There are topics we (are made to) talk about all the time – like ecology, green economy, decarbonization, climate and social justice or various manifestations of human rights; topics that we do not generally talk about – like the landing of Martians, unidentified flying objects or the existence of lizards in human bodies – and topics that we only – if we wish to express our frank opinion – whisper about. Only about the blood (but not spiritual) descendants of Abraham do we speak in muted tones when we want to put across our criticism, doubts or an unfavourable evaluation. Why? Gefira 56 has taken the bull by the horns and has addressed the eternal question of Jews and Jewishness, the question of why the world is divided into us and them, the question of the overlap between reality and the perceptivity of the Jewish phenomenon, the question of antisemitism and its inextricable reflection: antigentilism.

The machinations of bank managers are also a topic that we are generally confused about. By making things and providing services, people enable a growing and more affordable consumption which translates into general wellbeing; the few elect who create money and credit work wonders or – in other words – act like gods. Like gods they create value out of nothing, like gods they cause economies to come into being, grow and flourish or they stop them in their tracks, make them reverse gear and cause them to collapse. Whether the managers of the world finances control everything and will control everything in the long run remains to be seen. Since the understanding of the magic of money is to most of us inaccessible, and since the insight into the real state of affairs (the entirety of the data on the assets and liabilities of world banks and world economies) is inaccessible to those from us who are knowledgeable about money, we can only grope as if in a thick haze, hoping that another crisis will not hit us hard.

 

France is in the midst of a serious political crisis. It will come to a head – at the latest – before the presidential elections in April 2022.

Macron’s governments showed how alienated the French elites are from their people. The largest street protests in the country’s history (since the 18th century French Revolution) of the Yellow Vests, mass strikes against the planned pension reform and the extremely strong – compared to other, for example Eastern European countries – anti-lockdown movement showed that Macron’s legitimacy comes from the Rothschild bank, where he started his brilliant career, rather than from the people. The guillotine of the people, however, can decapitate, excuse me, sweep away from the political scene all three main candidates for the office in the Élysée Palace next spring. After all, with the coming wave of autumn viruses and rising prices at the farmers’ market, who will believe in Macron’s promise of revival through development of the more carbon-neutral economy? Who will believe in his “republican patriotism” in the country where Muslim associations, tightly intertwined with Arab clans, rule the streets of the big cities? Where retired generals openly call for a coup d’état “in a perilous mission to protect their civilisational values and their fellow citizens on the national territory”? Who will believe Le Pen, who is distancing herself more and more from the conservative ideas well thought out by her father by, for example, completely discarding the idea of withdrawing from the Schengen Agreement? Who will believe that her demand to lower the retirement age from 62 (the lowest in OECD countries) to 60 is sensible and feasible in the face of the coming inflation and the Paris debt mountain? Uneducated migrants, the shrinking middle class or well-educated elites? Le Pen and Macron are getting closer and closer, like enemies who have been shooting at each other in their trenches for too long. Le Pen renounces “radical” ideas and Macron proposed his security law to reassure civil servants. With her proposals for pension reform, isn’t Le Pen serving the bankers who own France’s debt and warmly welcome the bankruptcy of any state? Implementing her idea of earlier retirement would double the deficit of the pension system (by about 37 billion euros). As for spending: when Macron, the super-specialist in finance, took office in 2017, French ministries spent €3 billion. With his magic wand, he will make it to 11 billion of the common currency annually next year. Continue reading →

Muammar Qaddafi was perhaps the first, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan followed in his footsteps and now Alexander Lukashenko. They all promised to keep Third World emigrants away from Europe on condition that they would be left alone and given money. The West has done away with Muammar Qaddafi, which Hillary Clinton hideously commented, paraphrasing an ancient aggressor, to the tune of: we came, we saw, he died, which she followed with an even more hideous laugh. As a result the floodgates blocking the African invasions were open wide. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan saw an advantage for himself and played the same card as Muammar Qaddafi, saying to the European Union: you either pay me or else. Brussels paid through its nose. It cannot act otherwise as it has imposed on itself the manacles of all those human rights and migration compacts and the ideology of enrichment through human diversity. Now the time has come for the President of Belarus to apply the same strategy.

For years now Belarus has been in the cross hairs of the collective Post-West. Sanctions against Minsk followed sanctions, Alexander Lukashenko has been branded as the bad guy who does not belong to good company while Poland and Lithuania – the West’s willing executioners – have repeatedly pressed home attack after attack against their neighbour: for years Warsaw has been financing the Belsat TV station, a kind of Radio Free Europe, broadcasting a content that is hostile to the Belarusian government, whereas Lithuania has shown generous hospitality to Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who has been christened as the leader of the opposition to President Lukashenko. Needless to say that Polish and Lithuanian secret services rode roughshod over the Minsk authorities in a bid to topple it and destabilize the country: they organized and controlled street riots and assisted the crowds with all sorts of information and propaganda. Little Lithuania, a post-Soviet republic which has lost almost one-third of its population (predominantly young or middle-aged people) due to immigration to the West, rather than keeping its own people at home, has thrown the gauntlet to Belarus. The Lithuanian authorities did not have to wait long for revenge on the part of President Lukashenko.

Belavia, Wiki. Continue reading →

When you observe the political scene in the media and especially in the internet, you can see hundreds of organizations – governmental and non-governmental – foundations, agendas, institutes and what not, affiliated with the United Nations or the United States or the European Union, all of which are intent on imposing, spreading, defending human rights and are obsessed with combating discrimination because of – and here we have the mantra of race, religion, nationality and sex or – in modern parlance – gender. Here are some questions that I would gladly like someone to answer.

ONE. Why are those activists not satisfied with the rule of law? The rule of law protects anybody against being mugged, accosted, assaulted, robbed, cheated and the like. Why do they need to have all that mantra of a crime being committed because of race, religion, nationality and gender? This string of words is repeated in each website of the mentioned organizations so frequently that it makes you puke all over yourself. Why the heck should it matter whether I accost someone because of his skin colour or because of her looks or his clothes or her tattoos? It is the act of accosting, mugging, cheating, assaulting that should be judged and punished not the motivation, not the feelings, for goodness sake! Should I be punished less severely if I mug a victim because of his tattoos and more severely when I mug him because of his religion? I just don’t get it.

Imagine I accost a woman in the street for which by law I deserve to be punished. Why should it interest the judge whether I accosted the woman because she was black or yellow, or because she was a Muslim or an atheist? I just don’t get it, do you? It is our human right or – still better – biological, psychological nature that we do not like some people because of their behaviour or looks or convictions. You can do nothing about it so long as you deal with normal human beings. You can only restrict their actions, not feelings, opinions, convictions. 

TWO. Why this insistence on anti-discrimination laws when it comes to employment, membership, immigration and the like? Why should anybody want to impose himself on a group of people where he is not liked? Where do these people who want to impose themselves on others have their dignity? Why should I want to demand that I be accepted by people whose set of values, beliefs, opinions, mode of behaviour is drastically opposed to those of mine? Why should I even think of reeducating people in a country to which I immigrate with my extended family, why should I have the cheek to force myself upon them and accuse them of inhospitality if they do not accept me? Once again, where is my dignity, uh? I just don’t get it, really. Continue reading →

There was a time when people thought history was about the deeds of heroes: leaders, fighters, kings and queens. Then came the time when people thought that history was driven by economy: the concept of historical materialism was born. Today historians are becoming to realize that history is all about biology – humans are biological entities after all – and though economy i.e. the exchange of goods and services still plays a very important role, it by far does not explain human behaviour fully. Man is made up of body and psyche (old terminology: soul, which is the translation of the Greek psyche). We are all by necessity participants of the market, we all in order to survive need to offer something to others to receive the goods and services that we need. Still, we do not all seek to enrich ourselves in a limitless way. Jimmy wants to make airplane models, Cathy spends her time doing the gardening, George prefers to go fishing while Laura likes travel above all. They all need money to pursue their hobbies or interests, yet they do not need millions. They are driven by their passions and these are born in their psyche. Keith wants to paint landscapes, Fiona wishes to try out different kinds of cuisine, Mark will play the guitar while Lucy wants to impress her watchers with her skill as a dancer. These are psychological needs that demand – after the bodily needs are (even partly) satisfied – that they be fulfilled.

Human psychology seeks meaning. Man needs to have meaning in life or else he feels unhappy. Amassing fortune may be one of the manifestations of meaning, but man being man, it is not the only manifestation and even if one is possessed by it, once he has money, he wants to spend it also on things that have nothing whatsoever to do with his material wellbeing. He wants to impress others with his goodness, greatness, magnanimity, ideas and the like. Look at the billionaires: they all have foundations, they all support causes, they all make use of their money other than satisfying their material needs. Such is the function of human psyche. Once well-fed, warm and safe, an animal will lie and sleep. Once well-fed, warm and safe, a human will spring into action.

These are obvious things.

Now, which is the greatest of goals that a human may pursue? It is to be admired, loved and followed by the largest possible number of other humans. How can you be loved, admired and followed by the largest number of other men and women? Performing a hit song or being a popular actor are some of the solutions, but then even the most popular hit or movie is not popular with everyone and not for a long time. People have different, changeable preferences. Besides, you need to be an artistically gifted person. There are, however, things that all humans appreciate: their own lives. Thus, if you can cast yourself in the role of the saviour of humanity, of human lives collectively, you have made it. Everybody will follow, admire and love you with a gratitude unsurpassed by anything. Also those who will follow humanity’s saviour will feel that they have meaning in life. They will be able to back in the splendour of the saviour and participate in the grand project.

Such is – as already said – human psyche and it is human psyche that ultimately makes humans act.  Continue reading →

The Russian roster that will be taking part in the Tokyo Olympic Games in a few days time have been banned from wearing any signs of their national identity, including the state’s coat-of-arms, the anthem and the very name Russia or Russian. This is – as is well known to those who are interested in international sports events – a punishment for the apparent state-sponsored doping that was conducted especially during the Sochi Winter Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee imposed the ban, acting on evidence of the investigation carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which allegedly proved the conscious participation of the Kremlin in this criminal activity.

Grigory Rodchenkov, who at a time worked as the director of the Anti-Doping Centre, Russia’s laboratory accredited to WADA, proved to be key in the whole affair in that he defected to the West and became – a popular term – a whistle-blower. His depositions exposed Russia as a state that wanted to improve its international prestige by hook or by crook. No need to add that Moscow denied the accusations and appealed against them. The ban on Russia to take part in or host major sports events remained in force though its term was shortened. 

No investigation, especially on the part of independent journalists – there are such a lot of them nowadays! – makes sense. It may be that the charges are substantiated, it may be that they are substantiated partly, it may be that they are not. All the affair may have been staged or not, who can tell? We do not have access to all the data from all parts and institutions involved and never will, which is why – as said above – no investigation makes sense. Rather, let us list the things that are there for all to see.

[1] The story recounted by Grigory Rodchenkov was used in the 2017 documentary “Icarus”, which received the 2018 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature;

[2] Grigory Rodchenkov also wrote the book entitled “How I Brought Down Russia’s Secret Doping Empire”, which in 2020 duly received the William Hill Sports Book of the Year Award;

[3] the Russian powerful national anthem will not be heard during the Tokyo 2021 Olympics, nor will the watchers see Russian national flags nor hear or read words Russia or Russian.

On the international scene only a Russia stripped of its Russianness is persona grata. 

The logo the Russian sportsmen will be recognised by in Tokyo

An editor-in-chief of an influential scientific journal has received a text about wolves with the following introductory definition:

The wolf is a large predator or a carnivore i.e. it feeds on hoofed animals but also on rodents and insectivores. It is native to Europe, Asia and North America. The wolf lives in families in which the alpha male and alpha female are the most important. Wolves mark their territory by scent and howling. 

My goodness, he thought. It runs foul of all our guidelines! So he replied – politely – to the author:

We would like very much to publish your text. Sadly, what you have submitted is in violation of our community guidelines. As soon as you make your text conform to them, we will be more than willing to accept it. Find attached the guidelines. With best regards.

The author opened the guidelines and began reading.

Well, Just You Wait! (Russian: Ну, погоди!) Soviet cartoon.

Our community guidelines lay emphasis on inclusive language and aim at avoiding terms that establish hierarchy, terms that discriminate against any species of animals, that are prejudiced against their biological roles, words that might incite hatred or be perceived as judgemental. We sincerely hope that you not only understand our policy but also wholeheartedly identify with it. Continue reading →