WE ARE NOT ALONE

President Biden concedes that his top economic priority is, or ought to be, inflation, currently at 9.1%. Biden, an accomplished politician, frames the discomforting news within a package of positive economic developments: "Unemployment is near historic lows." His administration "cut the federal deficit by 1.7 trillion this year." "Millions of Americans are moving up to better jobs and better pay." "The job market is the strongest it's been since World War Two, adding 8,700,000 new jobs" since he took office. Nevertheless, the president concedes that inflation is a real challenge for American families. However, he suggests that America can tackle inflation from a position of strength unlike any other region in the world. He wants us to recognize that "every country in the world is getting a big bite of this inflation - worse than we are in the vast majority of countries." While it is certainly true that an overwhelming majority of states are suffering significant inflationary pressure, blanket statements that every nation is worse off than we are is a grossly exaggerated assertion. Not only do many comparable economies report various rates of inflation, many differ in the significance of what sectors are mostly impacted. The reported rate of inflation in the 19 states that compose the Eurozone currently averages 8.6%. In Europe as a whole, in part because of individual countries' relative dependence on self-imposed scarcity of Russian fuel, rates run the gamut from 3.4% in Switzerland to 78.62% in Turkey. Aside from these significant outliers, countries that are geographically closer to Russia tend to have notably higher rates of inflation. Ukraine, predictably, comes in at 21.5%, Estonia at 20.1%, Lithuania 18.5%, Poland 15.6%, Hungary 11.7% and so on. While a number of western European states report rates on par with what the U.S. has endured - Spain 10.2%, Belgium 9.65%, and the U.K. 9.1%, Germany and France, respectively the fourth and fifth largest economies in the world, compare positively to our numbers. France, especially, at a "paltry" 5.8% is a statistically shining example. France's rate of inflation illustrates the correlation between energy resources and their effect on domestic malaise. It uses nuclear power, which accounts for 70% of the country's electricity production and 40% of its overall energy consumption. This makes the country less vulnerable to shocks of gas prices. The European Central Bank is actually forecasting that France's inflation rate will drop significantly during the next few years. Switzerland's low inflation rate seems to be partially due to its existing cost of living, which is already very high. Prices for household goods in Switzerland are generally about 60% higher than those averaged in the surrounding European Union countries. Besides, its politicians have aggressively legislated to tackle prices, energy mix and wage restraints. Turkey's inflation is an entirely different issue. Analysts claim that, because of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's long running unorthodox strategy on monetary policy, inflation rates have soared. Food prices have risen 91.6%, energy costs are off the charts, and economists predict that the situation is bound to get worse. In many Western European countries rates hover around the levels we have experienced recently. However, a number of countries have taken pro-active steps to protect the impact on their citizenry. Some imposed caps on energy prices, or provided rebates for low-income households to offset the cost of gas and diesel. Germany effectively reduced the price of gasoline at the pump and is offering monthly $10. tickets for public transportation. By keeping gas prices at $6.90 per gallon, it effectively undercuts the rest of Europe, where prices fluctuate between $8.50 and $10.00 a gallon. What are we complaining about? Outside of these countries inflation rates are somewhat of a mixed bag. Australia and New Zealand, while experiencing rates historically high for their economies, report considerably lower rates than in the U.S. and E.U. Australia came in at 5.1% year-to-date. New Zealand is now up to 6.9% - a 30 year high. India shows a 7.01% rate. But across Africa the average has soared to 12.2%, not helped by 245% in Sudan and 90% in Zimbabwe. China, the world's 2nd largest economy, has managed to keep its rate under control at an acceptable 2.2%. This remarkable percentage may be due to a plunging domestic demand caused by its zero-Covid policy, and because the country is largely self sufficient in food. The fact that it may have a competitive negotiable advantage on the energy market, as much of the western world is drastically reducing Russian fuel imports, doesn't hurt either. All in all a diverse assortment of outcomes. President Biden is essentially correct. We are not alone. But when we compare our situation to that of the rest of the world, we should be selective, and figure out if some of these economies are adopting strategies we could benefit from. Inflation will likely stick around for some time to come. Former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers cautions that inflation rates are unlikely to fall without a significant economic downturn. Fasten your seat belts! Theo Wierdsma

