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

World War One and Cold War

It is amazing how similar the outcomes of World War I and the Cold War are. Indeed, how similar the military and political realities are.

Let’s simplify the picture: In World War I, it was Germany and Austria-Hungary against the West (with Russia falling out of the picture toward the end of the war). It was the German world (Germany was almost 100% ethnically German, while in the Habsburg monarchy the German element was in the minority but still dominated the whole country) against France and the Anglophere, i.e. the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

During the Cold War it was the Soviet Union and its satellites against the West, again mainly the Anglosphere. The Soviet Union corresponded in this comparison to Germany in that it was basically a Russian state (including Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Belorussians), while the countries of the Warsaw Pact corresponded to the Austria-Hungary or Dual Monarchy.

The two political and military camps – the German dominated Europe as opposed to the West, and the Russian dominated Europe as opposed to the West – vied for dominance. The hostilities during World War One brought about the weakening of the German-dominated alliance juts as the peaceful rivalry during the times of the Cold War brought about the weakening of the Soviet or Russian dominated part of the world. Talks were brokered, the warring parties sat at the negotiating table and slowly but surely a peace deal was worked out: Germany trusted its military and political adversaries would settle the post-war relations in a chivalrous way; so did the Soviet Union with regard for the victorious Western world. What happened next?

In the case of Germany the West – especially France – inebriated with victory began to step up demands and multiply acts aimed at humiliating yesterday’s enemy; precisely the same happened in the aftermath of the Cold War: the West – especially the United States – inebriated with its victory over the Soviet Union began stepping up demands and humiliating Russia, the core of the former Soviet Union. After 1918, Germany was forced to pay enormous contribution to the victors, cede chunks of territory and generally subjugate itself to the diktat of yesterday’s enemies. After 1991, Russia as heir to the Soviet Union lost huge chunks of territory (Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, the Caucasus and the central Asian republics) and experienced a financial and economic plunder comparable to what Germany had gone through after World War One. What was the result in both countries?

An economic crisis that played havoc with the cohesion of society and a lingering sense of being humiliated and cheated. Yes, cheated, because the winning nations went back on their promise of jointly creating a better, peaceful world and only sought dominance and exploitation. The ten or so years of the Weimar Republic and the ten or so years of the presidency of Boris Yeltsin have much in common: both states found themselves at the mercy of the winning powers, both states were immersed in economic and political crisis, and both nations felt disillusioned with democracy made by the West. The result?

The result was in either case roughly the same: in the early 1930s in Germany and in the early 2000s in Russia, a strong leader emerged and gained popular support: in either case the strong leaders succeeded in first alleviating and then eliminating the economic, social, and political crises, and in either case both strong leaders managed to slowly restore the international high standing of their respective countries. In either case, the West’s relentless drive to expand its dominance eventually entailed war.

For all the approximations, the similarities are striking, are they not?

Blitzkrieg of the anti-globalists next fall?

1% owns 50% of the world’s wealth and there are countries that want to change it. About geopolitical redistribution.

In 1974, the middle class had the highest share of world wealth. Today, it is at its lowest level in 100 years. Within the last 50 years, there has been a gigantic transfer of wealth from the working class to the class of society that owns assets. The latter, elitist stratum owns a disproportionate share of the wealth generated throughout the world and constantly increases it thanks to the central bankers who skillfully cause sometimes recession, sometimes revival of the economy through their interest rate policies and increase or decrease the money supply. These are the waves on which the great ones of the financial world surf and later eat caviar and drink champagne. You know it well that this elitist class is not sitting in Beijing, Jakarta, Rio or Moscow. It’s enough to name two cities and you already know who it’s really about: London and New York.

Erdoğan and the president of Brazil, leaders of ASEAN countries and comrade Xi – they all want to make their middle class bigger and stronger because they know it that the first industrial revolution, which lasted 150 (!) years, was possible only thanks to the creative and hard-working middle class. Therefore, they want to introduce their own monetary system, independent of Anglo-Saxon influences, which

(i) operates fairly,

(ii) is not dependent on a fiat currency like the dollar,

(iii) enables the middle class to accumulate wealth, and

(iv) does not serve to remove politically undesirables from the face of the earth through currency wars or military intervention. Suffice it to mention here how weak the Turkish lira is during Erdoğan’s tenure, or how Saddam Hussein fared because of the oil trade in euros, or Gaddafi because of the attempt to introduce the Pan-African currency, which was supposed to be based on gold.

The latter initiatives of countries seeking to free themselves from dollar domination – be it agreements between Russia and China, the BRICS initiative, agreements among ASEAN countries, and many others – all aim at creating some kind of common currency for these, as they are called in the West, “rapidly developing emerging economies.” This currency, however, should not be a fiat currency, such as the euro, but a currency based on tangible assets, thereby ensuring its purchasing power. It may be digital or classic – one thing is certain: its introduction will mean a huge war against the U.S. dollar. It will mean a war against the COMEX (USA) and LME (London) exchanges, where precious metal prices are now decided. And as we emphasized several times before in analyses in our bulletins: these prices have been suppressed and manipulated for decades by the so-called US bullion banks. So, the elitist class that owns the highest share of the world’s wealth may be in for a treat this September, when the BRICS group’s decisions are to be made. One possible scenario: the BRICS countries may, for example, buy countless futures contracts on precious metals and demand delivery of the physical commodity on the expiration date. Since it is common knowledge that COMEX and LME can physically back up perhaps only 20% of their transactions with physical reserves (the paper gold problem), there would be a collapse similar to the Nixon days.

So will the yuan or a whole new emerging market currency soon become a new world reserve currency? If you look at the chart below, you can see that nothing lasts forever and that the dollar’s days may be numbered.

Major reserve currencies since 1250

I kind of can

During the 24 years that Nicolae Ceaușescu ruled Romania, he was praised as a man of genius and providence. He was neither an aristocrat nor a factory owner, he was neither a monarch nor a cultured member of the intelligentsia. The overwhelming majority of the people were led to believe that he was one of them – uneducated, from the lowest social class, a former political prisoner – and as such a guarantor of a new era, a time for people like him. The same goes for his wife Elena, who was commonly referred to as Mother or Mutti (strange that these terms keep popping up: Who do you think of when you hear the word Mutti?). Although she did not even have a primary school diploma, she was appointed president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences. How fair! What a retribution for all people from low social classes! She deserved it just by the fact that she was…. not educated, that she belonged to the proletariat, to the poor, to the once exploited.

Nowadays we are made to believe that Romanians have always resisted the new political system and the Ceaușescus, but this does not correspond to the facts. People everywhere are (first) too gullible to see through any social or political scheme, (second) too indolent to do anything about any change taking place around them, and too indolent to search for information and make informed decisions, and (third) people everywhere and in all eras simply believe in what they are fed. Thus, Romanians for the most part also believed that they lived in a democracy, in a country of workers and peasants, where there was no monarch, no dictatorship and the like.

In truth, Nicolae Ceaușescu was a far more powerful monarch than the last Romanian king, who had to abdicate shortly after the war due to the communist coup. Nicolae Ceaușescu even had the Romanian Parliament appoint him President of Romania for life. Need we add that the decision was unanimous? And like a monarch, he had a magnificent palace built for himself in Bucharest, the second largest in the world, with marble walls and floors and every conceivable luxury. Nicolae Ceaușescu was called Comrade President – God forbid terms like majesty or highness or anything of the sort! He was simply a comrade, one of us, one of the most ordinary Romanians you could meet on the street. He never wore a crown, you know, and never sat on a throne. If he had law enforcement forces shoot at demonstrators – and sometimes he gave such orders – it was because he was protecting his country from foreign agents who wanted to infiltrate the happy and successful Romanian society. Obviously, it was different when he himself had been imprisoned during the Romanian monarchy! Then Nicolae Ceaușescu represented the nation, while those who opposed him later when he was in power were undoubtedly foreign agents.

Everything – the educational system, entertainment, the media – was used to create a veneration for his person. All statistical data proved the efficiency of the Romanian economy. Academics bowed to Elena Ceaușescu without batting an eye. After all, their careers were at stake. They simply measured what they could gain against what they could lose. Deference to the scientifically illiterate president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences came with scholarships (we mean the money used to bribe scientists around the world, the money that can go under countless different names) and a post, while raising eyebrows meant falling from grace.

Why do we remind our readers of things from the recent past, of events from a relatively insignificant country? Simply because we want to make the reader see the parallels. There are many things in the European Union that the majority of people do not approve of, and yet we all seem compliant. We don’t like the millions of immigrants crossing our borders and being fed at our expense, but we keep our mouths shut; we don’t like the aggressive propaganda of homosexuality and perverted sexual behavior, but we keep our heads down; we don’t believe the mainstream media, but we pretend we do. The men and women who rule over us are neither kings nor queens – they are commissioners – and yet they rule and live like monarchs without being elected by us. And just as Nicolae Ceaușescu forced people to live in poverty because he wanted to pay off all of Romania’s debts, the EU commissioners want us to give up life’s many pleasures because they want to save the planet. Everything – the educational system, entertainment, the media – is used to create a veneration of the green agenda, homosexuality and immigration. The opposition is portrayed as foreign agents – these days in Russia’s pay.

And guess what? I bet most readers will frown at this text and say: now that’s going too far! How can you compare this distinguished lady Ursula von der Leyen with Elena Ceaușescu? I kind of can.

Postmodern English

Russia President Vladimir Putin say im no say no to peace tok wit Ukraine.

Putin tok dis one afta im meet wit Africa leaders for St Petersburg, come add say di idea dem wey Africa and China dey bring up fit make am possible to find peace.

But, im also add say ceasefire no go fit happun as long as Ukraine army dey attack.

Just few hours afta im tok finish, Russia say Ukraine drone attack don damage two office blocks for di kontri capital Moscow.

Dem bin even suspend flights for some time for Vnukovo Airport, for south of di city centre, and one pesin injure, according to Russia goment tori pipo TASS. BBC News Pidgin

When the Romans had retrieved their legions and administration from Britain – the year was 410 – Picts and Scots from what is now Scotland began to make increasingly audacious incursions into the southern part of the island. The Celtic peoples who inhabited this part were unable to defend themselves, so they came up with the idea of inviting Jutes, Angles and Saxons from the areas that today belong to Denmark and northern Germany. As Bede the Venerable, the early medieval chronicler, writes, the Anglo-Saxons (for that is the name under which they went down in history), having convinced themselves how effeminate and cowardly the Celts were, decided not only to defend Britain against the northern invaders, but also to subjugate the Celtic inhabitants and make them their serfs or slaves, as the case may be. This was the turning point for the slow death of the Celtic language, spoken then and there, and the beginning of the language that scholars today call Anglo-Saxon or Old English.

Jutes, Angles and Saxons were invited – the Normans were not. In the 11th century, they landed on the south coast of Britain and conquered the lands of the Anglo-Saxons. They brought with them the French language (more precisely, the form spoken at that time in Normandy), paving the way for the gradual emergence of Middle English, which came from the mixture of Old English and Norman French.

Modern English, the language spoken today in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, evolved from Middle English and differs in many ways from its predecessor, but today’s readers can read Middle English texts, albeit with difficulty. This is not the case with Old English. The difference between Middle English and Old English is a wide chasm: they are, in fact, two different languages (which is why some scholars prefer to call it Anglo-Saxon instead of Old English).

The same story seems to be repeating itself. The anti-national, anti-patriotic English elites have invited perfect strangers to come and settle in the British Isles. Every year hundreds of thousands of foreigners reach the British Isles and settle there. It doesn’t take a prophet or a rocket scientist to predict that the English language will change rapidly and irrevocably because of the overwhelming number of newcomers bringing their own languages with them. Rapid in the sense of linguistic change means a long time for an individual, which may mislead most of us into thinking that nothing of the sort is happening.

The BBC is at the forefront of this epochal change. It already offers a subpage in Pidgin. We are witnessing the birth of – what should we call it? – Postmodern English. The Anglo-Saxons were invited by fools, the Normans conquered Britain: Today’s elites – effete, self-hating, craven, and anti-national as they are – embrace such a future with full knowledge of the consequences. The reader will have remembered that less than 50% of the population of London – the capital of the United Kingdom – is white British.

Modern English is doomed to be a dead language. Still, there is good news for lovers of English as we know it today: It will continue to serve as the language of international communication for a long time to come, just as Latin did for many, many centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. It will not be supplanted by Chinese: Who wants to memorize the hundreds of Chinese characters? Pidgin English will be confined to the British Isles and spoken by the racial mixture living there. By that time, Britain will have descended to a Third World country. That is, into irrelevance. Think of ancient Rome. Consider also that the Germanic tribes (Lombards or Longobards) that invaded Rome were able to draw on ancient culture and reproduce it in one way or another. Not so with the settlers in Britain. The United Kingdom will undergo a transformation similar to that of Byzantium or worse.

A similar process is taking place in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, or France. All of these countries have taken in tens or hundreds of thousands of total strangers who cannot be assimilated or integrated because of their sheer numbers. All these peoples speak their own languages, and these languages will inevitably mix with the language of the native population and give rise to a new one. We will have pidgin French, pidgin German, pidgin Swedish, and so on. Neither French nor German will survive as dead languages of international communication. Already the popularity of French is less than that of Italian or Spanish.

The second and third generations of Turks in Germany have invented Turkish German in recent decades, which allows them to live a double (i.e., schizophrenic) identity: they do not feel at home in their “home country,” Turkey, when visiting family in the summer, much less naturalized as quasi-Germans in their ghettos in major German cities. The speaking style of Turkish youths appears in the media, in cinemas, in rap songs, and is increasingly seen as “cool”. This Kiezdeutsch, an ethnolect, thus pervades the young minds of the white, indigenous youths – they begin to identify with the partly borrowed, partly invented language.

Back to Great Britain. So, read the introductory text to this article (and enjoy!), and visit the BBC Pidgin English subpage regularly to slowly get used to Postmodern English.

Similarly, if you ever speak to a young Turk on the street, you might get an answer in the language of the future: “Hassu Brohblem? Guk net, sons hol isch meine Brüda!”.