Author: The Board

How does that come about in a democracy?

Democracy? Picture to yourself a little town somewhere in the United States ruled by its inhabitants. In other words imagine that they practice democracy. Surely, they delegate the administrative work to a few representatives: others need to go about their everyday business. From time to time the inhabitants of the town hold a meeting, a rally. Some of them put forward a proposal. We need to have a school; we need to build a hospital; we need to repair some roads; we need this, we need that. Once they agree on a project, they need to chip in some of the money from every family. Will the people consent? Of course, they will. They will have a difference of opinion whether it is better to first put up a school or a hospital; they may have differing opinions about how large a school building ought to be; they may differ as to the amount of money they want to spend, they may agree to demand more money from the richer inhabitants, and the like.

Now picture to yourself someone puts forward a proposal to invite a significant number of foreigners, perfect strangers with a different religion and a different language, with a different culture to settle in the town and puts forward a proposal that the inhabitants of the town pay for everything the arrivals will need for months or maybe years. Imagine such a proposal is put to the vote. What results do you expect? Obviously, no one is going to pay month after month after another month for the upkeep of a Venezuelan or Somalian family. Picture to yourself that someone proposes to send a few youngsters from this town – someone’s sons, someone’s brothers. Someone’s husbands – to fight a bunch of Russians or Iraqis thousands of miles away in order to protect Ukrainians or to bring democracy to a town in Iraq. How many inhabitants of this theoretical town do you think would consent to the idea?

That’s genuine democracy, that is to say: the expression of the will of the people, the expression of the collective will of the people and its implementation. A summary of such towns and villages ought to act in a similar manner. As it is, thousands of such towns and villages collectively known as a state – a nation – a democratic republic act in ways that are entirely opposite to what we have described above. A few people – relatively very few people – entrusted with power make policies of which citizens – i.e. inhabitants of those thousands of towns and villages – would never ever approve. Worse, those millions of citizens are forced to pay for the projects that are totally beyond their scope of interest.

Barely anyone (not to say no one) is ready to accommodate perfect strangers from Africa or Asia with their families for years in their homes and provide for them. Yet, a state, a democratic state – supposedly a collection of millions of such families that make up the theoretical town from our thought experiment – accommodates millions of foreigners and pays for their living. How does that come about in… a democracy?

Preparing for new trade wars

Donald Trump wants to increase tariffs on Chinese even by up to 60%, and Democrats will have no choice as to agree to at least some of protectionism planned by the Republicans, or else China will flood the market w its products to the detriment of American domestic industry. In recent years, Western companies and financiers have invested heavily in China only to withdraw from the country at present.

Source: bloomberg.com

In the second quarter of 2024, 15 billion dollars were withdrawn from China. At the same time, exports from the Middle Kingdom are on the rise as companies increase their inventories of Chinese parts, components, etc. so as not to be so affected by potential trade wars. Put simply, we buy what we can from China, but we no longer invest there. This strategy is being pursued by many countries. As a result, freight costs are also rising. Below you will find transport costs from main ports in China (Containerised Freight Index – green line). The situation is similar to that after the end of the pandemic, when inflation began to rage.

Source: tradingeconomics.com

Companies are filling their warehouses and politicians will have a tough nut to crack if inflation rises as a result of trade wars. Already, 59% of Americans believe their country is in recession, despite good economic data.

It is worth remembering that the development of the global economy has been due to free trade for several decades, with the focus on China. This process is now set to be halted and many Americans would even like to see it reversed. This will benefit many European or American companies, but unfortunately it will be at the expense of ordinary citizens, who will pay more for many products. This will fuel inflation and at the same time slow down the economy. Such a situation is known as stagflation. Stagflation is therefore a possible scenario as downside risks dominate the markets, including geopolitical tensions and trade fragmentation.

 

AU10TIX or how Israelis act

AU10TIX is an Israeli identity service that verifies people or companies on the Internet. For example, people who want to earn money on Twitter (X) have their identity checked and authenticated by AU10TIX. So far, so good, but there are two appalling facts about the Israeli company:

1. AU10TIX has close ties to Israeli intelligence. It was set up by members of the Israeli elite intelligence services Shin Bet and Unit 8200. Ton Atzomm, its CEO, was a member of Unit 8200 has been committed to the surveillance of Palestinians and has been utilizing the information gained in the process to politically persecute and divide them. Edo Soroka, the Vice President for Sales in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, previously worked for the Israeli startup AnyVision, which is accused of monitoring Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. Erez Hershkovitz had earlier been employed by the Israeli company Voyager Labs, which was sued by Meta for using dozens of fake Facebook accounts to collect data from more than half a million users.

2. AU10TIX suffered a serious security breach that exposed the personal data of millions of its users. Customers that fell victim to the June 2024 scandal include some of the world’s most renowned companies, such as X, TikTok, LinkedIn, Coinbase, eToro, PayPal, Fiverr, Upwork, Bumble, and Uber. Names, dates of birth, nationalities and images of identification documents such as driver’s licenses and passports, facial scans and authentication metrics for documents and photos were disclosed. It was a massive security breach with unforeseeable long-term consequences. The exposed data could be used by cybercriminals for various illegal purposes such as identity theft, financial fraud or even blackmail.

Several questions could be brought up:

1. How does all that square with the U.S.-Israeli friendship and alliance?

2. Why does the Israeli intelligence agency want to collect – manage – control the data of millions of Americans?

3. Why do the US services do not hinder such deep intrusions into the security of US citizens?

Triad

Each Western European state is socially divided into three castes: the indigenous white population, foreign settlers, and the political class.

The indigenous white population is ethnically monolithic: Germany is the country of the Germans, France is the country of the French, England is the country of the English, Sweden is the country of Swedes, Italy is the country of the Italians, and so on, and so forth. Occasional admixtures of other ethnicities are (i) insignificant, and (ii) culturally almost identical in that they are (post-)Christian, white, European. Such ethnicities have merged over centuries making up a quasi new nations of the British, who combine the people of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, or of Spaniards with their Catalan subgroup and so on.

The settlers by the mass media misleadingly referred to as migrants rather than (which would be far more appropriate) immigrants are increasing in numbers but are by no means a monolithic group. The settlers come from a huge variety of ethnicities, creeds and cultures and as a rule they create enclaves or ghettos or no-go zones or mini states within the state. They barely integrate or assimilate, but they are a privileged section of any Western society in that the authorities, the police, all social services back them, support them, protect them against the anger of the indigenous inhabitants.

The political class is globalist, supranational and as such intensely hostile towards its own ethnicity. In each Western country it suppresses the white – as yet – numerically dominant majority and elevates the many minorities. The political class is deracinated and denounces any real connection with the national base that it once rose from. The political class has no feeling of national or religious attachment or belongingness to the indigenous nations it governs: they don’t think in terms of the interests of Great Britain or France or Germany or Italy. They only think in terms of their own well-being.

Thus the old Marxian division into the exploiters and the exploited (or the haves and the have-nots) has been supplanted by the division into the underprivileged indigenous and the privileged incomers. These two can be and are skilfully pitted against each other by the political class. Consequently, these two keep each other at bay and let the political class remain the political class.

That the settlers are privileged goes without saying. They cannot be criticised by the white majority. Any member of the majority who dares to do so is immediately accused of being racist, which is the most heinous of crimes after antisemitism. Selected settlers are promoted to the highest positions in the state and the administration. The white majority encounters their faces in huge numbers in the mass media, the entertainment, the sports and advertisement. The racially foreign settlers are cast in historical roles of the heroes of the past of the white nations. History, by the way, is being re-written to drum it into the heads of the indigenous people that they have always been societies with diverse ethnicities. Judging by the over-representation of the settlers in culture and politics, once can get the impression that France or the United Kingdom are not majority white countries.

In ancient Rome it was much the same. Having conquered most of the territory around the Mediterranean, the Empire began to suck in foreigners who, at first, did simple jobs, with time, however, began to occupy ever higher positions. The United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Netherlands have, too, had their overseas empires. It turns out they all have trodden the some political and historical path that the Roman Empire once did. At first the Western powers imposed their will on the far-off lands, and later they accepted the foreigners on their own European soil, enabling them gradually to hold ever more important positions of power.

Apart from playing the settlers off against the indigenous populations, the political class keeps them both occupied with (i) ecology, (ii) sexual perversity, (iii) and war on Russia, China and some other smaller “rogue” states. An average citizen of Germany or France, of Italy or Great Britain – if he takes interest in anything beyond his strictly personal business – is encouraged to join the crusade in the defence of the climate, propagate the use of the many proper personal pronouns for the many genders, and regularly take part in two-minutes-of-hate sessions aimed at the various dictators that tread the surface of the Mother Earth.

The political class promises a bright future for everyone who is complicit in the ecological, social and political project. Since an average citizen of any Western country knows next to nothing about history, economy, the finances and biology, he easily falls prey to the promises of a bright future. People have always fallen victims to such promises. Always. In a sense, therefore, the political class can rest assured that nothing threatens its position. And yet, if they only dug back into the past, they would recognize that the fate of ancient Rome is their fate. But then, I suppose, they still wouldn’t care so long as they can preserve their power and wealth. The Roman aristocracy accepted some members of the barbarian invaders among its ranks and continued to play the role of the aristocracy, even though their consecutive generations gradually stopped speaking Latin and stepwise began to speak Italian, French, Spanish, later German and English. Yet, they couldn’t care less so long as they had their castles and thousands of serfs. Latin was upheld as the language of religion, politics and academia, and so will English for a time.

Consider. Rishi Sunak’s grandparents lived in India, his parents lived in Africa, he was for a time the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister; Kamala Harris is an American of Jamaican and Indian origin. If white British or American members of the ruling class are deracinated to such a huge extent as they are, how much more are people whose immediate ancestry is so much foreign?

The Rat-Catcher of Hamlin

It was the 8th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of (East) Germany (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland) or SED held in East Berlin, May 1981. All other socialist parties had sent their delegations. Mikhail Suslov, a high-ranking apparatchik, represented the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). During the congress he delivered an almost half-an-hour speech. The speech was the usual clap-trap of socialism winning everywhere in the world and capitalism losing it. Comrade Suslov, otherwise the main ideologue of the CPSU, also assured the East German comrades of Moscow’s support and friendship, of the Kremlin’s admiration for the achievements of East German communists, and the like. At that time such speeches were delivered by the hundreds by socialist or communist party leaders in all socialist countries, occasioned by party congresses or national holidays or anniversaries of the Great October Socialist Revolution or May Day (Labour Day) festivities.

The year was 1981. Comrade Suslov would be dead in a year’s time. Erich Honecker, leader of the SED, would be overthrown in eight years; in ten years there will be a Soviet Union no more. Listening to Mikhail Suslov’s words, Comrade Honecker, who applauded the Soviet dignitary now and again as did the delegates to the congress, looked self-satisfied and as snug as a bug in a rug. It would not have occurred to him that before the decade was out the German Democratic Republic would also have run its historical course and been incorporated by its western, capitalist neighbour, the Federal Republic of Germany. It would not have crossed his mind that in eight years’ time he would be expelled from his country, look for asylum in Russia, now a post-soviet federal republic, and be denied a longer stay there. He would not have thought that he would spend his last few years in Chile of all the places, where he would eventually go at the invitation of his son-in-law. It would not have occurred to him that he would be so much loathed by East Germans; similarly, it would not have crossed his mind that before leaving for Russia he would be given a few weeks’ hospitality and protected against the anger of the people who he had ruled over by a Christian priest. Erich Honecker may have visualized any kind of future but this. He may have feared a palace coup: it was normal political practice in socialist countries, and this was how he himself had come to power. He may have pictured to himself a world war, a conflict between the Western and the Eastern blocs, hostilities between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Surely he did not think his cherished German Democratic Republic would disappear overnight, and surely he must have been certain that the Soviet Union, the superpower armed with nukes and constantly having a crew on the Earth’s orbit would continue to exist in the foreseeable future. Erich Honecker must have been dead certain about the continuation of the Eastern political bloc so much so that the delegates gathered in the Palace of the Republic (Palast der Republik) where the congress was held were enthusiastic and hope-inspiring.

Present-day politicians and enthusiasts of today’s ideologies had better look into the past and ponder. They had better watch old documentaries and read old newspapers. They had better put themselves in the shoes of those people and then they had better draw inferences. Yes, today’s political establishment will also run its course despite the many assurances that we are on the path to a bright future. Yes, today’s top politicians will one of these days run for their life and maybe find protection in the Philippines or Argentina. Yes, today’s political cheerleaders will tomorrow loathe the men and the women they are serving hand and foot at present. Yes, today’s ideologues will see the miserable and inevitable death of their ideologies. Some of them will see it from the netherworld.

And you know what? New ideologies and new ideologues will emerge to seduce the people and the people will follow another incarnation of the Rat-Catcher of Hamelin (der Rattenfänger von Hameln). Some out of conviction, some out of convenience. Few will resist. Very few will bother to learn something from the past. 

Musket Wars

Prior to being taken over by the Europeans, mainly the subjects of the British Crown, New Zealand was inhabited by Māori, a conglomerate of a number of tribes who had settled the two islands in the 14th century. Just as it was common in the Americas among Indians, the tribes waged wars for territory and resources and slaves and supremacy. The way of all flesh, everywhere and always on the planet Earth. Due to the primitive forms of weaponry, the hostilities were not very much devastating. When, however, white settlers began to trade muskets for the goods that the Māori could offer, those muskets became a game changer: the tribe with a larger number of muskets had a significant military edge and felt encouraged to wage war with other tribes, hoping for a swift and easy victory. Wars were also waged because of the past wrongs suffered at the hands of a neighbouring tribe. Vengeance was also a driving force. And yes, those tribes which were equipped with muskets gained the upper hand in the battlefield. The vanquished, however, would soon learn their lesson and purchase muskets from the Whites, thus tipping the scales in their favour. The mutually devastating wars lasted for almost half a century, roughly between 1806 (in 1805 Napoleon won the Battle of Austerlitz) and 1845 (in 1842 the first Opium War ended). Thousands of Māori men and women died in those hostilities, while whole tribes were decimated. The winning party would enslave the beaten tribe and work the slaves to death so as to have new produce to trade with the British settlers and buy more muskets and wage more wars. The beaten party, too, would do anything in its power to sell whatever they had to the Whites – including land – in order to acquire the firearms, resist the aggressors and – naturally – take revenge. A never ending story. While the Māori tribes would mutually annihilate themselves, the European settlers would enrich themselves and get rid of some of the indigenous population in the process. To put it differently, the Māori simply made room for the British colonizers while reducing their own numbers in the ceaseless feuds. Just one of the many historical examples of one party setting the other two or more parties off against each other and enriching itself in the process. One of the many historical examples of ethnically related nations, states, tribes letting themselves be used against their ethnic cousins by total biological and cultural strangers.

Nothing has changed since then. True, we do not encounter culturally backward tribes as we did in that time, but we do encounter nations and ethnicities whose development is not very much advanced and who let themselves be easily pitted against their ethnic cousins. Recently we could observe the same phenomena in the former Yugoslavia and in the former Soviet Union. Thus Croats were set off against Serbs, whereas Ukrainians – against Russians. Just as Māori received weaponry and other equipment from the West so are Ukrainians receiving it; just as Māori traded most they had for the weapons and equipment, so are Ukrainians selling their land and running up enormous debt; just as Māori were hellbent on killing other Māori to please the third party so is one Slavic nation hellbent on killing another Slavic nation to please a third party. The similarity is striking. The same might be said about Croats and Serbs, and, indeed, about tens and hundreds of conflicts worldwide. It turns out that there are nations with a huge inferiority complex that let themselves be politically and militarily exploited just like American Indians or new Zealand Māori tribes. There are nations – present-day Indians or Māori – that are willing to act as gladiators: they are willing to please the managers of the world by killing their neighbours and cousins so as to get a pat on the shoulder and so as to prolong their own life for a couple of months or years. There is no shortage of nations and ethnicities that are willing to buy muskets, to sell whatever they have, and to wage wars on their neighbours, simultaneously bending backwards to those who provide them with the muskets (Abrams, Challengers, F-16s, satellite intel) and collect from them their resources and grab their territory.

Beauty and the Beast

DEI – the latest article of faith of the Western world – stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, does it not? On the face of it, yes. On second thoughts it translates into: Descent Entering Inferno. The 2024 Olympic Games that are being held in France have more for us in store than the macabre opening or the rainbow-refugee-ecology all-pervasive propaganda. The latest event that is reverberating in the internet and the media is a boxer fight during which a male-turned-female reported a victory over a female-remaining-female. The details are commonly known and repeated here and there, so we are not going to replicate them. Rather, we are going to call the reader’s attention to the rot that is incapacitating the Western civilization.

The clap-trap of “no nation, no religion, no possession” – as the lyrics of a notorious song say – has been enriched with the clap-trap of “no biological sex”. The idea may have begun with the feminist movement whose representatives cursed their fate of being born women and whose representatives wanted to emulate men in everything and anything. The very idea of women punching themselves like men sometimes do says it all. Then the sick idea that “you are not born a woman, you become one” emerged and was followed by the assault on the biological sex. Medical mutilations misleadingly referred to as sex or gender reassignment have been propagated and infused into the minds of millions of people ac acceptable and progressive. Liberasts and tolerasts of all hues chipped in their sick ideas of total liberalism and tolerance with the result being that one can now say that one is a man or a woman irrespective of the evidence of the senses (and the common sense) and – mind you! – change the sex as many times as he – she – it – pleases.

Modern re-enactment of Beauty and the Beast

If so, then why not set a man against a woman in a boxing fight and make everybody view the man as a woman? Don’t you dare voice your objection or else! Or else you’ll be called a bigot and – necessarily – far right! Such a fight is after all the new normal. Haven’t we been accustomed by the Hollywood in the hundreds of movies in which female characters can successfully physically cope with male characters and even beat men up? Are we not being accustomed to the idea of female soldiers who can and ought to kill the enemy just like their male counterparts? There are no differences between biological sexes as there are no differences between biological races, right? If your senses (and your common sense) tell you a different story, then consult your doctor because obviously you need a therapy.

And you know what? Those bellicose female feminists barely protest when they see a woman confronted with a man who goes by the name of a woman! No wonder, then. They have been caught in their own trap. Males and females do not really differ, and if in some cases they do, then of course only in the sense that women are better than men. If so, surely you expect a woman to be capable of physically standing up to a man and overwhelming him, don’t you? Your default Hollywood image of a slim woman (I suppose most of my readers will have watched “G.I. Jane” or a similar motion picture) doing it better than any man, the image that has been planted into your psyche along with the many texts that you have read and absorbed, along with the “wisdom” of the talking heads that you have let sink in in your mind while consuming the mass media confirm this conviction: a woman is as good as a man, both intellectually and physically.

If you’re still in doubt then recall the latest question of our times, which is: what is a woman? Educated people in the West have big trouble defining a woman. You will have known by now that a woman can have a penis, while a man can breast-feed a baby. Anything goes. The brains of the Western man and the Western woman have been confused to such an extent that even the female victims of this madness barely protest.

Do you know what is the worst part of the whole craziness? No, not the fact that the evil-doers behind it will progress with their DEI (sure, they will); no, not the fact that Westerners have either embraced this madness wholeheartedly or sheepishly fear to object; the worst part of it all is that the evil-doers (and their active and passive supporters) think that the rest of the globe will follow suit, and that the rest of the globe is envious of what the liberasts and tolerasts have managed to achieve and enforce, for the liberasts and tolerasts genuinely think they have advanced the humankind by an eon!