Category Archives: Technology

European Union tackles Artificial Intelligence. Does it?

The Communist Party of China will not be pleased: the European Union leaders think of banning using artificial intelligence (AI) for mass surveillance and social credit scores.

According to leaked news, the EU is considering many other AI uses to forbid, but these two are the most important.

The People’s Republic of China has been boasting that its law enforcement can find anybody anywhere anytime. They are able to do it within just a few minutes. Their AI equipment is as advanced as anybody’s, they explain.

It must come as a frightful surprise, shock, even, to the ruling Beijing mandarins that the EU, an organisation known as hopelessly leftist (and that’s putting it tactfully, beyond discreetly) would question their policy of Orwellian Big-Brotherism, and that it would do it so unscrupulously.

What is it?

Artificial Intelligence is whatever anyone decides to define it as.

When Czech writer Karel Čapek wrote his play named R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) in 1920, he could have hardly expected that the word “robot” would become an integral part of so many languages (and that only very few writers who would be using it, would know its origin, Isaac Asimov being one of them).

Basically, robots employed by a Mr. Rossum would decide they had enough of doing what they are ordered to do, and they would start an uprising.

The word “robot” itself is an expression slightly changed from the original Czech word “robota,” meaning statute labour in the times of serfdom.

Interestingly, and those who haven’t learnt their Czech yet ought to be ashamed, the name of the robots’ owner itself is dripping with sarcastic irony: the word “rozum” equals reason in English, as in ability to think.

So, creating robots that do their masters’ thinking artificially, told only what the objective would be, has been as shortsighted as anything can get, with one exception: it helps those who would like to control the masses of population.

A video used to circulate on the world’s social media a few years ago. A People’s Republic of China official posted it. It showed a person, an alleged dissident, who got a call from another dissident, to meet at a pre-arranged (and thus, unnamed in the phone conversation) spot. The call was intercepted, of course, and using face recognition devices, the authorities had that dissident on their screens within seconds, cameras relaying his movement from one block to another, until the spot where he met the other guy, and before they could express any dissent, they were both arrested.

Ingenious, no?

Split personalities.

The European Union, on one hand, does everything possible to control each and every citizen of each and every of its member countries.

On the other hand, it introduced something known as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR for short), a set of rules to protect everybody’s privacy. It has been in force since May 25, 2018, and even the transnational worldwide companies, such as Google, Twitter or Facebook, must comply to be allowed to operate anywhere within the EU territory.

Many, if not most, of today’s EU leaders claim Maoist past. And, as well, many, if not most, of today’s EU leaders are on board with Klaus Martin Schwab’s (of the World Economic Forum infamy) Great Reset, a.k.a. fourth industrial revolution.

They seem somewhat unsure when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s genocidal plans top the agenda: they are all agog about the Gates climate change claim. In light of the latest developments, they are not altogether certain about vaccination. And the eugenics ideas promoted by the Gates duo, while sounding attractive to many of the EU poohbahs, still leaves them shaking in their boots: memories of Adolf Hitler still hit too close to home.

They are not so sure, either, about George Soros and his Open Societies that clamour for a one-world government, controlled formally by the United Nations Organisation, but subordinated to persons and groups unknown. Where would this arrangement leave them, with all those benefits and perks they’ve been enjoying at taxpayers’ expense?

Again, here enters the one hand, and the other: they all of a sudden find themselves defending Europeans’ privacy, and ditching extraordinary tools of controlling the masses, including Artificial Intelligence.

Against the grain?

Depends on whom you ask. The EU sees the solution in telling member states to set up something they call assessment boards to decide which of the AI applications are kosher and which aren’t.

Anew: on the one hand, shocking, as the Brussels EU head office will share power with individual countries, something it hasn’t done in decades. On the other hand, while many countries will decide to curb the use of AI not only to snitch on its own citizens (jó napot kívánok, Orbán Viktor úr, and dzień dobry, panie Morawiecki) but altogether, many others (Grüßgott, Frau Merkel, Bon Jour, Monsieur Macron, and dobrý den, pane Babiši) will be much more lenient.

After all, they can use not only China, but a number of North American jurisdictions for their examples, too.

Many municipalities in Canada quite openly install all kinds of closed-circuit television systems on their ways and byways, telling citizens who dare ask that they’re doing it in their own interest, so nobody can rob them and go unpunished, and rot like that.

In any case, those who develop or dare sell AI software that is on the banned list in the EU could face fines up to four per cent of what they make globally. And that includes those who are based elsewhere in the world.

No wonder then that the U.S. high-tech giants have been doing all they can to get rid of pesky local governments, and, in their warped view that is based on ignorance and sheer illiteracy, European Union is one of those.

Herewith the rules:

While, it seems, the list below is not really complete, it is impressive as it is, anyhow.

  1. A ban on AI for “indiscriminate surveillance,” including systems that directly track individuals in physical environments or aggregate data from other sources.
  2. A ban on AI systems that create social credit scores, which means judging someone’s trustworthiness based on social behaviour or predicted personality traits.
  3. Special authorization for using “remote biometric identification systems” like facial recognition in public spaces.
  4. Notifications required when people are interacting with an AI system, unless this is “obvious from the circumstances and the context of use”.
  5. New oversight for “high-risk” AI systems, including those that pose a direct threat to safety, like self-driving cars, and those that have a high chance of affecting someone’s livelihood, like those used for job hiring, judiciary decisions, and credit scoring.
  6. Assessment for high-risk systems before they’re put into service, including making sure these systems are explicable to human overseers and that they’re trained on “high quality” datasets tested for bias.
  7. The creation of a “European Artificial Intelligence Board,” consisting of representatives from every nation-state, to help the commission decide which AI systems count as “high-risk” and to recommend changes to prohibitions.

Pay special attention: the new set of rules bans using AI for mass surveillance and social credit scores.

Great or awful?

While perhaps too vague, it definitely is a start, optimists suggest.

Other experts are shrugging, doubting the whole thing to its roots.

Speaking, for example, about sections that regulate systems that might cause people to “behave, form an opinion or take a decision to their detriment,” they say these rules are too vague.

Besides, the devil’s in the detail, and that’s where reading the full text of the proposal becomes tedious, tiring and exceedingly boring.

How, more than a few experts ask, can a government decide whether a decision that had been influenced by AI was to someone’s detriment or not?

And: no matter how you slice it, the new proposals reflect perfectly the European Union’s approach to everything: when in doubt, regulate.

To come back full-circle to the question, namely, whether the EU is defying the New World Order proposals or not, here’s the answer: no. It’s just found a different way of getting there.

Hi-tech snitching coming up

The European Union is seriously considering implanting chips into the bodies of its citizens to keep records whether they had been vaccinated against Covid-19.

This is NOT a phantasy taken from an idiotic would-be sci-fi novel. This is a real statement by Czech Republic’s former minister of health, now serving as the country’s president Miloš Zeman’s medical adviser.

His name is Roman Prymula, and he told the Czech version of CNN on Prima News that the EU has been debating in official circles, and for the record, how to distinguish between those who had been vaccinated, or tested, or who had gone through the disease caused by Covid-19 (pseudobronchopneumonia).

Lest North American readers think this doesn’t involve them, let them think again.

Prymula told the station’s Partie program that EU has been looking at issuing some kind of an identification card, or putting an application into everybody’s telephones, or implanting chips that would be readable by special devices and that would be open to recording new data as needed.

The idea, Prymula explained, would be that those who had been vaccinated would enjoy some benefits, and the EU’s economy would get help this way, too. Several countries insist on travel quarantines even for those who had been vaccinated, and this (what a nice bureaucratese expression) demotivates people’s agreement for inoculation.

Documentary proof of vaccination would be accessible not only to all of EU member countries and their authorities, but to employers and general population, as well, Prymula told the show.

Documents printed on paper, even if covered in plastic, can be forged, telephones can be hacked, but a chip that is implanted right under a person’s skin will show proven identity and status. That, Prymula explained, is the thinking behind EU’s plan.

Czech Republic has banned citizens‘ movement between individual districts other than to their place of employment, and having police check every car on each road creates unbearable traffic congestion. If a person had a chip under the skin in the area of her/his wrist, waving their hand against a device that would open a boom gate would suffice.

It used to look as if a predicted EU program, tentatively known as Total Control, was but a chimera, a bad dream, at best.

The news revealed by Roman Prymula shows that the plan is no longer a dream but, rather, new reality. Not only will it create a new apartheid, but it would also let the authorities control the movement of all EU citizens within the EU, but even while they are travelling anywhere else in the world.

Issues from outer world?

Of course, nobody in their right mind knows how to explain the so-called novel mutations or variants. These come from all over the world, they differ among themselves, and vaccination becomes futile: a vaccine aims at a single strain, while here there are not only multiple strains, but multiple variants, to boot.

And an enlightenment on how seniors in an old-folks home in Germany could have all of a sudden be infected with the so-called British variant, is lacking. We only know that it happened after they had got their second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Those senior citizens at Osnabrück have lived in strict isolation the last three months. None of the personnel had a positive infection result, either.

What gives? Can it be that the vaccines themselves can be spreading the infection?

Why have the variants (British, South African and Brasilian) emerged only after vaccinations started in Great Britain, South Africa and Brasil?

Is there a causality?

An open question for the ages.

And if it all sounds like a brand new version of serfdom, that’s because it is. American economist Martin Armstrong calls the development “feudalistic socialism,” and he has it 100-per-cent right.

Here’s what’s going to happen, and you don’t have to be a futurologist or an ancient Greek oracle from Delphi (Pytho in the original): those without chips under their skin saying they’ve submitted will become whatever class citizens, and the rest, panicked beyond belief by statements of new and new waves would view them as terrorists and shun them.

It may happen, if good old Nostradamus has his way, that those poor un-chipped people will be allowed to walk around wearing respirators. Not face masks. Respirators.

Any semblance to the Star of David? A definitely rhetorical question.

People who haven’t fallen for this artificial panic will be out of their jobs, not allowed to travel, not allowed to enter stores, including those that sell basic groceries, and if the infamous Antifa was honest, this is the kind of fascism they should be fighting.

Who’s the guy?

Roman Prymula is a 57-year-old retired Czech Army colonel, who got his medical degree from the then-Czechoslovak military university.

He became infamous in his country when he was relieved of his duties as the boss of a teaching hospital in Hradec Kralové. He stood accused of sending all kinds of lucrative contracts his daughter’s business company’s way.

Almost immediately afterwards, Roman Prymula was appointed Czech minister of health’s advisor. He would advance to the job of minister, only to be relieved when caught by some intrepid journalists breaking his own tough face-mask and no-gatherings rules.

Prymula said on the occasion he would never ever again accept any public service job.

But: president Zeman decided he needed an adviser on all things medical, and Prymula’s solemn promise went out of the window.

If Roman Prymula’s life story reminds anybody of any living politician’s story, it’s not accidental.

Garbage in space

Crowded planet Earth? Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s panic-mongering contention would be ridiculously funny, if their proposed genocidal solutions weren’t so ludicrously tragic.

If there’s anything crowded, it’s the space around our planet.

You can’t see it with your naked eyes, but there are so many man-made satellites circling the Earth even as you read this, it looks like a huge metropolitan garbage dump in space.

Just check it out.

You will get a three-dimensional model of all objects orbiting our planet. It includes both satellites and the debris of those space vessels whose best-before-date has already expired. Just scroll over any of the tiny dots, and you will get the name of the artificial spatial body. Write it down and then use your favourite search engine to find out who had sent it aloft.

On several occasions, you will find out that the culprit is (and will remain for the foreseeable future) anonymous: military platforms, you know. Used either for intelligence or other similar purposes.

Why anyone would think that a combination of words such as military and intelligence is not an oxymoron is another topic for another day.

Here’s what we should remember: this filth is going to stay above us for decades, sometimes centuries, even.

Whether there exist any practical methods of either getting it to disappear or bringing it back down to Earth is not publicly known. Experience accumulated through decades of observing human idiocy seems to indicate that not many have wasted their valuable time to even think about it. Or, if they had, not many would be inclined to do so.

Sweet Hollywood-like dreams

Someone some time ago somewhere suggested to blast the bloody spatial human waste to smithereens. These people must have watched too many Hollywood productions about warfare in space.

Imagine you do manage to shoot and hit all that debris. The only result? More debris. Granted, in smaller pieces. But still in orbit.

Five years after the Soviet Union launched the (allegedly) first artificial satellite, a.k.a. Sputnik, and one year after that same Soviet Union put (again, allegedly) the first human in space (Yuri Alekseievich Gagarin), the United Nations Organisation (UNO for short) decided to put together what it calls a Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space.

Why twice allegedly in the previous paragraph? Secretive as they were, the Soviets would neither confirm nor deny reports that had appeared before October 4, 1957. These reports were based on a variety of intelligence data that claimed the Soviets sent their first satellite up before that date, during the period that they had announced was used to test their brand new ballistic missiles.

And, some intelligence data seem to confirm that the Soviets sent another human being into space before April 12, 1961, when Gagarin made his successful voyage.

In any case, this is almost ancient history today.

What is now is the fact that the UNO had seen fit to establish a Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. It was supposed, as the UNO said, to discuss (verbatim from their own statement) “political, legal and technical issues concerning outer space, the evolution of international space law resulted in space object registration becoming a means of identifying which States’ bear international responsibility and liability for space objects.”

It would take the august UNO body a decade and a half to at long last negotiate and sign what it calls the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space.

The Secretary-General and the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs are responsible for making sure the treaty is kept up-to-date. The data is being published regularly through the UNO Official Document System. (A check on March 22, 2021 shows that the UNO confirms its data has been last updated on March 17, 2021. Lightning speed or what?)

The UNO claims it has 86 per cent of all satellites, probes, landers, crewed spacecraft and space station flight elements launched into Earth orbit or beyond registered.

Two questions: where are the remaining 14 per cent? And: when you look at the stuffin.space independent website and compare it to the UNO data, you will have serious doubts about the official 86 per cent registered figure. What gives?

Is it comforting to know that if an asteroid the size that once rid us of dinosaurs is coming too close to our planet, it would have to hit a human-made spacecraft first, before getting down and sending us all the dinosaurs’ way?

Not.

A rocket man’s tale

The German military during the Nazi times, Wehrmacht, used to call it Stalin’s organ (Stalinorgel). The Soviet Army called it Guards Mortar (гвардейские миномёты). These weapons would become popular under their nickname Katyusha (Russian diminutive for Catherine).

And yet, its inventor would be executed by Soviet dictator Josif Stalin’s secret police even before the war began. His name was Georgy Erikhovich Langemak (Russian: Георгий Эрихович Лангемак).

It was Langemak, a Russian of Swiss-German origin, who would invent the jet mortars. They were first used at the Orsha junction station on July 14, 1941, wreaking havoc and causing panic within the German units that had got there.

Orsha is a city in Belarus in the Vitebsk Region, on the fork of the Dnieper and Arshytsa rivers.

According to the Wehrmacht survivors of the attack, a real firestorm fell on the railway junction. The battery of jet mortars struck not with simple shells, but with munition filled with incendiary mixture. German soldiers and officers felt the explosions burnt the ground beneath their feet.

The Katyushas would become a mystery wrapped in an enigma for the Nazis. They never knew when or where these weapons would strike: the Katyusha units’ main mode of operation (a.k.a. MOD) was to move to combat positions in full secrecy, getting there only in cloudy weather or at night.

Not only that: to maintain this secrecy, every machine was mined. Whenever there was any danger of the Wehrmacht even seeing it, it had to be blown up.

This tragic rule caused the death of the first operational unit’s crew, including its commander.

A snitch’s claim to fame

What happened was this: an Andrei Grigorievich Kostikov wrote a letter to then Commissar (boss) of Soviet state security Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov, charging that Langemak, as well as his colleagues, Valentin Petrovich Glushko, Sergei Pavlovich Korolev and Ivan Terentievich Kleymyonov, have been involved in wrecking, willful sabotage and, perhaps, high treason, too.

All of these people would be sentenced as enemies of the people. Korolev and Glushko would survive, while Kleymyonov would be shot on Monday, Jan. 10, 1938, and Langemak one day later.

The snitch would replace Langemak as the head of the department creating the killing machines. By the time he got there, the Katyushas had their field tests behind them, and the only step was to start their mass production.

The snitch Kostikov would raise in the military ranks all the way to Major-General, and in the ranks of science he would become a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Kostikov would die in his bed, aged 61, with a record of at least a dozen deaths reliably attributable to his correspondence with the ever-changing Soviet state security bosses. His name would be linked to the inventions of others until former Soviet archives opened their gates to researches.

The twists

Langemak and Kleymyonov were nominated for highest government awards shortly before Kostikov reported them as wreckers and enemies of the people in 1937. They were arrested almost immediately after the snitch’s report reached the Commissar’s desk.

By the following January, they were both dead.

Their colleagues, Glushko and Korolev, were sent to the GULAG concentration camps. Sitting at special labs and workshops (a.k.a. шарка, see The Gulag Archipelago, or Архипелаг ГУЛАГ in Russian, by Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, for more details), they continued to work on their inventions.

Glushko would end up developing engines for Soviet missiles, while Korolev was the author of the huge ballistic missiles themselves. The vehicles that would deliver the first satellite (Sputnik, Спутник in Russian) into orbit in 1957, and the first human being into space (Yuri Alexeievich Gagarin) in 1961, were built by Korolev and ran on Glushko’s engines.

A rocket-building linguist

Langemak himself never thought of creating weapons. He was into linguistics big time: an expert in ancient Greek and Latin, he would also master the Japanese language.

Except, revolutionary times being what they were (and are), Langemak was drafted into what then used to be Red Army, sent to its technical school and, upon successful graduation, ordered to join the research institute that concerned itself with what would become rocketry.

He was sentenced to die based on one (ONE!) interrogation record and one (ONE!) report by a snitch.

Langemak’s papers and books have been removed from distribution, and scientists have learnt only now where their research could have been today had Langemak lived.

As one of them put it, trips to the Moon could have been a matter of travel bureau packages, and Jupiter could have been the main natural gas supplier to earthlings, by now.

Why this story now and here?

Simple: with all the cancel culture and woke drivel that is permeating our awareness these days, instead of real knowledge that is still available to us, we are quickly getting to where the former Soviet Union used to be.

Or do you think that people proudly snitching on their next-door neighbours because their grandparents visited for Christmas are any different from Major-General Andrei Grigorievich Kostikov causing the deaths of so many inventors, most of them more talented than he could ever dream of being?

If you do, you have wasted your time reading this.

Labels as form of debate? What a joke

It has become fashionable these days to label people we disagree with, hoping these labels will put them to shame and, the best outcome, silence them.

Here’s an interesting thing: most of those label-users aren’t even aware of what the words that they use mean.

Need an example?

Conspiracy theory. This one is used to dismiss anyone who dares question the motives of those who govern use to bully those whom they govern into submission.

It’s the word theory that (they think) makes their vocabulary impenetrable, bulletproof and watertight, even.

Except: in the scheme of things, we see something, we form an opinion, and, as time goes on, and if we are honest enough, we collect more facts. Once we have all the facts that are available at the time, we structure them into the simplest possible story. We remember that no fact is allowed to contradict any of the other facts, and that we are not allowed to omit any of the available facts.

The result is called hypothesis.

Theory goes one significant step further: all the facts, one by one, and all of them as a whole, must be proven.

Which would make the derogatory interpretation of the word theory perfectly laughable, if only more people knew its real meaning.

The other word that is abused beyond belief: progressive.

Chess players would tell you that there exists not one new move in their game. Every move must have been played at one time or other. It either wasn’t too successful, or it happened before people started writing down their chess game moves, but, in any case, the move was just simply forgotten, but it’s nothing new.

Same goes with the word progressive. Its users, more often than not those on the left side of the political spectrum, have claimed it for themselves.

It is ironic, by the way, that the division into left and right political wings has made little or no sense since the time a few days after it had been introduced in France centuries ago. But that’s another topic for another day.

If you decide to check what stands for progressive these days (the so-called Great Reset, a.k.a. the fourth industrial revolution, the one-world-government system, the climate change-driven genocide, many of the newest communications technologies), you’ll shudder.

Shocking past, worse future

Summed up, we are talking about what American economist Martin Armstrong calls feudalist socialism. Humans have experienced feudalism with its serfdom, and socialism with its return to slavery.

In other words: innovation does not necessarily equal progress. All of the so-called progressive ideologies have been tested and found wanting.

Another expression that has been insupportably popular among the so-called progressives in recent memory: fascism.

Of course, far be it for them to know that fascism is but one branch of socialism. The other three include Communism, Nazism and social democracy. Some defenders of socialism (especially of the social media kind) are perfectly livid when they read such comparisons. The fact that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party’s name (National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, or NSDAP for short) is so specific does not disturb these people in the least: the Nazis hijacked the word, socialism, they claim, not having any idea about either socialism or Nazism whatsoever.

It borders on the impossible attempting to explain the few minor differences between the lot. The Communists have always wanted to destroy the entire economy first, and rebuild something from nothing afterwards, all of this under the (their words) leadership of the victorious vanguard of the working people. Who forms that vanguard, pray?

The Fascists are a bit smarter: why not take control of the economy in partnership with both business and labour?

Gruesome reality

The People’s Republic of China remains Communist only in the name. The country’s national economy is run by what seems to be private business interests.

It takes a closer look to establish that each and every one of those private businesses is controlled by the government in one way or another. Those Chinese multi-billionaires who forget their place get government-issue bullets in their necks before they can cry uncle.

In any case, this combination makes the People’s Republic of China’s political and economic systems perfectly fascist.

And it makes those who whine that now ex-President Donald J. Trump was, is, and will be fascist sound like perfectly illiterate ignoramuses which is what they are.

And that’s the danger of labelling people.

First, they burnt books. Then, they burnt people. Are we coming back full circle?

How dare you use your own head to think? Out with you (a number of labels follows).

That’s called “cancel culture,” and it has been spreading all over the world like the worst form of cancer. Yes, cancer: it’s going to kill us all. It has become norm at our establishments of higher learning. Graduates, trained not to know the meaning of the word “tolerance” will gradually fill all kinds of positions of authority.

Can you imagine any of them having time to listen to (and hear) opinions that differ from theirs? Can you imagine them tolerating difference?

Gone are the centuries of universities guided by the motto “whatsoever is true” (quaecumque sunt vera in Latin), or students asking their teachers to “teach them whatsoever is true” (still in good old academic Latin: quaecumque vera doce me).

Intolerance toward dissent is only just beginning all over the place in general, and in academic circles in particular.

Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London; Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, has just published a study named Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship. Its executive summary consists of 16 pages of shocking points, its full text includes 195 pages of shocking facts.

People of what is now known as conservative points of view have been complaining that they and their political viewpoints face disproportionate levels of ideologically-motivated censorship.

Professor Kaufmann’s paper proves with undisputable facts that this is precisely what’s been going on the last few decades. And, reality shows that it has culminated in the most recent couple of years so as to become unbearable, bordering on the criminal.

The so-called “hard authoritarianism” includes such relatively new expressions as no-platforming, social media brigading, ‘open’ letters, dismissal campaigns, and formal complaints. These developments have been comparatively rare so far. But, Professor Kaufmann’s paper shows, there hasn’t been much of a push-back. This shows that the militant cancel-culture activists have been getting their way too often.

The other method, a.k.a. “soft authoritarianism,” includes punishing non-conformists by limiting their ability to publish, win grants for their work, be promoted or retain current positions. That, Professor Kaufmann’s paper proves with numbers, provides an added burden (and incentive to keep quiet about their beliefs) to conservative academics.

This one has been baring its teeth way too often in recent years. That it brings the vaunted academic impartiality, absence of bias, disinterestedness and detachment into blatant disrepute matters not to the “soft authoritarianism” practitioners. They are promoting loftier goals than just simple and boring knowledge. They are promoting what American economist Martin Armstrong calls feudalistic socialism. Who cares that feudalism is based on serfdom, and who cares that serfdom is just one step above slavery?

Definitely not the cancel-culture promoters in academia. That is, if they even know about it.

