Category Archives: Canada

European Union tackles Artificial Intelligence. Does it?

The Communist Party of China will not be pleased: the European Union leaders think of banning using artificial intelligence (AI) for mass surveillance and social credit scores.

According to leaked news, the EU is considering many other AI uses to forbid, but these two are the most important.

The People’s Republic of China has been boasting that its law enforcement can find anybody anywhere anytime. They are able to do it within just a few minutes. Their AI equipment is as advanced as anybody’s, they explain.

It must come as a frightful surprise, shock, even, to the ruling Beijing mandarins that the EU, an organisation known as hopelessly leftist (and that’s putting it tactfully, beyond discreetly) would question their policy of Orwellian Big-Brotherism, and that it would do it so unscrupulously.

What is it?

Artificial Intelligence is whatever anyone decides to define it as.

When Czech writer Karel Čapek wrote his play named R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) in 1920, he could have hardly expected that the word “robot” would become an integral part of so many languages (and that only very few writers who would be using it, would know its origin, Isaac Asimov being one of them).

Basically, robots employed by a Mr. Rossum would decide they had enough of doing what they are ordered to do, and they would start an uprising.

The word “robot” itself is an expression slightly changed from the original Czech word “robota,” meaning statute labour in the times of serfdom.

Interestingly, and those who haven’t learnt their Czech yet ought to be ashamed, the name of the robots’ owner itself is dripping with sarcastic irony: the word “rozum” equals reason in English, as in ability to think.

So, creating robots that do their masters’ thinking artificially, told only what the objective would be, has been as shortsighted as anything can get, with one exception: it helps those who would like to control the masses of population.

A video used to circulate on the world’s social media a few years ago. A People’s Republic of China official posted it. It showed a person, an alleged dissident, who got a call from another dissident, to meet at a pre-arranged (and thus, unnamed in the phone conversation) spot. The call was intercepted, of course, and using face recognition devices, the authorities had that dissident on their screens within seconds, cameras relaying his movement from one block to another, until the spot where he met the other guy, and before they could express any dissent, they were both arrested.

Ingenious, no?

Split personalities.

The European Union, on one hand, does everything possible to control each and every citizen of each and every of its member countries.

On the other hand, it introduced something known as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR for short), a set of rules to protect everybody’s privacy. It has been in force since May 25, 2018, and even the transnational worldwide companies, such as Google, Twitter or Facebook, must comply to be allowed to operate anywhere within the EU territory.

Many, if not most, of today’s EU leaders claim Maoist past. And, as well, many, if not most, of today’s EU leaders are on board with Klaus Martin Schwab’s (of the World Economic Forum infamy) Great Reset, a.k.a. fourth industrial revolution.

They seem somewhat unsure when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s genocidal plans top the agenda: they are all agog about the Gates climate change claim. In light of the latest developments, they are not altogether certain about vaccination. And the eugenics ideas promoted by the Gates duo, while sounding attractive to many of the EU poohbahs, still leaves them shaking in their boots: memories of Adolf Hitler still hit too close to home.

They are not so sure, either, about George Soros and his Open Societies that clamour for a one-world government, controlled formally by the United Nations Organisation, but subordinated to persons and groups unknown. Where would this arrangement leave them, with all those benefits and perks they’ve been enjoying at taxpayers’ expense?

Again, here enters the one hand, and the other: they all of a sudden find themselves defending Europeans’ privacy, and ditching extraordinary tools of controlling the masses, including Artificial Intelligence.

Against the grain?

Depends on whom you ask. The EU sees the solution in telling member states to set up something they call assessment boards to decide which of the AI applications are kosher and which aren’t.

Anew: on the one hand, shocking, as the Brussels EU head office will share power with individual countries, something it hasn’t done in decades. On the other hand, while many countries will decide to curb the use of AI not only to snitch on its own citizens (jó napot kívánok, Orbán Viktor úr, and dzień dobry, panie Morawiecki) but altogether, many others (Grüßgott, Frau Merkel, Bon Jour, Monsieur Macron, and dobrý den, pane Babiši) will be much more lenient.

After all, they can use not only China, but a number of North American jurisdictions for their examples, too.

Many municipalities in Canada quite openly install all kinds of closed-circuit television systems on their ways and byways, telling citizens who dare ask that they’re doing it in their own interest, so nobody can rob them and go unpunished, and rot like that.

In any case, those who develop or dare sell AI software that is on the banned list in the EU could face fines up to four per cent of what they make globally. And that includes those who are based elsewhere in the world.

No wonder then that the U.S. high-tech giants have been doing all they can to get rid of pesky local governments, and, in their warped view that is based on ignorance and sheer illiteracy, European Union is one of those.

Herewith the rules:

While, it seems, the list below is not really complete, it is impressive as it is, anyhow.

  1. A ban on AI for “indiscriminate surveillance,” including systems that directly track individuals in physical environments or aggregate data from other sources.
  2. A ban on AI systems that create social credit scores, which means judging someone’s trustworthiness based on social behaviour or predicted personality traits.
  3. Special authorization for using “remote biometric identification systems” like facial recognition in public spaces.
  4. Notifications required when people are interacting with an AI system, unless this is “obvious from the circumstances and the context of use”.
  5. New oversight for “high-risk” AI systems, including those that pose a direct threat to safety, like self-driving cars, and those that have a high chance of affecting someone’s livelihood, like those used for job hiring, judiciary decisions, and credit scoring.
  6. Assessment for high-risk systems before they’re put into service, including making sure these systems are explicable to human overseers and that they’re trained on “high quality” datasets tested for bias.
  7. The creation of a “European Artificial Intelligence Board,” consisting of representatives from every nation-state, to help the commission decide which AI systems count as “high-risk” and to recommend changes to prohibitions.

Pay special attention: the new set of rules bans using AI for mass surveillance and social credit scores.

Great or awful?

While perhaps too vague, it definitely is a start, optimists suggest.

Other experts are shrugging, doubting the whole thing to its roots.

Speaking, for example, about sections that regulate systems that might cause people to “behave, form an opinion or take a decision to their detriment,” they say these rules are too vague.

