to stay above the brawl was doomed to defeat: liberal hegemonists immediately branded him a racist and neo-Nazi. Trump reminded them that not all defenders of the monument were white racists, but this argument didn’t work.

The public response to the dog-whistle “racist” was overwhelming. The Jews responded first. Rabbis said they do not want Trump to telephone them and greet them with the forthcoming Jewish High Holidays. 300 Jews, former Yale classmates of Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, imploring him to resign. (Aren’t there too many Jewish alumni in Yale? What about some diversity?)

A known Jewish writer Michael Chabon called upon Ivanka to kill her father, by magical means of going into full mourning for a still living President. Jews believe this should kill a living man as sure as a bullet. Chabon’s hysterical screed must be read to be believed. “Now you know [Trump is] an anti-Semite — a Nazi sympathizer, a friend of the Jew-hating Klan,” he declared. And more and more Jews came in calling to impeach Trump the racist and anti-Semite.

However, non-Jews meekly followed while Jews played them like a fiddle. Industrialists resigned from the presidential council, generals issued a rebuke to their Commander-in-Chief, thousands of non-Jews participated in marches and demonstrations against “white racists”. In short, Jews played as a team, and they dictated the rules. Very, very few persons offered a learned defence of Trump. They would be ostracised, if they did, and Trump proved he is not going to stand for his friends. If his position on Flynn didn’t make it clear, his dismissal of Bannon supplied the sterling proof.

In the present political climate, you are not allowed to speak against the hegemonist view. If you do, you are a white racist, i.e. your opinion is not simply rejected, but it is declared as an unlawful and inadmissible view. This is what hegemony is: when an opposed view is delegitimised.

One can argue for racism (it is anyway better than greed, a mortal sin; it is a natural defence of a tribal territory), but it is a hard way, and quite futile. Before Trump the Racist, there was Trump the Russian Spy, and he was preceded by Trump the Pussy Grabber. New reasons for impeachment will be found, surely.

It is easier to turn the racism weapon against the adversary, for the Jewish adversary of Trump is as racist as any KKK member is likely to be, or worse. Last week it became known, that in Israel, Jewish settlers established a road sign saying: “The area where you are located is under Jewish control. The entry of Arabs is absolutely forbidden and constitutes a mortal danger to you!” You couldn’t find such signs in the Deep South even in Jim Crow days! Was there any response from “antiracist” American Jews? (This is a rhetoric question).

One issue of a Jewish newspaper daily would supply you with sufficient amount of Jewish racism exemplified. Here is a Rabbi calling to exterminate goyim (like vermin they are), here are Jews stealing Palestinian land, here are Jewish judges who approve of a obvious thievery as it delivers Christian houses into Jewish hands.

Is it something Trump doesn’t know? If he knows why doesn’t he use it for his defence? This is not a rhetoric question. The answer to it is that he decided to ally with the Zionist Jews against Liberal Jews. This is the method tried by the Far Right in France, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden. Perhaps it was useful for a while (to get access to the mainstream media) but like every immoral device this one has a limited shelf life. Zionists are a hedging fund of the Jewish People, betting against the governing paradigm. They can’t endear you with the owners of mass media, their status at the World Government is dubious to the extreme. Zionist Jews can – for a while – defend you from an accusation in anti-Semitism, but they will stab you in the back whenever expedient.

It’s not that the Zionist Jews are good for nothing. Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish racism. Palestinian activists – and there are Jews among them, too – can explain that to the Americans. Alison Weir’s book and site are called If Americans Knew, and it is built for such a purpose. Norman Finkelstein can add to that, and so can quite a few Jews and non-Jews with experience of pro-Palestinian activism.

It is possible to beat the Jews and their entourage in the Blame-the-Racist game by attacking Israeli racism. Actually, this is the only method that works, as the other methods do not. Bannon proclaimed his Zionism, and he ended with Goy, Bye. Richard Spencer said he loves Israel, and became a pariah. Now President Trump went down the same path leading to defeat and oblivion. American nationalists who support Zionism lose their moral superiority and get nothing in exchange.

Taking a position against Israeli racism is not only moral, it is practical and realistic. It is the way to solve the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Demand that Israel drop its Jim Crow laws. Let the Palestinians have equal rights, the same as Jews in the Holy Land. Let them have a right to vote, equal employment, freedom of movement in the same buses as the Jews.

A separate independent Palestinian state is not good enough, especially bearing in mind that the Jews aren’t likely to grant it. Remind them that the Jewish Freedom Riders did not support an idea of separate Bantustans for the Blacks, but demanded equality for Blacks and Whites in the whole United States of America. The same attitude should be applied in Israel/Palestine. This is the solution to the problem.

If you want to troll them a bit, call for removal of a memorial for a Jewish slave-driver David Levy Yulee, who was called “the Florida Fire Eater” for his inflammatory pro-slavery rhetoric in the U.S. Senate. He resigned his US Senate seat to support the Confederacy, but his statue still stands high in Fernandia, Amelia Island, Florida, reports Michael Hoffman who notes that neither the ADL nor the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) called for it removal. This is the time to demand Florida to overturn its (year 2000) designation of Yulee a “Great Floridian”.