Different matters

It’s one thing when a physician at a teaching hospital has built her or his reputation on curing disease A using medication (or approach) B, and all students must accept it as gospel, lest they don’t qualify. Granted, this can turn out to be an extremely dangerous situation, as Scottish physician Dr. Malcolm Kendrick described is his brilliant page-turner of a book, Doctoring Data.

Such an expert will have terrible time accepting (and admitting) that times have changed and that either her/his theory has been wrong all along, or that times have changed and new research reveals new treatments. And if that expert’s opinion comes with vast support provided by, for example, pharmaceutical industry, and said expert still has a mortgage to pay off, her/his resistance will become somewhat understandable. Not acceptable, but understandable.

It becomes an altogether another matter when about 40 per cent academics in the U.S., Canada and Great Britain openly admit that they wouldn’t hire a former President Donald J. Trump supporter, even if her/his academic credentials were impeccable.

The British have one more criterion: support your country’s departure from the European Union (a.k.a. Brexit), and in one-third of hiring decisions the ruling will go against you.

And, should you hold a biological-based view of sex, that is, should you be viewed as a so-called gender-critical feminist, your academic future is gone.

The fear is overwhelming: only 28 per cent of American and Canadian academics agreed they would not mind sharing a lunch table with someone who believed trans-women should not have access to women’s shelters.

And the number of math teachers who don’t dare question the newest fad, namely, that math is a racist science because it demands precise answers instead of wild guesses, isn’t overwhelming, either.

Most want just to live with it

Professor Kaufmann also found out that most Professors do not like the authoritarian cancel culture. But, and that is really a shock (while not really much of a surprise), most wouldn’t lift a finger to oppose it, either.

A bare one-tenth of those who answered Professor Kaufmann’s questions, would agree that so-called “controversial professors” should lose their jobs.

If that is so, then this fact shows that a relatively tiny minority gets to exercise its powers far disproportionately to its numbers.

Here’s another problem: younger academics, Kaufmann writes in his study, “were more favourably inclined toward kicking ‘controversial’ scholars out of their posts.” This factor, he adds, “appears to be self-perpetuating, as conservative graduate students claimed that a hostile academic climate ‘plays a part’ in stopping them from pursuing academic careers.”

Another set of scary numbers: more than a third of right-wing academics had been threatened with some form of discipline for their views, Kaufmann writes, adding: “Fully 70 per cent cited a ‘hostile departmental climate for their beliefs,’ even if they had not personally been threatened, suggesting at least some on the right camouflage their beliefs to avoid punishment.”

It must be awful for the vast majority of academics in social sciences or humanities (90 per cent of Trump supporters and 80 per cent of Brexit supporters) who admit that they would not feel comfortable sharing their views with colleagues. More than half of them also said they have imposed self-censorship on themselves even in their research and/or teaching, in order to avoid repercussions. “Academics in the social sciences – particularly those involved in studying race, gender and sexuality – were particularly required to walk on eggshells,” Kaufmann writes.

Here’s one of the scariest results: the younger the academic, the more likely s/he would support at least one of the hypothetical research findings.

The numbers: a 30-year-old leftist academic has a 50-50 chance of supporting one of the hypothetical cancel-culture campaigns while his 70-year-old ideological equivalent had just a 35 per cent chance of doing so.

Most of the academics, though, seemed not to give a damn about their colleagues’ fates.

Some 76 per cent of academics in the social sciences and humanities believe the “protective benefits of political correctness outweigh its threat to free speech” – something that should make us think again before answering the question whether these people are of any use to society.

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.

Face masks? Thanks, but no, thanks, the Swedes say

Swedish bankers can breathe easier: their country’s public health agency said there exists no scientific evidence that face masks prevent spread of diseases, and the city of Halmstad proceeded forthwith to prohibit their use and similar PPE (personal protective equipment) in its schools.

Why the bankers? Because (as those movies about banks and robbers show quite convincingly) the villains almost always cover their faces with face masks to make sure nobody can recognize them.

In this case, the Swedish public health agency upset the European Union applecart. Here’s the most interesting part: the most virulent attacks on the Swedes come from such known experts such associate lecturers on economics in small-time colleges and assistant lecturers on government policies at similar establishments.

So far as the Swedes are concerned, however, personal protective equipment creates more health hazards than is acceptable, and many more than it shields people from.

The PPE has been defined thus: equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses. These injuries and illnesses may result from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical, or other workplace hazards. It includes protective clothing, helmets, goggles, or other garments or equipment designed to protect the wearer’s body from injury or infection. The hazards addressed by protective equipment include physical, electrical, heat, chemicals, biohazards, and airborne particulate matter.

Not worth the price

Of course, the current get-rich-quick artists who produce face masks and vaccines have, in fact, openly admitted theirs is a fly-by-night enterprise rather than honest business.

For example: American economist Martin Armstrong, he of the Armstrong Economics fame, bought a box of face masks from Amazon. It included a label that said that the product inside does not prevent diseases. Armstrong commented in his sarcastic way: “So obviously, if you get corona and wore even two masks to bed at night, and a condom just in case you might get AIDS while sleeping alone, you have no legal case to sue the mask manufacturer for a faulty product.”

And, of course, vaccine manufacturers have managed to negotiate for themselves an exclusion of responsibility if their product is inserted into somebody’s body and there are side effects, starting from simple rash, going all the way to involuntary passing.

History tells us face masks didn’t work during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, either. There were 1.8 billion inhabitants on our planet then (if we believe the imprecise census methods of the time, as well as wildly fluctuating numbers of World War One casualties). The 1918 pandemic infected about 500 million people around the world, killing 50 to 199 million. Again, nobody in their right mind can claim that these figures are precise. They are based, after all, on calculations we have no way of confirming or denying. But, if we accept them for the sake of argument, this would be three to five per cent of the world’s population at the time. Since then, it has been described as one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.

It could be, it didn’t necessarily have to be.

It took us about two millennia to reach the coveted two billion people goal. It would take us less than a century to more than triple that number.

That’s what clicked in William Henry Gates III’s mind. Born as a son of a prominent Malthusian and a follower of this faith (it’s not a theory, for theories require proof), the expert virologist, epidemiologist and public health professional, hopped on his horse. So many people? That’s present danger to our environment, climate, in particular, and something must be done about it.

Nobody can blame young Gates for idleness.

Thorough Germans

The German government has just decided to accept and implement a new social program. It is known as Agenda ID2020.

Guess: whose design is it? None other than the infamous eugenicist William Henry Gates III.

Who is an eugenicist? Someone who believes in the concept of eugenics. And what is the concept of eugenics? A set of beliefs and practices with one goal: to improve the genetic quality of human population. How? The old definition, trying to make the belief acceptable, says that the idea is to exclude people and groups that are considered (by whom, pray?) inferior, and, on the other hand, promote those considered (again: by whom, pray?) superior. Nothing new, really: good old Plato spoke about selective breeding among humans around 400 B.C.

The idea of the new program is simple: centralize general electronic data collection that will profile every citizen in Germany and, while they’re at it, grant complete access to every government agency, include the police.

The program will include some 200 points of information, and possibly more as time goes on. Like what? Like people’s bank accounts, shopping habits, health records, including vaccination records, political inclinations, and dating habits, too.

Gates helped develop this as part of his “vaccination package.”

The program is backed by the Rockefeller Foundation, Accenture, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). One of its publicly stated goals: inject every human being with microchips that can be remote-accessed using 5G and, later, 6G technologies.

Private partners are helping, also. Especially such Big Pharma names as Merck & Co., GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Johnson & Johnson (J&J). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is on the list of keen helpers, too.

Anyone who is still not aware of all this ought to have their eyes and nears checked: proponents of these programs are cynically open about their objectives.

Anyone who still believes that all of the current hysteria about face masks, new virus waves, and whatnot is about health, and health alone, is helping those committing the most modern and unspeakable crimes against humanity, and should be judged as such.

I didn’t know isn’t an excuse. Neither is I was acting in good faith. Or I was acting under orders.

But, in any case, shame on Germany and three cheers for the Swedes.

Schande an Deutschland and Heja, heja Sverige!

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.