Their careers were meticulously managed and they were carefully watched and groomed, Stephen Karganovic writes.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Only babes in the woods were surprised by the viral video of Western “statesmen” caught by journalists in the act of furtively concealing narcotics that they were sniffing in the train compartment whilst returning from Kiev, where they were hosted by fellow addict Zelensky.

In more “based” times, which are today a memory of the distant past, the spectacle of high ranking political leaders casually taking drugs would have produced a scandal, leading inevitably to their dismissal from public office. That is because scandal is inherently a value based category. The possibility of provoking a scandal is bound up with the existence of a generally accepted code prescribing appropriate conduct based on morality. A scandal erupts when that code has been violated. In a society where a broadly accepted set of common moral principles does not exist, the concept of scandal is unintelligible. What remains is a sensational episode, a thrill arousing fleeting curiosity. It is disjoined from morality and oblivious to serious notions of responsible public conduct or regard for the common good. A scandal generally leaves a long-lasting impact on a society’s perceptions and memory. It arouses moral repugnance and leads to a demand for corrective action, including appropriate personal sanctions that should be applied to practitioners of the conduct that society finds morally objectionable. A sensation, on the other hand, is no more than a widespread reaction of idle excitement. It is an episode without particular moral significance and belongs almost entirely to the category of entertainment. It is quickly superseded by the next such sensational episode, in an endless series. And of course it is as quickly forgotten.

In a healthy society, scandals are important events that leave a lasting imprint. Conversely, in sick societies it is sensational events that impress and almost uniformly the impression is ephemeral.

The episode on the train from Kiev was just such an event par excellence. The fact that it was recorded, thanks to the unplanned appearance of the journalists, made it “viral,” bringing it to the attention of a massive audience. But for Macron, Starmer, and Merz, there have been no lasting consequences beyond the puerile excitement that was briefly generated.

One would be making a very generous assumption by claiming that these ostensibly powerful figures are genuine decision makers. But whether or not they are, the clear evidence that they are taking mind-altering substances should be a matter of extreme public concern. Yet it does not appear to have sparked much critical interest in their countries’ media, nor were questions raised in their parliaments. Their degenerate conduct, which should have raised a plethora of moral and security issues, does not seem to have excessively perturbed their constituents.

The cocaine episode in the train compartment is but the most recent example of unbecoming conduct on the part of individuals who are highly placed in the visible (and I stress, visible) political hierarchy of the collective West. With regard to Macron, there is also the irregular domestic situation in which he is embroiled. There is great uncertainty about the identity, in every sense of the word, of the person who publicly poses as his spouse. There are credible indications that this person has been misrepresented to the public on multiple levels. How vulnerable to blackmail and manipulable by certain special interests does that make the current President of France? Can he even effectively be regarded as the country’s President, or isn’t he rather a front-man for the puppeteers who wield his dossier and direct his public actions from the background? The juxtaposition of two video clips, one of Macron dancing lasciviously in an undignified setting, the other of Zelensky engaged in a similarly unstatesmanlike performance, suggests strongly that these clownish individuals do not even take themselves seriously, let alone that they should be so regarded by anyone else, as factors who carry genuine weight in global politics.

To round out with another recent example, the predicament of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer serves as a stark example of the calibre of men (and women, if we include the likes of Annalena Baerbock and Ursula von der Leyen) who are said to run the affairs of the collective West. Starmer is currently involved in a “rent boy” embarrassment the likes of which Britain has not seen since the Profumo affair in the 1960s. As George Galloway has rightly pointed out, Starmer’s intimate preferences and possible connections with the three Ukrainian “rent boys” whose role in his life still remains without adequate explanation are but the sensationalist tip of the iceberg. The substantive question is this man’s suitability, for a multitude of other and well-grounded reasons, for the high public office to which he has been elevated through political manoeuvring and without genuine electoral scrutiny.

Mutatis mutandis, as they say, what applies to Starmer also applies not only to the other merry passengers on the train ride from Kiev, but also to virtually every other member of what passes for the “political elite” in the collective West. What characterises each of them is the existence of a dossier replete with entries reflecting flaws and compromising behaviour ranging from moral debauchery to corrupt conduct that is outright criminal, as in the case of von den Leyen.

Clearly, none of them is capable of acting in their own right, independently, and least of all out of political conviction formed from a conscientious analysis of what best serves their nation’s interest and constitutes its highest good. Germany’s self-destruction under the aegis of its impotent and sold out political class, who act as civil administrators under occupation rather than as responsible stewards of their nation’s vital interests, conclusively settles that point.

Mutatis mutandis, as by now everyone suspects but most are hesitant to say publicly, that is the current situation in the entirety of the collective West and the satellite statelets still in its orbit.

So no, these “leaders” did not fortuitously fall through the cracks to join the ranks of their countries’ visible nomenklatura. Their careers were meticulously managed and they were carefully watched and groomed, making sure that their characters were not burdened by virtue. Having passed that paramount test, they were deliberately selected and put in place not in error but precisely for being the manipulable and blackmailable non-entities that they are.