"We are in a situation that is invertible, due to the fact that we are a country owned by individual from abroad" (M. Morawiecki)
The thought of Prime Minister Morawiecki may shock, as traditionally sovereign states (the governing elites of these countries) are considered political actors. Polish cyber school has developed terminology to reduce dissonance. “If a sovereign state is considered an autonomous system, and its improvement is an autonomous process, then global relations can be described as the control interactions of states as autonomous systems or processes, the aim of which is to accomplish as much participation as possible in global control processes” (J. Kossecki, technological Basics of Nationalism), Warsaw 2015, p. 190).
This share is measured by the ratio of the free power of the state to the full free power of all countries in the world. Participations in global control calculated according to the method of Polish cybernetics (ibid., pp. 190 et seq.) in June 2024 amounted to: People's Republic of China – 25.8%, United States of America – 13.5%, Japan – 9%, Russian Federation – 8%, Germany and Austria – 6%, India – 3.4%, United Kingdom – 3%, Republic of Korea – 2.9%, Ukraine – 2.7%, France – 2.4%. The remainder of the planet has 23.3% of the remaining controls. China, India and Korea are experiencing growth from these countries and the remaining countries are experiencing a steady decline in global control. All of these countries are treated as autonomous systems, i.e. 1 which the organiser (homeostat) interacts with the strategy and its surroundings in the interests of the system.
International relations explanation besides assumes that states act in their own interests. A strategy with an external organizer is not autonomous. It is not in its own interest that the designation of the intent of the control is not the work of its interior organizer. Its historical example can be a colonial state. An even lower degree of autonomy has a steering system, the model of which may be occupation. Therefore, if we presume that Ukraine is controlled by the US, the combined controlling possible of these countries will be 16.2%. The combined controlling possible of NATO countries in June this year was 37.8%, G7 countries 37.4%, BRICS+ countries 41.2%.
What was Prime Minister Morawiecki talking about?
"During the PRL period, agents and another russian influence channels were gradually displaced by another – German, American, Israeli, French, etc. – which yet took control of Poland. This was revealed after 1989, especially erstwhile Poland became a associate of the EU and the main part of its law is provided by an external organizer in Brussels, not always in accordance with the Polish interest" (ibid., p. 167). The explanation of global relations can be utilized to separate sovereign states from those controlled by abroad organizers. It allows to find whether the interior organiser determines the interest of the State or not. John J. Mearsheimer au Sebastian Rosato in the first and reportedly “controversial” work “As States Think. Rationality in abroad Policy" (Presents, 2024) states that in rational states, "a thorough analysis of the views of the main decision-makers is carried out and a strategy based on a credible explanation is chosen" (i.e., p. 61). "Rational decision-makers usage credible theories to realize the situation in which they are located and decide on an action strategy. On the another hand, irrational decision makers are based on unreliable theories or do not usage them at all. [...] The two-stage deliberalisation process involves a fair and unfettered debate among policy-makers and the final choice of the strategy by the main decision-maker. Irrational states, in turn, do not establish their policies on credible theories or carry out a appropriate deliberalisation process – either due to the fact that they do not have the conditions for free and unfettered debate, or due to the fact that they do not have a final political decision to make" (i.e., p. 105).
Both researchers, utilizing these criteria, conclude that most countries are rational most of the time, even if this does not always lead to success. The political action is carried out under conditions of uncertainty, which means that the circumstances over which there is no control can be weighed (ibid., p. 46 et seq.). They consider it scientifically useless to realize political rationality, as maximising the expected usefulness, both by attributing nonsubjective probability (ibid., p. 124) as well as possible another methods (ibid., p. 128), as well as the usage of analogy, heuristics and a program of political psychology in political discipline (ibid., p. 131 et seq.).
The authors respect as a good test of their explanation the fact that rational in its light are both “great strategies” and decisions made in crisis situations, which function in literature as examples of political irrationalism. The rational strategies include German politics towards the three-understanding in the run-up to the First planet War, Japan's policy towards the USSR before the Second planet War, France's policy towards the 3rd Reich in the 1930s, NATO's enlargement after the end of the Cold War and the strategy of liberal hegemonism. Rational decisions in crisis situations are the beginning of the First planet War by Germany, the attack by Japan on the United States, the attack by Germany on the russian Union, the resolution of the Cuban crisis by the US, the invasion of the russian Union on Czechoslovakia, and besides ... the attack by Russia on Ukraine in 2022 (which explains the designation of the excellent book as “controversial”). Examples of irrational strategies discussed in the criminalised position are: Germany's adoption of a hazard concept in the run-up to planet War I, resulting in unnecessary construction of a powerful war fleet, Britain's adoption of a non-commitment strategy in the run-up to planet War II, among others, the non-establishment of an army to fight on the European continent; erroneous decisions include an invasion in the Bay of Pigs in 1961, an invasion in Iraq in 2003.
The knowing of the rationality of states adopted by American researchers adds to the state's cybernetic concept as an autonomous system. Consequently, countries applying irrational strategies continuously should be considered as self-control or only control systems. If most sovereign states are rational most of the time, then consistently irrational states are not sovereign. Individual irrational decisions, however, supply a basis for seeking abroad influences, agents, or political diversions among decision-makers.
Irrational Poland
Poland assessed according to the criteria of Mearsheimer and Rosato is an irrational state, due to the fact that theories that are to justify its political strategy are based on historical analogies, cognitive heuristics and political psychology, are not debated or be at all. "There is no deliberalisation in an irrational state and the origin of the strategy is either an unreliable theory, or there is no theoretical basis at all, or both of these distortions of decision-making" (i.e., p. 61). east policies, unconditional support for Ukraine, hostility towards Russia, hostility towards Belarus, economical sanctions, "green governance", "European solidarity" to mention only any examples, cannot be considered rational for reasons excavated by Mearsheimer and Rosato. The same applies to the explanation of the "shock of civilization", which is expected to justify the supposedly non-alternative policy of the 3rd Republic. "In fact, nations and not civilizations are the largest social groups to which people show peculiar loyalty. Nationalism and not Civilizationism – whatever it may be – is the most powerful political ideology on our planet. It is so hard to wonder that empirical data do not support the thesis that conflicts in the modern planet are mostly due to differences in civilization" (ibid., p. 87).
Political dogmas adopted in Poland are not subject to any discussion. Trials of public debate are controlled, staged, eliminated and censored. As far as I know among the Polish authorities there is besides no discussion of the state strategy. specified a situation in the language of social cybernetics can be defined as the deficiency of an interior organizer, which is equivalent to the existence of an external organizer for a self-control system, which is the 3rd Polish Republic.
Such a conclusion only confirms the agreements and agreements concluded with Ukraine not only in secret from the society (nominal sovereign) but even before the Sejm (! – vide speech of the marshal Krzysztof Bosak). Taken seriously would mean Poland joining the war with Russia in a close alliance with Ukraine, which is admitting expressis verbis to abroad influences in Poland. Probably, however, they are just part of any political game undisclosed to the public. The agreements concerning Ukraine hidden from the public are not precedents in Polish history, due to the fact that akin ones already took place in 1919 and 1920 (see “National Democracy against the War in 1920” in: “Roman Dmowski and 3 generations of nationalists”, Warsaw 2023, p. 73). The conclusion to be drawn from this is entirely in line with the principles of realism. Poland is not a sovereign state, depending entirely on the arrangement of global forces, which has no influence.
It may be amazing that the policy of countries more serious than Poland does not look much better. What is the nonsubjective of the alleged EU climate policy? Are climate theories the subject of a “sound and unfettered debate”? How can the pauperisation of the masses, economical devastation, the uncompetitiveness of economies, or the deindustrialisation which will consequence in "green" or possibly shortly and "blue" order, aid the improvement of European countries? What is the anti-cultural revolution doing? akin doubts arise from the cut-off of Europe from Russian natural materials. EU policy is beneficial for both the US and China. The first provides the natural marketplace and the division of the planet Island into Rimland and Hartland according to the classical principles of Anglo-Saxon geopolitics, formulated by Halford John Mackinder; the second economical uncompetitiveness. Does this mean that Europe besides has an external organizer? This seems to be a more rational presumption than the repeated "populist" belief that the West has simply gone mad. Whether the organizer is the United States or China is simply a separate problem. I'd love to see a discussion by experts on this hot topic. However, there is another anticipation worth paying attention to.
The paradox of American politics...
Mearsheimer and Rosato admit inconsistently: “Although there are reasons to believe that the task of liberal hegemonism was a failure, it was a rational large strategy. The policy was based on a set of credible liberal theories and was the consequence of a deliberative decision-making process [...] although we consider liberal policy theories to be credible – i.e. logically consistent explanations based on reasonable assumptions and supported by crucial empirical evidence – we consider them flawed” (!-i.e., p.188). Unfortunately, American political scientists do not give concrete deliberalisations, which were the task of which they became the unanimous and paradoxical political consensus. And they are conclusive. Is the U.S. an irrational state for the past 30 years?
Inconsistency can be explained by the American patriotism of both authors but there is besides another, more fertile explanation. Political realism traditionally recognises the ideology of a given state, regardless of its nature (liberalism, communism, nationalism, fascism, etc.) as a origin that does not translate global relations (see e.g.Kenneth N. Waltz “Man, State, War”, Kraków 2023). However, if the planet leadership of the US had led to the liquidation of sovereign national states, the paradoxicality of American liberal hegemonism would have disappeared by introducing global "liberal institutions" in their place. global relations would cease to be along with their principles and be replaced by the interior policy of the planet government. Mearsheimer omits this anticipation and considers it inconsistently a credible theory, which he considers to be flawed at the same time (see “Great illusion. Liberal Dreams and global Reality” (Kraków – Warsaw 2021). As mentioned above, the constant irrationality of the country's policy indicates the external (in a cybernetic sense) organizer of this policy.
So the question is, who can be the organizer of the transformation towards a global government? The imposing candidate is the alleged Deep State American. The characteristics of these circles and their policies can be found in “The Time of Slaves. How the planet became owned by respective corporations” by Józef Białek (Vektory, 2019). This book is as bravado as an accessible summary of the five-volume “War for Money” Song Honbinga, published in Poland by Józef Białek. We learn from it how the Rothschild families, Rockefelers, Morgans, Harrimans, Schiffs, Warburgs, Kuhns, Loebs, and another financial and industrial tycoons have mastered global finances and economies. The main stages of the process are the choice of the US as a tool for planet military, economical and financial dominance, the creation of the national Reserve as a tool for control over the United States itself, the 1980s investment revolution. The 20th century and the last phase of control introduced, which is manifested by liberal hegemonism, "green order", or "great reset".
"As Rothschild predicted in the early 19th century, power belonged to those who had control over the issue of money, and in the US it was 12 banks overseeing the national Reserve and their political supporters located in the most crucial positions in the state. Contrary to the statements, no 1 cared about the free market, and the slogan was then, as well as later, only a propaganda catch. The goal was to monopolize power and property, and the problem was only the way to safe it. In the 19th century, this was achieved through the creation of alleged financial capitalism based on a strategy of private central banks in which the state and its citizens were in debt. In the first half of the 20th century, due to... ownership and control separation, this strategy evolved into a fresh form of financial capitalism, moving from equity capitalism to investor capitalism. The laws introduced since the first decade of the 20th century were intended to supply financial institutions and the obedient state with full control and monopoly, which was implemented by Roosevelt's fresh Deal project. Gradual weakening of the money-gold relationship, until the gold was pushed out of the financial market, further contributed to the fact that the value became an arbitrary, easy-to-peak thing. In a sense, the Western capitalist planet was not much different from the east Communist world, for here and there, about what value the central authorities straight or indirectly decided. However, the problem for power was the dispersal of ownership, which was made by the creation of a multitude of entities which are public limited companies. In the event of specified fragmentation, it was not so hard to control the company, but to control those who controlled the company... The creation of investment funds was able to prevent this situation, as it was in fact adequate for these funds to take over only 5 percent of the shares to guarantee control of the company and influence the decision of its management, as the remaining shareholders were not able to unite in specified a way as to break down those 5 percent of the votes. ”
In the shadow of BlackRock
Constant control of a public limited liability company requires the usage of a long-term investment strategy buy and hold (buy and hold). Its implementation was only enabled by the IT revolution of the 1980s. It resulted in the creation of alleged passive investment funds, which over a long period of time, gradually, methodically and unnoticeably took over and consolidated assets "to monopolize their control in the hands of 1 or more companies, standing above the full financial strategy and the full economy" (i.e., p.167). BlackRock's largest investment fund at the end of 2018 managed assets of $6 trillion, 4 times the US yearly budget. "To realize the scale of the problem, let's just look at a brief list of companies that control the large Three, namely BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. In any case, they are giants in a given market. The IT market: Apple, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation; the energy supplier market: Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Royal Dutch Stell; the transport market: General Motors, Boeing Corporation: the cosmetic market: Johnson&Johnson, Procter & Gamble; the food market: Nestle, McDonald’s; the media market: Walt Disney, Time Warner, CBS, NBS, Universal; the financial market: Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America; as well as global institutions specified as the planet Bank, the global Monetary Fund or the European Central Bank’ (i.e., p. 174).
The situation in Poland is no different. "BlackRock is found on the list of shareholders of specified companies operating on the Polish market, specified as PZU, PKN Orlen, Stock Exchange, PGE, PGNIG S.A., Jastrzębska Węglowa, Grupa Lotos, KGHM, Ciech S.A. BlackRock besides holds shares in the following banks: PKO S.A., ING Bank Śląski, Bank Handlowy , Orange, Alior Bank, Santander, Millennium (...) Deutsche Bank, Raiffeisen Bank” (ibid., p. 240). "1985 seems crucial to knowing our times. In the same year, erstwhile large investment funds specified as BlackRock started in the US, the pierestroika started, and Wojciech Jaruzelski met with David Rockefeller, determining how Poland was taken over by global financial institutions" (ibid., p. 236). Thus we found the answer to the question to which Poland belongs.
Note that the designation of "international financial institutions" as the real organizer of the Polish state (in a cybernetic sense) perfectly explains the "irrational" Polish policy referred to above. The same, of course, besides applies to "irrational" EU and US policies. These policies are irrational only for sovereign national states. They aim to destruct them through the financial, sociotechnical or political tools already indicated on respective occasions. Financial elites search to destruct all investment risks and thus go hand in hand with global uncertainty. The alleged artificial intelligence plays an crucial function in this process. It could lead to a passive investment strategy for its final consequences, tying all consumption of anything in the planet to an appropriate production process of a peculiar good. In specified a situation, money would no longer be needed. In this way consumers would be deprived of all freedom of choice and investors would be deprived of any risk. Capitalistic and Communist ideals would have merged into one.
Nasty Alternative
Poland seems to be in a nasty alternate between liquidation by a loan-based internationalist and liquidation in a “breakdown zone” of classically understood geopolitics. At the same time, the implementation of any drone is uncertain and does not depend at all on nominal organs of the Polish state or on Poles (which can be estimated at 10-15% of the indigenous population). It is not known what is the share of investment funds in the controlling possible of NATO countries (as above mentioned 37.8%) and what share in the possible of BRICS+ countries (41.2%). I do not know any literature that would address this issue, and I am afraid that cyber methodology is at all incapable to ‘lift up’ this issue. If we could someway avoid liquidation, the question would be whether the BriCS+ alliance, which is considered competitive to Western globalists, would be importantly better. It is worth noting that the unpublished fact present that all modern financial systems are based on usury, i.e. collecting an undue remuneration (percentage) for creating empty money.
Why should the government collect interest from people whose business is to represent? It doesn't make sense to taxation yourself. It makes sense, however, to take over taxes that the government owes. This is what the scam is about, which is barely mentioned, and which has eliminated the Catholic civilization in the West. "If there is no government debt and the government does not gotta ask the bankers for a loan, they lose their essential assets at 1 moment" (the War for Money, p. 38). Modern money is simply a debt from which debt sharks live. Paying off the public debt of today's states would have eliminated all cash. He knew that. Thomas Jefferson, president of the United States from 1801 to 1809, erstwhile he said: “If Americans always let private banks emit money, banks and corporations that grow around them will plunder the property of people until their children wake up homeless on the continent that conquered their fathers. The issue of money should be taken from the banks and put into the hands of the people" ( “The Time of Slaves [...]”, p. 123).
It is no paradox that the alleged authoritarian regimes, e.g. China, Russia or Belarus, are based on global corporations, without allowing them to have access to their societies, protected from the benefits of liberal democracy. So are we "in a situation in a certain sense irreversible" as he claimed, quoted at the beginning of Mateusz Morawiecki?
Vladimir Kowalik
Photo: BlackRock Fund office (wikipedia)
Think Poland, No. 35-36 (25.08-1.09.2024)
