Category Archives: racism

Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles?

A strong Germany within the European Union? Yes.

A Germany too strong so as to be able to overwhelm the European Union? No.

That used to be European politicians’ sentiment a mere three decades ago.

Those of them still alive today must be moaning: how could we be so short-sighted?

Today’s Germany have become a millstone around EU’s neck. Her policies that she pushes on the rest of the EU are killing the organisation’s very principles and, left unchecked, they will annihilate the entire project.

In fact, they will destroy European civilisation as it had developed through millennia, bringing so much progress to the world that it has become the world’s assassin.

European Union used to pursue lofty goals of economic cooperation. It has become a tool for complete extermination of Europe, her Union included.

Its history in the briefest: starting as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (1951), through the Treaty of Paris (1951), and later the Treaty of Rome (1958) which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC), it was never intended to grow into something of a federation of states that would develop into a unified super-state, with one centre directing not only internal economic but also political decisions of its members.

EU would start dictating common policies and laws, and woe be on those who dared differ (see: Hungary, Poland).

What’s going on?

It was Germany who triggered both of last century’s world wars. She was not alone, yes, but she was the major defeated nation on both occasions. And the victors made sure, again, on both occasions, to sow seeds for future conflicts in conditions they would dictate to the fallen enemy.

Whether on purpose or not, the Treaty of Versailles made it openly its objective to send Germany to the poor house. The plan was (allegedly) to make sure Germany would never again have enough strength to entertain ambitions of becoming a global superpower.

How the authors could be unaware of the Bolshevik revolution happening literally close to Germany’s backyard, not many know. What history has recorded is that the Bolsheviks tried to abuse the situation and stir the Germans into joining them.

The result: Adolf Hitler, his NSDAP a.k.a. Nazi, and the Second World War.

One hypothesis claims that what we now call so-called world elites would have been content to see the Nazis and the Bolsheviks kill one another off, so they can step in and get hold of all their commodities and other markets. Seeing several major American corporations continue doing business with Hitler, and supply the Soviets with war materiel all along seems to confirm the hypothesis. It would take some major revelations, however, to be able to call the hypothesis a confirmed fact.

In any case, after the Second World War, and a wave of hangings meted out to the main Nazi war criminals, the victorious Allies have come up with a different tactic. First of all, all Germans would be told they were guilty just because they kept their mouths shut and behaved like your stereotypical Germans. Disciplined and obeying orders, that kind of Germans.

And to rub it all in, American troops in what would become West Germany consisted of mostly black soldiers, while the Soviets manned their divisions in East Germany with units coming from their Asian republics.

With the Germans traditionally viewing themselves as superior race (Hitler and his race ideologist Alfred Rosenberg only built on it), they still could not overcome nature. With so many young (and formerly virile) German men either dead or injured beyond repair, so many Mädel just couldn’t resist the urge, committing what used to be known as Rassenschande (racial shame) or Blutschande (blood disgrace), crimes punishable by death in Nazi Germany.

Being shamed for several generations into an almost permanent feeling of major guilt, it’s no wonder that today’s Germans tend to overdo everything and everybody, just to show how progressive and people-loving they’ve become.

And since the unification in 1990, Germany have been captivated by left-wing politics and politicians, former Chancellor Angela Merkel a prime example of it all.

Compared to the 19th century unification that created what was known as Great Germany (Deutsche Einigung), the most recent move was no longer called re-unification but, rather, German Unity (Deutsche Einheit): the former brought more bad memories than the latter. In a fit of would-be progressiveness, the Germans would start using a totally unemotional-bordering-on-dull expression: Turning Point (die Wende).

And this was the environment in which the Greens and the Socialists have taken control of Germany.

EU’s strongest economy not merely set in motion the decline and fall of Germany, but that of the European Union as well, American economist Martin Armstrong concludes.

The burial is round the corner

Former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev famously predicted decades ago that communism will bury capitalism, and the West will one day wake up in communism: paying people for not working will do that to you, he explained.

The German Senate is about to agree on major social benefit changes. So-called citizens’ allowance (Bürgergeld) is to replace the current social benefit program.

Long-term unemployed payments – currently known as “unemployment benefit II” (Arbeitslosengeld II) will increase in the basic monthly benefit from €449 to €502. Additionally, it is supposed to reduce sanctions for those who are avoiding employment and training meetings.

That happens to be a trend all over the world: way too many appear to have enjoyed free money to stay at home under Covid restrictions. They were not amused enough to return to any employment.

The current German employment profile differs drastically from that of the early 2000s. The 2007-2009 economic crisis brought along mass unemployment. Except, times have changed: now, Germany is facing labour shortages.

This happens to be a worldwide trend, but today’s Germany seem to be doing everything to exacerbate it beyond repair.

Add to it the irresponsible policy of welcoming mostly illegal refugees whose presence causes both economic, social and demographic tensions, as well as creating serious security risks, and you have a country in turmoil.

Germany’s Greens and Socialists are not concerned about their country’s industrial production. Once the backbone of the EU economy, today’s Germany prefer replacing their industrial output with faked concerns about climate change.

The EU Green Deal, if you follow its origins, was born in Germany.

But it’s not just the Greens and the Socialists who are ruining Germany, as well as the EU, and, by extension, the rest of the world.

Former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, presented to the public as a diehard conservative, wouldn’t let the German people vote on even joining the Euro.

So, it’s not surprising that nobody is asking the Germans about ending the climate change charade. To make sure they wouldn’t object if anyone asked, the answer, namely, that the green shamanism is killing German, European, and world economy, remains hidden pretty well.

Germany, Germany over everything, over the entire world (Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt) indeed.


Facts are no excuse in politically correct world

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

He wrote to be read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How dared he?

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

That was it.

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

Neither Simmonds nor Aliu were amused.

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


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

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

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

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

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

End of quote.

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

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

Ugly head

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The attribution matters little, the content matters a lot.

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

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

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

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

South Africa gives us a serious lesson on pride and independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controlling the agenda

The meeting was supposed to concentrate on economic issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing ignorance

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

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

The Africans don’t forget this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laughed out of the room

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

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

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

While, at home …

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

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

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

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

What does it mean for us, Canadians?

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

Singin’ in the rain: a capital crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How come?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why? Divide and rule. That’s why.

Phone inventor in Trudeau’s crosshairs

Seen any photos of Alexander Graham Bell? Noticed his white bushy beard and overall light complexion?

This kind of people don’t deserve to be on Canada’s pedestal, they have white privilege written all over them.

Says who?

Says Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, himself a substitute high school drama teacher.


Because some of Bell’s views are, in Trudeau’s eyes, controversial.

What can be controversial about Bell’s inventions?

Here’s a short list:

• Telephone. We all know what THAT is, even though, it seems, the most modern phones, why called smart, aren’t used as telephones any longer. Communication devices, perhaps, but telephones?
• The metal detector, invented originally to help find the bullet that killed U.S. President James A. Garfield in 1881.
• Photophone, a device that helped provide transmission of speech on a beam of light.
• Graphophone, another novelty, a device that – unlike the phonograph – could record and play it back.
• Audiometer, a gadget was used to detect hearing problems. This was very important to Bell: both his mother and his wife were deaf.
• Hydrofoils, defined as lifting surfaces that operate in water. They are similar in appearance and purpose to aerofoils used by aeroplanes. Boats that use hydrofoil technology are also simply termed hydrofoils. As a hydrofoil craft gains speed, the hydrofoils lift the boat’s hull out of the water, decreasing drag and allowing greater speeds.

Compared to all that, what has Trudeau invented? A rhetorical question, of course.

Bell’s sin

According to an August 11, 2022 True North article, “A federal government body is investigating posthumous honours received by the Canadian inventor of the telephone due to his “controversial beliefs.”

True North goes on to cite Blacklock’s Reporter as writing: “The Historic Sites and Monuments Board stated that it was reviewing the designations because of ‘views, actions and activities condemned by today’s society.’

“Board members did not provide any details about what supposed controversial beliefs Bell held when flagging him for the review.”

A British subject born in Edinburgh, Scotland, he lived to the ripe age of 75 when he passed away in Nova Scotia’s Beinn Bhreagh. He lived as a Briton in Canada and would become a naturalised U.S. citizen in 1882.

Here’s what must have caught the attention of the lazy bums at Canada’s Historic Sites and Monuments Board: “I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries,” Bell said in 1915.

Still, Britain, Canada, and the U.S. have all claimed Bell their “native son.”

