Letter to Manuel Talens

from Israel Shamir,

[Manuel Talens, a Spanish writer and a translator of some Shamir’s essays, broke his contact with Shamir and called for a boycott as Shamir’s books were published by “Pedro Varela, a Spanish Nazi editor and a staunch defender of Hitler’s heritage.”]

Manuel, Your obsession with Hitler leads you astray. He is dead, don’t you know it? Who could possibly care whether Senor Varela is fascinated by his memory, or by memory of Genghis Khan, or Napoleon? What is more important to you, a live Palestinian child or a dead German ruler? Gilad Atzmon, whom you rightly admire, called for unity; you bring strife.

I do not enjoy being in the same trench (as you put it) with a Christ-denier like you, but political activity is not Thai massage, and enjoyment is not the main point of it. For me, our struggle is not a social activity, it is a battle for life and death. In this battle, you became a liability because you block my message from reaching people.

Why Hitler is so important to you? How do you survive in Spain among people who supported Franco, a staunch ally of Hitler? Why don’t you object if an author of ours is being published by a Jewish publisher, say by the New York Times which is on record of publishing favorable to Sharon texts?

I really could not care less about Hitler. I support a present Hitler (according to the Chief Rabbi of Israel), Ahmadinejad; I feel no qualms about yesterday’s hitlers, be it Saddam Hussein, Nasser (according to MacMillan) or Yasser Arafat (according to Begin). I was published in Russia by Stalinists, and you were told by President Bush that Stalin is worse than Hitler. “Hitler” is a generic name of an enemy of Jews, like “Amalek”. Your deadly fear of Hitler makes you a weak link for it (together with your denial of Christ) indicates your submission to the Jewish ordered universe.

I care little about Hitler and Nazis, but I have a profound distrust of anti-nazis, of these guys who walk around with Israeli flag and demand kaffiyes to be taken off. Indeed a man who is scared by the name of Hitler should stay out of Palestine debate, for he will have to spend much of his and our time by repeating that he is not an antisemite. I admire my Spanish publisher Senor Pedro Varela for his noble stand against Nato, against Judeo-American aggression in the Middle East, for his courage, for his readiness to deliver my message to the people of Spain despite police persecutions, for his love of Spanish history, Spanish people, Spanish church. Though my uncles fought for the Republic, though I did not hide my Communist sympathies, Varela did not run away like you do.

My reference to Christ is not in vain: He who befriended whores, fishermen and tax-collectors is my guiding light; His enemies the Pharisees who were careful whose company they keep are yours.

Right Ho, Lobby

By Israel Shamir


The inhabitants of a stately house are embroiled in endless squabbling; the maids are getting snippy, the engagement ring has been returned and the cook has sent in his resignation. Into the midst of battle strides the confident and clever valet Jeeves (played by Stephen Fry in the BBC series), who successfully brings peace to the warring household by presenting them with a common enemy, the empty-headed Wooster. United in their animosity, the lovers renew their vows, and the servants line up behind their masters. This elegant ruse, once described in Right Ho, Jeeves, a pleasantry by P.G. Wodehouse, has just been employed with great success by the impalpable force sometimes called the Zionist Lobby.

In a letter[1] addressed to the Times’ Editor, yesterday’s adversaries are today united, falling into line as though directed by the persuasive manners of an unseen Jeeves. Our Wodehouse players once squared off over important principles, yet suddenly they find themselves uncomfortable bedfellows.

Let us review our cast: [See the full list[2]]

· Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, enemy of apartheid, a friend of Palestine. Last week, the Jewish community caused the Minnesota University of St Thomas to ban him.

· The flamboyant Zionist, “Mr Lobby”, Bernard-Henri Lévy, the hairy heir to a slave owners’ fortune. He usually bashes Palestinians in his frequent TV appearances. When his Negrophobe friend Alain Finkelkraut was sued for too-explicit racist talk, Levy defended him. [Maria Poumier added: Bernard Henri Lévy tries to be known as a friend of Blacks. He inspired the “SOS Racisme” movement during Mitterrand’s presidency, in order to canalize the anger of young sons of immigrants; (the president of SOS Racisme is Harlem Desir, an unbelievable but real name of a son of Arab and Caribbean); now BHL leads the campaign against genocide in Darfour, supposedly for humanitarian reasons, but also because he does not want China to make business with Sudan, and he speaks very loud about it. Two weeks ago, he launched a big concert against the DNA tests that Sarkozy wanted to use in immigration matters - to prevent African fathers to bring too many children in France; (at last, the deputies voted for tests only to recognize the real link between children and mothers). BHL organized the banishment of Dieudonné, black comic, as an anti-Semite, though he was very popular; before Dieudonne made any antizionist joke in his one man shows, BHL had succeeded in ordering the French ministry of culture not to fund the film Dieudonne wanted to make about slavery; the film, called Le code noir, was written by a very respected professor and philosopher, Louis Sala Molins. Raymond Aron wrote in 1981 about BHL’s first mediatic book “L’idéologie française”: “Many Jews in France are feeling again threatened by anti-Semitism; as shocked people, they increase by their reactions the danger –somehow fictional- they face. This book says that danger is everywhere for Jews, because French ideology oblige them to fight at any time against an enemy that is hidden in the unconsciousness of millions of French people. The French who are not Jewish may conclude, after that book, that Jews are even more different from other French that what they supposed, if such an author, so much celebrated by the Jewish organizations, seems to be unable to understand a lot of expressions of French thought, being just able to reject them. BHL delivers “the truth” in order to make the French nation know its past and get rid of it; in fact, he is spreading salt on all the uncicatrized wounds. Being hysterical, BHL increases the hysteria of a sector of de Jewish community that already tends to insane acts.” L’Express, feb. 7, 1981.]

· Mairead Maguire, the brave Irish fighter for Palestine, who befriended our prisoner-of-conscience Mordecai Vanunu.

· Russian arch-Zionist Elena Bonner, the passionately anti-Muslim, anti-Communist, neo-liberal Reaganite. She fought against the “Evil Empire” for the rights of Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel and to take the homes of the Palestinian refugees.

· The great Nobel playwright Harold Pinter, who spoke so passionately against the Iraqi war.

· Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who gave you the Afghani war with its millions of refugees – and boasted of it.[3] Anti-Communist and a hater of Russia to boot, he provoked the Soviet intervention of 1980 and guided Osama bin Laden.

· Our brave actress, Vanessa Redgrave, who fought and suffered from many Lobby attacks.

· A leading French Zionist Andre Glucksmann, member of anti-Communist liberal left, who supported both the Chechen separatists and the war.

· The dedicated enemy of Pinochet, Ariel Dorfman.

· Pinochet’s greatest admirer, Vladimir Bukovsky.



What is the power that has knitted together this patchwork quilt, this motley collection of the good, the bad and the ugly? Could it be this anonymous NGO that came into being just yesterday called RAW in WAR? Its proclaimed intention is to “recognise women who are defending human rights in zones of war and conflict,” surely a worthy aim; to deny your signature to such a commendable undertaking would be to court public damnation. Yet one might expect Rachel Corrie, the brave American woman from Seattle who was murdered by the Israelis, to be one of the first to be recognized as such. Rachel Corrie died defending a Palestinian home from destruction. She bravely placed herself in front of a stranger’s home, believing in her heart that the man at the levers of the Caterpillar bulldozer would not, could not crush the life out of her for the sake of making one more Palestinian family homeless. But the beast did not stop, he drove on and smashed her body. The Israeli courts exculpated him, and the US Jewish Lobby has successfully banned a play based on her story, adding “the antisemite got what she deserved”.

So, was Rachel Corrie the first to be recognised by this august grouping? Not on your nellie. This NGO has been created to commemorate the late Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She was killed a year ago by persons unknown, and ever since that day the Zionist neocon machine has been attempting to implicate the all-too-independent Russian authorities in the murder. Her name, together with the name of Polonium-poisoned ex-spy Litvinenko, has become a battle-cry for neo-liberal anti-Putin forces. They even drafted Litvinenko’s widow to add her signature to the list, just in case you forgot one of the crimes laid at Russia’s door. Of course they included Daniel Pearl’s widow to add the obligatory anti-Muslim bias, and Warsaw Ghetto fighter Marek Edelman for the mandatory anti-Nazi angle.

How is it that the totally unknown Bulgarian researcher Mariana Katzarova (the official chairperson of RAW in WAR) could connect to so many lords and ladies, archbishops and barons, Nobel laureates, writers and VIPs to create this tour-de-force of a list? Is she more powerful than Berezovsky and Nevzlin put together? These two exiled multi-millionaire oligarchs have been keeping the Litvinenko and Politkovskaya stories alive for a year now, and they never generated anywhere near this kind of furore. The media events dedicated to the memory of Politkovskaya were organised by the New World Order destabilisation shock troops, a.k.a. the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, a US government-funded organisation “set up to legally continue the CIA’s prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad” according to Wikipedia. The new NGO’s list continues and expands upon these anti-Russian pressure tactics, in order to breathe new life into old news. The aim is to put pressure on a Russian president who adamantly refuses to give a green light to the planned Israeli and American bombing of Iran, who supplies Syria with its air defence systems, who stopped the oligarchs at their asset-stripping of Russia.

I do not intend to besmirch memory of a murdered journalist, and it is not necessary to do so. Logic will suffice: Anna Politkovskaya never presented a danger to the Putin regime, being quite unknown to general public; the idea of Putin demanding her death sounds a bit melodramatic. The investigation of her murder is still going on, but it seems likely that she ran afoul of some persons in the Chechnya insurgency or counter-insurgency. The Chechnya War was still a hot story a year ago, and today some ten Chechens and a rogue security forces colonel sit in a Moscow jail implicated in the murder. The Russian Attorney General recently declared that the murder mystery is almost unravelled. Politkovskaya’s son has expressed his full confidence in police efforts[4]. He believes that the actual murderers and their patrons will be found soon. Many Russian observers believe the murder was ordered by persons desiring both to undermine Russian society and to frame Putin. I have also expressed this view. This technique brings to mind the reports that have emerged from Lebanon, where anti-Syrian activists have been killed by pro-Israeli gunmen to stir up “sectarian” violence[5].