I’d advise president Trump: Appeal to the better side of human nature. If your fellow Americans want less racism, give it to them – by rejecting Zionism. And proceed with your agenda. I watched with great satisfaction that you laid off North Korea and referred to Jeff Bezos, your enemy. However, your Afghanistan proposal is a mistake. It will give you no kudos. It would be better to stick to the original plan, that is to cut losses and withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria before shrewd Netanyahu can embroil you in a war not of your choosing. Begin to pull back home troops and bases. Go Obama one better: demolish Guantanamo and return it to the Cubans, with the remaining inmates. Let them deal with the tenants.

It is quite unnecessary to antagonise Blacks. There is no profit in it. They are not against you, they are not against whites, they are not even against white nationalists. They are partly white, as a rule. Yes, present diversity-driven overestimation of Blacks’ contribution to the American civilisation can be annoying, especially as it is supposed to provide cover for the exceedingly high rate of their incarceration. Deal with it. There are by far too many inmates in the US Gulag. Bring their number down to the level of, say, 1970. Undo Clinton’s draconian laws. You will be called Trump the Liberator, and the main reason for artificial aggrandisement of the blacks will vanish.

A colour revolution can be defeated by being stern of purpose. You are a golfer: keep your eyes on the ball, Mr President.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Bring Me the Head of Jeff Bezos Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:12:20 +0000 Here is what Donald Trump should call for this morning. This is the right time to up his ante in the struggle against the Lügenpresse. All his efforts to fix the sinking ship of the US society are in vain with a breach below the waterline. If the Fake News applauds every jerk in a mantle who stops a presidential decree, the jerks will multiply and president’s decrees will be worth what? A collector’s rarity. A quirky exhibit from the days of Donald Trump’s short-lived presidency. The fake news media ridiculed the POTUS so completely, that this big man with big orange hair shrunk down to Lilliput’s finger.

Trump can’t get out of his disposition by foreign policy acts. Forget about North Korea. It is a big hedgehog: a lot of bother to catch and kill, many prickles and no meat. The only thing Kim wants to tell Trump is “I am not a soft target, go look elsewhere”. Is North Korea dangerous? Only for those who want to step on it.

P G Wodehouse’s Mr Mulliner argued with anti-smoker lobby: “They come and tell me that if they place two drops of nicotine on the tongue of a dog the animal instantly dies and when I ask them if they have ever tried the childishly simple device of not placing nicotine on the dog’s tongue, they have nothing to reply They are nonplussed. They go away mumbling something about never having thought of that before.”

This line of argument is perfectly valid referring to North Korea. Try the childishly simple device of not interfering with it, of not sending troops and ships and jets there. This far-away place can, and should be forgotten, as it had been forgotten for many, many years. If you really want to do something about North Korea, move your troops and your aircraft carriers elsewhere, say to Norfolk, Virginia; they will be more appreciated there. You will be praised for your wisdom by South Koreans and by Japanese, and by your base in the US.

The fake news media will surely say that you’ve got cold feet and ran away from little fat Kim. But they will say something nasty in any case. Even if you were to unleash a nuclear holocaust upon Korea, they will write: he did it because Mueller’s FBI agents searched Paul Manaforte’s home and discovered he is a Russian spy.

They did not pay attention to the great victory you won a day earlier, when you and your Secretary of State convinced the Russians and the Chinese to vote for a North Korea sanctions draft in the Security Council. It was one of those great diplomatic victories, but the Lugenpresse didn’t say a word about it.

Let us come to the point. Your enemy is not Kim, your enemy is your mainstream mass media. Sure, it is not the only enemy, but if this enemy could be knocked out, the judges would obey, the congressmen would fall into line, Mueller would be sent back to oblivion. There is a problem, how to subdue this stubborn enemy.

You tried a Trump TV Real News and have been rightly ridiculed by all and sundry. Though Kayleigh McEnany is not painful for the eye, this sort of TV had been out of fashion even in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis prefer to watch the forbidden Al Jazeera.

You can’t bomb the headquarters of New York Times or of CNN. Does it mean you are absolutely vulnerable? Yes, you are, unless you instill some fear in the dark souls of the media lords and their allies. Your buddy Putin had been in the same situation you are now, until he arrested Mr Khodorkovsky, the oligarch, in 2003. When this richest man in Russia had been sent to jail for ten years, the media lords of Russia saw the light. They understood they were playing a dangerous game.

The American media men are not different. The Colonel’s Lady an’ Judy O’Grady Are sisters under their skins, said the poet. Show them a flayed media lord, and they will become much, much more reasonable.

And here I’d suggest dealing with Jeff Bezos, first of all and immediately. He is a father of the North Korean crisis, let him be the first victim of it. It is his claim that Koreans produced that nuclear warhead that jump-started the crisis. The jerk did it at the anniversary of the greatest atrocity of all times,the Hiroshima bombing.

