Category Archives: Oh

Covid virus in retreat, Covid bullying continues

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

So, what gives?

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

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

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

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

A few details

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

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

Back to the story

Today’s RT crews learnt their craft well.

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

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

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

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

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

How believable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT says they aren’t judging anybody.

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

In any case, you be the judge.

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.

Will the virus finish the five-ring circus off?

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

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

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

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

Shifting views

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

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

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

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

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

Abstain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curious minds want to know

The good old rule for all kinds of curious people: don’t believe any buzz, speculation and rumours until they’d been officially denied.

A sample of questions and replies has been making its rounds on the worldwide web. Here it is, courtesy unknown questioners.

Question: If I get vaccinated against this Covid-19 virus, may I stop wearing a face mask?

Government answers: NO.

Question: Could restaurants, bars, pubs and whatnot reopen and everybody get back to work if we all are inoculated?

Government answers: NO.

Question: Will I be immune against this virus?

Government answers: Possibly. But we’re not sure. It’s probable it won’t prevent infection. Too soon to tell.

Question: Will it mean I won’t be contagious towards others?

Government answers: NO. You still may infect others. Nobody knows. Not for sure, in any case.

Question: If all children are inoculated, will schools reopen?

Government answers: NO.

Question: If I am inoculated, can I stop keeping social distancing?

Government answers: NO.

Question: If I am inoculated, can I stop using those stinky disinfectants to keep my hands clean?

Government answers: NO.

Question: If I have myself and my grandpa vaccinated, may we hug?

Government answers: NO.

Question: Will vaccination permit that movie theatres, live theatres and stadia reopen?

Government answers: NO.

Question: Will those who had got vaccinated be allowed to gather?

Government answers: NO.

Question: What real benefit does vaccination bring?

Government answers: The virus won’t kill you.

Question: Are you sure it won’t kill me?

Government answers: NO.

Question: So, if (using your own statistics) the virus won’t kill me either way, then why should I get vaccinated?

Government answers: To protect others.

Question: So, if I do get inoculated, others are 100-per-cent certain I won’t infect them?

Government answers: NO.

SUMMARY

Vaccination does NOT provide immunity.

Vaccination does NOT remove the risk of infection by the virus.

Vaccination does NOT prevent fatal outcomes (death, to be brief).

Vaccination does NOT guarantee you won’t get infected.

Vaccination does NOT guarantee you won’t infect others.

Vaccination does NOT mean travel bans will be removed.

Vaccination does NOT remove the need to ban business activities.

Vaccination does NOT remove the need to ban on leaving your house.

Vaccination does NOT mean you wouldn’t have to go on wearing face masks.

Any more questions?

Oh yes: what is vaccination good for other than for bullying people into submission, thus helping the Great Reset and other such theories’ proponents, and lining Big Pharma’s pockets at the same time?

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

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

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

And, last but definitely not least:

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

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

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

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

Judging by the points mentioned above, it has.

YouTube bans U.S. Senate testimony

Another proof of High-Tech bosses gone berserk: YouTube removed a recording of an opening statement by one of President Donald Trump’s lawyers in the U.S. Senate.

Lawyer Jesse Binnall was addressing the U.S. Senate Homeland Security to explain President Trump’s case in the allegations of widespread election fraud.

As reported by Epoch Times, Binnall announced on his Twitter account: “YouTube has decided that my opening statement in the U.S. (Senate), given under oath and based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it. To this day, ‘our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.’ Why is Google so afraid of the truth?”

YouTube is a Google subsidiary.

According to Epoch Times, another video of Binnall’s testimony, uploaded on Dec. 17 by a separate account, appeared to be still up.

The Epoch Times, the only major media outlet that made this into a headline thus far, asked YouTube for comment. No report yet of any reply.

We told you so?

YouTube announced on Wednesday, Dec. 9, that it would remove “content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. presidential election.”

Herewith its explanation: the “safe harbour” deadline on Dec. 8 in the presidential election had passed.

What this means: Dec. 8 is the day by which all states have to certify election results within their boundaries, basically telling the Congress this is what it is.

Except: the election in November selects only the electors. They, in turn, should vote on their states’ behalf in the College of Electors (Monday, Dec. 14, this year).

Yes, it is expected that their votes would reflect their individual states’ results, but: there are still outstanding legal challenges regarding the Nov. 3 election.

Said YouTube: “For example, we will remove videos claiming that a presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come.”

To cover their behinds, YouTube poohbahs added: “As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific, or artistic context.”

No word on what precisely that is supposed to mean.

Binnall, who filed lawsuits on behalf of Trump in Nevada, told the Senators that the election in the Silver State was riddled with fraud.

“Thousands upon thousands of Nevada voters had their voices cancelled out by election fraud and invalid ballots,” Epoch Times quotes him as telling the Senators.

Binnall provided an explanation: “Here is how it happened. On August 3rd, 2020, after a rushed special session, Nevada legislators made drastic changes to the state’s election law by adopting a bill known as AB4.”

That bill relaxed restrictions on mail-in ballots.

Trump’s campaign, in its attempts to seek audits of voting machines or ballots, did not receive the transparency as required by law.

The presidential incumbent’s campaign officials were refused access by state election officials to the code of voting machines for a forensic review. They were not allowed to check whether “they were hooked up to the internet.”

Binnall added: “We weren’t allowed near them … we weren’t allowed a forensic audit.”

The situation would become almost a bizarre case for the Keystone Kops of the silent movie era at one turn, Binnall told the Senators: a Nevada official “locked himself in his office” and wouldn’t open the door when Trump’s lawyers tried to serve him a subpoena.

Americans demand politicization of Olympic Games

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selective, that is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schwab hit by his own boomerang

What goes around, comes around: Klaus Martin Schwab is beginning to face the consequences of the worldwide storm he has helped to unleash.

His detractors used to hope that Schwab’s actions or behaviour will eventually have consequences for him, even if indirectly. At the moment it is Schwab’s employees, not Schwab himself, who has become a victim of the same negative circumstances that he has inflicted on others.

Talk about boomerang effect: as reported by Armstrong Economics, Schwab has landed in a soup. His efforts to destroy the civilized world have forced him to start slashing his own workforce.

Oyvey, so Schwab’s Stakeholder Economics, a school of idiocy (definitely not thought) that Armstrong Economics so aptly described as Feudalist-Socialism, have failed.

Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) has not only been forced to start to slash its workforce, it can no longer afford staying in Davos or on the Bürgenstock.

The latter location is a five-star resort high above Lake Lucerne in Switzerland.

Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution gathering is expected to move to Singapore because of the coronavirus crisis Schwab has helped to unleash and tried to exploit.

Schwab’s philosophy is simple: destroy the world economy and, using what Schwab describes as Great Reset, “build back better.”

Simple, Schwab and his marketing guru, Richard Edleman, say: just redirect the way how the economy should work, with him and his coterie as elitist overlords.

Now that the obstacle of reality has appeared in Schwab’s way, it would not be too easy to predict his next steps. While his accent is South German, and Adolf Hitler’s was Lower Austrian, their vocabularies are very similar. On the other hand, Schwab now finds himself in a situation that used to stare in the face Vladimir Iliych Ulyanov-Lenin.

Great revolutionaries

Shortly after his Great October Socialist Revolution (Великая Октябрьская Социалистическая Революция, celebrated in Russia even today on November 7), with the civil war (гражданская война) just about over, the country was hungry and angry.

Lenin has come up with an attempt at a solution. He called it New Economic Policy (Новая Экономическая Политика, that is НЭП or NEP for short). Lenin would permit a bit of a return to owning private businesses, a bit of capitalism, with a piece of Russian colouring thrown into the mix.

It seemed to work to a degree. The danger of famine was avoided, and so was the risk of a widespread insurrection that would have dealt Lenin’s communism a mortal blow.

Then Lenin died. Josif Vissarionovich Stalin, originally known as Dzhugashvili, took over. As soon as the Son of a Jew (that’s the translation of his original Georgian name), or Man of Steel (that’s the translation of the revolutionary nickname he had adopted) felt firmly established, he did what Lenin would have done, had he been alive: he took the gloves off and showed the people what the dictatorship of the proletariat (диктатура пролетариата) was all about.

It would cost tens of millions of innocent lives, but who cares, when you cut forests, chips fly around (Лес рубят – щепки летят).

Shocking or to be expected?

Of course, Klaus Martin Schwab has been used to success. Rich people and irresponsible governments, abusing their taxpayers’ money, would pour huge amounts into his accounts.

And now, almost 10 per cent of people working for the World Economic Forum have been let go, with not much information available on whether they would be asked back, and if so, when.

Here’s the breakdown of WEF’s sources of income, as compiled by Armstrong Economics: membership fees range from 60,000 to 600,000 Swiss francs a year ($67,337- $673,370 in U.S. greenbacks). Tickets for participation in the WEF cost extra: around 25,000 francs each ($28,061, again, U.S.).

The return on investment for those who pay such exorbitant sums sounds somewhat light-weight: participants can rub shoulders with sundry heads of state (many of them heads by title only), politically correct scientists (those with opinions of their own are anathema), and Hollywood stars.

Without these people showing up, Schwab will have no attendance, Armstrong Economics points out, and they have a valid point.

Meaning, of course, that the elegant, well-shaven and coiffed crowd, wearing well-fitting suits, is not really aware of what is going on among the masses of the unwashed, that is, among the majority of humans inhabiting this planet.

And, if Schwab falls his face first in the mud of insolvency, he must know them well enough to be aware that they would desert him in droves.

Whether they would realize that it was precisely the implementation of his moronic ideas that drove him closer to the poor house remains to be seen.

Holy cow!

But no need to despair: the Vatican is coming to help. Pope Francis has announced that his government is going to partner with Fortune 500 companies.

The idea, thus the Holy Dad: address various economic grievances, including inequality and environmental degradation.

It’s not going to be the biblical the meek who shall inherit the earth, certainly.

The would-be Marxist on Vatican Hill is planning to form what he has the chutzpah to call a “historic partnership” with big business, known as the Council for Inclusive Capitalism.

If it does ring a bell, it should.

Why the Catholics of the world haven’t yet united to throw that rascal of their Pope out remains a mystery.

Let’s hope that now, when they see what Schwab and his cohorts have imposed on them, and how His Holiness is helpful in their effort to destroy the world, they would wake up.

Either that, or Armageddon.

With a faint hope that it won’t last so long for Schwab’s plans to fail as it did for the Soviet communists to come down crashing.

Trudeau’s newest step: harassing India

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just can’t help himself: as if the major scandals he had caused during his visit to India a few years ago weren’t enough, now he’s poking his nose into India’s internal affairs in an attempt to win a few more votes at home.

And the government of India have told him they would have none of it. They could have hardly been more straightforward: “We have seen some ill-informed comments by Canadian leaders relating to farmers in India,’’ said Anurag Srivastava, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesman.

“Such comments are unwarranted, especially when pertaining to the internal affairs of a democratic country. It is also best that diplomatic conversations are not misrepresented for political purposes.’’

Basically, here’s what Anurag Srivastava told Trudeau: learn you manners, you imbecile you, and meanwhile, until and unless you’ve learnt them, keep your mouth shut.

India has adopted new farm laws, and Sikh farmers aren’t too happy about them.

There are 18 Sikhs among the 338 members of Canada’s House of Commons, and three of them have made it all the way into Trudeau’s cabinet.

Instead of adjusting themselves to Canada, the majority of the about half a million Canadian Sikhs, mostly second- or third-generation Canadian citizens, keep close ties with their old country. They also have strong influence over immigrants who come to Canada from that corner of the world.

Most of their relatives live in the state of Punjab, and most of those relatives are farmers.

Many Sikhs in the old country have wanted to separate from India and create what they called Khalistan. The idea seems to have lost a lot of its traction in its last three decades – in India. Sikhs elsewhere, and those in Canada, in particular, seem to go on embracing the plan, annoying the government in New Delhi beyond belief.

Trudeau wasted no time throwing more fuel on the fire.

“Let me remind you Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protest. We believe in the importance of dialogue,’’ he said. “We have reached out through multiple means directly to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns.’’

As could be expected, a number of overseas Sikhs would spring into action following Trudeau’s intrepid observations: let’s support the farmers.

What happens usually in Hollywood, happened in India’s Bollywood, as well. Actors, singers and other such entertainment crowd, mostly people who wouldn’t recognize a farm if they saw one, joined the chorus.

People in North America may be used to such posturing and they view the so-called celebrities taking sundry political and economic positions askance in growing numbers. People in India will still need some time to realize that being able to move in front of a camera does not yet a genius make.

A serious issue

Sikhs also form a critical part of India’s armed and security forces, and that concerns the country’s government enormously. Besides, neighbouring Pakistan used the separatist tensions of the 1980s and early 1990s to fuel the escalation with weapons, money. It also declared its support for the creation of Khalistan.

In what used to be described as an era of terrorism, thousands of lives have been lost, including that of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

And on June 24, 1985, Canada’s terrorists of Sikh origin planted bombs on two Air India jumbo jets. One cost all of the 329 lives aboard following a crash into the sea off Cork in Ireland.

The other plane was delayed at Tokyo’s Narita airport. The aircraft would be a write-off, of course.

India at the time expressed outrage over what it described as lax security for flights to India originating from Canadian airports.

Since then, Canada’s governments have been very careful so as not to hurt India’s sensitivities.

Opportunistic vote chasers

Of course, some politicians, eager to secure Sikh votes and support, would cross what New Delhi sees as a red diplomatic line from time to time.

They are aware that Punjabi is the third most-spoken language in Canada after English and French (and long before Chinese and all other tongues spoken in the Maple Leaf country). A fifth of all Canadian Sikhs live in Surrey, British Columbia and Brampton, Ontario. There are strong pockets in Calgary, Alberta, and Abbotsford, B.C., too.

Officially, Canada states that “Canada respects the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of India and the government of Canada will not recognize the referendum.’’

And then a high school substitute teacher of drama comes in and starts behaving like a hippo in a china store.

Clowns are supposed to entertain all and sundry, not to break relationships between countries that are supposed to be friends.

European Union creates thought-police

Lest you think life’s tough on this side of the Big Pond, herewith comes something out of the ordinary from the other side: Michal Šimečka, a Slovak member of European parliament, proposed that the European Union create a special police force. It would be called ideological police. The motion carried safely, with a majority of Mr. Šimečka’s colleagues voting for it.

By way of introduction: Michal Šimečka is the Vice-Chairman of the political party known as Progressive Slovakia. He was elected Member of the European Parliament in the 2019 election. Journalist Martin Milan Šimečka is his father. The philosopher, writer and anti-communist dissident Milan Šimečka was his grandfather. If only the old guy knew where his grandson was headed, he would be turning in his grave: the old Šimečka suffered at the hands of the communists following the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, and he only got to enjoy freedom that came after the so-called Velvet Revolution of 1989 for less than a year.

What are the ideological police going to do? They will investigate and announce at least once a year their evaluation of all European Union countries. The report will answer deep thinkers’ questions such as: do they maintain the EU’s values and do they base their existence on the law (meaning: are they lawful states, yes or no, whatever that is supposed to mean)?

The idea is to evaluate the countries without any bias and taking sides, the adopted motion states.

By way of explanation, Mr. Šimečka said that countries such as Hungary and Poland aren’t lawful.

Why? Because their governments dare act the way they promised their voters they would. That includes rejection of sundry EU decisions on, for example, enforced immigration of so-called refugee claimants from the Middle East and North Africa, most of them undocumented.

The ideological police reports would propose that whatever the EU deems correct would be enforced. Individual countries would be told to amend their laws or change whatever government offices the EU ideological police find unsuitable. If they don’t do as told, their prime ministers would lose their voting rights in all EU bodies that require voting, and their countries would also lose access to whatever funding the EU is providing to its membership states.

Mr. Šimečka even found an expression that looks official enough: budgetary pre-conditions.

But, oh happy circumstance, the so-called non-government organizations (NGOs) that promote EU values on the territories of countries that would be facing punishment, would continue receiving their grants nevertheless.

The country that hosts them would be sanctioned by the EU, but the NGO that avoids paying taxes to that country, would be flourishing on.

What values?

On paper, the EU is filled with quite properly sounding views: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, maintaining law and order, upholding human rights, including minority rights. Pluralism is a must as a matter of course, while discrimination of any sort is a no-no. What we need is solidarity, tolerance towards others, equality between men and women.

Sounds great, but life has proven that such blanket proclamations can hardly be worse nonsense when applied universally, ignoring all potential exceptions. And once you accept exceptions, there goes universality.

In any case, Mr. Šimečka’s motion, bound to turn into law pretty soon, forbids the membership countries’ citizens to vote as they see fit, for the people they consider guarantors of their countries’ present and future.

The ideological police would be reporting to the European Commission (de facto government), European Council (an advisory gathering) and European Parliament. The current NGOs will be helping, but they won’t suffice: new non-profit groups ought to be formed, in order to monitor the borders between individual member countries.
This equals snitching on their country’s government, using their country taxpayers’ money.

These numbers are the most shameful data of all: 521 members of the European Parliament, that is, about three-quarters of them, voted for the motion, 152 were against, and 21 were scared enough to abstain.

According to explanatory notes to the motion, the EU has been too lenient lately, letting its membership countries do as they pleased, allowing those naughty Poles to try to make Poland great again, and letting those undisciplined Hungarians do similar things to their country.

While in North America …

Yes, we can think of shrugging all of this off: who cares what happens across the Big Pond. If we do, we’re blind.

The New York Times has seen nothing wrong in publishing a piece by Peter Beinart, suggesting the United Nations should step in and take the U.S. over, should the incumbent Donald J. Trump win the presidential re-election.

Certainly, it was published on the Gray Lady’s op-ed (opinion and editorial) pages, and Mr. Beinart is an outside writer, too (editor-at-large at Jewish Currents), and everybody has an unalienable democratic right to be as stupid as stupid gets, but the fact the Gray Lady never challenged Mr. Beinart’s idiocy is telling.

Jewish Currents calls itself a progressive, secular Jewish quarterly magazine and news site that is on the Jewish left. In typical left-wing way, it abuses the word progressive, but that’s another chapter of political debate.

Not so long ago, a guy named Zack Ford, who calls himself a social justice warrior (SJW for short), stated for the record that the only way to “fix” the United States would be for the United Nations to take it over and make it a part of the so-called New World Order.

Ford, who acts as press secretary for the far-left special interest group Alliance for Justice, went on Twitter, suggesting precisely that. He wrote in words that expressly suggested outright violence. How he managed to get around Twitter’s terms of service that prohibit calls for violence remains a mystery.

Ford was, of course, smart enough, to say that no violence was required, a peaceful takeover would do, but considering that many Americans’ reaction to such a move could be predicted with accuracy, Ford’s words were bound to ignite violence.

Reflecting on what’s going on in America these days, Ford used the expression “hot mess.”

Ford himself mentioned on more occasions than one that he receives his funding from George Soros’s bank accounts.

Considering it had been a Soros project to start what is now known as “colour revolution,” and that way too many Americans (of those who take time to think) are opposed to it, no wonder that Zack Ford calls for foreign intervention.

Any semblance to the European Union ideological police is NOT accidental.