The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election American Media American Military Anti-Semitism Britain Christianity Communism Cuba Deep State Donald Trump Economics Feminism Foreign Policy France Gay Marriage Gaza Gilad Atzmon Hillary Clinton History Holocaust Ideology Immigration Iran Iraq ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jeremy Corbyn Jews Judaism Lebanon Libya Middle East Neoliberalism North Korea Palestinians Political Correctness Putin Race/Ethnicity Russia Saudi Arabia Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin Wikileaks World War II 2004 Election 9/11 Abortion Afghanistan Africa Amazon.com American Jews Anarchism Anders Breivik Arab Spring Armenians Banking Industry Belarus Benjamin Netanyahu Bernie Sanders Boris Nemtsov Brexit Cambodia Catholic Church Censorship Charlie Hebdo China Civil Liberties Cynthia McKinney Democracy Dreyfus Affair Economic Sanctions Edward Snowden Egypt Erdogan Estonia Ethiopia EU Eurozone Financial Bubbles Financial Crisis Gaza Flotilla Genocide Georgia Germany Global Warming Greece Hitler India Japan Jeff Bezos Jewish History Julian Assange Kim Jong Un Kurds Lenin Liberalism Litvinenko Madoff Swindle Malaysia Malaysian Airlines MH17 Mel Gibson Mikhail Khodorkovsky Mohammed Bin Salman Muslims NATO Neocons Netherlands New Cold War New World Order Noam Chomsky Norman Finkelstein Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Organ Transplants Orthodoxy Paris Attacks Pavel Grudinin Poland Racism Russian Elections 2018 Russian Orthodox Church Serbia Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Polonsky Sochi Olympics South Korea Soviet Union Spain Srebrenica Sweden Syriza The Left Tibet UN Security Council United Nations Wikipedia William Browder World War I Yasser Arafat Zionism
Nothing found
Sources Filter?
 TeasersIsrael Shamir Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

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.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: American Media, Deep State, Holocaust, Israel, Jews 
And the Russian Warning Over Syria
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews and Bolsheviks

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish Church

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Jews 
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Deep State, Donald Trump, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Syria 
🔊 Listen RSS

When I see a crying child on my screen, I know somebody is trying to take advantage of me. The same is true about every appeal to my basic human instincts, whether it is a naked female body or a dead baby. Instead of convincing me, such a cheap trick calls for immediate rejection. I know that this voluptuous body will not land into my hands even if I buy all Coca Cola in the shop. The sight of dead babies will not convince me to do something against common sense, for it is manipulation. In politics, I want a Socratic discussion, not emotional persuasion. If you can’t persuade me by words, do not try to do that with pictures. However, they try and often succeed.

Words can be pretty inflammatory, but pictures are stronger stuff. In order to kill the flower of English youth at the tranches of Verdun, pictures of German brutes roasting Belgian babies on their bayonets were used; pictures of Jewish commissars raping an Aryan blonde pushed the German lads to premature death at the banks of Volga River. You can’t argue pictures with words, saying that there is a simple way to avoid the calamity: do not start war, and the German brute will have to satisfy his ravings by roasting a bratwurst, and the Jewish commissar will just subscribe to the Playboy to view an Aryan body.

This is the case with #Trumpbabysnatcher. It is heart-renting to see a picture of small kids beyond the bars. But there is a childishly simple way to avoid separation and incarceration: do not cross the Rio Grande without a visa.

Picture pushers are dishonest and they do not care a fig about kids: Madeleine Albright famously thought it is worth while to kill half a million of Iraqi children. Hillary Clinton unleashed hell on Libyan and Syrian soil, killing and dispossessing hundreds of thousands of children. All the US Presidents have been hugging and kissing Israeli rulers, who habitually detain, torture and kill Palestinian kids. Our friends in the alternative media (Counterpunch etc) who joined these ladies and gents waving kiddie photos are of weak mind or dishonest or they think that anything goes to achieve their goal, getting rid of Trump.

The wonderful Diana Johnstone wrote recently that the immigration issue splits the German left. Indeed support for free immigration is suicide for the Left. But this issue does split the whole Western world. On one side, believers in the world without borders, in the free movement of people. It sounds great, until you understand that this is a way to destroy the native working class, abolish the welfare state, ruin social structures and at the same time undermine donor countries, in short, to destroy the world as we know it. On the other side, people who want to preserve the world they live in work to keep the walls up.

What we need is some sincerity and honesty, as opposed to manipulation. If you think mass immigration will return us to new Dark Ages, say so. If you think it would be better to remove borders and to unleash a new Volkswanderung, just say so, but please do not show us baby pictures.

On a personal level, people for open borders are those who are certain their jobs aren’t threatened by any migrants; for them, a new Mexican arrival means a new Mexican restaurant or a new Mexican field worker or builder or house cleaner, cheaper than what they have had, not a competitor for job and housing. People for preservation of the world are aware that they are vulnerable, that new people can make them unemployed. In other words, the former are upper classes or their sycophants, the latter are working classes and people who feel solidarity and compassion towards them.

“Why don’t you say that the former feel compassion towards refugees and immigrants”, you’d ask. Because they do what is profitable for upper classes. They feel zero sympathy for suffering Palestinians, and this is the sterling proof that they lie.

Do you remember the picture of a poor drowned Syrian boy on the seashore? This picture moved a million Afghans, Iraqis, Gypsies and even some Syrians to Europe. Indeed it is terrible, that the drowned child’s father endangered lives of his family for no valid reason. He lived in safe and prosperous Turkey for a few years; he preferred to go to Canada; Canadians refused him a visa, so he sailed the dangerous Mediterranean Sea and lost all his family. Awful; but why this personal tragedy should influence any decision beyond caution: do not sail the sea in unseaworthy vessels. It is better to live in Turkey as 80 million people do than to die at sea.

A few days ago we saw Palestinians – men, women, children, – being shot at by Israeli snipers because they wanted to leave their concentration camp of Gaza. Did the people who love immigration say anything in their support? No, they know better that their Jewish organisers won’t approve that. And the Jews weren’t impressed at all. “Let them all die” – they wrote in their social networks. As a rule, Jews are visually challenged, and excel verbally. This allows them to remain unmoved by pictures, while spreading the kiddie pictures to impress Gentiles.

Israelis are divided about African migrants: the wealthy want more of it, the working classes want them out. Netanyahu’s government is rather populist and it deports the migrants, though Soros types try to block deportations. However, the wealthy and the workers, Jewish left and Jewish right are of one anti-native mind: they do not want to allow native Palestinians to roam the land. Jews are anti-native by definition; this defines their attitude to human trafficking.

Migration is not all that different from the slave trade of old (the trade Jews excelled in). Recently a video from Libya has been delivered to Europe: the Coast Guard soldiers whip the black migrants to the rubber boats and push them into the sea. Those who remain in the camps are sold in the auction, women – for sex, men – for hard work. This video came at a very opportune hour when the struggle for and against the new slave-trade swept the world from the US to Italy and Germany.

Libya is one of main slave trade markets. Once it was a relatively prosperous country, and a reliable block on the road of African migrants to Europe. The Africans could and did find jobs in Gaddafi’s Libya. But in 2011, the country was destroyed by Obama and Clinton. Since then, it has become a poor ruined country with slowly simmering civil war. Libya has oil, but now many Libyans have discovered the African slave trade. Like in 17th century, the African blacks once again make some Arabs and Europeans wealthy.

Many millions of dollars are earned by Libyan militias this way. They take money from both sides – from Africans rushing to Europe from their ravaged countries, and from Europeans who pay the militias to stop refugees.

The man captured in a video with a whip in the hands, the leader of the brutal gang of slavers is a former rebel against the ‘bloody dictator’ Muammar al-Gaddafi, a friend of democracy and European values, Abd al-Rahman al-Milad, a commander in the Coast Guard. The boats, in which he sends Africans to Europe, are bought with European money. Two hundred million euros a year is paid by Brussels, but the slaves bring much more income. Europeans appreciate Milad – a year ago he was invited to a refresher course in Rome, where he spent a fruitful month in a classy hotel at the expense of the European Union.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, EU, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

These long summer days are good for forest walks or swimming; in the evenings, I read classics with my 10 year old son who otherwise spends too much time at video games. This time, it happens to be the Odyssey, the poem I translated some 25 years ago, and yesterday I came to read Book IV on Menelaus bewailing his comrades who fell at Troy or on the perilous way home.

