Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The oppression of women has been at the core of the CIA’s propaganda attacks against Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. All the media outlets, think tanks, NGOs, parties, and personalities that make up the CIA’s extensive payroll accuse Iran of oppressing women. This campaign of demagoguery reached alarming levels when the U.S. government decided to attempt a coup through a failed color revolution and now bombards the Persian nation incessantly.

Daily events, however, invariably demolish this demagoguery and cruelly expose its hypocrisy.

This artificial feminist movement is even authorized by its sponsors to denounce Trump’s sexism or Netanyahu’s violence when such denunciations have no power to affect the general policy of imperialism and represent no serious confrontation with those governments. Or when Democrats and liberals want to undermine the power of the far right solely to reap electoral benefits. In any case, this phenomenon amounts to nothing more than an imperialist pawn.

The dominant slogans about the oppression of women follow to the letter the script of the great bankers and capitalists, especially the European and American ones. The same applies to the demagoguery surrounding the oppression of Black people, homosexuals, Indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the various “minorities.”

It is enough to see that this monstrous propaganda apparatus, which made such a spectacle against Trump’s sexism, fully supports the imperialist aggressions led by the president of the United States. Or did anyone see CNN, BBC, DW, and Rede Globo denouncing the kidnapping of the Venezuelan first lady and deputy Cilia Flores along with Nicolás Maduro? Is it possible to find a greater oppression against women than the massacre of at least 150 girls at the school in Minab, in southern Iran, carried out by a U.S. bombing launched from a base in the United Arab Emirates? And among the more than 1,300 people killed in U.S. and Israeli attacks against Iran, how many hundreds were women?

The imperialist aggression against Iran is being fully supported by the feminist demagoguery industry made in the USA. Part of it even criticized Israel’s genocide in Gaza, but only so as not to lose the little credibility it still manages to maintain, thanks to the blindness of the majority of the petty bourgeoisie. Yet from the moment the regime responsible for the extermination of around 15,000 Palestinian women—the terrorist regime of Israel—launched aggression together with the United States against Iran, Jeffrey Epstein’s colleagues suddenly turned into liberators of Iranian women.

Of course, all these immaculate fighters against fake news will not say that Iran is one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East, where women have achieved rights that they do not have in most neighboring countries, where they enjoy broad access to higher education, the labor market, leisure, and freedom to dress in ways found in no other country of the Gulf. Rights won by the Revolution of 1979.

What the imperialists have never accepted is precisely the fact that Iran carried out a revolution that freed it from the slavery imposed on the overwhelming majority of the world’s peoples by the very same forces that present themselves as liberators of women. And in the face of the constant aggressions of those slave masters, that revolution has only grown stronger—to the point that, at this moment, it is paying back with interest all the provocations, threats, and attacks it has suffered over decades.

The actions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have no precedent in modern history. By destroying or severely damaging U.S. and NATO military bases, embassies, and other facilities—and by bombing the largest of them (the land stolen from Palestine called “Israel”)—Iran is striking a monumental blow against the imperialist presence in the Middle East.

“We have no choice but to put an end to the American presence in the Gulf,” said the Persian deputy foreign minister, Sayed Khatibzadeh. These words express Iran’s conviction that its war is not merely a war of definitive independence against aggressive powers—though that alone would already justify fighting it. It is an even more sacred war: a war to free the entire region from the colonial domination of the United States and other imperialist powers, which are there only to plunder its oil and natural wealth and to control one of the arteries of the global capitalist system.

Since the late nineteenth century, in order to guarantee the plunder of those peoples, the imperialist powers imposed puppet dictatorships that would control the populations with weapons, training, technology, and full political, diplomatic, and economic support from the United States and European imperialist nations. They even artificially created many of those countries.

The regimes of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and of course Israel remain in power only because of the strong military presence of the United States and NATO. Without it, they would never exist. The governments of most of these countries are monarchies or military dictatorships where political rights and democratic freedoms do not exist and where, obviously, women live in the deepest darkness. At this stage, of course, “progressive” demagoguery will not utter a word, but it is difficult to believe that Iranian women are more oppressed than Saudi women.

By attacking imperialist installations in those countries, Iran is undermining the foundations of colonial domination over their peoples. It not only weakens the U.S. military presence but also, consequently, the very puppet regimes created to more conveniently exploit their wealth. These artificial and oppressive regimes become increasingly fragile as Iran expels imperialism. The weakening of these regimes means the weakening of exploitation over their peoples. Iran’s expulsion of imperialism opens the path for the fall of this entire system of oppression, especially the regimes themselves.

It will not be long before the peoples of the entire Middle East hail the Islamic Republic of Iran. And women will be freer than ever, following the example of Iranian women.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

La opresión de la mujer forma parte del eje central de los ataques propagandísticos de la CIA contra Irán desde la Revolución Islámica de 1979. Todos los medios de comunicación, think tanks, ONG, partidos y personalidades que componen la extensa nómina de la CIA acusan a Irán de oprimir a las mujeres. Esta campaña de demagogia alcanzó niveles alarmantes cuando el gobierno estadounidense decidió impulsar un golpe mediante una revolución de color fallida y ahora bombardea incesantemente a la nación persa.

Los acontecimientos cotidianos, sin embargo, invariablemente echan por tierra esta demagogia y desenmascaran su hipocresía de manera cruel.

Este movimiento feminista artificial incluso recibe autorización de sus financiadores para denunciar el machismo de Trump o la violencia de Netanyahu cuando esas denuncias no tienen el poder de afectar la política general del imperialismo y no representan ningún enfrentamiento contundente con esos gobiernos. O cuando los demócratas y liberales quieren minar el poder de la extrema derecha únicamente para cosechar beneficios electorales. En cualquier caso, este fenómeno no pasa de ser una masa de maniobra imperialista.

Las consignas dominantes sobre la opresión de la mujer siguen al pie de la letra el guion de los grandes banqueros y capitalistas, sobre todo los europeos y estadounidenses. Lo mismo ocurre con la demagogia en torno a la opresión de los negros, de los homosexuales, de los indígenas, de los inmigrantes y de las diversas “minorías”.

Basta ver que todo ese aparato monstruoso de propaganda, que tanto teatro hizo contra el machismo de Trump, presta todo su apoyo a las agresiones imperialistas encabezadas por el presidente de Estados Unidos. ¿O acaso alguien vio a CNN, BBC, DW y Rede Globo denunciando el secuestro de la primera dama y diputada venezolana, Cilia Flores, junto con Nicolás Maduro? ¿Será posible encontrar una opresión mayor contra las mujeres que la masacre de al menos 150 niñas en la escuela de Minab, en el sur de Irán, ejecutada por un bombardeo estadounidense proveniente de una base en los Emiratos Árabes? Y, de las más de 1.300 víctimas fatales de ataques de Estados Unidos e Israel contra Irán, ¿cuántos centenares eran mujeres?

