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



=>
 Israel Shamir BlogviewTeasers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
(Reading a Midrash out of Midrash Talpiyot)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TalpiyotUnz-1-1

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the relevant text of Talpiyot in the original publication

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Russia 

The first date is a decisive one, as we learned in college, while courting Nancy or Alice. The coming first date of two Presidents, the two superheroes of our generation is likely to set the trend for coming years. How will it go? What will they say? The consequences can be joyous – or fatal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

As a rule I try to see my glass half-full, leaving the half-empty one to other fellows. And now there are some good reasons for an eternal optimist to stick to his positive schedule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: Economics, Ideology • Tags: Britain, Jeremy Corbyn, Jews, Neoliberalism, Sweden 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: France, Neoliberalism, Netherlands, The Left 
(A Light-headed discussion of grave affairs)

What’s wrong with gassing your own people? After all, California does it and Oklahoma plans it, and these are fine advanced states. I would not like the Russians to send their howling missiles to Sacramento: they gas their own people. While gassing someone’s else people may be considered a sort of interference in their affairs, gassing of one’s own people is clearly one’s own business. Mind your own business, sir, gas your own.

And if these are beautiful babies that you worry about, why, the US flushes them down the drain, a million beautiful babies a year are ripped out by abortionists. Would you like Vlad Putin to strafe the Planned Parenthood headquarters at 434 West 33rd Street, New York, NY as they kill beautiful babies?

Who are “your own people” is also open for interpretation. A few years ago I went to the funeral of a young Palestinian Christian girl who has been gassed to death by Israelis in her own bedroom in Beit Jalla near Jerusalem (they shot a tear gas bomb into her window). Was she “their own people”? If you say she wasn’t, then, by the same measure, the Jews of Germany weren’t “their own people” for the Germans, and then, Hitler did not “gas his own people” making him a great improvement on Bashar Assad, according to the ADL-authorised version.

Why it is so God-awful to gas people and/or beautiful babies, while frying them with napalm, pouring Agent Orange over them or starving them to death is a proper thing to do. Or nuking them, indeed. Would nuking Nagasaki count as a lesser crime than anything else? If it is a question of aesthetics, I think napalm makes the worst pictures of deep-fried babies as those made in Gaza after Israeli attack. They are so awful that I forbade my Italian publisher to place one of them on the cover of my book. In comparison to them, gas deaths are almost blissful.

For these reasons I do not intend to discuss whether Bashar Assad did, or he didn’t. The story is murky, and the Russians – and the alternative press – had a few mutually contradicting versions Rashomon-like. The whole thing was a false flag cautiously prepared by the rebels and/or Americans; or it was a freak accident, a result of Syrian air force hitting a rebel chemical weapons factory, like the US did a week later; or was it a combination of two, the rebels using the spill to raise hell. Washington is not Kurosawa, and the Trump administration immediately declared they knew what happened before the dust settled, just like Bush and Netanyahu all knew on 9/11. For me it is of little interest: in what way these eighty people died – out of hundreds of thousands who have died in the Middle East wars started by President Bush the Senior and continued by his worthy successors.

The verdict of official Washington is of very little value, after the Kuwaiti incubator baby hoax, the Iraqi WMD of Powell, Libyan atrocities and similar fake news. This boy has cried wolf too often for us to pay attention this time. I do not trust anything the mainstream media tells us, for they proved to be inveterate liars. But who cares even if it were true, when we have heard US State Secretary Madeleine Albright saying it was worth while to kill 500,000 beautiful babies to weaken Iraq?

I would advise you to dismiss this horror story of he-gassed-his-own-people and banish it out of your mind. Who cares? It is just a psy-war against his-own-people, meaning you. Rejecting such stories will restore your ability to judge right. Reject whatever they want you to discuss out of hand and you will regain freedom of mind.

However, the underlying story of Donald’s U-turn is one of the most entertaining and riveting stories that deserves to be looked at. Without unnecessary embellishments (“he saw dead babies”) it is even better. After years of twits against Middle Eastern wars and for friendship with Russia, after going against the establishment and winning, such full surrender is amazing.

It is less amazing if you think of his choice: to be removed from power and locked up in the cellars of Alcatraz or Guantanamo. The CIA and The New York Times with help of the judiciary and the ever-treacherous McCain had plotted to jail or kill Trump, and he saw no other way to save his skin but doing a full Canossa.

Trump had some ambitions, but becoming a martyr hasn’t been one of them. He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day, he murmured to himself, dumped Bannon and bombed Syria.

It worked like magic. His avowed enemies in Congress and in the media greeted him like a young lad coming out of a cathouse: boy, now you became a man! Now you are a real president! Fareed Zakaria blessed him on CNN: “Donald Trump became President of the United States last night.” The Jews forgot their silly stuff of antisemitism and threw their yarmulkes high in his honour. Mme Clinton stopped sulking and said now she does not regret losing the elections to this fine man. A small deed, but a great reward, Donald could say. If Paris was worth a mass, Washington is worth a strike.

After all, America is an evolved Comanche and Apache tribal union, and the Great White Chief has to have the biggest string of scalps at his belt.

The Russians weren’t unduly upset. They have tolerated Israeli missile strikes and bombings of Syria all the time; so why would they object now? The Russian line is as follows: we fight the terrorists, we do not fight for Bashar Assad against other forces, be it Israel, Turkey, Kurds or the US or against moderate opposition. Yes, it is unfair to Assad, but this is the Russian attitude, like it or not. They do not intend to fight the whole West, Israel and the Sunni kingdoms. They fight against ISIS, Al Nusra and similar extreme factions of Islamic movement. So Trump’s strike annoyed them, but it did not cross the red line they drew.

The Western media stressed that the Syria strike has been aimed against Putin, first of all, that the intention was to humiliate the Russian ruler. The Russians did not think so. For them it was an affair between Trump and Assad. Putin did not feel humiliated, and that’s why he received State Secretary Rex Tillerson at the Kremlin. He and Mr Lavrov told Tillerson that the US has absolutely zero evidence for their claim; that this event should be investigated; that they do not believe Assad was behind it. Tillerson proposed that the Russians switch sides in Syria, and this proposal was been immediately rejected. Lavrov quickly recapped previous the causes of war in Iraq, Libya and Syria; he reminded them of the proven case of 2013 chemical weapons hoax. Still, they parted without acrimony. Russian-American relations are not worse than they were; mainly due to Putin’s dogged desire to avoid war with the US for as long as he can, preferably for another five or six years at least.

Trump managed the China angle well. He claimed that President Xi expressed his understanding or even approval of the strike. The Chinese deny that, but they did not make too much of it. They abstained at the Security Council vote on Syria, and Russia had to veto it alone. This is a big achievement for the American President, and an unexpected one.

The pundits thought Trump planned to befriend Russia in order to isolate China; surprisingly he used China to isolate Russia. The Russian and the Chinese Presidents should worry about this American gambit more than about the Syrian strike.

 
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.