Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow

Gefira 76: The Birth of Tragedy

The tragedy that Gefira 76 is dealing with is the death of the Western civilization that has been born by the Western elites. For decades now they have distanced themselves from the overwhelming majority of common people. What the elites seek to impose is entirely alien, weird or at times repulsive to the man in the street even though the ideas of the elites are ubiquitous in the media, in entertainment and the educational system. The common man is not interested in the rights of the sexual minorities or in reparations for wrongs committed two centuries ago by a group of individuals to a group of individuals who are long forgotten. The man in the street does not even want to identify with the eco-dictatorship that is enforced on us every single day.

It is obvious that the managers of the world have panicked: they can see that the system – capitalism or whatever you wish to call it – is not going to satisfy the huge masses of the population, and so the managers of the world have decided to rule by mongering fear and instilling guilt or shame (starting with the virus and ending with Russia, terrorists, China, melting icebergs, climate change, you name it). They are planning on harnessing us all, deny us of the comforts of life that we take for granted and restrict our freedom of movement to the infamous fifteen-minute zones. Once the managers of the world abolish cash, we will all find ourselves in a digital concentration camp.

Manageable(?) chaos or controlled(?) damage – in the form of tolerated riots of non-whites, pride marches, military interventions, immigration “crises”, “systemic” racism, cancel culture and so on, and so forth – serve the purpose of stupefying us and making us compliant. Whatever the managers of the world are doing to us resembles the nightmare scenarios from the Book of Revelations. We are witnessing an unstoppable destruction of all values. Gefira 76 presents the target list of things that are to be demolished, removed or changed beyond recognition. Can we, the common people, avert it?

Czech political scientist and economist Petr Robejšek proposes a people’s movement based on four principles, and these are to act in such a way as to always give preference to:
1. slow action over fast action;
2. local affairs over global affairs;
3. face-to-face contacts over electronic contacts; and
4. domestic goods and ideas over foreign goods and ideas.

Who knows? Maybe we can avoid falling over the cliff with this prescription?


Gefira Financial Bulletin #76 is available now

  • Civilization of death
  • The big upheaval – the latest ideas
  • Defense industry
  • Artificial intelligence

“It is funny watching all of this unravel right before our very eyes”

A few days ago, seven – some report – eight thousand invaders from Africa landed on the island of Lampedusa. Nothing new under the sun happened. Similarly, nothing new could be heard in the mainstream media. The same mumbo-jumbo could be read or heard about the “migration crisis” and what to do with it, that is, how the better process influx after another influx, because – God forbid! – the invaders cannot be pushed back under any circumstances.

There was something a bit new this time. All interested in the event could see on their screens two women descend the flight of stairs that enabled them to get out of the plane down. Lampedusa was graced with a visit by one Ursula von der Leyen and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. What a sight it was! Two small girls surrounded by big men bending over backwards to please them, two little girls were doing the tour of the island, inspecting the place, preaching to and moralizing the world. What a sight it was, really! Ursula von der Leyen, a model in an advanced age, always in her spic-and-span, neat and tidy, immaculately custom-designed, made-to-measure suits and the same hairdo, as usual excited about being able to speak English, got new thrills of virtue signalling: she showed how kind, compassionate, empathetic, sensitive, philanthropic and caring a human she was: as usual, all she wanted to do was to save all the people (with some exceptions, which is always said for domestic political consumption) and bring them to the European fold, with Meloni – the latest incarnation of Pinocchio – keeping company. One could almost see Pinocchio’s growing nose: well, she swore to solve the problems of invaders and now she was compelled to accompany Ursula von den Leyen (how aristocratic her name sounds!) in “welcoming the refugees”. The reader will have remembered von der Leyen’s words in the European Parliament, where she championed the cause of “Europeans of African origin” or “Afroeuropeans” or whatever to this tune, so now she simply landed on Lampedusa to extend her welcoming hands to the new arrivals with Meloni as her younger “sister” who came along to get a lesson in European values. 

