DEI – the latest article of faith of the Western world – stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, does it not? On the face of it, yes. On second thoughts it translates into: Descent Entering Inferno. The 2024 Olympic Games that are being held in France have more for us in store than the macabre opening or the rainbow-refugee-ecology all-pervasive propaganda. The latest event that is reverberating in the internet and the media is a boxer fight during which a male-turned-female reported a victory over a female-remaining-female. The details are commonly known and repeated here and there, so we are not going to replicate them. Rather, we are going to call the reader’s attention to the rot that is incapacitating the Western civilization.

The clap-trap of “no nation, no religion, no possession” – as the lyrics of a notorious song say – has been enriched with the clap-trap of “no biological sex”. The idea may have begun with the feminist movement whose representatives cursed their fate of being born women and whose representatives wanted to emulate men in everything and anything. The very idea of women punching themselves like men sometimes do says it all. Then the sick idea that “you are not born a woman, you become one” emerged and was followed by the assault on the biological sex. Medical mutilations misleadingly referred to as sex or gender reassignment have been propagated and infused into the minds of millions of people ac acceptable and progressive. Liberasts and tolerasts of all hues chipped in their sick ideas of total liberalism and tolerance with the result being that one can now say that one is a man or a woman irrespective of the evidence of the senses (and the common sense) and – mind you! – change the sex as many times as he – she – it – pleases.

Modern re-enactment of Beauty and the Beast

If so, then why not set a man against a woman in a boxing fight and make everybody view the man as a woman? Don’t you dare voice your objection or else! Or else you’ll be called a bigot and – necessarily – far right! Such a fight is after all the new normal. Haven’t we been accustomed by the Hollywood in the hundreds of movies in which female characters can successfully physically cope with male characters and even beat men up? Are we not being accustomed to the idea of female soldiers who can and ought to kill the enemy just like their male counterparts? There are no differences between biological sexes as there are no differences between biological races, right? If your senses (and your common sense) tell you a different story, then consult your doctor because obviously you need a therapy.

And you know what? Those bellicose female feminists barely protest when they see a woman confronted with a man who goes by the name of a woman! No wonder, then. They have been caught in their own trap. Males and females do not really differ, and if in some cases they do, then of course only in the sense that women are better than men. If so, surely you expect a woman to be capable of physically standing up to a man and overwhelming him, don’t you? Your default Hollywood image of a slim woman (I suppose most of my readers will have watched “G.I. Jane” or a similar motion picture) doing it better than any man, the image that has been planted into your psyche along with the many texts that you have read and absorbed, along with the “wisdom” of the talking heads that you have let sink in in your mind while consuming the mass media confirm this conviction: a woman is as good as a man, both intellectually and physically.

If you’re still in doubt then recall the latest question of our times, which is: what is a woman? Educated people in the West have big trouble defining a woman. You will have known by now that a woman can have a penis, while a man can breast-feed a baby. Anything goes. The brains of the Western man and the Western woman have been confused to such an extent that even the female victims of this madness barely protest.

Do you know what is the worst part of the whole craziness? No, not the fact that the evil-doers behind it will progress with their DEI (sure, they will); no, not the fact that Westerners have either embraced this madness wholeheartedly or sheepishly fear to object; the worst part of it all is that the evil-doers (and their active and passive supporters) think that the rest of the globe will follow suit, and that the rest of the globe is envious of what the liberasts and tolerasts have managed to achieve and enforce, for the liberasts and tolerasts genuinely think they have advanced the humankind by an eon!

The hubris of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 just boggles your mind. Why? Because the ideology of inclusion has been somehow married to the ideology of exclusion. On the one hand the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has created and is sponsoring the Refugee Olympic Team made up of 37 athletes (inclusion), on the other hand the same IOC banned Russian and Belorussian sportsmen and sportswomen from taking part (exclusion). To be precise, they can take part as non-Russians and non-Belorussians, with their national anthems and flags prevented from being heard or seen. The few who agreed to participate in the Games have had insult added to injury: they were banned from being present at the opening ceremony. Why?

The Olympic Games Paris 2024 is just yet another instrument in the hands of the West with which to bully disobedient nations and to throw the West’s weight about. It is also a vector for the promotion of the West’s propaganda to the tune of “welcome refugees”. The Olympic Games have long been politicized and weaponized. Still, the current hubris is glaring. The managers of the world know only two principles of governance: the carrot and the stick. All nations are looked upon like they were children. If a child behaves well, he receives a lollipop and is allowed to have fun in the playground; if a child misbehaves, he does not receive a lollipop and is not allowed to have fun in the playground. It is as simple as that.

An aside. Both Vladimir Putin and Alexandr Lukashenko are said to be dictators. For all that, there are some Russian and Belorussian athletes who swallowing their national pride decided to take part in the Olympic Games. Remind me, please, was there ONE sportsman from the USSR taking part in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games when the Soviets decided to boycott the event? Not one? Hm… and still at that time no one dared call Leonid Brezhnev, the then leader of the Soviet Union, a dictator.

The West’s ideologues are adept at reconciling mutually exclusive things. White people are racist and still millions of people of colour keep flocking to white countries to taste the racism at the hands of the white people. Weird, is it not? No religion should be above mockery, criticism and ridicule, and still it is only and exclusively Christianity that is mocked, criticized and ridiculed. A black woman representing France and singing the Marseillaise is all right, but a white woman representing, say, Congo or Kenya, would be equated with the appropriation of these countries’ culture. The world is overpopulated, but somehow Europe is not, because it can – and, indeed, should – absorb millions and millions of immigrants. A Hindu or black leader of a white nation is a mark of progressive blindness to the colour of the skin, but a white leader or – still worse – leaders of South Africa or Nigeria would be renounced as a revival of colonialism and white supremacy. Women have been liberated from the dominance of men, and yet men-turned-women are allowed to compete in female sports events and… naturally dominate female competitors. Inclusion transmutes into exclusion while exclusion morphs into inclusion.

The opening ceremony – this adoration of the ugly, the disgusting, the distasteful – with a beheaded Marie Antoinette speaking to the audience was also part of this inclusiveness-cum-exclusiveness. The Left just love subversiveness and ugliness and deconstruction. Was it not in the name of fraternity that thousands were guillotined during the French Revolution? Was it not in the name of equality that churches and graves were desecrated? Was it not in the name of liberty that dissenters were silenced for ever? Yet, there is some logic in all this. Once you exclude those who do not fit your vision of society, you are left with those who can be perfectly included. Isn’t it a fine Hegelian dialectic of a negative transforming itself into something positive? Isn’t it a fine Marxian dialectic of a reductionist exclusion resulting in an all-encompassing inclusion? There is a method in this madness!

Victoria Nuland and Yulia Tymoshenko. One from the United States, the other from Ukraine. Both deeply involved in politics, both ambitious, both throwing their weight about, and both full of and burning with passionate, violent, irrational and implacable hatred against Russia. Two gorgons, two women, two evil-doers, two female-warmongers, two inciters and sowers of discord, unfriendliness, and animosity. 

It is sometimes alleged by the feminists of all shades and persuasions that once women are in positions of power, the world will be a better place because – so runs the naive explanation – women are naturally well-disposed to all humans and care much more about peace than men do. Alas! History has taught us again and again that women can be and usually are far more cruel than men! The two viragoes – Nuland and Tymoshenko – seem to be in competition with men: all feminist-minded women are in competition with men. The two viragoes badly need to show that they can outperform men in war-mongering. The two viragoes have been targeting Vladimir Putin not merely as a Russian, but as a man, a male, a nightmare figure that they would like to be seduced and raped by and at the same time that they hate intensely. What have the two hags concocted?

Well, Victoria Nuland’s scheme was simple and she made no bones about it. Look, she said on an occasion, the United States will print billions of dollars and lend them to Kiev; with this money Kiev will purchase weaponry and shells from American manufacturers and will run into debt while causing harm to Russia, the United States’ long-standing political rival. Sure enough, Ukraine is not going to beat Russia nor is Ukraine going to ever be able to pay off its debt. Ukraine will merely keep Russia occupied and drain some of Russia’s resources, simultaneously being forced to sell all its assets – among them arable land – to the United States companies in an attempt to settle Ukraine’s liabilities. Ingenious! And you know what? Ukrainian “patriots” fell for the trap. Ukrainian patriots who cared so very much about Ukraine and its independence began to run up huge debt, liberating Ukraine from Russia and enslaving the same Ukraine to the United States (and the rest of the Western world)! Tweedledum and Tweedledee, indeed! But then, you know, to any East European, an American overlord is viewed as a guardian angel while a Russian friend is viewed as a bitter enemy. That’s the way it is, has always been, and will ever be. That West only needs to exploit this peculiar psychology for its own interests.

What did Yulia Tymoshenko do? She used to spew hatred against Russia, Russians and all things Russian as much as she could. She went down in recent history as one who called on the West to nuke Ukraine’s largest neighbour. She is a billionaire – at least in her case patriotism pays – and she has always been holding positions of power. She wanted Ukraine to expand, she flexed Ukraine’s muscles, and she incited animosity towards Moscow. Victoria Nuland and Yulia Tymoshenko make a perfect tandem. There is a but, though. Victoria Nuland has tried to cause harm to Russia and in the process has not caused much harm to the United States whereas Yulia Tymoshenko has pushed her country, the country she supposedly cared about so much, to the brink of annihilation: a 20 percent loss of Ukraine’s territory, a 50% loss of Ukraine’s population, along with the utter devastation of Ukraine’s economy and infrastructure. Yulia Tymoshenko, how do you feel about all this?

The American harpy underrated Russia’s military prowess and national stamina, and so she has lost. The Ukrainian harpy overrated American military prowess and the determination of the West to combat Russia, and so she has lost. Both harpies were obsessed with Russia as the world’s villain number one and neither acted with prudence or caution. Either wanted to make history, and either desired to show off that their femininity was more bellicose than any man’s masculinity. Both have been miserably blinded by their irrational hate.

There is one other gorgon – virago – harpy – acting in between them: Ursula von der Leyen. She too is obsessed with hatred towards President Putin in particular and Russia in general, she too does not care how many Ukrainians will lose their life or limbs, she, too, is hellbent on proving how much better and more effective she is than any of her male colleagues.

Three women with misguided – distorted – warped ideals of what a woman ought to be. Three Jezebels – three Shakespearean witches from the Macbeth drama – three incarnations of Lady Macbeth, an overambitious woman, who compelled her husband to commit crime after crime after another crime, who was ashamed of her femininity and prayed to the powers that be that they unsex her!

                                                     Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!'

[Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 5]

Lovers of all humanity that they feign to be, in their heart of hearts they all – Victoria Nuland, Yulia Tymoshenko, and Ursula von der Leyen – are filled with extreme cruelty, devoid of compunction and remorse, full of poisonous gall instead of nourishing milk. They turn their faces away from the sight of the hundreds of dead and amputees. They do not wish to see the wound their knives inflict nor do they want anybody to see through the darkness of their psychological make-up.

In former socialist countries – countries of Central and Eastern Europe – almost all major managerial positions needed to be held by the representatives of the working class or the peasantry. Make a survey of the educational or professional background of all the leaders of those countries in between 1945 and 1989, and you will have a hard time finding individuals with a genuine university degree or individuals whose parents were members of the intelligentsia or – God forbid! – the gentry. There were exceptions here and there, but you know: exceptions prove the rule. Now this policy of staffing the government, the institutions, the military and the law enforcement with working-class people and people of rural descent was something that was enforced on the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Paradoxically it was imposed by the leaders of the leftist parties who were for the most part descendants of the gentry or the intelligentsia. Probably, genuine workers and genuine peasants would not have come up with an idea of thinking that they are sufficiently qualified to hold the reins of power. The members of the working class and the peasantry needed first to be brainwashed into believing that an unqualified individual was both good enough to lead a nation, to run an institution or to manage a manufacturing plant, and that such an individual was even better than all those educated representatives of the intelligentsia or the gentry.

We should not wonder, after all. The leftist movement is all about equality and equity, all about robbing Peter to pay Paul, all about promises of brotherhood and justice (necessarily with the adjective social) and bliss. The leftist movement is also all about enforcing brotherhood and love and respect on people. Yes, about enforcing those feelings and forbidding the feelings of dislike, loathing or hate. Yes, the leftists are about not only challenging the biological sex but also challenging most basic psychological processes.

The leftist ideas were born and developed in Western Europe (Saint Simon, Fourier; Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire; Marx, Engels; Marcuse, Habermas, Fromm, Spinelli), and they were picked up by the intellectuals from the Eastern part of the continent, where they were put to practice for a number of decades. They were then exported to the Third World, making an impression that the capitalist – right-wing – world was about to disappear. Apparently it did not, though in practice it has all but demised. It is not that the capitalists were done away with: they have been converted to the leftist ideas!

Alexander Soros, a leftist billionaire is among the backers of Kamala Harris

The leftist ideas of viewing society as two opposing classes have transpired to be very attractive to the intellectuals around the globe and to the capitalists. Since towards the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century due to the technological development the numbers of the working class and the peasantry have waned to the point of almost disappearing, the leftist activists desperately looked around for a replacement and they have found it soon enough: women, non-white people and individuals with unnatural sexual proclivities.

On the face of it today’s world propagated by the leftist movements resembles the one from Central and Eastern Europe of yesterday: the difference is that now leading positions are to be held by representatives of non-white people, women and individuals with abnormal sexual proclivities. It is not longer the workers or the peasants who are adored and worshipped.

Why are we talking about all this? For the simple reason that history has somehow repeated itself. Again, it is not the qualifications or competence of an individual that matters, but the individual’s social position. Back then, in Central and Eastern Europe, you were a good candidate to run a country or a factory or an institution if you happened to be a worker or a peasant; today your chances of being selected to similar managerial positions increase automatically if you are (i) non-white and (ii) a woman. Hence Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s vice president – she was selected precisely because she is a woman and because she is non-white; hence Kamala Harris as a replacement for Joe Biden because she is (i) non-white, and (ii) a woman. Never mind her competence, her qualifications, her whatever. The two most important features are there for all to see: a non-white woman. That’s it.

Now there is some difference between the former socialist countries and the leftist countries of the Western World today. In the former socialist countries, the procedure of selecting the working-class individuals or individuals from the peasantry was enforced: people in general did not approve of it. It so happens at present in the West that the majority of whites have had their minds changed and they embrace the new normal. Many, far too many, vote for non-white, non-male candidates just to virtue-signal how progressive they are, just not to expose themselves as racists or misogynists. They voted for Barack Obama because he is black; they voted for Hilary Clinton because she is a woman; they are going to vote for Kamala Harris because she is both.