Oil reserves and combat capability at an all-time low

The need to build up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) arose in the first half of the 1970s, when the countries belonging to the OPEC cartel announced an embargo on oil supplies to the United States. The result was the fuel crisis – a sharp rise in fuel prices and queues stretching for kilometres at petrol stations.

The oil in the SPR is stored at a depth of more than 1,000 metres in underground salt domes, which have been flushed with water for this purpose. The four storage sites are located on the Gulf of Mexico, spread across Texas and Louisiana. The maximum capacity is over 700 million barrels of crude oil. This system guarantees security, no leaks and extremely low operating costs. Stock levels reached a record high in 2010: 727 million barrels. Today, this figure stands at just 289 million (the lowest since 1982), putting the system at risk. Salt domes are no ordinary tanks. If the oil level falls too low, the pressure inside the cavern drops dramatically, and the enormous weight of the earth begins to press against and compress the cavern walls, leading to their irreversible destruction. How did this come about?

In March, Donald Trump authorised the release of 172 million barrels from the reserves to minimise the impact of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and prevent price rises at the pump. Month by month, stocks dwindled to their current low. At the same time, on 28 August, Donald Trump announced the ‘biggest oil deal in history’ and, indeed, Washington boasted of having secured a majority stake in more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan reserves under a 100-year concession. Yet Venezuela’s oil industry has been ravaged for years by sanctions, theft and a lack of maintenance. For real oil to flow into US refineries and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), infrastructure renovations and investments running into the billions are required. The earliest possible timeframe for deliveries from Venezuela is 2027–2028. Washington has bought itself long-term insurance against oil crises, but this coming winter the Strait of Hormuz remains a key factor, and the immediate future of the SPR depends on whether it is blocked.

In this context, is the US capable of prolonging the conflict with Iran? Is it capable of becoming embroiled in further potential conflicts, such as over Taiwan? In the event of a new conflict, would there not be a shortage of oil, as there was in the 1970s, when the military needed it on a massive scale? Incidentally, does the US military have enough missiles once it has used up 50 per cent of its global reserves of Patriot and THAAD systems in Iran?

Iceland stays cool

Yet another slap in the face for Brussels! The technocrats, the red-green guardians of rainbow sexuality, the champions of the new world order (without nations) have lost by 53 to 47. The Icelanders are too clever to join this Soviet-bloc-like structure. It’s like a new Brexit. The EU should now be able to reflect on its power of persuasion, honed over so many years, and come up with something to offer. Nothing of the sort happened: Brussels is rigid, rusty, corrupt. Everyone knows that. EU membership would be a disaster for the island; even the fishing quotas would immediately cripple the economy.

When the Laki volcano erupted in Iceland back in 1783, the whole of Europe suffered the consequences of the explosion: a thick, dry mist hung over Europe, blocking out the sunlight and leading to widespread poisoning and respiratory problems. Climate change led to the destruction of crops across Europe. According to historians, the Great Famine and the resulting economic crisis (particularly in France) are regarded as one of the immediate triggers that led to the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789.

Today’s referendum in Iceland is, without a doubt, a tectonic shift for the whole of Europe.

All the world’s a chessboard, and all the nations are merely pieces and pawns

The likes of the late Zbigniew Brzezinski[1], or Madeleine Albright[2] or Henry Kissinger[3] viewed the world as a chess board. Strictly speaking the term comparing the globe to a chess board was employed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, but all of the other politicians listed above conducted themselves in political matters in full accordance with this principle. They all – and their political followers – view the nations of the world as pawns (small countries) or pieces (big countries), they all enjoy the diplomatic game like they are chess players. They do not in the least seem to bother about the fate of nations; nor do they seem to bother about the fate of particular individuals. Rather, they seem to be enjoying their lives to the full, discussing political things over lunch or dinner, travelling by air on board of luxurious planes to different places around the globe, shaking hands with the leaders of different nations, concluding treaties and accords, posing for photographs, granting interviews to different television channels, seeing their images in newspapers, on websites, and on television. They’re having the time of their lives.

The comparison that we are going to draw might seem exaggerated, but – yes – diplomats bear a strong political resemblance to such historic figures as Frederick II of Prussia (who earned the nickname the Great), Alexander of Macedonia, Napoleon Bonaparte or – indeed – Adolf Hitler. They all behaved like big boys playing with tin or plastic soldiers, with this difference however, that rather than playing with tin or plastic soldiers they wanted to play with living humans. They were totally indifferent to the fate of soldiers and their families, to the fate of nations, to the works of art or architecture. The most important to them was their career. They all would have gone to great lengths to go down in history as great conquerors, important leaders, prudent politicians and so on, and so forth. Policymaking was for them – and is for their present-day followers – like living on the constant dope. Policy making is for them the cause and purpose of life, something that makes them tick, something that they are in the literal sense of the word addicted to.

On the world stage there are different players. In order to have a game, you need to have an adversary. Now of course if you want to look good in the eyes of your own nation and also sometimes in the eyes of the remainder of all humanity, you need to come up with a good reason why you want to see an adversary in the collective leader of a given nation. That reason might be that your adversary is evil, that he suppresses his own people, that he robs individual humans of their basic rights, or that he is a threat either to your own country or to some other countries. With the aid of propaganda that is spread by the modern means of communication you can relatively easily shape a hostile attitude of your own nation towards the adversary. You can do it relatively easily because people generally cannot be bothered to do some research concerning the current affairs of the world; they cannot be bothered to look back into history to have a broader perspective and to see the root causes of events; they cannot even be bothered to look at the map and see the location of a particular country in relation to other countries, nor can people be bothered to familiarise themselves with the basic statistics, such as the number of inhabitants of a given country, the nationalities or ethnicities that make it up, the industrial and technological potential, the religion or religions that are professed there, and so on and so forth. Such people – making up a majority in each nation – can very easily be duped into believing anything about any other countries, about their leaders, about any development of events. You may rest assured: the overwhelming majority of the country’s citizens will not be curious enough to reach for sources of information other than those of the main media, to reach for books all articles that would present the cause of events in a different light.

The very few individuals who are willing to form the correct view of the world and of the unfolding events, who will look for books and sources of information, who will mull over the facts, the numbers, the dates – such individuals are too few to have influence on the rest of the society that they live in. Some governments used to stamp out such isolated individuals, but more prudent governments will not chase after them not try to suppress them. Why bother? For one thing, as we’ve already said, such independent thinking individuals are too few to have an impact; for the other, it is always good to have that kind of impotent internal opposition because it shows that the government can tolerate different political opinion, that the government is humane etc.

It is common knowledge that the political big players in the European Union, and especially in the United States have openly declared China to be the West’s enemy number one. Taking into consideration the fact that China nominally is still a communist country, we have a repeat of the Cold War that was waged between the capitalist West and the socialist Soviet Union together with its socialist satellite states. Yes, the ironic quirk of history is that China maintains its communist superstructure while allowing for a capitalist base, which is not quite in line with what Karl Marx said about political systems, but never mind that. It is in handbooks that we have pure political systems, never so in reality. Be it as it may, though for all practical purposes China is a capitalist country, it is touted by Washington not as America’s mere rival but America’s enemy, a threat to be reckoned with, a threat that needs America’s attention, a threat that needs to be removed.

Now to attack China would not look nice to the rest of the world. An aggressor is always regarded as the evil party. An aggressor, therefore, needs a pretext. An aggressor needs to reverse reality in the eyes of the world and present himself as a victim of aggression. If the aggressor succeeds in that, then he may launch an all-out war against the target country with the world’s blessing, so to say, or at least with the world’s understanding. When Adolf Hitler wanted to attack Poland he had his secret services stage a series of border skirmishes all of which were blamed on Poland. The largest of such incidents was the staged attack of the so-called Polish insurgents on the radio broadcasting station in the town of Gleiwitz, on German territory, just a few kilometres across the German-Polish border. The fake insurgents – in reality German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms –allegedly attacked the radio station and pleaded to the Polish minority living round the town of Gleiwitz to take up arms and to begin to fight and kill the Germans. That action was to serve as the ultimate proof of how evil the Polish nation was and that was to be the ultimate justification for the attack on Poland.

Diplomacy has been developing since then. Rather than staging fake attacks allegedly carried out by the target country, the country that is to be regarded by the world as the aggressor, it is much better to manoeuvre the target country into retaliatory measures. How do you do that? Generally speaking, it is not a difficult task. Think about relations between individual humans. We all know that it is very easy to provoke somebody to deliver the first blow without yourself even touching the other person. All you need to do is to exert constant pressure on the other person. The pressure comes in the form of slander, verbal attacks, bullying, bad faith, mendacity, insincerity, and so on and so forth till the target person loses his temper, raises his voice, begins to use swear words, and ultimately, when the pressure is maintained, that target person delivers the first blow. That’s it.

The relations between different countries, states or nations are pretty much the same. When Country A needs to attack Country B, and needs to present itself to the whole world as the victim of Country B, then country A needs to do anything in its power to provoke Country B into delivering the first blow. That was precisely what the West, and especially the United States, did in their dealings with the Russian Federation. The West began to expand NATO, absorbing not only the former Soviet Union’s satellite states, but also three of the Soviet republics that had gained independence from the disintegrating Soviet Union. For a time Moscow remained helpless since Russia was tormented with an economic and social crisis. but when the West attempted to invite Ukraine and Georgia to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, it was the last straw that broke the camel’s back and provoked the now strengthened Russia into delivering the first blow by intervening militarily in Ukraine. The West’s plan succeeded: the whole world could see that the West was peaceful while Russia appeared to be aggressive, to be prolonging the expansionist policy of its predecessor – the Soviet Union.

With this in mind, what should the United States do in order to provoke China into delivering the first blow? Oh yes, Washington should create an Asian NATO and invite to it some or all of the countries surrounding China. When do you think Beijing will say enough is enough and recoil? Beijing mat not react if, say, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan become members of such an alliance, maybe Beijing will react when Kazakhstan and Mongolia are invited because that would mean an encirclement of China? What do you think might happen if such an Asian NATO began enlarging by admitting consecutive member-states like Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, building the anaconda grip around the Middle Kingdom? Of course, the idea of creating an Asian NATO would be touted as a measure of consolidating peace in Asia, combating terrorism, and so on and so forth. But, of course, Beijing would view such a military alliance and its expansion as a threat to the security of the People’s Republic of China.