If there will be a nuclear war, we can call it Jeff Bezos War.

Jeff Bezos is the richest man on our planet. If there is somebody to hate, it’s got to be him. Do him in, Donald. Skin him. As opposed to North Korea, he is a soft target. A new-rich, a smart kid out of nothing. No old money, no old school ties behind him. Who will support him? The CIA? Cut the CIA budget for the exact amount they pay to Bezos, so the spooks will understand the message.

Go after his advertisers. Kick his reporters out of White House. Ask, no, demand that the FBI to investigate his doings. A rich guy like Bezos has surely committed multiple crimes, no doubt. If the FBI can’t discover his crimes, sack the head of the FBI, and take the one who can. Unleash all the hate you can find upon his head. And when he is be taken to prison, you’ll know: the rest will become more careful with their tongues. And the best: rip him off his ill-gotten gains and use that to provide health care for every American. It should be enough. Probably you could cover all the student loans with the change. And you will be able to proceed with your necessary reforms.

So, Donald, start every day of yours with a great booming call: “Bring me the head of Jeff Bezos”!

And the greatest crime of Bezos isn’t punishable by law. The man stole the good name of Washington Post, the glorious newspaper of old, the newspaper of Bernstein, Woodward, Seymour Hersh and many other wonderful American journalists and reporters. He turned the venerable paper into propaganda tool by appointing a campaign chief of staff instead of a professional man. If Lenovo is not allowed to use the name of IBM, though they bought the company, Bezos should not be allowed to use the name of good old WaPo. Let him call it Bezos Post.

Thus the campaign against Bezos is not against freedom of press, au contraire, it is for saving the press from moneybags.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Between Cersei and Daenerys Mon, 07 Aug 2017 19:13:52 +0000 -Will he sign, or won’t he? – Moscow’s John Bull pub customers tried to second-guess the US President. The pub on the Nikitsky Boulevard in the centre of Moscow is a good watering hole that is frequented by the Foreign Office minor officials and sundry intelligentsia. – He won’t sign his own surrender, fervently said A Pint of Bitter. – No way! He would not like to become a lame duck after just seven months in the White House. The Constitution is on his side! – Oh yes, he will sign, insisted Gin-and-Tonic. – He can’t deny the will of Congress. As for constitution, the courts took over his right to decide on immigration, now the Congress takes over foreign policy. He will decide where to spend his vacation, that’s all.

This is exactly what happened, as you all know. Donald Trump obediently if grudgingly signed the sanctions bill, and decided to spend the vacations playing golf in New Jersey, while his erstwhile buddy Putin departed for a fishing trip in Siberia, and even speared a giant pike after two hour long pursuit in the cold lake. Not as big as one he had caught four years ago, but that was before the US sanctions.

Apparently the bill was not bad enough to send him hiding into bunker. Perhaps Putin had been calmed down by Rex Tillerson’s insistence that the legislation should be regarded “as a sign Americans want Russia to improve relations with the U.S.” for what could be more calming and relaxing than a good laugh? Tillerson’s statement was surely as hilarious as Don’t run, we are your friends scene in the Mars Attacks! movie. Great Hollywood movies often presage the future events.

While at movies, The Game of Thrones seems more apposite to the present situation. President Trump vs. the Swamp is the ultimate battle for dominance, like that of Cersei and Daenerys. Putin’s Russia is an outsider that does not really want to get involved in the struggle beyond cheering the winner. Putin doesn’t want to bend his knee either to the Clinton Collective nor to Trump, though his – and many Russians’ – sympathies were for Trump. If sympathy and preference amount to interference, then the Russians interfered in the US elections, otherwise they didn’t. We know that from the best source: from Seymour Hersh, the most trustworthy US journalist.

The Russian Prime Minister Mr Medvedev summed the situation in a brief and to the point post in his Facebook page, conveniently in Russian and English. “First, the sanctions law ends hopes for improving Russia’s relations with the new US administration. Second, it is a declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia. Third, the Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This changes the power balance in US political circles.”

The Prime Minister is a man whose opinion matters. He is not the weakling that the Russian nationalist opposition branded him. While a President and a Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, on 8.8.8 (Aug 8, 2008, for slow thinkers) he disregarded the US calls and Russians’ divided public opinion, moved the tanks beyond the Caucasus mountains and defeated the arrogant Georgians with their Israeli and American instructors in a brief war. Still he is a liberal, his government carries out liberal policy, he is not seeking confrontation. If he says it’s war, albeit economic one, then it’s war the US declared on Russia.

Still the more important war goes on between the Establishment and the President, and this war is not over. Trump had been humiliated, it is true, he lost a battle but not the war. It is too early to write him off, as Medvedev suggests.

President Putin understood that as he ordered the mass expulsion of the US diplomats before Trump signed the bill, though previously he said he will do it after the bill will become a proper law. If Putin would wait a few days, the expulsion could be considered a response to Trump’s signing. But Putin preferred to make the Congress responsible for the action.

