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?

Spiritual fornication

Jesus Christ was officially enthroned in Rome at the time when the Empire was on its slippery road to disintegration. The United States of America, today’s Rome, braces itself for the enthronement of Waheguru, a Sikh God. Sapienti sat.

This is not a one-time event in the Western world. What we are witnessing is a psychological change of epic dimensions. Ancient Rome was the superpower of the then world, at least the world around the Mediterranean, the world encompassing most of Europe, northern Africa and the Middle East. The area controlled by Rome covered in today’s political and administrative terms: (in Europe) England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, all former Yugoslav republics, Romania, Greece, (in Northern Africa) Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, (in Asia) Israel, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, the Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. A formidable empire.

It was an empire because it was aggressive. It was an empire because it was technologically and economically advanced. It was an empire because it believed in its mission and its exceptionalism – because it believed Romans were the chosen people – and last but not least because Romans believed in their history, in their heroes and in their gods. There were no real rivals to Rome’s power. Germanic or Slavic tribes? Iranian or Persian monarchs? Greek philosophers? Phoenician or Carthaginian merchants? They were all subjugated, vanquished or turned into servile clients of the Roman state, whether Rome was a republic or an empire.

We all know that this Rome, this empire, this superpower, this magnificent culture, efficient military machine, productive economy, functional administration, advanced technology, awe-inspiring arts and literature, all of this slowly but surely went under. Why? Rome was subverted from the inside: Rome’s power was successfully challenged by a small and alien religious sect that refused to bow to Rome’s gods and patiently and stubbornly imposed on Rome its own faith. These were – yes, you are right – Christians. The mechanism of change was simple: on the one hand Romans were losing their faith, their faith in their gods and their faith in their exceptional mission, while on the other Christians – very few at inception – clung to their faith firmly, ready to pay with their own life for it, and eager to proclaiming it whenever and wherever they could. It was a gradual religious – ideological – spiritual (take your pick) – psychological takeover. Rome collapsed because Romans stopped being Romans. Yes, there are a number of explanations why Rome fell, with economic factors usually coming to the fore, but economy is really second to the collective psyche: economy collapses when there is no spirit of entrepreneurship, when there is no work ethic, when pleasure seeking supplants the call of duty, where hedonism destroys the family. As a result, oikophobia, a psychological reversal of xenophobia, kicks in. Oikophobia means self-loathing. As such, oikophobia entails the denunciation of age-old values and an embrace of foreign cultures, with the most alien being regarded as the most attractive, as the most desirable.

The same is happening to today’s Rome, to the United States of America. The country was founded by white Christians and it continued as such for roughly two centuries. The whites were for the large part of Germanic origin (the English and Germans) while the Christians were of Protestant persuasion. It was a country of proud WASPs – White Anglo-Saxon Protestants – who excluded from among themselves Catholics (even though they were white) not to mention Blacks or Indians, Chinese or Jews, whose tiny communities made their way into the United States. The famous Ku Klux Klan was all about preserving the WASP culture, the WASP identity, the WASP exceptionalism and mission. The Irish, the Italians, the Poles as papists were looked down on although they were naturalized; Indians did not have American citizenship till 1924, while Blacks did not enjoy equal rights well into the 1960s. All this was about to change, just like in ancient Rome. There appeared factors, there emerged forces that gnawed at the the roots of American WASP identity. They gnawed at the roots and proved to be eventually successful. Americans began to lose their faith in their exceptionalism, in their mission, in their superiority, eventually and above all – in their God, in their Christian God. Other faiths have wormed their way onto American soil and have become to make inroads into American culture, subverting the dominant role of Christianity. Along the lines of the Overton window, Christian values were gradually eroded, ridiculed, relativized to eventually become void of their meaning. The change has swept across the board and engulfed even the Republican Party, which is viewed as right-wing, as the one that upholds traditional values. This party is a good example of the profound psychological change that is taking place inside the American nation.

Donald Trump claims to be a Christian, a protestant Christian. His third (and current wife) Melania (of Slovenian descent) was baptized a Catholic. So far so good. Yet, Donald Trump’s daughter married a Jew and converted to Judaism with the full approval of her father. She describes the conversion as the most exciting and beautiful adventure of her life. That’s how much Donald Trump and his family care about their Christian faith.

Donald Trump has selected his future vice president – J D Vance. What do we know about him in terms of his beliefs? We know that a few years earlier J D Vance converted to Catholicism, the faith old-time WASPs would have frowned upon to say the least. Still, it is a faith of the white man, still it is Christian, still it is a specifically European creed. So much, so good. J D Vance, however, has a Hindu wife, Usha Chilukuri. Their wedding ceremony included Christian and Hindu rites.

The encroachment of Hinduism on American culture does not stop here. Former (and maybe future) President Donald Trump and J D Vance have been attending political rallies in the run-up to the November 5, 2024 presidential election, and these rallies are enriched with… a Sikh blessing delivered by a republican politician, Harmeet Dhillon, who using such opportunities invokes Waheguru – Wonderful God (in Sikhism) – with all the (at least nominally Christian) WASPs obediently listening and letting the alien enchantments sink in. Such a ceremony wouldn’t have taken place in a genuinely Christian Europe a few centuries back when people were burnt at the stake for much less. Today…

Harmet Dhillon (above) invokes a foreign god while Americans (below)

fornicate with him the way ancient Israelites sometimes did

Today a Muslim is mayor of London and of many other cities in the Western world (are there Christian mayors in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or, or, or?) while for a couple of years we’ve had a Hindu Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. You need only to answer the question if such things were thinkable even fifty years back.

Today the Catholic Pope willingly embraces foreign gods, be it at a ceremony in Canada, where underwent a religious rite conducted by an Indian shaman, or straight in the Vatican Gardens or in Saint Peter’s Basilica, where the Pope worshipped an Amazon goddess. A shocking sight to all preceding Christians, with barely anybody from among though faithful raising their eyebrows nowadays. Yet, Jorge Bergoglio only walks in the footsteps of the lay and mostly atheist Europeans who – like it happened in Davos – willingly embraced foreign spirits enthused into them by an Indian female shaman.

Psychology decides everything. Religion is a manifestation of collective psychology. Ideology is a manifestation of collective psychology. The Soviet Union fell not because it was conquered nor even because its economy was – as it is said – ineffective. Cuban or North Korean economies are said to be even worse and the two small countries are still alive and kicking. The Soviet Union – an atomic superpower and the state that was a successful rival of America in outer space – fell because its communist elites stopped believing in communism. So long as they believed in it – rightly or wrongly, it does not matter – that long they were self-assured and bellicose. They did not tolerate any other ideology on their turf – be it capitalism or Christianity. Why? Because they believed in the righteousness of communism and the backwardness and harmfulness of any other ideology. Christians did the same when they were (dominant) Christians: they did not tolerate any other religion on their turf. Tolerance was not practised. When did tolerance begin to be practised? Ah, yes, at the moment when Christians began doubting the righteousnesses and the exclusiveness and the exceptionalism of their faith. Once they let themselves be told that all faiths are more or less equally valid, they began a slippery slope of towards the end of their existence. It did not happen overnight, of course. Just as Rome was not built in a day, so Rome was not annihilated in a day. Christianity, communism – take whatever collective psyche you please – takes time to rot. But once the process sets in, it is unstoppable and leads straight to a total collapse.

Consider the parallels: ancient Roman temples were turned into churches, today’s Christian churches across Europe are being turned into mosques; erstwhile communists turned to capitalists. Five hundred years ago Columbus went on a journey to explore the unknown world on a ship that was named Santa Maria; when nominally Christian America was sending man to the moon, the spacecraft bore the name of the pagan god Apollo. Icons of the change in the collective psyche.

Think back to history and remember the role of women in the change of the collective psyche. Not the feminists of all shades. These are making coffins for their own civilization. Think about all those Hindu and Jewish and Muslim wives of white, nominally Christian men. It is through women, through wives and mothers – not husband-less and mostly childless feminists – that civilizations change, that the collective psyche undergoes a change, that children and grandchildren are raised in a different cultural code. Who was it in the Roman Empire that brought about the change? Empress Helen, Saint Helen, mother to Emperor Constantine. She first became Christian, her son followed suit. Remember Princess Olga, Saint Olga of ancient Rus’? She first let herself be baptized; though her son remained pagan, her grandson – Vladimir – accepted Christianity and along with him the whole of Rus’. It was because of that that he went down in history as Vladimir the Great. The same story repeated itself across many European nations. Wives, mothers, grandmothers induced the collective psychological change of epic dimensions.

Watch the video coverage showing the rallies during the time when the participants receive the “blessing” from Waheguru. Let us reiterate it: for the most part the participants are Christians, yet they accept another god’s blessing, they – as the Bible puts it in the strongest of terms – fornicate with another god, they transgress the very first commandment: Thou shalt not have other gods before me. You may be an atheist or religiously indifferent and yet what is stated above is not a religious statement. It is a statement of life. You either stick to a creed – conviction – identity – or else you drift freely to be tossed about by troubled waters or be suppressed by those who firmly stick to their creed – conviction – or identity. Donald Trump, J D Vance, Jorge Bergoglio, the participants of the World Economic Forum and all their followers have surrendered their identity, their uniqueness to foreign gods, hence they are all as good as conquered, subjugated, obliterated.

London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, is an observant Muslim, Great Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer is neither an observant Christian, nor a Christian in any sense of the word. His wife, however, and mother of his children (remember the role of wives and mothers) is religiously Jewish. The crosses of St George (England), St Andrew (Scotland), and St Patrick (Ireland) that make up the Union Jack, the national flag of the United Kingdom, are becoming or have already become empty symbols of the once Christian realm. The same can be said about the whole of the West. The West is undergoing a profound psychological change: its indigenous populations have lost the faith of their ancestors, its imported populations stick to the faith of their forefathers. Biological reality coupled with or compounded by the huge collective psychological change will inevitably entail the final and irreversible collapse of the civilization of the white man. White feminists are hellbent on hammering the final nail in the coffin of their own world. Their very few daughters (few, because feminists refuse to multiply) will be forced to fornicate with dominant males of different faiths and different biology. The feminists numerous granddaughters (numerous, because dominant non-white males are going to have a lot of offspring) will barely resemble their feminist grandmothers. That’s what fornication with foreign gods translates into in practical terms. Let us say it again: it is not a religious statement when you warn a nation not to have other gods before the one that is theirs.

The Chosen People had their God and that God dictated to them as the first commandment: do not fornicate with other gods. Every time they fornicated with other gods, they were severely punished. Scripture says that God punished the Chosen People. You do not need to be a believer: they were punished by themselves once they cut themselves off from their roots. That’s a provable psychological and historical phenomenon. It applies to all nations. You either drive on the left or the right side of the road. No diversity of rules is admissible because it is not feasible without causing a tremendous catastrophe. Allowing for having two gods is but a transition period before the old God is removed altogether and the new one is enthroned. It has never been otherwise, it will never be otherwise. Is America going to be Made Great Again with the help of Waheguru? Please…

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.

Farmers against the European Union

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

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

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

The interview of the year

On February 6, 2024, Tucker Carlson, a popular television star, conducted a two-hour interview with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Here are the main take-aways:

[1] The Russian president firmly believes that Russians and Ukrainians are one and the same nation divided by history. He proved this point by giving Tucker Carlson a brief overlook of the past, commencing with medieval Rus’ and ending at the present day. Russia’s president was well conversant with the history not only of his own country, but also with the history of this region in Europe. This lengthy narration was to set the basis for the explanation of anything that followed during the interview.

In this historical narrative President Putin appears to have tried to drive a wedge between several European countries in that he kept saying that before the Second World War Poland collaborated with Hitler (which is why it took part in dismembering Czechoslovakia), and after World War Two was given formerly German territories as compensation for the territories that it lost to the USSR in the east. It could be read by Germans as an invitation to lay a claim to Polish Western territories (formerly German eastern territories). Four times Germany (Prussia) and Russia (USSR) divided between themselves the territory of the Polish state, annihilating it from political maps. Putin’s verbal assault on Poland will most probably have been triggered by the bellicose attitude of Warsaw against Russia and the fact that – as he said – Poles make up the largest contingent of mercenaries in Ukraine, followed by Americans and Georgians.

Similar gestures were made towards Hungary and Romania: these countries, too, lost small chunks of their territories to the then USSR, to be precise to the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, and as a result they are still held by Kiev.

[2] Then the Russian president retold the events running up to the current hostilities. These included:

[a] the five waves of NATO expansion;

[b] the support given by the United States to separatist forces in Russia;

[c] the deployment of missiles in eastern Europe allegedly to defend it against Iranian missiles;

[d] the invitation of Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO (Bucharest NATO conference);

[e] the support of the Nazi elements in Ukraine by the Western powers; and

[f] the coup d’état carried out in Kiev in 2014 against President Yanukovych.

[3] Being asked by Carlson whether the conflict could be resolved by way of negotiations, President Putin said that:

[a] Russia has been ready to negotiate since day one; as proof he mentioned the Istanbul talks of March 2022, which were prevented from finalization by Boris Johnson;

[b] President Zelensky issued a ban on negotiations;

[c] it was now the West’s turn to come to resume talks as it was the West thwarted the negotiations.

[4] To the question whether Russia was not about to attack Lithuania or especially Poland, the president answered that such an attack was only possible if Poland launched an attack against Russia.

[5] Being asked whether Russia did not fear China more than the United States, Vladimir Putin said that China and Russia had always known how to cooperate and that China had always been presented by the West as a boogeyman, which, however, did not correspond to reality.

Generally, Russia’s president believes that the West overplayed its hand out of conceit and at present does not really know how to solve the problem. The many sanctions did not have the expected effect: worse, Russia is developing while the dollar’s role as a means of international business is diminishing because of the same sanctions. Vladimir Putin quoted from memory that if a few years earlier 50% of Russia’s transactions were conducted in dollars, it is down to 13% nowadays.

The whole talk ended on a somewhat optimistic note: Russia is ready to talk over Ukraine, but the initiative rests with the West. The West has committed the mistake of drawing Ukraine into the war, the West ought to rectify it. There should be found ways, said the Russian president, how to do it with dignity, meaning: how to save the West’s face.

Re-institute the military draft to fight for Lebensraum!

The piece of news is doing the rounds in the media that the United Kingdom and the United States are considering re-instituting conscription. Why? You guessed it right: because of the threat from Russia (and maybe China) and because the armed forces are short of manpower. There has been no draft in the United States and the United Kingdom for years: both countries have based their military forces on voluntary conscription. Then, year by year, the supply of volunteers has been dropping, which was of ever more concern of the respective governments. Why did voluntary conscription drop, in the first place?

There are a number of important causes that the authorities will by no means address. Where do you recruit soldiers? Well, you recruit them among young, able-bodied men, who – if they are not mercenaries – are of the patriotic cast of mind or who – at worst – want to make a living by serving in the armed forces. You need to recruit men who are tough physically and mentally, who eagerly engage in rivalry and love risk-taking. You need to select from the many candidates because not every man is suitable for any type of military service and some may not be fit to do the military service at all, given their health and mental capabilities, much though they wanted to be soldiers.

Now, all the factors having to do with the recruitment of appropriate human supply have been played havoc with for decades and the outcome is that there are fewer and fewer volunteers. What has been destroyed and continues to be destroyed?

[1] The family and its fertility. In the West, there are fewer and fewer typical families made up of a man and a woman with a bunch of kids – among them boys that can be recruited – with a male father figure that is capable of developing manly features in his sons. All this is gone. Single-mothers are raising at best only sons and they care more about passing onto their offspring the ideas of climate change or equity rather than anything having to do with warfare. Manly features of character such a daring, courage, self-sacrifice, rivalry, dominance have all been suppressed. Boys with feminine casts of mind are not going to serve in the army and if some of them are, they are not going to be anywhere close to becoming warriors in the full sense of the word. Low fertility does not make up for the shortage of soldiers on the ranks. Hence ideas of drafting foreigners, aliens, individuals without citizenship of the country they are supposed to fight for; hence the idea of recruiting foreigners in exchange for… citizenship. Does it not remind us of the late phase of the Roman Empire?

[2] Demise of faith, patriotism and generally higher values. Unless you are a mercenary – i.e. a paid murderer – who fights for wages, you need to believe in the grandeur of your country, your nation and generally in afterlife. On the contrary, if your mind is preoccupied with material things and pleasurable experiences – having sex, travel, having fun, being on the dope – you are incapable of sacrificing not only your life but even a small fraction of it. If all that matters is pleasure and if there is no afterlife, why die for such an abstraction as your nation or country? Haven’t you heard for decades that patriotism is a dirty word? Haven’t you heard for decades that anybody can be a British or American (or French, or German) citizen once he sets his foot on British, American (French, German) soil? Haven’t you heard for decades how terrible, awful, repellent, reprehensible your nation has been for centuries because of its imperialism, racism, because it practised slavery and so on, and so forth? Haven’t you heard for decades that your nation needs to genuflect to the rest of the world for the sins committed by your ancestors, that your nation needs to keep apologizing on and on and dismantling all traces of its past glory? Why should you now want to fight for such a monster? Add to this the culture of shaming and blaming, the resultant emergence of the snowflake generation and your picture is complete. A young man has been showered with entitlements and flooded with the victimhood narrative. If you belong to one of the national-ethnic-sexual minorities that – as you have learned again and again – have been oppressed by your country, why should you fight for this country?

[3] How about ethnic diversity? Diversity was supposed to make the Western nations strong. Why then can’t the Western nations recruit wonderful warriors from all those Pakistanis, Afghanis, Somalis, Kenyans, Mexicans, Colombians and, and, and who have flocked to and keep flocking to the West? They all should be grateful for the opportunity of having a wonderful life in one of the western democracies, they all should readily and willingly join the armed forces. They somehow don’t. Why? The answer is bafflingly obvious. First, you do not relocate to another country, thousands of miles away from your home country, avoiding (as is often claimed) war in your own country, only to take part in another war! Second, it is not people with a patriotic cast of mind who abandon their nationality and adopt a new one. They all do it for economic purposes! If they were not loyal to their own countries or nations why in heaven’s name should they be loyal to the adopyted country or nation? Why should a Muslim Afghan or a Jamaican professing voodoo fight for a (post-)Christian Britain? Why would anyone expect anything like that from them? They did not want to suffer the hardships of life in their country of birth, why should they want to suffer those hardships in an adopted country? Did they immigrate to experience unpleasant things? Why can’t the Western elites understand it?

[4] Wokeism. Even though all the factors enumerated above discourage young, able-bodied men from joining the armed forces, still some of them would do so, but then they are repelled by wokeism. It is drummed into their heads and thrust down their throats that women, lesbians, gays, people of colour they are all better and more desirable in the military ranks than white toxic, racist, sexist and bigoted males. Who in his right sense would like to join any organization in which he is not welcome? If women and homosexuals and Third World people are going to do the job better than white males, why hinder them in that task? Is it not so that the armed forces rather than recruiting able-bodied, higher IQ men, strive to fulfil the diversity quota?

[5] Last but not least, it is all about the policy-making that leaves people astounded. The escalating conflict between the West and Russia is one that has been devised by the Western powers that be. Why all of a sudden is Russia the West’s enemy? What has happened? Do not let yourselves be drawn into the petty news about Mariumpol, Avdievka or Bakhmut. Look at the big picture. What is it?

In 1988 we had two opposing military and economic blocks: in the West it was the EEC and NATO, in the east it was the Comecon and the Warsaw Pact. Two – so to say – empires ready to be at each other’s throats at the drop of a hat.

In the years 1989-1991 the Eastern Empire surrendered, laid down its arms, dissolved itself, abandoned its ideology, opened itself to Western ideological, economic and military penetration. The Cold War came to an end, and it seemed that a new, peaceful era was dawning.

In the year 2022, a war between the Western Empire and the rump of the Eastern Empire broke out. Its battlefield – Ukraine. What happened in between 1991 and 2022, what happened within these thirty years?

Well, the Western Empire kept expanding, enlarging both the EEC (now rebranded as the European Union) and NATO, encircling the rump Eastern Empire in an attempt to suffocate it, to dismember it (like they did with Yugoslavia) and removing it from the world’s political chessboard once and for all. The victory in the Cold War was regarded as insufficient: the enemy – the rump of the Eastern Empire – needed to be crushed and carved up. Naturally, the rump Eastern Empire began to put up a fight, hence the ongoing war.

Now, why should young men in the United Kingdom, in the United States, in France, Germany, Sweden or the Netherlands take part in this fight? To win the Lebensraum for the likes of Sunak, Biden, or von der Leyen? Why should young males have their limbs amputated, why should they come back home maimed? Because the Western Empire wants to wipe out the Eastern Empire?

To top it all, watch the US Army recruitment video presenting a prospective soldier – a girl raised by “two moms” – and you will understand why a mentally healthy man will avoid joining an “army” like this.

No more lies about migrants

The traffic light coalition (Ampelkoalition) is like a deer caught in headlights: it has been letting migrants in for years and telling its fairy tales, its lies that it benefits the German economy and demography in the long run. Now there is a defiant professor of economics in Freiburg, Bernd Raffelhüschen, who has calculated exactly what the cost of this madness is. In his study for the Market Economy Foundation, he estimates the cost of “immigration” at 5.8 trillion euros. This is due to the fact that immigrants hardly integrate, and even if they are able to operate on the labor market after years of qualification, the taxes that they pay are too low compared to the transfers offered to them by the state and municipalities to be able to call them “profitable” citizens who contribute to prosperity. Without immigration, the financial gap for the tax and social systems would be 13.4 trillion euros instead of 19.2 trillion euros – i.e. 5.8 trillion euros lower, according to Raffelhüschen.

The traffic light coalition expects a rejuvenation dividend from immigration: immigrants are their godless religion, the politicians living in their unrealistic Berlin bubble worship colorful idols, but even if they hold the office of finance minister, they are not financial experts who care about the positive fiscal balance of their undertakings and decisions. The idiotic welfare state, which functions in a socialist way (everyone is equal and on an equal footing), is in danger of collapsing because the traffic light coalition gives the green light to non-taxpayers and imported recipients of benefits. Wouldn’t it make more sense to transfer these funds to the indigenous farmers in Cottbus and other German cities, to make life easier for those who manufacture foodstuffs?