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM REVISITED

After the conclusion of a vigil for the 21 killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde Texas, Senator Ted Cruz was cornered by British Sky News reporter Mark Stone. Mr. Stone pointedly asked the senator: "Why do mass shootings only happen in America? Why is this American exceptionalism so awful?" Cruz, whose campaigns and political action committees are among the primary beneficiaries of financial support from the gun rights lobby, taken aback, retorted: "I am sorry you think American exceptionalism is so awful. America is the freest, most prosperous, safest country on earth!" Unfortunately, it seems that both participants in this verbal altercation missed the mark about "American exceptionalism." However, their conversation generated an impulse to clarify this much used, but mostly misunderstood, concept. "Exceptionalism" refers to the perception or belief that a species, country, society, etc. is unusual or extraordinary - implying that it is superior in some way. "American exceptionalism" involves the belief that the United States possesses qualities that make it unique and special. The concept was first identified by the French aristocrat and diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville during the 1830s when he spent ten month here studying the effects of the American Revolution on our political culture. De Tocqueville enumerated five values he considered crucial: Liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. His conclusions were later picked up, elaborated and redefined by political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset during the 1960s. Lipset also traced the idea of exceptionalism back to the American Revolution from which the U.S. emerged as "the first new nation" with a distinct ideology - based, again, on Liberty, equality before the law, individual responsibility, republicanism and laissez-faire economics. He added "republicanism" to the value mix, which is meant to recognize the sovereignty of the people as the source of all authority under the law, rejecting monarchy, aristocracy and hereditary political power. Throughout our history, political leaders managed to develop the concept of American exceptionalism into a symbol of national identity by convincing Americans, and by extension the world, that the U.S. is both destined and entitled to play a dominant, distinct and positive role on the world stage. Especially during periods of great change and tumult, leaders sought to inspire beleaguered Americans by reminding them of their national identity, deliberately incorporating the idea of exceptionalism. Outstanding examples of oratory manipulation included references to the country as: "Empire of liberty" - Thomas Jefferson; "The last best hope of earth" - Abraham Lincoln; "The leader of the free world" - Harry Truman; "Shining city on a hill" - Ronald Reagan; and "Indispensable nation" - Madeleine Albright. Barack Obama had a contentious disposition towards American exceptionalism, considering it no different from British or Greek exceptionalism, for which he encountered significant criticism. As a dominating principle the continued strength of American exceptionalism depends domestically on the depth of our acceptance of a national identity and internationally on our perceived dominance in many domains of power - military, economic, political and cultural. This, in turn, involves the existence of a believable image and an observable reality. Internationally our arrogant shortsighted glorification of exceptionalism and military interventions have taken their toll. Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist at Stanford University, postulated that the peak period of our hegemonic strength diminished after the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Domestic challenges, which significantly affect personal beliefs in a national identity, permeate our borders as well. Society is deeply polarized, not just on political issues like taxes and abortion - it extends into a struggle over cultural identity. Even external threats, such as the coronavirus, deepened divisions over masks and vaccinations, which became political issues. Michael Mazarr, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, in a study commissioned by the Pentagon, concluded what many of us already know: three quarters of those surveyed are unhappy with where we are going as a country; across party lines, we no longer trust our institutions; only 10% are "very satisfied" with how democracy is working; the American "melting pot" is dead to many; median net worth of the middle class fell 20%, of the working class 45%. (Michael Mazarr, "The Societal Foundation of National Competitiveness," Rand Corporation, 2022). We are anxious that we may be taken over by China, that our consumption is unsustainable, and that we cannot afford the entitlements we have today. A civic identity that prided us as a multi-ethnic democracy has been replaced by warring narratives on questions of freedom, history of slavery and even sexuality. Every day, more that 110 people are killed by guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. Our electoral system, once the envy of the world and emulated by many, are under attack by anti democratic, illiberal forces. Moreover, the January 6, 2021, insurrection at our Capitol, akin to what most of our allies would have expected in lesser developed countries, not the United States, helped to undermine our standing in the world. American exceptionalism, because of its systemic origins, is not entirely dead, but rapidly fading. Theo Wierdsma

VIOLENT POLITICAL RHETORIC SURGING

It has become glaringly evident that violent political rhetoric, on a scale and with a focus seldom seen before in this country, is out of control. We have experienced heated political discourse before, especially during periods of political instability like the run up to the Civil War, or the fierce cultural clashes of the 1960s and 70s. However, with some notable exceptions, agitation during those episodes was predominantly focused on political control or property. The Civil War was essentially an economic dispute over states rights, while the massively intense protests during the 60s and 70s were predominantly left wing inspired cultural movements exhibited by groups targeting civil rights, the Vietnam War, women's liberation and others. Our current political dialogue, exacerbated by gridlock at the highest levels, appears to have transitioned into an era of frustration, prompting an increasing number of actors to resort to violence as a primary recourse. Today, with assistance of social media, mainstreaming of violent political speech has encouraged a growing number of Americans to target election officials. In 2021, threats against members of Congress reached a record 9,600, 4,100 during the first three months alone. Violent threats against U.S. lawmakers have more than doubled during the past five years. A survey published November 1 of 2021 indicated that 18% of all Americans, 30% of Republicans, 17% of independents and 11% of Democrats, believe that "patriots might have to resort to violence to save the country." ("Cultural Change and Anxiety in America," PRRI Research, Nov.1, 2021). Violence throughout our political history is well documented. Four presidents were assassinated: Abraham Lincoln (John Wilkes Booth), James Garfield (Charles Guiteau), William McKinley (Leon Czolgosz) and John F. Kennedy (Lee Harvey Oswald). Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford survived targeted attacks. Barack Obama apparently received 30 death threats a day when he was in office and, following the 2016 election, Donald Trump faced 12,000 calls for his assassination on social media. In addition, Representative Gaby Gifford was shot and severely wounded in 2011, and Representative Steve Scalise barely survived an assassination attempt during a Congressional baseball game in June of 2017. Multiple other attempts have remained unpublished. The Secret Service prefers not to communicate threats on our chief executives in the belief that doing so would generate more criminal behavior. Attacks are also not limited to the top echelon of our government. Anyone involved in the election process is a potential target. One week after the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Eric Coomer, an executive at Dominion Voting Systems, was forced into hiding. Angry supporters of then President Donald Trump, believing false accusations that Dominion had switched votes in favor of Joe Biden, published Coomer's home address and phone number and put a million dollar bounty on his head. The families of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and many others have suffered incessant threats throughout this epidemic. And, just recently, Missouri Republican Senate candidate Eric Greitens, armed and in full tactical gear, published a campaign ad urging supporters to get a "RINO" (Republican in name only) hunting permit, proclaiming "no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it does not expire until we save our country." Even voting "the wrong way" can invite threatening repercussions these days. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) posted the names and phone numbers of the 13 GOP lawmakers who supported the bi-partisan infrastructure bill Congress passed in November last year, calling them "traitors" on twitter. The threats are everywhere. Even minor functionaries involved in the execution of our electoral system are now looking over their shoulders and feel the need to protect their families. Under federal law threatening government officials is considered a felony. Just threatening the President is punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment. Anyone convicted of targeting other officials can receive anywhere between 5 and 10 years of incarceration. Perpetrators caught in the act frequently refer to their "freedom of speech" in defense. While "Freedom of Speech," a feature of the First Amendment to our Constitution is fundamental in our democracy as a right to articulate opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal action, it is not absolute. The Supreme Court, in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), clarified that this provision does not include inflammatory speech "directed to incite or produce imminent lawless actions." The onset of social media has made the application of this principle more controversial and cumbersome however. Representative Adam Kinzinger, whose family was pointedly threatened with execution, issued a somber assessment: "I've noticed a decline in our civil discourse over the last 5 years, and it's devolved to a scary point, where anger and vitriol are reflexive and the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable is all but lost." We continue to slide down the slippery slope of incivility. We need to acknowledge and identify these incidences and tell people the truth, unless we want to end up in another civil war. Theo Wierdsma

THE HUMAN TOLL OF FEARMONGERING

It is frustrating for anyone who attempts to discuss salient newsworthy topics when pertinent statistical details of issues uppermost in people's minds are constantly evolving. No sooner had the horrible massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24, hit the news cycle, or similar, although less "spectacular," incidents already began to turn up. During Memorial Day weekend alone, during 14 distinct episodes, between 5 AM Friday and early Tuesday, gun violence killed another 156 and injured 412. Where in most countries any of these acts of violence would have merited prime news coverage, we no longer seemed interested and buried the information towards the back of major publications. We are caught up in a perpetual cycle of Groundhog Day episodes. We quickly lose interest, even when attention is needed. While effective responses to gun related crimes and gun control are complicated, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that, at its core, the violent outgrowth of what historian Richard Hofstadter called our "gun culture," is being fueled by manipulated fearmongering, intentionally and unnecessarily attempting to make people afraid of something. On the one hand we are confronted by a proliferation of indiscriminate types of fire arms in civilian hands, fed by fear of losing "constitutional rights," spearheaded by a very active gun lobby. On the other hand we are exposed to aggressive marketing of what has been referred to as the "Great Replacement Theory," identified by multiple shooters in publicized "manifestos" as justification for their killing sprees. This conspiracy theory caters to the fear that white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian dominance is gradually and deliberately being replaced by non-Christian people of color - a conviction firmly embedded in white supremacist and xenophobic ideologies. The role these organizations play in effectively insuring accessibility of fire arms is somewhat unique. Typically, lobbying organizations serve as checks on industry groups. In the U.S. they are actually aligned with gun manufacturers. With war chests filled with hundreds of millions of dollars, they have successfully managed to counter any attempts at limiting gun ownership. Their position has been that any infringement on individual "rights" would ultimately lead to repeal of the Second Amendment and forfeiture of all guns. Political Action Committees associated with gun rights groups have consistently managed to secure support from legislators for their point of view - some of whom have received tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations- insuring that gun control legislation proposals introduced in the House and Senate are destined to fail. These include bans on assault weapons, expanded background checks, and even prohibition of fire arms sales to people on federal terrorism watch lists. Consequently, this relentless, effective, targeted fearmongering has resulted in our country's unique position of having more civilian owned fire arms in circulation than we have people. With less than 5% of the world's population, we own 46% of the world's civilian owned guns. Statistical consequences are eye opening. According to the "Brady Campaign," every day 321 people are shot in our country - 111 are shot and killed and an additional 95 are shot intentionally but survive. It should not come as a surprise that when any kid turning 18 can purchase an AR15 three years before being allowed to buy a beer, we are asking for trouble. Opponents of gun control legislation tend to suggest that we should concentrate on mental illness, not on guns. But do we really propose that the U.S. contains more criminally insane people than other countries? The difference between our social environment and that of other, safer, countries is accessibility to guns, especially assault weapons. While the fear of losing constitutional rights is being manipulated to support the unabated proliferation of fire arms in this country, a growing number of motivated assailants use the perceived threat to white America losing its dominance in society as justification for their homicidal rage. The theoretical foundation for this belief stems from a hypothesis promoted by Renaud Camus, a French novelist, who invented the "Great Replacement," a far-right conspiracy theory which claims that a"global elite" is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples. American pundits have readily adapted and adopted Camus' teachings for their own use when preaching from their domestic platforms. Fear sells! The premise of this proposition, while not new, was readily internalized by white supremacist groups across the globe, justifying assaults that ranged from the Mosque attacks in Christchurch in New Zealand, which killed 51, to exclamations uttered by torch bearing "Unite the Right" demonstrators terrorizing Charlottesville in 2017, shouting "Jews will not replace us." Domestic targets for these groups are becoming openly obvious. We have experienced mass attacks on African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, Muslims, and immigrants in general. Target groups are being demonized. Politicians are no different. President Trump called Mexicans "criminals and rapists," and intimated that African immigrants came from "shit-hole countries." Studies show that one in three Americans now believe that immigrants are being brought into the country for political gain. The message is clear: fearmongering pays off for promoters and perpetrators. However, it comes at a horrible cost for its target audience. Former Lewis and Clark College president Barry Glassner, in his book "The Culture of Fear," suggests that there is a lot of power and money available to individuals and organizations who can perpetuate these fears. If money and power are the objective, truth and consequences no longer seem to matter. Theo Wierdsma

TIME FOR REFLECTION

This was forwarded to me some time ago. It spoke to me, and this seemed to be the right time to share its content. Barely the day started and it's already six in the evening. Barely arrived on Monday and it's already Friday. ... and the month is already over. ... and the year is almost over. ... and already 40, 50 or 60 years of our lives have passed. ... and we realize that we lost our parents, friends. ... and we realize it's too late to go back. So, let's try, despite everything, to enjoy the remaining time. Let's keep looking for activities that we like. Let's put some color in our grey. Let's smile at the little things in life that put balm in our hearts. And despite everything, we must continue to enjoy with serenity this time we have left. Let's try to eliminate the afters. I'm doing it after. I'll say after. I'll think about it after. We leave everything for later like "after" is ours. Because what we don't understand is that Afterwards, the coffee gets cold. Afterwards, priorities change. Afterwards, the charm is broken. Afterwards, health passes. Afterwards, the kids grow up. Afterwards, parents get old. Afterwards, promises are forgotten. Afterwards, the day becomes the night. Afterwards, life ends. And then it's often too late. So ... Let's leave nothing for later. Because while still waiting to see later, we can lose the best moments, the best experiences, best friends, the best family. The day is today. The moment is now. We are no longer at the age where we can afford to postpone what needs to be done right away. It looks like an eternity, but it's a short trip. Enjoy life and always be kind. Original author unknown to me. Theo Wierdsma

ROTARY'S UNRELENTING PASSION FOR SERVICE

On February 23, 1905, when Chicago attorney Paul Harris and three of his business friends met in a small office "to create a club of professionals and businessmen for friendship and fellowship," nobody anticipated that this small gathering would ultimately bloom into the most prestigious service club in the world. Over the years Rotary, so named initially to recognize its rotating meeting locations, grew into a global network of 46,000 clubs with 1.4 million members in 200 countries, who dedicate their time and talent to tackle the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges. A standout among many significant contributions to humanitarian causes around the world, and among Rotary's major accomplishments over time was its highly successful attempt at eradicating polio, a program the organization launched in 1985. Within twenty-five years of its inception Rotary amassed $900 million in contributions to the cause, which helped to support the immunization of two billion children worldwide. With financial assistance from the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," and through the massive involvement of Rotary's international network of volunteers around the world, polio cases, over time, were reduced by 99%, leaving only Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria still reporting cases today. Rotary's vast network of like-minded volunteers has proven to be instrumental in support of addressing multiple causes and challenges in many parts of the world. Its response to the humanitarian crises resulting from the current war in Ukraine is a case in point. The organization, headquartered in Evanston, Illinois, under guidance of John Hewko, whose mother was born in Kharkiv, one of Ukraine's most embattled cities, began focusing on the consequences of Russia's invasion within days of the start of hostilities on February 24. As General Secretary and CEO of Rotary International, Hewko, an actual member of the Rotary Club of Kyiv, used the reach of his organization to coordinate reactions to the need for humanitarian relief for refugees from the very beginning. Literally within days, Rotarians contributed $14.4 million to help financially support regions that assisted Ukrainian refugees or other victims of the war. Ukraine's 62 clubs, with an estimated 1,100 members, which, with the exception of a few now in Russian controlled areas, continue to meet regularly. They are active in war zones, even in cities like Kharkiv, they help refugees adopt to their new realities, help people evacuate to safe zones, prepare and deliver hot meals, and function as distributors of supplies provided by clubs from surrounding countries. Across Europe, Rotaract members, a younger group of Rotarians, use digital tools to share information and coordinate assistance to people affected by the war. Iryna Bushmina, a member of the Rotaract Club of Kyiv-City, after fleeing with her sister and three month old nephew - journeying to Vienna - organized a huge scale relief effort and an online platform to find shelter for thousands of Ukrainian refugees. The point is this: Rotary has become a very significant international force for humanitarian relief efforts. The organization does go out of its way to insist that it is not politically motivated. In effect, when asked about its interest in the military operation in Ukraine, Rotary International responded: "As one of the world's largest humanitarian organizations, we have made promoting peace the cornerstone of our global mission. Our call for an immediate ceasefire and a restoration of diplomatic efforts is not about politics, it's about safety and humanity." While, internationally, Rotary's reach and coordinated involvement is significant, local clubs, while supporting international efforts, are doing their best to be relevant to their own communities as well. Watsonville Rotary, one of seven clubs in Santa Cruz County, is celebrating it's 95th anniversary this Sunday, May 22. As reported in the Register-Pajaronian, the Rotary Club of Watsonville received its charter on May 21, 1927. While the initial twenty-five charter members hoped that this occasion would earn them headline coverage in the paper that day, the honor bestowed by Rotary International on our community received second billing to "Lindbergh Lands Safely in Paris" that same day. A coincidence old-timers never forgot. Membership in the local club, which meets every Wednesday for lunch at the Elk's Club on Martinelli Street, averages between 70-80 Rotarians. Over the years the club has substantially contributed to a wide variety of community as well as international philanthropic efforts. Its Community Trust program, serving Watsonville youth and local non-profits, has distributed well over $500,000. The club's "adopted" schools - E.A. Hall, Renaissance, New School and Cabrillo - benefited to the tune of $160,000 for scholarships and equipment. Projects funding literacy programs, health education, medical supply needs and water sanitation projects in Guatemala and Peru received more than $200,000. over time. Job shadowing events for Watsonville High students, speech contests, support for foreign exchange students and weekly student achievement recognition at informative luncheon meetings round out inclusive, well thought out programs. The club's 95th anniversary and its legacy of productive empathy represent a well deserved milestone in the Watsonville and Pajaro Valley community. Theo Wierdsma

PUTIN'S "BIG BROTHER" BARRIERS

Recent press reports of polling results indicating that upwards of 71% of Russians say they support Putin's war in Ukraine caught many by surprise. After all, Western media continue to cover the horrific effects of military activity Ukraine is daily exposed to in great detail. However, these statistics should not astonish anyone. While, internationally, as a result of imposed sanctions, Russian society has become more or less isolated, domestically, Vladimir Putin has spared no effort putting up barriers to insure it is insulated from unwanted and unsanctioned outside sources of information. Staying true to autocratic leadership principles, Putin has had 22 years to wrest control over Russia's communications channels. In today's Russia all major media outlets are controlled by the state. The Russian government owns 60% of newspapers and all national television stations. Russia's system of "Operational Investigatory Measures" requires telecommunications operators to install hardware provided by the FSB (formerly KGB), which allows the agency to unilaterally monitor users' communications and content, including phone calls, email traffic and web browsing activity. Besides, according to a 2016 Rand Corporation report, Russia's propaganda machine broadcasts "incredibly large volumes [of propaganda] via text, video, audio, internet, social media, satellite TV and traditional radio and television broadcasting." So, why do so many Russians say they support the "special operation" in Ukraine? The government controls the media and the message. It consequently controls the collective mind of the citizenry. Putin has taken the edict from his favorite historic mentor, Joseph Stalin, to heart: "The press must grow day in and day out - it is our party's sharpest and most resourceful weapon." This sentiment was restated by one of Stalin's successors, Nikita Khrushchev, who also believed that "the press is our chief ideological weapon." Many influential leaders, in Russia and beyond, have since repeated this point of view. One of the most poignant articulations came from Malcolm X, who expressed the opinion that: The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that is power, because they control the mind of the masses." Putin developed governmental control into a science, managing to either block, sanitize or drown out interpretation, commentary and criticism that conflicted with officially sanctioned coverage of news content. In light of the military conflict in Ukraine, the government passed laws criminalizing "discrediting" the Russian military, spreading "fake news" and mentioning in the press that the Russian invasion of Ukraine amounted to war. Penalties for disobeying these laws can add up to 15 years in prison. Thus far, well over 15,000 dissidents have been arrested. For many, the mere expression of unsanctioned thought begins to feel like a criminal act. What Russians are hearing from their government every day are statements like: There is no ongoing war; The special operation held in Ukraine is aimed strictly at the military infrastructure of the fascists who seized power in Kyiv to intimidate and oppress the nation; We fight for our freedom and the freedom of the Ukrainian people; The Ukrainians welcome the Russian army, the only ones resisting are Nazi groups and military forces controlled by the fascist Kyiv regime; Russia has not started the war, it has come to end it; If it had not been for the Russian operation, NATO and the Nazis would have attacked us imminently to proceed with the genocide of the Russian and the Ukrainian nations - and so on. (Robert Coalson, Radio Free Europe). After being subjected to this persistent propaganda blitz and the reality of the government's uncontested control over official media outlets, polling results are not at all surprising. Combine these influences with the liberal use of leading questions, like: "Do you support a battle against Nazism?" and the caution expressed during virtually every interview that answers are recorded for "quality control," and the fix is in. No wonder Putin's popularity exceeds 80%. Who dares to dispute that? In March, Maxim Katz, an opposition politician in Moscow, with a team of researchers, commissioned a poll on public attitudes towards the war. Out of 31,000 people contacted, 29,400 ended the conversation as soon as they heard the topic. The sociologist Iskander Yasaveyev has suggested that "many Russians understand that they are being lied to, that they are getting propaganda, but they want to be deceived. It is simpler for them to suppress their inner conflict." Seventy-three years after George Orwell published "1984," "Big Brother" is still watching. Theo Wierdsma