Think back to how it was in the case of the Russian Federation and the expansion of NATO. When NATO was absorbing particular central European countries, Russians did not raise strong objections at first because Russia was undergoing a systemic crisis, but as the Russian Federation grew stronger, Moscow began to react in a decisive way. Now Beijing is not currently living through an economic all political crisis comparable to that in which Russia found herself in the 1990s, which means that the People’s Republic of China might react much sooner in response to the threats of being militarily encircled. And it doesn’t matter whether China is ruled by communists or capitalists, by people professing this or that philosophy, by leaders identifying as believers of this or that God. Any leader, any ruler – be it a Chinese emperor or secretary general of the Communist Party of China – would feel it his duty before the nation, before the previous and successive generations, and before history, to take steps to counteract the encirclement of his country. Such a measure would translate into delivering the first blow against, say, Vietnam or Kyrgyzstan, or whichever country that might be stupid enough to let itself be drawn into an anti-China military alliance. We would have a repeat of what we are currently seeing in the case of the Ukrainian war. just as Russia is engaged in the hostilities in Ukraine, so might China be engaged in similar hostilities in Vietnam or Kazakhstan, or in… – depending on which country might be willing the play the role of Asian Ukraine. Washington will not send American boys to do the bloody job; rather, the United States will pump weapons and funnel money into the country that would be willing enough or stupid enough to be used as a proxy force against China.

Just as Ukraine let itself be used as a proxy against Russia, so there is no doubt that any of the aforementioned countries surrounding China might let themselves be used as a proxy against the Middle Kingdom. It is not the nations that decide the course of history, but the very narrow top echelons of those nations’ elites and these are bribable. Those elites have often been educated in one of the western universities, they very often have bank accounts and one of the western banks, they receive awards from the western governments, and they have their children studying at one of the western universities. More importantly, in the case of a losing war those elites can always count on fleeing the country and finding sanctuary somewhere in the West. They can sacrifice their own nations because that costs them nothing.

Just as it is the case with Ukraine and Russia locked in hostilities, a Vietnam or a Kazakhstan, once any of these countries lets itself be used as a proxy against China – is not going to win such a war. Nor is it going to be the intention of Washington to crush the Middle Kingdom by means of Vietnamese or Kazakh armies. Just as is the case with Ukraine and Russia, Washington’s aim is to keep the Middle Kingdom militarily busy, is to bleed China in the literal sense of the word and to worsen its international standing. A Beijing involved in the conflict with one of its neighbours is going to be weakened just as Russia is being weakened being engaged and the conflict in Ukraine. A just as Ukraine stands no chance of winning a war with Russia, neither does any of China’s neighbours stand such a chance against China, but the cost for the Middle Kingdom is going to be significant. Is this not the way that the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, and Henry Kissinger, love to follow? What are China or Russia to them? They are a king or a queen on a chessboard. What are Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Vietnam, or Kazakhstan to them? They are castles, and knights, and bishops. What are Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Mongolia on this grand chessboard? They are mere pawns. And when you play a game of chess, you know right from the start that you will sacrifice a number of pawns; you know right from the start that you might be forced to sacrifice some of the pieces. Do you care about it? Your aim is to win the game, your aim is to check – is to checkmate – the king. Once you have checkmated the king, you can redraw the political map of the region, and you can refashion the global pecking order. All the world’s a chessboard, and all the nations are merely pieces and pawns, to paraphrase the literary giant [As You Like It, Act II, Scene 7].

Notes

[1] Zbigniew Brzeziński (Warsaw 1928 – Falls Church, Virginia, 2017). Polish-American political scientist. National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter (1977–1981). In The Grand Chessboard (1997), he described Eurasia as the chessboard on which America’s global position is defended.

[2] Madeleine Albright (Prague 1937 – Washington 2022), born Marie Jana Korbelová. American diplomat; Secretary of State under Bill Clinton (1997–2001), the first woman to hold that office. Advocate of NATO expansion and of intervention, including in the Balkans.

[3] Henry Kissinger (Fürth 1923 – Kent, Connecticut, 2023), born Heinz Alfred Kissinger. German-American diplomat. National Security Adviser and Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford. Architect of the rapprochement with China, of détente with Moscow and of a power politics in which states are treated as pieces on a board. Nobel Peace Prize 1973.

Arab dreams are shattered

The hole in Saudi Arabia’s budget caused by America’s war against Iran is forcing the rulers in Riyadh – blinded by the money from the oil business – to give up their dreams.

Incredible megacities were to be built – the city known as ‘The Line’ was to be 170 km long, and futuristic places such as ‘Neom’ or ‘New Murraba’ were to act as magnets for tourists and investors who would benefit from the shift from an oil-based to a service-based economy. Now, by 2030, only 5 kilometres of the 170-kilometre megacity will be built, and other projects have also been scrapped. Why?

It is clear that less oil has been and is being transported through the Strait of Hormuz. It is also well known that the Iranians retaliated by attacking the Saudis: the onshore transport infrastructure became the target of military attacks by Iranian drones, which damaged pumping stations along the east-west pipeline, whilst the attacks on the SABIC petrochemical complex in Al-Jubail caused fires and temporary shutdowns of the facilities.