The Russian government and people have all condemned the assassination of Politkovskaya. The police are tracking down the killers, and the family is satisfied with the progress of the case. Is there more to this story? The answer is Yes if you are a neocon: there must be a link to Putin. Neocons use her dead body to undermine Russia. Against the wishes of her family, and against the interests of the Russian people, her name has become the lever to bend Russia’s will. The letter to the Times dances to neocon music.

Nobody can fault the signatories of the letter to the Times for what they wrote. They wrote very carefully: “We call on the Russian Government to bring to justice, in full conformity with international standards, both those who killed Anna Politkovskaya and those who have ordered her murder.” It is impossible to refuse to sign such a letter; don’t we all wish to catch the murderers? Yet what is the purpose of this letter? It effectively demonstrates that Zionists can mobilise even dedicated anti-Zionists and anti-war activists against Russia. Strange bedfellows, indeed. United, not against a war-mongering America, but against a war-stopping Russia.

All this fancy manoeuvring reminds me of the Wallenberg case. Raul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat in the Nazi Germany and Hungary, saved many Jews by providing them with Swedish passports and visas. In 1945 he was arrested by the Soviet security in Budapest as a spy, and died in jail in 1947. But he was not allowed to rest in peace: the Zionists invented a fairy tale that he survived and is still kept in a secret jail somewhere in Russia. They have turned his honorable name into a slander. Over the years, from the end of WW2 until the collapse of the USSR, they put together thousands of rallies – from Washington to Wellington - demanding the “release of Wallenberg”. Many well-meaning westerners participated in these demonstrations, and each innocent, manipulated soul helped chip away at the USSR, ushering in the present unipolar world of Judeo-American hegemony. Only after 1991 did the Zionists leave the Wallenberg family in peace, for his 1947 death could no longer be denied.

It’s not that Zionists give a fig about Swedish diplomats who saved Jews. There is another Swedish diplomat in Germany who saved Jews: Count Folke Bernadotte. Bernadotte was sent as the UN representative to Palestine in 1948 exactly for this reason: because he saved so many Jews and had enormous sympathy toward Jewish refugees. But he was a witness to the mass expulsion (Nakba), and he demanded that Israel let the Palestinian refugees return home to their villages. This good man of conscience was immediately assassinated by a future Israeli Prime Minister. That’s how it goes. The name of Wallenberg is given to streets and squares in many cities around the world; the name of Bernadotte is forgotten. This is the power of Jewish Lobby: they can decide whose name will be known and whose name will be forgotten, who will be blessed and who will be cursed.

But this is no miracle: they have harnessed the true power behind modern democracies: the multitasking machinery of mass media and public relations. Modern Russia (like the USSR of old) does not dance to their tune primarily because the Russian mass media has been placed outside their grasp; consequently it has to be destroyed. They are now using directing a plethora of human rights organisations and humanitarian causes to this end, as they used it in the Soviet days. Mme Bonner and others of her ilk demanded the right of return for Russian Jews, while denying the same right to Palestinians. Actually, we must never forget that these two groups are not equivalent: the Palestinians were expelled from their homes in our lifetime, while Russian Jews were declared to be long-lost Hebrews. There were thousands of rallies all over the globe, packed with well-meaning westerners – maybe you? – demanding this right for Jews and singing “Let My People Go.” But there were no rallies demanding the right of return for the Palestinians. If they were, they remained unreported, and the participants were blacklisted.

They delivered speeches deploring the lack of human rights in the USSR until the great ship went down, and then they delivered the assets of the Soviet people to the oligarchs. Apparently Yeltsin kept human rights well preserved during this great period of privatisation, for no one spoke of them. Yet when Putin rose from the ranks to return some of these ill-gotten assets back to the people, when he regained media from Jewish control, suddenly human rights violations became headlines.

We would be very naïve to accept the human rights mantra for its face value. Yes, I am very sorry for Raul Wallenberg and for Anna Politkovskaya; but I am equally sorry for Folke Bernadotte and Rachel Corrie; and I would not sign a petition for the former unless it contains the names of the latter. Otherwise, this is a trap for well-intentioned people: they can find themselves speaking for causes that are not their own, for reasons that they would find repugnant. As they speak against the infringement of human rights in Cuba, Russia, Iran, and Gaza, they are denying these besieged states even a psychological respite. Lay off, friends: let us first deal with the basic right to be alive, for this right is severely threatened by the US Air force. When this right is finally assured, we’ll deal with the rest.

Still, Jeeves was right: one should remember the common adversary. The same thought was well formulated by Carl Schmitt: an enemy is a most important political asset; and he should be chosen as carefully as a friend. The truly formidable power of the Jewish Lobby is its ability to unite people against its enemy, and to block competing attempts to unite. When we try to unite people against Zionists, the Jews activate their “guilt by association” weapon, and the weak-hearted begin to make excuses, saying we cannot stand with you, because you have been linked to a right-winger, or a Muslim militant, or a Christian fundamentalist, or a Stalinist, or a Holocaust denier, or a nationalist, or a racialist, or a terrorist, or whatever. And our efforts fall apart.

Their tactics prove that they do not care about human rights or democracy. They demonise Muammar Qaddafi and David Duke and Roger Garaudy and Russian Communists, but find no fault in warmongers Bernard Kouchner, Zbiegnew Brzezinski, and Ariel Sharon. We all know that Putin served in the KGB, but we do not hear often that the great liberal hope, the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni, emerged from the secret service.

When they want to unite people, there is no “guilt by association.” I might ask these wonderful (no irony!) people like Mairead Maguire, or Desmond Tutu, or Harold Pinter, how is it that they are not worried to put their signature next to that of war criminal and warmonger Brzezinski, next to Zionist and Negrophobe Levy, next to arch-thief Havel who privatised half of Prague for his own benefit? Probably they would not even understand me, because there is only one authority licensed to demonise and issue kosher certificates, and that is the Lobby.

Jews create and control the matrix of demonisation, and so they do not fear it, just as Neo could see through the Matrix of his world. Wasn’t the Borat movie plainly racist? You bet it was. However, this Cohen had only to say that he is a Jew, and all objections were voided. A Jewish organisation could write without hesitation “Sacramento's militantly anti-gay Slavic Christians are suspected of harboring the killer.”[6] Is it a racist statement? You bet it is. If you doubt, try to write “Sacramento's militantly anti-goy Jews are suspected of harboring the killer” and see how far you get.

In the last German elections, Frau Merkel made quite a few racist statements, stopping short of demanding the expulsion of all Turks living in Germany, but promising to stop Turkey’s membership bid in the EU so that no more Turks might come to Germany. She was allowed to say that and win, because she fully supported Israel and America, and therefore she has been certified kosher by the Lobby. As a result, Germany, a key member of anti-war coalition in 2003, is suddenly a potential participant in the coming war against Iran.

Besides its right-wing group of neocons, the Lobby has its left-wing project. In the 1980s, the Zionist Lobby-managed left-liberal (anti)communists provided the left leg for imperialism, for the war against the nations, for American hegemony. They were active in the last decade of the USSR's existence, when the Zionists succeeded in getting together many good and worthy people, from Jacques Derrida to Italian Communist leadership, and made them sing in unison, cutting off the left’s natural support for Soviet Russia. Their contribution to the end of the socialist experiment in Russia was decisive. After fulfilling this task, these French and Italian liberal communist parties simply faded away, no longer needed for the Zionist cause. Imperialism now firmly stood on its right, neo-conservative foot.

Yet the left is not dead. The letter to the Times is a first harbinger of the winds of change: the the Zionists have decided to bring their leftist play back to life. In France, they even present Levy as a symbol of “Left’s return”. With such Left, who needs Right?

Human rights idea could be good if these rights were universal. But the paragons of human rights usually stop where it is convenient for them. They are for the minority rights, rights of gays and rights of bankers and rights of Jews, but they are against rights of the majority, the right to live and to bring up children and to sustain one’s family, and the right to go to church or mosque unmolested. One of the darkest figures of the world affairs is Bernard Kouchner, the new French Foreign Minister. A Zionist and a human rights activist, he supported all past interventions based on human rights – the bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Somali and Iraq, you name it. He ruled over NATO-conquered Kosovo, and allowed his pet Albanian gangs to burn churches and to expel the Serbs. Now he supports Bush plans to attack Iran and Israel’s plans to strangulate Gaza[7]. This is the face of a human rights paragon.

Nor has an alleged socialist Kouchner any problem with serving under Sarkozy. Sarkozy ran for the President under the banner of Le Pen. He took Le Pen’s slogans, Le Pen’s ideas and Le Pen’s voters, with one big exception: Le Pen was against the Judeo-American Empire. That is why, while Le Pen was demonised by the Lobby, Sarkozy was extolled. Now France is going to renege on the greatest achievement of Charles de Gaulle, on his 1966 liberation of France from the NATO yoke. Sarkozy and Kouchner are to return French troops under the US command, and to return American bases into France in the greatest revert of French foreign policy since Petain-Laval. Sarkozy – Kouchner link gives the lie of the Left-Right dichotomy: they may be united in the support of Israel and the US, and they may be united in its rejection. This question – support or rejection – is, or should be the “Friend or Foe” signal on our radars.

This is a question of life and death: if we have a common Zionist enemy, we shall be at peace; if we have no common enemy, they will find us other enemies. Putin’s Russia, Ahmadinejad’s Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, Cuba and Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Burma, all can be turned into enemies. Until recently, the Arab states were united with Iran and Hamas in their rejection of Zionist schemes. Switching gears, the Zionists offered a different animosity: Sunni Arabs against Shia Persians. And it worked: the Arab states accepted their idea that Iran is the enemy; and that Islam of Hamas government is the enemy. . As soon people forget that Zionism is the main enemy, they are started on the march to a war.

Equally, democracy is a good idea. But only the democracy that comes from the word “demos,” people’s rule - not from the word “demo” like in “demo version” (in Victor Pelevin’s words). The democracy standard-bearers gather around George Bush, they are ready to justify every aggression by the need to establish democracy; but they reject the right of Palestinians to elect Hamas, or the right of Venezuelans to elect Chavez, or the right of Cubans to elect Castro, or the right of Russians to elect Putin. NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, that CIA-financed subversive organisation, is in reality the greatest enemy of democracy because their democracy is a tool of subjugation to the Judeo-American paradigm. What’s worse, in Russia and Burma, Cuba and Venezuela, the leaders become wary of democracy, and this is an unfortunate development.

Thus the distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists is the most important distinction, the great divide between war and peace, life and death. Do not cross this line. Read the “Friend or Foe” signals carefully. Do not support the enemy’s initiatives even if they appear to be of wonderful intention. Always remember the bottom line: what is the purpose behind every petition, each rally - even a letter. Do not let our adversary to set an agenda with his righteous indignation, honeyed words and sophistic devices. If we shall set the agenda, we can usher in peace; if we shall follow their agenda, we shall face war.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article2599269.ece

[2] Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elena Bonner, Tatiana Yankelevich, President Vaclav Havel, Harold Pinter, The Hon Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vladimir Bukovsky, Andre Glucksmann, Gloria Steinem, Sergey Kovalyov, Terry Waite, Cbe, Susan Sarandon, Alexei Simonov, Gillian Slovo, Baroness Kennedy Of The Shaws, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Marek Edelman, Elisabeth Rehn, Mariane Pearl, Asma Jahangir, Sister Helen Prejean, Ariel Dorfman, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael Cunningham, Eve Ensler, John Sweeney, Jonathan Schell, Noam Chomsky, Marina Litvinenko, Lyudmila Alekseeva, Desmond O’Malley, Anne Nivat, Victor Fainberg, Lord Judd, Lord Rea, Lord Giddens, Lord Ahmed, Baroness Williams Of Crosby, Baroness Meacher, Professor Yakin Erturk, Elena Kudimova, Natasha Kandic, Caroline Mccormick, Sister Marya Grathwohl, Heidi Bradner, Meglena Kuneva, Elizabeth Kostova, Esther Chavez, John D. Panitza, Dubravka Ugresic, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Victor Navasky, Aidan White, Holly Near, Elizabeth Frank

[3] Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser in Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998 p.76. He admitted he intentionally provoked the USSR’s entry to Afghanistan by fanning and bankrolling the insurgency against the legitimate government in Kabul. Asked whether he regrets it, he replied: “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?



[4] http://www.rian.ru/society/20071007/82792712.html

[5] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909946.html

[6] http://www.jewsonfirst.org/

[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/19/wiran119.xml

Demons and Angels

By Israel Shamir

Demonisation of one’s enemy is a relatively new invention. In the good old times, men fought and then made friends – and then fought again, like the valiant heroes of the Iliad and like the gallant knights of King Arthur. The warriors who fought and killed each other will forever drink mead and fight at the same table in the Valhalla. True, the Old Testament tells of Joshua who initiated the first Nuremberg trial by killing five captive kings in the name of the Lord for they “hated Jews and fought against them.” [Joshua, 10]. But from the time of Joshua and until the 20th century, defeated kings were rarely killed and a good fight had little to do with hate. The ideological wars of faith – the Crusades – weren’t exceptional from this point of view as the Muslim and Christian warriors did not forget they – and their enemies - were human. Don Rodrigo El Sid served in turns the King of Castile and the Emir of Saragossa; Pagan Clorinda was a heroine of Torquato Tasso’s Gerusalemme Liberata. At the famous wedding in besieged castle of Kerak, the Crusaders had sent besieging Saladin a slice of wedding cake, and he enquired which tower the newly-weds would sleep in, so his army would turn their mangonels elsewhere. Prince Igor of Kievan Rus attacked the Kipchaks, the people of steppe, was defeated and captured, but married the Kipchak Khan’s daughter while in captivity. In 19th century, Goethe of Germany and Lermontov of Russia admired Napoleon the enemy of their countries, while Kamal and the Colonel’s son exchanged gifts after exchanging shots at Fort Bukloh of Kipling’s ballad.

Things began to change a hundred years ago, with advent of democracy and mass media as there was the need to convince a lot of people that a war is necessary and justified. The “good guys/bad guys” simplification of Hollywood supplanted the old division of “friend/foe”, and the foe became intrinsically and irredeemably “bad”. This was bad news, because a foe can become a friend, but a bad ‘un can’t become good. He had to be killed, and indeed he usually was killed at the high noon. Admiration for the enemy became impossible; every war became a war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. In such a war, there is no place for compassion; cruelty towards civilians is de rigueur.

A first serious bout of enemy demonisation was launched by the US media in order to pull unwilling America into the World War One against Germany, as the reward promised by Weitzman to Balfour for Palestine. In the words of Benjamin Freedman, “after the Zionists saw the possibility of getting Palestine, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands.”

The Germans were accused of making soap out of British POWs (yes, the soap story of Nuremberg fame is just a replay of the old sham), of bayoneting Belgian babies (this was replayed in 1991 when the Iraqis were accused of throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators), of sinking a passenger liner (loaded with munitions, but this was considered quite an atrocity thirty years before Dresden). There is a wartime poster showing the German as a dreadful gorilla snatching a fair maiden, a precursor to King Kong.

This demonisation of Germans only increased in 1930s, allowing for boycott of German goods with Zionist Palestine as an opening, and after the war it was crystallised into a new hierarchy of evil with Hitler incarnating a new Satan of flesh and blood. Since then, evil Nazis appeared more often than cowboys in so many Hollywood movies, and we live today in a world, where reference to Hitler equates to ultimate evil.

Now, in order to demonise, one has only to draw a similarity with Hitler, and that will do. Arabs and Muslims fight against Jews, thus they are Nazis and may be considered evil. In 1956, the British PM Macmillan described Jamal Abd el Nasser as a “new Hitler”, for he nationalised the Suez Canal. In 1982, Begin called Yasser Arafat “a new Hitler” as he had to justify his aggression and bombardment of Beirut. Stalin was “worse than Hitler” in a speech by President Bush. Now it is the turn of Iran, whose president is habitually described as “new Hitler” and his people – as “islamofascists”. Ironically, supporters of Iran compare Bush with Hitler, and Bushites with Nazis. This brings to mind Huey Long of Louisiana; when asked whether fascism could ever come to America, he replied, "Sure. Only it will be called anti-fascism".

Hollywood has produced a few movies featuring demon-exorcising priests; they can make one about a demonising rabbi based on Shmuley Boteach, an author of a book on the necessity of hating evil who wrote: “Ahmadinejad is an international abomination who can lay strong claim to being the single most hate-filled man alive.” The politicians weren’t far behind, thus Netanyahu: “Hitler went out on a world campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first.” And Gingrich: “This is 1935 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we’ve seen”.

The Israelis wax livid with fury when they are compared with Nazis. They immediately open endless “point out the difference” contest: the Nazis shod boots, we boot shoes, they snarl in German, we sing in our melodious Hebrew, the Nazis were against wonderful Jews, we are against beastly Arabs. Surely Israelis are different from Nazis; and it’s preferable to be a Frenchman in German-occupied France, than a Palestinian in Jews-occupied Palestine. There is no Palestinian Celine, no Palestinian Sartre or Gide to side with the occupying power for the Jewish occupation is harsher.

The Americans like to consider themselves the ‘good guys’ vs. Hitler’s ‘bad guys’. But objectively speaking, there was not much to choose between the two sides. The Americans were beastly enough: they burned Dresden, nuked Hiroshima, starved to death millions of German POWs. Even their racism was quite comparable: in the US, a sexual union of an Aryan and a Black was considered a criminal offence many years before the Nuremberg Laws, and remained so many years after the Nuremberg Laws were voided (Alabama dropped it from their book of laws in 2000).

I do not bother even to speak about the Soviet side in the war, for it became a commonplace to view Stalin as morally equal to Hitler, and the Communists as being morally equal to Nazis, though this claim is based of some fantasy of Cold War statistics, and actually Stalin’s Gulag never had as many inmates as George Bush’s prisons.

Now, demonisation is a heathen thing. Only an arrogant and godless man can, in his hubris, claim inherent moral superiority over another mortal. This is why demonisation was not known until the Church was marginalised. It is no better to demonise flesh and blood than to idolise it. We have learned “Do not make for yourself a god”; now it is the time to learn “do not make for yourself a demon”. We are blessed with our friends, and we are blessed with our enemies. We are not angels, and our enemies are not demons.

In understanding this, we may learn from Jews who stubbornly and wisely refuse to demonise their own. Ariel Sharon was a brutal killer of women and children who reputedly wanted to be “a Hitler to Palestinians”; but The New York Times of Sulzberger disregarded our futile attempts to demonise him, he was well received by the high and mighty, and he went down in history as a kind old soldier. The Jews did not allow the demonisation of the Jewish executioners of Stalin’s Secret Police nor even of ruthless Jewish mob killers and recorded them all as “men who loved their Jewish mothers”.

The Jews do not fall into the trap of demonisation for they know: everyone can be demonised. This lesson is given in Talmud on the example of Job, who “was perfect and upright and feared God and eschewed evil”. Still the Sages proved him a bad ‘un, just for fun of it. The Writ said that Job did not sin with his lips. Sages said: but he did sin within his heart. If this were not enough, Job had said “he that goes down to Hell shall come up no more” – and thus denied the resurrection of the dead, etc. Thus anyone can be demonised, and therefore none should be demonised.

Moreover, the wise Jews did not demonise Satan himself. Why did Satan incite God against Job?, asked a Talmudic Sage, and he answered: God became overenthusiastic over Job, and He almost forgot the love of Abraham. Satan interfered for the best of reasons, in order to preserve the rightful place of Abraham. “When Satan had heard this homily he came and kissed the Sage’s feet”, says the Talmud (Baba Bathra 15). This was wise, for Satan is not equal to God, and he has a place in His plans.

This theological fallacy of demonisation was well understood by the German Catholic political scientist Carl Schmitt. He is often presented as a man of no moral scruples; but this is a result of misunderstanding him. For him, “the distinction between friend and foe cannot be grounded in morality. It is a matter of us against them, not of good against evil. Both sides are human, so a politician who characterizes “them” as morally inferior or “bad” risks not only the hubris of arrogance but also the blasphemy of denying God to be the creator of all. The power of the Lord is over all, even over one’s enemies. It would be blasphemy to treat one’s foes as less than human. We are all moral equals, on Schmitt’s view, even though politics sometimes makes it “necessary” to kill one’s enemies”, in the short but precise presentation of modern American philosopher Newton Garver.

Scott Horton misunderstood the idea of Schmitt so completely that one wonders whether it is even possible. He wrote: “For Schmitt, the key to successful prosecution of warfare against such a foe is demonisation… According to Schmitt, the norms of international law respecting armed conflict reflect the romantic illusions of an age of chivalry.” It's the ther way around: Schmitt was for the War of Uniforms, carried out between two armies, where civilians are kept out of trouble. He was against demonisation, for it is unacceptable for a religious man. Horton is aware that his reading of Schmitt is flawed, for he writes, correctly: “Schmitt expresses from the outset the severest moral reservations about his concept of demonisation. It is, he fears, subject to “high political manipulation” which “must at all costs be avoided.” He uses Schmitt to attack John Yoo, a Bush appointee who followed Alan Dershowitz into permitting torture, but instead of referring to Dershowitz the Zionist, he appeals to Schmitt who can be presented as a “Nazi legal thinker”. The goal (attacking Yoo) is worthy, but the means (connecting to Schmitt) are foul.

Horton’s article can be understood as a follow-up to the extreme demonisation of 30’s Germany. He refers to Leo Strauss, “a lifelong admirer of Carl Schmitt, a scholar and teacher of his works” but fails to see the great difference. Schmitt was aware of God, Strauss was so godless that he shocked Zionists in Jerusalem of 1930s by his total atheism. Of these two men, of Strauss the Neocon precursor and Schmitt the Nazi legal mind, it’s Schmitt who was calling for a human attitude to an enemy, while Strauss dehumanised all.

Horton writes: “Carl Schmitt was a rational man, but he was marked by a hatred of America that bordered on the irrational. He viewed American articulations of international law as fraught with hypocrisy, and saw in American practice in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a menacing new form of imperialism.” I wonder what is irrational about it? Even a man on our side of the barricades (and Horton is here) can’t admit that the state that vetoes every resolution condemning Israel and calls to war on Iran is so hypocritical that Molière would rewrite his Tartuffe if knew about it? Horton’s typically Jewish attitude – “if we are criticised, this is irrational hatred” – became the hallmark of American thinking which grew out of demonisation of the enemy.

You can’t demonise just one person and stop: the demonisation of one causes more demonisations to follow. The attacks on Muslims, Arabs, Iranians are a follow up of the preceding attacks on Germans. Thus the Canadian Jewish columnist Mordecai Richler wrote: “Germans are an abomination to me. I'm glad Dresden was bombed for no useful military purpose. The Russians couldn't withhold and mistreat German prisoners of war long enough for me.” And Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel improved on him: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate—healthy virile hate—for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.” From here, it was a short jump to Dan Gillerman, Israeli representative at UN, calling the Hezbollah “ruthless, indiscriminate animals”, to 1982 Israel's chief of staff Rafael Eitan pushing Palestinians as “drugged cockroaches into a bottle”. But now, even Germans happily follow this line of accusations against their late Fuehrer, and join in the universal condemnation of Iran and Arabs. “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a rising Adolf Hitler with his stand on Iran's nuclear programme, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said”.

Indeed, people who suffered from attacks of hostility are keen to join the group and to be hostile to somebody else, it is only a human, or even simian quality. Enchanting Mexican painter Miguel Covarrubias mentions such a case in his immensely entertaining book on Bali. In a Balinese household, an angry tame ape climbed up on a tree and tossed coconuts all over. In vain the owners tried to get the ape down by offering him sweetmeats. Then they cornered a pitiful dwarf, a servant, and made a convincing scene of thrashing and punching him, and lo! The ape climbed down and joined the persecutors in the free-for-all. In no time the silly beast was back in a cage. In order to stay out of the cage, the ape should steer clear of the temptation to join in a permitted attack on somebody else. Apparently, this is a hard task even for humans.

Thus, if we want to restore peace in the world, we have to eschew demonisation altogether, including the Pole of Evil, Adolf Hitler. I really could not care less about Hitler, one way or other. I neither admire nor demonise, neither love nor hate him, nor Napoleon nor Genghis Khan. These scourges are dead. I have a warm spot for the present Hitler, Ahmadinejad; I feel no qualms about yesterday's hitlers, be they Saddam Hussein, Nasser or Yasser Arafat. My father fought for Stalin, and you were told by President Bush that Stalin is worse than Hitler. For me “Hitler” is a generic name of an enemy of Jews, like “Amalek”.

Indeed, a man who feels so strongly about Hitler is a heathen; he denies God and chooses flesh and blood as his personal god and his personal demon. That is why the observant Jews of Neturei Karta could go to the Teheran Conference, while godless ones were scared off by the name of the dead Austrian. The demonisation of Hitler caused the deification of Jews, and thus the new theology of thoroughly heathen neo-Judaism was created.

Creation of a man-made Pole of Evil caused a number of anomalies in public discourse. The demonisation of racism is a result. One may disapprove of a silly man who considers himself being of a better breed than others. Still this is a very common sort of vanity, shared by many people of “higher castes”, i.e. of noble, priestly and Jewish descent in our society. Belief in superiority of the white race, or of Anglo-Saxon stock is just a democratic version of the higher-caste vanity, suitable for people who can’t claim noble or Jewish descent. If and when these supposedly higher-caste persons will give up their vanity, when they renounce their titles and make a bonfire of the Threat of Assimilation book by Lipstadt, then they may attend to the mote in their commoner neighbour’s eye.

Small-time racism is hardly a problem in our society. I, a dark-skinned and moustachioed Mediterranean man, have never been on the receiving end of it for 60 years of my well-travelled life. Admittedly I never tried to annoy the native inhabitants by playing loud foreign music, practising strange customs in public or behaving in conspicuous way. There is some tribal like and dislike in Israel, mainly between various Jewish tribes, and it is surely unpleasant enough, but I am not sure it is up to bad old racism.

Racism is so little of a problem, that the search for sacrificial racist went completely astray. French MP Georges Freche was thrown out of his party because he said that the national football team of France should not be all black. He publicly said, “nine of 11 players in our national football team are black. Three or four black players would have been a normal proportion.” Blacks indeed are well endowed in sports and music, like the Greeks of Homer, but maybe the native French are also interested and are entitled to play football in their own team. Yes, this sentence appears slightly off the strict reading of political correctness; but it is certainly common sense.

These equality ideas should be given a say, not a free run. It is all right for Swedes to have a female pastor from time to time, but there are no male pastors anymore, and very few worshippers. Likewise, if all football players were black, maybe the native French will not be interested enough even to watch football anymore. Indeed, the French national football team should not be all (or predominantly) black; and the leading journalists and talking heads of French TV should not be all (or predominantly) Jewish. The Africans and the Jews came to France, are happy with French hospitality, and do not intend to displace the natives. If the French socialists continue to be that strict with their members, they will frogmarch into oblivion with the dinosaurs; and Segolene Royal will be just the name of a politician who stopped le Pen to advance Sarkozy.

In England, a ballet dancer Simone Clarke expressed her view that the country has enough immigrants, and the endless process of importing workers should slow down or even cease. Well, it is a view, certainly a reasonable one, and within the Bill of Rights, or Magna Carta or whatever nowadays authorizes freedom of speech. Some crazy anti-racists went to demonstrate against the dancer’s being engaged in the Ballet. The dancer is a good person, not a racist in any meaningful meaning of the word; not that it matters, but she is even married to a Chinese dancer; but for godless, obsessive Hitler-demonisers even such a moderate view may not be expressed, and if expressed, the person should be kicked to the street, unemployed and homeless. As a Communist, I do stand for Simone Clarke’s right to belong to BNP and to dance Giselle on the scene of English National Opera, and the active protesters should go first to protest Barbara Amiel writing in the Daily Telegraph.

In Germany, these anti-racists and anti-Nazis walk around with the Israeli flag and demand kaffiyehs to be taken off like Schneider of Leipzig:

“What we all share is support for Israel and coming out against any form of anti-Semitism, fascism and sexism,” says the center's director, Christian Schneider, 26.
A good example of the pro-Israel activity in Leipzig is the public campaign against wearing kaffiyehs, once an essential accessory in the European left-wing activist's wardrobe. "Do you have a problem with Jews or is it only that your neck is cold?" was the slogan for the campaign organized by the center in recent years. The campaign aimed to prevent young people from wearing what the center perceived as a symbol of identification with the Palestinians and with anti-Semitism, reported Haaretz.

These crazy things are a result of the extreme demonisation of Hitler. Again, we may learn from Jews, who expel immigrants by planeloads, fight miscegenation and assimilation while always adding “this is not racism”. Why is it not racism? In a Jewish joke, a Rabbi was delayed on a trip, he noticed Sabbath is approaching, so he prayed and a miracle occurred: it was Sabbath everywhere, but still Friday in the Rabbi’s Cadillac. Likewise, opposing (or even mouthing the word) miscegenation is racist; but miraculously, not for a Jew.

“Racism”, i.e. preference given by a native to a native at the expense of a stranger is a perfectly normal and normative behaviour. This attitude is ordered by the Bible, this attitude safeguards the intimate relationship between a man and his soil. In the Jewish prayer, God is asked to give rain and to disregard the prayers of a stranger who asks for a dry weather. Some moderate “racism” is the best guard of the land; and you have no reason to worry: cosi fan tutti, they all do it.

Mind you, “racism” is not a virtue in the Christian book. But nor are greed, gluttony, lust, envy and pride. Still we do not see a politician being expelled from, say, a Socialist party for running a gourmet column, for giving an advice on the stock market, for marching on a gay pride parade, for buying a car as good as that of his neighbour. There are “anti-hate” laws, but no “anti-pride” laws.

Whatever one may think of racists of old, today this title of contempt is given to anyone who does not deny roots and attachment of a man to its soil and community. The archetypal racist of our days, say, a racist saint, would be Simone Weil, who considered roots a virtue, and uprooting a sin. (She vehemently objected to the demonisation of Germany in France 1939). Thus, whoever supports immigration, sins, for he supports uprooting. So one can argue whether it is better to be good to one’s neighbour the potential immigrant by allowing him to come and stay; or by forbidding him to leave his home country. There is no sure-fire answer to this question, and I say that as a perpetual immigrant. And if you are told ‘you are racist’ for you object to mass immigration, respond with ‘You are uprooting poison’, as Simone Weil did.

Being unable to “demonise back” the Jews and the Americans; the Nationalists and the Far Right tend to demonise the Russians, the Soviets, the Communists. They are not too successful, so we do not have to fight it much. Suffice to say, the mad numbers of “millions killed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot” are just a figment of imagination. None of them killed as many as the American Empire did and does. None of them exiled so many as Israelis did.

There are no Evil Empires, only unchecked ones. Soviet Russia was not an Evil Empire, nor was Communism embodied in Stalin and the Gulag. Sholokhov, Block, Pasternak, Esenin, Mayakovsky and Deineka embraced the Revolution and expressed its ideas in art. It was a land of the great and partly successful experiment in equality and brotherhood of Man, of a brave attempt to defeat the spirit of Greed. Communists and their supporters tried to liberate labour, to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth, to remove poverty and free the human spirit. Communism brought forth the social democracy of Europe.

Germany was not an Evil Empire, nor was the spirit of organic traditionalism embodied in Hitler and Auschwitz. The Traditionalists tried to establish an alternative paradigm based on Wagner, Nietzsche and Hegel, to go to the roots and traditions of the folk. Not in vain, the best writers and thinkers of Europe from Knut Hamsun to Louis Ferdinand Celine to Ezra Pound to William Butler Yeats to Heidegger saw a positive element in the Traditionalist organic approach. If Russia and Germany had not been demonised, it is quite possible we would not have seen them coming to such extremes.

We have to restore the balance of mind and discourse lost in the aftermath of the World War Two, due to the too-complete victory of the bourgeois ‘Judeo-American’ thought. While condemning excesses and war crimes, we should regain the kingdom of the spirit from Mayakovsky to Pound. There are no evil men, we are created in the image of God, and all ideas are needed to produce new thought.

Carter and the Swarm

by Israel Shamir

Publication of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a great event for America and for all of us. It's not that Carter said anything we did not already know about Palestine. Before Carter, we already knew that the Zionists had established a racist apartheid regime in the Holy Land where Jews have rights, and goyim have duties. Before Carter we knew a native Palestinian has no right to vote, move or work freely in his land -- that he is locked up behind the twenty-foot wall. Before Carter we knew that the US support allowed the atrocities to occur and the apartheid regime to entrench. But what we did not know was that there are prominent Americans who would dare the wrath of organised Jewry and spell it out loud.

Why did President Carter do it? Why did he risk his peaceful old age and gently fading glory to endure an attack by Israel's Fifth Column as merciless as the Four Columns' onslaught on Gaza? He was moved by compassion, that supreme Christian virtue of feeling together with the suffering and the oppressed. He saw the suffering of Palestine and he could not keep quiet. He upheld an honourable American tradition: that of Mark Twain who condemned the US atrocities in Philippines, that of Henry Thoreau speaking against the Mexican War. This is a universal tradition, too: Multatuli unmasked the Dutch atrocities in Indonesia, Roger Casement did it to the Belgians in Congo, Radishchev bewept the fate of the Russian peasant. And their voices changed our world, though not immediately. Carter is not a radical -- a man of hotter temper would call to eliminate the infamy called «The Jewish State» altogether. Carter's message is soft and gentle; so soft and compassionate that only the arrogant and power-intoxicated won't be able to live with it. Others (including me) have been harder and more explicit, but then, we others weren't former US presidents.

Why now? The apartheid system in Palestine was bad enough ten years ago to warrant his intervention, but this despondent helplessness we now witness is a new phenomenon. The hope kept alive by Camp David, by peace with Egypt, by the Madrid and Oslo conferences, is dead. A year of severe blockade has engendered a confrontation between the Palestinian parties and the Jewish wet dream of an inter-Palestinian civil war is about to come true. The Holy Land is on the verge of collapse. President Carter is 82, and he is not afraid of anything. At this age, in this stage of life, statesmen are likely to speak their mind, like the Malaysian PM Mohammad Mahathir did after his retirement. This is the time for unpalatable truth: the ideological and spiritual guidance of the West, dislodged from the hands of the Church, passed over to the usurpers of Zion. While they rule, Palestine has no chance.

Though most ordinary US Jews are sane and sensible, these decisions are made by super-rich, super-powerful, super-chauvinist Jews who are anything but. They are the power pushing for war. Carter wants to stop the disaster in the Middle East, by convincing the sane and rebutting the arrogant. Thus the President joined the fracas, as traditional WASP America tries to regain lost ground and save the country they love from destruction. The WASPs, with their immense property holdings, traditions and roots found themselves marginalised by the Jews, with their death grip on the media and universities: indeed, Spirit rules over Matter. The reports by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group and Walt – Mearsheimer are the first salvos fired by this WASP Intifada. A Jewish American columnist (a resident in Israel writing for Israel’s Haaretz) named Burston correctly stated that “Carter's true intended target was the organized American Jewish community.” Carter pointed out the main reasons for apartheid in the Holy Land, says Burston:

* Jewish control of [the US] government: “It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians.”

* Jewish control of the [US] media: “What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.”

After Carter spoke, he was immediately counter-attacked by organised Jewry – you couldn't miss it! In my native Siberia, in its short and furious summer, you can watch a swarm of gnats attack a horse, each small bloodsucker eager for his piece of the action. After a while, the blinded and infuriated animal rushes headlong in a mad sprint and soon finds its death in the bottomless moors. The Jews developed the same style of attack. It is never a single voice arguing the case, but always a mass attack from the left and the right, from below and above, until the attacked one is beaten and broken and crawls away in disgrace.

Each attacker is as tiny and irrelevant as a single gnat, but as a swarm they are formidable. Observe them separately: Dershowitz, an advocate of torture and of hostage killing, an apprehended plagiarist who never was elected to any position of authority and commands no respect, demands to debate the president. It is indeed beyond chutzpah; but Dershowitz is supported by other Jews in prime positions and his ridiculous demand is seconded by both university and media until this thieving nonentity gets equal time on a TV channel to present “his case”. Another gnat is a Deborah Lipstadt, a nonentity brought forth by the Washington Post. Plenty of others are even smaller than these two, for instance 14 Jews who gave up their positions at Carter Center. If they were not able to keep the media in their hands, they wouldn't be heard by anyone but their spouses.

Their technique is quite simple: They switch the focus of argument onto the personality of their adversary. Thus, instead of discussing apartheid in Israel, we discuss Jimmy Carter, whether he is a bigot and antisemite (thus Foxman, the “bad Jew”) or he is not (Avnery, the “good Jew”). The correct answer is “irrelevant”: Carter’s love for Jews or lack of it has no bearing on the question of apartheid in Palestine. Likewise, if we discuss the situation in Bosnia or Kosovo, we do not go into our sentiments towards Serbs, Albanians or Croats. But Jews are different!

For instance, General Wesley Clark said that rich Jews, the great donors of Washington politicians, push for war with Iran. Well, this can be discussed, maybe even denied, but instead they derail the discussion into another topic, whether Clark is an antisemite. Matthew Yglesias provides the sources for the whole kosher hog, from comparison with The Protocols, to the inevitable quote from Foxman who says Clark had “bought into conspiratorial bigotry”. From this moment, Clark will stick to defending himself, and the guys will take care that his hands will be full. Here again, the correct answer is a polite shrug: who cares whether Clark is a bigot? Maybe he is also a paedophile and usurer, but this ad hominem has no bearing on what he said. And an accusation “you do not love Jews” is not much different from “You do not love your aunt”, and you probably have learned to live with it at the age of six.

A good book to accustom oneself to this sort of attack is Michael Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita: this marvellous book shows the Jewish critics’ swarm attack on a writer who dared to write about Christ. Indeed, whoever mentions Christ will experience it sooner or later.

I also had a personal taste of this swarm attack. During the Tsunami disaster in Thailand I discovered that the Jewish undertakers, Zaka, forced the Thais to delay mass burial of victims for a day or two, despite the real and immediate danger of epidemic diseases, in order to avoid a real calamity: that holy Jewish bodies might be inadvertently buried together with the goyim. I was told so by the members of Zaka team who were quite proud of their feat. I wrote about it (Tsunami in Gaza). It was republished by a few sites. Then, a British Jew named Manfred Ropschitz began an ad hominem campaign against me. Other Jews joined the fray, discussing whether I am a Jew, or a “Swedish-Russian Nazi antisemite”, as if this had any bearing on the tsunami story. Instead of shrugging it off, other supporters of Palestine switched to this piquant subject. They carried their discussion from The Times to their email lists, until eventually, another Jewish “antizionist” commented with deep satisfaction: “Shamir is marginalised and brought into disrepute”.

Ropschitz did not try to disprove the story, for the story was true. He wrote: “With an army of journalists crawling over the Tsunami story I'd expect to have heard such shocking news by now – if it's true. I am a journalist and I don't believe it.” No, gentlemen, you won’t hear a true story if it is not acceptable to Ropschitzes of this world. They will hunt you to the far-away corner of the world, and there are not many people who care to risk their well-planned attacks. Indeed, one ought to be a real kamikaze to enter this fight. The Ropschitzes, these quite ordinary Jews who fully identify with their community, are the key to the swarm attack. There are many Jewish media-lords, even more Jewish editors, but it is the Ropschitzes that clinch the party line. These willing executioners of our freedom, these foot-soldiers of the media lords, automatically defend “the Jews” (i.e., the organised Jewish community) at any price. Ordinary human beings of Jewish origin can be of any opinion. Likewise, ordinary Americans do not decide whether their country will attack Iran or not. But Bush and Cheney alone can’t fight the Iraqi war, and the Jewish media lords would be powerless without their willing executioners of freedom.

The Gentile philosemites are even worse, observed Eustace Mullins, the legendary American writer whose best-selling books (running into the millions) were never published or distributed by the mainstream press. He wrote:

“It has long been common knowledge since the incorporation of the three [US] major national television networks that each of them was owned, operated and controlled by Jews. Now at last, or so it seemed, the Christians of America would have their own Christian television network on which they could observe the tenets of the Christian religion. Or so it seemed. And when the CBN began its daily broadcasting, what was its daily message? We must love the Jews. We must support the State of Israel in all its depredations and its immoral devastation of the Holy Christian Shrines in the Birthplace of Our Saviour. We must help the Jews, and we must, above all, avoid the greatest sin, the sin of 'anti-Semitism', whatever that is. Even the Jewish networks do not broadcast as blatantly pro-Jewish propaganda as the Christian Broadcasting Network.”



A man died this week in France, a real saint, who was known by the affectionate appellation of “Abbè Pierre”, a priest who fought with the Resistance, helped the homeless, provided for the poor and was a great friend of the Palestinians. In 1996 he was hounded almost to death after he expressed his support for another friend of Palestine, Roger Garaudy, who wrote a book called The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics. A victim of Jewish swarm attack, he went into seclusion in Italy and Switzerland, deserted by the very people he fought for. His sorry fate should be remembered by the French, and bother their conscience. If the Maid of Orleans was executed by the British Occupation regime (though using French collaborationists), no such excuse is available for those who ostracised the Abbè Pierre: they just got frightened by the swarm attack.

This fear of Jewish swarm attacks has already brought much sorrow to mankind. In 1930s, the famous American aviator Charles Lindbergh called for the US to stay out of the approaching war in Europe. He was attacked by the Jewish media as a Nazi and a Hitler sympathiser, was besmirched and “overnight Lindbergh went from cultural hero to moral pariah”. Now again, the US is being pushed by the same forces into a new war, this time in the Middle East. Let us try and stop it by being fearless, for as a Jewish Hassid spiritual song hath it, “haikar lo lefahed bihlal” -- the most important thing is not to be afraid at all. Carter brought us hope that there is an America the world can live with: a non-aggressive, democratic America, whose policies aren’t decided by the rich donors, but by the ordinary Americans who voted against the war, and who today gather in Washington calling to stop its escalation.

The Tyranny of Liberalism

By Israel Shamir

A Talk given at the conference on Religion in the International Relations: Liberalism and Tradition, International Relations Faculty, St Petersburg State University,
24 November 2006


Modern Liberalism is the dominant paradigm in the US, and it plays a major role in Europe, in post-Soviet Russia and elsewhere. This line is preached by the powerful world-wide mass media syndicate whose elements are ostensibly independent yet they transmit the identical message James Petras has called The Tyranny of Liberalism.[1] A “liberal tyranny” may strike some as oxymoronic if not a contradiction in terms since Liberalism likes to represent itself as the neutral ground of freedom rather than as an ideology and as an arbiter of religious pluralism and freedom rather than an anti-religious ideology. Liberalism is the ideology than denies that it is such a thing; ask a liberal and he will tell you he is against the dominance of any ideology or of any religion.

In our attempt to pierce this protective colouring we shall apply some ideas of the late German thinker Carl Schmitt who learned of liberalism the hard way. After Germany was subdued and conquered in 1945, Carl Schmitt lived for a while in the Soviet and the American occupation zones, which were later converted into the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. On the basis of his comparative experience in the occupation, Carl Schmitt noticed that American Liberalism is a militant ideology less prone to compromise than Soviet Communism. The Americans demanded that Schmitt give proof of belief in Liberal Democracy, while the Russians never asked him to swear an oath upon the Communist Manifesto. This personal experience led Schmitt to conclude that the Modern American Liberalism is not an ideology-free live-and-let-live paradigm, but a positive ideology, and an ideology even more dangerous than the Communism he greatly disliked. Schmitt saw the traditional balance of power threatened by the new triumphant Anglo-American air and sea global imperium based on an aggressive ideology. For this reason he welcomed the Cold War, as he thought the USSR the only force capable of containing the American ideological drive.

In recent years with the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, many others have come to share Schmitt’s realization that Liberalism is an aggressive global ideology calling for certain principles to be implemented world-wide by force of arms. These principles can be described either in positive or negative terms: a restaurant guest and an oyster would describe the arrival of Chablis and lemon in different ways. Much depends on whether you eat or you are eaten. Let’s have a look at the menu from a dual perspective.

· Human rights OR denial of Collective Rights.

· Minority Rights OR denial of Majority Rights.

· Non-governmental ownership of media OR exclusive right of Capital to form public opinion.

· Women rights and protection OR dissolution of family.

· Homosexual unions OR denial of the sanctity of marriage

· Antiracism OR denial of “the need for roots” in Weil’s terms.

· Economic self-reliance, OR ban on social mutual help (in theological terms agape and charity)

· Separation of Church and State OR freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and a ban on Christian mission in the public sphere.

· Public elections of government («democracy»), limited by voters’ conformity to the liberal paradigm, OR denial of authentic self-determination.



Carl Schmitt postulated an important assumption: every ideology is a crypto-religious doctrine, or in his words, «all of the most pregnant concepts of modern doctrine are secularized theological concepts». Let us compare Communism and Liberalism in the light of this insight.

Though it originated in the West, Communism first arose in the society formed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and it had many features one would expect to find in a secularised Orthodoxy[2]. Poets felt it well, and Alexander Blok sang of Christ “with the blood-red flag, invulnerable to bullets, fleeting foot above the blizzard, in a white crown of roses” leading his Twelve Red Guards[3]. In the late Soviet days, the Russians proclaimed the Christian principle “Man is to Man a Friend, Comrade and Brother.”[4] The Russian Communists despised material comforts as had their Orthodox predecessors, and placed their sobornost (Catholicity, or togetherness-in-the-Church) and solidarity above all other virtues.[5]

Solidarity and Catholicity are features shared by ideologies Liberalism is hostile to. Last week, Yehuda Bauer, the Yad Vashem Memorial director, the High Priest of the Holocaust cult, in a speech given to counterbalance the Tehran Conference, said:

“There are great differences between National Socialism, Soviet Communism, and radical Islam, but there are also some important parallels. All three are or were religious or quasi-religious movements. Unquestioning, quasi-religious belief in Nazi ideology was central to the existence and policies of the regime, and it was Nazi ideology that was the central factor that produced the Holocaust; Marxist-Leninism was the quasi-religious dogma that everyone in the Stalinist empire had to swear by. The same applies to radical Islam.” [6]

This is undoubtedly true, or, in the light of Carl Schmitt’s words, rather a truism: if it is an ideology, it has theological underpinnings. We shall notice that Bauer did not mention one important ideology, contemporary with the three and at war with them. Just recently, some fifty years ago, Marxists-Leninists, National Socialists and Liberals sorted out their differences on the battlefields of Europe. Why does the Liberal Bauer give a pass to Liberalism?

Beyond being coy, Bauer’s significant omission has an important theological message: Liberalism’s claim to transcendence. A liberal places liberalism above “ordinary” religions and ideologies; on a higher plane than any religious or ideological construct. The adepts of any ideology other than Liberalism are “totalitarians” or “fanatics”, in the eyes of a Liberal. This arrogant attitude of the only possessors of truth reminds us of the Judaic narrative of the Old Testament, where the devotees of One God are exalted to a level above the “pagans”. Theoretically, this attitude of superiority was inherited by the three great religions of our oikouménè, of Eastern and Western Christianity and of Islam as well; but it wasn’t internalised. An Orthodox Christian did not consider himself a cut above Muslims and Catholics. However, modern Judaism (widely divergent from Biblical Judaism in other respects) preserved this unpleasant claim to superiority of its predecessor.

Bauer’s reluctance to name the religious component of Liberalism provides us with a clue pointing to something he might wish to conceal. But here is an additional hint. As Bauer continues to seek parallels in the three indicted movements, he positions their common antagonist:

“All three target Jews as their main, or immediate, enemy: the Nazis murdered them; the Soviets planned, in 1952, to deport all Soviet Jews to Siberia, with the obvious intention that most of them should die. The genocidal message of radical Islam to the Jews is loud and clear.”

If Bauer believes his claim about the Nazis is as true as his assertion about Soviets and Muslims, his place was at the head of Tehran Conference as the chief H-denier. If he does not believe his own claim, he is a liar and a defamer. The story of “Soviets planning to deport Jews” is an Israeli fabrication as false as a three-dollar bill and thoroughly debunked, too.[7] If Stalin and Hitler had read Bauer’s talk in 1940, they wouldn’t have gone to war. But what is important for us is that Bauer construes every modern movement based on solidarity, catholicity and community as “anti-Jewish”, while Liberalism is as Jewish as gefilte fish.

What indeed is Liberalism? Some scholars follow Weber and describe Liberalism as secularised Protestantism. Others pay attention to its anti-religious anti-Church tendency and see Liberalism as secularised Satanism. The late Alexander Panarin considered it a form of idolatry based on the “heathen Myth of de-contextualised Goods and their de-socialised Consumers”.

Armed with Schmitt’s thesis and Bauer’s testimony, we may conclude: the “liberal democracy and human rights” doctrine carried by the US marines across the Tigris and the Oxus is a form of secularised Judaism. Considering the predominance of Jews in mass media and especially among the media lords, it is only natural that the ideology they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this “non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique” Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique” love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands next to the White House. Support of the Jewish state is a sine qua non for American politicians. Bauer describes the horror of possible Nazi victory in such telling words: “There would be no Jews, because they would all be annihilated. This would end history as such”. In other words, history in Bauer’s eyes is about Jews. No Jews – no history. The rest of mankind are just sheep devoid of memory and futurity.

Secularised Judaism feels no aversion to Judaism, and this is the only religion protected within the dominant Liberal discourse. When some Russians tried to apply the Instigation of Hatred Law to Judaic anti-Christian diatribes, they were condemned not only by Jewish bodies, but by the White House and by the European Community as well. This week, a Lubavitch rabbi demanded that the Christmas trees be removed from Seattle Airport until a menorah was installed. The airport removed the trees, disclaiming its expertise in “cultural anthropology.” New York city schools won’t allow mention of Christmas but celebrate Hanukkah, Ramadan, and the silly Kwanza because they are all multicultural whereas Christmas is not. (Vdare.com is a good source for the war against Christmas strenuously denied by the media.) Every reference to Christ is fought off by the network of Human Rights bodies, ADL, ACLU and other PC enforcers, who never object to Jewish religious symbols.

When Secularised Orthodoxy, that is Russian Communism, conquered lands, they shared their faith and their resources with the conquered. Indeed, Soviet Russia was a net supplier to its “satellites”, and spent a fortune supporting Cuba, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states. After 1991, the ex-Soviet states remained owners of great industrial enterprises and energy complexes they thoroughly lacked before their integration within the Soviet Commonwealth. One of the more successful propaganda slogans of the USSR’s liberal destroyers was “enough of feeding foreigners”.

Secularised Judaism conquers lands in order to rob and destroy them. For forty years of Jewish rule in Palestine, not a single building was constructed by the authorities, but thousands were demolished. Although thoroughly secularised, the Jewish state embodies the paranoid Jewish fear and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal policies of the Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear and loathing on a global scale. The Secular Judaic Jihad in Iraq turned the fertile Mesopotamia into a wasteland. Countries that have been fully subdued by the Liberals – Haiti, Malawi – are the poorest of all.

Hold on here! you’ll say. What a load of trash! Judaism is one of the great monotheistic religions; Judaists believe in the same God we Christians and Muslims believe. Judaists are our comrades in the common struggle against godless subversion. Judaism has nothing in common with the anti-spiritual, materialistic, anti-religious cult of globalisation, neo-liberalism, consumerism, alienation, denial of roots, destruction of family and of nature. It’s the other way around: Judaism postulates the priority of spirit, the sanctity of family, the preservation of nature; Judaic communities are well known for their solidarity and mutual support, for tradition and for the togetherness of people united-in-God.

This is strong objection; and apparently it shatters our identification of Liberalism as Secular Judaism. But only apparently; for this objection is based on faulty premise. Judaism (like the Roman God Janus) has two faces; one facing the Jews, and other facing the Goyim, non-Jews. It makes two opposing sets of demands to Jews and to Goyim. This is the difference between Judaism on one hand, and Christianity, Islam, Buddhism on the other hand. These great faiths place no demands on non-adept except for the call to become one. The only thing the Church wants from a non-Christian is to become Christian. Judaism does not want to transform a goy into a Jew. It is almost impossible, almost forbidden, certainly disproved of. But Judaism places definite demands on a non-Jew who has the misfortune to be under its rule. He should not imitate a Jew, and thus the goy is forbidden to have a religion, he may not celebrate his own religious feasts, he may not help his brethren; he should be an economic animal. Secularised Judaism tends to be Judaism for Goyim, for Judaism-for-Jews has its sacral core.

Moreover, all the liberal ideas we described fit Judaism-for-Goyim.

· Denial of Group Rights. In Judaism, Goyim have no group rights. Jews are entitled to participate in the society as a group, but non-Jews should play as individuals, an attitude of “You have individual rights, we have group rights”. Communal property of goyim is considered as abandoned. In the Jewish state, Jews freely take over the lands belonging to Palestinians as a group; it is only about confiscation of private Palestinian lands that discussion is permitted. In Liberal Secularised Judaism, workers’ solidarity should be broken, trade unions must be dismantled, but rich men’s solidarity is permitted. Privatisation is such a denial of group rights: if an asset does not belong to a private rich person, it is up for grabs.

· Minority rights and denial of majority rights. In Judaism, a non-Jewish majority has no rights; certainly not over Jews, and this is fully inherited by Liberalism. In the Russia of 1991-1993, the victory of Liberalism over Communism was achieved through the media de-legitimisation of the Majority: the Russian people were called the “Aggressive and obedient majority” as opposed to the Enlightened Minority of Jewish oligarchs. An enlightened discourse in the West usually contains a hidden reference to John Stuart Mill, Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville and to the fear of the majority’s tyranny.

· Private (as opposed to public) ownership of media, or the exclusive right of rich men to form public opinion. A publicly-owned paper is usually contrasted with “free media”, as if a newspaper belonging to a rich Jew is somehow more free than one that belongs to a state, to a church, or to a trade union.

· Women’s rights and Homosexual rights. Judaism does not recognise the goy’s family. This is fully inherited by liberalism: liberals do not believe in the non-privileged man’s family and want to dismantle it.

· Antiracism for a Jew is a tool in his natural struggle against the indigenous population; in the liberal paradigm, antiracism allows for the importation of a cheaper labour force, to undermine trade unions and to operate world-wide in a race to the bottom for wages.

· Judaism considers welfare a unique feature of Judaic community, while the goyim are not allowed such prerogatives as agape for mutual aide and protection. Liberals are actively undoing welfare, unless it serves to support their companies and corporations or as a government policy to foster support for immigrants and demographic upheaval as an ad hoc measure to undermine national communities and to racialize politics.

· Freedom of anti-Christian propaganda. Liberalism does not fight Judaism, but carries on a relentless struggle against Christianity. In liberal America, judges condemn the Catholic Church for its teachings, ban Christmas trees and usher a new expurgated Bible.

· Democracy. In the liberal paradigm, if you do not agree with the liberal ideas, your voice is not counted; a defence against the Tyranny of Majority is activated. If you agree, it does not matter for whom you vote, as the result will the same. They call Israel “a democracy”, though the majority of its goyim have no right to vote, and those who can vote are kept out of power by invoking the “Jewish majority”. The democratic victories of Hamas in Palestine, and of Lukashenko in Belarus were considered illegal; in Serbia, they repeated the elections until they obtained the sought-after result.

· Thus we come to a conclusion: modern American liberalism is secularised Judaism for Gentiles, and not freedom from religious pressure, as its proponents claim.



Why have the US and Britain succumbed to this strange ideology? A probable answer to this can be found in British history. Recent studies by Dr Mark Thomas, UCLA claim that in 5th-7th century, pre-Christian Saxon tribes conquered Britain and established an “apartheid society” of 10,000 invaders in the midst of 2 million natives. They eventually outbred the natives: “An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage. They also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised. As a result, Britain has a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language,” writes Thomas.[8]

Thus, some of the British population have an inbuilt genetic memory of a successful evolutionary strategy connected with apartheid and with application of “Judaic” principles. The Jews have no copyright on being nasty; and the quaint British meddling with the Lost Tribes myth has more to do with Saxons than with Israelites. As long as Britain was Catholic and Christian, this tendency was kept in check; but along came the Reformation, with its wholesale import of Judaic ideas of the Old Testament, followed by the import of their Talmudic reading from the Netherlands during the Orange Revolution. The Catholic religious muzzle came off, and the enclosures devoured traditional England. In this great bout of privatisation, the landlords partitioned, privatised and fenced off the commons. Like their Judaic predecessors, they disregarded the group rights of native underprivileged classes, of “the goyim” of the New Order. They applied their strategy in Ireland and Wales, and later in North America and Australia, and caused the extinction of millions of natives. Many Britons, Americans and Australians have the memory of the successful strategy; this makes them prone to philo-Judaic policies and to quasi-Judaic measures.

Certainly, colonisation and ruling military caste formation did not occur only in Britain. There is the Aryan Conquest in the Indian tradition, or Frank rule in France. The French solved the problem by the National Razor of Dr Guillotin in the Big Terror of 1793, where the idea of blue-blooded aristocracy was loudly voiced by the middle-class revolutionaries. Even today the Polish nobles claim that they are descendants of non-Slavic Sarmats, as opposed to ordinary Poles who are Slavs. This “Sarmat” claim of the Polish nobility (which entails contempt for an ordinary Pole as an alien) was an important reason why Poland tolerated and nurtured the biggest Jewish community ever to exist on earth.

Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal Secular Judaic doctrine creates enormous gaps between the upper and lower castes. Indeed, in the US, 60 million Americans live on $7 a day, while a happy few have billions they can’t possibly spend.[9] This represents a very successful evolutionary strategy for the ruling minority. It is so successful, that eventually the ruled majority may have to apply drastic measures to moderate its success. But its full extinction is not to be desired: brought down-to-size, cured of its exclusivist claim, offered a small niche, Liberalism can be useful in any solidarist society like a ventilation shaft in a warm room. We just should not allow to freeze us out.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/cultural_imperialism.htm

[2] http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Red_Easter.htm

[3] http://www.poemhunter.com/aleksandr-aleksandrovich-blok/poet-35200/

[4] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,895551-3,00.html

[5] http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/savich_catholicity.htm

[6] mms://207.232.26.152/events/bauer.wma

[7] http://www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/125/kost.htm

[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5192634.stm

[9] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/ineq-d12.shtml

Shlimazls and Priestesses

By Israel Shamir

Men do fight and die for fair women: Sir Lancelot over Queen Guinevere, Tristan over Isolde came to grief but satisfied their passion. Others died in the attempt, they were sung about or bewailed. But a guy who dies for pussy he is not going to get anyway - deserves derision. Heinrich Heine, that ironic genius, used to call such a fall guy “Schlemihl;” or Shlomiel in modern Hebrew, Schlimazl in Yiddish. The original Shlomiel was killed by mistake in a fight for a pretty Moabite girl (Num. 25:6), and since then his name has become the synecdoche for a sucker who never had a chance. There is no honour in such a death: if an Israeli man is afraid of anything, it is of being played for a sucker.


The handsome American soldier, Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan and lamented by his brother (picture left), died like a sucker for an Afghani woman who never asked his help. He was not alone: many Americans, Brits and thousands of Afghanis were killed in order to free The Afghan Woman from her hijab, or chador, or burka, or bra. Forget 9/11: without the sustained campaign to “liberate Afghani woman”, thousands of Afghani women wouldn’t be widows today. It is easy to blame the Afghani war on oil companies, on Pat Robertson and his Evangelists, on Richard Pearle and his Zionists. But let us give some well deserved credit to liberal feminists and PC-enforcers. The right-wing-Republicans may push for war as much as they want -- the troops will only march when the left-wing-Democrats acquiesce. While the former take their orders from bankers and businessmen, the latter are ruled by liberal feminists.

The first American bombs hit Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, but ten days earlier, on September 28, 2001, the nice columnist Polly Toynbee of the nice British newspaper the Guardian, wrote:

“Something horrible flits across the background in scenes from Afghanistan, scuttling out of sight. There it is, a brief blue or black flash, a grotesque Scream 1, 2 and 3 personified - a woman. The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen. It is a garment of lurid sexual suggestiveness: what rampant desire and desirability lurks and leers beneath its dark mysteries? In its objectifying of women, it turns them into cowering creatures demanding and expecting violence and victimisation. Forget cultural sensibilities.”

Exactly. Forget cultural sensibilities – just bomb ’em. Whenever you see an Afghani prisoner in the Guantanamo cage, whenever you see an Afghani widow or orphan, picture a sign reading “Courtesy of Defenders of Muslim Women’s Sexual Freedom: Polly Toynbee, Hilary Clinton, et al.”. It was not their first victory; our friend Ken Freeland wrote that “During the NATO war against Yugoslavia, the feminists were concerned much more about whether women were to be allowed in combat roles, then about the injustice of the war.” I doubt the invasion of Afghanistan and its Iraqi follow-up would have happened if these liberal feminists who hold the high moral ground in the US, and their henpecked American and British men, had not unleashed the dogs of war. (I also believe that the honest ones among them came to regret their unawareness of being manipulated.)

Why would I remind you now of this great feminist exploit? Because now the priestesses are off again after new victims. They are about to turn you into suckers and Iranian and Israeli women into widows by making use of the sordid affair of the Israeli president Moshe Katzav. The full might of their propaganda machine works around the clock berating the Russian President Putin for allegedly envying Katzav who “raped 10 women”. Putin’s real crime was his staunch refusal to support the Israeli-American plan of sanctions and nuclear strikes on Iran; Israeli PM Ehud Olmert went to Moscow to plead and came back without a single encouraging word.



The Russian president is under heavy pressure from the West. They want him to give American and British companies the oil wells of Sakhalin, to vote for sanctions in the Security Council, to blockade Iran and North Korea. If he sticks to his guns and refuses, his name will be besmirched. Recall the previous warning Putin received on his birthday: Anna Politkovskaya, an anti-Putin and pro-Western journalist, was assassinated in Moscow. Her influence in Russia was as strong as mine in Israel -- that is, next to zero. Still, Putin was framed and smeared as the killer.

John Laughland found that “all [mainstream] papers implied that Mrs. Politkovskaya had been killed by allies of the Russian President for reporting the truth about the war in Chechnya.”. The Financial Times wrote: “In a broad sense, Mr. Putin bears responsibility for creating, through the Kremlin's long-standing assault on the independent media, an atmosphere in which such killings can happen.” While The Washington Post asserted that “it is quite possible, without performing any detective work, to say what is ultimately responsible for these deaths: It is the climate of brutality that has flourished under Mr. Putin.”. Laughland correctly states that the leftist Guardian joined forces with the rightist Daily Telegraph to attack Putin over this assassination and he concludes: “Politkovskaya's murder spells unambiguous benefits for the West.”

This warning did not come as a bolt from the blue. Earlier, Putin had been pushed by the provocative behaviour of Georgia’s president Saakashvili to deport a few hundred illegal Georgian immigrants – a few hundred out of the half a million of Georgians residing in central Russia. This was a far cry from the mass deportations of Mexicans or Haitians by the US, but pro-Western media in Russia portrayed it as “racist cleansing”.



"I am a Georgian" kippa

A prominent Muscovite, an Israeli/Russian citizen and a devout Zionist, Anton Nosik (his company Sup.ru recently purchased the internet resource LiveJournal, Russia’s largest at 600,000 users) even appeared in a kippa embroidered with words “I am a Georgian” (he is not) and described the deportation as Putin’s “Kristallnacht”. Provocative art dealer Marat Guelman (whose gallery displayed desecrated icons and a “photo collage” of Putin and Bin Laden) claimed he was beaten because he exhibited Georgian art. His cause was soon taken up by the New York Times. In the November 4th, a rally of nationalist forces is planned in Russia. There are persistent reports that Western and Zionist agents are paying troublemakers to create havoc.

This is the background to the new attacks on Putin, now by the liberal feminists. According to their version, Putin said: “What a mighty man [Katzav] turns out to be! He raped 10 women - I would never have expected this from him. He surprised us all - we all envy him!” This was supposedly overheard by a Kommersant newspaper reporter. (That paper is owned by the violently anti-Putin oligarch Berezovsky.) Anna Shulik, a correspondent of Israeli Channel 9, actually recorded and broadcasted a somewhat different version of Putin's statement: “Regards to your president. He surprised us all. We all envy him.” The key word rape, which turns bonhomie into vulgarity, is just absent on the tape.

And this is not by chance. There is no doubt, neither in Mr Putin’s, nor in my mind, that Israeli President Moshe Katzav, whatever the police are saying about him, raped nobody in the plain meaning of the word. Indeed, Katzav received the support of a strict Supreme Court judge and of leading Rabbis, and (outside of the Israeli-Arab context) these men are trustworthy. The Israeli president probably had one affair too many with a willing Monica. While the American affair almost caused the impeachment of Clinton, her Israeli sister went for the jugular, after her demand of blackmail (“$200,000 is peanuts for you, sweetie…”) was rejected by the thrifty Katzav.

Israeli law, like American law, allows a woman to sue a man for rape even years later. This is a far cry from the Biblical definition: a woman is raped if she screamed her head off, and immediately rushed to report the assault. If she went home and decided to complain in a few days, or weeks, it is not rape. No scream, no immediate report, - no rape, no indecent proposals, no sexual harassment, no nothing.

The Bible is right: without this condition, every man without exception is hostage to a rape accusation. Post-coital non-consent is not a joke, as another Sephardi who came close to pinnacle of power, General Itzik Mordechai, has learned. First, he was accused of rape; after he debunked his accuser, the police found another woman supposedly raped by the General five years previously, and his bid for PM post was derailed.

“She fought him off vigorously, scratched, cried that she will die before she submits, but the chevalier paid no attention to her words and took her. Afterwards, she smiled coyly and told him: “Do not think, dear chevalier, that you won me against my will. Better thank our good preacher who reminded me that we are mortal, and a pleasure missed today is missed forever. Now we can proceed, for I missed too many pleasures while being too prudent for my own good”. This politically-incorrect fable by Anatole France (Nobel prize, 1921) should be re-read by liberal feminists: do not take from women their right to resist (and acquiesce) as their modesty demands.

I am not amazed that the attack on “Putin the rapist-admirer” was taken up by the mainstream media. But even the extremely alternative PrisonPlanet.com, as anti-zionist and anti-war as they come, joined in on the free-for-all. They do not understand yet what has been understood by antiwar.com and others: if you want to avoid the war, Russia and China are our best bet. They are neither populated nor led by angels, but they can stop Israel and the US from nuking Iran.

Go easy on them, otherwise multitudes of Iranians and Israelis will die like suckers – partly because a little female secretary codenamed “A” changed her mind, partly because two men spoke their minds, partly because of the feminist domination in media, and after all, mostly because of the Masters of Discourse and their marvellous ability to achieve what they want by playing on our fears and wishes.



However, the implications of Katzav affair are extending much further than the career of an Israeli politician. I do not give a fig who keeps the glorious but impotent post of President. It is important to heal the rift between men and women; because our physical union is a wonderful thing and it parallels the Annunciation, for it creates spirit and flesh. Kabbala teachers insisted on union with one’s wife on Sabbath Eve, as by this sympathetic magic the male and female aspects of God can be induced to couple. The Sitra Ahra, the Evil One, tries to interfere with the celestial mating by interfering with the spiritual aspect of the man-woman relation, and the easiest way is by sowing discord between man and woman. So many of the measures promoted by liberal feminists bring forth this discord.

After some well-publicised court cases of “rape” and “sexual harassment” so many men – and especially successful men - grew wary of women. Nowadays women have competition provided by the homosexual community, and this competition is winning ground. Young species are naturally vague about their gender as tadpoles. Promotion of gay equality in school may change their orientation. Moreover, this search for equality brought forth a new bias: while no landlord dares to refuse a gay tenant -- fearing opprobrium and a lawsuit -- they easily do refuse families with children. Gays have more disposable income, and less responsibility.

I am not worried that human multiplication will cease; but the Evil One should be mightily pleased with the results: men and women have drifted apart. In order to reverse this trend, it is necessary to change the laws and eliminate the Damocles sword of ‘rape’ and ‘harassment’. The very words should mean what they meant to our grandparents, an offence so severe that an offended woman will make it clear to the offender and to the whole world right away. Ordinary women and men are ripe for revolt against their feminist priestesses.