Category Archives: World Around Us

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.

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.

Your opinion does not count as news, Judge tells New York Times

The Grey Old Lady, a.k.a. the New York Times has been caught in presenting their own opinion as fact, a New York Supreme Court judge found, and Project Veritas will now be able to put all those involved in the paper’s decision-making process under oath in a defamation suit.

Veritas accused the New York Times of acting with “actual malice” and “reckless disregard” in a number of articles covering a 2020 video report from Project Veritas. It covered allegations of illegal voting practices in Minnesota.

In another case, a Veritas video report led to the arrest of a Texas political consultant on charges of election fraud and illegal voting.

The New York Times sought to have the case dismissed. That won’t happen.

The New York Times keeps saying it runs all the news that’s fit to print, while Veritas uses its name for its reason for existence (raison d’être): Veritas means truth.

Project Veritas uses undercover and whistleblowing videos to prove its points. Journalism theoreticians may debate ad nauseam whether this is pure reporting trade or not, but the result remains: they usually hit the bull’s eye with shocking precision.

Here’s what happened: New York Times reporters Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu wrote about Veritas videos from Minnesota. These recordings showed a number of people participating in (or, at least, debating) what is known as ballot harvesting. The entire scenario was linked to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

According to the Veritas report, someone paid for the ballots and, on some occasions, filled them out to help some candidates. As luck would have it, the candidates supposed to benefit all represented the Democratic Party.

One ballot harvester has claimed Veritas offered him money to connect the alleged fraud to Rep. Omar, and that, on top of it, the footage Veritas showed was edited, thus making it unacceptable.

Project Veritas, as could be expected, denied the allegation.

What became the issue was the New York Times’ reporting. It called the Veritas tapes deceptive. Judge Charles Wood read the five New York Times articles, watched the footage, and ruled that Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu wrote opinion pieces rather than news.

In his 16-page decision, Judge Wood wrote: “The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video ‘deceptive,’ but the dictionary definitions of ‘disinformation’ and ‘deceptive’ provided by defendants’ counsel certainly apply to Astor’s and Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim.”

Veritas, Astor wrote, had a “long history” of releasing “manipulated or selectively edited” footage. Meanwhile, Hsu called the video deceptive.

This kind of loaded words, Judge Wood wrote, “could be viewed as exposing Veritas to ridicule and harm to its reputation as a media source because the reader may read these news Articles, expecting facts, not opinion, and conclude that Veritas is a partisan zealot group, deceptively editing video, and presenting it as news.”

Legal beagles for the New York Times tried to convince the Judge that readers could determine that specific wording such as “deceptive” is opinion-based and cited other news outlets that used similar language.

Judge Wood would have none of that. The paper did not meet their burden to prove that the reporting by Veritas in the Video is deceptive,” he wrote.

So far as Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe is concerned, the New York Times’ reporters, as well as their executive editor Dean Baquet, will now be put under oath where they will be forced to answer our questions.”

Whether O’Keefe is counting his chickens before they hatch or not, remains to be seen, yet.

In any case, Judge James Wood’s decision seems to indicate that not even the Grey Old Lady knows above any reasonable doubt whether all the news they print is fit to be printed.

Gorby at 90: still a failure

Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have noticed that Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev turned 90 this March.

So, they created a glorifying video. Not to be outdone, the BBC applauded the former Soviet communist leader, too.

So far as they all are concerned, Gorbachev was the statesman who ended the Cold War.

So far as most Russians are concerned, Gorbachev is the failed Communist who ruined their country.

The Western propagandists’ view is not supported by as many facts as the Russian public’s is.

Reality speaks louder than ideology

A few facts to show that Gorbachev’s role in everything that had happened was limited, to put it very mildly.

Lech Wałęsa, an electrician at Poland’s Lenin Shipyards in Gdańsk (Stocznia Lenina, now known as Gdańsk Shipyard), started organizing an Independent Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarity (Niezależny Samorządny Związek Zawodowy Solidarność) in August 1980.

Gorbachev was Soviet Communist party secretary responsible for agriculture at the time. Not that his stewardship did Soviet agriculture much good.

He approached then-chief of the KGB state security agency, Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, asking him to suggest at the highest body, a.k.a. Politburo (political bureau) that the Soviet Army invade Poland and put a stop to such incendiary ideas as having independent trade unions once and for all.

Unlike Gorbachev, Andropov was aware of the real situation in Poland. He also knew that then-American president, Ronald Reagan, wrote to then-Soviet chief, Leonid Iliych Brezhnev, telling him that the U.S. would view any Soviet attack against Poland as an attack against the United States.

Andropov, files de-classified since then show, told Gorbachev to mind his own business.

Meanwhile, Andropov’s service helped Polish communists in their subversive effort to install a general as the country’s new leader, hoping that the new head of state, Wojciech Witold Jaruzelski, will do the dirty deed for them.

Jaruzelski, in turn, declared martial law in Poland, thus helping Solidarity multiply its membership in protest.

Wałęsa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, to honour his efforts.

And Poland walked away from communism, making Jaruzelski its last communist leader.

Jaruzelski’s arrival on the scene, by the way, showed the perfect ignorance of then-Prime Minister of Canada, one Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Martial law, he pronounced, was the best solution for the Poles. It quite obviously prevented a Soviet invasion, was his geopolitical explanation.

Clearly, Trudeau Sr. was out of the loop: the Soviets were aware that an invasion would doom them, and all their works, right then and there.

Gorbachev’s role in the downfall of communism was marginal.

Political wisdom at the time held that the Soviet Union would fall apart as soon as its population hears at least a part of the truth surrounding it.

Gorbachev started something known as glasnost and perestroika (гласность and перестройка, meaning openness and restructuring).

Once the people of the various Soviet republics began learning the truth about their countries’ history, they realized why they had enough of it.

Gorbachev wasn’t even smart enough to heed his friend and former foreign minister Eduard Ambrosiyevich Shevardnadze’s warnings about a potential coup d’état, organized by communist hardliners. Shevardnadze, a former KGB general, knew much better than Gorbachev what was going on.

It would take Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin to suppress the communist putsch, take over the leadership role and, eventually, sign off on the deal that would send the entire Soviet Union deal up in flames.

But, the pro-Gorbachev enthusiasts at RFE/RL and the BBC say, Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev did help finish the so-called Cold War, didn’t he?

If they did their basic homework, they would have known that this is a fallacy, too.

A Washington Post correspondent in Moscow at the time saw a huge miners’ strike going on in Siberia. He decided to go and have a closer look. And while he had the miners’ undivided attention, he asked who, in their minds, was the greatest leader who had helped change the world for the better.

Why, Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev, was the answer he expected to hear.

Ronald Reagan was the answer he heard.

What about Gorbachev? he asked.

Ah, yet another failed commie poohbah, most of the miners told him.

Obviously, they knew more and better than an American east coast egg-head.

Still: so what about the Cold War?

Gorbachev allowed the countries of the former Warsaw Pact and the so-called Council for Mutual Economic Co-operation leave the by then hugely artificial communist orbit because he couldn’t afford to even try to prevent it.

And the same goes for his dealings with the U.S.

Basically, he got his Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for trying to become a realist.

Chief terrorist Yasser Arafat won that same prize in 1994, together with Israeli politicians Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, for achieving peace in the Middle East that does not exist even today. Former U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama received it in 2009 after just a few weeks in office. He got it for perfectly nothing. Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore got it in 2007 for a huge amount of hot air on behalf of climate change panic.

To sum up: since the mid-1980s, when the Nobel Peace Prize honoured Lech Wałęsa’s efforts to dismantle communism, the award has meant less and less with each passing year. It has become a tool for ideological games played by members of Norway’s parliament, a.k.a. Storting.

Need an example? How about the nomination for an openly racist group, Black Lives Matter, submitted for this year’s consideration?

Still: why the hoopla about Gorbachev?

Yes, reaching such a ripe age is cause for occasional remark. But for soliciting pearls of wisdom from a politician who had failed in everything he touched?

One of Gorbachev’s answers is a revelation: he calls for unfettered globalism, starting with Covid-19, and going on to embrace the feudalistic socialism of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, moving on to overpopulation with its alleged links to climate change (hey, Bill and Melinda Gates, are you listening?), culminating with questions about nations (a hint: jó napot kívánok, Soros György Úr and your Open Societies).

Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev used to be a communist who managed to climb all the way to the communist top.

Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev now denies ever being a communist: he’s always been a social democrat, he claims.

Either way, he’s always managed to choose the losing side.

Let’s hope Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev remains faithful to this habit and the things he is proposing today will fail again.

Adjust or else, the Danes tell the migrants

Denmark is stopping the growth of immigrant ghettoes with all its might. It has banned immigrant population within any given neighbourhood to 30 per cent and ruled that existing Danish laws prevail all over the place.

A lot has changed in the Kingdom (Queendom would be better: Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II is the country’s head) of Denmark since Prince Hamlet’s days.

William Shakespeare’s anti-hero used to say there was something rotten in the country, and he couldn’t decide what to do, either: to be or not to be?

Originally it looked as if the Danes would solve the troubling question of existing ghettoes by just renaming them into neighbourhoods. Except, that kind of move, linguistically brilliant as it could be, wouldn’t change a thing.

As it is, these neighbourhoods have a few characteristics in common: unemployment rate has climbed over 40 per cent, more than 60 per cent of 39- to 59-year-olds living there haven’t ever tried upper secondary education, crime rates are three times the national average, and poverty rules: gross incomes in those neighbourhoods hardly reach 45 per cent of what the rest of the region enjoys.

Since the new law banned the expression “ghetto” from official vocabulary, it seemed that the Danes would satisfy themselves with the typically politically correct approach.

But they wouldn’t. The Danish law sets out to limit the number of what it calls “non-Western” residents in these neighbourhoods to no more than 30 per cent of the population. The government will just stop building houses for them. That would cap the number of council homes in such neighbourhoods at 40 per cent.

According to most recent census results, there are about 5.8 million people living in Denmark. Some 370,000 residents are of “non-Western” origins.

While the “non-Western” description is as politically correct as an expression can get, the Danes seem to be trying to avoid using combinations such as “illegal immigrants.” If they allowed that expression to stand, they would have to send most of these people whence they had come.

Tough life

Life in what used to be known as ghetto in Denmark wasn’t easy to begin with: any misdemeanour carries double the legal penalty people would face anywhere else. Day care for children over one year of age is mandatory, and those who don’t obey will have their family allowances not only cut, but withdrawn altogether.

Those who object to Denmark’s recent moves are livid about the different treatment of ghetto inhabitants in the first place. This will make the poor souls feel excluded and persecuted. And, now comes the real politically correct nuclear bomb: it’s racist.

Not so, say the Danes. Anyone who doesn’t like the special harsh treatment can get out of it with ease: just get out of there, start supporting yourself by honest work rather than by creating new no-go zones.

Shock elsewhere

The British, who don’t know how to stop the growing streams of illegal immigrants trying to get through the choppy waters of the Channel, are frightfully unhappy.

Some would have loved to introduce the Danish model, but the new industry, a.k.a. immigrant support groups, would cost them billions in litigation. The expression known as “fair chance” has come from Britain, after all.

The French have seen an unusual change in newly born boys’ names: almost three quarters are Muhamads, or variations thereof. La République Française has come up with a new bill, known as “anti-separatist.” It’s all about online hate speech and foreign funding for religious groups on French soil. It’s supposed to “reinforce republican principles.”

Members of the French National Assembly lower chamber have approved it. Now it’s the senators’ turn. It seems it’s going to pass, much to the chagrin to sundry Muslim leaders. They say the bill is anti-Islam, a charge the government denies with vigour.

Still, many say it may be a good first step, but the Danes were much more practical about it.

And, of course, many others chastise these governments for trying to defend their own nations, thus, by the way, following President Donald J. Trump’s footsteps.

The Danes say the idea is to get rid of parallel societies. The fewer maladjusted (and asocial) members of one ethnic group in a neighbourhood, the more probable it is they will integrate with those from other backgrounds among whom they live. If they see that doing so would improve their lots, the probability can change into certainty.

It won’t happen overnight, but happen it will.

Political correctness be damned.

Hamlet had it all wrong.