Category Archives: Disinformation

War in Ukraine: follow the money

A crudely politically incorrect joke has been making rounds on the internet recently, and to huge applause: a cannibal tribe chief told his tribe members to stop eating one another. Why? Because he realised that the practice would lead to the total extermination of his tribe.

A perfectly timely joke: senior European Union officials have woken up and realised that American President Joe Biden’s administration are capitalising on the Ukraine conflict and the bloc’s economic problems.

What took them so long to realise that it is the U.S. who is profiting from the conflict the most? It doesn’t require expert knowledge of nuclear science to realise that the Americans are all of a sudden selling more natural gas and at higher prices, as well as selling more weapons.

All that when Europe has begun suffering critical shortages. EU sanctions imposed on Russia over her military campaign in Ukraine have led to major disruptions in gas deliveries from Russia to Europe.

The result: the EU is now forced to rely on American gas. It would take a bit of counting to figure out whether it’s only the transportation that causes it, but the fact remains, Americans pay four times less than the Europeans for U.S. gas.

Here’s another issue: eyewitnesses say that when European leaders accosted Biden at the recent G20 meeting, demanding to know the reasons for these “un-friendly tactics,” he “simply seemed unaware.”

Whether he only pretended being in the dark or whether his briefing notes didn’t mention the topic, or whether he forgot them in his hotel room, or whether he just forgot their content, none of it matters. What does matter is the fact the EU countries are sliding down into an economic abyss, and that it seems to suit their American counterparts just fine.

Pissed off like nobody’s business

What also irks the Europeans is the way the U.S. is making a spoiled and rotten stew of their so-called green policies. An incentive scheme which offers huge subsidies and tax breaks to green businesses, a.k.a. Inflation Reduction Act, may kill Europe’s Green Deal. The EU scheme, based on ideology with no regard for basic (and complex) issues of basic economics, is a mill-stone for European economies in and of itself.

Add to it America’s nonsense climate schemes, and what you’re in for is disaster.

In practical and somewhat short-term conditions, it could give American electric vehicle manufacturers an advantage over their EU counterparts in the U.S. market that they view as too lucrative to ignore.

Again, it matters not whether they are correct in their assessment. What does matter is that this is how they see it.

A longer-term view sees the green minds on both sides of the Big Pond moving into an irreconcilable argument that could split the two sides worse than Sir Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech (in Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, 1946) that triggered what become known as the Cold War.

These disagreements may undermine Western efforts to support Ukraine and the transatlantic alliance itself, European Union ideologues fear quite openly.

Besides, America seems to not have realised that Europeans’ public opinion has started shifting away from unconditional support for Volodymyr Zelensky and his regime in Ukraine. That’s what leaked information about the rampant anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism and overall economic and political corruption within Ukraine’s highest offices tends to do.

European Union countries try to impose the strongest forms of censorship, except many of her citizens remember similar measures under both Communism and Nazism. And they are intelligent enough to put two and to together.

Not that Russia is not guilty of similar assault on freedom of information (and, as importantly, freedom of expression). Except, the relentless propaganda attack against Russia seems to have failed miserably: too one-sided.

Trying to hide something

Add to it several European government’s calls for their citizens to snitch on people whose opinions may differ ever so slightly from the official line. Add, also, their calls to include differing opinions into lists of criminal crimes, offences punishable by prison terms and hefty fines, and some Europeans’ eyebrows seem to have started shooting up.

Here’s the Europeans’ view: U.S. defence industry is making gobs of money making new and new weapons to support Ukraine. Meanwhile, EU weapon supplies have been close to nil, and to replenish their own stores, they will have to go begging. Where? To the U.S., of course.

That’s obviously what then-President John Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower had in mind when he spoke in the 1950s and 1960s of the dangers posed by the military-industrial complex.

It would take but a half of a century for him to be proven right.

Russia, the part that is supposed to suffer irreparable losses does suffer human losses on the battlefield. Compared to Ukraine’s losses, Russian casualties are only a fraction.

Still, those losses are tragic. On both sides.

So far as economics go, Russia is on the winning side. Not only because she has found new markets and enhanced those that had existed earlier, but also because her opponents are findings themselves in quagmires of their own doing.

The U.S. could have thought they were winning when they drew Russia into her war on Ukraine. The Americans would fight the Russians till the last Ukrainian standing, defending American business interests.

Now, it turns out that it’s only the direct participants and NATO (both actual members and candidates for membership) who are keenly engaged in the conflict.

The rest of the world seems to be keenly bored. That’s a dangerous game, too, what with the nuclear weapons clatter from both sides. But this is another topic for another day.

Russian government see it as the EU trying to isolate their country but, as their Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed, the EU only “imposes costs on EU countries and their citizens, who are forced to pay out of their own pockets for the strategic blunders of their politicians.”

The real question: who benefits? America’s military-industrial complex, that’s who.

Anybody else?

How about the Great Reset crowd?

Yes, now we’re talking. Dividing the world so that killing seven eights of the planet’s population gets easier done than said, that’s where we should be looking for answers.

Advertisement

EU flabbergasted by Hungary’s defiance

Éljen Magyarország! Istenem![i]

Viktor Mihály Orbán Úr’s government blocked a planned European Union financial aid package that was supposed to be sent to Ukraine.

EU wanted to borrow the €18 billion (an amount in the neighbourhood of $25 billion in Canadian money) from several banks at going commercial rates, to be paid back in 35 years. Imagine how much that would be with all that interest compounding through the years.

Hungary’s Finance Minister Mihály Varga explained his country’s position: “Hungary is ready to support Ukraine, but we do not wish to contribute to any new loan to be taken up by the EU.”

Unofficially, but still for the record, Hungarian officials said that their country had unpleasant experiences with earlier loans to address economic issues caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Borrowed funds in the billions of € (euros) went to friendly governments in Italy, Spain and several other Western European countries, all with no justification, while newer members facing similar troubles had been ignored.

That is why Hungary opposes and will oppose any other new loans, Varga explained.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock got hot around the collar, accusing Hungarian government of playing poker: Hungary has been involved in a major dispute with the EU brass regarding the definition of what is known as rule-of-law.

Unable to come up with any proper argument in the debate, Baerbock accused Prime Minister Orbán’s government of blackmail.

Strong words, these. The official goal of the loan was announced as helping Ukraine keep its economy and public services afloat throughout the coming year while restoring critical infrastructure destroyed by the Russians.

Perfectly fascinating, noble, even.

And all that is to go down in flames just because Hungary said no, and no money can flow anywhere: EU budgets require full unanimity by all 27 member countries.

What’s up?

Ignoring Hungarian representatives’ statements, EU officials claim it’s because the organisation has threatened to withhold €13 billion of EU funds: Brussels mandarins claim Hungary are not upholding rules of democracy as written by the European Union.

This is an ongoing dispute. Hungary is not alone here: Poland shares her view. They keep telling the Brussels club their domestic laws take precedence over the EU legislative gulyas. Hungary’s (and Poland’s) laws are none of EU’s bloody business. European elites insist that their laws and regulations take precedence over everything else.

Germany’s Baerbock shot back, again, ignoring Hungary’s stated objectives: “Our financial, our humanitarian support (to Ukraine) within the framework of winter aid is not a normal European matter where people play poker and negotiate back and forth about financial resources.”

Your typical kind of argument: identify something as your opponent’s views and then go on to dismantle them.

“We are in a situation where we are saving lives precisely with the financial support from Europe,” said Baerbock.

May be yes, may be not. Sure, Ukraine’s infrastructure has suffered heavy damages, and yes, winter is just around the corner, and Ukrainian winters are not much to write home about.

Germany has got in on the act, and whether that helps matters is quite questionable.

Her three ruling parties are urging Chancellor Olaf Scholz to “thoroughly” scrutinise Hungary’s rule-of-law reforms and only support releasing billions of withheld EU money if Budapest can prove it’s serious about addressing EU’s longstanding concerns over democratic backsliding.

It would be quite difficult to judge, looking from the outside in, who has put more points on the board in this dispute.

Anti-corruption campaigners in Budapest claim that Orbán is (their words) duping the EU with his reform promises, which they call insufficient.

Pro-EU media and establishments elsewhere call these protesters “experts and activists,” without providing any proof to either designation.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles

Lawmakers in the Bundestag share these concerns.

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) — the three parties in the ruling coalition — want to move to “request” the government to “thoroughly assess” Hungary’s reforms and concentrate upon (their words) “a sustainable impact in practice.”

If Hungary do not meet what can be described as German requirements rather than standards, these parliamentarians demand that the government should draw up the appropriate consequences and vote for suspending payments to Budapest.

If this sounds like meddling in another independent state’s affairs, it’s because that’s precisely what it is.

If this sounds like introducing a misleadingly confusing angle into Great Reset plans that are now openly calling for genocide, it’s because that’s precisely what it is.

Yes, genocide: statements to the effect that there are way too many people on this planet, and that, instead of today’s 8 billion about 1.5 billion would suffice, call for nothing else.

Compared to this the conflict in Ukraine, the phony pandemics, the climate changes, and whatnot are children’s games.

Except: all of these events are interconnected, with one simple and single goal: steer our attention away from what’s really going on.

The Hungarians are perfectly right to fight for their independence.

We should join them.


[i] These three words mean: Fame to Hungary! By God!

Do as I say, not as I do

“I deeply believe that COP27 is an opportunity to showcase unity against an existential threat that we can only overcome through concerted action and effective implementation.”

Thus President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt on the occasion of his country throwing away unreported millions Egyptian pounds. Hosting 2,000+ speakers, 35,000+ expected participants to debate 300+ topics at a venue that covers 150,000+ m² isn’t a cheap proposition.

The Sharm El Sheikh International Airport is the third-busiest airport in Egypt after Cairo International and Hurghada International airports. Ophira International Airport originally, it is capable of about 9 million passengers annual throughput.

Still, both of its runways (about 3 km long each, both asphalt) have hardly seen such onslaught of touchdowns (and subsequent take-offs) ever before.

More than 35,000 arriving people put the immigration and customs officials under heavy strain.

But the runways must have groaned the most: the defenders of pure air arrived in 400+ private jets.

Yes. Those who speak the loudest of preventing carbon print arrived using vehicles that leave the most carbon print in the air this side of military aircraft.

Whether the Sharm el-Sheikh airport required any renovations right now became irrelevant. The airport belongs to Egyptian government, the country’s President has been all gaga about the event and so, the renovations happened, whether they were going to be needed after the climate change hypocrites leave or not.

For the record: a regular private jet can emit two tons of carbon dioxide in one hour. Compare this figure to commercial aircraft, and the result is shocking beyond belief: measured per passenger, a private jet’s pollution is 14 times as high as that of your typical airliner.

Hypocrites? Absolutely!

The entire agenda of the so-called environmentalist movement is based on ideology rather than on facts.

First, we had new Ice Age, then we had Global Warming. This was awkward: how can you be seen changing your slogans so often and still remain believable?

Climate change would come to the rescue. As brilliant as brilliant can get. Cooling-shmooling, or warming-shwarming, who cares, they both indicate change.

Except, if the proponents of these hysterics paid any attention in their high school science classes, or, worse still, if their curricula included any basic facts, they would have known about solar cycles and shifts in earth axis tilts.

Sure, we ought to respect nature and leave it in better shape than what it used to be upon our arrival, but environmental pollution quotas (tradeable between nations) may make those who trade in them happy and filthy rich, yet, they won’t make our planet any cleaner.

The verbiage (and amount of hot air) coming out of gatherings such as COP27 shock, to say the least.

A couple of verbatim examples:

“The hope is that COP27 will be the turning point where the world came together and demonstrated the requisite political will to take on the climate challenge through concerted, collaborative and impactful action.

“Where agreements and pledges were translated to projects and programs, where the world showed that we are serious in working together and in rising to the occasion, where climate change seized (HUH?) to be a zero sum equation and there is no more ‘us and them’ but one international community working for the common good of our shared planet and humanity.”

Seized? They must have meant ceased.

“We must unite to limit global warming to well below 2c and work hard to keep the 1.5 c target alive. This requires bold and immediate actions and raising ambition from all parties in particular those who are in a position to do so and those who can and do lead by example.”

Enough?

It would only take $100 billion (U.S.) annually to “build more trust between developed and developing countries.”

Who’ll pay the piper?

We, the taxpayers will. Whether we agree or not. Nobody’s going to ask us. Especially not those busybodies who are flying around in private jets, drumming up custom for their schemes.

A logical question: just as they are exempt from flying with the hoi-polloi to attend those various “great-cause” events, will they be exempt from rules some countries have begun implementing on private homes, trying to meet their own agenda?

How about going to jail for three years for heating your home or business?

That may be new reality in Switzerland soon: heating your home above 19 Celsius (66.2 F) would be excessive, a punishable offence. Boiling water? Are you kidding? Anything above 60 Celsius (140F) is verboten. So are private saunas and hot tubs powered by radiant heaters. And swimming in cold water in your own indoor swimming pool is better for your health, anyway.