Besides, the devil’s in the detail, and that’s where reading the full text of the proposal becomes tedious, tiring and exceedingly boring.

How, more than a few experts ask, can a government decide whether a decision that had been influenced by AI was to someone’s detriment or not?

And: no matter how you slice it, the new proposals reflect perfectly the European Union’s approach to everything: when in doubt, regulate.

To come back full-circle to the question, namely, whether the EU is defying the New World Order proposals or not, here’s the answer: no. It’s just found a different way of getting there.

Toronto calling: the jab must be a must

Leave it to Toronto Star, that Liberal Party of Canada bullhorn, to reveal one of their ideological comrades’ objectives: make anti-Covid vaccination mandatory.

Not only that: wearing face masks should be mandatory all over the place, too.

This, the self-centred Toronto Star editors say, is the only way how to stop (and prevent) lockdowns, while ending the Covid-19 pandemic, too.

The government must be dancing.

Toronto Star has a pretty rich and long history of viewing itself as the Voice From The Mount.

It was here, after all, where the idea of anointing Pierre Elliott Trudeau as intellectual genius and a statesman to end all statesmen (and women) began.

This place has been known for its star journalists thinking their job is to be the story, rather than covering stories and remaining in the background themselves.

This is where the idea of creating elder Trudeau’s heir was hatched and dropped on unsuspecting masses.

And, to be precise, this is the place that helped develop the image of their extended village as a metropolis to be reckoned with all over the world.

But the reality is simpler: Toronto is the place where cosmic physicians would be administering suppositories to the earth once they diagnose the need.

Toronto Star (TorStar in Canadian journalistic lingo) is the most magnanimous place, come to think of it. Here’s a couple of quotes: they “don’t mean physically restraining people and forcefully injecting them. After all, we don’t forcefully apply masks to people’s faces, we merely forbid them from forcing themselves upon us unmasked and unasked.

“We enforce mandatory masks by telling people that they can’t enter any public indoor space or workplace without wearing one. In fact, keeping out the unmasked is no different from forcing smokers to go outside, sparing us second-hand exposure.”

In the interest of perceived balance, TorStar asked the Ontario Human Rights Commission whether it would be kosher to force people to get injected. Whereupon Chief Commissioner Ena Chadha was more than happy to oblige thus: “Requiring proof of vaccination to ensure fitness to safely perform work, or protect people receiving services or living in congregate housing, may be permissible under the Code if the requirement is made in good faith and is reasonably necessary for reasons related to safety.”

Of course, the masses beg to differ.

TorStar commissioned a poll. Out of 29,891 votes, at the time of writing, here’s what the people said:

  • No, whether I’m vaccinated or not should be my decision, not the government’s: 88.99 per cent (26,599 votes);
  • Yes, several provinces already have vaccination requirements for school children, and this is a pressing matter of public health: 10.41 per cent (3,111 votes);
  • Not sure: 0.42 per cent (126 votes);
  • No opinion: 0.18 per cent (55 votes).

Of course, who cares about what people say? Those with the gall, chutzpah, even, not to rely on TorStar as their only source of information should be silenced, and kept muzzled till they recant.

Toronto Star, the rag that shows us by perfect example where Messianic complexes can take us, has proven once again how perfectly out of touch it has got.

Mainstream media copy their communist predecessors

Egged on by the ruling left-wing of U.S. Democratic Party, U.S. mainstream media learnt their lesson well from the communist method of dealing with those who dared question their policies. Attack your opponents’ characters. Don’t let them publish. Call them names. Harass them.

The leftists in the U.S. used to admire (many still do) Václav Havel, the late Czech playwright, and President following the so-called 1989 Velvet Revolution.

Whether they remember the document called Charter 77 (Czech: Charta 77) remains to be seen. It may very well be that they don’t. Their behaviour towards all they disagree with proves it.

A not-so-old example

Havel was one of Charter 77 co-authors, together with Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. Published on Jan. 6, 1977, the document called on Czechoslovakia’s Communist rulers to honour their commitment to human rights under the 1975 Helsinki Accords.

The regime, outraged by this impertinence, first of all started arresting all those who had dared sign (or distribute) the document.

Under a banner headline, Losers and usurpers (Czech: Ztroskotanci a samozvanci), the Communist party daily paper, Rudé právo started a mother of all witch hunts. The paper would not name the authors. It would describe the document a “counter-revolutionary pamphlet”. Charter 77’s authors, according to the massive propaganda assault, were the bloodiest of all bloody criminals.

The publication of the document in any of the communist country was banned, and so was any broadcast of it. But, at the same time, everybody was ordered to join the chorus of protest. Officially, people were supposed to protest something they only knew they were supposed to protest, without knowing what the hell they were protesting.

And that was still easy-going when compared to the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution of Russia, and its more than seven-decade long aftermath that lasted all the way to the collapse of the system in 1989.

Meanwhile in the U.S.

The Americans (and the many left-wing would-be Marxists in other countries who try to emulate them) haven’t yet reached the level of sending people to concentration camps, or executing them outright. Their history doesn’t permit such a fast transition to what Marxism is all about.

But, judging by what is going on, George Orwell’s nightmare, 1984, is not too far away. And neither is his Animal Farm, either.

The method now prevailing in the formerly democratic (lower-case d) countries is not too difficult to put together: silence. Do not quote a dissident’s reporting (or opinion). Not under any circumstance. Call the dissident’s (what other word to use?) character into question. Make sure to scare the dissident’s supporters out of their wits so they think twice before they dare join any protest again. Make sure to describe the dissidents and their supporters as creatures below the dirtiest animals’ level. And, most important of all, keep going at it. Repetition begets success.

Of course, even this requires a certain level of intelligence and a bit of education.

If you haven’t either, you will end up with a propaganda egg on your face. See President Joe Biden for the latest example.

Mr. Biden (very publicly) called his Russian presidential counterpart, Vladimir Putin, all kinds of words. Such as ‘killer’, ‘bully’, ‘strongman’, ‘tyrant’, ‘thug’.

Mr. Putin’s reply was straightforward: a wry smile and two sentences: “I wish him good health. I mean it seriously.”

Putin’s office went a few steps further: it said their guy would like to debate all points of disagreement with Joe Biden in a live broadcast.

This is not to say Vladimir Putin is a genius. This is to say he is much smarter than Joe Biden, a level, by the way, many can achieve without much effort.

Curious Americans

Unofficial research shows that most American citizens would like to know more about the Russian president than what they are being fed by mainstream media. Most Americans, it seems, would like to see and hear Vladimir Putin first-hand and form their opinion based on what they see and hear, not on what they are told by their own mainstream media. Especially knowing that the so-called Russian interference in U.S. elections in 2016 either didn’t happen at all (most probable scenario) or had no impact on the outcome.

Absolutely, Mr. Putin’s Russia is definitely not pure paradise, and some of the things going on there are worse than the Wild West of lore. In fact, many refer to Russian rulers’ behaviour as Wild East.

Russia has suffered from an inferiority complex for ages, feeling others weren’t giving her her due as a superpower.

Today’s Russia is following in President Donald Trump’s footsteps: make Russia great again is her rulers’ motto.

The job became somewhat easier on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020. Where there used to be three superpowers (in alphabetic order: China, Russia, the U.S.) till that day, there are now only two. Russia competes with China only. It’s not going to be easy, but it’s going to be easier than facing two strong superpowers, each with different sets of objectives and methods of achieving them.

No way back?

With left-wing controlled Democratic Party, and Democratic Party-controlled mainstream media, the U.S. has lost any hope of returning to the club of the powerful.

They are now blaming everybody but themselves: Trump is guilty of the mess at the border with Mexico, as if it had been the former president who restored the illegal immigration into the country. The steps are guilty of Joe Biden tripping three times while ascending them to enter Air Force One.

Whom will the administration and the mainstream media blame if the forthcoming Kamala Harris’s World Summit discussion on Girl & Women’s Empowerment with none other than Bill Clinton ends in a scandal (as it should)?

Here’s what the current politicos and would-be journalism pretenders should learn: history does indeed repeat itself. Once as a tragedy, next time, as a comedy.

Who said it? Karl Marx.

And here’s the point: he was wrong.

What we’re witnessing now is a major tragedy. We should not give up fighting it.

But that will take courage.

Race wars will do America in

It doesn’t pay to be poor if you’re white in Oakland, California. The city has announced its low-income families would be getting a what it calls “unconditional” $500 a month for a year and a half. Still, city parents did impose one condition: white families need not apply.

The official announcement is explicit about that: the project is only open to black, indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC).

Mayor Libby Schaaf said the idea is to fight “systemic” racism.

Oakland authorities used what they describe as the city’s Equity Index. It showed that white households earn more than any other, on average. In comparison to the black community, white earnings are almost three times as much, the officials said.

Nobody checked those figures, and nobody bothered to ask whether this discrepancy can have other causes rather than racism.

Not to be outdone, the city of Evanston, Illinois decided to use community donations and revenue from a three-per-cent tax on recreational marijuana to offer reparations to black residents to compensate for past discrimination.

In numbers: Evanston, a city of about 73,000 people, just north of Chicago, will spend $10 million during the next decade to achieve a murkily defined racial equity. The first $400,000 will go towards helping black residents with housing.

The lone city alderman who voted against the plan, didn’t do so because she didn’t like the idea of reparations. According to Cicely Fleming, the program was too paternalistic. It assumed black people are unable to support themselves financially.

Considering President Joe Biden has no issues with spending billions the country does not have to repair an artificial issue, Evanston must have endeared itself to the old guy.

What the hell is the deal?

Elementary, my dear Watsons. Marxists found out (what took them so long?) that the original idea of so-called antagonistic contradiction based on classes does not work. Yet, the concept was one of the cornerstones of their ideology.

The other cornerstone has been known as the absolute and relative impoverishment of the proletariat. It turned out that it didn’t work, either.

A number of complex reasons for both failures. The main reason, though, was the simplest of them all. Concepts made up in the insupportably peaceful and dull air of the British Museum, where Karl Marx wrote most of his seminal work, Das Kapital, just don’t match what’s going on outside, in the fresh air of reality.

But Marxism is based on hatred. That is its major cornerstone. It can’t proceed without it. Conditio sine qua non, to put it scientifically.

The easiest hatred to replace Marx’s original concepts is based on race.

Races are indisputable. Your skin is either white, or black, or red, or brown, or whatever else. As former pop star Michael Jackson’s attempts to bleach his skin showed, science hadn’t got far enough yet to succeed.

The easiest next step: distort history. Marx got away with it. Why not today’s ideologues?

Except, facts seem to interfere with the ideologues’ new maxims.

Centuries ago, Muslim Arabs in Africa enslaved the original black population in countries they ruled.

Next thing they did, they sold many of them to merchants who would take them all the way across the Big Pond.

In a historically unusually brief time, America would abolish slavery. It would cost her a major war, but end it she did.

Then came the scandal of Liberia, something today’s Marxists prefer to remain silent about.

The American Colonization Society bought the West African area for freed U.S. slaves in 1821. About 10,000 freed slaves used the opportunity to return to their native continent. And, once they did, they declared the locals their slaves.

It would take the locals till 1989 to realize something was wrong, and express their disagreement in a violent manner, thus ending the master-slave arrangement the former new arrivals had imposed on them.

Yes, expressions of racism continued in the U.S. even after slavery had been abolished, but the country’s modern history shows that its society would develop into one that would make racism and segregation dirty words.

But here comes the irony to end all ironies. In the beginning, the struggle against racism was about all races being equal. Now, people from those same circles declare that no, races do differ. And, on top of it all, white skin means that people thus afflicted enjoy what is now known as white privilege.

Perfect nonsense, of course. Just look at the so-called affirmative action that would, starting officially in the early 1960s under the guise of fighting racism, introduce another form of it. Black people would be getting all kinds of advantages in getting into halls of higher learning, without much consideration given to the question whether they qualify academically. That same approach would hold for hiring practices in the federal governments, both in the U.S. and in Canada. And any company doing business with the respective governments had to adhere to these regulations, too.

Some called it reversed racism. Wrong: it is racism, pure and simple.

Great divide

Admitting that there exist different races is tantamount to racism. This denial of basic truth is one part of the idiocy that has been dividing the world.

Claiming that one race is better than all of the other races combined is racism.

But claiming that one race is better off than all of the others just because of its skin colour is yet another sign of moronism.

It is reaching insurmountable levels of outright stupidity.

University graduation ceremonies split into groups by race. White people directing black stories as well as Asian or Latinx) equals systemic whitewashing.

One such example: American HBO network produced a documentary on famous golfer Tiger Woods. Several segments covering Mr. Woods’s personal life bordered on uncomplimentary. The battle cry of the enraged black racists: two men who didn’t know “what it is like to live life in a black man’s skin” directed it.

Shockingly, a number of white-skinned would-be intellectuals formed a self-flagellation chorus. Whether they hope that this would make their homes safe when hordes of thugs start demolishing white neighbourhoods is not known.

History teaches us that revolutions eat their own children with shocking alacrity.

History teaches us, too, that we can’t beat stupidity, but we mustn’t stop trying.

Gorby at 90: still a failure

Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have noticed that Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev turned 90 this March.

So, they created a glorifying video. Not to be outdone, the BBC applauded the former Soviet communist leader, too.

So far as they all are concerned, Gorbachev was the statesman who ended the Cold War.

So far as most Russians are concerned, Gorbachev is the failed Communist who ruined their country.

The Western propagandists’ view is not supported by as many facts as the Russian public’s is.

Reality speaks louder than ideology

A few facts to show that Gorbachev’s role in everything that had happened was limited, to put it very mildly.

Lech Wałęsa, an electrician at Poland’s Lenin Shipyards in Gdańsk (Stocznia Lenina, now known as Gdańsk Shipyard), started organizing an Independent Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarity (Niezależny Samorządny Związek Zawodowy Solidarność) in August 1980.

Gorbachev was Soviet Communist party secretary responsible for agriculture at the time. Not that his stewardship did Soviet agriculture much good.

He approached then-chief of the KGB state security agency, Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, asking him to suggest at the highest body, a.k.a. Politburo (political bureau) that the Soviet Army invade Poland and put a stop to such incendiary ideas as having independent trade unions once and for all.

Unlike Gorbachev, Andropov was aware of the real situation in Poland. He also knew that then-American president, Ronald Reagan, wrote to then-Soviet chief, Leonid Iliych Brezhnev, telling him that the U.S. would view any Soviet attack against Poland as an attack against the United States.

Andropov, files de-classified since then show, told Gorbachev to mind his own business.

Meanwhile, Andropov’s service helped Polish communists in their subversive effort to install a general as the country’s new leader, hoping that the new head of state, Wojciech Witold Jaruzelski, will do the dirty deed for them.

Jaruzelski, in turn, declared martial law in Poland, thus helping Solidarity multiply its membership in protest.

Wałęsa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, to honour his efforts.

And Poland walked away from communism, making Jaruzelski its last communist leader.

Jaruzelski’s arrival on the scene, by the way, showed the perfect ignorance of then-Prime Minister of Canada, one Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Martial law, he pronounced, was the best solution for the Poles. It quite obviously prevented a Soviet invasion, was his geopolitical explanation.

Clearly, Trudeau Sr. was out of the loop: the Soviets were aware that an invasion would doom them, and all their works, right then and there.

Gorbachev’s role in the downfall of communism was marginal.

Political wisdom at the time held that the Soviet Union would fall apart as soon as its population hears at least a part of the truth surrounding it.

Gorbachev started something known as glasnost and perestroika (гласность and перестройка, meaning openness and restructuring).

Once the people of the various Soviet republics began learning the truth about their countries’ history, they realized why they had enough of it.

Gorbachev wasn’t even smart enough to heed his friend and former foreign minister Eduard Ambrosiyevich Shevardnadze’s warnings about a potential coup d’état, organized by communist hardliners. Shevardnadze, a former KGB general, knew much better than Gorbachev what was going on.

It would take Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin to suppress the communist putsch, take over the leadership role and, eventually, sign off on the deal that would send the entire Soviet Union deal up in flames.

But, the pro-Gorbachev enthusiasts at RFE/RL and the BBC say, Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev did help finish the so-called Cold War, didn’t he?

If they did their basic homework, they would have known that this is a fallacy, too.

A Washington Post correspondent in Moscow at the time saw a huge miners’ strike going on in Siberia. He decided to go and have a closer look. And while he had the miners’ undivided attention, he asked who, in their minds, was the greatest leader who had helped change the world for the better.

Why, Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev, was the answer he expected to hear.

Ronald Reagan was the answer he heard.

What about Gorbachev? he asked.

Ah, yet another failed commie poohbah, most of the miners told him.

Obviously, they knew more and better than an American east coast egg-head.

Still: so what about the Cold War?

Gorbachev allowed the countries of the former Warsaw Pact and the so-called Council for Mutual Economic Co-operation leave the by then hugely artificial communist orbit because he couldn’t afford to even try to prevent it.

And the same goes for his dealings with the U.S.

Basically, he got his Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for trying to become a realist.

Chief terrorist Yasser Arafat won that same prize in 1994, together with Israeli politicians Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, for achieving peace in the Middle East that does not exist even today. Former U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama received it in 2009 after just a few weeks in office. He got it for perfectly nothing. Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore got it in 2007 for a huge amount of hot air on behalf of climate change panic.

To sum up: since the mid-1980s, when the Nobel Peace Prize honoured Lech Wałęsa’s efforts to dismantle communism, the award has meant less and less with each passing year. It has become a tool for ideological games played by members of Norway’s parliament, a.k.a. Storting.

Need an example? How about the nomination for an openly racist group, Black Lives Matter, submitted for this year’s consideration?

Still: why the hoopla about Gorbachev?

Yes, reaching such a ripe age is cause for occasional remark. But for soliciting pearls of wisdom from a politician who had failed in everything he touched?

One of Gorbachev’s answers is a revelation: he calls for unfettered globalism, starting with Covid-19, and going on to embrace the feudalistic socialism of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, moving on to overpopulation with its alleged links to climate change (hey, Bill and Melinda Gates, are you listening?), culminating with questions about nations (a hint: jó napot kívánok, Soros György Úr and your Open Societies).

Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev used to be a communist who managed to climb all the way to the communist top.

Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev now denies ever being a communist: he’s always been a social democrat, he claims.

Either way, he’s always managed to choose the losing side.

Let’s hope Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev remains faithful to this habit and the things he is proposing today will fail again.

Non-whites need not apply?

A patient at the Saint-Eustache Hospital in Montreal is a clinical moron who just can’t stand getting care from people whose skin is other than pure white.

The hospital, in perfect desperation, starts looking for nursing help that would meet that perfectly crazy requirement. Logically, they feel they’ve got to publish a “help wanted” ad, informing the world of their somewhat extraordinary need.

Editors at one of the city’s major (French-speaking) newspapers, La Presse, see the ad and find it interesting enough to assign the story to one of the paper’s reporters. Philippe Teisceira-Lessard somehow obtains copies of e-mails exchanged within the hospital’s human resources department. The story is explosive enough to warrant major headlines.

In fact, it is explosive enough to warrant heated debates within Québéc’s parliament, a.k.a. National Assembly (the Québécois view themselves as a separate nation from the rest of Canada).

Québéc National Assembly Member Jennifer Maccarone, representing the electoral district of Westmount-Saint-Louis as a member of the Québéc Liberal Party, was very indignant: The posting, she said, is “openly racist.”

“We need more than an investigation – we need action,” she added. “We would never see a posting for a black person or an indigenous person. This is openly racist.”

Benoit Charette wouldn’t go that far. In any case, Charette, has stopped somewhat short of calling the action racist.

“What we suspect now is that it is clearly a lack of training at the human resources level,” Charette said.

Charette represents Deux-Montagnes, originally for the Parti Québécois, but now serves the Coalition Avenir Québéc, and is La Belle Province’s Minister of Sustainable Development and Environment. He is also responsible for fighting racism.

Of course, local administrators are trying to remove the egg plastered all over their faces.

Rosemonde Landry, head of the Laurentians public health agency, told La Presse that “This situation is totally unacceptable in our eyes. That is evident. We have immediately opened an internal investigation.”

The patient has what Landry described as cognitive issues. That is why s/he becomes agitated in the presence of people of colour. The La Presse story does not hint in any detail at the patient’s gender, perhaps as there exist so many of them these days.

This, Landry said, this does not excuse the job posting.

But, an official news release assured all and sundry that an investigation by the regional health authority into the job listing is currently underway, proceeding full speed. Whose heads will roll is hard to predict. Yet.

Could this be the cause?

In only a seemingly unrelated item, an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) newest report says that there has been a major increase in white supremacist and anti-LGBTQ propaganda last year, hitting a record level.

Last year, ADL registered what it called a record number of such incidents: 5,125. That, ADL said, was twice as many as in 2019.

The only state where nothing of the kind happened, ADL said, was Hawaii.

According to ADL, this propaganda features veiled white supremacist language with a patriotic slant. It targets minority groups such as Jews, blacks, Muslims, non-white immigrants, and the LGBTQ community.

ADL focused most of its anger upon messages like “Antifa is a Jewish communist militia,” “Black Crimes Matter” and “Reject White Guilt.”

The ADL, of course, must have forgotten what was happening in the U.S. throughout most of last year.

And, to get back full circle to Montreal’s Saint-Eustache Hospital: what were the poor human resources employees supposed to do? Refuse normal treatment to someone just because s/he is mentally sick?

After the Second World War, many Jewish physicians were seen tending to their former Nazi SS torturers, doing their best to bring them back to health. Granted, quite often those SS thugs, once recuperated, would be sentenced to hang by their necks until they died, but still: those physicians did not forget their Hippocratic Oath.

While the politically correct crowd in Québéc (and elsewhere, too, all over the world) is trying to outscore their opposition with would-be political points, one thing has been missing in all of this.

Common sense.

First, they burnt books. Then, they burnt people. Are we coming back full circle?

How dare you use your own head to think? Out with you (a number of labels follows).

That’s called “cancel culture,” and it has been spreading all over the world like the worst form of cancer. Yes, cancer: it’s going to kill us all. It has become norm at our establishments of higher learning. Graduates, trained not to know the meaning of the word “tolerance” will gradually fill all kinds of positions of authority.

Can you imagine any of them having time to listen to (and hear) opinions that differ from theirs? Can you imagine them tolerating difference?

Gone are the centuries of universities guided by the motto “whatsoever is true” (quaecumque sunt vera in Latin), or students asking their teachers to “teach them whatsoever is true” (still in good old academic Latin: quaecumque vera doce me).

Intolerance toward dissent is only just beginning all over the place in general, and in academic circles in particular.

Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London; Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, has just published a study named Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship. Its executive summary consists of 16 pages of shocking points, its full text includes 195 pages of shocking facts.

People of what is now known as conservative points of view have been complaining that they and their political viewpoints face disproportionate levels of ideologically-motivated censorship.

Professor Kaufmann’s paper proves with undisputable facts that this is precisely what’s been going on the last few decades. And, reality shows that it has culminated in the most recent couple of years so as to become unbearable, bordering on the criminal.

The so-called “hard authoritarianism” includes such relatively new expressions as no-platforming, social media brigading, ‘open’ letters, dismissal campaigns, and formal complaints. These developments have been comparatively rare so far. But, Professor Kaufmann’s paper shows, there hasn’t been much of a push-back. This shows that the militant cancel-culture activists have been getting their way too often.

The other method, a.k.a. “soft authoritarianism,” includes punishing non-conformists by limiting their ability to publish, win grants for their work, be promoted or retain current positions. That, Professor Kaufmann’s paper proves with numbers, provides an added burden (and incentive to keep quiet about their beliefs) to conservative academics.

This one has been baring its teeth way too often in recent years. That it brings the vaunted academic impartiality, absence of bias, disinterestedness and detachment into blatant disrepute matters not to the “soft authoritarianism” practitioners. They are promoting loftier goals than just simple and boring knowledge. They are promoting what American economist Martin Armstrong calls feudalistic socialism. Who cares that feudalism is based on serfdom, and who cares that serfdom is just one step above slavery?

Definitely not the cancel-culture promoters in academia. That is, if they even know about it.

Different matters

It’s one thing when a physician at a teaching hospital has built her or his reputation on curing disease A using medication (or approach) B, and all students must accept it as gospel, lest they don’t qualify. Granted, this can turn out to be an extremely dangerous situation, as Scottish physician Dr. Malcolm Kendrick described is his brilliant page-turner of a book, Doctoring Data.

Such an expert will have terrible time accepting (and admitting) that times have changed and that either her/his theory has been wrong all along, or that times have changed and new research reveals new treatments. And if that expert’s opinion comes with vast support provided by, for example, pharmaceutical industry, and said expert still has a mortgage to pay off, her/his resistance will become somewhat understandable. Not acceptable, but understandable.

It becomes an altogether another matter when about 40 per cent academics in the U.S., Canada and Great Britain openly admit that they wouldn’t hire a former President Donald J. Trump supporter, even if her/his academic credentials were impeccable.

The British have one more criterion: support your country’s departure from the European Union (a.k.a. Brexit), and in one-third of hiring decisions the ruling will go against you.

And, should you hold a biological-based view of sex, that is, should you be viewed as a so-called gender-critical feminist, your academic future is gone.

The fear is overwhelming: only 28 per cent of American and Canadian academics agreed they would not mind sharing a lunch table with someone who believed trans-women should not have access to women’s shelters.

And the number of math teachers who don’t dare question the newest fad, namely, that math is a racist science because it demands precise answers instead of wild guesses, isn’t overwhelming, either.

Most want just to live with it

Professor Kaufmann also found out that most Professors do not like the authoritarian cancel culture. But, and that is really a shock (while not really much of a surprise), most wouldn’t lift a finger to oppose it, either.

A bare one-tenth of those who answered Professor Kaufmann’s questions, would agree that so-called “controversial professors” should lose their jobs.

If that is so, then this fact shows that a relatively tiny minority gets to exercise its powers far disproportionately to its numbers.

Here’s another problem: younger academics, Kaufmann writes in his study, “were more favourably inclined toward kicking ‘controversial’ scholars out of their posts.” This factor, he adds, “appears to be self-perpetuating, as conservative graduate students claimed that a hostile academic climate ‘plays a part’ in stopping them from pursuing academic careers.”

Another set of scary numbers: more than a third of right-wing academics had been threatened with some form of discipline for their views, Kaufmann writes, adding: “Fully 70 per cent cited a ‘hostile departmental climate for their beliefs,’ even if they had not personally been threatened, suggesting at least some on the right camouflage their beliefs to avoid punishment.”

It must be awful for the vast majority of academics in social sciences or humanities (90 per cent of Trump supporters and 80 per cent of Brexit supporters) who admit that they would not feel comfortable sharing their views with colleagues. More than half of them also said they have imposed self-censorship on themselves even in their research and/or teaching, in order to avoid repercussions. “Academics in the social sciences – particularly those involved in studying race, gender and sexuality – were particularly required to walk on eggshells,” Kaufmann writes.

Here’s one of the scariest results: the younger the academic, the more likely s/he would support at least one of the hypothetical research findings.

The numbers: a 30-year-old leftist academic has a 50-50 chance of supporting one of the hypothetical cancel-culture campaigns while his 70-year-old ideological equivalent had just a 35 per cent chance of doing so.

Most of the academics, though, seemed not to give a damn about their colleagues’ fates.

Some 76 per cent of academics in the social sciences and humanities believe the “protective benefits of political correctness outweigh its threat to free speech” – something that should make us think again before answering the question whether these people are of any use to society.

Racism rampant in University of Victoria offices

The President and Vice-Chancellor of University of Victoria in Canada’s western-most province of British Columbia is as racist as racist can get.

Kevin Hall, a civil engineer by profession and education, was brought to British Columbia’s capital of Victoria on the southern tip of Vancouver Island from the University of Newcastle in Australia.

One of the reasons for his selection was (quoting from the enthusiastic announcement made by the UVic board) “his strong commitment to community engagement and unwavering belief in access to education and equity, diversity and inclusion.”

Good old Kevin Hall, PhD, didn’t disappoint.

What follows is his announcement, verbatim, that must have sent shivers down the spines of those who still believe race should NOT be the great decider in anybody’s academic career.

Here it is:

“Dear members of the university community,
“As identified in our Strategic Framework and Indigenous Plan, UVic has made important commitments toward truth, respect and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and in particular, the Indigenous students, staff, faculty at UVic and the communities and Nations we live and work alongside.
“I am excited to share with you that, in support of these critical priorities, we are creating a new leadership role at the university. This spring we will be establishing a non-academic associate vice-president Indigenous (AVPI) position to bring an important perspective to decisions made across all areas of the university.
“In recognition of her outstanding contributions as executive director of the Office of Indigenous Academic and Community Engagement (IACE), I have asked Qwul’sih’yah’maht (Robina Thomas) to be the founding associate vice-president Indigenous. I am delighted that she has generously agreed to take on this role for a three-year term. Robina will be starting in her new role in the spring and more information about her initial priorities will be available then. I am grateful that Robina will bring her deep knowledge and experience and her positive energy to shaping this role.
“While still under development, this new position will carry responsibility for furthering UVic’s commitment to truth, respect and reconciliation with the development of a strategy that integrates Indigenous cultures, histories, beliefs and ways of being and knowing across all aspects of the university’s mission. We have benefited immensely from the work of IACE in providing leadership across our education and engagement initiatives. We now look toward the development of a university-wide approach to ensuring the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action are our priority. Moving this important work forward will require challenging conversations about what we value and prioritize as an institution, and how we contribute to reconciliation in a good way.
“In order to facilitate the position’s cross-divisional responsibilities, the AVPI will be an integral member of the leadership team. Robina will report to me and she will be located in the Office of the President.
“IACE will report to the AVPI and Robina will share information about the IACE leadership transition with our community soon.
“ABOUT ROBINA Qwul’sih’yah’maht (Robina Thomas) is a member of Lyackson First Nation and has Snuy’ney’muxw ancestry through her grandmother Lavina Wyse and Sto:lo ancestry through her grandfather Charles Prest.
“Robina was the inaugural director and executive director of the Office of Indigenous Academic and Community Engagement and is an associate professor with a faculty position in the School of Social Work (she will maintain her faculty appointment while AVPI). Robina started her career at UVic as a visiting lecturer in 1998 and accepted a tenure track position in 2001. Her research has focused extensively on Indigenous women and children, residential schools, storytelling, Indigenous community engagement and anti-colonial/anti-racist practices as a way of life.
“Robina’s accomplishments in her current role as the executive director of IACE and special advisor to the president have included:

Leading the establishment of the Office of Indigenous Academic and Community Engagement and facilitating the release of the university’s first Indigenous Plan;

Re-establishing the Indigenous Cultural Acumen Training program and piloting a program to pay Elders as Specialized Instructors;

Creating space for Indigenous representation on numerous university committees; and

Co-chairing the National Building Reconciliation Forum.

“We are extremely privileged and honoured that Robina has chosen to work within our UVic community. I look forward to working with, and learning from, her in the years to come. Please join me in thanking Robina for her continued leadership and in celebrating this important step toward honouring the commitments we have made to truth, respect, reconciliation and to decolonizing our institution.
“Sincerely,
“Kevin
“Kevin Hall, PhD
“President and Vice-Chancellor”

Thus spake the person whose responsibility it is (or should be) to make sure that everyone is treated solely on the basis of their ability and, thus, achievement.

Lest anyone thinks that this shockingly patronising approach will make any of the people under Qwul’sih’yah’maht’s (a.k.a. Robina Thomas) tutelage instant academics with credentials reaching the ears of any of the Nobel Price committees, a word of caution: it won’t.

Science just doesn’t work this way. Of course, many in the so-called humanitarian fields will beg to differ, except: these people have yet to contribute anything that’s positive to the societies they live in.

This University’s calling card reads: “A multitude of the wise is the health of the world.” To show how advanced they are, they even had it translated into Latin: “Multitudo sapientium sanitas orbis.”

As if that was not enough, UVic has a motto in Hebrew, too: “יְהִי אוֹר,” meaning, “Let there be light.”

Whoever has noticed a call for giving an advantage to a race-based group over groups of other races, raise your hands.

While the university features a number of what it calls “Indigenous programs,” based on the claim that the academe ought to serve those who surround it, it still does not, in any shape or form, justify the establishment of this new office. Judging by the list set out in the university President’s announcement, it is a move that the university may end up helping politically.

It’s not politics, though, it’s politicking at its worst. You can bet your last dollar that UVic plans to use this new (as they call it) initiative to call for more government grants. Taxpayers are going to pay for a politically correct civil engineer’s dream.

Canadian government flexes its muscle

The government of Canada has committed yet another act of outrageous domestic terrorism: it ordered the country’s airlines to stop flying to destinations most Canadians love to frequent during the country’s insupportable winters.

Yes, the wording said that the airlines agreed not to fly to these places, but only those who aren’t aware would believe this kind of drivel. Airlines in most countries, Canada included, may be private corporations (with the exception of so-called flag carriers, such as Air Canada), and whatnot. But they all depend on government regulations from top to bottom, and woe be to those who beg to differ.

The airlines received a curt notice from the federal government, saying that the particular department suggests this step. They knew they had to fall in.

The bloody communist dictator, Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, perfected this method: his orders would always start like this: it is suggested to you (вам предлагается, read as vam predlagaietsia). Those receiving such suggestions would satisfy them with breakneck speed. They knew what the alternative was: bullets in the back of their necks, or the Gulag concentration camp, if they were lucky.

But why?

Two ideas behind Canadian government’s scandalous decision: continue keeping the population scared beyond any reasonable levels by indicating the plague combined with caries, with a bit of leprosy thrown in for good measure, is still very much on, and it’s getting stronger, thus more dangerous.

The other reason: divide the population using simple green envy. Those coming back from the warmer climes will have to be tested on arrival and then stay in a hotel at their own expense for three days, to await the result. If it’s negative, they are free to go home, but still have to (a nicely sounding new lingo) self-quarantine to reach the prescribed 14 days, and if the result is positive, into an ill-defined government facility with you, until we decide you’re cured.

It is calculated (rather cynically) that others, those masses of the untanned, will just shrug. Oh, if you’re wealthy enough to fly to, say, the Bermudas, or Mexico, or Cuba, even, you should be able to spend three days in a hotel, paying out of your pocket. Why should WE be paying for your extravagant ways?

The fact that an overwhelming majority of the test results that come back in are false is irrelevant.

Real and present danger

For those who say, ah, but you can’t see conspiracies behind every tree, a mild reminder: this is NOT a conspiracy. Organizers of the Great Reset, a.k.a. fourth industrial revolution, can hardly be more open. The World Economic Forum (WEF for short) pushes its agenda in widely circulated news releases and public speeches broadcast on open networks. They debate sordid details of their actions in secret, and in this context: what is Canada’s minister of health doing participating in these secret gatherings? Whom is she supposed to report to? Not to her inept Prime Minister, surely. She is answerable to her employers, the taxpayers, that is.

The same with the drug pushers a.k.a. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Several countries have already experienced the tragic effects of their efforts, and the tone coming from Gates’ blogs and podcasts is horrifyingly ominous. They subscribe to the Malthusian theory according to which there are way too many people on this planet, and they know how to cut these levels. They are also pushing unsustainable nonsense on climate change, and they found ways how to connect the two topics into a picture of an Armageddon if we don’t follow their advice.

And then there is George Soros, with his Open Society campaign to remove all national governments and replace them with one world ruler. He uses the United Nations in his proposal, but he makes no secret of who should be actually doing the running.

And then there is the People’s Republic of China, the country that gave all of the above the tool known as coronavirus. While the three entities above are telling national governments what to do to achieve their ideological goals, the People’s Republic of China is reaping all the rewards, both economic and political (these two go hand in hand).

There exists but a faint hope that one day the world will wake up, and all of the perpetrators of what is going on now will have to answer before a World Tribunal that would be judging their crimes against humanity. The hope is faint at the moment, and who knows if it doesn’t become reality too late, after we’ve reached the point of no return.

Meanwhile, we should take it one step at a time. The first one would be to chase the current bunch of rascals who form the government of Canada out of their cushy offices. We should tell all of the local bullies who use powers that fell unexpectedly into their laps that they will be answerable to that World Tribunal, also.

The time to stand up is now.

Comrade Goebbels would have been proud of us

This headline is stolen from a former high-ranking Soviet journalist.

A member of a group that used to spend their time writing speeches for top Soviet officials of the time, including communist party boss Leonid Brezhnev and its top ideologist, Mikhail Suslov, this journalist would with time lose most of his illusions.

He said he noticed the first signs of disappointment with the system when he was called upon to act as a political officer with a Soviet army unit in 1968 (and a few months onwards) in occupied Czechoslovakia.

In any case, in the second half of the 1970s, he wrote an analytical paper about the state of the communist media, with the conclusion mentioned in the headline (Товарищ Геббельс бы нами гордился in Russian). The paper, distributed by the so-called “samizdat network” would fall in the hands of the almighty KGB. The Soviet journalist was arrested, but in a strange twist of a power struggle between party chief Brezhnev and KGB boss Yuri Andropov, he wasn’t sent to any of the Gulag concentration camps but, rather, kicked out of the Soviet Union aboard the first plane flying west (it turned to be the Fiumicino airport in Rome, Italy).

No empty threat

The time is coming when those in previously free North America who think differently will be forced to use the samizdat (самиздат in its original Russian) again. People whose works wouldn’t pass the ideological muster in the official publications would publish their stuff on their own, without official authorization and censorship. Needless to say communist authorities viewed such behaviour as criminal acts.

And so do today’s politically correct gurus in today’s North American mainstream media.

The days of samizdat are ahead of us now. Again.

Here’s where we are: in for pretty long four years of official sucking up to everything Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. In that order for a brief period of time, and in reversed order (or minus Joe Biden) shortly afterwards.

And then? Who knows?

In any case, gone are the days of media independence. Not that journalists have ever been totally free to write, tell and show everything they thought was fit to print, as the New York Times likes to say about itself. But they tried, at least.

In fact, a journalist who claims that s/he has never had her/his work censored is lying through her/his pearly-white teeth. Either that, or the copy they produced must have been so boringly irrelevant, even the censors wouldn’t read it.

The change in journalistic attitudes that makes them political propagandists rather than people recording the first version of history has been happening slowly, but quite distinctly.

Today’s media have introduced a few new words into our vocabularies. Wrongthink, for example. The line from feudal times and the invention of newspapers to today’s holy war on free speech is perfectly straightforward.

Not so long ago, newspapers used to declare their political affinities. In fact, some would belong to political parties. They would toe the party line no matter what, and, quite often, the truth be damned.

Then came the era one would call “nominal independence.”

Of course, upsetting the applecart to such a degree people would stop reading you, boycott you, even, that would still be unacceptable. Advertising revenue would spiral down the tube as a result, and where’s the poor owner or publisher supposed to get the money to pay the journalists to keep them living at levels they have grown used to, right?

Still, the principle that media is supposed to provide their readers (listeners, viewers) with all the facts that are available seemed to have become the norm.

Note the word: seemed.

The era of political correctness whose stated objective is to make sure we think and speak so politely that nobody can be offended, has become firmly rooted in modern culture. So firmly rooted that truth be damned if someone doesn’t like it.

The theoreticians of this new trend have come up with a new view: new society does not require freedom of speech. If you turn this statement around, it confirms one thing: these new theoreticians haven’t a leg to stand on. They can’t compete against other opinions or statements of fact. So, they simply ban them outright.

A few examples

A couple of so-called social media providers ban the then-sitting president. Their reason defies not only basic logic, it also goes against the law that demands that anyone accused of anything is innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

What do the mainstream media (MSM for short) do?

They praise those social media providers to high heaven. The then-sitting president’s views clashed with those of their own, and, besides, he could support his views with his record, both in the field of America’s national economy, and on the world stage (who, pray tell, negotiated the impossible peace between Israel and some of her staunchest foes?).

Of course, nobody mentions this blatant conflict of interest: Jeff Bezos owns Amazon, and his company kicks Parler.com, the free-speech defender, off its servers, and The Washington Post, owned by that same Jeff Bezos, is perfectly happy, telling its dwindling numbers of readers that Parler, after all, is a very dangerous idea. People can post whatever comes to their minds, and nobody censors them.

Who cares that Amazon has broken a valid contract? And who cares that Amazon’s decision is an open attack against the concept of freedom of expression?

The fact that a group of Harvard University students and alumni demand with brazen openness that their Alma Mater strip its degrees from people who had the chutzpah to support Donald J. Trump and his presidency becomes a sign of heroism.

Demanding that cable television companies deprive of their network services signal providers whose opinions don’t match theirs has become a usual part of those people’s rhetoric.

Typical signs

These people have hijacked the word “progressive,” claiming it describes them and nobody else.

On one hand, they praise the High-Tech poohbahs for their censorship efforts, on the other, they say social media don’t go far enough. They blame social media for not making sure organizers of the recent attack on Capitol were not prevented, at the same time publishing stories of Trump supporters as part of the violent mob, and perfectly ignoring the real culprits.

Of course, social media are stealing massive numbers of eyeballs from them, but that issue will have to remain on the backburner until the MSM settle their accounts with Donald J. Trump, his supporters, and his deeds.

In any case, for the time being, at least, the MSM are working hand-in-hand with the High Tech crowd in their attempt to (another wonderful word) “deplatform” sites that provide independent information. True, some of this information does not necessarily have to be completely factual, but intelligent users will unmask those who mislead them pretty quickly. They do not need the MSM to tell them.

In any case, MSM slogans, such as “words are violence,” stink. No wonder research shows that most Americans have lost all faith in the mainstream media.

They are now asking what’s happening, how it could happen. And they put all the blame on social media for stealing eyeballs away, instead of looking at their own mirrors.

Comrade Goebbels would have been proud of them, indeed.