Germany bans Jews in the streets, demands worshiping of electric cars
25 April 2018 | 5:26 am

The ongoing cultural transformation of Germany is rather amazing. Bavaria, self-confident Germany's Texas, seems to be the only adult Bundesland in the room. For example, to fight against de-Christianization, the heavily Catholic state's government has ordered crosses onto walls of all government buildings. It's legal because the cross isn't installed to show the power of any church; it is not a symbol of any particular church, it is the symbol for Hermitian conjugation.

The rest of Germany follows very different trends, however.

Last week, Arab Israeli Adam Armoush didn't want to believe claims that it was dangerous to walk in the streets of Berlin with a yarmulka (that's our Slavic name for the skullcap, originally used in Polish and Ukrainian and then Yiddish; it's also called kippah which means a dome), a brimless traditional cap that believing male Jews have to wear in order not to insult a deity (well, HaShem) that watches them from above at all times. The orthodox rules are tough – you can't walk for more than 4 units of distance without the yarmulka, you can only remove it for "Amen" during your wedding etc.

So Adam took a yarmulka, gave another one to his pal, and they went. They were quickly attacked by a similarly looking Syrian "refugee" with a belt (who screamed "Yahudi" i.e. "Jude" etc.) and the incident was filmed by the victim. All men are around 20 years old.

OK, the experiment spoke a clear language. Like 80 years ago, it is dangerous to be an overt Jew in Berlin, indeed. How did the Jewish community react a few days after the incident? Josef Schuster, the boss of the German Jewish community, told the Jews not to take their yarmulkas to the streets. To defiantly show your identity would be brave but now it's the right time to be even more courageous: you need to be courageous to show that you are a coward, he recommended the Jews in Germany.

Chief rabbis in Israel disagree. They urge Schuster to recant his words and demand the German Jews to keep on showing this sign of their identity. This abandonment of the symbols is no solution; it is what the anti-Semites want to achieve.

Every detail of these stories is terrifying. One of them is the predictable gap between those religious leaders who live in Germany and those who are outside. Those who live in Germany tend to adapt to the new conditions which include the de facto ban on overt Jews. They're already thinking within a different mental system, one whose religious aspects are increasingly dictated by Islamofascism. These chief officials of Judaism are already grateful to Allah that He hasn't sent them to concentration camps yet. Of course they will show their gratitude by abandoning yarmulkas or their God, for that matter.

Thankfully, the rest of the civilized world isn't there yet. The current German regime is trying to spread its Islamofascism all over the European Union. But thankfully, we helped to create Israel etc. so even if those EU plans succeeded, there will be civilized places outside the EU. They may emerge as new forces that are ready to carpet bomb Dresden and end the insanity once again.

Anything that even homeopathically resembled fascism was rendered politically incorrect in Germany after 1945 and this censorship (which originally had rather good reasons – Germany has done something really bad 80 years ago or so) was arguably getting more extreme in recent years. But suddenly, in 2015, Germany got obsessed with the idea of importing approximately one million anti-Semites a year. And at least in that year, Germany surpassed that plan.

What a surprise: When facing millions of people in Germany who have been taught to neutralize a Jewish devil as soon as they see one, 100,000 Jews in Germany feel threatened. Angela Merkel didn't care about the existential interests of the German Jews when she was inviting millions of her anti-Semitic friends. I think that she still doesn't care. Like their predecessors 80 years ago, she and her comrades have "grander" goals.

By the way, someone organized a "yarmulka rally" in Berlin to show the defiance against anti-Semitism. This rally itself shows some lack of understanding by the organizers, too, because a genuine Jew is going to be offended when a non-Jew wears this religious symbol as if it were a cap with logos of a favorite soccer team. I've seen tweets by Jews who do find this rally inappropriate.

Full jails

Meanwhile, the German jails have reached full capacity. The assaults on the staff is growing everywhere in Germany except for... Bavaria where it dropped. That includes assaults by Muslim inmates, especially in Hesse where those attacks more than tripled since 2013.

Electric political correctness in the Volkswagen group

The Volkswagen Group, the world's largest carmaker (which also owns Škoda Auto in Czechia), seems to impose a new kind of political correctness, the electrical political correctness. VW has a new boss: Herbert Diess. It's a manager who has worked for BMW and other companies and who spent quite some time by dealing with a ludicrously unimportant type of a product, the electric cars.

But this unimportant type of a product has been insulted by the "racer of the century" Walter Röhrl and Diess wants to fire him, according to

Well, Walter Röhrl wan the world championship in rally in 1980, 1982 etc., was named "the racer of the century" in 2000, and his nickname was "Montemeister" due to many victories in Monte Carlo. In some fun interdisciplinary contest, he defeated Michael Schumacher. For 25 years, he has worked for Porsche, another part of the Volkswagen group, as the ambassador and a boss of designers.

In a German TV program, Röhrl dared to say what he thinks about the electric cars. Formula E is silly, it's bad to create racing cars just for cities. Cars were made to make 800-kilometer trips and electric cars will never be good for that. They're bad for environmental reasons. To summarize:
And by the way, there’ll never be enough raw materials.

I’m shocked at what all those politicians are saying. They say that electric cars are a winner, but they haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about.

But now everyone is running in that direction, ignoring the development of fuel cells, the development of ICEs, the development of synthetic fuels, which would be the future, if you ask me.

But like I said, those blind politicians are telling us: ‘This is the way forward’ and everyone is going that way — it’s a disaster.
Right. The electric cars are basically promoted by clueless politicians for ideological reasons as if they "had to be" the future. In reality, the progress in many other directions seems to be much more promising.

Guys from the old school like Röhrl who have achieved something and who like cars for their actual qualities are being increasingly overshadowed by salesmen of impressions and misguided, ideologically driven visions of technology.

Röhrl hasn't prevented Porsche from developing electric cars. In the video above, Porsche Mission E is standing next to a Tesla. You can see that Porsche is cooler. On top of that, you may change its color by pressing a button and it can also drive through your house, among other things. (LOL, you may download the augmented reality Porsche apps.)

If Mr Diess had some very exclusive relationship to electric cars, he must forget those biases because he has become the boss of Volkswagen that is producing actual cars for the mass market, not electric or other virtual cars. If he tries to switch most of the Volkswagen Group to electric cars, the company will follow in the footsteps of Tesla and it will perish. Just to be sure, Tesla has a year, at most two years of life ahead of it.

On one hand, people are more free than they were in the communist countries during the Cold War. At those times, you couldn't say certain things and when you did, everyone knew that you were directly clashing with the official people in power. These days, the political correctness is imposed "less officially" and the people in power seemingly don't have the absolute power – and they "may" stand against each other. But the restrictions are arguably more constraining than they used to be while the people in power are almost as aligned with each other as they were during the totalitarian era.

The totalitarian regime crippled the human freedoms. But people could still say whether they preferred petrol cars, diesel cars, electric cars, or horses; organic food or genetically modified food with lots of newest fertilizers; a big vacuum cleaner or a smaller one; an old-fashioned light bulb or a newer model; and they could express their views on lots of questions about the "everyday life". They could actually buy these things if they were available. These days, people are effectively controlled even when it comes to previously apolitical preferences in their everyday life.

It's wrong to summarize the multiverse as "left-wing"
24 April 2018 | 6:45 am

And Keating's proposed Nobel prize reforms are left-wing lunacy

Nick has asked whether Brian Keating, the designer of BICEP1 and the author of "Losing the Nobel Prize" (which will be released today), was conservative. At least according to some methodologies, the answer is Yes.

His 50-minute interview in Whiskey Politics, a right-wing podcast, has shown that he had the courage to hang the picture of George W. Bush in his University of California office – where most of his colleagues would prefer to hang Bush himself. Well, he didn't support Trump throughout most of his campaign, however.

He deplored the Che Café at UCSD where lots of taxpayer money is being spent to renovate the business and celebrate the mass killer by drinking coffee (which is a carcinogenic substance according to the Californian law but I guess that Che's café may get an exemption). And Keating has also followed me on Twitter so he can't be too left-wing. ;-)

The interview is sort of amusing – about the group think in the Academia, about Keating's idiosyncratic claims that the Nobel prize will be boycotted and killed (he hates the nomination process, I don't quite get how he wants to pick the candidates instead), against tenure (which he says to greatly contribute to the amount of rubbish published by the soft, social scientists). He also gives an introduction to the Cosmic Microwave Background and its polarization and his feelings about his ex-boss and father-like figure Andrew Lang's suicide.

One of the comments he made was that just like the climatological community is pushed in a direction by the left-wing bias (Will Happer talked at the podcast in January), the left-wing group think also penetrates to cosmology – and it manifests itself as the support for the multiverse.

Well, it's not the first time I heard about this identification. I can see some justifications of this identification. But I think that the identification is oversimplified and exaggerated.

Eight years ago, I was invited to the French Riviera for a week. The scholars did things that were considered heretical according to the Academia's group think. So most of the folks were top defenders of the Intelligent Design. Richard Lindzen was there as a leading climate skeptic. And I was there because I was known to be politically incorrect. But it was assumed that I had to have such "right-wing" opinions about cosmology – which means to be against the Universe.

I didn't really meet those expectations. While I think that the anthropic principle is partly tautological and partly wrong (and lots of papers written to promote it have a very poor quality) – so that it's not useful to say true things about the Universe, at least at this moment – the very existence of the multiverse is a different thing. It seems rather likely – and probably more likely than 50% – that the multiverse is needed to properly understand the initial conditions at the Big Bang in our visible Universe, the vacuum selection, and other things.

Why do I think so? Well, inflation works and explains lots of things. And there are good reasons why a good inflationary theory may be automatically assumed to be eternal, and therefore produce the multiverse. It's a likely additional consequence of a theory in cosmology that seems to pass some tests to be believed to be correct. How could a rational person think that it doesn't matter? On top of that, string theory also has very good reasons to be the correct quantum theory of gravity and all other forces. And string theory seems to imply the landscape as well as the processes needed to change the vacuum of one type into another. An honest, competent, rational person just can't overlook these powerful arguments.

One can discuss the quasi-technical issues of whether or not the evidence for inflationary cosmology itself (or the string theory landscape) is strong or sufficient, whether the theory is natural, whether the most natural types of inflation are eternal, whether one should trust the eternal inflation in other parts of the multiverse that they seem to envision, and other things.

But the experience with the French Riviera and Brian Keating suggests that something more powerful than the rational arguments is deciding inside many folks. Many people apparently decide what to think about the multiverse by identifying the multiverse with some politics – usually left-wing politics. And if they like the left-wing politics, they decide to become the multiverse supporters; if they're not left-wing, they become the critics of the multiverse.

Needless to say, this rule isn't universally valid. There are lots of very left-wing people who are critics of the multiverse; and I am a right-wing example that is "mostly" a supporter of the multiverse. (Well, maybe the correlation between one's being religious and one's being a critic of the multiverse is stronger but it is surely not perfect, either.) But some people on both sides think that it "should be" valid. Why?

I think that the reasoning is just silly.

Whether the multiverse "exists" is a question about the world at the longest possible distance scales and time scales. But at the end, it's really just a question about the "size of the whole world". The multiverse research needs "more advanced, modern insights" but it's not "that different" from the question whether the Earth is flat, whether the Sun is the only star, whether the Milky Way is the only galaxy, or whether the Earth is the only inhabited planet. Even if you care about God's existence or in His holy absence, it's just a technical detail of a sort.

If God could have created (the laws that produced) a round Earth, small planets and large planets, one galaxy and billions of other galaxies, He could have created laws that produce a single patch of the visible Universe, a trillion of patches, googol to the 5th power of patches, or infinitely many patches. What is the problem? I think that you must imagine a very weak, anthropomorphic God if such things are a problem for you.

Years ago, Leonard Susskind promoted the multiverse as a weapon to kill God. Susskind believes that there is no God which is why it's so important to kill Him. ;-) His argument is that God has a good taste and creates pretty, ordered things. To prove that God is dead, just show that the Universe is maximally messy and the multiverse seems šitty enough for that – so that all the šit really looks beautiful to a staunch atheist. OK, Susskind stood on the opposite side than Keating but the underlying logic is equally unscientific and both of them "politicize" a topic that shouldn't be political.

If you look at the structural character of the argumentation, you could reasonably argue that the right identification is the other one: the multiverse and especially the anthropic principle often build on the kind of arguments that are similar to those by the Christian apologists. The anthropic principle differs from Christianity but both of them look like "some forms of faith". The evidence is really lacking and the belief in the importance of "the size of God" or "the number of intelligent observers' souls" seem to trump any "finite" empirical argument. So maybe this could be a better simplification: the most ambitious versions of the multiverse are on par with religion.

But my primary point is that none of these simplifications is the right starting point to discuss the existence of the multiverse and/or the existence of the multiverse or the validity of an inflationary theory. When things are simplified or politicized according to any of these vague templates, the discussion simply invites too many superficial people whose arguments are shallow and who will support any claim whose apparent goal is to strengthen the "politically correct" side of the argument, independently of the quality of the claim. And that's just wrong.

The existence of the multiverse is a deep question but it's still a scientific, in some sense technical question, and no one should be assumed to defend one side of this debate or another just because it's claimed to be correlated with some (known) political or religious opinions of the person. It's the pressure arising from such expectations that is wrong for science; and it's the numerous people's inability to resist the pressure that also hurts proper objective science.

Back to lawsuits against the Nobel committee

At 33:40 of the interview, he discusses a website he founded that is meant to pressure the Nobel committee to reform the prize in some incomprehensible ways, in order to avoid the lawsuits and/or lost of allure, and also to help women and minorities. Holy cow. What does he exactly want, what is the justification, and how is this desire compatible with his being conservative?

Alfred Nobel wrote a will and some folks in his foundation tried to fulfill it. I think it would be very hard to fulfill it literally because Nobel didn't have a terribly good idea about the number of scientists who would exist in 2018, about the size of the relevant teams, and about their complex relationships with each other, with the organizers and sponsors of the scientific enterprises, and about the timescales it takes to complete an experiment or decide about the validity of a theory. If Nobel got familiar with all these things, he could very well agree that what is being done with his Nobel prize in physics is mostly reasonable. Or not.

Can Alfred Nobel sue the Nobel committee? He cannot because he's dead. Can someone else sue the committee on behalf of Alfred Nobel? I don't see how someone else could claim to better understand his intents than the committee that was specifically picked to do such decisions. But even if someone convinced the whole world that the committee deviates from the will in important aspects, what would it be good for? Does Keating really have a system for a better prize? It doesn't seem to be the case. That's an example of a situation that shows why it's so wise for the legal systems to demand the plaintiffs to have some standing. It seems clear that Keating has no standing in a hypothetical lawsuit about the "right way to interpret and fulfill Alfred Nobel's will".

After 42:00, he criticizes people's will to win the Olympic medals – some athletes would agree to die at age of 35 if they won one. Well, that's extreme but it's surely a reflection of a legitimate list of priorities that some people may have. A life that ends at this modest age but includes an Olympic victory may be considered a "better life" than a longer (just twice longer), more ordinary life, by some people. Some people simply are ambitious, some aren't. I think that the ambitions themselves are important for the progress of the mankind. So I don't share Keating's "horror" about it.

He says that the same extreme ambitions also exist in cosmology. Well, he has only provided us with some evidence from sports. But even if similar things exist in cosmology, and they may exist, I don't see anything unacceptable about it, either. Some people want to do great things (and even though the Nobel prize is just an honor, not the "real thing", as Feynman puts it, it's still a great enough thing for many people). This ambition exists independently of the Nobel prize. I think that Keating's logic is defective when he wants to sue the Nobel committee for the fact that some humans have ambitions. The ambitions are a universal constant of the humanity. In between the lines, I think that he is a great example of ambitious people himself.

Also, I understood some of his comments as urging the committee to give the Nobel prizes to everyone who wants it so that they're satisfied (Keating says that too many people fail to get the Nobel LOL). OK, that's a terrible idea (and the comment that "too many people are shut out" sounds like a joke; I literally cannot tell whether he's serious; of course that most people should be "shut out", it's a prestigious prize given at most to 3 physicists a year in a world that has over 7 billion people). I can't believe he's serious. They could bury meritocracy in this straightforward way. That would probably kill the people's interest in the Nobel prize, indeed. This move would actually kill the prize, unlike the real world events that Keating incorrectly predicts to lead to the death of the prize.

But the death of the Nobel prize wouldn't be enough to kill the people's ambitions. These people would naturally set other, more or less equivalent goals (when it comes to their will to shorten their lives), in front of themselves and these goals would arguably be less noble than a Nobel when it comes to the character of the activities that the people would do. And that would be bad for the mankind. One reason why Nobel's will is so useful for the mankind is that it is one of the motivations that makes people do great things such as top science. If you kill that prize, you will reduce the motivation of the average people to do this great stuff – and that's bad! Nobel knew about that effect of a prize and he wanted to encourage people to do great things – one reason was that he felt guilty that the dynamite was going to do some bad things that he needed to compensate.

At 43:30, Keating starts to sound like a generic extreme left-wing fruitcake again. Rosalind Franklin wasn't given the prize for DNA just because of some petty details – she died before they made the decision. How can such an unimportant thing that the candidate is dead affect whether she wins? Honestly, Keating must be joking. Implicitly, he thinks that he's just like Rosalind Franklin which is why he launched this jihad against the Nobel prize. Holy cow.

These are real sour grapes, a textbook example of what they mean. There are very good meritocratic reasons (not just the death) why Franklin hasn't won the prize; and why Keating hasn't won one, either. Even if someone is the deepest thinker in the world, and it could very well be Edward Witten (or late Stephen Hawking) or someone else, there isn't any law of Nature that saying the Nobel prize is a necessary condition for him to be the world's deepest thinker. Unlike Keating and despite his modesty, Edward Witten knows that he may be the world's smartest man even without the "confirmation" from Stockholm. The Nobel prize is just an important prize with its own rules; the rules can't be precisely equivalent to everyone's definition of greatness. Keating seems to blame his colleagues that they have distorted definitions of greatness but it seems to me that Keating is one of the best examples that deserve that criticism of his.

While he's right-wing in some respects, I found his calls to "give the Nobel prize to women, minorities, and everyone who wants it so badly" to be examples of the generic, currently omnipresent, "progressive" insanity. Nobel wanted the price to go to one physicist a year and the cap was tripled soon. But the cap shouldn't be lifted or loosened (especially not substantially) because the prize would cease to play the positive role it plays.

For SJWs in education, I became a template for villains
23 April 2018 | 10:59 am

Since the February 14th conference, the media have approached the "revolutionary methods to teach" in a somewhat more balanced way – equivalently, a conflict of a sort continued. is the website promoting Hejný's method or the VOBS method (the acronym means "Education Oriented to the Building of Schemes" in Czech) and they post various press releases.

Several recent press releases are dedicated to the debate about the right ways to teach mathematics.

The newest one reposts some text published in Lidovky, the global pseudointellectuals' preferred daily, on Thursday. The daily chose a following title:
Children have to be pressured to do some math, critics of the playful method claim
LOL, that's a textbook example of a manipulative title. Needless to say, they quote your humble correspondent to justify the title.

The part of the statement that deals with facts is accurate, I think. I said it and I think that most of the critics of the VOBS method would agree that one simply needs some pressure to make sure that kids learn how to count – and to do many other things, too.

What's manipulative is the emotional encapsulation. The choice of the words "pressure" and "playful" was clearly made with the desire to associate the "playful" guys with the common good, and the "pressure" guys with the evil. You know, I am against most types of pressure and in favor of playful approaches in many contexts. But here we're discussing a serious particular question – what the mathematics classrooms should look like.

The article starts with a description of their paradise. "Kids, we will play the bus game," the teacher tells the kids. Annie is picked as the driver. (Of course, a girl had to be hired for that job.) Kids count how many figures are left in the bus. (...) Everyone applauds to everyone else. That's the paradise seen in 750 out of 4100 Czech elementary schools where 12 principles are followed, starting with the thesis that the kids have to be happy. It's such a great method that [far left-wing activist Kartous] recently brought the method to the "Aula of the Fame".

But there's also the hell, the anti-progressive renegades and criminals, the daily basically tells its readers. They include officials in the evil Mathematical Institute of the Academy of Sciences. But what about Lucifer in His undiluted form?
"Most children – including those who are interested in various things – obviously need to be pressured if the goal is for them to learn a particular thing. Something that they're not terribly interested in. And it is clear that a majority of children is naturally disinterested in a majority of things," physicist Luboš Motl mentioned in his presentation.
Imagine the horror. The kids should be pressured to learn some things!

Now, every teacher who has seen the actual children in the classroom and who isn't a complete fruitcake agrees: These days, kids aren't interested in many things. They're not even interested in things that were cool – and signs of some rebellion – just a few decades ago. It's very clear that if the system allows the kids to do merely things that they really want to do, they will spend all their time with various messenger services.

Let me tell you something. Kids look different. But they're not really terribly different from the previous generations when those were kids. What has actually changed is the social system – the system of duties and expectations. At some moment, children couldn't have been spanked under any circumstances. And a bit later, it was becoming criminal to pressure the kid to learn anything that the kid isn't interested in. This "progressive" evolution has obviously run into another extreme.

In the previous generations, kids obviously had to do lots of things they didn't naturally like – everyone assumed that this is how things have to be. And to compensate for these duties, the kids also did other things that could have been seen as "somewhat rebellious". Because the first side of the equation was largely neutralized, the second side has largely disappeared, too.

The "progressive" transformation of the society and the education system has gone very far and the question "whether the teachers may exert any pressure at all" is really the question we're solving these days – or, if you're just slightly more optimistic, a question we will be solving very soon. That's where the society seems to be heading.

Even today, it's difficult to find a sufficient number of kids who can study engineering – and, of course, a sufficient number of kids who would be willing to be trained as apprentices etc. But they're still kids who were "sometimes pressured" by the teachers when they studied the elementary school. In ten years, when the kids who have seen no pressure at all get to the high schools and universities, the situation may be dramatically worse. The civilized occupations – related to science, technology, and engineering – may fail to find any young people who could continue to preserve them.

The people who demonize any hard education – as "pressure" that brings kids away from the "playful" paradise – are really enemies of the nation's future, enemies of the Western civilization. Some kids may sometimes be wiser than adults in their environment but most kids simply aren't wiser than the typical adults. They lack the required experience to make decisions – such as the decision whether they should learn any mathematics at the elementary school.

This confrontation has many levels, of course. Aside from the questions about the right way to teach mathematics, I am annoyed by the propagandist character of some newspapers. On November 22nd, 1989, after the Velvet Revolution started, I was sent – along with the chairman of our class MŠ (who had a great working-class communist background and who was the chairman of SSM in our class, the Socialist Youth Union, as well) as our representative to an event where the high school was writing a petition to protest the beating of the university students in Prague. (All other classes sent the chairman of SSM and the vice-chairman; I wasn't a member of SSM at all.) OK, we – led by Ms Morávková, the top communist at the school – were mostly copying the petition by (what is now called) The University of Western Bohemia.

At some moment, we got to the demand "Lidovky [a dissident's newspaper at that time" have to be liberated. Comrade Morávková said: "Kids, we can't include this sentence. If you liberated Lidovky, you could very well allow Nazi newspapers, too!" – I, somewhat affected by the daily listening to Radio Free Europe, responded: "Dear Miss Morávková, the ideology of your Rudé Právo [communist daily, Red Right or Red Law] is comparable to the fascist ideology!" Of course, she got angry, "I am a communist party member and you insulted me", and I was expelled. Some guys slapped me on the back for my courage. The Velvet Revolution was very fast and I believe that within days, what I said was common mainstream wisdom.

But I am saying these things because of the new twist. By defending Lidovky, a dissidents' newspaper, I helped to create something that grew into a new pro-totalitarian monster. Lidovky became the main daily written and read by the Prague Café, the mindlessly PC, pro-EU, globalist SJWs. And look what they're doing to me personally these days. I was one of the people who struggled hard to save their necks when it made sense. And they became another Rudé Právo.

They became another Rudé Právo because they also attack, either explicitly or in between the lines, everybody who doesn't have the "right" opinion about any social or political question. And just like communists did, they use the adjective "progressive" for the only allowed political opinions. Everything that is positively correlated with "progressive" is described by "nice" words such as "playful" or "applause" and everything that is negatively correlated with "progressive" is described by "damning" words such as "pressure". And it's totally clear that the writers expect all their readers to mindlessly copy these appraisals.

Sorry, new comrades in Lidovky, but you can't rationally and meaningful debate and solve problems in a democratic society if you have this attitude or if you "color" every single sentence with this kids of idiotic propaganda. "Pressure" may sound like a bad word to you but it's really a neutral thing – the spatial-spatial components of the stress-energy tensor \(T_{ij}\) (I am sure that 99% of you, SJWs, have no idea what it means). Pressure in the physical sense has various values at different places and in different moments, and even the "metaphorical" pressures in the real life are variable and may have good or bad implications. If you're using the word "pressure" as a slur, you're crippling the quality of any discussion about difficult matters. And if your readers are enough to immediately conclude that "something is bad" because it was linked to the word "pressure" in Lidovky, they're brainwashed idiots (or what is the politically correct synonym? You don't have any, do you?) who can't contribute to a meaningless discussion and policymaking in a democracy.

More News from this Feed See Full Web Site