Category Archives: World Around Us

Facebook on a rampage

You have to give it to Facebook: they are censoring posts left and right, and literally so.

Their latest victim: Russian TV’s (RT) Redfish. RT’s Berlin-based digital content project suffered the ignominy of Facebook killing their posts devoted to remembering the Nazi Holocaust and the defeat of fascism in Italy.

The project, Facebook said, violated its community standards. And, as a result, more than 830,000 followers ended up looking at the typical page, featuring a hand and words saying the page is no longer available.

Yes, some of the pictures were not for the squeamish: Italy’s Duce Benito Mussolini hanging upside down was executed on April 28, 1945 by Italian (very left-wing) partisans and hung down in that position for all to see.

The Redfish post that caused Facebook consternation was published on April 28, 2021, to commemorate the event.

On whose orders?

Facebook seems to be increasingly sensitive about facts. It removed archival photographs showing survivors of the Auschwitz death camp. Redfish published that content on Holocaust Memorial Day. The United Nations Organisation (UNO) designated January 27 — the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps – to remember the Nazi atrocities.

That’s when Redfish published its post, and that’s when Facebook removed it.

Why? Photos of death camp survivors violated Facebook’s rules on “nudity and sexual activity.”

There’s no sexual activity to be seen anywhere in those photos but yes, the survivors are really not dressed in three-piece suits. They are almost naked. One can feel from the pictures that they are shaking: famished, skeleton-like, and in January which just happens to be one of the coldest months on Northern Hemisphere.

Facebook has been claiming in all of its censorship attempts that its activities can’t be judged under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s what the First Amendment says (verbatim): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, it would seem that Facebook has a point.

Except, in a typical Facebook way of life (and American way of life, too), it has been pasting a warning label on everything linked to RT, however slightly. The warning label states, again, verbatim, that the company is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.

Indeed, it seems that it is. But: so what? The truth is the truth no matter who utters it.

Yes, the Americans (and people elsewhere, following their example) have been telling all and sundry that coffee may be hot, or that shooting a gun may endanger somebody’s life, including yours.

But, RT says, and it has a pretty valid point here, if you follow Facebook’s decisions, they pretty closely resemble decisions made by U.S. government. It looks almost as if the so-called Big-Tech crowd were part of U.S. official propaganda.

RT uses another example: when they tried to post a colourised version of Soviet soldiers hoisting their country’s flag over the Reichstag (Nazi Germany’s parliament) in Berlin, Facebook removed it saying it broke its rules on depicting dangerous individuals and organizations.

This incident happened in May 2020, as most of the world were celebrating the 75th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism.

Facing this inexcusable blunder, Facebook claimed a glitch in its algorithm was the cause.

Whoever believes this statement must also believe in the tooth fairy and trust the claim that the Earth is round.

Strange links

Uncomfortably many facts stand in the way. To explain itself, Facebook would have to clarify, for example, its close partnership with the Atlantic Council. This august body is part of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) effort to (their own words) identify “emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.”

To achieve this goal, the Atlantic Council obtained the services of one Ben Nimmo. This person is a self-described troll-hunter. Unfortunately, thus far, his findings have all had one major mistake: they were not supported by evidence.

While Russia definitely is NOT a shining example of pure democracy and law-abiding government, the German Commerzbank has yet to explain why it chose to close down RT’s video agency Ruptly and RT DE Productions GmbH’s accounts.

Just to make sure they would not be able to deny their actions were co-ordinated with Facebook’s, YouTube restricted RT’s ability to launch live broadcasts for seven days.

The explanation would have been hilarious if it wasn’t tragic: older videos, uploaded a long time ago, featuring an interview with a virologist and broadcasts from rallies against Covid-19 restrictions. According to YouTube, they violated its policies on medical misinformation” and “spam, deceptive practices and scams.

And here’s the craziest part: RT’s Redfish is now crying bitter tears. It describes itself as a left-wing (or left-leaning, at least) outlet, and now, it says, it is a victim of a right-wing conspiracy.

Not really true. The truth is much simpler: the so-called Big Tech are not only denying their users’ right of free expression. They are censoring the truth no matter whence it comes.

Where’s the anti-trust legislation when we need it?

Dirty-single-track-minded profs get the cake

Oversexed professors are a danger to pedestrians and traffic: two faculty members at Montclair State University in New Jersey have announced that they demand that the LGBTQ sex education should be taught to children in elementary school.

For those who have lived on another planet since 1990 and have just returned: LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning.

To impress all and sundry who, out of sheer boredom, would read their report in full, the two Montclair State University professors (Eva Goldfarb and Lisa Lieberman) throw a Latin expression in: the idea is to teach kids who they are before “cisnormative values” become “more deeply ingrained.”

Cis – WHAT? A new word, again (in Latin: a neologism). It has been introduced into our communication systems by the community that is convinced that everybody cares about their private behaviour happening in their private bedrooms, and so should everybody be proud of them, as they are proud of themselves.

One definition explains cisgenderism as an assumption that all human beings are cisgender. Your typical Marxist critical theory definition: explain a word by repeating it.

What it means: they have a gender identity which matches their biological sex.

Sounds too academic? How about this attempt at translation into normal human language: if you were born with a penis, you think that you’re a boy, if you’ were born with a vagina, you automatically view yourself as a girl.

Clear enough?

Not to professors Eva Goldfarb and Lisa Lieberman.

Who are those people?

This, verbatim, from the school’s own website:

Eva S. Goldfarb, PhD, Professor of Public Health, works in the field of sexuality education. Over the past twenty five years, she has developed and led sexuality education and sexual health programs with youth, parents, educators, and other professionals and has trained current and future school teachers across the country. In addition to Human Sexuality, Dr. Goldfarb teaches a course in Gender and Health and works with MPH students conducting their internships and community projects.

End of verbatim quote.

MPH is another faddish abbreviation: Master of Public Health. It does NOT mean that you have to know any medicine. In fact, it almost guarantees that you will never meet a patient face-to-face.

In the accepted public relations lingo, MPH courses teach “current health and wellness trends,” so the practitioners learn the scientific methods and best practices to let them help change health behaviours in a wide range of arenas, whatever that is supposed to mean.

To muddle the matter even more, the description of MPH degrees adds it is “a highly interdisciplinary degree.”

It includes a bit of health sciences, and the bit differs from school to school. Other than that, the degree concentrates on what its practitioners describe as critical health leadership, management, and administration skills. That includes designing and implementing public health programs; managing outbreaks; monitoring disease across populations as well as developing marketing campaigns.

What that has to do with teaching LGBTQ principles in elementary schools (don’t worry, kindergarten will follow soon) remains shrouded in a cloud of stinking mystery.

The other author, Lisa Lieberman, chairs the Public Health department at the Montclair State University, but the university’s website doesn’t go into much more detail about what she knows and how she learnt it.

What’s up, Doc?

Two Professors of Public Health, one of whom specialises in human sexuality (caution: no longer about how the bees do it, rather with graphic aids such as porn films, with role-playing not far behind). The other, it would seem, is her boss.

They have studied a number of reports, they say, and these reports all support their contention. How, pray? For example: “young children are, in fact, quite capable of understanding and discussing issues related to gender diversity, including gender expectations, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression.”

Kidding, right?

Absolutely not, they report, adding that “4-year-olds expressed an inclusive understanding of marriage and a social justice stance on LGBTQ rights.”

Ben Zeisloft, Pennsylvania Senior Campus Correspondent with Campus Reform, reports that the Montclair State University duo have declared they believe that “substantial evidence supports sex education beginning in elementary school, that is scaffolded and of longer duration, as well as LGBTQ-inclusive education across the school curriculum and a social justice approach to healthy sexuality.”

The researchers claim, according to Zeisloft’s report, that one study of the many they had read indicates that “young children are, in fact, quite capable of understanding and discussing issues related to gender diversity, including gender expectations, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

If the two Montclair State University clowns are not just a bit too exuberant in their statements (this is a huge if, unfortunately), then the next question becomes critically important: how much of this gender drivel have kids learnt at school, and how much at home?

One would be pressed really hard to believe it’s the parents who feed their wide-eyed children this aggressive genderism.

That it’s the teachers is becoming more and more obvious.

It’s the teachers who have been brought up on the wildest nonsense of Marxist critical theories.

In this case, all in the name of making sure children lose sight of the most important parts of companionships, including sexual relationships. Who needs friendship, mutual respect, trust and other such old-fashioned rot? To the contrary, the quack who reaches one hundred on her/his list of genders will be expecting a Nobel Prize, and will call the committee all kinds of cancel culture names if s/he gets overlooked.

We’ve been living in too much comfort too long. Otherwise, we would have never permitted that teachers in schools we’re paying for teach our children such criminally dehumanising ideas.

We must NOT ignore it. Not only our lives, but our children’s and grandchildren’s, are at stake here.

The time to stop this crime is NOW.

New fad? Same old Marxism again

A leftist crowd of lazy bums has hijacked modern mainstream journalism decades ago. Pretending to be busy beavers, they’re coming up with all kinds of innovations, in an attempt to make their failed efforts more palatable.

The latest fad, dreaming in the background since the latter years of the 19th century: movement journalism.

That’s what they teach naïve kids at the Missouri School of Journalism, with enthusiastic help of the David W. Reynolds Journalism Institute. These institutions share space and ideology at 120 Neff Hall in Columbia. Their two other teammates include: Jonathan B. Murray Center for Documentary Journalism and David Novak Leadership Institute.

A minor aside: all journalism should be documented. Why create a new outfit to teach it?

Beg your pardon?

A whatnot (journalist he definitely isn’t) named Gabe Schneider spread himself quite extensively, to the tune of over 1,600 words, to explain the strange phenomenon of movement journalism.

