Category Archives: Oh

Journalism going down the tube: what else is new?

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

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

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

The results

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

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

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

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

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

Does history repeat itself or does history repeat itself?

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

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

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

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

How about: they cried wolf too often?

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

How splendidly ignorant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the officially popular answer: so what?

Crazy nonsense leads us nowhere

The idiocy of Justin Trudeau’s government really seems to be unlimited. One would say that Canadians deserve better, but who voted him in? Twice, to boot? Martians?

The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, Minister of National Revenue, announced the appointment of the new Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson, Mr. François Boileau.

She found it necessary to emphasize that “this appointment was made via an open, transparent and merit-based process.”

Which only means it was nothing but.

Nothing against Mr. Boileau. He may be the answer to all that ails Canadian tax system (and, then again, he may not).

Here’s the idiotic part: Ms. Lebouthillier, in her announcement, thanked the previous Taxpayers’ Ombudsman, Ms. Sherra Profit (a strange name for an ombudsman, but that ought to be reserved for stand-up comedians’ routines). Ms. Profit, the minister said, was dedicated to her work and taxpayers during her tenure.

A stinking bomb

And then Ms. Lebouthillier dropped the bomb: effective immediately, her announcement said, the title for this position is changed from Taxpayers’ Ombudsman to Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson.

She proceeded to explain that “the Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson (OTO) operates to enhance the CRA’s accountability and service to the public. The OTO upholds taxpayers’ service rights as outlined in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and reviews complaints from taxpayers to ensure a fair resolution.”

Whether those who were reading her public release got that far in reading it, as they lay on the ground convulsed in laughter (or in uncontrollable tears), is another question.

Ms. Lebouthillier’s nominal boss (taxpayers are her real boss), prime minister Justin Trudeau, became a laughingstock and comedy material all over the world just a few years ago after he interrupted a woman and corrected her for saying “mankind” not “peoplekind” at a town hall event.

Here’s what happened then: an audience member took about three minutes to talk about her church and the special power of “maternal love.”

She then asked Trudeau to look at laws surrounding the charitable status of religious organisations, explaining: “Maternal love is the love that’s going to change the future of mankind.”

Instead of answering the question, Trudeau said: “We like to say ‘peoplekind,’ not necessarily ‘mankind,’ because it’s more inclusive.”

Amongst the gales of laughter, critics accused Trudeau of “virtue signalling” (whatever THAT means), of being too politically correct (was pretty obvious), and for “mansplaining.”

This word deserves a bit of explanation: coined by a feminist writer named Rebecca Solnit, mansplaining is a pretty insulting term.

Ms. Solnit summarized the then-new word thus: someone (usually a man) comments on or explains something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner.

Ms. Rebecca Solnit added (in quite understandable anger) that this mansplaining phenomenon was actually a combination of “overconfidence and cluelessness.”

Something (a lot, in fact) to it.

All of this has roots in perfect illiteracy: the three letters (man) do not necessarily mean a male person.

First of all, herewith a bit of a definition: a government official appointed to receive and investigate complaints made by individuals against abuses or capricious acts of public officials is called Ombudsman in the Swedish language. An advocate for the general public. That’s whence the original idea has come.

There is no he or she in the name. To be strictly precise, an Ombudsman would be an it. Simply faceless as faceless can be. And genderless, too.

An old song

Not that the argument about the expression ‘man’ in a number of words is new.

In the early 1980s, Bob Skelly of the NDP represented the north of Vancouver Island in Canada’s British Columbia in the province’s legislative assembly.

For those who read this south of the 49th parallel, and are less than well-informed about Canada’s political parties: NDP stands for New Democratic Party. It is very openly a party of social democrats that is on occasion more left-wing, on occasion less, but always left-wing.

A party known as Social Credit (Socred for short) was not only firmly on the other side of the political spectrum at the time, it also was in government.

Anyhow, one day, Bob Skelly, representing Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, asked a question of a government minister, Grace McCarthy, who was at that moment chairing a committee.

Madame Chair, thus Bob Skelly, to which Ms. McCarthy shot back: she uses two legs to stand on, not four, and she was perfectly fine with the honourable member calling her the real name, that is, chairman.

In the general mirth that would follow, somebody yelled at Skelly that “she’s more man than you, Bob!” – thus demonstrating for all to hear that neither side was literate enough to know that gender had nothing to do with this particular title.

The new taxpayers’ Ombudsman, Mr. François Boileau is a guy of no mean achievement. A Bachelor of Civil Law from the University of Ottawa, and a Bachelor in Political Science from the Université de Montréal, and former Ontario French Language Services Commissioner. Not bad.

The irony is that his predecessor, a woman, was an Ombudsman. He, a male, becomes an Ombudsperson.

Of course, on the surface, the issue of indiscriminate changes and uncalled-for modifications made to the good old English language seems to belong on the back-burner of our everyday lives.

But it doesn’t. Just as the proponents of these changes argue they symbolize something, it is true. Except: they do not symbolize any progress in the male-female equality world. They symbolize an obsession aimed at diverting our attention away from real issues.

