Forward presence

How they love coining new phrases! Planned parenthood, pro-life, pro-choice, women empowerment, migrations, Euroscepticism, Anti-Europeanism, MAID (medical assistance in dying)… They all serve the purpose of painting white black and the other way round.

Planned parenthood is a code name for abortion on demand. The terms pro-life and pro-choice have been designed to remove a black-and-white distinction (good versus evil) and replace it with two positive choices. What a sleight of hand! Women empowerment is another word for disapproval of manhood and the role of men in society. Migrations obscure the fact that we are dealing with IM-migrations (of the Third World people into the white man’s world). The term Euroscepticism enfeebles the attitude that is antagonistic (not sceptic) towards the idea of uniting the Old Continent while the term Anti-Europeanism mendaciously suggests that there are weird Europeans who do not like themselves… through not liking the European Union! MAID is a contortion of the understanding of the word assist (with synonyms like help, support, save): it does not stand for saving, helping or supporting but for… putting an end to someone’s life! The association with the common word maid – a girl, a woman, who serves (but does not terminate the life of) the sick, the needy, the weak, the dying – has been hijacked and made to serve an entirely opposite purpose: the purpose of helping and advising someone how to die. One feels tempted to quote a poet who wrote:

One of these days when I die,

I won’t be expecting your help,

nor will I need your advice:

I’m sure I can do it myself.

(Władysław Broniewski)

Have you heard about such terms as forward presence and framework nation? Take forward presence. How does that term differ from the ordinary word presence? Maybe the difference is like that between democracy (i.e. the rule of the people) and people’s democracy (i.e. the people’s rule of the people). That’s at least the way the socialists or communists in eastern Europe before 1989 referred to the political systems that they had created and ran, and that’s the way they wanted to stress the difference between their system and that of the so called Western democracies. Forward presence in turn is a term coined by NATO masterminds who indicate with it a stronger (or enhanced, as they love to say) presence of the alliance’s troops in Eastern Europe, within the borders of the alliance’s eastern members. But why should this presence be called forward rather than eastern? 

This forward presence is divided into a number of battlegroups made up of contingents from the host nation (the one where a battlegroup is deployed), contributing nations (those whose troops are deployed to the host nation) and a framework nation, which appears to be the nation in charge of a battlegropup. Why can’t a framework nation be referred to as simply a nation in charge or a leading nation or a commanding nation, i.e. why can’t a framework nation be known by the term that actually corresponds to reality? Host nations are those eastern countries that are closest to Russia, while framework nations are (apart from Czechia and Hungary) the countries of the old NATO, western European countries along with the United States and Canada. Obviously, Germany or France or the United Kingdom as framework nations by sheer economic, financial and military clout occupy political high ground: the host and contributing nations can only comply with what the framework nations decide. Not that the eastern European nations have anything against this subordination: with their deep-seated inferiority complex towards the West, submission comes naturally.

So, why the term forward presence rather than deployment of NATO troops as close to Russia as possible? Precisely for the purpose of concealing the fact of this (enhanced) deployment. The troops are not hostile, nor are they deployed: they are merely forward present. Were the Soviet missiles in 1962 also forward present in Cuba? What a pity this term did not have currency then. Imagine the then CIA director notifying the president of the United States of the (enhanced) forward presence of the missiles and military advisors from the framework nation of the USSR in the host nation of Cuba! JFK would have had a hard nut to crack, or would he? Something tells us that the CIA director did not mince words then; something tells us that the CIA director would have informed the president in no uncertain terms about the military threat and would have urged the resident to take action.

A further seventy years of inaction?

In the Middle East we have – as usual – more and more of the same. Regardless of how old you may be, from time to time you will have heard about clashes, assaults, wars, conflicts – you name it – between Israel and the rest of the Arab – Muslim – world happening there incessantly. On and on and on. Since 1948, since the year when the state of Israel was founded. Even people who are not conversant with politics will have heard about Hamas or Hezbollah, about the Six-Day War (of 1967), about the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights or the West Bank (of the Jordan), about PLA (the Palestinian Liberation Army) or the Yom Kippur War (of 1973), or, or, or. You may not be able to say much about the events or people or places – where the heck is Jordan or Syria or Lebanon – but you will have heard about all of them, so that by now you will have doubtless associated the Middle East with a forever war interspersed with longer or shorter periods of ceasefire. The events of the 7th of October and the following retaliatory measures are yet another (latest but by no means last!) link in this never-ending chain of clashes.

Now why have we all been hearing about the ongoing, never-ending, incessant conflict between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, especially between Israel and Palestinians for these more than 70 years? 

The state of Israel, as you may know, was established in 1948. Its creation was brought about by no less an international organization than the United Nations (an organization that unites sovereign political entities – countries, states – but, by Lord, not nations as such, but never mind the detail). The genesis (Genesis!) of Israel could not have been more legitimate, could it? The point is that the same United Nations Organization stipulated that also a Palestinian state was to be created along with the state of Israel. Now more than seventy years have passed and although we have had the state of Israel for these more than seventy years, the Palestinian state is nowhere to be seen. Supposedly American presidents have always wanted to have both Israel and Palestine as sovereign countries in the Middle East. Supposedly, because somehow the United States has never been able to convince, persuade, compel Israel to recognize Palestine as a separate, independent political entity, and to release the Palestinian lands that Israel has grabbed. How is that possible that the UN resolution was implemented half-way only? How is it possible that the big United States has not been able to make the small Jewish state comply with the ruling of the United Nations? Especially, if you consider that the ruling of the United Nations overlaps with Washington’s interests in the Middle East because these interests are STABILITY. You may say that the United States is no international bully and respects the sovereignty of even the smallest of states, so if Tel Aviv has for all these years refused to comply, the Hill has been helpless.

The claim that the United States has not been able to persuade or compel Israel to comply with the United Nations’ decision because Washington respects the sovereignty of even small states is – yes – laughable. Of the numerous examples showing unequivocally how the United States has enforced its will on other nations, let us choose Yugoslavia. What Israel is to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Egypt so was Serbia to Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Albanians in Kosovo. They all wanted to become independent of Belgrade, so – stepwise – they broke away from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and they were assisted in it by the United States. Whenever Serbia wanted to keep a republic inside the fold or claimed small pieces of a break-away republic’s territory, the United States would step in and by hook or by crook force Serbia to comply with “international” dictates. It did not take the United States seventy years to make the former Yugoslavian republic obey “international law”.

The comparison is even more to the point if we set our sights on Kosovo because Albanians in Kosovo invite a comparison with Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Just as Serbia views its territory as comprising Kosovo with little regard for the fact that it is predominantly inhabited by Albanians, so, too, Tel Aviv would like to view Gaza and the West Bank as part of (the Greater) Israel with little regard that these territories are inhabited by Palestinians. Somehow, in the former case Washington (and America’s client states) was efficient in tearing Kosovo away from Serbia and establishing there a state that is recognized by a large number of countries. How much time did it take? A couple of years? Somehow, the same solution in reference to Palestine (i.e. Gaza and the West Bank) is hard to implement by the same United States, which is so efficient elsewhere in the world. Why? Is it because the Israelis don’t want such a solution and they have influential friends on the Potomac?

Why what was possible and relatively easy to enforce as a many-state solution in Yugoslavia (which was broken up into 1 Slovenia, 2 Croatia, 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4 Serbia proper, 5 Republika Srpska, 6 Macedonia, 7 Montenegro, 8 Brčko District (look it up!) and 9 Kosovo) cannot be enforced in the Middle East? If we can have such a bizarre solution like that of having the sovereign state of Serbia (outside Bosnia and Herzegovina), the sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that of Republika Srpska (not to be confused with Serbia proper!) inside Bosnia and Herzegovina (did you know about it?), why can’t we have a Palestinian state straddling Israel with its one part located in the West Bank and the other in Gaza? If we can have Brčko District, why can’t we have the City of Jerusalem turned into something similar i.e. a “self-governing administrative unit with a special status reflecting the multi-ethnic nature of the region” to quote Wikipedia’s words?

The Hamas attacks from October 7, 2023 and the ongoing war keep reminding politicians across the board about the necessity of creating a Palestinian state, but we may be sure that nothing whatsoever will be done, just as it has not be done for over seventy years.

It’s even worse than that. During the many fratricidal fights in the former Yugoslavia, the West (read: the United States) was quick to spot war crimes and to hold the “guilty” accountable for them by putting many (mainly Serbian) political and military leaders on trial. Why nothing of the kind is happening now or has been happening for the many years of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis? It is somehow hard to imagine that Serbs committed many war crimes against Albanians (and Croats) within a few years whereas Israelis have not committed any atrocities within more than seventy years! It looks like Serbs had to be intimidated by show trials while Israelis do not.

No wonder then that if nations of the world see this partisan approach in the Middle East (and elsewhere), they resort to arms rather than to international organizations, and (like Palestinians nowadays) they prefer to fight rather than talk.

Forked tongues

Their tongues just as their minds are forked like those of a snake. Two parallel situations and two entirely divergent, discrepant, opposite evaluations and reactions.

Ukraine – Russia. Ukrainians started shelling the Russian population in the east region of Ukraine known as the Donbass region. In between 2014 and 2022 as many as 8 000 Russians in the said territory were killed. Russia was very slow to respond. When it eventually did, she met with the West’s condemnation.

Palestine – Israel. Palestinians launched a series of attacks inside Israel killing several hundred Israelis. Israel was quick to respond. It has been killing hundreds of Palestinians for the last couple of days, which entailed absolutely no condemnation from the official West.

Whence the difference? Why this hubris?

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken elaborates on the Israeli victims on one occasion and yet another, National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby chokes on words and almost sheds tears for the CNN viewers to see (watch it all!) while the fate of the thousands of Russians or for that matter hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians does not seem to reduce his out of oh so compassionate eyes to tears. Only 4 months earlier Senator Lindsey Graham while talking to President Zelensky was recorded to express his gladness that “Russians are dying”. Double standards? Forked tongues? It is wrong when Israelis or Ukrainians are killed (though in the case of the latter no tears are shed), but it is all right when Palestinians (or human animals as Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defence minister, said) or Russians are killed.

Consider what outcry would have been triggered if it was the other way round: a Russian politician expressing gladness because of the loss of life on the Ukrainian side or a Palestinian fighter describing Israelis as human animals! We know what uproar such statements would provoke. Comparisons to Hitler would be drawn and memories of the holocaust revoked. Such statements would be repeated persistently, ad infinitum, ad nauseam on and on in the many mainstream media so as to bring their horrific meaning home to everyone over the age of seven. Such statements would be used to justify and sanctify the war against, respectively, Russia and Palestine. Forked tongues, indeed.

People trained by the media, entertainment and schools will never ever see the parallelism of the adduced situations. The impact of the said conduits of mind-shaping is enormous and maintained every single hour. With people’s addiction to listening to or watching the news and the analyses offered by “specialists” every day, their Pavlovian response (Ukraine – good, Russia bad; Israel – good, Palestine – bad) is guaranteed. The few who might dare to oppose that black-and-white moral division are swiftly dealt with by means of intimidation and name-calling (racist, anti-Semite, Putin’s shill etc).

Gefira 77: Death of Truth

It has always been a dream of the rulers to have obedient subjects or citizens. At first, obedience was enforced by means of a sheer bludgeon. This, however, was not effective in the long run. The subjugated people knew they were subjugated and they only looked for opportunities to rebel. Besides, a ruler needed to maintain a policing force, which sapped the leader’s resources and posed a threat in and of itself: the praetorians or janissaries in all empires had the unpleasant habit of toppling current leaders and elevating others, who were more to their tastes.

Leaders being after all human beings have also had this peculiar psychological feature of wanting to be not only feared but first of all admired and… liked, if not downright loved! Now, admiration can to a certain extent be elicited by force (we tend to admire strength or will power), but love certainly cannot. If the feeling of love does not arise spontaneously, and you badly need to be loved, then what do you do? You turns to magic, to applying a love potion and the problem is solved.

No, we are not spinning fairy tales. Of course, we don’t mean a love potion as such: we mean stratagems that do the job of a love potion. We mean psychological methods and medical substances that impress human minds and make humans behave the way that is desired by those who apply those means. The best slave is the one who does not know that he is a slave!

To make things clear right from the start: exercising such a psychological impact is nothing specifically new, limited to the age of advanced science and technology! We all, individuals, even at an early age, quickly learn that people can be influenced and made to do what we wish them to do if only we select proper words, intonation, or facial expressions; if only we influence them at the right time, under the favourable circumstances; if only we skilfully exploit the other person’s (our victim’s) desires, drives, expectations, beliefs or superstition. We all learn this technique of bending the will of the people around us to our will. No doubt, some of us are better at it, others are worse, but we all know the game and its rules.

Why not utilize the same phenomena on a larger scale? Why not work out psychological mechanisms that influence the behaviour of groups of people, professional groups, societies, nations, mankind? Why not resort to substances that have the same effect? The prospects are tempting very much! Once you can have control over the thoughts, desires, wishes, dreams and consequently – the behaviour of people, you can remain at the helm with relative ease without fear of being toppled. Hence, rulers and powerful individuals of whatever kind have employed smart psychologists with whose aid they have hoped to extend their political, economic, financial power over the masses of people.

Gefira 77 is devoted especially to this phenomenon. We remind the reader of such smart psychologists and of whole institutes along with their programs that were aimed at analyzing human psyche and enslaving it. You may have heard about the Tavistock Institute or Edward Bernays; you may have read about non-consensual psychological and medical experiments whose subjects were living people; you my have been informed about lies that purport to be the truth, lies made on purpose by state organs or the big media. You might be aware that you, too, are targeted by the managers of the world. Perhaps Gefira 77 will sensitize you to these dangers even more and, consequently, arm you against such devilish attempts because – as we know – forewarned is forearmed.


Gefira Financial Bulletin #77 is available now

  • Death of Truth
  • MK ULTRA and mysterious sects
  • End of the Tavistock Clinic?
  • Recession is a fact

How are you, America?

The leading media keep quiet about it, or only express it here and there in some comments by vigilant editors, that the economic situation in the U.S. is not at all as brilliant as the stock market indications (still) suggest. The yield on U.S. bonds is always climbing upward, and U.S. citizens are massively pulling their money out of the banks to invest in the government’s debt instruments. The scale of this process has reached unprecedented levels, threatening U.S. regional banks in particular with insolvency. 

Change in deposits at U.S. commercial banks since 1973. source: Apollo

At the same time, discontent is rising in American society, and not just because of what is arguably the most unpopular president in many decades, Joe Biden. How to explain the paradox that during Biden’s administration, 12 million new jobs have been created, unemployment is at 3.5%, and yet in 2023 a wave of strikes not seen in 20 years is sweeping the country? Something must be ticking not quite right in the economy and in society. 

The number of lost workdays this year is already in the millions.

We think that the global recession has already started; it is not yet becoming the central topic in the media. They are always talking about a possible “soft landing” of the economy after the current energy and inflation crisis since the recovery after the pandemic and the first wave of inflation. If you take a close look at such accumulating statements from the bright minds of television and compare them with other periods in history when economists have reassured us en masse, you can safely conclude against the tide: Recession is inevitable. 

The graph above shows that every time Wall Street Journal articles piled up about a “soft landing,” a crisis or recession came right after.

In our latest bulletin (October issue), we analyze, among other things, the state of the two of the world’s largest economies – that of the U.S. and that of China – and show other signals that may point to a world recession.

Turkey and the USSR or: the wages of good will and meekness is death

The text might as well be titled China and the USSR or India and the USSR or, or, or. You will soon know why.

The nation of Kurds numbers some 40 million people of which an estimated 14-15 million live in Turkey (10 million – in Iran, 6 million – in Iraq and 2 million – in Syria). Turkey’s overall population amounts to 85 million, so Kurds make up a fifth of it. What’s even more important, they occupy an area in Turkey that is all-Kurdish (just as is the case in corresponding regions in neighbouring Iran, Iraq and Syria). Kurds, therefore, ought to have their own national state, an independent state, carved out of the pieces of territory inhabited by them in the four countries aforementioned. Why, the United Nations pursues the principle of the self-determination of nations (ha! ha! – when did you last hear about a dependent nation being able to win independence in keeping with this principle that is enshrined by the United Nations?) Understandably, none of the countries that have large Kurdish minorities has any intention to even theoretically consider ceding a part of their territory to the nation of Kurds and letting them have their own independent state. Why understandably? 

Kurdish-inhabited areas in the Middle East (Wikipedia)

Because in politics and generally among people it does not pay to be magnanimous, to be friendly, to be evangelically meek. If the meek shall possess the earth, then maybe in afterlife. Case in point? The USSR.

After four decades of the Cold War, the formidable Soviet Union, an empire that everyone reckoned with and respected if not feared, that empire surrendered to the West, its opponent, almost unconditionally, just like the Third Reich in 1945, with this significant difference, however, that the Soviet Union showed good will without being shelled into Stone Age and thus compelled to lay down its arms. The capitulation was complete:

[1] the military block of the USSR’s satellite states was dissolved;

[2] the economic union of the USSR’s satellite states was disbanded;

[3] the Marxist-Leninist ideology – the driving force behind Soviet policy-making – was abandoned entirely and condemned;

[4] the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics was disunited, disassembled (though a referendum held prior to that event showed that the majority of the USSR citizens did not want it) and new independent states emerged;

[5] capitalism was invited to all former socialist countries and replaced socialist economy;

[6] the Soviet past was in the years to come savaged in the media, lambasted in the educational system and bad-mouthed in the entertainment;

[7] post-Soviet elites bent over backwards to please their Western partners;

[8] almost everything of value was privatized, which is another phrase to say: sold to Western companies.

Good will and meekness. Yet, to paraphrase Saint Paul, the wages of good will and meekness is death. In return for their good will and meekness the Russians received:

[1] economic chaos;

[2] domestic terrorism and wars with national minorities;

[3] the ever-growing expansion of NATO, encircling their territory;

[4] refusal to be accepted to NATO;

[5] refusal to be accepted as equal partners in a world united from Lisbon to Vladivostok, as proposed by Russia’s president;

[6] an inimical Ukraine (apart from the inimical Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the ever belligerent Caucasus), a Ukraine which was reeducated to hate all things Russian, trained to fight a war against Russia, encouraged to kill Russians (the fourteen(!) thousand in the Donbass region in the years 2014-2022, the fifty or so incinerated in Sevastopol, to name just two cases);

[7] the ongoing proxy war with the West.

Consider the last point. Rather than holding the whole territory of Ukraine with its 50 million(!) people (such was Ukraine’s population in 1991), its agriculture and industry, now Russians must fight them or else the anaconda’s stranglehold around them would soon deprive them of their last breath.

Back to Turkey. Why should Turkey let go of its Kurds, China – of its Uyghurs? Why should India disintegrate into the many states that it is made up of? Why show good will and meekness? The wages of good will and meekness is death. Such must be the inference that the ruling elites of the said countries must have arrived at. Imagine China giving up on Tibet and Uyghurs or Turkey letting go of its Kurds and maybe Armenians… Beijing would soon have a proxy war in its backyard against Tibet or Uyghurs (both supported by the United States), while Turkey – a war against Kurds and Armenians (supported by Iran or Syria).

The West have taught everyone a good lesson: be strong and expand, never give up or else. And remember: the wages of good will and meekness is death.

The idea of one civilization for all is inhuman and preposterous

Putin’s Valdai speech of 5th October, 2023

On 5th October, 2023, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech during a conference of the the 20th convention of the International Discussion Club held in Sochi. His words dealt with the ongoing political events and trends, without however naming names or making a reference to Ukraine. Russia’s president made a pronouncement concerning the West’s ideology and Russia’s stance on it or Russia’s response. The speech may be divided into the part criticizing the West and the part that lays down Moscow’s view of the world politics.

Here’s the anti-Western content:

The Western world, the notion that for all intents and purposes amounts to the Anglophere, in the opinion of the Russian leader and most likely of the Russian ruling elites has a track record of always seeking to dominate the globe, of always wanting to run the show by means of imposing on the other countries rules and principles that they are expected to abide by or else those rules and principles are brought to them with a bludgeon.

The West is always in need of an enemy, a foe, a rogue state because an external enemy serves the purpose of explaining to the populace the internal problems, and because an external, formidable enemy rallies the citizens of a country around their leader or leaders.

The West is run by the elites that do not pursue the interests of their nations; rather, in their self-aggrandizement they are ready to risk the welfare of their nations in an attempt to win dominance in this or other point on the globe.

The West defines an enemy as anyone – a state, country, nation, leader, political entity – who does not wish to follow the West’s dictate, who is not submissive enough, who does not acquiesce to being bossed around, who does not sign on to the idea that there is one global central power and global values to be observed. 

President Vladimir Putin then went on to expound the world view represented by the Russian authorities.

First, there is no one civilization engulfing the globe: rather, there are many civilizations, none of them better or worse than the others, and they all deserve to be recognized and respected. Consequently, there are no universal rules to be observed by all humanity, nor can there be a political concept of a global world.

Second, international problems ought not to be solved by a selected group of political dominant entities; nor should they be approached and tackled by all nations: rather, they ought to be discussed and solved by those concerned.

Third, nations should break with this idea imposed by the West of pursuing bloc politics. Nations have their own, individual, separate interests. There are no bloc interests or the so-called bloc interests boil down to being the interests of the bloc’s hegemon.

Fourth. Russia seeks no territorial expansion (that was the only direct reference – although without naming the country – in the speech to the ongoing war in Ukraine); Russia is the largest country on planet earth and for years to come will be busy developing and managing the vast swaths of land in Siberia.