Category Archives: Entertainment and culture

Our civilisation is doomed, and it’s our fault

Mr. Finkelstein is at an S-Bahn (rapid transit railway system) station in Berlin. He wants to go pee, but he has two suitcases with him, and he wants to find someone honest who would look after his luggage while he’s relieving himself.

He sees a German gentleman, and asks him what he thinks of the Jews.

Oh, says the German, I love them, talented, hard-working people, etc.

So, Mr. Finkelstein doesn’t ask him for help.

Another German walks by, and Mr. Finkelstein asks the same question.

Why, the German guy says, I just admire them, I even have a few Jewish friends, beautiful, wonderful people, etc.

So, Mr. Finkelstein asks another German gentleman.

And this guy says, stinky bloody bastards, Hitler should have been faster in getting rid of them all, etc.

Oi, says Mr. Finkelstein, an honest German, at long last! Sir, would you please look after my suitcases while I go to relieve myself?

That’s what I have always thought of American commentator Dennis Prager’s views on the issue of anti-Semitism.

By way of introduction to those who haven’t had the pleasure: Dennis Prager hosts his radio talk show and writes frequently on political topics. Originally, he would concentrate on the plight of Soviet Jews whom the then-regime would let emigrate. As the communist government in the Soviet Union fell apart, and the Soviet Union became the former Soviet Union, Dennis Prager’s views expanded to broader issues.

If you try to look him up using the usual search engines, you would find descriptions such as right-wing, or social conservatism, whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

Dennis Prager is anything but. Dennis Prager defies all kinds of labels. He is a realist who sees the world going to hell in a hand-basket. And THAT is his label.

Good or bad?

In a couple of recent columns, Dennis Prager was trying to figure out how it could happen that so many Americans would fall for such blatant invasion of a strange combination of two socialist ideas, one a communist strain, the other, fascist.

After all, has America not been built on the foundations of independence, individual rights, people objecting to too much government interference in their own affairs, people depending on themselves and their own abilities rather than on government fiat?

Yes, history says so.

But history is about the past.

Dennis Prager used to study the question that he called “the good German.” Just how the average (presumably decent) German did nothing to hurt Jews but, at the same time, did nothing to help them? And what about fighting the Nazi regime?

How could the nation that gave the world Ludwig van Beethoven and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, or Professor Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (of the X-ray fame) permit a miserable sergeant (Feldwebel) Adolf Schickelgruber, a.k.a. Hitler to turn the country into one of the bloodiest dictatorships of all time?

Speaking of bloody dictatorships, how about the Russians who gave us Leo Tolstoy, Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev of the Periodic Law and periodic table of elements fame? They would also give us Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, whose killing ways made Hitler’s Holocaust numbers pale in comparison.

And never mind the French who, in addition to the many writers and artists and musicians and their cuisine also gave us Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Pétain, the Marshal who led his country to surrender and a fascist government in Vichy.

And, lest you think this list of nations with black stains on their collective consciences is complete, start thinking again.

This IS about collective guilt, because that’s what we were facing then.

And since humanity is unable to learn from its own mistakes, this is precisely what we’re facing today. Again.

Intolerable illiteracy

People keep their mouths shut over lockdowns that cost them jobs and that were caused by artificial panic about a non-existent pandemic. Simply because they don’t ask the basic question: why? Doesn’t matter if it’s out of fear or laziness or because of their lack of knowledge. We don’t make our elected (and appointed) officials answerable.

People shout down those who disagree and put all kinds of labels on them, the easiest way to end all meaningful discussion. Another sign of illiteracy, this time about basic rules of democracy.

People believe in magic power of vaccines that not only haven’t finished their clinical trials yet, but that, in a number of cases, have proven that they are a present danger to those who get inoculated.

People have not noticed yet that, while this unprecedented hoax is going on, all debate on illegal migration that is supposed to rid the world of this civilisation, has ceased.

The nonchalance, indifference, even, about what is happening around us is beyond shocking.

What has caused this massive explosion of, excuse the rude expression, mass idiocy? What got us into a situation where powers-that-be deny not only us mere mortals but experts in a variety of fields, too, the right to free expression, and most citizens don’t even notice, never mind object?

Dennis Prager, whose words of deep concern made me write this contribution to the public inquiry into the subject, studied totalitarianism since his graduate years at the Russian Institute of Columbia University’s School of International Affairs (as it was then known). Quite logically, he believed that a society could be brainwashed only in a dictatorship.

But: what is political correctness if not dictatorship? Say a word wrong, and the consequences can be as harsh as those in communist Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany. The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, basically all of the so-called mainstream media (MSM for short), publications such as The Atlantic, The New Yorker, networks such CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the so-called artists of Hollywood, they all resemble the infamous Moscow Pravda (Правда) newspaper. Pravda, in verbatim translation, means the truth. A popular joke making rounds in former communist countries used to say that there was as much truth in this or that statement made by a communist government (or any other authority) as in Moscow’s Pravda.

That’s one of the issues in the west: people haven’t yet got used to the fact that they should not trust their MSM. In fact, that they should start ignoring them. Here’s one rule of thumb people in the former communist countries remember, and those who haven’t experienced it haven’t heard of: don’t believe any rumour until and unless it’s been officially denied.

The killing comfort

And one more issue: we’re too well off for our own good. The consumerism we’ve been experiencing the last several decades is killing us. We are not aware of the simple fact that innovation does not necessarily equal progress.

That has one more effect: way too many of us do not care one iota about what’s going on around us, so long as we have our newest gadgets to play with.

This indifference will allow people like Klaus Martin Schwab of the World Economic Forum to implement their dream of what they call Great Reset or the fourth industrial revolution (and what American economist Martin Armstrong calls feudalistic socialism). It will let Bill and Melinda Gates proceed with their Malthusian visions that will end up in genocide. It will also permit George Soros and his Open Society to continue pushing for a world government, under the United Nations umbrella.

Anyone who calls these statements conspiracy theories should go back to school.

Why? Because a theory, by its definition, must be supported by proof. And no, these are not conspiracies, either. Schwab, the Gates couple and Soros can hardly be more open about their goals.

Are we past the point of redemption?

It definitely looks like it.

Will the virus finish the five-ring circus off?

One positive outcome of the false pandemic panic: it may cost Tokyo this summer’s Olympic Games.

The event, previously planned for the summer of 2020, was postponed for a year amid the Covid-19 fears, but now, an overwhelming majority of Japanese population prefers either another delay, or scrapping the games altogether. The latest figures are conclusive: four out of five (80 per cent, if you wish) of Japanese people polled on the subject said they need Olympic Games like a dead man needs a winter coat (or words to that effect).

Needless to say their views sound rather logical. And not only because of the artificial worldwide pandemic pandemonium. That, as a reason in and of itself, would be obvious: oh yes, we are going to spend another untold billions to prepare for the event, and then some Big Pharma accountant will say the vaccine profits haven’t met expectations yet, let’s announce yet another wave of the disease, and who’s going to guarantee we’d get our money back?

The Japan Press Research Institute asked about 3,000 people aged at least 18 for their views. Of course, as a sample it’s not really too convincing: as of Saturday, January 23, 2021, Japan had 126,257,867 citizens. But still, it seems the Japanese don’t like being robbed out of their minds for causes as nebulous like Olympic Games.

Shifting views

An interesting trend: in recent past, more respondents wanted the Olympics delayed rather than cancelled. Now, the ratio has changed. Those seeking cancellation have grown into a majority. Not yet an overwhelming majority, really, but that can change in a jiffy. As soon as the Japanese see more of the figures, such as the amount spent so far on sporting venues and infrastructure: $25 billion (three quarters of it out of their wallets). That happens to be $25 billion of which most has gone down the drain (and would have even if the Olympics were held on time). The claim that new facilities will remain as Olympic heritage (whatever that is supposed to mean) has been proven false again and again in the aftermath of previous Olympic Games anywhere in the world.

Economic case studies are unanimous in their conclusions: international sports bodies demand that potential hosts build new facilities whenever they are awarded the hosting duty. Governments (read: taxpayers) pay for the extravagant spending sprees ten times out of ten, private corporations that own the land and/or do the actual building get rewarded, and if an ordinary Mary or Joe Public wants to use, for example, the new speed-skating oval once the Games have ended, tough luck. Only accredited (professional, that is) speed skaters are allowed in.

Some of the Japanese feel that another delay or cancellation would mean all of the money spent thus far was an utter waste of time and resources. A point well taken. But it equals crying over spilt milk. They should have stopped their sporting events promoters (and their government) much earlier. They should have been outraged when these promoters began pushing to be awarded the hosting duties.

Of course, the government of Japan has denied it ever thought of cancelling the games, contrary to rumours that the only thing they were looking for was a “face-saving” way of doing it. Considering that no rumours are believable until and unless they had been denied officially, this denial sounds ominous.

Of course, another set of rumours became rampant soon after the denial had been made public: Japan would be a front-runner to host the Olympic Games in 2032, the first available slot on the agenda (the 2024 games have been awarded to Paris, and the 2028 event should take place in Los Angeles). Tokyo is hoping to be awarded the 2032 games “out of sympathy.”

Abstain

Here’s what the Japanese (and everybody else who wants to host Olympic Games) should do: forget about it.

Put bluntly and openly: Olympic Games, just as any other top sports events, haven’t got much to do with sports as such. They are, and always have been, a business.

When the French Baron Pierre de Coubertin restored the movement in 1896, his claim to fame included such unsubstantiated statements as he would be bringing the fame of the ancient Greek Olympiads back to their deserved fame.

Except: the reason was much more trivial. French aristocrats were bored stiff during their leisurely summers, spent mostly at Côte d’Azur (French Riviera). Jet travel didn’t exist then, so, there were no jet sets. And, besides, how can you not become bored with your days when your nights are filled with debauchery again and again, giving you tough hangovers next mornings? Unrestrained merrymaking only takes you so far. And then what?

The traditional lack of brotherly love and mutual respect between the French and the English notwithstanding, Baron de Coubertin summoned British blue-bloods to take part: if anyone knew how make rules that would look perfectly fair and frightfully sporting, it would be them.

That’s what caused the original demand for amateur status, too. A professional athlete ranked as a Prince? Fi donc (equals yikes in everyday English). A Prince employed as a professional athlete? Another fi donc for you.

A couple of four-year Olympic cycles, masses of the unwashed took note and decided to join the fun. That’s when the amateurism rule would come in handy.

Then came the year 1936 and the games in German capital, Berlin, with German Chancellor, Adolf Schickelgruber, a.k.a. Hitler, presiding. That’s when nationalistic propaganda value of this event became a central focus.

It would be also the first occasion for the so-called Olympic torch relay. No such drivel existed in ancient Greece. Yes, there may have been torches in the many areas athletes used for post-competition entertainment, such as orgies, but running with torches all over the world, that’s a typically Teutonic tradition (just check out some of the Wagner operas). The new German ceremony included the charade with the last runner’s identity remaining a closely guarded secret. The first final runner was an activist with Hitlerjugend, as sporting an organisation as any.

There’s not much need to analyse the august Olympic movement much deeper. Suffice it to say that it has become a highly politicised sinecure that helps the rich become richer by being a leech that sucks taxpayer money like there’s no tomorrow.

To sum it all up: the Japanese would save themselves a ton of concern and huge loads of money if they bid the Olympic overlords their hearty arigatou gozaimasu (thank you), and wave their arms in their typical sayonara (fare thee well) gesture.

Should that happen, the rest of the world would owe the Covid-19 scaremongers one huge vote of gratitude, combined with a sense of great relief.

Changing humans into herds of village idiots

Come to think of it, today’s doctrines of political correctness aren’t really new. Those of us who had lived through the years of socialism, and remember the experience, know them inside out. And we know, too, where they take people.

In fact, the way to impose such doctrines have been known long before socialism. Even the infamous Nicholas Machiavelli, whose definitions of such behaviour would become dogma centuries ago, admitted he was quoting from theories proven millennia before his birth.

Many thought that the system of forcing innocent people into admitting guilt where none had existed vanished with the top form of socialism, a.k.a. communism. Even the so-called table of forcing, created in 1956 by American psychologist Albert Biderman, only put the age-old rules into newly formulated words.

Biderman’s effort was describing methods of changing war prisoners’ thinking and, indeed, conscience.

Now, remember, he was reacting to events making headlines at the time: the Korean War had just been interrupted by an uneasy armistice, and people in Hungary have just started an uprising against the then-existing communist regime. The two Koreas are still at war, and the line in the sand on the 38th parallel is still called “demarcation line” rather than border. And the Russians still hesitate before calling their bloody intrusion into Hungary a war crime.

Stories of communist North Koreans engaging in brainwashing captured American pilots and other military personnel were rampant in the 1950s. Biderman’s probe only reflected the prevailing headlines of his time.

What’s new? Nothing

But here’s the tragedy: today, we see those same methods of changing human behaviours and minds being ruthlessly imposed on entire populations in countries that used to be known as paragons of freedom.

And, which is even more tragic, not too many object, and those who do, are way too often met with public disagreement, ridicule, even.

Biderman concentrated on eight points.

Isolation is the first one. Once a person is isolated, s/he loses social support. That leads to the loss of the ability to object. An isolated person has too much time on her or his hands. She or he starts analysing her/himself. Whether the analysis is correct or not doesn’t really matter. The fear of the (unpleasant) consequences that results from such analysis is what really matters. An isolated person is getting more and more dependent on her/his torturer. Meanwhile, the economic picture spirals downwards, and the victims of such process depend on the authority almost absolutely.

As if he was describing the last couple of decades, with the years 2020 and 2021 marked in red and in bold typeface.

Monopolization of our understanding of reality becomes the second point. The public square concentrates on topics selected by the authority. Everything else becomes irrelevant.

Just watch today’s mainstream media (MSM for short). What you get is their coverage of the coronavirus. They present the official view only, any other information that contradicts it is being removed. Information that questions the official information becomes punishable. By law, if need be.

Who cares that all kinds of bans and limitations on free movement suspend our human rights and, thus, dignity. Besides, and this is important, too, such bans and limitations make resistance more difficult to achieve. Many choose silence, instead: again, they are afraid of the consequences.

The third point involves exhausting the general population to the point of fearing for their minds.

Under socialism, people used to fear for their jobs because of their opinions. They feared their children wouldn’t be able to get better education because admittance to better secondary schools, colleges and universities wasn’t based so much on their academic results as it was on their parents’ positive attitudes toward the regime.

Look at what’s happening now. A person fired because s/he took part in a protest demonstration is not worthy of a headline any longer.

Here comes the fourth point: threats.

Here’s how it used to be in socialist countries: you don’t do this, or, even worse, you do that, and you have ruined your and your family’s future. You didn’t take part in the official May Day parade? You didn’t wave your flag enthusiastically enough when marching past the people’s representatives’ stand? Your kids, no matter how talented, can bid good bye to their university dreams.

Illiterate judges

Here’s how it is now: no face mask? Here’s the ticket, payable immediately. Not keeping socially distant enough? Here’s another ticket, also payable immediately. And don’t think an objection filed with a court of law will help you: you broke the law, the court will say, perfectly ignoring that breaking laws and orders that do not meet the test of humanity is perfectly within your rights. It seems our judges have never heard of so-called natural law (lex naturalis), as defined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and as upheld as part of modern international law by the Nurnberg war crimes tribunal.

Threats create uncertainty, fear and despair. Disobedience becomes almost impossible because of those fears.

Intermittent relaxation comes as the fifth point.

Those who train animals know the simple trick: give your dog a cheap reward from time to time, as a sign of praise for its obedience.

What happens: people don’t get used to the previous strict rules, they don’t find ways to adapt to them and find ways around them.

Look around these days: insignificant rewards for disciplined behaviour, combined with promises that all will be better next week, if only you behave as you’re told.

Next, as point six, comes the omniscient power. We’re your rulers and you can’t fight us. You’re behind bars, and there’s no way to get out until and unless we let you, and we won’t. And no, you can’t escape, either (how about the call by the government of Quebec that all Canadians’ international trips be banned?). Any resistance is useless, we’re watching you (notice the ever-increasing number of cameras in Canada’s streets and avenues?), so shut up and do as you’re told.

Humiliation is point number seven.

How? Walking around, with a duster covering your face just because someone ordered you to, that’s pretty demeaning. Some may have got used to it, but be sincere to yourselves: if someone told you but a single year ago that wearing face masks was an order or else, would you agree?

I thought so.

And Biderman’s final point, number eight: the more trivial and nonsensical an order that we are supposed to agree with it, and obey, the more humiliating it is. People start losing respect for themselves, their human dignity is gone.

This entire scenario begins in our schools: kids are forced to obey and parrot even the most outrageous gibberish. They won’t pass if they don’t.

Look at most jobs where blind obedience is a precondition not only to advancement, but to keeping the job, even.

What all that does to human self-respect, to human dignity, is perfectly obvious.

And that’s the kind of herd mentality today’s rulers want to achieve. Their criminal notions of Great Reset, world government and keeping the numbers of people on our planet to what they deem are acceptable numbers need sheeple rather than people to achieve their goals.

Time to fight them is running out.

Where do we go from here? And how? Do you know?

Here’s where we are on Friday, January 8, in the year 2021 (Anno Domini, or Christian Era, pick whichever you prefer, they are the same, anyhow):

  1. The U.S. of A. is no longer a world leader.
  2. The People’s Republic of China has won Word War III without launching a single missile, and no army anywhere in the world was capable of defending us (or, to be fair, none tried).
  3. It turns out that the Europeans are not as educated as they (and the rest of the world) thought they were, after all.
  4. Most of us, a few politicians excepted, found we are able to survive vacations without any overseas travel whatsoever.
  5. Based on news about people getting jabs of unidentified liquids into their bodies, it is beginning to look and sound as if the rich have less immunity than the poor folks.
  6. No priest, imam, rabbi or, heavens forbid, astrologer can save human lives. Thus far, none of them had.
  7. Medical personnel are worth more to humans than professional athletes, yet, it doesn’t show in their salaries and sundry perks.
  8. Crude oil isn’t worth a fig to a society that has no markets. And yet, there exist governments that tax fuel use (Canada, for example).
  9. We now know how animals in ZOO cages must be feeling. Aliens, if there are any, looking at us through their mighty astronomical equipment, must be amazed. Or gods, if there are any.
  10. Some predict that the planet will regenerate faster with no people around. And they are doing whatever they can to make sure there are no people remaining anywhere to witness the regeneration.
  11. Most people don’t need to leave their homes to get their work done. Which seems to put the social worth of some of their work into sad perspective.
  12. With fast food outlets sitting almost empty, and children sitting in their homes, it turns out that children can survive without fast food.
  13. Our parents used to nag us about washing our hands and brushing our teeth, and whatnot. Now, governments have taken over. Turns out governments are trying to succeed where our parents have failed, but, on the other hand, some have realized that maintaining basic rules of hygiene isn’t as tough as they feared it would be.
  14. Most men found that they may be capable of fixing most household items, an incredible thought in a society based on throwing away entire light fixtures where a single bulb replacement would have sufficed.

And, last but definitely not least:

15. The acting profession is the least essential profession of all professions we know. Especially given the pronouncements coming from the following U.S. zip codes: 90027, 90028, 90038, 90068, and 90078 (Hollywood, Los Angeles, California).

The points mentioned above are based on a list that has been circulating around the internet the last few days. How much longer it will continue to circulate freely, nobody knows. The high-tech crowd has been flexing its muscle for quite some time now, and the time has come for it to quickly change into George Orwell’s worst nightmare.

When my family, myself, and several of my friends used to live in a communist country, we used to be younger and tried to laugh the governing comrades off. And, too, we always knew that, if we’re smart enough, we can defect.

Now, we’re asking ourselves: where can we emigrate to? Has the entire world gone crazy?

Judging by the points mentioned above, it has.

A Canadian historian goes bonkers

A new joke has been making rounds in Russia, and, it seems, it has become wildly popular in that country. Here it is:

A guy who happens to be a foreign spy enters a pub somewhere in Russia. The regulars take one look at him and say: “You speak like a Russian, and you dress like a Russian, but you definitely aren’t Russian.”

So, the newcomer orders a glass (stakan, 100 grams they call it) of Stolichnaia vodka and downs it. The regulars shrug and say: “You speak like a Russian, you dress like a Russian, and you drink like a Russian, but you definitely aren’t Russian.”

Now desperate, the newcomer breaks into kazachok (a Russian dance). The regulars shrug and say: “You speak like a Russian, you dress like a Russian, you drink like a Russian, and you dance like a Russian, but you definitely aren’t Russian.”

The guy returns home to America, goes straight to his spy chief’s office and reports he failed.

“Hell,” the spy commander yells, “you Afro-Americans screw up everything you touch!”

Why all this?

The trickle of accusations that this or that equals cultural misappropriation has grown into a veritable flood.

Mostly, the cries deal with the names of sports organizations. Just as mostly, they come from people whose jobs should not exist, that’s how irrelevant they are.

Just a few examples: professor of Canadian and Indigenous history at the University of Manitoba, a Dr. Sean Carleton, posted a Twitter message on the subject of NHL club Vancouver Canucks’ logo. It shows a killer whale or orca. And Dr. Carleton, who obviously must be bored beyond humane limits, is upset. The logo, he says, uses elements of Coast Salish or Haida design.

This is not the first time in recent history that the Canucks got into hot water.

In an attempt to get better in goal, they hired Braden Holtby, a Stanley Cup winner with his previous team, the Washington Capitals. In order to show respect for the people of the area he was moving to, Holtby had his mask re-painted, using Indian (First Nations, in the politically correct lingo) motives.

Unfortunately, Holtby used the services of an artist who could not claim even an ounce of Indian blood.

Holtby committed an act of cultural misappropriation. Thus Dr. Carleton.

Instead of sending Dr. Carleton a request that he direct his steps into an area better not described in mixed company (or at the dinner table, your choice), Holtby apologized profusely, and commissioned a local Indian artist to paint him another mask.

Holtby must have realized that by signing with the Canucks he joined a world ruled mercilessly by idiots. The club’s owner, one Francesco Aquiini, had just fired the team’s anthem singer, Mark Donnelly. Poor Mark’s sin: he sang O Canada at a rally that protested the new mandatory facemask fashion.

If Dr. Carleton’s was a lone voice in the Sahara Desert, fine, we’re entitled to being idiots, this is a democracy, after all.

But if this becomes a new fashion, then, alas, something is desperately wrong.

And it has: most recently Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Cleveland Indians announced that they will be changing their name. Canadian Football League’s (CFL) Edmonton Eskimos and National Football League’s (NFL) Washington Redskins have already dropped their former names. They are nameless while this is being written. MLB’s Atlanta Braves, NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs, and NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks have yet to announce their plans, if any.

Of course, the Blackhawks have, for the time being, banned wearing your typical Indian attire, starting with warbonnets and sundry headbands, to their home games. People who would insist on wearing this kind of traditional attire without showing proof they are of 100-per-cent Indian blood would be asked to leave the arena forthwith. No word yet on whether they would be reimbursed for their tickets and parking fees. No word yet, either, on whether the Blackhawks would be demanding that other teams introduce this policy, too, whenever their club drops by for a road game.

Those who defend this example of perfectly clinical moronism point to the fact that, for example, the NHL’s Arizona Coyotes asked the Hopi tribe leaders for permission to use Kachina in their logo.

For the uninitiated: Kachina is a spirit being in the religious beliefs of the Indian cultures located in the south-western part of the United States.

Since the Arizona Coyotes’ current existence is closely (some would say too closely) linked to Indian gambling institutions in the area, their Kachina obedience is easily explained.

But the principle is not.

Step in different shoes

Is it cultural misappropriation when many Indians, chiefs included, wear trousers (with belts or suspenders, or both), white shirts with ties, and jackets, with polished shoes on their feet?

(To avoid any potential misunderstanding: ties worn around people’s necks are also known as cravats. Croatian soldiers who, a couple of centuries ago, lived in France, were wearing this kind of nonsense, the French, fashionistas as they always have been, adopted it, calling it croats, which quickly led to a mutation: cravats. Most Croats would become acquainted with the Indians only when some German filmmakers decided to change Karl May’s imagined stories into films about a noble savage named Winnetou. They filmed most of the Wild West sequences in Croatia. May was behind bars for some allegedly serious insurance swindle when he wrote his Indian stories. He had one fact right: Winnetou really existed. He was the chief of the Mescalero Apaches (and the Apaches in general, with the Navajo included). His father was Intschu-tschuna and he had a sister Nscho-tschi. Both of these names appear in the film series. Everything else was Karl May’s imagination, including the Germanic ways all of his characters – including the Indians – lived under.)

Or: is it cultural misappropriation when Louis Armstrong sings about Moses who heard from the Lord he should tell the Egyptian Pharaohs to let his people go? Are the gospels cultural misappropriation?

Of course not. And neither is Karl May’s Winnetou.

While useful, Canadian and Indigenous history studies should keep to studying history. Activism, such as that shown by Dr. Carleton, would seem to indicate there’s not much material to study. A wrong conclusion, by the way. Canada’s history is pretty rich, and a lot of it deserves to be discovered yet. Unable or unwilling to dig deeper, the activists have invented a brand new field for their efforts.

Except: this is no longer history. If they are sincere, they would stop collecting wages as historians and start fundraising for their activism.

Nothing less.

Americans demand politicization of Olympic Games

The so-called modern-era Olympic Games have been a perfect nonsense since the French Baron Pierre de Coubertin created them in 1896.

But now, they seem to be stepping into a brand new level of scandal: the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) is demanding that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) change its rules aimed against using the Games as a propaganda vehicle.

The rules, as they exist now, forbid any political, religious and race propaganda. According to the U.S. Olympic crowd, that’s unacceptable. The IOC should adjust the rules in the (now wait for it) “correct direction,” and it should permit “peaceful and decent demonstrations in support of racial and social justice.”

Who decides whether those demonstrations are peaceful and decent, and whether what they are demanding is racial and social justice has been left unanswered.

Obviously, based on what we’ve seen thus far, the decision would remain in the hands of those peaceful looters, arsonists, thieves, and, generally speaking, racist bullies.

Given the phrasing of the American Olympian demand, it would be based on race. That is, it would be racist.

Selective, that is.

True, two American sprinters, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, were expelled from the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City for an openly political statement: while standing on the winners’ podium, with their country’s anthem playing in their honour, they raised their fists in a clear gesture of protest against what they thought were racial inequalities in the U.S.

Of course, some naïve observers from all over the world would look at their open protest in amazement: what oppression? they would ask. You must have had ample opportunities to train to become world-class athletes, you have just won on the world’s greatest stage, so, what’s your problem?

The politically correct crowd in the U.S. seems to be rather selective in picking what (or whom) to object to.

Yes, the conditions for some of the black Americans may be quite dire. This topic really is not new, and it happens to be too involved. Still facts would prove beyond any doubt that black Americans are not as much victims of oppression by others as they are victims of their own lacking will to apply themselves in order to get ahead.

The proof is in the pudding: just look at the many black Americans who have succeeded in whichever field they decided to succeed. Not only in sports, and not only in entertainment.

In any case, one is left wondering: why don’t the American Olympic poohbahs say that the Israeli athletes killed by members of the Black September at the Olympic Games in Munich, Germany, in 1972 were victims of a crime?

Yes, it would have meant taking sides, and it would have been a political statement.

Or: would the American Olympian chiefs agree that, for example, Serbs in the territory known as Kosovo face something too close for comfort to genocide?

How about supporting the Christian Armenians against attacks by Muslim-oriented Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh?

Getting back to 1968 and Mexico City: Czech gymnast Věra Čáslavská achieved the almost impossible at the time: she broke through the Soviet dominance in her sport.

As she stood on the winners’ rostrum, she bowed slightly. She did so to remind the world that Soviet Union-led Warsaw Pact armies had just a couple of months earlier invaded her country.

She would later admit she was afraid the IOC would kick her out because it would recognize her gesture as a political protest.

Come to think of it, while Tommie Smith and John Carlos were protesting against what they perceived had been injustices, Věra Čáslavská protested against a very real military invasion of her country.

The modern-era Olympic Games were originally supposed to provide entertainment for French aristocrats who were bored stiff, spending their summers at Côte d’Azur, along the French Riviera. Debauchery has its limits after all.

And, since the Baron knew that the English were good at inventing rules, he asked them for help. The English blue-blood, facing the same boring summers (how many foxes can you hunt before killing them all?) obliged.

That, and nothing else, was the reason for declaring the Olympic Games a strictly amateur affair. It definitely had nothing to do with the ancient Greek Olympiads where doping and outright cheating were quite openly admitted as the proper ways to conduct the business of winning. No amateurs in ancient Greece, either.

After the masses of the unwashed invaded the modern-era Olympic Games, the demand for pure amateur status would remain. But, as time progressed, participation and, especially, Olympic success would become matters of public pride. Starting with Adolf Hitler’s 1936 Games, the Olympiads would become an ideological tool to prove one system’s superiority over all others.

It was also Hitler’s Imperial Office (Reichskanzlei) that would introduce the torch relay. The idea included the demand that the final runner’s name remain secret until he accepts the torch. Interestingly, too, the first final runner would be an activist (ein Funktionär) with the Hitler youth organization (Hitlerjugend), as sporting a group as can be.

After the Second World War, as communist countries would decide that Hitler wasn’t that wrong, after all, and that success in the Olympic sports stadia could be linked directly to boasting their system’s advantages, Olympic Games would become precisely that: an ideological tool. Western countries didn’t catch up fast enough. That made their governments uneasy. The fact that most athletes from the communist countries were, in fact, professionals, didn’t help matters much, either.

Oh no, they all had other jobs listed in their resumes. Their clubs would be attached to all kinds of corporations. Those corporations, of course, were state-owned. The athletes would be, on paper, working as this or that, but in reality, they would only show up to collect their salaries.

In any case, all this would erode the idea of amateurism in the Olympic movement and, eventually, professionals would be allowed in.

To sum up: the modern-era Olympic movement has been based on hypocrisy since its inception in 1896.

The American Olympic Committee is only continuing in the trend. Whether the world governing body accepts it remains to be seen. But we shouldn’t keep our hopes high: given the IOC’s infamous history of perfectly cynical underhanded skulduggery, it’s going to be only a question of time until we see signs such as: We compete for black lives.

The NHL did it to open the closing part of its shortened season 2019-2020, so why not the Olympians?

Journalism going down the tube: what else is new?

American mainstream media journalists are finding out that the public’s trust in them is at all-time low, and they are wondering why.

Even the Nieman Lab, a centre for journalism studies at Harvard University, took notice. What took them so long?

To get matters into context of time: the widow of Lucius W. Nieman, founder of The Milwaukee Journal, Agnes Wahl Nieman, bequeathed $1.4 million in 1938 so the university can start it. To appreciate how much it was then: in purchasing power it would be the same as about $25,807,460.99 in 2020, a difference of $24,407,460.99 over 82 years. Mrs. Nieman’s stated goal was simple and straightforward: “To promote and elevate the standards of journalism in the United States and educate persons deemed specially qualified for journalism.”

The results

Considering that The Washington Post (and, later on, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times) broke all rules of honest journalism covering the so-called Watergate scandal in the early 1970s, no wonder that the public began looking askance. Remember that President Richard M. Nixon, the one who eventually resigned because of the scandal, did not win his office by a slight margin: landslide would be the proper description.

This is not to say that he and his administration were perfectly innocent. Absolutely not. But the way those mighty newspapers (and other media that followed them) went after Nixon at the time left much to be desired.

It didn’t help much, either, when the public found, in self-congratulatory publications such as All The President’s Men and The Final Days, that Ben Bradlee, Washington Post’s executive editor at the time, was a close friend of the Kennedy family. Not only that: he was on record as hating Nixon beyond all acceptable levels. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward wrote the bulk of the Watergate stories (and the books, of which the first one would become a typical Hollywood movie with Robert Redford as Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Bernstein starring).

It doesn’t help modern journalism’s cause that it seems to suffer from a collective memory loss (amnesia in a foreign language).

Examples galore. How about the fact the Washington Post relied upon a single source and viewed him as most trusted in its Watergate coverage? Not only that, that source would remain mysteriously secret until he lay on his deathbed: turns out the so-called Deep Throat (of pornographic film fame) was none other than a high-ranking FBI official with a beef against the Nixon administration.

Does history repeat itself or does history repeat itself?

Or: how about President Gerald Ford, who stepped into the Oval Office as Nixon’s vice-president, trying to get money from Congress to get Americans and some South Vietnamese out of South Vietnam before it would be overrun by the North Vietnamese communists? One Senator destroyed the plan, as well as killing the government resettlement plans for these people. His name: Joseph Robinette (call me Joe) Biden Jr.

Or how about these stories, just some dozen years old, about the World Health Organization (WHO) changing its standards to define spread of diseases (outbreaks, epidemics, pandemics) in a way that made this classification impossible? Official probe by the European Union at the time found that greedy medical experts pushed the plan through, in return for lucrative offers from pharmaceutical companies that stood to gain the most from the swindle.

Still, today’s mainstream media sing the official pandemic songs, without even bothering to at least double-check the numbers thrown at them by the authorities.

The list is almost endless, and it is rather surprising to see that it took at least some in the media so long to figure out that nobody believes them.

How about: they cried wolf too often?

Not only that: judging by Nieman Lab’s views, today’s practitioners of the trade don’t seem to get any of it. Here I must get a tad personal: I’ve been in it professionally since age 15, starting with my high school years, through the university-based school of economics, and this year makes it 62 years since the time I started.

How splendidly ignorant

Nieman Lab tries to put on a real lab coat and look scientifically. The trade, the Harvard-based scholars say, can be divided into two basic groups: traditionalists, and those who are (their words, not mine) engagement-oriented.

The former try to give their audiences all available facts and let their esteemed public chew on them and, eventually, decide what to think of them. The latter present their audiences with their views and opinions regarding the facts, and whoever does not accept these views and opinions does not belong in civil society.

Now, on surface, the Nieman Lab crowd is not that harsh, but the result remains the same: trust our views and opinions of facts, and you’ll end up being better informed as a citizen.

And, during their research work, Nieman Lab has shown the same short memory span mentioned above: according to them, it began in the 1990s, together with what they call public and citizen journalism.

Here’s a revelation: all modern dictatorships, from bolshevism to fascism to nazism (in alphabetic order), have always strictly demanded engaged journalism; in fact, that’s precisely what they called it.

To be fair to them, the Nieman lab rats used a study published in the Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Megan L. Zahay, Kelly Jensen, Yiping Xia, and Sue Robinson, all of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote it.

Except: Nieman Lab accepts the study’s findings almost unconditionally.

Not only that: the opinion expressed by the so-called traditionalists raised the researchers’ eyebrows to the limit. What do you mean? Journalism’s only hope would be if the trade returned to basics? If it stopped treating its readers, listeners and viewers as village idiots and started providing them with real news again? Kidding or what?

So, here’s the newsflash: journalism is NOT nuclear science. It does not require much more from its practitioners than honesty and curiosity.

You will find neither of these qualities in journalism schools’ curricula. Perhaps because neither of them can be taught.

Until and unless journalists realize these simple facts, the trade is doomed.

Don’t worry, though: people will remain informed. For that, as today’s situation proves beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, they do not need journalists. People will remain informed despite all the efforts to censor them. The censors claim this or that is not based on official view or official science.

Here’s the officially popular answer: so what?

Lying: Associated Press’s new way of doing business

When someone loots, sets businesses (and, apparently, private homes, too) on fire, intimidating innocent citizens, all in the cause of what they call racial equality, just because a convicted felon, in the process of committing another crime, dies, allegedly by a police officer’s hand, what do you call it?

The Associated Press knows: if it is Black Lives Matter or Antifa or someone of their kind, it’s NOT a riot. It’s a peaceful protest, or demonstration.

Whether the person announcing this was ashamed and was only a poor messenger remains to be revealed, but the tweeted message announcing the change was signed by AP Stylebook.

Basic dictionaries define riot as “wild or violent disturbance of the peace.”

That does not sit too well with the politically correct purists at the Associated Press. Riot, they say, “suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium.”

Tsk-tsk, thus the Associated Press: “Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice…”

What grievance?

A career criminal, caught while committing yet another crime, is apprehended and dies. It is alleged he dies because of a police officer’s actions. Evidence suggests otherwise (heart failure due to drug overdose, and the drug was illicit).

An emergency department worker’s boyfriend opens fire at police officers who have come to conduct a legal search, using a proper warrant, because of drug trafficking allegations, the officers return fire, and the woman dies in the crossfire.

Of course, for those with longer memories, the Associated Press has a pretty long record of trying to introduce changes to reporting news in a most sneaky way.

In the 1960s, an AP photographer took a picture of a South Vietnamese police general executing a Vietcong officer right on the spot. A dramatic picture, but published cropped: the original included a burning daycare garden into which the Vietcong officer threw a powerful hand grenade, tearing several children to pieces.

The photograph would become a mighty symbol for all those Americans (and others) opposed to U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

It may be of interest that later accounts have claimed that the Vietcong officer was alleged to have just cut the throats of South Vietnamese Lt. Col. Nguyen Tuan, his wife, their six children and the officer’s 80-year-old mother. Not so.

Yes, the Vietcong officer was deprived of what is known the justice process, except: all of this happened in a war. As is known, wars are the worst betrayers of basic human rights.

This is not an excuse. This is a fact.

In any case, what the Associated Press has been doing with its cleansing operations involving both facts and the language describing them, is criminal.

We can use the Orwellian “memory hole” expression to characterize it, but that won’t come close to what is happening.

Today’s practitioners of the trade of journalism, especially those in what has become known as mainstream media, have quite obviously adopted the strange view that their job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Professionals usually tend to dismiss it as one social workers should embrace, perhaps, but, come to think of it, on second thought, it is wrong for them, too.

The role of journalism is to report as fully and as quickly and as honestly as possible on events as they happen, and on people within those events. It is a 24-hour-a-day job, for seven days a week, and 52 weeks a year.

There are two kinds of practitioners of the trade: reporters and journalists. Reporters cover the events, journalists think they are the events.

Some people become reporters because they are curious. Others become curious once they get to graduate from journalism schools as reporters.

These days, there are way too many journalists, and too few reporters, and too few reporters who decided to get into this field because of their sheer curiosity.

This is what creates the climate for politically correct morons who think they should be reporting on who is doing what to whom, instead of reporting on what is going on.

All meaning is lost

The new AP Stylebook revision is pretty open about it: protest and demonstration replace looting and violence, and when the violent looters say that they are fighting the powerful or, even, the government, what they are doing becomes either a revolt or an uprising.

So, the reporting is then based on whatever vocabulary the violently criminal rioters and looters decide to choose, not on fact.

The AP Stylebook crowd explain their decision in a manner that is worse than shocking. For example: the word unrest is preferred simply because it is “a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt.”

The AP Stylebook has been creating records of their own in recent past. First, they decided to capitalize the words black and indigenous. At least, they were smart enough to stress in their announcement that the capitalization ought to happen only when it is linked to racial, ethnic or cultural matters. So, black hair in and of itself remains lower case. Hallelujah.

AP’s vice-president for standards John Daniszewski had the chutzpah to write that, White people in general have much less shared history and culture, and don’t have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin colour.”

To make sure all and sundry understood what he meant, Daniszewski added: “Capitalizing the term ‘white,’ as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.”

If the Associated Press wanted to be group of village idiots, it would have been their issue. Their book, known by its full title as The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, appeared first in 1953, that is, 67 years ago.

Canada has her own media bible, The Canadian Press Stylebook. Its major thrust follows the ideas expressed in its AP older sibling. It offers some different spelling (ou instead of o in colour or labour, for example), and it deals with some differences in laws as they pertain to media.

Other than that, it is slowly becoming as idiotic as its American forerunner.

George Orwell predicted it all in his 1984 novel, as well as in his numerous other writings, including his brilliant essay, Politics and the English language. It saw the day of light in 1946, that is, almost three quarters of a century ago.

The main crime is that both The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law and The Canadian Press Stylebook have become bibles in their respective countries. In any case, thorough knowledge is a must in their countries’ journalism schools.

Most media depend on the Associated Press (and, in Canada, on the Canadian Press) as their main sources, especially when it comes to spot news.

The result: most media are now spreading mostly politically motivated and biased drivel that doesn’t inform. To sum up, most media are spreading mostly politically motivated and biased propaganda.

And that is a crime worse than any of the indiscriminate (and criminal) rioting that The Associated Press tries so hard to cover up.

Taxpayer money supports Marxist propaganda. Should it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming back full circle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New –ism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is no longer funny

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

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

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

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

Comrade, I should like to emigrate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just look around

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role reversal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valiant propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s how deep we have sunk.

And this state of affairs is no longer funny.