World War One and Cold War

It is amazing how similar the outcomes of World War I and the Cold War are. Indeed, how similar the military and political realities are.

Let’s simplify the picture: In World War I, it was Germany and Austria-Hungary against the West (with Russia falling out of the picture toward the end of the war). It was the German world (Germany was almost 100% ethnically German, while in the Habsburg monarchy the German element was in the minority but still dominated the whole country) against France and the Anglophere, i.e. the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

During the Cold War it was the Soviet Union and its satellites against the West, again mainly the Anglosphere. The Soviet Union corresponded in this comparison to Germany in that it was basically a Russian state (including Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Belorussians), while the countries of the Warsaw Pact corresponded to the Austria-Hungary or Dual Monarchy.

The two political and military camps – the German dominated Europe as opposed to the West, and the Russian dominated Europe as opposed to the West – vied for dominance. The hostilities during World War One brought about the weakening of the German-dominated alliance juts as the peaceful rivalry during the times of the Cold War brought about the weakening of the Soviet or Russian dominated part of the world. Talks were brokered, the warring parties sat at the negotiating table and slowly but surely a peace deal was worked out: Germany trusted its military and political adversaries would settle the post-war relations in a chivalrous way; so did the Soviet Union with regard for the victorious Western world. What happened next?

In the case of Germany the West – especially France – inebriated with victory began to step up demands and multiply acts aimed at humiliating yesterday’s enemy; precisely the same happened in the aftermath of the Cold War: the West – especially the United States – inebriated with its victory over the Soviet Union began stepping up demands and humiliating Russia, the core of the former Soviet Union. After 1918, Germany was forced to pay enormous contribution to the victors, cede chunks of territory and generally subjugate itself to the diktat of yesterday’s enemies. After 1991, Russia as heir to the Soviet Union lost huge chunks of territory (Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, the Caucasus and the central Asian republics) and experienced a financial and economic plunder comparable to what Germany had gone through after World War One. What was the result in both countries?

An economic crisis that played havoc with the cohesion of society and a lingering sense of being humiliated and cheated. Yes, cheated, because the winning nations went back on their promise of jointly creating a better, peaceful world and only sought dominance and exploitation. The ten or so years of the Weimar Republic and the ten or so years of the presidency of Boris Yeltsin have much in common: both states found themselves at the mercy of the winning powers, both states were immersed in economic and political crisis, and both nations felt disillusioned with democracy made by the West. The result?

The result was in either case roughly the same: in the early 1930s in Germany and in the early 2000s in Russia, a strong leader emerged and gained popular support: in either case the strong leaders succeeded in first alleviating and then eliminating the economic, social, and political crises, and in either case both strong leaders managed to slowly restore the international high standing of their respective countries. In either case, the West’s relentless drive to expand its dominance eventually entailed war.

For all the approximations, the similarities are striking, are they not?

Blitzkrieg of the anti-globalists next fall?

1% owns 50% of the world’s wealth and there are countries that want to change it. About geopolitical redistribution.

In 1974, the middle class had the highest share of world wealth. Today, it is at its lowest level in 100 years. Within the last 50 years, there has been a gigantic transfer of wealth from the working class to the class of society that owns assets. The latter, elitist stratum owns a disproportionate share of the wealth generated throughout the world and constantly increases it thanks to the central bankers who skillfully cause sometimes recession, sometimes revival of the economy through their interest rate policies and increase or decrease the money supply. These are the waves on which the great ones of the financial world surf and later eat caviar and drink champagne. You know it well that this elitist class is not sitting in Beijing, Jakarta, Rio or Moscow. It’s enough to name two cities and you already know who it’s really about: London and New York.

Erdoğan and the president of Brazil, leaders of ASEAN countries and comrade Xi – they all want to make their middle class bigger and stronger because they know it that the first industrial revolution, which lasted 150 (!) years, was possible only thanks to the creative and hard-working middle class. Therefore, they want to introduce their own monetary system, independent of Anglo-Saxon influences, which

(i) operates fairly,

(ii) is not dependent on a fiat currency like the dollar,

(iii) enables the middle class to accumulate wealth, and

(iv) does not serve to remove politically undesirables from the face of the earth through currency wars or military intervention. Suffice it to mention here how weak the Turkish lira is during Erdoğan’s tenure, or how Saddam Hussein fared because of the oil trade in euros, or Gaddafi because of the attempt to introduce the Pan-African currency, which was supposed to be based on gold.

