Category Archives: Canada

The French compare their President to Adolf Hitler

French President Emmanuel Macron introduced drastic measures that are supposed to help his country fight what some still describe as a coronavirus-based pandemic.

Many French citizens aren’t amused. Some of them showed their view in a billboard, erected on the outskirts of Toulon and La Seyne-sur-Mer. It displays an image of Macron dressed in a Nazi uniform, sporting Adolf Hitler’s trademark toothbrush moustache.

Here’s where to find the place: the third-largest French city on the Mediterranean coast after Marseille and Nice. Toulon is known for its naval construction, fishing, and wine-making. You can also find factories making aeronautical equipment, armament production facilities in Toulon, as well as producers of maps, paper, tobacco, printing, shoes, and electronic equipment.

And now the place is scandalised by somebody’s irreverent views of the President. The Toulon prosecutor’s office announced that it views the billboard as a full-fledged defamation of the country’s top elected official, and it opened an official investigation into the matter.

France Bleu was the first to report on the Toulon prosecutors’ indignation.

France Bleu is a network of French local and regional radio stations, a part of the national public broadcasting group Radio France. It serves local audiences and provides local news and content from each of its forty-four stations, as part of its public service mandate.

The billboards disagreeing with the drastic official measures that President Macron announced himself aren’t new. Last week one of the two posters simply displayed the word Honte. It can be translated into English as shame, or ignominy, or disgrace.

Judging by the fact that the Toulon prosecutors didn’t lift a finger on that occasion, we can deduce that telling the head of state he’s disgraced his country is an integral part of public discourse.

Canadian officials would have taken a dimmer view, perhaps, given their violent reactions to critical observations regarding the country’s de facto head of state, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau but, then again, it was the French who had brought such mottos like Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) on the political scene, not Canadians.

Aiming high

Hinting that Emmanuel Macron’s anti-Covid-19 rules equal those introduced by Adolf Hitler, that’s taking it too far, according to French officials.

That’s defamation, pure and simple, they say.

What is it? Herewith the legal definition: any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation can be tried as either a criminal or a civil charge. It includes both written statements (libel), and spoken statements (slander).

Whether a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends to a huge degree on her/his standing in society, especially on the answer to the question whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law.

In the eyes of the Toulon prosecutors’ office, showing Macron as a typical Nazi stretches far beyond the permissible limits of civil public debate.

Just imagine how it looks: the billboard features the letters LREM, an abbreviation for Macron’s La Republique En Marche party (Republic On Parade). These significant letters are squeezed into a white circle. They’re precisely where the Nazi swastika used to be in Hitler’s Germany, with the Nazi party infamous red background.

Is this defamation?

The new rules pushed through by Macron personally include, for example, visible marking for the uninoculated. Not much difference between those and the Stars of David worn by the still-surviving Jewish population in Nazi Germany (and her occupied countries).

President Macron’s support has gone down the toilet. Public opinion agency IFOP reported recently for Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD, or Sunday News) newspaper that Macron’s approval went down by 13 points among people aged 18-24. Surprisingly, it was among French retirees where his support did not collapse. In fact, it even grew on some occasions within their group.

But, in any case, French public are not enthused about the new measures such as mandatory vaccines for certain groups, including health workers, and introduction of vaccine passports for entry to leisure and cultural venues.

Compare Canada’s timid and scattered demonstrations to the estimated 114,000 people who rallied across France to protest what they believe is an unjust intrusion into their private lives. Protesters chanted “Liberty!” and demanded that Macron resign.

Anger across the English Channel (La Manche)

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to mandate vaccinations for people entering crowded venues from September has met with similar reactions in Great Britain. Hashtag ‘arrest Boris Johnson’ has become a most popular demand.

Of course, the British situation has just got somewhat more convoluted: the country’s top medical testing facility now belongs to an organisation run by George Soros, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This bodes ill for the British.

Yes, lawsuits have begun popping up against some of the leading politicians (and governments as such), challenging them for violent violations of basic human rights. In fact, the International Criminal Court in The Hague is studying a document filed by a group of lawyers, physicians and sundry scientists from Slovakia, accusing their government precisely of these crimes. And similar actions like this have been emerging elsewhere, including the U.S.

If such a lawsuit happens to be filed in France, and President Macron happens to lose, will the billboard near Toulon remain defamatory? Or will it be simply stating the truth?

Money not worth the price of paper it’s printed on

Putting your money under your mattress, or your pillow, used to be a great idea. With one proviso: it had to be cash.

But: is cash going the way of ancient dinosaurs and other such animals?

The answer is: yes. And it won’t require any asteroids wreaking havoc on our planet. Our governments will take care of our money without much fuss. You’ll just wake up one day and see that you have barely enough to get yourself a breakfast, and forget about any other meals.

Governments have been looking for and finding ways how to sneak laws and regulations through to omit banknotes and coins as legal tender.

In Canada, for example, the federal government now has the right to announce that banknotes and coins are no longer acceptable as means to conduct any transaction.