And for me it was the time to beweep my dear comrades-in-arms who have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. So many of you, who went fighting the beast, are dead, or exiled, or imprisoned, like my Spanish publisher Don Pedro Varela and the American researcher Barrett Brown. Or fired from a university like Julio Pino, professor of Kent State.

And then Menelaus said: Much as I weep for all my men, for none of all these comrades do I grieve as much as for this one. The one is Ulysses who has been detained for years on the island of Ogygia by Calypso the Nymph.

It brought to my mind the fate of Julian Assange, this modern Odysseus, who has been held in his luxurious Knightsbridge prison for years. Actually, for full six years, as today, as I write it, is the anniversary of his incarceration in the Ecuador Embassy.

So many epithets used by Homer for the King of Ithaca fit Julian to a tee! He is wise and noble, resourceful and cunning, wily and crafty, brilliant and steadfast, but also evil-starred man of woe.

His name still scares the enemy, and cheers a friend. Though an Antipode by birth, Julian became famous in the North of Europe, where this tall slim handsome youthful silver-haired man came to raise the banner of his revolt. Eight years ago, I compared him to Neo of the Matrix, the man destined to break the matrix of lies and set us free.

The Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde-Land, as no doubt the story of Julian Assange’s escapades in Sweden will be known once it inevitably makes its way into the hands of one of the goofier Hollywood directors – say Robert Zemeckis or Mel Brooks, or perhaps Stephen Herek of Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure. It would do better in the hands of Andy Wachowski, where he might do for Julian Assange what he once did for Keanu Reeves.

Who could ask for a more beautiful set-up? It’s a story fit for a tabloid, yet it might be transformed into something an intellectual could read without embarrassment. This latest adventure is the stuff of pulp fiction, and chock full of Langley spies, computer hackers, crazy feminists, flatfooted cops and sleazy rags in the female kingdom of Sweden!

Julian Assange is a character that might have been ripped from the celluloid frames of the Matrix: flaxen and lanky, he moves through cyberspace like a superman. When, on those rare occasions that he does emerge into the real world, it is to perform Kung Fu exercises. He hardly ever eats or drinks. His corporeal body can normally be found sitting in front of a MacPro or two, while his digital alter ego commutes and computes, battling the odds and the system in fantastic virtual combat. Like Neo, he is a natural-born hacker who hacked just for the heck of it until he discovered the Matrix. He had hundreds of remarkable hacking achievements to his name when in 1992 he pleaded guilty to twenty-two of them. I like to think that someday, after he has passed on in the fullness of time, he will become a kind of guardian angel for hackers, or perhaps the Greek God of Cyberspace with His Golden Board, forever surfing the web.

Recently this comparison had been repeated by brave Jonathan Cook, the man from Nazareth, but it is suitable for Jonathan himself, and for many of us, including the American Pravda writer, Ron Unz, for we all fight for liberation of mind and discourse.

In the beginning of his political activity, Julian was lionised by media and society. His Wikileaks was considered the most fashionable thing in the known universe. He floated from a party to reception, admired by the Scandinavians from Reykjavik to Stockholm.

But the enemy prepared its snares. A CIA-friendly feminist got to his bed by a dirty trick: she offered him her small flat saying she was leaving the city for a few days, and when he accepted and moved in, she suddenly returned and offered to share the only bed. He didn’t know she had carried out a CIA mission in Cuba, otherwise he would have been more cautious. Or not: a full-blooded man, he was easy to tempt. The next day she Tweeted friends about her success, about sharing the limelight with this celebrity. And a few days later she complained to police that he possessed her without protection; this is an offence of second-degree rape in feminised Sweden. Her accusation has been seconded by another girl, who was unhappy that Julian didn’t call her the next day after their loving tryst. A man-hating Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny took over the job of hunting Julian, and Swedish newspapers displayed headlines “Rapist At Large.” Immediately Julian lost all his admiring entourage. The Empire knew the vulnerability of his crowd.

However, in a few days his case was closed down, and Julian was free to leave Sweden. He went to England, and there he prepared the great publication of Cablegate, that is the vast collection of the State Department and the US Embassies’ cables from around the world. Stolen by Manning, these cables opened to us the full picture of the Empire dealings with the nations. I wrote:

One quarter of a million secret and confidential US Embassy cables sit like so many digital wasps waiting to be released into cyberspace. They will strike at the tender underbelly of the empire, the flattering self-delusions that maintain the imperial armies. It just might be enough to turn the tide in the battle to recover our evaporating freedoms.

These dirty little cables throw a bright light upon the murky policies of the American Imperium, on their methods of collecting information, of delivering orders, of subverting politicians and robbing nations. Yet before we lapse into a comfortable and reflexive anti-Americanism, let us never forget that this, arguably the greatest revelation of criminal wrongdoing in history, was only made possible because brave and honest Americans were willing to risk life and limb to leak the truth.

Tensions run high when you dare oppose the awesome power of the Matrix. It is impossible not to admire Julian Assange. He is forever kind, quiet, gentle, and even meek; like the Tao, he leads without leading, directs without commanding. He never raises his voice; he hardly needs to speak and the way becomes clear. Our Neo is guided by the ideal of social transparency. Bright light is the best weapon against conspiracies.

The Empire responded by having Sweden re-open the case and issue an arrest warrant. England picked it up, and Julian had lost his freedom. For a long while he stayed in East Anglia, in the house of a friend, and then he moved to London, with an electronic bracelet on his arm and under constant police supervision. When he was perilously close to deportation to Sweden, and to a long stretch of solitary confinement in a jail cell to be followed by extradition to the US and to its Guantanamo tropical paradise, he jumped the boat and asked for asylum in the Ecuador Embassy in London, after he received the then President of Ecuador Rafael Correa’s promise. That was in June 2012, and since that time, Assange has been immured within the walls of the Embassy.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Julian Assange, Wikileaks 
🔊 Listen RSS

Poland
Country in Europe
Poland is an eastern European country on the Baltic Sea known for its medieval architecture and Jewish heritage

– thus the Google characterises the land of proud Polacks. For a Pole, this definition hurts more than the three partitions of his country. Why do they stop at Poland, he’d cry out.

Why Google describes

England
Country of the United Kingdom
England, birthplace of Shakespeare and The Beatles

Instead of “England is a European country on an island in the North Sea, known for its Jamaican Rastas”?

I commiserate with you, my Polish friends. It is very demeaning to be known not for the deeds of your ancestors, nor for mighty sword of Jan Sobieski that saved Vienna for Christendom, nor for the star lore of Copernicus, neither for the gentle muse of Mickiewicz and Chopin, but for something quite marginal for your culture and history, at least as marginal as Rastafarians are for the Brits.

The Russians and the Germans partitioned your lands thrice, but they didn’t think your only claim to fame is that you were hospitable towards Jews. This very Jewish attitude is typical for America in our days, for the US has become more Jewish than Poland ever was. And they are repaid for your hospitality with a mean coin.

Jews lived in the Polish lands for centuries, and lived very well, until they moved to new pastures – to America, to Germany, to Russia, to Israel. My father was a Polish citizen, and he cherished his memories of the land and its folk, and so felt other Jews of his generation. However, organised Jewry had different ideas.

The conflict between the Jews and Poland began with anti-Polish publications in the US media a few years ago. The Jews began to goad Poland. They reminisced about Polish clashes with Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, not exactly a unique Polish story. Many nations have clashed with Jews, lately the people of Gaza.

The last anti-Jewish riot, or pogrom, in Europe took place in in England in 1947, not in Poland, and was caused not by some pathological, illogical, irrational hatred of the Other, but by the Jews’ heinous act: they murdered two English soldiers, hanged their bodies on a tree and booby-trapped these with a landmine. However, the Jews do not choose to recall those British riots, they are forever reciting Polish troubles.

They said the Nazi concentration camps were built in Poland because Poles sympathised with the Nazi plans to eliminate the Jews. More and more often they referred to “Polish concentration camps” (instead of Nazi concentration camps in Poland), heavily implying Polish complicity in the Holocaust. The Poles responded to this salvo of abuse by passing a law forbidding anyone of accusing them of collaboration with the Nazis under penalty of imprisonment. The Jews were furious and called for knowingly breaking the law by shouting “Polish Holocaust!”. (It is worth watching this short video in order to feel their fury).