Georgia Meloni and Ursula von der Leyen visit Lampedusa as migrant numbers soar, The Times and The Sunday Times, YouTube

Now, Ursula von der Leyen must have got yet another thrill apart from speaking her favourite language and walking around like a model that attempts to maintain her youth and vigor. She came to Lampedusa to embrace the many thousands wild males aged 20-30! What a sight for a woman of success! European white men are simply beyond compare. The first, second, third and fourth waves of feminism have turned them into eunuchs! Now women being women are designed to burn with passion for manly, brutal, wild, ferocious men and – lo and behold – a new batch has arrived! That’s what Ursula von der Leyen has arranged for her many sisters scattered across the Old Continent! Clap your hands in acknowledgement!

To think of it. Year after year after another year the same events – now Lampedusa, now Gibraltar, now the Balkans, you name it – and the same hopelessly helpless (seemingly or genuinely?) politicians who solemnly promise to solve the problem only to fail miserably as if by design! Why won’t Ursula von der Leyen invite a number of those African Europeans or Europeans of African origin to her own villas, palaces, rooms, tables… Why? Or maybe she already accommodates some of them? Who knows.

A comment under a YouTube short clip about von der Leyen’s and Meloni’s visit to Lampedusa says it all [emphasis added]: Literally not one world leader has a clue what is going on in the world or how to stop the bad stuff. It is funny to watch them spout off about how great they are and what action they are going to take. We all know nothing is going to happen, the power they profess to have is an illusion and we are all beginning to see that. It is funny watching all of this unravel right before our very eyes, while they think none of us can see it. [@neildraycott5272]

Why is this war being prolonged?

You recognize this fragment, don’t you? Suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. At the outbreak of the hostilities, Ukrainians were very much aware of the proportion of the opposing forces, and so they were willing to negotiate. Such talks even began in Turkey but – lo and behold – Kiev received a command to back out. Now the hostilities are slowly nearing its second year and the number of casualties is rising. More than four hundred thousand (FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND) Ukrainians are said to have lost their life, but despite these horrible losses and despite the ten thousand being played off against the twenty thousand – to adduce the introductory parable – the war continues and there is no sign of it coming to an end. Why? Do Ukrainians really think they can beat the Russian bear? Do Ukrainians really think they can regain lost territories? Do Ukraine’s Western supporters and guardians really think Ukraine can win and regain its lost territories? Anyone in his right senses cannot believe that, especially high-ranking officials, whether in Ukraine or in the West, because they have all the data and, consequently, they know that ten thousand is fighting a losing battle against twenty thousand. If they know it – assuming we are dealing with people in their rights senses – then why is this war being prolonged? 

The Independent

The war is being prolonged for three reasons, two of which are rather familiar to the reader. One purpose in having this war go on is to weaken Russia as much as possible, to keep it engaged in a conflict, to make Russian president less and less popular among Russians and – maybe? – have the Russian people topple him down. A highly unlikely event, considering the highest approval rates that Vladimir Putin gets as compared to all the other leaders around the globe (Western leaders are credited with less than 50% of approval). The other reason is to deplete American stockpiles of arms so as to have a pretext to replenish them i.e. so that the industrial military complex can have new government lucrative commissions for the production of replacement equipment. There is yet a third important reason why the war – a proxy-war between the United States and Russia – is being prolonged. 

The Dive with Jackson Hinkle

Up to February 14, 2022, American troops had carried out military operations or – simply put – outright wars and interventions in very many places of the world, and nowhere did they encounter an enemy to be reckoned with. Whether it was Iraq or Yugoslavia, America’s opponent was significantly weaker, smaller, and usually politically isolated. It is in Ukraine that the American military are encountering an opponent that is a match. It is not only the type and quality of the advanced weaponry that the Russians use, but also the strategy and the tactics that they employ. Americans want to learn about their rival (enemy) as much as possible from the warfare. Ukraine is their laboratory, a military area where a war game is conducted, a war game for real with this precious exception that no American soldier gets killed (save for mercenaries, but that’s a different story). Americans have their advisors there on the ground, they have American mercenaries i.e. American active duty soldiers in disguise, while obliging Ukrainians provide the Pentagon with any and all intel. The war in Ukraine is a huge opportunity to study the Russian army in action. It is a huge opportunity to make Russians reveal the most secret, the most advanced of their weapons. Wars being wars, a hope arises that some of the most advanced types weapons might be intercepted. The reader might recall how the British received the whole V-2 ballistic missile that landed in marshes in occupied Poland and was retrieved, disassembled and documented by the Polish Home Army and then sent in pieces to the United Kingdom by means of a Dakota that flew from southern Italy to Poland and back.

Ukraine cannot win this war, just as ten thousand cannot prevail over twenty thousand. Nor can the collective West win it. Still, the United States can keep one of its global rivals militarily engaged (for more information, see the geopolitical ideas developed by RAND in 61 Gefira Feb 2022), study the Russian strategy and tactics and hope for intercepting as many items of Russian military technology as it is possible. That is why Ukrainians must die.

Joseph II and the EU

The Hapsburg monarchy and the European Union bear very striking resemblances. Of interest is especially the period of the reign of Emperor Joseph II (ruled 1765-1780 with his mother Marie Theresa, and 1780-1790 on his own), who went down in history as the great reformer, a revolutionary on the throne. During his tenure the Hapsburg monarchy was – just like the present-day European Union – an ethnically and culturally diversified political entity. Within its borders the following languages were spoken: German, French, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Hungarian, Slovene, Croatian, Slovak, Polish, and Ukrainian, to name the major ones. The whole structure was ruled from Vienna, just as today the European Union is ruled from Brussels. Though the European Union respects national languages, one may rest assured that its managers will slowly but surely impose one language across the Union and it is going to be English, despite the fact that the United Kingdom has ceded from the EU. Consider Ursula von der Leyen or Klaus Schwab for that matter: you only hear them speak English, not their native tongue, and you can feel the thrill that they get from it even though the latter of the two personages has a hard time pronouncing the English sound represented by the ‘th’ cluster of letters. Who cares? When French was regarded as the language of the managers of the world, not all of those managers mastered the language.

Coming back to our comparison. Joseph II was – just as the managers of the EU are – obsessed with reforming everything he or they can lay their hands on. And just like Joseph II, the managers of the EU adopt the patronizing attitude towards their subjects because they – just as Joseph II – know better what will benefit the people. How do they know that? They know it from the ideologues that they admire, under whose influence they are. Joseph II imbibed the ideas fabricated by John Locke, d’Holbach, Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), and others. He was intoxicated with those ideas. The managers of the European Union are intoxicated with the ideas of Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Henri Bergson, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Popper, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Jean-Paul Sartre, Yuval Harari, and many, many others. To put it otherwise: both Joseph II and the present-day managers of the present-day Hapsburg monarchy (i.e. EU) draw inspiration not from reality, real life, but from the schizophrenia of the philosophers that they follow. What they – the 18th century revolutionary on the throne in Vienna and the modern revolutionaries in the offices in Brussels – have in common is also the fact that they all want to regulate everything to down to the minutest detail. Consider some of the reforms.

The abolishment of the capital punishment. Yes, it was Emperor Joseph II who came up with this idea; the managers of the European Union followed suit. No country may become a member-state of the EU unless it abolishes the death penalty if it happens to have it.

Emperor Joseph II cared very much about nature, about the environment to the point that he prescribed doing away with wooden coffins and either using the same for new burials or burying people in sacks. Does that not remind one of the EU ideas to refrain from eating meat and using fossil fuels?

Emperor Joseph II believed in the efficiency of central authority. The managers of the EU reflect the same conviction: member-state governments are being constantly deprived of more and more of their prerogatives or competences.

Emperor Joseph II expanded his administration, and so does the European Union.

Joseph II would produce edicts, decrees, regulations lavishly and abundantly: 6 000 during his ten-year reign, i.e. two documents per day; the European Union is not lagging behind by any means.

Emperor Joseph II would prescribe such details as for example how many candles were allowed to be burning during a church service… One need only to think about the EU’s definition of what a banana is or what to classify as fruit or vegetable.

The emperor was anti-Church: he abolished a number of church festivals (why waste time in idleness?) and gained notoriety due to his abolishment of many monasteries and cloisters which he regarded as useless. Just as today, prayer and divine service are considered superstition to say the least. You remember the adamant refusal of the EU to include Christianity in the preamble to the constitution of the European Union, don’t you?

The emperor was busy destroying the social cohesion and the ideological foundations of his monarchy (for all practical terms a union of former states): his edict of religious toleration and the emancipation of Jews followed by the permission of imposing interest on loans along with the recognition of marriage as a civil union (yes, already at that time!) slowly undermined the traditional society with its set of moral values, of which usury (interest on loans) mattered a lot. The European Union follows in the same footsteps: the importation of Muslims and Hindus and the suppression of European traditional values are in full swing. This alone slowly brings about the change of European culture. Similarly to today’s changes that enable a Hindu or a Muslim to run an otherwise (at least nominally) Christian nation or to hold an important position in it, Joseph II paved the way for non-Europeans and non-Christians – at that time Jews – to work as civil servants, occupy high posts and be admitted to the ranks of the nobility not because of their pedigree, but because of their wealth.

Also, it was not the original idea of the architects of the European Union to abolish border customs: Joseph II did it as first within his monarchy, which was, as already mentioned, a cluster of formerly independent kingdoms (Czechia, Croatia, Hungary, Poland). 

Just as during the reign of Joseph II, so, too, now, all these reforms, changes and regulations were/are too many, too detailed, too quickly, and too soon. The reformers behave like they were moulding a figure out of clay: they think that everything goes, they think that the subjects or citizens see eye to eye with them on all these changes, they think that the people at the other end of the reforms are grateful. Why do the reformers think so? Because they live in a fairy land of their won imagination fertilized with the pseudo-intellectual sperm of the respective philosophers. True, Joseph II did his best to learn how common people live: he tarvelled under a disguise across his many lands and abroad, and is even known to have ploughed a stretch of a field with his own hands. Also today we get such clowns: high ranking politicians or activists who love to display how down to earth they are. A day’s labour does not compare to a year’s labour, while a monarch or a politician at a plough is no more than a show for the people. That kind of experience is no experience at all, and consequently does not entitle the monarch or the politician to claim that he knows how to run all businesses.

Managing society or economy or whatever of the kind is like managing your own body. The reality is that you cannot manage or control society anymore than you can manage or control your body. That is you can, but only up to a point and strictly obeying the signals that society or the body provide. Just as you cannot eat to store food in your stomach for later digestion but you need to eat small portions at certain intervals, just as you cannot demand of your body much physical strain or skill without previously training it patiently, step by step for months or years, so you cannot transform society at the snap of your fingers even if your ideas seem to be oh so beneficial. Those ideas only seem to be oh so beneficial, but are they? Reformers of all times and ages seem to be impervious to common sense. Worse, they think they are omnipotent, they think they are capable of taking into account all factors, so that no results produced by their reforms will surprise them. That’s a huge delusion. Joseph II fell for it, and today’s managers of the European Union fall for it. The latter all the more so because they are armed with computers!

Consider: the abolishment of church holidays meant the abolishment of days free of work. Why should labourers be pleased with this change? The abolishment of the capital punishment means that it is not the state but other (secret? criminal?) organizations that henceforth have the monopoly of meting out the severest of all punishments i.e. ultimate power goes to them. Who are you going to obey, who are you going to fear: the government that cannot kill you, or the mafia that can? Joseph II prescribed that 70% of a peasant’s income be retained by the peasant, i.e. all manner of taxes ought not to surpass 30%. It looks very nice on paper and is oh so very humane, but can it be maintained in real life? The emperor never ran a business, never dealt with contractors or employees: how did he know what was feasible and what was not? Ah, surely, he had advisors, but then advisors are usually the people who are good at guessing the wishes of their superior and complying with them. It is very easy to decree something from a desk; it is an entirely different story to put decrees into practice. The managers of the EU are, like the emperor, oblivious to this truth.

Joseph II’s reforms produced chaos rather than a blessing. People began to revolt: Hungarians did and the burghers of Brussels did (the lands of present-day Belgium belonged then to the Habsburgs). What an irony of history! Is Brussels going to rebel in the foreseeable future against the EU commissioners along with their decrees and decisions produced by the thousands? Notice in passing that Otto Hapsburg (Hapsburg!) was one of those ardent activists working towards the creation of the European Union. Obviously, the obsessive idea of bringing different nations into one fold and blessing them with tons of directives and decrees runs in this family.

When Joseph II died, his subjects were relieved. Many of his reforms were repealed. He himself prior to his death had grown to be aware of his political failures and revoked some of his decrees. He had himself buried in a simple coffin (not a sack!) with the following legend on the gravestone: Here lies a ruler who, despite his best intentions, was unsuccessful in all of his endeavors. In all likelihood, the same will be applied to the managers of the European Union. 

Divided we fall, united we stand?

Europe used to be divided into many feuding kingdoms, duchies and republics. Europe used to be like that almost all of the time. The kingdoms and duchies and republics would wage wars and play havoc with each other’s property and population. Yet, at the same time, in the modern era that began with the first geographical discoveries, it was these warring European countries separately that started to explore the world outside the Old Continent, establish colonies and subdue almost the whole rest of the globe. It was not only France, England (later the United Kingdom) or Spain that took possession of vast territories in the Americas, Africa and Asia; it was also such small countries as Portugal, the Netherlands, and Belgium. They each acquired overseas territories that were many times larger than the home country of the conquerors. The people of the colonial countries spilled over to the colonies, populating them and developing there economy along with advancing some degree of education. The European colonial countries did not stop warring with one another during the time of subduing the other continents: conversely, they clashed militarily not only on the Old Continent, but also in the new territories, which sometimes led to the change in ownership but never ever weakened the colonial European states. True, the American dependent territories became independent of the United Kingdom, Portugal and Spain, but they continued to expand and exist just as their former European overlords.

Today all those European countries are united because their managers claim that unity translates into strength. Now, where is this strength? Europeans have long withdrawn from Africa and Asia as colonial powers and have stopped populating those continents. Conversely, Europeans are being colonized by people from Africa and Asia. Today, former colonial powers have heads of states from the Third World while their indigenous populations live in constant fear of the arrivals whose constant influx is unstoppable. Non-Europeans transform parts of the European countries where they have settled and no one in his right senses can say that this transformation is for the better. When Europeans settled in the Third World countries, the transformations were for the better without a shadow of a doubt. Think of all the technology, infrastructure, agriculture, medicine, literacy and, and, and. Of course, the transformation did not benefit all the indigenous inhabitants at once, but then it was a time that also most Europeans did not enjoy all those benefits to the full on the Old Continent.

Let us come back to the titular question: where is this strength of a united Europe especially as compared to the previous centuries? Before the Second World War the United Kingdom alone controlled the whole of India (at that time that term referred to the combined territories of present-day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh), not to mention a quarter or so of Africa. Today the United Kingdom has a Hindu prime minister while the UK’s capital has a Pakistani mayor. Belgium used to control a huge chunk of Africa known as the Kongo: today, though Belgium’s capital is concurrently the capital of the European Union, Belgium is an insignificant country on the international arena while one third of its capital is populated by Muslims who turn their boroughs into extraterritorial areas. France used to control a third or so of Africa and the whole of Indochina; today, the indigenous French people live in fear of the aliens from France’s former colonies and are exposed to repeated tsunamis of street violence complete with shop window smashing and car torching. Yet, Europe is united. It has become united to be strong and influential. At least that’s what is said. It has turned out, that it has become united only to fall easier prey to whoever pleases to grab for it. The agreeableness of Europeans, their welcoming culture and readiness to apologize for all real and made-up crimes of their predecessors of whom an average European has no idea exposes them to predators and parasites.

The phrase, United we stand, divided we fall (attributed to Aesop), has been misinterpreted. It only works for natural unions like those uniting people of the same ethnicity. Beyond that its application is maladaptive because it is in struggle and fierce rivalry that we grow stronger (or perish, as the case may be). A union or alliance of forces is as debilitating as shared ownership in that in either case no one cares about the whole and everyone expects the other participant (ally, co-owner) to do the brunt of the job. We know this famous saying: what belongs to everybody, belongs to no one. The same may be said about unions: they are a kind of shared possession of strength and resources and decision-making and what not: manifestly and demonstrably ineffective. Rivalling nations reflect the economic forces on the free market: they cause products to be better and better and at the same time cheaper and cheaper. A monopoly brings about stagnation, lack of incentives and ultimately death. Which is what we are seeing in the Western world. Unless you want to tell me that France or Great Britain or Spain or Belgium are now – acting in unison – more powerful than they used to be a hundred years back when they each acted on its their own, which goes counter to historical fact invoked above.

What if the USSR continued to exist? A thought experiment.

What if the USSR continued to exist? First, in A.D. 2023 it would not be the same USSR as in A.D. 1989, still less so as in A.D. 1960 or earlier. Everything evolves, so would the USSR and it would have continued to evolve, to change. Consider China, for that matter. The Soviet Union would have been capitalist in all but name with a strong say on the part of the government and the communist(?) party. Since Gorbachev, we would not have had simpletons as leaders like Nikita Khrushchev in the Kremlin. Rather, refined individuals like the said Gorbachev or present-day Putin: i.e. educated men with good manners.

Having said which, let us think about the world A.D. 2023 with the still existing USSR. What would have happened between 1991 (the year of the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and 2023? or – still better, still more relevant – what would not have happened between 1991 and 2023?

1 The Warsaw Pact would have continued to exist, which by itself and in itself means that NATO would not have expanded to central and eastern Europe; which in turn means that no conflict would have been in the making as we can observe it today.

2 Yugoslavia would have continued to exist, and even if it had somehow disintegrated, then peacefully. Certainly, there would have been no bombing of Yugoslavia by West, no civil war, no show trials in the Hague, no murdering of Slobodan Milošević in prison.

3 There would have been no wars in Chechnya: thousands of lives would have been saved.

4 No worldwide covid-occasioned freezing of the world activities would have been feasible. Most probably, the powers that be – those who prepared the covid dress rehearsal (before who knows what?) – would not have even considered imposing that ill-famed worldwide curfew with all others attendant restrictions.

5 All central European countries would still have been part of the “European Union of the East” i.e. the Comecon. The Western European union would not have expanded to the east.

6 Most remarkable: Ukraine would have remained the second most important republic of the Soviet Union. As such:

[a] in 2023, it would have approximately 50 million inhabitants as opposed to the estimated 25 or so million at present;

[b] it would have been highly industrialized; no need for people to flood Europe in search of employment;

[c] 400 thousand Ukrainian men would not have been killed, tens of thousands would not have been maimed or become amputees;

[d] Ukrainian cites, towns and villages would have remained unscathed;

[e] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic would still possess the Donbass and Crimea.

7 The Baltic States would not have been depopulated as they are now.

8 The managers of the world in the West would not have dropped their masks and would not have:

[a] accelerated the ethnic replacement; and

[b] enforced homosexuality on people at large.

Why? Because during the existence of the Soviet Union both sides tried to convince their own societies and the societies in the opposite political bloc that their system was better, more attractive, more humane. Surely, the open propaganda of homosexuality with all attendant phenomena like encouraging teenagers to take hormone blockers or change their biological sex would have been moderated or even deactivated; surely, the Western managers of the world would not have wanted to show to the central Europeans and the citizens of the Soviet Union how much they despise their own Western nations and how much they want to replace them with aliens. 

9 Muammar Qaddafi would not have been toppled; no influx to Europe of people from Africa would have occurred.

10 Most probably Germany would not have been re-united. The existence of East Germany would have influenced the policy-making of Western Germany; since by 2023 travel restrictions would certainly have been loosened, Western Germans might have been able to move to East Germany in an attempt to flee the homosexual propaganda and the ethnic replacement if these had been executed as they are today. Notice that Alternative for Germany is especially popular in the former German Democratic Republic. How much more would it have been popular if that republic had persisted?

11 The Comecon (the eastern version of the EEC or the European Economic Community, the predecessor to the European Union) would have evolved into a rivalry counterpart of the EEC (a miniature of today’s BRICS?), which would have been a healthy phenomenon: rather than having a monopolist as regards the economic, political and societal model, we would now have two European models of civilizational development, vying with each other and not letting each other degenerate into something that we can now see in the European Union.

What do you say to all of the above? True or false? Notice how many lives would have been saved in Yugoslavia and Ukraine. Notice how many able-bodied men would have served their respective countries with their hands and brains rather than with their corpses. Notice the continued immutability of state borders that we would have had up to now and the resultant peace. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Your judgment is at your fingertips

Many people, too many people, either because of the propaganda that they have been exposed to or because they are consciously exposing themselves to the propaganda keep believing that Ukraine is capable of winning the current war with Russia. It is sort of strange. If you are one of them, all you need to do is to assess – quite cursorily! – the two adversaries. The whole relevant knowledge is at your fingertips. Just consult your Wikipedia and look up

1 the population size,

2 the area size,

of the belligerents and then look at maps to see how Ukrainian territory is wedged into that of Russia, which renders its easternmost troops encircled at the kick-off. Now, what would you expect? Why would you listen to the many experts?

By way of comparison, look at the map of the two hostile countries in 1938: Germany and Czechoslovakia, and notice the encirclement of the latter: 

The Partition of Czechoslovakia: Every Day, YouTube

Also by way of comparison, look at the map of the two belligerent countries of September 1939: Germany and Poland, and – again – notice the encirclement of the latter: 

WW2 – Germany vs Poland, 1939, YouTube

Now compare it with the location of Russia and Ukraine A.D. 2023, and – again – notice the encirclement of the latter: 

Would that observation alone not be enough?

In case it would not, then compare the human potential. In 1938/1939 the German Reich after it had incorporated Austria had 80 million inhabitants as opposed to 15 million in Czechoslovakia in 1938, and 36 million in Poland in 1939. Today’s Russia has a population of almost 150 million whereas Ukraine – hm… – an estimated 36 million, but due to massive emigration probably the number is far lower.

Let us reiterate the question: first, what effort does it take to find out these data; and, second, does it take a rocket science engineer’s knowledge to be able to foresee the outcome of the struggle?

Notice also that we haven’t compared the economic potential of the belligerent countries nor have we taken into consideration the existence of national minorities. Both facets resemble again their counterparts as they existed between Germany on the other hand and Czechoslovakia or Poland in 1938/39 on the other. Just as Czechoslovakia and Poland had hostile German ethnic minorities in their territories (especially Czechoslovakia with its 3 million Germans), so does Ukraine’s population comprise millions of citizens who either identify as Russians or speak Russian as their mother tongue and as a result are not willing to sacrifice their lives in this war.

Take Crimea for that matter. Crimea was to Ukraine just like the Sudetenland was to prewar Czechoslovakia: in either case the two mentioned territories were predominantly populated by ethnic minorities that naturally wished to be joined to their brothers and sisters across the state border.

What about the economic potential? Again, it does not take a genius to realize how much Russia is more advanced in this respect than Ukraine. Just one telling observation: Ukrainians who leave Ukraine in search of employment leave their country not only for the West but also – in droves – for… Russia. Can we say that we have a reversed phenomenon?

All the information and knowledge adduced above is readily available to anyone. As already said, it is at anyone’s fingertips. It is virtually a few clicks away. Why then listen to the mendacious experts rather than do your own short and simple research? What does it cost you the look up maps similar to those that we are presenting here? What does it cost you to look up information on the population numbers?

And a more interesting question: What makes you believe the unbelievable, the impossible, the unlikely? Look, when you are about to watch a match, a race, a contest between a world champion and a player, a team of a very low ranking, you do not expect a miracle, or do you?

Why support the hostilities knowing full well that hundreds of thousands of people on both sides but especially Ukrainians get killed and mutilated? People in the West keep saying that human life is oh so important, invaluable. Why then throw – consciously! – thousands of lives into a meat grinder?

But I hear you say: it’s different because the whole world (nay, only the whole Western world) is helping Ukraine! If you think so, then, again, look back for precedents. The West did not support Czechoslovakia in 1938, so the country laid down its arms and surrendered. The world (the Western world) supported Poland to the point of declaring war on Germany, so the country put up a fight. The result? During the ensuing five years of war, of occupation, of guerrilla warfare Poland was bulldozed and its population – decimated. Postwar Poland counted 24 million inhabitants as opposed to the 36! million prior to war. Towns, the industry, the infrastructure were all ravaged and devastated. Warsaw looked like Hiroshima, while Prague – like war had never happened. Ukraine is in for pretty much the same what Poland was in 1039-1945. Still, the powers that be insist that the war continue. Why? Obviously, it is not Ukraine’s political sovereignty, territorial integrity or social welfare that matter. Ukraine is being used as a battering ram against Russia. That’s all there is to it.

Stalin didn’t die, he dissolved into the future

It was an event waiting to happen. On August 15, in the small town of Velikiye Luki, Russia (fewer than 100.000 inhabitants; north-west of Smolensk, south-east of Pskov, east of the state border between Latvia and Lithuania, on the latitude running close to Copenhagen, and the longitude running through Kiev) there took place a ceremony of unveiling a huge monument to Joseph Stalin. No, the event was not state-sponsored. It was a grass-roots initiative. A small event. One is tempted to disregard such events. Yet, the event speaks volumes. After years of denigrating Stalin, an increasing number of common Russians, not necessarily former communists or members of left-leaning parties or other leftist political organizations (if you will watch the footage of the event in YouTube, you will also spot representatives of the orthodox clergy i.e. individuals whose priestly predecessors had a hard time living under Comrade Stalin) are having second thoughts about Stalin and that period of the history of Russia in particular and the Soviet Union in general. What is remarkable, it is the young people across Russia who, despite being propagandized to believe in the exact opposite, are beginning to positively evaluate the role of Joseph Stalin. Why is that so?

First, the propaganda that was launched and carried out for three decades rode over Joseph Stalin and his followers, supporters or sympathizers roughshod. It resonated positively during the initial years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the existence of the Russian federation, but – as we all know – enough is enough. If you only find fault with a personage, you raise suspicions regarding the veracity of your evaluation. Even least intellectually capable people begin to challenge the narrative that paints everything black.

Second, the present-day position of Russia and that of the Soviet Union, especially under Joseph Stalin, speak for themselves. When Joseph Stalin held the reigns of power, no one in the West dared to drag Russia or the Soviet Union through the mire. The opposite was true. Though the socialist or communist (take your pick) Soviet Union was an ideological opponent – not to say enemy – of the capitalist West, it was partly feared, partly admired, while the Soviet Union’s leader was for a time referred to by a pet name of Uncle Joe. 

Young Russians may not be knowledgeable about much, but anyone can connect the dots made by crude facts. A look at the map tells a lot: the borders of the Soviet Union and those of Russia; the sphere of the political influence of the Soviet Union and that of Russia; the achievements of the Soviet Union – think of the conquest of space, the successful rivalry with the United States in military matters, and many other things – and those of Russia.

What else? The Soviet Union of especially the first three or four decades of its existence was perceived as an ungodly political entity, a horror of horrors, where religion was suppressed, where personal liberties were mocked and where the individual was a cog in the big machinery of the collective. Private property of means of production was constitutionally forbidden. People living in the Soviet Union and later in the so-called communist countries that became the Soviet Union’s satellites envied people in the Western countries their freedom of speech, of travel, of association and of religious faith. They envied them their affluence and economic freedom of doing whatever business they felt like doing.

Decades have passed and the masks of the Western democracies have been dropped. What do the ex-Soviet now Russian or Belorussian people can see in the same(?) West? Moral decay (end of the traditional family, self-pride of sexual perverts in the streets), racial riots, ethnic replacement, pervasive presence of censorship in the media, dead Christian churches and the rising cult of satanism, cancel culture and the veneration – not to say worship – of the planet earth along with its climate. These are not the achievements of the Western world that people in the east were once so envious of: these are the things that are to them repugnant, repellent, upsetting or outrageous, as the case may be. The Soviet people did not go the churches and yet they lived their lives in line with the Christian morality: divorce was rare, homosexuals were unheard of, while the family was stable with the traditional role models for the two (no myriads of) sexes. There were no racial riots in the Soviet Union (recall that the Union comprised Asian republics that had been once conquered by tsarist Russia, the fact that might have been exploited for settling the bills and demanding compensation!). There was no planet worship but rather people – to quote loosely from the Bible – subdued the earth and tried to have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moved on the earth. There was no Greta Thunberg, an insolent teenage girl, preaching to docile ministers and even more docile managers; there was no carbon tax! Rather, people wanted to attain big things: fly in the space, build a dam, win gold at the Olympics, compose a musical or literary work of art.

Yes, during the reign of Joseph Stalin hundreds of thousands if not millions of people were brutally killed or imprisoned or had their careers broken. Yet, history shows that consecutive generations tend to disregard the hardships and only appreciate the achievements. Think of the many people who are fascinated with Napoleon Bonaparte: they do not give two hoots about the suffering of the millions of people that resulted from the many wars that this emperor waged. Think about Genghis Khan: he is Mongolia’s national hero honoured by a huge equestrian statue and a mausoleum. Does anybody care about the hundreds of thousands lives that his conquests ruined? To present-day Mongolians it is only important that also they once had a leader that the whole world feared.

If you decide to watch the footage of the ceremony of the unveiling of the monument to Joseph Stalin in Velikiye Luki, you might notice some posters with the portrait of the Soviet leader and legend that reads: Stalin didn’t die, he dissolved into the future. What can the West offer as a counterbalance? Cancel culture? The destruction of the monuments commemorating its past? 

Ghengis Khan 

gif loading

We are quoted by: