Author: The Board

BlackRock’s Agitprop

If you’ve ever been exposed to Marxist agitprop, you recognize the instances immediately, however disguised they may be. BlackRock’s agitprop is no different: it fits the picture perfectly. In 2022, BlackRock released its Global Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Annual Report. I urge everyone to read through it. You’re guaranteed to be bored stiff. The blah blah of “creating an environment where everyone feels included and safe” (Larry Fink Founder, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock) and the stringing together of words and phrases that just repeating them makes you sick to your stomach, and the constant hammering of the same message page after page after page are really the extreme! Read it if you can stomach it!

“At BlackRock, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a business imperative,” and I naively thought BlackRock was about money! No, BlackRock is all about DEI. That’s what makes them tick, that’s what they are after, that’s how they accumulate wealth. Didn’t you know?

BlackRock’s Manish Mehta, Head of BlackRock Global Markets, tells you that “earning and maintaining the trust of our people every day is what creates the sense of belonging and engagement that allows each of us at BlackRock to thrive.” The word belonging along with a string of other agitprop words like equity, inclusion, diversity, stakeholder etc. keep popping up in the document on and on and on. If BlackRock really had a good psychologist on its pay, a good marketing strategist or simply common sense, its managers would refrain from regurgitating their readers with the nauseating repetition of the same maudlin phrases. But so they have no experts in this respect, or the experts they have are what they are. 

The authors of the annual report are not even capable of simple reasoning. They equate inclusion with belonging, and I challenge you to see the difference. According to BlackRock, the former means “the actions and policies we put in place to ensure everyone feels like they belong – to be seen, heard and known” while the latter is to be understood as “a basic human need to be accepted as a member of a group and be treated with respect and dignity.” Now, apart from the difference in the wording of the two “definitions” what the heck is the difference? If you belong, you are included and the other way round.

In the case of the two terms – inclusion and belonging – at least an attempt is made to define them. How about shareholders and stakeholders, two other terms that they use throughout the document? No explanation is offered. The same is true of equity (a buzzword in the minds of the powers that be) and equality. The BlackRock brochure that we are adducing says that equity means that “everyone has fair access to opportunities to advance, succeed and be their best, authentic selves.” Is that not the definition of equality? But who cares? The gullible readership of the BlackRock document will buy into everything it offers so long as it is cloaked in magic words like equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging and so long as it panders to their inflated ego.

As the clickety-clack of “unwavering support and a steadfast dedication to DEI” and “being committed to accelerating progress and promoting a culture of belonging and inclusion” (Michelle Gadsden-Williams, Co-Chair , Global DEI Steering Committee; Global Head of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) continues page after page, we learn that BlackRock intends to increase senior female representation to over 30% by 2024, and increase the number of Black and Latinx (what’s that?) senior leaders in the US by 30% by 2024. To put it in plain English: they will be bounty hunting for biological sex and the color of skin: if sex and the color of skin are decisive – as they obviously are – then why talk about promoting talent? The mendacity of BlackRock’s language is certainly not obvious to people raised in today’s environment of the craziness that has taken hold of the Western mind.

Humanity has always been shaken by collective psychological phenomena that have had nothing to do with common sense let alone reasonable reflection of the mind. If you wanted to “belong” in the 18th century, you needed to become a Freemason; if you wanted to “belong” in the 19th century, you needed to join one of the socialist movements; if you need to “belong” nowadays, you need to subscribe to the globalist ideology of DEI. That’s how simple it is. This madness, too, will pass away…. only to be replaced by another collective psychiatric disease of humanity.

The pages of the brochure devoted to representation and hiring repeatedly address the same issue: how to hire more women and more people of color other than white. To reiterate, it should be clear to a reasonable reader that BlackRock is not about talent, not about skills, education or experience, but about gender and race par excellence. We have seen exactly the same thing in the countries with Marxist ideology, in countries like the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria. The difference was in the category of people who were put in the responsible positions. The communist parties in the above-mentioned countries made it their business to fill important posts with workers and peasants, or at least with children of workers and peasants. That is why we call the BlackRock annual report Marxist (or Trotskyist, if you will) agitprop.

BlackRock is fixated on employing women and non-whites, period. Funny that a white man is the CEO of BlackRock. Why is that, really? But then, that’s nothing new under the sun. The socialists and communists who ruled in the aforementioned countries were mostly members of the intelligentsia, i.e. educated people who came from the aristocracy. It was they who were eager to recruit and surround themselves with representatives of the working class or the peasantry. Competence was not required for this. The social classes of workers and peasants were elevated to key positions in the state, government and society, while children across the country were taught that the working class was the leading or driving force of the nation and paved the way for a bright future. How much this resembles BlackRock! Take a look:

“We […] advance racial equity by investing in future leaders. [We] provide leadership programming to Black, Latinx and Asian professionals […]. This year, we continued to engage Black professionals in the U.S., and we expanded our participation to Latinx and Asian professionals in the U.S. and Black heritage colleagues in the UK,”

As long as you’re black or Latinx or Asian, you’re qualified. But wait a minute: Why should black, Latinx or Asian people be supported if they really have talent? Wouldn’t they be able to move up the social ladder without this extensive support? I dare say they could, but there you have it. Just like in the former communist countries: Back then, centuries of exploitation and social prejudice were cited as explanations for why the sons and daughters of workers and peasants couldn’t manage on their own and needed the state’s help; today, racism (which inevitably goes with the adjective systemic!) and the slavery that existed two centuries ago are cited as explanations for why people of color must be forcibly promoted, and sexism and patriarchy – to promote women.

Mr. Larry Fink: Why are you, of all people, the CEO of BlackRock? You’re white and male. Yikes. Make room for a black woman. What are you waiting for?

In the same brochure, BlackRock boasts about launching the Count-Me-In campaign “designed to raise awareness about self-identification” in terms of “gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disability and military/veteran status, socioeconomic background and local cultural identity.” What does any company need that information for? Well, if I employ a plumber or a teacher or a doctor, I look for professional qualifications and possibly recommendation from people who have already relied and the job of the professional. That’s about all. Why should I be interested in someone’s “gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disability and military/veteran status, socioeconomic background and local cultural identity”? How does that relate to looking for talent and equality and all that clap-trap? If I do not select a person on the basis of his skills, attainment and reputation but take into account ““gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disability and military/veteran status, socioeconomic background and local cultural identity,” then obviously I am not interested in talent and competence at all! Can’t the readers of such agitprop not discern it?

Leafing through the report we come across the idea of “equitable compensation,” which is laid down in a very obscure and vague language of “conducting annual global compensation reviews to assess pay outcomes for fairness and equity, including, but not limited to, reviewing outcomes by gender and race/ethnicity.” What the heck might that be? The old Robin Hood’s principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul? What one can infer from this extremely obscure language is that the moment BlackRock discovers that a woman, a black or a homosexual gets less money than a white heterosexual male, BlackRock steps in and makes up for the loss. Hm… Again, precisely the same was practised in former communist countries. Workers and peasants were lavished with all sorts of compensation for being workers and peasants. Slowly they all ate away their communist state. The same fate awaits BlackRock.

Further, BlackRock reveals what it all comes down to: the company “offers health and voluntary benefits to same-sex domestic partners and spouses. Where permitted, our plans include transgender-inclusive health benefits. Our family medical leave and bereavement leave policies cover same-sex partners and spouses.” This is coupled with being “committed to advancing the role and contributions of Black women in asset management.” Homosexuals and black women are the priority. Again, they are not chosen for their merits, talents, abilities, skills and experience, but for biological characteristics. That is the only thing that matters. Do a thought experiment: what will BlackRock do if it cannot find a talented, qualified, experienced, capable homosexual or black woman? BlackRock will hire one anyway! You see, they have set quotas that say that by the year of this and that, the number of blacks or homosexuals or women must be such and such. Clearly, you can’t plan for the emergence of talent, which means that the top positions at BlackRock will be given to homosexuals, women and blacks, no matter what the cost. Pure pernicious and foolish ideology.

Consider another thought experiment. Let’s play racism as practiced by BlackRock (against whites) in reverse (against blacks). As we know, the United States fields black runners in international sporting events, and they very often win the races. What about diversity here? Why not field a few white runners and a few Asian runners? Just along the lines of diversity. Never mind that runners of Asian or European descent can’t compete with their counterparts of African descent! We will include them on the U.S. national team (inclusion!) and let them compete in international sporting events. Never mind that the number of gold, silver or bronze medals will decrease. We will have achieved the greatest goal of all: diversity.

This is where another question comes into play. I’m just wondering, Mr. Larry Fink, if you’re playing the diversity card just for fun or to drive others out of the market, or if you really believe in all of this. If you’re doing it for fun, then – well – you can probably afford it. If you’re doing it to drive competitors out of the market – competing companies won’t be able to hire unqualified, incompetent people based on their gender or skin color and survive – then you’re employing a strategy that’s as legitimate as any other. But if you truly believe in this ideology and you suffer financial losses, then what? Will you reverse course or drive BlackRock over the cliff?

Another BlackRock flagship program is Listening Circles, which are “small group conversations between employees and local BlackRock leadership to share their perspectives and personal experience.” In former Marxist countries, the same thing existed: it was called a collective. Employees were brought in droves to have supposedly free discussions with managers and party leaders about everything from professional to personal issues. People were made to feel liked and accepted by the collective, and they were constantly made to feel the presence of the collective, which everyone could rely on, identify with, and depend on. This is exactly the same phenomenon. 

The lovey-dovey world à la BlackRock

Hey, BlackRock! What about people who don’t fit into your brave new world? I for one feel that I would never, ever belong to BalckRock, to that wishy-washy, Marxist-cum-Trotskyist claptrap, to that maudlin, sugar-coated, lovey-dovey, nauseating, stifling atmosphere where you embrace every single member with your tentacles of diversity, equality, inclusion, progress and whatnot. What are you going to do with people like me? Will you try to psychologically reprogram me? What if you fail? Will you try to reprogram me pharmacologically? Will you try to sideline me? But then what about your inclusivity? Or will you follow the Canadian government’s example and provide me with MAID?

Which time is it in human history when yet another daydreamer is trying to impose the vision of a conflict-free, love-filled world on people? Which time is it? And you still haven’t learned anything?

Just for the record. In the 2022 Annual Report on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, titled “Our Way Forward,” the word “equity” appears 35 times, “inclusion/inclusivity” appears 63 times, and “diverse/diversity” appears 79 times on 97 PDF pages that are full of graphics. If we consider only the text, each of these three words appears at least once per page. This makes for very tedious reading! Once again, I would like to point out the obvious lack of good psychologists at BlackRock: such obnoxious repetitions are repulsive to say the least. For one thing, they give the impression that these ideas are being forced on you, and we know that good things don’t need to be forced on anyone.

Hey, BlackRock! I feel tempted to use Vladimir Bukovsky’s handy phrase and I will use it: I have lived in your future. 

Current affairs – about migrants and pubs

States renounce the exercise of rights. Kids from Paris suburbs are acting up w Macron. The average age of the protesters a few weeks ago was 17. No policeman dares to go into the no-go zones in Stockholm or Malmö, despite much debate in the media about how to change that. Forget the Russian mafia or motorcycle gangs in Germany: in Berlin, Arab clans and their friends from the Balkans have long ruled the streets. In the Brussels district of Molenbeek, where the ISIS attackers of Paris lived, nothing changes: it remains an Islamist stronghold.

You can learn all this quietly from the tabloid press, and even the German Foreign Office warns against staying in some European cities and their districts occupied by the connoisseurs of the welcome culture.

Western societies are fragmented. Actually, they are parallel societies living side by side and increasingly against each other. The problem is, as the general of the French gendarmerie once remarked, that these groups have weapons, to which they have fortunately rarely resorted so far during the riots. Perhaps the leaders of the clans and gangs are waiting for the right moment to shoot.

Migrants do not have regular tables in the traditional places with European cuisine. But some Europeans have one in a Chinese or Thai restaurant. The Arabs have their shisha bars, but if any white people stray into those too, they are probably mostly citizens whose way of life leaves a lot to be desired. This shows who is open to new culture and who just wants his couscous.

The restaurants and bars are like litmus paper: they show the level of prosperity, the level of social cohesion of the society. Meanwhile, pubs are dying all over Europe. Many factors are responsible for this, not only the ethnic divisions in Western Europe. The dying also depends on the fact that in work and through media we are more and more trimmed to be always more effective, more sporty, healthier, and that the time that is lost in time is simply lost. In 2001 there were 48 000 pubs nationwide, in 2019 – only 29 000. In the first Corona year 22 500. Rising labor and energy costs accelerate the process: many owners are withdrawing from the unprofitable business. The rulers do not care because it is perhaps easier to govern divided societies without social cohesion which is created when eating and drinking together. They know that society is seething and that many overthrowing parties in history have been created at regulars’ tables.

 

Why not see the elephant in the room?

The Western world appears to be apprehensive of the political and economic axis commonly known as BRICS i.e. the loose union of Brasilia, Russia, India, China and South Africa, all the more so because a number of other nations have expressed their willingness to join these five in an effort to contribute to the creation of an alternative world to that run by the United States and its vassals: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. As the old wisdom says, the chain is as strong as its weakest link. Which is the weakest link in BRICS? Yes, you guessed it right: the Republic of South Africa.

As is known, the country has been run by its black majority (the African National Congress or ANC, to be precise) for three decades now and within this time its economy, the schooling system, societal cohesion and the basic infrastructure has been constantly collapsing. South Africa is notorious for rampant petty and violent crime, and for its power outages. Power outages lead to a string of other problems, since modern civilization is based on electricity. Why is South Africa on a slippery road to a collapse? Why is South Africa disintegrating? Why is South Africa about to become a failed state?

Various explanations have been advanced recently. Of these, the objective economic crises outside the country, the split of South African society along racial, class, tribal and sectarian divides, natural disasters that haunted the country, and ultimately the Marxist principles of equity that have been enforced are most frequently discussed. The experts, journalists or politicians who come up with these explanations seem not to notice the elephant in the room. Before 1994, when South Africa was ruled by the white minority and abided by the laws of apartheid, it faced the same problems: racial, class, tribal and sectarian divisions, objective, external economic crises, periodic natural disasters and the like, and yet, and despite these factors it was Africa’s top nation in terms of economy. What has changed since 1994?

Well, Marxism as the ruling political principle is one of the factors. Countries following Marxism in economy did not fare well anywhere in the world: think about the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, think about the Soviet Union, Maoist China or Cuba. Yet, in none of them did we observe power outages, in none of them did we see rampant theft of the elements of basic infrastructure; none of them was fraught with crime and none of them descended into lawlessness the way South Africa has done. Obviously, we need to look for another explanation. What else has changed since 1994?

Ah, yes! Pluck up your intellectual courage and own it up: South Africa has been ruled by its black majority. Now draw a comparison between the quality of life in black neighbourhoods in the United States or Europe and that in South Africa and you will spot a striking resemblance. That’s a fact of life, no more, no less. Some of the former communist countries were in very deep economic problems: in some of them almost all sorts of food! were rationed, and yet there was no trash in the streets, no theft of the items of infrastructure, no violent riots in the streets with torched cars and smashed shop windows, and no rampant petty or violent crime.

The reasonable, scientific approach dictates to us an impartial analysis of the factors that are in play. The Chinese and some of the European nations followed Marxist principles in economy and they did not have all the glaringly, blatantly negative phenomena that we are observing in South Africa. Conversely, there was no Marxism in the United States, and black communities behave the way they do in South Africa, and black neighbourhoods look pretty much like their counterparts in South Africa. Is there a significant difference between majority-black Chicago and majority-black Johannesburg? Why not see the elephant in the room? 

South Africa: crime statistics. Source: It’s True – South Africa Is Collapsing – Morning Shot.

Volhynia: a frozen conflict

They would cut out unborn babies from pregnant women’s bellies; they would chop off men’s hands and feet; they would impale little children on pitchforks and then hold a party to celebrate yet another act of ethnic cleansing. These events that occurred eighty (80) years ago remain oblivious to the Western reader who is otherwise so much sensitized to atrocities perpetrated anywhere around the world, in the past or at present. That the authorities of the nation that suffered such a bloodbath – the authorities of Poland – turn a blind eye to the fact that the perpetrators of the ethnic cleansing are regarded as national heroes in the neighbouring country, in Ukraine, is sickening. Imagine the state of Israel maintaining friendly relations with a Germany where Adolf Eichmann and Reinhard Heydrich have streets named after them and monuments devoted to them. Why are the Polish authorities operating as they are? Simply because Ukraine fights against Russia, the epitome of wickedness, as it is said on the Vistula, which is why – do you remember the classic novel? – now Oceania is our bosom friend and has ever been. Clear? And we should not wonder too much. As the saying goes: there are Poles who hate Russia more than they love Poland.

If these events had been taking place twenty or thirty years ago, they would have made headline in all the mainstream Western media; sadly, if these events had been taking place somewhere between 2014 and the present, the news about them would have been suppressed, the articles – heavily redacted, most of the information – withdrawn while YouTube would have banned videos, using the usual insolent excuse to the tune of an enigmatic community not wanting to have such material on the platform. What are we talking about?

We are talking about the bloodbath that took place in the summer and autumn months of 1943 in Volhynia, where Ukrainians would murder approximately 50 to 100 thousand defenceless Poles in the territory that had been a part of prewar Poland and is now a part of Ukraine. There are still survivors – witnesses to the atrocities committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and many compelling stories – first-hand accounts – retold by them, gathered in books and articles as well as shown in documentaries.

In prewar Poland, the province of Volhynia was inhabited by a mixture of Ukrainians, Poles and Jews. This was due to the history of the region, which originally was a part of medieval Rus’, then came under Lithuanian rule, and as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania merged with the Kingdom of Poland in 1569, the territory became a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The higher classes – mainly the gentry – underwent Polonization and conversion to Catholicism, while the lower classes – mainly peasantry – remained “Russian” and Orthodox Christian. In the 19th, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fell prey to the three neighbouring European powers, of which Russia incorporated the Commonwealth’s eastern territories, enforcing Russification in turn and stripping the Polish population of its property as punishment for its participation in anti-Russian insurgencies. Then came World War One and the reemergence of the Polish state, which reclaimed some of its previous eastern territories, among them – Volhynia. A process of re-Polonization was launched in that retired officers and soldiers would be given plots of land while attempts were made to turn Ukrainians into Poles, which bred resentment among them.

Ukrainian national activists would establish political organisations and create para-military units that dealt with terrorism with the aim of subverting the Polish state. Elaborate national ideas were developed and floated among the Ukrainian population. They challenged the Polish political and economic dominance and advanced a cause of creating a living space for Ukrainians, a space free of Poles and Jews. Ukrainian activists managed to win support of common Ukrainians while their ideas gained traction with the Ukrainian intellectuals, not excluding priests and bishops of the Orthodox Church, who cemented this belief among its flocks in the excpetionalism of the Ukrainian nation and the parasitic character of the presence of Poles and Jews.

On September 1, 1939 Germany attacked Poland, while the Soviet Union did it September 17 of the same year. Volhynia and other eastern Polish territories came under Soviet rule. At this juncture Ukrainians kept a low profile. It was only with the the attack of the Third Reich on the Soviet Union that Ukrainians saw an opportunity for the pursuit of their political agenda and they seized it. They forged and consequently executed a plan of ethnic cleansing in Volhynia, with its peak occurring in the summer and autumn of 1943.

To put things in perspective: the beginning of 1943 saw the end of the Battle of Stalingrad, in July the Allies invaded Sicily; in September that year Italy would surrender and in November the allied leaders would meet at Tehran.

How did the bloodbath come about? Villages with Polish residents would be attacked at dawn or at night, usually surrounded by Ukrainian troops to prevent anybody escaping the dreadful fate. Then looting would begin accompanied by acts of arson, while men, women, and children would be hunted down and mercilessly murdered, usually subjected to torture before death. Pregnant women had their bellies cut or punched, men had their limbs lopped off, while little children were impaled on pitchforks. No one was spared. The acts of atrocity were committed not only by the henchmen of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but also by common Ukrainians, who had the bad habit of partying on the debris and ashes of the annihilated villages. The toll of life on the Polish side was enormous.

Why are we reminding the reader of these events? Well, German perpetrators of cruelties were duly put on trial and punished. It was not the case with Ukrainians. First, after the war, the territories were incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and its authorities had no interest in prosecuting Ukrainians for hostile acts against Polish residents. The Polish state was dependent on the Soviet Union and according to its ideology it strove to operate on friendly terms with the big brother from the east. Ukrainian crime was not forgotten or suppressed at that time in Poland, though: there were a few publications and even a couple of feature films devoted to the problem. Yet, generally, the authorities were not interested in exploring this particular historical theme.

The year was 1989. Poland became – if for a short time – a sovereign state. Survivors and the families of the survivors of the Volhynia massacre raised their voice and tried to make themselves heard. The authorities made believe they were concerned about the problem but somehow they always adopted a soft stance towards Kiev. Why? Yes, you guessed it right. First, Ukraine was to be used as a counterbalance against Russia, and, second, it was not in the West’s interests to have Poland conflicting with Ukraine and perhaps – God forbid! – allying herself with Russia. Warsaw stood idle by when in Ukraine monuments to the leaders of the Ukrainian insurgent army were raised, when streets and squares received names of Ukrainian national heroes whose hands were all red with the blood of the Polish residents of the eastern territories of prewar Poland. Despite the copious amount of historical evidence and painstaking research done by historians proving Ukrainian engagement in the mass slaughter of the Poles, Kiev refused to admit guilt, to make apologies, to tear down the monuments; Ukrainian historians would exonerate the murderers, undermine the research efforts of their Polish counterparts, challenge the authenticity of the evidence and eye-witness accounts, and they would claim that the numbers of the victims were inflated. What did Warsaw do? Nothing.

Then came the year 2014: overnight, Ukraine began to be perceived as an innocent victim of an unprovoked aggression, a victim who stood in need of aid, as a consequence of which any redress of past wrongs was suspended to an undetermined, later date. Websites that ran articles about the Volhynia massacre were shut down, while school historical contests that had been held annually on the same theme for many years were banned. For some time now the Polish authorities have been displaying and continue to display sheepish submission to Kiev and it looks like they have lost their moral compass. The same is true for the majority of the Polish nation, who hate Russia so much that they are ready to forgive Ukrainians everything. This attitude of the Polish nation stems from the historical resentment vis-à-vis Russia and the impact of the propaganda that in between 1989 and 2023 has presented Russia as the arch evil-doer on the planet.

It looks like this continued miscarriage of historical justice will have no end. The marching orders are: provide aid for Ukraine whatever the price and demand absolutely nothing in return. Millions of Ukrainians have found home in Poland, which was by no means reciprocated by Kiev with a gesture of historical good will, with an act of reconciliation, with the settlement of the Volhynia Massacre accompanied by some sort of apologies. Poles are told that they are friends of Ukrainians while Ukrainians are friends of Poles. Both parties have been told so – nay, reassured – many times before, throughout centuries. Sadly, most people let themselves be duped again and again and again. Historical memory does not usually extent beyond an individual’s lifetime, and not infrequently it does not stretch back even within this period. Yet, one may rest assured: in the relationships between Poles and Ukrainians we are facing but a frozen conflict. The two nations have had a bone to pick again and again throughout history. To think that now it will be different is like thinking that somehow this time I will not get intoxicated after I have drunk one over though eighth.

Chinese install themselves in Switzerland

On March 10, 2020, the Cantonal Council in Lausanne announced to the commune of Maudon that a display of the Tibetan flag on public buildings was not in accordance with the policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bern. The protesting Tibetans, who had found their new home and protection from the Chinese dictatorship in Switzerland, were not allowed to manifest their freedom of expression on this day of their traditional protest (the commemoration day of the Tibetan uprising).

In the past, Chinese diplomats were like frightened or disoriented sheep running among the Russians and Americans, the bears and sheepdogs. Now the Chinese dragon has been reborn. Now they are more like sly foxes: they infiltrate Western democracies by having their diplomats rather than spies act in the field of culture, cooperation on international projects, or free trade. Beijing achieves its goals by shaping its positive image abroad.

In 2017, protesting Tibetans were arrested during Comrade Xi’s visit. The Confederates in Bern do not mind advocating cooperation with China since the 1970s. It began in 1949 when the country of banks, cheese makers and watchmakers was one of the first to recognize the newly formed People’s Republic of China. China remained grateful and signed new treaties with the country in the mountainous heart of Europe during the Cold War and again and again in the following decades. Most important was the 2013 Free Trade Treaty, which was never challenged by Brussels or Washington. While deglobalizing measures dominated the world stage under Trump shortly thereafter, such as those against TIPP and CEFTA, Bern remained loyal to Beijing profiting from globalism. Switzerland, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, which are on the fringes of Washington’s and Brussels’ interests, are a training ground of China in Europe. The Middle Kingdom comes and buys Piraeus (Greece’s biggest port), comes where NATO bombs shattered its embassy and the main bridge in the city and rebuilds it. It opens its cultural institutes all over the West, just as Erdoğan weaves his web through Diyanet like a spider, and Western governments swallow this hard-to-digest Chinese soup in the form of forums, NGOs, scholarships, student exchanges, an overarching cooperation. Even before the pandemic, Swiss President Maurer assured of his support for the New Silk Road during his visit to Beijing, and despite the massive repression of Tibetans and Uyghurs at the time.

Professor Ralph Weber (University of Basel) examined the connections between Swiss companies and the Chinese Communist Party: Comrades from the Far East sit on the boards of many Swiss companies – at Nestle, UBS, SWISS RE.

China forced Turkey to deport the exiled Uyghurs back to China. Switzerland doesn’t care about them either, it is mercantile as far as it goes. And where there are high-tech and innovative solutions, there are also Chinese tentacles.

Who does the euro destroy?

After the 2015 introduction of the common currency in Lithuania, much has changed. On the one hand, the euro positively influenced economic growth, as loans became cheaper, resulting in increasing exports and investments, on the other hand, the gap between rich and poor and between the level of living in the cities and in the countryside deepened. Until the beginning of the post-pandemic inflation, prices and salaries increased continuously in the Baltic country, but the latter mainly in the cities. Already between 2015-2019, prices increased by 10%, among others food by 6% and services by 22%. In the post-pandemic period, all Baltic countries are now among those with the highest inflation, with salaries, including those of the richer urbanites, unable to catch up with galloping food prices for a good two years. The ECB’s policy is not helping anyone. If one speaks to a Lithuanian or Latvian on this topic, one hears the following: I used to be able to often invite my girlfriend to the restaurant, now I can hardly afford it (a Latvian truck driver aged around 30). Prices have become European, salaries have not.

However, the argument with growth seems to be a bit misguided. Polish economy with its own currency is growing faster than that of Slovakia and Slovenia, which quickly adopted the euro. Since the introduction of the common currency in the PIGS countries, they systematically lose their growth rate compared to Germany. Contrary to the widespread complaints in the German media about Polish fiscal policy (and the hope that it would be “disciplined” after the introduction of the euro), public debt in Poland is keeping within limits – and this despite the policy of social transfers never seen before. In the euro zone, on the other hand, debt is exploding, despite various formal restrictions. This is true even for the countries that joined the euro without having a public debt problem. The debt has been created over time – precisely in this oh-so-fantastic union. This fact is illustrated in the following graph.

Source: Ameco

The culprit is the crazy idea that one monetary and fiscal policy should fit all countries like a universal recipe (one size fits all). One policy for 24 countries – that can’t work, like a 5 year plan for all Soviets, or one for the so very different regions of China. The same interest rate for the entire Eurozone cannot be effective. It leads to destabilizing and costly imbalances in individual member states, which subsequently spill over to the entire euro area, which cannot develop fast enough vis-à-vis the U.S. and China.

But what’s all the talk about? After all, it’s summer vacation and you want to relax. That’s when we recommend a vacation in Croatia – the latest to enjoy the benefits of the single currency. After the introduction of the euro this year, prices in the once cheap country rose to the level of Austria. The Austrian “Kronenzeitung” even compared the price level with Swiss health resorts. The Croatian newspaper “Slobodnaja Dalmacija” calculates that a kilo of cherries and figs now costs 8 euros – 10 percent more than a year ago. Wholesalers have to pay 5 euros for a kilo of pears, 3 euros for cucumbers and 5 euros for peaches. No wonder tourists are canceling their reservations in the country that depends on them the most in the whole EU (11% of GDP comes from them). Another local newspaper “Jutarnji list” points out the surprisingly high cost of daily rent of a deck chair. On the island of Hvar it costs €40, in Split €35 and in Dubrovnik €33. On Croatian social media, a video of an American tourist is very popular, where she aptly notes that the price of the service remained the same after the currency conversion from kuna to euro. The greed of (small) entrepreneurs is one downside of it all, the other is that the euro is actually always Teuro. So we wish you a nice vacation in Poland.

Three flags of continuity or the West’s failure in subduing Russian spirit

On June 17, 2023, in the park of the tercentenary of St. Petersburg there was a ceremony of raising three huge flags of the Russian statehood. They were the black-yellow-white flag of Imperial Russia, the red flag of the Soviet Union and the white-blue-red flag of the Russian Federation. They fly on 180 meter high masts anchored on the bottom of the Gulf of Finland. Each flag measures 40 x 60 meters (two such flags would cover a soccer field) and weighs half a ton. The ceremony was attended by a number of high-ranking officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, who watched the festivities from a yacht, accompanied by a Gazprom CEO who explained the details to him. An orchestra played celebratory music – including the national anthem of the Russian Federation – while actors recited patriotic poems during intermissions. So much for the event. 

The flying of three historically successive flags is an important indication of the continuity of Russian statehood. Only a few years ago, no one would have dared to dream that the flag of the Soviet Union would fly on an official mast. Today, after the orchestrated attack on Russia – its leadership, elites and ordinary people have returned to a fervent patriotism. Polls show that the popularity of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union is on the rise. And why? Because of the work of the psychologists of the West. They knew no moderation when it came to propagandizing Russian citizens and dragging the Russian past through the mud. Everything Soviet and everything Russian – that was the message inculcated in the citizens of the Federation – was supposed to be absolutely bad, evil, vile and repugnant. This worked up to a certain point. Then the realization dawned on even the dumbest minds: damn it, when we (Russians) were under the brutal tyrant, the West feared us; now that we are Westernized and want to comply with Western demands, the West began to trample Russia underfoot on a regular basis.

The Western managers of the world are supposedly advised by experienced sociologists, psychologists and masters of propaganda, at least that is what we are told. Strange. Like King Midas, everything these specialists touch turns sour. A frontal attack on a country – any country – usually causes the people to rally around their leader, whether he is a dictator, a satrap or a tyrant. Not for nothing do some historians say that the civil war in the Soviet Union that broke out after the Bolshevik coup d’état, commonly referred to as the Bolshevik or Russian Revolution, actually ended in 1941 and not – as officially stated – in 1923. While fratricide may have ended around 1923, the deep rift that ran through all segments of society did not. Then came June 22, 1941, the German attack that stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and all walks of life and ethnic minorities rallied around Joseph Stalin, even though many had hated him just a day before the outbreak of hostilities. 

Certainly, Vladimir Putin does not remotely resemble Joseph Stalin, even if Western propaganda would have people believe so. How much more must the citizens of Russia rally around him now that they are all under relentless attack – economic and psychological? In this context, think of the Germans during World War II and their unwavering loyalty to Adolf Hitler. The Western Allies thought they could break that loyalty when they began carpet bombing German cities. With what result? There was not a single uprising. Even the incineration of Dresden three months before the end of hostilities did not help the Allies in this regard. The civilian survivors remained defiant against the enemy and even more loyal to the authorities. Why do policymakers in the West believe that this time will be different?

Just think of it. If you had listened to President Putin’s speeches over the last twenty years – and I dare say you haven’t – you would have noticed [1] how often he proposed cooperation between the collective West and Russia (including Russia’s membership in NATO), and [2] how often he warned the collective West not to expand its military presence in Ukraine. All of this fell on deaf ears. At the time, Russian elites were willing to do almost anything the West wanted to impose on them, but they expected a certain degree of reciprocity: equal treatment and respect. By 2000, Russia was down and out, displaying a fawning attitude toward everything Western. As so often happens – no less a person than Aesop, the Greek author of moral fables, described this phenomenon more than two millennia ago – the West seeing a weak partner and decided to make a killing. And yes, the West would have succeeded if Russia had been ruled by another Boris Yeltsin. Tough luck, though: Boris Yeltsin was replaced by Vladimir Putin.

But Vladimir Putin, as mentioned above, was also ready to cooperate instead of compete, to reciprocate good deeds instead of retaliating against bad ones, to benefit from each other instead of harming each other. In vain. Early on, he was labeled a dictator and treated as such. For a long time, the world’s Western managers tried to turn some of Russia’s elites against the country’s leader. This could have succeeded: After all, if Russian billionaires and millionaires had their accounts in Western banks, if they bought real estate in the West, if they had their children educated in Western universities, if – last but not least – Russian elites driven by inferiority complexes (so typical of Central and Eastern European nations) desperately tried to shake off their – as they thought – Russian backwardness and adopt the Western way of life, then these Russian elites were easy prey for the Western powers. Unfortunately for the Western elites, their overconfidence, vanity, coupled with utter contempt for their great Eastern partner, led them to overplay their hand. As a result, they must now watch in horror the resurgence of Russian patriotism, the strengthening of Russian consciousness of historical continuity, the reconciliation of Russia with its past, and the rallying of Russian citizens around the Russian leader. Moderation would have led to the West’s gentle domination of Russia; high-handedness has led to a clash. Moderation would have further weakened Russia’s patriotic and compliant spirit; hostility has aroused self-respect and self-esteem.

The three flags flying on the three poles symbolize not only historical continuity, but also unity between Russians of different political persuasions: Monarchists, Post-Communists, Republicans, you name it. Looking at the three symbols, everyone finds something for himself, for his beliefs and feelings. Would an American president dare to fly the Confederate flag opposite the national flag of the United States to please Southerners? Would a French president raise a white flag along with the French national flag to please French royalists? Would a German chancellor fly the German imperial flag – let alone the flag of the Third Reich! – in front of the Bundestag to show the continuity of German statehood? Would a German chancellor allow the flag of the short-lived German Democratic Republic to be displayed in a public place on an equal footing with today’s flag? No, European leaders prefer the flag of the European Union to their national symbols, while some of them – Angela Merkel in particular – are known to regard the national flag with disgust.