However, another, even more important factor is the United Arab Emirates’ withdrawal from OPEC. Whilst Saudi Arabia requires an oil price of $86.60–$96.20 per barrel to offset its enormous expenditure and investment (the so-called fiscal breakeven oil price), the UAE already achieves a financial balance at around $50 per barrel. Abu Dhabi has therefore recognised that artificially reducing its own production to rescue the Saudi budget is a move that runs counter to its national interests, and has left OPEC.

For Riyadh, the consequences of this bold move by the UAE are proving to be severe. The OPEC+ framework, now abandoned by the Emirates, has lost its ability to manage oil prices effectively. In the past, Saudi Arabia was able to act as a sort of supply buffer and reduce its own production to raise prices on the markets. Under the current circumstances, any unilateral reduction in production by Saudi Arabia results in ADNOC and non-cartel producers such as the US, Guyana or Brazil immediately gaining market share, without any noticeable price increases. Riyadh therefore finds itself in a situation where a reduction in output would dramatically erode its revenues, whilst an increase in production would drive the oil price down to $60 or below, exacerbating the Kingdom’s financial collapse.

The geopolitical situation in the Gulf is causing a rift between Washington and Riyadh: the Saudi authorities refused to make their air bases and airspace available to the Americans to carry out ‘Project Freedom’, an operation designed to protect supertankers. Saudi strategists have recognised that the military escalation of the conflict with Tehran is causing ever-greater damage to infrastructure and increasingly paralysing the economy. They also recalled that the US military could leave the region at any time, whilst Iran will remain a permanent neighbour.

At the same time, Riyadh slowly began to forge new alliances. In May 2026, Saudi Arabia struck a deal with Pakistan under which Islamabad deployed 8,000 troops, a squadron of fighter aircraft and air defence systems to the Kingdom. This move not only strengthened the protection of Saudi oil facilities but also made Pakistan a mediator in relations between Riyadh, Washington and Tehran.

There is, after all, life beyond the oil fields: the economy outside the oil industry is growing at an astonishing rate and already accounts for 55.4 per cent of the Kingdom’s gross domestic product. The tourism sector set a historic record in 2025: total tourist spending reached 304 billion rials (81.1 billion dollars). This figure was generated by 123 million visitors. It might be worth investing in religion (places such as Mecca) rather than in science-fiction visions.

Do they want to preserve their identity or do they want to have it dissolved?

We have had conversations with Ukrainians that are scattered around European countries. The usual story that you hear from them goes something like that. When we lived in Ukraine during the times of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian language was suppressed and we were compelled to use the Russian language all the time. That is why we wanted to gain independence and we wanted to recreate our own culture, our own heritage, and – of course – preserve our own language. But then after Ukraine had gained its independence, things went terribly wrong, and eventually – as we know – the war between Ukraine and Russia broke out. Many Ukrainians had fled the country even before the war, some of them during the war if they were lucky enough to be able to cross the border.

The majority of Ukrainians who now live in Europe – be it in Poland, Czechia, Romania, or in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom – say that they are not going to return to their country under any circumstances. They’ve learned the local language – be it Polish or Romanian, be it German or French – and they have found employment in the European countries of their residence. They may also have left Ukraine with their children or they may have birthed children while living in Europe. Surely those children will go to Polish or Romanian to German or Italian schools, and they will have Polish, Romanian, German or Italian friends. Those children will absorb the Polish, Romanian, German or Italian culture, and so on and so forth. In many cases one generation is enough to extirpate that Ukrainian culture in those young people, the children of Ukrainian immigrants. How about yet another generation? Well, of course, many of those youngsters will begin to date Polish, Romanian, German, or Italian partners, and of course they’re going to get married and start families. They’re not going to talk in Ukrainian in such nationally mixed marriages but in the language of the country the residents of which they will happened to be. So the third generation means for all practical purposes the erasure of Ukrainian identity.

But the people that you are talking to – those Ukrainians who have settled in France or Poland, in Germany or Spain – they all claim that they wanted to preserve their Ukrainian identity, which is precisely why they left Ukraine. Where is the logic?

If you listen to Ukrainians talking about such topics, you should be on your guard whether what they say is genuine or whether they repeat what they have heard in Ukrainian mass media or in Ukrainian schools. You should also bear in mind that those Ukrainian people who you are talking to about such things are well aware of the fact that if they only say that they have been discriminated against in their own country, then they can very easily evoke feelings of empathy in their European interlocutors. That’s a simple and well known psychological mechanism. If an immigrant wants to ingratiate himself with the people of the host country, and he knows that the people the host country follow the principles of empathy, then – of course – he is going to strike the empathetic chord in their souls.

What do facts reveal? Facts simply reveal that if Ukrainians claim that they want to preserve their national identity and that is why they leave Ukraine and – which is even worse – and that is why they do not want to come back to their country under any circumstances, then it clearly means that they do not want to preserve their national identity, that they are indifferent to what is going to happen to their children, and grandchildren living in a foreign country in terms of their children’s and grandchildren’s national or cultural identity. Clearly, Ukrainians and their offspring can only preserve their national heritage while living in Ukraine, under whatever circumstances, even if they were to be suppressed there culturally. Why?