President Trump agreed with Putin, when he twitted: “Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank Congress!” The Russia-baiting senator John McCain replied with “You can thank Putin”, but this line of accusations leads nowhere.

Trump is in one hell of a mess, but he has some solid support. I do not mean the people, I mean the real business sector of America. The Swamp has been fed by the virtual economy of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, mass media, the Federal Reserve, the spy agencies. Their enemies, the people of the real industry, support Trump, and they aren’t likely to surrender. The conflict crossed the Atlantic, and now it rages in Europe, where supporters of the Clinton Collective had found themselves in an unpleasant situation. They’re losing money, for American business does not want to support them anymore.

The Swedish elites, strong supporters of the Clinton Collective, discovered that at their peril. Their great TNC Ericsson suffered huge losses last year. When they have tried to make some deals with American companies on basis of their previous contacts they discovered that the American businessmen are underwhelmed and had sent them home without signing the deal. (I wrote about it previously) Such signals make lasting impression.

Recently there were some emissaries coming to Moscow and asking Putin to take sides in the battle, to get rid of the liberal wing of his the government. But Putin is not keen on it. Russian liberals are still playing ball, they do not interfere with his rule. Putin prefers to keep Russia out of this struggle altogether; if he will fail it won’t be for the lack of trying.

Sympathies of Putin and his supporters still are with Trump, with American nationalists, for we can imagine a deal that can be reached with them, a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche of the world and of the market. It is hard even to imagine a possible deal with devoted globalists who want to remake the world including Russia after their own image. Still, Putin does not intend to get involved in the intra-American quarrel.

The nearest and the best he could do was waiting for half a year before acting on December expulsion of the Russian diplomats. Now we are entering a new stage, a full-blown Cold War.

Here I must admit that it is not bad for the world, not bad at all. A great harmony between Trump and Putin would be even better, as I described, but Cold War is surely second best solution.

There are too many aggressive American actions all over the world. Before 1990, they were partially blocked by the USSR. Since then, the US could do whatever it wishes, with dire results. Interventions in Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, and elsewhere would not have happened if there would be some counterweight to the US. And Putin’s Russia didn’t want to take the role of major counterweight. The Russians acted only within very limited territories and by very limited means. They saved Crimea from being turned into a NATO military base; they stopped the destruction of Syria. This is very good, but far from leading global resistance to the Empire. At best, they refused to cooperate with American designs.

If the Cold War accelerates, Russia will be forced to do more. An American foreign policy expert, ex-State Department man, provides a hint: “There are considerable differences between refusing to cooperate with the United States, and working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America. Are Americans ready for a Russia that turns the tables on Washington in Afghanistan, providing the Taliban with surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and jets? Or a Russia that signs new trade deals with North Korea and works to stabilize the Kim regime’s struggling economy? Or perhaps a Russia that provides equipment and training to anti-American terrorist groups?”

Surprisingly, these measures would only mirror American actions. The US provided al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Syria (where it is called Al Nusra) with surface-to-air missiles to shoot down Russian jets, or even shot down Syrian jets. The US works to stabilize the rotten Kiev regime. The US provided equipment and training to anti-Russian terrorists in the Caucasus, in Syria and in the Ukraine.

But why stop at these measures? A la guerre comme à la guerre. Russians could return their ICBMs to Cuba and move them to Venezuela, encourage the white militias of Montana, actively support the independence of Texas and California, and that still would remain within a mirroring of US actions. What is more important, these and other measures would be good for the people of the world, including American citizens.

By voting for President Trump, the people of America manifested their will to end foreign wars, to end immigration into their country, to dismantle NATO (Candidate Trump called it “obsolete”), to stop the practice of regime change. The will of the American people should be done.

The developments of last six months in the US amount to a coup d’état. The elected President Trump has been hunted, persecuted, stripped of his powers by the Neocon gang of warmongers. They usurped the power vested in the President by the American people. It would be good if Russia were to help the American people to restore democracy in their land.

Provided that the usurpers want to unleash the dogs of war upon Korea and Venezuela, upon Syria and Iran, provided that they insist to continue their unlawful occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, of Germany and France, provided that they interfere with the elections in all European and Latin American states, and hinder free trade for Russians and Europeans, resisting their policies would be good, moral and legal in the highest sense of the word. And the Cold War will give those who resist the usurpers – the nuclear shield and the nuclear sword.

A Cold War may save Venezuela, Iran and Korea from the impending US intervention, it may roll back the US occupation forces. It will be beneficial for the world.

And it will be beneficial for Americans. The worst Putin can dream to do against the US: forcing the US to close its military bases, end their interventions and regime changes, destroying the Federal Reserve and the position of US Dollar in international trade, will be good for you. Your country will not invade the world and invite the world. Americans will again have work, and meaningful work. Your country will blossom.

