Category Archives: racism

Racism rampant in University of Victoria offices

The President and Vice-Chancellor of University of Victoria in Canada’s western-most province of British Columbia is as racist as racist can get.

Kevin Hall, a civil engineer by profession and education, was brought to British Columbia’s capital of Victoria on the southern tip of Vancouver Island from the University of Newcastle in Australia.

One of the reasons for his selection was (quoting from the enthusiastic announcement made by the UVic board) “his strong commitment to community engagement and unwavering belief in access to education and equity, diversity and inclusion.”

Good old Kevin Hall, PhD, didn’t disappoint.

What follows is his announcement, verbatim, that must have sent shivers down the spines of those who still believe race should NOT be the great decider in anybody’s academic career.

Here it is:

“Dear members of the university community,
“As identified in our Strategic Framework and Indigenous Plan, UVic has made important commitments toward truth, respect and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and in particular, the Indigenous students, staff, faculty at UVic and the communities and Nations we live and work alongside.
“I am excited to share with you that, in support of these critical priorities, we are creating a new leadership role at the university. This spring we will be establishing a non-academic associate vice-president Indigenous (AVPI) position to bring an important perspective to decisions made across all areas of the university.
“In recognition of her outstanding contributions as executive director of the Office of Indigenous Academic and Community Engagement (IACE), I have asked Qwul’sih’yah’maht (Robina Thomas) to be the founding associate vice-president Indigenous. I am delighted that she has generously agreed to take on this role for a three-year term. Robina will be starting in her new role in the spring and more information about her initial priorities will be available then. I am grateful that Robina will bring her deep knowledge and experience and her positive energy to shaping this role.
“While still under development, this new position will carry responsibility for furthering UVic’s commitment to truth, respect and reconciliation with the development of a strategy that integrates Indigenous cultures, histories, beliefs and ways of being and knowing across all aspects of the university’s mission. We have benefited immensely from the work of IACE in providing leadership across our education and engagement initiatives. We now look toward the development of a university-wide approach to ensuring the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action are our priority. Moving this important work forward will require challenging conversations about what we value and prioritize as an institution, and how we contribute to reconciliation in a good way.
“In order to facilitate the position’s cross-divisional responsibilities, the AVPI will be an integral member of the leadership team. Robina will report to me and she will be located in the Office of the President.
“IACE will report to the AVPI and Robina will share information about the IACE leadership transition with our community soon.
“ABOUT ROBINA Qwul’sih’yah’maht (Robina Thomas) is a member of Lyackson First Nation and has Snuy’ney’muxw ancestry through her grandmother Lavina Wyse and Sto:lo ancestry through her grandfather Charles Prest.
“Robina was the inaugural director and executive director of the Office of Indigenous Academic and Community Engagement and is an associate professor with a faculty position in the School of Social Work (she will maintain her faculty appointment while AVPI). Robina started her career at UVic as a visiting lecturer in 1998 and accepted a tenure track position in 2001. Her research has focused extensively on Indigenous women and children, residential schools, storytelling, Indigenous community engagement and anti-colonial/anti-racist practices as a way of life.
“Robina’s accomplishments in her current role as the executive director of IACE and special advisor to the president have included:

Leading the establishment of the Office of Indigenous Academic and Community Engagement and facilitating the release of the university’s first Indigenous Plan;

Re-establishing the Indigenous Cultural Acumen Training program and piloting a program to pay Elders as Specialized Instructors;

Creating space for Indigenous representation on numerous university committees; and

Co-chairing the National Building Reconciliation Forum.

“We are extremely privileged and honoured that Robina has chosen to work within our UVic community. I look forward to working with, and learning from, her in the years to come. Please join me in thanking Robina for her continued leadership and in celebrating this important step toward honouring the commitments we have made to truth, respect, reconciliation and to decolonizing our institution.
“Kevin Hall, PhD
“President and Vice-Chancellor”

Thus spake the person whose responsibility it is (or should be) to make sure that everyone is treated solely on the basis of their ability and, thus, achievement.

Lest anyone thinks that this shockingly patronising approach will make any of the people under Qwul’sih’yah’maht’s (a.k.a. Robina Thomas) tutelage instant academics with credentials reaching the ears of any of the Nobel Price committees, a word of caution: it won’t.

Science just doesn’t work this way. Of course, many in the so-called humanitarian fields will beg to differ, except: these people have yet to contribute anything that’s positive to the societies they live in.

This University’s calling card reads: “A multitude of the wise is the health of the world.” To show how advanced they are, they even had it translated into Latin: “Multitudo sapientium sanitas orbis.”

As if that was not enough, UVic has a motto in Hebrew, too: “יְהִי אוֹר,” meaning, “Let there be light.”

Whoever has noticed a call for giving an advantage to a race-based group over groups of other races, raise your hands.

While the university features a number of what it calls “Indigenous programs,” based on the claim that the academe ought to serve those who surround it, it still does not, in any shape or form, justify the establishment of this new office. Judging by the list set out in the university President’s announcement, it is a move that the university may end up helping politically.

It’s not politics, though, it’s politicking at its worst. You can bet your last dollar that UVic plans to use this new (as they call it) initiative to call for more government grants. Taxpayers are going to pay for a politically correct civil engineer’s dream.

We’re getting too close to the point of no return

While many optimists think the Covid-19 hysteria will be behind us soon, the founder of the World Economic Forum is planning otherwise.

Lockdowns and other similar measures should be here to stay. Governments hope whatever they do will show their employers they’ve been taking good care of them.

Klaus Martin Schwab, the guy whose feudalistic socialism theory has started the entire movement, is on record as saying nothing can beat Covid-19 better than continuing with the drastic measures we have been witnessing since last March.

Governments, advised by medical people on their payroll, have only proven their opportunistic illiteracy. They claim their decisions to lock entire regions and industries down in the hope of stopping the spread of Covid-19-related illnesses are based on sound science. Like parents who aren’t sparing their rod when disciplining their children, the governments say they know what’s good for us, not realising they are doing what’s good for a small group of people hell-bent-for-leather on achieving their anti-human goal of turning the wheels of history where they want them.

How about facts?

Yes, quite a few medical professionals have bought into statements that we are facing a plague combined with caries, with a bit of leprosy thrown in.

But, a deeper dig reveals some shocking information.

The most obvious one: claiming they are treating an increasing number of Covid-related conditions brings monetary benefits to those who make those claims. Yes, the medical crowd gets paid bonuses based on a number of Covid-related illnesses they report. It does NOT mean this is the real number. It means this is the number reported to payroll departments, so they can calculate proper bonuses.

Bluntly put: governments have been bribing medical professionals.

Here’s a shocking number: even if we accept all deaths reported as Covid-related, the toll would be 0.028 per cent.

But we can’t accept those statistics. The evidence is no longer anecdotal, appearing here and there: an elderly person, in her/his nineties, passes away from either simple old age, or a condition linked to old age, or any other illness, and the death certificate lists Covid as reason of death even though not a sign had been detected.

Money talks, that’s all: another bonus.

The results are shocking. Young people who see no future because of the lockdown and other limitations, take their lives. Even those who are studying online and seem to be continuing with their education quite satisfactorily, are deeply depressed. The result: North American suicide rates among young people have jumped beyond belief. In the U.S. alone, they are up by 60 per cent.

Yes, some of it can be attributed to the fact today’s young generation, used to get anything and everything at the snap of their fingers, is spoilt by the snowflake culture that bans everything that can upset them, and by the cultures of woke and cancelling everything they deem unacceptably rough.

By the way, while “woke” is now used in political terms all over the world where English is spoken, it isn’t a new word at all. It means a person is aware of issues that concern what that person views as social and racial justice. Its origin comes from what is known as African-American Vernacular English. The original expression meant one was to stay awake. Now it reads woke, and the meaning has moved somewhat to include what its authors say is a continuing awareness of these issues.

In any case, an increase in youth suicides by 60 per cent is a strong signal that those people need help, and they are not getting it. Which is quite fine so far as the Gates Foundation’s goals are concerned: there are too many of us, why not have the weaker ones removes themselves from the genetic pool by their own hands?

Interestingly, not many in the government circles and mainstream media (MSM) have noticed that we have had none of the usual flu seasons. Neither have they noticed that fluctuations in Covid-related infection numbers resemble those recorded during annual flu seasons to the last dot.

And, so far as the decrease in new infections is concerned, why, this has been happening because we’ve been such good girls and boys, obeying our governments a health authorities’ every whim, including snitching on those who didn’t do what they had been ordered to do.

World in ruin

To sum up: our basic human rights are going to hell with all speed, our hospitality industry is in ruins, young people’s extracurricular activities have been curtailed like in an aftermath of a nuclear war, most of the arts and their practitioners are in the poorhouse, and the evidence that the entire scenario has been a hoax has been becoming increasingly convincing with each passing minute.

Lest anyone thinks that thing will get back to normal once the non-existent pandemic is over, here’s a warning: Klaus Martin Schwab of the World Economic Forum infamy still wants his feudalist-socialist vision of a Great Reset (a.k.a. the fourth industrial revolution) to become reality. The Gates Foundation still insists that about 6.5 billion of today’s 7.8 billion people on this Earth must go, and if someone calls their plans genocidal, so be it. And George Soros and his Open Societies are still convinced that what we need is one government ruling all over the world. The United Nations will suffice for the moment, but that august body can be subordinated to the mightiest any time the mightiest wish.

These forces know no other way to achieve their goals than instilling fear, terrorizing people into submission, using methods survivors of socialism know only too well. The damage they have caused to humanity borders on the irreparable. In any case, even if we find ways to get rid of these monsters, it may still take generations before humanity returns to its senses.

And that is the worst crime of all: nobody is going to give us back the time we’ve lost living in fear.

Harvard singing strange blues

An organisation based on Marxism where racial struggle replaced the traditional class struggle claims that American black community suffers more from the Covid onslaught than its white co-citizens. That’s because it had not received any reparations for their ancestors’ long years in slavery. But that is still less scandalously bigoted than a group of people who claim they are Harvard scientists trumpeting the same thing.

The proclamation, dressed up as a study, compares the situation in Louisiana with the situation in South Korea. The paper’s chief author is Eugene Richardson, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine; Assistant Professor of Medicine.

White-skinned as white-skinned can get, he is listed as part of the Blavatnik Institute of Global Health and Social Medicine, part of Harvard medical school.

Just who is this Blavatnik behind the new science named Global Health and Social Medicine?

Turns out he is Sir Leonard (a.k.a. Len) Valentinovich Blavatnik, a Ukrainian Jew from Odessa, whose university studies at Moscow University were rudely interrupted when his family asked for emigration permits from the Soviet Union. Where? Well, anywhere, actually, so long as it is not a communist country.

Sir Len’s departure was Soviet Union’s loss: he would become Great Britain’s fourth richest man, building this and acquiring that with astonishing acumen. Now, it turns out, Soviet Union’s successor, Russia, didn’t lose that much: Sir Len is reportedly enjoying close friendship with her president, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Dr. Richardson, one of the beneficiaries of Sir Len’s generosity, used to fight the Ebola virus in Sierra Leone. He would turn his attention to what he calls social epidemiology of Ebola virus disease, focusing on a relatively brand new scientific branch that is neither medicine nor anything else, for that matter. It is called biosocial approaches to epidemic disease prevention, containment, and treatment.

Dr. Richardson received his MD from Cornell University Medical College and his PhD in Anthropology from Stanford University. He completed residency in Internal Medicine and a fellowship in Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine at Stanford University Medical Center.

Now, to the topic

Louisiana, the paper claims, is one of America’ most segregated states. Her black population is more than three times more likely to die of Covid-19 than whites. They tend to live in crowded housing and work in ‘frontline’ occupations like nursing. Besides, way too many of them spend their time behind bars, and jail (or prison) outbreaks spread faster than anywhere else.

Quotes, such as, “structural racism, violently-seized privilege, and continuous trauma from racial terror and dehumanization” have helped the pathogen infect and kill them, lack one single detail: proof.

That leads directly to such handsprings as the target ‘R zero’ reproduction rate of the virus is somehow “symbolic violence.”

The plan to solve this outrage can’t be as simple as to give the sufferers relatively inexpensive medication that has been known to treat Covid-related diseases almost on the spot.

No, the solution is to pay each and every black American $250,000 (US). This amount, described as reparations for the enslavement of their ancestors, would lower infection rates by 31 to 68 per cent.

The connection is astounding.

The other comparison, that to South Korea, shows an incredible level of illiteracy, all kinds of academic degrees notwithstanding.

Why South Korea, in the first place?

Because her society is relatively homogenised, some would say egalitarian.

South Korea is filled with Koreans. Louisiana’s population is overwhelmingly black.

South Korea’s obesity rate hovers around four per cent. The comparison is pretty strange: Louisiana’s black population’s obesity rate hovers around 42 per cent.

Contradictory science

There exist studies that link obesity to the severity of Covid-caused diseases, and there exist studies that challenge today’s accepted science that lumps people who are overweight and those who are obese into one group.

Dr. Richardson and his group are definitely NOT promoting any science, neither new, nor old. They are parroting Black Lives Matter’s racist slogans, trying to dress them up as science.

It’s much easier than saying, hey, how about getting some vitamin D? How about changing your diet a bit (and here’s how)?

It’s terrible shame that people dare abuse Harvard’s name and (previously) good scientific standing for such outrageous propaganda.

Sir Leonard (a.k.a. Len) Valentinovich Blavatnik should reconsider whether supporting this kind of politically correct drivel reflects his own experience with all things Marxist.

