President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.
He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.
Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.
This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.
One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.
Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.
Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.
Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.
Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.
Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.
Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.
Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.
While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.
Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.
The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.
Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.
Israel accepts Jews only; and American Jews do not object to it; they do not compare Israeli leaders with Hitler or Trump. Israel had build a wall on its border with Sinai, and this wall stopped the black wave of African migrants. American Jews did not shout “No wall, no ban” in front of Israeli Embassy. Mystery, eh?
Kevin MacDonald wrote a thoughtful piece trying to unravel the mystery, Why Do Jewish Organizations Want Anti-Israel Refugees? and published it on January 17, a few days before Trump’s inauguration and full three weeks before the subject moved to the front burner. KMD correctly predicted that Donald Trump won’t appeal for “national unity” in his Inaugural Address, though this was the guess of mass media. Moreover, KMD correctly predicted that “Trump will announce an immediate pause in “refugee” admissions, currently surging, to be followed by a zero quota for the next fiscal year. There would be hysteria, in which the major Jewish organizations would, almost certainly, join. My (KMD’s) question: why would they do that?”
KMD provides a few possible answers, but none answers his own question. The world is full of troubles, and the US can get as many refugees as they wish from the Ukraine or Brazil, from China and Central Africa, without an anti-Israeli angle.
I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church.
Muslims of the Middle East are not, or weren’t, anti-Christian; they co-existed for millennia with their Christian neighbours. In Palestine, Christians and Muslims lived together and suffered together under the Jewish yoke.
But recently a new wind has blown in the Muslim faith, the wind of a very strong rejection of whatever is not strict Sunni Islam of the ISIS brand. Their first enemy is Shia Islam, but Christians follow Shias as a second-best object of persecution. The much softer Muslim Brotherhood has also hardened towards Christians. In Gaza, Hamas (a branch of MB) delivers friendly speeches, but the Christians are leaving the Strip very fast. MB rule in Cairo was considered anti-Christian by their Copt neighbours. So the new refugees from ISIS-touched lands (six out of Trump’s Seven: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan) have been possibly infected with anti-Christian tendency.
It is almost a superfluous quality, anyway. The Muslims are being used as silent partners in the Jewish war on the Church. Instead of saying: “We, Jews, do not want to hear church bells, see Christmas scenes and hear Christian blessings”, these modest and retiring people usually refer to Muslims. Muslims do not want to hear church bells and see Christmas trees, they say. We Jews are just more considerate towards our Muslim brethren, so we notice that, while you brutes do not. Muslim sensitivities are already quoted in Germany to exclude pork-based local delicacies and to ban Christmas celebrations. It doesn’t matter that normally Muslims do not object to Christmas celebrations, as we know from our experience in Palestine. The Jews and other enemies of the Church say it all the same.
With the new ISIS-infected Muslims, the war on the Church will proceed even better. For sure, the US judges like the Seattle one will ban Christmas celebrations in a few years’ time citing the same refugees they insist on delivering to America’s shores.
The war on Christ and the Church is the most important element of Judaism. Wherever Jews succeed, the Church suffers, and vice versa. Israel, the Jewish state, has been located at the cradle of Christianity not by whim of Zionists: actually, the leading Zionist Theodore Herzl called for establishing the Jewish state elsewhere, from Uganda (modern Kenya) to Argentina. But the struggle against Christ necessitated their choice of Palestine with its deep Christian roots.
The most popular Jewish early medieval text glorified Judas for his victory over Jesus Christ. Fight against the Church and Christ in-formed Jewish weapons: media and money. The Church was an enemy of moneylenders; interest has been forbidden by the church, but it was used by Jews to accumulate their vast capital to be used against the Church.
As for media, the present concentration of almost all mass media in Jewish hands began in France of 19th century, where Jews formed a conspiracy to own and control media and they used it with great success against the Church during the Third Republic, notably in connection with Dreyfus Affair. (I previously wrote about it in a review).
The Jews usually acted in union with Protestants, as they were also enemies of the Church. Protestants, certainly, believed they were using the Jews for their own benefit, but in the end, separate and mutually hostile Protestant Churches submitted to the single will of Jews. This is why Jewish positions are so strong in the US in the absence of a single national church. Judging by the migration affair, it appears the Jews believe they can make a next step in their fight with Christ: by using the Islamic fanatics as a cover, they plan to push the church underground, out of public space altogether.
Much of the future developments depend on the will of President Trump. He fights against incredible odds. His idea to use Zionists against prevalent Jewish positions meanwhile does not work. “His” Jews are under attack as traitors to the Jewish cause. “Kushner is bad for Jews”, says Haaretz. Indeed, Jews have more important things to care than the Jewish state, and they are united for diversity, in other words, for more migration from the Middle East.
He should stop bumping the closed door. Forget the embassy move, forget pussyfooting with other Zionist dreams, and first of all, forget attacking Iran. If the Zionists would deliver Trump the wholehearted support of their American brethren, it would make some (not much) sense; but in the existing circumstances, none whatsoever. If Israel is threatened, then, perhaps, Zionists will be able to prevail upon their liberal cousins and convince them to think more of Israel and less of diversity. Perhaps is the key word.
Avoiding wars is another secret of success. The US spends too much money on wars. Keeping out of Ukrainian and Syrian mess is perfectly possible; spending money in America will improve Trump’s popularity and undermine the adversary. The US working class could be his best supporter, for these people are losing in case of wars and of immigration.
Meanwhile Trump is doing fine. He is doing what he promised; he defended Russia while pushed to denounce them; he tries to stop migration. He even tried to remove the weapon of holocaust from Jewish hands by not mentioning Jews while referring to Holocaust. Jews already called him “a holocaust denier”. This is a good sign. Let us hope he will prevail.
Israel Shamir can be reached at email@example.com
This article was first published at The Unz Review.