Category Archives: Journalism,Media

Bringing Bolshevik manners back

Just a few decades ago the Soviet regime ordered its physicians to send all those who disagree with communism into closed mental asylums. Communism is paradise, they reasoned. Anyone who doesn’t want to live in paradise simply must be a total clinical moron, if not a village idiot.

The world was shocked, and Soviet psychiatrists came under fire of heavy criticism wherever they would appear, ostracized all over the world.

Now, taking their cue from the Bolsheviks, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons have tried a bit of copycatting. They sent out an official suggestion to their members to either prescribe psychiatric medications or order treatment in closed psychiatric institutions for all those who disagree with the official news releases announcing that there exists a viral pandemic as well as those who don’t believe that they need to be vaccinated to be protected against it.

It was physician and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis who blew the whistle. Speaking to Gateway Pundit, an American website that the current establishment hates more than the sound of a dentist’s drill inside their mouths, Dr. Makis elaborated: “So this has come out recently out of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college sent out a letter or a memo to all the doctors in Ontario suggesting to them now, so far, they’re not mandating it, they’re just suggesting it, that any of their unvaccinated patients, that they should consider that they have a mental problem and that they should be put on psychiatric medication. So far, it’s just a suggestion.”

His opinion?

“But the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario should not be making these kinds of suggestions. This is extremely unethical and this is a very, very slippery slope. If they’re suggesting that people who wish to have bodily autonomy and don’t want an experimental vaccine, that there may be something mentally wrong with them, that is a very, very dangerous, slippery slope that we’re on.”

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia and other such unreliable sources spew venom on Gateway Pundit, calling it a far-right fake news website that is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories?

The Swiss have gone off the rock, too

Dr. Thomas Binder, a Swiss cardiologist with over 34 years of experience in treating respiratory infections, has been locked up in a psychiatrist asylum for speaking out against government’s Covid regulations.

Armed with a doctorate in immunology and virology from the University of Zürich, Dr. Binder has been specialising in internal medicine and cardiology.

Still the Swiss government have deemed him insane for speaking out against Covid regulations.

Here’s more detail: since the beginning of the so-called pandemic, Dr. Binder has been an outspoken critic of Covid restrictions. After he gave his own analysis on his private website, Dr. Binder was in for a mother of all shocks: 60 armed police officers and 20 members of the Kantonspolizei (regional police) Aargau’s anti-terrorism unit forcibly removed the good old doctor from his home. The authorities’ thugs searched through the doctor’s online activity and could not find anything to use against him.

Still, they brought in an emergency room doctor. It was this doctor who would describe Dr. Binder as a person suffering from “corona insanity,” a novel complaint that has not yet been described in medical books.

Dr. Binder was locked away in a mental asylum for questioning the Covid narrative.

Yet, Dr. Binder refuses to be silenced. He is now a member of the Doctors for Covid Ethics and the German Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom, and Democracy.

Meanwhile, back in Ontario

Dr. Makis also spoke about the shocking series of deaths. He meant the 93 doctors’ tragic fates, assigning the fault to the vaccine rollout.

He wrote a letter to the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), demanding serious analysis of the unbelievable increase in mortality among Canadian medical professionals, linking them all to the implementation of mandated vaccinations for medical personnel.

Writing on his Gettr account, Dr. Makis claimed that he had caught fact-checkers lying flagrantly about a Canadian doctor’s sudden death.

Three physicians at Canada’s Trillium Health Partners-Mississauga Hospital died unexpectedly within the same week.

A nurse who shared this information was very specific: the three doctors died after the hospital started mandating the fourth Covid shot for their employees.

“Three physicians at the Mississauga hospitals have died this week,” the unidentified nurse said. “1st memo Monday, 2nd Tuesday, 3rd Thursday. (The) cause of death wasn’t shared in the memos, but how many times have three doctors died in one week, days after the hospital started administering the fourth shot to staff?”

These three physicians were Dr. Lorne Segall (July 17), Dr. Stephen McKenzie (July 18), and Dr. Jakub Sawicki (July 21), all dates in 2022.

The hospital dismissed the social media speculation that their deaths were all related to the Covid-19 vaccination as “simply not true,” providing no facts to support their statement.

“It is with deep sadness that THP mourns the loss of three of our physicians who recently passed away. Dr. Jakub Sawicki, Dr. Stephen McKenzie and Dr. Lorne Segall were respected physicians who dedicated their lives to caring for their patients and community,” tweeted the hospital.

Another tweet followed: “The rumour circulating on social media is simply not true. Their passings were not related to the Covid-19 vaccine. We ask to please respect their families’ privacy during this difficult time.”

Remember the rule: never believe any rumours until and unless they are officially denied.

Respectful as becomes well-mannered physicians who know their bedside manners, Dr. Makis retorted that Dr. Lorne Segall had died suddenly of a pulmonary embolism and blood clots in the lungs.

Medical community are now in overwhelming agreement that these are not symptoms of cancer in any shape or form. These are symptoms of passing caused by the impact of the so-called anti-Covid vaccines.

And, Dr. Makis pointed out, he knew that the late Dr. Segall had been fully vaccinated when he died.

What is it all about?

Simple, in three words: divide and rule.

While the argument touches upon tragedy, it is important to remember that the idea behind it is to divide humanity along the lines of internecine arguments, keeping their attention away from the genocidal plans known as The Great Reset.

Advertisement

EU flabbergasted by Hungary’s defiance

Éljen Magyarország! Istenem![i]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfectly fascinating, noble, even.

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

What’s up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles

Lawmakers in the Bundestag share these concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hungarians are perfectly right to fight for their independence.

We should join them.


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

Do as I say, not as I do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrites? Absolutely!

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of verbatim examples:

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

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

Seized? They must have meant ceased.

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

Enough?

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

Who’ll pay the piper?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deadly amnesia

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

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

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

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

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

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By then, the damage was done.

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

While, six decades ago …

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

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

The excrement hit the fan.

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

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

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

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

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

And now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should, and could, find it now again.

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

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

Adiós, compañeros. Hasta nunca.

Facts are no excuse in politically correct world

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

He wrote to be read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How dared he?

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

That was it.

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

Neither Simmonds nor Aliu were amused.

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

@Simmonds17

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

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

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

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

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

End of quote.

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

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

Ugly head

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The attribution matters little, the content matters a lot.

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

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

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

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

South Africa gives us a serious lesson on pride and independence

The White House has a history of hosting communist leaders. Of course, it was always with the knowledge that American Presidents were talking to “the other side,” engaging the (relatively) freer world in conversations with their self-proclaimed enemies. These talks were aimed at forestalling live ammunition exchanges, replacing them with exchanges of words, sometimes harsher, sometimes sweeter.

It was supposed to be a far cry from the current incumbent Joe Biden hosting South Africa’s President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa.

But the meeting didn’t run as smoothly as the White House hoped it would.

The U.S. President’s office kept telling all interested parties (mainstream media, mainly) that Biden “has a long history on South Africa,” whatever they meant by that.

He used to visit when he was a Senator. He held hearings on apartheid in South Africa. He visited again as America’s Vice President.

And, of course, an obligatory ideological titbit: Joe Biden is very committed to and inspired by South Africa’s long struggle for freedom, racial equality, and justice.

Controlling the agenda

The meeting was supposed to concentrate on economic issues.

Ramaphosa, a filthy rich South African businessman and politician, and Biden’s junior by a full decade, changed the topics of the conversation so smoothly his host had huge trouble catching up and keeping up with him.

Officially, the agenda was to include trade, climate change, and energy transition.

Biden blew up on his own petard: he demanded that South Africa lead the rest of the continent out of its neutrality on the issue of Russia’s invasion into Ukraine.

Africa, he claimed, ought to adopt America’s position.

Biden should have noticed (and he clearly didn’t) that when the United Nations voted on a resolution condemning Russia for her actions, the vote passed with so many abstentions it should have triggered serious thought about the resolution’s validity. About a half of the abstentions came from Africa. The UN also suspended Russia from its Human Rights Commission, another meaningless move, what with committed human rights violators keeping their seats and votes intact.

Biden quite obviously didn’t expect Ramaphosa’s reply: and, pray elucidate, who are you to be telling us what to do and whom to obey?

Continuing ignorance

America has had a record of either ignoring the developments in Africa, or of giving the Africans advice in the form of orders.

In the case of South Africa, her African National Congress (ANC), an organisation as communist as communist can get, had for the longest time a Soviet intelligence (KGB) full colonel as Chairman Nelson Mandela’s principal adviser. Of the ANC income, some came from armed robberies, but most of it came in cash from the Soviet Union.

The Africans don’t forget this.

Another superpower, China, managed to sneak in, as well, and many African politicians are on record as saying that the comrades from Beijing would never tell what they had to do: they would only propose observations and recommendations, and they wouldn’t link Africans’ obedience to sending more assistance.

With South Africa the only African member of the G-20, her voice means something when other African countries receive thinly veiled threats from Washington that demand that they toe America’s line against Russia.

The U.S. Administration has drafted a document named Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act. It would legalise American sanctions against Africans doing business with Russian entities that are under U.S. sanctions.

South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor, undoubtedly with his President’s agreement secured, called the draft “Cold War-esque” and “offensive.”

Ramaphosa told his American interlocutor that “we should not be told by anyone who we can associate with.”

The Americans have sent a number of their politicians to visit Africa (so have the Russians), but it is the Americans who call the most important countries on the continent “sub-Saharan Africa,” a description the Africans detest.

Besides, only a few of today’s African countries are willing to hop in and use the unholy competition between America and Russia for sympathies, votes (and raw materials) for their own purposes. Most of Africa refuse picking a side. They just don’t want to be drawn back into the vicious cycle of being pawns in this superpower game that brings them nothing but a feeling of abused servants.

Laughed out of the room

A typical example: U.S. climate envoy John Kerry arrived at the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment in the capital of Senegal, Dakar, recently.

The result of his lecture was shocking: Africans present called him yet another U.S. official coming to lecture them about being green. The Pan African Climate Justice Alliance went even further: Kerry was performing a “public relations gimmick” that played with “semantics.”

African leaders have figured out that U.S. officials don’t really know it all. They are now allergic to Americans’ attempts to dictate to them. And that’s precisely what South African President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa told his American counterpart. Straight to Joe Biden’s face.

While, at home …

And, meanwhile, Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa is engaged in expropriating land without compensation as (his own words) “one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans.”

White farmers are the victims of these expropriations. On top of it, one white farmer in South Africa has been murdered every five days. That’s called ethnic cleansing.

Biden and Kamala Harris, his Vice President, would fit right in with Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa. Ideologically, that is.

Except, they are on the losing side of the battle for world superiority, and they keep doing everything to keep losing. Angering the rest of the world with their ignorant arrogance won’t help them any. But they’re not aware of it.

What does it mean for us, Canadians?

Why not take a correspondence course from the Africans, to re-learn a thing or two about pride and independence?

Ignorant at our peril

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s he?

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

They see in him a mirror image of themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was it democratic? No.

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

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

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

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

Getting at the rich guys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What now?

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

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

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

Different games

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only a totally irresponsible politician will ignore these warnings.

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

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

Hypocrisy, thy name is ending disinformation

Nobel peace prize winners call for action on online disinformation.

Thus a major headline in Great Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, parroted (verbatim) by America’s Editor & Publisher organisation’s newsletter the other day.

For the record, with the Nobel Committee serving as source, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 102 times to 137 Nobel Prize laureates between 1901 and 2021. Their numbers included 109 individuals and 28 organisations. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize three times (in 1917, 1944 and 1963). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize twice (in 1954 and 1981). All told, there are 25 individual organisations which have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

So, also for the record, how many Nobel Peace Prize winners had been actually involved in the cry to introduce online censorship?

The headline makes it seem that all living Nobel Peace Prize winners put their pens to the paper, including the last Soviet poohbah standing, Mikhail Gorbachev, who signed on his death bed.

The fact that only eight other peace prize recipients have joined the call is hidden, in all modesty, way below the headline.

That would be disinformation like there’s no tomorrow. As mentioned, the headline makes it sound as if the room was packed with Nobel Peace Prize laureates, and they all supported the manifesto with enviably unfettered enthusiasm.

Not many other words but censorship can describe the demand that governments adopt a technology action plan to tackle the “existential threat” to democracies posed by online disinformation, hate speech and abuse.

Who, pray elucidate, defines an existential threat? And who decides what information is truthful? Considering U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent speech that described all who disagree with him and his works as danger to pedestrians and traffic, the answer to this question is obvious. And dangerous.

Hitting the alarm bell

Journalists Dmitry Muratov and Maria Ressa, 2021 Nobel laureates, presented their 10-point manifesto in Oslo, during a freedom of expression conference. They warned that the potential for technology to advance societies has been undermined by the business models of the dominant online platforms.

Here, they do have a valid point.

A typical quote from the gauntlet powers-that-be are asked to pick up: “We urge rights-respecting democracies to wake up to the existential threat of information ecosystems being distorted by a Big Tech business model fixated on harvesting people’s data and attention, even as it undermines serious journalism and polarises debate in society and political life.”

Not much wrong with this call.

So, what is wrong?

The manifesto makes three general demands.

Here they are:

  • end the “surveillance-for-profit” business model that harvests users’ data to maximise engagement and underpins multibillion dollar spending by advertisers on social media companies;
  • make tech firms to treat all users equally around the world;
  • make newsrooms and governments support independent journalism.

Nice tears, but at a wrong funeral: they expect governments to do the heavy lifting. Here’s the issue: anything governments do for any slice of society, they demand something in return.

Besides, having governments decide what is true information and what isn’t leads to authoritarian regimes such as the one envisioned by President Biden.

It sounds great: “rights-respecting democratic governments” should demand that

  • tech companies carry out independent human rights impact assessments;
  • introduce robust data protection laws;
  • and fund and assist independent media under attack around the world.

The European Union should:

  • challenge the “extraordinary lobbying machinery” of tech companies;
  • rigorously enforce the landmark digital services and digital markets acts, to ensure they end the spread of disinformation via algorithms and change tech companies’ business models.

The United Nations Organisation aren’t left out, either: they should create a special envoy focused on the safety of journalists.

To show they mean business, The Guardian conclude their online version of the story by telling this particular reader that they noticed he’s reading them from Canada, and would he consider chipping in to cover their expenses?

They explain their request as follows (another verbatim quote): unlike many others, The Guardian has no shareholders and no billionaire owner. Just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact global reporting, always free from commercial or political influence.

Incoherent or incoherent?

Playing news that demands an end to such flagrant tracking as a top-of-the-day item on one hand and, on the other, doing (as flagrantly) exactly that would be funny.

Except, they are dead serious about it.

Singin’ in the rain: a capital crime

A TikTok social media network user who calls herself amushroomblackly should be banned from posting on any such service till the end of her days, and without the tiniest right of appeal.

Frolicking between raindrops is a “black men frolicking” trend, she proclaimed, and white people enjoying a few drops of water falling on their heads in insupportably hot weather are guilty of cultural misappropriation.

American actress Drew Barrymore had the gall to post a video of herself enjoying rain, laughing her head off and, generally speaking, being quite a normal person.

That, amushroomblackly’s rant said, is a display of the mother (father? no, parents would be the most appropriate word) of cultural insensitivities aimed at “black creators.”

Guess what? Barrymore is a “coloniser” who made it possible for millions of her followers to “dismiss and disrespect the boundaries that black creators have set.”

Thus amushroomblackly, who, quite obviously has nothing better to do with her life than watch social media to detect all kinds of slights based on race.

So far as amushroomblackly is concerned, Barrymore’s video has become an integral part of a TikTok trend that is now known as “black men frolicking.”

How come?

Here’s how: another social media network user who calls himself thexsadxoptimistic (how do they come up with such outrageously stupid names, for crying out loud?) ran happily through a meadow covered by beautiful flowers, camera in operation.

Last May, he shared the clip on another social media network a.k.a. Mashable. The recording went viral in no time, and other social media networks’ users, mostly devoid of a scintilla of original imagination, started copying him. The Daily Wire claims that the entire fad spread to black women, as well.

Here’s a description of Barrymore’s crime: she had herself recorded for a short clip showing her enjoying the rain while she was standing in what appears to be the courtyard of a city building.

“Whenever you can, go out into the rain. Do not miss the opportunity!” she tells those who have nothing better to do with their time than watch such nonsense.

Barrymore’s followers, the Daily Wire story goes on to say, were happy to see the 47-year-young former child star embracing her happiness. According to the story, she can’t boast of a happy childhood, so no wonder her fans were ecstatic.

“Watching her heal her inner child makes me so happy,” was one way a Barrymore devotee expressed it.

“PROTECT DREW BARRYMORE,” wrote another user (yes, all in capital letters, which, in the accepted Internet code of manners, means that person was shouting on top of her/his lungs).

Considering that this particular video has collected more than 21 million views at time of this writing, why does Barrymore need to be defended?

Well, come to think of it, she does: morons like amushroomblackly, obsessed with what is known as “identity politics” won’t stop until and unless they destroy whomever they think is violating their idiotic notions.

Barrymore never said she was following the “black men frolicking” trend.

Why should she? Her country still has an Amendment in the Constitution that defends freedom of expression no matter what.

So, when amushroomblackly said the happy-among-raindrops video was racist, and stressed it is racist simply because she said so (verbatim: “When we say it’s racist, it’s racist.”) she has denied Barrymore her constitutional right. As simple as that.

The debate got even funnier when another participant (guess his skin colour, you have three chances to get it right), insisted passionately that only black content creators should be posting these types of videos. Anyone who considers themselves “allies” should agree with that stance, he demanded.

“If you’re a good ally, you know when to take a step back and re-evaluate your choices. And stop,” he said. “Let black people experience black joy with each other for once.”

Daily Wire, without much comment on the issue, put together a selection of recent stories documenting cases of this “cultural appropriation” (some go even further, they call it misappropriation) idiocy.

Don’t think this is a marginal issue. This is an example of identity politics introduced by people who don’t wish humanity well.

Why? Divide and rule. That’s why.

%d bloggers like this: