Archive for June, 2016

Firing the Elites


Given what’s happening right now with the EU redux, it’s hard not to write a little something about it, so I won’t even try to resist the temptation. Stock markets are crashing, banks are on the verge of failure, gold is spiking and City of London and Wall Street financial types are running around with their hair on fire. But beyond such financial superficialities, what is really happening is that class warfare is back with a vengeance, so far in the UK with the Brexit referendum, but likely to spread.

In that referendum, the older generations who know which class they belong to voted to fire their malign overlords in Brussels and London, while the younger generations, brainwashed by EU propaganda, did not. Some “experts” claimed that there is some sort of generational divide, but I think that older generations did a smart thing, and that this is adequately explained by the fact that they are smarter. You see, fools tend to die young, and the mere act of surviving is a sign of intelligence. But that’s just a minor side-point.

The main point is that the malign elites very much need to be fired, both in Europe and in the US. There are several problems with them, which I would like to briefly enumerate:

• They tend to be neoliberal, and espouse all of the faulty ideas that come with that failed ideology. The results are plain to see: retirees robbed, young people deprived of meaningful employment; fabulous riches for a tiny elite and austerity for everyone else; more of everything for Germany, less of everything for everyone else. A financial scheme that is fundamentally a Ponzi scheme, is guaranteed to blow up, and may be blowing up as I write this.

• They tend to be under the sway of the neoconservatives in Washington, and together with them they lurch from one disaster to another. The results are again plain to see: an entire list of countries destroyed (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, the Ukraine), a flood of migrants flooding out of these countries and into Europe in what is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, and extremely dangerous, and entirely unnecessary provocations against Russia.

• They espouse an ideology that seeks to erase all ethnic and cultural distinctions and that forces a repulsive political correctness on everyone except the Moslems (who are, curiously, considered exempt). Having eliminated most significant human freedoms (including, most significantly, freedom of the press, which in Europe is a captive of corporate interests), the two remaining freedoms that are now championed in Europe are the freedom to rootlessly drift about the continent, and the freedom to engage in any sexual perversion you like, including bestiality and pedophilia.

• But the biggest problem with these transatlantic elites is this: they cannot be fired. The more they fail, the more entrenched they become. Obviously, this has nothing to do with education, or merit, or popularity; it is simply a matter of class. The elites consider themselves to be Übermenschen, elevated far above mere mortals. Democracy is a plaything for them. Most of the time they have been able to manipulate the politics to their advantage. When that fails, the “little people” get to vote over and over again until they “get it right.” But this political fix is now failing, on both sides of the Atlantic, because it would appear that the “little people” have finally had enough.

The automatic recourse is to start insulting the “little people” in an attempt to browbeat them into submission. If they don’t want to see their country overrun by illegal migrants (note that having had you country destroyed by NATO does not qualify you for political asylum) then they are called racist and bigoted. If they fail to grasp some of the finer points of EU’s bureaucratic governance (because, frankly, who would want to waste time on all that nonsense?) then they are called ignorant and misguided. And, most importantly, if there is a financial crash (which was inevitable in any case; see “Ponzi scheme” above) then that is blamed on their bad choices at the polls.

Perhaps most importantly of all, every effort is being made to equate patriotism with nationalism and fascism. Now, this bears explaining, because these concepts are perfectly distinct:

• Patriotism is one’s love of one’s native land and people. It is a natural, organic result of growing up in a certain place among a certain people, who have also grown up there, and who pass along a cultural and linguistic legacy that they all love and cherish. This does not imply that those not of one’s family, neighborhood or region are in any way inferior, but they are not one’s own, and one loves them less.

• Nationalism is a synthetic product generated using public education and is centered around certain hollow symbols: a flag, an anthem, some yellowed pieces of paper, a few creation myths and so on. It is supported by certain rituals (parades, speeches, handing out of medals) that comprise a civic cult. The purpose of nationalism is to support the nation-state. Where nationalism serves the needs of one’s native land and people, nationalism and patriotism become aligned; when it destroys them, nationalism becomes the enemy and patriots form partisan movements, rise up and destroy the nation-state.

• Fascism is the perfect melding of the nation-state and corporations, in the course of which the distinction between public and private interests becomes erased and corporations come to dictate public policy. An almost perfect expression of fascism is the recent transatlantic and transpacific trade agreements negotiated in secret by the Obama administration, which at the moment, to everyone’s great relief, seem to be dead in the water.

It should be obvious that fascism has to be defeated, and if we were to pick just one perfectly good reason to fire the transatlantic elites then it is to thwart this corporate power grab. But it does not stop there, because nationalism and patriotism are also in play. Patriotism is a natural, core human value without which all you have is a rootless population shifting about opportunistically. Nationalism is a relatively recent innovation (nation-states are a 17th century invention) and as such a dangerous one, but in the case of some of the older and more successful nation-states it does provide significant benefits: a cherished cultural tradition anchored to a national language and literature, the ability to keep the peace and to repel outside aggression. And then there is the European Union, with its flag depicting a constellation of stars that are obviously orbiting something—something that could only be a black hole, since it is invisible. The United States is a similarly artificial, synthetic entity of very recent derivation, with its flag obviously depicting a tray of star-shaped cookies which are, most unfortunately, no longer for the “little people” to eat because the elites have decided that they want all the cookies for themselves.

And so they need to be fired. If this is to be done by voting (as opposed to, say, from a cannon) then the object of voting is to elect somebody who is, first and foremost, capable of firing these elites. The British seem to have done this; now it is the Americans’ turn. A somewhat thoughtful question that is sometimes asked (after people are done making spurious claims that Donald Trump is insane, a misogynist, a racist, a fascist, a bad businessman, generally not very nice or whatever else) is whether he is qualified to govern. To my mind, this question reduces to a much simpler question: Is he qualified to fire people? And the answer is, Yes, he most certainly is qualified to fire people. In fact “You’re fired!” is one of his trademark utterances. In fact, he just recently fired his very own campaign manager. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, heads up the entire cohort of people that need to be fired. And that is why I think there is a good chance that the “little people” will finally rise up and vote for somebody who will do just that.

Negative interest rates are coming to America


Well, that didn\’t take long! Negative Interest Rate Policy appears to be a gift that keeps on giving.

Just a little while ago I wrote that, in essence, if the Federal Reserve wants to keep the financial party going a little bit longer, it will have to continue lowering interest rates to below zero, as this is the only way to keep broke debtors alive and prevent the gigantic debt bubble from imploding. And now we find out that the Federal Reserve has resolved any legal impediments (such as the Federal Reserve Act) that have kept it from doing just that.

To recap, negative interest rates are a way to pay debtors to hold onto their debt instead of defaulting on it or repudiating it, thus preventing the debt pyramid from pancaking and taking the entire financial system with it. But this effect is temporary, for at least two reasons.

First, negative interest rates are essentially a tax on savings, causing people to think of other ways to store their wealth: land, precious metals, boxes of brass knobs, what have you. In due course, money stops being regarded as wherewithal and starts being regarded as an unreliable way to conduct business.

Second, with a gigantic bubble in bonds now decades old and bond yields now going negative, it is a matter of time before the realization hits that negative-yield bonds are not any sort of safe haven. Their value is now strictly a matter of their market valuation, which can plummet the moment people decide to dump them, with no floor anywhere. After all, there are plenty of other ways to lose money, and negative-yield bonds are nothing special.

And so, what the flashing neon words on the wall seem to be saying is this: negative interest rates are on the way throughout the “developed world.” In due course, they will demolish any remaining value of the US dollar (along with other NIRP currencies, such as the Euro and the Yen, to mention a few). Also in due course, they will blow up the bond bubble, and impair the debt financing function of Western and Japanese banks and corporations. And once this happens, obtaining new credit will become problematic.

In turn, this financial collapse will cause problems with letters of credit and bills of lading, meaning that cargo will not be loaded on ships, and the ships won\’t sail, leading to shortages of imports, disrupted global supply chains, triggering the next stage: commercial collapse.

That, in turn, will cause the tax base to shrivel and tax receipts to drop precipitously, impairing the ability of governments to continue to function. (Countries that insist on stationing their troops around the world for no good reason will be affected especially badly.) And this will bring on political collapse: governments will have a hard time pretending that they still exist, never mind being able to demonstrate that they still matter.

At which point you will suddenly find yourself asking this: How far along are social collapse and cultural collapse where I am? Do I know who my people are, and will they stand up for me, and I for them, or is it every man, woman and omni/multi/homo/trans/nonsexual part-unicorn for him/her/itself? This is not some theoretical question, but a perfectly practical one.

For example, last New Year\’s eve in Cologne, Germany, a mob of around a thousand male migrants attacked and molested a large number of women. There were some German men on hand; did they defend their women? No, they didn\’t. Or take the recent incident in Orlando. Conspiracy theories aside, there were over 100 people there against one gunman. Did any of them rush the gunman? The first 10 might have gotten shot; but the next 10 could have piled on, dropped him to the floor and stomped on his neck, ending the incident. But that didn\’t happen, did it? Where was their killer instinct?

By way of contrast, consider the incident that took place in Murmansk, Russia, where some migrants that had been expelled from Norway for bad behavior started behaving impudently toward some Russian women at a night club. The local lads didn\’t like that at all. According to some reports, the police showed up when the situation was already well in hand, and did their best to show that they are no slouches either. Result: 18 rapey migrants ended up in the hospital, 33 in detention, all begging to be sent home. If you are thinking that these people aren\’t quite civilized, then perhaps you are right, but we need to further process this thought.

You see, when your civilization is collapsing, civilized people become a liability. It may not even be just a question of culture or society; it may be a question of breeding. Just as you can breed hunting dogs to specifically disable certain instinctive behaviors—pointers don\’t attack the prey but stupidly stand there pointing; retrievers stupidly carry the prey back instead of eating it on the spot—you can also breed a race of men that don\’t defend their women but stand there stupidly waiting for the police to show up and maybe do their job.

The selective breeding works like this: keep arresting all the men who exhibit normal violent responses to violence and sending them to jail, where the only relationships they can have are homosexual ones and don\’t produce any offspring. Then the only men who are left on the outside and able to breed are the docile, tame ones, and over just a few generations they produce a breed of docile, tame humans who stand around watching strangers manhandle and molest their women, or wait for a lone gunman to get around to shooting them, hiding in the bathroom and furiously diddling their phones.

There is no getting away from nature; chase it out the door, and it will jump back in through the window. Nobody has the authority to repeal natural selection; and when collapse occurs, those who were previously considered fit turn out to be unfit, and vice versa. Yes, you can pretend that everything will be all right because you have a pot of gold, a patch of farmland and some seeds, a well-stocked doomstead and a collection of pea shooters and pointed sticks with which you plan to single-handedly hold back large gangs of heavily armed, starving marauders. But let\’s not pretend. If you find yourself swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool, now would be a good time to head for deeper waters.

This article probably didn\’t go where you thought it would. But collapse isn\’t some mildly amusing board game that you and I get to play on Tuesdays. I write not to entertain you but to give you an edge. If you read this and yet do nothing, then you will have wasted your time.

Interview with Chris Martenson


The Five Stages of Collapse French Edition


Nous avons aujourd’hui le plaisir de vous informer de la sortie du livre culte de Dmitry Orlov, Les cinq stades de l’effondrement aux éditions Le retour aux Sources.

Éditions Le Retour aux Sources
Disponible sur notre boutique (prévente)

Si vous nous lisez depuis ces deux dernières années, vous avez eu le plaisir de suivre la pensée de Dmitry, grâce à ses articles quasi hebdomadaires. En plus d’un grande érudition et d’une pensée en effervescence souvent teintée d’un humour caustique, Dmitry est aussi d’un abord très simple et nous entretenons avec lui une relation de confiance pour améliorer les traductions et aider à la diffusion des idées alternatives au Système.

Pour la sortie de son livre, nous vous proposons une interview réalisée il y a quelques jours.

Le Saker Francophone: – Pouvez-vous vous présenter en quelques mots?

Dmitry Orlov: – Je suis quelqu’un qui tape sur un ordinateur portable. C’est très certainement vrai; personne ne conteste cela. Tout le reste me concernant n’est pas aussi certain. Je ne cherche pas à être timide, seulement à dire la vérité. La plupart des faits sur moi semblent quelque peu contradictoires. J’ai un diplôme d’ingénieur, mais je traite les sciences de l’ingénieur comme un passe-temps. Je suis diplômé en linguistique, matière que je traite aussi comme un passe-temps. J’écris des livres et des articles, pas comme un passe-temps, mais je ne suis pas un humaniste ou un littéraire. J’ai vécu pendant de nombreuses années aux États-Unis, et je connais l’anglais beaucoup mieux que la plupart des Américains, mais je suis russe et à la maison on ne parle que russe. Il n’est même pas possible de dire précisément où je vis, parce que nous vivons sur un voilier, qui se déplace d’un endroit à l’autre. Donc la meilleure chose à faire est de simplement lire ce que je vous écris, et ne pas essayer d’y lire qui je suis, parce que rien de tout cela n’est particulièrement pertinent. Ma motivation pour l’écriture est très simple : je veux donner un sens au monde, pour moi-même, et pour toute autre personne qui pourrait être intéressée.

– Est-ce que votre livre Les cinq stades de l’effondrement, qui va bientôt être publié en français, sert encore de base à votre réflexion sur la situation mondiale?

Les cinq étapes offrent un bon échafaudage intellectuel de réflexion sur les différents effondrements qui se déroulent, avec quelques mises en garde.

Tout d’abord, il est clair que les étapes peuvent se chevaucher; il n’est pas nécessaire que l’effondrement financier aille à son terme avant que l’effondrement commercial et politique puisse commencer. Les effondrements sociaux et culturels sont largement entamés à certains endroits (des parties entières des États-Unis me viennent à l’esprit). Les effondrements peuvent se produire dans des poches relativement petites, franchir une ou deux étapes, et parfois même inverser leur cours, comme c’est arrivé en Russie après l’effondrement de l’URSS.
Mais il y a aussi des exemples emblématiques : l’Ukraine traverse actuellement l’ensemble des cinq étapes dans une spectaculaire cascade d’échecs.

Deuxièmement, il y a toujours des surprises. Je suis toujours étonné de voir comment les autorités financières mondiales ont été habiles à perpétuer une sorte de suspension théâtrale de l’incrédulité, ce qui a rendu l’insolvabilité systémique normale. Si j’avais prédit des taux d’intérêt négatifs, il y a quelques années, les gens auraient ri de moi, et pourtant ils sont là! Nous savons tous que la bulle de la dette va éclater, et que quand elle le fera, tout le monde se retrouvera avec du chewing-gum dans les cheveux, mais nous ne savons pas quand cela se produira. Une autre grande surprise a été la volonté des investisseurs de jeter de l’argent facile dans une production marginale d’hydrocarbures, qui est maintenant à l’origine d’une vague massive de faillites dans le secteur de l’énergie. Nous savons que les réserves de pétrole conventionnel s’épuisent de 5% par an, sans rien pour les remplacer, et que la surabondance actuelle ne durera que quelques mois, mais nous ne savons pas encore quel processus va courir le plus vite, l’épuisement du pétrole ou l’effondrement industriel. Nous connaissons le résultat final: le pétrole finira par être considéré comme un déchet toxique inutile.

Troisièmement, lorsque j’ai écrit ce livre, je ne donnais pas l’attention voulue à l’effondrement de l’environnement, et pourtant il se révèle être l’un des plus importants. Mais il est difficile d’être précis à ce sujet en ce qui concerne d’autres tendances de l’effondrement. D’une part, c’est une mort à petit feu; le réchauffement de la planète va rendre l’agriculture impossible dans de nombreuses régions de la planète; l’élévation du niveau des océans va déloger près de la moitié de la population mondiale en inondant les villes côtières; l’acidification des océans est en train de détruire les chaînes alimentaires marines et priver les populations côtières et insulaires d’une source de nourriture essentielle. D’autre part, la probabilité accrue de phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes liés au réchauffement climatique peut avoir des conséquences soudaines et assez surprenantes.
Par exemple, une vague de chaleur en Russie en 2010 a influencé la récolte de blé, ce qui a provoqué l’arrêt des exportations de céréales de la Russie, conduisant le prix du couscous à crever le plafond, provoquant le printemps arabe, qui à lui-même conduit une vague de migrants à inonder l’Europe ensuite, provoquant des divisions dans la solidarité européenne. Le changement climatique est comme une bombe en caoutchouc:

Le nombre de victimes ne peut être calculé, car elle continue à sauter partout, sans fin.

– Comment voyez-vous la situation mondiale actuelle?

La question la plus importante n’est pas comment je vois la situation du monde, mais si vous la voyez. J’en suis venu à la conclusion que la plupart des gens ne voient rien du tout.

A l’Ouest, en raison du contrôle serré des entreprises transnationales sur les médias de masse, que les Allemands ont commencé à appeler joliment Lügenpresse (presse menteuse), ces médias ont créé un royaume fictif, et la plupart des gens y passent leur vie entière. Par exemple, je suis sûr que beaucoup de Français pensent que la Russie a envahi et annexé la Crimée, et c’est parfaitement vrai. Mais je suis sûr que presque aucun d’entre eux n’a une idée de quand c’est arrivé. Le savez-vous? C’est arrivé en 1783. La Russie occupe la Crimée depuis lors.

Ce n’est qu’un petit exemple, mais il y en a d’innombrables.

Et ce n’est là qu’un seul problème dans la connaissance de la situation mondiale. Un autre problème vient d’une dangereuse hiérarchisation de la connaissance, parce que la situation est vraiment catastrophique. Si vous évaluez la situation attentivement, vous découvrirez que si vous voulez que vos enfants et petits-enfants aient une chance de survivre, alors vous devez commencer à vivre d’une manière très différente au sein de la capacité de charge biologique de la petite parcelle de terre que vous et vos compatriotes pourrez défendre, et vous l’appellerez votre chez vous. Mais si vous deviez essayer de commencer à vivre de cette façon, vous devriez aussi arrêter d’aller travailler et de faire du shopping, les entreprises perdraient de l’argent, il y aurait des pertes d’emplois, les recettes fiscales diminueraient, les gens ne recevraient plus leurs pensions et leurs prestations sociales. Il y aurait donc des troubles sociaux et de l’instabilité politique, et vous pourriez donc finir par en mourir. Aussi peut-être le meilleur plan est-il de ne pas attacher trop d’attention à ce qui se passe dans le monde, et se contenter de rester assis là, tranquillement, en vous persuadant que tout est OK, et d’attendre que certains gentils terroristes réfugiés vous jettent une bombe pour vous sortir de votre misère.

– Quelles sont vos attentes autour des élections américaines, le Brexit, les élections françaises l’année prochaine? Ces événements sont-ils significatifs?

Il semble qu’à la fois l’UE et les États-Unis sont au bord d’une révolte massive. Ces peuples ont eux-mêmes permis d’être gouvernés par des élites transnationales non élues, et cela a été une catastrophe à tous les niveaux. Hillary Clinton est un spécimen de premier choix de cette élite: elle habite un royaume abstrait où la souveraineté nationale est une chose du passé et où les pays n’existent pas vraiment. Si ces élites essayent d’agir comme si ces pays existaient encore, alors ils doivent les menacer ou les bombarder pour obtenir leur soumission. Mais s’ils sont trop gros et trop puissants pour être menacés ou bombardés afin d’obtenir cette soumission (comme la Russie), alors le seul choix qui reste est de devenir hystérique et de trépigner de rage en menaçant d’anéantissement nucléaire mondial.

J’espère que ce sentiment de révolte peut être canalisé sous des formes démocratiques d’expression individuelle, parce que sinon tout va chuter à partir de maintenant. En Europe, l’objectif devrait être de réaffirmer la souveraineté nationale et de détrôner la bureaucratie transnationale non élue. C’est en fait un objectif très modéré; mais s’il est considéré comme extrémiste, alors les résultats seront encore plus extrêmes, avec des partis d’extrême-droite populiste prenant en charge les pays, les uns après les autres.
Aux États-Unis, il y a maintenant une haine publique très palpable contre la plupart des institutions officielles, et les résultats peuvent être tout à fait imprévisibles. Nous assistons à la mort du duopole des deux-partis républicain / démocrate, ce qui est une chose merveilleuse à observer. Le parti démocrate est une institution complètement anti-démocratique, avec de multiples sorties de route pour priver d’expression le plus grand nombre possible d’électeurs, et qui recourt maintenant à des falsifications pures et simples par le piratage des machines à voter lors de l’actuelle primaire présidentielle. Le parti républicain est aussi un abus de langage, parce que son but a toujours été de convertir la res publica en res privata en privatisant tout ce qui était possible. La disparition de ces deux horribles organisations serait une cause de célébration.

Mais une fois que la clique duopolistique nous asservissant aura été délogée, on ne sait pas ce qui va arriver. Les États-Unis ne sont pas vraiment un pays, que ce soit territorialement, linguistiquement ou culturellement; il s’agit d’un certain nombre de territoires qui ont été occupés, arbitrairement regroupés dans des États en utilisant une règle sur une carte, et maintenus ensemble par la force. Regardez le Nouveau-Mexique: sa population est presque exactement à moitié mexicaine. Donald Trump y a organisé un rassemblement il y a quelque temps, ce qui a provoqué une émeute, parce que son concept de l’Amérique ne comprend pas le Mexique. Eh bien, ne dites pas cela à tous les Mexicains vivant aux États-Unis, en particulier sur le territoire mexicain occupé par les États-Unis, car ils vont littéralement essayer de vous tuer! Non seulement le Mexique fait partie de l’Amérique, mais il est, en fait, les États-Unis: Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Contrairement à l’UE, qui est, après tout, composée de ce qui était des pays anciennement séparés, et qui peut se désagréger pour revenir à ces mêmes pays, les États-Unis vont se fissurer en gros morceaux partant en lambeaux comme une pastèque trop mûre.

– Quel est votre message pour que les gens comprennent à quel point la situation actuelle du monde est mauvaise? Qu’est-ce qu’ils peuvent faire?

Vous pouvez toujours relire votre Voltaire et suivre l’exemple de Candide: cultiver votre jardin. Vous pouvez difficilement faire mieux.

Le Saker francophone traduit vos textes depuis maintenant deux ans. Je sais qu’ils sont aussi traduits en italien, en russe et en allemand. Est-il important pour vous de tendre la main à d’autres personnes, et pas seulement aux États-Unis et en Russie? Avez-vous un message universel?

J’étais déjà lu par des gens partout dans le monde. Mes livres sont sortis en anglais, portugais, japonais, chinois, coréen, français maintenant, bientôt suédois. Le russe n’est pas si important parce que les Russes savent déjà tout cela. Si je dois avoir un message universel, il est celui-ci: vous n’êtes pas des citoyens du monde; vous n’êtes que celui d’où la chance vous a fait naître.

Je suppose que mon attitude envers l’Europe est très russe.

Géographiquement, l’Europe comprend toute l’Eurasie qui est à l’Ouest des montagnes de l’Oural, mais politiquement c’est seulement cette petite péninsule avançant de ce côté de l’Eurasie, et qui est composée de ces minuscules et mignons petits pays, chacun avec sa propre petite langue et ses petites traditions locales. Elle est vraiment très belle. Mais ce qui se passe là-bas ces derniers temps est une abomination.

Imaginez que vous amenez vos enfants au zoo, mais que quelqu’un aurait ouvert toutes les cages, et maintenant vous avez des lions ayant des rapports sexuels avec des tigres, de sorte que vous avez beaucoup de tigrons et de ligres, de jaguars ayant des rapports sexuels avec des léopards, et donc beaucoup de petits jaguleos courant partout, et là dans le coin vous avez un rhinocéros qui s’approche d’une hippopotame, et qui sait ce qui va en advenir. Et maintenant, quelqu’un envoie un troupeau de chameaux en panique au milieu. Ils vont tous essayer de se croiser avec les chameaux aussi? C’est une parodie!

Blague à part, si vous pensez que le monde est un après tout, ou que vous êtes un citoyen du monde, alors vous tenez compagnie à certains autres participants à un voyage mondialisé: les rats, les cafards, les poux et les punaises. Ils n’ont aucune nation non plus, et vont partout où vous allez, et ont autant de raison d’exister que vous, aussi il ne faut pas essayer de les éradiquer. Ils ont les mêmes droits que vous! Mais si vous êtes à la recherche d’une meilleure raison d’exister, il faut commencer par avoir le sens de l’unicité, non pas celui de l’individualisme mais au sens unique du lieu. Il faut être enraciné dans un lieu et parmi un peuple, et avoir le sens du sacré qui est connecté à cet endroit et à ce peuple. Cela concerne tous les lieux, les forêts et les vallées, les champs et les montagnes qui vous donnent un sentiment d’être et un sens du but, quelque part où vous voulez vivre et pour lequel vous êtes prêt à mourir, et dont l’avenir est l’avenir de vos enfants, de sorte que vous ne manquerez pas d’en prendre soin et de le défendre.
Je suis tout à fait sûr que si nous ne parvenons pas à produire ce sentiment de l’attachement, de l’enracinement à nos lieux de vie et à nos peuples, alors tout sera perdu.

– Merci Dmitry.

Après cette interview, nous vous proposons d’écouter cette interview filmée et sous-titrée de Dmitry Orlov réalisée il y a quelques mois par Piero San Giorgio, un écrivant Suisse survivaliste qui publie aussi ses livres aux éditions Le retour aux Sources

Nous vous invitons à acheter et à lire les ouvrages car en plus d’aider ces auteurs à continuer leur travail de réinformation et de réflexion, ce sera aussi pour vous un temps long pour penser par vous même.

The Law of Attraction


The Law of Attraction is a staple of motivational speakers. The premise is that thoughts determine outcomes. If you can visualize a better future, and conceive of the steps you need to take to reach it, a potential future magically pops into existence.

In reality, change requires more than positive thinking. There is a feedback loop between thinking and acting. If we think differently, we must also act differently, and only by acting differently can we hope to achieve something new. In turn, new achievements lead to new experiences, which may cause us to think even more differently, revise our plan, try acting even more differently, and so on.

One of the issues we face in addressing massive, overwhelmingly complex problems such as, just to rattle off a few, climate change, economic inequality and social and political dysfunction, is that it is hard for us even to conceive of a better way of doing things. Not knowing what to do is bad enough; not knowing what to think is even worse!

When no easy answers present themselves, one principle that can be applied is that we must begin with what is simple and directly in front of us. Small actions and real efforts serve a greater purpose than much talk and no action. From small beginnings bigger things may grow.

And what is directly in front of all of us is the way we treat others.

One unintended consequence of our current mode of living is that it has warped and perverted our interpersonal interactions. In order to be able to afford to simply inhabit the planet and satisfy our basic needs, we are required to play all sorts of contrived roles. Specifically, we are forced deal with each other according to arbitrary rules that are forced upon us.

As employees we are expected to readily lie to customers to protect our employers’ profits. As salespeople we are expected to sell things we know better than to ever want to buy. Then there is a whole category of people who work as enforcers, and are specifically paid to disregard all humane considerations and to dole out punishments without any allowance for dire personal circumstances. Vast social and financial hierarchies reward psychopathic behavior (which is regarded as professionalism) while punishing altruism and compassion (which is regarded as weakness or corruption).

Co-workers arbitrarily thrown together by managerial whim often spend more time with each other than with their own families, trapped in a world of stunted, superficial relationships that gradually erode their humanity. Parents often have no choice but to pay strangers to raise their children for them. These strangers work for a wage rather than out of love for the children, and when their contract ends, so does the bond between the child and caregiver, undermining the child’s faith in humanity. When parents do get to see their children, they are often tired and distracted, conditioning the children to treat them no better than they treat the strangers who take care of them the rest of the time.

Growing up with a constant deficit of sensitivity, sincerity, security and warmth, once they reach adulthood these children expect their relationships to be either manipulative and abusive, or regulated by contract. Their humanity becomes reduced to a set of selfish and materialistic drives. Their misshapen psyches are balanced on a knife’s edge between a morbid fear of exclusion, which drives them toward mimicry and conformism, and an unnatural, hypertrophied competitive drive that destroys their instinct for spontaneous cooperation.

When you take a step back from it all and look at it, the impression is one of a society-wide mental disorder.

But this is a syndrome that we know how to treat, at first individually, then as groups. How this can be done is explained in the following final excerpt from 150 Strong: A Pathway to a Different Future.

The Rule of 150

And now we arrive at the rationale for the title of this book. It relates to Dunbar’s number: 150, the approximate maximum group size within which people are able to maintain context in their relationships. The reframing of context is the all-important enabler necessary for the establishment of a new reconciling force, which is at the heart of what is necessary for real change. It is a matter of scale: attempts to reconnect people with each other and the environment, and to recontextualize their decision-making, will fail whenever this limit is exceeded.

In applying knowledge of Dunbar’s number, we can say that there is a Rule of 150 that should apply as an organizing principle to the way we structure our systems of human interaction. We should seek to orient ourselves around what is natural in our evolutionary makeup: we are a social species, we work well as small communities, and our strength is in working together.

Counter to the emphasis on the collective that follows naturally from the Rule of 150, our current profit-oriented culture promotes the success of the individual, creating a dynamic where the incentive is for people to become silos, set apart in competition, and defined by their individual economic wealth. This creates a vibration of self-protection and insecurity, which fosters isolationism and selfishness, culminating in the cult of the individual that we see celebrated in our modern culture. This situation has brought about much that is degenerate in the modern world.

But there is no need to lament this situation; we can alter it. Built into our DNA is the impulse for something better, based around the welfare and fulfillment of the collective. There is a natural human tendency to want to help others, to create a nurturing environment for our families and safety and security for our communities. Also, in most of us, there is an aspirational impulse for virtue, albeit it is often buried deep and is but a dim flicker.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provides a theory of human motivation. It defines five broad categories of need, usually shown as a pyramid with the most basic need at the bottom, this being the need for the satisfaction of our physical requirements for air, food, water, shelter and sleep, while the most aspirational need of self-actualization, relating to morality, creativity and acceptance, is placed at the very top.

In order of importance, these human needs are ranked as follows:

1. Physiological needs: breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion.

2. Safety needs: security of body, of resources, of morality, of the family, of health, of property.

3. Love and belonging: friendship, family, sexual intimacy.

4. Esteem: self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others.

5. Self-actualization: morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts.

The human mind is complex, with many parallel processes happening within it at the same time, and so the satisfaction of one level of need is not necessarily a prerequisite for the fulfillment of another. But it can be loosely said that if the basic needs are met, there is greater potential for energy and effort to be devoted to addressing the others.

The significance of this theory in relation to the Rule of 150 is that belonging to a stable and supportive community provides a context for the attainment of higher aims. Such a context is necessary for us to undertake serious reform of our approach to the environment and to each other.

One of the fundamental weaknesses of the profit motive system is that it is inherently subversive of efforts to provide unconditional security and safety. This weakness manifests to different degrees; even employment in a private enterprise within a market economy can provide a measure security. But, to use the United States as an example, the fact that tens of millions are medicated (and self-medicated) for anxiety and feel the need to protect themselves with apocalyptic levels of weaponry tells us that they have an issue with insecurity. For all the material progress delivered by capitalism, observations of the cultural trends that have accompanied it suggest that there has not been a similar advancement in inner peace or fulfillment.

When people belong to a group bound together by more than mere superficialities, there is a range of mechanisms that are supportive of their human needs. It goes without saying that security must ultimately come from within, and that things such as self-esteem cannot be generated by external circumstances only. But if we understand the importance of providing a stable context in which people can find their footing in life, there is a much greater chance of positive outcomes. Parents looking to create a nurturing environment for their children, for example, are far more likely to succeed when they to have a stable income and roots within a community. Zero-hours contracts, where an employer need not guarantee employees any minimum hours of work or wages, are not consistent with this!

The Rule of 150 also means that groups must be kept small enough to remain functional and effective. When people know each other and interact regularly, there is a constant flow of subtle feedbacks, beyond words, that helps to build the fabric of a shared culture. One knows when one is in harmony with the vibration of the group or not. A verbalized thought resonates, either hanging and falling flat, or comes back amplified through body language and subtly introduced comments. The edges of each individual’s radical tendencies are constrained. Through shared experience over time, and knowledge and understanding of the other group members, a true center of gravity is created for the group to reconcile their actions.

When groups operate on this level, the need for an overt democratic process, with activities such as campaigning and voting, is mostly absent. Day-to-day discussion, consensus-based decisions made at spontaneous or scheduled meetings, and a general understanding that all are heading in the same direction, are far superior in generating forward momentum and unity. As has often been said about the process of voting, it is but “two wolves and a lamb deciding who is going to be eaten for lunch.”

The process of consensus-based decision-making is generally what occurs in a well-run medium-size business, if it has engaged employees and a positive company culture. Not all have to get along and agree, but because working there implies a certain level of performance, or a way of doing things, things generally progress in the right direction. Of course, this requires good management and a stable business environment.

Taking this microcosm of proven effectiveness and applying it to a broader context is not easy. Many of the institutions of modern life require scale. Government, while being responsible for much that is broken about our current model, is necessary for facilitating such things as the construction and operation of water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, roads and public transport systems. These require large-scale and complex inputs and cannot be executed by a small group in isolation. Scale and specialization are necessary.

The challenge is therefore to address the scourge of large scale, in terms of all the loss of context and nuance that it brings, but to retain the capacity to organize and operate collectively to address bigger needs and issues.

This is a tall order!

What we can say as a starting point, though, is that none of the current methods of operating are supportive of the Rule of 150. The trend is toward centralization, depersonalization of the processes of life, and control by rules. The Transpacific Partnership Agreement for example, which is being negotiated at the time of this writing, seeks to elevate the rights of corporations above the level of national law. Transnational businesses are being given a near-untouchable status that will prevent their regulation within a local context, which might otherwise be used to provide some system of ensuring that their activities are appropriate. This can only produce more destruction of the social fabric of society and the concomitant desecration of the environment.

If we are to embark on a journey toward something that can be considered more democratic, in the real sense, where it is not an “us” and “them” system of the leaders and the led, where there is real hope for better outcomes, we must ask ourselves in all situations: “How does this fit in with respect to the Rule of 150?”

This question must become paramount, as decisions must be made by people who maintain relationships with each other and who are engaged in their local context. It is the mechanism by which we may establish a new reconciling force to supplant the profit motive system – a crack through which the light may come in, to borrow a phrase from Leonard Cohen.

Decisions made on a financial basis only, by organizations structured around the management of finance, must be made subordinate to something that is better, more resilient and emerges on its own.

The application of this principle is twofold:

1. On a personal level we can ask ourselves: who are my 150 people?

2. On an organizational level, we can restructure our systems of interaction so that they are based around groups of 150 people.

As individuals, we can reach out to those who form part of our network of belonging, seeking to strengthen the bonds within it. And, as citizens, we can seek to reform our public institutions, making them smaller and more personal. Our inner realm needs to expand, while our outer realm contracts, until the two can meet.

Please note…


[Update: So many people write to tell me how much they\’ve enjoyed reading these two books, but there are no new reviews of them on Amazon! Yes, five stars is very good, but some more thoughtful reviews certainly wouldn\’t hurt these two wonderful authors. So, if you bought, read, and enjoyed these books, please post a review. Thank you.]

The reason I edit, typeset and publish books by promising new authors is that I want you to read them. And to do that you have to buy them. Someday soon these excerpts will stop, and then, unless you buy the books and read them, you will end up with half-baked thoughts in your heads. Enough said. Please click on the images below.

The Money Cult

Ask the right question
and you are automatically
a member

Previously, I have written about the progression from positive interest rates to zero interest rates (since 2008) and finally to negative interest rates. And I asked my readers a simple question: How will negative interest rates blow up the financial system? And apparently none of you knew the answer. Now, I must confess that to start with I didn’t know the answer either, which is why I asked the question, and my first attempts at finding it were somewhat tentative. But now, having thought about it, I do seem to have found the answer, and it is that…

But first let us back up a bit and answer several preliminary questions:

1. Why did zero interest rates become necessary?
2. Why are negative interest rates now necessary? and,
3. Why are negative interest rates a really excellent idea?*

* if you ignore certain unintended consequences (which is what everyone does all the time, so let’s not worry about them just yet).

1. Interest rates went to zero because economic growth went to zero. If you are just now wondering why that happened, just google “Limits to Growth” by clicking this link. (A public notice about the scheduled end of growth has been on display at your global planning office for four decades now. It is not anyone else’s fault if people of this planet don’t take an interest in their global affairs. I mean, seriously…)

Interest rates and rates of growth are related: a positive interest rate is little more than a bet that the future is going to be bigger and more prosperous, enabling people to pay off the debts with interest. This is an obvious point: if your income increases, it becomes easier to repay your debts; if it stagnates, it becomes harder; if it shrinks, it eventually becomes impossible.

Yes, you can nitpick and split hairs, and claim that there was still some growth, but in the developed economies most of this growth has been in financial shenanigans, fueled by an explosion in debt, and most of the benefits of this last bit of growth accrued to the wealthiest 1%, and did next to nothing for anyone else. Did this growth help support a large, stable and prosperous middle class? No, it didn’t.

In fact, wages in the US, which was once the world’s largest economy, have been stagnant for generations. In response, the Federal Reserve has been continuously reducing interest rates, until they hit zero in 2008. And there they have stayed ever since. But now, it turns out, that’s not good enough. If the Federal Reserve wants to keep the party going, they have to do more, because…

2. Once you are faced with a continuously shrinking economy, just holding interest rates at zero is not sufficient to forestall financial collapse. The interest rates must go negative.

Here are just a couple of particularly striking examples.

Australia has amassed a huge pile of debt—over 120% of GDP—and most of it is mortgage debt on overvalued real estate. Now that Australia’s economy, which was driven by commodity exports to China, has tanked, a lot of this debt is being turned into interest-only loans, because Australians no longer have the money to repay any of the principal. But what if they can’t make the interest payments either? The obvious solution is to refinance their mortgages as interest-only at zero percent; problem solved! Of course, as conditions deteriorate further, the Australians will become unable to afford taxes and utilities. Negative interest rates to the rescue! Refinance them again at a negative rate of interest, and now the banks will pay them to live in their overpriced houses.

Another example: energy (oil and gas) companies in the US have accumulated a fantastic pile of debt. All of this money was sunk into developing marginal and very expensive resources such as shale oil and deep offshore. Since then, energy prices have fallen, making all of these investments unprofitable and dramatically reducing revenue. As a result, energy companies in the US are a few months away from having to spend their entire revenue on interest payments. The solution, of course, is to allow them to roll over their debt at zero percent, and if you want them to ever start drilling again (their production has been falling by around 10% annualized) then please make that interest rate negative.

3. Are you starting to see how this works? Whereas before you had to be careful about taking on debt, and had to have a plan for how you will repay it, with negative interest rates that is simply not a consideration. If your debt pays you, then more debt is always better than less debt. It no longer matters that the economy continuously shrinks because now you can get paid just for twiddling your thumbs!

But are there any unintended consequences of negative interest rates? Unintended consequences are hard to think about, and most people get a headache even trying. How can it be that clean, plentiful nuclear energy will eventually pollute the whole planet with long-lived radionuclides, resulting sky-high cancer rates? How can it be that wonderful genetically modified seeds will render us sickly and infertile in just a few generations? And how can it be that ingenious mobile computing technology has turned our children into zombies who are constantly twiddling their smartphones as they sleepwalk through life? It’s hard to think about any of this without taking some happy pills; and how can it be that taking those happy pills has… you get the idea.

The unintended consequence of negative interest rates is that they destroy money. This is true in an entirely trivial sense: if you deposit x dollars at -ρ% annual, then a year later you will only have x(1-ρ) dollars because xρ dollars has been destroyed. (In case you prefer to count on your fingers and toes, if you deposit $10 at -10% annual, then a year later you will only have $9 because $1 has been destroyed.) But what I mean is something slightly more profound: negative interest rates erode the very concept of money.

To get at the reason for this, we have to ask a slightly more profound question: What is money? I think that money is the cult of the god Mammon. Look at the following symbols:

€ $ ¥ £
Don’t they resemble religious symbols? In fact, that’s what they are: they are symbols of faith in money. They are also units—dimensionless units, of a peculiar kind. There are quite a few dimensionless units in math and science, such as π, e, %, ppm, but they are all ratios that relate physical quantities to other, identical, physical quantities. They are dimensionless because the units cancel out. For instance, π is the ratio between a circle’s circumference and diameter; length over length gives nothing. But monetary quantities do not directly relate to any physical quantity at all. It can be said that some number of monetary units (let\’s call them \”yarbles\”) is equivalent to some number of turnips, but that, you see, is a matter of faith. Should the turnip farmer turn out to be an unbeliever, he would be within his rights to say, “I am not taking any of your damn yarbles!” or, if he were a polite turnip farmer, “Your money is no good here, Sir!”

Of course, if our turnip farmer were to do that, he’d land in quite a bit of trouble because, you see, the cult of Mammon is a state cult. You have no choice but to be a believer, because only by worshiping Mammon can you earn the money to pay your taxes, and if you don’t pay your taxes you get jailed. Nor can you produce money on your own, because that right is reserved for Mammon’s high priests, the bankers. Making your own money makes you a heretic, and gets you the modern equivalent of being burned at the stake, which is a $250,000 fine and a 20-year prison sentence.

But it goes beyond that, because the state insists that just about everything there is must be valued in units of its money. And the way everything must be valued is through a mystical legitimizing process that is central to the cult of money: Mammon’s “invisible hand” makes itself apparent within the “free market,” which is Mammon\’s virtual temple. The “invisible hand” sets the price of everything as a mystical revelation and, as with any revelation, it is beyond criticism. It is a redemptive ritual, in which people acting out of their basest, most antisocial instincts—greed and fear—manage, through Mammon\’s divine intervention, to serve the common good. The “free market” is also believed to have all sorts of miraculous properties, and as with all miracles it is all a matter of smoke and mirrors and suspension of disbelief. For example, the “free market” is said to be “efficient.” But it sets the price of turnips, and the result is that fully 40% of the food in the US ends up being wasted. That’s definitely not efficient.

This sort of inefficiency can be tolerated while resources are plentiful. Should throwing away 40% of the turnips cause a shortage of turnips develop, turnip producers can grow more turnips and sell them at prices that turnip consumers can still afford. But when resources are no longer plentiful, this trick stops working, and what you end up with is something called market failure. The current state of the global oil industry is a good example: either the price is so high that marginal consumers cannot afford it (as was the case until quite recently), or the price is so low that the marginal producers can’t break even (as is the case now).

And so a bout of supply destruction follows a bout of demand destruction, and then the pattern repeats. Everybody loses, plus this is terribly inefficient. It would be far more efficient to appoint some central planner to calculate the optimum price of oil once a month. Then all the marginal producers would jump out the window, all the marginal consumers would slit their wrists, and equilibrium conditions would prevail. As the oil supply dwindled (it is depleting at around 5% per year), some additional number of producers and consumers would need to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and so on until the last barrel is produced and burned, leaving whatever producers and consumers still remained lying in pools of their own blood.

As natural resources dwindle, our faith in the cult of Mammon is being sorely tested. But what alternatives are there? Well, there is an even older, ancient cult that’s based on idolatry: the worship of precious metals. Gold has some industrial and aesthetic uses, but it is primarily useful for making a golden calf for you to worship (or, if you are former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, a golden toilet). Economists tell us that gold is a “pet rock” or a “barbarous relic,” and they are right, but what is one to do when there is a Götterdämmerung (twilight of the gods) going on? Nature abhors a vacuum, and in a Götterdämmerung older pagan deities sometimes emerge and demand virgin sacrifices—such as poisoning entire river ecosystems by mining gold using mercury, or squandering prodigious amounts of fossil fuels in mining, crushing and sifting through millions of tons of hard rock to get at just 3 parts per million of gold.

Negative interest rates are Mammon’s Götterdämmerung. The money cult is bolstered by the idea that its huge and all-powerful deity will be even more huge and all-powerful tomorrow; if the opposite is demonstrably the case, then people’s faith in it begins to falter and fade. Negative interest rates are like an icy-cold bath for Mammon, causing its godhead to shrink a little more with every dip. People see that, and think, “I don’t want to worship his shrinking yarbles.” Then they go and spend their own yarbles on anything they can find—fallow land, vacant houses, golden calves, boxes of brass knobs… They don’t bother investing their yarbles in growing turnips, because what’s the use of turnips if all you can do with them is sell them for even more shrinking yarbles?

Negative interest rates are an excellent idea—and perhaps the only way to keep the financial game going a bit longer—but, given these unintended consequences, they are also a terrible idea. The bankers know that. They want to preserve their cult’s status, and constantly talk about raising interest rates. But they haven’t yet, because they also know that just a small increase will result in trillions of dollars of losses, triggering widespread business failures and ushering in the Greatest Great Depression Ever. This is not a problem for them to solve; this is a predicament. They will delay and pray, and make pronouncements loaded with keywords designed to please the high-frequency trading algorithms that are in charge of artificially levitating the “free market” with judiciously timed injections of “free money.” But in the end all they can do is act brave, wait for a distraction and then… run for the exits!

And your job is to make it to the exits before they do.

A Russian Warning


We, the undersigned, are Russians living and working in the USA. We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China. Many respected, patriotic Americans, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Cohen, Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern and many others have been issuing warnings of a looming a Third World War. But their voices have been all but lost among the din of a mass media that is full of deceptive and inaccurate stories that characterize the Russian economy as being in shambles and the Russian military as weak—all based on no evidence. But we—knowing both Russian history and the current state of Russian society and the Russian military, cannot swallow these lies. We now feel that it is our duty, as Russians living in the US, to warn the American people that they are being lied to, and to tell them the truth. And the truth is simply this:

If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.

Let us take a step back and put what is happening in a historical context. Russia has suffered a great deal at the hands of foreign invaders, losing 22 million people in World War II. Most of the dead were civilians, because the country was invaded, and the Russians have vowed to never let such a disaster happen again. Each time Russia had been invaded, she emerged victorious. In 1812 Nepoleon invaded Russia; in 1814 Russian cavalry rode into Paris. On June 22, 1941, Hitler’s Luftwaffe bombed Kiev; On May 8, 1945, Soviet troops rolled into Berlin.

But times have changed since then. If Hitler were to attack Russia today, he would be dead 20 to 30 minutes later, his bunker reduced to glowing rubble by a strike from a Kalibr supersonic cruise missile launched from a small Russian navy ship somewhere in the Baltic Sea. The operational abilities of the new Russian military have been most persuasively demonstrated during the recent action against ISIS, Al Nusra and other foreign-funded terrorist groups operating in Syria. A long time ago Russia had to respond to provocations by fighting land battles on her own territory, then launching a counter-invasion; but this is no longer necessary. Russia’s new weapons make retaliation instant, undetectable, unstoppable and perfectly lethal.

Thus, if tomorrow a war were to break out between the US and Russia, it is guaranteed that the US would be obliterated. At a minimum, there would no longer be an electric grid, no internet, no oil and gas pipelines, no interstate highway system, no air transportation or GPS-based navigation. Financial centers would lie in ruins. Government at every level would cease to function. US armed forces, stationed all around the globe, would no longer be resupplied. At a maximum, the entire landmass of the US would be covered by a layer of radioactive ash. We tell you this not to be alarmist, but because, based on everything we know, we are ourselves alarmed. If attacked, Russia will not back down; she will retaliate, and she will utterly annihilate the United States.

The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow. Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender. The Russian leadership enjoys over 80% of popular support; the remaining 20% seems to feel that it is being too soft in opposing Western encroachment. But Russia will retaliate, and a provocation or a simple mistake could trigger a sequence of events that will end with millions of Americans dead and the US in ruins.

Unlike many Americans, who see war as an exciting, victorious foreign adventure, the Russians hate and fear war. But they are also ready for it, and they have been preparing for war for several years now. Their preparations have been most effective. Unlike the US, which squanders untold billions on dubious overpriced arms programs such as the F-35 joint task fighter, the Russians are extremely stingy with their defense rubles, getting as much as 10 times the bang for the buck compared to the bloated US defense industry. While it is true that the Russian economy has suffered from low energy prices, it is far from being in shambles, and a return to growth is expected as early as next year. Senator John McCain once called Russia “A gas station masquerading as a country.” Well, he lied. Yes, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second-largest oil exporter, but it is also world’s largest exporter of grain and nuclear power technology. It is as advanced and sophisticated a society as the United States. Russia’s armed forces, both conventional and nuclear, are now ready to fight, and they are more than a match for the US and NATO, especially if a war erupts anywhere near the Russian border.

But such a fight would be suicidal for all sides. We strongly believe that a conventional war in Europe runs a strong chance of turning nuclear very rapidly, and that any US/NATO nuclear strike on Russian forces or territory will automatically trigger a retaliatory Russian nuclear strike on the continental US. Contrary to irresponsible statements made by some American propagandists, American antiballistic missile systems are incapable of shielding the American people from a Russian nuclear strike. Russia has the means to strike at targets in the USA with long-range nuclear as well as conventional weapons.

The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine. Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

First and foremost, we are appealing to the commanders of the US Armed Forces to follow the example of Admiral William Fallon, who, when asked about a war with Iran, reportedly replied “not on my watch.” We know that you are not suicidal, and that you do not wish to die for the sake of out-of-touch imperial hubris. If possible, please tell your staff, colleagues and, especially, your civilian superiors that a war with Russia will not happen on your watch. At the very least, take that pledge yourselves, and, should the day ever come when the suicidal order is issued, refuse to execute it on the grounds that it is criminal. Remember that according to the Nuremberg Tribunal “To initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Since Nuremberg, “I was just following orders” is no longer a valid defense; please don’t be war criminals.

We also appeal to the American people to take peaceful but forceful action to oppose any politician or party that engages in irresponsible, provocative Russia-baiting, and that condones and supports a policy of needless confrontation with a nuclear superpower that is capable of destroying America in about an hour. Speak up, break through the barrier of mass media propaganda, and make your fellow Americans aware of the immense danger of a confrontation between Russia and the US.

There is no objective reason why US and Russia should consider each other adversaries. The current confrontation is entirely the result of the extremist views of the neoconservative cult, whose members were allowed to infiltrate the US Federal government under President Bill Clinton, and who consider any country that refuses to obey their dictates as an enemy to be crushed. Thanks to their tireless efforts, over a million innocent people have already died in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, the Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia and in many other countries—all because of their maniacal insistence that the USA must be a world empire, not a just a regular, normal country, and that every national leader must either bow down before them, or be overthrown. In Russia, this irresistible force has finally encountered an immovable object. They must be forced to back down before they destroy us all.

We are absolutely and categorically certain that Russia will never attack the US, nor any EU member state, that Russia is not at all interested in recreating the USSR, and that there is no “Russian threat” or “Russian aggression.” Much of Russia’s recent economic success has a lot to do with the shedding of former Soviet dependencies, allowing her to pursue a “Russia first” policy. But we are just as certain that if Russia is attacked, or even threatened with attack, she will not back down, and that the Russian leadership will not “blink.” With great sadness and a heavy heart they will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover. Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map. We feel that it is our duty to do all we can to prevent such a catastrophe.

Evgenia Gurevich, Ph.D.

Victor Katsap, PhD, Sr. Scientist
NuFlare Technology America, Inc.

Andrei Kozhev

Serge Lubomudrov

Natalya Minkovskaya

Dmitry Orlov

Irina Petrova, RP

The Saker (A. Raevsky)

[Пожалуйста, напишите мне, если вы хотите добавить свою подпись. Мой адрес можно найти справа наверху.]