Tag Archives: Adolf Hitler

Here’s how today’s racists managed to win their upper hand

Giving racist advantage to one group over all others seems to have become the rule of the day. On the other hand, saying we’re all equal has become a crime. Many prominent politically correct people, both in the media and in the academic circles, are being hounded if they pronounce one syllable wrong.

No need to feel sorry for them: they have been the ones who had instituted political correctness in the first place, denying their rights to everybody else, including the right of expression. So, what goes around, comes around.

But still: what the heck is happening? How did we manage to get to a situation where a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, illiterate hooligans have become the sole dictators, deciding what’s going to be going on in the public square?

Early warning signs

Interestingly, most people aren’t aware that Manning Rudolph Johnson did predict most of what we witness now when he published his explosive book in 1958, named Color, Communism, And Common Sense.

In fact, one wonders how many of today’s so-called intelligentsia have ever heard his name. Asking whether they had read his book would be superfluous.

Manning Rudolph Johnson was black. He used to think that communism would help overcome the many racial inequities his people used to suffer in his country.

As he rose through the U.S. Communist Party ranks, Manning Rudolph Johnson found out that no, the communists’ goal was not to help racial minorities. Their goal was to fan up mutual racial and ethnic hatreds to such a degree that the flame would lead to annihilation of the republican system of government in the U.S., bringing communism in in its stead.

What did Manning Rudolph Johnson get in return?

Abuse from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Ridicule from the mainstream media. And a serious attempt to ensure that his name disappears from history.

Justice Felix Frankfurter, in his dismissive remarks about Manning Rudolph Johnson and his information (not opinion but information), has become a shining symbol for the so-called liberal Jewish intellectuals whose blatant anti-semitism can only be compared to Adolf Hitler’s or Muslim priests’.

In any case, Manning Rudolph Johnson told the truth and America is now paying for its ignorance and sheer gullibility in the face of the dangers of the cancer known as communism.

Look back in anger

History tells us this is nothing new. We only have forgotten to learn from her. As has been our habit throughout history.

Here’s a brief peek at a few very recent examples.

A mere 103 years ago, Imperial Germany’s High Command told their Emperor (Kaiser) Wilhelm II that they see an easy out of their country’s unending war on Russia. Queen Victoria’s oldest grandson found their ideas perfidious enough and gave his royal assent to the plan.

A group of Russians in exile want to overthrow their Tsar, Nikolai II, the generals told their Kaiser. That would bring Russia into such turmoil, Nikolai II would immediately start begging for some kind of a peace treaty to get his country out of World War One.

And if not the Tsar, then his successors will.

Let’s provide these seditious mongrels with money, put them on a train, and transport the lot of them to their country. Sealed train, insisted His Majesty, we don’t want them to start spreading their ideas among our own people. No problem, said the generals, sealed train it’s going to be.

But, His Majesty wanted to know, how do you know their revolution is going to work? How can you can expect the muzhiki (poor peasants) of Russia to turn on their Tsar, and on their beloved Orthodox (Pravoslavnaia) church?

The generals told their Kaiser that they had read the bolshevik chief’s works. He’s been promising to take the land away from its lawful owners and distribute it among the muzhiki. Vladimir Ulyanov obviously knows that the majority of peasants would be willing to desert their battle lines, and that would be the end of it. Not, the generals added, that they believe this Ulyanov guy would be as good as his word, but when that happens, it would be no longer any of their business.

And this is precisely what happened. A provisional government in Russia that had forced Nicholas II into abdication, had no idea that a group of their compatriots has embarked on the path known in every country, and every political and judicial system, as high treason.

It must have been a bitter pill to swallow for Russia’s Tsars for simple family reasons: Nicholas, his wife Alexandra, and German Emperor Wilhelm II were all first cousins of King George V of the United Kingdom. Nicholas and Wilhelm II were in turn second cousins-once-removed. Each descended from King Frederick William III of Prussia. They were third cousins, too, as they were both Tsar Paul I of Russia’s great-great-grandsons.

Incestuous family trees aside, once Vladimir Ulyanov, a.k.a. Lenin, got into power, he had his representatives sign a peace treaty with Germany at Brest-Litovsk. That treaty amounted to nothing less than to full surrender.

Of course, history would go on, and Germany would still lose the war. Wilhelm II would abdicate, and Germany would be thrust into such mayhem that it would later on find Adolf Hitler the most attractive leader to get her out of her misery. But that’s another story.

And that Lenin’s bolsheviks would soon enough tell the muzhiki they did not really need their own land, and start enforcing collectivization, that’s another story, too.

Many seem to forget what happened shortly after the bolsheviks took over. They decided that everything and everyone linked to their country’s past in whatever shape or form is suspicious. They began to act accordingly.

The created something known as Proletcult (proletarian culture: they just loved their abbreviations).

It remains a subject of general consternation that so many of old Russian palaces, monuments, sculptures and sundry works of art have survived to this day. Obviously, the bolsheviks had so much other stuff on their agenda, they just didn’t get round to destroying it all.

In any case, when the rest of the world, its so-called civilized part, at least, saw what the bolsheviks were doing to their nation’s rich cultural and historical traditions, they called it all kinds of names. Criminal barbarism was one of the nicest ones among them.

A few steps forward

How the militant Taliban managed to take over Afghanistan and spread its terrorist tentacles all over the world has been an issue analysed in so many densely printed tomes, just listing them would take yet another densely printed book.

Aside from debating the levels of war between the then-Soviet Union and the more civilized west, the answer would be simple: because the west allowed them to. How many learned, spectacles-wearing do-gooders used to say this is their (meaning: Afghan) culture and who are we to be telling them what to do?

Indeed: who?

Still, when the Taliban took to ancient sculptures and monuments and began dynamiting them, what did they hear? An occasional tut-tut, and a few editorials saying they were a bunch of idiotic barbarians.

The Taliban, just as the bolsheviks, knew precisely what they were doing and why: rob people of their culture and tradition, and what have you got? A disjointed group, one that may be linked by a common language, but disjointed, nevertheless.

The good old ancient Greek king Philip II of Macedon used to describe it as diaírei kài, the good old Romans found it intriguing enough to accept it as Divide et impera (divide and rule), and the Taliban felt no need to give it a name. They just implemented it.

And look where Afghanistan is now: a nation divided along old tribal lines where many villagers wouldn’t dare come close to a neighbouring village, in fear for their lives.

Who buries whom?

Today’s would-be revolutionaries, seditious criminals all of them, have found that the bolsheviks’ artificial hatred among classes, based mainly on envy, didn’t get them far enough. And it petered out, too, when people realized that it’s easy to hate all and sundry when you do have enough toilet paper at home, for example. When you have to chase for it all over the place and end up having make do with whatever else, class antagonisms become secondary in a hurry.

Today’s would-be revolutionaries have also realized that even religion-based terrorism no longer cuts it. In any case, not sufficiently enough.

So, why not try race-based grievances, most of them centuries old, and many based on outright lies. Why not destroy everything that reminds people of the past that led to today along the way?

Whether all of those grievances are even justified, or whether they are addressed where they should be addressed is not really relevant.

It will be 64 years this November since then-Soviet chief communist Nikita Sergeievich Khrushchev told the Americans that the communists will bury them.

This statement made instant headlines, and (as happens so often with modern media) most of what Khrushchev would say later would get lost. Not in translation (Khrushchev’s personal interpreter Viktor Sukhodrev knew his job to a t). It just wasn’t as catchy as the headline-grabbing burial statement.

But, it turns out, Khrushchev wasn’t as naïve as many thought he was.

Here’s what he had to say on that rainy November day in 1959: “Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have communism. We will not have to fight you; we will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

“The democracy will cease to exist,” Khrushchev finished, “when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

To sum it all up: whose lives matter now?


Western mainstream media play into the hands of Russian police cover-up

The sheer and unadulterated naïveté of western mainstream media borders on – and now we have two options. It’s either a frightful lack of education, or an even more frightful stupidity.

Here’s the case: the most important (and knowledgeable) Russian opposition politician, Boris Nemtsov, is murdered just as he is on his way to a meeting at which he plans to reveal a few of the dirtiest secrets of the current Russian administration. That administration is led by a former high-ranking officer of the former Soviet secret service and espionage agency, the KGB. The agency, by the way, is still well, even though a couple of decades has passed since the official end of communism in the country. It exists under a few different names, but it still keeps the same offices, and its bosses are the same guys who used to work there under the one-party system. These people are all faithful to their country’s president: he’s one of them, always has been, too, after all, and it’s been at his pleasure that they had been allowed them to keep their jobs.

