Who benefited from all this?

The mechanism is simple. The Hegemon has power. The Hegemon has power not only because it is economically powerful and because it has a powerful military force. The Hegemon has power also and perhaps above all because it has a mint where it mints the world’s coin. The Hegemon can therefore, for example, put too much money into circulation, i.e. create inflation, and since the whole world uses the Hegemon’s money in trade between countries, this inflation hits all the economies of the world! Inflation in the Hegemon translates into inflation in all the other political players. This is a political masterstroke!

We wanted to draw attention to yet another mechanism, equally efficient, equally cleverly devised. Here it is. The Hegemon looks around to select nations or states, anywhere on the globe, but especially those where there are various natural resources or developed industries. Having found a region of the world that the Hegemon would like to exploit, the Hegemon looks around for such two nations, two states or social groups that do not like each other very much. Never and nowhere in the world is this task difficult. All neighbourhoods are fraught with a long history of conflict: France-Germany, France-England, Germany-Poland, Hungary-Romania, Croatia-Serbia, Greece-Turkey, Poland-Russia, Poland-Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia… and these are just a handful of conflicts and just European ones! They all can be revived, they all can be fuelled and they all can be exploited. Religious and ideological divisions can also be skilfully manipualted: Catholic-Protestant, Catholic-Orthodox, Sunni-Shiite, believer-infidel, right-left, liberal-conservative, you name it.

States are governed by different people, not necessarily the wisest, not necessarily the most sensible, not necessarily the prudent. Since they are not the wisest or most prudent people, since they are people who have weaknesses and (often) burning ambitions, they can be skilfully controlled. This is precisely what the Hegemon does. The Hegemon seeks out individuals who have exuberant political ambitions and helps such individuals to take power in a country. The Hegemon selects people with a psychological profile that ensures they will be remotely controllable. The Hegemon can create compromising situations for such an individual or it can nurture such an individual: the Forum of Young Global(!) Leaders of the International Economic Forum or universities founded or financed by various NGOs are breeding grounds for such leaders.

Political dissidents from the countries of Central Europe before 1989, people who often emigrated to the West, acted in the West, received support from the West, these people were excellent material for the Western secret services. These services were able to pick and choose human tools, human puppets for their intelligence games and political manoeuvres, and these puppets usually did not even realise that they were someone else’s… tools. The awarding of scholarships to such people for study or research, or the granting of prizes in various fields, tied the beneficiaries to the centres that exercised power over them in an extremely strong and thus permanent manner. Who can resist an award, international recognition, acclaim, or interviews for CNN or the BBC? Continue reading

Pro-Western fifth column in Russia by default

It’s not just a question of how much military power a given side to the conflict has at its disposal; it’s not even a question of whose economy is stronger. It’s more a question of which side prevails culturally, spiritually, or psychologically (psyche is Greek for soul or spirit).

Consider. The names of the months in Germanic and Romance languages, i.e. languages spoken in the West, have Latin origin. The names of the same months in Russian… also have Latin origin. Russians could have named the months giving them names in their native language, as the Poles or Czechs did; or they could have created the names of the months by drawing from Greek. The latter would have been more natural and understandable than taking those names from Latin: after all, the Russian principalities modeled themselves on Byzantium (a state that, although derived from the Roman Empire, used not Latin but Greek). Medieval Russians referred to Byzantium (and rightly so! and correctly so!) as to the Greek state; medieval Russians took Christianity from Byzantium; from the Greeks – Rus’ took (and slightly modified) the alphabet and modeled its own political system on Constantinople, which it called Tsargrad (Царьград) or Carigrad – the city of the emperor or the city of emperors. And yet, Russians adopted the names of the months from Western languages. And not only the names of the months. Those who know the language know how many German and French and now English words have found their way into Russian. These foreign inclusions are foreign to the point that they are not even declined by grammatical cases, although all native words are. Why are we talking about this? Is it because we are interested in proper names or etymology or languages in general?

We talk about it because language reflects the soul of a nation. It’s not the Germans, French or Americans who have Russian words in their own languages, but, conversely, the Russians have plenty of French, German and English words in their language. This, in turn, attests to who has an overwhelming cultural, philosophical, mental, spiritual and psychological influence on whom. It shows who really rules over whom. This is a better litmus test for demonstrating who is subject to whom than finances, the economy or military conquests. Why? Because financial or economic advantage can be coerced, because military advantage is demonstrated through the use of brute force. In the case of language, it is quite different. No one outside Russia told Russians to adopt foreign words! They did it on their own, willingly, and they did it because they recognized the superiority of Western civilization. Patriotic Russians may deny it, but it is the language that is hard evidence that Russians have always considered themselves inferior.

To get an Oscar (or a similar award given in the West) is the dream of every Russian film director; to get a Nobel Prize for literature (or a similar award given in the West) is the dream of every Russian writer. Does any Western film director or Western writer dream of getting an award in Moscow or St. Petersburg?

It is the above-described sense of the inferiority complex on the part of Russians that makes rich Russians buy properties in the West and keep their money in Western banks. In other words, rich Russians are at the mercy and disfavor of the West, which can take these estates and accounts from them at any time it sees fit. Such Russians with estates and bank accounts abroad constitute a fifth column within the Russian Federation. Russians who have accounts in Western banks, who have properties in the West – what’s more – whose children study at Western universities do not think in Russian, whether they want to admit it or not. These Russians are a powerful force, scattered about the country, that works to the advantage of the West and to the detriment of their own homeland whether they want to admit it or not. Continue reading

Soft power that has been dissipated by fools

If you ask the average Westerner which places in the world he would like to see, he will answer that he would like to see Paris, Rome, Venice, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Florida, the Riviera, the Alps. If you ask the same question to a man from other parts of the world, he will answer that he would like to see… Paris, Rome, Venice, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Florida, the Riviera, the Alps. Similarly, if you ask a man from the West which university he would like to study at, he will answer that Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Harvard… If you ask the same question to a man from other parts of the world, you will get the same answer. If you ask a man from the West in which banks he would like to keep his money, he will mention one of the Western banks. If you ask a non-Western man, you will get the same answer. Let’s go further. If you ask a Westerner what his favorite movies or books or music are, you will hear titles, authors and performers that belong to the Anglo-Saxon world. If you ask the same question to a non-Western man, you will get the same answer. Questions with similar content can be multiplied. The result will always be the same. And it has always been the same. Representatives of previous generations would have answered the same way, people living in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries would have answered the same way. One could say that the world is arranged in such a way that Westerners love the West and non-Westerners also love the West. Statistically speaking, no one in France, Great Britain, Germany or the United States dreams of their child studying in Poland, Hungary, Romania or even Russia. Conversely, parents from Poland, Hungary, Romania and Russia would give a lot for their children to study in France, Great Britain, Germany or the United States.

Western political scientists and politicians should be aware of this. They should know that they wield enormous soft power. They should realize that they have enormous power over non-Westerners. They can control them almost at will. All they have to do is wave a carrot or a sausage, and a non-Westerner is ready to do almost anything, including actions that will be detrimental to his own country, to his own people. The only thing the West should not do is to use a stick, to show exaggerated contempt for non-Westerners or to be too insulting to their feelings. If Westerners can’t help but show superiority or contempt, they should show this superiority or contempt in a measured way, intensifying these demonstrations gradually so that non-Westerners don’t notice it too much. If, on top of this, the West accepts at least some of the elites of non-Western nations into its club, the West’s power over the rest of the world is guaranteed.

Unfortunately, stupidity, hubris, greed, overconfidence – you name it – cause Western elites, Western leaders, Western think tanks to continually make the same mistake: they begin to ostentatiously escalate their display of contempt, they begin to ostentatiously and excessively pillage non-Western nations, they begin to hurt these nations’ sense of dignity too quickly and too violently (such as by imposing marches of sexual deviants in morally traditional societies), all of which leads to conflict. The West has made this mistake over and over again and continues to do so, and is unable to learn from the past.

Consider Russia. The elites of this country capitulated before the West at the end of the 1980s, declared the bankruptcy of their own system, behaved with allegiance to the West, began to take over and imitate everything as far as culture is concerned, and their only dream was if not to settle or at least live for a long time in the West – because, as is known, there is paradise for humanity – then at least to recreate this West at home. The elites not only of Russia, but also of Ukraine, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania and so on, as well as the elites of India and China would do anything to shed their own culture and to embrace the West. How many Indians and Chinese go to Great Britain or the United States to be able to study there or at least to see with their own eyes those countries they have dreamed of since the cradle! If smart people ruled in the West, they would use this soft power to rule over the rest of the world until… the end of the world. But no. Continue reading

Partitioning Russia

Competing large states, the superpowers, aim to eliminate their opponent from the game. This can be done in a variety of ways. One of these, of course, is war: one rival destroys the other, subjugates it or wipes it off the world map. This is how, in three wars, ancient Rome wrestled with Carthage and brought about its annihilation; Rome did not annihilate Greece, but subjugated it, and since the Greeks did not resist in the time in which they were subject to Rome, and that’s where it ended. Another way of settling a rivalry is to weaken the state that one sees as a rival to rule over a region of the world or over the whole world. The victorious state takes away industrially or strategically important parts of territory from the defeated state. Still another way is to make the competitor economically or financially dependent. This is how perennial colonial states continue to rule former colonial territories, although they have officially withdrawn from them: they rule them through money and economic connections. The last way to subjugate an adversary, to weaken or eradicate it, is through territorial partition: the breaking up of a state territory into several smaller ones, which is generally done by exploiting frictions, resentments and hostilities that exist on national religious or anthropological grounds. This is how Yugoslavia was dealt with. This state of the southern Slavs, whose territory had an area comparable to that of Romania, was divided into several smaller political entities.

The West conceived a similar collective fate for the Russian Federation. The driving force is the United States and the United Kingdom, while the tool is the European Union and especially the countries of Central Europe, as well as so-called dissidents – citizens of the Russian Federation who act to the detriment of their own state. The idea of dividing Russia into a dozen or more parts was given the name of decolonization. The creators of this notion assume that Russia is in fact a conglomeration of the Russian centre with many colonies, and that the difference between the colonies ruled by Moscow and those once ruled by Paris, London or Berlin is only that the Russian colonies are not overseas. What is being proposed, therefore, is decolonization – as it is now fashionably said and written – 2.0 (that is, the second, as the first was either the decolonization carried out between 1950 and 1970 in Africa and Asia, or the decolonization of the USSR, a preliminary to the now proposed division of the vast territory that was under the Kremlin’s rule until 1991).

The idea of splitting the Russian Federation into multiple political entities is justified on the grounds that Russia, its elites and even the mentality of its people, grew out of dictatorial and slave traditions and as such are unreformable. It is said that Russia as it exists will be a constant threat to world peace and that a single centre of power is incapable of efficiently managing such a large territory, let alone such a large and ethnically and religiously diverse population. (One might ask, as an aside, how it is that the same judgement is not applied either to the United States, which is, after all, a territorially huge and population-diverse state, or to the European Union, which is absorbing more and more new members and seeking to administer the whole uniformly from a single centre in Brussels, but never mind). Since Russia is a nuclear-armed state, it is not proposed to provoke a war for this purpose; rather, it is recommended that the various nationalities and religions living on the territory of the Federation should peacefully assert their independence. The weapons are to be strikes, demonstrations, pickets, civil disobedience and all that makes up the technique of instigating and carrying out colour revolutions. Continue reading

The energy crisis is planned and desired Electricity prices skyrocket, but that’s our new better world after all

The Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) were introduced with the Kyoto Protocol and imposed on the EU and other countries by the infamous Al Gore. His idea that whoever produces more CO2 has to pay for it was seemingly clear at the beginning and many immediately embraced it, but the ETS quickly became financial instruments in the hands of large investors and thus began to serve as such for speculation. ETS became a commodity on the stock exchange, traded just like bitcoin or CFDs (Contract for Differences). The fact that in the end it is the end consumer who suffers is of no interest to high finance, the EU and US elites. Take Elon Musk, for example. Do you think he earns his money by selling electric cars? Not by any means. By 2021, he won’t have made a single cent of profit from car production. Until last year, his company made its best profits from trading CO2 certificates. In the last three years it was $3.3 billion. Another of Musk’s gold mines is trading in Bitcoin. As reported by Tagesschau at one time, Tesla had acquired Bitcoins for $1.5 billion from January to March 2021 and then resold them for the profit of $300 million. Everyone knows that Bitcoin production and transaction means enormous energy consumption. Never mind, the main thing is that it is a modern currency. Wow! Are electric cars not environmentally friendly at all because exorbitant amounts of precious and industrial metals are needed in their production? No problem. The main thing is to scrap old cars and buy new “emission-free” ones, according to the Green narrative. You have a Tesla? Wow! The ruble is rolling, one would like to say, although the ruble is just rolling towards China, as Russia has multiplied its exports to the Middle Kingdom since the sanctions were introduced, making nonsense of the West’s sanctions. Driving old diesel is yuck, but taking a tour into space with Spacex is mega cool. Isn’t that right, Greta? You’ve already circled the globe with the most environmentally unfriendly means of transport. The time is coming for the moon. Putin’s action against Ukraine is simply a good reason to speed up the green revolution in the West.  Continue reading

Fit for 55 or sustaining sustainable sustainability

It surely is a religion: the worship of the planet earth. No doubt about that. At the same time it is risible: a peninsula attached to a huge Asiatic continent wishes to make the global climate better and – as if the movement of waters and winds could be stopped at state borders – to make its own climate better. How? By banning the fossil fuels (which means: by banning the combustion engine), relying on renewable sources of energy and developing the CO2 market (you know, the market where you buy and sell CO2 quotas). You see, in the Middle Ages people would trade in relics: in the 21st century people trade in CO2! Isn’t that one thing alone a grand exploit that the European Union has pulled off?

No combustion-engine cars to be manufactured after 2030 plus net CO2 emissions by 2050! Why? For what purpose? Well, to save the planet, stupid! We all know that Mother Earth is suffocating and getting overheated (or overcooled, depending on the currently valid scientific version concerning the global climate); we all know that it is man-made. If you are not convinced, then look at the children: they know it! They know it for certain! That’s why they are protesting and begging you (if that is not enough: demanding of you) that you reconsider your life choices.

You know, it is not only the climate. We are all running out of water and food. What do you think will happen once water and food are in short supply? Famine? Y-e-e-e-s. Try hard to follow the thought where it leads. Imagine a global famine and water shortages. What do you think it will lead humanity to? Yes, bingo! To war! So, to prevent war over food and war over water from breaking out, the men and women (or the representatives of the other sixty or so recognized genders) who happen to be at the helm of the European Union do their best to spare us the bleak future. Yes, we will all pay for it: prices will shoot up, but then health, life and peace are invaluable. We will all willingly sacrifice our comfort and resign from the luxuries and pleasures of the flesh to… save the flesh.

Ursula von der Leyen (President of the European Commission or in plain English: the EU’s prime minister) and Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President of the European Commission or again in plain English: the EU’s deputy prime minister) along with all the Directorates-General (in plain English: ministries) indefatigably keep foisting upon us the magic phrases of European green deal, climate neutral Europe, reduction in emissions, clean transport, electric vehicles, sustainable (their beloved word!) houses, clean energy, renewable energy, protecting nature, a healthier future, support for vulnerable citizens (always the same!), and they assure us that all this is doable. Ursula von der Leyen says that she wants Europe to become the first climate-neutral continent in the world by 2050. She says verbatim: “I want Europe to become…”. You see? Occasionally, they let a word out here and there for all to hear: they want to enforce those changes, Ursula von der Leyen, Frans Timmermans, and company. Whenever they are on their guard, they say that it is the Europeans who want it, but when they are off their guard, they say as it is. Continue reading

The European Conference on the Future of Europe – the indomitable communists from the Spinelli Group move forward

The European Conference on the Future of Europe was supposed to be a forum where all member countries and all political options could have their say and help shape this future of the EU through debates and meetings. The conference received little attention from the leading media, it remains unknown to most Europeans and was already unrepresentative as such. The ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists Group) recently walked out of the forum, claiming that it was presented as a democratic process, but in fact proved to be a major manipulation through the choice of experts and interpretation of the so-called recommendations of European citizens. The conference only served the purpose of making it seem as if there was no alternative to the slogan: more power to Brussels! The zealous supporter of the conference and the emergence of a denationalised EU juggernaut – Guy Verhofstadt – calls on Twitter for unanimity through a ban on vetoes, creation of transnational lists to the EU Parliament and raising a European army along the lines of Macron’s idea.

Guy Verhofstadt also gave a speech during another conference in March dedicated to the Ventotene Manifesto. The Manifesto, which forms the ideological basis of the EU, was written in 1941 by the Italian communist Altiero Spinelli. Socialists and liberals at the conference demanded the realization of his ideas: the immediate construction of a centralized superstate by abolishing nation states. Smiles lit up the faces of Lenin and Stalin in their graves. For the ECR, however, such leftist ideas about a creeping abolition of national governments and democracy are disgusting, as they are for all freedom-loving people. No wonder they abandoned the conference on the future of Europe.

Altiero Spinelli

The Spinelli Group accuses Poland, Hungary and other countries of interfering with the rule of law. The question arises as to what it is meant by the rule of law. The term appears in Article 2 of the Maastricht Treaty but is nowhere defined in a legally binding way in EU documents. Nevertheless, the Spinelli Group tries to use the rule of law argument against all defiant member states that do not want to follow its manifesto. With some exceptions, such as Germany. Here the eyes are turned, even though in Germany judges are elected by politicians, even though the election of a candidate who was inconvenient for the left-wing, ruling scene as prime minister of Thuringia was reversed by Merkel just like that, quite authoritatively. In Poland, unlike in Germany, elections are not reversed because someone does not please the “elites”. In Poland, unlike Germany, there is no chaos in the elections. Remember the chaos at the last elections in Berlin in 2021: 1600 invalid voting cards were issued, 5000 were not issued at all, 73 polling stations were temporarily closed.

The left wings in the EU do not want to affirm reality, they want to falsify it. They use words like the rule of law, justice, human rights only to impose their totalitarian ideas. Henk Jan van Schothorst, director of the Christian Council International, defined the EU’s efforts to introduce a “global rule of law” in a postmodern EU with newly defined, “new” human rights thus: “Instead of guaranteeing classical civil rights for all, the state would, in the imagination of globalist human rights activists, become an arbiter, implicitly enforcing the rights of certain groups against others: women against the unborn, children against parents, proponents of gender ideology against adherents of the traditional Christian view of humanity, and Muslim immigrants against those who advocate Western values.”