The French nation desires to abort itself out of existence, so be it!

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Abortion. These words are going to define France as its national assembly enshrined the right to abortion in the country’s constitution on March 4, 2024. The constitutional amendment was passed by the majority of 780 votes against 72. The announcement of the amendment whipped crowds of people, mostly women, gathered among other places around the Eiffel Tower into frenzy. Protesters were few and far between. Even the so called far right with Marine Le Pen were in favour of the constitutional amendment. The media around the globe called it a historic event. It is a historic event, indeed. The French nation has been aborting itself out of existence since 1974, when abortion was made legal, and now the same nation is besides itself with joy that the right has been made even stronger, as it is anchored in the country’s basic law. With the fertility rate of 1.83 (as of 2020), which includes the millions of the “new French”, the autochthonous French nation is continuing the commission of its own suicide with joy and glee and delight.

Why did this amendment need to be anchored in the constitution in a country where (i) the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of abortion, where (ii) abortion has been legal for half a century, where (iii) contraception is commonly available, and where (iv) sexual education is part and parcel of the school curriculum? Proponents of the amendment say they needed to anchor the right to abortion in the constitution to make it harder for any future government to repeal it. Here they point to the 2022 US Supreme Court ruling against Roe vs. Wade. Well, ok, but that’s what democracy is all about: if it happens so in the future that the majority decides to ban abortion, then why not?

Why do women across France are overjoyed, elated and euphoric because of a legal act like this one? Why do they claim to be oppressed by pregnancy? Why can’t they resort to contraception if they want to avoid pregnancy? Why do they believe that this right grants them control over their bodies when they ought to know that the baby has a separate DNA, which means that the pregnant woman carries someone else’s body and by terminating pregnancy kills a human being? Why can’t these women – who are surely all in favour of nature and anything natural – see that terminating pregnancies is unnatural? Why can’t they see – quite apart from moral or religious questions – that what they celebrate so very much is simply distasteful? Why of all the French women even Marine Le Pen, who opposes mass immigration of Third World people into France, can’t see that voting for the right to abort future Frenchmen and Frenchwomen she automatically makes immigration economically and socially necessary???

Abortion frenzy

Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russia’s strategic zone, said Dimitry Medvedev

On March 5, Dimitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and former President of Russia, gave a speech at the World Youth Festival held in Sochi. In a leisurely manner Dimitry Medvedev laid out the outline of Russia’s policy and Moscow’s stance on the current political events. He said among others:

We do not need foreign territory, but we will never cede what is ours. It was 210 years ago that Russian troops captured Paris. On doing so Russia established a government in France that was Russia-friendly and friendly towards Russia’s allies. We have never, either before or afterwards, sent our armies so far westwards. Why did we need to do it at that time? We needed to do it because we needed to remove the prime threat to our existence.

Geopolitics assume the following thesis: each sovereign state has two kinds of borders and these are geographic borders and strategic borders. The former overlap with the territory actually occupied by a state, the latter correspond to the international political clout of the state: the more powerful a state is, the larger the territory enclosed within its strategic borders. The strategic borders overlap with the zone of political, cultural and economic leverage of the state. Though the strategic interests are not tantamount to national interest, they are closely related. That’s a historical fact, commencing from the Roman Empire. The empire’s strategic borders covered a territory larger than the empire’s geographic borders. Weak states were included in the empire’s zone of influence; weak states oftentimes willingly assumed the role of vassals in return for the political protection granted to them by the suzerain, by the empire. In our times vassal states are politely referred to as friendly states. The moment an empire begins to lose its international political clout, its strategic borders shrink. That is what happened to the Portugal, Spanish and French global empires. Surely, in the case of Russia its strategic borders extend far beyond its geographical borders.

As for the so-called Ukraine or to be precise Little Russia, our antagonists ought to remember once and for all: the territory on either bank of the Dnieper are an inalienable part of Russia’s historical strategic zone, which is why any and all attempts to snatch those territories from us are doomed to failure. Russia’s strategic geopolitical zone stems from the times of medieval Rus’. This zone is characterized by the common language, religion and culture. These territories are Russia’s holy space. Our enemies keep repeating that Russia’s goal is allegedly to conquer Ukraine, but nazi-Ukraine has nothing to offer to Russia: we have all the resources and in much larger quantities. The only wealth that Ukraine has and that we will never share with anybody is Ukraine’s people, who are in point of fact our relatives. Our enemies have managed to brainwash Ukrainians into zombies. We need to return Ukrainians to our common fold. The greatest enemy of Ukrainians is their current destructive state. Under the current Kiev regime, the best Ukrainians can hope for is to become a footstool of the West, a dispensable material. Once Ukraine’s leader coined a phrase: Ukraine is not Russia [The title of President Leonid Kuchma’s book.]. Now this phrase ought to be obliterated once and for all: Ukraine IS with no doubt Russia!

The United States operates in the remotest corners of the globe, but is oh so sensitive when it comes to its sphere of influence. Washington regards Mexico and Canada as its backyard. Recall: a 1917 proposal from Berlin to turn Mexico into Germany’s ally immediately compelled Washington to enter the First World War against Germany. What would the United States do now if there was a world power aiming at encircling the United States with military bases, trying to incite and exploit American internal conflicts and demanding decolonization along with the independence for California and Texas? What would happen then? We know what would happen: the Caribbean Crisis 2.0. The current circumstances are far worse. In 1962, the Soviet Union and the United States were psyching other up. Now the United States is for all practical purposes at war with the Russian Federation. The current neo-nazi Ukraine is the West’s battering ram against Russia. The collective West by means of Ukraine seeks to materialize the West’s centuries-old dream of reducing Russia to the size of the medieval Principality of Moscow.

We will without a doubt complete the special military operation and crown it with its logical success: we will clinch a victory, and we will compel the Nazis to surrender (the audience rose, applauding and chanting “Russia! Russia!”).

After the speech Dimitry Medvedev took a number of questions from the audience. Answering them, he said among others:

There is no return to the Soviet Union: you cannot enter twice the same river. Still, both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union were made up of Great Russia, Little Russia (Northern Ukraine) and New Russia (Southern Ukraine), and these three ought to be reunited, ought to return home, making up one, indivisible territory.

Russia is indifferent to who is going to be the next American president: US policy vis-a-vis Russia is not going to change.

Negotiations with Ukraine are possible on condition that Ukraine has new leaders replacing the current comedian actor and his company, and on condition that Ukrainian authorities recognize the current political and military reality.

War in Ukraine has forged the inhabitants of the Russian Federation into one nation

Ukrainians, please continue dying so that Americans can have good paying jobs

If you wanted to have an audio and visual illustration of the idiom a pack of lies, watch and listen to Undersecretary of state for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland that took place on February 22, 2024 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Taking her words for truth, you get the idea that Ukraine is winning the war, harming Russia enormously while improving its economy. You get the impression that the whole world supports Ukraine and very few irrelevant states are on Russia’s side. You also get the impression that (crushing, as she put it) sanctions imposed on Russia are bringing Moscow to its knees and Russia’s failure is a matter of time. You also learn that the many Ukrainian refugees are impatient to return the their country, which with the aid of the West will soon reform and rebuild. My goodness!

Do you still remember Madeleine Albright? Victoria Nuland resembles her physically and mentally. The same ugly face, the same stout body and the same thirst for blood.

Listening to Nuland’s speech and the following interview with Victoria Nuland, you could also notice her visceral hated of Vladimir Putin. She mentioned his surname almost every other sentence. The more she mentioned the president of Russia’s surname, the more you could see how helpless she felt in her anger. Putin, Putin, Putin, all the time Putin! Victoria Nuland is possessed – obsessed – fixated on Vladimir Putin. Putin has invaded her mind and is there to stay. She will spew out Putin, Putin, Putin even on her death bed. And no wonder. You see, Victoria Nuland thought Ukraine was hers for grabs and now she has found out that all her efforts has come to naught. Poor Victoria… Putin, Putin, Putin – all the time through the speech and the following interview. Putin, Putin, Putin! Victoria Nuland most likely has a doll representing Putin and she regularly pricks it with pins. I just dread to think what vocabulary she uses thinking about her nemesis – Putin – when not standing on ceremony.

Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, so was Victoria Nuland. She said, Most of the aid for Ukraine ended up in the United States, creating good paying jobs. Ukrainians, did you hear? Shed your blood, lose your hands and legs, die in the battlefield so that the Americans can have good paying jobs (and the American oligarchs can enrich themselves)! 

Two deaths so alike and yet so different

It was a few days ago that Alexei Navalny died in a Russian prison. What a gift for the Western world, what a remarkable coincidence! With the fall of Avdiivka and the approaching presidential election in Russia, with the farmer protests that have shaken every other EU country, with the difficulties that the American president has getting yet another approval of by Congress for his financial aid for Ukraine, Alexei Navalny’s death is really a godsend. Of course all the media and commentators have shown themselves to be soothsayers: they all know for certain that Navalny was murdered. By Putin’s henchmen, no need to add. They all know it, the soothsayers that they are, no evidence is required. The consumers of the media, properly preconditioned for years, can only nod their heads in agreement.

In 2000, also in a prison, died Slobodan Milošević, Yugoslavia’s and then Serbia’s president. Nobody ever came up with the idea that he might have been murdered. God forbid! Slobodan Milošević was incarcerated in a democratic European Union, which honours human rights and is averse to deceit, violence, illegal methods of interrogation, injustice and the rest of it. Slobodan Milošević was justly brought to court because – unlike Navalny – he was the bad guy, who was responsible fully or partly as the case may be for no smaller a crime than genocide of Kosovars and Croats. Though Alexei Navalny according to his own words felt intense hatred towards non-Russians in Russia, which was familiar to anyone who only cared to listen to or read his statements, though because of that Alexei Navalny would have been termed as a white supremacist in the West, miraculously his controllers turned a blind eye to his political beliefs.

But then, do we wonder? Everything and anything is used – abused – misused – (choose the appropriate word) – to suit the managers of the world. Serbs needed to be bombed by NATO because they were reported to have murdered a number of Kosovars and Croats; Ukrainians, officially followers of the Stepan Bandera racist and chauvinist ideology need to be unconditionally supported by the collective West, which otherwise is oh so sensitive when other comes to nationalisms, racism, fascism and similar ideolo gies.

Alexei Navalny was a hugely inflated front man if ever there was one. Look up the English Wikipedia article about him and compare with that devoted to Vladimir Putin. Alexei Navalny, a man whose political popularity in Russia never exceeded 5% (five) enjoys a text of 78 PDF A4 pages, whereas Vladimir Putin, a recognized leader with huge popularity – 107. John Kennedy – one of the better known modern-age American presidents – has a mere 55 pages. Even John Paul II, the most popular and widely recognizable pope, is no match for Navalny: the Wiki article about him is 71 pages long.

Do you remember how Slobodan Milošević landed up in jail and how was Alexei Navalny imprisoned? The difference is striking and telling. Let us recall. Under the pressure from the collective West Slobodan Milošević, once he ceased performing the function of president of Serbia, was arrested by his own authorities, his own state and handed over to the Hague to stand trial there. How did Alexei Navalny end up in prison? Let us recall it. He happened to be in Russia where he was oh so unjustly prosecuted and persecuted, and one day he sank into a coma due to a poison administered to him by the notorious KGB (Russian equivalent of the American CIA), or at least that’s the official Western story. Navalny’s wife demanded that her husband be released to Germany for medical treatment and Vladimir Putin, the mad dictator that he is, let him leave Russia, knowing full well that his agents had bungled the operation of poisoning Navalny (obviously he was on the way of surviving) and knowing full well that German doctors – chemists – pharmacists – would find the traces of the substance that was to kill Navalny. Nevertheless the dissenter was released and cured of his poisoning in Germany, and of course German specialists found the traces of poison, didn’t they? Once cured, safe and sound, Alexei Navalny decided to return to Russia to be prosecuted and persecuted by the undemocratic regime. Why for heaven’s sake? To make things even more Hollywood-like, before returning to Russia, Navalny managed to produce a documentary which exposed Putin s a man who stashed away millions in order to build a palace for himself in the Crimea. Only after the film was made public and shown on YouTube did Alexei Navalny go back to Russia. What could he expect there? The really interesting question is: did Alexei Navalny really want to go back or was he made to? Did not the Russian authorities by letting him out of Russia show that they wanted to get rid of him rather than have him imprisoned? What was Navalny promised in return for agreeing to do time in prison? Who promised it?

You see, it was not so, as in Slobodan Milošević’s case, that the Russian government pressurized Germany to release Navalny. No. Navalny appears to have been a pawn in the hands of powerful players who traded his life for political benefits. He seemed to be useless in the West, but very useful inside Russia. A prisoner of conscience! Living evidence of the dictatorial and inhumane Kremlin authorities! That’s the message. That Navalny was sentenced for corruption and other acts of violating the law is not on the radar of the Western media. He was important as a card to be played and sacrificed if need be.

Slobodan Milošević was Serbia’s and formerly Yugoslavia’s patriot; Alexei Navalny was a traitor to Russia. Slobodan Milošević’s death was of course – how otherwise? – of natural causes; Alexei Navalny’s demise was of course – how otherwise? – murder in cold blood. End of story. 

Gefira 81: The indomitable spirit

It were the Mongols in the Middle Ages, it was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th century, it was the Swedish King Charles XII at the beginning of the 18th century, it was Napoleon along with half of Europe at the beginning of the 19th century, it was Hitler along with half a Europe in mid 20th century, it is NATO now. They all wanted to conquer, subjugate, make dependent, carve up, destroy Russia and they all have failed, though at first they usually reported initial victories. Historians put the successful Russian resistance now to the vastness of Russia’s territory, now to climatic conditions, now to the stamina of the Russian soldier (Frederick the Great is reported to have said that it is not enough to shoot dead a Russian soldier to make him fall: you also need to knock him down.), now to the incompetence or arrogance or excessive self-assuredness of the aggressors. Be that as it may – certainly not one factor can explain a complex phenomenon like a big war with a big country – there is also something referred to as the Russian spirit. It is not without reason that historians, journalists or politicians around the globe like to warn potential conquerors against waking the Russian bear: the bear may seem calm, tamed or at times lethargic and downright weak, but woe to anyone who decides to poke the bear in the eye!

Gefira 81 takes a closer look at the Russian spirit. To be precise, we survey a number of popular songs and scan their lyrics with the aim of finding out about the morale in Russian society in the face of the ongoing war. There are a large number of new, popular, patriotic songs that are sung by young performers and usually accompanied by patriotic video content. All this can of course be denounced as sheer Kremlin propaganda, as anything that comes from Russia. Still, we believe the reader deserves to know. By way of comparison, Sergei Eisenstein’s movies Battleship Potemkin (Броненосец Потёмкин), Alexander Nevsky (Александр Невский) and Ivan the Terrible (Иван Грозный ) or Vladimir Mayakovsky’s revolutionary poems might be dismissed as Bolshevik propaganda (which they doubtless were), and yet at the same time the ardour, the passion along with the artistry and the imaginative skills show beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least the creators were fervent and ardent believers in the cause that they advocated in their art. If the creators were such ardent believers in the cause, so must have been millions of others, if only their followers in art. The same is certainly true in the case of the patriotic songs composed and sung in today’s Russia.

In the financial section of our bulletin, we briefly describe the situation in China ahead of the next plenum of the CCP and the associated opportunities for investors. We also provide a concise analysis of the situation on the metals market and the US stock market. Finally, we draw the attention of our readers and investors to new drugs and their producers in order to round off our recommendations.


Gefira Financial Bulletin #81 is available now

  • Why the West won’t conquer Russia
  • Brussels versus economic freedom
  • What is happening on the metals market
  • The US stock market rises like water in a narrow channel

Alternative to family or the downward spiral of the Western world

Remnants of the normal family, single mothers by the millions, polygamy, chosen families formed by homosexuals, cohabitation, patchwork family and finally(?) communities of responsibilities – that’s the diversity in full swing in Germany. You might as well part from the family model made up of a mum and dad, of a granny and grandpa, a family full of siblings. This is history.

Deutsche Welle (DW) is a German version of American CNN or British BBC in that the general views laid down in any of them are reflected in the other two, so what we learn from any of these media outlets reveals what the powers that be want the world to look like. Now on February 13, 2024 DW ran an article entitled German society seeks alternatives to family which is an insight into the future of the Western world in terms of the future of the family. The text is about “the German government plans to introduce a new legal mechanism to help people in non-romantic relationships to take responsibility for one another.” Gee… People in non-romantic relationship… It is stated as a matter of fact that the “way that people in Germany live, love, parent and age is changing”. Statistical data are appalling: “32% of people aged 65 and over in the EU (34% in Germany) lived alone in 2022 (…) Today, around 33% of children are born to unmarried parents in Germany, with the divorce rate at 39.9% in 2021.” Hence – as we learn – Germany stands in need of the “biggest family law reform in decades”, which – as we are assured – is agreed upon by “Germany’s coalition government of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP).” What does the reform consist in?

In the new legal concept of Community of Responsibility (Verantwortungsgemeinschaft). Such communities of responsibility would be made up of between two and six people who will be provided by the law with the right and obligation of responsibility for one another like they were members of a family. And you know what? These communities of responsibility are modelled on “chosen families” created by queer people. Wow! Enter the new family. Unrelated single seniors, single parents, single – you name them – who otherwise ought to be anchored in a family and be taken care of by the family’s members will make up “communities” and take responsibility for its members. It does not occur to the managers of Germany to advertise having families and children and good relationships within those families. No, by hell no! The only solution they can think of is to legally accelerate the downward death spiral of the German-cum-immigrant society into the abyss. Sure, there are dissenting opinions and they are voiced by Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and – yes, you guessed it right – “populist” AfD. (The more alert among us have long noticed that the classifier “populist” is supposed to turn us away from a party or a movement or a politician).

To make it manifestly clear: we are going to have remnants of the normal family, single mothers by the millions, polygamy (recognized by German law in the case of such marriages having been concluded abroad!), chosen families formed by homosexuals, cohabitation, patchwork families and finally(?) communities of responsibilities. Diversity at work also in this sphere of human life. When you begin to think that it cannot go any longer, they never stop to surprise you. Lonely and especially elderly individuals, middle-aged childless women duped by feminism to whose principles they have stuck most of their life spurning the idea of having a family make those people profoundly unhappy. What do the authorities and the ideologues do to handle this existential question? They chart a new social course, a course towards a society of atomized individuals lossely recombined in communities. It never occurs to them to answer the question of what accounts for the present state of the family, of why the family has been suffering these injuries for decades in the first place. If they had, they might have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, they seem to be treating the society that they manage like disposable and replaceable chattel, like farm animals. Isn’t it perplexing to think that just as farm animals usually do not have families or but for a very short time, so, too, humans have placed themselves/have been placed in the same position? For years the family has been attacked wantonly, men and especially women have been dissuaded from getting married and having (especially many) children, divorce has been presented as an attainment of humanity and now we are faced with the outcome that was not all that difficult to foresee, or was it? Either the begetters of the communities of responsibility are incompetent regarding the human condition or they keep enacting laws right out of the playbook of the powers that be. The powers that be obviously tend to think that they can tweak the human nature – both its physique and psyche (Yuval Harari, Klaus Schwab) – and rather than cultivate the family, they experiment on it, trying to replace it with a number of knock-offs. They might want to be reminded of the fact that although we communicate via mobiles around the globe and have landed man on the moon, pregnancy still takes nine months while our lifespan is as limited as it used to be: the only difference being that thanks to better life conditions we have more octo- and nonagenarians. Yet, we do not live to be 120, do we? Contrary to what mad feminists may have said and written – family is a concentration camp for women (Betty Friedan) – family is no invention of the human mind but a biological – and evolutionary conditioned, if you please – fact. Why experiment on it rather than restore it? 

Farmers against the European Union

Over the past few weeks, we have heard almost daily about farmer protests and other countries where farmers have taken to the streets with their tractors. According to the latest news, protests have taken place in at least 14 European Union (EU) countries, and they all had a common goal. The fight against EU policies and regulations to be introduced with the Green Deal. According to interviews with European agricultural organizations, the main reason for the protests is the increase in production costs for farmers, while the community is flooded with products that do not have to meet certain quality requirements. Farmers are protesting against EU directives that have been damaging their businesses for years by imposing significant restrictions on them. This leads to a reduction in the competitiveness of domestic agricultural production in favor of products from third countries. Worse, the new plans being considered by the EU could make agricultural production in the European Union completely unprofitable.

According to the latest information, the farmers’ protests have already begun to have an effect. For the time being, the European Commission is withdrawing from one of the projects unfavorable to farmers, but this will certainly not be enough for the protesters.

We hope that the farmers will not give up so easily and that they will get their way. The European Union and the whole world have just recently learned the lesson of the end of the globalization of supply chains, and now something as important as food is supposed to come from outside Europe? The direction in which the European Union is heading, largely due to its insane pursuit of zero emissions, is downright incomprehensible. Soon there will be nothing left to eat, home heating will become a luxury, and we will all switch to horses… unless it turns out that this mode of transportation also produces too much CO2.