Two hammers, which will sooner or later hit mankind, place it in a global concentration camp, make us all say goodbye to freedom and privacy, are already in the pipeline. Two hammers will strike at the two most basic areas of everyone’s life: the material or economic base that enables each of us to survive plus the concern for health without which everything else ceases to matter. These two hammers are:

– digital programmable currency and the

– global treaty on pandemic prevention.

Both hammers have a tangent line, but about that in a moment.

Digital programmable currency referred to as digital central bank currency or DCBC is money that cannot be touched because it will only exist in the form of zero-one pulses. Everyone will be equipped with an account in a single central (at first national, ultimately – global) bank and all settlements will be electronic. In an age when computer networks dispose of ever-increasing data collection and tracking capabilities, this means that all, absolutely all transactions, donations and even almsgiving will be recorded. The anonymity and privacy of remittances will disappear. If cash is abolished completely, someone somewhere will even know the amount of pocket money a child or teenager gets from their parents!

Digital money is programmable money, which means that the government will be able to attribute to selected sums of money in the accounts of selected people such properties as the need to spend it within a certain period or on certain goods and services. A citizen will receive an allowance from the government, or an employee will receive a salary from his or her employer, a certain proportion of which will have to be spent – for example – within three months on – for example – cleaning products. A huge and efficient internet of things will make it impossible to spend this money on anything else and will make it disappear from the account after a period in which it has not been used.

That is not all! The authorities can make the permission for the money to be spent conditional on how the citizen behaves, that is, whether he supports the authorities, whether she expresses opinions that are in line with mainstream opinions and so on. Such a system is being tried in China; such a system has already been activated in Canada, where Justin Trudeau’s government prevented protesting truck drivers from using their own bank accounts, from using their own money! This is already happening! in the West! which is regarded as an oasis of all freedoms and human rights. It is highly possible that Justin Trudeau inadvertently did something he should not have done yet: he may have frightened people and showed them what was coming. However, knowing human memory and naivety, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people did not learn anything from this event. One can be sure that most people in the so-called free world will be outraged at the lack of liberties in the aforementioned China or Russia because they will be fed such information by the media, without noticing or (more likely) not wanting to notice that freedom ends in the West. Continue reading →

A text about there being no difference between Tony Blair and Nikita Khrushchev, or about there being no difference between the United Kingdom – the model democracy as it is often claimed – and the USSR – the despotic Soviet system. Are you surprised? Surprised that we are comparing one of the leaders of the so-called free, democratic world and one of the leaders of an inhuman system that collapsed precisely because it was inhuman? Yes, we are comparing Great Britain and the Soviet Union, we are comparing Tony Blair with a Stalinist satrap. More than that: we dare to put an equals sign between the educated leader of the United Kingdom and the simple-minded, uneducated Ukrainian peasant who ruled a superpower for a while. What entitles us to do so?

Justin Trudeau had the bank accounts of Canadian truck drivers who dared to protest against Ottawa’s decisions blocked! Indeed, this fact alone shows that Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian leader hated by the entire “progressive” world, could take lessons from Justin Trudeau on how to ride roughshod over the whole of society!

Both one and the other decided the fate of millions of people and it never occurred to them to ask these people for their opinion. Both one and the other made decision concerning millions of people and could not be bothered to listen to the wishes and desires of those people. Both the one and the other claimed that they governed in the name of the people, for the people, and on the authority of the people. Ha, ha, ha!

In the 1950s, Nikita Khrushchev and his supporting party camarilla separated the Crimea from the Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic with a single stroke of the pen and incorporated it into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In other words, overnight the Russians living in Crimea (for all practical purposes only Russians live in Crimea) became… Ukrainians. Is this what they wanted for themselves? Not at all. Could they have done something to oppose it? Let them try!

Similarly, in the 1990s Tony Blair and his camarilla (industrialists, bankers, who else?) decided to attract millions of people from the Third World to Great Britain and gradually give them British citizenship. Overnight, millions of indigenous Britons in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and other cities woke up in communities that might as well have been part of Pakistan, India or Kenya. Did Tony Blair and his camarilla ask the British people if they wanted to live in Pakistan, India or Kenya? Not at all. When asked, would the British people have answered that they wanted to? Did those in power even care about the opinion of ordinary people? Could ordinary indigenous Britons have resisted what was done to them? Let them try! Continue reading →

These are excerpts from the article, which can be read in full at Gefira Financial Bulletin #68.

[…]

Ukrainian and Belarusian path to prosperity

The Ukrainian elite hesitated about which path to take. They hesitated because some of them were clearly pro-Russian (because they are Russians! living in Ukraine) and some were pro-Western. Whenever pro-Western elites prevailed, Kiev flirted with the West and expressed aspirations to become not only a member of the European Union, but also a member of NATO. What has been the result of pro-Western inclinations and Western promises of support? Here you go:

① mass emigration from the country: Ukraine, which had a population of roughly fifty (50) million at the end of the Soviet Union, now has a population of forty (40) million. It looks as if a war has swept through the country!

② Ukraine lost Crimea, and more recently four eastern and southern provinces;

③ Ukraine has been dragged into a war that is killing its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, industry and other resources, while the country

④ is incurring huge debts to acquire weapons and to rebuild what has been destroyed.

And how are people living in Belarus? In this Belarus, which is despised and ruled by the “last dictator in Europe”? Let’s take a look:

[…]

The Ukrainian road to prosperity once again

Haven’t the Ukrainians done the same as Poles did two hundred years earlier? Consider: if they had not listened to the West, if they had followed the path of Alexander Lukashenko:

① they would have retained all the territory of their own state, including Crimea,

② their industry and infrastructure would not have been destroyed,

③ they would not have lost in killed and wounded tens of thousands of citizens,

④ they would not have lost millions of citizens as a result of emigration.

However, the Ukrainians – at least those who came to power – preferred to listen to the West, preferred to be a tool in the hands of Washington, and are now reaping the harvest. As you sow, so shall you reap.

[…]

If nations really could decide….

These are excerpts from the article, which can be read in full at Gefira Financial Bulletin #68.

…to determine their own fate, as they can’t! One of the noble slogans of the United Nations is that nations can determine their own existence: whether they want to be independent or perhaps confederated, whether they want to belong to this or that alliance. It seems that most people in the West are convinced that the self-determination of nations is not just a slogan, but a reality, a political everyday reality, and if no longer a reality, then probably somewhere in the Third World, while in the West this principle is not only accepted as right but also implemented everywhere and always.

Let’s start with the observation we have made many times before: the very name United Nations Organization is deceitful and misleading. For we are not dealing with united nations, but with united states. A nation is the Russians, Turks, Hungarians, French, Chinese, Koreans, Germans, Kurds, Zapotecs, Zulus, and Yakuts, to name just a few. A nation is communities united by blood ties, a common legendary and biological (which most likely means the same thing) ancestor, and therefore a common language. One can argue about the definition of a nation, about where one nation ends and another begins (the continuum Russians-Belarusians-Ukrainians, the continuum Serbs-Croatians-Bosnians), but no one in their right mind would argue that a nation becomes a conglomeration of various ethnic groups brought together ad hoc by a newly formed political or state body. In other words, if we separate a few million Poles, Czechs and Germans from neighboring territories and unite them into one political organism, into some new state, under one common government, having one law, we will not, after all, form a nation, although some will claim so. The English word “nation” here is an excellent example of how language can distort reality. Latin in origin, the word “nation”, which derives from the word “to give birth, to birth” (compare with Nativity, native, innate) shows what a nation really is, and what a nation is not. So, going back to the example given above, the ad hoc combination of Poles, Czechs and Germans in a single state body will not make them into a nation, and certainly not in an instant or even for many years.

[…]

A nation is not a state, and a state is not a nation 
[…]

④ Serbia – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Montenegro. Consider the fact that Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins (and also Croats!) speak one and the same language, and the minor regional differences are smaller than those we have for the different varieties of German in German territory or English in the United Kingdom or the United States. What do we see in the Balkans? We see a Serbian nation within the Serbian state and that Serbian nation within the autonomous Republika Srpska that is part of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose other inhabitants, those living outside the autonomous Republika Srpska, are distinguished as a nation(?) solely on the basis of religion, on the basis that they are either Serbs or Croats whose ancestors opportunely – when these territories were under Turkish rule – converted to Islam! Oh, and we have a new nation! A Serb who professes Islam is no longer a Serb but a Bosniak! Interestingly, a German Catholic and a German Protestant or – increasingly nowadays – a German Muslim and a German atheist are not four – FOUR – nations! And a simple question: why can’t the Serbs of the autonomous Republika Srpska that constitutes a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina join Serbia proper? Could it be that they don’t want it? Where is that famous self-determination of peoples sanctified by the UN and all those human rights in general? Wouldn’t it be useful here to hold a referendum and ask the will of the Bosnian Serbs where they would like to live, whether in Bosnia and Herzegovina or perhaps in Serbia proper? Somehow in this case the referendum is not desired. Why?

[…]

⑥ Romania – Moldova. If one knew history or wanted to know history, one would know that (a) Moldavia (present-day Moldova) and Wallachia were the two state-forming principalities from which Romania was formed, and would know that (b) Romanian is spoken in Moldavia (Moldova). That should be enough. Between World War I and World War II, Moldova was part of Romania, then was seized by the Soviet Union and became one of the Soviet republics, and after the collapse of the USSR – an independent state. Don’t Moldovans want to belong back to Romania? Unfortunately, no one asks their opinion, yet the self-determination of nations is sanctified in all those international grandiose declarations…

[…]

⑪ Mongolia – China. How many of the readers of this article know that Mongols make up 95% of Mongolia’s population, and that this is in absolute numbers three million people, while that the vast majority of Mongols – as many as TWENTY-FOUR MILLION – live outside Mongolia, in neighboring China, where they have an autonomous province? What do we think, would the Mongols of China not want to belong to one independent state together with the Mongols of Mongolia? Is it normal that a tiny fraction of a nation has a state, while the vast majority of that nation – though living in a compact area – does not have a state? Is it just? Is this the principle of self-determination of nations at work? Is it possible that three million Mongolians wanted to have their own independent state, while twenty-four million preferred to be subject to the Chinese?

[…]

These are excerpts from the article, which can be read in full at Gefira Financial Bulletin #68.

[…]
Nowadays, the situation is different: In the Euro-Asian heartland, China is making progress as a rising world power (the New Silk Road), and the world islands continue to be controlled by the former maritime powers (France controls most of the countries in West Africa and Sub-Sahara politically, economically, and through a strong military presence), half of the inhabitants of the remotest countries and islands kneel before the late Queen (no one in Central Asia, mind you), and Germany was flattened into a buffer state by the U.S., England and France after the war (especially when it comes to national identity and strength) and disempowered (their “decision makers” cannot decide whether they want to continue to act as a buffer state, a major Western country, or Russia’s stooge). Despite the new circumstances, Mackinder’s thesis remains relevant and the new/old world powers are striving for the heartland.
The “colonies” of the tsars were given the status of autonomous republics in the USSR by the Bolsheviks, which Putin always considered a mistake and questioned their autonomy. One could risk the statement that the Bolsheviks to some extent used soft power towards the autonomous republics, while Putin’s policy is always aimed at collision course towards the 21 autonomous republics: Chechnya, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Moldova are the examples. Putin wanted and wants to fix the mistake of the Bolsheviks, which after the end of the Soviet Union led to the independence of many resource-rich autonomous republics such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and to the fact that Russia can no longer be supplied with fresh blood (raw materials) from its former colonial veins. The West has failed to understand that by trying to lure Ukraine into its Anglo-Saxon, German, Polish zone of influence, it is threatening the domination of the Heartland. Hence the whole war. If Russians tried to install in Canada an autonomous, Russian republic with traditional, conservative values, a republic, let’s say, of Indians so closely related to Siberian peoples, and supplied them with tons of weapons as First Nations, what would be left of Canadian cities? Are we crazy? No! The enemy, the friends, the target can be chosen at will in today’s times. It may be paradoxical, unrealistic and unfounded, but that’s the way wars are. Once they appear, they are full of idealistic contradictions and their consequences are worse than anyone could have expected. And everyone always wonders: why such a thing in the XXI century? Well, because the human mind and geopolitical points of view do not develop as fast as, say, the electronics and entertainment industries.
[…]
Yakutia
Speaking of the “absurd” idea of Canada being occupied by Russians: Yakutia, an autonomous republic in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, may become the next target of the West. In an area the size of India, there lives on average one person per square kilometer. Actually, they all live in Yakutsk or in small towns, otherwise there are only deserted, frost-soaked, but resource-rich large areas. “One tells that when God created the earth, he sent an angel over Siberia with a sack full of riches. When this flew over Yakutia, his fingers became stiff with cold, and he dropped everything. All the riches, , silver and platinum fell to the earth. However, out of anger at his loss, he punished this region with eternal winter”. 1

Yakutia (number 14 on the map) – the largest of the 22 autonomous republics within the Russian Federation.
[…]