La agresión imperialista contra Irán está siendo apoyada íntegramente por la industria de la demagogia feminista made in USA. Parte de ella incluso criticó el genocidio de Israel en Gaza, pero solo para no perder el poco de credibilidad que todavía logra mantener, gracias a la ceguera de la mayoría de la pequeña burguesía. Sin embargo, desde el momento en que el responsable del exterminio de cerca de 15.000 palestinas, el régimen terrorista de Israel, inició la agresión junto con Estados Unidos contra Irán, ¡los colegas de Jeffrey Epstein se transformaron en libertadores de las mujeres iraníes!

Por supuesto, todos esos inmaculados combatientes de las fake news no dirán que Irán es uno de los países más progresistas de Oriente Medio, donde las mujeres han alcanzado derechos que no poseen en la mayoría de los países vecinos, donde tienen amplio acceso a la educación superior, al mercado laboral, al ocio y libertad para vestirse como en ningún otro país del Golfo. Derechos conquistados por la Revolución de 1979.

Lo que los imperialistas jamás aceptaron es precisamente el hecho de que Irán haya realizado una revolución que lo liberó de la esclavitud impuesta a la aplastante mayoría de los pueblos del mundo por los mismos que se presentan como libertadores de las mujeres. Y, frente a las constantes agresiones de esos señores de esclavos, aquella revolución solo se fortaleció, hasta el punto de que, en este momento, está devolviendo con creces todas las provocaciones, amenazas y ataques que sufrió a lo largo de décadas.

La acción del Cuerpo de los Guardianes de la Revolución Islámica no tiene precedentes en la historia moderna. Al destruir o dañar gravemente las bases militares, embajadas y demás instalaciones de Estados Unidos y de la OTAN, además de bombardear la mayor de ellas (la tierra robada de Palestina llamada “Israel”), Irán está asestando un golpe monumental contra la presencia imperialista en Oriente Medio.

“No tenemos otra opción que poner fin a la presencia estadounidense en el Golfo”, afirmó el viceministro de Relaciones Exteriores persa, Sayed Khatibzadeh. Estas palabras expresan la convicción iraní de que su guerra no es solo una guerra de independencia definitiva contra potencias agresoras —si fuera solo eso, ya valdría la pena librarla—. Es una guerra aún más sagrada: la guerra para liberar a toda la región del dominio colonial de Estados Unidos y de las demás potencias imperialistas, que no están allí sino para saquear su petróleo y sus riquezas naturales y controlar una de las arterias del sistema capitalista mundial.

Desde finales del siglo XIX, para garantizar el saqueo de aquellos pueblos, las potencias imperialistas impusieron dictaduras títeres que controlaran a las poblaciones con armas, entrenamiento, tecnología y todo el apoyo político, diplomático y económico de Estados Unidos y de las naciones imperialistas europeas. Incluso crearon artificialmente buena parte de esos países.

Los regímenes de los Emiratos Árabes, Baréin, Kuwait, Catar, Arabia Saudita, Omán, Yemen, Jordania, Líbano, Siria, la Autoridad Palestina y, por supuesto, Israel se sostienen en el poder solo gracias a la fuerte presencia militar de Estados Unidos y de la OTAN. De no ser por ello, jamás existirían. Los gobiernos de la mayoría de esos países son monarquías o dictaduras militares donde no existen derechos políticos ni libertades democráticas y donde, obviamente, las mujeres viven en la más profunda oscuridad. A estas alturas, por supuesto, la demagogia “progresista” no dirá ni una palabra, pero es difícil creer que la mujer iraní esté más oprimida que la saudí.

Al atacar las instalaciones imperialistas en esos países, Irán está minando las bases de la dominación colonial sobre sus pueblos. No solo debilita la presencia militar de Estados Unidos, sino también, como consecuencia, a los propios regímenes títeres creados para explotar con mayor comodidad sus riquezas. Estos regímenes artificiales y opresores se debilitan de manera marcada a medida que Irán expulsa al imperialismo. El debilitamiento de estos regímenes significa el debilitamiento de la explotación sobre sus pueblos. La expulsión del imperialismo por parte de Irán abre el camino para la caída de todo este sistema de opresión, especialmente de los propios regímenes.

No tardará mucho y los pueblos de todo Oriente Medio gritarán vivas a la República Islámica de Irán. Y las mujeres serán más libres que nunca, siguiendo el ejemplo de la mujer iraní.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

This month, those who follow the fate of wokeism were surprised by the news that a Brazilian feminist named Isabella Cêpa, who faces up to 25 years in prison for saying that a trans person named Érika Hilton is a man, is in Europe with refugee status. Which country? We don’t know. According to the Brazilian website Metrópoles, which interviewed Isabella Cêpa and saw the document, she cannot reveal the country during the process, so the newspaper limited itself to reporting that it is a Eastern European country and the process was handled by the European Union Agency for Asylum.

Given the current state of affairs in the West, the fact that she was granted refugee status is more surprising than the fact that she is facing years in prison for saying that a trans person is a man. If the country that granted asylum isn’t Hungary (which is in Eastern Europe, part of the European Union, and is one of those identified with the “far right”), the granting of asylum will be a shock.

Even so, the possibility of receiving the Brazilian woman through an EU agency is still surprising. Perhaps what opened up this possibility is not so much the accusation of “transphobia” but rather the harsh punishment. England, the country that has probably oppressed women the longest with the trans agenda (even putting rapists who identified as women in women’s prisons), does not have such a harsh formal punishment. Thus, what is most shocking in this whole story is the absolute disproportionality of the Brazilian possible sentence, even by hegemonic woke standards.

The countries of Great Britain have their own laws on the subject because its people elect enough woke representatives to write them. Brazil doesn’t. Brazil even has a pure-blood woke party called PSOL. However, their success is usually limited to legislative seats won with the votes of upper middle class in large urban centers. This is the case of congressperson Érika Hilton, whose birth name is Felipe Santos. This person, who once was as a prostitute, now has a blonde head of hair similar to Paris Hilton’s. More than name, Érika Hilton shares with the hotel chain heiress a fondness for luxury items and makeup. A recent scandal revealed this person hired makeup artists as parliamentary aides. Outraged, the internet began researching the prices of the fashion items flaunted by this congressperson and investigating the public funding of this person’s rhinoplasty.

Let’s go back in time, when Érika was still a black-trans-woman-from-the-periphery and, therefore, a great name for the affectations of the typical “enlightened” São Paulo resident. In the 2020 municipal election results, it was reported that Erika Hilton was the most voted woman – and feminist Isabella Cêpa complained online that the most voted woman in São Paulo was a man. Immediately, according to the English-language feminist publication Reduxx (for a long time the only one to report on the case) and the Brazilian website Metrópoles, an editor at fashion magazine Elle led a public lynching, and the threats were so severe that they even targeted her mother. Personally, I tend to doubt this kinf of reports; however, the recent makeup artist scandal showed that Erika Hilton’s online fan club is quite hostile. The fashion editor also accused Isabella Cêpa of being a racist.

But things got serious because some brilliant prosecutor from some Public Attorney Office decided to prosecute Isabella Cêpa and, somehow, got her case to the Supreme Federal Court. Now, a little Brazilian history to understand where this modus operandi came from.

In 1985, Brazil was emerging from military rule. It was implemented in an anti-communist coup staged by the CIA in 1964 during the Cold War, but in 1968 there was a kind of counter-coup that put the regime on a nationalist path, something that earned it hatred from the liberal oligarchs of São Paulo, concentrated in the newspaper Estado de São Paulo and the University of São Paulo. Among them are many lawyers. Because the military regime arrested (and sometimes permanently disappeared) a lot of politically involved people, there was plenty of room for lawyers and human rights defenders to flourish, and this with the vibrant support of the very same press that supported the CIA coup. Well, by the 1980s, the fashion for military regimes had passed, and everyone had to look democratic again. The military promoted democratic openness. The star performers were law bachelors, many of whom were elected in a Constituent Assembly and drafted the 1988 Constitution, the foundational document of the New Republic, which endures to this day.

This Constitution was designed to give law bachelors all the power, and two characteristics are fundamental to this. The first is that the Public Attorney’s Office is not subject to any of the three powers and can, in practice, prosecute anyone—since its constitutional mandate is the “defense of the legal order, the democratic regime, and […] social and individual interests” (Article 127).

Based on this vague idea, a vegan prosecutor once forced public schools to remove meat from poor children’s lunches, claiming that meat is expensive. Another feat was preventing a cow sculpture in traditional Bahia garb from being displayed at a Cow Parade, or a samba band from placing “naughty women” and “innocent men” signs to differentiate the women’s and men’s restrooms at their show. A great deal of creativity was required to investigate Bolsonaro for harassing a whale when he rid a jet-ski. In short, law bachelors who pass the public prosecutor exams are often woke, and their job consists of imposing their agendas on the public. So, this explains how a prosecutor had the brilliant idea to sue Isabella Cêpa after an online dispute.

As for the Supreme Court, of course no organization that entrusts significant power to interpreters is immune to arbitrary actions—just look at the thousands of Protestant sects, each claiming to interpret the same document. Even in the U.S., the Supreme Court’s interpretations change every now and then, causing significant political impact. However, Brazil’s situation is worse, because the Constitution (Article 102) determines that the Supreme Court criminally judges a number of authorities, including the president, members of Congress, and… the Supreme Court justices themselves. In other words, in addition to interpreting the laws that define crimes, Supreme Court justices judge themselves and those who might want to displace them. Therefore, they have complete freedom to do whatever they want—to the point that Alexandre de Moraes alone can create diplomatic crises with the United States.

Like prosecutors, Supreme Court justices tend to favor academic fads. In 2009, during the Lula administration, the Attorney General’s Office petitioned the Supreme Court to allow transgender people to change their names without undergoing surgery. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled favorably, effectively authorizing the recognition of a person’s sex by the state based on self-declaration.

Since before the New Republic, Brazilian law has considered racism and racial insult to be crimes. Racism is discriminating against someone (refusing to hire, denying access, etc.) based on their race. Racial insult is offending someone because of their race. Thus, when an Argentine fan calls a black player a monkey, he are not committing a crime of racism, but of racial insult. In 2019, based on the doctrine of “legislative omission,” the Supreme Federal Court ruled that parliament took too long to legislate on homophobia and transphobia, and then decided on its own that both are analogous to racism. In 2023, using the same argument, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) decided to equate insults against LGBTQIAPN+ (sic) people with racial insult. In practice, this second decision was much more damaging because it impacts free speech. Still, neither racism nor racial insult warrant 25 years in prison. God only knows where they got that sentence.

The case of Isabella Cêpa is a typical consequence of the judicial tyranny fostered by the 1988 Constitution. As such, it has navigated a labyrinth and now reaches its natural place: the Supreme Federal Court. According to the Metrópoles, the complaint initially originated with the São Paulo Public Attorney’s Office in 2020, was referred to the Federal Court in 2022, and there the Federal Public Attorney’s Office dismissed the complaint. Erika Hilton appealed the decision to the Federal Court and lost. Persistent, this person appealed the decision, which must be judged by the highest court of all: the Supreme Federal Court. It is alleged that equating racism with homophobia makes Isabella Cêpa a criminal. The latest news, published on August 10th, therefore after Isabella Cêpa officially became a refugee, is that the Attorney General’s Office opposes her conviction. In other words, the mad public attorney’s machine has abandoned Erika Hilton, and now it is only her personal lawyers and the Supreme Court who are left to deal with it.

If the Supreme Federal Court rules in favor of Isabella Cêpa, we Brazilians will be greatly relieved to be able to say that women don’t have penises. If the Supreme Federal Court rules in favor of Érika Hilton, it will reinforce the Trumpist narrative that Brazil lives under a judicial dictatorship.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The world is on fire; sometimes literally, usually metaphorically, always spiritually. Political chaos simmers beneath a veneer of civility. The West capitulates, the skies burn, and the news cycles churn out fear like it’s a vital organ. There’s no time to reflect, no time to breathe. Everything is noise. And somehow, amid all this motion, humanity is still lost.

Why? Because the balance has been broken. The ancient dance between yin and yang, between the masculine and feminine principles, has become a clumsy solo. The divine feminine—source of compassion, intuition, creation, nurturing, empathy, and cyclical wisdom—has been systematically exiled from the thrones of power. And without her, all that’s left is conquest without conscience, structure without soul, and innovation without meaning.

Civilisations have long understood the necessity of balance. The Taoist symbol of yin and yang, the sacred feminine in Hindu Shakti, the Great Mother in Indigenous cosmologies, and Sophia in Gnostic Christianity each acknowledge that the cosmos functions through harmony, not dominance. But look around today and you’ll see that our institutions have mistaken domination for order. They’ve enthroned the divine masculine—logic, hierarchy, aggression, and ambition—without his eternal counterpart.

This isn’t about gender. Let’s make that abundantly clear before someone clutches their pearls or their pitchforks. The divine feminine is not synonymous with women, just as the divine masculine is not exclusive to men. These are archetypal energies that run through all beings. Yet our global systems—be they political, economic, educational, or medical—have been engineered almost entirely through the lens of divine masculine excess. The result? A grotesque parody of progress.

Our governments march forward like generals without maps. Policy is measured in GDP and body counts. The UK Parliament and U.S. Congress are prime examples—arenas of constant combat where collaboration is weakness and compassion is electoral suicide. Debate is performance. Legislation is strategy. The result is a hamster wheel of rules devoid of humanity. Healthcare becomes a profit-making algorithm. Education becomes a system of metrics that churns out obedience rather than insight. Justice becomes punishment, not healing.

