It is not only about Palestine

by Israel Shamir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Lobbying in Comparison with Ordinary Lobbies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Web of Influence, Conditioned Thinking and Reflexive Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fighting Back to Save America

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Keep Shining, Cuba!

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

By Israel Shamir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paschal Greetings

By Israel Adam Shamir

Was it good or bad in Egypt for the people of Israel? The Bible leaves the reader confused. On one hand, they were enslaved and had to built the cities in fear of the brutal overseer’s whip. Exodus 5:7-19 tells that the Pharaoh ceased to provide them with straw to make bricks of (even to this day they mix straw and clay to make bricks in the Nile Valley) and they ran around gathering stubble and straw for the quota of bricks remained as it was. Whenever they would say: “We would rather go and pray”, the Pharaoh would answer: you say so because you are idle, you have too much time on your hands; hurry, do your job, deliver more bricks! And they were beaten to work harder and faster.

A legend (“midrash”) tells of a pregnant woman who was mixing straw and clay for bricks, worked hard, and when she gave birth, her child fell into the pit and was made into a brick. This brick was taken up to heaven and laid at the feet of God.

On the other hand, in the desert, the Israelites complained that they had left the flesh-pots of Egypt, the land of plenty, where they had everything they ever could wish - for the hardships of desert life.

So what it was – a cruel bondage or prosperity? This contradiction can’t be settled convincingly, unless one understands that the story of Exodus is an extended metaphor. The bondage is the bondage of flesh, of our everyday life, of pursuit of things. The Pharaoh, call him Satan, or Consumer spirit, demands from us to make more and more bricks, to earn more money, so we will forget about God. Every day we sacrifice some time of our children (“turn them into bricks”) for instead of attending to them we work more to pay mortgage, this is the quota of bricks, to repay for the car credit, and what not. And from time to time we go to a nice candle-lit restaurant on the seaside for a good meal – this is the fleshpots.

God takes you out of bondage of flesh (“Egypt”) to the freedom of spirit (the “Promised Land”). He Himself comes to take you out, and He will overcome even death to save you for spiritual life. Life is more than small talk about mortgages and new cars and candle-lit dinners, Man is more, much more than a consumer of goods, He is Godlike and can enter the Promised Land of spirit in flesh. This is the Paschal message, and that is why this is the most important message mankind ever received.

An ordinary Jew takes this metaphor literally; he thinks this is a story of his physical ancestors who were enslaved in the land of pyramids and escaped into the Promised Land. An ordinary Jew thinks that God actually killed the first-born of Egypt and empowered Joshua to kill the natives of Canaan in order to provide his family with a valuable seaside real estate. He thinks that the Promised Land of the Bible is a physical real land, Palestine, that this is a story of liberation from national slavery and conquest of a country. By such interpretation, he debases this great message of its spiritual and universal meaning; he privatises the story and robs others and himself of its true meaning. The recurring motive of Jews using blood of children for the Passover ritual is a symbolic reply to this literalism. The Christian replies: if you are that literal, if you read the metaphoric story of Man’s liberation as some trivial Drang Nach Osten, you may as well pour real blood of children into your crystal goblets.

Much blood - of children and of adults – was poured on the altar of Zionist conquest. But this conquest of Palestine was inbuilt in the literalist Judaic reading of Exodus for Zionism is a literalist realization of the metaphor, the project of conquering the Promised Land by force of arms instead of connecting to spirit by means of prayer, good deeds and grace. It was a titanic, gigantic project; I mean the titans and giants who tried to conquer Olympus and unseat the blessed gods. And whenever people applied this literalist reading, no good came out of it, vide the conquest of North America, where very few natives survived (as opposed to South America) and the resulting nation causes much trouble to the rest of the world.

Ignorant vulgar materialists are prone to “defend Jews” while accusing “Zionists”, for they are not aware of theological grounds of Zionism, and these grounds are deeply entrenched in Judaic literalism. For sure, there were Jewish divines who proclaimed metaphoric reading, for instance, they explained “there was no water for three days” (Exodus 15:22-25) passage as reference to three days without God’s Word. Thanks to these wise men who were aware of the secret spiritual meaning of the Holy Land, that is the Land of Spirit; Zionism did not break forth until late 19th century. But literalism was never far away, never sufficiently exorcised, and with rise of materialism and decline of understanding, the spiritual reading of the Scripture was altogether discarded.

Likewise, the sad story of Exile can and should be understood as departure of man from the Grace of God. The First Man was in eternal communion with God, in eternal state of grace. Since the exile of Adam from Paradise, we sorely miss this grace. The Christians have Christ who offered us the way to regain the grace; Gnostics created a pretty myth of Sophia entering the sacred marriage with Christ, but in Jewish literalist reading even the concept of grace was forgotten and transplanted by quite trivial physical relocation into Palestine.

Blessed are the Buddhists who did not entertain the thought that the Pure Land is a part of Nepal where Gautama Buddha was born and found his enlightenment. Indeed, literalism debases its followers, as Karl Marx noted in his witty remark: “Christianity is sublime Judaism, while Judaism is sordid Christianity”. The schism between old Israel of flesh and new Israel of spirit is the split between metaphoric and literal readers of the Exodus. Anti-judaic polemics carried out by St John Chrysostom and Martin Luther were arguments – not against a small tribe, but against the deniers of spirit. Extremely potent anti-spiritual attack of modernity which almost obliterated Christ’s footsteps is deemed “Judaic”, and is supported by spirit-denying Jews, though it has wider and not exclusively Jewish following.

Fathers of the Church were aware of extremely troublesome consequences of literalism. Origen was an enemy of "literalists who believe such things about [God] as would not be believed of the most savage and unjust of men".[Origen, Principles 4.1.8] He could tolerate simple believers, but not the Judaisers. By means of a more sophisticated literalism this group attempted to continue obedience to the Law within the Christian Church, writes Bradshaw, but the real problem with the Judaisers was their opposition to spirit. They were with Letter, i.e. they were literalists and spirit deniers.

The Eastern Orthodox Church preserved the uncorrupted traditions of the Church Fathers, and that is why she stresses the metaphoric reading of the Bible narrative. Orthodox icons do not depict suffering of Christ, as opposed to the Western paining: though the Church surely does not deny it as the Gnostics were prone to, she prefers the image of Christ Resurrected, the Pantocrator, the Supreme King victorious over Death. On the icons, Christ is equally serene on the Cross and on his Throne in heaven.

For us, this week is the time to obtain the most important and most precious gift of God, the Grace. See though myths for their only purpose is to concentrate your mind on spirit, like rosary helps to concentrate on prayer. Do not become inordinately concerned with the details of the myth, or with material of the rosary. Remember, if we get grace, we can solve all small problems of this world. Out of Egypt of flesh to the Promised Land of spirit, this is the call.

Oops!

A response to Saree Makdisi’s The Rise of Avigdor Lieberman,

By Israel Shamir

Israeli and Palestinian politics are often misinterpreted by zealous supporters of various parties overseas. So many well-meaning American Jews and Arabs write about events and developments in our country basing their views on their Sunday school lessons or on their prejudices. But even for a man used to misunderstanding, the piece by Professor Saree Makdisi called The Rise of Israel's Avigdor Lieberman with an additional title The Ethnic Cleansing Party Outpaces Likud takes the proverbial cherry. I am sure Professor Makdisi is very knowledgeable regarding William Blake, his main field of study, but he should learn more of the area he presumes to write about. An Arab (or a Jewish) name and origin is just not a substitute of actual knowledge of Israeli politics. As a Russian Israeli writer living in Jaffa with its mixed population, and nor a supporter neither a voter of Yisrael Beiteinu (YB), I feel it is my duty to correct his most obvious errors.

Makdisi claims that “Avigdor Lieberman, leader of YB, is the real winner of the Israeli elections and a potential kingmaker”. The reality is very different: Lieberman’s party has a great difficulty to enter any coalition, neither it is sought by Olmert or Peretz, the leaders of the biggest Israeli parties. Far from being “a potential kingmaker”, Lieberman is an outsider, and there are big chances that he will squander the voices given to him by the Russian Israeli voter by remaining in fruitless opposition. The Israeli mainstream media refers to him and to his party with all the warmness usually reserved for Hamas. Being a Russian, he just does not qualify to be a serious player in Israeli politics. So much for being a winner.

Practically every word in Makdisi’s piece is misleading. He says that Lieberman’s party “outpaced Likud”. What rot! Not only YB with its 11 seats did not outpace Likud with its 12 seats, but more to the point, Likud crashed, ceased to be a major party, and became a middling party, on a par with three ethnic parties, Russian YB (11 seats), Moroccan Shas (12 seats) and the Arab block (10 seats). Thus it is not that YB overtook Likud, but rather, Likud has collapsed.[1]

Even less substantiated is Makdisi’s weird claim that YB is a “racist party” and for them, “non-Jews are not welcome”. As a matter of fact, the YB is the least Jewish nationalist party in the Knesset outside the Arab block, as it is the party of the Russian, heavily non-Jewish community in Israel. At least half of the Russians in Israel, and thus many of YB voters, are just not Jews, and do not regret it. The voters of YB stand for equality of Jews and non-Jews, for civil marriages as opposed to the religious ones, for termination of Rabbinic dictat, for non-kosher restaurants, and they intermarry with the Israeli Palestinians at least as often as with the Israeli Jews. YB does not support the mad idea of “transfer” or mass expulsion of Native Palestinians, as Makdisi claims.

Makdisi makes much of Lieberman’s plan to correct the borders of Israel and calls it “ethnic cleansing”. He writes: “Lieberman proposes that the state's borders be drawn in such a way that Jews are placed on one side of it, and as many Arabs as possible on the other. Lieberman's solution may seem a little less inhumane [than expulsion], but it is just as racist.” He is apparently unaware that this was the idea of the partition of Palestine approved by the UN on November 29, 1947. In 1948, the Jewish state seized some parts of the proposed Palestinian state, including Jerusalem Corridor, Jaffa, Western Galilee and the Wadi Ara area. Lieberman called to return the Wadi Ara area to the future Palestinian state. Mind you: he did not call to expel the Arab dwellers of the area, but to surrender the whole area with its population to the neighbouring state. This is hardly “an ethnic cleansing” idea.

Suppose an American politician will propose to return Texas or San Diego to Mexico. Would a Mexican professor call him “a racist who wants to get rid of Hispanics” or just bless this initiative? If a French politician would propose to return Alsace to Germany, should the German papers curse “a racist who wants to rid France of German-speaking Alsatians”? The answer is obvious: while ethnic cleansing, i.e. separation of people from their land (like the one perpetrated by Israel in 1948, as correctly stated by Makdisi) is unacceptable, transfer of a territory with its dwellers from one sovereignty to another one is quite a normal and standard procedure in the law of the nations.

Personally, I am not in favour of the so-called “two-states’ solution” and would prefer one state with equal rights for all the dwellers of Palestine/Israel, but meanwhile this idea has too few supporters, and Palestinian and Israeli leaders are still trying to turn our small country into two states. The borders between the twain should be established by negotiations, and the Partition Line of 1947 is certainly the most legitimate starting point for such negotiations. Instead of condemning Lieberman’s proposal we may regret its limited character. Not only Wadi Ara, but Western Galilee, from Nazareth to Acre, were supposed to belong to the Palestinian state. A friend of Palestine should support their return, not object to it. Moreover, I live in Jaffa, predestined by the UN decision to become a part of the Palestinian state, and annexed by the Jewish state in 1948. I would fully support transfer of Jaffa with all its residents (including myself) back into Palestinian sovereignty, if Lieberman were to propose such a step.

Makdisi complains that Lieberman was born in Moldova and still has all the rights in Israel, as opposed to the native population. This does not sound convincing when said by a Lebanese who lives in the US and enjoys all the rights including professorship in an American university, while the Native Americans languish in their reservations.

However, the Lebanese experience of Makdisi could help him to understand the secret of Lieberman. His party is an ethnic party of the Russians, like the Socialist Party of Lebanon is a party of the Druze, or our Communist party is (predominantly) an Arab party, or our Meretz is a party of wealthy Ashkenazis. All other features of these parties are provisory and can change with circumstances. The Russians are probably the most sympathetic to the Native Palestinians group in Israel, and there are many organisations (notably in Nazareth and Jaffa) that work to strengthen these ties.

If this is the case, why YB is described as “racist” and why, despite its electoral success, the party is kept well outside of the pinnacle of power? I can venture an explanation. The Jewish state is ruled, from its murky beginnings in 1920s until today, by a single group of Polish Jews whose recent ancestors were born between Pinsk and Minsk. This is our Mayflower. They fight off attempts of other groups to share power. They fought the German Jews and kept their Liberal Party well outside. They fought the Sephardi Jews when they formed their Shas party, and many Israelis remember 1999 elections call “Anybody but Shas”. Now they fight the Russians. In Israel, they say that the Russians are not Jews, in their propaganda abroad they say the Russians are racist (rather a racist saying, too). Demonisation of these rising groups is just a tool of the ruling elite. The solution of our problems lays in union of the oppressed groups, including Russians, Moroccans and Native Palestinians, for full equality and better power-sharing. This is regrettable that Prof Makdisi did not understand the plot behind the accusations, and supported the “divide and rule” device of the Israeli elites.

Israel Shamir,

Jaffa


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

[1] According to the results, Kadima now has 29 seats, Labor has 19, Shas and Likud have 12 each, Yisrael Beiteinu has 11, National Union-National Religious Party has nine, Pensioners' Party has seven, United Torah Judaism has six, Meretz five, Ra'am-Ta'al four , Hadash three and Balad three.

Satanic Pictures

by Israel Shamir

The West was not amused by burning embassies in Beirut and elsewhere. “Them there Muslims do not understand our sense of humour; they do not understand our idea of liberty”. - droned the newspapers. Others condemned the tactless escapade of the Danes but thought the reaction was quite out of proportion. However the flare up was anything but incidental.

A resourceful American journalist Christopher Bollyn investigated the Danish Satanic Pictures and their procurer, one Flemming Rose, and found out that Rose was not an innocent lover of freedom of speech, neither was he some quaint Scandinavian collector of smut pictures with religious connotations who kept his presentations of the Muslim prophet next to that of a Nun-with-the-Great Dane. Rose was a devotee of the Zionist Neo-Con cult, and made a pilgrimage to the pope of this persuasion -- Daniel Pipes, wrote Bollyn.

So far, so good. But the execrable Rose peddled his stuff four months ago, and that's a long time, as the media counts. The Muslims did not even notice his effort, as possibly not many of them read the Jylland Pest. Like a naughty child who multiplies his effort when his well-prepared jibe fails to annoy, eleven newspapers in seven countries republished the pictures simultaneously. It was a show of hands: behind various newspapers in various countries, beyond companies and corporations, we were allowed to see the Enemy, the Not-So-Hidden Hand, the player on the international scene across all borders. It was a convincing show, and now we know: one will, one design rules the world media empire.

Who organised it?

Who is the Enemy? Who can control media on such a scale? Sandhya Jain, an important Indian journalist of nationalist persuasion wrote: “The cartoons were an intentional act of religious disrespect by political Christianity, comprising the socio-economic-political elites of Europe and America.” Christendom was called the culprit by many other observers. But to be sure, the same people who offended Muslims do not think twice before offending believing Christians – it is enough to recall the Cross changing into a Swastika on the posters of Amen, the movie, or the crucifix in a glass of piss (an illustration to the Talmud?) in a Brooklyn [a heavily Jewish suburb of New York] Museum. There is no religious enmity between the Muslims and the Christians. Ahmad Amr was right:

“The defamatory portrayals of Islam and Mohammed by European ‘free speech advocates’ puts Muslims at a distinct disadvantage. They can’t very well retaliate by defaming Jesus Christ because they revere him as much as they revere Mohammed and consider him a prophet of God. Insulting Jesus or the Virgin Mary is considered as blasphemous as insulting Mohammed. No true Muslim would ever consider lampooning the Mother of Christ because they also believe in the Immaculate Conception. In Islamic tradition, Mary will be the first woman to enter heaven. And like the Koran, Muslims consider both the Bible and the Torah holy texts.”

Thus we have to exonerate Christians and look elsewhere.

The Western media is the exclusive domain of Judeophiles: you may have noticed it by their extensive and morbid coverage of Sharon’s demise, of Jewish fatalities while disregarding Palestinian deaths, of the Holocaust issue, of real or imagined attacks on Jews[1]. The Jews have a vested interest in promoting anti-Muslim sentiment, for it fits into their plans of subduing Palestinians and dealing with Iran. (The Iranians immediately recognised it, and turned to anti-Jewish holocaust jokes. Equally tasteless, it was a reasonable tit-for-tat.) Indeed, just now the non-Zionist World Jewish Congress officially kicked off his campaign against Iran , Haaretz informed its readers. AIPAC plans a Washington conference titled “Now is the time to stop Iran”. Kurt Nimmo correctly called the pictures “a deliberate provocation designed to outrage and incite Muslims and thus engender support in Europe and America for the manufactured “clash of civilizations” engineered by the Straussian neocons”. The Clash of Civilisations, as well as the Satanic Pictures affair fit well into the Middle Eastern strategy of organised Jewry.

A clear sign of Jewish involvement in the Satanic Pictures affair was given by many headlines: though all the Muslim nations were upset, the Jewish-controlled newspapers stressed “Palestinian attacks on Europeans”, as in 2001 they stressed “Palestinians rejoice at the collapse of the Towers”, though many people all over the world were happy at the strike that smote this symbol of arrogance and money power. The Israeli daily Haaretz wrote: the Muslim press shows Sharon and rabbis in a disrespectful light, let them try their own medicine. This amounts to an admission that the Judeophiles were behind the publication.

But our colleagues did not notice a grand plan behind this action. Much as the Pictures fit into the plan of fighting Muslims, they fit even better into the great offensive on freedom carried out now world-wide. From the US to Russia, from England to Italy, our masters promulgate the web of laws to strengthen their control and to eliminate the vestiges of freedom. In 1968, we proclaimed “Interdit d'interdire”, “It is forbidden to forbid”; but now we are entangled by many new prohibitions. We mayn’t choose to smoke or not, to fasten seat belt or ride carefree. These small annoying prohibitions are a sign of our submission to Big Brother. And do not tell me it is done for my benefit. I can list a hundred things more urgent for my well-being. Let them ban indebtedness first. If I am free to take a dangerous loan, I should be free to choose or miss the seat belt.

Our freedoms are severely curtailed. They exist on paper, but we may not use them. We may not say what we wish less our livelihood will be jeopardised. So many teachers and professors found themselves out of job for saying a word out of turn: in “democratic” Germany, a Communist could not work as a teacher. We may not elect whom we want: when the Austrians chose Heider, they were beaten until they agreed to give up. Now the Palestinians chose Hamas, and they are told they will not get their own tax money until they repent. (In a similar vein, the Bible provides for debt cancellation every seven years, but the Talmud allows the creditor to tie up and beat the debtor until he insists to pay the voided debt). Every time, be it guns for the folks in remote Montana, a cigarette in a Dublin pub, a seat belt for you, or a free vote for all of us, the great opinion-making machine of mass media enforced the prohibition. Sometimes, as in the case of the Satanic Pictures, it does not balk at deliberate provocation to make its point clear: we are not allowed to say what we want.

The media machine’s devotion to the Jewish cause allows us to guess that it is not run by oil sheiks. But let us presume (and deal with this presumption later) that the Jews and their Judaeophile supporters built up their media empire for another purpose. If you feel (as so many good people do) an urgent need to exonerate the Jews, you may believe that the Jews organised their media holding just in order to fight antisemitism, while the evil Mammonites utilised this machine for their own need of establishing the world dictatorship. You may consider the Jews as the Dwarves who wrought the Ring of Power, and it was taken by the Mammonites. They promoted the narrative of antisemitism and holocaust in order to keep the Jews fighting on their side against the people. They indoctrinate the Jews in belief that the normal humans want to devour them and only the ruling Mammonites prevent it. Indeed, as I wrote in The Third Dove, there is no antisemitism, as there are no witches, and, alas, no Santa Claus.

The media machine is good at enlisting allies, by the same means the ordinary Jews are enlisted, i.e. by propagating fear. They invented “homophobia”, so a homosexual will fear normal folks and apply for the protection of Big Brother. They invented “male chauvinism” and “battered wives”, so women will be afraid of their menfolk and seek the rulers’ shelter. They invented “racism”, so every ethnic minority would hide under the guardianship of Big Brother. They created the myth of “abused children”, so the wives will distrust their husbands. These are myths. There is no “homophobia” – we really do not give a damn what you do at your bedrooms, as long as you do not frighten horses. Men are naturally protective of children and chivalrous towards women. White folks like blacks being jolly and playing their banjo, as long as it is not all night long. I tell you: we all are minorities, and together, we are the people. We can do very well together without guardianship of Big Brother.

There is nothing to fear abroad, either. In the days of my youth, Americans were frightened by the Domino theory. After the Communist takeover of Vietnam and Cambodia, they would proceed to California, run the writ. It came to naught. The fear of Communism destroyed trillions of dollars of national product across the globe and eventually ruined the great social experiment. The victorious mice judge the slain lion: at the initiative of Poland and the Baltic states, The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) condemned “horrors and crimes of Communism.” Now the machine plays up the fear of Islam. Islam was provoked and its response was presented as the proof of its depravity.

The great fear-producing machine won’t stop at the Middle East, or at the narrow Jewish causes, and for a good reason. A tank can be used as a nut-cracker, but it has more functions than that. The unified and perfected Jewish media machine can be utilised for much more important tasks than fighting off holocaust jokes. Its main goal is to bring us to the Brave New World, to the new spiritless totalitarianism, while smaller tasks are incidental to the great one.

Last month there were a few important but apparently unconnected developments. The British PM, Tony Blair, made a step towards total control over his population. England introduced a new computer system that collects and stores data of car traffic. Connected to ubiquitous video cameras, it allows the Big Brother to trace your movements from your work to your girlfriend and to your home. It passed without a hitch. Then it tried to pass the Internet Terror Bill, that would have given police the power to shut down websites which “promote terrorism”. The House of Lords blocked it. Last month the Lords threw out plans for a new offence of “glorifying” acts of terrorism. The Government was also defeated when peers voted to redraft ministers' version of the offence of “intentionally” or “recklessly” disseminating a “terrorist publication”. And the best of all, the indomitable Lords blocked the bill against “religious hatred” which was supposed to close the only loophole for criticising Jews.

After that, the Adversary splashed the Satanic Pictures. The predictable and predicted reaction of the offended Muslims will force the parliaments to accept the new set of ‘anti-hate’ laws. Surely these laws will not protect the feelings of Muslims and Christians, who, after all, encompass only a few billion humans. The Jews, the preferred mascot of the Mammonites, will feel better protected (and more vulnerable), but more important, freedom of speech will receive another blow.

This great freedom was the advantage of the West over the Soviet East, for one of the less savoury features of the Soviet regime was its infamous Article 58 of the Criminal Code “Anti-Soviet propaganda”. In the early Stalin’s days, one has to express sympathy with the enemies of the Republic to be sentenced; in his heyday, a joke would suffice; in Brezhnev’s era it was used to ensure conformity in the society. Even in the very end of the Soviet days, the Damocles’ sword of Article 58 influenced all discussion and eventually allowed Gorbachev to carry out his transformation of Russia without a debate. He eliminated the social achievements of the Soviet era, surrendered Russian industry and oil to a few Jewish crooks, gave the keys of the Russian might to the CIA and broke up the country into feuding successor states. The only positive feature of Gorbachev-Yeltsin transformation was the removal of Article 58. Now it is creeping back.

Some time ago booby-trapped anti-Jewish billboards appeared in Moscow. When a passer-by tried to remove it, the explosive device went off. The government rushed an ‘anti-hate’ bill through the parliament, and lo! No more anti-Jewish billboards came to be. A month ago, there was an extremely fishy incident in a Moscow synagogue, and a new reinforced ‘anti-extremism’ bill was introduced into the Russian parliament.

Thus, under the cover of fighting extremism, terrorism and hatred, the remainder of freedom on our planet shrinks from day to day. Eugene Rostow, “a Kennedy’s Huntington”, predicted in 1960s that the two systems, Communism and Capitalism would eventually converge, and bring forth the best features of both systems. Now the Convergence has actually taken place. Once, the Red East was socially secure, but at the expense of personal freedom, while the West was free at the expense of equality and social guarantees. Now they have converged: the Russians have lost their free schools and health and have received the freedom to sleep under the bridge, while the West now has its own Gulag and its own political dissidents. East and West reinstalled Article 58 under the guise of anti-hate, anti-terrorism, anti-extremism laws.

The grand plan of world domination is unveiling. On its first stage, the power of old elites and of the church was broken. The Mammonite enemy used democracy and liberty as his weapons against the old order, and we, the Left and the Liberals, enjoyed his support. The adverse vote in the House of Lords (albeit reshuffled and remoulded) proves that the old system with all its faults had some positive qualities. But that stage is over. Now the enemy is fighting against democracy and liberty, employing fear and (anti-)racism.

The enemy has the advantage of infiltrating both left and right, of mainstream and alternative media, of interaction on the global scale. Following a defeat in England they can attack in France and provoke in Gaza. They can cause grief and feign horror at your response. As long as this machine is intact, war and fear are unavoidable for they are its products. Moreover, this is the reason why the powerful Mammonites – not Jews at all – use and support this machine. The machine produces fear, and allows them to usher in their dictatorship. But we have to win unless we want our children to live in the world of slaves and masters. You do not have to care about Muslim sensibilities or Jewish prejudices – it is your freedom at stake. We have to think globally because our enemy acts globally. We must defeat fear and discord, the main tools of the enemy.

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

[1] In my essay Midas Ears I wrote: “Indeed, much of media is owned or controlled by Jews . . . Surely a coincidence? Do not bet on it. In 2004, a Jewish historian Simcha Epstein of Israel Antisemitism Institute said at the Sasson Conference in the Hebrew University:

«The pre-war anti-Semites said that the Jews of France organized a syndicate secretly bankrolling and subverting the press. And what did the Jews say at that time? They said: «Of course not! No, it’s a lie, of course not! We are not engaged in conspiracies!» And what did the historians and the Jewish historiography coming afterwards say? «Of course not! It is anti-Semitic drivel!» But we know now from Jewish sources that before the WWII the Jews of France secretly financed the press. Since the end of the 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreyfus because they received Jewish subsidies. New papers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de l'Homme, the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L’Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority of Jewish sources of course. And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press. [Listen to this sentence ]

Some people perceive every suggestion that Jews are able to act together as a mad conspiracy theory. Let them read and re-read this report by a Jewish historian made at a Jewish conference. Do we need another fifty years to wait for another Jewish scholar to reveal to our children what we know ourselves, to wit, there is a Jewish empire of media, so vast that the sun never sets there?

On the Move

By Israel Shamir

This mosaic always reminds me of our beautiful world, this delightful mosaic of small towns, green meadows, civilised megapolises, castles and cottages, rivers and streams, churches and mosques, each piece of the mosaic is fine, precious and perfect. I saw a lot of them and I love them all. The rocky low-lying islands in lucid and transparent Baltic, where yellow-haired kids wave to the passing ships from the pier. La France Profonde of Conque, a tiny hamlet in the Massif Central on the old pilgrim road to St Jacques, with a narrow chatty river skirting the hill, slated roofs, thousand years ago paved streets. Domes of Russian churches in the high grass on Oka River, where girls in flowery shawls listen to a harmony. Pretty voices of Suzhou girls reverberate in the temple courtyard among canals crisscrossing South China. Baroque houses of Trinidad tobacco factors and proud stature of Cubans dancing on its streets. Superb bodies of tattooed Masai around the bonfire at Serengeti savanna. This world is lovely and its folks are very good.

This beautiful and intricate set-up is threatened by the forthcoming hostilities, as this Third World War is not only against the Third World. This war started even before the first bomb fell on the rocky ground of Afghanistan. A million of new refugees are on the road, creating the great commotion and unsettling Asia. There is no doubt, sooner or later the refugee wave will hit Europe. Hundreds of thousands refugees already are on the move towards Europe, Russia and relatively stable countries on the rim. One can understand them: as the US promised to use nuclear weapons against their homes, the defenceless population has no choice but flee the target areas. No border controls would be able to withstand their hectic push. Pakistan will be first, but not last. As the US and Britain plan to turn their Crusade into a long war ‘against terror’, there will be more and more refugees, until, eventually, the fragile social fabric of Europe would crumble and collapse. Europe would be overrun, as Roman Empire in its day, and it will face a stark choice: to establish a system of apartheid and discrimination, or to lose its identity.

Would Europe be an incidental victim of American fury, like an innocent bystander in a Western shoot-out? It appears to me that Europe is rather one of the real targets of the forthcoming offensive. It is not what the ordinary people of the United States wish, but they are not being asked. The new ruling elites of the US and their partners and agents overseas put destruction of prosperous independent and cohesive Europe on their list. This desire has a practical short-term reason: Europe is a competitor to America, it is too independent, it started its own monetary unit that can push dollar. Europe supports more even-balanced policy in Palestine. Europe is too egalitarian: in New York, I saw a lift boy, an immigrant from devastated Panama, who actually lives in the elevator. You would not find such things in Europe, as Europe is not yet Mammonized.

II

The new ruling elites do not care much for Christ or Muhammad, it is true, but they have a lot of religious feeling towards another old Deity, Mammon. This ancient god of greed was much loved by Pharisees, some two millennia back, as we learn from the Gospel. Jesus told them: you can not serve both God and Mammon. But Pharisees sneered at him, because they loved money’[i]. This faith was pushed away by the following developments. Love of Mammon became known as Avarice, one of the Mortal Sins, it was condemned by Christian and Muslim societies alike.

But it did not disappear completely. Two thousand years later, a grandson of the Trier Rabbi, Karl Marx, came to a revolutionary conclusion: the faith of Mammon, this ‘weekday religion of Jews’, in his words, became the real religion of American elites. Marx approvingly quoted a colonel Hamilton, ‘Mammon is Yankees’ idol, they worship it not only with their lips, but with all strength of their body and soul. In their eyes, the earth is but a stock exchange, and they are convinced that they do not have other purpose on earth but to become richer than their neighbours’. Marx concluded, ‘The practical domination of Jewish spirit over the Christian world has achieved in North America its unambiguous, complete expression’.

This victorious Jewish spirit, for Marx, was based on ‘greed and egoism, its confession was business, it’s god - Money’[ii]. These words, as other ideas of Karl Marx, were known but their deep spiritual meaning was not understood in full. For a good reason: until our days, the religious features of the creed of Greed were not expressed, and one could possibly imagine a capitalist who thinks of his own interest and promotes the common good, as it was presented by Adam Smith.

Things changed with advent of ‘neo-liberalism’. Lectures of Milton Friedman manifested ‘outing’ of Mammonites, adepts of the new/old faith. They differ from ordinary greedy folks, as they elevate Greed to the level of jealous God, that does not suffer other gods. The traditional wealthy men would not dream of destroying their society. They cared about their land and community. They would like to be the first among their own kind. They still considered themselves ‘shepherds of men’. It is true, shepherds also eat sheep, but they would not sell the whole lot to the butcher just because the price is good.

The Mammonites see such consideration as a betrayal of Mammon. As Robert McChesney wrote in his Introduction to Noam Chomsky’s Profit Over People[iii], ‘they demand a religious faith in the infallibility of the unregulated market’, in other words, a faith of egoism and greed unlimited. They are devoid of compassion to the people they live amongst, they do not see the local people as ‘their own kind’. If they would be able to eliminate local folks and supplant them by poor immigrants, to optimise their profits, they would do it, as their brothers did in Palestine.

The Mammonites do not give a damn for the people of America, but use them as their tool to achieve world domination. Their ideal picture of the world is archaic, or futuristic: they dream of the world of slaves and masters. In order to achieve it, the Mammonites strive to destroy cohesiveness of social and national units.

As long as people stay on their land, speak their tongue, live among their own kith and kin, drink water of their rivers, worship in their churches and mosques, they can not be enslaved. But if their lands are flooded by masses of refugees, their social structure will collapse. They will lose their great advantage, the feeling of belonging together, the feeling of brotherhood, and they will become an easy prey for Mammonites.

II

Afghanis are wonderful folk, sturdy, independent, self-reliant. They are formed by their mountains, and as all highlanders, they are quite stubborn and conservative. Fear of American bombs would push them into the lowlands of Holland and into the cities of France, and they will unwillingly but irreversibly change the land they enter. This process is going on for quite a while. As the global policies of the Mammonites deplete the poor countries of the Third world, pump out natural resources and incomes, support the nasty quisling rulers, destroy their nature, more and more people are forced to join the stream of refugees to Europe and the US.

This threat is already felt in Europe. Oriana Fallaci, a well-known Italian journalist, published in the leading Milanese newspaper, Corriere della Sera[iv], an article bewailing the fate of Europe overrun by “Muslim hordes”. She viewed immigrants as a courtier of Romulus in Ravenna considered the Germanic warriors. Oriana says that “Somali Muslims defaced and shitted and outraged for three months the main square of my city”, that some "children of Allah" urinated on the walls of the Cathedral, that they had mattresses inside the tent "to sleep and fuck on" and poisoned the square with the smell and smoke of their cooking. Oriana goes on to say that Florence, "once the capital of art and culture and beauty" is "wounded and humiliated" by "arrogant Albanians, Sudanese, Bengalese, Tunisians, Algerians, Pakistanis and Nigerians" who "sell drugs" and pimp whores. She calls for the support of American-led Crusade and contends, "If America falls, then Europe will fall [...] instead of church bells, there will be the muezzins, instead of miniskirts, chadors, instead of cognac, camel's milk".

Before condemning her style, let us attend the faults of her logic. Ms Fallaci, an experienced and not too young journalist sees in America a possible protection, rather than the source of her – and Florence’s trouble. She should be worried by victory, not by fall of America. If America succeeds in her Afghan war, Oriana’s nightmare can become a reality.

She does not want to notice that the refugees and immigrants arrive to Italy because their lands were devastated by the US and its allies. She would not see Albanians if NATO would not ravage Balkans. She would not see Sudanese, if Clinton would not bomb Sudan. She would not see Somalis, if Somali would not be ruined by Italian colonization and American intervention. Neither she, nor America would see a Palestinian immigrant if the peasants of Saffurie would still tend their pomegranate groves.

Nobody, but nobody would leave his own land with its unique nature, lifestyle, friends and relatives, holy places and fathers’ graves for the dubious pleasure of camping by the walls of an Italian Cathedral. Like ducklings have their imprinting, men are born to love their native land. Young Telemachus compares his rocky and lean island with broad meadows and rich fields of Lacedaemon, and says to his host, ‘we’ve got hardly any grass, and still, I prefer our mountains with its goats to all your meadows suitable for horses’[v] People immigrate when their lands are ruined. The Irish would not leave the green fields of Erin for Chicago, if English government would not starve them out. My own Russians would not come to occupy Palestine if Russia would not be ruined by pro-American forces of Yeltsin and Chubais.

For host folk, immigration wave is a nuisance at the best, a disaster at the worst. It is not their fault, it is the question of numbers. Carlos Castaneda joined an Indian tribe and learned a lot of their ways. I am sure the tribe learned something from Carlos Castaneda. Now imagine, that thousand wonderful guys and gals from Yale and Berkeley would join the Indian tribe. The tribe would disappear, it would not be able to keep its ways. While a single émigré would be always welcomed, and would add some colour to the society, mass immigration is bad.

Whether immigrants come as invaders and conquerors, or as refugees, the receiving society gets a shock. If they are smart, they push local people away from interesting and important social positions, and create their own subculture. If they are violent, they can take over the land by other means. If they are humble and timid, they will bring down the price of labour. That is why in normal circumstances immigrants are not popular.

A good man and my friend, Miguel Martinez, who brought Oriana’s article to the attention of English-reading audience, was justly horrified by her racism. He is right, Ms Fallaci speaks as a racist, as Ann Coulter, this American scourge of ‘swarthy men’. But he failed to see some truth in her words. A man whose garden was overrun by buffaloes does not notice the hunter who rushes the herds his way and blames the innocent animals. He is mistaken, the blame behoves the hunter, but it does not mean the buffaloes do not ruin the garden. Mass immigration is painful for immigrant and host alike.

But it is not painful for the Mammonites. They actually like immigration, as it lowers the price of labour. A leading Mammonite magazine is the British weekly Economist. Their leader called a few weeks ago, before the ‘new Pearl Harbour’ to increase intake of immigrants from the Third World. The most dynamic, best qualified people from Africa, Asia and South America could be useful for Britain, Europe and the US, wrote the Economist. It would push down salaries of European workers and increase profits of entrepreneurs. As a side profit, the outflow of the dynamic element weakens the donor societies and makes them an easy prey for the hostile takeover. It is an improved version of slave trade, as what could be better that willing slaves competing for the board of slave ship. Naturally, the first condition of this intake was not written down in the leader: the countries of the Third World should be devastated and ruined.

Mammonites need immigrants for their own sake, as well. A cohesive and healthy society rejects men of greed instinctively, as greed is a socially destructive drive. In a healthy society, Mammonites would remain pariahs. Immigration destroys cohesiveness of the host society. Mammonites do not like their society being cohesive, they prefer it thinnish and liquescent, so it would be easier to drink it up. That is why Mammonites support immigration. Immigrants conceive them as their natural allies and fail to comprehend that the Mammonites like them as vampires like fresh blood. Because of this lack of understanding, immigrants support with their votes the Mammonite power of Tony Blair and New York Democrats. It is the Mammonites, who should be on the receiving end of Oriana’s diatribes, instead of innocent immigrants on the streets and squares of Europe.

III

A Mammonite senator for California, Diane Feinstein, imports more and more poor Mexicans into her state. They give her the vote, stay out of politics for many years, they agree to work for less, they undermine the organised labour. Ordinary Californians live worse, but she does not care. Some people consider her a Zionist by virtue of her support for Israel.

However, it would be a mistake to call her a Zionist. Historically, Zionists felt that man needs roots. They considered easy mobility of Jews to be a sign of wanting. They wanted to provide the rootless Jews with the roots in the Holy Land. Mammonites do not understand who needs roots. They want to uproot everybody. Zionists felt that Mammonite way of life is wrong. Mammonites of all backgrounds adopted the way of life discarded by Zionists.

The Zionists were wrong as they did not understand that without Palestinians, they can not achieve their goal of striking the root in the soil of Palestine. They were wrong, as a person of Jewish origin can strike his root anywhere, not only in Palestine. A Jew can become an American, an English, a Russian as well as a Palestinian. It calls for identification with his countrymen, for supreme concern with his land. Every land is a Promised Land to man who loves it. People who force America to send away billions of dollars to Israel, instead of providing for America’s poor, are not loyal to America. But they are not loyal to Israel, either. They admire Israel as the model of their world.

Many good men dislike Zionism, for it caused this massive destruction of the lovely land of Palestine and uprooted Palestinians. But Zionism is a local disease. Its big brother, Mammonitis, is a world-wide plague, that wants to turn the world into a “ Big Israel”, with shopping malls and destroyed villages, settlements for the chosen few, and many-many refugees as a source of cheap labour. Zionists ruined nature of Palestine, Mammonites ruin the world environment. Zionists uprooted Palestinians, Mammonites uproot all.

Zionists fight Christ. In modern Israel, St Paul and St Peter would be jailed for teaching Gospel. Mammonites fight every faith, every conviction, Christ and Muhammad, Nationalism and Communism. Enemies of Zionism hope Mammonites will reign the Zionists in, as too independent policy of Zionists can become an obstacle to the world-embracing plans of Mammonites. But I tell you, God tolerates the excesses of Zionists so you would notice the plans of Mammonites.

IV

It is not a cry of dye-in-the-wool Leftie. We can live with some people of wealth, we can survive some amount of privilege. Both the left and the right are good and needed for the society, as left leg and right leg are needed to stand up. Imagine a springtime meadow in the Jerusalem mountains. It is a magic carpet of flowers, that calls you to seat on it. If everybody will walk it, there will be no flowers left. If it will be fenced, it will be lost for us. These two tendencies: of access and of preservation, are the paradigms of Left and Right. Their correct combination allows many people to enjoy the meadow.

The right is the conservative force, preserving the power of traditional elites. They save the landscape, protect nature, keep the tradition. The left is a moving force of society, the guarantee of its liveliness, of ability to change, of social mobility. A society without its left would rot, a society without its right would collapse. Left provides movement, right provides stability. But Mammonites create for their purposes a pseudo-left and pseudo-right, using errors of real left and right.

One of the faults of the European ‘real’ right was its lack of compassion and racist tendency. Their knee jerk reflex was correct: immigrants destabilize the society. But it is not because they are worse men, as racists say. Immigrants could be wonderful folk, and they are still a trouble. Dutch moved to Indonesia, and plagued their land for quite a while by their presence. They ruined Indonesia heavily. Indonesians went to Holland and troubled it back. English plagued America in the heavy way: they exterminated the natives. Colonial process often leads to mutual plaguing: Brits despoiled Ireland and were troubled by Irish.

Racism is wrong, as it claims that some groups of men are inherently better or worse than others. Everybody is wonderful, Zulu and British, Russians and Chechens, Palestinians and French, Pakistanis and Turks, while at their own ground. At others’ land, these good people become a nuisance. In the days of European imperialism and colonial expansion, racist theories were necessary to justify the one-sided flow of men. Without racism, one could not exterminate natives, take their property, ban their industries, create huge landholdings, and keep people without basic human rights. But now racism is not needed anymore. As the colonial adventure of Europe is over, morally wrong and scientifically mistaken theory of racist superiority can be laid to rest.

The real left should promote interests of lower classes and it means to object to mass immigration. But, under Mammonite influence, the liberal left supports immigration for the reason of compassion. Mammonites, normally devoid of compassion, utilise this humanitarian reasoning in their own purposes. It gives them an additional profit: European and American working people are being alienated from the liberal left. For workers, the dangerous nature of immigration is obvious. Immigrants live in close quarters with the local workers, and suffer from their competition for the work places. Thus, they are forced to embrace the racist extreme right.
There is a good way out of the impasse, a way that is good for everybody but Mammonites. Stop immigration, and open money transfer line to the Third World. Africa and Sweden should have the same income. Tax money should flow to the Indians of Amazon and to the peasants of Afghanistan. Not many Pakistanis will immigrate to Britain, if they would have the same (or almost the same) income back home. The EC is a proof of it: though Swedes still earn more than Portuguese, Greek and Italians, the difference is not that big, and the lands are peaceful, so there is a very little immigration into Sweden or Germany. If you say: compassion; the true Christian compassion tells you to let people live at home, under their vine and their fig tree, as good as they would live at your land. You would not have very cheap cleaners, but you will live in a cleaner and better land. It would be just, as for hundreds of years Europe and the US pumped out the wealth of the South and the East.

The immigrant’s lot is a sad one. After all, immigration is an exile, this saddest state of man. Ovid bewailed it on the Moldavian shore, and prince Genji decried in Suma. My Palestinian friend Musa brought his elderly father from the village of Aboud to his new home in Vermont, and the old man began to build terraces, as on the slopes of Samarian hills. We are so much a part of landscape, a part and parcel of mountains and valleys. Now, when in the US, there are attacks on immigrants, probably many of them think of their homes they were forced to leave.

While I think that immigration should be stopped and supplanted by transfer of funds to the poorer lands until the incomes would level, immigrants that already came over, probably came to stay. They could become locals: Germans in Germany, French in France, Americans in America, Palestinians in Palestine. The ancestors of European and American people also migrated, and adopted to new ways. Germanic tribes of Franks overrun Romanised Celtic Gaul, and together with its old population they formed modern French. Descendents of European Crusaders still live in Palestinian village Sinjil that preserves the glorious name of the Provencal commander Raymond de St Gilles, but they became Palestinians in every way and are being besieged by Israelis as everybody else. So did the Georgians brought eight hundred years ago to the Jerusalemite village of Malcha by the orders of Queen Tamar. They became Palestinian, and shared the fate of other Palestinians when they were expelled from their houses by Zionist invaders in 1948.

Human beings are adaptable, and if the immigrants love their new land, they can become locals. I know it: a native of Siberia, I choose to become a Palestinian.

V

WWIII is a war against variety per se, initiated by the adepts of Greed. They do not like the delightful mosaic of races and cultures, they would rather homogenise the world. They have a practical reason: it is easier to sell goods to homogenised mankind. They have a moral reason: they do not want people to enjoy this beauty for free, so it has to be destroyed. They have a religious reason: the Mammon worshippers, they feel this jolly plurality is a sacrilege against their jealous god. Beautiful things of old belong in a museum, where they can charge entrance fee, after the village is destroyed.

In a beautiful adolescent movie, the Never-Ending Story, the many-coloured world of Fantasy disappears into Nowhere. The same thing happens to our marvellous world. Old and unique places are being erased and supplanted by shopping malls and scorched land. The left and the right should join forces against the Nowhere that threatens our very existence.