There are two or four – depending on the point of view – political powers that vie for global dominance: the collective West, and the collective East. The former is made up of the English-speaking countries (Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand) and the European Union with Germany as its leader and France as the leader’s right-hand man; the latter is composed of the Russian Federation and China. In either political camp there are centripetal and centrifugal forces. Apparently, Berlin and Paris go hand in hand with Washington and London when it comes to subverting the stability in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia; for all that, France and Germany seek to emancipate themselves from American patronizing. Similarly, Moscow and Beijing are mutually attracted by shared interests and simultaneously divided by frictions. Russia and the Middle Kingdom make a stand against the collective West, which they perceive as a threat. Still, they vie for preponderance in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kirghistan), Siberia and generally for leadership in this part of the world. The conflict between the Anglophere and Russia seems to be coming to the fore, with China and the European Union creating a backdrop to it. The Geneva talks held recently between Washington and Moscow look like a continuation of similar endless negotiations between the United States and the former Soviet Union. The first Cold War ended, the second one is in progress. The former brought a peaceful victory for one party to the conflict; how will the current one end? In a hot war? In another relatively peaceful solution? Which country will emerge victorious?

The ideologically motivated green economy seems to be doing a grave disservice to the collective West and especially the European Union. Prices for energy are skyrocketing while measures taken to combat the notorious virus stymie huge sections of economy and make Europeans and Americans feel insecure about the future. Add to it the rapidly changing ethnic make-up of the Old Continent and its extension across the Atlantic and you begin to wonder why should Washington, London, Paris and Berlin be concerned with Moscow and Beijing in the first place. Are German Turks, French Algerians or English Sikhs really going to fight tooth and claw against Russians and Chinese to defend their adopted father-?, mother?-lands if even these words and the notion of national patriotism are frowned upon by the post-Western world hell-bent on extirpating all traditional values of loyalty, self-sacrifice, family and faith? Who do the post-Western liberal governments want to rely upon in times of trouble? On deracinated indigenous Europeans and Americans or on “new” Europeans and Americans made dependent on the welfare, protective, and ubiquitous state? Or maybe on both kinds of Europeans and Americans, those who have been taught to feel guilty about their heritage and pacifist in their dealings with other nations, and those new Europeans and Americans who have been taught to hate European heritage while living off the fat of the land produced by those they hate?

Before a volcano erupts, there are warnings. The earth shakes, it stinks of sulphur. Cracks appear.

The confrontation between the great powers enters its final phase. The leading media tell us that humanity should have learned a lesson from the twentieth century. There should be no more wars, in the world government (UN, G20, G8, EU, ASEAN, IMF, WTO, …) all countries are working hand in hand for a bright future. Rubbish! If there had been no nuclear weapons, World War III – a massive, mutual attack – would have started long ago. Globalization and world trade have a soporific effect on people’s consciousness. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, have a sobering effect. Cruise ships sail happy passengers between hostile countries, other huge container ships transport goods on order, even if a stubborn president introduces tariffs once in a while. The world seems so intertwined and united by WTO that any conflict with weapons seems unprofitable and barbaric. Yet, it is the fleets of the great powers that “secure” this peace. Still, the tension between the powers is constantly growing. Have Americans, for instance, resigned themselves to the fact that China is growing like a yeast dough? That the Chinese dragon, fed by outsourced American economics, is slowly but surely swallowing Eurasia? The off-shore balancer always intervened in history when someone threatened his domination. Just as England once fought everyone (Spain, France, Russia, Germany) in Europe to preserve its hegemony on the Old Continent for decades, so too did the US fight Japan in the 1940s to secure its dominance in the Pacific. China is now expanding its influence in Southeast Asia. Australia is responding by buying American nuclear submarines, which were previously unavailable. In this way, the USA is trying to balance the equilibrium in the Pacific region. Australia was originally supposed to get the submarines from France but cancelled the contract and became entangled in the conflict with Paris, as these submarines could not have technically withstood the Chinese ones. Thus, rifts develop between countries that have had peaceful relations for years: France and Australia.

Do you remember the brilliant Japanese General Yamamoto and his famous appearance at the General Staff in Tokyo shortly before the attack on Pearl Harbor? He defied his colleagues at the time and flooded them with data (steel production: USA produces 5 times more than us, aluminium production is 10 times larger than that of Japan, etc.), which was an argument for not starting the war against the USA. The decision-makers did not listen, and Yamamoto had to die for his homeland later. Imagine a Chinese general who now, at the end of 2021, wants to convince his colleagues of the superiority of the USA in readiness for war. They would laugh at him. After all, China has long since surpassed the USA in many areas that are most important for waging war. By the way, American weapons are based on electronics, and electronics are semiconductors and microcontrollers. Hence 20,000 US soldiers on Taiwan, where these parts are mainly produced. And ask yourself: how many days would it take China to occupy Taiwan? A new blitzkrieg on the horizon? How quickly can the current state of affairs be overturned? Continue reading →

How do we know that we are being primed to accept a world government or one global state? If you do not let yourself be intimidated by the wire-pullers who will immediately start calling you a conspiracy theory follower, then the observation of your own senses is more than enough. Begin with handbooks to foreign languages. Why of all the topic it is globalism and the world as a global village a leitmotif in all of them? Why rather than present the language and its intricacies through something in the vein of Aesop’s fables and ordinary adventure stories along with dialogues do the students get politicized themes of globalism and climate change? It certainly does not happen by chance. Why, do you talk to your own child or grandchild about globalism or climate change of all the topics? I guess you don’t. Yet, the authors of textbooks seem to be hellbent on such problems.

What do you make of all those international conferences that necessarily seek to make all countries agree to pursue the same policy about:

• women’s rights,

• reproductive rights,

• migration compacts;

• human rights;

and many others? Ask yourself a question why all governments should be made to sign all those treaties, compacts, and agreements. To make it easier for you: why should you sign an agreement with a bunch of your neighbors that you promise to refrain from abusing your wife and children? Why should you need such an agreement if you are a decent man? Notice that all governments declare to be decent. Conversely, how on earth could such an agreement turn you into a decent man if you are not one? Why should you relegate power over your household to your neighbours? Who and how will evaluate whether you are abusive or not, which acts constitute abuse and which do not? Finally, how would you be capable of defending years against interference once you have allowed others to step into your affairs when they see fit? Go and make such an accord with your neighbours. Not willing?

We have the dollar as the international currency, we have the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund. All human activity is internationalized and taken away from the prerogatives of national governments. Why? Continue reading →

“Astride the Borderline Between the Past and the Future” or Gefra 59 says goodbye to 2021 and looks beyond 2022. The year that is coming to its end has left the world with a mountain of money in circulation, which by no means implies that money creation has reached its limits. To the contrary. The system in which money is loaned on condition that more is paid back, the system in which numerous measures aimed at saving world economy – like quantitative easing along with the steps taken to cushion the effects of the global lockdown that does not appear to end anytime soon – the system that enlarges the heap of banknotes exponentially seems to be doomed. This is what we are leaving behind and what will – no doubt – linger on well into the rest of the 2020s. And besides?

Besides, we will be more and more intensely confronted with the development of science and technology that forcibly enter our lives, our biological and psychological lives. It is gene editing, artificial intelligence, the internet of bodies, and the merge of them all that is meant here. We – or at least our children and grandchildren – are promised to become supermen and superwomen, equipped with capabilities like infrared vision, very low muscle fatigue, resistance to ionizing radiation, hand-free control of external devices and remote thought exchange between individuals. Our lives will be longer and we will possibly attain immortality, while death will be a thing of the past. What do you feel when you hear about such a future: excitement or fear?

It is very often that we come across a statement, a remark, that someone somewhere at a time expressed an anti- (here comes the name of an ethnic group or biological sex) bias or prejudice. Such a statement or remark evaluates the person who has prejudices against a group, a class, a nation, a race, a category of people.

The evaluators of people expressing biased opinions obviously follow this train of thought. You wake up in the morning, you start thinking about a group of people, a nation, a social class and for want of a useful occupation, out of boredom or stupidity or God knows what, you develop a negative opinion about that group, that nation or that class that you have never come into contact with. You formulate your opinion out of thin air and then stubbornly stick to it against the evidence of your senses, even if you mingle with many representatives of the said group, nation or class and are positively impressed. In a word, you create a world of your own and this invented world is more real to you than the one accessible through your senses.

Good heavens! Isn’t it the other way around? Clearly, we do not form opinions about anything and anybody until and unless we come into contact with this thing or that person. Imagine a child who first learns about the existence of Eskimos in a very simple way: he sees a drawing in a children book of a man or maybe a family against the backdrop of an igloo. Do you really think the child will start developing bias or prejudice? What if the drawing is complete with a nice-looking polar bear and a seal emerging from a hole in the ice? Do you really think the child will start forming bias and prejudice?

True, we may take over the opinion of something or somebody, of a collective, from our relatives, friends, acquaintances, from books or films, but then those relatives, friends, acquaintances, the authors of those books and the scriptwriters of those films must have come into contact with the thing, or individual or group of individuals, or they themselves have inherited the opinion from their relatives, friends and acquaintances, but then the same chain of causes and results applies until we reach those who did come into contact with a group of people, an ethnic group and by mingling with them have gathered experience which led them to formulate positive or negative evaluations.

Which of the two explanations sounds plausible? Continue reading →