The rapacious elites destroy their own countries

It is sad but it is true: the elites or the ruling classes are hellbent on destroying their nations and their states. They are doing it in a variety of ways but they are doing it without a shadow of a doubt. They feel themselves deracinated from their respective nations and as a result they are spinning ideas of being citizens of the world where there are no nations, no races, no religions, and no cultures. Since the members of these elites are rich and influential, they can afford to live in nice and pleasant palaces or hotels, they can afford to travel the world and always have a lodging in a luxurious hotel, be it Nairobi or Karachi, where they are taken very good care of by the servicemen and servicewomen of all skin colours who necessarily speak English and smile all the time in the presence of the affluent travellers.

If a healthy elite could be compared to the head while the elite’s nation – to the rest of the body, then the depraved elites could be compared to the head that is cut off from the rest of the body. And that’s the problem. The head connected to its body feels the body’s pains and ailments acutely and acts on them appropriately. The head that is disconnected from its body feels absolutely nothing. The body may be suffering and ailing, and still the head does not respond to it. It’s even worse: a disconnected elite will tend to experiment with the body submitting it to any and all tests irrespective of whether those tests or experiments are painful, damaging or simply unpleasant.

The Western elites – the Western heads – came upon the ideas of applying to their bodies (nations) ethnic replacement, green economy, and rainbow sexuality. They are really intent on imposing those ‘values’ and they seem to be looking from afar how the experiment is developing. The lower classes are complaining? Let them. They can do nothing about what is being done to them. They are viewed as laboratory mice or laboratory rats. Does an experimenter care what the mice or the rats are feeling while being examined or tested? The British, French, German, Swedish and other guinea-pigs do not like the reality created by their elites, but then they are no more than guinea-pigs. No amount of resistance seems to matter to the experimenters.

That Eastern elites – while following everything that is propagated by their Western counterparts and their Western gurus – provide a kind of added value to this mix: they exploit their nations – their mice and rats – and export most of the money to the banks run by their Western colleagues or they invest that money in property and other goods in the countries run by their Western colleagues. They purchase palaces and yachts, they purchase expensive automobiles or invest in the shares issued by Western entrepreneurs or the bonds of the Western governments. We all remember Russian oligarchs who have invested in… the British football clubs. Why couldn’t they invest in the Russian football teams?

Why? They had amassed fortunes in their countries, exploiting (stealing from) their own nations – their co-citizens – so why couldn’t they give some of that money back to that same country, their own co-citizens?

Both kinds of of rapacious and disconnected elites are in for a rude awakening. The head cannot live disconnected from the body for a long time. It will, therefore, sooner or later, be replaced.

Charles de Gaulle fled France, his grandson Pierre is about to do the same

When Germany attacked France on May 10, 1940, the French troops were relatively quickly routed, and while the majority of them laid down their arms, some managed to flee to the United Kingdom. Charles de Gaulle was among them. On British soil he reorganized the remnants of the French army and, backed by the British, became the head of the so-called Free French Forces. France was partly occupied, partly turned into a dependent state with Marshal Philippe Pétain as the head of the puppet government. Charles de Gaulle escaped from the German barbarism and sought to help his fatherland from across the English Channel to regain independence and the nation’s values.

Not a century has passed and – lo and behold – Charles de Gaulle’s grandson, Pierre, is about to follow in his grandfather’s footsteps: Pierre de Gaulle has recently publicly expressed his wish of becoming a citizen of the Russian Federation. Why? Pierre de Gaulle wants to obtain a Russian passport “in the name of the prosperous future of his children,” to secure them the ever important values, to provide them with a good education, and protect from the “decline of values that is happening in the Western world.”

While the Russian media do not seem to be willing to turn the event into a propaganda hype, some of the Western media cannot restrain from snide remarks. The Times ran an article with the title “De Gaulle ‘turning in his grave’ at grandson’s Russian alliance,” while the French Wikipedia, depicting Pierre de Gaulle’s life seems to be gratuitously focused on any negative aspects of it. The usual vocabulary is employed, not excluding statements that the grandson of the great French general and president is working for Russian propaganda and the like.

Pierre de Gaulle was in Russia to take part in the Forum of United Cultures in St. Petersburg, which took place between November 15 and 17. Giving an interview for TASS he praised Russia as the country that “offers great opportunities” along with “deep and powerful culture, intellect and Russian spirit.” In the same interview he said that “obtaining this citizenship has become a necessity for us, as it would allow us to pass on the values we cherish to our children and raise them properly. We want to shield them from decadence and the decline of Western values.”

Is Pierre de Gaulle isolated in such perception of today’s Western world? Certainly not. More and more Westerners feel alienated from the cultural and social reality in their countries. What of the rainbow sexuality propaganda, what of the deluge of immigrants, the common British, French, Germans and others have become aliens in the country of their parents and grandparents. The recent London street protests (13 September) are a huge testimony to this. The regime media say the march along London Streets attracted in between 100.000 and 150.000 people, which, taking into account the willingness of the authorities to downplay the impact, is most likely too low a number. As usual, protesters were framed as far-right (the most beloved word of the left these days, which in their interpretation is supposed to denote a highly negative social event or political movement). The people in London were waving Union Jacks or the flags of England, something that has long been frowned on by the ruling radical-left class, and they demanded a return to normalcy. The common Brits cannot relocate en masse to Russia or elsewhere, so they are trying to regain their own home country. Yet, given no other choice they might all one of these days want to follow in Pierre de Gaulle’s footsteps.

French Rafale aircraft got killed at the hands of their Chinese counterparts (just as German Leopards and American Abrams got crushed at the hands of Russian drones)

Of course we are making reference to the recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India. A skirmish or even a battle as it supposedly involved more than 100 planes with five of the Indian aircraft being downed (Islamabad’s claim) or none of them being down (Delhi’s claim).

Pakistan and India have not been on friendly terms for decades now. Be it the disputed region of Kashmir or the support that Islamabad lends to insurgents who cause trouble in India, there are intermittent clashes and skirmishes now and again. Some are minor, some are major. An attack launched by insurgents or terrorists (the name depends on the point of view) from Pakistan’s territory into Indian territory on 22 April this year left some 26 casualties. Delhi felt compelled to retaliate, at least symbolically, at least not to lose face before its own population, not to mention the rest of the world. So, on May 6/7 lots of aircraft were sent to hit 9 targets in Pakistan (5 of them in Kashmir). Islamabad did not intend to let itself be ridden roughshod and scrambled its air forces to punish the intruder. From the ensuing skirmish or battle the Pakistani air forces are said to have emerged victorious, which of course is denied by Delhi.

Up to now the event is one of the many that have occurred between Pakistan and India, and – of course – more are to be expected in the foreseeable future. What was special about the outburst of conflict this time was the fact – or speculations – or suppositions which made the headlines that Pakistani aircraft made in China successfully clashed with the Indian aircraft made in France. The aerial duels were fought between China-made J-10 (Chengdu) and the French-made Rafale, Mirage (and also Russian-made SU-30 and MiG 29). One Rafale and one Mirage are said to have been downed, which is now confirmed, now dismissed by the world media. Obviously, truth is not to be had in the nearest future, but still the event rings some interesting alarm bells.

One, Chinese aircraft made a successful debut in a military conflict. Even if their success is disputed or downplayed, their presence attracted the attention of military experts.

Two, the French aircraft manufacturer may have received a dent to its prestige. Again, even if the news are doubtful and challenged, current and prospective customers might have second thoughts.

Third, the news about downing at least one Rafale and one Mirage might be dismissed, but the fate of the German Leopards and American Abrams in Ukraine – the two tanks that were reputed to be crème de la crème – might support suspicions that Rafale aircraft are not as good as they are advertised, either.

Four, China shows its strength not only in economy but also in its military capacity. The reader will have remembered about the Chinese cosmonauts (or astronauts) orbiting the earth and working on the Chinese space station, a fact not properly emphasized by the media. The Western consumer of information, upon being asked about space exploration, will most likely associate it with Americans and Russians, barely the Chinese. And yet…

Five, technological prowess of the Chinese aircraft only proves that China’s industry and engineering is as advanced as their Western counterparts if not better. Washington’s trade war against China is a sign of America acting in panic mode: the Hill has belatedly realized that the Asian dragon is on America’s heels, poised to move in for the kill.

Six, the world is split between the West and the Rest (BRICS and the “non-aligned” to use the political term from the latter part of the previous century). This Rest might stop purchasing military equipment from the West and begin to opt for the Chinese offer in this respect. Why, if the J-10 aircraft matches the capabilities of the French Rafale or Mirage, and is at least twice as cheap ($40-60 million against $100-120 million), then why overpay? To make the choice of the provider easier, countries around the world must also take into consideration that buying American or generally Western military equipment comes with a tag of the piece of equipment being or not being allowed to be used for particular purposes. So, Pakistan could have used American F-16s against India in the conflict referred to above… only that it could not, because the sale contract stipulated that these aircraft were not to be used by Islamabad against India without American prior permission. Beijing does not attach such restrictions to its military products.

The whole event may be denounced as Pakistani or even Chinese propaganda, which it might be. Yet, it is the small changes that accumulate over time and bring about a breakthrough, a colossal change. Fifty years back no one thought China would challenge the United States: today the United States feels seriously threatened. Chinese automobiles, Chinese cell phones, Chinese this, Chinese that are all flooding the world market. High time for the Chinese military equipment to do the same. The outsourcing once initiated and practiced for decades in with United States along with the de-industrialization propagated in the European Union hugely contribute to the change of the global balance of power. While the West is obsessively preoccupied with ethnic replacement, (anti-)racism, culture cancel, and rainbow sexuality, the Middle Kingdom is going about its business of becoming the world’s superpower. Also militarily.

Lawfare against Le Pen

Marie Le Pen has been found guilty. Whether Marie Marie Le Pen is guilty of the charges or not is a different matter. ECB’s boss Christine Lagarde or EU’s CEO Ursula von der Leyen have also faced charges and weaseled out of responsibility with ease. The former has been “guilty of negligence but” the court “did not hand down any punishment” while the latter was not even forced to as much as resign from her post over the so called Pfizergate affair. Now Marie Le Pen has been indicted and sentenced. Altogether she must pay a financial fine and serve a suspended term in prison, which is compounded by the duty to wear a humiliating electronic bracelet. This is not all. Now comes the gist of the whole matter: Marie Le Pen has been banned from funning for political office. It is the 2027 presidential election that is on the radar of the French establishment.

With the presidential election cancelled in Romania, with the threats of delegalizing Germany’s AfD, with Brussels’ similar acts of interference in Italy and Austria, one cannot rid oneself of the impression that a certain pattern is in play. It appears, the EU commissioners overlooked the “threat” rising in Bucharest and then were forced to act in a panic mode by resorting to ridiculous pretexts on which the cancellation of the election was based, so now they decided to act preemptively in Paris. Why wait for Marie Le Pen’s victory? It is much more advisable to nip the problem in the bud. Since Marie Le Pen and her National Rally become more and more popular, they need to be stopped in the tracks. The make such a verdict justified to the public, the leftist media across Europe and in the United States reporting on the case and writing about Marie Le Pen and her National Rally are going to great lengths to impress the reader or the viewer with the term “far-right”: Marie Le Pen and her National Rally are far-right.

Everybody and any organization that does not comply with the party line of the Western self-styled elites is automatically called “far-right”, while the consumers of information circulated by the mass media have been trained for years to make a straightforward association between the term far-right and Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler’s henchmen, though waving red flags and professing their belief in socialism are somehow not referred to as left or – still better – far-left but right, far-right. Which is to say in other words that such “capitalists” and “financiers” as Hitler, Heß, Goebbels, Göring and Borman were far-right, you see?

What does this far-right mean? The association that is imposed on the consumers of information suggests nothing less than concentration camps and witch hunts. In reality, the National Rally wants to make France French again. The National Rally wants to stop immigration, make peace with Russia, put a ban on the propaganda of rainbow sexuality and a few other normal things, things that were regarded as pillars of society and culture twenty-thirty years ago. That’s what far-right stands for in reality. Since most people would like the same goals to be pursued, another association has been created by the powers that be: that of “nazis”. Somehow even this rabid propaganda against Marie Le Pen and the National Rally turned out to become less and less effective, hence the powers that be decided to resort to lawfare. Marie Le Pen had to be stopped from taking part in the 2027 presidential election by hook or by crook or else France might run the risk of having a female counterpart of President Donald Trump, which is unpalatable to the European elites in general and French elites in particular.

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?

The political vacuum in France and the Netherlands

To what extent is Marine Le Pen a sincere right-wing, nationalist politician, and to what extent is she simply a conformist who, in her quest for power, step by step, is betraying her ideals? After all, she has long supported the programs of left-wing parties that promote gay marriage, she has begun to acknowledge the leading role of the EU, etc. She has long since abandoned or changed her most radical demands, including the demand for deportation of immigrants. And just because she is still associated with yesterday’s hard line, she promoted young Jordan Bardella; consequently, he became the new face of the National Rally/Rassemblement National movement and a candidate in the elections. The rift between their statements is immediately noticeable: when Le Pen advocates, for example, a reduction in military support for Ukraine, Bardella says that the country must not be overrun by Russia.

Betrayal of one’s own ideals comes at a high cost, as today’s events – July 08, 2024 – attest: the party of the left-turning Le Pen fared much worse than expected in the second round of elections. Bardelli’s new National Front will not come to power, but it may benefit in the long run, since the real goal is the presidency. Now the old/new Front will not be burdened with the cost of holding office and will be able to say for two years that its political opponents defied the will of the French people and “stole” the victory from the right.

What will the Rassemblement National do about the immigration problem if it ever really takes power? Perhaps it will limit itself to deporting foreign criminals (there are estimated to be tens of thousands of them), but it will never prohibit people with dual passports from holding important positions, for example, in diplomacy. That would require constitutional changes and a long march through the institutions, for which the party is far too weak. Polls among the French show that they favor limited migration in Europe and are rather negative about immigrants from outside the continent. Le Pen and her team could capitalize on this sentiment to finally stem the tide of immigration. The hope for such a future appears clearly distant today….

In France, as in the Netherlands, it is the left-liberal media that shapes minds, and these media do not tolerate any other views, and while they talk about tolerance, they prefer to stifle the entire right-wing scene, and – of course – its notorious leader. Gefira, too, has had problems publishing some of her texts in the Netherlands because of her honesty and views. The lying press, as the Germans call it, is a major obstacle in the path of the Rassemblement National to real power. People in France, the Netherlands and Germany blindly believe the media, which are believed to be of high quality, which thus function as leaders of the people. Sad, but true.

The situation in the Netherlands resembles that in France. Gert Wilders also had to find a replacement – someone to represent him in the government – and soften his views: otherwise there would have been no four-party coalition (PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB). The policy of the new government has been formulated a “manifesto” under the title “Hope, courage and pride.” Pathetic slogans like those of Macron. Mock change is the order of the day. Almost nothing is left of the right-wing ideals: the green revolution is still being promoted, taxes are being cut, labor rights are being strengthened, new housing is being built. Housing, of course, for new immigrants, whose influx is to be limited (which promise is this?). Gert Wilders no longer wants to separate the Netherlands from the EU; he just wants to “change the union from within.” That’s why he and his coalition will fail in the next elections, just like Le Pen, because in politics, only courage and consistency count. Those who do not understand this lose. The courage expressed in the manifesto of the new Dutch government is a lie. The new government will be as inept as Mark Rutte’s previous one. 14 years in power and what? What has been realized from the leftist ideals? Mr. Rutte, what do you say, for example, about the issue of women’s equality? The countries with the lowest percentage of women in leadership positions are Cyprus (21%), Luxembourg (22%) and… the Netherlands (26%). Period.

The French nation desires to abort itself out of existence, so be it!

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Abortion. These words are going to define France as its national assembly enshrined the right to abortion in the country’s constitution on March 4, 2024. The constitutional amendment was passed by the majority of 780 votes against 72. The announcement of the amendment whipped crowds of people, mostly women, gathered among other places around the Eiffel Tower into frenzy. Protesters were few and far between. Even the so called far right with Marine Le Pen were in favour of the constitutional amendment. The media around the globe called it a historic event. It is a historic event, indeed. The French nation has been aborting itself out of existence since 1974, when abortion was made legal, and now the same nation is besides itself with joy that the right has been made even stronger, as it is anchored in the country’s basic law. With the fertility rate of 1.83 (as of 2020), which includes the millions of the “new French”, the autochthonous French nation is continuing the commission of its own suicide with joy and glee and delight.

Why did this amendment need to be anchored in the constitution in a country where (i) the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of abortion, where (ii) abortion has been legal for half a century, where (iii) contraception is commonly available, and where (iv) sexual education is part and parcel of the school curriculum? Proponents of the amendment say they needed to anchor the right to abortion in the constitution to make it harder for any future government to repeal it. Here they point to the 2022 US Supreme Court ruling against Roe vs. Wade. Well, ok, but that’s what democracy is all about: if it happens so in the future that the majority decides to ban abortion, then why not?

Why do women across France are overjoyed, elated and euphoric because of a legal act like this one? Why do they claim to be oppressed by pregnancy? Why can’t they resort to contraception if they want to avoid pregnancy? Why do they believe that this right grants them control over their bodies when they ought to know that the baby has a separate DNA, which means that the pregnant woman carries someone else’s body and by terminating pregnancy kills a human being? Why can’t these women – who are surely all in favour of nature and anything natural – see that terminating pregnancies is unnatural? Why can’t they see – quite apart from moral or religious questions – that what they celebrate so very much is simply distasteful? Why of all the French women even Marine Le Pen, who opposes mass immigration of Third World people into France, can’t see that voting for the right to abort future Frenchmen and Frenchwomen she automatically makes immigration economically and socially necessary???