There was a practical reason, as well as a discursive one. By putting pressure on the Poles, the Jewish organisations followed the blueprint they had utilised against the Swiss with great success. Although known Jewish assets in Swiss banks were quite small, the Swiss gave in under pressure and paid billions of dollars to the Jewish organisations. Now a similar extortion racket has been planned against Poland.

This was the practical reason, while the needs of their battle for discourse called upon the Jews to safeguard their copyright, i.e. to keep in their hands the authority to decide and rule what is the Holocaust and who is guilty of it. The Polish example could be followed by the Americans and the British who may become tired of being accused of failing to bomb the railways leading to concentration camps. Indeed Donald Trump already tried to speak of millions of non-Jewish “victims of the Holocaust”. Rebellious Poland had to be suppressed.

Organised Jewry called upon Poland to restore to them all the property that belonged to individual Jews in Poland before the WWII. Though Jews were a small minority, they were a very prosperous minority, and many Jews owned a lot of property. They owned it as private Polish citizens, naturally. In the Communist period, many Polish properties were nationalised, whatever their owner’s faith was, Jewish, Catholic or even Buddhist. However, the 1960 treaty between the United States and Poland solved this problem. Poland compensated American nationals whose assets had been nationalized by the Polish government and the United States indemnified Poland from any additional claims and compensation demands.

Now they have decided to re-open the case by claiming properties that belonged to Jewish owners who died leaving no heirs. If an owner dies intestate, his estate goes to the state. This is the basic rule all over the world, and Polish Jews are no exception. If a Polish citizen, a Jan or a Moses (or even an Ahmed) dies intestate, his property in Poland goes to Polish state. The Jews want to change it. They say intestate property of private Jewish Polish citizens should revert to Jewish ownership, actually to Jewish-American organisations.

These bodies have already pocketed billions of dollars’ worth of German funds; this money pays handsome salaries to Jewish officials; it builds Holocaust memorials and museums, and allows Jews to fight numerous legal cases strengthening their hegemony. Now they want to shake Poland down for a cool $300 billion, 60% of the country’s GNP. It will certainly allow many Jewish functionaries to live in a style to which they are accustomed.

The US supported this claim, and a few days ago, S. 447, the “Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017,” became law, as President Trump signed it after the House of Representatives and the Senate duly voted for it in bipartisan solidarity. Now the Poles can’t just disregard these claims. They have to transfer every asset that ever belonged to a Jew into the hands of American Jewish organisations.

If and when a similar law would be enforced in the US, American Jewish organisations would inherit from Chomsky and Unz, me and Gilad Atzmon, the Amazon and Soros Fund. This is patently crazy: just in a few years, Jewish organisations will become richer than Rothschild and Rockefeller ever were.

The Jewish organisations collecting the tribute are also very rich. They have a dirty history of fraud with dozens of convictions; they spend much more money on their own salaries than on needy survivors. Norman Finkelstein wrote a well-known book, The Holocaust Industry, full of strong critique and indignation, about the Holocaust Lords with their half-a-million-dollar-a-year salaries and great hotels to hold conferences.

I would prefer they’d spend all their ill-gotten wealth on their salaries and hotels, because they use whatever is left (and we are speaking of billions of dollars) to restore Jewry and to promote their narrative, to build a Holocaust Museum in every city, to give grants to painters, writers, film directors, media editors. They bribe whole communities. They keep the descendants of Jews together by scholarships, free schools, free meals. And they de-Emancipate the Jews.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Holocaust, Jews, Poland 
🔊 Listen RSS

No, the freshly-minted British Duchess of Sussex, Meghan is not Jewish. She’s been married to a Jewish producer (@hertoo!), this is the nearest. Still, the cry Messiah is here! sounded in the British Jewish community, for they had a great run of success. They proved at court that a dead Jew is better than a dead Englishman, and that you have to discriminate in favour of a Jew. Another feat in the Kingdom of the Jewish Messiah!

The hunt for anti-Semites eclipsed the foxhunt in the category of blood sports. Ken Livingstone, a very popular ex-Mayor of London, lifelong Labour political activist, has been expelled out of Labour for his anti-Israeli views, deemed “antisemitic”. This is a big victory in a wider campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, carried out by Friends of Israel, for Corbyn is a determined anti-Zionist with a long record of support for Palestinians and for other Resistance movements.

He is also for repairing relations with Russia, and the BBC played it up presenting him in a Russian winter hat against a Russian church background, to show for sure that he is a Russian agent. His son Tommy ‘liked’ a Facebook link to a piece of mine on a Palestinian site, and this was duly recorded as a proof of his father’s antisemitic tendency.

Livingstone is a jolly, hard-boiled, outspoken and very popular fellow, a real asset for Corbyn’s Labour. Thus Corbyn repeated the original error of Donald Trump who also agreed to drop his best supporters after they were accused of breaking PC rules and of antisemitism.

Organised Jewry hates Corbyn and Livingstone not only for their stand on Israel/Palestine; it is an indicator of policy. Organised Jewry, as opposed to ordinary accidental Jews, is a political body acting against the working people of England and for themselves, that is for the landlords and the moneybags. Usually they vote Conservative, and if they support Labour, they bend it in a Blairite mode. Blairite Labour is a pro-Jewish Labour, Conservative Lite. Blair took the UK into the Iraqi War and added to the destruction of the British working class that was launched by the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Now Corbyn and Livingstone are definitely no Blairites. They are against wars, against NATO, against selling arms to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Corbyn was the rare voice of reason during the Skripal madness. That’s why Organised Jewry wants to get rid of him; and antisemitism is their weapon of choice.

When Corbyn is subdued, the Cold War with Russia will become colder, much colder – if not very hot, by the way of dialectics. More Yemenis and Palestinians will be killed by British weapons, and British money will go to nuclear rearmament, instead of health services. It is very sad Corbyn allowed them to remove Livingstone; he lost an ally and he showed a sign of weakness.

Not the first one. Corbyn is weak on Jews, this is his Achilles Heel. Jeremy Corbyn agreed that dead Englishmen are inferior to dead Jews, and this is worse than Livingstone’s departure. (Let us add for balance’ sake, that this is the law of the realm, too.)

In England, dead bodies are released for burial by the coroner, and his permission usually takes time. The Jews do not want to wait with the commoners even after death. They demand to be buried right away, while non-Jews may have to wait for a week or longer. Many coroners just do it, but the obstinate coroner for progressive inner North London, a certain Ms Mary Hassel, decided to operate on ‘first come, first serve’ basis. In her own words, “no death will be prioritised in any way over any other”. For her, a dead Jew has no priority before an Englishman on his way to the cemetery. It sounds fair, sort of “all are equal in front of the Grim Reaper”, but such equality is against Jewish tradition.

The Jewish law postulates that a dog is better than a goy. This was stated by the leading authority, Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki, the 11th century exegete) in his commentary to Exodus 22:30. A dog is to be preferred over a goy, said he in discussing the proper way to dispose of non-kosher meat. Here is the original with a modern Jewish translation into English. The translation softens the message by adding “to be given preference in this respect” where the original has the brutal “dog is better than him [a goy]”. The translation offers “heathen”, where the original has straightforward “goy”. With such an attitude, it is obvious that the Jews should not mind overtaking non-Jews in the line to the coroner.

Now the story takes an unbelievable turn. The Jews sued Mary Hassel, and won. Not in Israel, not in a Jewish state, but in England. The High Court ruled a coroner must consider Jewish sensitivities. If they do not want to wait, do not cause them grief by waiting – it is “unlawful, irrational and discriminatory” to refuse to discriminate in favour of Jews. This mind-boggling (and in my view extremely offensive to an ordinary mortal goy who has to wait for weeks to get released for burial) decision has been made by a Lord Justice Singh, and lauded by Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan.

One could mumble something about Indians who import their caste ideas into fair England, but there was no rush by native judges to overrule Singh. And unfortunately Jeremy Corbyn approved of the decision, saying: “The High Court ruling is very welcome and will be a huge relief to the Jews who have suffered significant and unnecessary anxiety.” Even worse: before the matter went to the High Court, Jeremy Corbyn wrote to Hassel demanding that she reconsider.

Perhaps they were right? The Jews say that urgent burial is a religious duty. It is true, but so is the killing of a baptised Jew like me; it is a religious duty to kill such an apostate even on Yom Kippur, but Jews usually manage without fulfilling this obligation. On a milder note, a Jew is prohibited from eating bread baked by a non-Jew (פתנוכרי), but the vast majority of Jews transgress this prohibition. There are hundreds of Jewish laws and prohibitions that Jews do not observe if they can’t be fulfilled.

It is possible to offset this requirement of the Jewish law by another, keeping peace with neighbours (דרכישלום), as obviously getting in front of the line and bypassing your neighbours is disturbing peaceful relations with them.

The Jews say that they do it for the Muslims’ sake. Somehow Mary Hassel was taken to Court by Jews, not by Muslims. Jews often use Muslims for an alibi: instead of saying “we do not want to see a Christmas tree” or “we don’t want to hear church bells”, they say: it is offensive for Muslims. It is offensive for Muslims to be locked up in Gaza, but Jews do not mind causing that offence. So this elaboration is just an exercise in futility.

Jeremy Corbyn, a man who tried to please the Jews, is a sitting duck for antisemite hunters. I do not intend to criticise him, for he is a politician who operates in an England blessed with such a High Court, such a Parliament and such a corporate media.

Nothing is going to help him, nothing is going to help the British people, until they will free themselves from this Jewish fiefdom.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Perhaps the Jewish Messiah is already here, though we are not aware of his coming? All Jewish dreams and desires were fulfilled this mid-May. Well, almost all. Two great world power leaders competed in their benevolence to Jews, while ordinary Israelis had fun and exhilarating soft target practice shooting unarmed Gazans or at least cheering the sharpshooters. Iranians gnashed their teeth but did nothing. The US Congress deemed that the Poles should pay the Jews $300 billion in tribute. And an exceedingly obnoxious Jewish wench got the crown of the European art scene, accidentally ensuring that the new capital of Israel, Jerusalem, will be the location of a prominent international gathering next year.

If you think that some of this benevolence should drip to you and that your lot should be somewhat better, think again. Nobody promised you a rose garden. The Jewish Messiah is good for the Jews, while non-Jews should just work harder and prepare for divine vengeance. There are arguments about whether all the goyim will be hit by vengeance, or whether some should survive to buy retail. However, benevolence towards non-Jews is not a striking feature of this arrangement.

I was quite apprehensive in the beginning of May. The schedule appeared scary. The Iranians had established themselves in Syria, the Russians were prepared to equip Syria with their best S-300 system (it is more reliable than the new and fancy S-400). The Palestinians planned to demonstrate on the 70th anniversary of their Nakba loosely coinciding with the US Embassy move to Jerusalem and with beginning of Ramadan. A war with Iran and Hezbollah, riots in the Palestinian territories, loss of the God-given right to fly and bomb as we wish all over the Middle East – dangers galore were stored for the first half of May. With all my critical attitude, the utter destruction of the beloved land is not my wet dream.

Prudent people would tread cautiously, preferring to minimize their risks in such a situation, but Jews are all for maximising them. If we must have trouble, let us have all the trouble now to have it done with, said Netanyahu. And all troubles – the Iran nuclear deal collapse, the Nakba anniversary, the shift of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the confrontation in Syria, the beginning of Ramadan – were unloaded at once. Israel passed it with flying colours. There was no big war.

Palestine

True, some 60 Palestinian demonstrators were shot dead, the same number as were martyred in the Sharpeville Massacre, but what a difference! South Africa turned into a pariah state overnight, and the global campaign to dismantle apartheid began in earnest. The Gaza Massacre has been whitewashed by the obedient mainstream media, reported the RT. This event proved once again that mass media and social networks all over the world are in the Jewish grip, firm and invisible. Governments, parties, diplomats can and did protest, but the general public was insulated from the event.

The global system of mass information has changed a lot since 1960. There is an incredible abundance of information, a veritable flood that washes off everything. People think only what they are told today, and mass campaigns are produced by media and think tanks, they do not produce themselves. People are being told every day about, say, the Holocaust, or about Assad’s atrocities, or Putin’s meddling so it is kept in their minds. The moment the campaign is turned off, interest flags and the matter is totally forgotten, like the Skripal Affair was forgotten after it had been played to full capacity. Now Skripal has been disappeared by the British Secret Services, but this is not mentioned, outside of this publication.

And the mass murder in Gaza is already on its way to oblivion. They wanted to remind the world that they are buried alive in the grave of Gaza, and now they are dead. The people of Gaza have been locked up there for 70 years; the last 12 years were the worst, as the Gaza Strip has been under siege by Israel since they voted for Hamas. Gaza is almost unliveable, as Israel has bombed its power station, its sewage plants, its harbour and airfield. They can’t even fish, as Israeli boats machinegun the fishing boats. They can see their homes and fields taken from them just because they aren’t Jews, and they can’t reach them. This expulsion, dispossession, imprisonment of three generations, and siege are a unique Jewish sin.

Perhaps, the Holocaust was a divine punishment for Jewish treatment of Gaza, since for God, time sequence is of no importance. In the Torah, there are no earlier or later events, בתורה מאוחר ואין מוקדם אין, teaches the Talmud, and it is true. One can be punished for the sins not yet committed, and if they will not be committed, the punishment will be undone, too. If the Jews wouldn’t torture Gaza, there would be no Auschwitz.

Gaza is a noble place despite its depredation. In many countries, children of rulers are turning into billionaires. The daughter of the Angolan president is the richest woman in Africa: she is the only mobile telephony provider in diamond-rich Angola. But there is another tradition, of the children of the rulers being first to war. That is the tradition of Gaza. Among those shot by Israeli sharpshooters, there were thee children of Gaza’s leaders.

The son of the ex-Prime Minister of Gaza, Ismail Haniye, Maaz, has been among the heavily wounded. Ahmed al-Rantisi, the son of Abd el Aziz al-Rantisi, the founder of Hamas, has been killed. His father, called the Lion of Palestine, was been assassinated by the Jews in 2004, when an Israeli helicopter gunship launched a missile at his car in the centre of Gaza, killing him, his bodyguards and wounding passers-by. And now his son has followed him. Izz al-Din al-Sammak, son of Musa al-Sammak, a Hamas leader, was killed, and he was only 14 years old.

Altogether over a hundred boys and young men, the flower of Palestine, have been reaped in these unarmed demonstrations of April-May. A purpose of this killing spree was to show that non-violent resistance is futile. It is more fun to kill an armed opponent, if you are much better armed. When you kill an unarmed one, it is obviously not cricket. But such consideration has never stopped a Jew.

The reason is the serious doubt in the humanity of non-Jews that is planted in the centre of the Jewish religious Weltanschauung. A good Israeli who condemns Gaza killings most probably is a vegetarian, who objects to the killing of animals, too. Such good Israelis are often anti-male, and prefer to use a feminine form of nouns, like Zochrot. Such good Israelis usually are anti-native, and support unlimited immigration of Africans to Palestine. Such people can’t be numerous, and they aren’t.

As for other Jews, they learned from the Matrix protagonist, Neo (Keanu Reeves), who had been taught to (dis)regard obvious dangers as maya, as a mirage created by the Matrix, and he jumped from skyscrapers and dodged bullets. Jews apparently have a similar attitude to reality. One day it won’t work, to their surprise, but this time it worked.

 
Israel Shamir
About Israel Shamir

Israel Shamir has written extensively on public affairs, primarily relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict and Russia, including three books, Galilee Flowers, Cabbala of Power and Masters of Discourse available in English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Norwegian, Swedish, Italian, and Hungarian.

He describes himself as a native of Novosibirsk, Siberia, who he moved to Israel in 1969, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war, afterwards turning to journalism and writing. During the late 1970s, he joined the BBC in London later living in Japan. After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, and was the Knesset spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party (Mapam), also translating and annotating the cryptic works of S.Y. Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winning writer, from the original Hebrew into Russian.

His perspective on the Israel/Palestine conflict was summed up in The Pine and the Olive, published in 1988 and republished in 2004. That same year, he was received in the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem and Holy Land, being baptised Adam by Archbishop Theodosius Attalla Hanna. He now lives in Jaffa and spends much time in Moscow and Stockholm; he is father of three sons.