The New Intermarium & New Promethiesm, and the reckless UK Government
There’s a wind of change gusting through the international order, and as usual, given the people who are pumping the bellows of transformation, it’s an ill one blowing no good. There is a theory that the US Government is not wasting any opportunities arising from problems that the EU is experiencing as it stumbles along the last phase to superstate. The so-called Three Seas Initiative, something touted as being a challenge to centralised EU power, has the backing of Washington. Indeed, Trump attended the second summit in July 2017, and has praised the project, which is about economic and strategic co-operation between what could loosely be called Eastern European nations of the EU, plus Austria. The concept looks to be a power play to earn collective international significance by continuing to offer opportunities to the USA in its efforts to destabilise and disempower Russia, and economic ones to China. Observers are also calling the project a reincarnation of the Intermarium, which was an inter-war Polish plan to bring Eastern Europe into a federation, presumably ruled from Warsaw. There are a number of ambitious countries in the Three Seas grouping who might understand that they need to be fellow travellers up to a certain point until one capital can dominate, and so it would be unfair, from a standing start, to lump all suspicion on Poland. However, the Polish also had other ideas before the Second World War that involved the disintegration of Russia, and divesting it of territory, and so the country begins to look like the chief trouble maker – historically and contemporarily. Perhaps, then, there was no big surprise that Theresa May did a bit of Russia-bashing when she was in Warsaw recently to sign a military deal between Britain and Poland – which was a worrying coincidental development, given that Poland is revealing itself to be such a loose cannon. The assumption that the author makes is that the UK is acting on behalf of a “leading from behind” Trump administration for US interests that coincide with Polish ones – which makes it much worse than if the UK was treaty-making with Poland of its own volition. There are implications for Britons that are frankly unacceptable – like the possibility of Polish personnel serving in or commanding British armed forces; how much more awful it is that these and other nightmare scenarios would come about because the British Government was acting on the orders of a foreign power.
Of course, the UK was already committed to the defence of Poland trough the latter’s membership of NATO [bringing that military grouping right up to the borders of Russia is conveniently forgotten when UK, US and Polish politicians want to dole out blame for aggressiveness, and attribute it solely to Moscow]. For some reason, then, the Treaty on Defence and Security Co-operation was described in British corporate-media as being “landmark”. It could be because it signifies a move away from treaties by bloc, and a return to a networked environment of bilateral agreements that in the past have conjured terrible wars out of nowhere by snowballing alliances. The only other agreement of the same type that the UK has is with France, which enables French personnel to command British armed forces units. Should we expect exactly the same relationship with Poland? The details of the deal suggest so:
[The agreement] will provide a framework for defence cooperation on areas such as training, exercises, information sharing, defence industry cooperation and capability development, building on the deployment of British troops to Poland under Enhanced Forward Presence following the last UK-Poland summit held in London in November 2016.
The Prime Minister is also set to agree improved UK-Poland cooperation to counter Russian disinformation in the region, including through new joint strategic communications projects. The UK will provide £5 million for the projects, with Poland expected to contribute a similar amount. The projects will aim to build both of our capacities to detect and counter Russian information operations, and deliver valuable support to Belsat, a Polish-funded TV channel providing unbiased, free and frank reporting for Belarussians.
The reader is asked to especially note the intention to broadcast anti-Russian propaganda into Belarus; the significance of this will become clear shortly.
What we can generally say about this is that, despite Brexit, the UK government is pursuing the sort of integration of its own armed forces with those of foreign powers that is so obnoxious to Britons when the EU’s name is connected with such shenanigans. Ironically, the UK-Polish deal has been sold as a foil to EU ambitions in those regards – and in supposedly Brexit-supporting publications like the Express, which ran the headline: “Turning the screw on EU: Theresa May and Poland unite with HUGE military cooperation deal”. Furthermore, the sort of close co-operation between the UK, and Poland and France, could as easily serve as a back-door to the UK being locked into the EU military command structure. There is a particular worry to be had about the agreement with Poland in the context of a long-held desire by some in the British armed forces to recruit Poles directly into the ranks. This might be all well and good while British armed forces are naught but mercenaries for the Queen engaged in robbery and murder abroad, but there would be cause for all sorts of serious trouble if a British military, comprised of foreigners, was ever deployed to the streets of the UK. [The author submits that the UK Government could not be more provocative than if it gave regiments of Poles, who in his opinion suffer from a superiority complex with regards Britain, an opportunity to exercise power over UK citizens].
If the break-up of the EU is envisioned by US and UK planners, as some internet analysts think is the case, then having military vassals in Eastern Europe from the Baltic to the Adriatic and the Black Sea would suddenly look like the age-old game of denying Germany access to the Middle East and Central Asia. This was Britain’s own game in the 20th century, but it’s one that the USA must take on to ensure its hegemony isn’t challenged by the central European power. There is a question in all this that doesn’t have a definite and clear answer; it is this: with its move to closer co-operation with Poland, is Britain striking out for itself, or is it merely singing and dancing to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy? It is true that there appears to be a growing perception in the international community of American weakness, and this might indeed render believable the idea that the UK is dealing for its own sake. The author wrote about US failure earlier in 2017 with an article that argued that the US couldn’t fight, let alone hope to win another conventional war at this point in its degeneration. Syria shows that the USA cannot even win unconventional wars. Some internet analysts point to a flaw in the American character, and in fact a collective madness brought on by the conditions that the US Government imposes on American people necessary for subsuming them into the New World Order. Indeed, at a certain point, doubt must emerge in the mind of a reasonable person as to whether the USA even has the competence to win that most unconventional war of all, the nuclear exchange.
That the US is becoming thought of as a waning power might have been reflected in the recent castigation at the UN. While on one hand Donald Trump’s decision about recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital was electioneering targeting one end of the spectrum of US degeneracy (the “rapture” set), and might have served his own personal tastes, the author is of the opinion that it was intended by US military strategists to try and drive a wedge further between the motor of the EU in the West of Europe, and its newer Eastern membership. Poland, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Czech Republic, Latvia were the 6 “Three Seas” countries that abstained from the vote. Austria, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia were the ones who voted for the rebuke of the USA (and this might provide a realistic picture of two factions within the organisation). The fact of the matter is that Trump’s declaration on Jerusalem was just too unreasonable for the likes of France, Germany, Italy and the UK to agree with, given that it is a widely understood plank of any future Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that the issue of the Israeli/Palestinian capital would be decided by negotiations, not by unilateral declaration by a super power. The UK Government might itself pump out anti-Russian propaganda about an invasion of Crimea and the like, but it surely can’t hold such viewpoints when dealing in quiet diplomatic corridors and hope to be taken seriously. At some point, there has to be real politik that is impervious to propaganda. Indeed, even the pro-US half-dozen “Three Seas” countries couldn’t bring themselves to vote with the USA.
That being said, Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, announced that there was going to be a party for all the countries that it says are on the US’ side – including, apparently, the ones that didn’t vote. What must be hoped to be gained from the stunt is the perception of separateness – one side against another, with the US’ Eastern European pals declared in the “good guys” camp. This comes on top of moves by the EU to sanction Poland for changes made to laws affecting that country’s judiciary (described as a coup by the land’s most senior judge – more on that later). On top of this is the tiff between Brussels and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic about refusal to take “brown migrants”. If we cut to the chase (to fully explain shortly), in the West of Europe, there is a belief that immigration is desirable for breaking down national identity, while in the East, governments prefer to pursue an older form of New World Order which involves maintaining the racially homogenised status quo.
And so, it would be little wonder that certain Eastern European countries might be finding the EU too restrictive as they grow into their post-Communist skins, and their true colours start to show. Although the natural thing to do – as we have done – might be to discuss US and UK ambitions in Eastern Europe, it shouldn’t be forgotten that there are countries there who have long-held plans of their own.
Britons perhaps tend to see Poland as a victim of German and Russian aggression, and this would be due to a deliberate quashing of Poland’s belligerent inter-war manifestation. Instead, Britons are regularly fed with lies about what good and essential allies the Poles made in World War II. The author submits that the actual and considerable Polish collaboration with Germany is something that is actively being written out of the history books. When one looks for numbers, one finds reports from sources that claim that anything up to half a million Poles were conscripted into the Wehrmacht. Despite this, Poland has become eternally praiseworthy because of the couple of hundred that served in the RAF. The Express writer who covered May’s recent trip to Warsaw jumped the propaganda shark by stating that “Poland and Britain have been close military allies since Polish allies flew with the RAF during the Battle of Britain”. The Cold War is thus so expertly forgotten.
Despite the memory-hole treatment of Polish history, reality still stubbornly refuses to disappear, and reveals itself in the concept of the Intermarium, which indicates that Poland had expansionist ambitions between 1918 and 1939. The Intermarium was most definitely a Polish plan, the brainchild of Polish leader Józef Piłsudski, and it proposed a federation of the countries that now make up the Three Seas organisation (except Austria) along with Finland, Belarus, Ukraine and the rest of Yugoslavia. It was supposed to revive the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which at the end of the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, was a considerable regional power with extensive territory. Arguably, the motivating inclination behind the Intermarium was the reconfiguration of Eastern Europe into a Polish Empire. This is not all. “Prometheism” (and the scholar of the Masonic origin of the New World Order will note the name) was a Polish concept with the aim of dismembering the Russian Empire, presumably with an eye on acquiring territory from the ensuing weakness. The author understands that it continues to be a matter of Polish bitterness that the Russians conquered certain territory so as to curtail Polish territorial ambition, and diminish its clout. Moreover, the author begins to see that the Polish struggle to be a minor world power is not consigned to the history books, but indeed was reinvigorated at the departure of the Communist government which, by reason of sharing a political nature with its neighbours, and being vassal to the Soviet Union, had restricted Polish territorial ambitions. Arguably, Prometheism was dusted off and expressed in the last decade and resulted in Ukraine being prised out of the Russian sphere of influence (there is not enough time presently to account for Poland’s never-reported activity in that event, or in Ukrainian internal affairs based on Polish territorial interests ([here is a sample]). Additionally, just this month the British Government has promised Poland the means by which to try and do the same with Belarus (see the UK-Poland defence deal).
In 2015, the Czech Republic actually offered to hand over land to Poland to settle the sort of territorial dispute that Britons might have thought had gone out of fashion before 1939. Polish expansionism is not a fantasy, and what makes it especially dangerous, as it points Eastward particularly, is its undoubted racial aspect. FBEL started to explore how a hunger in Central and Eastern Europe for confederation based on race was satiated by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, and would have been realised but for the opposition presented it by the Soviet Union. At the root of it all is a secret society belief system, which always comes down to this: there is a chosen people – the illumined adepts – who manage the affairs of the world because they have evolved into gods [the reader must take the time to read the article linked to above to understand the reality of Masonic/Luciferian foundation of Aryanism]. Members of the Western ruling classes seem to differ in their understanding of any rationale that empowers them in that they don’t think that racial homogeneity in the society they govern has any bearing on their right to rule – perhaps due to the contact between Muslims (on the face of it) and the crusading orders of knight between which Masonry was transmitted into the West. Instead, a common thread appears to exist in Nazi Aryanism, Kurganism – as the author has coined what seems to be the Eastern European tendency (named after the proto-Indo-European people) – and Zionism (Christian Identity, with American Exceptionalism, for that matter) whereby the right to rule involves reclaiming a spiritual, purified homeland.
Unfortunately, the evidence is there just for the finding. Again, the reader must attend to the ugliness on display at the November rally in Warsaw where Polish marchers carried banners calling for “pure blood” and “white Europe”. The writer of a New York Times piece on the subject confirmed what the author has come to understand as a matter of fact: “Anti-Semitism is a deeply entrenched and historically rooted element of this Polish nationalist worldview.” The same article also explains:
“…A recurrent theme in Polish national mythology… [is that] Poland as a rampart of Christianity, the Christ of Nations. Poland, according to this trope, has repeatedly, and heroically, suffered for the sake of others, especially the rest of Christian Europe.
This is saying that the entire nation has a collective Messiah complex. Right here – and the writer of the article probably doesn’t realise – is confirmation of the Luciferian Kurganism. Poland is a Christ nation; in the Mystery Religion, the Christ is merely the office of the saviour and doesn’t refer to Yeoshua. The Polish, apparently, are a chosen people who will become as gods.
The ugliness is not confined to the masses. At the first Three Seas initiative summit, Polish President Andrzej Duda called the initiative “a new concept to promote Europe’s unity and cohesion”. Because the Three Seas project has no western European membership, and as the West is compromised by its immigrant population (suggested by the word “cohesion”, but we shall see more evidence that this is what was meant), Duda was expressing the idea that “Europe” is an entity that must be defined racially. As such, Western Europe can’t be considered European in the sense that is meant – as a land for white people.
Now consider this extract from co-Muslim-bashing Breitbart:
A former member of Poland’s counter-terror police and an academic expert on information warfare and terrorism have articulated their concern about the intellectual and spiritual collapse of European civilisation, remarking it is “at the end of its existence”.
In fact, the complaint is about France and Germany – Breibart used the word “European” where it very probably wasn’t originally. What is going on here is an articulation of the belief that a country’s destiny is determined by its racial purity. Western Europe is dead, according to this idea, because it is compromised by immigration.
When one reads what the Hungarian Prime Minister, and fully decloaked racist, Viktor Orban, said in a speech in October 2017, the New Intermarium looks like a distinct possibility, with national capitals evidently willing to defer somewhat to a centralising power that brings the folk together under the mythology stated above. Orban said that “the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians and Hungarians should unite” in a process of creating a “zone without migrants” in the name of “a safe, fair, Christian and free Europe”. Again, the reference to Europe can’t refer to any of the land from the Eastern border of Germany up to the Atlantic.
The truth of the matter is that a state cannot be compromised by having a racially diverse population. The colour of a population’s skin, or their religion doesn’t affect a country’s destiny. It all comes down to whether or not a country has a unified culture that is conducive for prosperity – in other words, does it have rule of law, and are the rights of individuals protected. We will probably discover (again) that homogeneity is a boon for tyranny, because there doesn’t need to be any tolerance; there doesn’t need to be an understanding of the right of another individual who is a member of a minority because he is not of the same religion, or the same race as the majority. What should be very troubling is that serious voices from within Poland are sending warnings that the country is indeed moving towards authoritarianism; we return to the recent sayings of the country’s most senior judge, Malgorzata Gersdorf
The coup d’etat against the structure of one of the most important state institutions is taking place – not with armed force or paramilitary troops but by misusing legal institutions,” Ms Gersdorf, the Supreme Court chief justice, said in the open letter published on Friday.
I warn the government: do not break the social contract written in the form of the constitution. You are walking carelessly along the abyss into which the whole nation may finally fall down.
The UK cannot afford to fall down with Poland (again), and the British people would be extremely badly advised to tolerate a government that exposed them to such a risk.