It will be also beneficial for the Russians. Not in the sense you’d expect. Putin’s authoritarian regime gave the new Russian nobility of money and state positions too much leeway. They built the biggest yachts, they threw money like there was no tomorrow, while ordinary Russians had a very, very modest way of life. Deputy Prime Minister Mr Igor Shuvalov flies his wife’s corgisin his private jet and owns $100 million worth real estate, while average Russian salary (excepting Moscow and St Petersburg) is around $200 per month. Before the sanctions, rich Russians did not give a damn about their less fortunate fellow citizens. They went for holidays to Cote d’Azur, they sent their children to study at Oxford and Yale. They were as removed from ordinary Russians as Leo Tolstoy’s nobles were.

The sanctions helped a bit. Some of the Putin’s officials have been forbidden to travel and thus they were forced to discover modest discomforts of their homeland. If the Cold War will cut them off their properties in the West and will annihilate their offshore savings, they will contribute more to their own country.

They surely do not want that; that is why the new rich of Putin’s Russia are the force against Cold War. They already call for a surrender to US mercy. The new Cold War will make these people irrelevant, as the US communists became irrelevant in the harsh climate of Cold War I.

The sanctions law is not a bad thing for Europe, too. By meddling in European elections, the US created a comprador political class. These blind followers of American invade/invite liberals were a real disaster for Europeans. With the advent of Trump, they began to get weaned off the American tit. Sanctions are likely to strike the Europeans’ tender spot, their pockets. They are already annoyed by what they consider exterritoriality of American law, by heavy fines applied to European banks for doing things forbidden in the US, but perfectly legal in Europe, like trading with Iran. The US attack on their supply of cheaper Russian gas is likely to release them from their American tenets. So it is also positive thing.

In short, the new Cold War II is a good deal. Yes, harmony would be better, but until it comes, give us Cold War!

* * *

P.S. I’d like to conclude on this upbeat note, but as I am paid neither by Putin nor by Trump, I’d add that Cold War is not here yet. Putin, despite his macho ways, is a very cautious politician. He is not rushing into more confrontation with the US than it is strictly necessary. He is ready to wait.

We observed it in the case of diplomats. Obama expelled 35 diplomats, Putin patiently waited for seven months. During this waiting time, he reminded of the debt many times. Only met with American stonewalling, he decided to act, and then he expelled twenty times more diplomats. (The exact number is not clear yet, but it is about 700 carriers of US diplomatic passport.) This is Russian style. Russians procrastinate, stall, postpone, and when you think they forgot or gave up they produce a lot of quick action.

Now, after the sanctions, Putin’s Russia voted today Saturday Aug 5 in the UN Security Council for the US-proposed draft with new sanctions against North Korea. The U.S.-drafted resolution bans North Korean exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. It also prohibits countries from increasing the current numbers of North Korean labourers working abroad, bans new joint ventures with North Korea and any new investment in current joint ventures, says Reuters. Thus Russia is punishing itself (it is an importer of Korean goods, it employs Korean workers and there are quite a few Russian – North Korean joint ventures) and sanctioning its North Korean ally while doing American bidding.

I regret this decision, but this is Putin: he does not want to aggravate the Russia-US rift. He is ready to launch a counterstrike, if necessary, but he is not in a rush to Doomsday. He does not want to give a chance to both Cersei and Daenerys to unite against him. He’d rather procrastinate a bit more, while the two queens fight it out. I’d prefer very, very cold war with a lot of ice and a twist of lemon, but then, I didn’t pursue a pike for two hours in cold Siberian water.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Are Non-Jews Human? Mon, 17 Jul 2017 19:16:31 +0000 An age-long discussion of Jewish attitudes to non-Jews had been pushed out of the central stage by the counter-discussion of goyim’s attitudes to Jews (beastly, anti-Semitic, prejudiced, leading to Holocaust, denying humanity). In the still uncensored corners and nooks of the Web, one still can find references to Jewish holy books and what do they allegedly say about non-Jews. All these references are soundly trashed and refuted by a plethora of Jewish sites robustly defending Talmud and later texts. The defenders of Jewish faith say that the quotes mean something completely different, they are taken out of context and the translation is wrong anyway. Or, often, they say that such a quote can’t be found in the mentioned book, or even the book can’t be found.

Without aiming to reverse the trend or to bring the discussion to a conclusion, we shall amuse you by a funny tidbit of Jewish lore, which is usually flatly denied by Jewish defenders. It is a reference to Midrash Talpiyot that had been known to debunkers of Judaism, saying that gentiles (goyim, or non-Jews) are beasts in human shape.

Midrash Talpiyot (or Talpiot, Talpiyoth) is a once-widely-popular and still-entertaining collection of Jewish lore assembled by a leading personality of XVIII c. Rabbi Eliyahu HaCohen of Izmir (or Elijah ben Solomon Abraham Ha-Kohen of Smyrna) (d. 1729). We shall call him RES. He is better known as the author of Shevet Musar (published in Constantinople 1712, and numerous editions afterwards), a collection of his sermons, one of the most popular books on ethics of his time. He was a brilliant and knowledgeable man, able to deliver a sermon on unusual subjects. I love his discussion of superiority of dogs over cats – dogs kept quiet when sons of Israel escaped Egypt with stolen loot, and thus acquired merit. (It was translated into English and makes a delightful and non-controversial reading). He was a great believer in harmony, in divine justice, in merit as the reason for any achievement.

In modern American Jewish sites, he is somewhat disparagingly called “a Turkish Jew”. In his days, Jews lived in Ottoman Empire and in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; so it is a Polish Jew or a Turkish Jew. Smyrna (Izmir) was a great centre of Jewish learning, and books of RES were translated into Yiddisch for the Polish Jews. They say he was a member of the heretical Sabbatean sect, and therefore all he wrote is of no value. He indeed flirted with Sabbateans for a while, like a good orthodox Communist would flirt with ideas of Trotsky or even Bogdanov. RES reverted to orthodoxy when it became necessary, and anyway his writing, including Talpiyot, had received imprimatur of leading rabbis of his time.

He was well versed in Kabbala, and this particular text from Talpiyot is based on Kabbalistic teachings. The author refers to “sod” (secret), the deepest level of exegetics.

It is a midrash, a search for deeper (often esoteric) meaning hidden in a normative text. Midrash is often quirky, usually entertaining and unexpected conclusion of delving into a text. It is located on the moot border between sheer fantasy and homiletics. For instance, Bible )Gn 24:1) says Abraham had been blessed “in all things” (בכל), and a midrash explains it as “Abraham had a daughter called Bakol, “In all things”. It is a part of Jewish reading and understanding, but it is often read with a grain of salt.

The normative text interpreted by this midrash is a well-known sentence from Talmud, uttered by the great sage R Shimon Bar Yohai, (Simeon bar Yochai), or RaSHBI. He discussed a technical question of impurity (or levitical uncleanness) caused by dead body in certain conditions. Apparently he had to explain why a dead body of non-Jew does not cause impurity. He did it by the way of midrash: he said that the biblical verse (Num 19:14) regarding impurity contains the word “adam”. Impurity has been caused by dead body of adam, while, he says, the word “adam” in the Bible never refers to a non-Jew. In his words, You (Jews) are called adam [in the Bible], while the non-Jews aren’t called adam. This was the beginning of a long dispute whether non-Jews are indeed human, and whether Jews consider non-Jews human. It will be dealt later, just bear in mind that RaSHBI was a great goy-hater of rather extreme kind.

The maxim of RaSHBI is found in a few places in Talmud [Yevamot 61a; Bava Metzia 114b; Keritut 6b].However, RES refers to Avodah Zarah, where indeed the sentence can be found in the Tosafot to page 3a. Tosafot are medieval commentaries to Talmud, usually printed together with the main text. Here you can see the page 3a of Avodah Zarah, where the left column contains Tosafot.


Tosafot says that while adam refers to Jew in the Bible, ha-adam (ha being Hebrew definite article, like the in English) refers to human in general and includes non-Jews; likewise, ben-adam (son of adam) refers to human in general.

Actually, the Bible definitely uses “adam” in reference to gentiles, and the subject has been discussed in Yevamot 61a. Rabbis insisted that RaSHBI is right, even if it is obvious he isn’t. For example, adam is used in reference to Midianites in Num 31:45. Rabbis say that adam is used in contradistinction to cattle, as cattle is mentioned, too. They were good lawyers, never at loss for an answer.

RES asks a good question: who cares whether the Bible uses the word ‘adam’ for Jews only, for we know that non-Jews are also human and they are the same as Jews in their appearance. And he answers this question disclosing a cabbalistic ‘secret’, that is the deepest meaning of the text. The Gentiles are actually non-human but beasts created to serve Jews. They have human shape for two very different reasons. One, it is more pleasant and respectable for a Jew to be served by a beast in human shape, than by a beast in a beast’s shape. Two, a non-Jew may join Jews, while if he were in the shape of beast, he wouldn’t be able to.

The Jews are adam, because God is called adam by prophet Ezekiel, and God and Jews are similar for God performed (or observed) mitzvot (plural of mitzvah, divine commandment) before He commanded Jews to do that. Gentiles can’t observe mitzvot (except seven commandments given to all mankind), or even study Torah for this study (excepting the seven commandments) is an exclusive prerogative of Jews, but a non-Jew can join Jews, and then he will become adam. A Jew is adam because he observes mitzvot. RES didn’t give a thought to lapsed Jews who do not observe mitzvot – probably they were very rare in his world, while nowadays they are majority of people who consider themselves Jewish.

Thus, RES’ outlook is not as racist as that of other rabbis we shall discuss further: for him, the Godlike status of a Jew conditioned on him observing commandments, and a non-Jew, though inherently a beast in human shape, can become a Jew, by God’s leave.

