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

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics Filter?
2016 Election 2020 Election American Media American Military Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Britain Censorship Christianity Communism Conspiracy Theories Coronavirus Culture/Society Deep State Disease Donald Trump Economics Feminism Foreign Policy France Gaza Global Warming History Holocaust Ideology Immigration Iran Iraq ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jeremy Corbyn Jews Joe Biden Judaism Middle East Neoliberalism North Korea Political Correctness Putin Race/Ethnicity Russia Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin Wikileaks World War II 2000 Election 2004 Election 9/11 Abortion Academia Adam Schiff ADL Afghanistan Africa AIPAC Alain Soral Alexander Dugin Alexei Navalny Amazon.com American Jews Anarchism Anders Breivik Anti-Vaxx Arab Spring Armenia Armenians Auschwitz Azerbaijan Baby Boom Banking Industry Belarus Bernie Sanders Bill Gates Billionaires Bioweapons Black Lives Matter Bolshevik Revolution Boris Johnson Boris Nemtsov Brexit Cambodia Catholic Church Charlie Hebdo China China/America Christmas CIA Civil Liberties Color Revolution Cuba Cynthia McKinney Davos Democracy Democratic Party Dreyfus Affair Economic Sanctions Edward Snowden Egypt Emmanuel Macron Erdogan Espionage Estonia Ethiopia EU Eurozone Facebook Financial Bubbles Financial Crisis Floyd Riots 2020 G20 Gay Marriage Gaza Flotilla Genocide Georgia Germany Ghislaine Maxwell Gilad Atzmon Glenn Greenwald Google Government Surveillance Greece Harvey Weinstein Hate Hoaxes Hillary Clinton Hitler Hong Kong India Inequality IQ Japan Jared Kushner Jeff Bezos Jeffrey Epstein Jewish History Judicial System Julian Assange Jussie Smollett Kashmir Kim Jong Un Kurds Lebanon Lenin Liberalism Libya Litvinenko long-range-missile-defense Lukashenko Madoff Swindle Malaysia Malaysian Airlines MH17 Mel Gibson Meritocracy Mikhail Khodorkovsky Mohammed Bin Salman Mossad Muslims Naftali Bennett NATO Navalny Affair Nazi Germany Nazir Ahmed Neocons Netherlands New Cold War New World Order New Zealand Shooting Noam Chomsky Norman Finkelstein North Africa NSA Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Oil Industry Organ Transplants Orthodoxy Pakistan Palestinians Paris Attacks Pavel Grudinin Pedophilia Poland Qassem Soleimani Race Riots Racism Ron Unz Rothschilds Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Bader Ginsburg Saudi Arabia Science Serbia Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Polonsky Sergei Skripal Sexual Harassment Sochi Olympics South Korea Soviet History Soviet Union Space Program Spain Srebrenica Stalinism Supreme Court Sweden Syriza Texas The Left Tibet UN Security Council United Nations Vaccines Venezuela Wikipedia William Browder World War I Yasser Arafat YouTube Zionism
Nothing found
Sources Filter?
 TeasersIsrael Shamir Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

The Russian people have successfully managed to foil the latest attempt by the Global Covid Party to enforce its most current list of restrictions and vaccinations. The covid restrictions were unleashed June 16, while Putin was away at the Geneva summit. Moscow Mayor Sobyanin announced that QR codes would be required to enter all cafés and restaurants, and followed this up with demands for mandatory vaccination. But Russians continue to refuse to comply; by now they have found many ways to beat the system, the simplest solution being to avoid (and thus bankrupt) collaborating restaurants. The Mandatory Vaxx Regime brings new conspirators (like Alexei Navalny, the Russian Guaido presently in jail for swindling) and old school Kremlin propagandists into a rare (and suspicious) agreement. Now they all excrete New York mainstream media.

Many loyal Putinists were disappointed and aggrieved by the actions of Moscow’s Mayor; they spoke of treason and of abject surrender to US Dems. The people began to grumble that they would be voting Communist in the upcoming (September 19, 2021) Parliamentary elections. President Putin tried his best to stay above the fray, but recognizing that the Covid Party is actively arranging his political demise, he took steps to rescue his loyalists. Putin publicly called for the mayor to drop the restrictions, and then behind the scenes he had them removed. The QR codes have dried up, and peace has returned to Russian society only one month after the restrictions were announced. The vaccination effort goes on, but it is voluntary. Barring unexpected developments, Russia has passed through the pandemic trial with flying colours, in typically Russian style (“Give a candle to God and a poker to Satan”). People fell ill and died, as always, but there were no disturbances, no riots, and Putin continues to outperform his challengers, in word and in deed.

Not every leader manages to escape intact from these orchestrated confrontations with global Covidians. President of Haiti Jovenel Moïse was reluctant to push for the vaxx in his poor country; he didn’t drop everything and immediately reorganise his state’s government around the new vaccination regime. He then flatly refused AstraZeneca, saying the stuff is dangerous for your health. Little did he know that refusing Big Pharma is perilous to the health of even the elected leader of a sovereign state. Sadly, he has been assassinated by a gang of Colombian mercenaries claiming to be DEA (the US Drug Enforcement Administration) and some of them actually serving with the DEA. The killing was organised by a Florida-based security firm. The killers were trained by the US Army. As soon as the President of Haiti was murdered, the US called in the Marines and half a million doses of vaccine. Thus, this small rebellion against the Covid empire has been squashed.

Moise was bravely following in the footsteps of four African leaders who also tried to resist Covid rule. Tanzanian President, John Magufuli, a cheeky man, adroitly tested some papaya, a goat, and a sample of engine oil for Covid using WHO-supplied tests, and they all turned out positive. He rejected testing and declared Tanzania Covid-free. Immediately afterwards the London Guardian newspaper (in a section funded by Bill Gates) called for regime change. The US Council on Foreign Relations seconded the call, and presto! The man is dead. It has been persuasively argued that Tanzania was untouched by Covid because the population regularly used an easily available and inexpensive anti-malaria drug and thus the dreaded coronavirus could not sicken them.

Magufuli was preceded by the President of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza, who did not allow WHO envoys into his country and refused to lock down and succumb to mass testing. He promptly died of a heart attack, just like Magufuli. The man who took his place immediately invited the WHO into the country and followed their instructions. Hamed Bakayoko, the Prime Minister of Ivory Coast and Ambrose Dlamini, who was prime minister of Eswatini (Swaziland) also died in suspicious circumstances. The suspicious circumstances around the assassinations are currently being covered up by Reuters fact checkers, who are claiming that “there is no evidence that leaders of Tanzania, Ivory Coast, eSwatini and Burundi were killed for refusing to vaccinate their countries against COVID-19.” I wonder whether if these fact checkers were so cautious about accepting evidence when Reuters was accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or when they claimed that that Putin poisoned Navalny with Novichok.

There is also a Covid component in the recent jailing of former South African President Jacob Zuma. While we are aware of tribal differences in South Africa, and even of Zuma crossing the ‘red line’ by attacking Oppenheimer of de Biers, his record on Covid was not widely publicized. A little research by Paul Bennett reveals the following vignette:

On 05 July 2021, former president Jacob Zuma on Sunday dismissed questions about his supporters gathered outside his home in KwaZulu-Natal without observing Covid-19 regulations. Zuma‚ who has not received a Covid-19 vaccination‚ addressed media personnel at his KwaDakwadunuse home in Nkandla on Sunday night and said he was not responsible for what his supporters did even if their actions were against lockdown regulations. According to Zuma‚ lockdown regulations were no different to the rules imposed on people during the mid-1980s state of emergency enforced by the apartheid regime. “We have a level 4 lockdown with all the hallmarks of a state of emergency and the curfews of the 1980s‚” said Zuma. “The only difference is that we use different levels‚ like contempt of court instead of detention without trial‚ but the substance is exactly the same. Being jailed without trial is no different from detention without trial.” Zuma revealed he had not been vaccinated against Covid-19 despite his age group qualifying for jabs. In what could be viewed as his first sign of disregarding lockdown regulations‚ the former president went out with Amabutho (Zulu regiments) on Saturday to greet supporters while not wearing a mask.

Bear in mind extremely strict anti-covid measures in South Africa, and you will understand their riots as a natural response to lockdown oppression, just like BLM in the US. You are free to reach your own conclusions about the coincidences in the case of Zuma, as with all the other recent regime changes connected to Covid activism.

The mask is a ‘masonic’ sign of support for the Covid Masters. Good guys like Biden wear the mask even when alone, while bad guys like Trump are usually maskless. Lukashenko and Putin are maskless, while the Belarus opposition and Navalny supporters wear masks. In Chile recently, the Left held primaries to pick a united candidate for presidency. The favourite was Daniel Jadua, a grandchild of Palestinian immigrants known for his fierce opposition to Israel. Worse, he fought for affordable medicines and pioneered ‘people’s pharmacies’. In his photos, he does not wear the mask. He was vociferously attacked by Chilean Jews who condemned his (yes!) anti-Semitism. Jadua was defeated, and the happy victors immediately presented their masked faces to the media so that we all might know who is good and who is bad. On some occasions, politicians do both, to err on the safe side. Russian and Iranian foreign ministers obliged mask fans by posing for pictures fully masked with elbows touching, then re-posed themselves for photos that will please ordinary folk, without masks and with a healthy handshake. The mask has evolved into a public declaration that we accept the Covid narrative, in the same way Christians cross their hearts.

 
An interview with Prof Roman Zubarev

I love scientists but they will kill us all, said Jon Stewart on The Late Show with Steven Colbert . Science eased our suffering due to a pandemic that was most likely caused by science, he told the audience. (Here you can find an acerbic response to the show on the Unz Review) Is it true? Do science and the scientists save us or kill us? How far can we trust them? It has become a relevant question for now they are not satisfied to stay in their labs but rather aspire to govern us as Anthony Fauci and his ilk do.

This aspiration emerges from an Open Letter by Nobel Prize laureates and other dignitaries who demand that we cede to them the planetary stewardship the Church had, or claimed to have in the Middle Ages. Such a mind-boggling pronouncement passed without attracting much attention; this says more about the mass media than about the magnitude of the event itself. After all, since the 11th century, nobody has yet claimed to guide the whole of mankind.

The letter, called “Our Planet, Our Future: An Urgent Call for Action,” claims that Science is the new Church of mankind, benevolent and wise. “Science is a global common good on a quest for truth, knowledge, and innovation toward a better life. [We want] to promote a transformation to global sustainability for human prosperity and equity. Global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by half and destruction of nature halted and reversed.” They claim Covid-19 is a “zoonotic disease”, carried by bats and pangolins – the letter was published in the end of April, just before the miraculous U-turn of the scientific consensus on this point. The scientists propose seven principles of governing our lives, and some of them are very far-reaching. Should we accept their recommendations?

To discuss this, I went to one of the leading contemporary scientists, Prof. Roman Zubarev. He is a daring and outspoken man who is not afraid of speaking his mind – a rare quality amongst this rather shy multitude! Roman Zubarev heads a laboratory in the Karolinska Institute, arguably the best scientific institution in Sweden which has been heavily involved with the selection and nomination of Nobel Prize winners. In an impressive first, he formed a living cell from dead matter. He discovered Isotopic Resonance, a phenomenon related to the creation of life.

• • •

ISH: Recently Nobel Prize laureates got together and published “An Urgent Call For Action” to mankind, in the name of science. It seems they want to form a world government, an age-old dream of various visionaries all the way from HG Wells and Shaw up to Schwab and Gates. What do the scientists actually suggest, and should we, mankind, heed their call?

RZ: I was simultaneously puzzled, disturbed, elated and provoked by that call. Usually, when a Nobel Prize winner speaks, it is worth paying attention. Here, a whole company of Nobel laureates and other esteemed experts has crafted a Letter. I have read it multiple times, trying to understand the deeper meaning, hidden underneath what appears to be virtue signaling – calls for all things good and against all things bad. But I wouldn’t think of criticizing them if not for the long-standing tradition of peer review in research. The scientists that crafted and signed the Letter must be well accustomed to relentless critical analysis of their writings by often – but not always – anonymous reviewers. Thus I thought it best to treat the Letter as if it was a research manuscript submitted for publication.

ISH: And what is your verdict?

RZ: The Letter presents a very uneven landscape of some deep thoughts and some apparently rather shallow suggestions.

One particularly striking thought is spread thinly across the Letter. I had to pick up one relevant sentence here and another one there to assemble a complete and coherent message. Here it is: Our world is in danger due to two factors – degrading environment and inequality, and without solving the latter one can’t solve the first.

They talk about global transformation and say that an essential foundation for this transformation is to address destabilizing inequalities in the world. They also quote Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Memorial prize laureate of 2001, who said The only sustainable prosperity is shared prosperity. Of course, Karl Marx has said essentially the same 150 years earlier.

It appears that now the world’s top scientists are calling for a global revolution as Marx did in his time. That appears to be the most logical conclusion one can arrive at after a careful reading of the Letter.

First the Authors admit, to their great credit, that science is not a solution to the world’s greatest problem but rather an essential component of that problem. They say: On aggregate, technological advancements so far have accelerated us down the path toward destabilizing the planet. They also say that scientific progress has led to greater levels of urbanization, and urbanization is exacerbating existing, and creating new, inequities.

Furthermore, to their additional credit they implicitly blame capitalism as a socio-economic system: While all in societies contribute to economic growth, the wealthy in most societies disproportionately take the largest share of this growing wealth. This trend has become more pronounced in recent decades.

When you distill the message, it is pretty clear – if we don’t want to lose the planet, we need to fix it within this decade, and to do that we need to change the global socio-economic system. No amount of scientific advances can be a substitute for such a change, as in capitalism technological achievements can only exacerbate inequality. That’s pretty revolutionary!

ISH: What do they suggest in practical terms?

RZ: Not much. It appears that, as scientists, they are more interested in diagnosing the problem and outlining a generalized solution rather than giving realistic advice.

In a practical sense there is a mixed bag of seven suggestions. The one in Policy is most closely related to the socio-economic system. However, it sounds strange and weak: to complement the current metric of economic success, gross domestic product (GDP), with some kind of measures of true well-being of people and nature.

I am not an economist and maybe this is a great suggestion. But to me it sounds similar to a proposal of merging the US dollar with “likes” in order to create a new world reserve currency. As far as I know, GDP is just a number used in economic reports, and it has little bearing on real-life economic processes, not to mention the structure of the socio-economic system. There are already a number of socio-economic indexes ranking the countries, and it’s unclear why more indexes would solve the inequality problem.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Academia, Global Warming, Political Correctness 

The recently inaugurated Israeli government, the Coalition-for-Change, the wet dream of Israeli and American liberals, Biden-approved-and-blessed after fifteen years of Bibi Netanyahu’s tyranny and four rounds of elections in the last two years – barely surviving a vote of confidence in cliffhanger-fashion – 59:59. It came to power on a slim ‘majority’ of 59.5:60.5 in the 120-members-strong Parliament. The delightful story of its almost-fall allows an insight into the inner workings of the Jewish state, for the members were fighting over their captive Gentile population’s right to marry and live in blessed matrimonial conjugation. Practically all Jewish MKs were against this right, but they acrimoniously argued over whether the current limitations were sufficient or should be intensified.

What is it all about? Anton, a young man from Nazareth met a girl, Sophia from nearby Jenin; they fell in love and got married. They are both Palestinians; Nazareth and Jenin are cities in Palestine; but they are not allowed to live together because Nazareth was conquered by the Jews in 1948 and Jenin in 1967. It sounds crazy, but that is Israeli reality.

Israel today is probably the most racist country in the world. The comparisons with South African apartheid or Jim Crow don’t even come close. Israeli racism is not even a distant relative of what you may call ‘racism’ in your country. A ‘racist’ American cherishes the names and traditions of his ancestors, or rejects the affirmative action that discriminates against him. An Israeli Jewish non-racist wants to keep the numbers of Goyim down, and he would be angry if called ‘racist’ because there are other Israeli racists who call for the total expulsion of non-Jews.

Under Israeli law, if an Israeli citizen marries a Palestinian, the young couple cannot live together. In our example, Anton is an Israeli citizen and he has a blue ID; Sophia has no citizenship, despite being a native of the land, and she has an orange ID. They can’t live together in Israel proper, for a Palestinian woman cannot be brought into Israel-48 even if she is the legally wed wife of an Israeli citizen. They can’t live together in the occupied territories of Israel-67 either, for Israel does not allow its citizens to live in the occupied territories unless they live in a racially segregated settlement, and Palestinians aren’t allowed into such a settlement. Thousands of such impossible marriages, mostly between Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian non-citizens of Israel, have taken place despite the prohibition. These married couples break the law every day of their lives, living illegally, without medical care and without the right to work or travel together. They are often stopped by the police and usually spend months in jail. For years they have been demanding the right to ‘family reunion’, government permission to live together legally on a permanent basis, but they aren’t even allowed to apply for it.

Older people perhaps remember how Soviet Jews demanded to be allowed to reunite with their beloved aunt in Tel Aviv, and how the wicked Bolsheviks prevented this. They remember Nobel Prize winners and humanists around the world demanding that the Kremlin let the families be reunited. Perhaps, if you are old enough, you even marched at the Soviet consulate demanding Let My People Go! Well, how can you compare? This is totally different! Then it was for the sake of Jews, and now it is for the sake of Gentiles, and that is not the same.

The law forbidding the reunion of Palestinian families is so revolting to modern sensibilities that Israel came up with a clever way of obscuring it. They call it “temporary” and renew it once a year (and have so since 2003) so they could wring their hands and say, oh, it is only a temporary measure. Other nasty and racist regulations like the Emergency Laws are renewed annually in the same way.

And now they have failed to renew the law, and it has lapsed. Not because they felt this unjust racist law should be removed from their books. No way! The new Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is such a desperate racist that the KKK would ban him as too much of a good thing, and the Proud Boys would call him a Hollywood Nazi. He hates Goyim with all his heart, as all good Lubavitcher disciples do; he boasted that he killed many Arabs in his life; he was angry with Bibi Netanyahu because Bibi didn’t kill enough Arabs in Gaza for his liking. Despite such a background, Bennett was branded ‘traitor” by the nationalist camp, for he came to power by joining forces with the remnants of the once-powerful Left (Labour and Meretz) and a small Arab Islamist party. Now he feels he has to prove his racist credentials; otherwise in the next elections his party Yamina (“Rightwards”) will be decimated by its nationalist voters. The vote on extending the reunion law gave him this opportunity. He wanted to extend the law, but in his zeal he overdid it.

He correctly assessed that the left wing of his unwieldy Coalition for Change, Meretz, would vote against the extension, and so he turned the vote for extension into a vote of confidence, expecting that this tactic would thwart all resistance. With this ‘smart’ decision he kicked his own ass, because the whole opposition mobilised against the renewal. In addition, two Palestinians from the Islamist party abstained and one deputy of his own party crossed the party line.

With a vote of 59:59, the government barely survived the no-confidence vote, and the anti-reunion law’s extension did not pass. And this means that 15,000 Palestinian couples will be able to apply for reunion. And that’s great, because preventing couples from reunion is murder, akin to genocide, as the Talmud rightly says. Now everyone in Israel is looking at each other, confused.

  • Racist Prime Minister Bennett helped the Palestinians reunite, even though he put his government on the line to prevent it.
  • The Israeli left – Meretz and Labour – voted for the racist law, showing that they are only interested in Jewish LGBT rights. Their favourite topic, the right of Jewish gays to use substitute mothers to create children, was much more important for them than the most elementary rights of non-Jews.
  • The Islamist Palestinians voted for the racist law because they did not want to bring down the government. They were eager to join any government, be it with Netanyahu or Bennett or the Devil himself, as they think this is the only way to save Palestinians from losing more homes to Israeli demolitions. They were intimidated into supporting this racist law.
  • The Likud, Netanyahu’s party, as racist as anybody, voted against the racist law against their own beliefs, for they wanted to take advantage of the no-confidence vote and send Bennett packing.
  • The far-far-right and nationalist Religious Zionist Party led by Smotrich torpedoed Netanyahu’s chances to form a government, because it didn’t want to sit in government alongside Islamists. They voted against the racist bill for they want to unseat Bennett, and furthermore they feel the bill is not enough: they want to enshrine in law a permanent ban on Arab citizenship. They proved that racists are too stupid for politics: no government can be formed without the small Islamic party tipping the balance. Netanyahu and Bennett both realised that, but Smotrich’s people are too stubborn for their own good.
  • Only the Communists voted in accordance with their conscience against the racist law. In short, almost all parties (except the Communists) kicked themselves in the groin, and hard!

 

The Russian Direct Line is a unique exercise in direct democracy: Russian citizens call up their president and he answers their queries and solves their problems, like a Nordic konung a thousand years ago. Russia came into being as a chain of Nordic princedoms that practiced this sort of direct access to their ruler; early Russian princes and Tsars posed themselves as an instance of last appeal and immediate access. Twenty years ago, Vladimir Putin resurrected this ancient practice, and once a year every Russian can appeal to him on any subject matter at all. A man of power and authority, he can override any regulation, cut through the bureaucratic red tape, and solve any conundrum by his almost-royal grace. In the heavily bureaucratised country, such an omnipotent yet benevolent ruler provides excellent solutions to problems that should never have arisen in the first place.

The majority of questions and answers deal with everyday Russian life; with the supply of gas, with water drainage, with prices for vegetables, or communal charges. But Putin also answered questions that dealt with real world politics, and provided a few scoops for us. (Here is the full transcript)

The HMS Defender raid into Crimean waters is still fresh in memory, so Putin was asked whether this confrontation could have led to the Third World War. “No”, said Putin. “Even if we had sunk that ship, it wouldn’t put the world on the brink of a third world war because they know they could not win the war. We would also suffer, but we were in the right, and on our own ground.” This means that Russians are perfectly able to sink or capture the next NATO ship if she were to enter Russian waters.

The question of sovereign recognition does not come into the equation at all. Possession and recognition are different. The US refused to recognise (from 1940 to 1991) that the Baltic States were part of the USSR, but prudently the US Navy never tried to visit Riga port, even equipped as it was with a permit from the Latvian government-in-exile. Argentina would not recognise the British claim of sovereignty over Malvinas (Falklands) and boldly sailed within 200 miles of it. Their cruiser General Belgrano was sunk with all hands by the British RN submarine Conqueror. The law of the sea advises seafarers to pay heed to reality, not to claims however legally impressive.

Many experts are guessing that Boris Johnson sent the Defender against the will of his big uncle in the White House across the Pond. Putin disabused them of this notion. During the Direct Line, he noted that while the Defender sailed towards Crimea, a US spy plane departed from Crete to observe the Russian reaction. It was a joint US-UK operation. Putin said:

This was a joint provocation not only by the British but also by the Americans. The British ship entered our territorial waters in the afternoon, whereas earlier, at 7:30 am, a US strategic reconnaissance plane tail number 63/9792 took off from a NATO military airfield in Crete. Thus the destroyer entered [our territorial waters] in pursuit of military objectives, trying to uncover the actions of our armed forces facing a threat. With the help of the reconnaissance aircraft they were trying to figure out how we operate, and where things were located and how they function.

The raid of the Defender was followed the next day by the Dutch frigate Evertsen. She tried to approach Russian waters, but “Russian fighter jets repeatedly flew low over the ship and carried out mock attacks,” said the Dutch Ministry of Defence. The Evertsen promptly turned away from the Crimean coast. Today there are dozens of NATO (and non-NATO) ships participating in the Sea Breeze manoeuvres involving 32 countries, 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft and 18 special operations, and all that in the Black Sea. (Israel participated in the manoeuvres and an Israeli company had temerity to advertise its missiles ability to sink a Russian corvette – on the photo)

Putin connected this action with the Geneva Summit. I wrote about it at length here, concluding that Putin had said Nyet to nearly all of Biden’s requests. However, before the summit, Putin had already acceded to one of Biden’s requests. He withdrew Russian troops from the Ukrainian border. The Russian president provided more details during the Direct Line:

The West raised a clamour over the fact that we were conducting exercises on our own territory near the Ukrainian border. I instructed the Defence Ministry to quietly end the drills and withdraw the troops, if this is such a great concern for them. We did so. But instead of responding positively and being grateful, they trespassed on our borders.

It’s just the latest chapter in Putin’s book of Western ingratitude. In his view, based on facts, every good deed he does for the West’s benefit is unavoidably met with a nasty reward. He allowed the US transit to Afghanistan in October 2001, and in return, the US supported jihadi attacks on Russia. That’s why Putin said Nyet to Biden’s request to place US bases in ex-Soviet Central Asia.

Now we are witnessing the collapse of the house of cards the US built in Afghanistan since 2001. All the European troops have gone home: Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Macedonia, Georgia, Estonia, all those countries that were forced by the US to participate in this 20-year-long occupation, have withdrawn their troops. US troops are leaving, too, as the Taliban (defeated by the US in 2001) retakes its country. Kabul regime troops are surrendering to their new Taliban leaders, just as the South Vietnamese troops surrendered to the Viet Cong in April 1975. We all recall America’s inglorious exit, with the last helicopters fleeing from the US Embassy roof. Probably soon we shall see similar episodes during the fall of Kabul.

The US has spent trillions defending Afghan women from Afghan men, not to mention promoting LGBTQ+. They would spend more and stay forever, but the Taliban are making it too expensive a hobby. Russians do not regret seeing them off. Pro-Western Russian experts once tried to claim that the US presence in Afghanistan would protect Russia. It was all bluff: once in power the US exported drugs to Russia and Europe, and imported jihadis from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan. They hoped their tame ISIS fighters would clash with the Taliban, but it never worked out that way. The Russians are not worried about the coming Taliban takeover: Moscow was the site of negotiations between the Taliban and the Kabul regime. Russian orientalists expect that the Taliban will inherit Afghanistan in such bad shape that it will be too busy at home to try and intervene in the Central Asian republics.

In Geneva, Biden didn’t respond to Putin’s ‘lecture’ (a term my informers used) on the Ukraine. During the Direct Line, Putin continued to expand his views on this touchy subject. He was insulted by the West when they sent their gunboats to Crimea even though he had kindly paid heed to their wishes and withdrawn his troops from the Ukrainian border. He refused to meet with the President of Ukraine because Putin feels Zelensky is a puppet of the West. In brutally direct words, Putin said: “Why should I meet with [President] Zelensky since he has passed management of his country into foreign hands? The main issues concerning Ukraine are not decided in Kiev but in Washington and, partly, in Berlin and Paris. What is there to talk about?”

 

The Geneva rendezvous of two presidents remains an enigma. Why did they meet at all? They agreed that nuclear war is bad for all; fine! Didn’t they know that? Did they check on their partner’s soul, did they look into the eyes? Now we have some answers, based on conversations with my Israeli friends who had the advantage of hearing both sides, the Russians and the Americans. Our loyal readers deserve to know what actually happened in Geneva.

In brief: Biden came to tell Putin that the US is in good shape, has recovered from the pandemic, its economy is better than the Chinese one, and that he is in charge. The meeting was quite peaceful; Biden was rather mellow, while Secretary of State Blinken was in attack mode; he argued with his own president and tried to boss him about. The Russians were prepared for worse, much worse. They thought that the meetings of Biden with the G7 and with NATO would lead to a crescendo in Geneva, and were relieved to learn that this meeting was not a presentation of a united Western position towards Russia.

Prologue: A Preparation to the Summit

Putin gave an interview to NBC’s Keir Simmons. The idea was to prepare for the worst that could happen at the summit. Another man would tell Simmons to f*ck off after the first few questions, but Putin endured his immoderate rudeness and insults with a smile, like an Indian brave captured by enemies. He never descended to rudeness. Simmons spoke to Putin as Tim Sebastian on the BBC’s Hard Talk would; the Romans might have spoken thus to a king brought in chains to Rome. Putin endured all, and he became mentally prepared for rough treatment in Geneva. It was not necessary, in the end. The summit passed much better than the Western media expected.

I believe that the world needs Russia, not because it is wonderful, but so that the world does not fall under the iron heel of the Pentagon/CIA/Wall Street/NY Times. Russia is a guarantee of diversity. Marx in his days supported the colonisation of California; he thought it would be progressive. Trotsky, in his time, denied Marx, saying he would support the backward Indian chief fighting a progressive coloniser. Marx was on the side of progress, but I think Trotsky was right, fuck progress, diversity is more important.

At the summit

The only subject Biden spoke about on behalf of the united West was Belarus. He said the West had agreed to punish Lukashenko for the airliner landing and the dissident arrest. Putin replied without hesitation: Russia fully supports Belarus. They did what they were allowed to do by international law; they were within their rights. And nobody can punish Belarus without Russia’s consent.

On Ukraine, Putin ‘lectured’ the Americans (Blinken’s word). He said that Russia would agree to US participation in the Normandy process (this is a mediation process by Russia, Germany and France) but Merkel and Macron aren’t willing to let the US in. Biden said that the US could help to implement the Minsk agreements. (The Minsk agreements were signed between the Donbas and Kiev in the aftermath of the military defeat the Kiev army suffered at the hands the Donbas. By these agreements, Ukraine would become a federated republic with greater powers devolved to all its provinces including the Donbas. The Donbas would then reintegrate within the Ukraine. The Minsk agreements were never implemented, for Kiev by different subterfuges refused to devolve its powers. Russia wants the Minsk agreements to be implemented, and Putin called it the only way to settlement in the Ukraine). Biden’s words annoyed his Secretary of State Blinken. He said: it will be a waste of time, no need for us to get into it.

Referring to the Afghanistan withdrawal, Biden made an unexpected request. The US asked for temporary military bases to be established in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, for twin purposes: (1) to facilitate the withdrawal of US troops and (2) to keep supplying the Kabul government with arms and ammunition after the withdrawal. This request was (almost) unexpected, but Putin promptly refused it for the following reasons. Such bases would invite the ire of the Taliban, leading to them being necessarily attacked, and that these two states would be drawn into war. This is unacceptable for Russia, as Russia has military obligations there, and these states are very close to Russia proper. In addition, China would consider the placement of military bases near China’s border a hostile act.

Biden stressed the temporary nature of such an arrangement. Putin could say there is nothing as lasting as a temporary arrangement. He flatly refused. This is probably wise: Russia withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, and there was no reason to import the Afghan war into old Soviet territory in order to please the old adversary. Putin could also have added that the Uzbek constitution explicitly forbids the placing of foreign bases on its soil, for good reason: when there was a US base in Uzbekistan, it was used by the Americans to promote pro-American political leaders who stood in opposition to the then president Mr Karimov. But Putin didn’t go into it, to avoid the impression of passing the buck to the Uzbek leader. The buck stops at the Kremlin. His reference to Chinese interests made a lasting impression, the Americans say. In 2001, the very same Putin allowed the US the facilities to attack Afghanistan and transfer equipment via Russia. Twenty years passed, and Putin had learned that playing up to the Empire carries no reward. Then he helped the US, as a payback, the US instigated the Chechen rising and terror attacks. Putin said so in Munich, in 2007.

The Biden team tried to surprise and pressure the Russians regarding Syria. Even before the summit, the US team tried to attach to the three declarative paragraphs of their joint declaration (quite vague and meaningless by themselves) a very meaningful fourth paragraph. It actually called for the perpetuation of the present-day Syrian disorder, for the perpetual break up of Syria, covering it with insincere words about attending to humanitarian needs. There were through-border arrangements at Bab al-Hawa used by the US and its allies to resupply the Islamist rebels in Syria and to withdraw them in case of need. Through these arrangements, Americans removed the ISIS fighters and moved them to Afghanistan, so they would fight the Taliban. Preserving these arrangements would lead to the permanent separation of the Idlib enclave. Russia was against it, and so the Russians stated and explained in the UNSC (UN Security Council).

As this subject will come before the UNSC on July 10, Russia intends to veto (if necessary) any resolution that would perpetuate this open gate into Syria. Syrians are indeed in need of humanitarian help, but the Syrian government is much better prepared to deal with crisis and the distribution of aid than the Islamist fighters who steal everything and sell the stuff at Turkish markets. Putin said that. He could add that if the US is concerned with Syrians’ well-being, it might lift the sanctions that starve Syrians. Syria is under Western sanctions that forbid even the import of food, medicines and fuel. In addition, the US steals Syrian oil and Iranian oil on its way to Syria. US appeals about the humanitarian crisis in Syria remind one of the father-killer who asks for mercy as an orphan. There would be no crisis in Syria if the West had not supported the Islamist rebels and sanctioned Syria to death.

 

Do not “pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19 because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued”. This was the instruction given by the US State Department to its investigators over a year ago, as reported by Vanity Fair in a long piece on Lab Leak. State Department investigators were warned against “digging in sensitive places” and repeatedly advised not to open a “Pandora’s box”.

What were they afraid of? They were afraid that someone might reveal that the deadly virus was cooked up by Chinese cooks under American guidance. The hands were Chinese, but the voice was that of Uncle Sam (Gen 27:22). In plain words, if the Chinese altered (Gain-of-Function’ed) the natural coronavirus, they did so on the orders of their American partners and according to their instructions. It is even more probable that the Chinese contribution was secondary, for they do not possess the know-how necessary to alter a virus. Whether it was an accidental leak of a bioweapon or the intentional deployment of bioterror (as Ron Unz expounded), in either case the US is the leading actor in the story.

President Trump threatened to sue Beijing for ten trillion dollars for the Wuhan lab leak. Good idea! But this princely sum should be charged to Washington (or rather New York with its Wall Street) as well as to Beijing. Actually, we didn’t have to wait until the end of May 2021 for this revelation. The basic facts were covered in the viral videos Plandemic and Plandemic II, released almost a year ago and promptly banned. Here you can watch a condensed (7 minutes), yet very convincing version of these two long videos, published last August. The creators conclude their story with ‘a plague on both your houses’ statement: “The US could say China did it, China could say the US did it. And both were right.”

The video (narrated by Dr David E. Martin and released by London real, the company owned by Brian Rose, a Jewish businessman from San Diego, CA, who is closely connected to the City of London) shows that work on Coronavirus began in 1999; the CDC filed a patent application on SARS-CoV in 2004; it was granted in 2007. They kept tampering with the virus for a few years, trying to make it more infectious and more deadly. After gain-of-function research was forbidden by the US government in 2014, it was promptly offshored to Wuhan lab. The research was quietly continued with US grants coming (partly) from the notorious Dr Fauci via the equally notorious Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance, the beneficiary of $39 million grant from the Pentagon. The Pentagon is a great humanitarian organization known for its love of mankind, right? If they forwarded so much money to Wuhan, they surely had our good in mind. Probably it was out of sheer modesty that they hid the grants, via a web of multiple transactions, passing money from one NGO to another until reaching its final destination in Wuhan. In 2017, the work on weaponising the virus was resumed in the US, while President Trump stopped the grants to Wuhan.

The united media and social networks unleashed their ferocious fact-checkers against the video and its conclusion that the Chinese did it on US orders. And for a long time the story disappeared. But now that the Lab Leak story has been unbanned (thanks to Nicholas Wade’s impactful story) we can check the fact-checkers and find them sorely missing actual arguments. Their main reasoning, beside labelling different opinions “debunked” or “discredited”, was based on an article in Lancet that was commissioned and produced under the guidance of the very same Peter Daszak who admitted (in 2016) that he commissioned and funded Chinese scientists to create a ‘Killer Coronavirus’. Thus the debunkers were debunked and the discrediters were discredited.

The conclusion that the virus was made by Chinese under US instructions was also reached over a year ago, in April 2020, by Tsarfat, a French-Jewish blogger, who claimed that Ralph S. Baric was the man who weaponised the virus in 2015, “and described without any inhibition how he took what appears to be a natural strain of a bat virus and altered its properties by adding HIV strains (the Spike Protein in question). The original virus that Baric manipulated in his team’s 2015 work was provided by a team of Chinese scientists which claimed its discovery in a 2013 Nature article.” What about suing Dr Baric and Gilead Sciences for some of the billions? Or Facebook for blocking this important information? Or, indeed, Dr Fauci, who covered up for Baric and for Daszak?

(Fauci has been declared the sexiest man alive, no more and no less like Henry Kissinger in his time, and probably by the same sort of people. Recently another Fauci, Jacob Fauci, made his appearance in East Jerusalem, where he argued that he intends to steal a Palestinian house because “if I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it.” Jacob (or Yaakov) Fauci is a fervent Jewish nationalist settler. Is he a close relative of Tony the Sexiest? I wonder!)

The Russians agree with Ron Unz. They think the virus was crafted by US scientists. While Putin avoided answering this question directly, Sergei Glazyev, an adviser to Putin and a minister of the Eurasian Commission, provided the whole script. In his view,

…The virus was synthesized in a well-known US laboratory by order of a scientific foundation closely associated with certain structures of the American financial oligarchy, then moved by ethnic Chinese to a Wuhan laboratory and released into the environment there. The purpose of this operation was to destabilize the socio-political situation in the PRC in order to create the prerequisites for a revolutionary situation. It fully fits into the logic of the global hybrid war, unleashed by the American financial oligarchy in order to maintain world domination in the confrontation with the rapidly growing China.

 

What does Lukashenko think of himself and of his country? Doesn’t he act like the King of Israel? Israel permits itself to kill and kidnap its enemies, wherever they are. The US also entitles itself to do whatever it finds necessary; kidnapping hundreds and dumping them in Guantanamo, or just killing them, as they killed Soleimani. But other states? No, God forbid! They should placidly accept whatever their betters decide and play by the rules.

However, Luka (as he is called affectionately) is made of a sterner stuff. This is the man who flatly refused to lockdown his nation; he carried out the VE-day parade in his capital Minsk on May 9, 2020, when the rest of the world was scared witless to leave their homes. And now he detained the NEXTA guy, Roman Protasevich, the organiser of last year’s protests in Minsk. Roman P. laughed at the extradition requests in safety of Warsaw; his NEXTA has offered millions in reward for Luka’s arrest. Now unexpectedly he is in the jail. He laughs best who laughs last.

The Russian social networks were very pleased. They cooked up the photo of their James Bonds, of Petrov and Boshirov of Salisbury fame, flying the plane into Minsk. Though cautious Russians probably weren’t involved, the hearts of Russians were all for Luka who arrested the Hipster.

At Sochi, the Black Sea resort and warm-climate-residence of Russian presidents, Putin received Lukashenko well, offered him a dip in the sea, and pooh-poohed Western threats. It’s just emotions, he said, an outburst of emotions. It will pass soon.

He referred to the disturbing EU recommendation to close the skies over Belarus, a direct threat to Russia, another tightening of the Iron Curtain. It would be uncomfortable for Russia and expensive for Belarus if these limitations were to persist. However, Russian support means that Belarus has nothing to worry about. And the US didn’t order its aviation to avoid Belarus, as opposed to Europeans. It is expensive to fly around Belarus; let the Europeans foot the bill.

Russia is coping with the New World Order, and doing well. It is the freest country in the world today, with theatres, museums and churches open, restaurants full of visitors, and there is a vaccine for everyone willing to take it. But this freedom was achieved through tremendous efforts, and Russia’s allies are not as capable of resisting the West. They are smaller, and it is easier to put pressure on them. Belarus, the Russian balcony over Europe, sticks out between US satellite states, and is vulnerable. The encirclement of Russia and its allies would have become a reality but for the long and friendly Chinese border.

Belarus has positioned itself as the Western hub of Chinese influence, as the westernmost ally and friend of China. Russian nationalists say Belarus is more pro-Chinese than pro-Russian. Belarus is a Eurasian state, says Lukashenko, thus connecting his country to both Russia and China. If the skies over Belarus were closed, Chinese access to Europe would suffer. It would also open a window for a sudden missile attack on Russia. For this reason among others, many Russian analysts consider the Ryanair affair a provocation. They say the West primed the trap and knew of all in advance. The Western states responded so fast and so massively that an advanced knowledge seems inescapable conclusion.

The CIA played a gambit: they sacrificed a young man of little importance in order to undermine China and Russia and strengthen the hand of Biden, due to meet Putin shortly. Others say just the opposite, the Belarus KGB achieved a great success, while the Western-sponsored Belarusian opposition have received a terrible blow. Even more conspiratorially-minded experts say it was a Russian operation, aiming to tie too-independent Belarus to its giant neighbour.

Indeed there isn’t enough certainty about the Ryanair events to rule out a provocation. Lukashenko says he would have demanded that the plane land in Minsk if he had known Roman P. was on board the plane. But he didn’t know, he says. We know for certain that a Minsk airport traffic controller informed the captain of the Ryanair aircraft that an email had been received (ostensibly from Hamas) claiming that there was a bomb onboard the aircraft that would explode over Vilnius airport. The threat was dubious; Hamas has never blown up planes, but it used suicide bombers to blow up buses in Israel so no one could guarantee it was a hoax.

All over the world, in the East and the West, all bomb threats are treated as though they were real even if they are much more often a hoax. Last year, Russia suffered thousands of hoax bomb threats; usually claiming a school was booby-trapped. These hoax threats are often traced to the Ukraine, where is an active and rabidly anti-Russian neo-Nazi network. Despite the near certainty that it is a hoax, Russian authorities invariably treat these threats as the real thing. So does the West. In August last year, British RAF scrambled two fighter jets to intercept a Ryanair liner because of a security threat; it turned out to be a mobile phone forgotten in a toilet.

Thus it is standard procedure to take security measures. In any case, it is the captain’s right and duty to decide. The captain decided to turn towards the Minsk airport. This is a fact – there is a record of the conversations between the aircraft and the airport. On the way to Minsk airport, a Belarusian fighter jet accompanied the plane. It had been scrambled, according to standard procedure, as the airliner drew close to Minsk airport and passed near the nuclear power plant. Ryanair records confirm that the fighter jet did not intercept the liner, did not threaten it, and was not perceived by the captain as a threat. While it is possible Belarus knew about the hoax (or even arranged the hoax) there is no way to prove it.

After the plane landed, the passengers got off and were taken to the terminal. While they were waiting for the immigration inspection, Ms Sapega, the NEXTA guy’s girlfriend, took a photo of him on her smartphone and sent the photo to their mutual friend. He posted the photo on Telegram, saying their leader is in Minsk! This is how the Belarusian authorities learned that this person, who had long been wanted by police, was found on their territory. He was therefore detained. This is the story coming from Belarusian authorities, and it could be true (or not). In any case, there was no hijacking of an aircraft, no forced landing, no other questionable acts. Whether Belarusian authorities knew from the start that a wanted man was on board does not matter at all. After the publication of the photo of the man on Telegram, they could not even pretend that they did not know.

And what if they had known of the young man’s presence onboard? Even if it were so, they were still acting in their own right. Any country has the right to land any civil aircraft flying in its own airspace. This not only follows from the idea of sovereignty, but is also confirmed by practice.

In 2016, Kiev authorities scrambled jets and, under the threat, forced a Belavia flight on its route to Minsk to return and land in Kiev. After landing, they removed and detained a passenger – the Russian-Armenian expert Armen Martirosyan. Why? Because he (jokingly, according to him) said by phone from the airport before take-off that he was carrying dirt on Ukrainian President Poroshenko with him. He in fact did not have any documents; he was later released; but the act of forcing the plane to land did not cause any international reaction.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Belarus, Lukashenko, Russia 

As a teenage girl, kidnapped and locked in a cellar by a paedophile maniac, scratches his horrible leering face with her sharp nails, Gaza sends her homemade rockets to Tel Aviv. They can’t cause much damage; they are just bits of rusty iron, dangerous in the unlikely event of a direct hit, but they woke up the beast in the monster. He carefully took away every sharp object from her reach, he starved her for years to make her placid and compliant, he made sure she’d have no chance to see or gain freedom, and all of a sudden such terrible pain, such deep scratches! I have the right of self-defence, he shouts while unleashing his F-16 jets to bomb her into the stone age; and his sidekick, the senile US President, repeats after him: he has the right of self-defence! As long as she scratches, he may and should smack her! No cease-fire until she is beaten into obedience; and the US vetoed the Security Council resolution supported by 15 out of 16 members. To be on the safe side, the White House approved the sale of precise weaponry to Israel for the sum of $735 million, so they would be able to do a 9/11 to any high-rise of their choice, not only in New York. And they used the weapons to great effect.

The vetoed resolution said what should be done right away. Israel should cease bombing Gaza, refrain from interfering with holy sites, stop grabbing Palestinian homes and lands. The US refused to approve that. This is far from enough: the violated girl should be let out of the cellar. That is, Palestinians should be allowed to move freely in their own land. The Israeli army should get out of Palestinian land. The blockade of Gaza should be removed. A goy and a Jew should have equal rights, as in the US. All apartheid laws should be made null and void. Human dignity respected. And then the girl should also be allowed to live in peace. Stolen lands and homes restored to rightful owners; refugees returned, free elections taking place. But we are very far from this point.

My friends and colleagues thought the Palestinians of Gaza could inflict defeat on Israel, or at least cause considerable pain to the maniac. Alas, not yet. The Palestinians are improving their response ability. During the First Intifada (1987), they used stones against the army; in the Second Intifada (2001), they used guns; at this Third Intifada (2021) they use rockets. But they are defeated each time, and their life becomes worse with each defeat. Before the First Intifada, Palestinians could move freely; before the Second Intifada, they had their autonomy in the West Bank; now they have none worth its salt; and what will be taken away from them after the present round of struggle we shall see. That’s why, though the Palestinian position is quite awful, the ordinary Palestinians of the West Bank are not all that keen to enter an armed struggle against the formidable enemy. Desperate young people, who see no future worth living, enter such a struggle. And Gaza, this prisoner’s managed open-air-jail administration, stepped into the breach. For Gazans, there is little difference between a life that is a living hell and death that may be better. They are being severely punished for their bold action.

Jews of Israel didn’t suffer much, though more than they expected. Their famed intelligence failed them again. The Shabak, the internal intelligence service, predicted Gaza wouldn’t respond by actions beyond protests at the land grab in Jerusalem and the invasion of the al-Aqsa Mosque. They were wrong. The Shabak was certain Gaza had no rockets able to reach Tel Aviv, or just a few, in the worst case scenario. They were wrong again. The Shabak didn’t expect the thoroughly tamed Palestinians of Israel, the second-class citizens of the Jewish state, would rise in revolt. But it happened.

The centre of this rising is Lydda (Lod), the city of St George; the saint is buried here, in the beautiful old Orthodox church. By the UN partition resolution of 1947, this Palestinian town was supposed to become a part of the Palestinian state, but Jews occupied it, massacred its inhabitants, expelled survivors and repopulated it with freshly imported North African Jews. Still, a sizable Palestinian minority survived and clung to their homes. After years of terrible discrimination, they rose against their Jewish masters in revolt, for the first time since 1948. The same happened in Jaffa and Acre, cities with a similar history.

The bands of armed militant Jews, assisted by police, ran a classic anti-Arab pogrom, as supposedly Cossacks did against Jews in the beginning of the twentieth century.

They broke windows, burned shops, firebombed Arab apartments; mobbed Arabs on the street. Such pogroms took place all over Israel, even in Jewish Bat Yam, where an Arab had had an ice cream parlour for years. It was utterly destroyed. An Arab child has been burned (not fatally) by a Molotov cocktail thrown by a Jewish militant. Pogroms did happen over a hundred years ago in the Ukraine (incidentally, never in Russia proper), but then Russian writers lamented and expressed their solidarity with suffering Jews. Now, almost no Jewish writers have expressed their sorrow or stood with the Arabs. The Israeli Arabs, that is Palestinians with Israeli citizenship went out today (Tuesday) on national strike in support of their disenfranchised brethren. And the West Bank is also waking up.

Hundreds of martyred Palestinians created a huge wave of empathy for the suffering people. There were massive demonstrations in New York, in Paris, in London and elsewhere. The Arabs in the Arab countries also demonstrated wherever they were allowed to. To be sure, Israel does not give a damn about demos abroad; they are used to condemnations. It is a part of Jewish experience, to be condemned with a very good reason. The Jews like to claim there is no reason at all, just “anti-Semitism”, but this claim rings hollow in face of the murdered children of Gaza. The Jews are condemned because they deserve condemnation.

Only a rabid antisemite would say Gaza is worse than Auschwitz. No, it is better, but only just. And it has gone on longer, year upon year, with no end in sight.

And this war has at last awakened the empathy of the world: this was a paramount reason for Gaza’s daring attack. Now, a fast rewind is needed. Ostensibly, the current events started over a week ago, when the Israeli court (probably the most immoral of Jewish institutions) ruled to expel some Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem and give the buildings to the Jewish Ku Klux Klan. Protesters were beaten by the police and gendarmerie; among the beaten, there was an MP (Member of Parliament/Knesset) from the Communist Party, a Jew by origin, who supported the Palestinians.

Then during the last days of Ramadan, the Israeli police and army infested al-Aqsa Mosque. They dropped hundreds of shock grenades upon the worshippers; these grenades produced a rain of sparks. Some trees in the mosque compound caught fire. At that time, thousands of Jewish militants gathered at the Wailing Wall at the bottom of al-Aqsa. As they saw fire and smoke rise from the yard, they presumed the mosque was on fire, and they broke into triumphal cheering and singing, calling their god’s vengeance upon the goyim.

[Video Aqsa fire]

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Gaza, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Russia 

The digital giants have taken over the world. Nobody has ever amassed this much power. Hitler would die of envy if shown the greatness of Google. Huxley and Orwell’s protagonists could only dream of what Bezos and Gates do. The latter overthrew the US President and installed one they prefer, and for good reason. The combined net worth of the top 100 ultra-rich people in the US has skyrocketed by $195 billion since Biden took office, according to Bloomberg’s calculations. These giants control the minds of billions. Nations hock their lands and industries to purchase their patent medicines. These giants know our faces, our names, all about us, even the cells we are made of, down to the last protein. Gods have been defeated, gentle Christ and mighty Sabaoth, not to mention angry Allah. Is that a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? (Eccl 1:10) No, my jaundiced ancestor was right — it has already been done in the ages before us.

Once upon a time, the giants almost pushed the gods off Olympus. Apollodorus tells us that the gods could not win, until they remembered the oracle that the giants would only be defeated if a mortal man was to help the gods. Only Man can facilitate the gods’ victory over the giants, divined the Greeks in their Gigantomachy, just as the Christians knew only a Son of Man could defeat Death. When the giants had almost defeated the gods, a mortal man, Heracles, stepped forward and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Now we are in dire need of a brave mortal to tackle giants. If there is no Heracles, anyone will do; but the giants have to be defeated. And indeed, unlikely Giant Killers have stepped forward.

The uprising began in rebellious Moscow, where the city arbitration tribunal demanded that Google restore a deleted YouTube account or pay billions of dollars in fines. Impossible, you’d say — Google is free to do whatever they want. They shadow-banned Unz.com; its brother giant Twitter banned Trump; there is no way to overturn their decisions, for such companies are private, and private property is sacred — otherwise it’s Communism and Gulag; they can do whatever they want, and their smart lawyers have already included their right to unplug you in every one-click contract agreement.

Yet Russia isn’t all that different from any other Western nation. Until this happened, the Russian legal system had refused to consider claims against the tech giants. Russian law did not allow for it. It was enough for the giants to stipulate that all claims should go to London or to some other tame court of their preference for the Russians to meekly submit. However, the giants overreached themselves when they blocked this avenue to sue them in Western jurisdiction for many Russians. The Russians responded by creating a new law that established the priority of their national law, and required the courts and tribunals to accept and judge the cases if there is no way to sue in the agreed Western jurisdiction.

This new law was applied by the Moscow Arbitration Tribunal after Google, in July 2020, deleted the account of Tsargrad, a Christian conservative TV channel and news agency belonging to Konstantin Malofeev, an unusual Russian digital media lord. Slate magazine made a profile of the man some years ago, while he was still planning to create Tsargrad. Slate grossly exaggerated Malofeev’s proximity and importance to Putin, for he is an outsider, but otherwise it gives you the general idea. Malofeev had been sanctioned by US and EU authorities in 2014, but the account of the media company he is the main owner of was blocked six years later, in the summer of 2020. Tsargrad had over one million subscribers when suddenly, and without warning, YouTube deleted its account. At first, they explained their action by asserting that Tsargrad was “breaking the community rules’, as always. Later on, Google claimed they blocked Tsargrad because its owner had been sanctioned.

The Moscow tribunal rejected both claims. (Read here the tribunal decision in full, English translation comes after Russian version) It stated that Google didn’t prove Tsargrad broke community rules; even had that been the case, Google would have had to give six months’ warning before breaking the contract. As for sanctions, the Tribunal ruled that US and EU sanctions are a part of public law of those particular countries, and cannot be applied in Russia; Google has to restore their account or suffer legal consequences.

The consequences are financial, and exponential. For the first week of non-compliance, Google would have to pay a little over one thousand dollars, nothing to speak about there. But afterwards, the fines double each week, and in half a year’s time Google would have to pay over $70 billion! Exponential fines can be very threatening. Can the Russians make Google pay? Yes! Google (google.ru) has a few billions on their accounts in Russia, all eminently liable to be seized. On the other hand, if Google restores the blocked account, they won’t have to pay a cent. Stories related to this historical decision are filed here (in Russian).

Anyway, Malofeev had been sanctioned by the US and EU over six years ago, when he was allegedly supporting the Russian rebels in Donbas (he says he ran a humanitarian mission). Why, all of a sudden, did Google freeze his account in 2020?

There is an honest answer to this question, but Google’s cagey lawyers would never admit to it. In 2020, encouraged by their meteoric rise to the top of the pandemic-troubled world, Google and the other giants unleashed their might to erase ideologically unacceptable (for them) media. They carried out a large-scale ideological cleansing of pro-family, Trump-friendly, conservative, Christian sites and accounts, and of sites that didn’t support the paradigm of gay and trans, anti-male, anti-white woke propaganda. The sites that doubted the official Covid narrative were also banned or shadow-banned. They forbid their clients to trust in God, summed it up a Russian observer. The timing of the cleansing was connected with the US Presidential elections of November 2020. The giants planned to remove Trump and install Biden by hook or by crook. Accounts that were likely to disagree with this massive fraud planned by the giants were deleted. Didn’t this constitute meddling in the important elections? For sure, but it was the giants, not the Russians, who meddled, and they even had FBI on their payroll.

Not only did American accounts suffer in this purge; the giants cleansed Russian accounts, too. Though there aren’t many Russian-reading voters in the US, the giants didn’t want to take any chances. They planned and executed probably the first complete global takeover of discourse in human history. Tsargrad was one of the smothered media voices.

Malofeev in Tsargrad office
Malofeev in Tsargrad office

 

The US has been fighting two wars: with Ukraine against Russia, and with Russia against Climate. Both are very costly, both bring no profit to Americans, both are entirely unnecessary, but both are essential for the Biden regime at this time, as the Covid pandemic runs out of steam. How will matters proceed?

The Ukrainian war may have been postponed. Russian troops withdrew from their forward positions on the Ukrainian border to their permanent bases. Perhaps Putin decided that the threat of a powerful Russian response would suffice for Kiev to give up their plans of a Donbas invasion. It was a close call: Kiev artillery shelled Donbas; Russian tanks faced them waiting for the order to roll westward, but the order didn’t come. It is still too close to call. In the last few days, the shelling of Donbas by the Kiev regime has actually intensified. Kiev troops have moved forward to the frontline separating the regime-controlled areas and free Donbas, and they brought with them more of their heavy weaponry. In Donbas, people are in a wretched mood: they feel abandoned by Russia, or rather have returned to the same hell of intermittent shelling they have lived with for years. They haven’t been allowed to join the Russian Federation as they had hoped. In Kiev, they think Putin blinked first. So say the Brits. Prudent Putin does not want war, but he may still get it. What we have now feels like a lull rather than a stable situation.

Europe Defender, one of the largest US Army-led military exercises in decades has kicked off and will run until June. The Russian Defence Minister Mr. Shoygu called upon his troops to stand ready to respond to any “adverse developments” during the NATO exercises; heavy weapons will remain in forward positions, so troop deployment could be fast. In May, Royal Navy ships will pass the Bosporus, while the Russians have moved their missile boats from the Caspian and Baltic Seas to the Black Sea. So there are still plenty of chances for things to go wrong.

Russia’s relations with the US and its minions are as bad they ever were. As bad as in 1962, during the Caribbean crisis? No, but as bad as in 1952, during the Korean War. The United States is an enemy, declared Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Ryabkov, and such a word has not been used since the Korean War. The US and Britain called Russia their most dangerous enemy, too. Until recently, Putin still believed in the possibility of integrating Russia into the Western world, not as top dog but as a powerful state on a par with Germany or France. The years that have passed have proved to him that this was an impossible pipe dream. He has had to adjust his goals. And besides, the world has changed. There has been a tectonic shift: Russia became stronger; the US antagonised China; the American people are restive and unhappy; Europeans are prisoners in their own homes. In such a world, Russia can’t possibly take US proxy assaults lying down forever.

Relations between Russia and the US have shifted from ‘rivalry’ to ‘confrontation’ and are back to a Cold War level, wrote ex-president Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s number 2 man, who has been considered a more Western-friendly member of the Kremlin team. Russia has sent the US Ambassador back home ‘for consultations’; he tried to disobey with “Hell, no, I won’t go” but eventually relented and departed to Washington, together with ten expelled US diplomats. Russians also forbade the US Embassy from hiring local staff, receiving visiting diplomats and travelling freely in Russia, making diplomatic ties rather strained.

During this time, the plot to assassinate President Lukashenko and/or kidnap his sons was uncovered in Moscow. The plotters enjoyed CIA support, said the Belarusian president, asserting that his assassination had been authorised at the highest level of the Biden administration. This disclosure drew Belarus closer to Moscow. A year ago Minsk and Moscow were cold-shouldering each other. Lukashenko had good reason to suspect that the Russian oligarchs were involved in the colour revolution in his country. They hoped to remove the stubborn president, then privatise and buy Belarus’ industry, as this republic is the only one that preserved and improved the legacy it inherited from Soviet days. Since then, Lukashenko realised that Putin is not against him and relations have begun to improve.

Bearing that in mind, people waited somewhat nervously for Putin’s annual state-of-the-nation address on April 21, expecting some dramatic announcement, be it war, or the integration of Belarus, or recognition of Donbas; however the address mainly dealt with state help to families with children. Putin played Santa Claus: he congratulated the Russian people on almost beating the pandemic; now we have to be fruitful and multiply, he implied. He also gave Russians ten days of paid holiday starting May 1st, presumably for multiplying at leisure in their summer houses. Practically every established Russian city-dwelling family has a country house for exactly such purposes. This year, Russian Easter Sunday will come on May 2nd, so Russians will get the whole Octave of Easter as a fully paid holiday. The state will cover half of children’s summer vacation costs and give a decent lump sum to each child in time for the next school year, enough to buy proper clothes and books. Holidaying in Russia will be subsidised for all, to offset the difficulty of travelling abroad due to corona restrictions. For those who insist on going abroad, Egypt will be soon be open as a holiday destination.

Such generosity has Russians worried. It reminded them of those restful hours and the shot of vodka their fathers were given before being sent to attack the German lines – a respite before battle. However, Putin didn’t mention the Kiev regime and the Ukraine even once.

He promised severe retribution to whoever crosses red lines, and compared the Czechs and Poles with “Tabaqui [the Jackal] hanging around [the man-eating tiger] Shere Khan, howling to appease their sovereign”. Shere Khan is certainly the US, the great enemy of Mowgli [Russia], the human child in the jungle. Rudyard Kipling has been cancelled in the US for his White Man’s Burden, and Tabaqui did not appear in the US cinematic versions of the Jungle Book, but Russians know the character as it appears in their cartoon version.

The Czech jackals have occasioned much mirth among Russians by claiming that their arms depot was blown up in 2014 by Petrov and Boshirov, the legendary GRU agents of Skripal fame. Hundreds of memes appeared right away, appealing to the Russian sense of humour.

 
Israel Shamir
About Israel Shamir

Israel Shamir has written extensively on public affairs, primarily relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict and Russia, including three books, Galilee Flowers, Cabbala of Power and Masters of Discourse available in English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Norwegian, Swedish, Italian, and Hungarian.

He describes himself as a native of Novosibirsk, Siberia, who he moved to Israel in 1969, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war, afterwards turning to journalism and writing. During the late 1970s, he joined the BBC in London later living in Japan. After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, and was the Knesset spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party (Mapam), also translating and annotating the cryptic works of S.Y. Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winning writer, from the original Hebrew into Russian.

His perspective on the Israel/Palestine conflict was summed up in The Pine and the Olive, published in 1988 and republished in 2004. That same year, he was received in the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem and Holy Land, being baptised Adam by Archbishop Theodosius Attalla Hanna. He now lives in Jaffa and spends much time in Moscow and Stockholm; he is father of three sons.