A is for Action

Part four of a four-part mini-series anticipating the coming year 2026 A.D. (plus a free meme)

By way of an introduction, this year, I would like to try out something new in the next couple of days to celebrate the occasion and to extend an invitation to you to weigh in on my snark.

Hence, the next couple (four) of postings will be thematically as follows:

• Observation: where do we stand at the end of 2025 in terms of geopolitics, public health (sic), and personal matters?

• Orientation: with concise yet accurate information, let us try to orient in the seemingly endless chaotic mess we find ourselves in

• Decision: it’s only-ever possible to make good (right) decisions if properly informed, but one still has to decide on this or that course of…

• Action: don’t mull over this or that, once a decision has been made, act

Needless to say, this is a classic four-part series deriving from what’s known as the OODA loop.

Be that as it may, here’s why I’m doing this: it’s a series of thought-experiments designed to help me organise my thinking and the four essays will be short enough to (hopefully) serve you as food for thought, too.

Hence, let’s wrap this up, shall we?

---

A is for Action

Once you’ve decided and determined not to go in half-assed, it’s time for action.

Whatever the proximal origin of the issue at-hand, take a decision and see it through.

Care for a few examples?

You’ve determined, for instance, not to take the Covid poison/death juices (good for you): now, you’ve gotta check out what else is on the GP’s menu™. Here, start with the HPV poison/death juices a.k.a. Gardasil:

HPV Injection Kills 19yo Student in Austria While Media Pushes the Jabs by Association with HIV/AIDS

Care for ‘more’ examples?

Of course, we could drone on seemingly endlessly about the various shenanigans and atrocities masquerading as wars™ and interventions™, such as the allegedly humanitarian™ ones, or even so-called ‘special military operations’.

There’s but one or two legal ways to send troops into neighbouring countries: a) be authorised by the increasingly dysfunctional UN Security Council or b) declare a state of war to exist.

Speaking of the former, it’s always good to have facts at your disposal, such as, e.g., Art. 107 of the UN Charter, signed in 1945, which read:

Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

In plain English, the UN Charter acknowledged the non-existence of any formal peace treaty ending the Second World War, specifically, as regards the status of the defeated Axis powers of (drum roll) Germany, Italy, and Japan.

By the mid-1990s, however, three notes were added (source; references omitted):

1. No decisions requiring treatment under this Article were taken by the organs of the United Nations during the period under review. However, as in the past, the Article was referred to at various times in the course of discussion of certain issues in the General Assembly, in particular the question of the review of the Charter, when suggestions were made for its deletion on the ground that its provisions had become obsolete.

2. Discussion during the period under review with respect to the “enemy-State clauses” referred specifically to Articles 107 as well as 53 and 77. In the context of the item “Report of the Special Committee on the Charter and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization”, a number of references were made to Article 107 in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly by delegations considering the provision obsolete. At the forty-ninth session of the Assembly [that would be in 1994], the delegation of Poland stated that, as the United Nations approached its fiftieth anniversary, it seemed appropriate to consider the removal of the so-called “enemy-State” clauses from the Charter. The States covered by those clauses, in the opinion of the delegation, had become not only an inseparable part of the democratic world, but also a crucial element of the United Nations system. The delegation informed the committee that it had prepared a draft resolution on the subject. A number of delegations made statements in support of the proposal by the delegation of Poland. The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, however, stated the contrary view that Article 107 was still relevant and valid: in the case of Japan, one of the “enemy States”, in contrast with those other States referred to in the “enemy State” clauses of the Charter who had settled their historical obligations, Japan had not atoned for its past, the delegation maintained, nor had it undertaken in good faith not to repeat such acts. The delegation would not object, however, to the relevant Articles being amended in such a way that the new provisions would apply only to the other countries referred to in the “enemy-State” clauses [I suspect North Korea would be on friendly terms with Berlin and Rome since].

3. Subsequently, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, the General Assembly, at its forty-ninth session, considering that the provisions of parts of Article 53¹ and the provisions of Article 107 had become obsolete, requested the Special Committee, at its session in 1995, to consider the question of the deletion of the “enemy-State” clauses of the Charter, contained in Article 53, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 107, and to recommend to the General Assembly at its fiftieth session the most appropriate legal action to be taken on this question.

Neither Art. 53 nor Art. 107 has since been amended; this means, in effect, that the Second World War has never ended in the sense of all other previous wars in the annals of mankind, which all ended, for better or (mostly worse) with the conclusion of a peace treaty. Needless to say, there was no ‘war’ in the legal sense of the term ever since, and there are no ‘war crimes’ either.

Let that sink in.

What, then, is the foundation of the world-system since 8/9 May 1945?

Power, couched, to greater or lesser degrees, in legalese masquerading as whatever name you deem fit.

In other words, the Second World War, in a strictly legal-constitutional sense, never ended (which, hilariously, is also the answer Grok came up with):

[my prompt]: in light of the foregoing, did WW2 ever end in a strictly legal sense of conclusion of formal peace treaties between the “United Nations” (here understood as the US-led WW2-era alliance vs. the Axis powers)? If no, provide a reasoning and, if yes, relate the peace treaties.

[Grok’s answer] In a strictly legal sense, World War II did not fully conclude through formal peace treaties encompassing all members of the WWII “United Nations” alliance (the anti-Axis coalition including the US, UK, USSR, China, and others) and all Axis powers. While the war ended in practice through surrenders, armistices, and a series of partial treaties and settlements, certain legal gaps persist, preventing a complete and universal formal closure…

Fragmented and Incomplete Treaties: Unlike World War I, which ended with comprehensive treaties like Versailles (1919), WWII concluded piecemeal. The Paris Peace Treaties of 1947 formally ended hostilities with several Axis states (Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland), imposing territorial adjustments, reparations, and demilitarization on them. The Treaty of San Francisco (1951) ended the state of war with Japan for 48 Allied nations (including the US, UK, and others), restoring peace, addressing reparations, and recognizing Japan’s sovereignty, but the USSR refused to sign due to disputes over the Kuril Islands (claimed by Japan as the Northern Territories)…As a result, no peace treaty has ever been signed between Japan and Russia (as the USSR’s successor state), meaning a formal state of war technically persists between these two former belligerents…since the USSR was a core member.

Germany’s Unique Case: Germany did not sign a traditional peace treaty immediately after its unconditional surrender in 1945, which legally ended active hostilities but left the country under Allied occupation without a final settlement…but no comprehensive treaty existed until the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (commonly called the Two Plus Four Treaty) in 1990…It is widely viewed as the functional equivalent of a peace treaty, enabling full German sovereignty and reunification, and it included all key WWII Allies.

Lingering UN Charter Provisions: Articles 53 and 107 of the UN Charter explicitly reference “enemy states” from WWII (defined as Axis powers), allowing actions against them without Security Council authorization in cases of renewed aggression. These clauses, embedded in the Charter since 1945, remain unamended despite being broadly considered obsolete and irrelevant in modern geopolitics. A 1995 UN General Assembly resolution called for their deletion (along with Article 77), but this has not occurred due to the high bar for Charter amendments…

In summary, while WWII’s active phase ended with Axis surrenders in 1945 and most legal loose ends were tied through treaties like Paris 1947, San Francisco 1951, and Two Plus Four 1990, the absence of a Japan-Russia treaty and the unamended UN Charter provisions mean full legal closure for the entire alliance versus all Axis powers remains incomplete.

Now, which ostensibly ‘lesser’ lie, or un-truth, if you will, found in your mind, schoolbooks, and professorial lectures are true despite this?

Pick any of the military escalations since 1 September 1945, abuses of so-called human-rights (I’m adding the ‘so-called’ provision because there’s no need to invent that kind of category as murder is a capital offence without the UN Charter), or any so-called peace™ arrangements ever since. Or Climate Change/Catastrophism (also, incidentally, sponsored by the UN-authorised IPCC), the WHO-declared Pandemic™ (pick any), or whatever else.

You’re welcome.

Once you realise this, I submit that much, if not all, of what must logically follow becomes painfully obvious: cynicism about whatever blabber is the standard operating procedure, with every self-respecting man and woman being required to work to unmask that which lurks behind the curtain.

I furthermore submit that the US-led world-system is perhaps unique in history as it actually can be understood using otherwise useless Marxian-Leninist analysis (sic, and, yes, I know what I’m saying):

He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

Big fish eat little fish.

In the absence of any universally recognised, and acted-upon, morality, professed or lived, there’s but power. (As an aside, the first and arguably last time morality played a role in int’l relations was perhaps the Western-imposed abolition of slavery, however drawn-out, incomplete, and hypocritical it was, to say nothing about its most likely temporary nature.)

Once you understand this, there’s but two logical courses of action:

1. submission, and if that’s your choice, I’d humbly suggest you unsubscribe from these pages for the simple reason of option no.

2. the aspiration to live up to the Creator’s promise of freedom and free will, which means—much more work, more suffering, and no guaranteed success, but it offers at least the possibility of freedom.

Sure, there may be gradients, and if you’re responsible for significant others (spouses, children, your parents, etc.), of course compromises must be made.

In fact, acting out of charity, love, and compassion is exactly how navigates these treacherous waters, and the subversive nature of acting out of these sentiments, as opposed to power-gains is self-evident.

What else is self-evident, I think, is that taking action is something that requires you and me to get off the couch, move outside the comfort zone, and spread the word.

By way of closing out this mini-series, a few personal remarks are in order.

My father spent Christmas in a hospital; he had an otherwise unplanned open-heart surgery for tachycardia/arrhythmia and excessively high blood pressure (he’s doing fine, all things considered; he took 5 or 6 Covid poison/death injections and, yes, I counselled against him doing so).

I recall sitting in my parents’ apart in Vienna when he was first hospitalised in mid-November; around 11 p.m., my mother finally opened up indicating how fed up she was with everything while admitting, in so many words, her utter powerlessness to change anything.

Of course I recommended Václav Havel’s ‘The Power of the Powerless’ (1978).

But I also took this as encouragement to keep speaking.

Like I did with my father over the past days—and, guess what, when I gave him an earful about the EU’s tyranny, he was stunned: he never bothered to think about because neither did it affect him (yet) nor did he know about any of this.

The amount of gaslighting and bull-shitting is incredible, and if you ever require any more reason to take action and tell your loved ones, social circles, and everybody else about these and other issues, well, there you go.

So, whatever you do, take action, and let your decision be followed by action.

For if you don’t act, others will, and you may as well re-join the normies.

I know I won’t, I can’t, and there’s no way I’ll ever submit.

Join me.

1. For your convenience, here’s the full text of Art. 53 of the UN Charter:

1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of the Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.