Category Archives: Economy

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.


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.”


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.

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.

Is this call of despair really lone?

Pierre Elliott Trudeau hated him. Justin Trudeau hates him.

Brian Peckford, PC, has been a thorn in the Trudeau family’s backside for decades. The last living co-author and co-signee of Canada’s Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has come along with it, Brian Peckford, PC, is also the last Canadian politician who takes both documents seriously.

Unlike today’s Prime Minister who flunked both universities he’d enrolled in and ended up serving as a high school substitute drama teacher, Peckford, the former Premier of Newfoundland, holds a Bachelor of Education degree. He also completed postgraduate work in English literature, education, psychology, and French literature. Until 1972, when he entered politics full-time, Peckford served as a high school teacher in rural Newfoundland.

Peckford’s blog is as fiery as fiery can get. The recently-turned-80-year-old, now resident of Qualicum Beach on British Columbia’s Vancouver Island, pulls no punches when he sees the decay that has been making Canada’s political life stink beyond acceptable levels that military-issue gas masks can cover.

His recent contribution about Conservative Party’s new leader, Pierre Poilievre, says it all.

Politics ruled by cynics

Peckford opens with an upper-cut: to today’s Canadian politicians, it’s all about power, and principle be damned.

He then goes straight to the chase, quoting a recent former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s interview on CTV and former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s views carried on Global TV.

Strangely enough, both of these propaganda pieces went on the air on Oct. 9: what a strange coincidence!

The Mulroney interview is telling more than that by his younger colleague, Kenney.

Herewith a verbatim quote from CTV: Mulroney said he had a private dinner with Poilievre — at Poilievre’s request — and found him to be “a very good listener,” and “a reasonable guy.”

But Mulroney also warned the new Conservative Party leader will likely have to “set aside” some of the “extraneous things” he campaigned on: threatening to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada, supporting the trucker protests, and encouraging Canadians to “opt out” of inflation using cryptocurrency.

“Look, you can’t get elected with that kind of stuff,” Mulroney said. “Canadians are not there. Canadians are in the broad, general centre.

“I did say to him — which is pretty obvious — you cannot, in this country, get elected from the extreme left or the extreme right. It can’t happen. We have 155 years of history to prove it,” he added.

End of quote.

Cynically frank, basically telling ordinary Canadians they were perfect morons and would never understand the intricacies of the rarefied air up there on Parliament Hill (and above).

Meanwhile, Kenney advises Poilievre to steer away from “fringe issues” if he aims to lead not only the party but the country.

Kenney was happy to announce that “[Poilievre] is doing that.”

Kenney would elaborate that it’s all about bread-and-butter issues. The refrain doesn’t differ much from Mulroney’s sentiment: “I think he’s really in his wheelhouse, focusing on the cost of living, inflation.”

To make sure all sundry get what he means, Kenny added: “He understands that to become prime minister, he needs to speak to the aspirations of regular Canadians, not to fringe issues.”

Peckford calls this “no more than mush – weasel-mouthed Progressive principles done up with conservative spin.”

Real view is lost

Principles of smaller government, balanced budgets, individual rights and freedoms, a sovereign state, real capitalism, that’s what real Conservatives, those with a capital C, should embrace.

Current Conservative leaders, with the exception of Stephen Harper, are in the John Maynard Keynes class of economics that teaches the advantages of administrative states. They, quite obviously, haven’t figured out that Friedrich A. Hayek’s free state should be their guiding ray.

Harper would be Prime Minister for two terms, guiding the country to a relative prosperity. Andrew Sheer, his successor, and Erin O’Toole, Sheer’s successor, led their party to defeat in situations where the elections were theirs to lose.

Here’s Peckford bitterly truthful list of today’s Conservative Party leadership’s views: they are in favour of CBC, supply boards, government intrusion at all levels and the pursuit of a failed Canada.

Maxime Bernier favoured free trade in Canada when he ran for Conservative Party leadership. This objective would become one of the main reasons why he lost.

He founded the People’s Party of Canada. Their program is at least worth reading, but how much do you hear about them in the mainstream media?

The Conservative Party are in bed with their opponents on this issue: have you ever heard them raise their voice in disgust, demanding that Bernier be let in on pre-election leadership debates?

Where are we now? Peckford asks.

His summary is a list of tragedies and crimes:

  • A PM that blatantly violates the country laws as determined by an independent Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner—- and remains Prime Minister;
  • A PM who denigrates his citizens because they responsibly protest this system that denies them basic freedom of movement, associate, or assemble as guaranteed in the Constitution;
  • A Chief Justice who demeans the citizens of his country not before his court but without tested evidence – in the subjective court of public opinion;
  • A country whose public health system with countless tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent to realize one the longest wait times in the OECD nations and over 5 million of its citizens without a family physician;
  • A health system that spends second most and then ranks second last among its peers in positive health outcomes;
  • A country that frowns on delivering its own fossil fuels across the nation – but imports the product from America and overseas, authoritarian regimes;
  • A country that has mangled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without appropriate cost benefit analysis required by that Constitution;
  • A country that denies employment to doctors who question the covid vaccine;
  • A Country whose majority can close down Parliamentary Committees because they refuse to hear contrary view.

And Peckford continues:

  • We don’t rank in the top 10 in competitiveness;
  • We are 122nd in the world in the time it takes to get an electrical permit;
  • We are increasing on the world corruption index – more corrupt not less;
  • This country in 1981 had a Federal Debt of $107 billion = it is now over a trillion of dollars.

Words to remember

As Friedrich A. Hayek wrote: “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments. ‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”

Peckford also quotes U.S. President Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

The first step to real change is to admit we need it, Peckford sums up where Canada is today.

And, he concludes, “Canadians seem unprepared to defend freedom – just to espouse it when times are good and no sacrifice is needed.”

The saddest part?

Brian Peckford, PC, is right.

Carbon dioxide: panic that shouldn’t be

What’s the deal with carbon dioxide, known as CO2 to many who know nothing else about chemistry (or physics or biology, for that matter)?

According to America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet, causing climate change. Human activities have raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50 per cent in less than 200 years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), NASA’s website on the topic continues, is an important heat-trapping gas, or greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and from natural processes like volcanic eruptions. Their report includes a graph that shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with natural, seasonal changes removed. Another graph published by NASA shows CO2 levels during Earth’s last three glacial cycles, as captured by air bubbles trapped in ice sheets and glaciers.

Since the beginning of industrial times (in the 18th century), NASA proclaims their own incredible illiteracy in the questions of history by saying that human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 by 50 per cent – meaning the amount of CO2 is now 150 per cent of its value in 1750. This is greater than what naturally happened at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, NASA’s panic drums continue.

In the first place: how they got such precise numbers for the era midway through the 18th century? So far, it has remained NASA’s sweet secret.

NASA has added an animated map to show how global carbon dioxide has changed over time. The map changes colours as the amount of CO2 rises from 365 parts per million (ppm) in 2002 to over 400 ppm currently.

These measurements, NASA proceed to tell us, are from the mid-troposphere, the layer of Earth’s atmosphere that is 8 to 12 kilometres (about 5 to 7 miles) above the ground.

Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

But is it?

So, as NASA confirm, currently, we have about 440 ppm of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

What are they talking about?

According to a relatively independent publication,, parts per million or PPM is a dimensionless measure of the concentration of one substance mixed in with another. For example, the amount of lead in a sample of water, or the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s essentially like a percentage, which you could analogously refer to as “parts per hundred,” but PPM is better suited to substances in much smaller concentrations.

For plants to flourish, the number should be 2000 PPM.

Plants start dying at 150 PPM levels.

And yet, individuals like Bill Gates would like to invent and introduce technology that would cut CO2 even below the fatal number.

It sounds so perfectly incredible that even those scientists who used to fear for their careers by disobeying politically correct mandates, are now whispering their objections. Some suggest, even, that a hypothesis saying there has to be some ancient evil people-hating force that has come to control our planet may have some merit.

Thus, a California-based tool aimed especially at students, a website most dogmatically oriented teachers must hate with a passion. Instead of forcing young minds to repeat what they are taught by rote, it suggests that asking questions is a much more valuable learning tool.

Before we get to the indisputable fact that plants that supply us with oxygen die without carbon dioxide, and without regular supply of oxygen, people will die, a few words from other fields. The medical community, for example, use carbon dioxide tests because they help them determine whether the body is balancing electrolytes properly.

Medical questions

In contradiction of their own government’s orders and rhetoric, America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) said that carbon dioxide in the human body is formed intracellularly (another of those scientific words) as a by-product of metabolism and, not only that, we need it to survive.

Herewith a verbatim quote: “CO2 is transported in the bloodstream to the lungs where it is ultimately removed from the body through exhalation. CO2 plays various roles in the human body including regulation of blood pH, respiratory drive, and affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen (O2). Fluctuations in CO2 levels are highly regulated and can cause disturbances in the human body if normal levels are not maintained.”

Translated into language most normal human beings can understand: no CO2 equals no life. No life equals death.

How about them deniers?

There’s a world of difference between these two words: ecology and environmentalism.

The former is about science, the latter is about ideology.

So, the Scientific American is tip-toeing on rather thin ice when it admits (quite bashfully) that climate change sceptics may have a few valuable points for claiming that humans need not cut their carbon emissions.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R–Texas) summed it thus: “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth. This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.”

Lamar’s conclusion: scientists and others calling for emission cuts are being hysterical.

He’s way too generous: the climate-change panic-mongers have an agenda. One that doesn’t bode too well for humanity’s future.

Scientific American, in an attempt to achieve something that may look and sound like reasonable debate, asked several experts to talk about the science behind this question.

Even those with a stake in the environmentalist ideology admitted that, as they put it, there can be a kernel of truth in this argument. The kernel is called “CO2 fertilization effect.”

Grudgingly but still, they admit that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis. And what are plants without photosynthesis? A rhetorical question.

If you isolate a leaf … and you increase the level of CO2, photosynthesis will increase. A few scientists would qualify this statement by saying that the results produced in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems.

Such as?

Such as, for example, “nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced in an ecosystem. If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited…. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.”

True? Yes, but it still does not justify the current CO2 witch-hunt.

And a final warning: all those who like their beer, should know that the current push to drive carbon dioxide out of existence is, in fact, killing a vital ingredient in the beer business, from putting frothy bubbles in brews to blocking oxidization that makes beer taste stale.

Cheers, or what?

Pray tell: who rules America?

Nothing beats continuity in government. The famous British television series Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister portrayed the role of civil service very vividly: no matter what the elected representative of the people wanted to do, it would pass only if the civil servants thought it met their agenda.

Both shows have been incredibly popular since they first appeared in public: the three seven-episode series of Yes, Minister ran from 1980 to 1984, its sequel, Yes, Prime Minister, ran for 16 episodes from 1986 to 1988.

The number of views on social media is incredibly high even today.

Meanwhile, it emerged that a real high-ranking British civil servant was feeding the authors all kinds of real-life story lines. Their truthfulness made both shows a lasting success.

Patrick Wood of Technocracy News asked a logical question: and who, pray elucidate, is running America?

Wood has written explosive stuff such as Training AI: Fake Data Is Cheaper Than Real Data, or When Anti-Government Speech Becomes Sedition, and Renewable Energy Fails Sweden, Braces For Winter Of Power Cuts before. So, for him, asking questions that make the powers-that-be squirm is nothing new.

A shocking answer

Since the 1970s, it has been the same clan running the ship of state. No matter who wins elections in America, be they for the executive or legislative powers, the outcome remains the same.

David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski were the founders of the Trilateral Commission whom Wood describes as the gatekeeper of the modern technocracy movement.

Wood uses the recent example of Poland saying publicly she would have no issues stationing American nuclear weapons on her territory. This, he posits with good reason, is proof of the close relationship between Poland and the U.S., cemented by the presence of the Polish Jesuit Brzezinski in America’s top political ranks.

He could have gone deeper. When Lech Wałęsa started the first independent trade union in a communist country, Solidarność (full name: Independent Self-Governing Trade Union “Solidarity”) in August 1980 at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdańsk, Mikhail Gorbachev suggested his country’s army should invade Poland and put a full stop to this independence nonsense. The West’s egg-heads’ darling was at the time junior secretary of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee responsible for agriculture.

Yuri Andropov, then-chairman of the Soviet secret police and intelligence agency, KGB, told Gorbachev to keep his mouth shut. Unlike Gorbachev, Andropov knew that then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan sent a confidential message to Soviet leadership telling them that any attack on Poland would be viewed as an attack on America.

Would Reagan risk it without Brzezinski’s influence? A hypothetical question, but still legitimate.

Patrrick Wood’s analysis describes the Trilateralists as the power that today push the war on carbon, the war on food and the coming world war between Russia-China and U.S.-NATO.

To quote him verbatim: “Their overall agenda represents a war on humanity and, as such, receives inspiration from the very depths of hell.”

One thing raised Patrick Wood’s eyebrows more than any other points: Trilateral Commission membership is global, he writes. Only one third are Americans. The commission collectively represent the interests of the global hegemony that is trying to destroy America, Wood summarises.

To prove his point about the continuity, Wood points out that the current White House incumbent, Joe Biden, is “surrounded by TEN current and former members of the Trilateral Commission. They have become like a personal guard and policy controllers for virtually everything that Biden has pursued since his inauguration.”

Wood provides a detailed list in his story, and it definitely is a quite impressive and eye-opening overview.

The Trilateral Commission cancer has metastasised through the fields of America’s foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental policy, and monetary policy. Always polite, Patrick Wood concludes his observation by saying (again, verbatim): “Cognitively challenged Joe Biden is nothing more that the home-boy puppet of this globalist cartel.”

The British comedy series, Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, covered very serious issues but managed to remain funny.

America’s Trilateral Commission is a very serious problem. That doesn’t bode well for America’s future. Its work is dubbed Deep State these days. Nobody seems to be able to figure out how to stop it from continuing its sinister ways.

Here’s the issue: purely democratic means won’t help one iota. Orders, bans and other, similar, methods won’t do. Not only in practical terms. Who would be carrying out the plan to remove the unelected Trilateralists from power?

Why, the Trilateralists themselves.

Not many would wager their all on this bunch of unelected people obeying their elected bosses.

Especially considering that, nowadays, these elected bosses are more often than not sitting firmly in this unelected crowd’s pockets.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt

Lessons from relatively recent history: the Soviet Union and Germany’s Weimar Republic.

In the former case, a more or less popular uprising would rid Russia of her Tsar (and all his works), replacing the monarchy with a so-called Provisional Government. This government, led by a democratically-inclined lawyer named Alexander Kerensky, tried to bring peace and order without executing all who begged to differ.

Enter Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks, with their putsch. Millions dead later, we still have a Russia that is unable to grasp the real meaning of the word democracy.

In the latter case, post-First World War Germany, defeated and condemned by the victors, suffered the ignominy of unthinkable reparations and limitations. She couldn’t make good on either.

The Weimar Republic, aided and abetted by Russia’s Bolsheviks, brought Germany into even deeper despair through all kinds of social turbulence. The disorder would bring her into a spot in which most of the population would be begging for a strong arm to appear to stop the bleeding.

Enter Adolf Hitler. Millions dead later, the rest is history.

America is at a crossroads. Should the Trilateralists prevail, the rest of the world should be scared. Very scared.

Canada’s Green Party in death throes

The Green Party of Canada is no longer about environment, however controversial their policies may be.

It is now about pronouns.

As the party is looking for a new leader, two Indigenous members of the party’s executive have called it quits. They didn’t like the idea that they would be included in a brand new and unusual row: Interim Leader Amita Kuttner likes being called “they/them.” Someone referred to her as “she/elle.” That got their (if that’s how she wants to be called) adrenaline up to a boiling point, and blood pressure through the roof.

Kuttner said, with passion unbecoming a political party leader, no matter how interim, that the mistake was “reflective of a larger pattern of behaviours that a few in the party are perpetuating.”

Green Party’s two MPs, Elizabeth May and Michael Morrice, replied with a letter calling for a “restorative process” to root out “harassment” within the party.

Political cancer

The woke culture has started spreading throughout Canada’s public square.

As soon as Pierre Poilievre became Conservative leader, a number of the Liberal Party officials started a campaign for their party to become less woke.

They have a point: their Exalted Leader – in addition to all of his other shortcomings – can hardly look and sound more politically correct. Quite realistically, they are afraid that Canadians are waking up to his idiocy and may turf them out come next election, still three years hence. Justin Trudeau’s image of a Prime Minister as woke as anybody hurts their party’s chances. They started repeating former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s mantra: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Not that Clinton ended up acting upon his own election platform once elected. Politics today is not about promises kept.

Back to the point

The Green Party didn’t fare too well in the 2021 elections. That caused a bit of internal name-calling and demands for change. It was supposed to happen now, with the party starting the campaign to find a new Intrepid Leader. All attention was centred on Vancouver’s news conference (media event or availability in the new lingo) to kick the race off.

It was all done through the long-distance technology known as Zoom. Kuttner noticed that the caption under her name called her “she/elle.”

Excrement hit the fan: I ain’t no she/elle, the Interim Intrepid Leader fumed. She calls herself non-binary and pansexual.


Right you are. HUH.

Kuttner claims to be attracted to all genders and orientations, making her they/them.

Using a recently newly coined expression, Kuttner called it “misgendering,” saying the typo “made me feel hurt and isolated” and hinted that it was “reflective of a larger pattern of behaviours that a few in the party are perpetuating.”

To rub her splendid anger in, she elaborated, “in moments like these I wonder — how can I ensure other people’s safety if I can’t even ensure my own?”

Amita Kuttner has a doctorate designation attached to her name. She achieved it in the field of astrophysics. Does it explain (or excuse) her ignorance of the difference between the words “misgendering” and “disgendering”?

The former indicates an honest mistake, the latter means intent.

The two Green MPs called the incident “but the latest in a number of similar behavioural patterns that Dr. Kuttner has faced throughout their tenure.”

That led to your typical domino effect. Green Party President Lorraine Rekmans resigned first. She felt some of the leadership candidates were blaming her for the typo.

The now past-President hit the nail on the head in her resignation letter: “I was surprised that the contestants would use (the Sept. 3 media event) to attack the Party they were running to lead.

“I find that some in GPC wish to cling to the image of a political party that is the same as all the other political parties in Canada, fuelled by money, and controlled by people who wield power.”

