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

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
2016 Election American Media American Military Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Britain Catholic Church Censorship Christianity Communism Cuba Deep State Donald Trump Economics Feminism Foreign Policy France Gaza Gilad Atzmon Hillary Clinton History Holocaust Ideology Immigration Iran Iraq ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jeremy Corbyn Jews Judaism Libya Middle East Neocons Neoliberalism North Korea Political Correctness Putin Race/Ethnicity Russia Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin Wikileaks 2004 Election 2020 Election 9/11 Abortion Academia Adam Schiff Afghanistan Africa Alain Soral Amazon.com American Jews Anarchism Anders Breivik Arab Spring Armenians Banking Industry Belarus Bernie Sanders Bolshevik Revolution Boris Johnson Boris Nemtsov Brexit Cambodia Charlie Hebdo China Christmas CIA Civil Liberties Cynthia McKinney Democracy Democratic Party Dreyfus Affair Economic Sanctions Edward Snowden Egypt Emmanuel Macron Erdogan Espionage Estonia Ethiopia EU Eurozone Facebook Financial Bubbles Financial Crisis Gay Marriage Gaza Flotilla Genocide Georgia Germany Global Warming Greece Hate Hoaxes Hitler Hong Kong India IQ Japan Jared Kushner Jeff Bezos Jeffrey Epstein Jewish History Joe Biden Julian Assange Jussie Smollett Kashmir Kim Jong Un Kurds Lebanon Lenin Liberalism Litvinenko Madoff Swindle Malaysia Malaysian Airlines MH17 Mel Gibson Meritocracy Mikhail Khodorkovsky Mohammed Bin Salman Muslims NATO Nazir Ahmed Netherlands New Cold War New World Order New Zealand Shooting Noam Chomsky Norman Finkelstein North Africa NSA Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Organ Transplants Orthodoxy Pakistan Palestinians Paris Attacks Pavel Grudinin Pedophilia Poland Racism Ron Unz Russian Elections 2018 Russian Orthodox Church Saudi Arabia 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 Venezuela Wikipedia William Browder World War I World War II 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
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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

England and France, two antagonists, two mainstays of European civilisation, are simultaneously engulfed in paroxysm of Judeophilia. The result of the forthcoming very important parliamentary elections in Britain hinges on this issue, with Labour and Tories competing who will express their love of Jews more profusely, while the Jews can’t decide whom they loath less. France, after a year of the middle-class Yellow Vests rebellion, enters the fresh working class uprising with million strikers rioting on the streets, but its parliament finds prime time to ponder and rule how Frenchmen should love Jews and hate those who hate them. What is the meaning of this charade?

Surely they do not argue about Jewish cuisine. While palatable, it is rarely more than that. A proof can be found in Israel, where Arab food rules, Japanese is recognised, Italian cherished but Jewish cuisine shines by its absence. It is not Jewish noses, though a significant feature of facial anatomy, they are not more elaborate or prominent than, say, Sicilian. It is all about ideas.

Judeophilia, love of Jews is a troublesome symptom of a dangerous malady, of elites’ estrangement from its working classes, the malady presently in full bloom in France and England. Judeophilia strikes divided societies and could lead to their collapse much faster than its Siamese counter-twin, antisemitism. It did so in the past, most famously in Kingdom of Poland, where the szlachta (nobility) loved Jews and despised ordinary folks, the bydlo (rednecks), until their state collapsed. In a Christian, or post-Christian society, Jews are a symbol, a signifier of a certain attitude and behaviour that is profoundly non-Christian.

Jews are a small minority that defies the large society and opposes it. Jews care for themselves and disregard the majority and its needs; they have no scruples beyond prescribed by the criminal law; they feel no communality with the majority. Jews do not share communion with majority, and do not appeal to the same deity. Jews prosper when the majority regresses. They are fast to see a break and use it for their advantage.

We won’t enter a discussion whether the real Jews fit the description, and to what extent. That is how they are perceived by those who love them and who hate them. There were Jews who acted against the paradigm, and they weren’t considered ‘good for Jews’. Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian Chancellor, Lazar Kaganovich, the Soviet official, Leon Trotsky or Torquemada weren’t ‘good for Jews’. And there are plentiful Gentiles who were considered ‘good for Jews’, like Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair. Usually they were bad for everybody else. So, while we shall defer our judgment on ‘real Jews’, there is no doubt that philo-Semites are bad for your health.

The dominant economic and political paradigm, Neo-Liberalism claims that Jewish attitude is the right one, and that we all should emulate Jews. This is an impossible claim; a majority can’t emulate a minority. A society whose members relate to each other as Jews-to-Gentiles is a cannibals’ cabal, and that is exactly what happens in our world. Jews prosper because they are few; if all emulate Jews, the result is misery, not prosperity. An all-Jewish society can’t exist; Israel is a place where Thai, Chinese, Ukrainians and Palestinians work, the Russians and Druze guard them, while Jews do usual Jewish things.

In England, the Jews are divided about Boris Johnson. They do not want Brexit to succeed, but the access of Corbyn scares them even more. Corbyn is an avowed enemy of … no, not of Jews, but of neo-liberalism. Combine it with his rejection of Israeli politics, and you come to the sum of anti-Jewish attitudes. Yes, Corbyn is anti-Jewish, if you wish, even anti-Semite, i.e. a man whom Jews hate, for he is against both Jewish modes of operation, the capitalist and the Zionist. He is perfectly ok with people of Jewish origin, he has no prejudice, he is no racist, but it is irrelevant. His victory won’t be ‘good for Jews’, neither for Jews who bleed Palestine, nor for Jews who prosper at the expense of the British worker. Perhaps Corbyn would be wonderful for Jewish workers, but they are not represented in the Board of Deputies, and the Chief Rabbi does not care for them.

On the international scene, Corbyn is not a friend of NATO. If he could he would take the UK out of this obsolete military alliance. So would President Trump, who is looking for a justification to steer the US out of NATO. Jews do not like this attitude. For them, the US and the UK should stay in NATO, for NATO is a strong defender and supporter of the Jewish state.

Brits have a difficult choice in the coming elections. Johnson is not too bad, and his stand against EU should be applauded. Corbyn is likely to seek compromise on every position, including Brexit, immigration, NATO, but his initial stand is good. For a working man, he is the right choice. And the Jewish attitude to him is a strong indicator: of the two contenders, Corbyn would be better for those who do not emulate Jews.


In France, the Jews are very close to power, and it is usually a sign that things do not go well for native middle and working classes. Indeed things go from bad to worse. While a million of French workers demonstrated against Macron’s government, the French parliamentarians discussed antisemitism. Not surprisingly, they accepted the definition produced by a Jewish organisation. Demurring against this definition caused a lot of trouble for Corbyn; Macron had learned a lesson.

I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything. I’d prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws. Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled ‘anti-Semite’. This fear kills their souls more than the accusation. Though, best of people, Shakespeare, St John the Divine, Dostoyevsky and Chesterton are considered anti-Semites, and it did not diminish their fame and glory.

You can’t escape this label; if they want they will attach it to your name. Likewise, a man can’t avoid being called a male chauvinist and accused of harassment by a radical feminist. Anna Ardin, the Swedish feminist who accused Julian Assange of rape and destroyed his life as surely as if she’d knifed him, also accused a student of harassment because he avoided looking at her. Such accusations should be shrugged off.

France is not doing well because its elites are engaged in the rip-off and sale of their country’s industrial, political, and cultural assets. In the last few years, France had lost Alstom, Pechiney, Technip, Alcatel. These premium assets were lost to US companies. French businessmen and officials who were supposed to care about French heirlooms, betrayed their trust and defrauded their country, that’s why France is not doing well.

• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Britain, France, Jews 
🔊 Listen RSS

The impeachment farce is basically a Jewish affair, noted the Israeli daily Haaretz. The soul and engine of the impeachment is Adam Schiff, ‘Shifty Schiff’ in Trump’s colourful expression. His name brings to mind the Jewish banking house of Schiff, top Jewish aristocracy of money and media. The second man is Greedy Goldman, or Daniel Sachs Goldman, the chief interrogator in the impeachment hearings. Sachs Goldman or Goldman Sachs, another top Jewish name and bank. The third Jew in the heart of the impeachment is infamous George Soros. Haaretz could add that the top witnesses for prosecution are also Jewish, the bizarre Gordon “Zelensky loves your ass” Sondland, or Vindman the Spy. Trump would never dare to notice this remarkable coincidence, concludes Haaretz. Only antisemites would.

Instead of pointing this open conspiracy out and calling the Americans to save the Republic, President Trump appealed to the Jewish sense of gratitude. He bestowed now his third fabulous gift to the Jewish state, namely recognition of the settlements for-Jews-only on the stolen Palestinian land, after he recognised Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Or perhaps the fourth, if you’d count his withdrawal out of Iran agreement. He legalised the settlements by the unilateral decision of the superpower, something the Israeli governments never could or dared. If the US were be as omnipotent as it was twenty years ago, that would be the end of Oslo and Geneva agreements, and practically the end of attempts to create a State of Palestine alongside with Israel, something Israeli nationalists wanted all along. With the US engulfed in the cold civil war, it could lead to self-de-legitimisation of the US, or to collapse of Two States paradigm. It is apparently a huge gift to the Jewish state.

Trump thought that his generosity would melt Jewish hearts, and they would let him govern in peace. But no, the Jews accept every gift as their due; it is absence of a gift that is surprising and troublesome, probably to be explained by anti-Semitism. They said that his recognition will annoy the Democrats, and they will take it away when they regain the White House.

Probably this reaction is exactly what Trump counted on, for he does not care about Palestine or Israel. His target audience is the US Jewry. Trump hopes that the Jews who care about Israel more than they care about the US would switch allegiance and support him, so the Democrats wouldn’t win the next elections and roll back the recognition. Judging by past experience, the Jews will gain by this competition for their favours, while the US will lose, and so will Trump.

It is worth our while to see who are the Jewish persons in the impeachment proceedings. Adam Schiff, whether a remote relation to the banker Jacob Schiff or just a namesake, could be a reincarnation of the old man; for he inherited his love for mass immigration and hatred to Russia. Before Jacob Schiff’s time, the US Jewry was a small community. Wealthy, yes, but very small. Jacob Schiff who arrived to the American shore in the mid-19th century, understood that he needed numbers, masses, demography on his side if he wanted Jews to become an important player. He organised mass immigration of Russian and Polish Jews into the US. “He lobbied Congress and President Grover Cleveland to prevent the passage of legislation which would have prevented the massive wave of Russian Jewish immigrants from whom most current New York Jews descend”, says the Jewish source. Millions of Jews arrived and eventually changed the US in their own image. Now Adam Schiff wants to import millions of Third Worlders to cement the change started by Jacob.

Jacob Schiff’s hatred of Russia had been quite extraordinary, even by the standards of that time. A prominent banker, he issued a war loan to Japan to build its fleet to fight Russia. Accidentally, the fleet built with Schiff’s money had attacked Pearl Harbour some years later, so every victim of the Pacific War and his descendants may sue Schiffs for their contribution.

Long before Soros and NED, Jacob Schiff played the regime change game in Russia, bankrolling the revolutionaries. (He contributed to February 1917 revolution, the liberal pro-Western coup, but the Russians screwed him by doing another coup in November 2017 and installing the Bolsheviks; his agents had to flee and Russia regained its independence, while Schiff had lost his investment.)

Adam Schiff is rabidly anti-Russian just like Jacob was. He dreams of a regime change in Moscow like Jacob did. He claimed Russian conspiracy had brought Trump to the White House; he refused to accept Mueller’s enquiry results and still insists that the Russians interfered in the US elections. His words of “damning evidence” of collusion with Russia, “more than circumstantial,” a scandal of a size “beyond Watergate” had poisoned Russo-American relations, and made Trump presidency a lame duck from the first moment.

Adam Schiff is so dishonest and unfair that even the WSJ noted his innovation in law. “Is it an impeachable offense for a president to resist impeachment? House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff told CNN last week that White House officials’ refusal to testify in his committee’s impeachment probe could lead to “obstruction of Congress” charges against President Trump.” Perhaps, after all, Adam Schiff is a relative to another swindler, Irwin Schiff, who died in federal prison in 2015 while he was serving a 13 years sentence for tax evasion. (Probably it is anti-Semitic to mention the old canard that some Jews could be swindlers, but we’d dare anyway).

The chief interrogator Daniel Sachs Goldman has an excellent pedigree for a Jewish macher (wheeler dealer). He went to the school “President Barack Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia attended, as well as Chelsea Clinton, former Vice President Joe Biden’s grandchildren, Richard Nixon’s daughter Tricia and Theodore Roosevelt’s son Archibald”. His wife is a Vice President of Goldman Sachs Bank, the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”, in the famous words of Matt Taibbi. His family had established a special program called The Birthright-Taglit. The name implies that every Jew has a birthright for the land of Palestine, as opposed to its natives. The program allows American Jewish youths to make a free (courtesy of US taxpayer) trip to Israel, to meet other Jewish young men and girls and to fight intermarriage by marrying within the tribe. That’s right, you are forbidden to approve of such racist measures, but Jews are allowed to run it as a tax-exempt charity.

Daniel Sachs Goldman’s family is also a founder of New Israel Fund, another tax-exempt, that directs money saved from the US tax authorities (where it could reach goyim) towards Jews-only purposes.

George Soros is another prominent Jewish participant in the impeachment proceedings. The old reptilian is so ugly that our soul (being naturally Wildean) feels he is immoral, too. The facts on the ground confirm this premonition. If the Ukraine had been turned from a jolly rotund East European country into pale grim disaster area, he is partly responsible.

🔊 Listen RSS

Lawyers have a very dubious reputation. Since the days of old, they were considered scumbags; advocates being shysters at best; judges as despotic tyrants at worst. Half a millennium ago, Maître Rabelais said: There is no cause so bad that it does not find itself an advocate, otherwise there would be no lawsuits in the world. Judges were considered even worse; the best judge is the one who decides the case by drawing lots, added the Renaissance writer. And still, in his days the legal profession presented a threat but to a private person, not to the realm or to the order of things. Judges are extremely conservative, generalised Vladimir Lenin, himself a lawyer by education, in the beginning of the 20th century.

Well, they aren’t conservative anymore; they are full of zeal to reshape the world. The United States had been the first (and for a long time the only) country in the world to turn yesterday’s scumbags into a powerful threat to the common sense and to the order of things. The legal establishment is omnipotent in the Shining City upon the Hill. They destroyed the tobacco industry by a single decision, ordering sot-weed factors to pay billions to people who enjoyed their smooth and cooling smoke; they ruined Palestine by ordering them and Iranians to pay billions to the Jews who fought them. They may decide that abortion or same-sex marriage is a universal right, while free education and health care are not. They may forbid stopping a foreign invasion, but allow impoverishment of the native citizenry. There never was a king as powerful as the US legal establishment.

The impeachment trial of President Trump is an attempt to dislodge a legitimately elected ruler by quasi-legal methods. If his opponents would rely upon the US voters, they wouldn’t go into this farce. But they know they can’t win; that’s why they want to remove Trump by trying him for his alleged crimes.

In many countries the leaders had been tried and imprisoned, usually on the basis of unsubstantiated claims of ‘corruption’. If in the past, the rulers rarely went to jail; unless after a coup or military defeat; now they are arrested and sentenced at a drop of a hat for disobeying the Deep State orders, too. (The Wikipedia list is whimsical but useful.) In such a way, the leaders are reminded that elections are not the most important thing: they must also act in accordance with the will of establishment, national and Western. If populists are doing what the people want disregarding the establishment’s will, they may well end in prison, like the presidents of Brazil and Argentina did. “Nobody is above the Law!” the lawyers exclaim when they send another leader to jail; and they add, “This is the rule of Law!”

Sorry to say, the rule of law is not a wonderful thing. We have a stark choice whether we want democracy, or the rule of law. These two regimes are not identical, – they stand in direct opposition. In a democracy, the people rule via their elected representatives; under the rule of law, the judges rule supreme. Yes there is the Law, but the judges interpret it as they see fit. They may nullify a law, or reinterpret it in an entirely different vein.

This new tendency of using Law as a tool in politics is the gift of Jews to perplexed mankind. The Jews were traditionally ruled by sages, or judges. Theoretically, Talmudic sages interpreted the Law of Halacha, but actually the rule of Halacha was the rule by sages, and only the Enlightenment broke its iron grip. Jews were set free, but this freedom did not last long. As the world increasingly Judaises, the sages take over the decision-making all over the world.

In England, the Supreme Court had been established quite recently, in 2009, and already it has stopped PM Johnson from achieving Brexit on time. In the US with its highly advanced Judaisation, the Supreme Court blocked every initiative of President Trump. The old witch Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though unelected by the people, still is more powerful than the US President. The legal establishment supported by media can make elections meaningless.

These two non-elected and non-democratic powers of Media and Judiciary entered into conspiracy against the elected parliament and government.

In the smaller Jewish state of Israel, the judges want to govern. They think they know better what should be done than elected statesmen; and they find Bibi Netanyahu too independently minded. He is too friendly with Donald Trump and (God save us!) even with Mr Putin. Netanyahu developed his own electoral base; he does not obey the old elites. For the last few years they have tried to remove Bibi and substitute him with a more pliable politician, like they did years ago with Ehud Olmert.

Ehud Olmert did not have a snowball’s chance in hell. Every day the newspapers and the TV channels broadcast new accusations against him and informed of fresh police investigations. Often the Israeli public learned of Olmert’s alleged misdeeds before the Prime Minister himself did. Police did not just leak the details of the case – they poured it out like tropical torrent. The police went after him; the Supreme Court began deliberations, while newspapers and the TV blew it out of proportion. Thus two mighty powers of Israeli politics, the media and the legal system, united in one effort to unseat Olmert, and he caved in. This episode demonstrated who actually runs Israel. Though media amplifies, the judges judge.

Now, Netanyahu is getting the same treatment. The Police leak horror stories from an investigation room to a selected journalist, and he would spill it all over media. Every time Bibi asked to make accusations public and to allow him to defend himself openly, the Attorney General refused him saying he does not want to have a trial by media – while doing exactly that.

It is hard to sympathise with the war criminal Netanyahu; but he has an advantage of being elected, while his opponents were appointed. Olmert ended in jail, and they want to send Netanyahu to jail, too. Not for murdering thousands of Palestinians, neither for destroying thousands of homes, but for something technical, like the silly quid pro quo reason of Trump’s impeachment. The idea was that his electorate would desert him if he were charged with crimes. But they had not enough stuff for the proper charge, until they got confessions of Netanyahu’s minions.

Last week the Israeli Justice Minister shocked the public. He had revealed the methods used by the judicial establishment against Netanyahu. These methods are remarkably similar to those applied by the Deep State against President Trump. It is threats, extortion and blackmail. Israeli police assaulted Bibi’s assistants like Trump’s enemies attacked Manafort, Cohen, Stone.

When an investigative journalist wanted to publish how the confessions were squeezed out of Bibi’s confidante, the judicial authorities immediately slammed him with a gagging order.

Israelis are prompt to gag the publication of whatever the authorities do not like. Only after many years the Israeli people had learned that their authorities stole children from Yemeni Jews, treated Moroccan children skin diseases by X-raying them to death, sterilised Ethiopian women, blew up synagogues in Baghdad, kidnapped the nuclear technician Vanunu in Rome, bombed the USS Liberty and poisoned drinking water in Acre. All these crimes were protected by a gagging order from prying eyes.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, Deep State, Israel 
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
🔊 Listen RSS

Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts. The mysterious ‘whistleblower’ whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine’s presidency, Oleg Tsarev.

Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after President Yanukovych’s flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.

Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?

Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama’s administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers’ money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.

It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very little expenditure.

After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices, President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.

Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company’s board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko’s appetites. He had brought in Biden’s son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn’t help him.

Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these ‘stars’ between 50 and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can’t be recognised as legitimate expenditure.

At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers’ funds won’t pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different sources.

AG Shokin said he can’t close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash case.

What is Firtash Case?

The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him to confess that he illegally supported Trump’s campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin’s deposition to substantiate their claim. For this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash’s funds helped Trump to win elections, an extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].

Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could give or withhold?

It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for “support of democracy”. First billion dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the “acting President”. The Ukrainian constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, “the acting President” had no right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats and their Ukrainian counterparts.

Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.

As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for “Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers’ money”. Among the accused there are two consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away money and does not impose democracy.

The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.

🔊 Listen RSS

Amid the usual hysterics of ‘impending genocide’ and ‘brutal betrayal’, the long-expected Turkish operation in northeast Syria is rolling, and Turkish troops accompanied by their Syrian rebel allies quickly advance into the former US occupation zone east of the Euphrates River, pushing the Kurdish nationalist militias away from the border. The American soldiers withdrew from the area by the order of their Supreme Commander (save some Special Forces who came under fire but safely retreated).

The Kurds (or their advisers) excel in PR and they created a beautiful image of their girl fighter, which resonates with the paradigm of a strong Superwoman beating the hell out of male chauvinist pigs. Every second recent action movie has such a girl, carrying out the War on Man. Lefty Western feminists love them, as they loved its prototype, Israeli Sabra soldier girl. The Syrians do not share this love. They view the Kurd fighters as brutal ethnic cleansing US mercenaries.

‘One Israel is more than enough’, say the locals who are mighty pleased with the forthcoming defeat of the “New Israel”, the Kurdish entity of ‘Rojava’, or ‘Syrian Kurdistan’. Its backbone, YPG fighters, had made a good try in using the civil war as an opportunity to carve out a piece of Syria for them. Their ruthless gangs flourished “under the canopy of F-18s, as the YPG has stretched across a vast swath of northeast Syria, acting as the Kurdish janissaries of America. The Kurds were engaged in their own nation-building exercise on the ruins of ISIS,’ in words of the Forbes.

President Obama, acting upon advice of his neocon advisers, had chosen them as a proxy to fight ISIS on the ground, as he removed the bulk of American soldiers out of Syria. It was a rotten advice: the Kurdish YPG was a Syrian subsidiary of a veteran Kurdish terror organization in Turkey that killed tens of thousands of Turks over forty years of activity. The Turks weren’t amused when fighters and weapons began to flow from Syria to the terrorists in Turkey.

“The YPG was given an inch and took a mile, and built huge extensions to its homeland in Syria along the Turkish border” – continued the Forbes.

However, their attempt misfired, and now they have to retreat inland. They threatened to fight the Turks tooth and claw, but their bite is not as awesome as their bark. They declare that they ‘will win, or will die‘ to a CNN lady reporter, but in reality the Kurds are good at retreating. During the previous Turkish operation in March 2018 centred at the enclave of Afrin, they promptly withdrew when facing superior force. The Kurds withdrew even faster from Kirkuk and Mosul in Iraq, in October 2017, following a similar scenario of independence claims, threats “to win or die”, American calls for restraint and European insistence that “military action must be stopped immediately”. They have no reason to fight to the death: they know they and their families can continue carry on their lives peacefully after the independence-seeking firebrands will be gone. The collapse of the nascent Kurdish entities had not been accompanied by massacres or ‘genocide’ as the prophets of doom predicted: those chimeras dispersed rather painlessly like mist at sunrise.

The Syrian patriots are ambivalent about the Turkish invasion. It’s good that the Americans have been withdrawing and their occupation zone is shrinking. It would be even better if they would all leave Syria completely, but even this partial withdrawal is a good start. It’s good that the Turks are squeezing out the ruthless gangs of Kurdish nationalists. Not only the Kurds entered into a close alliance with the United States and Israel, but they also carried out violent ethnic cleansing of the local Arab population, trying to create a “Syrian Kurdistan”. Now Syrian Arabs will be able to return to their homes.

But what if the territory liberated from Kurdish militants would become permanently occupied by Turkey and its allied Islamist militants? It is the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. Turks say their plans are limited – to push the Kurdish fighters some 20 miles from the border, disrupt the “Syrian Kurdistan” venture, and transfer Syrian refugees from Turkey to the created strip of land. President Erdogan knows that his citizens are fed up with millions of Syrian refugees. If he doesn’t figure out how to drive them back to Syria, the Turks can drive him away – this scenario has already been rehearsed in Istanbul, where citizens voted for the opposition promising to make peace with Assad and send the Syrians back home. Erdogan says he recognises the integrity and sovereignty of Syria, and that is already big progress, but Damascus doubts his sincerity and condemns the invasion.

There is a simple way to deal with the refugee problem: let them go home, to their own towns and villages. Damascus government wants it and ready to accept them, granting amnesty and pardon for past offences. But Erdogan is not ready for that, yet. The Americans do not want to vacate their zone, for it has oil. If Assad will get it, he will be able to rebuild Syria with his own money without assistance from the West. The West wants a Syrian government poor and broke, needing money, taking loans, begging for help. That’s why they do not allow the Syrian army to enter the areas beyond the Euphrates. Syrians tried to make a move when the American troops departed, but they were warned they will be mercilessly bombed if they just try. For Syria it is too much: to fight Kurds, Turks and Americans at once.

The Kurds try to preserve what they can. Their supporters speak of impending “ethnic cleansing” – although until now the Kurds were the ones who carried out ethnic cleansing. The Kurds also threaten to resuscitate the defeated Islamic Caliphate by releasing tens of thousands of captured Islamist fighters. This blackmail is no bluff, but it will have to be dealt with if and when it happens.

The Europeans oppose the Turkish offensive. This is a violation of Syrian sovereignty, they say. For some reason, they did not recall Syrian sovereignty when the American troops and their Kurdish allies were deployed there. Brussels does not like the Turkish plan to move millions of Syrian refugees back to Syria in the territory freed from Kurdish militias. The EU wants Syrian war to go until Assad is gone and a neo-colonial administration comes in his stead.

Erdogan knows how to reply to Europeans. If you condemn my measures, he said, I’d unleash three and a half million refugees upon Europe. This threat does not scare Kurdish supporters in Europe: Antifa, various Jewish organisations and pro-immigrant NGOs would just welcome more diversity. But the governments know it could become very hard to stop such a wave.

🔊 Listen RSS

The Borderlands of the Ukraine have been a decisive battlefield for centuries. Here Stockholm, Berlin and Moscow vied for dominance. Karl XII had lost here to Peter the Great; Stalin defeated Hitler; now the Clintonites are likely to suffer in the Ukraine their ultimate defeat. The Democrats had made their biggest political mistake of the century in attacking Trump for the Biden affair — that is, if the Americans retain any common sense.

Vice-President Biden extorted millions of dollars in personal bribes from the vulnerable Ukrainian client state. When this sordid affair came under investigation, he blackmailed Ukrainians, using his position and American taxpayer money to force the sovereign state to fire its Attorney General for investigating the bribes.

