The real target of the British-American offensive is Europe,
too prosperous and egalitarian for the Empire of Greed. The wave
of refugees is already.
On the Move
By
Israel Shamir
In the early autumn, when the pomegranates ripen, I embark for
the ruins of the destroyed Palestinian village of Saffurie. The
native city of Mary’s mother, it still guards the Crusader
church of St Anne. This old village was an important city some
two thousand years ago, when, under name of Sephoris, it refused
to join the Jewish Zealots, and remained loyal to Empire. It
provided a comfortable home to the man who reinvented Judaism
after its collapse, Rabbi Judah the Prince, and for many
Christian sages and Roman nobles. It survived all vagaries of
time, until in 1948 it was stormed by the Israeli army and
destroyed. Its villagers became refugees and went to refugee
camps or to nearby Nazareth. The groves of the dead village
remained hidden in the valleys, bringing full, off-round, heavy
and bursting pomegranates each year, but there is nobody left to
pick the fruit. People from the Jewish settlement built next to
the ruins are indifferent to the fate of pomegranates and of the
peasants who planted them. In this kingdom of desolation amid
bountiful red fruit laden trees, there is also a carefully laid
Roman floor mosaic sometimes called Mona Lisa of Galilee. It
consists of thousands small stones of various shades and
together they form a proud elongated face with a straight nose,
high hairdo and full lips in the acanthus frame of leaves.
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.
|