The purport

A few days ago it was revealed that Gonzalo Lira, a pretty famous youtuber who stayed behind in Kharkov and openly criticised the Kiev regime and its Washington sponsors, died from torture in Ukrainian prison.

I didn’t want to react immediately because I wanted to think things through. My first impulse was sadness because someone I knew pretty well was killed in a horrible manner. My second impulse was anger at the perpetrators and their American handlers, and a wish for them to be punished for their evil. Then I thought about his role in this, because a reasonable person would first get out, and then criticise them, because the point of his criticism was that the Kiev regime is incredibly corrupt and evil, and is known for killing its critics, so him staying behind implies that he either believes his criticism of Kiev to be wrong, or he for some reason thinks he will be exempt from retribution, probably because of some invisible shield of human rights that all Americans believe they have. It is also possible that he had a mid-life crisis of some kind and wanted to be a hero, but since he didn’t look suicidal, he probably just assumed he’ll be fine because reasons.

What we did find out is that the person that said that pen is mightier than the sword didn’t know what he was talking about.

The limit of prediction

The problem with trying to predict future events is that all interested parties also make their own predictions, they assess outcomes of possible moves and use all of their power to avoid the most undesirable outcomes.

Basically, this means that I can, for instance, see the predicament of the American economy, but so do the American analysts, and their willingness to make even the most drastic moves in order to prolong the status quo should never be underestimated. If they know that something will doom them, they will do literally anything to prevent it. “Anything” can range from printing trillions of dollars, spoofing the entire economy, creating a civil war, to cooking up a nuclear war. One can think that nothing can be as bad as nuclear war, but if you’re in a position of someone who knows they will be doomed without it, and with a nuclear war they can arrange everybody else to be doomed worse, the picture changes.

Also, it’s easy to speculate what the Russians could do, if they so wanted, but it’s almost impossible to know the exact thinking of the people who are actually in charge. They might have an internal red line they will never make known, and if that red line is crossed, they might activate a pre-arranged plan that is also not known outside their inner circle; for instance, if the Americans escalate past a certain point, for instance by starting to hit deep targets within the Russian Federation with carriers that can be modified to carry nuclear warheads, and it can’t be known in advance whether the warheads are conventional or nuclear, they might activate something ranging from a deep tactical response to a full nuclear first strike. You see, they really want to avoid a nuclear confrontation, but they are aware that they are in fact encouraging escalation by being too restrained, and this will inevitably encourage the West to perform a sneak nuclear attack. They are torn between really not wanting things to escalate, and realisation that their restraint might cause exactly that. So, it’s reasonably easy to understand what they might do by analysing the options that are available to them and making a cross-section between that and the analysis of their behaviour and thinking. Basically, you see what they can do and then eliminate the options that cause outcomes that are highly unfavourable to them, and then plot a tree of possible desirable courses. For instance, it is quite obvious to me that the Russians can take the entire Ukraine within a month. They could also cut off their gas, oil, food, water and electricity during winter and kill off the entire population. They could cut off all supply and communication between NATO and Ukraine. However, when you make a cross-section between that and the desire to de-escalate and decrease the probability of making the conflict threatening enough for NATO that really bad options start looking probable, you are left with options that look like “winning by not losing while the enemy is drained of resources and demotivated”.

In essence, I can plot out a tree of options, but you need to be aware that all the parties involved are doing the same thing, and what makes sense to me doesn’t necessarily have to make sense to them; for instance, if I calculate that the best outcome would be a nuclear first strike, and Russian leadership already decided that they would never use that option, it would be very hard for me to assess what the second most favourable option would be, because they might be betting on something I see as exceedingly unlikely.

Geopolitical strategic layout

The big picture is that America has been aware of its impending economic demise since before the 2008 crisis, which is obvious from looking at their policies, which are prolonging the present at the cost of a future, which means the ones making the moves didn’t see a way to save the future, not by any kind of normal policies. Also, about that time they tested the maximum oil output, found the peak that cannot be exceeded, and intentionally collapsed the world economy in order to lessen the demand in order to give themselves time. America’s problem is that the greatest oil and gas reserves belong to Russia, while those in the Middle East and elsewhere are basically exhausted. This means that, in a linear projection, Russia becomes the dominant economic power, and the standard wisdom of shoring up the Dollar by selling “protection” to the Arabs will fail in the near future, and not only will the Dollar cease to be the world reserve currency, but the Ruble will take its place, as the Russians will inevitably leverage their position of a dominant hydrocarbon supplier to shore up their own currency. This means that, by the estimate of the American analysts from the 2005-2009 or so, the greatest dangers to American world domination are the hydrocarbons and Russia. The propaganda about world climate being threatened by combustion of hydrocarbons and Russia being simultaneously an evil and backward empire that needs to be contained, controlled and “democratised” can be easily explained by this. Russia played with black figures here and only reacted to American moves, and I’m not sure if they could have done any better considering how the West has been subjugating and exploiting their country since the fall of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the Russian political class was extremely unwilling to understand what they are dealing with, which caused a significant delay in response to the situation, to their detriment. For instance, it gave the West time to completely nazify Ukraine and turn it into an anti-Russian fortress, when Russia could have simply solved the problem in 2014. However, had they gone in then, their economy would have likely had no time to adapt to the sanctions and this could have a disastrous effect. Also, had they done that, it would have been much more difficult to explain the situation to the rest of the world; now, it’s quite obvious what’s going on, which is why the Western propaganda has no effect outside the Western countries. This can be interpreted as Russia taking a short-term strategic hit in order to improve its strategic position in mid- and long-term.

Currently, the Western propaganda outlets are starting to prepare their respective populations for a strategic loss in Ukraine, but it might in fact serve the purpose of creating resolve for the use of nuclear weapons in order to prevent a resounding Russian victory once it becomes apparent that the collective West is losing. The Russian forces have started advancing despite the muddy season, and heavy cold is forecasted so I would expect Russia to go in fast and hard in attempt to wrap up the situation. This, however, requires an analysis of Russian strategy.

The Russians see a victory in the following scenario: they avoid a nuclear war with America, preserve their own economy and international relations, have no heavily militarised neighbours that threaten them with war, and have a future where they are able to freely trade and otherwise interact with most of the world unimpeded by America and its colonies. They don’t really care that much about Ukraine outside of those major strategic goals. As far as they are concerned, a neutral Ukraine that is not a heavily armed Nazi bunker is fine. Unfortunately, the Americans made sure such a Ukraine cannot exist, which will likely mean that the Russians will be forced to dismantle it as a country and turn it into something that is not a threat. This, however, is not easy to do, because winning a war in Ukraine at the cost of causing a nuclear war is no victory, which is why the Russians didn’t do the most obvious thing and just move south from Belarus and cut off the Ukrainian border with the West, which would have ended the war immediately, but at the cost of almost certain escalation. Also, they are not really in a hurry to win, because of several reasons. First, winning the war has to be weighed against potentially losing the economy, which would have terrible consequences they already had the misfortune to experience and are unlikely to be willing to repeat. Second, this is not a war with Ukraine. It’s a war with America, and the worst way to approach it would be, basically, by demonstrating a serious threat by being too effective. This would allow the Americans to mobilise against them more easily and the situation would escalate. However, if they make it a boring quagmire, the Americans would see that as something they want to avoid at all cost, because every single war they lost was a boring quagmire. Americans want something where they can go in fast and hard, demonstrate “superiority”, raise the flag and so on. The best way to win against Americans is to make it impossible for them to have a quick and decisive victory, and instead make the war boring, long and expensive. This description seems to fit nicely with what the Russians have been doing, and it doesn’t look like an accident either. The current situation, however, is quite precarious, since the boring phase seems to be unsustainable, mostly because the Americans are using medium-range rocketry to attack Russian civilian targets in Belgorod and Crimea. The purpose of this provocation is to force the Russians to respond in non-boring ways, thus giving the Americans an opening for a nuclear escalation. What the Russians seem to be doing is to simply move the front line to the West, until the Russian civilian targets are out of range, prolonging the boring phase hopefully enough for the Americans to go bankrupt, proclaim victory and leave.

This, however, is in my opinion a central error in Russian thinking, because the entire geostrategic layout is about America degrading and destroying its possible strategic opponents for the duration of their own predicted economic collapse; essentially, they want to avoid a situation where they emerge from their own problems to find the world dominated by Russia, China and the EU, with them relegated to the position of a second-rate power. No, they want to return as the dominant power, even if it means they dominate over a scorched Earth, because rebuilding would likely be profitable. This means that the Russian strategy of buying time and making things as boring as possible would normally work, but their opponent doesn’t see this as a normal situation. It’s the end of America as we know it, and the only way America, as the narcissistic bully queen that she is, will accept its fall, is if others fall worse. However, I don’t really know what one can do about it if a nuclear first strike is not an option they are willing to consider. The only other option is what the Russians have been doing – make it boring, make it long, gamble on American bankruptcy and degradation while you grow stronger, and hope that they either die with a whimper, or militarily degrade enough by the time it comes to an exchange, that you can win decisively and with minimal losses compared to what you’d experience if an exchange came at a less opportune moment.

As for the situation in the Middle East, I already predicted some time ago that Israel will see that America is losing its geostrategic position of its major protector, and will use it to try and destroy/degrade all its regional enemies and improve its presently terrible strategic position, because if America falls, and their regional enemies continue to exist as such, Israel is lost. This understanding makes Israel’s actions panicked and desperate, and they will not rest until they either succeed at degrading Iran, Syria and other lesser threats, or they themselves are destroyed. In the near-term, this means Israel will try to use its lobbying power in America to cause a confrontation with Iran. However, I’m not sure China and Russia will allow Iran to be degraded like Iraq, Libya and Syria, and we can expect serious red lines to be both drawn and crossed there.

Individualism

“The UN chief said the condemnable Hamas attack on Israel could never justify collective punishment of the Palestinians,” The Times of Israel reported. The only “realistic basis for genuine peace and security,” according to Guterres, may be the creation of a Palestinian state.

That’s just the thing. A very small minority of people exist as true individuals. Most exist as an aspect of their group, a religious or a tribal designation. That’s why Muslims react as a collective entity – they are Muslims first, and everything else third. If you don’t treat them like a collective entity, you are exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of the available reality, essentially trying to replace the reality that is here, with some fantasy or philosophy that you would prefer in its stead. In fact, I don’t think they would want you to treat them as individuals, and not Muslims. When a Westerner has a child, they think they are making one more individual being. When a Muslim has a child, he’s making one more Muslim.

The Muslims don’t want a “Palestinian state”, unless it is formed on the ashes of a destroyed Israel, and after all the Jews have been killed or exiled. What Muslims want is universal Islamic supremacy.

The problem with the Jews is that they are almost the exact same thing. They are two materialistic non-transcendental religions that think they are ordained by God to rule the world. They think they are the true humans as God designed them, and everybody else is some sort of cattle. That’s the foundation of their “morality”, which is why I return to my original point, that there will be peace when those groups understand that their perspective is fundamentally flawed; essentially, what a Muslim sees after death is that they were completely wrong about everything, and what a Jew sees after death is that Christianity is the proper branch of Judaism, that got things right ever since st. Paul. The solution to their genocidal dilemma is therefore not genocidal destruction of one or both sides. The solution lies in transcendence of this world, and for both sides Christianity seems like the most logical and straightforward path. Sure, Hinduism or Buddhism would do just fine as well, but only to a few individuals with such inclinations; for the majority, understanding that Islam is basically a fake religion created by a madman who misunderstood what he heard about Judaism and Christianity, and hallucinated the rest, and Judaism is a dry branch that refused to accept the aspect of transcendence introduced by Jesus. Both sides have good reasons to repent and consider themselves sinners and fools. Yes, the Muslims are worse, but that doesn’t give the Jews a free pass. They are sinners who refused the hand of God when it was offered.

 

Antisemitism

A Turkish politician recently made a speech praising Hitler for killing Jews, I quote:

A local politician from Türkiye’s Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has publicly praised Adolf Hitler’s genocide of the Jews, adding that he was “praying” for the Nazi leader.

Suleyman Sezen, who represents President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party in the Atakum district council in the province of Samsun, made the comments at a meeting on Wednesday.

“Hitler had this remark, ‘You will curse me for every Jew that I did not kill.’ Such true words, as Zionist Jewish Israel today is behind every single attempt at creating chaos in the world,” the politician declared in a rant shared online. He added that he prayed for “God’s mercy and grace on [Hitler] for his words.”

Sezen expressed hope that Israel “will soon cease to exist and there will be peace in the world once it is cleansed of Jews.”

There has been lots of similar sentiment expressed lately, and a very concerted, regimented response of Muslims all over the world, which makes me think people are not perceiving the actual threat here. Also, I see there is a “factory” of false news in Palestine, that’s not being properly verified as it is re-published verbatim worldwide, which is quite similar to the situation in Ukraine, where the Ukrainian sources routinely create falsehoods that are then re-published and amplified elsewhere, creating a completely wrong impression about the reality of the situation. For instance, in the “news” about the Israeli strike on the hospital in Gaza, nobody really verified the number of people killed, and the number of 500 seems to be repeated without any verification, and I’ve seen EU sources mention the actual number of killed being in the order of 10-50.

With all this Muslim anti-Jewish sentiment being revealed, it is quite obvious that the Jews will conclude that the Muslims are in essence an implacable foe that needs to be completely defeated in order for any kind of permanent peace to be possible, and also that the Western “human rights” sentiment is making the West a serious obstacle to their long-term survival. This is nothing new, and I talked about this years ago, but this is now obvious enough for the non-Israelis to notice.

So, considering how the Muslims obviously act as a singular political entity worldwide, how Muslim immigration in the West is obviously a “fifth column” that just waits for the signal to overthrow the native Europeans, and considering how the Western concept of human rights and individualism makes it impossible to handle such threats in an appropriate manner, and in fact actively obstructs Israel in its attempts to properly handle the issue, it is not difficult to understand that Israel might resort to desperate actions in order to try to assure its survival, although I honestly don’t see what they could do in this situation that would not also result in the destruction of Israel.

The fact the Muslims managed to re-brand themselves as victims in order to weaponise Western idiocy for their purposes is as incredible as it is ominous.