If anyone should object, it would be the Scots who have been thinking of winning independence from Great Britain for years.

True North dug deeper.

Here’s what they found: “In 2019, the Liberals launched a Framework For History And Commemoration to review the 2,200 historical designations across Canada. To date the board has axed 208 monuments including Bell’s.”

A job-creation project if there ever was one, with this result: “In Canadian history colonialism, patriarchy and racism are examples of ideologies and structures that have profound legacies.

“There is a need to be cognizant of, and to confront, these legacies. This contributes to the ongoing process of truth-telling and reconciliation.”

We’ve already seen some of the results: Canada’s first Prime Minister John A. Macdonald was damned for “colonial assumptions.”

And so were Jacques Cartier and suffragette Louise McKinney.

Cartier’s guilt: he acted on orders of French King Francis I when he led a voyage to the New World, looking for gold and other riches, as well as finding a new route to Asia in 1534.

And what about McKinney? What could be wrong with a Canadian women’s rights activist and temperance advocate? The first woman sworn into the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and the first woman elected to a legislature in the British Empire, what crime is lurking in these two achievements? Was it her Woman’s Christian Temperance Union membership? Christians, after all, are guilty as hell of unspeakable crimes, according to the substitute teacher who turned to be a Prime Minister.

Historical spots aren’t exempt, either, True North reports: “24 historic Canadian forts are currently also being investigated for ‘colonial assumptions.’ Those include British Columbia’s Fort Steele, Fort La Reine in Manitoba, Fort Malden in Ontario and Fort Laprairie in Quebec.”

Delete what’s been written down

Historical archives aren’t safe, too, True North reports. A Trudeau-appointed chief archivist Leslie Weir called on federal workers last March to purge thousands of pages (including Macdonald’s biography) on government websites.

The smoking gun: “We need to discuss having a disclaimer on the website about having content that may offend people. I feel very strongly about that,” Weir e-mailed on June 9, 2021.

Reading Leslie Weir’s biography is another proof, as if one was still needed, that Canada’s education system has been going to hell in a handbasket far longer than most Canadians suspected. It created people with degrees but without knowledge who judge the past by today’s standards, without obviously having ever heard the word “context.”

That Trudeau is unaware is easy to understand. His education is sadly lacking. But Ms. Weir?

Here’s a quote from a March 10, 1876 entry in Bell’s journal, now at the Library of the U.S. Congress: “I then shouted into M [the mouthpiece] the following sentence: ‘Mr. Watson, come here—I want to see you.’ To my delight he came and declared that he had heard and understood what I said.

“I asked him to repeat the words. He answered, ‘You said Mr. Watson — come here — I want to see you.’ We then changed places and I listened at S [the speaker] while Mr. Watson read a few passages from a book into the mouthpiece M. It was certainly the case that articulate sounds proceeded from S. The effect was loud but indistinct and muffled.”

Here’s hoping the U.S. Congress won’t stoop as low as Canada’s government has these days.

Alexander Graham Bell’s words are and will remain immortal.

Justin Trudeau’s?

A fallible Pontiff

Pope Francis is a living proof that nobody, including heads of churches, can claim seriously that they are infallible. His apologies made on behalf of the Catholic Church for alleged crimes against the poor Indians of Canada show he’s fallen victim to his own propaganda.

There are no unmarked graveyards or graves in Canada that would be the last resting places for unfortunate Indian children, and the so-called residential school’s only crime was that they tried (without success) to introduce their students to the 19th and 20th centuries.

In-depth research has shown that the spots marked as unattended Indian children’s graves or graveyards either contained not a single deceased body, or used to be your usual graveyards. The Catholic Church would hand them over to local (read: Indian) authorities, and it would be those authorities that had so many other concerns on their minds that they would allow these graveyards to sink into the state of shameful disrepair.

The worst crime committed in the residential schools read: “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” The education system at the time was based, very logically, on the biblical (and time-tested) view that children unaware of consequences of bad (undisciplined) decisions aren’t aware, either, that there exist consequences, too.

Whether there exist any other ways to drive the message of consequences into young people’s heads remains to be seen. Judging by the current situation, sparing the rod has been a major error. Society will be paying for it for a long time to come.

Christian or Marxist?

In any case, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, elected the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in March 2013, and the first Pontiff from the Americas, has become known for ways that many identify with the teachings of Marxism rather than Christianity.