Here is the relevant text of Talpiyot in the original publication


And here is this text:

מסכת ע”ז [עבודה זרה]: אתם קרוין אדם ואין העכו״ם קרוין אדם

א״ה [אמר המחבר]: וכי בשם תליא מלתא, דמה איכפת אם אינן קרויים אדם, כיון שכפי האמת הם אדם ואין הפרש בצורתם בינם לבין ישראל? אמנם, דע סוד הענין, כתיב: “ועל דמות הכסא כמראה אדם מלמעלה” וכו׳, ונמצא שהקב״ה נקרא אדם והוא צוה תרי״ג מצות לישראל, והמצות קיים אותם הקב״ה קודם שנתנם לישראל כאומרם חז״ל, ולכן כיון שאנו מקיימים המצות אנו קרוים אדם, כשם שנקרא הקב׳׳ה, ונמצא דבשם אדם שאנו מתכנים הוא עדות, שאנו דוקא דומיא להקב״ה, ונמצא על היותנו עושים מצותיו כמוהו.

לא כן עכו״ם, שאינן קרוים אדם והוא עדות שמובדלין ומופרשים הם מהקב״ה ועדות יש, שהרי אין שם הבורא עליהם דהיינו אדם, והם בהמות בצורת אדם, כי כל דרכיהם ומעשיהם כדרכי הבהמות, דחוץ מדרכי השם הכל מעשה בהמה יתקרי, ומיהו בראם הקב״ה בצורת אדם כישראל, מפני שהוא רב חסד מטה כלפי חסד, אם ירצו לידבק עם ישראל שיתדבקו, לא כן אם היו צורת בהמה.

ובמקום אחר כתבתי דבראם כצורת אדם לכבודם של ישראל, שלא נבראו העכו״ם כי אם לשמשם דיום ולילה לא ישבותו ממלאכתם, ואין כבוד לבן מלך שישמש אותו בהמה בצורת בהמה כי אם בהמה בצורה אדם.

And here is annotated translation:

AZ [Avodah Zarah, a tractate of Babylonian Talmud. The title means Alien Worship, usually translated as Idolatry, and so it is understood by modern Jews.] You are called Adam, and gentiles aren’t called Adam.

The Author said: Actually, what does it matter that they aren’t called Adam, if they are really human (Adam), and there is no difference between their appearance and the appearance of Israel? However, learn the secret of the matter. It is written [Ezekiel, 1:26] “above on the throne was a figure like that of a man (Adam) etc”. So we find that God is called Adam, and he commanded 613 commandments to Israel. These commandments were observed by God, before he gave them to Israel, as our Sages of blessed memory said. So, for the reason we observe the commandments we are called Adam, like God had been called. So we find that the name Adam we use is a witness that we are Godlike, for we observe the commandments as He does.

Not so the gentiles. They aren’t called Adam, and this is a witness that they are separated and removed from God, and the witness is that the name of Creator is not upon them, namely Adam. They are beasts (behema) in human (Adam) shape. All their ways and deeds are the ways of beasts, for what is not God’s way is called beastly deeds. And who created them, God created them in human (Adam) shape, like Israel, for He is full of grace, and benevolence; if they desire to stick to Israel, they may stick to, while they wouldn’t be able to, were they created in beast’s shape.

And elsewhere I wrote that God created them in the human (Adam) shape to show respect to Israel, as the gentiles weren’t created but to serve Israel day and night, without break, and it is not respectful for King’s son to be served by a beast in beast’s shape, it should be a beast in human (Adam) shape.

  • Adam (אדם) – Man, First Man, human, men, people. It is used in singular for plural subjects as well. In this text, few meanings of the word are used interchangeably. Plurality/singularity is frequent in Hebrew/Aramaic texts, see Israel, below. Adam the First Man has been great and Godlike; afterwards, men diminished and became less and less similar to Adam, until Israel came into being, and in Israel, Adam had been reborn to his godlike fullness. So the implication is that Israel is like Adam the First Man, Godlike, while non-Jews are not.
  • Gentiles (אומות האולם)– the MT text has akum (עכו”ם), literally star-worshippers. This is a term for a non-Jew, like goy or nochri, or ummot haolam. The quoted line in Talmud is available in these versions: ummot haolam (אומות האולם), or gentiles, or the nations of the world, or nochri (נוכרי) or aliens. These terms are interchangeable, likewise bene Noah (בני נוח) Sons of Noah. In the old days, when Jews were afraid of persecutions, whenever Jews were asked on their attitude to non-Jews, they usually said that akum refers only to ancient star-worshipers, not to modern Muslims or Christians. Nowadays this Jewish equivalent of Islamic taqiya (precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution) is rarely practiced. Talmud has been published in Israel with straightforward ummot haolam (gentiles) instead of deniable akum. In our text, RES speaks about his days and people of his time, not about some old history.
  • God (קב״ה) The Holy, Blessed be He, a Name of God used throughout this text.
  • Israel (ישראל) – Jews, Children of Israel. It is used in singular for plural subjects. The connected verb is usually used in plural. This singular-for-plural form supported a midrash homiletics: Jews are united as members of one body, that’s why they are plural-in-singular.
  • Behema (בהמה) In this text, the writer uses a specific word for beast – behema (בהמה) – a tame (as opposed to wild) animal; usually cow, camel, donkey Hebrew dictionary explains: בהמה היא בריה הנתונה לשלטונו של האדם, behema is a creature in man’s dominion. English dictionary (Merriam-Webster ibid 1d) explains: beast is an animal under man’s control. Wild animals aren’t called behema; small pets (cats, dogs) aren’t called behema either.
  • Stick with Israel (לידבק עם ישראל) – join Israel, or join the Jews. This expression is used regarding Jethro, the priest of Midian and father-in-law of Moses (Exodus, 2). Bible says he understood “the Lord is greater than all the gods”. He knew that, the Sages remark, as previously he worshipped all the gods (idols). Rashi says that despite this recognition he did not want to join Israel, as he saw no advantage in it. Only when he saw the Red Sea Parting and the Battle of Amalek, he understood the advantage and joined Israel. The Red Sea Parting had been a great miracle; but he still hesitated as he had thought that Amalek is a tool of Divine Wrath. However, when Israel won the battle despite the odds, he understood that God loves Israel, and then he joined Israel. Rashi also uses this expression discussing Gibeonites. King David refused to allow them to join Israel, for they were lacking three criteria: being merciful, modest and charitable.
  • Without break (לא ישבתו ממלכתם) – they shall not cease doing their service, as in Genesis 8:22. The word contains שבת(Sabbath), so it implies that they should not have Sabbath rest, either.

On some sites dealing with Jewish-Gentile disputation, this quote of MT has been discussed. A typical response was: “A non-authoritative work that was done long after the Talmud. I don’t know what it says and frankly I don’t care. You also have to realize that many medieval works were done around the time of the Crusades with massive Christian persecution, so the message many Jews needed to hear to stay alive was an “us good, them bad” one. Update: Fred checked the Midrash Talpiot and couldn’t find this quotation anyhow. Thank you Fred!” Clearly this response has been given by an illiterate person; he did not know who is RES, and he did not know that he worked five hundred years after the Crusades, and he lived in the country free from Christian persecution. Anyway, now Fred will be able to find the quotation.

However, was the RES’ dim view of gentiles accepted by the Jews, or was it a one-time-off? Yes it was, but usually it was presented in a more nuanced way. A more important Jewish book of 20th century is Orot by R. Abraham Isaac Ha-Cohen Kook, a first Zionist Rabbi of Palestine (d. 1935), described as one of the most celebrated and influential rabbis of the 20th century. He wrote in this book:

The difference between the Jewish soul (ha-neshama), its essence etc, and the gentile soul (ha-neshama), – all of them on all their levels, – is greater and more essential than the difference between the spirit (nefesh) of the human being (ha-adam) and the spirit (nefesh) of the beast (behema).

Or in original Hebrew:

ההבדל שבין הנשמה הישראלית, עצמיותה וכו’ וכו’ ובין נשמת הגויים כולם לכל דרגותיהם, הוא יותר גדול ויותר עמוק מההבדל שבין נפש האדם ונפש הבהמה.

Instead of direct comparison of a non-Jew to a beast, our elder contemporary compares his spirit and finds it more close to that of a beast than to that of a Jew.

The English Wikipedia, being under Jewish control, has a dithyrambic article about R Kook. While a contributor tried to introduce a sub-chapter on Kook’s goy hatred and referred to this quote, Wikipedia’s gatekeepers blocked him:

I think this is a matter of undue weight. This is a short article and Rav Kook was known for many things, many wonderful teachings. I think it is undue weight to give this one out of context very damming quote about non-Jews. Bigglovetalk 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

You wouldn’t be amazed to learn that Bigglove prevailed and the quote can be found on the Talk page only.

To conclude this already too long piece: there are more than one point of view among Jews on this subject. In postmodern times, there are LGBT “synagogues”, there are pork-eating “Jews”, there are female “rabbis”, and there are goy-loving and goy-hating “Jews”. The late great Prof Yeshayahu Leibowitz (d. 1994) used to say that a Jew can hold any belief at all or no belief whatsoever; he is only obliged to observe mitzvoth, commandments. For this reason Sabbateans (who didn’t observe some mitzvoth) broke with Judaism, while Chabad (who differ on dogma more than Sabbateans, but observe mitzvoth) remained within Jewish framework. The intention of this piece is not to establish a norm (Thou shall/shan’t hate a goy), but to show that denial of goy’s humanity existed in Jewish circles from Talmud to our days. And to entertain you with this titbit of the Jewish lore, for sure.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
They Spoke Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:35:25 +0000 The highly anticipated encounter of the two presidents went better, much better than anybody predicted. There was a lot of anxiety, and expectations were low as heavy rain clouds, especially after Trump’s visit to Warsaw where he obediently repeated the Cold War platitudes dictated by his minders. Trump had been sent off to Hamburg by Washington establishment with warnings a convent novice gets before an unfortunate but unavoidable meeting with a Don Juan. They didn’t trust the inexperienced youngster, and insisted he should speak with Vlad only in presence of grown ups, like Auntie Fiona (Hill) or Uncle HR (McMaster), well known for their aversion to Russians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would you say to this offer, Donald?

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0