His aide comes up to him and (confidentially) repeats what has already been agreed upon and mentally rehearsed: “Mr President, we are flying over Germany. In a couple of hours we’ll be landing in Poland and then changing for the train. Within hours we arrive in Kiev, where you will have talks with President Zelensky.”

   They are on board Air Force One. Below, Europe: a gathering of nations that his country may always rely on, a gathering of countries whose governments habitually swear allegiance to him and his predecessors and his successors. Sometimes they strain at the leash they are held on, but then they are quickly brought to toe the line.

   “In Kiev?” the President expresses his doubts out loud though he has long given his consent to the whole plan. It may be he doesn’t remember.

   ”No need to worry,” reassures him one of his aides. “The Russians have been notified of your visit to Ukraine’s capital. The skies will be as clear as on day one after the Creation. President Zelensky will wear his usual khaki costume to show that he is a tough soldier and shares the hard life of the citizens he represents. That’s something we’ve all been accustomed to..”

   The President has some vague recollections. Who was it who said he would not don ordinary clothes till the war was won? He cannot recall, but he feels somehow ill at ease.

   “Do the Poles know that rather than in Warsaw I will first arrive in Kiev?” he asks.

   “The Poles?” His aide is puzzled. Why the heck should they know in advance? They are not to be reckoned with. “No, Mr President,” the aide answers. “They will be informed in the last moment. The fewer people know, the better.”

   Still, the Russians have been notified. Isn’t it weird! thinks the President.

   “Will the Poles not take offence?” the President voices his doubts.

   His aide cannot help smiling. Offence? The Poles? At Americans?

   “No, Mr President. They owe us too much. We guarantee their sovereignty and security, as you know. They want more troops from us, more military lethal equipment. How could they take offence?”

   True, how could they? thinks that president and peeks through the oval window.

   “One more thing, Mr President,” he hears his aide. “Remember, while in Kiev,” the aide stops in mid-sentence, obviously searching for appropriate words, “we will hear an air-raid siren.”

   The President suddenly remembers. Yes, that’s what they have agreed upon!

   “Is that necessary?” he asks.  Continue reading →

Is the world governed with little wisdom? Generally, yes. This little wisdom boils down to simple means of exercising power and these are sheer, brute force, the threat of the use thereof, financial or intellectual bribery and money creation. Can we have a world without those who govern and those who are governed? No. Female mayors of some American cities who sought to govern without the police simply shifted power from the municipal administration to street gangs i.e. young, primitive, ruthless, reckless males who carry guns and never hesitate to use them. As a result struggle, hatred and an endless string of acts of vengeance reigned supreme. Neither hierarchy was abolished nor exploitation, nor for that matter: racism. Such is the biological component of human beings: they compete, they need to compete, they are driven to compete, they are designed to always want to outdo, outperform, outsmart others, they are elated when they are adored, admired, obeyed, feared, respected and loved. To achieve this end they will resort to any and all means available. One of those means is acting in groups of shared interests or identities.

People fall into national, religious, and racial groups which in turn can be divided into a number of social strata. They all – will-nilly – compete for resources, for power: they all each want to shape the world after their own fashion. Divisions also cut through societies, nations, races and creeds: it is Athens against Sparta, Carthage against Rome, the Muslim world against the Christian world, the War of the Roses, the French Revolution (i.e. the rising of the lower social classes against the aristocracy and the clergy); the American War of Secession, the Bolshevik Revolution i.e. the rebellion of the have-nots against the haves or the instigation of the have-nots against the haves by external powers (Germany, United Kingdom, United States) to destroy Russia, the Spanish Civil War, the war of domination over the Pacific between Japan and the United States, the war of the sexes that erupted in the sixties of the previous century, the war of the youth against the older generations… the list is endless. In these numerous conflicts various weapons are employed: from clubs and maces to bows and crossbows to cannon and tanks, to aircraft and missiles; apart from these – economic and psychological weapons are used, increasingly so in the modern times. The principle is simple: money is the be-all and end-all of something of all societies in all times; as for psychology: once you master your enemy’s mind, you have won over him without having to wreak havoc to material things; once you control your enemy’s mind, you have in him a devoted, docile servant who does not even realize that he is a servant!

All in all, in those conflicts people are punched, killed, maimed, tortured, bribed, seduced, intimidated, brain-washed, re-educated, converted and what not.

Basically there are three weapons with which one group subdues the other:
[1] arms (weapons that enable physical elimination),
[2] money (means that enforce desired behaviour), and
[3] psychology (means that invade the mind and make it remotely controllable).

Basically there are four fields in which one group wields power over another:
[1] economic (who exploits whom),
[2] military (who kills whom),
[3] cultural (who shapes whom), and
[4] political (who rules whom).

Gefira 71 familiarizes the reader with the means with which control is exercised through finances (money creation, digital money, programmable money, abolition of cash) and ideology (mind shaping, brain washing, intimidation, intellectual seduction). Both are extremely dangerous and extremely efficient, both are being applied to enable a very small group of people to impose their will and their vision of the world on the remaining vast majority.

 

Timeline of the events leading to the outbreak of the war between the Soviet Union and the American Federation.

1991 – the world sees the end of the long-drawn Cold War between the Western (capitalist) and the Eastern (socialist) blocs. The few summit talks that have been held between the American and Soviet presidents eventually came to fruition: the ineffective Western world has decided to lay down their ideological and economic arms rather than combat the implacable laws of history: yes, socialism has proved to be superior on all counts, so there is no sense in stubbornly denying this fact. (Besides: better red than dead.) Herewith NATO dissolves itself along with the European Economic Community or the EEC. The Soviet top leaders solemnly promise to their American counterparts-turned-friends that the Warsaw Pact will not be expanded westwards. By mutual consent between the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, the Western nation-states can, however, join the successful Comecon or the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. The United States allows its union states to opt for independence. This political proposition is taken up by some of them, especially the southern ones, which have a large Spanish speaking population, and they create a new political entity known as Dixieland. The remnant of the United States is renamed to the American Federation. It is agreed that the American Federation is a political continuation of the United States and that it is the American Federation that will possess nuclear weapons, to the exclusion of the spin-off states. The world has at the long last earned its respite: as a footnote to these events it might be of interest to mention that at that time a song by an East German band The Winds of Change has become an international hit. Why? Because its lyrics and tuneful melody herald the era of brotherhood of men.

1993 – the president of the American Federation pays a state visit to Moscow, where he delivers a speech in the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He praises the land of the workers and the peasants, requests more credit for his own country, which happens to be in an awful predicament after the social, financial and economic reforms openly imposed or tacitly suggested by Soviet advisors, and closes his address with the words “”Workers of the world, unite!” As unbelievable as it may seem, these were the words of the president of once a capitalist country, once so strongly opposed to communism or socialism!

1995 – West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy along with the countries of the Benelux join the Warsaw Pact, allegedly because these nations feel threatened by resurgent American dominance. As the remnant of once great America is deep in economic and social meltdown, the diplomats on the Potomac only raise weak voices of protest and surprise. Continue reading →

The mortgage volume in Europe has collapsed. Buyers can no longer finance themselves with loans at the level of previous years due to the significantly higher interest rates. And yet the ECB has not yet spoken its last word on tightening monetary policy. Raising interest rates further will neither stop inflation nor prevent the collapse on the real estate market. The ECB is helpless in the face of the changes in the world energy market and is in a tight spot. That the first peak of inflation is behind us does not mean that the reasons for persistent inflation have disappeared. Gefira have warned several times about the real estate market, especially in China (where omens for the storm last year included the fall of Evergarde). Now, unfortunately, our scenario is materialising. The graph speaks louder than words:

Two American cities can serve as a litmus test: Chicago and Detroit. Once big, sprawling, impressive, breath-taking. In the year 1950 Chicago’s population stood at 3,6 million and it was then at its peak; seventy years later – in 2020 – it stood at 2,7 million i.e. it had been reduced by roughly a fourth.

Detroit’s population in the year 1950 amounted to 1,8 million; seventy years later – in 2020 – it was down to 0,6 million, i.e. it had been reduced by a sweeping two thirds. What went wrong? What happened? Has a war been waged in the areas in and around the cities? Has a series of tornadoes or earthquakes hit the two cities? Have they been hit by a plague, incomparably more destructive than the notorious virus that emerged soon after the discussed period? Well​?

Sure, there has been neither war nor plague, there have been neither tornadoes nor earthquakes. Ah yes, there may have been a number of economic crises during that long time, but even they cannot be held responsible for the devastation that has been caused to the cities’ demographics. There has been acting one factor that it is dangerous to even mention, a factor that social scientists avoid at all costs on pain of being declared castaways and not accepted by self-respecting society should they dare to roll out this factor and discuss it. What is this factor?

If you are open-minded and not easily intimidated, then you may have guessed; if you are a staunch supporter of political theology of egalitarian humanism, then you will never guess and then you’d better stop reading here and now.

The factor that we think about – this elephant in the room that “polite society” makes believe not to notice – is the ethnohistory and the corresponding biocultural history of the two cities. Give a careful look at the graphs below showing

[1] the numerical rise of the black population and the accompanying

[2] numerical drop of the white population, and the resultant

[3] overall numerical fall in the demographics of the cities.

Chicago’s demographics, ResearchGate

Detroit’s demographics, Wikipedia

The reverse proportionality of one numerical value rising and the other falling strikes the eye, does it not? You can be certain that intellectually crippled social scientists nurturing themselves from the bowls served to them by their owners and enjoying the owners’ occasional pat on the shoulder (Good job, boy!) will

[1] rabidly accuse you of racism, and

[2] provide a number of explanations, economic and others, with “systemic racism” of the whites as necessarily the ultimate argument.

Whichever way you look at it, there are distinctive human biocultures (with emphasis on bio) that cannot be squeezed together no matter how much the managers of the world try to make them coalesce. True, the two cities are still shared by whites and blacks, but then – despite all the propaganda disseminated by the regime and despite the full-blown cult of the Other writ large and enforced on whites – the two anthropological types tend to flock together (see the map). 

Why should they not? They have different and conflicting ethnic genetic interests (Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration), which means that they are not suited to share the same living space (by their own choice!) to the effect that when one group is in, the other is out in the most literal sense of the statement.

One more important observation: Detroit is the 3rd, while Chicago is the 6th most crime-ridden city in the United States. Memphis, where the proportion of blacks to whites is 2 to 1, takes first place, while St Louis, where the same proportion is 1 to 1 (while the number of inhabitants fell from approx. 800 000 in 1930 down to 300 000 in 2020), takes second. Go guess why.

We began our observation saying that Chicago and Detroit are litmus papers. What are the two cities litmus papers for? They are litmus papers for the entirety of the United States.

I challenge you to consider!

Millions enter the States from the south. How will that translate into American demographics? Do you you think a new, monolithic society will emerge? If you do, then think again and look at Chicago and Detroit. How will it translate into the living standards (public safety, economy) of the whole country?

Lithuania is supposed to fare much better now that the country is a European Union member-state, but does it? Well, consider. When Lithuania was a member-state of the Soviet Union, it was regarded by all union citizens from all the other fourteen republics as one of the most developed nations, a piece of the West inside the Union. At present the country ranks as one of the poorest in the new Union, which is by far not the worst that could afflict it. The worst phenomenon is that while before joining the EU Lithuania had a vibrant population, now this population has significantly shrunk, at least by a third. No need to add that it is the young people who have left and for good. Generally, when people leave, they leave for good. Now consider without prejudice (can you shake prejudice off? I somehow guess you can’t, for the words that follow are hard to stomach): when was the time when the Lithuanian nation flourished biologically i.e. that it grew or at least did not shrink rapidly? You know, economic backwardness is reversible, the biological collapse – barely or hardly so. 

Demographics of Lithuania, Wikipedia.

Consider Ukraine. It numbered roughly fifty million inhabitants before it left the Soviet Union, it was the second largest country in Europe as regards area and it had a well-developed industry of all kinds, heavy industry including. What happened to Ukraine after three decades of independence, imitating the West and doing every bid from Washington and Brussels? One may wonder if at present the overall population of Ukraine stands at at least 35 million plus the country barely has any industry while the territorial losses are huge. 

Demographics of Ukraine, Wikipedia.

Sure, the Western states “welcome the refugees” from Ukraine or emigrants from Lithuania: after all they are known to keep saying that diversity is their strength and that they become enriched by all the people that flock to them. Yes, that may be so, but then if State A becomes enriched through accepting, attracting, alluring, enticing, seducing people from State B, then conversely by the same token State B becomes impoverished during this process. In other words State A robs State B in broad daylight under the pretext of all those international agreements about “the free flow of people” and “human rights to relocate”. How does that square with all the noble slogans of caring for the “sustainable” and “even” and “stable” development of all the nations around the globe?

Think of it! A million of old, elderly, sick, sickly or otherwise (by reason of age) helpless Lithuanians have been left to their own devices by a million of their young, healthy, entrepreneurial, professionally active compatriots. How does that square with all those human rights, with social justice, social solidarity, empathy and compassion that is preached in Western universities day in, day out? How does that square with all those noble caring oh so humane ideals preached by UN High Commissioners for this or that benefit that they are oh so intent on dispensing?

I dare you to consider these things.

Coming back to Lithuania: Julius Caesar is credited to have said: “I would rather be first in that little village than second in Rome.” How does that relate to Lithuania? The country stopped being among the first in the former Union in order to become one of the last – not even the second! – in the current Union. Some deal did the Lithuanians make!

Ah, but people in Lithuania are free at present while they used to be enslaved in the past! Very well, but why then do they not want to stay in their free – liberated – country? Is it because they do not see a promising and secure future? Can it be true that they do not see a promising and secure future with Lithuania being a member-state of the European Union?! This thought alone is a blasphemy, is it not?

When Nixon renounced the gold parity of the dollar, the debt of the world economy in terms of world GDP was about 90%. Since then, central banks began massive printing of money out of thin air, so that in 2018 debt rose to 300% of GDP. The crises like the one of 2007 were rooted in this debt mountain. A similarly dangerous situation was brewing in 2019, and then suddenly came the redemptive Corona crisis, thanks to which central banks were allowed to print even more money and pump it into circulation. In the 18 months since the pandemic began, central banks increased the amount of assets held by 60%! Previously, to print that much, it took a decade. This huge amount of money in the economies naturally led to the inflation we are suffering from now (which is in every textbook on economics and which every economist should have foreseen). So it is not Putin who is responsible for this inflation, but our monetary guardians, the central banks, who hand in hand with politicos imposed lockdowns to plug the resulting deficits by flooding the economy with money. In 2020, inflation was not yet so evident as consumers, spooked by the media, sat at home and spent little. As they gradually relaxed by easing lockdowns, they began to buy more. This accelerated money circulation in the economy accelerated inflation. Not only did supermarket prices rise, but asset prices and risky assets like cryptocurrencies also rose. Now central banks started to raise interest rates to stop this rally. So these biggest buyers of the risky assets are getting off the racing train, so this year will not necessarily be happy for the owners of the stocks and cryptocurrencies. Already in 2022, the markets anticipated the coming decisions of the bankers. The year brought huge losses in both stocks and bonds, which Gefira warned about early on. So in 2023, position yourself on the assets that will be immune to inflation.

Read more from our bulletins.