She should have added, but didn’t dare, that this trend of announcing one’s bedroom proclivities is divisive on more levels than one.

Some Green Party officials demanded that the leadership race be called off for the moment, until the incidents had been properly investigated and punishment meted out.

Doomed? Probably

First and foremost, anybody’s bedroom preferences are their business, and nobody else’s. Who cares whether tickling in their left armpit excites some (and turns off others), or whether biting someone’s right (but not left) ear leads them to orgasm?

That’s what the so-called gender revolution has turned into.

If it were only that, and if it weren’t now a government-supported train of thought, society could care less about this strange (a cautious choice of words) trend.

But it has become a must among people who have had the gall to steal the word “progressive” and proclaim it for their own.

It’s all part of identity politics, a movement designed to divide and rule.

Different ideas announced as political platforms divide societies along trains of thought that are worthy of serious debate, and let the idea that attracts the most votes prevail.

Societies divided along the lines of race, skin colour, lineage, gender pronouns (and bedroom practices) are doomed to fail. Identity politics isn’t about intelligent argument. Identity politics is about shouting matches, mutual affront leading straight to mutual slaps in faces, to destroyed careers, to cancelling progress based on merit and replacing it on regress based on identity of the day.

Green Party of Canada now have a problem bigger than they had thought they could face: It’s called oblivion.

No matter where one stands in the debate on environment, such discussion is extremely useful. Losing one important voice in this debate, again, no matter how controversial, sends the conversation to a back-burner where it doesn’t belong.

Losing it because of a gender-based pronoun is a criminal offence.

Ignorant at our peril

The West, prodded by the globalists from the World Economic Forum, has been provoking a snake while barefoot, and the snake doesn’t like it.

The not-so-shocking result: the good old Europe as we’ve known it is about to fall apart as an economic power, her population freezing to death in the meantime. European Union’s member governments will be accusing one another, hoping against hope that their own nations won’t rise up and sweep them precisely thence they belong. This will be a pretty dangerous state of affairs, until they are thrown out and the nations, thus freed, will go after the Marxist and Maoist crowd inside the European Union’s palatial head offices in Brussels.

The United States has been in the throes of idiotically misguided policies long enough to become the rest of the world’s laughing stock. It has in no time sunk from a superpower status to zero. An economic and political zero. A dangerous zero, still, what with all the nukes it keeps, and the irresponsible guys who run that formerly rich and wonderful country, but a zero, nevertheless.

The globalists’ idea of a unipolar world led by them has gone up in flames.

And while this fiasco goes on, they will all continue accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin. To them, and to their propaganda, he’s devil incarnate. Except, if they all do believe their own words, they’re bound to fail one more time.

Who’s he?

Western propaganda keeps repeating the mantra of a mad, oligarch-supported former KGB spy, megalomaniac like no other, keen on restoring the menacingly sinister former Soviet Union and establishing its rule all over the world (and beyond).

They see in him a mirror image of themselves.

True, Vladimir Putin is no angel. He can’t be: you don’t rise to higher ranks within any intelligence service while keeping your nose clean. And hands, also.

Putin’s bloody and dirty escapades while serving his former country in Germany have become part of legend. How much of it concocted to impress the masses (and the opposition), and how much of it is true, not many know.

But, unlike his predecessors, he’s not a slave to any particular ideology. Again: whether he used and ceased to be, matters little now. What does matter is his sharp criticism of what happened in his country in the fall of 1917, and that he dared take the first communist leader, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, off the pedestal. That move itself took a lot of courage: many of his own countryfolk still believe that Lenin was a saint to behold.

We are being told that Putin owes his power to the so-called oligarch class, doing their bidding all along.

Facts do not support this claim. Here’s what happened, actually: former President Boris Yeltsin picked Putin as his successor precisely because he knew the ex-KGB guy will have the balls to thwart the combined oligarch and communist blackmail: Yeltsin stood accused of some illicit dealings with the Bank of New York. The oligarch alliance with the communists was one of the strangest conspiracies known throughout Russian history. In the Duma (Russian parliament), they tried to impeach Yeltsin.

In came Putin. A few unexplained (and inexplicable) deaths within both the oligarch and communist ranks later, all talk of any scandal (and impeachment) disappeared.

Was it democratic? No.

Does it remind us of similar unexplained (and inexplicable) deaths in America? Yes.

Does the pot call the kettle black? A rhetorical question.

Those still swallowing the anti-Putin propaganda campaign would do well checking their facts.

While not exonerating Putin from any of his many misdeeds, some more criminal than others, accusing him of trying to restore the Soviet Union is beyond laughable. The guy’s on the record as saying that Russia was much better off without Lenin and his nightmarishly grandiose visions. While he’s at it, he dares mention that Russia’s gold reserves used to be the largest such reserves in the world before the Bolshevik coup d’état. Where’s that precious metal gone now? Putin demands to know. The loot’s been hidden by forces unmentioned, in hopes that the Bolsheviks will never find it. This hypothesis has been circulating for years, with no real proof forthcoming.

Getting at the rich guys

Most of the Russian oligarchs have been fearing for their lives since the moment Putin took over.

They have seen it in China: the filthy rich are wealthy at the communist party’s pleasure, and should they displease someone in the Forbidden City, a public execution follows (in the best-case scenario), or they disappear without leaving forwarding addresses, and their assets are confiscated by the state.

Putin is of the view that the oligarchs plundered Russia. He also claims that the outsiders (especially those from Harvard) used to give advice on how to transform Russia from communism to capitalism with their own interests in mind, rather than really helping Russia make the change.

Putin told the oligarchs he would leave them alone, amassing their billions, if they, in return, promise to keep their noses out of politics.

Many of those who have started paying attention to Russia only after she felt provoked enough to invade Ukraine, seem to be unaware of some basics. For example: with Mikhail Gorbachev still at the helm, even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO suggested that it join.

Whether Gorbachev was willing to consider the idea, who knows, and he won’t tell us now. But: Soviet hardliners, fearing he might be inclined not to dismiss the plan out of hand, triggered the August 1991 putsch against him: joining NATO would equal Soviet surrender to the hated Americans.

We deal here with split personalities: on one hand, America was officially Enemy Number One, on the other, most of them loved spending dollars they plundered from state reserves on American luxury goods (even a washer and dryer belonged among those).

Yes, it was Yeltsin who stood on that tank, leading opposition against the communist hardliners. With good reason: he was one of those corrupt officials who actually gave the oligarchs their chance, in return for enriching himself and his family.

But it would be Putin who’d get Yeltsin out of the mulligatawny. By the time of his entry into high politics, most Russian people viewed him as neither a communist nor an oligarch. People didn’t want to lose their newly-won freedoms which would have happened with the return of communist rule, and they openly despised the oligarchs who gained their wealth using methods that stunk. That’s what gave Putin his 70-per-cent+ approval rating.

A number of western media, from mainstream to hi-tech socials, have been carrying unverified stories about Putin’s personal wealth, hinting his ways of achieving it were not really too acceptable in polite society.

Whether these stories can ever be confirmed, nobody knows. They are irrelevant, and that’s what matters.

What is much more relevant is the fact that the history re-writes originate mostly within the rather limited circle of 30 (now 32) countries that comprise NATO. The rest of the world begs to differ.

What now?

Russia has been historically split into two factions. One called for more co-operation with the West, while the other claimed, with sufficient proof, that Russia hasn’t much to gain from such co-operation, other than the West’s loose morals, decadence and social debauchery.

So far as the current conflict with Ukraine goes, one side within Russian elites says that Russia should simply crush Ukraine into obedience and be done with it. Another side calls for peace settlement.

Both proposals are inadequate: even if Russian army takes the entire Ukraine and makes her part of Russian Federation, with whatever rules and laws, the guerrilla war would never cease. And it takes two to tango to negotiate peace. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who used to be willing to consider it is now dead set against it. All indicators show that it was the West that led Zelensky to rejecting any peace negotiations, and he seems to be entrenched in their pockets more than would be acceptable for a head of a hypothetically independent country.

Different games

As some wise people suggested, the main issue here is that the West has been playing tic-tac-toe, while Putin plays a chess game.

That is why the fairly recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), whose summit brought together China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, has become so important as to warrant major headlines.

Most major western media ignored it, and, it seems, most NATO and European Union politicians aren’t aware of it, either.

They should start paying attention: in addition to the powers mentioned, Iran is getting close to being admitted, while Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO member Turkey have associated status.

If what we call, for wont of better words, the West, and mean the European Union and NATO, continue to ignore this major shift in the arrangement of global affairs, they do so at their peril.

Attempts to recreate the unipolar world, Putin said, “have recently taken an absolutely ugly form that the overwhelming majority of the planet’s nations find unacceptable.”

To make his point abundantly clear, he added that Russia and China “stand together for a just, democratic, multipolar world order based on international law and the central role of the UN. And not on any rules that someone has invented and tries to impose on others without even explaining what they are.”

Only a totally irresponsible politician will ignore these warnings.

Going south, with no return ticket

Any country whose government is her largest employer is bound to fail.

That rule of thumb seems to be lost on Canadian propagandists who have been trumpeting forth lately that Canada’s job market has been recovering nicely, despite all of the hurdles posed by all sorts of pandemics and similar catastrophes.

Canada’s federal government have been on record as saying, with unjustified pride, that they employ the most people of all sectors of the country’s economic life.

That, in and of itself, is a horrible admission to make: government employees, known also as public service employees, haven’t been known as the most efficient, effective and useful segment of any job market. Even those who produce something other than hot air and paper-shuffling charades don’t belong to the most productive parts of society.

The reason is overwhelmingly simple: Economics 101 has proven that governments have no business being in business other than governing.

Here’s why: “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.”

This is how British economist Cyril Northcote Parkinson opened his immortal work, Parkinson’s Law: The Pursuit of Progress. It first appeared in the British newsmagazine The Economist in 1955, would become a highly successful and widely read book in 1958, and the author has made it known that the volume’s content is based on his own experience in the British civil service. Its conclusions have been on the mark since day one of their publication.

Anyone who thinks Canada’s (or any other country’s, for that matter) public service differs from that described by Parkinson, should start thinking again.

Strange numbers

Which brings us back full circle to the news of Canada’s recent job market developments.

Following up on the news about the country’s speedy recovery, the Fraser Institute checked the figures out without StatsCan (and other government) interference. They found a minor glitch of major proportions: nearly 9 in 10 jobs created between 2020 and 2021 were in the public sector.

A few figures of note: the public sector saw a 9.4 per cent job growth between February 2020 and July 2022, while private sector’s growth was as minimal as to be meaningless: 0.4 percentage points.

In actual job numbers: Canada’s economy added 366,800 jobs to the mix, but only 56,100 were in the private sector. Government jobs constituted 50.7 per cent of all jobs in Canada in 2020 (leaving 49.3 per cent for the private sector) before the so-called pandemic. Now we have 51.8 per cent of employed people working for government, and 48.2 in private sector.

The numbers continue to be telling: Canada’s economy shrank by 16 per cent during the artificially induced panic, kicking some three million out of work and sending the unemployment rate from 5.7 per cent all the way to 13 per cent.

Every economic indicator points to the devastating effect of various Canadian governments’ mandates imposed on the population.

Add to it the harm caused by the capricious orders (all government employees must be vaccinated or else lose their jobs, despite the growing evidence of the devastating effects these concoctions have on previously perfectly healthy people).

Still, the number of government employees has grown.

Even the most recent unemployment numbers aren’t encouraging, despite the governments’ frantic recruitment efforts.

Why’s that?

Government jobs, as mentioned, add little if anything to the country’s economy. They mostly involve pushing paper and coming up with new and newer and newest regulations that interfere with both the private sector and with individual Canadians’ lives.

Making sure everybody is obedient is the next step, and that requires even more government hires.

One question remains unanswered: and who, pray, guards the guardians themselves? This is a millennia old question, first recorded by the Roman poet Juvenal in Latin as Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. They obviously had that issue even then. For the record: Juvenal first used it when dealing with marital infidelities, but still, the question remains with us even today.

Killer tradition still looms

Why is this question relevant today?

Public servants have formed all kinds of union-style associations through the years of their more or less faithful service. These groups, much too regularly for the country’s economic health, engage in collective bargaining. Let’s leave aside the general question of such unions’ usefulness these days. Let’s ignore the suggestion that the concept has gone way past its best-before date.

Let’s look at the rhetoric, instead. Whenever these associations engage in such contract negotiations (disputes, mostly), they speak of their disagreements with their employer. They don’t name the particular government. They leave it at the most general form: employer.

Here’s the issue: governments are NOT their employer. Taxpayers are. This happens to be THE major point that they seem to have never learnt.

Of course, why should they? They’ve got used to the fact that they form the majority of Canada’s workplace, a fact not many dare question.

And while this country lay in increasing mounts of economic ruin, her high school substitute drama teacher cum Prime Minister causes another major international embarrassment, belting out the rock anthem, Bohemian Rhapsody, at a wake inside a fashionably expensive London hotel, remembering the late Queen Elizabeth II.

What a prospect!

Let’s-pretend social conscience: what a ridiculous lie

Torn jeans: are those wearing them making a fashion statement or are they into expressing themselves politically?
No surprise if the latter is true.
The late German communist playwright Bertolt Brecht, he of the Threepenny Opera fame, rich like only few in his profession in his time, used to wear clothing that would suit the poorest of the poor homeless people anywhere. It cost him a pretty pfennig: he had a personal tailor, who had to make Brecht’s clothing as decrepit as decrepit can that. The tailor didn’t have to make Brecht’s newest dresses stink: the writer’s habit of smoking the foulest-smelling cigars would take care if that. And, by the way, those stogies Brecht preferred weren’t too cheap, either.
Is there a parallel between today’s politically fashionable would-be intellectuals and the German communist playwright?
You bet your last currency that you still own that the answer is yes.
The good old Brecht, who shamelessly stole the Threepenny Opera idea from British 17th and 18th century playwright John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera, led an adventurous life. Upon the arrival of Adolf Hitler to the top of German political life, Brecht took off and landed where he was supposed to land: in the Soviet Union. He quickly found out that the paradise of Soviet communism isn’t what he had been telling all and sundry it was. In addition, with Josif Stalin’s NKVD sending defected German communists back to their home country upon Gestapo requests, Brecht realised his future in the Soviet Union wasn’t as safe as he thought it would be.
It would take all kinds of efforts but, eventually, Brecht would end up in the United States. Thanks to his successful collaboration with such great German modern composers as Kurt Weill and Hanns Eisler, Hollywood and the rest of American left-oriented intelligentsia of the time embraced Brecht with a passion worthy of more deserving people. But when the U.S. started questioning his ideological bona fides after the end of the Second World War, Brecht decided that returning to his cherished world of communism might be the most prudent move.
He returned to what would become the German Democratic Republic, get his own theatre, remain filthy rich, and continue wearing his pretentiously beggar-like clothing till his last day.
Same old, same old
Why this detour into history?
Because this torn-jeans craze is yet another proof that history repeats itself.
Mind, this craze isn’t very new. It started more than two decades ago, and it has developed into a real wave of idiocy. Paying more for ripped and seemingly worn jeans than for a pair that not only is new but also looks like it reveals sick minds.
In any case, it reveals a relatively new social phenomenon. It’s called “common sense be damned,” and it is much more dangerous than it seems to be.
While Brecht would only shock those close to him with his clothing and his stinking smoking habits, the torn-jeans wave has swept highly educated university students, including graduates. The more you look like a dirty homeless drug addict, the more socially conscious you appear to be.
Please note the last words: appear to be.
This trend is called media indoctrination, and it happens not only to drum up custom, but also to bend the minds of the originators’ targets, however subtly it may be happening.
Another angle of observation: how many colours of vehicles are car salespeople offering these days?
Used to be two. Black and white. Now? White. It looks cleaner, so the explanation goes, and its production doesn’t harm the environment as much. Any proof for that? Not one available to wider public yet.
If you dig deep enough and promise your sources complete anonymity, even under torture, here it is: the idea is to influence people’s thinking.
Some people noticed and started demanding other colours, and the industry would take several years to budge somewhat eventually. But if you think you can demand whatever colours for your new car purchase (if you can afford it), the offer will remain limited, and even then, you will have to wait for your new vehicle until the manufacturer either finds one that’s already been painted the way you wanted it, or till the moment they find time and the paint to make your wish come true.
Is the colour of your new car that important? Yes and no, depends, but it’s the wish not to be lost in the crowd that matters.
Vive La Différence!
Before you start dismissing these questions, ask yourself: does uniformity really, really, really appeal to your sense of individuality?
This is what it’s all about: it’s no longer about only keeping up with the Joneses, it’s about everybody not only looking the same but thinking along the same lines, too.
If you don’t like it, tough: the result is called total control.
And if you don’t believe that this is what’s happening, look up Klaus Schwab’s masterpiece, The Great Reset, freely available from the World Economic Forum.
Who’s he? A German engineer turned globalist, and a puppet of powers much stronger than even he can imagine. His statements and predictions are open because they can afford it. By bringing the younger crowd under the umbrella of uniformity, they are changing people into sheeple who would happily go to slaughter in the name of an idea as idiotic as it is criminal. Yes, pronouncing that there are way too many people on this planet and that one-seventh of today’s population would do quite nicely, thank you very much, equals genocide. Six sevenths of humans will have to die to achieve these globalists’ goal.
People who succumb to their calls for uniformity, no matter how couched in social equality blather, will start by helping to kill others and then will march to their own deaths with happy songs on their lips.
As a minor aside: have you noticed how many of the various recent movements aimed at ending the preposterous rules imposed on us have adopted names linked to colours?
We’ve been under attack left, right and centre for several centuries, but modern times, and modern technologies, have made this assault upon our basic human qualities close to unbearable.
The centuries of these persistent attempts to rid us of what makes us human are now beginning to take their toll. Just watch how many have fallen for the fallacy that claims that faster communication systems (G5, anyone?) make us better. Evidence shows these systems are killers, and yet, you can find schools that permit their developers to install this equipment on school property. For hard cash consideration, of course. No amount of technical piffle will protect those spending whole of their days close to the transmitters from the electromagnetic fields’ killer effects. And, just as well, no amount of sorrowful rhetoric will help those affected once those guilty realise what they had done.
We are close to crossing an intersection while the red light is flashing. We can’t go on ignoring it much longer.

%d bloggers like this: