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 Bolshevik Revolution Boris Nemtsov Brexit Cambodia Catholic Church Censorship Charlie Hebdo China Civil Liberties Cynthia McKinney Democracy Dreyfus Affair Economic Sanctions Edward Snowden Egypt Erdogan Espionage 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 Sergei Skripal Sochi Olympics South Korea Soviet History Soviet Union Space Program Spain Srebrenica Stalinism 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 ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

Russian intelligence operations have taken a heavy hit recently. It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean battle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Defending the Bolsheviks and Soviet Communism
🔊 Listen RSS

This is a discussion of some issues raised in a previous article by Ron Unz:

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

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

The Gulag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Russia, Syria, Vladimir Putin 
🔊 Listen RSS

Boys and girls are different. Once, this difference had been celebrated. Vive la petit difference, exclaimed the French, and other nations also enjoyed it. Now it has lead to multiple troubles, on the seas, in the cities and even in outer space, as you will learn now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
🔊 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 
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.