Articles – Israel Shamir Ideas that will Derail the descent to Barbarity Sat, 29 Dec 2018 21:23:19 +0000 en hourly 1 Yuletide Message Sun, 23 Dec 2018 21:05:14 +0000 I am a big fan of President Trump’s Christmas greetings. We need a US president to wish Merry Christmas in this dark time. And by declaring his troops’ withdrawal from Syria, he almost earned the right to do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yuletide Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2002-2018


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

Send any appropriate PayPal payments to


[1] JANUARY 10, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Phanar Phantom Fri, 23 Nov 2018 22:59:31 +0000 The Russian world is caught up in a drama. Its leading Orthodox Church faces a schism over the Ukraine’s drive for its own independent church. If Kiev regime succeeds, the split between Russia proper and its breakaway Western part, the Ukraine, will widen. The Russian Church will suffer a great loss, comparable to the emergence of the Anglican church for the Catholics. However, there is a chance for the Russians to gain a lot from the split, to gain more than to lose.

The Ukraine actually has its own church, and this church is the self-ruling autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Its autonomy is very broad; it can be considered independent practically in every aspect excepting its nominal recognition of Moscow supremacy. The Ukrainian Church does not pay tribute to Moscow, it elects its own bishops; it has no reason to push for more. No tangible reason, at least.

But in the Ukraine, there was and is a strong separatist tendency, with a somewhat romantic and nationalist tinge, comparable to Scots or Languedoc separatism. Its beginning could be traced to 18th Century, when a Moscow-appointed ruler Hetman Mazeppa rose against Russia’s Peter the Great and allied himself with the Swedish warrior-king Charles XII. A hundred years after the revolt, the foremost Russian poet, Alexander Pushkin, composed a beautiful romantic poem Poltava (following Byron’s Mazeppa) where he gives Mazeppa the following words:

For far too long we’ve bowed our heads,
Without respect or liberty,
Beneath the yoke of Warsaw’s patronage,
Beneath the yoke of Moscow’s despotism.
But now is Ukraine’s chance to grow
Into an independent power. (trans. by Ivan Eubanks)

This romantic dream of an independent Ukraine became real after the 1917 Revolution, under the German occupation at the conclusion of World War One. Within a year or two, as the defeated Germans withdrew, the independent Ukraine became Soviet and joined Soviet Russia in the Soviet Union of equal Republics. Even within the Union, the Ukraine was independent and it had its own UN seat. When Russian President Yeltsin dissolved the Union, Ukraine became fully independent again.

In the 1991 divorce with rump Russia (after hundreds of years of integration), the Ukraine took with her a major portion of the former Union’s physical and human assets. The spacious country with its hard-working people, fertile black soil, the cream of Soviet industry producing aircraft, missiles, trains and tractors, with the best and largest army within the Warsaw Treaty, with its universities, good roads, proximity to Europe, expensive infrastructure connecting East and West, the Ukraine had a much better chances for success than rump Russia.

But it didn’t turn out this way, for reasons we shall discuss elsewhere. A failed state if there ever was one, the Ukraine was quickly deserted by its most-valuable people, who ran away in droves to Russia or Poland; its industries were dismantled and sold for the price of scrap metal. The only compensation the state provides is even more nationalism, even more declarations of its independence.

This quest for full independence has been even less successful than economic or military measures. The Kiev regime could dispense with Moscow, but it became subservient to the West. Its finances are overseen by the IMF, its army by NATO, its foreign policy by the US State Department. Real independence was an elusive goal, beyond the Ukraine’s reach.

A total break of the Ukrainian church with the nominal supremacy of Moscow appealed to President Petro Poroshenko as a convincing substitute for real independence, especially with a view toward the forthcoming elections. He turned to the patriarch of Constantinople, His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew asking him to grant his church its full independence (called autocephaly in ecclesiastical language).

Fine, but what is ‘his church’? The vast majority of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians and their bishops are content with their status within the Russian Church. They have their own head, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphrius, who is also content with his position. They do not see any need for autocephaly. However, the Ukraine has two small splinter orthodox churches, one led by the ambitious bishop Filaret and another by Macarius; both are very nationalist and anti-Russian, both support the regime and claim for autonomy, both are considered illegitimate by the rest of the Orthodox world. These two small churches are potential embryos of a future Ukrainian Church of President Poroshenko.

