A huge, heavy ship, loaded to the brim, is turning around in narrow straits amid perilous waters. Thus, the world is performing a rare volte face under the daring captainship of Donald Trump and his breakneck mates Elon Musk and JD Vance. They couldn’t have cut it any closer – already we felt the breath of our doom. Whether the peril be nuclear mushrooms or pandemics crafted in Pentagon biolabs, or some other totally unpredicted collapse concocted by Schwab and his ilk – our new captain seems to recognize Scylla and Charybdis. Our fragile life was about to collapse when the young programmers of DOGE dove into deep cellars of hidden data and uncovered the pearls: millions of dollars earmarked for broken Haiti to make a dream home for Chelsey Clinton; millions of social security checks being sent to beneficiaries 150 years old and older; millions earmarked for regime change, for neutering boys and girls, for planting tempest and reaping storm all over the world. And after this brief but tempestuous overture rung, above the furious sounds of battle, the telephone; the telephone call of captain Trump to captain Putin.

God revealed His mercy and tender caring for us, calming the storm at the very last moment. It is a perfect replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis multiplied by a factor of one hundred. The voices calling for global nuclear holocaust were becoming increasingly frequent and shrill recently. Now one can hope they will be pushed back to the fringe. US and Russian delegations meeting again in Riyadh have agreed to restore the normal civilized diplomatic routine: appoint ambassadors, open missions, increase tenfold the embassy staff. Since Obama’s days the embassies had been run down to the bare minimum.

Immediately the Economist and similar rags have tried to spoil the mood. The Ukrainian crisis has not been solved yet, the war still goes on, they cry. Trump can’t be relied upon, they fume impotently. I always rely upon the Economist as a perfect inverse barometer; whatever they say we may consider pure enemy hasbara. They show Trump talking to Putin with the text “The worst nightmare of Europe”. For me, the worst nightmare would be ruins of Gaza or nuclear waste of Hiroshima, for them, peace would be the worst.

Our enemies do not want us to rejoice ever, but these are the days we could and should be glad. The Ukrainian war is a minor event compared with such a worldwide tectonic shift. The West has tried to isolate, break and consume Russia for many years, once it became aware that Putin is not a new Yeltsin, that he is a stubborn, strong-willed leader, a man like Hamlet: though you can fret him, you cannot play upon him. And ever since that time, over many years, Russia has suffered in isolation, while all the world press blamed Putin and incited legions of tiny dogs from Estonia to the Ukraine to bite him. Such conflict was inevitable because Russia and the West had different interpretations of 1991. For the West, it was the final defeat of Russian independence. For Russia, it was a lesson learned. Never again will Russia attempt to play by Western rules. So how could anyone solve such an intractable divergence of opinion? It took just one call from Donald Trump.

The Ukraine war is a small thing in comparison: Russia wants its seat at the table with the big boys, it wants to be safe, not besieged. Russia wants Western troops and arms as far from its borders as was promised to Gorbachev, this is important. The Ukraine war will be terminated in due time by diplomatic negotiations between civilized adversaries, as it should be. NATO’s war policy has revealed that the majority of the European states, governed by enemies of Trump, are also enemies of democracy. JD Vance was right: they forgot they should listen to their people instead of dictating to them.

In the UK, the popular leader Jeremy Corbyn had been dismissed on the phony accusation of anti-Semitism, and replaced by an extremely pro-Jewish and anti-Russian PM. He is, of course, pro-war. He also detains hundreds and thousands of his citizens for the terrible crime of a post in the social network, or a demonstration, or even worse: a silent prayer. In England, a silent prayer in your own house is a crime, too. France continues to be ruled by Macron, an ex-Rothschild banker, also (of course) warlike. In Germany, there are elections coming soon, but mainstream German politicians are all liberal-left and of course pro-war. In liberal Germany, prison waits for anybody stepping beyond the red line. They imprisoned and amputated the legs of the brilliant and daring lawyer Horst Mahler for a gesture. However, the fresh wind of Trump populist revolution blows over Germany as well.

Not only does the far-right AfD call for peace, so does the far-left BSW! The German civil society association Kulturtreff held two rallies in Berlin and Frankfurt under the slogan «No vote for NATO vassals, immediate peace for Europe!». The protesters demanded immediate peace negotiations, an end to the war in the Ukraine, an end to arms supplies to the Ukrainian state, and the restoration of economic and political cooperation between Germany and Russia. Kulturtreff states that «the current main opposition party CDU/CSU wants as does the ruling left-liberal coalition for the war in Europe to continue. The leading political parties of Germany do not have a single new solution in their program». The speakers supported the point of view of US Vice President Vance at the Munich Conference, who pointed out that the political elite of Europe is deeply disconnected from the real interests of the European people.

In Munich, there was a big demo, organised by followers of Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek socialist. They are called DiEM25, and they also call for peace and friendship with Russia.

Bear in mind that all calls for peace are forbidden in Europe; if you look for “Germany peace demo” in Google it shows you rallies for climate, or a rally for migrants, or some rally against a local version of Donald Trump; but no peace demo will be shown, unless it is full of blue-and-yellow banners demanding more war. In the UK and Germany, you might get a visit from the local gestapo if you click a cautious *like* under an anti-war post in your social network. In Sweden, a minister explained why the people are not allowed to decide their NATO status: “Membership in NATO is too important to ask the people to approve of it.” A Swedish journalist wrote in the Facebook:

In Russia, the anti-Putin and pro-Western opposition, as run by Navalny and ilk, relocated abroad claiming hatred of war. But they couldn’t retain that pretence for long. At first, they supported Israel’s war against the Palestinian people, and this was important because some 70 per cent of Russian oppositionists who left Russia after February 2022 landed in Israel. Obviously, they considered themselves Jewish, and Israel recognised them as Jews. It may be true that not everyone who opposes Putin is a Jew, but to a great extent it was true and to a great extent Jews continue to finance and people anti-Putin organizations in Russia. And now, with the first sight of Trump’s international thaw and the possibility of terminating the war in the Ukraine, these emigres have collectively called for more war. This was the end of the anti-war movement in the Russian World, in the archipelago of Russian-speaking communities – it seems that Russia’s counter-elites will not be happy until they see the Russian army defeated. They dream of US Abrams tanks rolling through Red Square, with Putin executed like Saddam Hussein, but instead those Abrams tanks (30 or 31 delivered to Zelensky) burned in the fields of Novorossia, far away indeed from Moscow.

Too many elements of the Ukrainian war do not make sense. Why Russia makes its movement west so slowly? Why there are no fast and decisive strikes, other for them or against them? What are the true plans of the US and UK? Does the US want to undermine Russia? I met with the Sweden-based Professor Z [RZ] a man of vast learning and deep understanding to ask him these questions. Professor Z thinks that the Ukrainian war makes sense only if we presume that is the war of the US against Europe for the US dollar. The US beats Russia on its head with Ukraine and bleeds EU. The UK tries to bleed both the US and EU. Why do they do it? What is their purpose?

Prof RZ: The most important issue is the fate of the American dollar. Specifically, it’s about its supremacy in the economic world.

That supremacy alone generates an income of up to a trillion dollars a year for the US. And it’s not just about the money. The US military might is tightly related to dollar supreme position. The trillion dollars of seigniorage the US extracts from the world is largely spent on maintaining the US military complex.

There’s no way the USA would let the dollar slip to the second or third position among world currencies. If this happens, most of the dollars stored abroad (and there are more than 7 trillion of them) will rush back to USA shores like a tsunami. Inflation would skyrocket, and the standard of living would drop like a stone. The resulting political storm could easily tear the country apart. So, the US would rather see the world go down than tolerate the dollar’s demise. This is especially true under the Trump administration.

Now the question is – who threatens the dollar? The usual answer is China, as it’s the only country with a large enough economy to surpass the American one. This is true, but in international trade, the Chinese yuan is only in fourth position with less than 5% of all payments. As a share of global foreign exchange reserves, yuan accounts for only 2%, while the US dollar accounts for 58%, almost 30 times more! That makes yuan a potential, but not immediate, threat to the dollar. However, in Chinese cross-border trade, yuan has recently surpassed the dollar in terms of trade volume. So the Chinese threat to the dollar is indeed growing.

But the euro accounts for 20% of world foreign currency reserves. This one-fifth of all reserves could instead be dollar-denominated. Thus, the euro “stole” one quarter of the dollar’s position, ten times more than yuan. This is important because world currency reserves grow as fast or faster as the world’s economy, demanding more reserve currency every year. Issuing this currency and sending it abroad for storage as investment or in exchange for foreign-produced commodities is essentially… well, a money printing operation. Nothing can be as profitable as that. Therefore, the euro is currently the biggest threat to the dollar. And thus, objectively, the EU is the US’s main enemy.

IS: But before the euro emerged, other European currencies played its role, such as the D-mark, French franc, and others. They also served as world reserves.

RZ: That’s true, but consolidating these currencies (and today, 20 countries have replaced their currency with the euro, and at least 6 more are expected to do so eventually) made the euro much stronger and more desirable for value storage than any of these prior currencies. A possible exception was the D-mark, but the German economy was too small to compete seriously with the US.

IS: Does this necessarily make EU enemy of the USA? Could they just be friendly competitors, united by common political and military goals?

RZ: They could, and indeed they have been. In the past, the EU and USA enjoyed a cooperative relationship. In December 1999, when the euro was launched, the EU had strong support from the USA. Bill Clinton was president, and the US was running a budget surplus, benefiting from EU growth. The New Transatlantic Agenda, promising closer cooperation, was signed in Madrid in 1995. NATO was expanding, and for that the USA needed EU support.

Initially, the euro didn’t seem like a serious challenger to the dollar. It launched at $1.17, but soon fell below parity, rising slowly over several years. However, things changed as EU grew faster than the USA, and in 2007 the EU economy surpassed the US in nominal terms for the first time. Then the EU population was nearly 500 million, compared to about 300 million in the USA. The subprime mortgage crisis hit the US economy, enhancing the EU’s economic pre-eminence. On July 18, 2008, the euro reached $1.60.

The US bankers will never forget or forgive that day. The feeling of superiority prompted European leaders to discuss replacing the dollar with Special Drawing Rights (SDR), composed of 44% dollar, 34% euro, and other currencies. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF director and potential French presidential candidate, was a key proponent.

IS: The infamous DSK!

RZ: Yes, the one. In May 2011, he was arrested in New York over sexual assault allegations. He resigned from the IMF, and criminal charges were dropped. Am sure, no connection. But the idea of replacing the dollar with SDR died, along with Strauss-Kahn’s presidential aspirations.

The dollar survived, but Americans took note: the EU wasn’t a friend. European elites seemed to be waiting for the US to stumble, craving control over international finances. Since then, US policy appears aimed at containing or even destroying the EU to prevent it from reaching supremacy.

This policy shift took time. Initially, when US and EU economies were similar in size, there was talk of a free trade zone. Discussions on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began in 2013, with the first draft leaked in 2014. Meanwhile, the US economy recovered and grew faster than the EU’s.

Then came Brexit. Interestingly, it was initiated by the governing Conservative Party, whose official position was Remain. The referendum was consultative, with no formal obligation to implement its outcome. In June 2016, 52% voted to leave the EU, splitting the country. England and Wales, save London, were largely for Brexit while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain. In such a situation, if the British elite was serious about wanting to stay in the EU, they had plenty of opportunities to do so.

Remember when the UK government didn’t want to surrender Augusto Pinochet to the eagerly waiting Spanish justice system? The latter had all legal reasons to expect his speedy extradition, but this never happened. However, with Brexit it was different.

Despite opportunities to stay in the EU and public opinion shifting towards Remain, Brexit was pursued stubbornly. The UK left the EU after 47 years of membership, ending two generations of British European identity.

IS: Does this necessarily make the EU an enemy of the USA? Could they just be friendly competitors, united by common political and military goals?

RZ: They could, and they have been. When Brexit happened, the EU became significantly weaker. The EU lost 80 million people. More importantly, its economy shrank by 17%, once again becoming significantly smaller than that of the USA. The euro dropped to previous levels against the dollar. The TTIP negotiations stalled, and when Trump came to power in 2016, they effectively died. TTIP was conceived as a marriage of equals, but the USA was bigger once again.

IS: Since then, the gap between the EU and USA economies has only grown. Does it mean that the USA has finally won and that the EU is no longer an enemy?

Russians have the quaintest ways to name their weapon systems. They name them after flowers: geranium, hyacinth, tulip. They give them female names: Katyusha, Tatjana. They might use the moniker of a favourite doll, like Pinocchio. Today it is Hazel, translated in Russian as Oreshnik, the latest medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile with multiple nuclear-capable warheads. This little number was recently tested at the Yuzhmash plant in Dnepropetrovsk (or ‘Dnepr’, as it is called by the Ukrainians). It is a lethal beast that no Western defence system can stop as it approaches at the astounding speed of Mach 10. All the world’s militaries began to scramble upon news of its first operational flight, but once it gets fitted with nuclear warheads – it will truly terrify.

What would be a worthy target for such a devastating monster? Who should be first to be obliterated once WW3 starts? It seems like too much power to waste on Ukrainians. Who really deserves the whole brunt of Oreshnik? Which country threatens the survival of Russia the most? The international consensus comes down to a choice between the US and the UK. Russian experts and philosophers routinely debate the issue. Who is worse? Who contributed more to the upcoming tragedy? It’s easy to blame the US, but there is a separate school of thought that condemns perfidious Albion, even for US aggression. In the US, the late Lyndon LaRouche expounded British conspiracies and showed how the City of London consistently manipulated US foreign policy as a stalking horse to achieve British objectives. In Russia, the popular writer Dmitri Galkovsky preaches to his growing number of followers to guard against the schemes of Britain.

Our own Ron Unz, a great scholar of the secret history of the 20th century, teaches us that British warmongering started a long time ago. For instance: US President Woodrow Wilson wanted to bring peace to Europe after two years of slaughter. Germany was ready to make peace, and proposed it in 1916. But the British War Minister David Lloyd George—who had initially been a leading advocate of the American peace option—suddenly switched sides, and declared that Britain would never accept a “compromise peace” and instead exclaimed that they were willing to fight for twenty years if necessary in order to achieve a total military victory. Suddenly, anything less than a “knockout” was “unthinkable.”

After WWI, it was Britain that pushed Germany to create an independent Poland very much along the lines the country of Ukraine was created fifty years later. “The Germans decided to resurrect an independent Poland as a German client state more than a century after it had disappeared from the map, a geographical change that would greatly weaken Russia”, writes Ron Unz. Immediately afterwards, British agents began to encourage Polish intransigence against Germany. British efforts deliberately undermined all attempts to form a compromise between Germany and Poland over Danzig. Not that America was any more innocent: “Roosevelt ordered his diplomats to exert enormous pressure upon both the British and Polish governments to avoid any negotiated settlement with Germany, thereby leading to the outbreak of World War II in 1939,” writes Unz.

As soon as WW2 ended (after England was saved thanks to the immense sacrifice of Russian soldiers) London immediately called for the destruction of Russia by the means of Operation Unthinkable. It was only the loss of the election by the Tories that saved Russia in 1945 from a sneak attack by the combined forces of the German Wehrmacht and “as many as 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines.”

Old stories, you’ll say. It’s water under the bridge! Not at all – a few days ago British investigative journalist Kit Klarenberg disclosed on his site GrayZone the brand-new Operation Alchemy. In his words,

“leaked documents obtained by The Grayzone have revealed the existence of a British military-intelligence cabal, which plotted since the onset of the Ukraine proxy war to prolong the conflict ‘at all costs’. Known as Project Alchemy, the secret cell was convened under the watch of the British Ministry of Defense, and overseen by a high-ranking Lieutenant General, Charlie Stickland.”

“…Project Alchemy put forward an array of highly aggressive schemes, from cyber attacks to ‘discreet operations’ to outright terrorism inspired by notorious Operation Gladio, the Cold War-era pan-European CIA and MI6 ‘stay-behind’ fascist terror army. Its stated objective was to ‘keep Ukraine fighting’ for as long as possible, no matter the cost.”

“Complementing its calls for clandestine special forces-style attacks on Russian territory, Project Alchemy proposed an aggressive propaganda blitzkrieg, under the bland banner of ‘information operations’. In order to manage [the] Western public, which was likely to turn against a long war if its economic costs grew too steep, the cabal’s members whipped up a menu of malign attacks on disruptive media outlets through a campaign of legal harassment.”

It was not merely idle planning. In February 2022, as the Russian army stood at the gates of Kiev, the Ukranian leadership begged for peace. Putin immediately answered that call, and the Istanbul Agreement was reached, arranging for peace between the Ukraine and Russia on very favourable terms for the Ukraine. At this crucial moment, British PM Boris Johnson went to Kiev and told the Ukrainians to renege on the agreement and resume fighting. Here we are two years later, half a million Ukrainian fighting men are dead, and peace is, as the British say, “unthinkable”.

And so Britain has done it yet again: the old Empire refuses to relent even in the face of certain defeat. They fantasize about squeezing Russia, pushing it ever Eastward. First, they tear off Poland, then they tear off Ukraine, until Russia is shattered into small pieces that may be individually digested by the Anglo-American Empire and then mercilessly looted. This is the usual modus operandi for them. Let’s not forget that Britain is guilty of instigating the US Civil War between the states. London was preparing to send the British Navy to aid the Confederate Army until the Russians stepped in and saved the Union’s bacon. The Russian fleet spent the winter of 1868 in New York and San Francisco, and told the Brits to bugger off.

Russians were happy at Trump’s victory. They always liked him. Russia is the only European (“white”) country that preferred Trump to Clinton and Harris. In vain, the masters of spin explained that Trump would be worse for Russia. The people, however, continued to notice that the US found itself on the same historical page as Russia: denying woke ideology; being led by a serious he-man; against wars, for employment and peace and for Christianity. Down with trannies and faggots; down with political correctness and micro-aggressions! The war in the Ukraine still goes on, but under new Minister of Defence Andrey Belousov it is becoming a success. Every day brings a new modest victory, liberating a few more villages of the endless Donbass. It’s a slow struggle, as Russia prevails against 32 NATO states -an incredibly heavy burden for a war against secession, as it has become.

Let’s review just how we got here.

The USSR had been dismantled and dispossessed by the authority of former president Gorbachev and the first president of Russia, Yeltsin. At the time, the Ukraine declared its neutrality and friendship with Russia. With its share of Soviet infrastructure, heavy industry and its 50 million diligent workers, the Ukraine had more than enough resources with which to prosper. However, the pugnacious American neocons were not satisfied with this solution. They wanted blood, full-spectrum dominance, victory in a zero-sum game. They deliberately transformed the Ukraine into a mortal threat to Russians, a knife permanently poised at the throat of Russia. They established bioweapon labs and built NATO military bases. Finally, they began to economically strangle and violently harass Donbass, the Russian-populated part of the Ukraine. Donbass had been arbitrarily incorporated into the Ukraine by decision of the Soviet authorities around 1920, but it remained solidly Russian by populace and language. Such diversity was not a problem for a strong USSR, but the weak statelet of Ukraine could not tolerate any dissenting voices.

Russian president Vladimir Putin inherited the setup, and he was willing to let the Ukraine maintain its independence. He signed the Minsk agreement, guaranteed by Germany and France, that Kiev would permit the autonomy of Donbass. Again, the same neocons reneged on the agreement. They later admitted that they signed it just to get time to rearm the Ukraine. Kiev reneged also on its own declaration of neutrality and friendship with Russia which were part and parcel of Russia’s recognition of the Ukraine’s independence. They ignored the December 2021 call of Vladimir Putin to make permanent peace.

In February 2022, just a few weeks before the planned joint Ukrainian-NATO invasion into Russia proper, Russia began its Special Military Operation in the Ukraine. Its forces quickly moved over to Kiev, seized the airport, and advanced to Kharkov, a big predominantly Russian city. At that time, the Ukraine sued for peace, and promptly the new Russian-Ukrainian peace treaty was initialled in Istanbul. Again it specified autonomy for Donbass, neutrality for Ukraine, and recognition of the Russian language wherever it was spoken, but then the British PM Mr Boris Johnson came to Kiev and convinced the Ukrainian leaders to renege on this agreement and resume the war. The war went on and on with small changes of the frontier, while the Ukraine was drained of hundreds of thousands of fighting men. Eventually (some might say inevitably) the initiative in the war passed into Russian hands, and now it is firmly theirs.

Russia meanwhile remained a peaceful land, with the exception of the scarcely-populated areas of Kursk where it bordered the Ukraine; the brunt of the fighting was carried out by Russia’s professional army, that is well-paid warriors, and not by regulars or mobilised troops. Russian shops are well-stocked, Russian theatres are full, the Russian people are content. And those who aren’t content, do not complain.

Russians typically accept the stoic formula: “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” Both protesting and expressing passionate approval of the war effort might be equally harshly punished. War hero Strelkov and the pacifist Kagarlitzky, Mrs Berkovich (a Jewish playwright) and Miss Kevorkova (a pro-Palestinian writer) all equally find themselves in jail. The scope of the arrests is not particularly alarming: according to pro-Western NGOs, about 1300 men and women altogether were brought to court for expressing all forms of dissent. For comparison, this is ten times less than Ukraine’s current roster of 13,000 political prisoners. Still, it worries the journalists, and they are doing their best to not become the next nail.

This statistic was improved by a wave of migration away from Russia in 2022: the people who found themselves disagreeing with the war, voted with their feet. While abroad, some of them published anti-war opinions and then later were reluctant to return home. Many of the emigrants moved to Israel and took Israeli citizenship. When war broke out between Israel and its Arab neighbours, these Russian refugees mostly supported the genocide in Gaza, thus proving they were not pacifists, but just pro-Israel and pro-Western enemies of Russia. The self-removal of these people helped Russia when the Russian authorities expressed their cautious support for Palestine: this move passed without public controversy.

Like all developed countries, Russia is cursed with a strong Israel lobby, well entrenched in the cultural sphere; but at least in Russia it is less powerful than in the USA and in the UK. Over the years, the most active members of the Jewish lobby left for Israel, decimating its numbers. Still, what remains is strong enough to block all publications of any pro-Palestinian sentiment. Unsurprisingly, the Israel lobby dominates the Ukraine. Almost all Ukrainian oligarchs and media figures are of Jewish origin. They are also dead set against Trump.

Many people around the world are surprised that Jews in America vote for Democrats, even though Trump was clearly better for Israel. There is a big secret hidden here. All nations naturally find the Jews troublesome, and the Jews, like true Judoka, have learned to channel this feeling in their favour. Are you against the Jews? Then support Israel, they say. The gay parades in Tel Aviv are obviously anti-Jewish, being based on the denial of the traditional Jewish values (shlilat ha-golah, in Hebrew). Are you against Israel? Then support the Jews! Conservative Rabbis will sing you sweet songs about their hatred of Zionism. This heads-I-win-tails-you-lose tactic is not a new idea – back in the 1930’s of the last century Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini argued about it. The latter recommended that they accept Jewish fascists like Jabotinsky as allies. Hitler objected. Later Benito learned to his sorrow that such allies would fail him at the most inopportune moments.

Nowadays the formula has been simplified: Nazis support Israel, Progressives support international Jewry. And nobody is left who is against both. This divide-and-conquer alchemy works just as long as the Jews and Israel both remain awful. Some folks are bold enough to admit that Zionists are criminals, but then they immediately will cover themselves with political correctness by idolizing the Jews. Vice versa is also a viable opinion: the Jews are a problem that needs to be solved, and the State of Israel is that solution. This is an elementary dialectical ploy, but even Hitler was snared with this devise, being an enemy of Christ and His Church. Thus, he supported the Jews in their main task – in their fight against Christ.

Russia is under attack by the US and its proxies. This is a very sad development, for Russia is necessary for Mankind development. But Russia is in trouble not only externally. The other day there was a procession with the Holy Cross along Nevsky Prospekt in blessed memory of St Alexander of Neva. Right away, many self-styled “leftists” attacked the participants: You are all fascists! Same as Nazis and Worse! In my life I’ve seen this violent rejection of the Christian faith many times, and here are my thoughts on the subject:

I don’t know how posterity will look back upon my humble contribution to the study of “world anti-bourgeois thought,” but I’ll try to describe it in the briefest possible way for my contemporaries. Like you, my reader, I have the chance to live in an interesting era, an age that debunked Marx’s optimistic forecasts and verified the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. I saw the collapse of the Soviet Union (during those crucial years I was an Israeli correspondent in Moscow), the collapse of socialism, the rise of neo-liberalism and globalism, the emergence of a unified media space, the rise of Israel as the world’s third nuclear power, the rise of the Jews, the desperate struggle of the Palestinian people for their lives and dignity, the destruction of the natural environment, and the beginning of America’s Third World War, first with the Islamic world, and later with Russia. My task became to connect the dots between these seemingly dissimilar phenomena and see how the results impact the fate of the world. To do this, I needed a new narrative.

Let me explain what I mean with an example. Woody Allen, the New York filmmaker, released an unusual movie in his earlier days, What’s Up, Tiger Lily. He didn’t shoot a single frame, but took a finished third-rate Japanese movie and re-dubbed it, putting in a completely different soundtrack. The result was an original screenplay overlaid onto existing celluloid, a new interpretation of the original movie. If you have ever watched a foreign movie in an unfamiliar language on TV starting from the middle, you have faced a similar task, trying to guess the plot and comprehend what you have seen. This is a similar task to re-interpreting historical events from the additional knowledge and increased perspective of a later era. Individual events are set in concrete, so to speak, but they can be connected in original ways. Every storyteller offers his interpretation, and the historical consensus picks the narrative to best describe reality. Thus, over thirty years ago, two narratives collided in Russia; the Russian Soviet narrative and the Western, neo-liberal narrative. The Western narrative won, that is, for a while the Western Woody Allen managed to convince the Russian viewer of the rightness of his version of events. With such a simple change of paradigm, the Russian people permitted a terrible robbery to take place, and Russia’s riches sailed abroad, leaving behind empty factories and transforming our great motherland into a second-rate power. This historical coup was made almost bloodlessly. The controlled demolition of Russia was proof that mastery of the narrative is mastery of the world. The one who can re-tell the movie becomes ex post facto its director.

It would seem that I have come up with nothing new here; the struggle of ideas has always existed. In 1917, it was not the Red Army that won, but a “scientific discovery”: the international ideology of communism. Ever since, a continuous wave of corporate science has continued to conquer the great minds of the world. This could not have happened as long as there was a healthy society, as long as people communicated with each other and freely discussed pressing issues. Unfortunately, the technologies we use have been designed to cancel original thinkers. Never before has the media been so concentrated in the hand of so few, on a global scale, to the point where each of us is enveloped in a cocoon of virtual, alternative reality. In the West, firstly in America and secondly in Russia, a society of total disunity has emerged, in which people form their opinions solely on the basis of television and mainstream media. Transnational media empires have completely taken over all public discourse and have convinced billions of people that the “American way of life” (neo-liberalism) brings them happiness.

From lofty control rooms atop their global monopoly, the media masters determine what people in a fragmented and fragmenting society know and talk about. They decide what people are thinking, and within what historical framework. My senior comrades Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and other authors have written extensively about this scientific manufacture of consent. I too have noticed this amazing invisible power, something like a vast magnetic mountain that actively interferes in the internal life of many countries. The media everywhere pursues the same line: against nationalism and tradition, pushing instead for a “multi-cultural society”, for liberal democracy -that is, for a society of separation, in which it is easier for them to act. With ONE exception. In the case of the Jewish state, they support chauvinism, separatism, apartheid, that is, an insular society of cultural solidarity. Everywhere else they are in favor of wokes, but in Israel they are in favor of skinheads.

Another interesting exception: the founders of communism believed that religion was part of the class society, serving the ruling elites. However, contrary to the postulates of communist social science, transnational capital is consistently directed against religion, and especially against the Christian religion. Isn’t it interesting that both the choices we have been given (International Communism vs Transnational Neoliberalism) oppose the Church? All three ancient, often feuding, branches of Christianity are under continuous attack: Western Catholicism, Byzantine Orthodoxy, and Islam (a special form of monophysite Eastern Christianity). But the one exception? Judaism is untouchable. Not only has the orchestrated attack against all religion avoided Judaism, but in the West, a new form of Triumphalist Judaism has emerged, Holocaustianity, whose main temple stands in the center of Washington DC. This death cult perverts the Christian religion: the death of the Jews is equated with the Passion of Christ, and the creation of the state of Israel corresponds to the Resurrection.

But this is where the similarity ends. Christianity is not protected by law, and on the streets of Paris and New York you can see posters with crosses growing into Nazi swastikas. The Holocaust cult is strictly protected by law. Teachers are not allowed to take children to church, but attendance at the local Holocaust shrine is required by state curriculum. Scientific racism is no longer fashionable, but the people understand which races have a favored status and which do not. In Moscow they refuse to rent apartments to people from the Caucasus, in New York to blacks, and in Europe there is a growing opposition to Islamic immigrants. The last vestiges of scientific racism remain in the hearts of government officials, permitting Biden to bomb Yemen as though he was disinfecting it. But anti-Semitism, once considered a form of racism, has not just been outlawed, it has raised up into the place formerly held by “anti-Sovietism” in the Soviet Union and “anti-Americanism” in America. To me, the son of Esther and Joseph, this is certainly heartening, but it makes me wonder about the reasons behind such an obvious, anomalous exception.