Such as: the idiocy of Justin Trudeau’s government really seems to be unlimited.

The mother of all definitions

Everybody and their dog speak of political correctness, yet, not many (not even the politicians and their hacks) are able to provide an all-encompassing definition of it.

Whatever suits them becomes the definition of the day (in today’s world commanded by speed and speed alone, of the second).

And yet, there exists a brilliant description that meets all of the possible requirements needed to make it a definition.

Here it is: political correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

According to alleged eyewitnesses, this one is 75 years old, written by then-president of the United States, Harry S. Truman.

There were supposedly four telegrams exchanged between General Douglas MacArthur and Truman, his commander-in-chief, on the day before the actual signing of the WWII Surrender Agreement in Japan, September 1, 1945.

Now, in reality, there were not, but the texts (they have been circulating on the world-wide web since at least a decade and a half ago) are funny.

The next few paragraphs include the messages as they have been circulating.

The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as received at the end of the war – not a word has been added or deleted!

(1) Tokyo, Japan 08:00-September 1, 1945.
To: President Harry S Truman
From: General D A MacArthur
Tomorrow we meet with those yellow-bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions?

(2) Washington, D C 13:00-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur
From: H S Truman
Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press, because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!

(3) Tokyo, Japan 16:30-September 1, 1945
To: H S Truman
From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz
Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?

(4) Washington, D C 21:20-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz
From: H S Truman
Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

Here’s the first problem: the expression, ‘mainstream media,’ is so frightfully new, not even Truman, who could see far ahead, could imagine its existence.

Too bad the real author has never come forward. To collect her/his well-deserved royalties, at least.

The second problem can be described as a minor technicality: the Truman Library and Museum’s reply to a question about the exchange by an Internet user earlier this year:

Greetings from the Truman Library,

Thank you for your question! This purported exchange of telegrams between General Douglas MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman does not exist at the Truman Library. One of the ways you can tell this exchange is not accurate is that they have Chester Nimitz’s middle initial wrong – his middle initial is W, not H. The “telegrams” contain other terms that did not exist in Truman’s time, such as “mainstream media,” and terms that military officers of MacArthur’s rank would not have used in official communications. It also suggests a level of camaraderie and familiarity between General MacArthur and President Truman that certainly did not exist.

What a pity

Still, even though not coined by Harry S. Truman, the definition sticks.

A very recent opinion piece published by the Salt Lake City Tribune proves that some people still haven’t heard that just as a woman can’t be pregnant only in part, so a society cannot be based on democracy and socialism at the same time.

History has shown that this arrangement doesn’t work, and yet, some people still believe that the failed idea can be made to work somehow, if only we tried hard enough.

The three men whom the Salt Lake City Tribune identifies as James Smithson, Richard Saltzman and James Glenn claim they’ve seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s not an oncoming train, it is the first rays of the bright future named socialism.

They open their diatribe by saying (verbatim): “Socialism” is currently a hot-button word that is too often misused.

Of course, nothing is easier than interpreting a politician’s words in a way he might and might not have meant them.

To prove their point, the Salt Lake City Tribune trio use a Truman Library and Museum’s recording of a speech Truman gave in Syracuse, New York, in 1952, when he was supporting then-Democratic Party’s presidential candidate Adlai Stephenson.

For the record: no matter how hard Truman tried to denigrate the other (Republican) party candidate, Dwight David Eisenhower, the general would win. Stephenson would come to the White House only when invited by a current incumbent.

The trio are trying to explain that socialism is, in fact, a benign idea that only helps the wide masses of people. They select a few words from the conclusion of the Truman speech. He didn’t like it that the Republicans would call most (if not all) of Democratic Party ideas of enhancing government role in national economy ‘socialist.’

Of course, Truman could not know at the time that his predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal would be hanging like a mill stone around the neck of America within just a few decades. But he could (or should) have known that Italy’s fascist Duce (leader) Benito Mussolini admired Roosevelt’s persistent socialization of the U.S., and the FDR had to send a special envoy to Rome to ask the fascist supremo to at least tone down his public accolades addressed at Roosevelt and all his works. It is quite possible Truman was aware of this incident, but no real proof exists.

In any case, the Salt Lake Tribune writers, James Smithson, Richard Saltzman and James Glenn, could have known it, too. If only they did their homework.

The trio present their personal stories that, they write with all seriousness, helped them along the way to “see that if government partnerships to promote public goods are what we are calling socialism, then a little well-placed socialism might be a good thing.”

And: “We shouldn’t be so quick to assume that socialism is always a bad thing.”

They conclude that socialism does not result in a loss of freedom, undermining individual productivity. It does not necessarily lead people down a dangerously slippery slope to communism.

Really?

Had they done their homework on Harry S. Truman a bit more thoroughly, they would have known that he was throwing those soothing words about socialism out because of electioneering.

Truman fought socialism on the world stage with commendable vigour. The Marshall Plan, intended to help restore Europe devastated by war, his Truman Doctrine that was supposed to contain Soviet geopolitical expansion during the Cold War, and many other measures are proof that he knew the socialist danger.

In today’s world, apologists for socialism are apologists for violence, discrimination, racism (what else are the Black Lives Matter groups than bands of illiterate racists?), and general mayhem that would end up destroying civilization that we fought so hard to achieve.

It is a pity that Harry S. Truman didn’t write these unforgettable words defining political correctness.

Still, it would be useful to remember them.

Political correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

This is no longer funny

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

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

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

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

Comrade, I should like to emigrate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just look around

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role reversal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valiant propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s how deep we have sunk.

And this state of affairs is no longer funny.

A moral dilemma: to burn or not to burn?

The capitalists will happily sell the proletarians the rope with which the proletarians intend to hang them, provided the capitalists get a good price for it.

Thus the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov-Lenin.

He knew whereof he spoke: at the time Ulyanov-Lenin uttered these words, he had made a deal with American businessman (and, originally, physician) Armand Hammer. Lenin persuaded Hammer to abandon his planned Russian medical practice and go into a business venture there, instead. It started with making pencils (which the illiterate muzhikiмужики – Russian for peasants – must have appreciated beyond belief).

The venture would end soon after Ulyanov-Lenin’s death in 1924, but: Hammer did return to the United States in 1930, his suitcases filled with paintings and jewellery pieces. These objets d’art used to belong to the Romanov imperial family. The Soviets needed cash, the Romanovs were all dead, anyway, shot by the Soviet Red Guards in Yekaterinburg on Ulyanov-Lenin’s personal orders, and Hammer was perfectly willing to pay cash.

The relationship would keep developing till Hammer’s death in 1990.

The official record insists Hammer got into oil business merely by pure accident, egged on by a friend. No matter how that happened, FBI investigated some strange dealings and found these companies were used to launder dirty Soviet money. According to published reports, Al Gore Sr. joined Hammer in this humanistic undertaking. Of course, the U.S. Representative and Senator for the Democratic Party from Tennessee made sure the probe went nowhere. Still, the FBI never challenged the published reports, and it has been suspected that the Bureau itself might have been involved in their publication.

Story continues

It will be 64 years this November since then-Soviet chief communist Nikita Sergeievich Khrushchev told the Americans that the communists will bury them.

This statement made instant headlines, and (as happens so often with modern media) most of what Khrushchev would say later would get lost. Not in translation (Khrushchev’s personal interpreter Viktor Sukhodrev knew his job to a t). It just wasn’t as catchy and sexy as the headline-grabbing burial statement.

But, it turns out, Khrushchev wasn’t as naïve as many thought he was.

Here’s what he had to say on that rainy November day in 1959: “Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have communism. We will not have to fight you; we will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

“The democracy will cease to exist,” Khrushchev finished, “when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

If this last statement reminds anyone of what is going on in Canada even as we speak, three cheers for their observation powers.

A spy speaks out

As if to confirm the former Soviet boss’s words, a former Soviet KGB spy Yuri Bezmenov spoke about the ways the originally unthinkable can be achieved without too much effort on the Soviet Union’s part.

He recorded this interview in 1984 (a significant year, wasn’t it?), and it has begun making rounds on social media networks again these days.

For a pretty good reason.

The Soviet Union does not exist any longer, neither does the KGB, but people who still believe in totalitarianism in the socialist vein have never disappeared from the scenes completely. Now they are back, louder than ever.

After all, whoever believed that the Soviet Union’s successor, the Russian Federation, would disregard its predecessor’s imperial ambitions knew not whereof they spoke. Russia’s imperial ambitions did not begin with the Soviet Union, the Tsars used to have similar goals.

There have always been internal struggles in Russia whether she should open herself towards the west more, or whether she should close the door. But the stated fear that nobody loves them and therefore they must be vigilant and continue getting stronger, has been there for ever.

No, we’re not paranoid, but, frankly, everybody’s after our throat, and we know it.

Add to it the Marxist conviction that this is the only bright future the world should strive for, and you have a perfectly dangerous mix.

A frank disclosure

A KGB officer, known as Yuri Bezmenov (only he knows what his real name was), defected to the U.S., and in an 1984 interview, he spoke very openly about his native country’s goals.

First of all, he mentioned what has become known as ideological subversion. The Soviets (and communists generally) found it very easy to perform these activities quite openly, Bezmenov said. If only the Americans unplugged their bananas from their ears and opened their eyes, they would have seen it. Yes, espionage sounds much better, more romantic, but ideological subversion seems to have much more lasting impact. It used to be called (and still is by KGB’s successor, the SVR) active measures (активныe мероприятия). It amounts to psychological warfare, and the basic idea is to change the perception of reality on the other side.

What we see happening now in the U.S. is the culmination of the ideologically subversive efforts.

The Marxists must be dancing with joy wherever they are: the looters and rioters are just gangs of illiterate morons, many high on drugs and pleased with unexpected income they get for each store window crashed, each business set on fire, each peaceful citizen scared out of her/his wits.

The Marxists must be also ecstatic when they see illiterate and arrogant politicians who, not knowing what they are talking about, impose all kinds of limitations upon their fellow citizens whom they have scared into mass hysteria with a non-existent pandemic.

Democracy has shown its obvious weakness: it just doesn’t know how to fight against a ruthless enemy who takes no prisoners.

American history has shown how would-be intellectuals (such as U.S. media star Edward Murrow) have fought against what they would call McCarthyism, not knowing that the good Senator’s accusations were based on facts. They never realized that being a communist does constitute present danger to all those who love living in freedom. That communism is not just another opinion. That it is a weapon.

Yes, the committee set up to investigate what they called un-American activities did (from to time) use methods that can hardly be called purely democratic.

This debate hasn’t started yesterday. In the year 10 B.C. Roman writer and poet Ovid wrote (verbatim): exitus ācta probat (ends justify the means). The question becomes worthy of a deeply thought-out philosophical debate: is it true that morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary?

No philosopher has yet come up with an answer acceptable to all.

And, in the meantime, America is burning.

Should THAT answer not be enough?

A megalomaniac? A criminal? A puppet? Or all three?

Who the hell is Klaus Martin Schwab, the guy who claims to be holding the keys to the future of the world?

Claiming the world is ready for what he calls the Great Reset, he had the World Economic Forum, the strange outfit that he had founded (together with his wife Hilde) decades ago, sell all of its stocks and bonds. Not only that, the Forum did so ahead of everyone else.

Just what did he know that most of the rest of the world had not been aware of?

A curious look

Available data show Klaus Martin Schwab’s curriculum vitae in a rather admirable light: a doctorate in economics (summa cum laude, comparable with honours) from Switzerland’s ancient University of Fribourg, an engineering doctorate from ETH Zürich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), and, to make him look even more rounded, a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Of course, an honourary professorship at the China Foreign Affairs University may stain the picture somewhat in some people’s eyes, but that, to Schwab and his coterie, matters not.

Many of his admirers think Schwab wrote the two of the bibles of world-changing revolutions, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016) and Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018). Alas, not really: a World Economic Forum employee named Nicholas Davis wrote them both.

A busy beaver

More often than not, people have issues with beavers’ engineering projects. Here, they flood a field, there, they make a river impassable.

A headache, that’s what they are.

Compare Klaus Schwab’s activities with those of the beaver population around the world. The native of the German Upper Swabia city of Ravensburg has been all over the world, creating all kinds of what he calls dynamic global communities that consist of exceptional people (they must be under 40) with the vision, courage and influence to drive positive change in the world (his own literature words).

The age restriction is important: younger people are more susceptible to cheap sloganeering.

The impact of Ravensburg’s annual festival, Rutenfest (literally: birch whip celebration) must have made a huge impact on Klaus Schwab’s thinking.

The same year he started with the World Economic Forum in 1971, he published what he views as one of his scientific masterpieces: Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering (Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau). Management of a modern enterprise, Schwab wrote, must serve not only its shareholders but all of its stakeholders (die Interessenten), too. Otherwise, it won’t achieve long-term growth and prosperity.

Of course, the stakeholders were defined rather vaguely, but that’s not the point. The point is that Schwab’s argument leads nowhere but to socialism (in either of its shapes, such as national socialism, social democracy or communism).

Schwab claims that the World Economic Forum exists as a driver for reconciliation efforts in different parts of the world, whatever that is supposed to mean. According to him, the world needs a catalyst of numerous collaborations and international initiatives.

So, this is the guy who claims that the world needs what he calls a Great Reset.

Here’s one example of what he has in mind.

That he himself sits on various business companies’ boards (collecting fees from each and every one of them) helps his private bank account but, also, his untiring efforts to re-shape the world. He used to sit on the infamous Bilderberg Group’s steering committee, too: that’s the group that was formed after 1945, with its stated goal to help enhance the dialogue between Europe and North America. Its objectives would develop into outright globalization (under one government, potentially).

Inquisitive minds need to know

As mentioned, the World Economic Forum sold all its stocks and bonds. What shocked many was that it did so ahead of everyone else.

As Armstrong Economics pointed out, Schwab has exploited the so-called Covid-19 virus within weeks of its appearance, using it as a springboard to launch his vision for the Great Reset.

Armstrong Economics is a serious organization of economists who know how to ask the right questions, and asking them.

Armstrong Economics describes it as a “highly likely man-made virus” and adds that it was “also highly likely to have been leaked in China deliberately by another group with a personal agenda involving climate change.”

The result, in a summary: world economy shut down, the world oil reserves increased by three years, over 300 million jobs destroyed as collateral damage.

Armstrong Economics compares the fear tactics used now to gain power to what the Nazis (and one would add: Communists) used to do with so much success.

The outcome: world’s population reduced to sheep being led to slaughter.

Schwab revealed his intentions in his new book, Covid-19: The Great Reset.

Obviously, he doesn’t plan to earn much on royalties: this piece of pure propaganda dirt is available for free online.

Wilful ignorance?

It is not known how much did Klaus Schwab learn about he history of economy.

It seems not much.

Herewith a reminder of some relevant events: it took 26 years to get over the effects of what used to be known the Great Depression of the 19th century.

Historians would later rename it Long Depression, after the 1929 crash developed into a new Great Depression.

Historians say that introduction of railroads would wreak havoc on the basic structure of transportation, displacing jobs involving horses and carts. That, they deduce, was the main cause of the Long Depression.

The origin of the Great Depression of the 20th century is somewhat more involved.

Historians claim that it was the collapse in agriculture that would help cause it.

Something to it: agriculture had employed about 40 per cent of the workforce at the turn of the 20th century. Combustion engine that would lead to tractors helped cut the need for manual labour. Besides, the natural disaster that would become known as Dust Bowl increased unemployment to about one-quarter of available workforce.

In addition, U.S. government took to micromanaging the country’s economy during the First World War, and it had terrible difficulties leaving it well enough alone (frankly speaking, it never quite succeeded: see FDR’s New Deal and the quick emergence of the all-encompassing atmosphere of entitlement that has shockingly survived to this day).

Sadly, it had to take the Second World War to restore the economy. As Armstrong Economics indicates, the war helped absorb the excess agricultural labour, forcing many former farm hands to become qualified.

Schwab hopes people don’t know how to think independently. He ignores evidence proves all this talk about man-made climate change is pure nonsense.

The only question that remains is: is he that megalomaniacal as to become criminal all by himself, or is he dancing to somebody else’s tune?

And, if the latter holds, to whose tune?

To hell with modern medicine men (and women)

“Hello,” says a pleasant voice on the telephone, “this is (names are left out because of basic courtesy and, also, because what happens next has been happening way too often recently, all over the place).

“Hello,” the pleasant voice over the telephone says, “this is So-and-so from Dr. Such-and-such’s office. The Doctor has received the results of your tests today. He would like to arrange a telephone appointment with you to go over them with you.”

“Thanks,” thus the patient, “but I would prefer a face-to-face meeting. I have major issues with tele-medicine, such as, I don’t believe in it.”

The voice on the other side sighs: “I am going to tell him and will try to have you squeezed into his schedule somehow.”

A professional reply on her part. One must make do with getting crumbs these days.

Of course, the idea defies logic: the medical attendant would spend about the same time on the phone, talking to the patient, as he would, talking to him in his office.

But that is not the issue.

Progress my foot

The issue is that not everything that is new signifies progress. If improvement is what most of us understand the word ‘progress’ to mean.

These days, when a physician enters the cubicle where you had been sitting, waiting for her or him, s/he barely looks at you, perhaps just to say Hi, if at all.

The real situation looks like this: the physician logs in into the computer, and you get to see magnificent display of typing, using all ten fingers. Your medical attendant may even throw a question at you, from time to time, but what s/he is concerned with most are the data on the screen. Results of tests, some less reliable than others, some less necessary than others.

True, a physician looking at a computer screen usually does no harm to the patient, one of the most important pre-conditions of the Hippocratic Oath (first, do no harm), but treating people based on all kinds of tests just does not cut it.

Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle (himself a Doctor, by the way) based his Sherlock Holmes’s ways of detecting crimes on a physician’s methods of investigation. He would observe an internal medicine specialist’s ways, admire them, and then use them: both in his practice, and in his writing.

This is not a rhetorical question: how many of today’s patients have experienced that their Doctor would use what is known as the classical tetrad? This is a system of four steps any physician should follow when opening an investigation of a patient’s symptoms, even if s/he sees the patient the tenth time in a month. Here it is, and classic medicine prescribes it must be always followed in this order: inspection, palpation, percussion, auscultation. Meaning: look, touch, drum (a specialized trick, drumming using fingers on the physician’s hand positioned in the area of suspected illness: it’s the echo the physician is after), and only then comes the stethoscope.

Come to think of it: how many times has your physician listened to the sounds coming out of your body, using a stethoscope? Or even worse: how many times has your physician entered the surgery room, carrying a stethoscope?

How many times did your physician look at you, preferably straight in your eyes, when asking you a question?

Yes, medicine is a science. But only to a degree. It is also art. After all, Hippocrates, also known as the father of medicine, has been often quoted as saying Ars longa, vita brevis. It means that the art will survive longer than life. It has become a major motto for medicine, both ancient and modern, but today’s practitioners seem to have forgotten it. If they ever knew it, that is.

Not to generalize, there may be a physician or two still around who uses such outdated approaches as only jotting down a note or two in quick shorthand, while inspecting the patient, but the majority seem to have spent time learning quick typing instead of bed manners.

In the mist of memories

Long gone are the days when, if the patient was too sick to trudge to his medical attendant’s office, the Doctor would willingly drop by for a home visit. And only oldtimers and those who like novels from two centuries ago will remember such expressions as ‘medicinal brandy.’

This is not pining for good old times, nostalgia for days long gone by. This is a sad realization that way too many physicians must have forgotten the equation: they are here for their patients. It’s not the other way round. They are no more Gods than sundry politicians of all levels, those, who are convinced they ingested Solomon’s excrement. Even our medical attendants put their trousers on one leg at a time.

And no, the current artificial scare is not an excuse. It only added one more wrinkle to physicians’ attitudes and behavioural patterns, the so-called tele-medicine.

The longer the medical profession is blind to this development, the more people are going to rely upon what is known as ‘alternative medicine.’

Why it is called alternative is another of those many strange mysteries: most of the methods used by the sundry healers had existed long before the so-called Western medicine was even conceived.

It would behove the medical profession to realize that they are dealing with human beings, and that they are human beings themselves, too.

When will the mother of all hoaxes burst at long last?

More and more people are beginning to realize that two and two is four, and that there is something seriously fishy with the so-called Covid-19 (or coronavirus, if you prefer) crisis.

Put simply: unlike the two plus two equation, something does not add up with this purported health scare.

The number of demonstrations against all those lockdowns and face mask demands has been growing steadily, and so has the number of people taking part. Whether governments – targets of these protest demonstrations – will take proper notice remains to be seen.

Some have, in a rather unusual way. Like the government of the state of Victoria (Australia) that has introduced such stringent measures that they remind all and sundry of Nazi martial laws. Or like the government of Canada where a high-ranking Armed Forces officer reportedly suggested that the military should start using most modern technology to spy on Canadians to be able to predict any major protests that might cause the government some headaches.

On the other hand, when multitudes gathered in the German capital, Berlin, and government sent the police to disperse them, by force if need be, the officers took their helmets off as a sign that they agree with the protesters and will not act against them.

The irony here is unmistakable: the Nurnberg war crimes tribunal after the Second World War, while condemning Nazi Germany and her leaders, reacted quite sharply to an attempt to find an excuse: we were only following orders. No, decreed the tribunal, you do not have to follow orders if you decide you find them more than objectionable, you find them criminal.

Not only has this become a universally recognized rule since then, but later research found that there had been German army (Wehrmacht) units that, during the invasion of the Soviet Union, refused to take part in mass executions. Their higher-ups, both in the military and in the political circles, did not act against them.

In any case, German police in Berlin this summer was the first such force to show their solidarity with people protesting in the streets against their government.

Except, all those people have been, thus far, fighting against the signs (symptoms), not against the disease (syndrome) itself.

Going for the roots

A number of guesses have been made, some more provable than others. They have been filling the social media, much to those media’s chagrin (Facebook and YouTube have gone so far as to engage in threateningly open censorship: the former claims to be using so-called fact-checkers, the latter uses so-called community standards).

There’s not much need to dig too deep to find out that the so-called lockdowns have caused damage to most national economies, in some cases irreparable.

There’s much more need to try to find out cui bono, that is, whom it helps.

The New World Order gang that wants to create a government that controls the entire world (as if the United Nations weren’t meddlesome enough)?

Yes, this movement does exist, and it includes a number of sub-groups, from straight Malthusian all the way to straight Marxist. The former sub-group says there are way too many people in the world, and we must find ways to get rid of those we selected, one way or another. If it’s a vaccine, so much the better. The latter sub-group would rather control the entire world and if someone refuses to toe the line, good riddance and a bullet in the neck.

That this would, in the long run, completely ruin humanity and stop its natural progress dead is not of much concern to these people. That’s what ideology for you:  people they start believing in dogmas instead of checking for basic facts.

Or is it People’s Republic of China’s attempt to become the world’s sole economic power, and everyone would have to dance as the communist rulers in Beijing whistle?

Not out of the question, either. After all, so many national economies have recently outsourced so much of their production to the People’s Republic, and some of them (the U.S. in particular) have begun waking up from this nightmare of being dependent on China’s whims. This must, in turn, cause nightmares in the Eternal City.

Or: how about a brazen attempt by the so-called Big Pharma to pad their packets even more? Scare people beyond belief, offer them a vaccine, even though it doesn’t cure anything, as vaccines act as prevention agents only, earn money. Since Covid-19, just like most such flu viruses presents in several strains, and no vaccine covers all strains, develop more vaccines. Earn some more money. Claim that you have developed brand new medication to treat the complaint caused by the virus, earn even more.

It also helps that quite a few previously unimportant people have gained a certain level of authority: they can order people around. Like: wear a mask or else. The less educated these new commanders are, the better. Nothing beats bullying the general population into submission.

This one may have another reason, plausible enough, too: about a dozen years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed its standards to determine a pandemic, an epidemic, and an outburst. They deleted the two basic criteria: morbidity (a number of cases of infections within a certain population in a certain area within a certain timeframe, and mortality (a number of fatal outcomes within that same number of cases of infections within that same certain population in that same certain area within that same certain timeframe). They changed the third standard, speed of spreading, also, making it perfectly irrelevant.

The European Union noticed and launched an official investigation. It found that the so-called WHO medical experts who had suggested these changes, would receive offers (and accept them) of lucrative positions with major pharmaceutical companies. These companies were all involved with creating and selling medications to battle the so-called bird flu and swine flu epidemics.

Money makes the world go round?

Then, there is one more suspicion: some members of the New World Order crowd find it important that banks, and governments through them, can control individuals’ financial well-being and transactions, including their location. They would reach this objective by banning paper money altogether, and insisting that only credit and debit transactions are permissible.

This one may be quite difficult to implement outside of the so-called Western world.

Economies of a number of Latin American countries are based on a very informal cash for service (or goods) system. So are most African and many Asian countries.

Armstrong Economics reports that police blockaded a highway and used tear gas against crowds that tried to get out from the lockdown in the capital of Peru, Lima. Not only that: family gatherings are off limits in Peru, too.

This looks like a sign of perfectly tragic desperation: that government is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Peru’s president Martín Alberto Vizcarra has remained independent from political parties. He has promoted reforms against corruption in the legislative and judicial branches. And now his government seems to face enormous pressure from outside, applied by persons not perfectly known, to subordinate his country to their wishes.

Many analysts suspect the reasons can be combinations of the theories mentioned above. It may be even a combination of all of them.

None of this is a reason good enough to give up.

All of them a reason good enough to get up and fight.

Kamala Harris lets her cat out of the bag

Americans are getting ready to turn their TVs (or computers) on: candidate debates ahead of the November 3 presidential elections are coming up. They promise to become a perfectly scandalous farce.

The incumbent, president Donald Trump, has just received another weapon that could help him in his struggle with former president Barack Hussein Obama’s vice-president Joe Biden: just ask the challenger to promise that, should he be still alive, Biden would stay in office throughout his term.

Why? Because Joe Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, spoke of a Harris (not Biden) administration in a recent question-and-answer session.

True, Harris quickly corrected herself, but nobody bought that. Not even after her apologists claimed that it was just a “slip of the tongue.” A number of people said they preferred to call it a “Freudian slip.”

Considering not only Trump supporters call Harris “nothing more than a Trojan horse for the radical left,” it has become a must for president Trump to start badgering his opponent with the question of his staying power.

One of the most influential black Americans, Wayne Dupree, is convinced that it was neither a slip of her tongue, nor a Freudian slip: it was a signal of Harris’s real intentions.

Dupree has president Trump’s ear: he used to serve as a board member of his National Diversity Coalition. An eight-year U.S. Air Force veteran, Dupree is a living proof (as if any was needed) of the fact that any black American can succeed, if only they work at it.

Voices from hell?

Dupree sees Hillary Clinton’s hand behind the plan: Biden retires shortly after signing his oath on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. Harris, as the popular American cliché has it, just a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, takes over. She names Hillary Clinton her vice-president. Let’s leave what happens next in Nature’s hands (let’s keep all Gods out of this). With the history of unusual demises and unfortunate accidents in the wake of the Clinton couple’s path, everything is possible.

Wayne Dupree also reminds us of Kamala Harris’s entry into the presidential conversation. She threw her hat into the rink of Democratic Party nominations, and could have hardly lost worse than she had. She would have received fewer than two per cent of the votes available in the primaries. She got out when the getting was still good, and decided there must be other ways.

This understudy trick she (and her comrades) developed is nothing new. The brazenness of it all is.

Except, Dupree argues, Hillary Clinton’s shadow has been all over the shady picture of current Democratic Party politics (or politicking) all along. As Dupree puts it very eloquently, Hillary Clinton has been the backstage puppet master running the campaign, and “using cognitively challenged Biden as a friendly mask to hide the true ugliness beneath.”

Of course, Kamala Harris’s pronouncements sound like carbon copies of Bernie Sanders’s program: in addition to her own co-sponsorship of what she calls the Green New Deal, Harris is all in to start Medicare-for-all, decriminalize illegal border crossings, and institute gun buybacks.

The only difference: Sanders unashamedly says he is a socialist, while Harris, just as unashamedly, says she is not.

As Dupree argues, there’s one more angle: it looks as if the Democratic Party was convinced a presidential ticket has no chance in hell of winning without a man on it, and, in particular, without a man on top of it.

If he’s right, all women should vote for anybody but the Democratic Party ticket.

Of course, there’s one more thing to look at: since that fateful night in November 2016, when the Electoral College votes had been counted and the other side won, the Democratic Party has been spewing only hatred, throwing one tantrum after another, coming up with imaginary scandals that all turned out to be fake. All that instead of coming up with positive proposals that would make sense. And, also, instead of rejecting everything the current president had been suggesting to help the widest spectrum of society.

Will they remember?

How many Americans will not forget the Democratic Party’s silent support of all the looting and rioting that has been ravaging their country remains to be seen. Some cynics suggest that a smart operative within Trump’s inner circle must have invented both Antifa and the Black Lives Matter, considering the damage they seem to have done to Democratic Party’s hopes of winning.

Vast majority of Americans want law and order. That’s what Trump has been offering repeatedly, while Biden and company have not.

In Dupree’s view, the Obama clan picked Kamala Harris to run for president. Why they picked her, Dupree does not say, but he seems to have inside knowledge.

As she failed so miserably, they turned to plan B, and that’s the one she revealed with her slip, and who cares whether it was intended or not.

It is doubtful whether the mainstream news media will be asking Kamala Harris about her admission of her goals.

It seems it will be left to president Trump himself to ask his challenger. The question can be simple and straightforward: Joe, are you promising to stay in the office till your term is over? Make it biblically simple: yes yes, no no.

Just make sure the answer is audible and binding.

Provided Biden does not forget to turn on the earpiece through which his advisers would whisper the words they want him to utter.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

Comrade Josef Goebbels would have been proud, and so would have been comrade Mikhail Suslov. The former was German Führer Adolf Hitler’s propaganda chief, the latter served several top Communist leaders in the Soviet Union as their ideology boss.

They both would have watched with considerable admiration (and envy) a recent broadcast on one of Canada’s major sports television networks.

The Minnesota Vikings of the U.S. National Football League (NFL) were opening their home season, playing a game against the Green Bay Packers. The players, plus sundry organization members, stood at attention, and the network’s female news anchor, facing the camera, said they were remembering the murder of one George Floyd and protesting against police brutality.

George Floyd’s family members also attended, she announced, forgetting conveniently that these are the people who had profited from George Floyd’s death quite handsomely, having started a GoFundMe campaign that brought home millions of dollars.

Whether the news anchor was not aware of the facts, or whether she was, leads only to a few questions about her own motivation.

If she was not aware of the facts, she should not be in the business of journalism: not doing one’s homework is a cardinal sin in this trade.

If she was aware and still decided to lie through her teeth, it brings up another two possibilities: either she is an ideologically-driven moron, or she heard from her bank that she is awfully short on funds to pay down her mortgage.

Needless to say that none of these three options is acceptable.

Facts first

George Floyd was a violent criminal. One of his previous convictions involved participation in an armed robbery during which he had held a loaded gun against the stomach of a very visibly pregnant woman.

The news anchor who used the word murder with her eyes blazing with anger, happens to be a mother, too.

Can she not imagine the feelings of another woman whose living quarters are being robbed at gunpoint, and whose as yet unborn baby’s life is in at least as much danger as her own life? Can she not imagine how this kind of a shock must have scarred that female victim’s life for the rest of her days? Can she not imagine what impact this cruel experience would have on the child?

George Floyd, in his last escapade, was being apprehended for committing yet another crime: trying to pay for a purchase with fake money. While quite obviously under the influence of drugs, he resisted arrest. He did not die because of the police officer’s action, no matter how harsh it was. Heart failure due to drug overdose was the real cause, even though his lawyer would later try to have this verdict amended.

Yes, an argument could be made that George Floyd was not aware the money was fake. Except: in that case, any innocent person would peacefully follow the officer all the way to the police station and have his/her lawyer sort it out. If her/his innocence was established, s/he would rightfully expect an apology and some kind of restitution for time lost and the embarrassment an incident like this could have caused.

With George Floyd’s record, some might say, his claim of innocence would be a tad dubious, but he never allowed the situation to get to the point where it could have been argued, never mind established.

As shocking as shocking gets

This particular broadcast (and a similar broadcast on the other major Canadian sports television network) was also filled with admiration when reporting on other NFL games that particular night.

Adulation dripping from their voices, the broadcasters described how the players showed their unity in their fight for justice and other signs of equality by disrespecting their national anthem by either kneeling instead of taking their helmets off and standing at attention, or by not leaving their dressing rooms until after the anthem was finished.

Considering all these athletes live and work in a country that has no issues with them making gobs of money for a few weeks’ worth of work a year, playing a violent game that can be best described as bastardized rugby football, those players’ rigorous outrage is worse than hypocritical.

Yes, bastardized rugby football. Real rugby players (and, speaking of that, Aussie-rules football players, also) do not wear any of the body armour U.S. footballers have got used to. And yet, real rugby players (and, speaking of that, Aussie-rules football players, also) have never in their lives seen the amounts their U.S. colleagues earn in a single season.

Now what?

Bastardized rugby football is not the point, though.

The point is much more straightforward (and much more complicated). The black Americans’ welfare is in the hands of black Americans themselves. Everybody seems to have forgotten that quite a few black Americans have advanced their standing in society simply by getting good education and working hard. They would not succumb to the temptations offered by the so-called atmosphere of entitlement. They just have been working hard.

That’s the simple part.

The atmosphere of entitlement is nothing new. Americans have then-president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to thank for it.

Enacted between the years of 1933 and 1939 to fix the impact of the Great Depression that, itself, had been caused by government’s meddling in the country’s national economy, New Deal basically said: no need to worry, your loving government will provide. At a cost, of course: the government provides, the citizens obey and do whatever the government tells them to do.

This scandalous abuse of basic economic laws has been going on at least 81 years. No wonder way too many people got used to it.

But now, real life has presented the bill. And the question reads: who’s going to foot it?

Tougher to answer than Hamlet’s to be or not to be.

America is still the world’s power Nr. 1. Where America goes, the world goes.

The Americans better answer right.