Category Archives: Journalism,Media

Mainstream media copy their communist predecessors

Egged on by the ruling left-wing of U.S. Democratic Party, U.S. mainstream media learnt their lesson well from the communist method of dealing with those who dared question their policies. Attack your opponents’ characters. Don’t let them publish. Call them names. Harass them.

The leftists in the U.S. used to admire (many still do) Václav Havel, the late Czech playwright, and President following the so-called 1989 Velvet Revolution.

Whether they remember the document called Charter 77 (Czech: Charta 77) remains to be seen. It may very well be that they don’t. Their behaviour towards all they disagree with proves it.

A not-so-old example

Havel was one of Charter 77 co-authors, together with Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. Published on Jan. 6, 1977, the document called on Czechoslovakia’s Communist rulers to honour their commitment to human rights under the 1975 Helsinki Accords.

The regime, outraged by this impertinence, first of all started arresting all those who had dared sign (or distribute) the document.

Under a banner headline, Losers and usurpers (Czech: Ztroskotanci a samozvanci), the Communist party daily paper, Rudé právo started a mother of all witch hunts. The paper would not name the authors. It would describe the document a “counter-revolutionary pamphlet”. Charter 77’s authors, according to the massive propaganda assault, were the bloodiest of all bloody criminals.

The publication of the document in any of the communist country was banned, and so was any broadcast of it. But, at the same time, everybody was ordered to join the chorus of protest. Officially, people were supposed to protest something they only knew they were supposed to protest, without knowing what the hell they were protesting.

And that was still easy-going when compared to the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution of Russia, and its more than seven-decade long aftermath that lasted all the way to the collapse of the system in 1989.

Meanwhile in the U.S.

The Americans (and the many left-wing would-be Marxists in other countries who try to emulate them) haven’t yet reached the level of sending people to concentration camps, or executing them outright. Their history doesn’t permit such a fast transition to what Marxism is all about.

But, judging by what is going on, George Orwell’s nightmare, 1984, is not too far away. And neither is his Animal Farm, either.

The method now prevailing in the formerly democratic (lower-case d) countries is not too difficult to put together: silence. Do not quote a dissident’s reporting (or opinion). Not under any circumstance. Call the dissident’s (what other word to use?) character into question. Make sure to scare the dissident’s supporters out of their wits so they think twice before they dare join any protest again. Make sure to describe the dissidents and their supporters as creatures below the dirtiest animals’ level. And, most important of all, keep going at it. Repetition begets success.

Of course, even this requires a certain level of intelligence and a bit of education.

If you haven’t either, you will end up with a propaganda egg on your face. See President Joe Biden for the latest example.

Mr. Biden (very publicly) called his Russian presidential counterpart, Vladimir Putin, all kinds of words. Such as ‘killer’, ‘bully’, ‘strongman’, ‘tyrant’, ‘thug’.

Mr. Putin’s reply was straightforward: a wry smile and two sentences: “I wish him good health. I mean it seriously.”

Putin’s office went a few steps further: it said their guy would like to debate all points of disagreement with Joe Biden in a live broadcast.

This is not to say Vladimir Putin is a genius. This is to say he is much smarter than Joe Biden, a level, by the way, many can achieve without much effort.

Curious Americans

Unofficial research shows that most American citizens would like to know more about the Russian president than what they are being fed by mainstream media. Most Americans, it seems, would like to see and hear Vladimir Putin first-hand and form their opinion based on what they see and hear, not on what they are told by their own mainstream media. Especially knowing that the so-called Russian interference in U.S. elections in 2016 either didn’t happen at all (most probable scenario) or had no impact on the outcome.

Absolutely, Mr. Putin’s Russia is definitely not pure paradise, and some of the things going on there are worse than the Wild West of lore. In fact, many refer to Russian rulers’ behaviour as Wild East.

Russia has suffered from an inferiority complex for ages, feeling others weren’t giving her her due as a superpower.

Today’s Russia is following in President Donald Trump’s footsteps: make Russia great again is her rulers’ motto.

The job became somewhat easier on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020. Where there used to be three superpowers (in alphabetic order: China, Russia, the U.S.) till that day, there are now only two. Russia competes with China only. It’s not going to be easy, but it’s going to be easier than facing two strong superpowers, each with different sets of objectives and methods of achieving them.

No way back?

With left-wing controlled Democratic Party, and Democratic Party-controlled mainstream media, the U.S. has lost any hope of returning to the club of the powerful.

They are now blaming everybody but themselves: Trump is guilty of the mess at the border with Mexico, as if it had been the former president who restored the illegal immigration into the country. The steps are guilty of Joe Biden tripping three times while ascending them to enter Air Force One.

Whom will the administration and the mainstream media blame if the forthcoming Kamala Harris’s World Summit discussion on Girl & Women’s Empowerment with none other than Bill Clinton ends in a scandal (as it should)?

Here’s what the current politicos and would-be journalism pretenders should learn: history does indeed repeat itself. Once as a tragedy, next time, as a comedy.

Who said it? Karl Marx.

And here’s the point: he was wrong.

What we’re witnessing now is a major tragedy. We should not give up fighting it.

But that will take courage.

Race wars will do America in

It doesn’t pay to be poor if you’re white in Oakland, California. The city has announced its low-income families would be getting a what it calls “unconditional” $500 a month for a year and a half. Still, city parents did impose one condition: white families need not apply.

The official announcement is explicit about that: the project is only open to black, indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC).

Mayor Libby Schaaf said the idea is to fight “systemic” racism.

Oakland authorities used what they describe as the city’s Equity Index. It showed that white households earn more than any other, on average. In comparison to the black community, white earnings are almost three times as much, the officials said.

Nobody checked those figures, and nobody bothered to ask whether this discrepancy can have other causes rather than racism.

Not to be outdone, the city of Evanston, Illinois decided to use community donations and revenue from a three-per-cent tax on recreational marijuana to offer reparations to black residents to compensate for past discrimination.

In numbers: Evanston, a city of about 73,000 people, just north of Chicago, will spend $10 million during the next decade to achieve a murkily defined racial equity. The first $400,000 will go towards helping black residents with housing.

The lone city alderman who voted against the plan, didn’t do so because she didn’t like the idea of reparations. According to Cicely Fleming, the program was too paternalistic. It assumed black people are unable to support themselves financially.

Considering President Joe Biden has no issues with spending billions the country does not have to repair an artificial issue, Evanston must have endeared itself to the old guy.

What the hell is the deal?

Elementary, my dear Watsons. Marxists found out (what took them so long?) that the original idea of so-called antagonistic contradiction based on classes does not work. Yet, the concept was one of the cornerstones of their ideology.

The other cornerstone has been known as the absolute and relative impoverishment of the proletariat. It turned out that it didn’t work, either.

A number of complex reasons for both failures. The main reason, though, was the simplest of them all. Concepts made up in the insupportably peaceful and dull air of the British Museum, where Karl Marx wrote most of his seminal work, Das Kapital, just don’t match what’s going on outside, in the fresh air of reality.

But Marxism is based on hatred. That is its major cornerstone. It can’t proceed without it. Conditio sine qua non, to put it scientifically.

The easiest hatred to replace Marx’s original concepts is based on race.

Races are indisputable. Your skin is either white, or black, or red, or brown, or whatever else. As former pop star Michael Jackson’s attempts to bleach his skin showed, science hadn’t got far enough yet to succeed.

The easiest next step: distort history. Marx got away with it. Why not today’s ideologues?

Except, facts seem to interfere with the ideologues’ new maxims.

Centuries ago, Muslim Arabs in Africa enslaved the original black population in countries they ruled.

Next thing they did, they sold many of them to merchants who would take them all the way across the Big Pond.

In a historically unusually brief time, America would abolish slavery. It would cost her a major war, but end it she did.

Then came the scandal of Liberia, something today’s Marxists prefer to remain silent about.

The American Colonization Society bought the West African area for freed U.S. slaves in 1821. About 10,000 freed slaves used the opportunity to return to their native continent. And, once they did, they declared the locals their slaves.

It would take the locals till 1989 to realize something was wrong, and express their disagreement in a violent manner, thus ending the master-slave arrangement the former new arrivals had imposed on them.

Yes, expressions of racism continued in the U.S. even after slavery had been abolished, but the country’s modern history shows that its society would develop into one that would make racism and segregation dirty words.

But here comes the irony to end all ironies. In the beginning, the struggle against racism was about all races being equal. Now, people from those same circles declare that no, races do differ. And, on top of it all, white skin means that people thus afflicted enjoy what is now known as white privilege.

Perfect nonsense, of course. Just look at the so-called affirmative action that would, starting officially in the early 1960s under the guise of fighting racism, introduce another form of it. Black people would be getting all kinds of advantages in getting into halls of higher learning, without much consideration given to the question whether they qualify academically. That same approach would hold for hiring practices in the federal governments, both in the U.S. and in Canada. And any company doing business with the respective governments had to adhere to these regulations, too.

Some called it reversed racism. Wrong: it is racism, pure and simple.

Great divide

Admitting that there exist different races is tantamount to racism. This denial of basic truth is one part of the idiocy that has been dividing the world.

Claiming that one race is better than all of the other races combined is racism.

But claiming that one race is better off than all of the others just because of its skin colour is yet another sign of moronism.

It is reaching insurmountable levels of outright stupidity.

University graduation ceremonies split into groups by race. White people directing black stories as well as Asian or Latinx) equals systemic whitewashing.

One such example: American HBO network produced a documentary on famous golfer Tiger Woods. Several segments covering Mr. Woods’s personal life bordered on uncomplimentary. The battle cry of the enraged black racists: two men who didn’t know “what it is like to live life in a black man’s skin” directed it.

Shockingly, a number of white-skinned would-be intellectuals formed a self-flagellation chorus. Whether they hope that this would make their homes safe when hordes of thugs start demolishing white neighbourhoods is not known.

History teaches us that revolutions eat their own children with shocking alacrity.

History teaches us, too, that we can’t beat stupidity, but we mustn’t stop trying.

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.

Your opinion does not count as news, Judge tells New York Times

The Grey Old Lady, a.k.a. the New York Times has been caught in presenting their own opinion as fact, a New York Supreme Court judge found, and Project Veritas will now be able to put all those involved in the paper’s decision-making process under oath in a defamation suit.

Veritas accused the New York Times of acting with “actual malice” and “reckless disregard” in a number of articles covering a 2020 video report from Project Veritas. It covered allegations of illegal voting practices in Minnesota.

In another case, a Veritas video report led to the arrest of a Texas political consultant on charges of election fraud and illegal voting.

The New York Times sought to have the case dismissed. That won’t happen.

The New York Times keeps saying it runs all the news that’s fit to print, while Veritas uses its name for its reason for existence (raison d’être): Veritas means truth.

Project Veritas uses undercover and whistleblowing videos to prove its points. Journalism theoreticians may debate ad nauseam whether this is pure reporting trade or not, but the result remains: they usually hit the bull’s eye with shocking precision.

Here’s what happened: New York Times reporters Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu wrote about Veritas videos from Minnesota. These recordings showed a number of people participating in (or, at least, debating) what is known as ballot harvesting. The entire scenario was linked to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

According to the Veritas report, someone paid for the ballots and, on some occasions, filled them out to help some candidates. As luck would have it, the candidates supposed to benefit all represented the Democratic Party.

One ballot harvester has claimed Veritas offered him money to connect the alleged fraud to Rep. Omar, and that, on top of it, the footage Veritas showed was edited, thus making it unacceptable.

Project Veritas, as could be expected, denied the allegation.

What became the issue was the New York Times’ reporting. It called the Veritas tapes deceptive. Judge Charles Wood read the five New York Times articles, watched the footage, and ruled that Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu wrote opinion pieces rather than news.

In his 16-page decision, Judge Wood wrote: “The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video ‘deceptive,’ but the dictionary definitions of ‘disinformation’ and ‘deceptive’ provided by defendants’ counsel certainly apply to Astor’s and Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim.”

Veritas, Astor wrote, had a “long history” of releasing “manipulated or selectively edited” footage. Meanwhile, Hsu called the video deceptive.

This kind of loaded words, Judge Wood wrote, “could be viewed as exposing Veritas to ridicule and harm to its reputation as a media source because the reader may read these news Articles, expecting facts, not opinion, and conclude that Veritas is a partisan zealot group, deceptively editing video, and presenting it as news.”

Legal beagles for the New York Times tried to convince the Judge that readers could determine that specific wording such as “deceptive” is opinion-based and cited other news outlets that used similar language.

Judge Wood would have none of that. The paper did not meet their burden to prove that the reporting by Veritas in the Video is deceptive,” he wrote.

So far as Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe is concerned, the New York Times’ reporters, as well as their executive editor Dean Baquet, will now be put under oath where they will be forced to answer our questions.”

Whether O’Keefe is counting his chickens before they hatch or not, remains to be seen, yet.

In any case, Judge James Wood’s decision seems to indicate that not even the Grey Old Lady knows above any reasonable doubt whether all the news they print is fit to be printed.

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.

Too white, too male: a deadly sin

The cancel culture and woke idiocy seems to have no bounds: a famed Catalan translator is too white and too male to be allowed to translate a black female poet whose verses were recited at U.S. President Joe Biden’s inauguration.

The reason was, as the translator was informed, that he had a “wrong profile.”

Not only that: a Spanish publisher condoned this fit of moronism.

Barcelona-based publisher Univers said it had been they who had commissioned the translation of Amanda Gorman’s poem The Hill We Climb to Victor Obiols.

As a renowned Shakespearean translator famed also for Catalan versions of Oscar Wilde’s work, Obiols was the best qualified, Univers explained.

But, so far as Viking Books, Amanda Gorman’s U.S. publisher, is concerned this poem needs to be translated by a woman activist, preferably of African American origin.

As the Agence France Presse (AFP) reports, the American publisher did not question Obiols’s abilities. They just announced that they were looking for a different profile, which had to be a woman, young, activist and preferably black.

Univers editor Ester Pujol agreed that the Americans had every right to put any conditions in place. She went one step further, though: she found the demand perfectly acceptable.

Legalistically speaking, certainly, no question about that.

Yes, Obiols will not be able to add this translation to his list of works he helped reach the Catalan readers. But he is going to be paid for the work: he had already finished and submitted it when he was told his participation in such an august event as Biden’s inauguration would be inappropriate.

Now, Univers is looking for someone to replace Obiols. Whether there are many translators into Catalan as good as Obiols remains to be seen. And whether any Catalan translators would be willing to step in remains to be seen, too.

Obiols had this to say about the entire stupefying fiasco: “If I cannot translate a poet because she is a woman, young, black, an American of the 21st century, neither can I translate Homer because I am not a Greek of the eighth century B.C. Or could not have translated Shakespeare because I am not a 16th-century Englishman.”

In several tweets, Obiols described himself as a “victim of a new inquisition.”

He would later delete these posts. Whether he did so because, as he told reporters, he didn’t want them to be misinterpreted, or whether he was tactfully reminded to consider what would be better for him in the future, only he and his publisher know.

Amanda Gorman seems to attract all kinds of creeps.

About a month ago, Dutch poet Marieke Lucas Rijneveld was forced to turn down an assignment to translate Gorman’s The Hill We Climb into Dutch.

A black culture activist Janice Deul insisted that Rijneveld was also too white to translate the poem. The fact that, just last year, Rijneveld became the youngest writer ever to win the prestigious International Booker Prize didn’t matter. And neither did it matter that it was Amanda Gorman herself who selected Rijneveld for the job.

What was this immortal poem all about?

It described the early-January-2021 riot at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., while describing Gorman’s country’s democracy as fragile.

In the poem, Gorman called herself a “skinny black girl, descended from slaves and raised by a single mother.”

And that makes her poetry untouchable by anybody but another skinny black girl.

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?

Simple logic beats official lies ten times out of ten

The flood of data about a so-called pandemic that nobody in the mainstream media (MSM) feels free to question (or test, even) has been overwhelming.

The flood of data that questions most of the official rhetoric has been significant, too, but it meets with exaggerated labelling. Those who beg to differ with what the officials, with MSM support, claim, are labelled as all kinds of things, with the expression “deniers” being the most forgiving of the lot.

And yet, the solution is rather easy. It only requires logic.

What follows is a proposal sent to me by a friend. In his country’s language, this approach is known as “rustic wits” (selský rozum in the original Czech).

Yes, granted, he writes, most of us are perfectly ignorant about viruses. It would take too long for us to learn enough to be able to engage in any meaningful debate concerning the perfidiously invisible little devils.

But most of us should know how to put two and two together.

That is, in a more scientifically-sounding language, how to analyse the collection of data.

Need an example?

It’s a midsummer day, the weather is insupportably hot. Beer sales go through the roof. And so do the breaking-and-entering crimes. The police don’t know how to get their squads to investigate all the home robberies, there are so many of them.

The correlation? Increased beer sales cause breaking-and-entering (b&e in police shorthand).

The solution: let’s ban beer sales.

The number of b&e crimes diminishes somewhat, but not much. Again: logically, people are drinking whatever beer they have left at home, and only very few robbers are brazen enough to break into their homes when the owners are around.

Except: while the crime rate has diminished somewhat, it’s still with us.

What’s going on?

Remember: it’s still insupportably hot, and way too many people go out to buy loads of ice cream.

What does it mean?

It means that ice cream sales are the real cause of the continuing crime rate.

Next thing we know, sales of ice cream are banned.

But the wave of b&e crimes is still there. What the heck?

Can you believe it, people say banning ice cream sales violates their basic human rights, so, they go and find places where they still have it and buy it, but while they are away, the robbers use the opportunity and …

The logical answer: make sure nobody leaves their homes and those seen anywhere outside of their homes without a proper official permit must be punished to the full extent of the law.

It would take years for the government to discover that the sticky, muggy weather that summer forced people to keep their windows wide open late into the night, to make life close to bearable. That gave the robbers the chance to effect imperceptible entries and departures as they pleased.

Meanwhile, people forgot the pleasure of tasting beer or ice cream altogether, but who cares. Neither of it is too healthy, anyhow.

True? Who knows. Logical? Definitely. Probable? Absolutely.

Scary lawyers or what?

A number of Harvard University Law School students, teachers and some alumni are demanding that this august body of an Ivy League school never again hire or admit anyone whose views coincide with the opinions held or shared by American President Donald J. Trump. And should anyone of such horrible views be found anywhere on campus, they should be fired instantly.

Have they all gone crazy or is it a logical outcome of a series of events that have happened a few decades ago?

The latter answer is correct. And so is the former one.

Affirmative action gave us a former college student who had first successfully posed as a foreigner so long as it meant he would be receiving financial and other benefits. That same affirmative action would get this student into Harvard University Law School. He would become American President a few years later.

His name: Barrack Hussein Obama.

If that wasn’t scary enough then, the aftermath is even scarier.

Affirmative action has been officially defined as a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to increase the representation of particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented such as education and employment.

Most frequently, it has meant that people were advancing in their lives and careers because of the colour of their skin.

Some used to call it reverse racism. It’s nothing of the kind. This is pure systemic (and systematic) racism.

The explanation that those poor blacks would have no other chance to get into better schools without affirmative action doesn’t hold water. The examples of brilliant scientists of black skin colour who have made it all the way to the top of academic achievement are way too numerous to mention.

How it started

The ideas of equality have been prevalent in America way longer than today’s activists would be willing to admit. And the concept of affirmative action has existed in America since the 19th century. It would take then-President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 to formalize it in 1961. Later, such orders developed the system of implementation, expanding it into the sphere of education, as well.

As the policies progressed, some people would object, saying that even if those groups selected for preferential treatment had been treated shabbily earlier, there can be no quick fixes. People admitted to institutions of higher learning should know the basics before getting into academic ranks, and it takes time to change elementary education so that the university entrants can learn their chosen sciences thoroughly.

Of course, those who had introduced affirmative action would hear none of that. Those who object were subjected to all kinds of labelling. It would later develop into all sorts of official politically correct policies, and all that combined would culminate, for the time being, at least, in all kinds of cancel culture and wokeness (another illiterate idiocy, this one defined as perceived awareness of issues that concern social and racial justice).

With the lower levels of new entrants’ abilities came a logical consequence: their educational level upon university graduation would often equal (or fall behind) the demands for high school finals. The number of stories of universities forced to teach their students the art of writing simple, basic papers, and never mind such basic grammar as the knowledge of spelling, have been rampant the last few decades.

So, no wonder that these people are not only unable to understand some pretty basic issues of standard science of economics, but they also hate anyone who has the gall not only to know these issues but to implement them, as well.

Since their ability to grasp complex issues is limited beyond any comprehension, the only way they know how to debate those who know more is to label them. They use all kinds of derogatory descriptions, often not even knowing what those words really mean.

And, once they’ve labelled them, comes the action: rid us of them all.

Right? Wrong?

Some call these new inquisitors’ actions a return to McCarthyism.

Well, returning one sort labelling using another sort of labelling doesn’t solve anything.

And, besides, to use McCarthyism as a swear word is perfectly wrong.

Yes, Sen. Joseph McCarthy did attack a number of people within the American establishment. But no, his attacks were not indiscriminate.

The U.S. counter-intelligence managed to get into Soviet espionage communications traffic. The so-called Venona Decrypt used to be a closely-guarded secret, but the names Sen. McCarthy scrutinised did come as result of this breach.

Of course, those who would attack Sen. McCarthy had no idea. And many of their successors still can’t accept that he was right, even after the former Soviet intelligence archives (both KGB and GRU) opened their doors, confirming that Sen. McCarthy’s probes were correct.

Still, such deep (and naïve) thinkers as Ed Murrow of the CBS, and, later on, Walter Cronkite of that same CBS, or Daniel Schorr of the PBS, could and should have known that the Soviet Union was an implacable enemy of all things free and democratic.

We are experiencing the results of their ignorance now. People with academic degrees whose knowledge is sadly lacking, but whose devotion to anti-human ideology is overwhelming. People who got into prestigious schools because of the overwhelming lack of respect for real human values. People who demand respect for themselves and have no respect for others.

Bluntly: people keen on dismantling the system that got them all the privileges they have been enjoying, not realising that all revolutions eat their children, and their turn will come next.

Too sad.