Believe your own senses, not fact-checkers

Once upon a time there used to be a fact-checking website that most of its users trusted more than they would a gospel.

At first, it was a hobby: its founder would look at sundry urban legends, and either confirm or deny them.

Since the Internet was still in its diapers at the time, the site founder’s job wouldn’t be as tasking as it is now.

In any case, this site would help spark all kinds of other so-called fact-checkers, growing all the way to forming what is now known a worldwide fact-checkers association. It would work, apparently, along the line of the many professional colleges, setting up standards and making sure everybody adheres to them.

What happens if, in view of that self-appointed association, somebody breaks its rules (whatever they may be at the moment), is not publicly known.

Judging by the behaviour of other such would-be professional associations, it seems to be better these days not to know. Our adrenaline supplies are not endless.

Anyhow, this particular fact-checking group has been growing so steadily, it has managed to outgrow itself.

First, their simple fact-checking would become somehow a little tainted, and then came the final step: this group decided it was smart enough to start what one would call proactive fact-checking. They would still answer questions, but how, they would have a group of their own reporters. These people would go and check out whatever would hit their fancy, especially if they thought they could catch someone with their pants down.

A smart plan, if done professionally.

Except: one of their first (and trumpeted) forays into the field of active fact-checking was to send a reporter to Sweden to check on frequent news regarding the danger the Tre Kronor (Three Crowns) country was in. Sweden employed an open-door policy set to let in illegal immigrants, mostly from the Middle East and Northern Africa, without any special background checking. That policy, stories from most reliable sources indicated, was close to backfiring.

Money wasted. The reports that started appearing on that fact-checking site’s pages could have been written by simply translating from the Swedish language the official Swedish social-democratic government’s propaganda material.

Since not many in North America, the main user of this particular site, cared about Sweden either way, not many cared to double-check.

So, the inertia continued: when in doubt, check it out on a fact-checking site, and since this one has been around perhaps the longest, why not keep coming back?

Gone are the days when individual reporters in individual media outlets would make sure that no editor catches them in overlooking a detail here or a quote there.

Relying on somebody else, even if one is aware they might be biased now and then, can end up in embarrassment.

For example: this particular, preferably unnamed fact-checking-turned-reporting site, came up with a brilliant idea: during the broadcast of a televised debate between the two 2020 U.S. presidential candidates, it would be checking their facts on the spot.

The authors called the outcome an unvarnished success.

Except that it was NOT.

Former president Barack Hussein Obama’s administration allegedly “got caught ‘spying’ on his successor Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.” The intrepid fact-checking site said this accusation was “mostly false.”

The materials have been flowing all around them for months, with documented proof available at least for several days, and yet, their bias showed in full colours.

They also said that Democratic Party’s candidate Joe Biden was not all for defunding police. This was ingenious, cunning and sly all at once. This statement conveniently ignored simple logic: facts can often be more important than words. Joe Biden never refused the demand that law enforcement be defunded. That kind of silence is too close for comfort to agreeing with it.

So, what’s the moral of it all?

Simple: trust what you see with your own eyes, hear with your own ears, touch with your own hands, and smell with your own nose.

And don’t let anyone do these important things for you. Even the old Romans knew this rule: de omnibus dubitandum est, meaning: doubt everything.

And, especially, doubt fact-checkers with innocent and honest-looking faces.

Too late for justice? Never!

Here’s the real question: what took them so long?

Hillary Clinton not only knew about the plan to smear her then-rival Donald Trump with accusations about Russian election-hacking to distract from her own e-mail scandal, she loved the idea.

The media, that is, those outlets that care for fair coverage, are all aghast to see that newly-declassified papers confirm it.

Yet, it must have been obvious all along to anyone who uses her/his head to think. For crying out loud, what’s so tough to decipher? Here we have a candidate who sold an overwhelming part of U.S. uranium reserves to Russia in a deal that should have sent her to prison right then and there.

The deal was known to many for quite some time.

What does it make her? In Russian authorities’ considered view that makes her much easier to blackmail (лeгчe шантажировать). Add to that some sordid details of Russian contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and hubby Bill’s fees for making speeches to Russian audiences, and what you have is a family under Russian control.

Russian government (and president Vladimir Putin) aren’t here to make sure the U.S. is working smoothly, its economy blooming, its social life peaceful. They are here to make sure everything works for the best for Russia, and nowhere else.

If only our own Canadian government acted in Canada’s interest! But that’s another operetta.

In any case, Hillary Clinton’s presidential election victory has been in Russia’s interest since she declared her intention to follow in hubby Bill’s footsteps.

So would be, by the way, the current Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden’s victory in Russia’s interest: not only is he much easier to blackmail (лeгчe шантажировать), what with his perfectly shady dealings with (and in) the Republic of Ukraine, as well as a number of sundry allegations of his (and his family’s) dealings with organized crime.

Open Sesame!

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham (R-S. Carolina), asked for information related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane (i.e. Russiagate) probe.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe obliged.

As an aside: whenever there is a scandal these days, it is a this or that gate. This shows such damning lack of imagination by the media headline writers, it’s beyond shocking.

Back to the revelations: what emerged was a version of the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves not even Antoine Galland in his classic version of One Thousand and One Nights could have imagined.

For the curious: Antoine Galland (1646 – 1715) was a French orientalist and archaeologist. He was the first European translator of One Thousand and One Nights.

Basically, here’s what happened: an advisor told Hillary Clinton in July 2016, with four months left to that year’s presidential election, that it shouldn’t take that much effort to (verbatim) “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.

Some of the now declassified files seem to indicate that Russian intelligence became wise to the scheme pretty quickly, but there seems to be no proof of Hillary Clinton herself making them aware. Not, at least, in the newly declassified documentation.

In any case, Hillary Clinton’s effort must have been serious enough: then-CIA director John Brennan apparently briefed then-President Barack Obama on her Russian smear scheme. That is what his handwritten notes show.

Of course, the timing of the events, as the newly declassified material shows, was professionally perfect.

“Russian state actors broke into the (Democratic National Committee)” and “stole” the campaign’s e-mails, Clinton staffer Robby Mook told CNN at the end of July, 2016.

Why would they do it?

“For the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump,” volunteered Mook.

The declassified files deal in detail with the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s reports. They had been found false even then, but nobody, certainly not the Obama administration, seemed to care.

In fact, the Obama administration knowingly continued with perpetrating such crimes as falsifying data to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants that enabled it to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign members.

Not only that: without even bothering to have a cursory peek at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) e-mail server, Obama’s intelligence agencies made public their belief that the hated Russkies hacked the DNC computer network.

Again, the timing was impeccable: with just a month to go to the election.

In a somewhat involved story it seems to turn out that the source for the so-called Steele Dossier was none other than a Russian guy who used to work for the Brookings Institution (a foreign policy think-tank of somewhat left-wing leanings). According to the files, he left that venerable research group in 2010, and many of his former co-workers suspected him of being a Russian spy.

Again, the timing of these revelations is interesting, and so is the fact that only a few of the miscreants who had been guilty of it all have faced justice, so far.

Why so late?

The first problem: justice in democracy requires thorough investigation. The expression “beyond reasonable doubt” is a sign of justice in democratic systems.

That it can be (and often is) abused is clear. But it still is much better to err on the side of caution, rather than punish an innocent person.

The other issue: if the U.S. law enforcement and judiciary proceeded with all speed and haste, not only could they miss important points, both in law and in fact. They would be accused of doing president Donald Trump’s bidding, even if America’s commander-in-chief had nothing to do with the proceedings.

Judging by today’s mainstream media’s efforts, the president would have been made to look and sound like a villain, even if the crimes by those on the other side were proven, again, beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. They would have been swept aside, just as Hillary Clinton and her cohorts’ perfectly obvious crimes have been.

Besides, today’s U.S. Democratic Party leadership seems to have forgotten all respect it should have for democratic process. If they haven’t forgotten, they just ignore it. In this context, president Trump’s decision not to interfere and let the process take its time was wise to the extreme.

Many may dislike Donald Trump’s style, but his substance is about something else: about making America great again, no matter how it shocks the Antifa and Black Lives Matter crowds.

Here’s the irony of it all: without a great America’s democracy they wouldn’t exist.

The mother of all definitions

Everybody and their dog speak of political correctness, yet, not many (not even the politicians and their hacks) are able to provide an all-encompassing definition of it.

Whatever suits them becomes the definition of the day (in today’s world commanded by speed and speed alone, of the second).

And yet, there exists a brilliant description that meets all of the possible requirements needed to make it a definition.

Here it is: political correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

According to alleged eyewitnesses, this one is 75 years old, written by then-president of the United States, Harry S. Truman.

There were supposedly four telegrams exchanged between General Douglas MacArthur and Truman, his commander-in-chief, on the day before the actual signing of the WWII Surrender Agreement in Japan, September 1, 1945.

Now, in reality, there were not, but the texts (they have been circulating on the world-wide web since at least a decade and a half ago) are funny.

The next few paragraphs include the messages as they have been circulating.

The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as received at the end of the war – not a word has been added or deleted!

(1) Tokyo, Japan 08:00-September 1, 1945.
To: President Harry S Truman
From: General D A MacArthur
Tomorrow we meet with those yellow-bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions?

(2) Washington, D C 13:00-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur
From: H S Truman
Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press, because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!

(3) Tokyo, Japan 16:30-September 1, 1945
To: H S Truman
From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz
Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?

(4) Washington, D C 21:20-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz
From: H S Truman
Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

Here’s the first problem: the expression, ‘mainstream media,’ is so frightfully new, not even Truman, who could see far ahead, could imagine its existence.

Too bad the real author has never come forward. To collect her/his well-deserved royalties, at least.

The second problem can be described as a minor technicality: the Truman Library and Museum’s reply to a question about the exchange by an Internet user earlier this year:

Greetings from the Truman Library,

Thank you for your question! This purported exchange of telegrams between General Douglas MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman does not exist at the Truman Library. One of the ways you can tell this exchange is not accurate is that they have Chester Nimitz’s middle initial wrong – his middle initial is W, not H. The “telegrams” contain other terms that did not exist in Truman’s time, such as “mainstream media,” and terms that military officers of MacArthur’s rank would not have used in official communications. It also suggests a level of camaraderie and familiarity between General MacArthur and President Truman that certainly did not exist.

What a pity

Still, even though not coined by Harry S. Truman, the definition sticks.

A very recent opinion piece published by the Salt Lake City Tribune proves that some people still haven’t heard that just as a woman can’t be pregnant only in part, so a society cannot be based on democracy and socialism at the same time.

History has shown that this arrangement doesn’t work, and yet, some people still believe that the failed idea can be made to work somehow, if only we tried hard enough.

The three men whom the Salt Lake City Tribune identifies as James Smithson, Richard Saltzman and James Glenn claim they’ve seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s not an oncoming train, it is the first rays of the bright future named socialism.

They open their diatribe by saying (verbatim): “Socialism” is currently a hot-button word that is too often misused.

Of course, nothing is easier than interpreting a politician’s words in a way he might and might not have meant them.

To prove their point, the Salt Lake City Tribune trio use a Truman Library and Museum’s recording of a speech Truman gave in Syracuse, New York, in 1952, when he was supporting then-Democratic Party’s presidential candidate Adlai Stephenson.

For the record: no matter how hard Truman tried to denigrate the other (Republican) party candidate, Dwight David Eisenhower, the general would win. Stephenson would come to the White House only when invited by a current incumbent.

The trio are trying to explain that socialism is, in fact, a benign idea that only helps the wide masses of people. They select a few words from the conclusion of the Truman speech. He didn’t like it that the Republicans would call most (if not all) of Democratic Party ideas of enhancing government role in national economy ‘socialist.’

Of course, Truman could not know at the time that his predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal would be hanging like a mill stone around the neck of America within just a few decades. But he could (or should) have known that Italy’s fascist Duce (leader) Benito Mussolini admired Roosevelt’s persistent socialization of the U.S., and the FDR had to send a special envoy to Rome to ask the fascist supremo to at least tone down his public accolades addressed at Roosevelt and all his works. It is quite possible Truman was aware of this incident, but no real proof exists.

In any case, the Salt Lake Tribune writers, James Smithson, Richard Saltzman and James Glenn, could have known it, too. If only they did their homework.

The trio present their personal stories that, they write with all seriousness, helped them along the way to “see that if government partnerships to promote public goods are what we are calling socialism, then a little well-placed socialism might be a good thing.”

And: “We shouldn’t be so quick to assume that socialism is always a bad thing.”

They conclude that socialism does not result in a loss of freedom, undermining individual productivity. It does not necessarily lead people down a dangerously slippery slope to communism.


Had they done their homework on Harry S. Truman a bit more thoroughly, they would have known that he was throwing those soothing words about socialism out because of electioneering.

Truman fought socialism on the world stage with commendable vigour. The Marshall Plan, intended to help restore Europe devastated by war, his Truman Doctrine that was supposed to contain Soviet geopolitical expansion during the Cold War, and many other measures are proof that he knew the socialist danger.

In today’s world, apologists for socialism are apologists for violence, discrimination, racism (what else are the Black Lives Matter groups than bands of illiterate racists?), and general mayhem that would end up destroying civilization that we fought so hard to achieve.

It is a pity that Harry S. Truman didn’t write these unforgettable words defining political correctness.

Still, it would be useful to remember them.

Political correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

Taxpayer money supports Marxist propaganda. Should it?

When the Bolsheviks took over Russia in their 1917 coup d’état (it definitely was NOT a revolution), an attack on the country’s rich cultural traditions followed suit almost immediately.

The events of October 25 (so-called Old Style) are celebrated on November 7, which led to a so-called radioactive joke: the Soviets’ hugest holy day is called the Great October Socialist Revolution, but it’s celebrated in November, and that’s how it works with everything else there, too.

Why radioactive? Because if anyone reported you for sharing this joke, you would spend a few years behind barbed wire, labouring in uranium mines.

In any case, the Bolsheviks who overthrew a democratically elected government (known as provisional government, led by Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky), quickly realized that in order to keep the reins of power, they have to eradicate the past.

Culture, that is art, literature, drama, even music, became the most dangerous weapons in the hands of those who didn’t like Bolshevism.

And this is what led directly to the creation of the Proletkult (Пролеткульт). It stood for proletarian culture (the Bolsheviks and their kind just love abbreviations). It would cause irreparable damage to the traditional Russian culture.

Coming back full circle

And now we see the Bolsheviks’ successors raising their ugly heads.

For example, the Britons are appalled to learn that their hard-earned money goes into supporting a show named Thirteen Ways of Looking, set to open in Coventry within a few days.

Coventry, of all places, the city savagely bombed out by the Nazis during World War II, is set to become a victim again. The German Luftwaffe changed the peaceful city into mountains of ruins in the autumn of 1940.

It’s about a Marxist group of people who don’t know the basics of artistic trades but have enough chutzpah to call themselves the vanguard of arts. They are descending on the place to give it a bad name to end all bad names.

It all is supposed to take place at the Herbert Art Gallery & Museum. The promoters would not say much about the new artistic stars, except for debating their race, migration status or family origins. Not a single word about their artistic achievements or, what a ridiculous idea, the objects they have created for this exhibition.

Oh, they do talk about their topics, all right. Marital disappointment of Pakistani women, for example. Or what a female Chinese migrant has experienced in her troubled life. But Black Lives Matter-inspired objets d’art take the cake. How does Black female subjectivities within narratives of the future strike you?

Or: Black women as neuroscientists using the domain of the beauty salon as a rebel underground network for a radically new shared system of communication? This one comes from a group that calls itself Hyphen Labs. That it’s a given that they call themselves a collective is perfectly obvious.

A discussion on important topics, such as NeuroSpeculative AfroFeminism Research will be an integral part of this nonsense.

Where the Bolsheviks concentrated their envies on what they called ‘class struggle,’ their today’s successors try to fan the flames of ‘race hatred.’

Here’s what’s happening all over the so-called civilized world: most successive governments have imposed all kinds of quotas. The British, for example, have race/sex/sexuality/immigrant to meet.

Canada Council of the Arts has set standards very similar to their British forerunners’ idiocy and abuse of taxpayers’ funding.

A memory refresher: how about Jana Sterbak’s infamous body put together using choice beef steak meat? She has given this outrageousness a Latin-sounding name: conceptual sculpture. That impressed Canada’s National Gallery of Art. It bought this perfect balderdash, abusing taxpayer money, only to see it rot within a few days.

Not to worry: Ms. Jana Sterbak would become a Canada Council laureate of 2012.

Considering that her mother. Dr. Milena Sterbakova, a qualified psychiatrist, defected to Canada from her native Czechoslovakia following the Soviet-led invasion of 1968 (and Ms. Jana Sterbak herself was born there in 1955), one seriously wonders what Ms. Sterbak’s mother would say if she had the chance to see her daughter’s achievements.

Not that Ms. Sterbak necessarily harbours any deep-seated Marxist thoughts. In fact, it’s doubtful whether she harbours any thoughts at all. But her free abuse of the word ‘art,’ abusing taxpayer money, to boot, helps the Marxist ideologues promote their kind of political propaganda under the guise of free artistic expression.

New –ism

The Coventry exhibit organizers have come up with a brand new standard. They invented ‘artivism,’ whatever that is supposed to mean. The theoreticians of the intellectual step into the unknown never bothered to define any of it. Not even pretending they know whereof they speak, using the mumbo-jumbo that should make sceptics blush: oh, are we stupid not to understand it!

Art criticism has fallen prey to postmodernism long time ago. Artists no longer have to cover up that what they produce is not art but, rather, shameless propaganda. And whoever begs to differ gets a killer label: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, denier, whatever.

Yes, these labels are killers. The number of careers they killed is not only perfectly astounding. It is also growing.

But here’s the worst part: governments and sundry official agencies are willingly supporting this kind of ideological subversion, to borrow an expression from Marxist vocabulary. In the U.S., they have created a name for it: Deep State. Elsewhere, it’s about nameless bureaucrats, linked into invisible circles with all kinds of organizers, promoters, and other kind of such crowd. Nobody has any control over them. Those who feel something doesn’t feel right (and have the courage to say so) are dismissed out of hand as illiterate village idiots. Who wants to be known as one of those?

Come to think of it, all of us (or most of us) are village idiots in those people’s eyes. How many of us have stood up to say that the king is naked?

These people use a fantastic tool: should anyone question, for example, a Canada Council grant, their hue and cry would be: government interference, censorship, even!

Just for a bit of enlightenment: Canada Council’s funds are allocated by Parliament, not the government of the day. That makes the entire situation even more openly scandalous.

Yes, many will say, but what can we do?

Here’s the answer: a lot. The British version of one of the most moronic television shows in the world, Britain’s Got Talent, showed a dance group that calls itself innovative. It performed an openly politically charged, propagandist number. The group itself, in their own literature, links it to promoting Black Lives Matter. The office that officially controls what happens on the BBC was literally inundated by angry letters of protest.

The Brits, in addition to their taxes, pay a special fee to support the Mothercorp. Imagine what would happen if they all decided to refuse to pay. Many angry viewers suggested just that in their correspondence to Ofcom.