His point of departure: Ida B. Wells and her reporting for the Memphis Free Speech in 1892 on lynchings across U.S. South.

It couldn’t be easy. The times were what they were. Lynchings, this cruel display of outright racism, as performed by the Ku-Klux-Klan, with eager support and encouragement provided by the U.S. Democratic Party, isn’t anything the U.S. should put proudly on display and not be ashamed of.

None of this justifies the nonsense called Project South, an innovative idea young Gabe Schneider goes ga-ga about.

The Project published a document in 2017, telling the world that a lady named Anna Simonton was speaking for it, and explaining what it is all about.

Herewith a verbatim quote from the opening of the 62 pages worth of drivel: “Project South is a movement building organization founded in 1986 to strengthen community organizing, develop accessible political education, and build people-centered infrastructure in the U.S. South. Based in Atlanta, Project South cultivates productive space for social movement leaders, organizations, and collaborations to build people power from the bottom up. Our work is informed by historical legacy and root cause analysis of our social and economic conditions. Project South recognizes the powerful role of media and communication in educating and activating our communities to work for racial, economic, and social justice and remains committed to developing movement-driven communications infrastructure in the region. Anna Simonton is the Movement Communications Fellow at Project South. She has worked as a journalist for eight years, from co-founding an alternative student newspaper at The Evergreen State College, to interning at The Nation magazine, to establishing a career as an independent researcher and reporter. She currently serves on the editorial board of Scalawag, a magazine of Southern politics and culture that has received wide acclaim.”

A few facts

Let’s open with Ms. Simonton’s Alma Mater, the Evergreen State College. It is a self-described “public liberal arts and sciences college in Olympia, Washington. Founded in 1967, it offers a non-traditional undergraduate curriculum in which students have the option to design their own study towards a degree or follow a pre-determined path of study.”

Ms. Simonton’ first employer, The Nation, describes itself as the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.

Did you notice the word: “progressive”?

The Nation took over from William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper. The Liberator closed its doors in 1865, after ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That particular amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. Congress passed it on January 31, 1865, and the required 27 of the then-36 states ratified it on December 6, 1865. It was solemnly proclaimed on December 18 of that same year.

Project South appeared 152 years after that not-insignificant event. Is that progress or what?

And just to touch upon the Scalawag: the Encyclopedia Britannica defines it thus: Scalawag, after the American Civil War, a pejorative term for a white Southerner who supported the federal plan of Reconstruction or who joined with black freedmen and the so-called carpetbaggers in support of Republican Party policies.

Classic roots

So, now that we have the basics together, what is this “movement journalism” all about?

It is another expression of Marxism. The classic class-based “antagonistic contradiction” wasn’t working. Why not come up with race-based, and gender-based “antagonistic contradictions” then?

The history is about a century old.

It started with a group that would become known as the Frankfurt School (Frankfurter Schule). It was a school of social theory and critical philosophy, part of the Institute for Social Research (German: Institut für Sozialforschung), at Goethe University in Frankfurt. Founded in Germany’s Weimar Republic, during the European interwar period, the Frankfurt School brought together far-left intellectuals, academics and political dissidents who saw Germany and the rest of the world crumbling. They were convinced that the only way to fix matters would be to establish communism everywhere.

In this sense they were closer to Leon Trotsky and his call for permanent revolution happening worldwide than to Josif Stalin. The Soviet dictator felt Trotsky was becoming too popular among Western salon-communists, as these people would be described with a certain degree of derision. So, he had him killed.

Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists, who had similar objectives to those Frankfurt School had been dreaming of, saw in them not only dangerous competition, but also a gang of Jewish egg-heads.

He didn’t round them up. He simply let them leave.

And the Americans would accept them.

It would take years before the Frankfurt School Marxists managed to take America’s education system over, but once they did, they went to work with gusto. One critical theory would follow another, starting with teaching education, moving on to culture (entertainment, as it is known in North America).

These Marxists figured out America’s soft spot: don’t bore us with economics, give us song and dance.

This seems to be the extent of Gabe Schneider’s education, too.

Nobody told him yet that democracy with an adjective is not democracy, freedom with an adjective is not freedom, and journalism with an adjective is not journalism.

So he prattles merrily, blissfully unaware, to stay just with journalism, that this trade is about reporting, and that to do it right is a 24-hour job seven days a week, 365 days a year (and 366 in a leap year).

And the worst part is that way too many take him seriously. They don’t know any better, unfortunately: that’s how and what they’ve been taught in the most progressive schools in the world.

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.

Vaccine pushers getting scared?

In a major case of CYA (Cover Your Behind in North American bureaucratese, a.k.a. alibism in Europe), two high-ranking European health officials conceded that the anti-Covid vaccine their agency has been pushing on an unsuspecting populace may be a danger to pedestrians and traffic, after all.

The famed AstraZeneca anti-Covid vaccine can be indeed linked to thrombosis. Thus the European Medicines Agency (EMA) chief of vaccination strategies Marco Cavaleri in an interview with the Il Messagero newspaper.

Thrombosis, in plain English, equals blood clots. These can be (and usually are) life-threatening.

Il Messaggero, an Italian newspaper based in that country’s capital, Rome, was founded in December 1878. It has a reputation of a serious publication.

And EMA is European Union’s counterpart of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that is, the body that gives its yea or nay to introduction of new medications, and its verdicts are final.

Stand by their boys

The EMA bureaucrats insist that the AstraZeneca shot benefits outweigh the risks. They state that they continue investigating the at least 44 publicly known reports of an originally extremely rare brain clotting ailment known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST).

The bureaucrats base their statement on their earlier claim that they are correlating the 44 reports to some 9.2 million people in the European Economic Area who have received the vaccine.

The World Health Organization (WHO) continues backing AstraZeneca, as well.

And the AstraZeneca company itself stands by its previous comments, stating that its own studies have found no higher risk of clots that could be attributed to the use of their product.

If anyone expected anything else from AstraZeneca, they must live in a different universe.

Armando Genazzani, a member of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), joined Cavaleri’s warning. Speaking to Turin-based La Stampa newspaper, he agreed that it was “plausible” that the blood clots were correlated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

La Stampa is even older than Il Messagero, and age plays an important role in judging European publications. It is also considered one of the most reliable Italian newspapers, politically standing at the centre.

Meanwhile, Cavaleri told Il Messagero that the EMA would say in its review that there is a link. Still, he said, he wouldn’t expect the agency to provide any indication, not this week in any case, regarding the age of individuals to whom the AstraZeneca shot should be given.

For those keen on knowing arcane pharmaceutical details: the AstraZeneca vaccine is based on a modified chimpanzee adenovirus vector, ChAdOx1. It was developed at Oxford University. Virologists describe it as one of several adenovirus-vector Covid-19 vaccines. This is the first time a viral vector vaccine has been used worldwide, with final clinical test results still two years away.

That dangerous fact holds for Pfizer’s vaccine, too: it still has two years to go before its final clinical tests become available to the makers of the product, and never mind those who are supposed to approve it (not to mention those who are to be injected with it).

Meanwhile, several countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands, have suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in younger people while they continued probing the claims of its dangerous side effects.

More details

“We don’t know yet what causes the (thrombosis) reaction,” Cavaleri told Il Messagero.

He said most of the cases happened in patients younger than 55 years of age, and most of them have been women.

EMA will offer its evaluation soon, Cavaleri said, but, in his opinion, the agency will not be able to specify age categories in which it wouldn’t recommend the use of AstraZeneca’s product.

The European Union permitted the application of this vaccine on January 29, 2021, saying specifically the authorization covered emergency use only.

How and why any countries’ authorities could interpret this to be a blanket permission to use the vaccine across the board, reaching 9.2 million patients within just a couple of months, remains unclear.

Nobody bothered to ask about, or explain, this strange phenomenon. Not yet, at least.

About half of European Union countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine by mid-March, specifically because of an unusual number of blood clots appearing in patients who had received the preparation.

A few days later, the EMA would declare AstraZeneca safe, and most of the countries that had suspended its use, would permit it again.

And now, two experts from that same EMA declare their doubts.

Only time and experience will tell whether the EMA had it right, or whether the agency should have heeded its own specialists’ warnings.

Of course, it would have cost AstraZeneca a pretty penny in stable currency if the agency (and the industry, and the many authorities that exist like an impenetrable wall between them all and the unsuspecting public) acted responsibly.

Too little and too late

Some of the bureaucrats may have noticed the signs of the writing on the wall: the prospect of an international tribunal that would include them among those on the stand, accused of crimes against humanity.

So, they are trying to backtrack, in an effort to state that it’s not really their fault that some health authorities took an emergency approval for an official across-the-board consent.

This, of course, won’t hold too much water: they could have started yelling in alarm, telling the individual countries’ governments and various authorities that there exists some major difference between an emergency and general approval.

Some seem to try use the good old excuse that they acted on orders or that they based their actions (or lack thereof) on laws existing at that moment.

Neither excuse works any longer. Not since the war crimes trials in Nuremberg in the 1940s that outlawed such put-offs once and for all.

It is expected that the future trial against crimes against humanity will also question the fact that the Big Pharma demanded and got exemptions from responsibilities for any damages and ill effects caused by their products.

How can we create anything 100-per-cent safe when there exist no two human bodies that are alike, the Big Pharma justified its request to be granted full lack of responsibility for their product.

We were pushed by governments and health authorities to act in a haste that, we concede, was indecent and irresponsible. But what could we do in those circumstances?

The idea that they could have answered with an unequivocal NO seems to have never crossed their minds.

Off the hook?

Some officials are now suggesting that those to be vaccinated should sign releases: yes, I was told that what I am getting is an experimental product and that it may have some unforeseeable side effects. I absolve those involved. The decision to get jabbed was mine, entirely mine.

If this reminds anybody of the Nazis having Auschwitz extermination camp inmates sign releases saying that yes, we were told and are aware that the Zyklone B to be released in our communal bathrooms may end up killing us, it’s no accident.

No medical product can be tested on anybody, especially not on such a scale, without blind controls and placebo double-checking performed. Doing it is a crime.

That it is also against basic medical ethics seems to have never entered the equation.

How much longer will those two whistleblowing EMA experts be allowed to keep their jobs?

Racists overwhelm Oxford University

Getting education, any education whatsoever, is a hangover from distant past, several British reformers say. The worst part: the hallowed Oxford academe seems to be in full agreement.

Joseph II, the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was delighted on Tuesday, July 16, 1782. He attended the premiere of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s opera (Singspiel), named Abduction from Seraglio (original title: Die Entführung aus dem Serail). After all, the Emperor did commission it.

But His Majesty had this to remark, much to Mozart’s displeasure bordering on disgust: “That is too fine for my ears – there are too many notes, dear Mozart.” (Scholars steeped in the elegant intricacies of the German language use this form: Zu schön für unsere Ohren, und gewaltig viel Noten, lieber Mozart! That leaves space for different interpretations, but that’s another issue.)

But: today’s educational modernisers would applaud His Majesty with gusto, if only they knew of his existence. Well, perhaps they would stop clapping upon learning that he was a Royal, but let’s leave this question to conjecture.

Writing notation is too white

Lessons on writing notation and how to conduct orchestras stink of colonialism and white supremacy, a few undergraduate students and teachers at the most venerable Oxford University said, and the school seems to be in agreement.

They describe musical notation as a “colonialist representational system.”

Classical repertoire taught at Oxford includes works by Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. That, some professors said, focuses too much on what they described as white European music from the slave period.

And they meant it.

There are quite a few problems with this. One of them is facts of history.

The trade in African slaves, not by white men but by Muslim Arabs who had been ruling Africa at the time, had nothing to do with western classical music notation. It is based on medieval liturgical music and Georgian chants.

Yes, Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries. But they had nothing to do with any slave trade.

So, Black Lives Matter, a racist organisation if there ever was one, found another approach: the classical musical notation started at the height of colonialism.

Playing the keyboard or conducting orchestras ended up in the same boat. The reason is tragically idiotic: the repertoire used in the process “structurally centres white European music.” And that, the activists insist, causes “students of colour great distress.”

Throw Mozart and Beethoven out, give us a “decolonized’ curriculum.”

That means musical diversity, whatever that is.

Besides, why not introduce such topics like signature pop culture events, including Dua Lipa’s Record Breaking Livestream” and ”Artists Demanding Trump Stop Using Their Songs” instead?

This is what happens when you give an inch to the fundamentalists.

Oxford University bid a symbolic farewell to what Black Lives Matter and the school in unison described the university’s colonialist past. Gone is the statue of Cecil Rhodes from the Oriel College campus.

Black Lives Matter described the Victorian-era diamond magnate and prime minister of the Cape Colony as the “father of apartheid” in South Africa.

Not to be left behind, Oxford’s All Souls College’s library no longer bears the name of Christopher Codrington, a Barbados-born 17th century colonial governor and slave-owner.

Not that far!

In an unexpected show of courage, the school refused to remove Codrington’s statue. He used to be an All Souls fellow and generous donor. It was his money that helped build the library in the first place.

In another scandal, Black Lives Matter stated, and Oxford faculty agreed, that “vast bulk of tutors for techniques are white men.”

And, while they are at it, the school is looking at a student’s proposal that no tutors should speak disparagingly to students about any element of the curriculum.

Meaning: how dare you criticize? Not only are the tutors banned from criticizing anything students love, they are not allowed to criticize anything other than white privilege.

Including hip hop and jazz on Oxford’s curriculum will provide “non-Eurocentric” topics of study.

In a scary case of self-flagellation, professors started asking whether the “structure of our curriculum supports white supremacy.” There should be a law about this, they suggested, adding another concern: an “almost all-white faculty” gives (how natural) “privilege to white musics.”

Here’s what they want to do: introduce “special topics” such as “Introduction to Sociocultural and Historical Studies.”

Who gives a hoot about Guillaume de Machaut, a French poet and composer of late medieval music, or Franz Peter Schubert, an Austrian composer of the late classical and early romantic eras?

Give us “African and African Diasporic Musics”, “Global Musics”, and “Popular Musics!”

Truth to be told, several faculty members had the gall to beg to differ. One, according to a British Telegraph newspaper story, went so far as to suggest that her/his (not identified) colleagues focussed on music from before 1900 “are often implicitly accused of being concerned exclusively with music that is ‘Western’ and ‘white’.”

No word yet on those particular teachers’ fates.

But if they are allowed to teach yet another hour, it would be a shock.

Mainstream media copy their communist predecessors

Egged on by the ruling left-wing of U.S. Democratic Party, U.S. mainstream media learnt their lesson well from the communist method of dealing with those who dared question their policies. Attack your opponents’ characters. Don’t let them publish. Call them names. Harass them.

The leftists in the U.S. used to admire (many still do) Václav Havel, the late Czech playwright, and President following the so-called 1989 Velvet Revolution.

Whether they remember the document called Charter 77 (Czech: Charta 77) remains to be seen. It may very well be that they don’t. Their behaviour towards all they disagree with proves it.

A not-so-old example

Havel was one of Charter 77 co-authors, together with Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. Published on Jan. 6, 1977, the document called on Czechoslovakia’s Communist rulers to honour their commitment to human rights under the 1975 Helsinki Accords.

The regime, outraged by this impertinence, first of all started arresting all those who had dared sign (or distribute) the document.

Under a banner headline, Losers and usurpers (Czech: Ztroskotanci a samozvanci), the Communist party daily paper, Rudé právo started a mother of all witch hunts. The paper would not name the authors. It would describe the document a “counter-revolutionary pamphlet”. Charter 77’s authors, according to the massive propaganda assault, were the bloodiest of all bloody criminals.

The publication of the document in any of the communist country was banned, and so was any broadcast of it. But, at the same time, everybody was ordered to join the chorus of protest. Officially, people were supposed to protest something they only knew they were supposed to protest, without knowing what the hell they were protesting.

And that was still easy-going when compared to the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution of Russia, and its more than seven-decade long aftermath that lasted all the way to the collapse of the system in 1989.

Meanwhile in the U.S.

The Americans (and the many left-wing would-be Marxists in other countries who try to emulate them) haven’t yet reached the level of sending people to concentration camps, or executing them outright. Their history doesn’t permit such a fast transition to what Marxism is all about.

But, judging by what is going on, George Orwell’s nightmare, 1984, is not too far away. And neither is his Animal Farm, either.

The method now prevailing in the formerly democratic (lower-case d) countries is not too difficult to put together: silence. Do not quote a dissident’s reporting (or opinion). Not under any circumstance. Call the dissident’s (what other word to use?) character into question. Make sure to scare the dissident’s supporters out of their wits so they think twice before they dare join any protest again. Make sure to describe the dissidents and their supporters as creatures below the dirtiest animals’ level. And, most important of all, keep going at it. Repetition begets success.

Of course, even this requires a certain level of intelligence and a bit of education.

If you haven’t either, you will end up with a propaganda egg on your face. See President Joe Biden for the latest example.

Mr. Biden (very publicly) called his Russian presidential counterpart, Vladimir Putin, all kinds of words. Such as ‘killer’, ‘bully’, ‘strongman’, ‘tyrant’, ‘thug’.

Mr. Putin’s reply was straightforward: a wry smile and two sentences: “I wish him good health. I mean it seriously.”

Putin’s office went a few steps further: it said their guy would like to debate all points of disagreement with Joe Biden in a live broadcast.

This is not to say Vladimir Putin is a genius. This is to say he is much smarter than Joe Biden, a level, by the way, many can achieve without much effort.

Curious Americans

Unofficial research shows that most American citizens would like to know more about the Russian president than what they are being fed by mainstream media. Most Americans, it seems, would like to see and hear Vladimir Putin first-hand and form their opinion based on what they see and hear, not on what they are told by their own mainstream media. Especially knowing that the so-called Russian interference in U.S. elections in 2016 either didn’t happen at all (most probable scenario) or had no impact on the outcome.

Absolutely, Mr. Putin’s Russia is definitely not pure paradise, and some of the things going on there are worse than the Wild West of lore. In fact, many refer to Russian rulers’ behaviour as Wild East.

Russia has suffered from an inferiority complex for ages, feeling others weren’t giving her her due as a superpower.

Today’s Russia is following in President Donald Trump’s footsteps: make Russia great again is her rulers’ motto.

The job became somewhat easier on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020. Where there used to be three superpowers (in alphabetic order: China, Russia, the U.S.) till that day, there are now only two. Russia competes with China only. It’s not going to be easy, but it’s going to be easier than facing two strong superpowers, each with different sets of objectives and methods of achieving them.

No way back?

With left-wing controlled Democratic Party, and Democratic Party-controlled mainstream media, the U.S. has lost any hope of returning to the club of the powerful.

They are now blaming everybody but themselves: Trump is guilty of the mess at the border with Mexico, as if it had been the former president who restored the illegal immigration into the country. The steps are guilty of Joe Biden tripping three times while ascending them to enter Air Force One.

Whom will the administration and the mainstream media blame if the forthcoming Kamala Harris’s World Summit discussion on Girl & Women’s Empowerment with none other than Bill Clinton ends in a scandal (as it should)?

Here’s what the current politicos and would-be journalism pretenders should learn: history does indeed repeat itself. Once as a tragedy, next time, as a comedy.

Who said it? Karl Marx.

And here’s the point: he was wrong.

What we’re witnessing now is a major tragedy. We should not give up fighting it.

But that will take courage.

Race wars will do America in

It doesn’t pay to be poor if you’re white in Oakland, California. The city has announced its low-income families would be getting a what it calls “unconditional” $500 a month for a year and a half. Still, city parents did impose one condition: white families need not apply.

The official announcement is explicit about that: the project is only open to black, indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC).

Mayor Libby Schaaf said the idea is to fight “systemic” racism.

Oakland authorities used what they describe as the city’s Equity Index. It showed that white households earn more than any other, on average. In comparison to the black community, white earnings are almost three times as much, the officials said.

Nobody checked those figures, and nobody bothered to ask whether this discrepancy can have other causes rather than racism.

Not to be outdone, the city of Evanston, Illinois decided to use community donations and revenue from a three-per-cent tax on recreational marijuana to offer reparations to black residents to compensate for past discrimination.

In numbers: Evanston, a city of about 73,000 people, just north of Chicago, will spend $10 million during the next decade to achieve a murkily defined racial equity. The first $400,000 will go towards helping black residents with housing.

The lone city alderman who voted against the plan, didn’t do so because she didn’t like the idea of reparations. According to Cicely Fleming, the program was too paternalistic. It assumed black people are unable to support themselves financially.

Considering President Joe Biden has no issues with spending billions the country does not have to repair an artificial issue, Evanston must have endeared itself to the old guy.

What the hell is the deal?

Elementary, my dear Watsons. Marxists found out (what took them so long?) that the original idea of so-called antagonistic contradiction based on classes does not work. Yet, the concept was one of the cornerstones of their ideology.

The other cornerstone has been known as the absolute and relative impoverishment of the proletariat. It turned out that it didn’t work, either.

A number of complex reasons for both failures. The main reason, though, was the simplest of them all. Concepts made up in the insupportably peaceful and dull air of the British Museum, where Karl Marx wrote most of his seminal work, Das Kapital, just don’t match what’s going on outside, in the fresh air of reality.

But Marxism is based on hatred. That is its major cornerstone. It can’t proceed without it. Conditio sine qua non, to put it scientifically.

The easiest hatred to replace Marx’s original concepts is based on race.

Races are indisputable. Your skin is either white, or black, or red, or brown, or whatever else. As former pop star Michael Jackson’s attempts to bleach his skin showed, science hadn’t got far enough yet to succeed.

The easiest next step: distort history. Marx got away with it. Why not today’s ideologues?

Except, facts seem to interfere with the ideologues’ new maxims.

Centuries ago, Muslim Arabs in Africa enslaved the original black population in countries they ruled.

Next thing they did, they sold many of them to merchants who would take them all the way across the Big Pond.

In a historically unusually brief time, America would abolish slavery. It would cost her a major war, but end it she did.

Then came the scandal of Liberia, something today’s Marxists prefer to remain silent about.

The American Colonization Society bought the West African area for freed U.S. slaves in 1821. About 10,000 freed slaves used the opportunity to return to their native continent. And, once they did, they declared the locals their slaves.

It would take the locals till 1989 to realize something was wrong, and express their disagreement in a violent manner, thus ending the master-slave arrangement the former new arrivals had imposed on them.

Yes, expressions of racism continued in the U.S. even after slavery had been abolished, but the country’s modern history shows that its society would develop into one that would make racism and segregation dirty words.

But here comes the irony to end all ironies. In the beginning, the struggle against racism was about all races being equal. Now, people from those same circles declare that no, races do differ. And, on top of it all, white skin means that people thus afflicted enjoy what is now known as white privilege.

Perfect nonsense, of course. Just look at the so-called affirmative action that would, starting officially in the early 1960s under the guise of fighting racism, introduce another form of it. Black people would be getting all kinds of advantages in getting into halls of higher learning, without much consideration given to the question whether they qualify academically. That same approach would hold for hiring practices in the federal governments, both in the U.S. and in Canada. And any company doing business with the respective governments had to adhere to these regulations, too.

Some called it reversed racism. Wrong: it is racism, pure and simple.

Great divide

Admitting that there exist different races is tantamount to racism. This denial of basic truth is one part of the idiocy that has been dividing the world.

Claiming that one race is better than all of the other races combined is racism.

But claiming that one race is better off than all of the others just because of its skin colour is yet another sign of moronism.

It is reaching insurmountable levels of outright stupidity.

University graduation ceremonies split into groups by race. White people directing black stories as well as Asian or Latinx) equals systemic whitewashing.

One such example: American HBO network produced a documentary on famous golfer Tiger Woods. Several segments covering Mr. Woods’s personal life bordered on uncomplimentary. The battle cry of the enraged black racists: two men who didn’t know “what it is like to live life in a black man’s skin” directed it.

Shockingly, a number of white-skinned would-be intellectuals formed a self-flagellation chorus. Whether they hope that this would make their homes safe when hordes of thugs start demolishing white neighbourhoods is not known.

History teaches us that revolutions eat their own children with shocking alacrity.

History teaches us, too, that we can’t beat stupidity, but we mustn’t stop trying.

Vaccination: sign your own death warrants, right here on the dotted line

People getting vaccinated against Covid-19 should be signing special consent forms, the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) has decreed in a recent decision.

NIH is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

What NIH is saying is simple: the vaccines are a medical experiment that can have unexpected side effects.

Imagine, if you will, the millions of innocent victims (Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, whoever else didn’t meet the Nazi eugenics standards) being marched to Nazi extermination camps. Before being loaded in the cattle trucks of the trains that would take them to Auschwitz or any other such place, they would be told: please sign this.

The paper they would be signing would state that once at their destination, they would have to take a communal bath, during which a chemical would be released into the air. This chemical can have side effects, such as premature death, but not to worry, we’re aware of them, and we thought you should be informed, too.

This is called informed consent in medical ethics vocabulary.

The chemical was Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide (HCN). That was the poison the Nazis used to kill at least a million people in gas chambers at Nazi concentration and death camps such as Auschwitz and Majdanek, both in Poland.

The informed consent form designed by the U.S. government agency NIH says that patients risk being turned into a virus-producing disease bag through a mechanism called “ADE”.

Looking for alibis

The Nuremberg war crimes trials (Nürnberger Prozesse) in the late 1940s not only had the Nazi chiefs sentenced to hang by their necks until death. They also made several crucial decisions. One that was perhaps the most important among them, and that is especially valid today: saying that you were ordered to do something, or that you did it because it was the law of the day, is not a valid excuse.

The Nuremberg war crimes trials brought back into action a rule known since at least the Ancient Greece: what the law commands may vary from place to place, but what is “by nature” should be the same everywhere. It is now called “natural law” (lex naturalis) or “natural justice” (ius naturalis).

The decision to have would-be recipients of any Covid-19 vaccine sign what amounts to releases of responsibility is basically an attempt to circumvent the Nuremberg code.

Remember: the vaccine producers have got themselves an exemption from any responsibility should their product damage the health of those it is supposed to help.

So, legalistically, they are off the hook.

Whether an international tribunal, one that would be judging all those inhuman violations of basic human rights that have been imposed by the various international organisations and individual countries’ governments and health authorities, accepts the Big Pharma blatant excuse remains to be seen.

But now those who are implementing it all, using medications that had not passed their final clinical tests yet, and using them en masse, want to get off the hook, too.

It is worth recalling that governments and health authorities, trying to create alibis for themselves, have approved the vaccines for emergency use only. And yet, they are pushing for blanket vaccinations for all of their citizens. They claim that the decision whether to get the jab or not depends on each individual, yet, at the same time, they leak hints that those vaccinated will get documents confirming it, and those without such documents will be limited in their actions.

If it does not remind you of the Jews wearing the yellow Star of David in Nazi times, start thinking again. If it does not remind you of limitations put on communist countries’ citizens that would curtail their and their children’s life opportunities if they didn’t join the communist party, think again, also.

Propaganda of lies

The propaganda that these individuals and authorities use to convince us to get vaccinated is overwhelming.

It reminds those who had done their homework of the seriousness with which the founder of communism, Karl Marx, viewed propaganda. In his opinion it had to be linked with agitation, and, yes, communist parties all over the world would have special departments known as agitation and propaganda (they called them agitprop for short).

Here’s what Marx had to say in his 1844 work, Human Needs & the division of Labour: “When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need — the need for society — and what appears as a means becomes an end.”

His ardent follower, founder of the Soviet Union Vladimir Iliych Ulyanov Lenin, would go to create a list of demands on propaganda:

  • Ends Justify The Means
  • Firstest With The Mostest
  • Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste
  • Demonization
  • Propaganda of Example
  • Blame Your Predecessor

The similarities between Lenin’s points and today’s propaganda should not shock anyone any longer: having abolished what they called “Red baiting” and instituted political correctness, today’s officialdom is marching in Marx and Lenin’s footsteps with the precision of a Swiss watch.

The Nazis aren’t too far behind.

This sums it all up: Hermann Göring, Nazi Germany’s Marshal, was asked at the Nuremberg trial: “How did you convince the people of Germany to accept your policies?”

Göring’s answer might have shocked only those who hadn’t been watching the Nazi goings-on carefully enough: “This was the easy part. It had nothing to do with Nazism. It had everything to do with human nature. You can master it in a Nazi regime as well as in a socialist, communist regime, in a monarchy, and even in democracy, too. The only thing to do to enslave people is to terrify them. Once you can imagine a way how to frighten people, you can force them to do whatever you want them to do.”

Göring was sentenced to hang, but he killed himself by methods unknown thus far, one day before execution.

Meanwhile, we’re being subjected to unfounded fears and asked to sign our own death sentences.

We simply refuse to heed the lessons of history.