Instead of covering their face in shame and dismissing Biden as a potential party candidate in the 2020 race, the Dems led by the superannuated Mrs Pelosi decided to impeach the President for uncovering this rogue. In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to save a criminal by attacking the policeman who didn’t observe the niceties of a Miranda warning. This was the model for the Dems in their impeachment attempt.

Biden’s criminal extortion wasn’t a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion. He famously admitted that:

I said, I’m telling you [the Ukrainian leaders], you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote:

“U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.”

The fired prosecutor Mr Viktor Shokin said that Biden fils had been under investigation. After he was dismissed due to Biden père interference, the money continued to pour out of poor Ukrainian pockets to well-stuffed Biden coffers. My Kiev acquaintances had a memory of a good-for-nothing young man, keen on coke and broads, who by himself would never get such a salary.

You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? He considered himself untouchable like Mrs Clinton and other people of her circle. Mischievous President Trump decided to prosecute Biden for bribery and extortion, as if he were an ordinary mortal. This was a direct threat to the Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats, Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State). This challenge caused them to abandon caution and to start a furious pre-emptive campaign against cocky Trump.

Their accusation is outright ridiculous: they claim Trump’s intention to bring Corrupt Joe to justice was criminal per se, as Biden was a likely contender for the Dem nomination. As it happens, the US Constitution didn’t find it fit to provide likely contenders with full immunity for past and future crime prosecutions. It’s just the Clintonites were used to be above the law. Indeed, for three years President Trump avoided to touch them. Crimes of Mrs Clinton were well known, from the simple affair of the email server to the Libya murders.

It was expected victorious Trump would unleash the law against the defeated dowager for Mrs. Clinton’s role in the Obama administration’s decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency to buy a uranium mining company. Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of corruption, reported the New York Times. The Clintonites saved the old lady’s skin by starting the Russiagate hoax. In 2016 election debate Trump told Clinton that, if he was in charge of the nation’s laws, “you’d be in jail”. But a year later he was in charge, and she wasn’t in jail, not even charged. The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with Russia did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence.

Now the Clintonites decided to repeat their feat and began impeachment procedure hoping it will keep Trump busy and away from uncovering the Ukrainian Hell’s Kitchen.

What actually had happened in the Ukraine? In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime change in this former Soviet republic. They removed the legitimate president by using the full spectre of illegal operations. The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden’s involvement in the coup d’état was his biggest crime, but nobody speaks of that, noticed Joe Lauria. They had turned Ukraine against Russia and instigated the civil war in the East of the poor country, despite strong efforts of president Putin to keep Russia out of Ukrainian turmoil. But they also gave a thought to personal profiteering, like they did in Russia in 1990.

Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. They became involved in 2016 election campaign on the Clintonite side. There is no doubt VP Biden was the man who directed this “foreign involvement in the US elections”. The obliging Ukrainians delivered to him the dirt on Paul Manafort, and Manafort went to jail.

The Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that was instrumental in accusing Russia of meddling. Its founder and head, a Russian Jew and American citizen Dmitry Alperovich is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max Boot. People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia. President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr Zelensky.

Repercussions in Washington and Moscow, in Gaza and Damascus, but not so much locally.
🔊 Listen RSS

Israelis held new snap parliamentary elections, as the previous round in April had been inconclusive. Surprise! The new round has been also inconclusive. The voters could not make up their mind and choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, two major parties of little substantial difference. The only noticeable distinction is personal: one party, Likud, is lead by Mr Netanyahu; another party, B&W (Blue and White, the colours of Israeli national flag) is dead-set against Netanyahu. Their policy, otherwise, is identical; the leaders of B&W are ready to join Likud-led government provided Netanyahu takes a hike. Likud has no problem in joining with B&W if they would agree to accept Netanyahu.

Netanyahu sticks to his Prime Ministerial seat like Adonijah to the horns of the altar (1 Kings 1:50), for the moment he lets off he would be tried for assorted crimes of a pecuniary character and carried off to gaol. While he is a PM, he is immune, and he intends to stay immune as long as he can.

Netanyahu will fight to the bitter end, no holds barred, for he does not want to go to jail. In Israeli politics, the politicians and statesmen are imprisoned so often that it appears a normal professional hazard. Perhaps the idea that ‘no one is above the law’ sounds good to you, but it is a very troublesome concept for it makes a person in power unwilling to relinquish the reins. The B&W leader’s will for power can’t be compared with Netanyahu’s desire to remain free. The Prime Minister almost started a war with Gaza a few days ago, but his generals refused to march it was reported. If he gave orders to shell Gaza before the election, what shall he shell while facing defeat? That is why I do not expect a smooth transition of power.

Liberal American Jews are involved: they want to break off the Netanyahu-Trump connection and to restore the bi-partisan standing of Israel in the US politics. Wily Trump created a schism between Zionists and Liberal Jews. Netanyahu is a great friend of President Trump who is a great friend of Israel. Naturally he is not a friend for Democrats in the Congress and Senate, and he is not a friend for the US Jews, predominantly Democrats. This is a new development; Netanyahu is not the non-partisan figure he was when the Congress applauded to each word off his lips. That was in Obama days; Obama loved Liberal Jews and was not very friendly towards Israel. Netanyahu hated and despised Obama, but he befriended Putin and Trump.

The Liberal Jews in the US and in Israel, closely connected with the deep state, intelligence agencies, finances, and media in both countries want to get rid of Netanyahu and install a man of their own who will chill the Trump connection and restore the old link with the Democrats. Hopefully he will restore the bipartisan standing of Israel. Such a man is General Benny Gantz, a good-looking lanky man slightly similar to late General Yitzhak Rabin. He is supported by Avigdor Lieberman, a shrewd politician.

Probably here is the right moment to remind the reader that in this story there are no good guys. Israeli politicians, whether pro-Trump or pro-Democrat, are equally evil and bloodthirsty. Prime Minister Netanyahu is complicit in uncountable murders of civilians, though the Israeli media only accuses of some financial irregularities. Killing Palestinians, bombing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, inciting US wars from Iran to Afghanistan is a feather in Netanyahu’s cap, according to Israeli morals. His opponent Benny Gantz is a war criminal who is wanted for numerous war crimes he committed in 2014 as the commander of the Israeli assault on Gaza. He actually boasted of committing mass murder in his campaign ads.

One boasts of killing 1,364 Palestinian terrorists during the war, while another says that under Mr Gantz’s command “parts of Gaza were sent back to the Stone Age.” The videos make no mention of the 1,462 civilians killed during the conflict, according to a UN count.

reported The Daily Telegraph. Now that we have dealt with the question of moral preference between the twain (there is none), we can proceed.

The man who undermined Mr Netanyahu is Mr Avigdor Lieberman, the head of his own small party. Until recently, it was predominantly a “Russian” party of elderly émigrés from the former Soviet Union. Mr Lieberman is a hawk, or rather a chicken hawk for he never served in the army. He demanded bombing Gaza back to the stone age, bomb the Aswan Dam, executing Arab guerrillas; he never asked anything for his own electorate, but they did not mind and voted for him, time and again.

Lieberman served under Netanyahu in all his governments, as a Defence Minister or a Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he was considered a sure partner in a new government. But after April elections, he rebelled and demanded drafting observant Jews into the army. Failing that, he is out, he said. And he was out, for Netanyahu was forced to choose: to part with Lieberman or to part with Jewish religious parties. He didn’t want to part with his loyal and undemanding observant Jews to please the troublesome Moldovan politician. Without Lieberman, Netanyahu could not form a coalition, and the country went to new elections.

Since April, Lieberman upped the ante of his anti-clerical rhetoric. He said he wouldn’t sit in a government comprising Arabs or observant Jews. He proposed forming a grand secular coalition of Likud, B&W and his own party. I think it is a misnomer: Likud and B&W can form a coalition without Lieberman any time they want, and the Jewish religious parties will eagerly join it. Anti-clericalism has a very limited appeal in Israel. You can’t convincingly claim God Almighty promised you the Holy Land, if you deny His existence and His faith. You can’t vote for the Jewish State Law declaring Israel is the Jewish state for Jews, and keep Jewish religious parties out of government.

There are Israelis who dislike the Jewish religion. Some of them consider themselves “Israelis”, but there aren’t many of that ilk. Gilad Atzmon recently argued with a Haaretz journalist about who won the elections, Jews or Israelis. Pfeffer suggested the majority are Israelis and Jews, not single malt. Israelis were defeated by Jews, said Gilad. In my view, anti-clerical Israelis are a rare brand, and not an especially wonderful one. They are extremely short of compassion. Religious Jews have some modicum of compassion towards other Jews; irreligious Jews have no compassion to anybody. That’s why I think Lieberman will eventually lose his bet. But meanwhile he harvested many votes of Israelis who hate the religious Jews.

Jews and Israelis, religious and irreligious Jews are perfectly united in their rejection of non-Jews. The third party by size, after Likud and B&W, is the Joint List, the party Israeli Palestinians (“Arabs”) vote for. Israeli Jewish parties swore they would never sit in a government with the goys. They prefer to have no government rather than have a government together with Arabs. It does not matter that these “Arabs” are citizens of Israel – the Jews are not famous for sharing anything, especially power. Neither Likud nor B&W want to let them into a government coalition. There is no tangible political difference between the big parties in this aspect.

🔊 Listen RSS

Bulldogs are notorious for their tenacity or “cool persistency of purpose”, as Honest Abe said of General Grant, “He has the grip of a bulldog; when he once gets his teeth in, nothing can shake him off.” The EU master class could give the doggies a lockjaw master-class. Many European states have tried to free themselves from the Prison of the European Nations; all failed.

Will BoJo, as they call the redhead Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, succeed where many politicians and nations failed? He is also a bulldog by his own right; he believes in his cause; he enjoys support of the people and hatred of professional politicians. If anybody can, he has a chance. And if he wins, the domination of the hostile elites will receive a terrible blow.

Though on Wednesday 9/4 he suffered a defeat, it is not the end of the story. The fat lady didn’t sing yet. There are still many ways for a tenacious man to get England out of the EU by the end of October. Promised support of the Brexit Party in the elections presents one possibility. Going hard Brexit, that is no-deal Brexit without Parliament approval is also technically possible.

The fight for Brexit is not a fight with or against Europe. Europeans are with BoJo against their own elites. The French dream of Frexit, and even Greeks would prefer Grexit to their present position of a country reduced by austerity to shambles. Whenever people were asked whether they want to remain in the EU, this undemocratic organisation wholly owned and managed by hostile elites, they usually answered by roaring No. The list is long. In 2005, the French voted Non to the EU Constitution, Nee said the Dutch; other governments got the message and shrewdly cancelled the referendums. Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Greenland, Denmark, Greece voted No, but the hostile elites did not take no for an answer. Always they arranged this or that subterfuge, provided a different question for a new poll, or most often ruled that no referendum was necessary. In the case of Greece, the people voted No, but the ruling party said ‘never mind’ and answered Yes.

The most important Western European donor nations want to get out. This is not surprising. The EU is operated by its unelected commission, while the EU parliament has practically no powers. The EU promotes massive immigration diluting and replacing the native population; it obsesses with sexual perversions presented as a new norm; it is violently anti-Christian; it loves expensive green energy and petrol taxes. It works in full harmony with the European mass media, which is as awful as the American one. The EU prescribes austerity for lower and middle classes; taxes labour; is generous with the banks and the bankers. Only new European states, perspective recipients of EU aid, vote Yes; the most enthusiastic are Lithuania, Slovakia and North Macedonia, and it is hardly the most desirable company for a nice country like Britain.

The EU had been described as the American colonial device to rule occupied Europe, but election of Trump revealed a nuance. There are now two Americas, the America of Trump and his nationalist supporters, and the Internationalist liberal America; this second America is in full symbiosis with the EU. That’s why BoJo, a pro-American friend of Trump, wants to complete Brexit.

His chief adversary Jeremy Corbyn also dreams of Brexit to take England out of neo-liberal EU to its socialist future, but he plays a cautious game for he wants to defeat Boris Johnson and get to No. 10 Downing Street himself. He flirts with the Remainers for he needs every vote for victory, and he is worried that in case of successful Brexit, Johnson would be undefeatable. Otherwise, he is as keen on Brexit as Johnson, though for different reasons.

Other people have various reasons and aims; no doubt the cause of Brexit is very popular with people despite the three-years-long torture. It had been proven by the recent elections to EU Parliament; a clear majority voted for the candidates supporting Brexit. If democracy means the choice of people, Brexit is the most democratic act England can entertain, even if for this purpose the Westminster Parliament has to be shut down.

The British referendum of 2016 created an unexpected Overton Window, and people rushed for it. The elites miscalculated when they deemed the British were fully tamed. These smart people knew it is a good chance and a great occasion and voted No. Who wouldn’t! The elites were shocked, like the US hostile elites were shocked by Trump victory. And they immediately began to work to overturn the result – just like their American counterparts. They are persistent of purpose, if anything. The referendum in Britain took place in June 2016, and since then the elites do everything to prevent the people’s will to be fulfilled.

The Guardian is a leading anti-Brexit newspaper. Once I was a devout Guardian reader; it was a cheerful left-wing newspaper with John Pilger, Seamus Milne and other good guys and gals, an obvious choice for Julian Assange and his Wikileaks. Since then, it turned 180 degrees and became the most nauseating rag in whole English-speaking world. I have lost interest in its daily portion of people with exotic names describing the micro-aggressions they suffered; feminists against body-shaming, transgenders in search of a public toilet; Jews fearing nasty Corbyn; 75-year old ladies in search for their first orgasm (no exaggeration) and other stuff that is of no relevance for me at all.

For last three years, The Guardian hasn’t missed a chance to scaremonger Brexiteers. There will be no food, the country will collapse, law and order will be gone, they prophesied. For me, it is a good argument for Brexit: whatever The Guardian calls for, can’t be good for you.

Another nasty piece of media, The Economist, also preaches for Remain. Once a great magazine, it is now a bankers’ voice. The Trots’ SJW media joined them in an unusual combination. It is not often the Economist and The Socialist Worker are united in a single voice.

The British people who wanted and voted for Brexit were described as racists and chauvinists. I am not keen on racism, a misleading and divisive ideology; but anti-racists are even worse. Anti-racism is the ideology of conquest and replacement. The conquistadors were anti-racists, while the Native Americans could be presented as racists, for they fought against the invaders.

If Britain were a normal country like it was 50 years ago, it would go through Brexit like a hot knife through butter. But its working class had been ruined by Thatcher; London became the abode of choice for wealthy Arabs and Russians, served by Poles and Indians. The new cosmopolitan population has no interest in England and the English people, and they also have the right to vote. They prefer the EU, a supranational body that is good for finances and good for immigrants.

The majority of parliamentarians are against Brexit. They hate Brexit almost as much as they hate Corbyn. “Too many MPs try desperately to derail Brexit, – said John Baron MP. – Too many members of the Commons are secretly Remain MPs and have kicked the can down the road too often, and should own up to the fact that what they really want to do is stop Brexit.”

We may disregard their explanations, whether they say they want “an orderly Brexit”, or they want to stop “Johnson’s coup”. What they want is to remain in the EU, in the structure they are connected with. The professional politicians live by their connections, and their connections are with the EU and with American Internationalist establishment.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Boris Johnson, Brexit, Britain, Deep State, EU 
🔊 Listen RSS

Slavery had some good aspects for those chaps who had it rather good. A colonial setup is the next best thing to slavery, and it also holds its attraction for people who knew how to place themselves just below the sahibs and above the run-of-the-mill natives. The Hong Kong revolt is the mutiny of wannabe house niggers who feel that the gap between them and the natives is rapidly vanishing. Once, a HK resident was head and shoulders above the miserable mainland coolies; he spoke English, he had smart devices, he had his place in the tentacle sucking wealth out of the mainland, and some of that wealth stuck to his sweaty hands. But now he has no advantage compared to the people of Shanghai or Beijing. There is huge swelling of wealth in the big cities of Red China. The Chinese dress well, travel abroad, and they do not need HK mediation for dealing with the West. Beijing had offered HK a fair deal of [relative] equality; nothing would be taken from them, but the shrinking gap is not only unavoidable, but desirable, too.

However, HK had been the imperial bridgehead in China for too long. Its people were complicit, nay, willing partners in every Western crime against China, beginning with dumping opium and sucking out Chinese wealth. Millions of opium addicts, of ruined families and households nearly destroyed the Middle Kingdom, and each of them added to HK prosperity. The blood, sweat and labour of all China abundantly supplied the island. HK was the first of the Treaty Ports, and the last to return home. Its populace was not thoroughly detoxed; they weren’t ideologically prepared for a new life as equals.

Chairman Mao harboured hard suspicions against comprador cities, the cities and the people who prospered due to their collaboration with the imperialist enemy. He cleansed them with communist and patriotic re-education; recalcitrant compradors were sent to help peasants in far-away villages in order to reconnect with the people. Mao’s successors had a strong if misplaced belief in Chinese nationalism as a universal remedy; they thought the Chinese of HK, Macau and Taiwan would join them the moment the colonial yoke failed. This was an over-optimistic assessment. The imperialist forces didn’t give up on their former house slaves, and the moment they needed to activate them against independent China they knew where to look.

Their time came as the trade conflict between the US and China warmed up. The secret government of the West aka Deep State came to the conclusion that China is getting way too big for its boots. It is not satisfied with making cheap gadgets for Walmart customers. It is producing state-of-art devices that compete with American goods and, what’s worse, their devices are not accessible for NSA surveillance. The Chinese company Huawei came under attack; sanctions and custom duties followed in train. When the Yuan eased under the strain, the Chinese were accused of manipulating their currency. It is a strong charge: when Japan was attacked by the West in the 1990s and the Yen had eased as expected, this claim forced Tokyo to keep the Yen high and take Japan into a twenty-year-long slump. But China did not retreat.

Then the supreme power unleashed its well-practiced weapon: they turned to foment unrest in China and gave it a lot of space in the media. At first, they played up the fate of the Uygur Islamists, but it had little success. The Uygur are not numerous, they are not even a majority in their traditional area; their influence in China is limited. Despite headlines in the liberal Western media proclaiming that millions of Uygur are locked up in concentration camps, the impact was nil. No important Muslim state took up this cause.

The anniversary of Tiananmen came (in beginning of June) and went without a hitch. For good reason: the alleged ‘massacre’ is a myth, as the Chinese always knew and we know now for certain thanks to publication of a relevant US Embassy cable by Wikileaks. There were no thousands of students flattened by tanks. A very few died fighting the army, but China had evaded the bitter fate of the USSR. In China proper the event had been almost forgotten. A few participants retell of their experiences to Western audiences, but the desired turmoil did not materialise.

And then came the time for HK. It is an autonomous part of China; it had not been re-educated; there are enough people who remember the good days of colonial slavery. The actual spark for the mutiny, the planned extradition treaty, was exceedingly weak. For the last decade, HK became the chosen place of refuge for mainland criminals, for HK had extradition treaties with the US and Britain, but not with the mainland. This had to be remedied.

[The extradition treaty had played an important role in the Snowden case. An ex-CIA spy Edward Snowden decided to reveal to the world the extent of the NSA surveillance we all are subjects of. He chose the Guardian newspaper for his revelations, probably because of the Wikileaks precedent. When he gave an extended interview to the Guardian in HK, his identity had been revealed. The arrival of the US extradition request was imminent. The Chinese authorities told Snowden that they would have to send him to a US jail, to torture and death; that the extradition treaty left them no option in his case. Only the fast footwork of Julian Assange’s brave assistant Sarah Harrison prevented this grim finale and delivered Snowden to safe Moscow.]

While HK authorities were obliged to extradite Snowden, they weren’t and couldn’t extradite numerous criminals from the mainland. This was an obvious wrong that had to be urgently corrected, in the face of rising tension. And then the sleeping agents of the West woke up and activated their networks. They had practically unlimited funds, not only from the West, but also from the criminals who weren’t particularly impecunious and were afraid of extradition. After the demonstrations started, the Western media gave them maximum coverage, magnifying and encouraging the mutineers.

Hundreds of articles, leading stories and editorials in important newspapers cheered and encouraged the HK rebels. The People’s War Is Coming in Hong Kong, editorialised the New York Times today. An amazing fact (that is if you are a fresh arrival from Mars): the same newspaper and its numerous sisters paid no attention to the real People’s War raging in France, where the Gilets Jaunes have continued to fight for forty weeks against the austerity-imposing Macron regime. 11 people were killed and 2,500 injured in France, but the Western media just mumbled about the GJ antisemitism. Nothing new, indeed. The same media did not notice the one-million-strong demonstration against the US war on Iraq, paid little attention to Occupy Wall Street, disregarded protests against US wars and interventions. One hundred thousand people marching in New York would get no coverage if their purpose did not agree with the desires of the Real Government; and alternatively, three thousand protesters in Moscow with its 12 million population would be presented as the voice of the people challenging Vlad the Tyrant.

In its peculiar way, the media fulfills its purpose of keeping us informed. If mainstream media reports on something, it usually lies; but if media keeps mum, you can bet it is important and you are not encouraged to learn of it. It is especially true in case of popular protests. How do you know they are lying? – Their lips are moving.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, China, Hong Kong 
🔊 Listen RSS

Daring Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, has killed a sacred cow, called Article 370 of the Constitution, enshrining the autonomy of Kashmir. The consequences could be dire, including the fourth India-Pakistan war, but not necessarily so. It could also be a successful scheme. Apparently, Narendra Modi had been encouraged by his success in recent elections, by his decent relations with the three powerful men of our age, Trump, Putin and Netanyahu; and by the rearmament and modernisation of India’s armed forces. So he decided to go for the root of the age-long Kashmir problem, instead of treating its symptoms, and terminate the special status altogether, giving the people of Kashmir the same rights as all Indian citizens have, not more, neither less.

Kashmir, a chain of pleasant green mountain valleys, was the most cherished patrimony of the Great Mughals, who embellished it with palaces and gardens. Here the Muslims and Hindus have lived together in peace and harmony. A blessed country, if there ever was one, Kashmir could flourish if this peaceful coexistence had survived. Alas, it did not. Frequent riots, separatism and imported Islamic extremism have made life difficult for everybody.

The Hindus were forced to leave Kashmir; many Muslims had left too, rather than having to serve the firebrand insurgents. Their empty, ruined or burned down houses still stick out in Srinagar and elsewhere, though many of the properties were sold for a song during the insurgency.

Ceaseless meddling of Pakistan and political Islamists who refused to accept the results of the Partition is the main reason why Kashmir is in trouble. The majority of Kashmiris are Muslims and were Muslims in 1947, but they did not want to join the newly formed Pakistan. The Islamist textbooks claim that the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir decided to accede to India against the wishes of the population; however this is propaganda, not a fact. The people of Kashmir were not very fervent Muslims; the idea of living separately in a purely Muslim state did not appeal to them. Ethnically and linguistically they are related to local Hindus, they share the same family names and the ancestry. They wanted to be independent, but facing Pakistani invasion, they preferred to join pluralist India.

There is a big difference between the Muslims who are native converts, and those who came to a foreign land as Muslim invaders. The first kind is flexible and absorbable; the second kind is hard and fervent.

The Muslims of Indian Kashmir are mainly of the first kind; the Muslims of the Western Kashmir are mainly of the second kind. They are descendants of the invaders who came from Afghanistan. They were enthusiastic about Pakistan, and joined it. Now they live in Azad Kashmir, the Pakistani part of the old princely state.

The Partition was bad, but bearable. It followed some logic. But Pakistan was not satisfied with the results of the war: their raison d’être was to gather all the Muslims of the subcontinent in one purely Muslim state.

That’s a common problem of states based on a principle instead of ad hoc tradition. They want to “liberate” other lands that fit their idea. Thus, the young US had tried to “liberate” Canada from the British colonial rule in 1812; independent Chechnya had tried to “liberate” neighbouring Dagestan in 1999; Russians had tried to “liberate” Slavs of the Balkans from the Ottoman rule. Eventually, they all had to adjust their sights or perish.

Pakistan should also get used to it and back off its claim for all the Muslims of former British India. They clearly and demonstrably failed: two hundred million Muslims live in India; one hundred sixty million live in Bangladesh, and only one hundred eighty million in Pakistan. But they still keep trying to get Kashmir, as this cause is used to mobilise unhappy dwellers of Pakistan. Their population grew five-fold since the Partition, and this fast growth smothered their chances to make a decent living. That’s why they need a cause to rally people around.

Cancellation of the special status makes a lot of sense. Since the Partition, the religious fanatics and ethno-nationalists of the hardest kind came to the top and stayed there. A few prominent local families treated the state as their fief. A lot of nepotism, no democracy, no social lifts. The autonomy miserably failed to satisfy the people. Opening the state up could improve the Kashmiris’ lot.

The main objection to Modi’s move had been demographic, something that the US whites, and the Europeans can understand and sympathise with. Article 370 forbade non-Kashmiris from buying houses or lands and settling in Kashmir. With the cancellation of 370, Indians might migrate into Kashmir, and they might replace the Muslims, said Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan. “The removal of special status would allow India to change the demographic make-up of the Muslim-majority state.”

That’s awful! Wait! Isn’t it the dreadful Great Replacement Theory, the one that had “inspired alt-right killers the world over”, in words of a nice Jewish girl, Rosa Schwartzburg, an MA in Gender Studies and an expert on white supremacist conspiracy theories? Or it is only American whites and Europeans who are not allowed to dread the change of the demographic make-up?

It seems, the Islamists object to the changes of the demographic make-up when the Muslims are in majority, and consider such changes desirable when they are in minority. Kashmir is the place where this asymmetric approach is most obvious.

It is almost forgotten that the Muslim predominance in Indian Kashmir had been achieved by expulsion of the native non-Muslims, the Kashmiri Pandits, an expulsion as violent and unjustifiable as Palestinian Nakba.

At first, there was a Hindu-Muslim conflagration that resulted in the Partition. Still, the Hindu refugees quickly came back to the Valley after the battles were over. Peace had returned, but not for long. The American meddling in Afghanistan in 1970s-80s had undermined Kashmir’s stability. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s own John Bolton, advised his well-meaning but inept president to encourage the Islamist insurgency in order to embroil the Russians in the fire of guerrilla war in neighbouring Afghanistan. Pakistan was the main springboard of the war: the mujahidin of Osama bin Laden’s ilk attacked the Russians and the then Kabul government from their safe bases in Pakistan. After slaughtering shameless female teachers and social workers, the Islamic jihadis would return to Pakistan, under protection of the ISI. Sparks of the insurgency ignited a fire in Kashmir, and soon the villages and towns were engulfed by fratricidal struggle.

As the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, and the US Islamist allies took over and slaughtered those who behaved un-Islamic way. After the takeover, they took the torch of Jihad to Indian Kashmir.

• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: India, Kashmir, Pakistan 
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.