Some media say flight trackers have been coming up with lower private jet arrival numbers for the Sharm el-Sheikh airport. Which media? Mainstream (a.k.a. legacy) media who never checked how many of those private jet flights were logged into the monitoring services in the first place.

While we’re at it: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s flights aboard Canada’s Air Force aircraft have been monitored very rarely lately, too. Upon his own office’s request.

Yes, there was one misleading post in Spanish that claimed there were as many as 1,500 private jets.

In order to improve on this shocking image, an unnamed official with the Egyptian aviation authorities told the Agence France Presse (AFP): “More than 400 private jets landed in the past few days in Egypt.

“There was a meeting ahead of COP27, and officials were expecting those jets and made some arrangements in Sharm el-Sheikh airport to welcome those planes,” that official would corroborate.

People in the know call the current movement “Green fascism” or “ecofascism.”

What’s that? “A totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being of the ‘land,’ understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states.”

Thus Michael E. Zimmerman, retired Professor of Philosophy and former Director of the Center for Humanities and the Arts at Colorado University Boulder, known best for such works as Contesting Earth’s Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity, University of California Press, 1994.

He’s too generous: most of the participants in these movements are simply naïve and less-than-educated (read: illiterate) simpletons whose enthusiasm is fed by brochures.

Their leaders are a band of hypocritically cynical thieves who had formed a cushy bandwagon to jump on, and live comfortably off it, as long as other humans allow them.

Godfather of cultural Marxism thrives

Do you know what happened on Friday, January 23, 1891?

If you’re not old enough to remember, here’s a reminder: the Gramsci family in Italy’s Ales, Sardinia, celebrated the birth of son Antonio.

The small town in the province of Oristano in the Mediterranean Sea lies on the eastern slopes of Mount Arci. Before Antonio Gramsci’s arrival on the scene, Ales used to be known as the only Sardinian source of obsidian, a naturally occurring volcanic glass formed when lava extruded from a volcano cools rapidly with minimal crystal growth.

Had Antonio Gramsci lived into the 21st century, rather than dying in 1937, 46 years young, Gramsci would have been delighted: his dream of destroying the mightiest beacon of freedom (however relative) has become reality.

Just look at the United States of America today.

The latest sample

The United States men’s national football (soccer) team crest is no longer red, white and blue. It now consists of a rainbow design. The idea, American sporting officials say, is to show solidarity with LGBT issues ahead of the FIFA World Cup in Qatar.

FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association, International Federation of Association Football in English) is the international governing body of association football, beach football and futsal.

The new crest won’t appear on the team’s jerseys. It will be adorning its training facility at Al Gharrafa SC Stadium in Ar-Rayyan.

Many human-rights campaigners have been objecting to what they call discrimination against LGBT individuals in the host country. Here’s the issue: homosexuality remains illegal in the Gulf state of Qatar.

Neil Buethe, chief communications officer for the team, told the British newspaper Daily Mail that the rainbow crest plays an important role in the fabric of U.S. football.

“Locations that we will manage and operate at the FIFA World Cup, such as the team hotel, media areas and parties, will feature both traditional and rainbow U.S. Soccer branding,” Buethe declared.

This seems to explain why FIFA saw fit to send a letter recently to each of the tournament’s 32 participants in which it implored them to “concentrate on the football.”

Not that FIFA would see it necessary to mention that – as guests, no matter how honoured – they should obey their host’s laws and culture.

Gramsci would be dancing with joy reading this.

In 1921, together with Amadeo Bordiga and Nicola Bombacci, Gramsci founded the Italian Communist Party in Livorno by seceding from the Italian Socialist Party.

Unlike Russia’s Vladimir Lenin who saw the development of Marxism in violent takeovers, Gramsci saw the future in socialist thinkers invading churches, charities, the media, and schools.

The progress, if we can call it that, has taken almost a full century. But, unlike Leninism, it seems to have former foundations. Soviet-style communism lasted seven decades only. Yes, it left the countries that suffered through it cruelly harmed but not beyond repair.

The so-called Frankfurt School of Marxists Gramsci-style have worked their way through America’s education system to major roles in America’s economy and politics. It took them about the same time the Leninist Marxism took to break down, but they seem to have arrived.

Seeing America’s major financial institutions telling businesses not to ask for loans and credits until and unless they meet those banks’ quotas for race and gender inclusivity says it all.

There exists no definition for either of the two inclusivities. Simple: they are both fruits of an ideology. Banks and their clients are parts of economy, a science that requires solid numbers to prove its theories. How can anyone rate race and gender using figures that have nothing to do with economics?

Here’s the craziest thing: today’s leftists unite all kinds of groups that would have been in serious legal trouble in countries that were run by communists. The gender movement would been hit the hardest: if anyone considered crime what they called “unusual erotic tendencies,” it was the puritans of Marxist persuasion.

And all those BLM and Antifa vandals wouldn’t know what hit them before they were sent to perform hard labour in one of the Gulag camps.

Rudi Dutschke, the German vandal of the 1960s, used to call Gramsci’s approach the long march through the authorities (der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen).

Rule by ignorant masses

The recent U.S. midterm elections showed one basic thing: most of the voters in the under-29-years-of age haven’t been aware of the real issues.

Greenish slogans and student loan forgiveness, blocked in the meantime by courts as illegal, have won the day, if the Democratic Party did actually win: reports of cases of unusual handling of ballots, to put it mildly, haven’t been exaggerated.

Canada shouldn’t be huffing and puffing with pride, either: remember what won the first elections for Justin Trudeau? Why, his promise to legalise marijuana, combined with his statement that he and his brothers used to indulge, too. In trouble with law enforcement at the time, the young Trudeaus used their papa, the former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s, influence to get out of the jam.

Young Trudeau based his promise on a view that not everybody had such influential parents, and so, he wanted everybody to have equal access to the drug without trouble.

How frightfully endearing!

Gramsci and Frankfurter Schule’s success in the U.S. can be attributed to Americans’ faith in freedom of expression.

Originally, official America tried to silence the Frankfurter Schule Profs, Gramsci’s flag bearers one and all. This raised a complex question: how can a free society try silencing any views, no matter how unacceptable?

Questions of morality aside, as one of the original stage versions of the famous musical Hair had it, kids, be free, do whatever you want, so long as you don’t hurt anybody.

An artist as famous as Charlie Chaplin could be hounded much more easily for his erotic indiscretions than for his pacifist (and partially leftist) views.

The world has crossed its Rubicon

Karl Marx’s buddy and colleague, Friedrich Engels, published The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan (German: Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats). This philosophical treatise is an early historical materialist work, regarded by most nibs as one of the first major works on family economics.

German governments of the day were aware that assault on the idea of families endangers the basic foundations of modern societies. That’s why they tried to legislate rules families were supposed to live by. In addition, they tried to make attacks on family concepts illegal.

Socialists took a different view: monogamy, for example, happens to be just one level of social development, aiming at maintaining private property.

Family, to Marx and Engels, is nothing but a business proposition.

Nothing new in their thinking: point 3 of their 1848 Communist Manifesto demands that bequests be abolished.

Who will be caring for children if not their Mom and Dad?

Why the society.

And who represents society?

Why, the government.

These were 19th century statements that we are now seeing more and more as reality.

Black Lives Matter used to claim on its website thus: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

Somebody asked: HUH? and this statement is no longer there.

People still prefer Mom and Dad to Parent 1 and Parent 2. How much longer, with teachers educating their charges in questions of genderism instead of A-B-C and such useless gobbledygook like golden rule?

Antonio Gramsci, rot in hell.

Who’s the boss? Definitely NOT the government

As economics go, this decision by Justin Trudeau’s government is far beyond insane: they rammed legislation through Parliament that bans oil tankers on the West Coast, while allowing those same boats to sail into Canada’s East Coast harbours.

Called Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the law bans ships that hold over 12,500 metric tons of oil from waters off the north of B.C.’s coast.

The ban would start at north of 50°53′00′′ north latitude and west of 126°38′36′′ west longitude — from the northernmost point of Vancouver Island to the Alaskan border. It establishes an “administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of $5 million.”

Here’s what it does: Western Canadian oil faces additional difficulties getting to markets, while Canada imports oil from elsewhere (the Middle East, mostly).

Then-Transport Minister Marc Garneau sponsored the bill. He explained his reason thus: that “coastline abuts one of the last temperate rain forests left in the world.”

Another reason: protecting the region from potential oil spills.

Garneau, a former astronaut, claimed that “navigational hazards” of the region would make it tougher to respond to a potential oil spill.

In May 2019, the Senate transport committee presented a report to the Senate as a whole, recommending that the bill not move forward, thus defeating it.

The full Senate could either accept the report, killing the bill right then and there, or reject it to let the bill to move forward to face talk of potential amendments.

To sum up: the Senators, claiming the report was too political, decided to shut down shipping crude by pipeline from Alberta to a northern British Columbia port for export to overseas markets.

Senatorial flip

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said the new law would “permanently block” Canadian oil from reaching international markets.

That statement, of course, could be described as conflict of interest, and the government dismissed it out of hand.

Except: the new law made no economic sense. The environmental balderdash wouldn’t pass the most lenient smell test, either.

So, it had to be something else.

Enter a bit of history: Trudeau Junior’s papa, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a former Prime Minister of Canada, introduced the National Energy Program (a.k.a. NEP) in the 1980s.

The Trudeau Senior’s plan was intended to put Canada’s western provinces, Alberta in particular, into poor house: the energy-rich west was getting too big for its britches. Why not rob the west (confiscate was the official word) and use its riches to enrich central Canada?

Former Liberal strategist John Duffy was very open about it: “Screw the West, we’ll take the rest!” was the motto of the Liberal war room’s, as he described it in his book The Fights of Our Lives.

Trudeau Jr. seems to be acting on impulses, but he’s killing Canada’s economy, nevertheless.

Some call Trudeau Jr.’s NEP the Naïve Energy Program.

Not so fast: if it were so, why would Trudeau Jr. keep hiding the documentation that would explain his tanker ban legislation?

Dirty deals might be a conjecture, but how do we know if we aren’t allowed to see the reality?

Michael Oberman, a researcher into these matters, filed access to information requests to get the federal government’s economic analysis of the tanker ban legislation. Every Canadian has a right to see such analysis. That was in 2018.

Politicians are supposed to be the public’s servants, not the other way round.

Absolutely not, is Canada government’s view.

First of all, Oberman could act as your normal everyday Canadian citizen to be within his rights in demanding to see the documentations. No need to be a researcher into the matter. It’s his right as a citizen.

In any case, Oberman would file a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner. The commissioner told the federal government to turn over the documents.

Translated from the legalese: the independent Information Commissioner told the Trudeau government that it’s breaking the law by failing to release these documents.

The government’s answer?

Buzz off, they say

What we’re doing and how and why is none of your bloody business.

Courts seem to be the only remedy. This is tragic: a government that is supposed serve their voters must be told by courts to be accountable to their employers.

Yes, the equation is simple: we the people are employers, they the government are our employees.

The Canadian Taxpayers Association took the case up on Oberman’s behalf.

Their budget forecast: $50,000.

The government are convinced their pockets are deep enough to dry any plaintiff white. That they are doing so using money that isn’t theirs, money that by rights is the plaintiffs’ in the first place, seems not to have crossed their minds.

The Canadian Taxpayers Association are willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court. But: they live off volunteer contributions. Not a brass cent in any government grants or subsidies. Not a whiff from any huge corporation with government contacts. Just normal taxpayers.

While loath of any such calls on this author’s behalf, this case is way too important. The Canadian Taxpayers Association has calculated that, should just five thousand of us, ordinary citizens, chip in a tenner each, the government could be pushed into the corner where they belong.

I did. Right here.

Will you?

Take this Green Deal and shove it

Edmonton city budget will see city taxes go up by 3.9 per cent in each of the next four years.

Someone’s got to pay for the Mayor and his entourage taking trips to United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh. The picturesque city sits on the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula, on the coastal strip along the Red Sea. Under 400 kilometres removed from Egyptian capital of Cairo as the crow flies, it has one advantage over Alberta’s capital: it hasn’t seen snow in millennia, and its average temperature these days hovers around 23 degrees Centigrade (on the plus side, of course).

That’s where Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, his Chief of Staff, and Stephanie McCabe, the Deputy City Manager for Urban Planning and Economy, will be spending their next few days.

They won’t be alone: they’re flying across the Big Pond as part of a provincial delegation. They won’t be staying for the duration: the conference runs Nov. 6 through 18, while the intrepid Albertans will be staying Nov. 8 through 12.

It’s not known yet how much the entire junket will set Edmontonians back but, what with airline travel and hotel fees spiralling out of control, it’s not going to be cheap.

And all that for a few days of hot air coming out of the participants’ throats.

Sohi will be on a panel of municipal leaders to talk about net zero emissions. The Mayor says this is a good opportunity to show what mid-sized cities are doing to fight climate change.

The climate WHAT?

According to the Mayor, it’s important “to highlight the efforts of mid-sized cities and to learn what others are doing on climate change.”

Besides, where else to show off Alberta’s alternative energy sectors, such as hydrogen, lithium, geothermal, wind and solar technologies.

Did you notice that oil, natural gas or coal didn’t make the list of Alberta’s energy sources in Mayor Sohi’s list? And that neither did the nuclear option?

Sohi went on to say (his face dead serious) that “We all know that climate change is a real threat, we have a responsibility to play in a climate emergency.”

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Vegreville Coun. Taneen Rudyk will also be attending. Representatives from University of Alberta, Innovate Alberta and the provincial government will fly over to the balmy climes of Egypt, too.

One thing to remember: Amarjeet Sohi is no greenhorn in the climate change rhetoric. While a member of Justin Trudeau’s government, he used to be minister of infrastructure and communities, and, later, minister of natural resources.

Whether he believes the nonsense emanating from the United Nations climate change fear-mongers is irrelevant. He is an active participant (and promoter), and that IS relevant.

Yes, we all know that climate change is real. Not as a threat, however.

And Mayor Sohi has gone well beyond his responsibilities with his climate change agenda. It was his idea that had City Council ban stores within city limits from using plastic bags.

Not only it’s not his business at all to meddle in private business decisions, but he’s obviously also never heard that the industry had several years ago developed plastic bags made of compostable material.

The modern era climate change fear-mongers have been crying wolf about global cooling (remember the new Ice Age midway through the 1960s?). Then, they switched to global warming. They followed that with global climate change, a name that can be used in any situation.

To compare such obvious observations like the 11-year solar cycles that correspond with the climate changes with shocking regularity never crossed their minds.

That the earth’s axis shifts, causing changes in the angles under which sun’s rays hit the Blue Planet’s individual parts, seems to be too complex for the crowd that prefers keeping humans in the state of constant fear. The fact that the axis has been slightly shifting over time has been known for quite some time. And the fact that scientists haven’t been able to exactly figure out why plays neatly into the fear-mongers’ hands, as well.

Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Wilhelm Göring, asked how the Nazis could order such a generally educated nation to do their bidding, had an easy explanation: fear. Scare them excrement-less, and they’ll do whatever you tell them. A cynic that Göring was, he added that this mantra works in any system, all the way from dictatorship to democracy, from a republic to a monarchy, and it never fails.

That’s also how politicians can get away with outright lies.

An example: Edmontonians should foot the bill for this trip, Sohi said, because climate change is something Edmontonians want city council to take strong action on. How does he know? Who told him?

Scary admission

According to Sohi, “The world needs to know that the Edmonton region is the place to be for investing in hydrogen, investing in artificial intelligence, investing in renewable energy.”

Artificial intelligence happens to be one of the pillars of the charlatan movement known as Great Reset, dubbed as feudalistic socialism by American economist Martin Armstrong.

It is also one of the foundations of the genocide the World Economic Forum, and the Gates Foundation, and the Open Societies have been promoting with chilling openness.

Yes, genocide: telling the world there are way too many people occupying it, and the number must be cut from today’s 7.8 billion souls to 1.5 billion within a few years at most is a frank admission of plans for genocide.

It takes paying attention to see that the entire plan is co-ordinated. Just ten days after the Egyptian hoopla ends, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will open the High-Level Discussion on Climate Security. Its organisers say openly that it’s based on this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh.

American commentator Leo Lohmann put it best: “Climate hysteria, i.e. Earth Worship, is a key component of the coming one-world religion and we’re seeing it on full display in Egypt this week at the United Nations COP 27 climate conference.

“The logo of the COP 27 conference says it all.

“The logo depicts the African sun (top) and embracing the ancient Egyptian Aten’s sun (bottom), which implies giving rise to a new horizon (new world order).”

End of quote.

To get back to Alberta’s capital: Edmontonians deserve much better than a trendy Mayor whose council is unable to keep the city’s infrastructure in working order, whose council is unable, also, to do a proper job of re-building the city’s roads properly, doing a makeshift job of it because the proper way would be too expensive.

Simply put: Amarjeet Sohi must go, taking his green ambitions with him.

History in state of denial

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric to explain the 2014 annexation of Crimea reminded those who remember their history of Konrad Henlein.

Konrad – who?

Konrad Henlein, the leader of Germans living in the Sudeten part of what used to be Czechoslovakia. Claiming they had been maltreated by the then-Czechoslovakia’s government, the Sudeten Germans’ wish was to return into the embrace of their former home. Heim ins Reich (Home Into The Empire) was their main slogan.

Unlike Putin, Henlein at least had one point quite right: the Sudetenland had been part of German-speaking territories for centuries.

This has been a contentious question for historians and sundry politicians throughout history: where precisely is the moment that establishes a nation’s borders once and for ever?

In the case of Crimea, Putin’s statements about the historicity of Russian ownership of the peninsula raise eyebrows. If the area belonged to anyone, it would have been the Tatars.

Yes, those whom Soviet dictator Josif Stalin had forcibly removed: he feared (correctly) that the fiercely independently-minded Tatars hated him and all his works strongly enough to start collaborating with the invading Nazi Germany.

History goes beyond the following dates, but, in any case, before the 1783 Russian annexation, since 1441, Crimea used to be part of the Crimean Khanate.

Russian Tsars would interfere in Crimean affairs even before the annexation, and history sources describe that time as an almost unending series of Crimean Tatars’ revolts, with the Ottoman Empire’s remarkably ambivalent approach to the proceedings.

The 1917 revolution made Crimea part of the newly-established Soviet Union, her status changing in quick succession from the anti-Bolshevik (White) forces’ rule all the way to all kinds of levels of Soviet governance.

So far as Putin is concerned, only one year is important in the history of Crimea: 1921. That’s when she became part of the Russian (Socialist Soviet Federal) republic.

Tragic comedy

Then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev used to be the supreme leader in Ukraine before ascending to the throne vacated by Stalin’s 1953 passing.

Khrushchev would later on denounce Stalin’s crimes and his leadership style (a.k.a. cult of personality, культ личности, pronounced as coolt lichnosti in Russian). Still, he was very much aware of how many Ukrainians he made suffer when he served as Stalin’s representative in Ukraine (from 1938 to 1947). He knew that many Ukrainians would remember how much of their compatriots’ blood there was on his hands.

So, on Monday, January 25, 1954, as he and his comrades were strolling to take their lunch, he said, almost as if in passing: “Yes, comrades, there is an opinion to deliver Crimea to Ukraine.”

By this time, Khrushchev was closing in on establishing himself as the Soviet communist party first secretary. That would make him an indisputable boss whose word is law.

So, the other members of the communist party leadership just nodded in agreement. The most ambitious comrades tried to convey their surprise that they hadn’t thought of this lofty idea themselves, making sure the boss saw their respect and admiration for his quick thinking. Nothing beats brown-nosing.

The only thing remaining was to find and express a politically acceptable reason. That was relatively easy: how about the 300th anniversary since Ukraine’s unification with Russia?

The rest of the proceedings would become a mere formality. Nobody dared express questions like that the “indestructible” Soviet Union would become a dim memory of a so-called “glorious past” within a mere few decades.

The leadership of the communist party (known at the time as the party’s presidium) met on Monday, January 25, 1954, with the question of transferring Crimea from one Soviet jurisdiction to another taking all of 15 minutes. The decision was unanimous.

Judging by the surviving records of that meeting, not one member raised a single question, and nobody expressed any doubts, either.

To ask what the Crimeans themselves (consisting mostly of Russian stock by then) would think about the scheme was unthinkable. It was none of their bloody business, after all.

Why? Because we said so!

Issues as the territorial movement of regions were for the communist party poohbahs to decide. Why bring nonsense such as referenda in?

The Presidium of the Supreme Council (rubber-stamp parliament of the Soviet Union) gathered for a session on Friday, February 19, 1954. Some members had other commitments, obviously: the record shows that only 13 of 27 members were present. The meeting participants didn’t constitute anything resembling a quorum. Still, the vote was unanimous.

It would take Russia’s powers-that-be all of 38 years to start smelling a rat. The explanation would be convoluted, to say the least, but Russian Federation’s Supreme Council ruled in 1992, at long last, that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was illegitimate.

What took Putin all of three decades to decide that his government would act on that decision remains to be seen. If we (as humanity are lucky (and still around), we’ll find out more about these records a half of a century hence.

The most logical question: Russia has decided that her closest neighbour to the west has become too enmeshed in activities that serve a third party, and that this third party would rather see her lay in ruin.

Right? Wrong? Debatable?

One thing is obvious even now: the entire argument is based on fundamentally nonsensical lies.

Rats abandoning the ship

A guy murders his parents. Apprehended by the cops, he throws himself at the mercy of the court: he is a complete orphan, he tells the judge.

That used to be the proper definition of chutzpah.

No longer.

Emily Oster wrote and The Atlantic published an article explaining that all those who had been pushing all kinds of tyrannical would-be pandemic mandates, abusing those who disagreed, and killing untold numbers of people all over the world in the process, just didn’t know what they were doing.

Thus, they all deserve to be pardoned.

The timing is obvious: the impressive group of experts in a number of fields who are preparing the so-called Nuremberg 2.0 criminal trials are getting close to the opening session.

The original, post-Second World War series of Nuremberg tribunals judged the guilt of Nazi war criminals, sending most of the former Nazi Germany leaders to the gallows.

Whether the forthcoming version would go so far, given how many countries have abolished death penalties, remains to be seen. There exist jurisdictions, even today, including in the U.S., where capital punishment is still part of the judicial system. That, for the moment, is less relevant than the fact that the purveyors of the greatest hoax in the history of humanity since the invention of organised religion (not faith, that’s something else) are beginning to see where history (and their future) are headed.

Labels shouldn’t be part of serious debate but Mike Adams’s description of The Atlantic as a left-wing globalist propaganda mouthpiece can hardly be more on the money.

Adams, founder of Brighteon news services (both on the web and on television), has seen a lot and experienced about as much.

And The Atlantic’s record speaks volumes for itself. Including the latest Emily Oster diatribe.

The gist

The perpetrators of the Covid hoax are asking us all to forget and forgive (not necessarily in that order).

The people who had been pushing the Covid tyranny simply didn’t know what they were doing. They were just following orders.

Thus Oster. Thus The Atlantic. And thus those whom the rag represent.

Here’s what they are demanding: get us off the hook. Yes, we killed a million people in the U.S. alone (lowest known estimate supported by serious actuary statistics), and at least 20 million worldwide. But nobody told us that murder is a criminal offence.

The post-Second World War Nuremberg tribunals have put together a series of rules that used to exist since ancient Greece and Rome.

All nations all over the world have agreed to subscribe to what has become known as Lex Naturalis. Basically: no matter what all kinds of individuals in ruling positions, or authorities of any kind in any society declare law, such law loses any validity should it fail the test of humanity.

Here’s the legal definition: Lex Naturalis is a doctrine that the authority of any legal system or of certain laws within that system derives from their justifiability by reason, and that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority.

This may shock some, but even in Nazi Germany during the Second World War there used to be courageous people who lived by Lex Naturalis. And, surprisingly, they would live to tell the tale.

There have been several recorded cases where soldiers of Wehrmacht (armed forces) units were told to massacre civilians in areas Germany was occupying. They refused to do so, telling their superiors they were soldiers. Their work was to fight the other side’s military, not harming the civilian population.

In those cases, it would be entire Wehrmacht battalions refusing to commit such heinous crimes, including their commanding officers. The higher-ups would simply order those battalions to move elsewhere, bringing the notoriously sadistic SS Einsatzkommando (Special Deployment) units in.

The Wehrmacht officers’ promotions in rank would see a total halt. Their consciences would not.

Only three high-ranking Nazis were spared the gallows at the original Nuremberg tribunals.

Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Wilhelm Göring, committed suicide the night before his execution. How it happened remains a mystery even today.

Albert Speer, a German architect and the Minister of Armaments and War Production in Nazi Germany during most of World War II, mounted a strong enough defence to escape with (only) two decades behind bars. Close enough to the Führer, Speer still managed to convince the Justices that he only cared about the economics and had nothing to do with the death camps his premises would turn into.

Rudolf Hess, another former Hitler’s second-in-command, got a life sentence, and served it all the way to his funeral. The fact that he stole a Luftwaffe plane and used it to defect to England, allegedly trying to negotiate peace with Great Britain, saved his neck.

Angry reaction

As could be expected, most of those who wasted their time to read Emily Oster’s apologia for the Great Reset criminals in The Atlantic were aghast and furiously angry.

Many pointed out, too, that Oster doesn’t even mention that those guilty should say they’re sorry. Not that many would believe their crocodile tears, but Oster (and The Atlantic) wouldn’t offer even a modicum of regret.

Breitbart.com’s John Nolte put it best (in a verbatim quote): “There will be no forgiveness before there’s a reckoning for the mercenary liars who abused our elderly and children.

“There will be no moving on before there’s justice for those who were bankrupted, fined, jailed, mourned alone, forced into lonely despair, and stripped of youth’s magic and irreplaceable moments.

“Most of all, there will be no reprieve because you are not sorry; because given the opportunity, you will do it all over again; because you are vicious, heartless, mercenary, politically-driven bullies only asking for amnesty so you can catch us off guard the next time.”

Until and unless society all over the world make those guilty (by act or association) undergo proper legal and lawful investigation, followed by indictments, prosecutions with court proceedings, justice won’t be served.

The world must know the truth and those responsible must suffer for their crimes.

Deadly amnesia

Our talking heads and sundry commentators deserve to have their heads shook: the current threat of a nuclear war is unprecedented, they pronounce with solemn voices, we’re on the brink of an Armageddon the likes of which the world has never seen.

This is attention span worthy of infants who need specialised medical attention.

Please note: politicians are excluded from the list above. They are a class of their own. Even those who might have entered the field for purely idealistic reasons, hoping theirs was the treatment to heal all that ails the humankind. Those who persist believing this notion get kicked out on the first available opportunity. On the other hand, those who remain end up turning into a very special breed where criminality blends into a rare mix with sheer stupidity.

In any case, all of these groups live and thrive off instilling fear in those whom they supposedly serve.

Now, they are telling us nuclear war is just round the corner in the fields and mountains of Ukraine (and bordering Russia).

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt

A mere six decades ago, the world was in on the brink of a nuclear Armageddon, too.

After Filed Castro-led guerrillas overthrew the previous (admittedly dictatorial) government of a former military officer named Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar, the American Administration ignored the Cubans’ hints there was not much to worry about: we’re Latin Americans, that is, we are Americans, and all Americans are brothers, was the signal coming to D.C. from Havana.

For reasons too complex to debate here, the White House gave Fidel the cold shoulder treatment. The Soviets were watching from afar, and when they saw Cuba was getting into a famine the likes of which the island had never seen before, they stepped in, offering eternal brotherhood, a million greenbacks a day, and all other kinds of help, in exchange for Cuba declaring herself a communist paradise.

Castro was pragmatic enough to give the idea his nod. Besides, he had such terrorists like Che Guevara by his side. Che would have gone after Fidel’s throat had he declined.

For history buffs: having Che too close was dangerous enough for Fidel, and that’s why he agreed with a Soviet intelligence service proposal that the crazily fierce revolutionary be sent to Bolivia, to spread the flames of communism there, too.

U.S. politicians wouldn’t blame themselves for an opportunity lost: they blamed the Soviets for everything that would happen later on.

One of the issues: the U.S. introduced a policy of containment after the Second World War. The idea was to stop the cancer-looking spread of communism around the world, as worthwhile an objective as there could be. Except, the idea hit a wall known as freedom of expression (1st Amendment to the US. Constitution).

Socialism, in any of its forms (in alphabetical order: Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Social Democracy), is based on denying non-believers any sign of any freedom. Fighting it necessarily involves using means that are far removed from granting the socialists much licence to spread their ideology.

When U.S. government tried (Joe McCarthy Committee, anyone?), it ran into firm opposition. Little did the opponents, some of them more influential than others, know that U.S. counter-intelligence services managed to break the keys to Soviet intelligence traffic between America and their Moscow centre. It would be revealed only decades later, and the fact that those named by the McCarthy Committee indeed were guilty as charged would be confirmed only after the Soviets de-classified their secret service archives.

By then, the damage was done.

Add to it that German Marxists of the so-called Frankfurt School managed to implant themselves firmly into the American education system, and, subsequently, into U.S. economy, and you get the U.S. of today.

While, six decades ago …

Americans installed their Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey, within range of hitting the Kremlin in Moscow mere minutes after lift-off. Their plan to attack Cuba and remove Fidel Castro’s regime was not a well-hidden secret, either. KGB spies didn’t have to work overtime to share the news with their overlords in the Kremlin.

The Soviets reacted almost immediately: in an elaborate operation, they installed missiles of their own in Cuba.

The excrement hit the fan.

In a standoff that lasted several days, the world was on the brink of a nuclear war.

It all ended only after some pretty tense to-and-fro between U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Sergeievich Khrushchev.

A semblance of peace returned: Soviet missiles went whence they had come, much to Castro’s chagrin, and the Americans quietly removed their Jupiters from Turkey.

The entire scandal would cost Khrushchev his job as his colleagues didn’t like being embarrassed so publicly by being forced to retreat.

Whether the Kennedy assassination had anything to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis still remains a tightly-held secret.

And now?

The Russians, paranoid as their national character dictates they should be, don’t like having NATO looking right into their backyards from the fields of Ukraine.

It’s not really relevant whether their fears are justified. What counts is that they have those fears. NATO, in and of itself a relic that should have gone up in smoke in 1991, as soon as the Warsaw Pact disappeared, is still around.

The Americans seem to be confirming that Russia’s fears are justified: ex-President Barack Hussein Obama made no secret when, while still sitting, he said that his country was at war with Russia.

His Foreign Secretary, Madeleine Albright, was on record as saying that Russia’s reserves of raw materials and commodities are too rich, and that it wasn’t fair.

The Russians are also aware of American top officials’ meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs (American officials don’t make it much of a secret, either). They know about America’s orders forbidding Ukrainian leaders from taking part in any meaningful peaceful negotiations with Russia.

Yes, Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t an angel. After all, not many top government officials anywhere are. And Putin, a former Soviet spy who now claims to have turned and seen the light, embracing Christianity, can hardly swear on the Bible that his hands have been always clean.

Except: it’s not about Putin. It’s not about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi, either. These two are mere puppets in a globalist war of attrition whose only objective is known as Great Reset.

And that’s the tragedy: those pulling the strings in the background are guiding the world to a nuclear war, much worse than anything that could have happened six decades ago, in 1962. What’s even worse: our talking heads don’t know that we’ve been there and found a solution then.

We should, and could, find it now again.

If only those who shape this world’s public opinions now were better aware of our not so distant history.

If we ignore it, it would be at our peril, and there won’t be anyone to tell the story (and nobody able to listen to it and hear it) after we’re gone up in flames.

Adiós, compañeros. Hasta nunca.

Facts are no excuse in politically correct world

Toronto Sun columnist Steve Simmons, at the time of this writing still gainfully employed by the Postmedia company, has committed an unpardonable sin. He did what columnists all over the world are supposed to do. He was controversial, almost to the point of provocative.

He wrote to be read.

Simmons’s regular Sunday contribution to the world of entertainment (professional sports, that is) includes a section named Hear and There.

Simmons hinted that it’s not necessarily one’s skin colour (he avoided gender and every other hot issue of the day) that defines one’s success in whatever endeavour one decides to pursue.

To drive the point home, Simmons compared two careers: Akim Aliu’s and Wayne Simmonds’s. The two are professional hockey players, both of them are black, and each has enjoyed a different level of success.

By the numbers: taken 56th overall in the 2007 NHL draft, Aliu would end up playing just seven NHL games.

Skating for the Los Angeles Kings, Philadelphia Flyers, New Jersey Devils, Buffalo Sabres and now, the last two seasons, Toronto Maple Leafs, Simmonds has played significant minutes in 1,019 NHL games.

Aliu’s greatest achievement: he made coach Bill Peters persona non grata in North American hockey, getting him fired from a Calgary Flames head coaching job. Aliu accused Peters of racist behaviour. The sin had happened a decade before Aliu called Peters out.

Aliu, a Nigerian-born Canadian-Ukrainian former professional ice hockey player, last played for HC Litvínov in the Czech Extraliga (2019-2020). His professional career spanned AHL and ECHL teams in the Blackhawks and Atlanta Thrashers/Winnipeg Jets organisations before a trade sent him to the Calgary Flames.

Aliu’s crowning achievement: encouraged by NHL’s (and Flames’) reaction to his accusations, he founded a group named Hockey Diversity Alliance (HDA).

How dared he?

Simmons’s sin? The next 93 words: “No one wants to say this because of the politically correct police and all, but those who coached Akim Aliu must cringe every time they see him in a news report or a commercial talking about what’s wrong with hockey. Like he would know. By my count, Aliu played for 23 teams in nine different leagues in 12 professional seasons and rarely finished any season with the same team he started with. If that was colour-related, how is it that Wayne Simmonds spent just about the same 12 seasons playing in the NHL?”

That was it.

Having checked with several personal friends within management ranks of HC Litvínov, their replies – independent of one another – were unpleasantly simple and straightforward: we’ve wolfed down a snake on this one (a Czech idiom loosely translated as we’ve fallen for it).

Neither Simmonds nor Aliu were amused.

Simmonds took to Twitter to offer his reply (the quote below leaves all misspellings and unusual turns of phrase untouched):

@Simmonds17

Just a quick msg to the hockey world. I usually don’t have time for this but tonight I do! I really don’t appreciate what your trying to do (Steve Simmons) your article was asinine and in no way reflects the real plight that my self, Akim and other players of colour go through.

You Are Minimizing the pain and suffering and dismissing the actual fight that we as a ppl actually have to endure just to even be accepted in the game of hockey at a lower level nvm the professional ranks. DO NOT EVER use my name or any other player of colour’s name to try and make your point. We will no longer sit by quietly as our characters are assassinated Steve! This will only make us stronger and speak out against ppl of your nature! If you were trying to be cool or funny, you missed your mark. YOUVE BEEN WARNED!!! Ps this is me being nice!

Aliu, (@Dreamer_Aliu78) added his five cents’ worth under a headline saying that hate will never win:

Obviously being in this space there are times that people say negative things about you but you find a way to let it go. But this one got me good. This one got me at my core. … I’ve seen Steve talk negatively about me for some time now and the funny thing is I’ve never spoken to him or met him in my life … people like Steve are what’s wrong with society.

You’re a racist and you’re an arrogant, and you have zero credibility and respect from even your own peers in the media space and athletes alike. And if the Toronto Sun had any integrity whatsoever, you will never write another column again.

End of quote.

Last season’s Stanley Cup champion Nazem Kadri, now of the Calgary Flames, tried to play it somewhat safer, avoiding inflammatory language as much as he could. Kadri tried to build his point around the known rule that columnists write to be read, meaning, their copy has to be around the limits of the barely acceptable.

This is NOT to debate the quality of Simmons’s writing. Suffice it to say that Steve Simmons is the longest-serving member of the Toronto chapter of the Pro Hockey Writers’ Association. To add to his suffering, he has covered the Leafs since 1980.

Ugly head

This entire tropical storm the size of a hurricane inside a teapot is about identity politics.

This tool, used to divide humanity under the motto “Divide and rule,” isn’t new. After all, it even has a Latin name (Divide et impera, and it had existed even before Rome was built: according to historians, the motto started with Philip II of Macedon, who ruled his kingdom from 359 BC until his death in 336 BC.

It’s more interesting to note the hysteria in both Simmonds’s and Aliu’s outbursts: Simmonds bans Simmons from ever using his name (or that of any other player of un-white skin colour). Aliu demands that Toronto Sun fire Simmons on the spot. He’s got some experience in this respect, having achieved a similar goal with Bill Peters in 2019.

The only difference: Peters admitted his guilt, while Simmons expressed an opinion based on undisputable facts.

Yes, there are only a few black hockey players around, at all levels, not only in the penthouse named the NHL.

Has anyone asked whether there are enough black athletes to justify this discrepancy? What if these kids were more interested in baseball, basketball, football (any kind: North American and the rest of the world, a.k.a. soccer)? Or track-and-field, even?

And how about the percentage of white kids, all eager to earn their keep playing hockey, and most of them having to settle down as avid hockey fans, white privilege or not?

And how about the demand made by Aliu that Simmons be fired? Cancel culture or cancel culture?

Akim Aliu, now too old to play in a professional hockey league, should perhaps learn and earn a job more useful than releasing such amounts of hot air into the atmosphere, dividing people by their skin colour and not by their abilities.

Wayne Simmonds would (and should) spend his time much better trying to help his team make it beyond the first round of this season’s Stanley Cup, rather than making irresponsible statements.

In any case, the fact this story has ever erupted is a sign of the tragic state our society has found itself. Constant complaints about the fact that life isn’t a rose garden could be funny (to a degree) as a form of strange folklore. As it is, they are taken seriously, and the pattern is threatening. Gone is the era of “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The saying has been attributed (wrongly, it seems) to 18th century French philosopher François-Marie Arouet, known by his nom de plume Voltaire.

The attribution matters little, the content matters a lot.

What we’ve been witnessing is constant (and unforgivable) erosion of democratic rights and freedoms. Neither Akim Aliu nor Wayne Simmonds would have been able to accuse others of such (non-existent) heinous crimes if those rights and freedoms didn’t exist.

Democracy has a terrible time defending herself: in most cases, she would have to resort to methods that don’t meet her basic standards.

Should she? Yes, in fact, she has to, it says in this corner.

And, meanwhile, Steve Simmons should simply ignore his politically correct, woke and cancel-culture vulture-like attackers, and go on writing, pissing them all off while he’s at it.

%d bloggers like this: