');
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 Britain Catholic Church Censorship Christianity Communism Cuba Deep State Donald Trump Economics Feminism Foreign Policy France Gaza Gilad Atzmon 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 9/11 Abortion Academia Afghanistan Africa Alain Soral Amazon.com American Jews Anarchism Anders Breivik Arab Spring Armenians Banking Industry Belarus Benjamin Netanyahu Bernie Sanders Bolshevik Revolution Boris Nemtsov Brexit Cambodia Charlie Hebdo China Christmas CIA Civil Liberties Cynthia McKinney Democracy 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 Hillary Clinton Hitler India IQ Japan Jared Kushner Jeff Bezos Jeffrey Epstein Jewish History 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
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

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 
🔊 Listen RSS

The attempts to remove the church from politics into a hobby corner had failed, but the most important organisation in human history still didn’t regain the place it had before the Jews and liberals joined the forces against Christendom. The defeat of UkroNazis is the first result of the developments.

The Russian President Vladimir Putin is a churchgoer, a rare bird among leading statesmen. He goes to communion; he has a confessor; he lights candles in some small parish church at feasts, he confers with wise old men in remote monasteries. He follows church politics and keeps engaged. Recently, at the unspecified emergency, after the Russian nuclear submersible had suffered a fatal accident (on July, 1), when VP Pence had been recalled to Washington (on July, 2), Putin went to visit the Pope Francis (on July, 4) and had spent a long time with him in a dramatic tête-à-tête.

Nothing signifies the change of Russian heart more. In 1944, Joseph Stalin famously retorted Churchill’s nudge to consider the views of the Vatican with “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Now Stalin’s heir respects and considers the opinions of St Peter’s successor while keeping his own Christian Orthodox faith.

Meanwhile, the once-Christian US had turned away from the Church. If a major US newspaper ever refers to the church, it is usually to condemn it for refusal to consecrate the same-sex union, for ‘paedophile priests’ or for failing Jews at the Holocaust. The US makes a point of never defending Christians. Jews, always; Muslims, sometimes; Christians, never.

The Church was slow to respond, but the much-delayed moment arrived. As long as Moscow had been Red and atheist, the Church had no choice but to stick with Washington. Now it makes no sense.

Putin’s meeting with the Pope, his third audience with Pope Francis and the sixth with a supreme pontiff, signified a cardinal change, I was told by Fr. Jeffrey Langan, a priest of Opus Dei, a man close to the Vatican and a philosophy teacher at the Harvard University. The meeting with Putin marks the decision of the Holy See to windup favouring the United States in the global context. The Vatican had sided with Washington for many years, but now Pope Francis apparently decided that enough is enough. The church should stay neutral in international conflicts. In particular it refers to the Ukraine. The Holy See considers the Ukrainian conflict as a proxy war instigated by the CIA, and it wants to stay out of it.

This is a very important decision. The Ukrainians are predominantly Orthodox Christians, but there is a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, a Catholic church of Byzantine rite. It is strong in the Western Ukraine, the fervently nationalist region with its own traditions. The Western Ukrainians (or Galicians) were predominantly peasant folk, but they moved into cities when the Jews and the Poles were killed or expelled. They had little love for Jews and Poles, their neighbours; after their incorporation in the Soviet Ukraine in 1940 they discovered they dislike the Russians (and the Russified Ukrainians) even more.

During the WWII, their hard-core activists sided with Hitler; after the war, they switched their allegiance to the US. After break-up of the Soviet Union, they became the movers of independent development, or rather de-development, for these recent peasants were deeply suspicious of industry and of city dwellers. They de-industrialised their region, and afterwards they moved en masse into the Central Ukraine where they became standard-bearers of the turning-to-roots cultural movement.

Compare the Ukraine with the South of France. If France were broken up by a French Gorbachev, the South would try to claim the lost traditions of Languedoc; but as few Southerners speak Provencal they would look up to villagers of Pyrenees as the bearers of Southern culture. Likewise, the Ukrainians of the Central and Eastern Ukraine retained little of their original culture and language; after independence in 1991 they felt the need to beef up their Ukrain-ness. The Western Ukrainians fitted the bill. They became prominent in Ukrainian ideology, culture, political structures. And their Church retained much of its influence upon this very active and dynamic population.

Besides, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a guiding light for the Ukrainian Protestants. The Protestants, a small but well-educated and influential lot, usually toe the line of the Greek Catholics. It was considered that the Greek Catholic Church is violently anti-Russian.

But the next day after meeting with Putin, on July 5, the Pope had met with the bishops of the Greek Catholic Church and told them to lay off. Stay out of conflict, he instructed the bishops. Drop your anti-Russian rhetoric. The Church should not take sides. This was a revelation for the bishops. For years they had fought against the Russians, and against the main Ukrainian Orthodox Church that is allied to Moscow Patriarchate. And all of a sudden they are told to stop it. They did as they were told, and apparently it had effect: in the parliamentary elections on Sunday July 21st the far right nationalists (our friend Saker calls them ‘UkroNazis’) had been eliminated as a political force, or at least had lost their positions. No more UkroNazis! Kaput! The Brown Revolution is over!

[I predicted this result five years ago; the West always uses and encourages the nationalist far right to remove socialists, but on the next stage the far right gets its kick in the seat. This happened in Croatia, where full-fledged Nazis were used against socialists to dismantle Yugoslavia and fight Serbs, but after their victory, they were flushed down the history drain. Likewise, the UkroNazis did their job of seizing power and starting low-intensity warfare with Russia; afterwards they transferred the power to Soros-supported liberals.]

However, the biggest change in the Ukrainian church politics took place within the Orthodox community. In November 2018, I wrote about the schism within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. You may wish to refresh it in your memory. In short, two fringe Orthodox nationalist groups were united to overcome the biggest traditional Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is an autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate. The two splinters appealed to the Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew to grant them the Tomos of Autocephaly, in other words to recognise them as an independent church within the Orthodox Church. The Tomos had been granted on 2019, January 5; here is the text; the Patriarch declared, that “Ukrainians could now enjoy the sacred gift of emancipation, independence, and self-governance, becoming free from every external reliance and intervention.”

However, this careful, CIA-fostered plan to finally separate Russia and its sister Ukraine had come to nought within half a year. Ambitions and greed undermined the plans of ungodly.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Catholic Church, Christianity, Ukraine 
🔊 Listen RSS

Will you cut down on your indignation, won’t you, my American friends? Do you have to replay your Salem Witch routine again and again? I refer to the notorious case of Jeffrey Epstein, for sure.

I can understand (and sympathise with) the practical reasons behind this case. A Trump’s counterattack on Clinton clan; a payback for the Jewish networking abilities; even political blackmail that had to be bridled. I can understand and approve of the hard-nosed reasoning behind the Operation Epstein II. Clintons had it coming to them, after what they did to Trump, and Bill Clinton is the most likely prospective victim of the affair. The Jewish networking in the US had become too powerful to suffer. Epstein had been able to blackmail too many powerful men, and blackmailers are likely to come to trouble. If Epstein was involved in a Mossad scheme, as Acosta implied and our colleague Philip Giraldi alleged, he is a legitimate target.

But there is no room for indignation. Cool it! In the worst case, it is similar to Al Capone tax evasion. Epstein had been tried, admitted his guilt, was sentenced and punished. Now they want to do it again. Fine, for practical reasons mentioned above. But calling him “paedophile” is as ridiculous as calling Julian Assange “a rapist”.

Perhaps he had sex with 14-15-year old girls, and it is considered to be a crime nowadays in the US. (So is bringing a bottle of booze into Pennsylvania.) Some years ago, it was perfectly permitted, and the best American poet of all time, Allen Edgar Poe, had married his Virginia when she was 13 (and he was 27). Mind you, girls (and boys) nowadays are much more sexually aware than their grandmothers were at this age. They are being taught everything there is to know about sex in schools in a very young age.

In Europe (perhaps, in the US too?) children of kindergarten age are forced to learn about homosexual and heterosexual relations; parents who object to such early introduction into adult life are liable to have their children taken away from them and given into care. In the UK, children aren’t allowed to stay away of sex education, because, you know, they all see a lot of pornography, they say. They often go beyond seeing, at 14. In our over-sexed society, you can’t blame them, but childish innocence is gone at very early age.

Did Epstein cause some damage to these young creatures? None of them claimed they were virgins or forced into sex. They probably had enough sexual experience to teach Epstein a trick or two. And since when are you bothered by this consideration? What is worse, for a sexually experienced girl of 15 to have a mutually agreed sex with man, or for eight-year boy to be castrated? Who will suffer more damage?

Castration is not only permitted in the US, it is encouraged and court-enforced, as in the case of James Younger, a Texan boy. When he was three, his divorced mother began dressing him as a girl and calling by the name “Luna.” His father Jeff Younger has been banned by the court from teaching James that he is a boy and banned the father from dressing his son as a boy. Additionally, Younger cannot share religious teaching with his son on sexuality or gender. The courts have required the father to pay at least 50 percent for future boy’s chemical castration at the age of 8.

Now, my indignant friends, please decide. If a boy age 6 can decide he wants to be castrated, and this will may be enforced by a court, why a girl age 15 can’t decide she wants to frolic with a guy in the hay? If a boy of tender age can be given to homosexual couple for adoption, into a situation that his chance to avoid sexual relations with the adoptive parents is nil; why a nubile girl can’t have sex with Epstein?

You should decide whether you want to be Victorian and defend maidenhood, or free and modern and allow castration of boys and their molestation by their adopted “parents”. You can’t have both.

#MeToo movement that allowed for this prosecution became too overwhelming and powerful accusation ground. There is no defence against it; like there was no defence against being declared a witch by Salem court, or indeed a Trotskyite and British spy by the Soviet Special Tribunal of 1937. If they said you are, then you are. Managed by old lesbians who compete with men for fresh pussy, this movement is openly misandrous. As a result, the US has a problem with sex. Underage heterosexual normal sex, in particular. An American judge sentenced a young woman to 22 years of jail for bedding 13-year old boy, though any boy I know of would be envious of the “victim”. Calling a man who has sex with a nubile girl ‘paedophile’ is not only misleading; it plays into hands of perverts who are real paedophiles.

The case against Epstein is so much of hot air. A feminist journalist Vicky Ward compiled Epstein’s profile for the Vanity Fair in 2003. She had met with many girls who were close to Epstein. Nothing damaging was included in the article. In 2011, after Epstein was already sentenced, Vicky Ward wrote in her blog “Jeffrey had his sexual peccadilloes”, that’s all. Now she says there were some claims, but apparently nobody wanted to go public. Today, I am sure, you can find a thousand of girls who will swear under oath they were molested by Epstein when they were twelve, and only a fistful of dollars will help them to recover. Indeed, such claims are a win-win proposition. If he pays, so well, and if he doesn’t pay you lose nothing.

I understand, gentlemen, your desire to Lynch the wealthy and obnoxious Jew, but at some point you have to kick your habit of submission to old hags and recognise normal man-to-woman sex as perfectly ok. Otherwise you American men have little chance to regain your ground in other competitions.

Before you will enquire in your comments whether I would like my underage daughter to be bedded (with her agreement) by Epstein, please ponder whether you would like your underage son to be chemically castrated “because that is what they want”.

No doubt, Epstein was not a model of gentleman. It is very possible that Mr Epstein had it coming to him for many reasons, as any friend of Dershowitz richly deserves. But then, save on outrage. This explosion of public feelings against him shows the Americans can’t cure themselves of Salem-style hysteria. And hysterical public is easily manipulated.

 
Russia, America, and Iran
🔊 Listen RSS

Russia enjoys its glorious short summer. The global warming phobia couldn’t penetrate its chilly limits. While the South of France suffers a heat wave, California burns, and the progressive forces demonstrate against the climate, the Russians shrug their shoulders in disbelief. They wouldn’t mind some global warming. Here temperatures rarely go above a comfortable 22 °C, and now, in beginning of July, they are stuck at about 15 °C. Summer is the best time for the country covered by snow for the most of the year. Now one can travel into the deep countryside and discover ancient fortresses and churches – without suffering too much.

If you have ever traveled in Russia outside of Moscow, you certainly have some horrible stories to tell about its atrocious roads, food and lodging or rather lack thereof. Things have changed greatly, and they keep changing. Now there are modern highways, plenty of cafés and restaurants, a lot of small hotels; plumbing has risen to Western standards; the old pearls of architecture have been lavishly restored; people live better than they ever did. They still complain a lot, but that is human nature. Young and middle-aged Russians own or charter motor boats and sail their plentiful rivers; they own country houses (“dachas”) more than anywhere else. They travel abroad for their vacations, pay enormous sums of money for concerts of visiting celebrities, ride bikes in the cities – in short, Russia has become as prosperous as any European country.

This hard-earned prosperity and political longevity allows President Putin to hold his own in the international affairs. He is one of a few experienced leaders on the planet with twenty years at the top job. He has met with three Popes of Rome, four US Presidents, and many other rulers. This is important: 93-years old Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad who ruled his Malaysia for 40 years and has been elected again said the first ten years of a ruler are usually wasted in learning the ropes, and only after first twenty does he becomes proficient in the art of government. The first enemy a ruler must fight is his own establishment: media, army, intelligence and judges. While Trump is still losing in this conflict, Putin is doing fine – by his Judoka evasive action.

Recently a small tempest has risen in the Russian media, when a young journalist was detained by police, and a small quantity of drugs was allegedly discovered on his body. The police made many mistakes in handling the case. Perhaps they planted the evidence to frame the young man; perhaps they had made the obvious mistakes to frame the government. The response has been tremendous, as if the whole case had been prepared well in advance by the opposition hell-bent to annoy and wake up the people’s ire against the police and administration. Instead of supporting the police, as Putin usually does, in this case he had the journalist released and senior police officers arrested. This prompt evasive action undid the opposition’s build-up by one masterly stroke.

Recently he openly declared his distaste for liberalism in the interview for the FT. This is a major heresy, like Luther’s Ninety-five Theses. “The liberals cannot dictate… Their diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life. It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics… The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.” Putin condemned liberals’ drive for more immigration. He called Angela Merkel’s decision to admit millions of immigrants a “cardinal mistake”; he “understood” Trump’s attempt to stop the flow of migrants and drugs from Mexico.

Putin is not an enemy of liberalism. He is rather an old-fashionable liberal of the 19th century style. Not a current ‘liberal’, but a true liberal, rejecting totalitarian dogma of gender, immigration, multiculturalism and R2P wars. “The liberal idea cannot be destroyed; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some things. But it has no right to be the absolute dominating factor.”

In Putin’s Russia liberalism is non-exclusive, but presents just one possible line of development. Homosexuals are not discriminated against nor promoted. There are no gay parades, no persecution of gays, either. Russian children aren’t being brainwashed to hate their fathers, taken away from their families and given to same-sex maniacs, as it happened in the recent Italian case. Kids aren’t being introduced to joys of sex in primary schools. People are not requested to swear love to transgenders and immigrants. You can do whatever you wish, just do not force others to follow you – this is Putin’s first rule, and this is true liberalism in my book.

There is very little immigration into Russia despite millions of requests: foreigners can come in as guest workers, but this does not lead to permanent residency or citizenship. The Police frequently check foreign-looking people and rapidly deport them if found in breach of visa rules. Russian nationalists would want even more action, but Putin is a true liberal.

Russia is a state where ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘white guilt’ are unheard of. Boys are not forced into homosexuality; girls do not have to claim MeToo. This attitude had made Putin a cult figure among Europeans dissatisfied with mass migration, with gender totalitarianism, with feminist rule and endless wars. This is one of the reasons he is so hated by promoters of the New World Order and admired by the ordinary people.

I am certain this love of ordinary Europeans causes a happy smirk on his lips, now and then. But Putin and his administration want to be friendly with the US, the UK and Europe. This is their first priority. If the West weren’t so intransigently hostile, Russia would be its friendly giant. However, long experience had taught Putin that he can’t surrender in exchange for empty promises. He wants to fix a deal with the US, first of all. A deal that would allow Russia to live the way it wants and act as the international law permits without becoming an object of American fury.

Why does Putin care about the US? Why can’t he just stop taking dollars? This means he is an American stooge! – an eager-for-action hothead zealot would exclaim. The answer is, the US has gained a lot of power; much more than it had in 1988, when Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. The years of being the sole superpower weren’t wasted. American might is not to be trifled with.

  • The US can forbid Russians to carry on their foreign trade in US dollars via US banks, and Russia’s economy would plummet.
  • The US can forbid the export of high tech to Russia, as it did in the Soviet era, and Russia would grind to a standstill.
  • The US can use its copyright and license system to stop Russian computers from functioning. They already tried to forbid the Russians from using computer scripts; they can block all Microsoft-based and Apple computers in Russia. They can forbid the usage of processors, like they have tried now with Huawei.
  • They can give Russia the full treatment of Iran and North Korea and ban its exports.
  • They can attack the Russian power grid and computerised processes in an act of cyber warfare, as the New York Times insinuated.
 
🔊 Listen RSS

Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable. This is the first rule of political rhetoric. If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent hate groups target the powerless and diverse.

Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can’t possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.

This thought came to my mind during my recent visit to France for the publication of my new book In The Name of Christ. France is going through a rapid shrinking of freedom. All the nations experience that, but France leads. For years they had laws that banned things displeasing to Jews; and now they expand these laws punishing not only saying or writing but also thinking, implying or winking. The bill criminalising anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may be voted on very soon. As the law voted in 2015 (after the Charlie Hebdo attack), against the “apology of terrorism”, the new law will allow the government to seize anyone, just for a tweet or a post on Facebook, and send a person for 18 months to “preventive imprisonment”, even before he comes to a court. The judge will sanction him on the basis of “intimate conviction” of his “hidden intentions”.

This fight against alleged antisemitism has become – like in the UK – a powerful tool of the ruling elites against the people. It is used against the Gilets Jaunes (the Yellow Vests), and against the opposition in general. The authorities apply the R2P principle to assault French freedom, that is they allegedly protect the Jews, as if Jews need protection, and in the name of Jews they steal freedom of all.

With a certain poetic license, one can proclaim the Jews are innocent of this assault, like the Aleppo kids are not guilty of bombing Syria and Afghan women are not guilty of American occupation. The Jews have been used as proverbial victims, but so were children and women. The guilt and responsibility is of those who use them as a pretext.

You may argue that the comparison is forced, for the French Jewish bodies actively participate in this campaign against French freedom. Yes, that’s true, but these organisations are voluntary self-appointed guardians of Jewish interest. Jews didn’t vote for them, didn’t elect them. The government was free to disregard them saying they do not represent their Jewish citizens. Actually, that was the traditional French approach, refusing to deal with Jewish organisations saying the French Jews are French and they do not need an intermediary. If the government preferred to listen to them, it is only because they say what the government wants to hear.

In Annecy, one of France’s prettiest medieval towns I had met Maître Viguier, the lawyer for Mr Alain Soral, and over the pot of cheese fondue the place is famous for he told me an amazing story.

In the course of their demo, the Yellow Vests had burned a picture of a French TV personality, Bernard Henri Levi (BHL for short), and of some other worthies. This event had been depicted in a jolly video clip that you can watch with pleasure and the clip had been uploaded on a website associated with Alain Soral.

The CRIF (or/and LICRA and other bodies) had accused Mr Soral of antisemitism, a criminal offence, on the strength of this fact, and demanded 2 years of prison + 30,000 euros, requested as punishment + 82,500 as compensations for the “victims”. The Maître said the elites try to unite the Jewish people against Gilets Jaunes and against ordinary French people. Other supporters of the GJ, Jean Bricmont and M. Chouard are the next on the list, after Soral.

The CRIF said that the rap was in coded language. The burned picture of BHL suggests a great fire to burn every Jew. “Between 1940 and 1945, the Nazis called the Jews ‘vermin’ and ‘parasites’ that should be exterminated”, they say. And that’s why the word “parasites” in the clip necessarily refers to Jews that should be exterminated. A very weak logic; Socrates would send these CRIF sophists back to the holes they usually hide from sunlight. Whatever the Nazis said, they have no copyright on the word ‘parasites’. In the Soviet Union after the October 1917 Revolution, when Jews occupied quite a prominent place in the society, the most popular revolutionary song said the parasites have no right to rule the land.

Parasites are those who do not toil but consume; and this is not a specific Jewish feature. By claiming that Jews are the parasites, the self-proclaimed Jewish organisations indulge in vile antisemitism, I told them.

What’s wrong in burning a picture of BHL? BHL is a French citizen who is entitled to his views. However, none of his views could or should be accepted as “the Jewish position”. The French Jews, and certainly the Jews of the world, hold a wide variety of views, some of them agree with BHL in some points and some disagree, sometimes disagree strongly. Mr BHL had been a fervent supporter, or even an instigator of the NATO attack on Libya in 2011 that had made this rather prosperous North African country a failed state ruled by Islamist armed gangs. Mr BHL had been a fervent supporter or an instigator of the Kiev 2014 coup that deposed the legitimate president of the Ukraine and had brought followers of the Nazi Quisling Stepan Bandera to power. Mr BHL had tried to ignite the ire of his French compatriots against the GJ. These and other strong views of Mr BHL had caused indignation of some French citizens who expressed their indignation by burning his photo. These acts by Mr BHL and his adversaries are perfectly legitimate within the limits of free public discourse.

What is not and can’t be legitimate is an attempt by the CRIF to create a false impression as if those opinions and acts by Mr BHL were an expression of the Jewish position. This is an obnoxious anti-Semitic lie. The Jews of France, of Israel and of the world didn’t necessarily wish Libya to be bombed or Kiev upturned; the Jews have no united single political position on French elections or on French political movements. Some French Jews support the GJ, and some reject them. Some vote for Mr Macron and some for Mme Le Pen or Mr Soral.

It’s only vicious anti-Semites who claim that all Jews follow and support BHL. This nasty claim had been upheld by a self-proclaimed “Jewish organisation” CRIF.

Let me reiterate: the body called CRIF does not represent French Jews, for it was not elected by French Jews. Its leadership is not accepted by French or any other Jews. It is a political organisation with its own goals; its goals do not coincide with those of majority of Jews in France or elsewhere.

While it is possible to argue that in some cases CRIFF acts in the interests of the Jews by fighting anti-Jewish prejudice, in this particular case the CRIF acts against the Jewish interests, as this action is likely to enforce the anti-Jewish prejudice of all Jews acting together for some dubious goal like break-up of Libya or Ukraine or for other controversial goal.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

If the Jews have designs for world dominance, their plans had suffered a setback due to the petty rivalry of Israeli politicians. Now this minor setback threatens to upset the whole master plan. For the want of a nail the kingdom is lost. A small mistake can have great consequences; so said Eugene Scribe of a glass of water that it had ended too long a war.

‘The minor setback’ was the failure of Bibi Netanyahu to form his new government after successful election campaign. ‘The great consequences’ are the collapse of the ambitious Kushner/Trump’s Deal of the Century. Russia’s alliance with Israel looks less certain; and beyond that, the coronation of Messiah, the Jewish king and the world’s foremost spiritual authority seems to be postponed indefinitely. Like in domino effect, these plans began to fail, one after another.

Speaking to the nation of Israel in dramatic broadcast and acknowledging his defeat, after the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) had dissolved itself at Netanyahu’s insistence, the Eternal Leader Benjamin Netanyahu revealed the plans of the Trilateral Meeting of Russia, the US and Israel’s security supremoes in Jerusalem. The White House confirmed it, too. This unprecedented meeting was supposed to become Netanyahu’s great achievement, crowning his nth re-election and confirming his international status.

Symbolically, this meeting would signify a special standing of Israel with the two superpowers; Israel’s unique ability to bring forth the mutually hostile Russia and America, like the tamer who leads a lion and a tiger to the arena. Even for our profane and sober age, such a meeting means a lot, a lot more than we would like to think of.

In the Middle Ages, when people had fewer reservations in delving into the esoteric, the supposed agenda for the grand masters of leading Christian orders meeting their heathen counterpart, say the Old Man of the Mountain, in Jerusalem (of all places!) would definitely include kissing Baphomet’s anus. Such a meeting with the Jew would imply their desire to crown the Antichrist. In both cases, they would end at the stake in front of Notre-Dame-de-Paris, as Jacques de Molay did.

And if the medieval man would learn of the recent arson of the venerated cathedral, he would consider the case closed, even for the most ardent sceptic. Clearly the turncoat knights, heirs to the Templars, attempted to establish the eternal Jewish dominion over Christians, a Christian sage would say; while his Jewish contemporary would hail the meeting as a prefiguration of the forthcoming advent of the Shepherd-King to lead the people of Israel and the obedient Gentiles.

Nowadays, in the age of rationality and hate laws, such hurtful assessments are forbidden, but our souls are old-fashioned Jungians and they still interpret thunder and lightning as a sign from above. The symbols have a meaning and carry a message, whether we like it or not. If you are conditioned to reject any spiritual interpretation, think of NLP, Neuro-Linguistic Programming of the Bible, the book you and your parents and grandparents had been exposed to. “A meeting in Jerusalem” are trigger words, not only to believers, but also to all-denying crass materialists. In plain words, prophecies we are aware of tend to be self-fulfilling.

The messianic expectations run high in Jerusalem. A few days ago, when the Israeli Jerusalem Day (the anniversary of the city’s conquest in 1967) coincided with Muslim Laylat al-Qadr (the most importkushant feast at the end of Ramadan), the Jews went to the courtyard of al-Aqsa Mosque to pray there. Usually Jews aren’t allowed to enter the courtyard in the last week of Ramadan. After skirmishes, Israeli soldiers raided the Mosque. “Hopefully soon, we will pray there, in our sacred place”, said Miri Regev, a religious Zionist and a popular minister of culture in Netanyahu’s government. These words were understood in expectation of the Mosque’s takeover, its destruction and erection of the Jewish temple in its stead.

The Trilateral Meeting fits very well into the scheme of these expectations. Open public meeting of this unprecedented sort will be interpreted as the superpowers’ support for the takeover and of the Gentile submission. The US representative at the meeting is Mr John Bolton, a zealous Zionist, a man obsessed with his adoration of Jews, who is likely to say anything to please his Israeli audience. He is known to have a serious influence on President Trump, and he had been described as his ‘minder’, selected by the spooks to control the flamboyant President.

The Russian representative is Mr Nikolai Patrushev, an old friend of Mr Putin. He inherited the top position in the Russian Intelligence (FSB) after Putin had left it to begin his ascent to the Presidency. He is considered a dull man of limited vision and imagination who usually reads his speeches verbatim. He is not known for improvising, fast thinking or negotiating abilities. This is good. An improviser can be carried away when it is the last thing that is needed. Patrushev will stick to the script, his colleagues say. In the Russian Foreign Office, the diplomats are unhappy with the choice, but they would be unhappy with anybody who is not a career diplomat.

Israelis guess and hope the meeting could lead to major re-alliance of Russia, to Moscow’s shifting to the Israeli-US side against Iran. This is extremely unlikely. Russia is friendly to Israel, and it wants to make friends with the US, while observing its own national interests.

Last week, at ‘Russian Davos’, St Petersburg Economic Forum, President Putin reiterated the main points of his memorable Munich Speech. He voiced seven complaints leaving no doubt he is unhappy with American heavy-handedness, with the US attempts to weaponise the dollar, Google, Facebook and knowhow as in case of Huawei. “States that previously advocated the principles of freedom of trade, fair and open competition, started speaking the language of trade wars and sanctions, blatant economic raiding, arm twisting, intimidation, eliminating competitors by so-called non-market methods,” – he said. This is not the language of a man who waits for a cue to join the US entourage.

Still, there are other, less pleasant signs.

  • The ‘Russian Bolton’, Mr Eugene Satanovsky, the head of pro-Israeli think tank, a former head of a Zionist Jewish body and a frequent commentator on Russian TV had been appointed an adviser to the Russian Defence Minister Mr Sergey Shoygu. His nomination came directly from Kremlin and surprised the ministry officials.
  • A prominent Russian churchman, Fr Chaplin, expressed his satisfaction with Israeli control of Jerusalem, in a column in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
  • At the same time, the Russian S-300 did not respond to Israeli bombing runs in Syria.
 
🔊 Listen RSS

Jeeves, the excellent valet of Mr Wooster, had an ace up his sleeve: if going was tough, he had used his access to the records of the Junior Ganymede club, and there he could find embarrassing stuff against anybody who had ever employed a valet or a butler, for these gentleman’s gentlemen were obliged to inscribe in the club’s book all imprudent exploits of their masters. Thanks to this inside knowledge, Jeeves had saved his meek master, Mr Bertie Wooster from the bully.

Jeeves was a modest man, and feudally loyal to his hare-brained master; so were other members of the Junior Ganymede. They didn’t try to turn the club book into a tool to wrench control over England from the Buckingham Palace. However, we live in the age of great ambitions, unhindered by excessive loyalty. The valets, butlers, and bodyguards pooled their forces and decided to run the world.

Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk. It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.

German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler’s Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time for CIA instead of Abwehr.

The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine. They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.

Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela’s top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty to his country and its constitution.

Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn’t run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI’s James Comey, to regime-change the US. In the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren’t allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.

It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society. Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.

Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.

Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov. He and his appointees dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.

Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev’s shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost, Alexander Yakovlev. Andropov also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew of to the FBI hands.

In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.

They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.

The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires’ bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: CIA, NSA, Soviet Union 
🔊 Listen RSS

The title has a nice touch of an early Agatha Christie story, or some 19th-Century pulp fiction by Robert Louis Stevenson or Conan Doyle of a lord who was relentlessly pursued by an evil international conspiracy. A devoted supporter of Palestine, Lord Ahmed of Rotherham hasn’t been crucified yet, but the usual suspects have made his life exceedingly bitter. Women have come to bear false witness against him; as one is discredited and sent packing, another one comes in her stead. The mighty BBC attacks him; the Guardian and the Times denounce him for his lack of love for ‘our elder brothers Jews’ and assorted crimes and misdemeanors. And recently he was accused of making a pass at his cousin – fifty (or 47?) years ago, and this is, I believe, the world’s first of its kind. His doings are misrepresented; newspapers lie or almost lie creating innuendos to besmirch him.

Ask anybody who has heard of him, and you will be told that he killed a man while driving and texting on the motorway. If that is not enough, he is called ‘a child abuser’ or ‘accused of child sex offences’. He was also accused of taking advantage of a vulnerable woman. Who would want to defend such a person? In addition, he is from Rotherham, the town notorious for Pakistani men suborning young English girls. This is such a toxic mix as the angels fear to tread, making me the proverbial fool who rushes in.

Lord Ahmed was a precursor of Ilhan Omar before Ilhan came into the public spotlight. He waded through the flood of accusations that threaten to overcome his friend Jeremy Corbyn. He came to England as a child from the Pakistani part of Kashmir; following his steel-worker-father, he joined Labour and became one of the first Muslim peers of the realm – a great career for the boy whose elder brothers became bus drivers. His sympathy for Palestine was his undoing.

He supported Palestine; travelled to Gaza aboard a siege-breaking vessel; cared about Palestinians; fought in the Parliament to save them. For this work of love he had been labelled an ‘antisemite’, thrice suspended from the Labour party and then had to leave it altogether. His enemies and the enemies of Palestine didn’t miss a trick to trap him, to accuse of enormous sins and crimes, and to efficiently neutralise him. He can’t even support people he would like to (Corbyn, inter alia), for his support would stain them.

This political eclipse of a strong and charismatic figure, the natural leader of British Muslim community sends a terrible message to British politicians: do not defend Palestine unless you round up every defence with a proclamation of your love to the Jewish state, as Jonathan Freedland does. My friend Jonathan Cook wrote about the way this Jewish writer for the Guardian smeared ‘antisemites’ Livingstone and Galloway.

Palestine is not a parochial cause; the real supporters of Palestine are the most-active and strongest voices of the anti-war party. They were against the Iraq war, and now they are against the brewing Russia war, against Venezuela regime change, against North Korean confrontation, and for all the right causes. Neutralisation of Ahmed (and Livingstone) by the Jewish Lobby portends a sad future to the world, as it coincides with Trump’s submission to the neocon agenda, so clearly described by Mike Whitney. Just when he is most needed, he can’t be engaged.

I met Lord Ahmed back home in Palestine. He called me, introduced himself and asked me to take him to Jerusalem. He wanted to learn first-hand what goes on from a Jew who sides with Palestinians. It is not every day a British peer asks a humble writer from Jaffa to guide him. We went to Jerusalem; I introduced him to my great Palestinian friend and teacher Bishop Atallah Hanna; we walked the streets and we observed the walls of the Palestinian ghetto from the summit of the Mount of Olives.

He was touched by what he saw; I was touched feeling his compassion. In a while, he invited me to speak in the House of Lords, in the Parliament, and so I did. My talk was probably too daring – I was asked to speak about Palestine, while I spoke about the Jews and their relation to the British Empire, for I thought it was the key to the question of Palestine. Whenever one speaks of Jews, one will be called ‘antisemite’, unless one breaks into dithyramb; this is a professional hazard. So I was called, and Lord Ahmed too, for breaking the wall of silence I had been surrounded with.

Whenever you read newspaper pieces about Lord Ahmed (and they usually sound like a litany of accusations), my invitation always takes a place of honour (or calumny, if you prefer). “His vile anti-British career”, wrote the preserver of British values Abhijit Pandya in the Daily Mail, culminated in 2005 as he “invited well-known anti-semite Israel Shamir to the House of Lords to talk about ‘Jews and Empire’”. He “hosted a book launch in the Lords for a notorious antisemite”, said the Times.

Wikipedia tells that he “hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for the controversial writer Israel Shamir, during which the latter claimed, among other things: “The Jews like an Empire…. This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance…. Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” The Guardian said that he “hosted a reception at the House of Lords for the anti-Semitic writer Israel Shamir, who used the occasion to accuse Jews of wanting to set up a world empire”.

I do not know whether Lord Ahmed had read much (or any) of my writing before this invitation. He said in an interview given to a journalist of Al Jazeera Mehdi Hasan (for New Statesman and Huffington Post) that he didn’t Google me – “that’s my biggest mistake,” he admits. Does he regret the Shamir invitation? “I do. Because that’s kind of a big stain on my reputation.” Mehdi Hasan, fighting for the Brown Nose Award of the Year, kept pushing (there are Arabs who are just great in defending the Jewish cause, and two of them, Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish, attacked me and some years later, attacked Gilad Atzmon, too) and Lord Ahmad profusely apologised: “”I completely and unreservedly apologise to the Jewish community, to the judiciary, to the newspaper owners.” But you know that apologies do not help.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Rabbis do not regret the Paris disaster. “It’s Divine punishment for burning the Talmud,” divines a prominent Jewish divine, the Bethel Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, about the Notre Dame fire. In 1242 the French investigated the Talmud, established that the codex contains volumes of hate speech, and finally burned 1200 codices in the square of the freshly-built Notre Dame Cathedral. “The time for punishment is here,” the Rabbi intones dramatically. Not so fast, Rabbi! If we must connect these two events – the historical burning of the Talmud and the recent destruction of the church, the real point of the story is that France once had a strong, virile immune system. That medieval destruction of that evil book built up a healthy immunity to Talmudic legalisms that helped the cathedral survive wars and revolutions for the magic number of 777 years. But nothing, alas, lasts forever: the resistance of the French people has exhausted itself.

Perhaps it’s time to re-inoculate the French people against Talmudic scheming. Maybe the nasty spirit of Talmudic intolerance and Judaic supremacy should be exorcised once again from the heart of France for another 777 years. Mayhap the building of the replacement cathedral will inspire a new spirit of fidelity to Our Lady. But it’s not likely to happen. Indeed, in the present climate the French authorities are more likely to turn the burned wreckage of Notre Dame into the next Tolerance Museum.

777 years ago, a Jew who denied the Talmud, parted with Jewry, accepted Christ and entered the Church, Nicholas Danin exposed the kvetching Talmudic hate to a disputation that, shocked and bitterly offended, agreed to gather them up and burn them. In Macron’s France, Nicholas Danin would be dragged into court by LICRA (Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme) and sentenced to jail, if not burned at the stake. Danin, not the Talmud, would be found guilty of hate speech if his judges had been trained, as we are, in philosemitism. Is there any reason to return the ruins of Notre Dame to the Catholic Church? Why not hand it directly over to CRIF (Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France).

In the same article the French-born Rabbi Shlomo Aviner reminds his followers that all Christian churches will eventually be destroyed (at least in Israel) – but the time is not ripe yet. As for the French cathedral, “we aren’t obligated to destroy it,” though “Christianity is the main enemy of the Jews.” A Jew is supposed to rejoice at the sight of a burned church and recite a special blessing of the Lord of Vengeance Who overturns the House of the Proud. Jewish power in France rises whilst the significance of the Church dwindles; the old cathedral had little chance to survive such a turn of fate. It will be rebuilt as something else: something not Catholic, something that is not a church. It will be designed to appeal to tourists; no need to consult the native Frenchmen. It is already being decided for them.

The destruction of the cathedral had been in the cards a long time. When the naked witches of Femen celebrated their black mass, abused the priests and flogged the venerable old bells in the Notre Dame towers, the French court immediately acquitted them of all charges and instead sentenced the guards who tried to stop the sacrilege. And yet even this was not enough for the enemies of the Church: for their bold blasphemy the Femen were presented with France’s 2017 International Secularism Award, their leader had a postage stamp issued in her honour and she served as the model for the French icon of Marianne. Dominique Venner, a French Catholic writer and historian, committed suicide in the cathedral in 2013 to alert his countrymen to the storm clouds threatening his beloved France, but all in vain.

In France, the relentless struggle against the church, led by the Jews and their allies, continues to bear fruit. In 2013, the government of Holland forced their citizens to accept gay marriage despite massive demos by French Catholics. The influence of LICRA in France exceeds even that of the ADL in America. Catholics like Soral and Dieudonné are now being sent to jail for offending Jewish sensitivities (and as you know, Jews can be very sensitive). They prosecute the Yellow Vests just as they persecute the Church and for the very same reason: both are made up of sturdy provincials who harken back to the days of Christian France.

The terrible blaze in Paris should be an ominous warning for the French: Reconnect with your Church! Save Her and cherish Her, for She may not always be with you. And who will save you when She has gone? The Church of France should reach out to the people by supporting the Yellow Vests against the anti-Christian government of Macron. His government did nothing to defend the Church and that fire didn’t come out of the blue. Macron is definitely guilty, if not by deed, then by criminal negligence. It’s too easy to imagine him toasting champagne at the news. We all should be wary of powerful people who are likely to rejoice at the destruction of our churches.

The previous campaigners against the church in France marshaled, as they did in the US, beneath the banner of ‘Paedophile Priests’. This clear-cut ad hominem (or should we say “canard”, or “trope”?) is aimed directly at the heart of the Church. No one says a word about the dishonesty of the jibe, they are too busy beating their breasts. Yet if you make mention of “Jewish crooks” you’ll have LICRA or its sister bodies pounding on your door. It might be that there are crooks who happen to be Jews, but that doesn’t make them ‘Jewish crooks’, they recite piously. And if you happen to say ‘Jewish crook’, you are guilty of antisemitism. But ‘Paedophile Priests’ is fine. And so the Church is forced to cleanse Herself, and the Jews are left alone, free to continue their self-destructive denouement.

Jews describe themselves as “a Nation of Priests”, the priests of the most anti-Christian faith on the planet. As the influence of the Jewish church waxes, the strength of the Christian church wanes. It is zero-sum-game.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Catholic Church, France, Jews, Judaism 
🔊 Listen RSS

Do not regret the results of Israeli elections. They were a non-event. Practically nothing has changed. Indeed many actors had hoped for change, but those hopes had no grounding in reality.

Israel is doing well, even exceedingly well. The country prospers. Despite high taxes, Israeli highways are crowded with new cars; Israeli housewives load their supermarket wagons with food for the Passover as if they prepare to die of overeating. The Israeli shekel is high like cotton in the summer, and all planes are full to the brim with Israeli vacationers. The weather has been playing for the incumbent as well: glorious Palestinian spring had brought out myriads of flowers and the blossom stays over the Holy Land.

In such a situation, people do not vote for change. And anyway, no real change had been offered. The new party of generals, called Blue-and-White, after the colours of Israeli national flag (it’s like calling an American party “Stars and Stripes”, or a British party, “Union Jack”), did not propose anything new. They said they would do the same, only better (or worse, for the Palestinians). The old opposition parties of the Left Zionists, Labour and Meretz, have lost their voters: they migrated to the generals. They anyway had nothing to offer, except more gender disorder and identity politics.

PM Netanyahu demonstrated that he has great support with the superpowers. President Trump presented him with the Golan Heights, a slice of Syrian territory occupied since 1967. President Putin presented him with remains of an Israeli soldier killed in action many years ago in Lebanon. Netanyahu flashed selfies made with the two presidents in his effective campaign; he promised everything to everybody, and carried the lot.

Israelis would be ungrateful if they’d vote against the incumbent, and they knew what was good for them. The generals, and other opponents of Bibi, tried to make something of Netanyahu’s coming indictment for corruption; but the general public was not impressed. Apparently, these charges had been used too much and too often to derail a political enemy, and people stopped paying heed.

I noticed it for the first time years ago in Japan, where a very popular politician Mr Kakuei Tanaka had been jailed for taking a bribe from the Lockheed. A young journalist at that time, I was amazed that the Japanese had remained faithful to the imprisoned politician. They thought that all politicians accept graft; the question is: what else they do? And Tanaka did good for them. While it is possible to mobilise media against a person accused of graft, of harassment, of sexual impropriety, or racism, the people in general do not care much about it: they think (rightly) it is just a trick of political adversaries. SJW used it too often, and completely devalued such accusations.

Israelis did not intend to vote against Mr Netanyahu just because his adversaries appealed to their moral judgement. Anyway, Israelis have very little sense of morality, if any. Netanyahu’s racist jibes against the Arab citizens of Israel stoked no fire in Jewish souls.

The Palestinian question did not play at all in the elections. Millions of imprisoned Palestinians in the world’s largest open jail of Gaza were out of Israeli mind. If they would not send a missile now and there, they would be totally forgotten by their Jewish masters, like medieval prisoners in the cellars of the Bastille. On Israeli TV, they showed a sequence from the Zombie Apocalypse of Zombies storming the wall Israelis erected on their borders – following the pictures of Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza. The message was clear and brutal: for Jews, the Palestinians are Zombies that should be kept beyond the (ever-expanding) walls.

Netanyahu played on the edge of a fault: he pushed the Palestinians to his utmost, and then relented when they were about to explode. This cruel tactic was successful: he bombarded Gaza, and then allowed its inmates to fish in the sea (this prerogative had been withdrawn some months earlier). The Gaza government had planned a series of large demos to mark the anniversary of their Great March of Return. But after an Israeli airstrike, they relented, and no large manifestation was allowed on the border. Palestinians are being killed on the daily basis, but in small numbers; and it is being reported on the bottom page of Israeli newspapers as a thing of little importance.

The main competitor to Netanyahu, the Blue-and-White’s General Gantz boasted in his pre-election videos that he killed thousands of Palestinians; he promised that he wouldn’t relinquish Israeli hold on the Golan Heights. So really important issues weren’t even debated in these elections.

What was debated, then? An obscure point of who belongs to the right, and who belongs to the left. In present Israeli parlance, the leftist is a traitor who cares about Arabs and despises Oriental Jews, and that is obviously a marker to be avoided. Very few Israelis (if at all) admit to having left leanings, a curious turn for a country established and ruled by socialists for many years.

Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and whether they are Jewish at all. The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels. They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3) to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.

Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi Jews.

This hatred to the Left in the Israeli discourse had caused a comic effect. A few politicians decided to run their own parties called New Right, Union of the Right etc. One of these parties had been led by Mr Feiglin, an ultra-right-wing libertarian (formerly on the fringe of Netanyahu’s Likud) who called for speedy construction of the Third Temple on the place of Al Aqsa Mosque, for dismantling of social state, for legalisation of light drugs, for annexation of the West Bank and mass expulsion of Arabs. The polls predicted he would get seven or eight seats in the parliament. However, this loony agenda was trashed, and he went back to the political wilderness.

Two rather successful right-wing politicians decided to split from their long-established right-wing religious party and created a New Right Party. One of them is good-looking Ayelet Shaked, the Minister of Justice in the last government who flirted with fascism. Another is the Education Minister in the government, the US-born Naftali Bennett. Their trick failed them, and they found themselves out. Apparently, the offer of the right-wing parties exceeded the demand for this product.

 
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.