As of January 1, 2021, they can pull the trigger any moment they please.

Seen any banner headlines in mainstream media announcing it?

New fad? No, new invasion

The word cryptocurrency has been growing in its currency. What the heck it means? Its source is a Greek word, kryptein. It means “to hide.”

An underground chamber is known in English as a crypt. Apocrypha is known as “writings of dubious authenticity.” How about secret codes, cryptograms, describing a communication in cipher or code, and the entire science of cryptography (“the coding and decoding of secret messages”)?

If you say something is cryptic, you usually mean it was written in code.

So, why these changes so far as money is concerned?

All in the name of progress.

From there to here

We used to exchange goods and services (say, for example, a cow for several bushels of grain). Currencies that would unite individual countries under one roof are a pretty recent innovation, compared to a brand new wife in exchange for two years’ worth of wheat harvest. Currencies based on such standards as gold are even more recent, and they haven’t lasted too long, either.

Many saw promissory notes and other IOU documents as the upper limit. Until, that is, someone replaced that with chequing accounts and cheques as acceptable means of payment.

Of course, some thought that issuing a cheque would take care of their end of their business transactions, forgetting that you had to have some dough in your account to be able to cover the demand by your partner. The cheque, after all, did resemble promissory notes to a huge degree.

Some found it perfectly honourable to issue cheques that would not be covered. The person who had sold you the goods or services would be facing notes from her/his bank, saying they could not honour this instrument. And her/his mail, asking the miscreant for money owed, would be coming back stamped as “no such person, moved, did not leave forwarding address.”

So, some governments found it necessary to introduce laws that would punish this abuse of trust.

Except: recent developments in the business of money are sinister beyond belief.

Plastic, a.k.a. credit cards would follow.

This then-new instrument would allow your lenders, credit card and, hence, credit, issuers, to record if you bought something, and how much you spent on it.

They would also know how good you are at settling your debts, and to make sure that you settle as quickly as possible, they charge you interest on late payments in digits that more than sufficiently remind you of usury.

That usury in and of itself is illegal in most civilised countries matters little.

The idea is known as blockchain. It allows the money institutions to trace every transaction. On top of the credit card information, cryptocurrency lets financial institutions determine who gave you the money, how and what for, and then watch what you spent it on.

Besides, most central banks want all transactions taxed. Cryptocurrency will let them do precisely that.

One of the more benign explanations comes from the Bank of England. Parents will be able to control what their children spend money on.

How frightfully kind-hearted of them.

Or not?

Here’s the issue: as a result, governments will be able to control what we, each and every one of us, can spend our money on. To hell with bank secrecy.

Who knows what?

Governments now claim they have every right to know, for example, whether any of us had succumbed to the clarion call of inoculation. That, in order to be able to force you to obey or else.

This definition of cryptocurrency says it almost all: a digital asset supposed to work as a way of exchange.

Individual ownership records are stored in a ledger (a computerized database using strong cryptography to secure transaction records).

The idea is to control the creation of additional units of cryptocurrency (a.k.a. coins right now, but that can change any time), and to verify the transfer of ownership.

Logically, it would be the issuers who own the data.

Knowing the governments’ appetite to control everything, and the banks’ willingness to share their information, to do everything and anything to keep governments off their backs in other, even more nefarious dealings, any sign of bank secrecy has become a matter of distant past by now.

American economist Martin Armstrong’s group interviewed a representative from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).

His words were chillingly clear.

When clients use cash, banks today do not know who’s using what. With cryptocurrency, they will not only know precisely what’s going on, and their information will be up-to-date within second. They will also be able to enforce whatever rules and conditions they (or their governments) decide to implement.

So, if you think your money is yours, just because you worked hard to earn it, start thinking again.

Noble savages? Pardon the (unintended) pun

Political correctness seems to have no limits. A number of Canadian government departments and private companies have taken to bending over backwards, denying facts of history all the while, at will.

Such as this statement on a telecommunications company’s website: We acknowledge that our work spans many Territories and Treaty areas and that our head office is located on the unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish) and Sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations. We are grateful for the traditional Knowledge Keepers and Elders who are with us today, those who have gone before us and the youth that inspire us. We recognize the land as an act of Reconciliation, as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) 94 Calls to Action and gratitude to those whose territory we reside on, work on or are visiting.

Beside the fact that the website (and the company itself) are close to being useless, it’s the word unceded that should raise an eyebrow or two.

It seems that those who claim they ceded nothing should make a bee-line to the nearest public library, look up a dictionary or to two and find:

Cede means “to yield or grant typically by treaty.”

Another dictionary says: The act of cession is the assignment of property to another entity. In international law it commonly refers to land transferred by treaty.

Now, do the tougher part: instead of looking at high school textbooks, visit an archive or two to check what happened to which territory of Canada.

What regions are covered by treaties between the Crown and the local bands, and on what foundations are they based? To be blunt: who is receiving money from the Crown (to make it easier to grasp: from Canadian taxpayers)?

That, by definition, equals consummated cessation.

Good? Bad? Irrelevant

Generations of activists, posing as scientists, have been arguing whether the treaties are fair or not. Whether yes or not is meaningless for this debate: both sides signed them. That would be all argument needed at the moment.

Which leads to another side of the coin: were those who signed the treaties on the Indian side really the correct interlocutors? To be blunt again: had they or had they not have the right to sign them? To be even more outspoken: did they own the land that they were ceding?

No, they did not. Not only was the concept of ownership quite foreign to them, but they also used to lead nomadic lifestyles. Once they managed to exhaust one place’s resources, they would move elsewhere.

No need to debate whether this was the best approach. It was their approach, and that should suffice.

That this approach would become one of the reasons for internecine wars between individual tribes (or bands, if you wish) is a matter of record, too.

In any case, here’s the result: adding it all up, the Indians are staking claims on more territory than listed anywhere in Canada. How does about 115 per cent of Canada’s British Columbia’s Lower Mainland sound?

The startlingly terrified statement above comes from British Columbia, after all.

Why all that?

Democracy is the worst system of government, bar all others. Many a statesman had made an observation like this.

Today’s politickers (politicians they are not) have enhanced the definition of democracy: it is defined by its attitude towards minorities.

Except: this does not mean that minority should dictate what majority are doing. This only means that majority let minority live and do their thing in the hopes they would become majority one beautiful day not far hence.

And, which is more important still, democracy means obligations first, rights second. Without doing what you’re obliged to do, you haven’t the rights.

Discrimination? Absolutely. But: only those who want to shirk their obligations, and keep their rights all along, call it unfair.

Most people brought up in democracy, majority, that is, see it as a logical sequence of events.

Unfortunately, we now live in a world that seems to have forgotten that some rules remain valid no matter what. We live in a world of so-called fake narratives (another modern word that’s as close to reality as Baron Münchhausen’s stories).

Note for the illiterate: German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe created the character of the inveterate liar in his 1785 book, Baron Münchhausen’s Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia.

Raspe based his hero loosely on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen. His Lordship were not amused, but that’s another story. End of the note for the illiterate.

Modern history textbooks gives their authors’ opinions instead of the facts. The accepted view reflects those opinions. Students are not marked on their individual ability to think and question, but, rather, on their ability to recite verbatim what their teachers had told them.

That’s why so many accept the fallacies about the cruel fate history dished out to poor Indians, ignoring reality altogether.

All this creates a population easily misled into blind obedience.

That’s why the outright lies about the past have reappeared once again. It’s all about divide and conquer (an old trick, as shown by its classic status in the Latin language: divide et impera).

A real story

It happened decades ago. An Indian mother took her brood of five to a highway intersection, dropped them all off, and told her oldest daughter, then eight or 10 years old, that from now on she would be responsible for her siblings’ survival.

The mother said, frankly and openly, that she had had enough of all that trouble of bringing up her family, and she would find another path in life for herself.

But, she concluded, should the daughter ever succumb to “whiteys’ ways” or, Manitou forbid, accept “whiteys’ help,” her mother would curse her and her children and grandchildren and whatnot into a number of generations.

Another note for the illiterate: Manitou is the spiritual and fundamental life force in the Indian theology. It is omnipresent and manifests everywhere: organisms, the environment, events, etc. End of another note for the illiterate.

It happened on Canadian Prairies, and the winter was coming up. Winter in Canada, in the Prairies in particular, is as cruel a season as cruel can be.

The girl was lucky to get herself and her siblings into a residential school. They all got basic education, and, most importantly, they all survived.

The girl, an aging woman now, is still horrified about her mother’s curse that might come upon her and her family one day.

Where are the headlines? And the official apologies from all corners of the North American Indian world?

Rhetorical questions, both.

And legitimate, too. Both.

Whose black eye?

There aren’t enough black people in Canada, so, it doesn’t really make much sense to start creating Black Lives Matter chapters all over the Maple Leaf country.

And there is already an illiterate Antifa activist residing in Canada’s palatial Prime Ministerial digs at 24 Sussex Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, K1M 1M4.

What are the so-called Canadian progressives to do to justify their existence (most often on Canadian taxpayers’ dime)?

Why not re-invent an issue that’s been thrashed around so often, with so much misinformation thrown into the mix that everybody and their dog will start believing we have another tragedy on our hands?

It’s the residential schools for people originally known as Indians. Their description would develop with times. It is First Nations for the time being, without a single proof that, indeed, these people were the first to inhabit the two Americas. That modern research questions their claim is another issue.

Horror of horrors

The residential school story has developed into a series of reports that say human remains had been detected in unmarked graves at the site of a former residential school in British Columbia, Canada’s western-most province.

Not that it was any news: everybody who had lived in the area was aware of the cemeteries. And locals knew perfectly well that those cemeteries were originally marked quite properly, and maintained. Until, that is, when local Indian bands took over the responsibility and found the task too daunting to continue.

If only those controversy seekers stopped to check their facts, they would have been surprised. For example, Sophie Pierre, former chief of the St Mary’s Indian Band and a survivor of the Kootenay Residential School at St. Eugene Mission just outside Cranbrook, B.C., put it all in simple and straightforward terms: “There’s no discovery, we knew it was there, it’s a graveyard. The fact there are graves inside a graveyard shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.”

Pierre went on to explain that wooden crosses that originally marked the gravesites had burned or deteriorated over the years. Using a wooden marker at a gravesite remains a practice that continues to this day.

Radar technology was brought in by the community in an effort to identify those buried in the cemetery and to re-mark the gravesite. If that is news of anybody’s wrongdoing, it’s news to those who should be enraged the most.

Hundreds of unmarked graves have been found near residential school sites across the country recently, including in Kamloops, B.C., and the Cowessess Indian band in Saskatchewan.

They all are situated close to the former residential schools. The one that has created the most headlines now happens to be a luxurious golf resort owned by five local area Indian bands.

Except: the graveyard near Cranbrook originally dates back to Christian missionaries who settled in the area in the early 1800s, prior to the construction of the school.

A church and a hospital were also built in the area. That medical sciences of the day were no match to today’s should surprise nobody. That mortality rates used to be higher than now, even for conditions that now require just a dose or two of over-the-counter medications, is no secret, either.

The graveyard for the community at the site remains there to this day.

The debate about the schools has been on and off the front burner for decades. The law mandated that all Indigenous children between the ages of seven and 15 living in the area were to attend the school.

What’s wrong with educating young people? Nothing, if their teachers don’t force-feed them nonsense known as critical thinking theories.

The Lower Kootenay Band has contributed to the modern narrative by saying that many of the children “received cruel and sometimes fatal treatment.”

Considering children of top-ranking aristocrats in the most exclusive schools in Great Britain would get spanked for whatever minor indiscretions, the question should be: is spanking really a good and useful method to educate children who misbehave? Yes? No? Is it true that sparing the rod spoils the child?

A laundry list

Here are few of the many problems:

  • Stories about the schools have been exaggerated throughout.
  • These stories have completely ignored the basic reality of Indians, in fact, stepping into modern times directly from Stone Age, forgetting that there’s no survival without education along the way.
  • These stories used to stress the incredibly peaceful character of Indian tribes and bands, ignoring completely the numerous wars that raged between them, with take-no-prisoners mentality prevailing. The winner would slaughter anyone still alive on the losing side, to avoid facing any shape or form of revenge.
  • The official history now sides with Indian claims on land, ignoring the fact they had lived nomadic lifestyles, with their methods of environmental husbandry worse than outrageous. Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo Jump in Canada’s Alberta anyone? Or its sister site in Montana, U.S.A.?
    For the uninitiated: the Indians would chase herds of buffalo to a rocky precipice. The animals would fall down the slopes in numbers the chasing band had no hope of consuming within the next decade.
  • The official history, based on a Canadian top court decision, accepts Indian myths and legends shared by mouth generation to generation. Considering this kind of information can hardly be reliable in real estate negotiations, and that’s precisely what they are used for, it’s no wonder that, in some cases, Indians claim more of Canada’s land than there exists.

All kinds of propagandists have jumped on the bandwagon. Only a few would admit that they have an agenda in mind, rather than news reporting. An example: Russian television’s RT News ran an item badmouthing Canada. RT is part of official Russian government propaganda. Why it would engage in this mischief? To lampoon Canada’s official love affair with China?

RT News identified its author as a journalist and an activist. How many will notice this? How many know that one can be either a journalist or an activist, but never shall the twain meet?

How many will realise that they are being fed yet another hoax?

Europe loosens the noose

This is precisely what the organisers of the artificial Covid panic and hysteria have wanted to achieve since Day One: as of July 1, all member states (excluding Ireland) have begun accepting new travel documents known as EUCOVID certificates.

Passports, that is, that confirm that the person crossing the border has been inoculated (or tested) against the virus that causes several upper respiratory system ailments but is less deadly than your normal, run-of-the-mill flu. Confirming that these people did what they were told, disregarding the fact that NONE of the so-called vaccines had passed its clinical tests (the soonest date for this is 2023, that is, two years hence).

That this is a crime against humanity matters not. Definitely not to EU chief poohbah, Ursula von der Leyden.

According to Ms. von der Leyden, this is great news. She tweeted thus: “In time for summer! The #EUCOVIDCertificate is now up and running. Get yours today to ease your travel across the EU. Europe is re-opening!”

As cynical a statement as cynical can get.

Here’s the real meaning: we’ve closed everything, and now, we’ve re-opened a door here or there, and we’ll let you through provided you’ve obeyed and did as we bid.

The idea that travel throughout the European Union is to be free for all without any hindrance is now gone out of the window.

Bureaucrats rule

The decision about the certificates is in direct contradiction with a recent decision adopted by the Council of Europe, that is, a group that includes EU member states’ heads of states or governments.

That august body, a.k.a. CoE, has adopted a resolution earlier this year. Numbered 2361 (2021), it tells EU member states that vaccination is NOT be made mandatory.

Of course, mainstream media, like Reuters, have been fighting for straws and found two: CoE resolutions, it said, are not mandatory. They do carry a certain political and moral weight only, and, besides, Reuters said, vaccination passports are not the same kind of document as vaccination certificates.

Reuters said the information on the CoE resolution was, therefore, false.

Judge for yourself:

According to the CoE resolution, EU member states are obligated to:

  • 7.3.1 make certain that citizens are informed about the fact that vaccination is not compulsory, and that nobody would face political, social or any other pressure to get vaccinated, until they do not wish to do it;
  • 7.3.2 ensure that nobody is discriminated against for not being vaccinated because of possible health risks or because they did not wish to be vaccinated;
  • 7.1.5 introduce independent compensation programs for vaccination with the objective to ensure redress for disproportionate damages and damages caused by vaccination.

It is perfectly obvious that travellers without the new Covid certificates will face all kinds of obstacles at all border crossings. Local authorities may decide to impose compulsory testing for those wishing to enter their countries.

Legalistically speaking, they will be within their rights. But not really.

In legal terms, such excuse is described (in Latin) as ultra vires. The explanation: beyond one’s power; specifically, beyond the legal or constitutional power of a person, court, corporation, or, even, government.

A modest reminder: Nazi Germany’s Holocaust was perfectly within Germany’s then-existing laws. And communist countries whose toll of victims makes Nazi Germany pale in comparison, also claim that they did nothing illegal.

The Nuremberg war crimes tribunal decreed otherwise, and its ruling about excuses such as “I was ordered to” or “It was the law” is perfectly specific: absolutely and unconditionally unacceptable.

Cards on the table

This kind of travel documents is but a first step. This claim has been already proven: Germany has introduced stern measures (her own testing, etc.) against travellers coming from Portugal. The spread of something known as Delta variant has been announced as the reason.

The fact that even the annual flu outbursts are difficult to prevent because nobody knows in advance what strain of the virus will show up must have escaped the panic-mongering officials’ attention.

While, in order to obtain the certificate, the applicants must show negative test results not older than 72 hours (three days, that is). To make matters somewhat more complicated, not all EU countries accept so-called antigen test results.

But the bureaucrats are so kind that they have permitted two days for any member country to change its criteria for admission.

Canadians and Americans may rest assured that their governments are watching the growing authoritarianism in Europe with keen interest. The lads in Ottawa, as well as those in Washington, D.C., are dancing to the same tune as the Marxists in EU head offices in Brussels.

It’s called feudalistic socialism, as American economist Martin Armstrong has defined it.

One would have thought that feudalism, with its serfdom and similarly elegant rules of absolutism, has been thrown out a long time ago.

And one would have thought, too, that the criminality of socialism in any of its shapes and forms, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, some time ago, also.

We haven’t learnt yet. We’re bound to repeat the experience one more time.

Shame on us.

Mud-slinging by labels, what a novel idea

Labels used to be a useful marketing tool.

They have become a political tool, and that’s a tragedy.

It’s no longer about “I beg to differ” or “I must join issue with you” because of this or that reason. It’s now you’re (select from a long list of available and accepted – if not acceptable – descriptions, all of them meant to be derogatory).

And, of course, those who are guilty the most use these labels to attack others the most, precisely for misbehaviour (or crime?) they are guilty of themselves.

That’s the easiest method how to change a rational debate into a mud-slinging match. This non-debate has been useful beyond the wildest imagination of its perpetrators: mainstream media (MSM for short) employs people who wouldn’t know journalism if it saved their lives, but who like controversial headlines that stir emotions without even touching upon the subject matter at hand.

In addition, the MSM employees (they really aren’t journalists at all, most of them, anyway) wouldn’t understand the subject matter for the lives of them, so, it doesn’t really matter.

Slogans and labels is all they like (they don’t understand them, either, but they love them more than their expensive gadgets, and that’s saying something).

An eyeopener

David Horowitz used to be a flaming leftist in his younger years. He meets the definition attributed to Sir Winston Churchill: those under 30 years of age aren’t leftists have no heart. Those who remain leftist after age 30 have no brain.

David Horowitz has a lot of grey cells in his brain. And he upsets his former ideological comrades no end: he knows their ways and byways, knows how to define them, and he knows where to look for them and how.

He also was one of the first North American political analysts to recognise the danger that would become known as the Frankfurt School (die Frankfurter Schule in German).

A group of Marxists who had fled Nazi Germany, properly and correctly scared of Adolf Hitler and all his works, landed in Great Britain and, especially, in the United States (the latter country was safer, out of reach for Hitler’s missiles).

It took them some time, but by the early 1960s they had managed to worm their way into America’s education system. It began with higher learning institutions (colleges, universities). These days, their influence extends all the way to kindergartens.

Abusing democracy by using their own version of drivel about democracy, they claimed they had the right to say (and teach) whatever thy wished, and, anyway, those who didn’t agree with them and their ideas were just a bunch of village idiots who didn’t understand their lofty concepts.

This is the crowd that would develop political correctness. Apparently a system that would guarantee that nobody could be insulted or otherwise hurt or injured in the course of a heated debate, this has become the perfect tool for censorship: they, and only they, would decide which line of enquiry can be annoying (to them), and they would ban it with gusto.

The so-called “cancel culture” and “woke culture” have developed directly from political correctness.

David Horowitz Freedom Center has decided to do something about it.

The first step must be to expose Marxism as a criminal idea, both literally and in its consequences.

The second step must be to expose American campuses most guilty of the crime of indoctrinating young minds with the criminal idea of Marxism (in whatever of its many shapes).

The David Horowitz Freedom Center exposes “Top Ten Most Racist Colleges and Universities.” These educational institutions enforce policies and programs that they call “anti-racist.”

Checked out, these schools in reality promote racial discrimination and a return to Jim Crow. For those who had been educated in recent years and aren’t aware of their country’s history, a brief description: Jim Crow laws enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. They were in force until 1965.

A person named Jim Crow who would be involved in these activities never existed: it was a caricature that first appeared in the 19th century and has survived till these days.

Canada’s hallowed halls of academe haven’t fallen too far behind. Just check them out.

The David Horowitz Freedom Center list is shocking in and of itself.

Herewith one of the most disgusting examples:

Harvard University

Viewed as America’s most prestigious university, this Ivy League school has been accused of deliberately using discriminatory and stereotypical ratings of Asian applicants’ personalities as “lacking” and “one-dimensional.” The idea is to reduce their chances of obtaining admission.

A coalition named Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard in federal district court in 2014. The cause: alleged violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This document prohibits all schools which receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race.

Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants in undergraduate admissions decisions, the lawsuit stated. It has been using an admissions formula that hinders Asian applicants’ chances of admission by consistently giving them a low “personal rating” — a subjective measure of personality traits such as kindness, courage, and likeability. Through an examination of Harvard’s previously secret admissions data, SFFA was able to show that Asian-American applicants to Harvard face rampant racial discrimination.

A Duke University economist, Peter Arcidiacono, testified in court on behalf of SFFA. His testimony showed that the lawsuit had merit by proving that Asian-American applicants have the lowest chance of admission to Harvard out of all races even though they score the highest in all objective measurements of achievement.

Arcidiacono was very specific: a male Asian-American applicant, not disadvantaged, ends up having a 25 per cent chance of admission. Changing the race of this applicant to white, with all other characteristics untouched, would increase his chance of admission to 36 per cent. A Hispanic candidate, again, everything else remaining the same, would have a chance of admission at 77 per cent. An African-American’s chance of admission, with everything else remaining unchanged, equals 95 per cent.

Arcidiacono went straight to the point: “Despite being more academically qualified than the other three major racial/ethnic groups (whites, African Americans, and Hispanics), Asian-American applicants have the lowest admissions rates. In fact, data produced by Harvard show that this has been true for every admissions cycle for the classes of 2000 to 2019.”

Students for Fair Admissions concluded: “Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s.”

And here’s an interesting part: The United States Department of Justice under President Donald Trump joined SFFA, filing an amicus brief arguing that Harvard University racially profiles its applicants during the admissions process and imposes “a racial penalty by systematically disfavouring Asian-American applicants.”

The original David Horowitz Freedom Center list links this information to a Wikipedia page. A simple click shows that Wikipedia found the topic too uncomfortable for its leftist tastes. So, the link takes readers to a spot that says such a page doesn’t exist, and try elsewhere. That would be another link that says no such entry exists.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2020 refused to overturn an earlier ruling in favour of Harvard.

As of February 2021, SFFA has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.

No word yet but …

Why exercise? Take it easy and help your nation

Healthy living endangers national economies all over the world.

This, allegedly, straight from a top Euro Exim Bank official’s mouth (a re-translation, thus, no direct speech quotation marks): a bicycle rider equals catastrophic consequences for his country’s economics.

Here’s why, the egg-head apparently went on: a bicycle rider won’t buy himself a car (let’s assume he included women in his rant, too).

That means, that this irresponsible bicycle rider won’t ask banks to lend him money.

On top of all that, a bicycle rider doesn’t buy himself (or herself, as the case may be) any insurance. And never mind that he doesn’t buy a single drop of fuel, and he’s not paying for necessary repairs and maintenance, either.

When a bicycle rider stops to go to work, or something like that, he doesn’t pay for parking. Shame or what?

And, too, quite irresponsibly, there haven’t been too many cases of serious highway accidents caused by bicycle riders.

Not only that, bicycle riders do not require new lanes on our highways.

Show me an obese bicycle rider: you won’t find one, even if you looked for one using a flashlight at midday.

So far as national economies go, healthy people are perfectly useless.

Why? They don’t buy any medications. Their visits to see doctors or trips to hospitals are minimal, to say the least.

To sum up, bicycle riders do not contribute to any country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Fast food: a GDP booster

Compare THAT to, say, any new fast-food joint that springs up (and they do with surprising speed).

Even if we exclude those who’re working there, any such place helps create thirty highly qualified new job opportunities: ten cardiologists, ten stomatologists (experts in dental and other mouth issues), and ten experts for diets and nutrition.

Those, in turn, have to build their offices, get at least the essential equipment, hire support staff, and whatnot.

Of course, if it really was the good old Euro Exim Bank poohbah who said all that, and more, he forgot to mention pedestrians: these ignoramuses abstain from buying bicycles, even. OK, OK, many of them buy shoes from time to time, but so what, everybody does.

Now, lest anyone thinks a bank like this can’t exist, here’s its brief description (using their own words): Euro Exim Bank Limited is an innovative global financial institution with its head office in St. Lucia and representative office in London (England). Euro Exim Bank is an associate member of the Caribbean Association of Banks Inc. (CAB). They hold a “Class A” international banking licence from Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) of St. Lucia. This licence provides authorisation to conduct business with third parties across industries and geographies worldwide, exercising strong due diligence, full compliance and operational excellence in their processes.

Impressive or impressive?

A request for information, asking to confirm, deny, or clarify the alleged rant, sent to the bank using their own e-mail address as listed on their own website, caused a curt reply saying that the delivery failed: the address either does not exist, or you don’t have the right to send any messages to it (as if it was a social media group).

That same message, sent using the website’s contact page, generated a simple reply: we’ve got it and we’ll be in touch. You know the one: most cynics call it being put on ignore.

Quite a few days have passed since then. It looks as if it’s safe to assume no real reply other than the cookie-cutter “your call is important to us” is forthcoming.

Yes, assumption is one of the worst sins in journalism, but, in some cases, they tend to be more specific than others. Here, the bank does exist, and the rant has appeared widely in several sources’ reports, with not many signs of what is known as cross-pollination (someone publishes blatant nonsense, others pick it up without much checking of their own, and the story starts living a life of its own).

Still, we cannot safely ignore the allegation that it was Euro Exim Bank Limited’s boss who had made the statement.


Because he’s not alone in making such statements. Many have gone much further, and nobody noticed sufficiently to accuse them that they were making a complete pigs’ breakfast of humanity’s future.

What’s innovation?

The Euro Exim Bank Limited bank describes itself as innovative. If it finds its CEO’s statements acceptable, it must have forgotten that innovation does not necessarily equal progress.

The trend seems almost unstoppable. Everybody and their dog love smart whatever, newest exploits of artificial intelligence are hailed as the greatest achievement humanity can hope for, and nobody seems to be overly worried about the blatant intrusion into their privacy. The most frequent reaction: ah, so what, they (whoever that might be) would be doing it, anyway, so, why worry. Artificial intelligence, by the way, is called AI, for short, and that bothers nobody: everything and everyone these days seem to be satisfied with abbreviated descriptions.

This is called dumbing down the population. The plan is shockingly simple: people educated to remain illiterate will accept what the authorities tell them (they’ve been doing it in overwhelming fashion, accepting perfectly unsubstantiated calls that they should be scared beyond any logical levels).

Canadians chuckle when they hear Americans who persistently believe that their neighbours north of the 49th parallel still find igloos their preferred accommodation.

Meanwhile, Americans raise their eyebrows sky-high when they hear that their neighbours north of the 49th parallel still don’t remember the names of all American states (ask any American high school student to name them, and all you’ll hear is the sound of silence).

And don’t ask university graduates in both countries to tell you how many continents there are, and name them. Not necessarily in alphabetic order, even. That would mean you’re showing a privilege that’s mode du jour just at that moment.

Don’t ask university doctoral graduates on other continents to name but three U.S. Presidents, or, for that matter, but three former Canadian Prime Ministers. And never mind the number of Canada’s provinces and their names.

Asking any of them to tell you how much is two plus two without using their calculator would equal cruel and unusual punishment.

Compared to that, the Euro Exim Bank poohbah’s rant is but baby blathering.

That’s how deep we’ve sunk.

Idiocy, thy name is University of Victoria

Since many do not trust their governments, why not bring in anarchy, instead?

And since there seems to be no left-wing idiocy that Canada’s University of Victoria would not be a part of, this school jumped on the bandwagon both feet first.

According to Cambridge University, anarchy is best described as a situation in which there is no organisation and control, especially in society, because there is no effective government.

What else would you expect from Cambridge dons but civility?

Encyclopaedia Britannica hired Arthur M. Eckstein, Professor at the Department of History, University of Maryland, to write: Anarchy, in political science and the study of international relations, the absence of any authority superior to nation-states and capable of arbitrating their disputes and enforcing international law. The term anarchy is derived from the ancient Greek root anarchos (“without authority”), denoting the absence of the rule of law or of settled government.

Why he would concentrate on international relations and forget much of what’s going on at home remains Professor Eckstein’s own secret.

In sum: anarchy equals the full and complete absence of laws or government.

A new subject?

Should scientists study anarchy?

Absolutely. If for no other reason then in order to figure out what it does to civilised society, and why there are people who support it, and why they support it.

Should scientists join the anarchist propaganda, spread it, even?

A sensitive issue.

On one hand, who are we to ban anybody’s thoughts and feelings, either way?

On the other hand, given the way our education systems have been working the last few centuries, why should we let people in authority spread the cancer among the young and eager minds that don’t know any better?

Remember: if you want to pass an examination, you have to recite your teacher’s views on what is right (and wrong) verbatim. If you do quote your teacher and then have the gall to suggest there may exist other trains of thought, your future progress in school is in jeopardy. And if you’re dull enough not to quote your teacher at all, and start with the alternatives outright, you’re doomed.

Seen through this lens, the following communication from Allan Antliff, editor, Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies at the Department of Art History and Visual Studies at University of Victoria, enlightens.

Dear Colleagues,

I am pleased to announce the publication of “The Politics of Indigeneity, Anarchist Praxis, and Decolonization,” edited by J. Kēhaulani Kauanui.

This is a special issue of Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies (2021.1).

Table of contents:

(1) J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, “The Politics of Indigeneity, Anarchist Praxis, and Decolonization”

(2) Theresa Warburton, “Land and Liberty: Settler Acknowledgement in Anarchist Pedagogies of Place”

(3) Jeff Corntassel, “Life Beyond the State: Regenerating Indigenous International Relations and Everyday Challenges to Settler Colonialism”

(4) Gord Hill and Allan Antliff, “Indigeneity, Sovereignty, Anarchy: A Dialog With Many Voices”

(5) Macarena Gómez-Barris, “Anarchisms Otherwise: Pedagogies of Anarco-Indigenous Feminist Critique”

(6) Mary Tuti Baker, “Gardens of Political Transformation: Indigenism, Anarchism and Feminism Embodied”

Book Reviews

(7) Gabriel Kuhn (Ed.), “Liberating Sápmi: Indigenous Resistance in Europe’s Far North” by Kimberly Croswell

(8) Bas Umali, “Pangayaw and Decolonizing Resistance: Anarchism in the Philippines” (Gabriel Kuhn Ed.) by Claudia C. Lodia

Mr. Antliff links to his publication’s issue, and concludes by explaining he’s sitting on the unceded WSÁNEC & Lekwungen (Songhees & Esquimalt) Territories, a habit that has crept into most such pronouncements, be their academic or political.

Who she?

This from Wesleyan University’s own website (wow, don’t they seem to have tons of fun at 45 Wyllys Avenue, Middletown, CT 06459?):

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui is Professor of American Studies and an affiliate faculty member in Anthropology. She teaches courses related to Indigenous sovereignty, settler colonial studies, anarchist history and activism, and critical race and ethnic studies. Kauanui is also a radio producer, collaborating on an anarchist politics program, “Anarchy on Air,” which broadcasts on WESU, Middletown, CT (although the show is currently on hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

Kauanui is one of the six co-founders of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA). After serving on the founding steering committee from 2005-2008, from 2008-2009, she served as an acting council member. Then, from 2009-2012, she served as an elected member of the inaugural council. She has served as an elected member the national council of the American Studies Association (2013-2016), and was the 2008 President of the New England American Studies Association.

After transferring from community college (Irvine Valley College) in 1989, Kauanui earned her B.A. in Women’s Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 1992. She took her Ph.D. in History of Consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 2000.

Kauanui is the author of: Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (Duke University Press 2008); Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty: Land, Sex, and the Colonial Politics of State Nationalism (Duke University Press 2018); and Speaking of Indigenous Politics: Conversations with Activists, Scholars, and Tribal Leaders (University of Minnesota Press 2018), which features select interviews from her public affairs radio show “Indigenous Politics,” which aired from 2007-2013.

Herewith the context

One expression is important in this description: critical race and ethnic studies. This happens to be the buzzword the modern would-be scholars love the most. You can hide anything under the title of a critical theory. That you’re destroying humanity in the process, who cares?

Well, definitely not J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, and definitely not Allan Antliff, either.

Their critical theories are very openly based on the criminal teachings of one Karl Marx. Except, they added a bit of flexibility to Marxism’s strictness.

So far as Marx is concerned, anarchy (and anarchism) are not acceptable: his has been the view of a strictly organised society.

Times are changing, and Marxism got nowhere with its class struggle antagonistic contradictions. The time has come to invent something new. Why not keep antagonistic contradictions and amend them to race? No, it doesn’t mean dropping the class struggle altogether, it only means concentrating on something else.

Since most of the people these days have no sense of history, they don’t even know there’s been a switch. And since most of the students these days have no idea history has ever existed, they notice nothing.

And thus, Victoria, the capital of British Columbia that calls itself beautiful, Victoria, that jewel of good old times when an invitation to tea and crumpets still meant something, has become the capital of anarchy in 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.