My comment on the recent Duran video. Let’s talk about some news (Live).

Unfortunately, I work full-time, so I don’t have much time to write. I also spend most of my free time trying to stay informed about world events, which leaves me with very little time to respond. This is why I didn’t reply immediately to the video mentioned in the title, which I would really like to comment on.

I was listening to this video while walking to work, and it made me quite sad. I spend a lot of time explaining things and pointing out certain details; sometimes I even feel like I have a bit of influence on The Duran and that they take my writing seriously. Then, episodes like this one come along and make me feel as though I am simply wasting my time.

The video in question is this:

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

I would like to highlight two things.

24:38

Alex: Why is Europe allowing these small Baltic countries—or Kallas, who represent the ideology of Estonia and these nations—to take the continent into the abyss?

Alexander: I find it very difficult to explain how the Baltic states and a certain community in Poland (who are far from representative of the totality of Polish opinion) have been allowed to exercise such disproportionate influence over European policy. This is a question that demands an answer.

I think part of the reason is that their obsessions chime with those found elsewhere: within the European Commission itself, within sections of German society (which, I have to say, shocks me), and—as we’ve spoken about many times—within Britain as well. Even though Britain has formally left the European Union, it still exercises great influence and, of course, remains in NATO.

57:20

Anyway, we must understand something: the leaders of Europe are both a product of European culture and a problem for Europe. We mustn’t blame the Americans too much for this; ultimately, we brought this on ourselves.

Now, when I hear this, it really makes me sad because it makes me feel like both Alex and Alexander either don’t even read my stuff or don’t take me seriously, since I have explained it many times in my posts. Maybe you, Alexander, “find it very difficult to explain,” but I don’t. I can explain it, and I have explained it many times.

While I am just a nobody — I am aware I have no higher education or any authority to be taken seriously — that’s why I often use transcripts of people who have higher education and authority. I want to show readers that it’s not just some uneducated nobody like me who thinks this, but there are also others who share my views.

I have written about the fight between Globalists (centered in Germany) and Neocons (centered in America in coalition with Zionists) and how I see it as the modern version of the “Yankee and Cowboy War” described in the book by Carl Oglesby. I wrote how Merkel was representing this Globalist faction while Americans represented the Neocon faction. I also explained how it transferred to my home politics in Poland, in which the PiS (Law and Justice) party was siding with the Neocons while PO (Civic Platform) was siding with the Globalists. We had PiS people being darlings of the Americans and PO people being darlings of Germany, with the head of the party, “Volksdeutsche” Donald Tusk.

I don’t want to repeat everything I already wrote in my previous posts, like the fact that Sikorski was trying to stop the Maidan coup by threatening Nazis on Maidan because he worked for the Merkel Globalist faction, while Victoria Nuland, working for the Neocon faction, was giving out cookies to Nazis on Maidan pushing the coup. There are many things I could point out which I already touched on in my previous posts, but it would make this too long. I will not repeat myself, but if you have any questions and you want me to elaborate on something, don’t be shy to ask in the comments and I will try to answer.

I would like to point out one of my posts in which I included an interview with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson on Glenn Diesen’s program. While in that post I touched on the fact that Col. Lawrence Wilkerson admits America created ISIS, I would like to highlight another part of the interview in which he explains how Americans manipulated and created today’s elite in Europe. This answers the question which Alexander could not answer: why we have people like Kaja Kallas and other Russophobic idiots having so much power in Europe. It’s not an “addiction” and it’s not because they share an ideology with people in the European Commission, as Alexander states, but because America wanted to destroy the possibility of Europeans working with Russia and China. So YES, WE CAN AND SHOULD BLAME AMERICANS FOR THIS!!!

Here is the post and fragment of the interview I would like to highlight:

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson confirms some of the things I’ve written, but he is still too naive. Another person who subscribes to the ‘Division of Labor’ theory is Paul Craig Roberts.

38:42

Glenn Diesen: You mentioned earlier that the United States was pushing hard for Sweden and Finland to abandon their neutrality. They were neutral throughout the Cold War, and while their militaries—especially in Sweden—leaned toward wanting NATO membership, the majority of the population in both countries was not in favor. We knew that, yet we started major efforts that are still ongoing. When did this start, and how was it done?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: It started in 2002. It began during my administration and continued with a vengeance under Jens Stoltenberg. We wanted Stoltenberg to be the new Secretary General of NATO because we knew he was "our man." We knew he would do what we wanted and that he was aligned with us regarding NATO expansion.

We were talking about eventually bringing in probably every country geographically located in Europe — no matter how small, criminal, or undemocratic. Every single country was going to be a member of NATO. We needed a "new game" for those who were holdouts, either due to a history of neutrality or because their population simply didn't want membership.

We began implementing what we call "Color Revolutions." These were orchestrated within the countries. Each country had its own "package," consisting of everything from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and "QUANGOs" (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations) to government organizations and political visits from Senators and Representatives.

They focused these efforts, both clandestinely and openly, on the people within those countries who wanted to comply with our wishes. These individuals wanted their countries to be members of NATO — regardless of their history of neutrality — perhaps to become "vassals" of the United States in exchange for "stars on their shoulders," tanks, F-35s, and other equipment. It was very successful.

In my view, we only failed with one or two countries on the top of our target list. My guess is that this was because the communist legacy there was different from countries behind the Iron Curtain, or it wasn't something that scared them. In some countries, that fear led to a real welcome for NATO; in others, it didn't. I would point to Viktor Orbán in Hungary and perhaps Slovakia as places where people didn't feel they were simply trading the "yoke" of the Soviet Union for the "yoke" of the Russians. This feeling made countries like Poland desperately want to be dominant members of NATO, while others did not.

We lost on a few, but we tried it in every country. It worked famously in Montenegro and Albania. I once asked Colin Powell, "Why do we want criminal states in NATO? Albania is a criminal state. Montenegro steals more automobiles than are stolen in the United States. How can they pass the credentials for membership?" He said he didn't know.

But we brought them in anyway. We orchestrated these campaigns to create what I call "tyrannies of the minority." We found the political minority that desperately wanted NATO membership and backed them to the hilt. We bought newspapers, magazines, and articles. We did the same thing in Italy in 1948 to keep the communists out, in Iran in 1953, and in Guatemala in 1954.

Today, it is much more sophisticated. It isn't CIA agents doing this per se; it is CIA-orchestrated campaigns run by NGOs—sometimes wittingly, sometimes unwittingly. This is what we used in Georgia, for example. We are using it there right now, trying to get the current government out and the previous government back in because the previous one wanted to stand up to Russia and join NATO. The current government is very balanced; they want good relationships with the EU, Washington, NATO, and Moscow. We don’t like that, so we are trying to overturn them. That is how we do business today—not through direct action, but through NGOs like the International Republican Institute or the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

There are others you wouldn't expect, like the FDD (Foundation for Defense of Democracies), which acts on behalf of the U.S. and Israel. It’s all locked in; multiple parties participate in the planning and propaganda. Mossad and the CIA work together; you'd better believe Mossad is in Ukraine.

Glenn Diesen: Was this also the approach toward Ukraine? Not just in 2014, but back in 2004 with the Orange Revolution? That was quite blatant; Yushchenko even called the EU the "godfathers" of the revolution. A lot of the interference was open. The Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003) and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004) were extraordinary because there was genuine discontent on the ground regarding corruption and democratic deficits. However, polling for NATO membership was only around 20%. Nobody wanted NATO, yet that discontent was hijacked for the geopolitical objective of joining NATO against the Russians. The vast majority of Ukrainians preferred security arrangements with Russia. It was framed as a democratic development here, but it failed because the Ukrainians didn't want that government. Then in 2014, we did the same thing, but more viciously. What were your experiences in 2004?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: A CIA agent once told me, "Larry, there has never been a tool of national policy as potent as us now, because we have 'liberal democracy' on our side." They had weaponized liberal democracy and used these institutes to implement it country-by-country. It is a very powerful weapon.

We are still doing this. We just succeeded in Romania by getting Călin Georgescu out. He looked like he was going to be the new leader, and now he’s gone. I don’t know exactly how we did it, but I know we did it because someone told me they were going to. He was getting "cold feet" and wanted me to talk to him to "beef him up," but I didn't even know the man. They told me they were going to destroy him, and they did.

In 2004, they didn't have to be quite as straightforward about getting rid of people, but yes, we were running people from European Command into Ukraine as early as 2005 and 2006 to work with the Azov battalions and others. We wanted to ensure we were operationally capable of melding intelligence and arms. We even had a four-star general who liked to ride Harley-Davidsons; he would occasionally go riding to do "coordinating." This was all happening long before the tense period of 2014 when we took sides so blatantly.

Glenn Diesen: Has this instrument for regime change or "Color Revolutions" been dismantled? Trump talked about defunding it.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: That is a huge question. I asked the other day if Tulsi Gabbard (as DNI) and John Ratcliffe would change things. I was told Ratcliffe is "in" on all of this and favors everything going on. So, if Tulsi is against it and Ratcliffe is for it, how is she going to turn him around?

The CIA keeps things going even when the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense don't know about it. That is common practice now. The Director will claim they are providing the President with "plausible deniability." It means people are being killed on the ground in foreign countries without a formal presidential finding or memorandum. This continues from president to president because the President often lacks clarity on what the CIA is doing on the ground. The CIA has become its own independent actor within the national security establishment.

There is another post which I would like to highlight in which I used a video of an interview with Patrik Baab on the Dialogue Works channel; I also used videos of interviews with Patrik Baab on Glenn Diesen's show.

Geopolitics — only the tip of the iceberg but since people are interested in it, here’s a deep dive into the topic.

11:08

Patrik Baab: In Germany, many things worked very well, but today the majority of the German people cannot realize, understand, or believe that the country cannot continue this way any longer. This is the situation the warmongers and the government have brought us into.

It is difficult today. On one hand, we have great pressure from propaganda and the propaganda media. Most of my former colleagues are writing, speaking, and publishing against Russia and in favor of a new war, and they are driving the politicians before them.

The second point is the ownership of the press. The press in Germany, much like in Brazil or other countries, is privately owned, and these private owners are linked to the industry. They want war to make money.

The political class of Germany is completely transatlantically corrupted. This means that many politicians and members of the political elite today managed their careers via transatlantic organizations like the German Marshall Fund, Young Global Leaders, various conferences, or other transatlantic foundations and organizations. They cannot imagine having a career without the help of the United States. This is what I mean by "transatlantically corrupted."

…

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid: How do you see it? What is the dynamic between the two parties—Europe and the United States—and how are they communicating with each other regarding the conflict in Ukraine?

Patrik Baab: I think the dynamic between the two parties is a team play with different roles. From my point of view, the "transatlantic split" is a myth and nothing else. I think Washington and the Trump administration managed to "Europeanize" this war.

In the spring of 2022, a secret file from the Rand Corporation was published. This was a file addressed to the CIA, the White House, and the administration. In it, the experts at Rand wrote that to help the American economy, they could see only one way: Europe, and especially Germany, must be forced to invest in the United States and transfer economic and production facilities back to the U.S. The only way to do this was to cut Germany away from cheap Russian energy supplies.

The strategy was to bring Germany into a position where it had to support a war in Ukraine. From this point of view, everything is working perfectly for Washington. Now, the Germans are in a position where they have to invest in the United States. Look at the recent deal between Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump; they promised to invest millions upon millions in the U.S., buy American weapons, and surrender production facilities to the United States. This is exactly what the Rand Corporation wrote about.

This is managed by transatlantically corrupted elites in Europe and especially in Germany. Take our Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, for example. He is a former employee of BlackRock and serves as a representative for the American financial industry and the military-industrial complex in Germany. As a leader, he is making Germany a high-risk vassal of the United States.

Or take the Vice Chancellor of Germany from the Social Democratic Party, Lars Klingbeil. He did an internship at the SPD's Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Washington, as well as internships at American NGOs and with members of Congress who were linked to the CIA. As Vice Chancellor, he is another man of the United States in Germany. These people cannot represent the interests of the German people; it is impossible.

The reason for this goes back to 2003, when former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, French President Jacques Chirac, and Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to join the illegal attack by the United States and other states against Iraq. This was a warning sign for Washington; they decided something like that should never happen again. Consequently, they tried to bring our academic elites onto a transatlantic way of thinking. This influence works through our universities, churches, schools, so-called NGOs (which are mostly run by the state), and the state administration itself. Many people have built their careers in cooperation with transatlantic organizations. Today, we have these transatlantic elites; we don't have a German elite.

The second point involves the reforms under Chancellor Schröder in 2002. According to these reforms, when German lenders sold their industrial shares, it was completely tax-free. As a result, German banks sold their industrial shares to finance structured papers and seek gains on the stock exchange. This brought Germany deeper into the financial crisis and allowed American hedge funds and financial investors to buy industrial shares in Germany.

Today, we see a situation where not a single major company on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange is without American influence. They influence every company. This means our economy is not owned by Germans; it is owned by the United States, allowing them to influence the entire production process. We need a complete reform because we are sold out. We are a country completely sold out to the United States—a country not just of vassals, but of slaves.

Washington managed to place us in the position of a "front state" in the Ukraine war. Everything done at the front lines—the missiles, the artillery—is managed by American soldiers in the German city of Wiesbaden. Because of this, we are in the focus of Russian nuclear missiles. This was managed by the United States with the help of German politicians. They sold out their own country, and we are slaves of the United States in this war. That is the point.

Here we have another person explaining how it was the Americans. Patrik Baab calls it — “transatlantically corrupted” European leaders. This is similar to what Col. Lawrence Wilkerson explains in the fragment I highlighted earlier. I pointed out that the media, academia, and politics in Europe are completely corrupted and captured by Americans, which is seen in the fact that the Nord Stream 2 blowing up is still a "mystery." If they were not all corrupted, there would be voices pointing out the obvious fact that Nord Stream was blown up by Americans.

Patrik Baab explains something in that video which really puzzled me. I understood how the media and academia were captured, since I knew both are scams (which is why I have such disdain for academia), but I was completely puzzled why German capital allowed it to happen. He explains that all German companies are owned by American capital, which explains it for me and which I didn’t know previously.

Now I would like to highlight a video which I have used many times before. I am sorry I am constantly using it; you could argue it’s a small sample and using a single video so often makes it less credible. However, I would like to highlight that people in power don’t want us to know the truth. When someone occasionally spills the truth, it is a rare thing and it is later suppressed. We can see this in the fact that this video is in very low quality and it was hard for me to find other links for it. In this video, Condoleezza Rice "spills the beans" about what is really happening and what the goal is—something she should not have said, which is why this video is suppressed so much and you can’t find it anywhere else.

Now, what Condoleezza Rice is talking about here is connected to what Patrik Baab says in this interview: 'The only way to do this was to cut Germany away from cheap Russian energy supplies.' This explains why Condoleezza Rice was pushing against Merkel, why Obama was opposing Nord Stream, why Trump put sanctions against Nord Stream during his first term, and why Biden blew up Nord Stream.

As Patrik Baab explained, the only way to cut Germany off from Russian gas was to start a war in Ukraine and force Germany to side with Ukraine—something I have written about and called 'Project Ukraine.' Part of this was also very well explained by George Friedman in a video which I have used many times, and which was part of the post with Patrik Baab that I linked.

The question on the table for the Russians is: will they retain a buffer zone that's at least neutral, or will the West penetrate so far into Ukraine that they're 70 miles away from Stalingrad and 300 miles away from Moscow? For Russia, the status of Ukraine is an existential threat, and the Russians cannot let go. For the United States, in the event that Russia holds on to Ukraine, where will it stop? Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about prepositioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the Intermarium, from the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Piłsudski dreamt of. This is the solution for the United States.

 

The issue to which we don't have the answer is: what will Germany do? So the real wild card in Europe is that as the United States builds this cordon sanitaire—not in Ukraine, but to the west—and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage the Ukrainians out, we don't know the German position. Germany is in a very peculiar position. Its former Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, is on the board of Gazprom. They have a very complex relationship with the Russians. The Germans themselves don't know what to do. They must export. The Russians can't take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.

For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian capital, I mean German technology and German capital, Russian natural resources, and Russian manpower. This is the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the U.S. has already put cards on the table: it is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea. For the Russians, their cards have always been on the table: they must have at least a neutral Ukraine, not a pro-Western Ukraine. But the outcome is another question.

Whoever can tell me what the Germans are going to do is going to tell me about the next 20 years of history, but unfortunately, the Germans haven't made up their mind. And this is the problem of Germany always: enormously economically powerful, geopolitically very fragile, and never quite knowing how to reconcile the two.

Now, regarding the fragment, “The Russians can't take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.” Merkel's solution for a free trade zone was China. While Russia was not able to absorb all European exports, China could, and that was the solution for Germany. This is why Merkel and other European leaders tried to cooperate with both China and Russia.

While taking on European exports was not initially beneficial for China (as it is an export-driven economy), if it allowed Europe to side with Russia and China against America, it would have been worth it. It would be better for China to help Europe at a cost to itself if that meant gaining Europe as an ally against the American Empire — an escalation the Chinese knew was only a matter of time.

This is why George Friedman speaks about “Intermarium, from the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Piłsudski dreamt of,” as “the solution for the United States.” To prevent cooperation between Europe, China, and Russia, you need to control the land dividing Europe from Eurasia, which is the Intermarium. Controlling the Intermarium allows you to engineer a war in Ukraine, which serves to prevent the economic cooperation between Russia and Germany.

This cooperation was so vital that even though America controlled German media, academia, political elites and capital, Germany still could feel compelled to buy Russian gas after the war in Ukraine started—which is why America blew up the Nord Stream just in case. Meanwhile, through control of the Intermarium land bridge, America can ensure that other pipelines are stopped by those states, completely cutting Germany off from Russian gas.

I don’t want to get too deep into the motivations of the Intermarium countries, as I have explained that earlier, but I will touch on it briefly. I previously explained Germany's project for Europe to become a German "neo-colony," where all countries work for Germany's benefit at their own cost. Part of this was making Europe addicted to Russian gas, which Germany would control and distribute which would give it leverage and secure the lowest prices for itself.

To achieve this, they had to destroy nuclear power, where France and Britain were leaders. If those nations developed nuclear energy, they could not be made dependent on Russian gas. This is why nuclear energy was deemed "not green," while Russian gas was labeled "most green/ most ecological" — to destroy the French and British nuclear industries and give Germany leverage.

For example, Poland had the Yamal gas pipeline, but was forced to buy gas from Germany because Russia refused to sell directly through Yamal, selling it through Nord Stream instead. Poland was then forced to pay Germany transit fees. Despite being closer to Russia, Poland paid higher prices than Germany. Before the war, Poland built a large gas port and the Baltic Pipe from Norway. This made no economic sense (as it was more expensive than Russian gas) unless you consider that the Americans told Poland they would ensure gas stopped flowing through Nord Stream and that Europe would be unable to buy Russian gas.

This was a long-term project. I suspect the PiS party, working with American Neocons, knew about this plan long in advance, since the preparation for these pipelines and the gas port began years ago. You can see this, for example, in Lech Kaczyński’s actions in Tbilisi during the 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict.

Lech Kaczyński: Ladies and Gentlemen!

We are here to express our total solidarity. We, the leaders of five nations—Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — are here. We are here to take up the fight. For the first time in a long while, our neighbors from the north — and for us, also from the north and east — have shown the face we have known for hundreds of years. These neighbors believe that the nations around them should be subject to them. We say no! That country is Russia.

That country believes that the old days of the fallen empire, which collapsed less than 20 years ago, are returning; that domination will once again be a feature of this region. It will not. Those times are over once and for all. Not for twenty, thirty, or fifty years!

All of us, at the same time or at slightly different times, have experienced that domination. It is a misfortune for part of Asia and all of Europe. It is the breaking of human character, the imposition of a foreign system, the imposition of a foreign language.

But how is the situation today different from that of many years ago? Today we are here together. Today the world had to react, even if it was reluctant to do so. And we are here to ensure that the world reacts even more strongly—especially the European Union and NATO.

When I initiated this visit, some thought that the presidents would be afraid. No one was afraid! Everyone came! Because Central Europe has brave leaders.

And I would like to say this not only to you; I would also like to say to those in our common European Union that Central Europe, Georgia, and our entire region will matter—that we are subjects [with our own agency]. And we also know very well that today it is Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, the day after tomorrow the Baltic States, and later, perhaps, the time will come for my country, for Poland!

We were deeply convinced that membership in NATO and the Union would end the period of Russian appetites. It turns out that no, that was a mistake. But we are able to resist it—we are able to resist it if the values upon which Europe is supposed to be based have any significance in practice. If they are to have meaning, then we must be here; all of Europe must be here. There are four NATO member states here. There is Ukraine, a great nation. There is President Sarkozy, currently the President of the European Council, but there should be 27 states here.

We believe that Europe will understand and will be here; that it will understand your right to freedom and also understand its own interests. It will understand that without Georgia, Russia will restore its empire, and that is in no one's interest. That is why we are here.

I see it as part of the preparation for 'Project Ukraine' and everything that has happened. Lech Kaczyński was the PiS party leader and a darling of America. I have used this article before in my posts.

Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report

An independent report blamed Georgia on Wednesday for starting last year's five-day war with Russia, but said Moscow's military response went beyond reasonable limits and violated international law.

Here we have Reuters reporting on an independent EU study which concluded that Georgia started the Georgia-Russia war—something we now know is true. I suspect Lech Kaczyński knew Georgia started this war and that it was part of an American project to stop German-Russian cooperation by engineering a conflict against Russia, and he simply played along. He knew Russia would not attack Europe, but he also knew Germany was oppressing Poland and that Poland was too weak to fight back alone.

The only way to push back against Germany was to side with the Americans and assist their project. This would destroy German-Russian cooperation and weaken Germany so much that it could no longer oppress Poland. That is why I say this war was not so much about Russia as it was about weakening Germany. Germany could no longer dominate other European states if it was prevented from cooperating with Russia. I have explained all of this in my previous posts.

Finally, I would like to point out the recent appearance of Polish President Karol Nawrocki. He is connected to the PiS party and is part of the faction that sides with the American Neocons, which is why he is a darling of America and Donald Trump.

I voted for him because I thought he was a better choice than the "Volksdeutsche" Tusk, who would sell Poland out to German interests as he is a crypto-German and a German "ass-kisser." While I believe Nawrocki was the better choice and I voted for him, seeing him kiss Trump’s ass so much made me sick; it made me want to vomit. But this is exactly what I am talking about: we either have the PO party with Tusk kissing German ass and selling Poland to German interests, or we have PiS working with the Americans against the Germans, which also means kissing American ass.

Now, there is an allegedly a "secret longer version of the US National Security Strategy" that has been mentioned in recent articles. While I am not sure if it is true or fully accurate, it fits what I know and how I see things happening.

'Make Europe Great Again' and more from a longer version of the National Security Strategy

A fuller version reviewed by Defense One outlines the Trump administration's plans for shedding old relationships and creating new ones.

Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland are listed as countries the U.S. should “work more with…with the goal of pulling them away from the [European Union].”

“And we should support parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life…while remaining pro-American,” the document says.

Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland are highlighted as countries US should “work more with", which explains why we see Karol Nawrocki acting as he does toward Trump. Poland is mentioned in this context because, as I have stated, the PiS party acts as a puppet for the Neocons, while the PO is a puppet for Germany. America wants to see either a PiS government or the Konfederacja (Confederation) party in power.

Konfederacja is a right-wing party that serves as a Polish version of the AfD (Alternative for Germany). Just like PiS, Konfederacja is effectively an American Neocon party, and the AfD operates in the same way. This is why, despite their rhetoric, the AfD supports surveillance to "fight anti-Semitism" — because Neocons are deeply connected to Zionists.

This also explains why AfD members claim that Putin and Russian gas are "bad." I saw this in an interview on The Duran with a female AfD member who argued that Germany’s dependence on Russian gas was a mistake and that Germany must increase military spending. The AfD are "ass-kissers" for the American Neocons just like PiS and Konfederacja; they oppose Russian economic cooperation and support the military expansion that America demands.

Furthermore, these are right-wing neoliberal parties intended to bring a US-style "neoliberal" economy to Europe — one with no labor unions, no workers' rights, and the "wonders" of a full free market (sarcasm intended). This is why I say neither Konfederacja nor the AfD are saviors. Instead, they would turn Europe into a version of America, where you have the "freedom" to die on the street when you get sick, the "freedom" to end up as a debt slave with huge loans after finishing higher education, or the "freedom" to work two jobs just to survive. In this system, a minimum wage and labor unions are considered "evil communism", so you have the "freedom" to be exploited and abused by your employer.

To give you a statistic: between 40% and 60% of homeless people in America actually have jobs, but the "free market" has decided their wages are so low they cannot afford a place to live. The minimum wage is treated like "evil communism" that must be fought, and this is exactly what parties like Konfederacja and the AfD want to bring to Europe: all the "wonders" of the American free market.

In my opinion, the only real hope for Europe lies in a true left-wing party—one that unfortunately does not exist today. All we have are pro-corporate, "woke" pseudo-left parties that have nothing to do with the real Left.

I could write more but I will end it here thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

"It was during this time that Polish socialist pamphlets first fell into my hands—Młot’s Who Lives on What and Liebknecht’s In Defense of Truth. I liked them much more, and found them more convincing, than the similar publications of 'Narodnaya Volya' I had read previously. Consequently, I decided to become more closely acquainted with socialism itself and read the first volume of Marx's Das Kapital in Russian. I cannot say that this reading made a great impression on me. Although the Russian influence was small, it had nonetheless managed to create a certain anarchist havoc in my head. Marx’s abstract logic and the mastery of the commodity over man did not suit my brain. In any case, this reading significantly deepened my views on society, and I unconsciously began to yield to the influence of Marx's logically constructed concept."

― Józef Piłsudski (How I Became a Socialist)

"And when I reflected upon the nation to which I was bound by everything that brings joy and everything that brings pain, everything that thinks within me and everything that feels, I came to the conviction that my childhood dreams and fantasies were merging with my youthful worldview. A socialist in Poland must strive for the independence of the country, and independence is a defining condition for the victory of socialism in Poland."

― Józef Piłsudski (How I Became a Socialist)

“I stand ready to fight, just as before, against the main evil of the state: the rule of spoiled parties and factions over Poland, the forgetting of the imponderables, and the remembering only of money and profit.”

― Józef Piłsudski: In an interview for "Kurier Poranny" about the coup that was supposed to be carried out by Piłsudski, a reading from May 11, 1926.