Redactional

From Christ, God-made-man, to Hanuman, half-man, half-ape

Christianity is receding from the world of the white man. Christianity has been the religion of the white man. Barely no longer so. Christianity is as good as dead in most of the Western Europe; it is very much fragmented into thousands of sects in the United States; former Christians, having abandoned the creed of their forefathers are looking for spirituality to other faiths. The ever growing influx of immigrants who are invited by Western governments and settled in Europe and North America contributes to the eradication of Christianity. Immigrants, unlike their hosts, generally cling to their beliefs.

You may be a believing Christian, a nominal Christian or an atheist. If, however, you are of Caucasian descent, you have been imbued with Christian culture and your ancestors were Christians. This being so, you will admit that Christianity was the soul of the white race, its culture, its heritage, its spirit. For centuries Europeans conquering and settling other continents tried to Christianize the peoples inhabiting them and certainly did not convert to the faiths of India or Africa are the Americas. Quite the contrary was true: they regarded the deities other than the Christian God as demons that could barely be tolerated. Also Germanic and Slavic gods were mere demons: Christian missionaries used to mercilessly burn them without regard for their artistic value. Also, when Christianity became the dominant religion in the ancient world, all the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome had to go. Irrevocably. There was no room for religious diversity. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, was the order of the day. Notice that European expansion went hand in hand with the expansion of Christianity. Both Americas have been Christianized and much of Africa. It was Asia that resisted conversion to Christianity, which was caused by a higher development of the continent’s civilization. Even so, Christians settling in India or China or Indochina did not as a rule become followers of Buddhism, Confucianism or the Hindu religion.

Half-man, half-ape or Hanuman

As said above, it is no longer so. Europeans have lost their spirit, their backbone and have become – at most – indifferent to their spiritual heritage or – for the time being in few isolated cases – quite hostile to it. Even the Pope has made statements on a few occasions to the tune of all religions being equal and all of them leading their believers to God and salvation.

No wonder then that post-Christians begin to respect the principles of other faiths in everyday life. Where there are Muslim communities pork is not served and nobody raises any objections the the Ramadan practices. More and more churches are turned into mosques and there are converts to Islam among Europeans. Few, as yet.

No wonder then that the children of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are not raised as Christians because their mother is Jewish. Just think of it: when in the 19th century the United Kingdom had Jewish Benjamin Disraeli as Prime Minister, he first needed to be Christian. Such requirements are not binding any more. Today, if you want to be a country’s prime minister, president or minister, you need to believe in the man-made climate change, in the eternal guilt of the white man in his relations with other races, in the biological equality of all races, in the benefits of mass immigration, in green economy, and in the fact that Putin is one of the avatars of Satan.

No wonder then that although Donald Trump is a nominal Christian, his daughter Ivanka has converted to Judaism upon marrying Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, and raises their children in the Jewish faith. No wonder that Usha Vance, wife of JD Vance, Donald Trump’s co-runner for presidency, is a practising Hindu, extending the Hindu blessings to political rallies of support for her husband. No wonder then that recently the ever growing community of immigrants from India have had a huge monument to Hanuman, an Indian deity, put up in Texas. The statue is approximately 30 metres tall, which makes it the third tallest in the United States. An unthinkable event twenty years back.

If you say that all of the above is a manifestation of tolerance and that tolerance is a kind of higher level of the development of humanity, then think again. There is no tolerance. Try questioning such deities as man-made climate change, the equality of human races, diversity, benefits of mass immigration, or the right of homosexuals to show off their homosexuality and you will be ostracised, condemned and socially outlawed in no time. So, the acceptance of Judaism and the Hindu religion is no manifestations of tolerance; rather, it is a manifestation of the shift of the values. What was cherished by European ancestors has been dethroned, abandoned, ridiculed. Other values have been accepted and other values are worshipped. It is not that we have rid our European languages of the notion of heretics, heresies, burnings at the stake, anathema or the inquisition. Yes, we have stopped using those terms in reference to present-day phenomena and procedures. Today we use such terms as bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, far-right, white supremacist, and so on. Today’s heretic is known as a bigot or a far-right activist, today’s inquisition are the media, and today’s burning at the state is ostracism, blacklisting, marginalization, removal from social networks and the like.

Think of it. Yesterday a statue of Hanuman, half-man, half-ape would have been hacked to pieces by the Spanish conquistadors or the missionaries of Charlemagne. Today, the pope himself sets a pattern to be followed by Christians and post-Christians by enthroning the Pachamama – a south American deity – in the Vatican. If the top Christian does not see a demon in an alien deity, if the top Christian disregards the thou-shalt-no-have-other-gods-before-me commandment, the very first! one of the Ten, then why should Texan authorities object to giving permission the their growing Hindu community to put up Hanuman, half-man, half-ape?

Had they known, the citizens of former communist countries would have embraced Communism!

Georgia is a small country in the Caucasus. It does not even have four million inhabitants. Paris has more, London has more, and Berlin has approximately the same number of people. Yet, Berlin occupies an area of less than 1.000 square kilometers while Georgia’s area amounts to 70.000, i.e. Georgia’s area is seventy times as large. How many Americans out of every 100 could point at Georgia on a map? How many Americans out of every 100 could say anything about Georgia, without confusing the country with the American state? How many Americans out of every 100 even know that there is a country – a nation – by the name of Georgia in the first place?

Yet, this top democracy, this paragon of human rights – yes, we are talking about the United States – thinks it right to dictate to all the world’s nations, not excluding the tiniest of them, lying in a God forbidden corner of the globe, how they ought to live, how they ought to govern themselves, what laws they are allowed to pass and which laws they are forbidden to pass. This is also true of the relations between the big United States and tiny Georgia.

Georgia has aroused American concern twice within a couple of recent months. First, when Georgia’s parliament passed a law about foreign agents, and second when the same parliament passed a law banning homosexual propaganda. Washington along with its Brussels just cannot let such things go, they just cannot leave a tiny nation be. They need to watch their legislature closely and administer punishment the moment Georgians conduct their affairs in ways that the West does not like. One wonders why should there be a parliament in Georgia if all it is allowed to do is to copy Western laws? Why not a bunch of translators instead whose task would be to put in Georgian what the powers that be in Brussels and Washington want from them?

The law about foreign agents makes it mandatory on the part of an organization that operates in Georgia and is financed up to a certain level with foreign money to reveal this fact i.e. to register as a foreign agent; the law against the propaganda on the part of sexual deviants does not prosecute such individuals: it merely does not allow them to show off to the whole world which forms of copulation they practise. Never mind! Georgia has commited a crime. Georgia has committed a crime against humanity! Georgia has enacted anti-human, anti-liberal, anti-democratic legislation. News about the alleged anti-human, anti-liberal, anti-democratic legislation is quickly spread among others by Radio Free Europe (yes, it is still in operation!) and Voice of America. Funny, but citizens of the Soviet Union along with the citizens of the Comecon countries used to listen to the two broadcasters for years in search of reliable information. And you know what? Had the West propagated sexual perversions back at that time, the citizens of the Soviet Union and its European dependencies would have embraced Communists as defenders of… Christian! morality.

Sadly, no longer so. As it is, for the last thirty years since the fall of the USSR, the brains of the said citizens – especially of new generations – have been largely processed by the Western influence, so now the majority of them have had their mindsets changed. Still, small Georgia, which, too, has been subjected to Western propaganda for decades, has dared to throw down the gauntlet to the Empire. You may rest assured that a colourful revolution in Tbilisi (Georgia’s capital) is in the making. 

Gefira 86: Sapere aude

Freedom of speech is not what characterizes humanity, human societies. Only rarely does it surface, for a historically speaking short moment, and then disappears. Why? There’s always a ruling group that holds power, and in order to hold power as long as possible, this groups needs not only to have control over the finances and the law enforcement, but also of the collective mind. It is the mind where seeds of opposition can be sown and where they can sprout, it is the mind that sparks dissent and opposition, it is the mind that leads people to rise up against their rulers. That is the simple reason why genuine freedom of speech, freedom of expression is unthinkable. It is unthinkable because it is impossible, because it sooner or later undermines the authority. That is why freedom of speech must be controlled, channelled or otherwise influenced. The rare moments when freedom of speech resurfaces are those historical times of equilibrium between a descending and an ascending ruling grup.

In the modern world censorship has become a word evoking the worst possible connotations. Dictators resort to censorship, Communists used to apply censorship, but democracies are all about freedom of expression… except that they are not. What do democracies do to simultaneously have censorship and not have it? The solution is easy and as old as human history. Democracies abolish the word censorship without abolishing censorship itself, democracies invent new ways of censoring content without having to resort to the old primitive methods of physically gagging someone’s mouth are imprisoning someone for his words. Democracies invent terms like combating disinformation or misinformation, like protection of the populace against malicious or inciting false news and ideas. That’s it! Censorship in a democracy? God forbid! Yet, you will agree that lies need to be suppressed, will you not?

Humans instinctively want to know the truth and wish to be able to pass correct judgement. In order to know the truth and in order to be able to pass correct judgement, one needs information, one needs varied information coming from different, politically or ideologically opposed sources. Only then can truth be discovered, only then can correct judgement be passed. Hence the need for consulting various information sources. Audiatur et altera pars, as the Romans used to say: let also the other party have a fair hearing. An argument can only be accepted as binding if it has been confronted with opposing arguments and stood its ground, when the argument turned out to (more closely) correspond to reality, to truth. How otherwise can we justly and impartially decide about anything?

How about misinformation or disinformation? If misinformation or disinformation are allowed currency together with information, in the long run the last mentioned will win out. Truth always wins out. As someone said: you can’t deceive all people all the time. Conversely, if information is suppressed under whatever noble pretexts, if you are punished or intimidated or ridiculed for wanting to consult various sources of information, then you may rest assured that those who want to punish, intimidate or ridicule you have been feeding lies to you and are now afraid of you exposing their mendacity. That’s a litmus test available to all of us. You don’t need to be an expert on anything, you only need to be vigilant: if the powers that be don’t want you to look for other sources of information, it clearly means that they want to conceal something and are afraid of being confronted with the truth.

Quid est veritas? was famously asked by Pilate. Yes, what is truth? It may not be easy to discover truth, but one thing is certain: we will never discover it without consulting varied sources of information, without exposing our minds to varied, opposing arguments. At least that much is true. It may be that you do not wish to investigate into various phenomena, events and news: why, it takes a lot of time and effort, and we all have our lives to live, our work to perform, our families to take care of, our vocations to fulfil. Nothing wrong with that. That is why societies delegate few individuals – like journalists or historians – to do the job for the rest of us, to present us with the results of their research efforts. That’s the way it ought to be. The only task that we – the consumers of someone else’s investigative work – are set with is to familiarize ourselves with the investigations done by others with this however sound principle that we must consult opposing sources of information and argumentation. The moment we are denied it, we know that we are being lied to, we know that we are being separated from truth.

There are many, many people who are in favour of global peace. Many of them join organizations and take part in demonstrations in support of international peace. Yet, these are usually empty gestures. It is not enough to yell, Give peace a chance; what needs to be done is to encourage all of us to give the other party to a conflict a fair hearing. Peace disappears when only one argumentation is heard and, consequently followed. Peace disappears when one argumentation deemed as correct makes it impossible for us to understand our opponents. One argumentation turns us into reckless automatons who believe they know reality, who are certain that they know truth while they don’t. If you want to give peace a chance, encourage people to listen to and read what the other party to the conflict has to say; if you want to give peace a chance, declare war on those who suppress selected sources of information and argumentation. Once you learn the argumentation of the other party, your belligerent attitude will almost always be done away with, or at least significantly reduced. Contrarily, if you clam up in your own world of allegedly true ideas, you are going to end up in a vicious conflict of attrition so much so if the other party to the conflict does the same.

It takes intellectual courage to think. Yes, genuine thinking is an act of courage. It is an act of courage to admit a thought that my attitude to an event, my belief in an idea, my evaluation of reality are perhaps not quite correct, are perhaps wrong, or perhaps downright wrong? It is an act of huge courage to admit that perhaps my opponent is not quite wrong, that my opponent is maybe right, maybe… absolutely right. It is probably easier to go to physical war and fight in the trenches than to subdue your own ego and surrender your own cherished beliefs. It was not without a reason that Romans used to say, imperare sibi maximum est imperium, or, to rule yourself is the ultimate form of power. It is really much easier to command troops in the field, or to withstand hardships than to admit that what you hold as sacred truth is not true.

 

Gefira Financial Bulletin #86 is available now

  • The two ways of the Rus’ian world
  • Which way, Russia?
  • A still more striking analogy
  • What way does a political class choose

How does that come about in a democracy?

Democracy? Picture to yourself a little town somewhere in the United States ruled by its inhabitants. In other words imagine that they practice democracy. Surely, they delegate the administrative work to a few representatives: others need to go about their everyday business. From time to time the inhabitants of the town hold a meeting, a rally. Some of them put forward a proposal. We need to have a school; we need to build a hospital; we need to repair some roads; we need this, we need that. Once they agree on a project, they need to chip in some of the money from every family. Will the people consent? Of course, they will. They will have a difference of opinion whether it is better to first put up a school or a hospital; they may have differing opinions about how large a school building ought to be; they may differ as to the amount of money they want to spend, they may agree to demand more money from the richer inhabitants, and the like.

Now picture to yourself someone puts forward a proposal to invite a significant number of foreigners, perfect strangers with a different religion and a different language, with a different culture to settle in the town and puts forward a proposal that the inhabitants of the town pay for everything the arrivals will need for months or maybe years. Imagine such a proposal is put to the vote. What results do you expect? Obviously, no one is going to pay month after month after another month for the upkeep of a Venezuelan or Somalian family. Picture to yourself that someone proposes to send a few youngsters from this town – someone’s sons, someone’s brothers. Someone’s husbands – to fight a bunch of Russians or Iraqis thousands of miles away in order to protect Ukrainians or to bring democracy to a town in Iraq. How many inhabitants of this theoretical town do you think would consent to the idea?

That’s genuine democracy, that is to say: the expression of the will of the people, the expression of the collective will of the people and its implementation. A summary of such towns and villages ought to act in a similar manner. As it is, thousands of such towns and villages collectively known as a state – a nation – a democratic republic act in ways that are entirely opposite to what we have described above. A few people – relatively very few people – entrusted with power make policies of which citizens – i.e. inhabitants of those thousands of towns and villages – would never ever approve. Worse, those millions of citizens are forced to pay for the projects that are totally beyond their scope of interest.

Barely anyone (not to say no one) is ready to accommodate perfect strangers from Africa or Asia with their families for years in their homes and provide for them. Yet, a state, a democratic state – supposedly a collection of millions of such families that make up the theoretical town from our thought experiment – accommodates millions of foreigners and pays for their living. How does that come about in… a democracy?

Preparing for new trade wars

Donald Trump wants to increase tariffs on Chinese even by up to 60%, and Democrats will have no choice as to agree to at least some of protectionism planned by the Republicans, or else China will flood the market w its products to the detriment of American domestic industry. In recent years, Western companies and financiers have invested heavily in China only to withdraw from the country at present.

Source: bloomberg.com

In the second quarter of 2024, 15 billion dollars were withdrawn from China. At the same time, exports from the Middle Kingdom are on the rise as companies increase their inventories of Chinese parts, components, etc. so as not to be so affected by potential trade wars. Put simply, we buy what we can from China, but we no longer invest there. This strategy is being pursued by many countries. As a result, freight costs are also rising. Below you will find transport costs from main ports in China (Containerised Freight Index – green line). The situation is similar to that after the end of the pandemic, when inflation began to rage.

Source: tradingeconomics.com

Companies are filling their warehouses and politicians will have a tough nut to crack if inflation rises as a result of trade wars. Already, 59% of Americans believe their country is in recession, despite good economic data.

It is worth remembering that the development of the global economy has been due to free trade for several decades, with the focus on China. This process is now set to be halted and many Americans would even like to see it reversed. This will benefit many European or American companies, but unfortunately it will be at the expense of ordinary citizens, who will pay more for many products. This will fuel inflation and at the same time slow down the economy. Such a situation is known as stagflation. Stagflation is therefore a possible scenario as downside risks dominate the markets, including geopolitical tensions and trade fragmentation.

 

AU10TIX or how Israelis act

AU10TIX is an Israeli identity service that verifies people or companies on the Internet. For example, people who want to earn money on Twitter (X) have their identity checked and authenticated by AU10TIX. So far, so good, but there are two appalling facts about the Israeli company:

1. AU10TIX has close ties to Israeli intelligence. It was set up by members of the Israeli elite intelligence services Shin Bet and Unit 8200. Ton Atzomm, its CEO, was a member of Unit 8200 has been committed to the surveillance of Palestinians and has been utilizing the information gained in the process to politically persecute and divide them. Edo Soroka, the Vice President for Sales in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, previously worked for the Israeli startup AnyVision, which is accused of monitoring Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. Erez Hershkovitz had earlier been employed by the Israeli company Voyager Labs, which was sued by Meta for using dozens of fake Facebook accounts to collect data from more than half a million users.

2. AU10TIX suffered a serious security breach that exposed the personal data of millions of its users. Customers that fell victim to the June 2024 scandal include some of the world’s most renowned companies, such as X, TikTok, LinkedIn, Coinbase, eToro, PayPal, Fiverr, Upwork, Bumble, and Uber. Names, dates of birth, nationalities and images of identification documents such as driver’s licenses and passports, facial scans and authentication metrics for documents and photos were disclosed. It was a massive security breach with unforeseeable long-term consequences. The exposed data could be used by cybercriminals for various illegal purposes such as identity theft, financial fraud or even blackmail.

Several questions could be brought up:

1. How does all that square with the U.S.-Israeli friendship and alliance?

2. Why does the Israeli intelligence agency want to collect – manage – control the data of millions of Americans?

3. Why do the US services do not hinder such deep intrusions into the security of US citizens?

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?