For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)


FOR One Man, One Vote



Shlimazls and Priestesses

By Israel Shamir

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

"I am a Georgian" kippa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



Recommended reading:


Who killed Anna Politkovskaya?

By John Laughland Oct/11/2006


In C. S. Lewis' science fiction dystopia, That Hideous Strength, the secretive organization which controls the state has its agents writing in newspapers on all sides of the political spectrum, in order to disguise its power with the appearance of plurality. In today's West, by contrast, even the appearance of plurality seems to have been discarded.

 The murder on 7th October of the Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, was greeted with the monolithic unanimity which has now become the hallmark of the so-called free press in the West. The right-wing Daily Telegraph devoted a leader to her murder on 9th October, the first sentence of which was:

'People sometimes pay with their lives for saying out loud what they think,' Anna Politkovskaya said last year of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

The same day, the left-wing Guardian also published a leader about her murder. Its first sentence read:

'People sometimes pay with their lives for saying out loud what they think,' Anna Politkovskaya told a conference on press freedom last December.

The whole of the British, American and West European press extolled Politkovskaya as 'one of Russia's bravest and most brilliant journalists' (The Guardian), 'one of the few voices that dared contradict the party line' (The Daily Telegraph), 'a firebrand for freedom' (The Independent), 'the most famous investigative journalist in Russia' (The Times), 'one of the bravest journalists in Russia' (The New York Times); 'a victim of rare courage' (The Washington Post). All these quotes are from the leader articles which each paper thought worth devoting to her death. In reality, Politkovskaya was virtually unknown in Russia. The reaction of a wealthy Russian businessman dining in Brussels on the night of her murder was typical:

'Politkovskaya? Never heard of her.'

Politkovskaya in this respect resembles another murdered Russian-speaking journalist with connections in the Caucasus, Georgiy Gongadze, the Ukrainian citizen with a Georgian surname whose murder in 2000 was instrumentalized by the United States in an attempt to implicate the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma. Politkvskaya was not quite as obscure as Gongadze: he ran a mere web site (although this meant that when he traveled to Washington DC he was received by the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright) while the newspaper where she worked, Novaya Gazeta, had a circulation of 250,000. Still, that is not much in a country of nearly 150 million inhabitants and certainly not enough to merit the exaggerated praise heaped posthumously upon her.

The media in Britain and America also competed with one another to lay the blame for the murder squarely at President Putin's door. The Financial Times announced that,

'In a broad sense, Mr. Putin bears responsibility for creating, through the Kremlin's long-standing assault on the independent media, an atmosphere in which such killings can happen.'

The Washington Post asserted pompously that,

'It is quite possible, without performing any detective work, to say what is ultimately responsible for these deaths: It is the climate of brutality that has flourished under Mr. Putin.'

All papers implied that Mrs. Politkovskaya had been killed by allies of the Russian President for reporting the truth about the war in Chechnya. According to them, Russia is a quasi-dictatorship in which the government brooks no dissent, and they illustrated this by referring back - albeit in strangely vague terms - to the number of other journalists who have been victims of similar contract killings.

It is here that we can put our fingers firmly on the page and shout, 'Liars!' Some of these articles contained glancing references to the last journalist to have been killed in Moscow, the American editor of Forbes magazine, Paul Klebnikov, but none of them bothered to add the key rider that no one has ever suggested that the Russian government had Klebnikov murdered. On the contrary:

whereas Politkovskaya was an anti-Putin militant, Klebnikov was an anti-oligarch militant. He wrote a brilliant book about Boris Berezovsky - one of the most informative books about Russia's 'transition' in the 1990s, in which he accused Berezovsky of murder and of being hand in glove with Chechen drug lords and gangsters - and he published a series of interviews with one of the Chechen separatist leaders, which he undiplomatically entitled 'Conversations with a barbarian'. He was rewarded for his efforts with a bullet in the head. When he died, there were no paeans of praise for his bravery or courage in the Western press, even though he was an American, for Klebnikov had devoted his life to arguing that the West's policy in Russia is based on an alliance with very serious criminals, and that the 'businessmen' whom the West champions as freedom fighters - Berezovsky has political asylum in Britain - are in fact a bunch of ruthless murderers.

In contrast to both Klebnikov and Politkovskaya, the one murdered Russian journalist whom all Russians had heard of when he died - and whose name is virtually unknown in the West - was Vlad Listyev.

 When he fell under the assassin's bullets on the night of 1st March 1995, Listyev was Russia's most popular talk show host and one of the most trusted people in the country - a genuine TV superstar. He had just become director of Russia's main TV channel, ORT (now First Channel). In spite of Listyev's immense fame, the Western media never cited his murder as an example of the lawlessness or intolerance of the then president, Boris Yeltsin, in the way that they now attack Putin. This is doubtless because - to use the charming euphemisms of Wikipedia - 'When Listyev put the middlemen advertising agencies out of business, he deprived many corrupt businessmen of a source for enormous profits.' In plain English, this means that most Russians believe that Listyev was murdered either by Boris Berezovsky - who took control of ORT immediately after Listyev's murder, and in large measure because of it - or by Vladimir Guzinski, a rival TV magnate who, like Berezovsky, is a Yeltsin-era oligarch now in exile. The only journalist from the West who did discuss openly whether the contract to kill Listyev had come from Berezovsky, Guzinsky or Berezovsky's ally, the advertising mogul, Sergei Lisovsky, was, oddly enough, Paul Klebnikov.

 Politkovskaya's colleagues on Novaya Gazeta include notorious pro-American commentators like the 'independent Moscow-based defense analyst,' Pavel Felgenhauer, whose also works as a columnist for the Jamestown Foundation: the Director of that body, Glen Howard, is Executive Director of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a neo-con outfit which campaigns for a 'political settlement' with the terrorists in that North Caucasus province of the Russian federation. This may explain why you can find only one opinion about Politkovskaya in the Western media. At the same time, by contrast, there is a huge variety of opinions about her murder in supposedly dictatorial Russia itself. The theories now circulating in Moscow about Politkovskaya's murder include (apart from the claim that the Russian government or the Chechen authorities were responsible):

revenge by corrupt police who found themselves wanted or in prison as a result of her sensationalist journalism; a conspiracy by opponents of the Russian president and the Chechen Prime Minister, Ramzan Kadyrov, to discredit them; revenge by former Chechen militants; a murder carried out by Russian nationalist opponents of Putin (her name was on the death-lists of various neo-Nazi groups); a political provocation designed to discredit the Chechen authorities or trigger some movement in that troublesome province; or a conspiracy by opponents of Russia from the former Soviet Republic of Georgia with which Moscow is currently engaged in a fierce diplomatic row. Take your pick - but the sheer variety of points of view gives the lie to the claim that Politkovskaya was fighting a monolithic media machine controlled by the government.

Among the many points of view expressed, few were pithier than this one from a commentator for,

Politkovskaya's murder spells unambiguous benefits for the West. The past month saw massive unofficial clampdown on Russia. Take the attempts to pull Ukraine into NATO. Take the alliance's "intensive dialogue" with Georgia. Take Saakashvili's behavior the President of Georgia, very humiliating for Russia, which has been certainly agreed with the West. Theoretically, Politkovskaya's murder diverts attention from Georgia and builds up western pressures on Russia, something today's Georgia can only benefit from. Yet, I believe that those who had ordered the crime are more global. There is no immediate evidence somebody in the West issued direct instructions. It is beyond doubt, though, that the West is a direct beneficiary.

One does not have to believe this conspiracy theory, or any of the others. But at least if one is Russian, the consumer of news has a large number of different points of view to consider, all of which are easily accessible to the ordinary Russian by buying the newspaper or looking at the Internet. In the West, by contrast, even the most assiduous conspiracy theorist will have great difficulty finding anything other than the party line that Mr. Putin did it. Now, what does that tell you about the state of political and media pluralism in the West?