Corporate boardrooms reflect the same imbalance. Tech giants speak of disruption as if chaos is a virtue. Silicon Valley is littered with men who worship abstract progress but can’t sit still long enough to ask if it’s positive, benevolent, or even sane. Empathy is seen as an HR liability. Workplaces reward linear, aggressive thinking while dismissing intuition and shoving emotional intelligence into a dusty drawer labelled “CPD soft skills.”

And then there’s war, still the most prized expression of state masculinity. When diplomacy fails, which it does often and spectacularly, we send drones. We destabilise. We sanction. We occupy. We prop up. The masculine principle, when unchecked, devours complexity and demands submission. So we watched Iraq burn under the false pretext of weapons that never existed. Libya “liberated” into a failed state. Innocent civilians, mainly children, obliterated by IDF soldiers with as little conscience as the Nazis that obliterated their ancestors, but this time it’s not genocide? And the media, masquerading as a neutral observer, acts more like a cheerleader in combat boots. Where is the feminine principle that says pause, listen, feel, and consider? She’s gagged in a corner while Raytheon and BAE Systems dine with diplomats.

Those that misogynistically decry that there’s no room for the feminine concepts of emotionality and feelings when dealing with the sober realms of politics, law, and order would point to caricatures of histrionic women unable to reach informed, intelligent, and logical decisions. It is, however, that very same emotionality, fearlessness of vulnerability, and empathy that would demand cooperation, flexibility, understanding, and solutions before the divine feminine would send any of her sons to die a dramatic death within the theatre of war. Whilst there are numerous instances of the divine masculine logic being synonymous with the voice of reason, perhaps in the most important incident, whilst the warrior archetype puffs its chest and beats the drum for action, conflict, and ultimately war, it is the divine feminine that is less gung-ho and becomes the voice of the sacredness of life, therefore the voice of reason.

The rot begins early. Our schools are conveyor belts of competition, achievement, and obedience. Children are tested, ranked, and streamed before they’ve even figured out who they are. Curiosity is boxed. Intuition is ignored. Play is confined within boundaries under the guise of safety. Transhumanism is pushed subtly. The divine feminine is laughed off as flaky, emotional, woo-woo nonsense, unless it can be commodified into mindfulness apps and sold back to us as corporate wellness.

But what happens when control through coercion no longer works? When the media’s fear campaigns—climate panic, pandemic hysteria, and war drums—begin to lose their grip? When the spell of manipulation starts to fray? The unbalanced state, like any unhinged entity with too much masculine energy, resorts to brute force. Protests are met with riot gear and rubber bullets. Peaceful demonstrators are labelled extremists. In the UK, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act gives authorities sweeping powers to shut down dissent if it’s deemed a nuisance. In the U.S., police militarisation has turned cities into battle zones. Journalists are arrested, and whistleblowers, like Snowden, are in exile. COVID lockdowns saw neighbours report each other and police violently enforce curfews. In Canada, peaceful truckers protesting mandates had their bank accounts frozen. The message is clear: question the masculine aggressiveness of the system, and the benevolent, patriarchal gloves come off.

Tokenism, of course, is offered up as a substitute for real change. A few women in boardrooms. A Black president. A gay CEO. A First Nations flag waving quietly in the corner while Indigenous land is still bulldozed. But the divine feminine cannot be reduced to identity politics. She is not merely the presence of women, nor is she invoked by having more photogenic diversity in oppressive systems. If the women who rise to power are trained in the same toxic masculine traits—if they govern like Margaret Thatcher or behave like Hillary Clinton or Victoria Nuland, wielding war and neoliberal austerity as their swords—then we haven’t balanced anything. We’ve simply dressed the patriarchy in ill-fitting heels. You can’t polish a turd, but you can dress it in designer clothes and expensive jewellery and have it masquerading as progress when these “women” doubtfully have even a soul, let alone divine feminine energy coursing through their veins, probably too hyped on adrenochrome, to help heal this deeply disturbed planet.

The divine feminine is not a face or a quota. She is a way. She listens before she speaks. She nurtures before she builds. She tends to the roots, not just the harvest. She honours cycles, not just growth charts. She values life over leverage. She is found in truth-telling, in reconciliation, in community, in regeneration. And she has been exiled from every corridor of Western power.

It is no coincidence that as this exile became a global norm, so did spiritual malaise, ecological devastation, and systemic burnout. We do not simply need more women in power. We need more feminine energy in power, embodied by anyone brave enough to lead with heart, humility, and wholeness.

So how do we restore this balance? or, more realistically, create it anew?

First, we step away from the crumbling empires. The institutions are too far gone. Reform is their favourite illusion. What we need is not better bureaucracy but parallel systems: communities rooted in reciprocity, care, and creative autonomy. Think land trusts, co-ops, mutual aid networks, radical schools, and spiritual hubs that value healing as much as strategy.

Second, we must remember how to value the invisible. The unseen labour of care. The seasons of rest. The wisdom of intuition. The art of listening deeply. In a world obsessed with data and proof, the divine feminine offers something terrifying to the rational mind: the mystery.

Third, we cultivate inner sovereignty. Because balance begins within. Each of us must unlearn the grind culture, the internalised boss, and the productivity whip. We must reclaim the parts of ourselves we buried to survive: the dreamer, the healer, the feeler, and the mystic. Without inner revolution, outer systems will always recreate the old wounds.

Finally, we teach. Not just children, but each other. We share what we remember. We gather in circles, not just hierarchies. We honour stories, not just statistics. We model the world we want, even when the old one looms large.

Because from that balance—divine feminine and divine masculine dancing in tandem—comes not just peace, but evolution. New systems. New art. New technology rooted in care. New governance rooted in dignity. New communities where power is shared, not hoarded. That is the only kind of future that grows anything worth inheriting.

We are not here to perfect the broken. We are here to birth the beautiful. Let the masculine lay the foundations—but let the feminine remind us why we build. Only then will this madness make way for meaning. Only then will we be whole and able to create a future world that feels inspiring, as opposed to hopeless, for our children.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Hamlet by William Shakespeare

Shakespeare certainly knew a thing or two about protests and protesters. Take Julius Caesar, where Mark Anthony riles up the crowd and turns them into a mob, who go hunting for Brutus, Cassius and the other conspirators. When they come across Cinna the poet, they butcher him even as the gentleman doth protest too much that he is Cinna the poet, not Cinna the conspirator, whereupon they decide to kill him anyway “for his bad verses”.

Just as Shakespeare’s protesting mob were essentially a tool of revenge for the scheming Mark Anthony, so also does the same apply to the protests of our own era. Across the north of Ireland, as I write, angry mobs are once again burning families out of their rented homes, this time Roma gypsies, as well as other, more innocent foreigners who have set up shop in the wrong parts of town and who are now forced to also pay for the serial crimes of the Roma and Nigerian criminal gangs that have been allowed run amok here.

There is, of course, a centuries’ long tradition of burning people out in the north of Ireland and the 1969 Belfast pogroms saw Europe’s biggest transfer of populations since 1945. The key take away looking back on those events is that those, like Rev Ian Paisley, who orchestrated the violence, were its biggest winners, as were, of course, those in MI6 who controlled the Ian Paisleys of that era not least because they used their gunmen in the British Army and the IRA to marginalise peaceful protests for the next 30 years.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the 1968-98 Irish Troubles, it is that the bank, in this case the British regime, always wins in such controlled circumstances, not least because there are always the Mark Anthonys and Ian Paisleys at the margins to direct the mob, like they are so many unthinking herds of stampeding cattle.

The only way around that, it seems, is for the people to go totally apeshit and, as in Paris in 1789, to attack the Bastille, a largely empty prison (which housed the Marquise de Sade) and pull not only it but the entire Ancien régime down around their ears. When we take the Vendée genocide and Napoleon’s Russian caper into account, we have to ask if it was all worth the candle just to allow Macron and his husband flaunt themselves in Paris on this and every Bastille Day.

As well as helping us to clearly identify some of the ingredients that make a successful protest, Japan’s Anpo protests would suggest that an eventual modus vivendi is possible. The Anpo protests were massive Japanese protests against the American occupation and the sexual crimes American GIs still commit in Japan to this day. Although the Anpo protests drew tens of millions of organised Japanese protesters onto the streets and mass fist fights also occurred in the Japanese Parliament, those radical fires soon petered out and, outside of the nutters of the Japanese Red Army, political discourse in the Land of the Rising Sun reverted to a Zen-like comatose state under the all-seeing and all-pervasive Pax Americana.

Switching to Europe, the anti-war movement was huge in southern Germany, not least because World War 3 was going to be fought there with Soviet tanks against NATO’s nuclear arsenal. The end result of all that 1968 anti-nuclear guff was to land Germany and Europe with the psychopaths of the German Green Party, who have yet to see an excuse to start a war with Russia they do not like.

The British secret service infiltrated every radical movement that sprouted in England’s fair and pleasant land, and they uprooted the miners and their communities more thoroughly than a farmer would ploughing a field, thereby ensuring there would be no further turbulence from those quarters.

If we take a bird’s eye view of all those past protests, we can see that the state generally holds firm and redeploys, orchestrates, infiltrates and misdirects. Let’s briefly look at each of those. Because the state holds all the levers of power, if it does not buckle and, if it is not made to buckle as Louis XV1 was, then it should carry the day. Thus, as long as Zelensky has his Galician Nazi Mafia and NATO supply chain, he may as well fight to the last Ukrainian conscript as he is unlikely to be starved out, as Assad was. If the Palestinians are making progress on one front, then, as we shall see, it is easy under the current circumstances for Israel to shine the spotlight elsewhere.

Just as with American football, so also does NATO work to a playbook where, with the aid of its media, it can generally control what the populace gets hot under the collar about and what they do not. The general rule of thumb is Galician Nazis necklacing Odessan trade unionists and Uyghur cut throats selling Alawite children into sexual slavery are kosher, and Russians or Iranians biting back is haram.

Greta Thunberg sailing to Gaza exemplifies much of this. Leaving her prior shenanigans to one side, it takes guts for anyone, let alone an under-sized Viking reject, to attempt to sail into Gaza and thereby put themselves totally at the mercy of the Israelis, who do not do mercy unless, as with Greta, there is an advantage to them in doing so. Although Greta was castigated by Russell Brand and other narcissists for being a narcissist on a selfie yacht squaring off against the selfie genocidists of the IDF, the Israelis, who love taking selfies of themselves in the stolen lingerie of Gazan women, made sure to selfie themselves giving her orange juice; one of the advantages of oranges, as fans of Martin Scorsese’s the Godfather will know, is they are good for filming in poor lighting conditions and, in this case, for trying to show up Greta as the hypocrites the Israelis are.

Before leaving the selfie yacht, it is important to note that the Israelis took French MEP Rima Hassan hostage on it and that she had to endure a hunger strike during her illegal Israeli captivity and that her fellow MEPs, along with EU muppets von der Leyen and Kallas, had nothing good, bad or indifferent to say about her treatment.

Still, even as MMA fighter Conor McGregor pointed out that Trotskyite hypocrite Liam Cunningham bottled out from sailing on that yacht, it is important to note that all of those who sailed made their own individual protests and they should be saluted for that. As should West Belfast MMA fighter Paddy McCorry, who battered an Israeli fighter in the ring, all while calling him a child killer.

McCorry is not the only lone Gazan protester and his actions undoubtedly gave heart to those American students who made their own individual graduation sacrifices against the Gaza genocide and it brought back memories to me of when we went to see Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ, which a group of elderly Greek women were picketing because of its sacriligious nature, which saw Nikos Kazantzakis, the author of the book on which the film was based, excommunicated. We didn’t cross the picket and the smile of gratitude from those women was worth a hundred of Scorsese’s films.

Although Scorsese should not have made that film in deference to women like them in a world where Pussy Riot are hailed as heroes for defiling Russian cathedrals and, along with the silicone-brained Galician Nazis of Femen for “needlessly” insulting everything that is good and holy, such NATO affronts to decency are par for the course.

Still, McCorry and those Greek women and American students are minor victories in the bigger wars. We currently have a gang of locusts descending on Egypt to pretend to break the siege on Gaza but who are, whether they know it or not, trying to overthrow the Sisi government to help the Muslim Brotherhood conquer Egypt just as they and their MI6 handlers have conquered Syria.

But all of that brings us back, if not to the Nile and Cleopatra, then to Mark Anthony and his intrigues. Although Napoleon famously used “a whiff of grapeshot” to kill 100 Royalist protesters and to disperse the rest, the CIA now have Pussy Riot, Femen, Trotskyists, the Soros crew, the NDA, USAID and countless other front groups to sow dysentery in the ranks.

Look at the sorry state of the Philippines, which is being railroaded into war with China at a time when employees there can expect to be fired every 6 months to avoid accruing the most basic entitlements of long term employees. Whatever happened to the People Power Revolution?

And, whatever happened to that Pepsi ad, which proclaims that the way to deescalate riotous situations is for a Pussy Riot/Femen bimbo to crack open a can of Pepsi? A better deal perhaps than CocaCola which, last time I checked, deprives Indian farmers of water and uses child labour in Colombia, things Martin Luther King Jnr mght have disapproved of, just as surely as he would have objected to the manner in which his whole message and legacy has been branded, packaged and marketed just like one more Pepsi/Coca Cola/Pussy Riot Kool-aid offering of no intrinsic value?

Not only must we dispense with our saccharine tooth but we must develop a more discerning palate that can differentiate between the different solutions and saviours that are on offer, all without falling into the paralysis of analysis.

Perhaps we also need another Bastille Day, where our own entire Ancien Régime comes tumbling down, lock, stock and barrel around our ears and, if we do, the Palestinian and Syrian genocides will have played their part in that, as they help to separate the righteous wheat, folk like Paddy McCorry, Greta Thumnberg and those elderly Greek women from the self-righteous chaff that AIPAC and similar groups fund to rule over and corral us.

And, though this cycle of protest and counter-protest will continue at both the micro and macro levels, the hope has to be that our People Power Revolution 2.0 will dispense with our Mark Anthonys and Ian Paisleys and fulfill our desire to be free from those who harried and held, and bullied and bribed, tyrants… hypocrites… liars! A timeless Everest of a mountain to be climbed, to be sure, but one we have some hope of surmounting if, finally, we know what we are about and how to go about it.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twittere VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Segundo todas as autoridades científicas da botânica, o tomate é, sem sombra de dúvida, uma fruta. Não obstante, em 1893, a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos deu a decisão Nix v. Heden, segundo a qual o tomate, no contexto da lei tarifária, não é uma fruta, mas um legume. Não deixa de ser uma curiosa escolha de palavras, pois a Suprema Corte não decidiu que o tomate, embora seja uma fruta, deve ser considerado um legume num dado contexto; em vez disso, decidiu que o tomate é uma fruta na lei, porque a lei é feita segundo a linguagem ordinária, que é diferente da botânica. É muito esquisita essa ideia de que a Suprema Corte legisla sobre a realidade, mas é assim que funciona no país mais poderoso do mundo, um herdeiro da Common Law inglesa.

O caso do tomate nos EUA é similar ao das mulheres na Grã-Bretanha. Em 16 de abril de 2025, diante da interpretação de uma lei relativa à igualdade de gênero, a Suprema Corte do Reino Unido decidiu que mulheres são aquelas do sexo feminino, excluindo-se do conceito as “mulheres trans” que portassem documentos femininos. Desde então, feministas e conservadores britânicos comemoram a nova definição. Assim, as mulheres da Grã-Bretanha não têm mais pênis.

Essa peculiar cosmovisão, que dá direito à Suprema Corte de decidir não sobre a lei, mas sobre a realidade, faz com que nos perguntemos onde mais as mulheres têm pênis. Nos EUA de Biden, responderíamos sem pestanejar que as mulheres tinham pênis, mas nunca se sabe. Durante a sabatina em 2022, a (agora) juíza associada da Suprema Corte Ketanji Brown disse que não sabia definir o que é uma mulher. Trump, por outro lado, tão logo voltou à presidência, assinou uma Ordem Executiva definindo homem e mulher conforme a biologia e excluindo a ideologia de gênero, definida como a ideologia que usa a autoidentificação subjetiva como um meio legítimo de determinar quem é homem, mulher ou outra coisa. Como o governo Biden tomou suas medidas pró trans lastreando-se em decisões da Suprema Corte (que é o verdadeiro poder público dos EUA), a Ordem Executiva impôs tarefas à Advocacia Geral.

Por isso, infelizmente, não é seguro determinar que as mulheres dos EUA não têm pênis. Afinal, como vimos no assunto racial do DEI, a Suprema Corte deixou as ações afirmativas correrem soltas por décadas a fio, em meio a dubiedades legais, até decidir que são inconstitucionais. Trump pretende ser um presidente forte, mas suas medidas são derrubadas pelo judiciário. FDR de fato foi um presidente forte, mas, para isso, aumentou o número de ministros da Suprema Corte para poder indicar uma montanha e manter o poder público mais forte do país sob sua influência.

Essa maneira esquisita de encarar o poder e a realidade é fruto da cultura protestante. Nos cristianismos tradicionais do ocidente e do oriente, a autoridade tem um rosto: o Papa, o Patriarca de Constantinopla. O cristianismo da Reforma, por outro lado, apresentou a ideia – bastante rabínica, diga-se – de que a autoridade está no texto, não numa pessoa. E assim, malandramente, a autoridade passa a ser o intérprete do texto, que, por se colocar como um leal ao texto, não se assume como autoridade responsável. É muito grande a hipocrisia desse sistema de governo, pois todos os que nele vivem fazem as contas de quantos juízes um presidente tem a seu favor na Suprema Corte. Se gente não eleita manda no país e ainda por cima impõe coisas muito impopulares, isso não deveria ser chamado de democracia.

No Brasil, que infelizmente vive sob pesada influência dos EUA, as mulheres têm pênis desde 2023 (embora eu mesma não tenha). Por aqui o protestantismo encontrou um campo fértil de sincretismo, cheio de práticas similares à santería cubana e ao espiritismo kardecista. Assim, os ministros do Supremo vivem falando de um tal “espírito da Constituição” que eles interpretam. Após possuir o ministro, esse espírito não fuma charuto, não bebe cachaça, nem escreve as cartas dos mortos: em vez disso, sai legislando por aí. E desde 2023 o espírito da Constituição decidiu que as leis brasileiras contra racismo devem punir também a homofobia e a transfobia. Em 2018, o espírito da Constituição havia decidido que ninguém precisa fazer cirurgias para mudar de “gênero”, pois basta a autodeclaração.

Um dia isso há de passar. Enquanto isso, só o espírito da anarquia salva o Brasil, pois até hoje não há notícias de estupradores sendo transferidos para os presídios femininos.

In Biden’s America, one would answer without hesitation that women have penises, but you never know.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

According to all scientific authorities in botany, a tomato is, without a shadow of a doubt, a fruit. However, in 1893, the United States Supreme Court handed down the decision Nix v. Heden, according to which a tomato, in the context of a tariff law, is not a fruit, but a vegetable. This is a curious choice of words, because the Supreme Court did not decide that the tomato, although a fruit, should be considered a vegetable in a given context; instead, it decided that the tomato is a fruit in law, because the law is made according to ordinary language, which is different from botany. It is very strange, this idea that the Supreme Court legislates on reality, but that is how it works in the most powerful country in the world, an heir to the English Common Law.

The case of tomato in the USA is similar to that of women in Great Britain. On April 16, 2025, in response to the interpretation of a law on gender equality, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that women are those of the female sex, excluding from the concept “trans women” who hold female documents. Since then, British feminists and conservatives have celebrated the new definition. Thus, women in Great Britain no longer have penises.

This peculiar worldview, which gives the Supreme Court the right to decide not on the law but on reality, makes us wonder where else women have penises. In Biden’s America, one would answer without hesitation that women have penises, but you never know. During the hearing in 2022, the (now) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Ketanji Brown said that she did not know how to define what a woman is. Trump, on the other hand, as soon as he returned to the presidency, signed an Executive Order defining men and women according to biology and excluding gender ideology, defined as the ideology that uses subjective self-identification as a legitimate means of determining who is a man, a woman, or something else. Since the Biden administration took its pro-trans measures based on decisions by the Supreme Court (which is the true public authority in the United States), the Executive Order ascribed tasks to the General Attorney.

Therefore, unfortunately, it is not safe to determine that women in the United States do not have penises. After all, as we saw in the racial issue of DEI, the Supreme Court let affirmative action run wild for decades, amid legal ambiguities, until deciding that it is unconstitutional. Trump intends to be a strong president, but his measures are struck down by the judiciary. FDR was indeed a strong president, but in order to be so, he increased the number of Supreme Court justices so that he could appoint a lot and keep the strongest public authority in the country under his influence.

This strange way of looking at power and reality is the result of Protestant culture. In traditional Christianities of the West and East, authority has a face: the Pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Reformation Christianity, on the other hand, presented the idea – quite rabbinical, it must be said – that authority lies in the text, not in a person. And so, slyly, authority becomes the interpreter of the text, who, by acting as someone loyal to the text, does not assume that he is the responsible authority. The hypocrisy of this system of government is enormous, since everyone who lives in it counts how many justices a president has in his favor on the Supreme Court. If unelected people rule the country and, on top of that, impose very unpopular things, that should not be called democracy.

In Brazil, which unfortunately lives under heavy influence from the United States, women have had penises since 2023 (although I myself do not have one). Here, Protestantism has found a fertile field of syncretism, full of practices similar to Cuban Santería and Kardecist spiritualism. Thus, the Supreme Court justices are always talking about a so-called “spirit of the Constitution” that they interpret. After possessing the justice, such a spirit does not smoke cigars, drink cachaça, or write letters from the dead: instead, it goes around legislating. And since 2023, the spirit of the Constitution has decided that Brazilian laws against racism must also punish homophobia and transphobia. In 2018, the spirit of the Constitution had decided that no one needs to undergo surgery to change their “gender”, since self-declaration is enough.

Someday this shall pass. In the meantime, only the spirit of anarchy saves Brazil, because to this day there is no news of rapists being transferred to women’s prisons.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Digite no Google “Georgia homophobia” e aparecerão incontáveis resultados que, por meio de pesquisas e fatos recentes, denunciam a homofobia nesse país da Europa oriental. Tem-se a impressão de que é um problema acachapante na Geórgia para o qual a “filantropia” da Open Society propõe soluções. Por outro lado, caso digitemos “Georgia surrogacy”, aparece uma porção de resultados informativos que descrevem a legislação do país, que é receptivo à “gestação por substituição” (ou seja, barriga de aluguel). Não há denúncias inflamadas, como no caso da homofobia. Na verdade, não há denúncias, ao menos na primeira página.

E, de fato, eu pesquisei “Georgia surrogacy” porque queria encontrar a notícia com a qual eu havia me deparado um tempo atrás, a saber: que a polícia libertou vítimas de tráfico humano que estavam em cárcere privado, tendo os seus óvulos roubados. Coisa de filme de terror e de ficção científica. Segundo lemos na Newsweek, uma tailandesa que havia sido traficada para a Geórgia conseguiu escapar, voltou para a Tailândia e denunciou lá o esquema de uma quadrilha chinesa. Uma ONG tailandesa, a Pavena Foundation, acionou as autoridades georgianas, que libertaram três tailandesas. No entanto, a ONG estima que haja mais cem tailandesas na Geórgia. O seu cativeiro é descrito como uma human egg farm, fazenda de óvulos humanos.

A Newsweek cita como fonte uma matéria do Bangkok Post. Ali temos mais detalhes do golpe: as tailandesas viam um anúncio no Facebook prometendo emprego na Geórgia. O “emprego” seria de barriga de aluguel, atividade supostamente legal na Geórgia. Elas gestariam bebês para casais com problemas de fertilidade. Para dar credibilidade, uma tailandesa guiava as moças na viagem. A vítima fugitiva viajou com dez colegas e, ao chegar na Geórgia, encontrou quatro grandes casas com pelo menos cem tailandesas. Não havia casais querendo ter filhos. Em vez disso, seus óvulos eram recolhidos para venda.

Fordismo aplicado a bebês

A feminista Julie Bindel recentemente fez uma excelente matéria sobre a indústria global da fertilidade. Há países que são cobiçados pelo esperma, países que são cobiçados pelos óvulos e países cobiçados pelas barrigas de aluguel. As preferências não deixam de ser explicativas em si mesmas: esperma dinamarquês, óvulos da Espanha ou México, barrigas de aluguel da Geórgia, Nigéria, Tailândia, Colômbia, República Tcheca e Chipre. O recurso menos trabalhoso e que permite uma escolha mais livre é o esperma. Assim, vemos que o fenótipo predileto da clientela é nórdico.

Quanto aos óvulos, é necessário que haja tecnologia e mulheres dispostas a se submeterem a um procedimento invasivo de consequências ainda pouco conhecidas. Por isso, é preciso haver mulheres pobres. Outra limitação é a das leis referentes à remuneração das “doadoras”. Por óbvio, seria mais fácil explorar africanas do que europeias, mas a clientela não quer filhos mulatos. A Espanha e o México têm legislações favoráveis à venda de óvulos, ainda que em tese se trate de doação. Assim, às vezes os óvulos de outros países com legislações mais rígidas vão para lá. Por outro lado, nos EUA é possível de fato vender óvulos licitamente, mas é mais caro. Então a preferência é uma combinação de possibilidade legal com capacidade econômica.

Quanto às gestantes, que não deixam marcas genéticas, podem ser até da Nigéria. Aí, o que importa é possibilidade de registrar a criança como filho do cliente pagante, e não da gestante. Nos EUA, segundo informa a Compact Magazine, a norma vem sendo considerar pai e mãe segundo o contrato, e não segundo a genética. Ou seja, nesse mercado, quem paga é o pai ou mãe, mesmo que tenha comprado ambos os gametas e não tenha relações genéticas com a criança. Os EUA, no mapa de Julie Bindel, são o país preferido para agenciar tais relações que são de natureza jurídica e comercial.

Assim, no frigir dos ovos, tem-se um fordismo aplicado a bebês: uma mulher dá o óvulo, outra dá o útero e, com sorte, alguma mulher há de criar a criança. Digo “com sorte”, porque, como mostrou Julie Bindel noutra ocasião, houve um quiproquó jurídico na Inglaterra que considerava homofóbica a necessidade de mãe. O caso foi o seguinte: sem usar uma agência, um casal gay pagou a uma mulher pobre na Inglaterra para ser inseminada e para gestar o filho deles. O óvulo era dela e a barriga também (assim há menos chance de aborto e problemas de saúde). A mulher entregou o filho, mas quis direito a visita porque crianças precisam de mãe. Os gays consideraram que isso era homofobia. Foram à justiça tomar medidas para impedi-la de chegar perto da criança, mas perderam. Daí não se segue que crianças tenham direito a mãe, mas que é melhor contratar uma agência.

Direitos gays contra mulheres e crianças

Ninguém precisa ser conservador ou religioso para ver que isso tem tudo para dar errado. Se o mercado de órgãos fosse subitamente normalizado, não é difícil imaginar que muita gente vulnerável sumisse, sendo sequestrada e abatida para que vendessem as suas “peças”. O mercado de óvulos e úteros não requer o abate mas, de resto, não é muito diferente: partes do corpo feminino ganham alto valor de mercado, então não é de surpreender se ainda aparecerem grávidas tailandesas na Geórgia gestando à força crianças brancas. Ademais, dado o baixo valor de mercado do óvulo tailandês, só podemos imaginar o que a clientela vai fazer com o produto (a criança meio tailandesa) depois de descobrir que o chinês lhe vendeu gato por lebre.

Ou talvez isso nem seja um problema, já que o comprador faz o que quer com o produto, isto é, a criança. Pode comprar para abusar sexualmente, para extrair órgãos, para fazer rituais satanistas. Na adoção, há uma burocracia que investiga os candidatos. Na compra de bebês por partes, não há nenhuma dessas salvaguardas, e pelo menos um pedófilo já foi preso nos EUA antes que pudesse abusar do bebê comprado pelo seu marido.

O fato de que esse crime na Geórgia gerou tão pouca repercussão e que não pôs em xeque o mercado de barriga de aluguel mostra que, no Ocidente de hoje, os caprichos dos homens estão acima da maternidade e da infância. Um retrato preciso das elites ocidentais é um Saturno gay devorando seus filhos.

The absurdity of men posing as women trying to raise awareness about misogyny remains unchallenged in the Italian press.

By Ildikó BÍRÓ

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Just when you’d think progressivism can’t get any weirder, you inevitably meet some next-level irrationality.

A (radically) new version of the popular board game Monopoly entitled ‘Pink’ will soon hit the shelves in Italy. Presented in its ready-for-distribution version in the Italian city of Bolzano on March 6, the game was developed by three Siena-based transfeminists, Valeria Cammarosano, Benedetta Francioni, and Letizia Vaccarella and is described as “gay-friendly” in the Italian press.

According to Italian news site Il Giornale, apparently, Pink (sometimes branded Pink*) is not just a game, but a complex project of activism (and indoctrination) that has been around at least since 2021, taken on campaign tours all over Italy in recent years.

The aim of the game, according to the self-styled “Pink dream team” is to counter gender inequality and discrimination, as well as to “challenge the patriarchy.”

The absurdity of three biological males posing as women and promoting the dismantling of the patriarchy is obvious. What is truly striking, however, is that, believe it or not, to date none of the articles covering the story online have pointed this out. This is particularly shocking ahead of International Women’s Day celebrated on March 8th. (The German Socialist women who in 1910 proposed marking the day as special and dedicated to women must be turning in their graves.)

One of the creators of the game, Letizia Vaccarella, explained in a television interview that the game is supposed to be

a metaphor of real life, in which the protagonists have to collaborate to multiply their resources and to have a normal life, one that we all would like to have.

The cards that are part of the game include “Patriarchy cards”, representing the “voice of the sometimes violent, other times paternalistic and ignorant patriarchal society.” One such card is called #genderpaygap, stating: “My dear, I make more money than you because I am better at my job.” Another card, #misoginyinternalised, reads: “She has pushed out two babies and she wants to go out and dance with her girlfriends?”

The game, of course, comes with a trigger warning, claiming Pink*

speaks of all facets of sexism. In this game we tackle sexism, ableism, fattism, racism, ageism, lesbophobia, biphobia, transphobia, rape, and gender-based violence. We warn you that some of these topics may hurt your sensibilities.

The board game, the full title of which is Pink* A Game for Girls?, is officially recommended for people aged 14+.

Original article: The European Conservative

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

When German Green foreign minister Annalena Baerbock presented her “Guidelines for a Feminist Foreign Policy” in March 2023, we wrote that this project, as absurd as it is reactionary, was “ultimately about enforcing geostrategic and economic interests.” If necessary, this would also be done in “close cooperation with the most reactionary regimes in the world.”

In this respect, Baerbock’s most recent trip abroad to Syria represented a new high point. In Damascus on Friday, she met representatives of the new Islamist HTS regime and its leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (real name Ahmed al-Sharaa). To describe al-Jolani as reactionary would be an understatement. Jolani is the former emir of the al-Nusra Front, which was initially linked to the Islamic State and then to al-Qaeda. It was designated a terrorist organisation by the UN in 2013.

In the same year, al-Jolani announced in a video message: “The sons of the al-Nusra Front swear allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri.” Al-Zawahiri had been the leader of al-Qaeda since the 2011 assassination of Osama bin Laden by US special forces. He subsequently supported al-Jolani with fighters and weapons, which al-Nusra used for deadly terrorist attacks.

In October 2013, Human Rights Watch published a report describing how the al-Nusra Front, together with other armed opposition groups, organised massacres in rural areas of the Syrian governorate of Latakia between 4 and 18 August 2013, killing at least 190 civilians and taking more than 200 hostages. At least 67 were allegedly executed in the operation near villages of the Alawite religious sect.

In a report published in July 2016, Amnesty International accused al-Nusra of torture, child abduction and summary executions. In December 2014, for example, al-Nusra fighters executed a woman on charges of adultery and stoned to death women accused of extramarital relationships. Overall, they had “strictly interpreted Sharia law and imposed punishments for alleged violations that amount to torture or other ill-treatment,” the report said.

In addition, al-Nusra has carried out numerous terrorist attacks in major Syrian cities, including Damascus, Aleppo and Homs, each of which has claimed several dozen lives. The terror of al-Jolani’s fighters was so massive that the US government also classified the HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham–Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant), which emerged from the al-Nusra Front, as a foreign terrorist organisation and imposed a $10 million bounty on al-Jolani himself.

Meanwhile, the US has withdrawn the bounty and Western officials such as Baerbock and her French counterpart Jean-Noël Barrot are making a pilgrimage to Damascus on behalf of the EU to pay their respects to the jihadists. The reasons for this are obvious. “They all believe they can utilise HTS as their subcontractor to further their geostrategic interests in the war-ravaged country,” as we wrote in a recent analysis.

In fact, mass protests against the HTS are already developing in Syria shortly after the Islamists came to power. The jihadists are seen as a particular threat by religious and confessional minorities. According to media reports, the number of house searches, lootings, harassment of women and executions has increased since the HTS came to power, especially in areas inhabited by a majority of Alawites.

All this did not deter Baerbock from giving al-Jolani the warmest of welcomes–even though he pointedly refused her the bloody handshake as a woman. In an interview on her return journey, however, Baerbock was pleased to note that she had also spoken to the Islamist about “women’s rights” in their “long and intensive conversation.” She also pointed out that the new head of the Syrian central bank was a woman.

Baerbock’s closing of ranks with the supposedly reformed HTS terrorists goes hand in hand with her support for the Israeli Netanyahu regime, which is committing genocide against the Palestinians and is now also bombing parts of Syria, and the NATO war escalation against Russia. Almost two years after the publication of her guidelines, it is clear what “feminist foreign policy” essentially means: imperialist terror, mass murder and war.

Original article: wsws