The late Jiří Menzel, the Oscar-winning director for Closely Watched Trains (Ostře sledované vlaky), liked to say that most people in the streets, that is, those who have to work to be able to put bread on their kitchen tables, think of most arts and artists as something and someone who perhaps should be around, but they are not sure why to bother about them.

Here’s the issue: thus unobserved and uncontrolled, these Marxist parasites spread all kinds of foul-smelling junk around, and if we don’t do something about it, and fast, our nostrils will become used to it, and we will begin to feel it’s normal.

It is not. The time to do something about it is now.

And no, it is not censorship. It’s pure mental and emotional hygiene.

This is no longer funny

A citizen entered the police headquarters building in his country’s capital city, and found his way to the visa and passport office.

This statement reveals right away that it must have been happening in a communist country: normal, democratic countries aren’t as brazenly open about linking their visa and passport business with the police.

Anyhow, the citizen knocked (rather timidly) on the door that said, in bold, capital letters: PASSPORT OFFICE. Enter, he heard, so he obeyed.

What’s up, citizen? a police officer asked.

Comrade, I should like to emigrate.

Another sign this must have been a communist country: he called the officer ‘comrade,’ and he needed a special passport to move to another country.

Of course, if this were to really happen, this courageous citizen would have been led straight to prison (or a psychiatric facility): emigration is a crime under communism, and only the clinically insane want to leave the paradise.

In practical sense, the citizen would have got the prescribed minimum of 18 months behind bars: the regime would have shown leniency because, after all, he told the authorities in advance.

But, since this is a joke (it used to be very popular in communist countries), let’s continue.

Certainly, citizen, said the police officer, just fill this application form and we’ll take care of the rest of it.

The citizen fills out the form, hands it back to the officer. The policeman reads, nods and says, brilliant, but you omitted to name the country you would want to emigrate to.

Oh, but that doesn’t matter, says the citizen, so long as it’s anywhere out of the communist sphere, it’s fine with me.

Now, in reality, he would have got another three years behind bars on top of the lenient 18 months for this statement.

But, again, this is a joke, so, let’s move on.

I certainly appreciate the sentiment, thus the police guy, but rules are rules. We need you to answer the destination question. Otherwise, we just can’t process your application.

After a brief argument, the officer hands the citizen a globe: go into the waiting room, find a country you’ll want to go to, come back, we’ll fill it in, and everything will be fine and hunky-dory.

The citizen returns in about an hour: comrade, you wouldn’t happen to have another globe?

Here’s the problem: we are quickly getting to a situation where this punchline begins to remind us of reality.

People in communist countries used to joke that the one major advantage of the communist system was you could always try to defect to freedom. But now, alas, they lament, we have managed at last to get ourselves out of the Marxist yoke hung on us from the east, and here it is again, coming back to haunt us from the west.

Just look around

Political correctness was invented by Marxist devotees of the so-called Frankfurt School (Frankfurter Schule). These were people chased out of Germany by Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler. They stood in the way of his so-called Führerprinzip (Leadership Tenet). In Hitler’s eyes, there could be only one Leader, and it had to be him. The mainly Marxist, but also in part Hegelian, and to a certain degree Freudian membership of the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), a part of Goethe University in Frankfurt, preached socialism that differed from the one proposed by Hitler.

Many of them saved themselves from Hitler’s tender mercies in Great Britain, but most of them landed in the United States. While the British were only democratic and were of the view that everybody’s opinion deserves a fair chance (see Hyde Park and its soap-box orators), the Americans offered one more advantage: they were (and, in fact, remain to this day) naïve like newly born puppies.

The Marxist cancer had begun very slowly. It would take time before its main proponents could reach tenured positions with American institutions of higher learning. It would also take some time before they could overcome Americans’ aversion to all things that could endanger their lives.

They abused Americans’ respect for democratic process by violently attacking the Senator Joe McCarthy committee that investigated what it called un-American activities. It took some time before they achieved one of their first goals: the word anti-communist would become an insult, all of a sudden.

The Frankfurter Schule alumni would spread continually into all spheres of the economic world. Today it comes as no surprise to hear all kinds of CEOs and similar such magnates uttering words of Marxist propaganda. They don’t know whence those beliefs had come. Even more surprisingly, they believe the gibberish that they are pronouncing without a sign of doubt.

The Frankfurter Schule alumni took great care to water down all levels of education. Their effort began in universities, concentrating on the humanities first: you don’t have to know anything to excel in the humanities, so long as you know how and when to use the appropriately progressive parlance.

Speaking of the word ‘progressive,’ they hijacked it and misappropriated it with vengeance. If inserting the Marxist expression ‘antagonistic contradiction’ constitutes anything, it is not progressive. It is a teaching that promotes hatred, and it forms one of the basic tenets of Marxism.

Role reversal

Political correctness in its original form was supposed to make sure we don’t say (write, express in any shape or form) anything that could upset somebody else’s finest and most inner feelings.

That was the claim, anyway. Certainly, it’s censorship, pure and simple, but with the best of intentions. Dante Alighieri said it best: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And it is becoming more and more obvious with each passing day that modern Marxists’ intentions are nothing but evil.

Another Trojan horse: political correctness has developed into a situation where those anointed by the politically correct can insult everybody else with perfect impunity, while the other group must keep their mouths shut or else.

No need to go too far for an example: white privilege, anybody?

Instead of the original class hatred, modern Marxists have developed race hatred.

They also figured out that fear helps subdue most of the doubters. Scare them into submission. How? Invent a new plague and say it’s worse than leprosy.

Your politicians these days are mostly people who have no clue. Throw enough Latin words at them, and they’ll obey. And they’ll demand that their fellow citizens obey whatever idiotic command they issue (mandatory face masks or vaccinations, anybody?).

Today’s journalists are even worse. Gone are the days when they used to doubt everything authorities told them. Now, they don’t even bother to double-check the figures thrown at them, they just repeat them. They seem to have never heard that figures without context make no sense. In one sentence: perfect lack of journalism.

Valiant propaganda

Instead of providing their readers, listeners or viewers with news, making sure they are as unbiased as possible, today’s practitioners of the trade of journalism have abandoned any semblance to the profession.

Granted, nobody is perfectly objective. Selection of topics, the importance you assign to them (how you play them, in the jargon of the trade), all of this reveals bias.

An example: Israeli troops shot and killed several Palestinians on a beach. That’s the first paragraph. The fact that those Palestinians just happened to be heavily armed scuba divers, carrying more military supplies into the area of conflict, is humbly buried at the end of the story.

In today’s world where a headline says it all, and those who go beyond the first paragraph and glance at the second one are seen as in-depth consumers of news, what image does the general public get?

Or how about a Canadian sportscaster who says a professional football team’s players are honouring the memory of a murder of a black guy? Who cares that the guy who perished (in the hands of a police officer) was a hardened criminal who had just committed another couple of crimes (making a purchase using fake money, attempting to drive a motor vehicle while high on drugs)?

Or how about a documentary on another sports TV network, this one about a martial arts fighter, who joined the ranks of this rather unusual sport to help him with his anger management? He freely admits in the broadcast that he used to be heavily involved in the illicit drugs business, but when it comes to his arrests, he says this was typical systemic racism. And whoever created this piece of nonsense doesn’t even know how to challenge the newly minted champion. To the contrary, the entire piece is glowing with admiration: the guy is clean!

A piece of surprise: so are many others, and they do not speak about racism, systemic or systematic or otherwise. Except: they are subjected to unrelenting propaganda saying that it is fine and dandy to have issues with one’s anger management and sell drugs to all and sundry.

That’s how deep we have sunk.

And this state of affairs is no longer funny.

A moral dilemma: to burn or not to burn?

The capitalists will happily sell the proletarians the rope with which the proletarians intend to hang them, provided the capitalists get a good price for it.

Thus the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov-Lenin.

He knew whereof he spoke: at the time Ulyanov-Lenin uttered these words, he had made a deal with American businessman (and, originally, physician) Armand Hammer. Lenin persuaded Hammer to abandon his planned Russian medical practice and go into a business venture there, instead. It started with making pencils (which the illiterate muzhikiмужики – Russian for peasants – must have appreciated beyond belief).

The venture would end soon after Ulyanov-Lenin’s death in 1924, but: Hammer did return to the United States in 1930, his suitcases filled with paintings and jewellery pieces. These objets d’art used to belong to the Romanov imperial family. The Soviets needed cash, the Romanovs were all dead, anyway, shot by the Soviet Red Guards in Yekaterinburg on Ulyanov-Lenin’s personal orders, and Hammer was perfectly willing to pay cash.

The relationship would keep developing till Hammer’s death in 1990.

The official record insists Hammer got into oil business merely by pure accident, egged on by a friend. No matter how that happened, FBI investigated some strange dealings and found these companies were used to launder dirty Soviet money. According to published reports, Al Gore Sr. joined Hammer in this humanistic undertaking. Of course, the U.S. Representative and Senator for the Democratic Party from Tennessee made sure the probe went nowhere. Still, the FBI never challenged the published reports, and it has been suspected that the Bureau itself might have been involved in their publication.

Story continues

It will be 64 years this November since then-Soviet chief communist Nikita Sergeievich Khrushchev told the Americans that the communists will bury them.

This statement made instant headlines, and (as happens so often with modern media) most of what Khrushchev would say later would get lost. Not in translation (Khrushchev’s personal interpreter Viktor Sukhodrev knew his job to a t). It just wasn’t as catchy and sexy as the headline-grabbing burial statement.

But, it turns out, Khrushchev wasn’t as naïve as many thought he was.

Here’s what he had to say on that rainy November day in 1959: “Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have communism. We will not have to fight you; we will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

“The democracy will cease to exist,” Khrushchev finished, “when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

If this last statement reminds anyone of what is going on in Canada even as we speak, three cheers for their observation powers.

A spy speaks out

As if to confirm the former Soviet boss’s words, a former Soviet KGB spy Yuri Bezmenov spoke about the ways the originally unthinkable can be achieved without too much effort on the Soviet Union’s part.

He recorded this interview in 1984 (a significant year, wasn’t it?), and it has begun making rounds on social media networks again these days.

For a pretty good reason.

The Soviet Union does not exist any longer, neither does the KGB, but people who still believe in totalitarianism in the socialist vein have never disappeared from the scenes completely. Now they are back, louder than ever.

After all, whoever believed that the Soviet Union’s successor, the Russian Federation, would disregard its predecessor’s imperial ambitions knew not whereof they spoke. Russia’s imperial ambitions did not begin with the Soviet Union, the Tsars used to have similar goals.

There have always been internal struggles in Russia whether she should open herself towards the west more, or whether she should close the door. But the stated fear that nobody loves them and therefore they must be vigilant and continue getting stronger, has been there for ever.

No, we’re not paranoid, but, frankly, everybody’s after our throat, and we know it.

Add to it the Marxist conviction that this is the only bright future the world should strive for, and you have a perfectly dangerous mix.

A frank disclosure

A KGB officer, known as Yuri Bezmenov (only he knows what his real name was), defected to the U.S., and in an 1984 interview, he spoke very openly about his native country’s goals.

First of all, he mentioned what has become known as ideological subversion. The Soviets (and communists generally) found it very easy to perform these activities quite openly, Bezmenov said. If only the Americans unplugged their bananas from their ears and opened their eyes, they would have seen it. Yes, espionage sounds much better, more romantic, but ideological subversion seems to have much more lasting impact. It used to be called (and still is by KGB’s successor, the SVR) active measures (активныe мероприятия). It amounts to psychological warfare, and the basic idea is to change the perception of reality on the other side.

What we see happening now in the U.S. is the culmination of the ideologically subversive efforts.

The Marxists must be dancing with joy wherever they are: the looters and rioters are just gangs of illiterate morons, many high on drugs and pleased with unexpected income they get for each store window crashed, each business set on fire, each peaceful citizen scared out of her/his wits.

The Marxists must be also ecstatic when they see illiterate and arrogant politicians who, not knowing what they are talking about, impose all kinds of limitations upon their fellow citizens whom they have scared into mass hysteria with a non-existent pandemic.

Democracy has shown its obvious weakness: it just doesn’t know how to fight against a ruthless enemy who takes no prisoners.

American history has shown how would-be intellectuals (such as U.S. media star Edward Murrow) have fought against what they would call McCarthyism, not knowing that the good Senator’s accusations were based on facts. They never realized that being a communist does constitute present danger to all those who love living in freedom. That communism is not just another opinion. That it is a weapon.

Yes, the committee set up to investigate what they called un-American activities did (from to time) use methods that can hardly be called purely democratic.

This debate hasn’t started yesterday. In the year 10 B.C. Roman writer and poet Ovid wrote (verbatim): exitus ācta probat (ends justify the means). The question becomes worthy of a deeply thought-out philosophical debate: is it true that morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary?

No philosopher has yet come up with an answer acceptable to all.

And, in the meantime, America is burning.

Should THAT answer not be enough?

A megalomaniac? A criminal? A puppet? Or all three?

Who the hell is Klaus Martin Schwab, the guy who claims to be holding the keys to the future of the world?

Claiming the world is ready for what he calls the Great Reset, he had the World Economic Forum, the strange outfit that he had founded (together with his wife Hilde) decades ago, sell all of its stocks and bonds. Not only that, the Forum did so ahead of everyone else.

Just what did he know that most of the rest of the world had not been aware of?

A curious look

Available data show Klaus Martin Schwab’s curriculum vitae in a rather admirable light: a doctorate in economics (summa cum laude, comparable with honours) from Switzerland’s ancient University of Fribourg, an engineering doctorate from ETH Zürich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), and, to make him look even more rounded, a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Of course, an honourary professorship at the China Foreign Affairs University may stain the picture somewhat in some people’s eyes, but that, to Schwab and his coterie, matters not.

Many of his admirers think Schwab wrote the two of the bibles of world-changing revolutions, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016) and Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018). Alas, not really: a World Economic Forum employee named Nicholas Davis wrote them both.

A busy beaver

More often than not, people have issues with beavers’ engineering projects. Here, they flood a field, there, they make a river impassable.

A headache, that’s what they are.

Compare Klaus Schwab’s activities with those of the beaver population around the world. The native of the German Upper Swabia city of Ravensburg has been all over the world, creating all kinds of what he calls dynamic global communities that consist of exceptional people (they must be under 40) with the vision, courage and influence to drive positive change in the world (his own literature words).

The age restriction is important: younger people are more susceptible to cheap sloganeering.

The impact of Ravensburg’s annual festival, Rutenfest (literally: birch whip celebration) must have made a huge impact on Klaus Schwab’s thinking.

The same year he started with the World Economic Forum in 1971, he published what he views as one of his scientific masterpieces: Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering (Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau). Management of a modern enterprise, Schwab wrote, must serve not only its shareholders but all of its stakeholders (die Interessenten), too. Otherwise, it won’t achieve long-term growth and prosperity.

Of course, the stakeholders were defined rather vaguely, but that’s not the point. The point is that Schwab’s argument leads nowhere but to socialism (in either of its shapes, such as national socialism, social democracy or communism).

Schwab claims that the World Economic Forum exists as a driver for reconciliation efforts in different parts of the world, whatever that is supposed to mean. According to him, the world needs a catalyst of numerous collaborations and international initiatives.

So, this is the guy who claims that the world needs what he calls a Great Reset.

Here’s one example of what he has in mind.

That he himself sits on various business companies’ boards (collecting fees from each and every one of them) helps his private bank account but, also, his untiring efforts to re-shape the world. He used to sit on the infamous Bilderberg Group’s steering committee, too: that’s the group that was formed after 1945, with its stated goal to help enhance the dialogue between Europe and North America. Its objectives would develop into outright globalization (under one government, potentially).

Inquisitive minds need to know

As mentioned, the World Economic Forum sold all its stocks and bonds. What shocked many was that it did so ahead of everyone else.

As Armstrong Economics pointed out, Schwab has exploited the so-called Covid-19 virus within weeks of its appearance, using it as a springboard to launch his vision for the Great Reset.

Armstrong Economics is a serious organization of economists who know how to ask the right questions, and asking them.

Armstrong Economics describes it as a “highly likely man-made virus” and adds that it was “also highly likely to have been leaked in China deliberately by another group with a personal agenda involving climate change.”

The result, in a summary: world economy shut down, the world oil reserves increased by three years, over 300 million jobs destroyed as collateral damage.

Armstrong Economics compares the fear tactics used now to gain power to what the Nazis (and one would add: Communists) used to do with so much success.

The outcome: world’s population reduced to sheep being led to slaughter.

Schwab revealed his intentions in his new book, Covid-19: The Great Reset.

Obviously, he doesn’t plan to earn much on royalties: this piece of pure propaganda dirt is available for free online.

Wilful ignorance?

It is not known how much did Klaus Schwab learn about he history of economy.

It seems not much.

Herewith a reminder of some relevant events: it took 26 years to get over the effects of what used to be known the Great Depression of the 19th century.

Historians would later rename it Long Depression, after the 1929 crash developed into a new Great Depression.

Historians say that introduction of railroads would wreak havoc on the basic structure of transportation, displacing jobs involving horses and carts. That, they deduce, was the main cause of the Long Depression.

The origin of the Great Depression of the 20th century is somewhat more involved.

Historians claim that it was the collapse in agriculture that would help cause it.

Something to it: agriculture had employed about 40 per cent of the workforce at the turn of the 20th century. Combustion engine that would lead to tractors helped cut the need for manual labour. Besides, the natural disaster that would become known as Dust Bowl increased unemployment to about one-quarter of available workforce.

In addition, U.S. government took to micromanaging the country’s economy during the First World War, and it had terrible difficulties leaving it well enough alone (frankly speaking, it never quite succeeded: see FDR’s New Deal and the quick emergence of the all-encompassing atmosphere of entitlement that has shockingly survived to this day).

Sadly, it had to take the Second World War to restore the economy. As Armstrong Economics indicates, the war helped absorb the excess agricultural labour, forcing many former farm hands to become qualified.

Schwab hopes people don’t know how to think independently. He ignores evidence proves all this talk about man-made climate change is pure nonsense.

The only question that remains is: is he that megalomaniacal as to become criminal all by himself, or is he dancing to somebody else’s tune?

And, if the latter holds, to whose tune?

To hell with modern medicine men (and women)

“Hello,” says a pleasant voice on the telephone, “this is (names are left out because of basic courtesy and, also, because what happens next has been happening way too often recently, all over the place).

“Hello,” the pleasant voice over the telephone says, “this is So-and-so from Dr. Such-and-such’s office. The Doctor has received the results of your tests today. He would like to arrange a telephone appointment with you to go over them with you.”

“Thanks,” thus the patient, “but I would prefer a face-to-face meeting. I have major issues with tele-medicine, such as, I don’t believe in it.”

The voice on the other side sighs: “I am going to tell him and will try to have you squeezed into his schedule somehow.”

A professional reply on her part. One must make do with getting crumbs these days.

Of course, the idea defies logic: the medical attendant would spend about the same time on the phone, talking to the patient, as he would, talking to him in his office.

But that is not the issue.

Progress my foot

The issue is that not everything that is new signifies progress. If improvement is what most of us understand the word ‘progress’ to mean.

These days, when a physician enters the cubicle where you had been sitting, waiting for her or him, s/he barely looks at you, perhaps just to say Hi, if at all.

The real situation looks like this: the physician logs in into the computer, and you get to see magnificent display of typing, using all ten fingers. Your medical attendant may even throw a question at you, from time to time, but what s/he is concerned with most are the data on the screen. Results of tests, some less reliable than others, some less necessary than others.

True, a physician looking at a computer screen usually does no harm to the patient, one of the most important pre-conditions of the Hippocratic Oath (first, do no harm), but treating people based on all kinds of tests just does not cut it.

Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle (himself a Doctor, by the way) based his Sherlock Holmes’s ways of detecting crimes on a physician’s methods of investigation. He would observe an internal medicine specialist’s ways, admire them, and then use them: both in his practice, and in his writing.

This is not a rhetorical question: how many of today’s patients have experienced that their Doctor would use what is known as the classical tetrad? This is a system of four steps any physician should follow when opening an investigation of a patient’s symptoms, even if s/he sees the patient the tenth time in a month. Here it is, and classic medicine prescribes it must be always followed in this order: inspection, palpation, percussion, auscultation. Meaning: look, touch, drum (a specialized trick, drumming using fingers on the physician’s hand positioned in the area of suspected illness: it’s the echo the physician is after), and only then comes the stethoscope.

Come to think of it: how many times has your physician listened to the sounds coming out of your body, using a stethoscope? Or even worse: how many times has your physician entered the surgery room, carrying a stethoscope?

How many times did your physician look at you, preferably straight in your eyes, when asking you a question?

Yes, medicine is a science. But only to a degree. It is also art. After all, Hippocrates, also known as the father of medicine, has been often quoted as saying Ars longa, vita brevis. It means that the art will survive longer than life. It has become a major motto for medicine, both ancient and modern, but today’s practitioners seem to have forgotten it. If they ever knew it, that is.

Not to generalize, there may be a physician or two still around who uses such outdated approaches as only jotting down a note or two in quick shorthand, while inspecting the patient, but the majority seem to have spent time learning quick typing instead of bed manners.

In the mist of memories

Long gone are the days when, if the patient was too sick to trudge to his medical attendant’s office, the Doctor would willingly drop by for a home visit. And only oldtimers and those who like novels from two centuries ago will remember such expressions as ‘medicinal brandy.’

This is not pining for good old times, nostalgia for days long gone by. This is a sad realization that way too many physicians must have forgotten the equation: they are here for their patients. It’s not the other way round. They are no more Gods than sundry politicians of all levels, those, who are convinced they ingested Solomon’s excrement. Even our medical attendants put their trousers on one leg at a time.

And no, the current artificial scare is not an excuse. It only added one more wrinkle to physicians’ attitudes and behavioural patterns, the so-called tele-medicine.

The longer the medical profession is blind to this development, the more people are going to rely upon what is known as ‘alternative medicine.’

Why it is called alternative is another of those many strange mysteries: most of the methods used by the sundry healers had existed long before the so-called Western medicine was even conceived.

It would behove the medical profession to realize that they are dealing with human beings, and that they are human beings themselves, too.

When will the mother of all hoaxes burst at long last?

More and more people are beginning to realize that two and two is four, and that there is something seriously fishy with the so-called Covid-19 (or coronavirus, if you prefer) crisis.

Put simply: unlike the two plus two equation, something does not add up with this purported health scare.

The number of demonstrations against all those lockdowns and face mask demands has been growing steadily, and so has the number of people taking part. Whether governments – targets of these protest demonstrations – will take proper notice remains to be seen.

Some have, in a rather unusual way. Like the government of the state of Victoria (Australia) that has introduced such stringent measures that they remind all and sundry of Nazi martial laws. Or like the government of Canada where a high-ranking Armed Forces officer reportedly suggested that the military should start using most modern technology to spy on Canadians to be able to predict any major protests that might cause the government some headaches.

On the other hand, when multitudes gathered in the German capital, Berlin, and government sent the police to disperse them, by force if need be, the officers took their helmets off as a sign that they agree with the protesters and will not act against them.

The irony here is unmistakable: the Nurnberg war crimes tribunal after the Second World War, while condemning Nazi Germany and her leaders, reacted quite sharply to an attempt to find an excuse: we were only following orders. No, decreed the tribunal, you do not have to follow orders if you decide you find them more than objectionable, you find them criminal.

Not only has this become a universally recognized rule since then, but later research found that there had been German army (Wehrmacht) units that, during the invasion of the Soviet Union, refused to take part in mass executions. Their higher-ups, both in the military and in the political circles, did not act against them.

In any case, German police in Berlin this summer was the first such force to show their solidarity with people protesting in the streets against their government.

Except, all those people have been, thus far, fighting against the signs (symptoms), not against the disease (syndrome) itself.

Going for the roots

A number of guesses have been made, some more provable than others. They have been filling the social media, much to those media’s chagrin (Facebook and YouTube have gone so far as to engage in threateningly open censorship: the former claims to be using so-called fact-checkers, the latter uses so-called community standards).

There’s not much need to dig too deep to find out that the so-called lockdowns have caused damage to most national economies, in some cases irreparable.

There’s much more need to try to find out cui bono, that is, whom it helps.

The New World Order gang that wants to create a government that controls the entire world (as if the United Nations weren’t meddlesome enough)?

Yes, this movement does exist, and it includes a number of sub-groups, from straight Malthusian all the way to straight Marxist. The former sub-group says there are way too many people in the world, and we must find ways to get rid of those we selected, one way or another. If it’s a vaccine, so much the better. The latter sub-group would rather control the entire world and if someone refuses to toe the line, good riddance and a bullet in the neck.

That this would, in the long run, completely ruin humanity and stop its natural progress dead is not of much concern to these people. That’s what ideology for you:  people they start believing in dogmas instead of checking for basic facts.

Or is it People’s Republic of China’s attempt to become the world’s sole economic power, and everyone would have to dance as the communist rulers in Beijing whistle?

Not out of the question, either. After all, so many national economies have recently outsourced so much of their production to the People’s Republic, and some of them (the U.S. in particular) have begun waking up from this nightmare of being dependent on China’s whims. This must, in turn, cause nightmares in the Eternal City.

Or: how about a brazen attempt by the so-called Big Pharma to pad their packets even more? Scare people beyond belief, offer them a vaccine, even though it doesn’t cure anything, as vaccines act as prevention agents only, earn money. Since Covid-19, just like most such flu viruses presents in several strains, and no vaccine covers all strains, develop more vaccines. Earn some more money. Claim that you have developed brand new medication to treat the complaint caused by the virus, earn even more.

It also helps that quite a few previously unimportant people have gained a certain level of authority: they can order people around. Like: wear a mask or else. The less educated these new commanders are, the better. Nothing beats bullying the general population into submission.

This one may have another reason, plausible enough, too: about a dozen years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed its standards to determine a pandemic, an epidemic, and an outburst. They deleted the two basic criteria: morbidity (a number of cases of infections within a certain population in a certain area within a certain timeframe, and mortality (a number of fatal outcomes within that same number of cases of infections within that same certain population in that same certain area within that same certain timeframe). They changed the third standard, speed of spreading, also, making it perfectly irrelevant.

The European Union noticed and launched an official investigation. It found that the so-called WHO medical experts who had suggested these changes, would receive offers (and accept them) of lucrative positions with major pharmaceutical companies. These companies were all involved with creating and selling medications to battle the so-called bird flu and swine flu epidemics.

Money makes the world go round?

Then, there is one more suspicion: some members of the New World Order crowd find it important that banks, and governments through them, can control individuals’ financial well-being and transactions, including their location. They would reach this objective by banning paper money altogether, and insisting that only credit and debit transactions are permissible.

This one may be quite difficult to implement outside of the so-called Western world.

Economies of a number of Latin American countries are based on a very informal cash for service (or goods) system. So are most African and many Asian countries.

Armstrong Economics reports that police blockaded a highway and used tear gas against crowds that tried to get out from the lockdown in the capital of Peru, Lima. Not only that: family gatherings are off limits in Peru, too.

This looks like a sign of perfectly tragic desperation: that government is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Peru’s president Martín Alberto Vizcarra has remained independent from political parties. He has promoted reforms against corruption in the legislative and judicial branches. And now his government seems to face enormous pressure from outside, applied by persons not perfectly known, to subordinate his country to their wishes.

Many analysts suspect the reasons can be combinations of the theories mentioned above. It may be even a combination of all of them.

None of this is a reason good enough to give up.

All of them a reason good enough to get up and fight.

Kamala Harris lets her cat out of the bag

Americans are getting ready to turn their TVs (or computers) on: candidate debates ahead of the November 3 presidential elections are coming up. They promise to become a perfectly scandalous farce.

The incumbent, president Donald Trump, has just received another weapon that could help him in his struggle with former president Barack Hussein Obama’s vice-president Joe Biden: just ask the challenger to promise that, should he be still alive, Biden would stay in office throughout his term.

Why? Because Joe Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, spoke of a Harris (not Biden) administration in a recent question-and-answer session.

True, Harris quickly corrected herself, but nobody bought that. Not even after her apologists claimed that it was just a “slip of the tongue.” A number of people said they preferred to call it a “Freudian slip.”

Considering not only Trump supporters call Harris “nothing more than a Trojan horse for the radical left,” it has become a must for president Trump to start badgering his opponent with the question of his staying power.

One of the most influential black Americans, Wayne Dupree, is convinced that it was neither a slip of her tongue, nor a Freudian slip: it was a signal of Harris’s real intentions.

Dupree has president Trump’s ear: he used to serve as a board member of his National Diversity Coalition. An eight-year U.S. Air Force veteran, Dupree is a living proof (as if any was needed) of the fact that any black American can succeed, if only they work at it.

Voices from hell?

Dupree sees Hillary Clinton’s hand behind the plan: Biden retires shortly after signing his oath on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. Harris, as the popular American cliché has it, just a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, takes over. She names Hillary Clinton her vice-president. Let’s leave what happens next in Nature’s hands (let’s keep all Gods out of this). With the history of unusual demises and unfortunate accidents in the wake of the Clinton couple’s path, everything is possible.

Wayne Dupree also reminds us of Kamala Harris’s entry into the presidential conversation. She threw her hat into the rink of Democratic Party nominations, and could have hardly lost worse than she had. She would have received fewer than two per cent of the votes available in the primaries. She got out when the getting was still good, and decided there must be other ways.

This understudy trick she (and her comrades) developed is nothing new. The brazenness of it all is.

Except, Dupree argues, Hillary Clinton’s shadow has been all over the shady picture of current Democratic Party politics (or politicking) all along. As Dupree puts it very eloquently, Hillary Clinton has been the backstage puppet master running the campaign, and “using cognitively challenged Biden as a friendly mask to hide the true ugliness beneath.”

Of course, Kamala Harris’s pronouncements sound like carbon copies of Bernie Sanders’s program: in addition to her own co-sponsorship of what she calls the Green New Deal, Harris is all in to start Medicare-for-all, decriminalize illegal border crossings, and institute gun buybacks.

The only difference: Sanders unashamedly says he is a socialist, while Harris, just as unashamedly, says she is not.

As Dupree argues, there’s one more angle: it looks as if the Democratic Party was convinced a presidential ticket has no chance in hell of winning without a man on it, and, in particular, without a man on top of it.

If he’s right, all women should vote for anybody but the Democratic Party ticket.

Of course, there’s one more thing to look at: since that fateful night in November 2016, when the Electoral College votes had been counted and the other side won, the Democratic Party has been spewing only hatred, throwing one tantrum after another, coming up with imaginary scandals that all turned out to be fake. All that instead of coming up with positive proposals that would make sense. And, also, instead of rejecting everything the current president had been suggesting to help the widest spectrum of society.

Will they remember?

How many Americans will not forget the Democratic Party’s silent support of all the looting and rioting that has been ravaging their country remains to be seen. Some cynics suggest that a smart operative within Trump’s inner circle must have invented both Antifa and the Black Lives Matter, considering the damage they seem to have done to Democratic Party’s hopes of winning.

Vast majority of Americans want law and order. That’s what Trump has been offering repeatedly, while Biden and company have not.

In Dupree’s view, the Obama clan picked Kamala Harris to run for president. Why they picked her, Dupree does not say, but he seems to have inside knowledge.

As she failed so miserably, they turned to plan B, and that’s the one she revealed with her slip, and who cares whether it was intended or not.

It is doubtful whether the mainstream news media will be asking Kamala Harris about her admission of her goals.

It seems it will be left to president Trump himself to ask his challenger. The question can be simple and straightforward: Joe, are you promising to stay in the office till your term is over? Make it biblically simple: yes yes, no no.

Just make sure the answer is audible and binding.

Provided Biden does not forget to turn on the earpiece through which his advisers would whisper the words they want him to utter.