This might be the wake-up call the Harvard University propagandists need more than anything else.

Stand up for freedom: a Russian artist’s call

Western civilisation, as well as its artificial construct, a.k.a. European Union, has been scandalised. A Russian artist, Konstantin Bogomolov, dared to analyse the gathering and tell it what he thinks about it, and it was neither pretty nor complimentary. He went so far as to say that today’s Western civilisation (and the European Union in particular) was worse than Nazi Germany, and her leaders were worse than Adolf Hitler.

He called his essay, published by Russia’s Novaya gazeta (Новая газета) newspaper The Rape of Europa 2.0.

The expression is based on an ancient Greek myth: Eros, he of the bow and arrows to hit people and make them fall in love fame, managed to target the almighty god Zeus, just as he was watching a beautiful princess named Europa. Zeus took the form of a tame bull. Europa, not knowing the animal’s real identity, mounted it. It ran to the sea and swam to the Crete Island. Once there, Zeus dropped all pretences, revealed himself. It is not known to this day whether Europa resisted before their erotic encounter or not, but still, the story got into mythology as a rape. In any case, she would become the first queen of Crete.

Italian artist Titian painted his vision of the scene between the years of 1560 and 1562, which is how it would become part of Europe’s official history.

Paul Robinson, a professor of Russian and Soviet history at the University of Ottawa, describes Bogomolov’s essay as a manifesto, something the author would welcome with a chuckle if he were to hear about it. Robinson goes on to claim that Bogomolov (verbatim quotation)uses quite inflammatory, indeed offensive, language to lambast the modern West as a model that Russia should discard in favour of a ‘new right-wing ideology.’ ”

Professor Robinson is rather wildly misrepresenting Bogomolov’s essay in the name of what he thinks equals progress.

It all depends. Bogomolov is of the view that he is only describing facts, and, looking from the outside in, it seems that this is precisely what he’s doing, and if someone doesn’t like it, tough.

By adding adjectives, Professor Robinson seems to have lost his academic detachment (and cool). Besides, even though he might have mastered his Russian and Soviet textbooks, he seems not to understand that Russians have always been uneasy about their relationship with the West, including Europe.

Konstantin Bogomolov’s wife Ksenia Sobchak’s godfather was indeed today’s Russian President Vladimir Putin, but what this has to do with Professor Robinson’s attempt to denigrate the Russian author, theatre director and actor, remains unclear.

And Bogomolov doesn’t mince his words.

To the gist

Today’s Western civilisation, especially Europe, has decided to castrate human beings, that’s how Bogomolov describes the super-duper ideology emanating from European Union’s headquarters in Brussels.

Quoting the dark moods and predictions in American film director Stanley Kubrick’s movie, A Clockwork Orange, and from the works of his Russian ancestor, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский), Bogomolov argues that today’s Western (and European) so-called elites are so scared of human beings that they decided to eliminate everything that is human about them. We all share all kinds of qualities, good and bad, Bogomolov writes, and these elites have, first of all, decreed what is good and what is not, and then they proceeded to eliminate all that they do not like.

That, after all, is what political correctness is all about.

A human being, Bogomolov writes, is a being that is both beautiful and dangerous. Just like nuclear energy, humans can both create and destroy.

Modern civilisation, until recent years, managed to control the dark forces through religion, philosophy, arts, and education.

No longer.

Today’s so-called Western civilisation, according to Bogomolov, relies on people who had undergone some kind of castration combined with lobotomy.

People may be smiling, but their smile does not reflect cultural progress. It reflects decay.

New ethical Reich

To explain: das Reich is a German word. It means empire.

No longer is the Western civilisation aiming to ensure personal freedoms for its members. It is now fighting its members as one would an energy that is extremely difficult to tame. The justice system no longer belongs to society: it has become one of the tools governments use to bully their citizens into submission. Its goal these days: isolate and punish those who dare thinking differently (dissidents is the usual word in the English language, инакомыслящий in Russian).

What we’ve got here is just another form of socialism. Google, Apple and Facebook have replaced Siemens, Boss and Volkswagen as leading sectors of national economies, and societies are now ruled (in Bogomolov’s words) by queer activists, feminist fanatics and eco-psychopaths.

Traditional totalitarian regimes used to repress the freedom of thought. Today’s totalitarianism has gone one step further: it tries to repress emotions, as well.

Feelings and thought used to be private areas for all human beings.

Western civilisations view people as the sum of their emotions and thoughts. Hatred is just the opposite of love. It may be complicated but it is a part of a being human, Bogomolov writes.

The Nazi regime used to train people to hate. The new regime insists that we all love. It’s not acceptable to say “I don’t love,” or “I don’t like,” or “I’m afraid.”

Your feelings these days must reflect today’s public opinion. Anyone who feels harmed or injured can bring their complaint in and demand that society regulates the outrage by banning it (while paying for new and new and new officials to deal with it).

That’s what’s called the New Ethical Reich, according to Bogomolov.

The so-called social media networks have become extended arms of this new injustice. Just say something that someone feels is unusual. The so-called decent, orderly and respectable crowd will tear you to pieces.

New ministries of truth in action, that’s what it is, really. Where is George Orwell when we need him?

No need to rely on Bogomolov’s word here: we’ve seen it so many times with our own eyes, it is no longer funny.

Another issue: it no longer takes government to chase people out of their jobs or social standings for their opinions. Society concentrated in the social media does the job to perfection. Just be a modest low- to mid-level scientist who dares question what is known as accepted science. Or any kind of modest, tax-paying citizen who dares question what is known as general opinion.

War on death

It just so happens that we are born, we live, and we die.

Except: the new Reich has introduced a new fixed idea: we all must remain young.

Besides, Western civilisation has gone through sexual revolution and moved very quickly to fight it.

Why? asks Bogomolov, and he answers the question: sex equals freedom. That’s why it is dangerous. Also, the new ideologues say, sex reveals humans’ animal feelings. Sex leads to new life. And no government or society can control it. That’s the worst part.

The struggle with Muslim immigration is about all of this, and its acceptance by the new ideologues shows how impatient they are with all things civilised.

You no longer need to check a person’s race. Check their past: what if you find some blots on their ethics that violate the new order of things?

Where is Russia in all this?

His country, Bogomolov writes, has lost her links with civilisation thanks to the Bolshevik revolution and its aftermath.

Now, Russia is searching for signs that can lead her back into civilisation. That includes a civilisation not afraid of complex (and complicated) people in their multiformity. A civilisation that respects a human’s freedom to love and hate.

It used to exist. It was a civilisation that respected individual values, expressed in the way people thought and created.

That’s what Russia was looking for in the 1990s, Bogomolov writes. She didn’t find it.

What she found was decay filled with empty words about good and just.

I hate, writes Bogomolov, the atmosphere of violence and fear. The Black Lives Matter hate-filled crowd is trying to force university professors to take to their knees instead of respecting their country’s national anthem, to share their homes with BLM supporters, and pay off dead criminal George Floyd’s relatives.

Russia, Bogomolov writes, has gone through all this, and more, in the 17th century.

And here’s the worst part: those who disagree with today’s society are not orthodox dreamers. These are free, well-educated and successful people, whose dreams are simple: be free of all this dark and strange nonsense.

They are afraid to speak up, though, they are afraid of being assaulted on social media, they don’t want to be submitted to moral terror and lose their jobs just because they want to be free.

They need support, they need a new organisation, they need the right to be and remain free.

Humanity as such, concludes Bogomolov, needs to stand up, lose its fear, and fight.

Class struggle? Race struggle? Nonsense on both counts

Can you imagine Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony Nr. 5, Op. 67, in C-minor, its short-short-short-long opening especially, performed on a battery of tom-toms? Changing its name from Fate Symphony (Schicksals Sinfonie) to, say, Black Lives Matter Dance?

Yes, the name symphony is out, also: too white.

Or, how about Henry VIII and his wife Anne Boleyn: do those names not sound to you like coming from the blackest regions of Africa?

To refresh your memory: Anne Boleyn, the Queen of England between the years of 1533 and 1536, used to be King Henry VIII’s second wife. She upset the monarch and he had her beheaded. Cynics say the reason was not her treason or anything like it. The King just wanted a son, an heir, that is, and Anne did not oblige. Her successor, Jane Seymour succeeded where Anne failed, but she would die while giving birth to her son, a prince.

While, yes, the Pope denied Henry’s request that his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, be declared null and void, and Henry formed the Church of England to be able to ignore the Pontiff’s chutzpah, there is one matter that is obvious: all actors in this tragic comedy of political gamesmanship were as white as white can get. Not because of any racism, but simply because Africa was too far away. It’s not even known whether the Tudors knew at the time where Africa lay.

Which makes casting black model Jodie Turner-Smith to play Anne Boleyn in a new British TV series somewhat surprising.

The producers’ decision makes about as much sense as the claim that the German composer Beethoven, born to Flemish parents, was black.

What’s up?

This is not to cast doubt on Ms. Turner-Smith’s acting abilities.

This is not to humiliate black musicians, composers and performers, either.

This is about lying.

If Anne Boleyn’s story was a fairy-tale, or a myth, a legend, even, then casting anyone to play her in whatever medium would depend on the concept the creators of the show had in mind.

But Anne Boleyn was a real figure, in real history.

Ms. Turner-Smith should be livid about the casting: a nod to the politically correct crowd rather than appreciation of her acting abilities.

Considering Henry VIII had the so-called Treason Act passed in 1534, making what we now call wrong-think a capital offence, the casting becomes doubly ironic.

The reactions to the newest sign of political correctness in good old England are, understandably, mixed. Those who have hijacked the word progressive call it cutting-edge, while those who say they try to remain realists, called it (another newish word) woke-wankery.

Yes, you can describe God as a black female, and you can even say that Eve was not Adam’s first wife (the name Lilith comes to mind, and the question remains how the writers of the so-called sacred texts managed to omit her role). You can say that Robinson Crusoe was, for the sake of argument, a Muslim (even though that would be stretching it: the original story describes him as British). And James Bond could as easily be played by a Chinese actor: his original author Ian Fleming described him as English, but why can modern England not have a Chinese-British spy in her employ?

But, to use the so-called progressives’ vocabulary, casting Ms. Turner-Smith as Anne Boleyn is cultural misappropriation.

The same holds for casting Beethoven as black.

When the world celebrated Beethoven’s 250th birthday last December, Centre for Fine Arts in Brussels exhibited artist Terry Adkins’ 2004 work Synapse. This video happens to be a part of Adkins’ Black Beethoven series. Adkins claims he’s not finished with the debate about Beethoven’s race.

As if there was one.

An etching created in 1814 seems to show the composer with a darker complexion than it usual. That sparked rumours of Beethoven having had a Moorish ancestor.

Of course, it wouldn’t be American activists if they hadn’t picked it up: Stokely Carmichael went so far that he told a 1960s gathering in Seattle that “Beethoven was as black as you and I, but they (whoever that they was) don’t tell us that.”

The Rolling Stone magazine put it in black and white in its pages in 1969: “Beethoven was black and proud!”

Were Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson, Count Basie, Louis Armstrong and Lionel Hampton white? Is Wynton Marsalis?

Rhetorical questions, both of them.

Why this, and why now?

A couple of real questions comes to mind, though: did black criminal George Floyd deserve to be put on a hero’s pedestal? And is Black Lives Matter a politically racist organization?

The answer to the first question: no. To the second: yes.

But why is all this racket going on just now?

The answer is similar to the question: what the heck is going on with the pandemic?

Check out the official pronouncements from the World Economic Forum: Great Reset, a.k.a. Fourth Industrial Revolution. Or from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: there are too many of us, we’re ruining the environment, Malthus had it right, limit the population, and those who remain alive will be better off. Or from George Soros and his Open Society: drop national governments, let the United Nations Organization lord over all of us.

To sum up: it’s called divide and rule. And since the original Marxist idea of dividing people along the classes failed, let’s use differences in skin colours to make these anti-human ideologies work.

People who are proud of their heritage will never fall for this: they understand that others are as proud of their heritages, and they respect it.

We’ll need to be strong to see through all this politically correct balderdash. It will remain our only option if we want to remain alive as people.

We’re not paranoid, it’s just that everybody hates us

Russian president Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin put the world on notice: Russia has always been paranoid, and it sees no reason to change her ways.

Putin spent more than four hours answering questions from journalists from all over Russia, and from all over the world. It was sabre-rattling at its best.

Radio Sputnik provided the main feed of the question-and-answer session, including a running translation into English. A number of other broadcasters picked up the signal and broadcast it on their own channels. Radio Sputnik is funded by the Russian government.

While praising what he described as Russia’s successful re-entry into the arms race, Putin said his country didn’t really want to do it, but it had to. The Americans forced Mama Rossiya into it, he explained, using the time-worn would-be proofs of Russia’s Nr. 1 foe’s perfidy.

And while trying to avoid mentioning his name, Putin had to answer questions about Alexei Anatolievich Navalny (Алексей Анатольевич Навальный), a Russian opposition leader.

Navalny, a 44-year-old avid anti-corruption activist, claims that if anyone enriched himself using ways beyond the limits of existing laws and decency, it was Putin. And he’s perfectly prepared to supply documents to prove his accusations.

Understandably, the Russian president isn’t too pleased. And the fact that Navalny felt ill, allegedly poisoned by Russian intelligence on Putin’s personal orders, using Novichok (новичок), a special killing substance, created headlines all over the world.

When Putin was defending his annoyance with all things Navalny, he luckily couldn’t be aware what his opponent will say during his final speech before a Russian court.

Apparently, the poison was put into Navalny’s shorts (трусы in Russian, read troosee), and Navalny said that Putin was a coward, a word that, in Russian, sounds very similar to shorts (трус, read troos).

Anyhow, Navalny would get his three-and-a-half-year sentence for violating his parole conditions a couple of weeks after the Putin year-end news conference was over, so, that line of questioning was out.

In any case, Putin told the journalists, mostly gathered in a few locations and linked to him via internet technology, that he didn’t own such opulent palaces in the sub-tropics as the no-name Navalny had charged, and you better take my word for it.

That, of course, is an internal matter and Russia’s official view has always been that foreigners should not be putting their dirty noses into things that are none of their bloody business.

Armed and dangerous

Putin spread himself rather intensively on the topic of international affairs, a most current theme since the change of administrations in the United States.

His reading of history was coming from Russia’s point of view. Not too surprising, really. If you compare individual nations’ history textbooks, you won’t believe how differently they view the same events. The Spanish armada completely destroyed the British navy in Spanish history classes, while British kids read that their navy obliterated the Spanish like nobody’s business.

Except, such grossly biased view of history becomes somewhat troubling when presented by the president of one of the two remaining superpowers (the other is the People’s Republic of China, the U.S. has been out of the race since November 3, 2020).

It can hardly be a coincidence when RT News, a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government, follows up with stories about top Russian military commanders outlining their country’s war with NATO. It can hardly be described as a leak by an independent journalist, fed by an independent assistant to a U.S. Congress member, as had been the case on so many occasions in Washington, D.C.

Putin, in his news conference, went into great detail describing his country military’s newest toys, mentioning their names, descriptions and technical data. On each occasion, he would stress that the U.S. is far behind Mother Russia, thanks to the inventiveness, talent, imagination and, generally, better all-round education of his country’s scientists.

Of course, what else could one expect from him, once he got on the path of making sure everybody knows that Russia is simply the best.

Our spies are better than yours

But, and that is rather ominous, during the last few years, a number of Russian production houses have flooded numerous social media, YouTube in particular, with all kinds of shows claiming to have been taken from archives (special file, or особая папка in Russian) that used to be marked as completely secret (совершенно секретно in Russian).

Some of them deal with the backgrounds of a variety of puzzling moves within Soviet leadership in the past. Many of those used to keep the so-called Kremlinologists awake, as they tried to decipher the relative positions of strength in Moscow. What does it mean that so-and-so used to be in this position and this distance to the leader in a photo issued during last week’s Red Square parade, but today, that same person is positioned elsewhere, and the distance between him and the leader has changed?

Soviet propagandists had tons of fun with this, manipulating official photos any way they thought would puzzle the Kremlinologists the most.

But most of the 35-to-45-minute long Russian shows on YouTube deal with military matters and with espionage in general, and counter-espionage in particular. So far as they are concerned, defectors to the West who claimed that hatred toward the communist system was their reason were bloody liars. They had no reason to hate the perfectly fair system. And those who tried to spy against the Soviets, especially those who tried it while in Soviet territory, would be inevitably caught and punished.

These shows go into incredible detail when describing counter-intelligence activities of Soviet secret services, from the good old Cheka, through GPU, NKVD, MGB, KGB, all the way to today’s FSB.

And, of course, all of those production houses are paid by the government of Russia.

Those detailed descriptions are a part of a disinformation campaign: some of the details may be true, but the whole isn’t. But they also show that Russian leadership is growing increasingly paranoid.

The World Economic Forum threatens us with its Great Reset, or fourth industrial revolution, also described as feudalist socialism by Armstrong Economics. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation threatens us with implementing its Malthusian visions, covered under the guise of saving the world from over-population and devastating climate changes, that, by definition, sounds like genocide and nothing else. The George Soros-run Open Society demands a world government run by the United Nations. All this sounds like trouble enough.

Throw the People’s Republic of China into the mix. It watches the new U.S. administration with glee, as the new White House crew has enthusiastically returned to the old swamp ways of devastating the country’s national economy, dividing the population along racial and class lines along the way.

All we needed was Russia jumping into the fray.

Shame on you, Mother Russia. Как не стыдно, Мама Россия!

Our civilisation is doomed, and it’s our fault

Mr. Finkelstein is at an S-Bahn (rapid transit railway system) station in Berlin. He wants to go pee, but he has two suitcases with him, and he wants to find someone honest who would look after his luggage while he’s relieving himself.

He sees a German gentleman, and asks him what he thinks of the Jews.

Oh, says the German, I love them, talented, hard-working people, etc.

So, Mr. Finkelstein doesn’t ask him for help.

Another German walks by, and Mr. Finkelstein asks the same question.

Why, the German guy says, I just admire them, I even have a few Jewish friends, beautiful, wonderful people, etc.

So, Mr. Finkelstein asks another German gentleman.

And this guy says, stinky bloody bastards, Hitler should have been faster in getting rid of them all, etc.

Oi, says Mr. Finkelstein, an honest German, at long last! Sir, would you please look after my suitcases while I go to relieve myself?

That’s what I have always thought of American commentator Dennis Prager’s views on the issue of anti-Semitism.

By way of introduction to those who haven’t had the pleasure: Dennis Prager hosts his radio talk show and writes frequently on political topics. Originally, he would concentrate on the plight of Soviet Jews whom the then-regime would let emigrate. As the communist government in the Soviet Union fell apart, and the Soviet Union became the former Soviet Union, Dennis Prager’s views expanded to broader issues.

If you try to look him up using the usual search engines, you would find descriptions such as right-wing, or social conservatism, whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

Dennis Prager is anything but. Dennis Prager defies all kinds of labels. He is a realist who sees the world going to hell in a hand-basket. And THAT is his label.

Good or bad?

In a couple of recent columns, Dennis Prager was trying to figure out how it could happen that so many Americans would fall for such blatant invasion of a strange combination of two socialist ideas, one a communist strain, the other, fascist.

After all, has America not been built on the foundations of independence, individual rights, people objecting to too much government interference in their own affairs, people depending on themselves and their own abilities rather than on government fiat?

Yes, history says so.

But history is about the past.

Dennis Prager used to study the question that he called “the good German.” Just how the average (presumably decent) German did nothing to hurt Jews but, at the same time, did nothing to help them? And what about fighting the Nazi regime?

How could the nation that gave the world Ludwig van Beethoven and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, or Professor Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (of the X-ray fame) permit a miserable sergeant (Feldwebel) Adolf Schickelgruber, a.k.a. Hitler to turn the country into one of the bloodiest dictatorships of all time?

Speaking of bloody dictatorships, how about the Russians who gave us Leo Tolstoy, Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev of the Periodic Law and periodic table of elements fame? They would also give us Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, whose killing ways made Hitler’s Holocaust numbers pale in comparison.

And never mind the French who, in addition to the many writers and artists and musicians and their cuisine also gave us Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Pétain, the Marshal who led his country to surrender and a fascist government in Vichy.

And, lest you think this list of nations with black stains on their collective consciences is complete, start thinking again.

This IS about collective guilt, because that’s what we were facing then.

And since humanity is unable to learn from its own mistakes, this is precisely what we’re facing today. Again.

Intolerable illiteracy

People keep their mouths shut over lockdowns that cost them jobs and that were caused by artificial panic about a non-existent pandemic. Simply because they don’t ask the basic question: why? Doesn’t matter if it’s out of fear or laziness or because of their lack of knowledge. We don’t make our elected (and appointed) officials answerable.

People shout down those who disagree and put all kinds of labels on them, the easiest way to end all meaningful discussion. Another sign of illiteracy, this time about basic rules of democracy.

People believe in magic power of vaccines that not only haven’t finished their clinical trials yet, but that, in a number of cases, have proven that they are a present danger to those who get inoculated.

People have not noticed yet that, while this unprecedented hoax is going on, all debate on illegal migration that is supposed to rid the world of this civilisation, has ceased.

The nonchalance, indifference, even, about what is happening around us is beyond shocking.

What has caused this massive explosion of, excuse the rude expression, mass idiocy? What got us into a situation where powers-that-be deny not only us mere mortals but experts in a variety of fields, too, the right to free expression, and most citizens don’t even notice, never mind object?

Dennis Prager, whose words of deep concern made me write this contribution to the public inquiry into the subject, studied totalitarianism since his graduate years at the Russian Institute of Columbia University’s School of International Affairs (as it was then known). Quite logically, he believed that a society could be brainwashed only in a dictatorship.

But: what is political correctness if not dictatorship? Say a word wrong, and the consequences can be as harsh as those in communist Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany. The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, basically all of the so-called mainstream media (MSM for short), publications such as The Atlantic, The New Yorker, networks such CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the so-called artists of Hollywood, they all resemble the infamous Moscow Pravda (Правда) newspaper. Pravda, in verbatim translation, means the truth. A popular joke making rounds in former communist countries used to say that there was as much truth in this or that statement made by a communist government (or any other authority) as in Moscow’s Pravda.

That’s one of the issues in the west: people haven’t yet got used to the fact that they should not trust their MSM. In fact, that they should start ignoring them. Here’s one rule of thumb people in the former communist countries remember, and those who haven’t experienced it haven’t heard of: don’t believe any rumour until and unless it’s been officially denied.

The killing comfort

And one more issue: we’re too well off for our own good. The consumerism we’ve been experiencing the last several decades is killing us. We are not aware of the simple fact that innovation does not necessarily equal progress.

That has one more effect: way too many of us do not care one iota about what’s going on around us, so long as we have our newest gadgets to play with.

This indifference will allow people like Klaus Martin Schwab of the World Economic Forum to implement their dream of what they call Great Reset or the fourth industrial revolution (and what American economist Martin Armstrong calls feudalistic socialism). It will let Bill and Melinda Gates proceed with their Malthusian visions that will end up in genocide. It will also permit George Soros and his Open Society to continue pushing for a world government, under the United Nations umbrella.

Anyone who calls these statements conspiracy theories should go back to school.

Why? Because a theory, by its definition, must be supported by proof. And no, these are not conspiracies, either. Schwab, the Gates couple and Soros can hardly be more open about their goals.

Are we past the point of redemption?

It definitely looks like it.

Alfred Nobel must be turning in his grave

What do the Norwegians put in their water? Petter Eide, who has represented the Socialist Left Party in Norway’s Parliament, Storting, since 2017, has nominated the American group Black Lives Matter for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.

He’s following in the footsteps of former Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who ran the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, a.k.a. the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, in 1992. That was the gathering that, first of all, imposed formulas for bureaucratese quotas for (what they called) making our environment more sustainable, and, secondly, imposed strong censorship on all climate scientists who dared express doubts or had questions.

That conference was followed by the so-called Kyoto Protocols, adopted in 1997, to confirm the figures drawn from the thinnest of airs at Rio five years earlier.

All that in the name of the Socialist International, of which Ms. Brundtland had been a vice-president at the time.

Norway, for reasons of her own, has been parading in this direction for years.

Many may remember the name Fjotolf Hansen born Anders Behring Breivik, a.k.a. Andrew Breivik. He had been warning his government and his parliament about the dangers of supporting pro-Palestinian terrorists. His country’s authorities would not only ignore him, they would harass him for his warnings.

Frustrated beyond acceptable levels, Breivik first detonated a van bomb inside his country government’s quarters (Regjeringskvartalet) in the capital city of Oslo, and then proceeded to the Utøya Island where he would kill 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League summer camp.

Of course, the camp’s activities were far from peaceful: these people were preparing to go to war on behalf of Palestinian terrorist organizations. They were preparing for war, and they got it sooner than they thought they would.

As could have been expected, the Norwegian government, with most mainstream media all over the world following suit, would describe Breivik as a far-right extremist.

Labelling people, using derogatory names to describe those they disagree with, has been a longstanding tradition with socialists in all of their permutations.

Nothing new

Petter Eide’s explanation of his reasons to nominate self-professed Marxist looters and terrorists for the Nobel Peace Prize is filled with the usual clichés, too.

The Black Lives Matter movement, thus MP Eide, has been calling for systemic change in relationships between race groups, and its message has spread around the world.

That the movement’s own name is perfectly racist in and of itself, does not matter. Not to Norwegian MP Petter Eide.

The fact that the Black Lives Matter movement founders, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, make no secret of their Marxist leanings is not a real issue so far as MP Eide is concerned. The millions of innocent deaths and regimes bordering on outright slavery matter not, either.

Besides, in a number of eyes that are shifted firmly to the left, Black Lives Matter demonstrations have been peaceful assemblies, mostly. A group that calls itself Armed Conflict Location and Event Data claims that most of the Black Lives Matter events were as peaceful as peaceful can get. In fact, they claim that some 93 per cent of Black Life Matter’s events involved no serious harm to people or property.

Tell THAT to 100 per cent of those who had witnessed the unadulterated looting, robbery and lobbying first-hand.

Rocky roads

The Nobel Peace Prize history is nothing if not uneven. It has been pretty obvious throughout its years of existence that politics (politicking, even) have been the driving force behind its committee’s decisions.

Why would Archbishop Desmond Tutu receive it in 1984? For his role in playing up to the bleeding hearts who knew nothing about South Africa?

Why would Mikhail Gorbachev be so honoured in 1990? For his role in the breakup of his country which he never anticipated and still hadn’t come to terms with?

Why would a convicted terrorist-turned-president Nelson Mandela be the recipient in 1993, together with Frederik Willem de Klerk who got him out of jail even though he must have been aware that this step would ruin his country?

Why would Yasser Arafat, another convicted terrorist-turned-chief of a terrorist organisation, receive it together with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1994? For an accord that would lead nowhere, only to cost way too many innocent lives, and they both had known it from the moment they sat down at opposite sides of the table?

And how about the 2002 winner James Earl Carter, the U.S. president who helped the Iranian imams to take over their country, thus sparking an unheard of before wave of terrorism?

Why did former U.S. vice-president Al Gore win the prize in 2007? For his outright hypocrisy in his so-called drive for sustainable climate, making sure he would earn enough on the naïveté of many, so that he won’t be forced into a poorhouse because of his effort?

And how about former U.S. president Barrack Hussein Obama who won the prize in 2009, even before the ink on his oath of office had a chance to dry?

These are the most recent and outrageous examples of politicking.

Now, MP Petter Eide wants to add one more.

How it works

Any politician who serves at a national level in his country can nominate a candidate, and the nominee can live and work anywhere else in the world.

The letter accompanying the nomination must not exceed 2,000 words of praise for the candidate. February 1 is the deadline for submissions. The selection committee prepares a shortlist by the end of March. The winner is chosen in October, and the award is presented December 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s passing.

Nobody knows how many nominations the committee can expect this year. It got 300 of them last year, and selected the World Food Programme out of 300 nominations.

Not many expect former U.S. president Donald J. Trump to win, however. The rhetoric emanating from Oslo suggests that nobody cares about the fact Trump had helped broker peace treaties in the Middle East, making several formerly implacable foes of Israel sign accords of mutual recognition and respect. So far as this nomination goes, it was submitted by another Norwegian MP, Christian Tybring-Gjedde. The reaction was swift: Tybring-Gjedde, you see, belongs to the far right (whatever THAT is). The reasons for the nomination notwithstanding, the nominator’s alleged views seem to have disqualified his nominee, even before the committee had a chance to read the nomination papers.

MP Petter Eide concludes his nomination: “Awarding the peace prize to Black Lives Matter, as the strongest global force against racial injustice, will send a powerful message that peace is founded on equality, solidarity and human rights, and that all countries must respect those basic principles.”

So: what do the Norwegians put in their water?

Comrade Goebbels would have been proud of us

This headline is stolen from a former high-ranking Soviet journalist.

A member of a group that used to spend their time writing speeches for top Soviet officials of the time, including communist party boss Leonid Brezhnev and its top ideologist, Mikhail Suslov, this journalist would with time lose most of his illusions.

He said he noticed the first signs of disappointment with the system when he was called upon to act as a political officer with a Soviet army unit in 1968 (and a few months onwards) in occupied Czechoslovakia.

In any case, in the second half of the 1970s, he wrote an analytical paper about the state of the communist media, with the conclusion mentioned in the headline (Товарищ Геббельс бы нами гордился in Russian). The paper, distributed by the so-called “samizdat network” would fall in the hands of the almighty KGB. The Soviet journalist was arrested, but in a strange twist of a power struggle between party chief Brezhnev and KGB boss Yuri Andropov, he wasn’t sent to any of the Gulag concentration camps but, rather, kicked out of the Soviet Union aboard the first plane flying west (it turned to be the Fiumicino airport in Rome, Italy).

No empty threat

The time is coming when those in previously free North America who think differently will be forced to use the samizdat (самиздат in its original Russian) again. People whose works wouldn’t pass the ideological muster in the official publications would publish their stuff on their own, without official authorization and censorship. Needless to say communist authorities viewed such behaviour as criminal acts.

And so do today’s politically correct gurus in today’s North American mainstream media.

The days of samizdat are ahead of us now. Again.

Here’s where we are: in for pretty long four years of official sucking up to everything Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. In that order for a brief period of time, and in reversed order (or minus Joe Biden) shortly afterwards.

And then? Who knows?

In any case, gone are the days of media independence. Not that journalists have ever been totally free to write, tell and show everything they thought was fit to print, as the New York Times likes to say about itself. But they tried, at least.

In fact, a journalist who claims that s/he has never had her/his work censored is lying through her/his pearly-white teeth. Either that, or the copy they produced must have been so boringly irrelevant, even the censors wouldn’t read it.

The change in journalistic attitudes that makes them political propagandists rather than people recording the first version of history has been happening slowly, but quite distinctly.

Today’s media have introduced a few new words into our vocabularies. Wrongthink, for example. The line from feudal times and the invention of newspapers to today’s holy war on free speech is perfectly straightforward.

Not so long ago, newspapers used to declare their political affinities. In fact, some would belong to political parties. They would toe the party line no matter what, and, quite often, the truth be damned.

Then came the era one would call “nominal independence.”

Of course, upsetting the applecart to such a degree people would stop reading you, boycott you, even, that would still be unacceptable. Advertising revenue would spiral down the tube as a result, and where’s the poor owner or publisher supposed to get the money to pay the journalists to keep them living at levels they have grown used to, right?

Still, the principle that media is supposed to provide their readers (listeners, viewers) with all the facts that are available seemed to have become the norm.

Note the word: seemed.

The era of political correctness whose stated objective is to make sure we think and speak so politely that nobody can be offended, has become firmly rooted in modern culture. So firmly rooted that truth be damned if someone doesn’t like it.

The theoreticians of this new trend have come up with a new view: new society does not require freedom of speech. If you turn this statement around, it confirms one thing: these new theoreticians haven’t a leg to stand on. They can’t compete against other opinions or statements of fact. So, they simply ban them outright.

A few examples

A couple of so-called social media providers ban the then-sitting president. Their reason defies not only basic logic, it also goes against the law that demands that anyone accused of anything is innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

What do the mainstream media (MSM for short) do?

They praise those social media providers to high heaven. The then-sitting president’s views clashed with those of their own, and, besides, he could support his views with his record, both in the field of America’s national economy, and on the world stage (who, pray tell, negotiated the impossible peace between Israel and some of her staunchest foes?).

Of course, nobody mentions this blatant conflict of interest: Jeff Bezos owns Amazon, and his company kicks, the free-speech defender, off its servers, and The Washington Post, owned by that same Jeff Bezos, is perfectly happy, telling its dwindling numbers of readers that Parler, after all, is a very dangerous idea. People can post whatever comes to their minds, and nobody censors them.

Who cares that Amazon has broken a valid contract? And who cares that Amazon’s decision is an open attack against the concept of freedom of expression?

The fact that a group of Harvard University students and alumni demand with brazen openness that their Alma Mater strip its degrees from people who had the chutzpah to support Donald J. Trump and his presidency becomes a sign of heroism.

Demanding that cable television companies deprive of their network services signal providers whose opinions don’t match theirs has become a usual part of those people’s rhetoric.

Typical signs

These people have hijacked the word “progressive,” claiming it describes them and nobody else.

On one hand, they praise the High-Tech poohbahs for their censorship efforts, on the other, they say social media don’t go far enough. They blame social media for not making sure organizers of the recent attack on Capitol were not prevented, at the same time publishing stories of Trump supporters as part of the violent mob, and perfectly ignoring the real culprits.

Of course, social media are stealing massive numbers of eyeballs from them, but that issue will have to remain on the backburner until the MSM settle their accounts with Donald J. Trump, his supporters, and his deeds.

In any case, for the time being, at least, the MSM are working hand-in-hand with the High Tech crowd in their attempt to (another wonderful word) “deplatform” sites that provide independent information. True, some of this information does not necessarily have to be completely factual, but intelligent users will unmask those who mislead them pretty quickly. They do not need the MSM to tell them.

In any case, MSM slogans, such as “words are violence,” stink. No wonder research shows that most Americans have lost all faith in the mainstream media.

They are now asking what’s happening, how it could happen. And they put all the blame on social media for stealing eyeballs away, instead of looking at their own mirrors.

Comrade Goebbels would have been proud of them, indeed.

Changing humans into herds of village idiots

Come to think of it, today’s doctrines of political correctness aren’t really new. Those of us who had lived through the years of socialism, and remember the experience, know them inside out. And we know, too, where they take people.

In fact, the way to impose such doctrines have been known long before socialism. Even the infamous Nicholas Machiavelli, whose definitions of such behaviour would become dogma centuries ago, admitted he was quoting from theories proven millennia before his birth.

Many thought that the system of forcing innocent people into admitting guilt where none had existed vanished with the top form of socialism, a.k.a. communism. Even the so-called table of forcing, created in 1956 by American psychologist Albert Biderman, only put the age-old rules into newly formulated words.

Biderman’s effort was describing methods of changing war prisoners’ thinking and, indeed, conscience.

Now, remember, he was reacting to events making headlines at the time: the Korean War had just been interrupted by an uneasy armistice, and people in Hungary have just started an uprising against the then-existing communist regime. The two Koreas are still at war, and the line in the sand on the 38th parallel is still called “demarcation line” rather than border. And the Russians still hesitate before calling their bloody intrusion into Hungary a war crime.

Stories of communist North Koreans engaging in brainwashing captured American pilots and other military personnel were rampant in the 1950s. Biderman’s probe only reflected the prevailing headlines of his time.

What’s new? Nothing

But here’s the tragedy: today, we see those same methods of changing human behaviours and minds being ruthlessly imposed on entire populations in countries that used to be known as paragons of freedom.

And, which is even more tragic, not too many object, and those who do, are way too often met with public disagreement, ridicule, even.

Biderman concentrated on eight points.

Isolation is the first one. Once a person is isolated, s/he loses social support. That leads to the loss of the ability to object. An isolated person has too much time on her or his hands. She or he starts analysing her/himself. Whether the analysis is correct or not doesn’t really matter. The fear of the (unpleasant) consequences that results from such analysis is what really matters. An isolated person is getting more and more dependent on her/his torturer. Meanwhile, the economic picture spirals downwards, and the victims of such process depend on the authority almost absolutely.

As if he was describing the last couple of decades, with the years 2020 and 2021 marked in red and in bold typeface.

Monopolization of our understanding of reality becomes the second point. The public square concentrates on topics selected by the authority. Everything else becomes irrelevant.

Just watch today’s mainstream media (MSM for short). What you get is their coverage of the coronavirus. They present the official view only, any other information that contradicts it is being removed. Information that questions the official information becomes punishable. By law, if need be.

Who cares that all kinds of bans and limitations on free movement suspend our human rights and, thus, dignity. Besides, and this is important, too, such bans and limitations make resistance more difficult to achieve. Many choose silence, instead: again, they are afraid of the consequences.

The third point involves exhausting the general population to the point of fearing for their minds.

Under socialism, people used to fear for their jobs because of their opinions. They feared their children wouldn’t be able to get better education because admittance to better secondary schools, colleges and universities wasn’t based so much on their academic results as it was on their parents’ positive attitudes toward the regime.

Look at what’s happening now. A person fired because s/he took part in a protest demonstration is not worthy of a headline any longer.

Here comes the fourth point: threats.

Here’s how it used to be in socialist countries: you don’t do this, or, even worse, you do that, and you have ruined your and your family’s future. You didn’t take part in the official May Day parade? You didn’t wave your flag enthusiastically enough when marching past the people’s representatives’ stand? Your kids, no matter how talented, can bid good bye to their university dreams.

Illiterate judges

Here’s how it is now: no face mask? Here’s the ticket, payable immediately. Not keeping socially distant enough? Here’s another ticket, also payable immediately. And don’t think an objection filed with a court of law will help you: you broke the law, the court will say, perfectly ignoring that breaking laws and orders that do not meet the test of humanity is perfectly within your rights. It seems our judges have never heard of so-called natural law (lex naturalis), as defined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and as upheld as part of modern international law by the Nurnberg war crimes tribunal.

Threats create uncertainty, fear and despair. Disobedience becomes almost impossible because of those fears.

Intermittent relaxation comes as the fifth point.

Those who train animals know the simple trick: give your dog a cheap reward from time to time, as a sign of praise for its obedience.

What happens: people don’t get used to the previous strict rules, they don’t find ways to adapt to them and find ways around them.

Look around these days: insignificant rewards for disciplined behaviour, combined with promises that all will be better next week, if only you behave as you’re told.

Next, as point six, comes the omniscient power. We’re your rulers and you can’t fight us. You’re behind bars, and there’s no way to get out until and unless we let you, and we won’t. And no, you can’t escape, either (how about the call by the government of Quebec that all Canadians’ international trips be banned?). Any resistance is useless, we’re watching you (notice the ever-increasing number of cameras in Canada’s streets and avenues?), so shut up and do as you’re told.

Humiliation is point number seven.

How? Walking around, with a duster covering your face just because someone ordered you to, that’s pretty demeaning. Some may have got used to it, but be sincere to yourselves: if someone told you but a single year ago that wearing face masks was an order or else, would you agree?

I thought so.

And Biderman’s final point, number eight: the more trivial and nonsensical an order that we are supposed to agree with it, and obey, the more humiliating it is. People start losing respect for themselves, their human dignity is gone.

This entire scenario begins in our schools: kids are forced to obey and parrot even the most outrageous gibberish. They won’t pass if they don’t.

Look at most jobs where blind obedience is a precondition not only to advancement, but to keeping the job, even.

What all that does to human self-respect, to human dignity, is perfectly obvious.

And that’s the kind of herd mentality today’s rulers want to achieve. Their criminal notions of Great Reset, world government and keeping the numbers of people on our planet to what they deem are acceptable numbers need sheeple rather than people to achieve their goals.

Time to fight them is running out.