Turkey, a NATO member, to join BRICS!

The leftist West is getting a blow back!

The elections to the European Parliament elevated parties that are maliciously referred to as far-right;

the war in Ukraine is going badly for the collective West;

in the United States Donald Trump, maliciously labelled as populist is about to win the presidential election;

France and the United States are being pushed out of Africa;

de-dollarization is in progress;

– Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico has survived the assassination (how the EU commissioners would have wished he had died!);

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is openly against the European Union’s policy of confrontation with Russia; and now – to top it all

Turkey – has announced its willingness to join BRICS!

What a mess! Turkey, which boasts the second largest army in NATO, is about to seriously partner among others with… Russia, a country against which the same NATO is waging war!

The West is getting blow after blow after another blow. How ungrateful the world is! The collective West has been meaning to

save the planet from the man-made climate change;

extend the human rights by bringing to the forefront homosexuals and lesbians;

eradicate racism by coercing races and nationalities to share the same ares, towns and villages, schools and factories,

and it turned out that the world has remained blind and deaf to all those advances… Goodness me!

All of which might suggest one serious suspicion: out of impotence and a thirst for vengeance the collective West might be thinking about retaliatory steps. What are these going to be? The leftist West needs to disrupt BRICS, to keep Russia at bay, to stop the march of the “far-right” through the institutions (a historical irony, indeed), to thwart Donald Trump from winning the elections, to preserve the dollar as the instrument of global exploitation and dominance, and so on, and so forth. What are they going to do? A wounded and hitherto domineering animal can be terribly dangerous.

Do not sink in the quagmire of petty facts! Step back and set your sights on the broad picture!

I keep returning to the same topic again and again. Yes, reporters and journalists, analysts and politicians love dealing with petty problems of whatever is happening, has happened or is going to happen. They immerse themselves and their minds in what was said by whom and what significance is to be assigned to this or that gesture. They love discussing the legal questions like whether Volodymyr Zelenskyy is still Ukraine’s legitimate president – his term ran out on 20th of May – or how and when the war in Ukraine will end. They are currently speculating about the outcome of the elections that are planned in June for the European Union and – how otherwise! – are afraid (who told them to be afraid?) of the “far right” winning too much of the vote. They set their sights on Trump and Biden and indulge in the same speculation about the outcome of American presidential election that is to take place later this year. Lots and lots of items of petty information. The term information noise is just the right one here. But why listen to all this petty news and these petty analyses every single day? All we need to do is to step back and see the broad picture. All we need to do is to understand the whole, the overriding trends, the phenomena as such. What are these phenomena? What are these general trends? What does the big picture look like?

We are having a big war in the territory that once was a part of the Soviet Union: in Ukraine. We have been having a number of local wars in the Caucasus, that is to say, also in the territory that once belonged to the Soviet Union. We have had successful or attempted coups d’état in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Georgia and elsewhere, also in the territories that were once parts of the Soviet Union. We have been told that hundreds of people have been killed as a result, still more have been maimed, displaced, driven into poverty. We have been witnessing heightened tensions between the West and Russia, with frequent military exercises and an increasingly frequent talk about the use of nuclear weapons. Now, these are the big, hard facts. What do we do with them?

If we view them as subsequent pages of the history book that is being written and has been written since the dawn of mankind, if we – as said above – let the petty facts and data capture our attention, if we – what’s even worse – assimilate and internalize the data for the sake of assimilating and internalizing them without drawing inferences, then we are wasting our time and life energy. We behave like students who attend lectures and classes and even try to memorize and practise things but who fail to grasp the overall picture, the workings of the mechanism; students who never really let the message of the overall body of lectures, classes and handbooks sink in and work its way into their awareness.

Take a step back, rid yourself of all the petty data and useless comments of the analysts or experts. Instead, ask yourselves a few questions and try answering them.

One. Would all those wars have taken place if the Soviet Union still existed? Would all those hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, maimed or driven into poverty if the Soviet Union continued to exist today?

Two. Would the West have ever dreamed about sending troops – mercenaries – military equipment inside the Soviet Union? Would the West have interfered so rabidly with the Soviet Union if it had existed till the present day?

Would Ukraine have lost at least 50% of its population, most of its industry; would Ukraine lost (sold) much of its fertile land to Western companies had the Soviet Union existed till this day? Would the Baltic States have become depopulated as they are (being) depopulated now, had the Soviet Union existed till this day?

Three. Would the still existing Soviet Union be a communist country or, rather, would it have gone the way of China, where capitalism is the base while communism is its ideological superstructure? In other words, is it not true that the Soviet Union, if it continued to exist today, would be communist but in name?

Four. Somehow anachronistically, but still: drawing a lesson from the fate of the post-Soviet area and era, if you have had decisive power before 1991 in the Soviet Union, would you have ever, EVER surrendered to the West? Would you have ever, EVER trusted the West? Would you have ever, EVER laid down your arms to the West?

Five. Again, having done your homework concerning the years 1991-2021, having been attentive during the classes and lectures delivered within the said period, would you ever want to become a part of the global market and manufacturing, doing away with some of your industries? Or, rather, you’d cling to autarchy as much is it is feasible and never relied on one global system of makings payments? As we know it has transpired that by letting your country become a part of the global system, you render your nation very much vulnerable: they – THEY – can cut you off from your own money and they – THEY – can try to starve you out in case you displease THEM.

Six. Do you still believe in free market economy, learning now and again that the United States – an alleged paragon of free market economy, of free economic competition and all those liberties – is going berserk imposing tariffs on Chinese products because they happen to be… better and cheaper? Hey, where do we have this lauded free market economy? Ah yes, we can have it so long as it serves the West’s purposes! The moment it dos not, we cannot have it. But of course, Chinese products are not blocked because they are better or cheaper – far be it from it! Chinese products are blocked because they have been manufactured under the conditions violating the human rights, and the like clap-trap!

By the way, if tariffs are imposed by the United States and the European Union because they protect respectively the American and European markets, why then tariffs among particular European states are viewed as detrimental? Would they not protect national economies? Or national economies are not worth protecting?

Seven. Being a responsible leader of any country, a patriot of your nation, or simply a good steward of the national economy and the territory that has been entrusted to you, and the security of your people, with the knowledge of the last thirty or so years, would you have ever, EVER signed those migration pacts? As can be seen, they only serve the purpose of diluting the local populations and ultimately destroying nations and states. Why talk about yet another batch of boats reaching this or that part of the European coast? They are coming here EVERY DAY. Why getting excited about it? It’s the huge problem that is important and this is: European and national politics have been hijacked by the powers that be and if you don’t like what is happening to your country – nation – you need to strike at the decision centre. Why in heaven’s name do they do it to us?

Eight. I know, this argument is repeated here and there, but I cannot refrain from rolling it out here again: war in Ukraine erupted because Russia could not tolerate Ukraine as a member of NATO or as a country used by NATO against Russia. Now Russia is of course to blame for the unprovoked aggression, is it not? But hey, if Mexico or Canada were to join a military alliance with Russia or China, if Mexico or Canada held joint military exercises with Russia or China, wouldn’t the United States invade Mexico? Would this invasion – aggression – be unprovoked?

Nine.

[a] Why are im-migrants to the Western world stubbornly referred to as _migrants as if they were to leave the West one of these days like migratory birds? Why is this misnomer applied and why do you – yes, you, my reader – recklessly, thoughtlessly repeat this term while talking about people who have arrived in the Old Continent or the United States to stay?

[b] The powers that be keep telling us that immigrants enrich each European country or the United States or Canada. Hang on for a moment: if the immigrants enrich us, by the same token they impoverish the countries they have left! Have you ever thought about it? So, we keep helping the poor countries by… impoverishing them! Wow!

[c] The powers that be reassure us that immigrants will assimilate and integrate and in the same breath they sermonize about the many human rights some of which guarantee anybody and everybody that his ethnicity, religion, customs and language be inviolable, inalienable, sacrosanct! How then are they going to assimilate and integrate?

[d] The immigrants keep coming to the Western world because of economic reasons, sometimes political ones. They are supposed to be loyal, good, law-abiding citizens in their adoptive countries. Hang on, again! Once such individuals left their own countries – nations – in search of a better life, they will not give two hoots about leaving the adoptive country the moment they figure out there is a better life somewhere else. What kind of loyalty is that? What civic virtues are these? How valuable are they?

