Clever though they claim to be, they do not see the bleak future

The left and the extreme left that rule over the Western world – that is in Europe along with the United States and Canada – have difficulties with reasoning, which by the way is nothing new. The left tend to think that it is possible to shape, control and bend reality to the leftist imagination. Think about all those leftist-made mental constructs concerning equality and equity. They really believe that the world can and will be shaped according to such mental constructs, according to their wishes, according to their designs, or – to put it otherwise – the world can and will be shaped in keeping with their leftists fantasies.

We have all been shocked by yet another piece of news concerning Ceuta – Spain’s North African territorial enclave, which has a recently been invaded by thousands of young male individuals. As usual – and we’ve been long accustomed to it – the government proves to be powerless, helpless, and incompetent. Such acts of invasion keep repeating and have repeated themselves often enough that we do not expect anything other than this happening again and again with the impotent governments doing nothing other than calling the phenomenon a ‘crisis’. So long as our European home is governed and controlled by the left that long there is no hope of having this problem solved. The leftist mass media keep telling us fairy tales about migration crises as if those crises have not been created by the powers that be and the media, as if the crisis could not be stopped in its tracks from one day to the other if only the governments wanted to stop it.

Now the left, that leftist elites – the disciples of the likes of Marx and Trotsky, the disciples of all these fantasts who wanted to create a society that is devoid of social classes, of nations, and of religions – the same leftist elites seem to also be entirely deprived of common sense, of reasoning, of any faculty of deep reflection, or logic. Why do we say so?

Because the left are hellbent on propagating rainbow sexuality, bellicose feminism along with combating racism, which they perceive to be present everywhere. They also want to suppress religion, and national sentiments. While the left import people from Africa and Asia by the hundreds of thousands, they do not see the those people bring with themselves and entirely different convictions and entirely different attitudes to life. Once the newcomers settle in Europe, they are taken good care of, they are pampered by the authorities, and as a result they multiply and bring over their relatives from Africa and Asia. As their numbers grow, they create tightly knit communities, and occupy more and more of larger and larger chunks of the territory of the host nations. Slowly they begin to impose their customs and religion, their will and their persuasions on the host states and host populations. In due time – maybe within a decade, maybe within three – the arrivals from the Third World will be numerous enough to be democratically elected to the French, German, British or Swedish parliaments. Once elected they will form governments. Once embedded in European parliaments and holding governmental power, they will be in a position to pass new laws – their laws – laws that correspond to their convictions, their persuasions, their beliefs and their interests. What are these laws most likely to be?

Yes, you guessed it right: they will reverse everything that the leftist leaders have imposed on Western society so far. The “new Europeans” hailing from Africa and Asia, irrespective of whether they are Christian or Muslim, those “new Europeans” once they hold the reins of power, will revert everything that is so dear to the leftist elites and the leftist mob. They will show women their right place in society, they will certainly not tolerate open rainbow sexuality, they will be deeply religious – either in the form of Islam or in the form of Christianity – and they will restore harsh punitive measures. In a word: the darlings of the leftist elites will undo everything that the left has done and has been doing for decades now.

Someone is likely to raise an objection and say that such things are not going to happen because the immigrants once they have settled in Europe will be imbued with progressivist leftist ideas, that they will adopt those ideas as their own, and will continue to develop them or at least will try to preserve them. The leftist elites think the future enriched by the people from Africa and Asia is going to correspond to their fantasies. If they really think so – and they certainly do – they had better think again.

We can already see that the arrivals from Asia and Africa preserve their own heritage rather than adopting the “European values”: they preserve their own convictions, their own persuasions, their own religious beliefs, their own customs and so on, and so forth. The fact that they are coming by the tens of thousands every year contributes only to the their separateness on the European continent. The leftist elites are not capable of understanding that the saturation of European society with large numbers of aliens makes it mathematically – statistically so to say – impossible for those aliens to adopt and identify with the ideology and the culture of the host nations.

And besides, history teaches us that whenever the left wanted to shape the human being in keeping with the leftist ideas it has always and invariably failed. Consider the Soviet Union. For roughly 70 years the Soviets – the Communists, the Bolsheviks, the Marxists, the Leninists, the Stalinists (have your pick) – have tried to create a new man. They had everything at their disposal to achieve that goal. They had the law enforcement, they had power, they had money, they had the mass media, they had the entertainment industry, they had the education system, they had anything one could dream of: all possible instruments with which to shape and create a new man, sometimes referred to as homo sovieticus. It was also so in the Soviet Union that national identity was suppressed or frowned upon, that people were supposed to be living in equality or even equity, that money was seemingly unimportant, that individualism was being uprooted while community was elevated. Roughly three generations were raised according to this model. What was the result?

The moment the Soviet Union collapsed all of this social and mental construction collapsed as well – disappeared in thin air. National sentiment revived, people began to enrich themselves at the cost of others, nobody believed in inequality or socialism anymore, religious sentiment asserted itself anew, millionaires and billionaires emerged as if by the wave of a magic wand, while the ideas propagated so intensely for years – the ideas born in the sick minds of the likes of Lenin and Trotsky – disappeared overnight. And mind you, before the Soviet Union collapsed nobody within the Union nor anybody outside it had ever thought that such a spectacular collapse was possible!

That was only one glaring example from history – recent history. If you are interested enough and you delve into historical books, you will quickly notice that all such social constructs that have been attempted throughout centuries were doomed to fail. Why? Because the only effective society is the one that is based on human nature.

The leftist elites, the leftist intellectuals, and followers of the leftist ideas naturally tend to think that all those people from Africa and the Asia will be imbued with progressivist ideas and – living in Europe – will continue to spread those ideas. The leftist intellectuals are – as usual – dead wrong. One can only picture to oneself an amazed face of a feminist, a shocked grimace of a representative of the rainbow sexuality once they are faced with the government that will be formed by the oh-so-welcomed refugees, the government that will without fail suppress feminism and rainbow sexuality.

Consider the following. The Communists in Eastern and Central Europe were busy reshaping and reforming their corresponding societies in the name of the workers and the peasants, in the name of the working classes, in the name of the suppressed and exploited classes. The eastern and central European communists and socialists were in for a bitter surprise: it was the workers and the peasants who were the first to criticize the socialist or communist system, it was the workers and the presents who were among the first who eagerly wanted to leave the socialist or communist paradise, and – yes – they wanted to resettle to one of the western capitalist states to be exploited there by the capitalists. All of the leftist ideas about workers wanting to get rid of capitalism or nationalism or religion for that matter shattered. Older readers will have remembered the pictures from 1980 Poland when the working class rebelled against the socialist government and when the working class flaunted religious symbols all around their workplaces. The atheist education that had been carried out for decades proved to be ineffective. The Polish working class clung to their religious faith and waved Polish national flags – not the red flags of international communism. The 1980 Rebellion against the socialist government that we are talking about broke out in the country’s largest shipyard, which – what a hilarious paradox! – was named the Vladimir Lenin Shipyard! It was precisely in this location that the working class raised the Christian religious crosses and invited priests to say holy mass.

Much of the same is going to happen to the Western countries. Their leftist elites and leftist activists may tend to think that they control reality, that they control the human mind, that they can shape the future, that the future belongs to them. As we know, pride comes before a fall. The leftist elites and the leftist intellectuals cannot even comprehend that by inviting, accommodating and affirming the people from the Third World they are by the same token digging their own grave. They are digging the grave for their ideology and they are digging the grave for themselves physically. Once those arrivals from Africa and Asia seize political power, the game is over for the leftist elites and leftist intellectuals! But then, they are assiduously working towards this goal. It was the ancients who noticed that when gods wanted to punish somebody, they stripped this person of the faculty of reasoning. The fact that the left are incapable of seeing what the future holds for them in store is just mind-blowing.

The island of Lampedusa – a new pilgrimage site of the pontiffs

A few days ago (4 July 2026) Pope Leo the 14th paid a visit to the island of Lampedusa, which is located in the Mediterranean and which is famous for accepting immigrants from the Dark Continent on their way to the Old Continent. This island had been visited also by his predecessor, Pope Francis. As we all know, Pope Francis was a harbinger of the good news to the people who want to relocate to Europe. His successor Pope Leo the XIV seems to be continuing and pursuing the same policy. He is of course very much concerned with the fate of the Third World people: less so with the people living in Europe. His message – cloaked in diplomatic language – is simple and banal… and maybe even childish:

From this far-flung corner of Europe on the Mediterranean Sea, one can more clearly perceive the momentous challenge that the phenomenon of migration poses to European societies. In this regard, just as with the ecological transition and the promotion of peace, Europe possesses a unique potential, stemming from its history and culture, and therefore bears a corresponding responsibility. Thanks to its geographical location and institutional framework, Europe is capable of addressing the crisis — in this region — in a comprehensive manner, integrating immediate relief efforts into a long-term strategic plan capable of receiving, protecting, supporting and integrating migrants, while at the same time assisting developing countries so that no one is forced to emigrate. All of this must be done with vigilance, ensuring respect for the dignity of every person. This is a task not only for public institutions but also for civil society as a whole and for the Church. [Pastoral Visit of his Holiness to Lampedusa]

So, Europe should embrace immigration and at the same time should contribute to developing the Third World countries so that people will not want to leave the place of birth and so that they will not want to settle in Europe. That kind of talk is characteristic of politicians and all the people who want to present themselves to the public as the do-gooders. But what does it mean that Europe should accept more and more immigrants from the Dark Continent, not to say anything about Asia? What does it mean that Europe should take measures to improve the economic situation in Africa (again not to mention Asia)?

Well, simply Europe should be glad and happy about having more and more new inhabitants and at the same time – quite apart from paying for the upkeep – Europeans should also streamline their money and all kinds of resources to the other countries just to prevent more people from arriving in the Old Continent. That is to say, Europeans should pay the nations of Africa for staying at home or else. If one knows something about history of ancient Rome, one will immediately recognize the same pattern. Rome, too, was invaded by barbarians and Rome, two, was too weak to oppose them. What solution did the rules of Rome come up with? Yes, you remember it right: they suggested paying the barbarians to stay outside the Roman borders. Alternatively, if that was not feasible, they suggested paying the barbarians to serve the Roman empire rather than destroying it. Still better, the Romans came up with the idea of employing the aliens as soldiers defending Rome against… other aliens. How this all ended we all know too well.

Now, the Catholic Church as a religious institution should care more about whether Europeans – cradle Christians or lapsed Christians or just Christians in name only – follow the precepts of their faith. What is important in terms of faith? It is important that a believer should learn God and save his soul, which is to say, the believer should earn a happy life after death. How does a believer earn a happy afterlife? A believer earns a happy afterlife in that he follows the precepts of his faith. What are these precepts? To live a life that is sinless. Or at least to avoid grave sins. What are those grave sins that the Church has taught for centuries and seems to have forgotten to teach now? Well, these are abortion, extramarital sexual life, waging wars, theft, and other similar things. Now when did you last year a pontiff or bishops speaking about the sinfulness of extramarital sex or abortion? Have you heard the current pontiff preaching peace and trying to do something about putting examination end to the war in Ukraine or preventing the conflict with Iran? No? I haven’t either.

For a couple of decades Christian churches and the Catholic Church among them have started preaching the secular gospel of libertarianism. Be it the Pope in Rome or Protestant bishops – they all seem to be predominantly interested in the protection of the environment or the acceptance of the immigrants. When you visit the website of many a Catholic parish, you are immediately struck by the texts posted there, texts that preach the culture of welcoming immigrants. That’s all there is to it. no other moral issue seems to matter anymore.

The worst thing about it is that neither environment protection nor the welcoming culture has been invented by any of the protestant churches, least of all the Catholic Church. No. These ideas are the ideas of the secular world, of libertarians, of capitalists, of lay activists – in general – of the people who are for the most part non-believers, and sometimes actively hostile towards the churches or religion, people who view Christianity as a backward idea. For all that, the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches seem to be under the spell of such people and such organizations. The churches have become the mirror reflection of what the secular world proclaims. One cannot fight off the impression that the priests and the theologians have started reading the bibles again and suddenly discovering that the Holy Writ is all about environment protection and the acceptance of immigrants.

Why is that happening? Maybe because the Protestant churches and – sadly – the Catholic Church have been saturated with agents of influence. Maybe because the Protestant churches and the Catholic Church have lost their backbone. Or maybe all this is due to the state-run education which has shaped and continues to shape the minds of children and young people. Some of those young people choose to become priests. Well, when they enter seminaries or other religious institutions, they come there with the minds that are already full of secular ideas. They all have been to schools, colleges, and universities; they have watched movies and programs; they have read books and newspapers and websites – all of which have been pounding one and the same message: planet earth is what we should worship and a third world man is who we should serve.

Priests and theologians sometimes keep asking the question why it happens so that with every year fewer and fewer young people want to become priests. They keep asking questions why with every year more and more young people drop out of the churches. And they continue to ask questions why so many people have stopped being interested in things religious. They probably think that if they follow the secular agenda they will attract people – young and old – back to their communities. How wrong one can be! If an individual is infected with the idea of preserving the environment and accommodating Third World people, then his mind will naturally want to belong to an organization that performs the acts of environment protection and pursues immigrant policy. Now of the two big branches that are concerned with these problems – the secular world all the religious world – which one will you choose if you want to participate in environment protection all in welcoming aliens? Well, my guess is that you would like to join those who are the avant-garde of the movement. As it is, it is the secular world that takes the lead in both environment protection and the welcoming culture. The churches are nearly following the secular branch. One might even say that the churches are a knockoff of the secular branch. If that is so, then no wonder that people – if they want to be social activists – join the secular institutions rather than the religious ones. we always prefer the original to the knockoff, don’t we?

The pantheon of tragic heroes 2

Stephen Bandera’s fate was very sad. He wanted to create an independent Ukraine, but his personal life was ruined. Of his three brothers two died in a concentration camp – a German concentration camp – and one under unknown circumstances. His three sisters were imprisoned by the Russians and resettled somewhere far away to the Eastern provinces of the Soviet Union. His father (the priest) was a imprisoned as well and sentenced to death for his nationalistic political persuasion. Stepan Bandera himself was arrested twice: the first time by the Polish authorities after the assassination of the ministry of the interior, and the second time by the Germans after the failed attempt of the Ukrainian nationalist to declare an independent Ukrainian state. After the Second World War Stepan Bandera settled in Munich, Western Germany (where the Hitlerite movement began). His political career was done. All his dreams had gone wrong. He cut a sad figure.

What must he have thought about in the early 50s of the previous century? Ukraine had been incorporated into the Soviet Union or – to put it otherwise – it Ukraine fell to Moscow. Poland retained scraps of Ukrainian territory and these scraps had been rid of the Ukrainian population who was scattered around the Polish territory. Germany (once Ukraine’s big ally and hope) had been defeated: it had lost much of its territory had been divided into two states. To make things even worse, the Russians kept pursuing Stepan Bandera, and eventually, they managed to locate him in Munich, and kill him. And you know what? It was another Ukrainian – Bogdan Stashinsky – who shot Bandera dead in the staircase of Bandera’s apartment house.

Stepan Bandera committed himself to the cause of an independent Ukraine. His life was for all practical purposes wasted. None of his objectives had been reached. Rather, Ukraine’s fate had been worsened. Still today, Ukrainian nationalists, venerate Stepan Bandera as one of the greatest national heroes, if not as the greatest national hero. Street are named after him in very many Ukrainian cities and towns, and he has monuments that have been put up here and there across Ukraine. In Poland and in Russia, though, Stepan Bandera is equated with figures like Adol Hitler. Such a comparison is also invoked in the Jewish minds. For all that, we can barely hear any objection from the Western leaders and Western political class to venerating Stepan Bandera and other leaders of OUN-UPA. It appears the Western political class is ready to ally themselves with the devil himself to hurt Russia.

What do the present-day Ukrainian leaders think about their own fate? They must be familiar with the life of their spiritual guru Stepan Bandera. Do they ask themselves uncomfortable questions like, Is my life going to be like that of my political hero? Because the chances that Ukraine can prevail over Russia in the current war are next to none. If so, will those nationalists leaders that will manage to survive the war be condemned to a life in exile, just like their political guru? What do they expect to do in exile? Just like Stephan Bunder, will they look at their Ukraine from afar and see it partly captured? and partly controlled? by Moscow, the same Moscow that they hate so very much?

What’s worse, Ukraine has been facing and will continue to face a demographic catastrophe. The many millions people who have already left the country and the very many millions people who have been killed or wounded will have left a gaping demographic gap. Now, who will take their place? If the rump state of Ukraine continues to exist, and if the Ukrainian political class continues to follow the orders from Brussels, then the only solution to plug this demographic hole will be to import people from other countries. What countries? Certainly, not European countries, because no European will be willing to relocate to a war-torn country. Ukraine may only remain attractive to people from the Third World. So Ukraine is likely to be settled with people from India and Pakistan, from Kenya and Somalia. Will that be to the liking of Ukrainian nationalists? They and their political predecessors ethnically cleansed Ukraine of Slavic poles and Slavic Russians to end up with having Ukraine saturated by completely unrelated ethnicities from Asia and Africa? Such were their political dreams?

Stepan Bandera did more harm to his nation than any good. He was not a skilful politician but rather a battering ram used by Third Reich. Stepan Bandera was a political gambler. He did not take into account the real balance of powers in the then world. Present-day political elites in Ukraine are doing the same – they are walking in Stepan Bandera’s footsteps. They have allowed their Ukraine to be used as the West’s battering ram against Russia. How could they have ever thought that Ukraine could prevail against Russia, even is supported by the West? The whole of Europe (Germany and the industries of all the conquered European countries along with hundreds of thousands of volunteers from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway Spain, Italy, Croatia, and the regular armies from Romania and Hungary) did not conquer Russia in the forties of the previous century, why should it conquer Russia now?

Consider neighbouring Belarus. It’s leader, intensely hated by the west, has managed to steer clear of military conflict. And he has managed to keep his country intact in terms of territory and demographics. You may say about him whatever you please, but cannot deny the simple fact that for the last 30 years it’s been much better for any individual to have lived in Belarus rather than in Ukraine. Even if we assume – as the Western propaganda says – that Byelorussian President Lukashenko is a dictator while Ukrainian presidents were democratic leaders, still we must admit that it has been better for the common man to have lived in Belarus rather than in Ukraine for the last 30 years. Why? Because living in Belarus you have not risked being killed or maimed, whereas living in Ukraine, you have risked your life and health and your possessions. It is the Byelorussian leader who has proved to be politically savvy whereas Ukrainian presidents have played havoc with their country and their nation. Just like Stepan Bandera and his ilk once did. Is that the reason why the present-day Ukrainian political class wants to venerate such heroes?

And a post scriptum. Roman Shukhevych, commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, was hunted down by the Russian KGB and shot dead in 1950. Andrei Melnyk (OUN-M – the moderate branch) died in his bed in the West.

The pantheon of tragic heroes 1

The day was July the 1st, the year – 2026. Ukraine’s parliament passed the bill the purpose of which is to create the Pantheon of National Heroes. Now this bill only needs to be signed by President Vladimir Zelensky to become law, but there is little doubt that Ukraine’s president will sign it into law. What is this idea of creating the national Pantheon all about?

Well, Nations commemorate the national heroes. It is not only Ukrainians who want to venerate great personalities from their past. Everywhere national heroes are iconic individuals that serve as a focal point of national awareness and national identity. They serve as paragons of courage, self-sacrifice and heroism. It should be little wonder that Ukrainians would like to join other nations in this respect and have their own National Pantheon of their national heroes. And yet there is much objection to it. Who is objecting to Ukraine’s National Pantheon in the first place?

It is Poland, the Polish Nation. Why does the Polish Nation object to Ukraine having the pantheon of national heroes? Well, because this Pantheon in all likelihood will include individuals who are responsible for massacres that were conducted against the Polish Nation during the Second World War.

Ukrainian and polish national sentiments have very often clashed throughout the history of the two nations. Throughout centuries there have been numerous bloody wars between the Poles and the Ukrainians. One of such events that has imprinted itself on the national awareness of the Polish people was the so-called Volhynia massacre that occurred in the year 1943. In a series of concentrated attacks Ukrainian military units would circle Polish villages in the said region and they would systematically murder the inhabitants to the last man, woman, and child. This was ethnic cleansing par excellence, no doubt about that. To make things worse, the murders were conducted very ruthlessly: victims had their limbs cut off, the eyes gouged out, bellies ripped open, and sometimes their bodies were crucified. We have already written about it on more than one occasion.

Now it’s not certain yet which individuals from Ukraine’s history will be included in the mentioned Pantheon as national heroes. Yet, both the Polish authorities and the Polish Nation fear and suspect that the heroes would include individuals who were responsible for the aforementioned atrocities. How do the Polish authorities and the Polish Nation know about it? Simply because those individuals have been and continue to be venerated across the whole of Ukraine. They have streets named after them and monuments put up in the memory of them and they are presented to Ukrainian schoolchildren as their national heroes. Who are these individuals that create this bone of contention between Warsaw and Kiev?

First of all it was the leaders of the nationalist or – better put – chauvinist organization that was established in Ukraine almost a century ago. The political organization was known as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists or OUN for short. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists was headed Stepan Bandera and Andrii Melnyk. Bandera was more ruthless than his competitor. That is why the organization OUN split into the Bandera (OUN-B) and Melnyk (OUN-M) branches. Yet, there was a lot they both shared. What both had in mind was to create independent Ukraine, a Ukrainian state that would be free of all ethnic minorities. They hated and wanted to get rid of Russians, Poles, and Jews. Though the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist was established in the then Czechoslovakia while some of its leaders stayed for a time in Mussolini’s Italy, they began to carry out terrorist attacks inside the territory of pre-war Poland because the westernmost part of today’s Ukraine was then a part of Polish territory.

One of those attacks was performed in the city of Lvov, where Stepan Bandera’s henchman tried to kill the Soviet consul. Another attempt was carried out in broad the daylight in Poland’s capital city Warsaw. The attempt was successful. The Polish minister of the interior was killed. Now the police managed to capture Stepan Bandera who was the mastermind of the assassination. He was put on trial and sentenced to death. The Polish government proved to be lenient, though, and so that penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.

How did the Ukrainian problem emerge in the first place? why did the Poles and Ukrainians clash?

Medieval Rus’ was one political entity (though, as it was customary in the Middle Ages across Europe, ruled by a number of princes simultaneously, contesting for ultimate power). Consequently, Rus’ would have emerged in modern times as an enormous state – like France – but for the 13th century Mongol invasion. The invasion broke the backbone of a medieval Rus’. Some of the territory was occupied by the Mongols while the western parts were taken over by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and – later – by the Polish Kingdom. This was how some of present-day Ukraine found itself within Polish territory and remained under Polish rule for a few centuries. Under these circumstances the westernmost part of Rus’ (today’s westernmost part of Ukraine) developed a little bit different language and a little bit different political awareness. Some of its inhabitants of the orthodox Christians persuasion were at a time made to join the catholic church, though preserving its separate religious custom. Then in the 18th century came the time of the partitions of Poland; the terrain of present-day western Ukraine was divided between Austria (west) and Russia (east).

The territory captured by Austria was again separated from Russia proper. For another century it continued to develop a slightly different language and a different political awareness. At the end of the First World War those Russians who lived in the part of Ukraine that had been occupied by Austria wanted nothing to do with Moscow and they wanted to create their own state. At the same time the reborn Polish state did not want to hear of an independent Ukrainian state occupying the territories that once had belonged to the Polish Kingdom. There erupted a war as a result of which Warsaw managed to incorporate what is now Western Ukraine into the Polish state. Yet, Ukrainians sustained the resistance to the Polish authorities – hence the emergence of the aforementioned Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and hence the resultant Ukrainian terrorism performed within Polish territory.

Christian Orthodox Ukrainians were a large ethnic minority within Catholic Poland. One might be tempted to say that Poland and (Western)Ukraine were united in one state – the Polish state. It was something similar to Yugoslavia, a country that also emerged at the end of the First World War, a country that united Christian Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. In Yugoslavia Serbs were the dominant nation whereas Croats wanted to separate from Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia as much as Ukrainians wanted to separated from Poland. Croatian Stepan Bandera was known as Ante Pavelic. Croatians, too, had their terrorist organizations, and they too, carried out terrorist attacks. And the same year (1934) as the Polish minister of the interior was assassinated, Croatian terrorists killed the Yugoslavian King Alexander III in Marseilles as he was paying a state visit to France.

Then came the Second World War during the initial years which Germany conquered both Poland and Yugoslavia. Whereas Berlin allowed the Croats (Ante Pavelic) to create their own state, it did not allow Ukrainians to create theirs. Whereas Ante Pavelic enjoyed the recognition of his authority by Berlin and ruled his nation almost independently, Stepan Bandera’s attempts to declare an independent Ukraine just after Germany invaded the Soviet Union met with Berlin’s touch resistance and decisive countermeasures. Stepan Bandera was imprisoned and put in the Sachsen-Hausen concentration camp where he was an inmate for two long years.

It did not stop other Ukrainian political activists from both serving Germany and carrying out ethnic cleansing. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists had its military arm which was known as Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). It was headed by Roman Shukhevych. It was this Ukrainian Insurgent Army that massacred the Polish villages in Volhynia. Now both Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych are regarded by today’s Ukrainians as national heroes. Though we do not know yet which of the many Ukrainian historical figures will find their way into the National Pantheon the likelihood that it’s going to be both Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych is very high.

The reaction of the Polish government of the Polish nation is understandable. What is difficult to comprehend is the reaction or rather lack thereof on the path of the Poland’s Western allies. Ukrainian Second World War national heroes did not only exterminate the Polish and Russian minorities, but they also exterminated – an very assiduously at that – the Jewish minority. As you know, the Western elites are very sensitive when it comes to the extermination of the Jewish people. Why then are they not objecting to the idea of turning the likes of Bandera and Shukhevych to National Heroes of Ukraine?

The answer seems to be very simple. Poland’s Western allies only need Ukraine as a tool in their war against Russia. In order to prolong this war, they need to have Ukrainian soldiers who are ready to die and suffer. A soldier who is ready to die is an individual who – apart from being very well equipped – is also psychologically primed to actually do the killing. Now soldiers whose minds have been infused with the ideas of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych are ideal warriors. Make no bones about it, during World War Two Bandera and Shukhevych openly supported Adolf Hitler and enthusiastically took part and the extermination of the Jewish people. Any veneration of such people in any of the western nations would be crushed by the police, by the authorities and by the legal system without no hesitation. Now somehow the Western leaders and the Western elites appear to be insensitive to such an anti-Jewish phenomenon in Ukraine. Are they applying double standards?

That tragic part of all this is that Poland will continue to support Kiev. For one thing, Poland is a firmly anchors in the western system and cannot act on its own; for the other, Warsaw is strongly antagonistic against Russia and will readily swallow any insult offered by Ukraine. Strange how things that turn out to be…

Joseph de Maistre envisaged the fall of the EU long before its inception

Last time we analysed why the European Union must collapse. We arrived at the conclusion that the European Union must collapse because it was born in the sick head of Henri de Saint-Simon. You will have remembered that the same person came with the idea of socialism and you will have remembered that we pointed to the fact that socialism has collapsed across the globe. Then you will have remembered that the same person – Henri de Saint-Simone – was also the author of the idea of uniting the European countries into one body politic. Now, if you have invented something that has not worked, that has spectacularly failed, then why should the other thing invented by the same author work? That was the basic question that we put at that time in that text. We should at least be on our guard.

This text will point to yet another reason why the European Union must necessarily collapse. In this text, too, what we are going to discuss is not something new by any means, but something that was said more than 200 years ago by yet another political thinker. His name was Joseph de Maistre. Who was Joseph de Maistre?

Well, Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) was a diplomat who served in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. Though he was born on the Island of Sardinia, he had mixed – French and Italian – origin. His native tongue was French, not Italian. He was well educated, well read, and he mingled in the circles of the educated people, the upper classes, the aristocracy. At first, he supported the French Revolution, but it was for a very short time. The moment he saw what the revolutionists did, as soon as he learned about all the cruelty, about all the destruction, about all the havoc that the revolution played with France, he changed course. He began to fervently defend conservative ideas. In this respect he wrote in the philosophical spirit of the Irish-English political thinker Edmund Burke.

Joseph de Maistre wrote extensively and drew not only on books, but also on experience. He also acted as a senator in the Kingdom of the Piedmont-Sardinia and for many years (1803-1817) he was Ambassador to St Petersburg, to Tsar Alexander I. It was there, in the northern Russian capital, that he wrote a famous treatise in the form of a dialogue in which he discussed important societal, religious, philosophical, and political themes. One of the things that was most striking about this text was Joseph de Maistre’s defence of the death penalty. Joseph de Maistre defended the capital punishment and argued that without the capital punishment society was doomed. What he wrote, of course, stands to reason. You cannot abolish the capital punishment completely in the sense that you cannot prevent one human being from killing another human being. Once we admit this simple fact of life, then the following picture presents itself before our eyes: if the government, the state, the sovereign – whoever holds the reins of power – renounces the death penalty, and if the death penalty cannot be eliminated because – as we said above – one human being can always kill another human being, then the highest authority belongs to that person or that group or that organization that can administer and will administer the death penalty. If it is not the government, then – by necessity – it will be gangs, the mafia, common criminals, and so on, and so forth.

Now, it is not true as contemporary intellectuals maintain that people do not fear the death penalty. Rather, the truth is that the death penalty is the penalty that is most feared by everyone and anyone everywhere and at any time in history. Thus, if people fear the death penalty automatically they fear those who administer this penalty. If it is not the government who administers the death penalty but gangs, the mafia, organized crime or just anybody, then the common citizen will be obedient to the said gangs or the mafia or just anybody who will not refrain from killing him. The common citizen will not fear the impotent government or the courts or the police.

That is why Joseph de Maistre in his famous book entitled The Saint Petersburg Dialogues, (1821), praised very much the executioner. According to Joseph de Maistre the executioner had a very important, an almost religious function to perform. The executioner may not be liked by the people, and yet he is a necessary constituent of any healthy society. Because people are not rational, nor are they good of nature, as the French Enlightenment philosophers tended to think; rather, people need to be controlled by fear of being punished, and – as we said above – what people fear most is the capital punishment. Without this punishment, Joseph de Maistre wrote, society will be thrown into chaos, while all the societal bonds will be severed.

Consider what is happening in the western world represented by the European Union, where the capital punishment has been abolished long ago. Individuals who engage in criminal activities and are caught by the police are put on trial and sent to prison. What expects them in prison? A severe punishment? Torture? Boring life? Lack of medical care? None of the above. We all have heard or read about hundreds of cases of murderers or serial killers who have been sent to prison where they are taken good care of, where they can lead a good life, playing computer games, watching television, hitting the gym and enjoying all the other human rights. How unjust that is, just think of it! A law abiding has been killed, maimed (had his face permanently distorted by acid!), and the perpetrator is put into something that is legally known as a prison, but resembles a four or five-star hotel! Feel the emotions of the victim of the crime and those of the perpetrator!

Common European citizens are aware of all this. Common citizens fear the gangs and the criminals and do not fear the law enforcing officers. Faced with a dilemma to cooperate with the police or to be obedient to the gangs, they really have no choice. What is even worse, common law-abiding citizens know that the criminals do not fear the police. Worse! Common European citizens are aware that it is the police officers who fear the criminals, the gangs, and the mafia. And why do the police officers fear the criminals? First, because the criminals can kill the police officers without facing the death penalty. Second, because if a policeman shoots a criminal dead, it is the policeman who is put on trial and very often sent to prison while the criminal’s family is awarded lavish compensation.

As you can see, in today’s Western world represented by the European Union everything has been put upside down and turned inside out. The perpetrators are awarded with hotels, while the victims are killed through the application of the capital punishment administered by… the perpetrators. It really is ridiculous: the European countries claim that they have abolished the death penalty, and yet the capital punishment is administered again and again, here and there… To be accurate, we are facing a ban on the death penalty carried out by the legal powers, but there is – because there cannot be – a total abolition of this punishment. If it is not the legal state authority that administers the capital punishment, then it is the criminal underworld. If, consequently, the reins of power are held by the criminal underworld, then society is torn between gangs and the legal powers, while governments only make believe that they rule.

Of course the collapse of European society, its descent into chaos, as Joseph de Maistre envisaged it, will have a temporary character. Governments will become weaker and weaker, while gangs will become stronger and stronger, and eventually gangs will create new societal structures and replace legal governments. Once they take over power they will surely administer the capital punishment.

And you know what? Generations will pass and again the cycle will repeat itself. More and more intellectuals, the do-gooders and other Samaritans will again dig up the idea of abolishing the capital punishment, arguing that it is inhumane, arguing that it is barbaric. When such people come to power, they will again abolish the capital punishment and the story will repeat itself.

Because you must know that the European Union is not the first political entity that has abolished the capital punishment. The death penalty has been abolished now and again in different corners of the world, and even – hard to believe! – even by the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia. Yes, there was such – even if short-long lived – period in the history of the Soviet Union. Somehow they soon saw that without the capital punishment society tended to be unruly. All forms of government learn it, sooner or later, or… are replaced by those who understand what Joseph de Maistre wrote about.

Socialism and the European Union were invented by the same man – do you know?

How do we know that the European Union must collapse? Very simply. If we only know who the founder, the theorist of the idea of the European Union was and if we take a closer look at the other projects that the same person made up in his mind.

The European Union – the idea of uniting the nations of Europe in order to suppress future wars and in order to make them grow and prosper in fraternity – this idea was made up by one Henri de Saint-Simone (1760-1825). He was a French aristocrat born into a wealthy family. Naturally, he enjoyed the privileges of his class, but he grew to become rather left-minded. During the French Revolution he renounced all his privileges and wanted to become a simple citizen (or maybe not that simple). He was against the aristocracy (his social class) and the gentry, and he supported the revolution wholeheartedly. Like all revolutionists, he wanted to improve the life of the common people, or at least that’s what he said he wished for.

Somehow during the revolution he amassed a lot of money because he speculated in real estate. Sadly, later on his speculations proved to be a big failure and so he landed up in prison. After he had been released, he had no money and relied on the support of his… former servants. Never mind that, he still wrote extensively. He wrote about how to improve society in general, and how to improve international relations.

One of his ideas was that there should be a United Europe. What made him think that a United Europe would be a good idea? Simply because after the Napoleonic Wars, when Europe was in shambles and ruin, people looked around for a solution to the problem of constant wars. One of those simplest ideas was to create one state – supreme transnational state – a European state. Henri de Saint-Simone wrote about how this supranational European state should be organized. It was in 1814, during the Vienna Congress, when the powers that had defeated Napoleon gathered in order to create peace in Europe and to draw new borders, it was during that time that Henri de Saint-Simone published his little book that was entitled The Reorganization of European Society. It was a perfect blueprint for the future European Union, the European Union as we know it today.

Why was it a perfect blueprint? Simply because he envisioned the things that you can see now: first, the supranational European parliament that we have today; second, the rights of the European supranational government and parliament that would be tasked with coordinating transnational economic undertakings; third, the right of this European parliament or European government to settle disputes between nations in order to prevent war; fourth, the idea that the European supranational government or parliament would be endowed with the right to levy its own taxes; fifth, that the supranational administrative structures would be tasked with overseeing education across Europe and fostering a shared European public morality. How about that? Aren’t we witnessing something like that nowadays?

What is the most striking is that he also envisaged the state that would initiate the creation of this European Union. True, Henri de Saint-Simone did not think it would be France and Germany but rather France and Great Britain, but that’s a detail. This franco-English core would later be joined by Germany and Italy, and then the rest of the European continent.

As you can see nowadays, all those ideas have come true. We have a European Union, we have a European parliament, and we have a European government that can decide about the fate of the nations that are the member states of the European Union. It really is so that this European supranational government and the European supranational parliament settle disputes between member-states and allocate money and they levy taxes (contributions from the member-states to the European budget). The commissioners, as we know, also try to impose a new kind of morality across Europe, a morality of libertarianism, a morality which suppresses national (patriotic) sentiments and foments rainbow sexuality.

Why did we claim at the beginning of this article that the European Union is doomed to fail, that the collapse of the European Union is inevitable? Well, simply because we know the author of this project and simply because we also know that apart from the idea of uniting the European nations the same Henri de Saint-Simone also theorised about socialism. Yes, you heard it right. Henri de Saint-Simone was one among the first one created theories about socialism – utopian socialism as it was later called by the likes of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. But they heavily quoted Henri de Saint-Simone and recognized him as a precursor of the idea of a socialist society. Henri de Saint-Simone’s ideas were taken over and developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and then by the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia.

Henri de Saint-Simone’s ideas were as follows. He viewed society as an amalgam of two classes: the industrialists (engineers, managers, craftsmen, and also… artists) and the idlers (the latter included, of course, the aristocracy, the noblemen and the clergy). Henri de Saint-Simone postulated that society should be governed by the industrialists, by people who work, people who have ideas, people who manage labour. Such society would be governed by a government experts. That future society’s motto would be From each according to his ability, to each according to his work. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

This Saint-Simonian socialism, processed by Karl Marx and developed by the likes of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, this socialism eventually came into being. It was born in Russia in 1917, and then it was exported to Eastern Europe and to some other countries in Africa, Asia (like China like North Korea) and also to the American continent (Cuba). This real socialism existed for a couple of decades to eventually collapse across the whole globe, and to collapse spectacularly with nobody shedding a tear after it. it collapsed because Henri de Saint-Simone’s project was false at its core. It failed because it tried to impose a fantasy upon reality, a fantasy of demanding from each according to his ability and granting to each according to his work.

If Henri de Saint-Simone failed in envisaging socialist society, it stands to reason that also his ideas about a United Europe were false at the core and as such are doomed. There is no doubt about that. The European Union is coming apart at the seams because the European parliament and the European government are acting against European interests: they want to wage wars they, import people from other continents, they suppress national feelings, and they try to create new morality. All of these things will contribute to a big failure of this project. Just as socialism collapsed across continents, so will the European Union because both socialism and the European Union were birthed in the sick mind of the same Henri de Saint-Simone, a real-estate fraudster who ended up in poverty.

So tactless! So thoughtless! So impolitic!

It has happened again: on Monday, June 8, 2026, at approximately 10:30 p.m, an immigrant from Africa (the authorities do not even know whether he is Sudanese or Somali) attacked a white man in broad daylight and attempted to gouge out the white man’s eyes and chop off his head with a machete. That understandably sparked violence across Belfast, with cars being set ablaze, shop windows smashed and the usual stuff. Now the BBC was – as usual – quick to present its understanding of what had happened.

Well, the BBC admits in a sentence or two – often quoting the local or national authorities or the emergency services representatives – that the crime was heinous and horrific, but the most part of a lengthy text targets the (white) protestors and how heinous and horrific their reaction to the attempted murder was. That’s also the usual response on the part of the mainstream mass media. The BBC is not concerned so much about the repetitiveness of the event (immigrants have been known for such acts of violence for decades now, not merely in the United Kingdom but across the West, where they have been invited, taken care of and granted asylum) or about the frustration, anger, and fear of the indigenous population. No, the BBC is concerned about – yes! yes! – racism. What stands out in the text is that protests that broke out in Belfast were racially-motivated. We can read the usual yada yada yada about unwarranted pogroms carried out by masked thugs, which is not tolerable and so on, and so forth.

Right at the beginning of the quoted article it is the family of the victim (the man who lost one eye, and has multiple injuries, and whose condition is serious) that is quoted to have said that they do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility. Have the family of the victim been coerced to say such words right after the attempted murder? One just cannot believe a member of the victim’s family to be quick to say something like – and we quote after the BBC – We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector and we depend on them to make our country work. That’s the hackneyed statement the likes of which we’ve heard hundreds of times, always after incidents like this one. How is it possible for a member of the victim’s family to say such a mantra immediately after experiencing such a heinous crime? Unbelievable.

The lengthy text (with very little valuable content) goes on to say that the police and the authorities have called on the people not to share video footage of the event because that will cause further trauma to the injured man’s loved ones. Are they, the injured man’s loved one, watching it? Judging by the quote mentioned above, they are above such things, they are only thinking about how to immediately remind their compatriots of the valuable contribution of the immigrants which makes their country work! How could such paragons of virtue be traumatized? One can be almost certain the victim’s family (again: coerced? intimidated? bribed?) will issue another statement forgiving the perpetrator his act, calling for leniency of the court verdict, and even justifying it, putting all the blame on present and past racism! They are also likely to protest deportation if such were to be decided by the court!

Then much is said in the adduced text about unsubstantiated pogroms of black people in Belfast, who are of course innocent and have absolutely nothing to do with the feeling of insecurity on the part of the white Irish. Even words of a local pastor defending the local blacks are quoted: They’re good Christian people and they’re getting put out [of their homes by masked protestors] just because they’re black.

Well, the authorities – the ruling class – men and women who have graduated from high-standard schools and universities should know better. History shows again and again that a bad act done by a few members of a community will inevitably be chalked up to the whole community. That’s how human psyche works, that’s the human defensive mechanism. You may be bitten by one dog only, and that makes you be wary of all dogs; you may be scratched by one cat only, and that makes you be wary of all cats. When America was under the so-called terrorist attack in 2001, with the World Trade Center, the Pentagon being hit while the White House narrowly escaped that fate, when there was no knowing what else might be attacked, the national flight controller ordered all planes to land at the nearest airport. That’s precisely how we act feeling threatened: we do not analyse individually who is guilty; rather, we view the whole group or class or cohort that is somehow associated with the perpetrator as if the group, the class, the cohort, were made up of such perpetrators. The survival imperative does not allow for thoughtful analysis; the survival imperative impels us to act quickly and, in a sense, blindly. You cannot fight this survival imperative because it is hard wired biologically.

That’s also why soldiers of whatever army shoot indiscriminately at civilians the moment one civilian opens fire at them: the soldiers are fighting for mere survival. There is no time to discriminate among the civilians who carry arms and who do not; there is no time to assess the situation. When a fraction of a second decides whether you will stay alive or die, instinct kicks in. That’s all there is to it.

The BBC article says that the crowds should not take their frustration at the murder out on innocent people. But the BBC does not ask the question why the crowds take their frustration out on the innocent people. Why, the answer is plain: such heinous crimes have been repeated across the Western world and always committed by Third World immigrants. More to it, on each and every occasion the authorities have been ineffective, indolent, powerless, helpless – you name it. They only keep talking about peace and tolerance, about understanding and values, while the crimes have continued to multiply and the perpetrators have been treated mildly. The common people have witnessed it time and time again, and so the common people have decided to act on their own. Is this so hard to understand? If the authorities – the police, the courts of law – are inefficient, then an alternative “authorities, police and courts” will emerge as sure as death and taxes. Let us reiterate it: weak, ineffective authorities set the stage for the emergence of alternative authorities. To use again a military comparison: a sergeant will command a unit for all practical purposes if a lieutenant, a nominal commander, turns out to be incompetent. That’s the way things are, have always been, will always be. How is it possible that those who wield the reins of power do not understand it?

How is it possible that they do not understand that making the victim’s family say, just in the aftermath of the attempted murder, that, We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector and we depend on them to make our country work is equivalent to rubbing salt in the wound? People see – either as eyewitnesses or watching the video footage – a black immigrant dissecting their compatriot in the street in broad daylight (and this is by far not the only act of public decapitation in the last decades!), and almost simultaneously they are told that the immigrants – the likes of the perpetrator – deeply contribute to the British healthcare system! How can one be so tactless? so thoughtless? so impolitic?