Because even if they were suppressed by Russians during the times of the Soviet Union, even if they were Russified, it meant that they were compelled to speak the Russian language – a language that is very, very close to Ukrainian. Linguists will even tell you that Ukrainian is to Russian what Bavarian is general German. So the national feeling or the national identity of Ukrainians – even if being put under Russian pressure – could not be suppressed entirely. Is there anybody who thinks that Bavarians are suppressed in Germany? Some of them continue to speak the Bavarian kind of German but at the same time it does not occur to them to fight for Bavarian independence and the accuse the German Federative Republic of suppressing Bavarian identity.

Coming back to Ukraine. The other aspects of being subdued – if we want to use this term – by Russians is that being dominated by Russia meant that you still used the Cyrillic script. Now a Ukrainian settling anywhere in Europe (of course, apart from Bulgaria, Macedonia or Serbia – but these are not usually the target countries for Ukrainian immigrants) is not going to use the Cyrillic script. Still less his children who, attending European schools and learning respective European languages, are going to learn the Latin script. So another big part of Ukrainian identity (besides the spoken language) is going to be erased.

The only thing that can still be preserved is religion, the Orthodox Christianity, which is the dominant creed in Ukraine. But this part of Ukrainian identity heavily depends on whether the person is religious or not. Because people who are religiously indifferent have already lost this aspect of Ukrainian identity. What about those who are Christian Orthodox believers? It will be very difficult for them to preserve this faith in any of the European countries where there is no Orthodox Christianity (with the exception of Bulgaria Serbia Macedonia or Romania). Europe is nominally either Catholic or Protestant; in reality, Europe is increasingly agnostic or atheistic, or… becoming Muslim.

All of which means that Ukrainians residing in any of the European countries are exposed to such pressures that will inevitably extirpate their Ukrainian identity. But they say they fled Ukraine, fearing Russification in case Russia won the war…

It would be much more decent to say, I have left my country because of economic reasons and I do not care about my heritage, or about my native language, or about my faith. But of course it sounds not so nice to the ears of the people that you want to ingratiate yourself with. So, you spin stories about being suppressed, discriminated against, and so on.

What we are observing is by no means a new phenomenon. During the Second World War the Germans tried to Germanize for instance Polish children if only they recognised them as racially fit for that purpose. Because Germany was bleeding on the fronts of the Second World War, its human resources were being systematically depleted, and that is why the German authorities arrived at the idea of replenishing the shrinking population with the human material from the conquered countries. So it happened that tens of thousands of very young racially fit children were taken away from their Polish parents and adopted by German foster-parents, while all the traces of their national origin were erased from the documents. The result is that in present-day Germany there are thousands of people who are thought to be German, but in point of fact are Polish by descent. Why are we telling this story and reminding the reader of this procedure that took place during the Second World War?

Because of the same demographic and ideological phenomenon. On the one hand the Polish nation and the Polish authorities recognised this rubbing of children as a national demographic catastrophe, and rightly so. But, on the other hand, very many parents – Polish parents! – almost immediately after the war had come to an end dreamed about their children leaving Poland and resettling in Germany. Poland was a poor country, while West Germany was so rapidly developing that it did not take much time for West Germany to become economically powerful. So, if only an opportunity presented itself, young people started emigrating to Western countries, and very, very many of them to West Germany. Parents and grandparents were glad that their children and grandchildren relocated to West Germany, spoke the German language, sent their children to German schools and so on and so forth. One might say that – generalising – almost those same parents and grandparents who said that they had been harmed during the Second World War by the Germans when those Germans had robbed them of their own children, the same parents and grandparents who would have demanded compensation for the human losses that they had sustained during the Second World War, the very same parents and grandparents were very much pleased if only their children or grandchildren could leave Poland and start their life in Germany. This time it did not bother the parents or their grandparents that their children and grandchildren were Germanized, that their children and grandchildren gradually lost their Polishness. Where was the logic in all of this?

Sure enough, money is the only logic. But of course nobody wants to say that he is motivated by money and money alone, so immigrants spin stories about being discriminated against, about having the national or religious identity suppressed, and so on and so forth as the case may be, depending on which story will have the best effect on the host country citizens.

This is precisely the same phenomenon that Europeans are facing while accepting immigrants from the Third World. The same lack of logic applies here. On the one hand the immigrants – especially those from Africa – will complain about the white man’s racism, but on the other hand they will flock to Europe, they will flock to the place which is infested with racism, rather than staying in their own countries, which are free of white racists. Is there any logic in this?

We have reviewed three similar phenomena: Ukrainians leaving Ukraine and settling in Europe, Poles leaving Poland and settling in Germany, and Africans leaving Africa and settling in the white man’s world. Ukrainians flee Ukraine because they do not want to be turned into Russians, but at the same time they want to be turned into Poles, Germans, Italians or French. The Polish people, who would have demanded financial compensation from West Germany for the stolen Polish children, were more than happy sending their children and grandchildren to West Germany in order to have them become Germans. And lastly, African people who keep complaining about the white man’s racism and at the same time flock to the white man’s countries by the tens of thousands every week to be exposed to… the white man’s racism. In all of these three cases there is the materialistic (financial) base and the ideological superstructure. Very many gullible Europeans fall for this ideological superstructure without seeing this materialistic (financial) base which is the real driving force behind the phenomenon of immigration.

