It was the 8th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of (East) Germany (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland) or SED held in East Berlin, May 1981. All other socialist parties had sent their delegations. Mikhail Suslov, a high-ranking apparatchik, represented the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). During the congress he delivered an almost half-an-hour speech. The speech was the usual clap-trap of socialism winning everywhere in the world and capitalism losing it. Comrade Suslov, otherwise the main ideologue of the CPSU, also assured the East German comrades of Moscow’s support and friendship, of the Kremlin’s admiration for the achievements of East German communists, and the like. At that time such speeches were delivered by the hundreds by socialist or communist party leaders in all socialist countries, occasioned by party congresses or national holidays or anniversaries of the Great October Socialist Revolution or May Day (Labour Day) festivities.

The year was 1981. Comrade Suslov would be dead in a year’s time. Erich Honecker, leader of the SED, would be overthrown in eight years; in ten years there will be a Soviet Union no more. Listening to Mikhail Suslov’s words, Comrade Honecker, who applauded the Soviet dignitary now and again as did the delegates to the congress, looked self-satisfied and as snug as a bug in a rug. It would not have occurred to him that before the decade was out the German Democratic Republic would also have run its historical course and been incorporated by its western, capitalist neighbour, the Federal Republic of Germany. It would not have crossed his mind that in eight years’ time he would be expelled from his country, look for asylum in Russia, now a post-soviet federal republic, and be denied a longer stay there. He would not have thought that he would spend his last few years in Chile of all the places, where he would eventually go at the invitation of his son-in-law. It would not have occurred to him that he would be so much loathed by East Germans; similarly, it would not have crossed his mind that before leaving for Russia he would be given a few weeks’ hospitality and protected against the anger of the people who he had ruled over by a Christian priest. Erich Honecker may have visualized any kind of future but this. He may have feared a palace coup: it was normal political practice in socialist countries, and this was how he himself had come to power. He may have pictured to himself a world war, a conflict between the Western and the Eastern blocs, hostilities between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Surely he did not think his cherished German Democratic Republic would disappear overnight, and surely he must have been certain that the Soviet Union, the superpower armed with nukes and constantly having a crew on the Earth’s orbit would continue to exist in the foreseeable future. Erich Honecker must have been dead certain about the continuation of the Eastern political bloc so much so that the delegates gathered in the Palace of the Republic (Palast der Republik) where the congress was held were enthusiastic and hope-inspiring.

Present-day politicians and enthusiasts of today’s ideologies had better look into the past and ponder. They had better watch old documentaries and read old newspapers. They had better put themselves in the shoes of those people and then they had better draw inferences. Yes, today’s political establishment will also run its course despite the many assurances that we are on the path to a bright future. Yes, today’s top politicians will one of these days run for their life and maybe find protection in the Philippines or Argentina. Yes, today’s political cheerleaders will tomorrow loathe the men and the women they are serving hand and foot at present. Yes, today’s ideologues will see the miserable and inevitable death of their ideologies. Some of them will see it from the netherworld.

And you know what? New ideologies and new ideologues will emerge to seduce the people and the people will follow another incarnation of the Rat-Catcher of Hamelin (der Rattenfänger von Hameln). Some out of conviction, some out of convenience. Few will resist. Very few will bother to learn something from the past. 

DEI – the latest article of faith of the Western world – stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, does it not? On the face of it, yes. On second thoughts it translates into: Descent Entering Inferno. The 2024 Olympic Games that are being held in France have more for us in store than the macabre opening or the rainbow-refugee-ecology all-pervasive propaganda. The latest event that is reverberating in the internet and the media is a boxer fight during which a male-turned-female reported a victory over a female-remaining-female. The details are commonly known and repeated here and there, so we are not going to replicate them. Rather, we are going to call the reader’s attention to the rot that is incapacitating the Western civilization.

The clap-trap of “no nation, no religion, no possession” – as the lyrics of a notorious song say – has been enriched with the clap-trap of “no biological sex”. The idea may have begun with the feminist movement whose representatives cursed their fate of being born women and whose representatives wanted to emulate men in everything and anything. The very idea of women punching themselves like men sometimes do says it all. Then the sick idea that “you are not born a woman, you become one” emerged and was followed by the assault on the biological sex. Medical mutilations misleadingly referred to as sex or gender reassignment have been propagated and infused into the minds of millions of people ac acceptable and progressive. Liberasts and tolerasts of all hues chipped in their sick ideas of total liberalism and tolerance with the result being that one can now say that one is a man or a woman irrespective of the evidence of the senses (and the common sense) and – mind you! – change the sex as many times as he – she – it – pleases.

Modern re-enactment of Beauty and the Beast

If so, then why not set a man against a woman in a boxing fight and make everybody view the man as a woman? Don’t you dare voice your objection or else! Or else you’ll be called a bigot and – necessarily – far right! Such a fight is after all the new normal. Haven’t we been accustomed by the Hollywood in the hundreds of movies in which female characters can successfully physically cope with male characters and even beat men up? Are we not being accustomed to the idea of female soldiers who can and ought to kill the enemy just like their male counterparts? There are no differences between biological sexes as there are no differences between biological races, right? If your senses (and your common sense) tell you a different story, then consult your doctor because obviously you need a therapy.

And you know what? Those bellicose female feminists barely protest when they see a woman confronted with a man who goes by the name of a woman! No wonder, then. They have been caught in their own trap. Males and females do not really differ, and if in some cases they do, then of course only in the sense that women are better than men. If so, surely you expect a woman to be capable of physically standing up to a man and overwhelming him, don’t you? Your default Hollywood image of a slim woman (I suppose most of my readers will have watched “G.I. Jane” or a similar motion picture) doing it better than any man, the image that has been planted into your psyche along with the many texts that you have read and absorbed, along with the “wisdom” of the talking heads that you have let sink in in your mind while consuming the mass media confirm this conviction: a woman is as good as a man, both intellectually and physically.

If you’re still in doubt then recall the latest question of our times, which is: what is a woman? Educated people in the West have big trouble defining a woman. You will have known by now that a woman can have a penis, while a man can breast-feed a baby. Anything goes. The brains of the Western man and the Western woman have been confused to such an extent that even the female victims of this madness barely protest.

Do you know what is the worst part of the whole craziness? No, not the fact that the evil-doers behind it will progress with their DEI (sure, they will); no, not the fact that Westerners have either embraced this madness wholeheartedly or sheepishly fear to object; the worst part of it all is that the evil-doers (and their active and passive supporters) think that the rest of the globe will follow suit, and that the rest of the globe is envious of what the liberasts and tolerasts have managed to achieve and enforce, for the liberasts and tolerasts genuinely think they have advanced the humankind by an eon!

The hubris of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 just boggles your mind. Why? Because the ideology of inclusion has been somehow married to the ideology of exclusion. On the one hand the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has created and is sponsoring the Refugee Olympic Team made up of 37 athletes (inclusion), on the other hand the same IOC banned Russian and Belorussian sportsmen and sportswomen from taking part (exclusion). To be precise, they can take part as non-Russians and non-Belorussians, with their national anthems and flags prevented from being heard or seen. The few who agreed to participate in the Games have had insult added to injury: they were banned from being present at the opening ceremony. Why?

The Olympic Games Paris 2024 is just yet another instrument in the hands of the West with which to bully disobedient nations and to throw the West’s weight about. It is also a vector for the promotion of the West’s propaganda to the tune of “welcome refugees”. The Olympic Games have long been politicized and weaponized. Still, the current hubris is glaring. The managers of the world know only two principles of governance: the carrot and the stick. All nations are looked upon like they were children. If a child behaves well, he receives a lollipop and is allowed to have fun in the playground; if a child misbehaves, he does not receive a lollipop and is not allowed to have fun in the playground. It is as simple as that.

An aside. Both Vladimir Putin and Alexandr Lukashenko are said to be dictators. For all that, there are some Russian and Belorussian athletes who swallowing their national pride decided to take part in the Olympic Games. Remind me, please, was there ONE sportsman from the USSR taking part in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games when the Soviets decided to boycott the event? Not one? Hm… and still at that time no one dared call Leonid Brezhnev, the then leader of the Soviet Union, a dictator.

The West’s ideologues are adept at reconciling mutually exclusive things. White people are racist and still millions of people of colour keep flocking to white countries to taste the racism at the hands of the white people. Weird, is it not? No religion should be above mockery, criticism and ridicule, and still it is only and exclusively Christianity that is mocked, criticized and ridiculed. A black woman representing France and singing the Marseillaise is all right, but a white woman representing, say, Congo or Kenya, would be equated with the appropriation of these countries’ culture. The world is overpopulated, but somehow Europe is not, because it can – and, indeed, should – absorb millions and millions of immigrants. A Hindu or black leader of a white nation is a mark of progressive blindness to the colour of the skin, but a white leader or – still worse – leaders of South Africa or Nigeria would be renounced as a revival of colonialism and white supremacy. Women have been liberated from the dominance of men, and yet men-turned-women are allowed to compete in female sports events and… naturally dominate female competitors. Inclusion transmutes into exclusion while exclusion morphs into inclusion.

The opening ceremony – this adoration of the ugly, the disgusting, the distasteful – with a beheaded Marie Antoinette speaking to the audience was also part of this inclusiveness-cum-exclusiveness. The Left just love subversiveness and ugliness and deconstruction. Was it not in the name of fraternity that thousands were guillotined during the French Revolution? Was it not in the name of equality that churches and graves were desecrated? Was it not in the name of liberty that dissenters were silenced for ever? Yet, there is some logic in all this. Once you exclude those who do not fit your vision of society, you are left with those who can be perfectly included. Isn’t it a fine Hegelian dialectic of a negative transforming itself into something positive? Isn’t it a fine Marxian dialectic of a reductionist exclusion resulting in an all-encompassing inclusion? There is a method in this madness!

Victoria Nuland and Yulia Tymoshenko. One from the United States, the other from Ukraine. Both deeply involved in politics, both ambitious, both throwing their weight about, and both full of and burning with passionate, violent, irrational and implacable hatred against Russia. Two gorgons, two women, two evil-doers, two female-warmongers, two inciters and sowers of discord, unfriendliness, and animosity. 

It is sometimes alleged by the feminists of all shades and persuasions that once women are in positions of power, the world will be a better place because – so runs the naive explanation – women are naturally well-disposed to all humans and care much more about peace than men do. Alas! History has taught us again and again that women can be and usually are far more cruel than men! The two viragoes – Nuland and Tymoshenko – seem to be in competition with men: all feminist-minded women are in competition with men. The two viragoes badly need to show that they can outperform men in war-mongering. The two viragoes have been targeting Vladimir Putin not merely as a Russian, but as a man, a male, a nightmare figure that they would like to be seduced and raped by and at the same time that they hate intensely. What have the two hags concocted?

Well, Victoria Nuland’s scheme was simple and she made no bones about it. Look, she said on an occasion, the United States will print billions of dollars and lend them to Kiev; with this money Kiev will purchase weaponry and shells from American manufacturers and will run into debt while causing harm to Russia, the United States’ long-standing political rival. Sure enough, Ukraine is not going to beat Russia nor is Ukraine going to ever be able to pay off its debt. Ukraine will merely keep Russia occupied and drain some of Russia’s resources, simultaneously being forced to sell all its assets – among them arable land – to the United States companies in an attempt to settle Ukraine’s liabilities. Ingenious! And you know what? Ukrainian “patriots” fell for the trap. Ukrainian patriots who cared so very much about Ukraine and its independence began to run up huge debt, liberating Ukraine from Russia and enslaving the same Ukraine to the United States (and the rest of the Western world)! Tweedledum and Tweedledee, indeed! But then, you know, to any East European, an American overlord is viewed as a guardian angel while a Russian friend is viewed as a bitter enemy. That’s the way it is, has always been, and will ever be. That West only needs to exploit this peculiar psychology for its own interests.

What did Yulia Tymoshenko do? She used to spew hatred against Russia, Russians and all things Russian as much as she could. She went down in recent history as one who called on the West to nuke Ukraine’s largest neighbour. She is a billionaire – at least in her case patriotism pays – and she has always been holding positions of power. She wanted Ukraine to expand, she flexed Ukraine’s muscles, and she incited animosity towards Moscow. Victoria Nuland and Yulia Tymoshenko make a perfect tandem. There is a but, though. Victoria Nuland has tried to cause harm to Russia and in the process has not caused much harm to the United States whereas Yulia Tymoshenko has pushed her country, the country she supposedly cared about so much, to the brink of annihilation: a 20 percent loss of Ukraine’s territory, a 50% loss of Ukraine’s population, along with the utter devastation of Ukraine’s economy and infrastructure. Yulia Tymoshenko, how do you feel about all this?

The American harpy underrated Russia’s military prowess and national stamina, and so she has lost. The Ukrainian harpy overrated American military prowess and the determination of the West to combat Russia, and so she has lost. Both harpies were obsessed with Russia as the world’s villain number one and neither acted with prudence or caution. Either wanted to make history, and either desired to show off that their femininity was more bellicose than any man’s masculinity. Both have been miserably blinded by their irrational hate.

There is one other gorgon – virago – harpy – acting in between them: Ursula von der Leyen. She too is obsessed with hatred towards President Putin in particular and Russia in general, she too does not care how many Ukrainians will lose their life or limbs, she, too, is hellbent on proving how much better and more effective she is than any of her male colleagues.

Three women with misguided – distorted – warped ideals of what a woman ought to be. Three Jezebels – three Shakespearean witches from the Macbeth drama – three incarnations of Lady Macbeth, an overambitious woman, who compelled her husband to commit crime after crime after another crime, who was ashamed of her femininity and prayed to the powers that be that they unsex her!

                                                     Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!'

[Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 5]

Lovers of all humanity that they feign to be, in their heart of hearts they all – Victoria Nuland, Yulia Tymoshenko, and Ursula von der Leyen – are filled with extreme cruelty, devoid of compunction and remorse, full of poisonous gall instead of nourishing milk. They turn their faces away from the sight of the hundreds of dead and amputees. They do not wish to see the wound their knives inflict nor do they want anybody to see through the darkness of their psychological make-up.