Ten. If uniting nations – countries – is a good thing, why then most people approve of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia? Why did the nations of the three political entities mentioned in the foregoing sentence seek to separate themselves from the union on day one only to apply for membership in another union on day two? Consider, Czechs and Slovaks did not want to live within the same political structure known as Czechoslovakia, but they BOTH entered the European Union and so ARE members of THE SAME political structure. Where’s the sense? The same is true of the nations of former Yugoslavia: they divorced in order to… marry again within a broader family. Why didn’t German Lands divorce prior to collectively joining the European Union?

Eleven. So long as the Soviet Union existed, its citizens were presented to the world as homogeneous people who may have spoken different languages or observed different traditions but who basically were Soviet people. The same was true of Yugoslavia. The country may have been made up of Slovenes, Croats, Serbs; of Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims, but all in all they were known as Yugoslavians. Now it took just a few minutes (from a historical perspective) for the many nations who allegedly were not all that important to be reborn with intense national sentiments and to be at each other’s throat. The BIG question is: why does it not occur to the EU commissioners that precisely the same fate awaits this political superstructure? Why does it not occur to them that by importing Third World people by the millions they add fuel to the fire of the future civil war rampaging across the continent? Whence this hubris? The feuds between particular ex-Soviet republics and the hostilities between ex-Yugoslavian republics are within human memory! What amount of hubris does it take to make the managers of the world and to make common people think that this time things are going to be different? We have assigned ourselves the scientific description of being homines sapientes – reasonable men. Where is our reason? Where is our reasoning?

Twelve. If Ukraine had not flirted with the Western military, if it had not provoked Russia, wouldn’t it have now ALL its 1991 territory INTACT? Even more interesting: if Ukraine had had a “dictator” like Belarus has had and continues to have, would Ukraine have experienced [a] war, [b] loss of territory, [c] loss of lives, [d] massive emigration (read depopulation), and [e] destruction of its infrastructure? Answer the following question with all sincerity you can muster: would you rather have been a citizen of Ukraine or Belarus for the last twenty or so years? Would you rather have a string of “democratic” presidents and war or a “dictator” and peace? I dare you to answer!

Yes, one swallow does not make a summer, but what if there are more to follow?

My name is Tomasz Szmydt. I am a judge of the Second Department of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw. Previously, I held various positions in the judiciary and administration of justice in Poland. I performed the functions of Director of the Legal Department in the Office of the National Council of the Judiciary.

Because of my disagreement with the policies and actions of the authorities, I was forced to leave my native country and am currently residing in Belarus. I was persecuted and intimidated for my independent political stance. I express my protest to the authorities in Poland, who, under the influence of the US and Britain, are leading the country to war. The Polish people stand for peace and good neighborly relations with Belarus and Russia. That is why I am in Minsk and ready to tell the truth.

These are the words (the highlighted sentences is in the original) posted by Tomasz Szmydt in his telegram channel. The text is concise and to the point, in Polish and in Russian. A sensational event in Poland. A few days ago a high-ranking official made his way to Belarus of all the places to seek political asylum there. Wow! For years it used to be quite otherwise: it was the Belorussian politicians and activists who used to flee to Poland (and other European countries) and request asylum. One Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, wife of Syarhey Tsikhanouski, once a candidate for president in Belarus, now under arrest, enjoys in Poland a status of an alternative head of state of Belarus. The Polish president, when he wants to talk to her, does not invite her to his presidential palace but travels to the villa given to her disposal by the Polish government out of gentlemanly courtesy, and to emphasize how important she is, the head of Belarus to be, a Belarus that is to be born and shaped in such a way as to suit the dreams of the European Union.

This time it is someone from the European Union who fled to Belarus. Tomasz Szmydt fled straight to Alexandr Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, to the man who is alternatively ridiculed and despised by all European leaders! Consider it for a moment. For decades the Belorussian president has been depicted in the Polish mass media as a dictator, Putin’s footstool, crypto-communist, a satrap – you name it. Belarus has been regarded as a backward country: any news about Poland’s eastern neighbour was always and invariably unfavourable. Common citizens of Poland have been made to believe – and they do believe – that Belorussians are living in squalid conditions and have absolutely no say in politics or social matters, that they suffer all kinds of shortages and so they all only dream about toppling the satrap and joining the European Union. Years ago – in 2007 – the Polish authorities launched Belsat TV – a TV channel broadcast from the territory of Poland to Belarus, a kind of revived Radio Free Europe, whose staff go out of their way to present Belarus to Belorussians as hell on earth in order to instigate them to radical political action. It is claimed that this TV channel is watched by a large segment of the Belorussian nation – with great interest – which is rather doubtful or else TV Belsat would not be on the verge of being liquidated. Its staff applies the same strategy of forcefully creating a separate Belorussian nation, a strategy that has been performed for three decades in Ukraine, a strategy that thrusts the Belorussian language down the throat of the Russian-speaking Belorussians (apart from chunks in Russian, just in case Belorussians are not quite at ease with their “mother tongue”). The Belsat staff is headed by a daughter of one of the former top political dissidents from the antediluvian times when Poland was ruled by the so called communists. It is some fun to watch Belsat or for that matter regular Polish TV channels as they paint Belarus in black and gray shades and compare with the programmes about Poland broadcast by Belorussian TV. As you might expect the two parties to the information war are mirror reflections of each other: Warsaw shows pictures of unrest in Minsk, Belarus’s capital, while Minsk shows shots of unrests in Warsaw, Poland’s capital; Polish TV correspondents interview angry Belorussians, while Belorussian TV corespondents interview angry Poles, and so on – you get the picture. With this as a backdrop, let us come back to the sensational event of the defection of the high ranking Polish official to Belarus.

Sure, Polish mass media began portraying him as an evil person or someone who was not quite in his rights senses or someone who violated the law and out of fear of being detected, arrested and punished created a legend about himself as a political dissident. The usual stuff in such cases. Warsaw claims he fled to avoid law and justice, Minsk claims he was fed up with democracy in Poland in particular and in the European Union in general. Be it as it may, it is his words that need scrutinizing. What Tomasz Szmydt wrote in his telegram message (and repeated during a press conference in Belarus) reads, among others: I express my protest to the authorities in Poland, who, under the influence of the US and Britain, are leading the country to war. Is it true or not true? That’s what matters. Is it true that Poland is under the influence of the United States and the United Kingdom? Is it true that Poland cannot act independently? Is it true that the West is trying to make Poland (and Romania, and the Baltic States) go to war with Russia? Irrespective of whether Tomasz Szmydt is a dissident or traitor, a crackpot or a hero, these are legitimate questions. Is it true that Tomasz Szmydt attempted to voice such opinions and was told to shut up or else? Since we cannot by any means verify it, it is legitimate to consider if you – any one of us – can voice a dissenting political opinion concerning the war in Ukraine in Poland or elsewhere in the West and get off scot-free. Another legitimate question is this: is it not so planned that after Ukraine has been unsuccessfully used as a proxy in the war against Russia, the job needs to be continued by Poland and Romania and the Baltic States? Are these countries not envisaged as battering rams against Russia? Tomasz Szmydt may be called names in the Polish mass media (and he is), yet the questions and their answers remain valid irrespective of who poses the questions and who responds to them. Tomasz Szmydt also said in his message that The Polish people stand for peace and good neighborly relations with Belarus and Russia. Though most of Poles are intensely anti Russian, barely anyone wishes to fight a war and to have his country ravished by missiles. There have been held anti-war marches in Warsaw and elsewhere while support for Ukrainians – so fervent two years ago – has significantly waned in Poland. We do not need to talk about the Polish nation alone: is there anybody in the collective West – apart from a few trigger-happy crackpots who volunteer for the fight in Ukraine to get a shot at a Russky – who is willing to join the combat and have a hand or a leg torn away from his body in defence of Ukrainian “democracy” and Ukrainian followers of Stepan Bandera, an ideologue of ethnic cleansing of non-Ukrainians?

Yes, one swallow doesn’t make a summer, but maybe we are in for more and more of cases like that with Tomasz Szmydt – more Poles, Lithuanians, Romanians, maybe Frenchmen or Germans – fleeing the European Union and voicing their political dissent in an attempt to stop this craziness of escalating the war that is waged for the purpose of having NATO firmly established in Russia’s underbelly. 

Pathetically piteous sight

A few days ago, Yulia Navalnaya, Alexei Navalny’s widow, gave a speech in the EU parliament. This is what she had to say:

Allegedly voters of the EU deputies ask them how they could help Yulia in her fight and the deputies relay those questions to her. Before answering the question how, Yulia said that Putin (she repeated this name more times than one can stomach, just as Victoria Nuland did in one of her latest speeches), who had begun the murderous war, had gone nowhere, and that everything had already been used – weapons, money, sanctions – with nothing working. Stop. It is hard to believe that Yulia Navalnaya wrote the speech on her own or, granting she wrote it on her own, that no one had a look at it before her address. Did they not notice the contradiction between “Putin had gone nowhere” and “weapons, money, sanctions (i.e. the support for Ukraine) did not work”? Obviously, she was nervous, but still she read the short text from paper. Never mind, let us scan the rest of her speech.

She said that that the worst had happened (again, so Putin has achieved something after all) in that people were getting used to the war (read: they became indifferent) and then, she said sort of disconnectedly, Putin killed her husband. Worse, she said. On Putin’s orders her husband had been “tortured for three years and had been starved in a tiny stone cell, cut off from the outside world and denied visits, phone calls and then even letters. And then they killed him,” she repeated, as if not sure that the EU deputies had understood her the first time she said Putin had killed her husband. Then, said Yulia Navalnaya “they abused his body(?) and abused his mother(?),” which only goes to show that “Putin is capable of anything and that you cannot negotiate with him,” at which point something weird happened (have a listen from this moment for a few seconds). Barely had the audience begun to clap as she said “thank you” – just as if she had it written in her speech text: applauds here, make a stop.

Yulia Navalnaya continued that many people believed that Putin could not be defeated at all, and still they kept asking her how they could help. Before answering that question Yulia Navalnaya saw it fit to describe the character of her husband in more detail. She said he was an inventor(?) with new ideas for everything(?), especially in politics. Then she reminded the deputies that soon they would be campaigning to get reelected. Imagine, she said, that all this political campaigning was impossible because no TV station would allow an interview with you, no money in the world would make commercials possible while the voters and the candidates would be arrested once they turned up at a rally. If you could picture that to yourselves, said Yulia Navalnaya, that was precisely Putin’s Russia. Applause.

An aside here. It was also a few days ago that we could witness how British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak publicly went ballistic and freaked out because in ONE British constituency ONE man (George Galloway) outside the establishment was elected by the local people. Rishi Sunak addressing journalists in front of Downing Street 10 repeatedly described the event as an ugly victory of the far right extremists even though George Galloway’s political proclivities are leftist. Most likely Yulia Navalnaya does not know about it at all. Yet, she should know, living for so many years in the West, that people get deplatformed and demonetized in the social media whenever they voice opinions diverging from the political correctness of the West. She should also be familiar with the fate of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden or most recently Gonzalo Lira. Gonzalo Lira was tortured, isolated and killed by Ukrainians because he dared to express opinions diverging from those propagated by the Kiev regime. These three men are not Putin’s victims so they simply don’t matter.

Despite all the hindrances, Yulia Navalnaya continued, Alexei Navalny managed to become the most famous politician in Russia (really?), inspiring millions(you don’t say!) of people with his ideas. How did he do it, she asked herself. Well, if you are not allowed to appear on TV, let’s post YouTube videos for all to watch (surely, Alexei Navalny would not have been deplatformed like thousands of others!); even in Putin’s gulag, she said, Alexei was able to “pass ideas of projects that would make the Kremlin panic” (Wow!). But hang on for a moment! Didn’t she say a minute or so earlier that her husband was “cut off from the outside world and denied visits, phone calls and then even letters”? The audiences would not have noticed that, for sure. So the answer to the question of how to defeat Putin, she continued, is simple: you have to become an innovator, you have to stop being boring(!). Ovation. You cannot harm Putin, she said, with another set of resolutions or sanctions (obviously). “You cannot defeat him by thinking he is a man of principle who has morals and truths.” That’s dehumanization of the opponent or adversary in its purest form, an attitude which the Western ideologues are otherwise so vociferously against. This time the principle did not apply.

You are not dealing with a politician,” Yulia Navalnaya continued, “but with a bloody monster. Putin is a leader of an organized criminal gang.” Here she was interrupted by an applause after which she went on saying, “it’s good to repeat it again: Putin is a leader of an organized criminal gang.” To which she received more applause. This criminal group includes “poisoners and assassins”. The inference? The West needs to fight organized crime or mafia headed by Putin (Putin’s mafia in Europe itself? Gee…). How? By fighting the mafia’s associates who happen to be operating in the West(!), who help Putin and his friends to hide money (Where? Why can’t he hide his money in Russia?). In this fight the West has, according to Yulia Navalnaya, “tens of millions(?) of Russians on the West’s side, Russians who are against war, against Putin, against the evil he brings.” The West “must not persecute them [Russians], but on the contrary” the West “must work with them [Russians]”. Putin must answer for all that he had done to Russia and Alexei (in the Hague, I guess). “The evil will fall, and the beautiful future will come.” These were the final words of Yulia Navalnaya’s speech delivered in the EU Parliament.

Compare this address with the latest rant by Victoria Nuland. Putin, Putin, Putin said again and again with vilification, insults, vitriolic hate, and you name it. Dehumanization, bad-mouthing and immolation. Poor woman. She most likely believes in everything she said. And poor as she is, she was used in this séance of hatred by those who are beginning to taste a crushing defeat at the hands of the “mafia boss”. A pathetically piteous sight.

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.

The Errors of Russia

The end of the old year and the beginning of the new year make one think both about the recent past and the not-too-distant future. The conventional borderline separating the 31 of December and the 1st of January (actually not the precise astronomical turning point, which is 24th of December) makes us not only think about the prognostics based on science, but also about prophecies of whatever kind. Why, science has conquered the minds of the modern man, but it does not – and it cannot – answer all the questions. Strictly speaking, science is about repetitive things – occurrences – phenomena i.e. things that can be checked, and rechecked, and double checked. Yet, we know that reality is also made up of one-time events (all of human history) that can only be experienced once by a limited number of people. We cannot reproduce such events – experiences – phenomena, and yet we cannot do away with them, we cannot pretend that they are not part of our life, part of reality. Such are prophecies. They are experienced by very few and are not repeatable. If you want, you believe in them; if you do not want, you deny them. In any way, if you are open-minded, you take them into consideration and remain on the look-out whether they come true. If they do, then – well – then they are worthy of your attention, of reconsideration.

Such was the Fatima prophecy of 1917. The apparition of Saint Mary, the Mother of God in Fatima, Portugal – because that’s what we are talking about – said a few things about the future. The message was not strictly speaking cryptic; conversely, it was fairly compelling. One of the predictions was that the future world would be infected with the “errors of Russia.” It is important to bear in mind that the apparitions occurred in the same year when the two Russian revolutions or – properly speaking – coups d’état broke out. The first was carried out by the Russian bourgeois, while the second by the Russian social-democrats, better known – especially later – as communists. Consequently, hard times descended on Russia that people in the West have rarely been fully cognizant of. Persecution of the church or any religious faith, the empowerment of the uneducated and the slow-minded over the educated and the smart, mass dispossession of the propertied classes, cultural revolution on a large scale, the destruction of the family and the morals, the egalitarian utopia, the re-writing and re-interpretation of history, the devastation of social cohesion by among others the promotion of informants (even children were used to this purpose against their parents), character assassination (people were often forced to confess and accuse themselves before others), condemnation of the memory of persons that fell out of grace with the current authorities (damnatio memoriae: big public figures were removed from all publications as if they had never existed), and so on, and so forth.

A century has passed since the infamous October Bolshevik Revolution. What do we see? We can see the errors of Russia everywhere in the Western world. Survey the list above and put it up against any Western society the way you would put up a mirror against someone’s face. The Christianity in the West is as dead as it was in Russia in the twenties and the thirties of the previous century; the empowerment of the uneducated people of colour and the protection of the slow-minded (so long as they are immigrants) is in full sway; mass dispossession of the propertied classes is under way with the notorious phrase that is doing the rounds to the tune of “you will own nothing and you will be happy”; cancel culture on a large scale; the destruction of the family and the morals complete with cohabitation, childlessness, parades of homosexuals; equity promoted in furtherance of the egalitarian utopia; the re-writing and re-interpretation of history with people of colour being cast in typical historical or mythological roles occupied by white men and women; social cohesion being more and more diluted by larger and larger influxes of Third World people, which translates into the disappearance of societies and nations (understood as people that are genetically related) and the emergence of multiple ethnic communities; censorship based on a network of informants (mendaciously presented as the opinion of mysterious communities), character assassination by means of magic, powerful words like racist, xenophobe, antisemite, misogynist, right-wing, extreme-right; condemnation of the memory of historical persons – especially white males – and the erasure of their names from books, street names and the like. Enough?

These are the errors of Russia that have spread to the Western world as prophesied in Fatima in 1917. Take note of one fact. The errors were not transported to the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union; rather, they had been trickling on and on since 1917, so that by the fifties of the previous century two big Western (and Catholic, at least nominally) countries – France and Italy – were almost taken over by their respective communist parties. Think about Spain that was for a time and would have remained immersed in the errors from Russia even before the outbreak of the Second World War but for the intervention of General Francisco Franco. Notice also the following glaring fact. In 1989, when the Soviet Union disintegrated and relinquished its grip on Eastern Europe, which till that time had been dependent on Moscow, all those countries flocked to the embrace of the European Union, while the most enthusiastic supporters and champions of the membership in the European Union were former communists! If that does not speak volumes, then I don’t know what does. Surely, former communists did not turn capitalist and right-wing overnight, en masse. They desired to become a part of the European Union simply because the European Union was made up and run by their ilk.

And just such as persons as Francisco Franco of Spain and Antonio Salazar of Portugal were officially hated in the USSR, so they are hated by the European Union. And no wonder. These two were opposed to communism that the Soviet Union stood for, and socialism or liberalism that the European Union stands for; they were conservative and nationalist – in other words: they stood for the values that the European Union strives to – and the Soviet Union strove to – obliterate, expunge, stamp out. 

Good comeuppance!

A couple of days ago four Polish deputies to the European Parliament – Beata Kempa, Beata Mazurek, Patryk Jaki and Tomasz Poręba – had their immunity lifted, which was a requirement to put them on trial. Why does the European Union want the four Polish deputies to be put on trial? Why, the European Union does not like the party that had been governing Poland before the latest parliamentary elections and so the EU’s managers were oh too pleased to take a stab at the “nationalistic” party that happened to hold the reigns of power in Poland. What did the four deputies do to deserve being prosecuted? Did they kill, steal, rob, forge money, blackmail, rape…? Well, five years ago they dared to press the I-like-it button on one of the social media presenting an election spot of their party. What did the election spot show? The election spot warned of mass immigration to Poland of the people from the Third World, which could happen if the opposition party were to win the elections.

To sum up: the four deputies lost their immunity and are likely to be prosecuted by the European Union because they liked a spot run by a party that is one of the many legal parties operating within the European Union. What is the charge? Yes, you guessed it right: hate speech, or something to that tune.

Yes, there are many, MANY Europeans, especially in the Western part of the Union, who approve of the step taken by the European parliament. Those Europeans have been programmed all their lives to think that anything that diverges from the point of view accepted by the mass media is evil: fascist, Nazi, racialist, you name it. Yet, people with brains formatted by the dominant ideology of the Western world (which includes the European Union) should be reminded of an observation made by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the social-democrats, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a social-democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Sadly, they most probably could not be bothered to consider these words. They need to learn them the hard way.

As for the four prosecuted deputies – Beata Kempa, Beata Mazurek, Patryk Jaki and Tomasz Poręba – good comeuppance! They all desperately wanted Poland to be joined to the European Union and most probably regarded opponents of Poland’s membership as “enemies of the people”. They wanted so badly to be part of the European Union that they themselves did all they could to become EU deputies. Now, of course, they might have second thoughts but… far be it from them to call for Polexit! They will call for rectifying the European Union, they are highly likely to use phrases like “Yes to the EU, no to EU’s malpractices!” or “Let us put a human face on the EU!” They will not need to invent those phrases: they have them at their disposal in the vocabulary inventory of the former Polish United Workers’ Party – the socialist (or communist, if you will) party that ruled Poland in the years 1944-1989. As it soon turned out that socialism did not work as it had been promised, Polish socialists went to great lengths to explain why. Why did socialism not work? Ah, because some individuals abused their positions of power, because some individuals distorted the noble ideals of socialism, because some individuals… but socialism as such was to be regarded as the bright future with no alternative. those socialists came up with the phrases to be chanted by the masses of people: “Yes to socialism! No to malpractices!” “Socialism needs a human face!”

Now the same is going to happen in relation to the idea of the European Union. It is the only bright future for the Old Continent with absolutely no alternative, and the wrong things are just distortions, malpractice, faults of individuals in positions of power, and so on, and so forth. So the world goes.