Why the war is still going on

The war in Ukraine has been going on for almost a year now. There is no doubt that it is a war between Russia and the West, between Russia and NATO, between Russia and the United States. There is also no doubt that Kiev, left to its own devices, would have long since been beaten and conquered and subjugated by Moscow. The constant supply of arms, financial loans and political support coming from the West means that Ukraine continues to fight, albeit not only with its own army, but also resorting to thousands of mercenaries from a variety of nationalities. Polish and British soldiers and officers are said to be operating in Ukrainian uniforms. The West has deployed all its authority, all its diplomatic and economic muscle, to sustain Ukraine’s resistance against Russia. Is it because anyone in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin or Kiev believes that Ukraine can win this war? Is it because anyone in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin or Kiev believes that Ukrainian troops will drive out Russian troops, that Ukraine will regain not only the four provinces that have been annexed to Russia, but also the Crimea? Is it because Moscow, having been repulsed and vanquished, will start paying compensation to Ukraine and the Russian leaders will stand before the international tribunal in The Hague like the former leaders of Yugoslavia and Serbia?

Of course not! So why are they fighting this war? Why are Washington and London, Paris and Berlin encouraging Kiev to resist further? Why are Western governments subjecting millions of Ukrainians to death, starvation, cold and emigration? The answer is self-explanatory. Because if the war goes on as long as possible, then:

① Russia, a rival that the West dislikes (to put it mildly), will be weakened and bled to the maximum;
② Ukraine will incur as much debt and as many obligations to the West as possible, only to repay them for decades, i.e. to relinquish control over its own natural resources, production facilities and population (for how else can Kiev repay these gigantic obligations?); Continue reading →

Two hammers on humanity

Two hammers, which will sooner or later hit mankind, place it in a global concentration camp, make us all say goodbye to freedom and privacy, are already in the pipeline. Two hammers will strike at the two most basic areas of everyone’s life: the material or economic base that enables each of us to survive plus the concern for health without which everything else ceases to matter. These two hammers are:

– digital programmable currency and the

– global treaty on pandemic prevention.

Both hammers have a tangent line, but about that in a moment.

Digital programmable currency referred to as digital central bank currency or DCBC is money that cannot be touched because it will only exist in the form of zero-one pulses. Everyone will be equipped with an account in a single central (at first national, ultimately – global) bank and all settlements will be electronic. In an age when computer networks dispose of ever-increasing data collection and tracking capabilities, this means that all, absolutely all transactions, donations and even almsgiving will be recorded. The anonymity and privacy of remittances will disappear. If cash is abolished completely, someone somewhere will even know the amount of pocket money a child or teenager gets from their parents!

Digital money is programmable money, which means that the government will be able to attribute to selected sums of money in the accounts of selected people such properties as the need to spend it within a certain period or on certain goods and services. A citizen will receive an allowance from the government, or an employee will receive a salary from his or her employer, a certain proportion of which will have to be spent – for example – within three months on – for example – cleaning products. A huge and efficient internet of things will make it impossible to spend this money on anything else and will make it disappear from the account after a period in which it has not been used.

That is not all! The authorities can make the permission for the money to be spent conditional on how the citizen behaves, that is, whether he supports the authorities, whether she expresses opinions that are in line with mainstream opinions and so on. Such a system is being tried in China; such a system has already been activated in Canada, where Justin Trudeau’s government prevented protesting truck drivers from using their own bank accounts, from using their own money! This is already happening! in the West! which is regarded as an oasis of all freedoms and human rights. It is highly possible that Justin Trudeau inadvertently did something he should not have done yet: he may have frightened people and showed them what was coming. However, knowing human memory and naivety, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people did not learn anything from this event. One can be sure that most people in the so-called free world will be outraged at the lack of liberties in the aforementioned China or Russia because they will be fed such information by the media, without noticing or (more likely) not wanting to notice that freedom ends in the West. Continue reading →

Arbitrariness of wielding power

A text about there being no difference between Tony Blair and Nikita Khrushchev, or about there being no difference between the United Kingdom – the model democracy as it is often claimed – and the USSR – the despotic Soviet system. Are you surprised? Surprised that we are comparing one of the leaders of the so-called free, democratic world and one of the leaders of an inhuman system that collapsed precisely because it was inhuman? Yes, we are comparing Great Britain and the Soviet Union, we are comparing Tony Blair with a Stalinist satrap. More than that: we dare to put an equals sign between the educated leader of the United Kingdom and the simple-minded, uneducated Ukrainian peasant who ruled a superpower for a while. What entitles us to do so?

Justin Trudeau had the bank accounts of Canadian truck drivers who dared to protest against Ottawa’s decisions blocked! Indeed, this fact alone shows that Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian leader hated by the entire “progressive” world, could take lessons from Justin Trudeau on how to ride roughshod over the whole of society!

Both one and the other decided the fate of millions of people and it never occurred to them to ask these people for their opinion. Both one and the other made decision concerning millions of people and could not be bothered to listen to the wishes and desires of those people. Both the one and the other claimed that they governed in the name of the people, for the people, and on the authority of the people. Ha, ha, ha!

In the 1950s, Nikita Khrushchev and his supporting party camarilla separated the Crimea from the Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic with a single stroke of the pen and incorporated it into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In other words, overnight the Russians living in Crimea (for all practical purposes only Russians live in Crimea) became… Ukrainians. Is this what they wanted for themselves? Not at all. Could they have done something to oppose it? Let them try!

Similarly, in the 1990s Tony Blair and his camarilla (industrialists, bankers, who else?) decided to attract millions of people from the Third World to Great Britain and gradually give them British citizenship. Overnight, millions of indigenous Britons in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and other cities woke up in communities that might as well have been part of Pakistan, India or Kenya. Did Tony Blair and his camarilla ask the British people if they wanted to live in Pakistan, India or Kenya? Not at all. When asked, would the British people have answered that they wanted to? Did those in power even care about the opinion of ordinary people? Could ordinary indigenous Britons have resisted what was done to them? Let them try! Continue reading →

Keep ’em sedated, atomized, sterile and disoriented!

Groups of people, even small ones, let alone huge ones, such as entire communities, nations, that is, citizens of (populous) states must be managed somehow. Even in a family there must be order, collision-free cooperation, some sort of hierarchy, some sort of division of tasks and responsibilities. There is nothing wrong with this in principle: it simply cannot be done otherwise. Evil occurs when the way of arranging or organizing the life of societies is carried out by wicked means, which – probably – result from the wicked intentions of people who, when exercising power, are able to create such mechanisms of ruling and managing society that are unfavorable to individual people in the long run.

Unfortunately, what we are observing in the modern world indicates that those who manage societies, who organize the unhindered life of millions of individuals, use wicked means. What is conspicuous are the four methods by which the powers that be attempt to keep people in obedience. These could be reduced to the following four slogans: Keep them (the people):

– sedated,

– atomized,

– sterile, and

– disoriented. Continue reading →

Who benefited from all this?

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

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

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

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

What if Ukraine had chosen the path followed by Belarus?

These are excerpts from the article, which can be read in full at Gefira Financial Bulletin #68.

[…]

Ukrainian and Belarusian path to prosperity

The Ukrainian elite hesitated about which path to take. They hesitated because some of them were clearly pro-Russian (because they are Russians! living in Ukraine) and some were pro-Western. Whenever pro-Western elites prevailed, Kiev flirted with the West and expressed aspirations to become not only a member of the European Union, but also a member of NATO. What has been the result of pro-Western inclinations and Western promises of support? Here you go:

① mass emigration from the country: Ukraine, which had a population of roughly fifty (50) million at the end of the Soviet Union, now has a population of forty (40) million. It looks as if a war has swept through the country!

② Ukraine lost Crimea, and more recently four eastern and southern provinces;

③ Ukraine has been dragged into a war that is killing its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, industry and other resources, while the country

④ is incurring huge debts to acquire weapons and to rebuild what has been destroyed.

And how are people living in Belarus? In this Belarus, which is despised and ruled by the “last dictator in Europe”? Let’s take a look:

[…]

The Ukrainian road to prosperity once again

Haven’t the Ukrainians done the same as Poles did two hundred years earlier? Consider: if they had not listened to the West, if they had followed the path of Alexander Lukashenko:

① they would have retained all the territory of their own state, including Crimea,

② their industry and infrastructure would not have been destroyed,

③ they would not have lost in killed and wounded tens of thousands of citizens,

④ they would not have lost millions of citizens as a result of emigration.

However, the Ukrainians – at least those who came to power – preferred to listen to the West, preferred to be a tool in the hands of Washington, and are now reaping the harvest. As you sow, so shall you reap.

[…]

If nations really could decide….

If nations really could decide….

These are excerpts from the article, which can be read in full at Gefira Financial Bulletin #68.

…to determine their own fate, as they can’t! One of the noble slogans of the United Nations is that nations can determine their own existence: whether they want to be independent or perhaps confederated, whether they want to belong to this or that alliance. It seems that most people in the West are convinced that the self-determination of nations is not just a slogan, but a reality, a political everyday reality, and if no longer a reality, then probably somewhere in the Third World, while in the West this principle is not only accepted as right but also implemented everywhere and always.

Let’s start with the observation we have made many times before: the very name United Nations Organization is deceitful and misleading. For we are not dealing with united nations, but with united states. A nation is the Russians, Turks, Hungarians, French, Chinese, Koreans, Germans, Kurds, Zapotecs, Zulus, and Yakuts, to name just a few. A nation is communities united by blood ties, a common legendary and biological (which most likely means the same thing) ancestor, and therefore a common language. One can argue about the definition of a nation, about where one nation ends and another begins (the continuum Russians-Belarusians-Ukrainians, the continuum Serbs-Croatians-Bosnians), but no one in their right mind would argue that a nation becomes a conglomeration of various ethnic groups brought together ad hoc by a newly formed political or state body. In other words, if we separate a few million Poles, Czechs and Germans from neighboring territories and unite them into one political organism, into some new state, under one common government, having one law, we will not, after all, form a nation, although some will claim so. The English word “nation” here is an excellent example of how language can distort reality. Latin in origin, the word “nation”, which derives from the word “to give birth, to birth” (compare with Nativity, native, innate) shows what a nation really is, and what a nation is not. So, going back to the example given above, the ad hoc combination of Poles, Czechs and Germans in a single state body will not make them into a nation, and certainly not in an instant or even for many years.

[…]

A nation is not a state, and a state is not a nation
[…]

④ Serbia – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Montenegro. Consider the fact that Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins (and also Croats!) speak one and the same language, and the minor regional differences are smaller than those we have for the different varieties of German in German territory or English in the United Kingdom or the United States. What do we see in the Balkans? We see a Serbian nation within the Serbian state and that Serbian nation within the autonomous Republika Srpska that is part of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose other inhabitants, those living outside the autonomous Republika Srpska, are distinguished as a nation(?) solely on the basis of religion, on the basis that they are either Serbs or Croats whose ancestors opportunely – when these territories were under Turkish rule – converted to Islam! Oh, and we have a new nation! A Serb who professes Islam is no longer a Serb but a Bosniak! Interestingly, a German Catholic and a German Protestant or – increasingly nowadays – a German Muslim and a German atheist are not four – FOUR – nations! And a simple question: why can’t the Serbs of the autonomous Republika Srpska that constitutes a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina join Serbia proper? Could it be that they don’t want it? Where is that famous self-determination of peoples sanctified by the UN and all those human rights in general? Wouldn’t it be useful here to hold a referendum and ask the will of the Bosnian Serbs where they would like to live, whether in Bosnia and Herzegovina or perhaps in Serbia proper? Somehow in this case the referendum is not desired. Why?

[…]

⑥ Romania – Moldova. If one knew history or wanted to know history, one would know that (a) Moldavia (present-day Moldova) and Wallachia were the two state-forming principalities from which Romania was formed, and would know that (b) Romanian is spoken in Moldavia (Moldova). That should be enough. Between World War I and World War II, Moldova was part of Romania, then was seized by the Soviet Union and became one of the Soviet republics, and after the collapse of the USSR – an independent state. Don’t Moldovans want to belong back to Romania? Unfortunately, no one asks their opinion, yet the self-determination of nations is sanctified in all those international grandiose declarations…

[…]

⑪ Mongolia – China. How many of the readers of this article know that Mongols make up 95% of Mongolia’s population, and that this is in absolute numbers three million people, while that the vast majority of Mongols – as many as TWENTY-FOUR MILLION – live outside Mongolia, in neighboring China, where they have an autonomous province? What do we think, would the Mongols of China not want to belong to one independent state together with the Mongols of Mongolia? Is it normal that a tiny fraction of a nation has a state, while the vast majority of that nation – though living in a compact area – does not have a state? Is it just? Is this the principle of self-determination of nations at work? Is it possible that three million Mongolians wanted to have their own independent state, while twenty-four million preferred to be subject to the Chinese?

[…]