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


FOR One Man, One Vote



Shamir Strikes Again!


Israel Adam Shamir, Masters of Discourse (Surge Books 2008) 695 pp. $23.99 ISBN 1-4196-9243-7


In the Jewish media—and today that means much of the major media of the world and virtually all of it in the U.S.—in newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and films, everything comes down to the Jews as arbiters, the setters of intellectual (and ideological) trends, the determiners of value, collectively the “glass of fashion and mold of form,” and above all the Masters of Discourse.


Those capitalized words are the title of the new and thoroughly remarkable book by Israel Adam Shamir, native of Siberia, resident of Jaffa in Israel, ex-Jew, Orthodox Christian, magnificent thinker and writer, compassionate human being, and a nervy chap altogether.


I have previously dealt with some of Shamir’s positions in an article, “Shamir and the Jewish Question,” published in the September, 2005 issue of Culture Wars. It is online at To summarize very briefly: he desires to see the Holy Land become a single state, with one man, one vote, including all present residents—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—and with a right of return for all Palestinians, thus to bring to an end what brave President Jimmy Carter, and many others, including Shamir, have called a racist, apartheid state.


Israel is actually more truly a “Jews-only” state, that is, a religiously exclusive one, rather than one set up on racial lines. What race, after all, are the Jews? Homo sapiens for sure, but what beyond that? The identity of the Jews today—as a religious group that has rejected the Christ, the Logos—is definitively discussed in the first chapter, “The Synagogue of Satan,” of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, the new book by E. Michael Jones, the editor and publisher of this magazine.


Jones’s entire book, and Shamir’s work I am reviewing here, are magisterial texts on the current world crisis arising from the convergence of so many problems, chief among them a controlled press, global usurious capitalism, global climate change, peak oil, and ineffective government ruled from behind the scenes by financial oligarchs, many of the richest of them Jews, in a pretense of “free markets.” 


Shamir, an admirer of democracy (more than I am at present), thinks Israel’s claims to be a democracy are hollow hypocrisy. Modern Israel is, he says, a pilot project for the New Order to be imposed on the world. It is a paradise for the rich and a total misery for lesser folk, including native Arab Muslims and Christians and even many Jews who do not belong to the Ashkenazim elite, but to “inferior” orders of Sephardic, Ethiopian, and Russian Jews.


As to the Ashkenazim, see Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe, about the astonishing fact that the Central Euro-Asian Khazar kingdom converted to Judaism more than a millennium ago, and the former Khazars are now the Ashkenazim, who are the lion’s share of today’s Jews. They have basically no genetic connection at all with Middle Eastern Jews. A brief summary of the work is at: .


Shamir is not a believer in the so-called “worldwide ancient Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.” But he does see “the Jews,” that is to say, the ruling group of them, as intent on arranging that everything, everywhere, is as much as possible “good for the Jews.” And he sees them as, in fact, presently angling to be the dominant elite on the globe, just as they have become the dominant elite in America in a very short time, through the power of money


Nowadays, for most Jews, what is “good for the Jews” is the same as what is “good for Israel,” the Jewish state. Shamir sees the control element of this collective concern as not in Israel at all but in the USA, where the power of “the Jews” is based on the skilled political collaboration of Jewish possessors of huge amounts of money, which they use to control both major political parties and, through the parties, control the U.S. government. (Roughly 50 percent of America’s billionaires are Jewish, out of a Jewish population that does not exceed 3 percent of America’s total).


Jews compose at least 30% of Harvard students reported The Forward, a Jewish-American newspaper . . . Thus the U.S. elites are Jewish to a great extent, in the ordinary meaning of the word. As for spirit, Karl Marx spoke of “Jewish spirit” of the Yankees. (p.11).


Shamir sees the neocon-Zionist war on Iraq as not “for oil” (when has the oil party gained anything from it?) but for Israel, again recalling that Israel is, in effect, run from the U.S. by the hyper-wealthy Zionist zealots here:


That is why our struggle is with Zionists and Mammonites; this is not only a laudable campaign of support for the people of the Middle East but first of all the decisive battle for the preservation of democracy and freedom in the U.S. and Europe, for a chance for a better life for our children, for creation of a more egalitarian and more spiritual society against the Dark Ages we are being led to. (p. 13)


About “Mammonites”: the critical definition as to who they are and what they do was given by the Lord Christ in Luke 16:13. Here is that verse in the Vulgate and the Douay Rheims English translation:


Nemo servus potest duobus dominis servire aut enim unum odiet et alterum diliget aut uni adherebit et alterum contemnet non potestis Deo servire et mamonae.


No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other: or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.


And here is the same verse as translated by Msgr. Knox in his 20th century English version:


No servant can be in the employment of two masters at once; either he will hate one and love the other, or he will devote himself to the one and despise the other. You must serve God or money; you cannot do both.


Why St. Jerome chose to take the word mammon over from the Greek New Testament rather than translating it, I can only guess. But the very learned Msgr. Knox evidently accepts the definition in Strong’s famous Concordance that mammon (mammonias), a word of Chaldean origin, means wealth (personified) or avarice (deified); and he translates it as, simply, money, which covers the case nicely for the modern understanding. (“Mammon” does not appear in the Old Testament or Torah.)


So now we have it clear: mammon worshippers worship money; their psychic commitment is to getting more of it; their god is greed. There are a lot of Mammonites around, and they aren’t all Jews, although after the Jewish rejection of the Christ, of the Word, of the Logos that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, it was the only other choice, as Christ made clear. He did not suggest there was any third option. Mammon—money—contains all of “this world,” all material goods and power, and the massive influence that flows from having them in excess. It is what people aim for when they despair of God and the life of the Spirit. Mammonites think the “kingdom of heaven” can be achieved on earth by stacking up wealth and possessions. There is a real temptation to worship mammon in all of us.


In his new book Shamir makes the case, the totally unspeakable, politically incorrect but indubitably true case that the Jews (not “all Jews” but the “big Jews,” organized “world Jewry”) are doing amazingly well in their current drive to dominate the whole world of communication, to control all aspects of culture, that is, to be Masters of all Discourse and at the end the Masters of all men.


A crazy thought, you say, about an even crazier schema? Read Shamir’s book and see where you come out. Here, to start with, is the “product description” posted on the Amazon page marketing the book, a description I am pretty sure was written by Shamir himself and was certainly vetted by him:


Welcome to the new world order, where mass media, a fully integrated public-opinion-forming machine of mind control has rendered the Left and Right obsolete and subservient to Zionism. Who are the people who own and operate this machine? Are they actually the Jewish Lobby? No, says Shamir. The formidable Jewish Lobby is just the visible tip of the iceberg, while below there are miles and miles of solid ice: media lords, chief editors, their favourite university pundits—in short, the Masters of Discourse. In this third volume of his writing, Israel Shamir travels around the world to find the reason for their captive hold over our thinking.


And here, predictably, are the first two reader reviews posted on the same Amazon site, one pro, and one con:



This is a most impressive book on the Left and Right, on the world as it is today, from Cuba to Malaysia, and about the Masters of media owners who dictate our agenda. It includes some of Shamir's most controversial essays.



Shamir's latest book continues his Jew-hating rhetoric. Have no doubt, this is a thinly veiled anti-Semitic diatribe on the Jewish control of the media.


You could describe that as a sharp difference of opinion.


Here is in amplification of Shamir’s point about the control of media, one of many statements of his case (pages 665-666):


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


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


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


Shamir’s favorite literary form is what I like to call a “feuilleton,” a word both unspellable and largely unpronounceable but a proper label for a favorite form of mine that is short, usually a few hundred words, and permits attempts at humor or at least lightness, while also permitting heavy philosophical points so long as you don’t overdo it. I first encountered the word and examples of the form in the work of the Russian mathematician and philosopher P.D. Ouspensky many years ago. Shamir has put together this huge book by assembling more than 100 feuilletons (but he calls them essays, which they also are) that appeared first on his website, .


It is quite impossible to do justice here to the tremendous range of topical references in Masters of Discourse. Shamir is a polymath, a genius of learning, language, and observation. I can’t convey much beyond broad outlines of what Masters of Discourse is up to. But I would think it most advisable to tell readers of this review to read the book, meet a great man, and widen their horizons to take in the whole world as it relates to a “global people,” that most extraordinary tribe, the Jews.


Three of the longest and most trenchant of his essays are the last three in the book, each a blockbuster: “The Tyranny of Liberalism,” “Northern Spring,” and “Keep Shining, Cuba.” Some snippets from “The Tyranny of Liberalism”


In recent years, with the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, many others have come to share [Carl] Schmitt’s realization that liberalism is an aggressive global ideology that is bent on forcing certain principles to be implemented world-wide—by force of arms if necessary. These principles can be described either in  positive or negative terms, just as a restaurant guest and an oyster would describe the arrival of Chablis and lemon in different ways. Much depends on whether you eat or are eaten. Let’s have a look at the menu from both sides:


·         Human Rights versus the denial of Collective Rights.

·         Minority Rights versus the denial of Majority Rights.

·         Non-governmental ownership of the media versus the exclusive right of Capital to form public opinion.

·         Women’s rights versus the dissolution of the family.

·         Anti-racism versus the dissolution of native culture.

·         Economic self-reliance versus the denial of social supports and mutual charity.

·         Separation of Church and Sate versus total freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and a ban on the Christian mission in the public sphere.

·         Controlled public elections with safe choices versus the denial of authentic self-determination. (p.643)


Thus we come to a conclusion: modern American liberalism is secularized Judaism for gentiles—and not the freedom from religious pressure as its proponents claim. (p. 651)


Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal Secular Judaic doctrine creates enormous gaps between the upper and lower castes. Indeed in the US 60 million Americans live on $7 a day, while a happy few have billions they can’t possibly spend. This represents a very successful evolutionary strategy for the ruling minority. The strategy has been so successful that eventually the ruled majority may have to apply drastic measures to moderate that success. (p.653)


And at the beginning of the book there are two introductory, positioning interviews of Shamir by journalists: “Getting to know Mr. Shamir” by Kim  Pederson of Dissident Voice, and “Hatred is a Mother-in-lawish word” by Raja Bahari of the “leading radical left-wing magazine of Sweden.” Some snippets from these:


Christianity and Judaism are strongly connected religions. A Christian, Karl Marx said: Christianity is sublime Judaism, while Judaism is sordid Christianity. A real Christian knows that a goy is not worse than a Jew; so the idea of Jewish exclusivity is not acceptable to a Christian. (p. 14)


The scourge of [David] Irving, Deborah Lipstadt, denied the fiery holocaust of Dresden, and was not discredited. . . . Face it . . . the very concept of Holocaust is a concept of Jewish superiority. . . . Thus the question of Holocaust denial is the question of apostasy: will our society stand on the rock planted by Christ or will it worship the Jewish state. This is an important discovery of eternal religiosity of human spirit: the attempt to create a secular society did not work out. After an illusionary short break, the gods came back. (pp. 15 and 16)


In my view, Christianity is reformed, corrected Judaism, ideologically and theologically in permanent tension towards Rabbinic Judaism. I reject Judaism completely, and think it is a dangerous and troublesome ideology. (p. 20)



Some personal reflections, if I may: my brother sends me, as he does a number of other relatives, an annual subscription to the New Yorker Magazine. As sheer product, it’s actually a great bargain at a subscriber’s price of $1 an issue, with its masses of glossy ads and acres of well-proofed print.


I think my brother considers it to be still pretty much the same magazine we read in our college days (60 years back now), when we thought it a smart, sophisticated, and funny assemblage of great cartoons and fantastic reporting about everything under the sun and especially of the art and literary doings in THE CITY, a place to which we all posted with great dexterity from what we held to be backwater Boston as soon as WWII was over. 


In a letter to Culture Wars that appeared in the (????????) issue, I wrote of an article in a recent New Yorker (June 9 and 16, 2008) about the great American poet Ezra Pound that denigrated him as a severe antisemite. In my letter I characterized the magazine as “an upscale element in the Jewish-owned media monopoly in America.” It is definitely no longer the magazine my brother may think it still is, the old wry, funny, WASPy, cultural showpiece that it was under editor Harold Ross and with writers like James Thurber, Dorothy Parker, and Robert Benchley, and cartoonists like Peter Arno and Helen Hokinson filling the pages. The old American WASP elite has now been firmly displaced by the new, immensely prosperous, and very clever Ashkenazi Jewish elite.


It appears that one aspect of the mission of the New Yorker under its Jewish ownership is to reassess all the old “good writers” in terms of their “attitude to the Jews.” In the New Yorker issue of July 7 and 14, 2008, they are at it again, this time damning with faint praise—and condemning as an antisemite—the British and Catholic giant, G.K. Chesterton. These hatchet jobs are well done. This is not crude journalism; the point of the effort by author Adam Gopnik is to insinuate the value judgment, “bad man because he did not like Jews,” into a quite learned piece that involves a good deal of positive comment on GKC’s work but never gets around to a discussion of what behavior of Jews it was that GKC didn’t like; the mere fact of his disliking something he thought they were doing we are to take as proof of his antisemitism.


Up to now I’ve been noticing this kind of piece out of the corner of an eye, but alerted as I now am to what is going on, I shall perhaps set up a scoreboard. I’ll note on it when we are treated to a long piece on a contemporary Jew who has done wonderful things in business and is now fantastically rich; there are a lot of these in the New Yorker. And then, I’ll note when we get another of the revelations that a big Christian, or at least “Western,” writer has feet of clay with respect to Jews. The evident purpose of such pieces is get the subject knocked out of the respectable canon. Pound and Eliot and Yeats are long gone; Chesterton follows them; who’s next?


This sorting out of the world into two kinds of people, people who like “the Jews” and their contemporary drive for dominance, and people who don’t, may seem like the most important task there is in the world to nervous Zionist Jews, but it seems hugely egotistical and tiresome to me and I trust a few billion other people. I see no end to the trouble the “Jewish revolutionary spirit” can cause in the world unless some big majority of Jews choose to do what many of them have been doing all along, drop the hostility to Christ-Logos, the Messiah, rejoin the human race, and bumble along with the rest of us.


Shamir has done it, and he seems happy and enlightened, and very unnervous. He, like his Master Jesus Christ, seeks peace in the world among all mankind.


A last point: Shamir clearly considers the Jewish penchant for usury, and for financial skullduggery in general, to be an evil aspect of their history. Shamir often cites the contemporary refuge from extradition in Israel that is so conveniently available to Jewish crooks who find the U.S. or Europe suddenly too hot. But I think he sees this proneness to financial crime as having arisen largely in the modern era. Certainly it has figured prominently in European and Western history in modern times and led to much “antisemitism.”


But I think Shamir might be wrong not to see that there has indeed been a “worldwide ancient Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.” I rely in this on a great book I have cited in this magazine before. It is not widely known; but it must be very high on any Zionist index that may exist of detestable (to them) writings. It posits precisely a truly ancient Jewish understanding that usury is the way to penetrate and destroy any society where it is permitted. By usury I mean the charging of any interest on money.


The book is The Babylonian Woe by the late David Astle, a Canadian naval officer and scholar. Astle researched the development three to four millennia ago in the Middle Eastern world of the systematic corruption of political-religious rulers by a group, alien to all the nations of the time, who were, even then. a sort of international money power. Historian V. Gordon Childe said Imperial Rome fell because of widespread usury (in What Happened in History); Hillaire Belloc said Islam swept so swiftly across North Africa and into Europe partly because it promised relief from the usurious debt that was crushing ordinary people. 


The most strenuous prohibitions against usury as an evil practice are on record in the Bible, the Torah, and the Psalmist (Ps 15) says flatly that a usurer cannot reach God’s kingdom. The inspired authors of the Bible knew what they were talking about. If the Jews practiced usury among themselves it would be ruin for all, so it was strongly prohibited. But it might be practiced against the non-Jew. (Deuteronomy 23:20: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.)


Whether this permission was a scribal mistake or an accidental distortion of God’s word, or a deliberate declaration of Jewish exceptionalism, I am not scholar enough to know, but when some Jews rejected Christ, and the Christian religion that was initiated by other Jews became the “new Israel,” the distinction between Jew and Greek broke down and all men became brothers. On this basis the Church fought usury for a thousand years, the same thousand years during which, according to E. Michael Jones, in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, the Jewish inclination to revolt went passive, only to rise again in the Protestant disturbances in early modern times and subsequently in the rise of capitalism and universal usury.


Protestant reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) wrote that the charging of interest, that is, usury, was entirely legitimate; the scriptural taboo ought not to prevail since it concerned different circumstances. Modern business, he thought, required usury. He, as it were, opened Pandora’s box for the Christians, and also of course for the Jews; thus we have ended up with the usurers’ paradise we have today.


The Jewish devotion to extracting usury from goys has been a major theme of Western and finally world financial history. They have been joined enthusiastically by huge numbers of non-Jews attracted by easy money in our increasingly Mammonite age. Usury defines our modern time, an era apparently now ending as the realization creeps upon us that the usurious charges of the bankers have built up ruinous debts to them of so many trillions that the mind and heart tremble.


Aristotle had said charging interest for the use of money was “unnatural.” Aquinas said it was charging for something non-existent, which is clearly the case with modern bank loans. Interest is charged for future repayment, but the amount of the interest is never put into the money system, so (through complicated mechanisms) all interest must become public and private debt. I have lately seen estimates that the sum of these exceeds $70 trillion. Repudiation will almost certainly prove to be the upshot, with who knows what social result.


The scene has been murky for centuries, but the light is beginning to penetrate. Shamir’s Masters of Discourse is an element of light; Jones’s The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is another. There is hope yet.


Tom White