So, Pope Francis’s crocodile tears were nothing new to write home about. After all, Pope Francis’s name is supposed to reflect the life and deeds of St. Francis of Assisi of Italy. Humility and outspoken support for the world’s poor and marginalised people are this Pope public relations’ calling card. To show he means business, he has been involved actively in a number of areas of political diplomacy and environmental advocacy.

A Jesuit provincial of Argentina in 1973, initially, his mother did not support his decision to enter the priesthood, despite the fact that she was a devout Catholic. By the time he was ordained, however, she accepted his calling and asked for his blessing at the end of his ordination ceremony.

Pope John Paul II, originally a Polish poet named Karol Wojtyla, elevated Bergoglio to Cardinal in 2001. That made him eligible to Papacy.

Upon Pope John Paul II’s death in 2005, Bergoglio was in the running for the job. According to rumour emanating from the Holy See, Bergoglio would win the second-most number of votes to Josef Ratzinger who would become Pope John Paul’s successor named Pope Benedict XVI, following the 2005 conclave.

Does any of that make him infallible?

Not one iota.

He Catholic Church protests that many outside of it have been taking the word too literally. There’s a lot of difference between infallible and impeccable, in the first place. The church joins u-issue with the view that her Popes are sinless or that they claim inspiration from God for every pronouncement they make.

Herewith a quote from an official source:

The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. A dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement must first meet several specific requirements:

  1. The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter.
  2. The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals.
  3. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter.

In this way, the official statement continues, he (the Pope) must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent.

If one or more of these elements is missing, the pronouncement would not become infallible, no matter how nicely and wisely put.

It’s questionable whether Pope Francis met the first two points, and it is patently clear he failed to meet the third one.

And wrong he was. On both counts, too.

Whose turn is it to turn red?

That the buffoon currently residing at 24 Sussex Dr. in Ottawa is unaware of his own country’s history puts Canadian voters to shame.

That Canada’s Supreme Court rules to admit hearsay as proper proof of Canadian Indians’ myths and legends’ veracity (and validity in territorial and other tangible claims) is a sign of a judicial system gone stir-crazy with political correctness.

But that Cardinals of one of the most powerful churches allow their CEO to make such pronouncements on their church’s behalf, and they don’t chase him out of office and the church itself presto subito, that’s a sign of a malaise that’s getting way too close to being mortally dangerous.

Humiliated right in their own backyard

It could be called provoking a snake while barefoot, but, then again, the U.S. military isn’t what it used to be. This means that the forthcoming joint naval exercises planned by China, Russia and Iran to take place in the Caribbean and along Latin American coast may result in a bit of angry huffing and puffing emanating from Washington, D.C., but not much more.

The Super Frontier joint exercises, set to happen now literally right under America’s nose, aren’t the first joint military operation held by these three nations. The most recent, dubbed Marine Security Belt 2022, took place within the confines of the northern area of the Indian Ocean earlier this year. Published intelligence analyses praise the three navies for their capabilities in saving a burning vessel, freeing a ship captured by hostile forces, shooting at hard-wearing (mostly made of concrete) targets, attacking targets in the air at night, locating and successfully destroying hostile submarines, and doing all that in complicated and complex conditions of mutual communications.

The extent of the forthcoming Super Frontier exercises isn’t known yet other than to participating forces, but what is known is that Venezuela will be the official host.

If that’s not rubbing America’s nose in dirt, it would be difficult to fathom what would be.

Several American analysts have concluded that it seems as if Latin America were considering forming a military coalition against the U.S.

Washington, we have a problem

One of the major issues facing America’s military isn’t so much lack of top-of-the-line hardware.

It’s the personnel manning (personing?) it that has been failing on most counts the last few decades.

Sergeants yelling into recruits’ faces during drills at exercise grounds for not performing to the rules have been accused of humiliating the recruits’ personal dignities and told to stop it.

Questioning orders and demanding detailed explanation so that even the thickest of skulls can get it has become accepted norm rather than unacceptable exception.

Political correctness that would lead to promotions of those who know their gender pronouns better than how to use weapons and shoot in anger has become norm instead of merit.

Identity-based politicking would become more important than studies of strategies and tactics on the battle field.

The list is almost endless. The American armed forces have gone woke, embracing the so-called cancel culture with enthusiasm unbecoming of men and (of course) women in uniform.

And this is the force that is expected to stand up to military forces steeped in the traditional tradition of “You’re in the army now, lad, shut up and do what you’re told.”

This is not to say that this military tradition is perfect. This is to say that maintaining it wins wars more often than ridiculing and abandoning it.

The fifth wheel

The U.S. used to lord over Latin America with a fist made of steel.

No longer.

Gone are the days when then-President John F. Kennedy would put his foot down, and Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev would meekly order his missiles – stationed on his reckless orders in Cuba – dismantled and returned back to the Soviet Union, and pronto.

It is important to note that the Indian Ocean exercise had the year 2022 designation attached to it: it is supposed to become a permanent feature for the three navies with, perhaps, more forces joining the fun in future years.

Russian and Chinese spokesthingies remain mum on the whole matter. Statements from Iran are saying it all: “The geographical and strategic location of Iran has made it the focus of international attention,” one such document said.

“The waters around Iran, especially the Sea of Oman and the Persian Gulf, have become the hotspot for sabre-rattling for many countries, including the U.S. and some of its allies to form a maritime coalition for patrols in the Persian Gulf these days.

“The Sea of Oman is a particularly sensitive waterway as it connects to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 30 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes and which in turn connects to the Persian Gulf.

“(The Marine Security Belt 2022) began in the port city of Chabahar in southeastern Iran. … and (it) is aimed at promoting the security of international trade in the strategic regions amid heightened tensions between Iran and the U.S.”

And the final nail: “Holding trilateral exercise between the three countries have received mixed reactions from international media in recent days which shows the significance of the drill both in the region and world, as Jonathan Eyal, associate director at the Royal United Services Institute, said the joint naval drills had been choreographed by the three countries to send a message that U.S. influence in the region was waning.”

Joining a bigger club

Iran was invited to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) last September.

This Eurasian political, economic and security organisation is no midget to be taken lightly in world affairs. It covers some 60 per cent of Eurasia’s territory, some 40 per cent of the world’s population call the region home, and at least 30 per cent of world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is created right there.

The SCO, known originally as the Shanghai Five, happened after China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan (listed here in alphabetical order) signed a mutual security agreement in 1996. Today’s SCO happened after Uzbekistan joined, and it would become an eight-country partnership with India and Pakistan joining a few years ago.

Several other countries are engaged as observers, candidates for membership or partners, and Iran happens to be one of them.

As SCO’s official documents of association point out, “military exercises are also regularly conducted among members to promote cooperation and coordination against terrorism and other external threats, and to maintain regional peace and stability.”

Nothing to sneeze at.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Americans thought that the bi-polar world that had two superpowers running its business, has gone “kaput,” too, and they will be running things from now on without anybody’s interference.

With their current Administration basically restoring Iran’s ability to join the nuclear weapons club, this snub had to happen.

Were they short-sighted or were they short-sighted?

Swiss? Reggae ain’t for you. Yodel, instead!

Swiss reggae band Lauwarm has run into a wall of complete idiocy: they were told to stop playing Jamaican reggae music because its white band-members were sporting dreadlocks and wearing bright coloured clothes.

Translated into English, their name means lukewarm or tepid, but – judging by their popularity in Switzerland – they are neither.

Yet, still, as they were playing a regular gig at the Brasserie Lorraine in Bern, some visitors got upset, and “several people” expressed “discomfort with the situation,” and, to make matters clear, they accused the Lauwarm of “cultural appropriation.”

If the shoe were put on the other leg, does it mean that nobody but the Swiss and the Tiroleans are allowed to yodel?

True, the band play Jamaican music while singing in Swiss dialect. To make sure everyone knows what kind of music they perform, they wear partly African ethnic clothing and dreadlocks.

It seems it was the costuming that got some visitors all riled up.

The Brasserie Lorraine management, seeing (and hearing) the uproar, decided to cancel the concert: the “cancel culture” and “woke” crowds know how to express themselves loudly enough to dim any debate.

In your typical Swiss polite manner, the Brasserie Lorraine management first discussed the matter with the band, before cancelling the show. They also apologised to “everyone for whom the concert had caused bad feelings.”

Still, the Brasserie Lorraine management had enough courage to issue a statement the very next day to say that “that members of the band or white people are not automatically racists.”

So, what was Lauwarm’s crime? Even though they themselves never experienced racism or colonialism, they still had the chutzpah to play Jamaican reggae music.

Classical musicians beware: how many of today’s performers have experienced the 18th century? And yet, they still do play Mozart with gusto, and to sold out houses.

The Brasserie Lorraine would resort to Facebook a couple of days later: “We would like to apologize to everyone who felt bad about the concert. We failed to deal with it enough in advance and to protect you. Our awareness gaps and the reaction of many guests to the cancellation of the concert have shown us once again that the topic is emotionally charged.”

This is called dancing between eggs.

Who were those critics?

Nobody has (as of yet) identified the politically correct crowd that could have got up and left if they didn’t like the Swiss version of Jamaican reggae, but Dominik Plumettaz, the band’s leader and singer, has been quoted as saying that the group had performed many times since it was formed a year ago but had never received complaints about appropriation.

“We were completely surprised,” Plumettaz said.

“When we played, there was a good atmosphere,” adding that during the break, the restaurant told them about the complaints.

“After that, we felt uncomfortable and decided to stop. Unfortunately, the critics did not come out publicly and we couldn’t have a conversation with them, which we regret,” he said.

Plumettaz had a point when he said that he understood that “some people are sensitive to this issue, but music thrives on the mixing of cultures.”

To drive the point home, the band went to their Instagram account, “We treat all cultures with respect, but we also stand by the music we play, our appearance and the way we are.”

A debate on topics like this is a must, the band said: “It’s important to us that we have this discussion – neutral and based on respect.”

The Brasserie Lorraine management are planning a panel discussion on the topic.

Swiss social media are now filled with debates about “cultural appropriation,” a non-issue like few others.

The debate, quote correctly, links the Brasserie Lorraine incident to “cancel culture” and “wokeness,” defining the former as dismissing controversial people and ideas by not giving them a platform, and the latter as awareness of social inequalities such as sexism and racism.


The Swiss Tages-Anzeiger newspaper had a better description: “The Black Lives Matter movement has taken hold of the youth here. For them, European colonialism is present, continues to work in the underbelly of society.

“The explosive thing is that here a white band is taken off stage in a majority white context. This is what wokeness looks like in Bern.” 

The respected Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “Cultural Appropriation” as an exploitative, disrespectful or stereotypical adoption of foreign cultural techniques and symbols.

Others go further still: “cultural appropriation” happens when members of a usually white but in any case dominant culture use elements of a minority culture that they had systematically suppressed, such as Africans or Native Americans.

White and use Native American carnival costumes? Thief. White and wear dreadlocks? Thief.

Not the charge of cultural appropriation is anything new within the music industry.

Remember Elvis? Yes, that one, as in Presley: he stands accused of making money off songs sung by black composers whom otherwise were unheard of.

White rapper Eminem has raised a few cultural appropriation eyebrows, too, and so have the British reggae band UB40, whose white and black members are now filthy rich off pop versions of Jamaican classics.

Spanking the politically correct crowd in public would be a good first step to solving this issue.

Feminist under attack for stating the obvious

It was bound to happen, and that it happened in Norway is symptomatic of the direction this world has been taking in recent decades: a Norwegian feminist faces prison for telling her Twitter audience that men can’t be women and that this holds true for the transgender variety, as well.

That, if Norway’s politically charged justice system prevails, can land her behind bars for three years. Making statements about such basic issues of biology equals hate crime.

Questioning “gender identity” has become a crime in Norway in 2021. Women’s organisations had warned that criminalising statements about biological facts like these would lead to persecuting women. To no avail.

The first tweet that annoyed the face of Norway’s militant transvestites who calls himself Christine Marie Jentoft read: “Why [does] FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn’t that conversion therapy?”

FRI is an organisation of Norwegian transvestites who claim that anyone questioning their gender-assignation wishes is a bloody criminal. Mr. or Ms. (your pick) Jentoft happens to be its senior official.

Norwegian feminist Christina Ellingsen sent this message out in October 2021.

The second tweet angered Jentoft even more: “Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that’s how bonkers the organisation which supposedly works to protect young lesbians’ interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?”

Ellingsen had enough courage to tell Jentoft to his face (and on national television): “You are a man. You cannot be a mother. To normalise the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women.”

As a result, Amnesty International Norway told Ellingsen she was harassing that poor guy (or girl, your pick again) Jentoft by sharing with him the undisputable fact that he was male.

The Norwegian police report accusing Ellingsen was filed by Jentoft himself, which goes to show the sheer independence of the country’s cops.

Long before this scandal, in 2018, Jentoft had garnered public interest by inviting children to contact him for hugs.

Here it is, in its verbatim beauty: “Dear queer children of all ages! I know some of us have parents who don’t love us any more. But thanks to a [Facebook] video I have just seen, I just want to inform you that I am actually a certified mother. So if you ever need a real motherly hug, I will be happy to oblige!”

Matter of policy

Sexual paraphilias and fetishes should not be defined as part of mental health diagnoses. Neither in Norway, nor anywhere else. That has been the FRI’s goal since 1997. They prevailed at home in 2010, and within the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2018.

The 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases now describes sadomasochism, transvestic fetishism, and general fetishism as variants in sexual arousal.

For your enlightenment: A paraphilia is a condition in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behaviour that is atypical and extreme. A paraphilia is considered a disorder when it causes distress or threatens to harm someone else. It used to be called sexual perversion and sexual deviation.

As the WDI (Women Declaration International) stated, “A woman is an adult human female. It is physically impossible to change sex. Gender identity refers to a person’s subjective convictions, and to persecute women for refusing to accept subjective convictions they do not agree to, is a human rights violation.”

Except, this is Norway

Norway, a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system has a government best described as top-down. As Ms. Ellingsen put it, “Women are not protected against hate speech in Norway, but men who claim to be both lesbian and a woman, are protected both on the grounds of gender identity and on the grounds of sexual orientation.”

Norway is the country that gave the world Anders Behring Breivik. This is the man who, in July of 2011, set up a bomb in Oslo and, later, attacked a youth summer camp. All told, he killed 77 people and injured many more.

Was he crazy?

Not to Breivik. In his own mind, it was the Norwegian authorities who were to blame. Breivik charged, with considerable justification, too, that Norway was not only going extremely easy on Palestinian terrorists, letting many of them into the country, it was also active in training future terrorists and arming them.

He had been approaching all kinds of government offices in protest, getting all kinds of brush offs along the way. And the brush offs were getting more and more curt. That’s when Breivik decided to do something about it all by himself. The summer camp that he attacked had gathered all kinds of teenagers keen on getting trained in all kinds of terrorist attacks on the innocent and unsuspecting Israeli civilians.

Never mind their individual or collective reasons, theoretically speaking, these teens were in a state of war, and war was what they got from Breivik.

Was he right? Was he wrong? You be the judge.

Norway has given the world many more controversial personalities. Such as the chair-whatever of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, it was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3-14 June 1992.

Then-Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland was that chair-whatever. Also a vice-president of the Socialist International, she made sure no dissenting voices were allowed into the hallowed rooms or heard in connection with the conference.

The Rio outcome would lead to the so-called Kyoto Conference with its infamous quotas on environmental damage, to be sold and otherwise bartered between those deemed more guilty than others.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Ms. Brundtland had also served as Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO; 1998-2003).

Here’s the curious part: both feminism and all those gender-based movements paint themselves as progressive, left-wing groups that have only better future for the entire humanity on their minds.

Having stolen the word “progressive” for their own agendas, they are now fighting for the noble title of “the most progressive of them all.”

It would be funny, if it wasn’t so tragic.

Defund Liz Fekete, please!

Talk about pots calling kettles black: Britain-based Institute of Race Relations (IRR) think tank claim that police all over the Old Continent (and around the world) have developed what they call a “culture of extremism.”

“Dehumanisation” and a “sense of superiority” aggravate the situation even more.

The paper is titled Racism, Radicalisation and Europe’s ‘Thin Blue Line’. Published in the July 2022 issue of Race & Class journal, IRR head Liz Fekete claims that racism “has become entrenched in policing.”

She doesn’t offer much proof. What she does provide are anecdotal generalities that wouldn’t stand scrutiny in an independent court of law.

So far as Liz Fekete and her research see it, police officers enjoy an unjustified and unforgivable “sense of impunity.” That, she posits, combined with the assumed “special role and status in the society,” leads sometimes to “collusion and collaboration with militarised far-right groups.”

She has a problem here. It’s called labelling. And never mind the debate about the justifications for calling someone left or right wing: that description has lost all of its meaning shortly after its birth in France’s first National Assembly.

For those eager to know: La Assemblée nationale existed from June 17, 1789 to September 29, 1791. One would have expected that would give us time enough between then and now to realise that the description stinks. That’s how outdated it is.

Lis Fekete wouldn’t be deterred by history. Another claim of hers as a proof: “Strikingly, in several countries, such as France, Belgium, Germany and Hungary, extreme-right mayoral and parliamentary candidates have been former high-ranking officers.”

Besides, cops have been abusing their power more and more, but complaints against them face “a particularly aggressive response,” especially in countries “where support for the police and the military is seen as a patriotic duty.”

Such as? Such as France.

Cards on the table

And here’s where Liz Fekete revealed her true colours: look at the Americans, she wrote. Black Lives Matter, as racist a movement as ever broke bread, a group that she calls anti-racist, surfaced on front pages and on top of newscasts after it tried to burn America into the ground, following the violent death of George Floyd. Liz Fekete calls it murder by a police officer, a statement confirmed by as kangaroo a court as happened in America since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. That Floyd was a violent criminal, and that the entire episode happened while he was committing yet another crime, matters not. What does matter to Liz Fekete is that American cops had the gall to form the Blue Lives Matter group. Their members insist that attacks on law enforcement should be treated as hate crime.

How dare they? A similar trend of “recasting … the police as victims” has started in Europe, too, Liz Fekete laments.

For crying out loud, even the Dutch, known for “a liberal, community oriented model” of policing, their law enforcement unions “are responding aggressively to criticism, particularly attempts to rein in racial profiling through the introduction of monitoring measures,” Liz Fekete reveals.

Want more?

Here’s more: “We are witnessing an ideological backlash from politicians, police leaders, police trade unions and related bodies which are aggressively intervening in the public space to defend the use of lethal weaponry, dangerous restraint techniques and racial profiling on the streets.”

A few researchers came to a different reply: there are more black inmates behind bars because there are more black people committing all kinds of crimes.

A number of studies, based on solid data, all of them, not on anecdotal evidence, try to figure out the reasons. Mostly they arrive at similar replies: lack of education equals lack of progress upwards the social ladder. They go on to try to analyse the reasons, at the risk of being accused of racism and other unspeakable thought crimes.

None of them has come up with definitive answers, never mind solutions to the main problem. Not yet. No wonder: it takes time to include most (if not all) of the variables that influence the outcome. In fact, it takes time to figure out which of the variables are crucial and which can be dismissed as accidental data.

Not so Liz Fekete. Invading police officers’ privacy, she continues that “systematic biases” – racism, a “dehumanising mindset,” and “overall sense of impunity and entitlement” – prevail in police officers’ private WhatsApp groups and Facebook message boards. These “make for uncomfortable reading.”

In a tone of authority, she concluded: “Today’s crisis in policing is symptomatic of the wider crisis of democracy.”

Selective argument

Somehow, Liz Fekete omitted real issues happening in recent years. Like: police acting harshly when dealing with opponents of current official lines (pandemics of all kinds, Great Resets, lockdowns, truckers’ protests, farmers’ disagreements, you know, the humanity-changing stuff).

This is called “objective-based” research (and, alas, journalism, too). You decide what you want to prove, and you adjust your data selection accordingly. Some, especially those who are more sensitive, call it fraud.

Liz Fekete seems to be faithful to the meaning of her last name. It so happens that Fekete, in Hungarian, means black.

Here’s the irony: if you dig deep enough to find out who the heck she is, you’ll find this: Liz (Elizabeth Aniko) Fekete was born December 21, 1959 to Hungarian parents, Andrew Fekete and Elizabeth Fekete née Szeleczky, who were refugees and came to England at the end of the Second World War.

There exist two options: they were fleeing because of some unsavoury deeds they had committed during Hungary’s period of fascism. Or they fled because they were smart enough to realise that Hungary, occupied (official story says liberated) by the Soviets, will remain in communist grasp after the war.

In either case, they must be surprised where her pursuits took their daughter.

If I were her parent, I would be disgusted.

%d bloggers like this: