Category Archives: Health and medicine

Facebook on a rampage

You have to give it to Facebook: they are censoring posts left and right, and literally so.

Their latest victim: Russian TV’s (RT) Redfish. RT’s Berlin-based digital content project suffered the ignominy of Facebook killing their posts devoted to remembering the Nazi Holocaust and the defeat of fascism in Italy.

The project, Facebook said, violated its community standards. And, as a result, more than 830,000 followers ended up looking at the typical page, featuring a hand and words saying the page is no longer available.

Yes, some of the pictures were not for the squeamish: Italy’s Duce Benito Mussolini hanging upside down was executed on April 28, 1945 by Italian (very left-wing) partisans and hung down in that position for all to see.

The Redfish post that caused Facebook consternation was published on April 28, 2021, to commemorate the event.

On whose orders?

Facebook seems to be increasingly sensitive about facts. It removed archival photographs showing survivors of the Auschwitz death camp. Redfish published that content on Holocaust Memorial Day. The United Nations Organisation (UNO) designated January 27 — the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps – to remember the Nazi atrocities.

That’s when Redfish published its post, and that’s when Facebook removed it.

Why? Photos of death camp survivors violated Facebook’s rules on “nudity and sexual activity.”

There’s no sexual activity to be seen anywhere in those photos but yes, the survivors are really not dressed in three-piece suits. They are almost naked. One can feel from the pictures that they are shaking: famished, skeleton-like, and in January which just happens to be one of the coldest months on Northern Hemisphere.

Facebook has been claiming in all of its censorship attempts that its activities can’t be judged under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s what the First Amendment says (verbatim): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, it would seem that Facebook has a point.

Except, in a typical Facebook way of life (and American way of life, too), it has been pasting a warning label on everything linked to RT, however slightly. The warning label states, again, verbatim, that the company is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.

Indeed, it seems that it is. But: so what? The truth is the truth no matter who utters it.

Yes, the Americans (and people elsewhere, following their example) have been telling all and sundry that coffee may be hot, or that shooting a gun may endanger somebody’s life, including yours.

But, RT says, and it has a pretty valid point here, if you follow Facebook’s decisions, they pretty closely resemble decisions made by U.S. government. It looks almost as if the so-called Big-Tech crowd were part of U.S. official propaganda.

RT uses another example: when they tried to post a colourised version of Soviet soldiers hoisting their country’s flag over the Reichstag (Nazi Germany’s parliament) in Berlin, Facebook removed it saying it broke its rules on depicting dangerous individuals and organizations.

This incident happened in May 2020, as most of the world were celebrating the 75th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism.

Facing this inexcusable blunder, Facebook claimed a glitch in its algorithm was the cause.

Whoever believes this statement must also believe in the tooth fairy and trust the claim that the Earth is round.

Strange links

Uncomfortably many facts stand in the way. To explain itself, Facebook would have to clarify, for example, its close partnership with the Atlantic Council. This august body is part of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) effort to (their own words) identify “emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.”

To achieve this goal, the Atlantic Council obtained the services of one Ben Nimmo. This person is a self-described troll-hunter. Unfortunately, thus far, his findings have all had one major mistake: they were not supported by evidence.

While Russia definitely is NOT a shining example of pure democracy and law-abiding government, the German Commerzbank has yet to explain why it chose to close down RT’s video agency Ruptly and RT DE Productions GmbH’s accounts.

Just to make sure they would not be able to deny their actions were co-ordinated with Facebook’s, YouTube restricted RT’s ability to launch live broadcasts for seven days.

The explanation would have been hilarious if it wasn’t tragic: older videos, uploaded a long time ago, featuring an interview with a virologist and broadcasts from rallies against Covid-19 restrictions. According to YouTube, they violated its policies on medical misinformation” and “spam, deceptive practices and scams.

And here’s the craziest part: RT’s Redfish is now crying bitter tears. It describes itself as a left-wing (or left-leaning, at least) outlet, and now, it says, it is a victim of a right-wing conspiracy.

Not really true. The truth is much simpler: the so-called Big Tech are not only denying their users’ right of free expression. They are censoring the truth no matter whence it comes.

Where’s the anti-trust legislation when we need it?

Dirty-single-track-minded profs get the cake

Oversexed professors are a danger to pedestrians and traffic: two faculty members at Montclair State University in New Jersey have announced that they demand that the LGBTQ sex education should be taught to children in elementary school.

For those who have lived on another planet since 1990 and have just returned: LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning.

To impress all and sundry who, out of sheer boredom, would read their report in full, the two Montclair State University professors (Eva Goldfarb and Lisa Lieberman) throw a Latin expression in: the idea is to teach kids who they are before “cisnormative values” become “more deeply ingrained.”

Cis – WHAT? A new word, again (in Latin: a neologism). It has been introduced into our communication systems by the community that is convinced that everybody cares about their private behaviour happening in their private bedrooms, and so should everybody be proud of them, as they are proud of themselves.

One definition explains cisgenderism as an assumption that all human beings are cisgender. Your typical Marxist critical theory definition: explain a word by repeating it.

What it means: they have a gender identity which matches their biological sex.

Sounds too academic? How about this attempt at translation into normal human language: if you were born with a penis, you think that you’re a boy, if you’ were born with a vagina, you automatically view yourself as a girl.

Clear enough?

Not to professors Eva Goldfarb and Lisa Lieberman.

Who are those people?

This, verbatim, from the school’s own website:

Eva S. Goldfarb, PhD, Professor of Public Health, works in the field of sexuality education. Over the past twenty five years, she has developed and led sexuality education and sexual health programs with youth, parents, educators, and other professionals and has trained current and future school teachers across the country. In addition to Human Sexuality, Dr. Goldfarb teaches a course in Gender and Health and works with MPH students conducting their internships and community projects.

End of verbatim quote.

MPH is another faddish abbreviation: Master of Public Health. It does NOT mean that you have to know any medicine. In fact, it almost guarantees that you will never meet a patient face-to-face.

In the accepted public relations lingo, MPH courses teach “current health and wellness trends,” so the practitioners learn the scientific methods and best practices to let them help change health behaviours in a wide range of arenas, whatever that is supposed to mean.

To muddle the matter even more, the description of MPH degrees adds it is “a highly interdisciplinary degree.”

It includes a bit of health sciences, and the bit differs from school to school. Other than that, the degree concentrates on what its practitioners describe as critical health leadership, management, and administration skills. That includes designing and implementing public health programs; managing outbreaks; monitoring disease across populations as well as developing marketing campaigns.

What that has to do with teaching LGBTQ principles in elementary schools (don’t worry, kindergarten will follow soon) remains shrouded in a cloud of stinking mystery.

The other author, Lisa Lieberman, chairs the Public Health department at the Montclair State University, but the university’s website doesn’t go into much more detail about what she knows and how she learnt it.

What’s up, Doc?

Two Professors of Public Health, one of whom specialises in human sexuality (caution: no longer about how the bees do it, rather with graphic aids such as porn films, with role-playing not far behind). The other, it would seem, is her boss.

They have studied a number of reports, they say, and these reports all support their contention. How, pray? For example: “young children are, in fact, quite capable of understanding and discussing issues related to gender diversity, including gender expectations, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression.”

Kidding, right?

Absolutely not, they report, adding that “4-year-olds expressed an inclusive understanding of marriage and a social justice stance on LGBTQ rights.”

Ben Zeisloft, Pennsylvania Senior Campus Correspondent with Campus Reform, reports that the Montclair State University duo have declared they believe that “substantial evidence supports sex education beginning in elementary school, that is scaffolded and of longer duration, as well as LGBTQ-inclusive education across the school curriculum and a social justice approach to healthy sexuality.”

The researchers claim, according to Zeisloft’s report, that one study of the many they had read indicates that “young children are, in fact, quite capable of understanding and discussing issues related to gender diversity, including gender expectations, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

If the two Montclair State University clowns are not just a bit too exuberant in their statements (this is a huge if, unfortunately), then the next question becomes critically important: how much of this gender drivel have kids learnt at school, and how much at home?

One would be pressed really hard to believe it’s the parents who feed their wide-eyed children this aggressive genderism.

That it’s the teachers is becoming more and more obvious.

It’s the teachers who have been brought up on the wildest nonsense of Marxist critical theories.

In this case, all in the name of making sure children lose sight of the most important parts of companionships, including sexual relationships. Who needs friendship, mutual respect, trust and other such old-fashioned rot? To the contrary, the quack who reaches one hundred on her/his list of genders will be expecting a Nobel Prize, and will call the committee all kinds of cancel culture names if s/he gets overlooked.

We’ve been living in too much comfort too long. Otherwise, we would have never permitted that teachers in schools we’re paying for teach our children such criminally dehumanising ideas.

We must NOT ignore it. Not only our lives, but our children’s and grandchildren’s, are at stake here.

The time to stop this crime is NOW.

Hi-tech snitching coming up

The European Union is seriously considering implanting chips into the bodies of its citizens to keep records whether they had been vaccinated against Covid-19.

This is NOT a phantasy taken from an idiotic would-be sci-fi novel. This is a real statement by Czech Republic’s former minister of health, now serving as the country’s president Miloš Zeman’s medical adviser.

His name is Roman Prymula, and he told the Czech version of CNN on Prima News that the EU has been debating in official circles, and for the record, how to distinguish between those who had been vaccinated, or tested, or who had gone through the disease caused by Covid-19 (pseudobronchopneumonia).

Lest North American readers think this doesn’t involve them, let them think again.

Prymula told the station’s Partie program that EU has been looking at issuing some kind of an identification card, or putting an application into everybody’s telephones, or implanting chips that would be readable by special devices and that would be open to recording new data as needed.

The idea, Prymula explained, would be that those who had been vaccinated would enjoy some benefits, and the EU’s economy would get help this way, too. Several countries insist on travel quarantines even for those who had been vaccinated, and this (what a nice bureaucratese expression) demotivates people’s agreement for inoculation.

Documentary proof of vaccination would be accessible not only to all of EU member countries and their authorities, but to employers and general population, as well, Prymula told the show.

Documents printed on paper, even if covered in plastic, can be forged, telephones can be hacked, but a chip that is implanted right under a person’s skin will show proven identity and status. That, Prymula explained, is the thinking behind EU’s plan.

Czech Republic has banned citizens‘ movement between individual districts other than to their place of employment, and having police check every car on each road creates unbearable traffic congestion. If a person had a chip under the skin in the area of her/his wrist, waving their hand against a device that would open a boom gate would suffice.

It used to look as if a predicted EU program, tentatively known as Total Control, was but a chimera, a bad dream, at best.

The news revealed by Roman Prymula shows that the plan is no longer a dream but, rather, new reality. Not only will it create a new apartheid, but it would also let the authorities control the movement of all EU citizens within the EU, but even while they are travelling anywhere else in the world.

Issues from outer world?

Of course, nobody in their right mind knows how to explain the so-called novel mutations or variants. These come from all over the world, they differ among themselves, and vaccination becomes futile: a vaccine aims at a single strain, while here there are not only multiple strains, but multiple variants, to boot.

And an enlightenment on how seniors in an old-folks home in Germany could have all of a sudden be infected with the so-called British variant, is lacking. We only know that it happened after they had got their second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Those senior citizens at Osnabrück have lived in strict isolation the last three months. None of the personnel had a positive infection result, either.

What gives? Can it be that the vaccines themselves can be spreading the infection?

Why have the variants (British, South African and Brasilian) emerged only after vaccinations started in Great Britain, South Africa and Brasil?

Is there a causality?

An open question for the ages.

And if it all sounds like a brand new version of serfdom, that’s because it is. American economist Martin Armstrong calls the development “feudalistic socialism,” and he has it 100-per-cent right.

Here’s what’s going to happen, and you don’t have to be a futurologist or an ancient Greek oracle from Delphi (Pytho in the original): those without chips under their skin saying they’ve submitted will become whatever class citizens, and the rest, panicked beyond belief by statements of new and new waves would view them as terrorists and shun them.

It may happen, if good old Nostradamus has his way, that those poor un-chipped people will be allowed to walk around wearing respirators. Not face masks. Respirators.

Any semblance to the Star of David? A definitely rhetorical question.

People who haven’t fallen for this artificial panic will be out of their jobs, not allowed to travel, not allowed to enter stores, including those that sell basic groceries, and if the infamous Antifa was honest, this is the kind of fascism they should be fighting.

Who’s the guy?

Roman Prymula is a 57-year-old retired Czech Army colonel, who got his medical degree from the then-Czechoslovak military university.

He became infamous in his country when he was relieved of his duties as the boss of a teaching hospital in Hradec Kralové. He stood accused of sending all kinds of lucrative contracts his daughter’s business company’s way.

Almost immediately afterwards, Roman Prymula was appointed Czech minister of health’s advisor. He would advance to the job of minister, only to be relieved when caught by some intrepid journalists breaking his own tough face-mask and no-gatherings rules.

Prymula said on the occasion he would never ever again accept any public service job.

But: president Zeman decided he needed an adviser on all things medical, and Prymula’s solemn promise went out of the window.

If Roman Prymula’s life story reminds anybody of any living politician’s story, it’s not accidental.

Vaccine pushers getting scared?

In a major case of CYA (Cover Your Behind in North American bureaucratese, a.k.a. alibism in Europe), two high-ranking European health officials conceded that the anti-Covid vaccine their agency has been pushing on an unsuspecting populace may be a danger to pedestrians and traffic, after all.

The famed AstraZeneca anti-Covid vaccine can be indeed linked to thrombosis. Thus the European Medicines Agency (EMA) chief of vaccination strategies Marco Cavaleri in an interview with the Il Messagero newspaper.

Thrombosis, in plain English, equals blood clots. These can be (and usually are) life-threatening.

Il Messaggero, an Italian newspaper based in that country’s capital, Rome, was founded in December 1878. It has a reputation of a serious publication.

And EMA is European Union’s counterpart of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that is, the body that gives its yea or nay to introduction of new medications, and its verdicts are final.

Stand by their boys

The EMA bureaucrats insist that the AstraZeneca shot benefits outweigh the risks. They state that they continue investigating the at least 44 publicly known reports of an originally extremely rare brain clotting ailment known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST).

The bureaucrats base their statement on their earlier claim that they are correlating the 44 reports to some 9.2 million people in the European Economic Area who have received the vaccine.

The World Health Organization (WHO) continues backing AstraZeneca, as well.

And the AstraZeneca company itself stands by its previous comments, stating that its own studies have found no higher risk of clots that could be attributed to the use of their product.

If anyone expected anything else from AstraZeneca, they must live in a different universe.

Armando Genazzani, a member of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), joined Cavaleri’s warning. Speaking to Turin-based La Stampa newspaper, he agreed that it was “plausible” that the blood clots were correlated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

La Stampa is even older than Il Messagero, and age plays an important role in judging European publications. It is also considered one of the most reliable Italian newspapers, politically standing at the centre.

Meanwhile, Cavaleri told Il Messagero that the EMA would say in its review that there is a link. Still, he said, he wouldn’t expect the agency to provide any indication, not this week in any case, regarding the age of individuals to whom the AstraZeneca shot should be given.

For those keen on knowing arcane pharmaceutical details: the AstraZeneca vaccine is based on a modified chimpanzee adenovirus vector, ChAdOx1. It was developed at Oxford University. Virologists describe it as one of several adenovirus-vector Covid-19 vaccines. This is the first time a viral vector vaccine has been used worldwide, with final clinical test results still two years away.

That dangerous fact holds for Pfizer’s vaccine, too: it still has two years to go before its final clinical tests become available to the makers of the product, and never mind those who are supposed to approve it (not to mention those who are to be injected with it).

Meanwhile, several countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands, have suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in younger people while they continued probing the claims of its dangerous side effects.

More details

“We don’t know yet what causes the (thrombosis) reaction,” Cavaleri told Il Messagero.

He said most of the cases happened in patients younger than 55 years of age, and most of them have been women.

EMA will offer its evaluation soon, Cavaleri said, but, in his opinion, the agency will not be able to specify age categories in which it wouldn’t recommend the use of AstraZeneca’s product.

The European Union permitted the application of this vaccine on January 29, 2021, saying specifically the authorization covered emergency use only.

How and why any countries’ authorities could interpret this to be a blanket permission to use the vaccine across the board, reaching 9.2 million patients within just a couple of months, remains unclear.

Nobody bothered to ask about, or explain, this strange phenomenon. Not yet, at least.

About half of European Union countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine by mid-March, specifically because of an unusual number of blood clots appearing in patients who had received the preparation.

A few days later, the EMA would declare AstraZeneca safe, and most of the countries that had suspended its use, would permit it again.

And now, two experts from that same EMA declare their doubts.

Only time and experience will tell whether the EMA had it right, or whether the agency should have heeded its own specialists’ warnings.

Of course, it would have cost AstraZeneca a pretty penny in stable currency if the agency (and the industry, and the many authorities that exist like an impenetrable wall between them all and the unsuspecting public) acted responsibly.

Too little and too late

Some of the bureaucrats may have noticed the signs of the writing on the wall: the prospect of an international tribunal that would include them among those on the stand, accused of crimes against humanity.

So, they are trying to backtrack, in an effort to state that it’s not really their fault that some health authorities took an emergency approval for an official across-the-board consent.

This, of course, won’t hold too much water: they could have started yelling in alarm, telling the individual countries’ governments and various authorities that there exists some major difference between an emergency and general approval.

Some seem to try use the good old excuse that they acted on orders or that they based their actions (or lack thereof) on laws existing at that moment.

Neither excuse works any longer. Not since the war crimes trials in Nuremberg in the 1940s that outlawed such put-offs once and for all.

It is expected that the future trial against crimes against humanity will also question the fact that the Big Pharma demanded and got exemptions from responsibilities for any damages and ill effects caused by their products.

How can we create anything 100-per-cent safe when there exist no two human bodies that are alike, the Big Pharma justified its request to be granted full lack of responsibility for their product.

We were pushed by governments and health authorities to act in a haste that, we concede, was indecent and irresponsible. But what could we do in those circumstances?

The idea that they could have answered with an unequivocal NO seems to have never crossed their minds.

Off the hook?

Some officials are now suggesting that those to be vaccinated should sign releases: yes, I was told that what I am getting is an experimental product and that it may have some unforeseeable side effects. I absolve those involved. The decision to get jabbed was mine, entirely mine.

If this reminds anybody of the Nazis having Auschwitz extermination camp inmates sign releases saying that yes, we were told and are aware that the Zyklone B to be released in our communal bathrooms may end up killing us, it’s no accident.

No medical product can be tested on anybody, especially not on such a scale, without blind controls and placebo double-checking performed. Doing it is a crime.

That it is also against basic medical ethics seems to have never entered the equation.

How much longer will those two whistleblowing EMA experts be allowed to keep their jobs?

Toronto calling: the jab must be a must

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

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

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

The government must be dancing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, the masses beg to differ.

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

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

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

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

Vaccination: sign your own death warrants, right here on the dotted line

People getting vaccinated against Covid-19 should be signing special consent forms, the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) has decreed in a recent decision.

NIH is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

What NIH is saying is simple: the vaccines are a medical experiment that can have unexpected side effects.

Imagine, if you will, the millions of innocent victims (Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, whoever else didn’t meet the Nazi eugenics standards) being marched to Nazi extermination camps. Before being loaded in the cattle trucks of the trains that would take them to Auschwitz or any other such place, they would be told: please sign this.

The paper they would be signing would state that once at their destination, they would have to take a communal bath, during which a chemical would be released into the air. This chemical can have side effects, such as premature death, but not to worry, we’re aware of them, and we thought you should be informed, too.

This is called informed consent in medical ethics vocabulary.

The chemical was Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide (HCN). That was the poison the Nazis used to kill at least a million people in gas chambers at Nazi concentration and death camps such as Auschwitz and Majdanek, both in Poland.

The informed consent form designed by the U.S. government agency NIH says that patients risk being turned into a virus-producing disease bag through a mechanism called “ADE”.

Looking for alibis

The Nuremberg war crimes trials (Nürnberger Prozesse) in the late 1940s not only had the Nazi chiefs sentenced to hang by their necks until death. They also made several crucial decisions. One that was perhaps the most important among them, and that is especially valid today: saying that you were ordered to do something, or that you did it because it was the law of the day, is not a valid excuse.

The Nuremberg war crimes trials brought back into action a rule known since at least the Ancient Greece: what the law commands may vary from place to place, but what is “by nature” should be the same everywhere. It is now called “natural law” (lex naturalis) or “natural justice” (ius naturalis).

The decision to have would-be recipients of any Covid-19 vaccine sign what amounts to releases of responsibility is basically an attempt to circumvent the Nuremberg code.

Remember: the vaccine producers have got themselves an exemption from any responsibility should their product damage the health of those it is supposed to help.

So, legalistically, they are off the hook.

Whether an international tribunal, one that would be judging all those inhuman violations of basic human rights that have been imposed by the various international organisations and individual countries’ governments and health authorities, accepts the Big Pharma blatant excuse remains to be seen.

But now those who are implementing it all, using medications that had not passed their final clinical tests yet, and using them en masse, want to get off the hook, too.

It is worth recalling that governments and health authorities, trying to create alibis for themselves, have approved the vaccines for emergency use only. And yet, they are pushing for blanket vaccinations for all of their citizens. They claim that the decision whether to get the jab or not depends on each individual, yet, at the same time, they leak hints that those vaccinated will get documents confirming it, and those without such documents will be limited in their actions.

If it does not remind you of the Jews wearing the yellow Star of David in Nazi times, start thinking again. If it does not remind you of limitations put on communist countries’ citizens that would curtail their and their children’s life opportunities if they didn’t join the communist party, think again, also.

Propaganda of lies

The propaganda that these individuals and authorities use to convince us to get vaccinated is overwhelming.

It reminds those who had done their homework of the seriousness with which the founder of communism, Karl Marx, viewed propaganda. In his opinion it had to be linked with agitation, and, yes, communist parties all over the world would have special departments known as agitation and propaganda (they called them agitprop for short).

Here’s what Marx had to say in his 1844 work, Human Needs & the division of Labour: “When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need — the need for society — and what appears as a means becomes an end.”

His ardent follower, founder of the Soviet Union Vladimir Iliych Ulyanov Lenin, would go to create a list of demands on propaganda:

  • Ends Justify The Means
  • Firstest With The Mostest
  • Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste
  • Demonization
  • Propaganda of Example
  • Blame Your Predecessor

The similarities between Lenin’s points and today’s propaganda should not shock anyone any longer: having abolished what they called “Red baiting” and instituted political correctness, today’s officialdom is marching in Marx and Lenin’s footsteps with the precision of a Swiss watch.

The Nazis aren’t too far behind.

This sums it all up: Hermann Göring, Nazi Germany’s Marshal, was asked at the Nuremberg trial: “How did you convince the people of Germany to accept your policies?”

Göring’s answer might have shocked only those who hadn’t been watching the Nazi goings-on carefully enough: “This was the easy part. It had nothing to do with Nazism. It had everything to do with human nature. You can master it in a Nazi regime as well as in a socialist, communist regime, in a monarchy, and even in democracy, too. The only thing to do to enslave people is to terrify them. Once you can imagine a way how to frighten people, you can force them to do whatever you want them to do.”

Göring was sentenced to hang, but he killed himself by methods unknown thus far, one day before execution.

Meanwhile, we’re being subjected to unfounded fears and asked to sign our own death sentences.

We simply refuse to heed the lessons of history.

Gorby at 90: still a failure

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

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

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

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

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

Reality speaks louder than ideology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronald Reagan was the answer he heard.

What about Gorbachev? he asked.

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

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

Still: so what about the Cold War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still: why the hoopla about Gorbachev?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-whites need not apply?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could this be the cause?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common sense.

Covid virus in retreat, Covid bullying continues

On the one hand, figures (even the official ones) show that the Covid-19 pandemic seems to be subsiding. On the other hand, it seems many governments have not had time yet to read their own statistics. So, they maintain the strict rules imposed earlier, just to make sure people don’t recall they used to live in freedom.

So, what gives?

Here’s what gives: despite Klaus Martin Schwab and his World Economic Forum’s wishes, the Great Reset, a.k.a. the fourth industrial revolution, hasn’t succeeded yet, the earth’s population still hovers around 7.8 billion instead of the 1.5 billion the Gates Foundation has been dreaming of, and individual countries still keep their individual governments, despite fervent demands by George Soros-owned Open Society that the United Nations take over.

Besides: give the bunch of semi-illiterates power that borders on the unlimited: if you expect they are going to give it up just so, you must be dreaming in Technicolor.

Shockingly, it took the RT (Russian Television) to start asking uncomfortable questions that would lead to unpleasant results.

Before we go any further: RT, an international television network, gets its funds from Russian government’s federal tax budget. Its services include pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, and Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian. Nominally, on paper, ANO TV Novosti owns RT. Its slogan is pretty modern, too: Question More.

A few details

When the Soviet Union, under Nikita Khrushchev’s leadership in the early 1960s, realized the West can be fooled into dreamless and snoringless sleep by appropriate propaganda, it created something known as APN (it stood for Agentstvo Pechati Novosti, or Press News Agency in verbatim translation). Unlike the official TASS (Telegrafnoie Agentstvo Sovetskogo Soiuza, or Soviet Union Telegraph Agency), APN concentrated on featurish stories, stuff that would fill lifestyle and entertainment sections of Western newspapers (and, later, television broadcasts).

Most Soviet journalists were aware that Novosti was a front for the misinformation department of the KGB First Main Administration (foreign intelligence). Most Western journalists never figured it out. Even such American veterans like Walter Cronkite fell for the velvet suaveness of the Novosti crowd. No wonder the Novosti guys knew their manners: most of them would study in New York’s Madison Avenue advertising agencies during the years of the so-called détente, a.k.a. relaxation of relationships between the mighty Soviet Union and the then-mighty U.S.A.

Back to the story

Today’s RT crews learnt their craft well.

So, they came up with something they would call Covid Freedom Index.

This title is linked directly to that index: RT has been updating it almost daily, crying crocodile tears all the way that “there has been little let-up in crisis rhetoric, with those in power often advocating restrictive measures that go far beyond flattening any kind of curve. New regulations are set to be in place for years, if not permanently, unless there is significant accountability and pushback.”

This statement is perfectly correct, alas. And not that it isn’t happening in Russia, too, either.

As RT puts it, all of this has been happening even though billions of people are acquiring immunity to the virus, some through vaccination, and others through having gone through the illness themselves.

In any case, RT says its new Covid-19 Freedom Index “will track the world’s leading economies, and major territories within them, to see if they are restricting their citizens, either by limiting basic rights, such as freedom of movement, essential functions, like the ability to go to school or operate a business, or freedom from technological surveillance.”

How believable?

True, all statistics have their limitations. As cynics like to say, statistics, basically, are precise calculations based on highly imprecise and suspect, even, numbers. The great American author, Mark Twain, went further still, and Great Britain’s Sir Winston Churchill loved quoting him: there are lies, damned lies, a statistics.

RT acknowledges it: all kinds of rankings may exist, but they all depend on the questions asked. The selection of questions depends on who’s asking and why.

One can use all kinds of formulas, graphs and tables, to make the final results sound as pure science, but, RT adds, its statisticians, aware of all the dangers, have done their best to minimize their bias. Ranking is subjective by its conception, whatever scientific veneer it receives by formulas and tables. Nonetheless, to minimize bias, they have tried to break down their index into easily quantifiable and weighted criteria, and rigorously source each piece of information from official publications, where possible.

Besides, and this is an important point, RT’s index tries to avoid measuring the baseline and broader state of civil rights in individual countries. It only tries to compare the input and output before Covid-19, and the input and output now.

Fair enough: a repressive country that has not implemented any additional restrictions due to the virus is still a repressive country.

RT denies having any political bias, the least believable statement of all. They claim to be shocked by the authoritarian drift the pandemic has caused. Still, they say, epidemiological situations vary from place to place. Many of the disruptions their tables mention can’t be understood without grasping the context.

RT says they aren’t judging anybody.

Considering Russia’s relationships with the rest of the world, and remembering the pure mischief RT has enjoyed reporting on, for example, the U.S. obsession with the alleged Russian interference in American politics, one has to wonder.

In any case, you be the judge.

The CDC starts doubting itself

Granted, the question of mask mandates and vaccination passports looks secondary when compared to the overall goal of the so-called pandemic promoters, but still, even their own research questions the wisdom of their own decisions.

As Canada’s Global Research reports, America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (a.k.a. CDC) looked carefully into the mandated face mask rules, as well as other so-called emergency ideas.

The word “carefully” is most important here: more than a dozen medical doctors, PhD researchers, and several attorneys, examined the mask mandates across their country. For their own reasons, they limited their reporting to numerical effects, including morbidity (number of infections in a given area within a given time frame) and mortality (number of fatalities compared to the abovementioned number of infections in a given area within a given time frame).

The WHO’s suicide

Incredibly, those are precisely the two standards that the World Health Organisation (WHO) dropped about a dozen years ago. That move came upon a recommendation by the WHO’s own so-called medical experts. Subsequent inquiry by the European Union’s health commission found that those medical experts would receive (and accept) lucrative offers from pharmaceutical companies engaged in creating prevention and treatment for flu outbursts at the time (bird flu, swine, flu, etc.).

Since the WHO at the same time also rewrote their third standard, known as speed of spread so as to make it perfectly insignificant, the European Union’s report basically stated that the WHO has stripped itself of any ability to determine anything, including epidemics and pandemics.

In any case, the CDC report is clear: it concludes that mask mandates were associated with an average 1.32-per-cent decrease in the growth rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths during the first 100 days after the mask policy was implemented.

Put bluntly: the difference between mask mandates and no mask mandates is 1.32 per cent.

Considering the evidence of willfully inflated data (hospitals get bonuses for each reported COVID-19 case, and another set of bonuses for what they report as COVID-related death), statisticians question even that 1.32 per cent figure.

Here’s the deal: judging by official reports, the flu has all but disappeared. Compared to the 2020-2021 season, when hit 56 million reported cases, this year’s numbers are as close to zero as you can get before hitting it.

Two schools of thought exist: either COVID-19 is nothing but another flu strain, or (if we consider influenza as a completely separate condition), someone must have either misdiagnosed or misreported cases of flu as cases of COVID-related illnesses.

Of course, far be it for the CDC to exclaim “Eureka!”

A note for the uninitiated: Eureka, an exclamation attributed to Ancient Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes. It signifies celebration of a discovery or invention. According to legend, Archimedes first used it when he discovered the principle that would be for ever named after him. It claims that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces.

Dive into your bathtub, if you don’t believe it.

Back to reality.

While the CDC establishes the correlation between mandatory mask wearing and lack of mandates is significant, it still finds it necessary to add, however cautiously (and verbatim) that mask mandates “have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19.”

The potential? Speak of useless verbiage. Oh, yes, several lawyers joined the CDC writers. The word potential is your typical attempt at providing an alibi to the CDC (alibism in scientific language, CYA, or cover your behind, in North American bureaucratese).

The funniest part: the WHO, shocked beyond belief by what it helped create, has backed off. It no longer views face masks as any kind of protection, and it no longer sees lockdowns as a way of stopping the spread, especially since it had no method how to calculate it, anyhow.

Who pays the piper?

Every official policy comes with a cost. While Americans who wear masks are more likely to get outside of their homes, where are they supposed to go if not to work? There’s no work, due to lockdowns.

Shopping? Who produces new goods during lockdowns?

There are even more serious repercussions, such as the alarming rise in severe mental health issues, including a spike in youth suicide, as a result of various public health policies, including mask mandates and lockdowns.

A paper published early January reported that, in late 2020, suicide rates among children in Japan jumped 49 per cent.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service (SAMHSA) in the U.S. reported an incredible 890 (eight-hundred-and-ninety) per cent increase in call volume to its nationwide suicide hotline since last April.

Nobody knows whether wearing masks makes people bold enough to go out and spend money on things such as foodstuffs, all the way to entertainment gadgets.

A few reports indicate that mask mandates force many to stay home to avoid the hassle.

Here’s another tragedy: The Washington Post reported on the latest CDC study thus: “After state lift restrictions, CDC says mask mandates can reduce deaths.”

The New York Times, another bold liar, headlined: “Wearing masks, the [CDC] study reported, was linked to fewer infections with the coronavirus and COVID-19 deaths.”

And the NBC didn’t stay far behind these flagbearers, either: the CDC report, it said with glee, was “strong evidence that mask mandates can slow the spread of the coronavirus.”

Bloody lies, all of it, of course.

But, should anyone express doubts about the official story (and figures), they are labelled “deniers,” and they are quite unceremoniously kicked off most of today’s social media. Remember George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth?

Come to think of it, Facebook, YouTube, Google, and their cohorts, should ban the CDC for publishing its doubts. They did ban a sitting U.S. President, after all, so why not a group of scientists?