By Batiushka for the Saker blog
An artificially-imposed union in unnatural borders is known as ‘a construct’. Constructs are artificial, as they are populated by different peoples, who speak different languages and have different cultures, and who would prefer to live in their own common nation-state because of those differences. For these reasons constructs are always imposed top-down for ‘reasons of State’ and rejected by those who are oppressed by them at the grassroots. Constructs are only ever popular among the elites which invent them and make money from them. They rarely achieve more than 50% popularity, usually far less. They are always rejected by the people at the bottom of the pile. This is why constructs never last.
1. The USA as a Construct
For instance, the USA, founded on exploitation, gun-law, slavery and the genocide of its native peoples, is a construct. Its straight-line borders are artificial, the result of wars and treaties, forced on others by historical circumstances or illegal occupations, for example as in Alaska and Hawaii. Much of its southern territory is Spanish-named and was stolen from Mexico and is now – such is the justice of history and the reward of patience – being reoccupied by Spanish speakers.
As for the northern border, that was fixed because basically the lands northwards were cold and uninviting. The vast majority of them, except for a very narrow strip close to the US border, spread up to the Arctic and were uninhabitable. Thus, the US elite left them to the unwanted whom they called ‘Canadians’, who presented no threat to them.
As regards its ‘United’ States, they are the result of an incredibly bloody Civil War, leaving as many as one million dead, the equivalent of ten million today. It was directed by an industrial elite in the North-East and the result, enforced by genocide, was by many never accepted. That elite was Zionist (not Jewish, though many of its financiers were Jews) in its proclamation that it was exceptional and that its ‘manifest destiny’ (i.e. manifest only to themselves) was to spread ‘from sea to shining sea’.
2. Europe and its Constructs
Europe (meaning by etymology ‘the west’) is also a construct, its identity going back to an ancient Greek myth. For the Romans 2,000 years ago, it did not exist separately from Asia and Africa. Indeed, it is artificially separated from Asia (meaning by etymology ‘the east’), from where its peoples emigrated. There is no natural border between the European peninsula and Asia: its eastern border is purely political and for the moment fixed in the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus.
Moreover, nearly all of its languages are ‘Indo-European’ and have their origins in a language spoken in today’s Turkey (Asia Minor) or even further east, well over 5,000 years ago. The historically recent contempt of ‘Europe’ for anything ‘Asian’, contemptuously termed ‘Asiatic’ or ‘barbarian’, is simply a rejection of its own origins and a self-justification for its artificial state of separation.
In the early 90s the then French President, Chirac, called on all: ‘Creeons l’Europe, Faisons l’Europe, il faut construire l’Europe’ (Let us create Europe, Let us make Europe, We must build Europe’). This was simply an open admission that Europe did not exist. It does not.
Within contemporary Europe the EU, the UK and the Ukraine are obviously constructs. The EU goes back only to 1993, the Ukraine to 1992, and the UK to 1922. In other words, they are all temporary inventions of the twentieth century. Now we are in the twenty-first century, we can see that they will not last much longer.
a. The EU
Taking the most recent construct first, we can see that many of the now 27 countries of the EU, which the UK left after 47 turbulent years, experiencing it and its predecessors as a straitjacket, are constructs. We would make exceptions only for some small countries: Portugal, the Czech Lands, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Malta and the five sparsely-populated Nordics: Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland, the latter both Non-EU. (The total population of the five Nordics is just 27 million, 40% of the population of France or the UK).
Spain is a construct, Catalans and Basques reject it. France is a construct, Basques, Bretons, Occitans, Corsicans and Alsaciens reject it. Belgium, Italy and Germany are constructs that go back no further than the nineteenth century and Germany has been reinvented radically over that time, as the Second Reich of 1871 disappeared in 1918 and the Third Reich of 1933 lasted only twelve years, after which the borders of Germany changed radically.
Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were constructs. Czechoslovakia split into its two natural entities, but the fate of the far more complex Yugoslavia is far from resolved. Yugoslavia disintegrated into a number of states, most of which have unnatural borders, not unlike several other European countries, for example, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania. And here we do not even mention the unresolved problem of occupied Cyprus. Obviously, those who claim to be in favour of self-determination are not.
The EU elite comes from the borderlands of Latin-Germanic/Protestant-Catholic Europe. These run through Belgium, Luxembourg and eastern France (the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg axis). This elite was US-formed, like Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer. As the former President of France, Giscard d’Estaing, stated, the Common Market (predecessor of the EU) was until the 1970s little more than a ‘Neo-Carolingian Empire’. In other words, it was a recreation of the ‘Empire’ of Charlemagne, who was not a French leader or founder of the French educational system, as French State schoolbooks claim. He was a vicious and illiterate German barbarian who spoke no French and was tall, so called Karl the Tall, disguised by the French name ‘Charlemagne’.
His EU ‘Empire’ with its violent warrior class of Franks was recreated a millennium later by other Fascistic tyrants, Napoleon and Hitler; hardly a recommendation for the EU, though EU membership and territory are almost identical to their blood-soaked Empires. Moreover, both those Empires failed because they too tried to invade Russian territory. Although it is not necessary or inevitable, history does in fact repeat itself, simply because of the greatest human stupidity – not to learn the lessons of history. And so it goes on and today the earth of the Ukraine is soaked in blood again.
b. The Ukraine
Although the word ‘Ukraine’, meaning borderland, is ancient, the concept of a country called ‘the Ukraine’, like its Austrian flag, goes back only to the Austro-Hungarian Imperialism of the late nineteenth-century. The Ukraine as a nation-state is an even more recent construct.
The Ukraine was invented largely by Non-Russian Communist dictators for political reasons, in 1922, 1939 and 1954, and has existed as a separate state only for thirty years. It has never been an independent state, having been completely dependent on a Jewish oligarchic elite over its thirty years of existence. And since 2014 it has been a US conquest-state and so vassal.
Constructs are dangerous things (1). Just as the construct of ‘Belgium’ (the southern Netherlands and part of northern France) was used as a pretext for World War I in 1914, the construct of ‘Poland’ (then consisting of Poland and large and oppressed parts of Belarus and Galicia) was used as a pretext for World War II in 1939, so the Ukraine was used as a pretext for what we call World War III (2014 – present).
From 2014 on, for eight years, a huge Ukrainian force, over 500,000 strong, was gathered, trained, dug in and armed by NATO in order to invade Russia from the eastern Ukraine. This is the origin of the present Third World War, which is now in its ninth year and slaughtered nearly seven million in its biological warfare (covid) phase alone. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians is now on the hands of the USA, its vassals and their foreign financiers.
c. The UK
The UK in its present form, England, Scotland, Wales and an occupied piece of north-eastern Ireland, was founded in the same year as the Soviet Ukraine – 1922. However, its origins go way back to the violence of a Viking-Norman elite, financed by Jewish merchants from Rouen. (Until 1066 there were no Jews in any of the Four Nations, England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland).
Those Normans are nothing to do with contemporary Normandy and Norman people. Those ‘Normans’ (= Northmen) were a cosmopolitan, French-speaking Viking elite, temporarily based in north-western France. They marauded all over Europe, notably in Sicily, Southern Italy and England, wherever, in fact, as conquistadors they could see opportunities for power and gold. The ships they used to invade were in fact Viking drakkar, dragon-ships, as can be seen from pictures of them in the eleventh-century English-made Tapestry, at present in Bayeux in Normandy.
In 1066 and after, the Normans, led by William the Bastard/Conquistador, conquered England by genocide, though most of his mercenary force consisted of Flemings and Bretons, the bandit scum of north-western Europe. In other words, only the leadership elite were ‘Normans’. Their alliance of pillaging bandits went on to conquer Wales, Scotland and, in the twelfth century, Ireland, where they were known as ‘Anglo-Normans’.
Then they created a ‘Hundred Years War’ with France and intervened in other interminable wars on mainland Europe. However, their much later racial and ideological descendants and adepts, of all nationalities, went on to conquer worldwide territories in what became known as ‘The British Empire’. In fact, this was ‘The Norman Empire’. Noted for its ‘raiding and trading’, that is, pillaging and looting, it was the ultimate Viking enterprise, violent warriors replaced by ruthless traders, battle-axes by trade monopolies, excommunications by trade sanctions.
The Constructing Elites
The elites who have imposed these constructs all have something in common – their intolerance. We would call them ‘Exceptionalists’ to describe that unique intolerance, because that is how they consider themselves and they actually use their imagined ‘exceptionalism’ to justify the darkest of deeds. According to them, all who are different have to be destroyed – ‘cancelled’. ‘We are best, and therefore…’. This is only the racism of Hitler: ‘We are Aryans, and therefore…’. They call themselves ‘Judeo-Christians’. The Saker very aptly calls them Anglo-Zionists. Again we repeat that here we must distinguish between Jews and Zionists. Many Jews are anti-Zionist and many Zionists are not at all Jews (2). Let us give two examples.
I remember talking many years ago to an Englishman, then aged 102, a true Victorian, who told me that he was convinced that God was English. And he was serious. I told him that after the US provocation of Pearl Harbour in December 1941 (when American infamy entered a new phase), surely his god had changed nationalities and become American. He replied to me that English and Americans were the same anyway. He was a Zionist, but he was not a Jew. Then about twenty years ago an 80 year-old Dutchman from Alkmaar told me that: ‘After the War (= 1945) the world’s policeman was no longer English, but American’. (He never explained to me why the world needed a policeman and who had chosen him). He too was a Zionist, but not a Jew.
All of this of course is known as ‘cultural prejudice’ or, more simply, ignorance and bigotry. Thus: ‘We want to steal Iraq’s oil and gas. Because we are Americans, we are exceptional and we have the right to do this. This is the international rules-based order which we have established’. These people are Zionists, but they are not necessarily Jews.
It is a spiritual law (also known as ‘common sense’) that you do not destroy anything, until you have something better to replace it with. In other words, you do not deconstruct, if you are not first ready to reconstruct. What exactly the future of the USA is I could not say, though I would say that it will fall back into its natural components, for that is the destiny of all constructs – they de-compose, as artifice is always taken over by nature – like a corpse in the grave. All constructs become corpses, some quite rapidly, as in today’s deeply tragic Ukraine.
Europe’s destiny is to rejoin Asia, which is its origin in every sense, including the origin of Christianity. For Christianity is not by origin European. The defection of Western Europe from Christian Tradition almost exactly 1,000 years ago (3) and its construct of ‘Catholicism’ (4), which 500 years later split into a myriad of State-moulded sects (5), which have lasted another 500 years and are now rapidly dying out, signified its schism from Asia. It was only from the eleventh century on that the word ‘Europe’ began to be used to define a geographical entity, being firmly established only by 1300 (6).
Western Europe even began to call the old Christian Capital of New Rome/Constantinople on the frontiers of Europe and Asia, symbolised therefore by a double-headed eagle, ‘Byzantium’. It even invented the word ‘Byzantine’ to describe its own labyrinthine bureaucracy and convoluted hypocrisy. (There is nothing so ‘Byzantine’ as perfidious Albion). Then, in 1204, the new Judeo-Christian ‘Catholics’ sacked the Christian Capital, weakening it and so enabling it to be conquered by the Muslim Ottomans in 1453.
Now comes the, as yet faint, possibility of Europe’s return to its roots after its thousand-years of captivity. In order to do this, Europe has to free itself from the dictatorship of the atheist elite, now based in the USA, but with important offshoots in Western Europe, especially in post-Protestant north-western Europe.
Europe has to recognise the Four Asian Civilisations, founded on religion and rooted in history, which have given Asia and the world its history. Chronologically, these are: the Hindu world of the Subcontinent (Hindustan), the Confucian-Buddhist-Taoist Chinese world, the Orthodox Christian world (today based in Russia, but which spreads southwards to its origin in Jerusalem and beyond) and the Muslim world of Asia and North Africa. They represent three-quarters of the world. You will never get away from them. Stop fighting among yourselves and fighting against them and learn to live with them.
9 November 2022
1. We also have the example of the construct of Kuwait, artificially divided from artificial Iraq, designed with its straight lines by British cunning and greed. It was the pretext for the First Genocide in Iraq in 1990-1991.
3. The Pope of Rome whose name was permanently removed from the lists (‘diptychs’) of Orthodox Christian leaders in Rome by the Orthodox Christian Patriarch of Constantinople was the Germanising Benedict VIII (1012-1024). Since him no further Popes of Rome have been recognised and commemorated as Orthodox Christians in the Orthodox world.
4. Today’s ailing Roman Catholic leader, Pope Francis, is said to be the last Pope. This is according to the Prophecies of St Malachy, though that document is much disputed and considered by many to be pure fiction.
5. As one English writer, writing of his own country, put it nearly a century ago: ‘Religion (in the late sixteenth century) was not about conversing with the Eternal, but keeping people quiet in the Eternal’s name’. And: ‘Religion then was not building churches, it was preparing to smash churches and put up conventicles where one could hate one’s neighbour as oneself’.
6. See ‘The Europeanization of Europe’, Pp. 269-291 in The Making of Europe by Robert Bartlett (1993).
I am so glad to be able to read all this wonderful content here and learn the actual and factual history. When I was young, history lessons were about Columbus discovered America, the US and UK liberated us from the Nazis and the Dutch VOC was a powerful force in the world. Now I have to listen to the Dutch were slave drivers. So the history I was told was all a lie. I know nothing about history. It’s a damn shame. And today in our parliament, several politicians of both coalition and opposition are accusing a well-informed opposition politician of distorting history. Lol, those crazy people think history can be what they want it to be. It’s sad that I’m not the only one who doesn’t know enough about history, our parliament is full of those ignorant. My whole country is full of ignorant people. Hopefully many will wake up in time and start looking for the truth as I am trying to do. Well, thanks again.
“These people are Zionists, but they are not necessarily Jews.”
Excellent point, one that had never occurred to me.
My focus has for years been on the Norman influence on today’s world, which has been foundational, I believe, but the world moves on and we have to always look for the big picture.
HI Steve: Always fun to connect with you so I will bight. To me this term (non Jewish) Zionist, being a political critique, does seem to be calling for a psychological and cultural definition don’t you think? Getting into the cultural psychology of the collective Zionist mind set stirs a few thoughts.
Men who have assimilated the patriarchal god image and let that assimilation overtake their egos and then it is turned to purely ego driven purposes. The ego demands to build “Zion” in the world of political power. What a loaded dream and seemingly a necessary illusion for many!
To me a Zionist is someone who believes he has otherworldly back up for his fantasies of worldly power. He draws his power to dominate due to the fact that it is a twisting, on the part of ego, of subjective religious experience. The most powerful and harmful (distortion) sustains itself by being a perversion of a living truth. Zionist psychology has a twisted (and denial driven) relationship with real inner juice of the tradition, from which it draws psychological power. A touch of sorcery here!
So Zionists who are not necessarily Jewish, seemingly according to descriptions given by the author, are men and women who are morally adherent, at least on some level, to the culturally assimilated Patriarchal God Image. They believe in and see themselves as giving action to the Judea Christian God of battles and power. He who orders and commands the rise to power, and gives to those who do rise, the iron rod of dictatorship, the symbolic Fasci. He rewards them in his own name by making them his own “exceptional” people. An egoistic dream of power reinforced and validated by the emotional internalization of patriarchal religious beliefs. Apollo the Sun God Victorious now turned into a crude egoistic rip off of the foundations of the Western spiritual tradition.
In the Zionist mind the exclusively male God of power gives them the “authority” to rule over all others. Zionist dream making as the path to the realization of their distorted religious utopian dreams. They unite with God in their ideal new land and together with God they control the whole world. Where would Europe’s Faustian drive of egoist supremacy be without its reinforcement by a religious dreamworld derived from a twisted assimilation of the patriarchal religious tradition?
However I have always remembered a quote from Joseph Campbell. That when a God’s cosmic time is over any remaining influence from that God image tends to turn into its opposite. The God mutates into an anti God. Not Pure Being, which is the real source of that God image of course, but the psychological process of perpetuating that religious mythos on the part of some of it its remaining adherents. It is a “psychological” description.
So now in the post patriarchal era we have the patriarchal religious psychology which underlies Zionism thrusting itself forward but now carrying an energy that turns to contradict and oppose the real living truth people once found in those religious traditions, A fading religious dream of God giving them the mantle to rule darkens the world with seemingly mythic force. Are they not the ones who are assembling and manning the mythic Death Star that closes upon the West? Who seeks to impose a dark and evil high tech imperialism on the whole world, and threatens to destroy the world if they must?
Well I always loved the magic in Joseph Campbell. So my two cents for the moment about what I think people can feel going on in the background with non Jewish Zionism.
Hello there Snowy, thanks for your response.
Your points are many, deep, and meaningful, as I’ve come to expect. (And enjoy!)
But my interpretation of a non-Jewish zionist is very simple – one who sees himself as part of an exceptional group that is destined to impose its will on the world stage.
In the case of the US, I differ from Batiushka, who said “That elite was Zionist (not Jewish, though many of its financiers were Jews).” There is a strong religious undercurrent throughout US culture that is based on interpretation of the Old Testament. (It’s so pervasive that it has influenced Jewish entertainers such as Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Neil Diamond and possibly others.) That interpretation revolves around followers being part of the lost tribes of Israel, so they in effect identify as Jewish in a sense.
But as I say above, I see the non-Jewish (non-religious) zionist as a useful concept.
I may have mentioned this before. If so sorry although it does bear repeating. Much of what you write about the psychological condition of believers of God given Patriarchal Power connects very closely to Paff and Stillman’s analysis of the ‘ Politics of Hysteria’ in their book of that title. The will to destructive power, emerging especially in the run up to WW1 and then not relinquished but driven forwards to create knowingly WW2 and violence ever after up to the present day.
History is what the printing-presses say it is, like the slow-motion trainwreck that’s occurring now, again, in the USSofA. Turn those machines back on! Talk about a failed State, err, Construct. Spin the Wheel, go to sleep, the results you can believe in are being counted in India. Late ballot stuffing has seen a miraculous comeback from Joe (Fighting Irish) McBiden.
As soon as Spain is quite wrong, Señor Batiushka (I remind you that many Spaniards follow The Saker), it was never a construct, it was a Kingdom that occupied the entire Iberian Peninsula and the only European country that retains its Roman name. Catalonia was a county created by the Frankish kings as a shield against Muslim invasions in the 9th century. Later, during the Christian reconquest, it became part of the kingdom of Aragon. Later, through marriages, the “Spains” were unified until forming the kingdom of Castile and Aragon, which under the reign of Carlos I was called Spain, causing strong claims from the Portuguese who also felt Spanish because their kingdom was part of the “Spains”. . The Basques were always part of the kingdom of Castile, there never was a Basque kingdom. You can read the best historical document on the relations of the Basques and Catalans with Castile in the book, and you will be in for a big surprise, which is “El Quixote”.
Based on the author’s definition of “a construct,” we can easily attach that definition with ancient to modern Middle Eastern nations. That includes modern Turkey, Latin American countries; parts of China, Indonesia; nearly the entire world.
I have read nearly everything you wrote…so can I give a criitique of your essay?
You have taken most of it – from some very dubious – mainly British sources written in English
“”Batiushka” actually comes from the pre-Christian/pagan era of the Eastern Slavs. ”
I don’t agree with everything you wrote but I do have still have an affection for “pre-Christian/pagan era of the Eastern Slavs”
You remind me of my Ex who’s family origins were Serbian. A lovely family. We nearly got married.
She has fallen out with me now, from over 40 years ago
I did tell her not to get jabbed…
We – with my wife (unjabbed) used to meet at Festivals and Gigs – My wife used to recognise her before me
“She is There” My wife and her got on really well..like giggling schoolgirls together
They had both put up with me
you see why I cry ?
This article is a fun mental/historical exercise. Because you are deconstructing, however, one can also just as easily deconstruct your concept of a construct. That step might take one deeper to recognize that humans seem to have conflict built in. Groups of most kinds argue, fight, and often subdivide or annex others. You can try to place the blame at the feet of certain individuals, but the problem is quite human.
“…humans seem to have conflict built in.”
Only true to a certain extent P, and actually a bit misleading. The true position is that we have the capacity for conflict.
History usually concerns itself with the dramatic and the tragic, while failing to record the mundane, the repetitive and the boring, which is the real story of human life.
And this is reflected in the modern world for example, in wildlife documentaries that focus on conflict. We marvel at two bulls fighting for control of a herd and see that as a snapshot of herd life, while overlooking the years of nurturing, cooperation, mutual aid and protection by the herd that has enabled the two bulls to reach the point where they are able to compete.
And what is the rest of the herd doing while competition for control is occurring?
Going about their normal business, which is generally the case also for human conflict.
Cooperation is the foundation of existence for all social animals, by definition.
I enjoyed your comments and tend to agree. My quick post above could have said “humans seem to have the capacity for conflict built in.”
As a scientist and academic, I very much enjoyed the culture of constructive conflict. One can argue about technical concepts and points with vehemence, and usually, there is only good will. This process stimulates new ideas, creative experiments and proofs, etc, and is actually very necessary.
One of the revealing degradations of our time is the appeal to “the science”, or ” settled science”, which is a cynical and fraudulent move meant to shut people up and stop constructive dialogue.
Sad times. If we don’t deal with conflicts through dialogue, we end up with situations like the current one in the Ukraine.
Exactly so, P.
Is something not a construct? Does something not organic with its environment prosper? Is anything organic not a construct?
Everything is a construct .. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And He gave us the ability to creatively construct agro-industrial economies.
The Zionist but not Jewish framework has pretty obvious origins in the Bible. Ethnic cleansing, the chosen/exceptional/noble/ people, The lord of hosts (god of armed battle) , holy conquest. How quickly this Zionist vision of the Torah subsumes the very different appeal of the healer, anti-priest, bearer of the sermon on the mount, son of Adam, lamb of God.
There is a major effort underway to actually deconstruct the Russian Federation:
National minorities of Russian Federation discuss its deimperialization in Prague
I support the EAEU construct and all European nation-states, and the USA, the original nation-state with agro-industrial economies.
I am no fan of deconstructing these, rather of the harmony of interests.
I never give up hope….
You do not know how delighted my wife and I are
We have got a Baby Girl
She is so little and Beautiful…and
Seems Perfectly Well
Do you understand how much fun we are going to have????
Her little brothers 4 & 6 are besotted with their little Baby Sister
Grandad & Nana
She will keep us alive for at least the next 10 years..
I will know what a little girl will be like
winding up grandad
i hope – that is why I need to get fit
I find the article a bit confusing.
How I see it, a nation state is constructed. The EU is trying to create Europe, out of deconstructing its member states. Wiping out their national identity.
There is no Europeans, other that in ‘elite’ minds … it becomes meaningless to say what Europeans need to do.