Now we shall turn to Bartholomew. His title describes him as the patriarch of Constantinople, but in vain you will seek this city on a map. Constantinople, the Christian capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the greatest city of his time, the seat of Roman emperors, was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and became Islamic Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire and of the last Muslim Caliphate; since 1920 it has been a city in the Republic of Turkey. The Constantinople Patriarchate is a phantom fossil of a great past; it has a few churches, a monastery and a few ambitious monks located in Phanar, an old Greek quarter of Istanbul.

The Turkish government considers Bartholomew a bishop of the local Greeks, denying his 6th-century title of Ecumenical Patriarch. There are only three thousand Greeks in the city, so Bartholomew has very small foothold there indeed. His patriarchate is a phantom in the world of phantoms, such as the Knights of Maltese and Temple Orders, Kings of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, emperors of Brazil and of the Holy Roman Empire… Phantom is not a swear word. Phantoms are loved by romantics enamoured by old rituals and uniforms with golden aiguillettes. These honourable gentlemen represent nobody, they have no authority, but they can and do issue impressive-looking certificates.

The Orthodox Church differs from its Roman Catholic sister by having no central figure like the Pope of Rome. The Orthodox have a few equal-ranking heads of national churches, called Patriarchs or Popes. The Patriarch of Constantinople is one of these fourteen church leaders, though he has more than his share of respect by virtue of tradition. Now the Phantom of Phanar seeks to make his position much more powerful, akin to that of the Pope of Rome for the Western Church. His organization claims that ”The Ecumenical Patriarchate has the responsibility of being the Church of final appeal in Orthodoxy, and it is the only Church that may establish autocephalous and autonomous Churches“. These claims are rejected by the Russian Church, by far the biggest Orthodox Church in the world.

As the Ukrainian church is a part of the Russian Church, it could seek its full independence (autocephaly) in Moscow, but it has no such wish. The two small splinter churches turned to Phanar, and the Phanar leader was more than happy to get into the game. He had sent two of his bishops to Kiev and started with establishing a united Ukrainian church. This church wouldn’t be independent, or autocephalous; it would be a church under the direct rule of Phanar, an autonomous or the stavropegialchurch. For Ukrainian nationalists, it would be a sad reminder that they have the choice to go with Moscow or with Istanbul, now as their ancestors had four hundred years ago. Full independence is not on the cards.

For the Phanar, it was not a first foray into Russian territory: Bartholomew also used the anti-Russian sentiments of Tallinn and took a part of the Estonian churches and their faithful under his rule. However, then the Russians took it easy, for two reasons. Estonia is small, there are not too many churches nor congregants; and besides, the Phanar had taken some positions in Estonia between the wars, when Soviet Russia did not care much about the Church. The Ukraine is absolutely different. It is very big, it is the heart of Russian church, and Constantinople has no valid claim on it.

The Russians say that President Poroshenko bribed Bartholomew. This is nonsense of very low grade; even if the Patriarch is not averse to accepting gifts. Bartholomew had a very valid reason to accept Poroshenko’s offer. If he would realize his plan and establish a church of Ukraine under his own rule, call it autonomous or stavropegialor even autocephalous, he would cease being a phantom and would become a very real church leader with millions of faithful. The Ukraine is second only to Russia in the Orthodox world, and its coming under Constantinople would allow Bartholomew to become the most-powerful Orthodox leader.

The Russians are to blame themselves for much of their difficulties. They were too eager to accept the Phanar Phantom for the real thing in their insistent drive for external approval and recognition. They could have forgotten about him three hundred years ago instead of seeking his confirmation now and then. It is dangerous to submit to the weak; perhaps it is more risky than to submit to the strong.

This reminds me of a rather forgotten novel by H. G. Wells The Food of the Godsand How It Came to Earth. It is a story of a wondrous nourishment that allows children to grow into forty-foot-high giants. Society mistreats the young titans. In a particularly powerful episode, a mean old hag scolds the tall kids – thrice her size, and they timidly accept her silly orders. In the end, the giants succeed in standing their ground, throw off the yoke and walk tall. Wells writes about “young giants, huge and beautiful, glittering in their mail, amidst the preparations for the morrow. The sight of them lifted his heart. They were so easily powerful! They were so tall and gracious! They were so steadfast in their movements!”

Russia is a young giant that tries to observe the pygmy-established rules. International organisation called PACE (The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) where Russia is harshly mistreated and is not even allowed to defend itself, is a good example. International courts where Russia has little chance to stand its ground is another one. President Trump has taken the US out of a few international organisations, though the US has huge weight in international affairs and all states pay heed to the US position. Russia’s voice is not even heard, and only now the Russians begin to ponder the advantages of Ruxit.

The church rules are equally biased as they place the biggest Orthodox state with millions of faithful Christians on the same footing as Oriental phantoms.

In the days of the Ottoman Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople had real weight. The Sultan defended his position, his decisions had legal implications for the Orthodox subjects of the Empire. He caused many troubles for the Russian Church, but the Russians had to observe his decrees as he was an imperial official. After Ataturk’s revolution, the Patriarch lost his status, but the Russian church, this young giant, continued to revere him and support him. After 1991, when Russia had turned to its once-neglected church, the Russian Church multiplied its generosity towards Phanar and turned to him for guidance, for the Moscow Church had been confused and unprepared for its new position. Being in doubt, it turned to tradition. We can compare this to the English “rotten boroughs” of Dickens novels, towns that had traditionally sent their representatives to the Parliament though they scarcely had any dwellers.

In this search for tradition, the Russian church united with the Russian Church abroad, the émigré structure with its checkered history that included support for Hitler. Its main contribution was fierce anti-Communism and rejection of the Soviet period of the Russian past. However it could be justified by the Russians’ desire to heal the White vs. Red split and restore the émigrés to the Russian people. While honouring the Phanar Phantom as the honorary head of the Orthodox world had no justification at all.

The Phanar had US State Department backing to consider. US diplomacy has had a good hand in dealings with phantoms: for many years Washington supported phantom governments-in-exile of the Baltic states, and this support was paid back a hundredfold in 1991. Now, the US support for Phanar has paid back well in this renewed attack on Russia.

The Patriarch of Phanar, perhaps, underestimated possible Russian response to his Ukrainian meddling. He got used to Russian good treatment; he remembered that the Russians meekly accepted his takeover of the Estonian church. Being encouraged by the US and driven by his own ambitions, he made the radical step of voiding Constantinople’s agreement of transfer of Kiev Metropolitan seat to Moscow, had sent his bishops and took over the Ukraine to himself.

The Moscow Church anathemised Bartholomew, and forbade its priests to participate in service with Phanar priests and (!!!) with priests that accept Phanar priests. While ending communion with Phanar is no pain at all, the secondary step – of ending communion with the churches that refuse to excommunicate Phanar – is a very radical one. Other Orthodox churches are unhappy about Phanar moves. They are aware that Phanar’s new rules may threaten them, too. They are not keen to establish a Pope above themselves. But I doubt they are ready to excommunicate Phanar.

The Russian church can take a less radical and more profitable way. The Orthodox world’s unity is based on two separate principles. One, the Eucharist. All Orthodox churches are united in the communion. Their priests can serve together and accept communion in any recognised church. Two, the principle of canonical territory. No church should appoint bishops on the other church’s territory.

Phanar transgressed against the territorial principle. In response, the Russian Church excommunicated him. But Phanar refused to excommunicate the Russians. As the result, the Russians are forbidden by their own church to accept communion if excommunicated priests participate in the service. But the priests of the Church of Jerusalem do not ban anybody, neither Russians, no Phanariots.

As it happened with Russian counter-sanctions, they cause harm and pain mainly to Russians themselves. There are few Orthodox pilgrims visiting Russia, while there are many Russian pilgrims visiting the Holy Land, Mount Athos and other important sites of Greece, Turkey and Palestine, first of all Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Now these pilgrims won’t be able to receive the holy communion in the Holy Sepulchre and in the Nativity Cathedral, while Russian priests won’t be able to celebrate mass in these churches.

The Russian priests will probably suffer and submit, while the lay pilgrims will probably break the prohibition and accept the Eucharist in the Church of Jerusalem.

It would be better if the Russian church were to deal with Phanar’s treachery on the reciprocity basis. Phanar does not excommunicate Russians, and Russians may go back to full communion with Phanar. Phanar broke the territorial principle, and the Russians may disregard territorial principle. Since the 20th century, canonical territory has increasingly become a violated principle of canon law, says OrthodoxWiki. Facing such major transgression, the Russians may completely drop the territorial principle and send their bishops to Constantinople and Jerusalem, to Rome and Washington, while keeping all Orthodox churches in full communion.

The Russian church will be able to spread the Orthodox faith all over the world, among the French in France, among the Italians in Italy, among Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Russian church dos not allow women into priesthood, does not allow gay unions, does not consider the Jews its elder brothers, does not tolerate homosexual priests and allows its priests to marry. Perhaps it has a good chance to compete with other churches for the flock and clergy.

Thus Moscow Church will be free of tenets it voluntarily accepted. Regarding communion, the Russian church can retain communion with Phanar and Jerusalem and with other Orthodox churches, even with splinter churches on reciprocity basis. Moreover, the Russian Church may allow communion with Catholics. At present, Catholics allow Russians to receive communion, but the Russian Church do not allow their flock to accept Catholic communion and does not allow Catholics to receive communion in Russian churches. With all the differences between the churches, we the Christians can share communion, flesh and blood of our Saviour, and this all we need.

All this is extremely relevant for the Holy Land. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Theophilos does not want to quarrel with Constantinople nor with Moscow. He won’t excommunicate the priests of Phanar despite Moscow’s requests, and I think he is right. Ban on communion in the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem or in the Nativity of Bethlehem would become a heavy unnecessary and self-inflicted punishment for Russian pilgrims. That is why it makes sense to retain joint communion, while voiding the territorial principle.

Russian church may nominate its bishops in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth to attract the flock presently neglected by the traditional Patriarchate of Jerusalem. I mean the Palestinian Christians and Israeli Christians, hundreds of thousands of them.

The Church of Jerusalem is, and had been ruled by ethnic Greeks since the city was conquered by the Ottomans in 16th century. The Turks removed local Arab Orthodox clerics and appointed their loyal Greeks. Centuries passed by, the Turks are gone, the Greeks are loyal only to themselves, and they do not care much about the natives. They do not allow Christian Palestinian monks to join monasteries, they bar them from holding bishop cathedra and do not let them into the council of the church (called Synod). This flagrant discrimination annoys Palestinian Christians; many of them turned to the Catholic, or even Protestant churches. The flock is angry and ready to rise in revolt against the Greeks, like the Syrian Orthodox did in 1898, when they expelled the Greek bishops and elected an Arab Patriarch of Antioch – with Russian support. (Until that time the Patriarch of Antioch had been elected in Istanbul by Phanar monks exclusively from the «Greeks by race», as they said in those days, and as is the custom of the See of Jerusalem now).

Last Christmas, the Patriarch of Jerusalem had been blocked from entering the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem by angry local Christians, and only Israeli army allowed him to get in. If the Russian Church will establish its bishops in the Holy Land, or even appoint her own Patriarch of Rum (traditional name of the Church) many churches of the Holy Land will accept him, and many faithful will find the church that they can relate to. For the Greek leadership of the Jerusalem church is interested in pilgrimage churches only; they care for pilgrims from Greece and for Greeks in the Holy Land.

There are many Russian Orthodox in Israel; the Greeks of the Church do not attend to their needs. Since 1948, not a single new church had been built by the Orthodox in Israel. Big cities with many Christians – Beer Sheba, Afula, touristy Eilat – have no churches at all. For sure, we can partly blame Israeli authorities and their hatred of Christianity. However, the Church of Jerusalem is not trying hard enough to erect new churches.

There is a million of immigrants from Russia in Israel. Some of them were Christians, some want to enter the church, being disappointed by brutal and hostile Judaism. They had some romantic image of the Jewish faith, being brought up in atheist USSR, but the reality was not even similar. Not only them; Israelis of every origin are unhappy with Judaism that exists now in Israel. They are ready for Christ. A new church of the Holy Land established by Russians can bring Israelis, Jews and non-Jews, native Palestinians and immigrants to Christ.

Thus Phanar’s rejection of territorialism can be used for the greater glory of the Church. Yes, the Russian church will change its character and assume some of global, ecumenical function. This is big challenge; I do not know whether the Russians are ready for it, whether the Patriarch of Moscow Kyril is daring enough for it.

His Church is rather timid; the bishops do not express their views in public. However, a Moscow priest Fr Vsevolod Chaplin, who was close to the Patriarch until recently, publicly called for full reformatting of the Orthodox Christianity, for getting rid of rotten boroughs and phantoms, for establishing sturdy connection between laity and Patriarchate. Without great push by the incautious Patriarch Bartholomew, these ideas could gestate for years; now they can come forth and change the face of the faith.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0
Pittsburgh: Advice to Jews Fri, 02 Nov 2018 19:33:42 +0000 I was hesitant to write on the subject while the Pittsburgh dead weren’t buried yet. I know, it is not a valid consideration for the militant pundits. The US Jews accused President Trump and the Israeli Jews blamed Palestinians for the shooting as on the cue before the victims were declared dead. However, you can’t talk sense before the dead are laid to rest. Now we can deliberate on guilt and blame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gulag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews and Bolsheviks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A

Кроме большевиков в правительство входили эсеры. Слева направо:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix B


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shamir on the Holocaust Denial:

Vampire Killers 2001

For Whom The Bell Tolls 2006

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

]]> 0