In any crime, investigators ask one simple question first. In Latin it sounds like this: cui bono? English translation (verbatim): to whose benefit?

In the Boris Nemtsov murder, the answer simple and straightforward: Vladimir Putin benefits. Judging by what Boris Nemtsov had already revealed, his forthcoming revelations were expected to mention unmentionable atrocities committed by the current regime. The worst part about it for Putin and his gang: Boris Nemtsov’s accusations have always been perfectly documented. One could not expect it to be otherwise in the current situation.

Whether we’ll ever find out (in general or in any detail) what Boris Nemtsov planned to say remains to be seen. The only thing we know for a fact is that it was explosive enough for someone to risk killing him.

Suspicions turned towards the Kremlin within seconds. But Russian police investigators – all of them in the service of their government and knowing that it is their duty to defend it at all cost – began forwarding all kinds of theories within minutes.

Such as: Boris Nemtsov upset a number of Ukrainian politicians because of his critical views of the developments in that country. They omitted to say, of course, that Nemtsov was against the Russian separatists whom he compared to Konrad Henlein’s Sudeten Germans. That was the group that had helped dismantle the former Czechoslovakia before the Second World War. They also, somehow, forgot that Nemtsov went so far as to compare Putin’s rhetoric to that Adolf Hitler when he defended the Sudeten Germans’ rights.

As soon as someone realized that these omissions weren’t helpful, the theory changed. Muslim terrorists has become the theory du jour. Doesn’t matter whence, and doesn’t matter why, either. Everybody is scared of the Islamists (and rightfully so), why not add some fuel to these flames?

Now, Russian police reports say, they’ve got some people from Chechnya in their hands, and the explanation is obvious: the Chechens hate Putin and they wanted to give him a black eye by murdering his opponent and having the world blame Putin.

How perfectly elegant!

The Chechens, of course, do hate everything that is Russian and everyone who is Russian. And why not? The methods the Russian military use to install Pax Ruthenia, or peace as the Russians prefer it to be, give ruthlessness a brand new meaning. The Islamic State murderers could take their correspondence courses from the Russians in Chechnya.

It is quite possible that the Chechens now in Russian custody will admit to cunningly planning and executing the plan to kill Boris Nemtsov. Russian police do not have to put up with nosy journalists who would expose their torture methods. Most of those who’d dare are either dead, killed in inexplicable circumstances, or silent, or in hiding.

In any case, the Islamist theory doesn’t hold water: this is not their modus operandi. This is not the way they do business. Beheading Vladimir Putin in front of Al-Jazeera television cameras would be the way they would get back at Vladimir Putin. Not murdering his opponent to give him a black eye.

All of this is pretty obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowledge and experience in ways how the Russians do business.

Not the Western mainstream media.

The arrested Chechen guy’s sister says – for the record, too – that all the signs point to the Kremlin. Judging by what she’s saying and how she’s saying it, she seems to know a thing or two about what she’s talking about.

Most Western mainstream media ignore her altogether. Those mainstream media that do not ignore her treat her statement as a biased opinion. We’re all entitled to our opinions, no matter how biased or stupid, right? So, this is the way they dismiss her.

What gets the major play? The Russian police statement.

There’s a world of difference between how the police see themselves in, say, Canada, and what role they have in Russia. In Russia, it is their duty to do their government’s bidding. In Canada, it is their duty to uphold the law, not the government of the day.

Same holds for the U.S.

Is the sheer and unadulterated naïveté of western mainstream media a sign of a frightful lack of education or an even more frightful stupidity?

It seems that it’s the combination of both.

Heavens forbid!

Politically correct gangs reach new heights of hypocrisy

Institutions of higher learning in British Columbia have come up with an idiotic and criminal idea to end all idiotic and criminal ideas.

University and college employees, teaching staffs in particular, are now obligated to attend several hours of anti-bullying courses. They will be taught about all kinds of bullying, how they differ in various environments, and whatnot. Following that, they will be required to sit for examinations to establish whether they understood and accepted truisms such as “bullying is bad.”

So far, so bad.

But there’s worse to come.

If they refuse, they’re going to be ordered to appear before their human resources chiefs. More often than not, the verdict will be simple: find yourself a new job. And don’t expect us to give you good references for your potentially new employers to judge you upon.

And there’s even worse to come.

Human resources departments will receive the results of the examinations mentioned above. They will be basing their evaluation of their employees on these results.

Socialist systems such as communist, nazi and fascist, have been using this kind of coercion with varying degrees of success. They concentrated on ideology, to be sure, rather than on harassment and bullying, but the principle was the same: the courses were compulsory, and test results were filed with the appropriate human resources departments, or whatever they used to be called then.

It is perfectly appalling that anybody permits things like that to happen in a democratic country such as Canada.

These programs are run by specially trained people whose title says it all: they are called harassment officers.

These programs fit the definitions of harassment and bullying to the last details. Just consider: someone in power uses that power to order their subordinates to do things these subordinates detest, and the people in power say, right up-front, that whoever disobeys will face the firing squad, including putting them on an unofficial blacklist. As a result, most such employees keep their mouths shut. Jobs such as theirs are scarce, after all, and with a bad reference letter, what hope have they? None.

All this is illegal. Unconstitutional, even.

Yet, what we face is not a storm of protest. We face deadly silence.

A saying attributed to German pastor Martin Niemoeller says it all. After the Second World War, a major part of which Niemoeller spent behind bars in Hitler’s Third Empire (das Dritte Reich), he allegedly said that when the nazis came to pick the socialists, he was silent because he wasn’t a socialist, when they came for the Jews, he didn’t say a word because he wasn’t Jewish, and when they, eventually, came to grab him, there wasn’t anyone to speak up on his behalf.

Which is precisely where we’ll end up if we remain silent.

Absolutely, bullying is an ugly phenomenon. Crime, too. And so is harassment. But the irony of it all is that the anti-bullying and anti-harassment commissars are engaging in bullying and harassment of the worst kind, all in the name of progress.

Societies based on law have a few simple premises. Such as: you have to commit a crime before anyone has the right to accuse you, and never mind judge you. And you cannot be found guilty if there’s a smidgen of reasonable doubt casting its shadow upon your case.

Logically, this means that people who only refused to waste their time to hear stupid clichés but haven’t bullied and/or harassed anybody are innocent.

Those who bully and harass them like the anti-bullying and anti-harassment crowds do, they are the criminals here.

They should face the consequences.

And those who are thus bullied into submission should stand up and tell them where they can put their pet courses, mostly make-work projects for their friends, anyhow.

Stand up, Canada, and send those bullying quasi-human-rights harassers where they belong.

Will Russia honour its former criminal leaders?

Who cares that Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin have committed crimes against humanity?

Vladimir Putin, their successor in the Kremlin, certainly doesn’t.

Talking to a Soviet war veteran during D-Day commemorations in Normandy, Putin said it would be a good idea to have a referendum to decide whether to rename Volgograd to its original historic name of Stalingrad. That it used to be Tsaritsyn before it would become Stalingrad never seemed to have crossed his mind.

The communists in St. Petersburg (or Petrograd in Russian) happily jumped on board. Vladimir Dmitriyev, their leader at St. Petersburg city hall, said it would be a splendid idea to rename his city, too. It would become Leningrad once again. Russia’s communit leader Gennadii Zyuganov agreed wholeheartedly.

The movement to name those cities after two of the three greatest war criminals (Adolf Hitler was the third one) of the 20th century has begun gaining strength. The forthcoming celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, coming next year, have given the plan yet another impetus.

“Two hero-cities, Leningrad and Stalingrad, aren’t on the maps of the world,” said Dmitriyev, the communist fraction chief in the St. Petersburg city hall. “It is necessary to renew the historical justice.”

Putin’s office would try to soften the impact Putin’s words had. His spokesman, Dmitriy Peskov, said Putin never said it was his wish to have those two cities renamed. This contradicted his chief’s outspoken statement to the effect that it would be worth the country’s while to put the question to the citizenry in a referendum. The backpedalling was understandable. Several influential parliamentarins in the Russian Duma expressed outrage over the idea. Except: some of the local politicians have already announced they were planning to use the “historic” names on some occasions, especially those that are linked to the war in one way or another.

It was Peter the Great, Russia’s Tsar at the time, who founded St. Petersburg in 1703. The name was translated into its Russian version (Petrograd) in 1914, and in 1924, following communist leader Vladimir Lenin’s passing, it became Leningrad. When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the authorities of the day brought the original name back.

It would take several years for Stalingrad to become Volgograd. Then-Soviet leader, Nikita Khruschev, revealed that Stalin was a mass murderer in a then-secret speech at the communist party congress in 1956. Stalingrad, the place that saw one of the major battles waged during the World War II, became Volgograd only in 1961.

Why is this an important issue?

Vladimir Lenin brought the criminal ideology of Marxism to Russia and led the overthrow of a democratically elected government in October of 1917.

Some people believe to this day that he was a relatively benign ruler, that it was Stalin who turned the Soviet Union into one great death camp.

Not so.

It was Lenin who instituted state-sponsored terror in his country. In fact, Lenin said publicly he would do it. And he did. The so-called Extraordinary Commission to Fight the Counter-revolution was his invention. It was the infamous Cheka, that would develop into GPU (Glavnoie politicheskoie upravlenie – Main political administration), then NKVD (Narodnyi kommissariat vnutrennikh del – National commissariat of internal affairs), through the ministry of state security (MGB) all the way to the still-feared KGB (Komitet gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti – Committee for state security).

It was Lenin who personally ordered that his new government start building concentration camps all over the country. Under Lenin’s specific orders, they were supposed to deal with those who had the gall to look askance at the new rule and rulers. In fact, Lenin coined the name, too.

It was Lenin who personally ordered the massacre of the last Tsar’s entire family in what used to be Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk under the Soviet rule, and Ekaterinburg now again.

Stalin, Lenin’s successor, would oversee the deaths of more than 20 million people, most of them perfectly innocent of any crime.

Stalin was the guy who ordered that, in order to subdue Ukraine, the country be exposed to a famine that would kill millions.

The list of crimes against humanity perpetrated by these two would take volumes of historical data to describe. Suffice it to say that calling them criminals is the nicest thing one can say about them.

And yet, here come efforts to rehabilitate them, to make them look like great leaders whose lives’ deeds have put the world on the path to progress.

Progress, indeed.

The strangest thing about it all is that not many people elsewhere in the world would murmur a single word in protest. That is, if they even ever registered the strange goings on in Russia.

Just imagine the uproar if someone suggested that Braunau am Inn, a small Austrian town that had the misfortune of being Hitler’s birthplace, be renamed into, say, Hitlerstadt.

Edmonton Catholic School Board makes peace with Muslims. Really?

Rid the world of the infidel dogs. If it takes killing them, so much the better. If they surrender and convert to our faith, not bad, either: the more slaves we’ve got, the better off we are.

Which faith do these words come from?

If you guessed Islam, you were correct.

Bluntly put, while the Muslims’ methods border on the uncivilized, the tenor is quite logical. Most religions are (and have always been) of the view that theirs is the only perfect way to worship. Christian religions are not exempted. Just remember the Inquisition. Except: most religions have abandoned these harsh methods of dealing with those who either choose to believe differently, or who, for Heaven’s sake, foolishly decide not to join any organized church at all.

Still, the only major religion that believes that those who beg to differ and subscribe to other beliefs ought to be condemned is (and has always been) Islam.

Edmonton Catholic School Board seems to think the Muslims don’t really mean it. Its promotional literature features a photograph of a girl wearing hijab. This kind of head covering indicates that the wearer is of Muslim faith.

An important distinction: not all Arabs are Muslim. There are quite a few Arabs who have devoted their lives to Christianity. And this really means: their lives. Should anyone wish to know what happens to them, just watch the news coming from, say, Egypt. It’s not as if the atrocities against Christian Arabs were happening centuries ago. No, they are happening now. Right now.

Why? Simply because Christian Arabs are firmly convinced that not everybody in this world wants (or aspires) to be a Muslim.

Naïveté beyond belief

Asked whether the Edmonton Catholic School Board was aware it had been drumming up custom in quarters not really friendly towards any kind of Christianity, and that includes the Catholic faith, the reply was shocking: we’re all-inclusive.

Well, come to think of it, not really.

A few quotes here.

Those who apply for enrollment in an Edmonton Catholic School, are required to read and sign (in agreement) this statement that is part of the registration form: “The Alberta Human Rights Act requires Edmonton Catholic Schools to give notice to a parent or guardian when courses of study, educational programs, institutional materials, instruction or exercises include subject matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion.

The essential purpose of our schools is to fully permeate Catholic theology, philosophy, practices and beliefs, the principles of the Gospel and teachings of the Catholic Church, in all aspects of school life, including in the curriculum of every subject taught, both in and outside of formal religion classes, celebrations and exercises.

Have you noticed anything about the Koran in this statement?

The requirement continues thus: “If Religion is other than the Catholic faith, please sign the following acknowledgement: I hereby acknowledge and accept the values and philosophy of a Catholic school and that my child will participate in the prayer life, church and church related activities, religious courses, instruction and exercises in which Catholic ethical and moral standards are taught. Additionally, I am aware that my child is being admitted to this school as a non-resident student, and because of this, the District accepts the responsibility for my child’s education until such time as my child finishes his or her program in this school, voluntarily withdraws, or is expelled from the District.

Is it discrimination, by any chance?

Of course it is. As it should be, too. If anyone wants to study elsewhere, without having to agree in advance to a set of beliefs, public schools are a wonderful alternative.

Come to think of it, let’s say it openly: discrimination, in and of itself, is a pretty good thing.

If you’re selecting a bride or a groom, you’re discriminating against all those who had submitted applications, and never mind those who had never heard of your existence. (Wives, especially, like to say they should have and could have picked anybody over you, and they would have been better off, but that is just folklore.)

When you’re buying, say, meat in your local grocery store, you’re discriminating against all those other pieces the store has on offer: no, you don’t want ribs today, your taste buds are set on a schnitzel.

Yes, the moronic politically correct crowd would say, but how about discrimination based on sex? Or religion?

Well, would you expect a guy, no matter how handsome or ugly, promoting goods used for female hygiene, on television?

Would you expect someone who believes there’s only one Almighty, and his name is Allah, serving as a rabbi in a kibbutz?

Dealing with mortal enemy

What has all this to do with the perfectly idiotic decision by the Edmonton Catholic School Board to offer its hallowed halls of learning to their mortal enemy?

It has become a modern trend, a fashion, even, for western civilisations to beg for pardons from all and sundry for injustices, real and perceived, that had happened centuries ago. It goes so far as African-Americans (another politically correct and, simultaneously, stupid description) adopting Muslim names and, at the same time, accusing America and Americans for the crime of slavery. They don’t know their history. Muslims, who, by the way, still consider this kind of ownership perfectly fine and dandy, had sold them into slavery in the first place. And they should know that it had been the Americans, together with the Brits, who had led the struggle against slavery.

It is perfectly appalling to see the Pope apologising to the Muslims for the Crusades. One would have expected that if anyone knew his history, it would be the Holy Father. Who knows, he might. If he does, he must know that Crusades were a two-way street. Christians were defending their holy places. That’s all. And in case you weren’t aware, desecration is the Muslim way to handle holy places they manage to take over, usually by force. Not: WAS the way. IS the way. And NOT only Christian or Jewish holy places.

Footage of a gang of Muslims, led by their priests, destroying the graves of Allied soldiers who had fought the Nazis in the deserts of Africa has been going viral the last couple of years.

Logical, after all: Muslim mullahs believe to this day that it is a pity Adolf Hitler was deprived of the chance to finish his “sacred duty” of the Holocaust.

An aside: what happened once the footage of the desecration of Allied graves made the Internet? Not much. The British government issued a modest, shy and unassuming tut-tut. Analysts say that the British reaction was so mute because they feared lest they insult the masses of Muslims who live in Britain, many of them illegally.

Responsibility abandoned

It is within this context that the Edmonton Catholic School Board sees itself fit to announce its schools are all-inclusive. They must be perfectly illiterate. How? They aren’t aware of the fact a number of Arabs are Christian rather than Muslim. The other option would be that they have been blinded by the sheer stupidity a.k.a. political correctness. One wonders which option bodes better for Edmonton Catholic schools’ students.

Of course, if a Muslim decided to convert (to Catholicism, in this instance), that would call for fatwa. Automatic death sentence, that is. How many would dare?

Certainly, Christians will tell you that if somebody hits you, you ought to offer the other cheek for similar punishment. Except not even the most literal and ancient Christian religious writings stipulate you ought to behave like lamb led to slaughter when it’s your life that’s at stake.

Some say it’s not true that ostriches put their heads in the sand when they spot danger. Still, the saying remains. And it fits not only the Edmonton Catholic School Board, but all of the politically correct and frightfully naïve folks, too.

A school board, be it a public or religious institution, has but one responsibility only: to educate those in their care and prepare them for life in the real world.

Political correctness in any shape or form just doesn’t cut it.

And sleeping with the enemy doesn’t do the job, either.

A sign of scholarship? A library named after bin Laden

This is called testing how far you can go: a library in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, has got a new name. From now onwards it shall be known as the Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden Library.

Osama bin Laden Library, for short.

There is an Islamic school for women in Islamabad. That’s where you’ll find the newly-renamed book depository.

One wonders what they teach their students in this school. Females, after all, have been traditionally considered a rather low social species within their own society. Below even dolphins, some wittier practitioners would call them.

From the statement that appeared on the library doorway it seems obvious. Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, the placard says, is a martyr. And, as the newly-renamed library’s spokesman added, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden deserves the honour because he’s a hero. Not was. Is.

No, no need to say spokesperson or anything politically correct. It WAS a spokesman. Whom else would you have expected?

One wonders, by the way, in these politically correct times, how many enlightened people of undisguised stupidity (of both male and female persuasion) will announce that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. That has been a favourite slogan for these useful idiots.

As an aside: this description, useful idiots, that is, was coined for them by none other than their own ideal, Vladimir Iliych Lenin, a.k.a. Ulyanov. If you have any objections because you find this description of yourselves demeaning, humiliating, even, please address them to Mavzolei Lenina, Krasnaia Ploschadj, Moskva, Rossiiskaiya Federatsia. And if you want to complain in person, once you’ve entered the Red Square, just look for the Trinity Gate (Troitskaia Bashnia). You can’t miss it.

But to get back to this new and wonderful addition to Islamabad’s educational landscape.

Should anyone object that Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden perhaps might not be really deserving of such a signal honour, Maulana Abdul Aziz, the school’s defender of the faith, has something to say, too. “If the Pakistani government takes aim at our mosques and madrasas, sharia law permits us to exact revenge upon them. And if anyone is going to go hard on us, they can’t expect flowers in return.”

How perfectly poetic, right? Especially considering that the new Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden Library contains about two thousand books and all of them deal with Islam – and nothing else. Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, come to think of it. You won’t find books on making lace in, say, a biochemstry lab’s library, unless a busy employee forgot it there, that is.

But, lest we forget, who was this Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, anyway? Why, the founder of al-Qaeda, that humanitarian volunteer society whose only (but sacred) goal is to create mayhem by killing innocent civilian bystanders. The victims’ only guilt: they just happen to have a different set of values, they believe in things incompatible with the values of the Islam holy book, the Koran. Of course, to call the contents of the Koran “values” is stretching it somewhat. Killing innocent civilian bystanders just because their values and faiths are different can hardly be called that. You might as well call Karl Marx’s (and Friedrich Engels’) Communist Manifesto or Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf valuable literature, if you call Koran’s contents values.

The idea is simple: kill them all, regardless of age, sex or faith. Why worry about killing children? It’s even better to kill them now rather than later, when they grow up and begin enjoying such popular pastimes as marriage and procreation. At least there would be fewer people to kill in the future, thus saving valuable resources.

And Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, one the major practitioners of such enlightened pursuits, is the guy who earned such an honour as to have a library named after him.

Frightfully humanitarian.

And what about that threat against the Pakistani government?

A bit of background

The official name of the country of 180 million citizens is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. On the surface it seems to have inherited some features from the British and other features from the American legal systems. In reality, this is a sham. Pakistan’s regions are (consitutionally, too) ruled by what is known as jirga. Officially, that means government by a tribal assembly of elders which takes decisions by consensus. Unofficially, it subordinates its ways of thinking to sharia. Since sharia is a set of laws and rules that openly views democratic ways as decadence that leads directly to hell, there’s not much the good Maulana Abdul Aziz, the defender of the faith in that particular school, can fear.

In fact, it has been an established fact that Pakistan’s secret services not so secretly support both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Some reports say that those within the Pakistani secret services whose indiscretions led the Americans directly to Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden’s hiding place have found their careers stopped short. In some cases, their lives, too.

Has the West raised at least one eyebrow about the news about the honour bestowed upon Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden? Has that news made any waves? Are you kidding? In how many mainstream media outlets have you seen this wonderful news item? A rhetorical question, that.

We are like ostriches who hide their heads in the sand when they spy danger, in the hope that this, too, shall pass.

It won’t.

There was a Protestant pastor in Germany. His name was Martin Niemöller. Despite his earlier antisemitism, Niemöller would – as time went on – become an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and all of his works. Niemöller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Here’s what Niemöller had to say about his experience afterwards: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Remember it.

Russia quite open about its Ukrainian “final solution”


Nothing beats giving away things that aren’t yours in the first place.

The Polish government has received a letter the other day. It came from Russian Duma (lower house of Russian parliament). It offered Poland five western Ukrainian regions: dear brothers, you’re free to go and get them.

To be precise: Russian Duma’s Deputy Speaker Vladimir Zhirinovskii has offered that Poland might as well annex the five western-most regions of Ukraine.

Not that such sentiment was unexpected: Zhirinovskii has been talking about the idea since the beginning of March.

But that he would send such a blatant invitation to the Polish government, on his office letterhead, to boot, to make sure the Poles treat it as an official offer, that’s what shocked the Poles no end.

Tomasz Nałęcz, advisor to Polish president Bronisław Komorowski, told the web site gazeta.pl his boss thought this must have come from a particularly sick mind.

Polish foreign affairs ministry spokesman Marcin Wojciechowski confirmed to the TVP network that, indeed, the letter had been received.

“It’s so weird nobody is taking it seriously,” Wojciechowski added.

Asked what reply might Zhirinovskii expect from the Poles, Wojciechowski told TVP that it would be a polite receipt that wouldn’t mention the topic at all.

Something like this:

Dear Sir,

Yours of … (fill in the date) at hand.

Thanks for your communication.

Sincerely, etc.

Here are the regions that Zhirinovskii describes as “non-Ukrainian”: Volyn, Lviv, Ternpyl, Ivano-Frankivsk, Rivno. All of them in Western Ukraine, all of them bound to other countries throughout their history.

A joke about these parts used to make rounds. Here’s how it went: there was a census going on, and officials knocked on an old guy’s door. Where were you born? Austro-Hungarian Empire. Where did you go to school? Czechoslovakia. Where did you get your apprenticeship papers? Poland. Which pension are you receiving now? Soviet. Man, said one of the census officials, you must have been moving all over the place, right? Me? asked the old guy. Not at all, I’ve never left Mukachevo in my life!

Call to vote

But, to get back to Zhirinovskii: in his letter, he suggested that Polish citizens ought to have a referendum to decide whether they want to annex those five regions. Not one word about asking the people who actually live there.

Democracy in action, so to speak.

According to Russian sources, Zhirinovskii didn’t stop there. He offered two other parts of Ukraine to Romania (Chernovtsy) and Hungary (Transcarpathian Mountains).

That would leave eastern Ukraine that would be annexed by Russia, and a basic rump that Zhirinovskii called “central Ukraine.”

Presidential advisor Nałęcz said Zhirinovskii’s letter is cause enough to have him thoroughly checked by a psychiatrist.

Of course, Poland is rather sensitive about any talk about annexations and redistributions. Her history is rich with such occurrences. The last one came courtesy Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. When Donald Tusk, Poland’s prime minister, had the gall to mention this in the presence of Russian president Vladimir Putin, he was in for a surprise: Putin went ballistic. He yelled, and publicly, too, that the Poles should keep their mouths shut, that they tore a piece of Czechoslovakia off on the day the Nazis invaded it. He bullied Tusk like nobody’s business.

So, it seems, the Russians are quite sensitive about this point, too, except, they take a dim view of anyone who reminds them of their past sins.

All of this follows, of course, on the heels of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The official explanation, one that resembled Adolf Hitler’s explanations about his annexation of the so-called Sudetenland areas of former Czechoslovakia, said Russia just wanted to keep the poor Russians who live in Crimea safe.

The funniest part?

Crimea , if the Russians want to pull rank based on their view of history, hasn’t been Russian in the first place. It was annexed in the 18th by Russian Tsars.

An excursion into history

For all we know, Crimea used to be known as Tauric Khersonese (Peninsula) and it used to be part of Greece. Note, for example, that even today many of its local names remind all and sundry of their Greek origins: Sevastopol, Simferopol, for instance.

It became a multicultural paradise by the Middle Ages: its population consisted of Scythians (Scytho-Cimmerians, Tauri), Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Kipchaks and Khazars.

Following these happy times, Crimea fell to Kievan Rus and partly, to a remarkable degree, to Byzantium. It became victim to the Mongol invasions afterwards (remember the Golden Horde, anyone?).

The Venetians and the Genovese would enter the picture in the 13th century, only to be replaced by the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire in the 15th to 18th centuries.

Have you detected any Russian presence yet?

It would come only with the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire in 1783.

Uneasy locals

People in these areas remember their history as if it was happening today. So, no wonder Crimean Tatars want a referendum about their future in the region. After all, one of the new Crimean government’s first steps was to ask the Tatars to move from some of the areas they had traditionally considered theirs.

Considering the Tatars had been living in Crimea long before any Russians even heard of the peninsula, no wonder.

No wonder, either, that the Tatars recalled what Josif Stalin did to them, deporting them to some of the harshest parts of the Soviet Union (in the deserts of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan). Stalin suspected some of them might have collaborated with the Nazis when the Germans got to Crimea during the Second World War.

Proof? Who needs proof? The Vozhdj (Leader) said so. Proof enough.

So, even less wonder, then, that the Tatars want some reassurances. President Putin’s recent admission that what Stalin had done to them wasn’t really cricket does not sound like reassurance enough.

A photograph has been making rounds on the web in recent days. It shows Russia’s Putin and U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama in conversation. Obama asks his Russian counterpart: “So, what are your plans now that you have annexed Crimea?” And Putin replies: “Well, come to think of it, Alaska used to be Russian, too.”

Scared yet?

And does that Zhirinovskii letter still come as a shock out of clear blue sky?

Who’s failed Ukraine and the Ukrainians?

The West has nobody else to blame but itself for what’s going on in Ukraine. And lest anybody thinks that Russia’s takeover of Crimea is the final step, let them think again.

Russia has been used to enjoying her superpower standing. That dates back to the Tsarist times, this is not just her relatively recent communist past. But it was her communist past that brought Mother Russia firmly down on her knees. Communism does that to national economies.

The accepted wisdom has it that Tsarist Russia was a dirt-poor country that was going nowhere fast.Thus, the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917.

An old joke comes to mind: the country’s most momentous event is called October Revolution, but they celebrate it in November. And that’s how everything works over there.

Poor? Yes, absolutely. Going nowhere fast? A perfect lie. After all, Russia was quite capable of feeding herself, something that can’t be mentioned in polite society about Russia under communism.

But even with her trousers filled with holes, Russia (the Soviet Union, that is) could always claim she was a superpower that made her adversaries shake in their boots.

A few steps down the memory lane

Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky led the so-called February Revolution of 1917. The plan was to overthrow Tsarism and install at least a semblance of democracy in Russia.

Debates rage even today whether the idea of democracy in Russia was premature, and the fact remains that all of this was happening while the First World War was still going on.

German Imperial Staff, facing their country’s looming defeat, would come up with a plan some call brilliant. How to get Russia, one of Germany’s enemies, out of the equation? Simply: hire Vladimir Iliych Ulianov-Lenin and the group of his fanatical followers, most of whom were living in the safety of neutral Switzerland, finance them, and bring them over to Russia. The aim was to overthrow Kerensky, all the while introducing Lenin’s brand of Marxism, and putting the country in such a disarray it would beg Germany for forgiveness and plead for peace.

This move did NOT prevent Germany’s loss, but it did bring Russia to her knees.

Lenin introduced drastic measures to secure his victory. He was the guy who introduced Russia to the concept of concentration camps, mass executions of hostages and prisoners and other similar steps to convince the populace that it would obey or else.

Lenin died in 1924.

His replacement, Josif Vissarionovich Stalin, an organizer if there ever was one, developed Lenin’s form of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” close to perfection. Except, not even the ruthless system could feed the nation. Especially considering that Lenin has created what would become the Soviet Union, making Mother Russia a centre of an empire at a time when she could not afford it.

Stalin would continue with Lenin’s imperialism.

After the Soviet Union became part of the victorious allies who defeated Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his Nazis, the Soviets would become honoured guests at the tables of the mighty. They would even win the right of veto at the newly established United Nations’ Security Council.

Soviet citizenry in general – and its Russian segment, in particular – were proud: theirs was a superpower rubbing shoulders with the rest of the world’s powers, and whenever the Soviets said something, it carried considerable weight.

Skipping a few eras ahead, eras that would only confirm that communism really wasn’t the best idea to ever emerge and be imposed on a nation (or a group of nations), we get directly to Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev. This typical “apparatchik” whom only the naïve western elites could consider a Second Coming knew one thing: his country was on the brink of a total collapse. What he did not realize was that once just a bit of the bitter truth spreads around, it would be the death of communism. He unleashed “glasnost,” and the rest, as the cliché has it, is history.

Boris Nikolaievich Yeltsin, Gorbachev’s successor, just bowed to the inevitable, dismantling the Soviet Union (and letting the so-called union republics decide which way they wanted to go).

That was the end of Russia as an empire.

And then along came Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, a former high-ranking secret police (KGB) official, a guy brought up in making sure his country would remain an empire forever.

Which brings us full circle back to today’s realities.

So, what’s going on, anyway?

When Stalin’s successor, Nikita Sergeievich Khruschev, donated Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, he couldn’t have imagined that the Soviet Union would once cease to exist. For him, the transfer was largely symbolic: it would be Moscow, for all he cared, issuing the marching orders, so what?

But when Ukraine became an independent country, that would change the map right then and there. How? Simply: Crimea, with its closeness to the Black Sea where the Soviets kept a major part of their navy, as well as with its closeness to sundry natural resources, became a part of a country that was, at least on paper, independent of Russia.

Meanwhile, the West, in its endless arrogance, would be rubbing the loss of superpower influence in Russia’s face again and again.

Remember the former Yugoslavia? Russia, a natural ally with the Serbs (they have some common history), would object to the West’s handling of that country. No matter how strenuous Russia’s protests, the West would simply shrug them off, telling the Russians to keep their mouths shut. It was an adult game, minors aren’t allowed in.

Whether the West’s handling of the former Yugoslavia made any sense, now, that’s another question for another day.

What is important here is the fact that Russia felt slighted, fearing her imperial ambitions were being trumpled upon yet again.

And the Russians are nothing if not proud. Especially if they’ve been taught since their early childhoods that theirs is a world superpower. Part of their education tells them, too, that the West is a decadent, decaying society with no future whatsoever.

And the West, by the way, goes out of its way to prove the Russians right. Just look at the European Union (EU) for the closest example at hand.

Putin used exactly that in 2008. The Republic of Georgia, Stalin’s birth place, too, thought of applying for EU and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership. Putin came up with a reason how to show the Georgians who the boss is. Hitler would have been proud: proclaiming he was only saving the endangered lives of Russians, Putin ordered his military to invade Ossetia, a part of Georgia. That was in 2008. All the West did was an indignant”tut-tut,” without even telling Putin his move wasn’t cricket and that this is not how to really play the game.

What did it tell Putin? Not much more than what he had already known for quite some time (he used to be a Soviet spy, after all): the West is a decadent, decaying society with no future whatsoever. Did the West offer Georgia guarantees? Yes, why, it did. Did the West act on them?

And the main message: ladies and gentlemen, Russia’s back on the pitch, and it’s paying the referees’ wages, to boot.

What is it all about?

Russia bases its international relationships on the so-called zero-sum game. She has been doing so throughout most of her history, Russian politicians say. Really, she does. Since she has become a superpower centuries ago, to say the least.

Yes, she does. Whenever she’s forced to. Otherwise, whatever there is for grabs, that’s what she takes. Wherever a Russian cossack’s horse stops, it becomes Mother Russia.

Fairness? What the heck’s that?

And what is this zero-sum game, pray tell?

Here’s what it is: the theory of games holds that a zero-sum game represents mathematically a situation in which a participant’s gain (or loss) is balanced precisely by the losses (or gains) of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, the result will be zero.

And the theory of games has got it right.

President Putin is keenly aware of Russia’s history: nothing beats having a buffer zone around your borders. That’s the entire issue of his handling of Ukraine in one sentence.

Superpowers don’t become superpowers by listening to popularity opinion polls within the international community and the public at large.

Look at EU’s behaviour: does that group behave like a superpower?

Look at the U.S. administration: does it represent its country like a superpower?

All that talk about democracy and human rights, so far as Putin is concerned, is pure drivel, to put it politely.

Putin has been saying all along he doesn’t like Ukraine’s turn toward the West.

After all, relationships with the West have been a sore point within Russia’s political life for centuries. Even if a group that favours westernization wins, it’s a Pyrrhic victory. Usually, they lose on the first occasion that comes along. The forces that say Russia can go it all alone return to power. Their motto: who needs the West anyway, we’re so much better, besides, we own the Russian soul, too, and who else can claim that?

Ochi chornye, and another sto gramm vodki, eh?

Economically speaking, if Russia becomes master of all she surveys, she’s got enough resources to remain an autarky (self-sufficient, that is) – provided she knows how to run her own business.

To be able to do so, Russia is of the view she needs nobody poking their nose into matters that are none of their business.

And that includes handling its buffer zones.

West’s sheer and abject failure

Self-conditioned to absolute stupidity by all that politically correct nonsense, the West has never realized, neither acknowledged, that the new Ukrainian government isn’t much to write home about. Not knowing these issues, the West was in absolutely no position to do anything about them, either.

And Russia’s act of showing her military prowess had to come as a shock.

Russia’s leaders remember well the historical ties that bind their country to Ukraine proper. They also know that the West’s ties to Ukraine are much weaker. Yes, Ukraine can serve as Europe’s breadbasket, as she has done so many times. Yes, the oil and gas pipelines that move these resources to Europe go mostly through Ukraine.

Where Russia’s leadership is mindful of Ukraine’s importance to their country’s strategical priorities, both in political and economic sense, the West is bellyaching. Sacré bleu! How can you be doing this to us? We’ve been so nice to you, have we not?

No, you haven’t, is Russia’s reply. Ukraine as part of the West is something we have every reason to hate. And if you have problems with THAT, congratulations, you’ve got something we haven’t.

Considering the West may wish that Ukraine become its part but isn’t willing to put their wallets where their mouths are (perhaps excepting financing the militants at Kiev’s Maidan), Putin can safely shrug them off. He knows that there is no power in the West that would be able to get Ukraine out from Russia’s bearhug. Not only that. He knows, too, that even if there were such a power, it wouldn’t have the wherewithal to try.

To top it all: it was the two strongest EU countries, Germany and France, that vetoed Ukraine’s application for NATO membership.

What does it mean? Nothing more that it’s a signal for Putin: Russians value Ukraine much more than we do, and we can hardly care less.

The West has shown it’s all wet. Since Russia is only willing to negotiate when the other side shows her a fist of iron, that does not bode well for the West.

The last two Western politicians to successfully negotiate with the then-Soviet Union were U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Neither of them would blink or budge. And where’s the Soviet Union now?

Why should Canadians care?

Lost in all that hoopla is the continuing struggle over who actually owns the area around the North Pole (and the place itself).

The fact that Santa’s address is listed in Canada Post’s books as North Pole, Canada, H0H 0H0 is a laughable aside that does not matter.

What does matter is that both countries have similar interests and both of their mainlands are in close proximity to the imaginary point.

Geologists and other such scientists claim the ocean floor is filled with natural resources, some of which come under the heading of “strategic.” Oil, for example. Natural gas, for example.

You can rest assured that – once Russian president Vladimir Putin considers the question of Ukraine settled – he’s going to turn his attention to other areas he considers vital.

The Arctic happens to be one of them. And not only because of its untapped richness. One look at the map (or globe) reveals that there’s no buffer zone between Canada and Russia in that area. Come to think of it, there is no buffer zone between Alaska and Russia, either, excepting the relatively narrow Bering Strait.

Recalling that Putin has been of the view that gifting Crimea to Ukraine was illegal, what’s going to stop him if he decides to describe the sale of Alaska by Tsarist Russia to the U.S. highway robbery and declares it illegal, too?

Canada’s government is one of the very few administrations that have been consistently trying to stand up to Putin’s shenanigans. Hats off. Whether travel bans on top Russian officials do the trick and scare Putin beyond belief is another matter altogether.

Putin has also quite openly expressed his views of U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama: the current White House occupant is nothing but an untrustworthy, unreliable weakling whose basic education deserves much better, too.

The West has excluded military reply as an option. Logically, too. At least, so far as this logic ignores the plight of ordinary living people. Nobody’s asking them.

Putin would be perfectly correct if he expands his apt description of U.S. president Obama as an untrustworthy, unreliable weakling whose basic education deserves much better to most of the West’s political leaders. In fact, come to think of it, the word leader should not apply to them, and neither should their description as politicians. They are politicking, and that doesn’t impress a Putin (or any similar dictator) one iota.

What’s Putin’s next step? Any of the Baltic republics, perhaps? That would be interesting: they are all both EU and NATO members. Expanding his might west of Ukraine, too?

There’s but one thing we know for sure: facing a dictator, Western democracies have failed yet again.

It’s a bloody shame.

The world takes Putin’s actions on the chin – and does nothing about it

Many, many years ago, in the first half of the previous century, a Dutch sea captain of Czech origin, Jan Van Toch, anchored his ship by a small island somewhere in the Pacific. His company ordered him to find areas where they could get some original pearls. These jewels were coming back into fashion, you see. And Van Toch’s Rotterdam bosses wanted to ride the wave, enhancing their own bank accounts in the process.

The good Captain found, to his genuine surprise, animals whom the natives feared and called black devils. They were intelligent newts. Captain Van Toch befriended them, gave them all kinds of equipment, including underwater guns so they could defend themselves against the local shark population, and convinced a captain of Czech economy who, accidentally, had been born in the same little town as Jan Van Toch, that this could become a business venture.

It did. Thus Czech author Karel Čapek. That, by the way, is the guy who gave the world the word “robot.” But that’s another story for another day.

Čapek wrote and published (in 1936) War with the Newts (Válka s mloky in the original Czech). It was also translated as War with the Salamanders.

This satirical science-fiction novel describes how modern industrialists first enslaved and exploited the newts, until the creatures acquired human knowledge and rebelled. They needed more shores for themselves. So, they started destroying the continents, enlarging the world’s oceans and thus creating more space in which they could live.

If it resembles Adolf Hitler’s demand for “Lebensraum” (space to live in) for the German nation by any chance, it is no accident.

The conflict between the humans and the newts led to a global war for supremacy.

As the war progressed, the author introduced an anonymous voice, known as Mr. X, who told humankind it was perfectly insane to continue developing and delivering all kinds of weapons and sundry equipment to the newts who were, all along, continuing with their operation to destroy that same humankind. Mr. X called on people to stop this. His call was met with derision: economists, politicians, labour union leaders, they all said humankind had never had it better, employment figures were reaching 100 per cent, in fact, people would need more workers to meet all the orders coming from under-the-sea level, and who was this Mr. X anyway to try to stop progress.

If you want to know how it all ended, run to your local library or a bookstore.

Cut to the chase

We are in the twenty-first century now, and the world keeps supplying another Hitler, one who goes under the name of Vladimir Putin, and is also known as the president of Russia. Putin’s Russia is getting all kinds of sophisticated weaponry, and the European Union goes on without stopping but once to think how suicidal this is.

Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas, writing for an Estonian web publication, ICDS (the abbreviation stands for International Centre for Defence Studies), of Tallin, that country’s capital, have exposed the world’s dark secret.

Before we proceed, a tip of the hat is due to Jan Maisler for a competent translation, and to Jiří Wagner, editor of the Czech news site, Neviditelny pes, for preparing this information jewel for publication.

If you don’t speak Czech, learn to. You would be able to read the story quoted from below in its fullness. And if knowing the language of the people who gave the world such beers as Pilsner Urquell and the original Budweiser (not the weak imitations as provided by Anheuser-Busch) is not important to you, where are your values, for crying out loud?

Back to the topic

The European Union (EU, for short, and it doesn’t deserve anything more, anyhow), says it’s upset about the Russian aggression in Ukraine and it’s going to impose sanctions.

Oh yeah? That’s the question posed by Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas.

How about weapons exports to Russia? And – more importantly, perhaps – how about the close co-operation between some EU countries and Russia, developing new weapon systems and transferring military technologies and expertise to Russia?

Strangely enough, most mainstream media all over the world keep their mouths shut when it comes to this topic.

But why?

Is it because speaking out would equal washing dirty linen in public? Is it because putting a stop to this shameful behaviour would (let’s go back to Čapek) slow down or, Heaven forbid, stop the flow of income that happens to turn into profit at a later stage? Is it because mainstream media never got a press release detailing these shenanigans?

Realizing that modern-day reporters seem to have never heard that what makes a reporter is curiosity, this could be as valid a reason as any.

Or is it hypocrisy, pure and simple?

A few years ago, Russia invaded Georgia. The reason, Putin said on the occasion, was to defend the poor, defenceless Russians in Ossetia (sounds familiar, does it not?). Shortly after that, Russia signed a deal with France. It would buy from the French amphibious vehicles of the Mistral class (a.k.a. “projection and command” vehicles). The Baltic republics, all of whom had known Soviet occupation, objected. The EU called their reaction “hysterical” and worse.

That, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas write, was a clear signal: who cares about Russia’s aggressive behaviour, so long as France’s military economy prospers? It may even fill French government’s coffers with new taxes. So, what’s the big deal?

Everybody’s happy: Russia has got new killer toys to use in its future aggressions, France gets richer. What’s there to complain about?

Remember the Iraqi nuclear facility, Osirak? It used to be called by many “Ochirac,” after then-French president Jacques Chirac who allowed the transfer of his country’s sophisticated nuclear knowledge (and the training of Iraqi scientists in his country) despite clear warnings that something dirty was going on. In a daring air attack, the Israelis would obliterate the place, thus earning eternal hatred from France.

So, what’s new? Nothing much, really.

As Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas inform us, the Franco-Russian military co-operation now includes the development of a new generation of vehicles for the transport of Russia’s infantry, the development of a production line for building thermovision, equipment that would allow the Russian military to operate in the middle of the night, as well as a number of other similar projects. Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas also quote Dmitrii Rogozin, Russia’s vice-premier responsible for defence (read: military) industries, as saying that the two countries have launched a “new era of intensive Franco-Russian co-operation that includes intensive exchange of confidential information.”

God knows where all that is going to end. And if She knows, She’s not telling: it’s confidential information, after all.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles

Since the EU includes two major weapons exporters (France and Germany), it was to be expected that the Germans would not be far behind their French brethren.

Germany’s Federal Security Council (Bundessicherheitsrat in German) is chaired by the country’s Chancellor herself (her office is equal to Canada’s Prime Minister, with the President serving as a figure-head, just as the Governor-General does in Canada). It has been issuing export licences for weapon sales like nobody’s business. Russia has been quickly making its way to the top of the list of countries that deserve getting Germany’s military technology.

One of the most alarming recent German sales to Russia: modern equipment to train units up to the size of a brigade. That, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas document, happens to be first-class equipment to run an operations command post. Thus far, it has been available only to the most developed countries. Whether Russia is one of the most-developed countries remains to be seen, but it now has this equipment.

In fact, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has developed a doctrine that basically gives her country’s military industry a free hand. Thus Merkel: “I am convinced that it is in our interest to enable our partners to effectively participate in keeping or renewing security and peace in their regions.”

Which means that if Putin says that Russians in Ossetia or Ukraine (or anywhere else, for that matter) are in danger and he only wants is to ensure their safety and security, his word is gospel.

Konrad Henlein used this refrain in the Sudetenland regions of former Czechoslovakia, with Adolf Hitler’s enthusiastic support. It ended in a deal (the so-called Munich Agreement) signed by British Prime Minister Sir Neville Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier, Italy’s Duce (Leader) Benito Mussolini and Germany’s Reichskanzler (Chancellor) Adolf Hitler.

Sir Neville Chamberlain returned to London, telling all and sundry he had secured “peace in our time.”

Indeed. We all know how it ended.

Lying through their teeth

The EU politicians claim that if they co-operate with Russia, they would have a say in what that country is doing.

A bald-faced lie if there ever was one, and they know it.

Vladimir Putin is much more realistic. He knows that, beside some tut-tutting that followed his incursion into Georgia, nothing happened and everything was business as usual even before the dust settled. So, he figures, and quite correctly, too, that if he annexes the entire country of Ukraine, not just Crimea, he’ll pass jail and will be free to buy, say, Pennsylvania Station, to use the language of the game of Monopoly.

Why Pennsylvania Station? Just a play on words: Putin received a phone call from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., the other day. The U.S. president himself, Barack Obama was on the line. They chatted for about an hour after which Putin told Obama he had other, more pressing, commitments to attend to and bid good-bye.

Would Putin change anything, pray tell, after this conversation? Are you kidding? Why should he? What can a president whom he considers a perfect weakling do to him? And besides, all of his military’s supply needs are met, courtesy France and Germany, so, who cares about the U.S., anyway?

So, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas pose a legitimate question: who’s influencing whom, come to think of it? It’s obvious the EU (and the rest of the Western world) have practically no impact on Putin’s thinking and actions with whatever rhetoric they dare mouth. And not that the EU overextends itself in its condemnations of Russia’s aggressions, either. In fact, it seems that Canada is the only country willing to take at least some action, symbolic as it is. Expelling Russian military personnel and limiting Russian officials’ right of entry is nice, but if Putin had feathers, none of them would be ruffled.

What can be done?

Not much, really, if we decide to subscribe to what today’s Western politicians (and those of the EU in particular) call realpolitik.

Impose sanctions? To be effective, they would have to include all matters military, including an immediate stop to all military sales and knowledge transfers.

Is this going to happen? A rhetorical question.

EU politicians would tell you they haven’t got enough money to maintain their military and, besides, NATO isn’t that rich of an uncle as it used to be any longer, either. Pray tell, they would demand, where else are we going to get the finances to maintain our own defence? We’re taxing our own citizens beyond acceptable levels as it is.

Here’s a logical follow-up question: maintaining your defence means that you’re defending your sovereignty. Except, it seems everything the EU stands for is dismantling individual (and sovereign) European countries. So, how can you explain that contradiction?

Here’s the answer you’d get: silence. Overwhelmingly deafening silence.

The crux of the matter is that to maintain their military, EU countries are supporting someone who’s getting more and more aggressive. Putin relies on the shortsightedness of EU politicians because he knows he can.

To sum up: EU politicians are undermining their own security while helping a new Hitler along the way. In addition, some of the countries that have common borders with Russia (including some EU members) will lose their faith in EU’s ability to defend them against somebody who’s got that same military hardware (and software) as EU has. Where they will go to get their own weaponry is anybody’s guess. China? Korea? South Africa? Israel?

And where’s the U.S. on this list? you may ask. Nowhere is the answer. The Europeans mostly seem to share Putin’s assessment of America’s current administration. That’s one of the very few things they share with him.

Meanwhile, Putin will continue to test EU’s policy of appeasement and profit. It’s going to be his gain and, eventually, his trump card.

If you start digging a hole, you should stop digging once you’re inside, Tomas Jermalavicius and Kaarel Kaas say.

The question is: do the French and the Germans realize they’ve dug a hole that now has not only them, but their alleged EU allies inside, too?

Where is Karel Čapek’s Mr. X now when we need him?

And would we wake up and start listening to him?

Olympic voyeurism drags humans to an incredible low

Humankind is going to hell in an 18-wheeler, laughing and cheering all the way.

Need a proof?

How about everybody and their dog watching the shameful spectacle a.k.a. Olympic Games?

That’s how low we’ve sunk.

It’s become a regular, continuing pastime to list the many scandals the Olympic movement has gone through since its inception in ancient Greece. For a comprehensive list, check out the works by Scottish reporter Andrew Jennings (The Lords of the Rings: Power, Money & Drugs in the Modern Olympics, 1992; The New Lords of the Rings, 1996; The Great Olympic Swindle, 2000). To get closer to home, to Vancouver 2010, that is, here’s another well-researched documentary book: Christopher Shaw’s Five-Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games, 2008).

To sum up: greed, bald-faced lies, cheating, abuse of taxpayer money for private gain, turning blind eyes on all kinds of human rights abuses while awarding the games to the worst of dictators and authoritarian governments, the list is almost endless, and it keeps getting longer with each passing day.

A sampling: the Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia.

Not only is the event taking place in a region whose ownership is under violent dispute (and has been for a couple of centuries), thus sending costs for security skyrocketing. That would be peanuts compared to the fact staging of the Games in Sochi cost at least $51 billion (all amounts in U.S. currency). For comparison: not only has it exceeded the budgeted amount five-fold, it is also $10 billion more than the Summer Olympic Games of Beijing, China, 2008, and about three times as much as the 2012 Summer Olympic Games of London, England. A note: summer events are somewhat larger than their winter siblings. There are more sports taking place in environments other than on snow or ice. And there are more countries taking part in the summer games, too.

Olympic help? Don’t be funny

All the talk about helping the host communities are bald-faced lies. The number of people displaced because the Olympics take precedence keeps growing with each passing Olympic cycle.

And the environmental concerns are covered just beautifully. Another perfect example: when it seemed snow on the slopes might begin to melt (Sochi is a sub-tropical city, after all), Russian organizers used all kinds of chemicals to accommodate the athletes. HUH? Ever tried to salt your driveway and then push the resulting mix off it all the way on the lawn? No? Try it. Once spring and summer come, there will be no grass in the area where you put contaminated snow.

Olympian supporters keep talking ad nauseam about sports promoting peace.

Here’s a definitive answer: “I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn’t know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles.

Nearly all the sports practised nowadays are competitive. You play to win, and the game has little meaning unless you do your utmost to win. On the village green, where you pick up sides and no feeling of local patriotism is involved. It is possible to play simply for the fun and exercise: but as soon as the question of prestige arises, as soon as you feel that you and some larger unit will be disgraced if you lose, the most savage combative instincts are aroused. Anyone who has played even in a school football match knows this. At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously believe — at any rate for short periods — that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue.

Thus George Orwell in his 1945 The Sporting Spirit. He was commenting on a series of football (soccer to North Americans) matches between the Soviet club Dynamo and several British clubs shortly after the Second World War.

Orwell didn’t mention in his fine commentary that both nations had suffered enormously during the war that was barely over by the time the games were staged, and that the money spent on these events would have been better spent elsewhere. But you do get the point.

Whose money is it, anyway?

Meanwhile, to get back to the here and now, Russian megalomaniacs, obviously, have no issues with starving their nation white. They are staging their games in their traditional Black Sea playground, and the cost be blasted.

Why, by the way, in Sochi? Ah, but that’s simple: because Vladimir Putin loves the place. And because his friends, a.k.a. Russian oligarchs, love the place, too, besides having all kinds of commercial interests there.

But these are NOT the real issues.

The real issues are much more simple. How is it possible that this shameless and scandalous abuse of human curiosity not only still exists, but that it also shows all signs of continuing?

Many will say it’s the good old voyeurism in all of us. Well, they may have a point. After all, history tells us people in the Middle Ages loved attending public executions. In fact, there have been entries in all kinds of chronicles mentioning that women would succumb to the excitement so much they would indulge sexually while the convicted criminal was drawn and quartered.

Yes, but haven’t we moved ahead from the Middle Ages?

No, it seems we haven’t. We only have better means of spreading the nonsense, and there are more of us available (and willing) to watch.

Canada’s CBC television trots out Ron James with his take. He is a comedian but even so, some of his stuff is perfectly unacceptable. Especially when he aligns the Olympic torch and its relay with the ancient Greek games. Not so fast, old boy, not so fast: the entire torch and relay idea comes from Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

And millions of Canadians watch this drivel and come to think of it as gospel.

But, speaking of history, where did the sporting spectacles get those who’d indulged the most in the past? Ancient Greece ended up in ruins whence it hasn’t recovered till now. Good old Romans with their gladiators fell to barbarians before you could say (in proper Latin) Veni, vidi, vici (I went, I saw, I won). The only thing we’ve got to remind ourselves of those glorious times are the ruins of the arenas and the gladiators’ cry (again, in proper Latin): Morituri te salutant, Caesar (Those who are about to die greet you, Emperor). Come to think of it, even the proud Latin language has suffered. It’s the generally accepted language of physicians and some legal terms come from the Roman legal code, too.

But that’s about it.

That was then, this is now.

Dirty deals all over the place

Even if we forget about the criminality of it all, we still ought to be in shock.

Criminality? Absolutely. Organization of bidding for the right to apply for the right to stage the Olympic Games, then the bidding itself, then the construction of venues most of which would be left to decay once the Olympic flame is extinguished, and the actual operation of the event, all of these stages of the process are so riddled with wink-wink, nudge-nudge, I’ll-scratch-your-back-you’ll-scratch-mine shenanigans, it would take scores of forensic accountants to untangle the web. But were it to happen, prisons would be bursting at their seams.

How about the promise British Columbians received? It won’t cost you a penny. Indeed, it’s not costing them a penny. It’s costing them (and the rest of Canadians) billions.

Some of the more moderate critics say they would have no issue with staging such extravaganzas and with entrepreneurs behind them raking in profits as if there’s no tomorrow if only those entrepreneurs invested their own money into it, rather than the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.

Fine, except that’s not how it works. Governments of all political shades (left- or right-wing), linked in one way or another to those who stand to gain, appeal to our patriotism and whatnot, just so we can gape in excitement over feats nobody not on some kind of stimulants would be able to achieve.

Besides, and that’s one of the major points, it’s worse than shocking to see people, some of them well-educated, too, who spend time watching slick marketing shows called Olympic Games coverage. This or that event is brought to you by McDonald’s, official restaurant of the Olympic movement. Now, there’s a symbol of healthy eating for you! And how about Coca-Cola, another major sponsor? We should rather die of thirst than consume their products. But the message we get is perfectly straightforward: look at all these healthy and fit-looking people, performing such incredible feats. They wouldn’t come close if they didn’t drive Chevrolet cars, munching on whatever they call the substitutes for meat at McDonald’s these days, washing it all down with Coke.

Yes, Olympic boosters and most of the participating athletes will say, but then again, Olympic Games is one of the few occasions where the best can compete with the best.

Questionable, at best, this sentiment. Perhaps the only sport in which regular tournaments and world championships do not pit the best against the best is hockey: the best are still in Stanley Cup playoffs when world championships are taking place. Neither the NHL nor the International Hockey Federation (IIHF) would agree to adjust their schedule. Thus, as it is, the Olympics are, indeed, the only chance to see the best playing the best.

Besides, just looking at the most recent games at Sochi, one Canadian speed skater relinquishes his position in a race to another, because that another skater has a better chance of winning. The relinquishee made the team because he had been better at races where Olympic positions were decided. It doesn’t matter that the other guy was generally better at that particular distance. He didn’t earn his spot. If the relinquishee did not give his spot to the other guy, would we have seen the best against the best?

Do these athletes and their supporters have a point?

Not really. Yes, it’s all about competing. In fact, life is a competition, too.

Nobody’s denying professional athletes their existence and their livelihoods. If someone insists they want to see the best so they can take up this or that particular sport and they want to know how to get better at it, fine.

But would that minuscule number sell an arena out? Would these athletes be just as famous if only those keenly interested in taking part themselves came to see them? Here’s the clincher: if ordinary people abstained from watching sports and, instead, indulged themselves, would these athletes be famous enough to help sell products they’ve signed up to help sell?

Ignoring reality

A recent news item mentioned that while some Canadian employers encourage their employees to watch Olympic coverage on television on company time, others ban such entertainment outright.

The story didn’t say so, but its tone suggested its writer was surprised that anyone can be Grinch enough to deny their employees such an opportunity.

That the cruel employers might have felt they’re paying their employees to show up at work on time and do their jobs, providing services or manufacturing products that they can sell, using that income to pay their employees, that, it seems, never crossed that writer’s mind.

But that’s nothing compared to the following story: years ago, in 1972, the British film director John Schlesinger (Far From the Madding Crowd, Midnight Cowboy, The Marathon Man, etc.) was invited to join a group of outstanding filmmakers to help make a movie about the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Germany. The film was called Seen by Eight, and Schlesinger chose to concentrate on the marathon.

Just as he was getting ready to tell his camera guys to start their equipment rolling, Arab terrorists attacked the athletic village. A pitched battle took place. It would cost several Israeli athletes their lives, and the terrorists would pay dearly, with their lives, too. Schlesinger asked the athlete he was about to film what he thought of the events. The answer was telling: the athlete has never thought about the tragedy, he told Schlesinger, and he meant it. If he did think about it, he wouldn’t be able to compete.

That, by the way, was that athlete’s own explanation.

And that about sums it all up.

Top-notch athletes, Olympians and sundry champions, world or otherwise, live in an artificial bubble. And humankind is moronic enough to not only watch them living in that artificial bubble, but to get exercised about watching them living there, to boot.

This is called terminal stupidity.

And most of us are stupid enough to cheer and laugh about it.

%d bloggers like this: