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.

Restaurants offering free dishes

Every historical epoch or age has its religion. It may be a religion par excellence with a god or gods and a devil or devils, with a belief in afterlife, final judgement, reincarnation and what not. Such is not the only form a creed may take. Religions also assume forms of ideologies: apart from the beliefs in the otherworldly reality, man has also believed and continues to believe in the set of assumptions – laws – principles of his own making. Man’s strict observance of them transforms ideologies into religions. Humanity has had a number of such non-religious religions. This are socialism or enlightenment, human rights or the rights of the citizen, ecologism or globalism, with the list being by no means exhausted. One of the tenets of the last mentioned religions is the belief in the advantageousness of open borders. The argument is that man ought not to be restricted in his movement around the globe, that we are all one human race and hence citizens of the world.

The argument is false on a number of counts. For one, there are many natural borders of which language and culture are the most powerful in separating and dividing groups of people. Language itself makes runaways from one nation to another or one cultural region to another feel very much ill at ease. Hence, geographical or administrative borders merely reflect reality. It is very often recklessly repeated that nationalities only came into existence in the 19th century, but that’s not true. When you consider the borders of the medieval kingdom of France or England or Bohemia or Sweden, they somehow more or less overlap with the territory inhabited by the French the English or the Czech. The many German dukedoms and principalities along with kingdoms were still… German rather than mixtures of German and Italian or French nations. Sure, occasionally each of those political entities contained some ethnic minorities, but these were ethnic minorities and if they were bog enough, they sooner or later separated. The managers of the world seem not to be aware of all it. Also, the managers and ideologues of the world let themselves be seduced by their wishful thinking. But then who are they? Geniuses? But we are diverging.

Be it as it may, the concept of having open borders has been preached by today’s intellectuals as a kind of new commandment that has been etched into stone. The concept, however – just like about anything that has been born in the brains of the ideologues – is false and its falsity is glaring to anybody with common sense. What do we mean?

The Western countries have not merely opened their borders – doors – wide for anyone to come. That in itself would not be all that bad. After all, we have shops and restaurants and offices open for anybody and there is no problem with it. The Western countries have made it obligatory on themselves to provide for anybody who turns up with food and clothing and medical care and what not. The Western countries have not merely turned themselves into restaurants – offices – cinemas where anybody can come in and order something… in return for money. The Western countries turned themselves into such a type of restaurants – offices – cinemas where anybody who turns up is given food and beverages without having to pay for them. That’s the glaring falsity of the open borders ideology. It is not – let us reiterate it – that the restaurants are open: those restaurants have been turned into troughs regularly replenished with free-of-charge food, and naturally they act as magnets. Tens and hundreds of thousands flock to those troughs because why shouldn’t they?

Another falsity of the open-borders ideology consists in the fact that the Western ideologues provide the incomers with all the life necessities redistributing the wealth that is produced by of the host countries. It is not that the residents or prime ministers or the enlightened intellectuals give supplies to the needy from outside the Western world: it is that they take it away from their own citizens and redirect it to the aliens. Yes, the citizens of the host countries being brain-washed by the decades-long propaganda are generally in favour of aiding the aliens but herein lies yet another falsity. The citizens pay taxes and their governments funnel some of the money to the arrivals. Imagine now that not a penny is taken away from the citizens for the aid for the arrivals, but each citizen is asked to share voluntarily some of his income with all those Afghans, Somalis, Nigerians and Moroccans. How many people do you think – even among those who have been brainwashed – would support day in, day out the perfect strangers and how much money would they assign to the needs of the newcomers? It is one thing to have your money spent by the government when you have no say, and quite another to regularly and voluntarily deplete your bank account and transfer the money to aliens, especially those you are afraid or scared of every time you pass them by in the street of your town or city. How many helpers would we have under such conditions?

In other words, imagine running a restaurant and… having its door open to anybody who pleases to enter and… serving them all the dishes they wish without being paid for it! I dare say you wouldn’t like to do it even if you had money to burn. Especially – let me repeat it – if you were afraid or scared of your “guests”.

The legal case of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidency

On May 20 Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidential term expired, which poses a very interesting legal and political case. Russia does not recognize Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s authority any more. Which is not a malicious act on her part. The argument is that any agreement, accord, whatever signed by someone who simultaneously is not the head of a country entails grave political problems. Any next president of Ukraine may either feel bound by the agreement that Ukraine entered into with Russia under the presidency of Volodymyr Zelenskyy or may renege on it as signed by someone who did not have the legal authority to act as the country’s leader. Why should the Kremlin even bother to consider any talks with Zelenskyy if such is the case?

As of now, the West recognizes Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s power despite the expiry of his presidential term of office. Yet, the same legal case might be used by the diplomats in Washington, London, or Paris in any later development of events in Ukraine. They, too, might one of these days make a statement that they do not feel bound to honour any international settlement signed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy if only such a political move suits their purposes.

As is known, it is the interaction of the real military and economic factors that are at the disposal of the international players that matters. Diplomacy is merely a reflection of those real factors. Hence, if the West feels coerced to enter into an unfavourable settlement with Russia over Ukraine, it may intentionally make Volodymyr Zelenskyy sign it with the hindsight that the settlement is going to be revoked the moment the balance of powers tilts in the West’s favour. The fact that the legality of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidential authority is questionable might be viewed as a wild card in any future diplomatic dealings between the West and Russia if the latter agrees to honour Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s signature.

At present, Ukrainian jurisprudence might recognize the current Ukrainian leader as the country’s legitimate president. That may change overnight. Particular legal provisions can be construed to mean whatever pleases the powerful. We all know that.