The latter initiatives of countries seeking to free themselves from dollar domination – be it agreements between Russia and China, the BRICS initiative, agreements among ASEAN countries, and many others – all aim at creating some kind of common currency for these, as they are called in the West, “rapidly developing emerging economies.” This currency, however, should not be a fiat currency, such as the euro, but a currency based on tangible assets, thereby ensuring its purchasing power. It may be digital or classic – one thing is certain: its introduction will mean a huge war against the U.S. dollar. It will mean a war against the COMEX (USA) and LME (London) exchanges, where precious metal prices are now decided. And as we emphasized several times before in analyses in our bulletins: these prices have been suppressed and manipulated for decades by the so-called US bullion banks. So, the elitist class that owns the highest share of the world’s wealth may be in for a treat this September, when the BRICS group’s decisions are to be made. One possible scenario: the BRICS countries may, for example, buy countless futures contracts on precious metals and demand delivery of the physical commodity on the expiration date. Since it is common knowledge that COMEX and LME can physically back up perhaps only 20% of their transactions with physical reserves (the paper gold problem), there would be a collapse similar to the Nixon days.

So will the yuan or a whole new emerging market currency soon become a new world reserve currency? If you look at the chart below, you can see that nothing lasts forever and that the dollar’s days may be numbered.

Major reserve currencies since 1250

I kind of can

During the 24 years that Nicolae Ceaușescu ruled Romania, he was praised as a man of genius and providence. He was neither an aristocrat nor a factory owner, he was neither a monarch nor a cultured member of the intelligentsia. The overwhelming majority of the people were led to believe that he was one of them – uneducated, from the lowest social class, a former political prisoner – and as such a guarantor of a new era, a time for people like him. The same goes for his wife Elena, who was commonly referred to as Mother or Mutti (strange that these terms keep popping up: Who do you think of when you hear the word Mutti?). Although she did not even have a primary school diploma, she was appointed president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences. How fair! What a retribution for all people from low social classes! She deserved it just by the fact that she was…. not educated, that she belonged to the proletariat, to the poor, to the once exploited.

Nowadays we are made to believe that Romanians have always resisted the new political system and the Ceaușescus, but this does not correspond to the facts. People everywhere are (first) too gullible to see through any social or political scheme, (second) too indolent to do anything about any change taking place around them, and too indolent to search for information and make informed decisions, and (third) people everywhere and in all eras simply believe in what they are fed. Thus, Romanians for the most part also believed that they lived in a democracy, in a country of workers and peasants, where there was no monarch, no dictatorship and the like.

In truth, Nicolae Ceaușescu was a far more powerful monarch than the last Romanian king, who had to abdicate shortly after the war due to the communist coup. Nicolae Ceaușescu even had the Romanian Parliament appoint him President of Romania for life. Need we add that the decision was unanimous? And like a monarch, he had a magnificent palace built for himself in Bucharest, the second largest in the world, with marble walls and floors and every conceivable luxury. Nicolae Ceaușescu was called Comrade President – God forbid terms like majesty or highness or anything of the sort! He was simply a comrade, one of us, one of the most ordinary Romanians you could meet on the street. He never wore a crown, you know, and never sat on a throne. If he had law enforcement forces shoot at demonstrators – and sometimes he gave such orders – it was because he was protecting his country from foreign agents who wanted to infiltrate the happy and successful Romanian society. Obviously, it was different when he himself had been imprisoned during the Romanian monarchy! Then Nicolae Ceaușescu represented the nation, while those who opposed him later when he was in power were undoubtedly foreign agents.

Everything – the educational system, entertainment, the media – was used to create a veneration for his person. All statistical data proved the efficiency of the Romanian economy. Academics bowed to Elena Ceaușescu without batting an eye. After all, their careers were at stake. They simply measured what they could gain against what they could lose. Deference to the scientifically illiterate president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences came with scholarships (we mean the money used to bribe scientists around the world, the money that can go under countless different names) and a post, while raising eyebrows meant falling from grace.

Why do we remind our readers of things from the recent past, of events from a relatively insignificant country? Simply because we want to make the reader see the parallels. There are many things in the European Union that the majority of people do not approve of, and yet we all seem compliant. We don’t like the millions of immigrants crossing our borders and being fed at our expense, but we keep our mouths shut; we don’t like the aggressive propaganda of homosexuality and perverted sexual behavior, but we keep our heads down; we don’t believe the mainstream media, but we pretend we do. The men and women who rule over us are neither kings nor queens – they are commissioners – and yet they rule and live like monarchs without being elected by us. And just as Nicolae Ceaușescu forced people to live in poverty because he wanted to pay off all of Romania’s debts, the EU commissioners want us to give up life’s many pleasures because they want to save the planet. Everything – the educational system, entertainment, the media – is used to create a veneration of the green agenda, homosexuality and immigration. The opposition is portrayed as foreign agents – these days in Russia’s pay.

And guess what? I bet most readers will frown at this text and say: now that’s going too far! How can you compare this distinguished lady Ursula von der Leyen with Elena Ceaușescu? I kind of can.

Postmodern English

Russia President Vladimir Putin say im no say no to peace tok wit Ukraine.

Putin tok dis one afta im meet wit Africa leaders for St Petersburg, come add say di idea dem wey Africa and China dey bring up fit make am possible to find peace.

But, im also add say ceasefire no go fit happun as long as Ukraine army dey attack.

Just few hours afta im tok finish, Russia say Ukraine drone attack don damage two office blocks for di kontri capital Moscow.

Dem bin even suspend flights for some time for Vnukovo Airport, for south of di city centre, and one pesin injure, according to Russia goment tori pipo TASS. BBC News Pidgin

When the Romans had retrieved their legions and administration from Britain – the year was 410 – Picts and Scots from what is now Scotland began to make increasingly audacious incursions into the southern part of the island. The Celtic peoples who inhabited this part were unable to defend themselves, so they came up with the idea of inviting Jutes, Angles and Saxons from the areas that today belong to Denmark and northern Germany. As Bede the Venerable, the early medieval chronicler, writes, the Anglo-Saxons (for that is the name under which they went down in history), having convinced themselves how effeminate and cowardly the Celts were, decided not only to defend Britain against the northern invaders, but also to subjugate the Celtic inhabitants and make them their serfs or slaves, as the case may be. This was the turning point for the slow death of the Celtic language, spoken then and there, and the beginning of the language that scholars today call Anglo-Saxon or Old English.

Jutes, Angles and Saxons were invited – the Normans were not. In the 11th century, they landed on the south coast of Britain and conquered the lands of the Anglo-Saxons. They brought with them the French language (more precisely, the form spoken at that time in Normandy), paving the way for the gradual emergence of Middle English, which came from the mixture of Old English and Norman French.

Modern English, the language spoken today in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, evolved from Middle English and differs in many ways from its predecessor, but today’s readers can read Middle English texts, albeit with difficulty. This is not the case with Old English. The difference between Middle English and Old English is a wide chasm: they are, in fact, two different languages (which is why some scholars prefer to call it Anglo-Saxon instead of Old English).

The same story seems to be repeating itself. The anti-national, anti-patriotic English elites have invited perfect strangers to come and settle in the British Isles. Every year hundreds of thousands of foreigners reach the British Isles and settle there. It doesn’t take a prophet or a rocket scientist to predict that the English language will change rapidly and irrevocably because of the overwhelming number of newcomers bringing their own languages with them. Rapid in the sense of linguistic change means a long time for an individual, which may mislead most of us into thinking that nothing of the sort is happening.

The BBC is at the forefront of this epochal change. It already offers a subpage in Pidgin. We are witnessing the birth of – what should we call it? – Postmodern English. The Anglo-Saxons were invited by fools, the Normans conquered Britain: Today’s elites – effete, self-hating, craven, and anti-national as they are – embrace such a future with full knowledge of the consequences. The reader will have remembered that less than 50% of the population of London – the capital of the United Kingdom – is white British.

Modern English is doomed to be a dead language. Still, there is good news for lovers of English as we know it today: It will continue to serve as the language of international communication for a long time to come, just as Latin did for many, many centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. It will not be supplanted by Chinese: Who wants to memorize the hundreds of Chinese characters? Pidgin English will be confined to the British Isles and spoken by the racial mixture living there. By that time, Britain will have descended to a Third World country. That is, into irrelevance. Think of ancient Rome. Consider also that the Germanic tribes (Lombards or Longobards) that invaded Rome were able to draw on ancient culture and reproduce it in one way or another. Not so with the settlers in Britain. The United Kingdom will undergo a transformation similar to that of Byzantium or worse.

A similar process is taking place in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, or France. All of these countries have taken in tens or hundreds of thousands of total strangers who cannot be assimilated or integrated because of their sheer numbers. All these peoples speak their own languages, and these languages will inevitably mix with the language of the native population and give rise to a new one. We will have pidgin French, pidgin German, pidgin Swedish, and so on. Neither French nor German will survive as dead languages of international communication. Already the popularity of French is less than that of Italian or Spanish.

The second and third generations of Turks in Germany have invented Turkish German in recent decades, which allows them to live a double (i.e., schizophrenic) identity: they do not feel at home in their “home country,” Turkey, when visiting family in the summer, much less naturalized as quasi-Germans in their ghettos in major German cities. The speaking style of Turkish youths appears in the media, in cinemas, in rap songs, and is increasingly seen as “cool”. This Kiezdeutsch, an ethnolect, thus pervades the young minds of the white, indigenous youths – they begin to identify with the partly borrowed, partly invented language.

Back to Great Britain. So, read the introductory text to this article (and enjoy!), and visit the BBC Pidgin English subpage regularly to slowly get used to Postmodern English.

Similarly, if you ever speak to a young Turk on the street, you might get an answer in the language of the future: “Hassu Brohblem? Guk net, sons hol isch meine Brüda!”.

BlackRock’s Agitprop

If you’ve ever been exposed to Marxist agitprop, you recognize the instances immediately, however disguised they may be. BlackRock’s agitprop is no different: it fits the picture perfectly. In 2022, BlackRock released its Global Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Annual Report. I urge everyone to read through it. You’re guaranteed to be bored stiff. The blah blah of “creating an environment where everyone feels included and safe” (Larry Fink Founder, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock) and the stringing together of words and phrases that just repeating them makes you sick to your stomach, and the constant hammering of the same message page after page after page are really the extreme! Read it if you can stomach it!

“At BlackRock, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a business imperative,” and I naively thought BlackRock was about money! No, BlackRock is all about DEI. That’s what makes them tick, that’s what they are after, that’s how they accumulate wealth. Didn’t you know?

BlackRock’s Manish Mehta, Head of BlackRock Global Markets, tells you that “earning and maintaining the trust of our people every day is what creates the sense of belonging and engagement that allows each of us at BlackRock to thrive.” The word belonging along with a string of other agitprop words like equity, inclusion, diversity, stakeholder etc. keep popping up in the document on and on and on. If BlackRock really had a good psychologist on its pay, a good marketing strategist or simply common sense, its managers would refrain from regurgitating their readers with the nauseating repetition of the same maudlin phrases. But so they have no experts in this respect, or the experts they have are what they are.

The authors of the annual report are not even capable of simple reasoning. They equate inclusion with belonging, and I challenge you to see the difference. According to BlackRock, the former means “the actions and policies we put in place to ensure everyone feels like they belong – to be seen, heard and known” while the latter is to be understood as “a basic human need to be accepted as a member of a group and be treated with respect and dignity.” Now, apart from the difference in the wording of the two “definitions” what the heck is the difference? If you belong, you are included and the other way round.

In the case of the two terms – inclusion and belonging – at least an attempt is made to define them. How about shareholders and stakeholders, two other terms that they use throughout the document? No explanation is offered. The same is true of equity (a buzzword in the minds of the powers that be) and equality. The BlackRock brochure that we are adducing says that equity means that “everyone has fair access to opportunities to advance, succeed and be their best, authentic selves.” Is that not the definition of equality? But who cares? The gullible readership of the BlackRock document will buy into everything it offers so long as it is cloaked in magic words like equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging and so long as it panders to their inflated ego.

As the clickety-clack of “unwavering support and a steadfast dedication to DEI” and “being committed to accelerating progress and promoting a culture of belonging and inclusion” (Michelle Gadsden-Williams, Co-Chair , Global DEI Steering Committee; Global Head of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) continues page after page, we learn that BlackRock intends to increase senior female representation to over 30% by 2024, and increase the number of Black and Latinx (what’s that?) senior leaders in the US by 30% by 2024. To put it in plain English: they will be bounty hunting for biological sex and the color of skin: if sex and the color of skin are decisive – as they obviously are – then why talk about promoting talent? The mendacity of BlackRock’s language is certainly not obvious to people raised in today’s environment of the craziness that has taken hold of the Western mind.

Humanity has always been shaken by collective psychological phenomena that have had nothing to do with common sense let alone reasonable reflection of the mind. If you wanted to “belong” in the 18th century, you needed to become a Freemason; if you wanted to “belong” in the 19th century, you needed to join one of the socialist movements; if you need to “belong” nowadays, you need to subscribe to the globalist ideology of DEI. That’s how simple it is. This madness, too, will pass away…. only to be replaced by another collective psychiatric disease of humanity.

The pages of the brochure devoted to representation and hiring repeatedly address the same issue: how to hire more women and more people of color other than white. To reiterate, it should be clear to a reasonable reader that BlackRock is not about talent, not about skills, education or experience, but about gender and race par excellence. We have seen exactly the same thing in the countries with Marxist ideology, in countries like the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria. The difference was in the category of people who were put in the responsible positions. The communist parties in the above-mentioned countries made it their business to fill important posts with workers and peasants, or at least with children of workers and peasants. That is why we call the BlackRock annual report Marxist (or Trotskyist, if you will) agitprop.

BlackRock is fixated on employing women and non-whites, period. Funny that a white man is the CEO of BlackRock. Why is that, really? But then, that’s nothing new under the sun. The socialists and communists who ruled in the aforementioned countries were mostly members of the intelligentsia, i.e. educated people who came from the aristocracy. It was they who were eager to recruit and surround themselves with representatives of the working class or the peasantry. Competence was not required for this. The social classes of workers and peasants were elevated to key positions in the state, government and society, while children across the country were taught that the working class was the leading or driving force of the nation and paved the way for a bright future. How much this resembles BlackRock! Take a look:

“We […] advance racial equity by investing in future leaders. [We] provide leadership programming to Black, Latinx and Asian professionals […]. This year, we continued to engage Black professionals in the U.S., and we expanded our participation to Latinx and Asian professionals in the U.S. and Black heritage colleagues in the UK,”

As long as you’re black or Latinx or Asian, you’re qualified. But wait a minute: Why should black, Latinx or Asian people be supported if they really have talent? Wouldn’t they be able to move up the social ladder without this extensive support? I dare say they could, but there you have it. Just like in the former communist countries: Back then, centuries of exploitation and social prejudice were cited as explanations for why the sons and daughters of workers and peasants couldn’t manage on their own and needed the state’s help; today, racism (which inevitably goes with the adjective systemic!) and the slavery that existed two centuries ago are cited as explanations for why people of color must be forcibly promoted, and sexism and patriarchy – to promote women.

Mr. Larry Fink: Why are you, of all people, the CEO of BlackRock? You’re white and male. Yikes. Make room for a black woman. What are you waiting for?

In the same brochure, BlackRock boasts about launching the Count-Me-In campaign “designed to raise awareness about self-identification” in terms of “gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disability and military/veteran status, socioeconomic background and local cultural identity.” What does any company need that information for? Well, if I employ a plumber or a teacher or a doctor, I look for professional qualifications and possibly recommendation from people who have already relied and the job of the professional. That’s about all. Why should I be interested in someone’s “gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disability and military/veteran status, socioeconomic background and local cultural identity”? How does that relate to looking for talent and equality and all that clap-trap? If I do not select a person on the basis of his skills, attainment and reputation but take into account ““gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disability and military/veteran status, socioeconomic background and local cultural identity,” then obviously I am not interested in talent and competence at all! Can’t the readers of such agitprop not discern it?

Leafing through the report we come across the idea of “equitable compensation,” which is laid down in a very obscure and vague language of “conducting annual global compensation reviews to assess pay outcomes for fairness and equity, including, but not limited to, reviewing outcomes by gender and race/ethnicity.” What the heck might that be? The old Robin Hood’s principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul? What one can infer from this extremely obscure language is that the moment BlackRock discovers that a woman, a black or a homosexual gets less money than a white heterosexual male, BlackRock steps in and makes up for the loss. Hm… Again, precisely the same was practised in former communist countries. Workers and peasants were lavished with all sorts of compensation for being workers and peasants. Slowly they all ate away their communist state. The same fate awaits BlackRock.

Further, BlackRock reveals what it all comes down to: the company “offers health and voluntary benefits to same-sex domestic partners and spouses. Where permitted, our plans include transgender-inclusive health benefits. Our family medical leave and bereavement leave policies cover same-sex partners and spouses.” This is coupled with being “committed to advancing the role and contributions of Black women in asset management.” Homosexuals and black women are the priority. Again, they are not chosen for their merits, talents, abilities, skills and experience, but for biological characteristics. That is the only thing that matters. Do a thought experiment: what will BlackRock do if it cannot find a talented, qualified, experienced, capable homosexual or black woman? BlackRock will hire one anyway! You see, they have set quotas that say that by the year of this and that, the number of blacks or homosexuals or women must be such and such. Clearly, you can’t plan for the emergence of talent, which means that the top positions at BlackRock will be given to homosexuals, women and blacks, no matter what the cost. Pure pernicious and foolish ideology.

Consider another thought experiment. Let’s play racism as practiced by BlackRock (against whites) in reverse (against blacks). As we know, the United States fields black runners in international sporting events, and they very often win the races. What about diversity here? Why not field a few white runners and a few Asian runners? Just along the lines of diversity. Never mind that runners of Asian or European descent can’t compete with their counterparts of African descent! We will include them on the U.S. national team (inclusion!) and let them compete in international sporting events. Never mind that the number of gold, silver or bronze medals will decrease. We will have achieved the greatest goal of all: diversity.

This is where another question comes into play. I’m just wondering, Mr. Larry Fink, if you’re playing the diversity card just for fun or to drive others out of the market, or if you really believe in all of this. If you’re doing it for fun, then – well – you can probably afford it. If you’re doing it to drive competitors out of the market – competing companies won’t be able to hire unqualified, incompetent people based on their gender or skin color and survive – then you’re employing a strategy that’s as legitimate as any other. But if you truly believe in this ideology and you suffer financial losses, then what? Will you reverse course or drive BlackRock over the cliff?

Another BlackRock flagship program is Listening Circles, which are “small group conversations between employees and local BlackRock leadership to share their perspectives and personal experience.” In former Marxist countries, the same thing existed: it was called a collective. Employees were brought in droves to have supposedly free discussions with managers and party leaders about everything from professional to personal issues. People were made to feel liked and accepted by the collective, and they were constantly made to feel the presence of the collective, which everyone could rely on, identify with, and depend on. This is exactly the same phenomenon.

The lovey-dovey world à la BlackRock

Hey, BlackRock! What about people who don’t fit into your brave new world? I for one feel that I would never, ever belong to BalckRock, to that wishy-washy, Marxist-cum-Trotskyist claptrap, to that maudlin, sugar-coated, lovey-dovey, nauseating, stifling atmosphere where you embrace every single member with your tentacles of diversity, equality, inclusion, progress and whatnot. What are you going to do with people like me? Will you try to psychologically reprogram me? What if you fail? Will you try to reprogram me pharmacologically? Will you try to sideline me? But then what about your inclusivity? Or will you follow the Canadian government’s example and provide me with MAID?

Which time is it in human history when yet another daydreamer is trying to impose the vision of a conflict-free, love-filled world on people? Which time is it? And you still haven’t learned anything?

Just for the record. In the 2022 Annual Report on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, titled “Our Way Forward,” the word “equity” appears 35 times, “inclusion/inclusivity” appears 63 times, and “diverse/diversity” appears 79 times on 97 PDF pages that are full of graphics. If we consider only the text, each of these three words appears at least once per page. This makes for very tedious reading! Once again, I would like to point out the obvious lack of good psychologists at BlackRock: such obnoxious repetitions are repulsive to say the least. For one thing, they give the impression that these ideas are being forced on you, and we know that good things don’t need to be forced on anyone.

Hey, BlackRock! I feel tempted to use Vladimir Bukovsky’s handy phrase and I will use it: I have lived in your future.

Current affairs – about migrants and pubs

States renounce the exercise of rights. Kids from Paris suburbs are acting up w Macron. The average age of the protesters a few weeks ago was 17. No policeman dares to go into the no-go zones in Stockholm or Malmö, despite much debate in the media about how to change that. Forget the Russian mafia or motorcycle gangs in Germany: in Berlin, Arab clans and their friends from the Balkans have long ruled the streets. In the Brussels district of Molenbeek, where the ISIS attackers of Paris lived, nothing changes: it remains an Islamist stronghold.

You can learn all this quietly from the tabloid press, and even the German Foreign Office warns against staying in some European cities and their districts occupied by the connoisseurs of the welcome culture.

Western societies are fragmented. Actually, they are parallel societies living side by side and increasingly against each other. The problem is, as the general of the French gendarmerie once remarked, that these groups have weapons, to which they have fortunately rarely resorted so far during the riots. Perhaps the leaders of the clans and gangs are waiting for the right moment to shoot.

Migrants do not have regular tables in the traditional places with European cuisine. But some Europeans have one in a Chinese or Thai restaurant. The Arabs have their shisha bars, but if any white people stray into those too, they are probably mostly citizens whose way of life leaves a lot to be desired. This shows who is open to new culture and who just wants his couscous.

The restaurants and bars are like litmus paper: they show the level of prosperity, the level of social cohesion of the society. Meanwhile, pubs are dying all over Europe. Many factors are responsible for this, not only the ethnic divisions in Western Europe. The dying also depends on the fact that in work and through media we are more and more trimmed to be always more effective, more sporty, healthier, and that the time that is lost in time is simply lost. In 2001 there were 48 000 pubs nationwide, in 2019 – only 29 000. In the first Corona year 22 500. Rising labor and energy costs accelerate the process: many owners are withdrawing from the unprofitable business. The rulers do not care because it is perhaps easier to govern divided societies without social cohesion which is created when eating and drinking together. They know that society is seething and that many overthrowing parties in history have been created at regulars’ tables.

Why not see the elephant in the room?

The Western world appears to be apprehensive of the political and economic axis commonly known as BRICS i.e. the loose union of Brasilia, Russia, India, China and South Africa, all the more so because a number of other nations have expressed their willingness to join these five in an effort to contribute to the creation of an alternative world to that run by the United States and its vassals: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. As the old wisdom says, the chain is as strong as its weakest link. Which is the weakest link in BRICS? Yes, you guessed it right: the Republic of South Africa.

As is known, the country has been run by its black majority (the African National Congress or ANC, to be precise) for three decades now and within this time its economy, the schooling system, societal cohesion and the basic infrastructure has been constantly collapsing. South Africa is notorious for rampant petty and violent crime, and for its power outages. Power outages lead to a string of other problems, since modern civilization is based on electricity. Why is South Africa on a slippery road to a collapse? Why is South Africa disintegrating? Why is South Africa about to become a failed state?

Various explanations have been advanced recently. Of these, the objective economic crises outside the country, the split of South African society along racial, class, tribal and sectarian divides, natural disasters that haunted the country, and ultimately the Marxist principles of equity that have been enforced are most frequently discussed. The experts, journalists or politicians who come up with these explanations seem not to notice the elephant in the room. Before 1994, when South Africa was ruled by the white minority and abided by the laws of apartheid, it faced the same problems: racial, class, tribal and sectarian divisions, objective, external economic crises, periodic natural disasters and the like, and yet, and despite these factors it was Africa’s top nation in terms of economy. What has changed since 1994?

Well, Marxism as the ruling political principle is one of the factors. Countries following Marxism in economy did not fare well anywhere in the world: think about the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, think about the Soviet Union, Maoist China or Cuba. Yet, in none of them did we observe power outages, in none of them did we see rampant theft of the elements of basic infrastructure; none of them was fraught with crime and none of them descended into lawlessness the way South Africa has done. Obviously, we need to look for another explanation. What else has changed since 1994?

Ah, yes! Pluck up your intellectual courage and own it up: South Africa has been ruled by its black majority. Now draw a comparison between the quality of life in black neighbourhoods in the United States or Europe and that in South Africa and you will spot a striking resemblance. That’s a fact of life, no more, no less. Some of the former communist countries were in very deep economic problems: in some of them almost all sorts of food! were rationed, and yet there was no trash in the streets, no theft of the items of infrastructure, no violent riots in the streets with torched cars and smashed shop windows, and no rampant petty or violent crime.

The reasonable, scientific approach dictates to us an impartial analysis of the factors that are in play. The Chinese and some of the European nations followed Marxist principles in economy and they did not have all the glaringly, blatantly negative phenomena that we are observing in South Africa. Conversely, there was no Marxism in the United States, and black communities behave the way they do in South Africa, and black neighbourhoods look pretty much like their counterparts in South Africa. Is there a significant difference between majority-black Chicago and majority-black Johannesburg? Why not see the elephant in the room?