US

What a choice!

By a guest author.

Is this supposed to be a leading nation, a torch of democracy, a superpower, the place on earth where millions are flocking to? Good heavens! The debate held between former President Donald Trump and President Incumbent Joe Biden has made a depressive effect. The country – or a nation, as Americans love to say, though a nation they are not, rather a motley of peoples and races and creeds – that claims to have the best economy the best political system, the largest number of Nobel Prize winners, the best scientists and technicians, the best universities, the best this and the best that, that country has put forward two men to run for president, neither of whom is someone I would like to follow even if paid for. Neither appears to be a man under whom I would ever like to serve; neither inspires, neither instills admiration or awe or respect; neither grabs my attention in any positive way. Watching and listening to the debate was a huge waste of time. Bland, uninspiring, predictable guys, with nothing whatsoever to say, with nothing to impress the audiences, with nothing whatsoever to propose.

Not that they are exceptions in the long line of American presidents and presidential candidates. Most of their recent predecessors were as bland, unimaginative and uninspiring as they make them. Be it He-Clinton or She-Clinton, be it Obama or Kamala-the-laughing-Harris… Some have taken credit and continue to take credit for being female or non-white, the first female or the first non-white holding such a high post… as if that were the most important thing about leading the allegedly best country the world has seen. What a shame, what an embarrassment, what a humiliation! Leaders of much, much smaller countries – think of Robert Fico (pronounce: FEE-tsaw) of Slovakia or Victor Orbán of Hungary – are far, far better, smarter, cleverer, more prudent, and better educated. Unfortunately, a Fico or an Orbán with their common sense and education are not at the helm of a superpower but at the helm of the superpower’s vassal states. What a pity! If we could but trade Fico or Orbán for the likes of Biden, Trump, von der Leyen, Macron, Scholz, Stoltenberg… Sadly, that’s not what we can do. Sadly, we are forced to suffer the policies of the loons and morons with their religion of climate change, war on Russia, ever more pandemics, ethnic replacement and their contempt for human biology (like when individuals can decide what sex they are) and sound morals (like when yesterday’s shame is today’s pride and the other way round).

But you know what? People are still viewing America as the Mecca of the world, as the Promised Land, while Americans (in fact a concoction of nations and races and creeds and – to be up to date with terminology – the many genders) are still envied and somehow regarded as a chosen people. And this chosen people, this exceptional people are now divided over which of the two embarrassments will lead the fifty states towards the abyss. Watching the two guys – Donald and Joe – I just could not help thinking about the many emperors of ancient Rome: those, too, were for the most part disappointing in any respect and by any measure. The empire was big and yet it was inevitably on a crash course with the external and internal forces that were about to smash it, disrupt it, make it into nothing. And still, and despite all that, even long, very long after the Empire had collapsed, the many nations regarded it as a wonder of wonders: the so-called barbarians modelled the administration of their kingdoms that arose on the ruins of ancient Rome on that of the Roman Empire and continued to use Latin – the Roman Empire’s language – for centuries after the demise of the Empire. Among the dead languages Latin used to be the most alive. The same fate waits English, whose vocabulary is – what an omen! – for the most part Latin, including such common words as tent, tender, money, castle, street, city, human, treat, language, animal, apply, delete, record, intelligent, army, suggest, support, sex, gender… – the list is unending.

Consider also how American public and administrative institutions along with some of the most famous symbols are modelled on ancient Rome with the words like capitol, senate, the phrases e pluribus unum (=one [state] from many [states]), or novus ordo seclorum (=a new order of the ages) and annuit coeptis (= he favoured the commencement) that appear on the Great Seal of the United States and the dollar banknote. The United States with its many military bases around the world (more than eight hundred) make one think about the Roman legions also scattered around yesteryear’s world, while the form of the American republic seems to be evolving towards a dictatorship and then… monarchy. You don’t believe it? Rest assured these processes are already under way. You haven’t noticed? Not easy to notice. Such changes take time. They seem to happen quickly only when viewed through the pages of a historical book. There, you turn another page and the political system has changed or a war has been won or lost or a country has been conquered. In reality it all takes time which makes the changes imperceptible to the common man. 

Of the 300 million inhabitants, some of whom have graduated from the famed Ivy League, this world’s leading democracy has been able to roll out an octogenarian and almost an octogenarian with little or nothing to say. But then why should we wonder? A Biden or a Pelosi, an Obama or a Clinton have been almost all their adult lives in politics. They are no scholars or scientists, no real entrepreneurs or thinkers. They have been focused on making their careers and – especially – on making money. Accordingly, they are capable of changing their mind as often as required by the circumstances and they only care about their image. The speeches that they make – or rather read – are the usual stuff prepared by other people. They have learnt how to smile and how to wave hands; they have learnt how to play up to the audience by saying sweet little nothings; they have been groomed to be what they are and they have been paid for it. They are prisoners of the system and their ambitions. Just as it was in ancient Rome. All those emperors, dictators, generals and senators with their petty interests and warped psyche, with their conspiracies and civil wars, with making their weight felt at the expense of the smaller countries. And the same populace around them, then and now, demanding bread and Olympic games, or cheap gas and Hollywood-like entertainment. Roman gladiators have been replaced with Super Bowl players while Roman self-pride (we are the best in the world) has been replaced with American self-pride (we are the world’s best).

The world’s leading democracy! Dear me! Just listen to them candidates, to the content of their statements, to the mutual accusations! Glean the information from their speeches and from the media about the several millions of aliens entering the United States and occupying it piece by piece, and confront it with the pathetic declaration of the need to stop Russia because otherwise it will… occupy Europe! What if Russians decided to do it the way those millions of aliens are doing every year, settling in the United States and feeding on it? Would such occupation be palatable?

One can only wish the big United States had a Viktor Orbán or a Robert Fico! The world would be a nice place to live. Just imagine a debate between a Viktor Orbán and a Robert Fico, will you? You’d taste common sense and it would be a pleasure to listen to. Sadly, our choice is between a total globalist and a semi-globalist; between two peace-loving leaders of the best ever democracy who nonetheless cannot extricate the United States from wars and conflicts; our choice is between someone who has already during his term been undermined by his administration and someone who during his term is being controlled by his administration. What a choice!

Restaurants offering free dishes

Every historical epoch or age has its religion. It may be a religion par excellence with a god or gods and a devil or devils, with a belief in afterlife, final judgement, reincarnation and what not. Such is not the only form a creed may take. Religions also assume forms of ideologies: apart from the beliefs in the otherworldly reality, man has also believed and continues to believe in the set of assumptions – laws – principles of his own making. Man’s strict observance of them transforms ideologies into religions. Humanity has had a number of such non-religious religions. This are socialism or enlightenment, human rights or the rights of the citizen, ecologism or globalism, with the list being by no means exhausted. One of the tenets of the last mentioned religions is the belief in the advantageousness of open borders. The argument is that man ought not to be restricted in his movement around the globe, that we are all one human race and hence citizens of the world.

The argument is false on a number of counts. For one, there are many natural borders of which language and culture are the most powerful in separating and dividing groups of people. Language itself makes runaways from one nation to another or one cultural region to another feel very much ill at ease. Hence, geographical or administrative borders merely reflect reality. It is very often recklessly repeated that nationalities only came into existence in the 19th century, but that’s not true. When you consider the borders of the medieval kingdom of France or England or Bohemia or Sweden, they somehow more or less overlap with the territory inhabited by the French the English or the Czech. The many German dukedoms and principalities along with kingdoms were still… German rather than mixtures of German and Italian or French nations. Sure, occasionally each of those political entities contained some ethnic minorities, but these were ethnic minorities and if they were bog enough, they sooner or later separated. The managers of the world seem not to be aware of all it. Also, the managers and ideologues of the world let themselves be seduced by their wishful thinking. But then who are they? Geniuses? But we are diverging.

Be it as it may, the concept of having open borders has been preached by today’s intellectuals as a kind of new commandment that has been etched into stone. The concept, however – just like about anything that has been born in the brains of the ideologues – is false and its falsity is glaring to anybody with common sense. What do we mean?

The Western countries have not merely opened their borders – doors – wide for anyone to come. That in itself would not be all that bad. After all, we have shops and restaurants and offices open for anybody and there is no problem with it. The Western countries have made it obligatory on themselves to provide for anybody who turns up with food and clothing and medical care and what not. The Western countries have not merely turned themselves into restaurants – offices – cinemas where anybody can come in and order something… in return for money. The Western countries turned themselves into such a type of restaurants – offices – cinemas where anybody who turns up is given food and beverages without having to pay for them. That’s the glaring falsity of the open borders ideology. It is not – let us reiterate it – that the restaurants are open: those restaurants have been turned into troughs regularly replenished with free-of-charge food, and naturally they act as magnets. Tens and hundreds of thousands flock to those troughs because why shouldn’t they?

Another falsity of the open-borders ideology consists in the fact that the Western ideologues provide the incomers with all the life necessities redistributing the wealth that is produced by of the host countries. It is not that the residents or prime ministers or the enlightened intellectuals give supplies to the needy from outside the Western world: it is that they take it away from their own citizens and redirect it to the aliens. Yes, the citizens of the host countries being brain-washed by the decades-long propaganda are generally in favour of aiding the aliens but herein lies yet another falsity. The citizens pay taxes and their governments funnel some of the money to the arrivals. Imagine now that not a penny is taken away from the citizens for the aid for the arrivals, but each citizen is asked to share voluntarily some of his income with all those Afghans, Somalis, Nigerians and Moroccans. How many people do you think – even among those who have been brainwashed – would support day in, day out the perfect strangers and how much money would they assign to the needs of the newcomers? It is one thing to have your money spent by the government when you have no say, and quite another to regularly and voluntarily deplete your bank account and transfer the money to aliens, especially those you are afraid or scared of every time you pass them by in the street of your town or city. How many helpers would we have under such conditions?

In other words, imagine running a restaurant and… having its door open to anybody who pleases to enter and… serving them all the dishes they wish without being paid for it! I dare say you wouldn’t like to do it even if you had money to burn. Especially – let me repeat it – if you were afraid or scared of your “guests”.

The legal case of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidency

On May 20 Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidential term expired, which poses a very interesting legal and political case. Russia does not recognize Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s authority any more. Which is not a malicious act on her part. The argument is that any agreement, accord, whatever signed by someone who simultaneously is not the head of a country entails grave political problems. Any next president of Ukraine may either feel bound by the agreement that Ukraine entered into with Russia under the presidency of Volodymyr Zelenskyy or may renege on it as signed by someone who did not have the legal authority to act as the country’s leader. Why should the Kremlin even bother to consider any talks with Zelenskyy if such is the case?

As of now, the West recognizes Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s power despite the expiry of his presidential term of office. Yet, the same legal case might be used by the diplomats in Washington, London, or Paris in any later development of events in Ukraine. They, too, might one of these days make a statement that they do not feel bound to honour any international settlement signed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy if only such a political move suits their purposes.

As is known, it is the interaction of the real military and economic factors that are at the disposal of the international players that matters. Diplomacy is merely a reflection of those real factors. Hence, if the West feels coerced to enter into an unfavourable settlement with Russia over Ukraine, it may intentionally make Volodymyr Zelenskyy sign it with the hindsight that the settlement is going to be revoked the moment the balance of powers tilts in the West’s favour. The fact that the legality of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidential authority is questionable might be viewed as a wild card in any future diplomatic dealings between the West and Russia if the latter agrees to honour Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s signature.

At present, Ukrainian jurisprudence might recognize the current Ukrainian leader as the country’s legitimate president. That may change overnight. Particular legal provisions can be construed to mean whatever pleases the powerful. We all know that.

Transgender Day of Visibility

Jeez… not that this day of Transgender Visibility is celebrated for the first time, but still. It all began in 2009 with the blessing from both Obama and Biden, then vice-president. Among the initiators was one Rachel Crandall Crocker, an attractive (see pic) activist of the movement that has invaded the minds of the Western civilization. In 2014, the day was observed around the globe. Then in 2021, President Joe Biden proclaimed March 31 as a Transgender Day of Visibility. This – 2024 – year it coincided with Easter Day. What a clash! 

The President’s Proclamation on Transgender Day of Visibility, 2024, reads, among others, that:

Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our Nation [and because] they help America thrive [t]hey deserve, and are entitled to […] the most fundamental freedom to be their true selves. [Sadly] extremists are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families — silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses […]. These bills attack our most basic American values: the freedom to be yourself, the freedom to make your own health care decisions, and even the right to raise your own child. It is no surprise that the bullying and discrimination that transgender Americans face is worsening our Nation’s mental health crisis, leading half of transgender youth to consider suicide in the past year. At the same time, an epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls, especially women and girls of color, continues to take too many lives. […] All of these attacks are un-American and must end. No one should have to be brave just to be themselves.

Notice that the said cases of suicide are offhandedly explained as caused by the hostile attitude of Americans with normal sex conduct towards those with sexual deviances, and not a thought is spared for the other explanation, namely that the high suicide rate is caused by the psychological confusion of not knowing which sex you are, but who cares? 

Notice also how the president pontificates from on high and from the bottom of his magnanimous heart that all he wants to protect is the right to be… yourself. Tear-jerking . Yet, we all know what the president and the paymasters of his clique mean by being yourself: you may choose to be transgender, but you must not choose to be an advocate of the interests of white Americans. In this case the rules of self-determination need not apply: the usual selectivity in the omnipresent newspeak of the present day that we have long been accustomed to, but never mind.

The American head of state continues in the same document:

Now, therefore, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2024, as Transgender Day of Visibility. I call upon all Americans […] to work toward eliminating violence and discrimination based on gender identity.

Some ostentatious pomp it is, is it not?! “I call on all Americans to eliminate violence and discrimination” as if attacks on people with abnormal sexual proclivities were part and parcel of American everyday reality rather than rising crime rates and a feeling of insecurity caused by the weakening of the police and open borders policy.

Towards the end of the document, the president says:

Witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.

You might know that Joe Biden is not merely a Christian but a Catholic. Catholicism is regarded by some as the strand of Christianity that is strictest in its moral demands. Catholic or no Catholic, the Christian Holy Bible does not beat about the bush when it comes to homosexuality, so Biden as a Christian and a Catholic, while invoking “the year of our Lord” (Jesus Christ is meant… yet?), should have had a moment of reflection, a moment of doubt, a moment of recollection of the following passage (emphasis added):

[Because t]hey exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator,[…] God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

Romans 1:26–27, New American Bible, Vatican site.

It may be that Joe Biden does not know his Bible; it may also be that he has theologians explaining the whole passage away, shedding a new light on it, as is practised nowadays with almost anything and everything regarding moral values: rather than being abolished or ridiculed, they are reinterpreted, deconstructed and construed to mean whatever pleases the managers of the world.

How could a Catholic president square his Transgender Day of Visibility coinciding with Easter Day this year? We may rest assured that the president’s conscience is not troubled in the least and that his theologians have told him that (i) St Paul did not really mean what he supposedly meant, (ii) that some of the apostles were transgender people (especially St John, who reclined on Jesus’ bosom/breast/next to Jesus – as the many translations have it – as evidenced in John 13:23), and that (iii) transgender people are our neigbours (in the religious sense of the word) and neighbours ought to be loved, which after all is the highest precept of Christian morality (second only to the love for God). Never mind all the other intricacies of the Holy Writ: Americans will not challenge such a theological claim, certainly not publicly, especially in the time when they are full aware that non-compliance with the new normal may cost them dearly in terms of their professional careers. It is not Jesus Christ, nor the pope, nor the Vatican, nor your local church community, nor your (Catholic or Protestant) priest, who are commonly feared nowadays: it is the likes of Rachel Crandall Crocker, whose denunciation will surely land you up in deep trouble and bring upon you the strongest, most severe societal condemnation or worse.

Through such decisions the world finds out what American values are at present. All transgender people in all countries either already know or will soon know that they can flock to the American fold and seek protection there against their oppressive governments that have not yet recognized this basic human right – a right to be yourself.

Look forward to the April issue of Gefira. We deal with the role of transgender people worldwide in American politics.

FED is not playing fair – can it go bankrupt?

The most important central bank in the world, the US Federal Reserve (FED), recently presented its financial report, which shows that it had a substantial loss of USD 114 billion last year. Why such a large loss for the FED? To explain this, one should first distinguish between two aspects of the central bank’s activities.

Firstly, the FED holds large quantities of US bonds, which in turn yield interest. Of course, in this case, this interest is income for the central bank. It is worth noting that since the FED began buying bonds on a large scale in 2008, interest rates have also risen considerably
Secondly, the Federal Reserve allows commercial banks and various types of funds to hold money in an account at the central bank. At the same time, it pays a certain amount of interest on these funds, which depends primarily on the level of interest rates.

Well, between 2022 and 2023, there was a series of interest rate hikes in the US. Eventually, a level of 5.5% was reached. This meant that the FED had to pay 5.5% interest to banks and funds (and there were a lot of them) that wanted to keep their money in a central bank account.

So on the one hand, the Fed still held a similar amount of bonds in 2023, for which it received interest rates close to the 2022 level (i.e. much lower than this 5.5%). On the other hand, it had to pay much higher interest rates to commercial banks or money market funds. This resulted in the loss.

You may ask: What happens when a central bank suffers a loss? From a purely financial point of view: Nothing significant happens. It is assumed that this loss will be covered by future profits. In the context of a central bank, it is difficult to talk about bankruptcy, especially as central banks can create gigantic amounts of money under the current system.
Gefira is critical of the monetary policy of central banks, but for completely different reasons. No one from the central bankers is commenting on the following questions:

1) Is it fair that the central bank only rescued and wants to rescue selected financial institutions simply because they operate on a large scale?

2) Is it normal for these institutions (especially banks) to hold their reserves at the central bank and safely receive a few percent interest in return?

3) What’s more – is it fair that unprofitable companies are kept alive by the central bank printing money, which in turn makes it more difficult for new companies to enter the market?

4) Is it good for the economy that unprofitable zombie companies are kept afloat in this way, which otherwise – in the real free economy – should have gone bankrupt long ago?

Ukrainians, please continue dying so that Americans can have good paying jobs

If you wanted to have an audio and visual illustration of the idiom a pack of lies, watch and listen to Undersecretary of state for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland that took place on February 22, 2024 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Taking her words for truth, you get the idea that Ukraine is winning the war, harming Russia enormously while improving its economy. You get the impression that the whole world supports Ukraine and very few irrelevant states are on Russia’s side. You also get the impression that (crushing, as she put it) sanctions imposed on Russia are bringing Moscow to its knees and Russia’s failure is a matter of time. You also learn that the many Ukrainian refugees are impatient to return the their country, which with the aid of the West will soon reform and rebuild. My goodness!

Do you still remember Madeleine Albright? Victoria Nuland resembles her physically and mentally. The same ugly face, the same stout body and the same thirst for blood.

Listening to Nuland’s speech and the following interview with Victoria Nuland, you could also notice her visceral hated of Vladimir Putin. She mentioned his surname almost every other sentence. The more she mentioned the president of Russia’s surname, the more you could see how helpless she felt in her anger. Putin, Putin, Putin, all the time Putin! Victoria Nuland is possessed – obsessed – fixated on Vladimir Putin. Putin has invaded her mind and is there to stay. She will spew out Putin, Putin, Putin even on her death bed. And no wonder. You see, Victoria Nuland thought Ukraine was hers for grabs and now she has found out that all her efforts has come to naught. Poor Victoria… Putin, Putin, Putin – all the time through the speech and the following interview. Putin, Putin, Putin! Victoria Nuland most likely has a doll representing Putin and she regularly pricks it with pins. I just dread to think what vocabulary she uses thinking about her nemesis – Putin – when not standing on ceremony.

Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, so was Victoria Nuland. She said, Most of the aid for Ukraine ended up in the United States, creating good paying jobs. Ukrainians, did you hear? Shed your blood, lose your hands and legs, die in the battlefield so that the Americans can have good paying jobs (and the American oligarchs can enrich themselves)! 

The interview of the year

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

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

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

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

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

[a] the five waves of NATO expansion;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[b] President Zelensky issued a ban on negotiations;

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

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

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

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

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