Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Trump As Lenin?

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)


And now for something completely different …

Israel Shamir, a Russian-born, semi-Marxist, pro-Palestinian, apostate Jew, compares Donald Trump somewhat favorably with his hero Vladimir Lenin.  Personally, I view Lenin as a monster.  But at least he was right (and Woodrow Wilson and America were wrong) about the “Great War”.

But the real reason I like Israel Shamir is because, despite his more than a trace of looniness, he hates John McCain and Lindsey Graham even more than I do.

-M.D.

* * * * *

Vladimir Ilyich Trump?



God bless Donald Trump for sacking James Comey! Just a few days before this decisive step, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com called James Comey “the most powerful man in America”. Comey was pushing the US into an unnecessary war with unwilling Russia. Answering a question by Lindsey Graham, the notorious warmonger, he said that Russians are “the greatest threat of any nation on earth, given their intention and their capability.” This is really not an FBI agenda! He claimed the right to decide the foreign policy of the US, and even what is (MSM) and what is not (Wikileaks) legitimate media. The guy became too big for his boots, and it is good that he’s gotten the boot.

By sacking Comey, Trump has made a first step to recovering his lost ground. Previously, we saw him retreating. He [nearly] sacked Bannon, he bombed Syria, he promoted his silly daughter and her weird husband to almost-presidential status. The results were sad. The president has been treated as a legless (not just lame) duck. Comey’s behaviour has been especially insulting. If the foreign policy is decided by the FBI and the NY Times, who needs a president, anyway?

I would applaud if Trump were to send killing drones, Obama-style, to deal with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, too. It would make a terrific show: over a beautiful chocolate cake, watching drones flying all the way to these two bastards. But probably Trump is not made of sufficiently stern stuff. He should invent some less spectacular way to get rid of the traitors.

His next step – inviting Mr Sergey Lavrov to the White House – was also good and right, particularly in the context of Comey’s “Russia is a threat” pronouncement. Some wise heads suggest that he chose the wrong timing and exposed himself to attacks. Bollocks! He would be attacked at any time, sooner or later. By doing what he did when he did it, Trump proved that he can. Despite the incredible demonization of Russia, despite the silly claim that he is on Putin’s beck and call, he met with the Russian minister. This was a manly act, something to be proud of.

The warmongers responded with the ridiculous accusation of “leaking strategic secrets to Lavrov”. Ridiculous but meaningful: the idea is to build a conditioned reflex in politicians and statesmen, like Dr Pavlov did for dogs. His dogs began salivating while hearing the bell usually associated with feeding, or they ran away at the sound associated with trashing. A conditioned politician will cross the street to the opposite pavement if a Russian diplomat is sighted, and thus the danger of peace will be removed.

Until now, the clearest cases of conditioning were produced by the Israel Lobby. Jews are wonderfully good at conditioning. So many politicians and journalists have been conditioned into swearing their compliance with Jewish dogma. At the first sound of displeasure, they crawl of all fours and declare their love for the Jews and/or Israel. The late Joe Sobran, a witty Washington journalist, compared them to cows that graze on a field surrounded with low-voltage electric wire. If they try to get close, they get a small but unpleasant shock. For vast majority, this is enough to keep them inside.

And when a politician is conditioned, he can be led wherever his shepherds want. Indeed, the first man to blow whistle on Trump “passing secrets” to Lavrov had been Alan Dershowitz, the torture-loving Zionist, who had conditioned many politicians to love Israel or else.

For this reason I prefer politicians who proved they weren’t scared or conditioned by the Jews. Such is the wonderful Cynthia McKinney – she lost her position on the Capitol Hill, but she did not surrender. This I would call the first test for a politician. If the Jews can subdue you, they will. I’ll add for your comfort: it is not necessary to fight the Jews: just do not give them a single inch, and then they will do what you want. It is practically the same idea as in walking a large dog. Let him have his way once, and he will pull you for miles and miles; keep him on tight leash, and he will obey.

I saw this quality in President Trump, too. He rejected the Jewish call to apologise for the six-pointed star on Clinton’s image, he rejected their insistence to mention the Holocaust, and even when he did, he did not mention Jews, to their great annoyance. Then he gave in for a while, and bombed Syria and made some pro-Israel noises, and he sent his Ivanka to do an even more pro-Jewish routine, and he appeared defeated. But then he had met with Lavrov. Let us hope this time Trump will keep the leash in his strong hands.

I am somewhat embarrassed to cheer the US President for doing such minor routine things as firing an FBI director or meeting with the Foreign Minister of a major state. Next, I’d have to laud him for eating an apple or washing his hands (“Attaboy!”). But one feels that the guy needs our encouragement for doing something right. As the father of three boys, I know: boys need encouragement. And if there is no great achievement to cheer them for, even washing their hands before the meal will do.

Trump has a huge, Herculean task: to turn the battleship America away from its collision course when all the important people in all the important positions are deadly keen to run it full speed ahead. They think the other ship will turn away first; but the “other ship” is actually a lighthouse. It is the rock of the World-Island and its Heartland. Why would so many smart Americans, Brits and Europeans push their luck by courting war and disaster?

Exactly a hundred years ago, in 1917, Vladimir Lenin discovered that the present system necessarily produces world wars. It is not a question of bad guys or good guys, it’s the system, stupid! He wrote about it a concise book called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, radically updating Marx. The idea is that capitalism evolves from dynamic competitive production to financial capital takeover, while the financial capital unavoidably leads to wars. If financiers rule, war is inevitable, he said, because they are insatiable.

Industrialists, builders, farmers can and will stop at the limits of their territory, but financiers always want more, and there is no natural limit to their expansion. They want to colonise more lands, subjugate more nations and suck up their substance. The only way to save the world from the horrors of war (remember, Lenin wrote after Verdun and Ypres), is to get rid of financial capital’s dominance (Jesus came to the same conclusion whens He expelled the moneychangers from the temple).

That same year, Lenin made his great experiment to rid his country Russia of bankers and other exploiters, while earning their eternal hatred (and volumes of fake news about his bloodthirsty cruelty, in addition). History has proven him partially right: the countries that followed Lenin’s path never began a war, and they never colonised other states, though they did help some to get rid of their leeches and Western interference. Soviet Russia is an example: it was a donor to all the other socialist states, from Georgia to Afghanistan. (Perhaps the communists had been too good for this world. After Russia was de-communised, Russian income went up, while the incomes of practically all the ex-Soviet states plummeted, unless subsidised by the EU.) And they knew no war.

On the other hand, the states that remained under bankers’ sway went to war more and more frequently. They colonised or were colonised. Probably none as often as the US, the home country for the Federal Reserve, for the dollar and for so many great financial companies.

For America, the next World War is inevitable, unless the Americans can get rid of their financiers – and of their servants in the mass media and other state institutions. My sympathy to President Trump has been based on his antipathy to the moneymen. When he attacked the Federal Reserve and Wall Street, he swayed me, and perhaps you, too.

But then, I am not a real Marxist. I’ll explain. Marxists consider financial capitalists as progressive sort of exploiters. “Progressive” is not a synonym of “better”; it is just more advanced, like in “progressive disease”. Classical Marxists believe the happy future of mankind will come after the full victory of progressive financial capitalism. Lenin came to the conclusion that there was no reason to wait for their victory: the workers can do everything better. This is the question of who and how to fight financial capital.

Financial capital has two sorts of enemies: progressive and reactionary. The progressive are those who go for the future, for the elimination of money rule altogether, for the happy brotherhood of all men, for liberated labour, for human development, for the world of no masters and no slaves. These people are workers, and they are happy to work without being fleeced. They do not want to exploit or to be exploited.

The reactionary prefer the past. The Alt-Right is that sort of people. Evola and Guenon, the lodestars of the Alt-Right, hated modernity and believed it could be rolled back. They wished feudalism or even older formations to return.

We do not fully realise that the industrial capitalism of the 1950s, with its captains of industry and people of the real economy, of oil tycoons and great builders, also belongs to yesterday. They are still rich and powerful, but so are kings and dukes. They also were defeated by the sleek moneymen.

Marxists believe that the the progressives will win, while the reactionaries are doomed to defeat. Lenin was not a classical Marxist, as he believed in great potential of “reactionary”, or backward, peasants. He didn’t think people have to wait until the bankers take over the world. A short-cut is possible, and exploiters can and should be defeated.

Being of an optimistic and eternally hopeful disposition, I am not even a true Leninist, as I am sympathetic to all the enemies of the bankers, whether progressive or reactionary, Alt-Left or Alt-Right, whether workers, farmers, aristocracy, religious fundamentalists, people of free spirit, oil tycoons – or builders like Trump. I can’t exclude the possibility that Trump will do what the Left failed: destroy the Federal Reserve, put bankers on a leash, give Americans productive work, lead them to universal prosperity and save them from horrible war. The idea of historical determinism is wrong as it denies free will.

Trump – and you – can see that world can be bettered if the huge resources directed to war would be redirected to peace. Just now in China they had a global Silk Road forum (OBOR) with the active participation of Russia, China, Turkey. They have in mind a huge infrastructure project which will allow many countries to develop side by side. The US did not participate at all, while the Germans objected that the Chinese do not allow them to buy Chinese companies “like they do in Germany”. The Chinese are right: there is no reason to sell one’s producing companies. Let them produce in the interest of the nation. This could be a solution suitable for Trump.

In many countries, people try now to find a way out of the impasse. Such a man is the UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. His problems are similar to those of Trump. In his party, though the grass roots support Corbyn, the top brass had been appointed and promoted by Tony Blair. Twice Corbyn defeated their attempts at a coup. Still, the media – and most of all, the Guardian, the leading Labour–Liberal paper, are baying for his blood. Every day they publish Corbyn’s political obituaries, hoping, by voodoo magic, to cause his demise.

Now they pre-published Corbyn’s Labour Manifesto with his plans of what to do after a victory. They thought this publication would kill him, but it is the other way around: people are positive about his plan to spend billions on undoing the extremes of Thatcher and Blair privatisations. The English people would regain their great NHS, National Health Service, the best in the world; they would regain their railways that fell into disrepair, as private owners skim the profits and the taxpayer pays the expenses.

Actually, these plans would still be cheaper than the Conservative alternative as Corbyn wants to eliminate British’s nuclear arsenal and stop bottomless spending for weapons, while the Conservatives want to spend more money on new weaponry. A little bird tells me that if he unexpectedly wins, the Russians will be accused of interference on his behalf. Such accusations do little harm to the candidates, and even less to the Russians, who are proud of being considered so powerful.

Bear in mind that works of Lenin are not that popular nowadays, and as his name had been besmirched, I’d suggest a new book published recently in Russia: a mammoth biography of the great man by Lev Danilkin. This is a very well written, not too reverential but respectful, with an eye for a modern reader book, scanning Lenin’s life from his childhood on Volga River to his wanderings in European cities and to his untimely death in Moscow. It hasn’t been translated yet, and I am sure it will make an impact when it is.

Israel Shamir (Born 1947)

From The Writings Of Israel Shamir (May 17, 2017)

2 comments:

  1. Lenin would have had Comey shot and not fired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The nice thing about that is once you have someone shot, they can't keep leaking lies about you to the press.

      Of course, Lenin would have shot all the reporters too, and then appointed new ones.

      Delete