We live in terrible times, unbearable for ordinary people, the twilight of our civilization. To my great regret and sorrow, there seems to be a pattern to it all. That is, a coincidence that cannot be foreseen and that has an unexpected impact, comes into our lives only when the time is right for it to come. For more than 20 years, we have been living in a collapsing civilisation that has exhausted its systemic resources. This means that it is impossible to come up with anything fundamentally new in terms of social structure, productive forces and production relations. In other words, the socio-political-economic system is complete and well-established. This means an inevitable ideological and spiritual crisis.
And where is the prospect? More food, more gadgets like iPhones, entertainment? More than 57 years ago, in the great year of 1968, youth riots in America and Western Europe already showed that a spiritual crisis was coming. They (the people of 1968) do not know what they want and what they can adapt to. Absolutely all of America was open, all fascists were defeated, and in principle there was nothing left to do. And when there is nothing left to do, the degeneration of the system begins.
It begins with the degeneration of art, because thought always precedes action, and feeling always precedes thought. And when, at the end of the 19th century, modernist trends emerged in painting (and painting is the most responsive of all the arts), there was a sense of the end of the world. And when Spengler wrote his famous 'The Decline of the West' in 1918, he already had a wealth of material for reflection and drawing conclusions... Today, so-called contemporary painting is a pitiful mess compared to the so-called pinnacles of art. And philosophers and theorists try to read some meaning into it, which is actually complete nonsense.
This also affects relationships: since life is changing, and it is impossible to improve, people start to deteriorate. Let's say that some (about 60% of us) know from experience that if, for example, a new collection from Swarovski appears this season and there are some brilliant items in it, they will not be there next season... the collection has to be changed. Something brilliant is always replaced by something worse, the most important thing is to change. This applies to fashions and stereotypes. Take crazy clothing fashions, as well as styles, when suddenly jackets started to be worn on bare skin. Peasants in medieval Europe used to dress like that; they didn't wear underwear... They were poor. And so, a jacket on a bare body. There are countless examples of such nonsense.
And when, 20 years ago, civilisation began to collapse within itself, unimaginable things happened. The destruction of statues of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in America because they are 'symbols of white supremacy.' When self-destruction occurs, which is an objective process because everything that has a beginning has an end, the way of thinking changes. The self-destruction of civilization occurs through changes in people's way of thinking. People never said, 'Let's destroy our civilization.' At worst, they said, '...let's reorganise it so that it is better and fairer.' And now they are reworking it so that it no longer exists at all...
Given the rapid pace of mechanisation, computerisation, the growing role of electronic communications, the creation of various cyborgs, and the processes of globalisation, which may temporarily reverse, but the process itself cannot be changed, we are moving towards the sad picture of the world described by Jacques Attali in his A Brief History of the Future. It is a planet populated by useless paupers, because machines do everything: the labour of 90 per cent of the population is not needed by anyone, they are fed, clothed and given some primitive entertainment. And they die out on their own, because socially unclaimed groups and peoples die out on their own. They stop reproducing. (This is what is already happening now!!!)
And there is a nomadic elite that takes advantage of everything. Eugenics comes into play, the genetic structure of these people improves, and so on. And so, in 100 years, these superhumans and the well-fed, depraved, dying crowds will inhabit the Earth. And when a process begins, there are always accidents that exacerbate it. As for the coronavirus, we would have survived. But the coronavirus has affected all processes! Migrants and leftists in Europe, the fight against Trumpism and socialists in America, global trade wars, and so on!
One poet wrote: 'Blessed is he who visited this world in its fateful moments.' But wiser and more ancient people said: 'May God not let you live in an era of change.' So we will see many, many interesting things, and we will not like most of them very much, just as we do not like them now.
Racially motivated pogroms are particularly striking. In the United States, monuments to Columbus and President Abraham Lincoln, who advocated for the liberation of slaves, were destroyed and demolished. In Belgium, a monument to some king was removed. In England, football matches began with kneeling. The mayor of London, a Muslim, compiled a list of monuments that need to be demolished.
Is this a global trend? A harbinger of another civil war, a new fascism? Some contemporary philosophers have a deep and wise understanding of this complex American problem. According to American law, the highest figures in the American establishment should be sent to prison. Of course, no one wants to go to prison. And now the Democrats understand that the population, which is still doing something, working, hates them absolutely. The people are against left-wing professors, left-wing journalists and left-wing intellectuals.
The left was shocked when they lost the elections in 2016 and 2024, they were under such self-hypnosis! How is that possible? They are so smart! During Barack Obama's two terms as president, America lost several million jobs, most of which went to China, and Obama said that those jobs would never return. Trump brought them back and created new ones. But they still hate him. That's why the establishment hates him.
The Democrats want to open the borders, flood the country with migrants, legalise illegal migrants, give absolutely everyone without any documents the right to vote, and hand out benefits to all of them. And then, of course, they will all vote for the Democrats, and the Democrats will be in power forever. George Soros believes that in a global world (and globalism has already arrived in part), transnational corporations are absolutely omnipotent... modern social networks are transnational corporations.
Take Google, Facebook, or whatever — these are huge corporations that talk to the state on equal terms and cannot be ordered around, whose power is enormous. And if George Soros is going to be one of the narrow circle of directors of the global world, it's worth fighting for. Although George Soros's place is on the gallows or, at the very least, in a prison cell. Because when his name was Georg Schwarz, he betrayed his fellow Jews to the Gestapo. That's pretty much how things stand.
Thus, a civil war was ignited, and the long-forgotten division between North and South was restored. Congress demanded that Confederate statues be removed: let Southerners and Northerners, former slave owners and non-slave owners, who have not existed for more than 150 years, be at odds with each other again. The statues must be removed in order to deprive the people not only of their historical memory, but also of their national identity, because the memory embodied in this monument is a point of solidarity for the people.
The American people are united because these are places of memory, shrines and achievements. But if you divide and separate all Americans, you can do whatever you want with each of them individually. And now some of these guys dream of bringing complete chaos to America so that the Democrats can take power. After that, the propaganda of discord and hatred and the organisation of these pogroms, which are organised and controlled, will instantly cease, because in many cities the riots are going on without any specific reason. And then... it all starts in Europe too!
No one can have any advantages or restrictions based solely on their race, nationality, religion or skin colour. And, in my opinion, all decent people will agree with this. To what extent do all these strange processes threaten old European values? Will they survive, or is the prognosis pessimistic and the end already in sight?
Many years ago, noble-minded France took an extraordinarily idiotic step, as many noble-minded steps tend to be: it declared that all residents of France are French, regardless of when and where they came from, and regardless of race, nationality or religion. And by the end of the 20th century, the entire European community agreed that people could only be identified by their citizenship. If you live in England, you are English; if you live in Germany, you are German.
This is not just nonsense, it is malignant, malicious stupidity. Because a person has a whole range of levels of self-identification. There is dominant self-identification, which means, for example, that first and foremost, he says, 'I am a Muslim.' Parallel to this is dominant identification: 'I am a man.' Then there is citizenship and profession. If a person has come from somewhere else, then for them, their profession is more important than their citizenship, because they moved from England to Germany and became German, or came to Italy and became Italian.
But this is absolutely wrong! A German, Italian or Englishman is a person who identifies himself exclusively with the entire German, Italian or English culture. For example, for an Englishman, the main group values are his history, his literature and his cuisine, his lifestyle, lawns and universities, Admiral Nelson on a column, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria. That is what an Englishman is.
When five young Pakistanis blew themselves up simultaneously on a bus, in the underground and elsewhere in 2005, more than a hundred people died. Sociologists and social psychologists said: 'It's astonishing, it's hard to understand, because they were our Yorkshire lads...' No, not 'your' lads! They were not 'yours' at all! They were, first of all, Muslims, secondly, Pakistanis, thirdly, men, and fourthly, they lived in England, which they hated. They enjoyed its benefits, but hated it itself! They were not English. The man who burned down the cathedral in Nantes was not French. And all those who hate France are not French.
There are incompatible groups of people. They must live separately — not because one is better and the other is worse, but because they are incompatible. One cannot think that all people are compatible... This is not the case. You can take even 30 people of the same nationality, the same age, the same level of education, and among these twenty there may be one such scoundrel that it is easier to throw him out of the herd than to suffer with him for the rest of your life.
And when it comes to different ethnic groups — with different mentalities, different religions, different histories — differences often make it impossible to live together. If someone from one group wants to live in another group and accepts its values and works together with the people of that group — thank God, that's very good. Equality, segregation, internationalism — these were accepted in the 1960s in all normal countries. No one can have any advantages or restrictions based solely on their race, nationality, religion or skin colour. And, in my opinion, everyone will agree with this.
A person should be valued for their personal qualities, not for whether they have curly or straight hair or some other nonsense. But when, on the basis of this racial difference, those who have not undergone 10,000 years of social evolution, those who have stepped out of a tribal system into a modern civilisation, those who, unfortunately, in some of their mental qualities are inferior to representatives of this civilisation — to waive their rights and declare that everyone is equal, but he is more equal because he belongs to a previously oppressed group?!.. What to do?.. He is lazy, such an unfortunate group. Give him an advantage? That is racism.
So, a very harsh form of racism has developed in the West, and it is anti-white in nature. Soon they will declare that art museums are also white racism, because the paintings there depict exclusively white people. They have already declared this! The new racists have no tolerance for other people and opinions. That is fascism.
There is a well-known quote by Churchill that the next time fascism appears, it will call itself anti-fascism. Fascism is a totalitarian ideology that does not tolerate any dissent, suppressing it mercilessly, seeking to control words, actions, thoughts and even feelings, striving for absolute power over society and the state, and, moreover, inclined to resolve issues by force. Yes, this is fascism.
Could racist processes manifest themselves in Finland in some way? Are we threatened, for example, by the dismantling of monuments to certain historical figures? What lessons should we learn from this? We must preserve what we have and do everything we can to preserve our culture.
George Orwell wrote his brilliant novel '1984' for a reason. From a purely literary, formal, stylistic point of view, it would seem to be nothing special. But from the point of view of the model it created, it is genius. We must not allow any left-wing liberals who insist on how wonderful the liberal West is to come to power. They are complete idiots who are terribly proud of what they heard at Harvard or Yale, without understanding what they heard there and what is going on there. A very difficult case.
Plato once said (some 2,500 years ago, what nonsense): only a state whose shield is justice is stable. As soon as justice is violated in a state, it loses its stability. Expect either revolution or complete collapse. Many men throughout history have used their position to get sex from women. Which, of course, is despicable violence against women. Correcting this situation is nothing more than restoring justice. Vice must be punished.
It is true that some women, for career reasons, seduced their bosses or openly demonstrated their availability. This must also be taken into account. Now, in the midst of totalitarian political correctness, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and it has swung so far that it has broken many spines. In other words, the presumption of innocence has been abolished in the West! Any woman can claim that a man she knew raped her twenty years ago — and her statement is enough! This is a form of modern obscurantism.
In general, in such cases, a counterclaim for libel should follow. No evidence? Serve time for trying to ruin a man's life just because you felt like it. But if there is evidence, the man should get the full punishment. Violence has always been one of the most serious crimes. I fear that in our time of family breakdown and catastrophic decline in birth rates, this is a fabricated problem... People should get married and have children, rather than publicly discussing who stroked whom where.