It is not only about Palestine

by Israel Shamir,

Joachim Martillo wrote an important paper called Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society, purporting to explain, “What the Israel Lobby Really Is”. He spoke with Stephen Walt, of Walt and Mearsheimer fame, he followed the discussions of Philip Weiss, he corresponded with Noam Chomsky and Joseph Massad, he had read Israel Shamir’s Pardes and James Petras, he knows MacDonald. An American scholar Martlllo has some Polish background, and he reads Yiddish and Polish, as well as some Hebrew. In his view, understanding the Israel Lobby can be based only on a thorough hardnosed (“non-exceptionalist”) analysis of Eastern European Jewish history. This is a heretical view, very close to ours.

It is heretical, because the very far away border of permitted antizionist discourse still remains short of discussion: whether Jews did similar things before Zionism, or do we have a temporary aberration connected with the state of Israel. The moment one integrates modern Jewish behaviour with the pre-modern Jewish behaviour, the moment one notices continuity of pre-Zionist and Zionist Jewish politics, the moment one leaves the safe ground of condemning occupation, - one crosses into totally forbidden “antisemite” territory. Martillo dared and ventured there, and came with strong and startling conclusions: the real issue is not Palestine. Unless they are neutralized, Israel lobbying groups, Israel advocates, Zionists, Neoconservatives, and Friedmanites will steal America and effectively abolish the Constitution in all but name to create a society of servitude for all Americans except for those belonging to the hyper-wealthy transnational Zionist political elite.

This is exactly our view: Palestine is a symbol, a quintessence of the trouble, but the real issue is our enemy’s attempt to enslave the world. Martillo begins where Walt and Mearsheimer end their journey. In his view, in order to understand Jews, it is not necessary to venture into days of Jesus Christ; history of Poland will do. He goes to the days of Rzeczpospolita, the Polish Commonwealth (from 1505 until 1795), then ethnic Ashkenazim constituted economic elite of the realm. They lost this status in the partitions of Poland. This is the destroyed Temple, in Martillo’s view, these are good old days the Jews miss: they want to be the elite like they were in the days of Rzeczpospolita. Jews did well after the collapse of the Polish Commonwealth, notes Martillo, but not as good as they would like.

“Despite supposedly onerous Czarist oppression, Russian Jews had higher incomes, more education, and longer life spans than the non-Jewish populations among whom they lived. They were highly disaffected because of exclusion from the status and access to which they believed they were entitled, but they were not obviously more oppressed than the majority of the Czar's subjects and less oppressed than others. Yuri Slezkine belies the myth of Jewish powerless during the lead-up to WW2 in The Jewish Century.”

In the US, the Jews (or Ashkenazim, in Martillo’s terminology) resurrected their social structure and rebuilt it, like ants who rebuild anthill after being removed to a new ground. This structure is ostensibly “Israel advocacy” or “Israel Lobby” but actually advocating Israel’s cause (“Israel Lobby proper”) is a small part of its effort. He soberly states that a USA, whose dominant elite is Jewish, is not necessarily bending to the Israel Lobby proper when it pursues of pro-Israel foreign policy. The State of Israel may be a client state of America, but America is a client state of the American Jewish Zionist elite, which is probably in the process of establishing itself as the permanent national "meritocratic" elite.

Jews succeeded to act together because historically Eastern European Jewish culture strongly controlled social and intellectual deviation. Many of the social control mechanisms continue to exist, have evolved in the American environment, and may help explain why liberal Jews have so empowered the Neocons to the detriment of US foreign policy interests as James Petras has described.

It is not necessary to look for Freemasonry, the Elders of Zion, the Illuminati, dark Talmudists, malicious Cabbalists, or some other group of secret puppeteers: Israel lobbying activities constitute a natural evolution of Jewish, especially ethnic Ashkenazi, communal organizations. The structure of Israel lobbying is a response to historical developments generally unrelated to Zionism. Because there has been a sort of Darwinian selection in both the official and unofficial organizations as well as in their techniques, all of which go back often as much two centuries in European environments, Israel lobbying is naturally far more effective than a lobby that was put together over the last few decades or so in response to a specific issue or to serve a specific corporate interest.

The same question applies today. Does the so-called "Israel Lobby" merely act to secure the interests of the State of Israel or is the real goal enhancement of the wealth, status, and power of those who pay for it? Not only does Israel not pay the "Israel Lobby," but The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy does not give a hint who really does, and in any case large sections of the "Israel Lobby" like the Hollywood Crowd do not even appear in the book even though scholars like Melani McAlister have investigated the Hollywood foreign policy connection in books likes Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945-2000. With such gaps in the analysis of the "Israel Lobby," no one should be surprised with the weakness of the proposals that Professors Mearsheimer and Walt make for responding to the "Israel Lobby."

Friedmanites have been so prominent in the economic regime that the occupation has attempted to impose on Iraq that the common identification of Milton Friedman's economic thinking merely with Cato Institute libertarianism looks incorrect. In today's political intellectual environment Friedmanism looks more like an adjunct of Neoconservatism.

Israel Lobbying in Comparison with Ordinary Lobbies

Martillo notices that the Jewish lobby has many interests quite unconnected with Israel but equally nefarious:

In Boston the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Justice (JALSA), which is a spin-off of the American Jewish Congress, has an ongoing project in regendering American society according to feminist and gay liberation principles.

Israel lobbying efforts benefit from organizational memory that does not exist in other lobbying situations. The longevity of Jewish Federation organizations can give Israel Lobbying efforts a generational aspect not seen elsewhere. For example, Israel Advocacy organizations worked for fifty years to delegitimize Arabist points of view in the foreign service and state department, drive out Arabist officers or bureaucrats and replace them with Israel sympathetic personnel (see The Marginalization of U.S. Mideast Experts, http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1095/9510080.htm ).

Possibly because of long-standing relationships with government officials, because of the fear of the accusations of anti-Semitism, or simply because Jews are disproportionately represented among government officials especially in the legal and regulation enforcement divisions (another class of saya`nim), Israel advocacy is unique among lobbying efforts.

While the American public has not fully comprehended the nature of power relations, Israeli leaders do, and the American Zionist elite calls all shots on issues of importance to the American elite from "Who is a Jew" to whether the USA should attack Iraq or Iran first.

The political relational hierarchy and the domination of an American Zionist elite over all validate the Finkelstein and Massad critiques of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

The alliance between Israel and the US states is in the process of creating an internal American caste system that will be dominated by a small class of hyper-wealthy Zionists. With the sort of permanent war that has been envisioned since the beginning of the twentieth century by a segment of the Zionist elite under the influence of Sorel and with the application of the Friedmanite Shock Doctrine as described by Naomi Klein, this caste system will spread globally. (See The Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein.)

The Israeli economy or more properly a small segment of hyper-wealthy Israeli Jews linked by family and business relations to the dominant US Zionist elite is thriving as the US economy is tanking and Iraq is being ground down. It is the outcome of which leading Zionists dreamed in the twenties, and it has a high probability of spreading from the ME throughout the Muslim world to South America, and to parts of the former Eastern block.

The Kremlin, which has never had much tolerance for internal competing power centers or external powers mucking in its backyard, saw danger in the extension of a transnational hyper-wealthy Zionist political elite to Russia and has taken preventive action against Jewish oligarchs within the territories of the former Soviet Union. It was stunning how quickly Jewish and Friedmanite groups rushed to support Mikhail Khodorkovski in his power struggle with the Russian government.

Among religious, leftist, and right wing ethnic Ashkenazim there has long been a current of thought that Jews are safest in alliance (or better in dominating) an undemocratic government. Thanks to the Patriot act and other actions of the Bush administration, the undemocratic Zionist future is coming into being right before our eyes, and McCain looks like the most likely of current present candidates to bring about the fulfillment of the ultimate globalized Zionist dystopia, but Zionists throughout the political system are poised to influence any other possible victor except Ron Paul, whom Zionist facilitators and gate-keepers in the US media are trying to starve of media attention.

Abolishing Israel and eradicating Zionism would not eliminate the exploitive tendencies of globalization but would destroy the focal point of the forces that are aiming for the worst of all globalized futures.

The Zionist movement assumed from its earliest phases that it would be dependent on wealthy and influential Jews in the Diaspora. Members of the Counsinhood of Britain's wealthiest Jews probably paid for the Balfour Declaration. After the propaganda reverses of the first Intifada, the need for an even wealthier and more influential class of Jewish Zionists in the USA became obvious.

[In this strategic framework, the Zionist movement also depends on Jews, who are not necessarily wealthy but are in critical positions to serve the Zionist movement especially in intelligence or logistics matters. Such individuals are today called saya`nim. The spy Jonathan Pollard is a particularly egregious saya`an, who was caught. I have expanded the meaning of the term in this document to include Jewish stealth helpers in Israel Lobbying efforts.]

In addition to saya`nim, Zionists have often used Shabbesgoyim like Orde Wingate during the pre-State period or more recently John McCain III and his father Admiral John McCain, Jr., who absolved Israel of blame in the attack on the USS Liberty. (See http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/01/money-jews-brain-jews-politics.html .) The Zionist movement has tended to recruit and reward Shabbesgoyim in families. New York Zionist campaign contributions have rewarded John McCain throughout his political career. Today McCain represents the Neoconservative Friedmanite position in Republican politics without — until recently — a lot of the social conservative baggage to which many American Jews and Friedmanites object.]

Zionist connections in the investment banking industry led to earlier IPOs in the 90s with little or no evidence of profitability. Subprime mortgages were a similar class of dubious investments, whose true nature was obscured in CDOs (collateralized debt obligations), and the valuation of Google and similar companies like Facebook has similar dubious characteristic. Some serious forensic analysis and financial analysis is needed to understand these economic developments, but the end result has been very clear in the development of a new class of superwealthy that is mostly Jewish and willing to put a lot of money into Israel advocacy and into influencing the US government.

While many members of this New Jewish Elite would reflexively put money into Israel because of long Zionist indoctrination, they also need Israel as a means to hide their wealth because Israel has a level of economic transparency and corruption comparable to Italy or Egypt. The Bar-Lev line in Tel Aviv is an early indicator of the degree of embezzlement and sweetheart deals in Israeli economics and politics. Israelis have long made a lot of money in providing money laundering and other transaction hiding services both to Jews and non-Jews. Obviously, all parties in this sort of business have an interest in preserving the State of Israel to make sure that this sort business continues.

Post-9/11 Islamophobic scare-mongering as well as the Iraqi occupation has created a growth industry in hardware and software for security, control, and checkpoints. This industry understands that its profitability depends on international policies that maintain conflict through unconditional support of Zionism.

A Web of Influence, Conditioned Thinking and Reflexive Behavior

Ongoing Zionist indoctrination of the American public has produced a Zionist web of influence, conditioned thinking and reflexive behavior that is breath-taking in its pervasiveness.

Even without the presence of media gatekeepers and facilitators, journalists in print, broadcast and cable media almost invariably misrepresent relevant Middle Eastern or Eastern European current events or history. There is little reluctance to turn Zionist or IDF press releases into news reports with no qualifications.

American news organizations almost invariably misquote and mistranslate Iranian President Ahmedinejad, and America media use tendentious Zionist language like the "right to self-defense," "Muslim extremism," and "Arab intransigence" while almost never conceding a similar right of Palestinian or Arab self-defense or addressing issues of Jewish racism, extremism or fanaticism. During the recent Lebanon war, the American media with rare exceptions took the Israeli point of view.

Only recently have American media begun to concede the role of Russian Jews in the Russian Revolution and the murder of the Czar's family. While scholarly journals discuss the Jewish role in the Soviet security apparatus before the end of WW2, no inkling of the Soviet Jewish role in mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide is allowed to reach the general public. Such facts would interfere with the Zionist legitimization narrative which requires European Jews to be innocent powerless victims of the German Nazis, and reasonable people would drawn the obvious analogy between Soviet Ashkenazi and Zionist Ashkenazi ethnic cleansing or genocidalism.

Only occasionally does accurate depiction of Zionist ethnic cleansing in 1947-8 ever reach the American public, and descriptions of the start of the 1967 war — even on NPR — still include descriptions of the movement ("barreling") of Egyptian tanks through Sinai to attack Israel.

Roman Catholics according to statistical analysis are less sympathetic. It is intriguing that practically every time the Boston Globe runs a story that features a Catholic cleric expressing a criticism of Israel, within approximately a week, it also runs a story about a Catholic cleric sex scandal sometimes featuring events from as much as 25 years ago as if to provide some crude sort of "balance" that even CAMERA and HonestReporting do not advocate. It is an often-unconscious behavior more often associated with an angry ethnic press, and it may be significant that the Boston Globe Editorial Board includes Lawrence Harmon, who was editor at the Boston Jewish Advocate, and that paid entry level newspaper jobs in the USA nowadays seem to be found mostly at the ethnic Jewish press.

The hyper-wealthy Zionist elite is trying to create Israel Studies programs in which only Zionistically correct scholars will teach while stealth and overt Israel advocacy groups and individuals attempt to drive any scholars critical of Zionism from American education. (See http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/09/jacob-lassner-and-nadia-abu-el-haj.html.)

Nadia Abu el Haj, Finkelstein, Arun Gandhi, Massad, Dabashi, Saliba, Debby Almontaser (Khalil Gibran International Academy, New York City) and many others have been subjected to such attacks. (See http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/11/zionism-penisism-and-joseph-massad.html, http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/02/arun-gandhi-and-sholem-aleichem.html, http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/12/conspiracy-against-rights-in-nyc.html.)

Altogether Israel Lobbying efforts are grinding down American Constitutional rights and Israelizing society to the point where the American political system is under attack by a wide-ranging seditious conspiracy, and the side-effect of Islamophobic and Arabophobic incitement against Arab or Muslim investments or university contributions or charitable donations, is discouraging the flow of capital from Saudia and the Gulf when the US economy most desperately needs such liquidity.

Even if American gets over the current economic crisis, the alliance with Israel at this point has probably cost every current US taxpayer at least $10,000.00, and the costs at this point are rising at least geometrically thanks to Neocon-orchestrated policies.

Fighting Back to Save America

Pointing out the cost of Israel to each and every American is a good starting point to counteract Israel lobbying and advocacy.

The Zionism of Christian evangelical fundamentalists is part of generational program of Jabotinskians but is not particularly deep. Obviously, Rapturists do not care much about the cost of Israel to America, but Christian Zionism can be fought by scriptural disputation, by questioning the patriotism of its leaders and by exposing surreptitious Jewish funding and organizing.
In other areas Israel advocates have had so much success because in today's America Jews play by a set of rules completely different from all other Americans, and even not particularly Zionist Jews have no real incentive to challenge the system, when renders them Moral Arbiters, Major players in a dramatic narrative of national rebirth, Beneficiaries of programs like Taglit (Birthright Israel), Jewish networks in academia, the professions and politics, Certain of their own righteousness, and Wielders of the all-powerful accusation of anti-Semitism.

At the college level, the International Hillel Society acts like a junior auxiliary to the KKK by running racist programs like Taglit/Birthright Israel and by hosting extremist speakers that incite murder and genocide against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims or deny that they are human.

Jewish organizations, no matter how much they campaign against laws and candidates, get a completely pass of the rules and regulations of 501(c)(3) organizations. The tax fraud probably reaches tens of billions of dollars at this point.

Neutralizing Israel lobbying and advocacy groups will be extremely difficult without a push for the US government to enforce laws equally for Jews and non-Jews. Then once a good part of the American public realizes that Israel is a terror state, the USA will be forced to apply anti-terror laws apply and seize assets of organized Jewish community along with those of Zionist billionaires as terrorism supporters just as Islamic charities have been stripped of their funds.


•Until the US government begins to enforce laws equitably, activists will have to research real estate transactions and investigate who is paying for Israel advocacy programs. They will have to put together a who’s who of Zionist subversion in the USA.

To change the consciousness of Americans, activists must fight American Holocaust religion and work for recognition that the mass murders of Jews during WW2 were not exceptional or unique,
that Palestinians, Armenians, Balkan Muslims, and Circassians have all been genocided from the nineteenth through the twentieth century and that Soviet Jews were up to the eyeballs in mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide long before German Nazis, Eastern Europeans, and liberated Soviet nationalities began to kill Jews systematically out of fear and hatred resulting from the Jewish role in the Soviet Union.

Activists will have to challenge American Jews socially at interfaith activities, community events and elsewhere. They must demand clarification of Jewish loyalties and force Jewish leaders to acknowledge that Americans are not obligated to support Israel and that hating Jews for what they do (unlike hating Jews for being Jews) is not anti-Semitism.

Activists need to make effort to counter Israel advocacy and Holocaust studies at the high school and even grammar school levels. They need to work for coordination among anti-Zionist Arab American, Muslim American, genuinely anti-Israel Jewish American, conservative, liberal, and other religious (especially Catholic) groups.

Bottom line: Joachim Martillo came to the same conclusion as Israel Shamir and James Petras, namely, it is not only about Palestine. And we have to deal with it, if we want to liberate Palestine, or stay free wherever we are.

Keep Shining, Cuba!

[A Talk given at the Second International Conference for World Balance in Havana, Cuba, January 29, 2008]

By Israel Shamir

This is a great honour to be in Cuba and to speak to you, because for my generation Cuba is forever an important part of our romantic youth. I was but a teenager forty five years ago, when young Fidel promised to bring the revolution and freedom of man to the whole of the Americas, from Tierra del Fuego via Washington to frozen Alaska, and his call still reverberates in my ears. Those were glorious days, but they are over, and for a long time people have felt that it’s not going to happen, but that we should just be happy that this last refuge of liberty still survives. I’ve brought you good news: Be not despondent -- you are not the last dugout of resistance to the Imperial rule, soon to be swept away, anymore. The tide of world history now turns, and we are ready for a counter-attack. People who oppose the Neo-Liberal Empire feel that they are not the last bison on the prairie, we are rather the victorious army of tomorrow.

The revolution is necessary, and whoever may have forgotten that, was reminded of it a few days ago by the events in my beloved Palestine. The people of Gaza made a revolution: they voted against the occupant’s will, they expelled the collaborationist gang of Dahlan, they broke a siege, they went out, risked their lives, rushed the army, overturned the fence, straddled the barbed wire, wiped off the border between two states, committed so many heroic acts and suffered casualties. Without this revolution, they were not even allowed even to buy bread for their children. That is a good example for all of us: nothing could have been done within the legal limits our enemies had enforced. There is a need for the push that is called Revolution.

The subject of this conference is Balance, and in my view, balance is the name of victory we shall obtain tomorrow, for balance is what our world sorely lacks, balance between affluence and modesty, between rights and duties, between the needs of the majority and desires of privileged minorities, between masculine and feminine, between desire to change and need for stability, between intervention and sovereignty, between superpowers and small states, between secularity and the church. Every regime attempts to reach some balance, but our balance should be harmony, that is, stable balance.

As a Russian-Israeli writer, I share my time between Tel Aviv and Moscow, and speak from both a Russian and a Jewish perspective. I grew up in the socialist Soviet Union, and as you may know, the word “Soviet” means “counsel” and “advice”, so we can’t stop giving advice. J The Soviet Union had its problems, and post-Soviet Russia has its problems. I agree with my friend, a wonderful Russian writer named Maxim Kantor: if fifty years of communism proved that communism failed, the following twenty years of capitalism have proven that capitalism has failed even more profoundly. The Soviet Union did not collapse because of material problems, (Russians lived much better than Cubans did), nor because of production hitches, but due to ideological problems: the Soviet ideologists were beaten in the battle of ideas.

The battle of ideas does not take place in the mind of an isolated hermit, but in the minds of millions of people connected by means of discourse, from a conversation around the dinner table to a TV programme. The discourse forms the battlefield, and this battlefield, like every battlefield, is not flat ground without features of its own: imagine hills, mountain crags, valleys and streams crossing it, and making it as complicated as every battle on a real battleground.

This battle had changed its character since our enemies and the enemies of liberty invented and constructed a unique machine; nothing like that was ever known to mankind. This machine is a fully integrated public-opinion-forming device; it consists of mass media, experts and universities, it owns practically all TV stations and newspapers, it produces a single narrative, and it succeeds in brainwashing the masses. The owners of this machine are the Masters, or Proprietors, of Discourse. They decide what will be known to people, what opinion will be acceptable and what banned. Because of this machine, the imperialist rulers became so devoted to “democracy”: they know that this device renders democracy an empty slogan.

For instance, a few days ago there were primaries in Nevada, US. The second-place candidate in the elections was Ron Paul, an anti-establishment, antiwar, libertarian man. We won’t discuss whether he is good or bad for us; what is relevant is that the US media, integrated in one machine, did not report his achievement at all. I checked dozens of reports; his name was not even mentioned, though the third runner-up was mentioned at length. In other words, the media now is able to undermine even the bourgeois democracy it was supposed to protect and nourish.

This is not a new thing: Vladimir Lenin in his State and Revolution written in 1916 said that democracy, even bourgeois democracy can’t be realised while media belongs to private people who may limit access to it. What is new that is the level of integration: The privately owned newspapers of old could be good or bad, free or not, but today the media is concentrated in the hands of a few owners and syndicates, and they decide what happens as far as their viewers and readers are concerned.

The media machine is so well integrated that it caters to both left and right. Surely there is difference between right wing and left wing media, between, say, the Guardian and the Telegraph in the UK, or the Nation and the NY Post in the US, or even Liberation and Figaro in France. But this difference is not as big as it seems, for this is after all bourgeois media. This is moderated difference. Once in a blue moon, the left paper runs a radical piece, but usually the Left and the Right papers in the US and Europe are deeply anti-Communist, forever denouncing Stalin, rubbishing Muslims, supporting Israel, remembering the Holocaust and forgetting Hiroshima.

But they want to leave you a feeling of freedom, of choice. So they offer a few false alternatives to the public. For instance, regarding Cuba, they offer some choices: the bourgeois right says Cuba should be conquered or ostracised, while the bourgeois left says Cuba should be treated softly in order to bring about regime change. The people automatically choose the golden mean. The third choice, seeing in Cuba a laboratory for the future of society, is never considered.

This is the new feature: until now, there was a real difference of opinions expressed even in the bourgeois media, now – it is only a show. While a socialist regime tries to create consensus, to form a single correct opinion, modern techniques of indoctrination apply the principle of balance and golden mean. They are based on a psychological fact: being offered two ideas, every person seeks balance automatically, instinctively, and chooses the golden mean.

Consider Iran; they offer a choice: should the US or Israel bomb Iran, or should it be disarmed through sanctions? Germany demands more sanctions, the US tends to bomb. A better choice -- let Iran do what it wills -- is never even considered. Even Russia stays within this frame of choice. The Russian diplomats usually say that they agree that a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable, though they think that there are soft ways of convincing Iranians, instead of sanctions or bombs. Are they right? Leave aside for moment the non-aggressive character of Iran. Even if an Iranian nuclear programme was to be completed, Iran has no means of delivery. It has no missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload anywhere.

At the same time, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (Thursday 17.01.08) published a map http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/printed/P180108/a.a.1801.1.1.9.jpg showing how the new Israeli missile, Jericho-3, can reach Moscow and Berlin, and how they are perfectly capable of delivering some of the nuclear devices Israel possesses to these cities. As opposed to Iran, Israel is an habitually aggressive state. Leading Israeli editor Matti Golan dreams of wiping Germany off the globe, while Jewish Neocons like Max Boot describe Russia as a major threat. However, it is forbidden to discuss the danger this poses to Russia and Germany, but the danger of Iran may be and has to be discussed forever. The Russians could emphasise the Israeli threat; and provide Iran with some means of missile defence, or with the nuclear know-how to create a new balance in the Middle East. But the opinion-forming device of the West stops them.

At bottom, the problem is with the intellectuals. Once, the western intellectuals had strong Communist sympathies, but not any more. So many of us were seduced into supporting capitalism and accepting it, so many of us became willing collaborators with imperialism. In the US, Europe and Russia, Zionism played an important role in this weather change.

In the early sixties, Jewish youth – from San Francisco hippies to Kibbutz in Israel - supported the Left. Some Jewish newspaper owners and bankers were sympathetic to the Left’s course. But then, American Jews improved their positions in the US society. In 1965, American Jews had slightly less than average income, they were kept out of the top positions in the society, and they were for revolution and change; in 2008, the US Jews have three times more than the average American income, ten times more of the high positions than average, and now they are aligned to the right. Yesterday’s leftwing Jews became today’s Neocons; children of Trotskyites helped Ronald Reagan to destroy the Soviet Union and now blockade Cuba. Organised Jewry went rightwards, and carried along the media machine which became even more pro-zionist and even more unified.

You can notice it on the key question of Palestine. It is in interests of people of Israel and Palestine to eliminate apartheid in the same way it was done in South Africa (thanks to Cuban effort), i.e. by creating a single democratic state where Jews and non-Jews are equal in the eyes of law. Instead of it, and the best one may wish for Palestine, is proposed a set of Bantustans that was rightly rejected for South Africa. For this reason, the dreadful crime of starving the entire people of Palestine has been taking place without many protests, though Fidel condemned the siege of Gaza in clear terms. The option of equality, the South African option, may not even be considered in American and European newspapers. That is why the apartheid in South Africa was universally condemned and eradicated, while apartheid in Israel/Palestine is still flourishing.

Zionism is an enemy of Cuba and of every free Latin American state: Israel, the perpetrator of apartheid, always votes against Cuba in every round of voting in the UN and elsewhere. The best friends of Israel in the US are Bush and Giuliani, great enemies of Cuba. Israel supplied the Contras with weapons to fight the Sandinistas. Israel and organised American Jewry actively participate in the campaign against Hugo Chavez.

There are many men and women in Israel who love Cuba, who listen to your music and wear Che t-shirts, but the power in apartheid Israel belongs to somebody else, to enemies of Cuba and enemies of socialism. Likewise, there are many American Jews who love Cuba, but the powerful Jewish organisations are against Cuba and against Chavez.

The pro-Zionist Left had become a “good cop”, playing together with the bad cop of the Right, but leading to the same goal. This good leftist cop did much to undermine the Soviet Union. The British media lord Robert Maxwell, who befriended the Soviet leaders and published their books abroad, was an agent of the Mossad, the Israeli secret service. With such friends, the Soviets did not need enemies.

Our enemies say that a state-controlled media is not free. For them, ‘free media’ is only the media owned by rich media lords. I never could understand why a newspaper that belongs to a Rothschild (like the French Liberation) or an Asper (as all Canadian papers) is automatically freer than a newspaper that belongs to people, even through the state.

The state-owned media is an important asset which should be maintained in the interest of the people. Private-owned media will sooner or later be taken over by a rich media lord and integrated in the same machine. But the state-owned media must learn to offer choice. We know that there is pro-Western opposition in Cuba. We hear their voices through Western media. But there are also dissidents of the opposite persuasion, people who want more communism. I understand, their views are considered somewhat dated. But it makes sense to let them voice their views, so their voices will counter-balance those of pro-Western intellectuals, and our views will then rightly be considered the golden mean. In the Soviet Union, the collapse occurred BECAUSE the state-owned media was taken over by pro-Western apparatchiki, and they effectively blocked people’s access to other opinions.

The Internet should be eagerly embraced: first of all, because our positions are strong on the Web. The Masters of Discourse do not control the Web yet. There are thousands of sites friendly to Cuba and to the ideas of equality, sites that unmask the neo-liberal lies. Secondly, the Internet is very affordable. Nowadays, there is no need for cables, mobile internet can reach every village, every student can have it. For Cuba, where books are expensive and hard to get, the Internet offers the best solution. Educated Cubans will become an important element in the world battle of ideas, and they should be trained for this role. The Internet allows for that, as there are thousands of discussions at the same time.

The collapse of the USSR was caused to a great extent by the educated classes of Russia, the intelligentsia, which was very pro-Western in the final days of the USSR. One of the reasons was that the Soviet style of discourse did not allow for open discussion. They had never read Chomsky, they never listened to Fidel, in those days there was no Internet. They did not know of the strong anti-imperialist groups and voices in the West. They were innocent: they thought they were going to live like Harvard professors, while the whole of Russia would live like Switzerland, after the switch to capitalism. As a result, Russia suffered a lot, its assets were robbed, and the country was on the verge of total breakdown. The intelligentsia suffered a lot. Their fate was summed up by Viktor Pelevin, whose books I warmly recommend to you. He wrote: in the communist days, the Russian intelligentsia was supposed to kiss the ass of the Red Dragon and they were poorly paid for doing it. They hated the Dragon, and poisoned him with lipstick they received from the Green Toad. But soon they learned that the Green Toad does not need millions of intelligentsia, it needs only three intellectuals who can give oral sex to the Toad 24 hours a day while smiling delightfully.

The majority of the Russian people are deeply dissatisfied with capitalism – not only because their personal fate changed for the worse, but because capitalism made Russia subservient to the West. Now president Putin, who is a moderate nationalist, has taken a more patriotic course, and things have improved a bit, but even today, if there were true and open democracy, Russians would vote for an even stronger anti-Yankee and anti-neo-liberal course. Now capitalism is going through its deepest crisis in a long time, when much-sought dollars became valueless paper. The socialist view must be allowed to be actively presented in the media. And not only socialist: non-liberal, anti-bourgeois views in general should be let in.

While pretending that they are non-opinionated and non-committed, the Masters of Discourse are devoted to a pseudo-liberal, or neo-liberal paradigm. It calls for freedom of individual, for exclusion of the church from active life, for human rights, for the rights of women. It sounds good but these dogmas have to be balanced in order to be acceptable. Otherwise the society will be unbalanced.

For instance, human rights. Is not it a noble concept? But in the name of this concept, countries were conquered and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. Cuba is frequently attacked for its “human rights’ abuses”, for it limits these rights when they transgress the rights of the society. Our adversaries deny that society also has rights; for them only individuals, and preferably those with a lot of money, have rights. I was asked about the human rights in Cuba on a Russian TV programme, and I said: Indeed, in Cuba, there are horrible abuses of human rights, and we should speak against it. In Guantanamo, Cuba. But surprisingly, they did not want to discuss it. J The concept of human rights has to be balanced by obligations to society, said important Communist philosopher Simone Weil in her book called The Need for Roots, or Prelude to a Declaration of Duties towards Mankind. Rights; in her view, were 'subordinate and relative' to obligations. Simone Weil could give this correct answer because she refused the trap of liberalism. She refused to pay even lip service to liberal dogmas.

Rights of sexual minorities. Gays’ right to adopt children should be balanced by the right of children to have real father and mother. Their right to get “married” should be balanced by right of men and women to enter a unique sacral union called marriage. Likewise, a man’s right to eat pork should be limited by right of a collective of Jews or Muslims to have a place that is not desecrated by pork. This is not an unimportant issue: ordinary people, the vast majority everywhere, are against giving priority to sexual minorities’ rights over their rights to family life. In the US, this issue is used to create a schism between progressive activists and the masses.

Right to worship. Animosity between socialists, or communists and the church is not inherent; it happened within a certain historical context and it may now be over. At the acme of Revolution, in 1918, the great Russian poet Alexander Block envisioned the Red soldiers being led by an invisible Jesus Christ. If Russian Communists would create harmony with the Church, Communism would survive. It is good that in Cuba churches are open, that you have positive relations with the Catholic Church with its liberation theology wing, and care for your own colourful Santeria. But peace with the church means more interaction both ways. In the 19th century, the colonial government of Cuba deported Catholic priests en masse because they supported revolution. The present government may reverse that trend. In the Latin America, there are many pro-socialist priests and bishops, and they could be brought to Cuba, while anti-socialist ones may be asked to retire. Cuba may insist on its right to select the bishops in order to ensure that more progressive priests will take these positions. If Revolution embraces the Church, the Church may embrace Revolution.

And the last thing I want to tell you: be sure of your righteousness. You are on the right path. Life in Cuba has improved steadily since the 1990s. You still have the wise leader, Fidel Castro, who is akin to Noam Chomsky for his radical thought; he has strong will and the support of the masses, the dream of Plato’s philosopher-king. You still have people who fought off the American aggression, who brought low the armoured corps of Apartheid in the savannas of Angola; you have many people with the best education in the world. You are the light of the world -- keep shining, Cuba!

Supporting Ron Paul

by Israel Shamir and shamirReaders,

Should our American readers help the campaign of Ron Paul? There are many reasons for and against. His social policies are old-fashioned, but the bottom line is that Ron Paul is an isolationist, and this is a good thing for the rest of the world. Yes, we care about our American brothers and sisters, but first of all we need to unplug the US. A man who would take troops back home, who would cut the federal government down to size and hopefully save America by bringing its overseas Empire down, is good for us. Some people speak of positive American involvement, but meanwhile every American overseas involvement was extremely negative, leaving heaps of bodies and massive destruction on its trail. Ron Paul is often presented as an antizionist. He is no such thing, but it is not necessary either. Peace in the Middle East would come automatically, by force of gravity, if American involvement would be cut off. No American aid is the best the Middle East can wish from our American friends, because then the sides will be forced to make peace. Probably one would prefer a man with more positive program for the US population, but ze ma esh, as we say in Hebrew, he is all we’ve got. You’ve got until Tuesday to register as a Republican, and this is surely unpleasant, but who promised you a rose garden? The Democrats have no clear anti-war candidate, anyway Obama and La Clinton are not. That is why it is good to support him.

His chances to succeed are not big, but the man is fighting, he has much support, and it is good to show that there is a strong potential for stay-away candidate. Yes, his view of welfare is rather odd, but this subject should take second priority next to the real problem, and that is war and peace. Our friend John Spritzler rightly said that the elections in the US are hopelessly rigged and it is difficult to believe that elections will actually deliver the result we need. This is true, but the campaign will help people to find their way and their understanding of the problem.

Our readers objected to “isolationist” – apparently this word has negative connotation in the US today. They proposed “non-interventionist”, which is a bit long, or “stay-at-home”, which is rather disparaging. Probably one should find out a good and short English word for an American who wants to deal with American problems. Contemplation and rebuilding time, time out in the world affairs but prime time for internal affairs. If Ron Paul (or somebody else) can give it to the Americans, he will win.


From Charles F. Moreira, Malaysia

The term “isolationist” is probably a pejorative term to describe those who believed in the principles of the US’ founding fathers who advocated a foreign policy of trade and friendship with all but entangling alliances with none -- meaning that the US would be like Sweden, Switzerland or Finland and be more or less politically and militarily neutral, while having trading relationships with all.While I have no liking for Ron Paul’s domestic social policies, he’d do the world a favour by getting the US off our backs.Charles

From: John Remington Graham, Quebec


Shamir, -- Ron Paul believes in the intended meaning of the United States Constitution which was destroyed by the powers of high finance in the American Civil War, using Abraham Lincoln, Edwin Stanton, and Salmon Chase as their principal stooges in order to provoke secession and war, induce unimaginable casualties, run up a huge national debt, convert the bonds into an obligatory capital basis for a dominant and privileged system of banking and currency under their control, gain control of the money supply and the major news media, run the country as an invisible government, and transform the nation into a superpower. The surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House was the end of the confederacy of free, sovereign, and independent States which was established by the Philadelphia Convention, President George Washington, and the First Congress. If this tragedy had not occurred, the United States would not have intervened in the First World War, which means that Georges Clemenceau and Loyd George would not have been able to use and betray the United States in imposing exploitive and unjust terms on Austria Hungary and Germany, that Adolf Hitler would never have been able to rise, that there would have been no Second World War, etc. Think of how much better we would all be off.

Dr. Paul will make a fine effort this year, but his influence will be indirect. His cause will be well pleaded and highly appreciated, but will be symbolic, yet least of all will he be finished as a political voice, for he will grow in stature and help to moderate our course in future years. It is too soon to tell whether it will be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for the Democrats, but neither would be good for the country, for they are only panderers, and the American people know it, so they will reluctantly elect either John McCain or Mitt Romney. We may as well accept reality and proceed from there. The United States will emerge as a chastened superpower in a world which cannot exist without superpowers at the moment. A more realistic approach will be to urge a foreign policy of the United States in keeping with the principles of Washington's farewell address, easily accessible on the internet. I suggest you to read it, as it relates to foreign policy. Washington was not an isolationist, as myoptic historians have supposed, for he knew that the United States was destined to become a great power, but he wanted a foreign policy based on the enlightened national interests of the United States, avoiding taking sides in conflicts between other countries in foreign affairs and cultivating friendship with both sides in every such dispute as far as possible. As far as the Middle East is concerned, just substitute Jews and Arabs for Washington's preoccupation with neutrality between Britain and France, then read in the principles of Washington's foreign policy. That is feasible, and Dr. Paul will have an influence in making it happen. I certainly hope and feel a fair degree of confidence that such a change is coming. But we must be patient, because, after all, Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the United States was taken over by an international coterie of high finance, Clemenceau and Lloyd got their way in the corrupt diplomacy of 1919, Hitler was able to rise, there was a resulting Cold War, better called the Third World War, from 1945 to 1991, and it will take awhile for things to sort out.

The United States are not the great Satan, nor will the world be better off if the United States withdraw from influence abroad. The world does not work that way. The problem is that man is not naturally good, but is rather a fallen creature in need of redemption.

John Remington Graham
of the Minnesota Bar (#3554X)

From Richard Wilcox, Tokyo
Dear Israel,I voted by absentee ballot for Ron Paul in the Michigan primary. I also think he seems to make sense, despite his capitalist outlook on the world, at least he is strongly against the Iraq war and calls for removing all foreign US military bases! But, upon closer inspection one might have some quibbles about the fellow.Some advise we cut him a break but he had chances to expose Zionist Occupied Government and 911 on national TV and sidestepped and backpedalled on each of these, this is rather a pisser. Since no one, surely not him, actually believes he could get elected, at least he should be forcefully educating the public during this brief opportunity to break through that vast flowing stream of nitrogen rich detritus known as the main stream media.Of course, the media, the voting system, the political system are all a stacked deck, but that is another issue. I don’t mean to be a spoiler but here are two items worth throwing into the mix about Ron Paul.Best, Richard in Japan[One of the items blames Ron Paul for not speaking ‘truth’ on 9/11, another one, by a rather extreme writer Christopher Jon Bjerknes on http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com claims that “Zionist Wolf Blitzer runs to defend Ron Paul and avidly promotes him. Note the distinction that Ron Paul reciprocates by promoting Wolf Blitzer who supports him, but does not support the anti-Zionists who support him. It is the anti-Zionists who are being deceived and deceiving themselves, not the Zionists, and it is the Zionist controlled “alternative” media who are unapologetically making the Zionist stooge Ron Paul a star.” But then, Bjerknes probably considers you, me and Adolf Hitler a Zionist stooge as well, so it does not mean much]
From Tom Mysiewicz, Oregon
Israel Adam,I also support Ron Paul for the same reasons and with a few reservations, one of which is that I was a Libertarian when young. It is like the old nostrum about Communism: if one is not a Communist when he is 18 he has no heart. If he is a Communist when he is 30 he has no head. Ron Paul opposes racism as "tribalism". Depending on what you mean by "racism" (am I a "racist" if I want to treat all people equally except in breeding and living matters of my own choice, but have no objection to having a common set of laws for all races?) does he also oppose the Zionist experiment on the grounds that it, too, is racism? I once submitted this question to Murray Rothbard, the "objectivist" disciple of Ayn Rand's (or Alicia Rosenbaum). He did not answer my question but did frown at me. Then there is gold. It is obvious that for the world to continue laboring under a paper dollar standard is to be enslaved. Some sort of alternative to the dollar will be essential. However, William Jennings Bryan & the Populists of the 1890s demonstrated that people were being crucified on a "cross of gold", i.e., farmers and small businesspeople were forced to run up debts to produce and then had to come up with interest regardless of the outcome of their efforts. Increased production with fixed money supply (gold, in this case) led to falling prices in general. It was impossible for the overall interest to be paid on the debts, ensuring bankruptcies. Unless interest-free debt is generated (and even that would be problematic unless the money supply had limited elasticity) a new gold standard would produce the same problems seen in the last go around. (I was taught economics by one of the four American students of Ludwig von Mises, a Ron Paul influencer, by the way.) Regards,Tom Mysiewicz


From John Wheat Gibson, Texas

I totally agree. Ron Paul’s stupid social policies make no difference in this era. He will stop the US war against the whole world, and that is best for the US as well as the rest of the world. The fascist hypocrites like Hillary Clinton promise social programs like health care reform, but also promise to continue endless war for their Zionist paymasters, which has so destroyed the US economically that there is nothing left for health care reform. Our ruling class has beaten all our plowshares and pruning hooks into swords.

From Tony Lee, Queensland

Everyone but everyone should read this at least twice!

From Elizabeth M. Molchany, Virginia

Dear friend, Shamir:

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist as opposed to an isolationist. He favors trade and a variety of relations with the rest of the world. But he insists we must stop interfering with the sovereign rights of other countries, rights that none of our other countries, except Kucinich, Gravel, and, at times, Richardson, will recognize. As first responders to Charles Gibson’s question about what would these Democratic candidates do should they be presented “actionable intelligence” showing that Al-Qaeda was in Pakistan and where, Obama and Edwards immediately stated that they would bomb Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government. Even worse, of course, are the Republican candidates who encourage war and more war.

For progressives such as myself, Ron Paul has a number of uncomfortable positions which he has maintained consistently over a number of years, such as removing our participation in the UN. Nevertheless, I, a progressive, have admired him for about seven years and recognize that there may be no candidate who fully represents my views, save Kucinich and Gravel.

With respect to Zionism, Ron Paul frequently speaks out against the neo-conservatives, yet says that he supports Israel and wants Israel to have the right to do as they decide with respect to their behavior towards others. He says that in denying all countries foreign aid, Israel would be better off because more aid goes to the Arab recipients of foreign aid than to Israel. He ought to know, but somehow I doubt it. It is not an argument which pleases me but I see these countries as using their “foreign aid” largely for the purpose of purchasing military weapons.

Only Ron Paul is saying what we all want very much to hear. He is a good man, a kind man, and my choice for President.

Elizabeth M. Molchany, J.D.
Front Royal, VA


From Jim Dean, Atlanta

Shamir wrote that “the bottom line is that Ron Paul is an isolationist, and this is a good thing for the rest of the world.”
Not to be picky...but this is a glass half full or half empty thing. This could be viewed as Dr. Paul wants America to be a good neighbor by minding it’s own business. No one would call a neighbor who did this an isolationist as long as he was still polite and would come over to help when he saw a prowler or your house was on fire. But REGIME CHANGE is surely being a nosey neighbor and that is the foreign policy abortion that the NeoCons instituted without a public debate, a subversive act in my book (Jim Dean...Assoc of Former Intelligence Officers) and I will stand anywhere and repeat this and let them try to sue me.

As Shamir knows, most all of the past wars have been commercial wars. The famous WWI era British Parliament radical Francis Neilson once said there was never justifiable reason for British and French bakers, farmers, mechanics and taxi drivers to fight and maim and kill their German counterparts. Neither stood to gain anything from it. Only the elites did. And that is exactly the same situation we have now.

****His chances to succeed are not too big, but the man is fighting, he has much support, ***

The earth is moving under our feet, Adam. Finally, complainers over here are getting their check books out and accepting that there is no free ride if we want to save ourselves. To send someone out to fight for you with no money is a childish approach. I have been telling people this for years and they did not like to hear it. They wanted Santa Claus to pick up the tab.

What I am praying will happen is that people come to understand that the funding of fighting back is a lifelong struggle and needs to be a monthly permanent expense. One million American putting up $25 a month can do a lot of damage to the elitist problem we have here with $25 million a month as public relations ammo. Much of the country is fed up with elite control of the Dems and Repubs, but we are boxed in with nowhere else to go. Ain’t democracy wonderful :-)

The funding that Ron Paul is getting scared the elites more than Ron Paul does. They fear that even if he does not win, someone with more charisma might come along and hook up with that financial support, maybe even doubling it. The elites know what a message with money behind it can do.

My big fear is that we will miss the conversion of the Net movement to ‘boots on the ground’. By that I mean that active people on the Net are often on party members, and even fewer are actual local delegates which is easy to do and multiples your political significance a hundred times instantly. I discovered this late in life and it was a major regret. Once you call a politician and their staff types your name into the database and you come up as a delegate they become a lot more friendly. I got more ‘entre’ panache by being a delegate than a journalist, or even calling with a veteran hat on (which comes in second to a delegate).

If you have 15% percent of the party delegates in a county you can usually swing who gets to be county chairman, as they are often 40-60% close races. This is the big open door for reformers than many do not know about, nor do party members want you to now. Many county parties like their group to be small because it is easier to control. Given the choice of 250 members versus a 1000, they prefer 250...because, heaven forbid, new people coming in actually have the gall to want to change things.

I get emails from the Ron Paul Georgia campaign, but they do not respond to emails, nor do they return phone calls. Despite raising a lot of money I cannot see any professional infrastructure at all. Historically this means if/when he loses this reform movement will go up in smoke because his presidential candidacy is all that is holding it together.

There are rumors that he is saving money to run as a third party candidate if he loses the Repub primary. If he did do that he could throw the presidential election to the Dems. The thinking being that reforming the Republicans would be easy if they went down in defeat and we could get rid of all the old leadership as punishment for taking us down the tubes.

And lastly, despite the war and international focus of your piece, people here are really worried about the Ponzi scheme deal our economy has become and are really worried about the bottom falling out. Middle class financial equity has been shifting to the elite pocketbooks and only they are in good position to buy assets cheaply during a recession. We have an insane immigration situation which neither party has any intentions of dealing with seriously.

At this point we are a democracy in name only. We are being ruled. The elites have their hooks deep into both parties and their major interests will be protected no matter which side wins. But they do not have Ron Paul in their pocket. If he gains more momentum they will crank up the slime machine.

More and more are concerned with voting machine fraud here. All my computer Intel people tell me that it is mere child’s play to rig these machines. The code they write in to do this can erase itself when it is done so a later check up with not find anything. Here some good U-tube Congressional testimony on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9WVuKGwOM

Stalin had the word on this long ago...something about people having the vote was not a problem. Who was counting the votes was where you had to make sure you had control.

Jim Dean
Heritage TV...Atlanta


Below – polemics between Karin Maria Friedemann and John Spritzler.


Hit Piece Bruises Ron Paul
MariaHussain.wordpress.com

Martin Peretz, owner of the New Republic and funder of Hillary really hurt Paul yesterday. It was a typical Peretz thing to do - smear someone as a “homophobe” and “racist” the day of the election. The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick ludicrously claimed that Ron Paul personally called Martin Luther King a “gay pedophile,” and other outlandish claims he later retracted as mere gossip.
A very similar thing happened in Somerville on the eve of the vote about whether or not city funds should be invested in Israel or locally - in order to make it sound more “controversial” than the issue really was, all the neocon pundits went crazy, making up stories about how I am a supporter of the local investment movement and I’m a homophobic terrorist supporter that hangs out with David Duke. This is a common tactic. It makes you seem really “scary” to liberals. Liberals whose vote we were counting on.
If the American people can’t get beyond the “homophobic” smear in order to save their country, America probably deserves to be crushed like a bug quite frankly. People act exactly like insects. Running around doing what “they” expect, never thinking.
We have to be prepared in advance. I mentioned a couple weeks ago the Zionist press is going to do this. Dr. Paul needed a pre-emptive attack - a statement on how his program is best for Blacks and Gays. As we all know, there is no difference between Huckabee and Hillary when it comes to AIPAC issues. This game is a distraction. But there is a comeback.
Is Dr. Paul a racist? No, Dr. Paul WILL SET YOU FREE. We need to emphasize his prison release program and make sure people realize that Hillary and Obama are NOT going to end war, they want new wars. Ron Paul is the Black Man’s Best Friend. He is going to bring your sons home from the war and release all non-violent drug offenders from prison his first day in office, he said. Ron Paul has more Black supporters than any other Republican candidate and more active US military personnel supporters than any other candidate.
The issue is not which candidate will win or lose. The real issue is are we going to lose our country? Americans are such sheep. If we don’t somehow teach our friends to mistrust the media and double check everything, that’s it for USA.
The sad part is that Dr. Paul was polling at 17% but then a lot of those people went to vote Democratic because they were embarrassed by the homophobic racist smear that was circulated on the internet. It is true that there was reportedly voter fraud. The hand count of the votes puts Dr. Paul at 15% not 8% as the newsmedia erroneously reported. But that still means he lost 2% of the expected vote and all of the fence-sitters who could have put him above 20% just because of this typical Jewish smear tactic that was coordinated and planned to not give Ron Paul time to answer the accusations before the election.

Dr. Paul will not be counted as a winner unless he wins by an overwhelming landslide. Even then, the neocons might send in the National Guard to prevent him from taking office, except the Guard is in Iraq. (How convenient.) What happens next? No country in the world knows what the next step is, how to get free. The question is, how much longer will Americans fall for these tricks?

RON PAUL’S RESPONSE

Ron Paul has already responded to these ridiculous accusations and slammed them as political haymaking to coincide with the New Hampshire primary. “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: `I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
[We invite readers to share their views on Mr. Kirchick’s article by e mailing him at james.kirchick@gmail.com.]
Dr. Paul has an honest opinion. The neo-liberals have think tanks working night and day doing marketing analysis and using psychology to turn the public away from Dr. Paul. There are Israeli/neocon spies that keep tabs on every political activist in Boston and do write-ups about them in Jerusalem, and meet with the local & Israeli government about how to neutralize them. In Palestine they just use a laser gun if someone starts telling the truth. In America they character assassinate more often. Like we have any importance whatsoever. They flew the mayor of Somerville to talk to Ariel Sharon about how to silence eleven Boston responsible investment activists.
Basically how the Lobby won it (and it was a close race, 45 to 55%) was they made a bunch of slick posters with Deval Patrick’s face on it, AND they released a number of news reports and commentaries that totally twisted the positions and arguments of both sides, so that the average voter would be confused about what they were voting for or against. They also used a lot of psychological pressure labeling people as “racists” “anti-Semites” etc. so that the people who would normally support the ballot initiative got scared away.
These people are very serious about not wanting Dr. Paul’s voice to be heard and they don’t want him to win. But they always use the same tactics.
If they don’t succeed in turning Dr. Paul’s name into mud, they will turn on the organizers of the movement. It’s going to go on and on and we have to strategize. Is there a strategic planning wing of the People for Paul movement?

From John Spritzler:

The policies of the U.S. government are not determined by who we vote for. It is naive to think that they are. Virtually every modern war the U.S. government has waged was waged under the administration of a president who, when running for office, promised not to wage that war: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon "I won't send American boys to fight an Asian war" Johnson, Richard ("I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam war") Nixon, George W. ("I'm against nation building") Bush. Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to oppose NAFTA and then, when elected, put NAFTA on the fast track. Key government policies are determined by a corporate/government elite composed of upper class individuals and other individuals who curry their favor (like Kissinger, Rice, Clinton etc.) The elections are intended to keep people on a treadmill of fruitless activity every four years so that they will never take the kind of collective action that is required to actually defeat the power of the plutocracy who hold the real power in the United States. The subjective honesty and integrity of a candidate are only important insofar as they determine whether or not the mass media will allow that candidate to succeed in winning an election (the elite want a dishonest person to win, not an honest person.)

Ron Paul may be honest; I don't know. But what is clear as day is that his self-described "libertarian" ideology is pure capitalist ideology: it glorifies the individual pursuit of self-interest with people competing against each other (the opposite of solidarity) and the idea that as long as the "playing field is level" it is proper and natural that there will be winners and losers in life with the winners having huge personal fortunes and the losers having to work for "low wage" jobs. Ron Paul opposes government interference in the "playing field" of life because he wants people to be "free" to become a "winner" in the competitin of life. Ron Paul may not like what the winners in such a social system are doing today, but his ideology nonetheless reinforces the legitimacy of these winners and thereby increases their ability to grab and hold onto their power and do whatever they wish. Ron Paul's campaign is not going to result in a President Ron Paul, but it does spread the idea that our capitalist social system is natural and proper, and that the winners in that system deserve the wealth and power they have. This, of course, hepls the Zionists immensely.

From: Karin Maria Friedemann to John Spritzler

John, You are repeating Zionist trash propaganda. Wake up. You have until Tuesday to register Republican.

There is nothing in Ron Paul's platform that strengthens the warmonger. That is why FOX censors him. He has promised to save Social Security by cutting billions of dollars in wars and foreign aid. He has promised he is not going to put people out on the street. In fact he has promised to release all non-violent drug offenders from our prison system. Yes, he wants them to find a job. That is what you stand for.

Ron Paul is opposed to getting the US involved in Darfur and Iran. When he says he wants our military to patrol our own borders, that is "code" for getting them out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Europe. He is speaking to his audience. In fact he is a sort of Republican version of Chuck Turner. A community leader.

Ron Paul is a great man. He is a sincere believer in the US Constitution. If you don't throw all your support behind him and get us out of Iraq now, then everything you ever claimed to stand for has been proven false. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime that wants to limit the government. Support him.

He has promised an economic solution to the illegal immigration problem. He's not going to round them up. He is just saying fine, if you want to come here illegally, then you shouldn't expect us to subsidize your life. He actually does propose a plan allowing several million immigrants to come here legally.

An Air Force Veteran that served in Korea and Vietnam as a flight surgeon he has also delivered 4000 babies. He and his wife Carol have been married for 50 years. They have 18 grandchildren. A 10-term Texas Congressman, Ron Paul has a reputation for honesty and integrity. He keeps his promises. He has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget. As a socialist, you might prefer a more "tax and spend" philosophy. But Ron Paul is not opposed to garbage pick up and public schools. This is just fantasy.

Ron Paul has a philosophy of limited government, and free trade. The Arabs love him. They believe in free trade. All the problems in the Islamic and Arab and African world are because of sanctions and other aggressive US interventions in their economic freedom. Ron Paul will lift the sanctions against Cuba and Iran. Basically he's a really decent person who promised to give us what we have been saying we want.

Ron Paul is also the only presidential candidate that inspires people to want to take a bullet for him. He can unite this country but not with good people believing and gratuitously passing on typical Zionist hype. Either you can go on and on about how nobody lives up to your ideals, or you can be loyal to the Constitution.

If you want to create an anti-war movement that gets beyond the hippies, you have to rally around what the mainstream Americans believe in more than they believe in the Bible. That is the US Constitution. Most of the problems we are in today as a country come from not following our own Constitutional Law.

Karin

Our Congratulations to the People of Turkey

from Israel Shamir

Our congratulations to the people of Turkey on the election victory of the Islamic Party! This is a fateful event: the East returns to God, and finds its own way. Istanbul has followed Gaza: the AKP-ruled Turkey will be a friend to Hamas-ruled Palestine, to Islamic Iran, to Orthodox Greece and Russia, to the religious anti-occupation forces of nearby Iraq. She will again take her place of pride as the centerpiece of the Eastern mosaic, while its pro-American and God-hating generals, the Turkish Dahlans, will creep back to their barracks. Faith in God unites us, while the nationalists had divided us.

The legacy of Ataturk, this overlong infatuation with nationalist doctrines, overstayed its welcome. This founder of rump-Turkey came to power in a country decimated by the results of the WWI. Turkey suffered the fate of Austria: both countries were dismembered by the victorious Anglo-Americans. Both gave birth to ferociously nationalist leaders: Adolf Hitler was as anti-religious and as nationalist as Kemal Ataturk. They were not alone: equally anti-religious regimes came to power in Russia and Mexico. Ataturk was prone to drink his fiery raki at Ramadan in the public places to show his disdain of the faith, while Lenin spoke scornfully of ‘bozhenka’, goddie (almost doggie). At the other end of the world, Japanese and Chinese revolted against Buddha.

Today, it is easy to blame Ataturk and his predecessors, the Young Turks. They liaised with the dark forces, with Zionists, with Western imperialists, even with the then-strong Masons. They destroyed the centuries-long base of the Turkish Empire. They destroyed the language and the culture of Turkey. Instead of historic Arab graphics, they enforced the use of Latin letters and made millions of Turks illiterate. Their new way of spelling created a chasm with the old literature and with neighboring Islamic cultures. They privatized the lands and created a new landless class. But this account-taking is not needed now.

Moreover, one can understand them. The old regimes failed to protect the East from the Western onslaught, and in a way, people punished their God for this failure, even coming to prefer the more effective Western God of cash-and-carry. There was an urgent need to modernize the administration and the army, and to find a new language more suited to Western ideas. The faith was considered a pillar of the old regime, so it had to go. Still, let us be fair: by withstanding the Armenian, Greek and British offensives, Ataturk saved some of what could be saved, though he lost much of what needed to be preserved.

This development was a tragic but mercifully a short-lived one. The people of the East had a run of unbridled freedom, like schoolchildren when the teacher leaves the classroom. Very soon they discovered that the place of the strict teacher was taken by the strongest ruffian, and their freedom was just a temporary illusion. Under the followers of Ataturk, Turkey was colonized by the US; NATO bases sprung up on its shore and the Sixth Fleet found a home away from home in its harbors. Turkey became a close friend of the Zionist state, even though Zionists contributed greatly to the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. This part of history was forgotten, while the story of ‘the Arab betrayal’ was artificially promoted and spread.

Persecution of the faithful in Turkey lasted longer than anywhere on earth. The Russians repaired their churches, and the Japanese went back to their jinjas, but the Turks still could not grow a beard or wear national dress. Chomsky’s translator (and mine, too), our friend Fatima, could wear her chador only on a visit in the US, if not in the privacy of her home. Now hopefully this remnant of the old repression will disappear, and the Turks will be able to grow beards like Che Guevara.

The bigger problem of the nationalist regime was its lack of solidarity. The national elites did not care enough for the people, whether in Turkey or in Palestine – they were more interested in securing free access to Europe’s playground than in promoting the ordinary people’s wellbeing. The believers, the ordinary people of Turkey and Palestine, had to form their own grass-roots associations to protect their vital interests. Out of these associations, the Islamic parties spread forth. They are the true expression of the people’s will, and hopefully they will remain uncorrupted.

This victory is very important for Palestine, where the freely elected government of Hamas was made impotent by Israel and by docile Americans and Europeans. Now there is a chance of breaking the Zionist blockade. This is an important victory for the whole world, for an Islamic Turkey won’t help the US in its impending attack on Iran. Hopefully the Turks will forbid the US to use its bases and harbors, thereby squashing the invasion plans.

The nationalist parties failed in a big way: they blocked the legally elected Islamic party from rightfully nominating a new President, and went complaining to Europe, thus severely undermining the main achievement of Kemal Ataturk. Before causing more harm, they should look at the example of their brethren, the FLN generals in Algeria and the Fatah warlords in Palestine, who denied rightfully won electoral victory to godly parties, caused civil wars and earned much hate from the people by totally embezzling the their moral assets. There are Western forces that are ready to support any bloodthirsty general on condition that he will not allow people’s will to be realized, but a wise man won’t take this bait.

The Islamic Party AKP is not homogeneous – there are pro-American and pro-Eastern elements, so its victory is just a beginning, rather than the end. Our friends in the Party may be certain of mass support, if they stick to their independent line: warm friendship with Palestine, Iran and Russia, full cooperation with neighbouring Greece and Syria, firm protection of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, wholehearted rejection of the occupation regime in Iraq including its Kurdish proxy, generous support of friendly Islamic movements in the ex-Ottoman Empire, including Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. They will belie the Judaeo-American claim of “tyrannical Islam” by creating a solidarist, just, human and tolerant society.

There will be many changes in the East. If our enemies win, the East will disintegrate into a jigsaw puzzle of warlords and ganglands. This is what they did with the Ottoman Empire, this is what they did with Iraq, this is what they do in Palestine and plan to do in Iran. But today, after these elections, this development is not the only possible one. The AKP victory is a turning point, away from West-forced disintegration towards a new integration of the East.

Ottoman Empire, please come back!

by Israel Shamir

On Mt Carmel, there is a pleasant townlet, slightly more than a village, called Zichron Yaakov. Now known for its robust wine and Frenchy restaurants, in the days of World War One it was a home for the Zionist pro-British espionage ring, NILI. Its members, prominent Zionist settlers and citizens of Turkey, communicated with the British troops in Egypt, delivered to them news of the Turkish forces’ disposition and contributed to the Empire’s defeat. They were connected with Haim Weitzman, who squeezed the Balfour declaration from unwilling Brits and became the first president of the Jewish state. To this day, the NILI is greatly venerated in Israel, and schoolchildren are often taken to the museum where they are indoctrinated in Jewish loyalty to the Jews only, and in their duty to betray any other power if it is called for by their loyalty as Jews.

They had a good reason to betray their country, the Ottoman Empire, for if the Empire were still intact, the Jewish State with its millions deprived natives immured beyond the high wall, its millions of equally deprived guest workers locked in shantytowns would have never come into existence. Incidentally, the US attack on defenceless Iraq with its hundreds of thousands dead and ensuing civil strife would have never materialised, either, for Iraq was a part of that powerful Empire.

And not only has the Middle East suffered from the Empire’s demise, but NATO planes would have never had the fun of bombing Belgrade, if the Empire were still with us. Even Greece, the first break-away province, now devastated by the introduction of the Euro, and reduced to the status of an hotelier for wealthy Northerners, has a good reason to regret the days when Greeks formed the elite of the Empire from Alexandria to Constantinople. The Turks, the Empire-building nation, were admired and feared in Europe, while now they are treated as unwanted competitors for dish-washing jobs in Frankfurt and London.

We, the heirs to the Byzantines and the Ottomans, have now to deal with a great new challenge, the American colonisation project. The Mammonite forces now at the helm of the US are using the dismantlement of the great continental Empires to build their world-embracing neo-liberal one. In this new Empire, Western Europe will be ‘the old country’, Greece to Rome, object of imperial benevolence and guidance; while the rest of the world will be re-colonised. Instead of trying to fit into this plan by trying to join the EU, as some Turkish leaders hope to do, a better response would be to re-establish a big civilisation-based framework. Mankind is ripe for a new stage in its development, the re-formation of civilisation blocks. By the end of this stage, there will be five super-states, five civilisations: the US, Europe, China, Latin America and ours, the Commonwealth of the East. The alternative is a world colonised by Mammonite America.
Indeed, it is the right time to give a thought to bringing the Ottoman Empire back. The Empire did not fail because it was too big and unwieldy: in its heyday it was smaller than Brazil or Russia. It failed because inexperienced local elites grasped the poisoned fruit of nationalism, offered by the western Masters of Discourse.

Nationalism, this European invention, has probably killed more people than the Black Plague of old. Worse, it has not offered a plausible alternative to the unity of the Empire, where dozens of tribes and ethnic groups felt at home, in peace with each other. None of the break-away countries has succeeded in creating a viable state, and the Western predators continue to spread strife among smaller and smaller groups, as the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey and Iraq reminds us. The Pan-Arabism of Nasser and the Ba’ath Party, the Islamism of Osama, the Pan-Turkism of Ziya Gökalp and Halide Edib Adivar have all failed to propose a viable ideology to counteract the continuing onslaught of the Mammonite forces.

We should take a leaf from the book of our brothers in the EU. Europe has succeeded in bringing back the Empire of Charlemagne, which collapsed a millennium ago; our Empire is still alive in the memories of people, and in the glorious palaces, fortresses, mosques and churches. Our reconstituted Empire may and should embrace the entire post-Byzantine expanse: the bright future of Turkey, the Middle East, and the Balkans lays in joining in with Russia, Ukraine, and the Turkic republics of Central Asia.

These two heirs to the glory of Byzantium, the Russian and the Ottoman Empires, fought each other for centuries; but the same can be said of the French and the Germans, the heirs to the Western Roman Empire. If these eternal enemies in the West could succeed in uniting, it can be done in the East, too.

This summer as I travelled in Russia and Ukraine, I noticed much in common between the Russians and the Turks (or Tatars, in Russian usage). “Scratch a Russian and you will find a Turk”, fumed Churchill, his cigar in full blast. “And the other way around”, quipped Leon Gumilev, a great and late Russian historian, the guru of the Russian pro-Eastern tendency. Indeed, Russia as a state came into being as the union of the steppe-dwelling Muslim Turks and the forest-based Orthodox Slavs. Gumilev demolished the Western myth of the ‘Tatar (Turk) Yoke’ and correctly described the Moscow Rus as the successor state to the Golden Horde founded by the Turkic Genghisid princes. “Russia is unbeatable in its union with the brave Turks”, said Gumilev who identified the West as the greatest source of danger for Russian identity.

The National Bolshevik leader and a prominent writer, Edward Limonov, wrote recently of Russia being ‘a Turkey with German coating’. Russians still prefer ‘sharovary’, baggy trousers popular among Anatolian peasants and the Ottoman nobility of old. They squat like the Turks do, noticed Limonov. This positive feeling of Russians towards the Turks is so different from the European mistrust of them. It finds its way into the cinema: the new Russian blockbuster called The Turkish Gambit describes the Russo-Turkish war for Plevna without the usual, for Hollywood, racist overtones and presents Osman Nuri Pasha as a hero.

The commonality of Turks and Slavs goes back a long way. In northern Ukraine, I visited the erstwhile capitals of Russian princedoms, Novgorod, Chernigov and Kiev. Their princes married Turkic princesses, daughters of the steppe, and Turkic warriors formed an integral part of their retinue. The Russian epic lay of the 12th century depicts a Novgorod Prince Igor war raid into Turkic steppe; the prince was defeated, but his captor Konchak Khan gave him his daughter in marriage, and he returned home to Novgorod. A sizable part of Russian nobility still has Turkic names, be it Nabokov, the author of Lolita, or Usupov, the wealthiest Russian prince at the court of Nicolas II.

In a recent book, The Eurasian Symphony by St Petersburg writer van Zaichik, an alternative history of our part of the world is proposed. What would have happened if the Turkic Golden Horde’s enlightened ruler Sartak Khan, a friend of St Alexander Nevsky, had survived an assassination attempt and, as a consequence, the Russians and the Turks had remained in one prosperous state? Van Zaichik calls this resulting empire ‘Ordus’, an amalgam of Horde and Rus, embracing the bulk of the Eurasian landmass. Ordus is a land where modernity has incorporated tradition and religion; the family has remained intact; and even though there are wealthy men, the unbridled pursuit of wealth is frowned upon.

“We work together and contain our egoism”, this is the credo of Ordus, a model suitable for the East. Mosques and churches are plentiful; however, all the citizens are united in harmony. This image of an alternative universe was so attractive to the Russians that I spotted a few cars carrying stickers “I want to live in Ordus”. By the way, Ordus includes a Jerusalem Vilayet, where many of the descendents of Jews found refuge from Hitler’s rise in Germany (yes, there was a Hitler and a Germany even in the alternative universe), but live as equals with the native inhabitants.

A fascinating new Russian historian, Fomenko, has proposed a heretical model of history: in his eyes, there was always an Empire, or rather, The Empire; and the city on the Bosporus is the natural capital of Eurasia. Whether or not it was ever the case in the past, it can certainly be the case in the future.

Instead of fighting for leadership in Eurasia, the Turks, Slavs, Arabs (and their smaller neighbours) can unite their forces and make Constantinople (‘Istanbul’ is just a corrupt reading of Constantinople) their joint capital and the seat of the Imperial government. Constantinople can be our answer to Brussels, New York and Beijing. While the centuries-long quest for hegemony in Eurasia has caused many wars, a union would satisfy all desires: the Russians will have Constantinople as their capital, without dislodging the Turks; the Turks will have lifelines to the Crimea and Tashkent, even to the far-away diamond reserves of Yakutia, the land of the Pravoslav Turks, restored without fighting a single Russian. The Middle East will once again be incorporated in Eurasia as it was; and it won’t have to listen to orders from Washington, London or Brussels. Instead of being a far-away place, Turkey will become the meeting place for the people of Baghdad and Kiev, Belgrade and Cairo, Vladivostok and Ankara.

Let us raise the twin-headed eagle of Byzantium once again as the symbol of our Eastern Civilisation’s unity of the Orthodox and the Muslims, invest our ruler with the twin crown of Caliph of Islam and Emperor of the Orthodox, bury petty nationalisms of the recent past and begin an exciting new page in our history and the history of the world. The reconstituted Commonwealth of the East, the rightful successor to the Eastern Roman, Byzantine, Russian and Ottoman Empires, will possess vast material and spiritual resources, making it a world superpower, next to a united Europe, to the US and to China.

This Commonwealth will be united by an idea, as well as by material considerations. For East and West are different, split by a metaphysical cleavage. In the West, the Mammonite heresy brought in the American troop carriers of the World War, had won the day. They accepted a brutal faith of greed, of unbridled desire for individual success, of the right and duty to grab and consume as much as possible. They rejected solidarity in the name egoism they call “absolute freedom of man”. They destroyed Woman by turning her into an imitation of man; they destroyed Man by making him compete with women. Having rejected God, their churches are empty, their cities are centred on the business quarters, while ours are centred on learning, art and prayer.

The East has retained its Christian identity, for Islam is just a form of Christianity, though as distanced from the Nicene Orthodoxy as is the Calvinism of the Swiss. The East denies Mammon for we have not rejected God; we put spirit above material considerations as we have not rejected Christ al Mesih, we adore Woman for we have not rejected His Mother, Sitt Maryam. The East still loves nature, despises the dishonest rich, believes in the value of work, and prefers harmony to success. We like manly men and womanly women. We respect tradition and family. The US-led West creates a nomad civilisation out of an open society of atomised individuals disconnected from family and soil. In the Commonwealth of the East, we shall proceed in the opposite direction. We will discourage immigration and encourage capital transfer. We shall be in favour of the autochthon, for the autochthon knows the needs and desires of his locality better.

The West has proclaimed the sanctity of private property. We respect it so long as it is small, but reject its excesses. We shall rule against greed by taxing the super-rich, confiscating their property and sending them for re-education and ‘de-greeding’ to a friendly Anatolian or Siberian village. There will be no privatisation of resources, no sale of lands to foreigners, no dispossession of peasants. We shall discourage the growth of cities and promote the countryside. The West over-regulates private life; we shall uphold the eternal liberties of the East. We shall be good friends to our neighbours, or terrible enemies, if they so choose.

This fantasy is actually the only plausible alternative to having our lands colonised by the US or by the rising superpowers of Europe and China.

Jews and the Empire

By Israel Shamir

(A Talk given in the House of Lords, Westminster, on February 23, 2005)

Ladies and Lords, Gentlemen, Friends,

It is a great honour for this small writer from far-away Jaffa to speak to you in this ancient abode of democracy and aristocracy intertwined, and I wish to thank my host tonight, my dear brother, his lordship Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham in the heather-bound Yorkshire. I would give much to have another dear friend present here, the late Sir Robin, Lord Phillimore for much of my love and understanding of England is due to this friendship. I was but a pup, a young journalist, who came to work at your renowned BBC, and the Lord Phillimore was my bridge and my guide to the good old England of Pickwick Papers, for his home stood in this most English swat of land near Henley-on-Thames. Thus England became a love of my youth, England of pubs serving Brakespear Old Fashioned ale, of neat green squares of Kensington where I lived, of milk bottles on doorstep, of the punchy smell of bacon-and-eggs and burned toast in the morning, of the pleasant feel of the Guardian pages, of the calm bonhomie of English people, of your lovely maidens who are able to propose and prepare a nice cup of tea in the least suitable moment, of your men with their fair play, the green sweet and somewhat parochial England of Blake, Hopkins, Waugh and G K Chesterton, England as opposed to the Empire.

Much as I love England I came to dislike the Empire. The Empire was a vile 19th century invention. The Empire ruined Iraq and used poison gases against its citizens long before the present Bush-and Blair offensive. No land was too far or too near to be safe from the Imperial assaults: from Shimonoseki in South of Japan to Gondor in mountains of Ethiopia, from Beijing to Archangelsk, from the fishermen’ city of Oriente in Brittany to Baghdad, from Dublin to Kandahar, from Dresden in Saxony to Akka in Palestine, the Empire bombed them all. And I do not speak of some long gone days of Queen Anne, but of last hundred fifty years since the fateful accent of your first Zionist ruler, Lord Beaconsfield.

In our country, in Palestine, much of present sorrows are result of the Imperial intervention. The first Intifada, the great Arab revolt of 1936-1939, caused by the creeping Zionist takeover, was crushed by the Imperial forces with great severity. Thousands of native Palestinians were killed, executed, hanged, expelled from their land. The Arab defeat, al-Nakba of 1948 can’t be understood without the context of the previous Imperial war against the Palestinians. The Zionist armies administered the coup-de-grace to the disarmed, bleeding, powerless rural population whose elite and best fighters were eliminated by the Empire.

Oh, you say, why should we remember it now? We can’t let bygones be bygones for the Empire is not a thing of past. Like a monstrous parasite it migrated after sucking the juice of the Brits. Its capital was relocated to Washington and New York, while England remained a subservient part of Empire, a Greece to the New Rome, or rather a Tyre to the new Carthage. Not only your RAF assists the Americans, but your BBC, once a paragon of objectivity, became a propaganda tool for the New Empire.

I did not come to condemn you but to offer my condolences, for England is one of the Imperial victims. I came first time to your land some thirty years ago, and since then the Empire eats you up as much as it eats everybody else. London became a faceless cosmopolitan city, your cinema is destroyed, your streets are taken by international chains of shops, your newspapers belong to Zionists, and there is a danger the English will be turned into human dust by the Imperial burden as the Romans and Macedonians of old, to be followed by the Americans.

The Empire is not particularly good for people, including the people of the mother country. Let us consider Palestine. Thousands of young British men died in order to conquer Palestine and give it to the Jews. They committed many atrocities, killed a lot of natives, and enforced Jewish supremacy in Palestine. They received no gratitude. Elder people maybe remember the subsequent Zionist terrorist attacks on the British troops, the assassination of Lord Moyne, maybe they remember the two British sergeants who were kidnapped and hanged by the Jews, and their dead bodies were defiled, booby-trapped by the killers. Menachem Begin, our late Prime Minister, was particularly proud of it. Younger people won’t even know it, for your media, the mind and the nervous system of the nation, is hijacked by Zionists like Conrad Black and Murdock, and they won’t allow this knowledge to be remembered.

But it is vital to remember, for the new empire continues the ways of the old. Now in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East, for England – or even English business – has no need to be in Baghdad and Basra. Indeed, in the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble – and that is Jewish supremacy drive. In our country, Israel or Palestine, we can have peace today, if we were to agree to equality of Jew and non-Jew. But this principle, so carefully observed in Europe, is anathema to the Jews in Israel. Like in England before the reforms of 1832, your predecessors would not agree to equality of a lord and a commoner before the law; or in Rhodesia of Ian Smith, the white settlers did not want to be equal with the blacks.

Well, so Jews do not want to be equal. But why should you assist them in their pursuit of supremacy? There is an American joke [of Jay Leno]: "If God doesn’t destroy Hollywood Boulevard, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology." Indeed, if England keeps supporting the apartheid Jewish state, it owes an apology to Rhodesia and South Africa. Why, indeed, it does? This is not a rhetoric question. Why the New Empire went to war, committed itself to the vast expenses and dangers, antagonised bigger part of the world – and all that in the interests of Jewish supremacy?

In my book – that is the one I came to promote – I try to explain why the Jews have a special place in the Imperial conscience. Superficially, one can explain it by personalities, by the special position of the Neo-cons in Washington and of the Jewish media-lords in the US and elsewhere. Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking; just last month a Rothschild bought the French daily Liberacion, and an Israeli citizen bought a TV 4 channel in Sweden. This is a valid observation, but not sufficient.

The New Empire, even more than the old one, is infused with Judaic values on an ideological and theological level. This is the thing I try to deal with, because preoccupation with ethnic or religious origins of a person is not only improper but often misleading. Indeed, the strongest enemies of the Judaic values are often people of Jewish origin. Allow me to mention St Paul, Karl Marx and Simone Weil to make my point clear. Another example can be provided by Sir Carl Popper, a colleague of yours who referred to the Judaic concept of chosen-ness as ‘vile’. He also rejected an approach of a Jewish Year Book to have him included, for he said, he does not believe in race and has nothing to do with Jewish faith or values – despite his Jewish origin. Do not concentrate on ethnics, look for ideology. In your case, Michael Howard is less Judaic than Tony Blair, for the first objects to removal of British liberties and to sweeping anti-Muslim legislation, while the second brought this country into the Iraqi war for Israeli interests.

While a Judaic tendency is just an ideological tendency, a special feeling towards Jews is a symptom of certain pro-Imperial predisposition. For instance, Tony Blair is a great supporter of the Empire. But even if we would not know that, we would be able to guess: for he expressed unlimited support of the Jewish state. The Jewish state is the country where a Jew has more rights than a non-Jew. Three to four million of our native residents have neither right of vote nor citizenship rights for a single fault: they are not Jews. Do not forget, Rhodesia was dismantled for the equal sin of ethnic or racial supremacy.

This feeling that ‘Jews are special’ found now its expression in the story of Ken Livingstone and his sin coming hard on the heels of Prince Harry and his mishap. Actually, I have heard that at the next costume ball, Prince Harry will be dressed as Ken Livingstone. The Ken’s story is simple: the Mayor was rude to a hack. Being a journalist, I sympathise with the journalist; but being rude to is our professional hazard. However, the insult was blown well over normal proportions. If Ken would be equally insulting to a member of Royal family, he will be forgiven if not encouraged. But here – even the Students’ Union decided to ban Ken.

Your anti-racist feelings do not come into it. Some time ago I watched the Hard Talk with Tim Sebastian on the BBC. Tim was grilling a Uganda Asian businessman living in England. He told him: well, you Asians in Uganda were heavily engaged in the black market activities, smuggled hard currency abroad, despised the natives and refused to marry them. Actually the same accusations were traditionally levelled against Jews. If Tim would just try to say it to a Jew he would be kicked out of his job same day. But applied to the Muslims – they did not cause a stir. It was just a Hard Talk. So it is not ‘anti-racism’. In my view, this unbelievable out-of-proportion response to Ken’s affair shows again a mysterious connection of Jews and the new Empire.

One reason is that Jews like an Empire. If there is a choice between an England and an Empire, the Jews prefer an Empire. Benjamin Ginsberg, the Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University, wrote a book on this subject, called Jews and the State: The Fatal Embrace and he attests to this Jewish love of Empire. Any Empire: Franz Josef, the last Emperor of Austro-Hungarian Empire, used to say that Jews are the most loyal of his subjects. In your country, Disraeli was equally proud of his Jewish ancestry and devoted to the Empire-building.

A Jewish joke tells of two Jewish brothers in revolutionary Odessa; one of them emigrated to England and became a peer of the realm, another one remained in Russia, suffered as much as anybody, and eventually the Russian brother was invited by his British brother to London. The brother arrived, received English citizenship, had whale of time, went to Covent Garden, maybe to the Palace, at night the brothers come home, and the Russian brother began to cry. “Oh do not cry, told him the English brother, you had your life, I had mine, it could happen other way around.” “You did not understand me, - says the Russian brother, - I weep for India we have lost”.

This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance – indeed, the same people who were all for the Russian or French or British Empire now became ardent supporters on the new American Empire. Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se, and it does not matter who is the titular head of this Empire: Jews are good for an Empire, as long as they feel the Empire is good for them.

Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England. In my view, Islam is a form of Christianity, even nearer to the Nicene Creed than some Pentecostals or other American denominations. What is more important, they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide. Let us hope that its introduction will be important for England’s future.

This is the right time to overcome left-right divide: if Michael Howard stands on the right –for liberties - and Blair stands on the left – and for anti-Muslim legislation, for police control and for war, the terms have little relevance today. There are friends and enemies of the Empire in all your major political parties, and equally all the parties are Zionist-infiltrated. There is a need for new realignment in order to unite anti-Imperial forces for full withdrawal of British troops from overseas, for independence of England from the American Empire.

In the Apple Cart by Bernard Shaw, the US makes a bid to take over England, and a wise monarch keeps its independence. Disentanglement of England from the US embrace is much needed, an answer to the Boston Tea Party is called for.