It runs in their DNA

It was in the run-up to the Second World War. Czechoslovakia was about to fall apart. It was not only the Sudeten Germans that rebelled and wished to be joined to the Third Reich; it was also Slovaks, one of the two brotherly nations – the other were Czechs – that made up Czechoslovakia. The Slovak and the Czech languages are like two sides of the same coin, i.e. very close to each other. If you master one of the languages – either Czech or Slovak – you will have no difficulties understanding the other while reading or listening. There will even be a specific time drag during which you will not figure out whether you are reading or listening to Czech or Slovak. That’s how close those languages are. And yet, and despite this relatedness of blood and customs, of the DNA and culture, Slovaks, or to be precise, those who happened to be the nation’s leaders, were hell-bent on separating Slovakia from Czechia, cost it what it may. Yes, cost it what the may, because in the process they were willing to cooperate even with Konrad Heinlein’s Sudetendeutsche Partei against Prague, they were ready to look for help from Berlin or even to join Slovakia to Poland, a Slavic nation, whose language, however, is not as closely related to Slovak as Czech is. Let it sink in: Slovak elites preferred to ally themselves with powerful Germany in order to destroy Czechoslovakia and harm Czechia without having a second thought that maybe confronted with the Third Reich on their own they would not be long for this world.

The same was true of the then Polish elites. They, too, saw a chance in the fact that Czechoslovakia was coming apart at the seams with the separatist Sudeten Germans supported by the Third Reich on the one hand, and the separatist Slovaks on the other. Warsaw, too, wanted to have a stake in the unfolding events, grab a chunk of Czechia and, possibly, subordinate Slovakia. The Polish elites naively thought and expected to be viewed by Berlin as partners in carving this part of Europe. Before long they learnt it the hard way that not only were they not regarded as anything remotely to being partners: in a year’s time Poland was invaded by Germany and deleted from the political map within a couple of weeks. A disaster that the Polish elites brought upon themselves or rather upon the nation that they had led into the abyss, because the elites for the most part worked or wormed or bribed their way out of hell into one of the Western countries, with most of them never to return.

Fast forwards, Yugoslavia. Slovenians and Croats loathed Serbs so much that they were willing to associate themselves with Muslim Bosnians and Albanians while going to war against Belgrade; they were even willing to trade their political sovereignty with the Western powers for aid in making the life of Serbs miserable. NATO began bombing Serbia into the Stone Age and carving the former Yugoslavia into ever smaller parts, but never mind that! The most important thing that Croatian elites cared about was to do harm to Serbia. That was about anything that mattered. Just like Slovaks in the run-up to the Second World War they, too, preferred the protection of the European Reich. Were they afraid that from then on they would be confronted with a power incomparably stronger and more sinister than Serbia? Nay. Who would have cared?

How about Czechia and Poland who had joined NATO on the eve of the alliance’s strikes against Belgrade? Did it cross the mind of the elites of those nations that one of these days they, too, might be subjected to sanctions and bombings if only they dared not to walk in lockstep with their overlords? Nay.

A bit more forwards, Ukraine. In 1992 Ukraine emerged as an independent state with a territory that it had never ever had in its history, with over 50 million inhabitants, a well-developed industry, broad access to the Black Sea and large areas of some of the most fertile soil that the world can boast. Consider it for a moment: Ukraine had a huge territory not because it took it from Russia with the sword or at gunpoint. Ukraine had a huge territory because it so pleased the Bolsheviks to create a large Ukrainian republic, and because it later pleased the leader of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev to add to it the Crimean Peninsula. The only thing that the responsible Ukrainian elites were tasked with was to preserve that precious possession. What did they do? They acted in ways that were far worse than what the elites of Slovakia and Croatia did. Why worse? Because Ukrainian elites did not need to fight for their independence from Moscow: it was served them on a platter. Slovaks needed to conspire with Berlin and Warsaw against Prague; Croats needed to conspire with Berlin, Washington and God knows who else against Belgrade. Ukrainian managers did not. That is, they were obviously backed by the West, but there was no fight when the Soviet Union disintegrated. Ukrainians took or received Ukraine as a huge chunk of the heirloom after the deceased Soviet Union, and… they did their best to waste it, to bleed it dry, to turn it into the West’s bridgehead against Moscow. What for?

Why did the Slovaks want so desperately to tear their nation awat from Czechs even at the price of allying themselves with Germans and Poles? Why did the Croats (and Slovenians) so badly want to deal a mortal blow to Serbia, again allying themselves with the West, among others with Germany, the same Germany that had invaded and destroyed Yugoslavia a few decades earlier, in 1941? Why did the Ukrainians need to ally themselves with the West to senselessly ruffle Moscow’s feathers? Why could they not be pleased with what they had at the outset, in the year 1991? An independent Ukraine of that large territorial size and so numerous population as it emerged in the 1990s was a godsend and there is no exaggeration to it! Sadly, Ukrainian elites have been ready to fight their Slavic brothers outside and within their borders asking for help not only Germans whose forefathers used to exterminate Ukrainians by the tens of thousands, but also Poles, with whom Ukraine has had a hard time throughout centuries! What for?

Why is it so easy for the powers that be to put neighboring and ethnically closely related nations – Slovaks and Czechs, Croats and Serbs, Ukrainians and Russians – at loggerheads? What have those nations ever gained or what will those nations ever gain by being at loggerheads with each other? The Slovak state that emerged from the ashes of Czechoslovakia was a puppet state controlled by Berlin. As a reward, it was Berlin – Slovakia’s protector – that forced Slovakia to cede chunks of its southern territories to Hungary! Poland, which supported Slovakia in the latter’s separatist policy, was soon – as mentioned above – attacked by Germany and the German army enjoyed the support of the Slovak troops! True, the contribution of the tiny Slovak units was negligible, but the symbolic meaning of the event is gargantuan! The Polish elites were so hell-bent on destroying Czechoslovakia and elevating Slovakia only to receive a nice thank-you from the latter in a few months’ time!

Today Poland supports Ukraine against Russia, the same Ukraine with which Poland shares a history of mutual massacres and wars, and today Poland has been invaded by Ukrainians with the Polish nation growing more and more impatient with their presence. The first signs of conflicts begin to emerge here and there, recently most notably over Ukrainian agricultural produce that has dumped the Polish market. Whose interests does the Polish commitment in Ukraine serve?

Croatia used to be independent from Serbia as early as in 1941, when Germany destroyed Yugoslavia. Croatia used to be independent for a couple of years in name only. Sure enough, it did the biddings of Berlin. Whose biddings is Zagreb doing at present? If, as Croats claim, it was so hard to by overwhelmed by Serbs, how much harder must it be to be overwhelmed by the big European conglomerate of states?

What good do all the mentioned Slavic nations expect from the fact of fighting each other and doing someone else’s bidding? Their elites either did not pay attention during their history classes or… or they are not acting in the interests of their nations intentionally.

Croatia (or Slovenia, for that matter) and Slovakia did not want to send their deputies to the respective parliaments in Belgrade and Prague where their deputies would have held in between a third and a half of all the seats, but they are more than willing to send their deputies to the European parliament where they hold a tiny, negligible, insignificant number of seats. Where’s the sense?

Unlike Belarus, which is allegedly ruled by a dictator, Ukraine has followed the path of democracy made by Washington D.C. and approved by Brussels E.U. Now, the population of Belarus has remained stable for the last thirty years with barely an appreciable change whereas that of Ukraine has been… halved. A loss that is larger than that suffered during the Second World War. Which country has faired better? How about other factors? How about economy, war and peace? In plain English, given the choice, would you like to live under President Lukashenko or President Zelensky and/or his predecessors? Would you like to live under President Putin or President Zelensky and/or his predecessors? An unpleasant thought, huh? An unfair comparison?

As of now, Ukraine has already been destroyed (partly even long before the ongoing war); Poland, whose leaders wanted to play big and carve Czechoslovakia in 1938, was mercilessly destroyed a mere year later (today’s Polish leaders, too, want to play big); Slovakia, which separated itself from Czechoslovakia, later took part in the German invasion of the Soviet Union (what for?), and consequently was destroyed and subjugated by the Red Army in a few years’ time; Croatia, having murdered Serbs in concentration camps, was subjugated by Tito’s communists at the war’s end. They all – Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, and Ukraine – have been but playthings at the hands of the powers that be, flexing their muscles and making believe that they want to pursue the policies that they are compelled to pursue, policies like accepting the green agenda or accommodating Third World people or doing away with swaths of their economies or coming to grips with the new normal in morality. The elites of these countries of whatever political persuasion are sure to continue in the footsteps of their predecessors. Croats and Serbs, Slovaks and Czechs, Ukrainians and Russians, Poles and Russians are certainly going to be pitted one against the other also in the nearest and remote future. You just cannot help it. It runs in their DNA.

Gefira 85: The Middle Kingdom and its Peripheries: Europe and Africa

The Middle Kingdom is becoming, well, a middle kingdom, indeed, with Europe’s economic and political clout diminishing, and with the United States being about to commit national suicide. If the Old Continent continues spiralling downwards, if America morphs into another Mexico-cum-Venezuela due to the willed change in its demographic make-up, if China takes Africa under control as it seems capable of, then really all the world is going to become an appendix to the billion or so Chinese, while Beijing is going to become the new centre of the globe, supplanting London and Paris, Washington and New York.

It does not take a genius to see that Africa is not going to develop in the way North Korea or China or Vietnam have. Africa, once finding itself under Europe’s stewardship, having been rather economically unsuccessful on its own for a couple of decades, is now going to look to China for aid and counsel. In one of the latests acts of liberating themselves from the vestiges of the white man’s protectionism, a number of countries of the Dark Continent have recently expelled or are in the process of ousting either French or American troops. What are they planning on instead? Most African countries are willing to cooperate with Beijing. The prospects look great, but it remains to be seen whether China will not become a new colonizer; it remains to be seen how much time will it take Africa to view the Middle Kingdom as a new colonizer. Aid of whatever kind always comes with strings attached. If Eastern European nations could not understand this most basic truth which their leaders should have learnt in their childhood reading or listening to Aesop’s fables (i.e. most elemental human experience encapsulated in very short stories from half a century before Christ) and rushed into the European Union where angels feared to tread, the same is highly likely to happen in the case of the Dark Continent i.e. that African leaders will rush into the Chinese embrace without giving it a second thought. As a result, Africans will increasingly rely on Beijing’s help only to regret it later on.

How about China’s periphery? China’s periphery is wallowing in its putrefaction. Europe for that matter has not only withdrawn from Africa, but it has been demonstrating now and again suicidal tendencies. Europe led by the leftist – Trotskyist – elements shows no willingness to survive, let alone to fight, unless, of course, it is muscle flexing in its dealings with Russia. Otherwise, both Europe and Europe’s historical extension – the United States – are enacting laws on killing babies in mothers’ wombs, on mercy-killing of the old, of the ill-constituted, of the physically and mentally weak, of the terminally ill; Europe and its historical extension are having their indigenous populations replaced with non-Europeans; Europe and the United States are increasingly gravitating towards moral laxity, ugliness in literature, music and the arts, towards planet worship and economic de-growth. The Trotskyists who run the Old Continent with their Antifa storm-troopers seek to bridle free speech and freedom of association, tend to eradicate nations and races, and struggle with nature itself: in their arrogance they want to control biological sex i.e. turn men and women into a myriad of sexual orientations. This 21st century Tower of Babel (the European Parliament building is its one-to-one reflection, see the painting by Pieter Bruegel) is soon to share its fate with its Mesopotamian predecessor. Would to God its collapse did not entail too much tragedy.

Gefira Financial Bulletin #85 is available now

Africa in the hands of China
Faces of Europe, Faces of the West
Biden is an enemy of OPEC+
Semiconductors

Turkey, a NATO member, to join BRICS!

The leftist West is getting a blow back!

– The elections to the European Parliament elevated parties that are maliciously referred to as far-right;

– the war in Ukraine is going badly for the collective West;

– in the United States Donald Trump, maliciously labelled as populist is about to win the presidential election;

– France and the United States are being pushed out of Africa;

– de-dollarization is in progress;

– Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico has survived the assassination (how the EU commissioners would have wished he had died!);

– Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is openly against the European Union’s policy of confrontation with Russia; and now – to top it all

– Turkey – has announced its willingness to join BRICS!

What a mess! Turkey, which boasts the second largest army in NATO, is about to seriously partner among others with… Russia, a country against which the same NATO is waging war!

The West is getting blow after blow after another blow. How ungrateful the world is! The collective West has been meaning to

– save the planet from the man-made climate change;

– extend the human rights by bringing to the forefront homosexuals and lesbians;

– eradicate racism by coercing races and nationalities to share the same ares, towns and villages, schools and factories,

and it turned out that the world has remained blind and deaf to all those advances… Goodness me!

All of which might suggest one serious suspicion: out of impotence and a thirst for vengeance the collective West might be thinking about retaliatory steps. What are these going to be? The leftist West needs to disrupt BRICS, to keep Russia at bay, to stop the march of the “far-right” through the institutions (a historical irony, indeed), to thwart Donald Trump from winning the elections, to preserve the dollar as the instrument of global exploitation and dominance, and so on, and so forth. What are they going to do? A wounded and hitherto domineering animal can be terribly dangerous.

So much alike and so much different: Singapore and the Baltic States

One small state in Asia – Singapore – and three small states in Europe: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. They have an interesting story to tell in terms of economic, political and social success. The sheer numbers speak volumes. We have selected for comparison purposes the population, area, GDP (general and per capita), PPP (general and per capita), and the ethnic make-up. Have a closer look at the table below.

In Singapore, a much MUCH smaller area is home to a far FAR larger number of inhabitants as compared to the Baltic States. Neither in Singapore nor in the Baltic States do we have natural resources worthy of mentioning. The share of the majority ethnic group is comparable across the analyzed countries. The Baltic States are members of the European Union – which was supposed to be a blessing for them – and members of NATO – which was supposed to guarantee them security. As it is, Singapore, which does not belong to the European Union, has a highly developed economy. Singapore is a magnet for foreigners, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are not.

As for demographics. Since the decade 1990-2000 the population of Singapore has risen from approximately 1 (one) million to today’s 6 (six) – six times. Within the same period Lithuania’s population fell from 3.7 million down to 2.9 million i.e. Lithuania – now a part of the European Union – has by almost a million people fewer than it had during the last years of it being a part of the Soviet Union. Latvia’s 2.7 million in 1990 dropped to 1.9 million in 2024: again almost a million less. Estonia’s 1.6 million in 1990 has been reduced to today’s 1.4. The population losses suffered by Lithuania and Latvia are comparable to losses suffered during a prolonged war or medieval epidemics. Such was the blessing of the membership of those countries in the European Union.

Singapore has one of the world’s busiest ports, it is highly popular with tourists, it has robust business environment, a world-class infrastructure, and an integrated transport network. The Baltic States are known for being the Baltic States.

The United Kingdom is selling out

The Royal Mail, one of the United Kingdom’s cultural and economic icons, a historical brand, is being sold to a billionaire from outside Great Britain. The Royal Mail with its characteristic red pillar boxes, with its stamps featuring the monarch’s head (the post has been royal after all since Henry VIII established it) is being sold to a billionaire from… not from the United States, nor from someone from Saudi Arabia, not even to someone from China, but to a billionaire from Czechia. Not that I want to belittle a Czech billionaire, you know. I only intend to show the dimension of the changes that are taking place in the world. Merely thirty years ago Czechia – then a part of Czechoslovakia – was emerging from the Soviet bloc. It was a country that lagged behind the Western European nations in about everything, and had no big private businessmen or entrepreneurs (socialist system did not allow it). A really wealthy individual could boast at most a house or two and a car or two. Private ownership of a small factory was out of the question. Czechs looked up to Westerners, and obviously the United Kingdom was a dreamland. Thirty years later…

Thirty years later the United Kingdom is nominally ruled by a Hindu while its national symbol is being sold to a foreign entrepreneur billionaire Daniel Křetínský. Yes, you are going to say it’s a normal practice, that companies are sold and resold irrespective of national boundaries. True enough, and yet. The British managers of the Royal Mail say the company has not been profitable. Why then in heaven’s name a businessman who by definition is profit-oriented wants to buy it? Obviously, Daniel Křetínský hopes or is even certain – after all you do not spend $4.6 billion for the fun of it – that he can make money owning and managing the Royal Mail. Why can’t its present managers do the same? Why is not the British state interested in it anymore? The Royal Mail was privatized in 2013, but then the government might buy it back, and somehow it does not. The Royal Mail needs investment, you will say. Possibly. Then why can’t the British government assign some of the monies it has at its disposal? Maybe because the money needs to be used for the provision of hundreds of thousands resettlers… or for the war with Putin? Tough luck!

The country’s stewardship is at the hands of a Hindu, London’s municipal duties have long been entrusted to a Pakistani, now the Royal Mail is going to be managed by a Czech. Sure enough, all the mass media will tell you that nothing negative whatsoever is taking place. You know what? The more they are going to say so, the more mistrustful you should be. They are going to tell you that the Royal Mail became irrelevant in our times of mobile phones and parcel lockers, anyway. And still: Daniel Křetínský must be aware of it, mustn’t he? Besides, even is the Royal Mail has become irrelevant, unprofitable, you do not sell historical symbols unless… unless you are either self-loathing or bankrupt. Imagine selling the most precious family photographs, documents, maybe military orders and crosses of your granddad… You must be pressed really hard to take such a decision.

The sale of all these signs – symbols – iconic enterprises is a message of historic proportions that needs to be correctly construed. Let it sink in: it is not the Czech national postal services that are being taken over by the British, but the other way round. Why not sell Trafalgar Square or Nelson’s Column? Why not sell the London Tube or the Globe Theatre? Maybe I’m not in the picture and some of them have already been sold…? Why not sell St Paul’s Cathedral? After all churches in the United Kingdom are sold and turned into mosques, so why not? They are not profitable and certainly have become irrelevant with the majority of British society being irreligious…

Albion is dying. Albion is dying before our eyes. It might take years but the senility has set in as is the process of debilitating. Albion is dying and the country does not have a Lionheart to make it great again. Cato is credited to have said, Ante senectutem curavi, ut bene viverem; in senectute curo, ut bene moriar, or, Before old age I took care that I might live well; in my old age I take care that I may die well. That’s the only reasonable prescription for the United Kingdom. Sadly.

UK is a Third World Country

The United Kingdom under Rishi Sunak has become a Third World country. What is a Third World country? It is a country battling such problems as economic instability, high poverty rates, lack of basic infrastructure and basic necessities, lack of life-saving drugs, overcrowded prisons, shortage of electricity networks, polluted rivers and the like. No, we are not talking about Venezuela or Sudan: we are talking about the United Kingdom. Such was a comment delivered on WION (World Is One News), an Indian international English language news channel, three weeks ago.

The United Kingdom, once the ruler of India (then this term included today’s India along with Pakistan and Bangladesh), the United Kingdom run by a Hindu, has been lambasted by an Indian broadcaster. The former colony is looking down on the former colonizer, almost with satisfaction and – who knows? – contempt. British women – WION continues in the same report and in the same vein – are more and more stressed and sadder; many bank branches are closing down while Great Britain has a housing crisis (do we know by any chance why?). The United Kingdom’s economy is the worst performing among the countries of the G7.

Rishi Sunak, one of those precious enrichments imported to the Isles, has received from his Indian compatriots severe criticism. If someone who qualifies for the position of the country’s prime minister is such a failure, what can we say about all the other millions of enrichments flocking into Great Britain day after day after another day? WION cannot be denounced as racists or nationalists: WION’s staff are Hindu and they took on Rishi Sunak – a Hindu who has been made and identifies as British (never mind his religion, totally alien to the British Isles).

Britannia, which onces ruled the waves, Britannia, which once possessed India, Australia and New Zealand, a third of Africa, Canada and what later came to be known as the United States; Britannia, which has given the world such scientists as Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, James Watt and Michael Faraday, economists David Ricardo and Adam Smith, writers William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, the poetry of William Wordsworth and Alfred Tennyson, the music of the Rolling Stones and the Beatles; Britannia, whose much admired and imitated Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India, the same Britannia is looked down on by India, which used to be Britain’s dependent territory.

And mind you! When India was ruled by the Saxon Race, as the British would have called themselves at that time, India was elevated in terms of civilization. It was a time when the nations of the subcontinent looked up to the United Kingdom. Now when Great Britain is ruled by a Hindu and blessed with millions of Third World arrivals, it is becoming a laughing stock of this part of the globe that for many, many years was termed as… the Third World.

India, once definitely a Third World country, castigates its former colonizer for dirty rivers, lack of drugs, poor infrastructure, overcrowded prisons, economic instability, housing crisis, psychological depression of a large sector of its society, and so on! The world is changing. What used to be its military, economic, scientific and cultural centre is spiraling downwards. How does it fare with the other G7 countries? They cannot be much different. All G7 states pursue the same policy: they are hellbent on ecology, they all import Third World people by the thousands, and they all propagate the alphabet-plus sexuality. Soon the Western World will be synonymous with the term the Third World, and replaced by China and India, Brazil and Iran, Argentina and Mexico, and… who’s going to complete the new G7? What a historic turn, indeed!

Georgia or what’s good for a gander is not good for a goose.

A change in legislature has caused quite a stir in Georgia. People have been mobilized to take to the streets. A lot of people. (Georgia has a lot of non-government organizations supported from abroad, you know.) Mainly young, as is usual where pressure is exerted by the managers of the world to make a government cave in. What is this law that has sparked such internal turmoil? It is a law about the media and non-government organizations which now will be required to make public the information if they are paid by foreign entities to the amount surpassing 20% of their budgets. Let it sink in: such media and NGOs are not going to be banned: they will only be required to admit the fact of foreign financing. What’s wrong with such a law?

Yes, you guessed it right. It is undemocratic and against all the liberties. How can a government of a country demand that non-government organizations state it openly that they are financed from abroad? How can a government of a country dare to know such irrelevant details about the media and the non-government organizations operating within the country’s borders? Why should a government of a country want to know such insignificant details?

If you are groomed by the Western mass media, then you are going to agree with what has been said above. Or maybe you are going to have second thoughts, anyway?

The interesting part of the whole event is that the new law drafted in Georgia is for all practical purposes a copy of the 1938 law that was passed in the United States. The American administration somehow wanted to know and wanted all the citizens to know which of the organizations were financed by foreign agents. Why what was good in the case of the United States is wrong in the case of Georgia? Probably because the United States is a democracy the likes of which the world has never seen and is not likely to see in the future, while Georgia – well – Georgia needs to learn what democracy is all about.

Georgia’s president – Salome Zourabichvili – holds… French citizenship (and Georgian, by the way) and was born and raised in France, so naturally she is in favour of preserving democracy in the country that she is in charge of. Where did she learn what democracy is all about? Why, in France, of course. She knows better, does she not? She has vetoed the draft bill about foreign agents as it is called, but on May 18 Georgia’s parliament overrode her veto. CNN – a beacon of democracy – has said in one of its headlines that the foreign agents bill is “Kremlin-styled”, admitting in the same headline that Georgia’s parliament “defied Western pressure.” The same CNN duly reports that Natalie Sabanadze, Georgia’s former ambassador to the EU, said that the Georgian government “is siding with the Putinist, anti-liberal forces of the world.” How otherwise?

The ultimate culprit is always and invariably one and the same man: Putin. The world is simple as a plot in a morality play: Joe Biden is god, Western leaders are his archangels (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy), and angels (the lesser countries) or saints (very small vassals, the likes of the Baltic States); Vladimir Putin is Satan with his devils (leaders of China, Iran, Korea, Belarus), while the world is the scene where Armageddon is being played out. Georgia happens to be torn between the gods and the devils, Georgia happens to be a tug of war between the good and the bad fairies.

Georgia’s law on the Transparency of Foreign Influence is construed by the West (by the good guys) as stigmatizing such media and non-government organizations that are financed by foreign agencies. You see, each phenomenon can be viewed from two opposing vantage points. What one party to the conflict (the bad guys) labels transparency, the other calls it stigmatization. That’s the question of whether the glass is half full or half empty. Is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act passed in the United States (mentioned above) an instrument enabling transparency or stigmatization? Since we know that the United States is the beacon of democracy the likes of which the world has not see and is not likely to see anytime soon, we may be sure that in this case transparency was intended. It’s quite the other way round with a similar bill drafted in Georgia: that one is all about stigmatization and… Putinism. I hope you agree.