How the system works

Money makes the world go round. Money is used to sweep everything under the carpet, as in the case of the Epstein affair. Money can cover up a great deal, but the truth cannot be altered by money.

True leadership in the United States should be based not only on military or economic strength, but also on the ability to punish criminals who, for example, engage in human trafficking. In Epstein’s case, this was not the case. The end of Epstein’s story does not bring the whole scheme to an end. The scheme continues to operate. Furthermore, there are people who, regardless of the scale of the crime, simply go unpunished, and in extreme cases they (or their masterminds) are forced to pay nothing more than a derisory financial penalty. As long as such rules exist, the whole system cannot function properly.

We can be pleased that the standard of living today is the highest in history, but for that reason alone we should not tacitly accept that anyone can engage in human trafficking with impunity. What is at the root of the problem? What enables influential groups not only to exist, but also to constantly consolidate their power? Let us list a few points.

One of the main problems is the system of fiat money, which has been in operation since 1971. There is a wealth of statistics proving that such a system fuels inequality in wealth, and ordinary, working citizens suffer from a constant decline in a currency’s purchasing power (most are unable to protect themselves against this). This system of fiat money allows bankers to print an unlimited amount of currency. This, in turn, provides very easy access to credit, which, incidentally, led to the 2008 crisis. The outcome of the crisis was the decision to bail out the largest banks and grant them ‘too big to fail’ status. Officially, this is known as a SIFI (systemically important financial institution – an institution that is important to the financial system). This status effectively guarantees complete impunity for bankers working in selected, major institutions. Impunity and the ability to create currency out of thin air offer unlimited possibilities.

This system enables politicians to run up excessive debts, from which the banks profit, whilst the burden of repaying those debts falls on the shoulders of the public (in the form of ever-higher taxes and levies). Another key element of this system is the creation of complex legislation, which in turn affects only ordinary citizens. The regulations and laws devised by politicians and lawyers make life more difficult for small business owners, whilst at the same time containing numerous loopholes that allow only the largest companies to flee profitably to tax havens or pay ridiculously low taxes. Once again, it is the politicians, lawyers and banks who profit. Central banks, commercial banks, politicians and a small group of tech giants exert a major influence on economic events and what happens on the stock market. Access to information enables those closest to power and with the greatest influence to become rich easily; one example of this is Donald Trump’s second presidency and his stock market profits.

Thus, the bulk of wealth in this system circulates between banks, companies, politicians and people operating in the shadows (influential families, intelligence agents, etc.). It must not be forgotten that the mainstream media are also part of the system – the media are likewise controlled by a relatively small group of people.

This system therefore enables the worst sort of people – those who are intelligent but lack moral standards – to become rich. Under normal circumstances, they would have to work hard. On Wall Street (and in the surrounding area), they can do so thanks to their cunning and their ability to operate above the law. If necessary, they hire an army of lawyers to negotiate suitable arrangements on their behalf.

This is what this system looks like. The Epstein case has clearly demonstrated this, and we will see more Epsteins. Unfortunately.

Before Jason Arday there was Simon Mol

The leftist worship of blacks is breathtaking. The academic world has been shattered by the news of Jason Arday – supposedly an ingenious black scholar who held a high position at Cambridge University and who is said to be the youngest black man to have ever held this position at a British university. His career was stunning, his autobiography – the stories that he himself told about his own life – were incredible. And yet, the academic world did not raise a brow although the stories bordered on the impossible, on the unfeasible. Let alone his claim that he ran thirty marathons within thirty-five days, including one or more while having a serious injury to his leg. He claimed that he could not speak till the age of eleven, and that he was unable to read and write until he was eighteen. Nonetheless, he miraculously made up for lost time and managed to make a brilliant career. He was successively employed by Durham University, then University of Glasgow, and eventually at Cambridge. His career was developing at lightspeed. Until someone started investigating his scholarly achievements. And it turned out that his works and especially his PhD thesis was heavily plagiarised, was full of grammatic errors, and generally did not meet the criteria that are set for that kind of publication. Of course, as you will have expected by now, the defence of the leftists who have advanced his career was that these were racist-motivated attacks. Fortunately, the investigators – whether scholars or journalists – persisted in unearthing and exposing the works by Jason Arday and they did it to such an effect that it was no longer possible to defend him. Being put under such enormous pressure he decided (or someone decided for him) to resign from his post at Cambridge University. A few days later he was found dead and his death was pronounced to be an act of suicide.

Before Jason Arday there was Simon Mol. A poet, a journalist who also happened to be black, straight from Africa. He, too, knew precisely how to exploit the naivete of the leftist liberals, and how to exploit the faith of the leftist intellectuals. Simon Mol operated in Poland of all the places in the 90s of the previous century. He claimed to have been persecuted in his own country of Cameroon and he claimed to be a champion for human rights, a fighter against – yes! yes! – racism. He was a darling of the leftist circles in Poland. As such he was lavished with awards. Interviews were conducted with him and he was even called Poland’s anti-fascist of the year. Like in the case of Jason Arday, Simon Mol told his own heroic biography. And, like in Jason Arday’s case, he was exposed by inquisitive journalists: the stories that he had spun were fake. He was not persecuted in his country nor was a champion for human rights. What he was good at was to have sex with numerous white women. That in itself would not have passed as a sin in the leftist world, but the point was that that he was infected with HIV, of which was he was fully aware. Nonetheless he had sex with multiple women without applying any protection, so he consciously and deliberately infected them with HIV. Leftist white young educated women were very eager to copulate with him because to the leftist educated young woman’s mind it is a mark of holding high moral ground that you have sex with a black male. Some of them – the more reasonable ones – had second thoughts about having sex with an unknown male, and so they wanted Simon Mol to use any kind of protection, and do you know what happened? Simon Mol would immediately resort to the racist argument.’ You want me to use a condom,’ he was known to say, ‘because you are racist. You wouldn’t demand that from a white male, would you?’ And, of course, a leftist, progressivist, educated, young white woman saw no other way out as to surrender. The white, leftist, educated, progressivist women view having sex with blacks as a point of honour: they prove her high moral anti-racist standards, they love dabbling in virtue signalling.

Simon Mol operated in Poland in the 1990s of the previous century, Jason Arday operated in Great Britain in 2020s. A span of 30 years. And within this span of 30 years there happened multiple cases of the leftist progressivist activists elevating black individuals to academic, literary, cultural or other heights, in their pursuit to prove to the whole world that blacks are noble, intellectually capable, and ingenious. The fact that they cannot make an academic career s only and exclusively due to racism that is widespread among white nations. It is racism and racism alone that holds black males and black females down.

In both cases – the case of Jason Arday, and the case of Simon Mol – the black fraudsters have met with their own death. Simon Mol succumbed to the virus that he had. Jason Arday died by his own hand. What do you think the leftist intellectuals say about such cases? Oh yes, you guessed it right! Those two ingenious males – the scholar and the poet – have been hunted down by racism, like – by the way – many others. We may rest assured that neither Simon Mol in Poland nor Jason Arday in Great Britain were the last cases of such preposterous fraud.

We can observe it in academia across the white man’s world that intellectuals – especially leftist intellectuals – have dislodged the Christian God from the altar and placed there collective black person. It is interesting to look at this phenomenon, it really is! On the one hand this phenomenon might be viewed as a distortion of the Christian charitable attitude to all those who are downtrodden. The egalitarians of the age of the Enlightenment, the leftist intellectuals of the age of socialism, and present-day intellectuals – usually atheists or agnostics themselves – have internalised this attitude and reoriented it towards blacks who are supposedly downtrodden… by whites, of course. It is a new faith of the white intellectualist. Why do we call this faith? Because this antiracism does not admit of any evidence, does not admit of any common sense. Anything having to do with people of African descent is viewed as sacrosanct. Look, it has been noticed that Jason Arday’s PhD was full of common language mistakes and still no supervisor of his work pointed them out. Why? The question arises whether anybody read Jason Arday’s work. Probably not. Why should they? If they had noticed that the work did not meet academic standards, they would have had to block Jason Arday’s career by not approving his PhD thesis. But that, of course, would have meant that they would have exposed themselves as racists. And being racist is nowadays equivalent to being a heretic whose right place is to be burnt at the stake. Nowadays not of course in the literal sense of the word. Individuals who dare notice that black people do not satisfy the standards set for the white people are branded racist and that means that they are ostracised socially, that their career is brought to a halt, that they are treated like pariahs. That’s the present day equivalent of the mediaeval burning at the stake.

Jason Arday’s PhD thesis was worthless, just like the so-called poetry composed by Simon Mol. You might want to read some of his pieces and enjoy them to the full. But then in the present-day world where poetry means haphazardly putting together words and phrases that do not rhyme or make sense – anything goes. After all, there is no objectivity. What is accepted as a literary achievement is whatever the intellectual elites say so.

When you think about Jason Arday and Simon Mol, you stop wondering that the black woman has been cast in the role of Helen of Troy in Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey. The film’s director – just like his scholarly and political colleagues – desperately wants to virtue-signal, he, too, desperately wants to show how strongly he clings to the new faith of venerating black people. Merit doesn’t matter – skin colour does. We keep reminding the reader again and again that a similar system was once in operation in socialist countries, where merit didn’t matter either, but someone’s social position. If you had a working class background then you qualified for the highest positions either in government or administration or academia or the military. That’s how religion operates. You are qualified because you are descended from the lower classes or other races.

It would be interesting to ask a psychologist or – even better – a psychiatrist why educated people, people who otherwise apply the scientific method, all of a sudden become religious, or even superstitious when it comes to human races. Yes, they are superstitious, not even religious because reasonable religious people do not let themselves commit such preposterous blunders. Think about Thomas Aquinas or Saint Augustine. They tried to ground religion in reason, they attempted to place religion on the foundations of reasoning,. They may have erred here and there, but at least they tried to make sense of the religious stuff. Now consider present day scholars and scientists who want to elevate black people in academia, and administration, and government. They do not even bother to select such black people as to convince the rest of us that those selected blacks are qualified. Or, if they really cannot find a suitable black person for a position in academia or government, they should at least do something to make him or her look like a competent person. In the case of Jason Arday they should have written his PhD for him. In the case of Jason Arday and Simon Mol they should have checked the stories that those guys had spun about themselves. In both cases – even if they so desperately wanted to elevate those two males – the intellectualists should have at least doctored those stories – they should have tried to make them plausible. Why didn’t they do it, why did they swallow their autobiographies hook, line and sinker?

What has happened to the intellectuals in the white man’s world? You can understand that certain empathetic individuals want to elevate blacks – and people of colour generally – along the social ladder. If it is true that they are held back simply because of their skin colour, then of course the attempts aiming at elevating such people are warranted. Just like it was in the case of those socialist countries that we’ve mentioned above. Sure enough, among the peasantry and among the working class there have always been born talented individuals, and such talented individuals are going to always be born among the people of lower social classes. Such talented individuals need to be supported and elevated, not only because it is an act of empathy, not only because this is an act of rendering social justice, but also because once such talented individuals start doing science or creating art or participating in government – all members of society will benefit from their activity. Similarly, if intellectuals want to elevate people of colour, there’s basically nothing wrong about that. What is wrong about that attitude is that they do not want to support and advance talent. What is wrong about that is that they want to support and advance skin colour. That idea is preposterous!

It is not that we do not approve of elevating talented black people. As said above, a talented person benefits the whole of society. It is that we disapprove of the practice of elevating people on the basis of their skin colour. That’s pure racism.

Consider the following. The intellectuals feel compelled to elevate the likes of Jason Arday or Simon Mol, which means that they could not find anybody better than them! Of the many millions of black people that already inhabit Europe leftist intellectuals cannot find even very few that are competent enough to meet the accepted academic, social, scientific, or cultural standards. Do you see the gravity of this question? If among the millions of black males that have become inhabitants of Western Europe you cannot find a handful of competent individuals, then the inference that you can draw is very much sobering: is there nothing to choose from?

What is even worst in all of this is that those leftist intellectuals have not only harmed the esteem of academia and the image of black people collectively, but they have also harmed individual blacks, in our case Jason Arday and Simon Mol. Jason Arday would not have committed suicide if he had not been exposed as a fraudster, and he would not have been exposed as a fraudster had the white intellectuals not turned a blind eye to his fraudulent achievements. he would have lived his own life and could have been as happy as any average person.

In the case of Simon Mol it was the young ingenuous – though educated – women who fell victim to the so-called poet, champion of human rights, and the antifascist of the year. Those young virtue-signalling women would not have contracted HIV if Simon Mol had not been recognised as a poet and fighter for human rights, had he not been presented to the progressivist circles as a monumental figure worthy of veneration. Very few if any of those young educated women would have fallen prey to his predatory machinations if only because they wouldn’t have known about this existence.

Do you think that those leftist intellectuals will correct their ways? Not by any means. You may rest assured that another Jason Arday and another Simon Mol will emerge in the days to come to precisely the same effect. Again and again we will learn about a new talented black male. And again will have them exposed as fraudsters. Again broad circles of white intellectuals will embrace the new manifestation of antiracist religion. Again the leftist priests and (especially) priestesses of antiracism will demand that you venerate people because of the blackness of their skin.

We very often laugh at the people of the Middle Ages that they were so backward in their attitudes and beliefs. It is highly likely that our backwardness is far larger. After all, the people in the Middle Ages did not have at their disposal the achievements of modern science that we have, after all we should be wiser by the mere passage of ten or so centuries that separate us from the Middle Ages. As it is, we turn out to be perfect fools, we turn out to be as easy to fool as they used to be. They used to believe in the positive or negative impact of the configuration of stars, in magic, in witches or in the flatness of the earth; we are used to believing in the equality of all people. The people in the Middle Ages had their heretics, and we, too, have heretics who today go by the name of racists. Who were the mediaeval heretics? Those were the individuals who using the Bible and following the Bible pointed up either inconsistencies in the text, or accused the Church of not abiding by the precepts laid down in the Bible. Who are present day heretics? These are the so-called racists – individuals who on the basis of facts point to the difference between races and expose the fraudulent practises of the leftist individuals. Oh yes, there is a certain difference. As we mentioned, a heretic in the Middle Ages risked being burnt at the stake, while a racist in the modern era risks being turned into a pariah, professionally and socially. But who knows? Burning at the stake may be reactivated one of these days. You can never know. It’s just like with the capital punishment. Throughout recent history the capital punishment has alternatively been suspended, abolished, and introduced to again be suspended, abolished, and introduced, to again…

One feels helpless hearing such stories as those about Jason Arday or Simon Mol again and again. One knows that those stories will constantly be repeated. This veneration of the colour of skin is a collective psychological or – even better – psychiatric phenomenon. It will come to an end one of these days – maybe in ten years’ time, maybe in fifty years’ time, but it will come to an end, and that’s the only consolation. This craziness will end because all intellectual constructs that go counter to reality are doomed right from the start. Inevitably.

Meanwhile, willy-nilly, we are doomed to look forward to the emergence of another cultural or academic super-nova like Jason Arday or Simon Mol, another scholar or poet before whom we will be expected to piously genuflect.